• 739 members

About us


ChasCitCo GROUP:

The Y-DNA test results, as of 11 February 2006, have greatly enhanced the paper research of some of us members who are long time Tucker researchers. For me, #20652, and my many Tucker cousins who are descendants of George Tucker 1745 - 1852, the results have been especially gratifying. Our lineage back through George's father, Thomas, is now verified. With high confidence, our lineage can also be extended through George's Grandfather Thomas Tucker who died 1749 in Amelia County Virginia. Also, it is most important that it is now known that the family of our George is also a member of the families of the ChasCitCo Tuckers. For details, please see the ChasCitCo Group lineages and the Y RESULTS [table of test results] for the ChasCitgo Group.

As of 12 July 2006, fourteen of our project members are of the ChasCitCo Group. Robert Tucker [his children not proven] who died ca 1700-1704 is believed to be the father of Capt. Robert Tucker [died 1750] and Francis the Elder. James Tucker, Sr., has been placed as a son of Capt. Robert, but it is this writers opinion that records prove that James, Sr. is a brother of the Captain and not his son.

Elizabeth Tucker, believed to be the widow of Robert previously noted as deceased, and Joseph Tucker [Sr.] held land on the Prince George County 1704 Quit Rents. The exact kinship of Joseph [Sr.] to the other Tuckers is not known, but it is very likely close. Daniel Tucker is a proven brother of Joseph [Sr.]. Daniel Tucker and William Tucker [wife Elizabeth] lived near Joseph [Sr.]. William is also believed to be a brother.

It should be mentioned that we of the ChasCitCo Group are highly indebted to Mr. B. DeRoy Beale who researched and published in 1986 his outstanding book, Tucker Trails Through Southside Virginia. He presents the results of his research of the ChasCitCo Tuckers in his book.


Several members of our project could perhaps be called "drop-ins", meaning their lineage to a colonial ancestor is or was unknown. Our best example of drop-ins is found with this group. Reference the lineages of member's 25205, Douglas A. Tucker; 27981, Harold Ray Tucker and 32197, Bill D. Tucker. Doug of Florida has an established and documented lineage through Thomas Tucker born 1616 in England who is believed to be a nephew of the infamous Capt. William Tucker of the first settlements, James River, Colony of Virginia. Member's Harold Ray and Bill D. are alsmost certainly descendants of Robert Tucker of Franklin County, Arkansas, who was born ca 1777 in North Crolina. Robert's proven paper connection to Doug's line of Nash County, North Carolina, has yet to be found. The Y-DNA test results says there must be one.

Maryland Group # 1 [formerly titled Lee Tucker's Group]:

Maryland Group # 1, as of 12 July 2006consists of six members. No member has an exact match, but all perhaps do have a common ancestor. Reference the 1850 census of Jefferson County, Alabama, Lee's Gr-gr-gr-grandfather Benjamim Tucker was born ca1759 in Maryland.


Some members of this group have well researched paper lineages that are believed to be correct. For the lineage of these individuals to be Y-DNA proven, additional particpants are needed to submit test samples. Then perhaps an exact Y-DNA match will open doors that will extend the lineage of these unassigned members.


Warning: The following is from a novice when it comes to understandig genetics. Our Co-administrator, Lee Tucker, is highly knowledgeable in this field. For problems or specifics, Lee should be consulted.

This writer will touch on the technical aspect of understandng Y-DNA test results from a layman's viewpoint. Understanding genetic distances between the various Y-DNA markers [Alleles] as listed at the head of the colums in the Y-RESULTS Table is the most singularly important item to understanding Y-DNA test results. Zero distance between two males means they have an exact match of all of the Y Chromosome markers tested. That could be at 12, 25 or 37 markers when tested at Family Tree DNA [other companies may test different markers]. The Y-DNA match could be with a cousin, brother, father or an unknown ancestor generations past. It can even be with a person who has a different surname. Therefore, ones paper lineage is equally important to the Y-DNA testing results.

Male members of our Y-DNA Tucker project are tested, by request, at 12, 25 and 37 markers by Family Tree DNA of Houston. By experience with this project, it is learned that the 12 marker test is really only a screening test that may perhaps prove that one is a member of a particular Tucker family. Why "may prove"? Each male's markers defines his own particular haplotype [identity]. Most of us will, when tested, then fall into one of the major haplogroups such as R1a or R1b. The haplogroup defines aproximately when and where on the globe our most distant ancestor originated from. The time could be thousands of years past, and the location could be far from the shores of today's England. If one's Y-DNA test results defines him to be a member of a major haplogroup, the Y-DNA test results may very well to be a perfect match with numerous other people who have different surnames. That is particularly true when one is tested at 12 markes. It was only a few hundreds of years past that surnames came into use.

Mutations of markers called fast moving are very important to us who are trying to prove our lineage. The rule of thumb for these fast moving markers is that a mutation occurs on the average only once every 500 years. Average means average and only that for a time period that may stretch over thousands of years. These fast moving markers are identified in the columns of the Y RESULTS Table by their red color.

We have instances within members of our ChasCitCo Group that vividly demonstrate mutations.

Personally, I, William S. Tucker, 20652, have a genetic distance of one at marker CDYb from my George Tucker cousins, Allan H. Tucker, 22843 and Thomas Marion Tucker, 31078. I also differ by one at the same marker from cousin Carlos Tucker, 37899, who descends from Moses Tucker, a brother of George. All except me are an exact match at 37 markers. This means that marker CDYb mutated in one of four people, my great-grandfather, my grandfather, my father or me.

All of us of the ChasCitCo Group have an unknown common ancestor, yet at 37 markers we have genetic distances in most cases because of mutations that have occured. At 37 markers, I differ with my George Tucker family cousins by a distance of one, as previously stated. I differ by a distance of two with Guy Hobert Tucker, 38303, and by four from Gary Wilson Tucker, 36127. The significance? It is very possible for a "drop-in" to be tested at 37 markers and find that he has an exact match with any one of us. Because of the mutations, he would then immediately know the particular family of Tuckers that he is a member of.

Null Marker DYS #448:

What in the heck is a null marker? It beats the dickens out of me, but I am learning. On 18 January of 2006, as an administrator, I received a copy of an email from FTDNA directed to 43028, Furman Tucker. The email from Catherine was explaining that his test results had been delayed because of in rare instances a marker does not have a value. Which in Furman's case, it is marker DYS#448. Catherine further stated that a value of 19 had been assigned to it. As a technical person, this word "assigned" drew my attention. My thought was, "How can a value just be assigned?" Since Furman was a member of the ChasCitCo Group, I wondered why he differed from other members of this group. I found that some had received a similar letter and some had not. FTDNA was asked to verify why the difference? They replied, that yes each one of us of the ChasCitCo Tuckers did indeed have an assigned value of 19 for our Null Marker #DYS448.

What is the significance of our ChaCitCo Tucker Group Null DYS#448 marker? A cousin of Furman Tucker has a major interest in pursuing the meaning of our Null DYS#448 marker. A query was placed and a reply was received from Charles Kerchner who said:

In some cases, a null marker like Furman's can be used to distinguish different family lines. It's like a mutation where all the descendants may carry the same null value. The best known example of this is the "Little SNP" at DYS#439.

It is my understanding that this null marker happening is very rare and that if it is found to apply only to the ChasCitCo Tuckers, then it is indeed an exceptionally rare thing. It is like having our own specific haplogroup.

My thought. Perhaps then some of us are as unique as we are sometimes accused of being.

It is expected that Furman's cousin and Lee Tucker will pursue the significace of our ChaCitCo Group Null DYS#448. Are we truly an unique group of people with a Tucker surname?