GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-03 > 1079194465
From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] General Discussion about Surname Projects
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 08:14:25 -0800 (PST)
Hello James and others:
Yes, by the criteria used here, my Faux surname project is an abysmal failure - 4 participants. However I went in to this with the primary goal of dertermining whether two lines in Suffolk, resposible for many of the Fauxes in England and "the Colonies", were related to my line residing a few miles away in Norfolk. I am the one with the full paper trail back to the 1300s. However, years of futile genealogical reseach by many competant researchers had failed to turn up the evidence that would connect the two Suffolk lines with my ancestor Gregory Faux born circa 1620 Norfolk - although the ciircumstantial evidence was overwhelming. Our "guess" was that the two Suffolk lines descended from brothers and a MRCA born about 1760, and that they in turn went back to the eldest son of Gregory Faux, Gregory Faux Jr. born 1642, while my line was known to be descended from the second son Thomas Faux born 1643. I convinced (it did take a bit of gentle arm twisting) a member of each !
Suffolk branches to become participants in my project - and to pay the costs. The results: They match each other 24 / 25, and one matches me 23 / 25 (the other 22 / 25). Clearly a hypothesis was established, and the DNA evidence supported the hypothesis, and ultimately stimulated further genealogical work such that we now believe we have found the "missing link".
The point is, some would not see that my Project has merit and would count it as a failure - if mere numbers were the only criteria. For me, and the hundreds of other Fauxes out there, we now have a clear answer to the question that had vexed us all, and which had not yielded to genealogical research. My DNA project is a complete success that is not reflected in a numbers game.
In a message dated 3/12/2004 10:54:43 PM Central Standard Time,
> Wouldn't success of a surname project not necessarily be that they had a
> lot of individuals in the test? It seems to me that one has to look at the
> commoness of the surname in ratio to the participants in a surname project.
None of the above, unless the group administrator is on an ego trip. Success
should be measured by whether on not the project met its goals.
A surname-relatedness project trying to identify all the families of a
particular surname will normally test all comers. Yet it would be unsuccessful if it
had 400 subjects from only a small percentage of families. It would also be
inefficient in testing too many closely-related people. The money would have
been better spent providing scholarships to attract needed participants.
A pure genealogical project (one using documented family trees) will target
the subjects needed to determine the ancestral haplotypes of each family. It
may test only the minimum needed from documented lines and then go on to test orphan lines. It may discourage tests of closely-related people. However, it
could still be a success with relatively few people.
Dr. David K. Faux, P.O. Box 192, Seal Beach, CA, 90740, USA
|Re: [DNA] General Discussion about Surname Projects by David Faux <>|