GEORGE-L Archives

Archiver > GEORGE > 2004-06 > 1087874387


From: "Jerry Bryan" <>
Subject: Re: [GEORGE] presley george
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:19:53 -0400


There was a comment about the prevalence of Presley as a given name in the
George family. Obviously, William, John, Thomas, and those sorts of names
are common in lots of families. But is my observation that many surnames
develop certain prevalent given names that are otherwise not all that
common. For example, my England family has lots of Titus Englands, and my
Cox family has lots of Harmon Coxes. And there seem to be a lot of Titus
Englands in what appear to be unrelated lines, and there appear to be a lot
of Harmon Coxes in what appear to be unrelated lines. How these things
happen, I don't know. Maybe the apparently "unrelated" lines were related
after all.

On the George DNA project, I haven't followed it very closely. My closest
George relative was a ggg grandmother, and most of the generations between
her and myself were maternal. So George DNA testing doesn't benefit me very
much.

On the other hand, I have been active on the Bryan DNA project. The results
have not been very fruitful so far. On the 25 marker test, there are three
other individuals who have an exact match with me. But none of them have
the Bryan surname, nor do any of them have the same surname as each other.
On the Bryan lines which I think (but can't prove) have a common ancestor
with me, I haven't yet found a male lineal descendant to take the test.

I think the results from DNA testing are going to be very helpful. But I
think it's going to take a few years to accumulate a large enough database
for the matches and mismatches to tell us very much. I also think that the
25 marker test is not going to prove discriminating enough. I think the
genealogical community is going to have to go to the 37 marker test (or even
more markers, if such tests can be developed) in order to get really good
results.

Jerry Bryan


This thread: