"Greg Lovelace" <gregl@starfishnet.com> wrote: > <much of an excellent report snipped - if you haven't read it, do!> > > Now I'm not sure that any of this will satisfy any of the skeptics > who have been questioning the genealogical value of DNA testing. > All I can say is that we as a family are satisfied with our results. > We have learned a lot as a consequence of this study, and we hope to > add more subjects and learn even more. May I congratulate you on and excellent - and realistic report on one of the more promising uses of DNA testing - surname group identification. The most impressive part of the report is that it didn't make the exaggerated claims found in the testimonials and recognized that what you have learned is how to better focus your future research. I am sure you count me among the skeptics. I am not. The point of my messages - overdone, to be sure - is that statements such as "Reporter Finds His Roots With DNA Test" simply are not true. And there are way too many such exaggerations. My quarrel is not with what DNA testing can do, it is with the claims it has done things that it cannot do! As you have pointed out, the tests don't bring magic results. The nitty-gritty work is still there to be done. And I didn't detect any claim in your report that said anyone has discovered any new ancestors as a direct consequence of getting his test results. You may recall that in my first post on this topic I said I didn't think the time had yet arrived for the investment of time and money in a similar study for the PENCEs (which I have been collecting data on for 35 years). You put your finger on a couple of the reasons, cost being an important one. Another is that - like the Lovelxxx family - many of the real problems are with "orphan families" in which the surname has died out (and this is one reason why the got orphaned - when a surname disappears from a family, so does the desire to keep records on it). There is another reason - and that is the need is not a pressing. Most of the Pence family (the surname was originally BENTZ) came to the U.S. from various places in what is generally now Germany in the early 1700s and it is possible to identify many of the lines "back to the boat" because better records exist than might exist for the 1600s and early 1700s in Virginia or Maryland. IOW, the group is generally known. If not, the question is "how would it help researchers to know which group." For example, In one case, four men named PENCE showed up in Virginia's Shenandoah County in the late 1770s and early 1780s. These are believed to be brothers (at least by me in the case of three of them) and it would be nice to know if in fact they are. But since we know the general (even specific in a couple of cases) area of Pennsylvania from which they came, the value of knowing this is limited. The research would still have to be directed to the same places as they now are. > Thanks for you time and for listening. Be sure to visit the links > above. Seeing the results is much better than me telling you about > them. On the contrary, your message was a much better explanation than the tables and charts at the web site. 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>