About us
1. I would like to get more participants. If you, or someone you know, connects to any branch of this family, especially where a line of descent is marked as having no participants, your participation will be most welcome. You will assist in achieving the second goal. PLEASE review the list below, find your branch and help make sure that your branch has participation. Thank you! Contact the admin for a pre-paid kit.
2. I am trying to resolve matches to sides of the family, as described below. This should help determine a common ancestor; will assist in resolving hypothetical lines of ancestry, and perhaps identify entirely new lines of ancestry. Matches resolved to a side of the family can help us peek behind the brick walls that block our research.
The first, second, and third degrees are those closest to me. They have been omitted from this posting. The point in sharing the following is to review how many additional testing possibilities could be filled within the 4th, 5th, and 6th degrees of kinship.
4th degree (Great-great grandparents): -8 sides of the family
4-1 Gunz-Petermann 4+
MRCA: Jakob Petermann & Katharina Gunz
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Josef Petermann –grandsons RWP, MLP, PEP, & CLP, and great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, KAM, CMP, NPA & HDT
2. Jakob “Jake” Petermann –granddaughter PAW
3. Adolf Petermann –no participants
Source: Gunz-Petermann DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Johann Jakob Alois Petermann (1788-1853)
2. Anna Maria Elisabetha Martina Bründler (1795-1866)
3. Johann Josef Michael Gunz (1802-1876)
4. Anna Maria Martina Sidler (1801-1865)
Any match described as Gunz-Petermann 4+ could be resolved to either Bründler-Peterman+ or Sidler-Gunz+, if a new participant at the 5th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Gunz-Petermann 4+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 5th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Gunz-Petermann 4+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
As noted above, the three siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Johann Josef Michael Gunz (ie, Bründler -Gunz), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Sidler-Gunz, must be derived from Anna Maria Martina Sidler (ie, Henseler-Sidler), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Henseler or Sidler cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
4-2 Bauguess-Eagleton+
MRCA: Alexander Malcolm Eagleton & Fanny Bauguess
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. John Henry Eagleton –grandsons KEE & GRE
2. Lydia (Eagleton) Peterman –grandsons RWP, MLP, PEP, & CLP, and great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, KAM, CMP, NPA & HDT
3. Barbara “Ettie” (Eagleton) (Sullivan) DeBord –no participants
4. Fanny (Eagleton) (Michie) Gee [by Michie]* –no participants
5. Fanny (Eagleton) (Michie) Gee [by Gee]* –grandson LEG
Source: Bauguess-Eagleton DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. James Eagleton (1794-1877)
2. Margaret Montgomery (1802-1873)
3. Henry Bauguess (ca 1779-ca 1840)
4. Lydia Sparks (1790-1856)
*Source: Bauguess-Eagleton DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 4th and 5th primary lines of descent (Fanny) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. Alexander Malcolm Eagleton (1827-1901))
2. Fanny M. Bauguess (1830-1926)
Any match described as Bauguess-Eagleton+ could be resolved to either Montgomery-Eagleton+ or Sparks-Bauguess+, if a new participant at the 5th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Bauguess-Eagleton+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 5th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Bauguess-Eagleton+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
As noted above, the four siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Henry Bauguess (ie, McCarty-Bauguess), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Sparks-Bauguess, must be derived from Lydia Sparks (ie, Buttery-Sparks), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Buttery or Sparks cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
4-3 Horr-Hall+
MRCA: James William Hall & Sarah Benjamin Horr
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Edwin Hall –grandchildren MHH, RWP, MLP, PEP, SJB, & DWH, and great grandchildren PWS, DLR, HLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, JHN, & WGL, and great-great granddaughter BHW
2. William James Hall –granddaughters ART & LHR
3. Maude (Hall) Adams –great grandson JAK
Source: Horr-Hall DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. William James Hall (ca 1800-before 1836)
2. Elminah Easton (1809-1857)
3. John Horr (1805-1863)
4. Mary B. Wickham (ca 1806-ca 1894)
Any match described as Horr-Hall+ could be resolved to either Easton-Hall+ or Wickham-Horr+, if a new participant at the 5th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Horr-Hall+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 5th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Horr-Hall+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
As noted above, the three siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example John Horr (ie, Powers-Horr), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Wickham-Horr, must be derived from Mary B. Wickham (ie, Benjamin-Wickham), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Benjamin or Wickham cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
4-4 Roley-Eggleson+
MRCA: Asa William Eggleson & Sarah Margaret Roley
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Sarah (Eggleson) Hall –grandchildren MHH, RWP, MLP, PEP, SJB, & DWH, and great grandchildren PWS, DLR, HLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, JHN, & WGL, and great-great granddaughter BHW
2. LeRoy Eggleson –granddaughters VJR & JEN
3. Joseph Albert Eggleson –no participants
4. Nettie (Eggleson) Cain –grandchildren DDC & EJC
5. Josephine (Eggleson) Bartles –grandson DAO
6. Belle (Eggleson) Corlett –no participants
Source: Roley-Eggleson DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Asa Eggleson, III (1789-1856)
2. Patience Rogers (1795-1877)
3. Michael Vance Roley (1816-1893)
4. Sarah Anne Daugherty (1819-1897)
Any match described as Roley-Eggleson+ could be resolved to either Rogers-Eggleson+ or Daugherty-Roley+, if a new participant at the 5th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Roley-Eggleson+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 5th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Roley-Eggleson+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
As noted above, the six siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Sarah Anne Daugherty (ie, (Sarah)-Daugherty), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Daugherty-Roley, must be derived from Michael Vance Roley (ie, (Margaret)-Roley), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Roley cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
4-5 Aten-Robinson+
A. First type –MRCA: John Kivet Robinson & Martha Jane Aten
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Francis M. “Frank” Robinson –granddaughter JKS
2. Perry A. Robinson -grandchildren BLS, RER, & MLV, and great grandchildren YLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
3. Milfred K. Robinson –grandson TKR
4. Clarence T. Robinson –granddaughter SAL
5. Mabel (Robinson) Ives –no participants
Source: Aten-Robinson DNA segments and associated matches shared by 1st source cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. Moody Robinson (1811-1881)
2. Mary Kivett (1813-1867)
3. Aaron Kimble Aten (1812-1901)
4. Dorcas Glass (1814-1892)
As noted above, the five siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Aaron Kimble Aten (ie, Bell-Aten), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Glass-Aten, must be derived from Dorcas Glass (ie, Kirk-Glass), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Kirk or Glass cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Note: Any matches shared only between descendants of Frank Robinson & Mabel (Robinson) Ives could be related through the Ives family, since Frank and Mabel married siblings. Such matches will not be assigned to a group.
B. Second type –MRCA: Moody Robinson, Jr. & Ellen Arminda Aten
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Gertrude (Robinson) Coffey –daughter DCS, and grandchildren LFC, CXC & KLS
2. Sylvia (Robinson) Holder –daughter EHH
Source: Aten-Robinson DNA segments and associated matches shared by 2nd source cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. Moody Robinson (1811-1881)
2. Mary Kivett (1813-1867)
3. Aaron Kimble Aten (1812-1901)
4. Dorcas Glass (1814-1892)
As noted above, the two siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Aaron Kimble Aten (ie, Bell-Aten), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Glass-Aten, must be derived from Dorcas Glass (ie, Kirk-Glass), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Kirk or Glass cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Aten-Robinson+ could be resolved to either Kivett-Robinson+ or Glass-Aten+, if a new participant at the 5th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Aten Robinson+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent (from either type), and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 5th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Aten-Robinson+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
^Source: Aten-Robinson DNA segments and associated matches shared by two or more cousins from the first and second type are derived from one of eight different sources:
1. Moses Robinson (-1823)
2. Sarah Moody (-after 1823)
3. Jacob Kivett (-1818)
4. Mary Brower (-1823)
5. Cornelius Aten (1766-1857)
6. Sarah Bell (1770-1856)
7. Thomas Glass (ca 1793-before 1850)
8. Mary Kirk (1793-before 1820)
4-6 Barbre-Coffey+
A. First type –MRCA: Benjamin Coe Coffey & Lucy Barbre
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Emery E. Coffey –granddaughter TBF
2. Cleveland C. “Ophy” Coffey –grandsons RRC & BWC
3. Lena (Coffey) Robinson -grandchildren BLS, RER, & MLV, and great grandchildren YLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
Source: Barbre-Coffey DNA segments and associated matches shared by 1st source cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. Newton Eli Coffey (1823-1890)
2. Martha Louise Vermillion (1826-1904)
3. Jesse Barbre, III (1814-1870)
4. Susan Weeks (1818-1872)
Note: There appears to be an alternate kinship between BWC & BLS and between BWC & CXC. Any matches shared only between the two of them will not be assigned to a group.
As noted above, the three siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Jesse Barbre III (ie, Stansell-Barbre), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Weeks-Barbre, must be derived from Susan Weeks (ie, Hampton-Weeks), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Hampton or Weeks cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
B. Second type –MRCA: Benjamin Coe Coffey & Anna M. Barbre
1. John Coffey –no participants
Source: Barbre-Coffey DNA segments and associated matches shared by two or more cousins from the first and second source are derived from one of six different sources (see below^):
1. Newton Eli Coffey (1823-1890)
2. Martha Louise Vermillion (1826-1904)
3. Jesse Barbre, Jr. (1777-1832)
4. Sarah Stansell (-1841)
5. Lewis Weeks (1779-1849)
6. Susannah Hampton (1796-1890)
C. Third type –MRCA: William Coffey & Malscena Barbre
1. Cresse C. Coffey –no participants
2. Newton Coffey –daughter DCS, and grandchildren LFC, CXC & KLS
3. Clyde Coffey –no participants
4. Benjamin T. Coffey –no participants
5. Ethel (Coffey) Poland –no participants
6. Loren O. “Dick” Coffey –no participants
Source: Barbre-Coffey DNA segments and associated matches shared by 3rd source cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. Newton Eli Coffey (1823-1890)
2. Martha Louise Vermillion (1826-1904)
3. Jesse Barbre, III (1814-1870)
4. Susan Weeks (1818-1872)
As noted above, the six siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Jesse Barbre III (ie, Stansell-Barbre), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Weeks-Barbre, must be derived from Susan Weeks (ie, Hampton-Weeks), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Hampton or Weeks cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Barbre-Coffey+ could be resolved to either Vermillion-Coffey+ or Weeks-Barbre+, if a new participant at the 5th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Barbre-Coffey+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent (from any of the 3 types), and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 5th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Barbre-Coffey+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
^Source: Barbre-Coffey DNA segments and associated matches shared by two or more cousins from the third type and the first or second type are derived from one of eight different sources:
1. Eli Coffey (1775-1833)
2. Mary Coffey (ca 1780-1872)
3. Robert Vermillion (1785-1846)
4. Nancy McGlasson (-after 1846)
5. Jesse Barbre, Jr. (1777-1832)
6. Sarah Stansell (-1841)
7. Lewis Weeks (1779-1849)
8. Susannah Hampton (1796-1890)
4-7 Sullenger-Ellis+
MRCA: Isaac Newton Ellis & Sarah Newton Sullenger
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Mary C. “Kate” (Ellis) Moxley –no participants
2. John N. Ellis –great grandson JLE
3. Clarke S. Ellis [by McDowell]* –great-great grandson JNE
4. Clarke S. Ellis [by Wilson]* –grandson LGH
5. Sarah (Ellis) Estes –no participants
6. Amanda (Ellis) Hall –no participants
7. Jefferson S. Ellis [by Moxley]* –no participants
8. Jefferson S. Ellis [by Wilson]* –grandchildren RER, MLV, & NJG, and great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
Source: Sullenger-Ellis DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. John J. Ellis (ca 1802-1838)
2. Sarah Elliott (1804-1871)
3. John Sullenger (1788-1874)
4. Lucinda Berry (1794-1872)
*Source: Sullenger-Ellis DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 3rd and 4th primary lines of descent (Clarke), or shared only by cousins from the 7th and 8th primary lines of descent (Jefferson) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. Isaac Newton Ellis (1823-1888)
2. Sarah Newton Sullenger (1825-1892)
Any match described as Sullenger-Ellis+ could be resolved to either Elliott-Ellis+ or Berry-Sullenger+, if a new participant at the 5th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Sullenger-Ellis+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 5th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Sullenger-Ellis+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Any matches shared only between descendants of Kate (Ellis) Moxley & Jefferson S. Ellis [by Moxley] could be related through the Moxley family, since Kate and Jefferson married an uncle & niece. Such matches won’t be assigned to a group. This doesn’t affect matches related through Jefferson by his second wife, Ida L. Wilson.
As noted above, the six siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example John Sullenger (ie, (Elizabeth)-Sullenger), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Berry-Sullenger, must be derived from Lucinda Berry (ie, Newton-Berry), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Newton or Berry cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
4-8 Lovell-Wilson+
A. First type -MRCA: Thomas Hedges Wilson & Sarah Ann “Kate” Lovell
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Ida (Wilson) Ellis –grandchildren RER, MLV, & NJG, and great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
2. Bennett Wilson –grandson GBW
3. Jessie (Wilson) Norton –grandson PWN
4. Robert C. Wilson –granddaughter SWL
Source: Lovell-Wilson DNA segments and associated matches shared by 1st source cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. James Scott Wilson (1821-1893)
2. Charity Cross Hedges (1825-1874)
3. James Badgett Lovell (1816-1905)
4. Jestina L. Smith (1822-1910)
As noted above, the four siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example James Badgett Lovell (ie, Coe-Lovell), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Smith-Lovell, must be derived from Jestina Smith (ie, Hord-Smith), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Hord or Smith cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
B. Second type –MRCA: Quinton Moore Wilson & Almera Jane Lovell
1. Frank L. Wilson –no participants
2. John T. Wilson –no participants
Source: Lovell-Wilson DNA segments and associated matches shared by 2nd source cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. James Scott Wilson (1821-1893)
2. Charity Cross Hedges (1825-1874)
3. James Badgett Lovell (1816-1905)
4. Jestina L. Smith (1822-1910)
As noted above, the two siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example James Badgett Lovell (ie, Coe-Lovell), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Smith-Lovell, must be derived from Jestina Smith (ie, Hord-Smith), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Hord or Smith cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Lovell-Wilson+ could be resolved to either Hedges-Wilson+ or Smith-Lovell+, if a new participant at the 5th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Lovell-Wilson+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent (from either type), and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 5th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Lovell-Wilson+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
^Source: Lovell-Wilson DNA segments and associated matches shared by two or more cousins from the first and second type are derived from one of eight different sources:
1. John Mitchell Wilson (bef 1795-1823)
2. Bathsheba Moore (1801-1881)
3. Thomas B. Hedges (1801-after 1875)
4. Sarah Hendrix (1802-after 1870)
5. Armstead Franklin Lovell (ca 1795-ca 1823)
6. Nancy Coe (1797-1882)
7. Charles Smith (1780-ca 1854)
8. Sarah Hord (1786-1866)
5th degree (Great-great-great grandparents): -16 sides of the family
5-1 Bründler-Petermann+
MRCA: Johann Jakob Alois Petermann & Anna Maria Elisabetha Martina Bründler
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Josef L. Petermann –no participants
2. Meinrad Petermann –no participants
3. Elisabeth Petermann –no participants
4. Jakob Petermann –great grandchildren RWP, MLP, PEP, CLP, & PAW and great-great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, KAM, CMP, NPA & HDT
Source: Bründler-Petermann DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Leonz Petermann (1755-1827)
2. Anna Maria Elisabetha Gunz (1757-1819)
3. Meinrad Leonz Bründler (1748-1831)
4. Anna Maria Schwerzmann (1761-1821)
As noted above, the four siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Meinrad Leonz Bründler (ie, Heggli-Bründler), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Schwerzmann-Bründler, must be derived from Anna Maria Schwerzmann (ie, Bründler-Schwerzmann), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Bründler or Schwerzmann cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Bründler-Peterman+ could be resolved to either Gunz-Petermann 6+ or Schwerzmann- Bründler+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Bründler-Peterman+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Bründler-Peterman+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
5-2 Sidler-Gunz+
MRCA: Johann Josef Michael Gunz & Anna Maria Martina Sidler
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Anton Gunz –no participants
2. Barbara (Gunz) Gunz –no participants
3. Cresenzia (Gunz) Roth –no participants
4. Katharina (Gunz) Petermann [by Petermann]* –great grandchildren RWP, MLP, PEP, CLP, & PAW and great-great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, KAM, CMP, NPA & HDT
5. Katharina (Gunz) Petermann [by Sukar]* –no participants
Source: Sidler-Gunz DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Josef Erhard Gunz (1755-1812)
2. Maria Barbara Rosa Martina Bründler (1764-1834)
3. Andreas Sidler (1770-1853)
4. Anna Maria Katharina Henseler (1773-1830)
*Source: Sidler-Gunz DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 4th and 5th primary lines of descent (Katharina) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. Johann Josef Michael Gunz (1802-1876)
2. Anna Maria Martina Sidler (1801-1865)
As noted above, the four siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Andreas Sidler (ie, Henseler-Sidler 7), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Henseler-Sidler 6, must be derived from Anna Maria Katharina Henseler (ie, Rigert-Henseler), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Rigert or Henseler cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Sidler-Gunz+ could be resolved to either Bründler-Gunz+ or Henseler-Sidler 6+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Sidler-Gunz+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Sidler-Gunz+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
5-3 Montgomery-Eagleton+
MRCA: James Eagleton & Margaret Montgomery
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. William A. Eagleton –no participants
2. John M. Eagleton –no participants
3. David Eagleton –great-great granddaughter CVC
4. Alexander M. Eagleton –great grandsons KEE, GRE, RWP, MLP, PEP, CLP, & LEG, and great-great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, KAM, CMP, NPA & HDT
5. James M. Eagleton –no participants
6. Guy S. Eagleton –no participants
7. Finley P. Eagleton –no participants
8. George L. Eagleton –no participants
9. Emily (Eagleton) Minnick –no participants
Source: Montgomery-Eagleton DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. David Eagleton (1748-1828)
2. (?) Margaret Ewing (-1796)
3. John Montgomery (1764-1845)
4. Susanna Porter (1763-1802)
As noted above, the nine siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example John Montgomery (ie, Walker-Montgomery), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Porter-Montgomery, must be derived from Susanna Porter (ie, Walker-Porter), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Walker or Porter cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Montgomery-Eagleton+ could be resolved to either [Ewing]-Eagleton+ or Porter-Montgomery+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Montgomery-Eagleton+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Montgomery-Eagleton+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Any matches shared only between descendants of Alexander M. Eagleton & James M. Eagleton could be related through the Bauguess family, since Alexander and James married an aunt & niece. Such matches will only be grouped as Bauguess-Eagleton+
5-4 Sparks-Bauguess+
MRCA: Henry Bauguess & Lydia Sparks
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Mary (Bauguess) Richardson –great-great granddaughter STF
2. Reuben Bauguess [by Gambell]* –great-great grandson, JDS
3. Reuben Bauguess [by Cooperider]* –no participants
4. Reuben Bauguess [by Wiley]* –no participants
5. Cassa (Bauguess) Jennings –great-great-great granddaughter JHO
6. Nancy (Bauguess) Johnson –great-great grandson GLR & RXJ
7. Amelia (Bauguess) Johnson –great-great granddaughter SEG
8. Bryant Bauguess –great-great grandchildren CJJ & DLB
9. Lafayette Bauguess –no participants
10. Eli P. Bauguess –no participants
11. Fanny (Bauguess) Eagleton –great grandsons KEE, GRE, RWP, MLP, PEP, CLP, & LEG, and great-great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, KAM, CMP, NPA & HDT
Source: Sparks-Bauguess DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Richard Bauguess (ca 1737-1822)
2. Nancy McCarty (-1790)
3. Reuben Sparks (ca 1762-1840)
4. Cassa Buttery (ca 1765-1842)
*Source: Sparks-Bauguess DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 2nd 3rd or 4th primary lines of descent (Reuben) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. Henry Bauguess (ca 1779-ca 1840)
2. Lydia Sparks (1790-1856)
As noted above, the nine siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Reuben Sparks (ie, (Sarah)-Sparks), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Buttery-Sparks, must be derived from Cassa Buttery (ie, Rhodes-Buttery), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Rhodes or Buttery cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Sparks-Bauguess+ could be resolved to either McCarty-Bauguess+ or Buttery-Sparks+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Sparks-Bauguess+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Sparks-Bauguess+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Any matches shared between any of the primary lines of descent with certain participants descended from other children of Richard Bauguess or Reuben Sparks are also grouped as Sparks-Bauguess+, because of numerous intermarriages between the Bauguess and Sparks families. This condition only applies if the other participants (x-Henry & Lydia) also have Bauguess and Sparks ancestry.
5-5 Easton-Hall+
MRCA: William James Hall & Elminah Easton
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. James William Hall –great grandchildren MHH, RWP, MLP, PEP, SJB, DWH, ART, & LHR, and great-great grandchildren PWS, DLR, HLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, JHN, WGL, & JAK, and great-great-great granddaughter BHW
Source: Easton-Hall DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. _____ Hall
2. _____
3. _____ Easton
4. Amelia _____ (1788-bef 1870)
The only matches that are described as Easton-Hall+ are those located on a segment, as determined by primary lines of descent from Edwin Hall, William J. Hall, or Maude (Hall) Adams, that has been resolved to Horr-Hall, the condition being that one set of participants are resolved to Wickham-Horr. The alternative set of participants on the corresponding segment would be resolved to Easton-Hall, since they don’t share the Wickham-Horr segment. James W. Hall had no full siblings, so no matches will be resolved to Easton-Hall by sharing two primary lines of descent. James W. Hall did have Reed half-siblings and matches shared between Hall & Reed descendants will be described as (Amelia)-Easton+.
5-6 Wickham-Horr+
MRCA: John Horr & Mary Wickham
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Richard B. Horr –no participants
2. Sarah (Horr) Hall –great grandchildren MHH, RWP, MLP, PEP, SJB, DWH, ART, & LHR, and great-great grandchildren PWS, DLR, HLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, JHN, WGL, & JAK, and great-great-great granddaughter BHW
3. Lucy (Horr) Hileary –no participants
4. Lucius Horr –no participants
5. Josiah T. Horr –great grandson JXC, and great-great grandson JSH
6. Jennie (Horr) Trindle –no participants
Source: Wickham-Horr DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Josiah Hoar (1775-bef 1826)
2. Lucy Powers (1779-1866)
3. Thomas Wickham (1768-1851)
4. Sarah Benjamin (1777-1842)
As noted above, the six siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Thomas Wickham (ie, Goldsmith-Wickham), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Benjamin-Wickham, must be derived from Sarah Benjamin (ie, [Burt]-Benjamin), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Burt or Benjamin cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Wickham-Horr+ could be resolved to either Powers-Horr+ or Benjamin-Wickham+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Wickham-Horr+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Wickham-Horr+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
5-7 Rogers-Eggleson+
MRCA: Asa Eggleson, III & Patience Rogers
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Asa W. Eggleson [by Eddy]* –great granddaughter BEE, and great-great granddaughter ERJ
2. Asa W. Eggleson [by Roley]* –great grandchildren MHH, RWP, MLP, PEP, SJB, DWH, VJR, JEN, DDC, EJC, & DAO, and great-great grandchildren PWS, DLR, HLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, JHN, & WGL, and great-great-great granddaughter BHW
3. Sarah (Eggleston) Hough –no participants
Source: Rogers-Eggleson DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Asa Eggleson, Jr. (1763-1840)
2. Content Hadsell (1767-1850)
3. Thomas Rogers (1756-1833)
4. Sarah Irene (?) Carr (-1835)
*Source: Rogers-Eggleson DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 1st and 2nd primary lines of descent (Asa W.) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. Asa Eggleson, III (1789-1856)
2. Patience Rogers (1795-1877)
As noted above, the two siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Thomas Rogers (ie, Carr-Rogers 7), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to [Carr]-Rogers 6, must be derived from Sarah Irene (?) Carr (ie, [unknown]-Carr), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Carr cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Rogers-Eggleson+ could be resolved to either Hadsell-Eggleson+ or [Carr]-Rogers 6+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Rogers-Eggleson+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Rogers-Eggleson+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
5-8 Daugherty-Roley+
MRCA: Michael Vance Roley & Sarah Anne Daugherty
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. John D. Roley –no participants
2. James D. Roley –no participants
3. Sarah Margaret (Roley) (Eggleson) Corlett -–great grandchildren MHH, RWP, MLP, PEP, SJB, DWH, VJR, JEN, DDC, EJC, & DAO, and great-great grandchildren PWS, DLR, HLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, JHN, & WGL, and great-great-great granddaughter BHW
4. Mary L. (Roley) (Shupe) McAdams –great-great-great grandson VDB
5. Elizabeth (Roley) Ream –no participants
6. Josephine (Roley) Calef –great granddaughter LYS
7. Michael V. Roley, Jr. –no participants
8. Heaton H. Roley [by Stickleman]* –great grandson DKR
9. Heaton H. Roley [by Ringle]* –no participants
10. Emma (Roley) Ray –no participants
11. Stephen A. D. Roley –grandson LER
Source: Daugherty-Roley DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. John Roley (ca 1749-1822)
2. Margaret _____ (ca 1790-aft 1830)
3. James Daugherty (-1818)
4. Sarah _____ (1786-1856)
* Source: Daugherty-Roley DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 8th and 9th primary lines of descent (Heaton) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. Michael Vance Roley (1816-1893)
2. Sarah Anne Daugherty (1819-1897)
As noted above, the ten siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example James Daugherty (ie, [unknown]-Daugherty), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to (Sarah)-Daugherty, must be derived from Sarah ____ (ie, [unknown]-[unknown]), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested ____or ____ cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Daugherty-Roley + could be resolved to either (Margaret)-Roley+ or (Sarah)-Daugherty+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Daugherty-Roley+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Daugherty-Roley+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
5-9 Kivett-Robinson+
MRCA: Moody Robinson & Mary Kivett
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. John K. Robinson –great grandchildren JKS, BLS, RER, MLV, TKR, & SAL, and great-great grandchildren YLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
2. Lucinda (Robinson) Rice –great granddaughter DRL
3. Mary (Robinson) Mosher –great-great granddaughter BMO
4. William P. Robinson –no participants
5. Moody Robinson, Jr. –granddaughters DCS & EHH, and great grandchildren LFC, CXC & KLS
Source: Kivett-Robinson DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Moses Robinson (-1823)
2. Sarah Moody (-aft 1823)
3. Jacob Kivett (-1818)
4. Mary Brower (-1823)
As noted above, the five siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Jacob Kivett (ie, Aldridge-Kivett), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Brower-Kivett, must be derived from Mary Brower (ie, [unknown]-Brower), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Brower cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Kivett-Robinson+ could be resolved to either Moody-Robinson+ or Brower-Kivett+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Kivett-Robinson+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Kivett-Robinson+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Any matches shared only between descendants of John K. Robinson & Moody Robinson, Jr. could be related through the Aten family, since John and Moody married Aten sisters. As described earlier, such matches are grouped only as Aten-Robinson+.
5-10 Glass-Aten+
MRCA: Aaron Kimble Aten & Dorcas Glass
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Samuel H. Aten –no participants
2. Sarah (Aten) Wiley –no participants
3. Martha (Aten) Robinson –great grandchildren JKS, BLS, RER, MLV, TKR, & SAL, and great-great grandchildren YLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
4. John W. Aten –no participants
5. William J. Aten –no participants
6. Ellen (Aten) Robinson –granddaughters DCS & EHH, and great grandson LFC, CXC & KLS
7. Thomas G. Aten –great granddaughter NAH
8. Aaron K. Aten, Jr. –no participants
9. Clara (Aten) Rilea –no participants
Source: Glass-Aten DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Cornelius Aten (1766-1857)
2. Sarah Bell (1770-1856)
3. Thomas Glass (ca 1793-bef 1850)
4. Mary Kirk (1793-bef 1820)
As noted above, the nine siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Thomas Glass (ie, Hillis-Glass), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Kirk-Glass, must be derived from Mary Kirk (ie, (Dorcas)-Kirk), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Kirk cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Glass-Aten+ could be resolved to either Bell-Aten+ or Kirk-Glass+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Glass-Aten+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Glass-Aten+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Any matches shared only between descendants of Martha (Aten) Robinson & Ellen (Aten) Robinson could be related through the Robinson family, since Martha and Ellen married Robinson brothers. As described earlier, such matches are grouped only as Aten-Robinson+.
Note: Any matches shared only between descendants of John W. Aten & Aaron K. Aten, Jr. could be related through the Wooley family, since John and Aaron married close relatives. Such matches will not be assigned to a group.
5-11 Vermillion-Coffey+
MRCA: Newton Eli Coffey & Martha Louise Vermillion
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Benjamin C. Coffey [by Lucy]* –great grandchildren TBF, RRC, BWC, BLS, RER, & MLV, and great-great grandchildren YLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
2. Benjamin C. Coffey [by Anna]* –no participants
3. William Coffey –granddaughter DCS and great grandchildren LFC, CXC & KLS
4. Birch Coffey –great granddaughter KWN and great-great grandson TXM
5. Nancy (Coffey) Williams –granddaughter GMM
6. Keziah (Coffey) Bollinger –no participants
7. Cleveland L. Coffey –no participants
Source: Vermillion-Coffey DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Eli Coffey (1775-1833)
2. Mary Coffey (ca 1780-1872
3. Robert Vermillion (1785-1846)
4. Nancy McGlasson (-aft 1846)
* Source: Vermillion-Coffey DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 1st and 2nd primary lines of descent (Benjamin) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. Newton Eli Coffey (1823-1890)
2. Martha Louise Vermillion (1826-1904)
As noted above, the six siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Robert Vermillion (ie, [Wood]-Vermillion), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to McGlasson-Vermillion, must be derived from Nancy McGlasson (ie, Cunningham-McGlasson), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Cunningham or McGlasson cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Vermillion-Coffey+ could be resolved to either Coffey-Coffey+ or McGlasson-Vermillion+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Vermillion-Coffey+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Vermillion-Coffey+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Any matches shared only between descendants of Benjamin Coffey [by Lucy], Benjamin Coffey [by Anna] or William Coffey could be related through the Barbre family, since Benjamin and William married Barbre sisters. As described earlier, such matches are grouped only as Barbre-Coffey+.
5-12 Weeks-Barbre+
MRCA: Jesse Barbre, III & Susan Weeks
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Angeline (Barbre) Stark –no participants
2. Lucy (Barbre) Coffey –great grandchildren TBF, RRC, BWC, BLS, RER, & MLV, and great-great grandchildren YLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
3. Malscena (Barbre) Coffey –granddaughter DCS and great grandson LFC, CXC & KLS
4. Anna (Barbre) Coffey –no participants
Source: Weeks-Barbre DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Jesse Barbre, Jr. (1777-1832)
2. Sarah Stansell (1772-1841)
3. Lewis Weeks (1779-1849)
4. Susannah Hampton (1796-1890)
As noted above, the four siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Lewis Weeks (ie, Lunsford-Weeks), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Hampton-Weeks, must be derived from Susanna Hampton (ie, Hathaway-Hampton), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Hathaway or Hampton cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Weeks-Barbre+ could be resolved to either Stansell-Barbre+ or Hampton-Weeks+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Weeks-Barbre+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Weeks-Barbre+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Any matches shared only between descendants of Lucy (Barbre) Coffey, Malscena (Barbre) Coffey, or Anna (Barbre) Coffey could be related through the Coffey family, since Lucy, Malscena, and Anna married Coffey brothers. As described earlier, such matches are grouped only as Barbre-Coffey+.
5-13 Elliott-Ellis+
A. First type -MRCA: John J. Ellis & Sarah Elliott
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Isaac N. Ellis –great grandchildren LGH, RER, MLV & NJG, and great-great grandchildren JLE, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC, and great-great-great grandson JNE
2. Duncan Ellis –great-great grandson TIP
3. William Ellis –no participants
4. Margaret (Ellis) –no participants
5. Jacob B. Ellis –no participants
6. Martha (Ellis) Archer –great-great granddaughter VBC
7. Mary (Ellis) Hadley –no participants
8. John J. Ellis, Jr. –no participants
9. Thomas G. Ellis –no participants
10. Sarah (Ellis) –no participants
Source: Elliott-Ellis DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. Isaac Newton Ellis (1752-1833)
2. Nancy Downing (1762-1851)
3. unknown father of Sarah Elliott [(?) Isaac Whiteside (1775-1822)]
4. Margaret Elliott (1786-1863)
As noted above, the ten siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Margaret Elliott (ie, McCampbell-Elliott), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Elliott-[Whiteside], must be derived from Sarah’s father, presumed at present to be Isaac Whiteside (ie, Johnson-Whiteside), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Johnson or Whiteside cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
B. Second type –MRCA: Duncan Ellis & Nancy Elliott
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. John P. Ellis –no participants
2. Jacob W. Ellis –no participants
3. Isaac N. Ellis –no participants
4. Margaret (Ellis) Williams –no participants
5. Sarah (Ellis) Powell –no participants
6. Thomas G. Ellis [by Mitchell]* –no participants
7. Thomas G. Ellis [by Sanders]* –no participants
8. Martha (Ellis) Price –no participants
9. Henry C. Ellis –no participants
10. Julius C. Ellis –no participants
Source: Elliott-Ellis DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. Isaac Newton Ellis (1752-1833)
2. Nancy Downing (1762-1851)
3. unknown father of Nancy Elliott [(?) Isaac Whiteside (1775-1822)]
4. Margaret Elliott (1786-1863)
*Source: Elliott-Ellis DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 6th and 7th primary lines of descent (Thomas) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. Duncan Ellis
2. Nancy Elliott
As noted above, the nine siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Margaret Elliott (ie, McCampbell-Elliott), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Elliott-[Whiteside], must be derived from Nancy’s father, presumed at present to be Isaac Whiteside (ie, Johnson-Whiteside), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Johnson or Whiteside cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Elliott-Ellis+ could be resolved to either Downing-Ellis+ or Elliott-[Whiteside]+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Elliott-Ellis+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent (from either type), and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Elliott-Ellis+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
^Source: Elliott-Ellis DNA segments and associated matches shared by two or more cousins from the first type and the second type are derived from one of eight different sources:
1. Ellis-Ellis (1714-1776)
2. Ann Bateman (ca 1724-1776)
3. James Downing (-1762)
4. Susanna _____
5. _____ [(?) Davis Whiteside (1741-1780)]
6. _____ [(?) Elizabeth Johnson]
7. William Elliott
8. Nancy McCampbell (ca 1762-aft 1850)
5-14 Berry-Sullenger+
A. First source -MRCA: John Sullenger & Lucinda Berry
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. James Sullenger –no participants
2. Sarah (Sullenger) Ellis –great grandchildren LGH, RER, MLV & NJG, and great-great grandchildren JLE, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC, and great-great-great grandson JNE
3. Martha (Sullenger) Achor –no participants
Source: Berry-Sullenger DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. James Sullenger (-1824)
2. Elizabeth _____ (-aft 1838)
3. Thomas Berry (bef 1760-1834)
4. Margaret Newton (-bef 1815)
As noted above, the three siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Thomas Berry (ie, [Washington]-Berry), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Newton-Berry, must be derived from Margaret Newton (ie, Kenyon-Newton), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Kenyon or Newton cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
B. Second source –MRCA: Jesse Sullenger & Jane Berry
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. John R. Sullenger –no participants
2. Elizabeth (Sullenger) Carey –no participants
3. James T. Sullenger –no participants
4. Sarah (Sullenger) (Driskell) Wigginton –no participants
Source: Berry-Sullenger DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. James Sullenger (-1824)
2. Elizabeth _____ (-aft 1838)
3. Thomas Berry (bef 1760-1834)
4. Margaret Newton (-bef 1815)
As noted above, the four siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Thomas Berry (ie, [Washington]-Berry), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Newton-Berry, must be derived from Margaret Newton (ie, Kenyon-Newton), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Kenyon or Newton cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Berry-Sullenger+ could be resolved to either (Elizabeth)-Sullenger+ or Newton-Berry+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Berry-Sullenger+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Berry-Sullenger+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
^ Source: Berry-Sullenger DNA segments and associated matches shared by two or more cousins from the first source and the second source are derived from one of eight different sources:
1. Thomas Sullenger (-1781)
2. Mary _____ (-aft 1781)
3. _____
4. _____
5. Thomas Berry (1729-1812)
6. Mary Washington (-bef 1757)
7. William Newton (ca 1720-1789)
8. Elizabeth Kenyon (-bef 1789)
5-15 Hedges-Wilson+
MRCA: James Scott Wilson & Charity Cross Hedges
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Bathsheba (Wilson) Uptegrove –no participants
2. Thomas H. Wilson –great grandchildren RER, MLV, NJG, GBW, PWN, & SWL, and great-great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
3. Quenton M. Wilson –no participants
4. Sarah (Wilson) Whiteside –no participants
5. James S. Wilson, Jr. –no participants
6. Respino Wilson –grandson JIW
7. Rebecca (Wilson) Dougherty –no participants
8. Frances (Wilson) Brown –no participants
Source: Hedges-Wilson DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. John Mitchell Wilson (bef 1795-1823)
2. Bathsheba Moore (1801-1881)
3. Thomas B. Hedges (1801-aft 1875)
4. Sarah Hendrix (1802-aft 1880)
As noted above, the eight siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Thomas B. Hedges (ie, [unknown]-Hedges), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Hendrix-Hedges, must be derived from Sarah Hendrix (ie, [unknown]-Hendrix), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Hendrix cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Hedges-Wilson+ could be resolved to either Moore-Wilson+ or Hendrix-Hedges+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Hedges Wilson+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Hedges-Wilson+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Any matches shared only between descendants of Thomas H. Wilson and Quenton M. Wilson could be related through the Lovell family, since Thomas and Quenton married Lovell sisters. Such matches are grouped only as Lovell-Wilson+.
Note: Any matches shared only by descendants of Bathsheba and her brothers, Thomas or Quenton, could be related through the Lovell family, since Bathsheba married a Lovell descendant. Such matches are grouped only as Lovell-Wilson+.
5-16 Smith-Lovell+
MRCA: James Badgett Lovell & Jestina Smith
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Permelia (Lovell) Holman –no participants
2. Armstead F. Lovell –no participants
3. Almera (Lovell) Wilson –no participants
4. Sarah Ann “Kate” (Lovell) Wilson –great grandchildren RER, MLV, NJG, GBW, PWN, & SWL, and great-great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
5. Alice (Lovell) Morriss –no participants
6. John O. Lovell –no participants
7. Ben S. Lovell –no participants
Source: Smith-Lovell DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Armstead Franklin Lovell (1795-1823)
2. Nancy Coe (1797-1882)
3. Charles Smith (1780-1854)
4. Sarah Hord (1786-1866)
As noted above, the seven siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Charles Smith (ie, [Burrus]-Smith), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Hord-Smith, must be derived from Sarah Hord (ie, Burrus-Hord), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Burrus or Hord cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Smith-Lovell+ could be resolved to either Coe-Lovell+ or Hord-Smith+, if a new participant at the 6th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Smith-Lovell+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 6th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Smith-Lovell+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Any matches shared only between descendants of Almera (Lovell) Wilson and Sarah Ann (Lovell) Wilson could be related through the Wilson family, since Almera and Sarah Ann married Wilson brothers. Such matches are grouped only as Lovell-Wilson+.
6th degree (great-great-great-great grandparents): -32 sides of the family
6-1 Gunz-Petermann 6+
MRCA: Leonz Petermann & Anna Maria Elisabetha Gunz
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Josef Alois Martin Petermann –no participants
2. Johann Jakob Alois Petermann –great-great grandchildren RWP, MLP, PEP, CLP, & PAW and great-great-great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, KAM, CMP, NPA & HDT
3. Anna Maria Martina Petermann –no participants
4. Kaspar Petermann –no participants
Source: Gunz-Petermann DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Heinrich Petermann (-aft 1762)
2. Anna Maria Zübler (-1781)
3. Mauritz Anton Gunz (1722-1770)
4. Anna Maria Wolfisberg (1723-1805)
As noted above, the four siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Mauritz Anton Gunz (ie, Petermann-Gunz), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Wolfisberg-Gunz, must be derived from Anna Maria Wolfisberg (ie, (Katharina)-Wolfisberg), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Wolfisberg cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Gunz-Petermann 6+ could be resolved to either Zübler-Petermann+ or Wolfisberg-Gunz+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Gunz-Petermann 6+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Gunz-Petermann 6+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-2 Schwerzmann-Bründler+
MRCA: Meinrad Leonz Bründler & Anna Maria Schwerzmann
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Maria Anna (Bründler) Mattmann–no participants
2. Jakob Meinrad Bründler –no participants
3. Anna Maria Barbara Martina (Bründler) Kost –no participants
4. Johann Meinrad Fridolin Bründler –no participants
5. Anna Maria Elisabetha Martina (Bründler) Petermann –great-great grandchildren RWP, MLP, PEP, CLP, & PAW and great-great-great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, KAM, CMP, NPA & HDT
6. Martin Johann Alois Bründler –no participants
Source: Schwerzmann-Bründler DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Johann Kaspar Bründler (1696-1784)
2. Anna Maria Katharina Heggli (1708-bef 1780)
3. Fridolin Schwerzmann
4. Anna Maria Bründler
As noted above, the six siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Fridolin Schwermann (ie, Sidler-Schwerzmann), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Bründler-Schwerzmann, must be derived from Anna Maria Bründler (ie, [unknown]-Bründler), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Bründler cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Schwerzmann-Bründler+ could be resolved to either Heggli-Bründler+ or Bründler-Schwerzmann+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Schwerzmann-Bründler+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Schwerzmann-Bründler+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-3 Bründler-Gunz+
MRCA: Josef Erhard Gunz & Maria Barbara Rosa Martina Bründler
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Johann Josef Michael Gunz –great-great grandchildren RWP, MLP, PEP, CLP, & PAW and great-great-great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, KAM, CMP, NPA & HDT
2. Anna Maria Katharina Gunz –no participants
Source: Bründler-Gunz DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Mauritz Anton Gunz (1722-1770)
2. Anna Maria Wolfisberg (1723-1805)
3. Josef Anton Ignaz Bründler (1730-)
4. Maria Rosa Waldispühl (1725-1801)
As noted above, the two siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Josef Anton Ignaz Bründler (ie, [Brunner]- Bründler), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Waldispühl-Bründler, must be derived from Maria Rosa Waldispühl (ie, Zumbühl-Waldispühl), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Zumbühl or Waldispühl cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Bründler-Gunz+ could be resolved to either Wolfisberg-Gunz+ or Waldispühl-Bründler+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Bründler-Gunz+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Bründler-Gunz+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-4 Henseler-Sidler 6+
MRCA: Andreas Sidler & Anna Maria Katharina Henseler
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Anna Maria Katharina Sidler –no participants
2. Anna Maria Martina (Sidler) Gunz -–great-great grandchildren RWP, MLP, PEP, CLP, & PAW and great-great-great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, KAM, CMP, NPA & HDT
3. Josef Alois Sidler –no participants
4. Maria Elisabetha Klemenzia (Sidler) Gunz –no participants
Source: Henseler-Sidler DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Johann Markus Sidler (1738-1808)
2. Anna Katharina Henseler (1747-1770)
3. Johann Andreas Henseler (1741-1828)
4. Anna Maria Katharina Rigert (1741-1801)
As noted above, the four siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Johann Andreas Henseler (ie, Keiser-Henseler), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Rigert-Henseler, must be derived from Anna Maria Katharina Rigert (ie, Schmid-Rigert), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Schmid or Rigert cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Henseler-Sidler+ could be resolved to either Henseler-Sidler 7+ or Rigert-Henseler+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Henseler-Sidler 6+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Henseler-Sidler 6+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-5 [Ewing]-Eagleton+
MRCA: David Eagleton & (?) Margaret Ewing
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Mary (Eagleton) McCallie –no participants
2. John Eagleton –no participants
3. Alexander Eagleton [by Ewing]* –no participants
4. Alexander Eagleton [by McCullough]*–great-great grandson LXE
5. James Eagleton –great-great grandsons KEE, GRE, RWP, MLP, PEP, CLP, & LEG, and great-great-great grandchildren CVC, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, KAM, CMP, NPA & HDT
6. William Eagleton –no participants
Source: [Ewing]-Eagleton DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. _____ Eagleton
2. _____
3. (?) Alexander Ewing (-1789)
4. (?) Rachel Ewing
* Source: [Ewing]-Eagleton DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 3rd and 4th primary lines of descent (Alexander) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. David Eagleton (1748-1828)
2. (?) Margaret Ewing (-1796)
As noted above, the seven siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example (?) Alexander Ewing (ie, [McMichael]-[Ewing]), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to [Ewing]-[Ewing], must be derived from (?) Rachel Ewing (ie, [Porter]-[Ewing]), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Porter or Ewing (ie, from Rachel) cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as [Ewing]-Eagleton+ could be resolved to either [unknown]-Eagleton+ or [Ewing]-[Ewing]+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as [Ewing]-Eagleton+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to [Ewing]-Eagleton+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Alexander [by Ewing] and William married into the Ewing family, to their probable first cousins. Matches shared only between Alexander [by Ewing] and William could be related through Margaret (Caldwell) Ewing, mother of their wives. They will not be assigned to any group.
6-6 Porter-Montgomery+
MRCA: John Montgomery & Susanna Porter
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Alexander Montgomery –no participants
2. Anna (Montgomery) Watson –no participants
3. John Montgomery, Jr. –great-great granddaughter TMP
4. Martha (Montgomery) Allen –no participants
5. Jane (Montgomery) Poplett –no participants
6. Margaret (Montgomery) Eagleton -great-great grandsons KEE, GRE, RWP, MLP, PEP, CLP, & LEG, and great-great-great grandchildren CVC, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, KAM, CMP, NPA & HDT
Source: Porter-Montgomery DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Alexander Montgomery (ca 1740-)
2. Martha Walker (1742-)
3. Patrick Porter (1737-)
4. Susanna Walker (1739-ca 1814)
As noted above, the six siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Patrick Porter (ie, [unknown]-Porter), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Walker-Porter, must be derived from Susanna Walker (ie, Houston-Walker), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Houston or Walker cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Porter-Montgomery+ could be resolved to either Walker-Montgomery+ or Walker-Porter+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Porter-Montgomery+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Porter-Montgomery+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-7 McCarty-Bauguess+
MRCA: Richard Bauguess & Nancy McCarty
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Fanny (Bauguess) Higgins –no participants
2. James Bauguess [by first wife]* –great-great-great granddaughter DBD
3. James Bauguess [by Turner]* –no participants
4. Bryant Bauguess –no participants
5. Robert Bauguess –no participants
6. Henry Bauguess -great-great grandsons KEE, GRE, RWP, MLP, PEP, CLP, & LEG, and great-great-great grandchildren STF, JDS, GLR, RXJ, SEG, CJJ, DLB, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, KAM, CMP, NPA & HDT, and great-great-great-great granddaughter JHO
7. Jane (Bauguess) Spicer –no participants
8. John Bauguess –great-great-great granddaughter AXF
9. Vincent Bauguess –no participants
Source: McCarty-Bauguess DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Henry Boggess (1705-1785)
2. Jane Cox (1713-)
3. _____ McCarty
4. _____
* Source: McCarty-Bauguess DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 2nd and 3rd primary lines of descent (James) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. Richard Bauguess (ca 1737-1822)
2. Nancy McCarty (-1790)
As noted above, the eight siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Henry Boggess (ie, Bennett-Boggess), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Cox-Boggess, must be derived from Jane Cox (ie, [unknown]-Cox), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Cox cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
Any match described as McCarty-Bauguess+ could be resolved to either Cox-Boggess+ or [unknown]-McCarty+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as McCarty-Bauguess+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to McCarty-Bauguess+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Participants descended from Fanny, Bryant, Jane, or Vincent are of great value, because they are likely to have no Sparks ancestry. Matches they share with descendants of Henry, as well as DBD or AXF could be resolved to McCarty-Bauguess. James was omitted from this list because the names of some of his children suggest Sparks or Buttery ancestry.
Note: Matches shared between descendants of Henry & AXF, or DBD & AXF could be through either McCarty-Bauguess, or through Ann (Rhodes) (Allen) Buttery. If the latter, they could be resolved to Buttery-Sparks+. Because of this, such matches will be assigned to Sparks-Bauguess+.
Note: Matches shared between descendants of Henry & DBD can only be resolved to Sparks-Bauguess+, because DBD is descended from one Richard Bauguess [by McCarty], twice from Richard Bauguess [by Rose], and once from Reuben Sparks & Cassa Buttery.
6-8 Buttery-Sparks+
MRCA: Reuben Sparks & Cassa Buttery
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. John Sparks –no participants
2. Lydia (Sparks) Bauguess - great-great grandsons KEE, GRE, RWP, MLP, PEP, CLP, & LEG, and great-great-great grandchildren STF, JDS, GLR, RXJ, SEG, CJJ, DLB, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, KAM, CMP, NPA & HDT, and great-great-great-great granddaughter JHO
3. Jonas Sparks –great-great-great-great granddaughter BMD
4. William R. Sparks [by Wilcoxen]* –no participants
5. William R. Sparks [by Gentry]* –no participants
6. Amelia (Sparks) Bauguess –great-great granddaughter DBD
7. Matilda (Sparks) Gentry –great-great-great grandson CXG
Source: Buttery-Sparks DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Solomon Sparks (-bef 1800)
2. Sarah _____
3. John Buttery
4. Ann Rhodes (1725-ca 1802)
* Source: Buttery-Sparks DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 4th and 5th primary lines of descent (William R.) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. Reuben Sparks (ca 1762-1840)
2. Cassa Buttery (bef 1765-1842)
As noted above, the six siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example John Buttery (ie, [unknown]-Buttery), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Rhodes-Buttery, must be derived from Ann Rhodes (ie, (Mary Magdalena)-Rhodes), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Rhodes cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Buttery-Sparks+ could be resolved to either [Sarah]-Sparks+ or Rhodes-Buttery+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Buttery-Sparks+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Buttery-Sparks+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Participants descended from Jonas, William R., or Matilda are of great value, because they are likely to have no Bauguess ancestry. John was omitted from this list because his wife, Elizabeth Rose, was likely a sister of Keziah Rose, second wife of Richard Bauguess.
Note: As described above, matches shared between descendants of Lydia & DBD can only be resolved to Sparks-Bauguess+.
Note: Matches shared between descendants of Lydia & CXG can only be resolved to Sparks-Bauguess+, because CXG is descended from Reuben Sparks & Cassa Buttery, and also from Richard Bauguess [by Rose].
Note: Matches shared between descendants of Lydia & BMD, or MLS & BMD, or CXG & BMD can be resolved to Buttery-Sparks+.
Note: Matches shared only by DBD & MLS, or DBD & CXG, or MLS & CXG could be related through Emanuel Rose, father of Keziah Rose and Elizabeth Rose. No group will be assigned to such matches.
6-9 [unknown]-Hall+
MRCA: ______ Hall & ________
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. William James Hall –great-great grandchildren MHH, RWP, MLP, PEP, SJB, DWH, ART, & LHR, and great-great-great grandchildren PWS, DLR, HLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, JHN, WGL, & JAK, and great-great-great-great granddaughter BHW
Matches can only be resolved to [unknown]-Hall+ if another Primary Line of Descent is identified.
6-10 [Amelia]-Easton+
MRCA: _____ Easton & Amelia ______
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Elminah (Easton) (Hall) Reed [by Hall]* –great-great grandchildren MHH, RWP, MLP, PEP, SJB, DWH, ART, & LHR, and great-great-great grandchildren PWS, DLR, HLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, JHN, WGL, & JAK, and great-great-great-great granddaughter BHW
2. Elminah (Easton) (Hall) Reed [by Reed]* –great-great-great-great grandson JXS
* Source: [Amelia]-Easton DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 1st and 2nd primary lines of descent (Elminah) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. _____ Easton
2. Amelia _____ (1788-bef 1870)
Any match described as [Amelia]-Easton + could be resolved to either [unknown]-Easton+ or [unknown]-[unknown]+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as [Amelia]-Easton+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to [Amelia]-Easton+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-11 Powers-Horr+
MRCA: Josiah Hoar & Lucy Powers
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Olive (Horr) Buck –no participants
2. John Horr –great-great grandchildren MHH, RWP, MLP, PEP, SJB, DWH, ART, LHR & JXC, and great-great-great grandchildren PWS, DLR, HLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, JHN, WGL, JAK, & JSH, and great-great-great-great granddaughter BHW
3. Francis Grant Horr –no participants
4. Joseph Horr –no participants
5. James Horr –great-great-great grandson KXH
6. Mahala (Horr) Beard –no participants
7. Achsah (Horr) Benedict –no participants
Source: Powers-Horr DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Jonathan Hoar (1747-1813)
2. Sarah Heard (1756-1782)
3. Francis Powers (1742-1796)
4. Elizabeth Cummings (1744-1796)
As noted above, the seven siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Francis Powers (ie, Keyes-Powers), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Cummings-Powers, must be derived from Elizabeth Cummings (ie, Colburn-Cummings), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Colburn or Cummings cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Powers-Horr+ could be resolved to either Heard-Horr+ or Cummings-Powers+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Powers-Horr+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Powers-Horr+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-12 Benjamin-Wickham+
MRCA: Thomas Wickham & Sarah Benjamin
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Thomas Wickham, Jr. –no participants
2. Hannah (Wickham) Taylor –no participants
3. Seth Wickham –great-great-great-great granddaughter JAG
4. Ruth (Wickham) Gardner –no participants
5. Mary (Wickham) Horr -–great-great grandchildren MHH, RWP, MLP, PEP, SJB, DWH, ART, LHR & JXC, and great-great-great grandchildren PWS, DLR, HLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, JHN, WGL, JAK, & JSH, and great-great-great-great granddaughter BHW
6. Sarah (Wickham) (Carter) Redman –no participants
7. Noyes Wickham –no participants
8. Benjamin F. Wickham [by Bonifield]* –no participants
9. Benjamin F. Wickham [by Thomas]* –no participants
10. Jesse Wickham –no participants
Source: Benjamin-Wickham DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Noyes Wickham (1740-1822)
2. Ruth Goldsmith
3. (?) James Benjamin
4. (?) Hannah Burt (1745-)
* Source: Benjamin-Wickham DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 8th and 9th primary lines of descent (Benjamin F.) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. Thomas Wickham (1768-1851)
2. Sarah Benjamin (1777-1842)
As noted above, the nine siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Noyes Wickham (ie, Noyes-Wickham), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Goldsmith-Wickham, must be derived from Ruth Goldsmith (ie, Reeve-Goldsmith), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Reeve or Goldsmith cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
Any match described as Benjamin-Wickham+ could be resolved to either Goldsmith-Wickham+ or [Burt]-Benjamin+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Benjamin-Wickham+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Benjamin-Wickham+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-13 Hadsell-Eggleson+
First type -MRCA: Asa Eggleson, Jr. & Content Hadsell
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Cynthia (Eggleson) Munson –great-great-great grandson RCS
2. Asa Eggleson, III –great-great grandchildren BEE, MHH, RWP, MLP, PEP, SJB, DWH, VJR, JEN, DDC, EJC, & DAO, and great-great-great grandchildren ERJ, PWS, DLR, HLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, JHN, & WGL, and great-great-great-great granddaughter BHW
3. Mary (Eggleson) Rogers –no participants
4. Perry Eggleson –no participants
5. Dorcas (Eggleson) Munson –no participants
6. Samuel R. Eggleson –no participants
7. Martha (Eggleson) Dewey –great-great-great grandson JXR
8. John M. Eggleson –great-great grandson RXE
9. David H. Eggleson –no participants
Source: Hadsell-Eggleson DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. Asa Eggleston, Sr. (ca 1735-ca 1816)
2. Martha Button (1738-bef 1775)
3. Joseph Hadsell (1721-?)
4. _____
As noted above, the nine siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Asa Eggleston Sr. (ie, (Anna)-Eggleston), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Button-Eggleston, must be derived from Martha Button (ie, Brown-Button), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Brown or Button cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
Any match shared only by descendants of Asa III and descendants of Mary (Eggleson) Rogers could be related through the Rogers family. Such matches will only be assigned to Rogers-Eggleson+
Second type –MRCA: William Hadsell & Elipha Eggleson
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Olive (Hadsell) Goodwin –no participants
2. William Hadsell, Jr. –no participants
3. Joseph Hadsell –no participants
4. Solomon Hadsell –no participants
5. Asa Hadsell –no participants
6. Elipha (Hadsell) –no participants
7. Sarah (Hadsell) –no participants
8. Amy (Hadsell) –no participants
9. Dorcas (Hadsell) –no participants
Source: Hadsell-Eggleson DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. Joseph Hadsell (1721-?)
2. _____
3. Asa Eggleston, Sr. (ca 1735-ca 1816)
4. Martha Button (1738-bef 1775)
As noted above, the nine siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Asa Eggleston Sr. (ie, (Anna)-Eggleston), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Button-Eggleston, must be derived from Martha Button (ie, Brown-Button), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Brown or Button cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
Third type –MRCA: John A. Eggleston & Martha Hadsell
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. John D. Eggleston –no participants
Source: Hadsell-Eggleson DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. Asa Eggleston, Sr. (ca 1735-ca 1816)
2. Martha Button (1738-bef 1775)
3. Joseph Hadsell (1721-?)
4. _____
Any match described as Hadsell-Eggleson+ could be resolved to either Button-Eggleston+ or [unknown]-Hadsell+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Hadsell-Eggleson+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Hadsell-Eggleson+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: The addition of the families of William Hadsell & Martha (Hadsell) Eggleston to those defining the Hadsell-Eggleson+ group is tentative, the assumption being that Content, William, and Martha were siblings, all children of Joseph Hadsell.
^Source: Hadsell-Eggleson DNA segments and associated matches shared by two or more cousins from the first type and the second or third type are derived from one of eight different sources:
1. Isaac Eggleston (ca 1713-1787)
2. Anna
3. Matthias Button (ca 1692-1766)
4. Martha Brown
5. Joseph Hadsell (-1727)
6. Rachel Crumb (1700-)
7. _____
8. _____
6-14 [Carr]-Rogers 6+
MRCA: Thomas Rogers & Sarah Irene _____ (supposedly Carr, but I question this)
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Samuel Rogers –no participants
2. Hiram Rogers –no participants
3. Ester (Rogers) Gardner –no participants
4. Sarah (Rogers) Reynolds –no participants
5. Mary (Rogers) Shepherd –no participants
6. Thomas Rogers, Jr. –no participants
7. Clarke Rogers –no participants
8. Patience (Rogers) Eggleson –great-great grandchildren BEE, MHH, RWP, MLP, PEP, SJB, DWH, VJR, JEN, DDC, EJC, & DAO, and great-great-great grandchildren ERJ, PWS, DLR, HLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, JHN, & WGL, and great-great-great-great granddaughter BHW
9. William Rogers –no participants
Source: [Carr]-Rogers DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Clark Rogers (1728-1806)
2. Patience Carr (1729-1791)
3. _____ (?) Carr
4. _____
As noted above, the nine siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Clark Rogers (ie, (Alice)-Rogers), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Carr-Rogers 7, must be derived from Patience Carr (ie, [Richmond]-Carr), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Richmond or Carr cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
Any match described as [Carr]-Rogers 6+ could be resolved to either Carr-Rogers 7+ or [unknown]-[Carr]+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as [Carr]-Rogers 6+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to [Carr]-Rogers 6+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-15 (Margaret)-Roley+
MRCA: John Roley & Margaret _____
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Michael V. Roley –great grandson LER, and great-great grandchildren MHH, RWP, MLP, PEP, SJB, DWH, VJR, JEN, DDC, EJC, DAO, LYS, & DKR, and great-great-great grandchildren ERJ, PWS, DLR, HLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, JHN, & WGL, and great-great-great-great grandchildren BHW & VDB
Matches can only be resolved to (Margaret)-Roley+ if another Primary Line of Descent is identified. Chances are, all matches that could have been (Margaret)-Roley+ will be resolved to the 7th degree, as either [unknown]-Roley+ or [unknown]-[unknown]+.
6-16 (Sarah)-Daugherty+
MRCA: James Daugherty & Sarah _____
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Michael Daugherty –no participants
2. Benjamin Daugherty –no participants
3. James Daugherty, Jr. –great-great-great grandson DXS
4. Sarah A. (Daugherty) Roley –great grandson LER, and great-great grandchildren MHH, RWP, MLP, PEP, SJB, DWH, VJR, JEN, DDC, EJC, DAO, LYS, & DKR, and great-great-great grandchildren ERJ, PWS, DLR, HLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, KJM, JHN, & WGL, and great-great-great-great grandchildren BHW & VDB
Source: (Sarah)-Daugherty DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. (?) Michael Daugherty
2. _____
3. _____
4. _____
As noted above, the four siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example (?) Michael Daugherty (ie, [unknown]-Daugherty 8), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to [unknown]-Daugherty 7, must be derived from Michael Daugherty’s wife (ie, [unknown]-[unknown]), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested maternal or paternal cousin of Michael’s wife. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
Any match described as (Sarah)-Daugherty+ could be resolved to either [unknown]-Daugherty 7+ or [unknown]-[unknown]+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as (Sarah)-Daugherty+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to (Sarah)-Daugherty+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-17 Moody-Robinson+
MRCA: Moses Robinson & Sarah Moody
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Joseph Robinson –no participants
2. Archer Robinson –no participants
3. Polly (Robinson) Aldridge –no participants
4. Moses Robinson, Jr. –no participants
5. Jane (Robinson) Aldridge –no participants
6. Moody Robinson –great granddaughters DCS & EHH, and great-great grandchildren JKS, BLS, RER, MLV, TKR, SAL, DRL LFC, CXC & KLS and great-great-great grandchildren YLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV, AVC & BMO
Source: Moody-Robinson DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Joseph Robinson (ca 1735-1812)
2. Jane Hendrick
3. _____ Moody
4. _____
As noted above, the six siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Joseph Robinson (ie, Jones-Robinson), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Hendrick-Robinson, must be derived from Jane Hendrick (ie, [unknown]-Hendrick), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Hendrick cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
Any match described as Moody-Robinson+ could be resolved to either Hendrick-Robinson+ or [unknown]-Moody+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Moody-Robinson+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Moody-Robinson+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Participants descended from Joseph or Moses, Jr. are of great value, because their wives had no identified Aldridge ancestry. Matches they share with each other or with other Primary Lines of Descent will be resolved to Moody-Robinson+.
Note: Archer, Polly, Jane, and Moody married descendants of Willian Aldridge of Randolph Co., NC. Matches shared only between them will only be described as Kivett-Robinson+, because this group includes those related through the Aldridge family.
6-18 Brower-Kivett+
MRCA: Jacob Kivett & Mary Brower
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Sarah (Kivett) Cravens –no participants
2. Mary (Kivett) Robinson –great granddaughters DCS & EHH, and great-great grandchildren JKS, BLS, RER, MLV, TKR, SAL, DRL LFC, CXC & KLS and great-great-great grandchildren YLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV, AVC & BMO
3. Lucinda (Kivett) Pritchett –no participants
4. Margaret (Kivett) Steele –no participants
Source: Brower-Kivett DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Henry Kivett (-1806)
2. Sarah Aldridge (ca 1763-)
3. (?) Jacob Brower
4. _____
As noted above, the four siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Henry Kivett (ie, (Anna Barbara)-Kivett), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Aldridge-Kivett, must be derived from Sarah Aldridge (ie, (Elizabeth)-Aldridge), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Aldridge cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
Any match described as Brower-Kivett+ could be resolved to either Aldridge-Kivett+ or [unknown]-Brower+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Brower-Kivett+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Brower-Kivett+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-19 Bell-Aten+
MRCA: Cornelius Aten & Sarah Bell
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Elizabeth (Aten) Spry –great-great grandson RXT
2. John Aten –great-great-great granddaughter TCC
3. Anna (Aten) Law –no participants
4. Polly (Aten) Pomeroy –no participants
5. Rhoda (Aten) Drum –no participants
6. Lana (Aten) Drum –no participants
7. Aaron K. Aten –great granddaughters DCS & EHH, and great-great grandchildren JKS, BLS, RER, MLV, TKR, SAL, LFC, CXC, KLS & NAH, and great-great-great grandchildren YLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
8. Samuel R. Aten –no participants
Source: Bell-Aten DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. John Aten (1732-ca 1809)
2. Elizabeth Bodine
3. _____ Bell
4. _____
As noted above, the eight siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example John Aten (ie, Middaugh-Aten), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Bodine-Aten, must be derived from Elizabeth Bodine (ie, [unknown]-Bodine), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Bodine cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
Any match described as Bell-Aten+ could be resolved to either Bodine-Aten+ or [unknown]-Bell+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Bell-Aten+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Bell-Aten+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Any matches shared only between descendants of Rhoda and Lana could be related through the Drum family. They won’t be assigned to any group.
6-20 Kirk-Glass+
MRCA: Thomas Glass & Mary Kirk
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Dorcas (Glass) Aten –great granddaughters DCS & EHH, and great-great grandchildren JKS, BLS, RER, MLV, TKR, SAL, LFC, CXC, KLS & NAH, and great-great-great grandchildren YLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
Matches can only be resolved to Kirk-Glass+ if another Primary Line of Descent is identified. Chances are, all matches that could have been Kirk-Glass+ will be resolved to the 7th degree, as either Hillis-Glass+ or [unknown]-[Kirk]+.
6-21 Coffey-Coffey+
MRCA: Eli Coffey & Mary Coffey
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Mariah (Coffey) Coffey –no participants
2. Willis Coffey [by Haynes] –great-great grandson WGT
3. Willis Coffey [by Hankins] –great grandson MRC
4. Elizabeth (Coffey) Wolford –no participants
5. Salathiel Coffey [by Dunbar]* –great-great grandsons MEM & RPS, and great-great-great granddaughter, LTS
6. Salathiel Coffey [by McFarland]* –no participants
7. Sirena (Coffey) Campbell –no participants
8. Nathaniel J. Coffey –great-great granddaughter JPA
9. Stanton P. Coffey –great-great grandsons MXO & CKC
10. William S. Coffey –no participants
11. Newton Eli Coffey –great granddaughters DCS & GMM, and great-great grandchildren TBF, RRC, BWC, BLS, RER, MLV, LFC, CXC, KLS & KWN, and great-great-great grandchildren YLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV, AVC & TXM
12. Mary (Coffey) Hayes –no participants
Source: Coffey-Coffey DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Salathiel Coffey (-1784)
2. Elizabeth (?) Gore
3. Nathan Coffey (bef 1760-ca 1828)
4. Mary Saunders
*Source: Coffey-Coffey DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 2nd and 3rd primary lines of descent (Willis), or 5th and 6th primary lines of descent (Salathiel) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. Eli Coffey (1775-1833)
2. Mary Coffey (d 1872)
As noted above, the ten siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Nathan Coffey (ie, Cleveland-Coffey), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Saunders-Coffey, must be derived from Mary Saunders (ie, [unknown]-Saunders), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Saunders cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Coffey-Coffey+ could be resolved to either [Gore]-Coffey+ or Saunders-Coffey+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Coffey-Coffey+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Coffey-Coffey+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-22 McGlasson-Vermillion+
MRCA: Robert Vermillion & Nancy McGlasson
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Matthew Vermillion –no participants
2. Birch Vermillion –great-great-great granddaughter JBS
3. James Vermillion –no participants
4. George W. Vermillion –no participants
5. Nancy (Vermillion) Coe –no participants
6. Martha (Vermillion) Coffey -–great granddaughters DCS & GMM, and great-great grandchildren TBF, RRC, BWC, BLS, RER, MLV, LFC, CXC, KLS & KWN, and great-great-great grandchildren YLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV, AVC & TXM
Source: McGlasson-Vermillion DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Francis Burch Vermillion (1758-1842)
2. Ann (?) Wood
3. Matthew McGlasson (1756-1834)
4. Elizabeth Cunningham
As noted above, the six siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Francis Burch Vermillion (ie, Burch-Vermillion), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to [Wood]-Vermillion, must be derived from (?) Ann Wood (ie, [unknown]-[Wood]), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Wood cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
Any match described as McGlasson-Vermillion+ could be resolved to either [Wood]-Vermillion+ or [Cunningham]-McGlasson+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as McGlasson-Vermillion+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to McGlasson-Vermillion+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Matches shared only by descendants of George and Nancy could be related through the Coe family. They will not be assigned to any group.
6-23 Stansell-Barbre 6+
MRCA: Jesse Barbre, Jr. & Sarah Stansell
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Lucy (Barbre) DeWitt –no participants
2. Jesse Barbre, III –great granddaughter DCS, and great-great grandchildren TBF, RRC, BWC, BLS, RER, MLV, LFC, CXC & KLS, and great-great-great grandchildren YLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
Source: Stansell-Barbre DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Jesse Barbre (-1804)
2. Grace _____ (-ca 1823)
3. _____ Stansell
4. _____
As noted above, the two siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Jesse Barbre (ie, Stansell-Barbre 8), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to [unknown]-Barbre, must be derived from Grace (ie, [unknown]-[unknown]), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or _____ cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
Any match described as Stansell-Barbre 6+ could be resolved to either [unknown]-Barbre+ or [unknown]-Stansell+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Stansell-Barbre+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Stansell-Barbre+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-24 Hampton-Weeks+
A. First type -MRCA: Lewis Weeks & Susanna Hampton
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Angeline (Weeks) Swearingen –no participants
2. Julia (Weeks) Evans –great-great-great granddaughter JWH
3. Susan (Weeks) Barbre –great granddaughter DCS, and great-great grandchildren TBF, RRC, BWC, BLS, RER, MLV, LFC, CXC & KLS, and great-great-great grandchildren YLH, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
4. Minerva (Weeks) Stark –no participants
5. Curmellar (Weeks) Stark –great-great granddaughter DSS
6. Martha (Weeks) Stark –no participants
7. Louellen (Weeks) Gaskins –no participants
8. William L. Weeks –no participants
9. Alfred H. Weeks –no participants
Source: Hampton-Weeks DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. James Weeks (1749-1834)
2. Elizabeth Lunsford (ca 1755-)
3. Joseph Hampton (ca 1759-1803)
4. Mary Hathaway (1768-1854)
As noted above, the nine siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Joseph Hampton (ie, [Harrison]-Hampton), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Hathaway-Hampton, must be derived from Mary Hathaway (ie, Timberlake-Hathaway), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Timberlake or Hathaway cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Note: Participants descended from Angeline, Julia, Louellen, William, or Alfred could be of great value, since they did not marry into the Stark family.
Note: Matches shared only by descendants of Minerva, Curmellar, Martha, or Susan’s daughter, Angeline (Barbre) Stark could be related through the Stark family, since each of them married into the Stark family. They won’t be assigned to any group.
B. Second type-MRCA: John Hampton & Sarah Weeks
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Joseph Hampton –no participants
2. Jane Hampton –no participants
3… others -no participants
Source: Hampton-Weeks DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. Joseph Hampton (ca 1759-1803)
2. Mary Hathaway (1768-1854)
3. James Weeks (1749-1834)
4. Elizabeth Lunsford (ca 1755-)
As noted above, the ___ siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Joseph Hampton (ie, [Harrison]-Hampton), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Hathaway-Hampton, must be derived from Mary Hathaway (ie, Timberlake-Hathaway), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Timberlake or Hathaway cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
C. Third type-MRCA: Jeremiah Hampton Jr. & Miney Weeks
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. William C. Hampton –great-great grandson TRL
2. Lucinda (Hampton) Crane –no participants
3. John Hampton –no participants
4. Lawson Hampton –no participants
5. Albert J. Hampton –no participants
Source: Hampton-Weeks DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^^):
1. Jeremiah Hampton
2. Elizabeth (?) Harrison
3. James Weeks (1749-1834)
4. Elizabeth Lunsford (ca 1755-)
As noted above, the five siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example James Weeks (ie, Alderson-Weeks), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Lunsford-Weeks, must be derived from Elizabeth Lunsford (ie, Sturdy-Lunsford), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Sturdy or Lunsford cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Hampton-Weeks+ could be resolved to either Lunsford-Weeks+ or Hathaway-Hampton+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Hampton-Weeks+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Hampton-Weeks+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
^Source: Hampton-Weeks DNA segments and associated matches shared by two or more cousins from the first type and the second type are derived from one of eight different sources:
1. William Weeks
2. Mary Alderson
3. Rowley Lunsford
4. Joanna Sturdy
5. Jeremiah Hampton
6. Elizabeth (?) Harrison
7. John Hathaway
8. Sarah Lawson Timberlake
^^Source: Hampton-Weeks DNA segments and associated matches shared by two or more cousins from the first or second type and the third type are derived from one of eight different sources:
1. William Weeks
2. Mary Alderson
3. Rowley Lunsford
4. Joanna Sturdy
5. Joseph Hampton
6. Hester _____
7. _____ (?) Harrison
8. _____
6-25 Downing-Ellis+
A. First type -MRCA: Isaac Newton Ellis & Nancy Downing
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Eleanor (Ellis) Whiteside –no participants
2. Ann (Ellis) Lane –no participants
3. Thomas G. Ellis –no participants
4. Catherine (Ellis) Downing –great-great-great granddaughter DRB
5. Mary (Ellis) Grigsby –no participants
6. Sarah (Ellis) Jeffries –great-great-great-great grandson MXK
7. William Ellis –no participants
8. +Elizabeth (Ellis) Downing –no participants
9. Susannah (Ellis) Stratton –no participants
10. John J. Ellis –great-great grandchildren LGH, RER, MLV & NJG, and great-great-great grandchildren JLE, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV, AVC, TIP, & VBC, and great-great-great-great grandson JNE
11. Nancy (Ellis) Price –no participants
12. Duncan Ellis –no participants
Source: Downing-Ellis DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. Ellis Ellis (-1776)
2. Ann Bateman
3. James Downing (-1762)
4. Susanna
As noted above, the twelve siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Ellis Ellis (ie, Morgan-Ellis), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Bateman-Ellis, must be derived from Ann Bateman (ie, [unknown]-Bateman), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Bateman cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
Note: Participants descended from Ann, Mary, or Nancy could be of great value since they didn’t marry into the Downing, Jeffries, Stratton, or Elliott family.
Note: Matches shared only by descendants of Thomas Ellis and Sarah Ellis could be related through the Jeffries family, since each of them married into the Jeffries family. They won’t be assigned to any group.
Note: Matches shared only by descendants of Catherine Ellis and Elizabeth Ellis could be related through the Downing family, since each of them married cousins in the Downing family. They won’t be assigned to any group.
Note: Matches shared only by descendants of William and Susannah could be related through the Stratton family, since each of them married into the Stratton family. They won’t be assigned to any group.
Note: Matches shared only by descendants of John and Duncan could be related through the Elliott family, since each of them married Elliott sisters. They will be assigned to the Elliott-Ellis+ group.
Note: Matches shared only by descendants of Eleanor and either John or Duncan could be related through the Whiteside family, IF the father of Sarah Elliott and/ or Nancy Elliott (wives of John and Duncan) turns out to be Isaac Whiteside. Because of this possibility, such matches will only be assigned to the Elliott-Ellis+ group.
+These primary lines of descent are identical. Reason J. Downing (below) married his double first cousin, Elizabeth Ellis.
B. Second type –MRCA: John Downing & Susanna Ellis
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Ellis Downing –no participants
2. Ann (Downing) Conrey –no participants
3. James Downing –no participants
4. Susannah (Downing) Edwards –no participants
5. Joseph Downing –no participants
6. Mary (Downing) McConnell –no participants
7. Sarah (Downing) McConnell –no participants
8. Delilah (Downing) Slack –no participants
9. Dorcas (Downing) Barclay –no participants
10. Catherine (Downing) Wherry –no participants
11. Lydia (Downing) (Hutton) (McMahan) Ryan [by Hutton]* –no participants
12. Lydia (Downing) (Hutton) (McMahan) Ryan [by McMahan]* –no participants
13. Rachel (Downing) Mullen –no participants
14. Elizabeth (Downing) McConnell –no participants
15. +Reason J. Downing –no participants
Source: Downing-Ellis DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. James Downing (-1762)
2. Susanna
3. Ellis Ellis (-1776)
4. Ann Bateman
*Source: Downing-Ellis DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 11th and 12th primary lines of descent (Lydia) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. John Downing
2. Susanna Ellis
As noted above, the fourteen siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Ellis Ellis (ie, Morgan-Ellis), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Bateman-Ellis, must be derived from Ann Bateman (ie, [unknown]-Bateman), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Bateman cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Note: Matches shared only by descendants of Mary Downing, Sarah Downing, or Elizabeth Downing could be related through the McConnell family, since each of them married into the McConnell family.
+These primary lines of descent are identical. Reason J. Downing married his double first cousin, Elizabeth Ellis (above).
C. Third type –MRCA: Timothy Downing & Ann Ellis
1. Susannah (Downing) Perrine –no participants
2. Thomas Downing (married Sally Mayhall) –no participants
3. John Downing –no participants
4. Mary (Downing) Mullen –no participants
5. Sarah (Downing) Barclay –no participants
6. Ellis Downing –no participants
7. Ann (Downing) Barclay –no participants
8. Charles Downing [by Downing]* –no participants
9. Charles Downing [by Bayless]* –no participants
Source: Downing-Ellis DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. James Downing (-1762)
2. Susanna
3. Ellis Ellis (-1776)
4. Ann Bateman
*Source: Downing-Ellis DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 8th and 9th primary lines of descent (Charles) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. John Downing
2. Susanna Ellis
As noted above, the eight siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Ellis Ellis (ie, Morgan-Ellis), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Bateman-Ellis, must be derived from Ann Bateman (ie, [unknown]-Bateman), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Bateman cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Note: Matches shared only by descendants of Sarah Downing and Ann Downing could be related through the Barclay family, since Ann was Stephen Barclay’s first wife & Sarah was his second wife.
Any match described as Downing-Ellis+ could be resolved to either Bateman-Ellis+ or [unknown]-Downing+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Downing-Ellis+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Downing-Ellis+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
^Source: Downing-Ellis DNA segments and associated matches shared by two or more cousins from the first type and the second or third type are derived from one of eight different sources:
1. Humphrey Ellis
2. Sage Morgan
3. _____ Bateman
4. _____
5. Timothy Downing
6. _____
7. _____
8. _____
6-26 Elliott-[unknown]+
MRCA: [unknown#] & Margaret Elliott
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Sarah (Elliott) Ellis –great-great grandchildren LGH, RER, MLV & NJG, and great-great-great grandchildren JLE, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV, AVC, TIP & VBC, and great-great-great-great grandson JNE
2. Nancy (Elliott) Ellis –no participants
3. Isaac Elliott [by Hazelrigg]* –no participants
4. Isaac Elliott [by Weatherford]* –no participants
5. Isaac Elliott [by Reitzel]* –great-great grandsons HXE & REE
6. Martha (Elliott) McCampbell –no participants
# New research indicates that Margaret Elliott was not married to the father(s) of her children. Sarah, Nancy, Isaac, and Martha could have been half-siblings. Although no record has conclusively revealed the name of the father of these children, I am convinced that he was probably Isaac Whiteside, at least insofar as Sarah Elliott is concerned. I base this conclusion on the marriage bond of John J. Ellis and Sarah Elliott, as well as the 1810 census of Shelby Co., KY.
Source: Elliott-[unknown] DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. (?) Davis Whiteside
2. (?) Elizabeth Johnson
3. William Elliott
4. Nancy McCampbell
*Source: Elliott-[unknown] DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 3rd, 4th, or 5th primary lines of descent (Isaac) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. [unknown] –could be Isaac Whiteside
2. Margaret Elliott
Considering the circumstances, one cannot emphasize enough how important it is that we test descendants from each of the three wives of Isaac Elliott.
As noted above, the four siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example William Elliott (ie, [unknown]-Elliott), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to McCampbell-Elliott, must be derived from Nancy McCampbell (ie, Cooper-McCampbell), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Cooper or McCampbell cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Elliott-[unknown]+ could be resolved to either [unknown]-[unknown]+ or McCampbell-Elliott+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Elliott-[unknown]+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Elliott-[unknown]+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Matches shared only between descendants of Sarah and Nancy could be related through the Ellis family, since each of them married Ellis brothers. They will be assigned to the Elliott-Ellis+ group.
6-27 (Elizabeth)-Sullenger+
MRCA: James Sullenger & Elizabeth _____
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Thomas Sullenger –no participants
2. Margaret (Sullenger) Dunn –no participants
3. John Sullenger –great-great grandchildren LGH, RER, MLV & NJG, and great-great-great grandchildren JLE, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC, and great-great-great grandson JNE
4. James Sullenger –no participants
5. Sally (Sullenger) Rucker –no participants
7. Martha (Sullenger) Dunn –no participants
8. Reuben Sullenger –no participants
9. Jesse Sullenger –no participants
Source: (Elizabeth)-Sullenger DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Thomas Sullenger (d 1781)
2. Mary _____
3. _____
4. _____
As noted above, the six siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Thomas Sullenger (ie, [unknown]-Sullenger), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to (Mary)-Sullenger, must be derived from Mary ____ (ie, [unknown]-[unknown]), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or _____ cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
Any match described as (Elizabeth)-Sullenger + could be resolved to either (Mary)-Sullenger+ or [unknown]-[unknown]+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as (Elizabeth)-Sullenger+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to (Elizabeth)-Sullenger+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Matches shared only between descendants of Margaret and Martha could be related through the Dunn family, since each of them married into the Dunn family. They won’t be assigned to any group.
Note: Matches shared only between descendants of John and Jesse could be related through the Berry family, since each of them married Berry sisters. They will be assigned to the Berry-Sullenger+ group.
6-28 Newton-Berry+
MRCA: Thomas Berry & Margaret Newton
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Elizabeth (Berry) Ellis –no participants
2. Margaret (Berry) Martin –no participants
3. Thomas Berry, Jr. –no participants
4. John J. Berry –no participants
5. Lucinda (Berry) Sullenger –great-great grandchildren LGH, RER, MLV & NJG, and great-great-great grandchildren JLE, RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC, and great-great-great grandson JNE
6. Joseph Berry –no participants
7. Isaac N. Berry –no participants
8. Jane (Berry) Sullenger –no participants
Source: Newton-Berry DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Thomas Berry, Sr. (ca 1729-1812)
2. (?) Mary Washington (1728-bef 1758)
3. William Newton (ca 1720-1789)
4. Elizabeth Kenyon (-bef 1789)
As noted above, the six siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example William Newton (ie, Berryman-Newton), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Kenyon-Newton, must be derived from Elizabeth Kenyon (ie, Waddington-Kenyon), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Waddington or Kenyon cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Newton-Berry+ could be resolved to either [Washington]-Berry+ or Kenyon-Newton+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Newton-Berry+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Newton-Berry+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
Note: Matches shared only between descendants of Elizabeth and Isaac could be related through the Ellis family, since each of them married into the Ellis family. They won’t be assigned to any group.
Note: Matches shared only between descendants of Lucinda and Jane could be related through the Sullenger family, since each of them married Sullenger brothers. They will be assigned to the Berry-Sullenger+ group.
6-29 Moore-Wilson+
MRCA: John Mitchell Wilson & Bathhseba Moore
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Quenton M. Wilson –no participants
2. James S. Wilson [by Hedges]* –great grandson JIW, and great-great grandchildren RER, MLV, NJG, GBW, PWN, & SWL, and great-great-great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
3. James S. Wilson [by Stark]* –no participants
4. America (Wilson) Poore –no participants
Source: Moore-Wilson DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. George Wilson (bef 1765-1813)
2. Mary “Polly” Mitchell (1765-1803)
3. Quinton Moore (bhef 1765-1821)
4. Mary Fletcher (1777-ca 1845)
*Source: Moore-Wilson DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 2nd and 3rd primary lines of descent (James) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. John Mitchell Wilson (bef 1795-1823)
2. Bathsheba Moore (1801-1881)
As noted above, the six siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example George Wilson (ie, [Mary]-Wilson), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Mitchell-Wilson, must be derived from Mary “Polly” Mitchell (ie, [unknown]-Mitchell), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or Mitchell cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
Any match described as Moore-Wilson+ could be resolved to either Mitchell-Wilson+ or Fletcher-Moore+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Moore-Wilson+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Moore-Wilson+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-30 Hendrix-Hedges+
MRCA: Thomas B. Hedges & Sarah Hendrix
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Charity (Hedges) Wilson –great grandson JIW, and great-great grandchildren RER, MLV, NJG, GBW, PWN, & SWL, and great-great-great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
2. Elizabeth (Hedges) Thale –no participants
3. Hugh S. Hedges –no participants
4. Mary (Hedges) Gooch –great-great grandson TST
5. Sarah (Hedges) (Fretwell) McAlister –no participants
Source: Hendrix-Hedges DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. _____ Hedges (-aft 1801)
2. _____
3. Noah Hendrix (bef 1770-1838)
4. (?) Margaret McElroy
As noted above, the six siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Noah Hendrix (ie, [unknown]-Hendrix), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to [McElroy]-Hendrix, must be derived from (?) Margaret McElroy (ie, [unknown]-[McElroy]), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested _____ or McElroy cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Hendrix-Hedges+ could be resolved to either [unknown]-Hedges+ or [unknown]-Hendrix+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Hendrix-Hedges+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Hendrix-Hedges+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
6-31 Coe-Lovell+
A. First type -MRCA: Armstead Franklin Lovell & Nancy Coe
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. James B. Lovell –great-great grandchildren RER, MLV, NJG, GBW, PWN, & SWL, and great-great-great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
2. Almera (Lovell) Kirkpatrick –great-great granddaughter MKE
Source: Coe-Lovell DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. Edward Lovell (bef 1755-1816)
2. Lucy Badgett (1774-bef 1813)
3. Isaiah Coe (bef 1760-1836)
4. Jemima Hudspeth (ca 1760-aft 1850)
As noted above, the two siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a paternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Edward Lovell (ie, [unknown]-Lovell), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Badgett-Lovell, must be derived from Lucy Badgett (ie, Freeman-Badgett), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Freeman or Badgett cousin. The same reasoning applies to the maternal side.
B. Second type –MRCA: Charles Coe & Lucinda Lovell
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Andrew J. Coe –great granddaughter MPC
2. Jemima (Coe) Savage –no participants
3. Lucinda (Coe) Martin –no participants
4. Katherine (Coe) Stone –no participants
5. William Coe –no participants
Source: Coe-Lovell DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. Isaiah Coe (bef 1760-1836)
2. Jemima Hudspeth (ca 1760-aft 1850)
3. Edward Lovell (bef 1755-1816)
4. Lucy Badgett (1774-bef 1813)
As noted above, the five siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Edward Lovell (ie, [unknown]-Lovell), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Badgett-Lovell, must be derived from Lucy Badgett (ie, Freeman-Badgett), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Freeman or Badgett cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
C. Third type –MRCA: Giles Hudspeth Coe & Sarah Lovell
1. Lucinda (Coe) Kirkpatrick –no participants
2. Giles H. Coe, Jr. –no participants
3. Sarah Coe –no participants
4. Charles Coe –no participants
Source: Coe-Lovell DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources (see below^):
1. Isaiah Coe (bef 1760-1836)
2. Jemima Hudspeth (ca 1760-aft 1850)
3. Edward Lovell (bef 1755-1816)
4. Lucy Badgett (1774-bef 1813)
As noted above, the five siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Edward Lovell (ie, [unknown]-Lovell), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Badgett-Lovell, must be derived from Lucy Badgett (ie, Freeman-Badgett), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Freeman or Badgett cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Note: Matches shared only between descendants of Almera (Lovell) Kirkpatrick (first type) and Lucinda (Coe) Kirkpatrick (third type) could be related through the Kirkpatrick family, since Almera and Lucinda married brothers. They won’t be assigned to any group.
Any match described as Coe-Lovell+ could be resolved to either Badgett-Lovell+ or Hudspeth-Coe+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Coe-Lovell+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Coe-Lovell+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.
^Source: Coe-Lovell DNA segments and associated matches shared by two or more cousins from the first type and the second or third type are derived from one of eight different sources:
1. _____ Lovell
2. ______
3. James Badgett (bef 1755-1835)
4. Nancy Freeman (1759-bef 1813)
5. Timothy Coe, III (1705-1763)
6. Dinah _____
7. Giles Hudspeth (ca 1730-1796)
8. Elizabeth Bradford (ca 1730-1802)
6-32 Hord-Smith+
MRCA: Charles Smith & Sarah Hord
Primary Lines of Descent (children of MRCA):
1. Stephen I. K. Smith –no participants
2. Thomas Smith –no participants
3. Mordecai H. Smith –no participants
4. Jestina (Smith) Lovell –great-great grandchildren RER, MLV, NJG, GBW, PWN, & SWL, and great-great-great grandchildren RWPJ, TEP, SCP, JRP, JMV & AVC
5. Joseph C. M. Smith [by Poindexter]* –no participants
6. Joseph C.M. Smith [by Rachel]* –no participants
Source: Hord-Smith DNA segments and associated matches shared by cousins from two or more primary lines of descent are derived from one of four different sources:
1. Stephen I. K. Smith (1756-1806)
2. _____ (?) Burrus
3. Stanwix Hord (ca 1760-bef 1821)
4. Justina Burrus (ca 1768-aft 1830)
*Source: Hord-Smith DNA segments and associated matches shared only by cousins from the 5th and 6th primary lines of descent (Joseph) are derived from one of two different sources:
1. Charles Smith (1780-1854)
2. Sarah Hord (1786-1866)
As noted above, the four siblings, represented by descendants, share maternal segments from two grandparents, and paternal segments from two grandparents. If one of the primary lines of descent can resolve a maternal segment to a particular grandparent, for example Stanwix Hord (ie, Carr-Hord), we know by inference that the corresponding segment in the remaining primary lines of descent, if resolved to Burrus-Hord, must be derived from Justina Burrus (ie, Martin-Burrus), regardless of whether confirmed by a tested Martin or Burrus cousin. The same reasoning applies to the paternal side.
Any match described as Hord-Smith+ could be resolved to either [Burrus]-Smith+ or Burrus-Hord+, if a new participant at the 7th degree shared the segment with the match. Matches are only described as Hord-Smith+ if they share segments with two or more primary lines of descent, and with none of the more distantly related participants that are added at the 7th degree. Since identical segments are actually shared by different lines of descent, very few resolved to Hord-Smith+ are likely to be IBS –that would be quite a coincidence.