First off, Grant has now posted the most recent chart to www.kincaiddna.org Several hours after I posted, I remembered the incident and realized that was probably the reason I couldn't find him. His interest in further testing would be nil. Peter, thank you for the explanation of SNP. You are very good in explaining complicated subjects which I admire and appreciate. As Dick has very ably explained, the first A in AAV is "Apparent". It is the best guess, using current information, of the Value held by the Ancestral Founder of the group. The Value held by the founder's father may or may not be the same. I bow to Peter's expertise in determining that the father's value at marker 4 (DYS391) was 11 but do hold to my opinion that the Group A Founder's value was 12 for the following reasons: 1) 12 is a rare value at this allele Peter just sent me a chart showing STR values for (SNP?) U106. The predominate value at DYS391 is 11, followed by a few 10s. There is only 1 notation of a 12. This echos our own project as a whole. There are plenty of 11's and 10's but the 12's only appear in Group A. A mutation to 12 appears to be quite rare. 2) There are several incidences within the project, proven through isolation, where those with 11 at this allele descend from a common ancestor with someone who has a 12. Each set-subset (except 1c which is based by default on the value of 11 at this allele) has at least one such incident. This includes Peter's set 3. Although #49844 who has a 12 has not been vetted, I trust Peter to have ascertained that he descends from David/Elizabeth Gardner's son James while those vetted to David through son Daniel have an 11. The 3 other members of the set, 2 of whom Peter has indicated descend from David's brother George, do have the 12. This isolates the mutation to Daniel. I have yet to see a proven downline incidence of an 11 mutating to 12. 3) Using an AAV of 11 at DYS391 would require multiple parallel mutations to 12 as well as multiple mutations to other apparently significant values which now serve to define set/subset. A clear pathway from group to sets to subsets becomes clear if it is assumed that 12 is the starting value while the assumption of an 11 produces a spiderweb of connections. The KISS rule suggests that 12 is the most logical starting value. Peter is correct in that our differences are based on point of view. His interest in origins and early connections is of great benefit to all Kincaids. My interest is in connections within a more recent time period. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] SNP testing update > Sue, I think he pulled his data from the project. His results came back > in October 2011. I believe Don said someone left because of what was > said on the list. This may have been related to my frustration with > people > not supplying their earliest known ancestor. I got notification of close > matches to some kits I watch. However, nothing further was given which > frustrated me. I turned out to be this kit. I did not mean to pick on > this > or any one particular participant. My comments were intended to change > the admission requirements. Some DNA groups won't let people join unless > they have tested positive for a certain clade. I was hoping we simply > require people to give us the names of their earliest known ancestors > (just names and not documentation) before getting the group discount. > Anyway, I gave my opinion, but nothing positive came of it so that was the > end of that. > > My choice of AAVs comes from looking at the AAVs of the previous > groups we spawned from. We would be mutating away from them, > not towards them from a vacuum. This is where you and I differ. You > are looking at the Kincaid project as a self-contained or isolated group. > I am taking into consideration where we came from. > > The difference between str testing and snp testing is that str testing > looks > at a defined repeat pattern over a number of base pairs, whereas snp > testing > looks at just one base pair. I believe that statistically the latter is > expected > to occur once in 7000 years. Any change in a str marker is the result of > one > or more snps mutating. Two different people could have a recent change in > a > str value (say 11 to 12) and technically not be closely related. Two > different > people with a recent change at one base pair (say from C to T) are almost > certainly closely related. The odds of this happening at the same base > pair > is just too slim. > > Don and John match on the six named snps I noted. They also match on > a couple of others that are not named and won't be testable at YSEQ. > However, they also have a number of private snps unique to their > particular > lines. Another Kincaid may come along and do the Big Y test and match up > with either Don or John on a number of these private snps. In that case, > these would identify their particular branch for all posterity. > > Key to remember here is that a str exact match may not be an exact match. > A str could be 11 for two people because one went from 11 to 12 and then > back to 11 due to TWO snp mutations. On the other hand, an exact match > at a know Kincaid snp means those two people are Kincaids who came > from that branch point. At some point, we will know all the branch point > snps and also be able to put a better time estimate on the branch > points as a snp mutation seems to occur every 100 to 140 years. > > The chances of two Kincaids with the same snps as Don (or John for that > matter) and not being closely related to him is zero. > > YSEQ is not a new program in the sense that they are actually making > snps tests based on Family Tree DNA results. Don and John did the > Big Y test with Family Tree DNA. This expensive test of 11.5 to 12.5 > million base-pairs on the Y chromosome is the one that discovered > the snps common to Don and John as well as their private snps. YSEQ > is just being really quick on making individual snps testable. Over time > I am sure that Family Tree DNA will make a number of them available > as well. At that point, current participants can just order the snps from > their personal page without having to submit a new sample. > > If a person wants to see if they are closely related to Don, then they > should be testing his private snps, not the ones he has in common with > John. Likewise, if one wants to see of they are closely related to > John. We know their private snps, but they are not named yet. If one > is interested, then they could ask YSEQ to make the test available. > Chances are they will. > > SNP testing is changing the game and could make str testing obsolete. > It will come down to which can be packaged more cheaply. For example, a > 67 marker test for $100 could out do snp testing at $25 a snp. > > A long message here. Hopefully, it answered a few things for you > and others. > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sue Liedtke > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 12:23 PM > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] SNP testing update > > Peter, When I couldn't find kit #213942 on the chart I checked the FTDNA > list of project members and could not find it there either. Am I missing > something or is there a typo? > > The choice of #2564 reflects your evaluation that the 11 at marker 4 > (DYS391) is the AAV for Group A. Since I believe the 11 is the result of > multiple mutations from the AAV of 12, it is my view that #4073 and #2562 > are the best representatives for set 1a. I don't want to get into a > discussion on our differences but do have a question.Would a single > mutation > over 67 markers make any difference in the SNP result implications? We > have > 5 other A-1a participants who have only 1 mutation over 67 markers: > #33919, > #102911, #96496, #155437, and #190139. Would it be of like value if one of > them chose to be tested? > > Am I understanding this correctly? Isn't what is needed is confirmation of > Don's (A1b) results from A-1a or A-1c and confirmation of John's (A-3) > results by testing a representative from A-2 as both A-3 and A-2 have the > 9 > at marker 15 (DYS 459b)? I agree no mutations from the AAV is preferable, > however, since both Don and John have quite a few differences and match on > these SNPs it seems to me that participants with 1 or 2 mutations over 67 > markers who match either Don or John at marker 15 and do not match either > at > any other mutation would work to confirm that those SNPs are common to all > Group A Kincaids. > > Drawing from a larger pool may produce more participation then limiting > test > value to just a couple of people, who may or may not be able and willing > to > test. > > Since YSEQ is a new program, I am wondering if current participation is > large enough for these SNPs can to be viewed as statistically significant > in > determining that those who have them are closely related. i.e. What are > the > chances that an unrelated Y family may show up at some time with the same > results? > > I can see where this advancement would be of high value and quite exciting > in discovering early connections if it can be confirmed that 1) all Group > A > Kincaids share these SNP values and 2) any other Y-family sharing these > values is related. As the program gets larger, this has the potential of > being an immense benefit in determinig origins for all of our Kincaid > groups. > > Sue Liedtke > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:30 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] SNP testing update > > >>I should add that Group A participants with kit nos. >> 213942 and 2564 would be the most helpful to >> test as they are highest up the tree in terms of >> branching at 67 markers. Thus, if they have all of >> the below 6 snps then chances are everyone else in >> Group A will also. >> >> Peter >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Kincaid >> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:23 PM >> To: KINCAID@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [KINCAID] SNP testing update >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> Don Kincaid has really done a top notch job in pushing forward >> the new aspect of dna testing for genealogical purposes. Thanks >> to him, and to John Kincaid, for participating in the Big Y project >> at FTDNA we now have six named Kincaid snps common to both of them. >> They are: >> >> R-FGC1389 >> R-A321 >> R-A323 >> R-Z1370.2 >> R-A322 and >> R-A326 >> >> The first four are available now for testing at YSEQ at: >> >> http://shop.yseq.net/index.php?manufacturers_id=34&sort=2a&filter_id=1 >> >> YSEQ is a recent startup company by Thomas Krahn, who was formerly >> the main geneticist with Family Tree DNA. >> >> For those interested in this testing, there is currently a sale on with >> YSEQ. Until Fathers Day, one can order snps for $25 US each. >> >> This price highlights the objective for going down this route. At some >> point, future Kincaids will be able find out if they belong to Group A >> Kincaids for as little as $25US. We are not there yet as we are not >> certain if the above six snps are common to all Group A Kincaids. Only >> some should be. It is only after more Group A Kincaids test that we will >> be able to say which applies to which cluster of Kincaids. The reality >> is that any present Group A Kincaids testing will not learn anything new >> about themselves. They will simply be a pioneer with this and help >> future >> Kincaid testers. >> >> If any Group A participants are curious enough to participate, then my >> suggestion for order is Z1370.2, FGC1389, A321, A323. If you participate >> then please let me or Don know. >> >> Best wishes! >> >> Peter Kincaid >> >> >> >> >> >> For complete information about the Kincaid of all spellings DNA project, >> including a chart, lineages, and how to participate, go to: >> >> www.kincaiddna.org >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> >> >> >> For complete information about the Kincaid of all spellings DNA project, >> including a chart, lineages, and how to participate, go to: >> >> www.kincaiddna.org >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > > For complete information about the Kincaid of all spellings DNA project, > including a chart, lineages, and how to participate, go to: > > www.kincaiddna.org > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > For complete information about the Kincaid of all spellings DNA project, > including a chart, lineages, and how to participate, go to: > > www.kincaiddna.org > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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, I am sending you an amended fluxus graphic showing that Group A patriarch had to be an 11. I see only four mutations to 12 within the group. One in the Londonderry Kincaids; one from 130404 to 15550; one in 281269's line; and one between 213942 and 33919. The first two mutations have been proven with testing of close relatives. Your view creates an impossible number of parallel mutations and back mutations is different groups. There is no doubt that branches before Kincaids were 11. So why would things go to a 12 and then back to 11 for a large number of different branches. This does not make any sense. Peter -----Original Message----- From: Sue Liedtke Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 2:03 PM To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [KINCAID] SNP testing update First off, Grant has now posted the most recent chart to www.kincaiddna.org Several hours after I posted, I remembered the incident and realized that was probably the reason I couldn't find him. His interest in further testing would be nil. Peter, thank you for the explanation of SNP. You are very good in explaining complicated subjects which I admire and appreciate. As Dick has very ably explained, the first A in AAV is "Apparent". It is the best guess, using current information, of the Value held by the Ancestral Founder of the group. The Value held by the founder's father may or may not be the same. I bow to Peter's expertise in determining that the father's value at marker 4 (DYS391) was 11 but do hold to my opinion that the Group A Founder's value was 12 for the following reasons: 1) 12 is a rare value at this allele Peter just sent me a chart showing STR values for (SNP?) U106. The predominate value at DYS391 is 11, followed by a few 10s. There is only 1 notation of a 12. This echos our own project as a whole. There are plenty of 11's and 10's but the 12's only appear in Group A. A mutation to 12 appears to be quite rare. 2) There are several incidences within the project, proven through isolation, where those with 11 at this allele descend from a common ancestor with someone who has a 12. Each set-subset (except 1c which is based by default on the value of 11 at this allele) has at least one such incident. This includes Peter's set 3. Although #49844 who has a 12 has not been vetted, I trust Peter to have ascertained that he descends from David/Elizabeth Gardner's son James while those vetted to David through son Daniel have an 11. The 3 other members of the set, 2 of whom Peter has indicated descend from David's brother George, do have the 12. This isolates the mutation to Daniel. I have yet to see a proven downline incidence of an 11 mutating to 12. 3) Using an AAV of 11 at DYS391 would require multiple parallel mutations to 12 as well as multiple mutations to other apparently significant values which now serve to define set/subset. A clear pathway from group to sets to subsets becomes clear if it is assumed that 12 is the starting value while the assumption of an 11 produces a spiderweb of connections. The KISS rule suggests that 12 is the most logical starting value. Peter is correct in that our differences are based on point of view. His interest in origins and early connections is of great benefit to all Kincaids. My interest is in connections within a more recent time period. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] SNP testing update > Sue, I think he pulled his data from the project. His results came back > in October 2011. I believe Don said someone left because of what was > said on the list. This may have been related to my frustration with > people > not supplying their earliest known ancestor. I got notification of close > matches to some kits I watch. However, nothing further was given which > frustrated me. I turned out to be this kit. I did not mean to pick on > this > or any one particular participant. My comments were intended to change > the admission requirements. Some DNA groups won't let people join unless > they have tested positive for a certain clade. I was hoping we simply > require people to give us the names of their earliest known ancestors > (just names and not documentation) before getting the group discount. > Anyway, I gave my opinion, but nothing positive came of it so that was the > end of that. > > My choice of AAVs comes from looking at the AAVs of the previous > groups we spawned from. We would be mutating away from them, > not towards them from a vacuum. This is where you and I differ. You > are looking at the Kincaid project as a self-contained or isolated group. > I am taking into consideration where we came from. > > The difference between str testing and snp testing is that str testing > looks > at a defined repeat pattern over a number of base pairs, whereas snp > testing > looks at just one base pair. I believe that statistically the latter is > expected > to occur once in 7000 years. Any change in a str marker is the result of > one > or more snps mutating. Two different people could have a recent change in > a > str value (say 11 to 12) and technically not be closely related. Two > different > people with a recent change at one base pair (say from C to T) are almost > certainly closely related. The odds of this happening at the same base > pair > is just too slim. > > Don and John match on the six named snps I noted. They also match on > a couple of others that are not named and won't be testable at YSEQ. > However, they also have a number of private snps unique to their > particular > lines. Another Kincaid may come along and do the Big Y test and match up > with either Don or John on a number of these private snps. In that case, > these would identify their particular branch for all posterity. > > Key to remember here is that a str exact match may not be an exact match. > A str could be 11 for two people because one went from 11 to 12 and then > back to 11 due to TWO snp mutations. On the other hand, an exact match > at a know Kincaid snp means those two people are Kincaids who came > from that branch point. At some point, we will know all the branch point > snps and also be able to put a better time estimate on the branch > points as a snp mutation seems to occur every 100 to 140 years. > > The chances of two Kincaids with the same snps as Don (or John for that > matter) and not being closely related to him is zero. > > YSEQ is not a new program in the sense that they are actually making > snps tests based on Family Tree DNA results. Don and John did the > Big Y test with Family Tree DNA. This expensive test of 11.5 to 12.5 > million base-pairs on the Y chromosome is the one that discovered > the snps common to Don and John as well as their private snps. YSEQ > is just being really quick on making individual snps testable. Over time > I am sure that Family Tree DNA will make a number of them available > as well. At that point, current participants can just order the snps from > their personal page without having to submit a new sample. > > If a person wants to see if they are closely related to Don, then they > should be testing his private snps, not the ones he has in common with > John. Likewise, if one wants to see of they are closely related to > John. We know their private snps, but they are not named yet. If one > is interested, then they could ask YSEQ to make the test available. > Chances are they will. > > SNP testing is changing the game and could make str testing obsolete. > It will come down to which can be packaged more cheaply. For example, a > 67 marker test for $100 could out do snp testing at $25 a snp. > > A long message here. Hopefully, it answered a few things for you > and others. > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sue Liedtke > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 12:23 PM > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] SNP testing update > > Peter, When I couldn't find kit #213942 on the chart I checked the FTDNA > list of project members and could not find it there either. Am I missing > something or is there a typo? > > The choice of #2564 reflects your evaluation that the 11 at marker 4 > (DYS391) is the AAV for Group A. Since I believe the 11 is the result of > multiple mutations from the AAV of 12, it is my view that #4073 and #2562 > are the best representatives for set 1a. I don't want to get into a > discussion on our differences but do have a question.Would a single > mutation > over 67 markers make any difference in the SNP result implications? We > have > 5 other A-1a participants who have only 1 mutation over 67 markers: > #33919, > #102911, #96496, #155437, and #190139. Would it be of like value if one of > them chose to be tested? > > Am I understanding this correctly? Isn't what is needed is confirmation of > Don's (A1b) results from A-1a or A-1c and confirmation of John's (A-3) > results by testing a representative from A-2 as both A-3 and A-2 have the > 9 > at marker 15 (DYS 459b)? I agree no mutations from the AAV is preferable, > however, since both Don and John have quite a few differences and match on > these SNPs it seems to me that participants with 1 or 2 mutations over 67 > markers who match either Don or John at marker 15 and do not match either > at > any other mutation would work to confirm that those SNPs are common to all > Group A Kincaids. > > Drawing from a larger pool may produce more participation then limiting > test > value to just a couple of people, who may or may not be able and willing > to > test. > > Since YSEQ is a new program, I am wondering if current participation is > large enough for these SNPs can to be viewed as statistically significant > in > determining that those who have them are closely related. i.e. What are > the > chances that an unrelated Y family may show up at some time with the same > results? > > I can see where this advancement would be of high value and quite exciting > in discovering early connections if it can be confirmed that 1) all Group > A > Kincaids share these SNP values and 2) any other Y-family sharing these > values is related. As the program gets larger, this has the potential of > being an immense benefit in determinig origins for all of our Kincaid > groups. > > Sue Liedtke > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:30 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] SNP testing update > > >>I should add that Group A participants with kit nos. >> 213942 and 2564 would be the most helpful to >> test as they are highest up the tree in terms of >> branching at 67 markers. Thus, if they have all of >> the below 6 snps then chances are everyone else in >> Group A will also. >> >> Peter >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Kincaid >> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:23 PM >> To: KINCAID@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [KINCAID] SNP testing update >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> Don Kincaid has really done a top notch job in pushing forward >> the new aspect of dna testing for genealogical purposes. Thanks >> to him, and to John Kincaid, for participating in the Big Y project >> at FTDNA we now have six named Kincaid snps common to both of them. >> They are: >> >> R-FGC1389 >> R-A321 >> R-A323 >> R-Z1370.2 >> R-A322 and >> R-A326 >> >> The first four are available now for testing at YSEQ at: >> >> http://shop.yseq.net/index.php?manufacturers_id=34&sort=2a&filter_id=1 >> >> YSEQ is a recent startup company by Thomas Krahn, who was formerly >> the main geneticist with Family Tree DNA. >> >> For those interested in this testing, there is currently a sale on with >> YSEQ. Until Fathers Day, one can order snps for $25 US each. >> >> This price highlights the objective for going down this route. At some >> point, future Kincaids will be able find out if they belong to Group A >> Kincaids for as little as $25US. We are not there yet as we are not >> certain if the above six snps are common to all Group A Kincaids. Only >> some should be. It is only after more Group A Kincaids test that we will >> be able to say which applies to which cluster of Kincaids. The reality >> is that any present Group A Kincaids testing will not learn anything new >> about themselves. They will simply be a pioneer with this and help >> future >> Kincaid testers. >> >> If any Group A participants are curious enough to participate, then my >> suggestion for order is Z1370.2, FGC1389, A321, A323. If you participate >> then please let me or Don know. >> >> Best wishes! >> >> Peter Kincaid >> >> >> >> >> >> For complete information about the Kincaid of all spellings DNA project, >> including a chart, lineages, and how to participate, go to: >> >> www.kincaiddna.org >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> >> >> >> For complete information about the Kincaid of all spellings DNA project, >> including a chart, lineages, and how to participate, go to: >> >> www.kincaiddna.org >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > > For complete information about the Kincaid of all spellings DNA project, > including a chart, lineages, and how to participate, go to: > > www.kincaiddna.org > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > For complete information about the Kincaid of all spellings DNA project, > including a chart, lineages, and how to participate, go to: > > www.kincaiddna.org > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 For complete information about the Kincaid of all spellings DNA project, including a chart, lineages, and how to participate, go to: www.kincaiddna.org ------------------------------- 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

Further to my message below, I discovered I had one result with the wrong DYS391 value in my dataset for the fluxus program (281269). With this in mind, I now have the mutations down to TWO MUTATIONS TO 12 in the group (between 130404 & 15550 and the other between 213942 & 33919). I can't see how any better scenario could occur. If anyone can find one I am certainly open to being swayed. Peter -----Original Message----- From: Peter Kincaid Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 6:23 PM To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [KINCAID] SNP testing update Sue, I am sending you an amended fluxus graphic showing that Group A patriarch had to be an 11. I see only four mutations to 12 within the group. One in the Londonderry Kincaids; one from 130404 to 15550; one in 281269's line; and one between 213942 and 33919. The first two mutations have been proven with testing of close relatives. Your view creates an impossible number of parallel mutations and back mutations is different groups. There is no doubt that branches before Kincaids were 11. So why would things go to a 12 and then back to 11 for a large number of different branches. This does not make any sense. Peter

Four 11 to 12 mutation graphic. Peter

Best thing to do is send me graphics showing me scenarios where you can get the least mutations than the one I sent you. I am willing to entertain any scenario that makes better sense. If I have blinders on and you can remove them, then please do not hesitate to do so. I hope you feel the same. The goal here is to come to an agreement. Peter -----Original Message----- From: Sue Liedtke Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 2:03 PM To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [KINCAID] SNP testing update 1) 12 is a rare value at this allele Peter just sent me a chart showing STR values for (SNP?) U106. The predominate value at DYS391 is 11, followed by a few 10s. There is only 1 notation of a 12. This echos our own project as a whole. There are plenty of 11's and 10's but the 12's only appear in Group A. A mutation to 12 appears to be quite rare. 2) There are several incidences within the project, proven through isolation, where those with 11 at this allele descend from a common ancestor with someone who has a 12. Each set-subset (except 1c which is based by default on the value of 11 at this allele) has at least one such incident. This includes Peter's set 3. Although #49844 who has a 12 has not been vetted, I trust Peter to have ascertained that he descends from David/Elizabeth Gardner's son James while those vetted to David through son Daniel have an 11. The 3 other members of the set, 2 of whom Peter has indicated descend from David's brother George, do have the 12. This isolates the mutation to Daniel. I have yet to see a proven downline incidence of an 11 mutating to 12. 3) Using an AAV of 11 at DYS391 would require multiple parallel mutations to 12 as well as multiple mutations to other apparently significant values which now serve to define set/subset. A clear pathway from group to sets to subsets becomes clear if it is assumed that 12 is the starting value while the assumption of an 11 produces a spiderweb of connections. The KISS rule suggests that 12 is the most logical starting value. Peter is correct in that our differences are based on point of view. His interest in origins and early connections is of great benefit to all Kincaids. My interest is in connections within a more recent time period.