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
Page 1
[COGAN-L] stuff-mccarthy-cowhig-donovan-moore-denning-sherlock-nortage-hawkes-cogan-doyle+
by List user
+manning-deering-reagan
----------------------------------------
WilliamCOWHIG 1866abt@Ireland-rs@Ireland1866abt-rs(a)Boston,Ma.,Driver,
1900-son of John COWHIG rs@Ireland1866abt- & Nora Donovan rs@Ireland 1866 abt-
wed2 oct 1900(a)Chelsea,Ma.,Thomas A. Quinlan ,Catholic Priest,Chelsea,Ma-
Ellen T.MCCARTHY1865abt@Ireland-rs@Ireland1865abt-rs@116 Broadway, Chelsea
,Ma.confectionmer,1900-dau of John MCCARTHY
rs@England1858abt-rs@ireland1865abt-rs@Ireland1865abt- & Catherine MOORE rs@England 1858
abt-rs@ireland1865abt-rs@Ireland1865abt-
Ellen T. sister to
Mary F.MCCARTHY1858abt@England-rs@England1858abt-
wed27 Aug 1884@BOSTON MA.REV.THOMAS TOBIN, BOSTON MA.-
JohnDENNING1855abt(a)Boston,Ma.-[Ireland]24 Dec 1895 @ 40 YRS, DESEASE OF THE
HEART 1 YR, VALVULAR ALBUMINURIA,26 G son of John DENNING ,SR 1805abt @
Ireland5 Jul 1865@60, ERYSIPELAS ,148 2ND ST.BOSTON MA.BN.1807 IN
CENSUS,LABORER,ILLITERATE,ESTAE VALUE 2000$,1860- & Mary M.SHERLOCK1817abt@Ireland-1 May
1862@45,rs@148 Second St., Boston Ma.,Disease of the Heart -
-----------------------------------
John MCCARTHY@ireland,rs@155 Cottage St.Chelsea Ma.1889- MCCARTHY Kate
DENNING@irelandrs@155 Cottage St.Chelsea Ma.1889- THEY HAVE Annie MCCARTHY 7 Jul
1889@155 Cottage St.Chelsea Ma.-rs@155 Cottage St.Chelsea Ma.1889-
-------------------------------------
Eliza James NOTTAGE 18 Sep 1849(a)Chelsea,Ma.- rs(a)Chelsea,Ma.1849- dau of James
C. NOTTAGE @Boston,Ma.-rs(a)Division,Chelsea,Ma.housewright1849- rs
@Chelsea,Ma.1856-rs@Chelsea,Ma.1858abt-rs(a)Boston,Ma.,carpenter,1862- & Harriet
N.HAWKES@Boston,Ma.?-rs@Chelsea,Ma.1849-rs(a)Chelsea,Ma.1856-rs @Chelsea,Ma.1858abt-
rs(a)Boston,Ma.1862-
Eliza James sister to
James H.NOTTAGE29 Aug 1842-6 Jan 1849@6yrs,5mns,15dys,scarlet fever,
Harriet A.NOTTAGE23 Dec 1844
Hellen M.NOTTAGE17 Apr 1847
Edward E.NOTTAGE5 Sep 1862@Boston,Ma.-rs(a)Boston,Ma.1862-
Emma A.NOTTAGE30 Oct 1856@Chelsea,Ma.-rs(a)Chelsea,Ma.1856-
Freak W.NOTTAGE1858abt@Chelsea,Ma.-rs@Chelsea,Ma.1858abt-rs(a)Chelsea, Ma .,
clerk,1889- wed Minnie F.DONOVAN1869abt@Windsor,N.S.-rs(a)Windsor, N.S.
1869abt-rs(a)Chelsea,Ma.clerk,1889-
--------------------
William COWHIG10 May 1878@Revere,Ma.-rs@Revere,Ma.1878-rs(a)Revere , Ma
.,motorman,1906-son of WilliamCOWHIG@Ireland-rs@Revere,Ma. laborer ,
1878-rs(a)Revere,Ma.1886 abt - & Catherine "Hannah J."COGANrs@Revere, Ma. 1878-rs@Revere,Ma
.1886 abt-
wed22 Apr 1906(a)Revere,Ma.James Lee,"priest",108 Beach,St.Revere,Ma.-
ElizabethDOYLE1878abt@Ireland-rs@Ireland1878abt-rs(a)Revere,Ma.,cook, 1906 -dau
of Michael DOYLErs@Ireland1878abt- & Catherine DEERING rs@Ireland1878abt-
William brother to
James
S.COWHIG1886abt@Revere,Ma.-rs@Revere,Ma.1886abt-rs(a)Revere,Ma.,Motorman,1910-
wed 19 Jun 1910(a)Chelsea,Ma.,Hugh F. Smith,Chelsea,Ma.,-
CatherineMANNING1888abt@Ireland-rs@Ireland,1888abt-rs@208
Marlboro,St.,Chelsea,Ma.,waitress,1910- dau ofLawrenceMANNINGrs@Ireland,1888abt- & Delia REAGAN
rs@Ireland,1888abt-
16 years, 1 month
Re: [COGAN-L] Re: Inbreeding
by List user
In a message dated 12/11/2003 6:54:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
e.cogan(a)att.net writes:
> LOL My question is, what does that do to one's genealogy software?
chances are your program is full olf people who lived in small towns in
england , ireland ,or new england . that my friend is the recipe for this
i do cogans devers with my dennings and the city of chelsea ma.
i have one clusterof cogan devers in woburn ma. with 8 4 of each marring
each others
jim
16 years, 2 months
[COGAN-L] A secret we all see!!!!=Go Ahead, Kiss Your Cousin
by List user
not a surprize to us geneaologists lol. this applies to small irish ,new
england,english ,italian,american towns and onclaves where small groups lived or
live
jim
This also can be why some diseases runs thru families and not others
>
Go Ahead, Kiss Your Cousin
Heck, marry her if you want to
By Richard Conniff
DISCOVER Vol. 24 No. 08 | August 2003
In Paris in 1876 a 31-year-old banker named Albert took an 18-year-old named
Bettina as his wife. Both were Rothschilds, and they were cousins. According
to conventional notions about inbreeding, their marriage ought to have been a
prescription for infertility and enfeeblement.
In fact, Albert and Bettina went on to produce seven children, and six of
them lived to be adults. Moreover, for generations the Rothschildfamily had
been inbreeding almost as intensively as European royalty, without apparent ill
effect. Despite his own limited gene pool, Albert, for instance, was an
outdoorsman and the seventh person ever to climb the Matterhorn. The American du
Ponts practiced the same strategy of cousin marriage for a century. Charles
Darwin, the grandchild of first cousins, married a first cousin. So did Albert
Einstein.
In our lore, cousin marriages are unnatural, the province of hillbillies
and swamp rats, not Rothschilds and Darwins. In the United States they are
deemed such a threat to mental health that 31 states have outlawed first-cousin
marriages. This phobia is distinctly American, a heritage of early evolutionists
with misguided notions about the upward march of human societies. Their fear
was that cousin marriages would cause us to breed our way back to frontier
savagery—or worse. "You can't marry your first cousin," a character declares in
the 1982 play Brighton Beach Memoirs. "You get babies with nine heads."
So when a team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counselor
at the University of Washington and the president of the National Society of
Genetic Counselors, announced that cousin marriages are not significantly
riskier than any other marriage, it made the front page of The New York Times. The
study, published in the Journal of Genetic Counseling last year, determined
that children of first cousins face about a 2 to 3 percent higher risk of birth
defects than the population at large. To put it another way, first-cousin
marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of abnormality that a woman
undertakes when she gives birth at 41 rather than at 30. Banning cousin marriages
makes about as much sense, critics argue, as trying to ban childbearing by older
women.
But the nature of cousin marriage is far more surprising than recent
publicity has suggested. A closer look reveals that moderate inbreeding has always
been the rule, not the exception, for humans. Inbreeding is also commonplace in
the natural world, and contrary to our expectations, some biologists argue
that this can be a very good thing. It depends in part on the degree of
inbreeding.
Can you marry a cousin?
Laws governing the marriage of first cousins vary widely. In 24 states
(pink), such marriages are illegal. In 19 states (green), first cousins are
permitted to wed. Seven states (peach) allow first-cousin marriage but with
conditions. Maine, for instance, requires genetic counseling; some states say yes only
if one partner is sterile. North Carolina prohibits marriage only for double
first cousins. Got that?
Map by Matt Zang
Source: cousincouples.com and Cuddle International.
The idea that inbreeding might sometimes be beneficial is clearly
contrarian. So it's important to acknowledge first that inbreeding can sometimes also
go horribly wrong—and in ways that, at first glance, make our stereotypes about
cousin marriage seem completely correct.
In the Yorkshire city of Bradford, in England, for instance, a majority of
the large Pakistani community can trace their origins to the village of Mirpur
in Kashmir, which was inundated by a new dam in the 1960s. Cousin marriages
have been customary in Kashmir for generations, and more than 85 percent of
Bradford's Pakistanis marry their cousins. Local doctors are seeing sharp spikes
in the number of children with serious genetic disabilities, and each case is
its own poignant tragedy. One couple was recently raising two apparently
healthy children. Then, when they were 5 and 7, both were diagnosed with neural
degenerative disease in the same week. The children are now slowly dying. Neural
degenerative diseases are eight times more common in Bradford than in the rest
of the United Kingdom.
The great hazard of inbreeding is that it can result in the unmasking of
deleterious recessives, to use the clinical language of geneticists. Each of us
carries an unknown number of genes—an individual typically has between five
and seven—capable of killing our children or grandchildren. These so-called
lethal recessives are associated with diseases like cystic fibrosis and
sickle-cell anemia.
Most lethal genes never get expressed unless we inherit the recessive form
of the gene from both our mother and father. But when both parents come from
the same gene pool, their children are more likely to inherit two recessives.
So how do scientists reconcile the experience in Bradford with the
relatively moderate level of risk reported in the Journal of Genetic Counseling? How
did Rothschilds or Darwins manage to marry their cousins with apparent
impunity? Above all, how could any such marriages ever possibly be beneficial?
The traditional view of human inbreeding was that we did it, in essence,
because we could not get the car on Saturday night. Until the past century,
families tended to remain in the same area for generations, and men typically went
courting no more than about five miles from home—the distance they could walk
out and back on their day off from work. As a result, according to Robin Fox,
a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University, it's likely that 80
percent of all marriages in history have been between second cousins or closer.
Global Inbreeding
Researchers who study inbreeding track consanguineous marriages—those between
second cousins or closer. In green countries, at least 20 percent and, in
some cases, more than 50 percent of marriages fall into this category. Pink
countries report 1 to 10 percent consanguinity; peach-colored countries, less than
1 percent. Data is unavailable for white countries.
Map by Matt Zang
Map reproduced with the permission of A.H. Bittles.
Factors other than mere proximity can make inbreeding attractive.
Pierre-Samuel du Pont, founder of an American dynasty that believed in inbreeding,
hinted at these factors when he told his family: "The marriages that I should
prefer for our colony would be between the cousins. In that way we should be sure
of honesty of soul and purity of blood." He got his wish, with seven cousin
marriages in the family during the 19th century. Mayer Amschel Rothschild,
founder of the banking family, likewise arranged his affairs so that cousin
marriages among his descendants were inevitable. His will barred female descendants
from any direct inheritance. Without an inheritance, female Rothschilds had few
possible marriage partners of the same religion and suitable economic and
social stature—except other Rothschilds. Rothschild brides bound the family
together. Four of Mayer's granddaughters married grandsons, and one married her
uncle. These were hardly people whose mate choice was limited by the distance they
could walk on their day off.
Some families have traditionally chosen inbreeding as the best strategy for
success because it offers at least three highly practical benefits. First,
such marriages make it likelier that a shared set of cultural values will pass
down intact to the children.
Second, cousin marriages make it more likely that spouses will be
compatible, particularly in an alien environment. Such marriages may be even more
attractive for Pakistanis in Bradford, England, than back home in Kashmir.
Intermarriage decreases the divorce rate and enhances the independence of wives, who
retain the support of familiar friends and relatives. Among the 19th-century du
Ponts, for instance, women had an equal vote with men in family meetings.
Finally, marrying cousins minimizes the need to break up family wealth from
one generation to the next. The rich have frequently chosen inbreeding as a
means to keep estates intact and consolidate power.
Moderate inbreeding may also produce biological benefits. Contrary to lore,
cousin marriages may do even better than ordinary marriages by the standard
Darwinian measure of success, which is reproduction. A 1960 study of
first-cousin marriages in 19th-century England done by C. D. Darlington, a geneticist at
Oxford University, found that inbred couples produced twice as many
great-grandchildren as did their outbred counterparts.
Consider, for example, the marriage of Albert and Bettina Rothschild. Their
children were descended from a genetic pool of just 24 people (beginning with
family founders Mayer Amschel and Gutle Rothschild), and more than
three-fifths of them were born Rothschilds. In a family that had not inbred, the same
children would have 38 ancestors. Because of inbreeding, they were directly
descended no fewer than six times each from Mayer and Gutle Rothschild. If our
subconscious Darwinian agenda is to get as much of our genome as possible into
future generations, then inbreeding clearly provided a genetic benefit for Mayer
and Gutle.
And for their descendants? How could the remarkably untroubled reproductive
experience of intermarried Rothschilds differ so strikingly from that of
intermarried families in Bradford?
The consequences of inbreeding are unpredictable and depend largely on what
biologists call the founder effect: If the founding couple pass on a large
number of lethal recessives, as appears to have happened in Bradford, these
recessives will spread and double up through intermarriage. If, however, Mayer and
Gutle Rothschild handed down a comparatively healthy genome, their
descendants could safely intermarry for generations—at least until small deleterious
effects inevitably began to pile up and produce inbreeding depression, a
long-term decline in the well-being of a family or a species.
A founding couple can also pass on advantageous genes. Among animal
populations, generations of inbreeding frequently lead to the development of coadapted
gene complexes, suites of genetic traits that tend to be inherited together.
These traits may confer special adaptations to a local environment, like
resistance to disease.
The evidence for such benefits in humans is slim, perhaps in part because
any genetic advantages conferred by inbreeding may be too small or too gradual
to detect. Alan Bittles, a professor of human biology at Edith Cowan
University in Australia, points out that there's a dearth of data on the subject of
genetic disadvantages too. Not until some rare disorder crops up in a place like
Bradford do doctors even notice intermarriage.
Something disturbingly eugenic about the idea of
better-families-through-inbreeding also causes researchers to look away. Oxford historian Niall
Ferguson, author of The House of Rothschild, speculates that that there may have been
"a Rothschild 'gene for financial acumen,' which intermarriage somehow helped
to perpetuate. Perhaps it was that which made the Rothschilds truly
exceptional." But he quickly dismisses this as "unlikely."
At the same time, humans are perfectly comfortable with the idea that
inbreeding can produce genetic benefits for domesticated animals. When we want a
dog with the points to take Best in Show at Madison Square Garden, we often get
it by taking individuals displaying the desired traits and "breeding them
back" with their close kin.
Researchers have observed that animals in the wild may also attain genetic
benefits from inbreeding. Ten mouse colonies may set up housekeeping in a
field but remain separate. The dominant male in each colony typically inbreeds
with his kin. His genes rapidly spread through the colony—the founder effect
again—and each colony thus becomes a little different from the others, with double
recessives proliferating for both good and ill effects. When the weather
changes or some deadly virus blows through, one colony may end up better adapted
to the new circumstances than the other nine, which die out.
Inbreeding may help explain why insects can develop resistance almost
overnight to pesticides like DDT: The resistance first shows up as a recessive
trait in one obscure family line. Inbreeding, with its cascade of double
recessives, causes the trait to be expressed in every generation of this family—and
under the intense selective pressure of DDT, this family of resistant insects
survives and proliferates.
Click on the image to enlarge (184k)
The Inbred Rothschild Family
This picture gallery portrays members of five generations of the legendary
Rothschild banking family, beginning with founder Mayer Amschel and his wife,
Gutle. In an effort to build the fortune he had created, Mayer wrote a will that
made intermarriage lucrative for his offspring. They took his point and
frequently inbred: Cousins began marrying cousins, and in one case, a niece wed her
uncle. Albert considered marrying only two women, both cousins. He chose
Bettina, with whom he had seven children. Subsequent generations began to outbreed
more frequently.
©XPLANE.com®
The obvious problem with this contrarian argument is that so many animals
seem to go out of their way to avoid inbreeding. Field biologists have often
observed that animals reared together from an early age become imprinted on one
another and lack mutual sexual interest as adults; they have an innate aversion
to homegrown romance.
But what they are avoiding, according to William Shields, a biologist at
the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry
at Syracuse, is merely incest, the most extreme form of inbreeding, not
inbreeding itself. He argues that normal patterns of dispersal actually encourage
inbreeding. When young birds leave the nest, for instance, they typically move
four or five home ranges away, not 10 or 100; that is, they stay within breeding
distance of their cousins. Intense loyalty to a home territory helps keep a
population healthy, according to Shields, because it encourages "optimal
inbreeding." This elusive ideal is the point at which a population gets the benefit
of adaptations to local habitat—the coadapted gene complexes—without the
hazardous unmasking of recessive disorders.
In some cases, outbreeding can be the real hazard. A study conducted by E.
L. Brannon, an ecologist at the University of Idaho, looked at two separate
populations of sockeye salmon, one breeding where a river entered a lake, the
other where it exited. Salmon fry at the inlet evolved to swim downstream to the
lake. The ones at the outlet evolved to swim upstream. When researchers
crossed the populations, they ended up with salmon young too confused to know which
way to go. In the wild, such a hybrid population might lose half or more of
its fry and soon vanish.
It is, of course, a long way from sockeye salmon and inbred insects to
human mating behavior. But Patrick Bateson, a professor of ethology at Cambridge
University, argues that outbreeding has at times been hazardous for humans too.
For instance, the size and shape of our teeth is a strongly inherited trait.
So is jaw size and shape. But the two traits aren't inherited together. If a
woman with small jaws and small teeth marries a man with big jaws and big
teeth, their grandchildren may end up with a mouthful of gnashers in a Tinkertoy
jaw. Before dentistry was commonplace, Bateson adds, "ill-fitting teeth were
probably a serious cause of mortality because it increased the likelihood of
abscesses in the mouth." Marrying a cousin was one way to avoid a potentially
lethal mismatch.
Bateson suggests that while youngsters imprinting on their siblings lose
sexual interest in one another they may also gain a search image for a
mate—someone who's not a sibling but like a sibling. Studies have shown that people
overwhelmingly choose spouses similar to themselves, a phenomenon called
assortative mating. The similarities are social, psychological, and physical, even
down to traits like earlobe length. Cousins, Bateson says, perfectly fit this
human preference for "slight novelty."
So where does this leave us? No scientist is advocating intermarriage, but
the evidence indicates that we should at least moderate our automatic disdain
for it. One unlucky woman, whom Robin Bennett encountered in the course of her
research, recalled the reaction when she became pregnant after living with her
first cousin for two years. Her gynecologist professed horror, told her the
baby "would be sick all the time," and advised her to have an abortion. Her
boyfriend's mother, who was also her aunt, "went nuts, saying that our baby would
be retarded." The woman had an abortion, which she now calls "the worst
mistake of my life."
Science is increasingly able to help such people look at their own choices
more objectively. Genetic and metabolic tests can now screen for about 100
recessive disorders. In the past, families in Bradford rarely recognized genetic
origins of causes of death or patterns of abnormality. The likelihood of
stigma within the community or racism from without also made people reluctant to
discuss such problems. But new tests have helped change that. Last year two
siblings in Bradford were hoping to intermarry their children despite a family
history of thalassemia, a recessive blood disorder that is frequently fatal
before the age of 30. After testing determined which of the children carried the
thalassemia gene, the families were able to arrange a pair of
carrier-to-noncarrier first-cousin marriages.
Such planning may seem complicated. It may even be the sort of thing that
causes Americans, with their entrenched dread of inbreeding, to shudder. But
the needs of both culture and medicine were satisfied, and an observer could
only conclude that the urge to marry cousins must be more powerful, and more
deeply rooted, than we yet understand.
>
Web sites devoted to the topic of consanguinity and cousin marriages abound,
with approaches ranging from academic to activist: <A HREF="http://www.consang.net/ ">www.consang.net </A>, <A HREF="http://www.cousincouples.com/ ">
www.cousincouples.com </A>, and <A HREF="http://www.cuddleinternational.org/ ">www.cuddleinternational.org </A>.
>
>
>
Be the first to >rate this article.</A>
>
>
16 years, 2 months
Page 1
Next Page