Good morning Brenda To state the obvious... we do not yet have enough statistical evidence make many judgements other than for the current individual and then perhaps draw some very general conclusions. Charles, Sam, Robert, Albert, Leonard and I are related. This relationship is to John Matlock the emigrate born 1638 and had at least two wives not the this would matter as the DNA is of male decent. Alton comes next closest but further back explaining the 5 distance. George of 1606 has sons who have dropped off the face of the earth any of whom may be the link. John Marion and Edgar are not of this line of decent. There are several explanations none of which are sustainable with the current evidence. One, there are other emigrates for whom we have not accounted. This may be an area of increasing search as the Matlick results come in and as none of the Matlack families have submitted a sample. ( Are John and William brothers or just good friends?) Two, The name game. Matlock, Medlock, Mattock...who knows in the 1700's which is which. Who are those Matlocks or Mattocks were at Kings Mountain? I think John "Matlock" was the emigrate. Three, Adoption. A child is taken in, given the name and no one thinks any more of it. But the DNA marker would reflect the real father's marker and not the adopted father. This child could never be a genetic link to any of the families but is our kin as if born to it. Four Father Unknown. Rape, seduction, or just moonlight, magnolias and hormones. Daughter has child. Child takes the mother's name and is raised in the family by a grandfather or uncle. In two or three generations nobody knows or remembers, but the father's side of the DNA will never match Hescott Matlock is most likely the child of Nicholas Matlock who married Mary Jane Shelton. John Matlock of 1683 did have other sons who's families are unknown. As the number of participants in the DNA testing increases many of these issues will resolve themselves. Any word on the Matlick results yet?? Joe Matlock >>> <BA044@aol.com> 6/9/2004 12:09:59 PM >>> Ok I have added the info on the new member... I am surprised that it wasnt an exact match to Sam and Joe... and that the markers are so far off... this Scott and Alton seem to match the closest yet not close enough.... Joe what do you think? Is it possible that your Luke, and Sams ancester doesnt belong to Moore? Or does LB and Mary Light.. and or LB and Pheobe not belong to Moore and this group? Brenda Genetic Distance Analysis: kit #20595 Scott Matlock Kit# Name Distance19782 Alton Glen Matlock 514104 Charles G Matlock 612569 Samuel Willis Medlock 713801 Robert Lee Medlock 714350 Albert Ronell Medlock 714482 Joe W Matlock 714380 Leonard Medlock 818634 John Marion Medlock 1718809 Edgar Lee Matlock 18 Now this Scott is coming from John H Matlock Now this John is said son of Littleberry and Pheobe Tharp.. Littleberry being the said son of Littleberry and Mary Light Matlock.. Littleberry being the brother to Joes Luke and sons of Moore.. So with the Matches being off so far, Where is the mistake at in this tree? is John not the son of Littleberry? I have questioned before, IS this John the son of Charles and not LB? Thing of the Charles, being his father wouldnt really work either for he is said son of Littleberry and Pheobe as well,.... DNA info shows: 5Not Related7/12 - You are not related and the odds greatly favor that you have not shared a common male ancestor with this person within thousands of years.