Tim,
It is usually not possible to pinpoint a particular person with Y-STR testing,
for the simple reason that near male kin will all have the same test results.
For example, if a woman had an affair with her brother-in-law, there would be no
way to tell, unless the brother had a new mutation.
I have a case in my STRAUB project where two brothers were tested, but mis-match
by one mutation. One brother bears the modal haplotype for the family, while
the other bears the new value, so we know the mutation occurred in him.
Henceforth, descendants of the two brothers can be distinguished by their value
at that marker. If a mutation occurred further up the line, it can be
pinpointed by testing cousins to "triangulate" on its location. We have the
potential for doing this with Charles and James T.
Charles and James T. share a mutation not possessed by anyone else yet tested,
which means either their father or grandfather had to be the person in whom the
mutation occurred. If we can test enough cousins, ones with good paper trails,
we should be able to identify who that person was.
It is conceivable that if we test enough markers (e.g., testing the full genetic
sequence of the Y-chromosome the way we do now mtDNA), we will be able to
identify more, perhaps many more, people individually than we can, now. And it
isn't that such testing can't be done, now, it's just that it's
prohibitively
expensive. But so was testing 12 markers a decade ago. Certainly, the
commercial testing laboratories are actively seeking more useful markers for us
to test, like DYS710.
Y-DNA testing is best thought of as a way to either corroborate or debunk an
existing paper pedigree or connect with a family when no paper connection is
known (break down a "brick wall"), rather than as a way to forge a pedigree
with
test results alone, which can't be done.
Your Peter of Preston is an example of being solidly connected to the Maryland
CARRICOs via DNA, even though it doesn't tell us exactly *how* he connects to
them. That doesn't mean it can't ever tell us -- Peter of Preston's
descendant
has a mutation not held by anyone else yet tested -- I just can't promise that
it will.
Even if Peter III possessed a new mutation, uniquely marking all of his
descendants, you would still need *at least one person* with a solid paper trail
to Peter III to be the standard against which others are tested. I'm not
certain one exists.
In the introductory paragraph of the project home page
http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/DNA/Carrico/CarricoDNA.shtml
I make this statement: "The degree (the specificity) to which we will be able
to support our paper pedigrees depends largely on the number of CARRICOs tested
and on the number of markers each tests (the more markers tested and the more
individuals tested, the more specific the conclusions can be)."
That statement was true then, and it's true now, though I should have added that
it also depends on the accuracy of the paper pedigrees of the people tested.
Dian
-----Original Message-----
From: carrico-bounces(a)rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Tim Weaver, Owner
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:11 PM
To: carrico(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [CARRICO] desc/o Peter CARRICO III?
Diana
Ah hah. Well now, this question has been raised before. I'll
toss it back. In the 20 years I've been a bystander mostly,
but nonetheless a curious bystander, this question is
unanswered, and is perhaps unanswerable without DNA. Can you
trace an unbroken chain from Sr., whose history is well
documented, to the descendants of III or Jr.? That history is
also well documented and you are currently taking DNA data
from those direct descendants. What say you, professor?
Tim
W. Timothy Weaver
Owner
Market Street Inn
22 Market Street
Greenleaf Inn
141 State Street
Newburyport, MA 01950
t 978-465-5816
c 978-270-3847
f 978-463-8640
wtcweaver(a)aol.com
www.furnished-rentals.com
www.greenleafinnnewburyport.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Gale Matthiesen <DianaGM(a)dgmweb.net>
To: carrico(a)rootsweb.com
Sent: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: [CARRICO] desc/o Peter CARRICO III?
It's still not clear to me that Peter Sr/II had a son,
Peter Jr/III, because Peter Sr/II mentions no son Peter in
his will. Back then, Jr-Sr did not necessarily indicate a
familial relationship. It was meant in the sense of elder
v. younger, to distinguish two men in the same community
with the same name. Is there any reason Peter Jr/III could
not be Peter II/Sr's nephew? Diana
------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the
list, please send an email to CARRICO-request(a)rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject
and the body of the message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
CARRICO-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe'
without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message