Please provide a reference to that. Where did you learn this? My understanding is that femail DNA cannot be used in the same way male DNA can be used. Only male DNA is passed from father to son virtually unchanged which makes sirname studies and grouping possible. I know of no such group or study other than very generalized areas one might have originated from millions of years ago. Please explain and reference what you mean. This is truly news and a great break through that I've missed and I would like to know more about it. -----Original Message----- >From: LostMtRose@aol.com >Sent: Mar 30, 2006 8:44 AM >To: SMITH-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [SMITH] Re: To All Smith's at a roadblock > >females do the mtDNA and test their mother's lineage > > >==== SMITH Mailing List ==== >NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, political >announcements, current events, items for sale, personal messages, flames, >etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be grounds for removal. >Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen Burnett kathleenburnett@earthlink.net >

peer@mindspring.com wrote: "Please provide a reference to that. Where did you learn this? My understanding is that female DNA cannot be used in the same way male DNA can be used. Only male DNA is passed from father to son virtually unchanged which makes surname studies and grouping possible." Both men and women can do the mtDNA test. Both tests can be run on the same sample from the man. People [male and female] with the same direct female lineage have the same mtDNA classification. I would have the same mtDNA classification as my siblings [male and female], my mother and her siblings, my maternal grandmother and her siblings, etc., etc. The big difference is, there is very little data on maternal lines and very few organizations specialize in presenting and organizing the data. The same mtDNA results would be in the direct matrilineal line going back indefinitely just like the Y-chromosome DNA results for the direct patrilineal line. My earliest known direct matrilineal ancestor is Rosanna McDAVID KAY, my gggg grandmother, born abt. 1770. She was daughter of Patrick McDavid, but the family of Rosana's mother [actually the name of Rosanna's maternal grandFATHER!] is unknown - that is my direct matrilineal brickwall. Regards to all, Theron Smith.

peer@mindspring.com wrote: "... My understanding is that female DNA cannot be used in the same way male DNA can be used. Only male DNA is passed from father to son virtually unchanged which makes surname studies and grouping possible." See my earlier post today to SMITH-L. Y-chromosome [male] DNA is passed from father to son virtually unchanged. mtDNA is passed from a mother to each of her children [male and female] virtually unchanged. However, mtDNA is not passed from father to any of his children. Groupings are generally but not always based on the male descent, but they don't have to be. Surname studies based on mtDNA would be a little difficult since with our customs, female descendants typically use either their father's or husband's surnames. We sometimes speak of a woman retaining her birth surname when she marries - in this case, she merely opts to use her father's surname rather than her husband's surname - it's a DNA [but not necessarily male chauvinism] scenario either way. I strongly encourage my wife to use her father's surname instead of a middle name , but after one generation, this custom becomes impractical. I have no rapport with genealogists who trace only their patrilineal lines. [My SMITH line is rather dull and doesn't go earlier than my gg grandfather - expect from my "I1a" DNA I know his roots are in NW Germany.] All of the notable cousins I have found were on maternal lines. I will post my SMITH connection a little later. Regards to all, Theron Smith.