I have asked that sample 76807 be linked back only to John W. Queen, Jr. of 1816 at this time. There are two reasons for this: 1. The documentation I have collected and has been confirmed by a member of the donor's family reflects apparently solid documentation back to Jr. I certainly welcome and almost "beg" Queen listmates to argue for or against linking Jr to John Queen of 1774 Montgomery County, N.C. and from there back to Henson Queen. 2. If these results hold at the 25/37 marker level with kit 25676, then it will be an impossible stretch, genetically, to conclude that the donors are descendants of old Henson AND at the same time that old Henson was a son of old William. It just won't fit. Whew! I wanted some mutations. Well, we got 'em. I have zero question concerning the technical results. It's DNA doing its thing. How to interpret the results in light of what we thought we knew, or vice-versa, is the challenge. We certainly need to re-evaluate data regarding Henson. Gene