In a message dated 1/21/2003 8:46:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > Glenora: > > Could you give us some idea of what you mean by "the relatively low rate > of success."? I'm curious as to what was being sought that, not being > found, lead to that conclusion. > > I too noticed Glenora's comments. I have encountered similar comments on a couple of other surnames and the dissatisfaction stems from folks who either (a) submitted DNA free at the LDS sponsored collection sites back when?? 1998/9? or (b) folks who have submitted their DNA to a lab, but not in the context of a surname study. Since we are talking about a surname study "rate of success" is a misnomer. Success in this instance would mean getting a sufficiently large sample of Davenport samples from various lines to determine if there are groupings that delineate different ancestry. For some individuals (ie, me with a bastard great grandfather), getting a match in a surname study would be "success" (since the father and family have "supposedly" been identified). It is also a success if we find hypothetical Joe Davenport in Michigan matching up with hypothethical Isaac Davenport in Botetourt Co. VA. (FYI, I have a Greene Co. TN line that made such a switch around 1840.) There is broad agreement that if you want to link up with specific ancestors in identifiable places then submitting your DNA sample to a lab has a probable low rate of success. Those are my thoughts. I was considering submitting my mtDNA sample to a lab because I was "told" that my direct "Haley" mother, mother, etc. line was a Choctaw Indian...Well, I've traced her back to ANson Co NC and then up...yep you guessed it to the Haleys/Matlocks/Clarks of Louisa Co. I can't remember if the Davenport or allied lines are involved (of course the Wash family is). So for the moment I am not dropping $200.00 for what looks to be a very low success rate in finding that I have the DNA pattern for Indian ancestry. Janet Hunter