DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-10 > 1222935243


From: "Sandy Paterson" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] Questions ??
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:14:03 +0100
References: <100120081244.22783.48E370C7000D2C4F000058FF22073007930A049D0A0304@comcast.net><48E3D412.70803@ibssg.org>
In-Reply-To: <48E3D412.70803@ibssg.org>


Hi Jeff

I think "extra marital conception" (EMC) would seem to describe such events
accurately but you can bet your bottom dollar some pedant will object.

Like you, I am descended from such a line, although in my case it was my
father's grandfather who was the first outcome of the extra marital union.

But here's a coincidence for you : Family lore has it that my great
grandfather was one Stuart Lamont. The closest DNA match over 67 markers
that I've been able to find is Lamont 94014 on the Lamont Family DNA
Project, 66/67. The next closest though, is a John Lewis McCann with a match
of 62/67. Interesting too, is that all four of myself, Lamont 94014,
John Lewis McCann and you yourself have DYS 446 = 15, which is really quite
unusual in R1b1c7, which has DYS 446 = 13 as the modal value.


Sandy Paterson







-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Jeff Scism
Sent: 01 October 2008 20:49
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] Questions ??

Gee Linda, lighten up a little, who says I have a "campaign"? There is
no such thing as a Non-paternal event, SOMEONE is the father. Someone
did the dirty deed. That event was one of paternity.

It is just hard to determine who, in some cases. So the closest thing to
accurately describing what is likely is a "non-marital genetic
incursion" into a family line, of course this breaks the surname/genetic
commonality of a line.

And yes I have one in my family I have solved WITH dna testing.

Y-chromosome testing placed my father's father's line in R1b1c7 (old
term) and family lore named him McCann or McCain, placed him in a
specific locale, in a particular job, and the rest is now solved.

We will have to be satisfied with motive, opportunity, and
circumstantial evidence. There are no same line/surname male descendants
to test.


Jeff

wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
>
>> I think the term "non-paternal event" is misleading, I think it should
>> be more accurate in describing what is meant.
>>
>
>
>> ?How about "Extra-genealogical event" denoting an occurrence from
>> outside normal genealogy? Or a "paternal lineage incursion"?
>> "Undocumented paternal event" (Gee should we sent them all back?)?
>>
>
>
>> Seriously we need a better lexicon
>>
>
> Seriously, you need to take your campaign somewhere where people who make
these decisions congregate! Talking about this here is a waste of time as
it will have no impact. The people who write the books will continue to use
their preferred terminology.


>
> Though frankly your ideas seem worse than NPE <grin>. NPEs are neither
normal or abnormal genealogy. They are biology and there is nothing abnormal
about them as they produce children the same old fashioned way. Actually NO
paternal events are documented. Births often are these days and the births
of English royality at least were witnessed in the past. But so far as I
have heard, the act of fathering a child usually is a rather private affair.
Even when filmed secretly, there is no evidence that a child was actually
fathered but only that a child could have been. It's fairly obvious when a
woman mothers a child but not when one is fathered. Fatherhood, despite the
efforts of societies all over the planet, remains an ephemeral occurrence
that is difficult to prove outside of the lab.
>
> Good luck with your campaign.
>
> Linda Merle
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
>


--

Jeffery G. Scism, IBSSG



"In the next place, the state governments are, by the very theory
of the constitution, essential constituent parts of the general
government. They can exist without the latter, but the latter
cannot exist without them."

-- Joseph Story (Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833)

Reference: Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 191.


-------------------------------
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

This thread: