749:
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:
193:
172:
80:
53:
662:
you would need to know the complete family tree of the two individuals down to all of their common ancestors. This is usually the case in breeding situations, where you start with a given ancestor population and then keep accurate records of each pairing, but it is clearly impossible in most human scenarios. The point is that if the number of generations separating the two individuals from their common ancestors increases, the coefficient approaches zero.
140:
282:
261:
483:
but make terrible teachers. No matter how hard they try, they simply can't explain something to another person using plain, easily-understood
English. Others are very gifted in the art of 'splainin' (Carl Sagan: astronomy; Bill Clinton: politics). This writer belongs to the former group, unfortunately. I was left shaking my head with confusion, due almost exclusively to the wording.
22:
690:. It involves summing over all paths in the full genealogy. The thing being summed are path coefficients, and these path coefficients are in turn defined in terms of the inbreeding coefficient. As the inbreeding coefficient isn't defined in the 1922 paper, the reader just being referred to the 1921 one, I have not so far been able to supply the full definition. --
686:
if the full genealogy is known, never mind genetics. Of course it is intended to still make a statement about genetic relatedness, but that's not part of its strict definition. It is intended to describe breeding processes of mammals, so I am not sure it can even be meaningfully applied to hymenoptera genealogies. I have so far looked up the 1922 definition of
1133:
292:
1242:
As to the answer from
Hyacinth, I have no idea what they’re talking about, but whatever it is, it’s wrong. For example, if you and I shared one (but not two, or more) great grandparent, then we would be half-second cousins. Yes, we would each be related to our great grandparent by 1/8 or 2/16, but we
729:
So someone removed the note about the faulty redirection. ::whack:: It is the faulty redirection that needs to be removed. Let me try that with All-Caps: IT IS THE FAULTY REDIRECTION THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. I'd do it myslef, but have better ways to spend my time than learning Wiki macros. Hope
1378:
But regardless, I think you have good points about many of the relationships being extremely uncommon. However, I actually think that a slimmed down version with some more distant relatives is still useful. I know that it was helpful when I was working on my latest talk on modeling distant cousins.
1235:
First, two individuals have the same father, mothers who are sisters, and those sisters themselves have parents who are siblings. Second, two individuals have the same father, mothers who are sisters, and their father is first cousin to their mothers. Perhaps better to think of livestock than people
1231:
To the
Original Poster: your question is neither weird nor long winded. You have summarized the ways people can be related by sixteenths very well. And to answer your question, I do not believe you can have 7/16 without inbreeding, that is, people procreating with a blood relative. I can think of at
878:
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
748:
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)
685:
ok, I should admit that I am struggling here, as I am reading up on this definition for the first time. Help is appreciated. What is clear is that the article was completely mistaken. The coefficient isn't even defined in terms of genetics, but in terms of genealogy. It can be calculated precisely
1272:
Well, that's true enough. But when we talk about sharing genes in a genealogical sense, we mean "by common descent"...that is, getting the same thing from the same ultimate source. Thus genetics is what you have, genealogy is where it came from. Genealogy and kinship is not your DNA profile so much
661:
Well, the case is much more complicated than this article suggests. These coefficients were defined for use in actual breeding (of animals, I should say, even though they are now also used to examine human genealogies). Their definition is correspondingly complicated. To calculate the coefficient,
482:
I am a person with a background in biology and biochem, am (obviously) good at math, have a basic understanding of genetics, and am a writer to boot. That being said, I cannot understand what this writer is trying to say. My opinion is that some people are very knowledgeable in their subject area,
977:
True, it is doubled and that affects the coefficient of relationship (r), and while I didn't create the table I don't believe the definitions of "degree of relationship" and "coefficient of relationship" are the same, else the columns would be redundant. The miniumum number of links to another
646:
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
1257:
Should be careful to not talk in terms of shared DNA. About 99.9% of the DNA sequence is the same between sequences I have and the corresponding sequence that you have. It is how often variations in the DNA are shared that we are talking about. If I have at some site a rare variant, then my
815:
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
1357:. For some reason their vandalized table was moved into a template that is used nowhere but on this page. I don't really think any table is needed at all, but it if it is it should feature only common relations (preferably with sourcing) and it should not reside in a separate template. -
535:
This wording is just unbelievably poor! There are other small grammar corrections I would probably make ("To given an artificial example"; "fewer generations," not "less generations"; etc.), but I'd start with easy-to-follow wording and a real-life example or two--worked start to finish.
961:
The article needs a lot of work, but don't expect a lot of help from me. Anal-retentive dolts have taken over
Knowledge and it's too hard to fight them unless you're "in with the in-crowd." IF some in-crowd Wikier deletes the inappropriate Inbreeding redirection, THEN I may try to
669:
are assumed to be arbitrarily far removed. In this case, you get the simple powers-of-two rules of "siblings 2^-1, cousins 2^-3, second cousins 2^-5" etc. But obviously this article should give the full definition, and then treat the simplified "cousins table" as a special case.
647:
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.
851:
but that article is not this article. It's too bad that these closely related terms ended up with one twice the other, but that's the way it is and I can attest that some Wiki-readers have ended up with faulty definitions by following the redirection.
707:
COEFFICIENT OF RELATIONSHIP AND COEFFICIENT OF INBREEDING ARE NOT THE SAME THING. The coefficient of inbreeding for an individual may be one-half of the coefficient of relationship between the individual's parents, yet the article misses
831:
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."
1406:
Could we add the situation where a man has children with two half sisters/a woman has children with 2 half brothers? I believe the relatedness would be 31.25%. The children would be half siblings + half cousins.
560:
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.
516:
Thus, the line must pass through a common ancestor two or more times. Is this what the writer intended? I don't think so, because first cousins share only a grandparent. Once. This is as clear as mud.
243:
130:
620:
The coefficient of inbreeding of who? One individual? Perhaps you meant the coefficient of kinship of a random copy of the gene in one individual with a random copy of the gene in the other?
525:
enumerates all paths connecting B and C with unique common ancestors (i.e. all paths terminate at a common ancestor and may not pass through a common ancestor to a common ancestor's ancestor)..."
640:
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.
712:
of the key points here. And this error persisted for FIVE YEARS after dab called attention to it? I knew
Knowledge had become a pale imitation of its former self, but this is unbelievable.
1031:
might be good external links for this article. They have detailed explanations and show calculations for complex cases. I won't add them, or I'd be cited for self-citing!
1473:
1172:
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)
120:
1094:
Apparently the "kinship coefficient" is always equal to 50% of the "coefficient of relationship". We do not need a separate article just for the sake of the 50% factor.
1371:
Thanks for the help/clarifity. I was the one who moved everything to a template, as at the time my primary goal was to make the page easier to navigate, and to make it
1493:
532:
And does the writer simply mean that a path should be traced back to the first ancestor that is common to both people, and that it should STOP THERE? If so, say this.
149:
63:
1239:
In fact, I would go so far as to say that without inbreeding you cannot get any fraction between 3/4 siblings and full siblings...not 32nds, 64ths, 128ths, nothing.
1005:
You are correct, Cloudswrest. The article needs a little simplification and clarification BUT THERE'S NO POINT IN MY WORKING ON IT UNTIL THE FAULTY REDIRECTION FROM
430:, things get screwed around a bit. == Philandering == being naughty reduces the coefficient. == Sex chromosomes == Sex chromosomes reduce the relatedness slightly
583:
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? --
704:
I have not studied dab's comments in any detail, but I am disheartened to note that he called attention to the gross error in 2012, and it has never been fixed.
1344:
There's a long term vandal that hits pages like this and adds nonsense family relationships, often growing the tables out to the Nth degree. They hit this page
1307:
walk me through what your concern is with the table? I moved it from the page into a template, and I'd like to understand what the problem is with the table.
1169:
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)
96:
1518:
1503:
1468:
1410:
Or would that just open the door for all kind of weird half siblings + various types of cousins examples and just make the article more unwieldy? --Meteor
348:
338:
233:
1483:
154:
1523:
1508:
87:
58:
1488:
490:"Each such line connects the two individuals via a common ancestor, passing through no individual who is not a common ancestor more than once."
512:'...passing through NO INDIVIDUAL who is NOT a common ancestor more than once' means passing through NO SHARED ANCESTOR WHO APPEARS ONCE ONCE.
314:
209:
1513:
1498:
1411:
1274:
1244:
1203:
817:
401:
1258:
sibling will have it 50% of the time. But that does not mean that my sibling has the same base at a random site only 50% of the time.
933:
901:
1478:
1215:
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.
377:
1186:
6/16 (3/8) - Half Siblings + Cousins (aka "3/4 siblings") (a person had children with 2 siblings) (share 1 parent and 4 grandparents)
584:
305:
266:
200:
177:
1327:
855:(That there are two different terms shouldn't surprise. My sister and I have a consanguinal relationship but to call that an
464:
says is inappropriate tone for an article. Can someone take a crack at re-writing these sections to use a better tone? --
506:
A person who is a 'common ancestor more than once' is someone who appears in the shared family tree in two or more places.
33:
1058:
426:== Sexual organisms == === Parent-offspring === For a sexual organism, the coefficient is 0.5. == Haplodiploidy == In
1183:
5/16 - Half Siblings + Half Cousins (a person had children with 2 half siblings) (share 1 parent and 3 grandparents)
509:
A person who is 'NOT a common ancestor more than once' appears in the shared family tree of both people only ONCE.
603:
546:
529:
First, by definition, a 'common ancestor' is not a person who is unique. So, what is a "unique common ancestor"?
1415:
1387:
1335:
1312:
1278:
1248:
1207:
884:
821:
762:
405:
370:
Step siblings are much closer than many of the relatives shown in the diagram, but step siblings are omitted.
1036:
1014:
967:
905:
864:
735:
720:
381:
602:
On 2018-12-01, following the suggestions below that the pages should be split, I removed the redirect from
588:
758:
1121:
995:
923:
837:
39:
606:
to this page. I do hope someone who understands this better than I can add some content to that page.
580:
Has it been calculated what effect previous incestuous relationships in the parents' ancestries have?
192:
171:
1199:
1103:
542:
397:
373:
503:
If two people share a 'common ancestor,' then that person appears in the family tree of both people.
21:
1383:
1331:
1308:
1054:
1047:
880:
695:
675:
469:
442:
665:
So, the "dumbed down" definition of this coefficient is that you assume that all common ancestors
313:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
208:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
95:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1263:
1220:
1145:
1032:
1010:
963:
860:
801:
784:
731:
716:
715:
I'd fix the article myself, but it babbles on and on and on from its totally misconceived origin.
652:
625:
566:
446:
1330:, as I agree that it is extremely long. However, I wouldn't go as far as calling it vandalism.
499:
In trying to understand the latter half of this sentence, I jumped through the following logic:
1196:
Why would there be a cousin sized gap (for lack of a better term) between 6/16ths and 8/16ths?
898:
Why is uncle-neice listed as a 3rd degree relationship? This is a 2nd degree relationship ...
434:== Finite populations == Finite and small population size mean that it can be negative. hence
1446:
1362:
1082:
297:
92:
915:
I believe it is the minimum number of links on the graph connecting two people, niece -: -->
1118:
991:
937:
919:
833:
611:
1175:
4/16 (2/8)(1/4) - Double Cousins (both sets of parents are siblings) (share 4 grandparents)
1162:
Is it possible for there to be a relative that corresponds with 7/16 (43.75%) shared DNA?
1099:
441:
It was already commented out, so I put it somewhere more public. Anyone want to fix this?
79:
52:
1453:
1419:
1391:
1366:
1339:
1316:
1282:
1267:
1252:
1224:
1149:
1124:
1107:
1089:
1040:
1018:
999:
971:
927:
909:
888:
868:
841:
825:
805:
788:
766:
739:
724:
699:
679:
656:
629:
615:
592:
570:
550:
473:
450:
409:
385:
754:
750:
691:
671:
465:
461:
139:
1462:
1259:
1216:
1141:
859:
coefficient would assume that our sibling relationship is also sexual. ::whack:: )
797:
796:
This discussion is out of order. Please place newer comments after earlier comments.
780:
648:
621:
562:
427:
1113:
They do appear to be much the same thing. Unless there is a non-obvious difference,
1426:
1358:
1323:
1302:
1062:
978:
person makes more sense. By your argument full siblings would also be "1" because:
460:
The article addresses the reader directly, for example by posing questions, which
1375:. One advantage to the template is that it's probably harder for vandals to edit.
1166:
1/16 - Half Cousins (one set of parents are half siblings) (share 1 grandparent)
607:
281:
260:
431:
310:
287:
205:
776:
539:
IMHO, this is the kind of article that makes people hate science and math.
1192:
8/16 (4/8)(2/4)(1/2) - Siblings (share 2 parents and thus 4 grandparents)
1061:
article and expanded to clearly explain why/how the two concepts differ.
1379:(I'll go dig up that talk to get a better sense of which ones I used...)
1273:
as a record of the parent/child connections you have to other people.
1024:
1028:
435:
1382:
Would you be ok with keeping it on the page, once I tidy it up?
15:
138:
1179:
OR Half Siblings (share 1 parent and thus 2 grandparents)
1372:
1355:
1352:
1349:
1345:
1296:
1293:
1053:
To my eye these topics seem identical. I would suggest
847:
NO. WRONG. Perhaps there should be an article titled
755:
http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570135.html
751:
http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570144.html
309:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
204:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
91:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
576:Coefficients incorporating incestuous ancestry?
936:is correct. The consanguinity is twice what
8:
667:except the ones under explicit consideration
432:http://www.husdyr.kvl.dk/htm/kc/sexrelat.htm
1348:. Here are some examples from other pages:
1197:
395:
371:
366:Step siblings are missing from the diagram
255:
166:
47:
1474:Low-importance Molecular Biology articles
1243:would be related to EACH OTHER by 1/64.
940:implies because the linkage is DOUBLED!
1494:All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
1057:is merged into a section of the larger
257:
168:
105:Knowledge:WikiProject Molecular Biology
49:
19:
108:Template:WikiProject Molecular Biology
7:
634:The second sentence of the page is
303:This article is within the scope of
198:This article is within the scope of
85:This article is within the scope of
1025:https://fabpedigree.com/consang.htm
38:It is of interest to the following
1519:Low-importance psychology articles
1504:Low-importance Statistics articles
1469:C-Class Molecular Biology articles
1029:https://fabpedigree.com/wrigco.htm
598:2 x the coefficient of inbreeding?
14:
816:relationship" redirecting to it?
1484:Low-importance Genetics articles
1131:
323:Knowledge:WikiProject Psychology
290:
280:
259:
218:Knowledge:WikiProject Statistics
191:
170:
78:
51:
20:
1524:WikiProject Psychology articles
1509:WikiProject Statistics articles
1210:) 20:29, February 4, 2020 (UTC)
343:This article has been rated as
326:Template:WikiProject Psychology
238:This article has been rated as
221:Template:WikiProject Statistics
125:This article has been rated as
725:09:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
1:
1489:WikiProject Genetics articles
1150:02:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
928:22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
910:21:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
889:17:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
806:14:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
789:13:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
451:20:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
317:and see a list of open tasks.
212:and see a list of open tasks.
147:This article is supported by
99:and see a list of open tasks.
88:WikiProject Molecular Biology
1125:05:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
1108:17:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
1090:11:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
1041:01:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
1019:01:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
1000:16:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
972:06:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
869:06:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
842:17:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
826:15:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
767:14:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
740:06:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
657:15:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
630:12:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
616:15:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
486:Two examples from the text.
1514:C-Class psychology articles
1499:C-Class Statistics articles
1292:Instead of getting into an
1059:Coefficient of relationship
879:dowry going the other way.
700:15:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
680:15:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
593:22:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
474:22:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
410:22:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
1540:
1158:weird long winded question
551:22:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
349:project's importance scale
111:Molecular Biology articles
1479:C-Class Genetics articles
1454:14:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
1420:14:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
1225:05:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1007:Coefficient of Inbreeding
849:coefficient of inbreeding
604:coefficient of inbreeding
571:12:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
342:
275:
237:
186:
146:
124:
73:
46:
1392:17:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
1367:16:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
1340:16:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
1326:, I'm happy to edit the
1317:16:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
1283:14:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
1268:03:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
1253:21:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
394:They're not related...
386:06:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
422:Moved from main article
150:the Genetics task force
918:uncle. Three links.
456:Wording updates needed
306:WikiProject Psychology
201:WikiProject Statistics
143:
28:This article is rated
1425:The latter, I think.
142:
1046:Proposed merge with
874:Double first cousins
1055:Kinship coefficient
1048:Kinship coefficient
329:psychology articles
224:Statistics articles
1115:merge and redirect
1023:BTW, my own pages
957:grandfather -: -->
951:grandmother -: -->
946:uncle is actually
945:grandparent -: -->
917:grandparent -: -->
894:Degree of relation
144:
34:content assessment
1451:
1211:
1202:comment added by
1119:Peter (Southwood)
1087:
698:
678:
449:
412:
400:comment added by
388:
376:comment added by
363:
362:
359:
358:
355:
354:
298:Psychology portal
254:
253:
250:
249:
165:
164:
161:
160:
102:Molecular Biology
93:Molecular Biology
59:Molecular Biology
1531:
1447:
1306:
1236:in these cases.
1232:least 2 ways...
1139:
1135:
1134:
1083:
811:Title of article
694:
674:
445:
331:
330:
327:
324:
321:
300:
295:
294:
293:
284:
277:
276:
271:
263:
256:
244:importance scale
226:
225:
222:
219:
216:
195:
188:
187:
182:
174:
167:
131:importance scale
113:
112:
109:
106:
103:
82:
75:
74:
69:
66:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1539:
1538:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1459:
1458:
1404:
1300:
1290:
1160:
1132:
1130:
1051:
896:
876:
813:
600:
578:
558:
543:Mrs rockefeller
458:
439:
424:
368:
328:
325:
322:
319:
318:
296:
291:
289:
269:
223:
220:
217:
214:
213:
180:
110:
107:
104:
101:
100:
67:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1537:
1535:
1527:
1526:
1521:
1516:
1511:
1506:
1501:
1496:
1491:
1486:
1481:
1476:
1471:
1461:
1460:
1457:
1456:
1412:66.110.195.254
1403:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1380:
1376:
1289:
1286:
1275:74.104.189.176
1245:74.104.189.176
1230:
1228:
1227:
1204:173.16.124.119
1194:
1193:
1190:
1187:
1184:
1177:
1176:
1173:
1170:
1167:
1159:
1156:
1154:
1128:
1127:
1050:
1044:
1003:
1002:
989:
987:sibling -: -->
985:
983:sibling -: -->
980:
979:
931:
930:
895:
892:
881:Philip Trueman
875:
872:
845:
844:
818:128.148.231.12
812:
809:
794:
793:
792:
791:
770:
769:
759:Williams-Texas
744:
684:
644:
643:
642:
641:
599:
596:
577:
574:
557:
556:Not numerology
554:
519:
514:
513:
510:
507:
504:
481:
478:
457:
454:
425:
423:
420:
418:
416:
415:
414:
413:
402:173.16.124.119
367:
364:
361:
360:
357:
356:
353:
352:
345:Low-importance
341:
335:
334:
332:
315:the discussion
302:
301:
285:
273:
272:
270:Low‑importance
264:
252:
251:
248:
247:
240:Low-importance
236:
230:
229:
227:
210:the discussion
196:
184:
183:
181:Low‑importance
175:
163:
162:
159:
158:
155:Low-importance
145:
135:
134:
127:Low-importance
123:
117:
116:
114:
97:the discussion
83:
71:
70:
68:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1536:
1525:
1522:
1520:
1517:
1515:
1512:
1510:
1507:
1505:
1502:
1500:
1497:
1495:
1492:
1490:
1487:
1485:
1482:
1480:
1477:
1475:
1472:
1470:
1467:
1466:
1464:
1455:
1452:
1450:
1445:
1444:
1441:
1438:
1435:
1432:
1429:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1408:
1402:5/8 siblings?
1401:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1353:
1350:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1304:
1298:
1295:
1288:Table Removal
1287:
1285:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1270:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1240:
1237:
1233:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1191:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1174:
1171:
1168:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1157:
1155:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1126:
1122:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1096:Agree: merge.
1092:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1071:
1068:
1065:
1060:
1056:
1049:
1045:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1033:Jamesdowallen
1030:
1026:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1011:Jamesdowallen
1008:
1001:
997:
993:
990:
986:
982:
981:
976:
975:
974:
973:
969:
965:
964:Jamesdowallen
959:
956:parent -: -->
953:
950:parent -: -->
947:
944:parent -: -->
941:
939:
935:
934:128.147.28.65
929:
925:
921:
916:parent -: -->
914:
913:
912:
911:
907:
903:
902:128.147.28.65
899:
893:
891:
890:
886:
882:
873:
871:
870:
866:
862:
861:Jamesdowallen
858:
853:
850:
843:
839:
835:
830:
829:
828:
827:
823:
819:
810:
808:
807:
803:
799:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
773:
772:
771:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
747:
746:
745:
742:
741:
737:
733:
732:Jamesdowallen
727:
726:
722:
718:
717:Jamesdowallen
713:
711:
705:
702:
701:
697:
693:
689:
682:
681:
677:
673:
668:
663:
659:
658:
654:
650:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
632:
631:
627:
623:
618:
617:
613:
609:
605:
597:
595:
594:
590:
586:
581:
575:
573:
572:
568:
564:
555:
553:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
533:
530:
527:
526:
524:
517:
511:
508:
505:
502:
501:
500:
497:
496:
492:
491:
487:
484:
479:
476:
475:
471:
467:
463:
455:
453:
452:
448:
444:
437:
433:
429:
428:haplodiploidy
421:
419:
411:
407:
403:
399:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
387:
383:
379:
375:
365:
350:
346:
340:
337:
336:
333:
316:
312:
308:
307:
299:
288:
286:
283:
279:
278:
274:
268:
265:
262:
258:
245:
241:
235:
232:
231:
228:
211:
207:
203:
202:
197:
194:
190:
189:
185:
179:
176:
173:
169:
156:
153:(assessed as
152:
151:
141:
137:
136:
132:
128:
122:
119:
118:
115:
98:
94:
90:
89:
84:
81:
77:
76:
72:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1448:
1442:
1439:
1436:
1433:
1430:
1427:
1409:
1405:
1291:
1271:
1256:
1241:
1238:
1234:
1229:
1198:— Preceding
1195:
1178:
1161:
1153:
1136:
1129:
1114:
1095:
1093:
1084:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1052:
1022:
1006:
1004:
984:father PLUS
960:
955:niece -: -->
954:
949:niece -: -->
948:
943:niece -: -->
942:
932:
900:
897:
877:
856:
854:
848:
846:
814:
795:
743:
728:
714:
709:
706:
703:
687:
683:
666:
664:
660:
645:
633:
619:
601:
582:
579:
559:
541:
538:
534:
531:
528:
522:
520:
518:
515:
498:
494:
493:
489:
488:
485:
480:
477:
459:
440:
417:
396:— Preceding
378:123.3.163.53
372:— Preceding
369:
344:
304:
239:
199:
148:
126:
86:
40:WikiProjects
1322:To expand @
1009:is REMOVED.
992:Cloudswrest
952:uncle PLUS
938:Cloudswrest
920:Cloudswrest
834:Cloudswrest
730:this helps.
585:91.14.188.5
1463:Categories
1373:toggleable
1299:, can you
1100:Ehrenkater
857:inbreeding
521:"...where
320:Psychology
311:Psychology
267:Psychology
215:Statistics
206:statistics
178:Statistics
777:Help:Math
1260:Felsenst
1217:Hyacinth
1200:unsigned
1189:7/16 - ?
1142:Hyacinth
798:Hyacinth
781:Hyacinth
649:Felsenst
622:Felsenst
563:Felsenst
443:alerante
398:unsigned
374:unsigned
64:Genetics
1359:MrOllie
1324:MrOllie
1303:MrOllie
1117:.· · ·
462:WP:TONE
347:on the
242:on the
129:on the
30:C-class
988:mother
958:uncle
608:Emrys2
36:scale.
1384:Mason
1332:Mason
1328:table
1309:Mason
962:help.
775:See:
495:WT--?
466:ΨΦorg
436:spite
1449:TALK
1416:talk
1388:talk
1363:talk
1346:here
1336:talk
1313:talk
1294:edit
1279:talk
1264:talk
1249:talk
1221:talk
1208:talk
1146:talk
1137:Done
1104:talk
1098:----
1085:TALK
1037:talk
1027:and
1015:talk
996:talk
968:talk
924:talk
906:talk
885:talk
865:talk
838:talk
822:talk
802:talk
785:talk
763:talk
753:and
736:talk
721:talk
710:BOTH
696:(𒁳)
676:(𒁳)
653:talk
626:talk
612:talk
589:talk
567:talk
547:talk
470:talk
406:talk
382:talk
1297:war
692:dab
672:dab
339:Low
234:Low
121:Low
1465::
1437:ge
1418:)
1390:)
1365:)
1354:,
1351:,
1338:)
1315:)
1281:)
1266:)
1251:)
1223:)
1148:)
1140:.
1123::
1106:)
1073:ge
1039:)
1017:)
998:)
970:)
926:)
908:)
887:)
867:)
840:)
824:)
804:)
787:)
779:.
765:)
757:.
738:)
723:)
670:--
655:)
628:)
614:)
591:)
569:)
549:)
472:)
438:.
408:)
384:)
157:).
62::
1443:s
1440:r
1434:g
1431:a
1428:W
1414:(
1386:(
1361:(
1334:(
1311:(
1305::
1301:@
1277:(
1262:(
1247:(
1219:(
1206:(
1144:(
1102:(
1079:s
1076:r
1070:g
1067:a
1064:W
1035:(
1013:(
994:(
966:(
922:(
904:(
883:(
863:(
836:(
820:(
800:(
783:(
761:(
734:(
719:(
688:r
651:(
624:(
610:(
587:(
565:(
545:(
523:p
468:(
447:✆
404:(
380:(
351:.
246:.
133:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
