GUTH GUTT GOOD DNA PROJECT

 

The editor for the DNA project for the Guth Gutt Good newsletter is Robert Good, a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, and holds degrees in Anthropology and Psychology.  By profession he is a writer who works with software development groups helping them document their designs.  Robert is accustomed to confronting new fields of information, learning all he can about the subject, then sharing what he has learned through his writing.  It is this approach and expertise that he will bring to this project, helping us to increase our knowledge of DNA testing, interpret the results, and analyze the implications as they apply to our Guth Gutt Good lineage. 

Newsletter editor, Herb Good

 

DNA Editor:

ROBERT A. GOOD 

goodDNA@robertagood.com

 

 

Last modified: 01/27/2010

_____________________

DNA PUBLICATIONS

The following are direct links to DNA articles published in the referenced newsletters:

 

 

 

 

 


 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 063, Nov/Dec 2006

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

 

Introduction

Hello to all the Good/Guth researchers. My name is Robert Good. Our editor Herb Good has kindly asked me to edit the DNA Genealogy section of our newsletter and I have accepted because I welcome the opportunity to share my enthusiasm for the possibilities in this exciting new field.

I am a newcomer to this field, but I’ve been learning rapidly. It began last year when I watched a National Geographic television special on PBS featuring Dr. Spencer Wells, The subject was mapping ancient human migrations based on DNA. I subsequently learned that through the National Geographic Society’s Genographic Project you could find out where your deepest ancestors fitted into that story. So my original driving interest was not about genealogy but curiosity about my own deep ancestry.

I participated in the Genographic project this summer. Through the National Geographic Web site I ordered a testing kit. It arrived, I returned the requisite cheek swab, and two months later the results appeared. They reported that my DNA contained markers that indicated an ancestral history that began in Africa 60,000 years ago and ended in… India.

I was convinced they had fouled up my test and were wrong. Surely my ultimate male ancestor was European, maybe someone like the Ice Man who fell out of a glacier in the Alps a decade ago. Not likely so. Then the Genographic Project invited me to join my data with the databases of Family Tree DNA where the actual testing had been done. There I found that my closest matches – identical matches, actually – were also named Good.  One of these was Herb. Many also declared that their oldest known ancestor was Swiss. There was no mistake. I had to figure this out, and that led me to pay more attention to the Good/Guth genealogy that my sister Nancy has so painstakingly compiled over so many years. I also felt compelled to learn more about genetics. After all, I could barely spell DNA.

So, in our newsletter I hope to share my enthusiasm with the greater Good family. I know there are some of you who have become as rabid about genetic genealogy as I have and many others who are eager to learn more. Here’s what I hope we can accomplish in this newsletter:

  1. We can share our knowledge and findings about how genetics has helped or could help us understand the history of the Swiss Good clan and our individual places therein.
  2. We can contribute questions and concerns concerning DNA Genealogy and the Goods. For my part, since I will not know the answers, I will help find where the answer may lie. Other readers will contribute their valuable knowledge and insights as well.
  3. We can share information about resources: books, articles, Web sites, DNA testing labs, and so on.
  4. We can develop a table or database classifying the DNA findings for those of us who have been tested and have such results. More on this in a moment.

In case you wonder just what DNA testing can do for you and your Good/Guth/Gut genealogy studies, here are some specific possibilities:

  1. DNA can tell us immediately whether a male individual named Good is descended from a Swiss Good ancestor or not – perhaps an English Good or some other Good.
  2. With enough DNA data from individuals with well-documented lineages we might be able discover specific DNA “signatures” that distinguish different lines of descent, thus enabling those with less certain documentation to know where to focus their research efforts.
  3. As used in genealogy studies, DNA is not usually able to connect a specific individual to another. Individuals who are closely related, and even not-so-closely related, usually show identical DNA signatures. But over several generations differences between lines of descent may begin to appear because of mutations.

It has been my impression that everything we learn about genetics raises more questions than it answers. To get us into the subject, and to expose how ignorant Bob Good  really is, the rest of my contribution appears below as a semi-organized list of  everything I know about DNA genealogy, human history, and Good genealogy. You will find that vast areas of essential knowledge are completely missing:

About DNA

  1. DNA is in all the cells of every living thing – every plant and animal on earth.
  2. DNA consists of long strands of protein molecules called nucleotides. Four kinds of nucleotides are involved, connected in varying combinations along the whole length of a strand.
  3. Strands of DNA are found in two places in a cell: in the chromosomes within nucleus of the cell, and within tiny intrusions called mitochondria within the body of the cell. DNA from the chromosomes is called nuclear DNA. DNA in the mitochondria is called mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).
  4. The entire repertoire of nucleotides in human nuclear DNA is called the human genome. There are over three billion individual nucleotides in the human genome, but only about 16,000 in a strand of mitochondrial DNA.
  5. Genes are regions along the nuclear DNA strands where a particular configuration of the nucleotides leads to the development of our individual characteristics, such as the color of our eyes, our susceptibility to certain diseases, or any of thousands of other factors. Most DNA, however, appears to have no function at all. Such DNA is often referred to as junk DNA. It is not junk to us, though, because it is this portion of our DNA that provides information about our ancestral history and sometimes, if we are lucky, about our specific genealogy.
  6. Nuclear DNA strands are organized into chromosomes. Every human cell has 23 pairs of chromosomes. The 23d pair of chromosomes, called the XY pair, determines whether we are female or male.
  7. For all human females, the 23d chromosome pair has two X chromosomes, or XX.  All males have an X and a Y chromosome, or XY.
  8. Mothers always contribute an X chromosome to each of their children but fathers contribute either an X or a Y. In all the other chromosomes the DNA is inherited randomly from each parent. This means that the DNA in the Y chromosome is copied unchanged from father to son back to the first human male.
  9. In a somewhat analogous way, mitochondrial DNA is inherited intact from mothers only, so that it represents a record of the female line, in an unbroken chain all the way back to the first human female.

DNA Genealogy

  1. Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA then become interesting for genealogical and population study purposes, because such DNA represents a potentially identifiable string of individuals, while all the other DNA, also inherited from our ancestors, is mixed up so that it is far more difficult to extract genealogically interesting information.
  2. Surnames in many cultures are paternal and are inherited through the male line, just like the Y-chromosome. This coincidental circumstance provides the potential for reinforcing traditional genealogical studies with Y-chromosome DNA information.
  3. Both Y-chromosome-DNA and mitochondrial DNA can mutate, and mutations can serve as useful markers.
  4. Two kinds of mutation are interesting for genealogical and other human population studies. One kind is called Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs or snips) and the other is Short Tandem Repeats (STRs).
  5. SNPs mutations occur infrequently, on the order of once in tens or hundreds of thousands of years (or thousands of generations), making them useful for long-term population studies, such as charting the movements of prehistoric peoples. SNPs are found in both Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA. They involve a change in a single nucleotide. Think of a long string of Christmas tree lights, and a red one suddenly changes to blue.
  6. SNPs are identified simply by name and are either present or not. Thus, a particular DNA sample either has, for example, the M20 marker, or it does not.
  7. STRs are found on the Y chromosome and they mutate more frequently, on the order of hundreds or thousands of years (or a few to dozens of generations) making them interesting, and hopefully useful, for genealogical studies along the exclusively male line. STRs involve repetitions or omissions of sequences of nucleotides. Think of Gd, Good, and Gooood. The first is an omission, the second is the expected value, and the third is a repeat.
  8. STRs are typically identified with an identifying name, such as DYS393 or YCAIIA, and expressed as a small integer value representing the number of repeated sequences found for that particular marker in a particular sample. For example, DYS393 may have a value of 12, 13, 14, or some other small value.
  9. Over recent years, researchers have located and cataloged many SNPs and STRs that are useful as genealogical markers. Researchers have also been testing populations all over the world for the purpose of developing reference data bases to help understand the relationship between the DNA we see in living people and the movement and distribution of peoples around the world in the ancient past. Part of this effort has resulted in the definition of thousands of signature haplotypes, and the consolidation of these into dozens of haplogroups.
  10. Y-DNA haplotypes are typically expressed as a list of STR markers and their values. The number of markers in the list can vary from about nine up to nearly a hundred. The more markers, the more distinctive is the signature. An individual DNA sample tested for STR markers will produce a list of STR markers that constitute the sample’s haplotype. Tens of thousands of these STR haplotypes have been identified.

My 12-marker STR haplotype is identical to that of Herb and other Goods. I believe it is a typical Swiss Good signature. There are others, as you will see in a moment. It looks like this:

 

DYS

393

390

19

391

385a

385b

426

388

439

389-1

392

389-2

 

12

23

14

10

16

20

11

12

11

14

13

30

 

  1. Across the top of the table are the names of STR markers. The names are actually DYS393, DYS390, DYS19, and so on. All of these begin with DYS, so that part is omitted. The second line contains the values reported for each marker. This specific set of markers seems to be the standard basic set required for genealogical comparisons.
  2. By way of contrast, a typical English Good signature (picked randomly from ysearch.org) looks like this:
  3.  

DYS

393

390

19

391

385a

385b

426

388

439

389-1

392

389-2

 

13

23

14

11

11

14

12

12

13

13

13

29

 

  1. Haplogroups are based on slow-mutating SNPs and thus give us information about the very ancient locations and movements of our ancestors. It happens that any particular STR-based haplotype can usually be associated with some particular haplogroup. A couple of hundred haplogroups have been found to date. The Good signature profile above maps to Y-Haplogroup L. English Goods and Goodes are typically of Haplogroup R1b1. Their numbers are quite different.
  2. Y-Haplogroup L is associated with India, where it occurs in a high percentage of the male population. It is quite rare outside of the sub-continent. Y-Haplogroup L is also found in very small percentages in the upper Middle East, in Turkey, in the Kurdish population, and among the Druze. It does not seem to be a factor in Arab or Jewish populations. It is not found in Romany populations – the Rom, or Gypsies, originated in India, but they tend to belong to Haplogroup H, not L. Y-Haplogroup L is found in very small percentages throughout the Mediterranean area, mainly in Italy, Spain, and Portugal.
  3. Perhaps because of its rarity outside of India, Y-haplogroup L is very little studied. Sources for just about everything there is to know about Y-Haplogroup L can be found on the Web site of Dr. Marco Cagetti, www.cagetti.com. Family Tree DNA hosts a Y-Haplogroup L study group at www.ftdna.com. Here you will find that there are sub-groups of L, and in sub-group L2b you will find some Goods, including me (N34974). L2b seems to be a Mediterranean subgroup. All the other surnames there are Italian or Spanish. In addition, EthnoAncestry, www.ethnoancestry.com/L.html, offers a test that specifically looks for additional STP markers to define these subgroups. I have ordered this test myself and await results.
  4. I haven’t mentioned mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). That’s because I don’t know much, except that mtDNA has its own haplogroups with their own identifiers, and that it doesn’t usually figure in surname studies because it is inherited from mothers. I will note that the Ice Man, mentioned in the introduction, was tested for mtDNA and the result was mt-Haplogroup K, which is European but a late comer, entering Europe about 16,000 years ago. We don’t yet know when Y-Haplogroup L entered Europe, but evidently some time between 1370 A.D., the birth date of Rudi Guttan, our oldest documented ancestor, and 30,000 years ago. Dr. Cagetti guesses it was in Roman times, or perhaps slightly earlier.
  5. National Geographic’s Genographic Project, www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/, has introduced many people into the topic of genetics.  They will do a 12-marker Y-chromosome test or the corresponding mitochondrial test for around $100. Their testing is actually done by Family Tree DNA, www.ftdna.com. Family Tree DNA offers a broad range of additional tests, including an expansion of the 12-marker test into more markers. I was originally tested via the Genographic Project but Family Tree offered to upgrade (for an additional fee, since they already had my DNA sample). I have ordered this upgrade and should have results at the end of December.

DNA Genealogy and the Goods

  1. I gleaned through the data bases available to me on the Family Tree DNA Web site as well as ysearch.org and came up with a total of six Swiss Good samples. All of these had tested on at least 12 markers. Some tested on more. The 12-marker results of all of those samples is shown below:
  2.  

 

393

390

19

391

385a

385b

426

388

439

389-1

392

389-2

100

12

23

14

10

15

19

11

12

11

14

13

30

200

12

23

14

10

16

19

11

12

11

14

13

30

300

12

23

14

10

16

20

11

12

11

14

13

30

400

12

23

14

10

16

20

11

12

11

14

13

30

500

12

23

14

10

16

20

11

12

11

14

13

30

600

12

23

14

10

16

20

11

12

11

14

13

30

 

The numbers across the top are identifiers of markers without the DYS- prefix. The numbers down the leftmost column are arbitrary identifiers of the individual participants. Remember that this is real data. Living, breathing humans are behind these figures.  I will not reveal specific names unless I have permission from the individuals involved. I will point out that samples 300, 400, 500, and 600 have identical results. One of those is me, Robert Good, and another is Herb Good, who has given me permission to use his name.

Consider the following observations and comments:

  1. There were three different patterns, or haplotypes. One haplotype includes four individuals. Herb and I are both in that group. That means four individuals have identical results.
  2. Comparing pairs of haplotypes, the greatest number of mismatches is two, between sample 100 on the one hand and 300, 400, 500, or 600 on the other.
  3. Each haplotype consists of at least 12 markers. Three individuals have tested for additional markers, two have 25 and one has more. For all of those three, the additional markers through 25 are identical, meaning that all of the mismatches occur in the first 12 markers. Normally you would expect the additional markers to provide more mismatches and hence more distinction between the different lines, but what we see is the opposite. Two mismatches out of 12 suggests a not-so-close and not-so-recent relationship, but two mismatches out of 25 suggests a closer and more recent relationship.
  4. This is really not enough data to come to any conclusions. We will need many more such results from you in order to help us determine whether these differences represent separate sub-lineages of the Good/Guth/Gut clan. We will need 50-100 such results, mostly from individuals with well-documented lineages, scattered across the whole spectrum of Goods, Guts, and Guths in America, in Europe, and elsewhere. If you wish to contribute to our figures, try to order at least 37 markers. Female contributors can ask a close male relative to do the test.
  5. On the other hand, this small amount of data does suggest that the Swiss Good clan is closely inter-related and that it may turn out be difficult to tease out different lines of descent using DNA. My sister and I once I met Hermann Guth, the well-known specialist on both Mennonite and Guth genealogy, and he said that to him the Good and Guth genealogies seemed to stand apart – their story creates a tight, well-defined pattern, even though it is often very difficult to connect the various individuals in specific ways. I think the material we see in the newsletter paints much the same picture.
  6. And now we have learned that the Goods stand out in another way: Y-Haplogroup L. This is not a standard European haplogroup. It is not much otherwise found in Switzerland or amongst Mennonites.  It came from somewhere else, perhaps somewhere far away, by a process we can only speculate about. I find this fascinating, full of possibilities and just as interesting as the details of descent.
  7.  

We look forward to sharing this new adventure, and welcome your continued contributions and comments. You may contact me at: goodDNA@robertagood.com.

Resources

Books:

Fitzpatrick, C., & Yeiser, A. (2005). DNA and Genealogy. Fountain Valley, California: Rice Book Press.

This is an excellent medium-technical overview of DNA Genealogy with practical information concerning how to analyze results and identify sub-lineages within a family line. Most of my understanding has come from this one book.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (2000). Genes, Peoples, and Languages. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. & Cavalli-Sforza, F. (1995). The Great Human Diasporas. New York: Perseus Books.

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza is the well-known Emeritus Professor of Genetics from Stanford University. He has written a huge number of books – these are only two of many. Cavalli-Sforza brings together many disciplines, including anthropology, archeology, genetics, and linguistics in order to address the issues of the origin of humans and our subsequent migrations. You will find much discussion of genetics in these works, although nomenclature is from a slightly earlier era. You will probably not find references to Y-Haplogroup L here.

Web sites:

www.ftdna.com – The Family Tree DNA Web site.

www.ysearch.org – A public database of STR profiles and haplogroups, sponsored by Family Tree DNA.

www3.nationalgeographic.com/Genographic/ – The National Geographic Genographic Project Web site.

www.ethnoancestry.com– Ethnoancestry’s Web site

http://www.ethnoancestry.com/L.html– Ethnoancestry’s Web page where you can order tests for subgroups of Y-Haplogroup L.

www.cagetti.com – Marco Cagetti’s Web site. A link on the opening page takes you to his commentary on Y-Haplogroup L.

_______________________________________________________________

Your Comments:

Leon Mertensotto, lmertens@nd.edu, sent along the following notice that might be of interest to some of our members, especially those that are thinking about getting their Y-DNA tested.

October 13, 2006

[GERMAN-BOHEMIAN] Genealogy DNA labs.

"Frank Soural" <frank@soural.com>
I had my DNA done through Familytreedna.com, and I am happy with the  result. Although born in Moravia, in today's Czech Republic, family lore has it that our ancestry came from Nancy in France. DNA resolved this issue for me. It turned out that the male side of our family is in the DNA Haplogroup "I" meaning that its tribal bloodline has Nordic origins, very likely Viking.

I have confirmed this in two ways:

[First] My Grandson has the same 25 markers as I, as he would have.

[Second] Through the website http://www.geneanet.org/ I verified that indeed an individual with my [sur]name lived In Nancy in 1681. Further, there were two other names that are shown to have lived in Normandy and Brittany in France in the mid 1600's.

So I am concluding that my dad was right when he said that the Sourals came from France. Most likely they were tribal Normans who history books tell us invaded France in the early middle Ages. We suspect that our folks from Nancy were Huguenots, French Protestants that were persecuted in the 1600's and fled the country. My Czech relations are currently very disconcerted about my findings, as the name Soural has a Czech connotation. But who is going to argue "Blood does not lie"

Frank Gerhard Soural.

 

End of GGG No. 063

 


 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 064, Jan/Feb 2007

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

Fellow Guth/Gutt/Good researchers,

Since the previous edition of the newsletter there have been some important developments concerning our Guth/Gutt/Good DNA data. Herbert A. Good’s profile now includes 67 markers, and Robert A. Good (this editor) has upgraded to 37. George W. Good has contributed his 37-marker results, and Philip A. Good has consented to letting us identify him along with his DNA results.

DNA-based surname studies require many participants

In order to make much sense of Guth/Gutt/Good DNA data, we need many results. Here is why: If we have DNA test results from a reasonable number of Guth/Gutt/Goods who have well-documented traditional genealogies, we can compare the DNA results to the genealogies and identify links, so that in the end, we would be able to say that persons with this particular set of results are descendents of this Guth/Gutt/Goods ancestor, and persons with that set of results are descendents of that Guth/Gutt/Goods ancestor. Once a reference base is established, those Guth/Gutt/Goods researchers whose documentation is less certain can compare their DNA results to the reference base and better see where they fit in. Thus DNA results, in partnership with our traditional genealogies, can focus our research and make our efforts much more effective.

 At least that’s the theory. The reality is that there are many uncertainties. We are not sure exactly what a “reasonable number of samples” is but we know that other surname studies have produced useful results with fewer than 30 samples. Some texts recommend up to 100. It is all a statistical exercise: the more data the more convincing the result, up to some point where more data tells you nothing new. We now have seven sets of results. “Well-documented” is another uncertain term. Do we mean lots of documentation or accurate documentation?  We do not know what the outcome of comparisons will be. Other DNA-based surname studies have experienced leftover, unclassifiable and puzzling results (this happens with traditional genealogy studies too, I’m told).

The Guth/Gutt/Good data so far

If you think back to newsletter #63, you will recall that we were able to gather DNA results for six Guth/Gutt/Goods by visiting www.ysearch.org and by adding data available to us from Family Tree DNA. Now another of our researchers has offered his results, making seven. This means there are seven people out of about 80,000 DNA results available to us who appear to be Guth/Gutt/Goods. We used these criteria to decide whether to include a result:  The surname is Good, Goode, Guth, Gut, Gutt, or Guttan, and either they have declared that the origin of their oldest known ancestor is Switzerland, or they have a DNA profile that is identical, or nearly so, to someone who believes that their oldest known ancestor was Swiss.

The numbers have now become too unwieldy to present in the newsletter format. If you want to see the raw data in tabular form, follow this link: http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_37_markers.html.

Here are some comments on the data:

All of the profiles are for individuals surnamed Good. None of our other surnames are represented in any of the data sources I have consulted so far. It appears that all of these individuals live in the United States and are the descendents of 18th or 19th century immigrants.

In ysearch.org, there are no other surnames with profiles close to these. The Goods seem to own this cluster of profiles. In Family Tree DNA there are two profiles with a different surname that match us very closely. At some point I intend to look into their possible link to the Good clan and discuss it in a future newsletter.

According to what one sees in ysearch, English Goods have very different profiles that tend to belong to Y-Haplogroup R1b1, the most common haplogroup of Western Europe. It would seem, at first glance, that English Goods cannot be confused with Swiss Goods based on DNA. But consider the puzzling results for George W. Good. George’s family tradition says that his Good ancestors came from a village called Breitebach (Breitenbach?) in Switzerland, then moved to the Pfaltz, then England, then came to America, anglicizing Guth to Good along the way. This is consistent with other Swiss Good histories. His DNA, however, looks nothing like our other samples. It is so different that it belongs to another haplogroup, E1b1, which is typical of neither the other Swiss Goods nor most English Goods.

George’s results remind us of yet another reason we need more samples. There could be more than one genetic origin of Swiss Goods, or there could be adoptions, illegitimacies, or surname-borrowing in the past that we are not aware of. With more results from more of you, we may discover an answer.

The version of this table presented in the previous newsletter featured only 12 markers. This one features 37. Two of the individuals involved actually have 67 markers available, but I’ve only represented 37 for the moment, because the majority of the profiles have at least this many. More markers mean more opportunities for differences and therefore a greater likelihood that the profiles represent different sub-lineages within the Swiss Good clan. I understand from my readings that 37 markers are usually enough to differentiate sub-lineages for surname studies, although sometimes more may be required. Herb Good and Robert Good match exactly on all 37 markers. I have ordered an upgrade from 37 markers to 67 markers for myself; Herb already has 67. I am doing this in part because I want to see just how closely Herb and I match. Those results should be available by the time the next newsletter is published.

Based on 37 markers, we now see four distinct haplotypes represented. Haplotype basically means any particular unique set of markers. You can also think of haplotype as a sub-lineage.  I have labeled these haplotypes arbitrarily as A, B, C, and D. One profile has only 12 markers tested. Those 12 markers match both haplotypes C and D, so this profile remains ambiguous.

It is important to take note of both the similarity of these profiles and the differences. The similarity indicates that the individuals tested have a recent common ancestor. Recent is a relative term, meaning within a genealogically meaningful time period, say about a thousand years or30 to 40 generations. The differences represent mutations that have occurred since that common ancestor. If we add up the differences, we can estimate how long ago that common ancestor lived. We can do this with the help of tables provided by Family Tree DNA and available on familytreedna.com and ysearch.org.

Probable number of generations since most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for the Guth/Gutt/Good DNA Haplotypes

 

Between

this

haplotype

and  this

haplotype

there are this many differences

50% probability of this many generations since MRCA

90% probability of at least this many generations since MRCA

95% probability of at least this many generations since MRCA

A

B

2

19

37

44

A

C

2

19

37

44

A

D

3

28*

48*

56*

B

C

2

19

37

44

B

D

1

12

27

33

C

D

1

12

27

33

Exact match

0

5

16

20

 

(* = extrapolated from the values for 0, 1, and 2 differences)

These estimates are probabilities and not absolute values because mutations occur randomly. A marker may change, say, once every ten generations on the average but because change is random, in a specific case it may have occurred more or less often. The tables on which these estimates are based assume a certain rate of mutation. If the actual rate is higher and mutations occur more often, then the numbers of generations to MCRA shown above decrease.  If it is slower, the numbers of generations increase.

The FTDNA tables do not include entries for three differences such as between A and D, so I provided a rough guess by extending from the other values.

Family Tree DNA offers a more sophisticated, but proprietary, way of making this estimate called FTDNATiM™. This method takes into account the fact that each marker mutates at a different rate. This methodology is only available to those who have been tested at Family Tree DNA. It involves an on-line calculation that only allows you to compare yourself to your own close matches. Since my profile is of Haplotype D, I can report AD, BD, and CD comparisons, as shown in the following table:

Probable number of generations since most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for the Guth/Gutt/Good DNA Haplotypes using FTDNATiM™

 

Between

this

haplotype

and  this

haplotype

there are this many differences

50% probability of this many generations since MRCA

90% probability of at least this many generations since MRCA

95% probability of at least this many generations since MRCA

A

D

3

9

16

19

B

D

1

6

11

13

C

D

1

6

11

13

Exact match

0

1

5

7

 

The above figures assume that there are no known links based on the paper trail within four generations. Four is arbitrary, but close to the actual situation; other values might have produced different results. These figures suggest a much more recent link than the previous ones.

Herb and I are within a very few generations of our most recent common ancestor since we match exactly on all 37 markers. We have not yet found the link between us but we know it is there, and not very far away, because our DNA has told us so. In the end we will find the link through traditional genealogy, but it will be our DNA that showed us where to look.

A call for more DNA testing

A set of DNA testing results means absolutely nothing on its own. To provide meaning those results must be combined with other results and analyzed to reveal patterns. When you test your DNA for genealogy purposes, your laboratory will provide you with the STR values we have been discussing and they may declare a major haplogroup, such as Y-Haplogroup L, into which your pattern may be classified. But if you are a Guth/Gutt/Good researcher, what do you do with this information? No laboratory that I am aware of knows anything specifically about Swiss Goods, nor about most surname groups. I am not aware of any other active Guth/Gutt/Good DNA-based surname project, except this effort here in this newsletter. As far as I know, this is it.

Seven data points are very few, but you can see that even with these few we see hints of some interesting trends. We need many more entries in our table. We need samples from across the Guth/Gutt/Good sub-lineages and from different geographies. We especially need samples from those of you who are confident about your traditional genealogy. It is from your information that we can finally give meaning to the DNA results.

If you have been tested but your data is not represented in a public source, please consider sharing your data here. If you have not been tested, please consider doing so. If it seems too expensive, consider what you have spent on your traditional genealogy pursuits: Airplane tickets, rental cars, hotel rooms, subscriptions, memberships, books, software. Go for as many markers as you can handle, at least 37. And please, share. Your DNA information is worthless to you if you keep it to yourself.

If you are unsure how to proceed, please contact me at goodDNA@robertagood.com. If you are uncomfortable exposing your name in public, let me know that. We will use no one’s name in conjunction with data unless we have been given explicit permission.

If you already have results, please contact me at goodDNA@robertagood.com.

If you know about other sources of data, or have anything else you think Guth/Gutt/Good researchers should know about DNA, please contact me at goodDNA@robertagood.com.

Commentary on Y-Haplogroup L and L2b

Almost all of the Good haplotypes thus far discovered belong to Haplogroup L. Haplogroups represent major lineages of humanity, and Haplogroup L is generally associated by researchers with India – which makes you wonder, what does India have to do with us Goods, Guths, and Gutts? After all, our ancestors lived in Switzerland since forever, didn’t they? On the whole, researchers have not paid much attention to the L haplogroup, probably because it is so rare in Europe. Nonetheless, some laboratories believe they have found markers for sub-groups of L, including L2b, which is found throughout the Mediterranean area and scattered here and there further north. I’ve just had a DNA test done by Ethnoancestry  in London (with offices in California) that shows positive for Haplogroup L2 (marker M317) and for L2b (marker M349).  If I may take the liberty of generalizing my results to all the Guth/Gutt/Goods, we belong to L2b, the Mediterranean subgroup of Haplogroup L. How this lineage/tribe reached Europe remains unknown, but perhaps we will some day figure it out. Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the U.S., and his descendants, also belong to a haplogroup rare in Europe, Y-Haplogroup K2, normally found in North Africa and the around the Mediterranean.

Genetic-based diseases

We have received a couple of e-mails on the subject of genetic-based diseases. In newsletter #43, Rebecca Good Eytcheson (eytcheson4@cowboy.net) reported on Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, a crippling condition that has afflicted every generation of her branch of the Good family.  Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease is known to be genetically determined.

Rebecca and I are each descended from a different son of Benjamin Franklin Good.  Indeed, my own family tradition was that Benjamin and at least one of his sons were afflicted with a foot deformity from birth, and my sister reports that several Benjamin Good descendents in Warren, IN, where we grew up, have also been afflicted.

We have been asked whether DNA testing will reveal the presence of or susceptibility to genetic diseases. The answer is no. When you order a DNA test for genealogical purposes the laboratory looks only at those areas of DNA that are useful for genealogy. The best way to find out whether you or family members are susceptible to a genetic disease is to work through your health care provider. You might also check The Human Genome Project at: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/medicine/genetest.shtml for information about testing for genetic diseases, including Charcot-Marie-Tooth.

Reviews

I recently finished three books, one by Dr. Spencer Wells and two by Dr. Brian Sykes. These authors have become essential to our understanding of human history and genealogical genetics. I’m sharing brief reviews of these books because I personally found them of great value and recommend them to expand your background in these fields. In the reviews I try to show how the material pertains to our Guth/Gutt/Good pursuits.

--------

Wells, Spencer. (2006). Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic.

Deep Ancestry by Spencer Wells is an excellent introduction to the use of genetics in human population studies. Dr. Wells is the iconic director of the National Geographic Society’s Genographic Project, which is an effort to understand, through genetic analysis, how human beings populated the earth. His latest book, Deep Ancestry, was published in November just as I was preparing my previous submission for this newsletter.

This book is an excellent introduction to the field of genetic anthropology and an engaging and painless way to learn the sort of principles of DNA analysis I attempted to outline in the last newsletter. Wells’s interest, of course, is on deducing the ancient movements of humans based on DNA evidence from modern, living people.

One of the most interesting aspects of the book (to me) was the appendix, wherein Wells summarizes the chronological and geographic origins of each of the major haplogroups, both mitochondrial and Y-chromosome. Remember that mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from mothers and Y-chromosome DNA is inherited only by males from their fathers, so that mitochondrial DNA reveals an exclusively female heritage and Y-chromosome DNA reveals an exclusively male heritage. Individual haplogroups can be thought of as huge clans of people related through their mothers (mitochondria) or through their fathers (Y-chromosome). My own DNA profile, and that of almost every Swiss Good I have located, belongs to Y-Haplogroup L. Wells includes the story of Y-Haplogroup L in the appendix, and that story ends in India, not Europe. According to Wells, the vast majority of Europeans (and their descendents) belongs to one of only seven y-haplogroups. For those of us who feel lonely being stranded in India in Y-Haplogroup L, there does seems to be a small subgroup of L called L2b distributed lightly throughout the Mediterranean area, and the Good profile fits right into it. Wells doesn’t mention L2b, but we might be comforted by his observation that Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. president, was from Y-Haplogroup K2, a North African haplogroup also quite rare in Europe.

Wells likes to think of all of humanity as one immense family, and the haplogroups as major lineages within that family.  If you refine this idea to subsets of haplogroups, like L2b, and then refine it further, you arrive at groups like the Guth/Gutt/Good lineage, and then still further, at the group we consider to be “our family”, which includes ourselves.

I have not read Well’s earlier book, Journey of Man: A Genetic Journey, but it was the 2003 video presentation of the same name that drew me into the subject. The bibliography in Deep Ancestry describes Journey of Man as “slightly more technical”.

--------

Sykes, Bryan. (2001). The Seven Daughters of Eve. New York: Norton.

Bryan Sykes is professor of genetics at Oxford University. He is a pioneer in the application of genetic knowledge to studies of human history and genealogy. The Seven Daughters of Eve was published in 2001 and was an instant bestseller, receiving widespread acclaim for being scientifically accurate while remaining understandable to the layperson. The book focuses on mitochondrial DNA, since this was what the early studies used. Sykes explores the history of developments in DNA. He was apparently involved personally in a number of high-profile scenarios involving DNA, including the identification of the Ice Man (I mentioned this briefly in Newsletter #63), the controversy of the fate of Tsar Nicholas and his family, and the Cheddar Man. The latter case involved 10-thousand-year-old human remains found near Bath in England more than a century ago. By examining DNA taken from Cheddar Man’s tooth, Sykes discovered a fully modern human; Cheddar Man’s DNA profile fell right in the middle of one of the commonest mitochondrial lineages in Europe. Moreover, Sykes was able to find living individuals in the same vicinity whose profile was exactly the same as Cheddar Man’s.

The book is about mitochondria, or more specifically, mitochondrial haplogroups. Like y-haplogroups, mt-haplogroups are identified by letter codes, although the letters in each system do not correspond. For instance, mt-Haplogroup L has no relationship to Y-Haplogroup L. Since mitochondrial DNA is passed only from mothers to their children, mt-haplogroups represent broad female lineages. It happens that more than 90% of the population of Europe is represented by only seven such lineages. Sykes has taken the letters that identify each lineage and given them female names meant to represent the first, founding member of each lineage: Ursula, Xenia, Helena, Velda, Tara, Katrine, and Jasmine, for mt-haplogroups U, X, H, V, T, K, and J. These are the seven daughters of Eve. He then takes each name in turn and tells a fictitious story about what that founder’s life was like in the place and time she lived.

This book is a wonderful way to get into the subject of genetics. Sykes is an excellent storyteller with a welcome sense of humor.

In addition to his duties at Oxford University, Dr. Sykes operates one of the leading DNA testing laboratories for genealogical purposes, Oxford Ancestors Ltd., http://www.oxfordancestors.com.

--------

Sykes, Bryan. (2004). Adam’s Curse: A Future Without Men. New York: Norton.

After The Seven Daughter’s of Eve you might suppose that Adam’s Curse is just the male version of the same story. If you did suppose so, that would mean that you overlooked the subtitle, as did I. Adam’s Curse will indeed add greatly to your knowledge of  DNA and genetics, but its real purpose is to present a certain pessimistic vision of our biological future—meaning the future of the Y-chromosome, hence the future of  males, hence the future of humanity.

I personally do not like to dwell on bad news, so I will not try to reproduce here Syke’s arguments for a future without men. Instead I will note that he tells many interesting stories that family history enthusiasts will appreciate. He tells us of his study of the distribution of Norwegian genes throughout the Viking world, how the DNA shows that, contrary to popular stereotype, when the Vikings colonized Britain, they did not take over the local women; they brought their own. Yet in Iceland, a high percentage of both mitochondrial and Y-chromosome markers are from Ireland. There, the Viking colonists brought slaves from Ireland: men to work their farms and women to bear their children.

Sykes also describes his study of the Scottish clan MacDonald, where Y-chromosome DNA shows that even the modern-day chiefs are genuine, direct descendents of Somerled, their legendary 12th-Century founder.

Of greatest interest to genealogy researchers like us is Sykes’s account of how he uncovered his own family history through Y-chromosome DNA. Sykes’s family name, and essentially all the Sykes in the world, stem from a single man in a single village in Yorkshire, in about the13th-Century, when Europeans began assuming surnames. Sykes was able to confirm this through careful detective work, and he was able to persuade a reasonable portion of the Sykes to submit DNA samples and pedigrees in order to establish a reference that ultimately helped show how all the Sykes are linked.

I recommend that you read this book mainly for its Y-chromosome story and for the model of a DNA-based surname project represented by Sykes’s investigation of his own lineage. The storytelling is every bit as good as in Seven Daughters. If you think you’re ready, dive into the “future without men” aspects as well.

Concluding Comments

In the November/December 2006 (#63) issue of the newsletter I presented a fairly lengthy tutorial on the subject of genetic genealogy. I did this because the subject is complex and I think that one needs some exposure to the issues and terminology of the field in order to discuss it.  I am not an expert on genetics, but I am an enthusiastic learner and I like to share what I have learned. Some of you know more about genetic genealogy than I do. Most of you know more about Guth/Gutt/Good genealogy than I do. Let’s hear what your thoughts are, even if you don’t agree with me – especially if you don’t agree. And if, on the other hand you are puzzled or don’t understand something you see here, send us an e-mail. And if you have some test results, we really want to hear from you.

Robert Good (goodDNA@robertagood.com)

 

End of GGG No. 064


 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 065, Mar/Apr 2007

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

Robert upgrades to 67 markers

You may remember that in January I ordered an upgrade to 37 markers, largely to see if we could tease out any difference between myself and Herb Good. Herb and I match exactly on all 37 of the 37-marker profile, meaning we are “very tightly related” – yet we cannot determine who our common ancestor is. I received the results: there is one difference between us on marker 46 (406S1), where Herb’s value is 12 and mine is 11. This does not change the diagnosis of "very tightly related" and provides little additional information. Perhaps it may prove useful in the future. We still plan to use 37-markers as the basis for analysis.

If you are considering testing, order the 37-marker profile. 25 markers just do not seem to provide enough differentiation. 67 markers are fine if you want to be thorough. 

A first attempt at analyzing our DNA data

Although we expect some additions soon, we are still working with the set of data presented with the last issue of the newsletter (#64).

Follow this link to the table of GuthGuttGood DNA results: http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html. The data in this table is used for analysis.

Follow this link to genealogical sketches of the participants:  http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/sketches/Participants.html.

Based on these sketches and the DNA data we can make some tentative attempts at analysis. For example:

According to the sketches, Robert A. Good is a descendant of Andreas Gutt (b. ca. 1530), Chester G. Good is a descendant of Peter Gutt (b. ca. 1525), and Phillip A. Good is a descendent of Hans Gut (b. 15??). Robert's 37-marker DNA profile belongs to Haplotype Good-D, Chester's belongs to Haplotype Good-C, and Phillip’s to Haplotype Good-A. Each of these lineages are exclusive (they don’t intersect each other) and ends, after a dozen or so generations, in the grandfather of a living study participant with a distinct haplotype.

To illustrate these explanations, the following is my own lineage, (my haplotype is labeled Good-D):

Andreas Gutt

_Walthi Gut

__Anthoni Gut

___Peter Gut

____Jacob Guth I

_____Jacob Guth II

______Jacob Guth III

_______John Good

________Benjamin F. Good

_________Jonas J. Good

__________James F. Good (Robert’s grandfather)

 

The Y chromosome is passed intact from father to son. Disregarding possible mutations, each individual along this line, from sometime long before Andreas right down to Robert and beyond, should have passed along the exact same set of markers, i.e., the same haplotype, to his sons in the next generation. Therefore, each haplotype should mark descendents of an ancestor from somewhere along each lineage. For example, if you knew nothing of your family background, but your 37-marker test showed the same results as those in Haplotype Good-D like Robert, you could feel confident that you are descended from someone in the associated lineage (and everyone above him.), or someone descended from someone in the lineage.

Of course, mutations do happen, so it is possible that descendants of, say, a different son of Jacob I than Jacob II may have developed a slightly different value on some marker, creating a slightly different profile for his descendants.

Robert A and Herb have identical profiles on 37 markers, both Haplotype Good-D, suggesting a very close relationship within just a few generations, but we have not yet identified the link. According to the DNA, it is very likely that Herb shares one of the ancestors in my lineage (and therefore all of the earlier ones). We both have good enough paper documentation to be confident that the link is not more recent than John and Benjamin F.  And in the back of our minds we know that there is a difference on marker 46 beyond the 37. We may someday need to consider this small difference in identifying our link.

If we had more data, say dozens or hundreds of samples, we might be able to be more specific about which ancestor a new researcher is descended from. It would be especially interesting to hear from one of you if you recognize your own known ancestors in any of the genealogical sketches of existing participants. Your DNA data would immediately enrich our reference data.

Summarizing, based on sketches provided by participants, we can hypothesize the following:

Haplotype Good-A participants are descendants of Hans Gut (b. ca 1575).

Haplotype Good-B participants are descendents of (unknown).

Haplotype Good-C participants are descendents of Peter Gutt (b. 1525).

Haplotype Good-D participants are descendents of Andreas Gutt (b. ca. 1530).

 By the way, the names of the haplotypes mentioned above (Good-A, Good-C, Good-D) were assigned by me just so we can find them in the table.) 

An observation on the certainty of a relationship versus the closeness of a relationship.

The most recent common ancestor of Robert A. Good and Chester G. Good is the father of Andreas Gutt (b. ca. 1530) and Peter Gutt (b. ca. 1525), who are purported to be brothers (per Jane Evans Best, Guth Families of Ottenbach, Switzerland, Part II). Robert and Chester are separated by 27 generations: 14 from Robert to the father of Andreas and Peter, then 13 from that father to Chester. Yet, there is only one marker different in Robert and Chester’s 37-marker haplotypes. Family Tree DNA calls this "tightly related."  I think what they mean is that there is a virtual certainty of relationship if you match 36 out of 37 markers. The exact closeness of the relationship, however, could be somewhere within a very broad range.

And somewhere around that arc of 27 ancestors between Robert and Chester, one mutation occurred in one of the 37 markers. More DNA data from descendants of those 27 ancestors can show us which lines will have that marker and which will not.

“Outliers” may prove to be valuable

Outliers is a term sometimes used in genealogical DNA analysis to refer to data that lies far from wherever most of the data clusters. We don’t have much data (yet) but I have been assuming that the norm for Swiss Guth/Gutt/Goods is the cluster of Haplogroup L(2b) markers. Outliers challenge such assumptions.

In the previous newsletter I presented the case of our fellow researcher George W. Good. George has long relied on the family tradition that his ancestors were Swiss who migrated to England and then to Virginia. That is certainly a logical possibility. Yet when he had his DNA tested, his results showed a pattern quite different from any of our existing participants, and his haplogroup was E3b1 rather than L(2b). Subsequently, George has found some close matches named Goode, who, like George, have ancestors that migrated from England to Virginia.

Then there is the story of Axel Guth. Axel is a native of Latvia where his ancestors have lived since at least 1760. He has been frustrated by not being able to locate his ancestors in Switzerland, relying on comments by the genealogist Hermann Guth who once asserted that all Guths stem from Switzerland. When Axel was tested, his profile was quite different from the ones we already have and his haplogroup was R1b1, one of the most common European haplotypes.

I want to keep both these results in our study, because we don’t really have enough data to know exactly who belongs and who doesn’t. There are several reasons why there may be unexpected results:

1. There may be multiple, independent genetic origins of Guths in Switzerland. We won’t really know if this is a factor until we have a lot more DNA samples.

2. There may have been adoptions or illegitimacies.

3. There may have been name changes or surname borrowing. It is not unheard of that an individual adopts, say, his wife’s family name or that of a person of influence if that name brings property or prestige or some other advantage.

From what I have read about surname studies, it is normal to have outliers like these.

Correction

My apologies to George W. Good. In the preceding newsletter I cited his haplogroup incorrectly. George’s correct haplogroup is E3b1.

Questions

In this section I want to summarize several of the questions I have been asked concerning DNA and testing:

Q. Will DNA testing reveal genetic diseases?

A. DNA testing for genealogical purposes does not look for genetic diseases. A different kind of DNA testing is required. Your best source of information on testing for genetic diseases is your health care provider.

Q. My grandmother was a Guth. Can I use results from my father?

A. No. Your father is not a male Guth descendant. You need to find a male relative named Guth.

Q. If I upgrade to 67 markers will I find more matches?

A. Actually, it is the other way around. You use additional markers to create more differentiation or uniqueness, hence fewer matches. Theoretically, if you could test on a very large number of markers, you would come up with a unique profile that matches no one, distinguishing you like a fingerprint. Forensic genealogy does something like this, but using fewer markers drawn from the entire genome, not just the Y chromosome.

Q. How do I get tested, what test should I do, and how much does it cost?

A. We have been recommending Family Tree DNA. They appear to be the most popular, have the biggest data bases, and results from them can be easily compared to those of other participants in this surname study. However, there are many other labs. I simply don’t know much about them. The important thing is that they test the same markers as Family Tree DNA so that we can make meaningful comparisons.

We recommend the Y-chromosome 37-marker test if you are going to participate in this surname project.  If you just want to find out whether you are descended from Swiss Guth/Gutt/Goods or English or other Good(e)s, the 12-marker test will reveal your haplogroup. In our study, Haplogroup L is the only one we know, with any confidence, is associated with our lineages.

Family Tree DNA quotes $US 259 for the 37-marker test, and $US 149 for the 12-marker test. You can also order the same 12-marker test from the National Geographic Genographic Project for $US 99. The Genographic Project’s testing is also done by Family Tree DNA.

A continued call for more participants

We now have a small handful of DNA results linked to specific Guth/Gutt/Good lineages. We can make a tentative assumption that the DNA patterns of the living individuals at the end of these lineages represent those of all the ancestors in the lineages and therefore all of their descendents—except for mutations. Mutations happen, and they become new markers that persist through sub-lineages and help us identify them. Look back over our participants’ genealogical sketches. If you see one of your ancestors in any of those lineages, we need you to participate. We also need you if you see none of your ancestors in any of the sketches, but you believe you belong there.

If you’re not sure how to proceed, or have any questions, comments, criticisms or complaints, drop me an e-mail at: GoodDNA @robertagood.com.

 


 

End of GGG No. 065

 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 066, May/Jun 2007

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

Greetings

Greetings to fellow Guth/Gutt/Good researchers,

I’m sure by now that all of our readers recognize that this section is dedicated to exploring our Guth/Gutt/Good heritage through DNA information, and has been doing so since No. 63 of the newsletter.  One of our goals is to collect genealogy-related DNA results from as many Guth/Gutt/Good lineages as possible. To date we have identified at least five distinct genetic signatures and have begun to speculate about which known lineages they may represent.

This task is not as simple as it may seem. Imagine that you have one of those giant jigsaw puzzles with thousands of pieces. To assemble such a puzzle you usually start by looking for the pieces that seem to have something in common, like all the pieces with a straight edge that belong around the outside; or all the blue sky-looking pieces that might belong in a sky scene. Along the way you speculate about which pieces actually fit together. Often your guesses are wrong. You might see a piece of what looks like part of a bird in one sky piece, and this leads you to look for a corresponding bird part in other blue pieces. You do a lot of experimenting and testing theories, some of which prove to be correct and most of which you end up rejecting. It takes a long time before you see any progress, and an even longer time before you can find a place for every piece and finally solve the puzzle.

Our study is still at the early stage, where we are experimenting with fitting together combinations of DNA results and genealogies. How many pieces does our puzzle really have? How many living Goods (and Guths, Guts, Gutts, Guttans, and so on) are there in the world?  I have absolutely no idea.  If one of you does, let’s hear about it, and be sure and tell us how you got the number. I like to use 40,000 as a rule of thumb, just to have a figure to talk about. Our puzzle must have something like 40,000 pieces. (How many different lineages is that?) And just think: We have only eight or ten of the pieces, and some of those look like they belong to an entirely different puzzle!

A change in the results tables

I have combined the DNA results table and the corresponding genealogical sketches. Now, to see a genealogical sketch, click the participant’s first name on any of the results tables. Genealogical sketches are available for most entries, but not all.

The Guth/Gutt/Good DNA results tables may be found by following this link:

http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html.

A new participant

Robert Lee Good of Lebanon PA has decided to participate in our study. Robert Lee Good is descended from the immigrant Peter Good (Guth) who sailed to America on the ship Molly in 1727. Robert’s DNA results showed up just after the preceding newsletter was published. His results are somewhat different from what we have seen so far. His value for Marker 32 (DYS576) is 19, while that for all our other Goods is 18, and his value for Marker 34 (CDYa) is 33, while all others are 31. He is the only Good so far reporting these particular values, so we assigned his values a new haplotype, which we'll call Good-E. These results have been added to the results table.

Now, let’s play with this new data.

Interestingly, if those two unique Good-E markers had the same values as all the rest, the haplotype would be Good-D, the one shared by Robert Andrew Good (me) and Herb Good.

The known documentation for the generations immediately prior to Robert Lee’s immigrant ancestor Peter Gut is murky, and the same is true in my own ancestry around the same era. One important recorder of Guth/Gutt/Good genealogies, Jane Evans Best, offers a tentative interpretation of where certain individuals belong in these lineages. If, just to see how it might work out, we accept her interpretation of the Guth/Gutt/Good world (see Best, Jane. “Guth Families of Ottenbach, Switzerland, Part II.” Mennonite Family History, January 1990, p.27. and Best, J.E. and Francis, H.C. “Six Good Families of early Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.” Pennsylvania Mennonite Heritage, July 1989, p. 12.), then we see Robert Andrew Good’s and Robert Lee Good’s lines-of-descent splitting two generations before Peter Guth the immigrant. By this interpretation, Good-E would be an off-shoot of Good-D with those Good-E markers appearing sometime after the split.

Here’s what this interpretation would look like:

 

 

Andreas Gutt

 

 

 

 

Walthi Gut

 

 

 

 

Anthoni Gut

 

 

 

 

[?Peter Gut I]

 

┌──────

────┴─────

──────┐

[?Jacob Guth I]

 

[?Peter Gut II]

 

[?Jacob Guth II]

 

Peter Guth III (immigrant)

 

[?Jacob Guth III]

 

Christian Good

 

John Good

 

Peter Good

 

Benjamin F. Good

 

Peter Oberholtzer Good

 

Jonas J. Good

 

Jonathan Weber Good

 

James F. Good (Robert A.’s grandfather)

 

Samuel Gehman Good

 

 

 

 

Harry Longenecker Good

 

 

Blue = Good-D

Red = Good-E

 

Paul Samuel Good (Robert L.’s grandfather)

 

The individuals whose names are enclosed with brackets and a question mark were so marked by Jane Best. She uses this notation to indicate that the placement of the individual in the genealogy is her own guess.

In this comparison the genealogical data and the DNA data seem to support one another. The model assumes a) that Jane Best’s guesses are correct and b) that the Good-E values for markers DYS576 and CDYa appeared sometime after Peter Gut I in the lineage headed by Peter Gut II. 

This is one way of looking at the available data. Can you think of another?

Additional DNA results from descendants of any of the individuals in the Good-E lineage would help us sort this out. Are you or a male Good relative or acquaintance descended from of one of those people in the chart above?  If so, you can help complete this story.

Special thanks to Robert Lee Good for sharing his DNA results with us.

More questions

In the last issue of the newsletter (No. 65) I presented answers to some of the questions I’ve been asked about DNA and our study. Here’s a few more:

Q. Do I have to give blood in order to have my DNA tested?

A. No, you don’t. This was true several years ago, but nowadays blood samples are not required for genetic testing for genealogical purposes. FT DNA uses simple cheek swabs using a device that resembles a disposable toothbrush. Quick and non-intrusive. The lab I used to confirm the L2b haplotype collected a small amount of spittle in a special container designed for the purpose.

Q. What happens to my DNA sample? Do I have any control over who sees the results?

A. If you are concerned about what happens to your DNA and who owns the results of testing, FT DNA has extensive commentary on their Web site concerning their privacy policies. Go to ftdna.com and look for the Privacy link near the top of the first page. The gist is that you own the results and control who gets to see them.

In this study we only use peoples’ names when they have given explicit permission for us to do so. We don’t strictly need your name; it’s just nice to include it to show that we are working with living people, our associates and family members, not just impersonal “samples”.  And of course, genealogical information is seldom of any value unless it is shared.

Q. Bob, why are you doing this, anyway?

A. I began learning about DNA genealogy last year and quickly became obsessed with the idea that the whole Good clan could be mapped out in DNA. However, at the time I could found no evidence of a Swiss Good DNA surname project happening anywhere. With some encouragement from Herb Good, I agreed to facilitate one myself, here, under the umbrella of the GuthGuttGood newsletter. My reason for doing this is simply that I wanted there to be such a study, and there wasn't one, so I decided to do what I could to make it happen.

We need more participants

We now have a small handful of DNA results linked to specific Guth/Gutt/Good lineages. We have made tentative assumptions that the DNA patterns of the living individuals at the end of these lineages represent those of all the ancestors in the lineages and therefore all of their descendents—except for possible added mutations.

Look back over our participants’ genealogical sketches. If you see one of your ancestors in any of those lineages, we need you to participate. We also need you if you see none of your ancestors in any of the sketches, but simply want to see how your DNA places your ancestry in the Guth/Gutt/Good family.

If you’re not sure how to proceed, or have any questions, comments, criticisms or complaints, drop me an e-mail at: GoodDNA @robertagood.com.

And, we need your feedback

The GuthGuttGood newsletter is built from your contributions. We need to know how you feel about this DNA section. Has it been interesting or useful to you? Do you share our enthusiasm for the potential of DNA genealogy in researching our Guth/Gutt/Good ancestry? What would you like to see here? What do you know that you want to share with your fellow researchers? We need to hear your opinion. Please, drop me an e-mail at: GoodDNA @robertagood.com.

 

End of GGG No. 066

 

 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 067, Jul/Aug 2007

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

More DNA results expected

We are eagerly awaiting DNA testing results for two more participants in our Guth/Gutt/Good DNA-based surname study. One of those results is scheduled to arrive any day. I will post them to the results Web page when they come in, so be sure to check it.  The results page is located at http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html.

How many Goods are there?

In the preceding newsletter I posed the question, how many living Goods (and Guths, Gutts, Guts and Guttans) are there in the world today, anyway? I made a wild guess of 40,000. I asked if any readers have a different opinion.

Our editor, Herb Good, has something far better than an opinion. He offers an excellent methodology for estimating out how many individuals there are in the U.S. Herb’s method works like this:

  1. Count up all the individuals whose surnames are Good, Goode, Guth, Gutt, or Gut listed in each U.S. census from 1880 through 1930. Ancestry.com is a convenient tool for doing this.
  2. The resulting figures indicate a steady growth in the Good (et al) population from 1880 through 1930. Use those figures to define a trend line, then extrapolate that trend line through 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 to 2000. This gives us an initial estimate of 73,170 persons surnamed Good (et al) living in the U.S. in 2000.

You can examine Herb’s worksheet for this exercise via this link: http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/usgggpop.html

His results do still leave some questions unanswered. The first is, how many of these are actually of Swiss descent and how many are of English or some other descent?

I decided to use DNA information to tackle that question, as follows:

  1. First, I made the assumption that all Swiss Goods are Haplogroup L and all others are not.
  2. Then, I looked up all the Good, Goode, Guth, Gut, Gutt, and Guttan entries in the public database at ysearch.com. There are 19 Good, Goode, and Guth entries. No Guts, Gutts, or Guttans. Four of them belong to Haplogroup L. Three of those claim Swiss ancestry. The fourth doesn't know. The remaining 15 include members of Haplogroups A2a, I, R1a1, R1b1, E3b, E3b1, and "Unknown".
  3. The proportion of Swiss Goods (Haplogroup L) therefore is 4/19 or 21 percent.
  4. The estimated number of Swiss Goods in the U.S. as of 2000 is .21 x 73,170, or 15,366.
  5. The risk with this approach is that the sample used to calculate the proportion is too small to yield a meaningful result. Do you have another way to determine the proportion of Swiss Goods among all the Goods?

There are more questions:

1.      How many are male? The quick answer is about half the 15,366 figure or 7,683. probably close enough but I’m not sure it’s really correct. There are usually more females than males in a population, particularly in older age categories. Many of the females with the Good (et al) surname are wives or widows and are not themselves Good descendents, and most females who were born Good have taken married names and don’t appear in the figures. For the time being, I’m content with assuming that there are about 7500 male Swiss Goods currently in the U.S., but the indicated doubts remain.

  1. What does this exercise say about the number of Swiss Goods in the rest of the world, particularly Germany and Switzerland?  What about those whose surnames have evolved in some other direction, like Bueno or Gude or Goad? No answer, I’m afraid.

You may wonder why we should even care about how many Goods there are. The question occurred to me when I first imagined mapping the whole clan's DNA. I wondered just how big the problem could be.

The Sorenson testing lab

In the middle of June I received a press release (perhaps you did, too) announcing the partnership between Ancestry.com and a DNA testing lab called Relative Genetics. Relative Genetics is a division of Sorenson Genomics of Provo, Utah. Sorenson will be combining genealogical DNA testing with the vast traditional genealogical information available through Amazon.com, and each organization will be marketing the services of the other.

What does this mean for the future of DNA-based surname studies like ours? No knowing, of course, not yet. In the meantime, I plan to continue directing study participants to Family Tree DNA. I am familiar with FTDNA and they have the largest repositories of data available anywhere, at least for the time being.

I don’t usually read USA Today, but while traveling in early July I picked up a discarded copy of that day’s Money section, which featured an article on James LeVoy Sorenson, the founder of Sorenson Genomics and numerous other companies. Sorenson is described as eccentric, brilliant, difficult, dyslexic, and extremely frugal. He is a multi-billionaire, the richest man in Utah. Devoting nearly an entire page to Sorenson, USA Today seemed preoccupied with Sorenson being brilliant, eccentric, rich, and especially, rich. They devoted little ink to the virtues of his businesses.

You can see the Sorenson Genomics press releases concerning the partnership with Ancestry.com at http://www.relativegenetics.com/relativegenetics/news.htm#acrg.

The Personal Genome Project

The Personal Genome Project is an enterprise which seeks to develop cheaper and faster ways of extracting personal genomes (meaning, the complete configuration of an individual’s DNA) and to integrate genomic information with medical histories and other information. The chief protagonist of this story is Dr. George Church, a geneticist at the Harvard Medical School. Dr. Church was a pioneer of the Human Genome Project, which first mapped the generic human genome just a few years ago.

The Personal Genome Project hopes to use real medical and genomic data from specific people to create test cases for some of the legal and ethical issues that are sure to arise. An example of such an issue is insurance discrimination. When an insurance company learns that you have a gene that is associated with a genetically influenced illness, such as Alzheimer's Disease, can they or should they refuse to give you insurance?

The big, overall question raised by this project is this: if you know what your whole genome is, what can you do with that information? Certainly knowing that your genome contains genes indicating susceptibility to specific diseases invites collecting external medical data as well. Genealogical information of the sort we use in our surname study is a part of our genome and will need to be correlated with larger patterns gathered from whole populations. How will widespread use of individual genomic information change the meaning of genealogy?

I came upon this topic because about a month or so ago there was a minor fuss in the Silicon Valley press concerning the marriage of Ann Wojcicki to Sergei Brin, the multi-billionaire co-founder of Google. The fuss had to do with the fact that Wojcicki had just started a company called 23andme, funded with a very large investment from Google. This looks like nepotistic conflict-of-interest to some, and the press loves the hint of scandal. Personally, I don’t share that concern. I am more interested in Wojicki’s company. The name, 23andme, refers to the 23 chromosome pairs that make up the human genome. The “me” part means that the company will focus on relating one’s personal genomic information to other information, and no doubt hopes to do that for a large number of people with a large number of resources. The company is still in “stealth” mode, so their Web site offers only hints about their intent.

You can investigate 23andme at 23andme.com. There is an article on the Personal Genome Project at http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/16169/ .

 

End of GGG No. 067

 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 068, Sep/Oct 2007

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

NEW RESULTS POSTED

 

After a long wait for results from the lab, we are finally able to add Dean Arthur Good to our study. Dean’s numbers exactly match the Good-D haplotype (based on 37 markers). Furthermore, he matches on all 67 markers with Robert A. Good (your DNA editor) and on 66 out of 67 with Herb Good (your newsletter editor).

 

This is a very exciting result. We expected a near or exact match between Dean and Robert, since we are both direct male descendents of John Good (Guth) Sr. and therefore very closely related. Dean is clearly descended from John Good Jr., whose descendents have been highlighted in several newsletters over the past year (see Descendants of John Good (1774-1852) and Mary Cobal (1780-1852), Newsletter Nos. 61,  62,  63, 64,  65, 66, and 67) while Robert is just as clearly descended from Benjamin F. Good.   John Sr.'s will is the critical document that links John Jr. and Benjamin F as brothers. These new DNA results make the accuracy of the traditional genealogical documentation a virtual certainty.

 

Note that I said virtual certainty, not absolute certainty. The DNA results tell us only that Dean and Robert (and Herb) are very closely related but not how we are related. But by combining that DNA information with evidence from traditional genealogy, we build a completely convincing case.

 

We want to thank Cathy Chase, Dean’s niece, for coordinating the collection of information from her uncle.

 

You may view the results for the entire study by following this link: http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html.

 

To see the brief genealogical sketch for each participant, just click the corresponding highlighted name.

 

HOW TO PARTICIPATE

 

If you want to contribute to the study and see just where your Guth/Gutt/Good line of descent fits in, please read the following:

 

1. We've been recommending that participants order tests online from Family Tree DNA. www.ftdna.com.

 

2. Surname studies like this one use genetic markers from the Y-chromosome, which is passed from father to son through the generations. Only DNA from males is useful for this purpose. If you are female, you will need to find a close male relative (father, brother, cousin, uncle) with the target surname (Guth, Gut, Good, etc.) to provide the DNA sample.

 

3. If you know that you are a Guth/Gutt/Good of Swiss ancestry, you should order the 37-marker test if you can. Family Tree DNA calls this test Y-DNA37 and prices it at US$259.  If you're not sure, the $US149 12-marker test (Y-DNA12) will immediately reveal whether or not your ancestry is similar to our existing participants. If you turn out to belong with the Swiss group, you can upgrade to 37-markers later.

 

You can save $US50 on the 12-marker test by ordering the Y-DNA test from the National Geographic Genographic Project. Their price is $US99. The test is the same as Family Tree DNA Y-DNA12 – in fact, Family Tree DNA does the testing for National Geographic and if you take this path you can still order upgrades later from Family Tree DNA.

 

4. If you are participating in the study, we would also like a genealogical sketch of your ancestors on the male line, starting with your grandfather and going back as far as you know about. You can use the genealogical sketches on the newsletter's DNA results page for models. These sketches help us associate DNA results with specific Guth/Gutt/Good lineages.

 

We will use your personal name in the study only if you give us permission, so be sure to tell us your preference.

 

5. When you order your test, be sure to let us know that it’s in the pipeline. Family Tree DNA takes six weeks to three months to process results, so patience is required.

 

6. Please contact me (goodDNA@RobertAGood.com) if you have any questions or comments or need some help with the process. We look forward to seeing your results!

 

End of GGG No. 068

______________________________

 

 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 069, Nov/Dec 2007

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

RESULTS PENDING

 

[ed hg: Two of our members are awaiting lab results for Y-DNA testing.  Julie Morris' father submitted a sample, and Roger Rhoads, a non-good member, had his GOOD 2nd cousin submit a sample.  We are looking forward to sharing their results in the near future.]

 

End of GGG No. 069

______________________________

 

 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 070, Jan/Feb 2008

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

 

NEW RESULTS AVAILABLE

 

We have recently received DNA results from Howard and Julie (Goode) Morris. The results are those of Julie’s father, Elvin Goode. The Morrises presented Julie Goode’s family history in Issue 68 (September/October 2007) of this newsletter. A condensed version of Elvin Goode’s genealogy follows:

1.      [Jacob Goode, b.?; d.?]

2.      Samuel Goode, b. 1763, Lancaster Co., PA; d. 1821, Lancaster Co., PA.

3.      Jacob Goode, b. 1787, Cumberland Co., PA; d. 1839, Richland, OH.

4.      Adam Goode, b. 1818, Cumberland Co., PA; d. 1902, Salem, OR.

Note that Elvin’s oldest known ancestor is Samuel Goode of Lancaster Co., PA. We might be tempted to assume that since Samuel Goode was from Lancaster County and because his name is a common variation on Guth/Gutt/Good that he is of Swiss origin. Elvin’s results, however, do not match those in our study who clearly are Swiss descendents.

The following is a paraphrase of a note I sent to Howard and Julie Morris:

“Your results show that you belong to Y-Haplogroup E3b1. E3b is the major lineage and E3b1 is a sub-lineage. Y-Haplogroups represent very old lines of descent along the male line. Old means tens of thousands of years, far beyond the range of normal genealogical studies. According to Dr. Spencer Wells of National Geographic’s Genographic Project, about 95% of males of European descent belong to one or another of only seven Y-haplogroups, and E3b is one of these, meaning it is very common. Every E3b1 you encounter is related, but not necessarily closely related—you share a common ancestor on the father line sometime within the last ten thousand years or so. The set of 67 numbers reported by the lab represents a finer cut within E3b1 that can be useful for identifying much more recent relationships. Anyone who matches all 67 of your values is related very closely, within only a few generations. As an example you may note from the newsletter that Robert Good (me) and Dean Good match exactly on all 67 values. My g-g-g-grandfather is Dean's g-g-g-g-g-grandfather. Not very close on an everyday scale but pretty close in the grand scheme of things. I would expect my sons, my nephews, and all my male cousins to also match on 66 or 67 values. The more your 67 values match another person's, the closer your common ancestor. You can't tell exactly how you are related but you can estimate how closely.

Our study participants are, so far, nearly all closely matching and from Y-Haplogroup L (or more precisely, L2b). Their traditional genealogies also indicate that they are closely related and point to descent from a single individual in Canton Zürich, Switzerland in the 14th century. Your results are different, suggesting (but not disproving) an origin other than Swiss.  The public databases show that many people with surname Goode who have tested as E3b1 have an English origin—see www.ysearch.org as well as Family DNA’s Goode Family surname project.”

After considering the details of Elvin’s genealogy, I decided (with the Morris’s permission) to include his DNA values on the study's summary chart anyway.  They appear down at the bottom where you now see Axel Guth and Benjamin Good (also an E3b1 but with quite different values indicating not closely related). We don't really know yet the breadth and depth of what to expect and someday these entries may make their own kind of sense.

I believe there are important lessons here concerning the danger of making assumptions in genealogical studies. We cannot assume that the spelling of the name says anything about a person's family history (I have close relatives that spell the name their own way just because they feel like it.) We cannot assume that because a family's name is Good (or Goode), and that they stem from Lancaster County, then they are of Swiss origin. Nor can we assume that they are not. We cannot really assume that DNA showing different genetic origins means that we are from different families. I have mentioned in the newsletter a couple of times that there are several perfectly good reasons why people with the same surname might have different DNA patterns or people with different surnames might have similar DNA numbers: adoptions, illegitimacies, name changes, or just separate genetic lines taking up the same surname (imagine the Smiths, for instance).

I also noted that if Julie’s ancestor Samuel Goode fought in the Revolution, he probably was not a Lancaster County Swiss Guth/Gutt/Good since so many of these were Mennonites and hence pacifists. Of course, not all Swiss Guth/Gutt/Goods were Mennonites, and some Mennonites undoubtedly did take up arms, so once again, we have to beware of assumptions.

In any case, many thanks to the Morrises for their contribution to our collective efforts.

You may view the results for the entire study by following this link: http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html.

To see the brief genealogical sketch for each participant, just click the corresponding highlighted name.

 

THE ABRAHAM ROSE CONNECTION

 

When Family Tree DNA reports our results, they also include contact information for a number of individuals whose results match closely. Such individuals have given permission to share this information. Virtually all the names listed there are Good, basically the participants in our study. However, two additional names appear, both surnamed Rose. I have been unsuccessful in contacting these individuals but Herb reports that some time in the past he managed to do so, and he learned that the Roses have early nineteenth-century ancestors in the same Pennsylvania and Ohio Counties where Herb and I (and many other Goods) find our ancestors of the same era.

I learned recently that one of the largest DNA surname studies is that of the Rose family, so I visited their website at http://ourworld-top.cs.com/Christine4Rose/rosedna.html.

Below is the entry for Abraham Rose from the Rose DNA Study:

GROUP BX

ABRAHAM ROSE OF KEOKUK, IOWA

We now have two tests from descendants of Abraham Rose who m. Sarah Mooney, he b. ca 1805, lived Keokuk, Iowa. It had been thought that Abraham was a son of John and Dorothy Rose of Shenandoah Valley, Virginia and Fairfield Co., Ohio (Group B). However, though the two tests of descendants of Abraham match each other, they do not match descendants of John and Dorothy. This suggests that if there is a connection to John Rose of Group B, as had been thought, it may be that Abraham was adopted. (One of these tests has been upgraded to 37 markers, and further confirms the high likelihood that Abraham Rose was a Good/Goode. He may have been adopted or lived with the family of Abraham Rose.)

 

HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR GUTH/GUTT/GOOD DNA STUDY

 

If you want to contribute to the study and see just where your Guth/Gutt/Good line of descent fits in, please read the following:

We've been recommending that participants order tests online from Family Tree DNA. www.ftdna.com.

Surname studies like this one use genetic markers from the Y-chromosome, which is passed from father to son through the generations. Only DNA from males is useful for this purpose. If you are female, you will need to find a close male relative (father, brother, cousin, uncle) with the target surname (Guth, Gut, Good, etc.) to provide the DNA sample.

If you know that you are a Guth/Gutt/Good of Swiss ancestry, you should order the 37-marker test if you can. Family Tree DNA calls this test Y-DNA37 and prices it at US$259.  If you're not sure, the $US149 12-marker test (Y-DNA12) will immediately reveal whether or not your ancestry is similar to our existing participants. If you turn out to belong with the Swiss group, you can upgrade to 37-markers later.

You can save $US50 on the 12-marker test by ordering the Y-DNA test from the National Geographic Genographic Project. Their price is $US99. The test is the same as Family Tree DNA Y-DNA12 – in fact, Family Tree DNA does the testing for National Geographic and if you take this path you can still order upgrades later from Family Tree DNA.

If you are participating in the study, we would also like a genealogical sketch of your ancestors on the male line, starting with your grandfather and going back as far as you know about. You can use the genealogical sketches on the newsletter's DNA results page for models. These sketches help us associate DNA results with specific Guth/Gutt/Good lineages.

We will use your personal name in the study only if you give us permission, so be sure to tell us your preference.

When you order your test, be sure to let us know that it’s in the pipeline. Family Tree DNA often takes many weeks to process results, so patience is required.

Please contact me (goodDNA@RobertAGood.com) if you have any questions or comments or need some help with the process. We look forward to seeing your results!

 

End of GGG No. 070

 

______________________________

 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 071, Mar/Apr 2008

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

The DNA section will be brief this time. Several readers have indicated that they have recently ordered testing from Family Tree DNA, so by the next edition we should have some interesting news.

 

This may be a good opportunity to comment on what we have learned from our DNA study so far, and what we especially need going forward. For example, we have identified at least four and possibly five baseline result patterns that can each be associated with a specific 18th-century Guth/Gutt/Good immigrant to America. If you are uncertain about your genealogy, this can greatly help you decide where to focus your research. We have shown that the results form a distinctive and easily identifiable cluster, making it easy to distinguish Swiss Guth/Gutt/Goods from others. Finally, we have learned that there are other unrelated Guth/Gutt/Good lines out there.

 

We need more results from every Guth/Gutt/Good. If you already have a well-established traditional genealogy, your DNA results will help us build our baselines. If you are uncertain about your family origins, your DNA results can help us identify new lines, and you might even find some new direction for your own research. The U.S. census records over the years show that after the 18th century there has been a continuing flow of immigrant Guths and Guts and others. Today these names can also be found all over German-speaking Europe and elsewhere. If your family is European we all want to know how your Guth/Gutt/Good branch fits into the big picture.

 

By the way, if you want more confirmation that immigrants with our surnames have been continually flowing into the U.S., examine The German Emigrants Database submitted by Terry Good and introduced in the preceding edition of the newsletter (#70).

 

An additional note: Our DNA studies have made me even more interested in the deeper aspects of our family history—those aspects beyond the usual range of traditional genealogies. For instance, where does the family name come from? It turns out that it may have an actual meaning. A probe of Wikipedia (on the Web) suggests that the name Guttan is what the Goths called themselves in their own language. The Goths are best known to us as one of the Germanic tribes that "invaded" the Roman Empire, along with the Franks, Burgundians, Vandals, and others. These were the so-called "barbarians". The Goths were highly involved in the politics of Rome in the early Christian era. The Visigoths (meaning western Goths) ruled northeastern Spain from about the fifth century until the Muslim invasions of the eighth century, and Ostrogoths (meaning eastern Goths) ruled other portions of the Empire during the same general time period. Were our ancestors really Goths? Or did someone just like the idea of calling himself Goth? And is there a  connection to our L2b haplogroup, a Mediterranean offshoot of Haplogroup L, which is largely associated with India?  I think the topic deserves some deeper examination. This association of the name with the name of the Gothic tribe suggests a whole new array of variations on the surname, including the following: Good, Goode, Guth, Gut, Gutt, Guttan, Gott, Gotti, Gote, Goethe, Göte, Göthe, Gotone, Gotoni, and more.

 

And finally, a somewhat related topic: In the very first edition of this newsletter, Leon Mertensotto referred to a claim from the genealogist Hermann Guth of Saarbrücken as follows: "Hermann Guth claims that a 12th century abbot of the famous Swiss Benedictine Monastery, Einsiedeln, was of the Gut family, and this 10th century abbey still existing today is not far from Ottenbach."—Leon Mertensotto, GGG #1 (#1).  Einsiedeln Abby is located in Canton Schwytz, indeed quite near Zürich and Ottenbach, and they have their own Web site, http://www.kloster-einsiedeln.ch/default.htm. There are no listings of 12-century abbots on the site, but they do indicate a current resident Benedictine monk named Gut, and the abbot from 1947 to 1959 was Walter Gut, who subsequently rose through the church hierarchy to become Benno Walter Cardinal Gut, a member of the Second Vatican. You can see an outline of his career at http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bgut.html. I am very curious about that 12-century abbot and would like to learn more about him. 

 

End of GGG No. 071

 

________________________

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 072, May/Jun 2008

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

NEW RESULTS

 

During the last few weeks we have received several DNA reports from new DNA study participants.

ROGER RHODES/KEITH GOOD

 

The first report was from Roger Rhodes who submitted results from a sample provided by his cousin, Keith Good. The following is a portion of our response to Roger:

 

Keith Good's results are completely different from our core Guth/Gutt/Good group. I visited FTDNA's public database www.ysearch.org and matched your cousin's numbers first to the name Good (and common variants), and then to anyone whose values match his regardless of surname. In the first case there were a handful of Goodes (with the e) reported whose Haplogroups are also R1b and whose numbers are reasonably close to your cousin's. One or two of these claim English origin. In the second search there were many R1b results absolutely identical to your cousin's belonging to a large variety of surnames.

 

The reason for so many identical R1b results is simply that R1b is the most common haplogroup for men of European descent, representing nearly 50 percent of that population. There are a lot of overlapping results. Our study's core group is all L2b. This haplogroup is extremely rare in European populations and its rarity makes the numbers stand out.

 

R1b is also one of the very oldest Y-Haplotypes in Europe. Think of the tens-of-thousands-year-old cave paintings at Lascaux and Alta Mira. Many if not most of those artists and their friends were surely R1b (the males anyway).

 

Roger has allowed us to add his cousin’s results to the unclassified part of the results table. Eventually we may recognize patterns or discover significance to such results that eludes us today.

 

ALAN D. GOOD

 

The next report came from Alan D. Good. Alan presented a 37-marker result that is identical (in the first 37 markers) to other participants classified as haplotype Good-D. Based on Alan’s genealogical sketch, this is much what we would expect. According to his sketch, he is a descendant of Christian Guth (1757-1820), the brother of John Good, Sr. (1743-1820) from whom Good-D participants Dean A. Good and Robert A. Good descend.

 

The further significance of these results is that they reinforce the likelihood that Good-D is a reliable marker of descendants of Jacob Guth (ca. 1710-1797), the father of Christian and John Sr. or even someone earlier in the chain.

 

KENNETH J. GOOD

 

Then, we received a 67-marker result from Kenneth J. Good. Kenneth is a descendent of Peter Good (ca 1690-1754) who arrived on the Molly. Robert L. Good is also a descendent of this Peter, so we would expect them to have a very similar DNA signature. They do, differing by only one value in 37. Robert L. and Kenneth J. are each descended from a different son of Peter. We have classified Kenneth in a, new haplotype Good-F, although in the future, when we have more E- and F-like results to compare, we may choose to reclassify Kenneth’s and Robert L’s haplotypes as subsets of a single haplotype, such as E1 and E2.

 

ROLAND ROSE

 

Finally, Kenneth notes that Roland Rose, whose ancestor Abraham Rose was discussed in Issue 70 of the newsletter, has reported 37-marker results identical to his own. We have added Roland to the results table and classified him as Good-F, like Kenneth.

All of the results and genealogical sketches (where available) may be found at http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html.

 

HOW TO PARTICIPATE

 

If you wish to participate and contribute to the Guth/Gutt/Good Y-DNA study to see just where your Guth/Gutt/Good line of descent fits in, please read the following:

 

1.   We've been recommending that participants order tests online from Family Tree DNA. www.ftdna.com.

 

2.   Surname studies like this one use genetic markers from the Y-chromosome, which is passed from father to son through the generations. Only DNA from males is useful for this purpose. If you are female, you will need to find a close male relative (father, brother, cousin, uncle) with the target surname (Guth, Gut, Good, etc.) to provide the DNA sample.

 

3.   If you know that you are a Guth/Gutt/Good of Swiss ancestry, you should order the 37-marker test if you can. Family Tree DNA calls this test Y-DNA37 and prices it at US$259.  If you're not sure, the $US149 12-marker test (Y-DNA12) will immediately reveal whether or not your ancestry is similar to our existing participants. If you turn out to belong with the Swiss group, you can upgrade to 37-markers later.

 

You can save $US50 on the 12-marker test by ordering the Y-DNA test from the National Geographic Genographic Project. Their price is $US99. The test is the same as Family Tree DNA Y-DNA12 – in fact, Family Tree DNA does the testing for National Geographic and if you take this path you can still order upgrades later from Family Tree DNA.

 

4.   If you are participating in the study, we would also like a genealogical sketch of your ancestors on the male line, starting with your grandfather and going back as far as you know about. You can use the genealogical sketches on the newsletter's DNA results page for models. These sketches help us associate DNA results with specific Guth/Gutt/Good lineages.

 

We will use your personal name in the study only if you give us permission, so be sure to tell us your preference.

 

5.   When you order your test, be sure to let us know that it’s in the pipeline. Family Tree DNA often takes many weeks to process results, so patience is required.

 

6.   Please contact me (goodDNA@RobertAGood.com) if you have any questions or comments or need some help with the process. We look forward to seeing your results!

 

End of GGG No. 072

 

_________________

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 073, Jul/Aug 2008

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

MORE PARTICIPANTS HAVE ADDED THEIR RESULTS TO THE STUDY

 

Since the last newsletter we have received results from two new participants, Frank E. Good and Nancy Good Olsen. Nancy submitted results based on a sample provided by her cousin Virgil Good.

 

Frank E. Good’s results are based on 12 markers. They show that Frank’s lineage belongs squarely in the middle of our core group, meaning that he can confidently concentrate his research efforts on Goods of Swiss origin rather than, say, English. However, 12 markers provides only a minimum suggestion of which specific lineage might be most closely related to Frank’s. Based on those 12 markers, Frank’s results match the first 12 markers of haplotypes Good-C, -D, -E, and –F. Frank will need to upgrade his results to at least 37 markers to get a better idea of where his lineage fits.

 

Nancy Good Olsen/Virgil Good’s 37-marker results do not exactly match any existing 37-marker results, so we have assigned them to a new haplotype, Good-G. This haplotype is very similar to Good-A and Good-C, differing by only one marker from each, although in each case by a different marker. This suggests the likelihood that these three haplotypes are very closely related. From examining the genealogical sketches for Philip Good (an example of Good-A), Chester Good (Good-C) and Virgil/Nancy Good (Good-G) there is no obvious connection, except that both Philip and Virgil/Nancy have a family history associated with the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Given the similarity of DNA results and the Shenandoah Valley connection, one lineage may prove to be a post-immigration offshoot of the other. More DNA results from more participants and more traditional research may reveal the connection.

 

The results and genealogical sketches may be found at http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html.

 

 

IOGG CHANGES HAPLOGROUP NAME

 

The International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) has redefined Haplogroups L2a and L2b, basically by swapping the definitions. In former editions of the newsletter I have referred to our sub-haplotype (also called sub-clade) of haplogroup L as L2b. Now it should be referred to as L2a. If you follow the Haplogroup L study at Family Tree DNA you will notice the change there as well.

 

You can view the definitions of all the haplogroups on the ISOGG Web site at http://isogg.org/tree/ . Click on Haplogroup L, or go directly to the Haplogroup L section at http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpL08.html.

 

Family tree DNA has an interesting haplogroup chart at https://www.familytreedna.com/PDF/2008-HaploChart_GR_lores.pdf.

 

You can check the Family Tree DNA Haplogroup L study at https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Y-Haplogroup-L

 

A CHANGE TO THE LOOK OF OUR GUTH/GUTT/GOOD DNA CHART  

 

We’ve made a small change to the look of the DNA results chart. As before, any marker column that contains differences between individual results is emphasized by presenting the entire column in bold type. Now, we also emphasize the individual cells within such a column where the value seems to differ from the visual “norm” for the column. The idea is make it a little easier to spot any differences.

 

HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR GUTH/GUTT/GOOD DNA STUDY

 

If you want to contribute to the study and see just where your Guth/Gutt/Good line of descent fits in, please read the following:

 

1.     We've been recommending that participants order tests online from Family Tree DNA. www.ftdna.com.

2.     Surname studies like this one use genetic markers from the Y-chromosome, which is passed from father to son through the generations. Only DNA from males is useful for this purpose. If you are female, you will need to find a close male relative (father, brother, cousin, uncle) with the target surname (Guth, Gut, Good, etc.) to provide the DNA sample.

3.     If you know that you are a Guth/Gutt/Good of Swiss ancestry, you should order the 37-marker test if you can. Family Tree DNA calls this test Y-DNA37 and prices it at US$259.  If you're not sure, the $US149 12-marker test (Y-DNA12) will immediately reveal whether or not your ancestry is similar to our existing participants. If you turn out to belong with the Swiss group, you can upgrade to 37-markers later.

You can save $US50 on the 12-marker test by ordering the Y-DNA test from the National Geographic Genographic Project. Their price is $US99. The test is the same as Family Tree DNA Y-DNA12 – in fact, Family Tree DNA does the testing for National Geographic and if you take this path you can still order upgrades later from Family Tree DNA.

4.     If you are participating in the study, we would also like a genealogical sketch of your ancestors on the male line, starting with your grandfather and going back as far as you know about. You can use the genealogical sketches on the newsletter's DNA results page for models. These sketches help us associate DNA results with specific Guth/Gutt/Good lineages.

We will use your personal name in the study only if you give us permission, so be sure to tell us your preference.

5.     When you order your test, be sure to let us know that it’s in the pipeline. Family Tree DNA often takes many weeks to process results, so patience is required.

6.     Please contact me (goodDNA@RobertAGood.com) if you have any questions or comments or need some help with the process. We look forward to seeing your results!

 

End of GGG No. 073

 

____________________

 

 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 074, Sep/Oct 2008

 

 

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

DNA Study Newsletter #74

Several sets of DNA results are still in the pipeline, so while we’re waiting, let’s explore the data we already have.

What do we see when we look at the data?

When you consider the DNA results at http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html you see that we have two major categories of results. The first is from a core group of thirteen participants whose profiles are very similar. They belong to Y-Haplogroup L2a, a haplotype that is rather rare and is generally associated with Mediterranean ancestry. However, many of these participants have documented genealogies that point to a common ancestor sometime before the middle of the 16th century in the area of Ottenbach, Birmensdorf, and Äsch in Canton Zürich, in Switzerland. The genealogies indicate that the family surname then was Gutt or Gut. Many Swiss Guts migrated to the German Rheinland in the 17th century, where the name evolved to Guth to accommodate local spelling conventions. Almost all the current genealogies are for families that immigrated to America in the early- to mid-18th century, some from Germany and some from Switzerland. Those who came from Germany came with the surname Guth and those who came directly from Switzerland retained the Gut spelling. In most cases, in America the name further evolved to Good (or sometimes Goode).

The lower section of the results includes several participants whose names are also Good, Goode, and Guth but whose DNA results do not fit the core group above. These belong to subgroups of Y-haplogroups E and R, the two most common European haplotypes. Interestingly, all these participants believe they have Swiss ancestry but none have confirming genealogies. Even more interesting is that while the DNA indicates that they are not related to the Swiss group above, it also indicates that they are not related to each other. (Of course if you go back far enough we’re all related.)

It is now clear that there really are multiple independent biological origins for people with the surnames Guth, Good, and Goode and probably even Gut, and you can’t depend on the form of the family name alone to tell you about family history.

We will continue to collect DNA results for any participant named Good, Goode, Guth, Gut, Gutt or anything similar or related, and as we begin to see patterns, we will classify and analyze such results accordingly. For convenience I’ll continue to refer to the closely-related Haplogroup L results as the Swiss Goods, at least until we find other Swiss Goods that don’t belong to that group.

I have done some analysis of our existing data for the Swiss Good group with the hope of better understanding what it represents.

What is the typical DNA profile of a Swiss Good?

The first thing I did was look for a modal haplotype. A modal haplotype can serve as a convenient reference for the group as a whole. I used to say, “You belong in the Swiss Good group if your DNA results are pretty close to the data you see in our results table.” Pretty close is probably good enough but not a precise statement. I want to say, “You belong in the Swiss Good group if your 37-marker DNA results are within, say, three differences of the modal haplotype.”

To identify the modal haplotype, I looked for the haplotype (set of values) that had the fewest differences from all the other haplotypes. The winner was the one I have been calling Good-D. 

How are the Swiss Good lineages related?

Because Type D has the fewest differences from the other types, it is most likely to represent the haplotype of the (unknown) common ancestor from whom all the types are descended. Since mutations occur at random generations, each line of descent is bound to accumulate different mutations and a different quantity of mutations. Working from an assumption that Type D changed the least, I puzzled out how the different types are likely to be related, based exclusively on the DNA data. Then, I attempted to relate key ancestors drawn from participants’ genealogical sketches. The results of this effort are illustrated below:

 

 

 

 

How should we interpret the illustration?

The illustration shows the possible evolution of our seven haplotypes from an unknown common ancestor sometime in the genealogically significant past to the thirteen living individuals who contributed their DNA results to our study. The types are based on 37 markers. Later I will comment on what happens if we consider 67 markers.

The illustration assumes that Type D is the modal value and that it has changed the least since the generation of the common ancestor of the whole group.

Only five markers need to be considered. The other 32 are the same for every type; they have not evolved and can therefore be ignored in our analysis. The five markers that did change and their supposed initial values are these:

            385a=16, 385b=20, 456=15, 576=18, CDYa=31

Here’s how each type likely came to be:

Haplotype A: In some generation following the common ancestor, the marker called 456 changed from 15 to 16 repeats. After one or more generations, marker 385a changed from 16 to 15. One or more generations later, marker 385b changed from 20 to 19. Another one or more generations passed and our Type A contributor was born with the following accumulated DNA markers:

            385a=15, 385b=19, 456=16, 576=18, CDYa=31

Haplotype G: In some generation following the common ancestor, the marker called 456 changed from 15 to 16 repeats. After one or more generations, marker 385a changed from 16 to 15. One or more generations later our Type G contributor was born with the following accumulated DNA markers:

            385a=15, 385b=20, 456=16, 576=18, CDYa=31

Haplotype C: In some generation following the common ancestor, the marker called 456 changed from 15 to 16 repeats. One or more generations later our Type C contributor was born with the following accumulated DNA markers:

            385a=16, 385b=20, 456=16, 576=18, CDYa=31

Haplotype D: In the generation following the common ancestor, no markers changed. Our Type D contributors were born with the same DNA marker values as the common ancestor of the whole group:

            385a=16, 385b=20, 456=15, 576=18, CDYa=31

Haplotype F: In some generation following the common ancestor, the marker called CDYa changed from 31 to 32 repeats. Also, in some generation marker 576 changed from 18 to 19. It is unlikely that both markers changed in the same generation and we don’t know in what sequence they changed. One or more generations later our Type F contributors were born with the following accumulated DNA markers:

            385a=16, 385b=20, 456=15, 576=19, CDYa=32

Haplotype E: In some generation following the common ancestor, the marker called CDYa changed from 31 to 32 repeats. Also, in some generation marker 576 changed from 18 to 19. It is unlikely that both markers changed in the same generation and we don’t know in what sequence they changed. One or more generations later marker CDYa changed again, this time from 32 to 33 repeats. After one or more generations our Type E contributor was born with the following accumulated DNA markers:

            385a=16, 385b=20, 456=15, 576=19, CDYa=33

Haplotype B: In some generation following the common ancestor, the marker called 385b changed from 20 to 19 repeats. One or more generations passed and our Type B contributor was born with the following accumulated DNA markers:

            385a=16, 385b=19, 456=15, 576=18, CDYa=31

How well do the genealogies fit the analysis?

There are many gaps in our data, both genetic and genealogical. We have very few samples so we would not expect to discover in which generation each DNA mutation happened. At best, we might be able to deduce the sequence in which they happened. Nonetheless, there actually does seem to be a case where we know exactly where the mutation occurred (look at Haplotypes E and F, below).

Consider each case:

Haplotype A reports that Hans Gut, born before 1602, is the oldest known ancestor on that line. We do not have enough information to know exactly where to place him in the generations since the common ancestor of the group.

Haplotype G reports that John Good, born 1815, is the oldest known ancestor on that line. We do not have enough information to know exactly where to place him in the generations since the common ancestor of the group.

Haplotype C reports that Peter Gutt, born ca. 1525, is the oldest known ancestor on that line. We do not have enough information to know exactly where to place him in the generations since the common ancestor of the group.

Haplotypes D, E, and F all report that Andreas Gutt, born ca. 1530, is the oldest known ancestor of all of those lines. They also all report Jacob Guth, born 1657 as an ancestor of a generation subsequent to that of Andreas. Logically, both of these common ancestors must have been from generations before any of the mutations that are seen in Types E and F, since some of their descendant lines (type D) don’t have them.

Type D participants report descent from Jacob Good, born ca. 1680, while E and F descend from his brother Peter Good, b. ca, 1690. Both are the sons of Jacob Guth, b. 1657 mentioned above. And here we must draw a conclusion that seems completely unlikely:  It appears that both mutations CDYa=32 and 576=19 appeared together in the generation of Peter Good, b. ca 1690. They don’t appear at all in the descendents of his brother, yet they appear in all of the (known) descendents of two of his sons. 

Type F descends from Peter’s son Jacob Good, born 1712. Type E descends from another son, Christian Good, born 1715. Peter Good’s generation must have been before the mutation that defines Type E (CDYa=33). That mutation could have occurred anytime from Christian’s generation onward.

We have no genealogical information concerning Haplotype B. The mutation that defines Type B could have occurred in any generation after the common ancestor.

What happens when we include results from markers 38 to 67?

Of the thirteen Swiss Good participants, six have opted to extend their testing to 67 markers. Only two of these show any difference from the rest, and each difference is on a different marker. Both participants are from Type D. Herbert Good shows a value of 12 (instead of 11) for marker 406S1, and Alan Good shows a value of 25 (instead of 24) for marker 481. If we were to show these on the illustration we would need to show them as new haplotypes unique to only one participant each, rather like Haplotype B.  And like Type B we would be unable to identify the point at which the new types evolve from Type D.

What are the risks of this analysis? What could be wrong?

The sample is very small and very incomplete – there are many gaps. The small numbers of participants can distort our view and lead us to false conclusions.

The assumption that Haplotype D is the best modal may change with more participants. In fact, we could choose any type as the modal and calculate everything else off of that, but it would lead to more complex and less likely interpretations. Type D was chosen because it is the most like all the other types. The maximum difference between Type D and the most outlying type is three.  If, say, type A were chosen as the modal, the maximum difference would be six.

There may be errors in the genealogies (there almost certainly are.) There may be lab errors in the results (possible but highly unlikely). I could have made blunders in transcribing data from its sources or in adding numbers. I make such errors frequently.

My analysis may be naïve or it may overlook important facts. Other interpretations of the same data are possible. One of you may have a more compelling interpretation to offer.

What are some implications of this analysis?

This analysis is an exploration, not the final word. It is part of a process and will change as we accumulate more data. We need many more results. This kind of analysis makes much more sense with more data.

FTDNA guidelines concerning the probability that two participants are related within some number of generations might need to be re-weighted as you near the modal value. For instance, Robert A Good and Herbert Good are both on Haplotype D. The FTDNA guidelines say that we are almost certainly related within a very few generations. Yet, given the information we have we nonetheless do not know where to place our common ancestor along the Type D spectrum from the group’s common ancestor to the present, making the guideline useless.  Feel free to dispute this opinion.

Here is an interesting note for future consideration: Our Haplotype D seems to be very close to the modal haplotype for greater Y-Haplogroup L2a.  More on this in a later article.

Resources

I drew upon the following resources for this analysis:

Fitzpatrick, C. & A. Yeiser. (2005). DNA & Genealogy. Fountain Valley, CA: Rice Book Press.

Smolenyak, M.S. & A. Turner. (2004). Trace your Roots with DNA. Rodale.

NETWORK 4.5  [Computer software]. Flexus Technology, Inc.:  www.flexus-engineering.com.

NETWORK software can be downloaded free from the indicated Web site. It is useful in drawing  cladograms and identifying modals. Cladograms are diagrams somewhat similar to the one I prepared for this analysis. They are intended to show family relationships between members of families. They are also sometimes called phylogenetic trees.

What next?

We have made considerable progress over the last two years. By comparing our DNA results with the results and the genealogies of other participants, many of us are developing a much clearer picture of where our family history fits among the various Guth/Gutt/Good lineages and all of us are moving toward a better understanding of the big picture. As the study continues we will learn much more. But we need more results.  We need your participation. Every bit of data we receive enriches us all.

How to participate in our Guth/Gutt/Good DNA study

Our scope of interest includes the surnames Good, Goode, Guth, Gut, Gutt and similar, such as Gott, Gotti, Gotone, Goede, Goethe, Bueno, Bono and many others, plus any individual who appears to be closely connected to these surnames such as adoptees or name changes. Most of our newsletter readers are interested in the Swiss Goods so we have a majority of results from that category, but we are interested in the story of all the Goods, not just the Swiss ones.

If you want to contribute to the study and see just where your line of descent fits in, please read the following:

1. We've been recommending that participants order tests online from Family Tree DNA. www.ftdna.com.

2. Surname studies like this one use genetic markers from the Y-chromosome, which is passed from father to son through the generations. Only DNA from males is useful for this purpose. If you are female, you will need to find a close male relative (father, brother, cousin, uncle) with the target surname (Guth, Gut, Good, etc.) to provide the DNA sample.

3. You should order the 37-marker test if you can. Family Tree DNA calls this test Y-DNA37 and prices it at US$259.  The $US149 12-marker test (Y-DNA12) will immediately reveal whether or not your ancestry is similar to our existing participants and you could upgrade to 37-markers later. The best alternative, although most expensive, is to go for 67 markers. (Note that I haven’t confirmed these prices lately. I believe they have recently changed downward. -- rg)

4. You can save $US50 on the 12-marker test by ordering the Y-DNA test from the National Geographic Genographic Project. Their price is $US99. The test is the same as Family Tree DNA Y-DNA12 – in fact, Family Tree DNA does the testing for National Geographic and if you take this path you can still order upgrades later from Family Tree DNA.

5. If you are participating in the study, we would also like a genealogical sketch of your ancestors on the male line, starting with your grandfather and going back as far as you know about. You can use the genealogical sketches on the newsletter's DNA results page for models. These sketches help us associate DNA results with specific Guth/Gutt/Good lineages.

6. We will use your personal name in the study only if you give us permission, so be sure to tell us your preference.

7. When you order your test, be sure to let us know that it’s in the pipeline. Family Tree DNA often takes many weeks to process results, so patience is required.

Please contact me (goodDNA@RobertAGood.com) if you have any questions or comments or need some help with the process. We look forward to seeing your results!

 

End of GGG No. 074

 

______________________________________________________

 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 075, Nov/Dec 2008

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

Three new participants

During the past few weeks three new participants have joined our DNA study. These are Arnold Robert Good, Charles Oldom Good, and an anonymous contributor surnamed Gut who is a modern resident of Canton Zürich in Switzerland. We will refer to this contributor as “Anon4”. The new DNA results and a brief genealogical sketch for each new participant have been added to our results chart at http://www.gutthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html.

Arnold Robert Good

Arnold Good’s results are identical to those of Kenneth J. Good and Roland Rose so we have assigned them to the same haplotype, namely Good-F. According to their genealogies, Arnold and Kenneth both descend from Peter Good, b. ca. 1690, who immigrated on the ship “Molly” and who had four wives, as well as from Peter’s son Jacob and grandson Jacob, but from different great-grandsons. Since their most recent common ancestor falls within seven generations, it is not surprising that their DNA results would be quite similar. We have seen that several of the Swiss Good lines of descent seem to be quite stable, with few changes over the generations. On the other hand, along the lines that include Peter with four wives (i.e. haplotypes E and F) there seems to be an inexplicable log-jam of mutations. We will want to look at this phenomenon more closely as more results accumulate.

Charles J. Good

Charles Good is a distant cousin of Herbert Good, our newsletter editor. His results include a value of 12 for marker 406s1, as do those for Herbert. They are the only two participants so far with this value for marker 406s1. Charles, however, also shares a value of 19 on marker 385b with participant Anon1 and Herbert does not. In fact, based on 37 markers, Charles’s results are identical to Anon1, so we assigned them to Haplotype Good-B. Now, since Charles and Herb share the 406s1=12 marker and they know how they are related, it is likely that this marker will be present in all of their closest male Good relatives. Based on their genealogical sketches, their most recent common ancestor would be Isaac Good, b. 1826. Since descendants of at least two of his sons passed have the 406s1=12 marker, it could have originated no later than this Isaac. DNA results from descendents of the older known ancestors might help Herb and Charles find the connection to the rest of the Swiss Good lines.

Anon4: A Swiss Gut

Our third participant is an anonymous modern resident of Canton Zürich whose surname is Gut. His particular DNA result configuration is new to our study, but clearly falls within the Swiss Good cluster. The results show the rare Haplogroup L shared by the Swiss Good participants and the results are within only two differences from the group’s modal haplotype Good-D.  Since the set of values taken as a whole is unique, I have assigned it a new haplotype, Good-H.

The significance of the new results

The significance of the Swiss Gut (Anon4) is that he represents a line that did not emigrate. All the rest of our Swiss Good participants are descendants of Guts who left Canton Zürich in the 17th or 18th centuries, but here we have a distant cousin whose ancestors remained in the area and yet whose Y-DNA is essentially identical to ours. Several of us have visited Switzerland over the years, noted the presence of Guts there, and speculated about whether they were related to us. Now we know that they are.

In addition, with Anon4 comes genealogical information that was not previously known to most of us. We believe we have identified the most recent common ancestor of the entire Swiss Good cluster, all of us, as well as all the common ancestors of previous generations back to Ruddi Guttan, who was apparently born around the end of the 14th century.  Herb introduces this important material elsewhere in the newsletter. This new information gives many of us a complete 20- to 24-generation record of our male ancestry, from Ruddi Guttan down to our youngest grandchildren and great-grandchildren. And even if there are gaps in our personal genealogical record we still know what family we belong to, because our Y-DNA tells us so. Very few citizens of this planet know as much.

How to participate in our Guth/Gutt/Good DNA study

Our scope of interest includes the surnames Good, Goode, Guth, Gut, Gutt and similar, plus any individual who is closely connected to these surnames such as adoptees or name changes. A large portion of our newsletter readers are interested in the Swiss Goods so we have a majority of results from that category, but we are interested in the story of all the Goods, not just the Swiss ones.

If you want to contribute to the study and see just where your line of descent fits in, please read the following:

1. We've been recommending that participants order tests online from Family Tree DNA. www.ftdna.com.

2. Surname studies like this one use genetic markers from the Y-chromosome, which is passed from father to son through the generations. Only DNA from males is useful for this purpose. If you are female, or descend from a female Good, you will need to find a close male relative (father, brother, cousin, uncle) with the target surname (Guth, Gut, Good, etc.) to provide the DNA sample.

3. You should order at least the 37-marker test if you can. Family Tree DNA calls this test Y-DNA37 and prices it at US$259.  The $US149 12-marker test (Y-DNA12) will immediately reveal whether or not your ancestry is similar to our existing participants and you could upgrade to 37-markers later. The best alternative, although most expensive, is to go for 67 markers. (Note that I haven’t confirmed these prices lately. I believe they have recently changed downward. -- rg)

4. You can save $US50 on the 12-marker test by ordering the Y-DNA test from the National Geographic Genographic Project. Their price is $US99. The test is the same as Family Tree DNA Y-DNA12 – in fact, Family Tree DNA does the testing for National Geographic and if you take this path you can still order upgrades later from Family Tree DNA.

5. If you are participating in the study, we would also like a genealogical sketch of your ancestors on the male line, starting with your grandfather and going back as far as you know about. You can use the genealogical sketches on the newsletter's DNA results page for models. These sketches help us associate DNA results with specific Guth/Gutt/Good lineages.

6. We will use your personal name in the study only if you give us permission, so be sure to tell us your preference.

7. When you order your test, be sure to let us know that it’s in the pipeline. Family Tree DNA often takes many weeks to process results, so patience is required.

Please contact me (goodDNA@RobertAGood.com) if you have any questions or comments or need some help with the process. We look forward to seeing your results!

 

End of GGG No. 075

 

______________________________________________________

 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 076, Jan/Feb 2009

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

 

We have recently updated our DNA results chart at http://www.gutthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html with updated results from Robert Lee Good and with a name correction for Charles Good. In addition, we wish to modify our recommendations about which lab to use for testing.

Robert Lee Good has recently upgraded his results from 37 to 67 markers. The additional markers do not reveal any unusual or unexpected values. They are essentially the same as those of most of the haplotypes in our study.

We made an error in participant Charles Good’s name. The corrected version is Charles J. Good.

We have also received a few inquiries about using the DNA testing services offered by Ancestry.com. We have been recommending Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) in part because that is the lab every other participant has used so far and the results are consistent and easy to compare with each other.  FTDNA and the lab used by Ancestry.com test different sets of markers, making comparison a bit more complicated (but certainly possible).

Our newsletter editor, Herb Good, has done a careful study of the markers tested and the fees charged by FTDNA and Ancestry.com. Here are Herb’s findings:

 

FTDNA

 

Ancestry.com

12 Markers

US$149

 

33 Markers

US$79

37 Markers

US$259

 

46 Markers

US$149

67 Markers

US$349

 

 

 

 

Ancestry.com is obviously a great deal cheaper and may be a better value.  Its 33-marker panel includes all of the markers in FTDNA’s 12-marker test plus many more, at about half the price.

So, our recommendation as to which lab to use is this:  If you simply want to see whether you belong to our Swiss Good lineage (the only one we have clearly identified so far) you can order the basic test from either lab. If you want a richer result, order as many markers as you can. You can use whatever lab you wish. We will sort out the results for comparison.

Of course, all of our experience to date is with FTDNA. As we work more with results from Ancestry.com, we will surely modify our recommendations from time to time.

There are many additional labs that test for genealogy purposes, but FTDNA and the lab used by Ancestry.com (which I believe is Sorenson) are the most popular at this moment.  Please contact me if you are unsure what to do, at GoodDNA@RobertAGood.com.

Robert A. Good

 

End of GGG No. 076

 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 077, Mar/Apr 2009

 

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

New participants

Many new participants have joined our DNA surname study and some existing participants have extended their results by having additional markers tested. We also now have some results from participants who ordered their DNA testing from Ancestry.com.

 

This increase in the number of participants is an excellent trend. The more samples we have, the more clearly the patterns emerge.

 

Here’s what we have:

 

Dr. Carl Good, III has given us permission to use his 37-marker results from FTDNA. These results are classified as Haplotype Good-B, like Charles J. Good. Carl is a descendant of John Good, Sr. and Susannah, via their son John Jr. This makes him approximately a fourth cousin to me (Robert A.) and no doubt to others.  Carl has recently upgraded to 67 markers but I have not yet seen those results. From the DNA, there seems to be a close relationship between Good-B and Good-D, and the paper trail confirms it.

 

Frank Edward Good has upgraded to 67 markers. Based on 37 markers, Frank’s results classify as Haplotype Good-D. At 67 markers his results are identical to Herbert Good’s. Both Herb and Frank are searching for their connection to the rest of the Swiss Good group, but their DNA results strongly indicate that they will find that connection somewhere in the neighborhood of the Good-B and Good-D types.

 

Benjamin Henry Good, III is a new participant. His 37-marker results classify as Haplotype Good-F, but even at 67 markers his results are identical to the other Good-F participants. They are also nearly identical to Good-E, represented by Robert Lee. The DNA makes it clear that these Good-E and Good-F individuals have a fairly recent common ancestor.

 

Terry Lee Good is a new participant. His 37-marker results represent a pattern we haven’t yet seen in this study, so we labeled it Good-I. Good-I differs from Good-D only by the value for CDYa. For Good-I the value is 32 while for Good-D it is 31. At 67 markers, CDYa remains the only difference between the two Haplotypes. All this suggests a fairly recent common ancestor shared by participants of Haplotypes Good-B, Good-D, Good-E, Good-F, and Good-I.  Again, in most cases the paper trail confirms this idea.

 

We have two new participants who tested using Ancestry.com. Ancestry tests a different number of markers than FTDNA. They test some that FTDNA do not and they don’t test some that FTDNA do. There is enough overlap, however, that we can make some reasonable comparison based on the markers that both labs test. Presenting the data represents some challenges. If you look at the results table you will see that we have coded results from Ancestry in orange and isolated in a separate panel at the end the ones that only Ancestry tests. In spite of all this, if we compare only the markers that both labs test, we find that the results for our new participants who used Ancestry.com seem to fit right into the group.

 

Robert Eugene Good has given us his results from Ancestry.com. Based on the markers shared by Ancestry and FTDNA, his results are identical to those of Haplotype Good-G represented by Virgil Good. A genealogical sketch is not yet available for Robert Eugene Good.

 

André Gut has also given us his results from Ancestry.com. André is a resident of the Zürich area. Based on the markers shared by Ancestry and FTDNA, his results are similar to those of Haplotype Good-G, represented by Virgil Good, differing by one count in marker 365a. They are similar to but not identical to those of Haplotype Good-H, represented by Anon4, who is also Swiss from the Zürich area. Their results differ on only one marker, marker 449. Anon4’s value is 31 for this marker, while all other participants show a value of 30. According to their genealogical sketches, Anon4 and André have descended from different sons of Hans Gutt (the judge) from the early 16th century.

New results table

To accommodate results from Ancestry.com we have modified the format of the results table. The link to the table remains the same:

 

http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html

Problems for users of Ancestry.com’s DNA services

In the last issue of the newsletter I invited you to use Ancestry.com for your DNA testing if you wish. Now, having had some actual experience with that service, I must add a caution: use Ancestry.com only if you want to save money.

 

There are three problems with using Ancestry. First, as we already knew, they test a different set of markers than FTDNA does, and all of our participants to date have used FTDNA. It is awkward to compare results from the two sources. However, we can live with this.

 

Second, Ancestry.com does not accurately identify haplogroups. The results we just included in the study have been variously declared as Haplogroup E3b and O2a.

 

Finally, my efforts to straighten out the preceding situation through their customer services departments have lead to nothing. It is next to impossible to engage anyone there at all, and most of my communications (two out of three) have been completely ignored. This experience indicates that Ancestry’s customer services are unresponsive, in stark contrast to those of FTDNA, who go out of their way to be helpful.

 

For more on this and why I know that Haplogroups O2a and E3b are wrong and L2a is correct, see Comments on haplogroups, later in this article.

 

A problem for users of Family Tree DNA (FTDNA)

Herb and I experienced some confusion lately when a participant reported that according to FTDNA his results were “a close match to…” followed by a list of names, some of which we recognized and some of which we had never heard of, while some we would have expected to see were not on the list at all. It turned out that Herb, me, and the participant each saw a different list of matches on FTDNA where we would have expected to all see the same list. After some investigation we figured that we had each made different settings in our FTDNA accounts on the User Preferences page.

 

In order to have FTDNA show you the broadest number of near matches, pay careful attention to your settings on your FTDNA account’s User Preferences page. We recommend the following:

 

  1. Under “Allow group administrator to send e-mails to your e-mail address: choose “Yes”.

 

Choosing “Yes” for this setting means that you give permission for FTDNA project group administrators to send you e-mails. If you have joined any project groups, their names appear in the upper left corner of the User Preference page. Our study is not an FTDNA project group.

 

My experience over the last couple of years has been that FTDNA e-mails me my own results as they are completed, notifies me of near matches, and occasionally tells me of special pricing on testing. Maybe once the group administrator for the “L” project group to which I belong sent a project report. FTDNA has NOT bombarded my e-mail account with solicitations.

 

  1. Under “Please choose your preference for matching purposes: you are offered a choice of the following two alternatives:

 

 I want to restrict the display of matches only to my Surname Project

 I want my matches to be set against the entire database

 

Choose the second alternative.

 

If you choose the first alternative, you will only receive notice of near matches if the matching person is a member of the same project group as you. Our study is not an FTDNA project, so you will not see the majority of near matches.

 

  1. Under “When displaying matches only show (you can check more than one box):” check all the boxes.

Under this setting you will see FTDNA’s comment, “Please note that depending on your 12-marker haplotype you may see a high number of irrelevant matches under this option. For relevant matches check only the 25, 37 and 67 marker boxes.”  If your haplogroup is L, be assured that your e-mail account will not be swamped with irrelevant 12-marker matches. Haplogroup L is rare, and our Swiss Good family seems clearly isolated within the haplogroup.

 

As an example, you can view an image of my own User Preference page by following this link:

 

http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/UserPreferenceExample.jpg

 

Comments on haplogroups

A haplotype is a set of DNA results. A haplogroup is a collection of similar haplotypes. In terms of human Y-chromosome studies, geneticists have identified about 18 major haplogroups. Each of these Y-chromosome haplogroups represents a separate line of descent along the male line from a common ancestor deep in human pre-history, varying from 10 to 60 thousand years ago. Every male on earth belongs to one or another of these 18 (or so) Y-haplogroups. In addition, there are numerous subgroups. Geneticists can identify the Y-haplogroup and subgroup to which any individual belongs by looking at his Y-chromosome DNA.

 

The Y-haplogroups are officially defined by an organization called the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG). They are defined in terms of DNA markers of a type called SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms). SNPs are a different type of marker than the results we see from labs like FTDNA and Ancestry.com. Markers from these labs are STRs (Single Tandem Repeats).

 

Haplogroup L is defined by the ISOGG as the SNP named M20 being positive. In all other haplogroups it is negative. Similarly, the subgroup L2 requires that SNP M317 be positive, and subgroup L2a requires that SNP M349 be positive.

 

The results that the labs report for genealogical purposes do not in themselves identify the haplogroup that the tested person belongs to, because the results are STRs, not SNPs. To unequivocally identify the haplogroup, labs would have to test for specific SNPs, requiring a different process that adds expense. So to avoid having to test for SNPs the labs develop correlation tables and apply statistical methods so that by looking at their STR results they can make an intelligent guess about (or predict) the SNP-defined haplogroup.  I understand that each lab develops its own methods for doing this and that they do not share.  When there are questions about their prediction, the labs may perform a backbone test, where they actually do test for SNPs to confirm or reject the prediction. Sometimes they charge the tested person for this, sometimes they do not.

 

After receiving my results from FTDNA in 2006, I asked them to perform a backbone test to confirm Haplogroup L (they charged a fee). The result was positive for M20, the SNP that defines Haplogroup L. Several of our study participants have also ordered this backbone test. I then had my DNA tested by EthnoAncestry, a UK lab with offices in the US. The results were positive for SNPs M317 and M349, which means that my sub-group is Y-Haplogroup L2a. And since our Swiss Goods are all closely related as shown by both DNA and traditional genealogies, we are all L2a, beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

To date, Ancestry does not correctly predict Haplogroup L and has not shown much interest in correcting their processes. If you are tested by Ancestry and your results are very close to those of our study participants (within one or two counts based on the markers that both FTDNA and Ancestry test), you cannot depend on their haplogroup prediction.

 

Haplogroup L2a is very rare, and this is probably what is behind Ancestry’s mis-classification. They simply have seen very few examples of L. We are possibly the first they have ever had to work with and their correlation tables and statistical techniques have not yet learned to deal with Haplogroup L data. We hope this situation changes soon.

 

If you have any comments to add on this issue, or if you have questions, please contact me at GoodDNA@robertagood.com.

How to participate in our surname study

Order as many markers as you can from familytreedna.org (FTDNA) or Ancestry.com. Most participants have ordered 37 or 67 markers from FTDNA.

 

Since this kind of study is based on DNA from the Y chromosome, only male DNA will work. If you are female, you will need to find a male relative named Good (or equivalent). For instance, if my niece Susan Good (I made the name up) wanted to see how she was related to the rest of the Swiss Goods she would need to ask Uncle Bob or Cousin Dave or some other male relative in the Good line to provide the DNA.

 

When you receive your results, send us a copy or give us your access information. We do not automatically receive results from the labs.

 

Send us a brief genealogical sketch, starting with your grandfather and working back in time as far as you can. If this information is already in the newsletter somewhere, just point us to where we can find it. You can use the sketches you see on the results chart as examples. The idea is to have some idea of the genealogy of each participant while viewing the DNA results.

 

If you have any comments or questions, or if you need help, please contact me at GoodDNA@robertagood.com.

 

 

 

 

End of GGG No. 077

Beginning of GGG No. 078

 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 078, May/Jun 2009

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

More participants have upgraded their results

 

Two of the participants in our DNA surname study have recently upgraded to 67 markers. These are Carl M. Good and Chester G. Good. These upgrades make our FTDNA results essentially 100 percent 67 markers. All seventeen of the FTDNA results can now be compared to each other based on the maximum available number of markers. In addition to the two upgrades, Robert Eugene Good has added his genealogical sketch.

 

All these upgrades and additions have been included in the results table. The link to the table remains the same:

 

http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html

 

More news on Ancestry.com and haplogroup L

 

In the preceding newsletter I wrote about the problems that Ancestry.com has in accurately predicting Haplogroup L for Swiss Good participants. This issue first arose when Ancestry.com reported a prediction of E3b (and later, O2a) for Robert Eugene Good and André Gut. I contacted Ancestry.com’s customer service and pointed out that I thought these ought to be Haplogroup L. They replied that they would look into it only if the tested person asked them to. Robert Eugene did ask them and they replied that they would do a free backbone test (see newsletter 77), but only if he asked, which he subsequently did. Nearly three months later, having heard nothing, he asked them what was happening. Here is their apologetic response:

“We recently received the notification from the laboratory of the batch results of the most recent SNP testing.  Since so few cases require the SNP analysis, these are batched and tend to take a while to fill the batch and then the processing time also, so thank you for your patience.  I have reconciled the case and the SNP analysis reveals an L haplogroup designation.  As mentioned, the website has been updated with the revised information.

As a reminder, the statistical predictions are not the same as confirmatory SNP-tests. Because the predictions are statistical in nature, they will have an error rate associated with them. The SNP-test is a test that has to be performed in addition to this and is a much more in-depth analysis. ”

I’m not sure what the second paragraph is supposed to mean. Robert Eugene’s haplogroup on Ancestry has indeed been upgraded to L, but André Gut’s remains O2a even though their Ancestry results are nearly identical. Apparently they still have not corrected the process.

 

How to participate in our surname study

 

We now have nineteen Swiss Goods plus a scattering of other Goods in our study. One of the goals of the study has been to distinguish patterns in the DNA results that help researchers decide which lines of descent they should concentrate their efforts on. We need even more samples. Most studies like this one need at least 30 samples and sometimes as many as one hundred before patterns become truly helpful. If you want to participate, here’s how to do it:

 

Order as many markers as you can from familytreedna.org (FTDNA) or Ancestry.com. Most participants have ordered 67 markers from FTDNA.

 

Since this kind of study is based on DNA from the Y chromosome, only male DNA will work. If you are female, you will need to find a male relative named Good (or equivalent). For instance, if my niece Susan Good (I made the name up) wanted to see how she was related to the rest of the Swiss Goods she would need to ask Uncle Bob or Cousin Dave or some other male relative in the Good line to provide the DNA.

 

When you receive your results, send us a copy or give us your access information. We do not automatically receive results from the labs.

 

Send us a brief genealogical sketch, starting with your grandfather and working back in time as far as you can. If this information is already in the newsletter somewhere, just point us to where we can find it. You can use the sketches you see on the results chart as examples. The idea is to have some idea of the genealogy of each participant while viewing the DNA results.

 

If you have any comments or questions, or if you need help, please contact me at GoodDNA@robertagood.com.

 

-- Robert Andrew Good, DNA editor

 

________________

End of GGG No. 078

 

Start GGG No. 079
_______________________
 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 079 Jul/Aug 2009

 
 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 
 
 

All the DNA results to date are included in the results table. The link to the table remains the same:

 

http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html

 

Two new participants have provided their results

We have two new participants in our study. These are Lewis Freeman Good and Dale L. Good. Each tested for 67 markers with FTDNA. Each set of results represents a new haplotype and contains values for specific markers that we are seeing for the first time.

 

I assigned Lewis Freeman Good’s results to Haplotype J, a new type. The results show a value of 15 for marker DYS458, making it the only DYS458 result with that value (so far). These results also show a value of 31 for DYS449, which is shared by only one type (Haplotype H) and a value of 12 for DYS406S1, which is beyond the 37 markers that are used to define the haplotypes but we see it in the results for Charles J. Good, Herbert A. Good, and Frank E. Good. On the whole, it is not yet clear how this set of results might relate to the others.

 

I assigned Dale L. Good’s results to Haplotype K, another new type. These results show unusual (for our study) values at DYS 389-1 and DYS389-2, namely 15 and 31 instead of the usual 14 and 30. Because of certain peculiarities of DYS389, this actually only represents one mutation (see the next section for a discussion). Without these values for DYS389-1 and DYS389-2, Dale’s results would have been classed as Haplotype D, suggesting that Haplotype K stems from somewhere along the line represented by Haplotype D, and the DYS389 mutation occurred sometime after the split. Dale’s genealogy supports this idea, being similar to what we see for our Haplotype Ds and related types.

The strangeness of DYS389

DYS389 comes in two overlapping parts, called DYS389-1 and DYS389-2. Part 1 is located completely within part 2, so that if there is a change in the value of DYS389-1, a corresponding change occurs in DYS389-2. This looks like two changes have occurred, but there is only one, counted twice. Our new Haplotype Good-K illustrates this very situation in DYS389. FTDNA offers a somewhat confusing explanation of how to evaluate DYS389 at this URL:  http://www.familytreedna.com/ftGroupQIGuide.html. Look for item 7.

How to participate in our surname study

We now have twenty-one Swiss Goods plus a scattering of other Goods in our study. One of the goals of the study has been to distinguish patterns in the DNA results that help researchers decide which lines of descent they should concentrate their efforts on. We need even more samples. Most studies like this one need at least 30 samples and sometimes as many as one hundred before patterns become truly helpful. If you want to participate, here’s how to do it:

 

1.   Order as many markers as you can from familytreedna.org (FTDNA) or Ancestry.com. Most participants have ordered 67 markers from FTDNA.

 

2.   Since this kind of study is based on DNA from the Y chromosome, only male DNA will work. If you are female, you will need to find a male relative named Good (or equivalent). For instance, if my niece Susan Good (I made the name up) wanted to see how she was related to the rest of the Swiss Goods she would need to ask Uncle Bob or Cousin Dave or some other male relative in the Good line to provide the DNA.

 

3.   When you receive your results, send us a copy or give us your access information. We do not automatically receive results from the labs.

 

4.   Send us a brief genealogical sketch, starting with your grandfather and working back in time as far as you can. If this information is already in the newsletter somewhere, just point us to where we can find it. You can use the sketches you see on the results chart as examples. The idea is that you have some idea of the genealogy of each participant while you are viewing the DNA results.

 

If you have any comments or questions, or if you need help, please contact me at GoodDNA@robertagood.com.

 

-- Robert Andrew Good, DNA editor

 

_________________

End of GGG No. 079

 

Start GGG No. 080
_______________________
 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 080 Sep/Oct 2009

 
 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

A specific report for this issue has not been completed, as test results are pending.

 

If you are considering contributing to our Y-DNA database, order as many markers tested as you find affordable.  The 67-marker test will provide the best possible comparison between individual researchers.  There are two primary testing facilities, Family Tree DNA and Ancestry DNA.  A third organization is National Geographic; however, National Geographic only provides for a 12-marker test, which is actually performed by Family Tree.  The 12-marker test will provide results, which in most cases will forecast English or Swiss/German roots.  A male donor can only provide Y-DNA material.  If you are female, request a close male relative to provide the test sample.

 

Family Tree DNA provides the 12-marker test for $119.00.

Family Tree DNA provides the 37-marker test for $169.00

Family Tree DNA provides the 67-marker test for $268.00

Shipping and handling $4.00, Cost: $123, $173, $272 plus applicable state tax.

 

http://www.familytreedna.com/products.aspx

______________ 

National Geographic provides the 12-marker test for $99.95

Shipping and Handling is $15.95, Cost: $115.90 plus applicable state tax.

 

http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/ngs/browse/productDetail.jsp?productId=72306&code=MR20027

___________ 

Ancestry.com provides a 33-marker test for $99.00

Ancestry.com provides a 46-marker test for $149.00

Shipping and handling is $5.00, cost: $104 & $154 plus applicable state tax.

http://dna.ancestry.com/buyKitGoals.aspx

 

To view our Y-DNA Results database go to:

 http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html

_______________

End of GGG No. 080

 

Start GGG No. 081

 

GUTH GUTT GOOD NEWSLETER

Issue Number 081 Nov/Dec 2009

 

 

 

III  DNA TESTING

 

Editor: Robert A. Good

 

Guest Editor: Herbert A. Good

guthguttgood@goldrush.com

 

During the last two months we have had several new members who could add greatly to our Y-DNA database by having their, or a close GOOD relative’s, Y-DNA tested, thus increasing our ability to help those without paper trails to focus their ancestral searches on specific lineages.

 

Eydie Keim descends from Clarence E. Good (1895-1960) of Fairfield Co., Ohio.  Her ancestry takes us back to 1809, a very early time period for Ohio.  If Eydie could find a GOOD male relative to have his Y-DNA tested we would have a better understanding of who those early settlers were.

 

Linda Guth’s Great Grandfather was Joseph Guth.  At this time we have very little information on his ancestry, and as a result we really don’t know where to focus our research.  If Linda could get a brother or an Uncle GUTH to contribute, the results should direct us in at least the right direction.

 

Thomas Fortin descends from James Good, who was born in Ireland in 1822.  His last known descendant, Belmont Laurence Goode died in 2008.  Perhaps there is a GOOD son that could add to our database as well as the GOODE Y-DNA project.

 

Michael Good descends from Israel E. Good (1852-1932), and I suspect all the way back to Rudi Guttan.  This line includes many of our members who have already had their Y-DNA tested.  If Michael’s results compare there would be added confirmation of his line of descent.

 

Martin Good’s Great Great Grandfather was Monroe Washington Good, whom I suspect is the son of Jacob G. Good and Catharine Gantz.  Again, this line goes back to Rudi Guttan.  Martin’s test results could verify this supposition.

 

Harley Follmer’s Great Grandfather was Joseph G. Good, whom I suspect was the son of John S. Good and Sarah Grimm.  Again, this line goes back to Rudi Guttan.  When a lad, Harley used to visit Joseph, perhaps he has contact with a male GOOD descendant who would volunteer to have his Y-DNA tested.

 

Joseph R. Guth, Senior and Junior, descend from Hungarian Guths.  We have just a few Hungarian Guths in our membership, but if Joseph Sr. or Jr. were to have their Y-DNA tested it would provide us with a specific area of interest for research in the Old Hungarian Kingdom, an area where there has been termendous upheaval and population displacement during the last century.

 

As you can see by reading through the above list of new members, it has been an exciting two months for our research group, with great potential for advancing our knowledge of who we are, and from whence we came.

 

If you are considering contributing to our Y-DNA database, order as many markers tested as you find affordable.  The 67-marker test will provide the best possible comparison between individual researchers.  There are two primary testing facilities, Family Tree DNA and Ancestry DNA.  A third organization is National Geographic; however, National Geographic only provides for a 12-marker test, which is actually performed by Family Tree.  The 12-marker test will provide results, which in most cases will forecast English or Swiss/German roots.  A male donor can only provide Y-DNA material.  If you are female, request a close GOOD male relative to provide the test sample.

 

Family Tree DNA provides the 12-marker test for $119.00.

Family Tree DNA provides the 37-marker test for $169.00

Family Tree DNA provides the 67-marker test for $268.00

Shipping and handling $4.00, Cost: $123, $173, $272 plus applicable state tax.

 

http://www.familytreedna.com/products.aspx

______________ 

National Geographic provides the 12-marker test for $99.95

Shipping and Handling is $15.95, Cost: $115.90 plus applicable state tax.

 

http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/ngs/browse/productDetail.jsp?productId=72306&code=MR20027

___________ 

Ancestry.com provides a 33-marker test for $99.00

Ancestry.com provides a 46-marker test for $149.00

Shipping and handling is $5.00, cost: $104 & $154 plus applicable state tax.

http://dna.ancestry.com/buyKitGoals.aspx

 

To view our Y-DNA Results database go to:

 http://www.guthguttgood.com/DNA/guthguttgood_DNA_Results.html

 

All test results are confidential.  Sharing the test results, and/or your name, is voluntary.  The test results do not provide medical information, just a male line of descent.

 

______________________________________________________

End GGG No. 081

Begin GGG No. 082