GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-08 > 1186043514


From: John Plant <>
Subject: Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:31:54 +0100
References: <mailman.44.1185962129.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><1185995710.722143.228160@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1185995710.722143.228160@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>


taf wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2:55 am, John Plant <> wrote:
>> Right from the outset, six out of seven of the miscellaneous Plants who
>> were tested matched and the trend continued to eleven out of twenty,
>> indicating that Plant was a single-ancestor, rather than a multi-origin,
>> surname;
>
> What do the other 9 out of 20 look like? Is there similarity among
> them, such as might represent a second group, or are they random?
> Likewise, what are their claimed pedigrees? Is there a disconnect
> between the claimed pedigrees and the DNA results, or is this being
> done without an underlying genealogical context?
>

Taf

Apart from a couple, whose male lines both originated in south
Lincolnshire around 1800, these 9 have random haplotypes. This is
consistent with expectation for a surname that originated from a single
ancestor, since, in the centuries since then, about half of the lines
are expected to have a false paternity event (FPE) somewhere in the line
of descent (unfaithful wife, adoption, unmarried mother giving child her
own surname, etc). This phenomenon of FPEs is widely documented in
DNA-genealogy literature.

John

This thread: