GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

From: Karl Seitz <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Success stories [source of DNA]
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 22:15:48 -0600
References: <188.1623b06f.2b92b208@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <188.1623b06f.2b92b208@aol.com>

It is very definitely worthwhile for Bill Bailey to do some "reverse"
genealogy. Moving backward is a general rule for which exceptions can
and should be made when circumstances warrant.

One of my nonDNA genealogical breakthroughs was just such a reverse
approach that ended up closing a two-generation gap.
--
Karl Seitz

Ann Turner wrote in part:
>Bill Bailey was lucky that his DNA matched someone whose paper trail went
>back to the 1500s. Bill may not be descended from the same ancestor, but the
>match gives him some very good clues on when and where to pursue the
>documentation.
>
>That brings up a question: do you all think it's worthwhile for Bill to do
>some "reverse" genealogy? We're taught to start with what we know and work
>backwards, rather than starting with some immigrant with our surname and
>tracing all his descendants in the hopes that one of the branches will lead
>to us. But Bill may be within 3 or so generations of Lawrence Ellison. I
>think I'd be tempted to gamble and research descendants of Lawrence Ellison
>at least a little bit, knowing full well that the common ancestor could be
>farther back and/or in a different location.
>

This thread:

• [DNA] Re: by
  • [DNA] Re: by
  • Re: [DNA] by
    • Re: [DNA] by Alan Savin <>