GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118892496
From: "Sharon Bryant" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Divergent marker results for five r320 surnamed individuals (Reddick & Riddick).
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:28:21 -0400
I have one comment and two suggestions. Only on the first 12 markers are you
comparing apples to apples.
Sugg. 1: Upgrade all of these men to 37 markers.
Sugg. 2: After the upgraded results are in, then go over their paper trail
with a fine tooth comb.
The blood doesn't lie.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale E. Reddick" <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:55 PM
Subject: [DNA] Divergent marker results for five r320 surnamed individuals
(Reddick & Riddick).
> Hi Folks,
> The following has nothing to do with my own Reddick / r320 ancestry. The
> question at hand has to to do with a likely r320 Virginia & North Carolina
> lineage -often- confused with my own r320 Georgia lineage.
> In essence, this is a question for the learned members of the list.
> Recall the recent problem that David Faux encountered. That was where
> several Faux individuals with known ancestries tested to show relatively
> high marker divergence. I commented upon statistical processes and
> bell-shaped curves, etc. Other folks contributed appropriate comments.
> Such commentary was very helpful to David. So, now - I'm requesting some
> assistance in dealing with a similar, though -perhaps- more extreme
> example of such a problem.
> Well, looking at the following results, then I'm wondering about things
> even more fiercely than did David. I am concerned that the following
> results show more divergence than could reasonably be expected amongst a
> single descent lineage. I do hope that I'm wrong about my fearful
> suspicion (we've already got four Reddick lines - we don't need more of
> Note that for the first twelve markers, only a single individual has any
> mis-matches with the other four members of this -apparent- grouping. Four
> of the five individuals have perfectly matching results for the first
> twelve markers. However, only one of the individuals has only a twelve
> marker test.
> When looking at all of the test results, there are differences across
> SEVEN markers amongst these five individuals tested. Just look at J.L.
> Riddick -versus- R.D. Reddick. They differ on four markers, having only a
> 33 of 37 marker matchup. Further, comparing J.L. Riddick with E.T.
> Reddick, then there are four differing results for only a 25 marker test -
> resulting in only a 21 of 25 marker matchup.
> According to one of the participants, the closest relationship found in
> the male line is to a James Riddick, born in Nansemond VA in 1650 and his
> wife Laura Anne Mills (hence the flock of Mills Riddicks [Google the name
> "Mills Riddick" and be prepared for lots of search hits - there were
> multiple individuals named Mills Riddick]). F.A. Riddick is an 8th
> generation descendant from this pair and J.L. Riddick is a 9th generation
> There seems to be almost too much diversity amongst these SEVEN markers:
> *DYS 19 (394)*, *DYS 439*, *DYS 447*, *DYS 449*, *DYS 460*, *DYS YCA II
> a*, & *DYS 442*.
> I would like to think that this bunch is monophyletic, but these results
> are beginning to bug me. There's almost too much diversity here! Unless,
> this is evidence of some really deep ancestry going back over 350 years.
> I'm certainly puzzled.
> I eagerly await commentary.
> Dale E. Reddick
> Name DYS # * Hapl
> 394 439 447
> 449 460 YCA II a 442
> J. L. Riddick -
> F. A. Riddick - 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124
> R. D. Reddick -
> P. S. Reddick -
> E. T. Reddick -
> 13.23-17-10.12.12.11.13-13-126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52-26-14.20-27-184.108.40.206 *
> 394 439 447
> 449 460 YCA II a 442
> *Genetic Distance Analysis:* kit #####, J. L. Riddick.
> A distance of 0 is an exact match, 1 is a single step mutation, etc..
> *FTDNATiP™:* When clicking on "FTDNATiP™" you will be given the
> statistical probabilities of when a common ancestor between J. L. Riddick
> and that person may have lived.
> _*12*_ Marker Analysis
> <http://www.familytreedna.com/gdrules_12.html> Kit Name Distance
> ##### P. D. Reddick 0
> ##### R. D. Reddick 0
> ##### F. A. Riddick 0
> ##### E. T. Reddick 2
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
|Re: [DNA] Divergent marker results for five r320 surnamed individuals (Reddick & Riddick). by "Sharon Bryant" <>|