Hybrid Tea Rose by Mrs. Herbert Stevens (4 May 2008) via Wikimedia Commons Open Rose Y-DNA Surname Project
 
Hybrid Tea Rose by Mrs. Herbert Stevens (4 May 2008) via Wikimedia Commons
 
Lineages, Results, and Analysis of Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b-U198 ROSEs — Old Groups K and K1
in the ROSE DNA Project at FamilyTreeDNA
Open
Rose
Home
Y-DNA Haplogroups Represented in the Project
E G I1 I2 J L Q R1a R1b T
UPDATE (19 Mar 2017):  now that I'm the administrator of the FTDNA ROSE Y-DNA Surname Project, I'm removing the Old K3 BROWN group from the project on the grounds that their connection to ROSE was before surname adoption.  I will also be lumping ROSE Groups K and K1 back together as the genetic difference between them is trivial.  The page below needs updating, but I don't have time to do it now. DGM
[Original page creation date ca. 2009.]
The purpose of this page is to allow members of Groups K and K1 of the ROSE DNA Project — and genealogists researching these families — to more easily share and understand their test results.  Anyone who is a member of this group is encouraged to contact me.  We need to have more complete lineages.  Also, if you have tested more than 37 markers, please share these results.

Everyone needs to upgrade to 67 markers if we're going to get any more use out of these results, that is, beyond just supporting that these individuals are connected somewhere back in time; and everyone with a mutation away from the modal needs to test cousins until the exact location of that mutation is determined.

Several members of these groups have been deep SNP tested with the result that their most downstream positive SNP is U198, making them Haplogroup R-1b1a-2a1a-1a1.  K and K1 are, at least so far, the only R-U198 groups in the ROSE project.  Group K and K1 members are encouraged to also join the U198 / S29 Project at FamilyTreeDNA.  You can do so from the "Join Projects" button on your FTDNA member page.

These ROSEs, along with BROWN, BAILEY, and CURD families, are considered part of "Superfamily a" at the R-U198 project. [link died]  Characteristic markers for this superfamily are:  DYS389 = 14/30 or greater; DYS448 = 18; DYS449 > 29; DYS464 contains a 16; DYS576 > 17; DYS578 = 10; DYS594 = 11.

The Group K1 ROSEs have been thought to be closely related to Group 64 of the BROWN Surname Project, in part due to their similar 37-marker haplotypes and the shared value of 31 at DYS389ii.  However, a cladogram accounting for the "off-modal" mutations in their 67-marker haplotypes indicates that the DYS389ii mutation logically had to have happened twice, so it is not an indicator of a near relationship between the two groups.  As it stands, there is no way that John David ROSE, progenitor of Group K1, either descends from or is ancestral to the Group 64 BROWNs — and vice versa.  The MRCA (most recent common ancestor) of all three groups (i.e., Group K ROSE, Group K1 ROSE, and Group 64 BROWN) existed prior to the appearance of any of the three groups, which means the MRCA may have been an early ROSE, an early BROWN, or may have existed before the period of surname adoption.  It is not, therefore, cladistically valid to combine the Group 64 BROWNs with the Group K1 ROSEs in a single clade, not unless you also include the Group K ROSEs and their hypothetical MRCA.  Doing so probably takes us back beyond the adoption or surnames and into the domain of the "superfamilies" of the Haplogroup R-U198 project.
I have also compiled what I call a "node chart" for the Group K1 ROSEs, that is, for the descendants of John David ROSE.  In many ways the node chart resembles an STR cladogram, the difference being that it (ultimately) includes every male descendant of the progenitor.  It's usefulness is as a double-check on the accuracy of the paper pedigrees, a clue to where someone without a paper connection will connect, and as a graphic indication of how many lines still need to be tested.  Rather than wait for random individuals to be tested, it would serve the K1 ROSEs well to see out and test as many of the missing lines as possible — and to upgrade everyone to 67 markers.
The Rose Family Association ROSE DNA Project suggests that Group K2 bears a relationship to Groups K and K1.  The Group K2 modal haplotype has only a 28/37 match with the modal haplotype of Group K and only a 27/37 match with the modal for Group K1, which are decided non-matches.  Nor does the Group K2 haplotype have the signature STR markers for R-U198, so it is not even the same haplogroup subclade.  In other words, there is not the remotest possibility of a connection between the K2 ROSEs and either the K or K1 ROSEs within genealogical time.
GD = Genetic Distance, the number of mutation events separating two haplotypes. In the case of these tables, it's the GD from the testee to the group's modal haplotype.  Note that I have reversed the order of two of the DYS464 alleles in the R-U198 modal haplotype.  This rearrangement is in keeping with the correct way to score DYS464 (please see Answer #9 on this page [link died]).  I simply chose to rearrange the alleles in the row for the modal haplotype, rather than do it for all the test subjects.
To view more of the page without scrolling, temporarily reduce the text size or page size in your browser. 
Red labels indicate markers that typically mutate more frequently than those labeled in black.
(Empty cells that are darkened indicate those tests have not been ordered.)

Group K
To view lineages, please scroll to the right.
GD
(cumulative)
Earliest Ancestor Kit # Ysearch
UserID
Haplotype — as determined by STR testing Lineage
Markers 1-12 Markers 13-25 Markers 26-37 Markers 38-67
at
12
at
25
at
37
at
67
3
9
3
3
9
0
19
/
3
9
4
3
9
1
a
|
3
8
5
b
|
3
8
5
4
2
6
3
8
8
4
3
9
i
|
3
8
9
3
9
2
ii
|
3
8
9
4
5
8
a
|
4
5
9
b
|
4
5
9
4
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
7
4
3
7
4
4
8
4
4
9
a
|
4
6
4
b
|
4
6
4
c
|
4
6
4
d
|
4
6
4
4
6
0
H4
|
G
A
T
A
IIa
|
Y
C
A
IIb
|
Y
C
A
4
5
6
6
0
7
5
7
6
5
7
0
a
|
C
D
Y
b
|
C
D
Y
4
4
2
4
3
8
5
3
1
5
7
8
a
|
S1
3
9
5
b
|
S1
3
9
5
5
9
0
5
3
7
6
4
1
4
7
2
S1
4
0
6
5
1
1
4
2
5
a
|
4
1
3
b
|
4
1
3
5
5
7
5
9
4
4
3
6
4
9
0
5
3
4
4
5
0
4
4
4
4
8
1
5
2
0
4
4
6
6
1
7
5
6
8
4
8
7
5
7
2
6
4
0
4
9
2
5
6
5
R-1b1a-2a1a-1a1 (U198) Modal Values 7PEEZ 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 15 18 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 16 17 38 38 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 13 12 Modals per DGM extracted from U198 Project (31 Aug 2009).
                 
Group K Modal Values S8WP7 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 40 12 12 11 10 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 22 23 16 11 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 13 12 n=32 at 25 markers; n=16 at 37 markers; n=3 at 67 markers
0 0 0   William ROSE - 1 6942 MDK2A 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 40 12 12                                                             Pvt... … … … … Nathan2 William1 ROSE (1747- ) of Orange and Onondaga Cos., NY [wife Mary De WITT]
0 0 0   Samuel ROSE 151066   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 40 12 12                                                             Pvt… … … … … John F.4 John3 Samuel2 Samuel1 ROSE (c1700- ) of Tuckerton, Ocean Co., NJ [wife Anna DUCKWORTH]
0 0     Samuel ROSE 12724   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … … … … … … …
0 0 0 0 Alexander SMITH 106216 WK55T 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 40 12 12 11 10 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 22 23 16 11 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 13 12 Pvt... … … Alexander1 SMITH (1839- ) of PA and New Orleans, LA
0 0 1   Henry ROSE 70798 W25W6 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 17 14 18 17 38 40 12 12                                                             Pvt... … Charles3 Henry Matthias2 Henry1 ROSE (1804- ) of NY [wife Candes/Candice]
0 0 1   Israel ROSE 5874   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 41 12 12                                                             Pvt... … … … … Ruben Roluff3 Ruben2 Israel1 ROSE (c1730-1790) of Orange Co., NY [wife Phoebe]
0 0 2   John ROSE - 1 6982   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 17 17 38 39 12 12                                                             Pvt... … … … … Abraham4 William3 Abraham2 John1 ROSE (c1700-1755 ) of Salem, NJ [wife-1 Mary]
0 0     John ROSE - 1 24916   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … … … … … Ezekiel2 John1 ROSE (c1700-1755 ) of Salem, NJ [wife-2 Elizabeth]
1 1     Ezekiel ROSE 10701   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 13 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … … … George4 Ezekiel3 Ezekiel2 Ezekiel1 ROSE (c1710-1768) of Hunterdon, NJ [wife Mary FIDLER]
(said to be possible brother of the above John)
1 2 3   Ezekiel ROSE 22375   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 13 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 15 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 17 17 38 40 12 12                                                             Pvt... … … Martin5 Jonathan4 John3
0 0     Ezekiel ROSE 5922   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … … … Richard4 Ezekiel3 Jonathan2
2 2 4   Ezekiel ROSE 10264   13 23 15 11 11 13 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 12 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 37 40 12 12                                                             Pvt... … … … … John3 Charles2
0 0     John ROSE - 2 6609   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … … … … … John1 ROSE (1764-1825) of Greene Co., PA [wife Hannah ADDLEMAN]
0 0     Emanuel ROSE 110803   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … … Dr. Freeman "Dock"3 Enoch B.2   Emanuel1 ROSE (c1794- ) of Cherokee Co., NC, and Fannin Co., GA [wife Margaret HISE]
0 0     Benjamin ROSE 111900   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … Frank H.3 Israel Monroe2 Benjamin F.1 ROSE (1806/7->1870) of Long Island, NY, OH, and WI [wife Margaret WESTBROOK]
0 0     Robert ROSE - 1 92279   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … … … James3 John2 Robert1 ROSE (c1770- ) of Washington Co., PA, and Montgomery Co., KY [wife Jane CREE]
0 0 1 1 Robert ROSE - 1 35787 9TCGG 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 37 40 12 12 11 10 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 22 23 16 11 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 13 12 Pvt... … Harvey B.5 Harvey B.4 William3 Josiah2
0 0     Robert ROSE - 2 34901   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt8 Pvt7 Stewart6 Ecebius Milton5 Alvah Buckingham4 Ezekiel3 Ezekiel2 Robert1 ROSE (c1731- ) of VA? PA? NJ? NY?
[wife Johanna CRAWFORD]
0 0 1   Robert ROSE - 2 5659   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 10 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 40 12 12                                                             Pvt... … … …  … Jeremiah3 Tychicus2
0 1     Robert ROSE - 2 34038   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … … … … …
0 0     David ROSE 3855   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … … … … … … David1 ROSE (c1724-1781) of L.I., NY, Lancaster Co., PA, and Washington Co MD
descendants to Trumbull and Mahoning Cos., OH [wife Hannah PARR]
1 1 1   David ROSE 14809   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 11 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 40 12 12                                                             Pvt... … … … Levi B.4 Jesse3 James2
0 0     Matthias ROSE 10089   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … … … Matthias4 Robert3 Matthias2 Matthias1 ROSE (1727- ) of Albany and Saratoga Cos., NY, and Ontario, Canada
0 0 1   Matthias ROSE 62503   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 39 12 12 11 10 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 22 23 15 11 12 12 16 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 13 12 Pvt... … … … George W.4 Samuel3
0 2 4   Matthias ROSE 14018   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17 10 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 15 15 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 39 39 12 12                                                             Pvt... … … … Benjamin4 Daniel3
1 3 6   Abraham ROSE 7298   13 23 14 11 12 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17 10 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 15 15 11 11 19 22 15 14 17 17 40 40 12 12                                                             Pvt... … … Theodore F.5 Samuel4 William S.3 William2 Abraham1 ROSE (1729- ) of Cumberland Co., NJ [wife Phoebe HILDRETH]
0 0 2   Abraham ROSE 67340   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 15 14 17 17 38 40 12 12                                                             Pvt... … … … George W.4
0 0     Abraham ROSE 40366   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … … … William P.4
0 1 1   Stagton ROSE 10799 A5ZMT 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 17 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 40 12 12                                                             Pvt... … … Charles Albert2 Stagton1 ROSE (c1802- ) of NJ and Somerset Co., PA [wife Sophia SMITH]
0 1     Abraham Lacy ROSE 14826   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 30 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … … … … Abraham Lacy1 ROSE (1794-1869) of Seneca Falls, NY, and Marion Co., IA [wife Sarah ROSE, she of Group Y]
1 3     Daniel Darius ROSE 60038   13 23 15 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 16  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 30 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … … … Napoleon Bonaparte2 Daniel Darius1 ROSE (c1792- ) of York Co., ME, and Randolph Co., AR [wife Lucinda Jane]
2 5     William ROSE - 2 7249   13 23 14 10 11 13 12 12 12 14 13 30 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 28 15 15 16 17                                                                                     Pvt... … … William3 George Washington2 William1 ROSE (c1790- ) of Otsego Co., NY [wife Ruth COMSTOCK]
Calculating genetic distance (GD):
  • Any mutation in DYS389i is reflected in DYS389ii, so the change from 29 to 30 at DYS389ii (grey table cells) does not represent a second mutation event.
  • The mutation to 15,15 at DYS464c,d (bright green table cells) is counted as one mutation event, not two, because DYS464 is prone to "recLOH" (recombinant loss of heterozygosity) events.  That is, what appears to have happened here is that the a,b alleles have overwritten the c,d alleles in a single mutation event.  As such events are relatively common for this marker, it cannot necessarily be assumed that possessing it is a sign of close relationship.  The location of the event in the testee's line must be pinpointed by testing cousins to be certain we aren't looking at two independent events, although the shared mutation at DYS459a suggests it was one.
Data Sources:
"Rose Family DNA Project Results — to November 4, 2009." Rose Family Bulletin (December 2009).
Ysearch.; SMGF; ROSE Family DNA Project; ROSE-DNA Mailing List; email.
   

Group K1
To view lineages, please scroll to the right.
GD
(cumulative)
Earliest
Ancestor
Kit # Ysearch
UserID
Haplotype — as determined by STR testing Lineage
Markers 1-12 Markers 13-25 Markers 26-37 Markers 38-67 Advanced Markers
at
12
at
25
at
37
at
67
3
9
3
3
9
0
19
/
3
9
4
3
9
1
a
|
3
8
5
b
|
3
8
5
4
2
6
3
8
8
4
3
9
i
|
3
8
9
3
9
2
ii
|
3
8
9
4
5
8
a
|
4
5
9
b
|
4
5
9
4
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
7
4
3
7
4
4
8
4
4
9
a
|
4
6
4
b
|
4
6
4
c
|
4
6
4
d
|
4
6
4
4
6
0
H4
|
G
A
T
A
IIa
|
Y
C
A
IIb
|
Y
C
A
4
5
6
6
0
7
5
7
6
5
7
0
a
|
C
D
Y
b
|
C
D
Y
4
4
2
4
3
8
5
3
1
5
7
8
a
|
S1
3
9
5
b
|
S1
3
9
5
5
9
0
5
3
7
6
4
1
4
7
2
S1
4
0
6
5
1
1
4
2
5
a
|
4
1
3
b
|
4
1
3
5
5
7
5
9
4
4
3
6
4
9
0
5
3
4
4
5
0
4
4
4
4
8
1
5
2
0
4
4
6
6
1
7
5
6
8
4
8
7
5
7
2
6
4
0
4
9
2
5
6
5
4
6
1
4
6
2
A10
|
G
A
T
A
C4
|
6
3
5
GA
AT
1
B
0
7
4
4
1
4
4
5
4
5
2
4
6
3
R-U198 Modal Values 7PEEZ 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 15 18 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 16 17 38 38 12 12 11  9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 13 12 12 11 12 25 10 13 12 30 22 Standard marker modals per DGM extracted from U198 Project (31 Aug 2009); advanced marker modals per John Sloan.
                   
Group K1 ROSE Modal Values KUYQ8 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 40 12 12 11 10 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 22 23 16 11 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 13 12 12 11 12 25 10 13 12 30 23 n=14 at 12 markers; n=13 at 25 markers; n=8 at 37 markers; n=2 at 67 markers; n=1 for advanced markers
1 1     John ROSE 1761 20034   13 23 14 11 10 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                                       Pvt… … … … James Robert3 Robert William2 John David1 ROSE (1761-1843) 
of Harrison Co., (W)VA, and Wolfe Co., KY
[wife Rebecca BOWEN]

Secondary sources dispute whether John David
had middle name David.  They also dispute 
whether John Jackson had middle name Jackson
or was simply nicknamed "Jack."  I am in no
position to settle these disputes.

0 0 0 0 John ROSE 1761 6854   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 40 12 12 11 10 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 22 23 16 11 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 13 12                   Pvt… … … Allison4
1       John ROSE 1761 118631   12 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31                                                                                                                                 Pvt…  … Samuel Lee5 James Buchanan4
0 0     John ROSE 17611 4346   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16           12 12                                                             12 11 12 25 10 13 12 30 23 Pvt… … Charles Lee5 Leander Crawford4 Robert William3
0 0     John ROSE 1761 11535   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                                       Pvt… … … … Ezekiel M3
0 0 0   John ROSE 1761 68357   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 40 12 12                                                                               Pvt… … … … James Nelson3 David Bowen2
0 0     John ROSE 1761 78532   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                                       Pvt… … … Jefferson Morrison4 John David3 John "Jack"2
0 0 1   John ROSE 1761 51494   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 37 40 12 12                                                                               Pvt… … … Joseph Powell4 Robert Jefferson3
0 1 2 2 John ROSE 1761 3798   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 14 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 37 40 12 12 11 10 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 22 23 16 11 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 13 12                   Pvt… … … Elijah Chambers4 Elijah Chambers3
0 0 1   John ROSE 1761 62940   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 19 17 38 40 12 12                                                                               Pvt…  … Walter5  William4 Samuel3 Israel George2
0 0     John ROSE 1761 109011   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                                       Pvt… … … William Henry4 William Henry3
1 1 2   John ROSE 1761 127193   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 32 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 39 12 12                                                                               Pvt… Ira6 Arkillas5 Logan4 Anderson N3  Samuel2
1 2 3   John ROSE 1761 76537   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 32 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 16 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 39 12 12                                                                               Pvt… … … Robert Lee4
0 0     John ROSE 1761 109656   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17                                                                                                       Pvt…  … … … David P3 Powell2
0 0 0   Adopted EUSTICE ? HEEKH 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 37 40 12 12                                                                               Pvt — biological father a ROSE
                   
Group 64 Brown Modal Values   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 14 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 37 40 12 12 11 10 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 12 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 13 12                   n=6 at 12 markers; n=5 at 25 and 37 markers; n=2 at 67 markers; n=0 for advanced markers
0 0 1 1 Alexander BROWN 49243 hjpv6 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 14 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 40 12 12 11 10 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 12 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 13 12                   Pvt… …  … … … William3 William2 Alexander1 (c1740s-1796) 
of PA [wife Mary TYLER]
0 0 1 1 Alexander BROWN 59934 9VKQP 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 14 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 18 17 38 40 12 12 11 10 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 12 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 13 12                   Pvt… … … … Lewis C.4
0 0 2   Alexander BROWN 105360 W299Y 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 14 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 19 17 37 40 12 12 11 10 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 11 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 13 12                   Pvt… … … … … … James2
0 0 2   Adopted STEELE 180857 RYX86 13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 14 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 19 17 37 40 12 12                                                                               Pvt… [test subject was adopted at birth]
0       Anonymous BROWN2 ?   13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 13 31                                                                                                                                 Pvt…
2 2 3   Robert BROWN3 164950 X6STE 13 23 14 11  9 14 12 12 12 14 13 31 17  9 10 11 11 25 15 18 31 14 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 14 20 17 37 40 12 12                                                                               Pvt6 Pvt5 Pvt4 Tom3 John2 Robert1 BROWN (1812-1893) — of Tandragee, co. Armagh, IRL
                   
1also tested at SMGF; 2tested at FTDNA, but not a member of the BROWN project; 3markers 38-67 pending
John David ROSE is not more distant genetically than any of the other progenitors in Group K, he simply has the most descendants of any single progenitor in Group K, which makes his value of 31 at DYS389ii seem more significant than it really is.  From a genetic standpoint, one could just as logically spin off every progenitor in Group K into his own group (e.g., K2, K3, etc.).  If and when John David is connected on paper to someone in Group K, John David and his descendants will need to go back into Group K, that is, if you want the groups to represent real clades, which is desirable.
The BROWNs were placed in Group K1 (as opposed to Group K) apparently because they are 31 at DYS389ii, and the ROSE DNA project therefore asserts they descend through John ROSE of Wolfe Co., KY:
"Wm. Brown (m. Sarah Lewis) c 1771 and James Brown (name of their ROSE ancestor through John Rose is unknown)"
The problem is that William BROWN (b. ca. 1771) was too old to be a son of this John ROSE (b. 1761).  However the problems with such a connection are even more serious than one of incompatible ages, and it demonstrates the hazard of drawing conclusions based on even 37 markers.

A cladogram based on STR mutations in the 67-marker haplotypes of the Group K1 ROSEs, the Group K ROSEs, and the Group 64 BROWNs, indicates there is no possibility that the Group 64 BROWNs descended from either Group K or K1 — or vice versa.  Their MRCA may have been an early ROSE or an early BROWN or may have existed before surname adoption.

I have also compiled a "Node Chart" for the descendants of John David ROSE.  It is similar, in principal, to an STR cladogram, except that it (ultimately) includes every individual male descendant, not just groups of descendants.  It is a useful tool for supporting pedigrees, suggesting where an unconnected individual may belong and highlighting the number of lines still be be tested.
Data Sources:
"Rose Family DNA Project Results — to November 4, 2009." Rose Family Bulletin (December 2009).
Ysearch.; SMGF; ROSE Family DNA Project; ROSE-DNA Mailing List; email.
     

What constitutes a match?
Matches in other surnames are usually mere coincidence, so please ignore them — I'll let you know when you shouldn't!
For 12 markers: 9 or less is a non-relative; for 10-12 markers, please see this table compiled by FTDNA.
For 25 markers: 21 or less is a non-relative; for 22-25 markers,
For 37 markers: 31 or less is a non-relative; for 32-37 markers,
For 67 markers: 59 or less is a non-relative; for 60-67 markers,
For 111 markers: 100 or less is a non-relative; for 101-111 markers,
For any test:  0 matching markers, please contact NASA.

 
Contact Home
Page
Table of
Contents
DNA
Hub
Biddle
DNA
Carrico
DNA
Corbin
DNA
Cupp
DNA
Danish
DNA
Ely
DNA
Lyon(s)
DNA
Rasey
DNA
Reason
DNA
Rose
DNA
Straub
DNA
Pedigree
Charts
Census
Hubs
Every-Name
Indices

Hybrid Tea Rose by Mrs. Herbert Stevens (4 May 2008) via Wikimedia Commons.
 
Privacy Policy ______
Hybrid Tea Rose by Mrs. Herbert Stevens (4 May 2008) via Wikimedia Commons

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

-