Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:53:23 -0330 (NST)
From: David Pike 
To: pike-dna@rootsweb.com
Subject: Chudleigh, Devon and some other stuff



Hi everybody.  This message contains news of:

1. a newspaper article about Pike DNA
2. a new result from the lab for Pikes from Chudleigh, Devon
3. Allen R Pike's book, now on CD
4. Family Tree DNA's recent conference for project administrators


About the newspaper article, Violet Pike Fitzpatrick deserves the credit 
for making it happen.  Her father Levi (kit 61279) was the first member of 
our project's Group 17 to have his DNA tested.  Since then Group 17 has 
grown well beyond Violet's ancestors on Newfoundland's Burin Peninsula. 
It now spans the world with Alun (kit 134124) in Australia and his 
ancestors from Tetbury, Gloucestershire as well as Joe (168595) and his 
lineage that has been resident in London since at least the 1700s.

As Group 17 has developed and we have learned more about its possible 
origins, Violet has become a keen advocate of genealogical DNA testing, 
and has been doing her best to encourage more people to get involved. 
Over the summer she contacted a reporter with her local paper, and the 
article that appeared on November 2nd is the outcome of that.  You can 
read the article online at: 
http://www.southerngazette.ca/Community/2010-11-02/article-1916331/Branching-out/1



We'll be getting a few more new results from the lab in the coming weeks, 
but for now there's only one that I'm ready to say much about.  The story 
here goes back to the summer of 2009 when I was doing some Pike research 
at the Dorset History Centre in Dorchester.  A fellow at a neighbouring 
table noticed that it was Pikes that I was interested in and then told me 
that he had done a fair bit of research about the clay industry near 
Wareham.  The connection here is that a Pike family originating at 
Chudleigh, Devon was very prominent in this industry from the 1700s 
onwards.

This Pike family had previously caught my attention, and I've twice 
visited and taken photos of their gravestones in the churchyard at Church 
Knowle in Dorset.  Tracing the family wasn't too hard, but as far as I 
could tell there were no male Pikes left who we might ask to join our DNA 
project.  This is where my serendipitous meeting in Dorchester, and the 
correspondence that ensued afterwards, has come to our aid.  While it may 
be that this family no longer has any male Pikes in it, its Y-chromosome 
might survive among the descandants of William Louis MILLER who is thought 
to be an illegitimate son of Laurence Warburton Pike.  That was good 
enough for me, so I began to research William and his family.  After 
several months of effort I was able to contact one of William's 
descendants and get him to join our project.

His results (37-markers, kit 186952) came from the lab in October, but his 
closest Pike match is off by 11 markers, meaning that he doesn't have a 
genetic match with any of the Pikes currently in our project.  He doesn't 
have any 37-marker matches with any non-Pikes either though, so we don't 
yet have a clear answer regarding the question of whether William's father 
really was Laurence Warburton Pike.  But assuming that William was 
Laurence's son, then this now means that our tally of unrelated Pike 
families in Dorset is up to 4 ... these would be Pikes from Poole (our 
Group 2), Pikes from Shapwick and Pimperne (Group 13), Pikes from Todber 
and Stour Provost (represented by kit 184460) and now Pikes at Wareham and 
Church Knowle (albeit with earlier origins at Chudleigh, Devon).



Allen R Pike (kit number 33139 in our project) wrote a massive book 
several years ago titled "The Family of John Pike of Newbury, 
Massachusetts - 1635-1995".  For some time now it has been out of print. 
Since Allen's passing in 2007, Roy Escott Pike (President of the Pike 
Family Association, and kit number 31483 in our project) has been working 
on making Allen's book available in electronic form and is now able to 
provide it in searchable PDF format on CD.  For details about how to 
acquire a copy, contact Roy at roypike36@msn.com



The last item for this message is about the 6th International Conference 
on Genetic Genealogy, hosted by Family Tree DNA in Houston, Texas over the 
Hallowe'en weekend.  Once again I was able to redeem frequent flyer points 
and attend the conference.  This year there was a strong focus on FTDNA's 
newest DNA test called "Family Finder".  It's a test that anybody (whether 
male or female) can take since it ignores the Y-chromosome and instead 
analyses a half million markers that are scattered throughout the genome 
(similar to the test offered by 23andMe, but without any medical 
interpretation) and then puts people in touch with one another if they are 
found to share segements of DNA with each other (as would be the case with 
people who are 3rd cousins, or more closely related).  Some more 
information about this new test can be found at 
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Family_Finder

When FTDNA first launched this new product a few months ago, they said 
that they intended to eventually allow data from third parties (such as 
23andMe) to be uploaded into their database for a small fee.  However, as 
explained at the recent conference, the overlap in the particular markers 
that each company tests might not be sufficient to enable FTDNA to perform 
the segment-matching that they do with "Family Finder" test results. 
They still seem to be hopeful that they can overcome some of the 
challenges involved with using third party data, but it might be that the 
option to upload such results into the FTDNA system just won't be 
possible.  I say all this because I know that several of us have tested at 
23andMe and would likely find it useful to be able to upload our 23andMe 
data into the FTDNA system if/when this is permitted.

Still on the topic of the new "Family Finder" test, one of the conference 
attendees (Whit Athey) gave a presentation that showed how it's possible 
to use the results from a group of siblings and one of their parents to 
"reconstruct" the results of the other parent, almost as if he/she had 
been tested too.  I hasten to point out that this process is both 
convoluted and complicated, but it has inspired me to attempt a similar 
reconstruction for my deceased grandparents and so I'm now in the process 
of collecting DNA samples from my parents and my nine remaining aunts and 
uncles.

Regarding some of the other items discussed at the conference, FTDNA gave 
a brief demo of some of the changes that they have in mind for our 
personal webpages when we login to their website.  Included among the 
planned changes will likely be additional markers beyond the 67 that are 
now available as "standard" Y-DNA orders... several of these new markers 
are already available as "advanced" orders, but that also means that they 
aren't as easy to find right now as they could be.

All in all I found the conference very informative and well worth 
attending, particularly for the opportunities to network with other 
project administrators as well as to chat face to face with the people at 
Family Tree DNA.

- David.