GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2002-05 > 1020449255


From: Greg Reeves <>
Subject: [DNA] My own y-DNA result delimma...
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 12:07:35 -0600


Hi All:

I don't post often but enjoy lurking and learning from the lively
discussion on this great List. Thanks, Ann, for initiating &
maintaining it! Now, I have a conundrum that I'm wrestling with and I
am hopeful that others on this list can help me "solve it" (IF it can
be solved)?

My problem is this: Until last year-----when a (supposed) male,
direct-line 5th Cousin and I had our respective buccal samples
analyzed by FTDNA using their 12 marker test-----we believed that we
descended from a common ancestor named John REEVES (c1790-1840).
Indeed, we had extensive, traditional genealogical
evidence-------including John's 1840 Will probated in Bartholomew
Co., IN in which my cousin's GGG grandfather, Michael Dean REEVES
(1816-1906), and my GGG grandfather, David REEVES (1820-1896) each
were named as sons!-------that we thought that we had at least met
the "preponderance-of-evidence" (POP) standard if not the more
stringent "clear-and-convincing" (CAC) standard of genealogical
evidence. Since this List doesn't permit in-depth discussions of
traditional genealogy; I'll simply add that our traditional, paper
evidence is fairly compelling and extensive at virtually every
generation that separates my cousin and I through our presumed,
mutual (?) ancestor.

We are still WANTING to believe that we both descend from this John
REEVES, but we'll also confess that our one-step differences on 2
different y-chromosome alleles are disconcerting. Here are our
respective results:

DYS # Me 5th Cousin

388 12 12
393 13 13
392 13 13
19 (394) 15 15
390 24 23
391 10 10
385a 12 12
385b 14 14
426 12 12
439 13 12
389i 13 13
389ii 30 30

After visiting briefly with Bennett Greenspan last fall, he suggested
the following intrepretation:

"Your results are unfortunately murky and it appears unlikely
that you two
descend from the "John REEVES" that you both previously have claimed
as your own "most recent, common ancestor." That possibility cannot be
entirely ruled out, however, as you both did match on 10/12 markers and
were only off one-step in the disparant two markers. Your readings were
crystal-clear but your 5th cousin's were considerably less discrete and
therefore subject to re-intrepretation. In my experience,
your results match
much too closely for the possibility of your **average** [my
emphasis, not
Bennett's] non-paternity event to have factored into the disparancy."

"We have been seeing a considerably higher rate of mutation
on the allele
designated as DYS 439 than reported mutation rates in the
literature and
we're trying to establish the cause(s) for the higher,
observed mutation rates."

Bennett went on to suggest that he'd have my 5th cousin's results
re-examined to see if possibly the lab simply mis-intrepreted his
results on one or more alleles but, alas, he's never completed that
work to my knowledge.
----------------------------------
From my own scientific background, I'm suspecting that we'll
eventually discover that the examined alleles each tend to mutate at
rates that are poorly-approximated by ANY general average (e.g.,
0.002/transmission event). Nevertheless, according to my count, my
"cousin" and I are separated by 12 individual transmission events,
seen graphically as follows:


Me (1958- )
|
My Father (1931- )
|
My Grandfather (1910-1998)
|
My Great Grandfather (1880-1970)
|
My GG Grandfather (1846-1935)
|
My GGG Grandfather (1820-1896)
|
*OUR?* 4G Grandfather
(c1790-1840)------------------------------->fold in half right here!
|
My 4th Great Uncle (his GGG Grandfather, 1816-1906)
|
My 1st Cousin, Four Times-Removed (his GG Grandfather) (1843-1899)
|
My 2nd Cousin, Three Times-Removed (his Great Grandfather, 1879-1930)
|
My 3rd Cousin, Twice-Removed (his Grandfather, 1903-1970)
|
My 4th Cousin, Once-Removed (his Father, 1926-2001)
|
My 5th Cousin (1952- )

Obviously, this small number of transmission events *should* preclude
the likelihood of my cousin & I experiencing two different, one-step
mutations...UNLESS:

1) One or both of my cousin's disparent alleles were simply
misintrepreted by the lab
technicians, as Bennett suggested was possible when FTDNA
reported my cousin's
"scores" or,

2) An unusual non-paternity event was introduced into this
family of John REEVES. For
instance, we believe that evidence clearly shows that the
mother of both Michael
Dean and David REEVES was John's first wife, Thurisa/Therza
(DEAN) REEVES (c1796-AFT
1822). But was John REEVES the biological father of both of
Thurisa's sons? Thurisa
dissapears from our Reeves family sometime after 1822 and
John later remarries and
started a whole new family. Since Thurisa allegedly didn't
die until 1831, we're unclear as to
what might have separated John & Thurisa REEVES. Wouldn't it
have been possible for an
unknown (to us, as of yet) REEVES brother of John's to have
had an adulterous affair with
Thurisa? That then would mean that my "cousin" & would be
separated by 14 possible
transmissions events. Another remote possibility is a
similar situation between Thurisa and
an Uncle of John REEVES, meaning the possibility of 15
potential transmission events for
mutational differences to appear. Although obviously
unlikely, something mysterious
separated John & Thurisa years before her death and it seems
at least possible...

Can anyone help us clarify our murky results?


Greg Reeves


This thread: