On Jan 5, 2014, at 11:12 PM, kincaid-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 19:31:25 -0500 > From: Richard Hulan <rhulan@verizon.net> > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] KINCAID Digest, Vol 9, Issue 2 > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <3993D91C-C010-4AC5-A995-769CDCCFA91D@verizon.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > It's not at all clear to me how one is supposed to Reply, on this list. Perhaps this will work. > > Don, how secret is the list of the 12 FF participants? Is it something only visible in GAP? My only obvious FF match whose FTDNA public info mentions the Kincaid surname is Carolyn Sue Kincaid Chesnut -- who was on this list briefly in 1998-99, but seems not to have remained aboard. I have no idea whether a male relative of hers has tested Y-DNA and is in the public Kincaid project. > > I transferred my 23andMe results to FTDNA as soon as that option was available (and while that was still $50). About two years ago. I'm FTDNA #195834, if you need that. > > Btw #2562 is not in group A-2c; but I concede Peter's point that someone in that group has in fact tested -- #57467. Since it was done by the targeted method, and those SNPs aren't on the 2010 version of the Haplotree still in use by the FTDNA software, the posted haplogroup is still R1b1a2 (in red). Someday, that will update; what else can one believe. I had not checked all seven group members' SNP results, and the other 6 haven't tested, but don't really need to. Z1 is rather far out on a branch of U106, and my speculation was based on this small group's having the key off-modals of the old North/South Cluster of P312 (at DYS437, 448, and GATA-H4). Given that A-2c is indeed a U106 subclade, only the DYS437=14 seems to be off-modal, within its parent group. > > Dick Hulan > > On Jan 5, 2014, at 4:11 PM, kincaid-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > >> Message: 3 >> Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 13:39:41 -0700 >> From: "Don W Kincaid" <donwkincaid@cox.net> >> Subject: Re: [KINCAID] DNA origins of the Kincaids >> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> >> Message-ID: <FA13AAE2974C42DEBD3070745888C041@DonHP> >> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; >> reply-type=original >> >> Richard Hulan, >> >> Thanks for your comments and rejoining the Kincaid Research List. >> >> We have 12 Kincaid participants who have done Family Finder dna test but do >> not have a results chart for Family Finder participants. We have had several >> in Group A do SNP tests including Group A 2C. For example # 2562 shows >> "Kinkead Robert Kinkead, b.c 1730, Tyrone, Ireland R1b1a2a1a1a4 >> R-L48 L48+, Z346+, Z7+, Z343-" . We also have several who had done the mt >> dna tests. We also have participants who have ordered the Big Y which we >> look forward to. >> >> I believe you did 23andme autosomal dna test so you should show a match with >> one or more of the Kincaid Family Finder participants unless there has been >> non-paternity events. You can upload your 23andme results to Family Tree DNA >> for a fee which you might want to do since Family Tree DNA has done more >> tests so will give you more possible matches. Do you show any autosomal >> matches with any Kincaid participant? >> >> I see your cousin shows descent from David/Winifred. We have one Kinkead >> vetted as descendant of David/Winifred, #198598. We have 2 others, 1255 and >> 28835, who believe they also descend from David/Winifred and I personally >> agree with them however one gen link is not documented and depends on >> circumstantial evidence. >> >> Happy Hunting, >> >> Don Kincaid # 1427 >> Kincaid Surname DNA admin team >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:33:47 -0700 > From: "Don W Kincaid" <donwkincaid@cox.net> > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] KINCAID Digest, Vol 9, Issue 2 > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <ECEA64FD05B24DC5A97095F47052F960@DonHP> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > To reply to any post on the Kincaid list just hit "reply". > > The Family Finder participants who have agreed to be public are not secret. > I will have to check each one's page and or contact them and will post all > that are public. It is to their advantage to be public in order for > interested persons like you can contact them about possible relationships. > > If you join the Kincaid Surname DNA project we will be able to see all your > FF dna matches and perhaps be more helpful. > > I showed 2562's SNP tests just to illustrate one Kincaid's SNP having > tested. It had nothing to do with A-2c. Peter is our expert on the SNP > testing and I will leave remarks on the results up to him. > > How do you report the FF and mt dna test results on the 2 project you > administer? Where could I go to take a look? > > Don > We don't display them anywhere, and only the admins see them all (via Group Administrator Pages>Genetic reports>FF Illumina OmniExpress results). I know of a big surname project (Carter) that includes a few "Family Finder only" members at the end of the public results display, as a separate Ungrouped category. But the visible ones are still male -- with STR marker values displayed -- it's just understood that these are irrelevant to the Carter surname. By contrast, our little surname project, which only has 14 Y-DNA members displayed (ungrouped at the moment), also has 11 Family Finder members (not all of whom are male, have our surname, or are among the displayed 14). And that has been very useful for us, in realizing something that is a stated goal (it looks like THE goal) of the Kincaid project: "The purpose of this project is to help link families where the paper trail has reached a dead end." Our best example is a guy whose father was adopted, so his Y-DNA test was a shot in the dark. He came up such a good match with me that we invited him to join our surname project; then he did the FF test, and had matches with five other male and female project members (counting himself, that's six out of the eleven FF testers we have). Several of these people have no matches with each other (at a level above the FF threshold for reporting it), mainly because of NPEs in their own lines -- but the adoptee links them all. We were able to tell him who his long-dead paternal grandfather must have been; and we were able for the first time to prove that -- and how -- the two project administrators are kin to each other (previously a matter of family hearsay). This can be much more than a one-way street, sometimes more than a two-way street. (Think of a parking lot with lanes, but no striping for the spaces. Remember what was parked near you, and enter the flea market or whatever. Come back in four hours, and find your car.) Genetic genealogy is not all about the paper trail, or the surname -- not that I have anything against those details, as such. I just am increasingly of the opinion that well done biochemistry is more reliable and predictive than most traditional paperwork. Leaving out women is not an optimal prerequisite for reaching the project's announced goal; and autosomal testing appears to be a much more productive inclusion technique than mtDNA testing. It does, however, tend to make more work for the volunteer administrators. Part of that is built in (more data = more work), but mainly it's because they get excited and want to work on it. Dick