GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2001-01 > 0980330464


From: Doug Mumma <>
Subject: [DNA] Mumma Surname DNA Test results
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:01:04 -0800
In-Reply-To: <200101231437.GAA29291@pml.rootsweb.com>


On 01/23/2001, Ann Turner wrote to Doug Mumma:

>I may be leaping to
>conclusions, but it seems like you can almost look at the Henry numbers for
>people who show a single variation and deduce where it happened, e.g. #22 and
>descendants are different than #21 and #27 and their descendants, so the
>mutation must have occurred in #22 or #221. And you'd need more data to
>decide which one. We genealogists ALWAYS want more data! How do you interpret
>those results?

Yes Ann, you have spotted one of the most interesting aspects of the
results I obtained. It really excites me. I dreamed that "controlled"
mutations would occur and they did. Needless to say, I wish I had a 100
participants so that additional mutations could be observed in the
different branches. In fact, I would like to take one branch and test a
cousin at each twig. #22 would be a good branch because it is well defined
and identified. Of course, a few more mutations down the branch would be
more helpful.

I fully agree that it appears the mutation on locus 4 (DYS391) occurred
either with #22 or #221. Since none of #22's siblings show the mutation, my
guess would be the mutation occurred with his son, #221. Also, #22 only had
one son, namely #221 and #221's first son and his 9th child (a son) both
show the mutation. I say, "lets go dig up #221 and prove it!" :)

I would like to continue a number of pure scientific experiments and tests,
but I have to remember why I got into the swamp!! And I am draining it
nicely! I think one of the other exciting facts was the clear difference in
the data between those that share the MOMMA/MUMMA fingerprint and those
that don't. One initial concern I had was whether the data values would be
so close that I would have difficulty identifying MUMMAs and
non-MUMMAs. That doesn't appear to be the case for the data I obtained so far.

I also discussed with participant M20 whether or not he wanted to try and
discover at what generation his non-paternity occurred. We could have
solicited additional 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. cousins for testing, but quite
frankly, finding out that he was not a MUMMA descendant, even though he
carried the MUMMA surname, was an emotional shock and he wanted to drop the
issue. A wise decision I feel as he might have found out additional
information he really didn't want to know. This is an obvious hazard if
you participate in this type of DNA study.

My problem now is I want to measure more locus. My German Mommas and I
match exactly (I am M01) so we don't know where we have the common
ancestor, only that we do. This is fantastic information because I was
beginning to doubt the connection and is a reason I included a MUMME
participant. I figured if I didn't share a common ancestor with the MOMMA
family, then maybe I did with the MUMME family. After all, it is only
changing a single vowel. Anyway, now that I have evidence I share a common
MOMMA ancestry, it is back to serious documentary genealogy, but with a
firm direction!

Doug

This thread: