GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-08 > 1186165128
From: taf <>
Subject: Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:18:48 -0700
References: <mailman.44.1185962129.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><1185995710.722143.228160@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com><mailman.87.1186043658.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.87.1186043658.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
On Aug 2, 1:31 am, John Plant <> wrote:
> 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.
The phenomenon has been widely discussed, but not widely documented.
To document it, you actually have to show that people who 'should'
have the same ancestor don't have the same type. All too often, though
this is assumed rather than documented. Are any of yours documented
FPEs?
taf
This thread: