Well, just wondered if it was like mixing up 2 tubes of blood in the lab and the results
for both
individuals were incorrect of the mix-up. Hmmm, but I guess if we get notice of some weird
line
connecting closely to our Carrico's, that might be a heads up that a mix-up occurred?
Meanwhile, I'm sure you're disappointed, but it seems you're going about it
right. Just because this
6th generation (per your website) doesn't match, doesn't mean that another
descendant of Charles
won't match.
I can't imagine the disappointment/shock for the individual tested. As I have 2
adopted children
myself, I tend to look at my genealogy in a broader sense than others may. Family history
is still
"family history"! And, since both my children are older now (25 & just abt.
19), and even though we
are a "family" I understand the possibility of their need to know more. But,
perhaps it's my
understanding of that that has helped me more than anything with my own genealogy research
over the
years.
I hope you'll post to the list any additional updates on the results of both this
Carrico line and
anything you find on the Littleton lines.
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM(a)dgmweb.net>
To: <carrico-dna(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [CARRICO-DNA] First Results for #132113,desc/o Chas CARRICO of Sullivan Co
IN
Hello Linda,
I'm afraid it's very unlikely that there was a mix-up. The most immediate thing
we could do is retest him or test his father or a brother. However, given that
his result is probably not a mix-up, it makes more sense to spend the money
testing cousins. If any of them match him, we know his result was not a
mistake. If none of them do, then we can look at testing someone who is closer
to him or retesting him.
I didn't spend any time looking into this LITTLETON because he may turn out not
to be a match our CARRICO when the rest of their markers return. R1b1b2 is
*the* most common haplogroup in western Europe (genetically comparable to being
surnamed SMITH), so 25 markers are just not enough to prove relationship. I've
seen a 23/25 match in R1b drop to 28/37.
So for now, it's a waiting game. I have put out an offer on the boards and
lists (and the project web site) to subsidize the cost of testing four cousins
with $50 each. I would appreciate it if any one who's a suitable male candidate
come forward to be tested, and anyone who's descended from Charles or Josiah
make a contribution to the project's General Fund. Those of us who do all have
a stake in these results, and we may find candidates sooner if we up the
subsidy. I paid for half of this CARRICO's 67-marker test, so, considering the
offers I've just made, I'm pretty tapped out for now.
As I said, and sadly, this result is probably not a mistake. Although FTDNA
gives an overall NPE rate of about 5%, the NPE-rate in my projects is running
closer to 10%, so we were about due for one. The most economical thing to do
right now is to wait and see the results of testing his cousins. If the subject
is in contact with a male CARRICO first cousin, he would probably be the easiest
to find and ask.
Diana
> -----Original Message-----
> From: carrico-dna-bounces(a)rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Linda Boorom
> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 8:46 PM
> To: carrico-dna(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: [CARRICO-DNA] First Results for #132113,desc/o
> Chas CARRICO of Sullivan Co IN
>
> Diana,
>
> Is it possible that there is a mix-up with the results?
>
> You're website mentions that the DNA matches with a Littleton
> in the FTDNA database whose results
> aren't yet complete either.
>
> The results to the Littleton DNA at
>
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/littleton.project/ isn't
> public, but there is some info. on the alternative site which
> doesn't look like it's been updated
> since last October.
>
> There is another Littleton there, last on the list kit #
> 89853 who seems a close match with the
> descendant of Charles.
>
> Even with all my searches, I'm having trouble getting a
> handle on this person's linage, but seems to
> go back to Fairfax Co., VA mid 1700's.
>
> But, again, is it possible that FTDNA has mixed up the
> results? Would it be worth asking them to
> retest?
>
> Linda