Agreed. Just didn't want us to disregard the paper trail to fit the DNA.
By "paper trail", I'm referring to historical documents.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand that much about DNA, but, am
honestly trying.
This CDYb marker seems to be the most confusing, from what I'm reading, it
mutate's quickly & some
studies ignore the results becasue of that. With that said, I'm wondering how much the
Carrico's
should base any conclusions based on that single marker? It's the differences in the
slower mutating
markers that might give us some clues?
As to Thomas Ignatius Carrico, Homer Edwin Carrico did leave us some great clues in his
footnotes as
follows:
Filson Club Quarterly, Vol. XXV (1951), pp. 217-252; Kentucky Family Histories #1,
1700s-1800s
Kentucky Family Histories #1, 1700s-1800s
Genealogies of Kentucky Families, Volume III,
The Carrico Family
By Homer Edwin Carrico, Dallas Texas
pg 241-242
footnote #34
On April 5, 1813, Thomas Ignatius was joined by his wife Elizabeth and "interested
heirs" in signing
a deed which is recorded in the office of the county clerk of Nelson County, Kentucky,
Deed Book 12,
page 499. One signature on this deed is that of Bartholomew Carrico, brother of Thomas
Ignatius,
with the notation on the deed, after the signature, reading "residing in
Maryland." This signature
was appended under the authority of power-of-attorney signed by "Barton"
Carrico, dated January 8,
1813 in Allegheny County, Maryland, authorizing Levi Carrico of Jefferson County, Kentucky
to
dispose of his (Barton's) interest in the estate of Thomas Ignatius Carrico. This
power of attorney
is recorded in the office of the county clerk of Nelson County, Kentucky. Those signing
this deed
were: Joseph and Amelia Carrico; Vincent and Mary Carrico; Levi and Harriett Carrico;
James and
Elizabeth Carrico; Mary (Carrico) and Benjamin H. Kerrick, her husband; Priscilla
(Carrico) and
James Luckett, her husband; and Bartholomew (Barton) Carrico .
footnote #35
Thomas Ignatius Carrico evidently died intestate in Nelson County, Kentucky. The will
books of
Nelson County do not contain any record of a will, but Will Book "C" on pages
235-237 and 242 does
give the details of a sale of his effects. The estate amounted to approximated six
thousand dollars,
of which Elizabeth, the widow, received $1651.00 and seven other heirs received $751.00
each. At the
sale purchases were made by Levi, Vincent, Joseph, Basil (Bazzil), James, Elizabeth and
Eliza
Carrico. Other purchasers included James Luckettt and Benjamin H. Kerrick.
I'd written years ago to the Carrico list regarding Homer's "assumption"
about Barton Carrico being
Thomas Ign. brother. As his brother, he wouldn't have had any claim on the estate,
only Thomas I's
wife & children. Barton therefore was a son, and evidence shows he was married to
Kitty Butler,
sister of Amelia Butler who married Thomas Ign. son Joseph. I have some of the probate
documents
online for both Barton & Joseph Carrico here:
http://freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~boorom/carrico/kyprobatesh...
Other records confrim the children of Thomas Ign.
If you want more info., let me know
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM(a)dgmweb.net>
To: <carrico-dna(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [CARRICO-DNA] 67 markers returned for #149914,desc/o Thomas Ignatius CARRICO
I
Linda,
I'm delighted to hear that the paper trail for Thomas Ignatius is solid because
so many of our tested CARRICOs do not have solid paper trails. It is still and
always will be desirable for everyone to build a solid paper trail. However,
ultimately, the paper trails and DNA evidence must logically agree. Until they
agree there's a mistake somewhere.
Right now, there is nothing "wrong" with the cladogram (the node chart):
http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/DNA/Carrico/NodeChart-PeterCarrico.shtml#chart
We simply don't have enough DNA evidence, as yet, to determine whether or not
the CDYb mutation occurred more than once, and until we know, we can't deduce
what having the mutation means.
I've said from the outset that reconstructing a descendant tree (a cladogram)
using Y-DNA STR mutations will take testing a *lot* of CARRICOs -- and will take
*years* to accomplish. I wasn't kidding. I have also said that the cladogram
can change as new evidence appears, in the same way that a paper trail can
change in light of new evidence. The cladogram is a *tool*, to be used to
logically analyze the evidence.
Just because someone has been tested and proven they're a CARRICO doesn't mean
their task has ended. If they bear a mutation from the family's modal
haplotype, they need to test cousins until they prove precisely in which
ancestor that mutation took place. The more we find and fund the testing of
cousins, the faster we will progress.
Diana
> -----Original Message-----
> From: carrico-dna-bounces(a)rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Linda Boorom
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:32 PM
> To: carrico-dna(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: [CARRICO-DNA] 67 markers returned for
> #149914,desc/o Thomas Ignatius CARRICO I
>
> Diana,
>
> I think that Thomas Ignatius Carrico is one of the few
> Carrico's that did leave a paper trail. I
> haven't personally checked all documents first hand, perhaps
> its time to obtain some of those I
> haven't checked. However, I'm not quite sure how the DNA
> results are going to change what the
> historical documents themselves indicate. Please explain.
>
> Linda
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM(a)dgmweb.net>
> To: <carrico-dna(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [CARRICO-DNA] 67 markers returned for
> #149914,desc/o Thomas Ignatius CARRICO I
>
>
> > Oops. I erred. We have not proven that Charles CARRICO of
> Sullivan Co., IN,
> > had the mutation from 37 to 36 at CDYb. I forgot that the
> descendant of his
> > son, Josiah, has tested only 12 markers, so we don't know
> his status at that
> > marker. Because of the unexpected distribution of this
> marker value, it's
> > really critical that we pinpoint where in each line this
> mutation took place.
> >
> > I have not been successful in getting the contact for the
> now deceased
> > descendant of Josiah to join him to the project, much less
> upgrade, so we may
> > simply have to wait for another descendant of Josiah to
> join and be tested to
> > answer that question.
> >
> > Diana
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: carrico-dna-bounces(a)rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Diana
> Gale Matthiesen
> >> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 12:07 PM
> >> To: CARRICO-DNA(a)rootsweb.com
> >> Subject: [CARRICO-DNA] 67 markers returned for #149914,desc/o
> >> Thomas Ignatius CARRICO I
> >>
> >> Hello List,
> >>
> >> All 67 markers have now returned for #149914, the descendant
> >> of Thomas Ignatius
> >> CARRICO I, son of Peter II. These results pose some problems
> >> with regard to
> >> interpretation, at least in light of what is currently
> >> asserted on paper.
> >>
> >> The descendant of Thomas Ignatius I bears the value of 36 at
> >> CDYb, which unites
> >> him with the descendant of Charles CARRICO of Sullivan Co.,
> >> IN, the descendant
> >> of James T. CARRICO of Washington Co., KY, and the descendant
> >> of John W. CARRICO
> >> or Prince William Co., VA (note table cells highlighted in
> >> bright blue):
> >>
http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/DNA/Carrico/CarricoDNA-results-HgJ
> >> 2.shtml#M67
> >>
> >> Given the birth years of Thomas Ignatius (b. 1740/1), James
> >> T. (b. 1764), and
> >> Charles (b. 1770-75), we could very neatly propose that
> >> Charles and James T. are
> >> sons of Thomas Ignatius, except that it's said James T.'s
> >> father is, with
> >> certainty, named John.
> >>
> >> CDY is a volatile marker, so it is not outside the realm of
> >> possibility that the
> >> mutation from 37 to 36 has occurred more than once in the
> >> family. It is also
> >> possible, however, that we are looking at an error in paper
> >> genealogy. What
> >> isn't probable is that this mutation happened three, much
> >> less four, times, so
> >> ultimately the mutation is going to unite at least three or
> >> four of these lines.
> >>
> >> We can resolve the issue over whether the mutation has
> >> occurred more than once
> >> by testing cousins. The first priority here would be to
> >> determine whether
> >> Thomas Ignatius, himself, had this mutation. We can do this
> >> by testing a
> >> descendant of a different son of Thomas Ignatius, that is, a
> >> brother of Vincent.
> >> I show numerous sons for at least three of Vincent's
> >> brothers, so we should be
> >> able to find such a candidate:
> >>
>
http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/DNA/Carrico/NodeChart-PeterCarrico.shtml
> >>
> >> We have already tested descendants from two sons of Charles,
> >> so we have proven
> >> that Charles possessed the mutation, but we have tested only
> >> one descendant of
> >> James T., so we haven't proven James T. possessed the
> >> mutation. Our next
> >> priority, then, should be to test another descendant of James
> >> T., on a line
> >> other than through his son George.
> >>
> >> We can sit back and wait, perhaps years, for the appropriate
> >> CARRICOs to get
> >> tested, or we can actively pursue and fund such individuals
> >> to obtain the
> >> answers sooner. The answers are important because, if this
> >> mutation happened
> >> only once, it unites Charles, James T., and John W. to Thomas
> >> Ignatius, which
> >> raises issues for their paper genealogy. But I think rather
> >> than wrestle with
> >> their paper genealogy with our current knowledge, we should
> >> answer the DNA
> >> questions, first. If the mutation arose more than once, then
> >> the existing paper
> >> genealogy isn't challenged by these results.
> >>
> >> Diana