Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
New Federal Law Will Limit Access to Birth Certificates
The 108th Congress returned for a special session on December 6, 2004 to smooth opposition to Senate Bill 2845 (S. 2845), the "National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004." On December 7, the House voted 336-75 for the bill, and on December 8, the Senate approved it 89-2. The bill was signed into law by the president on December 17, without the exception for non-certified copies & certificates over 100 years old that the National Genealogical Society and Federation of Genealogical Societies had suggested..
The bill requires federal agencies to establish standards for all 50 states for the issuing of driver's licenses and birth certificates within the next 18 months. How this will effect local statutes regarding vital records access is unclear.
Hello,
I'm about to embark on a topic which I have hesitated to bring to the mailing list(s) attention but I feel it's one we should address.
Whenever someone decides to undergo the DNA testing I ask them to send me a lineage to include on the Clendenin Family Research website. Many of them that have come in have glaring errors in them. But then I have a long list of pet peeves so here goes --
1. No proof that a William Glendinning (vs) married a Roseanne Kirkpatrick.
2. No proof that William who died at Quarterland in 1764 is the same William christened in Langholm in 1680.
3. No proof that the Charles mentioned in the will of William who died at Quarterland is Charles Clendenin who appears in Virginia records beginning as early as 1743.
4. No proof that Charles (VA) married a Mary Ann Patterson of Pennsylvania, d/o James Patterson.
5. No proof that Charles (VA) and his unnamed wife had children other than George, Robert, William, Alexander, and Eleanor (Mary Ellen/ Nellie).
6. DNA testing proves that James who married Margaret Anderson was not the son of Charles (VA). Parents unknown at this time.
7. DNA testing proves that William who married Helen Fowler was not the son of James who married Margaret Anderson.
8. DNA testing proves that Adam who married Winifred LNU was not the son of Charles and his unnamed wife.
Many people who are just starting their research are finding your website where you have given this incorrect information and they are clinging to it as though it was written as a chapter of the Bible. Please change your incorrect information or at least go in and place a notation "Not Proven".
We are doing no one a favor if they pick up incorrect information. It costs money to do this genealogical research and DNA testing. You know that because you have also researched a line (or at least I hope you did your own research).
Thank you,
Sharon
Good morning,
Just a quick update on where we stand here:
We now have 30 members, the latest to sign up is a descendant of Charles Clendenin's son, Robert. This will give us participants who are descended from two of the three eligible sons of Charles (WV).
Of the 29 previous (by 31 Dec) participants we have only one kit which is outstanding; the others are either in the lab in rerun, waiting to go to the lab, or in the mail back to the company or we already have their results.
As I told you in a previous message I have been able to establish, by the unique haplotypes, six groups. I am still trying to determine how best to present this on the website. But at the present time I have used colors to divide the haplotypes on the website comparison chart. http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~clendin/dna_results_2.htm
Anywhere you see only one participant in a color band, this is an indication that additional participants who may be related or who believe they are related to that ancestor should be tested. So if you know of anyone out there you might have been corresponding with and you think there is a possibility but yet unproven that the two of you are descended from the same ancestor, please ask them to contact me so that I might explain the project to them.
At this time it would be best if they can pay for their own testing to at least 25 markers as there is no money in our General Fund. I am officially "retiring" and the flow of discretionary dollars into my coffers is diminishing.
Sharon
Hello everyone,
I decided to see what I could find that would flesh out Carol's posting of "Stuff and Things."
See below.
----- Original Message -----
From: p_colella(a)juno.com
To: SharonBryant(a)cox.net
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: CEMETERY LOOKUP
Hello Sharon,
Wade and Jane are indeed in the Clendening Cemetery.
Wade Garrison b. 25 Dec. 1826 d. 3 Feb. 1865
Jane Garrison b. 13 Aug. 1830 d. 25 Sept. 1905
Glad I could help.
Peggy
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:25:46 -0500 "Sharon Bryant" <SharonBryant(a)cox.net> writes:
Hello,
Could you please check the Clendening cemetery listing for a Wade Garrison and wife, Jane Clendening Webb Garrison?
I'm sorry; I have no idea when these people died.
Thank you in advance.
Sharon Bryant
SharonBryant(a)cox.net
I have a Charles F. Clendenin b. 1805 NC (1850 Sumner Co.TN Federal Census)
married 16 Nov 1833 to a Polly Frazier (Sumner Co.TN Marriages to 1850) ch.
James Clendenin b. ca 1842; Mary A Clendenin b. ca 1833; Zerelda Clendenin
b. ca 1834; John Clendenin b. ca 1838; Martha Clendenin b. ca 1840 (1850
Sumner County TN Federal Census & Norman G. Clendenin cc(a)gte.net
This Charles F(isher?) Clendenin could fit in the right time frame to be son
of the James Clendenin d. 1809.
C
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sharon Bryant" <SharonBryant(a)cox.net>
To: "Carol" <cjohn(a)tznet.com>; <CLENDENIN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Previous post
> Carol,
>
> Not only does this make sense but it seems to me I have seen this (more)
> complete list of children before. Their mother remarried and if I remember
> right that's how they ended up in TN but I'll be darned if I can remember
> her name.
>
> Sharon
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carol" <cjohn(a)tznet.com>
> To: <CLENDENIN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 12:28 PM
> Subject: Previous post
>
>
> > Could the Charles Fisher, Jack, Tom and William be the sons of James
> > Clendenin (ref: Administration of James Clendening estate Aug 20, 1909)?
> >
> > In Aug 1818 a petition os submitted to the Court of Pleas in Orange
> > County,
> > NC. William,Thomas, Fisher, John and James are listed as the infant
sons
> > of
> > James Clendenning, deceased. It is stated in the petition that
> > "William,
> > Thomas, Fisher, John and James who are the only children & heirs of the
> > said
> > James Deceased . . . "
> > So in 1818 these boys are under 21 years old. Birth years btw 1798 and
> > 1809.
> >
> > Make sense?
> >
> > C
> >
> >
> >
> > ==== CLENDENIN Mailing List ====
> > If you are participating in the Clendenin Surname DNA Project there is
now
> > a separate mailing list for discussion of results at
> > Clendenin-dna-l(a)rootsweb.com
> >
> > ==============================
> > View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find
> > marriage announcements and more. Learn more:
> > http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx
> >
> >
>
>
>
Could the Charles Fisher, Jack, Tom and William be the sons of James
Clendenin (ref: Administration of James Clendening estate Aug 20, 1909)?
In Aug 1818 a petition os submitted to the Court of Pleas in Orange County,
NC. William,Thomas, Fisher, John and James are listed as the infant sons of
James Clendenning, deceased. It is stated in the petition that "William,
Thomas, Fisher, John and James who are the only children & heirs of the said
James Deceased . . . "
So in 1818 these boys are under 21 years old. Birth years btw 1798 and
1809.
Make sense?
C
We're not sure this got out to the list(s) as we intended so here goes:
----- Original Message -----
From: Linda Ponder
To: Sharon Bryant
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 9:53 AM
Subject: Fw: John Clendenen, d c. 1843 MO
Sharon, thought I sent this to the list a while back, but never saw it posted. Did I do something wrong? Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: Linda Ponder
To: CLENDINEN-D-request(a)rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 10:37 AM
Subject: John Clendenen, d c. 1843 MO
Came across this John Clendenen for some time ago and wonder if anyone knows him. He is listed on the 1830 and 1840 Jefferson (city), Clay County, MO, US Census. I found the following information also:
Wills and Administrations of Clinton County, Missouri (Clinton Co. borders Clay Co.)
Will Book A, 94-95
James Dagley Admr of John Clendenen, dec'd.
Littleton S. Roberts and Noah F. Essig sec. $400 5 oct. 1843
(Carr 1833-1870 Ben C 312 Clint MO)
Genealogical Notes from the Liberty Tribune, Clay Co. (MO) 1846-58
Dec. 26, 1846
Notice of final settlement of estate of John Clendenen, dec'd, of Clinton County.
James Dagley, admr.
Apr 7, 1845
Notice. The undersigned guardian of estate of J.W. Clendenen will apply next court to make final.
George S. McCullough
Clay County (MO) Marriages 1822-1852
Barbary Jane Clendennen to Sterling D. Carrol
10 Sept 1840 by 123
(Is this the daughter of the above?)
Linda
Has anyone had communication with Honey since, oh, September? She and her husband had moved to Panama and I have not had a word from her.
Since one of our DNA participants was a man she desperately wanted tested I am very surprised there has been no comment from her.
If you've heard from her, please let me know.
Thanks,
Sharon
Hello again,
Earlier today I commented that some of us don't have the ability to be as mobile as we would like when it comes to research. I just received a question about the location of the individuals who are on our mailing lists, so ....
If you have the ability to get to a research facility of some sort, i.e., county offices, library research facility, etc. would you please respond with your name, email address, and state/county you could do research in if we need help?
Thanks,
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sharon Bryant" <SharonBryant(a)cox.net>
To: <CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: CLENDINEN-D Digest V05 #8
> Darlene and all,
>
> Yes, I suppose it is a possibility but I hate to impugn anyone's character
> without having certain knowledge of it. The only woman I can talk about
> that way is my own Clendenin ancestress and then only because I know of
> the two sons she had before she married my Stephenson.
>
> As I understand it Don and I are pretty well limited to doing research via
> the Internet and that will only get you so far. So we may be doing a
> "wonderful job" but I'm sure that Don, and I know I would, could use help
> from someone who has some mobility.
>
> I have considered the possibility that there was another Clendenen family
> in Virginia, i.e., William's (m Fowler) family and that some of the women
> we have put into that family might be related to William rather than to
> James and Margaret. It's a shame that we cannot test the women's
> descendants and come up with the connection but that just isn't possible.
>
> Yes, it's true that pioneer families usually had a large number of
> children but it may be a case that only a couple survived.I think we can
> probably leave Rebecca (m Sympson) in the same family with John (m
> Sympson) and Hannah but they may have been the only ones who survived.
>
> As far as I know Hannah did not live to maturity.
>
> Sharon
>
>
> ==== CLENDINEN Mailing List ====
> Don't forget to check out the Clendenin Family Research Website at
> http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~clendin
>
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx
>
>
Good morning all,
Don said "I'll try to dig out Nancy Mann's papers and quote exactly what she
said reference William."
That would be great if you can find it, Don; maybe there's a little nuance
in the exact quotation that would lead us in a new direction. Don's comment
was made in response to a question from Darlene Ashcroft about the
possibility that " ...but could William be adopted?"
I had not yet answered Darlene's question but will now. I would prefer to
determine if we are talking about two different men here before we start
trying to find a non-recorded adoption event.
I realize there is a very good possibility that anything I say will anger
one or more of you, but if it makes you start to question or to dig out
information that you haven't looked at for a while I'll take the hit. As Don
also said "We are all working together on this ...."
I wish I had the answers that everyone wants but I don't; so I have to rely
on someone out there saying "oh, wait a minute .. " and then sharing the
information with the rest of us.
Have a good day, everyone.
Sharon
Good morning,
A couple of clarifying statements to begin with:
1. The purpose of this dialogue is not to "fix blame" on anyone. We have much more information available to us now than earlier generations did.
2. With the repetition of names from generation to generation it is easy to get confused regarding who was being referred to.
3. No one said there might not be errors in the paper trail of our Charles' descendant. That is tantamount to pointing a finger and the whole purpose here is not to start a "flaming" contest but to figure out the truth of the matter as best we can.
Now that I have said all that let's look at what Don had to say - as I said earlier (and I did not mention the James, son of Charles and Mary Patterson error) the DNA has proven that there was at least one mistake in the list of children given for James and Margaret.
We have documented proof of John and Hannah as follows:
"AUGUSTA COUNTY, VIRGINIA - CHALKLEY'S CHRONICLES; Vol 3, PP 80 - 89
Page 81 (on-line transcription) copied 3/5/2004
Page 311.--4th May, 1761. Margaret Anderson's will--Granddaughter,
Margaret Anderson, alias Clendennin, and her daughter Hannah Anderson
and her son John Clendennin. Executors, Jno. Francis and Jno. Poage.
Teste: Jas. Bell, Isaac Carson, Mary Francis. Proved, 20th March, 1764,
by Bell and Carson. Executors qualified, with James Bell, Michael Dickey."
See how easy it is to make a mistake. I believe I referred to Margaret Anderson as the grandmother of John and Hannah. Upon re-reading it appears she was the grandmother of Margaret Anderson Clendenin and therefore, the great-grandmother of John and Hannah.
Likewise we have documentation that Margaret Anderson Clendenin's father was a William Anderson as follows:
"AUGUSTA COUNTY, VIRGINIA - CHALKLEY'S CHRONICLES; Vol 3, PP 200 - 209
Page 203 (on-line transcription) copied 3/5/2004
Page 114.--27th August, 1792. William Anderson's will--To wife,
Elizabeth; to son, John, tract whereon James Black lives, 244 acres; to son,
George, tract known as Burnt Cabbin whereon George now lives, adjoining
John, Robert, and Jacob Baylor; to son, Robert, 149 acres whereon Ro.
now lives; to son, Alexander, home plantation, 290 acres; to sons-in-law
and their wives, viz: James Clendenning and wife Margaret, Wm. Skillings
and wife Mary, James Grigsby and wife Rebecca, Samuel Anderson and
wife Elizabeth; to daughter, Jean Anderson. Executors, son John and
David McNare. Teste: Edward Breadin, Sr. and Jr.; George Breaden.
Proved, June Court, 1794, by all the witnesses."
Thus, it appears that the only two children of Margaret Anderson Clendenin's who were alive by the time of their great-grandmother's writing of her will were John and Hannah Anderson Clendenin. Another question which can be pursued later is the way her will was worded, i.e., her [Margaret's] daughter, Hannah Anderson and her son, John Clendenin. Why is Hannah not referred to as Hannah Clendenin?
"Mary Rebecca born 1762 (These may be two people, my oldest reference
mentions Mary Rebeccah, later ones mention Mary and Rebeccah. The Sympson
Bible shows "Rebeccah" married William Sympson."
There may very well be only one woman here named Mary Rebecca or there may have been two: it appears from William Anderson's will that Margaret had sisters named both Mary [sons-in-law and their wives, viz: James Clendenning and wife Margaret, Wm. Skillings and wife Mary, James Grigsby and wife Rebecca, Samuel Anderson and wife Elizabeth; to daughter, Jean Anderson.]
"Nancy didn't s[a]y William married Helen Fowler, she just said William 'continued on to Missouri.' So, it may be there was a William, but not the one who married Helen Fowler." Also Don later says "William " (in 1809) "continued on to Missouri." Questions that arise from these comments:
1. Was there anything in Nancy's notes that said when William continued on to Missouri?
2. Was this move supposed to have occurred when the rest of the family moved from Kentucky to Illinois?
3. Any indication what the (in 1809) refers to other than William's move to Missouri?
We know that William (m Fowler) appears in the 1830 census for Cole Co., MO and one of the men presumed to be his son, John, entered land in MO in 1827.
"Elizabeth "Betsy" Clendenin was born 1767 [m Caleb Knapp]" I know how Betsy Knapp ended up in this family but do we have any early documentation which connects Caleb Knapp and his wife to James and Margaret Anderson Clendenin? Did they follow the same migration pattern as James & Margaret?
Is there any thing that puts "Patsy" firmly in this family?
Is there any thing that puts Josiah firmly in this family?
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald E Clendenin" <donclend(a)positech.net>
To: "Sharon Bryant" <SharonBryant(a)cox.net>; <CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: James Clendenin and Margaret Anderson
> Hello,
>
> The site Ken referred to copied most of the information in the first
> paragraph (including some mistakes) from my book courtesy of Barbara Tiesser
> who bought a copy 8 years ago. My major mistake was showing James Clendenin
> (1736-1810) being a son or brother of Charles. The William, mentioned as a
> son of James, may still be true. I got that information from a 'history'
> left by Nancy (Clendenin) Mann (1829-1910). Nancy was a lifelong student of
> family history and lived near her uncle James Clendenin, son of John, son of
> James the 1st. Nancy didn't sy William married Helen Fowler, she just said
> William 'continued on to Missouri.' So, it may be there was a William, but
> not the one who married Helen Fowler. I doubt there is a family history
> written without any errors. The paper trail of the Y-DNA contributor showing
> descent from Charles COULD be wrong.
>
> The children of James and Margaret (Anderson) Clendenin I got from the
> Mrs. David Green Hayes manuscript in the Filson Cluc, Louisville, KY are:
> John c.1759
> Hannah (these two were living when Margaret's grandmother died in 1761,
> and she mentioned them in her will.
> Mary Rebecca born 1762 (These may be two people, my oldest reference
> mentions Mary Rebeccah, later ones mention Mary and Rebeccah. The Sympson
> Bible shows "Rebeccah" married William Sympson.
> William " (in 1809) "continued on to Missouri."
> Martha (Patsy) born in 1780. She married Joseph Baldwin March 9, 1800.
>
> There may well have been other children. Large families were common those
> days and I suspect, based on other histories, that many of them died young.
>
> Mrs Hayes was a contributor to "The Compendium of American Genealogy
> (1600s-1800s)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sharon Bryant" <SharonBryant(a)cox.net>
> To: <CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 12:27 PM
> Subject: James Clendenin and Margaret Anderson
>
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> A couple of days Ken Bower referred us to a website which he had located
>> stating that it was an interesting site. I agreed with him but told him
>> (and you) that the information regarding the children of James and
>> Margaret was incorrect.
>>
>> The website listed the following as children of James and Margaret:
>>
>> i. John2 Clendenin Sr. was born 15 January 1758.
>>
>> ii. Hannah Anderson Clendenin was born 1759. Born in the area that became
>> Greenbrier in 1778. <Sandy in Fla>
>>
>> iii. Mary Clendenin was born 1761.
>>
>> iv. Rebecca Clendenin was born 1762.
>>
>> v. Elizabeth "Betsy" Clendenin was born 1767.
>>
>> vi. William Clendenin was born in Augusta County, Virginia 1773. William
>> died 30 January 1844 in Cole, Missouri. Jefferson County, Missouri. He
>> married Helen Fowler in Washington County, Virginia, 9 October 1797.
>> Married in Abington, Virginia. William's family moved to Kentucky and then
>> to Cole County, Missouri.
>>
>> vii. Josiah Clendenin was born in Virginia 1775.
>>
>> viii. Martha "Patsy" Clendenin was born 1780.
>>
>> The "wrong" person I was referring to is William. When a descendant of his
>> (a male surnamed Clendennon) was tested for the Y-DNA Surname project not
>> only was he not related he was in a different haplogroup. A bit of
>> information here about Y-DNA testing:
>>
>> It is only passed from father to son. Women do not carry the Y chromosome
>> which is the precise one that makes the fetus a male rather than a female.
>> So only males can be tested for this project. I have yet to have anyone of
>> a different surname ask to be tested under this project.
>>
>> Yes, there are many variant spellings of the surname but that seems to be
>> immaterial for what we are doing.
>>
>> So, if we look at the previous list we have three males who it has been
>> claimed are sons of James (and Margaret): John m Mary Sympson, moved to
>> Kentucky and then Illinois; William m Helen Fowler (proven to not belong
>> to this family) and a Josiah (no further information given on the website.
>> But in my database I have information that says Josiah m an Esther
>> Livingstone and that descendants ended up in Indiana).
>>
>> Then we also have females: Mary, Hannah, Rebecca, Eliza(beth) and Martha
>> "Patsy." The only way I know of to be certain that these women were
>> daughters of James and Margaret (with the exception of Hannah who was
>> mentioned along with John in the will of their grandmother) is to find
>> primary documentation such as a will for James and/or Margaret or a deed
>> in which property was deed to one of the women and her husband with a
>> notation of the relationship between the grantor and the grantee.
>>
>> A preponderance of evidence based on primary records would be acceptable
>> but primary documentation would be best.
>>
>> I think this would make a nice project to begin the new year for our
>> mailing list so that we might determine the true relationship of these
>> people. If you have information based on documentation please share it
>> with the group, but be sure to reply to all which will post your message
>> on both mailing lists.
>>
>> One of the men believed to be a son of Josiah and Esther is said to have
>> died in Monroe Co., IN in 1904. Perhaps there is still a male Clendenin of
>> that line living out there somewhere. If you are he, or know who he is
>> would you please let us know.
>>
>> Let's get some dialog started and remember to be open-minded about the
>> whole thing.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Sharon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==== CLENDINEN Mailing List ====
>> Don't forget to check out the Clendenin Family Research Website at
>> http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~clendin
>>
>> ==============================
>> View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find
>> marriage announcements and more. Learn more:
>> http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx
>>
>
>
>
Hello,
A couple of days Ken Bower referred us to a website which he had located stating that it was an interesting site. I agreed with him but told him (and you) that the information regarding the children of James and Margaret was incorrect.
The website listed the following as children of James and Margaret:
i. John2 Clendenin Sr. was born 15 January 1758.
ii. Hannah Anderson Clendenin was born 1759. Born in the area that became Greenbrier in 1778. <Sandy in Fla>
iii. Mary Clendenin was born 1761.
iv. Rebecca Clendenin was born 1762.
v. Elizabeth "Betsy" Clendenin was born 1767.
vi. William Clendenin was born in Augusta County, Virginia 1773. William died 30 January 1844 in Cole, Missouri. Jefferson County, Missouri. He married Helen Fowler in Washington County, Virginia, 9 October 1797. Married in Abington, Virginia. William's family moved to Kentucky and then to Cole County, Missouri.
vii. Josiah Clendenin was born in Virginia 1775.
viii. Martha "Patsy" Clendenin was born 1780.
The "wrong" person I was referring to is William. When a descendant of his (a male surnamed Clendennon) was tested for the Y-DNA Surname project not only was he not related he was in a different haplogroup. A bit of information here about Y-DNA testing:
It is only passed from father to son. Women do not carry the Y chromosome which is the precise one that makes the fetus a male rather than a female. So only males can be tested for this project. I have yet to have anyone of a different surname ask to be tested under this project.
Yes, there are many variant spellings of the surname but that seems to be immaterial for what we are doing.
So, if we look at the previous list we have three males who it has been claimed are sons of James (and Margaret): John m Mary Sympson, moved to Kentucky and then Illinois; William m Helen Fowler (proven to not belong to this family) and a Josiah (no further information given on the website. But in my database I have information that says Josiah m an Esther Livingstone and that descendants ended up in Indiana).
Then we also have females: Mary, Hannah, Rebecca, Eliza(beth) and Martha "Patsy." The only way I know of to be certain that these women were daughters of James and Margaret (with the exception of Hannah who was mentioned along with John in the will of their grandmother) is to find primary documentation such as a will for James and/or Margaret or a deed in which property was deed to one of the women and her husband with a notation of the relationship between the grantor and the grantee.
A preponderance of evidence based on primary records would be acceptable but primary documentation would be best.
I think this would make a nice project to begin the new year for our mailing list so that we might determine the true relationship of these people. If you have information based on documentation please share it with the group, but be sure to reply to all which will post your message on both mailing lists.
One of the men believed to be a son of Josiah and Esther is said to have died in Monroe Co., IN in 1904. Perhaps there is still a male Clendenin of that line living out there somewhere. If you are he, or know who he is would you please let us know.
Let's get some dialog started and remember to be open-minded about the whole thing.
Thanks,
Sharon
I'm looking for software to restore old photos. Does anyone on the list
have any experience with this and would recommend a program? I've got a lot
of pictures that have creases, damage, etc. Thanks in advance!
Kamy Rayburn Gamble
Thanks for the URLs, Ken. Unfortunately, the wrong questions about DNA mutations are being asked and answered at these websites with the exception of the one I have copied below:
http://www.genetree.com/product/y-chromosome-dna.asp
The first two websites deal with physical disorders or autosomal (eye color, hair color) chromosomes.
Genealogical DNA testing uses what is known as "junk" DNA. Nothing discovered in the Y-DNA testing can tell you if you have a disease or a predisposition towards a particular physical condition. It won't tell you if you have blue eyes or brown; tall or short; skinny or fat; blonde hair or brown.
These first two talk about how DNA mutates according to environmental situations and how instead of the two pieces of DNA matching up the way they are supposed to how they might mutate so that they match up incorrectly. They look at how the sequence fits together.
Y-DNA counts the number of times a sequence appears at a particular location. There any number of repeats at a given location. That is all we are concerned with.
So, if you have hesitated to be tested for our project because of a physical condition you don't want anyone else to know about or some other concern about what might be revealed, this about it again.
Thanks,
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From: <Kenbower(a)aol.com>
To: <CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: DNA Mutations
> OK folks, here are Web Sites with answere to all you questions about
> Mutations:
>
> http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/disorders/sloozeworm/mutationbg.cfm
>
> http://www.genetichealth.com/G101_Changes_in_DNA.shtml
>
> http://www.genetree.com/
>
> Have fun,
> Ken Bower
>
>
> ==== CLENDINEN Mailing List ====
> Don't forget to check out the Clendenin Family Research Website at http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~clendin
>
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx
>
>
Don (and all),
The idea that an occupation would help sort out individuals is a good one
but only when doing a paper trail on an individual.
There does not seem to be an occupation which would cause mutations in DNA.
Let's try this scenario: A man works all his life in coal mines. He fathers
three sons. His DNA is tested and a mutation is found on a specific
location. In each of his three sons that same mutation appears when they are
also tested.
The man has a brother who also has three sons. He has always been a farmer
and has not been exposed to any of the physical dangers
(diseases/conditions) of his coal mining brother. When he is tested, an
identical mutation is found at that same location in the DNA chain as his
brother.. His three sons also have the same mutation.
The occupation has not played a role in the DNA mutation. The mutation is
one that was passed to the coal miner and the farmer from their father and
they in turn have passed it on to each of their sons.
A mutation occurs when the DNA is passed to the male child from the father
does not repeat exactly. At a specific location the father may have 16
repeats of the DNA sequence. At the time of conception of his male children
there is a 50/50 chance that at the same location the child will receive the
same 16 repeats. Since mutations seem to occur about every 500 years the
chances are better than 50/50 that the child will receive the same number of
repeats.
On the other hand, at that specific location the son may receive only 15
repeats or may receive 17 repeats, i.e., +1 or -1. When that son becomes an
adult he would pass on to his sons (let's use 15 as our number), 15 repeats
at that location. If there is another son he receives all 16 of his father's
repeats on that specific location.
If we tested subsequent generations from both of these sons, one branch
could be identified by the 15 repeats and the other branch would still carry
what is known as the "ancestral haplotype" or the 16 repeats of their
father.
Let's use your line from James Clendenin as an example to see this in real
life. You and Bill carry an identical mutation at locus 464b. I am calling
this a mutation due to the fact that the majority of the Clendenins we have
tested thus far carry a 15 at that location (this is called a modal
haplotype). It is simply the majority at that particular location.
Working backward from yourself (and Bill) the first common ancestor you
share is John Clendenin Sr. m Mary Sympson. Since you both carry the same
mutation that means that John Clendenin Sr. carried the 16 at 464b and
passed it on to both his sons John Clendinen Jr. and James Clendinen. If you
were to find a descendant of another son of John Clendenin Sr. and have them
tested there is a 50/50 chance that they too would carry the 16 at that
location. There is also a possibility that James Clendenin, John Sr.'s
father, also carried that 16 at that location.
The only way to test that assumption would be to find a male descendant of a
brother of John Clendenin Sr. and have them tested as well. If they also
carried the 16 at 464b that would mean that James Clendenin, your earliest
known ancestor, also carried the 16 (50/50 chance). The only way to know for
sure is to find that individual and convince them to test.
This explanation should match any that the folks at FTDNA would give you as
my knowledge of the subject comes primarily from their postings at their
website. I would be interested in the answer they give you.
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald E Clendenin" <donclend(a)positech.net>
To: <CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: DNA Mutations
> Hi All, I addressed the mutation query to FamilyTreeDNA and included a
> copy to the web. My thought is that is certain occupations (Hatter comes
> to mind!) causes mutations, then knowing the ancestor's occupation would
> help sort things out.
>
> Don
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sharon Bryant" <SharonBryant(a)cox.net>
> To: <CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 6:02 AM
> Subject: Re: DNA Mutations
>
>
>> Don,
>>
>> Nothing nefarious. Just a roll of the dice.
>>
>> But, once it has mutated it generally will stay that way and be passed on
>> to that man's male descendants. It's that process that allows us, once we
>> have identified the mutation, to use them to sort out the various
>> branches of a family.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Donald E Clendenin" <donclend(a)positech.net>
>> To: <CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 12:16 AM
>> Subject: DNA Mutations
>>
>>
>>> Do you know what causes DNA mutations? If we knew that it would help us
>>> understand why two descendants from the same ancestor do not always have
>>> exact matches of Y-DNA
>>>
>>> donclend(a)positech.net
>>>
>>>
>>> ==== CLENDINEN Mailing List ====
>>> Don't forget to check out the Clendenin Family Research Website at
>>> http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~clendin
>>>
>>> ==============================
>>> Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the
>>> areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months.
>>> Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==== CLENDINEN Mailing List ====
>> Don't forget to check out the Clendenin Family Research Website at
>> http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~clendin
>>
>> ==============================
>> New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your
>> ancestors at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends.
>> Learn more:
>> http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599...
>>
>
>
>
> ==== CLENDINEN Mailing List ====
> Don't forget to check out the Clendenin Family Research Website at
> http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~clendin
>
> ==============================
> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records.
> New content added every business day. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx
>
>