Your highlight part of the problem I have with the sample. To me the results would be better spread if I could prove that one of these were not of the Kincaids of Auchenreoch. Let's take sample 2617. This participant can be documented as a direct descendant of Rev. Joseph Kinkead of Killinchy, County Down (previously Rev. Joseph Kinkead of Stranolar, County Donegal) who was of the Baronscourt, County Tyrone Kincaids. Now the participant (Bill Kincaid author of the This I'll Defend) firmly believes that their ancestor was of the Kincaids of Auchenreoch. It is clearly written in the family history that two sons of Rev. Joseph Kinkead (William and Robert) migrated to Virginia. The Kincaids of Mononogalia County are the best candidates to be of these sons. We have a participant, sample 14530, who claims descent from the Mononogalia Kincaids and the DNA fits for a connection to 2617. Now you note sample 94749 who is a descendant of Quintin Kinkaid of Muff Parish, County Donegal, Ireland. I can't eliminate him as a descendant of the Baronscourt, County Tyrone Kincaids (who I noted above are claimed to be of the Auchenreoch Kincaids). Rev. Joseph Kinkead's grandson, Rev. John Kincaid, was a curate of adjacent Templemore Parish. Another grand daughter married into the Brownes of adjacent Burt Parish. The Baronscourt Kincaids are dominant in County Tyrone and mid County Donegal (there are records clearly tying the families together) and there are strong links to the Chester Co., PA and Delaware Kinkeads. Then we have sample 23547 who descends from James Kincaid in Dalgrain, County Falkirk, Scotland. He clearly is connected to Archibald Kincaid of Heuch but Archibald died without issue and was succeeded by his brother, John Kincaid of Saltcoates. These Kincaids are without doubt direct descendants of the Kincaids of Warriston near Edinburgh of which the Kincaids of Auchenreoch also descend (the patriarch being Henry Kincaid, second son of John Kincaid of Warriston). I can't connect James Kincaid in Dalgrain to either these Kincaids of Heuch or Saltcoates as there is no James of record in the family. However, John Kincaid of Saltcoates was the son of John Kincaid of Heuch by Elizabeth Kincaid - Archibald seems to have been a half brother (i.e. he had a different mother than John). Elizabeth Kincaid seems to have been a sister of William and Walter Kincaid of Auchenreoch as John Kincaid of Heuch named William and Walter as tutors to his children in his testament testamentar. Thus, I can't rule out James Kincaid of Dalgrain being from the Kincaid of Auchenreoch family. So perhaps one can see that my perspective of the data I have makes me suspect the Kincaids of Auchenreoch having a good representation in our DNA project. I certainly would be more comfortable will a suggested AAV if one could prove more samples without ties to the Kincaids of Auchenreoch. Best wishes! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Sue Liedtke To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:35 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] 67 marker DNA test analysis &infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland But we do have samples from some whose ancestors did not immigrate during the Colonial period and therefore are not direct descendents of the PA/VA families. Would it have made a difference in your thinking if 23547's sample was from a line down from James/Helen Scott m 1669 who had not immigrated? 94749's ancestors didn't immigrate during the colonial period. His results do not represent a colonial line. Would these lines then meet your criterea for non-US colonial lines? If more of Rev. Joseph/Francis Cochrane's non-immigrant line had tested would 2617's results weigh more in your mind? The testee was certainly non-US. Granted there is a disportionate number of participants from the colonial immigrants who entered VA and PA because they have been breeding in the US for almost 300 years. Since the US is where the most interest in DNA testing occurs and DNA can help untangle the various family lines, it is natural that these lines are over represented within the project. But there is also a disportionate (given the c1800 birthdates) representation of your David's and his possible brother George's line. We have 2 branches based on 459b (set 1 and set 2/4) of the same family (A). Both branches had colonial immigrant ancestors and those who remained in Scotland or Ireland past the colonial period. Arguing which branch is more ancient is futile at this point and may be futile at any point as the split probably occured well before historical data exists. The high rate of mutation, as exhibited in set 4 and as shown where we have confirmed lineage to a given individual in both sets suggests that deciding which is the oldest lineage on the number of mutations may also be problematic. It would be interesting as an excersize to shrink the chart by allowing only 1 representative of each identical result string then group together those who have a vetted or suspected common historical ancestor. Decide on an AAV for each ancestor grouping (this may have to be subjective) and let that AAV represent the ancestor. This will illimate the over-representation of any given line and should give a better picture of the overall rate of mutation for each set. If I had time, I would do this. Perhaps in January or February. Right now I have a Christmas tree to trim before heading for work. Sue Liedtke

IF all A-1 Kincaids are descended from the Auchenreoch Kincaids then we apparently know the DNA profile of this branch which is then represented in the study by the Group A AAV and repeated results can be eliminated thus shrinking the influence of this set. However, before you shrink it note the rate of mutation within the set and that the apparent connection between those in the set is at least prior to the mid 17th century. The very closely related A-2 Kincaids have not extended the lineage (proven or even suspected) into the 17th century. Here we may have skewed results due to heavy sampling of 2 relatively recent (given the extent of documentation) mutational sets. Set 4 appears to congregate around a c1800 group of suspected brothers. The proven mutational rate in this set is very high. The signature mutations (those held by the entire set) may have evolved at the same rapid rate so it is quite difficult to determine this lineage diverged from other A-2 Kincaids. Set 2b may be an over sampling of a single c1700 ancestor. Since we do not have a wide geographic sampling with documentation or even suspected connections as old as the Auchenreoch Kincaids can be traced, these entire sets may also be Auchenreoch Kincaids. What is needed is documentation clearly showing that these lines pre-date possible connection to Auchenreoch Kincaids. 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:05 PM Subject: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA test analysis&infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland > Your highlight part of the problem I have with the > sample. To me the results would be better spread > if I could prove that one of these were not of the > Kincaids of Auchenreoch. > > Let's take sample 2617. This participant can be > documented as a direct descendant of Rev. Joseph > Kinkead of Killinchy, County Down (previously > Rev. Joseph Kinkead of Stranolar, County Donegal) > who was of the Baronscourt, County Tyrone Kincaids. > Now the participant (Bill Kincaid author of the This I'll > Defend) firmly believes that their ancestor was of the > Kincaids of Auchenreoch. It is clearly written in the > family history that two sons of Rev. Joseph Kinkead > (William and Robert) migrated to Virginia. The Kincaids > of Mononogalia County are the best candidates to be > of these sons. We have a participant, sample 14530, > who claims descent from the Mononogalia Kincaids > and the DNA fits for a connection to 2617. > > Now you note sample 94749 who is a descendant of > Quintin Kinkaid of Muff Parish, County Donegal, Ireland. > I can't eliminate him as a descendant of the Baronscourt, > County Tyrone Kincaids (who I noted above are claimed to > be of the Auchenreoch Kincaids). Rev. Joseph Kinkead's > grandson, Rev. John Kincaid, was a curate of adjacent > Templemore Parish. Another grand daughter married into > the Brownes of adjacent Burt Parish. The Baronscourt > Kincaids are dominant in County Tyrone and mid County > Donegal (there are records clearly tying the families > together) and there are strong links to the Chester Co., > PA and Delaware Kinkeads. > > Then we have sample 23547 who descends from James > Kincaid in Dalgrain, County Falkirk, Scotland. He clearly > is connected to Archibald Kincaid of Heuch but Archibald > died without issue and was succeeded by his brother, John > Kincaid of Saltcoates. These Kincaids are without doubt > direct descendants of the Kincaids of Warriston near > Edinburgh of which the Kincaids of Auchenreoch also > descend (the patriarch being Henry Kincaid, second son of > John Kincaid of Warriston). I can't connect James Kincaid in > Dalgrain to either these Kincaids of Heuch or Saltcoates as > there is no James of record in the family. However, John Kincaid > of Saltcoates was the son of John Kincaid of Heuch by > Elizabeth Kincaid - Archibald seems to have been a half > brother (i.e. he had a different mother than John). Elizabeth > Kincaid seems to have been a sister of William and Walter > Kincaid of Auchenreoch as John Kincaid of Heuch named William > and Walter as tutors to his children in his testament testamentar. > Thus, I can't rule out James Kincaid of Dalgrain being from > the Kincaid of Auchenreoch family. > > So perhaps one can see that my perspective of the data I have > makes me suspect the Kincaids of Auchenreoch having a good > representation in our DNA project. I certainly would be more > comfortable will a suggested AAV if one could prove more > samples without ties to the Kincaids of Auchenreoch. > > Best wishes! > > Peter > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sue Liedtke > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:35 PM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] 67 marker DNA test analysis > &infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland > > > But we do have samples from some whose ancestors did not immigrate during > the Colonial period and therefore are not direct descendents of the PA/VA > families. Would it have made a difference in your thinking if 23547's > sample > was from a line down from James/Helen Scott m 1669 who had not > immigrated? > 94749's ancestors didn't immigrate during the colonial period. His > results > do not represent a colonial line. Would these lines then meet your > criterea > for non-US colonial lines? If more of Rev. Joseph/Francis Cochrane's > non-immigrant line had tested would 2617's results weigh more in your > mind? > The testee was certainly non-US. > > Granted there is a disportionate number of participants from the colonial > immigrants who entered VA and PA because they have been breeding in the > US > for almost 300 years. Since the US is where the most interest in DNA > testing > occurs and DNA can help untangle the various family lines, it is natural > that these lines are over represented within the project. But there is > also > a disportionate (given the c1800 birthdates) representation of your > David's > and his possible brother George's line. > > We have 2 branches based on 459b (set 1 and set 2/4) of the same family > (A). > Both branches had colonial immigrant ancestors and those who remained in > Scotland or Ireland past the colonial period. Arguing which branch is > more > ancient is futile at this point and may be futile at any point as the > split > probably occured well before historical data exists. The high rate of > mutation, as exhibited in set 4 and as shown where we have confirmed > lineage > to a given individual in both sets suggests that deciding which is the > oldest lineage on the number of mutations may also be problematic. > > It would be interesting as an excersize to shrink the chart by allowing > only > 1 representative of each identical result string then group together > those > who have a vetted or suspected common historical ancestor. Decide on an > AAV > for each ancestor grouping (this may have to be subjective) and let that > AAV > represent the ancestor. This will illimate the over-representation of any > given line and should give a better picture of the overall rate of > mutation > for each set. If I had time, I would do this. Perhaps in January or > February. Right now I have a Christmas tree to trim before heading for > work. > > Sue Liedtke > 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