|These CORBINs have dozens of full matches at 12 markers, a few full
matches at 25 markers, and even some near matches at 37 and 67 markers
(all in other surnames). However, they have no full matches at 37
markers, so their haplotypes remain unique at 37 or more markers.
|One individual included above has been tested at SMGF. There
is no way to contact individuals tested with them, so if you are that person,
please contact me. The project would like to invite you to join and
will offer you at least a partial subsidy to cover the cost of a 67-marker
test (how much of a subsidy depends on how much I can raise from donors
once you contact me). [Update: Ancestry.com bought SMGF and took their
|#274210 (bottom row) has a paper descent from this family's progenitor,
but he is not a genetic match with his other descendants, which means he
has an NPE
in his patrilineal line. (He is Haplogroup R1b-M269, which means
he cannot have had a common ancestor with the Haplogroup I1 Northern Neck
CORBINs for thousands of years.) The testing of more cousins would
determine in which generation the NPE occurred. He does not, in fact,
have a match with anyone at any level, so we do not yet have a clue to
the identity of his actual patrilineal ancestor. Or, the paper
genealogy may be wrong. He may be a CORBIN from a family not
otherwise tested, so far.
|#147715 has been deep SNP tested, with these results:
#143803 has been deep SNP tested, with these results:
||M21- M227- M72- P259- L22-
||M26- M161- M223- M284- L39-
|DF29+ L340+ L343+ L840+ M253+
||M21- M227- M72- P259- L22- P109- L205- L287- L258-
|Z58+ Z138+ Z139+
||L338- L592- L803- Z59- Z60- Z61- Z62- Z63-
Z73- Z140- Z141- Z131-
|We are extraordinarily fortunate with regard to this family in that
their paper generalogy is relatively well known, thanks in part to the
publication of Kenneth Corbin's book, The Leaves of the Corbin Tree_(see
at GenForum). Based on both paper genealogy and Y-DNA test results,
the Northern Neck CORBINs descend from John CORBIN of Richmond Co.,
VA. The author has this John as son of John CORBIN, 1652 immigrant,
but that paper connection is disputed.
|For a detailed explanation as to how I use color to graphically represent
genetic relationships in a family, please see my discussion of "Signature
of Current Results
1. In the data table above, cells highlighted in light blue are
for Haplogroup I1-M253, meaning these are the most common values to have,
so possessing them is unremarkable.
2. Table cells highlighted in orange are the signature
markers for the family. No other family has this particular pattern
of consistent differences from the modal haplotype, and we would expect
anyone closely related to this family to have most of them.
3. So far, we have discovered three sets of branching markers
in the family. These are, as the name implies, mutations shared by
only a branch of the family, not the entire family. The mutation
is relatively recent, downstream of the family's progenitor, and its location
(the person in whom it occurred) can eventually be determined by testing
4. The table cells colored bright yellow represent private
markers. These are recent mutations present, so far, only in that
one line. As more cousins are tested, most of the private mutations
will become branching markers.
One of the branches is identified by the mutation from 37 to 36 at CDYb,
the bright green table cells. In the lineages (please scroll to the
far right in the table), we see that this mutation had to have been present
in David Scott and may have been present in Jeremiah. To determine
which, we need to find and test a patrilineal descendant of David Scott's
Another branching marker is the mutation from 20 to 19 at DYS448, the magenta
table cells. This mutation had to have been present in James and
may have been present upstream in Rawley II or Thomas. Testing patrilineal
descendants of the brothers of James, Rawley II, and Thomas can determine
in which generaiton the mutation occurred.
A third branching marker, the mutation from 28 to 27 at DYS389ii, appears
to unite descendants of Garnett CORBIN.
5. Based on paper genealogy, the two table cells in bright cyan
(DYS385a = 13) appear to represent back mutations, that is, independent
returns to the modal value, not a branching marker.
6. There are two ways to account for the two table cells in red
(DYS641 = 10). One is that each individual had an independent back
mutation to the marker's modal value, so these are private mutations, not
branching markers. The other is that the mutation from 11 to 10 at
DYS641 happened only once, after the mutation from 20 to 19 at DYS488,
so represents a branching marker, but that #335257 subsequently had a back
mutation at DYS488 (from 19 back to 20). The former is much more
likely than the latter.
|The more markers we test, the more family lines we can prove genetically,
which is a powerful check on the accuracy of our paper genealogy — and
a powerful aid for those with paper connections still to be made.
With the advent of the Panel 5 (68-111) marker upgrade, "maxing out" ones
markers is very much easier and less expensive than it used to be.
To be effective, it does require that everyone test these additional markers,
just as it took everyone testing 67 markers to accomplish the above.