Snooze Delete

LOL Oh this is perfect! So very true, my spell checker has stabbed me in the back a number of times <G> Eliz On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 3:38 AM, JANINE MANVILLE <janine.manville@btinternet.com> wrote: > A Little Poem Regarding Computer Spell Checkers... although I am sure you have all seen this before..... > > Eye halve a spelling chequer > It came with my pea sea > It plainly > marques four my revue > Miss steaks eye kin knot sea. > Eye strike a key and type a word > And weight four it two say > Weather > eye am wrong oar write > It shows me strait a weigh. > As soon as a mist ache is maid > It nose bee fore two long > And eye can > put the error rite > Its rare lea ever wrong. > Eye have run this poem threw it > I am shore your pleased two no > Its > letter perfect awl the weigh > My chequer tolled me sew. > >

Well said. I might add to that; Let anyone that has never messed up cast the first snide remark. Emery -----Original Message----- From: roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Carrie Rodman Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 11:32 AM To: roots@rootsweb.com Subject: [ROOTS-L] (no subject) It's has come to my attention that this listing is getting very rude, personal & and down right inconsiderate. We ALL mispell a word once in a while. We ALL have grammer issues and yes we ALL take a genealogist for granted. I joined this list several years ago to help aid in my research and gleen tips & helps for finding family. I'm sure everyone joined for the same reason. However, lately this list has done nothing but bash, ridicule & complain about someones posts. We have enough anger, childish games, hurtful people in this world, can we not find a place to go and read and help & uplift or even encourage our fellow genealogists? If there is a site were we genealogists can do that without feeling bombarded by criticism I'd love to know where. I'd go there freely,as I'm sure others would too. This is totally getting out of hand and unpleasant! Sincerely, C. Rodman Grunt_docs_gal@yahoo.com ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Nelda, this was knew to me an I en joyed it vary mush. tanks Emery -----Original Message----- From: roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of JANINE MANVILLE Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 3:38 AM To: roots@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Incorrectly spelled words A Little Poem Regarding Computer Spell Checkers... although I am sure you have all seen this before.....   Eye halve a spelling chequer It came with my pea sea It plainly marques four my revue Miss steaks eye kin knot sea. Eye strike a key and type a word And weight four it two say Weather eye am wrong oar write It shows me strait a weigh. As soon as a mist ache is maid It nose bee fore two long And eye can put the error rite Its rare lea ever wrong. Eye have run this poem threw it I am shore your pleased two no Its letter perfect awl the weigh My chequer tolled me sew.   ________________________________ From: Nelda Percival <nelda_percival@hotmail.com> To: roots@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, 20 May 2012, 1:38 Subject: [ROOTS-L] Incorrectly spelled words Hi, It has been pointed out to me that my spelling needs correction...and I appreciate the notification privately.. Thank you! I was referring to being ridiculed by someone  and yes I don't always spell well. so it is Manners - etiquette - not Manor a type of housing. SNIPPED and cut out of original message"  Well, I see manors have failed again..." Nelda Percival                         ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oh HOW NEAT!!!!! I have tutored many Hispanic Children. Not that they didn't speak English nor read it BUT there are so many same meaning but different spelling words in our English language! Also their sense of humor is different from mine. Their-there Hour-our-bougher No-know There-their Or-oar Bear-bare Try to explain this mess. I bet you can add on to these examples. I use my speller all the time. I am a good speller but my key board doesn't always behave!!!!! Sallie San Benito TX ----- Original Message ----- From: "JANINE MANVILLE" <janine.manville@btinternet.com> To: <roots@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Incorrectly spelled words A Little Poem Regarding Computer Spell Checkers... although I am sure you have all seen this before..... Eye halve a spelling chequer It came with my pea sea It plainly marques four my revue Miss steaks eye kin knot sea. Eye strike a key and type a word And weight four it two say Weather eye am wrong oar write It shows me strait a weigh. As soon as a mist ache is maid It nose bee fore two long And eye can put the error rite Its rare lea ever wrong. Eye have run this poem threw it I am shore your pleased two no Its letter perfect awl the weigh My chequer tolled me sew. ________________________________ From: Nelda Percival <nelda_percival@hotmail.com> To: roots@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, 20 May 2012, 1:38 Subject: [ROOTS-L] Incorrectly spelled words Hi, It has been pointed out to me that my spelling needs correction...and I appreciate the notification privately.. Thank you! I was referring to being ridiculed by someone and yes I don't always spell well. so it is Manners - etiquette - not Manor a type of housing. SNIPPED and cut out of original message" Well, I see manors have failed again..." Nelda Percival

It's has come to my attention that this listing is getting very rude, personal & and down right inconsiderate. We ALL mispell a word once in a while. We ALL have grammer issues and yes we ALL take a genealogist for granted. I joined this list several years ago to help aid in my research and gleen tips & helps for finding family. I'm sure everyone joined for the same reason. However, lately this list has done nothing but bash, ridicule & complain about someones posts. We have enough anger, childish games, hurtful people in this world, can we not find a place to go and read and help & uplift or even encourage our fellow genealogists? If there is a site were we genealogists can do that without feeling bombarded by criticism I'd love to know where. I'd go there freely,as I'm sure others would too. This is totally getting out of hand and unpleasant! Sincerely, C. Rodman Grunt_docs_gal@yahoo.com

Nelda, you are exactly correct in your presentation. It also a time to point out that when in comes to passing on traits of the parents there are Dominant and Recessive type of characteristics that are the ones that determine characteristics of an individual and help trace parentage. People today rely too much on something else how to think versus using their own minds to understand, thus they wind up without the ability to do logical and deductive thinking. Mike

Thank you Mike, But, as I tried to point out; it was not my presentation. I plead guilty of copy pasting from the Genealogy-DNA list to try to show that there are two complete chromosomes in each chromosome pair. That is so important to know, to understand genetic testing. I wish I was that experienced in explaining atDNA. I would not have had to copy paste someone else's words. It is so much better to go to the mailing lists where the real genetic experts are. Nelda Nelda L. Percival, Administrator of Y-DNA surname projects Gilpin, Cupp, Bonstein and Gillock My Genealogy - http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/index.htm GeneticGenealogy - http://www.geneticsand.us Blog - http://aircastles-lets-talk.blogspot.com/ GilpinGenetics: http://www.gilpingenetics.us/ Web Mistress for LCRG - http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg > From: mharmer@carolina.rr.com > To: roots-l@rootsweb.com > Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 10:28:06 -0400 > Subject: [ROOTS-L] Nelda's Comment on Chromosomal effects > > Nelda, > > you are exactly correct in your presentation. It also a time to point out > that when in comes to passing on traits of the parents there are Dominant > and Recessive type of characteristics that are the ones that determine > characteristics of an individual and help trace parentage. > > People today rely too much on something else how to think versus using their > own minds to understand, thus they wind up without the ability to do logical > and deductive thinking. > > Mike >

A Little Poem Regarding Computer Spell Checkers... although I am sure you have all seen this before.....   Eye halve a spelling chequer It came with my pea sea It plainly marques four my revue Miss steaks eye kin knot sea. Eye strike a key and type a word And weight four it two say Weather eye am wrong oar write It shows me strait a weigh. As soon as a mist ache is maid It nose bee fore two long And eye can put the error rite Its rare lea ever wrong. Eye have run this poem threw it I am shore your pleased two no Its letter perfect awl the weigh My chequer tolled me sew.   ________________________________ From: Nelda Percival <nelda_percival@hotmail.com> To: roots@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, 20 May 2012, 1:38 Subject: [ROOTS-L] Incorrectly spelled words Hi, It has been pointed out to me that my spelling needs correction...and I appreciate the notification privately.. Thank you! I was referring to being ridiculed by someone  and yes I don't always spell well. so it is Manners - etiquette - not Manor a type of housing. SNIPPED and cut out of original message"  Well, I see manors have failed again..." Nelda Percival                         ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Diane, My father served in Alberta under the Commonwealth Air Training Plan. ( have just searched and found this http://www.airmuseum.ca/ - a museum dedicated to the CATP) As a consequence, I have searched for Canadian Air-force & associated websites documents etc. Try this one http://www.canadianwings.com/Stations/stationsList.php?location=Canada The National Library of Canada may be able to help. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/index-e.html During my searches, I came across lots of small websites which covered small areas with associated airfields, aircraft museums, etc. In Calgary, there is a superb aircraft museum quite close to Calgary International Airport. They hold quite a lot of records, and may be able to help. If you ever visit Calgary, do visit the museum. Canada is a huge country, and I think your searches will be spread out and vast and as rewarding as a visit to Canada :-) Happy hunting, Richard Brown > ------------------------------ > Message: 9 > Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 23:29:13 +0100 > From: Diane <dpkms20042000@yahoo.co.uk> > > Hi there, sorry that it is late for people in England to see this but > other people might be able to help me with this! > > My uncle was in the UK air force in the 2nd world war and he went to > Canada for part of his training.  I am having problems finding out where > he trained in Ontario Canada. > > Would anybody know on this list where  to look for where he trained > please?  The air force museum in Canada wasn't any use as they didn't > know whom to ask!! > > Hoping that some of you could help me in this search. > > Thanks very much for reading this. > > Diane > > ************************************* Richard Brown Bromley, Kent U.K. Member of: - E. Surrey Family History Society          )   And in http://www.eastsurreyfhs.org.uk/           )   very Lincolnshire Family History Society       )  good http://www.lincolnshirefhs.org.uk/          )  company.

Dave- I know whereof I speak and I know that I am not confused but it sounds as though you may be. 23andme tests all chromosomes including X and Y (if pertinent--meaning only males have the Y chromosome). Why do you think they call it 23 and me...this refers to the 23 chromosomes -- which includes X (and Y if applicable). 23andme tests SNPs. When I examine my results for all chromosomes against those of potential cousins with whom I share data I can view the exact position of the matching segments on any of the chromosomes. I'm not sure what you mean by "my-DNA" testing. Pehaps you mean mtDNA? mtDNA testing is outside the 23 chromosomes and comes from the egg (which is why ALL children regardless of sex can be tested for mtDNA and is also why only females pass it along to their children). https://www.23andme.com/howitworks/ Joan In a message dated 5/19/2012 9:20:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, odinaz@comcast.net writes: Joan, I am sorry but I am not an expert on the testing methods that are used by 23andme as well as their test loci, etc. But I can give you some feedback on the state of testing by most other current sites. I know of none of them using any loci located on the X or Y ("sex") chromosomes for AUTOSOMAL testing, so I am not going to comment on your "Find" beyond stating that it surprises me that 23andme does use those chromosome in their autosomal testing, IF, in fact, you are correct in your statements. Autosomal testing is NOT the same as Y-DNA testing. It is also not the same as my-DNA testing. Perhaps you have them confused? I don't know, but assuming what you are saying is correct, I would say that you have some fairly interesting miracles going on there that someone might want to study. Dave

There are many references to Francis Paynter,born 1639, on the Internet. Roughly 50% say he married Agnes Leane, and the other 50% say he married Margaret Paulet. He can't have married both,as they were both alive and having children at the same time. S0--which one did he marry, and which Francis Paynter married the other one? thanks, Leonie

Hi, It has been pointed out to me that my spelling needs correction...and I appreciate the notification privately.. Thank you! I was referring to being ridiculed by someone and yes I don't always spell well. so it is Manners - etiquette - not Manor a type of housing. SNIPPED and cut out of original message" Well, I see manors have failed again..." Nelda Percival

Joan, I am sorry but I am not an expert on the testing methods that are used by 23andme as well as their test loci, etc. But I can give you some feedback on the state of testing by most other current sites. I know of none of them using any loci located on the X or Y ("sex") chromosomes for AUTOSOMAL testing, so I am not going to comment on your "Find" beyond stating that it surprises me that 23andme does use those chromosome in their autosomal testing, IF, in fact, you are correct in your statements. Autosomal testing is NOT the same as Y-DNA testing. It is also not the same as my-DNA testing. Perhaps you have them confused? I don't know, but assuming what you are saying is correct, I would say that you have some fairly interesting miracles going on there that someone might want to study. Dave ====================================== Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 14:53:10 -0400 (EDT) From: JYoung6180@aol.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Are You kidding me??? To: odinaz@comcast.net, Roots-L@rootsweb.com, nelda_percival@hotmail.com Message-ID: <9a66.582dafc6.3ce94616@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Well...I can tell you that I found a mother and son (I'm her 2nd cousin once removed and he's my 3rd cousin) and our total percentage of match is slightly less than 2% (23andme's relative finder said we were both probable 3rd cousins). However, we all match just about completely on an X chromosome The X my 3rd cousin got from his mother and the one I got from my father match very very closely. We have other matching segments of autosomal DNA but those are tiny segments in comparison to our X matches. Of course X like other sex-linked DNA (Y and mtDNA) is inherited intact from one parent of the other. The problem with X is figuring out (for females like me at least) WHICH of the 2 Xes came from which parent. My cousins' paper trail and mine prove out exactly where each one came from. If I ever had any doubt as to paternity (I didn't but just saying) the X match verifies it in this case. Joan

Well, I see manors have failed again... I was not answering the question which I did stick around and read ---(been in this list on and off since 1999, more on then off). I was pointing out that Chromosomes do come in pairs. I was not trying to point out any type of genius.. not mine or his. But he needs to go back to basic biology. Every one of the 23 PAIRS of chromosomes are matching pairs except the 23rd pair which are the sex indicator pair - a YX for a male and a XX for a female, but they are still a pair. The mtDNA is NOT part of the 23 pairs. One part of the pair of each chromosome pair comes from the father and one part of each chromosome pair comes from the mother.. 50/50 but they are complete separate chromosomes that are paired. Not one chromosome that part is the father and part is the mother... Did he really read what I sent.. those were geneticists and medical Doctors answering those questions... not someone like me or you or even him... NONE OF THIS IS ME TOOTING MY OWN HORN.. AS HE THINKS IT IS - INVESTIGATE - DON"T TAKE MY WORD GO TO THE LISTS AND ASK! GO READ THE DATA... NOT ON MY SITES - OTHERS SITES! You really should to go read the links I sent. THIS ONE IS A MEDICAL DOCTOR: Dear Nelda, You could just refer him to something basic like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosomes. It shows the fact that the autosomal chromosomes come in pairs in a diagram at the top of the web page. Sincerely, Tim Janzen TIM JANZEN IS A Doctor ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THIS ONE WAS FROM A GENETICISTS ---NOT ME! Here is an email that was on the Genealogy-DNA mailing list about pairs.... She wrote: > The father matches the son on chromosome 15 from 18,334,687 to 100,278,685, > 118 cm and 21756 SNPs. The father matches a 4th cousin once removed by the > same surname on chromosome 15 from 31,109,924 to 85,833,111, 62 cm and 14018 > SNPs. > > Given that the areas on chromosome 15 overlap entirely, and it is a large > segment, how can the cousin not show as a match to the son? Bear in mind that a "match" is actually not an identity, but rather a half-identity. The father has two chromosome 15's, and it could be that one matches his son while the other matches his cousin. It is certainly curious that the matching segments overlap completely, but I'm guessing that there are lots of other matching segments, too, and this one just happens to be the most striking case. Also, don't forget that the matching is not a rigorous comparison of phased chromosomes, but rather a test for half-identity or better on successive diploid loci. The apparent long matching segment with the cousin might turn out to be a fortuitously stitched-together composite of shorter genuine matches ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST- >From a from a friend on the genealogy-dna mailing list.. Wikipedia is good but not really official. Here's some alternative, not-so-good but more official sources: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/howmanychromosomes http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Chromosomes.html http://www.genomebc.ca/education/articles/chromsome-fundamentals/ Nelda L. Percival, Administrator of Y-DNA surname projects Gilpin, Cupp, Bonstein and Gillock My Genealogy - http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/index.htm GeneticGenealogy - http://www.geneticsand.us Blog - http://aircastles-lets-talk.blogspot.com/ GilpinGenetics: http://www.gilpingenetics.us/ Web Mistress for LCRG - http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg > Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 11:29:26 -0600 > To: nelda_percival@hotmail.com > From: odinaz@comcast.net > Subject: PML Search Result matching Gilpin > > ===================================================================== > A result of your requested PML search. To refine or cancel this > search, please visit http://pml.rootsweb.com/ > ===================================================================== > Source: ROOTS@rootsweb.com > Subject: [ROOTS-L] Are You kidding me??? > > > Dear Newsgroup: > > I appears that we are once again 'blessed' with another trip through > scientific la-la land in order for Zelda to 'appear' to be our DNA 'genius'. > Her response is total crap and it is too bad she didn't stick around for > any real explanation for the situation she was attempting to respond to > while appearing to actually know what she was talking about. > > The reason for the match as described in the questioners message is that > different parents (and differnt generation) are involved. Naturally, the > chromosome sites that are tested, (though they are tested on the SAME SITES > for son, father and cousin) the cousin will show a MUCH larger difference > than will the son to his own father. The son has 50% of the father's genes > afterall (50% of the mother's genes as well - half from one and half from > the other). The 4TH cousin once removed genes has been diluted by the fact > that his parents, and his parents' parents and so on back 6 generations > common ancestor with the cousin's parents differing each time through the > generations... each parental pair donating their set of genes to HIS mix. > Naturally, that 21756 SNP block, for instance, is going to be broken up into > many, many smaller and smaller chunks, each individual 'smaller chunk' being > donated from one of these generational parental pairs, but not necessarily > from the common ancestor because that individual smaller chunk may come from > the partner that is not related to the common ancestor. [ Sorry for the long > sentance, but it is the nature of the beast. ] Therefore the cousin does not > have the large chunk, but only parts - and not necessarily the SAME parts as > from the common ancestor (because that part may not have come from the > common ancestors line, but from the non-related partner in each generation). > This has nothing to do with whatever Zelda was attempting to talk about, > because frankly, what she said was gobbly-gook, intersperced with DNA > nomenclature to give her response some basis for you to believe what she is > telling you. I try to avoid that when possible. > > It is sad, but it causes more damage than good. Half-identity?? > Fortuitously stitched-together composite of shorter genuine matches"??? > What, Zelda, is a genuine match versus a non-genuine match? "The father has > two chromosome 15's, and it could be that one matches his son while the > other matches his cousin" Are you kidding me??? And you are giving people > DNA advice??? The matched pairs of each chromosomes (other than the X-Y > SEX" chromosome) that you constantly refer to are MATCHED, they are pairs, > they come from THEMSELVES during cell division - during mitosis! Thus the > term matched pairs! (I can throw around DNA terms as well and it should > not add to my statement because I simply know the definition/usage of a word > ) > > DNA genealogy is a complex and YOUNG science. All the bugs have not yet > been worked out and some of the probabilities given by the testing sites are > given to help the lay person understand what the degree of a matched > relationship might be. These probabilities are guidelines, not fast hard > facts. The nature of DNA testing for genealogical purposes is NOT smoke in > mirrors like many of these people would like you to believe. It is based > upon scientific fact. The problem you have is to determine who is giving > you facts to help you and who is giving you garbage to help themselves. > > There are many sources of information available to you, but NEWSGROUPS is > apparently NOT one of them yet, because of this current situation of giving > out bad and inaccurate information; quoting people on irrelevant topics (but > still concerning DNA) and claiming them to be doctors - for whatever that > means. Doctors of what is what I ask myself and what is their expertise on > genealogical DNA testing. And then, there is the fact that we can all claim > to be doctors on the internet, can't we? Just like we can all claim to be > DNA experts, that is, until we are de-bunked. > > As Zelda had done, and I have done in the past - seek out REPUTABLE sites or > sources for your information. They are out there - some are even here and > why they remain silent when they see this crap going on is beyond me. > > Zelda's email I am responding to is below > > > Actually trying to help- > > Dave Michaelson > > ================================= > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 20:58:47 -0500 > From: Nelda Percival <nelda_percival@hotmail.com> > Subject: [ROOTS-L] Autosomal chromosome pairs see website > To: <roots@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <COL116-W251AA1EAAE74A54E3EFCB0E41F0@phx.gbl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > For information in the chromosome pairs : > see: > > Dear Nelda, > You could just refer him to something basic like > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosomes. It shows the fact that the > autosomal chromosomes come in pairs in a diagram at the top of the web page. > > Sincerely, > Tim Janzen > > TIM JANZEN IS A Doctor > > Here is an email that was on the Genealogy-DNA mailing list about pairs.... > She wrote: > > The father matches the son on chromosome 15 from 18,334,687 to 100,278,685 > > > 118 cm and 21756 SNPs. The father matches a 4th cousin once removed by the > > > same surname on chromosome 15 from 31,109,924 to 85,833,111, 62 cm and > 14018 > > SNPs. > > > > Given that the areas on chromosome 15 overlap entirely, and it is a large > > segment, how can the cousin not show as a match to the son? > > ZELDA's RESPONSE: > > Bear in mind that a "match" is actually not an identity, but rather a > half-identity. The father has two chromosome 15's, and it could be that > one matches his son while the other matches his cousin. It is certainly > curious that the matching segments overlap completely, but I'm guessing > that there are lots of other matching segments, too, and this one just > happens to be the most striking case. Also, don't forget that the > matching is not a rigorous comparison of phased chromosomes, but rather > a test for half-identity or better on successive diploid loci. The > apparent long matching segment with the cousin might turn out to be > a fortuitously stitched-together composite of shorter genuine matches > > > Nelda L. Percival, Administrator of Y-DNA surname projects Gilpin, Cupp, > Bonstein > and Gillock > My Genealogy - http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.ancestry > com/~bonsteinandgilpin/index.htm > GeneticGenealogy - http://www.geneticsand.us > Blog - http://aircastles-lets-talk.blogspot.com/ > GilpinGenetics: http://www.gilpingenetics.us/ > Web Mistress for LCRG - http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg

True...and it should also be remembered that while usually accurate...Y haplogroups determined by normal Y tests use STRs to find the haplogroup. BUT haplogroups are actually determined by SNPs, not STRs. To be absolutely certain you have the right Y Haplogroup I feel the SNP testing is more reliable. I've seen Y Haplogroups from normal Y tests (using STRs) fail when SNP testing is done. Joan In a message dated 5/19/2012 3:00:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jcarrgensearch@earthlink.net writes: When discussing matching YDNA matches haplotypes between two different men, the number of markers being discussed is very important. Matches at the 12 marker level are very common and only indicate possible ancient paternal line shared ancestry, much earlier than the use of surnames.

Well...I can tell you that I found a mother and son (I'm her 2nd cousin once removed and he's my 3rd cousin) and our total percentage of match is slightly less than 2% (23andme's relative finder said we were both probable 3rd cousins). However, we all match just about completely on an X chromosome. The X my 3rd cousin got from his mother and the one I got from my father match very very closely. We have other matching segments of autosomal DNA but those are tiny segments in comparison to our X matches. Of course X like other sex-linked DNA (Y and mtDNA) is inherited intact from one parent of the other. The problem with X is figuring out (for females like me at least) WHICH of the 2 Xes came from which parent. My cousins' paper trail and mine prove out exactly where each one came from. If I ever had any doubt as to paternity (I didn't but just saying) the X match verifies it in this case. Joan In a message dated 5/19/2012 1:37:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, odinaz@comcast.net writes: Therefore the cousin does not have the large chunk, but only parts - and not necessarily the SAME parts as from the common ancestor (because that part may not have come from the common ancestors line, but from the non-related partner in each generation).

Quite a interesting discussion on DNA testing and matches. Hopefully not too many readers became confused and discouraged. The ISOGG website is a reliable source of information. Accurate descriptions using these e-mail posts are sometimes difficult. Just a couple comments to for clarity. When discussing matching YDNA matches haplotypes between two different men, the number of markers being discussed is very important. Matches at the 12 marker level are very common and only indicate possible ancient paternal line shared ancestry, much earlier than the use of surnames. At the 12 marker level or less it is even probable that the shared paternal line ancestor lived many thousands of years ago and had a very different looking haplotype, that would be referred to as a match due to state, read that as just coincidence there is a match within the recent generations. Matches due to state are less probable as more markers are tested. A match of 36 markers can indicate shared paternal line ancestry within 5 generations, 67 markers can be within 4 generations and matches with 150 markers are likely within two or three generations. All that is based on statistics of tests conducted on people with known shared paternal line anc! estry. There have been exceptions to the above, but they are rare. You can read about that on Family Tree DNA's website 'questions and answers' or the ISOGG newbie (someone new to DNA testing for genealogy) website as well as many other websites and texts. When discussing matches, it is necessary to state how many markers match and the number tested. On surname matching, doing genealogy research we often find people changing their surname, to better fit in, don't want to be identified with their past or with their relatives, identify more with the mother's or wife's family, or for another reason, and then there is adopting the surname due to adoption by kin or a non related family, which is more prevalent the further you go into the past, and then there are the re-marriages and the occasional fatherhood outside of marriage situation, so, it is not uncommon to find two men who are paternal line descendants of the same man with different surnames, it happens. Finding out why can be part of the adventure. Also, keep in mind that most western Europeans really did not identify with a surname prior to the 17th or 18th century (surname usage in western Europe became widespread only in 10th to 13th centuries so the Norman's could maintain tax records), even later for eastern Europeans, can be further back for mediterranean Europeans. Surnames had more importance to families who had stature and/or wealth, which were the extreme minority. Hope this helps someone. Enjoy the day.

Dear Newsgroup: I appears that we are once again 'blessed' with another trip through scientific la-la land in order for Zelda to 'appear' to be our DNA 'genius'. Her response is total crap and it is too bad she didn't stick around for any real explanation for the situation she was attempting to respond to while appearing to actually know what she was talking about. The reason for the match as described in the questioners message is that different parents (and differnt generation) are involved. Naturally, the chromosome sites that are tested, (though they are tested on the SAME SITES for son, father and cousin) the cousin will show a MUCH larger difference than will the son to his own father. The son has 50% of the father's genes afterall (50% of the mother's genes as well - half from one and half from the other). The 4TH cousin once removed genes has been diluted by the fact that his parents, and his parents' parents and so on back 6 generations common ancestor with the cousin's parents differing each time through the generations... each parental pair donating their set of genes to HIS mix. Naturally, that 21756 SNP block, for instance, is going to be broken up into many, many smaller and smaller chunks, each individual 'smaller chunk' being donated from one of these generational parental pairs, but not necessarily from the common ancestor because that individual smaller chunk may come from the partner that is not related to the common ancestor. [ Sorry for the long sentance, but it is the nature of the beast. ] Therefore the cousin does not have the large chunk, but only parts - and not necessarily the SAME parts as from the common ancestor (because that part may not have come from the common ancestors line, but from the non-related partner in each generation). This has nothing to do with whatever Zelda was attempting to talk about, because frankly, what she said was gobbly-gook, intersperced with DNA nomenclature to give her response some basis for you to believe what she is telling you. I try to avoid that when possible. It is sad, but it causes more damage than good. Half-identity?? Fortuitously stitched-together composite of shorter genuine matches"??? What, Zelda, is a genuine match versus a non-genuine match? "The father has two chromosome 15's, and it could be that one matches his son while the other matches his cousin" Are you kidding me??? And you are giving people DNA advice??? The matched pairs of each chromosomes (other than the X-Y SEX" chromosome) that you constantly refer to are MATCHED, they are pairs, they come from THEMSELVES during cell division - during mitosis! Thus the term matched pairs! (I can throw around DNA terms as well and it should not add to my statement because I simply know the definition/usage of a word ) DNA genealogy is a complex and YOUNG science. All the bugs have not yet been worked out and some of the probabilities given by the testing sites are given to help the lay person understand what the degree of a matched relationship might be. These probabilities are guidelines, not fast hard facts. The nature of DNA testing for genealogical purposes is NOT smoke in mirrors like many of these people would like you to believe. It is based upon scientific fact. The problem you have is to determine who is giving you facts to help you and who is giving you garbage to help themselves. There are many sources of information available to you, but NEWSGROUPS is apparently NOT one of them yet, because of this current situation of giving out bad and inaccurate information; quoting people on irrelevant topics (but still concerning DNA) and claiming them to be doctors - for whatever that means. Doctors of what is what I ask myself and what is their expertise on genealogical DNA testing. And then, there is the fact that we can all claim to be doctors on the internet, can't we? Just like we can all claim to be DNA experts, that is, until we are de-bunked. As Zelda had done, and I have done in the past - seek out REPUTABLE sites or sources for your information. They are out there - some are even here and why they remain silent when they see this crap going on is beyond me. Zelda's email I am responding to is below Actually trying to help- Dave Michaelson ================================= Message: 3 Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 20:58:47 -0500 From: Nelda Percival <nelda_percival@hotmail.com> Subject: [ROOTS-L] Autosomal chromosome pairs see website To: <roots@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <COL116-W251AA1EAAE74A54E3EFCB0E41F0@phx.gbl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" For information in the chromosome pairs : see: Dear Nelda, You could just refer him to something basic like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosomes. It shows the fact that the autosomal chromosomes come in pairs in a diagram at the top of the web page. Sincerely, Tim Janzen TIM JANZEN IS A Doctor Here is an email that was on the Genealogy-DNA mailing list about pairs.... She wrote: > The father matches the son on chromosome 15 from 18,334,687 to 100,278,685 > 118 cm and 21756 SNPs. The father matches a 4th cousin once removed by the > same surname on chromosome 15 from 31,109,924 to 85,833,111, 62 cm and 14018 > SNPs. > > Given that the areas on chromosome 15 overlap entirely, and it is a large > segment, how can the cousin not show as a match to the son? ZELDA's RESPONSE: Bear in mind that a "match" is actually not an identity, but rather a half-identity. The father has two chromosome 15's, and it could be that one matches his son while the other matches his cousin. It is certainly curious that the matching segments overlap completely, but I'm guessing that there are lots of other matching segments, too, and this one just happens to be the most striking case. Also, don't forget that the matching is not a rigorous comparison of phased chromosomes, but rather a test for half-identity or better on successive diploid loci. The apparent long matching segment with the cousin might turn out to be a fortuitously stitched-together composite of shorter genuine matches Nelda L. Percival, Administrator of Y-DNA surname projects Gilpin, Cupp, Bonstein and Gillock My Genealogy - http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.ancestry com/~bonsteinandgilpin/index.htm GeneticGenealogy - http://www.geneticsand.us Blog - http://aircastles-lets-talk.blogspot.com/ GilpinGenetics: http://www.gilpingenetics.us/ Web Mistress for LCRG - http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg

The only Francis married to Margaret Pawlett was this: Margaret married Francis PAYNTER of Boskenna, son of Arthur PAYNTER of Trelissick and Mary PRAED5. (Francis PAYNTER of Boskenna was born in 1662.) She was named in her husband's will (according to the author of the lineage), but of course, it did not likely have her father's name. Children listed were: William PAYNTER (d.y.) Arthur PAYNTER (d.y.) Francis PAYNTER+ William PAYNTER Margaret PAYNTER+ Mary PAYNTER+ Elizabeth PAYNTER Jane PAYNTER (d.y.) Arthur PAYNTER Diana PAYNTER For Francis we have: General Notes: Named in his father's will, and in the will of his son-in-law Francis PAYNTER 1716. Town Clerk of Penzance Will 13 Jun 1723, proved 25 Jan 1725 P.C.C. The sources for this appear to be primarily from the IGI. At least one of the trees for Francis and Agnes has this: Francis Paynter (1639 - 1720) Parents William Paynter 1612-69 Jane Keigwin 1610-Unknown Spouses & Children Agnes Leane Unknown-1748 Children . Francis Paynter . Hercules Paynter . John Paynter There were quite a few Francis Paynters, so it is possible that there is a generational issue here. The Francis married to Margaret was born in 1662, the Francis married to Agnes was born 1639. Note, however, that this is only looking at the mostly un-sourced files on the internet. You will have to do the usual legwork -- beginning with the first Paynter in your tree (most recent, that is) and working back one generation at a time. I find the family in Burke's Family Records. In order to read these, you need to understand that the boys are listed and numbered first in a generation. The girls follow, beginning the numbering again. Burke's Family Records, page 468 has: The eldest son, WILLIAM PAYNTER, of Trelissick, m. at St. Paul's co. Cornwall, 23 april, 1632, Jane, said to be a dau. Of Richard Keigwin, of Mousehole, and was buried at St.Erth, 29 March, 1669, leaving issue, I.Arthur, of Trelissick, bapt., at St. Erth, 20 July, 1633, named in Subsidy Roll, 1663, m. Mary, dau of James Praed, and was buried at St. Erth, 12 Dec. 1679 (will dated 30 Oct. 1679, proved 7 June, 1684), having by her, who was buried at St. Erth, 19 March, 1673, had issue, 1. William, of Trelissick, bapt. 1 July 1661 (will dated 23 Aug. proved PCC [Prerogative Court of Canterbury] 4 Sept, 1691). 2. Francis, of Trelissick, heir to his brother, bapt 1 Jun 1662, m 1st, a dau. Of --- Sutherland, and by her had a son, James, who dsp [died without children] He m. 2ndly, 8 July 1706, *Margaret, dau of Francis Paynter, of Boskenna*, and d (will dated 18 May, proved 8 Oct 1720), having by her (will dated 2 Mar 1725, proved 3 March 1727) had issue, (1) Susanna; (2) Margaret, bapt at St. Burian, 2 Oct 1787; and (3) Mary, m 20 Mar 1726, John Hearle of Penrhyn, and had issue, three daus. And co-heiresses. 3. Arthur, bapt. At St. Erth, 18 Sept 1663, buried at Madron, 8 Mar 1681. 4. James, bapt. At St. Erth, 18 Aug 1666 5. Jenkyn, bapt at St. Erth 9 Nov 1668. (more here I won't quote) (page 469) has: II. William (Rev.) bapt 7 Dec 1637, DD Fellow of Exeter Coll. Oxon, and rector of Wootton Hants, Vice-Chancelor of Oxford, d 19 Feb 1714-15. III. FRANCIS, of whom presently. IV. John, bapt 3 Dec 1640, m Barbara Sampson, and d 21 July 1721, leaving issue, 1. John' 2. George; 1. Catherine, m John Roger; 2. Phillippa, m Martin Kelly; 3. Grace, m Roger Hamley; 4 Rebecca, m Edward Bone; 5. Frances, m John Boswothick; 6. Sarah; and 7. Ann. I Elizabeth, bapt. Feb 1635, m Reginald Trenhaile, vicar of Madron, and had issue, a son, James. The third son FRANCIS PAYNTER bapt. At St. Erth, 14 March, 1639, m. at Gwennap, co. Cornwall, 19 Dec. 1681, Agnes, dau. Of --- Leane, and was brued there, 2 May 1720 (will dagted 28 April, proved 6 Oct. 1720), having by her, who was buried at St. Issey 28 Jan. 1748, had issue, i. John, bapt, at Gwennap 5 Nov 1682, buried there 14 Aug 1684 ii. FRANCIS, of whom presently. iii. Hercules, bapt. 5 March, 1687, buried 30 april, 1740 iv. John bapt, 3 June 1689, buried 27 Feb 1732. i. Joan bapt 5 May 1694 ii. Agnes, bapt. 6 Aug 1696 The second son, FRANCIS PAYNTER, bapt. 12 June, 1685, m. 27 June, 1715, Grace, dau. Of Johnson Vyvian (through whom her descendants trace their descent from King Edward I), and was buried 12 May 1750, having by her, who was buried Jan 1758, had issue, i. William, bapt. 11 Aug 1716, buried 4 April, 1725. ii. Hercules, bapt. 24 Jan 1718, buried 25 March 1719 iii. WILLIAM of whom presently. i. Ann, bapt. 11 april 1721, buried 10 March 1723 ii. Ann, bapt. 10 April 1724 iii. Elizabeth, bapt. 24 Jan. 1731. So, what you have here, with Francis of Trelissick, who married a Sutherland, and then married what appears to be a cousin, Margaret, daughter of Francis Paynter of Boskenna. What might have happened is that cousin Margaret Paynter of Boskenna had been married to a Pawlett? Or, that the originators of this tree just flat got it wrong. Nothing in Burkes to identify WHICH Francis Paynter was the father of Margaret, however. She only shows up in the one reference I mentioned. Hope this helps. By the way, in sourcing this, I got it from an image: Ancestry.com. Burke's Family Records (Indexed) [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. Original data: Burke, Ashworth P. Burke's Family Records. Baltimore, MD, USA: Clearfield Company (Genealogical Publishing Co.), 1994. About Burke's Family Records (Indexed) Burke's Family Records, contained in this database, record the genealogy of the junior houses of British nobility. The "cadets" or younger sons of a noble family did not usually receive inherited lands or titles and their descendents were often overlooked by lineage records of the peerage (titled British nobles). Details of family origins, surnames, events, and locations are recorded for about 300 British cadet lines; some are accompanied by coats of arms. At the beginning of the work is an index of pedigrees and alliances. Author Ashworth P. Burke is the son of Sir Bernard Burke who published many works regarding British genealogy with his father, John Burke Esquire. Sir Bernard and Ashworth co-wrote the Peerage and Baronetage and the Landed Gentry about ancestral lineages of English, Scottish, and Welsh nobility and gentry. Burke's Family Records is meant to supplement the Peerage and Baronetage and there are several additional genealogical works compiled by the Burke family. Pat In Tucson -----Original Message----- From: roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Leonie Chirgwin Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 2:16 AM To: roots@rootsweb.com Subject: [ROOTS-L] Francis PAYNTER There are many references to Francis Paynter,born 1639, on the Internet. Roughly 50% say he married Agnes Leane, and the other 50% say he married Margaret Paulet. He can't have married both,as they were both alive and having children at the same time. S0--which one did he marry, and which Francis Paynter married the other one? thanks, Leonie ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message