GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2001-07 > 0994013628


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Kincaid Surname DNA Project Plan
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 14:53:48 EDT



In a message dated 7/1/01 1:44:52 PM, writes:

<< You won't get anything really reflective unless you sample at least
somewhere around
100 people (I forget but I think this might give you something like plus or
minus 15-20%). Thus 10 people will only tell you whether or not two of the
participants have a common paternal ancestor within 30 generations. It tells
you very little about what the true patriarch (ie. males directly descended
from the founder of a particular surname) line is! >>

Hello Peter,

Your first statement that I've copied above is probably true--UNLESS--you
luck out and get the "right combination" of participants in a small study the
first time around. Witness the results from the small sampling of
participants in the Stidham Family DNA Study, a rare surname in America.
Eleven participants took part in our study, but a conclusive result I belive
was obtained due mainly to the participation of one key person--Adam 1, in
Group 1, from our study. Had he not taken part, we wouldn't have known for
sure whether the particiapants in Group 1 or Group 2 carried the Y-chromosome
of our immigrant ancestor, Timen Stiddem (c.1610-1686). Once again for the
benefit of newbies to this list, take a look at the three groups (and
haplotype charts) in our study at:

http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~tstiddem/Pages/results.html

Also, for a better look at what's happening from the vantage point of a
pedigree chart see:

http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~tstiddem/Pages/pedigree.html

I agree that the preponderance of evidence would "set in stone" the results
from a large study, but reliable conclusions can still be drawn from a small,
representative sampling of participants--if, as I say--the right combination
of participants take up the challenge.

Richard Steadham
The Stidham Family DNA Study Coordinator
The Timen Stiddem Society

This thread: