Hi group, I descend from this couples' only known son, JAMES CONN SCOTT, 1812/KY-1885/Madison Co., AL. He m. LUCINDA CRINER, 1816/AL-1898/AL.Looking for info. on the family. Happy to share. Thanks for your help. Best, Lynn Davis Wilhelm-Melberg

I also have Scott connections in this area. My gggrandfather listed MO as his birth place in the 1880 census. This is probably not right as this is the only one so listed. I think he was there and perhaps raised there, he was in the Californa Gold Rush in the 1850 census, Virginia City Nevada 1860 census where he had land deal with a man named Gould that sold his ( worthless) claims and sparked the Silver Boom in the Comstock. The Scott names that I am looking for in Illinois, Missouri and adjacent areas are Alexander, Russell, Andrew,Maria,Harry,Florence, Sarah or Sadie and Charles. David Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tamara Krautkramer" <tkrautkramer@earthlink.net> To: <SCOTT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 11:19 AM Subject: [SCOTT] Re: SCOTT-D Digest V05 #84 > I have some Scotts in Clay County, MO. What towns? Mine are James T Scott, > b Chester Penn 1833, adn William Hazelton Scott his father b Delaware 1806. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <SCOTT-D-request@rootsweb.com> > To: <SCOTT-D@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 9:00 AM > Subject: SCOTT-D Digest V05 #84 > > > > > ==== SCOTT Mailing List ==== > Questions or Concerns about this list or its sponsor? > Send a message to: SCOTT-admin@rootsweb.com > >

Trying to establish documentation from Robert Brasseur, d. 1665 in Maryland, down to James Tooke Scott, b. bef. 3 Nov. 1763 in Isle of Wight Co., VA. Can anyone help me? Wilma Horton

OK so who are siblings.. I have some similiar names but times places different..>??? SusiCP Family Historian It's the Indian in me.....:>)

John Scott born PA unknown location, spouse unknown. Daughter Martha Ann born circa 1847/49 Vigo Co PA. Nothing further found in census 1850-60 IN, she was found 1870 Boone Co IA 1870 with husband Temple Calhou Smith Jr, & 2 daughters ages 4 & 1. Anything at all would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Coleen Coleman You may reply off list to: wyoeagle@webtv.net

I have some Scotts in Clay County, MO. What towns? Mine are James T Scott, b Chester Penn 1833, adn William Hazelton Scott his father b Delaware 1806. ----- Original Message ----- From: <SCOTT-D-request@rootsweb.com> To: <SCOTT-D@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 9:00 AM Subject: SCOTT-D Digest V05 #84

was she the daughter of Capt George Scott or s this just coincidence./ Capt George Scott died onboard the ship "Davina"at age 60,may 1875 Several of my family members worked for Capt George Scott.in the English Channel Islands keep on-keeping on-never quit. Roger

Charles & wife Milly left Ky bef 1850 to Clay Co., Mo. Need parents of Charles and maiden name of Milly bn 1798 N.C. Charles was not on the 1850 census. Henry was 1821 in Ky.,Youngest son, Elijah was born 1836 in Ky marydeanW@aol.com

I agree with Jim and Lannie and I believe that most of you realize that DNA testing is a useful tool that goes hand-in-hand with your manual research. In a nut shell, the test that we use runs a series of tests on the Y-chromosome which passes from father to son. Not withstanding mutations, which occur randomly, the results are pretty consistent through many generations. When you match someone ,with the same surname, this tells you that you have a common ancestor with that person. In the two groups where I am the project coordinator (Scott and Chase Families) we share information and try to find out who that common ancestor might be. I believe everyone has a right to what they think, but I can tell you, manual research and DNA testing is better than just manual research. The best is proven research, but even then, DNA testing gives you that opportunity to match someone that has proven research back farther than you. I have seen the number of DNA test takers grow from 3000 to over 40,000 in the past three years. Some people must think it's an useful tool! These figures are just with the company that runs our tests. The results are kept for 20 years and you are notified when there is a match. You can imagine how large the base will be by then. I want to thank all of you that responded to my inquiries about the Scott Family DNA project. If I can help you in the future, let me know. Charlie Scott, Scott Family DNA project coordinator PS: We are non-profit and we are not connected with the testing company in any way. We use the company that we use because they are excellent to work with and they offer an excellent product at a fair price. They are number one in the field of DNA testing for genealogical purposes.

I think I beg to differ with the conclusions of the writer below. Forensic DNA and the Y-DNA used for genealogical purposes are two entirely different animals. The purpose of forensic DNA is to show by astronomically high probabilities that a certain person committed a crime. Y-DNA, on the other hand, that DNA contained on the Y Chromosome and thus necessarily limited to males, is the same for ALL related males. My Y-DNA is exactly the same (barring mutations) as that of my father, my brother, my male Berry cousins, My Berry uncles, grandfathers, etc. With a common surname and a 25 or 37 marker Y-DNA match you most certainly are related. FWIW. jim berry On Jul 22, 2005, at 12:00 AM, SCOTT-D-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Please be careful when using DNA as a genealogical research tool. > Such methods generally can only give you probabilities and are not > considered primary sources of information. If you happen to have DNA > material from a long deceased person you think might be a relative, > that might be more conclusive in proving a relationship. Otherwise, > the results only give you probabilities of being related to a group of > people, often in the same geographic region. While this might be > useful to narrowing your search or ruling out individuals, it isn't > sound proof of your relation to an individual. > > At least, that's how I understand DNA both in genealogical terms and > how the lawyers in a murder trial I was juror for explained it. -- Searching BERRY HESSE WALL GEORGE KING STACY VOSSICK FORSTER SCOTT KIRKLAND et al http://www.langolier.net Graveyards & Gravestones http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~langolier/cemeteries.html Berry Bibles Project http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~langolier/Berry_Bibles.html Berry Family DNA Project http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~langolier/BerryDNA/ dna_home.html

Hi, If you access the Family Tree DNA Lab, they have enough independent material references to satisfy anyone regarding DNA usage for any purposes. I jsut do not think that most of the DNA labs used by genealogy researchers are just trying to sell a product. The one thing that DNA doesn't do is lie. If your DNA (FTDNA uses upto 37 markers) matches another person's DNA in 37 of 37 markers, no matter what else is false, the truth is that you and that person are descended from one individual in the not too distant past. Of course it doesn't tell you who that person is but absolutely gives you the direction in which to search. As an aside, let us say that the infamous Zodiac killer's DNA yields readable Y chromosome from which the FTDNA defined 37 markers could be obtained, and they matched mine, then you could with no doubts say that the Zodiac killer was a Walker. It would tell you his surname and that he and I are closely kin and also that I could POSSIBLY be the Zodiac but it would not point unambiguously to the individual. For that, they would need more DNA markers but just which ones they would be I have no idea. Finally, no matter how you slice it, Y Chromosome DNA testing can be a very worthwhile tool and it was worth every penny I paid for it since I was one of those who had a number of close matches in the group. However, for the unexpected number who had NO close matches, it has to be a HUGE disappointment. That fact can point to several possibilities, most of which are not comforting. The first is that none of his close relatives have joined yet, next, he may have been adopted, kidnapped, or whatever, and last and worst, his mommy may have played around on his daddy. If I were one of those, I would compare my DNA results with every other surname DNA group. If I found a group in which there were one or more individuals matching me closely, that would tell me who my actual ancesters were (but not their name, of course). As with anything else there are upsides and downsides. Lannie List Administrator wrote: > Scott researchers, > > (Comments? Reply to me directly, not the list.) > > Please be careful when using DNA as a genealogical research tool. Such > methods generally can only give you probabilities and are not > considered primary sources of information. If you happen to have DNA > material from a long deceased person you think might be a relative, > that might be more conclusive in proving a relationship. Otherwise, > the results only give you probabilities of being related to a group of > people, often in the same geographic region. While this might be > useful to narrowing your search or ruling out individuals, it isn't > sound proof of your relation to an individual. > > At least, that's how I understand DNA both in genealogical terms and > how the lawyers in a murder trial I was juror for explained it. The > crime lab was only able to say the statistical odds that DNA material > found on the scene was that of the accused. In this case they were > trying to show a DNA evidence sample was from a specific living > individual and they couldn't be 100% sure but the odds of another > person in the area having the same set of markers was longer than > winning the lottery. (The guy was found guilty.) It is a little more > complex than what you see on the crime dramas on TV. > > I'm looking for a good web site to refer you to that explains what DNA > genealogy is all about. I'll give you a link when I find it. > Unfortunately, all those I've found so far are trying to get you to > use it or to buy their kit. That's sort of like asking a barber if you > need a haircut! > > If you have a good source of an understandable explanation of the > usefulness and limitations of DNA in genealogical research, please let > me know by sending a message to me directly (not the list). > > In the meantime, let me refer you to the standards posted on the > National Genealogical Society web site (ngsgenealogy.org): > > > > Standards For Sound Genealogical Research > > Recommended by the National Genealogical Society > > Remembering always that they are engaged in a quest for truth, family > history researchers consistently­ > * record the source for each item of information they collect. > * test every hypothesis or theory against credible evidence, and > reject those that are not supported by the evidence. > * seek original records, or reproduced images of them when there is > reasonable assurance they have not been altered, as the basis for > their research conclusions. > * use compilations, communications and published works, whether paper > or electronic, primarily for their value as guides to locating the > original records, or as contributions to the critical analysis of the > evidence discussed in them. > * state something as a fact only when it is supported by convincing > evidence, and identify the evidence when communicating the fact to > others. > * limit with words like "probable" or "possible" any statement that is > based on less than convincing evidence, and state the reasons for > concluding that it is probable or possible. > * avoid misleading other researchers by either intentionally or > carelessly distributing or publishing inaccurate information. > * state carefully and honestly the results of their own research, and > acknowledge all use of other researchers’ work. > * recognize the collegial nature of genealogical research by making > their work available to others through publication, or by placing > copies in appropriate libraries or repositories, and by welcoming > critical comment. > * consider with open minds new evidence or the comments of others on > their work and the conclusions they have reached. > > © 1997, 2002 by National Genealogical Society. Permission is granted > to copy or publish this material provided it is reproduced in its > entirety, including this notice. > > > ==== SCOTT Mailing List ==== > Here's a couple web pages about Sir Walter Scott's work and Life: > http://synergy.arts.gla.ac.uk/www/english/comet/starn/prose/wscott/life/contents.htm > Sir Walter's birthday is August 15th. Let's party! > http://www.camelotintl.com/heritage/walter.html > > >

Martha Ann Scott born circa 1847-49 IN, father: John born circa 1820-27 PA unknown spouse. Martha & family not in IN 1850-60 Census, Martha's husband with family 1860 Randolph Co IN census, no Scotts'. Martha & husband in 1870 Boone Co IA with 2 daughters ages 4 & 1. Was Martha married circa 1860-1870 IN or 1860-1865 Boone Co IA to Temple Calhoun Smith Jr.? If nothing found this time will unsubscribe to list. Ms. Coleen Coleman

Is anyone researching a Scott ancestor who was a granite worker in Aberdeen around 1881 or later and emigrated to the U.S.?

Has anyone ever seen this photograph? http://scotts.stuff.tripod.com/index.html Any help is appreciated - it contains 2 Scott ancestors. Thanks Christina Scott Information <http://www3.sympatico.ca/bitnap/Page4.html>

Scott researchers, (Comments? Reply to me directly, not the list.) Please be careful when using DNA as a genealogical research tool. Such methods generally can only give you probabilities and are not considered primary sources of information. If you happen to have DNA material from a long deceased person you think might be a relative, that might be more conclusive in proving a relationship. Otherwise, the results only give you probabilities of being related to a group of people, often in the same geographic region. While this might be useful to narrowing your search or ruling out individuals, it isn't sound proof of your relation to an individual. At least, that's how I understand DNA both in genealogical terms and how the lawyers in a murder trial I was juror for explained it. The crime lab was only able to say the statistical odds that DNA material found on the scene was that of the accused. In this case they were trying to show a DNA evidence sample was from a specific living individual and they couldn't be 100% sure but the odds of another person in the area having the same set of markers was longer than winning the lottery. (The guy was found guilty.) It is a little more complex than what you see on the crime dramas on TV. I'm looking for a good web site to refer you to that explains what DNA genealogy is all about. I'll give you a link when I find it. Unfortunately, all those I've found so far are trying to get you to use it or to buy their kit. That's sort of like asking a barber if you need a haircut! If you have a good source of an understandable explanation of the usefulness and limitations of DNA in genealogical research, please let me know by sending a message to me directly (not the list). In the meantime, let me refer you to the standards posted on the National Genealogical Society web site (ngsgenealogy.org): Standards For Sound Genealogical Research Recommended by the National Genealogical Society Remembering always that they are engaged in a quest for truth, family history researchers consistently­ * record the source for each item of information they collect. * test every hypothesis or theory against credible evidence, and reject those that are not supported by the evidence. * seek original records, or reproduced images of them when there is reasonable assurance they have not been altered, as the basis for their research conclusions. * use compilations, communications and published works, whether paper or electronic, primarily for their value as guides to locating the original records, or as contributions to the critical analysis of the evidence discussed in them. * state something as a fact only when it is supported by convincing evidence, and identify the evidence when communicating the fact to others. * limit with words like "probable" or "possible" any statement that is based on less than convincing evidence, and state the reasons for concluding that it is probable or possible. * avoid misleading other researchers by either intentionally or carelessly distributing or publishing inaccurate information. * state carefully and honestly the results of their own research, and acknowledge all use of other researchers’ work. * recognize the collegial nature of genealogical research by making their work available to others through publication, or by placing copies in appropriate libraries or repositories, and by welcoming critical comment. * consider with open minds new evidence or the comments of others on their work and the conclusions they have reached. © 1997, 2002 by National Genealogical Society. Permission is granted to copy or publish this material provided it is reproduced in its entirety, including this notice.

Hi, I am desparately trying to get one of the few male Scott relatives of mine to join the Scott DNA group. The more I think about these DNA groups the more valuable I think they are. In my Walker group there are over 250 members and by the groupings I can know which Walker families that I SHOULD NOT pursue any further and THAT is as valuable as those with whom I match perfectly and am pursuing. The same will be as true for the Scott group as for any other group when there is a significant number of Scotts in the group. And, I am still looking for the family of my John Scott, born Virginia, Jan 1799, married Nancy Kirkland in Henry Co.,AL in 1822, and died in Shelby/Panola Co.,TX in 1859 Lannie Walker,Sr. Fort Worth,Texas Meb42639@aol.com wrote: >Group: Several of the people in the Scott DNA project descend from a John >Scott who came to this country out of Ireland in 1745. Another group of test >takers match our results but we haven't completely tied the two groups >together--except we know there was a common ancestor. This common ancestor could be a >brother of John or someone back in the old country. We are planning on >hiring a researcher in Ireland to try to find John's parents and more information >about him. > >Our problem is, we don't know where in Ireland to even start. John, being a >Presbyterian, probably lived in Northern Ireland, but we are not sure. > >What we are looking for is someone on this group, that descends from the >Scott line, with proven research back to the early 1700's in Ireland--or >Scotland. We want to know where some of the Scott Families lived. If you have this >type of information, please get in contact with me. Thanks, Charlie Scott > > > > > >==== SCOTT Mailing List ==== >Planning a trip to Scotland? Visit the British Tourist Authority web site: >http://www.visitbritain.com/ > > > > >

Group: Several of the people in the Scott DNA project descend from a John Scott who came to this country out of Ireland in 1745. Another group of test takers match our results but we haven't completely tied the two groups together--except we know there was a common ancestor. This common ancestor could be a brother of John or someone back in the old country. We are planning on hiring a researcher in Ireland to try to find John's parents and more information about him. Our problem is, we don't know where in Ireland to even start. John, being a Presbyterian, probably lived in Northern Ireland, but we are not sure. What we are looking for is someone on this group, that descends from the Scott line, with proven research back to the early 1700's in Ireland--or Scotland. We want to know where some of the Scott Families lived. If you have this type of information, please get in contact with me. Thanks, Charlie Scott

ROUSE family looking for OBADIAH SCOTT family members out of Onslow County, North Carolina late 1700's. John ROUSE (m.1834) Clara SCOTT daughter of Isaac SCOTT.

My Brick Wall is John Scott b. 13 Oct. 1671 in Inverurie, Aberdeen, Scotland. His wife is Jane Todd b. 28 Dec. 1699. They had a son John Scott Jr. but I have no information on him. any help is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Carolyn Scott-Benge

Looking for info on MARY MAGDELINE SCOTT MUSGRAVES. She was b. 1835/1836, m. William Abe? Musgraves. No further info on her, but her husband was in MO all his life. Any help would be appreciated. Pat patkram@aol.com