GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-09 > 1094147209


From: "robert mclaren" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Two questions for Surname Project administrators
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:46:49 -0400


Ron,

A very complete and well thought out response. I fully agree. I am the
Chairman of the Genealogy Committee for the Clan MacLaren Society of North
America. I am also a professional genealogist. Many of the clan
genealogies that I have seen lack adequate documentation and proof. And,
even in the best of cases where sipporting documentation does exist, errors
can be made based on errors in records. So, I also will not be surprised
to find the DNA evidence contradicting "established" genealogies. You have
noted that name changes can take place. I find it fascinating that you
have been able to document one such change in your Clan dating back to the
1700s.

I am starting the MacLaren Surname DNA Project and had already made the
decision to sort results based on the DNA evidence, not submitted
genealogies. This will likely cause some problems as disagreements with
genealogies occur -- especially if the results show them not to be a
MacLaren. However, I will point out to them that a person is a member of
the Clan by birth, marriage, or adoption. Also, I fully expect to see the
impact of surname changes. After all, changing ones surname did occur for
a number of reasons.

According to my records, Patty Kinkade is the Genealogist for Clan Lindsay
Association U.S.A., Inc. (I maintain a listing of genealogists and points
of contact for genealogy for the Scottish Clans and Family Associations.)
I take it that you are working with her in sorting out the Clan genealogies.

Bob McLaren


> [Original Message]
> From: Ron Lindsay <>
> To: <>
> Date: 9/2/2004 12:29:00 PM
> Subject: RE: [DNA] Two questions for Surname Project administrators
>
> Greetings Dale,
>
> Your situation of Bricker genealogies conflicting with indisputable
> genetics, is not unique. Most Surname DNA Projects, including the
Lindsays
> have experienced the same problem.
>
> After seeing so many errors in genealogies over the years, I anticipated
> this would be the case. Thus I chose to put the Lindsays/Lindseys in DNA
> groupings only after their DNA results were known. Furthermore, I chose
to
> group two or more individuals who had three or less mismatches out of our
26
> markers, leaving the balance in the overall table until a match is found.
> See the current nine Lindsay DNA groupings at
> http://clanlindsay.com/dna_test_results.htm . We have actually found
three
> additional Lindsay groupings that are not yet posted at the web site.
>
> Once the DNA groupings have been established, I then started posting the
> oldest known ancestor and geography for each of the matching participants
in
> these groupings. If there are one or more individuals of a genetic group
> whose genealogical findings are inconsistent with what has evolved as the
> apparent dominant lineage for this DNA Group, then it becomes obvious and
> these individuals see for themselves the need to revisit their "inherited"
> or "assumed" research, which is apparently in error.
>
> It is impossible for you to make the decision as to which of the three
> Brickers correctly belong to the genealogical descent they each claim.
>
> I would be very cautious to assume that a "non-paternity event" is the
> answer to all mismatches between individuals claiming a specific surname
and
> a particular genealogical descent. There are many reasons for such an
> occurrence including, arbitrary name changes (which was frequent among
> immigrants), adoption of a sibling's children, out-of-wedlock births and
of
> course infidelity cases. A classic case of surname change was found
within
> the Lindsay DNA Group 7. After exhaustive research, this Lindsay group
now
> believes that a McCleisich family, on the Isle of Jura, Scotland, changed
> their name to Lindsay sometime after 1724. See
> http://clanlindsay.com/dna_group_7.htm
>
> These individuals have been Lindsays for 275 years and of course no one
> feels a need to change their surname to McCleisich, however there is a
> fascinating in knowing the truth of our biological origin. Also keep in
> mind that even for the noblest of births, one does not need to go more
than
> 6-8 hundred years in the past to find that our paternal ancestor did not
go
> by the surname that we use today.
>
> I would recommend that you, as project administrator, take yourself off
the
> hook for making these type of decisions. People will, without doubt,
become
> offended in some cases. Regroup your Brickers in "DNA matching"
categories
> only. Let the individuals of the group sort out the disparity in their
> genealogies.
>
> As for the idea of establishing separate DNA Projects for the various
> spellings of your Bricker surname .... the Lindsay surname is on record
with
> 86 different spellings since 1848 see the Lindsay Orthography
> http://clanlindsay.com/orthography.htm . Put all your Brickers, Bruegger,
> Bruecker, (however spelled) in the same DNA Project and simply group them
> genetically.
>
> Ron Lindsay
> San Jose, CA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:41 AM
> To:
> Subject: [DNA] Two questions for Surname Project administrators
>
>
> I'd appreciate any advice other project administrators might be able to
give
> me with regard to the following two matters:
>
> (1) Our surname project has participants from a number of different
> genetically unrelated lines. One participant was the first of his line to
> join, and his haplotype was placed on the project webpage under the name
of
> this line's oldest known ancestor.
>
> Two subsequent participants also claim to be descended from the same
distant
> ancestor. The pedigrees on paper of the three participants indicates they
> would all be sixth cousins, i.e., all distantly
> related. However, only the two "late-comers" have similar haplotypes,
> neither which is at all close to that of the first participant. It
appears,
> then, that participant #1 may have a non-paternity event somewhere in his
> line of descent.
>
> What should be done? Ignore the obvious difference, and place all three
> participants' haplotypes together under the name of the ancestor? "Exile"
> the first participant's haplotype to a new
> "Unidentified" catch-all category of haplotypes on the project webpage?
>
>
> (2) The surname "Bricker" of our participants to date is an anglicized
> version of a couple of different Germanic surnames such as "Bruegger" and
> "Bruecker". What experiences have other administrators had, in expanding
> their project from a focus on only one surname, to take in variants of
that
> surname? Would it be better to create new and separate surname projects?
>
> Thanks very much.
>
> Dale Bricker
> Bricker DNA Project
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237



This thread: