> Do not know where you get all your information but it is just > wonderful that you are willing to share. As far as I know I am not > a decendent of Barnett but know a lots that are. If you do not mind > can I forward this on to them. > > They are having a reunion in Fredricksburg this fall Just hope I can > go. Charles is taking me on a week to Nags head for my birthday so > will not be at the meeting. Really did not want to miss this one. > Because I want to learn how to do it so I can do a house and front > yard of my step daughter. > > If she gives out any Papers or anything pertaining to what she is > doing will you get me a copy. Sure would appreciate it. > > Maybe some one can tell me how to do it once I get back. > > Thanks for all your help. And a special thanks to the lady from our > quilt group and Bernice our group that sent me a birthday card. > > "Reita Kelley" <reita.kelley@worldnet.att.net> hi. just FYI, I would think that Fredricksburg (Virginia?) is less than two hours drive from Nags Head.... and it can take an hour to drive from Nags Head to just about anywhere. :) --charles (the other charles)

> Please can anyone give me an idea as to how I can search for a > relative? He was born in 1883 in Dundee, Scotland and he sent a > photo of himself aged c.30 from a hospital in Marshall, Texas. > > Thanks Annette <ashtonredlin@yahoo.co.uk> You might try census records. While the U.S. federal census for 1890 was almost completely destroyed in a fire in Washington in the 1920s, the 1880 federal census is available and has been completely transcribed by the LDS church. It is available online at http://www.familysearch.org/ Mark Lomax Pasadena, CA mlomax1074@msn.com

"Max Blankfeld" <max@familytreedna.com> wrote: > And as I said, there are many surname projects going on that can > substantiate the usefulness of DNA in their genealogy research. I think you're addressing a number of skeptics, myself included. I am unable to comprehend how DNA will be of any use in genealogy. You say you can tell with 50% accuracy that two living individuals have a common ancestor. In what way would a person be able to use this information? Elizabeth Richardson "Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn@worldnet.att.net>

Richard Pence wrote: > Well, Max, how much do you think I ought to spend to find out that > there is a 50 percent chance that I and some other person with the > name PENCE are related within 7 generations? > > You are the marketing director of a firm that is in this business, > so you tell me. I always thought that even 1 percent wrong gives > you a serious genealogical problem. Hi Richard, I think you will agree with me that information has different values for different people, and you probably will also agree that the same way 1 percent wrong gives you a serious genealogical problem, there are situations where 1 percent clue can solve a serious genealogical problem. Let's look at it, therefore, in a more analytical way: there are subjective perceptions, pro and con, and then, there's the science. Every one has the right to chose their own approach towards something, and so, it is within your right to believe that time has not come for you to add DNA to the set of tools available for your genealogy research, because you don't know enough of it. That's OK. On the opposite side you have those that found enormous value to it. Just join the DNA-GENEALOGY list at Rootsweb and check it. The science is there for everybody to check it thoroughly. The customers are there for you to question them and challenge their findings directly. I don't think it's fair for their findings to be challenged without giving them the opportunity to interact with you. And I don't think it is fair to challenge the science without fully understanding it. That's my humble opinion. Max Blankfeld max@familytreedna.com

Please can anyone give me an idea as to how I can search for a relative? He was born in 1883 in Dundee, Scotland and he sent a photo of himself aged c.30 from a hospital in Marshall, Texas. Thanks Annette ashtonredlin@yahoo.co.uk

Do not know where you get all your information but it is just wonderful that you are willing to share. As far as I know I am not a decendent of Barnett but know a lots that are. If you do not mind can I forward this on to them. They are having a reunion in Fredricksburg this fall Just hope I can go. Charles is taking me on a week to Nags head for my birthday so will not be at the meeting. Really did not want to miss this one. Because I want to learn how to do it so I can do a house and front yard of my step daughter. If she gives out any Papers or anything pertaining to what she is doing will you get me a copy. Sure would appreciate it. Maybe some one can tell me how to do it once I get back. Thanks for all your help. And a special thanks to the lady from our quilt group and Bernice our group that sent me a birthday card. Thanks again Reita "Reita Kelley" <reita.kelley@worldnet.att.net>

> <snip of lots of good background ... > > > Any advice would be deeply appreciated. I've recently been > requesting death certificates on anyone who made it into the era of > death certs who I feel is connected and this has helped somewhat but > in some cases it's left me with even more questions. > > Matt Lupo a.k.a. matt at lupo dot com Do you have a copy of that pension record? I assume it's a Georgia pension? If nothing else, you'll find out where she was living when she applied, and there will be some evidence of her marriage. The 1870 census is strange and unreliable South of the Mason-Dixon. No theory to determine who is excluded has yet proven valid in more than one county. Tax records might help fill in gaps. Good luck! Cheryl singhals@erols.com

Dear Lesley, I sincerely apologize for the misspelling of your name. I should have paid more attention before I let it go. This is not typical of me since I am very detail oriented. Please forgive me. Lesley, I think that Dr. Michael Hammer, one of the most distinguished geneticists in the world, and a leading member of the YCC (Y-Chromosome Consortium), as well as Dr. Bruce Walsh, would have trouble in agreeing with you that "the rate (you wrote rare, but I think you meant rate) of Y mutation is a little higher, but not sufficient to show much difference within the number of generations that can be historically verified" as you claim. And as I said, there are many surname projects going on that can substantiate the usefulness of DNA in their genealogy research. Now, in no moment I said that DNA research alone is a solution for genealogy questions. We firmly believe that DNA is an additional tool to be used in conjunction with traditional genealogy research. Please also note that I didn't come to this list to sell DNA tests. I came here to answer a question that was posted by a member, and my signature was there to qualify the answer I was giving. If this list feels that I am just selling and my participation is not needed to add to the discussion about the use of DNA in Genealogy, I'll unsubscribe, that's fine. Otherwise, I'll be happy to stay and answer questions that you may have. Max Blankfeld max@familytreedna.com

"Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> wrote: > Just over a year ago, a major on-line newsletter reported that some > male descendants of three men with the same surname from early > colonial Virginia did a DNA study. This study, the report said, > "proved" that the three men these people were descended from were > all the sons of one man, a also early in Virginia. I challenged > that conclusion, but the editor said he had "verified" it with an > "expert" and the conclusion was accurate. I still don't think so, > but the name of the "expert" is not known to me and I have been > unable to obtain a copy of the study that reached this remarkable > conclusion. Richard, if you let me have the reference, I'll see if our library can find it. > BTW, there indeed may be a more scientific basis for the fact that > most studies are in male-line descendancy father than in the female > line, but I stick with my reasoning: How are you going to identify > the population for the female study when all will no doubt have > different surnames? At least a major impediment. Funnily enough, my continuously female line better documented than the male one, thanks to the careful record keeping of the Dutch East India Company. Unless I've made a major mistake, my mitochondrial DNA will show that this blue-eyed, fair haired scot has a maternal line that originates in Bombay, India, thanks to the contribution from Helena van Malabar, a freed slave. I'm not entirely sure what this would prove, but it would certainly confuse a few folk! Here's the line, in case anyone is interested (running for modern to past): Cronje, du Plooy, Steenkamp, Erasmus, Liebenberg, Koekemoer, Pretorius, de Beer, Pretorius, Vosloo, van Malabar. Lesley Robertson Lesley Robertson <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl>

"Max Blankfeld" <max@familytreedna.com> wrote in message news:b966ho$uki$1@askin-17.linkpendium.com... > > >It still only gives information about a single line. - the one > >linked to the surname. It CAN be used to confirm (or not) family > >myths and/or apparent male descent lines, but when one considers the > >numbers of ancestors about whom nothing can be learned by these > >methods, its use for genealogical purposes is very limited. > > > >Lesley Robertson <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> > > Dear Leslie, I do prefer the female version of my name, as given in the signature you quoted above. > You are correct in saying that mtDNA is passed from mother to male > and female children, but when a mother's mtDNA is passed to a son, > it stops right there, it doesn't go down the line. That's what I > meant. It only goes down the line from mother to daughter to > daughter..... As do all lines except the surname-bearing one. > Now on your second claim that "Mitochondrial DNA provides the same > evidence of relationships", I'll have to respectfully disagree with > you since, again, mutation rates are much slower, and therefore an > evidence of ancestry would go much back in time that the one that > can be obtained by Y-DNA. The rare of Y mutation is a little higher, but not sufficient to show much difference within the number of generations that can be historically verified. > I completely understand that since the use of DNA in genealogy is > something quite new (only 3 years) there are still many skeptical > people. This is perfectly understandable. Please check my answer > to Ardis, and I'll be happy to stay here and answer any questions > you may have. I find this rather patronising. I do understand that someone trying to sell DNA analysis will want to present it in the best possible light, but it would be better to present it in context. Y chromosome analysis will provide evidence of a common ancestry on a single genealogical line. It will provide useful information for someone doing 1-name studies. It will not solve all genealogical mysteries and without a historical context, will not really be very useful. Perhaps you could say that those of us who actually work with DNA analysis have a better appreciation of its limits. Lesley Robertson Lesley Robertson <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl>

"Max Blankfeld" <max@familytreedna.com> wrote: > I don't know if you had your DNA tested for genealogy purposes, so I > am sure what makes you affirm that "testing is more expensive than > it's worth". I certainly would like to hear your substantiation. Well, Max, how much do you think I ought to spend to find out that there is a 50 percent chance that I and some other person with the name PENCE are related within 7 generations? You are the marketing director of a firm that is in this business, so you tell me. I always thought that even 1 percent wrong gives you a serious genealogical problem. > Although this is a short paragraph, I hope it will shed some light > into the use of genetics in genealogy. While we say that DNA > testing is one more tool to be used in conjunction with traditional > genealogy, there are many people who have tested, and who said that > one test done to compare two individuals solved a 20, 30 or even 45 > year puzzle which included many thousands of dollars spent in travel > and research. Unfortunately, what is a "solution" to an old problem depends on the problem. I suppose it is a "solution" of sorts to know that two people of the same name do have a common ancestor, either 7 generations back, or 23 generations back, or 30 geneations back. But that doesn't provide a solution to the genealogical puzzle facing the two individuals. I am reminded ot the lady who posted an enthusiastic testimonial to the power of the Internet - it had helped her and her cousins solve a problem they had been working on "for more that 40 years." It was 40 years ago that one of them had discovered the marriage record of a great great grandfather to a great great grandmother in a published index. The cousins spent the next 40 years trying to find out the names of the parents of this couple, but failed. Finally, a chance remark in an email to a a person who lived in the county of the marriage caused this person to go to the court house, where she found not only the marriage record that had been included in the published index, but - since both the bride and groom were underage - consents signed by the parents of both! Indeed, it was a 40-year old puzzle, but the solution didn't have to wait for the Internet. It was in the court house all the time, waiting for someone to write and aske for it - and no one ever did. One wonders how many other "puzzles" that no one bothered to actually research will now be solved. I went to your web site and read several of the testimonials. Nothing I saw there convinces me that this is the time I should round up all the requisite group of PENCEs, gather funds from each, and find out which ones are related to which others. It would be nice to know that the descendants of John Pence of Hocking County have ancestors in common with those of Frederick Pence of Pennsylvania / Maryland / (West) Virginia, but that really wouldn't tell us a whole lot. The puzzle of "how" would still remain a puzzle. Another enigma is that those PENCEs who are the hardest to classify are also the ones without known male descendants - which is one major reason they got "lost" in the first place. You're in the business of selling DNA tests. I invite you to visit my web site at http://www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/ and look around. I have been collecting PENCE data for more than 35 years and what you will see is a slice of what I have been able to put together. Perhaps you can look over what is there and design a study that will actually add to our knowledge. Please note that at this point in a great many instances I can do as well as giving someone a 50 percent chance that they are related in the last 7 generations. I am sure there is something PENCE researchers could gain from it, but I already see too many stories that take DNA "facts" and make genealogical jumps that are unwarranted on the basis of these facts. Just over a year ago, a major on-line newsletter reported that some male descendants of three men with the same surname from early colonial Virginia did a DNA study. This study, the report said, "proved" that the three men these people were descended from were all the sons of one man, a also early in Virginia. I challenged that conclusion, but the editor said he had "verified" it with an "expert" and the conclusion was accurate. I still don't think so, but the name of the "expert" is not known to me and I have been unable to obtain a copy of the study that reached this remarkable conclusion. I have been told, and continue to believe, that the best that can be done in cases like this is to reach a conclusion that the persons involved descend from "a common male ancestor." To me this means that the three progenitors may not have been sons of one man, but grandsons or great grandsons or 8th great grandsons. For a time I participated in a DNA mailing list, but even there the "experts" kept extending the borders by saying things like "the study "proved" that Thomas Jefferson was the father of at least some of the children of Sally Hemings. It didn't, but people seem to jump to that conclusion, even "experts" anxious to prove a point. BTW, there indeed may be a more scientific basis for the fact that most studies are in male-line descendancy father than in the female line, but I stick with my reasoning: How are you going to identify the population for the female study when all will no doubt have different surnames? At least a major impediment. Regards, Richard A. Pence, 3211 Adams Ct, Fairfax, VA 22030 Voice 703-591-4243 Fax 703-352-3560 Pence Family History <http://www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/> "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

> <snip> > > Ok, that said--I am seeking in census records a Wells family, father > Harlow C., may be dead, wife, Sarah A, in Massachusetts, and having > no luck. Any ideas what Wells, or any of the first names could look > like?? > > Jane Hodges-Kuebler "Maria Kelley" <mariakjek@juno.com> Just a few: Wall Walls Well Sara Sally S.A. H C Harlo Harlowe Also Middle name instead of first name Try C Wells A Wells H Wells S Wells "Glee" <gleemc@earthlink.net>

Austin W. Spencer wrote: > Actually, the post as a whole illustrates one of the deadly sins of > reviewing: magnifying the importance of minor errors to substitute > for criticism on merits. For instance: smiling *and* grinning? > Isn't that repetitive? No, it is a pleonasm, legitimate in this case for emphasising mood through the use of synonymous words together in the same sentence, cf "keening and wailing". Gil Gil Hardwick <gruagach@highway1.com.au>

> > <snip> Alas no one has "done" the 1900 census. <SNIP> > > > > Janey Joyce jejoyce@sbcglobal.net > > Janey: > > The 1900 census in a head of household, other surnames in household > format is available through subscription to genealogy.com. I find > the search parameters not friendly: no wildcard searches, no > surname > by county, etc., but it is still available. Ditto for 1910. > > Glee <gleemc@earthlink.net> The 1910, is available through Heritage Quest, which is free through many local libraries, and though there are no wildcards, I have managed most of the time, with creative thinking, to find who I am looking for. Ok, that said--I am seeking in census records a Wells family, father Harlow C., may be dead, wife, Sarah A, in Massachusetts, and having no luck. Any ideas what Wells, or any of the first names could look like?? Jane Hodges-Kuebler Maria Kelley <mariakjek@juno.com>

> <snip> Alas no one has "done" the 1900 census. <SNIP> > > Janey Joyce jejoyce@sbcglobal.net Janey: The 1900 census in a head of household, other surnames in household format is available through subscription to genealogy.com. I find the search parameters not friendly: no wildcard searches, no surname by county, etc., but it is still available. Ditto for 1910.

A Reader wrote: > [ Hi all. I've removed the poster's identity because they hadn't > intended this to be a public post, but I am posting their question > for everyone because responses are likely to be of interest to > many people. - Mod ] > > All these Roots Web Lists are very interesting, but very hard to > read. Is there a format to follow? IE start at the bottom and read > upward. That seems to be the only way I can make sense of them. For lists like GM, with lots of traffic, it is almost impossible to keep up. I always read off line from the Methods folder of my e-mail program, to which all GM posts are automatically filtered. Then, I click on the Subject column, so that the messages for a particular subject are grouped together. I delete without reading anything with a subject of FTM, Coats of Arms, etc., with the firm knowledge that if there is an off subject comment in these messages that would enlighten me, my enlightenment has been only temporarily delayed. I can then read, usually in posting sequence so that the topic can be easily followed, the subjects I'm potentially interested in. Occasionally, especially when I've gotten far, far behind, I click on the From name column, just so I can see what Richard's been up to lately <g>. Connie Sheets clsheets1@prodigy.net

rdrunner wrote: > ... the idea of a German "Nation" in my opinion has > existed for several hundred years. .... Think Holy Roman Empire, finally broken up in Napoleonic period. In 1871 there would have been people who felt that "Germany" had been disbanded and re-unified in their lifetime. myths@ic24.net

> If you want to pick nits. I might add that the mDNA is passed from > Mother to child (of both sexes) not to just daughters. But it makes > little sense to test males for mDNA as it would only go back 1 > generation. > > So you are saying an exact match its is as likely that the common > ancester was more than 7 generations as less. > > The best use of DNA I have seen has been to disprove a close > relationship, like the Conklin Family Study which proved that John > of Flushing and Rye was unrelated to the Conklins of Long Island. > Or to prove a close relationship can't remember the surname here but > that a family in Ohio was descended from the same common ancestor as > the family in Connecticut even though no one had been able to find > records linking the two families. > > Julia Coldren-Walker <FamRSearch@aol.com> Dear Julia, Tks for e-mailing. Your first paragraph is absolutely correct, and was part of my reply in a different posting. An exact match means that: 50% of the times a common ancestor existed 7 generations or less 90% of the times a common ancestor existed 23 generations or less 95% of the times a common ancestor existed 30 generations or less Let me also make available to you and to this list Dr. Bruce Walsh's "Estimating the time to the MRCA for the Y chromosome or mtDNA for a pair of individuals", published in Genetics 158: 897--912 Dr. Walsh is one of the leading population geneticists in the world. http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/ftdna/TMRCA.html Finally, since you are a Walker, I want to take this opportunity to mention we have a Walker DNA Surname Project with 137 members of the Walker family. E-mail me anytime! Max Blankfeld max@familytreedna.com

>"Max Blankfeld" <max@familytreedna.com> wrote: > > > First, both males and females can be tested. Males > > test for the Y-DNA (from father to son...) and females test for the > > mtDNA (from mother to daughter). > >Not true. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to all children, >male and female. > > > Females testing their mtDNA will find more anthropological answers: > > deep ancestry and migration. > >Again, not true. Mitochondrial DNA provides the same evidence of >relationships - it's just more complicated to trace as the common >surname is not there as a guide. > > > Although this is a short paragraph, I hope it will shed some light > > into the use of genetics in genealogy. While we say that DNA > > testing is one more tool to be used in conjunction with traditional > > genealogy, there are many people who have tested, and who said that > > one test done to compare two individuals solved a 20, 30 or even 45 > > year puzzle which included many thousands of dollars spent in travel > > and research. > >It still only gives information about a single line. - the one >linked to the surname. It CAN be used to confirm (or not) family >myths and/or apparent male descent lines, but when one considers the >numbers of ancestors about whom nothing can be learned by these >methods, its use for genealogical purposes is very limited. > >Lesley Robertson <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> Dear Leslie, You are correct in saying that mtDNA is passed from mother to male and female children, but when a mother's mtDNA is passed to a son, it stops right there, it doesn't go down the line. That's what I meant. It only goes down the line from mother to daughter to daughter..... Now on your second claim that "Mitochondrial DNA provides the same evidence of relationships", I'll have to respectfully disagree with you since, again, mutation rates are much slower, and therefore an evidence of ancestry would go much back in time that the one that can be obtained by Y-DNA. I completely understand that since the use of DNA in genealogy is something quite new (only 3 years) there are still many skeptical people. This is perfectly understandable. Please check my answer to Ardis, and I'll be happy to stay here and answer any questions you may have. Max Blankfeld max@familytreedna.com

> > there are many people who have tested, and who said that > > one test done to compare two individuals solved a 20, 30 or even 45 > > year puzzle which included many thousands of dollars spent in travel > > and research. > >Max: > >Please share some of these puzzle solutions with the group, using >"X" or other codes in place of surnames to protect the privacy of >the people involved. > >Maybe some people are satisfied with being told that they likely >descend from a given person -- never mind the numerous unidentified >generations intervening -- but that is hardly what genealogists >would consider valid. > >Sceptical, but willing to reconsider if you'll give us something >concrete case studies in place of vague marketing hype, > >Ardis Parshall <AEParshall@aol.com> Dear Ardis, Thank you for asking this question. Please check our testimonials page at http://www.ftdna.com/testimonials_home.html as well as the video with several DNA Surname project coordinators at: http://www.ftdna.com/videoaudio.html The press also featured some of the successes: http://www.ftdna.com/inthenews.html You are also welcome to initiate a thread at our Forum - http://www.ftdna.com/forum.html where people who have tested can be more specific in answering to you. Just go to the "DNA and Genealogy" section, register and start the thread. Be as skeptical as you wish and let it go. E-mail me anytime! Max Blankfeld max@familytreedna.com