Rita and all, I can relate to the "Argh!!". But, perhaps I owe you a great big hug! The mutations on "fast moving" marker 464c may help a number of us to help each other. We now have 3 samples with perfect matches (15) on allele 464c and all other markers. To my knowledge, there is no documentary evidence linking the ancestry of the three donors back up the tree to Samuel Queen of 1759. Therefore, it's beginning to appear to me that each of the 3 donors have found evidence of a mutation in their lineage that - PURELY COINCIDENTALLY - is the same. If true, then these mutations do not alter the documentation of their direct line ancestors; the mutations merely reflect a genetic branch in the tree. Arguments for the Hence Queen genetic lineage: 1. Hence Queen's YDNA was the same as that of old William. 2. Hinsey Jonas Queen's YDNA was the same as that of his father, Hence. 3. The James Harve Queen lineage continued with the exact DNA of Hence. 4. A mutation hit the YDNA of Riley Ireland Queen or the donor. Riley and the donor are both legal and biological descendants of Hinsey Jonas Queen; however a mutation occurred with Riley or the donor. This mutation distinguishes the genetics of this branch of the Hinsey Jonas Queen tree. YDNA has simply done what YDNA randomly does. In this case the mutation was a relatively recent occurence (1894 or 1924). My arguments for the Samuel Queen of 1759 genetic lineage: 1. I stand by my argument that the YDNA of Samuel Queen was a perfect match to that of his father, old William. 2. Somewhere up the tree between the donor of the Samuel Queen lineage and old Samuel Queen, himself...a mutation also occurred on the fast moving allele 464c. Coincidentally, the marker is 15. The mutation distinguishes the genetics of this branch of the Samuel Queen tree. One of my arguments, with sub-arguments, regarding the Alfred Queen genetic lineage: 1. Alfred Queen's YDNA was the same as that of old William. No mutations. 2. Alfred's son, James Henry Queen of 1847 had a mutation on allele 447. This is documented with two samples. 3. Alfred's son (not adopted in this argument), John R. Queen, carried the exact YDNA of Alfred; a perfect match with old William. However, somewhere down the tree of John R. Queen a mutation occurred on the fast moving allele 464c. Coincidentally, the marker is 15. What was unacceptable to me with results thus far in the Alfred Queen lineage was the idea that two of Alfred's sons (James Henry and John R.) had mutations; but the mutations were not the same. This just didn't make sense statistically. Further, if Alfred had the mutation on allele 447 and passed it on to James Henry Queen, then there was a back mutation in the DNA of John R. Or, if Alfred had the mutation on allele 464c and passed it on to John R., then there was a back mutation in the DNA of James Henry. Again, this didn't make the best of sense. The best of sense and genetics is that Alfred had no mutations; but one son did and a grandson or later descendant of another son had a different mutation. Conclusions: 1. More samples are needed of the Samuel Queen of 1759 lineage to identify the source of the mutation on allele 464c. If that mutation occurred after the birth of Alfred's John R. Queen, then coincidence is proven. 2. A sample is need of the lineage of a third son of Alfred Queen. If there are no mutations in that sample; then the theory of a perfect match of Alfred with old William is proven. Comments, challenges, differing opinions welcomed. Gene