GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1156279386


From: "John S Walden" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] When is 25/26 not enough?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:43:06 -0400
References: <7.0.1.0.0.20060819221449.11add498@wells.org> <200608202048.k7KKmCTB018923@mail.rootsweb.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20060821190852.12e0c628@wells.org> <fef9eee40608220511l2aef5ab8s9ad6a90457fa5eda@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20060822074720.12e153a0@wells.org>
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060822074720.12e153a0@wells.org>


More on the Kidd family tesing
These are the all the Kidd men that come close to this haplotype
There are 4 other Kidd men from VA and they match another haplotype
both are R1b but they are not close.
The very fist Kidd man tested is in that other group and his kit number
is less than ten thousand.

On 8/22/06, OrinWells <> wrote:
> I would be very troubled by the C and D nodes.

Yes and those were the first two results we got back and so we
thought they were not related.
As we got more and more data we found the "bridging" mutations and
so the connection looks more likely.

Man G is tested to 12 and expanding to 37
Men A,C, E, and H have all tested to 67 markers.
And for those 4 the 38 to 67 markers match exactly.

Man C is tring to find more cousins to find out if those are
real, albeit improbable, mutations. Or maybe there is some
trouble with his solid paper trail.


> If this represents 37 markers I would
> be more comfortable with it but still nervous

I am with you on this thought and I am still nervous.

> You have two mutations on CDYb. But I don't know that is sufficient
> sampling to claim this is a "fast" marker even if it did happen in
> the same family.
The claim of "fast" for CDY comes from FTDNA not just this family.

>
> I also question how you "know" where the observed mutations
> occurred.
Right I do not know for sure and the can happen any where below where
I have them to a branch point where there is another tested man.
And yes the mutation above Duell could have happened between the
man tested and his father.



> Given that J and L are pending if you discover the same mutations as
> you have observed in C I would be tempted to suggest this is an
> unrelated family even as close as it may appear.

Yes I have suggested this but it also means
that by random a second famly took the name Kidd and they just "happened"
to have the somewhat unusual values for
DYS 385 of 12,15
and 438, 449, 454, and DYS 464 of 15,16,16,16
And they also have to match exactly on markers 38 to 67.
We do not have D tested to 67 and that might make it stornger for that branch.
But I would rather have anther man at 37 than thoes added markers.

My current thinking is the odds of a second unrelated man being a Kidd
and having all that happening is much less than the mutations
we are seeing.
Time will tell as we bet more men tested in this family.

>
> You have done a good job of finding a lot of people from the same
> family to test and taking them from separate branches.


The thanks for that does not go to me but to the Kidd family reseachers a
number of whom have be at this for well over 30 years.
I have only been connected to the Kidd line by DNA for about 6 weeks.

John


This thread: