Until approximately 500 short years ago it was scientific "fact" that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. Eventually, some troublemakers including Copernicus, Galileo and Columbus challenged those scientific "facts" and the world has never been the same since. I say that to say this. Our knowledge of YDNA and relationships is based upon "facts" as we know them today. These "facts" and other evidence of relationships may change as additional information comes to light. But, we must plow forward, so referring to Rolla's spreadsheet, here goes... http://webpages.charter.net/rlqueen/DNA/queenmarker.htm Evaluation 3: 1. Two-step mutations: Let's take a bite out of this one using some hard evidence. John Bob (Robert) Queen (b. 8-31-1853 d. 3-19-1887) was a son of Alfred Queen of 1810. John had one child - a son, George Wilson Queen (b. 6-16-1883 d. 8-15-1923). George had children, including sons William Earlie and Walter A. Queen. YDNA kit 31268 is from a descendant of William Earlie and kit 72192 is from a descendant of Walter A. Queen. Notice that these first cousins have the 19 on 520 and also a common 11 on 565. So far, so good; the YDNA facts match the spoken facts that these first cousins know each other and have no reason to doubl their ancestry and relationship to each other. However, kit 31268 of the William Earlie lineage also has a 15 on 464c while his cousin has a 17 as do most of the Queen 19's (and 20's for that matter). So, what gives? The mutation had to come from the donor (a two-step mutation) or the donor's father (a two-step mutation) or else the father's marker moved from 17 to 16 and the donor's marker moved from 16 to the 15. Inquiring minds had to know the answer. Facts had to be separated from fiction. Statistical probablilites had to be replaced with hard one-on-one evidence....and a donor was available. Thus, donor kit 63451, a brother to kit 31268 was tested. We didn't need the 67 marker test because we knew that his brother and first cousin both had the 19 on 520 and the 11 on 565. We were only interested in the marker on 464c. Would it be a 17, a 16, or a 15? The results arrived late last week and now we know. Donor 63451 has the common 17 on 464c - a two-step difference between he and his brother. Thus, kit 31268 with the 15 has a two-step mutation from that of his brother, his first cousin and other tested descendants of Alfred of 1810. ...........How to apply this knowledge to other samples in the Queen Project? Without solid evidence as was obtained with the above samples, we now move from hard factual evidence to imperfect logic and reason. Still, I'm bold enough to give it a shot. a. I will argue that the 15 on 464c of kit 26707 of the Hence Queen lineage is a parallel mutation to the 15 of the above discussed donor. I will support my argument with the knowledge that all of John Queen's descendants are known thru the 1940's and the Hence donor is not one of those male descendants. I will further point to the fact that the Hence donor does not have the 11 on 565 as do the John Queen descendants. I will further argue that since the 11 in the John Queen lineage is shared by first cousins, the 11 originated with George Wilson Queen (b. 1883) the father of William Earlie and Walter A. or it originated with George's father, John Queen of 1853. Alfred did not have the 11. b. The Hence Queen donor of kit 26707, with the 15, shares a common ancestor with the other Hence donor in 1858; thus this common ancestor did not have the 15 (else he would have passed it on to both his sons). The 15 in the Hence Queen lineage occurred with the donor or the donor's father; neither a descendant of the John Queen of 1853 lineage. c. There are no other matching mutations between the 4 lineages of the 19s, except for the 19 itself. Thus, within the sub-group (19) of the old William group we have a parallel mutation in the lineage of Hence Queen with the lineage of Alfred Queen. Further, one of these mutations is a documented two-step mutation. The other 15 may well be a two-step, but this has not been determined with YDNA evidence. Notice that I have absolutely refused to cross the divide between the 19s and 20s here. It is my firm belief that these are two distinct sub-groups and should be treated as such after the late 1700's. Next: Are single mutations confusing us? Gene