Another argument - another "what if"? Were Reuben and Moses Queen brothers? What does YDNA say? 1810 Burke: Moses (b. 1766-1784) 2 males born 1800-1810 (One could be James C. Queen, born 1805?) 1820 Burke: Moses (b. 1775 or earlier) 1 male born 1797-1804; 1 male born 1804-1814; 2 males born 1810-1820) 1830 Burke: Moses (b. 1770-1780) 1 male born 1800-1810; 1 male born 1810-1815; 1 male born 1815-1820 1840 Burke: Moses (b. 1760-1770) no young males in household Reuben Queen was born about 1786 in North Carolina; living in Montgomery County in 1810, then made his way to Texas. The birth year of Moses appears to have been in the range of 1770-1775; clearly within the range to have been a brother to Reuben. .................... Now, let's consider the DNA using 2 samples from the reported lineage of Reuben and 1 sample from the reported lineage of James C (Moses?). Kit 25569 of the James C (Moses?) lineage has an 18 on 456. (He also has a 17 on 557, but that appears to be a recent mutation and is being discounted). Thus kit 25569 matches the old William profile except for the mutation on 456. Kits 37863 and 29369 of the Reuben Queen lineage (thru his son Samuel) also have the 18 on 456. Since these two kits are from donors thru two different sons of Samuel of 1819, the argument is that Samuel had the 18 on 456. Looking strictly at YDNA results, one could rightly argue that Reuben and Moses were brothers and that their father (unknown thus far) ALSO had the 18 on 456 since BOTH his sons, Reuben and Moses, did. With this argument, we're looking for a pa for Reuben and Moses - a pa that was born prior to 1750 - and a pa who had mutation 18 on 456. ............... What about mutations 12 on 391 for both these sons of Samuel of 1819? Simply further DNA confirmation that the paper research is correct regarding the descendants of Samuel. The fact that somewhere down the line to the donor of kit 29369 another mutation, 13 on 388 was picked up is not important to this particular line of research. ........... What about the other kit, 24329, reportedly representing Reuben and the other kit, 26040, reportedly representing James C. (Moses)? For this particular argument, these kits are being temporarily ignored. Comments, challenges, questions? Gene

Gene argues: "Were Reuben and Moses Queen brothers? What does YDNA say? Looking strictly at YDNA results, one could rightly argue that Reuben and Moses were brothers and that their father (unknown thus far) ALSO had the 18 on 456 since BOTH his sons, Reuben and Moses, did. With this argument, we're looking for a pa for Reuben and Moses - a pa that was born prior to 1750 - and a pa who had mutation 18 on 456." Response: the scenario you present is plausible considering these three samples in isolation. Gene states: "What about mutations 12 on 391 for both these sons of Samuel of 1819? Simply further DNA confirmation that the paper research is correct regarding the descendants of Samuel. The fact that somewhere down the line to the donor of kit 29369 another mutation, 13 on 388 was picked up is not important to this particular line of research." Response: I agree. Gene asks: "What about the other kit, 24329, reportedly representing Reuben and the other kit, 26040, reportedly representing James C. (Moses)? For this particular argument, these kits are being temporarily ignored." Response: Now here is the rub!!!! Ignoring the 18 on 576 of 24329 may move us back into having to debate parallel mutations on this marker, something that I am reluctant to do. This kit obviously needs an upgrade, because the test results can be argued to place this descendant on both sides of the 19/20 divide. The only thing that argues for placing this test in the 20 column and associating it with Reubin is the information provided by the donor that the last confirmed ancestor was Reubin. This needs to be confirmed. Also the sponsor for kit 24329 needs to fill in the direct make ancestry for this kit so we can place it on the websheet and help us all in trying to marry the DNA to the documentary record. Kit 26040 is a different matter. Once we accept that 26040 and 25569 have James C. Queen as the most distant confirmed ancestor, then there is no way that Reubin and Moses could have had a Pa with the 18, then one of the grandsons end up with the 17 (don't go on about parallel mutations). It is just not consistent. I would argue that for 26040, we need to confirm the documentary record back to the most distant confirmed ancestor, and would be willing to argue that at some point things aren't so confirmed, and maybe one of these sponsors is playing with a speculative deck. There is one other possible explanation, but I ain't ready to go there yet! Rolla