GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-04 > 1145689291


From: Hal Whitmore <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Project Conscription
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:01:31 -0400
In-Reply-To: <3ba.e0c366.317b2b60@aol.com>


I was able to mine only a single Whitmore sample from the SMGF database. I
had thought to add it to ours, but after all this discussion I think I
won't. The two people listed as submitters for the gedcom are "not known" at
the addresses given, it isn't a match for any of the 15 or so presently in
the project, and the lineage only goes back to the late 19th century, so I
guess it isn't worth the time it would take to explain where it came from.
We have lines from three of the nine sons of the 17th century immigrant, and
if the gedcom connected to one of the missing six, I would certainly find
myself giving the question more thought <grin>. (Well, in my defense, I
argued for Joseph Fletcher's "situational ethics" when I was in seminary.)

Hal

on 4/22/06 2:46 AM, at wrote:

> As a practical note, the SMGF donors we have been able to identify (1 or 2)
> out of 6 that weren't already Project members, have been thrilled to be able
> to join our Project on the basis of their free SMGF DNA results. In another
> case or two, we have not been able to identify the donor, but we have located
> someone with the same lineage who have also been thrilled to be able to join
> the Project on the basis of the DNA supplied by some cousin. After all, the
> genealogy as listed (which omits anyone born after 1900) is THEIRS as well --
> which again raises the question of who owns the DNA from an ancestor common
> to potentially dozens or even hundreds of people descended from the people
> who are listed? The donor is not only unnamed but undiscoverable at this
> point
> - his cousins are not.



This thread: