Those who followed my blog at its earlier location know that I periodically review mainstream media articles pertaining to genetic genealogy. It's been a while since I've done that and this one about a great history-mystery caught my eye:
Attempt to ID corpse in Kansas grave fails
I can completely believe that they had difficulty extracting DNA from these remains, but what's perplexing to me is that they had apparently located a relative of John Wesley Hillmon -- the mystery man in question -- to provide a comparison sample, and his name is Leray Hillmon.
The two men having the same surname tells me that they were trying to use Y-DNA since it's passed intact from father to son down through the generations (and hence, follows surnames in most families) -- but that makes no sense for this scenario. While scientists would love to use Y-DNA for such history mysteries, it rarely survives in degraded remains, so they're almost always forced to turn to mtDNA which is more plentiful, and therefore, resilient.
So did the writer get this wrong? Were they just unable to extract Y-DNA, or did they try for mtDNA, too? Did they really expect to be able to match Y-DNA samples? Does anyone know any more about this case? It's just not adding up . . .
Comments (4)
Megan,
Your suspicions appear to be correct. According to an article on the UC website, they had a genealogist look for descendents of the two men who might be buried there. They also state that they are looking for a Y-DNA link.
www.colorado.edu/ptsp/retreatfall2005/three.html
~Sharon
Posted by Sharon | October 19, 2006 5:19 PM
Posted on October 19, 2006 17:19
Wow, Sharon. Now I'm even more confused. The fellow cited in the article you mentioned doesn't seem to be a Y-DNA or mtDNA candidate for comparison purposes, and the odds of Y-DNA surviving in degraded remains are exceedingly slim. It's almost as if the folks involved didn't understand the fundamentals of "ancient remains" and DNA transmission. I'm thinking something must have gotten lost in translation here.
Posted by Megan | October 22, 2006 3:29 PM
Posted on October 22, 2006 15:29
Thought this was an interesting topic and good questions raised. Good example of the old phrase " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".!!!
We have been researching DNA and have participated in Family Tree DNA and joined the National Genographic Project and Y search. I have a genealogy blog and am posting our experiences and results there.
Posted by Randi M | October 25, 2006 8:35 AM
Posted on October 25, 2006 08:35
Hi Randi -- A little knowledge is a dangerous thing? Amen! Thanks for your comments!
Posted by Megan | October 25, 2006 5:44 PM
Posted on October 25, 2006 17:44