"Ron Head" <[email protected]> wrote: > > [snip] > > > > I did the 37 marker test because that was the best available at the > > time. > > > > Be advised that linking to ancestors depends on a number of > > conditions. In my case my closest link is to a man whose family > > name is not even in my genealogy but we have a 60% chance of having > > the same ancestor 7 or 8 generations ago. I only have 5 generations > > proven. > > > > To really learn something you almost have to match someone who has > > the genealogy back to the Bible. > > > > More than 30 Sullivans have tested and I am not in the same > > haplogroup as any of them so I have learned nothing so far except my > > Neanderthal ancestors went from Africa to the Russian Steppes. > > Yeah, I know, the Neanderthals forgot to keep breeding and > > disappeared. No political comments please. > > > > "J. Hugh Sullivan" <[email protected]> > > It sounds as though y-DNA testing of some cousins might be called > for--male line descendants of your paternal grandfather, great- > grandfather, great-great-grandfather, etc--in order to insure that > you all share the same y-DNA. I'm working on it both for the direct line and two lines that I can logically prove related. But logic is not proof until a DNA test. > I would certainly want confirmation that I shared y-DNA with my most > distant known SULLIVAN cousin; that way, I would be fairly sure that > if there was an adoption or "non-paternal event" in my ancestry, it > must have occurred at least several generations back. That is one of the potential problems, Ron. My gg grandfather had 5 base born children by 3 different ladies. He married the first who had two of his sons (probably had something to do with the proximity of the shotgun); my great grandfather was the second of those two. I would like to presume that he had the sole service contract for the lady he married but she could have sub-contracted. My closest match, so far, is 35 of 37 markers with a man named Wollard who refuses to respond to e-mails. 35 of 37 is 40%-60% probable at the 6th through 8th generation. I locate Wollards where they would need to be geographically but no bedroom evidence. So, did a Wollard have a base born by a Sullivan lady 250 years ago and the male child was a Sullivan since they were not married? Or, did my 5th great grand sire a child by a Wollard lady and he retain the Wollard name for lack of a ring? In either event my line would share DNA with the Wollards but I would be a Wollard in the first case and a Sullivan in the second instance. Therefore it is imperitive that a male presumed to be of my line tests. I have no brothers and my dad's brothers have no living male issue. But I know several from other lines who share the same gg grand. One male that I linked logically proved to be a different haplogroup which was very disheartening. In fact no other tested Sullivan so far matches my haplogroup which is very alarming as far as extending my genealogy. I've already told you more than I know and understand so I'll stop and await further developments. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)