World Families Forums - Have you matched with someone with a different surname?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 23, 2014, 01:23:34 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  Special Forums - Note: You must be Logged In to Post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  Questions and News Articles of the Week
| | |-+  Have you matched with someone with a different surname?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Have you matched with someone with a different surname?  (Read 9029 times)
Marilyn Teaff Barton
Administrator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2360


« on: September 18, 2006, 04:04:38 PM »

Sometimes surname project participants find that their results match results in a different surname project.? Often, there is a known reason or theory as to why there is a match (adoption, name change, etc.)? Sometimes it is a complete surprise, and the participant wonders what to do next.? We recommend that those who match should be examining paper trails to see if there are any intersection points.? Sometimes, folks can find those and discover a likely story of how they are related.? Many times, they can't.? You can be 37/37 with someone and still not share a common ancestor for 400 years (though that is rare.)? ?You also should be identifying which of these matches has the furtherest paper trail and examine the theory that you all descend from that family - or maybe an older one, with yet a different surname.? There are already some who are saying that you should test at 67 markers when you are trying to confirm matches across surnames.? Generally, more is better.? Terry considers 37 a minimum for this comparison.
 
Unrecorded adoptions, affairs, unrecorded name changes, ... ,low mutation rates (meaning the common ancestor was further back in time)? are some of the reasons you might share genetic ancestry with someone of a different surname.

Have you matched with someone with a different surname?? What did you do, and what did you find out?

Post your comments here.? (Click the button marked "reply" at the bottom of this page to post)? ?Note: if you are signed in, you can come back later and edit, update, or even delete your original? posting.? Feel free to post as many times as you'd like.

Logged
Glenda Davidson
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2006, 08:41:32 AM »

I have two 25 marker matches with different surnames.    I discovered connecting families which were from my g grandmother  and discovered one fell into direct  line of one of my g grandfathers ancesters.  I haven't found any connections with the second 25 marker different surname match except that family and mine were living in the same place just one generation back.  They also moved from that county in Ky to the same town in Ohio where my family moved.
  This has stumped me --------------------------------------------
Logged
Billie Ranson
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2006, 08:49:39 PM »

My family has tested 5 descendants of 3 brothers who lived in the same area in 1800-1810. Three of the men tested match each other with minor deviations. The two others, who are first cousins, match each other but not the first three. The haplogroup is even different. They match a different surname and after extending to 67 markers are still a perfect match to that surname. After some looking at family trees both families were in the same area during the 1800's. We think there must have been an adoption that neither family knew or discussed. We are also stumped.
Logged
cliffsheets
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2006, 01:18:30 PM »

I was recently searching for matches on a relatives 37 markers and found two other surnames that matched 37/37 on www.smgf.org. When looking at birthdates and other sources on www.familysearch.org, I discovered that my gggrandfather was born nearly 9 months to the day that my ggggrandmother married a guy named Cox. The family legend was that my ggggrandparents wanted more children but I guess he couldn't so the local church leader suggested that they divorce each other and marry another this guy named Cox and then divorce him and remarry her first husband. That must have been what they did because descendants of Cox have the same 37/37 markers as the descendants of Richardson. In his journal my gggrandfather calls his Now I just need to figure out how the 3rd surname of Marshall fits in. I didn't see anywhere in their pedigree that shows they lived in the same place at the same time as the Richardson or the Cox families.
Logged
Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2007, 09:26:23 PM »

DNA evidence of N-3 and N-4 from the Nolan DNA Surname Project Lineage II and Kit #18393 and #56134 from the Windham Family DNA Project give a high probability of a common ancestor through an extramarital event or adoption based on the following information: 

1. Edward MacLysaght established that the Mac Suibhne, O'Mulgeehy, O Maolghaoithe, McSwyne, Sweeney family of Ireland became Wynne or Windham.

2. The 33 of 37 Y-DNA marker match between N-4 of the Nolan DNA Surname Project and Kit #56134 from the Windham Family DNA Project have three possible points of occurrence: 1. In 1574, both families owned castles in Galway, Co. Ireland and would have socialized together; 2. Both represent Herenagh Families of Donegal Co. Ireland. Herenagh meaning land typically converted into donated church property; and 3. Both families were represented in the early history of Isle of Wight Co. VA in the early 1640's.
 
NOLAN - WINDHAM
PROBABILITY & TIME TO MOST RECENT COMMON ANCESTOR.


98.55% Probability of a Shared Common Ancestor within 24 Generations:

24 generations multiplied by 15 (Years in a Generation) = 360 years.
24 generations multiplied by 25 (Years in a Generation) = 600 years.

94.97% Probability of a Shared Common Ancestor within 20 Generations:

20 generations multiplied by 15 (Years in a Generation) = 300 years.
20 generations multiplied by 25 (Years in a Generation) = 500 years.

2006 minus 1597* = 409 Years.

2006 minus 1643* = 363 Years.

 

* 1597 - THOMAS NOLAN purchased Enniscrone Castle Co. Sligo.

* 1643 - JOHN NOWLIN living in Isle of Wight Co. VA.

 

Evidence:

1. Mc Swyne castle owners in the Barony of Clare Co. Galway at the same time Nolan Lineage II owns a castle, the Barony of Moycullen Co. Galway which included the town of Galway. 

JOURNAL OF THE GALWAY ARCHÆOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY JGAHS Vol. I (1900–1901), No. i, Nolan, J. P.: The Castles of Clare Barony [The thirty-four De Burgo Castles in the Barony of Clare], 11-48.

P. 14

"The most Irish names amongst the Clare castle owners are O'Heine (Hynes) and two MacSwynes (Sweeney), faithful adherents of Clanricarde."

JOURNAL OF THE GALWAY ARCHÆOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY JGAHS Vol. I (1900–1901), No. ii, Nolan, J. P.: Galway Castles and Owners in 1574, 109-123.

P. 114

The Baronie of Mvykullen*

Qwarown browne    Donell Oge Ohologhan (Nolan)

* * (including the Barony of Galway.-t.)

P. 118

The Boronie of Clare

Kyliskiegh      Murrough McSwyne               

Cahirnefieke   Tirlagh Caragh Mc Swyne

 
2. Clandaholka and Mevaugh Parish are adjacent to each other in Co. Donegal Ireland.
 

PATENT ROLLS OF JAMES I: INQUISITION AT LIFFORD, 1609.


"Clandaholka Parish.



Herenagh O'MULGEEGH; the O'Boile's; the McSwyne's; or freeholds: Clandaholka parish, containing 9 ballibetaghs whereof the herenagh O'MULGEEGH has 1 qr., who pays to the bishop of Raphoe 13s 4d Ir. rent, and 1l 13s 4d Ir. pension out of the bishop's thirds of the tithes, the bishop hass 1/3 qr. called Marfaugh, anciently inhabited by the sept of the O'Boile's, for which 4s rent is paid, the McSwyne's paid them a cosherie of 4 madders of butter and 8 madders of meal, whereof nothing has been paid in the time of the present bishop, about 3 miles from the church is a ruined chapel with 7 gorts of free land called Clonveg, the tenants of which paid 2s 4d yearly to the parson of Clondaholka in this parish, the parson, vicar, tithes and repairs are as in Faughan parish, the parson and vicar pay 8s Ir. proxies to the bishop and have 4 gorts of glebe between them, there are also 2 qrs. belonging to the late abbey of BallymcSwyne Odie besides Doe castle, the tithes and spirituallities of which are divided between the parishes of Clondaholka and Kilmacrenan;



Mevaugh Parish.



Herenagh the sept of the O'NOLAN'S; or freeholds: Mevaugh parish, containing 5 baalibetaghs, of which 1 qr. are church land enjoyed by the sept of the O'NOLAN'S, as herenaghs, who pay to the bishop of Raphoe 13s 4d Ir. and 1l Ir. pension out of the bishop's third of the tithes, the parson, vicar, tithes and repairs are as in Faughan parish, the parson and vicar pay 3s proxies each to the bishop, and have 2 gorts of glebe land between them, in this parish are 6 gorts of free land called Kinelargie, the proprietors of which paid 2s yearly to the official of Raphoe, there is also a chapel with 1/2 qr. of land called Druin which belonged to the Franciscan friars of Kilmacrenan who received 13s yearly out of it, the McSwyne's challenged a cosherie of 4 meathers of butter and 8 meathers of meal from it;"

3. John (Nolan) (Nowlin) living in Isle of Wight Co. Virginia, 1643.
 
Further evidence in support of an extramarital event or adoption is a list of Cromwellian evictions for Co. Sligo, Ireland that include John Nolan and Edmond and Milmory McSwine.

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/IRL-SLIGO/2000-11/0973202157

List of the people in Sligo that were evicted by Cromwell with no hope of getting either their land back or any land at all back. These were the people that Cromwell believed were the really bad Irish, although some appear to be Anglo-Normans. This has to be qualified as some of them may have been allowed to stay on as lessees on their
old land.

Teig ODowd of Roslea
Andrew Crean of Anagh
John, his son, Andrew his grandchild
Thirlagh McDonagh, Crivigh, Thirlagh his son
David Dowd of Castlemeen Infant
JOHN NOLAN of Iskerowen
Pall French of Sligo
Garratt Baxter of Laragh
Kedagh O Banaghan of Carigbanaghan
John French of Sligo
Teig O Conr {Connor?} Sligoe
Teig OHara of Balliara
Oliver O'Hara of Mallan
TEIG O HIGIN of Cooleraile
Farroll O Gara of Moygara
Bryan Fitz Teig O Conr [Connor?] [no place name]
Hugh McDonogh of Ballielly
Patt Plunkett of Belagrany
Charles O Conr [Connor?] of Glancarbry
Donogh O Conr [Connor?] of Glandanaire
William Crean of [no place name shown]
McDonogh of Cloonegassell
John McDonogh of Ramullin
Conr [Connor?] McDonogh of Carrowmore
William Dowd of Kinconalla
David Dowd of Lakan
EDMOND & MILMORY McSWINE of Ardneglas
Conr [Connor?] McDonogh of Corrindona
GILCOLLUM O HIGIN of Montagh

Further DNA evidence in support of an extramarital event or adoption to is a Windham - Nolan DNA comparison provided by John B. Windham of the Windham Family DNA Project that details a 25 Y-DNA marker match between N-3 and Kit # 18393 and a 61-62 of 67 Y-DNA marker match between Kit # 18393 and N-4 with a mismatch of 5 as listed by FTDNA.

These two families could possibly even be connected as early as circa 1400 through the grandsons that are said to belong to Mac Suibhne of Connacht and the Nolan’s of Galway who erected the tomb in the center of the Franciscan Friary churchyard in Galway, 1394.

Windham-Nolan DNA Comparison

N4   N3   18393   56134   67680

13   13   13   13   13
24   24   24   24   24
14   14   14   14   14
10   10   10   10   10
11   11   11   11   11
17   17   17   17   17
12   12   12   12   12
12   12   12   12   12
12   12   12   12   12
14   14   14   14   14
13   13   13   13   13
30   31   31   31   31

17   17   17   17   17
09   09   09   09   09
10   10   10   10   10
11   11   11   11   11
11   11   11   11   11
25   25   25   25   25
15   15   15   15   15
19   19   19   19   19
28   28   28   29   28
15   15   15   15   15
15   15   15   15   15
15   17   17   17   17
17   17   17   17   17

11   --   11   11   11
11   --   11   11   11
19   --   19   19   19
23   --   23   23   23
15   --   15   15   15
15   --   15   15   15
20   --   21   21   20
16   --   16   16   16
36   --   36   36   36
40   --   39   40   39
12   --   12   12   12
12   --   12   12   12

11   --   11   --   --
09   --   09   --   --
15   --   15   --   --
16   --   16   --   --
08   --   08   --   --
10   --   10   --   --
10   --   10   --   --
08   --   08   --   --
10   --   10   --   --
10   --   10   --   --
12   --   12   --   --
23   --   23   --   --
23   --   23   --   --
16   --   16   --   --
10   --   10   --   --
12   --   12   --   --
12   --   12   --   --
15   --   15   --   --
08   --   08   --   --
12   --   13   --   --
22   --   22   --   --
20   --   20   --   --
13   --   13   --   --
12   --   12   --   --
11   --   11   --   --
13   --   13   --   --
11   --   11   --   --
11   --   11   --   --
14   --   14   --   --
12   --   12   --   --

Glenn Allen Nolen
ganolen@gmail.com

Logged
markm1935
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2007, 11:51:44 PM »

Dear Terry Barton:
 
I am writing you with these questions because you are the only one I know with the experience in DNA that might be able to answer them.  First question is, why do Phil Markham and myself have exact matches in our Y-37 DNA markers with the exception of CDYb which is off only 1 step?  We both come from the same grandfather removed 4 times John Markham of Botetourt.  This is only a spread of six generations.  The next question is this, how do we have exact Y-37  DNA matches with men of different surnames?  Both of these questions are of great concern to both Phil and myself, and we would appreciate any information you can give on them.
 
Thank you for your time,
 
Tommy Markham
Logged
Terry Barton
Administrator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1663


« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2007, 10:43:43 AM »

First - let me note that you and Phil have the same surname.

Tommy, you and Phil are wanting DNA to be more precise than is possible.  The mutations that occur are predictable in a large population, but are totally random in a small population (your genetic kin).   
 
Your results are perfectly normal for your paper trail - with the mutation between you being "noise" at this stage and potentially useful at some point - as it distinguishes your line (or Phil's) at this marker.  As you get more results in your genetic family, you'll know which of you carries the mutation.  You already know that it occurred sometime after your common John and no later than one of your own births.
 
Let me share with you a writeup I used before from my own results - which were originally done at 43 markers.  (I have severely "overtested" my own family - which gives me additional insight)
 
Mutations vs time to most recent common ancestor:
 
My grandfather had a 12 at DYS388 (I know this by triangulation of multiple tests) - which is the same marker result for our Barton shared ancestor in my 70+ man Barton Lineage I.  Our common ancestor was born no later than the 1620s, and probably earlier.
 
My uncle also has this 12.  However, my father has a 13 at DYS388, as do I, and as does my son. 
 
The 13 is a mutation, where the dna pattern changed from 12 to 13 at my Dad's conception.  I inherited my Dad's 13 and so did my son.  If we were to test my brothers and nephew, they would almost certainly have the 13 too.  No other Barton tested so far has this 13.  We have a unique mutation that identifies my father's descendants.
 
I am 41/43 with my uncle (I started a mutation at 452) and Richard Barton is 43/43 with my uncle.  Richard and my uncle can't share a common ancestor any later than "born 1620s" - some 330 years earlier. 
 
You can't always use the number of mutations to say who is closest.
 
Regarding years to shared ancestry ... using this table, but changed to 43 markers (per example above) and calculating "Generations to MRCA vs Probability":
 
http://www.moseswalker.com/mrca/calculator.asp?q=2
 
 
For a 43/43 match - which my Uncle Bob and Richard have at 11+ generations - the probability is 84.9% that they have a shared ancestor at 11 generations.  (So - the probability is also very high that they share a common ancestor at any fewer number of generations - but they don't.)  The flip side is that the probability that they don't share a common ancestor at 11 generations ahs dropped to 15.1%
 
For my 41/43 match with my Uncle Bob, we have only a 1.5% chance of a common ancestor at 2 generations. (or a whopping 98.5% chance that we don't share a common ancestor)  Despite these probabilities, we share a common ancestor - who is my Uncle Bob's father and my grandfather.  My 41/43 match with my Uncle Bob is fact at 1.5 generations - despite the very low statistical probability.
 
Richard's 43/43 match with my Uncle Bob is still speculative in connecting at 11 generations - it could be 12, 15, 20, ...?  It has almost a 85% probability at the 11th generation - the  first where it could be possible, based on our paper trails.
 
If you click the calculator to calculate "Probability vs Generations to MRCA:

For 43/43
you have a 25% probability of a shared ancestor within 1.8 generations
if you want the probability to be 95%, you have to go to 17+ generations
this is most commonly reported as a 50% probability and 4.2 generations
Reality is that it is more than 11 generations

For 41/43
you have only a 25% probability of a shared ancestor within 10.4 generations
if you want the probability to be 95%, you have to go to 37.6+ generations
this is most commonly reported as a 50% probability and 16.1 generations
reality is actually 1.5 generations

Do you see why I avoid trying to estimate how long to a shared common ancestor based on a very few results?  And, why I don't talk a lot about the probabilities and time to most recent common ancestor?  It's because the calculation result is so very broad.
 
All that said, I would rather have a 61/67 match than a 33/37 or a 23/25 (each basically at the 90% matching point)  And - I consider a 12/12 just an indicator of the need for more testing.

Each increase in markers gives us a higher assurance that this is not a random match, but a result from shared ancestry.

I hope this helps.  Terry

ps  My son and I are each tested to 113 markers and match perfectly 113/113.  I have "only" tested my dad on 83 of these markers - but know from triangulation that we would match h112/113 if he was formally tested on all 113.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2007, 10:45:58 AM by terry » Logged
Helios
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2007, 08:19:15 PM »

On my 37 marker Ydna I matched only one person who had a 12 marker dna done. I matched no others at 25 or 37. My surname is Baker. Pretty common huh? The individual I matched was an ancestor of a fellow indian fighter of my known family ancestor (1700's). In fact he was there when he was killed by Indians. Hmmmm?
Logged
craig_allen
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2007, 08:49:07 PM »

FYI
I have 25 different surname matches 12/12, of these I have several groups of three or more with same sir-names (with themselves)
I know there is a broken link in my sir-name match.

FYI

mo later

ca
Logged
craig_allen
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2007, 08:50:26 PM »

PS
None of these 25 12/12 match my sir-name.

mo later

ca
Logged
joeflood
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2007, 09:26:41 PM »

Its pretty rare if you dont get a 12 marker match with someone with a different surname - you have a very rare haplogroup in that case. I match dozens - including my own mother's line so my parents were cousins 1200 years or so back.

Glen - I think you should be using 30 years for generations, 25 years is too low. A lot of women were having children in their forties back in those days, and a lot of men were marrying late. However - its a matter of personal taste but for my risk tolerance, 98.5% tolerance is too high - 90% or nine-to-one is enough to convince me (Ill take a bet like that any day) .

The story of our 25 marker matches with other folks in backwoods USA I have put in another subject

Logged
Terry Barton
Administrator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1663


« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2007, 12:52:40 AM »

Personally, I consider a 12/12 match as an indication of a possible match - not a match -  and am rarely content to stop with a 12 marker comparison.  Those rare cases have the same surname and well-documented and connected paper trails.  Any other time -  I consider any 12 marker comparison to be an indication of a possible match - but not a match.

Similarly a match (23/25 or better) is reasonably convincing only when there is a matching surname or crossing paper trail.  Even then, there is uncertainty.  (a crossing paper trail is when two families were in the same location at the same time)

If you want a strong certainty that you share a common ancestor with someone when you don't have paper trails that connect - you will need 37 markers (or more)

And - as I am 41/43 with my uncle (1.5 generations) - which has a probability in the 1 or 2% range - I don't get real hung up on how high the probability of shared ancestry is. 

Terry

Terry

Logged
Varangian
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2007, 04:05:28 PM »

My 67-marker test matches no one with my Scott surname.  The closest matches are with the MacDonalds and the MacAlistairs.  Members of those families seem to have very consistent values at DYS458, 464a, and 464c which I do not share.  At 464a, all of my close matches have a value of 12, but mine is 15...quite a difference!

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it all means, presumably I am a descendant of the same progenitors as those of the MacDonalds and there is an extramarital event, a step-family, unrecorded adoption or a simple name change upon immigration in the mix.
Logged
Terry Barton
Administrator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1663


« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2007, 08:32:18 PM »

If you tell us more specifics, we can provide a more informed opinion.  Important aspects include: Number of matching markers out of what number that are compared, your haplogroup, and specific markers which don't match and differences.  If the mismatch is at a multi-marker - the results on the other alleles may be important

A difference of more than one count at 464 isn't always an issue - as this marker can have an allele shift of more than one count in a single mutation.  If you you have 2 15s and the folks you are matching have a 12 15, then it is very likely a single mutation. 

Keep in mind that a mutation can occur on any marker.  If you are matching MacDonalds and MacAlisters, you may wish to contact the project admin and ask them to look at your result and paper trail. 

As a general rule, a match of more than 90% of the compared markers is a probable genetic cousin - since the advent of surnames (c1100)  (ie 23/25, 33/37, 61/67 or better)  As you probably know - this is not true if less than 25 markers are compared.

Terry
Logged
Varangian
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2007, 11:54:53 PM »

Terry:

I did contact Mr. Doug MacDonald from the Clan Donald DNA Project, and he recommended that I contact Mr. Mark MacDonald.  I haven't yet received a reply from Mark.  Doug did tell me that the "main indicators" of a member of the direct MacDonald line were values of 16 at 458, 8 at 459a, and 21 at YCA IIb.  He also said the McAlistair line diverges from the MacDonald line with a value at 458 of 15.  That would make me a dead ringer for the MacAlistair line, except that I appear to be a closer overall to the MacDonald line.

I have posted the raw numbers here:

http://www.invictusnumis.com/rtt873gtnb3736/DNASearch/index.htm

Haplogroup R1a.  My markers are the first set, My Markers.  Any suggestions or comments are more than welcome.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 11:59:11 PM by Varangian » Logged
Terry Barton
Administrator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1663


« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2007, 12:14:38 PM »

It looks to me as though any match may be long ago - based on the number of mutations separating you from these various results.  I don't think I spotted any with less than 5 different markers of 37.

One thing I did notice was a number of doubles in the markers associated with RecLOH - which is an abbreviation for "Recombinational Loss of Heterozygosity".    These markers include DYS459, DYS464 and DYS724 (CDY).  You have a pair of doubles at 464 and also ones at 395S and 413, but not at 459 or CDY.  Theory is that these shifts into doubles could have ocurred in as little as 1 mutation.  Take a look at your results vs the others - factoring down the possible recLOH to a single mutation and see what the comparison then looks like. 

You may want to more formally persue this with an advanced test at FamilyTreeDNA

As I couldn't find a really great collection of info on recLOH, I have listed the links I could find at:

http://www.worldfamilies.net/reference.html

Terry
« Last Edit: April 26, 2007, 12:15:44 PM by terry » Logged
Varangian
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2007, 03:36:05 PM »

Terry;

Yes, I realize any connection was at least 800 years ago, but it's the closest connection I've found among all the databases so far.  I'm really just trying to determine what, if any, is my relationship to that particular line.  I have ordered values for an additional 25 markers, though I don't know how much that will help. 

The information on RecLOH was quite interesting, as was your observation of my having double values in several duplicated markers.  If I interpreted the slideshow and explanation correctly, and the two doubles at 464 could count as a single mutation, that would bring me a little closer with a 37/42 and a couple of 33/37s.  I can see this investigation of mine will require some education effort on my part!

I deeply appreciate your help!
« Last Edit: April 26, 2007, 03:52:00 PM by Varangian » Logged
Terry Barton
Administrator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1663


« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2007, 04:40:25 PM »

You are welcome
Logged
cedarell
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2008, 10:49:23 PM »

I have discussed this under "rare 389-1 value" but will repeat it here.  I have an ancestor Joseph Payne, of Bedford County, Virginia, b. about 1720-30.  Several of his Payne descendants have had dna tests and the results match no other Paynes.  However, they do match the dna tests of descendants of John Warren, of Rappahannock County, Virginia.  These matching tests are particularly interesting because of a rare 389-1 value of 9. In the part of Virginia where John Warren lived was a Payne family which used the given name Barnett, as did the family of Joseph Payne of Bedford County.

 Pursuing Payne-Warren relationships resulted in finding a court record in Spotsylvania County citing Thomas Warren and Susan Payne for living in adultery.  Apparently a child was born to this liaison and raised as a Payne.  Given the dates, the child was probably Joseph Payne of Bedford County, and though we actually are Payne descendants it is through  his mother. We are Warrens through his father and Joseph Payne's descendants have Warren ydna.  I imagine that there will be many surprises like this as more results come in.
Logged
Gene W. Payne
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2010, 02:20:48 PM »

I'm a new "kid" on the block, so bear with me till I get up to speed...hard to do when you're 78. I found it interesting when reading about Joseph Payne and the Warren connection. It was thot that this link also applied to me at one time...not sure now. I'll try and explain: my "cuzzins" and I felt we were descended from a Flayle Paine/Payne from Frederick Co., MD. He was eventually "found" christened in London, England in 1696, parents Thomas & Elizabeth. When Flayle died, most of his family migrated southwest into Bedford Co., VA. I had thot my connection, John Payne, was a grandson of Flayle, s/o Thomas, who also died very shortly after Flayle. John married Sarah Ellis(not proven). Their sons migrated west into TN then KY then into southeastern part of Ohio - Lawrence Co. - settling there ca-1815. I descend from John's son William, who married Diana Wilson in Bedford Co.,VA.
William's son, Mathew married Elizabeth McVicker in Lawrence Co., then migrated into Gallia Co., OH, settling in and raising their family at a village called Patriot, OH. One of their sons, Mathew, had a son Donald Matthew, who married Irene Sayre, my parents. Now that I've stated my descendancy, let me backtrack to John. When I sent my DNA sample off to Salt Lake (Sorensen), I along with several cuzzins were surprised to find that we could not possibly be descended from Flayle? Was "our John" like Joseph? No answers as yet. GenePayne
Logged

GinoP


 

Kennith
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2011, 09:41:16 PM »

I took the Ancestry.Com Y-DNA 47 marker test.  The test was taken out of frustration over being unable to locate any information on my great, great grandfather.  Elizabeth Simpson had a son John Walden Simpson in 1854 father unknown.  There is no record of her ever marrying.  Elizabeth gave her children her last name.  Elizabeth was born in Tazewell Virginia, 1837.  She moved to what is now Wyoming County WV with her father John W. Simpson.  Elizabeth had two brothers, Isaac Dow Simpson, he moved to McDowell County West Virginia 1n 1850 to work on the Margaret Christian farm.  Isaac Dow Simpson married Elizabeth Justice, in 1866, Wyoming County WV. Her other brother John Hack Simpson stayed in the Tazewell VA area where in 1864 he married Elizabeth Whitt.  While Isaac was working on the Christian farm, Elizabeth stayed with him for a period of time. and in 1854 she gave birth to John Walden Simpson.  He was named after his grandfather J W Simpson.  In 1856 Elizabeth gave birth to another child, Mary Lucinda Simpson.  For more than ten years I researched my family unable to find anything out about who the children's father could have been.  NO LUCK.  Out of frustration I had the DNA test done.  Prior to this I had known that John Walden # 2 and Jane Mullins had Jerry Mastin Simpson in 1877, my grandfather and Piety Simpson.  Piety married Daniel Christian in 1900.  My DNA results came back showing the closest mathes being of the Christian family not the Simpson Family.  There are no Simpsons listed on my male side for 35 generations.  I had my brother take the DNA test and his results were the same..  I have been unable however to make any connections with the Christian family.  All birthrecords show Simpson as the last  name father unknown.  Any help or suggestions would be deeply appreciated.  There is I now understand a family rumor or folklore that Elizabeth married a Christian but because he was wanted by the law did not use his last name.  I do not place any stock in this since there are no documents supporting such an ascertion.  This has become the best kept secreat in my family.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 09:50:16 PM by Kennith » Logged
dwilkers3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2014, 11:42:11 AM »

Terry,
My surname is Wilkerson, but my Ydna doesn't match that of most other Wilkerson's except those with whom I share a known common ancestor in 1765.  My haplogroup is I2b and I am part of the Knight and McKnight projects.  I match closely with an Andrew McKnight 1780-1849 as well as with others going back to an earlier time.
I am off one step at DYS393 which I understand is a slow -moving marker.  Also at DSY520 and CDY by one step each.
Can you shed any light on this conundrum?  Do I likely share a common ancestor with the Knight/McKnight clans on this side of the water or is likely on the other side of the pond.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Dan Wilkerson
Logged
Terry Barton
Administrator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1663


« Reply #22 on: January 27, 2014, 08:32:12 PM »

It is not obvious how far back it is to the mocst recent common ancestor of Wilkerson and Knight/McKnight.

The best thing I know to do is to work together, laying out all of the known paper trails and seeing which (if any) converge into a common ancestor - giving you some clarity on where you yDNA profile was back through time

If you can get most of your matches into Wilkerson or Knight, I can look at the mutations to see how they align

I know that some folks do focus on which marker has mutated - but other than noting if the main mutations are at fast markers or not - in case some judgment is needed - I treat them the same. 

Terry

ps  - if you have further questions specific to your test - please just email me - as it's easier for me to deal with email
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


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

Page created in 0.114 seconds with 17 queries.