A discomforting thought...

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 8:57:00 AM4/23/12

to

I mentioned earlier that 2 daughters and 1 son of Jesse Sullivan
married 2 sons and 1 daughter of Jonathan Jackson Sullivan (maybe not
quite so detailed).

The descendants oif the daughters of Jesse would have the YDNA of
Jonathan Jackson and the descendants of the daughter of Jonathan
Jackson would have the YDNA of Jesse. No problem with the YDNA of the
descendants of the sons.

If one is using YDNA tests to determine lineage, intermarriage could
really confuse the issue - or am I missing something here?

My senility doesn't usually occur until about 2 PM.

Hugh

Charlie Hoffpauir

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 2:12:42 PM4/23/12

to

Sounds to me like you have it exactly right.... but also that you're
overcomplicating it. There's no reason to even take into account the
parentage of the females when tracing YDNA.... it is just simpler to
ignore them completely, since YDNA only transfers male parent to male
child. Looking at it the other way... YDNA is useless in trying to
trace the parentage of females, or any males "not" in the direct male
line.

Of course, I understand in your situation, you're following "several"
male lines trying to find which ones result in "you".

Bob Melson

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 2:18:07 PM4/23/12

to

On Monday 23 April 2012 06:57, J. Hugh Sullivan (Ea...@bellsouth.net)
opined:

As I understand it, because YDNA is male specific, the daughters would NOT
have the YDNA of _anybody_. Females don't inherit YDNA. So, the children
of Jesse's daughters would have _their fathers'_ YDNA, if male, and their
mothers mtDNA in any case. Same's true of Jonathan's daughter - any
_male_ children would have their fathers' YDNA and their mothers' mtDNA.

All this because males are XY, females XX.

Simplistic Ol' Bob

--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated
in the name of the noblest causes -- Thomas Paine

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,

Apr 24, 2012, 9:31:55 AM4/24/12

to

Of course the point is that, without knowing all the facts, the
evidence is misleading. isn't it? And the same surname further
complicates.

The sons of such intermarriages would be the line of both Jesse and JJ
who are from different lines. One might be Haplo Group R1a and the
other R1b because of the father's YDNA. (Actually I don't know their
Haplo Groups)

So did I come from Asia via Scandanavia to England or Europe via Spain
to Ireland? The answer could be "yes".

Hugh

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,

Apr 24, 2012, 9:34:22 AM4/24/12

to

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:18:07 -0600, Bob Melson <amia...@mypacks.net>
wrote:

>On Monday 23 April 2012 06:57, J. Hugh Sullivan (Ea...@bellsouth.net)
>opined:
>
>> I mentioned earlier that 2 daughters and 1 son of Jesse Sullivan
>> married 2 sons and 1 daughter of Jonathan Jackson Sullivan (maybe not
>> quite so detailed).
>>
>> The descendants oif the daughters of Jesse would have the YDNA of
>> Jonathan Jackson and the descendants of the daughter of Jonathan
>> Jackson would have the YDNA of Jesse. No problem with the YDNA of the
>> descendants of the sons.
>>
>> If one is using YDNA tests to determine lineage, intermarriage could
>> really confuse the issue - or am I missing something here?
>>
>> My senility doesn't usually occur until about 2 PM.
>>
>> Hugh
>
>As I understand it, because YDNA is male specific, the daughters would NOT
>have the YDNA of _anybody_. Females don't inherit YDNA. So, the children
>of Jesse's daughters would have _their fathers'_ YDNA, if male, and their
>mothers mtDNA in any case. Same's true of Jonathan's daughter - any
>_male_ children would have their fathers' YDNA and their mothers' mtDNA.
>
>All this because males are XY, females XX.
>
>Simplistic Ol' Bob

I responded to Charlie. Thanks for responding to my

Sad Old Blog.

Hugh