Ardis Parshall wrote: >Biology might be satisfied with the confirmation that I share some >part of my chemistry with any given person, but that isn't >genealogy. Genealogy demands not only that I know I am likely >descended from, say, James Parshall of Gardiner's Island, but that I >descend from him through the chain of >James-Isreal-Isreal-Isreal-David-Ira-George-Ira-Charles-George, etc. Ardis, your argument here is a Straw Man. I am not a "genealogist" myself, but an anthropologist. The limited, very linear discipline of genealogy as you describe it above is merely a subset of the wider study of human society. My core academic discipline is statistics. When carrying out new work in the field the first task is always to survey the area, then once a general pattern emerges it can be mapped and used as a guide to all the very finely detailed work that has to be done over the ensuing years in completing the research. At that point too, a very large part of the preliminary survey work involves extensive cross-disciplinary collaboration, in this case including mtDNA and other such testing where it is available. The point being that it is not the 50% chance that two people are related that matters, but the other 50% chance that they are NOT related thus narrowing down the range of probability and saving a huge amount of time and money wasted barking up the wrong tree. How is this relevant to genealogy? By taking up the scientific method in carrying out basic research what I am able to do is map the spread of relatedness of very large numbers of people very quickly indeed. Just on my website there are 5,100+ names. While genealogical tools were used to map them AFTER the event, the research method had entailed basic anthropological field work. Apart from one or two purists, the result has been warmly welcomed among genealogists not merely because it has saved them a very great deal of work, and very large amounts of money they would have otherwise spent, but in particular because of the high level of accuracy and reliability of the genealogical information contained therein. Should it be dismissed because it is not "genealogy" does not reflect on the work in anyway whatsoever, rather on the character of the person refusing to accept the valuable assistance of colleagues working across related disciplines. For my part, if they want to spend years of their lives and thousands of extra dollars wading through their purely "genealogical" research when there are far quicker and cheaper tools available for narrowing down the scope of their enquiry, well, so be it. I am not going to insist on how others should live their lives or spend their money, although reasonably I do have a stake in maintaining discipline in my own profession. Gil Gil Hardwick <gruagach@highway1.com.au>

> I have been watching the e-mails on DNA testing, just about to > delete any further submissions on the subject when I read your > contribution on the issue, which made sense to me. What I want to > know is if there a facility in the British Isles that you know of > performing the same function? I'd be very interested if there were. > > "Thomas Walsh" <thomas@aldwick39.freeserve.co.uk> Thanks Thomas. As it is I am in Western Australia, right down near the farthest SW tip of the continent. The closest I am to any work being done is the University of Western Australia and through them the various UK and American institutions which you will be able to access more directly yourself. Sorry I am unable to help more, since it is an extremely interesting field. Gil Gil Hardwick <gruagach@highway1.com.au>