The results for each group are shownand discussed in this section. First, the pedigrees supplied by each projectmember are displayed.

Next, a table giving the probability that the nearest common male ancestor is within 12 generations using the FamilyTreeDNA TiP app. 12 generations (roughly 300 years) was selected for these tables since most of the pedigrees are within 12 generations. On your FamilyTreeDNA web site homepage, you can perform this calculation for up to 24 generations.

Finally, I add some comments and discussion about theresults that you may or may not find helpful. In any case, I encourage you to do some analysis on your own.

John of MA

Figure 1

Figure 1 Cont.

TiP Results@ 12 Generations

Table 1

Discussion:

All project members who claim well documented descent from John of MA have two Y-chromosome markers containing two unique alleles values. These markers are DYS#390 and 391 with unique alleles of 22 and 9 respectively. The probability of a 22 at DYS# 390 is approximately 1% and a 9 at DYS# 391 is 0.3% Consequently, the probability of this combination is 0.003% or 3 in 100,000. This means that it is highly likely that any male tested with these two values is of the same male line of John of MA. This is why I concluded that Kit 25320 (that’s me) somehow fits in the line of John of MA. This focused my research leading to the pedigree in Figure 1 above. The same can be said of the Hydens of kits N18967 and 81424 in Figure 2 above.

Thesetwo markers are both in the Y-DNS12 panel so are included in the lowest resolutiontest offered by FamilyTreeDNA. This is a very fortunate circumstance since witheven the lowest cost test, one can determine if the test subject is of the Johnof MA line or not.

Lookingat Table 1 above, the pedigrees of Figures 1 and 1 Cont are likely confirmed with two possible exceptions.

Kit25694, although of the John of MA line, doesn’t appear to fit into the pedigree in Figure 1. Two possible courses of action are suggested. Since Kit 2564 is a low resolution test at 25 markers, An increase to 67 markers or higher may helpresolve this. Also, additional research into the connection of Jacob to Nathanielwould be appropriate.

Theresults for kit# 200762 seem to indicate that, while all share John of MA as acommon male ancestor, kit#200762 seems to be more closely related to kit# 25320and kit# 350616. This may indicate that some of the ?sin the pedigree charts are not correct and further research may be in order.

Thereis a high level of confidence that the two Hyden lines in Figure 2 aredescendants of John of MA. How they are connected will require furtherresearch.

Much effort has been exerted by several researchers to discover the father of John of MA. The unique pair of markers discussed above should help in this search. Unfortunately, John’s father has not been identified although several possibilities, such as Gideon Hayden, have been ruled out. This research has been funded by a projectmember employing a professional genealogist in the UK. The strategy is to look for John Haydens in the 15^th and 16^th century in England.Then to trace their male Hayden line to a living descendant for Y-chromosomeDNA testing. This is a difficult task as records, where they still exist, are difficult to read.

William of CT

Figure 2

TiP Results@ 12 Generations

Table 2

Discussion

The Y-chromosome test results confirm that all 5 members of this group shareWilliam as a common ancestor.

It has been claimed by some that William of CT and John of MA were brothers. A TiP calculation using the highest resolution (111 markers) from each group says the probability of that being the case is less than 1%.

Francis of MD

Figure 3

TiP Results@ 12 Generations

Table 3

Discussion

All members of this group share with a high degree of confidence a most recent common male ancestor with Francis of MD or his father. One member (Kit# 353644) does not have the surname Hayden but rather Owens. This is indicative of a non-paternal event.

Haden

Figure 4

TiP Results@ 12 Generations

Table 4

Discussion

There is a great deal of uncertainty in the TiP results for the Haden group. This is due to the fact that all the tests are low resolution (37 markers or less) except for two participants testing at 67 markers. Nevertheless, it appears plausible that the three groups are correctly identified. Comparing the high resolution results for sub-groups A and B, there is less than a 1% chance they share acommon male ancestor within 12 generations. The TiP results for A and B comparisons to sub-group C are highly uncertain due to the low resolution of the sub-group C tests.

The three Haden sub-groups were also subjected to the TiP calculation for the John of MA, William of CT and Francis of MD with the result of nil probability of sharing a common male ancestor.

Irish Haydens

Figure 5

Table 5

Discussion

The Heady pedigree shown in Fig 5 is confirmed in that there is high confidence that kits 212111 and 118598 share a common male ancestor within 12 generations.

The probability of the common male ancestor between Kits 34102 and 35766 designated by the red ? in Fig. 5 is low  and is likely incorrect.

The probability that the Group C members share a common male ancestor within 12generations is high especially with the high resolution (67 markers) of the tests. The common male ancestor may be further back than 12 generations. By 16 generations, the probability is 93%.

The other sub-groups contain, at least, one lower resolution (37 markers or less)which increases the uncertainty of the calculated probability. Increasing the test resolution may help resolve the relationships.

Four of the unmatched group members are lower resolution so have higher uncertainty in the calculated probabilities. The two unmatched members with 67 marker results have low probability of sharing a common males ancestor with each other or any other Irish group member.

The probability of any of the Irish group members sharing a common male ancestorwith Hayden of MA, William of CT, Francis of MD or any Haden group member is essentially nil.