This
page contains one note:
LeStrange/Strange/Strang/Stronge/Strong
DNA Study Note #7:
===========================================
The subject of this note is a discussion of certain aspects of the history of the Donegal Bay Strong Families and the results of the DNA Study
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnaresults.htm as it relates to these families. An overview of the research involving these
families may be reviewed at The
Donegal Strong Puzzle. There is a
hypothesis that the Donegal & Fermanagh Strongs are descended from George Strong and Thomas Strong
(relationship unknown) who appear in a 1665 tax roll in County Donegal,
Ireland; testing this hypothesis is one of the objects of the present study.
I)
Note the value of 12 indicated for DYS 393; note also the value of 10 for DYS 459a. The usual values are 13 for DYS 393 and 9 for DYS 459a. Apparently the values found for the Donegal Bay Strongs are both highly unusual. It should be noted that we have complete 25 marker results for each of the kits in this group. Interestingly, the PP3 (additional 13 markers) portion of the results show no further differences between the kits.
DYS 393 is a very stable marker, and a value of 12 is not even mentioned as a usual occurance for the average HG1 member. See: "Y-Chromosome Haplogroups" and especially follow the link to the: frequency distribution for DYS 393 Note the rather low rate of occurance for an allele value of 12; and note also the standard deviation rates for the alleles in the HG1 data for DYS 393 indicating possibly a low mutation rate for DYS 393, with a standard deviation of .36. Cautioning that there is as yet limited data upon which to convert his data to mutation rates, in a message dated March 3, 2003, Dennis Garvey suggests a method by which a "conversion would be done: DYS390 shows a standard deviation of 0.64, and DYS393 has a standard deviation of 0.36. Let's accept a mutation rate of 0.2% for DYS390. That means that the mutation rate for DYS393 might be about (0.36*03.36)/(0.64*0.64)*0.2% = 0.06% - which is about a third of that for DYS390." See also Dennis Garvey’s webpage, “Standard Deviation vs. Mutation Rate” .
Re DYS 459a = 10: See: "Y-Chromosome Haplogroups" and especially follow the link to frequency distribution for DYS 459a . Again, note the rather low rate of occurance for an allele value of 10; and note also the standard deviation rates for the alleles in the HG1 data for DYS 459a, indicating possibly a low mutation rate for DYS 459a, with a standard deviation of .27. Dennis Garvey’s proportionality calculation might apply here as well.
I suggest the results indicate a likelihood that the Donegal-Fermanagh Strong lineage has rather unique markers in DYS 393 and DYS 459a. Those who bear a value of 12 for DYS 393 and 10 for DYS 459a are very likely related, regardless of how many steps difference there is in total for the other markers, particularly given that these lineages originate in an "endogamous" community (marrying within the group, a broader, looser alternative to the word inbreeding, which seems to imply marriage between closely related people); from geographic locations probably not 25 miles from each other, in a time and local culture in which migration was unusual. Given the close coincidence of markers 393, 459a, 390, and 385b re the Donegal and Fermanagh participants, I think these lines are closer than might otherwise be thought when you consider Kits #5811 & 6643 were initally thought to be 5 steps apart in 25 markers (now the apparent count is down to 4 steps in the 25 markers). Note, 3 of those steps arise because of a 3 step difference on DYS 439, which is one of the rapidly moving markers.
There is considerable controversy whether we can count the 3 step difference
as only ONE mutation. Per an email message from Lloyd Horrocks,
Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry at
Now, if we use the Kinney genetic distance calculation, re the differences on DYS 389-2 and DYS 389-1, the results for kits #5811 and 6643 are then only one step apart on these markers rather than the two which are apparent just looking at the total differences between the two kits. If, per Lloyd Horrocks, we can count the three steps on DYS 439 as only one; then the grand total of the genetic distance is TWO, which might be in the ball park if both lines mutated once on different markers over the course of the ~200 to 350 years from the speculative most recent common ancestor. My "Kinney" calculations re the kits:
|
|
(DYS 389-2) |
- |
(DYS 389-1) |
= x |
|
|
|
#6643: |
29 |
- |
13 |
=16 |
|
|
|
#5811: |
28 |
- |
12 |
=16 |
|
|
|
result: |
|
|
1 |
+ 0 |
= 1 |
|
|
|
(DYS 389-2) |
- |
(DYS 389-1) |
= x |
|
|
|
#13952: |
29 |
- |
13 |
=16 |
|
|
|
#5811: |
28 |
- |
12 |
=16 |
|
|
|
result: |
|
|
1 |
+ 0 |
= 1 |
|
There is no differential between Kits #6643 and #13952 at DYS 389-2 and DYS 389-1. Note that a similar calculation for the results in Kits #6761 & 8431, which each have the same values for DYS 389-2 and DYS 389-1, when compared against Kit #6643 yields a similar result:
|
|
(DYS 389-2) |
- |
(DYS 389-1) |
= x |
|
|
|
#6643: |
29 |
- |
13 |
=16 |
|
|
|
#6761: |
30 |
- |
14 |
=16 |
|
|
|
result: |
|
|
1 |
+ 0 |
= 1 |
|
Thus, we can conclude there is only a maximum 1 step of difference at DYS 389-2 and DYS 389-1 for kits #6643 and #5811, and for kits #13952 and #5811; and for both Kits #6761 and #8431 when compared against Kit #6643.
I have posted a revised descendancy chart
for Kits #13952 and #6643 at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/6643.htm
and I have posted a hypothesis regarding a part of the overall Donegal Bay decadency,
showing the relationships between Kits #5811, #13952 and #6643 at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/13952.htm
Note, I think Kit #13952’s STR results, particularly re DYS439, where he =s12, taken
together with his traceable common ancestry with Kit #6643 re Geo.Strong & Eleanor Spence, proves what I have thought
all along, eg., that Kit #6643’s DYS439=9 was a
mutation from the general haplotype, and that
we are all related. Given also my previously expressed belief based
on certain circumstantial evidence, that Kit #5811’s Geo. Strong I was a son of
Geo.Strong & Eleanor Spence, I think the
hypothesis at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/13952.htm
is reasonable.
I continue to think Kit #6761 and #8431 are descended from Thomas Strong of
the 1665 Hearth Money Roll for Killaghtee
Parish. I think
Kits #5811, #13952 and #6643 are descended from George Strong of the
same roll.... the only DNA difference being 16 vs 15
at DYS385b. We continue to need participants, particularly
from the Strong lines from
II) The Blair DNA
Study Group One:
A bit of investigation concerning a close set of markers (within two steps) in a Scottish participant in testing at Family Tree DNA revealed a VERY close relationship between our Donegal Bay Strongs and the Blair Family Society’s Group One. It appears that our Assumed Haplotype is within two steps of the Modal Haplotype for Blair Group One. The differences are found at DYS #s 447 & 449, where we have values of 25 and 31 respectively, versus their values of 26 and 30 respectively. The DNA results for the two groups may be compared by calling up Blair Group One, as well as our own on the DNA Results page.
The following edited group of messages relate to the significance of these findings about the possible relationships between the Donegal Bay Strongs and the Blair Family DNA Study Group One:
----- Original Message #1 -----
From: David B. Strong
Sent:
Subject: DNA Research Blair vs Strong
Hello, John Blair:
I am the coordinator of the Strong-Stronge-Strang-Strange-LeStrange DNA Study. The results of our study can be viewed at the following website:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnaresults.htm
It has come to my attention that the members of your Blair Group I http://blairgenealogy.com/dna/group1.html fit fairly closely with the "DNA Signatures" of two kits in our study, #5811 and #6643; these two kits appear as the Donegal & Fermanagh group in the Strong, etal., study. We have two other kits which are yet to be tested, #s 6761 & 8431 which may well have the same signature as the first two kits indicated here (ed.note; in fact these kits did prove to have the same DNA signatures). You will note that #5811 is just two steps away from your kit #4052... with variations on DYS#s (389-2 minus 389-1) and on DYS#447. Kit #6643 has a 3 step in 12 markers difference all concentrated on DYS#439: we have been advised that this could be a single mutation. The participant has recently ordered an upgrade from the 12 marker test to the full 25 marker test. It will be interesting to see the results when they are returned, as well as the results on the two additional kits.
The foregoing information is, of course, surprising to us. We have spent some time reviewing your results and associated webpages in an attempt to assess how and if we may be related to the Blair family.
There is no apparent possible relationship between our kits
and the ancestor of your participant #4052. Our speculative
ancestors seem to be traced, with some record gaps, to George Strong and Thomas
Strong who appear on a 1665 Hearth Money Roll for Killaghtee
Parish, Barony of Boylagh and Bannagh,
First: In reviewing your list of BSGR Major
Lines Not Represented in your study to date, http://blairgenealogy.com/dna/bsgrlines.html , I
note reference to a John Blair and Margaret Hawthorne, who apparently migrated
from
Second: In the Blair Heraldry page, http://blairsociety.org/heraldry.htm the
discussion indicates the "Blairs of Blair" were chief of all Blair families in
Third: In the A Place Called Blair web page, http://blairsociety.org/blplace.htm
regarding "
Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide.
Dave Strong ...
DNA Study Coordinator & webmaster:
Book I: RESEARCHING STRONG(E) AND STRANG(E)
IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/contents.htm
Database and manuscript. See especially Chap. 13,
entitled "Lineages"; and Chapt. 15,
"DNA Study"
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnastudy.htm
&
Book II: THE DONEGAL STRONG PUZZLE:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/indxdrft.htm
Research and study of Counties Donegal and Fermanagh Strongs and
related families.
=============================================================
----- Original Message #2-----
From: John A. Blair
To: David B. Strong
Sent:
Subject: Re: DNA Research Blair vs Strong
Hi Dave,
I must say, I'm impressed with level of research you've put into making a
connection between Blair and Strong. I'm not sure I can be of much help though.
As I'm sure you know, a 23 for 25 match means there is only a 50% probability
that TMRCA is with 28 generation. I would estimate the probability of TMRCA
being within the time period of the Blair surname is about 65%. This seems
rather remote when there is no connection between the surnames that I'm aware
of.
Let me take each of your requests one at a time.
First: Researchers of John Blair and Margaret Hawthorne. Of the 4 researchers
only one is still an active member of the BSGR. I would have no way of
contacting the other three. Due to privacy consideration, I cannot give out any
contact information on BSGR members. I will contact this member and let them
know of your desire to share information.
Second: Blair families with Wigtonshire connections.
Unfortunately I don't know of anyone with connections to Wigtonshire.
(The) only thing I can think of that may help is to visit my OPR database at http://blairgenealogy.com/database.html
and do a birth and marriage search on the
Third:
I'm sorry I could be of more help. Please let me know if anything comes of this
or if you get any other close matches.
John
-----
John A. Blair
http://blairgenealogy.com
mailto:[email protected]
BLAIR DNA Project Family Coordinator
==============================================================
----- Original Message #3-----
From: David B. Strong
To: John A. Blair
Sent:
Subject: Re: DNA Research Blair vs Strong
Hi John...
Thanks for your help. I realize this is something of a longshot... but there is more of a match between us and Blair Group I than there is with any other group inside of our Strong DNA study. I suspect we will have to be patient and see how things develop, realizing that the answers may never show up. I suspect there was some event long ago which might offer the explanation if we could ever find out what it was! {:-)
I did check the marriage and births index you have on
line. I noted the marriage on
I will watch for any development of a Murray DNA study, and will be watching with interest to see if there is any similarity of DNA signatures.
Please keep us in mind, and if anything comes up which may be of interest, please let me know.
Regards
Dave Strong
(Note, the following message is inserted here because of it’s relevance
to certain issues arising out of our findings re the apparent relationships
between the Donegal Bay Strongs and Blair Group One:)
----- Original Message #4-----
From: <Ann Turner>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent:
Subject: Re: Fw: [DNA] Surname studies paper-trail and non-paternity
In a message dated
My next question is how these men with a non-paternity event are going to find their "birth family" - or if
they can from DNA. Now we're in the realm of not sharing the same last name as
their biological cousins. Where would be the best places to look for the
biological family? Family? Neighbors? General community?
Or is that too much to ask of DNA? What would any of you suggest as far as looking for a situation in
which this event might have taken place
- say the young death of a woman (died in childbirth - possibly friends or family raised her infant), a woman
widowed early in her marriage, etc..
This is a general question, so I'll try to formulate some general answers.
No matter how you approach it, it's going to be a very convoluted process.
The very first question is to assess the level of desire to learn more.
Typically, we're talking about a common ancestor who lived a number of generations ago,
and the nonpaternity event (or even more than one)
could
have occurred in any one of those generations. It could be painful to discover
the nonpaternity event was in a recent generation.
Everyone who parti
cipates in a surname study knows this is a
theoretical possibility, but feelings can change when the possibility becomes a
certainty, and the outcome
might affect many other people. Some people may justifiably elect to leave some
ambiguity.
The level of desire also comes into play when considering the time and
financial aspects of additional research and testing. You'd need to establish
which generation was impacted by the nonpaternity
event. Say the presumed common ancestor was 12 generations back. If you can
find someone who descends in a different line from the person at the midway
point, 6 generations back, then his results would tell
you whether the nonpaternity event occurred in the
most recent 6 generations or in the most distant 6 generations. Then you would
need to find descendants of someone in the middle of that range and repeat the
process.
So the research will be difficult, and you may not even find appropriate
candidates. Then if you do find a person, you'll need to convince them to
donate a DNA sample to the cause. That person will either be a total stranger,
or a fellow researcher who might be reluctant to learn something
which could unravel all his work. We on this mailing list have to remember
we're not a random sample of the population -- we're self-selected because we
have an intense interest in genealogy and learning the facts by any means available.
Once you reach the point where you know the generation, then all of your
scenarios are plausible ones. By the nature of this research, you're unlikely
to find any documentary evidence, just circumstantial evidence. But if you
succeed, you've just broadened the scope of your research all over again,
looking for male-line descendants of new candidates, who may not be too pleased
to learn that their ancestor might have been the responsible party.
I'm painting a rather bleak picture, huh? I wouldn't even start the process
myself unless the haplotype was a very rare and
distinctive one.
Turning that around, if we find a person with connections to the tested family line who has a one or
two mutation match on 25 markers, might it be important to look for a non-paternity event? How likely
would it be to have a 23 out of 25 match and not share a common
ancestor? When Family Tree DNA shows we have such a match, should we write to
that person? What about 12 marker matches? I have not done that with the
12, but would like to know what the rest of you do.
ON THE AVERAGE, a nonpaternity event would have many
more mismatches, so if you have reasonable documentation, I would not be
concerned about a 23 out of 25 match WITHIN a surname project. Further research
may pinpoint generations where the mutations occurred, so the whole picture
becomes more coherent.
For a RANDOM 23 out of 25 match, the common ancestor
is likely to have lived too long ago to be of much interest. From my MRCA
calculator, the median number of generations and the 95% confidence interval
for finding the MRCA for 0, 1 and 2 mutations is
0 6.9 0.3 to 36.9
1 17.1 2.5 to 56.9
2 27.9 6.4 to 75.4
Ann Turner - GENEALOGY-DNA List Administrator
Search or Browse the archives, Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/legacy/other/Miscellaneous/GENEALOGY-DNA.html
There is not a lot to be added to the foregoing information at this time. There remain some interesting issues for further research as time goes on. One of the possible avenues of research is explored in the following section.
=============================================================
III – Other Family
Relationships in the
Ric Mathews maintains a “My
Family” website which involves his interest in the Harron
and Morrow Families of Arran Township, Bruce County,
Ontario which originated in the
“I’ve been lurking on Ric Mathew’s My Family website for a long time, and have been busy with my own research, elsewhere. For several reasons I think it is time to discuss something with you involving all of our research. What follows is a quickly written overview of some of my research, leading to a request for assistance.
First, as some of
you may know, my interest in the Harron lineage is
that my gggrandmother was Mary Harron; she was married to
George Strong in
Second, I have
spent about 20 years researching the Donegal and Fermanagh
Strongs and related lineages. As a result of my research, I have come to
believe that the entire community of families residing around
Third, the Harron surname can, I believe, be traced to a (Patrick) Herron (probably a variant spelling of Heron) who was mustered (see below) in Co. Donegal as one of the
settlers brought in by one of the original Planters. I believe the spelling “Harron”
is a locally developed usage, and is unique to the descendancy
in Donegal. Contemporary names include McKie (various spellings), and Morrow (various spellings),
among others. The earliest Strong
record I have found is from a ~1665 Hearth Money Roll for Kilaghtee Parish, near Killybegs,
and includes a George Strong and Thomas Strong. I am operating on a hypothesis that all of
the Strongs subsequently found in the records around
Fourth, one of
the early planters in the area around Killybegs was a
(The following
discussion is inserted here to emphasize the foregoing point that the Settlers
around Donegal Bay came originally from Southwest Scotland, and may
specifically included members of the Murray family… and the lack of mention of
the “Morrow” name is significant…. Emphasizing the point that the Morrow name
may be a later developed variation of “
In Killybegs parish (which apparently originally included the
Parish of Killaghtee), the land was granted to
Scottish planters, with the exception of 14 Ballyboes
of lowland and 14 balliboes of upland belonging to
the Church. The Church lands were claimed by the new Protestant Bishop of Raphoe. By the spring of 1610 the final arrangements for
the
Of the original
Scots planters mentioned above, few except Alexander Dunbar spent any time in
their new lands in Donegal and started selling them off. About 1620, the
estates were regranted as a whole to John Murray, 1st
Earl of
The following Muster Roll of John Murray’s tenants is taken from: http://members.aol.com/lochlan2/muster.htm
====== The Muster Roll of the
As printed in the Donegal Annual:
(Names of interest in
the present research of the
Barony de Boylagh and Bannagh
The Earle of Annandall, undertaker of 10,000 acres,
the names of his men and armes. Andrew Nesbit
Hector Douglas Robert Rinkeny John Gourdon James Read elder Nichol Walker Alexander Tyndy Swords onely Martin Shellan ------------ Andrew Shellan
David Greire John mcKilvame
John Creighton Sword and Snaphance Robert Creighton
------------------- James Crafford David ffynley Andrew Dunne Archbald Houet younger David Kernes George
Molligan Robert Kernes
David Jackson younger David Jackson John Reynold John
Creighton younger John Kirkpatrick Alexander mcMachan
John Hall Patrick Dunbar John Makye Edward Houet George Miller John ffynlay
Andrew mcffarlan Thomas Gressy
Richard Murray Andrew Keirs Gilbert Shaw Thomas
Creighton Walter Leaky Robert mcKnaght James Read
younger James mcKnaght younger John William John
Shane younger Edward Griffeth John Scot
younger John mcClintog Gilbert Shankeland
John Menzes John Milligan younger Patrick Herron
John Vaux John mcClanes
John mcKilmain John mcCartney
James Shan younger John Chancellor John Kirkpatrick Robert Walker Alexander
Shilan John Creighton John Walker John mcKennet Robert Vaux
Thomas Blane John Waker
Sampson mcKee Michaell
mcKilwayne James Blane Arch
Horner William Ellot William Cocheran George Ellot John
mcKaughry John Waus John
Dunbar John mcKee Gilbert mcClelan
p. 15 William mcClaughry Alexander Scot William mcConnell William Douglas John mcConnell
Hugh Reed Dunkan mcKilmore Alexander
mcCullogh John Camell Thomas
mcCullogh Anthony Shaw George mcCullogh Patrick mcHutchin
Jo: Small younger John Bagster David Wilson Robert mcHutchen John Karnes John Harvye
Robert Maxwell Steaphen Price Thomas Scot James Hugones George Scot David Barnes John Johnston John Smyth
William Layser James mcKnoe
William Kenedy Alexander Murry
John mcKinley James Murry
John mcCormick John Murry
John Leis Adam Makee William Leies Robert Makee John mcKneilly James Frizsell Patrick
Dunbar John Frizell John Camell
Thomas Carnes John Dunbar Thomas Carnes younger John Walker ffynlay mcCauley Andrew Dunne
Thomas Hutton Andrew Leirs John Kirk John ffynlay Peter Martin George Ellot
Andrew Robinson David Jackson Patrick Davison Robert Kernes
John mcClaughey elder James Shaw James mcClaughry John Scot No Armes
-------
John Murray, First Earl of Annandale, died in 1640; he was succeeded by his
son, James Murray, Second Earl of Annandale, who held the estate from 1640 to
1658. James Murray was succeeded by
competing claimants. The first, Sir
Robert Crichton, claimed ownership under the will of James Murray. The second, Richard Murray of
Fifth…. I have for sometime hypothesized that the surname “Morrow” as found in Donegal is a variant spelling of “Murray” (or “Murry”, as it appears in the above Muster Roll)… and I base that in part on the foregoing paragraph, and in part on the fact that spelling of surnames tended to vary depending on the ear of the person making the record and how the name was pronounced to that recorder by the individual bearing the name. I could point to numerous examples of what I am saying, but for now, please bear with the point.
Sixth: Until recently, I was never sure whether the Strong surname was English or Scottish in origin. I am now quite sure it was Scots, and was perhaps “originally” Strang… the usual Scots spelling of the surname. I have made this conclusion as a result of a DNA Study which I am coordinating. You can see the Results of the DNA Study by logging onto the following website: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnaresults.htm
Particularly, note the findings relating to the Donegal and Fermanagh grouping… presently [five] persons, …. We are within two steps of a match on 25 markers on the Y-Chromosome; the differences being, I am fairly sure, a result of single mutations in each of our lines over the last two hundred years. ….
What confirms the Scottish roots for our Strong lineage is
the fact that our DNA results closely match the DNA signature of the BLAIR
family! This came, of course, as
something of a surprise. As I
researched the Blair family, I happened to observe that certain Blair locations
seem to have coincidence with our roots in Wigtownshire and the association
with the
In the Blair Heraldry page, http://blairsociety.org/heraldry.htm
the discussion indicates the "Blairs of
Blair" were chief of all Blair
families in
In the A Place Called Blair web page, http://blairsociety.org/blplace.htm
there is mention of "
I also noted the marriage on
It appears likely that the Donegal Strong lineage may be
related to the Blair of Blair lineage through the
Finally, here is
where I hope some of you will jump in and help on the further research
involved. To date, I am unaware of any
DNA Studies involving Harrons or Morrows (or
The entire subject of DNA research for Genealogy is very wide-ranging and is developing rapidly. I encourage you to visit my DNA Study webpage and follow the links for an introduction to the subject. See: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnastudy.htm
(Note, it is possible to expand the Strong DNA Surname study to include
a Community Group Study of the
Participants must be a male, surnamed Strong, or for
purposes of the present discussion, Harron, Morrow,
or
If you are interested in persuing this inquiry, please let me know. I hope to hear from you… and hope you will be interested in following this research in whatever direction it takes us.”
Regards
Dave Strong
IV – Where do we go
from here?
The latest DNA Results are in.... they tend to confirm what
we have already hypothesized... and knew. Kit
#6761 matches Kit #8431, his known cousin, exactly. We all match
fairly closely... with a few mutations here and there, and we all are fairly
close to the Blair Group 1. There is an interesting difference
between Kit #6761 and Kit #8431 on the
one hand, and Kits #5811, # 6643 and #13952 on the other, at DYS 385b, where
Kit #6761 and Kit #8431have a value of
16, and Kit #5811s, # 6643 and #13952 have a value of 15. The 15
value is consistant with the Blair Group 1
pattern. I suspect that if we are related to the Blair Group
1 as a branch that developed over 300 years ago, the original haplotype included DYS 385b=15. This DNA
note #7 has been compiled
to present in summary the results of the DNA investigation and
research to this point.
I think on the basis of the results to date, we can fairly positively state
that all of the Donegal & Fermanagh Strongs are related to each other. So
far, NONE of the various lines tested have NOT matched fairly closely... and
the testing has the interesting aspect that part of my hypothesis is that
Kit #6761 and
Kit #8431possibly descend from the Thomas Strong found in the 1665 Hearth Money
Rolls of Killaghtee Parish near Killybegs,
while Kit # 6643, #5811 and #13592
possibly descend from the George Strong found in the same
roll. The difference at DYS 385b is consistent with this
hypothesis. It would be quite interesting to see whether
representatives of the other Donegal Strong lineages have the same difference,
consistent with where they are situated in my Hypothetical Descendancy.
Note, I am contemplating putting up a truncated web version of the Hypothetical
Descendancy soon, to which we might all link without
the necessity of duplicating the presentation on
various personal websites, etc.
Another interesting thing has come to my attention, which concerns the
relationship of Blood Groups to certain DNA patterns, perhaps extending to
certain Haplogroups and sub-groups. It seems we
may be descendants of
an Asiatic ethnic group! At least some of
the participants in the kits tested are members of Blood Group B. I refer you to the following article: "Blood
Groups and the history of peoples".
Blood Group B is compatible with a diet which is
characterized as "cultured dairy products and blood"... the
diet of the nomadic peoples of
I HAVE determined that our Blood Grouping is not a function of the
Y-Chromosome. Rather, it is a function of what is called the ABO Gene on
Chromosome 9. It is probable that the frequency of occurance of Blood Group B
in our Donegal Strongs is a function of the fact that Chromosome 9 has been
"traveling" in the same endogamous population as our Y-Chromosomes.
For further discussion of the Blood Group phenomenon, see Blood
Group B and it's relation to the Donegal Bay Strongs. Refer again to the
significant differences between our Haplotype
patterns and those of the other participants in the Strong DNA study on
the one hand, and on the other hand, the rather unique similarities between our
Donegal Bay Strongs and Blair Group
One. I
believe there is a unique
DNA haplogroup or haplotype
associated with our
If you are in contact with other male Strong members of the
Donegal lineages who have not yet joined the DNA Study, I hope you will urge
them to join in... this stuff is VERY interesting, and
we are compiling significant evidence to
help prove the hypotheses we are
related, and how! We can now extend the
scope of the study to include male members of other
Regards,
David
B. Strong. (Click for contact information)
DNA Study Coordinator & webmaster:
Book I: RESEARCHING STRONG(E) AND STRANG(E)
IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/contents.htm
Database and manuscript. See especially Chap. 13,
entitled "Lineages"; and Chapt. 15,
"DNA Study"
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnastudy.htm
&
Book II: THE DONEGAL STRONG PUZZLE:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/indxdrft.htm
Research and study of Counties Donegal and Fermanagh Strongs and
related families.
=============================================================
USE Back Button to return to DNA
Study Results page, or click:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnaresults.htm