New Tribes' Populations

[Maria_W]

Sept 30....

DNA Tribes has pushed their poplation update back to Sept 30!

Maria

[rainbow]

Thanks Maria. I want to see the new populations/categories. And thanks Gene. It would be great if DNATribes label each line in the extended report. I used to go bonkers from that. I have and have had extended matches to the Amazon Region and Alaska and Javanese and Mozambique and Kathmandu, Nepal, and Bahrain, and so on, that have freaked me out. I hope they fix their algorithms some more (I still have extended matches to Pakistan and Maori). And I hope they label each as diaspora or native. The Amazon Region match was diaspora.

[rainbow]

Hi Gene, I am posting from my phone now and don't have access to my DNATribes now. It is saved to my Compaq, at home. I think I recall that my Pakistan match(es) have Tribescores around (0.34), which is in the average range. About double my Scottish tribescores, around (0.17). My mother is basically half Scottish and half English, including small amounts of Welsh and Alsatian(french german swiss area). She thinks DNATribes ridiculous. I learned to give up trying to discuss it with her. She does have hair and eyes that look sorta gypsy or Iraqi to me. I've told her she looks like she could be Saddam Husseins sister.

[J. Fold]

dna tribes wide net

If all tribes scores of .05 and above are within ball park range- than this is a really wide net of matches is it not? And leaves few poplulations that one does not match- and if one can match neighboring areas- as much as primary location of ancestry as Dna Tribes explains- than we can also match distant areas- that may simply mean that we have common ancestry with thousands of years ago- which leaves me with the notion that this test is not precise, but rather an incredible macro- matching excercise for the sake of large population connections- not micro matching appropriate for one individual..

:

[tomcat]

Tribes Scores are those parenthetical scores beside the population to which one is matched. They 'grade' your match score relative to the population as a whole. I only give credence to average Tribes Scores (0.50 range). A match that is Tribes scored at 0.90 means that your profile is unlike those of 90% of the population. Such a high score seems, to me, as dubiously valid as a very low Tribes score on a match.

So Tribes Scores are only qualifiers on Match Scores. And the lower the score range for matches the greater the number of populations one will match. In example, on a Tribes Extended Report of more than a year ago, at a Match range of 4.0 - 5.0, I have equivalent matches in Asia Minor, Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, the New World, North Africa and Northwest Europe. Not very useful. But in the 16.0 - 17.0 range I only have matches to Turkey and Bogota. And those are 'closer' to known ancestry in their equivalency.

[rainbow]

I just looked at my July 2009 DNATribes again and wrote down the matches that had a tribescore of (0.5) and higher. Nothing in the Native American panel. Nothing in my Europa. The main report, Part B: Syria (0.6) 183.82. Part C global/diaspora: Puerto Rican (0.88) 217.73, and Syria (0.6) 183.82, and Santa Catarina, Brazil (0.69) 118.34. Part D world region nothing. Extended has, in addition to the above, #59 Caucasian (Australia) (0.78) 52.92, and #165 Vienna, Austria (0.62) 21.20, and #246 Costa Rica (0.5) 11.67. And that's it.

[tomcat]

Thank you Gene for posting the new populations. I suppose I should be interested in the Swedish data for the sake of the unknown GF named Nelson.

[JuanCarlos]

"The inclusion of new reference data have allowed us to update our world region analysis."

I wonder what they mean by this.

Also, why do they have so many Brazilian populations?

[rainbow]

I match all of the various Scandinavian populations in all my extended reports, so I suppose I would also match the new Sweden. Denmark is always in my top 20 of the regular reports (part b). I suppose I would match New Zealand diaspora. But that is not what I am looking for. Not interested in Brazil. I wonder if they fixed their world regions this time. Probably won't update.

[rainbow]

Boycott Brazil

I won't upgrade again until after they are all done with the unneccessary fine-tooth combing of Brazil. They already have way too many Brazil categories. I just can't believe it. The entire eastern seaboard of the U.S. is still the great unknown gray area on their world map. Parts of Russia are also gray. Those are the only two areas not tapped into. I am now fed up with all things Brazil. My guess is, based on the patterns, that the tribes of the eastern US will be the very last studied, if at all.

[rainbow]

I hope they continue to get more orders and such. I hope they stay in business. I hope they don't disappear like DNAPrint/AncestryByDna. Maybe most of their orders are from Brazilians? It's a huge country.

[clintonplatt]

Best value

Given a choice of;

a) 26 autosomal STR markers, with your DNA compared to hundreds of actual populations for $230

or

b) half a million locations in your autosomal DNA, 16,000 letters of mitochondrial genome genetic code, 2,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with your DNA assessed against 10 regions that include more than 50 populations worldwide for $469

I know which I would choose.

[JuanCarlos]

I won't upgrade again until after they are all done with the unneccessary fine-tooth combing of Brazil. They already have way too many Brazil categories. I just can't believe it. The entire eastern seaboard of the U.S. is still the great unknown gray area on their world map. Parts of Russia are also gray. Those are the only two areas not tapped into. I am now fed up with all things Brazil. My guess is, based on the patterns, that the tribes of the eastern US will be the very last studied, if at all.

That's what I've always wondered: Why do they have so many Brazilian groups? I also would like them to increase the number of markers. Of course, they will raise the price, but if it'll be more accurate, then it would be worth the expense.

[rainbow]

That's what I've always wondered: Why do they have so many Brazilian groups? I also would like them to increase the number of markers. Of course, they will raise the price, but if it'll be more accurate, then it would be worth the expense.

Yes. I know you've brought it up (too much Brazil) a couple times. And I think I
I remember complaining about Brazil before. I think I counted all the Brazil categories ("populations"), probably few months ago, but I don't recall the number. I think they have 30 to 50 Brazil categories. If that is an exageration, then at least 20. I wouldn't be complaining if they had over 20 eastern USA categories. I want at least one Algonquin (spelling?) category. And Iroquois. And then specific tribes such as Lenape. And Mohegan/Mohican. And Cherokee. And Oneida.

[tomcat]

Omnipop et al

There are developments at:

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/populationdata.htm

There is a promise of a new calculator. Omnipop has not been updated.