Analysis of Munster, Ireland cluster – Casey Surname - Haplogroup L226+
(includes submissions that mostly have recent ties to southwestern Ireland)

Date: August 31, 2011
Version 3A

What is new from previous analysis:

This analysis includes one new submission tested with FTDNA, submission 190465 (67 markers). It also includes a new section that analyzes the rarity of marker values found in this cluster and the DNA fingerprint of this cluster based on the rare marker values. Also, Y-Search ID EXQ84 joined the Casey DNA Project (submission N42374). Also, research of the deep ancestry of this line (L226) has been added. Added new upgrade options for Ancestry.com submissions. Added implications of the exciting new Kersey submission.

Feedback, additions and corrections are encouraged

I am sure I may have made some mistakes in this analysis. I welcome input on this analysis (both positive and negative). Be gentle and kind on the negative - but also be firm. I need more direct feedback on questions, concerns, corrections, etc.

Step 1) - Identify cluster to analyze

The Munster, Ireland cluster is the third largest grouping of submissions found in the Casey DNA project. This grouping of submissions is closely related and should be considered a genealogically significant cluster. This cluster is very easy to define as there are no other Casey submissions that appear to be closely related in the last 200 to 300 years. This genealogical cluster has been tested positive for marker L226 for deep ancestry. All Casey submissions that test positive for L226 belong either to this cluster or the South Carolina cluster.

This cluster probably shares a common Casey male ancestor with the South Carolina Casey cluster and the analysis of the MRCA of each cluster is dependent on the analysis of the other related cluster. These two clusters belong to what I label as a "surname" cluster as both clusters probably share a common Casey male ancestor after our Casey ancestors first started using surnames around 600 years ago. Since it would be virtually impossible to ever find supporting traditional documentation to support any connections found in this time frame, these clusters will be kept as two separate genealogical clusters. To reduce confusion about any genealogical connections between these two clusters, these clusters will remain separated as it is extremely unlikely that we will ever be able to put names, dates or places on any genetic connections found between these two related clusters.

With the exception of one submission that only has early ties to South Carolina, all submissions in this cluster have their lines traced back to southwestern counties of Ireland which is known as Munster, Ireland. Since this geographic area dominates this cluster, this cluster has been labeled the Munster, Ireland cluster. Several submissions in this cluster have only minimal traditional documentation submitted to the Casey DNA Project for analysis. As more traditional documentation becomes available to analyze, this could influence the current label assigned to this cluster.

Step 2) - Verify cluster with DNA evidence

Even though it is very obvious which submissions belong to this genealogical cluster, we still need to verify that all submissions are closely related within this cluster. We can verify those submissions that belong to this cluster by checking for all submissions that exceed 50 % probability at 12 generations using FTDNA MCRA utility (speculative personal definition of a genealogical cluster). Also, any 12 marker submissions are evaluated as possible candidates to belong to this cluster. With only 12 markers, assigning 12 marker submissions to this cluster is the only analysis that can be performed. Any assignment of 12 marker submissions should be considered extremely speculative in nature due to the small sample size of markers available to analyze.

This iteration of analysis found eight submissions that were closely related (six submissions have 67 markers and two submissions have 43 markers). The table below show the number of mutations from the true MRCA haplotype and the degree of relatedness as shown by the FTDNA MRCA calculator at 12 generations (genealogically significant time frame of 300 years). Unfortunately, the FTDNA MRCA utility does not allow the manual entry of the MRCA DNA values as only real submissions can be compared. The MRCA for this cluster is not well defined to date. The table below uses Michael of County Limerick as the MRCA which is the best choice (two mutations from the true MRCA) but does not result in very accurate analysis:

No submission in this cluster matches the MRCA – submission 34073 is two mutations from the true MRCA and was used as the MRCA haplotype in order to use the FTDNA MRCA utility. Since submission 34073 is two mutations from the true MRCA, percentages would even out when a new submission becomes available that better matches the true MRCA. Submissions that are more distantly related (131349 and 53484) would gain relatedness and submissions that are more closely related (56031, 190465 and N42374) would decrease in relatedness. Additional submissions are needed to determine the true MRCA haplotype and hopefully a future submission will more closely match the MRCA of this cluster. The relatively low degree of releatedness suggests that the oldest common ancestor may be older than 300 years.

Below is a list of 12 marker candidates that have a possibility of belonging to the Munster, Ireland cluster but have insufficient markers tested to verify with any certainty. These submissions require upgrades to more markers to get definitely assigned to the Munster, Ireland cluster. Additionally, there is little or no traditional documentation to connect these lines to the Munster, Ireland cluster:

The table below compares the MRCA from the South Carolina cluster to the MRCA of the Munster, Ireland cluster. This table clearly shows that these submissions are not closely related in the genealogical time frame of 300 years (12 generations). Researchers of the Munster, Ireland cluster should not expect these submissions to be closely related enough to warrant traditional research in connecting these lines. This eliminates all Casey lines found in the South Carolina cluster as being closely related to the Munster, Ireland cluster in a genealogical time frame:

Obviously there are no other members of the Casey DNA Project that are closely related to the Munster, Ireland cluster in a genealogical time frame (200 to 300 years). This analysis confirms that the cluster defined as the Munster, Ireland cluster is a valid genealogical cluster and that all submissions in this cluster are probably related in a genealogically significant time frame (possibility of sharing a common ancestor in 200 to 300 years). The inclusion or exclusion of any 12 marker submissions is very problematic.

The FTDNA MRCA utility does not allow the manual entry of marker values for analysis and is limited to analysis of only submissions that have tested with FTDNA and that have officially joined the Casey DNA Project. Therefore, the two Ancestry.com submissions are not available for analysis by the FTDNA MRCA utility.

The two Ancestry.com submissions are missing five markers found in FTDNA 37 marker submissions and have only two common markers for markers 38 through 67. They also have nine additional markers that are not included the 67 marker FTDNA submissions. FTDNA continues to be the leading edge DNA testing company for genealogists and recently made available upgrade options for Ancestry.com submissions. For only $58, the two Ancestry.com submissions can upload their Ancestry.com markers into the FTDNA database and get tested for FTDNA 37 markers ($169 value). This results more compatible markers (tests the missing five markers for FTDNA 37 markers), allows options to upgrade to 67 and 111 marker and leading edge Y-SNP testing options. It also allows access and searching of a myriad of FTDNA databases, FTDNA MRCA calcuators and other advanced benefits of testing with FTDNA. The new 111 marker FTDNA test includes all Ancestry.com markers. Inconsistencies in offerings between testing companies create significant drawbacks in analyzing submissions from other testing companies that are incompatible with FTDNA submissions and are not part of the FTDNA databases.

Step 3) - Determine solid NPE candidates

Determine if any possible non-Casey submissions are good "Non Paternity Event" (NPE) candidates that should be included in the Munster, Ireland cluster. Check non-Casey members that are part of Casey DNA Project and that may belong to this cluster. Currently, all closely related submissions in the Casey DNA Project have the Casey surname. Next, look at the Y-Search database to validate non-Casey submissions that could be NPEs. Must rule out overlapping haplotypes (where unrelated lines overlap due to having common marker values). If few non-Casey surnames appear to be within 6 mutations at 32 or more markers, then it is much more likely that those submissions may have Casey DNA but not a Casey surname. If most submissions do not have the Casey surname, then overlapping haplotypes probably exist and possible NPE connections would be less likely.

At 32 markers, there were 129 submissions found in Y-Search that had six or less mutations. The number of markers was selected at 32 markers as this is the common subset between FTNDA 37 marker test and most Ancestry.com submissions. Although Y-Search does allow the manual entry of marker values for the true MRCA haplotype of the Casey Munster, Ireland cluster, submission 34073 (SMRVQ) was used to consistent with analysis in other sections:

Obviously, maintaining a 75 % NPE rate is unrealistic. At 12 generations, true NPE rates would be in the 10 to 15 % range and totally overlapping haplotypes would range from 90 to 95 % NPE rates. This suggests that around 10 to 15 % of the non-Casey submissions could be NPE connected and are worthy of further investigation but 85 to 90 % of the non-Casey surnames are probably overlapping haplotypes (common DNA marker values). The table above clearly exhibit unrealisticly high NPE rates that is extremely unlikely and implies that the vast majority of these non-Casey submissions are probably not genealogically related.

There are several surnames with multiple submissions which suggests that some NPE connections may be possible but most submissions will be overlapping haplotypes (common marker values). There are also many surname variations that could reduce the NPE ratio as well (ten submissions of McGrath, McGraw, McCraw, McCray). There are only six Casey submissions in the above Y-Search query out of 129 matches. The most common surname is O'Brien which has five submissions each which could be a possible NPE connection. There are also ten submissions for McCraw/McGraw surname variations that could be another NPE connection.

Several non-Casey submissions also have common geographic connections to Munster, Ireland and South Carolina. Some geographic connections include: County Clare, Ireland - O'Brien (2) and McCraw (1), County Limerick, Ireland - Upton (1) and Hannon (1), County Tipperary, Ireland - Hogan (1), County Cork, Ireland - Kelly (1), Dailey (1), and Murphy (1), South Carolina - Cowan (1). These surnames have common geographic ties which is required for the NPE event to take place.

Another methodology for determining the mix of NPE candidates vs. overlapping haplotypes can be found with the uniqueness of the DNA fingerprint of the Munster, Ireland MRCA haplotype. The marker values of the Munster, Ireland MRCA haplotype were compared to marker values found in the frequency distribution table which summarizes 22,000 R1b submissions and to around 300 L226 submissions. These weights are merely the inverse of the distribution percentage and are used to detemine the uniqueness of each marker value (the rarer the marker values results in higher weights). However, not all markers are equal since many mutate faster and have a significantly higher diversity of marker values. The delta weight is a more accurate representation of rarity that takes the mutation rate into consideration. The delta weight is the difference rarest marker value of the Munster, Ireland MRCA and the most common marker value for all 22,000 R1b (or L226) submissions. CDYa, CDYb and 456 are fast mutating markers and have significant marker value diversity which significantly reduces the delta weight. Markers 459a, 459b and 413a mutate much slower and have less diversity of marker values which does not reduce the delta weights as much. Unique marker values for this cluster include:

When compared to other clusters, a delta weight of 540 indicates an above average rarity of a DNA fingerprint. The uniqueness of the DNA fingerprint for this cluster is also another indicator of the percentage of NPE events vs. overlapping haplotypes. Very low delta weights imply the vast majority will be overlapping haplotypes. Very high delta weights suggest NPE events are much more likely. This relatively above average DNA fingerprint suggests many NPE events are possible but the majority will be overlapping haplotypes.

The above table not only assists in determining the probability of NPE connections but also identifies the DNA fingerprint of the Munster, Ireland cluster when compared to all L226 haplogroup submissions. The L226 Off Modal mutations represents the unique DNA fingerprint of this cluster within the L226 haplogroup. When searching for possible NPE connections, the L226 off modal fingerprint can be used to identify possible NPE submissions that have the same L226 off modal DNA fingerprint.

Conlcusions:

With 129 submissions that that have six or fewer mutations at 32 markers and only six Casey submissions found, the vast majority of the non-Casey submissions are overlapping haplotypes vs. possible NPE events. However, ten to fifteen percent of these non-Casey submissions could be NPE related to this Casey cluster. The researchers of this cluster should continue to look for NPE connections as they could prove invaluable to the understanding this cluster. Future iterations of analysis will attempt to validate some of the better NPE candidates.

The uniqueness of the DNA fingerprint for this cluster is above average in rarity when compared to other clusters. The R1b1a2 grouping scored only a delta weight of mere 10 (compared to 540 for this cluster). The South Carolina cluster scored a delta weight of 723 which is believed to be a rare DNA fingerprint. At this point in time, it will be difficult to determine these NPE connections, however, NPE rates found with Y-Search analysis and the marker rarity analysis support several NPE connections are possible - even though the vast majority of closer related non-Casey submissions will be overlapping haplotypes.

From a purely genetic point of view, the off-modal mutations from the L226 MRCA haplotype is probably more important than the genetic difference for NPE candidates. The marker values 413a = 21 and 534 = 14 provide a unique fingerprint for this cluster. Only one non-Casey surname was found with 413a = 21 and 534 = 14 within all known L226 submissions. This matching submission is FTDNA 47302 and Y-Search J6J7J and lists Thomas McLain, b. 1771, d. 1855 in North Carolina as the ancestor of this submission (tested for 67 markers). A search of Y-Search revealed another descendant of Thomas McLain was tested by FTDNA (ID unknown) and has Y-Search ID WFDPF (tested at only 37 markers and does not have 413a tested). From a genetic point of view, the McLain cluster provides the best match for the DNA fingerprint of the Munster, Ireland cluster.

Step 4) - Determine possible surname cluster

Determine if other distantly related clusters exist that could be distantly related to this cluster (when our ancestors first started using surnames approximately 24 generations ago - around 600 years ago). This is extremely important in determining the haplotype of the MRCA of each cluster. Even though there is almost no chance of solving any genealogical connections (at 200 to 300 years), any possibly related clusters in the last 600 years could result in a MRCA that is common with both clusters. This is extremely important in selecting the MRCA of each cluster. In order to qualify, submissions must exceed 50 % at 24 generations (personal definition of closely related).

The MRCA of the South Carolina cluster is the genetically closest Casey cluster. At 24 generations (or around 600 years when our ancestors first started using surnames), all submissions must exceed 50 %. The Kersey cluster (only one submissions with missing nine markers at 37 markers) is only 3 mutations from the Munster, Ireland cluster. Both the Kersey cluster and South Carolina Casey cluster qualify as a possible related clusters:

Since the percentage of relatedness is only 58 % for the South Carolina cluster, the number of generations may exceed 24 generations. This suggests the common male Casey ancestor may have been earlier than 600 years ago or that these submissions may have just beat the odds and mutated more often than normal. The Kersey cluster is obviously very speculative at this point in time but is now by far the most significant submission for both the Munster, Ireland cluster and the South Carolina cluster. There is only one very old Ancestry.com submission this Kersey cluster (29 markers). This submission is a surname variation of Casey (which is speculative), only submission medium resolution submission has been found (very speculative for a cluster) and this submission resided in England (not consistent with either the Munster, Ireland cluster or the South Carolina cluster).

The Kersey submission shares many key DNA fingerprint mutations which provides extremely strong genetic evidence of being related to these Casey clusters. The Kersey cluster and the South Carolina cluster share three very unique mutations under the L226 haplogroup - 393 (13 to 12), 458 (17 to 16) and 449 (29 to 30). The Kersey cluster is based on only one medium resolution test that is missing other key DNA fingerprint markers and should be considered speculative until more higher resolution Kersey submission are available for analysis. There are Kerseys residing near Caseys in South Carolina that need to be tested. Also, multiple Kersey submissions in England need testing as well. Even with the meager DNA information available to date, the genetic evidence is extremely strong.

The submissions for the R1b1a2 grouping do not qualify as a closely related cluster since submission 56479 tested for SNP SRY2627. It is extremely unlikely that clusters that do not share deep ancestry are genealogically related. Since the deep ancestry for this cluster (L226) originated around 1,300 years ago, it would not be possible for 56479 to be related in the 600 year time frame. Most 37 marker submissions are also 14 to 17 mutations - extremely unlikely to be connected in the 600 year time frame. A few MRCA utility calculations support the conclusion that the R1b1a2 grouping is not closely related to the Munster, Ireland cluster:

Out of the 14 surname based clusters in L226, the Munster, Ireland Casey cluster and the South Carolina Casey cluster share the L226 off modal of 534 = 14. This implies that these two clusters probably shared a common ancestor at the time of the 534 mutation.

There are four possible scenarios for how the South Carolina cluster and the Munster, Ireland cluster could be related: 1) they share a common male ancestor prior to the Casey surname being used (600 to 800 years) but after the creation of their common L226 deep ancestry (1,100 to 1,500 years); 2) they share a common male Casey ancestor after the Casey surname was first used (600 to 800 years ago); 3) The South Carolina cluster is a branch off the Munster, Ireland cluster and the MRCA of the South Carolina cluster is a descendant of some branch of the Munster, Ireland cluster; 3) The Munster, Ireland cluster is a branch off the South Carolina cluster and the MRCA of the Munster, Ireland cluster is a descendant of a branch of the South Carolina cluster.

It is known that the MRCA of the Munster, Ireland cluster is only two mutations from the L226 MRCA at 67 markers. The MRCA of the South Carolina cluster is 8 mutations from the L226 MRCA at 67 markers. This implies that MRCA of the Munster, Ireland cluster is much older than the MRCA of the South Carolina cluster. The submissions of the South Carolina cluster are also much more closely related which further supports the South Carolina originated much closer to today. This makes it very unlikely that the Munster, Ireland cluster is a branch of the South Carolina cluster. Also, the MRCA of both clusters share a common off modal mutation from the L226 haplogroup - 534 (15 to 14). This shared mutation suggests that both clusters share a common ancestor with the surname of Casey and implies the shared ancestor was not before the usage of the Casey surname which eliminates another scenario.

With the recent discovery of the Kersey submission, the genetic evidence implies that scenario 2 is also much more probable. This Kersey submission fits very neatly into the two related Casey clusters. So why do we care about the L226 MRCA ? It is very important for determining the MRCA of the Munster, Ireland cluster and how it connects to the South Carolina cluster. There are several markers where the "majority rules" methodology is inconclusive for determining the MRCA of the Munster, Ireland cluster. Having the L226 MRCA gives more input in determing the MRCA of the Munster, Ireland cluster. We also care about the L226 MRCA in order to determine the DNA fingerprint of the Munster, Ireland cluster (off-modal mutations from the L226 MRCA). Having a DNA fingerprint helps identify good NPE candidates of non-Casey submissions that have small mutational difference.

Step 5) - Determine MRCA haplotype

The next step is to determine the MRCA haplotype of this cluster based on all submissions in this cluster. The methodology for determining the MRCA haplotype that is the commonly used is called the "majority rules" methodology. It is assumed that the MRCA would contain DNA marker values that the majority of submissions in the cluster have. For markers that have no clear majority, the L226 MRCA also sheds light on the MRCA of the Munster, Ireland cluster. For the marker 449, there is an even split of marker values. Four are 449 = 29 and the other four are 449 <= 28. Since the L226 MRCA is 449 = 29, it has been concluded that the MRCA for the Munster, Ireland cluster is more likely to be 449 = 29 and that 449 <= 28 could be a branch within the Munster, Ireland cluster.

Note 1) It is very unfortunate that the Ancestry.com submissions 6FW87 and 43BNV are missing several key markers and these submissions need to be upgraded to FTDNA's 67 markers to test 413a and CDYa to confirm if these submissions also belong to one of the two significant branches in this cluster. With the recent announcement of FTDNA's new offering to re-test these submissions at 37 markers for only $58 vs. the $169 normal charge. With these significant discounts, now is the time to have these submissions tested with FTDNA. Once tested at 37 markers, these submissions would have access to the 67 and 111 marker upgrades, numerous leading edge Y-SNP tests and would enjoy the benefits of the FTDNA databases and tools.

Note 2) Most mutations appear to be unique to each submission. These mutations represent possible branches in the DNA descendancy chart. However, these mutations could have occurred in the earliest two or three generations or could have occurred in much more recent generations. Further submissions of other sons or grandsons of the oldest proven ancestor of each of these branches could reveal that these mutations are recent (and should be filtered out) or reveal that these mutations are close to the oldest proven ancestor and represent early branches of the DNA descendancy chart.

Step 6) - Determining branches within the cluster

In the first pass, all mutations are assumed to be genealogically significant. In reality, additional submissions will later help sort out mutations of earlier generations (very important) from the mutations of more recent generations (not relevant). If the oldest proven ancestor is 10 generations from the donor, only two or three generations of mutations are significant and the other seven or eight generations of recent mutations do not solve any unknown genealogical issues. The recent mutations will be filtered out as they are not genealogically significant. These mutations have an equal chance of mutating for each generation which means that additional DNA submissions of the same oldest proven ancestors will later eliminate 70 to 80 % of all mutations as being recent mutations.

The mutations found in this cluster now reveal one strong branch and one weaker strength branch. With the addition of the N42374 and 190465 submissions, the branches are now much stronger with this larger sample size. The strongest branch is based on several common mutations - 449 (29 to 28), 464c (15 to 14), CDYa (36 to 35), CDYb (38 to 37) and 413a (21 to 19) which are shared by submissions 53484 and 131349. A second weaker branch is defined by 449 (29), 413a (21) and CDYa (36) which is shared by 34073, N42374 and 190465. This is a weak branch since is based on common marker values and is not based on shared mutations from the L226 MRCA.

DNA Results (Munster, Ireland cluster)

This step in determing branches within the cluster requires traditional genealogical information to be reviewed in light of the DNA submissions. Review of traditional genealogical research could allow several mutations to be eliminated from any DNA descendancy chart as recent mutations that are not genealogical significant. The analysis of this step assumes that traditional research is correct. If speculative information is entered as fact, the DNA analysis from this point on could be incorrect. Below are family histories tht have been submitted to the Casey DNA Project for review:

Family Trees (Munster, Ireland cluster)

None of the six 67 marker FTDNA submissions or the two 42 marker Ancestry.com submissions have any known connections via traditional documentation. However, six of the eight submissions have common geographic ties to the southwestern part of Ireland. One submission has no known ties to Ireland and only has ties to South Carolina much earlier than the other lines emmigrated to the United States. Since most submissions in this cluster have recent ties to Munster, Ireland, this suggests that the Elisha Casey line (with early ties to South Carolina) must also have ties to southwestern counties of Ireland. This also suggests that the researchers of the Elisha Casey line should no longer concentrate their research to connect the Elisha Casey line to other South Carolina Casey lines. DNA has now established that the Elisha Casey line is no longer connected to the South Carolina lines in a genealogically significant time frame.

The following DNA Descendancy Chart should be considered very speculative (this chart needs updating with recent submissions):

DNA Descendancy Chart (Munster, Ireland cluster)

Note 1: Submissions 53484 and 131349 are related via common mutations from the MRCA and form a strong branch since they share five common mutations. Submissions 34073, N42374 and 190465 form another weaker branch since they all share common marker values (but not common mutations off the L226 MRCA).

Note 2: The above descendancy chart is the current highest probability scenario and could change over time as additional markers become available, additional submissions are included and more traditional genealogical information becomes available. It should also be remembered that these mutations are assigned to the individual where the mutation first appeared. Over time, most of these mutations will be determined to be recent mutations and will be pushed down the DNA descendancy chart.

Note 3: All lines need at least two submissions from different sons or grandsons of their oldest proven ancestors to filter out recent mutations. To date, no submissions in the Munster, Ireland cluster have tested for multiple submissions per line. This lack of multiple submissions per line greatly limits the analysis as many recent mutations can not be filtered out from genealogically significant mutations.

Step 7) - Conclusions

Conclusions that can be reached with current submissions:

1) DNA evidence supports that almost all submissions in this cluster are closely related but are not as closely related as the South Carolina cluster. All submissions in this cluster have a reasonable chance of being connected together by a combination of DNA information and traditional research. These submissions may have an earlier MRCA than the assumed 300 years due to the number of mutations found in this cluster. These submissions should share traditional genealogical research that could reveal how these submissions are connected.

2) Even with only eight submissions with either 43 or 67 markers, there appear to be one very strong branch and one average branch established for this cluster. These two branches indicate that lines that belong to these branches are more closely related. Submissions with common branches should concentrate their research on submissions within their branch.

3) This genealogical cluster is not a very unique cluster from a DNA point of view. Via a Y-Search with 32 markers and six mutations, a very large 129 submissions were located. This cluster shows major evidence of overlapping haplotypes (DNA submissions with common marker values that overlap with other non-Casey surname clusters). However, it is very likely that some of the non-Casey submissions that have similar Y-STR values may have a NPE connection to the Munster, Ireland cluster.

Step 8 - Possible Action Items for cluster:

1) Any Casey researcher that believes that they are connected to any of these Casey submissions should submit 37 or 67 markers to verify the connection. These DNA submissions could support that connection (encouraging additional research) or would be found not be part of this cluster (eliminating a lot of unproductive research). This is by far the best usage of funds in getting more lines tied together. Most Casey submissions with recent ties to Ireland appear to be part of this cluster – specially the counties in the southwest part of Ireland. If additional researchers of other lines have connections to southwest Ireland, they should submit their DNA to see if their line is connected to the lines in this cluster.

2) Since there are many mutations between the submissions and the MRCA haplotype of this cluster, it would be beneficial to obtain a second son (or grandson) of the oldest proven ancestor of each submission. These additional submissions would assist in the determination of whether the existing mutations are from the older generations or more recent mutations nearer the donor (not genealogically significant mutations). This cluster can not be properly analyzed without these additional submissions and missing key genetic evidence that most clusters have.

3) This project definitely needs more traditional information concerning the Casey submissions in this cluster. Please look at the section – "Munster, Ireland" under the Family Trees menu and send the admin more detail concerning your lines. Without more complete traditional information as outlined in the section "How to Submit" under the Family Trees menu, a complete analysis of this cluster is not be possible.

4) Submissions 57562, N65778 and 129039 are only tested at 12 markers and could belong to this cluster. With only 12 markers tested, it is not even certain that these submissions are even related to this cluster. These submissions need to be upgraded to 37 or 67 markers.

5) There is no doubt that you should compile documentation on all Casey lines found in this cluster and attempt to find connections via traditional research. I believe that future family history publications will not be limited to only family lines that can be connected via traditional research. These future publications should also include lines that are closely related by DNA evidence as well. Hopefully, these new publications will not attempt to speculate too much on how these lines are connected as speculation unfortunately "mutates" into facts if these future publications use less strict standards for proof.