In Memoriam:
Vester Washington Vance (1933-2005)
Russell Kenneth Vance (1917-2006)
   
HOME
TEST RESULTS
REPORTS & ANALYSIS
NEWS
INTRO TO GENETIC GENEALOGY
LINKS & 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.
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.

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.

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.
85104
  1. Hugh Vance (b.1799, PA - 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.

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.
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.
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. John Thomas Vance (b.c.1824, PA - d.1893, Hardin Co., OH) m.Phebe Burdick
  2. Thomas Duncan Vance (b.1864, Delaware Co., OH - d.1929, Union Co., OH) m.Iva Bonham
  3. PRIVATE
  4. PRIVATE
  5. 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.
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.

94893

  1. David Vance (b.1816, Carter Co., TN) m.Elizabeth Rose
  2. John Henry 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.

114553

  1. ?John Vance (d.1752) m.Rachel Primrose
  2. ?Samuel Vance (d.c.1807, Bath Co, VA) m.Sarah Byrd
  3. ?Benjamin Vance (b.c.1780 - d.c.1848, Lincoln Co, MO) m.Margaret Lindsay
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 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.
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.

96768

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. 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.Donegal, 1800s)
  2. Robert Vance (b.1903, Ireland - d,1965)
  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 (d.1801, Topsham, VT) m.Jane
  2. David Vance (1788-1763) 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.

47531

  1. John Vance (b.1773, Frederick Co., VA) m.Lydia Reese
  2. Majr. William Vance (b.1803, South Elkhorn or Lexington, KY) m.Sophronia Calvin
  3. Joseph Calvin Vance (b.1827, Brown Co., OH) m.Olive Thompson
  4. Clifford Morton Vance (b.1865, Mt. Orab, Brown Co., OH) m.Marion Augusta Baker
  5. FATHER
  6. 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. William Vance (b.bef.1765, VA) m.Rebecca Hinton
  2. Joseph L. Vance (b.1802, Scott Co., KY - d.1883, Scott Co., KY)
  3. William Vance (b.1824, Scott Co., KY - d.1898, Scott Co., KY)
  4. PRIVATE
  5. PRIVATE
  6. 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. William Vance (b.bef.1765, VA) m.Rebecca Hinton
  2. Robert 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.
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)
  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.

61703

  1. William Vance (b.1779, Fayette Co., 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, Fayette Co., 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 (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.
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.

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.

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.
79352
  1. George Frederick Vance/Wantz (b.1819, OH - d.1909) m.Sophia
  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.

100588

  1. William Vance (b.1820, OH - d.1900, WI) m.Margaret Wallace
  2. John Louis Vance (b.1862, Richland, WI - d.1923, Barron, WI) m.Effie Gale
  3. PRIVATE
  4. 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.

120721

  1. Johan Phillip Wentz (b.1732 - d.1795, York Co, PA)
    m.Anna Maria Holtzappel
  2. Adam Wentz (b.1762, York Co, PA - d.c.1829, Monroe Co, WV) m.Anna/Nancy
  3. Phillip Vance
  4. John Vance
  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.
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.

128853

  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
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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ?? 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.
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.

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.
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.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.
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.David Vance
2.John Vance
3.Massena Vance
4.Napoleon Vance
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.