What I think Perry was saying is that we also need paper trails back. For instance, I descend from John Horton who married Isabel Kendrick. In this case, the Horton line is "daughtered out" (sorry ladies) because Sarah Horton married John Bradshaw. John and Sarah's daughter, Eliza, married, here we go again, Perry, Johnson Horton. So we have a paper trail back to Hugh through John. Phyllis being a descendant through this line also provides a good paper trail. When Perry and I did the DNA test, we ended up with 1 mutation at 37 markers. The probability that we shared a common ancestor at the 6th generation level was about 90%. That line also goes back to Hugh, through John Horton's brother William, who also married a Kendrick. The "y" DNA is only passed through the male line. So what we're looking for is paper trails from the female Horton descendants, who probably know more than we, to clarify the two Hugh Horton lines. Am I correct Perry? mtDNA take one back into the thousands of years and one cannot tell ancestor probability using it. Am I correct Jackie? Frank Horton