Nancy, I had a letter from Clinton a couple of months ago...he is still working on the book, but it is still a ways off...maybe in the next year or so. I recommend that you and Jim might get involved with him, though, he does not do e-mail..only snail mail. I know our IOW candidate has in the past been involved with Clinton's research. Clinton is not completely sold on the idea of DNA, and still believes that a relationship may exist to my Barlow family, but after this many DNA tests, I have to disagree that we would be closely enough related to warrant research. It would have to be several hundred years ago. I put my Barlow DNA and John of Fairfield DNA into that new Sorenson Molecule Database and got an exact match with Israel Barlow and Elizabeth Haven...it stated that the most recent common ancestor was probably within 18 generations...but gosh, that is still a LONG LONG time ago. Perhaps somewhere in St Lake City at the LDS someone has made a closer link....but I don't begin to know how to do that ancient genealogy. I work with census, and other U.S. records, I have a hard time even understanding English / England data. I can't tell months from days, etc... And much of the wording leaves me questioning its meaning! Oh well....someday maybe. Right now, as far as our DNA database, we are looking at 3 major groups of Barlows, 1. Isle of Wight group which includes John and Martha Waddell Barlow of Virginia/W. Virginia, 2. Germanna group 3. Mormon Group, which includes John of Fairfield, John of Mississippi, William of Georgia, and probably Edmund of Malden since they have traced their families back to Israel Barlow, but I do not know if that has been proven! Does anyone know? Alan Barlow of England has submitted his 12 marker test for an upgrade to the 25 marker test...but thus far, it appears he is more closely related to John of Fairfield than with any other group. Will wait and see. We could still use volunteers from Edmund of Malden, Bunches of Barlows, George of Sandwich, as far as major groups go...but I would love to have some of the smaller groups that have no clue where they fit into any families also test. Until this testing, we had no clue we were a part of John of Fairfield...not even of the Georgia Barlow's...though that was suspected. We still don't know how we are related, but it is nice to know where our roots lay. If we eventually get all of our families completely identified into major groups..we can then work more closely together to try to find new answers. >Susan