Col. John West of West Point, Virginia - @Colonel John West II

> I don't know how to read the numbers so I highlighted the matching numbers and you can see on my screen shot in the media section that Maj John West's part is not highlighted.

Rianna, those highlighted numbers are a convention used to show the differences a particular sample has from the group it is being compared to.

I saw your screen shot earlier. I'll go hunt it out again.

Thanks. It's in the media section.

Riana, this might be more or less than you are asking or want to know but I'll do this for the benefit of others too.

The screen capture I see on the Sources tab for "Sonne to the Queen of Pamunkey" John West is generated by the FTDNA system, using the group as defined by the project admin.

If you go to the West project:
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/westdna

Then click DNA Results, you have a variety of options. You can click on Classic Chart, Colorized Chart, or SNPs. Classic Chart is the normal view most people would use. Colorized chart is an analytical tool.

Across the top of each group, the page displays the Min, Max, and Mode value for the group. Here the group is FG 07b.

The numbering matches the numbering used on the other project page, so it's easy to follow. But, the color scheme for group headers in this project ends up with group 07b blending into the group above it, so it's a bit hard to see.

Within group 07b, every marker that is different from the norm ("mode") for the group is highlighted. That allows you to see at a glance where the differences are.

There are two entries for users who claim descent from Maj. John West. They have very few differences. In other words, a good match to the group as a whole.

But that tells us nothing, really. It's circular reasoning. The group is created around Maj. John. It's not a surprise his supposed descendants match it.

Tom, I haven't forgotten that I still owe you some information about the science behind autosomal matching. If I don't get to that tonight, I'll do it tomorrow.

Erica, the only reason I know about or noticed Thomas Harrison is that I'm descended from his brother Burr Harrison. You Virginia curators are supposed to do my Virginia genealogy for me so I can focus on the interesting stuff ;)

I'm going to go ahead and merge them for now, understanding that someone might have evidence that will tear them apart again someday.

And speaking of Burr Harrison, here he is mentioned in John West d 1716 will

http://www.colonial-settlers-md-va.us/getperson.php?personID=I07789...

John West will written in November 16, 1715 and probated February 13, 1716 list the following heirs. John gives to grandson, Hugh West the 300 acre William Green Land. He gives to his grandson, John West the 313 acres of Simson Land on Great Hunting Creek. He gives 100 acres to Burr Harrison, son of Capt. Thomas Harrison and his favorite gun. He gave to his son, John West, the 2000 acres (really 1160 acres) of the Harrison, Harrison, Pearson Grant on Hunting Creek Branches. John also gives to his son, John 500 acres of land on the PAMUNKEY RIVER. THIS IS IMPORTANT AS THIS PAMUNKEY LAND WAS ORIGINALLY GRANTED TO GOVERNOR JOHN WEST IN 1653 WHICH VIRTUALLY PROVES DESCENT FROM GOVERNOR JOHN WEST OR AT LEAST A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP INTO THE WEST OR DELAWARE WEST FAMILY. He also grants his son John 100 acres of land below the Potomac Falls. He gives William Harrison jr. a young horse. He gives to James Turley his long gun. He gives to daughter in law, Ann Turley 3000 lb. Tobacco at her marriage. He gives to his Godson, John Symmonds, 100 acres of land of which John's father, Thomas Symmonds is living. HE FINALLY GRANTS TWO COWS AND CALVES TO THOMAS WEST. This Thomas West is presumed to be a younger brother or nephew of John West, deceased.

Nice find. I have to the the Artuburns that their William Harrison is right there in a will.

Erica, that's the 500 acres I mentioned earlier in this discussion. To me it makes a very strong case.

https://www.geni.com/discussions/169645?msg=1158119

Tom said, however, it was 300 acres and that it previously belonged to Toby West.

https://www.geni.com/discussions/169645?msg=1158170

I haven't tried to verify that yet.

Toby's property was Gloucester county

https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=137571059

Toby West patented 500 acres in Gloucester County on 27 May 1654, the same day that Capt. John West, Esqr, patented 1000 acres in Gloucester Co. (Cavaliers and Pioneers, Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants, by Nell Nugent, p. 232). ....After his death, Toby West's property passed to Cockacoeske's son, Maj. John West.

http://lva-linux-temp.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com:8991/F/46BLFXMYV47LB...

URL (Click on link) http://image.lva.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/GetLONN.pl?first=10&last=... 
Author West, Toby. grantee.
Title Land grant 27 May 1654.
Summary Location: Gloucester County.
Description: 500 acres on the north east side of Mattapony River and ___ north side of Thomas Sanders’ land.

http://lva-linux-temp.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com:8991/F/46BLFXMYV47LB...

URL (Click on link) http://image.lva.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/GetLONN.pl?first=10&last=... 
Author West, John, Capt. grantee.
Title Land grant 27 May 1654.
Summary Location: Gloucester County.
Description: 1000 acres on the No. Et. side of Mattapony River, adjoining the land of Ralph Green.
Source: Land Office Patents No. 3, 1652-1655, p. 10 (Reel 2).

http://lva-linux-temp.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com:8991/F/46BLFXMYV47LB...

URL (Click on link) http://image.lva.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/GetLONN.pl?first=150&last... 
Author West, John, Col. grantee.
Title Land grant 2 June 1657.
Gen. note "See the Margin"
Summary Location: Gloucester County.
Description: 1000 acres on the north east side of Mattapony River, adjoining Ralph Greens land "Renewed in Mr. Thomas Ramseys name, as signed to him by Captn. West, son of Col. West, March 18 1662". .
Source: Land Office Patents No. 4, 1655-1664, p. 150 (Reel 4).

And he [the Col John West] got some more ...

http://lva-linux-temp.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com:8991/F/46BLFXMYV47LB...

URL (Click on link) http://image.lva.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/GetLONN.pl?first=178&last... 
Author West, John, Col. grantee.
Title Land grant 22 October 1682.
Summary Location: County location not given.
Description: 3000 acres on the north side of Mattapony River, on the upper side of Dr. Moodies land.
Source: Land Office Patents No. 7, 1679-1689 (v.1 & 2 p.1-719), p. 178 (Reel 7).

That's all I see for "West" on the Mattapony River, but should be checked by someone else.

http://lva1.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/F/?func=file&file_name=fin...

Yes, I think that's it. The takeaway here is that Maj. John West must have been a close relative of Gov. West. The only real debate is whether Maj. John West is the same person as Capt. John West.

I presume this is the Thomas West, ll, of “West Point” "nephew" mentioned in John West d 1716 will.

What Thomas West are you thinking about? Who is it is that is that Thomas West?

Or, ? Thomas West b 1690, son of Ms Pearson and John West b.1653-1716? Quoted text: http://trees.ancestry.com/pt/AMTCitationRedir.aspx?tid=20457477&amp...
CITING THIS RECORD
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Pedigree Resource File," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3C38-L95 : accessed 2017-07-09), entry for Thomas /West/.
PEDIGREE RESOURCE FILE
Person Count
2,085
Submission ID
MMDL-7VK

Maj John West Geni John West, of Stafford County, Gent.

What it says about the Maj John West just linked: "There has been discussion about the ancestry of Major John West. It is generally accepted that the John West of this will was the same John West who had been a neighbor of Burr Harrison of Chopawamsic. In 1688/9 Stafford County was a frontier settlement swept periodically by rumors that the Indians were turning against the white population. It was during this same time that rumors of Catholic plots and conspiracies with the Indians were widely spread."

Tom, I want to take a minute to help you understand autosomal DNA a little better.

You wrote your ideas here:

> Ancestry drops the accuracy 50% per generation because there are fewer makers to sequence from the original 22 genomes at each stage. Fewer markers means lesser accuracy since at that level scores and even hundreds of different surnames are identified, so even at six generations the makers values may be the same for scores of surnames, which is why as you say that the DNA washes out.

https://www.geni.com/discussions/169645?msg=1158311

There is more there, but this gives a basic idea of what you are saying.

You seem to be picturing autosomal DNA as being like yDNA. But autosomal DNA doesn't have markers or STRs. It's not linked to surnames. It's accuracy doesn't drop by 50 percent each generation.

Erase those ideas. Autosomal DNA looks at segment matches. On any particular chromosome you get 50 percent of your DNA on a chromosome from your mother and 50 percent from your father. Over the generations the segments get broken up through inheritance. So, with any particular relative you might match one or more segments of different sizes (measured in centimorgans (cM).

The number and size of the segments you share with someone is a rough guide to your actual relationship. For example, with different aunts I share 1838, 1597, and 1436 total cM. Our longest matching segments are 132, 128, and 108 cM, respectively. With my half-sister, about the same genetic distance, I share 1894 total cM. Our longest matching segment is 159. The ranges are reasonably predictable. Any could see from these numbers that these four women are probably aunts, nieces, or half-sisters.

For genealogical purposes, we normally look only for matching segments that are 7 cM or more. If you drop the matching threshold below 7 cM, you'll end up with many more matches but they are likely to be "population matches". That is, they are just background noise. You really do match, but the segments aren't large enough to be meaningful.

So, you see. No markers. No STRs. No surname links. The accuracy doesn't drop at all. It just becomes harder to find the source of the match until eventually the match is so small (weak) that it "washes out".

Yes, we need be adding a distinguishing name to the two Major Wests. So we don't know when the son of the Queen of the Pamonkeys died it looks like, and the Maj John d 1716 is the Harrison relative, which may blow up "Jane" Harrison ?

And the only property we have for Maj / Cap John is the Mappony River property but we don't have him with the patent for it (issued 1654). How do we know, then, that it wasn't his "brother's" ?

And his descent went to Chowan NC ?

It can happen that a match, if it's already fairly small to begin with, could be IBS rather than IBD.

This isn't hard to understand, although it seems like it would be.

If you have a very small match with someone, say just 7 cM, it's possible the match is an illusion. By chance, you might have inherited 3 cM from your mother and 4 cM from your father that just happen to end up adjacent to each on that chromosome. And, that 7 cM might match a segment that someone else has inherited intact over several generation.

A situation like that would make the match Identical by State (IBS) rather than Identical by Descent (IBD) -- it's identical because of chance not because you inherited it that way.

I think this might be the concept behind Tom's idea that the "accuracy" of matches drops 50 percent each generation. It doesn't, but there's this IBS / IBD thing that someone could misunderstand to mean what Tom is saying.

Tom,

Finally, there are problems with this story you tell:

> I ask Bennett Greenspan for his opinion of the relationship of two men with the same surname living in the same county at the same time with identical 67 markers. He stated that these two had to be brothers as the time to a common ancestor for them would be one generation.

There are several problems with this idea. You should best not interpret it strictly.

The main problem is I see is that recent research has shown it's not strictly true. There are scattered reports of men with the same surname who match exactly at 67 markers but are known 2nd or 3rd cousins.

And, that makes sense. The story as you tell it leaves out the dimension of time. If I am looking at two men in the same county with the same surname who both lived about 1800, then I'm not (strictly speaking) looking at their actual DNA results. Instead, I'm looking at their results as inferred from the yDNA tests of their descendants.

If the men lived a few generations ago, then they might have been brothers, but their sons will also have matched, and those sons would have been 1st cousins. And their grandsons will also have matched, and those grandsons would have been 2nd cousins. And if those matches can happen in later generations, they can also have happened in earlier generations.

It's really sort of a crap shoot. My uncle and I have a difference of 2 at 67 markers, and that's a relatively high difference for a relationship that close. What we can really say is only that two men with the same surname who match exactly at 67 markers must be fairly close relatives.

John West, of Stafford County, Gent. is likely the Jane Harrison relative because he's the one whose will devised land to Captain Burr Harrison, I, of Chopawamsic, son of Capt. Thomas Harrison. Not Burr Harrison, Jr..

But it's "Sonne to the Queen of Pamunkey" John West whose family seems to have been intertwined with the West, Harrison, Peyton, and Short families over many generations.

My impression is that we've gone very far off-track.

We should ask the Pamunky. The descendants of "Indian" Maj John West's enrolled members of the tribe will have the answers.

Explain to me about the intertwining families.

Since then this has also been proven out at 111 identical markers and I did say they were living at the same time. They also have identical Big Y SNP subgroups. And before you even ask, the descendant of each of these two brothers has been documented by the eminent professional genealogist John A Brayton many years after I had proven the same thing from original documentation.. While it is remotely possible that they had a direct common ancestor only several generations back, the math for computing the time to the most recent direct ancestor was ONE generation. And if the CEO of Family Tree DNA Bennett Greenspan says they were brothers, you can take that as gospel. These were men that lived 1636 to 1688 with a father who live 1616 to 1677 and wife (West) who lived 1614 to 1663. You evidently come from a line the has more frequent DNA marker value mutations than mine where none of the 111 makers 111 have changed values in over 300 years. Thats not to say that I dont have cousins that may have several mutations, just that mine matches the model that 15 other submitters have. There are about 50 others that have a few mutations,
especially the sons of an uncle who worked at the Hanford Nuclear Power Plant in Washington.

Here's Mike Marshall's record for John West & Unity Croshaw

http://www.colonial-settlers-md-va.us/familygroup.php?familyID=F211...

Individual view

http://www.colonial-settlers-md-va.us/getperson.php?personID=I04155...

This directly contradicts what you just said Bennett Greenspan said.

You claim that two men living in the same county at the same time with an exact 67 marker match are definitely brothers, per Bennett.

Then you throw in a story where you have a 111-marker line where the values have not changed for 300 years.

Do you see why those are conflicting claims??