Hi Lists,
FYI, at least 2 related surnames of 'ours' are in the process of dna
testing, Vines & Rice (others???). I previouisly mentioned Vines, but here
is some interesting dna info re: Rice. Go to 'their' web site (for which
thank you Rices) for some insights:
http://www.widomaker.com/~gwk/era/haplotype.htm
at which there are about 20 more references/ WebSites/ Links you can click
on for even more info.
I suspect some of us are reaching the point where we might want to
consider at least applying soon, so our dna can be considered for future
genealogical projects (since it is unlikely any graves will be unearthed, at
least easily, although research into that subject could also be very
interesting. In fact, the recently discussed issue of Peter Wton b1770 being
a son of Wm Wton md Eliz Lewis 1741 could be a very interesting topic for
'our' first such consideration).
We all tend to procrastinate about such things - in fact, I haven't yet
gotten around to doing it - 'it' being ordered and returned my 'inside the
cheek cotton swab' packet to the appropriate dna testers for family tree
determination.
If there is someone or somefew on 'our' Lists that might want to handle
this responsibility, either for a specific surname or names, or for all, pls
'Reply' to me re this message to discuss. Replying does not obligate you for
anything but to discuss it. And maybe the person or persons who get us
started will not need to carry it on.
Barry Wetherington
cbarrfly(a)comcast.net
[See Benj Rice md to Sarah Carruthers below]
1 John Carruthers 1700 - 1752
+Content Unk
2 Rocksolannah Carruthers 1720 -
+John Martin
*2nd Husband of Rocksolannah Carruthers:
+John Witherington 1703 -
3 William Witherington, Sr 1740/41 - 1819
+Elizabeth Lewis 1745 -
3 Cleverly Witherington 1743 -
+Menah
3 Robert Witherington 1750 -
+Esther
2 Frances Carruthers 1732 -
+Francis Hodges Sr
3 Joshua Hodges 1736 -
2 John Carruthers, Jr 1722 - 1762
+Jane Tuncliff
2 Joseph Carruthers 1724 - 1752
2 Sarah Carruthers 1728 -
+Benjamin Rice
*2nd Husband of Sarah Carruthers:
+Vinyard Bond
3 Sarah Bond 1745 -
3 Sweeting Bond 1750 -
2 William Carruthers 1730 - 1752
3 Sarah Carruthers 1740 -
Below may be more than you ever wanted to know about dna testing, but JIC:
.............................................
Edmund Rice Homestead
East Sudbury, MA Edmund Rice (1638) Association
Rice Family DNA Project
return to: [Information page]
Highlighted technical terms are explained in the Glossary. Note: a term may
be used many times, but is highlighted only the first time within each
section.
Last updated: 2004 Feb 19
The Edmund Rice (1638) Association has a project underway seeking to
discover the ancestors of Edmund Rice and other Rice and Royce families.
(There was a tendency in past centuries to regard these two spellings as
interchangeable.) Y-chromosome DNA analysis offers exciting opportunities to
learn more about early family roots. With the assistance of three genetics
testing labs, we compared the DNA of many male-line descendants of Edmund
Rice of Sudbury and Marlborough and reconstructed the genetic "fingerprint"
or haplotype of our immigrant ancestor (see Table 1). For the details of how
we did this, see the article entitled "How We Obtained the Rice Haplotype"
in our newsletter.
Knowing the haplotypes of Edmund Rice and several other progenitors, we can
now invite all Rice/Royce males to compare your DNA against Edmund's and
against each other's. For those of you who wonder whether you may be his
descendants, such a comparison can help to investigate that possibility. A
match with Edmund's haplotype will confirm that you are indeed related
(though not necessarily a descendant) and will encourage and aid you in
further genealogical research to discover your Rice ancestral line. On the
other hand, a big difference from Edmund would indicate you are not related
to him at all, but might reveal a similarity to other Rices who are related
instead. For male Rices who already have reason to believe you are not
Edmund Rice's descendants, the comparison may reveal whether or not the
separate Rice families have some connection back in the British Isles. In
either case, it should be clear that some conventional genealogical research
will be needed in order to get the most out of the DNA results. Table 1
below has all the DNA results we have obtained to date.
You, too, can participate. We have arranged with FamilyTree DNA (FTDNA) to
offer a 12-locus DNA analysis for a reduced rate of $99 to those who join
our project. (Note: there is a similarly reduced rate for the expanded
25-locus test from FTDNA as well.) If your haplotype matches our
reconstructed haplotype for Edmund Rice, we will be very keen to learn more
about your Rice/Royce ancestral pedigree.
For more information contact our project administrator/coordinator: Bob
Rice.
Results
The following are the DNA test results we have obtained so far. As
additional information becomes available, members of the "other" group may
be separated out into new groups with identified common ancestors. In cases
of ambiguous DNA results, we will depend in part on lineages supplied by the
test subjects for determining how the groups should be constructed.
In Table 1, each line begins with a unique ID. The 4- and 5-digit ID's refer
to FTDNA results; ID's beginning with the letter "S" refer to
Sorenson/Relative Genetics results. Note: ID 1673 in Group 1 includes
results from FTDNA, Relative Genetics, and Oxford Ancestors. We show here
only the results for loci with DYS designations. Note: the table includes
the update to nomenclature for the DYS464 complex introduced by FTDNA on
2003 May 19.
The reconstructed ancestral haplotype, if known, of each group is given as
the first entry in the group, with the common ancestor's name (if known) as
the ID. Individual mutations from the relevant ancestral haplotype are
printed in red boldface. We recognize that mutations are inevitable, given
enough test subjects and/or the passage of enough time since the progenitor.
Nonetheless, these mutations are rare, as the table shows, and the
appearance of any discrepancy between the haplotypes of putatively related
individuals is cause for concern. (See the discussion of Group 2.) The
question is always whether we are so "unlucky" that a rare-but-inevitable
event occurred right here, or so "lucky" that a rare coincidence gave two
unrelated persons very similar DNA. To resolve that question, we need
conventional genealogy (as we do indeed have for the individuals assigned to
Group 1).
Test Verification
Subjects 1668, 1669, 1670, 1672, 1673, 4188, 5128, and 5129 all were tested
twice independently, once through BYU/Sorenson/Relative Genetics and once
through FTDNA. We therefore have cross-checks for 73 of the numbers in the
table. Unfortunately, there are systematic calibration questions that
complicate the comparison for 25 of those numbers. However, 48 of the
numbers are straightforwardly comparable, and we find that 46 of the 48
agree between the two labs. This is moderately encouraging, though by no
means as good as we expected. In cases of discrepancy, we show the FTDNA
result in the table.
Group 1
As indicated already, Group 1 consists of male-line descendants of Edmund
Rice of Sudbury and Marlborough. This was the first group set up for study
and remains the largest. Moreover, all the members of this group, aside from
6220 and 13558, were placed there because of the conventional evidence. 6220
and 13558 have at present no conventional link to the rest of the group, but
further research may reveal one, especially with the new motivation provided
by the DNA evidence.
One other member, 13364, has a rather unconventional link in addition to the
DNA evidence. In 1704, four Rice boys descended from Edmund were captured by
Mohawks at Marlborough (later Westborough), Massachusetts, and carried off
to Canada. One was ransomed, but the other three remained and were adopted
into the Mohawk tribe. Many years later, one returned to visit Westborough,
but he no longer spoke English and had to talk to his relatives through an
interpreter. The contact was not maintained, and so there is no collected
record of the descendants of these expatriates. Nonetheless, Rice remains a
relatively common surname among the Mohawks to this day, and 13364 is one of
the Mohawk Rices. The 24/25 near-match strongly suggests that he is indeed a
male-line descendant of Edmund, presumably through one of the three
captives, but it cannot tell us which. Conventional research is underway,
but is a daunting task. For comparison, we note that a second Mohawk Rice
(16023) has also been tested and shows a haplotype very much unlike Edmund's
and indeed typical of Amerindian Y DNA, rather than European.
A tree diagram of the haplotypes in Group 1 shows the majority haplotype at
the center and the five mutated haplotypes each on a spoke radiating from
the center -- a classic "star-shaped" diagram indicative of evolution from a
common ancestral type.
Group 2
Group 2 has been added on the basis of a single sample, mainly because of a
lesson it has to teach. Since it has only one representative so far, we
cannot yet reconstruct the haplotype of the progenitor Thomas Rice, but it
is sure to be very similar to the one shown here. It is sobering to compare
this haplotype with that of Edmund Rice. In the first 12 loci (the basic DNA
test), these two differ by just one step at one locus, but the additional 13
loci of the expanded test reveal four more differences. (See the contrasting
colors in entry 3109.) Looking only at the basic test, one would be tempted
to conclude that the two lines are closely related, but the expanded results
show that notion to be false. It is clear now that Group 2 is unrelated to
Group 1.
The same hazard may be lurking for other testees. In that case, it may be
routinely necessary to upgrade to the expanded test whenever the basic test
indicates a probable match. Without the backing of conventional evidence,
the DNA results can obviously be misleading. A similar problem (and the same
solution) can be seen in the Jarman-German study.
Group 3
The members of Group 3 are now identified as male-line descendants of Robert
Royce (?-1676) of New London, CT. Five of these have been traced back with
reasonable certainty by conventional means; five are not yet documented,
while two others descend from two males who were thought to be sons of
Gershom Rice of Groton, CT, but whose true parentage is not known. However,
the near-exact match of all the samples that have been tested on 25 loci
makes it seem likely that at least these are closely related, and probably
all of them. Since the testees with documented genealogies back to Robert
Royce agree at least 24/25, and include exact-match descendants from two
different sons of Robert, the group as a whole is now quite firmly
established, even though the other members have not traced their lineage
back to the founder. We have therefore reconstructed the ancestral Royce
haplotype and included it in the table. In any case, this group shows the
same sort of "star-shaped" tree diagram as Group 1: a central consensus
haplotype with several adjacent ones showing one or two members each.
Just as in the case of Group 1, where 1673 and 3111 share both a common line
of descent and a mutation from the ancestral haplotype, we see two pairs of
shared mutations in Group 3 (3758 and 7628, as well as 12451 and 15824). In
Group 3, however, only one person of each pair has successfully traced his
line back to Robert Royce. For both pairs, then, the established lineage of
the one member can serve as a useful clue for the other.
Group 4
Group 4 was created based on the exact matches at 12 loci for three samples,
now grown to five, plus two further samples that match the others 11/12.
Five have now been extended to 25 loci, and two of those match exactly
25/25, but one differs by a step at one locus, and two others differ at two
loci (although one of the latter could also be said to differ at only one
locus because his two differences are both in the DYS464 complex). For one
of the discrepant loci, DYS464c, it is not clear what the consensus value
actually is. That level of discrepancy is still consistent with a moderately
close relationship, especially if DYS464 is subject to a higher-than-average
mutation rate, as some have claimed. Although three of the donors have
tentatively been traced back to Rices of Virginia, and another to Rices of
Kentucky or North Carolina (and probably to Virginia ultimately), the
identification of the progenitor remains uncertain, as are their lineages.
Indeed, some other testees who do not match seem to be contending for the
same progenitor (Thomas Rice of Gloucester Co, Va., c1650 - c1716). It will
be necessary to test more descendants to firm up this group.
Given the uncertainty in the connections among these testees, we are unable
to discern which of the two variants is ancestral at each of the two
discrepant loci. We therefore leave those two loci blank in the
reconstructed ancestral haplotype.
Group 5
This second Virginia Rice group represents agreement between DNA and
conventional genealogical evidence. The common ancestor is not documented
and depends on circumstantial evidence, but the lines from the next
generation after him to the present day seem well established. The DNA
evidence was at first inconclusive, since there was one discrepancy among
the first 12 loci. However, extending the tests revealed a perfect match
among the 13 additional loci for the two subgroups. This overall 24/25 match
is a fairly convincing demonstration of relatedness. The only remaining
question is whether the circumstantial evidence identifying William Rice as
progenitor can be confirmed.
13040 has been traced only as far back as 1845, but matches the main
haplotype 12/12. We therefore include him in this group pending further
research.
Note: we are assuming that the two subjects 5894 and 6838 represent a side
branch of this group, since their lineages have not been traced, as most of
the others have. Therefore, we show the discrepancies as mutations in these
two haplotypes. However, given the small number of testees in the group, we
have to entertain the possibility that the four original members represent
the "side" branch of a larger group with these two other members
representing the "main" branch. This issue would be resolved if we knew how
the two subgroups are related.
Additional testing could also help clarify the picture. Eventually, as Rices
of unknown lineage are randomly added to the project, the most common
haplotype in Group 5 is more and more likely to be the ancestral, "main"
branch. The originally discovered haplotype in Group 5 is still the most
common, but the selection of test subjects has not been predominantly
random, and so that line of argument is only theoretical. One new test
subject, 14746, appears to be another member of the "side" branch, although
there is one additional discrepancy among the first 12 loci. Extending the
test to 25 would be helpful in determining whether 14746 is truly a member.
His lineage has not been connected to any of the other members of Group 5.
Group 6
This third Virginia group has only three representatives so far and includes
only 12-locus tests, but it seems to be pretty well documented all the way.
Group 7
This fourth southern Rice group has been designated on the strength of its
growing numbers. Reports of the earliest known ancestors range from
Tennessee and Kentucky to North Carolina. Most members of this group match
each other 23/25 to 25/25, but there are some exceptions (more about them in
a moment). These test subjects thus appear to constitute another group, even
though there is as yet no agreement on a common ancestor.
5796 was the first exception. He differs from the others by two ordinary
one-step mutations plus some anomalous results for the DYS464 marker, which
require confirmation. The identification of 5796 with this group is
marginal, and will remain tentative until further conventional research can
shed light on the connections of the group as a whole. The fact remains,
though, that 5796 has no other possible matches in the study so far, except
6977, a third cousin once removed who is also a marginal member of the group
and also has unexplained anomalous results for DYS464.
Group 8
In the "other" group, we are finding considerable diversity, with twenty
more distinct haplotypes identified already, and only two matches among
them. One match, an identical match between 4090 and 5070, is no surprise at
all because those two are brothers. The second match is 11/12 between 5106
and 6851 and could be the nucleus of a new group. The two subjects do not
agree on their earliest known Rice ancestor, but they do both trace back to
Virginia, and their lines may join.
There is one subject (7648) who falls just short of matching marker
comparisons (more than one, but fewer than four steps of difference). A
12-marker difference of three steps is ordinarily enough to show two
subjects are unrelated on a genealogical time scale, and even two steps of
difference would be very unusual within the same family. However, a large
enough population will inevitably include a few outliers, and the best way
to detect such outliers as such is to test more markers. We have
consequently extended the test of 7648 to 25 markers. With this broader
base, we find that 7648 differs by five steps (including a two-step
difference on one marker) from Group 1 and by six steps from 5204, thus
giving a much more statistically secure indication that no close
relationship exists among them.
There was briefly just a hint of a possible larger grouping of subjects 4283
and 4809 with what subsequently became Group 7. At the time, only one member
of Group 7 had been found, and that one, along with these other two
subjects, appeared to fall into that same "gray area" between one and four
steps of difference. In that case, there was no pair as close together as
two steps apart, but it was still intriguingly close. Just as in the case of
7648, we relied upon an expanded test to cast further light on the
situation. The two candidate extra members of Group 7 were both extended.
and they showed large differences between each other and also between them
and the members of Group 7 who have similarly been extended. Thus, the
suggestion of a connection fizzled here as well.
There is yet another hint of a possible distant connection between subjects
4798 and 6510, who differ by one step at each of three loci in the 12-marker
test. 4798 has now been extended to 25. If 6510 does likewise, and they
still have only the three differences, or if intermediate subjects come to
light who bridge the gap between these two, then we would probably have a
new group identified. Meanwhile, however, we are counting these two as
distinct.
Test subject 14295 has no fewer than three near-matches in the "gray area"
of 12-marker comparisons. First, he differs from Group 1 at two loci, by one
and two steps, respectively. Even factoring in the possibility that the
two-step difference stems from a two-step mutation, the most likely time of
the common ancestor is about 14 centuries ago, long before the Rice surname
was adopted. Still, the uncertainty is wide, and there is a chance that
extending the test to 25 loci would reveal no additional differences, in
which case the predicted time would be only seven centuries ago. Second, he
differs from 7648 at two loci, again by one and two steps. (Yes, this is the
same 7648 discussed above for his other near-matches.) The common-ancestor
estimates are the same for this case. Finally, 14295 differs from Group 6 by
only one step at each of three loci. The common-ancestor estimates for 14295
and Group 6 are similar, but a century or so more remote. Indeed, since no
member of Group 6 has been extended to 25 loci, we would need several
extensions in order to probe this possible link. Pending the extension for
14295, we are placing him in Group 8.
During most of the year 2003, subject 7897 was tentatively assigned to Group
7 on the basis of a 12-marker test, even though his 12-marker haplotype
differs by two steps from the consensus of that group. The reason for this
assignment was the presence of two other tentative members of the group who
shared one of the two apparent mutations in 7897. Now, however, the
25-marker results show that 7897 is not closely related to anyone in Group
7, and he has been moved to Group 8.
Mutation Rate
This study, although too small to provide a statistically significant
measurement of the mutation rate in Y-DNA STR markers, does at least provide
an estimate of that poorly-known parameter. We have recently expanded the
mutation study to include the confirmed lineages in Groups 3, 5, and 6.
Samples from Group 1 (1670-3, 4188, 5128-9), Group 3 (3156, 6061, 7242,
7628), and Group 5 (3869, 4765, 4808, 5022, 8850) represent 125 separate
father-to-son transmission events with 25 loci measured; Group 1 (3111-3113,
5300, 6336) and Group 6 (4046, 4641, 5032) have 44 more with 12 loci; and
S002-S009 have 40 more with 9 loci. There are thus 125x25 + 44x12 + 40x9 =
4013 mutation opportunities. The mutation seen in both 1673 and 3111 is
undoubtedly one and the same mutation, since these two men share several
generations of common ancestry. The mutation in 5129 is an astonishing three
steps. There is no way to be sure whether this is one mutation of three
steps all at once or three separate events of just one step each that
coincidentally happened to fall on the same locus and in the same sense, but
the latter possibility is so unlikely (five-in-a-million) as to be scarcely
worth considering. In contrast, the chance of a triple mutation in this line
is probably on the order of one in a thousand. Pending further
investigation, then, we will treat this as a single event. Thus, we derive a
mutation rate of 6/4013 = 0.0015, with a broad uncertainty.
Note: it may eventually be possible to include the results from other groups
in this analysis of the mutation rate, but their ancestral haplotypes are
still too uncertain at present.
A combination of many such studies based on deep-rooted pedigrees could
yield a significantly more precise value. Preliminary results from a
combination of 13 studies shows an average rate of 0.0024 mutation per
generation per marker, with a statistical standard deviation of 0.0003. This
analysis also confirms that the 11 loci marked "fast" in Table 1 have a
significantly higher average rate, while the remaining 14 have a
significantly lower average rate. In principle, a two-tiered system of
mutation rates should be used in calculating the expected separation in
years based on the observed number of discrepancies, but, in practice, the
only question that matters is: Does the expected separation allow for a
connection in the time since surnames were adopted, or not? In the case of
Group 2 vs Group 1, the two-tiered calculation changes the separation a
little (from 1200 years to 1100 years), but makes no difference to the
fundamental question. Ultimately, of course, each locus has its own
individual mutation rate, which should be taken into account, but even that
level of detail would not change the basic question of Group 2 (and,
besides, the acquisition of enough data to distinguish the individual rates
is likely to take many years).
Table 1. Rice Haplotypes: measured marker lengths. DYS
Locus: 3
9
3 3
9
0
1
9 3
9
1 3
8
5
a 3
8
5
b 4
2
6 3
8
8 4
3
9 3
8
9
i 3
9
2 3
8
9
ii 4
5
8 4
5
9
a 4
5
9
b 4
5
5 4
5
4 4
4
7 4
3
7 4
4
8 4
4
9 4
6
4
a 4
6
4
b 4
6
4
c 4
6
4
d 4
6
4
e 4
2
5 4
3
4 4
3
8 4
6
1
ID
(Fast) x x x x x x x x x x x x
Back to ERA main page
=============================================================
ID
(Fast) x x x x x x x x x
x x x
Group 1 (Edmund Rice, c1594 ENG - 1663 MA)
Edmund 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23
16 18 28 12 14 15 16
1670 13 24 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23
16 18 28 12 14 15 16
1671 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23
16 18 28 12 14 15 16
1672 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23
16 18 28 12 14 15 16
1673 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 12 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23
16 18 28 12 14 15 16 12 8 10 12
3111 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 12 12 11 28
3112 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28
3113 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28
4188 14 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23
16 18 28 12 14 15 16
5128 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23
16 18 28 12 14 15 16
5129 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 20
16 18 28 12 14 15 16
5300 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28
6220 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23
16 18 28 12 14 15 16
6336 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28
11268 13 23 13 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23
16 18 28 12 14 15 16
13364 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23
16 18 28 12 14 14 16
13558 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28
14979 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28
S002 13 23 14 10 14 14 .. 14 .. 12 11 ..
S005 13 23 14 10 14 14 .. 14 .. 12 11 ..
S006 13 23 14 10 14 14 .. 14 .. 12 11 ..
S007 13 23 14 10 14 14 .. 14 .. 12 11 ..
S009 13 23 14 10 14 14 .. 14 .. 12 11 ..
Group 2 (Thomas Rice, c1800 NC - 1860 KS)
3109 13 23 15 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23
16 20 29 12 14 14 15
Group 3 (Robert Royce, ? - 1676 CT)
Robert 14 23 15 10 15 16 11 13 11 14 12 32 15 8 10 11 11
25 14 20 26 11 14 14 15
1668 14 23 15 10 15 16 11 13 11 14 12 32 15 8 10 11 11 25
14 20 26 11 14 14 16
1669 14 23 15 10 15 16 11 13 11 14 12 32 15 8 10 11 11 25
14 20 26 11 14 14 15
3156 14 23 15 10 15 16 11 13 11 14 12 32 15 8 10 11 11 25
14 20 26 11 14 14 15
3730 14 23 15 10 15 17 11 13 11 14 12 32 15 8 10 11 11 25
14 20 26 11 14 14 15
3758 14 23 16 10 15 16 11 13 11 14 12 32 15 8 10 11 11 25
14 20 26 11 14 14 15
5333 14 23 15 10 15 16 11 13 11 14 12 32
6061 14 23 15 10 15 16 11 13 11 14 12 32 15 8 10 11 11 25
14 20 26 11 14 14 15
7242 14 23 15 10 15 16 11 13 11 14 12 32 15 8 10 11 11 25
14 20 26 11 14 14 15
7628 14 23 16 10 15 16 11 13 11 14 12 32 15 8 10 11 11 25
14 20 26 11 14 14 15
7360 14 23 15 11 15 16 11 13 11 14 12 32 15 8 10 11 11 25
14 20 26 11 14 14 15
12451 13 23 15 10 15 16 11 13 11 14 12 32 15 8 10 11 11 25
14 20 26 11 14 14 15
15824 13 23 15 10 15 16 11 13 11 14 12 32 15 8 10 11 11 25
14 20 26 11 14 14 15
Group 4 (Rice of Virginia)
? 14 24 14 11 12 15 12 12 12 12 13 28 18 9 9 11 11 25 15
19 31 15 15 17
3110 14 24 14 11 12 15 12 12 12 12 13 28
4131 14 24 14 11 12 15 12 12 12 12 13 28 18 9 9 11 11 25
15 19 31 15 15 17 17
4086 14 24 14 11 12 15 12 12 12 12 13 28 19 9 9 11 11 25
15 19 31 15 15 16 17
4897 14 24 14 10 12 15 12 12 12 12 13 28 18 9 9 11 11 25
15 19 31 15 15 17 17
5076 14 24 14 11 12 15 12 12 12 12 13 28 18 9 9 11 11 25
15 19 31 15 15 17 17
5332 14 24 14 11 12 15 12 12 12 12 13 28 18 9 9 11 11 25
15 19 31 14 15 15 17
6276 14 24 14 11 12 15 12 13 12 12 13 28
Group 5 (William Rice, 1756 VA? - c1856 KY)
William 13 25 14 10 11 15 12 12 12 14 13 30 16 9 10 11 11
25 15 19 30 15 15 16 17
3869 13 25 14 10 11 15 12 12 12 14 13 30 16 9 10 11 11 25
15 19 30 15 15 16 17
4765 13 25 14 10 11 15 12 12 12 14 13 30 16 9 10 11 11 25
15 19 30 15 15 16 17
4808 13 25 14 10 11 16 12 12 12 14 13 30 16 9 10 11 11 25
15 19 30 15 15 16 17
5022 13 25 14 10 11 15 12 12 12 14 13 30 16 9 10 11 11 25
15 19 30 15 15 16 17
5894 13 25 14 11 11 15 12 12 12 14 13 30 16 9 10 11 11 25
15 19 30 15 15 16 17
6838 13 25 14 11 11 15 12 12 12 14 13 30 16 9 10 11 11 25
15 19 31 15 15 16 17
8850 13 25 14 10 11 15 12 12 12 14 13 30 16 9 10 11 11 25
15 19 30 15 15 16 17
13040 13 25 14 10 11 15 12 12 12 14 13 30
14746 13 25 14 11 11 15 12 12 13 14 13 30
Group 6 (James Rice, c1740 - 1817 Loudon Co, VA)
James 14 22 14 10 13 13 11 16 11 12 11 28
4046 14 22 14 10 13 13 11 16 11 12 11 28
4631 14 22 14 10 13 13 11 16 11 12 11 28
5032 14 22 14 10 13 13 11 16 11 12 11 28
Group 7 (Rice of mid-South)
? 13 24 14 11 12 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 12 25 15
19 30 15 15 17
4091 13 24 14 11 12 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 12 25
15 19 30 15 15 17 17
4165 13 24 14 11 12 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 12 25
15 19 29 15 15 15 17
4462 13 24 14 11 12 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 12 25
15 19 30 15 15 17 17
5796 13 24 14 11 12 14 12 12 13 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 11 25
15 19 30
5820 13 24 14 11 12 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 12 25
15 19 30 15 15 15 17
6977 13 24 14 11 12 14 12 12 13 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 11 25
15 19 30
8232 13 24 14 11 12 14 12 12 12 13 13 29
Group 8 (other)
3145 13 24 14 10 11 15 12 12 14 13 13 29
3387 13 25 15 11 11 14 12 12 11 14 11 32
4090 14 21 15 10 13 13 11 12 11 12 11 29
5070 14 21 15 10 13 13 11 12 11 12 11 29
4507 13 25 14 11 11 13 12 12 12 13 14 29 17 9 10 11 11 25
14 18 30 15 16 16 17
4798 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 28 16 9 10 11 11 24
15 19 29 15 15 16 17
4809 13 24 14 10 12 15 13 12 12 13 13 29 18 9 10 11 11 25
15 19 29 15 15 16 18
5106 15 23 15 10 12 15 11 13 11 14 12 31 15 8 10 11 11 25
14 20 27 11 14 14 15
6851 15 23 15 10 12 15 11 13 11 14 12 32
5204 13 22 14 10 13 15 11 14 11 13 11 30 15 8 9 8 11 23
16 20 29 12 15 15 16
5888 13 26 14 10 11 13 11 12 12 13 13 29
6093 13 24 15 10 11 15 12 12 12 14 13 31
6510 13 23 14 11 11 13 12 12 11 14 13 30
6933 14 21 15 10 13 15 11 13 11 12 11 28
7648 13 22 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 24
16 20 28 12 14 15 16
7897 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 13 13 13 29 19 9 9 11 11 25
15 19 31 15 15 17 17
8234 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 13 13 13 31
9189 13 23 14 10 14 14 12 12 12 13 13 29
9166 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 30 16 9 10 11 11 25
15 19 29 15 15 17 17
7875 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 30 16 9 10 11 11 25
14 19 29 15 16 17 18
4283 13 24 15 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 30 17 9 10 11 11 26
15 19 29 15 15 17 18
10743 14 23 14 10 12 13 11 14 11 12 11 30
14295 13 22 14 10 14 14 11 16 11 12 11 28
16023 13 24 12 10 14 18 12 12 13 13 15 30 15 9 9 12 11 25
14 19 31 14 14 16 17
© Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004 by the Edmund Rice (1638) Association
Back to ERA main page