PHASE II REPORT
TODD FAMILY DNA PROJECT
Detailed Discussion
TO: All Those Todds who Participated in the
Phase I and II Todd DNA Project
FR: Richard McMurtry
DATE: May 2005; minor revisions July 2006
I am very pleased to send you the results of Phase II of the
Todd DNA Project. Without your support
and interest, these results would never have been possible!
This is the detailed report which is intended for those who
have already read the summary report.
The detailed discussion of the Phase II results focuses on
the following families in the order given here.
Feel free to read these in order or to skip directly to the family that
most interests you!
Order of
Discussion
- Hanover
Twp, Lancaster Co Todds and the Rowan Co NC Todds (page 1)
- Anne
Arundel Co Todds (page 3)
- Revised
results of the search for the parentage of John Todd 1750-1813 and John
Todd 1746-1829 (page 5)
- Northern
Augusta Co and Montgomery/Tazewell Co, VA Todds
(page 6)
- New
Jersey Todds and their connection to the
Philadelphia Co Todds (page 7)
- Fleming
Co KY connection to the New Jersey Todds (page
8)
- Other
Todd Families (page 8)
1. Hanover Twp,
Lancaster Co Todds and the Rowan Co, NC Todds
What a surprise to find that the DNA of a descendant of John
Sharp Todd 1724-1798 and Samuel Todd d 1759 of Rowan Co., NC were perfect
matches with the DNA of a descendant of James Todd 1712-1783 of Hanover
Township, Lancaster Co, PA!
Previous researchers had assumed that John Sharp Todd was
the son of Joshua Todd and grandson of Joseph Todd d 1699 Philadelphia.
But the DNA suggests that John Sharp Todd researchers should be looking
to Lancaster Co, PA for their ancestral origin and that Joshua Todd son of Joseph Todd d
1699 Philadelphia
should be looking elsewhere for the fate of Joshua’s son John.
Recent research has shown that in 1749, a land warrant to
Brice Ennis of Lancaster
County indicated that
there was a John Todd and
Samuel Todd living next to him in Hanover Twp and that in 1752,
James Todd lived in the same area. But by the 1759 tax list, John and Samuel Todd had
disappeared. The DNA results show that
the descendants of Samuel Todd and John Todd who settled in Rowan Co in the
1750s matched the DNA of the James Todd of Hanover
Township, Lancaster County. This suggests that the Samuel and John of the
land entry reference were the same Samuel and John who appear in Rowan Co in
the 1750s.
The DNA results and recent local records research support
portions of the family tradition and refutes others.
The tradition was published by Dr. Wm Henry Egle in 1898 in Egle’s “Notes and
Queries”. Egle
wrote:
“For much of the following record of the descendants of an
early settler in Hanover township, Lancaster county, we were
indebted to the late Rev. David Todd, of Providence,
Illinois. It came to us in 1878. The Todds of
Hanover were originally connected with the family of the same name who removed
to Virginia and Kentucky.
Hugh Todd and his family came to Pennsylvania
about 1735, perchance earlier. A brother
John also came to Pennsylvania,
but his family went to the southward probably about 1750. …Hugh Todd and Jeannette, his wife came toPennsylvania, taking up a
tract of land in Hanover,
prior to 1740. He died in 1772, leaving
children: i.
James b 1712 md Mary, ii. Cornelius, m and removed to
North Carolina,
iii. Hugh, m and removed to North
Carolina“
The portions of the tradition – namely that an uncle John
went south and brothers Cornelius and
Hugh went to North Carolina – probably came from David Todd; it does not seem
likely that Dr. Egle would have invented these
traditions.
It appears that the “uncle” John that “went south about
1750” may have been John Sharp Todd b 1724 who settled in Rowan Co. by 1759,
though his birth year would suggest that John was the brother of James b 1712,
not his uncle. The “two brothers” of
James who “went to North Carolina”
may be John and Samuel. Samuel was born
by at least 1710 since his son Nathan was of age in 1759 when Samuel died. (On the other hand, one might argue that
Samuel and John of Rowan Co were sons of the “uncle
John” who went south and that we haven’t yet located the brothers Hugh and
Cornelius. This is conceivable, but not
as likely an interpretation as John and Samuel being James’ brothers.
The portion of the family tradition that has been refuted is
the tradition that identified Hugh Todd who died in Lancaster Co in 1772 as being the
father of James Todd b 1712 of Hanover
Township. The will of Hugh Todd d 1772 in Coleraine Township, Lancaster Co and the will of James Todd
d 1772 in East Nottingham Township, Chester Co have been found. From these two documents, we learned that the
Hugh Todd who died in 1772 was not the son of James Todd 1712-1783, and
Jeanette Todd was not his wife. Rather
Hugh was the son of Jeanette Todd and the James Todd who died earlier the same
year in Chester Co. These documents and
other census records show that:
- Hugh
Todd d 1772 was single when he died.
- Hugh Todd was the son of James Todd of
Chester Co.
- Jeanette
Todd, the administrator of Hugh’s will, was Hugh’s mother, not his wife.
Hugh’s will identifies her as his mother.
- One of
Hugh’s siblings was born about the 1740s suggesting that Hugh was a young
man.
- Hugh
died in Coleraine Twp about 40 miles from
Hanover Twp, but on the border with East Nottingham Twp Chester Co where
James Todd died in 1772.
How can we explain how Dr. Egle
could report a Hugh Todd d 1772 with wife Jeanette being the father of James
Todd 1712-1783? The most likely
explanation is that David Todd reported that James Todd 1712-1783 was the son
of a Hugh Todd and Dr Egle assumed this Hugh
corresponded with the probate index entry for a Hugh Todd d 1772 with Jeanettte Todd as administrator. This assumes that Dr. Egle
saw the index entry but not the will.
This is plausible because Dr. Egle was heavily
involved in research in Lancaster Co records because of his interest in local
history, but an abstract of Lancaster Co probate records made in the 1890s
listing Hugh’s will as “missing”. So Dr Egle could have seen the index entry but not seen the will
and jumped to conclusions that this Hugh was the father of James and that
Jeanette the adminstrator was the wife of Hugh. These conclusions have been shown to be
incorrect.
.
2. Anne Arundel
County Maryland Todds
In Phase I, we determined that 2 of the participants from
the Benjamin Todd 1749-1823 line, and the participant from the John Todd md 1791 Mary Jarman line were
exact 23 marker matches for two participants known to be from the Anne Arundel
Co Todds. A
participant from the John Todd d 1809 Bourbon Co KY line
was only two markers different from the others.
Based on this, we concluded that all these families were closely
related.
As mentioned in the summary report, in Phase II, we
increased from 23 to 42 the number of genetic markers for a sample from each of
the three lines – Benjamin Todd 1749-1823 (Don Todd), John Todd d 1809 Bourbon Co
(Jim Todd), and John Todd md Mary Jarman
(John W. Todd). We hoped to identify
markers that would enable us to distinguish between different branches of the
family.
The results were surprising.
The additional markers were identical – supporting the theory that all
three of these lines are closely related, but not giving us any differences
that would enable us to distinguish between lines.
Future
Efforts
It is also possible that the two markers that the John Todd
d 1809 line differ from the others may prove to be useful markers. However, unless we get at least a second
sample from another branch of the John Todd d 1809 line, we can not be sure
that the sample we have is representative of the John Todd d 1809 line.
ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO TO BE TESTED
Thomas Todd d 1671
I.
Thomas Todd d
1677
A.
Lancelot Todd ca 1674- 1735
md prior to 1701 to Elizabeth Rockhold
1.
Thomas Todd md Sophia
(a) Elizabeth Todd, b. 21 Oct 1731
(b)Lancelott
Todd, b. 28 May 1734 d 1759
(c) Rachel Todd, b. 2 Jun 1736
(d)
Ruth Todd, b. 25 Sep 1739
(e) Thomas Todd, b. 17 Mar 1741
(1)
??John Todd b abt 1767 (John W. Todd sample)
(2)
??Thomas
(3)
??Samuel
(f) Pegge Todd, b. 1 Nov 1746
?? John Todd b 1747 d 1809 Bourbon Co (Jim
Todd sample)
?? Benjamin Todd b 1749 1823 (Don Todd sample)
2.
Lancelot Todd b ca 1715 md 1735 to Rachel
Warfield in Anne Arundel Co.
(a) Alexander
Todd, b. 7 Sep 1736, m.
Rachel _____.
(1)
Benjamin Todd 1759/60-1841=>Columbiana Co, OH
(2) Basil Todd 1762-?=>Beaver Co,
PA=>Columbiana Co OH (John C. Todd sample)
(3)
Elizabeth Todd 1765-1783- md Henry Barrington
(4)
Samuel Todd 1765-1785-1844=>Beaver Co, PA
(5)
Alexander Todd 1766-1787-1810=>Fayette Co. PA
(6)
Joshua Todd
1768-1792- (Edwin M Todd sample)
(7)
Rachel Todd 1773-1842 md
Jacob Biddle
(8)
Warfield Todd 1775-1796-1837
(9)
Susannah Todd md Wm Hambleton
(10) Lucy
Todd
(11) Eleanor
Todd md Zachariah Condon
(b) Lancelot
Todd, b. 1 Sep 1738
Lynda Bouchonnet
reports that Lancelot Jr d 4 Oct 1792
(source unknown):
By
first wife Rachel b ca 1742 QC
(1)
Sarah 20 Feb 1759
(2)
Nicholas 10 Sept 1761
(3)
Lancelot 20 Oct 1763
(4)
Phillip 8 Feb 1766 (other sources report marriage in
1795 to Elizabeth Goulding)
(5) Thomas 29 Mar 1769
(other source reports marriage of Thomas to Mary Brown)=>Seneca Co. OH
The next round of testing will tell us whether the DNA
testing can distinguish this type of difference between the various branches of
the family.
3. Revised
results of the search for the parentage of John Todd 1750-1813 and John Todd
1746-1829
We have been trying to see if
DNA would help us connect the John Todd 1750-1813 of Shelby Co Ky and the John Todd 1746-1829 of
VA-KY-TN to either the William Todd of Augusta Co, VA family or the Andrew Todd
d 1791 of Chester &Bedford PA
and Louisa Co, VA.
The Phase II samples provided
a second sample for the Augusta Co VA Todds and a
second sample for the John Todd 1750-1813 Shelby Co, KY family. We have not yet been able to secure a second
sample from the Andrew Todd d 1791 line.
The results showed that
descendants of two sons of William Todd 1700-1760/70 (namely, Samuel Todd
1739-1813 and Low Todd 1723-1792) had the same genetic pattern. So it is likely that their brother John Todd
had the same pattern. We find that John
Todd 1746-1829 had this same pattern which makes him a candidate for being the
John Todd who was son of William Todd.
When we combine this with the
genealogical evidence, the DNA and the genealogical evidence support each
other.
One piece of the genealogical
evidence is that John Todd 1746-1829 in his will referred to Robert Houston as
his relative; Robert Houston was the great-grandson of William Todd by William’s
daughter Sarah who married John Houston.
Hence, John was a relation to Robert Houston because John’s sister Sarah
was Robert’s grandmother.
The second piece of evidence
indicates that John Todd 1746-1829 was not a son of Andrew Todd contrary to what
some family historians had assumed.. Levi Todd wrote a letter in 1784 that
expressed regret that John Todd son of Andrew had not become a settler and
would likely not be able to get land by any other means than by purchase which
was not very economically profitable.
This could not be referring to John Todd 1746-1829 because this John
Todd had already filed surveys in 1782 and 1783 for 450 acres of land.
The Phase II samples also
showed that two of the sons of John Todd (1750-1813) of Shelby Co, KY had a key
genetic marker that matched a descendant of Andrew Todd d 1791, but didn’t
match the DNA of the descendants of William Todd 1700 -1760/70.
Again, when we combine the DNA results with
the genealogical evidene, the DNA and the
genealogical evidence support each other.
We know that John Todd of
Shelby Co KY administered the will of John Gregg in 1791 in Jefferson Co. And we have recently discovered that John
Gregg lived in Bedford Township, Bedford
County PA
from 1773 to 1784 overlapping with the residence period of John Todd
1776-1784. Bedford Township
Bedford County
PA is where William Todd
son of Andrew settled and where Andrew Todd came to live after Andrew’s wife
died in Chester Co in 1773.
See essay, “Sorting Out the Origins of the John Todds
of Kentucky
May 2005”.
4. Northern
Augusta Co and Montgomery/Tazewell Co, VA Todds
The northern Augusta Co Todds and
the Montgomery/Tazewell Co, VA Todds are an exact
match to each other and to the Augusta Co, Todds when
we consider only the first 25 genetic markers.
However, the Montgomery/Tazewell Co Todds have
two markers diffent from the Augusta Co Todds when 37 markers are examined. This suggests a more
distant relationships. At this
point, all we can say is that it looks like all three of these groups are related.
To refine our results will require the most expensive Family
Tree DNA test ($200) for at least one member of each of the three families.
It may be preferable to begin with more genealogical
research in the counties where these Todds lived,
including York Co where Andrew Todd lived in 1779-1783 before coming To VA.
We find the two families together only once. In 1787, James Todd and Andrew Todd appear on
a tax list in Rockingham Co, VA. Then
Andrew moved by 1789 to Montgomery Co, VA and James moved to Augusta Co by
1791. Andrew died in Tazewell County
(formerly part of Montgomery
County) in 1801. James died in the Mossy Creek area of
Northern Augusta Co in 1799.
We have also found some mysterious clues that links Andrew Todd
to York Co, PA and makes us wonder if he might be related to the Philadelphia Todds via a branch that went to York Co.
We find an Andrew Todd on the Dover Twp, York Co tax lists
in 1779, 1781 and 1783. In 1781, he is
listed as a single man and in 1783 shows up as a married man with no
children. This looks very much like the
Andrew Todd who married Elizabeth Sipes in 1782 in
Frederick Co. MD. Elizabeth was daughter of George Sipes of Dover Twp, York Co, PA. The 1781 list also lists a Patrick Todd; Andrew
and Patrick Todd show up on a list of those taking Oaths of Allegiance in
Harford Co, MD in 1778. (Patrick continues to live in Harford Co until 1820.)
It is possible that the records of York County
might reveal more about the Todds of this area.
5. The New Jersey Todds and their connection to the Philadelphia Co Todds
The DNA has been helpful both for sorting out the
relationships between the six different branches of Somerset Co Todds and for showing that any connection to the
Philadelphia Co Todds must be a fairly distant one.
With respect to relationships between the Somerset Co Todds, we know there were two different branches of the
family because two of the lines were John Todds who
could not have been brothers – John Todd 1739-1823 and John Todd
1729-1802. The DNA shows that John Todd
1739-1823 was more closely related to James Todd d 1781 of Bernards Township and that John Todd 1729-1802 of Bedminster Township
must therefore have been associated with Andrew Todd d 1781 of Bedminster Township who in turn was associated with
David Todd 1739-1809
and William Todd d 1760.
With respect to the
relationships with the Philadelphia Co Todds, it has
been tempting to assume a close relationship because (1) the Philadelphia Co Todds had a tradition of having lived east of PA before
coming to PA, (2) four of the five names that appears in New Jersey also appear
in the Philadelphia/Chester Co records, namely, William, John, Robert and
Andrew in Philadelphia/Chester County records and William, John, Robert, Andrew
and James in the Somerset Co NJ, and (3) the ages of their adulthoods seem to
match.
The Janeway
Store records in Bound Brook
New Jersey between 1735 and 1744
show that (1) William Todd was the brother of Robert Todd and (2) James Todd was
the brother of Andrew Todd. IF
(and this is a big IF) Robert Todd of Somerset Co NJ is the Robert Todd
1697-1775 who came to Philadelphia Co in the 1750s and IF Andrew Todd is the
Andrew Todd who came to Chester Co, PA abt 1760, then
since we know that Robert and Andrew were half-brothers, then all four of these
Somerset Co Todd brothers would be brothers to each other. There is no reference to John Todd being a
brother though he appears frequently associated with William Todd in the
store’s account ledgers.
However, the DNA shows that the New Jersey Todds had a sufficiently different pattern (they are 3 to 4
mutuations different from the Philadelphia/Augusta Co
Todds) that they are NOT likely to be close cousins
though they may be related.
This does not mean that the William, Robert and Andrew are
not the individuals that lived in New
Jersey; but the DNA can not show a close enough
connection to support the theory based simply on closeness of genetic
relationship to the branches that stayed behind in Somerset Co.
With respect to the fate of the John Todd who appears with
William in the Abingdon Presbyterian Church records in Philadelphia
County, there is a possibility that
his son Alexander b 1736 was the Alexander who married in Philadelphia in 1770 and who had a connection
to the Sharp family of Sussex Co, NJ.
6. Fleming Co
KY connection to the New Jersey
Todds
Thomas Todd (1781-1826) of Fleming Co, KY shows up in
Fleming Co by ___. The only clue to his
origin is that the DNA of this family is only two markers different than two
branches of the New Jersey Todds.
More research is needed to determine the degree of
connection between the Fleming Co family and the New Jersey families.
7. Other Todd
Families
See next page for discussion of the chart of the genetic
distance between all the major families in the Todd Family DNA project so
far.
The table below displays the genetic distance between the 13
family groups in the Todd Family DNA project.
The first column shows the family names.
The first row has an abbreviation for each family listed in the first
column. The number at the intersection
of each column and row is the genetic distance between the two families.
For example, the third row labelled
Northern Augusta Co Todds intersects the first column
for the PA (Philadelphia Co Todds) with a zero at the
intersection. This means that the
genetic distance is zero which means there are no genetic differences between
the two families. This also means that
they are very closely related. Similarly, the third row (for the Northern
Augusta Co Todds) intersects the fourth column labelled NJ (for New Jersey Todds)
with a “3”. This means there is a genetic distance of 3
between the two families. This means
they are not extremely closely related but are not necessarily unrelated. The third row (Northern Augusta Co Todds) and 7th column labelled
AA (for Anne Arundel Co Todds) has a 29. This means there distance
is very large and are not related at all.
Here is what the table tells us:
- A box
has been drawn around the first three rows and columns showing that the
Philadelphia Co, Tazewell Co and Northern Augusta Co Todds
all have a distance of “0” bewteen them. They are very closely related. Butt other than the NJ and Fleming Co Todds and the NC Todds, all
the rest of the numbers on that first 3 lies are 18-46 – meaning no common
ancestor to the rest of the families in the study.
- The
green box shows NJ Todds on row 4 have a genetic
distance of “3” to the first three columns: Philadelphia, Tazewell and N. Augusta Todds. The NJ Todds probably share a common ancestor with these
three families but back 100 or 200 years or so. They seem to have a closer
relationship to the Fleming Co Todds. As above, the NJ Todds
do not share a common ancestor with any of the other families.
- The
Fleming Co Todds on the fifth line seem to be
only “2” from the NJ Todds. This suggests a
fairly close relationship.
- The
Anne Arundel and the Dorchester Todds on lines 7
and 8 and column 7 and 8 have a distance of “6”. This suggest
they are either not related or related several hundred years ago. They are not closely related to any
other of the families studied.
- The
Lancaster and the Rowley Mass families have no close relationship to any
other families.
- The
Washington Co, PA family is 7-8 from the Joseph Todd d 1699, the Elial Todd of Detroit, and the England Todds. This is
still a very large number and does not suggest even a distant
relationship, but may reflect a regional relationships
of some sort.
