Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-11 > 1069480481

From: "Jerry L. Ivey" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Accuracy
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:54:54 -0600

Update on the 464 question for the Ivey-Ivie-Ivy family.

The 25-marker upgrade for the Curtis line #8367 turned out to be a 16
for the 464a. So, it would appear likely that the group of (#7724,
10541, 10521) with the 16-16-16-18 values has the ancestral haplotype
for the three groupings.

Ann's point is then well taken. Without a "paper trail", it would be
possible to make a false assumption that the James (#7362, 8160, 9798)
and the Curtis (#13261) line are the same. Any one of the 464a, 464b, or
464c could have changed, and the change could have been a different one
for the two lines.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry L. Ivey
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:51 AM
Subject: RE: [DNA] Accuracy

At such an early stage of the family study, it would be difficult of
course to say which group has the "ancestral" haplotype. We have to
combine these results with other family history which gives us stronger
confidence that the James (7362, 8160, 9798) and the Curtis (#13261)
line are the same. We believe that the James mentioned is the grandson
of the father (~1745-1820 in NC/SC) of Curtis.

We expect the DNARefine results for the other Curtis line #8367 soon.
There is a genetic difference of 1 on the 389-1 and 389-2 results. If
the close match should continue for the 25 markers, it will be
interesting to see the 464 values for this line --- will they be 15 or

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Accuracy

Jerry mentioned that the DYS464 system helped separate some IVEY lines.
That may very well be the case, but there's another way to look at the
data. Suppose the group of three (#7724, 10541, 10521) with the
16-16-16-18 values actually has the ancestral haplotype. The descendants
of James (7362, 8160, 9798) and Curtis (#13261) have 15-16-16-18. How do
you know it was the same marker which changed to 15 in those two
lineages? It could have been any one of the three 16s, and you could be
making a false assumption that Curtis and James are on the same branch.
It does look like they all have a common ancestor somewhere, though! It
will be interesting to see how new results fill out the pattern.

To join and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy
records, go to:

This thread: