GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-12 > 1196777067
From: Larry Vick <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Will FTDNA introduce a test for more than 67 markers? -Re: Novice ...
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:04:27 -0800 (PST)
Our experience in the VICK Y-DNA Surname Project is that at least three of the markers in the 38-67-marker upgrade are informative in separating branches in our clan that is descended from Joseph VICK of Isle of Wight County, Virginia (b. c. 1640-1650). While traditional research couldn't prove some of the relationships, these markers support some of the "probable" and "speculative" children listed in "Joseph Vick of Lower Parish, Isle of Wight County, Virginia and His Descendants." We have also been able to show certain lines are not descended from Joseph1. In some cases the authors mention family traditions that these lines were not from Joseph1 (perhaps informal adoptions where the VICK husband married a woman who already had children from a previous marriage). Also, it appears one of the markers will help us find the VICK ancestor of at least one of non-surnamed VICK lines. The marker has pointed us to a line from one of the five sons of our
immigrant ancestor. So, now we know where to focus our traditional paper research.
We have had similar good luck with the advanced markers. Additonally, we have had luck finding the probable line of a non-surnamed VICK using an advanced marker. Again, now we know where to focus our paper based research.
I definitely agree with you that more markers is better and you have to test to find informative mutations.
James Larry10, James Ralph9, Robert Emory8, Edward Elmo7, Jacob Mercer6, Stephen5, Jacob4, ?Isaac3, William2, Joseph1
Y-DNA Haplotype Q*
mtDNA Haplotype H (probably H2b - full sequence from FTDNA coming soon)
Ysearch & mitosearch: XXGV9
www.one-name. org/profiles/ vick.html
http://worldfamilie s.net/surnames/ v/vick/pats. html
----- Original Message ----
From: "" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Will FTDNA introduce a test for more than 67 markers? - Re: Novice ...
I am a big believer in the “more markers are better” approach and have paid
to upgrade several people myself. However, I have found that the 67 marker
upgrade IS NOT useful for discriminating between branches within any given
group of related people. There are very few mutations from the group modal.
The 67 marker upgrade does discriminate between unrelated groups. However,
we have already done this easily with 37 markers.
I have had no luck convincing members of my project to upgrade to 67 markers
because I cannot articulate an argument as to why they should. But this is
just one relatively small project. I have seen many post on this list
recommending upgrades to 67 markers but I do not recall anyone actually showing that
it makes a difference.
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.