To: pike-dna-l@rootsweb.com
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:07:43 -0230 (NDT)
From: dapike@math.mun.ca (David Pike)
Subject: [PIKE-DNA] James Pike of Charlestown & Reading, Massachusetts


This email deals primarily with the family of James Pike who settled
in Charlestown, Massachusetts in the 1640s and subsequently resided
at Reading, Massachusetts.  James and his relatives comprise our
project's "Group 6" as shown here:
http://www.math.mun.ca/~dapike/family_history/pike/DNA/index.php?content=results.html#Group6

For some time now we have struggled to understand the DNA results
from James' descendants.  In particular, a number of test results have
appeared to not match with others, indicating that there likely are
cases of undocumented adoptions, non-paternal events, and/or genealogical
errors in some of the pedigrees that go back to James.

To review the situation as it was prior to some recent results,
we had 4 people with pedigrees going back to James:  Johnathan (kit 63479),
Russell (83604), a cousin of Jean (61292), and Gilbert & Maureen (62731).
Russell had tested all 67 possible markers, Gilbert & Maureen had tested 25,
and Jean and Johnathan had only tested 12.  The 12-marker comparisons involving
these four individuals left us doubting whether anybody was kin, despite their
common claims to descend from James.  Specifically, based on 12 markers:

 - Johnathan and Russell differ on 4 markers
 - Johnathan and Jean differ on 4 markers
 - Johnathan and Gilbert/Maureen differ on 3 markers
 - Russell and Jean differ on 3 markers
 - Russell and Gilbert/Maureen differ on 6 markers
 - Jean and Gilbert/Maureen differ on 5 markers

At 25 markers we could compare Russell and Gilbert/Maureen, who have a
total of 12 differing markers, strongly indicating that they are not a
genetic match.  Meanwhile however, Russell was a definite match with
Stuart and Ronald in our project's "Group 4".  Also, Gilbert/Maureen
were a perfect 25-marker match with Jesse (69482), but with no known
relationship between them.

Okay, so that's where we were:  perplexed and in need of more data.

Since then Jean has upgraded her cousin's results from 12 to 25 markers, and
we have obtained new 12-marker results from another participant (kit 61289)
whose 12 markers perfectly match those of Jean.  Now that we are able to
do 25-marker comparisons for Jean, we find that she and Gilbert/Maureen
differ on 11 markers, indicating that Jean and Gilbert/Maureen are not a
genetic match.

However, at 25 markers Jean and Russell differ on a total of 4 markers.
That is, out of Jean's newly tested markers (numbering 13 to 25), all but one
of them matched with Russell.  What this suggests is that what was at 12 markers
looking like a genetic mismatch is now looking less like a mismatch and more
like match after all.

To draw an analogy, if we look at our project's "Group 1" for a moment,
we see that at the 12 marker level Richard (93897) and Roger (50318)
differ on 4 markers.  If that was all that we knew then we might be inclined
to think that they were not related.  However, when we look at their
additional markers (13-25) we see nothing but matches.  Also, we when we
look at the rest of "Group 1" we see a collection of closely matching results.
Indeed, at the 25 marker level, Richard (93897) differs only by one marker
with Ed (61276), who differs only by 1 with Roy (31483), who differs only
by 1 with Peg/John (24697), who differ only by 1 with Roger (50318).  Thanks
to these DNA results that are "in between" those of Richard and Roger, we
can be confident that Richard and Roger are related, even though their DNA
results at first look like a mismatch.

This is what we might be witnessing with Russell and Jean:  that their DNA
results might be at two opposite ends of a collection of similar DNA results.
As for results that are "in between" those of Russell and Jean, we've recently
had new results posted for Kevin (96201) who also has a genealogy that goes
back to James.  Kevin's 12-marker results are also a perfect match with
Ronald (34964) and Stuart (48191) from "Group 4".

Moreover, we've also recently obtained new 25-marker results from a brother
of Karen (61277).  These results perfectly match Kevin at 12 markers, and
are a 24/25 match with each of Ronald, Stuart, and also Russell.  Moreover,
although Karen is genealogically stuck at her ancestor George S Pike (1823-1877),
she had suspected that George's Pike ancestry goes back to James' son James
even before getting her brother's DNA results.

So where are we now?  Well, results from Group 4 (such as Ronald and Stuart)
are now being seen to fit in with known descendants of James in Group 6.
I should re-iterate that originally we did not see this connection because
of 12-marker comparisons that looked like there weren't genetic matches
involved.  But with the benefit of additional information that has now come
to light and shown that there are indeed matches present, I've now taken
the results that had originally been placed into Group 4 and have moved
them over to Group 6.

There are still questions that remain to be clarified though.  For instance,
Johnathan's 12-marker results still look like a mismatch when compared with
the other descendants of James.  Also, Gilbert/Maureen and Jesse share a
genetic signture that is clearly distinct from the rest of our Group 6, and
the cause of this distinction has yet to be determined.

- David.