DNA relationship charts for Col. Robert Wynne (b. 1622) descendants

The consensus Y-DNA type for Col. Robert Wynne (based on DYS values of putative male-line descendants) is known. Those public domain claims of specific descent from him along the purely paternal line, and with matching consensus DNA pattern were compiled. The output is a descent chart, and the related mutation-based network diagram, which you can see at my website, thus:

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

The mutational pattern among the descendants is such that the internal branching structure of the tree potentially could be derived. This would allow interested parties whose Y-chromosome descends thus, but who do not know their exact generation-by-generation descent from Col. Robert Wynne, to be determined. That is to say, people who know via DNA results that they descend purely paternally from Robert Wynne, but don't know how, may find out if they test the right DYS markers.

The sample size is still small, owing to relatively few testees matching the consensus profile, but also due to select individuals retarding/thwarting the dissemination of the association of claimed descents to DYS values into the public domain. So the results suffer from being minimally robust. Nevertheless, a couple of things are clear from the present data:

1. The DYS markers that seem to be the most useful in this group for distinguishing the branching topology of the tree are in the first 37 markers of the FTDNA set, but are not present in the AncestryDNA "46"-marker set. So any individual interested in identifying his descent path from this Robert Wynne essentially must test at FTDNA, and not AncestryDNA. Any person who will match the base consensus profile of Robert Wynne who tests at AncestrDNA will likely correspond to a nebulous base consensus profile, with no further capacity for distinction based on the DNA itself.

2. There is a shared derived mutation which distinguishes the line of Thomas, son of Robert, from the line of William, the son of Joshua, the son of Robert. Whether this will resolve into a distinction that identifies the separation of DNA type between the two sons (Thomas and Joshua) of Robert, or not, will depend on future samples that descend from Joshua, son of Robert, through lines that are NOT from Joshua's son William...unless the material is already available, but not in the public domain, but gets put in the public domain in the future.

3. There is a confounding shared derived mutation the significance of which is unknown, but could identify a parallel mutation, or else indicate paired mistakes in claimed descents of multiple participants. The outcome of this, like above, will rely on future samples, or else present samples' claimed descents being made public domain, or both.

Gregg Bonner