GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2002-07 > 1027727439


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Wingfield Family DNA Project
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:55:25 EDT


In a message dated 07/20/02 1:12:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
writes:


> There seems to be no way to compare across the two groups, that is, to
> ascertain the degree of relationship between Robert's descendants and
> those of Thomas and John. And I have still many unanswered questions.
> What are the implications of the differences between the two test
> groups-- why did one compare 14 sample alleles and the other compare
> 12? Why not compare the same loci for both groups? John's and Thomas'
> descendants share 10 of 12 sampled alleles with the 'control'
> descendant, while Robert's two descendants share 13 out of 14 sampled
> alleles with the 'control' descendant-- does that mean a different
> degree of relationship to the common male-line ancestor? The report
> indicates that the results of the two test groups prove that the
> common male-line ancestor for the five test subjects was Sir John --
> why could the common ancestor be no further back? Does the fact that
> John's descendant and Thomas' descendant share 12 out of the 12
> sampled alleles mean that they are descended from brothers?

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~leepreston/index.html

Lots of good questions. I haven't spotted any answers yet, although delivery
of RootsWeb mailing lists has been erratic recently. I hope I'm not stepping
on Lee Preston's toes if I answer a few.

I believe the Wingfield project was done by BYU as a "Special Case" at no/low
cost while they were developing the methods they plan to use for their big
Molecular Genealogy project. BYU now refers special requests to Relative
Genetics.

Different markers were used during different stages of development. Some
markers may be the same as the DYS markers used by other labs, but we don't
know all of the equivalents.

John and Thomas (10/12 with the "control) MIGHT not be as closely related to
the control as Robert (13/14), but this could be a sampling artifact, too. It
would indeed be desirable to have everybody tested with the same markers,
with standardized numbers for allele values.

The tests don't actually prove that Sir John is the common ancestor -- as you
say, the common ancestor could be further back based on pure statistics. I'm
not familiar with the genealogical background -- presumably the DNA results
were correlated with paper genealogy.

If John and Thomas match 12/12, you can't necessarily infer that they are
descended from brothers, just that they have a common ancestor.

Since John, Thomas, and Robert are contemporaries living in the same
location, it's natural to assume that they are brothers. There was quite a
spirited discussion on soc.genealogy.computing stimulated by the Wingfield
project -- you can find those messages by searching Google Groups with key
words wingfield dna.


Ann Turner
GENEALOGY-DNA List Administrator
http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Miscellaneous/GENEALOGY-DNA.html
DNA preservation kits: http://www.dnafiler.com


This thread: