Helpful Background on the
Significance of Matches and Close Matches:
Discussion of the Major
DNA Project's results:
- The results for M-2 and M-3 confirm what had long been thought, but never able to be proved.
Per church records, Peter II is a proven descendant of Peter of
Baltimore, but no such proof existed for Thomas of Baltimore, who was
thought to have ultimately settled in Rhea Co., TN. While a
persuasive circumstantial case had been made that Thomas of Rhea Co., TN
was the son of Peter of Baltimore, there being no definitive proof it was
possible Thomas of Baltimore was either unrelated
to Peter of Baltimore and/or that Thomas of Rhea Co., TN was a different
Thomas. The DNA results prove Peter II and Thomas of Rhea Co., TN
shared a common ancestor and the research points to Peter of Baltimore as
being the most recent common ancestor.
- The results for M-4 disprove what had long
been thought. As with Thomas of Rhea Co., TN, a persuasive
circumstantial case had been developed that John Samuel was another son of
Peter of Baltimore. The DNA results show that not to be the
case. A previously minimized family history that claimed John
Samuel was its immigrant ancestor from Scotland now deserves more
- The results for M-5 were a surprise in
that the E3a haplogroup is an African lineage and the most common
haplogroup among African-Americans, yet M-5 is not African-American. We must remember that haplogroups are
ancient lineages that go back 1000s of years and do not necessarily
reveal the more recent ethnic, national or even racial makeup of our
- While M-6 does not yet have a match, he is in contact with a fellow
Majors researcher whose Majors lived in TN and
had family who moved to AL. They are working on discovering whether
their lines are connected. We hope to recruit a representative from
her line of Majors to see if they match.
- M-7 joined our Project from the Bahamas DNA
Project, after matches were discovered with M-2 and M-3. Prior to the DNA match, these lines were not known to be
related, nor did they even know of each other. While it would be
desirable if M-7 upgraded to 37 markers so as to better
determine whether their most recent common ancestor was in the near or
distant past, it seems reasonable to assume, even with only 25 markers,
that their most recent common ancestor likely lived in the country of
origin for this line. Hopefully, collaboration may yield a paper
trail to this country of origin.
- M-8 was recruited by Herb Hendricks, one of your co-administrators.
M-8 was a match with M-1, Herb's line.
Those interested in this line should contact Herb for further information.
- MX-1 joined us from the
Ancestry.com DNA Project, for which Sorenson is the testing company.
The Sorenson 33 marker test was chosen by the participant, but only 27 of
those markers correspond to those tested by FTDNA. (Also, the
reading for marker Y-GATA-H4 has to be reduced by 11 to make the results
comparable to FTDNA results.) While the 27 common markers are
sufficient to determine a match with those in our database, if one exists,
there is no match at this time.
- M-11 is a match with the
other participants/descendants of Peter Majors of Baltimore. This match was expected since M-11 and M-3 share the same lineage down to Peter J. Majors, before branching off
from each other. Note that M-11 is a closer match to M-2 than is M-3, which indicates M-3s reading at CDYa is
probably limited to his branch.
- M-12 is a match with M-6. This was an unexpected
match that has resulted in the discovery of new genetic cousins. Efforts are underway to determine the
most recent common ancestor.
- M-14 and M-16 match each other. Since each
descends from a different son of Pleasant Philip Walker Majors (PPWM),
this establishes the haplotype for his line. It was thought they would match Lineage
B, but that was not the case. Is it
because PPWM was not a descendant of Edward Major, born bef. 1615 in England? If his line of descent is provable, is
the non-match the result of an adoption or misattributed paternity? (If so, such must have occurred with
PPWM or before, given the match between different branches of his
line.) Or, might the problem be with
the Lineage B participants and the same questions asked of them? It appears the lineage of Edward Major
needs further scrutiny. Pending
further study, PPWM will be reported as Lineage E.
- M-15 is a match with Lineage A, as expected, although at first glance it
was questionable whether there was in fact a match. After consulting WFN, it was determined
there was indeed a match with Lineage A.
What seems to have happened to M-15s line is called a recLOH event, which is just one mutation that causes
a recombination at the multi-markers.
Thus, M-15s departure from the modal at 464abc and
CDYa is the result of just one mutation.
With that adjustment, M-15 is a genetic distance
of 3 from the modal haplotype.
- M-17 and M-18 do not match anyone in the Major/Majors database at this time,
although M-18 is a match with a Mauger in total Family Tree DNA database.
- M-19 is a match with Lineage
A. M-19s results have slightly changed the modal haplotype, but this is fluid
and subject to more change as we get more results.
- M-22 has no matches
yet. This is an unusual Major
lineage in that it originated in Hungary and that is how the name was
- M-25 is a match with MX-1, the Sorenson testee. As
regards the markers that both FTDNA and Sorenson test for, they are a
perfect match. Thus, a new Lineage
F has been declared.