My apologies to all for being so quiet. Greg asked me some time ago to comment on the new DNA results that have come in for a member of the RI/NY group, but I have just been unable to focus on the matter. Let me try to summarize where we are. Eight members of the Lovelxxx DNA Project are members of the RI/NY group. Their DNA haplotypes are all quite similar, but there is a little bit of variation that points to some possible branching distinctions. Interpreting the data is a little difficult because not all of the individuals in this group tested the same number of markers. These results can be seen on results page of the public Lovelxxx website hosted by Family Tree DNA: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/lovelace/default.aspx?/publicwebsite.asp x=&section=yresults This table is always up to date; results are posted to it automatically as they are determined by the FTDNA lab. The eight individuals represented in this table are the following, identified by kit number and name: (out of numerical order because this is the way then appear in the FTDNA results table) 148905 Robt. Steele Lovelace, IV 24397 Richard Eugene Loveless Jr. 132407 Lawrence G. Loveless 27606 Sherman Lovelace 20027 Richard L. Lovelace 28975 James W. Lovelace 118154 Wesley G. Lovelace 142948 William Robert Lovelace All eight of these individuals are identical on the first 12 markers, so no distinctions can be drawn there. No distinctions can be drawn on markers 38-67 because so far we have results for these markers only for 118154. Results are expected for these markers for 132407 within a month. Because these last 30 markers in the 67 marker test are considered "slow-moving" markers for the most part, I would not be surprised if the pending results for 132407 are found to match the marker values for 118154 exactly. We will see. If it turns out that there is a difference on one marker, it will not be possible to tell which of the two is the ancestral value and which is the derived value. Should this situation occur, we would need a "tiebreaker test" of the most distantly related RI/NY individual we can determine to see which value is likelier to be the ancestral value. In our current state of knowledge, then, we can look only at differences in markers 13-37 to see if we can draw some lineage distinctions in this group. As it happens, there is one likely distinction: both 28975 and 118154 share the value 16 at DYS576; all other tested individuals (which is to say everyone but 148905 and 24397, who tested only the first 12 markers) have the value 15. The earliest known ancestor of 28975 is Jeremiah Loveless of NY, b. 1743; the EKA of 118154 is John Loveless of Rhode Island, b. abt 1700. Other group distinctions are harder to make, because remaining mutations are singletons within the entire group. For example, 142948 has DYS458=18; all others who tested that marker show 17. The higher value is clearly a marker for the line of William Robert Lovelace, but we cannot know if the mutation occurred first in him, his father, his grandfather, or any particular Lovelxxx back to the most recent common ancestor he shares with any other member of the RI/NY group. Similarly, 20027 has DYS576=18, where all others have 17; 132407 has DYS607=13 and CDYa=36 where all others have 14 and 37 respectively; and 27606 has DYS570=18 and DYS442=13 where all the others have 17 and 12 respectively. In the data set available to us, the distinctions between haplotypes are mostly revealed by mutations in markers 26-37. The most useful thing that could be done to find potential additional groupings would be for 148905 and 24397 to upgrade their results to 37 markers. There is no guarantee that these tests would find anything, but negative matches can be as helpful as positive matches in determining the shape of descendancy structures. I have tried to keep the -less and -lace spellings straight here, but my eyes are so blurry this evening I can't guarantee that I have done so. My apologies if I have misspelled anyone's name. I also hope I haven't made any typos in the kit numbers. I'll try to answer any questions that anyone may have, but I can't promise to do so quickly. Some of you know that my wife has advanced Alzheimer's, and I am pretty much a 24/7 caregiver. On those occasions when I have some time, I can't always find the focus I need to deal with questions of family history. David Wilson Maryland: Benjamin/Barton the Horse Thief/etc.

Thanks cousin, for being distracted you sure can write a paper, my prayers to your wife. Cousin Jimmie -----Original Message----- From: lovelace-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lovelace-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Wilson Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:24 AM To: lovelace@rootsweb.com Subject: [LL] Some comments on the RI/NY line based on DNA My apologies to all for being so quiet. Greg asked me some time ago to comment on the new DNA results that have come in for a member of the RI/NY group, but I have just been unable to focus on the matter. Let me try to summarize where we are. Eight members of the Lovelxxx DNA Project are members of the RI/NY group. Their DNA haplotypes are all quite similar, but there is a little bit of variation that points to some possible branching distinctions. Interpreting the data is a little difficult because not all of the individuals in this group tested the same number of markers. These results can be seen on results page of the public Lovelxxx website hosted by Family Tree DNA: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/lovelace/default.aspx?/publicwebsite.asp x=&section=yresults This table is always up to date; results are posted to it automatically as they are determined by the FTDNA lab. The eight individuals represented in this table are the following, identified by kit number and name: (out of numerical order because this is the way then appear in the FTDNA results table) 148905 Robt. Steele Lovelace, IV 24397 Richard Eugene Loveless Jr. 132407 Lawrence G. Loveless 27606 Sherman Lovelace 20027 Richard L. Lovelace 28975 James W. Lovelace 118154 Wesley G. Lovelace 142948 William Robert Lovelace All eight of these individuals are identical on the first 12 markers, so no distinctions can be drawn there. No distinctions can be drawn on markers 38-67 because so far we have results for these markers only for 118154. Results are expected for these markers for 132407 within a month. Because these last 30 markers in the 67 marker test are considered "slow-moving" markers for the most part, I would not be surprised if the pending results for 132407 are found to match the marker values for 118154 exactly. We will see. If it turns out that there is a difference on one marker, it will not be possible to tell which of the two is the ancestral value and which is the derived value. Should this situation occur, we would need a "tiebreaker test" of the most distantly related RI/NY individual we can determine to see which value is likelier to be the ancestral value. In our current state of knowledge, then, we can look only at differences in markers 13-37 to see if we can draw some lineage distinctions in this group. As it happens, there is one likely distinction: both 28975 and 118154 share the value 16 at DYS576; all other tested individuals (which is to say everyone but 148905 and 24397, who tested only the first 12 markers) have the value 15. The earliest known ancestor of 28975 is Jeremiah Loveless of NY, b. 1743; the EKA of 118154 is John Loveless of Rhode Island, b. abt 1700. Other group distinctions are harder to make, because remaining mutations are singletons within the entire group. For example, 142948 has DYS458=18; all others who tested that marker show 17. The higher value is clearly a marker for the line of William Robert Lovelace, but we cannot know if the mutation occurred first in him, his father, his grandfather, or any particular Lovelxxx back to the most recent common ancestor he shares with any other member of the RI/NY group. Similarly, 20027 has DYS576=18, where all others have 17; 132407 has DYS607=13 and CDYa=36 where all others have 14 and 37 respectively; and 27606 has DYS570=18 and DYS442=13 where all the others have 17 and 12 respectively. In the data set available to us, the distinctions between haplotypes are mostly revealed by mutations in markers 26-37. The most useful thing that could be done to find potential additional groupings would be for 148905 and 24397 to upgrade their results to 37 markers. There is no guarantee that these tests would find anything, but negative matches can be as helpful as positive matches in determining the shape of descendancy structures. I have tried to keep the -less and -lace spellings straight here, but my eyes are so blurry this evening I can't guarantee that I have done so. My apologies if I have misspelled anyone's name. I also hope I haven't made any typos in the kit numbers. I'll try to answer any questions that anyone may have, but I can't promise to do so quickly. Some of you know that my wife has advanced Alzheimer's, and I am pretty much a 24/7 caregiver. On those occasions when I have some time, I can't always find the focus I need to deal with questions of family history. David Wilson Maryland: Benjamin/Barton the Horse Thief/etc. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you for taking the time David. Much appreciated. My prayers are with you and your family during these times. James W Lovelace Kit 28975 is my second cousin both exact on the 12, 25 and 37 Markers. I with kit number 118154 for the 67 markers believe that James would also be identical if tested for 67 Markers thus I see no need for him to do so unless he would like to just to have the Certificate. His Grandfather and my Father were brothers. As I have mentioned many times our ancestors listed themselves as Irish on all census. It will be interesting to see where Charles and Lawrence results take the group. Thanks again. Wesley G. Lovelace Kit 118154 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimmie Ryan" <jimmie.ryan@verizon.net> To: <lovelace@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [LL] Some comments on the RI/NY line based on DNA > Thanks cousin, for being distracted you sure can write a paper, my prayers > to your wife. Cousin Jimmie > > -----Original Message----- > From: lovelace-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lovelace-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of David Wilson > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:24 AM > To: lovelace@rootsweb.com > Subject: [LL] Some comments on the RI/NY line based on DNA > > > My apologies to all for being so quiet. Greg asked me some time ago to > comment on the new DNA results that have come in for a member of the RI/NY > group, but I have just been unable to focus on the matter. Let me try to > summarize where we are. > > Eight members of the Lovelxxx DNA Project are members of the RI/NY group. > Their DNA haplotypes are all quite similar, but there is a little bit of > variation that points to some possible branching distinctions. > Interpreting > the data is a little difficult because not all of the individuals in this > group tested the same number of markers. > > These results can be seen on results page of the public Lovelxxx website > hosted by Family Tree DNA: > http://www.familytreedna.com/public/lovelace/default.aspx?/publicwebsite.asp > x=&section=yresults > > This table is always up to date; results are posted to it automatically as > they are determined by the FTDNA lab. > > The eight individuals represented in this table are the following, > identified by kit number and name: (out of numerical order because this is > the way then appear in the FTDNA results table) > > 148905 Robt. Steele Lovelace, IV > 24397 Richard Eugene Loveless Jr. > 132407 Lawrence G. Loveless > 27606 Sherman Lovelace > 20027 Richard L. Lovelace > 28975 James W. Lovelace > 118154 Wesley G. Lovelace > 142948 William Robert Lovelace > > All eight of these individuals are identical on the first 12 markers, so > no > distinctions can be drawn there. No distinctions can be drawn on markers > 38-67 because so far we have results for these markers only for 118154. > Results are expected for these markers for 132407 within a month. Because > these last 30 markers in the 67 marker test are considered "slow-moving" > markers for the most part, I would not be surprised if the pending results > for 132407 are found to match the marker values for 118154 exactly. We > will > see. If it turns out that there is a difference on one marker, it will not > be possible to tell which of the two is the ancestral value and which is > the > derived value. Should this situation occur, we would need a "tiebreaker > test" of the most distantly related RI/NY individual we can determine to > see > which value is likelier to be the ancestral value. > > In our current state of knowledge, then, we can look only at differences > in > markers 13-37 to see if we can draw some lineage distinctions in this > group. > As it happens, there is one likely distinction: both 28975 and 118154 > share > the value 16 at DYS576; all other tested individuals (which is to say > everyone but 148905 and 24397, who tested only the first 12 markers) have > the value 15. The earliest known ancestor of 28975 is Jeremiah Loveless of > NY, b. 1743; the EKA of 118154 is John Loveless of Rhode Island, b. abt > 1700. > > Other group distinctions are harder to make, because remaining mutations > are > singletons within the entire group. For example, 142948 has DYS458=18; all > others who tested that marker show 17. The higher value is clearly a > marker > for the line of William Robert Lovelace, but we cannot know if the > mutation > occurred first in him, his father, his grandfather, or any particular > Lovelxxx back to the most recent common ancestor he shares with any other > member of the RI/NY group. > > Similarly, 20027 has DYS576=18, where all others have 17; 132407 has > DYS607=13 and CDYa=36 where all others have 14 and 37 respectively; and > 27606 has DYS570=18 and DYS442=13 where all the others have 17 and 12 > respectively. > > In the data set available to us, the distinctions between haplotypes are > mostly revealed by mutations in markers 26-37. The most useful thing that > could be done to find potential additional groupings would be for 148905 > and > 24397 to upgrade their results to 37 markers. There is no guarantee that > these tests would find anything, but negative matches can be as helpful as > positive matches in determining the shape of descendancy structures. > > I have tried to keep the -less and -lace spellings straight here, but my > eyes are so blurry this evening I can't guarantee that I have done so. My > apologies if I have misspelled anyone's name. I also hope I haven't made > any > typos in the kit numbers. > > I'll try to answer any questions that anyone may have, but I can't promise > to do so quickly. Some of you know that my wife has advanced Alzheimer's, > and I am pretty much a 24/7 caregiver. On those occasions when I have some > time, I can't always find the focus I need to deal with questions of > family > history. > > David Wilson > Maryland: Benjamin/Barton the Horse Thief/etc. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > >