Is it possible for GENI to hold onto records who have come into disfavor?

AFTER 3 years of research, The testimony of Samuel G. Rice 1887 identifies 6 family names with the same genetic base: Sutton-Dudley. The other names he said were all related by father to sons are : 1) Dudley to Perratt 1565 2) Perratt to Rice or ap Rice 1598 3) Perratt to John Rice 1630 4)ap Rice to John Perrott of Parquito Point to Lawrence Perrott of Virginia 5) John Parrott The Quaker to Scarfone of Italy (incarceration in Bedlam after arrest with visiting privlidges). 6) Trader Rice-Hughes of Virginia 1658 to Hughes/Davis lines. (including Supreme Ct. Judge Robert Hughes) and Native American Hughes: J.G. Floyd and direct ancestors to Trader Hughes.

The primary Dose of DNA occures to the father of Sir Robert Dudley from his father John Dudley, mastermind of the Jane Grey takeover of the crown. Her sisters were daughters of a Tudor female and cannot be ruled out at this time as possible candidates for the mother of John Perratt II 1565.
John Sutton lines include Family B Sutton which has a match to John Rice 1630, alleged son of Perratt II and Margaret ap Rice 1618 daughter of Perrott ap Rice 1598. Comprised of 5 single step mutations across the first 25 and one 2 step allele on DYS 392.

Sutton testee H 1956 shows a similar grouping of alleles across 25 markers of only 3 sites of variation, but with 1, 3, & 4 steps of variation.

Lawrence Parrott of Virginia is believed to be the grandson of John Parrott of Paraquito Point according to the Perrott ancestory group and his variation pattern is 4 sites of variation 2 single step and 2 steps across the first 30 markers to John Rice of Dedham/DCR.

The linkage to the Scarfone family of Italy was direcly sourced from Samuel G. Rice testimony of 1978 and which shows 2 steps of variation across 25 markers. He referred to a Native American Woman in the company of family in the earliest days after their arrival in Ma. where they would have been in contact with native peoples and JG Floyd shows the same DNA linkage as do other descendants of the person known as Trader John Rice Hughes. Native American lines are also part of this same DNA profile.

Call it what ever you want to...this is not just convergence by random selection because all of these families were named in 1978 and we have DNA proof of very tight values on all these famlies. They are not fully vetted or understood by myself...but they will become clear after the 67 marker test and STR's have been evaluated. THIS is the SMOKE in the Air over the name DUDLEY and RICE and Perrott and Scarfone/ Hughes.

We can sort out where the DUDLEY American line intersects my family once the 67 marker test results are back. Presently, that linkage is at the care giver family named by my father in the person of Reverend John Allin of Dedham. DCR 1948 Im restating my understanding of the DNA linkages for general information only and not trying to start any fight or HEATED debate. It's the best I can do at present.

In each case we find

Sorry, forgot to delete the last 5 words in last paragraph. DCR

http://www.geni.com/path/John-Parrott+is+related+to+Samuel-Rice?fro...

Ms. Erica: This is the QUAKER family of John Perrott aka Perrott ap Rice 1598? We don't know yet if they are the same person....all we know is that the testimony says he came to Ameria and changed his name and started over as John Rice or John Perrott.....My DNA match is with the son of Robert one Lawrence Parrott which is 2 steps or 23/25. This is a Quaker line line of Perrotts I believe. DCR

Dale

When you bring up these Geni connections, are you clear that they are NOT showing you a DNA relationship?

The text is easily understood even if the color coding isn't.

The path relationship between Samuel Gordon Rice & John Parrot reads:

Samuel Gordon Rice is John Parrott, of Paraketo Point's great grandson's wife's half brother's wife's husband's brother's wife's fifth great nephew!

How is this indicative of DNA?

It will not show up at this time as a relationship of DNA....we just found out that Lawrence, Son of Robert son of John of Paraketo Pt. is a DNA match. This simply puts it into perspective of how close they are already.....I can't change the Geni information until I prove it. Likewise we must not discount it simply because we did not understand and input the data. This all awaits the 67 marker and SNP analysis.

What you are asking me for is written proof so can change what is known, and we don't have that yet because we are still coming to terms with the testimony. The results will surface in time as they have over the past 3 years. DCR Regards.

Anolther way to say it is the Perrott branch in America is downline of the seminal event of Perratt II fathering both lines. The DNA story is held in the Scarfone/Perrott/Rice/ and Perratt lines all being the same lines descended from the source which is John Sutton Dudley.

These family relationships occured down line because of what happened up line. Thus we find the trail to Robert Dudley through the DNA trail to the Perrott DNA project and I have notified the manager of the connection. DCR

You Margurite Percy connects to the Dedham Rices here.http://www.geni.com/path/Marguerite-Percy+is+related+to+Samuel-Rice...

And this same line connects to John Perrott of Parquito point....http://www.geni.com/path/Richard-Pearce-of-Providence+is+related+to...

Percy and Parrott's who match Lawrence Perrott and John Rice of Dedham are linked by the same male line. Percy to Howton

67 Marker test paid today....results soon I hope.

Great news Dale. It will be interesting.

Thankyou Ms. Hatte, you are the sole voice of interest in why I persist in this effort to FIND the TRUTH. Others made up their minds within the first 3 or 4 months of my 100,000 words of dialogue to reconstruct the MEANING of what my father shared with me. I am profoundly moved, and will take whatever the outcome is with dignity. DCR 1948

There is a new, more comprehensive Y-DNA test at FTDNA by the way.

I myself follow DNA to learn the truth about ancestors, whatever the truth turns out to be. There's an amazing story of an Ashkenazi Jewish man and an Irish man. Their children did DNA tests and realized that the men had been switched at birth. The men were already deceased. The children published about it online recently and have accepted this strange twist with amazing graciousness and serenity.

http://www.geni.com/path/Hawise-de-Berkeley+is+related+to+Charity-R...

This is another indicator of Linkage to Dudley family. My 3rd great grandmother Charity Rice married to Edward Rice 1734 married about 1750 is shown in this Godfrey linkage to Dudley. My own match at Sutton-Dudley is the H 1854 where we share all but 5 single step mutations out 37. The 67 marker test should help in this regard. DCR

This is an important record of Marriages: mentioned Sillman to Godfrey, Burr, Couch, contemporaries of Charity Rice & Edward Rice of Con
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/p/o/p/Sandra-Popiel/FILE...

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale-C-Rice+is+related+to+John-Sutton-3rd-...

Ms. Erica: Here is the linkage of Sutton-Dudley to the Rice's of Nebraska. The Stevens line mixes with Rice so they are indeed part of the Dudley's related to Sutton Dudley and that's my DNA results are showing Sutton effect, see Sutton DNA project H1858 profile. even though he too is as yet UNASSIGNED as am I, He's 5 single steps out from my DNA and only 4 from John Rice.... on the first 30 markers. My father's story is likely TRUE and we should have the answer in 6 weeks or less. DCR 1948

http://www.geni.com/path/Stephen-Dudley+is+related+to+Samuel-Rice?f...

Ms. Erica: Here is the direct link of the Stevens/Rice Family line to Govenor Dudley of Ma. His wife married John Allin....who's former wife, Dorothy HAckley Allin was the mother of Anne Hackley. Some things are not neat and tidy....The Rice's and Stevens are linked by an NPE. Got it?

I guess I can lead a geneaologist to water but they won't drink even when faced with the truth. My DNA matches the Dudley's as you will shortly see...Then what?

5 single steps on 30 markers? Why the non-standard way of reporting?

You and H1956 have differences on 5 markers, but the standard way of counting gives you 10 step differences on 30 markers. In other words, your match would be 20/30.

It's also more usual to count all the markers you and the other guy have tested, rather than truncating when you get tired of counting. That gives you 13 step differences at your full 37 markers, so your match would be 24/37.

I think we've been over this before, but a refresher might be worthwhile. In a large haplogroup like I1 many similarities are probably due to convergence, but leaving that aside for a minute and assuming you an H1956 have a common ancestor, there's a way to get a rough idea of how many generations apart you might be.

(1 / (m*MU))
where m is the number of markers tested and MU is the assumed mutation rate

You and H1956 have both tested 37 markers. He has actually tested more markers, but we have to set the others aside because you haven't.

The different markers mutate at different rates, but for the purpose of this calculation we need an average. Most people use.002, but some people prefer .003 or .004.

Let's try it.

(1 / (37 * 0.002))

37 * 0.002 = 0.074 (probability of a mutation in each generation)
then,
1 / 0.074 = 13.51 (average number of generations between mutations)

You have 13 differences (mutations) from H1956, so multiply that by the average number of generations between mutations
13 * 13.51 = 175.63

So -- as a very rough estimate, your common ancestor with H1956 lived about 175 generations ago.

Assume 25 years per generations, so 24 * 175 = 4,375 years ago.

Your common ancestor is likely to have been about 4375 years ago, or about 2360 BC.

If you use a faster mutation rate, you'll come up with a different number. Say, use .004 instead of .002 and you'll end up with half that time. 2187 years ago or about 172 BC.

yes of course makes sense...

and i don't have to be spock to figure out the end result

I hate to say it, but you actually don't have to go through the calculations to know the story isn't going to turn out well. For most people just hearing that there are 13 step differences on 37 markers is enough to know that this one is a dead end ;)

If there is a great difference in the ascending markers I would agree. However, I f you look at the two Names there is virtually no difference in markers 38-67. I have reason to believe John Rice will follow that trend, and if he does that would be not more than 15 or 16 markers difference in 67. We shall see. My point in raising this is only works if there is a pedigree trail which I did not know of 3 years ago , but have lifted it up time and time for the past 4 months. I will conceed that the story is wrong if 67 markers has more than 15 single step variations in a DUDLEY pedigree that is known. I used only used the H1596 because of general values, not because it's a known Robert Dudley descendent. But let's be clear, we don't know who we are being compared to....Can we find out what line at least the person is from?

As you know, that group is unassigned. Michael McCann....I arrived here at a place of reckoning using the equipment provided by Geni, and until we know of a Robert Dudley descendent to compare John Rice of Dedham we are in waiting mode. Chiming in as you do with Justin is childish and benieth the discussion. I have accepted all the terms, JUST NOT THE CONCLUSIONS and will not until we have heard from Sutton and Dudley DNA projects. Since I have been accepted by both, It's long past time to stop telling me Im incompetent and don't understand you....I clearly do.

Dale, you don't understand. You really don't.

First and foremost, you always come back to the idea that you can take parts of yDNA panel, highlight the pieces that are the same and brush aside the differences.

But, let's run out the scenario. You're having a 67 marker test. Say you have zero mismatches at 38-67. That will leave you still with 13 differences on 67 markers.

So, do the math.

(1 / (m*MU))
(1 / (67 * 0.002))

67 * 0.002 = 0.134 (probability of a mutation in each generation)

1 / 0.134 = 7.46 (average number of generations between mutations)

You have 13 differences, so
13 * 7.46 = 96.98 generations back to your common ancestor, say 96

Say 25 years per generation, so
25 * 96 = 2400 years ago, or about 385 BC

Or, cut it in half and put the mutation rate at .004
That gets you to 1200 years ago, or about 800, the time of Charlemagne

And that's assuming you end up with NO further step differences when the results come in. Each additional step difference will push it back further.

As I read your messages just above, I think there might be a clue to something you are misunderstanding. The way you phrase it, you seem to find some endorsement for your theories because you have been "accepted" into the Sutton and Dudley projects.

However, that's not likely to mean anything at all. As an admin for several surname projects myself and an active participant in others, I can tell you that most of them will accept anyone. If someone has a tradition or an idea or a wild guess that they're connected, better to let them in and not argue about it.

In one of my Swiss surname projects we have a guy from Poland, a guy from Syria, and a guy from Bohemia who comes and goes. None of them really think they're related, but they like doing comparisons. In the Scandinavian project we have a guy from Chad. I don't know why he's there. Maybe he thinks his ancestor was a crusader. His DNA doesn't match anyone else, or even look particularly Scandinavian but there's no reason to throw him out. He's not taking up space.

Most often, what surname project admins do is leave people ungrouped if they don't really belong. The admins aren't there to argue. They're there to make the tools available so people can investigate. And, that's exactly what the Sutton and Dudley admins seem to have done with you. You don't match anyone else. You don't have the right surname, and your supposed Perratt ancestor doesn't have the right surname, There's no obvious reason for you to be there, but also no reason to argue with you or throw you out. So, they just leave you ungrouped.

With the 67 Marker test underway and the discussions heating back up, I suppose we might as well make it official . . .

Rice Pudding Part III - The Enlightenment
"Let the light of truth brighten even the darkest corners."

Justin: The comparrison you just brilliantly analized if for someone we don't even know is a descendent of the Robert Dudley line. In my search I drew concentric circles around each group that I identifed starting with the DEVON men's DNA project. Among them were my Drake ancestor.

The next circle I drew to zero in on an individual was the Jenkins family where I also have a 24/23 match and so on until I found the Dudley project where I don't know who the numbers represented or what lines of descent, I screened the same sets at the beginning middle and end of the first 37 markers.
The last markers I looked at showed the closest to John Rice being H1957 and those markers around him show little variation after marker 37....so the premise is that if John Rice falls into that sequence which is Unaffiliated he too will have similar results. The final analysis is to look at the SUTTON-Dudley descendents and see if John Rice matches. We don't have any idea who these suttons and dudley's are or if the are direcly connected to Squire Thomas, Sir Robert or Sir Robert's son Robert Dudley by Lettice Knollys.

That's all I've done is shown you how I got here....I did not ever say this is my relative...because I don't know which line is which....so this is a derivitive and reducing kind of elimination I have conducted with unknown persons. Thanks again for all your brilliant analysis....but I am unable to answer because I don't know which line belongs to a male child of Sir Robert Dudley.....Respectfully DCR

sorry H 1956 participant above not H 1957

The plan is to ask the ADMINISTRATOR of Sutton Dudley to examine the 67 marker test and see if any known descendent of Sir Robert Dudley is a reasonable mach considering the 350 year time span. Squire Thomas Dudley was named in 1978....so certainly he should be included and his sons of sons.
And all of this simply means we have convergence at work unless there is link by pedigree....then it will mean what I think it means. That's why the Stevens linkage to Rice is part of understanding what was being conveyed. Stevens toCrosby to Dudley and Hilton is the paydirt connection. I don't fully understand it yet...but that's the method and madness I employed. You all raised the objections and I went looking for answers. DCR

Dale, I think you're still misunderstanding some very basic points.

You don't need to ask the admin of a particular project to examine the results and see if any descendant of Sir Robert Dudley is a reasonable match. Almost anyone who has moved to the intermediate level of DNA knowledge can see at a glance that there is no one in the project who is a reasonable match.

A second big misunderstanding is that you seem to believe you can confidently predict the results of 38-67 based on the results of 30-37 in your sample or based on the results of 38-67 in other people's samples. It just doesn't work that way. No one can predict something like that. These are all independent locations mutating at their own individual rates. The order reported at FTDNA isn't even their own numerical order.

In a message addressed to Erica, above, you mocked her and other genealogists by saying, "I guess I can lead a geneaologist to water but they won't drink even when faced with the truth. My DNA matches the Dudley's as you will shortly see."

That's what caught my attention and pulled me back into this discussion. You need to be much more respectful. Erica is a highly competent genealogist, and she's no idiot when it comes to DNA. You haven't even made a prima facie case here, much less presented a reason for anyone to accept your claims. A little less bullying here, please.

Basically FTDNA doesn't show you men who match you with more than 6 - 7 marker distance on the Y-67 test.

In my experience, men who match my son with a distance of 3 or 4 and over would have a shared ancestor with him at LEAST 300 years back.

If you are talking about a distance of 10 - 20 markers out of 67 markers, any shared ancestor is hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years ago.

The caveat is, as Justin pointed out, that different markers mutate at different rates and there are online articles about the rate of mutation of various markers.

My son and his 4th cousin once removed have a distance of 4 markers on the Y-67 test. Their proven shared ancestor was born around 1780.

However others on the test with a distance of 3 or 4 cannot be more closely related than say 300+ years ago and could be several hundred years more distance.