Revised YDNA results are in on one sample and it's my opinion that some of the Reuben Queen folks and James C. Queen folks should take a careful look. I truly be quiet and not steal any of Rolla's thunder when he updates his chart; but if he doesn't share some observations and possibilities....well, then, he's lost his touch. I'll be watching the posts to see how this unfolds, but I be silent. Gene

Gene seems to think I have some special wisdom. I got squat! I am just a young whippersnapper, to young to have wisdom. I got lots of bluster and opinion, however. But first! How bout them HEELS!!! Now, as Gene has said, I have just posted revised results for kit 38694. The 37-67 marker results reported by FTDNA were in ERROR. It has been corrected and we can now place this participant firmly in the family tree he belongs. We have an interesting development between kits 38694, 26040, 26983 and 35107. If you look at the lineage version of the websheet, you can see how I have grouped this participants pretty easily. But what does it mean? How do we explain these results - are things as easy and obvious as they appear? Well, we might be able to state a few obvious things. It appears that these four participants represent descendants of at least two brothers, sons of William Queen. The sons are Samuel and William Lewis. The William Lewis Queen connections seems pretty solid, since two participants share the same "16" mutation on marker 464c. And it appears to support the documentary record for at least one of the partipants. The descendant participants tracing back to Samuel are a little more interesting. One shares a 17 with the majority of the Group 1 Queens, the other has a 15. a two step difference. But clearly, the documentary record for these two participants supports a common ancestor back to Samuel, and a close lineal relationship for these two participants. But the sequence of the mutations may not be as straightforward as it seems. There are actually a couple of ways or more to explain the results and get the same outcome, but each explanation has implications for the larger Group 1 Queens. The obvious interpretation is that 38694 and 26040 are more closely related than they are two 26983 and 35107. But that leaves the two step mutation from 35107 to 26983 and little problematic to explain, but not unreasonable. It might seem an obvious statement that 35107 shares the 17 with the larger group, and perhaps Old William, the 16 develops later for William Lewis descendants, and the 15 separately develops down the line through Samuel. But I have argued in the past that one should dismiss the simplest solutions first before moving on to more complex explanations. The classic DNA explanation would look to try to explain the sequence beginning with the 17, then stepping down through the 16 to the 15 - sort of like this: 17---->16----->15 Is there anyway we can dismiss this explanation given the result we see. Is there any possible way that the following explanation could hold water. 15--->16--->17 Is it possible that the 15 is the ancestral marker, and we see an upward migration leading to a 17 shared by most of the descendants of Old William? How does that square with the 19/20 split? Just thinking off the top of old baldy! Answer me these things! Rolla -----Original Message----- From: queen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:queen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of O. Eugene Queen Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 6:32 PM To: QResearchers Subject: [QUEEN] Reuben and James C. Queen Revised YDNA results are in on one sample and it's my opinion that some of the Reuben Queen folks and James C. Queen folks should take a careful look. I truly be quiet and not steal any of Rolla's thunder when he updates his chart; but if he doesn't share some observations and possibilities....well, then, he's lost his touch. I'll be watching the posts to see how this unfolds, but I be silent. Gene