Hi Listers, NEWTON Surname DNA Project webpage: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gbonner/newtondna/ A new test result reveals another NEWTON DNA type, given now as "Type 'W'". The participant claims descent from the George Newton who was born in North Carolina Abt. 1768, and died 20 Jun 1843 in Rocky Ford, Screven County, Georgia. His wife was Mary, whose maiden name is given variously as Robinson, Robeson, Robison, etc. This George is believed to be the son of George Newton (b. 1742, d. aft. 1790), Revolutionary Soldier, and his wife Ann "Nancy" Moore, of the Duplin County, North Carolina batch of NEWTON folks. The result is interesting for a variety of reasons. Principally among them (in my view) is because the "W" type splits the difference exactly between our prior types of "M" and "O". You may recall that our other participants who claim descent from the NEWTONs of Duplin County were types "M" and "O". While the sample size is still too small to tell definitively, if this holds up, then the new sample helps tie the line of Isaac Newton (m. Jemima Chambers) and George Newton (m. Ann "Nancy" Moore), and gives increased credibility to the notion that these last Isaac and George were brothers after all. You may recall that I cast doubt on this notion previously, since the two previous NEWTON DNA types (i.e., "M" and "O") were separated by two mutations, which is quite unusual for lines with a most recent common ancestor putatively living as recently as approximately 250 years ago. However, there is still a large amount of confusion regarding these lines that the DNA (and traditional methods) has yet to iron out, owing largely to the great number of NEWTONs in the area with the names Isaac and George. One of our "O" participants claims descent from Isaac Milton Newton, son of Isaac Newton, but it is not clear to me who this last Isaac Newton's father was. I had him listed as Isaac, the son of George (m. Ann "Nancy" Moore), but this could well be in error. I was going to move that line to be a son of Isaac Newton and Elizabeth Bland, which would make a lot of sense in light of the DNA results, since the two type "O"s would then be in the same branch, but our new participant pointed out to me online claims that Patrick Newton (evidently originating from a NJ line of NEWTONs, but himself later in the NC census) had a son Isaac who had a son Isaac M. Newton with the same/correct birth year to be said Isaac Milton Newton. I have no idea, so I am going to truncate that line (#60316) at Isaac, father of Isaac Milton Newton, with the father of the elder Isaac left unknown, awaiting some resolution. Another reason the line(s) seems recalcitrant towards resolution is because this area of genetic space (around types "M", "O", and "W") is very densely populated. That is to say, these DNA types are all very common. So, given a common DNA profile, and a relatively common surname that derives in most cases from a place-name, one can see how the lines might share similar DNA profiles purely by coincidence. Couple this to the fact that 3 of our 4 Duplin County-related participants tested only 12 markers, and you have a recipe for conclusions that are not robust. Thankfully, our "M" sample has agreed to upgrade to more markers. By comparing those new results, when available, to our existing more-than-12-marker "O" sample, we should have substantially or entirely eliminated the chance for coincidental matching. It is my hope that I can prevail on the remaining Duplin County participants to upgrade similarly. ARE Isaac and George brothers?:::: I want to make a special consideration of this, since I want people to be aware of the present case. Let's say that Isaac Milton Newton is the son of Isaac, the son of Isaac Newton and Elizabeth Bland...this last being the son of Isaac Newton and Jemima Chambers. And let's assume that our other "O" participant's claimed descent is correct (i.e., through Enoch, son of Isaac Newton and Jemima Chambers). Further, let's assume George Newton who married Mary Robinson is son of George Newton who married Ann "Nancy" Moore, and finally let's assume that William Isaac Newton is indeed son of Isaac, the son of this same George Newton, the Revolutionary Soldier born about 1742. How would that stack up against the DNA? Well, since Isaac Newton (m. Jemima Chambers) has two descendants from different sons of his, both of type "O", that would mean that Isaac himself was type "O". And George Newton (RS, b. 1742) would have one son's line going to "W" and another to "M". That means that George was very likely either "W" or "M". This means that the putative father of "brothers" Isaac and George would have had to have had a mutation between himself and one son or the other, AND another mutation along the line leading to either the "W" or the "M" participant. From the perspective of DNA, this is really unlikely. If you have to identify a SINGLE generation in which the mutation nearly must have occured, then you are usually in trouble. Bad news. Furthermore, given that DNA will mutate (using 12 markers) usually along one line about once every 800 years, and here we have only 250 years, and yet TWO mutations. That's a bad sign - statistically very unlikely. But as I said before, it is a small sample and a lot of assumptions, and not enough markers. What we need are samples from other lines of Isaac (not through Enoch or Isaac) and George (not through Isaac or George), if possible, and from the other "brothers" (Jacob and Samuel) postulated for Isaac and George, and more markers in all cases. I will close with one last point. Some may be familiar with "Descendants of Sarah Graves and Abraham Newton of MA & NC" as promulgated here: http://www.gravesfa.org/gen538.htm We now have 4 samples with descent from the Duplin branch, and none of them are even close to the "J" type that is now a very robust association with the Richard Newton of Sudbury/Marlboro. The idea that the Duplin County NEWTON clan(s) descend from this Richard Newton is just about as dead as a hypothesis can be. It appears to me that someone has used the census records to determine that Abraham Newton was likely the oldest in the Duplin area, and thus the father of all others of appropriate age there. Then they went "fishing" for an older Abraham and came across some in the line of Richard Newton, and made an erroneous connection. I understand that this document at the GRAVES Family site resembles greatly the material in "Aldermans Family of America" (or similar title), which I have not seen. But suffice it to say that, in my opinion, this material is exceptionally suspect, contains at least one patent, outright, and glaring error, seems to be riddled with confusion between folks of the same name, contains vast editorialization masquerading as proved relationships, and might be best to be ignored in its entirety, at least as it reagards the earlier generations. But that's only my opinion. Apologies for length, Gregg Bonner NEWTON Surname DNA Project Group Administrator __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com