Jim, > > In the longer term this is also helpful in tying down the MRCA of > > the family as a whole. > > > Let's hope the next time we hear from you you'll be able to tell us his > name, DOB, etc. I'd be interested to know what you find out about him. You are quite right to pick up on my sloppy wording here. What I really meant was more like "limiting the 90% probability range for the MRCA to within a couple of centuries" which is sufficient to be of some interest. Beyond that we would be back to old fashioned conjecture backed up by a sadly lacking amount of water-tight evidence. We can always sustain a faint hope for an interesting outcome however. I make the following comments in the context of pretty much the *most informative* that it seems could be hoped for in terms of identifying particular individuals. You will note that there is repeated use of the word *IF* below. For example *IF* a DNA link were found to confirm claims of relatedness between Plant and Plantagenet and *IF* the MRCA for the Plant family were found to confirm the *extant* documentary evidence of Plant origins in the 13th century, a conjectural finger might begin wending its way towards the lecherous king John (based on odd bits of tenuous supporting evidence) or, perhaps partly depending on the Warren DNA project, towards the 13th century Warren earls of Surrey. If the Plants were found to be related instead to persons unknown or to other families that are less fully documented, the chances of identifying particular individuals would most probably be less than this. The above *hypothetical* basis for future conjecture relates solely to Plant and Planatagenet. There are many other combinations of relatedness that *could* arise amongst the many different Plant-like names with various different implications. For example, there could be implications of geographical migration. Negative DNA results could destroy existing theories just as surely as positive DNA results could help to create new ones. For example, only two with the spelling Plante have yet been tested and they were both held to be French Canadian descendants of a 17th century imigrant from western France. However their DNA did not match showing that they could not both be descendants of the said Nicholas Plante born c1593 at Laleu, La Rochelle, France. The Plante name is clustered mostly around Aquitaine but there have not *yet* been enough Plante volunteers to arrive at any conclusions about whether the Plantes are largely a single family. I guess I am just reiterating that the DNA evidence is of a different nature from the more usual genealogical evidence but that it can be relevant to genealogical conjectures that involve specific individuals with DOBs etc. Those involved in one-name studies are accustomed to dealing with generalities about family names as well as with specific individuals. Incidentally, the measurements are of haplotypes and so they are only *indicative* of the haplogroup but it can be added that the male-line haplogroup of one of the Plante volunteers indicated ancient Middle Eastern origins (cf. ?Septamania) whereas the other was more suggestive of Scandinavian origins. The modal haplotype for the Plant family (as opposed to individuals with the spelling Plante) indicates ancient Western European (e.g. Ireland, Wales, Western France, Spain, etc) origins. Regards, John -- . . John S Plant PhD MBCS MIDI KLUO . Chartered Information Systems Practitioner .......unifying cerebral creativity with intelligent algorithms Tel.(01782)58 3064 : j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk :: Computing Services, Fax.(01782)58 3636 : helpdesk@isc.keele.ac.uk ::: Keele Information Services. .....Dr.J.S.Plant,Computing Services,Keele University,Staffordshire,ST5 5BG.