Project Newsletter #7
06 February 2005
Dear Burgess Cousins,
We've received a few more Y chromosome DNA test results recently. Both of these new tests matched 12 for 12 with the numbers of one of the descendants of the line of Thomas Burgess of Sandwich, Mass. Although we're not absolutely certain of the chain of descent of these two gentlemen, their numbers would seem to suggest that they may perhaps represent the "true" markers for the Thomas line. We have another test in the works where the ancestry of the individual being tested is well established, and these results, when they appear in April, may finally tell the tale.
We also received a test from the third branch of the line of Keziah Burgess, which demonstrates that each of these branches had a different male progenitor.
We now have 44 participants in the surname project, including several individuals representing (for the very first time) some ancient South Carolina Burgess families. We hope that these folks will connect with some of the others already in the project.
Over the holidays, I reworked the display of the test results sections of my personal web page (www.millefleurs.tv), both to make them easier to navigate and to load, and to better present the material in a more usable format. The result is to break up what was becoming a rather cumbersome single page display into four different pages, including a new one that arranges the results by Burgess family groups. I hope that these will be more informative than they were in the past. I also am adding early census records for Burgess families, and the results of my searching of the personal property tax lists in Virginia, which I eventually hope will record all of the Burgesses resident in early Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky, beginning in 1782.
I get questions about what the DNA numbers mean. The lab workers are literally counting the repetitions at certain locations of junk DNA segments on the Y chromosome. Amazingly, these repetitions are themselves unique to different families, and are passed down in the direct male line as a genetic characteristic. The specific locations where these segments reside have "addresses" called "loci" (singular, "locus"), which are labelled, for example, DYS 393, DYS 464d, etc.
Certain combinations of numbers at certain addresses are much scarcer than the other numbers possible for those locations. For example, the descendants of Edward Burgess of Prince Georges Co., Maryland, and William Burgess of Prince Georges and Montgomery Cos., Maryland, each share a consecutive number set at DYS 391, DYS 385a, and DYS 385b of #10, 11, and 16, respectively. As it happens, this is a very rare combination, occurring in the FT DNA database in only seven-tenths of one-percent (.7%) of all individuals tested. Hence, this number becomes a useful "flag" for the direct male descendants of these two related families, since no other Burgesses currently in the project have these markers, or are likely to.
Similarly, among the descendants of the William Burgess line of Richmond (later King George), VA, and William of Bedford Co., VA, the combination of the numbers 11 and 13 at 385a and 385b, together with the number 14 or 15 at 392, only occurs in 3.04% of the tested population. The descendants of John Burgess of Derbyshire, England, have the numbers 10, 11, and 15 at 391, 385a, and 385b, a combination which occurs in only 2.72% of the samples in the FT DNA database. The three matched tests from the Thomas Burgess line of Sandwich, MA, show a 14, 13, and 30 at 389/1, 392, and 389/2, a combination which occurs in only 14% of the tests recorded in the FT DNA database.
The latter set of numbers is shared by a descendant of George H. Burgess of Lancashire, England, who otherwise matches only 20 out of 25 numbers, an inconclusive result at best. The fact that both groups share these less common markers, however, may be an indication of a distant relationship between these two family groups. It's not proof, just an indication.
I've also had questions about YSearch, which is a database sponsored by Family Tree DNA. The idea of YSearch is to provide outside individuals with the ability to search Y chromosome test results either by number or by surname, with the hope, of course, that they might find a match. Participation is entirely voluntary. To join YSearch, you have to log in to your personal page on the Family Tree DNA website (www.familytreedna.com). In the righthand column of the main page of the FTDNA site are two blank slots to insert your kit number and password. If you don't know these, please drop me an e-mail, and I'll be happy to give them to you.
When you reach your personal page, you'll see a link to YSearch in the top center of the page. Click on that, and you'll be taken to the YSearch homepage (www.ysearch.org). There you'll need to "create a new user." If you've already loaded previous results onto YSearch, and you wish to update your information, you will need to know your YSearch user name (which is publicly displayed) and your password (which is not). I do not have a list of passwords for this database; in creating my own entry, I used the password from the FT DNA database, so I would never forget what it was.
Also on your own homepage at FT DNA is an option called "Setup" that allows you to do a number of things. You can make your test numbers visible to all of the other participants in FT DNA database, if you choose--or restrict access and comparison only to other members of the surname project (this is the default option). You can also add information about your earliest known Burgess ancestor, if you wish.
If any of you have problems figuring out how to do these things, or interpreting what you see on the FT DNA pages, please don't hesitate to drop me a note, and I'll be happy to act on your behalf, if you authorize me to do so, or to explain what I can, or to ask the appropriate questions if I don't know the answer.
We have a great many tests currently in the works, with results due back in the latter part of February and March. There continue to be some delays with receiving the results of the 25-marker tests. One of our 25-marker tests came back in January with 26 markers! This is normal, but only occurs in rare cases, and in effect creates new fields at 464e, 464f, etc. So we have one test in the group with 26 markers instead of 25.
All good wishes:
Michael Burgess