"If two people match 25 markers to 25 markers with the same surname the 90% possibility of a common ancestor is a bit over 250 years or 10 generations using 25 years as a generation. While it is possible, as John Chandler mentioned, for them to be first cousins, the probability of them being related within 50 years or 2 generations is less than 60%. (using FTDNATip Report)" I thought the Rehoboth/Providence problem was a 24/25 match. My understanding of the matter was that if there is a 24 of 25 marker match, there is a 50% probability that the most recent common ancestor is 17 generations or LESS. This I thought to mean that from about the year 1500 until the present a Rehoboth/Providence common ancestor is 50% possible. I admire what everyone has done on the DNA project and please continue. However, please beware of unclear writing. Your DNA page needs an editor. BC Nara, Japan

Hello Joyce, Neat! I am happy for you! The Bevis photocopy is on the following web page: http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/c/a/r/John-R-Carpenter/PHOTO/0012photo.html My web page is at: http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/c/a/r/John-R-Carpenter/index.html I look forward to your GEDCOM! John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joyce" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 5:37 PM Subject: My NY Carpenters FOUND > Hello list, > > Well, I finally found my connection to the NY Carpenters back to William > of > Rehobeth. My line descends from Clement Carpenter b. 1781 in Swansey, NH, > Guy Carlton (1809-1858) b. in Potsdam, St Lawrence, NY. Charles b. 15 Nov > 1830 in Chautauqua Co., NY, d. 20 Nov 1888 in Napoli, Cattaraugus, NY and > is > buried in the East Randolph Cemetery. Charles married Harriet A. Palmer > (1840-aft 1920), daughter of William Palmer and Eunice Gray. I'd be glad > to > share information with anyone in this line of Carpenters. > > Is the Bevis passenger list on the Carpenter CD's? > > Joyce Carpenter Sharpley > [email protected] > > PS: I will send my gedcom to John for the next CD update. > > > > > ______________________________

Hello Group, I should have explained it better than giving a general or simplified statement in comparing Y-DNA and genealogical "closeness." If two people match 25 markers to 25 markers with the same surname the 90% possibility of a common ancestor is a bit over 250 years or 10 generations using 25 years as a generation. While it is possible, as John Chandler mentioned, for them to be first cousins, the probability of them being related within 50 years or 2 generations is less than 60%. (using FTDNATip Report) This is why the paper trail is so important. As each person documents back in time toward a common ancestor they are eliminating a missing generation. With population growth, migration patterns and by documented history this documentation or paper trail eliminates other possibilities and Carpenter Y-DNA lines. If the two closely related Y-DNA related Carpenters trace back their ancestry to a single state or county - that makes their research more concentrated and likely to document a paper trail to a common ancestor. If you check out the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project web page you will see over 10 designated Carpenter lines. http://members.cox.net/johnrcarpenter/index.htm By gathering together multiple Carpenter lines that have a commonality with Y-DNA, you can triangulate or predict what the markers of the common ancestor would have been. What makes this more complicated is some thing called mutation. The difference (mutation) between the Rehoboth and the Providence branch of the Carpenter families who most likely came over from England in the 1630s plus or minus a few years - <GRIN> for Gene - is a single marker called DYS 464d, which is 16 for the Providence branch (Group 2 on the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA web page) and 17 for the Rehoboth branch (Group 3). In comparing the 25 markers for each group the match is 24/25. The genetic distance is 1. "1" is very close in the genetic sense. These DYS 25 markers change 1 mutation about an average every 500 years. Research is being conducted on some that appear to mutate faster. The time calculations of mutations are highly dependent on both the mutation rate and model assumed. Some Carpenters have a genetic distance of over 30 and this by testing the same 25 markers. This shows the great diversity of the Carpenter family of which we are just beginning to glimpse. Those Carpenters that match 24/25 markers are closely related. I am from the Rehoboth branch of the Carpenter family with a document paper trail to William Carpenter of Rehoboth who was born in England circa 1605. Using a Carpenter from the Providence line whose paper trail goes back to William Carpenter of Providence (born about the same time period of the other William) we come up with the probability of when we had a common ancestor. The 90% probability of me and the other male Carpenter's (Providence branch) common ancestor is about 450 years ago. This using FTDNATip Report - Some researchers say that this model is too generous in probabilities. Compare this to cumulative probability listed below - See "A)". We have a paper trail of about 400 years. We have a genetic probability of about 90% that our common Carpenter ancestor was born 450 years ago. That is two generations or first cousins in genealogy. That is getting very close. That the two William Carpenters are related as first cousins is possible but less likely than being them being second cousins or third cousins. Without a paper trial we can only predict the probability. We could say that we have a Very High probability that me (Rehoboth branch) and the other Providence Carpenter have a common ancestor within the last 40 generations or 1000 years. That is still close in the genetic sense when you undestand that our "humanoid" DNA has been around for at least 60,000 years. Previous Carpenter genealogies with poor documentation and found to be in error because of misreading of wills gave the common ancestor, also named William Carpenter (of Homme), as being born circa 1440 in England. This is about 160 years or 6 generations before our two William Carpenters that came to America. It is about then, I predict or give my best guess, is where our common Carpenter ancestor lived in time. It will be because of dedicated Carpenter researchers (with documentation) who are willing to give their time, money, skills and Y-DNA who will help solve this puzzle. I challenge every Carpenter to do their part in making this possible. A Carpenter may have had an ancestor who worked with wood or wielded a battle axe. A Carpenter may have been or still is a Zimmerman(n) or even a Carpender, Carpendar, Carpentier, Charpentier, Carpentero or other Carpenter name variant. They may have been adopted or they may have taken the name because they liked it, but they are still a Carpenter. Remember, a Carpenter is a Carpenter is a Carpenter! John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA http://members.cox.net/johnrcarpenter/index.htm PS I only get digest mode. A) FTDNA has a web page explaining genetic distance at ... http://www.familytreedna.com/trs_gendist.html and what a 24/25 marker match with a genetic distance of 1 ... http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/ftdna/24-1-0.html These web pages show how cumulative probability relates to TMRCA (Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor). http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/ftdna/TMRCA.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Chandler" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] Re: Y-DNA Testing for Christmas or Thanksgiving or ... > Gene wrote: >> But to say that the DNA project has proven them to be "closely" related >> is an >> overstatement. The limitations of the DNA test are such that only a >> broad >> inference can be made as to the interval--perhaps several hundred >> years--between >> the immigrant Williams and their nearest, common Carpenter ancestor. > > Gene is correct. Mathematically, the best guess at the interval would > be 8 generations, but the range of plausible values goes from 2 to 50 > generations (based solely on the DNA comparison). Actually, 1 > generation is also *possible*, but is very unlikely, based on the DNA > alone. The shared surname obviously favors the low end of that range, > but it's wise to keep in mind that the 2-generation interval (i.e., > 1st cousins) is just at the limit of being plausible. > > John Chandler > > ______________________________

Gene, "Closely related" in the DNA sense. The odds of the two Williams being first cousins are very very low and improve a bit with each generation. It is not until about 450 years that the odds go up into the 90% range. Compare that over tens of thousands of years, and that is closely related. John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:48 PM Subject: Re: Y-DNA Testing for Christmas or Thanksgiving or ... > > > > << Our Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project has proven that the two William > Carpenters that came to America in 1635 and 1638 were closely related. > It > is not known if they were first cousins, second cousins or what. Their > descedant Y-DNA markers match 24/25. >> > > Given the relative proximity in Wiltshire of Amesbury and Shalbourne, the > respective homes of William of Providence (he did NOT come with the > Arnolds in > 1635) and William of Rehoboth, it's not surprising that they are related. > But to say that the DNA project has proven them to be "closely" related > is an > overstatement. The limitations of the DNA test are such that only a > broad > inference can be made as to the interval--perhaps several hundred > years--between > the immigrant Williams and their nearest, common Carpenter ancestor. > > Gene Z. > > ______________________________

Bruce wrote: > I fail to see any nugget at all. How do you really know the groups of > Carpenters, besides the Rehoboth and Providence Carpenters, were English > at all? That there were unrelated Carpenter families in America is > evidence of nothing and completely unremarkable. Take a look at the lineages for the testees. Some are known to be translated German/Swiss Zimmermans, but most are Carpenters as far back as they have been traced. Many fizzle out in the 19th century, but some go back to the early-to-mid-1700s. These are found in Virginia, rather than Pennsylvania, and it is therefore reasonable to conclude they are English, not German. > What is in any way remarkable about the two Williams being related? The > area from Oxford to Salisbury and over to the Hungerford-Shalbourne area > is about the size of Rhode Island. It would have been remarkable had they > been unrelated. You are taking the wrong meaning of "related". In the context of male-line genealogy, which Y-DNA studies always are, "related" means having the same male-line ancestor, i.e., being the same family. It is certainly not remarkable that two people living within 100 miles or so should be related though intermarriages, but that has nothing to do with the male line. It is indeed remarkable that they should be the same Carpenter family, given that we now have confirmation of the muliple origins of the name. John Chandler

"We have demonstrated clearly that there are many different and completely "unrelated" Carpenter families.....but many are evidently English, and it is therefore remarkable that the two Williams are related at all. This is the "nugget" to carry away from the DNA testing." I fail to see any nugget at all. How do you really know the groups of Carpenters, besides the Rehoboth and Providence Carpenters, were English at all? That there were unrelated Carpenter families in America is evidence of nothing and completely unremarkable. What is in any way remarkable about the two Williams being related? The area from Oxford to Salisbury and over to the Hungerford-Shalbourne area is about the size of Rhode Island. It would have been remarkable had they been unrelated. BC Nara, Japan

Rick wrote: > You are right in that conventional research is absolutely necessary. > There must be at least one rock-solid conventionally verified line back > to a certain ancestor for the DNA tests to work. In fact, you can never get by with just one person because, no matter how solid the public documentation, there is always the chance of a break behind the scenes. Indeed, with two people to test, the DNA line can be verified only as far back as the most recent common male-line ancestor of the the test subjects. > discrepancies in what I have been told about my ancestor Benjamin > Samson Carpenter b ca 1771 NC? and his son William Bailey Carpenter > (not my ancestor) b ca 1808 SC, and the results posted on the ftdna > Carpenter website. According to the people who *are* descendants of WBC, they don't have proof that WBC was the son of BSC, even though they tend to think it's so. If you have proof, I'm sure they and we all would be interested to see it. This is particularly interesting because of the conflict seen in the DNA test results. Let me explain... We have three matching descendants of WBC in the project, and we can recontruct the DNA of their common ancestor (WBC's son Cary C. Carpenter). That stops just one generation short of reconstructing WBC's own DNA, but we do know that the three descendants also match a large group of additional Carpenters, and so it seems unlikely that there is any disconnect between our testees and WBC. That's one side of the story. On the other side, we have one descendant of BSC by way of his son John. This descendant matches a *different* large group of Carpenters. Conclusion: *either* BSC and WBC were unrelated, *or* there is a mistake somewhere in the lineages. > to show that WBC was the son of BSC. Without that rock-solid > conventional line established, all a DNA test would do is show that I > am descended from someone else. Suppose you took the test and found that you matched Group 7 or Group 8. If your link to BSC were through a son other than John, that would make you the tie-breaker. You would be helping to settle a long-standing research problem and also getting some independent corroboration of your own descent from BSC. On the other hand, if you found you did not mather either group, you would be opening up the question all the more and making life more interesting for everybody concerned. John Chandler

> From: [email protected] (John Chandler) > Date: October 27, 2005 1:19:33 PM CDT > To: [email protected] > Subject: The immigrant Williams and their relationship - another > thought > > > I wrote: >> Mathematically, the best guess at the interval would >> be 8 generations, but the range of plausible values goes from 2 to 50 >> generations (based solely on the DNA comparison). > > After sending that message, I realized I had left out the follow-up. > The original question was what whether the DNA results had shown that > the Williams were *close* relatives in the usual sense, but there is > more to be considered than that. The important thing is not the DNA > test in isolation -- it's the combination of DNA and conventional > research. Since we cannot ever expect to get DNA samples from the > immigrant Williams, it will remain forever impossible to use > "paternity test" technology to prove or disprove a *really* close > relationship. However, we must remember the context of the DNA > testing that has been done. We have demonstrated clearly that there > are many different and "completely unrelated" Carpenter families. > (Note that I have used quotes around that phrase to emphasize that > only the male-line relationships are examined by the DNA project -- we > cannot test for female connections.) Some of the Carpenters are of > German origin and were originally Zimmermanns, but many are evidently > English, and it is therefore remarkable that the two Williams are > related at all. This is the "nugget" to carry away from the DNA > testing. > > Bottom line: it is now all the more important to pursue the lines of > conventional genealogical research for the immigrant Williams. If > their respective families were well-to-do in the 15th and 16th > centuries, we probably already have documentation of various sorts > going back to their common ancestor. Therefore, the DNA tests give > us reason to hope that the whole problem can be solved if only we > can find proof of where the Williams themselves fit into the picture. > > John Chandler John, You are right in that conventional research is absolutely necessary. There must be at least one rock-solid conventionally verified line back to a certain ancestor for the DNA tests to work. That person then becomes the "keeper" of that official line, and others link into it. I have not joined in this DNA thing myself. There seem to be discrepancies in what I have been told about my ancestor Benjamin Samson Carpenter b ca 1771 NC? and his son William Bailey Carpenter (not my ancestor) b ca 1808 SC, and the results posted on the ftdna Carpenter website. I may be reading the site wrong, but it doesn't seem to show that WBC was the son of BSC. Without that rock-solid conventional line established, all a DNA test would do is show that I am descended from someone else. Rick (descended from someone, I already know that... :) )

Does anyone have this family from the 1920 census. Sherman, Dennison, Texas Head Willie W. Carpenter 28 male b.TX worked City of Sherman wife Ellen M. age 26 b. TX son Milton R. age 6 TX daughter Willie R. age 3 1/2 TX brother Charles Homer Carpenter age 21 single b. TX worked city of Sherman sisterinlaw zelaro? (can't read) D. Carpenter single b.TX age 17 This is the only female Willie we have located born 1916-17? Need this line. Thanks, Sheri in Oklahoma [email protected]

Hello list, Well, I finally found my connection to the NY Carpenters back to William of Rehobeth. My line descends from Clement Carpenter b. 1781 in Swansey, NH, Guy Carlton (1809-1858) b. in Potsdam, St Lawrence, NY. Charles b. 15 Nov 1830 in Chautauqua Co., NY, d. 20 Nov 1888 in Napoli, Cattaraugus, NY and is buried in the East Randolph Cemetery. Charles married Harriet A. Palmer (1840-aft 1920), daughter of William Palmer and Eunice Gray. I'd be glad to share information with anyone in this line of Carpenters. Is the Bevis passenger list on the Carpenter CD's? Joyce Carpenter Sharpley [email protected] PS: I will send my gedcom to John for the next CD update.

<< For most of those on the _Bevis_ passenger list, the person's age is given before his or her name. Immediately below "32 --- Abigael Carpenter" is "10 & under & fower children." Although the eldest Carpenter child, son John, was 12, by representing him as being under 10, his father, William2 Carpenter, was able to pay the same, reduced price of passage for John as he did for the three other children, who actually were under 10. >> John Carpenter, bp. Shalbourne, 8 October 1626, was almost certainly 11 when the _Bevis_ passenger list was compiled (2 May 1638). Sorry for the typo. Gene Z.

I wrote: > Mathematically, the best guess at the interval would > be 8 generations, but the range of plausible values goes from 2 to 50 > generations (based solely on the DNA comparison). After sending that message, I realized I had left out the follow-up. The original question was what whether the DNA results had shown that the Williams were *close* relatives in the usual sense, but there is more to be considered than that. The important thing is not the DNA test in isolation -- it's the combination of DNA and conventional research. Since we cannot ever expect to get DNA samples from the immigrant Williams, it will remain forever impossible to use "paternity test" technology to prove or disprove a *really* close relationship. However, we must remember the context of the DNA testing that has been done. We have demonstrated clearly that there are many different and "completely unrelated" Carpenter families. (Note that I have used quotes around that phrase to emphasize that only the male-line relationships are examined by the DNA project -- we cannot test for female connections.) Some of the Carpenters are of German origin and were originally Zimmermanns, but many are evidently English, and it is therefore remarkable that the two Williams are related at all. This is the "nugget" to carry away from the DNA testing. Bottom line: it is now all the more important to pursue the lines of conventional genealogical research for the immigrant Williams. If their respective families were well-to-do in the 15th and 16th centuries, we probably already have documentation of various sorts going back to their common ancestor. Therefore, the DNA tests give us reason to hope that the whole problem can be solved if only we can find proof of where the Williams themselves fit into the picture. John Chandler

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Help Support GenExchange, Use our Affiliates Links! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ According to today's (Wednesday, October 26) NEWSDAY, "A piece of Town of Oyster Bay history that had a brief appearance on eBay has returned home via "priority mail," wrapped in foam and a freezer bag, and tucked in a blue and white cardboard box." NEWSDAY continues, "Two small weathered brown leather books containing the town's 1850 and 1851 tax rolls and list of men eligible for the military were displayed yesterday in Town Hall by John Hammond, the town historian, and Steve Labriola, the Oyster Bay town clerk, who were clearly giddy about the recovery of the documents. "If someone was doing a genealogical search or a history of the town, these are extremely valuable," Labriola said." For the complete article, "A part of history comes home", please go to: http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/longisland/ny-lidoc264484703oct26,0,1 828266.story?coll=ny-linews-print I hope this information is useful or, at least, interesting. NEWSDAY is Long Island's Leading Newspaper

Gene wrote: > But to say that the DNA project has proven them to be "closely" related is an > overstatement. The limitations of the DNA test are such that only a broad > inference can be made as to the interval--perhaps several hundred years--between > the immigrant Williams and their nearest, common Carpenter ancestor. Gene is correct. Mathematically, the best guess at the interval would be 8 generations, but the range of plausible values goes from 2 to 50 generations (based solely on the DNA comparison). Actually, 1 generation is also *possible*, but is very unlikely, based on the DNA alone. The shared surname obviously favors the low end of that range, but it's wise to keep in mind that the 2-generation interval (i.e., 1st cousins) is just at the limit of being plausible. John Chandler

<< Our Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project has proven that the two William Carpenters that came to America in 1635 and 1638 were closely related. It is not known if they were first cousins, second cousins or what. Their descedant Y-DNA markers match 24/25. >> Given the relative proximity in Wiltshire of Amesbury and Shalbourne, the respective homes of William of Providence (he did NOT come with the Arnolds in 1635) and William of Rehoboth, it's not surprising that they are related. But to say that the DNA project has proven them to be "closely" related is an overstatement. The limitations of the DNA test are such that only a broad inference can be made as to the interval--perhaps several hundred years--between the immigrant Williams and their nearest, common Carpenter ancestor. Gene Z.

<< I noticed above Abigayle, Dorothie Batt, her sister, and five children "under" tenne yeares. And still in the outside column is the word "under.' So, I would assume the word in the outside column would imply a specific meaning. Anyone know what it meant? >> For most of those on the _Bevis_ passenger list, the person's age is given before his or her name. Immediately below "32 --- Abigael Carpenter" is "10 & under & fower children." Although the eldest Carpenter child, son John, was 12, by representing him as being under 10, his father, William2 Carpenter, was able to pay the same, reduced price of passage for John as he did for the three other children, who actually were under 10. Gene Z.

In response to the excerpt from the original posting provided below, I am interested in more information on the Carpenters of Dutchess County, New York. For more details on my line of research, please see my recent posting to this list: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/CARPENTER/2005-10/1129597176 Thanks for any help, Perry -----Original Message----- From: DCUZZE [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: ENGLAND > to AMERICA CARPENTERS CARPENTERS of ENGLAND to AMERICA Listers, Gene was kind enough to help me understand the flaws in the English line of Carpenters that I always took for granted. This REALLY HELPED ME and he has given permission to post it to the list as I thought it may help others too. Below is an outline I made after reading the "Colonial Carpenters" edited by G.N. MacKenzie with added notes by Gene which start with #9 William. Thanks, Gene, for your permission to post this ! >CARPENTERS of ENGLAND TO AMERICA <snip> 13 William CARPENTER b: Abt. 1662 in NY, Long Is.>Dutchess Co. NY d: Aft. 1781 in NY, Dutchess Co. [Seversmith (2:548) gives his birth year as "about 1668" and date of death, at Hempstead (L.I.), N.Y., as 21 February 1749; res. Jamaica in 1707 (had inherited father's homestead there).] ......................................................................... +ELIZABETH b: Aft. 1684 ["She would have to be born "AFTER" 1684 if Daniel is born 1734] [Seversmith (2:548) gives no date of birth for Elizabeth or Daniel but says that the latter bought a farm in Dutchess Co., N.Y., in 1753. This, of course, implies a birth year for him no later than 1732--probably much earlier, if his father was born in the 1660s.] ............................................................................ .................. 14 Daniel CARPENTER b: Abt. 1734 in NY, Hempstead, Long Island >AM REV*VET d: June 13, 1814 in NY, Dutchess Co. [Sorry, can't help (except for previous paragraph).] ............................................................................ ................... +Esther THORNE b: Abt. 1734 d: 1809 [Can't help.] <snip>

Thanks Bob! Out Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project has proven that the two William Carpenters that came to America in 1635 and 1638 were closely related. It is not known if they were first cousins, second cousins or what. Their descedant Y-DNA markers match 24/25. The project now has 95 members and will grow with word of mouth. Thanks to people like you the message goes out. We have no rich uncle or financial sponsor. We have been doing this by volunters. If you have a rich uncle or aunt, please have them help us out! Thank You again! John R. Carpenter http://members.cox.net/johnrcarpenter/index.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob & Judy Carpenter" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 6:18 PM Subject: DNA Testing for Christmas > Would you like to get that someone special a very thoughful gift for > Christmas? Then now is the time to initiate the process. > > If you have not recently logged onto FTDNA, I would recommend anyone and > everyone who is interested in DNA to log onto www.ftdna.com . From the > opening screen, select your surname or that of someone special in your > life. > (There are currently 2388 Surname projects administered by FTDNA.) Then > take > a look at a surname of your choice, even start with yours, or that of a > spouse, or maybe a neighbor. After selecting a name, such as Carpenter > for > example, then select: "members.cox.net/johnrcarpenter/index.html" This > will > take you to detailed information about the particular surname selected. If > you selected CARPENTER, here you will see "Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA > Project". > A similar one will appear for each of the 2388 surnames. > > With respect to the Carpenter surname, Table 1, provides the Carpenter > Haplotype list, which lists each person who has been tested and agreed to > have their DNA markers listed. However, only their ID is shown. The > preceeding paragraphs of: Backgrounds; Brief Explanation; Methodology; and > Results, will provide a wealth of information and could possibly answer > most > of your questions. > > At this point if your are interested in having your DNA tested or that of > a > spouse or some other male relative, go back to the surname page and select > that surname, when the next screen comes up, simply go to the lower half > of > that page and you will find a form that provides the information that > Family > Tree DNA "FTDNA" will need to process your DNA sample. Where it lists > "Type > of Test" it is recommended that you select "Y-DNA25..." as this will > provide > you with the best DNA results at the present time. > > I have no connection whatso ever with FTDNA except that I had my DNA > tested > a few years ago by them, which allowed me to confirm some of my and > other's > research results. In other words, DNA helped to provide the missing link. > I > could prove my ancestry back to a certain individual and literally hit a > brick wall. Another individual could prove his ancestry beyond my proven > ancestor by four more generations. When this other individual had his DNA > tested, FTDNA sent me an e-mail saying "You have a match!". those four > words > were worth ten times what it cost me to have my DNA tested. In addition, > a > little while later, just for my own edification, my half brother's son had > his DNA tested. It was a perfect match. Which just proves that his father > and I shared the same (father) ancestor. DNA results did not give us the > name, it just helped to confirm what our documention showed via birth, > marriage and death records. > > Lets get some activity going on these lists again. > > Thanks. Bob Carpenter > > ______________________________

Well, had I read the entry of Zubrinsky in "The American Genealogist" Oct 1995 Vol 70 No. 4, I would have seen that the number, in front of the word UNDER, was "10" meaning the children were all under 10 yrs old. My apologies for wasting everyone's time, Donna

So, sorry, my wording was badly chosen. The line regarding Dorothie BATT being a sister did NOT refer Abigayle Carpenter but another person. I was just comparing the terms used. Donna