Date: Mon,  8 May 2006 21:44:56 -0230 (NDT)
From: dapike@math.mun.ca (David Pike)
To: PIKE-DNA-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: [PIKE-DNA] Update & 1 New Result


Hi everybody.

I've got a number of items that I want to share this time.  I'll
start with mentioning that since the first of April about 5 weeks ago,
8 new people have joined our project.  Their DNA test results will
not start to come out for several more weeks, but it will be exciting
when they do.  To build some anticipation, among the new participants
is a descendant of a George Pike who was born in Massachusetts in 1716;
this Pike line is not known to connect with other early Pike lines in
the area, so it will be interesting to see what the DNA tells us.

I should also mention that other "early" Pike lines are now being
targetted with our Sponsorship Fund, as are Pike lines that trace
back to the "old world".  More details can be found near the bottom
of the "How to Join" page on our project's website:
http://www.math.mun.ca/~dapike/family_history/pike/DNA/index.php?content=join.html

Last week we received the test results from Jeff Pike (kit 57262), who
descends from a brother of Zebulon Montgomery Pike.  Jeff's results are
displayed in "Group 1" on the results page:
http://www.math.mun.ca/~dapike/family_history/pike/DNA/index.php?content=results.html

But what I want to point out about Jeff's results is that for the first
time we have some variation in the test results from the descendants of
John Pike who settled in Massachusetts in 1635.  Up until now, all of the
folks with John in their documented ancestry had the same marker values.
Jeff's results turned up a few different ones though.  For instance, his
marker #21 (DYS-449) came back with a value of 34 instead of the 33 that
we've so far seen for everybody else.  The most likely explanation here
is that somewhere along Jeff's line, this marker experienced a mutation
such that it changed from a 33 to a 34.

Looking at other markers, there are 4 others where Jeff and Roy (who are
the only descendants of John to so far test for more than 25 markers)
have some differences.  What I'm excited about is that we are finally
beginning to witness some mutations among John's descendants.  As more
results from more descendants come in, we should be able to figure out
which mutations are characteristic of which branches of John's family
tree, which in turn will be a great help to family members who don't
know where they belong in the tree (because they will be able to use
the corresponding mutations in their own DNA to help figure out which
branch of the family tree they most likely belong to, and then they
can greatly focus their search for paper records).

That's it for the DNA news.  On a closing note, I'm looking forward
to the reunion in July in Colorado.  It promises to be a memorable
event.

- David.