Analysis of DNA for Casey lines
Last updated on May 18, 2011
By Robert Brooks Casey (Ambler Casey line)



This web site is the personal analysis of the Casey DNA submissions by this Casey researcher, Robert Brooks Casey. This web site was created to assist other Casey researchers in analyzing the current DNA submissions and to provide input for what is required to allow this project to produce genealogically significant information. This is not the official Casey DNA web site. For additional information concerning the Casey DNA project, refer to the official Casey DNA web site or contact its coordinator (found at the official web site):

Official Casey DNA web site



Introduction to DNA for Genealogy

Information obtained from the Casey DNA Project

Separating submissions into clusters

Detailed analysis of DNA submissions

If DNA tests were only $10 each

Good candidates for more DNA analysis

How many markers should be analyzed

Analysis by Family Lines

DNA Descendancy Chart (SC) - Updated version

DNA Descendancy Chart (Irish) - Updated version

Origins of the Casey Surname

Non Paternity Events vs. Overlapping Haplotypes

Call for better documentation

Please give me some feedback












Introduction to DNA for Genealogy

The analysis of DNA markers provides a new opportunity for genealogists to unravel their family history. This new tool is now producing results that can take some of the guesswork out of adding another ancestor to our family trees. Historically, our traditional research is heavily influenced by geography, family naming patterns, migration patterns, etc. This approach most often leads us to discover new ancestors but it can also lead us into wrong direction as well. Your particular oldest proven ancestor may have broken away from his family connections and traditions. Your oldest proven ancestor may not have named his children after his older generation of relatives or may have moved to new areas where no siblings or cousins lived, etc. Analysis of DNA markers allows us to identify which Casey lines look encouraging as potential relatives and can reduce unproductive research on unrelated lines that ended up in the same county by chance. The Casey surname is a fairly common name, therefore, Casey researchers should expect to regularly encounter unrelated Casey families in the same counties during the same time period.

Unfortunately, DNA research provides its best fit by tracing your "all male" line of ancestors as this is basic biology that limits our genealogical research. The Y-DNA markers (STR) are by far the best for genealogical research and should be 85 to 90 % of all tests purchased. These Y-DNA markers mutate at reasonable rates to be very useful to genealogists. There are female equivalent STR markers that mutate at useful genealogical rates as well - unfortunately there are not enough known markers to be useful for genealogical purposes. There are also two deep ancestry tests - one for "all male" lines and another test for "all female" lines. The deep ancestry Y-DNA markers (SNP) can be useful to genealogists for very specific scenarios. The female tests (MtDNA) have limited usage as well - but are not recommended. It is unfortunate that the best fit for genealogists to trace only "all male" lines. For each surname of your ancestors, you have to get one of your male cousins born with the surname of interest to submit their DNA sample and you have to "sponsor" their submission.

There are two major usages of Y-DNA STR tests. The most powerful and least expensive is to verify if two lines are related or not related. It only takes the DNA of your line and the DNA of the other line to validate any connections between two lines. The more common the surname, the more powerful this kind of testing becomes. The second most powerful usage of DNA is determining the relationship between lines that are beleived to be related but traditional research has proven too difficult to establish with certainty. This is a very long term project that require many submissions selected in a very methodical manner. DNA can be used to map DNA mutations to actual male ancestors and a DNA descendancy chart can be created. The DNA descendancy charts will change over time since mutations may be recent (the donor or his father may be the source of the mutation) or the mutation may be genealogically significant (the mutation of your oldest proven ancestor, his unknown father, sons or grandsons). Also, as more submissions are received, the DNA descendancy chart will change. It takes several submissions for each proven line to determine the DNA of the oldest proven ancestor.

Information obtained from the Casey DNA Project

Currently, there are 33 submissions of DNA to analyze that have the surname of Casey. There is also one additional submission where a Hanvey submission appears to be genetically related to the SC Casey cluster. However, there are five submissions with only 12 markers tested - it is very speculative to analyze any connections with so few markers. There are also two submissions with only 25 markers, you may be able to determine which group (or cluster) of Casey lines are connected - but the actual connection will be much more speculative with missing data that most submissions have. We do have 26 submissions have tested for 37 markers (three are Genealogy.com submissions with only 32 markers in common at 37 markers). These submissions allow a pretty complete analysis. We also have 18 submissions at 67 markers - the maximum available at reasonable charges. Analysis implies that there are probably at least five different clusters to date. Clusters are groupings of family lines that are related in either the genealogically signficant timeframe (where most genealogist will be able to connect lines in the 200 to 300 year timeframe). This means that with only 33 submissions, we have now identified at least five different genetically different Casey groupings. Of these five clusters, one cluster could easily evolve into two clusters (Cluster 3). Also, the two well defined clusters (the SC cluster and the Irish cluster) could also be part of one common genetically significant cluster (sharing a male ancestor in the 400 to 600 year timeframe when our ancestors started using surnames). These two clusters are genealogically different clusters and will remain as two clusters for purposes of easier analysis. The SC cluster and Irish cluster could have a common male ancestor with the surname of Casey, however, it would in the distant past and would be several generations prior to oldest known ancestors of these lines.

The vast majority of this analysis is limited to submissions with 37 or more markers. There are four submissions with only 12 markers and this is really not a sufficient number of markers to analyze. With only 12 markers, only potential assignment to clusters is possible - definitely not enough markers to determine connections to other lines. There are two submissions with 25 markers - enough to definitely reveal an association with a cluster and implication of relationships to other lines - but this would not be enough markers to determine connections between closely related lines. Additionally, there are now three submissions from Genealogy.com who test for slightly different markers. These submissions are missing five markers that FTDNA tests at 37 markers, they only share two markers for the FTDNA markers 38 to 67. They also have nine additional markers not included in the FTDNA 67 marker test. These inconsistencies in submissions require more assumptions that could be later determined to be inaccurate.

The cluster containing the James Casey (VA) line and the cluster containing descendants of the Sinclair Casey (VA) are not related to any other Casey lines submitted to date. These two cluster are assigned to haplogroups that are not normally considered to have Irish origins. There are two possible ways that they ended up with DNA so different from most Casey lines. These lines could be NPEs (Non Paternity Events) - most likely other genetic lines adopted into Casey families in the New World which remains today a melting pot of DNA and cultures. However, even individuals that have 99.99 % Irish DNA can have non-Irish Y-DNA. It only takes one Greek sailor from the to settle in Ireland 1,000 years ago to start a new genetic Y-DNA line. After 1,000 years of intermarrige into Irish DNA lines, the Y-DNA only represents one trillionth of the total DNA of any individual. One one hand, it must be disappointing that these submissions do not have the typical Irish Y-DNA haplogroup that most Casey lines have. However, having an Irish name and non-Irish Y-DNA creates a very unique DNA fingerprint for these lines. These submissions should not assume that they do not have Irish ancestry based on only one trillionth of their DNA.

The SC cluster is the most closely related cluster and it is certain that most of the oldest proven ancestors of this cluster are brothers, first cousins, second cousins, etc. All submissions in the SC cluster are probably related in genealogically significant timeframe (one to four generations from their oldest known ancestor). All submissions in the Irish Cluster also share a common male ancestor with the Casey surname, however, these lines are not as closely related except for the Dennis Casey line and the Elisha Casey line which are closely related. The labels attached to these clusters are significant but some lines that would fit the label are not part of these clusters. All lines in the SC cluster do have ties to either SC or TN. However, the Elisha Casey line has well established ties to SC yet belongs to the Irish Cluster. Three of four submissions that belong to the Irish Cluster have known ties to Ireland but the Elisha Casey has no known ties to Ireland. Also, the James Casey (County Mayo) line also has known Irish connections but does not belong to the Irish Cluster.

The Irish cluster is probably distantly related to SC Cluster in a genetically significant timeframe (when surnames were first used) but not in a genealogical significant timeframe (within two or three generations of oldest our proven ancestors). Genetically, these two clusters probably descend from a common male ancestor that had the surname Casey. Since this connection would probably be 200 or 300 years prior our earliest proven ancestors, these two clusters will remain separated for DNA descendancy charts. Since there is a very good chance that both of these clusters descend from a common male ancestor with the surname of Casey, it is reasonable to believe that their common ancestor have Y-DNA markers somewhere between these two clusters. This common ancestor between the two clusters is very important in assisting the analysis to determine the Most Common Recent Ancestor (MRCA) of each of these two clusters.

The four lines in Cluster 3 are not closely related do not represent a genealogically significant cluster. These four lines are currently grouped together as they could be related in a genealogically significant timeframe. More 37 marker submissions are needed for this cluster to determine any connections. Once this grouping of DNA submissions reaches six or seven submissions, I will then attempt to analyze this grouping of submissions.

Separating submissions into clusters

Analysis of current submissions implies that there are probably at least five different clusters to date. Separating submission into clusters is a very important step in the analysis of DNA for any surname. My analysis is quite unique from other DNA Surname Study web sites as I have really put a significant effort into the separation of clusters and have established some speculative and unique groundrules for separating clusters. First, my clusters are separated into genealogically significant clusters - not genetically significant clusters. This means that my clusters represent groupings of lines that could be connected in two or three generations beyond our oldest proven ancestors. Another methodology for determining clusters could be to group together all submissions that could have descended from a common ancestor with the same surname (genetically significant clusters). However, for genealogical research purposes, it is not very significant to group together lines that can only be connected eight to ten generations prior to our oldest proven ancestors. Most researchers want these clusters defined in terms that will be significant to their genealogical research - therefore, I have created clusters that are genealogically significant. The advantage of this approach results in clusters will imply some possibility of determining relationships between these currenlty unconnected lines. It also implies that lines in other clusters are no longer worthy of research if you are attempting to connect your line to lines in other clusters. Researchers of the SC cluster should not really be interested in the research of the Irish cluster since the connection between these two clusters is five to ten generations prior to any of our oldest proven ancestors. However, both clusters are very important to each other because there is a very good chance that they descend from a common male ancestor that used the surname of Casey.

The approach of creating clusters that only have genealogical significance has major drawbacks. For instance, the SC cluster and Irish cluster appear to have a reasonable chance of being genetically related (common ancestor with the same surname). This possible connection between these two clusters is extremely important to both clusters. If these clusters are indeed genetically tied together then they would have a common ancestor that has a DNA marker set that lies somewhere between the two clusters. This has great influence what DNA marker set that we chose that best represents our oldest common ancestor in each cluster. Another significant limitation is that there is a lot of gray area in the definition of a genealogically significant cluster. There are no well defined methodologies presented in genealogical books on DNA or DNA Surname Study web sites for a systematic definition of what determines a genealogically significant cluster. To further add to the confusion, it is very possible that with today's limited number of DNA markers being analyzed that many clusters could overlap due to inadequate sample size of DNA markers available (yes this does mean we need more than 67 markers).

Fortunately, there have been several tools developed to give genealogists some probabilities of different lines being related. The best utility for this purpose is called a MRCA utility (Most Recent Common Ancestor) and the Family Tree DNA MRCA utility actually assigns probabilities of being related at any number of generatons that you select. Their utility is very easy to use, just identify two submissions to compare and the utility will return probabilities of having a common ancestor for any number of generations that you want to see. The primary purpose of this utility is to give researchers some idea how closely related two individuals might be. However, another key usage of this utility is separating groups of individuals into clusters of lines that have a good chance of being related in a genealogically significant timeframe.

Most genealogical books on DNA analysis present the "majority rules" approach for determining the DNA marker values of their Most Common Recent Ancestor (MRCA) of each cluster. The "majority rules" methodology can be very flawed as it assumes that only submissions within a cluster are genealogically significant (having common ancestors within two or three generations of oldest proven ancestors). DNA analysis is all about probabilities yet lower proabibility scenarios can happen. First, assume that your immigrant ancestor arrived in America and had only two sons. Next, assume that one of these sons had a single mutation that separates him from his father and his brother. If this son that had the mutation had many more male descendants, he would be declared to have the DNA markers that most represent his father (and would be off by one marker). The "majority rules" will conclude that the son with more male descendants (or more DNA submissions) represents the DNA marker set of their common father, however, this is not always the case due the number of male descendants can vary widely between lines and the DNA submission is hardly random in nature (does not result in a statistically random sample set). The "majority rules" only works if the earlier ancestors had many sons (therefore increasing the chances that only one mutation of any particular son would result in many fewer descendants having this mutation). The "majority rules" is also highly dependent the sample of submissions being a good random selection of male descendants within cluster (this is probably rarely the case as not all lines are equally researched or equally documented).

Since the "majority rules" methodology has numerous scenarios that result in flawed conclusions, I looked for another approach that might give a different way to select the MRCA of any cluster. If you merge two "genealogically signficant" clusters into one "genetically significant" cluster, you have a better chance of understanding the DNA marker values of common ancestor that lies somewhere between these two clusters. This "related cluster" methodology could be used to influence the selection of the MRCA of each cluster. The SC cluster and the Irish cluster are obviously two different "genealogically significant" clusters but both clusters might also be merged together into one "genetically significant" cluster for determination of the marker values of the common MRCA of both clusters. The Casey Surname Study is somewhat unique in this respect as related clusters is not that common.

Another common problem of DNA analysis by many genealogists is that few DNA Surname Study web sites attempt to separate "genealogical significant" DNA mutations from "recent" DNA mutations. It is extremely important for genealogists to separate the DNA mutations of generations close to the donor (not genealogically significant) from the mutations of our oldest proven ancestor, his unknown father, his sons and his grandsons. DNA mutations that occur in the three or four generations closest to the donor only assist in separately known events (separately your grandfather's line from his brother's line). If these connections are already well proven, these "recent" DNA mutations do not help solve the task of connecting various lines that have no proven connections. In fact, these "recent" DNA mutations can hinder the analysis as many genealogist use these "recent" DNA mutations as "genealogically significant" DNA mutations. The analysis of the SC cluster already requires separating the "genealogically significant" mutations from "recent" mutations.

For example, the DNA submission of the John/Levi/Francis Casey line definitely has at least one "recent" DNA mutation. The mutation 385b (14 to 15) only separates the descendants of Francis Casey from his brother William Casey. Since this event is already proven and does not provide any new insight to the ancestry of John Casey (MO), it would considered a "recent" DNA mutation. The verdict is not as certain for Francis' mutation 460 (12 to 11). The most likely scenario (highest probability) is that this is yet another "recent" DNA mutation. However, this DNA marker is extremely significant to the SC cluster. The DNA marker has two very important characteristics that make this DNA marker the most important DNA marker for the SC cluster at this point in time. First, this marker separates the SC cluster into large subgroups of lines within the SC cluster (about half the lines have 460 = 12 and half have 460 = 13). Secondly, the John/Levi/William line has 460 = 11 which is a third variation of this significant marker and this variation matches the marker value of the three submissions in the Irish cluster. There is some possibility that the John Casey (MO) line could replace the John Casey (SC) line as the marker set that most resembles the DNA marker set of the progenitor of the SC cluster. Additional submissions from the John Casey (MO) line have some chance to radically change the Casey DNA descendancy chart (it is higher odds that it will not change these charts but still remain a worthwhile opportunity to really shake things up).

A second example of a "recent" DNA mutation is that of the Henson/Jackson Casey line. The mutation 607 (15 to 16) probably only distiguishes Jackson Casey from his brother Arvle Casey. However, the DNA mutation 460 for these two brothers presents a scenario that requires more DNA submissions to solve. There are reasonable scenarios that Arvle Casey has the mutation from DNA mutation 460 (12 to 13) or there is another reasonable scenario that Arvle Casey has the DNA mutation 460 (13 to 12). For the Henson Casey line, this particular mutation has a dramatic impact on how this line fits into all other lines. One scenario implies Henson Casey is closely related to Pleasant Casey and the Hanvey line. The other scenario implies that Henson Casey is closely related to the John Casey (SC) and the Moses Casey (SC) line. A third example where it is assumed that a DNA mutation is "genealogically significant" but could actually be a "recent" mutation. The DNA mutation of the James Casey (SC) line has been assumed to be genealogically significant which may not be the case. Another descendant of James Casey (SC) may not have the DNA mutation 437 (15 to 16) because the donor of the DNA, the donor's father or the donor's grandfather may be the source of this mutation. This would push this mutation further down on the DNA descendancy chart and make this line more closely related to the John Casey (SC) and Henson Casey lines. Only additional submissions of this line will allow this mutation to be classified as "genealogically significant" or just another "recent" mutation.

The submission of the James Casey (VA) line and both submissions of the Sinclair Casey line have less than a 1 of 10,000 chance as being related to other Casey lines in the last 600 years (less than 0.01 % chance). In fact, the estimated haplogroup for the Sinclair Casey (VA) cluster is E1b1a (having primarily African deep ancestry or sometimes Northern African or Middle Eastern deep ancestry). Additionally, the haplotype for the James Casey (VA) line is J2 (having deep ancestry in Central Asia, the Mediterranean and India). The haplotype is deep ancestry that started over a thousand years ago - sometimes thousands of years ago. What is certain is that the Eb1a and J2 clusters are in no possible way connected to the other three clusters that have been establised to date. This means that these two clusters were not genetically connected to the other three clusters when our ancestors first started using surname of Casey. Knowing where your deep ancestry came from 1,000 to 20,000 years ago has very little to do with your ancestry during the last 500 years and has very little impact on your genetic background (less than one-trillionth of your actual genetic makeup). There are bound to be at least ten to twenty different Casey lines which started using the Casey surname but were not genetically related in the last 600 years. However, there is also a high probability that NPE events could have started most of these genetically different Casey lines as well.

For these two clusters with very different haplogroups (deep ancestry is different), it may be possible to to determine the source of the adoption (NPE). If there are a signficant quantity of DNA submissions with similiar DNA marker sets, the surname associated with these submissions may shed some light. If there are ten submissions that are closely related and the vast majority of these submissions have the same surname but one or two submissions, this implies possible NPE events. If there are several surnames found that do not have a common proven ancestor, this implies a "genetically different" cluster. For the James Casey (KY) line, there no other submissions with any surname within mutation distance of over thirty mutations. Therefore, the currently sample size of DNA submissions is not large enough to draw any conclusions at this point in time. The Sinclair Casey line falls into the same category, no additional submissions (with any surname) within a mutation distance of over thirty mutations.

There are thirteen submissions that appear to be closely related to my Casey line (Ambler Casey). This group of submissions (with origins in South Carolina and Tennessee) presently has the most to gain from this project due to early formation of a cluster of ancestors being tied together with very similiar DNA markers. Even the two most distantly related individuals in this cluster have a 96.90 % chance of being related in the last 500 years (99.04 % chance in the last 600 years). This probability was calculated using the FTDNATip utility from Family Tree DNA when using 37 markers. Since both of these have 67 markers available, this MCRA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) Utility shows a 99.48 % chance of a common ancestor in the last 500 years and 99.90 % chance of having a common ancestor in the last 600 years. To date, the John (MO) line and the Jesse E. Casey (& Ambler Casey) lines are most distantly related lines (having three mutations apart). This MRCA utility actually shows this probability for last 24 generations and I have assumed 25 years per generation (600 years). The DNA submission of Jackson Casey was not included in the comparisons as the DNA mutations of this submission must be from male descendants of Henson Casey vs. Henson Casey himself. His brother, Arvle Casey has an exact 37 marker match with John Casey (SC) and therefore, these mutations were not introduced by Henson Casey but probably originated from male descendants of Jackson Casey (in this case either Jackson Casey or the submittor of the DNA).

It appears that several lines with recent ties to Ireland have also formed a "genealogically significant" second cluster. The line of Elisha Casey belongs to this cluster but has no known Irish connections. Unfortunately, other Casey lines with recent Irish origins do not belong to the Irish cluster. The MRCA utility shows that the two most distantly related lines are the Michael Casey (Ireland) line and the Daniel Casey (Ireland)line which have a genetic distance (number of mutations) of seven. These two lines currently have a 88.04 % chance of having a common ancestor in the last 500 years (95.00 % chance in the last 600 years). The MRCA utility is a good tool to verify the formation of a cluster and these three lines are definitely a second cluster.

This utility can also assist in revealing if two clusters might share a common ancestor that used the Casey surname. Being able to determine the probability of two clusters being genetically related is also very important in establishing progenitor of each cluster. If these clusters are related, they would share a common ancestor that have a common DNA marker set that is somewhere between the two clusters. It appears that the SC & TN cluster and the Irish cluster could share a common ancestor in a genetically significant timeframe (in a timeframe when surnames were first used). The two most closely related individuals from these two clusters have 43.14 % chance of being related in the last 500 years (62.51 % in the last 600 years). It is believed that these percentages are high enough to establish that there is a reasonable chance that both lines descend from a very early common ancestor that used the surname of Casey. The two most distantly related lines are John Casey (MO) and Daniel Casey (Ireland) which have a genetic distance of 13 (thirteen mutation differences). Even these two lines have a 16.84 % chance of a common ancestor in 500 years and 32.49 % chance in the last 600 years. Unfortunately, the MRCA utility does not allow manual entry of DNA marker sets for comparison. It would be much more accurate to guess at the marker set of the common ancestor between these two clusters (using a mutation point from the 37 marker cladogram chart). This would represent a better picture how closely related these clusters could be. For two clusters to share a common ancestor with the same surname, it would be acceptable for the two most closely related lines to have 50 % chance in the last 600 years and the two most distantly related lines to have over 20 % in the last 600 years.

The two closet lines included in Cluster 3 are also very distantly related and have only a 3.55 % chance of a common ancestor in the last 500 years (9.81 % chance in the last 600 years). This indicates a remote chance that this could be a cluster but more likely implies that these two lines are probably genetically different lines as well (or form more than one real cluster). The other lines in Cluster 3 with fewer than 37 markers appear to be even more distantly related. I have always known that surnames based on trade or geographical terms would have great genetic diversity but I have been a little surprised that the Casey surname also falls into this category as well. In fact, the Christopher Casey line has higher odds of being related to the John Casey (SC) line as these lines have 8.8 % chance of being related in the last 500 years (20.96 % chance in the last 600 years). This a little bit of let down as I has always falsely believed that most of these Casey lines were related somewhere in the distant past but genetic information tends to shatter this assumption. Also, when you really think about it, there will be probably be a lot of name changes and NPE events over 20 to 25 generations where each male ancestor had several sons each generation. When the odds of being related are this low in last 600 years then it is very obvious that these lines will never be genealogical signficant to each other (in a timeframe reasonably close to our oldest proven ancestors). In fact, the Christopher Casey line has a 21 % chance being related to the John Casey (SC) line. Additionally, the John Casey (AR) line only has a 2.5 % of being related to the its closest Cluster 3 line, the Christopher Casey line. However, the John Casey (AR) has a 20 % chance of being related to the Michael Casey (Ireland) line.

The surname "Casey" is a fairly common surname (364th most common surname according to the 1964 Social Security survey of surnames in the book, "American Surnames," by Elsdon C. Smith). There are an estimated 150,000 individuals with the "Casey" surname in the United States and at least one hundred Casey men that have been declared the oldest ancestor of numerous Casey lines. With 75,000 Casey men living in the United States today, the chance for NPE events and name changes are quite high and each passing generation will create genetically "new" Casey lines. The highest priority of this project is to greatly increase the number of submissions that are "not" known to be related to the current oldest proven ancestors. The descendants of Cluster 3, 4 and 5 should not be discouraged and should recruit new members that they believe could be related to their lines. We also need more random submissions to determine how many major clusters that will form. Currently, this project is probably biased towards the SC and TN lines (long time interest in these lines and previous publications) and somewhat biased towards lines with recent origins in Ireland (the obvious origin of the Casey surname).

For the ten submissions included in the SC TN cluster, two submissions are from the same known ancestor and have identical DNA markers. Another two submissions are from another proven ancestor but have two mutational differences (a third submission is required to truly understand the source of these mutations). A third submission is believed to Casey NPE event (the Hanvey line is believed to really be a Casey line). This leaves nine lines where there are no proven connections between the lines and six of these lines have unique DNA marker sets that can be charted in a DNA descendancy chart. The Ambler Casey line and Jesse E. Casey lines can not be separated - both having common 67 DNA markers. Additional markers beyond 67 markers will eventually separate these lines. However, even with only nine unique lines in this cluster, I am very encouraged of what these samples tell us and I am optimistic that additional samples will greatly help Casey research on the Casey lines of South Carolina and Tennessee. So what have we learned from these early submissions ? First, the SC & TN Cluster clearly validate what we all have suspected, that the Tennessee lines have their roots in South Carolina. We really already knew this from traditional genealogical research - but we now have this fact validated by scientific evidence as well. Second, all nine lines (which are quite diverse) only have one to three marker deviations from the other SC and TN lines. Therefore, there was a big discovery that all South Carolina and Tennessee lines apppear to be much more closely related than anticipated. This means random new entries in this cluster could provide very interesting results.

Third, DNA evidence does not support the speculative connection of Henson Casey being a son of Ambler Casey. This is a little bit disappointing as there was great expectations that DNA would help support this connection. Fourth, there are now three pairs of very closely related lines (exact matches at 37 markers). It appears that the Ambler Casey line and the Jesse E. Casey line are very closely related lines as they both share a common unique DNA mutation for this cluster (CDYb from 38 to 37) and both lines are exact 67 marker match. It appears that the Abner Casey line and the Hanvey line are very closely related and these researchers should look for connections. John Casey (SC) and Moses Casey (SC) is another exact 67 marker match. Fifth, marker 460 mutating from 12 to 13 appears to to be the earliest mutation in this cluster and creates two distinct branches in the DNA decendancy charts. John Casey (SC), John Casey (MO), James H. Casey, Moses Casey and probably Henson Casey form one branch (460 = 12). The Abner Casey, Jesse E. Casey, Ambler Casey, the Hanvey line and possibly the Henson Casey line form the second branch (460 = 13). Sixth, there are several markers that are possible flags that indicate strong connections with certain lines. Ambler Casey and Jesse E. Casey appear to have a unique tag of 460=13 and CDYb=37. John Casey (MO) appears to be identified as 460=12 and 391=10 (even though one submission has 460=11 which is believed to be a recent mutation). Seventh, it is now known that the John Casey (SC) line and the Moses Casey (SC) line currently share the spotlight as containing the markers that most closely represents the progenitor of the SC cluster. The Henson Casey line may share that spotlight but a third son is required to determine Henson's DNA marker sets from his male descendants. Eighth, as more submissions are made, some mutations appear to be recent mutations and are probably not genealogically significant in the analysis of Casey DNA (this point is missed in many DNA web sites). John (MO) has one submission with 385b (14 to 15) which appears to be mutation of William Casey (John's grandson) or one of his male descendants. Abner (TN) has a submission via his sone Turner Casey and the mutation CDYa (37 to 36) appears to be a recent mutation of Turner Casey or one of his male descendants.

Ninth, the two Henson Casey submissions clearly show the importance of getting two sons from one known ancestor. The first submission (Jackson Casey) is now known to have a two marker mutation from his brother's line (Arvle Casey). It is now believed that these mutations may have occured in later generations - and do not represent the DNA marker set of Henson Casey. Originally, the analysis of Jackson Casey line was substantially off due to the recent discovery that these mutations probably occurred more recently and are probably not genalogically significant as first believed. A DNA submission from a third son is now required to determine Henson Casey's true DNA marker set. The conclusions for Henson Casey should be considered speculative until more DNA submissions reveal Henson Casey's true DNA marker set. Tenth, even with very few submissions, there appears to be the ability to speculate on how these SC and TN lines are related based on DNA submissions. It appears that a DNA descendency chart is possible that shows how these lines could be related and is very helpful in determining what kind of submissions are needed next. The DNA descendency chart (shown later in this web page) is a very unique approach that does not appear most DNA projects and should be considered speculative in nature. Eleventh, there still remain several mutations that are assumed to genealogically significant mutations that may not be as significant as concluded in this analysis. The James H. Casey mutation of 437 (15 to 16) is being used to separate this line from others. However, this mutation could be from James H. Casey or from any of his male descendants. If this mutation was recent mutation, the placement of James H. Casey would move up in the descedant chart. Only submissions of different sons of James H. Casey would reveal how significant this mutation will eventually become. Twelveth, there are a couple of mutations that could be much more significant than currently concluded. One submission of John Casey (MO) has 460=11 which is believed to be a recent mutation. However, 460=11 matches the Irish cluster. Future submissions of the John Casey (MO) may reveal that John Casey (MO) could move up to the top of the Decendancy Chart. Two sons of Henson Casey have 460=12 and 460=13, probably the most important DNA mutation for this cluster. This DNA mutation also splits the cluster into two distinct groups. Until additional submissions of Henson Casey are submitted, it is uncertain which group the Henson Casey line belongs to.

Another discovery is that the haplogroups are identified as Irish (R1b1) in 27 of the 30 submissions. Haplogroups are viewed with too much significance by most DNA researchers. These groups are based on common male ancestors that existed 1,000 to 20,000 years ago - not very genealogically significant. You could have a haplogroup that is Asian or Middle Eastern but still have 99.9999 % Irish DNA. A specific test for ethnic background is the only reliable DNA test to determine your ethnic background. Additionally, your haplogroup is approximated by the DNA markers analyzed to date. To determine your haplogroup, yet another DNA set of SNP markers must be analyzed (and that only assigns you to a common ancestor of 1,000 to 20,000 years ago). Research of overlapping haplotypes from the YSearch database imply that some of these Casey lines may have Scottish or English origins and just borrowed the "Casey" surname for some unknown reason or were NPE events (adoptions, etc.). Since most Casey lines are estimated to be R1b1b2 variations, it is most likely that their SNP markers will also reveal R1b1b2 haplogroups (not sure of the genealogical value of these tests). Family Tree DNA and other companies continue to refine and create new branches of haplogroups. All submissions in the SC cluster and the Irish cluster have recently been refined to R1b1b2. I highly recommend not to waste your funds on haplogroups tests (SNP) for genealogical purposes. These test are primarily for deep ancestry and have minimal impact on genealogical studies. There are exceptions to this rule - the Group 3 cluster may be able to further divide this group into multiple clusters based on haplogroups (funds will still be better spent on increasing the number of 37 marker submissions for this group). In the recent past, it is believed that all Casey lines in the SC cluster and the Irish cluster were part of the R1b1b2 haplogroup. Submission 56031 (Irish cluster) has tested special SNP L226+ (not part of current FTDNA SNP tests) and is now believed to be assigned to the haplogroup R1b1b2a1a2f4 (known as the Irish Type III haplogroup). For further information concerning the Irish Type III haplogroup, refer to the web site dedicated to Irish Type III haplogroup:

Irish Type 3 Website

Many of the Casey lines are genetically related to other surnames and some genetically Casey lines will have non-Casey surnames. This complex topic has not been thoroughly researched to date with one notable exception - the Hanvey line (submission 29956). For the SC cluster, every entry in the Family Tree DNA database has the Casey surname and have documented ties to either South Carolina or Tennessee with one exception (one Hanvey line). It appears that this Hanvey line may be a genetic Casey line (NPE) and probably belongs to the SC cluster. The Hanvey line appears to be closely related to the Abner Casey (SC) line and researchers of both lines should exchange information on possible connections. The Abner Casey (SC) line is an exact 67 marker match with the Hanvey line. The Hanvey sponsor is quite certain that the NPE event occured in South Carolina as the Hanvey line originates from Abbeville County, South Carolina and remained in South Carolina much longer than the Abner Casey line resided in South Carolina. After contacting the Hanvey researcher who sponsored the DNA submission, I was informed that he believed the NPE event occurred in either 1865 or 1885. If true, this would be very significant to the Abner Casey line as this means that one Casey line that remained behind in South Carolina is very closely related to the Abner Casey line.

Detailed analysis of DNA submissions



For anyone wanting to organize and group all Casey DNA submissions that we currently have, the only practical method to organize these submissions is to first create groupings based on estimated haplogroups. For the Casey Surname Study, this creates three groupings: 1) haplogroup R1b1b2 (almost 90 % of submissions), E1b1a (two closely related submissions; 3) J2 (one additional submission). Submissions that have different haplogroups are extremely unlikely to be closely related as these mutations are one time only events (in the vast majority of cases). The vast majority of haplogroups are estimated based on STR markers that this analysis is based upon. To actually determine the real haplogroup requires an additional DNA test based on SNP markers. To date, there are three submissions with estimated haplogroup R1b1b2 that have verified the haplogroup via SNP testing:

Irish cluster 56031 R1b1b2a1a2f4 (tested positive for L226) SC cluster 45068 R1b1b2a1a2f (being tested for L226) SC cluster 77349 being tested for FTDNA SNP markers Cluster 3 56479 R1b1b2a1a2c (tested positive for SRY2627)

Haplogroup testing via SNP markers still support the theory that the Irish cluster and the SC cluster could be closely related genealogically since they both share the same haplogroup R1b1b2a1a2f. Submission 45068 is currently being tested for SNP marker L226 to clarify that it belongs in the same branch as 56031. Even though Cluster 3 has the same estimated haplogroup as the SC cluster and the Irish cluster, submission 56479 can not be related to these other clusters since 56479 has a different haplogroup.

Cladogram software graphically displays the connections between the various DNA submissions. Without this tool, it is extremely difficult to manually extract this information via spreadsheets. The cladogram charts should only be used to identify clusters and determine if clusters are genetically related. Additionally, the cladogram charts assume that all DNA mutations are significant to the oldest proven ancestor. In fact, most of these mutations originated with more recent mutations of the DNA donor, his father and other more recent mutations that are not genealogically significant. Also, the cladogram charts tend to oversimplify relationships in their charts. However, they are very handy in quickly and visually showing possible groupings and well-defined clusters. Below is a cladogram chart of all R1b1b2 haplogroup submissions (estimated vs. tested). It uses only the submissions that have all 37 markers. Therefore, Genealogy.com submissions and 25 marker submissions are not included in these charts (software does not handle inconsistent data). However, these omissions really do not greatly reduce the usefulness of cladogram charts separately submissions into groupings:



37 marker Cladogram (PDF)





This chart clearly shows three groupings of DNA. The right side of the chart shows a very closely related cluster (the SC cluster). At the bottom left side of the chart shows a less closely related cluster (the Irish cluster). The top left portion of the chart shows a very loosely related grouping of submissions (Cluster 3). Cluster 3 may be several clusters but with only four submissions - this remains only a loose grouping of submissions. The SC cluster (far right) and the Irish cluster (bottom left) are not too distantly related visually. However, Cluster 3 is obviously very distantly related to either the SC cluster or the Irish cluster. I highly recommend against attempting to use cladogram charts for any kind of connections or determination of MRCA haplotypes. This chart has only three purposes: 1) visually separate submissions into groupings for more detailed analysis; 2) visually determining how closely related submissions are withing these groupings; 3) visually determining how closely related these groupings are to each other.

There is a very big danger in using the cladogram for connections between gropings. Visually, the SC cluster and Irish look pretty marginal on being related clusters. To actually determine the relatedness of these two clusters, a MRCA utility is much better method of measuring any connection vs. visually attempting interpret. Also, if submissions within adjacent clusters have different haplogroups, there is very very little chance of these clusters being related in the last 600 years. I was tempted to omit the cladogram charts in this iteration of analysis since these charts are not properly interpreted by many researchers (including myself in earlier iterations). However, the cladogram is worth the time of entering the data yet again - just to visually show obviously groupings of submissions. I have been looking at other more advanced tools for visually showing all submissions within a haplogroup - but none seemed to really add any more information than included in the chart above.

Cladograms are graphical representations of the marker mutations between individuals. These charts can quickly determine the closeness of relationships between various submissions. The cladogram charts were created using a free phylogenetic network software program offered by Fluxus Engineering:

More information about free cladogram software

Unfortunately, this free software is not for the faint of heart and is fairly difficult to use. Also, the connections presented can be misleading at times but these charts are absolutely wonderful determining clusters and grouping of various DNA submissions. This program determines the simplest configuration which has the least number of interconnections or mutations.

If DNA tests were only $10 each

Unfortunately, charges for DNA analysis will come down very slowly over time (and there will always be more markers made available to quench our thirst for more information). So $10 submissions will not happen in the near future but we could have wealthy person who wants the Casey DNA project to be the best or somebody could put in their will a modest donation to our project. What would we do with these funds and we certainly want to spend these funds wisely. Let us assume that we had $25,000.00 donated to the Casey DNA project tomorrow. Would that be too much or not enough ? Also, we should be assume that we are not allowed to divert the funds to additional traditional research, publishing Casey books or scannning 1,000s of pages of Casey source materials (which might be a better usage of the funds). The benefactor only put three conditions: 1) We would have to present a plan of how the funds would be used and what results would be expected; 2) Only those persons who currently have submitted DNA submissions could participate in defining how funds would be spent. 3) Funds can only be spent on actual DNA testing (not hiring any consultants, other genealogical projects, advertising, etc.)

So if this Casey DNA project already had identified 1,000 random male Casey volunteers willing to participate (all with diverse well documented ancestry back to around 1800) and some private benefactor donated $25,000.00 to the Casey DNA project, what should be done with these funds ? Could we even spend that kind of donation properly (this represents 100 additional submissions with a mostly 67 markers and some 67 marker tests) ? Let us also assume that this donation was spread out over ten months. This means we would have to describe which ten submissions (or upgrades) would be sent for analysis each month and what kind of results we would expect - this would force us to plan ahead and justify which of willing ten percent volunteers would be analyzed and which 90 % of willing participants would not be analyzed. Since over one year has passed since my first pass, many submissions and upgrades have already been completed. Here would be my list:

Month one - Upgrade James H. Casey to 37 markers (done); upgrade John Casey (SC) to 67 markers (done); three more 37 submissions from SC lines that are not related to existing SC lines (but are good candidates to be related - two done - added John Casey of MO and Moses Casey). The third may be done with Ancestry.com submission WN8TRA - but we do not know if this is a new line or an existing line; three more 37 marker submissions from lines with recent Irish origins but good candidates to be related to the currently submitted lines with recent Irish origins (one done via Elisha Casey - it was a surprise that a SC Casey line ended up in the Irish cluster). Two more were done with Genealogy.com submissions - 6FW87 and 42BNV; three more lines of the other Casey lines (only good candidates that could be possibly related to the existing submissions - one done). This may be done with 104397 but it is not kwown if this is a new line or existing line. DNA markers imply that this is a new line - but without traditional documentation, this submission can not be analyzed properly.

Month two - Upgrade Arvle Casey to 67 markers (done); upgrade second SC Casey line to 67 markers (done); three more 37 marker submissions in the SC cluster; three more 37 marker submissions in the Irish Cluster; three more submissions in other Casey lines.

Month three - 37 marker submission from third son of Henson Casey; two more random 37 marker submissions from the SC cluster; two more random 37 marker submissions from Irish cluster; five more submissions from other Casey lines.

Month four - Upgrade John Casey (NY) to 37 markers (done); Upgrade James C. Casey to 37 markers (done); order 37 marker for second son of Ambler Casey; order 37 marker for second son of Abner Casey (done); order 37 marker for second son of Jesse E. Casey; two more 37 marker submissions from Irish Cluster; five more 37 marker submissions from other Casey lines.

Month five - Upgrade three 37 marker submissions to 67 marker submissions (from either SC cluster or the recent Irish cluster - done); Upgrade Patrick Casey to 37 markers and Daniel Casey (Clare) to 37 markers (done); Upgrade Daniel Casey (VA) to 37 markers; two more 37 marker submissions from SC cluster; two more 37 marker submissions from Irish cluster; three more 37 marker submissions from other Casey lines.

We are now half way through our funds and have all known upgrades done and all known fine tuning submissions completed. We have a total of eight fine tuning submissions (from same known ancestors) - six from the SC cluster and two from other Casey lines. This means that we have 16 lines covered from the SC cluster; 17 lines covered from Irish cluster and 19 lines from other lines. This probably on target for SC cluster, somewhat high for the Irish cluster and low for other lines. There are around 40 to 50 unique lines in the SC cluster, therefore, 16 lines would probably be insufficient to cover this cluster but 32 lines would sufficient to uncover many connections. Half way through the donation funds, it would now be time to concentrate the best candidate for a third cluster from the other Casey lines.

Month six - Two upgrades from 37 to 67 markers where required (done); three more 37 marker submissions to SC cluster; one more 37 marker submission to Irish cluster; two more 37 marker submissions for the third identified cluster; three more for other Casey lines.

Month seven - One fine tuning submission (submission from line that already has a proven ancestor submitted) - the second John (MO) / Levi submission - done; two 37 to 67 marker upgrades where required - done; two more from the SC cluster; one more from the Irish cluster; two more for third cluster; three more for other Casey lines.

Month eight - One fine tuning submission - Abner / Turner submission - done; two more from the SC cluster; one more from the Irish cluster; three from the third cluster and three more from other Casey lines.

Month nine - Two more 37 to 67 marker upgrades (done); three more from SC cluster; one more from Irish cluster; two more from third cluster; three more from other Casey lines.

Month ten - One fine tuning submission; three more from SC Cluster; one more from Irish cluster; two more from third cluster; three more from other lines.

All funds are now spent and what kind of coverage would we have ? Let's assume that four submissions were used to seed the third true cluster from the other Casey lines. This leaves us with 30 lines covered from other Casey lines, 29 lines covered from the SC and TN cluster, 22 lines covered from the Irish cluster and 18 lines covered from the third cluster. This results in 99 lines covered, eleven submissions for fine tuning and nine equivalent submissions dedicated to upgrades. This would result with three DNA descendacy charts that would give researchers a lot of new lines to start researching based on DNA results. At this point in time, traditional research should help tie many of this lines together with information derived from this DNA study. However, it appears that even $25,000 would not be enough funds to completely map the Casey DNA map (my estimate would be it would be approaching 50 % though).

The above plan for spending the mythical $25,000 donation provides a good insight on where priorities should be set for this DNA project. I am not really certain what 30 "not so closely related" other Casey lines would tell us about the Casey surname. Only the formation of closely related clusters can assist our primary goal of connecting the many Casey lines that exist. However, we must include a diverse cross-section of all Casey lines to provide a better picture of all Casey lines. There are probably dozens of Casey lines that have no common genetic ancestor that used the surname of Casey. Many unrelated individuals must have taken the Casey surname when our Casey ancestors started using surnames, many NPE events have probably happened and there are bound to be several name changes from other surnames to the Casey surname. We also need to be brave and attempt to map several of our Casey lines as NPE events (non paternity events such as adoption, out of wedlock, etc.) As one Hanvey line appears to one known NPE event where some Casey male was probably adopted by the Hanvey's, we should also investigate which Casey lines are not really genetically related to the Casey lines but were other non-Casey males that were adopted into the Casey families. Each of these NPE lines create a genetically "new" Casey line. However, with the assistance of DNA submissions of other surnames, we should be able to determine some of the origination of "new" Casey lines and tie some into other surname descendancy charts.

It has now been over two years since I originally presented my plan to spend $25,000 for the Casey DNA project. With recent submissions and additional analysis, it is time for some fine tuning of this plan. First, the upgrading of SC cluster submissions to 67 markers has been somewhat disappointing. We now have all (13) but one upgraded in the SC cluster and they are all the same marker values. On one hand this does not help create new branches as hoped but did have two unexpected good surprises: 1) everyone the SC cluster are now much closer related than thought; 2) the gap between the SC cluster and Irish cluster got smaller and these upgrades support that these two clusters may be related. Since these markers all have the same values, they must have much slower mutation rates. I am now clearly seeing a much higher need for multiple submissions per known ancestor in order to distinguish genealogically significant mutations from recent mutations. Also, when DNA mutations occur for very important markers, additional submissions are more important than first realized. Without these fine tuning submissions, there could be many errors in the DNA descendancy charts. We are making some progress on adding new Casey lines but these appears to be the most difficult to accomplish. It has become very clear that were are not making as much progress on this goal which is the most important goal of the project.

Good candidates for more DNA analysis

So what additional submissions would provide more insight to our Casey ancestors ? And which upgrades would be beneficial ? And what fine tuning submissions would be useful (additional submissions from known ancestors that already have submissions) ? Without any doubt, the highest priority is to broaden the scope of the submissions. We all need to identify and recruit submissions of lines that we think could be related and less on additional submissions that we know are related. However, additional submissions for lines already covered and upgrades to existing submissions also have value as well but are not as high of a priority (with a couple of exceptions). The primary purpose of this project is determine which unrelated lines look most promissing for additional research for possible connections. Identifying and recruiting these possibly related lines should always remain our highest priority. Unfortunately, it is our bias towards our own lines greatly influences our interests. It is human nature to want our lines to be best represented but the project benefits more from having broader participation. We all need to work hard to identify good candidates that might be related and actively recruit DNA submissions from those lines.

There is much interest in the "fine tuning" of the existing submissions (adding more submissions to lines that already have DNA submissions). The best usage of DNA is to scientifically prove which lines are worth additional research and which lines can be eliminated as wild goose chases. So, what value does "fine tuning" DNA submissions have ? First, it is useful to have submissions from at least two sons of each proven oldest Casey ancestor in order verify the exact source of any DNA mutation. The second submission will determine if their marker set is unique to their oldest proven ancestor or a mutation of one his sons (or other male descendants). This is where the DNA descendancy chart is very useful. For some lines, it may pretty obvious that the chance of variations is probably low. However, the two marker variation between two sons of Henson Casey vividly show that recent mutations can be mistaken for mutations between oldest proven ancestors.

If the submissions for any first two sons of any oldest proven Casey ancestor have different DNA marker sets, then new submission of a third son of this oldest proven ancestor would be required. The recent addition of the Arle Casey submission has now shown that the Jackson Casey line has the unique marker mutation of 607 (15 to 16). This mutation may possibly even be from a later generation male descendant. A third DNA submission would determine where these unique mutations start. With only one submission per ancestor, it can be dangerous to assume that all brothers of the oldest ancestor will have the same DNA marker set. In the case of the Arvle Casey submission, I think we were all surprised to find that a brother would have two DNA mutations. For the Henson Casey line it is doubly important for a third submission since we currently do not know if Jackson Casey has a two marker mutation or only one marker mutation and Arvle has a one backwards mutation which is rare but can happen (probably a red flag DNA genealogical descendancy charts).

Another second form of "fine tuning" is upgrading the number of markers when two unconnected lines have common marker sets. We have done very well on upgrading to 67 markers in 2009. We now have another new form of "fine tuning" as a new challenge. Genealogy.com entries are missing five markers in the FTDNA 37 marker tests and only include two markers in common for FTDNA markers 38 to 67. The also add nine new markers that are not included in the FTDNA 67 marker test. Hopefully, upgrades missing markers in each companies offerings will become more reasonable over time. This will remain a major incompatibility in available information to analyze which is currently rather expensive to correct.

The "fine tuning" of additional children and grandchildren of oldest known ancestors will also validate the connections of sons of each oldest known ancestor to the oldest known ancestor. These connections could already be pretty well established or could be fairly speculative in nature. Our DNA descendancy charts should not be too biased on our current traditional research to date. However, well proven sons will benefit little other than verifying what is already known. The connection of Jesse E. Casey to his children was originally based on a 1894 book. Fortunately, this secondary source is well supported by census records and other sources (with one or two exceptions). Of the three lines, the Jesse E. Casey line probably has the best genealogical documentation for establishing the children of their oldest proven ancestor (this line would not benefit further proving the connection from oldest ancestor to their sons since primary documentation already exists). The children of Abner Casey is primarily based on several abstracts (letters) of a Family Bible that can not be located. This account is also supported by several primary documents as well. A couple of sons of Abner Casey are more speculative.

The children of the Ambler Casey line is the least documented family as there is no existing single document that establishes the children of Ambler Casey. DNA documentation can provide scientific evidence that firm up the connection of these sons to their oldest proven ancestors. Sons of oldest proven ancestors with the weakest traditional genealogical documentation to their oldest proven ancestors could provide additional documentation connecting these sons. Having DNA evidence supporting these family connections may, in the near future, be considered primary documentation in this new world of genealogy. Unfortunately, this did not prove the case for Henson Casey being the son of Ambler Casey (this was pretty speculative in nature and has now been shown by DNA evidence to be very unlikely now). This is probably the best usage of DNA submissions when the sample size is relatively small (as it is to date) and when one cluster of lines emerges early in any DNA project.

Our goal is to get several clusters of Casey lines that help establish recent common ancestry between various Casey submissions. Once the number of submissions greatly expands in scope, another major benefit will start to emerge. It will become obvious that several diverse Casey lines will become more closely related than traditional research has shown to date. DNA documentation can help genealogists better select which "possibly" related lines to research based soley on DNA evidence. Researching these newly discovered potential relationships through traditional genealogical methods may result in locating supporting documentation and may be the key to getting past that brick wall.

The current DNA submissions have really shattered many of my most promissing lines (which I have spent countless hours attempting to connect). Before the availability of DNA information, my most promissing lines for connection to Ambler Casey were: 1) Abner Casey, 2) Jesse E. Casey, 3) Henson Casey and 4) John Casey (MO). After DNA submissions, here are major changes: 1) Jesse E. Casey has obviously replaced Abner Casey as the best candidate - but both are still my best candidates. 2) Since we have hit the brick wall on Abner Casey, the Hanvey line could open new doors for more connections to Casey lines that remained longer in South Carolina. 3) Although Henson Casey lived in Roane County, TN where Ambler Casey lived, the speculative connection as a son of Ambler Casey is now not possible. 4) Since John Casey (MO) resided in McMinn County, Tennessee during the same time as Ambler Casey, John Casey (MO) "was" another good candidate - DNA documentation really discounts this connection now. 5) With an exact 67 marker match with Jesse E. Casey, I should now prioritize research on this line above all others. These are significant changes in focus for my Casey research.

How many markers should be analyzed

So how many DNA markers should one submit to be useful and which of the existing submissions should have additional markers analyzed. For the SC cluster and the Irish cluster, all new submissions should be either 37 or 67 markers. For all other lines, all new submissions should have be 37 markers. The 12 marker test does not have enough information to be useful for this project. Also, it is not desirable for two submissions from the same line - unless they are from different sons or grandsons of the oldest known proven ancestor. If two submissions from two sons of oldest known ancestor have two different marker sets, then another submission from a third son would be required.

With the many recent upgrades to 67 markers for the SC cluster and all came back the same, we should switch focus to fine tuning submissions of the same lines vs. always upgrading or ordering 67 marker tests. The first submission of each line should remain 67 markers but multiple submissions of the same line could probably get by with 37 markers. For the Irish cluster, upgrades to 67 markers are showing mutations and new submissions in this cluster should consider 67 markers. The two Genealogy.com submissions need these markers tested but these are currently expensive. Submissions in the Irish cluster now have the most to benefit from expanding from 37 markers to 67 markers. At this point in time, it is not probably necessary for other Casey lines to upgrade to 67 markers. However, the first submission of any new line could benefit from having all 67 markers. The other Casey lines (outside the SC cluster and Irish cluster) need to concentrate in obtaining new submissions or encouraging others with fewer than 37 markers to upgrade their submissions to 37 markers. This is harder to accomplish since it is much easier just to order your own upgrade.

So how many potential oldest Casey ancestors originate from South Carolina ? The 1790 census of South Carolina has 47 males that make good candidates and all but six are from Spartanburg County or Newberry County. It appears that Casey lines grouped in the Irish cluster has now been established as a second cluster of Casey ancestors and will need 67 marker submissions. This grouping of submissions are not that distantly related, so additional submissions that fall into this group could be informative for researchers of this group in the future.

As time passes by, many submittors may become no longer interested in paying the premium to have their sample analyzed for additional markers. Eventually, these samples will become unviable to analyze. The person supporting the analysis could also die or become incapacited with the children potentially showing no interest in this project. For the vast majority of cases, the exposure to lose valuable DNA documentation will probably not be of great concern as most lines have many living male descendants of any particular son of an oldest proven ancestor. If there are numerous living male descendants, then there will remain many others to assist in the future. However, if you are the only surviving male of your line, it is very important that you submit as many markers that are currently available (currently 67 markers from this company analyzing our samples for this project). My great grandfather, William Martin Shelton (born 1847), had seven daughters and only one son. This son produced only one grandson who died as a teenager in 1928. Therefore, there are no male descendants of this Shelton line that can be tested for the Shelton DNA project even though there are around 400 living descendants (all descending from daughters born with the Shelton name at some point). If you know your line's male DNA may die out, it is very important to test the maximum number of markers.

So who should we encourage to submit additional samples that would benefit this project ? There are three broad categories of submissions that should be sought in the near term. Once other submissions are analyzed, there will surely be new items of interest. First, for all the current submissions, we should encourage male descendants of at least two sons of our oldest proven ancestors to submit DNA samples. This helps us determine where the uniqueness of each marker set begins. It also provides more evidence connecting these sons to their oldest proven ancestor. Second, everyone has their favorite candidates for possible connection to their lines. Your hunch (supported by traditional genealogical research) can be either dismissed by DNA evidence or further strengthened by DNA evidence. We must have more submissions from possible related candidates to make any progress on which lines are worthy of additional research. Third, we need wider participation of all Casey lines to determine those big surprises and possible connections that we all have missed to date. As the current submissions confirm, the Casey surname is a relatively common surname with dramatically different DNA backgrounds. Only larger sample sizes (more submissions) can reveal where other clusters will form.

For the SC cluster, we need more submissions from other SC Casey lines in order to understand how these lines are connected to the known SC lines that have been submitted to date. The biggest surprise for me to date is how closely related the TN lines are to the SC submissions. The submission of James H. Casey and Moses Casey has continued the pattern showing that all SC Casey lines are closely related. However, Elisha Casey (SC) has proven to be one exception and is part of the Irish cluster. We also need more unconnected TN/AR/MO lines to determine which lines are closely related and which are wild goose chases for connection to this cluster. We will discover that certain lines are very closely related which will allow researchers of these lines to properly focus their research more on these promissing lines. We also will need to identify those lines that are not closely related. The descendants of those lines might avoid spending many additional unfruitful hours attempting to connect these more remotely related lines.

Here are some specific recommendations for additional submissions for existing lines. First, we need additional samples for other sons (or grandsons) of the SC lines covered to date. If I got any of these sons incorrectly listed, please let me know so I can update/correct this list (I intentionally left out some possible sons where the connections are very weak). I would prefer to put these weak connections into the category of possibly related lines of interest.

_____Ambler Casey
- confirm CDYb=37 issue __________Moses Casey (need one more)
__________John Casey (have)
__________Ellison Casey (need one more)
_____Henson Casey - resolve 460=11 or 460=12 issue
__________Jackson Casey (have, sibling is different)
__________Arvle Casey (have, sibling is different)
__________Other sons (need one more since different)
_____Abner Casey
- resolve CDYa=36 issue __________Turner Casey (have one)
__________Pleasant Casey (have two)
_______________Pleasant Casey, II (have, sibling is same)
_______________Elsberry Casey (have, sibling is same)
__________Abner Casey (need one more)
__________Jesse Casey (need one more)
_____Jesse E. Casey
- confirm CDYb=37 issue __________Steven Casey (need one more)
__________Elijah Casey (need one more)
__________Anthony Casey (have)
__________Levi Casey (need one more)
__________Ambler Casey (need one more)
__________Jesse Casey (need one more)
__________Wesley Casey (need one more)
_____John Casey (MO)
- resolve 460=11 issue __________Levi Casey (have two grandsons)
_______________William Casey (have)
_______________Frank Casey (have)
__________John Allen Casey (need one more)
_____John Casey (SC)
- verify no surprise mutations __________Abner Casey (need one more)
__________Thomas Casey (need one more)
__________Samuel Casey (need one more)
__________John Casey (have)
__________Henry Casey (need one more)
_____James Hill Casey
- resolve 437=16 issue __________James Casey (need one more)
__________Hugh Casey (need one more)
__________Willis Casey (have)
__________Allen Casey (need one more)
__________John Casey (need one more)
__________Newton Casey (need one more)
__________Andrew Casey (need one more)
_____Moses Casey
- confirm baseline DNA __________Moses Casey, Jr. (have)
__________Other sons (need one more)


For every Casey researcher, you need to determine which sons of oldest proven ancestors may have very few living male descendants and are exposed to having the line "die out" of producing no living "all male" descendants. For the descendants of Ambler Casey, Henson Casey and Jesse E. Casey, I have reviewed all the known male descendants to estimate the number of potential submittors and the exposure for these lines to die out:
For the Ambler Casey line
Moses Casey (need)
3 sons, 20 gsons, 37 ggsons, 22 3Gsons, 10 4Gsons, 2 5GSons (33 males descendants born after 1900). Almost no exposure for this line to die out and substantial information concerning living male descendants.
John Casey (my line)
7 sons, 25 gsons, 43 ggsons, 41 3Gsons, 24 4Gsons, 8 5GSons (76 males descendants born after 1900). Almost no exposure for this line to die out and substantial information concerning living male descendants.
Ellison Casey (need)
5 sons, 2 gsons, 7 ggsons and 2 gggsons (only two known males descendants that were born after 1900). Probably minimal exposure for this line to die out but very little knowledge of living male descendants. The connection of Levi Casey is pretty weak and Levi Casey could be a son of Ambler Casey, therefore, this submission would greatly benefit the Ambler Casey line and could greatly benefit the descendants of Levi Casey to breaking through that brick wall on this particular line.



For the Henson Casey line
16 sons, 30 gsons, 18 ggsons, 5 3Gsons, 1 4Gsons, 0 5GSons (37 males descendants born after 1900). Almost no exposure for this line to die out and reasonable information concerning living male descendants.


For the descendants of Jesse E. Casey, I have reviewed all the known all male descendants to estimate the number of potential submittors and the exposure for these lines to die out (this is based on the 2000 version of Vonda Dihm's book). There is considerable exposure on several sons of Jesse E. Casey to die out (or may have already died out). However, there are seven sons to choose from (unlike the Ambler Casey line where do not even know the names of several of his sons):
Jesse E. Casey
Stephen Casey (need)
6 sons, 18 gsons, 29 ggsons, 15 3Gsons, 7 4Gsons, 0 5GSons. Almost no exposure for this line to die out and reasonable information concerning living male descendants.
Elijah Casey (need)
6 sons, 3 gsons, 4 ggsons, 8 3Gsons, 2 4Gsons, 1 5GSon. Little exposure for this line to die out but not much information concerning living male descendants.
Anthony Casey (have)
3 sons, 25 gsons, 34 ggsons, 43 gggsons, 23 3Gsons, 4 4Gsons, 0 5GSon. Almost no exposure for this line to die out and considerable information concerning living male descendants.
Levi Casey (need)
6 sons, 8 gsons, 0 ggsons, 0 3Gsons, 0 4Gsons, 0 5GSons. Moderate exposure for this line to die out and no information concerning living male descendants.
Ambler Casey (need)
2 sons, 0 gsons, 0 ggsons, 0 3Gsons, 0 4Gsons, 0 5GSons. Very high exposure for this line to die out or this line could have already died out 100 years ago. No information concerning living male descendants.
Jesse Casey (need)
11 sons, 24 gsons, 22 ggsons, 15 3Gsons, 4 4Gsons, 0 5GSons. Almost no exposure for this line to die out and reasonble information concerning living male descendants.
Ambler Casey (need)
2 sons, 0 gsons, 0 ggsons, 0 3Gsons, 0 4Gsons, 0 5GSons. Very high exposure for this line to die out or this line could have already died out 100 years ago. No information concerning living male descendants.


We all need to openly discuss what we think are the best candidates to be related to the SC lines as well as the other Casey lines that have been submitted to date. Traditionally, many of us avoided sharing this kind of speculation because many novices to genealogy tend to convert this speculation into fact. However, we also are not sharing this valuable insight that we have developed over many years of research. People visiting the Casey DNA web site need input and encouragement on which lines are important to this project at this point in time. As my web site might imply, here are some additional Casey lines that my instinct tells are good candidates for the SC cluster:

_____James Casey
__________James Casey (need)
__________Sterling Casey (need)
__________Samuel Casey (need)
_____Mrs. Easter Casey
__________William Casey (need)
__________Abner Casey (need)
_____Ambler Casey (born 1832)
__________Only 4 daughters known
__________(this male line probably died out)


Mrs. Easter Casey has Fulton County, AR connections and my gut feeling says her family is related. Please let me know your specific lines of interest (specially on the SC lines where others must help me identify other lines of interest). The unconnected Ambler Casey (born 1832) is an obvious candidate to be one of the missing sons of Ambler Casey (TN), however, this line appears to have no living male descendants.

Where are our submissions for widely known SC and TN lines such as Randolph Casey, Christopher Casey and General Levi Casey ? I will be glad to add other candidates for anyone who wants to present their speculation for possible connections. I decided to look at previous Casey publications that cover these SC and TN Casey lines. From the Walter E. Casey book, the George and Abner Casey manuscript and some early SC probate records, here are some other good candidates:

_____Aaron Casey (two probate records)
__________William Casey (need two)
__________Moses Casey (need two)
__________James Casey (need two)
__________Levi Casey (need two)
_____Randolph Casey (probate records)
__________Levi Casey (need two)
__________Randolph Casey (need two)
__________Isaac Casey (need two)
__________Abraham P. Casey (need two)
__________Samuel Casey (need two)
__________Hiram Casey (need two)
__________Zadock Casey (need two)
_____Levi Casey (1960 DAR article)
__________John Casey (need two)
__________Levi Casey (need two)
__________Jacob D. Casey (need two)
__________Samuel O. Casey (need two) _____Christopher Casey (1960s manuscript)
__________John Casey (have)
__________Aaron Casey (need)
__________Hardin Casey (need)
_____Aaron Casey (1960s manuscript)
__________Abner Casey (have)
__________Jesse Casey (have)
__________Alexander Casey (need)
__________Anthony Casey (need)
__________Uriah Casey (need)


Analysis by Family Lines

The next chart is attempt to create DNA based descendancy chart. This is probably the most likely scenario but there could be several variations. Also, the DNA descendancy is different than normal genealogical descendancy charts as DNA descendancy can usually only show interconnections - not actual connections. For instance, 391 = 10 appears to be a marker value of John Casey (MO) at first glance. However, it could also be John's son, Levi Casey, as no brothers of Levi have been tested with 391 = 10. This would the mutation down on the DNA descendancy chart. The source of this mutation could also be the father / grandfather of John Casey (MO) as well. Other unrelated lines could later have 391 = 10 and could be brothers or first cousins of John Casey (MO). This additional information would push the mutation up the DNA descendancy chart. This is why we need coverage as many unrelated lines as possible. We currently only have eight different lines out of forty lines (only around 20 % coverage). So let's now look at every mutation in this cluster and analyze the possible sources of these mutations.

For 391 = 10, we are currently assuming this to be a mutation of John Casey (MO). However, it could be a mutation of his son, Levi Casey. We need to test a different son of John Casey (MO) to clarify which man was the source of this mutation. If a brother of Levi Casey has 391 = 10, then the mutation will be a mutation of John Casey (MO) - or his father or grandfather. If the brother of Levi Casey has 391 = 11, then Levi Casey is probably the source of the mutation. If a future submission of unrelated line comes back with 391 = 10, then John Casey (MO) could not be the source of the mutation - it would his father or grandfather.

For 385b = 15, this is probably the mutation of Levi's son, William Casey - or any of his male descendants. However, further testing of other sons of William Casey would not assist this project that much. Testing of a second son of William Casey would only allow to possibly push the DNA mutation down the descendancy chart. It is not important to determine if Willam Casey was the source or which male descendant was the source of the mutation - as this would not solve any unknown genealogical connections.

For 437 = 16, we are currently assigning this mutation to James Casey (SC). However, any male descendant down to the donor could be the source of this mutation. Testing another son of James Casey is necessary to verify that James Casey (SC) is the source of this mutation. If another son has 437 = 16, then James Casey (SC) would the source of the mutation - or any of his male ancestors. If another son of James Casey (SC) came back with 437 = 15, then Willis Casey (or some male descendant) would be the source of the mutation.

For 460 = 13 and 460 = 12, this divides the entire SC cluster into two major branches. This is currently the oldest mutation in this cluster based on only submissions within this cluster. The oldest common ancestor of this cluster had one son with 460 = 13 and another son with 460 = 12. If this ancestor had other sons, they all matches one son (no mutation) or they had very few or no male descendants. For 460 = 11, this presents two very interesting scenarios: 1) this is just a mutation of John Casey's (MO) grandson, Franklin Casey and is not that important; 2) If you believe that the Irish cluster shares a common male ancestor 400 to 600 years ago, 460 = 11 matches all the submissions of the Irish cluster. This would really shake up the DNA descendancy chart. If other sons of John Casey (MO) or other sons of Levi Casey have 460 = 11, this support the connection to the Irish cluster and could require some major changes to the DNA descendancy chart. For the two sons tested for Henson Casey, it is currently not very reliable to assign Henson Casey to either branch since one son of Henson had 460 = 12 and the other son had 460 = 13. If another son of Henson Casey comes back with 460 = 12, the supports the belonging to the 460 = 12 branch. If another son of Henson Casey comes back with 460 = 13, that supports the Henson Casey belonging to the 460 = 13 branch.

For CDYa = 36, this is currently believed to the mutation of Turner Casey (or any of his male descendants down to the donor). This is a very fast (almost too fast) mutating marker (almost 20 times faster than the average marker). However, there is another very interesting possibility. If you believe that Irish cluster and the SC cluster share a common male ancestor in 400 to 600 years, CDYa = 36 is much closer to the values found in the Irish cluster. Testing another brother or son of Turner Casey could really shake up the DNA descendancy and the Abner Casey line would move up closer to the DNA of our oldest common ancestor of the SC cluster. For CDYb = 37, this currently believed to be a mutation of the father (or grandfather) of two lines, Jesse E. Casey and Ambler Casey. This is a very fast (almost too fast) mutating marker (almost 20 times faster than the average marker). However, there is another very interesting possibility. If you believe that Irish cluster and the SC cluster share a common male ancestor in 400 to 600 years, CDYb = 37 is much closer to the values found in the Irish cluster. Testing another son of Jesse E. Casey or Ambler Casey could really shake up the DNA descendancy and these two Casey line would move up closer to the DNA of our oldest common ancestor of the SC cluster.



DNA Descendancy Chart (Irish)

The format and organization of this DNA analysis is undergoing a major change. Please have patience as I attempt to enhance and better organize the information. Each major cluster (currently two major clusters that are well established) will have its own unique section of analysis. There are two major files that cover the Irish cluster:

Analysis of DNA - Casey - Irish Cluster

Possible DNA Descendancy Chart - Casey - Irish Cluster

DNA Descendancy Chart (SC)

The format and organization of this DNA analysis is undergoing a major change. Please have patience as I attempt to enhance and better organize the information. Each major cluster (currently two major clusters that are well established) will have its own unique section of analysis. There are two major files that cover the Irish cluster:

Analysis of DNA - Casey - SC Cluster

Possible DNA Descendancy Chart - Casey - SC Cluster

Origins of the Casey Surname

This review discusses the origins of the Casey surname. It analyzes the number of Casey men that first use the Casey surname and presents a case that all Caseys descend from a common male ancestor. It discusses the sources of the genetic variations found with Casey surnames and how these clusters of Casey evolved. It also discusses the need and risks involved with the bias of the submissions with American connections and the lack of submissions from present day Ireland. The format and organization of this DNA analysis is undergoing a major change. Please have patience as I attempt to enhance and better organize the information.

Summary of Casey DNA Results



Origins of the Casey Surname

Non Paternity Events vs. Overlapping Haplotypes



This section is speculative in nature and I have not seen these issues addressed in depth at other DNA web sites and is not well covered in publications on DNA used for genealogy. However, I found the issue covered by Mark Jobling in the June, 2001 issue of Trends in Genetics (the internet is wonderful at times). I am now convinced that non-Casey surnames found in the SC cluster are very good candidates for NPE events. This is based on the fact that only one submission of the fourteen that are closely related do not have the surname Casey. When the vast majority of submissions that are closely related have the same surname, it would be much less likely that other surnames randomly crossed genetic paths (known as overlapping haplotypes). For the Irish cluster, the opposite is true. The Ysearch database shows that there are 23 individuals within five mutation points of the baseline for the Irish cluster. Only two out of 23 submissions in this listing were Caseys. For this cluster's haplogroup (the very common R1b1), overlapping haplotypes are not unusual. There are two Casey, two Forbes, two Butler, two McGraw and a myriad of other surnames: Harvey, McLain, Ramsey, Brooks, Peppers, Hart, Bryan, Anderson, Hogan, Cummings, Iron, Crow, Blair and McGrath. This implies that most of these haplotypes are probably not related via NPE scenarios but are most likely overlapping haplotypes of a common haplogroup (R1b1). This will make sorting out NPEs in this cluster much more difficult.

There are three reasons for genetically diverse events that seem to be evolving: 1) Non paternity events (NPEs) are where real families and biology diverge. These are adoptions and out of wedlock children. I contend that the Hanvey line is the only valid candidate at this point in time. Only the SC cluster will have higher probabilty of NPE events at this point in time; 2) The rarely covered topic is nature's ability for different genetic lines to randomly cross paths (overlapping haplotypes); The Irish Cluster seems to exhibit this variation. When overlapping haplotypes exist, it will be much harder to determine NPE events as haplotypes will not always be related in this scenario. 3) Another topic that was not well understood before DNA is that having the same surname does not imply any genetic relationship as we once thought. Only very uncommon surnames will have one common ancestor. More common names can have ten to one hundred unique unrelated ancestors that only shared interest in the same surname when surnames were first used by most Europeans only a short time ago. These three issues can be confused for each other as well and not correctly identifying the sources of these issues can lead to incorrect conclusions.

Non paternity events are bound to happen as young adults can die permaturely (adoption) or can have temporary biological relationships that do not result in long lasting formal legal relationships. There are lot of variations of these issues that can have many different results. For instance, even adoptions can really lead us astray as it is pretty common for the extended family (same surname) to adopt children of cousins and nephews of young adults who die prematurely or are not able to take on the responsibility of child raising. These closely related adoptions could be very difficult to sort out. Non paternity events can happen is two directions as well. Casey boys can be adopted by non-Casey families (other surnames now truly have Casey DNA being passed down via Y chromosones). Also, non-Casey boys are also adopted in the Casey lines and we can get some pretty diverse DNA being introduced into the Casey surname pool (when in reality their DNA biologically belongs to another surname). This really allows two versions of genealogical ancestry to emerge (familial and biological - both are important). If a male infant was adopted and raised by a Casey family, the Casey environmental influence on this child could be stronger than the biological influence due to DNA. Reseaching two different ancestral trees will become more common with the aid of DNA documentation.

I think that the documentation covering overlapping haplotypes is not widely understood to date and has been avoided as it is difficult to understand (and prove with accuracy). With only 37 and 67 markers available and most markers with only four or five common variations each, you just do not have enough markers to avoid distantly related individuals randomly mutating back across between various lines (both with the same surname or different surnames). For the SC Casey cluster, these Casey lines appears to have unique haplotypes which puts a DNA fingerprint associated with these lines (until new submissions prove otherwise). However, some Casey lines clearly have much closer matches to other surnames which could be NPE events of other surnames (most likely scenario). Some may have changed their surname to Casey for various reasons and some may have not been related when our ancestors first started using surnames. Who gets to lay claim the Casey surname - none of course. Unfortunately, clusters with lots of Casey descendants could bias us to believe that one group may try to claim the Casey surname over others (we should avoid this bias at all costs). I really am warming up to the idea that we now should sort out our various Casey lines into many different genetic buckets. We already have done this with our paper research by sorting out various Casey lines by geography. I have known for some time that my focus should only be on Casey lines that have ties to SC and TN and DNA has proven this to be the correct strategy. Actually, I have given up hope on SC lines and DNA has significantly revived my interest in these lines.

Until the availability of DNA submissions to analyze, I had a very inaccurate assumption concerning the exact relationship of other Casey lines to my Casey line. I also assumed that Casey was an Irish name and that most Casey lines (except for NPE lines) would have a common ancestor back in the early days of Ireland. However, the genetic distance from many of the Casey lines have not proven this not to be the case. I am now beginning to believe that there may be 10 to 100 unique individuals that first used the Casey surname. Surnames were generally forced upon our ancestors by governments and early rulers in order to collect taxes and raise armies. With surnames like Smith or Brooks, the orginal assignment of surname was driven by trade or geography. For the first Irish individuals that were told to start using a surname, these individuals did not get all get unique surnames and it is likely that geography played significant role or that the clan that they belonged to played a large role. It is possible that their vocation could have played a role as well (clan leaders probably had unique names as may have soldiers, farmers and other vocations). The Casey surname has a military meaning (it means dart-armed chief in battle). Dart refers to knives (shorter than swords). It could mean that the Casey surname was taken due vocation (military) by many unrelated men.

The surname Casey originated from the Gaelic name "O'Cathasaigh" around 1,000 years ago. The original of the name was "dart-armed chief in battle" which implies our ancestors were probably soldiers. After the Anglo-Norman invasion, the name was "anglicized" to O'Casey and by the 1300's it was further "anglicized" to its present form of Casey. During the introduction of surnames, life was very brutal with constant warfare between neighboring clans. These clans became larger and larger in order to survive. These conflicts left many orphan sons who adopted and raised by others on both sides. Other clan members would regularly adopt the young sons of fallen comrades and these sons may have taken on new surnames if they were very young. When large conflicts resulted in expanded control by one side, other clans adopted orphan children of the defeated side. Also, there was many orphans left because of widespread outbreaks of diseases and food shortages. Potato blight outbreaks caused severe food shortages and starvation for many Irish families. In these turbulent times, diseases and accidents resulted in the need to adopt orphaned sons and probably introduced many DNA varieties to the Casey surname.

Call for better documentation

Raw DNA data without traditional genealogical research is not very useful. It is critical to have both the DNA marker sets and known information about the ancestry of these DNA submissions. The Pace DNA web site (one of my ancestors) has an excellent web page dedicated to providing significant genealogical information known about all of their DNA submittors. This information is conveniently made available to anyone of interest and saves redundant efforts of many people gathering what they know about these submissions for their own personal analysis.

Pace DNA web site's ancestry listings for submittors

The attached summary of ancestral listings is based on my knowledge of these lines and what is readily documented on the Internet. I may have made a couple of incorrect assumptions or have not included complete ancestries as my knowledge is quite limited on Casey lines outside the SC cluster. I welcome additions and corrections to this listing as well as comments as to format and content. As I have more time, I will attempt to add more from emails and other web sites.

Ancestries of Casey DNA submissions

Please give me some feedback

I am an amateur DNA researcher, so I greatly expect to be corrected on some of my conclusions but I will take the risk to be the first to publish an analysis of our Casey DNA submissions. For anyone wanting to create groupings of Casey lines, you should first use haplogroups to define obvious clusters that can not be related. Within a haplogroup, the only practical method to quickly create even more groups is to use cladogram software which graphically displays the connections between the various DNA submissions. Also, usage of MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) calculators are also critical in determining the closeness of genetic relationships. Without these tools, it is extremely difficult to manually extract this information. I am very new with DNA analysis for genealogy and would appreciate comments on this DNA analysis. This analysis takes a lot of time and I would appreciate feedback of where you think I going off track, where you think my analysis is on target, what information is not found that should be included, etc. There is quite of bit of redundancy in this analysis and I will try to reduce this in future updates to this analysis.

Please send your comments by email, letter or phone:


E-mail (new) ___________

______________________  email address changed to image to reduce my spam email



Snail mail______________  Robert B. Casey, 4705 Eby Lane, Austin, TX  78731-4507



Phone (home)__________  (512) 371-0579 (nights and weekends only)


=