DNA Project - Willingham Results

Hi Folks,

Use the descent chart at the following URL to follow along:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gbonner/willingham.htmlhttp://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gbonner/willingham.html

There are several Willingham men whose DNA agree with the following (FTDNA order and reporting basis) Y-chromosome DYS values:

(1-12): 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 30
(13-25): 16 09 09 11 11 25 14 19 29 15 15 16 18

However, only 3 of them claim descent from a common patriarch (viz., John Willingham, born circa 1683, died about 1752). Given the branching topology of John's descendant tree to these 3 DNA donors, the data table can be constructed with a mere 3 mutations. These happened in DYS390, DYS565, and DYS576. For DYS390 and DYS576, the mutations' origins could not be isolated to a single generation...they could have happened nearly anywhere along the line.

But the DYS565 mutation was isolated to a single generation, that between the original John, and his son, John Willingham (circa 1725 - circa 1787). This mutation in John the younger was then passed along in both of the lines of (two of) his sons John and Isaac. This mutation was not seen in the line of Thomas, the son of John the elder.

There is an immediate practical application of this knowledge. John the younger's son John (1751-1818) is variously given elsewhere as the son of Thomas. This can be seen in the LDS Pedigree resource file, my own WorldConnect file (gbonner22), and elsewhere. If the descents claimed by the participants are bona fide, then the results make it *VERY* unlikely that John Willingham (1751-1818) is the son of Thomas. Further, it makes it unlikely that he is the son of any Willingham man other than John (1725-1787).

I should re-iterate at this point that this case presumes the claimed descents are bona fide. It also presumes that there is no confusion between/among men of the same name. Any case of confusion in the traditional genealogy could very well lead to results in the DNA being positively misleading/misinterpreted.

The other thing I would like to point out is that while comparing the FTDNA data with other DNA databases, I got a match with a WINNINGHAM man who claims descent from the Joseph F. Winningham who married Mary Ann Collins in 1848 in Tallapoosa Co., AL. I had always been somewhat dubious of this Willingham/Winningham equivalency, but the DNA seem to indicate that it is true at least in some cases.

I am not the project admin, but I am sure it goes on, and that more samples will come in, and that more refinements to the tree will be made.

Cheers,

Gregg