A living male Wyatt and a living male Sullivan are an exact match on a
67 step YDNA test.

Wyatt does not match any other tested Wyatts and Sullivan does not
match any other tested Sullivans (except for a known cousin).

The first conclusion is that Wyatt is not a Wyatt and Sullivan is not
a Sullivan, except by surnames, for more than 350 years.

The answer would appear to be that a man or YDNA matching men, neither
Wyatt nor Sullivan, impregnated Wyatt and Sullivan females. As was the
custom the sons were given the surname of their mothers.

That would explain the YDNA match and the reason for different
surnames.

Is there another answer?

Hugh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 14:38:32 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

A living male Wyatt and a living male Sullivan are an exact match on a
67 step YDNA test.

Wyatt does not match any other tested Wyatts and Sullivan does not
match any other tested Sullivans (except for a known cousin).

The first conclusion is that Wyatt is not a Wyatt and Sullivan is not
a Sullivan, except by surnames, for more than 350 years.

The answer would appear to be that a man or YDNA matching men, neither
Wyatt nor Sullivan, impregnated Wyatt and Sullivan females. As was the
custom the sons were given the surname of their mothers.

That would explain the YDNA match and the reason for different
surnames.

Is there another answer?

FTDNA has a TiP report. If you are one tested, then the TiP report
will say you have for example 50% the MRCA was 6 generations back,
67% 7 gen. etc. My figures are fictive. But you should look at this
report to see.

My own case :

person 1 : TiP is 4 gen., 85%, 8 gen. 99%. We believe the MRCA is
4 gen. back.

person 2 : TiP is 8 gen. 61% and 12 gen. 91%. We believe the MRCA is 9
gen. from me.

The belief is based on comparing other DNA results for similar YDNA
signatures and Family Finder results, and family study.

In both cases, there is no paper trail.

I would suggest you run a Big Y or equivalent test, then compare the
last SNP with your match. FTDNA has the new rule that a Big Y will
also bring your Y-67 to Y-111. You may wait for the next sale !


Denis

--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/ French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/ Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:17:32 -0500, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote:

FTDNA has a TiP report. If you are one tested, then the TiP report
will say you have for example 50% the MRCA was 6 generations back,
67% 7 gen. etc. My figures are fictive. But you should look at this
report to see.

We are 43% at 4 generations and 90% at 9 generations. I was aware of
theTiP report. At best I have 8 generations.

If he does not match any other Wyatts, and I don't match any other
Sullivans, seems like we are neither by YDNA test. A Roman Centurian
and camp followers might be our ancestors.

Thus, by surname only, he is a Wyatt and I am a Sullivan as far back
as we can prove our line by fact or preponderance of evidence.

If that is a logical conclusion I can quit researching Wyatts. I'm
trying to eliminate any exceptions.

Hugh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:56:00 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:17:32 -0500, Denis Beauregard ><denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote:

FTDNA has a TiP report. If you are one tested, then the TiP report
will say you have for example 50% the MRCA was 6 generations back,
67% 7 gen. etc. My figures are fictive. But you should look at this
report to see.

We are 43% at 4 generations and 90% at 9 generations. I was aware of
theTiP report. At best I have 8 generations.

If he does not match any other Wyatts, and I don't match any other
Sullivans, seems like we are neither by YDNA test. A Roman Centurian
and camp followers might be our ancestors.

Thus, by surname only, he is a Wyatt and I am a Sullivan as far back
as we can prove our line by fact or preponderance of evidence.

If that is a logical conclusion I can quit researching Wyatts. I'm
trying to eliminate any exceptions.

If you go with the Big Y test, you will be able to reduce the gap.

Again in my own case, I have some Armenian cousins. According to our differences in the Big Y, our common mutation was formed about 1550
years ago, with a common ancestor 1100 years ago. In other words,
our common ancestor lived between years 450 and 900. Considering the
history, his ancestor was probably a Frank who went to Crusade and
settled there. Obviously, there is no paper trail here !

In another case, the common ancestor is estimated to be about 4
generations before the gateway ancestors.

I think this test will tell you if the common ancestor for Wyatt and
Sullivan was living about 1600 or about 1500 etc.


Denis

--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/ French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/ Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 14:30:50 -0500, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:56:00 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:17:32 -0500, Denis Beauregard >><denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote:

FTDNA has a TiP report. If you are one tested, then the TiP report
will say you have for example 50% the MRCA was 6 generations back,
67% 7 gen. etc. My figures are fictive. But you should look at this >>>report to see.

We are 43% at 4 generations and 90% at 9 generations. I was aware of
theTiP report. At best I have 8 generations.

If he does not match any other Wyatts, and I don't match any other >>Sullivans, seems like we are neither by YDNA test. A Roman Centurian
and camp followers might be our ancestors.

Thus, by surname only, he is a Wyatt and I am a Sullivan as far back
as we can prove our line by fact or preponderance of evidence.

If that is a logical conclusion I can quit researching Wyatts. I'm
trying to eliminate any exceptions.

If you go with the Big Y test, you will be able to reduce the gap.

I think this test will tell you if the common ancestor for Wyatt and
Sullivan was living about 1600 or about 1500 etc.

If I do the Big Y but Thomas Wyatt does not, how do I learn anything?

Hugh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 23:06:58 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 14:30:50 -0500, Denis Beauregard ><denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:56:00 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:17:32 -0500, Denis Beauregard >>><denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote:

FTDNA has a TiP report. If you are one tested, then the TiP report
will say you have for example 50% the MRCA was 6 generations back,
67% 7 gen. etc. My figures are fictive. But you should look at this >>>>report to see.

We are 43% at 4 generations and 90% at 9 generations. I was aware of >>>theTiP report. At best I have 8 generations.

If he does not match any other Wyatts, and I don't match any other >>>Sullivans, seems like we are neither by YDNA test. A Roman Centurian
and camp followers might be our ancestors.

Thus, by surname only, he is a Wyatt and I am a Sullivan as far back
as we can prove our line by fact or preponderance of evidence.

If that is a logical conclusion I can quit researching Wyatts. I'm
trying to eliminate any exceptions.

If you go with the Big Y test, you will be able to reduce the gap.

I think this test will tell you if the common ancestor for Wyatt and >>Sullivan was living about 1600 or about 1500 etc.

If I do the Big Y but Thomas Wyatt does not, how do I learn anything?

It is a matter of luck because it is possible you have a match with
another descendant. But odds are very low. You will have to either
have Thomas Wyatt accepting to do the Big Y or to pay for him
(providing he accepts obviously).

Also, you would have, to get the most from these tests, to send the
results to Yfull.com ($49) for further analysis.

Also, you may wait that the Big Y (or equivalent at other labs) become
small enough.


Denis

--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/ French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/ Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18/01/2019 14:38, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

A living male Wyatt and a living male Sullivan are an exact match on a
67 step YDNA test.

Wyatt does not match any other tested Wyatts and Sullivan does not
match any other tested Sullivans (except for a known cousin).

I think I would see if I could use DNA to limit where the "non-paternity
event" occurred. You have a known cousin whose Y-DNA is an exact match
in the 67 marker test. This gives you a high degree of confidence that
the line back to your common ancestor is correct. (Even then, it's not absolute proof: maybe one of your ancestors slept with her husband's
brother. A Y-DNA test will not distinguish that case.)

By the sounds of it, you've traced your ancestry back several
generations back from this common ancestor using the paper record. Any
of these steps could be hiding a non-paternity event, so I'd try to rule
these out. That means looking for other living descendants of the
earlier ancestors. If they're male line descendants, you can obviously
use a Y-DNA test, but autosomal testing will allow you to use any
descendant so long as the most recent common ancestor isn't too far back.

Autosomal test results are much harder to interpret, and if you search
for matches on the usual DNA sites you find hundreds. Probably you'll
never manage to work out how most are related, and when you do, they're probably related via female lines on both sides. That means they'll be
of little use working out what happened in your Sullivan line. But if
instead you locate living descendants of your Sullivan ancestors, engage
them in discussion on the subject of your family tree, and try to
persuade them to take a autosomal DNA test, you may be in luck. Because
the number of living relatives will probably be quite high, it doesn't
matter if most are unwilling to take a test: you only need one to.

Autosomal testing should be able to get you back to your great-great-grandparents, if you can find a willing test subject.
Beyond that things get a bit more patchy. You can't keep dividing DNA
into shorter and shorter segments, and you reach a point where you no
longer share any DNA with your distant relatives. For example, if you
test a fourth cousin and find no autosomal DNA match, this does not
disprove the relationship as it's fairly common for fourth cousins not
to have a match. On the other hand, if a believed second cousin does
not have a match, that's strong evidence that the true relationship is
not what you believe.

Richard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/01/19 22:37, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

I can trace Wyatt's line back to...
EDWARD WYATT Birth 1614 in England Arrived in MA 1645

I can prove my line back to...
Russell Sullivan 1790 NC - 1849 AL.

Can you bring the two lines sufficiently close together geographically
and temporally to enable a .... cross-fertilisation to happen?

Ian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 19:35:47 +0000, Richard Smith
<richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote:

On 18/01/2019 14:38, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

A living male Wyatt and a living male Sullivan are an exact match on a
67 step YDNA test.

Wyatt does not match any other tested Wyatts and Sullivan does not
match any other tested Sullivans (except for a known cousin).

I think I would see if I could use DNA to limit where the "non-paternity >event" occurred. You have a known cousin whose Y-DNA is an exact match
in the 67 marker test. This gives you a high degree of confidence that
the line back to your common ancestor is correct. (Even then, it's not >absolute proof: maybe one of your ancestors slept with her husband's
brother. A Y-DNA test will not distinguish that case.)

I can trace Wyatt's line back to...
EDWARD WYATT Birth 1614 in England Arrived in MA 1645

I can prove my line back to...
Russell Sullivan 1790 NC - 1849 AL.

By preponderance of evidence I can extend my line to...
John Sullivan immigrated 1690 VA. The timelines are right and there
were no other Sullivans in the county until the family tracks 4
generations later. Logic is there but no proof.

I think that will have to be my starting point although I have the
Family Finder Kit (autosomal) from Family Tree that I need to
complete.

I am R1a1a1a L664. The L664 arose around the Black Sea ca. 3000 BC and immigrated to the German Area (some continued to Scandanavia).
Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisii immigrated to England.

It appears that people being people has made a number of us Family
Historians.

Hugh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:07:19 +0000, Ian Goddard
<goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

On 19/01/19 22:37, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

I can trace Wyatt's line back to...
EDWARD WYATT Birth 1614 in England Arrived in MA 1645

I can prove my line back to...
Russell Sullivan 1790 NC - 1849 AL.

Can you bring the two lines sufficiently close together geographically
and temporally to enable a .... cross-fertilisation to happen?

Ian

There are two Wyatt lines in the UK that have never been linked. One
apparently went to New England while the other went to VA. But, if I
match Wyatt and we have no other Wyatt or Sullivan matches, then we
are neither Wyatt nor Sullivan. Thus the "pollination" of Wyatt and
Sullivan females by Surname X occurred before arrival in the USA.

A Dempsey Wyatt was in NC and my NC gg grand, Russell, named his third
son Dempsey. They were geographically close. Dempsey died in 1800 and
I find no records where Russell, 10 years old, was an orphan, bonded
or changed his surname to Sullivan by 1816.

The more probable scenario is that Russell was born a Sullivan and my
match was born a Wyatt but our early ancestor was neither.

My original hopes 2 decades ago was that I could link to the first
Sullivan in Ireland ca. 850 AD. But they are R1b and I am R1a. I now
think I will have to be satisfied with what happened in the USA. I can
live with that.

Hugh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)