Greetings Listmates, In a recent posting I made the statement that the first documentation of a random mutation on allele 464c was with Albert Henson Queen, his son, or grandson. This appears to be an incorrect statement. I'd like to share some observations for the evaluation and comments of others. 1. The Hence Queen (b. 1823) lineage to donor of kit 24404 carries the same DNA as does old William Queen. Thus, Hence was most likely a descendant of William. The donor of kit 26707 of the Hence lineage has a random mutation on allele 464c; otherwise his is the same as old William. He, too, likely descends from William through Hence. The mutation likely occurred between the donor and his most recent common ancestor with the donor of kit 24404. 2. The Samuel Queen (b. 1759) lineage to donor of kit 35107 carries the same DNA on the first 25 markers as does old William. (No update to 37 is planned.) Thus, when considered with donor of kit 26983 of the Samuel lineage, this donor is most likely a descendant of old William. (Samuel is documented.) The donor of kit 26983 has a random mutation on allele 464c; otherwise his is the same as old William. The mutation likely occurred between the donor and his most recent common ancestor with the donor of kit 35107. 3. The Alfred Queen (b. 1810) lineage to donor of kit 31268 carries the same DNA as does old William except for a mutation on allele 464c. The mutation likely occurred between the donor and his g.grandfather, John R. Queen (b. ca 1854). Since John's brother, James Henry Queen (b. 1847) apparently had a single mutation on allele 447, it is likely that the DNA of John R. Queen, himself, had no mutation from that of old William. (Additional tests are in process or planned for the Alfred lineage in an attempt to provide solid documentation.) DNA results thus far lead me to the conclusion that 19 donors clearly link back to old William. The donor of kit 29639 probably does not link back to Reuben Queen, however the donor of kit 24329 does, therefore Reuben links back to old William. These results suggest to me that we must be careful when comparing identical mutations on the fast-mutating alleles. We could falsely assume a more close relationship than actually existed with a donor of an identical mutation. Yes, I'm tentatively putting John R. Queen (b. ca 1854) "back in" the Alfred Queen family and concluding that his absence from the family on the 1860 census was merely an omission of the census taker. Gene