The ALLEN DNA Patrilineage 2 Project

The ALLEN DNA Patrilineage 2 Project

This ALLEN patrilineage project is dedicated to furthering the genealogical research of the members, each of whom has sponsored a Family Tree ySTR DNA test of 37 markers (or better) that matches to the haplotype pattern for this ALLEN patrilineage. Our goal is to promote both individual and collaborative genealogical research aimed at reconstructing the overall tree of descent from the patriarch common to all of the members, using their ySTR DNA test results to guide us in our research, and our conclusions.

-

The Likely Origins of this Patrilineage in Somersetshire, England

The most fertile of the immigrant American patriarchs of this patrilineage, George1 ALLEN of Sandwich, Plymouth, emigrated in 1635 to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Although a few possibly matching records have been found for antecedent George ALLENs back in England, this is hardly surprising given the commonness of the surname, but where the wider context of these particular records has been explored, the circumstantial evidence does not support the identification. See McDONALD, p.2, for more on some of these English ALLEN red herrings.

What we do know about George is that he and part of his family sailed for New England from Weymouth, Dorset, in March, 1635, on the ship Marygould bearing a company of followers of the Rev. Joseph Hull of Broadway, Somersetshire, who according to colonial governor Gov. John Winthrop brought 21 families with him. Annotations on the ship’s passenger list and other evidence places several of these families in Broadway, and others in Batcombe, Somerset. As can be seen by this map, Broadway is about 7 miles SE of Taunton, near Ilminster, while Batcombe is about 25 miles to the NE. One of the other known Broadway passengers, Thomas Holbrooke, is also known to have married and had his first two children in Glastonbury, Somerset, about 9 miles due west of Batcombe, while Joseph Hull is known to have been born in Crewkerne about 7 miles SE of Broadway.

This whole area had been a hotbed of radical Protestantism and consequent emigration for many years, starting in early 1630 with the passengers on the first ship of settlement to the Bay Colony, the Mary & John, who were largely followers of the Rev. John Warham who had preached in Crewkerne and other parishes of this area, and who led the Mary & John company to the New World. This first expedition, and many others that followed were also sponsored by the important minister, the Rev. John White, of the large town of Dorchester, Dorset, which can be seen near the bottom right of the map. The port of Weymouth is off map to the south of Dorchester in the same direction.

It is thus probable that George and the other patriarchs of ALLEN Patrilineage 2 came from this area of central Somerset, though no one so far one has found the smoking gun evidence. Unfortunately, for the obvious first place to look, Broadway, the extant parish begin only in 1678. Some further details on these likely English origins will be found on page 15 of my report “Two New England Patriarchs”.

Three American ALLEN Patriarchs

Newly brought forward genealogical information, and a reconsideration of the DNA evidence, make it clear now that there have been at least three American patriarchs of ALLEN Patrilineage 2, representing three immigrant lines—not just the one—George1 Allen of Sandwich, Plymouth Colony (say 1585 - 1648).

The second ALLEN Patrilineage 2 patriarch is George’s close relative, the immigrant Samuel1 Allen of Braintree, Massachusetts Bay Colony (say 1604 - 1669), and you will find much more on him below, and in the newly researched papers I’ve published: “Two New England Patriarchs...”, and the accompanying evidential timeline. I am indebted to genealogist Susie Hartman for supplying the key genealogical evidence that shows that Patrilineage 2 patriarch Samuel2 ALLEN of Bridgewater, Plymouth, was in fact the son of Samuel1 of Braintree, not of George1 of Sandwich, as other circumstantial evidence strongly suggested.

The third ALLEN Patrilineage 2 patriarch is Joseph1 Allen of Charles County, MD (say 1718 -), whose patrilineal descendants I’ve named “the Maryland cluster”. We now have four descendant haplotypes of this branch of the family, project member Kathy Phipps, and new members Marilyn Krell and Steve Jacobs, who is managing two different haplotypes of this line.

Although I’ve suffixed all three of these patriarchs with a “1” (the generational designation usually reserved for the first generation to immigrate), the origins of Joseph of CharlesCoMD remain obscure, and I suspect that he was not himself the first generation immigrant of his line, as there were several antecedent ALLENs in sparsely settled CharlesCo dating back to the late 1600s. More research needs to be done in this area.

George ALLEN of Sandwich, Massachusetts (say 1585—1648)

Two of the ySTR DNA tested members of this project can trace their lines all the way back to the immigrant, George1 Allen of Sandwich, Plymouth Colony, in Massachusetts. These are John_W-02, who descends through George’s son Ralph2, and Bill_L-10, who descends from George2 (George2). Although the evidence supporting some links of the ancestral chains of these two is not as strong as it might be, and although a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link, the fact that these lines follow a very different geographical course, and have been researched both ably and independently (and confirmed by DNA testing), gives us a very high confidence level that they are correct. This is particularly so in the case of John_W’s ancestry back through Ralph2; there is a bit more chance that the line that runs back to George2, whose descendants remained for some time in New England amidst so many other ALLEN cousins, may have taken a slightly different path back to George1 than appears. In fact, now that we know that the haplotypes inherited by George1 and Samuel1 were identical, we cannot rule out the possibility that Bill_L’s line runs back to Samuel1, and not to George1—except, of course, on genealogical grounds, which are always problematic.

Still, on the genealogical side, we are fortunate that exhaustive research has been done on George himself, and on his conjugal family. The definitive reconstruction of George’s family is found in ANDERSON, below, although a careful reading of the “George Allen” sketch in that book should make it clear that the considered judgement of the authors, the very best of New England genealogists, working with an exhaustive compilation of facts from the primary records, is still not necessarily the last word on this family. The authors themselves note that “At one time or another just about every young Allen male in southeastern New England has been placed as a son of George Allen.”

The best published treatment of the descendancy of George1 is a paper by Jack MacDonald. This paper, though sparsely sourced, is particularly strong in its tracing of the Quaker line of Ralph2. MacDonald has also paid some attention to the English origins, and has usefully undermined a few of the half-baked ideas advanced by others.

The most comprehensive and best evidenced treatment that I know of for the generation of George1 and Samuel1 are the two papers that I’ve just published (Apr2014): “Two NewEngland Patriarchs, Not One: Samuel Allen of Braintree ”, and the corresponding “Evidential Timeline for Patriarchs George1 & Samuel1 ALLEN”. These papers do not cover all the details of these men’s careers, but they do focus analytically on all the salient genealogical and contextual historical evidence concerning these men and their relationship, and they show, I believe, conclusively, the George and Samuel must have been the closest of relatives short of being father and son.

Samuel1 ALLEN of Braintree, Massachusetts (say 1604—1669)

This Samuel is not really a new discovery. In fact, most of the published secondary sources, including James Savage in his Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England... have made this Samuel the father of Samuel2 of Bridgewater, Plymouth Colony, to whom two of our Patrilineage 2 project members, Melava-07, and NancyB-13, trace their ancestries. But none of the sources I have seen provide any evidence for this attribution, and all the circumstantial evidence has seemed to favor George of Sandwich as the father of Samuel2 of Bridgewater.

In 1656 (within months of the founding of Bridgewater), Samuel2 of Boston, the son of George1 of Sandwich, joined with brother Henry in selling land in Sandwich that they had inherited from their father—and that is the last we hear of Samuel2 (George1). What could be more natural than that George’s son should have taken the proceeds of his inheritance and become a proprietor of the newly forming town of Bridgewater, in Plymouth Colony? Then, there is the claim, often advanced (but also unevidenced as far as I have seen) that Samuel of Bridgewater was aged 71 in 1703, thus born about 1632. This matches almost perfectly to the estimated birth date of George's son, say 1633, in Robert Charles Anderson’s “George Allen” sketch in The Great Migration: Immigrants to New England, 1634-1635.

However, another descendant of Samuel of Bridgewater who has researched him extensively in the primary records, has provided me with evidence that seems incontrovertible that Samuel of Bridgewater was the son of Samuel1 of Braintree. The latter made a will in Braintree 2Aug1669 (proved 16Sep1669) leaving 20 to his son Samuel to be paid within four years of his death, and making wife Margaret and son Joseph executors. Then, on 16Sep1672 a deed to 12a of Braintree land was acknowledged by the grantors “Margaret ALLEN, the late wife of Sammuell ALLEN now deceased, and Joseph ALLEN my son, both of the town of Brantry of the government of Massachusets, in consideration of 20 given and appointed to be paid by the abovesaid Sammuell ALLEN, deceased, to his son, Sammuell ALLEN of Bridgewater in the government of New Plimouth”.

What was Samuel1 ALLEN of Braintree to George1 of Sandwich?

Samuel1 of Braintree can be ruled out as the son of George1 because the circumstantial context doesn’t fit. For one thing, George’s son Samuel is grouped with his brother Henry, and the other George’s “five least children” in the latter’s will. For another, unlike George’s older sons by his first wife (John, Ralph, and George) Samuel is not found in possession of any of this father’s lands in Weymouth, or is any way associated with Weymouth in the records, even though the circumstantial evidence for Samuel of Braintree shows that he was married say 1631, so would probably have been George’s oldest son.

On the other hand, given that the DNA of at least one descendant of Samuel and at least one descendant of George matches perfectly on the 67 marker Family Tree DNA test, the two must have been very closely related indeed. My guess is that Samuel was George’s nephew, but they may have been first, or possibly second, cousins. Until and unless their English origins can be found, it is doubtful that anything more can be said about their relationship.

Joseph ALLEN of Charles County, Maryland (say 1718 -)

I haven’t yet finalized or posted the descendancies/pedigrees for this branch of the ALLEN Patrilineage 2 family, but the research on these Maryland lines looks pretty solid, and I’ve added a bit to it myself, extending it at least a generation farther back. I expect to be able to post a single consolidated pedigree for the Maryland Cluster in the coming months.

In the meantime, however, I have posted their DNA (at least to the project haplotype chart—they’re grouped at the bottom) so that everyone can see how different and distinctive it is compared to that of the descendants of the two New England patriarchs. Since in addition, there are indications that this line runs back into at least the late 1600s in Maryland, it is almost certain that it stems from a third immigrant ancestor, not a descendant of either of the New England patriarchs, who came over to Maryland on his own hook and in his own time, and though he probably came from the same area as the New Englanders, he may have been only their distant cousin. If it seems anomalous that he would have migrated to Maryland rather than New England, I note that as David Hackett Fischer has pointed out in his classic, Albion’s Seed, the fountainhead for emigrants to the Chesapeake tidewater area (besides the port city of London) was the southwest of England.

Descendants of George1: Quaker ALLENs and the Southern Branch of the Family

One of the most interesting features of the descendancy of George ALLEN of Sandwich is the fact that he projected offshoots into the American South. In fact seven of the twenty-one project members claim such southern roots, presumably through the line of George1’s son Ralph2, though only one of these, John_W-02, can at present trace his lineage back to George.

It would be an understatement to say that this New England—Southern connection was unusual. To find great-grandchildren of New England Puritans in the Anglican plantation society of Virginia would be distinctly anomalous. The anomaly is accounted for, though, when we learn that many of George’s children were caught up in the first wave of New England Quakerism, for the Quakers were persecuted and hounded in the Puritan settlements, and encouraged to flock to the frontier in search of peace. And the areas of Virginia, and also North Carolina, where these Quakers settled were indeed America’s western frontiers, where they joined such other unwanted peoples as the feisty Scotch-Irish, and the pietistic, hard-working Germans.

Certain Quaker enclaves did emerge in southeastern Massachusetts, and of course in Rhode Island, the first polity in the world in which religious toleration was written into the constitution, and it is in these New England enclaves that George's Quaker progeny first took refuge. The largest number settled in DartmouthMA on the southern coast next to Rhode Island, and their descendants continued to constitute one of the largest families in the town on into the 1800s. Others trickled into Rhode Island, and as orthodox Puritanism began to lose its grip, on to Connecticut, Vermont, and New York.

But meanwhile several families of George ALLEN descendants made the big leap to Monmouth County, New Jersey where a small Quaker settlement and monthly meeting sprang up in the township of Shrewsbury. From there, it was only natural that subsequent generations should continue the migration south toward the newly opening western frontier of Virginia, west of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Towards the end of the 18th century, the north central counties of North Carolina (Orange, Rowan, and the counties they gave birth to, Guilford and Rockingham) became a Quaker stronghold in their turn, but a generation before that, beginning in the 1730s, George ALLEN descendants were participating in the first settlements of the Valley of Virginia, in Augusta and Frederick Counties. The story of these first Quaker settlements beyond the Blue Ridge is told in WORRALL.

Of the four project members who can trace their lines back to George, two are descended from sons of George who went Quaker. Member Bill_L-10 descends from George’s Quaker son George, through progeny who settled first in Dartmouth, then migrated later to Rhode Island and New York. The line of the fourth member, John_W-02 (representing testee David Allen) descends from George’s Quaker son Ralph, through his son Joseph, who ended up in MonmouthCoNJ. Two of Joseph’s sons, Benjamin and Reuben, migrated in turn first to CecilCoMD, and from there to AugustaCo in the upper Valley of Virginia, appearing there first in 1739. John_W’s line runs through Reuben.

-

Further Research Possibilities for the Southern Branch

One of the more salient problem regarding the patrilineage right now is how to connect the unconnected southerners to their DNA-indicated line of descent from George1 of Sandwich through the mostly Quaker lines of his son, Ralph2. The descendancy of project member John_W-02 gets this line into the Valley of Virginia. What is left is to figure out how to bridge the one- to two-generation gap from the time the earliest known ancestors of project members begin to be identifiable as such in the records of FranklinCoVA and nearby areas in the late 1700s, back to the early-to-mid 1700s when Quakers first began to filter down deep into VA and NC.

The starting point would be to follow up on the brothers Benjamin and Reuben in Augusta, Frederick, and other related Valley of Virginia counties, and to look for the appearance of other ALLENs in that area who might be descendants of George of Sandwich’s Quaker sons. Targeted DNA testing might be in order to address this problem.

The descendancy of Reuben has been fairly thoroughly researched and accounted for, though some of his grandchildren may have migrated farther south. MacDONALD seems to have foreclosed on the possibility that Reuben’s brother, Benjamin, had children, but I am not so sure about that. He does note that further research needs to be done on the ALLENs of this area, but I imagine that the reason he himself didn’t pursue things further, is that there simply aren’t likely to be any, or many, records for this area which do not already appear in CHALKLEY—and I have made my own abstracts of all that do. There are also a few ALLEN records in the order book index for OrangeCo, Augusta’s parent, and there may well be deeds records there too.

Both Benjamin and Reuben took out early patents in the Valley, evidently intending to settle (MacDONALD notes these too, albeit with a couple of minor errors), but there may be others in SW Virginia by other related ALLENs. Wonderfully, the VA Patents have all been abstracted, indexed, and put online by the Library of Virginia, the search link for which is to be found here. By entering Reuben Allen and following the links you can access and download Reuben Allen’s patent.

There is a tantalizing reference in MacDONALD to an Augusta order book record dated 18Mar1746/7 which associates a Daniel Allen with the probate of Benjamin, and he notes at the same time that additional research is required on this Daniel, whom he thinks was probably married in CecilCoMD, as was (brother) Reuben. As usual, MacDONALD provides no citation for this record, but since the order books are chronological, I’ve scanned all the Chalkley abstracts for that court date (Chalkley 1:26) and there is no such record to be found—nor are there any corresponding Daniel Allen references in the indexes to any of the three Chalkley volumes. Is this one of the items which Chalkley missed, and did MacDONALD himself plow through every page of the early order books trolling for ALLENs, or perhaps it was the probate records which were meant, or maybe the date was wrong. Only the original books themselves are likely to yield up that secret, and for such a potentially important record, only the original document will do.

If Benjamin and Reuben’s brother, Daniel, did come out to the Valley, and especially if he was a Quaker, he may well have continued south in his search for vacant land in a less violent area than Augusta, which was populated largely by pugnacious Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, and occasionally raided by Indians (one of my own Quaker ancestors did just that, leaving my Scotch-Irish ancestors to wrestle with the raw frontier). Daniel would only have had to journey another 80 miles due south down the Valley, crossing back over the Blue Ridge mountains to reach FranklinCoVA (perhaps passing over the old wagon road which passes within 100 yards yards of where I live), and it would have been only another 50 miles due south from there to present day RockinghamCoNC, where Bill_B’s Allen ancestors may have come from. Moreover, I have noted the presence of at least one Daniel Allen in RockinghamCoNC, though much later in the 18th century.

The goal here would be to try to match up the early Allen settlers of Augusta and Frederick Counties in the Valley, with the Allens who turn up early in FranklinCo (and its predecessors, Bedford and Lunenburg) just to the south, over the mountains—meanwhile taking care not to conflate the Allens of this patrilineage with the many unrelated Allens of Patrilineage (I) who were also pioneers in these Southside VA counties.

I would recommend, therefore, to any of this southern crew who are determined to try to solve these knotty genealogical problems, to begin to dig into the primary records of all these counties (Franklin, Bedford, Lunenburg) and compile everything found there on Allens. At the same, the data at the other end of the missing link (Augusta, Frederick, and Shenandoah Cos) needs to be systematically compiled to identify possible descendants of Benjamin, Reuben, and perhaps Daniel or others who went south instead of north as most of the Quaker Allens did.

Because the records are so scant in colonial Virginia (and North Carolina), and vital records are almost entirely lacking, there is a need to thoroughly mine all such records as exist for whatever they may yield, and to try to reconstruct, not just the focal Allen ancestral family, but all of the Allen families, in order to be able to assign all the little shards found in the record books (here a signature on a deed, there a record of jury service, or as a party to a lawsuit) to the proper identities. It is possible, by diligently pursuing this comprehensive method, to build a strong circumstantial case even where direct evidence is lacking.

-

Deepening and Extending Your Genealogical Research

On the genealogical side, the descendancy of George of Sandwich and the other patriarchs of Patrilineage 2 is so extensive, particularly in New England, that we may hope to attract many other testees in time, and any one of these may match mutations with existing members, and/or be able to contribute some missing piece of the genealogical puzzle. Thus, even though some project member’s lines appear to be “brick-walled” at present, there is always hope. And having examined to some degree the evidence that the existing members have predicated their genealogies on, it seems to me that there is still plenty of room in most cases to dig deeper into the primary records of the places indicated by the work that has been done.

It’s all too easy with these New England and Quaker lines and their plenteous vital records to assume that since the published data that comes easily to hand appears to have been plausibly shuffled into coherent families, that all the necessary research has been done. However, I have found that by digging into the primary probate, land, tax, and miscellaneous court records of a place, one almost always finds additional bits of circumstantial evidence, and quite often something of genealogical significance will turn up. One is also likely to encounter anomalies—new potential pieces of the puzzle which cannot be accounted for by the prima facie theories with which most people are too easily satisfied, and while these complications and apparent contradictions may be initially frustrating, some of these anomalies may turn out to be leads opening up new avenues of research for apparently blocked lines.

It should be within the compass of any of you to access the original records without an undue amount of travel or expense. Pretty much all of the county courthouse records in the US have been filmed by the LDS (the Mormons), who are deep into digitizing these records and putting them online at FamilySearch (Browse) for free. And in the worst case, just about everyone can find one of the LDS Family History Centers within an hour’s driving distance (usually much closer), and can borrow therefrom the relevant films from the LDS archives in Salt Lake City for a small fee. Either way, the online FHL Catalog is the best guide to the extant records of most American jurisdictions, and it is the first place I turn to when I am familiarizing myself with the research possibilities of a new area. If a particular set of films has been digitized, there will be a notice to that effect in red on the same catalog page as the film numbers, and if not, one can set up an account and place an order for films to be sent to your local LDS branch through this portal.

It’s true that primary records research in the colonial and early American records can be quite challenging. These old manuscript records are typically hard to read, and their correct interpretation requires familiarity with the law and customs of the time. But as long as such records exist unexamined, no one can reasonably claim to be brick-walled. And even though no genealogical nuggets are lurking in these primary records, one nearly always acquires through their patient examination, a few clues to who these people were and what their lives were like. Family history leads on to local history, which in turn plugs into the broader historical contexts with which we may be more familiar, but which without the personal dimension that family history brings, lack a certain reality.

RECOMMENDED PUBLISHED SOURCES for ALLEN Patrilineage 2

-

ANDERSON
“George Allen” sketch, pp. 27-35 in
Robert Charles Anderson, George F. Sanborn Jr., Melinda Lutz Sanborn
The Great Migration: Immigrants to New England: Immigrants to New England, 1634-1635, Volume I, A-B, (Boston: NEHGS, 1999)

Although the Sanborns were important collaborators for this volume and the next of Anderson’s Great Migration series, I have elected to style this source as just ANDERSON. Given the problematic nature of the reconstruction of the conjugal family of the immigrant, George of Sandwich, it is likely that all three authorial heads were brought to bear. Be that as it may, this George Allen sketch is one of the longest in any of the published GM volumes to date.

The authors first note {p30} that “At one time or another just about every young Allen male in southeastern New England has been placed as a son of George Allen.” They then proceed to consider the strongest claimants, and end up with a list which is considerably different from that found in GARDNER, though with respect to inclusiveness it matches MacDONALD except for the latter’s inclusion of son Francis. However, because MacDONALD evidently failed to take into account the many pieces of circumstantial evidence available to the authors at the NEHGS library in Boston, his estimates of the birth dates of George’s children are significantly different from those found in ANDERSON, leading to a considerably shuffled birth order.

At the end of the sketch, two secondary sources on this family are recommended. These are GARDNER and J.K.ALLEN, below. Evidence and argument supplemental to and corrective of this sketch on certain minor points is also cited by Anderson at GMN 10(Jul-Sep2001):23.

This Great Migration George Allen sketch must be considered the definitive source. Like all the other sketches in the GM series, it is not only based on every shred of primary records evidence which has come to light in 150 years of research on these early New Englanders, it also takes into account the best secondary sources. Furthermore, all three authors are F.A.S.G.s—members of the most elite society of American genealogists. limited to no more than 50 living members, all elected by their peers. Robert Charles Anderson himself is undoubtedly the greatest New England genealogist of our day, or probably of any day.

However, precisely because the authors of this work are so well regarded, I am quite sure that they would be the last to claim that what they have published is anything but the best current take on the accumulated evidence to date regarding this extensive and genealogically important family. Nothing is every proved in history, and all historical propositions remain open and subject to revision in the light of new evidence, or new ways of looking at the existing evidence.

BOWEN (next below) provides an example of new evidence and argument, and my own paper (accessible from ROBB in this bibliography) an example of looking at old evidence in new ways, in the case through the lens of ySTR DNA testing.

-

BOWEN
Richard LeBaron Bowen Jr
“Notes on George Allen of Weymouth and Sandwich”, in NEHGR, 155(Apr2001):212-214

Bowen’s article, cited in Anderson’s GMN 10(Jul-Sep2001):23, supplements Anderson’s Great Migration:1634-1635 “George Allen” sketch with additional evidence and argument, and corrects certain details, with special focus on the two Ralph Allens of Sandwich. Bowen also points out that “the most recent serious treatment of George Allen and the two Ralph Allens” is to be found in Bertha Clark, “A Sandwich-Darthmouth-NorthKingston Allen Line”, a typescript at NEHGS. Bowen notes also that Charles Edward Banks, History of Martha’s Vineyard, 3 vols (1925), 3:3-7, and 2:25-28, makes a strong case that James Allen of Sandwich who ended up on Martha’s Vineyard, was the son of Samuel1 of Braintree.

-

GARDNER
Charles Carroll Gardner
“George Allen of Sandwich”, in A Genealogical Dictionary of New Jersey, 16:1-4, 49-52
(reprinted in Genealogies of New Jersey Families (Baltimore: Clearfield, 2005), 2:150-169)

Robert Charles Anderson calls this the best (previous) treatment in print. Although GARDNER cites some evidence not explicitly referenced in the Great Migration sketch regarding the immigrant George and his family, his reconstruction of George’s conjugal family must give way to the more comprehensive and astute analysis in the definitive ANDERSON sketch. What makes GARDNER indispensible nonetheless, is the work he has done on many of George’s descendants, all of which is backed by copious evidential extracts and full source citations.

-

J.K.ALLEN
John Kermott Allen,
       “George Allen of Weymouth, Massachusetts...
  &  “Ralph Allen of Sandwich, Massachusetts

According to ANDERSON, These two typescript papers were published informally in 1924 by the author, and distributed to “major genealogical libraries”, including, no doubt, the NEHGS library in Boston. I have not been able to obtain copies of these papers myself.

-

MacDONALD
Jack MacDonald,
"The Allen Family: Descendants of George Allen of England, and Sandwich, Massachusetts"

MacDonald is a professional genealogist who has researched this Allen family for many years, working extensively with primary sources. He has focused in particular on the descendants of his own Quaker line down from Joseph3 (Ralph2, George1), many of whose descendants went south, first to New Jersey, then (some of them) to western and southwestern Virginia. Insofar as I have been able to verify it, his work appears to be of high quality. Unfortunately, the virtual absence of specific source citations (he provides nothing but a bibliographic list of hundreds of generic sources at the end of his lengthy article), or even of analytical discussion of the evidence, renders it of limited value to the serious genealogist. These defects may be overcome, perhaps, by communicating with Mr. MacDonald and asking him specific questions about his sources or his reasoning. I have done this in one instance myself. Or his work may be used by the experienced researcher already familiar with the sources for particular places, as a general outline and guide to what may be found therein.

-

ROBB
John Barrett Robb
Two New England Patriarchs of ALLEN Patrilineage 2:Samuel1 of Braintree, and George1 of Sandwich

This paper aims to do three things:

(1) to validate the descent of ALLEN Patrilineage 2 project members Melava-07, Nancy_B-13, and Marlon-22 from the immigrant patriarch Samuel1 ALLEN of BraintreeMA, by marshalling and summarizing the relevant genealogical evidence;

(2) to thereby show, in light of the fact that other project members, such as John_Walden-02, have equally solid descents from the immigrant patriarch George1 ALLEN of Sandwich, that given the near identify of the 111-marker ySTR haplotypes of descendants of both Samuel1 and George1, that the two patriarchs must have been closely related genealogically;

and

(3) to present genealogical evidence of association between these two patriarchs.

Although the evidence offered for (3) is capable of other interpretations, the case presented by (1) and (2), plus the evidence for the descent from George1, much of which can be found in MacDONALD, are essentially conclusive in themselves.

Abstracts of the evidence and detailed citations for this paper have been offloaded into an associated evidential timeline.

RECOMMENDED SOURCES: GENERAL

-

BERRY
Ellen Thomas Berry & David Allen Berry
Our Quaker Ancestors: Finding them in Quaker Records
(Genealogical Publishing Co, 1987)

This little book is a must-own guide to locating and understanding the Quaker records.

-

CHALKLEY
Lyman Chalkley
Chronicles of the Scotch-Irish Settlement in VA, Extracted from the Original Court Records of AugustaCo, 1754-1800, 3 vols.
(1912; rpt. BaltimoreMD: GPC, 1999). Chalkley is now in the public domain and may be accessed here.

Judge Chalkley indexed virtually all of the records found at the AugustaCoVA courthouse as of the late 19th century, though he deliberately omitted records which concerned only people of obvious German surnames. There are also some gaps in his abstracts, and inevitably, some mistakes. The abstracts themselves, though intelligent, and focused on genealogically relevant information, are often quite inadequate as representations of the records themselves, and they can even be misleading for those not well versed in both the colonial common law and institutions, and in the local geography. Nonetheless, since AugustaCo was the western Virginia frontier from the 1730s until the Revolutionary War, during which period the initial trickle of Scotch-Irish into this wilderness swelled to a flood, CHALKLEY is an indispensible resource for anyone researching 18th century Virgina beyond the mountains. It is important to understand, though, that CHALKLEY should be treated as an imperfect index to the actual primary records, and not as a source in itself.

-

FISCHER
David Hackett Fischer
Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America
(Oxford University Press, 1989)

Although there is nothing about ALLENs here, this is perhaps the single most important work in print on the four most important subcultures of early America: the New England Puritans; the settlers of the Virginia and Chesapeake tidewater region; the Quakers; and the Scotch-Irish settlers of the western frontiers. Since ALLENs of this patrilineage mingled with all four of these cultures, this book provides some context for their varying family histories and some perspective on their evident adaptability

-

QUAKER_ENC
William Wade Hinshaw
Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy. Vol. I - VI
(1936-1950; published on CD by GPC, 2003)

Transcriptions of the vast majority of extant Quaker Monthly Meeting records. An indispensable source for Quaker genealogy. It includes the records for the important Virginia monthly meetings, but not those for Shrewsbury MM in New Jersey.

-

QUAKER_SHREWSBURY
Shrewsbury Monthly Meeting Records
on microfilm at Swarthmore College Library, and available through the LDS.

Transcriptions of the Shrewsbury MM, in Shrewsbury Township, MonmouthCoMJ—an important location for early ALLENs of this patrilineage.

-

WORRALL
Jay Worrall, Jr
The Friendly Virginians: America’s First Quakers
(AthensGA: Iberian Publishing Co, 1994)

This is an anecdotal and narrative-style history of the American Quakers, with a useful chapter on the history of the first Quaker settlements west of the Blue Ridge, in the Valley of Virginia. This raw western frontier was first settled in the 1730s by the Quakers, by various German Mennonite groups, and by the Presbyterian Scotch-Irish, all seeking religious, cultural, and economic freedom. WORRALL tells the story of the organization of the first Quaker Monthly Meetings in the (now) counties of Frederick, Shenandoah, and Rockingham. ALLENs of this patrilineage first appeared in the RockinghamCo area in 1739, the southernmost of these counties, when it was still part of AugustaCo, but they are later found north of there in ShenandoahCo, and they belonged, variously, to the Crooked Run Monthly Meeting, north of Front Royal, and the Hopewell MM north of Winchester. Their land probably lay in the main part of the Valley and it would have been a long haul to either Monthly Meeting.

The ALLEN Patrilineage 2 Haplogroup, R-L21,DF13* (or R1b1a2a1a2c1)
and the deep ancestral history of the patrilineage

This Allen (R-L21*) Patrilineage (to use its full name) is of quintessential British stock.

There is evidence that humans and protohumans had lived in Britain as long as 700,000 years ago, but all were driven out by the glaciers which overran Europe during the last Ice Age (20,000-8000 BC). As the glaciers melted, the human population, which had been pushed back to refugia in the Iberian Peninsula and other parts of the Mediterranean, followed them north and eventually regained access to Britain, which was at the time a peninsula of Europe, linked to it by a land bridge called Doggerland. As the ocean waters continued to rise, first Ireland (about 7500 BC), then England (about 6500 BC), were cut off from their adjoining land masses.

The R1b haplogroup, of which R-L21+ is an offshoot, goes back about 22,000 years to the Middle East, and as it happens, it became the prevalent haplogroup of the repopulated Europe. However, the mutation which marks the L21 branch occurred about 3000 years ago, long after Britain had become separated from the Continent. Consequently, although the type is also found in northern France and Germany, most R-L21+ males today are of British descent.

The Celtic culture and language was brought to Britain between 1200-800 BC, and by the time Julius Caesar led the Roman armies to Britain (about the time of Christ), Britain was Celtic. Ireland, of course, had long been separated by water from Great Britain, and Scotland by its remote geography, so it shouldn't be surprising that in time the basic Celtic culture trifurcated into three subcultures: Brythonic (covering the area of modern England, except for Wales and Cornwall), Gaelic (Ireland, the SW of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall), and Pictic (the remainder of Scotland). By about the 10th Century AD, the Gaelic subculture had largely prevailed over the Pictish subculture of Scotland, except for the lower border areas which were influenced by the Brythonic.

Since all of these cultural developments took place long after the L21 mutation had arisen in Britain, the type is to be found in all these subcultural areas. However, later offshoot branches of L21, marked by the characteristic M222 mutation, have been identified specifically with the major burgeoning of the Irish population associated with the semi-mythical tribal chief Ui Néill, about 500 AD, and descendants of these lines also made an impact on the population of the SW parts of Scotland which have always had two-way intercourse with Ireland.

The Allen Patrilineage is negative for this M222 mutation, as well as for all other mutations subsequent to L21, so it most likely descends from the English (Brythonic) strain of Celts.

It used to be thought that in the centuries 300-400 AD, when the Anglo-Saxons “invaded” England, filling the vacuum left by the Romans, that they displaced much of the native British population, or at least the population of procreating males, but recent DNA research has given this the lie. It turns out that there is very little genetic difference between the population of southern England, where the Anglo-Saxons eventually set up the Kingdom of Wessex, and the other areas of Britain. Britain is now, as it has been for many thousands of years, predominantly R1b, and especially R-L21. Based on recent DNA studies, about 65% of male Britons are of the broad European haplogroup R1b, and fully 25-50% of the current male British population is R-L21. The so-called Norman invasion, while it wreaked profound changes to the language and cultural forms of England, had even less genetic impact—on the order of 1-2%.

For those interested in reading more into these subjects, I recommend this Wiki article on Prehistoric Britain, and this Eupedia page illustrating and summarizing the diffusion of human haplotypes.

The Technical Stuff

Although a male's deep ancestry can be predicted to some degree from the test he takes to determine his surname patrilineage, it requires another kind of yChromosome testing called deep clade testing to determine the haplogroup into which his yChromosome falls. We are indebted to project members Dick Allen and Bob Allen for undertaking this additional testing. Dick, whom many of you will recognize as the administrator of the FTDNA ALLEN Surname project, has recently extended his test to cover most of the mutations downstream of L21.

While the focus in this project is on the genealogy of the descendants of the particular male ancestor who first adopted the surname ALLEN say 600-800 years ago, and thus became the founder of this ALLEN genealogical patrilineage, the founder himself, as well as all males alive today, are descendants of a much broader patrilineage which comprises all the descendants of an original yAdam who lived (it is estimated) between 50-100,000 years ago. And just we test ySTR mutations to sort living male descendants into particular genealogical patrilineages, so we may test ySNP mutations to map the whole history of the human patrilineage, and indeed all of humanity as it emerged from Africa and spread out across the continents.

ySNPs mutate so rarely that they are useless for differentiating male lineages over the genealogical time frame of a few hundreds of years, but they work very well in sorting out patrilineages over many thousands of years. As the yChromosome of the original yAdam has been passed down the exfoliating tree of his male descendants, a few of these rare ySNP mutations have occurred, each constituting a branching of the human tree. And where the bearers of these mutations can be tracked by archaeology, and their remains successfully DNA tested, it becomes possible to correlate accumulated patterns of ySNP mutations with particular populations and their migrations over time.

Technically, each new ySNP mutation creates a new human population branching, which may be referred to, more or less interchangeably as a “subclade”, or just as a new “haplogroup”. What is important is not the terminology, but the conception of a single patrilineal tree (call it a “ySNP haplotree”) which has been divided, and subdivided, and subdivided again by successive mutations to the original yAdam’s yChromosome, each mutation marking a new branch. Already, there are many hundreds of these known ySNPs, and many new ones are being discovered every year.

The highest level (earliest) branches of the human haplotree are identified by the capitalized letters of the alphabet (A, B, C, etc.), each representing a single early mutation of the original out-of-Africa yChromosome; then, as subsequent mutations have occurred wuthin each of these major haplogroups, corresponding small letters and numbers have been appended to the initial letter—analogous to the Henry System of genealogical numbering. Like the Henry System, unfortunately, as the qualifying ySNP mutation designators have accumulated, the identifying labels have become increasingly long and cumbersome, so that an entirely new nomenclature was introduced a few years ago, which is still only slowly catching on. In fact the field of ySNP testing has been burgeoning so rapidly that the nomenclature system itself has already changed several times, most recently just a couple of months ago, rendering all earlier publications obsolete in their terminology. Thankfully, the new system should render such wholesale systemic revisions unnecessary.

The old (Henry System style) designator for Allen Patrilineage 2 is “R1b1a2a1a1b4”, which replaces at least two different versions of the old designators. In this project the new nomenclature will be used exclusively: R-L21*—where the “*” means that all the current SNP mutations subordinate to (more recent than) L21 have been tested for and found to be negative. As Dick Allen, the ALLEN FTDNA Project Administrator, has just (21Apr2011) informed us, these subordinate mutations which do not apply to ALLEN Patrilineage 2 include: M37, M222, P66, L96, L144, L159.2, L193, L226, and P314.2.

New SNP mutations subordinate to L21 are being discovered at the rate of more than one a year, and when the next one appears on the ISOGG yDNA Haplogroup Tree, the R-L21* designation should be changed to R-L21+ to indicate that more SNP testing needs to be done. Newly discovered ySNPs are added to this tree as soon as the experts advising ISOGG are relatively sure that they represent mutations well upstream of the present, and thus encompass many surname patrilineages, and are not just recent, so-called “private SNPs”. There is no need to reorder a deep clade test to keep the Allen Patrilineage 2 Haplogroup classification up to date. FTDNA offers new individual SNP tests at just $29 each. It usually takes FTDNA some time to recognize new SNPs, and add tests for them, so some patience may be required.

Over the next several years, I expect that enough downstream ySNPs will be discovered that the history of this Allen patrilineage will be brought down to within 1000-1500 years of the present, and perhaps even to a particular geographical area, and that not many years after that it will become possible to identify men surnamed Allen as members of this patrilineage just by ySNP testing. Even then, though, we will want to continue to test ySTR markers, because they mutate so much more rapidly than ySNPs, that they will still be the best means of sorting members of the patrilineage into sub-branches. In fact by that time, I expect that ySTR testing will also have improved its discriminatory capabilities, so that it will much more useful for genealogical purposes.

-

Navigating from here

The menu buttons at top right take you to other pages on this site, while the nav panel above targets other points on this page, or brings up other resources (papers I’ve written, and the like). If you find yourself lost, the browser BACK button will take you back to where you were (some people also have a convenient BACK button on their mouse, right under their thumb). Or hitting the HOME key of your keyboard will take you back to the top of this page where you are now.

Some Key Terms: haplotype, haplogroup, patrilineage, RPH.

ALLEN Patrilineage 2 Directory of Researchers

Active researchers of this ALLEN patrilineage are shown below. Those with highlighted names may be e-mailed by clicking on their names, and their posted descendancies may be viewed by clicking on their highlighted Patrilineage Project#s. Satellite members of the project are listed immediately after the principal researcher for the sublineage they are interested in, and their names are preceded by a dash. Where the person tested is not also the principal researcher, the former’s name appears under the latter’s, in parentheses.

Proj#  “Handle”         Researcher       
      (Test Subject)        
Test
Panel
FTDNA
Kit# 
A-04 Angeline      Angeline Fowler
(Christian Lee Allen)
F37 171584
A-08 Bill_B William Bethel Allen F37 N82609
A-10 Bill_L William Lewis Allen
F67 65979
A-09 Bob Robert Grantham Allen F67 N5058
A-26 Coni Constance Marie DuBois
(Russ Allen)
F111 366700
A-16 Dave David Robert Werner F67 N24290
A-01 Dick Richard John Allen F67 N3983
A-25 Jack Dr. Jack Weston Nash F111 366030
A-23 Jerry Jerry Lorell Allen F67 251992
A-02 John_W John Walden
(David Ehm Allen)
F37 143103
A-02a —David Ehm Allen
A-24 Judy_J Judy Johanson
(William Duane Allen)
F37 B10712
A-05 Judy_M Judy McMahan
(Wilbur Eugene Allen)
F67 29488
A-05a —Eunice Eversdyk
A-05b —Sheryl Kurtz
A-17 Larry Larry Kenneth Allen II F37 306784
A-12 Kathy Kathleen Allen Phipps
(Jeffrey Donald Allen)
F67 N4426
A-18 Marilyn Marilyn Krell
(anonymous)
F37 257845
A-22 Marlon Marlon Lee Allen
(Harry Maurice Allen)
F37 342011
A-07 Melava Melava King
(Dean Evan Allen)
F67 106031
A-13 Nancy_B Nancy Elaine Allen Barton
(John Samuel Allen)
F37 92301
A-11 Nancy_R Nancy Welty Ross
(Frederick Lee Allen)
F37 170366
A-15 Sarah Sarah Quinn Hambrick
(William Preston Allen)
F67 199318
A-14 Sharland      Sharland Reeves
(William Frank Allen)
F67 183437
A-03 Steve_A Steven Kenneth Allen F67 121199
A-03a —Cherie N.
A-19 Steve_J(Greg) Steven Jacobs
(Greg W. Allen)
F37 307862
A-20 Steve_J(Leonard) Steven Jacobs
(Leonard E. Allen)
F37 316731
A-06 Tim Timothy J. Allen F67 89305

To Join this ALLEN Patrilineage 2 Project

This project is open only to males who have already DNA-tested at Family Tree DNA on 37 markers or more and been found to match closely to the project reference type (the RPH), and/or to the genealogists who have sponsored the tests of such males. Those who have taken less discriminating tests (the FTDNA 25-marker test, or tests at other companies) are strongly encouraged to upgrade their tests to FTDNA-37 or FTDNA-67. These are the only tests on the market which have sufficient mutational sensitivity to make it possible to help sort members of the patrilineage into different family branches.

If you have tested to a lesser standard and believe that your genealogy meshes with the one for this project, please contact me, and I'll be happy to evaluate your existing test results in light of your genealogy. Most of those who have tested at other companies can upgrade to FTDNA-37 by printing out this form and ordering the 37-marker test through the FTDNA ALLEN Surname project.

Or, if you have tested at FTDNA to either 12 or 25 markers, you may upgrade through your personal FTDNA webpage for $99, or $49 respectively.

If you are simply an ALLEN genealogist who hasn’t DNA-tested yet, and if you are a male surnamed ALLEN or have found a related one to test, you should seriously consider ordering the 37-marker test through the ALLEN FTDNA Surname project. The discounted price for ordering it through the project is $149—$30 less than the best Ancestry.com test even though it offers 62% more mutational sensitivity. Even if your test results don’t match the template for this Allen Patrilineage 2 project, you might qualify for the other, Allen (I) Project which has been organized along similar lines, and if you are of a different ALLEN patrilineage from either of these, there are still another 300+ FTDNA-tested ALLENs in the ALLEN Surname project to whom you might match.

The reason the FTDNA 37-marker test is required is that it includes in the 28-37 marker segment the majority of the markers which are most likely to have mutated during genealogical time. We are able to post for comparison any of the tested markers offered by any of the testing companies, and if or when any of them chooses to offer a test with the mutational sensitivity of FTDNA-37 or better, we will consider recommending their test as well. We are not beholden to any particular testing company in this project. It is simply a matter of merit. However, FTDNA has been the premier company in this field since it pioneered testing for purposes of genetic genealogy in the year 2000, and its database of already tested males is far larger than those of all the other testing companies put together.

ALLEN Project NEWS

16Nov2010

The ALLEN Patrilineage 2 Project web pages are up!

30Jan2011

Sharland Reeves (#A14) has joined the project; her haplotype is a perfect match to those of the project RPH, Bill_L (#A10), and Melava (#A07), but her ancestry runs back to PA, and perhaps NJ.

28Nov2013

Larry K. Allen (#A17) has joined the project. Like so many others, his haplotype is nearly identical to the project RPH through the 37 markers that he has tested on, and his ancestral line, though unconnected, fits the broad profile of emanation west through VT to western NY state.

8Apr2014

A more thorough canvass of the available evidence has identified a second New England patriarch of this patrilineage: Samuel1 ALLEN of Braintree, Massachusetts. It turns out that he, and not George1 Allen of Sandwich, is the father of the Samuel Allen of BridgewaterMA (in Plymouth) who is the ancestor of project members Melava-07, and NancyB-13. The posted pedigrees and other references on these pages have been changed accordingly.

See the extensively revised text on this page for an overview of what this does to the history of the patrilineage, as well as the new text on its likely origins in Somersetshire that my own new research has delved into. My paper “Two New England Patriarchs...”, and the accompanying evidential timeline collects and discusses in detail all the salient evidence for both of these men, and for their interrelationship; the timeline provides complete scholarly citations to the sources.

26Jun2014

New project member Marlon Allen, makes our third descendant of patriarch Samuel1 of BraintreeMA, through his great-grandson, Joseph4 of WindhamCT. His advent has provoked me to extensively revise my paper “Two New England Patriarchs...”, and the fact that his haplotype includes the CDYa=37 value that his known cousin Nancy_B also has, but his other known cousin Melava-07 does not, and further, the fact that (as will appear in the next revision of these pages) the CDYa=37 value is also shared by several new project members not yet incorporated into the project, cousins of Kathy-12 and descendants of a third Patrilineage 2 patriarch from Maryland, raises many questions regarding the interpretation of this marker. I’ve addressed these in a rewrite of the section on the CDYa mutation.

15Sep2014

Jerry Allen (#23) is our latest new member, and like member Sharland Reeves (#14), his ancestry is shallow and runs back only as far as Texas. And like the majority of project members, who remain unconnected to one of the known early patriarchs of this patrilineage, the best hope for these two to get pointed in the right direction may lie with a group project to extend the majority of member haplotypes out to 111 markers in the hopes of discovering additional mutations that will be distinctive of particular family sub-branches.

We have another new member, Judy Johanson (#24), who like several other of our unconnected members, has ancestry that runs back through New York—in fact uniquely (so far) it remains in NY virtually until the present. I’ve dubbed her “Judy_J” to differentiate her from existing project member Judy McMahan (now “Judy_M”).

Like several other project members (which include descendants of both New England patriarchs, George of SandwichMA, and Samuel of BraintreeMA) Judy_J’s haplotype is completely lacking in distinctive mutations through the first 37, except that markers DYS459a&b and DYS437 are missing altogether. This is a different and much rarer kind of mutation called a “deletion”, and I suspect that this haplotype experienced just one such rare deletion event that affected both these markers. While this deletion is completely distinctive of her family sub-branch, it likely occurred quite recently, so probably marks only her closest male ALLEN relatives, who may be mostly already known to her. In the hope of turning up other, deeper mutations shared with other project members, current or to be, Judy_J is extending her haplotype to 67 markers, and plans to extend it to 111.

Extending to 111 may provide the best chance for our many unconnected members to obtain some guidance as to which of the innumerable branches of this deep and prolific ALLEN patrilineage they belong to. In fact, there is hope that by extending key members with known descents from George and from Samuel, we may find a mutation that will differentiate the descendancies of these two principal (and closely related) patriarchs of this ALLEN clan.

19Mar2015

There is much new to report. First, I seem to have neglected to note here above the acquistion of new members Marilyn Krell (#18), and Steve Jacobs who is the genealogists for two descendant haplotypes (#s 19 and 20), all of whose haplotypes match closely to the previously anomalous haplotype of long time member Kathy Phipps (#12) who descends from a Maryland-origined ancestor. Marilyn and Steve have provided me with extensive additional genealogical research on this line, which both I and member Dick-01 have supplemented with additional research, and as time permits, I will be collating this and posting a consoldated pedigree for these four. All the indications are, both from the genealogy and from the DNA, that this Maryland cluster descends, not from either of the New England patriarchs George1 or Samuel1, but from a third American immigrant who probably first appeared in colonial Maryland in the late 1600s.

Second, we have two more new members.

Dr. Jack Weston Nash (#25), who as his surname indicates, is an ALLEN NPE, has a very interesting descent from a slave ancestor, Henry Nash, who was chosen county commissioner of his rural South Carolina county during the Reconstruction aftermath of the Civil War, but was then assassinated by Ku Kluxers. At least that is the direction his Nash pedigree runs, but there is a very good chance that the ALLEN kink in his line occurred within the last several generations. Jack, like our other NPE Dave Werner, has extended his haplotype to 111 markers in the hope that closer ALLEN cousins whose genealogy is more definitely known will turn up.

Jack’s genealogical case has attracted the interest of celebrity genealogist Dr. Lewis Henry Gates and his associates at NEHGR who did some research on Henry’s possible origins, and both Jack and I have looked at other possibilities, but of at least equal importance is to try to figure out where the ALLEN line came in. And this should be of broader interest as well, since heretofore there has been no showing of the ALLEN Patrilineage 2 as far south as South Carolina.

The final new member, Coni DuBois (#26), who is an expert in Amerind, or Native American, genealogy, represents an ALLEN line whose origins are somewhat mysterious. Although ALLEN is her inherited surname, her earliest known ALLEN ancestor, born just after the Civil War, apparently didn't know the name of his own father, so there is an NPE-like break in her lineage.

Coni’s haplotype is likewise anomalous with its heavy load of accumulated mutations, but by the same token it is extremely significant for the patrilineage as a whole as it points to yet another (a fourth) American immigrant ancestor, and a very early adoption of ALLEN as a permanent hereditary surname back in England, most likely as early as the 14th century.

While this means that Coni is at present stranded out in left field waiting both for further genealogical evidence to be found, and/or for a reasonably close ALLEN patrilinieage cousin to DNA test and join the project, it is fortunate for the project as a whole that she, like Jack, has extended her haplotype to 111 markers, because it is precisely the most diverse and distant haplotypes that still fit into the patrilineage, that have the most to tell us about the overall depth and shape of it, and more specifically about the original (unmutated) haplotype of the MRCPA—the forefather—of all project members. As is typical when further knowledge is turned up, new questions arise as well. I have more to say about this in my “DNA Analysis of the patrilineage as a whole” elsewhere on this page.

Finally, in response to the many extensions and the several new members who have extended to 111 markers (making a total of 10 out of the 16 members), I have replaced the previous 67-marker GD matrix with a 111-marker GD matrix that from now on will be the definitive one for this patrilineage (the 37-marker matrix has also been retained though it is much less meaningful and reliable than its 111-marker sibling). The new 111-marker definitional standard has also prompted me to replace the former RPHaplotype (of member Bill_L-10) in the project haplotype chart, with a new synthetic RPH that I believe more closely approximates the original (unmutated) ancestral haplotype.

I have also completely rewritten the DNA-analytical sections of this page, links to which will be found in the upper left navigation panel at the top of this project main page. The new analysis is organized from the point of view of identifying what I’ve come to call closer cousin clusters (CCC for short), each defined by one or more mutations characteristic of the family sub-branch that each represents.

Analysis of Patrilineage ALLEN 2 DNA

Principles of ySTR DNA Analysis

Now that 10 of the 26 project members have extended their yDNA haplotypes to 111-markers (with more to come), it’s time to take stock of this new information, and provide a comprehensive analytical re-evaluation of the DNA results and what they tell us about the overall ALLEN Patrilineage 2 descent tree from the MRCPA of all members.

First, though, I feel obliged to provide a few words to correct persistent misunderstanding of the correct principles of DNA interpretation, fostered and encouraged in large part by FTDNA’s misguided emphasis on TMRCAestimates as a guide to genealogical inferences, but also by the company’s simplistic criteria for determining which haplotypes in their ySTR DNA database are close enough to be reported as such to each of us, their customers.

Particularly to be deplored are the merely pairwise TMRCA estimates that FTDNA offers with its TIP calculator, and the practice of referring to, say 35/37 matches, or even 109/111 matches, as an indicator of closeness of relationship.

All TMRCA calculations are predicated on the assumption that markers and marker panels mutate at a predictable rate, like the ticking of a clock: thus by counting the number of mutations that have accumulated in each haplotype since they diverged from a common ancestor, and multiplying this number by the average number of years between mutations, one hopes to arrive at an estimate for when the common ancestor lived.

Unfortunately, the application of this plausible-sounding model for deriving TMRCA estimates from actual pairs of haplotypes, or citing paired numeric haplotype comparisons as a measure of closeness of relationship (or Genetic Distance)—which amounts to the same thing—is so problematic as to be genealogically worthless.

In the first place, the number of marker value divergences isn’t necessarily the same as the number of mutations that have occurred. There are half a dozen different kinds of mutation, some of which affect more than one marker value (mutations to the multicopy marker DYS464; reclOH events), and others for which a marker value might be changed by more than one in a single mutation (multistep mutations). Then there are “deletions”, in which a chunk of DNA is simply lost in the replication process. Besides this, the standard test for the important multicopy marker DYS464 often produces inaccurate results.

Determining what kind of mutation has occurred is often a matter of interpretation, yet it’s important to make the attempt, because each of these types of mutations, and in fact each individual marker, has it’s own mutational clock. Furthermore, the rates at which these many clocks run are very imperfectly known, and experts have different ideas both about mutational rates, and about how to recognize and account for unconventional mutations.

The good news is that the vast majority of ySTR mutations are single-step mutations for which at least halfway accurate mutational rates are known, and inaccuracies in our estimates for individual marker mutation rates can be assumed to more or less average out across a panel of 37 or more markers.

Nonetheless, individual haplotypes may have one or two, or even three, fewer (or more) mutations than it might seem just from counting up the number of marker divergences. If you’re going to pay any attention to pairwise haplotype comparisons at all, it’s best to stick to the FTDNA TIP calculator, because there is reason to believe that it is fairly sophisticated in counting mutations, and it follows reasonable, conservative, policies where there are too many unknowns. For example, since there is little data on the frequency of deletions, although they certainly represent a kind of mutation, and affect the pairwise comparisons, TIP simply leaves them out of the TMRCA calculation.

But these are minor problems compared to the fatal flaw in comparing two haplotypes: mutations are so rare, and their occurrences so sporadic, that pairwise comparisons are too small a sample of the mutational process to provide meaningful estimates of closeness of relationship.

For example, even a pair of 111-marker haplotypes that diverged from a MRCPA who lived 10 generations ago, provides only 111 x 9 x 2 = 1998 opportunities for mutation, and if one were to make, say, ten such paired comparisons, one could expect to find a range of 3-8 mutations separating any given pair. Translating this range back into TMRCA estimates would yield a range of birth dates for the MRCPA between 1525 and 1800, which is genealogically quite useless. But it’s no less meaningless than supposing that a 108/111 match is necessarily “closer” than a 103/111 match; these and all the numbers in between are within the range of normal variability.

For a more extensive real-world example of the meaninglessness of pairwise haplotype comparisons, consider my ALLEN Patrilineage 1 project, for which about 20 haplotypes have been extended to 111 markers. All of these lineages converge backwards to a handful of closely related patriarchs who were born in Virginia between 1680-1710, and probably to a single immigrant ancestor born between 1620-1650. Genealogical knowledge of this patrilineage is both extensive and deep, and although many of this group remain unconnected to any of the deep ancestral lines, we do know that none of them converge with any of the others within the last 7 generations, and most converge at about 9 generations. This large number of highly diverse 111-marker haplotypes has made it possible to calculate a TMRCA for the MRCPA of the whole extended group that is probably accurate to within a generation, or at most two, either way. In fact the predicted birth date of the father of them all is say 1620, which dovetails almost perfectly with what the genealogical evidence suggests.

Now look at the range of pairwise GDs in the 111-marker GD matrix for this patrilineage, where the actual differences in closeness of relationship vary only from 8-11 generations. These GDs range from 0 (identical haplotypes) through 12 (which are “Unrelated” according to FTDNA’s matching criteria). Even if we exclude the half dozen outliers in this group, the range of GDs still runs from 1-8. There is, in fact, no good reason to suppose that a pair of these patrilineage cousins who are 110/111 are any more closely related to each other than are a pair who are 103/111.

Deriving closeness of relationship from the ySTR DNA evidence

Although individual pairwise GD comparisons are of little or no genealogical value, constructing a matrix of all the pairwise comparisons across a large patrilineage can shed light on the overall depth and shape of the patrilineage yDNA tree as a whole, and it can help identify the subsets of members whom I’ve dubbed “closer cousin clusters” (or CCC for short), who are more closely related to each other than to the group as a whole. The ultimate objective of the project is to be able to associate these CCCs with particular sub-branches of the patrilineage known from the genealogy, and then to use those associations to guide the research of other members of the CCC who are as yet unconnected genealogically to other members of the project.

GD matrices come into their own, however, at the 111-marker level, and 7-10 extended haplotypes of descendants who are known not to be cousins for at least 7 generations back can provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the TMRCA of the most recent common patrilineal ancestor of all of those who have extended to 111 markers. Alse, large GD matrices can provide a rough (though sometimes misleading) idea of the clustering within the patrilineage, where the patches of green and low GD numbers (both indicative of closer relationships) mark apparent clusters.

However, even the assemblage of pairwise GD relationships into a matrix which suggests clustering is insufficient for accurately identifying CCC relationships within the patrilineage. Closer cousin clusters are ultimately defined by the common mutation(s) they share, and for that purpose the project haplotype chart, which shows the specific mutations for all the member haplotypes is the indispensible tool.

Unfortunately, determining whether two haplotypes share an inherited mutation isn’t just a matter of scanning the project haplotype chart for matching values in the colored cells that denote mutations. There is always a chance that if two haplotypes share the same mutated value, that they each came by it through independent mutations in different lines of descent, rather than through inheritance from a common ancestor—a MRCPA whose descendants constitute a closer cousin cluster.

The likelihood that identical mutations have occurred in two different lines is in turn a function of the widely varying mutational probabalities of the individual markers, with some being more than 50x more likely to mutate than others. And since, therefore, most of the markers that do in fact mutate are the highly mutable markers, there are bound to be, in a good sized patrilineage, a few cases where shared mutations are not indicative of inheritance from a more recent common ancestor and membership in a corresponding CCC.

Reasonably reliable definition of a CCC depends, therefore, on finding a shared average or slow mutator, or more than one fast mutating marker. I’ve color coded the marker column headers in the project haplotype chart to provide a rough idea of the individual marker mutation probabilities, with the fastest mutators indicated by the brightest reds, shading off to the background text color for the average mutators, and to blue for the exceptionally slow mutators. I use the more exact (but still only approximately known) numeric probabilities for each marker in my probability calculations.

invisible writing

DNA Analysis of the patrilineage as a whole

The many new developments in the ALLEN Patrilineage 2 project over the last six months have greatly expanded the depth and breadth of this important American ALLEN patrilineage that accounts for about 10% of all American ALLENs. First, and most important, the many extensions to 111-markers, with a few more to come, have provided new opportunities for grouping descendants into closer cousin clusters (or CCCs), the implications of which I will be discussing in the next section of this DNA analysis.

Two sets of project developments are of particular importance in revealing the scope and shape of the patrilineage. The way it looked before, based on 37-marker comparisons, there were two New England patriarchs, George1 of SandwichMA, and Samuel1 of BraintreeMA, and their several points of association in the early New England records, as well as the closely matched haplotypes of their respective descendants indicate that the two must have been closely related, perhaps as uncle and nephew, or otherwise as first cousins with a MRCPA born say, about 1550. The only complication of this simple picture (which can be seen on the 37-marker Genetic Distance matrix) was that the haplotype of project member Kathy (member# 12) was a bit distant from that of all the others, but her deviance might have been excused under the laws of probability as a normal abnormality.

The first important new development is that Kathy has now been joined in the project by new members Marilyn Krell (#18) and Steve Jacobs (who manages haplotypes #19 and 20), whose DNA, with Kathy’s, clearly demarcates them as the CCC I’ve named “the Maryland cluster”. And the wealth of genealogical information these two new members have brought to the project, as well as their divergent DNA, require us to hypothesize a third immigrant patriarch who probably came directly to Maryland in the late 1600s. Also of importance is that Kathy has extended her haplotype to 111 markers as proxy for her cluster, though her specific test results raise as many questions than they answer.

The other development important to the patrilineage as a whole was the acquistion of new member Coni Dubois (#26) who has also tested to 111 markers. Although Coni’s genealogy is problematic because something like an NPE occurred in her line, her extended haplotype itself, especially compared to Kathy’s, is of profound significance for estimating the overall depth and breadth of the patrilineage. The relative closeness of relationship between these two, and between each of them and all the other members who’ve extended, can best be seen on the new 111-marker GD matrix. Coni and Kathy are at genetic distance 16 across 111 markers, and Coni’s GD ranges from 9-12 versus the other members who’ve extended to 111, where FTDNA calls any two haplotypes over GD 9 from each other “unrelated”. Although Kathy has four matches at the GD 7-8 level, her haplotype also ranges up to 12, and 16 versus Coni.

Although pairwise GD comparisons lack the precision to be genealogically meaningful, comparisons of individual disparate haplotypes like those of Kathy and Coni to a large set of other extended haplotypes can yield reasonably accurate estimates of the time back to the MRCPA (Most Recent Common Patrilineal Ancestor) from which each of these outliers branched off the principal patrilineage descent tree, which clearly runs through the line of the two New England immigrant patriarchs. To calculate the most likely TMRCA for these nodal ancestors of Kathy and Coni, I’ve used the average GD between Coni and all of the others (11.1), and between Kathy and all of the others (10.3). I’ve included the “*Root Prototype Haplotype*” in the calculation even though it’s a synthetic composite, or derivative, haplotype because I know that another member of this patrilineage who’s not a member of the project has a nearly identical haplotype. My TMRCA calculation projects to a MRCPA for Kathy who was born say 1410, and a MRCPA for Coni born say 1375, just a generation earlier.

Although these estimates can easily be off by several generations either way, the earlier estimate, for Coni’s MRCPA happens to coincide nicely with the period of peak surname adoption in England, not coincidentally also the time of the Black Death, which carried away at least a third of the English population, and set many of the survivors from plague-ridden and depopulated towns and villages onto the road in search of safety or greater economic opportunity. In their original local settings most people were adequately (and usually uniquely) identified just by their given or Christian name, plus, perhaps a byname to distinguish them from others, e.g. "John Carpenter" (for the John who was the village carpenter), or "John Bridge" (for the John who lived by the bridge over the local stream or river). When migrants were thrown in with many others of the same names in a new setting, they and their families needed permanent hereditary surnames to differentiate them.

The ancient origins of this surname patrilineage, and its proliferation in America through at least four different immigrant patriarchal lines (the GD between Coni and the others requires a fourth immigrant ancestor for her), suggests that there may well be several other American immigrant patriarchs, as well as many descendant cousins in England. I expect, therefore, for closer cousin matches to turn up even for Coni’s line, and some of these are likely to be Englishmen. It would be very desirable, also, for English matches to turn up for Kathy and her Maryland cluster cousins, since the English cousins may be able to trace their lineage back to the area of origin for this cluster—most likely also (as for Goerge1 and Samuel1) in the SW of England.

invisible writing

Analysis of the patrilineage by CCC (Closer Cousin Cluster),
with consideration for the genealogical evidence

Before digging into this more genealogically relevant analysis, I would suggest that you open the project haplotype chart in a new window, so that you may better follow along with the references made below to the specific colored mutations in the chart.

invisible writing

The Maryland Cluster

Defining mutations: DYS464=13-15-17-17, DYS458=17, & CDY=18-37

All four of the project members who belong to this cluster trace their genealogical roots back to ALLENs of colonial Maryland: these are Kathy-12; Marilyn-18; and Steve-19 and -20.

Although all three of the defining mutations for this cluster are fast mutators, and some of the markers are therefore likely to mutate independently in more than one descendant line, the combination of these mutations is nonetheless definitive for descendants of the Maryland immigrant ancestor; in fact new haplotypes that match to two out of three of these mutations would also support identification with the Maryland cluster.

In addition, although only one of the four members of this cluster, Kathy-12, has so far extended their haplotype to 111 markers, hers has picked up two additional mutations, either or both of which may also be characteristic of the Maryland cluster: DYS533=13 (a fast mutator); and DYS561=14 (an average mutator, and therefore a very desirable mutation).

invisible writing

George1 and Samuel1 and their yDNA

At present it is unclear whether we will be able to speak of either a George1 cluster or a Samuel1 cluster, per se. We need more testing of people with solid pedigrees back to one of these ancestors through different sons and grandsons.

We have now, two credible descendants of George1, Bill_L-10 and John Walden-02, but so far only Bill_L has extended to 111 markers (though John’s test is supposed to be in the works). Because Bill and John descend from different sons of George1, their extended haplotypes (when we have both of them) will provide us with an ideal degree of divergence withing the George1 descendancy, and we will be able to say with high confidence which of their mutations they both inherited from the immigrant patriarch George1, and which were picked up later, downstream in their respective lines.M

At that point any upstream mutations that these both inherited and that are shared by other, unconnected, members would probably indicate that the latter too are descended from George1, and any downstream mutations that others share with either Bill_L or John would similarly indicate that they descend through the same particular son of George1 as these two connected members (in fact we already have such a downstream mutation for John with DYS449=21, which defines “the Southern Cluster”, discussed below). Finding and testing descendants of other sons of George1 will open up similar opportunities for classifying other unconnected project members.

For Samuel1 we have three genealogically well-documented descendants, Melava-07, Nancy_B-13, and Marlon-22, of whom only Marlon has extended to 111 markers, though Melava’s extension is also in the works, and possibly Nancy_B’s as well. Melava’s test will tell us which of Marlon’s mutations were probably inherited through the Joseph4 (Samuel3, Samuel2, Samuel1) line, but we need to find and test genealogically well-established descendants of other sons or grandsons of Samuel1, to be able to speak of a Samuel1 cluster.

George1, Samuel1 and mutated markers YG-A10 and DYS533

The extensions to 111 markers have turned up two that have each mutated from 1-3 times, and consequently vary extensively across the set of extended markers: markers A10 and DYS533. Both of these markers differ in the haplotypes of the one known extended descendant of George1 (Bill_L, who is 12-15 for DYS533-A10), and in the one known extended descendant of Samuel1 (Marlon, who is 13-13 for the same markers).

Since George1 and Samuel1 are almost certain to be closely related on genealogical grounds, and since marker A10 isn’t particularly prone to mutate, it would seem that Marlon’s A10=13 value by itself might be definitive for the descendancy of Samuel, but in the first place we need to confirm through the test of one of his fellow descendants of Samuel1 through his grandson Joseph 4 of WindhamCT, that this A10=13 value, which I’ve called a mutation, lies upstream from Joseph4, but downstream from the common ancestor of Samuel1 and George1.

We must also consider that Coni too has the A10=13 mutation, and it is by no means certain that 13 is the mutated value of this marker rather than 14. Moreover, there is another equally problematic marker variation that differentiates the haplotype of Marlon from that of Bill_L, namely DYS533=13 for Marlon and most others, and DYS533=12 for Bill_L and several others. As with A10=13/14, there is no way to tell for sure which of these DYS533 values was the original one inherited from the MRCPA of all project members, and which the mutated value.

I’ve somewhat arbitrarily chosen DYS533=12 and A10=13 as the mutated values, and not just because they each happen to be in the minority across the so far extended haplotypes. I’ll try to explain my additional reasoning, though it is probabilistic, and subject to change as more test results come in.

In resolving this dilemma of which were the normal and which the mutated values, the most indicative haplotypes should be those of Coni and Kathy since both split off the ancestral tree near the time of the MRCPA founder, but these two differ on both of these markers. Taking them in order, DYS533-A10, Coni is 13-13, while Kathy is 12-14. Since these two have different values even though their extremely remote GD=16 relationship means that their lines must run back independently almost to the founder, we must conclude that each of these markers mutated independently in one (but not both) of their lines, and that there’s no telling just from these two haplotypes which of these values was the original of the founder ’s haplotype and which the mutant.

And by the same tokens (the independence of Coni and Kathy’s ancestries from each other, but also from all of the other project members, most of whom probably descended from one of the known New England patriarchs, George1 and Samuel1), it must also be the case that each of these markers mutated at least once more after Coni and Kathy had split off from the ancestral tree, since we get variation as well amongst the haplotypes of other members: Marlon being 13-13, Bill_L 12-15, and as a third example, Judy Johanson who is 13-14.

One thing we may reasonably presume from what we know of the respective genealogies of George1 and Samuel1, is that George1’s was larger, since he had many more sons of the first generation, and this corresponds to the fact that many more of the extended haplotypes in the project correspond to that of the known George1 descendant Bill_L (12-15 on the two variant markers) than to the haplotype of the one known descendant of Samuel1, Marlon (who is 13-13). We may also reasonably presume that since Bill_L’s A10 value is 15, which is unique across the current set of extended haplotypes, that it represents a further single step mutation from George1’s original value, which was probably 14. Multistep mutations are very uncommon (not more than about 1 in 20 mutations), and the odds of two single step mutations to the same marker in the same way over the 6-12 generations that Bill_L’s line have run independently of all the others are miniscule.

Thus, it is probable that Marlon’s A10=13 value is another single step mutation from 14 to 13, which may have occurred in any of the 14 or so generations that separate him from Bill_L, but I am betting, and hoping, that Melava and/or Nancy_B, the two other known descendants of Samuel1, both through the same Joseph4 line as Marlon, will also turn up with the A10=13 mutation. I am betting on this largely because one other project member, Dick-01, also has the A10=13 mutation, and given his relative GDs from the two others who are A10=13 (GD 5 from Marlon, and 11 from Coni), it is overwhelmingly probable that Dick is a closer cousin to Marlon than to Coni.

It is most likely, therefore, that A10=14 was the original value of the MRCPA of all, that it mutated sometime in the 17 or so generations that Coni’s line has run independently of all the other extended members of the project, and that it mutated again sometime between the point where Samuel1 split off from George1 (I’m guessing that their common ancestor was the father of George1, born say 1550), and Samuel1’s great grandson, Joseph4, who is the ancestor or Marlon, Melava, and Nancy_B.

invisible writing

DYS533=12 Defines a Possible CCC

With respect to determining the mutant value of the other important variant marker in the 68-111 band, DYS533, if we set aside the haplotypes of Coni and Kathy and their cousins (since we can presume from their high GDs that they have run independently of the New England based lines for most of this history of this patrilineage), five of the extended haplotypes are DYS533=13, while only 3 are DYS533=12. And given that the descendancy of George1 figures to be larger than the descendancy of Samuel1, it is therefore more likely that DYS533=12 is the mutant value, though we cannot rule out the opposite possibility. Furthermore, since one of those with the mutant value DYS533=12 is Bill_L, the one known descendant of George1, it is also fairly likely that he and/or the two others who share this DYS533 value, Jerry (#23), and Jack Nash (#25), constitute a closer cousin cluster.

However, DYS533 is a fairly mutable marker and is perfectly capable of mutating independently in more than one line, and given that Bill_L’s line of descent thru George2 (George1) remained in New England and New York to near the present day, while the ancestries of Jack and Jerry run back to South Carolina and Texas respectively (Texas was largely settled from the deep South), there is a distinct possibility that this ostensive CCC of 3, might consist only of 2—Jack and Jerry. I do think it highly probable that these two are related, and most likely they somehow descend from a collateral ancestor of Bill_L’s line (the probability is only 3% that DYS533 mutated the same way independently in Bill’s line), though migration from the American northeast to the deep South has always been anomalous and rare.

Are there too many mutations here to markers A10 and DYS533?

I have argued above that both A10 and DYS533 must have mutated at least twice, and perhaps as many as three times, across the current set of extended haplotypes. Yet based on the estimated per generation mutation rates for these markers (.00345 for A10 and .00542 for DYS533) this is inherently improbable in the extreme. Taking also into account the approximate number of non-overlapping generations across this set (about 120) the expected number of mutations for A10 is .4, and for DYS533 is .6. That is, a priori, there is only a 40% chance that A10 would have mutated at all, and only a 60% chance for DYS533, yet my interpretation of the history of these mutations in the patrilineage is that they each mutated 2-3 times.

One way of accounting for these improbabilities is to suppose that the mutation rates of these markers may have been underestimated, and that is certainly a possibility, since the data they are predicated on is rather limited. However, I think that a more likely explanation is this (if you can call it an explanation): certain markers seem to be especially labile in particular patrilineages, for reasons unknown. I’ve had occasion over the years to examine many fairly good-sized patrilineages (of 7-10 or more haplotypes), and it seems as though there are always one or two markers (other than the most mutable ones, the CDYs and DYS710) that have mutated two or three times independently across the patrilineage, stretching the boundaries of the mutation probabilities for that marker, and since the markers for which this is true vary from one patrilineage to another, I don’t think that it’s because the mutation probabilities of particular markers have been consistently underestimated across the large databases that have been examined to come up with these estimates.

I’ve heard that there is some scientific grounding for the hypothesis that particular markers (or perhaps types of markers) are more prone to mutate than they should be (according to the laws of probability) in certain haplotypes, though the only evidence I know of for it are empirical observations by others like myself working in this field, and I haven’t seen anything published in support of this thesis.

George1 and his descendancy

As noted above, right now there is no mutation or set of mutations that we can point to as characteristic of the descendancy of the immigrant ALLEN patriarch George1, per se, though it looks as though the DYS533=12 mutation may pertain to certain of his descendants. There is another mutation, though, that characterizes at least some, and probably many, of the descendants of Ralph2 (George1), DYS449=32, and those who have this mutation I have provisionally mapped to their own closer cousin cluster, with the usual caveat that certain of those who bear this mutation to a fairly highly mutable marker may have come by it through independent mutation rather than by inheritance from a common ancestor.

invisible writing

The Southern Cluster of the George1 Descendancy

Defining mutation: DYS449=32

I’ve noted above that it does not appear that we’re going to be able speak of a closer cousin cluster consisting of all the descendants of immigrant patriarch George1 ALLEN of Sandwich, but we had already identified a promising CCC for many of the descendants of project member John Walden’s line of descent through George1’s son Ralph2, just in the first 37 markers of FTDNA’s full panel of 111. This CCC I’ve called the Southern Cluster

Unfortunately, as of now the Southern Cluster is predicated only on the mutation DYS449=32, and DYS449 is one of the more mutable markers. Thus, there are likely to be false positives across the set of tested haplotypes: members who test out with the mutated DYS449=32 value, but who don’t, in fact, belong to the Southern CCC because they didn’t inherit this mutation from a Ralph2 (George1) or one of his descendants, but came by it through independent mutation. I expect that the extension of John’s haplotype to 111 markers, which is supposed to be in progress, will turn up one of more other shared mutations, which should provide an adequate grounding for this CCC.

Prospects for Additional DNA Testing

Beyond basic patrilineage classification, the reason we DNA test, or extend the ySTR DNA haplotypes beyond the basic 37 marker set (to 67, or 111) is to try to turn up mutations. All mutations have some value, at least potentially.

Mutations are of three kinds:

(1) those that are unique (unmatched) across the current set of patrilineage haplotypes, and which therefore occurred downstream of the most recent common patrilineal ancestor you have in common with any of the other members;

(2) those that are matched, but which occurred independently in your line of descent, and that of the person you are matched to;

(3) those that are matched across two or more haplotypes because they were all inherited from a common ancestor.

There’s a 1-10% chance that any particular shared mutation belongs in category (2) rather than (3).

Only mutations in category (3) can advance our knowledge of the mutational history tree, and therefore provide guidance for genealogical research, but mutations presently in category (1) may turn up in category (3) when new members come into the project with their DNA, or when existing members also extend their haplotypes.

Extending is always a gamble because one never knows what will, or will not, turn up. However, the odds are generally against turning up mutations by extending from 37 to 67, because most of the markers in the 38-67 band are relative duds that rarely mutate. It’s best, therefore, to extend to 111 in one fell swoop.

The value of extending is also roughly proportional to how deep your genealogy goes, and also how different and distant your genealogy is from that of other tested members of the project. There is little point in testing or extending known close cousins, while extending the haplotypes of your most remote cousins is the most likely to benefit you and all the other project members, and the most valuable extensions of all are those of members like John Walden who traces back all the way to George1, but through a different son from Bill_L’s equally deep line.

Finally, the present value of extending is proportional to the number of people who have also extended. Thus, there is no present value for the first person to extend to 111 markers because there is no one else for him or her to match to. On the other hand, when many members with diverse lineages have already extended (as is the case now), extending your haplotype has a reasonable chance of turning up mutations in category (3), or at least of contributing to the pile of mutations in category (1) that might later turn out to fall into category (3).

To get more specific here, I would recommend that all project members who haven’t yet extended to 111 consider doing so, though at most just one of the other three Maryland cluster members (Marilyn-18, or Steve-19 or -20) need extend.

The regular price of extending from 37 to 111 markers is $220, but just $129 for the extension from 67 to 111, and those prices typically drop to $188 and $109 respectively in the sales that FTDNA runs several times a year. FTDNA usually has one or two pop sales (not previously announced and of short duration) in the spring and summer, and one big sale on everything for the month of December, so please keep this project in mind when for when you get an email notification of these sales.

Finally, there is one other DNA testing strategy to keep in mind: targeted testing. The idea is to focus on ALLENs whose careers seem to intertwine with those of one’s own earliest known ancestors, who might be related somehow, then attempt to trace their lines down to living male descendants who bear the ALLEN surname, and sponsor DNA tests for them. When these speculative test subjects are well chosen, finding that they are indeed relatives can open up a a new research front, or contrariwise, if they turn out not to belong to the patrilineage after all, that negative information can also be useful to by allowijng one to excluded the doings of these other ALLENs as unrelated, and thus avoid pursuing a false trail. In addition, whatever work one has done on these other ALLEN lines, and the results of the DNA test one has sponsored, may turn out to be valuable to ALLENs of other patrilineages either now or down the road.


ALLEN Patrilineage 2 ySTR DNA Haplotypes Compared

The following matrices, one for 37-marker comparisons, and one for 111-marker comparisons (for those project members who have extended to 111) provide some idea of the closeness of relationship across the full set of tested members of this patrilineage. The cell at the intersection of each column/row pair shows the GD (Genetic Distance) between the pair—this is an imperfect count of the total number of mutations that have occurred in both lines of descent since their MRCPA (Most Recent Common Patrilineal Ancestor) walked the earth.

It’s also possible to create corresponding matrices that show TMRCA (Time back to the MRCPA, expressed either in generations or in years), but I’ve decided to forgo such charts because they are just too misleading as indicators of when a particular MRCA lived. Mutations are so sporadic and infrequent (even when a large number of markers is tested) that such estimates can easily be off by many hundreds of years. If one has the irresistable urge to play around with TMRCA estimates between particular haplotype pairs, the best way to indulge it is to run the FTDNA Tip calculator for that pair from one’s personal page—but be sure to input the number of generations for which one knows, genealogically, the bearers of these haplotypes cannot have had a common ancestor.

-

37-Marker Haplotype Genetic Distance Comparison Matrix

Genetic Distances, ALLEN Patrilineage 2, from 37-marker ySTR DNA Comparisons

Color-coding shows whether a haplotype pair Definitely, Probably, or just Possibly belongs to the patrilineage.

The number in each cell is the number of divergent mutations between each pair of haplotypes.

The lowest numbers represent the closest relationships.

Whether an outlier haplotype belongs to the same patrilineage should be judged by its lowest GD number.

However, the color-coded categories and the GD numbers don’t take account either of the common surname that most of these haplotypes share,
     or of the possible convergence of their genealogical evidence at a particular time and place, and where either of these conditions obtain,
     2 or 3 can reasonably be subtracted from the indicated GD in assessing whether an outlying haplotype belongs to the patrilineage.

-


-

111-Marker Haplotype Genetic Distance Comparison Matrix for ALLEN Patrilineage 2

Genetic Distances, ALLEN Patrilineage 2, from 111-marker ySTR DNA Comparisons

Color-coding shows whether a haplotype pair Definitely, Probably, or just Possibly belongs to the patrilineage.

The number in each cell is the number of divergent mutations between each pair of haplotypes.

The lowest numbers represent the closest relationships.

Whether an outlier haplotype belongs to the same patrilineage should be judged by its lowest GD number.

However, the color-coded categories and the GD numbers don’t take account either of the common surname that most of these haplotypes share,
     or of the possible convergence of their genealogical evidence at a particular time and place, and where either of these conditions obtain,
     2 or 3 can reasonably be subtracted from the indicated GD in assessing whether an outlying haplotype belongs to the patrilineage.


ALLEN Patrilineage 2 Mutation History Tree

THIS CHART HAS YET TO BE UPDATED WITH THE NEW MEMBERS ACCRUED SINCE THE FALL OF 2014, OR TO REFLECT THE RESULTS OF THE MANY EXTENSIONS TO 111-MARKERS. IT IS OTHERWISE STILL REASONABLY ACCURATE AS FAR AS IT GOES.

The following tree chart shows the accumulated mutations for each tested descendant of the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) of this Allen oatrilineage. The MRCA appears at the top of the tree on the left, and the tested members of the project at the bottom, identified by their Allen Patrilineage Project#, and the “handle” of the principal researcher for each tested member’s line. The other numbers in the chart represent mutations which have accumulated for each line of decent. The two members listed at the bottom of the first column (10-Bill_L, and 07-Melava) have a straight, no-mutation descent from the MRCA. My choice of Bill_L as the project RPH, rather than Melava, is for no better reason than that he is surnamed Allen.

The mutations are represented by the numeric IDs of the ySTR markers tested by FTDNA with the “DYS” prefixes truncated to save space. The marker number is followed by a “+” or a “-” to indicate whether the mutation resulted in the gain or loss of a repeat; where there is a two step difference between a member’s marker and that of the RPH, this will be shown as two separate mutations. The GD (Genetic Distance) between any two members of the patrilineage is equivalent to the number of mutations encountered when tracing a path from their “handle” at the bottom of the tree to the handle of the other member. Each mutation (or unit of GD) represents, typically, an extra 190 years back to their common ancestor. However, these estimates are so loose that even a perfect match on 67 markers, like Bill_L and Melava have, only estimates the probability of a common ancestor 4 generations back at 44%, 6 generations back at 82%, and 8 generations back 1t 94%.

Allen Patrilineage 2 Mutation History Tree

It will be seen that there are two principal watershed mutations for the patrilineage at present.

First, there is DYS449+, which I’ve dubbed “The Southern Mutation” (despite the fact that one southern-rooted member of the patrilineage, 08-Bill_B, lacks it) probably occurred in the genetic transmission from patriarch George1 of Sandwich to his son Ralph2, or from Ralph to his son Joseph3, who migrated to New Jersey, and whose descendants, most of them, moved on to Maryland, and the Valley of Virginia. Joseph3 (Ralph2, George1) and most of his descendants were Quakers, and followed the principal Quaker migration south, and then back north to Ohio, and Indiana. However, a number of descendants of this southern branch of the family fell out of the Quaker discipline and trickled a bit farther south to FranklinCo, before later treking back up through Kentucky to the states of the “Old Northwest”.

The other watershed mutation, CDYa+, though very important, is considerably more problematic. It’s important because it appear to mark the line of descent from Joseph4 of WindhamCT (Samuel3, Samuel2 of BridgewaterMA, Samuel1 of Braintree), as it’s shared by two of the three known descendants of this line: 13-Nancy_B and 22-Marlon, as well as by 04-Angeline, whose unconnected line probably hooks up with this descendancy at some point. This mutation is problematic, though, because the CDYs are the very most mutable markers, and with large patrilineages like this one, there’s an excellent chance that two descendants who share it came by it through two independent mutations in their respective lines, rather than by inheritance. In fact, the descendants of the unknown early Maryland immigrant patriarch of this patrilineage, are also CDYa+ and there is a distinct possibility that that is the normal value, while the descendants of the patriarch George1 of Sandwich have the mutated value. Either way, though, this mutation differentiates one of the three known ALLEN Patrilineage2 patriarchal lines from the other two (with the reservation about independent mutation that I’ve notes), and that is much. With luck, by extending certain project members haplotypes to 111 markers we will pick up a better, less mutable mutation to help us in this task of differentiation.


ALLEN Patrilineage 2 ySTR DNA Haplotypes

The chart below shows the haplotypes for each tested project member of this patrilineage. I’ve decapitated most of the marker names (truncating “DYS393” to just “393”) to improve readability. The colored markers mutate slower or faster than the norm. Thus, [DYS]439 is fast, [DYS]458 is faster, and CDYa&b are blazing, while [DYS]393 is slow. Shared mutations to slow markers are the most valuable as they are almost sure to have been inherited from a common ancestor, whereas shared mutations to fast markers may have occurred independently in two or more ancestral lines.

Haplotype Identifiers FTDNA 37-Marker Panel FTDNA Markers 38-67 FTDNA Markers 68-111 Haplotype Identifiers

Proj
#
 Principal
 Genealogist
Earliest Known Patrilineal Ancestor
(ALLEN surname omitted)

Name
(Birth - Death)
c=circa
3
9
3
3
9
0
1
9
/
3
9
4
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
I
I
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
0
Y
G
-
H
4
Y
C
A
I
I
a
Y
C
A
I
I
b
4
5
6
6
0
7
5
7
6
5
7
0
C
D
Y
a
C
D
Y
b
4
4
2
4
3
8
5
3
1
5
7
8
3
9
5
S
1
a
3
9
5
S
1
b
5
9
0
5
3
7
6
4
1
4
7
2
4
0
6
S
1
5
1
1
4
2
5
4
1
3
a
4
1
3
b
5
5
7
5
9
4
4
3
6
4
9
0
5
3
4
4
5
0
4
4
4
4
8
1
5
2
0
4
4
6
6
1
7
5
6
8
4
8
7
5
7
2
6
4
0
4
9
2
5
6
5
7
1
0
4
8
5
6
3
2
4
9
5
5
4
0
7
1
4
7
1
6
7
1
7
5
0
5
5
5
6
5
4
9
5
8
9
5
2
2
4
9
4
5
3
3
6
3
6
5
7
5
6
3
8
4
6
2
4
5
2
4
4
5
Y
G
-
A
1
0
4
6
3
4
4
1
Y
G
-
1
B
0
7
5
2
5
7
1
2
5
9
3
6
5
0
5
3
2
7
1
5
5
0
4
5
1
3
5
6
1
5
5
2
7
2
6
6
3
5
5
8
7
6
4
3
4
9
7
5
1
0
4
3
4
4
6
1
4
3
5

Proj
#
 Principal
 Genealogist
A-26  Coni Dubois pedigree under construction 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 13 13 13 29 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 16 19 17 36 37 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 36 15 9 16 12 25 26 19 12 11 12 12 11 9 13 12 10 11 11 30 12 13 24 13 9 12 20 15 15 14 25 17 12 15 24 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 12 11 A-26  Coni Dubois
A-01  Dick Allen Sylvanus (1823 CAN - 1865 MI) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 23 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 37 15 9 16 12 25 27 19 12 11 12 12 11 9 13 12 10 11 11 30 12 13 24 13 9 11 20 15 15 15 25 17 12 15 24 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 12 11 A-01  Dick Allen
A-03  Steve Allen Spencer (say 1769 CT - c1820 [NY?]) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 15 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 A-03  Steve Allen
A-17  Larry Allen Harvey (c1810 NY - 1891 NY) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 A-17  Larry Allen
A-04  Angeline Fowler Phineas (say 1800 VT - say 1846 [OH]) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 37 38 11 12 A-04  Angeline Fowler
A-13  Nancy Barton Samuel (say 1604 - 1669 BraintreeMA) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 1717 37 38 11 12 A-13  Nancy Barton
A-22  Marlon Allen Samuel (say 1604 - 1669 BraintreeMA) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 37 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 35 15 9 16 12 25 26 19 12 11 12 12 11 9 13 12 10 11 11 30 12 13 24 13 9 10 20 15 15 15 25 17 12 15 24 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 12 11 A-22  Marlon Allen
A-07  Melava King Samuel (say 1604 - 1669 BraintreeMA) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 36 15 9 16 12 25 26 19 12 11 12 12 11 9 13 12 10 11 11 30 12 14 24 13 9 11 20 15 15 15 25 17 12 15 24 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 12 11 A-07  Melava King
Root Prototype Haplotype 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 36 15 9 16 12 25 26 19 12 11 12 12 11 9 13 12 10 11 11 30 12 14 24 13 9 11 20 15 15 15 25 17 12 15 24 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 12 11  RPH
A-14  Sharland Reeves Washington (c1814 [PA?] - aft 1870) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 36 15 9 16 12 25 26 19 12 11 12 12 11 9 13 12 10 11 11 30 12 14 24 13 9 11 20 15 15 15 25 17 12 16 24 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 12 11 A-14  Sharland Reeves
A-24  Judy Johanson Elias (abt 1796 - aft 1860 SteubenCoNY) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 00 00 11 11 25 00 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 36 15 9 16 12 25 26 19 12 11 12 12 11 9 13 12 10 11 11 30 12 14 24 13 9 11 20 15 15 15 25 17 12 15 24 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 12 11 A-24  Judy Johanson
A-10  Bill_L Allen George (say 1585 - 1648 SandwichMA) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 35 15 9 16 12 25 26 19 12 11 12 12 11 9 12 12 10 11 11 30 12 15 24 13 9 11 20 15 15 16 25 17 12 15 24 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 12 11 A-10  Bill_L Allen
A-23  Jerry Allen Jerry (c1858 TX - abt 1909) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 36 15 9 16 12 25 26 19 12 11 12 12 11 9 12 12 10 11 12 30 12 14 24 13 9 11 20 15 15 15 25 17 12 15 24 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 12 11 A-23  Jerry Allen
A-25  Jack Nash Henry Nash (abt 1830 SC - 1871 SC) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 37 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 36 15 9 16 12 25 26 19 12 11 12 12 11 9 12 12 10 11 11 30 12 14 24 13 9 11 20 15 15 15 25 17 12 15 25 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 12 11 A-25  Jack Nash
A-08  Bill_B Allen John Davidson (1805 TN - 1865 AR) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 17 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 A- 8  Bill_B Allen
A-02  John Walden George (say 1585 - 1648 SandwichMA) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 13 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 A-02  John Walden
A-05  Judy McMahan Daniel (c1781 - say 1851), of VA 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 A-05  Judy McMahan
A-15  Sarah Hambrick William (say 1749 VA - aft 1Jul1835) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 24 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 A-15  Sarah Hambrick
A-09  Bob Allen Nathan (1799 VA - 1878 GreeneCoIL) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 A- 9  Bob Allen
A-11  Nancy Ross Nathan (1799 VA - 1878 GreeneCoIL) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 A-11  Nancy Ross
A-06  Tim Allen Isaac(c1833 VA|KY - c1894 MorganCoIL) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 A-06  Tim Allen
A-16  Dave Werner unknown ALLEN 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 35 15 9 16 12 25 26 19 12 11 12 12 11 9 13 12 10 11 11 30 12 14 24 13 9 11 20 15 15 15 25 14 12 15 24 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 12 11 A-16  Dave Werner
A-12  Kathy Phipps Zephaniah (1800 MD|VA - 1899 KS?) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 13 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 18 37 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 36 12 9 16 12 25 26 19 12 11 12 12 11 9 12 12 10 11 11 30 12 14 24 13 9 11 20 15 15 15 26 17 12 14 24 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 12 11 A-12  Kathy Phipps
A-18  Marilyn Krell pedigree under construction 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 13 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 18 37 38 11 12 A-18  Marilyn Krell
A-19  Steve_J(Greg) Joseph Allen (c1776 VA|MD - s1825 OH) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 13 15 17 17 11 10 19 23 16 15 18 18 37 38 11 12 A-19  Steve_J(Greg)
A-20  Steve_J(Leonard) Richard Allen (s1775 VA|MD - s1845 OH) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 13 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 17 18 37 38 11 12 A-20  Steve_J(Leonard)

You may click on highlighted Project#s (like A-01) to see the posted pedigree for a particular test subject. Click on highlighted Researcher names, like Dick Allen to go to the project directory that shows the full names of the members, and provides clickable e-mail links for the names highlighted.

A synthetic Root Prototype Haplotype (RPH) has been contructed to represent the most likely (unmutated) haplotype of the Most Recent Common Patriarchal Ancestor (MRCPA) of all the members of this project. In most cases the marker values of this RPH are those which are the most common across the haplotypes that have been extended to 111 markers. Marker values that deviate from those of the RPH are deemed to be mutations, and are highlighted in lime green—or tomato, for multistep mutations. Markers with null values, due to deletions, are rendered in dark seagreen.

Where the multicopy markers DYS464 and YCA (each taken as a whole) diverge in value from those of the RPH, the whole adjacent set of values will be colored yellow green, and will be counted as a single mutation. In the same way, reclOH mutations, which may affect several blocks of separated markers, will be colored orange and treated all as a single mutation for purposes of calculating Genetic Distance.

*** THIS CONTENT WAS STOLEN FROM JOHNBROBB.COM IN VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW ***


Last updated 20May2015
© John Barrett Robb
Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict Valid CSS 3

*** THIS PAGE WAS STOLEN FROM JOHNBROBB.COM IN VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW ***