No fallacies in the formulation of the paternity index

In a recent publication, Li and Chakravarti claim to have shown that the paternity index is not a likelihood ratio. They present a method of estimating the prior probability of paternity from a sample of previous court cases on the basis of exclusions and nonexclusions. They propose calculating the posterior probability on the basis of this estimated prior and the test result expressed as exclusion/nonexclusion. Their claim is wrong--the paternity index is a likelihood-ratio, that is, the ratio of the likelihood of the observation conditional on the two mutually exclusive hypotheses. Their proposed method of estimating the prior has been long known, has been applied to several samples, and is inferior (in terms of variance of the estimate) to maximum likelihood estimation based on all the phenotypic information available. Their proposed "new method" of calculating a posterior probability is based on the use of a less informative likelihood ratio 1/(1-PE) instead of Gürtler's fully informative paternity index X/Y (Acta Med Leg Soc Liege 9:83-93, 1956), but is otherwise identical to the Bayesian approach originally introduced by Essen-Möller in 1938.