Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-11 > 1067786221

From: "Dra. Ana C. Oquendo Pabón, M.D." <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNAPrint NA reported as EA
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 10:17:01 -0500
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>

Hello Malcolm and all:

Since, we initiated the Puerto Rican project barely a month ago (not a
surname project per se in our case), we have 22 members who have
ordered various DNA test combinations. Only 5 have not returned their
kits as yet. Several I recall, have already ordered the DNAPrint. We are
also anxious to find out the results as some of the members are related
to us in not one but in several lines, both paternal and maternal.
There is a solid paper trail dating back to the mid 1600s to early 1700s
with some of them. Although the majority in the project have ancestors
from Spain, there are also many documented pardos and some ancestors
that are "indios mestizos". We're here to add to that database. We'll
see what the percentages show then.

Me of the 24% EA,

Malcolm Dodd wrote:

>Hi Ray
>Good to hear from you. I am very pleased to discuss the lousy marketing of
>DNPrint and what their results truly mean.
>If my ancestry is Shawnee or Mohawk you say that "we know" that this can
>read East Asian. (By the way are the Shawnee or Mohawk results EA AND NA or
>just EA?).
>The highest EA results are for Ana who is of known Taino/Tano amerindian
>ancestry. Charles Kerchner insists that his paper trail is 100% accurate and
>that his assumption is that his high EA percentage is very ancient Asian.
>However I can only say that I have my parents 1942 marriage certificate and
>my 1945 birth certificate and baptismal certificate but that does not make
>the father named my biological father. Charles is entitled to take a
>different view but my considered opinion is that the East Asian of above 20%
>cannot come from the Huns or ancient asian ancestry in Europeans and their
>"recent" USA descendants, i.e. last 200 years.

This thread: