GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-11 > 1322151349


From: John German <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Problems with some surname project admins
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:15:49 -0500
References: <8CE69FEF2FB7792-714-16C223@webmail-d134.sysops.aol.com><CAMoZBXdUkvoYkfHXFreyiap8krcLGHdRi2SLYfyp4mbY8AGAXQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMoZBXdUkvoYkfHXFreyiap8krcLGHdRi2SLYfyp4mbY8AGAXQ@mail.gmail.com>


Keith Britton wrote:

>As Lindsey points out, generally there will be family groups, but with few
>of those related within millennia, and commonly the surname will carry no
>special significance in origin. A surname project is then perhaps most
>useful in identifying like named who are NOT related. Within families, DNA
>- at least as presented and supported by FTDNA - seems generally of little
>use for genealogical purposes.
>
>
>
I strongly disagree, although I suppose the difference might be the
purpose of a project. The Jarman project was started in America to try
to help American Jarmans connect to families in UK. Jarman is a
multi-origin name, so yes many results are unrelated which is useful
information. However, we have had some successes as well matching a
couple of Americans to participants in England and have also benefited a
fellow who couldn't find his Jarman origin outside of London.

I suppose if Y-DNA is expected to name ancestors you have unrealistic
expectations. However in another project we are able to attach families
to a specific ancestor because of a significant and well documented name
change along with an unusual haplotype.

So I have to disagree - Y-DNA surname projects that use STRs are still
extremely useful and I believe should continue to be of major interest
to genealogists. My fear is that interest in SNPs (which I regard as
interesting, but "generally of little use for genealogical purposes)
will replace STRs in academic research.

This thread: