In a message dated 6/27/2003 2:53:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: do have a question, though. It would appear that #9573 indeed belongs to the Humphrey genetic pool, but 4/25 off in 400 years? Isn't that supposed to be too much? I had interpreted the fact that my cousin (#8305) was off by 2 from the Thomas line to mean the connection had to be back in England before the emigration, but if a descendant of Humphrey could be 4 off, then this would be out the window and we could be descended from Thomas or even John or the Albemarles. What do the people at FTDNA say about the odds of this? Do they have alternative theories (maybe a separate line of Davenports going way back in England from which the Humphreys came)? Gordon: Good question. I was waiting for someone to call me on that. It is a judgment call on my part. Here is my rationale for # 9573 belonging to the Humphrey Davenport line despite being only a 21 of 25 match.. ----- 1. The participant's name is Davenport. That is important. The name came from somewhere and usually it is passed down through the generations. (I am not talking about Davenport vs. Devenport). 2. The combination this DNA sample had was rare - very uncommon. When I compared the results to three online databases - the closest match to a non Humphrey Davenport I got was 13 of 25. When I compared the results for each marker to a statistical analysis on ybase.org (ie - 71% of the samples had a value of 12 on DYS # 388) - kit # 9573 had the most common number of six of 25 markers. You cousin # 8305, as with many of us, had the most common value on 22 of the 25 markers. After the first Humphrey results came in, I spent 1/2 hour on the phone with the president of FTDNA discussing it. He said the value of 20 on DYS # 385b has never been recorded by the lab before. The usual values are 13, 14, or 15. They retested it and it stayed the same. The two documented Humphreys have a 20, # 9573 had 19. Less than 1% of the samples at ybase had a 19. The rule of thumb is that when the name or DNA sample is rare and the timing and location are right then we can assume there is a connection. We have a very uncommon Davenport DNA coming from New Jersey where known Humphrey descendants settled and the DNA is a close match to known Humphreys. 3. There has been recent documentation reporting that some markers mutate faster than others. So when comparing results we now have to take into account which are the "mismatches". Three of the four differences between Humphrey and the "potential" Humphrey are on the "faster moving" markers. We need to be a little more lenient. 4. Remember - the mutations (changes) are rare and random. In ten generations the odds are highest for no or one mutation But 2, 3, or even 4 are not impossible - just very unlikely. ----- Another possibility is that # 9573 is descended from an ancestor or cousin of Humphrey. I'm not going to get into that. ----- As to your cousin being two off from Thomas of Dorchester, etc... - I haven't compared it one-on-one yet to see which looks closer but his ancestors did come from the North Carolina area. That is Albemarle territory. The Thomas line generally stayed in the New England area. Hope this helps. Bill Davenport [email protected]