In a message dated 05/02/2003 9:14:35 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: > Perhaps this question has been answered, but I am wondering why the male > surname must be HANCOCK if there is absolute proof that Hancock is a > direct family name? Does it have to do with the number of times the > name is removed from the Hancock family tree by diluting the study? > Thanks for the information in advance. > Judi It doesn't dilute the DNA, to have a female break the line, it ends it. The y-chromosome DNA is only passed male to male. A daughter doesn't receive it, so it must be a male with the Hancock surname all the way down. Not fair is it? But we have, finally, found out what we need men for. <g> Julia