The accompanying Y-DNA chart includes a group of descendants from Phillip Cox, b. abt 1677, and Dorcas Hull. Phillip and Dorcas lived in Somerset County, New Jersey, throughout their married life.
We have removed names from more recent generations of descendants in each line of the family in order to protect the privacy of each person that was tested. However, the names of the father/grandfather/great grandfather is known for each tester.
The upper section of the chart describes the genealogical paper trail each descendant has followed from Phillip and Dorcas to themselves. All are between 8 and 11 generations removed from Phillip and Dorcas. In column F, for example, the tester’s line of descendency is Phillip/Phillip/Isaac/Isaac/Philip, then three more generations to the tester. Columns D-F are for three people who descended from Phillip, the son of Phillip and Dorcas. Descendants in Columns G-U all came from John Cox, son of Phillip and Dorcas. Columns G-O came from Jacob son of John, while columns P-U probably come from Jacob’s brother, Samuel. Columns V-W are for three people who are more distant relatives of the larger group. They appear to be descendants of a relatively recent ancestor of Phillip Cox, B. 1678. It could be his father, grandfather, or great grandfather.
The second part of the chart, beginning on Row 12, includes the test results for each person who was tested, for each marker tested. Many had 111 markers tested; however, there are some who tested fewer markers, as indicated by blank cells.
Column C is a compilation derived from the testers. On markers where everyone who tested had the same result, that result was listed in Column C. When there were differences among testers in a specific marker, the most frequent result was listed, using an assumption that mutations occurred within those whose results differed from the majority. In a few cases, we assumed that the original result for the family was the result most frequently associated with a large group of people testing in the R1b Haplogroup Our assumption was that mutations within our family would be indicated by results that were less frequently found in the larger test group. Following this process allowed the group to determine the predicted Y-DNA of the most common recent ancestor, Phillip Cox. Therefore, Column C is the most likely Y-DNA for Phillip Cox, b. abt 1678, even though he was never tested. Obviously, a marker or two may have followed an incorrect assumption, but it should be generally accurate. Eighty-six of the 111 markers are identical for every person in our test group. If excluding the three persons who are not descended from Phillip Cox, there are 92 markers identical to each person in the remaining group.
Given the predicted Y-DNA for Phillip Cox, each tester has two comparisons to make. First is the question of how closely they match the original Y-DNA of Phillip Cox. In general, they should be a very close match to the original. Interestingly, those who are descendants of Jacob Cox, and the people descended from Phillip’s son, Philip, have seen fewer mutations across the years, while others in the group have encountered more. The last row, “Differ from MRCA,” shows that total for each tester. (MRCA = Most Recent Common Ancestor)
The second comparison is to compare to the other people in the group. All are considered to be related by FTDNA.com. The distance from one tester to another tester will always be more than the distance from one tester to the common ancestor (Phillip Cox) because each line of the family has its own mutations. For example, the tester in Column I has had two mutations occur in the generations since Phillip Cox, while the tester in Column Q has had 4. Since these mutations took place in different markers, the two testers have a distance of 6 from each other. Those who share a more recent common ancestor will tend to show less distance between each other because they may share common mutations, and they have had fewer generations since their common ancestor for another mutation to occur.
There are now four discernible family groups, as understood by a combination of Y-DNA comparisons and genealogical research.
Three people descend from a son of Phillip, also named Phillip. These three also share ancestry with the younger Phillip’s son, Isaac.
Group two descends from Phillip’s son, John, through John’s son, Jacob.
Group three also descends from Phillip’s son, John, but through John’s son, Samuel.
Group four includes three people who appear to be more distantly related from the rest of the group, but who appear to be more closely related to each other. Their common ancestor with the first three groups may be the grandfather or even up to a 3rd great grandfather of Phillip.
Group one members are from a line that first migrated to Ritchie County, West Virginia. One of the members who only had 37 markers tested was a perfect match to the predicted Y-DNA for Phillip Cox. He is the only person in the group to match the predicted Y-DNA perfectly on the first 37 markers. He matches each of the other two in that group on all but 1 of these first 37 markers. Both of the others have one mutation that belongs only to his line of the family.
Those in groups two and three are from lines that first migrated to Halifax County, Virginia. Brothers Jacob and Samuel were in Halifax and surrounding counties in the 1750’s-1770’s. Jacob’s family scattered to South Carolina, Georgia, and northeastern Tennessee from there. Samuel’s family first went to Davidson County, Tennessee (helping start Nashborough-Nashville), but quickly moved north to Warren County, Kentucky, and in one case to the border between Tennessee and Alabama.
The seven people in Group two descend from four different sons of Jacob Cox. William went to South Carolina/Georgia, then his descendants went to western Tennessee. Thomas went to Georgia. Samuel went with his father to northeastern Tennessee, along with other family members who are not represented among current testers. Phillip went to South Carolina and remained there. Seven of the 9 testers in this group share a mutation at marker CDYb, an eighth was different from the group, and one did not have this marker tested. The agreement here is significant since CDYb is one of the most frequently mutating markers.
The six members of Group three descend from three different brothers. Fulker Cox went through Warren County, Kentucky, then to Maury and Giles County, Tennessee. Three group members descend from Phineas, and Phineas’ son, Samuel. These three share a common mutation in marker DYS 570. Two members of the group descend from John P. Cox, as well as his son, Jackson, and Jackson’s son, James. These two share a common mutation at DYS532. All six people in the group share a common mutation at marker YCAllb.
The three members of Group four present a muddier picture. Two of the three share a common ancestor named Samuel Addison White, based on the Y-DNA results. These two share three common mutations from the rest of the group, as well as two more that are shared only with the third person in Group four. These differences suggest that their connection to the rest of the group could be 2-6 generations earlier than Phillip, which might suggest a connection back in England, and in the early 1600’s or late 1500’s. It will be more difficult to confirm this connection, partly because of less information from genealogical records, but also because it is further distant. We are likely left to hope for a tester from a different branch who matches this group. We know, though, that Samuel Addison White was born in Maryland or Washington, D.C., and the early family of the person who did not descend from Samuel Addison White was also from Maryland.
Three people in the group have now taken the Big-Y test at FTDNA.com. The results confirmed what would have been expected based on 111 markers, but there are no other people at FTDNA at this time who are closely related to this group. Those closest appear toto have a most common recent ancestor who is at least 1,500 years in the past, offering no help for genealogical research.