More Wright DNA Test Results

Two more Wright DNA test results (http://www.danstone.info/wrightdna.htm) have come back:

1) Test 293820, a descendant of Hosea Wright (http://www.danstone.info/g2/p2666.htm) through his son, Caleb Wright (brother of my fourth great grandfather, Hiram Wright), was upgraded from twelve markers to sixty-seven markers. This upgraded test result matches my uncle’s test on sixty-four out of the sixty-seven markers, well within the range to be considered related. Matching at the sixty-seven marker level means that it is very highly probable both of our paper trail lineages back to Hosea Wright are likely accurate.

The match also helps to verify that the Wright bible pages which are posted online (http://glennfletcher.com/?page_id=734) are indeed referring to my fifth great grandparents, Hosea Wright and Sarah Ladd Crew/Crews (http://www.danstone.info/g2/p2663.htm), and their children. This is important because many family trees I have come across attribute Hosea and Sarah’s son, Hosea Wright (http://www.danstone.info/g3/p3225.htm), as being born in 1802 and marrying Mary Rankin (http://www.danstone.info/g5/p5716.htm). Looking at the bible pages shows that he was actually born on February 11, 1820. This means the Hosea Wright who married Mary Rankin on April 23, 1820 (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XZLY-6HD) was not the son of Hosea Wright and Sarah Ladd Crew. Instead, the Hosea Wright who married Mary Rankin is believed to be the son of Job/Joab/Jobe Wright (http://www.danstone.info/g2/p2914.htm), who was the son of Gabriel Wright and brother of the Hosea Wright who married Sarah Ladd Crew. A DNA test of a descendant of the Hosea Wright who married Mary Rankin is currently pending. With there being at least four men named Hosea Wright located in early 1800s Ohio, it’s easy to understand how they can get interchanged.

2) The DNA test results of the descendant of Samuel B. Wright (https://familysearch.org/photos/stories/2030248) have come back and show, even at just the basic twelve marker level, that there is not a close relationship between his line and my line. Out of the twelve markers, three of them are different, with one of the three being two steps off. This is simply too great of a distance to be considered a match and closely related. While the information found at the link for Samuel cited above sounded extremely promising, especially as several generations of men named Gabriel Wright are mentioned, the DNA shows that further research of Samuel’s line is in all likelihood a dead end for locating the ancestors of my ancestor, Gabriel Wright. Helping to refine which lines to further explore, and which lines not to, is one of the big benefits of genealogical DNA testing.

Wright DNA Testing Update

After several months of searching, with help from fellow Wright researcher Diane Wright of Australia, a well documented Oyster Bay Wright descendant has been found and has agreed to participate in the Y-DNA testing. This tester’s family is profiled in the book The Wright family of Oysterbay, L.I. [Long Island, New York]… by Howland Delano Perrine (http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/005785225 and http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=15286), starting with his grandfather, so his lineage looks to be very sound. As such, his test results will be especially informative and helpful, and should help to be able to confidently answer at last the question of whether or not the Flushing Wright family and Oyster Bay Wright family are closely related. This tester’s results will also help Diane answer the question of whether or not her earliest known ancestor, Capt. Peter Wright (http://www.danstone.info/g5/p5683.htm), is descended from the Oyster Bay Wright family as believed. The first panel of twelve markers should be back in about two and a half months.