Kim Kincaid, contact for husband Jonathan E. Kincaid DNA #122441, has sent me lineage information and given permission to share same. She will be working on a vetting post later this summer. Jonathan Kincaid Jerome A Kincaid & Martha Weathermon Arthur M Kincaid m Ruth Basore 1931 Albert H. Kincaid m Dora Mattox 1886 Orange Co. IN Martin Kincaid m Mary Anna Hollowell 1852 Washington Co. IN Andrew Kincaid m Margaret Scott 1823 Crawford Co. IN John Kincaid m Margaret Miles 1782 Cumberland Co. PA Norman's vetting post on April 20, 2007 shows that the next link is George Kincaid born c1733 died 1790 m prior 1758 Jean Mitchell. This is very exciting in that #122441 does not have the marker 4 (DYS 391) mutation to 11. Kim seems to be a document oriented researcher so vetting #122441 should isolate Norman's 11 at marker 4 downline from John/Margaret Miles. #122441's results for markers 13 to 37 have not been returned. Confirmation that he has a 9 at marker 15 (DYS 459b) is eagerly awaited. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sue Liedtke" <seleaml@actionnet.net> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] DNA chart > Jeff, this post was originally made when the results for 55675 and 60141 > were first returned. The marker 4 (DYS391) and marker 35 (DYS CDYb) > mutations that Peter's comments are refering to appear to have occured as > parallel mutations several times within the project so basing a > relationship > or lack of relationship on these mutations is a bit iffy unless the paper > trail suggests otherwise. The mutations cannot be dismissed and should be > confirmed or isolated if at all possible. > > Within Group A set 1c, which is based on the marker 4 mutation to 11 for > want of any other distinguishing attribute, we know that: > > #4588, #92549 and #5850 all seem to have inherited the mutation from > Robert/Mary Bowman. > > #33001 has a paper trail that suggests that his mutation is parallel and > occurred downline from a common ancestor with #101753 who does not have > the > mutation. > > #55675, #35199 and #2564 may have had a common source for the mutation as > the 1800 families do know and interact with each other, however, #55675's > ancestor does have a close association with earliest ancestors (including > those of #60141, #2565 and #31493) who do not have the mutation. > > #15779, #23547 and #64507 lines do not cross paths with any of the others > during the known line histories, it is hard to say how ancient their > mutation is or whether or not it is probable (though definately possible) > it > came from a common ancestor with anyone else in the set.. > > Mutations to 11 at marker 4 also occur in A-1b, A-2a, A-2b and A-4. In > each > of these cases it would be unlikely that the mutation was from a common > ancestor with any of the others or with any in A-1c. > > Sue Liedtke > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Bergman" <jeffancom@yahoo.com> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 5:47 PM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] DNA chart > > > Peter, Did I miss something? 2564 matches up with whom? Please fill me in > if > there is a new version of and to the chart. Thanks.....Jeff Bergman 8th > great grandson of John and Nancy Young Kincaid.. > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Peter A. Kincaid <7kincaids@auracom.com> > To: KINCAID-L@rootsweb.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:40:49 PM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] DNA chart > > Fascinating news on the DNA front. So the Fincastle Kincaids > appear to match up with Andrew of Greenbrier (Will 1810)! > If only Olvia Brisbin was alive to hear this. On the other > front John Kincaid (m. Ann Graham) lines up with Rev. > Joseph Kincaid of Killinchy, County Down. What interesting > news! Look forward to seeing these genealogies worked out. > Gotta love this DNA technology. > > 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 > toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotesin the subject and the body of the message > 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
Sue Liedtke: Sue i see in your E-Mail listing for Jonathan E.Kincaid,the name John Kincaid marriage to Margaret Miles 1782, Cumberland County. As i have been searching for my ancestor Samuel J.Kinkead,Born 6/23/1782,could their be a possible connection? [Hope springs eternal] Thank you.Tom Kinkead #20720. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sue Liedtke" <seleaml@actionnet.net> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 11:05 AM Subject: [KINCAID] DNA #122441 ancestry > Kim Kincaid, contact for husband Jonathan E. Kincaid DNA #122441, has sent > me lineage information and given permission to share same. She will be > working on a vetting post later this summer. > > Jonathan Kincaid > Jerome A Kincaid & Martha Weathermon > Arthur M Kincaid m Ruth Basore 1931 > Albert H. Kincaid m Dora Mattox 1886 Orange Co. IN > Martin Kincaid m Mary Anna Hollowell 1852 Washington Co. IN > Andrew Kincaid m Margaret Scott 1823 Crawford Co. IN > John Kincaid m Margaret Miles 1782 Cumberland Co. PA > > Norman's vetting post on April 20, 2007 shows that the next link is George > Kincaid born c1733 died 1790 m prior 1758 Jean Mitchell. This is very > exciting in that #122441 does not have the marker 4 (DYS 391) mutation to > 11. Kim seems to be a document oriented researcher so vetting #122441 > should > isolate Norman's 11 at marker 4 downline from John/Margaret Miles. > #122441's > results for markers 13 to 37 have not been returned. Confirmation that he > has a 9 at marker 15 (DYS 459b) is eagerly awaited. > > Sue Liedtke > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sue Liedtke" <seleaml@actionnet.net> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 9:44 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] DNA chart > > >> Jeff, this post was originally made when the results for 55675 and 60141 >> were first returned. The marker 4 (DYS391) and marker 35 (DYS CDYb) >> mutations that Peter's comments are refering to appear to have occured as >> parallel mutations several times within the project so basing a >> relationship >> or lack of relationship on these mutations is a bit iffy unless the paper >> trail suggests otherwise. The mutations cannot be dismissed and should be >> confirmed or isolated if at all possible. >> >> Within Group A set 1c, which is based on the marker 4 mutation to 11 for >> want of any other distinguishing attribute, we know that: >> >> #4588, #92549 and #5850 all seem to have inherited the mutation from >> Robert/Mary Bowman. >> >> #33001 has a paper trail that suggests that his mutation is parallel and >> occurred downline from a common ancestor with #101753 who does not have >> the >> mutation. >> >> #55675, #35199 and #2564 may have had a common source for the mutation as >> the 1800 families do know and interact with each other, however, #55675's >> ancestor does have a close association with earliest ancestors (including >> those of #60141, #2565 and #31493) who do not have the mutation. >> >> #15779, #23547 and #64507 lines do not cross paths with any of the others >> during the known line histories, it is hard to say how ancient their >> mutation is or whether or not it is probable (though definately possible) >> it >> came from a common ancestor with anyone else in the set.. >> >> Mutations to 11 at marker 4 also occur in A-1b, A-2a, A-2b and A-4. In >> each >> of these cases it would be unlikely that the mutation was from a common >> ancestor with any of the others or with any in A-1c. >> >> Sue Liedtke >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jeff Bergman" <jeffancom@yahoo.com> >> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 5:47 PM >> Subject: Re: [KINCAID] DNA chart >> >> >> Peter, Did I miss something? 2564 matches up with whom? Please fill me in >> if >> there is a new version of and to the chart. Thanks.....Jeff Bergman 8th >> great grandson of John and Nancy Young Kincaid.. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Peter A. Kincaid <7kincaids@auracom.com> >> To: KINCAID-L@rootsweb.com >> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:40:49 PM >> Subject: Re: [KINCAID] DNA chart >> >> Fascinating news on the DNA front. So the Fincastle Kincaids >> appear to match up with Andrew of Greenbrier (Will 1810)! >> If only Olvia Brisbin was alive to hear this. On the other >> front John Kincaid (m. Ann Graham) lines up with Rev. >> Joseph Kincaid of Killinchy, County Down. What interesting >> news! Look forward to seeing these genealogies worked out. >> Gotta love this DNA technology. >> >> 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 >> toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotesin the subject and the body of the message >> 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 > > 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