Ernie is correct in his statement that John and William were brothers is likely a perpetuation of old information. The origin may be the same as that of John's father was Gideon. In any case, we now know that neither are true statements. The connection of John to his English line is an interesting possibility. It turns out that John's male descendants, including myself and four other tested members of the Hayden DNA project, all have a very rare combination of two loci values. So rare that there is only a 0.003% chance of it occurring by chance. A Hyden male was also found to have this rare combination so he is now known to somehow be connected to John. The connection is likely to have occurred prior to immigration to America. Descendants of William do not exhibit this combination of values. It is even more fortunate that these two loci occur in the first 12 marker panel of results which means it is the least expensive test. This means we can test English "cousins" at a relatively low cost to establish a connection with high confidence. Alas, no English "cousins" have yet agreed to participate or even expressed any interest even though we have some financial support for such a test. Because descendants of William, Francis and various Irish Haydens do not exhibit this rare combination, it will be more expensive and less certain to screen using DNA for their English or Irish ancestors. Steve -----Original Message----- From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ernie Jones Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:17 PM To: hayden@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] John of 1630 I had seen this before but don't recall where. Perhaps not a myth but the perpetuation of old information that was once believed true and the modern evidence does not support. Bottom line is still the same though. However the information at http://www.hayden.org/hayden/hayden1.htm. still indicates this connection. ( I almost accepted that connection even though I had seen the info on the Stith Valley site. I had just not realized that I was looking at the same wrong connection until now.) Not sure who should be notified to either remove that or place disclaimers there. Is there any indication that this William who was once believed to be the brother of John is older or younger and if he did have the Baronet title? One thing I am getting from this is that those of us that are in the line of John from 1630'ish is that we really don't have any information that takes the family back any further. Is that correct? Thanks Ernie