BLEVINS-L ArchivesArchiver > BLEVINS > 2008-12 > 1228180696
From: "Hal & Susan Story" <>
Subject: Re: [BLEVINS] Blevins Y-DNA Project Update
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 20:18:16 -0500
Glad to seee you working so hard on this project.
esp The Dillon m Ann Armstrong -Blevins line
Hope you Thanks giving was good. ours was quite.
And I've been sick... Hope you all are well.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Blevins" <>
To: "Rootsweb Blevins" <>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:04 PM
Subject: [BLEVINS] Blevins Y-DNA Project Update
> We've had some exciting developments in the Blevins Y-DNA Project this
> year. The good news is that we've gained 7 new participants so far this
> year (results for two are not yet back from the lab) AND we've gained
> expanded 67-marker results from 8 of our previous participants. The
> disappointing news is that 4 other men ordered test kits this year but
> have to date failed to return their samples for testing.
> As of this writing our project includes 30 participants with comparable
> results. Two participants only have 12-marker results, one has 25-marker
> results, 13 have 37-marker results, and 14 have 67-marker results. One
> more participant has a 37-marker test being processed by the lab but his
> results are not yet available.
> The analysis of Y-DNA results primarily relies on finding marker MUTATIONS
> (the small changes that occur throughout the generations). But before we
> can identify a mutation in a marker, we need to know what the marker
> looked like originally. That means we need to define a Modal Haplotype for
> Blevins Y-DNA. Over two years ago, we were able to establish just such a
> Modal for the first 37 markers. Now, thanks to 14 of our comparable
> participants who have taken high resolution tests, we have defined a
> "probable" (albeit not final) Blevins Modal Haplotype all the way out to
> 67 markers.
> Of our 30 comparable participants, at least 18 exhibit one or more
> mutations. (I say "at least 18" because not all of our participants have
> 67-marker results available. If their results were extended to 67 markers,
> it is possible that additional mutations would be revealed.)
> Mutations are important because, once they develop, they are passed down
> to all direct male descendants. We use these mutations to make (or infer)
> genetic connections between our ancestors because men with identical
> mutations have a very high probability of being very closely related. But
> identifying mutations is really only the first step in our process.
> Because mutations can develop in any generation, it is important to try to
> "date" about when a mutation first appeared. Our second step, therefore,
> is to attempt to categorize identified mutations as being either "old" or
> The way we date these mutations is to examine the results of men who share
> a proven common ancestor. If two proven distant cousins (3rd, 4th, 5th,
> etc. ) carry the same mutation, we can be reasonably sure that their most
> recent common ancestor ( 2nd GGF, 3rd GGF, 4th GGF etc.) ALSO carried the
> mutation. If these same proven distant cousins carry one or more
> non-matching mutations, we can be reasonably sure that these non-matching
> mutations developed more recently in their ancestry.
> Ideally, we'd like to test every 1st, 2nd, 3rd.. cousin of every
> participant out to his most distant proven cousin. That way, we could
> determine the specific generation that spawned a specific mutation.
> Realistically however, the best we can generally hope for is to determine
> if a mutation was carried by the oldest proven ancestor or if it developed
> more recently in the line.
> The above really isn't as daunting a task as it sounds because we have
> quite a few men in our project with proven pedigrees back to a common
> 4 participants share James Blevins (bc. 1770 and married to Lydia
> Sizemore) as their proven MRCA. One of these men matches our 37-modal but
> 3 show one mutation each. Because these 3 mutations are all different, we
> can assume they developed sometime AFTER James (1770). We can further
> assume that James (1770) himself matched our 37-marker modal. One of these
> participants has 67-marker results that enable us say that James (1770)
> probably matched our 67-marker modal as well.
> 2 participants share Daniel Blevins (bc. 1810 and married to Sarah Corey)
> as their proven MRCA. Neither man shows any mutation so we can assume the
> Daniel (1810) matched our 37-marker model. One of these participants has
> 67-marker results that enable us say that Daniel (1810) probably matched
> our 67-marker modal as well.
> 2 participants share William Blevins (bc. 1793 m. Rhoda Pruitt) as their
> proven MRCA. We are still waiting for final results for one of these men
> but the results thus far show no mutations for either men on 37 markers.
> One man does show a mutation at marker #62.
> 2 participants share Nathan Blevins (bc. 1795 m. Mary Rogers) as their
> proven MRCA. One shows no mutations out to 37 markers and we are waiting
> for results on the other.
> We probably have 2 participants who share William Blevins (bc. 1786) as
> MRCA, 2 participants who share Thomas Blevins (bc. 1823) as MRCA, 2
> participants who share Levi Blevins (bc. 1779 and married to Mary) as
> MRCA, and 2 participants who share Elisha Blevins (bc. 1767 m. Rachel
> Osborne) as MRCA. Some of these relationships are probable instead of
> proven, some show no mutations at all, and some don't have results beyond
> 12 markers.
> Most of the above analyses have simply allowed us to eliminate mutations
> as having occurred too recently to be useful to us. The most exciting
> findings are from what we have come to call the "Tennessee" mutation
> 2 participants share David Blevins (bc, 1776 m. Sarah Torbett) as their
> proven MRCA. Both of these men show matching mutations at markers #10 and
> #58. We can be reasonably sure that David (1776) ALSO carried these two
> mutations, making him slightly different genetically from the other
> Blevins ancestors discussed above. (One participant shows an additional
> mutation that probably occurred more recently.)
> 2 participants share Josiah Blevins (bc. 1780) as their MRCA. Both of
> these men show matching mutations at markers #10, #55, and #58 and we can
> be reasonably sure that Josiah (1780) ALSO carried these three mutations.
> Like David, these mutations make Josiah slightly different genetically
> from other Blevins ancestors. Josiah is even slightly different from David
> because of his extra mutation at #55 AND because David and Josiah have
> different mutation magnitudes at #58. (Again, one of Josiah's descendant
> shows an additional mutation that probably occurred more recently.)
> Adding to the excitement is one participant who has John D. Blevins (bc.
> 1811 m. Catherine) as his MRCA and another man from outside of our project
> who is almost certainly a descendant of Clark B. Blevins (bc. 1817 m.
> Patience Stout). Both of these men show the exact same 3 mutations
> exhibited by Josiah Blevins (plus one extra, more recent mutation). We
> KNOW that neither John D. nor Clark B. Blevins were descendants of Josiah,
> yet the Y-DNA essentially proves a close relationship.
> These six men all share three characteristics in common. They all exhibit
> a matching mutation at marker #10, a similar mutation at marker #58, and
> early east Tennessee roots. We have taken to calling their marker #10
> value the "Tennessee" mutation. These six men also carry the oldest
> Blevins mutations we have thus far been able to isolate. The ancestors of
> these six men also appear to represent two Blevins subgroups, both
> distinct from other Blevins men within Group A..
> The dots are starting to connect and we are finally approaching a critical
> mass in the project where we can start making meaningful connections. We
> didn't get to this point simply by chance however. While several of the
> overlapping pedigree participants have come to the project by random
> choice, most of them came to the project through vigorous recruitment
> efforts. Over the past few years, Ron Blevins and I have invested a lot of
> time, energy, and money recruiting and enticing Blevins men to join the
> project. Ron is responsible for bringing in all 4 of the James (1770)
> participants plus several others. I have been the driving force behind the
> Tennessee participants. We could use some help.
> We need more participants.
> Although we welcome participation by any Blevins man at any level (12, 25,
> 37, or 67 markers), we really need 37-marker results or better for
> meaningful analysis. 67-marker results are even more useful but they are
> absolutely needed for any participant that exhibits the "Tennessee"
> mutation. If you are planning to join the project, please order the 37- or
> 67-marker test. 37-marker tests can always be upgraded to 67-marker
> results at a later date. If you currently only have 12- or 25-marker
> results, please consider ordering upgrades.
> We still need to "firm up" our 67-marker Modal Haplotype. We have
> specifically targeted two or three of our current participants for
> upgrades to 67 markers. They will be contacted directly.
> Our database is heavily skewed towards one or two primary Blevins lines.
> Between 50 and 65% of our participants, for example, are very likely
> descendants of the James Blevins who was born about 1740 and was married
> to a woman named Ward. We desperately need more representation from other
> old lines. I have identified 3 specific lines I consider critical for us:
> 1) Colonel William Blevins of early Sullivan County TN married to Ann, 2)
> Dillon Blevins of old Pittsylvania County married to Ann Armstrong, and 3)
> John Blevins (aka Orator John) of old Grayson County married to Catherine
> I'm sure Ron, Owen, and others can add to this list.
> Rob Blevins
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message