GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119844276


From: "Phil Goff" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] HELP Please - I've Got a Headache
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:51:16 -0500
References: <000801c57ac4$b6fb5330$80004b0c@cicadaneu0kf7n>


Sue,

Let the evidence and the truth be your guide and don't worry about someone's
paper trail from 300 years ago being proven wrong or right. Your chart and
tables are very detailed, which is good. However, you may want to consider
two charts: both will contain all lineages, but one will stop at the point
where the paper trails are weak, but the other will show your hypothesized
connections. I think if you disconnect the hypothesized lineages that things
may begin to make more sense. You have four instances of 437=16, two of
which (19366 and 4615) are hypothesized lineages, one of which (26302) is
the result of a non-paternity event and the final of which (11184) has a
good paper trail. For the non-paternity event name change to Milleman, are
you sure this way by "Saml 1701" and not "Jos. 1797" or even "Saml 1660?"

Re your questions:
1. Mutation rates have been published on this list and are also on
www.worldfamilies.net
2. The hypothesized lineages are just educated guesses and would be the
first place I'd look for problems. I find it is sometimes helpful to
critically re-evaluate all assumptions and only write down what is *known*,
as best as can be done 350 years later.
3. Once you deconstruct the family tree and throw many of these lineages
into the "unplaced lines" bucket, I think the ancestral haplotype may become
more clear. On the surface, 437=17 seems like it will prevail for the
ancestral haplotype.

I know I've not answered your fact-based questions. My best advice is to
re-evaluate your methods and remove the hypothesized links. Thanks,

Phil Goff


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sue Waite-Langley" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 10:02 PM
Subject: [DNA] HELP Please - I've Got a Headache


> I also know that there must be a problem somewhere in the paper trails
> that I haven't found yet. But, how do I explain all of this to my test
> members so that they can understand it and not get angry about the
> possibility that their paper trails are wrong?
>
>
> Specific Questions -
>
> 1. Does anyone have a good feeling for what the actual mutation rate of
> DYS437 might be?
> 2. What is the minimum number of possible bad lines that might be here
> (everyone can't be wrong;o)
> 3. What in your opinion should my hypothetical ancestral haplotype be
> with the samples I have to work with?
>
> Thanks so much in advance for your help.
>
> Sue


This thread: