This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/SCWBAIB/4514 Message Board Post: I posted this on both Young and Youngs forums at genealogy.com. "I'll post this on both spelling's forums. I'm a Wells, 12th generation descendent of William of Southold 1607/8 - November 13, 1671 (This is what is on his tomb in Southold, L. I., Suffolk County, N. Y.). My connection has been confirmed through the ambitious DNA study started by Orin Wells of the Wells Family Reseach Association. Not only did that William I., marry a Young(s) (Mary or perhaps "Marie") but there were a score of unions between our families on Long Island and beyond making my research yours as well. I have a request of you all. If you are showing William I. as being the son of William Welles, vicar of St. Peters Mancroft in Norwich England...... please delete him. It has been proven to my satisfaction that there is no connection between them. The William of Norwich did have a son William but he and his burial place have long been established in England. How this got started I know not, but the first place I see it is in Rev. Charles Wells Hayes' 1878 publication "William Wells of Southold and his Descendents, A. D. 1638 to 1878." Where Hayes got it I don't know but I've been all over this book and if you are familiar with it Hayes seemed to be delighted to crawl a few branches up allied family trees just to include a "deacon" or a "chorister" while totally avoiding any potentially controversial or salacious fact or narrative regarding any member of our family. I realize this isn't a grateful attitude towards an individual who must have spent years writing letters, traveling by horse, train and barge compiling his tome but the inclusion, at the head of the family, of an individual we now know, FOR A FACT, isn't our patriarch, continues its propagation and causes too many to question other, more reliable facts. I discovered this false trail again when I went to other, growing DNA genealogical websites and punched my numbers in, thereby producing other contributors who most closely matched my own. The false legend is repeated in other's family history and it's what prompted this posting on the Young(s) forums. Another correction I request is in the lineage of James Wells who married Bethia Griffin(g) [parents of "Mehitable" Wells who married Jeremiah Youngs (Dec. 1, 1760 - Jan. 5, 1832)]. The Young(s) who contributed his DNA to this study shows James Wells as being born in 1749 and the son of our William (IV. 1706- Aug. 22, 1778). Indeed, that William did have a son James and the 1749 birthdate is likely however the Rev. Hayes wrote that this James married an unknown Horton woman and provides 3 christian names for their 4 offspring and some spouses as well. The correct spouse of Bethia Griffin(g)(born 1751, Mattituck, L. I.) is James Wells born, circa 1735, and the son of Nathaniel Wells (son of Joshua, son of Wm. I.) 1705 to Sept. 26, 1781 and his wife Mary Parshall. The reason I'm confident of this correction is that William Wells of Southold (I.) had only two sons, William (II.) and Joshua and I am of the Joshua line. As it was my DNA code that brought this as a close match it stands to reason that this is the correct James Wells, not the other who is of the William II. line." To the Wells forum; I've had great difficulty with the Family Tree Maker program I'm using. No computer maven I'd thought I'd loaded it correctly but since, every time, I've popped the CD in I've had to click on "cancel" (not "retry") to bring it up and add to it. In addition, I walked, unknowingly, past the 10mb's of memory that any e-mail I'm using will send or receive and have been quite disheartened that, as a result, I've been unable to easily share the file, which now contains over 4,000 names. I apologize to those few with whom I've communicated with for the recent silence from my end. I'm certain that there are many researchers who desire to post only those "solid" and confirmable names, dates and connections, who have suffered or been frustrated by the loose and false information disseminated incautiously by either unindustrious (but enthusiastic) Wells' or, in the case of allied families chroniclers, too expediently slap-dashed an error that was of little concern to their own missions. To those I say take heart, participate in the DNA studies, post your concerns and questions and seek the increasing number of genealogical and geographic census CDs available at places like Ebay. Eventually I'll find a way to share what I have. I've recently decided that to wait until it is "finished" first is to never finish because this is work without end.