Wednesday, April 11, 2012
HAM DNA Project Group Changes
HAM DNA Project
The HAM DNA Project has a new participant this week, Carl Hamm, kit #226942. Carl descends from Rufus HAM b. abt 1878 of Washington County, VA. Very curious history, because there is documentation on several Rufus HAM's from the area of SW Virginia during that time frame.
The DNA suggests some connection to the Ashe County, NC/Franklin County, NC, and the Patrick County, VA HAM lines. He appears to be the closest DNA match to the Ashe County lines, in particular, the descendants of John HAM (1780-1850) of Grayson County, VA.
However, we should keep in mind that the Washington County, VA lines have not yet been fully represented in the DNA Project. You can view his results here:
I got some FaceBook messages recently about how the Groupings are done for the DNA Project. I thought I would take a moment to re-arrange the HAM DNA Groups so that they better reflect the Phylogenetic tree output. I wanted to have the groups show the output from the "kitsch" program a little bit better. Basically, the thought is that the standard scientific tools should deliver the groupings in the best way that can be determined at this time. I think most of the changes to the groups have been driven largely by those few who have tested to 111 markers, as well as by the new participants. However, in one case of the new grouping, both participants have only tested to 25 markers.
Basically, the changes that have been made are:
Group # 1 Changes
New kit #226942 was added to HAM DNA Group #1 (226942 is Rufus HAM of Washington Co., VA).
His closest matches appears to be kits 212352 (William HAM b1780 d abt 1860 Patrick County, VA) and 68140 (William HAM Sr. son John HAM (1780-1850 of Grayson Co., VA).
Clearly belongs to Group #1, but it is still not clear which line from Group #1 that Rufus would belong to.
Group # 3 Changes
Kit # 107820 has been moved from HAM DNA Group #8 to Group #3 (107820 is Jacob HAM, Sr. b. 1721 Rhine Valley, Germany).
The phylogenetic chart (of the TMRCA) wants to group him with kit #43250 (Captain Richard HAM b. est 1761 Charleston, SC; d. 1855 Pulaski County, KY).
This grouping is still tentative, as the Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor is estimated to be 1550 years ago. And, each kit has only been tested to 25 markers.
Aside from the DNA, the obvious items common to both kits are:
a) the same surname
b) both lines appear to have been in Kentucky by 1820.
The obvious differences are:
a) Jacob HAM, Sr. is known to have been born in Germany
b) Capt. Richard HAM is thought to have been from South Carolina.
I would think that an upgrade to 111 markers for these kits would help to better narrow down the time frame.
Group # 8 Changes
I have moved kit # 205092 from Group #12 to Group #8, and dissolved Group #12. Kit 205092 is Perry C. HAM born 1825 TN. Parents both born in North Carolina,
with children born in Illinois. Kit 126092 is WILLIAM HAM was born in 1821 in Georgia. Died ABT 1868 in Louisiana.
The TMRCA on the two is 900 years ago, so even this grouping is tenuous, but better than the previous grouping.
(For example, I have Valentine HAMME in a different group than DNA Group #1, largely due to the TMRCA.)
It might be worth noting that kit 126092 has only been tested to 37 markers, but 205092 has been tested to 111 markers. At 37 markers, I can't say that an upgrade to 111 markers would make a large difference in the TMRCA between the two.
What they do have in common is some matching DNA and the same surname.
Which tells me that there is a good chance that they could at least share the same city of origin.
My comment on these groups should be that Group #3 is not far in Genetic Distance from:
- Group #8,
- Group # 6 (kit #82227 Mordecai HAM of Stokes Co., NC).
- Also, the Genetic Distance for Group #8 is not far from kit #126092 in Group # 8, where I just moved kit 107820 from.
My thoughts on this is that the problems with these groups should eventually be resolved with more participants as well as an increase in the number of markers tested. This should be especially true for those who have tested to 25 markers, as 25 markers becomes unreliable for TMRCA estimates beyond about 800 years ago. I should think an upgrade in the number of markers should be important to these groups (#3, #6, and #8). Therefore, these groups could change again if more markers are tested, and as more people participate.
The Tax man is knocking at my door and taking some of my time, but I will get the phylogenetic charts updated with new kit 226942 as soon as possible.
Dean McGee's Utility output:
HAM DNA Phylogenetic charts: