HAM DNA ProjectHAM Surname DNA Project

Group 1 I1-M253 atDNA Largest Shared Autosomal Match


Contact Locations Become a Contact Alabama Contacts Georgia Contacts Illinois Contacts Indiana Contacts Kansas Contacts Kentucky Contacts Missouri Contacts North Carolina Contacts New Hampshire South Carolina Contacts Tennessee Contacts Virginia Contacts England Contacts
All Locations General Links HAM web pages Kentucky North Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia Belgium France Britain (England) Netherlands Scotland
Submit a new Query All Locations Alabama Arkansas Georgia Iowa Illinois Kentucky Louisiana Minnesota Missouri Mississippi North Carolina New York Ohio Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia Canada (NB) England France
All Estates Kentucky Estates North Carolina Estates Tennessee Estates Virginia Estates England Estates France Estates
Welcome DNA Project DNA Project Goals Intro to DNA Testing Participation ft2dna program ft2phy program Y-DNA Results Results at FTDNA Dean McGee's Output HAM DNA Phylograms HAM Group01 Y-Search HAM Group02 Y-Search HAM Group04 Y-Search HAM Group07 Y-Search Participating Families DNA Links DNA Tools
Share


Group 1 I1-M253 atDNA Largest Shared Autosomal Segment Match

12/28/2017
updated:   Jan 30, 2018

Taking a little inspiration from Dean McGee, I did a Dean McGee style table of the largest shared autosomal segments from the tiny segment
study of HAM DNA Group #1 -  I1-M253.

Basically, the autosomal DNA testing companies set a low threshold, meaning they usually do not show much beyond 5th cousins for the
autosomal DNA. As most of you know the Y-DNA goes much further back.

We have had folks in our Y-DNA group upload their autosomal DNA to GEDMatch, and I have lowered the thresholds by using GEDMatch utilities.

The results from the largest shared segments roughly follow the Y-DNA, except that the autosomal DNA has totally separated out the line of our
William HAM, Sr. of Grayson County. You can almost make out his three sons.

The problem we have had with the Y-DNA is that not everybody has tested to the same number of markers, and you have to adjust for that. Not
having the same number of Y-DNA markers means the lines of Wm, Sr. are jumbled up a bit.

Here, the problem with this autosomal tree is that that there has been no attempt to separate out the males and females. Also, some folks
descend more than once, which makes the autosomal segments sometimes appear to be larger than they normally would be.

First off is to create a table of the largest autosomal shared segments from the tiny segment study. FTDNA, Ancestry, and GEDMatch have a lower threshold of 7 cMs, and that cuts us off at about the 5th or 6th cousin level. I used the utilities at GEDMatch to lower the threshold to one (1.0) centimorgans (cMs).

Then, I created a program to create a table of the largest shared segments for the autosomal DNA of the HAM Group #1 autosomal participants.


Largest Shared Segment
ID T
6
1
1
x
x
x
T
6
8
2
x
x
x
T
1
8
1
x
x
x
A
5
0
0
x
x
x
A
9
8
4
x
x
x
A
2
7
4
x
x
x
T
1
3
3
x
x
x
T
0
7
4
x
x
x
A
4
3
8
x
x
x
A
6
5
8
x
x
x
T
1
0
3
x
x
x
T
3
6
8
x
x
x
A
4
0
4
x
x
x
A
1
7
1
x
x
x
T
4
6
3
x
x
x
A
7
4
0
x
x
x
T
6
3
0
x
x
x
T
3
8
4
x
x
x
M
8
0
4
x
x
x
T611xxx 
25.5 10.1 28.5 21.1 4.3 21.8 14.1 4.7 11.8 6.8 3.6 8.5 4.8 6.3 4.7 4.5 6.1 3.9
T682xxx  25.5
29.3 24.8 5.5 4.9 4.4 4.6 13.8 3.5 3.5 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.5 3.5 6.3 3.5

T181xxx  10.1 29.3
52.1 4.5 5.0 11.4 9.6 4.3 5.6 4.2 4.2 4.6 3.6 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.9

A500xxx  28.5 24.8 52.1
3.7 4.8 4.5 22.0 7.1 4.0 8.6 5.7 4.1 4.5 3.4 4.0 3.4 6.6 1.8
A984xxx  21.1 5.5 4.5 3.7
4.3 10.8 11.6 6.7 6.8 4.8 5.1 4.9 3.8 5.5 3.8 3.9 4.8

A274xxx  4.3 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.3
24.2 18.1 5.1 6.2 4.5 3.8 5.8 4.9 5.0 3.8 4.2 4.0 4.3
T133xxx  21.8 4.4 11.4 4.5 10.8 24.2
125.9 11.9 15.3 4.3 6.2 6.3 5.9 5.0 5.3 3.8 5.1 1.1
T074xxx  14.1 4.6 9.6 22.0 11.6 18.1 125.9
3.9 10.7 4.9 4.9 4.6 5.6 5.7 3.9 4.3 6.6

A438xxx  4.7 13.8 4.3 7.1 6.7 5.1 11.9 3.9
4.2 8.7 4.6 6.2 4.8 3.8 4.5 3.8 3.4 4.6
A658xxx  11.8 3.5 5.6 4.0 6.8 6.2 15.3 10.7 4.2
37.7 3.9 3.8 6.8 4.7 4.9 5.1 4.8

T103xxx  6.8 3.5 4.2 8.6 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.9 8.7 37.7
4.8 3.9 4.6 5.9 4.1 5.5 4.0 1.6
T368xxx  3.6 5.0 4.2 5.7 5.1 3.8 6.2 4.9 4.6 3.9 4.8
281.5 5.0 4.1 4.0 6.0 3.8

A404xxx  8.5 4.9 4.6 4.1 4.9 5.8 6.3 4.6 6.2 3.8 3.9 281.5
4.4 4.5 4.7 4.9 4.6 5.1
A171xxx  4.8 4.9 3.6 4.5 3.8 4.9 5.9 5.6 4.8 6.8 4.6 5.0 4.4
3.6 4.1 4.7 4.2

T463xxx  6.3 4.5 4.3 3.4 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.7 3.8 4.7 5.9 4.1 4.5 3.6
3.7 7.6 5.3 2.2
A740xxx  4.7 3.5 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.8 5.3 3.9 4.5 4.9 4.1 4.0 4.7 4.1 3.7
7.5 3.6

T630xxx  4.5 6.3 3.6 3.4 3.9 4.2 3.8 4.3 3.8 5.1 5.5 6.0 4.9 4.7 7.6 7.5
4.4 2.1
T384xxx  6.1 3.5 3.9 6.6 4.8 4.0 5.1 6.6 3.4 4.8 4.0 3.8 4.6 4.2 5.3 3.6 4.4
46.3
M804xxx  3.9

1.8
4.3 1.1
4.6
1.6
5.1
2.2
2.1 46.3
Closely Related 2nd to 4th Cousin 4th to 6th Cousin
Minimum threshold size to be included in total = 500 SNPs

Mismatch-bunching Limit = 100 SNPs

Minimum segment cM = 1.0 cM

Some values are roughly 25% larger than given by FTDNA.
Largest Shared Segment cannot be graphed as Genetic Distance. Genetic Distance increases with time. Largest Shared Segment decreases with time.

Also, Largest Shared Segment is not an indication of strictly males or females.

Examples of largest segment sizes and cousin level at HAM Country:. Autosomal DNA Cousin Calculator
HLA region on Chromosome 6 is between 25 and 35 million base pairs (Mb) - and is not considered to be a valid comparison.

Chromosome 17 has an excess IBD region between 59 and 64 Mb - and may not be a valid comparison.

Chromosome 22 has an excess IBD region between 16 and 25 Mb - and may not be a valid comparison.

Reference: Relationship Estimation from Whole-Genome Sequence Data


I then wanted to graph that out, so I had to invent some form of Genetic Distance for the autosomal DNA.

For the purpose of creating a tree, I used 100/(x) for genetic Distance, where 'x' is given in cMs.
My threshold values were down to 1 cM, but I suppose that for less than one, I could use 100/SQRT(x)


Genetic DIstance for Largest Shared Segment
ID T
6
1
1
x
x
x
T
6
8
2
x
x
x
T
1
8
1
x
x
x
A
5
0
0
x
x
x
A
9
8
4
x
x
x
A
2
7
4
x
x
x
T
1
3
3
x
x
x
T
0
7
4
x
x
x
A
4
3
8
x
x
x
A
6
5
8
x
x
x
T
1
0
3
x
x
x
T
3
6
8
x
x
x
A
4
0
4
x
x
x
A
1
7
1
x
x
x
T
4
6
3
x
x
x
A
7
4
0
x
x
x
T
6
3
0
x
x
x
T
3
8
4
x
x
x
M
8
0
4
x
x
x
T611xxx 
3 9 3 4 23 4 7 21 8 14 27 11 20 15 21 22 16 25
T682xxx  3
3 4 18 20 22 21 7 28 28 20 20 20 22 28 15 28 99
T181xxx  9 3
1 22 20 8 10 23 17 23 23 21 27 23 25 27 25 99
A500xxx  3 4 1
27 20 22 4 14 25 11 17 24 22 29 25 29 15 55
A984xxx  4 18 22 27
23 9 8 14 14 20 19 20 26 18 26 25 20 99
A274xxx  23 20 20 20 23
4 5 19 16 22 26 17 20 20 26 23 25 23
T133xxx  4 22 8 22 9 4
0 8 6 23 16 15 16 20 18 26 19 90
T074xxx  7 21 10 4 8 5 0
25 9 20 20 21 17 17 25 23 15 99
A438xxx  21 7 23 14 14 19 8 25
23 11 21 16 20 26 22 26 29 21
A658xxx  8 28 17 25 14 16 6 9 23
2 25 26 14 21 20 19 20 99
T103xxx  14 28 23 11 20 22 23 20 11 2
20 25 21 16 24 18 25 62
T368xxx  27 20 23 17 19 26 16 20 21 25 20
0 20 24 25 16 26 99
A404xxx  11 20 21 24 20 17 15 21 16 26 25 0
22 22 21 20 21 19
A171xxx  20 20 27 22 26 20 16 17 20 14 21 20 22
27 24 21 23 99
T463xxx  15 22 23 29 18 20 20 17 26 21 16 24 22 27
27 13 18 45
A740xxx  21 28 25 25 26 26 18 25 22 20 24 25 21 24 27
13 27 99
T630xxx  22 15 27 29 25 23 26 23 26 19 18 16 20 21 13 13
22 47
T384xxx  16 28 25 15 20 25 19 15 29 20 25 26 21 23 18 27 22
2
M804xxx  25 99 99 55 99 23 90 99 21 99 62 99 19 99 45 99 47 2
Closely Related 2nd to 4th Cousin 4th to 6th Cousin
Minimum threshold size to be included in total = 500 SNPs

Mismatch-bunching Limit = 100 SNPs

Minimum segment cM = 1.0 cM

Some values are roughly 25% larger than given by FTDNA.

Hypothetical Genetic Distance given as:

- for Size in cMs GE 1: (100/Size)

- for Size in cMs GT 0 and LT 1: (100/SQRT(Size))

- for Size in cMs EQ 0: set to 99 for an arbitrary upper limit

Largest Shared Segment cannot be graphed as Genetic Distance. Genetic Distance increases with time. Largest Shared Segment decreases with time.

Also, Largest Shared Segment is not an indication of strictly males or females.

Examples of largest segment sizes and cousin level at HAM Country:. Autosomal DNA Cousin Calculator
HLA region on Chromosome 6 is between 25 and 35 million base pairs (Mb) - and is not considered to be a valid comparison.

Chromosome 17 has an excess IBD region between 59 and 64 Mb - and may not be a valid comparison.

Chromosome 22 has an excess IBD region between 16 and 25 Mb - and may not be a valid comparison.

Reference: Relationship Estimation from Whole-Genome Sequence Data



As usual, I used the kitsch program from Phylip to sort the resulting tree. I removed M804xxx (Lauren), because she does not have valid match here, even though she is related to Lynette.  Here, Lauren matches only 9 of the HAM kits, and 5 of those kits are on the HLA region of chromosome 6 (not a valid match).
Basically, with Lauren included, the resulting tree wanted to pull Lynette out of the Patrick County HAM group and put it outside to Lauren's group.
So, Lauren was removed for the purposes of creating the atDNA genetic tree for the HAM surname group.

One thing that the tree points out is that our NPE to the LOVIN surname apparently came out of Amelia County, VA. We have no Y-DNA from Amelia County, just autosomal DNA. My guess is that his ancestor died in war and he was adopted. His line is more recently (since 1800) from Wayne County, NC, and he doe not match the Y-DNA of Wayne County HAM lines.

I am fairly happy with this initial tree. Even though I did not separate out the male and female lines, the tree does separate out the various lines in separate geographic areas. Also the timeline suggests that my Grayson County, VA line separated from the line in Somerset later on, and that the Amelia County HAM line separated out earlier (As does the Franklin County, NC HAM line).

This is not so clear from the Y-DNA, because we have no Y-DNA participants from Amelia County, VA but we do have autosomal DNA from Amelia County. This tree shows that our LOVIN surname NPE should be from Amelia Co., VA.


HAM Group01 atDNA Largest Shared Match Phylogenetic Tree


Andrew Millard suggested that because the Genetic Distance value of 1/cMs is not linear, I might try an exponential equation of the form -ln(cm/7200).

That formula suggestion was tried that, and I was not real happy with the results. The Genetic Distance did not correspond well to cousin level, and the upper limit for data greater than 1 cM appeared to be about 8 (generations), even for the results for Lauren Shutt (M804xxx).

Andrew had also suggested that I do not use kitsch, but I have not yet found different program that works with Genetic Distance.

So, here, I have used the equation for the half life decay rate, typically used in radioactive decay under the presumption that we are looking at Half Identical Regions (HIRs). The results mostly returned the expected cousin level (or number of generations).

Hypothetical Genetic Distance derived from half life decay rate:

Nt = No*e^kt

Solvng for t, Hypothetical Genetic Distance given as:

t = -1*ln(cMs*0035524)/0.693147

where largest segment (i.e., most obvious) for mother/son or parental half life calculations (for size) is:

a = 1/281.5 cMs = 0.0035524

and for parent/child half life decay:

k = ln(N0/Nt) = ln(1/2) = 0.693147

Below is a description of the half life decay rate calculations, and the resulting phylogenetic tree.


Exponential Decay for Largest Shared Segment
ID T
0
7
4
x
x
x
T
1
3
3
x
x
x
A
2
7
4
x
x
x
A
9
8
4
x
x
x
T
6
1
1
x
x
x
T
6
8
2
x
x
x
T
1
8
1
x
x
x
A
5
0
0
x
x
x
A
4
3
8
x
x
x
T
1
0
3
x
x
x
A
6
5
8
x
x
x
T
4
6
3
x
x
x
T
3
8
4
x
x
x
A
1
7
1
x
x
x
T
3
6
8
x
x
x
A
4
0
4
x
x
x
A
7
4
0
x
x
x
T
6
3
0
x
x
x
M
8
0
4
x
x
x
T074xxx 
2.2 3.9 5.4 4.8 6.6 6.2 4.0 6.8 7.8 5.1 5.8 5.7 5.9 6.4 6.9 6.9 6.3 99
T133xxx  2.2
3.5 4.9 3.8 7.2 6.0 6.3 5.9 6.3 5.1 6.8 5.9 5.8 5.3 6.0 6.9 6.9 11.2
A274xxx  3.9 3.5
6.5 6.6 6.2 6.7 6.7 5.9 7.3 5.8 6.8 6.6 6.4 7.1 5.4 6.8 6.9 6.3
A984xxx  5.4 4.9 6.5
4.1 5.7 6.5 6.8 5.2 6.3 5.2 6.6 6.5 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.6 99
T611xxx  4.8 3.8 6.6 4.1
4.6 5.5 4.6 6.1 5.0 5.4 5.4 5.7 6.8 7.2 6.0 6.2 6.9 7.1
T682xxx  6.6 7.2 6.2 5.7 4.6
4.5 4.6 4.9 7.4 7.2 6.4 6.9 6.1 6.6 6.6 7.1 5.2 99
T181xxx  6.2 6.0 6.7 6.5 5.5 4.5
3.4 6.8 6.4 5.7 6.7 6.6 7.2 6.7 6.2 7.8 7.1 99
A500xxx  4.0 6.3 6.7 6.8 4.6 4.6 3.4
5.6 5.5 6.8 7.8 5.4 6.6 5.5 6.6 7.1 10.5 10.3
A438xxx  6.8 5.9 5.9 5.2 6.1 4.9 6.8 5.6
5.1 6.3 7.4 7.1 6.3 6.9 6.4 6.2 6.7 6.4
T103xxx  7.8 6.3 7.3 6.3 5.0 7.4 6.4 5.5 5.1
3.9 5.3 6.8 6.5 6.2 7.5 6.8 6.5 10.5
A658xxx  5.1 5.1 5.8 5.2 5.4 7.2 5.7 6.8 6.3 3.9
6.1 6.5 5.9 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.1 99
T463xxx  5.8 6.8 6.8 6.6 5.4 6.4 6.7 7.8 7.4 5.3 6.1
5.9 6.9 7.3 7.3 7.0 5.5 9.5
T384xxx  5.7 5.9 6.6 6.5 5.7 6.9 6.6 5.4 7.1 6.8 6.5 5.9
7.5 6.7 6.3 7.0 6.3 2.7
A171xxx  5.9 5.8 6.4 6.9 6.8 6.1 7.2 6.6 6.3 6.5 5.9 6.9 7.5
6.2 7.1 6.4 6.3 99
T368xxx  6.4 5.3 7.1 6.7 7.2 6.6 6.7 5.5 6.9 6.2 6.8 7.3 6.7 6.2
1.0 6.9 6.1 99
A404xxx  6.9 6.0 5.4 6.8 6.0 6.6 6.2 6.6 6.4 7.5 6.9 7.3 6.3 7.1 1.0
6.0 6.1 5.9
A740xxx  6.9 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.2 7.1 7.8 7.1 6.2 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.4 6.9 6.0
5.1 99
T630xxx  6.3 6.9 6.9 6.6 6.9 5.2 7.1 10.5 6.7 6.5 6.1 5.5 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.1 5.1
9.8
M804xxx  99 11.2 6.3 99 7.1 99 99 10.3 6.4 10.5 99 9.5 2.7 99 99 5.9 99 9.8
Closely Related 2nd to 4th Cousin 4th to 6th Cousin
Minimum threshold size to be included in total = 500 SNPs

Mismatch-bunching Limit = 100 SNPs

Minimum segment cM = 1.0 cM

Some values are roughly 25% larger than given by FTDNA.

Largest Shared Segment cannot be graphed as Genetic Distance. Genetic Distance increases with time. Largest Shared Segment decreases with time.

Also, Largest Shared Segment is not an indication of strictly males or females.

Hypothetical Genetic Distance derived from half life decay rate:

Nt = No*e^kt

Solvng for t, Hypothetical Genetic Distance given as:

t = -1*ln(cMs*0035524)/0.693147

where largest segment (i.e., most obvious) for mother/son or parental half life calculations (for size) is:

a = 1/281.5 cMs = 0.0035524

and for parent/child half life decay:

k = ln(N0/Nt) = ln(1/2) = 0.693147

which can be used if you have mapped out the segment in question.

However, here we are searching for the segment to be mapped out, and the relationship is not always clear. We are using the largest segment as being the most obvious, but due to endogamy, we do not yet know if the largest segment is appropriate. Therefore, if endogamy is present, the largest segment may not be the segment that we had expected. So, I have introduced an endogamy correction factor, just for the purpose of discovery.

- Endogamy correction factor: [(100*cMs)/SNPs]

t = -1*ln[(cMs*0035524*100*cMs)/SNPs]/0.693147

- for Size in cMs and number of SNPs

- for Size in cMs EQ 0: set to 99 for an arbitrary upper limit

The endogamy corrction factor is only intended to be used for estimating the expected relationship. The equation without the endogamy correction factor should be used if the relationship is already mapped out properly.

Examples of largest segment sizes and cousin level at HAM Country:. Autosomal DNA Cousin Calculator
HLA region on Chromosome 6 is between 25 and 35 million base pairs (Mb) - and is not considered to be a valid comparison.

Chromosome 17 has an excess IBD region between 59 and 64 Mb - and may not be a valid comparison.

Chromosome 22 has an excess IBD region between 16 and 25 Mb - and may not be a valid comparison.

Reference: Relationship Estimation from Whole-Genome Sequence Data


 For my data, the resulting sizes given by the decay rate are about what is expected for the cousin level, or number of generations.
 Personally I am aware of some of the endogamy, and that the largest segment is not always the segment that we have an interest in (to trace the HAM male lineage).

HAM Group01 atDNA Largest Shared EXP Decay
          Phylogenetic Tree

The resulting half life decay rate tree moves the LOVIN NPE more toward the Patrick County, VA line whereas the previous tree (above) had him closer to Amelia County, VA. This exponential decay tree appears to separate out the sons of William HAM, Sr. better than the previous tree (GD=1/cMs, above), and also breaks up the LINEBERRY female autosomal DNA.

Finally, the gap or Genetic Distance from Jon Hamm of Somerset appears to be much closer, and the upper limit for a 1 cMs segment for this data appears to be at around 11th cousin.

My thoughts are that it would be useful to concatenate the trees by using the genetic distance of each segment, not just the largest segment. Cancatentating the trees may also be useful for the triad study as well.



Notes:


If you wand the mouse over the tables, it should show the shared chromosome and location. For example, a wand over of the horizontal for
A274xxx (Roxanne) and her largest segment for T133xxx (Mary Ann Talbott), it shows the largest shared segment to be:

Chr     Start Location      End Location   Centimorgans (cM)

12        123,996,713        130,079,716         24.2

Moving the mouse to the right for A274xxx (Roxanne) andT074xxx (Wendell Seaborne) it shows the largest shared segment to be:

Chr      Start Location      End Location   Centimorgans (cM)

12        123,996,713        128,587,277        18.1

Which is pretty much the same segment, meaning that Roxanne, Mary Ann, and Wendell share the same largest tiny segment from the same ancestor.
The idea is to figure out which ancestor is at that location on that chromosome.

More importantly for the group, the largest shared segments to Jon Hamm of Somerset can be seen by wanding over the values for Jon (A171xxx).

For the current group, that should give us something like this:

Chr Start Location End Location cMs SNPs

M804xxx A171xxx (no results)
A274xxx A171xxx 1 160,250,821 162,571,709 4.9 709
T384xxx A171xxx 1 182,770,426 189,420,715 4.2 1,145
A404xxx A171xxx 2 192,671,921 199,153,199 4.4 923
A658xxx A171xxx 2 128,826,835 133,892,598 6.8 972
T368xxx A171xxx 3 149,237,723 151,910,260 5.0 656
A500xxx A171xxx 5 149,006,726 150,972,778 4.5 682
T630xxx A171xxx 5 15,419,156 18,178,723 4.7 598
T181xxx A171xxx 6 154,506,891 156,712,811 3.6 663
A171xxx F47412 7 71,024,792 76,755,130 5.0 621
T133xxx A171xxx 8 137,114,169 139,806,479 5.9 706
T611xxx A171xxx 8 50,226,545 55,406,314 4.8 893
T463xxx A171xxx 9 2,706,921 4,167,109 3.6 540
A740xxx A171xxx 13 19,948,575 21,637,260 4.1 517
T074xxx A171xxx 13 24,622,475 26,808,122 5.6 663
T103xxx A171xxx 15 96,947,636 99,124,055 4.6 696
T682xxx A171xxx 15 98,242,381 99,754,243 4.9 582
A984xxx A171xxx 17 50,189,302 52,179,232 3.8 594
A438xxx A171xxx 18 13,544,095 19,922,062 4.8 662




Group Contact information for the HAM Surname DNA Project Participants


 =====================================================
HAM Y-DNA Group #1:
 =====================================================

ANCESTRY:

A171xxx  413276 Jon Hamm of Somerset
           Jonathan Hamm   email:   jon.hamm (at) me.com

A274xxx Roxanne Jordan Ashe County, NC line  HAM line
           Roxanne Jordan    tazzgirl1976 (at) yahoo.com

A404xxx Jamison Graff relates to Sintha HAM, daughter of Jordan HAM of Patrick County, VA.
        The documentation implies Jamison is Lynette's 4th cousin (
T384xxx via a female)
         Jamison Graff  email:   jamison_graff (at) yahoo.com

A438xxx Robin Pitts-Breaux relates to Roxanne_Jordan; HAM line Ashe County, NC

A500xxx Joan D Chisholm, relates to Cindy Quesenberry of the Grayson County, VA line via a female LINEBERRY.
        Contact is Barbara Taylor?:   Rainbows77 (at) mindspring.com
        Cindy Quesenberry         galndixie (at) aol.com

A658xxx Nancy Forrest, descends from Isaac HAM (1825-1908), Ashe County, NC
        The son of John HAM and Sarah LANDRETH.
        She relates to Jimmy Ham (
T103xxx) as 3rd cousin via John Alley HAM.
        Nancy relates to Mary Ann Talbott (T133xxx) as 4th cousin, twice removed.
        Nancy relates to Wendell Seaborne (T074xxx) as 5th cousins, once removed.
        Nancy relates to Dave Hamm (T611xxx) as 5th cousin, once removed.
           Nancy Forrest  email:  forren50 (at) yahoo.com

A740xxx Martha_Jane_Newman, descends from the orphans of John Hamm in Rowan
        County, NC in 1779, supposedly in Rowan Co. & later Iredell Co.
        before moving to TN in the 1870s. Connection to Group #1 is UNKNOWN
        Wife of David Jones:    djones1 (at) ju.edu

A984xxx Cindy_Quesenberry of Grayson Co, VA via Dave Hamm's LINEBERRY line.
        of Grayson County, VA. We should expect matches to be female.
         Cindy Quesenberry         galndixie (at) aol.com
        She is listed as Cindy Akers at FTDNA
        She is listed as Cindy Quesenberry at Ancestry
        -----------------------------------------------------------

M804xxx  Lauren Shutt - related to Lynette Russell Sears, her father descends from the Hams via Bernard Blaine Shutt m. Allene Ray Wagner
        > Nora Ellen Bowman m. Nelson Edward Shutt
        > Martha Ann Ham m. Peter "Babe" Bowman
        > William Jordan Ham m. Columbia McMillan
        > William Ham m. Martha (?).
           Lauren Shutt      email:  hello (at) laurenshu.tt


FTDNA:

        -----------------------------------------------------------
T842xxx  F47412 Arnold Hamm (Control Group, Wayne Co., NC Group #4)
        -----------------------------------------------------------

T074xxx F214726 Wendell Seaborne is nephew to
Mary Ann Talbott and 5th cousin to Dave (kit T611xxx)
                Wendell descends twice via Thomas HAM of Ashe Co., NC.
               
Wendell is nephew to Mary Ann Talbott
                Wendell is 5th cousin, once removed to Nancy Forrest (A658xxx)

               
Wendell  is 5th cousin to Dave (kit T611xxx)
                 Wendell Seaborne    email: wseaborne(at) comcast.net

T103xxx 478168 Jimmy Ham, descends from John Ham of Grayson County, VA - son of William HAM, Sr.
              Jimmy relates to Nancy Forrest (A658xxx)
              Jimmy Ham and Dave Hamm (T611xxx) are 5th cousin once removed.
               Kit # 478168  Jimmy Ham    Jham (at) proaudiocenter.com

T133xxx F245261 Mary Ann Talbott
                Mary Ann descends twice via Thomas HAM of Ashe Co., NC.
                Mary Ann is aunt to
Wendell Seaborne (T074xxx)
                Mary Ann and Nancy Forrest
(A658xxx) are 4th cousin, twice removed.
                Mary Ann is
4th cousin, once removed to Dave Hamm (kit T611xxx)
                   Mary_Ann_Talbott    talbott42 (at) cinergymetro.net

T181xxx T611727 Todd Hamm (Y-DNA kit #21554)
                   Todd Hamm         lonewolfe (at) suddenlink.net

T368xxx F321643  C_Godby  -  C. would be the mother of Jamison (A404xxx).
             Documentation indicates that C. is related to Lynette (T384xxx)
             via Sintha HAM 4th cousin, 2R  Patrick County, VA

T384xxx F414920 Lynette Russell Sears 1st cousin to Michael, kit #212352 in HAM DNA Group #1 Lynette descends from
                William Ham b. abt 1780  d abt 1860 Patrick County, VA
                 Jamison (A404xxx) is Lynette's 4th cousin (via a female)
                   Lynette Russell Sears         lynetter4me (at) yahoo.com

T463xxx F300269 Ramsey Lovin - Ramsey looking for his VA connection during
                the 1700's. His line has been from Wayne Co., NC.
                  Ramsey Lovin     ramlovin (at) gmail.com

T611xxx F40777 Dave Hamm of the Ashe County, NC HAM line
                  Dave Hamm     odoniv (at) yahoo.com

T630xxx F475840 Linda Ham Burger, Pittsylvania & Amelia Co., VA
                  Linda Ham Burger     linkenburg (at) yahoo.com

T682xxx F226396 Deborah_Michelle_Hamm (Debb Propes), the HAM line out of Washington County, VA. Her uncle is Carl Hamm, Y-DNA
        Kit #226942.   Deborah_Michelle_Hamm  debbpropes (at) bellsouth.net

References:

HAM Group #1 Information

HAM Y-DNA Project Phylogenetic Tree

HAM Group #1 Initial Tiny Autosomal Segment Triad Study

HAM DNA Project Dean McGee's Utility output

HAM DNA Project Y-DNA Results at HAM Country

HAM DNA Project at FTDNA

How to Read HAM DNA Phylograms
    (video)

  Back to HAM Country