20 November 2013

Adoption Success Story

Another wonderful DNA Success Story!

It all started with a letter I found among my mother’s papers after she died in 1971. She had been born in 1918 in New York City. The letter, dated July 30,1948, was typed on letterhead stationery from “The Spence-Chapin Adoption Service.” I knew my mom had been adopted. In fact, her 2 brothers and sister were not biological siblings but were also adopted. They all grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. However, it was news to me that my mom had corresponded with the adoption agency, and that she had requested her birth certificate. I think, if the request had been granted, my mom would have received an amended birth certificate listing her adopted parents, not her birth parents.

The request had been denied. The explanation: “The reason for the difficulty seems to be that your mother [birth mother] had a different name put on the birth certificate than is on the order of adoption and we were unable to prove that the name Helen Grant which is on the order of adoption is the same person as Helen Moore, the name in which your birth is registered.”

I held onto the letter with the idea that sometime I might be able to complete this goal for my mom, but raising a family of six children myself, I let many years pass by before I took the goal seriously. When I did, I found that the Spence-Chapin Adoption Service was still in business in New York City, and I contacted them to request non-identifying information. I was told they would have to search for the file, and it took about 9 months, but finally an administrator phoned. They had found the file. Although I was only entitled to non-identifying information, the information they gave me coupled with the information I already had from the 1948 letter gave me some hope.

I made some assumptions, which could have been incorrect. I assumed that the surname “Grant” was probably my mom’s birth mother’s maiden name, and that the surname “Moore” was probably the surname of my mom’s unknown birth father. There was some evidence to support this theory. For example, the agency spokesperson told me that my mom’s birth grandmother was with her daughter when the adoption papers were signed. It seemed likely that they would have used the family name. On the other hand, the birth grandmother may not have been present in the hospital when the birth certificate information was given.

 The non-identifying information given to me by the adoption agency included these facts: My mom’s birth mother was 18 at the time of the birth. She was unmarried, not yet self-supporting, living with her family in the southeastern U.S., and unable to be a parent at this time. Knowing only that the birth family lived in the southeastern U.S. was not very helpful, so I asked if the agency representative could tell me the state. She told me “Mississippi.”

Meanwhile, my son was waiting for the birth of his first child and knew she was a girl. They were considering some family names, so I asked the agency spokesperson if I could know the birth mom’s first name, and I was told, “Marion.”

I had been referred to an adoption “angel,” who had also been adopted out of New York City. She had some knowledge of the process and a great desire to help me. She had access to the index of birth registrations in New York City during the time my mom was born there. She discovered that there is a birth registration for an un-named female baby Moore, born on my mom’s birthday (November 20, 1918) in New York City. The index did not include any other information, but I was thrilled. This could be the birth record referred to in the 1948 letter. It could be the record that the adoption agency had been unable to find because they had been told that the birth was registered under the name of Helen Moore. My adoption angel and I tried every way we could to obtain the long version of the birth certificate. We were unsuccessful.

New York City is notoriously unwilling to share vital records with anyone who isn’t the person involved or the person’s parents. There was a small chance that I could get the record if my last name were “Moore” or if I could provide notarized copies of documents showing my relationship to “Moore.” I concluded that, without a lawyer and a $5,000 fee, there was no hope in New York City.

I communicated with the Wisconsin government agency which provides assistance to adoptees looking for birth parents. The case worker was able to locate the record of the court adoption proceedings, and she even sent me a copy, but the name of the birth mother and any identifying information had been expunged. Apparently my mom’s adopted father, who was an attorney, had insisted that the records were sealed. Again, the only way to get more information involved a lawyer and lawyer’s fees.

I turned to the U.S. census records of Mississippi. Knowing that the birth mother was 18 at my mom’s birth was helpful, but there were still considerations. Since my mom’s birthday was late in the year (Nov. 20,1918), her mom’s birth date could have been in 1900 if she had a Jan. through Nov. 20th birthday. Or if her birth date were Nov. 20th through Dec. 31st, she would have been born in1899. Of course, census records show ages as of the enumeration date, and often the ages are incorrect depending on how knowledgeable the informant was. I was interested in the 1910 census, which had an enumeration date of 15 Apr 1910.

Searching for information on U.S. censuses has become easy, using ancestry.com and
FamilySearch.org. It took some diligence, but I finally found a “Marion Grant,” living in Meridian, Lauderdale County, Mississippi. In April,1910 she was 9 years old, and I now knew her parents’ names.

This opened flood gates of possibilities. I was unable to find a birth record on FamilySearch.org, but when I searched the public member trees on ancestry.com, I found a couple of trees that listed “my” Marion. These gave me the fact that Marion was married about 10 years after my mom’s birth. Thus I discovered Marion’s married name. These trees listed interesting facts about the Grant family. I discovered that my mom’s possible birth grandmother (Marion’s mother), Frances Pitts Grant was an accomplished composer and pianist. I investigated this fact further and discovered that there are a number of her compositions in the Special Collections of Tulane University. This was especially interesting to me because my mother was an excellent pianist from a very young age. It strengthened the hope that I had found the right person.

I waited impatiently for the release of the 1940 U.S. Census. I hoped fervently that Marion’s listing would occupy line 14 or 29 of the 1940 census because these people were required to answer supplementary questions. These questions included “Number of children ever born.” I needn’t have wasted any time worrying about whether Marion would be truthful or not because she didn’t have to answer the supplemental questions. The census did reveal that a son “Dave” had joined the family.

I turned to newspaperarchive.com and discovered an obituary for Marion. She had died of a heart attack in Tuscan, Arizona in 1954. I used the death date to search and find a death certificate in Arizona records online. The death certificate provided me with her birth date:  November 9th, 1900. Reading Marion’s obituary gave me more information about her son, but I was hesitant to contact him without more definitive evidence.

I had been reading success stories about adoptees finding birth parents with DNA testing. I looked at the Family Tree DNA website, and I noticed that there is a Pitts Family project. Marion Grant’s mother was Frances Pitts Grant. I sent in my sample, and I hoped to uncover a connection that would give credibility to my theory. When the results came in the connection was not clear. A connection wasn’t ruled out, nor was it confirmed. For one thing, my mtDNA haplogroup was U5a1h, which is so rare that there were no others in the FTDNA database of more than 168,000 mtDNA records.

Nancy and David, the Pitts DNA Project administrators, encouraged me to contact my mom’s possible half-brother. If he agreed to testing, and if he were my half-uncle, then the connection would be very apparent. He would be the only person on FTDNA to share my rare haplogroup. Nevertheless, I was hesitant because I didn’t have strong proof, and I didn’t want to cause him emotional trauma. Nancy and David explained that my half-uncle’s mtDNA came from his mother Marion. My mtDNA came from my mother, who got her mtDNA from Marion. The two should be identical or nearly identical. However, my half-uncle’s children would not have Marion’s mtDNA. They would have gotten their mtDNA from their own mother.

With support from my family, I took a deep breath and wrote a letter to the person I hoped was my half-uncle. It turned out that he knew nothing about the idea that his mom had a baby prior to himself, but he was a very nice person. He agreed to give the DNA test a try, and ordered the mtdna Full Genetic Sequence.

I think he was very surprised when the DNA proved our relationship, but he says he is thrilled to include my family in his, and my family is thrilled too. Finally, I have another person with the U5a1h haplogroup, and I also have a newly discovered half-uncle. The Family Finder test confirmed the relationship at: 1st Cousin, Half Siblings, Grandparent/Grandchild, Aunt/Uncle, Niece/Nephew. It is a wonderful feeling.

Signed: Tish S.

Thank you Tish for sharing this and thank you David, co-admin of the Pitts DNA Project,  for notifying me of this wonderful story!


13 November 2013

2013 Family Tree DNA International Conference, Day 2

Day 2
The annual International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) meeting started today with a review.  ISOGG was born out of the 2004 FTDNA conference.  This self-supporting volunteer organization is free to anyone and only asks that you share your knowledge about DNA testing for genealogy.  Katherine Borges, director, mentioned that the ISOGG Wiki page is very active and that there is a new page for administrators who wish to sponsor tests can be listed.  Some DNA projects raise money to sponsor tests. The Wiki is a great source and you are welcome to use anything within its pages as long as you cite your source.

ISOGG has been a presence at Who Do You Think You Are? (WDYTYA) for many years.  This is the world’s largest genealogical conference and is held in London every February.  Besides this, ISOGG has had a table at Southern California Genealogical Society’s DNA Day held one day before Jamboree in June.  Many ISOGG members gave presentations and the day was a great success.  ISOGG also held a stand in Back to the Past (BOTP) in Dublin, Ireland this October.  This was the first presence there and Family Tree DNA also attended.  Again, another great success.

Alice Fairhurst reported that in 2006 the Y-SNP tree began.  SNPs were pulled from academic papers primarily. The following timeline shows the growth.

2006 – 436 SNPs
2008 – 790 SNPs
2010 – 935 SNPs
2012 – 2067 SNPs
Sept 2013 – 3610 SNPs

With the advent of the Big Y test which covers 25,000 SNPs, that number is now much larger.

The Journal of Genetic Genealogy (JOGG) was founded the same year as ISOGG, but has not been operating for over a year.  Katherine is seeking to put JOGG under the ISOGG umbrella, if needed, in the near future.

A DNA conference will be held August 16-17, 2014 in Washington DC.  Watch for coming news.

Michael Hammer’s presentation Implications of the 2014 Y Tree focused on the origins of some R1b subclades and with more testing the origins and migrations are altering. Dr. Hammer demonstrated that the current perception of R1b haplogroup migrations may have originated in the Near East before coming to Western Europe >5,000 years ago. Other haplogroups tend to show some other interesting patterns, although sample sizes are small at this time. Dr. Hammer called upon citizen scientists to help gather the needed data for further study by continuing to SNP test.

Marja Pirttivaara in Bridging Social Media & DNA shared her success with her Finland DNA Project and how to use social media to assist a DNA project.  She covered some privacy rights and intellectual property rights, suggesting that we refer to the GAP guidelines and Family Tree DNA’s Private Policy and Terms of Service. She would like everyone who has Finish ancestry to contact her.

Engineering Update/IT Roadmap was presented by Elliott Greenspan after introducing Jason Wang, the new Technology Officer. The IT department of Family Tree DNA has grown greatly and will continue to grow in the next few months. With the acquisition of Arpeggi the time to produce results from DNA testing has been reduced. In 2012 Family Tree DNA processed 107.6 petabytes and by October 2013 413.7 petabytes. The Family Finder pages have started to be revamped and are now in Build 37 with Build 38 coming. A SNP Request Form has been established so customers can have a particular SNP vetted and made available to the public. mtDNA is now in Build 14 and they added Steps (formerly called Genetic Difference) as is seen in Y-DNA testing. Family Tree DNA states that having a difference on the mtDNA still means two people are related, but probably just further back in time.  They have a case of a mother and child who have a difference of one.  The next Build upgrade will likely jump to 16 or 17. Family Tree DNA has provided a $10 coupon to anyone who uploads their Gedcom.  This coupon does not have an expiration date, but they do not know how long it will be provided.  Thousands of Gedcoms have been uploaded over the last couple of months.

Family Tree DNA introduced the Big Y test which tests 10,000,000 base pairs and 25,000 SNPs, and if one person has a unique SNP it will be placed on the Y-tree. Sale price until Nov 30 is $495, reg $695.  If you have tested the Walk Through the Y you will also find a $50 off coupon.

For the X-chromosome there is a new algorithm.  This will be on an advanced feature which will also have a browser.  With the uniqueness of the X inheritance, although matching is great, not matching someone may mean nothing. Launch date for the X is January 2, 2014.

Population Finder is being updated with a new outlook and new features so that when a new population is found it will take less time to be added to the system.  There will be over 50 populations in Europe alone and the African population will improve.

Dr. Connie Bormans who manages the lab gave the following information:
Family Tree DNA, unlike its major competition, runs its own lab and are proud to announce they have the following accreditation:

CLIA (federal)
CAP (College of American Pathologists) - This supersedes CLIA and is considered the "gold standard" of accreditation
NYSDOH (New York State Department of Health)

Although lab inspections are required every two years, given this list, the lab is audited yearly from some.

FTDNA also committed to renewing and improving communication between the customer and the Lab and the Lab to IT.  For example with some new software it now takes half the time to upload new Family Finder results.  There is better tracking systems in place, for example, if there is not enough of a DNA sample for an upgrade or traditional test so there is less turn-around time in requesting an additional sample when needed.

There are many future projects being planned with possibly a return to the Deep Clade test and the testing of trace DNA which means from hair, etc. if the demand is high enough.  At least this is on their radar.

Dr. Maurice Gleeson reported on the Back to Our Past conference in Dublin, Ireland.  Family Tree DNA sent some representatives there to swab the Irish and found several Americans attending who also tested. Dr. Gleason walked us through the marketing he did and the statistics showing the success of the marketing and of the conference.  The whole affair was deemed a success for DNA testing. Presentations can be found on  YouTube.

Brad Larkin spoke about his Surname DNA Journal which was conceived at the 2012 FTDNA Conference to provide a peer-review publication process in the field of genetic genealogy.  The first article was published in January 6, 2013. There are no fees and open access for readers.  The author retains the copyright and the work is published upon completion of peer review.  Articles in 2013 include:  Y-DNA of the British Monarchy, Using Y Chromosome DAN Testing to Pinpoint a Genetic Homeland in Ireland and Ancestral Parish Sampling in Ulster and Wexford. There is a call for papers. Submit your work to editor@surnamedan.com

Table Discussions:
1. atDNA  - Tim Janzen and CeCe Moore
2. atDNA Projects - for Saturday; Jen Zinck and Steven Perkins
3. Advanced DNA Tools -Rebekah Canada
4. mtDNA –Roberta Estes and Marie Rundquist
5. Y-DNA SNPs Mike Maddi and Charles Moore

I attended the Advanced DNA Tools (3rd-Party DNA Tools) where we discussed various tools which can be located on the ISOGG Wiki.  Concerns for uploading DNA results to open access databases were expressed.  Highlights of the discussion were the use of cladograms, Blaine Bettinger’s X-Chromosome charts, GEDmatch, and David Pike’s Utilities. The latter does not provide anyone with access to your data as you download the tools to your computer.

Questions and Answers period included many requests:
•  When using dark colors from grouping project members, a request was made to use a color other      than black for the text.
•  Wish more time on the administrator pages before being timed out
•  Can the raw atDNAand X-chromosome result be combined into one file.

The greatest announcement was that the Holiday Sale would begin now with an array of tests.
The sale ends 31 Dec 2013 and all tests must be paid by then.
With any test that includes the Family Finder test, you receive a $100 Restaurant.com gift certificate. Order from FTDNA now! A list of these tests is on the ISOGG Wiki.

Basic Tests:
Y-37 for $119 (reg. $169)
Y-67 for $189 (reg. $268)
Y-111 for $289 (reg. $359)
mtFull for $169 (reg. $199)
Family Finder for $99 and a Free $100 Restaurant.com gift certificate

Combination Tests:
Family Finder + Y-37 for $218 (reg. $268) and a Free $100 Restaurant.com gift certificate
Family Finder + Y- 67 for $288 (reg. $367) and a Free $100 Restaurant.com gift certificate
Family Finder + mtFull for $268 (reg. $298) and a Free $100 Restaurant.com gift certificate
Y-37 + mtFull for $288 (reg. $366)
Y-67 + mtFull for $358 (reg. $457)
Comprehensive for $457 (reg. $566)

Autosomal DNA Transfer for $49 (Reg $69)

Y-Refine 12 to 37 for $69 (reg. $109)
Y-Refine 12 to 67 for $148 (reg. $319)
Y-Refine 25 to 37 for $35 (reg. $59)
Y-Refine 25 to 67 for $114 (reg. $59)
Y-Refine 37 to 67 for $79 (reg. $109)
Y-Refine 37 to 111 for $188 (reg. $220)
Y-Refine 67 to 111 for $109 (reg. $129)
mtHVR1 to Mega for $149 (reg. $169)

Big Y – This is a new test for the Y-chromosome and tests 10,000,000 base pairs and 25,000 SNPs.  This sale goes only until November 30, 2013  at the sale price of $495 (You will receive an additional $50 coupon if you have done the Walk Through the Y earlier).  Regular price is $695.

The conference, once again, renewed our enthusiasm for genetic testing and in Family Tree DNA, especially this year with the Arpeggi merger.  Only one day after the conference we already see that Family Tree DNA is listening to our requests. Family Tree DNA has a renewed commitment to serving their customers and listening to their suggestions. It has begun!

As Dr. Spencer Wells  of the Genographic Project has said “The greatest history book ever written is the one hidden in our DNA.”

Time to jump into the gene pool!

12 November 2013

2013 Family Tree DNA International Conference

The 2013 FTDNA International Conference was held November 9-10 in Houston at the Sheraton North Houston.

Max and Bennett opened the conference with Max stating to the assembly that "Competition is an endorsement for what you are doing." Family Tree DNA started and the competition came.  He remarked that FTDNA is stronger than ever and that "good things are in the pipeline".  He commented that the recent acquisition with Arpeggi  guarantees continuity as he and Bennett are getting older.

Some of their newest staff were introduced and according to the conference manual ...

Jason Wang is now the Chief Technology Officer and has "had over ten years experience building successful technology companies and managing large development teams".

David Mittelman, PhD is Chief Scientific Officer and is a "geneticist, professor, and entrepreneur" and "holds a PhD in Molecular Biophysics through the Department of Biochemistry at Baylor College of Medicine".

Nir Leibovich is the Chief Business Officer and "a seasoned entrepreneur with a proven track record in operating and growing successful companies" with strengths in "business operations, team leadership, product and market strategy, business development and marking."

Rudy Marsh, Director of Product, has a degree in physics from the University of Texas at Dallas and was the "founder of FFAnet in 1999.  Under his guidance, FFAnet grew to 250,000 subscribers by 2006 before being sold."

David, Nir and Rudy met with several FTDNA Administrators prior to and after the conference to learn how we use DNA testing and what needs we have.  They have already begun making some of the suggested changes and additions so those at the conference are really excited about the coming years.

Max and Bennett remembered those who were part of our genetic genealogy family and have deceased:
Thomas Bopp
Tom Roderick
Herb Hubesher
David Brown
Kenny Hedgepath
Joan Miller
Henry Kaplan
Leo Little

Day 1 Agenda

Amy McGuire, JD, PhD’s presentation Am I My Brother’s Keeper addressed the privacy of individuals and the rights and interests of biological relatives of those who choose to share their genomic testing publicly.  She mentioned that with that with the online databases a good hacker could identify members of the 1,000 genomes testing. Interview data suggests that people vary greatly in how they feel about sharing their data and privacy.  One study concluded that 53.1% of those interviewed wanted the data public; 33.1% wanted it protected to some level and 13.1% wanted full protection from the public.  Many testers favored sharing the data to help health research.  Dr. McGuire mentioned dbGap which requires viewer to register and to go through a panel to justify why they wish to view/use the data stored there.  Open access databases do not have similar stipulations.

Various informed consent forms have been created by some of the companies who make the genomic data public.  When James Watson had his full genome tested, the project managers wanted permission of his children to make it public.  He would not allow them to contact his family, so the company gave it to him to release, which he did.

Of course, all of this is in flux and raised many concerns such as:
Just how many generations are relevant in data being shared?  Up to 3rd cousins?
The responsibility should fall on mis-users of genetic data rather on restricting access.
Biological relatives should not be allowed to block relatives’ autonomy rights.

Dr. Miguel Vilar from the Genographic Project discussed the Geno 2.0 Update and Y—2014 Tree. He reviewed various aspects of the project including the Legacy Fund which helps linguistic and cultural preservation, the seven scientific grants awarded so far this year (a total of 75 grants for over $2 million dollars since conception across 5 continents), 42 manuscripts produced, and over 80 professional conferences held.  In 2013 ninety-six grant applications were received which nearly tripled the average number. Over 3,000 students across hundreds of schools have participated in the Genographic education and outreach program.

The Geno 1.0 test which ran from 2005 to 2011 had ~500,000 participants and tested 8 mtDNA SNPs in the control region and 17 SNPs in the Y along with Y-STRs)  However, the Geno 2.0 which began in 2012 has ~80,000 participants. The Geno 2.0 chip contains ~150,000 SNP array (made by Illlumina) which encompasses 130,000 atDNA (non-medical) SNPs, 3,000 mtDNA SNPs and 17,000 Y-SNPs. There are 72,000 indigenous samples since 2005 and currently 12 research centers on six continents.

The Geno 2.0 test provides the mitochondrial and Y haplogroup, compares you to 46 populations and gives you information on the top two along with your percentage of matches with Neanderthal and Denisovian hominids.  The massive number of Y-SNPs can be transferred to Family Tree DNA.

The new Genorgaphic Blog will provided many interesting articles and the latest updates.

The Y haplogroup tree has branches ten times larger with the advent of Geno 2.0’s massive Y-SNP program.  There are dozens of SNPs downstream form R-M222 which are found in Ireland. Currently there is a massive focus on R-L21 and County Mayo, Ireland and results should be available in a week or two.

Great news!  Genographic has hired someone to work with US and Canadian Native Americans in order to encourage more testing in these areas.

Geno 2.0 is currently on sale for the holidays at $159.95 (Reg. $99.95)

Matt Dexter in his Autosomal Analysis shared the result from testing his family, including his five children.  His presentation explained how autosomal DNA tests all lines of a pedigree chart and from the results of testing several of his family members, including a grandparent and grandchild, he demonstrated how one can determine which segments came from which side of the family.  Some interesting findings were how a granddaughter inherited more DNA from one grandparent than from another, how two of his children had more DNA alike than they did with other siblings.  He noted that some chromosomes can crossover consistently as well as some segments are handed down for generations.

Break Out Sessions
Jeffery Mark Paul  – Differences in Autosomal DNA Characteristics between Jewish and Non-Jewish Populations and Implications for FTDNA;s Family Finder Test
Terry Barton – Finding Indian Princess
Debbie Wayne Parker  – mtDNA Tools and Technology

THIS is when I needed a couple of CLONES!

I attended Dr. Paull’s presentation Differences in Autosomal DNA Characteristics between Jewish and Non-Jewish Populations and Implications for FTDNA's Family Finder Test as I am in his study.  Since the research findings have not been published, specific data will be omitted here.

The study explored the reasons for significant differences in match probabilities between Jewish and non-Jewish populations. Eighty-four study participants were divided into Jewish, Non-Jewish, and Interfaith groups.  Using the Family Finder test with a focus on the number of matches and the distribution of predicted relationships, data was recorded regarding the variation of shared centimorgans (cMs) and longest cM blocks.  The goals is to determine how atDNA results varied between the groups so more accurate adjustments could be made to the Family Finder algorithm for endogamous populations.  The study determined among other things where over prediction appears to occur for Jewish populations.

NOTE:  Endogamous populations are those that tend to marry within their class, ethnic or social group.

Additonal Breakouts:
Roberta Estes – Finding Indian Princess
Tim Janzen – Autosomal Mapping
Jim Rader – What Can a Genealogist Use from DNA Test Results?

Roberta Estes in her presentation on Finding Indian Princess provided some wonderful clues to determine if an ancestor could have been a Native American when DNA testing cannot always help.  If the Native American is not on the patrilineal, matrilineal line or is not within the parameters of an atDNA test and the tester has enough DNA to fit the threshold, a DNA test cannot help greatly. Roberta shared her knowledge that helps researchers not kiss too many frogs as she puts it, but to find their Indian Princess.  In some records during certain times, Native Americans are lumped together with all persons of color. However, knowing the state laws can help. On tax rolls, wives who were not white were also taxed.  White wives were not.  In 1835 in North Carolina and Tennessee if a person had a drop of non-white blood, the lost their right to vote, testify in court and other civil rights that we take for granted today. A mixed couple could live on tribal land and many did.  The Cherokees were heavily admixed and in 1835 there were 211 white intermarried when the removal roll was taken.

Remember that not all oral history accounts of Native American can be determined by DNA testing, but that does not disprove the oral history.

Table Discussions:
The names following the topic were moderators of the discussions which were well attended.

1. atDNA – Matt Dexter
2. atDNA Projects – Ken Graves and Emily Aulicino
3. Advanced DNA Tools; 3rd Party, etc. – CeCe Moore
4. mtDNA – Debbie Parker Wayne
5. Y-DNA SNPs – Rebekah Canada, Roberta Estes, and Marie Rundquist

The results of the atDNA Project meeting on Saturday culminated in gathering all the email addresses of those attended to continue further discussion.  A major focus was to gather information on the varieties of atDNA projects that do exist, determine what variety of atDNA projects could exist as well as what information could be included on atDNA webpages and what tools are needed. Some of the criteria for these goals will take time to develop.

FTDNA Recognizes 10+ Year Administrators
Before the end of the day, Bennett and Max handed out plaques to those in attendance who had been administrators for ten or more years.  Family Tree DNA knows there are many others who have been administrators this long, but had to settle on those who attended. They intend to recognize the others in some manner, so if you are a 10+ year administrator, please email FTDNA at events@ftdna.com with your name, group and approximate start date.

Those are:
1.  Leo Baca
2.  Mic Barnette
3.  Janet Baker Burks
4.  Roberta Estes
5.  Robert B. Noles
6.  Dyann Hersey Noles
7.  Nora J. Probasco
8.  Whitney Keen
9.  Jim Barrett
10. Michael DeWitt McCown
11. James L. Rader
12. Steven C. Perkins
13. Ken Graves
14. Linda Magellan
15. Allen Grant
16. Katherine Hope Borges
17. Phillip Crow
18. George Valko
19. Terese Bueker
20. Nancy Custer
21. Peter J. Roberts
22. Louise Rorer Rosett
23. Mary Fern Souder

Jerry Cole should have received a plaque and will be getting his this week.

The group is flanked by Max and Bennett.

AND...check out the great logo for the T-shirts this year!

Say tuned for Day 2 and the list of DNA kits on sale until December 31st!