Projects using DNA for genealogy need British links

[royhutch]

I am the administrator for a project that is using DNA as an additional tool for genealogical research.

Our goal is to build a database of Hutchinson DNA haplotypes that will allow the project members to determine possible relationships between themselves and between the various lines of Hutchinson families. With this goal in mind we are gathering as many Hutchinson data points as possible. If we are successful in establishing a core haplotype for each line of Hutchinson families then other Hutchinson researchers will be able to determine which family line is their heritage.

There are over 1000 such project for various surnames. These projects are non-profit organizations and are run by volunteers.

In our Hutchinson project we have already identified ten separate lines of Hutchinson families. All but one of them reside in the US. One resides in England.

We now need to find living Hutchinson family members residing in the UK so we may confirm or negate existing genealogical research and establish the link between families.

We need your help. If you are a Hutchinson residing in the UK please contact me.

Or if you are simply interested in the existing projects please feel free to contact me.

Thank you,
Roy Hutchinson

[John]

There are those who are, understandably, sceptical about DNA and family history. Personally, I see great potential but as things stand the not inconsiderable cost of even a non profit making charge for a test means that many people will not take part in such a study and that as things stand any results are not representative.

On a positive note, the understanding and application of DNA testing is progressing in leaps and bounds and hopefully, before too many more years have passed, testing will involve a cost comparable with that of a few certificates or the odd CD or so.

When the day arrives when all those involved in family history routinely have their DNA tested and logged, it will be an asset beyond all measure. We might even find that we take part in such a study and that as things stand any results are not representative.

We might even find that we really are related to Ghengis Khan and all the crowned heads of state. |biggrin|

John

[royhutch]

Hi John,

Thank you for your reply to my post. I know there is some skepticism concerning these projects but so far we have found our project to be worthwhile. [/color]

We have had some success in connecting three major lines of Hutchinson's from New Jersey. Although unsubstantiated, Charles Robbins Hutchinson, b. 1838, an early New Jersey family historian and genealogist who was a direct descendant of John Hutchinson and Elizabeth Pearson proposed that the three men Jonathan Hutchinson husband of Elizabeth Dissoway, John Hutchinson husband of Elizabeth Pearson, and William Hutchinson husband of Ann Simpson were brothers.

Y-DNA testing of descendants of these men indicates a definite relationship between them.

At the same time we have shown that the descendants of Richard Hutchinson, b. 1602 thought to be of the House of Owthorpe and the Hutchinson descendants of the Hutchinson House of Bury are not related. Even though both lines claim to descend from Barnard Hutchinson known to be alive in 1282.

Yes, there is a cost involved for the test. But through taking the test myself I have been able to focus my genealogical research efforts to the correct family tree. I now know for certain that I am a descendant of Richard Hutchinson b. 1602 and not a descendant of the New Jersey Hutchinson families. This has given me a considerable savings in time and money.
<DIV>

[royhutch]

Will the DNA test tell you who your Great Great Grand father was? NO

Will it tell you who your Fourth Cousin twice removed was? NO

Will it tell you how your ancestors lived their lives? Where they were? And what their trials and accomplishments were? NO

My point is this: DNA testing is only, I repeat, only an additional genealogical tool that augments good solid traditional genealogical research.

To be truly successful DNA testing desperately needs the cooperation of those fortunate British people who have solid family records.

[Ladkyis]

Cheddar man did it for me - They found that a man living local to Cheddar was from the same line as bones that were thousands of years old found in one of the caves . They couldn't tell you who he married though :)

Ann

[John]

I might add, that I am not skeptical about DNA testing (although I do have other reasons for disapproving of it - but that's another matter), but it is they way that the results are interpreted by some people that is the problem.

Rod
OK, I can't bear the suspense, do you fancy sharing those other reasons with us?
I do wholeheartedly agree with your comment on interpretation though and one of my reservations is that those with the least to gain by participation are the ones most important to any DNA project. For example, if I can prove my Holden line back to say 16th cent Lancashire, then any DNA project is of little or no benefit to me but on the other hand, it could be of emmense benefit to a Holden in, say, Australia who had no idea whether his Holden anticedents were from Lancashire, Ireland, Norway or the Flemish countries. Or indeed if that Holding was a miss-spelled Holden or a seperate line altogether.
Then of course heading off into murky waters, do I want to track my surname line or my biological line?

John

[Rod Neep]

OK, I can't bear the suspense, do you fancy sharing those other reasons with us?
John
OK. Tests can only be carried out (in practice) on living members of a family. They can prove, with hardly a shadow of doubt, that your father is your father, and that your grandfather is your grandfather.

Let's say that you had a test done. Also that your cousin had a test done (or indeed, your brother).

The fact that they could show up as being different could open up a whole can of worms for either your father, uncle or your grandfather, or their wives, all of whom may be still living.

There can be only two scenarios. An "untold" adoption, or a hidden event in their lives. Those sort of scenarios are very common!

But..... having said that, in my opinion family history is more important than genealogy (in its strict sense). And as someone once said to me. "Any fool can father a child, but it takes a lot more than that to be a father".

Rod

[John]

The fact that they could show up as being different could open up a whole can of worms for either your father, uncle or your grandfather, or their wives, all of whom may be still living.

Rod
And those are very sound concerns Rod and one of the reasons why, disregarding the legal questions, I think censuses should stay closed for 100 years, but that's another issue.
It really is a case for individual choice, for instance, from photographs, I have no doubt that my father is my father and that his father is his father and at that point we reach the stage where if my great grandmother was "interesting" then that wouldn't bother me half as much as spending a big chunk of my life tracing people I had no biological connection with.
As far as I understand, the tests being offered to family historians tell you that you are either related or not related to a common ancestor perhaps 16 generations back, but not that you aren't related to your father.

John

[Rod Neep]

And those are very sound concerns Rod and one of the reasons why, disregarding the legal questions, I think censuses should stay closed for 100 years, but that's another issue.

As far as I understand, the tests being offered to family historians tell you that you are either related or not related to a common ancestor perhaps 16 generations back, but not that you aren't related to your father.

John
But John.... if both you and your brother had the test, and they were different, (i.e. you didn't share that same ancestor) then it can only go back one generation to your father/mother ! :(

(That is, by the way, the reason I used the cousin scenario in my explanation, as under normal cirumstances, that covers the whole of the living family, back to grandparents).

Rod

[Geoffers]

[It really is a case for individual choice, for instance, from photographs, I have no doubt that my father is my father and that his father is his father and at that point we reach the stage where if my great grandmother was "interesting" then that wouldn't bother me half as much as spending a big chunk of my life tracing people I had no biological connection with.]

My problem with DNA tests (apart from the cost!) is this - I can 'prove' my male ancestry back several hundred years. All documentation tells me that what I have found is correct, I am the 8xgt grandson of Andrew Low(e) of Buxton, Norfolk - for me that is my family.

Suppose, I have a DNA test and post my earliest male ancestor's details to say that is whom I am descended from - Someone else who is trying to find where in England their male line came from also has a DNA test and comparing the two results shows the other person is not descended from the same male line as me.

Now, suppose that 2, 4, 6 ,8 generations ago (the number is immaterial), my grandmother was married, but had a fling with someone else which resulted in one of my grandfathers.

The records show that her husband was my ancestor, whereas in fact he wasn't. It may be me that is researching the 'wrong' line and the other person who is in fact descended from my genetic male line.

Unless I have misunderstood things, this leaves me to conclude the possibility that DNA tests may be misleading. But I agree with you, John - it is a case for individual choice.

Geoffers
Charlbury, Oxfordshire

[Peter Goodey]

My understanding of the derivation of the surname Hutchinson is that it means 'son of Hutchins' and that Hutchins means 'son of Hugh'. The idea that genetics can be applied to a surname which could potentially have originated from thousands of completely separate and unrelated Hughs seems to me to be ill-conceived to say the least.

[John]

But John.... if both you and your brother had the test, and they were different, (i.e. you didn't share that same ancestor) then it can only go back one generation to your father/mother ! :(
Rod
That is a danger Rod, but a very slight one, for family history purposes there would be no point in my brother and I both being tested unless we strongly suspected we didn't share the same male ancestor somewhere along the line.
As things stand at the moment, the greatest us for DNA testing is to tie you into a location.

John

[Rod Neep]

One of the interesting things about the whole thing here, is different peoples' approaches to family history.

(there are some generalisations here)
1. there are pure genealogists who study blood lines
2. We British tend to conduct either genealogy or family history, and we try to trace our family tree backwards in time
3. Americans and Australians do that too, but also have a strong desire to find living relatives, especially in the "homeland". That's something that we British tend not to concentrate on in doing our studies.

Therefore, one can see how the Americans can hope to use DNA testing in order to attempt to link up with people who are distant relatives, i.e. who stem from the same stock, no matter how long ago that might be.

However, the approach has become "skewed". They are trying to use it to make assuptions that a particular ancestor is the common ancestor. That cannot be done! All the tests will prove, is that there is a common ancestor somewhere, and that common ancestor could be thousands of years in the past.

DNA testing, to prove that there is a common ancestor, and therefore "we are related somehow", does satisfy the need to find other living relatives. But no more.

Rod

[John]

DNA testing, to prove that there is a common ancestor, and therefore "we are related somehow", does satisfy the need to find other living relatives. But no more.
Rod
What about for example, the situation where the same surname has two or more distinct roots? Take for example my surname Holden is has distinct and well documented roots in Lancashire. The surname Holden can also be found in Ireland, amongdt other places, the roots in Ireland are totally disconnected from the Lancashire Roots. Imagine a Holden in, say, Australia. They are unable to establish from where their ancestors left for Australia. DNA could be used to tell them that they where desended from Irish Holdens, or Lancashire Holdens. From my limited dabbling in this subject, it does seem to me that the majority are more intent on using DNA to find their roots than they are to find living relatives.

John

[royhutch]

I agree that the main value of DNA testing is to those of us unfortunate people who do not have a well documented line. But isn't the main purpose of genealogy to research and discover the family line? To those of you who have the well documented family line I ask, "don't you share the information you have with other researchers?" And please do not assume that all the people who have taken the DNA test have paid for the test themselves. In our Hutchinson project, as many as half of the participants have had their test funded by other people.

Yes, occassionally, there will be the instance that the DNA does not match the expected family line. Yes, there are instances that include adoption and the adoptee are as much a part of the family as any other person. But this possibility should not be enough to entirely dismiss the possibility of using this new research tool to augment traditional research. Do you hesitate to dig through land records, wills and birth records because there might be the possibility you will find something that does not fit your first assumptions?
Roy

[Peggy]

Rod wrote: 2. We British tend to conduct either genealogy or family history, and we try to trace our family tree backwards in time
3. Americans and Australians do that too, but also have a strong desire to find living relatives, especially in the "homeland".
-----------
I can speak only for myself, but I certainly want to find living relatives both in the "homelands" and in America. I want to find them not so that I can visit them, or exchange birthday cards, but because they may have a family bible, a copy of a document, a scrap of paper - - - anything that will help me to trace and to learn more about our common ancestors.

Peggy

[Peggy]

(in 2 parts because the full version got hopelessly scrambled in posting)

I'd suggest that British genealogists who ignore living relatives, including colonial ones, may be missing a bet. Sometimes clues or pieces of family history are held by the colonials. For instance, some of the other descendants of my English gr-gr-gr-grandmother may not have a copy of her photo, and might be interested in seeing it. And as far as I may be from the source, some of my research and some of the certs I've collected for my English ancestors and their siblings just might prove helpful to my distant British cousins.

Peggy

[Clive Blackaby]

However, the approach has become "skewed". They are trying to use it to make assuptions that a particular ancestor is the common ancestor. That cannot be done! All the tests will prove, is that there is a common ancestor somewhere, and that common ancestor could be thousands of years in the past.

DNA testing, to prove that there is a common ancestor, and therefore "we are related somehow", does satisfy the need to find other living relatives. But no more.

Rod
There is another aspect to the DNA testing, and that relates to the natural mutation of DNA. Depending on the number of markers which are compared it is possible to determine the probability that two males have a common male ancestor, but also statistically how many generations back that male ancestor was: this is because each of the DNA "markers" changes, on average once every "X" generations (X varies according to the marker being used).

So the more markers that are tested, the greater the certainty with which one can say that "our common ancestor was between 16 and 20 generations back"

[Cornish Maid]

The other point to remember here is that Y testing only works for an UNBROKEN male line of descent. If your great-grandfather fathered only girls, then his Y DNA is lost. It does not make you any less his descendant.


Of course, all males alive today are descended from another male obviously. But your Y chromosome "surname" may not be of the family surname, simply because one of your male ancestors had only daughters.

I agree with John (well, I would, wouldnt I, he's my little brother) that the Y chromosome test is useful for geographical placing. I wonder too, how much comparison is being done BETWEEN families. For instance, if you are a Holden, wouldn't it be jolly interesting to find a match with the Snodgrass family. By comparing your (known) trees, it might be possible to determine which Holden ancestor married or dallied with which particular Snodgrass.

The other thing which hasnt been satisfactorily explained to me is the assumption that "no match" means that two families of the same name are not related - they may be, but through the female line. They may also be related AND THOUGHT AT THE TIME OF THEIR BIRTH to be related, but Mrs Snodgrass was a naughty lady!

I think DNA testing is the way to go, but feel that Y testing, and also mitochondrial testing is of more use to Anthropologists than to Family History researchers.

[Ron Leech]

I can speak only for myself, but I certainly want to find living relatives both in the "homelands" and in America. I want to find them not so that I can visit them, or exchange birthday cards, but because they may have a family bible, a copy of a document, a scrap of paper - - - anything that will help me to trace and to learn more about our common ancestors.

Peggy
I go along with Peggy's theme I have found 2 distant living relatives in Australia (thanks to these pages Rod) from different families. In the first instance that has enabled me to do check out what happened to my great grandmothers younger brother (also filled in about 160 other related relatives and ancestors). In the second case my great aunt married and went to Australia. I now know that she had 10 children and numerous grand children etc. This family knew nothing of their background in England which to some extent I have been able to fill in.

That said I am not convinced of the case for DNA testing. I feel that any testing would have to be carried out in complete security, but how secure is that?

[AnnB]

The advancement of using DNA, especially in the field of forensic science, has been amazing and of great help in the detection and solving of crimes. I can see how it could help someone 'prove' an ancestral line, but I don't think I can see the advantages. I have spent many years reserching my family history (with all the trials and tribulations involved before the 'wonders' of the internet, and, dare I say it, CD's) and am quite satisfied that what I have discovered is as near to the truth as I can get. Surely the whole point of this hobby (obsession?) is to enjoy acquiring information from all the available sources, including all those other helpful family historians out there, and, although one could argue that DNA testing is yet another such source, what does it really tell us about our ancestors, except to say that we are almost certainly descended from a particular person?
On a lighter note, isn't it amazing that we nearly all concentrate on our male lines first, and the female lines tend to take second place? After all we can nearly always prove the child's mother (unless the baby had been swapped at birth) but can we always be certain of the child's father.......???!!!

Best wishes
Ann

[John]

That said I am not convinced of the case for DNA testing. I feel that any testing would have to be carried out in complete security, but how secure is that?
I'm not sure that I understand the need for complete security, security from what? Disclosures of illigitimacy? You can get those from the gro index without spending a huge amount of money, or from bastardy orders that can be viewed on the inter net. Or might somebody clone my DNA and attempt to pass themselves off as me:D
I think far too many people are reading far too much into DNA testing. It won't produce a tree going back to the year dot, neither will it tell you what your gg grandfather had for his breakfast. It won't even tell you if great great auntie maud was a bit of a lass in her time. As things are at present the best it seems to offer is that you are probably connected with a certain line in a certain location, or you may not may. It may cut some corners for some folk, that's all.

John

[Ron Leech]

I'm not sure that I understand the need for complete security, security from what? Disclosures of illigitimacy? You can get those from the gro index without spending a huge amount of money, or from bastardy orders that can be viewed on the inter net. Or might somebody clone my DNA and attempt to pass themselves off as me:D

John
Security of medical conditions was what I was thinking of, as you say anyone can look up your GRO reference if they wish. A little spice in the life of my ancestors is always interesting!

[royhutch]

However, the approach has become "skewed". They are trying to use it to make assuptions that a particular ancestor is the common ancestor. That cannot be done! All the tests will prove, is that there is a common ancestor somewhere, and that common ancestor could be thousands of years in the past.

DNA testing, to prove that there is a common ancestor, and therefore "we are related somehow", does satisfy the need to find other living relatives. But no more.

Rod
Rod is right. DNA testing will not pinpoint a certain ancestor. But a point on perspective. Here in the "colonies" if your ancestor was in Indiana in the early 1800's and lived near other people with the same surname, they were most likely related. It was still considered the wilderness. It is not like it is in England where the family could have been around for centuries. We only need to track our family lines back a small time period to find the common immigrant.
Roy

[Kathryn Norman]

For my part I found DNA a great help in saving time and money. While our ancestry in the U.S. is well documented from 1763 onward..our progenitors' line in England has many loose ends. By joining a DNA project I eliminated certain lines I had thought were possiblities. This has been a great help. It also has its' surprises matching me (a Norman) with a Perkins family! This Perkins happens to be a contemporary of my ancestor. Mystery! While I have many Norman relatives all over the country there is no match with the 46 Norman families in the project. The DNA also tells you where your line originated which is interesting. DNA shouldn't be entered into with the idea that you'll be able to find immediate relatives.......but it is helpful to see a general migratory pattern...where ones' family originated...distant possible relationships. It cannot take the place of real genealogical work...but it can verify ones' lineage or prove mistakes. And for that I find it most helpful
I'm sorry to disagree with the idea that people having the same surname in the same area in the of the early 1800s (or even 1700s) in America are related. People assume this and many mistakes are made with this idea. We had a Norman who went to Ohio in 1816. He was supposed to be one of the founding fathers of the area so many in our family assumed every Norman in this areawas ours....not so...however all the Normans found in this area were erroniously entered into the familys' database. It was later discovered that there was another Norman family in the same area from Virginia (we're from New Jersey). And the DNA tells us we're not related.
Peace!
Kathryn E. Norman

[Mike_E]

3. Americans and Australians do that too, but also have a strong desire to find living relatives, especially in the "homeland". That's something that we British tend not to concentrate on in doing our studies.
Rod

I'd be interested where you got this snippet? has there been a survey, or is this just from personal experience. I've been trying to find living relatives because I'd like to see photo's they may have, or even other info on the family line my branch may not know. I found out recently from a living relative I made contact with in the US, that Charles Dickens (yup, the author) is on my tree. I'm not a blood relative, but mt blood relative was married to his nephew. So although it doesn't mean I'm going to research the Dickens line, I can pop the name on the tree as a talking point, but it could also allow another living relative to make contact with me because they found the link too.

Rgds
Mike

[sushshaf]

I had traced my maternal side back as far as norfolk and first name susannah and the surname diggins/diggens and around the village of dickleborough with susannah marrying john hurry.

i think that dna could be useful for a quite different reason. it is not so much that i want to have tea and bickies with these different persons, the process is interesting but what links me to my ancestor is that we had children at a late age.

susannah's daughter ann had her last child at 48 in australia. ann's daughter sophia had her last child at 46, sophia's daughter georgina was a widow at 38 and never remarried. georgina's daughter nancy had her last child and 40 and then divorced and never remarried. nancy is my mother and i have had three children since turning 44.

is genetics the reason for having children at such an late age?

i would love to find more relatives from this branch and see if they also have this incidence of late fertility

maybe instead of wasteful ivf treatments the dr could do a dna test and find out what is the likelihood of pregnancy due to genetics

[omskirk]

This is a most interesting thread, I had a DNA test because I had lots of circumstantial evidence to relate me to a Revolutionary war soldier, having communicated with his living rellies in the USA, we could find no records of his birth or any army records (he was supposed to be british) but family rumour had it that he came from Sherwood forest in the UK (Where my family is based) the DNA test proved a perfect match with his rellies in the States, so although we still don't have his birth record we have proved a connection and I now connect to a tree in the USA with 6500 members so I'm well pleased, have the test done.
P.S.
I have also matched with all sorts of surnames, so as was said in this thread (((beware you might find things you did'nt want to))) but I find it all exciting

[Terrie Strout]

DNA

I would love to prove that my line goes back to a Native American
supposedly it does ......... proof isnt what I wish it was........
Because of the cost I will probally never be able to do a Dna test
Someday I hope I can.......

From within is another voice
another Bloodline,
cries out for acknowledgement
My heart will forever believe
That my soul was once
that of a Native American

I just wish I could prove it.................

Terrie

[Guy Etchells]

Let's get or facts correct about the myth of DNA.
A DNA test can prove that a person is not descended from another person.
No DNA test can prove that a person is descended from another person only that their may be some connection.
Many of the claims made for DNA are grossly exaggerated and in fact false and are simply made in order that more people take the test.

At present only the equivalent of the population of a small city have been tested and from this tiny sample wild claims have been made, this is poor science.
Cheers
Guy

[Clive Blackaby]

I have to agree with at least some of Guy's reservations on DNA testing - the good scottish verdict of "not proven" seems appropriate here.

I have had a DNA test done: it has proved, at least to my satisfaction, that I am unlikely to be descended from the same line as the "Texas Blackerby's" there are just too many differences, even on the limited number of DNA markers checked.

But I am reluctant to dismiss this totally as a genealogical tool. An exact match, particularly over a large number of markers gives a good circumstantial indication that two people have a direct male ancestor in common. The more markers which are tested and matched, the more certain that circumstantial probability becomes.

I hope that "Ormskirk", having found a good match, has extended the number of markers tested to the maximum possible.

We all work on probabilities, don't we! Having found an 1851 census entry for John Buggins age 31 born in Piddletrenthide, and one and only one John Buggins baptised in Piddletrenthide in 1821, we assume, on the balance of probabilities that it is the same person.

Any evidence we can add to support this assumption is worth having.

No reputable DNA testing organisation ever claims to offer proof positive of common descent. (OK, so you could say that is about as good as the inverse disclaimer about coats of arms "someone with the same name as you once used this coat of arms". My counter would be "caveat emptor". DNA testing is never going to give you all of the evidence you need to build your family tree, but it is a new, potentially useful tool in our box.).

This is still new science, but rapidly developing, improving, and reducing in cost.

It's a bit like telephones: to whom did the original inventors of the phone manage to sell their first machine? "Er, no Mr Farquhar, at the moment, only the very elite will have this technology, but I can give you a list of five people that you will be able to speak to with my new device. It will save your servants so much time carrying messages to me, my boss, my bank manager, my boss's bank manager, and his boss. Just sign here ..... !!"

Now there are more phones in the world than there are people!!!

And as with telephony, as DNA analysis finds more applications - medical, forensic, and genealogical - the costs will reduce, and the reliability and usability will improve. Those of us who have already invested in it may or may not have achieved what we had hoped for - a link to possible distant relative - but we will also have contributed to the science, and that is no bad thing.

C :)

[Cornish Maid]

I think much of the problem with DNA testing lies in a misunderstanding of what the results will tell you.

What is it that you want to know? Do you want to know if man A or man B is your father? A DNA test will give you ALMOST a 100% answer - 100% NO, or 99% YES.

But if you want to know who your 25 x great great grandfather was, then it cannot tell you. It can tell you that he was probably in the same clan as another man with the same surname but if neither of you know that man's name then it is rather pointless.

There is some doubt (!) over the parentage of my 2 x GGF. Conventional genealogy finds only one man baptised at the time in the right place and he is illegitimate. I have his father's name, which is of course, not the surname of my 2 x GGF.

A DNA test would be a marvellous tool in this case. Do we belong to "our" surname, or do we belong to the other surname, or even a third surname. But I am female and although my brother would be willing to take a test, there is no-one to compare with! I have traced the "other man" and he has no male descendants, other than possibly my 2 x GGF's line. Even if we fell into the supposed surname, what would that tell us? It still doesn't give us any documented proof of which one of the millions of men with that surname is ours - just who is more likely. Not much help.

As it stands at the moment, DNA testing is a very rough tool indeed for genealogy and most of us would be better getting on with conventional genealogy. As Clive points out though, the more people who have tests the more useful it will become, and the more popular.

I recently read of the STUBBS DNA project on another forum. (I have Stubbs ancestry). Over 200 have been tested and fall into related groups - I could have told them that! Stubbs genealogy, though complicated, is easily available and there are excellent records everywhere by and large.

In fact, the only thing which was new and interesting,(to me) was that the main haplotype originates in Scandanavia, and that the Stubbs were probably part of the invaders of the 3rd,4th and 5th centuries. Their very long occupation of the area, which is old Danelaw country, adds weight to this.

Fascinating as this is, I do not feel it would have been worth the £100 or whatever it is for the fee!

Cornish Maid.

[Clive Blackaby]

Why did I decide to spend what amounts to a few hours salary, or the price of a dozen BMD certificates, on having my DNA tested??

I think perhaps that puts the decision into perspective.

If the result had been 100% positive it would have given me something which would have taken a lifetime to achieve by any other means: that I was related to the "Texas Blackerbys"**, and therefore, probably, to the family in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and London 1650 ish from whom we believe they descended. ***

The early distribution of my family name is very much limited to those few counties, so there was quite a high probabilty of a positive result. OK, so I lost the biggest bet.

The negative result means that I am almost ++ certainly not directly biologically descended from the same male line. It means that, and only that. I, or someone else in the future may find documentary evidence that there is a family connection; the DNA evidence will then indicate an anomaly, be it adoption, infidelity, bigamy (quite likely, as it happens) or whatever ***, and be able to add another piece to the infinite jigsaw puzzle of the human family tree.

*** several of this family were "Christian fundamentalist fire and brimstone" preachers, so of course no question of any hanky panky or impropriety there then - yeah, right, tell that to the archbishop ...:o

** Blackerby - they pronounce it to rhyme with the American pronunciation of "Derby", i.e. what we Brits would spell as "Durby" :(

++ Of course with all the nuclear irradiation we've been subjected to in the last 70 years, who knows how accurate the assumed mutation rates might be???? |blush|

[Cornish Maid]

Clive

Yes, that is another problem - the assumed mutation rates, based ONLY on statistical probabilities, and I do not trust statistics!

There have been very very few recorded instances of the Y or mt dna mutating during someone's lifetime, other than by chemical damage. One famous case which nearly caused an international crisis, was that of Prince Philip, who gave a sample of mtDNA in the effort to identify the bodies thought to be those of the Tsar of Russia's family.

His mtDNA "proved" at first glance that he could NOT be the child of his mother. The geneticists went into a flat spin but eventually it was a young laboratory technician who saw what had happened - the mtDNA was in the act of mutating under their very eyes, and further tests proved that about half the cells sampled contained the "new" mtDNA, and the rest contained the "old" mtDNA.

........

And of course, you MAY still be a Blackerby - but not on your "alpha" male surname descendancy, which may have been lost in a bit of naughtiness way back, but does not negate the possibility of one of your OTHER umpty-times great grandfathers being a Blackerby, and indeed the females too.

In fact, the further back you go, the more likely this is, if your family comes from the usual small village with the attendant centuries of cousin and related marriages.

Even today, small rural communities tend to have only one or two Y types, proving that they are all related in some way - but the "how?!" still requires old fashioned genealogy.

A fascinating subject, which is still in its infancy.

Cornish Maid