DNA Testing
Some time ago, I joined the Kendall DNA Project, and had my DNA tested.
Y chromosomes are passed directly from father to son. Because Y chromosomes mutate over time, it's possible to use the number and degree of mutations to determine the "genetic distance" between two people, and to calculate the probability that they are related in a genealogical time frame.
My DNA did not match that of any other Kendall DNA Project member.
Recently, I got in touch with Ivor Kendall, a 2nd great- (i.e., great-great-) grandson of James (1800-1851) and Martha (née Cox). I also got in touch with Chris Kendell, a 3rd great-grandson of William (1794-1879) and Mary (née Mist).
Some online family trees claim that James and William were sons of my 4th great-grandfather Thomas (1761-1847); however, I've been unable to find any documentation to support this.
As I've written elsewhere, the 1841 census of Sandford seems to indicate that James, Martha and their children lived with Thomas. But the Ringwood parish baptism records show that James was in fact a son of Charles (1760-1829) and Lucy (née Wiseman), and a grandson of George (-1797) and Mary (née Peckham).
There is no record of William's baptism. The 1841 census showed him living in Hightown, near Ringwood, and the 1851 census put him in Sandford, next-door to Thomas's son, my 3rd great-grandfather Stephen (1791-1867).
There is also no record of Thomas's baptism, but I had hypothesized that he might have been another son of George and Mary.
Ivor and Chris agreed to have their DNA tested.
The results say that Chris and I have a Genetic Distance of 1 (a 36/37 DNA marker match), which is considered Tightly Related. Ivor and I have a distance of 2 (a 35/37 match), which is considered Related. Chris and Ivor also have a distance of 2 from one another.
Digging deeper, the probability that Thomas and Charles were brothers (sons of George) is about 48%. That they were cousins: about 63%. Second cousins: about 74%. Third cousins: about 82%. (Each additional generation increases the odds.)
The probability that Stephen and William were brothers (sons of Thomas) is about 59%. That they were cousins: about 74%. Second cousins: about 83%. Third cousins: about 89%.
Finally, the probability that James and William were brothers (sons of Charles) is lower, about 46%. That they were cousins: about 62%. Second cousins: about 73%. Third cousins: about 81%. And so on...
Conclusion? The three Kendall (Kindle, Kendell, etc.) families of Sandford were certainly related, and the search for the origin of one branch promises to shed light on them all.
Y chromosomes are passed directly from father to son. Because Y chromosomes mutate over time, it's possible to use the number and degree of mutations to determine the "genetic distance" between two people, and to calculate the probability that they are related in a genealogical time frame.
My DNA did not match that of any other Kendall DNA Project member.
Recently, I got in touch with Ivor Kendall, a 2nd great- (i.e., great-great-) grandson of James (1800-1851) and Martha (née Cox). I also got in touch with Chris Kendell, a 3rd great-grandson of William (1794-1879) and Mary (née Mist).
Some online family trees claim that James and William were sons of my 4th great-grandfather Thomas (1761-1847); however, I've been unable to find any documentation to support this.
As I've written elsewhere, the 1841 census of Sandford seems to indicate that James, Martha and their children lived with Thomas. But the Ringwood parish baptism records show that James was in fact a son of Charles (1760-1829) and Lucy (née Wiseman), and a grandson of George (-1797) and Mary (née Peckham).
There is no record of William's baptism. The 1841 census showed him living in Hightown, near Ringwood, and the 1851 census put him in Sandford, next-door to Thomas's son, my 3rd great-grandfather Stephen (1791-1867).
There is also no record of Thomas's baptism, but I had hypothesized that he might have been another son of George and Mary.
Ivor and Chris agreed to have their DNA tested.
The results say that Chris and I have a Genetic Distance of 1 (a 36/37 DNA marker match), which is considered Tightly Related. Ivor and I have a distance of 2 (a 35/37 match), which is considered Related. Chris and Ivor also have a distance of 2 from one another.
Digging deeper, the probability that Thomas and Charles were brothers (sons of George) is about 48%. That they were cousins: about 63%. Second cousins: about 74%. Third cousins: about 82%. (Each additional generation increases the odds.)
The probability that Stephen and William were brothers (sons of Thomas) is about 59%. That they were cousins: about 74%. Second cousins: about 83%. Third cousins: about 89%.
Finally, the probability that James and William were brothers (sons of Charles) is lower, about 46%. That they were cousins: about 62%. Second cousins: about 73%. Third cousins: about 81%. And so on...
Labels: Mysteries
posted by David Kendall | 11:27 AM
1 Comments:
Thank you for a *fascinating* look at the area my paternal great-grandparents left in 1872 for the bare plains of Texas. Damerham, Martin-by-Fordingbridge, Kingston, Ibsley, Sopley, Ringwood, all these names and their churches have grown familiar to me over the past 35 years as I have pored over microfiche and reels of film, and more recently of course the web. I'll be back to read more!
Post a Comment
<< Home