Hi Dawene, I have been meaning to write to you since you mentioned this a few days ago. My question: is it just a coincidence that you match someone who has the same Sisk name as the neighbors or have you corresponded with the persons named Sisk who were tested and know that they are descended from the family who was living next door? I looked your results up on Ysearch.org and find that you have many matches with other surnames so unless you have established that the Sisk is the same line that is living next door, this match could be just one of many. You are listed there with two Bridges results that match each other. Did you test two of your family members? When a person doesn't get a DNA match in their own surname and their research shows that they should be related to a certain line, they must entertain the idea that a male in their line was adopted. While there is always a chance of infidelity on the part of a female, other circumstances could have prevailed, too. Sometimes a daughter would marry and then die, leaving a young child and her parents would raise the child, giving the child the surname of the mother. So, if you match the family next door, you should consider that it could be your family. I know that this is a dilemma in wanting to continue to research the Bridges, but, DNA is the Gene in Genealogy. If you find that you are not a Bridges, there is not much point in continuing to research them. However, you are a near match to other Bridges, but, when you have very "British Isles" markers you will find that you have lots of "near" matches that may not be significant. The next step for all of us would be to upgrade to the new 37 marker test. I have some people on other projects who didn't look close enough with 25 markers, but after going to 37 markers, the next 12 numbers were an exact match, making the two a match. It is my humble opinion that you are not alone in the mysteries of the Bridges lines. I, still, feel that some of the lines that we are showing as groups should be related to the other groups, but are not. In all my years of watching all the research, it seems that many of these lines, used the same naming patterns, married into the same collateral families and therefore, seem to be related, but the DNA says otherwise. You may be the lucky one, Dawene, that you have found where your line disconnected from the Bridges line. The rest of us still have a mystery. Let us know the details of your Sisk match and keep us up to date with your research in the matter. You are still family to us. BTW, if any of our DNA participants haven't uploaded their results to ysearch.org, you should do this, especially if you don't have a match with the Bridges group. By looking at the origins of your matches outside the Bridges surname, you can get a good idea of where you Bridges came from. Julia French Wood In a message dated 2/3/2005 1:13:09 A.M. Central Standard Time, dby1107@comcast.net writes: My John Bridges, Livingston County, KY, does not seem to match any other Bridges DNA on our test-site, although he IS close, and does seem to be in the general vicinity. HOWEVER, In the 25-marker testing, he matches with 24, and is one off of one marker, with his mother's neighbors, the Sisks. I wouldn't have known his, but I kept getting emails that they'd found a match for me - and it was always with a Sisk. The answer seems very obvious, but I'm still clinging to the hope that he might be a Bridges (don't know why, but you get attached to these people after years of research.) SO, how likely is it that two surnames are so closely related in the 25 marker test? What would all of you do?? Shoot, my maiden name was Bridges, and I'm kindof attached to it!

Hi Dawnene and Julia, Just me here to throw in my two-centsworth. Julia, you have an expertise on the DNA that I do not have. But, I'm afraid that on one little point I cannot agree with you. Because of a situation in my family, and one in my husband's family, I see no problem with Dawnene's continuing her BRIDGES search... even *if* her John was not biologically a BRIDGES. Here is an example of why. My maternal aunt was biologically my half-aunt. Her daddy left, after her parents divorce, never to have anything to do with the raising of his own child. (He never even bothered to come to see her.) Though my grandfather never officially adopted her, he raised her as his own. Her grandchildren, therefore, are researching *both* the biological father's line as well as the 'adopted' father's line for their family tree. And, I must say, it makes perfect sense to me. So, there is my take on the situation. :) Cousin Leslie