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