BRADFORD-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > BRADFORD-DNA > 2006-01 > 1137698370


From: adam bradford <>
Subject: Re: [BRADFORD-DNA] NEW Y-DNA RESULTS
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:19:30 -0500
References: <001a01c61d01$9f9ff170$398e6218@VAIO>
In-Reply-To: <001a01c61d01$9f9ff170$398e6218@VAIO>


It's all about the rare DYS 391=12. Only 5% of R1b have that value.
That, and the fact that we have the same last name, makes it look
pretty likely that we're related. But I would like to compare on more
markers to be sure, and also to better gauge the timeframe when our
lines diverged.


On 1/19/06, Becky Mosely <> wrote:
> New results are in for kit #23640. YEA! Our very own co-chair Adam (#20874), now has a prospective family member.
> They match 12/12 but more markers will be needed to confirm the relationship.
>
> Line of #23640:
> 1. Giles Bradford, b. 1/14/1815 SC m. Nancy Caroline Underwood, b. 4/5/1833 Macon Co., NC
> 2. Giles Bradford, b. 3/5/1867 Putnam Co., TN m. Elizabeth Robinson 3/1/1869 Baxter, Putnam Co., TN
> 3. James Felix Bradford, b. 4/28/1893 Putnam Co., TN m. Allie May Rush 5/20/1899 Gainsboro, TN
>
> Adam's Line:
> 1. Samuel Bradford, d. 1811/12 Worcester County, MD
> 2. Adam Bradford, b. 16 Apr 1775 Worcester County, MD
> 3. Isaac Neely Bradford, b. 12 Nov 1805, Bradfordsville, KY
> 4. Samuel Vance Bradford b. 11 May 1846, Relfe, MO
> 5. William Henry Bradford, b. 20 July 1882, Waynesville, Missouri
>
> These results are quite interesting and should provide some clues for both of these participants. I personally had expected the Giles line to connect to the Richard group... BUT those two lines are not even close (genetic distance of 16 at 12 markers).
>
> Regards, Becky
>
>
> ==== BRADFORD-DNA Mailing List ====
> Remember to check out: http://www.bradfordgenealogy.org
>
> ==============================
> Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more.
> Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx
>
>


This thread: