David wrote: " And yes, the families of the early PA settlers don't appear match up, though - as you know - the statistical probability on either DNA-Y or mitochondrial matching lessens after so many generations."
Carol writes: Yes, this is quite true.Neither Roger or I are experts either, but FTDNA does provide us with guidelines (based on their proprietary mutation rates and math/statistical formulas).When we compare the most commonly seen values for the Glasgow group (you) to the most commonly seen values of the Somerset/Cecil group, we see 17 differences (mutations) at the 67 marker level.This number is called the 'genetic distance'.FTDNA guidelines, when comparing men at the 67 marker level, say: "Genetic Distance: Beyond 11[means] Not Related 55/67 You are not related and the odds greatly favor that you have not shared a common male ancestor with this person within thousands of years."
David writes: "...I believe that some "surprises" have also shown up, correct? For example, there is a group of MacAlexanders from Scotland who are a close hit to us,..."
Carol writes: Yes, there is a McAlexander in your Glasgow group.He is a genetic distance of 3 from you.So, despite the small difference in the surname, he is "extremely" closely related to you -- genetically -- even though a 'common' ancestor has not yet been identified.
David writes: "As I said, the more Alexanders tested, the better."
Carol writes: Absolutely!!Which is probably why I jumped on your GenForum posting. :>)Roger and I are ALWAYS searching for more participants.