GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] The Unk & LNU mtDNA Project (LNU IS a Variant of UNK!)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:05:20 EST

WHY do people KEEP leaving the women out of the picture? I have several UNK
and LNU females! I propose that this study be arranged by geographic
location and decades. For example:

Isle of Wight Co, VA prior to 1770 [same as below] Possibly OLIVER or DAY
Southampton Co VA 1774 Jane LNU H 16172C 16304C 16311C 152C 263G 315.1C
444G 456T 523- 524- married WASHINGTON Possibly OLIVER or DAY
Northampton Co, NC 1750-1780 [Same as Southampton Co. entry]
Onslow County NC 1787 [same as Southampton Co entry]
Glynn Co, GA 1790/1800 [same as Southampton Co entry] possibly WASHINGTON
Burke co GA 1810/20 [same as southampton Co entry] possibly WASHINGTON or
MAYNOR
Jefferson Co, GA 1810/20 [same as Southampton Co entry] possibly WASHINGTON
MAYNOR or WEBB
Monroe Co, GA 1820/30 [same as Southampton Co. entry] possibly WEBB or ROBERTS
Harris Co, GA 1830/50 [same as Southampton Co. entry] possibly WEBB
Georgia 1800/1810 Margaret UNK [results not in] married WORSHAM

Heehee I"m only HALF April Foolsing! I seriously think a geographically
oriented mtDNA database (arranged by time) is might be one way to sort out some
unknown females. Of course some KNOWN women would have to contribute to make it
work. And the high cost of mtDNA relative to Y-DNA makes it cost


Anne W. Nelson

This thread:

• Re: [DNA] The Unk & LNU mtDNA Project (LNU IS a Variant of UNK!) by