Greetings all, I'm going to break my YDNA comments up into a number of mailings so as to focus a few subjects at the time. Some review, then some new evaluations based upon new results. Everyone interested in the Queen YDNA Project should be very familiar with Rolla's spreadsheet by now. Without it, we'd be lost except for those of us who have developed spreadsheets of our own. Thus, the link below to Rolla's fine spreadsheet...thanks MAN! http://webpages.charter.net/rlqueen/DNA/queenmarker.htm Focusing on the first 37 markers - the recommendation of our testing company for most of us - we find that YDNA has allowed us to group "Queens" into a number of broad groupings. With all due respect and best wishes for the other groups, I will focus on the old William of 1716-20 group. In this group we have 11 donors with identical markers to the 37 marker level. (I have included one confidential Henry result for our friend, Bill Henry). These samples represent: 1. Samuel Queen of 1759 - kit 35107 2. Joseph Queen - kit 29459 3. Isaac Queen, Sr. (1806-1809) - kit 28391 4. Meredith Queen (ca 1775) - kit 24845 5. James A. Queen (1800) - kit 46522 6. Cornelius Henry - (the one with no mutations) 7. Richard Queen of 1766 - kit 69696 8. Hampton Queen of 1796 - kit 23661 9. Hence Queen of 1823 - kit 24404 10. Alfred Queen of 1810 - kit 72192 11. John Queen of 1806 - kit 25626 The word from our testing company, based upon broad statistical interpretations of data, is that the above donors (with emphasis on donors) descend from a common ancestor back up our tree somewhere. They even give us probabalities of how far back up the tree this common ancestor was. Thus, based upon YDNA evidence, these donors should be able to claim old William Queen of 1716-20 as an ancestor of theirs. Nothing new here, just a restatement of old evidence/facts. Thus, if hard documentary evidence is available, the documentary evidence should support the YDNA evidence and vice-versa. Perhaps it's worth re-stating that the DONOR descends from old William. Anyone who can prove a blood relationship to one of these donors can also claim old William as their ancestor. Thus, we have "clean" (no mutation) evidence of the relationship here in Evaluation 1. Later, for Evaluation 2 and the two sub-groups of the old William lineage. Gene