Kit #162376 James Kilgore of SC appears to be a false lineage. This one doesn't match the other 3 James Kilgore of SC's kits: 112473, 61976, 114727. It would appear that the contributor has made an error in his genealogy and connected his ancestor to the wrong James Kilgore. This line appears to be connected to Thomas Kilgore of MD. The other kit numbers for James of SC show they aren't closely connected to Charles Kilgore of Greene Co #134404/134024 or Thomas Kilgore 134747/135160 Vickie ----- Original Message ----- From: Jack Templeton<mailto:jacktempleton27@me.com> To: Kilgore@rootsweb.com<mailto:Kilgore@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [KILGORE] Kilgore- John's Genetic Distance Experimental Table John, Your thought process reminds me of a framed Thos Edison quotation which I kept above my desk @ work- "There's a way to do it better, FIND IT". In the area of YDNA test interpretations, you sound like another Thos Edison. I think you hit on something. Comparison of your modified & unmodified Genetic Distance tables appears to tighten up (reduce Genetic Distances [GD's] in the following areas: (1) 134747/135160 reduced from 1 to 0, the 2 Thos (MD)'s appear to be identical (2) 133184/53335 appear to be identical. 160254 appears to also be a descendant of the same Wm[GA]. I didn't have his ancestor listed. (3) 134088 (James W.) now appears to be identical with the other 2 James W's 134024/134403 (4) Closer match between Thos (MD) & Chas (1740), Wm (GA), James W. & James, SC (5) " " " Wm (GA) & Thos (MD), Chas (1740) & James (SC) (6) " " " Chas (1740) & Thos (MD), Am (GA) & Jame M. This is all based on a cursory comparison. Jack T. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KILGORE-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:KILGORE-request@rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I've had the nagging feeling that there are important bits of information luring in the results data, but that we just can't see it. So in another attempt to make patterns visible, I eliminated all the information except for 4 values that seem to define the various Kilgore lines. These are: DYS 439 in the first panel of 12 markers. Most Kilgores on the results page have 12 in this spot, but some have 13. DYS 449 in the second panel. Most in the list have 29, but the descendants of James W (and "Henry") have 30. DYS 456 in the third panel. Most have 16, but the descendants of Charles have 15. CDYb in the third panel. Some have 38, some 39. The chart I made can be viewed here: http://johnkilgore.com/kilgoregen/DYSTable.htm When you remove the noise of all the other little mutations, some very interesting things appear: Joseph's line and Peter Kilgo's line become identical with James of SC. I think this represents the "original" lineage found in Scotland. The fact that Peter Kilgo is otherwise so distant seems to indicate that this is the common denominator from which the Irish, and later, American families diverged. James W.'s line developed the mutation that changed DYS 449 from 29 to 30. I believe that the 30 that shows in "Henry's" kit represents a new mutation from 29 to 30, but it would take more tests of other relatives of his to confirm this. I think this because Henry is otherwise identical to the Charles line. Charles' line contains the newest familial mutation at DYS 456 from 16 to 15. I do think Charles (or possibly Charles' father) is a nephew or grandnephew of either Thomas or Thomas' father. This new way of looking at the information seems to bear this out. I think the change from 13 to 12 at DYS 439 happened in the Kilgores who moved to Ireland, as both James W and Thomas' line show this mutation, though James W had a 30 at 449 instead of the standard Kilgore 29. I think the change from 38 to 39 at CDYb happened in Thomas' line and was passed to Charles' line somehow. I put Isaac's kit number in parenthesis because he has a 40 at CDYb. Since these locations can only mutate by one, that means his immediate ancestors had a 39. As we get more test results, some of this will come into even sharper focus. JK

PS - forgot to mention that I think James M.'s kit also has a newer mutation from 39 back to 38, as he also is otherwise identical to Charles. I used asterisks on the two columns that I thought were new, more recent, mutations. Again, we'd need more members of these lines to see what's really up. JK