Hello Everyone, I am going to go ahead and release the results of our DNA testing to everyone since all of our participants have been notified at this point. However, the final analysis that we are still waiting for has been referred out to a Statistician by the lab director and now looks like about a three week wait for it. Therefore, we must use caution when interpreting these results until that final report is made. I want to reiterate this point by giving a little more information. Samples from 23 male Paynes were screened for 24 Y-chromosomal "loci." This means that the lab tested each participants sample looking for 24 specific markers (referred to as "loci") on the Y-chromosome. Perhaps it would do to give another brief explanation of the principal behind Y-chromosome DNA testing. For that, I will turn to the literature provided by the lab: Y-chromosome (Ycs) markers are inherited from father to son and remain mostly unaltered from generation to generation. This property makes the Ycs an ideal focus for genealogical studies because, barring adoption or illegitimacy, the route of the Ycs through time in a pedigree exactly parallels the surname in many western cultures. The Ycs will pass from fathers to each son in the pedigree. In women, the Ycs inherited by their sons will be different because these sons belong to a different male line- that of their father. For this reason, women, and their male descendants, were excluded from our testing. The Ycs is widely used in establishing relationships among individuals sharing the same or similar last names. By determining a Ycs fingerprint, or "Haplotype" as it is known, of several related male individuals we can create a Ycs haplotype that is inherited with a specific surname. This information can be used for further genealogical pursuits by allowing males with the same or similar last name to compare Ycs haplotypes and determine descent from a common paternal ancestor. The results you are about to see are FIXED- meaning that the values under each "loci" you will see on the chart for each participant will not change. That much is firm and can be relied upon. This enables us to compare the results of one participant with the other effectively enough to determine relationships between our participants. A road map for the chart you are about to see can be easily given. The chart contains 25 columns of data. The first column gives the participants details, which includes the participants identifier (such as "IP+AW-1735-01," which is nothing more than the initials of the ancestor, a spouse if known, and a date that can be associated with them- such as a birth or death date), it also includes the area of the country of the ancestor, and finally the name of the ancestor and his spouse if known. A bit redundant but necessary to protect the privacy of the particpant. So that takes care of column one. You can look under this column to determine if one of these participants belongs to your own Payne line. The next 24 columns represent the "loci" sites in the DNA. The values or numbers under each "loci" site in the chart correspond to the number of "repeats" the participant had at that loci site. All of these 24 loci sites tested are made up entirely of repeated segments of DNA. What makes these sites useful is that while everyone has them, they are different lengths in different individuals. For example, one individual might have 8 repeat units, called "allele 8," while another may have 10 repeat units, called "allele 10." These values or "allele" can be thought of as the number of segments of DNA contained in a particular "loci." Therefore, in the most simple terms, the closer the match in all 24 sites between one or more individuals in our test, the more likley they were related. For example, an exact match in all 24 sites might indicate ancestors had been brothers or father and son. One difference in a loci site might also indicate the same type of relationship, but that the particular loci had undergone a "mutation," which do occur over time. However, these mutations are on the order of many generations. One difference might also indicate an uncle or other near relative. Essentially, the more differences found between these sites, the less likely that a relationship existed between our ancestors. So while a match in all, or nearly all, of the loci sites would be indicative of a close relationship, such as father and son, a brother, a grandfather or uncle, a difference in the value of several loci sites would indicate that either no relationship existed, or if it did, it was more distant and occured long ago. This is where the Statistician comes in. The rate of mutuation in loci sites is stable, so statistically it is possible to determine how long ago a common ancestor had lived. You can think of it this way [although this is a very uneducated example]- Let's say that it is known that a change or mutation can be measured to occur every 100 years [a number out of the blue] and when two test results are compared you can identify that there are 3 differences. You can conclude from this reasoning that the two had shared a common ancestor that had lived 300 years ago. This can further be narrowed down by the statistician to give a more precise time frame which might enable researchers to identify a particular individual. Again, this is a very simple explantation of a very complex scientific analysis and should only be used as a general idea of the process involved. With all this in mind, we can turn to our specific test results. But keep in mind that we are also still waiting for the final analysis. The lab had indicated that we are the first family they have tested that can provide a long pedigree in many cases. Here, they are undoubtedly referring to the Suffolk, Norfolk and Jersey branches of the Payne family that can all trace their roots into the 15th century with some certainty. Because of this, they see this as an opportunity for them to take a closer look at the analysis process. Although it may extend our wait, we can only benefit from the scrutiny they are giving us. But we should remember that in the end, the suggested pedigree that they have come up with at this preliminary stage may change. So what follows is the best we can do for now until that final report is made available to us. Out of our 23 participants, the lab has identified 7 main ancestral groups. Two of these groups have been identified as primary groups, and they believe that all 7 had shared a common ancestor. We will know more about this in the final report. The chart may be viewed at http://papayne.rootsweb.com/dna-project . An explanation, as best it can be explained at this point, is included below: The 2 primary groups identified are as follows: Group 1: Charles Payne (b. ca. 1798) of Tennessee, who married Elizabeth Davis. Thomas Payne (b. 1664) of Lancaster and Middlesex County, Va., who married Mary Montagu and Elizabeth Elliott. Isaiah Payne (b. 1735) of Dorchester County, Maryland, who married Ann Williams. William Payne (b. 1805) who married Celia Lewis. Of these individuals in group 1, the participants DNA samples were nearly identical, having only 1 mutation between them. The lab has stated that these individuals had, without a doubt, been closely related. In the final analysis, we hope that this statement will become more specific by indicating the number of generations separating them from a common ancestor. As a member of this group myself, I found the results surprising. It clearly links my ancestor Isaiah Payne [who is believed to have been a descendant of Thomas Payne and Jane Smallpiece of St. Mary's, Maryland], with Thomas Payne and his father, Ralph Payne, of Lancaster and Middlesex County, Virginia. "The Paynes of Virginia" by Col. Brooke Payne mentions this family and goes so far as to suggest that the immigrant John Payne had been related to them due to their numerous associations. Thomas, his brother Ralph, and Ralphs son Thomas Payne are believed to have been descendants of Stephen, Abraham and Charles Payne of Jersey in the Channel Islands, who had fled to St. Kitts in the Caribbean Islands after the battle of Worcester in 1641. The other surprise here, however, is that there was no match between this group and our 1 participant from Jersey [TP+??-1410-01 in our test]. This information will cause us to seek other participants from the Jersey family as we cannot rule out at this point the possibility of a non-paternity issue or error in the genealogy of the one participant we had. Testing at least one other member of this family will determine whether group 1 should look to another branch of the Payne family for their ancestors, thus laying to rest the old family traditions that Stephen Payn and his descendants had been members of the Jersey family. At the same time, it would not hurt to test more descendants from each of the individuals in group 1, just to ensure the continuity in the results. It would also appear that another participant can be added to this group, but we will have to wait for the final report to be sure. George Payne (d. 1744) of Virginia, who married Mary Woodson [GP+MW-1744-01 in our test], was a descendant of the immigrant John Payne. This participants DNA seemingly differs from those in group 1 in 4 loci. However, 2 of the differences fall under the DYS389 and DYS389II loci. The information provided by the lab states that "Loci DYS389I and DYS289II move in tandem. Therefore, when there is a mutation in DYS389I, it will also appear to be in DYS389II. When comparing one individual to another, if DYS389I and DYS389II differ by the same number of repeats, it should be counted as one mutation." Also, the mutation under DYS386B has not yet been calibrated. Therefore, there may be a much closer match in the DNA samples indicating a closer relationship between this participant and Group 1. This would mean that all of the individuals in Group 1 could be near kinsmen of the immigrant John Payne, which would support Col. Brooke Paynes suggestion made in 1935- only, Brooke wasn't aware that Ralph and Thomas had kin in Maryland, as I suspected they did. Group 2: John Payne (b. 1820) of North Carolina. Thomas Payne (b. 1787) of Tennessee. Jesse Payne (b. 1828) of Georgia, who married Mary Kate Mabry. William Payne (d. 1780) of Virginia, who married Sarah Manes. Samuel Payne (d. 1848) of Georgia, who married Lucy Echols. The participants whose ancestors had been the first 3 in this list (John, Thomas and Jesse) match in every detail of their DNA- all 24 loci were a match. No question that they were closely related. The last two in the list had only one mutation from the first three, and it was in the same loci, indicating that they had possible descended from one individual (whose DNA contained this one mutation) as opposed to just the same line. There are 2 other distinguishable groups identified, as follows: Group 3: Thomas Paine (d. 1706) of Massachusetts, whom married Mary Snow. There were 2 participants as descendants of Thomas Paine. This was confirmed by the DNA analysis which showed 1 mutation at loci DYS462. Group 4: Benjamin Payne (b. ca. 1750) of Virginia William Payne (b. 1863) of Virginia, who married Mollie Simmons. Of the remaining groups the lab identified, the most pronounced differences came from the descendants of Stephen Paine and Rose Adcocke of Massachusetts, and Frank Payne of Vermont. There were many differences in their sample when compared to any of the rest. As for all the remaining participants, it is difficult for me to say how they may or may not fit into one of the other groups. By and large, the samples look very comparable to many of the others, so I will wait to hear what the lab has to say on these. To summarize the data, several groups have been identified and the lab fells that some of these groups shared a common ancestor. Their explanation of this finding is expected to follow in their final report. I will make the final report available in a similar way when it arrives. We have had a great beginning with this project. We now have a foundation [thanks to these initial 23 individuals] that others can build on in the future. It has established our Payne family DNA signature. It has revealed some surprises for us that I believe many people would never have anticipated. In some cases, the results clearly show a close kinship between branches previously thought to have none. I suspect this knowledge will increase as more Paynes elect to participate. I have been asked about another round of testing, and I am willing to coordinate that effort should the need arise [and I sincerely hope that it does]. I believe this first round indicates just how necessary it is for us to continue with the project.