GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-12 > 1134860563


From: "E Schenk" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] RE: Are you missing the Geno boat?
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:02:43 +0100 (W. Europe Standard Time)
References: <NFBBJIGLNLMGJIOLOGFBGEILGBAA.scorpion@netconnect.com.au>


Dennis,
I have the opposite problem. There were only 3 men that had our name.
And 99 % of the time I can trace anyone with a Bartlebaugh name back to
these 3 if I get their great grandparents names.
I try to talk them into getting more than 12 markers, but I don't want to
scare them away with the cost. I as so lucky we have 5 in our project
but one is me with mtDNA.

Now a Buterbaugh asked to join. We lived side by side since 1800 so I
have expanded a little to include Puterbaugh, Buterbaugh and Booterbaugh.
Our paper trail can't see any connection but if I get a 12/12 match with
them, I don't know what to say now. My family knew of that Purtlebaugh
but Buterbaughs--- they wanted to shoot us. Maybe family feud?

Now if we get 12/12 with this Buterbaugh what are the chances they are part
of the family? Much less than that I would have dismissed them but now I
am not so sure.
I don't what to tell anyone anymore.
Elaine



-------Original Message-------

From: Dennis Wright
Date: 12/17/05 22:52:04
To:
Subject: RE: [DNA] RE: Are you missing the Geno boat?

Hi Terry, and others.
Perhaps I am setting the bar too high.
My problem is I have a name that was the 6th most common in England in 1850,
an occupational surname with multiple origins.
I have a brickwall on the paper trail which I have been wrestling with for
30 years of Genealogy.
My great grandfather Charles WRIGHT died in NZ in 1849 aged 41, ie born
1832-3 but I don't know where. I really need certainty
This has been an interesting thread though.
Cheers
Dennis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Barton [mailto:]
> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:18 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [DNA] RE: Are you missing the Geno boat?
>
>
> Dennis, that's a tough standard for what you are willing to call
> a match. I
> think you have set the bar too high. Maybe 33/37 or 34/37?
> (would vary up
> or down, depending on what timeframe you are using)
>
> I have a number of matches that are 35/37 in families with a
> common ancestor
> b c1730s. I also have a man and his nephew who are 41/43. (and
> these are
> in a family that mutates considerably less than the reported
> average rates.)
>
> Best regards, Terry Barton
>
> World Families Network
> Where Genealogy meets DNA Testing
>
> http://www.worldfamilies.net/
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Wright [mailto:]
> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 3:51 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [DNA] RE: Are you missing the Geno boat?
>
>
> Hi Herb,
>
> Perhaps it is different with a Surname that can be traced to a single
> Ancestor, but I feel that with an occupational Surname where there were
> perhaps hundreds of sources, across several haplogroups, I am
> looking for a
> surname match of 37/37 before I could be even reasonably certain
> I have the
> right WRIGHT.
> With over 100 participants in the WRIGHT group and not even a
> 12/12 match, I
> feel I have to wait for more participants.
>
> Cheers and happy hunting
> Dennis
>
>
> ==============================
> View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find
> marriage announcements and more. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx
>
>


==============================
Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx



This thread: