I have an additional question, re. the last line of digits for group 2 and group 3. They are consistantly 16s for group 2 and 17s for group 3 while all other lines of digits are more or less the same. What does this at least suggest? Thanks to John Chandler for his patience. Bruce Carpenter Nara, Japan

Bruce wrote: > I have an additional question, re. the last line of digits for group 2 and > group 3. They are consistantly 16s for group 2 and 17s for group 3 while all > other lines of digits are more or less the same. What does this at least > suggest? Thanks to John Chandler for his patience. I guess you mean the last *column*, rather than the last *line*. If you read the discussion of Groups 2 and 3, you'll see that the whole distinction between these two groups is that last column. However, it is always possible for mutations to crop up, and so this distinction is a bit shaky. Before we can make anything out of it, we need to go one step further and assume something that isn't yet proven: it seems likely, or at least plausible, that Group 2 is descended from William of Providence and Group 3 from William of Rehoboth. If this is true, then we would be justified in assuming the two Williams were "closely" related. How closely? Well, the best estimate of the time of their most recent common ancestor would be about 200 years before, but the likely range of times would extend from about 50 to about 500 years before. Times outside that range are also possible, so you can see the prediction is very fuzzy. Of course, if the tentative links between the two groups and the two Williams break down, then all bets are off. John Chandler