To: pike-dna-l@rootsweb.com
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:00:42 -0230 (NDT)
From: dapike@math.mun.ca (David Pike)
Subject: [PIKE-DNA] August Bulletin #3


This update focusses on three or four developments, the DNA results
for which can be seen on our project's Results page at:
http://www.math.mun.ca/~dapike/family_history/pike/DNA/index.php?content=results.html

The first item to mention pertains to kit 87894, for which we have a
pedigree that goes back to George Pike, born about 1773 in Aldenham,
Bushey, Hertfordshire.  At 25 markers, the closest genetic matches
within our project are 8 mutations away, which is to say that 87894
does not yet have any matches within our project.  Not only does this
mean that we have found a new Pike line, but with known English roots,
it is our 10th distinct Pike line in the British Isles.

Next on my list of things to mention is kit E1943.  For those who
are curious, kit numbers with an E are assigned to kits that are
ordered through FamilyTreeDNA's European office in Zurich.  We are
still waiting for the full 37-marker results for E1943, but already
with the first 12 markers we can say that E1943 very likely represents
yet another new Pike line for our project, bringing the overall tally
up to 31.  Specifically, at 12 markers, the closest match within our
project is with Richard (kit 88850) whose first 12 markers have 4
differences when compared to E1943.  Incidentally, E1943 has been
predicted to belong to the J1 haplogroup, which is another first for
our project.

Other recent news involves the McPike, McPeak, and similar surname
variants.  Sandy McPike (18526), who has the lowest kit number in our
project, actually had her nephew's DNA tested several months before
the Pike DNA Project even came into being.  More recently, George McPeak
(74888) showed up as a match on Sandy's list of matches in the FTDNA
database (that is, on her personal login page with FTDNA).  George is
now a member of our project, and based on his match with Sandy we now
have a new genetic cluster, shown as Group 10 on our Results page.
This group also includes a third person, Tim McPike (78184),
who looks at first glance as though he might not be a match with
Sandy.  However, George's DNA falls "in between" the values we
have for Sandy and Tim, helping to bridge the gap between them.

While on the topic of surname variants, another one has also come
to light.  Stuart (48191), who is our project's other co-administrator,
noticed a while ago that his list of matches included one with the
surname Speight.  Specifically, it was with Margaret & Larry Speight,
who are now in our project with kit number 78605, with results shown
in our Group 4.

The discovery of a semi-close match with another surname might have
been dismissed were it not for a couple of things.  For instance,
the match was pretty good:  33 out 37 markers, which led to FTDNA
estimating the likelihood of a paternal connection within the past
400 years to be about 79%.  The second thing that made this stand out
was the book "Some Descendants of James Pike of Charlestown and Reading,
Massachusetts and The Times in Which They Lived" written by Ruth G Pike
in 1990.  Quoting from page 2 of Ruth's book, she writes about
James' time in Charlestown:

   The earliest record placing him there is that of the birth of
   his firstborn:  Spight, James, sonne of James Spight, borne
   1 (11) 1646 (or by the revised calendar, 1 Jan. 1647).

Note also that Larry & Margaret match closely with Russell (83604) who
has a pedigree that goes back to James' firstborn son James.  What it
appears that this all means is that "Pike" and "Speight" may in fact be
modern variants of each other, possibly resulting from one or both
having been corrupted to the other form many generations ago,
yet the underlying DNA remained essentially the same.

- David.