Hi Merle (et al.), Thanks for the kind words regarding the project - they are most appreciated. However, I will note that Newton is a more popular surname than some others, and where our project is larger than those for other, less common surnames, I should probably not get credit for that. I do hope that the information is clear, but my main objectives are to 1) make the data public, and 2) provide all the information necessary for an interested 3rd party researcher to make up his own mind regarding the interpretation of the DNA data in a genealogically relevant setting. Regarding your question, there are at least a couple of Newtons who have Y-DNA tested, but for whatever reason have not joined the project. In those cases, I cannot get their DYS values, and can only approximate them based on how closely they are related to Newton men who ARE in the project. Also, I parse the genetic types by the first 12 markers exactly, and then markers 13-25, and though it has never happened, the next would be for markers 26-37. So in the case of type O...that node branches into O1 and O2, depending on the values in markers 13-25. If an O only tests 12 markers, then they will always just be "O". I do this as an executive decision so that I don't introduce my own bias. I don't want cases where (e.g.) two samples #1 and #2 are one mutation away from each other, and grouped together by me, yet #3 and #4 are also only one mutation away from each other and NOT grouped together by me. With my system, there is a hard and fast rule. This may lose some flexibility, but that's what the discussion sections (like this list) are for. First data, including defined node names, and then discussion. And with any luck, conclusions can next be drawn. The reason I pair these two concepts is because although I know the Newton men in question match very closely to the MOWZ grouping, I cannot tell if their differences lie in the first 12 markers or in the subsequent markers. Thus I don't know if they would be M or O or W, or Z, or maybe even something else, if it is a "new" mutation as far as the grouping is concerned. But whatever the case is, I know one of them matches one of our existing O2 participants to the tune of 36/37 markers. So he is clearly part of the same family, regardless of what his node name ends up being. When referring to your sample versus MOW, you said you all claim the same ancestors. But this is not really the case. Of course they are all related to some extent, but the claims are three counts of George (1742), two counts of Isaac (1735), your Abraham (1761), and whomever the non-Project Newton men claim. Because George descent claims span all nodes MOW, the Isaac claims get included in that MOW group because they are matching DNA type (viz.., node O) and have matching timing/geography and/or onomastics. If an Abraham (1761) claim came along and was M or O or W, then Z would also be included in the MOW group. Also, if you, Merle, claimed another generation upward of your Abraham to include any of these patriarchs - even if wrong - then Z would also get lumped in with MOW. So it should be clear that this process is curated/administrated, and the claimed descents are not intended to be scholarly. They are only there so that 3rd party researchers can identify the line unambiguously as to which providers sample yielded which data, and so that interested 3rd party researchers can determine for themselves whether the descents as claimed are bona fide, or else in error. As far as grouping of kin, I am sure Z is in there with MOW. In fact, it looks to me now like Isaac and George, and also Jacob (1739) were brothers. However, I would note that these DNA tests cannot distinguish very well between two sets of alternate close kinship types. That is to say, if Isaac and George were 1st cousins, instead of brothers, the data would very likely turn out identical to the situation we have presently. I am going to contact the matching Newton men and see if they will join the project. I hope that all people who see Newton men in their match list who are not part of the project will encourage those Newton men who have been Y-DNA tested to join the project. Best, Gregg