Talk:Coefficient of relationship

message: Step siblings are much closer than many of the relatives shown in the diagram, but step siblings are omitted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.163.53 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Step siblings are missing from the diagram

message: == Sexual organisms ==
  
 === Parent-offspring ===
  
 For a sexual organism, the coefficient is 0.5.
  
 == Haplodiploidy ==
  
 In haplodiploidy, things get screwed around a bit.
  
 == Philandering ==
  
 being naughty reduces the coefficient.
  
 == Sex chromosomes ==
  
 Sex chromosomes reduce the relatedness slightly http://www.husdyr.kvl.dk/htm/kc/sexrelat.htm 
  
 == Finite populations ==
  
 Finite and small population size mean that it can be negative.  hence spite.
It was already commented out, so I put it somewhere more public. Anyone want to fix this? alerante ✆ 20:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from main article 

message: The article addresses the reader directly, for example by posing questions, which WP:TONE says is inappropriate tone for an article.  Can someone take a crack at re-writing these sections to use a better tone?  --ΨΦorg (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording updates needed 

message: Someone acting under the cover of a bare IP number categorized the article as "Numerology".   I have reverted this as it isn't numerology, but describes a useful quantity that connects to scientific theories.  Felsenst (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not numerology 

message: Has it been calculated what effect previous incestuous relationships in the parents' ancestries have?
E. g., how would 'r' increase for two first cousins where one is already the result of such relationship and the other has a parent who is also such a result? -- 91.14.188.5 (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coefficients incorporating incestuous ancestry? 

message: On 2018-12-01, following the suggestions below that the pages should be split, I removed the redirect from coefficient of inbreeding to this page. I do hope someone who understands this better than I can add some content to that page. Emrys2 (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Coefficient of Relatedness' (or: coefficient of kinship) is defined as the probability that the alleles at a particular locus chosen at random from two individuals are identical by descent.
This is totally unclear.  The coefficient of kinship between individuals A and B is the probability that a random one of the two copies from A is identical by descent to a random one of the two copies chosen from individual B.  That is also the inbreeding coefficient of the offspring that would result from mating individual A and individual B.  (Although we can calculate the coefficient of kinship even for two indviduals who cannot be mated, as when they are of the same sex).  The coefficient of relationship used in (say) kin selection calculations is different.  Felsenst (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dab and James on this one. Coefficient of Relationship and Coefficient of Inbreeding, while related (no pun intended ;-) are not the same things. The Coefficient of Relationship (R) can be stated much more simply than it is here; the equation shown uses the Coefficient of Inbreeding (F) as a required variable, but never adequately defines how it is obtained. Determining the Coefficient of Inbreeding is more complex because, as Dab noted, the chain of meiosis events has to be known not just to an MRCA, but to all (significantly contributing) ancestors who donated to the inheritance chain, even the ones pre-dating the MRCA. I have no clue how to do mathematical markup for Wiki, so I can't even attempt an edit. For someone who might want to dive into it, good sources of information that I've used in the past are: http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570144.html and http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570135.html. Williams-Texas (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Help:Math. Hyacinth (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 x the coefficient of inbreeding? 

message: The phrase "coefficient of inbreeding" shows up in Google results over 5 million times, while "coefficient of relationship" shows up only 3.5 million times. Since "coefficient of inbreeding" is by far the more commonly used phrase, shouldn't that be the article's title (with "coefficient of relationship" redirecting to it? 128.148.231.12 (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't think this article has anything to do specifically with inbreeding.  Only if the people with high Coefficients of relationship started copulating would if have anything to do with inbreeding.   Perhaps a "See also."  Cloudswrest (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article 

message: In what way is marriage between double first cousins a "rare case"?  There are cultures where it is quite common, driven by a combination of arranged marriages and a dowry culture where the large dowry one family is expected to provide but cannot is offset by the expectation of an equal and opposite dowry going the other way. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double first cousins 

message: To my eye these topics seem identical. I would suggest Kinship coefficient is merged into a section of the larger Coefficient of relationship article and expanded to clearly explain why/how the two concepts differ. WaggersTALK 11:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: They do appear to be much the same thing. Unless there is a non-obvious difference, merge and redirect.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Kinship coefficient]] 

message: Is it possible for there to be a relative that corresponds with 7/16 (43.75%) shared DNA? 
*1/16 - Half Cousins (one set of parents are half siblings) (share 1 grandparent)
*2/16 (1/8) - First Cousins (one set of parents are siblings) or Double Half Cousins (both sets of parents are half siblings) (either way share 2 grandparents)
*3/16 - not really an agreed upon term for it but the article mentions "Sesqui Cousins" (one set of parents are siblings other set are half siblings) (share 3 grandparents)
*4/16 (2/8)(1/4) - Double Cousins (both sets of parents are siblings) (share 4 grandparents) 
OR Half Siblings (share 1 parent and thus 2 grandparents)
*5/16 - Half Siblings + Half Cousins (a person had children with 2 half siblings) (share 1 parent and 3 grandparents)
*6/16 (3/8) - Half Siblings + Cousins (aka "3/4 siblings") (a person had children with 2 siblings) (share 1 parent and 4 grandparents)
*7/16 - ?
*8/16 (4/8)(2/4)(1/2) - Siblings (share 2 parents and thus 4 grandparents)
Why would there be a cousin sized gap (for lack of a better term) between 6/16ths and 8/16ths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.124.119 (talk) 20:29, February 4, 2020 (UTC)
:A shared parent (4/16), great grand parent (2/16), and great great grand parent (1/16) in common (4+2+1/16 = 7/16); four generations. Hyacinth (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: weird long winded question