Jurg Ott OTT at NYSPI.bitnet
Fri Jul 3 11:47:29 EST 1992

```J. Ott                                             25 June 1992

Corrections and clarifications to

Below, the currently known corrections to the revised
edition of this book (1991, Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore) are listed.  I am grateful to the readers who made me
aware of errors and inaccuracies.
In this e-mail version of the list of corrections, mathemat-
ical and other non-ASCII characters are given in the syntax of
the WordPerfect equation editor (version 5.1).

Page 14, line 4 up:  Assumption (2) is sufficient for that
statement;  (2) implies (1).

Page 18, line 8:  Replace (1.3) by (1.2).

Page 38, Problem 2.2:  Replace 200 cM by 100 cM.

Page 44, line 8 below table 3.1 should read:  "Generally,
for phase known data, if T=k/n is the value of...".  Also, line
12 should read:  "Since T is unbiased, ..."

Page 47, lines 5-8:  These two sentences are clearer when
worded as follows:  "Consider now our previous hypothetical
example of one recombinant and four nonrecombinants and test
H_0:theta=1/2 against H_1:theta=0.1.  For these data, the
likelihood ratio is calculated as T_{obs}=[0.1 times(0.9)^4]
/(0.5)^5."

Page 48, line 16:  Replace A approx (1-beta) by A approx
(1-beta)/alpha.

Page 59, line 3 from the bottom: ..., P(0 <= theta < 1/2) =
1/22, ...

Page 60, lines 6 and 7 should read:  The ith segment
(i = 1..s), of length b_i, then contains the likelihood ratio,
L^*(theta_i), where b_1 = 1/2 (theta2+theta1),
bi = 1/2 (theta_{i+1} + theta_i) - 1/2 (theta_i + theta_{i-1}) =
1/2 (theta_{i+1} - theta_{i-1}),
b_s = 0.5 - 1/2 (theta_s + theta_{s-1});  SUM b_i = 0.5.
Line 17 should read:  52.672, resulting in a value of 0.71
for Smith's (1959) posterior...
Table 4.1:  The values of b_i for i=1 (now 0.025) and i=2
(now 0.050) should be 0.030 and 0.045, respectively.  This way,
they are consistent with the definition of the b_i's further up
on page 60.

Page 34, lines 17 and 18 up are clearer when formulated as
follows: "... often used before linkage analysis as a preliminary
test of paternity."

Page 45, lines 12 and 13 should be phrased more exactly as
follows: "..., which allows the calculation of approximate
confidence intervals from asymptotic variances... ."

Page 68, last line before section 4.5:  Replace 11.7 by
11.6.

Page 74, line 3:  Replace Z(theta hat) and Z(theta hat_f) by
Z_1(theta hat_m) and Z_2(theta hat_f).

Page 75, line 5:  Replace (1-alpha_1)^n by (1-alpha_1)^g.

Page 92, line 3:  Replace A1 by A2.

Page 93, table 5.3, line i=4:  Replace AB-22 by AB-11.

Page 101, after equation (5.15):  Replace 1/[n times i(r)]
by 1/[n times i(r)]^{1/2}.

Page 101, line 6 in section 5.9 should read: "type 1 is a
recombinant under one of the parental phases (phase I, say) but a
nonrecombinant under the other, ..."

Page 117, lines 21-23:  The last sentence in this paragraph
should read:  The second child has genotype 121/222 or 122/221,
each of which requires at least one recombination in the father
or the mother.

Page 137, first line should be: ..between the loci C and D.

Page 139, Table 6.10, line R:  Replace "444 theta_{BC}" by
"444 theta_{AB}".

Page 148, line 11:  Replace f_{dd} by f_{DD}.

Page 149, table 7.1, line d1/d1:  replace 1/2 by {1/2}r for
P(g;r) (as on the line above it).

Page 216, Problem 9.2, line 2:  Replace "table 9.6" by
"table 9.7".

Page 250:  The last sentence of the top paragraph contains a
typo: -2 should be 2, and Z(alpha,x) was not defined.  For better
clarity, the last two sentences in that paragraph should read:
"In practice, this means that one evaluates Z(alpha hat,x) at
each map position, x, where Z(alpha,x) is analogous to (9.9) with
theta_1 replaced by x, and alpha hat is determined by the maximum
of Z(alpha,x) at the given x value.  Only those points x are then
excluded for which Z(alpha hat,x)<2 and Z(x)<-2, where Z(x) is
the lod score under homogeneity."

Page 268, Solution 9.2, line 2:  Replace "table 9.6" by
"table 9.7".

Page 270, line 1:  Replace 1/3 by 2/3.  Line 3:  Replace
"with that mutation" by "without that mutation".

Page 279, ref. Hall et al. (1990):  Replace "Anserson" by
"Anderson".

Page 294, line 2 up should read: "...tetraploid..."

Page 302, Support interval:  Replace 110 by 55.

```