WHITNEY-L Archives

Archiver > WHITNEY > 2001-02 > 0981391876


From: Bill Whitney <>
Subject: Re: [WHITNEY-L] DNA Evidence of Descent???
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 09:51:16 -0700
References: <200101220031.f0M0VA115948@lists5.rootsweb.com> <3A7507D8.447915B1@one.net> <006f01c08a16$e27f96e0$4f002942@mn.mediaone.net>


The other point to remember about genetic mapping is that genes from the either
Whitney family can enter your genetic makeup through intermarriage and you have
no way of knowing whether it was direct transmission or not. This possibillity
is in fact highly likely given the fact that a large number of Whitney families
lived side by side for so many generations in the United States
And it could have happened two generations back or twenty.

W.G. Whitney


AT&T wrote:

> I agree with John Fischer regarding the value of assisting with DNA
> research. Yes they can go back many generations. I believe (but I am not
> positive) that although they could not prove the descent of all of us from
> John and Elinor (or Henry or whomever), without a sample of their DNA, they
> can find a genetic link that would link us all together, and with the
> genealogy research to back up the proof, it would be fairly indisputable.
> This type of research was done in England a couple of years ago. However
> they did have a bone sample apparently.
> No, we don't need this evidence for our genealogy. But, as John mentioned,
> DNA and genetic research such as this is truly still in the infant stages,
> and a large group such as we have (including our extended families) would
> give a researcher an incredible database for such study. So it would be done
> for science rather than our genealogical needs.
> Someone mentioned skeletons in the closet. Most assuredly they are there,
> and that is a risk we would be taking. We would all have to ask ourselves
> what happens if we discover that our firm link is very shaky due to some
> apparent infidelity 8 or 9 generations back.
> I know what my personal response would be to that, and it would not change
> my own personal view on being a Whitney. I firmly believe that blood is not
> always thicker than water. Someone raised as a Whitney by a Whitney IS a
> Whitney, or whatever the surname may be. Yes, some will argue this, but I
> have my reasons for this viewpoint. It may not be absolute genealogy, but
> family is more important than blood in my book.
> Okay - that went off on a tangent.
>
> Anyway, my former husband is a biochemist and researcher at Harvard. he
> doesn't work with DNA, but I would bet he can point us in the right
> direction to someone who does.
> I will send him a note and ask his opinion on this. Just for the halibut!
> Jo Hogle

This thread: