I respectfully disagree in that there is no way that set 4 Kincaids could be of the Auchenreoch Kincaids if 2617, etc. are of the Auchenreoch/Warriston Kincaids. There is too much genetic distance between any of the set 4 members and any other set 1 members for there to be a common ancestor after the 1600s. The break had to have occurred early on in the Kincaid family tree (i.e. back in the 1400s or earlier). Best wishes! Peter P.S. Bear in mind that the earliest common ancestor for the Warriston/Auchenreoch Kincaids and other main branches of Kincaids (ie. Linlithgow, Coates, Kincaid of Kincaid) would be in the late 1400s or early 1500s. This is clear from paper records as this the line only emerged in the mid 1500s. ----- Original Message ----- From: Sue Liedtke To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA testanalysis&infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland In other words you may never find, no matter how many samples are found from any country, a Group A Kincaid that can be clearly shown to not be an Auchenreoch Kincaid. Sue Liedtke