QUEEN-L Archives

From: O Eugene Queen <>
Subject: Re: [QUEEN] Samuel Queen of 1600's
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 12:34:47 -0500
References: <000b01c4c4e1$e22863c0$889790cf@gene><418E566E.000005.01052@ALEXCOMPUTER>

Bingo! On the basis of ONE sample representing the line of this Samuel
Queen are we ready to toss in the towel and discount this Samuel as being
related?

DNA statistics suggests that the possibility of a relationship is so remote
that if we're going to rely on this one sample, I'm not convinced it's worth
any further investment in funds. I would move to the MacQueen family in an
effort to determine if there is any genetic relationship to that line. Some
seem to think that the old William Queen line actually comes from the Mac or
McQueen line of old Scotland or England.

Now, I may want to revisit the Samuel Queen issue if some other Queen sample
shows up with the same markers as the one currently - reportedly -
representing this Samuel.

So, rather than giving up on the basis on one sample; I suggest that we get
another 12 marker sample from another major branch of this line. I would
not upgrade the existing sample to either the 25 or 37 marker level - at
least not until I had a confirming 12 marker sample from another major
branch from Samuel.

That's my 3 cents.

Gene

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rolla Queen" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: [QUEEN] Samuel Queen of 1600's


> Well, if I am interpreting the DNA results correctly, the likelihood that
> Old William (1716) was descendant from Samuel Queen (1600s) seems remote -
> there is a 2 marker mismatch at the 12 marker level between descendants.
>
snip

See original e-mail for the remainder of the discussion.

This thread:

• DNA Discussions by O Eugene Queen <>