> I have noticed that several 'surnames' I am researching have > programs to test willing participants for their DNA. > > These programs are directed to 'male' participants only. > > I would like to hear some educated input into why are the males only > being tested? > > Is there some scientific reasoning for this? > > Also - can someone explain where they get the DNA to check against? > I'm picturing they have dug up someone's remains that they compare > with. > > Isn't also this process very expensive? > > I am not well informed in these matters and would appreciate > learning from others on the list about this method of finding one's > ancestors. > > Edith <Mooreedith@aol.com> Dear Edith, I'll be happy to give you any answers that you need about surname projects, whether by e-mail or by phone. In the meantime, I guess that you may have already seen our web site http://www.familytreedna.com/ so I would also suggest that you register at our "DNA and Genealogy" Forum, at http://www.familytreedna.com/forum/ since experienced members will also be able to answer many of your questions. E-mail me any time Max Blankfeld Director of Marketing http://www.FamilyTreeDNA.com "History Unearthed Daily" max@familytreedna.com 713-868-1438

"Frederick Powell Sr" <powell@closecall.com> wrote: > Unless changes have occurred since late 1997, your birth certificate > is needed along with the SS number and death certificate of the > deceased if SS number is not included on death certificate. A > statement of relationship and reason for obtaining the record is > required. Is genealogy/family history an acceptable reason to SSA? I think I didn't realize you could get a complete employment history. I have a couple of folks for whom I would find this of interest. Elizabeth Richardson "Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn@worldnet.att.net>

All, If you don't mind I'd like your opinion as I trying to establish a more consistent data entry for my locations from Germany. My main thought is that even though in it's early history, each of the separate German areas were considered separate countries, they were all loosely held together. Hence, the I propose that the Duchy / Kingdom of Württemberg "always" remain at a level below the country, empire or nation. This makes it simpler to provide consistent results. The other idea that people will say is that "Germany" did not exist until 1871, while that may be accurate, if you've ever looked at census records, before 1870, they will indicate a country of birth as Germany. So the idea of a German "Nation" in my opinion has existed for several hundred years. Below is what I'm think about for trying to get a logical sequence for locations in Germany. My main focus is Württemberg since ever ancestor I have that claims German came from Württemberg. Other areas may vary, but I think the below is fairly sound and would like additional input. Detail (Address, if known or existed) Village / Town / City / Area Oberamt (Similar to a township in the US) Kreis (Similar to a county in the US) State / Duchy / Kingdom Country / Empire / Nation Example would be from pre 1495 - 1800: Degerloch Oberamt Stuttgart Neckarkries Duchy of Württemberg Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation, after 1512) Example 1806 - 1814: Degerloch Oberamt Stuttgart Neckarkries Kingdom of Württemberg Confederation of the Rhine Example 1815 - 1866: Degerloch Oberamt Stuttgart Neckarkries Kingdom of Württemberg German Confederation 1867 - 1870 Degerloch Oberamt Stuttgart Neckarkries Kingdom of Württemberg German Confederation 1871 - 1918 Degerloch Oberamt Stuttgart Neckarkries Kingdom of Württemberg German Empire 1918 - 1945 Degerloch Oberamt Stuttgart Neckarkries Kingdom of Württemberg Weimar Republic or Germany??? 1945 - 1989 (at some point Baden-Württemberg was formed) Degerloch Oberamt Stuttgart Neckarkries Württemberg (Baden-Württemberg) West Germany 1990 - Present Degerloch Oberamt Stuttgart Neckarkries Baden-Württemberg Germany Is my thinking logical to cover the various points in history as well as being accurate, if my data is correct? I know that Degerloch was first mentioned in 1100 AD. So the other question is when did the use of Oberamt start? Same for Kries? Also would English equivalents be proper or actual German spelling using special characters? Difference between Wuerttemberg and Württemberg? Personally I prefer the Württemberg spelling, just looking for your opinion. Thank you for your time. Thanks, Kevin Sholder "rdrunner" <rdrunner@siscom.net>

> <Mooreedith@aol.com> wrote: > > <snip> > .. I > believe that it's also been used to check the claim that an American > historical figure was the father of children born to a slave (I > don't remember the names involved), > <snip> > > Lesley Robertson <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> That would probably be Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings -- Mick Gurling CT USA "Mick Gurling" <No.Spam.mickg@toto.com>

"Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> wrote: > Here is the "translation" I prepared for a "newbie" right after the > "Effecive" article appeared as an April Fool's article in RWR: I've > done some updating. Can I add one more to Richard's excellent list? Be polite, and do not assume that somebody else is trying to offend. We all imagine that we're writing in the same language, but we're not. Words have acquired different emotional levels in the assorted corners of the world, and something that might seem very mild where you can be highly offensive elsewhere (for example, I once - while speaking french - called someone a silly cow. In England in the early 1970s this was very mild indeed. Sadly, I didn't know that in France at that time it was a major insult. I don't think she ever spoke to me again). Lesley Robertson Lesley Robertson <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl>

<Mooreedith@aol.com> wrote: > I have noticed that several 'surnames' I am researching have > programs to test willing participants for their DNA. > > These programs are directed to 'male' participants only. > > I would like to hear some educated input into why are the males only > being tested? > > Is there some scientific reasoning for this? There are two ways to track DNA on the market. One uses the Y chromosome, which only males have (being XY, females are XX). All this will tell you is whether someone on your direct male line (father's father's father's etc) shares a common ancestor with you, but this is why people feel it's so useful in studying surname distribution. The other was is the direct opposite. It looks at mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited as part of the egg cytoplasm and not the chromosomes. It therefore gives you the direct female (mother's mother's mother's, etc). As it's independant of the chromosomes, everyone has it and thus both sexes can be tested. > Also - can someone explain where they get the DNA to check against? > I'm picturing they have dug up someone's remains that they compare > with. Nope. Apart from a few famous cases such as the Romanovs, it's usually just modern DNA they look at. Think about the problems we all have just finding the correct grave stone, consider the fact that there's unlikely to be very much left to get DNA from, and then how do you you know whose tooth you've dug up? There would be contamination from just about everything. Reliable, intact DNA would be very hard to find. This is one of the reasons that there is so much debate about the use of such methods. For a start, they only give info on one of two lines, nothing about all the other ancestral lines. Then they only show a relationship, they don't show who the relative was. X and Y might find that they have a y chromosome match with Z, but they'll never know whether that common ancestor was 100 years ago, 600 years ago, or a local milkman ;) . In some cases it can be useful - I've already mentioned the Romanovs, when there were enough well-documented relatives around that the DNA of the bones could be shown to be related to descendants of Queen Victoria, but even then the determining factor was that the only missing family group from her line missing in that geographical area was the dead Czar and his wife and children. I believe that it's also been used to check the claim that an American historical figure was the father of children born to a slave (I don't remember the names involved), but again the circumstantial evidence that he owned the ancestral slave and was known to be in the same area at the same time as conception had to take place was also necessary. Otherwise it would have just shown that he and the modern descendants of that slave shared a common ancestor, nothing more. It won't help you find your ancestors. It may help you confirm two of your many ancestral lines, but it won't tell you who they were or how they fit together. It's just another tool, and one that's open to misuse. I've already seen people saying that they've been told that because they have a DNA match to someone else who's alive, that proves they descend from a given line. Not true. It proves they share an ancestor with that person - whether or not it relates to the ancestors the second person says it does depends how good his normal genealogical research was. Lesley Robertson Lesley Robertson <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl>

richardpence@pipeline.com writes: > Run your spell checker before posting apparopriate

Edith <Mooreedith@aol.com> wrote: > I would like to hear some educated input into why are the males only > being tested? > > is there some scientific reason for this? The testing involves DNA that is passed on only from father to son. There is a similar test for mother to daughter - but the reason the tests are being done for males is that the surname identifies the group. Identifying the descendants of a female would be extremely difficult as each woman would likely have a different surname. > Also - can someone explain where they get the DNA to check against? > I'm picturing they have dug up someone's remains that they compare > with. What is being tested is the DNA of contemporaries and what is determined is whether those tested descend from a common male ancestor. Does my bunch of Jones have the same ancestor(s) as your bunch? > Isn't also this process very expensive? I think it's more expensive than it is worth - but I suppose it depends on what answers you are seeking and the likelihood of finding them. I note that those who get paid to do the tests are among the most prominent boosters of this methodology! <g> > I am not well informed in these matters and would appreciate > learning from others on the list about this method of finding one's > ancestors. There is an excellent mailing list that covers this topic. Also it is discussed at a great many web sites. "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

"Rh Domino" <rhdomino@hotmail.com> wrote: > > May I suggest this article: > > > > "Effective Use of Genealogy Newsgroups (and Mailing Lists)" > > > > http://www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/effect.htm > > > > "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> > > Richard, Very funny, now write one that is useful to all of us > newbies. Thank you in advance. A New List Reader. Here is the "translation" I prepared for a "newbie" right after the "Effecive" article appeared as an April Fool's article in RWR: I've done some updating. [ This is a great article and you *will* be a more effective poster if you follow Richard's guidelines. HOWEVER, do not let this discourage you from posting to Methods. Nobody's perfect and you have to practice posting to learn to be effective at it. - Mod ] "Translation" of "Effective Use of Genealogy Newsgroups" 1. HOT WORDS. Run your spell checker before posting. Your messages will look foolish if you misspell "genealogy." Proper punctuation is essential for clarity - and that includes using your shift key at the proper times. 2. FREQUENCY OF POSTS. Don't be a bandwidth hog. If you are stumped and have exhausted other reasonable approaches, then accurately frame your question(s) and post it/them to the appropriate newsgroup or mailing list - that is, make sure message is apparopriate to the topic of the group in which you post. There are many genealogy newsgroups and its up to you to properly direct your questions. Don't post them in several different groups except over a reasonable intervals. Since many participate in a number of different genealogy NGs and MLs, seeing the same message in several places will be an irritant. [ Every once in a while some technically astute individual observes that talking about "bandwidth" limitations with respect to text file transfers on The Net became absurd after about 1986. That's correct, of course, but it utterly misses the point: *humans* have sharp bandwidth limitations, and you don't want to waste their time and patience. - Mod ] 3. WHAT TO QUOTE: Do reference the question you are responding to by quoting from it - but only quote what is actually needed to convey that message and delete other portions of the previous message(s). Quotes of quotes of quotes make messages incomprehensible and take up unnecessary bandwidth. 4. SIGNATURES. Include as much information as you are comfortable with, but try to stay within the guidelines for signature length. That means a maximum of 5 lines, 3 preferred - and no art work. Using your real full name in genealogy newsgroups is a big plus in making worthwhile contacts. And remember not to clog up the system by attaching a list of surnames to every message - because every message is archived and you really don't want to archive 20 or 30 of those lists every day, do you? 5. CHOICE SUBJECTS. Describe as fully and accurately as you can what your message is about in its subject line. Nondescriptive subjects are often ignored. If you say you "Need Help," a reader doesn't know if you are drowning or lost a grandmother. 6. SURNAME QUERIES. We don't often realize it, but lots of people have the same name. If you don't identify the persons you are looking for completely, no one can help you. Full name, time and place are essential to proper identification. 7. BOOKSHY. For heaven's sake, do your homework before you post. You encourage the wrath of your fellow Netters if you ask a question you should be able to find the answer to with relative ease. There are dictionaries, glossaries, encyclopeias, maps and place finders galore on the Internet. Learn to use them. Cyndi's List http://www.cyndislist.com/ is a great starting point. Familiarize yourself with it and you'll soon learn how to find the sites you are looking for. [The Moderator of a "prominent newsgroup recently confided in me that he ruthlessly suppresses the urge to snap off this response: "You obviously have less neural capacity than planaria because even the slowest of the flatworms should be able to discover the answer to your question in less than 30 seconds using Google ... " - RAP] 8. FAITHFUL PARTICIPATION. The "faithful" NG or ML participant is not the one who posts the most, but the one who posts the wisest. It's sometimes tempting, but try not to comment on every issue. If you don't know the answer, don't guess. That usually confuses the issue. If possible, cite the source of your response. 9. INFORMING THE CROWD. It is often not necessary to post your answers for all to see. Evaluate your response. If it's primarily of interest only to the person to whom you are responding, the preference is to send it e-mail (individual thank-yous are a good example here). If others might benefit from it also, by all means post to the group or list. If you are asking a question, don't make it difficult for others to respond directly to you by intentionally using an invalid return address (sometimes referred to as an "anti-spam address"). It is bad manners to ask for help and not provide an accurate return address. 10. MAKING SURE. Test messages to a newsgroup are a last resort. Don't do it. If you ABSOLUTELY must "test" the system, do it with an actual message. That will keep the blood pressure of some others down. 11. CRAFTING REPLIES. We're all authors at heart or we wouldn't be participants - but do weigh whether it is really necessary to respond to a question that has already been answered or to add your "amen" to it. There is no limit to how often you can post, but there is a limit to other people's tolerance of what they see as abuse. There is no need to clog a group or a list with unneeded responses. 12. INTERNET TRUTH. Not everything you see on the Net is the truth. In fact, a good bit of it is ill-informed and undocumented. Don't pass on information that you haven't verified. Myths and hoaxes abound, but these are easy to check. Even a trusted friend sometimes can pass on faulty information and, besides, is ityour responsibility to be Chicken Little? Richard A. Pence April, 2000 (Updated May 2003) "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

Pat at mglory@hutchtel.net writes: > I would be interested to know what would one ask SS for if I want > the record of a deceased's employment? It might be a way for me to > track my wandering father's travels. Pat, as of 1997 when I last obtained SS employment history of a deceased, one tells the SS clerk one wishes to apply for the SS employment history of the deceased. If a SS form number is needed, I was never told that number, and, frankly, never looked for one on the forms. [Am now retired, but I used to locate missing persons, so did a number of these over the years] Unless changes have occurred since late 1997, your birth certificate is needed along with the SS number and death certificate of the deceased if SS number is not included on death certificate. A statement of relationship and reason for obtaining the record is required. Good luck. Fran powell@closecall.com

Serving as a volunteer at a FHC, I get questioned constantly about who is or isn't in the SSDI. To date, the best information I have found is located at the following site: http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/lesson10.htm Hope this answers many of your questions. -- mailto:kngsldy@cableone.net Families are Forever!

> (2) there is available > from SS a record of the deceased's employment. A record of all the > jobs held by the deceased since a SS number was obtained, costs a > great deal more than $27, but is invaluable as a search tool when > one does not know where one's ancestor may have lived at periods of > his lifetime. [Fran's note: I do not know how SS bases its fees for > the latter type of application. In recent years I know of one that > cost $87; one that cost $92; another that cost $74, etc.] > > Fran powell@closecall.com I would be interested to know what would one ask SS for if I want the record of a deceased's employment? It might be a way for me to track my wandering father's travels. Pat mglory@hutchtel.net

rpgillis@bellatlantic.net asks: > Are you saying that these five people are not in the SSDI even > though the death certificate was sent to the SSA? richardpence@pipeline.com writes: > Bob, I thought she said that unfortunately they lost some family / > friends, but that their deaths were indeed reported to the SSA by > the funeral homes, as is generally the case these days. The subject under discussion was whether undertakers do submit death data to SS. I attempted to verify that yes, the undertakers in the four states where our relatives died recently, did indeed submit data to SS. Fran powell@closecall.com

> I've noticed that SSDI names were added only after all claims were > satisfied. IOW if someone in the family is still collecting from > that account, the name will not show up. I haven't confirmed this. > Anyone else notice this, or has anyone found a rule stating this? > > "Bob Furtaw" <bob@furtaw.com> Bob: As near as can be determined, the only rule with regard to the SSA death master index (the basis for what is called the SSDI) is that there are no rules. No joke. A name is on the list if it gets reported and subsequently added. Nothing else seems to matter, except that the deceased needs to have had a SS number or a RR retirement number. I suspect it is a coincidence that the delay in adding the name approximates the delay in clearing up the accounts. Richard Fairfax, VA "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

> I've noticed that SSDI names were added only after all claims were > satisfied. IOW if someone in the family is still collecting from > that account, the name will not show up. My father showed up in the SSDI about 5 months after his death. My mother is still collecting his benefits, so I don't think claims are a factor. Sandra SGordon817@aol.com

> It is not a vital piece of information if you know his both date > and place and parents. It will tell you when and where he applied > and who he was working for. For many, the SS-5 is a vital piece of information and well worth the $27. My G-Grandparent's sons listed their parent's names (including maiden name of mother) and place of birth in Ireland. Discovering the place of birth of their parents is most important. I don't think you can discard the value of any vital record. Each holds at least one piece of information that you didn't have before. How do you pick and choose which document will be of value? You can't. You never know what record will be the key to unlocking another door. The 'reporter' on your G-Grandfather's death record may have a poor memory. Get his brother's death record! You may find better information on it. My philosophy has always been, "Leave no stone unturned". Sandra SGordon817@aol.com

bob@furtaw.com writes: > I've noticed that SSDI names were added only after all claims were > satisfied. IOW if someone in the family is still collecting from > that account, the name will not show up. I haven't confirmed this. > Anyone else notice this, or has anyone found a rule stating this? Bob- No, that is not true. Any death reported to SSA will appear--existing claims on the account have no bearing on whether the deceased wage-earner's name will appear or not. See the RootsWeb Guide lesson 10 for reasons why a name might not appear on the SSDI: http://rwguide.rootsweb.com/ Joan JYoung6180@aol.com

> Naomah wrote: > > > Naomi Lee (S.m.i.t.h - MI) (M.o.r.r.i.s.o.n -TN) > > (C.a.r.d.e.r - GA) (B.l.a.c.k - SC, NM) > > Now, here's a newbie with a clue! Welcome aboard, Naomi. Pity I > don't need Haralson co. (g) Now, if you've got a friend in > Habersham, lemmeno. > > Cheryl <singhals@erols.com> hi i'm from pickens county georgia. i will ask our local folks about the books. and if you think you might need something from the courthouse here, i'll trot down there and do what i can. i'm down that way a couple of times a week anyway, so it's no bother.

I have noticed that several 'surnames' I am researching have programs to test willing participants for their DNA. These programs are directed to 'male' participants only. I would like to hear some educated input into why are the males only being tested? Is there some scientific reasoning for this? Also - can someone explain where they get the DNA to check against? I'm picturing they have dug up someone's remains that they compare with. Isn't also this process very expensive? I am not well informed in these matters and would appreciate learning from others on the list about this method of finding one's ancestors. Thanks, Edith Mooreedith@aol.com

Y chromosomes are inherited from father to son. It is the chromosome that makes a male a male. So we males inherit our Y chromosomes from our father, his father, his father, his father, etc. It essentially follows the surname line except where there are adoptions or illegitimacies, or other paternal exceptions. A molecular genetic analysis of the Y chromosome can provide evidence of pre-historic or pre-parish register, or pre-surname connections with those with the same name. Thus it can also sort them out and give evidence for how many original sources there are among those today carrying the surname. There are hardly any biological advantages to being a male, but in this particular area of genealogical and genetic research it is a plus. We are exploring the genealogical and genetic connections of Welsh families named Rhydderch, Roderick, Rodrick, Rothero(e), and similar, as well as the "ap" derivations Prydderch, Prytherch, and Prothero(e). Relatively few families exist today with the original Welsh name Rhydderch. We have extensive genealogical information on these families from Wales who remained in Wales and also migrated into England, U.S.A., Canada, Australia, Africa and elsewhere. But from earlier geographic locations and known concentrations of these families, we believe there may be as few as 10 major families who assumed the name Roderick from the original Rhydderch in Wales. Furthermore since these families may well mostly originate in one area of Carmarthenshire and Breconshire, with close proximity to Cardiganshire and Glamorganshire, it is possible that the Y lines (the surname line) of these families connect even prior to the assumption of stable surnames. Others of the name Roderick come from the German Rothrock, the French Canadian Rodrigue and the Portugese and Hispanic Rodriguez. These are important to include in this DNA study, because there is an intense collaborative interest in the genealogical connections of these families as well. If anyone has an interest in this study, or for further information on Y chromosomal analysis and its use in genealogical research, see the web site http://www.familytreedna.com/ and search on the name Roderick. Also see my recent review of the subject: The Y Chromosome in Genealogical Research: "From Their Ys a Father Knows His Own Son", National Genealogical Society Quarterly (USA), 2000:88:122-143. Names in this study besides Roderick:: The Welsh: Rhydderch, Rodrick, Rotherick, Rytherch. Rothero(e), Prothero(e), Prydderch, Prytherch, The German Rothrock and probably a few others that resulted in Roderick And the Hispanic and Portugese, Rodrigue, Rodriguez, and German: Rothrock, Roadruck, Rodruck, Thomas H. Roderick Bar Harbor, Maine, USA Thomas Roderick <roderick@acadia.net>