Unassigned

While I had the modal haplotypes handy for the identified Berry Familys I thought it might be instructive to compare all our 'Unassigned' Berrys to those modals.    Here's the marker table for all the family haplotypes and all our Unassigned Berrys -
Next we have the Genetic Distance Table in which the alleles of each haplotype are compared to all the others and the genetic distance between each pair is determined and displayed -As you can see, we still have the same 12 marker haplotype problem.    Whenever you see a haplotype, e.g., Robert, #43, who appears either related or probably related to several others, look to see how many markers were tested.    In this case, 12, and by only comparing 12 markers it is difficult to get a distance much over 12, and too easy to get a misleading distance under 3ish, so be wary.    Since we're talking about #43 let's use that as an example.    According to this table #43 is 'possibly related' to the Culpeper Co. Berrys, the Faires Berrys and the Barry/Berrys.    He is also 'possibly related' to the SMGF Berry/Lamoreaux person, to Laurence, #9, to Brian, #49, to Keith, #54, and to Gerald, #64, none of whom, according to the Table, would appear to be related to each other.    In addition, according to the Table, #43 is 'related' to the Rockingham Co. Berrys and also to Lawrence, #61.   Say what?    Lawrence is a Genetic Distance of 13 from the Rockingham Co. Berrys!

So much for the 12 marker test problem, let's look at what this Table indicates we should perhaps explore further.    We've already noticed that the SMGF Berry/Lamoreaux person is likely a Culpeper Co. Berry and that the Faires Berrys and the Rockingham Co. Berrys may be the same family.    Lawrence, #61, who tested 43 markers is a 'Probably Related' distance of 4 from Rockingham Co.    Worth a look?    Laurence, #9, who has tested 43 markers, is a 'Possibly Related' distance of 5 from Philip, #10, who has tested 37.    Philip has just ordered his 67 marker upgrade so that may tell us something more there.    Thomas, #51, who has tested 25 markers, is a 'Possibly Related' distance of 3 from Gerald, #64, who has tested 37 markers.    In addition, Gerald is a 'Probably Related' distance of 4 from the 43 marker test Rockingham Co. Berrys.    So what do you think?

Finally, our TMRCA Table -Which seems to me to be more interesting than informative.    But then, perhaps I'm just not understanding it well enough.    If any of you have any suggestions about how it supplements the other information we have, or detracts from it, I'd appreciate hearing from you.    If it's more important than I think it is I'd certainly like to give it it's due.

Late News.    Funny I should have used Robert, #43, as an example of 12 marker problems when around midnight last night his Y-DNA26-37 markers came in leaving only his Y-DNA13-25 markers outstanding of his Y-Refine12to37 upgrade.    His results hadn't been expected until 2/21/07.

Meanwhile, Mary Ann, #m4, had expected her mtDNARefine results on 1/22/07 but instead she got a note last night saying, "This test failed to yield results for your sample.    Your sample is being rerun now.    Results from this round of testing are expected by this date" and giving her a new date of 02/16/2007.    Better to know than to wonder.

My boutique tests were due 11/27/2006 and I'm still waiting.