Oh dear, I hope no one took my comments in regard to Terry as negative. That is not what I meant at all. Terry is wonderful! He does us a tremendous service by adopting the orphan projects. He couldn't possibly be expected to recruit members for each and every orphaned project on top of all he already does. Thanks for clarifying my comments, Diana, so they will be better understood in that context. CeCe > Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:52:59 -0400 > From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] worldfamilies.net > To: <Y-DNA-PROJECTS@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <348A8C4FC7C64402AEADBD5F428D4521@HP> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Just "FYI" for those who may not know... > > WorldFamilies.net works in cooperation with FamilyTreeDNA to host projects: > http://www.worldfamilies.net/about_us > > What the above page does not explicitly tell you is that it is the "orphanage" > for FTDNA projects that have lost their administrator. Terry Barton hasn't been > greedy in taking on these projects, nor has he been remiss in running them. He > has, in fact, rescued them. > > With the obvious exception of the Barton project, any project hosted there that > has just Terry Barton as the administrator is probably adoptable by someone > who's interested. > > Diana

Hello Steve, I thought it might be a typo, but the real number could have been 30, 33, or 37, so I had to ask! The Ancestry test is actually only 30 markers (and their 46 marker test is actually only 43 markers). Ancestry includes 19b, 464e, and 464f in their count, which are markers almost no one has. If you have them, FTDNA will test them without charge, so by Ancestry's reckoning, FTDNA tests 40 and 70 markers, not just 37 and 67. I mention this because it affects what you're telling me about your match with Peter. If you had tested 33 markers, and you only matched Peter 27/33, it would indicate you're most likely not related to him in genealogical time. The fact that you match 27/30 does allow that you could be related in genealogical time, though it is not a close match. Are you in contact with the admin of the MEDLEY project at FTDNA? Do you have a Medley Group at Ancestry? While it's great to have your own web site -- I have ones for my projects -- you also need the benefit of having a group/project at your testing lab's web site, so people can easily find it. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Stephen Medley > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:35 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Medley Family DNA > > Hi Diana > Sorry about the confusion my poor typing skills were to blame, it > should be 33 not 31! > The tests were done through Ancestry. > Steve > > > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Stephen Medley > Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 8:56 PM > To: Y-DNA-PROJECTS@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Medley Family DNA > > Hi Everyone, > My names is Steve Medley, last year I had a 31 Marker test done > along with a suspected extremely distant relative, Peter, who had a > know variation of the family name, and to our great delight we had a > match at 27 markers ( not too bad considering it was around 700 years > since the last common ancestro,.We can trace our family tree back to > the Early Norman era.) > Our Haploroup is I2b1a, and as Peter had a larger numbers of markers > done it indicates we are members of the M284 Subclade. We have our > own DNA site with 30 members ( but only 5 sets of DNA) and I would > happily welcome anyone who wished to join. > > It has been suggested that the John Medley that went to Maryland in > 1635 was related to our branch of the family in Elland in Yorkshire , > however sadly we are unable to find any member of that family with > matching DNA. > If anyone has any suggestions as to how we can further our research , > or any ideas to further our cause it would be apprected. > Regards > Steve Medley

Hello Dave, I have a particular interest in WILLIS because my maternal grandmother was a WILLIS. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a living cousin to test. You have the advantage of high numbers in your project, for which I congratulate you. For any project, the number of unmatched members is going to go down as the size of the project increases. As for the biggest benefit of Y-DNA testing being that people find out which group of WILLISes they belong to, yes, I think most of us would agree. As for not needing more that 37 markers, or even 25, you know I'm going to disagree with you, but I would also have to say, "it depends." And it depends mainly on the rarity of the haplotype -- and the rarity of the surname. I have a project that has both a rare haplotype and a rare surname: CARRICO. It appears all CARRICOs in the U.S. prior to 1900 descend from one immigrant to Maryland in 1674 (none has a GD from the family's modal haplotype of more than 3). They are an uncommon haplogroup, J2a4b, and the haplotype for the family is so rare, their highest matches outside the family are 5/12, 17/25, and 21/37. They have a value at one marker in Panel 4 (38-67), possessed by no one else ever tested, at least the last time I checked. If someone is surnamed CARRICO (or variation), and all they want to do is support that they belong to this family (and don't have an NPE), all they need is a 12-marker test. I would, however, consider this project quite exceptional. Surname BIDDLE and it's variations are also rare, but it's haplotypes are not. Of the ten test subjects, nine are R1b1b2: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Biddle/BiddleDNA-Results-R1b.shtml Two of the four families match 12/12 and a third 11/12. Two families even match 22/25, with all three differences at fast-moving markers. But at 37 markers, any resemblances between the families falls away, and at 67 markers disappears completely. I would not have wanted to base the connections here on only 12 or 25 markers. I'm not the admin of the THOMPSON project, but I do have a brick wall with a THOMPSON ancestor. I've had a cousin tested, and he turns out to be Haplogroup I1, so I extracted the I1 THOMPSONs from the project to do my own analysis of them: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Thompson/ThompsonDNA-results-HgI1.shtml I would draw your attention first to groups A and B. They match 12/12, but only 22/25, which is not a strong match but still possibly the same family, however their match drops to 29/37 indicating a non-match. I would not have wanted to make the call, either way, with just 25 markers. I would next draw your attention to groups F, G, and H, which match 12/12. We can't tell where F belongs because he has tested only 12 markers. Looking at G and H, they match 23/25, which certainly could mean they're related in genealogical time. However, at higher levels, they are only a 29/37 and 55/67 match, clearly indicating no relationship. If people have a paper connection, especially if their surname is uncommon, and they match 12/12, you could stop with 12 markers if all you wanted was to support that they belong to the family. But I submit it is risky to stop at anything less than 37 markers when their is no paper connection, especially if the surname and/or the haplotype is common. The more you make assumptions, instead of testing, the more likely you are to have made an error, and isn't this what DNA testing is all about: to fix old errors and avoid making new ones? Besides, I'm lazy. Decisions about connections that are difficult to make at 25 or 37 markers usually become slam dunk easy at 67 markers, and I like easy. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of David Willis > Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 9:49 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] testing to 67 markers > > I have a minority view: that testing beyond 37, or even 25, > markers is usually not helpful. > > I am the administrator of the Willis project at FTDNA. We > have about 115 members. About 70% of us match someone > else in the project. We have about a dozen groups of Willises > (the name is derived from the name William and > originated in many different locations in Great Britain). > > By far the biggest benefit of Y-DNA testing for members of the > Willis project is that they find out which group of Willises they > belong to. There is no instance where testing beyond 25 markers > would have been needed to figure out which group to assign the > member to. > > Interestingly, out of the dozen groups in the Willis project, > only a couple of them know who their common ancestor is. > Solving this problem by analyzing mismatched markers has > not helped much, at least for me. When, and in whose line, > did the mismatch occur? > > Dave Willis

I agree that this occurs and I can see why. At least for R1b1b2 people, 12 marker matches are almost useless. Mike On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Debbie Kennett <debbiekennett@aol.com>wrote: > > Often the reason why the matches don't show up at 12, 25 or 37 markers is > simply that people have chosen not to receive match notifications at these > levels. Most people with lots of matches at 12 markers seem to switch off > the 12-marker matches. With R1b and I1 people can sometimes have over 1000 > matches at the 12-marker level. > > Debbie Kennett > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Diana, I read your article and I think it nicely explains a good perspective on TMRCA's. Thank you. I also don't like them when looking at relations with fairly close and close GD's... a handful of people. For similar reasons as you described, I can see personal cases where the TMRCA is misleading. I agree with you it is better used for a large population of people with hopefully some scientific sampling. Regards, Mike On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Diana Gale Matthiesen <DianaGM@dgmweb.net>wrote: > Gosh, Cliff, I question them all the time! > > Rather than suffer the list to endure my opinions yet again, I've placed > them on > a web page. Note that not everyone would agree with me, this is just one > researcher's opinion: > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/y-dna-projects/TMRCA.shtml > > I prefer to think of the appearance of mutations as the *frequency* of > mutations, not the *rate* of mutations, because rate implies even, and > random is > the *opposite* of even. > > Diana > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Cliff. Johnston > > Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 10:16 PM > > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] testing to 67 markers > > > <snip> > > The most important thing to remember is that all mutations > > are "RANDOM". Tables giving average numbers of years for > > a mutation to occur at a given locus while interesting still > > need to be taken "under advisement" as we have several > > Cousins with 2 mutations within 3 generations or so. > > This makes me question the validity of the mutation > > tables...sometimes... > > > > Good hunting, > > > > Cliff. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Gosh, Cliff, I question them all the time! Rather than suffer the list to endure my opinions yet again, I've placed them on a web page. Note that not everyone would agree with me, this is just one researcher's opinion: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/y-dna-projects/TMRCA.shtml I prefer to think of the appearance of mutations as the *frequency* of mutations, not the *rate* of mutations, because rate implies even, and random is the *opposite* of even. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Cliff. Johnston > Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 10:16 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] testing to 67 markers > <snip> > The most important thing to remember is that all mutations > are "RANDOM". Tables giving average numbers of years for > a mutation to occur at a given locus while interesting still > need to be taken "under advisement" as we have several > Cousins with 2 mutations within 3 generations or so. > This makes me question the validity of the mutation > tables...sometimes... > > Good hunting, > > Cliff.

Hello Steve, I'm curious where you got a 31 marker test? I'm not familiar with a lab offering that number of markers. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Stephen Medley > Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 8:56 PM > To: Y-DNA-PROJECTS@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Medley Family DNA > > Hi Everyone, > My names is Steve Medley, last year I had a 31 Marker test done > along with a suspected extremely distant relative, Peter, who had a > know variation of the family name, and to our great delight we had a > match at 27 markers ( not too bad considering it was around 700 years > since the last common ancestro,.We can trace our family tree back to > the Early Norman era.) > Our Haploroup is I2b1a, and as Peter had a larger numbers of markers > done it indicates we are members of the M284 Subclade. We have our > own DNA site with 30 members ( but only 5 sets of DNA) and I would > happily welcome anyone who wished to join. > > It has been suggested that the John Medley that went to Maryland in > 1635 was related to our branch of the family in Elland in Yorkshire , > however sadly we are unable to find any member of that family with > matching DNA. > If anyone has any suggestions as to how we can further our research , > or any ideas to further our cause it would be apprected. > Regards > Steve Medley >

Just "FYI" for those who may not know... WorldFamilies.net works in cooperation with FamilyTreeDNA to host projects: http://www.worldfamilies.net/about_us What the above page does not explicitly tell you is that it is the "orphanage" for FTDNA projects that have lost their administrator. Terry Barton hasn't been greedy in taking on these projects, nor has he been remiss in running them. He has, in fact, rescued them. With the obvious exception of the Barton project, any project hosted there that has just Terry Barton as the administrator is probably adoptable by someone who's interested. Diana

Wow! There are some impressive members and projects here! I am CeCe Moore. I have been researching my family for about ten years with a lot of emphasis on my Finnish ancestry, which prior to my work, was largely unknown. Happily, I can say that I now enjoy communicating with my many Finnish cousins in Finland as well as all over the US. I have been participating in Ancestry DNA testing for a couple of years, but have been interested in it since it's inception. I recently took over as the admin for the Proctor Surname Project at FTDNA and started one at Ancestry as well to try to recruit as many Proctors as possible. The FTDNA project had previously never been handled by a family member (my mother is a Proctor) and was one of the many under Terry Barton's administration. Because of its lack of attention, it is very small for a fairly well-known surname. Therefore, my efforts will be focused mostly on recruitment until I can get a reasonable amount of testees for comparison. I hope to eventually enjoy the exciting successes that many of you here are describing. I recently participated in the beta testing phase for both 23andme's Relative Finder and FTDNA's Family Finder, so I have acquired quite a bit of experience in the autosomal DNA testing. I am open to questions offlist in that regard since that is not this list's focus. I also post regularly on the ISOGG DNA-Newbie List. My "real" job is producing television commercials, although lately I spend more time on my genetic genealogy hobby. I was recently fortunate to have the opportunity to combine the two in this spot for FTDNA's Family Finder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LxaoMLDSFk Incidentally, the photos used in the commercial are some of the many family photos that I have tracked down over the years and shared on my public family tree, thus combining my other genealogy-related hobby as well. I look forward to learning more from this "kinder and gentler" forum and thank Diana for hosting it. CeCe

It has happened to me, too, except that the closest relatives are not even classified as matches at the 67 marker level, but when you look at the similarities in 67 marker results, you can see a pattern that is shared by the closest relatives in the databases. Kirsten ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan Rosine" <basenjiluvr@msn.com> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 9:46:35 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] R1b1b2 (was roll call) Mike, thanks for telling Rick exactly what I was going to tell him! This happened with a man in one of my surname projects as well. Susan (Wales DNA project co-admin) Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Mike W <mwwdna@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 01:29:30 To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] R1b1b2 (was roll call) Rick, That was my original approach as well. I tested 12 at. Nat"l Geno then upgraded to 25. I had no close matches. I got frustrated and did nothing for awhile. I upgraded to 37 during a sale. I noticed that some my closest people at 25 (albeit not very close) dropped off and a new person appeared. I thought there was no reason to go further but people asked me what my DYS492 was. Finally I bit the bullet for 67. All prior surnames dropped off but the one new guy at 37. Two others with his surname also showed up as well as another surname. A pattern became clear as far as a specific region in Wales AND it matched my family folklore. I discovered the STR signature of my cluster. It turns out the markers from 38 to 67 are critical to many R1b1b2 clusters. All STR's are not equal. On 6/12/10, Fredric Z. Saunders <fzsaund@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > As with everything, there are exceptions. I know what you are saying, as I > have a number of R1b1b2 in one of my projects that are not related to each > other that it takes a minimum 37 markers to tell to which lineage they > belong. > > On the other hand, there are people like me that are projected as R1b1b2 and > have ZERO matches with ANY surname. I have tested to 37 markers, and don't > match anyone of ANY surname at 12 markers, much less 37. Testing to 67 or > doing a deep clade test isn't going to do anything for me. > > Rick Saunders > > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mike W > Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 5:57 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Roll Call > > I will dig up some facts but R1b1b2 is truly congested. Deep clade R > testing is a must unless a brother or male cousin has already done so. > With the FTDNA's prediction system, if you are predicted R1b1 or > R1b1b2 you should deep clade test. Of course STR testing is even more > important. Sorry but R1b1b2 should go to 67 markers. Do this before > deep clade testing IMHO. Mike W > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Sent from my mobile device ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Anyone who asks me whether an R1b1b2 should upgrade to 67 markers is going to get my stock answer: Yes, and why not? If you don't need 67 markers, now, you will need them sooner or later. I would say it's common for people to not match at 12 markers, but match at 25 or 37, because the differences between them by chance happen to be in the first panel. I cannot say I've seen that happen at 67 markers, myself, but it certainly is possible. However, another reason #2 is not be matching at lower levels may be that he has turned off matching at lower levels. You might want to email him and ask him if that is what he's done. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Martha H. Bowes > Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 11:10 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Confusing R1b Matches or Coincidences? > > Someone in my project, #1 (Bowe), matches someone of a > different surname, #2 > (Humphries), at 67 markers (GD 6) but not at any other level. > Someone else in my > project, #3 (Bowes) and a surname variant of #1, matches #2 > at 12 markers. #1 > and #3, the variants, do not match at 12 markers. #3 has only > tested 12 markers. > Should he upgrade to 67? > > How often does someone show as a match at 67 markers-albeit a > distant one-but > not at any other level of marker? > > TIA, Martha >

I'm a retired businessman, living in Australia, who worked in management for companies from small locals to major transnationals. I started researching my maternal family history back in 1974 (when I was living in the UK) initially from a grandmother's (b. 1898) memories, followed up with visits to church and regional archives and also purchased BMD certificates. Then, my inquiries stalled for 25 years till semi-retirement in 2000 gave me the time to continue my research. Last August, I became founder admin of the Claypoole/Claypole/Claypool/Cleypole and other variations surname project which already appears to have blown one assumption out of the water - ie the vast majority of American Claypooles/Claypools are descended from one of two migrant brothers, namely James Claypoole, 1634-1687, an early settler in Philadelphia and his brother, Norton Claypoole, 1640-1689, who settled near Lewes, Sussex Co, Delaware. As noted, this project is only 10 months old and has tested but 6 members, plus extended a previously deceased member's 37 marker results to 67 markers. Of those seven, four tests yielded 'closely related' 64/67 matches but the three other results don't come near to the 'closely related' group or indeed, to each other. Six of the seven are R1b1b2. The 'closely related' group probably descends from the above migrant brothers, as we have one member of this group with a well proven paper genealogy back to James Claypoole, 1634-1687. Five of the tested members and I came together through Claypoole Connection on Facebook, but announcements and attempted recruitment via the various Claypoole/Claypool genealogical message boards and mailing lists have been a great disappointment, not yielding any project members to date. Additionally, a number of people with an established background in traditional genealogy, and with published genealogies, have not taken the opportunity to be tested, even when offered a test at no cost to themselves. All advice welcome! Barry

Someone in my project, #1 (Bowe), matches someone of a different surname, #2 (Humphries), at 67 markers (GD 6) but not at any other level. Someone else in my project, #3 (Bowes) and a surname variant of #1, matches #2 at 12 markers. #1 and #3, the variants, do not match at 12 markers. #3 has only tested 12 markers. Should he upgrade to 67? How often does someone show as a match at 67 markers–albeit a distant one–but not at any other level of marker? TIA, Martha

Mike, thanks for telling Rick exactly what I was going to tell him! This happened with a man in one of my surname projects as well. Susan (Wales DNA project co-admin) Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Mike W <mwwdna@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 01:29:30 To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] R1b1b2 (was roll call) Rick, That was my original approach as well.  I tested 12 at. Nat"l Geno then upgraded to 25. I had no close matches.  I got frustrated and did nothing for awhile. I upgraded to 37 during a sale. I noticed that some my closest people at 25 (albeit not very close) dropped off and a new person appeared. I thought there was no reason to go further but people asked me what my DYS492 was.  Finally I bit the bullet for 67. All prior surnames dropped off but the one new guy at 37.  Two others with his surname also showed up as well as another surname. A pattern became clear as far as a specific region in Wales AND it matched my family folklore. I discovered the STR signature of my cluster.  It turns out the markers from 38 to 67 are critical to many R1b1b2 clusters. All STR's are not equal. On 6/12/10, Fredric Z. Saunders <fzsaund@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > As with everything, there are exceptions. I know what you are saying, as I > have a number of R1b1b2 in one of my projects that are not related to each > other that it takes a minimum 37 markers to tell to which lineage they > belong. > > On the other hand, there are people like me that are projected as R1b1b2 and > have ZERO matches with ANY surname.  I have tested to 37 markers, and don't > match anyone of ANY surname at 12 markers, much less 37. Testing to 67 or > doing a deep clade test isn't going to do anything for me. > > Rick Saunders > > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mike W > Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 5:57 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Roll Call > > I will dig up some facts but R1b1b2 is truly congested. Deep clade R > testing is a must unless a brother or male cousin has already done so. > With the FTDNA's prediction system, if you are predicted R1b1 or > R1b1b2 you should deep clade test.  Of course STR testing is even more > important.  Sorry but R1b1b2 should go to 67 markers. Do this before > deep clade testing IMHO.   Mike W > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Sent from my mobile device ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

David, I don't want to make light of your point as it is certainly correct, at least in some aspects. The need for testing does depend on the goal or goals you have. If all you are trying to do is confirm a cousin or 2nd cousin relationship of someone with the same surname/genealogical records; getting a match at 35 to 37 of 37 or of 24 to 25 of 25 is pretty convincing evidence. However, if you are trying to build an R1b1b2 based family tree and ascertain the various lineages going back several hundred years (where the genealogical records are unreliable or at least strained) then deeper testing is very important. Deeper testing is also very helpful for determining relationships between different families or surname variants, or within a purported clan, or in the case of potential NPE's. Also, deeper testing is very important if you are interested in deep ancestry and ties to ancient cultural expansions or movements. Regards, Mike On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 8:49 PM, David Willis <dwillis1@san.rr.com> wrote: > > I have a minority view: that testing beyond 37, or even 25, markers is > usually not helpful. > > I am the administrator of the Willis project at FTDNA. We have about 115 > members. About 70% of us match someone else in the project. We have about a > dozen groups of Willises (the name is derived from the name William and > originated in many different locations in Great Britain). > > By far the biggest benefit of Y-DNA testing for members of the Willis > project is that they find out which group of Willises they belong to. There > is no instance where testing beyond 25 markers would have been needed to > figure out which group to assign the member to. > > Interestingly, out of the dozen groups in the Willis project, only a couple > of them know who their common ancestor is. Solving this problem by > analyzing mismatched markers has not helped much, at least for me. When, > and > in whose line, did the mismatch occur? > > Dave Willis >

a point I failed to make earlier. I alluded to this but it didn't translate, so I'll state it more clearly. 23 men match my husband in the 12 marker test, so if we only tested 12 markers, then we'd assume we only had 23 matches. another 4 show up in the 25 marker test, 2 of whom do not show up in the 12 marker test. if we'd only tested 12 markers we'd have no idea these two men were related to us. another 11 show up in the 37 marker test, 5 of which do not show up in 12 or 25 marker testing. so you cannot say that it does no good to test further, some people only show up with further testing. I didn't mention the 67 marker man because he also shows up in the 37 marker test, but if someone were to show up in the 67 marker test with no mention of them in previous tests, that would make my point even further. but at this time my husband has what appears to be (from the larger number of mutations on his dna) a much older, longer seperated, perhaps, lineage than the rest of the lines in group 2 at Moore-worldwide ydna test results. he does belong, but his connection is older than the rest, and he has no relatives who tested. there is a family story of single son descent-large families with lots of girls but only one surviving son. so it may be a long time before we find male Moore relatives, and it may be that there aren't any. this case is one example, and certainly other dna test results will show something of the same pattern. it is the people with higher marker matches that are closer matches. no, less markers is not sufficient. this is especially so for the R1b lot, but is important for every haplogroup. to put it simply, you catch more with a bigger net. Cornelia

I've been lurking on this list for some time and thought I would take the opportunity to introduce myself. I am the admin of the Cruse/Crewes/Cruwys/Cruise project at Family Tree DNA. My DNA project is run as part of my one-name study into the Cruse surname and all its variant spellings: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/CruwysDNA My one-name study is registered with the Guild of One-Name Studies. All our Guild projects have a worldwide focus so we get a slightly different perspective in comparison with the majority of projects at Family Tree DNA and elsewhere which seem to focus exclusively on American lineages. If anyone is running a worldwide DNA project and is interested in joining the Guild you can find more information on the Guild website: http://www.one-name.org I should emphasise that the registration requirements are not as daunting as they might sound as the research can be done passively at your own pace. I also run a geographical project for the English county of Devon: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Devon The project is restricted to those with documented ancestry to Devon. I was interested in the mention of the surname Westcott as that is one of the surnames which appears in my own personal family tree. My Westcotts are from the parish of North Molton in Devon. I've not yet been able to locate any Devon Westcotts to participate in the Devon project, though I do have a Westcott in Australia who was interested but couldn't afford the test. I have also been helping out as co-admin of the mtDNA haplogroup U4 project: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/U4mtDNA In the last year we have completely revamped the U4 project and more than doubled the membership. I would be delighted to hear from anyone with an interest in any of these projects. Debbie Kennett

Glenn, Thanks for the info. I've been looking as earliest records of Western NY for my Westcott, guardianship, etc. I will try Rhode Island town records next. It will take time but I may find something. I'll look for surname Westcott or Adams, or any James, or any male b. 22 Mar. 1795. The names of his children may also be a clue. I'm working on the assumption that any associations he made in Western NY 1814 - 1835 and afterwards in Michigan are not familial, and likely came out of his military service, or time working on building the Erie Canal. I'm also working on the assumption that if Westcott is not his ancestral surname , its choosing or application is not haphazard either - that it was in some way meaningful. I found one relatively close match the other day at ancestry.com that was 28/30. It turns out that this family is also uncertain of its origins. Their ancestor's location was Virginia but I am not restricting my geographic search. I am dealing with a 19 year old in the fairly fluid society in the post-Rev. War period who "ran away". In many ways your worth on the frontier was judged by your mettle, honesty, neighborliness, marksmanship, etc. , they were less interested in your kin. You could reinvent yourself there. Fred On 6/12/10, Glenn Stroup <stroupg@comcast.net> wrote: > At 03:18 PM 6/12/2010, Fred wrote: >>"The few cryptic phrases that have come down in the family is >>that he was "found out and ran away", or "one or both of the parents >>died and men came and took the children away", also there is the story >>that he resented his family because he was bound to a master at an >>early age. The man was to teach him a trade, how to read and write, >>etc. , but the master did none of these things. He took the boy out of >>state and treated him like a slave." > > > Fred and others - I have been digging into colonial and after legal > practices in Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina because I too am > searching for definitive information about my Stroup ancestor (by > paper German, but my DNA says Irish) of 1794 as well as for the > parents of my GGrandfather Adams, born 1835 of unkiwn parents. In > both cases I suspect an NPE and/or an adoption/Apprenticeship. I've > found that most states kept court records and often had a Committee > who administered the programs for the poor and/or orphans. Often the > books about such records are called something like the "Lost > Children." I have one called just that for Wythe County VA, and > although I did not find an entry for my Stroup ancestor, I did for > some of his relatives. I thought I had found an > adoption/apprenticeship (sometimes combined) for the right time of My > GGrandfather Adams, but found a later case which said the Adams man > had only girls!~. But I suggest you look for such records - you > family stories sound just like many that I;ve read about people who > were just looking for cheap labor and did not do the training or > provide the support they were supposed to for the orphans. > > Thanks, > > Glenn > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

67 markers were offered when I had my Y-DNA tested 5 years ago. There were 2 others at that time whom I matched closely who had had their 67 markers tested 2 years previously. So, we have at least 7 years for 67 markers being offered, possibly longer. This was when Y-DNA numbers for people who had been tested were still relatively low too. The NatGeo project gave great impetus to Y-DNA testing, and this is the reason for so many having only the 12-markers test. There was an "explosion" of interest in Y-DNA testing when NatGeo stepped up the gaming table. If the truth be known, I started with only 12 markers too, but more because it was a "shot in the dark" after some 2 decades of head-banging against the proverbial brickwall. When I found 4, instant, Y-DNA Cousins I upgraded to 67 markers. As more Y-DNA Cousins came on board it quickly became apparent that some of the "family branch" groupings that we were making based upon the advice of "experts" was simply off-base. Markers 38-67 we are finding to be "critical" in determining family branches. Forget the first 37 markers for trying to do this - exaggeration for effect. The most important thing to remember is that all mutations are "RANDOM". Tables giving average numbers of years for a mutation to occur at a given locus while interesting still need to be taken "under advisement" as we have several Cousins with 2 mutations within 3 generations or so. This makes me question the validity of the mutation tables...sometimes... Good hunting, Cliff. "May the best you've ever seen, Be the worst you'll ever see;" from A Scots Toast by Allan Ramsay ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] testing to 67 markers > Yes, and there's some history behind that reason. In the beginning, FTDNA > only > offered 12 markers, then they began offering 25 markers, then 37, then 67. > I > don't have the dates when the increased numbers became available, but > there were > a lot of people tested before 37 markers became available. > > Another reason is that many people transfer in from the National > Geographic > Society's Genographic Project, and to this day, they only test 12 markers. > > The question now is: Why haven't more of these people upgraded? > > Diana >

Yes, and there's some history behind that reason. In the beginning, FTDNA only offered 12 markers, then they began offering 25 markers, then 37, then 67. I don't have the dates when the increased numbers became available, but there were a lot of people tested before 37 markers became available. Another reason is that many people transfer in from the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project, and to this day, they only test 12 markers. The question now is: Why haven't more of these people upgraded? Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of fenenga@connpoint.net > Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 8:08 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] testing to 67 markers > > > the number of people who only tested to 12 or 25 is incredible. they > are under the assumption that that is all that is needed. > > at 12 markers a single man matches perfectly with my > husband (who is > a Moore). the match's surname is not only different from my husband, > it's mainland European, Baltic, I believe. he does not match beyond > 12 markers. but he is a perfect match at 12 markers. no-one else > tested so far is. does that mean a perfect match at 12 markers is > indeed a perfect match? absolutely not. and 12 markers is a totally > uninformative test even for someone with a rare surname. > > at 12 markers with a distance of 1 are 22 individuals. some are > Moores, some are of other Scottish surnames. none are close cousins, > even at 11/12. > > at 25 markers with 2 distant, there are 4 men, 3 of > whom are Moores, > but not closely related even at 23/25. > > at 37 markers with 0 distance, there is one man, but > even though he > is 37/37, he is not a close cousin. > > at 37 markers with 4 distance, there are 10 matches. > they are not > close cousins. > > at 67 markers with 7 distance (yes, that far) there is > one man. he > is not a close cousin. > > all of these people aren't just distant cousins, they are very > distant cousins. why am I pointing this out? because on DYS 572, my > husband has a unique mutation. but you won't find out if you have > signature mutations if you don't test to 67 markers. there are people > with very common surnames that insist that it isn't necissary to test > beyond 25. every person who fails to test beyond 25 who has a fairly > common surname is not going to get all the information available or > match correctly-some people now in one group could actually belong to > a different group because 25 just doesn't give enough information. > > Cornelia > > >