Diana, thanks for the quote on improbable events. I'm going to write that down & save it for use in my project. I administer the Thrift /Frith /Firth surname DNA project, and the Thrift one-name study (which unofficially includes the other variants). I'm not so much trying to develop my own family tree, but rather am trying to assemble a resource for the use of anyone with these related surnames. I would eventually like to be able to point to earliest known ancestors or locations for the origins of each major group with these surnames. After half a year plus, we have a whopping 5 people in the DNA project, only 2 of whom are active. Three still have only 12-marker results. I have had a lot of interest from people related via the distaff side, but none interested to the point of finding more direct line participants. In looking for more participants I'm trying to broaden the net a bit by starting the one-name study, and by putting up a web site for the project with links to EVERY online family tree I could find showing at least a few generations of Thrift, Frith, Firth or related surnames. By monitoring the surname genforums, I also wrangled a few family trees that were not online (hey - it's easier than wrangling more participants), and posted them online myself. The hitcounters show that the search engines have found these project sites and are directing some interested people this way. But it's slow, not very exciting. I envision that with people who drift in (as opposed to, say, people who are active participants on the surname genforums), we're more likely to find people who are not motivated to pay for 67 markers. I expect to get people who will only do the cheapest test at FTDNA or more likely the free test at SMGF, and only get 12-18 markers tested. That's better than nothing. These people are often older or otherwise on limited incomes (this has been pointed out to me) but still curious. I'll do what I can with what I get. But given that limitation, one tool I expect to use when relevant is the haplogroup predictor. I've already had the experience of having 2 people test at different companies, 12 markers at FTDNA for one participant, and 18 markers at SMGF for the other. Only 4 markers (or so, I forget exactly) were tested in common to compare between these two people. BUT despite testing only ~4 markers in common, we could clearly tell from their predicted HAPLOGROUPS that they were not related. Agreed, the info is low resolution, but still it was clearly useful. I expect to get participants who are from several different family lines, in different parts of the world (all former English colonies), so I can't assume their common surname will mean they are related. Some surnames will -without knowing it- be from the Scandinavian derivation of Fjord > Firth, while others will be from Frith (meaning a wood) > Firth. If they only do 12-18 markers and I can't get them to pay for more, you can bet I'll try to wring more discriminating info about them from the haplogroup predictors. IF for example one person turns out to be *predicted* I1a -ultraNorse while the other is I1a-Frisian (or whatever) I will use that information -with gratitude- tentatively to distinguish their families, even though we generally wouldn't want to call it without 25 markers or more. I am sure hoping the haplogroup tweakers will find ways to break up R1b into useful subgroups for use with the haplogroup predictors. Regards Richard Thrift ---- Referring specifically to haplogroups, Diana Gale Matthiesen <[email protected]> wrote: It depends, in part on how common the haplotype is and in part on what you're trying to prove. As we all know, being R1b, especially being WAMH, can mean you have hundreds of meaningless matches at 12 markers and dozens at 25 markers. I've reached the point, for R1b, that I would not settle for less than 37 because I've seen a 23/25 match drop to 28/37. ... Remember that when you've made a DNA match in your surname, you have just proven that *two* improbable events have occurred simultaneously: that two strangers have the same name and the same DNA. That's one heck-of-a coincidence. I you couple that paper pedigrees that agree, you have slam dunk, take-it-to-the-bank support for a relationship ....