Clay Austin of 3/25/2012

Clay,

Thanks so much.  I ordered the kit.

Here is what I have:

John Ellison Austin’s

Parents are: Ellison Woodrow Austin and Kathrine Bell

Grandparents are: Jacob Ellison Austin and Jennie Long

Great-grandparents are: Unknown Stultz man and Sara/Sallie Austin

2^nd ggparents are: William Austin and Lucinda Lloyd (parents of Sara/Sallie and of Joseph Calvin Austin, Sr.)

Your tree:

Grandparents: Joseph Calvin Austin, Sr. and Annie Purnell

Great-grandparents: William Austin and Lucinda Lloyd

So Sara/Sallie is a sister of your Joseph Calvin Sr.  She is the mother of Jacob Ellison Austin (not a sister to him), in all likelihood. Therefore Jacob Ellison was a nephew of Joseph Calvin Sr. instead of a brother.

This being correct that makes John Ellison Austin your 2^nd cousin once removed instead of your 2^nd cousin as was thought before John Ellison took the Y-DNA test last year.

Letter to clay again... 3/14/2012

Clay,

I have attached a PDF that was written by Alvy Ray Smith, a Fellow in the American Genealogical Society and a Riggs expert. He summarizes the need for additional Y-DNA samples to answer  the question “Who is the Riggs man who is the progenitor of the Austin family headed by Archibald Austin, Sr.?”  On the 2^nd page he points out the importance of obtaining the Y-DNA from a descendant of Arch Jr., brother of Clisbe Sr.  That man is you.

If you take the test and match the Edwardian Riggs Y-DNA model, then you will prove:

1.      Archibald Austin, Sr. is a Riggs, genetically.

2.      Clisbe Riggs is not the progenitor (as on page 2 of Alvy discussion) since he was 2 years old when Arch Sr. was born.

3.      Your Y-DNA will potentially answer the question of Edward Riggs’ being the progenitor.

 

If you take the test and match the Austin Y-DNA model (from Southside VA), then you will prove:

4.      Clisbe Austin, Sr. is not a son of Archibald Austin, Sr.

5.      Archibald Austin Sr. was likely a son of Joseph Austin of Southside VA.

If you take the test and match neither the Riggs nor the Austin model (as is the case of your cousin John), then you will prove:

6.      Another total surprise which will need to be explained.

7.      My luck is unbelievably bad… and I’ll be looking for another descendant of Archibald Austin, Jr. to answer my Riggs question.

Of course you know that I’m betting that you will turn out to be a Riggs, genetically. I’ve been wrong before. Wouldn’t mind being wrong again. Just would like very much to know the answer. I’ve been working on this puzzle for about 1-1/2 years now. My co-author of the story of Wealthy Pruett and a cousin of yours, Nancy Austin Fatheree, has been working on this with me constantly for the 1-1/2 years also. She wants the answer as badly as I do.

 I thought you might like the see the Y-DNA certificates of a couple of men mentioned in Alvy’s discussion. I have attached the certificates of Robert Carter Austin, Jr. and Horace Lester Riggs, III.

Is there any way for me to convince you to participate?

John Clinard

9 or 10, there is a difference

Here is the Clay connection which probably by-passes the problem with John Ellison Austin.  This will tell us about the markers for Arch Sr., if I can get him to donate his Y-DNA.  Got any persuasive words?

Clay⁷ Austin (Joseph C. Jr.⁶, Joseph C Sr.⁵, William⁴, Archibald Jr.³, Arch Sr.² Austin, Edward Riggs¹).  Clay may be either a 9 or 10 at marker 47. I’m convinced that if Clay is a 9, then Arch Sr. is a 9; and if a 10, then Arch Sr. is a 10.  Is this right?

This will tell us 9 or 10 at marker 47 for Arch Sr.  Help me out here, please.  This seems easy; but it’s not easy to me.

If Arch Sr. is a 9, as you expect, then will that indicate/prove that the mutation to 9 occurred in Arch Sr. prior to his having sons Clisbe Sr. and Arch Jr.? Or will it prove he is not a son of Edward, who is surely a 10? Or, is it really that we can’t differentiate between these two distinctly different possibilities? Are the probabilities of the two quite different?

If Arch Sr. is a 10, then what would be proven? Will that prove that the mutation to 9 occurred in Clisbe Sr. prior to his having children?... cause we know Clisbe Sr. is a 9.

____________
Alvy answer:
 

If Clay7 (using your nomenclature) has a 9 at marker 47, then almost certainly Arch2 Sr. does too.

If Clay7 has a 10 there then we just don’t know whether Arch2 Sr. has a 9 or a 10 and would have to say it that way. In that case, it would be POSSIBLE (but not proved) that the 10 came from Edward5 and was (I’m just hypothesizing here) the same 10 passed down to Horace and Roy. That’s consistent story, but unfortunately unproved. It just doesn’t DISPROVE it, which is good.

There is no reason for two sons to have exactly the same YDNA as the father. A mutation has to happen somewhere, typically in a procreative event.

Letter to CLAY of3/8/12

153 Chuniloti Way

Loudon, TN

March 8, 2012

Clay Austin

291 Tipton LN

Blountville, TN 37617

Dear Clay,

Thought you might not be seeing all your e-mail, so I’m sending this to you in USPS. I’m hoping you are still considering participating in the Austin-Riggs Y-DNA study. The e-mails I have attached explain, as best I can, why it is important to Austin-Riggs family members and to me that you become a Y-DNA donor. You are the answer, about the only one available, as far as I can determine, for answering the two questions:

Was Archibald Austin, Jr. genetically from the Austin family or the Riggs family?

Who is the father of Archibald Austin, Sr.?

Sincerely,

John Clinard    865-607-9191

SAVERS from the WEB

Large scale mitochondrial sequencing in Mexican Americans suggests a reappraisal of Native American origins

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217880/


Russian Indians

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/01/120203-native-americans-siberia-genes-dna-science/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ng%2FNews%2FNews_Main+%28National+Geographic+News+-+Main%29

Get your Gnome mapped

http://thepersonalgenome.com/

23andme has an affordable test. Cute name, huh?  Since all we have are 23 chromosome pairs, 1 pair of sex chromosomes and 22 pairs of autosomal chromosomes called, autosomes.

Why Y-DNA?
http://originhunters.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-y-dna.html

Broken chain
http://originhunters.blogspot.com/2012/02/is-your-family-tree-is-broken.html?spref=fb

Humans are mixed-breed with neanderthal

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/science/gains-in-dna-are-speeding-research-into-human-origins.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

Sivert Stuff

Elanor Conka, born 1896 in Almas, Austria-Hungary.  Her “race” was listed as Croatian. Her nativity was listed as Hungary with last town of Almas.

I attached a picture of the ship. It’s called the CARPATHIA I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Carpathia

In 1912, the Carpathia arrived at the scene, after working her way through dangerous ice fields, and took on 705 survivors of the disaster from Titanic's lifeboats.

How about that.  Your grandmother missed it by only 2 years.

_________________

Wikipedia says “Croatia was in personal union with Hungary from 1102. Croat communities were spread mostly in the western and southern part of the country and along the Danube, including Budapest.” So, she likely was of Croat ethnicity.

Elanor Conka, born 1896 in Almas, Austria-Hungary.  Her “race” was listed as Croatian. Her nativity was listed as Hungary with last town of Almas.

I attached a picture of the ship. It’s called the CARPATHIA I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Carpathia

In 1912, the Carpathia arrived at the scene, after working her way through dangerous ice fields, and took on 705 survivors of the disaster from Titanic's lifeboats.

How about that.  Your grandmother missed it by only 2 years.

JAC

First letter to Clay Austin

Clay, 

Below I’ll try to explain what we talked about last night. My wife Lillian Austin Clinard is your 4^th cousin:

Lillian⁷ Austin (Frank Smith⁶, Clyde B.⁵, Clisbe, Jr.⁴, Clisbe, Sr.³, Arch Sr.² Austin, Edward Riggs¹)

Clay⁷ Austin (Joseph C. Jr.⁶, Joseph C Sr.⁵, William⁴, Archibald Jr.³, Arch Sr.² Austin, Edward Riggs¹).  
The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for Lil and you is Archibald Austin, Sr. He is 3^rd great-grandfather to both of you. Thus, you and Lil are 4^th cousins. Of course what I’m trying to prove through Y-DNA is the connection all the way back to Edward Riggs (1720-1820), probably a 4^th ggfather to Lil and you.

I started my study about 18 months ago when I convinced Robert Austin, Lil’s 1^st cousin, to take the Y-DNA test to prove that the father of Archibald, Sr. was Joseph Austin (1730-1811) of Southside VA. Y-DNA is useful, accurate, and inexpensive.  It follows the father’s-father’s-father’s side of the family and remains basically unchanged from generation to generation.  Since Lil has no Y-DNA (a female), it was necessary to use her male 1^st cousin for the proof. The results for Robert were surprising. Instead of proving Joseph was the father of Arch, I proved that Robert was from the Riggs family with the following likely ancestry:

Robert⁷ Austin (Robert, Sr.⁶, Clyde B.⁵, Clisbe, Jr.⁴, Clisbe, Sr.³, Arch Sr.² Austin, Edward Riggs¹)

Of course the proof to the specific Riggs man, Edward Riggs (1720-1820), has taken me the better part of 18 months, so far, and I am still missing a piece of the proof,  that which you could provide.  I will discuss this later, below. I will also send you a CD with an extensive write-up.  It’s called the “Story of Wealthy Pruett”, the known mother of Archibald (Pruett) Austin, Sr.  Nancy Austin Fatheree, also a cousin of yours from TX, wrote this story with me.

At first I thought I must be wrong about Robert, so I convinced another of Lil’s 1^st cousins to take the test. Clyde Austin’s results were identical to Robert Austin’s.

Clyde⁷ Austin (Clyde, Jr.⁶, Clyde B.⁵, Clisbe, Jr.⁴, Clisbe, Sr.³, Arch Sr.² Austin, Edward Riggs¹)

Clyde and Robert have a MRCA of Clyde B. Austin, their grandfather. Thus at this point I had proven that Clyde B was from the Riggs family. That’s about all the Y-DNA had done so far.

Then with the help of Nancy Austin Fatheree, I was able to get the Y-DNA from William Luther Austin.

William Luther⁸ Austin (William Brinks⁷, William Thompson⁶, Robert White⁵, William Thompson⁴, Clisbe Sr.³, Archibald Sr², Edward Riggs¹)

The Y-DNA of William matched Robert and Clyde perfectly. Clyde and Robert and William Luther have a MRCA of Clisbe Austin, Sr. Thus at this point I/we had proven that Clisbe Sr. was from the Riggs family.
To get to the next level back in time, I/we needed to find a male Austin descendant of Archibald Sr. through his son Archibald, Jr., brother of Clisbe Sr. I/we discovered John Ellison by plain luck in Hamblen Co. TN.

John E.⁷Austin (Woodrow⁶, Jacob⁵???, William⁴, Arch Jr.³, Arch Sr.², Edward Riggs¹)… this was the 1^st attempt to get at Arch Sr. as the MRCA. This test backfired! John Ellison Austin had no Austin Y-DNA and no Riggs Y-DNA. I now suspect John’s break in the Riggs Y-DNA chain at Jacob who is probably not a son of William but rather of William’s daughter Sara and a man with the likely name of Stultz. But this is another story in itself which I’m also working on.

This led me/us to you with some help from John Ellison.

Here is your connection which probably by-passes the problem with John Ellison Austin.  But I could be wrong.

Clay⁷ Austin (Joseph C. Jr.⁶, Joseph C Sr.⁵, William⁴, Archibald Jr.³, Arch Sr.² Austin, Edward Riggs¹).  
Your MRCA with Robert, Clyde, and William Luther Austin is Arch Sr. If you match these other three men, then the proof of Riggs Y-DNA will be taken all the way back to Arch Sr. Then what?

There is a large Riggs Y-DNA study also in progress. And below is Horace Riggs  whose Y-DNA is very close to that of Robert, Clyde and William Luther.  It varies by one marker mutation, which is quite possibly a “perfect” match since these bothersome mutation do occur, though only every 5-6 generations or so. 

Horace Lester⁷ Riggs III (Horace Lester⁶, Horace Lester⁵, John Woodson⁴, Samuel³, Clisbe² Riggs, Edward Riggs¹)

If Horace, whom I am in contact with, matches you, and since he shares a MRCA with you (and Robert, Clyde, and William Luther) of Edward Riggs (probably), then I/we will be very close to a proof that your ancestor is Edward Riggs (1720-1820). If the mutation that I talked about above can be explained through your Y-DNA, then the proof will be perfect.  I suspect that the mutation took place in Archibald Sr. Your Y-DNA can prove that to be true.
Hope this is understandable.
I appreciate your willingness to think about adding your Y-DNA to this study.
Of course if you would participate, I would cover the cost and would have the Y-DNA kit delivered to your home directly from Family Tree, Inc. Results would be available in 6-8 weeks.
Please consider participation.
John Clinard
Loudon TN, 865-607-9191
I’ll mail the CD to you on Monday.

E Ray & John Ellison

This article about NPE is interesting. Seems to apply to E Ray’s possible Jones Y-DNA; and to John Ellison’s possible Stultz Y-DNA. In both cases the chain was probably broken at the family-point where there was a daughter born many years before the son who was supposed to be her brother and supposed to be the direct line.

(WHITE CO TN AUSTIN FAMILY) In E Ray Austin’s case:

E Ray⁶Austin ( Luther⁵, Thaddeus⁴, Elanza³, James², Nat¹).  E Ray has a broken chain at Elanza (b. 1855). Instead of Elanza’s being a son of James, he is probably a son of James’ daughter Rachel (b. ~1833).  Rachel and a man named Jones had this son Elanza, out of wedlock. And Elanza was taken into James’ family and reported as a son in the census reports instead of as a grandson.

(SOUTHSIDE VA AUSTIN FAMILY) In John Ellison Austin’s case:

John Ellison⁶Austin ( E. Woodrow⁵, Jacob E⁴, William³, Archibald Jr², Archibald Sr¹).  John Ellison has a broken chain at Jacob E (b. 1883). Instead of Jacob E’s being a son of William, he is probably a son of William’s daughter Sara (b. 1865).  Sara and a man probably named Stultz had  this son Jacob E, out of wedlock. And Jacob E was taken into William’s family and reported as a son in the census reports instead of as a grandson.

So I have given myself an assignment to find E Ray’s Jones line and to find John Ellison’s Stultz line.  It is a very tough assignment. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

John

Click here or on the article “Is Your Family Tree Broken?”  below.

From: Michael Maglio [mailto:notification+kjdmkk_vpvhi@facebookmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 8:41 AM
To: GeneTree.com
Subject: [GeneTree.com] Who's your daddy?

Michael Maglio posted in GeneTree.com. Michael Maglio 8:41am Feb 14 Who's your daddy? Is Your Family Tree is Broken? originhunters.blogspot.com Non-paternal events (NPE). There, I’ve said it. Just how often has it happened in your ancestry? ... View Post on Facebook · Edit Email Settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.

Info for ClAY AUSTIN

Clay Austin
291 Tipton Ln, Blountville, TN 37617

423-323-8882

Ok... I have Clay's address. I will talk to him today on the phone.  John set this up for me.

John is recovering from his surgery, I think according to schedule. 

My guess on his brother and his father/Woodrow is that  they have the same Y-DNA as him, probably Stultz Y-DNA.  I think the Y-DNA break came at the children of William.  William is the son of Arch Jr. who is the son of Arch Sr.  (our Arch P, son of Wealthy and Edward Riggs, I say).

I think Clay comes down: William to Joseph C., Sr. to Joseph C., Jr. to Clay.

I think John Ellison comes down: William to Sara to Jacob to Woodrow to John.

They (Clay and John) have an MRCA of William. They (Clay & John) would be 2nd cousins once removed.

Clay should have Riggs Y-DNA. He is Lil's 4th cousin with an MRCA of Arch Sr., 3rd ggfather.

FT wrote me this about FAMILY FINDER

Concerning the possibility that Melody is not a Clinard, I posed the question of using Autosomal DNA to the experts at Family Tree, Inc.  I asked the question that is at the bottom of this e-mail string:  If Derek and I compare our Autosomal DNA, what can be proven? I’m reading their answer to say if Derek and I match, then Melody is a Clinard; if no match, then Melody is not a Clinard.

I don’t have any idea if this is important to anybody.  It’s just a possibility at this time.

John

 From: helpdesk@ftdna.com [mailto:helpdesk@ftdna.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:42 PM
To: treebyjohn@charter.net
Subject: Re: FF: Problem - prooving 1st cousin once removed (Autosomal DNA) (ID:1094142)

Hello,
Thank you for your email. The Family Finder test is designed to find relatives on any of your ancestral lines within the last 5 generations. Family Finder uses autosomal DNA, which is the mixture of DNA you received from both parents (50% from your mother and 50% from your father). Because autosomal DNA is a mixture of your mother's and father's DNA, it is unique to each person.

Family Finder works by comparing your autosomal DNA to our database and finding other people who have "blocks" of DNA in common with you. Sharing large blocks of DNA with someone else means that you are related in a recent period of time; smaller shared blocks of DNA indicate a more distant relationship. The people that share these DNA blocks with you are called your matches, and you will receive a prediction of your relationship to each of your matches (i.e. 3rd, 4th, 5th cousins, etc.) based on the size of those shared DNA blocks. Per your inquiry, it will be able to establish if you share DNA to be a close relation. With 1st cousin once removed you many come back as a 1st cousin match or maybe a 2nd or 3rd depending on how much DNA you do share. We will provide you with names, email address, and the genealogical records your matches have shared with you. You will be able to communicate with them freely to find your common ancestors. This test cannot distinguish between matches from your mother's side versus your father's side. Once you both have results you can see if you appear on each other's match lists; you can also call us to confirm.

Family Finder also has a component called Population Finder. This component gives you a breakdown of your ethnic makeup by percent. Population Finder compares your DNA to populations around the world that have been tested through scientific research. In our database, this currently includes 62 distinct populations representing 7 continental groups around the world. Based on this comparison, we predict what population(s) your DNA most closely resembles. Please note, any particular ethnicity will need to be 3% or greater to be detected in your DNA.

The most important thing to remember is that receiving your results from Family Tree DNA is just the beginning. As this is relatively new field of science, changes to your results are anticipated as our information and technology improves. As our database increases, you will receive e-mail notifications about new genetic matches. As the tools used to analyze your results are refined, you will have access to this new analysis. These updates and advancements will be available to you over time at no additional charge.

Your Results Will Include:
-Matches: Genetic cousins who share a common ancestor within approximately the last 5 generations. You will have full access to your matches’ e-mail addresses and any genealogical information they have provided. You can begin networking and exchanging information freely as soon as your results arrive!* This feature is optional.
-Predicted Relationship Ranges
-Chromosome Browser: A visual representation of where you and your matches share segments of DNA.
-Population Finder: Your ethnic percentages, predicted based on a comparison of your results against 62 distinct populations representing 7 continental groups around the world.

To find out more about the exciting field of genetic genealogy and how it can help you, we encourage you to attend a Relative Roots Webinar! Click here to register today: http://relativeroots.net/webinars/

Please let me know if you have any questions or if there's anything else I can do for you.

Thanks again,

Kathleen Bryant

Family Tree DNA
www.familytreedna.com
"We put the gene in genealogy!"

Autosomal DNA

So I started thinking about what you have written.  First I’m assuming that the use of Y and mt DNA studies was of no value since you and Alex share none.  Right?

Then I calculate that you and Alex are 3^rd cousins with your MRCA being your 2^nd great grandparents. Right?  This means that you have 1/16^th of the DNA of each your 2nd ggmother and your 2^nd ggfather. (All this based on the fact that all men and women get ½ of their DNA from each of their parents.) And your 3^rd cousin, Alex, also has an equal share. So you and Alex ought to share about 1/8 of your autosomal DNA. The other 7/8 should be different. Of course they test only an extremely small percentage of the autosomes content. And complete misses are thus possible even though you share 1/8^th. So that’s why the test is said by some experts to be only about 80-90 % accurate. There is a 10-20 % chance of a false negative.  But false positives are very rare. If you are identified as a relative by the test, you can probably count on it, I think.  But if you are not found to be relatives, there is always the chance of a false negative. You might still be relatives and the test missed it.

Family Tree says straight out that they can locate all descendants of all 16 2^nd ggparents.  But this is a recent claim based on recent improvements in the technology (better chips for calculations). But they claim noting for cousins more remote than 3^rd cousins.  When did you have this 23andme test?  If it was more than a year ago or so, it was certainly pushing the technology to find all 3^rd cousins.

Also, as you say, there is a chance that there was some sort of break in the DNA chain. But no way would both the man and the woman ancestor not be who you think they are. So I don’t see this as being an explanation. So, if the test were done correctly today by Family Tree, the thing should have worked for you and Alex. Your son is more remote to Alex, 3^rd cousin once-removed. But you sisters should have scored the same as you did in the calculations. And you should have matched very closely to the autosomal DNA of your sisters.  Right? In fact… perfect matches.  But you should match only ½ the autosomal DNA of your son; the other half being that of his father.

Still, I hope you found the story interesting.  I wouldn’t share it with just anybody. Only with someone who might understand the complexities of family relations.  And you know a lot about that.

Stay in touch,

Update of family lines for Riggs study

To: ArtSikes@aol.com
Cc: 'Nancy Fatheree ', "'Lucy K. Gump'" , 'Liz Carlin' , 'Kathleen Rogalla' , 'horace riggs' , "'Clyde B. Austin III'" , 'John Austin' , robertcarteraustin@gmail.com, alvyray@gmail.com, Curtis Travis , scenicphoto@highland.net
Subject: Horace Lester Riggs


Art Sikes (coordinator of FT Austin Y-DNA study),
This is John Clinard.  I have been responsible for the various Austins/Riggs who submitted their Y-DNA to your study, even though they are from the Riggs family genetically.

That includes:

Kit 192444 for Robert C Austin (Riggs)

Kit 204922 for Clyde B Austin (Riggs)
Kit 208228 for William L Austin (Riggs)
Kit 219226 for John Ellison Austin (???)
Kit 218723 for Horace Lester Riggs

The 1^st 3 kits below matched perfectly for 67 markers which shows that the Y-DNA goes all the way back to Clisbe Sr.  John E Austin’s Y-DNA was supposed to show a perfect match to Arch Sr. But it was a backfire; he was neither an Austin nor a Riggs. Now Horace should almost prove the point that the Y-DNA goes back to Ed Riggs.  There is a little problem of a mutation at marker 47.  John Austin’s DNA was going to show us where that mutation occurred, either in Clisbe Sr. or Arch Sr.  Now I have to start that loop again with John’s 2^nd cousin Clay Austin, if I can convince him to participate.  He should be a Riggs and should prove the match all the way back to Arch Sr. and should produce the answer we are looking for to the marker 47 mutation. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.  It will take another couple of months to get Clay to participate and to see his results.

I have also submitted all these kits to Alvy Ray Smith who runs the Riggs Y-DNA study of FT. Maybe you know him.  Nice fellow.

There will be another kit coming sometime in the future, if I can convince him, for a man named Clay Austin.   Here is how all these men connect:

Robert⁷ Austin (Robert, Sr.⁶, Clyde B.⁵, Clisbe, Jr.⁴, Clisbe, Sr.³, Arch Sr.² Austin, Edward Riggs¹)

Clyde⁷ Austin (Clyde, Jr.⁶, Clyde B.⁵, Clisbe, Jr.⁴, Clisbe, Sr.³, Arch Sr.² Austin, Edward Riggs¹)

William Luther⁸ Austin (William Brinks⁷, William Thompson⁶, Robert White⁵, William Thompson⁴, Clisbe³, Archibald Sr², Edward Riggs¹)

John E.⁷Austin (Woodrow⁶, Jacob⁵???, William⁴, Arch Jr.³, Arch Sr.², Edward Riggs¹)… this test backfired! John Ellison Austin  had no Austin Y-DNA and no Riggs Y-DNA.  I now suspect a break in the Riggs Y-DNA chain at Jacob who is probably not a son of William but rather of William’s daughter Sara and a man with the likely name of Stultz. But this is another story in itself which I’m also working on.

 

Clay⁷ Austin (Joseph C. Jr.⁶, Joseph C Sr.⁵, William⁴, Archibald Jr.³, Arch Sr.² Austin, Edward Riggs¹)… if he will do the test

Horace Lester⁷ Riggs III (Horace Lester⁶, Horace Lester⁵, John Woodson⁴, Samuel³, Clisbe² Riggs, Edward Riggs¹)

Alvy Ray Smith is aware of my study and my attempt to prove all these men are descendants of Ed Riggs. I wrote up the story of Archibald Austin (Riggs) for the Nov. 2011 issue of the AFAOA magazine.  Maybe you saw it.

Do with Lester’s DNA as you must.  The rest of his results will be to you on 1/16/12. All these guys took the 67 marker test.  I am looking for an explanation of a mutation at marker 47, so the 37 marker test just wasn’t enough.