Go to Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Diana, Goddess of the Hunt for Ancestors!
 
Go to Every-Name Index
Every-Name Index
 
Barack OBAMA, 44th President of the United States
descendant of Johann Pieter STRAUB, 1733 immigrant to Philadelphia, PA
"We are and always will be the United States of America." (4 Nov 2008, Grant Park, Chicago, IL)
 
Node Chart for the Descendants of Martin STRAUB (1616-1676) of Württemberg
Ancestor of President Barack OBAMA
With the testing of enough cousins, a genetic "tree" of a progenitor's descendants can be constructed showing where in each lineage mutations have occurred.  Such a tree can be extremely useful in supporting (or debunking) paper genealogies.  The more family members we test (the more lines we test) and the more markers we test, the greater detail the tree will have.  Ideally, we would test every living STRAUB/STROUP/etc. male.  If you are such a male, please join the project and be tested.
Members of this family are matching at a high level, from 63/67 to 96/96, so there is no question that they have a near common ancestor.  Four of the paper descendants of Johann Pieter STRAUB I, grandson of Martin STRAUB and 1733 immigrant to Pennsylvania, match 67/67, so they are presumed to carry Johann Pieter's haplotype.  We have tested one descendant of Antonius STRAUB, a brother of Johann Pieter's who stayed in Württemberg.  His 67-marker haplotype differs from Johann Pieter's by one mutation (there are more differences among the "advanced" markers).  Until a descendant of a third brother or other relative of Martin's is tested (e.g., an uncle), we cannot know which haplotype, Johann Pieter's or Antonius's, is the ancestral one.  The mutation distinguishing them among the "standard" 67 markers is the value of DYS570.  For Johann Pieter's descendants its value is 21; for Antonius's descendant it is 20.  It's worth noting here that DYS570 is the most variable of any of the standard markers tested by FTDNA and that the modal value for Haplogroup I1 is 21.

For most of the mutations among those tested (i.e., the differences from the modal haplotype of the family), their mutation is unique to themselves; these are sometimes called "private" mutations.  Until more cousins are tested and these indiviuals started getting matches, their private mutations don't tell us much more than we already know.  It's when cousins starting matching on their private (non-modal) mutations that we can start finding out where the "nodes," the branches, in the tree are because if two people share a private mutation, we know they must have a common ancestor closer to themselves than the family's progenitor.  Or at least we believe they should because these mutations are rare and there is a low probability of the same mutation occuring more than once in the same family in a few generations.

At the present time, with 18 people tested to 67 (or more) markers, we have only two such cases (of matching private markers), one of which is helpful because it is congruent with the subjects' paper genealogy and the other of which creates a serious conundrum because either we have to accept the same mutation happened more than once or that we have some serious errors in paper genealogy.

I have created two tables, shown below.  Chart 1 shows the current results adhering to what is known of the subjects' paper genealogy.  We are pleased to see that one of the shared private mutations (DYS481=26>25) is shared by #24212 and #119218, who have a common ancestor in Adam STROUP of Centre and Venango Cos., PA.  This mutation is a case of the DNA supporting the paper genealogy and demonstrating that it is Adam STROUP who first bore the mutation.  We would expect anyone descended from Adam to also bear this mutation.

The troublesome matches are the two alleged descendants of Johann Pieter who match the descendant of Antonius in being 20 at DYS570.  In Chart 1 I resolve the issue be assuming the mutation occurred three times, which is frankly hard to swallow.  In Chart 2, I follow the DNA test results rigidly, but doing so is not at all congruent with their paper genealogy.

One thing these incongruent results suggest is that Johann Pieter STRAUB I may not have been the only member of this family to immigrate.  This has always been a possibility, and it's a classic beginner's mistake in genealogy to pin everyone of the same surname to the one known immigrant, ignnoring the fact that most immigrants leave no record of their arrival, they simply begin appearing in local records.  And in this case, there are known STRAUB immigrants whom we instantly lose track of.  Even on this short list, most of the immigrants have not been accounted for.
I have never been comfortable with the genealogy of the early generations of this family, that is, the ones in the 18th Century.  The records connecting them are few, and there has always been the danger that we were connecting too many people to one well-known immigrant (viz., Johann Pieter STRAUB I, the 1733 immigrant to Philadelphia).  This problem was greatly compounded by Charles Fisher and his 1938 book, Snyder County Pioneers.

Snyder County Pioneers is a collections of hundreds of brief biological sketches.  Fisher was an historian, not a genealogist, and if he had good documentation, he rarely cited or quoted it, which makes everything he did automatically suspect.  Snyder County Pioneers is a secondary source, and these sketches shouldn't be given any more weight than we would give any other of those county histories from the late 1800s and early 1900s.  Yet Fisher's sketch of this family has been accepted uncritically as a "starting point" for the genealogy of the family.  It's time to go "back to the drawing board."

The issue of DYS570 is not unresolvable, even if we can't find a descendant of a third brother of Johann Pieter and Antonius to test.  Four project members, including the descendant of Antonius, have "maxed out" their markers, and there are differences between them among these markers.  If the two individuals who are DYS570=20 (viz., #116646 and #23426) would max out their markers, we would be able to tell whether these are multiple mutations or major errors in paper genealogy.  In that regard, I would urge everyone to max out their markers if we are going to resolve these and other issues as they arise.
Node Chart for Descendants of Martin STRAUB assuming the ancestral state of DYS 570 = 21 and that the mutation to 20 has occurred three times.
This scenario is the most accomodating to the testees' paper genealogy, but requires that we accept the improbability that the same mutation occurred three times.
Generations from Progenitor Remarks
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 / 10 / 11
Martin Johann
Conrad
                    None of the descendants
of these sons
has yet been identified,
much less found or tested.
Johann
George
                   
Hans
Pieter
                   
Hans
Jacob
                   
Hans
Martin
                   
Johann
Kristoph
                   
Hans
Adam
Johann
Pieter I
Johann
Jacob I
Unknown
STROUP
?
Unknown
STROUP
?
Unknown
STROUP
?
Unknown
STROUP
?
Richard
Lexington
CRUMP
?
Pvt
CRUMP
?
#50052
CDYb=35>36
Because of his location in Gaston Co., NC, this individual is presumed to descend from Jacob I, progenitor of Gaston County I1-AS5 STROUPs.  He has acquired one mutation somewhere in his descent from Jacob I.
Unknown
?
Unknown
?
Elisha
?
Aaron
?
Russell B.
?
Pvt
?
#133507
DYS464= four copies > six
This individual is likewise presumed to descend from Jacob I because Elisha lived initially in Lincoln Co., NC.  His increase in alleles from four to six at DYS464 probably happened in one mutation event. 
Daniel Matthew
Wallace
?
Ephraim
Daniel
?
Alfred
Isaiah
?
Andrew
Jackson
?
#74957
DYS446=14>15
This individual has acquired one mutation somewhere in his descent from Matthew Wallace. 
Abner
Albert
John
Michael
Michael
Luther
Aaron
Hubert
Pvt #143321 This individual possesses the modal haplotype for the group, so is reasoned not to have acquired any mutations in his descent from Joh. Pieter I.
Adam
STROUP
Joseph
?
Silas
?
William
Henry
?
Paul
Clifton
?
Pvt
?
#118841
DYS534=15>14
This individual has acquired one mutation somewhere in his descent from Adam.
Solomon
BELEW
or
?Andrew?
STROUP
Silas
BELEW
John
Larkin
BELEW
Pvt
BELEW
#97358 This BELEW individual apparently has an NPE in his lineage because he is a full 67/67 match with the modal haplotype of Johann Pieter's descendants.  There is circumstantial evidence to support that he at least descends from Adam and probably from Andrew.
Philip David
or
Elias
Ephraim James
Henderson
M.H. Pvt #94379 These two individuals possess the modal haplotype for the family, so is reasoned not to have acquired any mutations in his descent from Joh. Pieter I.
Levi Malcolm
Napoleon
Sydney
Shuford
Pvt #145951
Philip Sylvester
Aheart
William
Aheart
Clementine
T.
Pvt #138214
DYS406-S1=9>10
These two individuals share a mutation on a slow-mutating marker, suggesting they have a common ancestor, yet I cannot see how that is possible given their paper genealogy.
? John
Peter
John Andrew Charles
H.
William
Henry
Sidney
Crockett
Pvt #130123
DYS406-S1=9>10
Johann
Daniel
Johann
Adam
Jonathan Jacob Samuel
Tilden
Warren
LeRoy
Pvt #78741 To gain separation from the modal haplotype, this individual and the next are testing more markers.  They match 96/96(!).
Johann
Pieter II
Andrew Andrew S. George
Washington
Albert
Roy
William
Albert
#26156 The link between Andrew and Andrew S. is based on family tradition, not hard evidence, but the 67/67 match of #26156 to the group's modal haplotype removes any doubt that Andrew S. is connected to Johann Pieter I, one way or another.  His brother, #23492, possesses a new mutation.
#23492
DYS460=11>12
Moses
?
Levi B.
?
William
Hostetler
?
Charles
Henry
?
#124348
DYS413b=25>24
The link between Andrew and Moses is only suspected, based on circumstantial evidence.  This individual has acquired one mutation somewhere in his descent from Andrew (or Johann Pieter)..
Peter
?
Samuel
?
Wilson W.
?
Clay
Goodelle
?
Goodell
Wilson
Jennings
?
Pvt
?
#116646
DYS570=21>20
The paper link between this individual and Andrew appears solid.  He has acquired one mutation somewhere in his descent from Andrew.
Adam
DYS481
=26>25
Andrew
Adam
Adam David
King
Lawrence
Everett
#24212 This individual and the next carry the same mutation at DYS481, so the mutation must have occurred in Adam. This individual has acquired no additional mutations in his descent from Adam.
Peter
STROUP
?
Daniel S.
STROUP
?
George W.
STROUP
?
Robert
Daniel
STROUP
?
Myles
Raymond
BARNES
?
#119218
DYS389i=12>13
CDYa=35>34
This individual has acquired two additional mutations somewhere in his descent from Adam.
Johann
Carl
?
Johann
Heinrich
?
Isaac
?
Samuel
Daniel
?
Lewis
?
Walter
Larue
?
#32866
DYS413a=22>21
If the next individual is, as alleged, also son of Johann Carl, then Johann Carl had no mutations and this individual has acquired his one mutation somewhere in his descent from Johann Carl.
George
?
Samuel
?
Henry
?
Henry
Burdett
?
Roland
Virgil
?
#23426
DYS449=29>28
DYS570=21>20
If this individual is, as alleged, son of Johann Carl, then he has acquired two mutations somewhere in his descent from Johann Carl.
Unknown
?
Unknown
?
John
?
John
?
Samuel
?
Harold
Henry
?
#75122
DYS447=22>21
DYS534=15>16
We do not actually know how many generations separate "John of Beaver Township" from Johann Pieter I as no paper connection has been made.  He has acquired two mutations somewhere in his descent from Johann Pieter I.
Antonius
?
Georg
Adam
?
Georg
Michael
?
Philipp
Dietrich
?
Philipp
Dietrich
?
Johann
Ludwig
?
Otto
Ludwig
?
Pvt
?
#111298
DYS570=21>20
This individual a resident of Württemberg has acquired one mutation somewhere in his descent from Hans Adam.
Johann
Kristoph
                  No descendants of Johann Kristoph have yet been identified, much less found or tested.
Cells with a question mark indicate a mutation has taken place in this line, but its exact location is unknown.
 
Node Chart for Descendants of Martin STRAUB assuming the ancestral state of DYS 570 = 20 and that no mutation has occurred more than once.
This scenario is a conservative interpretation of the DNA test results, but does a good deal of violence to their alleged paper genealogy.
Generations from Progenitor Remarks
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 / 10 / 11
Martin Johann
Conrad
                    None of the descendants
of these sons
has yet been identified,
much less found or tested.
Johann
George
                   
Hans
Pieter
                   
Hans
Jacob
                   
Hans
Martin
                   
Johann
Kristoph
                   
Hans
Adam
Johann
Pieter I
DYS570
=20>21
Johann
Jacob I
Unknown
STROUP
?
Unknown
STROUP
?
Unknown
STROUP
?
Unknown
STROUP
?
Richard
Lexington
CRUMP
?
Pvt
CRUMP
?
#50052
CDYb=35>36
Because of his location in Gaston Co., NC, this individual is presumed to descend from Jacob I, progenitor of Gaston County I1-AS5 STROUPs.  He has acquired one mutation somewhere in his descent from Jacob I.
Unknown
?
Unknown
?
Elisha
?
Aaron
?
Russell B.
?
Pvt
?
#133507
DYS464= four copies > six
This individual is likewise presumed to descend from Jacob I because Elisha lived initially in Lincoln Co., NC.  He has a genetic distance of two from the modal, which was probably acquired in one mutation event.
Daniel Matthew
Wallace
?
Ephraim
Daniel
?
Alfred
Isaiah
?
Andrew
Jackson
?
#74957
DYS446=14>15
This individual has acquired one mutation somewhere in his descent from Jacob I. 
Abner
Albert
John
Michael
Michael
Luther
Aaron
Hubert
Pvt #143321 This individual possesses the modal haplotype for the group, so is reasoned not to have acquired any mutations in his descent from Joh. Pieter I.
Adam
STROUP
Joseph
?
Silas
?
William
Henry
?
Paul
Clifton
?
Pvt
?
#118841
DYS534=15>14
This individual has acquired one mutation somewhere in his descent from Jacob I.
Solomon
BELEW
or
?Andrew?
STROUP
Silas
BELEW
John
Larkin
BELEW
Pvt
BELEW
#97358 This BELEW individual apparently has an NPE in his lineage because he is a full 67/67 match with the modal haplotype of Johann Pieter's descendants.  There is circumstantial evidence to support that he at least descends from Adam and probably from Andrew.
Philip David
or
Elias
Ephraim James
Henderson
M.H. Pvt #94379 This individual possesses the modal haplotype for the group, so is reasoned not to have acquired any mutations in his descent from Joh. Pieter I.
Levi Malcolm
Napoleon
Sydney
Shuford
Pvt #145951
Johann
Daniel
Johann
Adam
Jonathan Jacob Samuel
Tilden
Warren
LeRoy
Pvt #78741 To gain separation from the modal haplotype, this individual and the next are testing more markers.  They match 96/96(!).
??? ??? Andrew S. George
Washington
Albert
Roy
William
Albert
#26156 The parents of Andrew S. are unproven, but the 67/67 match of #26156 to the haplotype of other descendants of Johann Pieter I removes any doubt that Andrew S. is connected to Johann Pieter I, one way or another.  His brother, #23492, possesses a new mutation.
#23492
DYS460=11>12
Moses
?
Levi B.
?
William
Hostetler
?
Charles
Henry
?
#124348
DYS413b=25>24
Moses is suspected of being a brother of Andrew S. This individual has acquired one mutation somewhere in his descent from Johann Pieter I.
Johann
Pieter II
DYS481
=26>25
Adam
DYS481
=26>25
Andrew
Adam
Adam David
King
Lawrence
Everett
#24212 This individual and the next carry the same mutation at DYS481, so the mutation must have occurred in either Johann Pieter II or Adam. This individual has acquired no additional mutations in his descent from Johann Pieter II or Adam..
Peter
STROUP
?
Daniel S.
STROUP
?
George W.
STROUP
?
Robert
Daniel
STROUP
?
Myles
Raymond
BARNES
?
#119218
DYS389i=12>13
CDYa=35>34
This individual has acquired two additional mutations somewhere in his descent from Johann Pieter II or Adam.
Johann
Carl
?
Johann
Heinrich
?
Isaac
?
Samuel
Daniel
?
Lewis
?
Walter
Larue
?
#32866
DYS413a=22>21
This individual has acquired his one mutation somewhere in his descent from Johann Pieter I.
Unknown
?
Unknown
?
John
?
John
?
Samuel
?
Harold
Henry
?
#75122
DYS447=22>21
DYS534=15>16
We do not actually know how many generations separate "John of Beaver Township" from Johann Pieter I as no paper connection has been made.  He has acquired two mutations somewhere in his descent from Johann Pieter I.
Unknown
?
Unknown
?
George
?
Samuel
?
Henry
?
Henry
Burdett
?
Roland
Virgil
?
#23426
DYS449=29>28
This individual has acquired one mutation in his descent from Hans Adam.
Unknown Unknown Andrew Peter Samuel Wilson W. Clay
Goodelle
Goodell
Wilson
Jennings
Pvt #116646 The paper link between this individual and Andrew appears solid.  He bears the ancestral haplotype for the family.
Antonius Georg
Adam
Georg
Michael
Philipp
Dietrich
Philipp
Dietrich
Johann
Ludwig
Otto
Ludwig
Pvt #111298 This individual a resident of Württemberg possesses the ancestral haplotype for the family.
Johann
Kristoph
                  No descendants of Johann Kristoph have yet been identified, much less found or tested.
Cells with a question mark indicate a mutation has taken place in this line, but its exact location is unknown.
Return to Haplogroup I1-AS5 Results table.  See also Node Chart comparing Jacob STROUP I and Jacob STROUP II.

Contact Home
Page
Table of
Contents
DNA
Hub
Biddle
DNA
Carrico
DNA
Corbin
DNA
Cupp
DNA
Danish
DNA
Ely
DNA
Lyon(s)
DNA
Rasey
DNA
Reason
DNA
Rose
DNA
Straub
DNA
Pedigree
Charts
Census
Hubs
Every-Name
Indices

Table of Contents
Go to Table of Contents
Every-Name Index
Go to Every-Name Index

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

-