Comstock Y-DNA Project

  • 24 members

About us

31 July 2011
Since we've had few willing to be tested, I entered the values from a male first cousin's test at  I did get a match - 26 out of 28 markers - to another Comstock.  The other person had chosen not to provide an email contact but had posted a GEDCOM which shows his descent from the immigrant William Comstock's proven son, Daniel Comstock (1630-1683) of New London, CT.  That would indicate that indeed Daniel of New London, and Samuel of Rhode Island, are surely of the same Comstock family.  Given that they were contemporaries, the most likely relationship would be that of brother, although cousin could also be considered.

The first two tests of the project are both from descendants of Samuel Comstock, born possibly about 1628 in England, who died about 1657 in Providence, Rhode Island.  Circumstantial evidence suggests he is a son of William Comstock who died in New London, CT about 1683.  William had a son Daniel, proved as a son, who lived first in Conneticut but did go to Rhode Island.  Daniel did not stay in Rhode Island, but returned to New London.  However, both Daniel & Samuel Comstock were in Rhode Island at the same time - Daniel named a son Samuel; Samuel named one of his two sons Daniel.  The haplogroup suggested by these two tests is the haplogroup that is most prevalent in the British Isles.

12 February 2012
Another third descendant of Samuel Comstock has been tested and does match the other two.  No surprise there.   
Two descendants of Christopher Comstock are being tested.  One result is complete and is Y-DNA matches that of the descendants of Samuel with only two markers varying.  Since these men tested are 10th cousins, this is quite a close match insuring that likely Samuel & Christopher were indeed brothers or at least first cousins.

23 February 2012
The results are in and the two descendants of Christopher Comstock have only one marker variation out of the 37 markers tested.  The two men are 5th cousins once removed.  They both vary from the descendants of Samuel on two markers.  Certainly Christopher and Samuel Comstock were close kin - brothers, or first cousins perhaps.
A test kit has been ordered for a descendant of a proved son of the immigrant William - John, b. about 1624, died before 1680 in Lyme, CT.  John was married to Abigail Chappel about 1661 - they had seven children.

23 April 2012
It turns out that that the descendant of John is actually a descendant of a female Comstock, therefore his Y-DNA would not match the others.  In the John A Comstock The Comstock Family in America, there is a Family 158.  W. A. Comstock (#401) is supposed to have married a cousin Amanda Comstock (#397).  Their only child listed as Henry Alonzo Comstock, b. Marlow NH 1832, d. 1892.  Henry Alonzo Comstock is the great-grandfather of the person tested who does not match the other Comstock males tested to date.  Amanda Comstock later married Calvin Miller, 17 Aug 1841.  Her line is that of John Comstock but she was never married to a Comstock.  Family tradition is that Amanda's sister's husband Nehemiah Huntley fathered her child Henry Alonzo.  Y-DNA confirms a match to males of the Huntley surname, although a Y-DNA test cannot single out an individual.

7 September 2012
The test of another Comstock who has a good paper trail back to Daniel has come back and it does not match the tests of descendants of Christopher and Samuel in any meaningful way.  Until other descendants of Daniel can be tested no judgment can reliably be made.  There are two distinct possibilities.  One possible scenario is that Daniel was not kin to Christopher and Samuel, even though there is documentary proof that Daniel was a son of the immigrant William Comstock - suggesting that indeed Christopher and Samuel were not sons of the immigrant William.  The other possibility is that of what is called a "non-paternal event" - which suggests a number of further possibilities among which could be an unknown adoption or foster child or other family secret, or even the possibility of error in the genealogy research or in the Comstock books.