World Families Forums - Recent Posts

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 14, 2014, 10:58:20 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

 on: September 12, 2014, 07:23:40 PM 
Started by Steve Russell - Last post by cityslic
I have sent my pedigree in a couple of times, but it's still not showing up on the Project page.

 on: September 09, 2014, 10:27:46 PM 
Started by John W. Pruett - Last post by John W. Pruett
Bill, thanks for the Ancestry match list for Group F.  When looking at that list and the FT matches for James  Woodson Pruitt at the 37 marker level,  it does look like the Whites, Sweeneys and Hudsons are families that could be researched in the future to see if they are closely related to Group F members.

We know the FT MRCAs are not conservative estimates like the Ancestry numbers, but these people are shown at the same livel as you are from James.   

 on: September 09, 2014, 03:18:39 AM 
Started by John W. Pruett - Last post by John W. Pruett
Carol, the bottom line on Y-DNA testing is that the more markers you test, the better the results will be.  I don't know why any company offers the basically useless 12 marker test.  It only tells you that your family was from Western Europe(R1b) or from the Nordic countries (It/Ib),etc..  The 25 marker test is not much better.  The 37 marker test, which is similar to the Ancestry 46 marker test, does let us determine our Family Groups fairly well.

The 67 markers is much better and allows a much more accurate list of your matches and MRCA numbers.  However, I have close matches of 6 MRCAs with a Morris and Smith at 67 markers that drop out completely on my list at 111.  It seems that in this case the 111 marker is a lot more accurate than the 67 and I can't explain why this happens except that the Morris and Smith must have never really been very close to me.

I hope everyone will upgrade to the 67 marker test when FT has its sales during the year.  One sale just ended last week. 

In your case you have the 67 marker test and maybe you need to wait a while before doing anything.  The Big-Y has overwhelmed FT right now and they haven't upgraded their draft tree.  Someone said they are still using their 2012 draft tree in 2014.  Many people have taken additional testing and their correct terminal SNP is not showing on their FT results.  I would suggest waiting and consider skipping the 111 marker test and going directly to the Big-Y test in the future, if FT reduces the price sharply.  The Big-Y is 492 markers so there wouldn't be that much to gain in your case by going to the 111 marker test.  In the meantime you have your line, the line of James Burton Pruitt, and Bobby  Clark Pruitt's line to study.  Bobby Clark's line might be of great importance. You also the puzzle of the lines of the Doebler and Smiths to research.

I think Polly might upgrade to 67 markers and maybe you and Polly can work our something to get Bobby's DNA upgraded to 67 markers.  I don't think Bobby line is going to go back to your William, but to someone who was William's ancestor.         

 on: September 08, 2014, 10:34:52 PM 
Started by John W. Pruett - Last post by carol kindred
Do you recommend,  at this time,  upgrading my John Thomas Prewit to  111 markers, the Big Y or some other individual SNPs? Or should I hold pat until more group E Pruitts (or Smiths or ?) test.

Enjoyed reading your  post...great food for thought. Amazing how far we have come in a short period of time.  And it will only get better in the years ahead.  What you and  others are doing with advanced DNA testing is ground breaking.  Thank you for blazing the trail and sharing what you have learned.

On a rather disappointing note..I have not heard back from any of my three Smith cousins.  Will give it a few more days and then go to plan B.


 on: September 08, 2014, 09:00:32 PM 
Started by John W. Pruett - Last post by John W. Pruett
Bill, I am working with the Ancestry match files for Group A, B and C.  The future of DNA testing seems to be the terminal SNP numbers and looking at those other surnames that we are related to, similar to what we were talking about the other day with Group E.  I think we will have to get used to the fact that our Prew-it variants in our family lines only go back so far.  The date of the first use of surnames appears to vary depending on the country. according to the MRCA article you sent, lists its numbers on the conservative side compared with FT.  Even though the Ancestry numbers are very conservative they still may be useful.  Ancestry has Richard Ben Pruitt at a 14 MRCA to me with both us having the 46 marker test.  We also both tested at FT and they had us at the 3 MRCA level for the 67 marker test.  When we both upgraded to the FT 111 marker test, our MRCA was 5 which is the correct documented level for both of our lines back to Elijah Pruett who was born in 1770.

I have got my FT Big-Y results back and I match the Middleton family.  FT has a Middleton at the 15 MRCA level for me and I have a Middleton on my conservative Ancestry match list at the 27 MRCA level.  Who knows right now which is the true MRCA estimate. 

The most interesting fact is that there is the same Middleton on the Group C match list at the 28 MRCA level.  Group C has many Prew-its, Belues, etc, but they are not related to my Group A at all.  From this its looking like there might be a Pruett-Middleton Cluster sometime between 450-800 years ago using 25 years for each generation.  I think some say 30 years should be used fro each generation.  Its very possible there was a common ancestor of these three different lineages: The Middletons, Prewitts(Group C)  and Pruetts(Group A) some time in the past.  As more people take the Big-Y test, I am sure there will be more lineages than three from that common ancestor.
Bill I hope you have your Group F match list and will sent it to me.  Ancestry will destroy everybody's match lists after September 30th which is a shame. 

 on: September 08, 2014, 03:42:49 PM 
Started by Terry Barton - Last post by S.R. Myers
In process of having a DNA kit done for my son, a blood Myers
Happy to trade notes with anyone of this Myers Branch

Jacob Myers b 1810 Greene Co TN d 1889 Greene Co TN m Jane C Ayres

James Crofford Myers b 1857 Hawkins Co TN d 1928 Greene Co TN m Florence V Myers
(**see note at end)

Dana Tivis Myers b 1895 Greene Co TN d 1957 Rutherford Co TN m 1919 Dora Weems

Joseph Fred Myers b 1924 Greene Co TN d 1995 Greene Co TN m Living

Living Male Myers b 1963 Greene Co TN m Living

**NOTE: Following is the pedigree of Florence Virginia Myers, a Myers by birth that married a Myers, James Crofford, some say they where cousins but if and how has yet to be proven. 

John Moyers/Myers b 1765 VA d ? TN m Catherine M Couch

Christopher Colambus Myers b 1802 Greene Co TN d 1887 Greene Co TN m Aprey Manes

John Tivis Myers b 1830 TN d 1902 Greene Co TN m Anna Willoughby

Florence V Myers b 1860 Greene Co TN d 1942 Greene Co TN m James Crofford Myers

 on: September 06, 2014, 08:54:56 PM 
Started by Ron Herring - Last post by floraphile
John Herring b. 1778 NC d. ca. 1861 Barbour co., AL m. Nancy Ann *unk
   James D. Herring b. 1810 NC d. aft 6.1871 m. Henrietta Perkins
       Thomas Jefferson Herring  b. 1841 AL d. 1916 AL

 on: September 06, 2014, 08:17:41 PM 
Started by HannahAdmin - Last post by Don Hanna
Kit # 355358

Donald Hanna

James Hanna Bef 1813 Ireland
Elizabeth Unknown 1793 Ireland
    Francis J. Hanna 1 Nov 1831 Ireland
    Elizabeth McKinley abt 1835 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
        Joseph Hanna 05 Aug1859 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
        Elizabeth McCeacken 09 Apr 1878 in Kaneville, Venango, Pennsylvania,
            Joseph Lee Hanna 18 Mar 1904 in Kaneville, Venango, Pennsylvania
            Susan Lucille Towns 4 JUN 1906 in Pleasantville, Venango, Pennsylvania

 on: September 06, 2014, 06:59:28 PM 
Started by John W. Pruett - Last post by carol kindred
Thanks, John.
I'll invite them to join.  Would be great to see everyone in one project

 on: September 06, 2014, 06:15:10 PM 
Started by John W. Pruett - Last post by Bill Pruiett
Carol, it would be perfectly alright to ask them to join Group E. I've got a few non-Prew-its I'd like to have join Group F (or at least open a dialogue about our relationships) and we already have non-Prew-its in Group C. We know the non-Prew-its in Group C are definitely descended from Prew-its. This is one of the things that makes Y-DNA testing so interesting.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 15 queries.