Marge; DNA is just another genealogy tool - a very powerful one, but still just a tool. Just as wills, deeds, census, marriages, etc. don't solve all of your genealogy questions, neither can DNA. However, in your case of an orphan given a new surname in the 1760s, I'd say DNA is one of the best tools to use - all the number of participants grow, and the Y-DNA databases grow, you may yet find a match. Jim Bartlett On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Marge wrote: > DNA is wonderful. But in some cases it doesn't help. Our family's > earliest ancestor was first recorded in 1763 when he married. He was an orphan and was given his surname. All efforts to find ANY name of that ilk have been fruitless. Even trips to England etc. Now we took a DNA test of our oldest available descendant. That was almost seven months ago. We have yet to come across a surname that matches even to 2 markers off. So..DNA is fine when you have some type of match in your surname line, but boy it sure doesn't help if you can't find a match in ANY surname.   ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP-request@rootsweb.com <mailto:VACULPEP-request@rootsweb.com>   <mailto:VACULPEP-request@rootsweb.com>  with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message