Almost 60 years ago, in 1948, a member of the family discovered that your ancestor John McMurtry 1752-1841 had married his wife Margaret Gomer in Somerset County New Jersey in 1781

Final Report on Genetic Analysis of the Tennesee Branches of the McMurtry Family

Summary

Richard McMurtry

December 20008

Introduction

Almost 60 years ago, in 1948, a member of the Great McMurtry Clan of Tennessee discovered that their Revolutionary War ancestor John McMurtry 1752-1841 had married his wife Margaret Gomer in Somerset County New Jersey in 1781. Since the only McMurtrys in Somerset County at that time was a Thomas McMurtry who died in 1788, everyone assumed that that John must be related to him. Thomas’ will left a token amount to “the children of my son James”, so everyone assumed that John must be one of these children. There was also a Joseph McMurtry born 1764 in Somerset County who migrated to western Pennsylvania about 1800. Joseph’s grandson said that Joseph had a brother that served in the Revolution. Hence, it seemed like Joseph , John and James all had a Somerset County origin and hence were probably sons of James mentioned in Thomas’ will. But there never was any proof of this.

In 2004, the MacMurtrie Clan Family Records learned that one could use DNA genetic testing to tell which McMurtrys shared a common ancestor and which ones didn’t. So between 2004 and 2008, almost 50 DNA samples were collected from McM around the world – the USA, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, and Australia to try to tell how the McM of America were related to the McM of Ireland and Scotland and how the McM of America were related to each other, including trying to find proof that John McMurtry and James McMurtry of Tennessee were indeed the sons of James and grandsons of Thomas. The results were astounding! The report that follows sumarizes what we have learned and what still remains a mystery.

Connections of the New Jersey McMurtrys to the McMurtrys of Ireland and Scotland

We discovered that almost all of the McM families in the world descend from only three different individuals sometime back in the 1400s or 1500s or possibly earlier. This is reflected in the fact that all these families have only 3 basic DNA patterns:

Antrim Pattern: This pattern is characteristic of families in Co Antrim in northeast Ireland and six parishes in Ayrshire Scotland.
Derry Pattern: This pattern is characteristic of families in Co Derry in northern Ireland and one or possibly two parishes in Ayrshire.
Dalmellington Pattern: This pattern is characteristic of families who originated in Dalmellington, a town in eastern Ayrshire, Scotland.

All the McMurtrys who migrated to colonial America, including the families in New Jersey, Virginia and South Carolina, all have DNA patterns similar to the Antrim pattern found in Ireland and Scotland. So we have an answer to the question: Are we Scottish or Irish? We are both! Our ancestors came from Ireland (most likely somewhere in Co Antrim), but their ancestors had lived in Scotland (probably from one of the parishes in Ayrshire where the McM lived in the 1700s), but possibly from elsewhere in Scotland, possibly the Island of Bute where some say the McM name derived.

John and James McMurtry Connection to the New Jersey McMurtrys

John McMurtry 1752-1841 was married in Somerset County New Jersey in 1781. He and James McMurtry b 1760/70 d 1837 and possibly their sister Jane came from New Jersey to Orange County, North Carolina by 1786 and to Sumner Co Tennessee by 1794. Jane married in Sumner County in 1806 to William Hammons and was identified in John’s will as “my sister Jane Hamons”. James moved west to Humphreys County between 1807 and 1810. A letter from John’s descendant, Daniel McMurtry, in 1922 said that John had a brother Jimmy who moved across the mountain. This seemed to correspond with the James McM who settled in Humphreys County. Back north, there was a Joseph McMurtry born in 1764 in Pluckemin, Somerset County New Jersey who moved to western Pennyslvania about 1800. So we have here four children who, because of their connection to Somerset County or to each other are thought to correspond to the “children of my eldest son James” mentioned in Thomas McMurtry’s 1785 Somerset Co will.

Considerable time, effort and money has been spent getting extra DNA samples to shed light on the connection of the Tennessee McMurtrys to the New Jersey family. Though the genealogical evidence seemed to strongly suggest that John and James were brothers to each other and sons to James and grandsons to Thomas d 1788, the DNA evidence seemed to suggest that that was not very likely. In the end, all things considered, we concluded that John and James probably are the sons of James and grandsons of Thomas as previously assumed and that their DNA patterns reflect a very unusual but not impossible mutational pattern. However, the unusualness of the DNA pattern requires us to acknowledge that it is possible that they instead were sons of Alexander McMurtry who died in 1761 in Hunterdon Co NJ or that James and John were sons of James McM, the son of Thomas and Joseph b 1764 was son of Thomas McM., Jr.

Though this is not a very satisfying level of certainty, that is the best we can do with the limited genealogical and DNA evidence.

The discussion that follows is for those who are interested in a more detailed discussion of the DNA investigation including maps which shows the locations of the McM residence in Ireland and Scotland.

Final Report on Genetic Analysis of the Tennesee Branches of the McMurtry Family

Detailed Discussion

Richard McMurtry

December 20008

There were two McMurtry families who settled in New Jersey during the colonial era. One consisted of three brothers – Joseph, Thomas and Robert McM – who settled initially in Somerset County by 1735 and then Joseph and Robert moved on to Sussex County 35 miles to the northwest and settled on a large, almost 2 square mile property on the Delaware River. Joseph died in 1761 and Robert in 1775 in Sussex County; Thomas died in 1788 in Somerset Co. The other family was that of Alexander McMurtry who was in Hunterdon County, about 20 miles south of Belvedere, by 1747 and died there in 1761.

Thomas d 1788 made a will in 1785 in which he left his farm to his youngest son Robert b 1749 and gave only a token amount to his son Thomas, his son-in-law Zephaniah Martin, and the “children of my eldest son James”.

We have evidence of four McMurtry children who could be the children of James McMurtry – John b 1752, James b 1760/70, Jane and Joseph b 1764. Joseph McMurtry b 1764 was reported by a grandson of his in 1895 to have been born in Pluckemin, New Jersey (which lies in Somerset Co). Also, the grandson reported that Joseph had a brother than served in the Revolution. John served in the Revolution and then married in Somerset Co in 1781. John’s will mentions his “sister Jane Hamons” and a letter from John’s descendant Daniel McMurtry in 1922 mentions a brother Jimmy. So it seems clear that John, James and Jane were siblings to each other and they might have been siblings to Joseph. However, though John, James and Jane all went to TN; Joseph, despite being 21 years old when the others went to Tennessee, instead stayed in New Jersey and migrated to PA about 15 years later; so the possibility remains that Joseph was not a sibling to the other three.

DNA samples were obtained from descendants of two sons of Joseph d 1761, of one son of Robert d 1775, and of one son of Joseph b 1764. All these had essentially the same DNA pattern which is what we would expect. Similarly, DNA samples were obtained from desendants of two sons of John b 1752 and from descendants of two grandsons of James b 1760/70. These all matched which is also what we would expect from two brothers. However, the DNA analysis shows that the DNA pattern of James and John had 2 differences out of 25 DNA indicators from the DNA of the others of the Somerset/Sussex county, namely, Joseph b 1764 and from two descendants of Joseph d 1761 and one descendant of Robert d 1775. Normally that level of difference does not occur between brothers and normally two brothers do not have the same mutations in the same generation. So this is a very unusual pattern of DNA changes. To have one brother with a single difference is common; to have one brother with two changes is very unusual; to have two brothers having the same two changes in the same generation is even more unusual.

So we considered other explanations for the DNA results.

The John and James DNA pattern was identical to a number of McM families in Co Antrim in Northern Ireland. Could they have been descendants of another family that had migrated to NJ? Since there is no evidence of another McMurtry family that had migrated from Ireland, this does not seem to be a likely possibility for the parentage of John and James.
Their DNA pattern had only one difference compared to the family of Alexander McMurtry d 1761 Hunterdon County, New Jersey. This makes it much more likely for John and James to be children of Alexander than to be children of someone with a DNA pattern with two differences. Though we have no record of John and James in Hunterdon County, this is not sufficient reason to conclude that they weren’t Alexander’s sons. Another Alexander McMurtry b about 1755 lived in Orange County, New York in 1790 and though we have no record of him being in Hunterdon County, a descendant of his has DNA matching Hugh McMurtrie of Hunterdon Co who is presumed to be a son of Alexander d 1761. So though we don’t have any genealogical evidence to support Alexander d 1761 being the father of John and James, we must consider this a possibility. For this to be the case, the DNA would either (a) need to have John have one mutation in his generation and James’ son having the same mutation in the next generation or (b) both James and John having the same mutation in their generation. This first option is not a usual mutation pattern, but it is more likely than both brothers having the same mutation in the same generation (assuming they are not twins). So this remains a possibility.
Another way that James and John could have matching DNA is if James was a son of John’s by an earlier marriage. This would require John to have had a son James at age 18 and James to have married at age 18. Not impossible, but not likely for John to have had a son in 1770 and not remarried until 1781.
Another way that James and John could have matching DNA is if they were sons of James McM and if Joseph was son of Thomas McM, Jr. This would require (a) James having 2 changes in his DNA that were carried on by both sons or (b) James having had one mutation and then John having a second and then James’ son having the same second mutation. This is more likely than all three being brothers and having two brothers having the same two changes.

This would make Thomas Jr. as father of Joseph born 1764 possibly only 33 -37 when he served in the Revolution 1776-1780 which seems more likely than Thomas being the father of John b 1752 and being 43 to 47 for such service.

Also, there is a report that James appeared on an 1812 Humphreys Co tax list as James McMurtry, Jr which supports James being the son of James McM.

However, we have a lack of information about Thomas Jr to support this theory and we have the report by a grandson of Joseph b 1764 that Joseph had a brother who served in the Revolution.

We are left to conclude that the genealogical evidence seems to favor John and James and Joseph all being sons of James and grandsons of Thomas, but the DNA requires us to consider the possibilities of John and James being sons of Alexander d 1761 of Hunterdon County or John and James being sons of James, son of Thomas d 1788 and Joseph being a son of Thomas Jr.

DNA and Family History

Many McM have asked: How does the DNA answer questions about family history? Here’s the answer.

DNA is a part of the every cell in a person's body. It is the genetic code that tells the embryo at the moment of conception how to grow to be the person it is destined to be.

One piece of the DNA is the male DNA which is passed down from father to son to grandson and so on virtually without changing. Even if two McM living today have an ancestor back in the 1400s when they still spoke Gaelic, the DNA of living male McM descendants will be the same or virtually the same. So, you can tell what families are related to a specific family simply by comparing one family’s male DNA with the male DNA of other McM families.

To put this simply, DNA analyses consist of looking into 25 compartments of the DNA and counting the number of strands of DNA material in each compartment. Then a table of all the samples is made with each row of the table being the results for one person and each column being for the number of strands of DNA material found in each particular compartment. Then all you do is look to see which persons have matching numbers in each of the 25 columns. If it’s a match or if there are only one or two differences, then the two persons being compared share a common ancestor. If there 5 or more differences, then they don’t share a common ancestor. Differences of 3 or 4 requires more information to tell if there is a common ancestor or not.

What causes differences to occur in a line are random events called mutations. Mutations are changes to the genetic code so that the number of strands of DNA material change. On average these mutations don’t occur more than once in 14 generations or say 100-250 years or more. So generally, family members sharing a common ancestor won’t have any or won’t have many differences. Ocassionally though, a lineage will have an unusually high rate of mutation. For example, in one McM family there were 2 mutations in only 3 generations. To account for these unusual results, it is necessary to get at least 2 samples from each family to make sure that at least one sample is characteristic of the family.

The McM of the Antrim pattern differ by 5 mutations from the McM of Co Derry and differ by 13 mutations from the McM of Dalmellington. So these are clearly different families unrelated during modern history.

Mathematics of DNA Analysis

(for those who love numbers)

Below is a table which compares the DNA from a descendant of John McMurtry 1752-1841 and a descendant of James McMurtry 1760-1770 – 1837 with Joseph McMurtry 1764-1846 who were previously assumed to be brothers.

	393	390	19	31	385A	385B	426	388	439	389-1	392	389-2	458		49A		459B		455		454		447		437		448		449		464A		464B		464C		464D
	3	3	1	3	3	3	4	3	4	3	3	3	4	4		4		4		4		4		4		4		4		4		4		4		4
	9	9	9	9	8	8	2	8	3	8	9	8	5	5		5		5		5		4		3		4		4		6		6		6		6
	3	0		1	5	5	6	8	9	9	2	9	8	9		9		5		4		7		7		8		9		4		4		4		4
					a	b				\|		\|		a		b														a		b		c		d
										1		2
Joseph 1764-1846	13	25	14	11	11	13	12	12	12	14	14	30	18	9		10		11		11		25		14		18		29		15		16		16		17
James 1760/70 - 1837	13	25	14	11	11	14	12	12	12	14	14	30	17	9		10		11		11		25		14		18		29		15		16		16		17
John 1752-1841	13	25	14	11	11	14	12	12	12	14	14	30	17	9		10		11		11		25		14		18		29		15		16		16		17

The important thing to note is that is that in all but two columns, all three have the same numbers in each column. However, James and John both have a number 14 in the column headed by 385 whereas Joseph has a 13 and that James and John share a 17 in the column headed by 458 whereas Joseph has an 18. In other words, James and John match each other, but differ from Joseph in two columns.

It is unusual for one brother (John) to have the same two differences compared to his assumed brother Joseph. And it is even more unusual for a second brother James to have his son have the same two differences.

Now if we compare John and James to Alexander of Hunterdon Co NJ, we see there is only one column with differences. This suggests that it is more likely, though not certain, that John and James come from the Hunterdon Co NJ family.

	393	390	19	31	385A	385B	426	388	439	389-1	392	389-2	458	49A	459B	455	454	447	437	448	449	464A	464B	464C	464D
	3	3	1	3	3	3	4	3	4	3	3	3	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
	9	9	9	9	8	8	2	8	3	8	9	8	5	5	5	5	5	4	3	4	4	6	6	6	6
	3	0		1	5	5	6	8	9	9	2	9	8	9	9	5	4	7	7	8	9	4	4	4	4
					a	b				\|		\|		a	b							a	b	c	d
										1		2
Alexander d 1761 Hunterdon Co	13	25	14	11	11	13	12	12	12	14	14	30	17	9	10	11	11	25	14	18	29	15	16	16	17
James 1760/70 - 1837	13	25	14	11	11	14	12	12	12	14	14	30	17	9	10	11	11	25	14	18	29	15	16	16	17
John 1752-1841	13	25	14	11	11	14	12	12	12	14	14	30	17	9	10	11	11	25	14	18	29	15	16	16	17

However, the fact that it is more likely from a DNA perspective for John and James to be from Alexander’s family, this does not prove it. It is possible that John and James are sons of James and that the differences in the DNA is just due to a very rare change in the DNA pattern.