Barbara and all: Thoughts... (of shoes and ships and sealing wax).... ++ I anticipate soon having Michael's virtual census 1 and virtual census 2 melded into one along with a "completed" Meredith line to tack onto the "Unentangled" write-up for a new data base CD "Poythress Family 2.0"...which of course will be mailed to all; mailed instead of emailed...via e-mail Rootsweb would convert it to text and make a mess of it, besides, it's hoving up on 240MB and I'm not sure we could stuff that much through the system anyway. ++ could we flesh out the Lewis line from where it starts in Mike's work down to our Lewis descendents? No particular hurry but it needs to be included if it can be included. ++ with respect to the DNA project (and Barbara's yeoperson duty for which we are all truly thankful) I'm thinking that the horizon might have considerable time lapsing between version 2.0-to-be and version 3.0-to-be. Wouldn't it be appropriate to have something of a soup to nuts "formal" paper outlining what we have found todate for the 2.0 disk? And perhaps prefaced with a general introduction to the whole DNA matter in general..either of one of say, Barbara's composing or a canned one (simple) copied from somewhere? (I realize FamilyTreeDNA says they provide a tutorial for the uninitiated but I've either not seen it or have seen it and didn't have sense enough to recognize it. <g>) Barbara, I'm confident there's no one else capable of writing this one but you. ++ I would also be most happy to know if FamilyTreeDNA has made some statement along the lines that we are approaching some kind of "finality" with the 59 marker groups. I'm not especially enthralled with the prospect of them walking us up to, say, a few hundred markers at 100 bucks per every 22 markers, I being skeptically inclined to think that further "science" just might be only a question of further "marketing appetite", august body that FamilyTreeDNA may be. ++ I also have a thought that if Christopher Poytress' results are imminent, certainly the 2.0 disk could wait to include them as they will likely be quite significant. ++ while inquiring about the status of the number of guys signed up for the 59 marker test I'll simultaneously urge those who haven't to part with their hundred bucks or whatever and sign up...it ain't going to kill you. ++ do the Portis results tell us anything at all? I was never very much as convinced by the Delphy Poythress connection as I was by Kirby Poythress nee' Portis who shows quite clearly "evolving" over several records from a Portis to a Poythress down in Isle of Wight county..which I'm just guessing is where that variant started in the first place. ++ might any Porteus/Porteous DNA results settle this variant once and for all for us? I remain open to the prospect but would bet that DNA will reveal no conclusive connections. I say this because that Porteus crowd has a pretty clearly defined and high profile identity of their own with members appearing in contexts unrelated to Poythresses other than sharing a time frame occasionally. ++ I think I'm operating with some kind of mental block here but I'm having a hard time understanding how a CLOSER proximity of the MCRA for any group of us would make descent from Francis MORE likely..it seems to me to be the other way around. Whatever...if you all say so I"ll accept it as one of life's mysteries. Just some thoughts thrown out for comment or whatever. Maynard

Maynard, re the thoughts & questions in your message earlier today: - Glad to hear you anticipate soon having available to mail out, Michael's compilations melded into one along with a "completed" Meredith line..." I personally hope that your Meredith portion will fully address what all can be (and cannot be?) concluded re Hester from sources - No, FamilyTreeDNA has not made any statement re the 59-marker test being their final one they will develop. It may well be the final one many of our participants will take part in, but the company will no doubt continue to refine their work as the DNA field progresses (As you may recall, they are the company working with National Geographic on the worldwide genographic study). - I unfortunately must clarify for you that I do *not* have the expertise to write a "soup to nuts formal paper outlining what we have found to date" on our Poythress/Poytress-Surname Y-DNA Study. My email that I'll send the List soon (for you to incorporate if you wish in the CD) on findings to date will basically rehash what I've already reported. That email will be more complete regarding only the first 12-markers, since that test level is the one that ALL 13 of our participants have done so far. 12 of our 13 participants are almost completely identical on those first 12-markers. - In a couple of months we should have 59-marker test results for at least 11 of those mostly-identical 12 participants. It would not be beneficial for our participant in Haplogroup A to order that test since so many of the initial 37 markers are different anyway from those of the other 12 Study participants. (I still haven't heard from one of the descendants of William E. Poythress of Georgia, so don't know if he will order the 59-marker test.) When we get the 59-marker results, it will be a lot easier for me to even write anything trying to relay info, versus trying right now the impossibility of comparing various folks' 12-marker tests, some 25-marker tests, and some 37-marker tests in any sort of coherent message. - The tutorial by FamlyTreeDNA regarding DNA for genealogy purposes is located at the following part of their website: http://www.familytreedna.com/tutorial_A.html - The English participant (descended from Christopher Poytress) test results is one of the 59-marker tests we're awaiting now. His 37-marker results will be mentioned in my rehash message today. - I personally regard the Porteous DNA (that Doug Porteous wrote about the other day), as clarifying that *probably* folks named Porteous are not just different-spelling cousins of folks named Poythress. I say "probably" because his is only one test-sample and it's hard to conclude anything if his is for any reason different from a bunch of other Porteous folks' DNA. - For your question re Portis results, see my rehash message to be out probably tomorrow (Too much computer-use for my arms already today). Oh, and I don't offhand recognize the name of Delphy who you mention, by the way. - re your last section on "some kind of mental block" -- The concept of probabilities & odds is certainly one part of all this DNA stuff that I find difficult to fully grasp, never having studied such statistical stuff in college. I'm just a volunteer at all this, no statistician and certainly no scientist <g> In my message of 9 April, my *intended* point (versus however it ended up reading) was *not* that descent from Francis would become more likely with the 59-marker tests, but rather that the 59-marker tests will give more clear definition of a Most Recent Common Ancestor among the American participants -- descendants of David, versus of Lewis or Thomas or whoever. Hope this helps address your many thoughts. Barbara