WRG Has anyone in the Group considered the possibility of doing DNA comparisons to find out if we can 'prove' descent from say John & Elinor? (I happen to be from the John/Elinor group but the same thing could be done in each of the other groups.) With the good sized population we have who are all descendants of one pair perhaps we could be of value to someone's study of DNA and descent. Sounds to me like it could be a win win study. What do you think? I for one would gladly donate a sample of blood to compare with the group to see if relationship could be established. John

I would also participate in this study. I am O neg. blood type. This is not enough information. They have a mouth swab test that is done now.Not invasive at all. I hear it is very accurate. I do not have much information on this but hear it is excellent. Maureen ----- Original Message ----- From: "John E Fischer" <fischerj@one.net> To: <WHITNEY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 10:04 PM Subject: [WHITNEY-L] DNA Evidence of Descent??? > WRG > > Has anyone in the Group considered the possibility of doing DNA comparisons to find out if we can 'prove' descent from say John & Elinor? (I > happen to be from the John/Elinor group but the same thing could be done in each of the other groups.) With the good sized population we have > who are all descendants of one pair perhaps we could be of value to someone's study of DNA and descent. Sounds to me like it could be a win > win study. What do you think? I for one would gladly donate a sample of blood to compare with the group to see if relationship could be > established. > > John > > >

I agree with John Fischer regarding the value of assisting with DNA research. Yes they can go back many generations. I believe (but I am not positive) that although they could not prove the descent of all of us from John and Elinor (or Henry or whomever), without a sample of their DNA, they can find a genetic link that would link us all together, and with the genealogy research to back up the proof, it would be fairly indisputable. This type of research was done in England a couple of years ago. However they did have a bone sample apparently. No, we don't need this evidence for our genealogy. But, as John mentioned, DNA and genetic research such as this is truly still in the infant stages, and a large group such as we have (including our extended families) would give a researcher an incredible database for such study. So it would be done for science rather than our genealogical needs. Someone mentioned skeletons in the closet. Most assuredly they are there, and that is a risk we would be taking. We would all have to ask ourselves what happens if we discover that our firm link is very shaky due to some apparent infidelity 8 or 9 generations back. I know what my personal response would be to that, and it would not change my own personal view on being a Whitney. I firmly believe that blood is not always thicker than water. Someone raised as a Whitney by a Whitney IS a Whitney, or whatever the surname may be. Yes, some will argue this, but I have my reasons for this viewpoint. It may not be absolute genealogy, but family is more important than blood in my book. Okay - that went off on a tangent. Anyway, my former husband is a biochemist and researcher at Harvard. he doesn't work with DNA, but I would bet he can point us in the right direction to someone who does. I will send him a note and ask his opinion on this. Just for the halibut! Jo Hogle

The other point to remember about genetic mapping is that genes from the either Whitney family can enter your genetic makeup through intermarriage and you have no way of knowing whether it was direct transmission or not. This possibillity is in fact highly likely given the fact that a large number of Whitney families lived side by side for so many generations in the United States And it could have happened two generations back or twenty. W.G. Whitney AT&T wrote: > I agree with John Fischer regarding the value of assisting with DNA > research. Yes they can go back many generations. I believe (but I am not > positive) that although they could not prove the descent of all of us from > John and Elinor (or Henry or whomever), without a sample of their DNA, they > can find a genetic link that would link us all together, and with the > genealogy research to back up the proof, it would be fairly indisputable. > This type of research was done in England a couple of years ago. However > they did have a bone sample apparently. > No, we don't need this evidence for our genealogy. But, as John mentioned, > DNA and genetic research such as this is truly still in the infant stages, > and a large group such as we have (including our extended families) would > give a researcher an incredible database for such study. So it would be done > for science rather than our genealogical needs. > Someone mentioned skeletons in the closet. Most assuredly they are there, > and that is a risk we would be taking. We would all have to ask ourselves > what happens if we discover that our firm link is very shaky due to some > apparent infidelity 8 or 9 generations back. > I know what my personal response would be to that, and it would not change > my own personal view on being a Whitney. I firmly believe that blood is not > always thicker than water. Someone raised as a Whitney by a Whitney IS a > Whitney, or whatever the surname may be. Yes, some will argue this, but I > have my reasons for this viewpoint. It may not be absolute genealogy, but > family is more important than blood in my book. > Okay - that went off on a tangent. > > Anyway, my former husband is a biochemist and researcher at Harvard. he > doesn't work with DNA, but I would bet he can point us in the right > direction to someone who does. > I will send him a note and ask his opinion on this. Just for the halibut! > Jo Hogle