Phyllis wrote: QUOTE: <It's true that Y-DNA is "diluted" after so many generations. But depending on the number of markers tested and compared, it is still a pretty good predictor of possible paternal ancestry. It can't "name" a person as a male's paternal ancestor, it only shows who, in his lineage, could have been a common ancestor to another person with the same results as his.> I'm not sure, but this sounds to me like you're suggesting that the Y-DNA is fragile, whereas I thought that the mtDNA is the more fragile one. As it is, the whole Y-DNA sequence is not diluted...it is only certain markers within the sequence that are subject to "rapid" mutation. Scientists know which markers these are, and you can see this information within the Family Tree DNA site. And actually, if you share a common grandfather or great-grandfather, you much more closely related than someone who shares a common ancestor with you from say 1500 years ago. It is also not necessary that you share a same surname...to show you are related. My cousin had a perfect match on 12 markers, which indicated that our common ancestor were thousands of years ago. Recently, he had a perfect match on 25 markers, with a male with whom we don't share a surnames. The probability of "our" common ancestor is 3-13 generations ago (50% probability to a 95% pobability)! Since Family Tree DNA uses an average of 25 years to define a generation, that means, at this point, this person is related to us 75-325 years ago. Not a very long time ago in terms of genetics! And since our GRgf live until 98 or 102 years, you can see how this brings the probability "closer to home" so to speak! Both my cousin and this other man are updating their results to 37 markers...so we'll see how truly close we are related. When one gets results that are so close within a few generations, and the testees don't share the same surname, it can indicate an adoption, or a false paternity. So buyer, beware. If you've had any philandering ancestors, as have I, you may learn more than you want! As it is, I was able to determine by the age of this match, that he didn't belong to my immediate past philandering ancestor. Still, the results are intriguing! Phyllis, it pays to remember when testing DNA, that early "conquerors" would rape and pillage, and divide the spoils. For our genetics discussion...emphasis on rape! Read info on Gheingus Kahn's many genetic relatives, and you may find your Asian link there! Patricia