WHICH holiday, you ask? Why Christmas, of course. (If someone's celebrating a pagan fertility holiday in our name, I'd sure like to know about it!) A search for the Pipka KINCAID-kilted Santa figurine on Ebay produced 17 results: http://shop.ebay.com/items/_W0QQ_nkwZMacNicholasQQ_armrsZ1QQ_fromZR40QQ_mdoZ The KINKEAD Drambuie eggnog goes down smoother than ever, making up for the price of Drambuie being up to $35 this year. A yard or two of KINCAID tartan makes an ideal Christmas tree skirt. Hallmark makes some beautiful Thomas KINKADE Christmas cards, even musical ones. My vision of the KINCAID House in Milton done up in Christmas finery was undone last year on my visit which revealed the fact that Scots aren't very much into public Christmas displays; they save it all for Hogmanay, which KINCAID Hoose does up right. I used the KINCAID tartan pattern as a background for a wallpaper-sized display of my Christmas stamp collection at work, which set it off nicely. Now, as *Maxine© might say, it's time for _another_ KINKEAD eggnog! Dick Kinkead 2562, A1a Lantana, FL, where it's thundering and lightning outside, believe it or not. * http://www.hallmark.com/Maxine

I have also attempted to post a McClaren timeline but it has not come through yet. Sincerely Norman Kincaide ----- Original Message ---- From: Norman Kincaide <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 3:48:58 PM Subject: [KINCAID] Adam Orey family Dear Kincaid listers, I have been researching the McClaren and Orey families in connection with the Kincaids in Pennsylvania..  Mathew McClaren married Mary Kinkead, daughter of George Kinkead of Toboyne Township, Cumberland County, PA.  Mathew later settled in Derry Township, Westmoreland County, PA, his brother, Hugh settled in Salem Township, Westmoreland County, PA.  Andrew Kinkead, son of George Kinkead settled in Derry Township, Westmoreland County, PA and John Kinkead, his brother and my ancestor, settled in Salem Township, Westmoreland County, PA.  In researching the McClarens I found Adam Orey to be an adjacent land owner to Hugh McClaren in a survey of Hugh McClaren's land.  Adam Orey was an early settler in Shenango Township, Crawford County, PA where Michael Kinkead also settled.  I have been trying to find out when my Kincaid line came into contact with the Michael Kincaid line, which I believe intermarried when Robert Kincaid (1782-1842) married Mary Kinkead, sister of my John Kinkead who married Elizabeth Smith.  Here is a timeline for the Orey family. Sincerely Norman Kincaide 1762    Francis Owrey warranted 20 acres in Cumberland County, PA, June 10, 1762.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 24, p. 739. 1762    Francis Owrey warranted 100 acres in Cumberland County, PA, June 10, 1762.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 24, p. 739. 1766    Francis Ourey warranted 150 acres in Antrim Township, Cumberland County, PA, Feb. 5, 1766.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 24, p. 740. 1766    Francis Ourey.  A draught of a tract of land situate in Antrim Township, Cumberland County, PA, containing             two hundred forty three acres and one hundred perches with the usual allowance of six acres percent for roads.             Surveyed for Francis Ourey the 14th day of February 1766, in pursuance of a warrant dated, June 10, 1762.             Adjacent land owners: Francis Ourey’s other land, George Cook, Jacob Frosh, John Leab, William Petty,             Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Copied Surveys, 1681-1912, A-7, p. 125. 1766    Francis Ourey.  A draught of a tract of land situate in Antrim Township, Cumberland County, PA, containing             containing two hundred thirty one acres and one half and the usual allowance of six acres per cent for roads.             Surveyed for Francis Ourey the 14th day of February 1766 in pursuance of a warrant dated February 5, 1766.             Adjacent land owners: Thomas Stoops, William Patty, Francis Ourey’s other land, John Smith, Daniel McCoy.             Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Copied Surveys, 1681-1912, C-148, p. 146. 1785    Adam Orey warranted 300 acres in Salem Township, Westmoreland County, PA, May 24, 1785.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 26, p. 485. 1785    Adam Orey.  In pursuance of a warrant dated the 24th day of May 1785 was surveyed for Adam Orey in trust for the heirs of             Francis Orey, deceased, the above tract of land containing three hundred and fourteen acres, one hundred five perches with an             allowance proportioned to six percent.  Situate on the waters of White Thorn Run adjoining land of James McKee, David             Larremer, and others in Hempfield Township, Westmoreland County, PA, surveyed, Nov. 7, 1785.  Adjacent landowners:             Charles Foreman’s land, Patrick Callon’s land, Hugh McClarran’s land, James McKee’s land, David Larremer’s claim,             William Freaman’s land.  Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Copied Surveys, 1681-1912, C-148, p. 170. 1786    Christopher Orrey patented 312.80 acres on July 31, 1786, warrantee, Christopher Orrey, January 18, 1786,             Orreysburg, Westmoreland County, PA.  Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Patent Index, P Series, 1781-1794, p. 240. 1793    Adam Orrey.  In pursuance of a warrant dated Dec. 18, 1788, there was surveyed for Adam Orrey the above described tract             of land containing one hundred and ten acres with an allowance proportioned to six per cent situate in Salem Township,             Westmoreland County, PA, surveyed, April 16, 1793.  Adjacent land owners: Hugh McClarron’s land, John Wilson’s land, Nicholas Silves land, John Hays’s land, Robert Hays land, Christian Swartz land.  Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Copied Surveys, 1681-1912, C-184, p. 34. 1797    Adam Orey (in trust) patented 314.105 acres on April 5, 1797, warrantee, Adam Orey (in trust), May 24, 1785,             Clover Hill, Salem Township, Westmoreland County, PA.  Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Patent Index, P Series, 1792-1800, p. 236-237. 1798    Michael Kincaid.  [000004] Other pioneers to the township [Shenango] were: Fisher Lanty, who came prior to 1798; Adam Owry, Revolutionary War soldier, who also came in 1797 or earlier; his brother John, whose reason was dethroned in consequence of injuries sustained while running an Indian gauntlet; Samuel Rogers, Hugh Andrews, James Calvin, James Hart, Michael Kincaid,             Robert Kilpatrick, George Linn, John & Robert Lee, David McKee, . . . History of Crawford County, PA, p. 690.             See the following link: http://files.usgwarchives.net/pa/westmoreland/bios/ourya0001.txt             See the following link: http://files.usgwarchives.net/pa/westmoreland/military/ouryg0001.txt       To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dear Kincaid listers, here is a McClaren family timeline. Sincerely Norman Kincaide McClaren family of Pennsylvania   1766       John McClarin taxed in East Nottingham, Chester County, PA for 50 acres, 2 horses, 2 cows. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 11, p. 156. 1768       John Kincade, inmate, taxed in East Nottingham Township, Chester County, PA. Provincial Tax of 1768. 1768       John McClernon taxed in East Nottingham, Chester County, PA for 20 acres, 1 horse, 1 cow. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 11, p. 428. 1769       John Kincade, weaver, taxed in East Nottingham Township, Chester County, PA for 1 horse, 1 cow.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 9, p. 573.. 1769       John McClaron taxed in East Nottingham, Chester County, PA for 30 acres, 1 horse, 1 cow, 1 sheep. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 11, p. 573. 1771       John Kinkead, labourer, taxed in East Nottingham Township, Chester County, PA for 100 acres, 1 horse,1 cow, 2 sheep.     Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 9, p. 742. 1771       John McClarn taxed in East Nottingham, Chester County, PA for 30 acres, 1 horse, 2 cows, 3 sheep. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 11, p. 743.. 1773       John Kinkead, East Nottingham Township, posted a recognizance bond at Chester County Court of Quarter Sessions, February 1773 for James Campbell. Chester County Archives & Records Service, Index to Quarter Sessions Indictment Records, 1681-1778, K. 1773    John Kinkade, victim/complainant, riot, February 1773, against Robert Criswell, East Nottingham Township, Chester County, PA.       Chester County Archives & Records Service, Index to Quarter Sessions Indictment Records, 1681-1778, C. 1774       John McClaron taxed in East Nottingham, Chester County, PA for 60 acres, 1 horse, 2 cows, 4 sheep. Pennsylvania Archives, v. s. 3, 12, 102. 1777       James McClaren, private, Capt. Matthew Gregg’s Company, 1st Battalion, Cumberland County, PA Militia, called out by order of Council, July 28, 1777. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 2, v. 15, p.   564. (Active battalion, 1st, billet battalion, 2nd) 1778    Matthew McCleran, private, 8th Class, 2nd Company, Capt. Charles Leeper, 2nd Battalion, Cumberland County, PA  Militia, “Dqt.” Order from Council, dated, March 25, 1778.  Fine Book of John Carothers, Cnty. Lt. p. 197.            Pennsylvania State Archives Online Card File 1779       James McClarin taxed in West Pennsborough Township, Cumberland County, PA for 150 acres, 2 horses, 5 cows.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 20, p. 238. 1779       Hugh McClarin, freeman, taxed in West Pennsborough Township, Cumberland County, PA. Pennsylvania Archives,  s. 3, v. 20, p. 243. 1779       Matthew McClarin, freeman, taxed in West Pennsborough Township, Cumberland County, PA. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 20, p. 243. 1780    Thomas McClarron taxed in Northern Liberties, East Part, Philadelphia, valuation, 2,900, tax, 8.14.0.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 15, p. 345. 1780    Hugh McClaren, private, 4th Class, 7th Company, 4th Battalion, Cumberland County, PA Militia.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 23, p. 704. 1781       Mary Kinkead, [4164] daughter of George Kinkead [4164] of Toboyne Township, Cumberland County, PA,    married Matthew McCleran, January 4, 1781, Centre Presbyterian Church,  Sherman’s Valley, Cumberland County, PA, Rev. Linn’s Marriages. 1781    James McClerrin taxed in Northern Liberties, East Part, Philadelphia, valuation 100, tax, 1.6.0.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 15, 685. 1781    Hugh McClaren, private, 4th Class, 7th Company, 4th Battalion, Cumberland County, PA Militia.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 23, p. 747, 766. 1782    James McClaron taxed in Mulberry Ward, West Part, Philadelphia, PA, valuation, 25, tax, 2.8.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 16, p. 460. 1783       Matthew McClarn, [4164] private, on list of soldiers, Cumberland County, PA Militia who received depreciation pay.    Pennsylvania Archives, s. 5, v. 4, p. 294. 1785    Hugh McClearn warranted 250 acres in Westmoreland County, PA, July 13, 1785.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 26, p. 465. 1785    Hugh McClearn.  In pursuance of a warrant dated the 13th day of July 1785 was surveyed for Hugh McClearn the above  described tract of land containing two hundred and seventy-three acres and 43 perches with an allowance proportioned to    six per cent adjoining land of Adam Orey, James McKee and others in Hempfield Township, Westmoreland County, PA,  surveyed Nov. 8th, 1785.  Adjacent landowners: Adam Orey, Patrick Callons, John Wilson’s claim, Wert’s land, heirs of William Hamilton, James McKee’s land.  John Moore, D.S. John Lukens, Esq. Surveyor General.  Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Copied Surveys, 1681-1912, C-153, p. 139. 1785    John McCleran warranted 295 acres in Northumberland County, PA, Oct. 28, 1785.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 25, p. 240. 1786       Matthew McClarin [4164] taxed in Hempfield Township, Westmoreland County, PA for 1.1. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 22, p. 509. 1786    Hugh McClarren taxed in Hempfield Township, Westmoreland County, PA for 1.2.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 22, p. 510. 1787    John McClarn taxed in Lycoming Township, Northumberland County for 195 acres, tax, 4.1.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 19, p. 788. 1790       Matthew McClerron, [4164] Derry Township, Westmoreland County, PA, 1 male over 16, 5 females. USFC, p. 260. 1790    Hugh McClerren, Salem Township, Westmoreland County, PA, 1 male over 16, 2 males under 16, 4 females. USFC, p. 266.1855    Hugh McClaran warranted 1 ¾ acres in Indiana County, PA, April 9, 1855.  PennsylvaniaArchives, s. 3, v. 26, p. 673.

Dear Kincaid listers, here is a McClaren family timeline. Sincerely Norman Kincaide McClaren family of Pennsylvania   1766       John McClarin taxed in East Nottingham, Chester County, PA for 50 acres, 2 horses, 2 cows. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 11, p. 156. 1768       John Kincade, inmate, taxed in East Nottingham Township, Chester County, PA. Provincial Tax of 1768. 1768       John McClernon taxed in East Nottingham, Chester County, PA for 20 acres, 1 horse, 1 cow. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 11, p. 428. 1769       John Kincade, weaver, taxed in East Nottingham Township, Chester County, PA for 1 horse, 1 cow.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 9, p. 573.. 1769       John McClaron taxed in East Nottingham, Chester County, PA for 30 acres, 1 horse, 1 cow, 1 sheep. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 11, p. 573. 1771       John Kinkead, labourer, taxed in East Nottingham Township, Chester County, PA for 100 acres, 1 horse,1 cow, 2 sheep.     Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 9, p. 742. 1771       John McClarn taxed in East Nottingham, Chester County, PA for 30 acres, 1 horse, 2 cows, 3 sheep. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 11, p. 743. 1773       John Kinkead, East Nottingham Township, posted a recognizance bond at Chester County Court of Quarter Sessions, February 1773 for James Campbell. Chester County Archives & Records Service, Index to Quarter Sessions Indictment Records, 1681-1778, K. 1773    John Kinkade, victim/complainant, riot, February 1773, against Robert Criswell, East Nottingham Township, Chester County, PA.             Chester County Archives & Records Service, Index to Quarter Sessions Indictment Records, 1681-1778, C. 1774       John McClaron taxed in East Nottingham, Chester County, PA for 60 acres, 1 horse, 2 cows, 4 sheep. Pennsylvania Archives, v. s. 3, 12, 102. 1777       James McClaren, private, Capt. Matthew Gregg’s Company, 1st Battalion, Cumberland County, PA Militia, called out by             order of Council, July 28, 1777. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 2, v. 15, p.   564. (Active battalion, 1st, billet battalion, 2nd) 1778    Matthew McCleran, private, 8th Class, 2nd Company, Capt. Charles Leeper, 2nd Battalion, Cumberland County, PA             Militia, “Dqt.” Order from Council, dated, March 25, 1778.  Fine Book of John Carothers, Cnty. Lt. p. 197.             Pennsylvania State Archives Online Card File 1779       James McClarin taxed in West Pennsborough Township, Cumberland County, PA for 150 acres, 2 horses, 5 cows.    Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 20, p. 238. 1779       Hugh McClarin, freeman, taxed in West Pennsborough Township, Cumberland County, PA. Pennsylvania Archives,    s. 3, v. 20, p. 243. 1779       Matthew McClarin, freeman, taxed in West Pennsborough Township, Cumberland County, PA. Pennsylvania             Archives, s. 3, v.. 20, p. 243. 1780    Thomas McClarron taxed in Northern Liberties, East Part, Philadelphia, valuation, 2,900, tax, 8.14.0.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 15, p. 345. 1780    Hugh McClaren, private, 4th Class, 7th Company, 4th Battalion, Cumberland County, PA Militia.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 23, p. 704. 1781       Mary Kinkead, [4164] daughter of George Kinkead [4164] of Toboyne Township, Cumberland County, PA,    married Matthew McCleran, January 4, 1781, Centre Presbyterian Church,  Sherman’s Valley, Cumberland County, PA,             Rev. Linn’s Marriages. 1781    James McClerrin taxed in Northern Liberties, East Part, Philadelphia, valuation 100, tax, 1.6.0.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 15, 685. 1781    Hugh McClaren, private, 4th Class, 7th Company, 4th Battalion, Cumberland County, PA Militia.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 23, p. 747, 766. 1782    James McClaron taxed in Mulberry Ward, West Part, Philadelphia, PA, valuation, 25, tax, 2.8.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 16, p. 460. 1783       Matthew McClarn, [4164] private, on list of soldiers, Cumberland County, PA Militia who received depreciation pay.             Pennsylvania Archives, s. 5, v. 4, p. 294. 1785    Hugh McClearn warranted 250 acres in Westmoreland County, PA, July 13, 1785.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 26, p. 465. 1785    Hugh McClearn.  In pursuance of a warrant dated the 13th day of July 1785 was surveyed for Hugh McClearn the above             described tract of land containing two hundred and seventy-three acres and 43 perches with an allowance proportioned to             six per cent adjoining land of Adam Orey, James McKee and others in Hempfield Township, Westmoreland County, PA,             surveyed Nov. 8th, 1785.  Adjacent landowners: Adam Orey, Patrick Callons, John Wilson’s claim, Wert’s land, heirs of             William Hamilton, James McKee’s land.  John Moore, D.S. John Lukens, Esq. Surveyor General.  Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Copied Surveys, 1681-1912, C-153, p. 139. 1785    John McCleran warranted 295 acres in Northumberland County, PA, Oct. 28, 1785.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 25, p. 240. 1786       Matthew McClarin [4164] taxed in Hempfield Township, Westmoreland County, PA for 1.1. Pennsylvania Archives,             s. 3, v. 22, p. 509. 1786    Hugh McClarren taxed in Hempfield Township, Westmoreland County, PA for 1.2.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 22, p. 510. 1787    John McClarn taxed in Lycoming Township, Northumberland County for 195 acres, tax, 4.1.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 19, p. 788. 1790       Matthew McClerron, [4164] Derry Township, Westmoreland County, PA, 1 male over 16, 5 females. USFC, p. 260. 1790    Hugh McClerren, Salem Township, Westmoreland County, PA, 1 male over 16, 2 males under 16, 4 females. USFC, p. 266.1855    Hugh McClaran warranted 1 ¾ acres in Indiana County, PA, April 9, 1855.  PennsylvaniaArchives, s. 3, v. 26, p. 673.

Dear Kincaid listers, I have been researching the McClaren and Orey families in connection with the Kincaids in Pennsylvania.  Mathew McClaren married Mary Kinkead, daughter of George Kinkead of Toboyne Township, Cumberland County, PA.  Mathew later settled in Derry Township, Westmoreland County, PA, his brother, Hugh settled in Salem Township, Westmoreland County, PA.  Andrew Kinkead, son of George Kinkead settled in Derry Township, Westmoreland County, PA and John Kinkead, his brother and my ancestor, settled in Salem Township, Westmoreland County, PA.  In researching the McClarens I found Adam Orey to be an adjacent land owner to Hugh McClaren in a survey of Hugh McClaren's land.  Adam Orey was an early settler in Shenango Township, Crawford County, PA where Michael Kinkead also settled.  I have been trying to find out when my Kincaid line came into contact with the Michael Kincaid line, which I believe intermarried when Robert Kincaid (1782-1842) married Mary Kinkead, sister of my John Kinkead who married Elizabeth Smith.  Here is a timeline for the Orey family. Sincerely Norman Kincaide 1762    Francis Owrey warranted 20 acres in Cumberland County, PA, June 10, 1762.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 24, p. 739. 1762    Francis Owrey warranted 100 acres in Cumberland County, PA, June 10, 1762.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 24, p. 739. 1766    Francis Ourey warranted 150 acres in Antrim Township, Cumberland County, PA, Feb. 5, 1766.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 24, p. 740. 1766    Francis Ourey.  A draught of a tract of land situate in Antrim Township, Cumberland County, PA, containing             two hundred forty three acres and one hundred perches with the usual allowance of six acres percent for roads.             Surveyed for Francis Ourey the 14th day of February 1766, in pursuance of a warrant dated, June 10, 1762.             Adjacent land owners: Francis Ourey’s other land, George Cook, Jacob Frosh, John Leab, William Petty,             Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Copied Surveys, 1681-1912, A-7, p. 125. 1766    Francis Ourey.  A draught of a tract of land situate in Antrim Township, Cumberland County, PA, containing             containing two hundred thirty one acres and one half and the usual allowance of six acres per cent for roads.             Surveyed for Francis Ourey the 14th day of February 1766 in pursuance of a warrant dated February 5, 1766.             Adjacent land owners: Thomas Stoops, William Patty, Francis Ourey’s other land, John Smith, Daniel McCoy.             Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Copied Surveys, 1681-1912, C-148, p. 146. 1785    Adam Orey warranted 300 acres in Salem Township, Westmoreland County, PA, May 24, 1785.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 26, p. 485. 1785    Adam Orey.  In pursuance of a warrant dated the 24th day of May 1785 was surveyed for Adam Orey in trust for the heirs of             Francis Orey, deceased, the above tract of land containing three hundred and fourteen acres, one hundred five perches with an             allowance proportioned to six percent.  Situate on the waters of White Thorn Run adjoining land of James McKee, David             Larremer, and others in Hempfield Township, Westmoreland County, PA, surveyed, Nov. 7, 1785.  Adjacent landowners:             Charles Foreman’s land, Patrick Callon’s land, Hugh McClarran’s land, James McKee’s land, David Larremer’s claim,             William Freaman’s land.  Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Copied Surveys, 1681-1912, C-148, p. 170. 1786    Christopher Orrey patented 312.80 acres on July 31, 1786, warrantee, Christopher Orrey, January 18, 1786,             Orreysburg, Westmoreland County, PA.  Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Patent Index, P Series, 1781-1794, p. 240. 1793    Adam Orrey.  In pursuance of a warrant dated Dec. 18, 1788, there was surveyed for Adam Orrey the above described tract             of land containing one hundred and ten acres with an allowance proportioned to six per cent situate in Salem Township,             Westmoreland County, PA, surveyed, April 16, 1793.  Adjacent land owners: Hugh McClarron’s land, John Wilson’s land, Nicholas Silves land, John Hays’s land, Robert Hays land, Christian Swartz land.  Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Copied Surveys, 1681-1912, C-184, p. 34. 1797    Adam Orey (in trust) patented 314.105 acres on April 5, 1797, warrantee, Adam Orey (in trust), May 24, 1785,             Clover Hill, Salem Township, Westmoreland County, PA.  Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Patent Index, P Series, 1792-1800, p. 236-237. 1798    Michael Kincaid.  [000004] Other pioneers to the township [Shenango] were: Fisher Lanty, who came prior to 1798; Adam Owry, Revolutionary War soldier, who also came in 1797 or earlier; his brother John, whose reason was dethroned in consequence of injuries sustained while running an Indian gauntlet; Samuel Rogers, Hugh Andrews, James Calvin, James Hart, Michael Kincaid,             Robert Kilpatrick, George Linn, John & Robert Lee, David McKee, . . . History of Crawford County, PA, p. 690.             See the following link: http://files.usgwarchives.net/pa/westmoreland/bios/ourya0001.txt             See the following link: http://files.usgwarchives.net/pa/westmoreland/military/ouryg0001.txt

Peter, 36 of the first 37 markers have the selected marker AAV prevalent in both sets 1 and 2. I have conceded that the AAV for marker 15 is a guess. There are ancestors who did not immigrate into Colonial America (both US and Canada) in both sets. In A1: 94749, 2617, and 23547. In A2: 2519. There are undoubtedly others whose ancestors arrived after the Colonial periods (I am using 1867 as the end to the Canadian Colonial period. Is this correct?) but I don't know their lineages well enough to include them in the list. That there are descendents of US Colonial immigrants who happen to match the AAV exactly on these 36 markers is totally irrelevant to the AAV selection for each marker. The AAV selection is outlined in the trailer I purposely left on. Again note that the selections except on marker 15 are based on values occuring in both sets. If you removed all US participants Group A would shrink to the point where there is not enough data to predict an AAV on several markers but the AAV for the vast majority of markers would remain the same. Set 4 would dominate in number of participants (who all seem to trace to a single historic ancestor) but may not have been placed in a group with the others because of the number of variances. Set 2b would disappear entirely. Set 2a would have one participant. Set 1c may have 1 participant. Set 1b would disappear. Set 1a would have 2 participants. Groups B & C1 (both groups seem to have a possible common ancestor for the majority of participants within historic times) would have participant weight equal to the new Group A but their values would not affect the AAV for Group A. The whole project would shrink to the point where it would be quite difficult to draw any conclusions at all. Note: I did not look up current residences of the actual participants so the numbers above are guesses based on memory and chart info for furthest ancestor but will serve to illustrate my point. Exactly what is your point. Sue Liedtke >I think my point was misunderstood. It is maintained > that the AAV values are represented by set 1a values. > My point is that I don't think this represents the > ancestral values for group A since none of the participants > outside the US match them. Most of the American > participants have Colonial American roots with presumed, > but yet undetermined connections, to each other. Their > DNA should be close to each other and you should > get a number of exact or close matches. This is the > case. Just because we over sampled this large family > does not mean their AAV is the true ancestral values. > > Let me propose a hypothetical scenario which may > highlight my point better for you and generate a > fresh look at the data. Suppose DNA testing was > banned in the US and we did not have a DNA tests > from participants in the US. Thus, our project only > consisted of those Kincaids who hailed from outside > the US. The AAV for them is then different. > Unless we get paticipants from outside the US with > values lining up with set 1a, then the true ancestral > values is not determined but not likely that of set 1a. > > Best wishes! > > Peter > > P.S. I greatly respect the work of Sue and Don. I am > just debating one of the assertions made given my > perspective of the data. > > > > It is not the "exact" matches across all the markers that determine the > AAV > but rather the results so far at each marker, whether the same result > appears across sets and whether variances are up and down from the most > frequent value. Concentrating on only "exact" matches across the entire > test to draw conclusions is extremely limiting when clearly there are > scattered mutations that have occured within a known time period. > > If I have counted correctly (and I may not have) 15 of the first 37 > markers > do not show any mutation at all. The AAV value at those markers is > unquestionable. > > 8 markers have a single incident of mutation. The AAV for these markers > also > cannot be questioned. To my way of thinking the single mutation would be > of > recent origin i.e. the common ancestor with others within the set did not > have that mutation. It can be disregarded unless someone else in the same > set shows up with it. > > 7 markers have 2-5 individuals with mutations. The mutations are > scattered > without an apparent pattern and are not always the same value (some are > up > and some are down). Here again I believe that they are downline from the > common ancestor for the set they are in. > > That leaves 7 markers which have some concentration of participants > having a > given mutation value. > > Mutations in the CDY complex (markers 34 & 35) are common, scattered > across > sets or grouped within sets. There appears to have been multiple > incidences > of parallel mutations both up and down. The values chosen for the AAV > appear > more frequently, have values up and down away from them, and appear in > every > set (except set 4 in the case of CDYa). > > 3 markers (437, 460, 456) are subset defining. There is a definate > grouping > within a set that can be descerned using those markers. The overwhelming > majority of individuals in both sets have the assigned AAV for these > markers. . > > Marker 4 (391) appears to mutate readily from a 12 to an 11 with several > proven parallel mutations. Although the mutation appears as a subset > defining marker by default, its history makes basing probable closer > relationship between those who have it iffy. The AAV is undoubtedly 12 as > that value appears across all subsets and has not in any case been shown > to > be the result of parallel mutation. > > That leaves us with marker 15 (459b) with 2 possible Apparent Ancestral > Values. Eventually we may have sufficient data and documentation to show > whether the 10 or the 9 is the correct AAV but perhaps we will never > know. > The chosen AAV at this marker is a guess. 10 is the most frequent result > across ALL other Rb1 groups in the project. This marker appears to be > quite > stable at 10. The 10 appears in a descendent of James and Helen Scott who > married in Scotland in 1669. This family did not leave Scotland until > well > after the early colonial immigrants arrived on this side of the Atlantic. > We > can have as arguements as we would like about how the first Kincaid > ancestor > had a mutation to 9 and a branch of his family then mutated back to the > RB1 > value of 10. Given the stability of the value 9 among non-RB1 groups > makes > this less likely. > > There is a possibility that a parallel mutation to 9 did take place in > the > case of 49289. Documentation suggests an A-1 ancestor. Hopefully we will > have another test for this line that will either confirm the value or > suggest that a parallel mutation took place. > > Sue Liedtke >

I think my point was misunderstood. It is maintained that the AAV values are represented by set 1a values. My point is that I don't think this represents the ancestral values for group A since none of the participants outside the US match them. Most of the American participants have Colonial American roots with presumed, but yet undetermined connections, to each other. Their DNA should be close to each other and you should get a number of exact or close matches. This is the case. Just because we over sampled this large family does not mean their AAV is the true ancestral values. Let me propose a hypothetical scenario which may highlight my point better for you and generate a fresh look at the data. Suppose DNA testing was banned in the US and we did not have a DNA tests from participants in the US. Thus, our project only consisted of those Kincaids who hailed from outside the US. The AAV for them is then different. Unless we get paticipants from outside the US with values lining up with set 1a, then the true ancestral values is not determined but not likely that of set 1a. Best wishes! Peter P.S. I greatly respect the work of Sue and Don. I am just debating one of the assertions made given my perspective of the data. ----- Original Message ----- From: Sue Liedtke To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] 67 marker DNA test analysis & info on TheGatheringofthe Clans in Scotland It is not the "exact" matches across all the markers that determine the AAV but rather the results so far at each marker, whether the same result appears across sets and whether variances are up and down from the most frequent value. Concentrating on only "exact" matches across the entire test to draw conclusions is extremely limiting when clearly there are scattered mutations that have occured within a known time period. If I have counted correctly (and I may not have) 15 of the first 37 markers do not show any mutation at all. The AAV value at those markers is unquestionable. 8 markers have a single incident of mutation. The AAV for these markers also cannot be questioned. To my way of thinking the single mutation would be of recent origin i.e. the common ancestor with others within the set did not have that mutation. It can be disregarded unless someone else in the same set shows up with it. 7 markers have 2-5 individuals with mutations. The mutations are scattered without an apparent pattern and are not always the same value (some are up and some are down). Here again I believe that they are downline from the common ancestor for the set they are in. That leaves 7 markers which have some concentration of participants having a given mutation value. Mutations in the CDY complex (markers 34 & 35) are common, scattered across sets or grouped within sets. There appears to have been multiple incidences of parallel mutations both up and down. The values chosen for the AAV appear more frequently, have values up and down away from them, and appear in every set (except set 4 in the case of CDYa). 3 markers (437, 460, 456) are subset defining. There is a definate grouping within a set that can be descerned using those markers. The overwhelming majority of individuals in both sets have the assigned AAV for these markers. . Marker 4 (391) appears to mutate readily from a 12 to an 11 with several proven parallel mutations. Although the mutation appears as a subset defining marker by default, its history makes basing probable closer relationship between those who have it iffy. The AAV is undoubtedly 12 as that value appears across all subsets and has not in any case been shown to be the result of parallel mutation. That leaves us with marker 15 (459b) with 2 possible Apparent Ancestral Values. Eventually we may have sufficient data and documentation to show whether the 10 or the 9 is the correct AAV but perhaps we will never know. The chosen AAV at this marker is a guess. 10 is the most frequent result across ALL other Rb1 groups in the project. This marker appears to be quite stable at 10. The 10 appears in a descendent of James and Helen Scott who married in Scotland in 1669. This family did not leave Scotland until well after the early colonial immigrants arrived on this side of the Atlantic. We can have as arguements as we would like about how the first Kincaid ancestor had a mutation to 9 and a branch of his family then mutated back to the RB1 value of 10. Given the stability of the value 9 among non-RB1 groups makes this less likely. There is a possibility that a parallel mutation to 9 did take place in the case of 49289. Documentation suggests an A-1 ancestor. Hopefully we will have another test for this line that will either confirm the value or suggest that a parallel mutation took place. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] 67 marker DNA test analysis & info on The Gatheringofthe Clans in Scotland > Correct me if I am wrong but none of the Group A > participants with roots outside United States match > set 1a marker values. Is this not clearly relevant? > > Peter

Under the registry system in my area, a gross error in the description creates a defect in the title which has to be rectified by a deed of rectification by the grantors to the original deed where the error occurred. If not possible (ie. the grantors has since passed) then the situation is much complicated and a quieting of titles process may be required. Best wishes! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Utahn1@aol.com To: Kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:30 PM Subject: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Norman Kincaide <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 11:03:03 AM Subject: Deeds and legal descriptions Dear Kincaid listers, I hope this message reaches you all in a timely fashion. I have been researching the deed and legal descriptions of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch where I grew up in Pueblo County, CO. My Dad asked me to look into a matter in which his name was still attached to our ranch which was sold in 1983 to the Pueblo Bank & Trust Co. So I went to the Pueblo County Court House, a beautiful grand building that was awe inspiring when I was a kid and especially when the Christmas lights decorated its grand ediface. I found that my Dad still had a fraction of mineral rights attached to two lots, one of 24 acres and one of 28 acres in section 21. But the section number was incorrect (it should have been section 20) and applied to a section to the east of where our ranch was. I verifed this with the Mapping office in the court house. So the lesson here is if the section or the lots in a deed don't match what is indicated on the map or the survey there may be clerical error in the legal description or on the survey itself. This error had been carried on the original deed for the mineral rights in 1985 and not discovered until I looked at the deed and brought it to the mapping department and the mapping director and I looked at the interactive map that showed the wrong section, a section that belonged to one of our neighbors and was never part of our ranch. So this has inspired me to look further into the origin of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch in Pueblo County, CO. So I am going to look at all of the deeds pertaining to W.I. Sanford, my step-grandfather, who started farming and ranching in Pueblo County, CO in 1911. Sincerely Norman Kincaide To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hey Norm, Did the McLauglin name come up much in your Kinkead-Woodburn research? Peter

There was hardly any connection to the McLaughlin surname.  I didn't find the McLaughlins in Cumberland County, PA except for one in Hamilton Township, in the Penn. Militia with Capt. Samuel Patton's company.  If I find a connection later I'll post it for you. Sincerely Norman Kincaide ----- Original Message ---- From: Peter A. Kincaid <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 6:10:09 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] test message Hey Norm, Did the McLauglin name come up much in your Kinkead-Woodburn research? Peter To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Norman Kincaide <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 11:03:03 AM Subject: Deeds and legal descriptions Dear Kincaid listers, I hope this message reaches you all in a timely fashion. I have been researching the deed and legal descriptions of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch where I grew up in Pueblo County, CO. My Dad asked me to look into a matter in which his name was still attached to our ranch which was sold in 1983 to the Pueblo Bank & Trust Co. So I went to the Pueblo County Court House, a beautiful grand building that was awe inspiring when I was a kid and especially when the Christmas lights decorated its grand ediface. I found that my Dad still had a fraction of mineral rights attached to two lots, one of 24 acres and one of 28 acres in section 21. But the section number was incorrect (it should have been section 20) and applied to a section to the east of where our ranch was. I verifed this with the Mapping office in the court house. So the lesson here is if the section or the lots in a deed don't match what is indicated on the map or the survey there may be clerical error in the legal description or on the survey itself. This error had been carried on the original deed for the mineral rights in 1985 and not discovered until I looked at the deed and brought it to the mapping department and the mapping director and I looked at the interactive map that showed the wrong section, a section that belonged to one of our neighbors and was never part of our ranch. So this has inspired me to look further into the origin of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch in Pueblo County, CO. So I am going to look at all of the deeds pertaining to W.I. Sanford, my step-grandfather, who started farming and ranching in Pueblo County, CO in 1911. Sincerely Norman Kincaide

I had one message to the list bounce on me for no reason. I then deleted all the links added to the bottom of rootsweb messages and tried again and it worked. I wonder if this might be the issue (ie. the message gets bounced because of the hyperlinks being treated as spam links). Food for thought. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Norman Kincaide To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:23 PM Subject: [KINCAID] test message I have responded to Peter's question and it has not showed up on the list yet. And I posted a separate reply to his question and it has not appeared yet. So here is another test message for rootsweb. Sincerely Norman Kincaide

It is not the "exact" matches across all the markers that determine the AAV but rather the results so far at each marker, whether the same result appears across sets and whether variances are up and down from the most frequent value. Concentrating on only "exact" matches across the entire test to draw conclusions is extremely limiting when clearly there are scattered mutations that have occured within a known time period. If I have counted correctly (and I may not have) 15 of the first 37 markers do not show any mutation at all. The AAV value at those markers is unquestionable. 8 markers have a single incident of mutation. The AAV for these markers also cannot be questioned. To my way of thinking the single mutation would be of recent origin i.e. the common ancestor with others within the set did not have that mutation. It can be disregarded unless someone else in the same set shows up with it. 7 markers have 2-5 individuals with mutations. The mutations are scattered without an apparent pattern and are not always the same value (some are up and some are down). Here again I believe that they are downline from the common ancestor for the set they are in. That leaves 7 markers which have some concentration of participants having a given mutation value. Mutations in the CDY complex (markers 34 & 35) are common, scattered across sets or grouped within sets. There appears to have been multiple incidences of parallel mutations both up and down. The values chosen for the AAV appear more frequently, have values up and down away from them, and appear in every set (except set 4 in the case of CDYa). 3 markers (437, 460, 456) are subset defining. There is a definate grouping within a set that can be descerned using those markers. The overwhelming majority of individuals in both sets have the assigned AAV for these markers. . Marker 4 (391) appears to mutate readily from a 12 to an 11 with several proven parallel mutations. Although the mutation appears as a subset defining marker by default, its history makes basing probable closer relationship between those who have it iffy. The AAV is undoubtedly 12 as that value appears across all subsets and has not in any case been shown to be the result of parallel mutation. That leaves us with marker 15 (459b) with 2 possible Apparent Ancestral Values. Eventually we may have sufficient data and documentation to show whether the 10 or the 9 is the correct AAV but perhaps we will never know. The chosen AAV at this marker is a guess. 10 is the most frequent result across ALL other Rb1 groups in the project. This marker appears to be quite stable at 10. The 10 appears in a descendent of James and Helen Scott who married in Scotland in 1669. This family did not leave Scotland until well after the early colonial immigrants arrived on this side of the Atlantic. We can have as arguements as we would like about how the first Kincaid ancestor had a mutation to 9 and a branch of his family then mutated back to the RB1 value of 10. Given the stability of the value 9 among non-RB1 groups makes this less likely. There is a possibility that a parallel mutation to 9 did take place in the case of 49289. Documentation suggests an A-1 ancestor. Hopefully we will have another test for this line that will either confirm the value or suggest that a parallel mutation took place. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] 67 marker DNA test analysis & info on The Gatheringofthe Clans in Scotland > Correct me if I am wrong but none of the Group A > participants with roots outside United States match > set 1a marker values. Is this not clearly relevant? > > Peter >

I got the test messages, but not the eggnog recipe. >>> rkinkead11@comcast.net 12/9/2008 12:44 PM >>> Norm- Got both tests and Peter's comment. FWIW, I posted the eggnog recipe yesterday and it took over an hour to get back to my mailbox. I thought I had been censored for advocacy of misdeed via Rootsweb! Dick Kinkead Lantana, FL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:23 PM Subject: [KINCAID] test message I have responded to Peter's question and it has not showed up on the list yet. And I posted a separate reply to his question and it has not appeared yet. So here is another test message for rootsweb. Sincerely Norman Kincaide To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls-------------------------------To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes inthe subject and the body of the messageE-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.386)Database version: 5.11300http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Norm- Got both tests and Peter's comment. FWIW, I posted the eggnog recipe yesterday and it took over an hour to get back to my mailbox. I thought I had been censored for advocacy of misdeed via Rootsweb! Dick Kinkead Lantana, FL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:23 PM Subject: [KINCAID] test message I have responded to Peter's question and it has not showed up on the list yet. And I posted a separate reply to his question and it has not appeared yet. So here is another test message for rootsweb. Sincerely Norman Kincaide To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls-------------------------------To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes inthe subject and the body of the messageE-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.386)Database version: 5.11300http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/

I know what Peter is saying, but I have created new messges that never show up or take forever to show up in my own mail box.  I don't know what it is unless rootsweb is in four-wheel drive granny gear sometimes, even though I can't hear the transmission whine. Sincerely Norman Kincaide ----- Original Message ---- From: Peter A. Kincaid <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 11:31:02 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] test message I had one message to the list bounce on me for no reason.  I then deleted all the links added to the bottom of rootsweb messages and tried again and it worked.  I wonder if this might be the issue (ie. the message gets bounced because of the hyperlinks being treated as spam links).  Food for thought. Peter   ----- Original Message -----   From: Norman Kincaide   To: kincaid@rootsweb.com   Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:23 PM   Subject: [KINCAID] test message   I have responded to Peter's question and it has not showed up on the list yet. And I posted a separate reply to his question and it has not appeared yet. So here is another test message for rootsweb.   Sincerely   Norman Kincaide To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dear Kincaid listers, I hope this message reaches you all in a timely fashion.  I have been researching the deed and legal descriptions of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch where I grew up in Pueblo County, CO.  My Dad asked me to look into a matter in which his name was still attached to our ranch which was sold in 1983 to the Pueblo Bank & Trust Co.  So I went to the Pueblo County Court House, a beautiful grand building that was awe inspiring when I was a kid and especially when the Christmas lights decorated its grand ediface.  I found that my Dad still had a fraction of mineral rights attached to two lots, one of 24 acres and one of 28 acres in section 21.  But the section number was incorrect (it should have been section 20) and applied to a section to the east of where our ranch was.  I verifed this with the Mapping office in the court house.  So the lesson here is if the section or the lots in a deed don't match what is indicated on the map or the survey there may be clerical error in the legal description or on the survey itself.  This error had been carried on the original deed for the mineral rights in 1985 and not discovered until I looked at the deed and brought it to the mapping department and the mapping director and I looked at the interactive map that showed the wrong section, a section that belonged to one of our neighbors and was never part of our ranch.  So this has inspired me to look further into the origin of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch in Pueblo County, CO.  So I am going to look at all of the deeds pertaining to W..I. Sanford, my step-grandfather, who started farming and ranching in Pueblo County, CO in 1911. Sincerely Norman Kincaide

I have responded to Peter's question and it has not showed up on the list yet.  And I posted a separate reply to his question and it has not appeared yet.  So here is another test message for rootsweb. Sincerely Norman Kincaide

I am wondering if the McLaughlin name appears in your research relating to the Woodburns. I have the following tidbit of interest to me. Recall that my Kincaids are quite closely related DNA wise to the James Woodburn Kincaid participants. d. Sussex (Kings Co.) at residence of John McLaughlin, Saturday 24th inst., age 96, Ezekiel McLaughlin, a native of County Derry, Ireland. He spent most of his days in Cumberland Co., Pennsylvania (New York Observer and Cumberland papers please copy) Funeral Monday 2 o'clock from residence of John McLaughlin [The Daily Telegraph, Saint John, NB. 26 January 1885]. Best wishes! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Norman Kincaide To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 6:49 PM Subject: [KINCAID] test message Thanks to all who responded. I have had this problem before and it is very puzzling and frustrating after having spent several hours researching and constructing a timeline for the Woodburn family. In the Biographical Annals of Cumberland County, PA it stated that this Woodburn family came from Ireland. I still haven't found out why or how the Woodburns may be related to the West Pennsborough, Cumberland County, PA Kincaids. If it is a marriage between a Kincaid and a Woodburn I haven't found it yet. Sincerely Norman Kincaide

I got the test message in Maryland, Norman. Chuck Kincaid (#119921) -- Norman Kincaide <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> wrote: This is a test message to the kincaid list. sincerely Norman Kincaide To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ____________________________________________________________ Lose up to 20 lbs in one month with a new diet. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/PnY6rx8hZzOqmBvX6QwpxurBk0qmHzqdhHjMdyOgBfUq5hrED0GFo/