In Memoriam:
Vester Washington Vance (1933-2005)
Russell Kenneth Vance (1917-2006)
Waid Winston Vance (1923-2009)
Willie Doyle Vance (1926-2010)
   
HOME
TEST RESULTS
GROUP SUMMARIES
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4
GROUP 5
GROUP 6
GROUP 7
GROUP 8
INTRO TO GENETIC GENEALOGY
RESOURCES
SURNAME DISTRIBUTION
CONTACT US
39200

1. John Vaus (d.aft.1384)
2. John Vaus of Barnbarroch (d.bef.1456) ambassador to England
3. Robert Vaus of Barnbarroch (d.aft.6 Mar 1459)
4. Blaise Vaus of Barnbarroch (d.bef.26 Feb 1482)
5. Patrick Vaus of Barnbarroch (d.1528)
6. John Vaus of Barnbarroch (d.1547, battle of Pinkie)
7. Sir Patrick Vaus of Barnbarroch (d.22 Dec 1597)
8. Sir John Vans of Barnbarroch (c.1574-Jun1642)
9. Sir Patrick Vans of Barnbarroch (d.1673)
10. Alexander Vans of Barnbarroch (d.1709)
11. Colonel Patrick Vans of Barnbarroch (d.1733)
12. John Vans Agnew of Barnbarroch (1724-1780)
13. Robert Vans Agnew (1755-1809)
14. Lt. Col. Patrick Vans Agnew (1783-1842)
15. George Vans Agnew (1831-1898)
16. PRIVATE
17. PRIVATE
18. 39200

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

54198

  1. William M. Vance (b.1826, VA) m.Nancy Emmeline Wortham 1843, Smyth Co., VA
  2. Robert Jefferson Vance Sr. (1856) m.Marthie Elizabeth Wright
  3. Robert Jefferson Vance Jr. (1888) m.Olive Timmer
  4. 54198
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

67952

  1. John Vance (b.c.1699, Ireland - d.1760, VA) m.Elizabeth (?Colville)
  2. John Vance (b.1730 - d.1778, PA/VA) m.Margaret White
  3. Moses Vance (b.1773, PA - d.1829, PA) m.Elizabeth Strickler
  4. John Vance (b.1797 - d.1886, PA) m.Mary Strickler
  5. Milton Vance (b.1817, PA) m.Catherine Shellenberger
  6. PRIVATE
  7. PRIVATE
  8. 61703
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

73264

  1. William Vance (b.c.1811, SC)
  2. George Vance (b.1834, SC)
  3. Charles Wesley Vance (b.1861, MS - d.1932, MS)
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 73264
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

1.David Vans/Vance (b.c.1783, Kirkcowen - d.Wigtown, Scotland, 1819) m.Agnes Jones
2.George Vans/Vance (b.1812, Kirkcowen - d.1903, Ontario) m.Margaret Little
3.Robert Vance (b.1854, Ontario - d.1925, Ontario) m.Elizabeth Luscombe
4.PRIVATE
5.PRIVATE
6.92592

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

 

1.Sihon Vance (b.c.1802/3, Claiborne Co, TN - d.1893, Brown Co, IL) m.Isabella
2.James Vance (b.1827, Claiborne Co, TN - d.1904, Nemaha Co, NB) m.Sarah Gregory
3.PRIVATE
4.PRIVATE
5.154808


 

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

1.Sihon M. Vance (b.1802, Claiborne Co, TN - d.1893, Brown Co, IL)
2.Richard Sihon Vance (b.1837, Claiborne Co, TN - d.1911, Nemaha Co, NE)
3.PRIVATE
4.PRIVATE
5.150126

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

 57216 & 39459
1Patrick Vance of Chambersburg, PA (b.c.1745 - d.1803, Knox Co., TN)

2. Joseph Vance (b.1794, Knox Co., TN - d.1863, McLean Co., KY


3. Vaniah Vance (d.1826, Knox Co., TN - d.1865, McLean Co., KY



4. PRIVATE




5. PRIVATE





6. 57216

2. William Houston Vance (b.1787, Falling Springs, PA - d.1860, Pontotoc, MS)


3.PRIVATE

4.PRIVATE

5.39459




There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
57216 & 39459
1Patrick Vance of Chambersburg, PA (b.c.1745 - d.1803, Knox Co., TN)

2. Joseph Vance (b.1794, Knox Co., TN - d.1863, McLean Co., KY


3. Vaniah Vance (d.1826, Knox Co., TN - d.1865, McLean Co., KY



4. PRIVATE




5. PRIVATE





6. 57216

2. William Houston Vance (b.1787, Falling Springs, PA - d.1860, Pontotoc, MS)


3.PRIVATE

4.PRIVATE

5.39459




There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
N20182
  1. ?Patrick Vance of Chambersburg
  2. ?Vance
  3. Robert Vance (b.c.1810, TN) m.Tempe Brewer, Trigg Co. KY 1842
  4. R. M. Vance (b.1842, KY - d.1924) m.America McNellie Humphries
  5. Richard Vance (1884-1922) m.Neuma Dunn
  6. FATHER
  7. N20182
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
68535
  1. Patrick Vance of Chambersburg
  2. ?Vance
  3. William Vance (b.1833, McMinn Co., TN - d.1917, Austin, TX) m.Margaret Malvinia Burch
  4. PRIVATE
  5. 68535
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

1.David Vance (d.1800, Mecklenberg Co, NC)
2.Samuel Vance (b.1785, NC - d.c.1825, Alabama) m.Elizabeth Rockett of TN
3.Milton Vance (b.1813 - d.1898, Ballard Co, KY) m.Eliza or Martha Vance 1809 in AL
4.Newton F. Vance
5.PRIVATE
6.PRIVATE
7.149061

 

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

1.David Vance (d.1800, Mecklenberg Co, NC)
2.John Vance (b.1770, Mecklenberg - d.1834, Todd Co, KY)
3.Massena Vance (b.1817, Todd Co, KY - d.1865, Hickman Co, KY)
4.Napoleon Vance (b.1849, Hickman KY - d.1895, Hickman KY)
5.PRIVATE
6.PRIVATE
7.142808

 


There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

61703

  1. Andrew Vance (d.1754, Frederick Co., VA) m.Jane
  2. Andrew Vance (b.c.1735, VA) m.Ann Ramey
  3. Andrew Vance (b.1778, VA - d.1831) m.Elizabeth Veatch
  4. Samuel H. Vance (b.1812, Cynthiana, KY - d.1904, Hunnewell, MO) m.Lucinda Pond
  5. Alfred Velie Vance (b.1840, Fort Madison, IA - d.1916, Grantsdale, MT) m.Ada McAfee
  6. James D. Vance (b.1864, Marion Co., MO - d.1943, Jackson Co., OR)
  7. PRIVATE
  8. PRIVATE
  9. 61703
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
44884
  1. Samuel Vance (b.c.1703 - d.1793, Orange Co., NY)
  2. James Vance (d.aft.1799; lived in Orange Co., NY) m.Martha
  3. Samuel Vance (b.1782, Orange Co., NY - d.1877, Ionia Co., MI) m.Martha Rapalee
  4. John J. Vance (b.1811, Yates Co., NY - d.1880, Clinton Co., MI) m.Cornelia Ann Dean
  5. Emerson Vance (b.1840, Clinton Co., MI - d.1910, Clinton Co., MI) m.Sarah Ann McVeigh
  6. Wilber E. Vance (b.1873, Clinton Co., MI - d.1943, Clare Co., MI) m.Catherine Cosgriff
  7. Richard Edward Vance (b.1910, Pewamo, MI - d.1976, Lansing, MI) m.Florence Monica Williams
  8. PRIVATE
  9. 44884
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
100812 
  1. Joseph Vance (b.c.1738/40 - d.1798-9, Martinsburg, VA) m.Rachel Alexander
  2. Joseph Vance (b.1774/5, Chambersburg, PA? - d.1824, Columbus, OH) m.Cynthia Hart
  3. Joseph C. Vance (b.1818, Franklin Co., OH - d.1882) Margaret Jane Phelps
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 100812
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
43864
  1. Samuel Vance (d.1789, Surry Co., NC)
    m.Alice Carr
  2. Nathaniel Vance, Sr. (b.1753, Laurens Co., SC - d.1812, Laurens Co., SC)
    m.Mary Dunbar McTeer
  3. William McTeer Vance (b.1792, Laurens Co., SC - d.1836, Laurens Co., SC)
    m.Elizabeth Ederington
  4. John Burris Vance (b.1828, Laurens Co., SC - d.1880, Dallas Co., TX)
    m.Lucinda E. Ward
  5. John Charles Vance (b.1872, Lee Co., MS - d.1958, Hunt Co., TX)
    m.Katie Elnora Evans
  6. PRIVATE
  7. 43864
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

113168

  1. John Vance (d.c.1814, Clark Co, OH)
  2. George B. Vance (b.1802, OH - d.1864, Brown Co, IL) m.Abigail Beach
  3. Samuel A. Vance (b.1839/40, IN - d.1898, IL)
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 113168
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

114890

  1. Joseph Vance (b.1753 - d.1838, McDonough Co, IL) m.Nancy Bradley
  2. John Vance (b.1789, KY - d.1866, Wapello Co, IA) m.Nancy Martin
  3. Orville Caldwell Bradley Vance (b.1826, Fayette Co, IN - d.1876, Wapello Co, IA)
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 114890
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

120759

  1. Joseph Vance (b.1753 - d.1838, McDonough Co, IL) m.Nancy Bradley
  2. James Vance (b.1794, KY - d.1866, IA) m.Margaret and Polly Ennis
  3. William Vance (b.1825, Fayette Co, IN - d.1887, Wapello Co, IA) m.Elizabeth Ogle
  4. Joseph O. Vance (b.1850, Wapello Co, IA - d.1922, IA) m.Mary Jane May
  5. PRIVATE
  6. PRIVATE
  7. 120759



There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

N21545 & 61862
1.Samuel Vance of Abingdon, VA (d.1778, Washington Co., VA) m.Sarah Colville

2.John Vance (d.c.1830, TN) m.Sarah Marquis


3.Thomas M. Vance (b.1782, VA - d.1862, Cannon Co., TN) m.Eleanor Richards



4.Edward Richards Vance (b.1817, TN - d.1904, TN) m.Drucilla Bonner/Herne




5.Edward Lee Vance m.Ella Mottley




6.PRIVATE
7.PRIVATE
8.N21545

2. Samuel Vance (1749-1838) m.Margaret Laughlin 1778


3.Samuel Vance (1784-1823) m.Elizabeth Little Brown 1807 (lived Clarksville, TN)



4.Morgan Brown Vance (1813-1871) m.Susan Preston Thompson 1845




5.PRIVATE




6.PRIVATE
7.61862
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

N21545 & 61862
1.Samuel Vance of Abingdon, VA (d.1778, Washington Co., VA) m.Sarah Colville

2.John Vance (d.c.1830, TN) m.Sarah Marquis


3.Thomas M. Vance (b.1782, VA - d.1862, Cannon Co., TN) m.Eleanor Richards



4.Edward Richards Vance (b.1817, TN - d.1904, TN) m.Drucilla Bonner/Herne




5.Edward Lee Vance m.Ella Mottley




6.PRIVATE
7.PRIVATE
8.N21545

2. Samuel Vance (1749-1838) m.Margaret Laughlin 1778


3.Samuel Vance (1784-1823) m.Elizabeth Little Brown 1807 (lived Clarksville, TN)



4.Morgan Brown Vance (1813-1871) m.Susan Preston Thompson 1845




5.PRIVATE




6.PRIVATE
7.61862
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

 

1.Samuel Vance (d.1778, Washington Co, VA) m.Sarah Colville
2.Robert Vance (d.1818) m.Jean White
3.Robert Vance
4.John Henderson Vance
5.PRIVATE
6.PRIVATE
7.160200

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
85104
  1. Hugh Vance (b.1799 - d.1870, MO) m.Virginia Capps 1828 Grainger Co., TN
  2. John Marion Vance (1823-1890) m.Jane Hannah Rhoades
  3. PRIVATE
  4. PRIVATE
  5. 85014
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
155538
  1. Hugh Vance (b.1799 - d.1870, MO) m.Virginia Capps 1828 Grainger Co., TN
  2. David Preston Vance
  3. PRIVATE
  4. PRIVATE
  5. 155538
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

1.David Vance of Hampshire and Frederick Co, VA (d.c.1768) m.Janet
2.Joseph Colville Vance (b.1759, Frederick Co, VA - d.1809, Urbana, OH) m.Sarah Wilson
3.Wilson Vance (b.1796, Mason Co, KY - d.1862, Findlay, OH) m.Sarah Wilson
4.Miles Wilson Vance (b.1824, Findlay, OH - d.1876, Findlay, OH) m.Susan Kohli
5.PRIVATE
6.PRIVATE
7.140826

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
82147
  1. Major William Vance (b.1718, Scotland - d.1788, PA)
  2. Joseph Vance (built Vance's Fort, Washington Co., PA)
  3. Capt. William Vance
  4. Allison Vance
  5. John Vance
  6. PRIVATE
  7. PRIVATE
  8. 82147
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
44166
  1. Major William Vance (b.1718, Scotland - d.1788, PA)
  2. Joseph Vance (built Vance's Fort, Washington Co., PA)
  3. Col. John Vance (war of 1812)
  4. Col. Joseph W. Vance (Civil War fame)
  5. Walter L. Vance (1847-1909)
  6. PRIVATE
  7. 44166
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
39128
  1. James Vance (d.1751, Frederick Co., VA) m.Elizabeth Glass
  2. Samuel Vance m.Jane Rannels
  3. Rev. James Vance (b.c.1776, Frederick Co., VA - d.aft.1829, Jefferson Co., KY)
    m.Ruth Glass
  4. Robert Glass Vance (b.1800, Jefferson Co., KY - d.1859)
    m.Harriet L. Hobbs 1834
  5. Robert Glass Vance (b.1836, Jefferson Co., KY - d.aft.1900)
    m.Fannie Stowe
  6. Robert Glass Vance (b.c.1868, Jefferson Co., KY)
  7. PRIVATE
  8. 39128
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
87508
  1. Elihu G. Vance (b.1802, SC - d.1858, Liberty Co,. TX) m.Jane Harrington
  2. Joseph Theodore Vance (b.1848, Caddo, LA - d.1919, Brazos Co., TX) m.Caroline Noling
  3. PRIVATE
  4. PRIVATE
  5. 85380
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

116886

  1. John Vance (b.1736 - d.1823, KY) m.Jane Black
  2. Samuel Vance (b.1769, Frederick Co, VA - d.1856, Edgar Co, IL) m.Mary Blackburn
  3. Andrew Milton Vance (b.1804, Washington Co, VA - d.1868, Barry Co, MO) m.Esther Shelledy
  4. Samuel Elbridge Vance/Catherine Frame
  5. Selby Frame Vance/Jeannie Putnam
  6. PRIVATE
  7. PRIVATE
  8. 116886
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

107849

  1. Benjamin Vance of Copiah County, MS (d.1834-36, Carroll Co, MS)
  2. Samuel Edward Vance (1825-1889)
  3. William Franklin Vance (1877-1942)
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 107849

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
No Lineage Yet Provided
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
No Lineage Yet Provided
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

 

1.Patrick Whealen (b.1816, Ireland, poss. Tipperary - d.1874, Ontario, Canada)
2.William W. Whalen
3.PRIVATE
4.PRIVATE
5.W1

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
48374
  1. Thomas Vance (b.c.1820, Ohio)
    m.Mary Ann Armstrong 24 July 1845
  2. John Colby Vance (b.8 Sept. 1863, Gallia Co., OH – d.9 Sept. 1934,
    Union Co., OH); m.Regena Gordon 26 Aug. 1885
  3. FATHER
  4. 48374
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

72197

  1. Thomas Vance (b.1801, Fermanagh, Ire - d.1886, Caribou, ME) m.Jane [Keys?]
  2. David Vance (b.1841, New Brunswick, CAN - d.1876, Caribou, ME) m.Sarah Jane Smiley
  3. Amos Howard Vance (b.1868, Caribou, ME - d.1948, Hartland, ME) m.Ada Margaret Irvine
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 72197

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
N39890
  1. George Vance (b.1753, Donegal - d.1847, Orangeville, Columbia Co., PA)
    m.Martha
  2. John Vance (b.1786, Donegal – d.1869, Orangeville, PA) m.Euphens Patterson
  3. John Vance (b.1837, Orangeville, PA - d.1913, Orangeville, PA) m.Mary Elizabeth Evans
  4. John Boyd Vance (b.1878, Orangeville, PA - d.1960, Montoursville, PA)
  5. PRIVATE
  6. PRIVATE
  7. N39890
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
82984
  1. Richard Vance
  2. John Thomas Vance (b.c.1824, PA - d.1893, Hardin Co., OH) m.Phebe Burdick
  3. Thomas Duncan Vance (b.1864, Delaware Co., OH - d.1929, Union Co., OH) m.Iva Bonham
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 82984
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

1.Richard Vance m.Sarah Gilfillan
2.William Vance (c.1820 - 1869)
3.James Milo Vance (1865- 1940)
4.PRIVATE
5.PRIVATE
6.Anc2



 


 


 

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
85380
  1. Abner Vance (b.bef.1761 - d.1819, Abingdon, Washington Co., VA)
    m.Susannah Howard
  2. Richard Vance
  3. Paris Vance
  4. James Vance
  5. PRIVATE
  6. PRIVATE
  7. 85380
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
56883
  1. Abner Vance (b.bef.1761 - d.1819, Abingdon, Washington Co., VA)
    m.Susannah Howard
  2. Abner Vance (b.1796, Russel Co., VA - d.bef.1859, Logan Co., VA)
    m.Jane Perry
  3. Joseph N. Vance (b.1834, Logan Co., VA)
    m.Sarah Elizabeth Burgess
  4. William Harold Vance (b.1871, Logan Co., VA - d.1964, FL)
    m.Laura Bailey
  5. PRIVATE
  6. PRIVATE
  7. 56883
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
  1. Abner Vance (b.bef.1761 - d.1819, Abingdon, Washington Co., VA)
    m.Susannah Howard
  2. John Vance
  3. Levi Vance
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 179867
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
  1. Abner Vance (b.bef.1761 - d.1819, Abingdon, Washington Co., VA)
    m.Susannah Howard
  2. Elizabeth Vance/John B. Ferrell
  3. Richard Vance
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. PRIVATE
  7. 108691
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
No Lineage Yet Provided
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

94893

  1. David Vance (b.1816, Carter Co., TN) m.Elizabeth Rose
  2. John Vance m.Nancy Blair
  3. PRIVATE
  4. PRIVATE
  5. 94893
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
68372
  1. Matthew Vance (b.1764 - d.1835)
    m.Barbara McVeigh
  2. John Vance (b.1795, SC - d.1873, NC)
    m.Elizabeth Davis
  3. John Vance (b.1841 - d.1917)
    m.Lilly Isaacs
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 68372
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
71598
  1. Matthew Vance (b.1764 - d.1835)
    m.Barbara McVeigh
  2. Lewis Vance
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

115211

  1. Matthew Vance (b.1764 - d.1835) m.Barbara McVeigh
  2. Thomas Vance (b.c.1801, SC) m.Elizabeth Blalock
  3. Samuel Carson Vance m.Mary Elizabeth Phillips
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 115211
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

80341

  1. Matthew Vance (b.1764 - d.1835) m.Barbara McVeigh
  2. Thomas Vance (b.c.1801, SC)
  3. Isaac Avery Vance (b.c.1835, NC)
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 80341
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

56954

  1. Matthew Vance of Pittsylvania
  2. ?Matthew Vance/Barbara McVeigh
  3. George Vance (b.1780/90, SC - d.1845-50, MS) m.Nancy Harvey
  4. Kinson McVeigh Vance (b.c.1830/40, MS - d.1909, Vidalia, LA) m.Clementine Dunn
  5. Leon Sullivan Vance (b.1877, Madison Co., MS) m.Emma Dale Calvin
  6. PRIVATE
  7. 56883

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
99531
  1. Samuel Vance
  2. Lawson Vance
  3. Hamilton Hampton Vance
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 99531
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
109320
  1. John Vance
  2. Robert Vance (b.c.1786, SC - d.1855, Russel Co., VA) m.Mary Polly Carver
  3. Daniel Vance (b.c.1824?, TN) m.Lucinda Street
  4. John Vance (b.1853, Yancey Co, NC) m.Susan Gragg
  5. Daniel Walter Vance (b.1879, Shell Creek, TN) m.Birdie Taylor
  6. PRIVATE
  7. PRIVATE
  8. 109320



There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
72769
  1. John Vance
  2. Robert Vance (b.c.1786, SC - d.1855, Russel Co., VA)
  3. John Vance
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 72769
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
38105 & 75806
1.Robert Vance of Carter County, TN (b.1784, SC - d.25 Jun 1855, Wise or Russel Co., VA)

2. John Vance


3. Alexander Vance



4. PRIVATE




5. PRIVATE





6. 38105

2. Abner Vance (b.1820-6, Roan Mt. , Carter, TN - d.13 Jun 1887, Roan Mt. )


3.PRIVATE



4.PRIVATE


5.75806




There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
115706
  1. John Vance
  2. Robert Vance (b.c.1786, SC - d.1855, Russel Co., VA) m.Mary Polly Carver
  3. John Vance m.Sarah Bowman
  4. John Vance m.Matilda Gross
  5. PRIVATE
  6. PRIVATE
  7. 115706


There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
38105 & 75086
1.Robert Vance of Carter County, TN (b.1784, SC - d.25 Jun 1855, Wise or Russel Co., VA)

2. John Vance


3. Alexander Vance



4. PRIVATE




5. PRIVATE





6. 38105

2. Abner Vance (b.1820-6, Roan Mt. , Carter, TN - d.13 Jun 1887, Roan Mt. )


3.Zebedee Vance (b.1866, Carter Co., TN - d.1931, Manassa, Co.)



4.PRIVATE


5.75086




There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
No Lineage Yet Provided
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

114553

  1. Benjamin Vance (d.c.1848, Lincoln Co, MO) m.Margaret Lindsey
  2. James Vance (b.c.1810, VA) m.Mary Matilda Wise
  3. PRIVATE
  4. 114553

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
SOR2, SOR3, 45791 & SOR5

1. Samuel Vance (b.10 Dec. 1728, Bucks Co., PA) m.Agnes Penquite
2. James Vance (b.3 Sept 1764, prob. Bucks, PA - d.7 Oct 1835, McDonaugh , IL )
m. Margaret Renault


3. John Vance (b.8 Nov 1794, Cocke , TN - d.24 Jan 1882, Wash. UT)
m.Sarah Lavinia Gant Perkins


4. James Vance (b.24 Nov 1826, Mrgn. IL - d.31 May 1900, Milburn, Mcrp. AZ )
m.Susannah Benson



5. James Vance (b.6 Aug 1854, Utah - d.7 Aug 1924, Alberta, Canada )




6. PRIVATE





7. SOR2


4. Isaac Young Vance (b.28 Dec 1818, Jackson , TN - d.11 Mar 1898, Sanpete , UT )
m.Martha Yeager



5. John Alma Vance (b.23 Mar 1847, Douglas , NE - d.22 Nov 1886, UT)
m.Mariah Forbush




6. Arthur Alonzo Vance (b.24 May 1883, UT - d.22 Oct 1976, UT)





7. SOR3



5. Hyrum Moroni Vance (b.27 Sept 1857, UT)




6. Hyrum Moroni Vance (b.12 Nov 1879, UT)





7. PRIVATE






8. SOR5

3. Lewis Reno Vance (b.29 Jan 1793, Cocke , TN - d.28 Jun 1852, Platte River (now Nebraska )
m. Elizabeth Raulston


4. John Wesley Vance (b.26 Oct 1830, Nashville , TN - d.2 Jun 1867, Sanpete , UT)
m. Rhoda Freestone



5. James Wesley Vance (b.1 Dec 1861, Utah - d.29 Mar 1947, UT)




6. Orwell Nicholas Vance (b.1901, Alpine, UT - d.1971, Mesa, AZ)





7. 45791
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
SOR2, SOR3, 45791 & SOR5

1. Samuel Vance (b.10 Dec. 1728, Bucks Co., PA) m.Agnes Penquite
2. James Vance (b.3 Sept 1764, prob. Bucks, PA - d.7 Oct 1835, McDonaugh , IL )
m. Margaret Renault


3. John Vance (b.8 Nov 1794, Cocke , TN - d.24 Jan 1882, Wash. UT)
m.Sarah Lavinia Gant Perkins


4. James Vance (b.24 Nov 1826, Mrgn. IL - d.31 May 1900, Milburn, Mcrp. AZ )
m.Susannah Benson



5. James Vance (b.6 Aug 1854, Utah - d.7 Aug 1924, Alberta, Canada )




6. PRIVATE





7. SOR2


4. Isaac Young Vance (b.28 Dec 1818, Jackson , TN - d.11 Mar 1898, Sanpete , UT )
m.Martha Yeager



5. John Alma Vance (b.23 Mar 1847, Douglas , NE - d.22 Nov 1886, UT)
m.Mariah Forbush




6. Arthur Alonzo Vance (b.24 May 1883, UT - d.22 Oct 1976, UT)





7. SOR3



5. Hyrum Moroni Vance (b.27 Sept 1857, UT)




6. Hyrum Moroni Vance (b.12 Nov 1879, UT)





7. PRIVATE






8. SOR5

3. Lewis Reno Vance (b.29 Jan 1793, Cocke , TN - d.28 Jun 1852, Platte River (now Nebraska )
m. Elizabeth Raulston


4. John Wesley Vance (b.26 Oct 1830, Nashville , TN - d.2 Jun 1867, Sanpete , UT)
m. Rhoda Freestone



5. James Wesley Vance (b.1 Dec 1861, Utah - d.29 Mar 1947, UT)




6. Orwell Nicholas Vance (b.1901, Alpine, UT - d.1971, Mesa, AZ)





7. 45791
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
SOR2, SOR3, 45791 & SOR5

1. Samuel Vance (b.10 Dec. 1728, Bucks Co., PA) m.Agnes Penquite
2. James Vance (b.3 Sept 1764, prob. Bucks, PA - d.7 Oct 1835, McDonaugh , IL )
m. Margaret Renault


3. John Vance (b.8 Nov 1794, Cocke , TN - d.24 Jan 1882, Wash. UT)
m.Sarah Lavinia Gant Perkins


4. James Vance (b.24 Nov 1826, Mrgn. IL - d.31 May 1900, Milburn, Mcrp. AZ )
m.Susannah Benson



5. James Vance (b.6 Aug 1854, Utah - d.7 Aug 1924, Alberta, Canada )




6. PRIVATE





7. SOR2


4. Isaac Young Vance (b.28 Dec 1818, Jackson , TN - d.11 Mar 1898, Sanpete , UT )
m.Martha Yeager



5. John Alma Vance (b.23 Mar 1847, Douglas , NE - d.22 Nov 1886, UT)
m.Mariah Forbush




6. Arthur Alonzo Vance (b.24 May 1883, UT - d.22 Oct 1976, UT)





7. SOR3



5. Hyrum Moroni Vance (b.27 Sept 1857, UT)




6. Hyrum Moroni Vance (b.12 Nov 1879, UT)





7. PRIVATE






8. SOR5

3. Lewis Reno Vance (b.29 Jan 1793, Cocke , TN - d.28 Jun 1852, Platte River (now Nebraska )
m. Elizabeth Raulston


4. John Wesley Vance (b.26 Oct 1830, Nashville , TN - d.2 Jun 1867, Sanpete , UT)
m. Rhoda Freestone



5. James Wesley Vance (b.1 Dec 1861, Utah - d.29 Mar 1947, UT)




6. Orwell Nicholas Vance (b.1901, Alpine, UT - d.1971, Mesa, AZ)





7. 45791
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

97806

  1. Samuel Vance (b.1728, Bucks Co., PA) m.Agnes Penquite
  2. James Vance (d.1835, McDonough Co., IL) m.Margaret Renault
  3. John Vance (b.1794, Cocke, TN - d.1882, Washington, UT) m.Sarah L. G. Perkins
  4. Isaac Young Vance (b.1818, Jackson, TN - d.1898, Sanpete, UT) m.Martha Yeager
  5. John Alma Vance (b.1847, Douglas, NE - d.1886, Sanpete, UT) m.Mariah Forbush
  6. Arthur Alonzo Vance (b.1883, Sanpete, UT - d.1976)
  7. PRIVATE
  8. PRIVATE
  9. 97806

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
SOR2, SOR3, 45791 & SOR5

1. Samuel Vance (b.10 Dec. 1728, Bucks Co., PA) m.Agnes Penquite
2. James Vance (b.3 Sept 1764, prob. Bucks, PA - d.7 Oct 1835, McDonaugh , IL )
m. Margaret Renault


3. John Vance (b.8 Nov 1794, Cocke , TN - d.24 Jan 1882, Wash. UT)
m.Sarah Lavinia Gant Perkins


4. James Vance (b.24 Nov 1826, Mrgn. IL - d.31 May 1900, Milburn, Mcrp. AZ )
m.Susannah Benson



5. James Vance (b.6 Aug 1854, Utah - d.7 Aug 1924, Alberta, Canada )




6. PRIVATE





7. SOR2


4. Isaac Young Vance (b.28 Dec 1818, Jackson , TN - d.11 Mar 1898, Sanpete , UT )
m.Martha Yeager



5. John Alma Vance (b.23 Mar 1847, Douglas , NE - d.22 Nov 1886, UT)
m.Mariah Forbush




6. Arthur Alonzo Vance (b.24 May 1883, UT - d.22 Oct 1976, UT)





7. SOR3



5. Hyrum Moroni Vance (b.27 Sept 1857, UT)




6. Hyrum Moroni Vance (b.12 Nov 1879, UT)





7. PRIVATE






8. SOR5

3. Lewis Reno Vance (b.29 Jan 1793, Cocke , TN - d.28 Jun 1852, Platte River (now Nebraska )
m. Elizabeth Raulston


4. John Wesley Vance (b.26 Oct 1830, Nashville , TN - d.2 Jun 1867, Sanpete , UT)
m. Rhoda Freestone



5. James Wesley Vance (b.1 Dec 1861, Utah - d.29 Mar 1947, UT)




6. Orwell Nicholas Vance (b.1901, Alpine, UT - d.1971, Mesa, AZ)





7. 45791
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

96768

  1. Samuel Vance/Agnes Penquite
  2. Thomas Vance
  3. John F. Vance of Smith Co., TN
  4. James M. Vance (b.1820) m.Mary Ann Dickens
  5. PRIVATE
  6. PRIVATE
  7. 96768

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
44944
  1. John Vance (b.c.1760, prob. in Ireland) m.Mary Allison
  2. Robert Vance (b.1805, Ireland) m.Mary Ramsey
  3. Alexander Vance (b.1831, Donegal, Ireland - d.1920, Branch Co., MI) m.Mary Barnhill
  4. Matthew Vance (b.1865, Branch Co., MI - d.1953, Coldwater, MI) m.Rose Steele
  5. Arlin Merle Vance (b.1896, Branch Co., MI - d.1972, Coldwater, MI) m.Lylla May Adams
  6. 44944
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
84477
  1. William Vance (b.1818, Derry - d.1893, Ontario)
  2. PRIVATE
  3. PRIVATE
  4. 84477
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
56896
  1. Alexander Vance (b.bef.1885, Woodlands or Momeen, Donegal)
  2. Robert Vance (b.1903, Woodlands, Ireland - d,1965, Carrigans, Donegal)
  3. PRIVATE
  4. 56896
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

91181

  1. John Vance (b.1745/50 - d.1801, Topsham, VT) m.Jane
  2. David Vance (1788-1854) m.Olive
  3. Aaron Vance (1812-1906) m.Lucinda Ann Tucker
  4. David Elmore Vance (1841-1915) m.Alice Maybury
  5. PRIVATE
  6. PRIVATE
  7. 91181
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

 

1.David Vance (b.Ireland - d.1804, Great Village, Nova Scotia) m.Isabella
2.William Vance (d.1847, Great Village) m.Jane
3.David Vance (b.1795, Great Village - d.1871, Great Village) m.Rebecca Geddes
4.Joseph Vance (b.1828, Great Village - d.1905, Bass River, Nova Scotia) m.Rebecca Ann Fulton
5.David Vance (b.1860, Bass River - d.1929, Bass River) m.Martha Creelma
6.PRIVATE
7.PRIVATE
8.146310

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

47531

  1. Patrick Vance m.Elizabeth McCray
  2. John Vance (b.1773, Frederick Co., VA) m.Lydia Reese
  3. Majr. William Vance (b.1803, South Elkhorn or Lexington, KY) m.Sophronia Calvin
  4. Joseph Calvin Vance (b.1827, Brown Co., OH) m.Olive Thompson
  5. Clifford Morton Vance (b.1865, Mt. Orab, Brown Co., OH) m.Marion Augusta Baker
  6. FATHER
  7. 45731
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

73288

  1. Patrick Vance m.Elizabeth McCray
  2. William Vance (b.bef.1765, VA) m.Rebecca Hinton
  3. Joseph L. Vance (b.1802, Scott Co., KY - d.1883, Scott Co., KY)
  4. William Vance (b.1824, Scott Co., KY - d.1898, Scott Co., KY)
  5. PRIVATE
  6. PRIVATE
  7. 73288
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

130228

  1. Patrick Vance m.Elizabeth McCray
  2. William Vance (b.bef.1765, VA) m.Rebecca Hinton
  3. Robert Vance m.Lucinda Trussle
  4. Daniel Milton Vance m.Mary Elizabeth Blakely
  5. Joseph Edward Vance m.Phoebe Elizabeth Kinder
  6. PRIVATE
  7. PRIVATE
  8. 130228
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
83432
  1. Thomas Vance (b.1791 - d.1872) m.Sarah Caldwell
  2. George W. Vance (b.1827 - d.1900) m.Mary Ann Rowland
  3. Henderson V. Vance (b.1855 - d.1928) m.Rebecca Denney
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 83432
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
95164
  1. Thomas Vance (b.1791 - d.1872) m.Sarah Caldwell
  2. Thomas Vance (b.1814, Rockbridge, VA) m.Mary "Polly Anderson
  3. Francis M. Vance (b.1855 - d.1928)
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 95164
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

1.Hugh Vance (b.1775 - d.1827, Fayette Co, PA) m.Margaret Tedrick
2.George Vance (b.1825)
3.John O. Vance (b.1865)
4.PRIVATE
5.PRIVATE
6.140136

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

61703

  1. William Vance (b.1779, PA - d.1854, Highland Co., OH) m.Rachel Minton
  2. Lemuel K. Vance (b.1822, Fayette Co., PA - d.1889, Highland Co., OH)
  3. PRIVATE
  4. PRIVATE
  5. 61703
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

101216

  1. William Vance (b.1779, PA - d.1854, Highland Co., OH) m.Rachel Minton
  2. Mintun J. Vance (b.1816 - d.aft.1884) m.Matilda Tener
  3. Thomas Henry Vance (b.1856 - d.1924) m.Mary Frances Barker
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 101216
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

104739

  1. Davis Vance (b,1781 - d.1837, Highland Co., OH) m.Hannah Tedrick
  2. William Vance (b.1823, Fayette Co., PA - d.1894, Highland Co., OH) m.Mary McConnaughey
  3. PRIVATE
  4. PRIVATE
  5. 104739

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
1.Jacob Vance (b.1781 - d.1815, Chester Co, PA) m.Magdalena
2.Thomas Vance (b.1813, Chester Co, PA - d.1891) m.Sarah Ludwick
3.Jacob Vance (b.c.1842 - d.1926) m.Sarah
4.PRIVATE
5.PRIVATE
6.133768
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

120721

  1. Johan Phillip Wentz (b.1732 - d.1795, York Co, PA) m.Anna Maria Holtzappel
  2. Adam Wentz/Vance (b.1762, York Co, PA - d.c.1829, Monroe Co, WV)
  3. Phillip Vance (b.c.1800, Monroe Co, WV) m.Sarah/Sally
  4. John D. Vance (b.c.1838-1842, Monroe Co, WV) m.Rebecca Carte
  5. PRIVATE
  6. PRIVATE
  7. 120721

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

95656

  1. John Vance (b.1804, PA - d.1868, Jay Co., IN) m.Sarah Kulp
  2. Jeremiah Vance (1834-1918) m.Barbara Bennett
  3. William Emery Vance (b.1865, Delaware Co., IN - d.1943)
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 95656

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

71883

  1. George Vance (b.1776, PA) m.Margaret
  2. Jacob Vance (b.1814, OH - d. Wisconsin) m.Edith Reck 1836, Randolph Co., IN
  3. Henry H. Vance (b.1838, Randolph Co., IN - d.1914, Renville Co., ND)
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 71883
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

100588

  1. George Vance (b.1776, PA) m.Margaret
  2. William Vance (b.1820, OH - d.1900, WI) m.Margaret Wallace
  3. John Louis Vance (b.1862, Richland, WI - d.1923, Barron, WI) m.Effie Gale
  4. PRIVATE
  5. 100588
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
79352
  1. George Frederick Wantz/Vance (b.1819, OH - d.1909) m.Sophia (Preble Co, OH)
  2. Erwin Christopher Vance (b.1845)
  3. PRIVATE
  4. PRIVATE
  5. 79352

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

1.William Vance (b.1770, Ireland)
2.James Vance (b.1800, Ireland) m.Betty Wilson
3.Joseph Vance (1841-1916, Ireland) m.Anne Russell         
4.PRIVATE
5.PRIVATE
6.181224

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
N3804
  1. James Alexander Vance
  2. James Alexander Vance Jr.
  3. Thomas P. Vance m.Nancy Eveline Minter
  4. Jacob M. Vance (b.c.1848, Calhoun/Chickasaw Co. MS)
  5. Thomas P. Vance (b.c.1878, MS) m.Ann
  6. PRIVATE
  7. PRIVATE
  8. N3804
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

105272

  1. James Alexander Vance (b.c.1755 - d.c.1821, Chester Co., SC) m.Agnes McNulty
  2. John P. Vance (b.1795, SC - d.1863, MS) m.Isabella McNulty
  3. William C. Vance (b.c.1820, SC - d.1895, Carroll Co., MS) m.Martha Ann Lott
  4. William Edgar Vance (b.1867, Carroll Co., MS - d.1939, Carroll Co., MS) m.Margaret Harbin
  5. PRIVATE
  6. PRIVATE
  7. 105272
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

1.James Alexander Vance (b.c.1755 - d.c.1821, Chester Co., SC) m.Agnes McNulty
2.John P. Vance (b.1795, SC - d.1863, MS) m.Isabella McNulty
3.George W. Vance (b.1826, Pickens Co, AL - d.1864, MS) m.Mary Britnal
4.George Washington Vance (b.1859, MS - d.1923, AR)
5.PRIVATE
6.PRIVATE
7.128853

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

 

1.George Hay (m Janet Watson Nairn 1777)
2.William Hay (b. 1779 m. Janet Fraser) 
3.George Hay (b. Nairn 1814; m. Jane Edwards 1836)
4.Edward Hay (b. Rafford 1848 m. Jane Chapman in Poplar London 1871)
5.PRIVATE
6.PRIVATE
7.H1


There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
85282
  1. Francis Marion Vance (b.1845, FL) (father prob. born in SC)
  2. PRIVATE
  3. 85282
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

106673

1.William Vance (b.c.1747 - d.Jun 1803, PA) m.Mary Montgomery
2.William Vance (b.1780 - d.1841, OH) m.Mary
3.John Vance (b.1812, PA - d.1889 , KS) m.Jane Hanby
4.John E. Vance (b.1859, PA - d.1945, OK) m.Mary J. Wright
5.Joe W. Vance (b.1888, OK - d.1965, OK) m.Dora Lowman
6.PRIVATE
7.PRIVATE
8.106673

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
No lineage submitted.
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

79666

  1. ?Dormon Vose (b.c.1826, NY)
  2. Henry Allen Vose (b.1869, IL)
  3. PRIVATE
  4. 79666


There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

N57880

  1. Beverley Vance (b.c.1832, SC - d.1899, Cokesbury, SC) m.Matilda
  2. PRIVATE
  3. PRIVATE
  4. N57880
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
N8118
  1. Patrick Vance (b. ??? - d. c1805, Henderson Co., KY)
    m. Sarah Harrington
  2. Thomas Vance (b.c.1784, Franklin Co, Georgia(?) - d.1859, Rockwall Co., TX)
    m. Rebecca Mounts
  3. Fountain Jordan Vance (b.1825, Missouri - d.1886, Collin Co., TX)
    m. Pernina Beverly
  4. Leonidas Stoner Vance (b.1849, Collin Co., TX - d.1920, Collin Co., TX)
    m. Sarah Francis Bowden
  5. Winston Hanegan Vance (b.1876, Hempstead Co, AR - d.1945, Harris Co., TX)
    m. Ada Edna Jordan
  6. Carol Stoner Vance, Sr. (b.1903, Rockwall Co., TX - d.1935, Harris Co., TX)
  7. PRIVATE
  8. N8118
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

1.James Vance (b.c.1781)
2.Christopher Vance (b.c.1811, Paisley, Scotland - d.1822, Dumbarton, Scotland) m.Mary Ann Law
3.William Law Vance (b.1841, Glasgow - d.1907, Glasgow)
4.Christopher Meikel Vance (b.1864, Dumbarton, Scotland)
5.PRIVATE
6.PRIVATE
7.135387

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.


1.Richard Vance (b.1857 - d.aft.June 1893) m.Celia A. Vance
2.William Douglas Vance (b.1884, Oakwood, VA - d.1953, Oakwood, VA)
3.PRIVATE
4.PRIVATE
5.154716

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

62079

  1. Alexander Vance (b.1732/9, VA - d.bef.1810, KY)
  2. William Vance (b.1760, VA - d.1831, KY) m.Fra. Woolridge
  3. John Vance (b.1796, KY - d.1865, KY) m.Nancy Hudson
  4. James Crawford Vance (b.1840, KY - d.1928, KS) m.Mary Dorothy Hall
  5. GRANDFATHER
  6. FATHER
  7. 62079
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
47042
  1. Hugh Vance (b.1807 � d.1839, Knox Co., TN)
    m.Rachel Blair, Washington Co., TN
  2. Hugh Lawson White Vance (b.1838, Roane Co., TN � d.1907, Comanche, KS)
    m.Nancy E. Noftsger 1867, Marion Co., IA
  3. James Lloyd Vance (b.1881, Decatur Co., IA � d.1969, Finney, KS)
  4. Percival Schauner Vance (b.1918, Beaver Co., OK � d.1996, Franklin Co., AR)
  5. 47042
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
48973
  1. John Vance (b.1796, TN - d.1860/70, Wash. Co., AR)
    m. Mary Ann Swagerty bef. 1829
  2. Martin Van Buren Vance (b.1835, Wash. Co., AR - d.1880, Johnson Co., AR)
    m. Jane Ellen Bell 1855, Washington Co., AR
  3. William Henry Vance (b.1855, Wash. Co., AR - d.Scurry, TX)
    m. Drucilla Jane Greason 1879
  4. Hiram Thomas Vance (b.1892, Blueridge, TX - d.1933, Kaufman Co., TX)
  5. 48973
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

1.John Vance (1746-1827) m.Nancy
2.Hiram Vance (1796-1876)
3.Reuben Vance (1823-1896)
4.PRIVATE
5.PRIVATE
6.150896

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
83540
  1. Dr. James Vaulx of Marston Maisey in Wiltshire (1570-1626)
  2. James Vaulx of York Co., VA (1607-1681)
  3. Robert Vaulx (moved to Dorchester Co., MD)
  4. James Vaulx (b.c.1666 - d.1745, Dorchester Co., MD)
  5. John Vaulx (d.1775, Caroline Co., MD)
  6. John Vaulx (1755-1820)
  7. Tilghman Warren Vaus (b.1806, Caroline Co., MD - d.1880, Williams Co., OH) m.Elizabeth Towers 1830 Pickaway Co., OH
  8. Quincy Tilghman Vaus (1844-1924)
  9. PRIVATE
  10. PRIVATE
  11. 83540
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

Anc1

  1. Robert Vance (b.1791, MD) m.Catherine Daily
  2. Daily Vance (b.1827, OH) m.Jane Watt
  3. Robert D. Vance (b.1855, OH - d.1928, WY) m.Margaret Little
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. Anc1
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

 

1.Thomas Jefferson Vance (b.1829, VA) m.Rosanna/Leuanna Blankenship, 1848
2.George Washington Vance (b.1849, Union Twp, MO - d.1917, Buffalo, MO) m.Lucinda J. Caffey
3.PRIVATE
4.PRIVATE
5.159625

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
39021
  1. David Vance (b.1815, Ireland, to Baltimore 1831, d.1880, Butler Co., PA)
  2. William Alexander Vance (b.1847, Baltimore or Butler Co., PA - d.1897, Wellsville, NY)
  3. Franklin Clyde Vance (b.1874, Butler Co., PA - d.Apr 1950, Bradford, PA)
  4. Paul Bert Vance (b.1902, Alma, NY - d.1966, Lexington, OK)
  5. 39021
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

 

1.Thomas Vance (b.c.1785, VA - d.c.1836, IN)
2.Thomas Vance (b.1817, TN - d.1897, IN) m.Ann Blackbourn
3.John Willard Vance (b.1845, Crawford Co, IN - d.1880, IN) m.Eliza Jane Rawlings
4.PRIVATE
5.PRIVATE
6.151420

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
No Lineage Yet Provided
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

 

1.John Vance (b.c.1830) m.Margaret
2.John Vance (b.c.1861 - d.c.1904) m.1885, Catherina Mansfield, Dublin, Ireland
3.William Vance (1893-1973) m.Mary Meegan, Dublin, Ireland
4.PRIVATE
5.PRIVATE
6.149416

 

There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
  1. ?? David Vance of Buncomb County , NC (b.1769-1807 - d.1844) (illegitimate child w/Jane Israel?)
  2. Phillip Jasper Israel (b.1820/21)
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

119337

1.Samuel Vance/Agnes Penquite
2.?Thomas Vance

===============

  1. John F. Vance of Smith Co., TN
  2. James M. Vance (b.1820) m.Mary Ann Dickens
  3. PRIVATE
  4. PRIVATE
  5. 119337
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
No Lineage Yet Provided
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.
No Lineage Yet Provided
There is a discrepancy between how FTDNA reports the value for this marker and how I choose to report it. FTDNA reports the value as the sum of 389i and 389ii whereas I have chosen to report 389ii without adding its value to 389i so that the true genetic distance is apparent. For instance, if one were to use FTDNA's reporting style, a comparison of the values 13, 30 and 14, 31 on 389i,ii would make it appear that there was a genetic distance of two (one on each marker) whereas in fact there is only a genetic distance of one on marker 389i. I would report these values as 13, 17 and 14, 17, so that the true genetic distance is plain to see.

Below we have posted Y-DNA results for all of our participants. Those whom we consider to be part of a related group have been given the same color.

To view a participant's lineage, mouse over the Kit ID#. Clicking on a participant's Kit ID# will open a pop-up window with the participant's lineage. From there you may choose the option to view all lineages.

Markers colored red have been observed to mutate at a faster rate than other markers.

Question About 389ii?

Mutations are highlighted based on the following legend:
Red Shared Mutation
Yellow Parallel Mutation
Pink Personal/Insignificant Mutation
White Significance Unknown
Kit H
G		 G
r
o
u
p		 Earliest known 3
9
3		 3
9
0		 1
9
*		 3
9
1		 3
8
5
a		 3
8
5
b		 4
2
6		 3
8
8		 4
3
9		 3
8
9
i		 3
9
2		 3
8
9
i
i		 4
5
8		 4
5
9
a		 4
5
9
b		 4
5
5		 4
5
4		 4
4
7		 4
3
7		 4
4
8		 4
4
9		 4
6
4
a		 4
6
4
b		 4
6
4
c		 4
6
4
d		 4
6
0		 G
A
T
A
H
4		 Y
C
A
I
I
a		 Y
C
A
I
I
b		 4
5
6		 6
0
7		 5
7
6		 5
7
0		 C
D
Y
a		 C
D
Y
b		 4
4
2		 4
3
8		 5
3
1		 5
7
8		 3
9
5
S
1
a		 3
5
9
S
1
b		 5
9
0		 5
3
7		 6
4
1		 4
7
2		 4
0
6
S
1		 5
1
1		 4
2
5		 4
1
3
a		 4
1
3
b		 5
5
7		 5
9
4		 4
3
6		 4
9
0		 5
3
4		 4
5
0		 4
4
4		 4
8
1		 5
2
0		 4
4
6		 6
1
7		 5
6
8		 4
8
7		 5
7
2		 6
4
0		 4
9
2		 5
6
5
39200 R1b-L21 1 Barnbarroch (1300s) 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 16 18 17 39 40 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 12 12 12 12
54198 R1b-L21 1 William of Smyth Co., VA b.1826 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 16 17 17 39 40 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 12 12 12 12
67952 R1b-L21 1 John of Frederick 1760 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 16 17 17 38 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 12 12 12 12
73264 R1b-L21 1 William Vance (b.c.1811, SC) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 16 17 17 38 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 11 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 12 12 12 12
92592 R1b-L21 1 David Vance of Wigton (m.Agnes Jones) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 16 18 17 37 39 12 12
154808 R1b-L21 1 Sihon (b.1802, Claiborne Co, TN) (son James) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 19 38 40 12 12 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
150126 R1b-L21 1 Sihon (b.1802, Claiborne Co, TN) (son Richard) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 17 19 38 41 12 12
39459 R1b-L21 1 Patrick of Chambersburg 1803 (son Wm) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 17 18 38 41 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
57216 R1b-L21 1 Patrick of Chambersburg 1803 (son Joseph) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 17 18 38 39 12 12 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
N20182 R1b-L21 1 Robert (b.c.1810, TN) m.Tempe Brewer 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 17 18 38 40 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
68535 R1b-L21 1 William (b.1833, McMinn Co., TN) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 17 18 38 40 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
149061 R1b-L21 1 David (d.1800, Mecklenberg Co, NC) (son Sam) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 18 38 40 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
142808 R1b-L21 1 David (d.1800, Mecklenberg Co, NC) (son John) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 18 38 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
65717 R1b-L21 1 Andrew of Frederick 1754 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 18 39 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
44884 R1b-L21 1 Samuel of Orange, NY 1793 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 18 38 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 21 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
100812 R1b-L21 1 Joseph (d.1798-9, VA) m.Rachel Alexander 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 20 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 17 38 39 12 12
43864 R1b-L21 1 Samuel Vance/Alice Carr 1789 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 9 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 15 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 17 38 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
113168 R1b-L21 1 John Vance (d.c.1814, Springfield, OH) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 9 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 17 38 38 12 12
114890 R1b-L21 1 Joseph (d.1838, IL) m.Nancy Bradley (son John) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 18 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 17 38 38 12 12 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
120759 R1b-L21 1 Joseph (d.1838, IL) m.Nancy Bradley (son Jas.) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 18 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 17 38 38 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
N21545 R1b-L21 1 Samuel Vance/Sarah Colville 1778 (son John) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 17 39 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
61862 R1b-L21 1 Samuel Vance/Sarah Colville 1778 (son Sam) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 14 19 17 38 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
160200 R1b-L21 1 Samuel Vance/Sarah Colville 1778 (son Robert) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 17 17 37 40 12 12
85014 R1b-L21 1 Hugh (b.1799) m.Virginia Capps (son John) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 17 37 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
155538 R1b-L21 1 Hugh (b.1799) m.Virginia Capps (son David) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 23 23 16 15 18 17 38 39 12 12
140826 R1b-L21 1 David (1768, Hampshire Co., VA) (wife Janet) 14 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 11 11 19 23 15 15 18 17 37 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
82147 R1b-L21 1 Maj. William 1788 PA (Joseph, Wm) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 19 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 17 x x x x x
44166 R1b-L21 1 Maj. William 1788 PA (Joseph, Jno) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 17 17 38 39 12 12
39128 R1b-L21 1 James of Frederick 1751 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 19 17 38 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 14 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
87508 R1b-L21 1 Elihu (b.1802, SC) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 17 38 40 12 12
116886 R1b-L21 1 John Vance/Jane Black 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 18 38 39 12 12
107849 R1b-L21 1 Benjamin (d.1834-36, Carroll Co, MS) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 18 39 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 11 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
7555 R1b-L21 ?? Unknown 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 17 39 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 12 12 12
150907 R-L21 2a 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 19 15 17 17 37 40 13 12
W1 R-L21 2a Patrick Whealen (b.1816, Ireland) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 12 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 19 15 17 17 37 40 13 12 11 9 15 16 9 10 10 8 10 11 12 23 23 18 10 12 12 15 8 14 22 19 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12
48374 R1b-L21 2a Thomas of Gallia Co., OH (b.c.1820) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 12 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 18 15 17 17 37 40 13 12
72197 R1b-L21 2a Thomas of Fermanagh/Maine 1801-1886 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 12 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 19 15 17 17 37 39 13 12 11 9 15 16 9 10 10 8 11 11 12 23 23 18 10 12 12 15 8 14 21 19 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12
N39890 R1b-L21 2a George (b.1753, Donegal - d.1847, PA) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 18 15 17 17 37 40 13 12
82984 R1b-L21 2a Richard Vance m.Sarah Gilfillan (son John) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 13 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 18 15 17 17 37 40 13 12 11 9 15 16 9 10 10 8 11 11 12 23 23 18 10 12 12 15 8 14 22 19 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12
Anc2 R1b-L21 2a Richard Vance m.Sarah Gilfillan (son Wm) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 13 13 13 16 18 11 11 25 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 12
85380 R1b-L21 2a Abner (d.1819, Abingdon, VA) (son Richard) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 x x x x x x x x 30 15 16 16 17 x x x x 19 x x x x x x x
56883 R1b-L21 2a Abner (d.1819, Abingdon, VA) (son Abner) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 19 15 17 17 37 40 13 12 11 9 15 16 9 10 10 8 11 11 12 23 23 18 10 12 12 15 8 14 22 19 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12
179867 R-L21 2b Abner (d.1819, Abingdon, VA) (son John) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 20 15 17 17 37 40 13 12 11 9 15 16 9 10 10 8 11 11 12 23 23 18 10 12 12 15 8 14 22 19 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12
108691 R1b1c 2a-NP Abner (d.1819, Abingdon, VA) (dau Elizabeth) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 16 9 10 11 11 25 15 20 29 15 15 17 17 12 11 19 25 16 15 16 16 37 38 12 12 11 10 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 22 23 17 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12
F1 R1b 2a-NP John B. Ferrell (b.c.1806) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 16 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 15 17 17 12 11 19 25 16 15 16 15 37 38 12 12 11 10 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 22 23 17 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12
94893 R1b-L21 2a David (b.1816, Carter Co., TN) m.Elizabeth Rose 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 x x x x x x x x 30 15 16 16 17 10 x x x 19 x x x x x 13 x
68372 R1b-L21 2a Matthew of Pittsylvania (Matthew, John) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 20 15 17 17 37 40 13 12 11 9 15 16 9 10 10 8 11 11 12 23 23 18 10 12 12 15 8 14 22 19 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12
71598 R1b-L21 2a Matthew of Pittsylvania (Matthew, Lewis) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 20 15 17 17 36 40 13 12
115211 R1b-L21 2a Matthew of Pittsylvania (Matthew, Thomas) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 20 15 17 17 37 40 13 12
80341 R1b-L21 2a Matthew of Pittsylvania (Matthew, Thomas) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 20 15 17 17 37 40 13 12 11 9 15 16 9 10 10 8 11 11 12 23 23 18 10 12 12 14 8 14 22 19 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12
56954 R1b-L21 2a ?Matthew of Pittsylvania (Matthew, George) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 20 15 17 17 37 40 13 12 14
99531 R1b-L21 2a Matthew of Pittsylvania (John, Samuel) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 16 x x x x x x x x 30 15 16 17 19 x x x x 19 x x x x x 13 x
109320 R1b-L21 2a Matthew of Pittsylvania (John, Robt, Daniel) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 20 15 17 17 37 40 13 12 11 9 15 16 9 10 10 8 11 11 12 23 23 18 10 12 12 15 8 14 22 19 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12
72769 R1b-L21 2a Matthew of Pittsylvania (John, Robt, John) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 20 15 17 17 37 40 13 12
38105 R1b-L21 2a Matthew of Pittsylvania (John, Robt, John) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 20 15 17 17 37 39 13 12 11 9 15 16 9 10 10 8 11 11 12 23 23 18 10 12 12 15 8 13 22 19 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12
115706 R1b-L21 2a Matthew of Pittsylvania (John, Robt, John) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 20 15 17 17 37 40 13 12
75086 R1b-L21 2a Matthew of Pittsylvania (John, Robt, Abner) 13 24 14 11 11 13 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 20 15 17 17 38 40 13 12 14
140425 R1b-L21 2a ?? 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 20 15 17 17 36 40 12 12 11 9 15 16 9 10 10 8 11 11 12 23 23 18 10 12 12 15 8 14 22 19 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12
114553 R1b-L21 2b Benjamin (d.c.1848, Lincoln Co, MO) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 16 17 10 11 19 23 19 15 18 18 37 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 9 10 10 8 11 11 12 23 23 18 10 12 12 15 8 14 22 19 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12
SOR2 R1b-L21 2b Samuel m.Agnes Penquite (James, Jno, Jas) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 19 12 12
SOR5 R1b-L21 2b Samuel m.Agnes Penquite (James, Jno, Isaac) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 12 13 16 18 9 9 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 19 12 12
SOR3 R1b-L21 2b Samuel m.Agnes Penquite (James, Jno, Isaac) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 18 12 12
97806 R1b-L21 2b Samuel m.Agnes Penquite (James, Jno, Isaac) 13 24 14 12 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 17 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 16 16 16 10 11 19 23 18 15 18 19 37 40 12 12
45791 R1b-L21 2b Samuel m.Agnes Penquite (James, Lewis) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 16 18 9 10 12 11 25 15 19 31 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 19 15 18 18 38 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 9 10 10 8 11 11 12 23 23 18 10 12 12 15 8 14 22 19 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12
96768 R1b-L21 2b Samuel m.Agnes Penquite (Thomas, John) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 16 16 17 10 11 19 23 19 15 18 18 37 40 12 12
44944 R1b1c 3 John Vance (b.c.1760, prob. Ire.) 13 24 14 10 11 13 12 13 12 13 13 18 17 9 11 11 11 25 16 19 30 15 16 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 18 35 39 12 12
84477 R1b1c 3 William (b.1818, Derry - d.1893, Ontario) 13 24 14 10 11 13 12 13 12 13 13 18 17 9 11 11 11 25 16 19 31 15 16 17 17 12 11 19 23 16 15 18 18 35 39 12 12
56896 R1b1c 3 Alexander Vance (b.bef.1885, Donegal) 13 24 14 10 11 13 12 13 12 13 13 18 17 9 11 11 11 25 16 19 30 15 16 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 18 34 39 12 12
91181 R1b1c 3 John of Vermont (b.1745/1750) m.Jane 13 24 14 10 11 13 12 13 12 13 13 17 17 9 10 11 11 25 16 19 30 15 16 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 18 35 39 12 12
146310 R1b1c 3 David Vance (d.1804, Nova Scotia) 13 24 14 10 11 13 12 13 12 13 13 19
47531 R1b1c 4 Patrick Vance/Elizabeth McCray (son John) 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 12 17 20 9 9 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 16 16 17 11 10 19 23 16 15 19 16 36 39 12 12
73288 R1b1c 4 Patrick Vance/Elizabeth McCray (son Wm) 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 12 17 19 9 9 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 16 16 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 19 16 36 39 12 12
130228 R1b1c 4 Patrick Vance/Elizabeth McCray (son Wm) 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 12 17 19 9 9 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 16 16 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 19 16 36 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 22 23 17 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 13 12
83432 R1b1c 5 Thomas of Gallia Co, OH (b.1791) (son George) 13 24 14 10 10 14 12 12 12 14 14 16 16 9 10 11 11 26 15 19 29 15 15 17 17 10 11 19 23 16 15 19 17 36 37 12 12 11 7 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 21 23 16 10 12 12 16 8 13 23 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12
95164 R1b1c 5 Thomas of Gallia Co, OH (b.1791) (son Thos) 13 24 14 10 10 14 12 12 12 14 14 16 16 9 9 11 11 26 15 19 29 15 15 17 18 10 11 19 23 16 15 19 17 36 37 12 12 11 7 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 21 23 16 10 12 12 16 8 13 23 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12
140136 I2b2 6 Hugh of Fayette (b.1775) m.Margaret Tedrick 13 25 16 11 13 17 11 13 11 13 11 16 15 8 10 10 12 24 15 19 30 14 14 15 16 10 9 19 19 14 14 16 19 34 36 12 10 11 8 15 16 8 11 10 8 11 9 12 21 22 15 11 12 12 17 9 13 24 22 10 13 12 14 11 12 12 11
61703 I2b2 6 William of Fayette (b.1779, PA) (son Lem) 13 25 16 11 13 17 11 13 11 12 11 16 15 8 10 10 12 24 15 19 31 14 14 15 16 10 9 19 19 14 14 16 19 34 36 12 10 11 8 15 16 8 11 10 8 11 9 12 21 22 15 11 12 12 17 9 13 24 22 10 13 12 14 11 12 12 11
101216 I2b2 6 William of Fayette (b.1779, PA) (son Mintun) 13 25 16 11 13 17 11 13 11 12 11 16 31
104739 I2b2 6 Davis of Fayette (b.1781) m.Hannah Tedrick 13 25 16 11 13 17 11 13 11 12 11 16 30
133768 I2b2 6 Jacob (b.1781 - d.1815, Chester Co, PA) 13 25 16 11 13 17 11 13 11 12 11 16 15 8 10 10 12 24 15 19 30 14 14 15 16 10 9 19 19 14 14 16 19 34 36 12 10 11 8 15 16 8 11 10 8 11 9 12 21 22 15 11 12 12 17 9 13 24 22 10 13 12 14 11 12 12 11
120721 I2b1 7 Johan Phillip Wentz (d.1795, York Co, PA) 14 23 15 10 15 15 11 13 11 14 12 19 15 8 10 11 11 25 14 20 27 11 13 14 16 11 10 19 21 16 14 20 18 34 40 12 10
95656 I2b1 7 John Vance of Randolph Co, IN (b.1804, PA) 14 23 15 10 15 15 11 13 11 14 12 19 15 8 10 11 11 25 14 20 27 11 13 14 15 11 10 19 21 17 14 21 18 35 40 12 10
71883 I2b1 7 George Vance of Randolph Co, IN (b.1776, PA) 14 23 15 10 15 15 11 13 11 14 12 19 15 8 10 11 11 25 14 20 27 11 13 14 15 11 10 19 21 17 14 20 18 34 40 12 10 11 8 15 16 8 11 10 8 10 9 12 21 22 15 11 12 12 15 9 13 27 20 11 13 12 12 11 12 12 11
100588 I2b1 7 George Vance of Randolph Co, IN (b.1776, PA) 14 23 15 10 15 15 11 13 12 14 12 19 15 8 10 11 11 25 14 20 27 11 13 14 15 11 10 19 21 17 14 20 18 36 40 12 10 11 8 15 16 8 11 10 8 10 9 12 21 22 15 11 12 12 15 9 13 27 20 11 13 12 12 11 12 12 11
79352 I2b1 7 George Wantz of Preble Co, OH (b.1819, OH) 14 23 15 10 15 15 11 13 11 14 12 19 15 8 10 11 11 25 14 20 27 11 13 14 15
181224 R1b-L2 8 William Vance (b.1770, Ireland) 13 25 14 10 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 16 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 16 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 17 17 37 40 12 12
N3804 R1b-L2 8 James A. Vance (d.1821, SC) (James) 13 25 14 10 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 16 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 16 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 17 17 37 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 24 20 12 12 11 13 10 12 12 12
105272 R1b-L2 8 James A. Vance (d.1821, SC) (Jno, Wm) 13 25 14 10 11 14 12 12 11 13 14 16 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 16 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 17 17 37 39 12 12
128853 R1b-L2 8 James A. Vance (d.1821, SC) (Jno, Geo) 13 26 14 10 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 16 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 16 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 17 17 38 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 24 20 12 12 11 13 10 12 12 12
H1 R-L2 8 George Hay of Nairn, Scotland (1777) 13 25 14 10 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 16 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 16 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 17 18 37 39 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 24 20 12 12 11 13 10 12 12 12
85282 I1b2a ?? Francis Marion Vance (b.1845, FL) 14 23 15 10 15 15 11 13 12 14 12 18 15 8 10 11 11 26 14 21 27 11 14 14 15 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
106673 R1b1c ?? William (d.1803, Allegheny Co, PA) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 12 13 16 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 15 17 17 10 11 19 23 15 16 19 16 37 39 12 12
N22887 R1b ?? ?? 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 12 13 16 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
79666 R1b ?? Henry Allen Vose (b.1869, IL) 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 12 13 17 16 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 28 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 23 15 15 17 18 34 40 12 12
N57880 R1b1c ?? Beverley (b.c.1832, SC - d.1899, Cokesbury, SC) 13 24 15 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 17 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
N8118 R1b1c7 ?? Patrick Vance/Sarah Harrington 13 25 14 11 11 13 12 12 13 13 14 16 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 23 17 15 18 16 39 39 12 12
135387 ?? James (b.c.1781, Scotland) 13 25 14 11 11 13 12 12 12 13 14 16 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 18 30 15 16 16 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 17 38 39 12 12
154716 R1b NG Richard Vance (b.1857, WV) m.Celia Vance 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 13 13 13 16 18 9 10 11 11 25 14 19 30 14 14 16 17 11 11 19 23 17 15 18 17 37 39 13 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 11 12 20 23 17 10 12 12 14 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12
62079 R1b NG Alexander (b.1732/9, VA - d.bef.1810, KY) 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 17 16 9 10 11 11 26 15 19 29 15 15 17 17 12 11 19 20 15 15 17 20 36 38 12 12
47042 R1a NG Hugh of Knox Co., TN (1807-1839) 13 24 16 11 11 14 12 12 11 13 11 16 15 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 32 12 14 15 16 11 10 19 23 16 15 17 19 37 37 12 11
48973 G2 NG John Vance (b.1796, TN - d.1860/70, AR) 13 22 15 10 14 15 11 13 11 12 11 16 16 9 9 11 11 22 15 21 29 11 13 13 14
150896 I1 NG John Vance of Pendleton Co, WV 13 23 14 10 14 14 11 13 11 12 11 16 15 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 28 12 14 15 16 10 10 19 21 14 14 17 21 36 37 12 10
83540 R1b NG Dr. James Vaulx of Wiltshire (1570-1626) 13 24 14 10 11 15 12 12 11 13 14 16
Anc1 R1b NG Robert (b.1791, MD) m.Catherine Daily 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 16 17 9 10 11 11 25 14 18 29 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 17 13 12 14
159625 R1b NG Thomas Jefferson Vance (b.1829, VA) 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 14 16 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 16 16 16 11 11 19 23 15 15 17 17 35 39 12 12