Comstock DNA Project - Results

We have two first cousins that have been tested, Test Kits, 195063 and 195064.  Their only variation through 37 markers is one of the markers, CDY, that often mutates.  Their Haplogroup is the most common Haplogroup in England and northern Europe.  Their earliest proved ancestor is Samuel Comstock, born perhaps about 1628 in England, died circa 1657 in Providence, Rhode Island, whose wife was Anne, surname unknown though speculated to have been Tucker.  Circumstantial evidence suggests Samuel was the son of William Comstock, who died about 1683 in New London, CT.  William’s wife is recorded as Elizabeth – her surname may have been Daniel, and it is not known if she was William’s only wife, or if she was the mother of any of his children.  Here is the outline of the lineage.  You may contact the project Administrator for specifics.

…Samuel and Anne Comstock had a son Samuel [1654-1727] who married Elizabeth Arnold.

…Samuel and Elizabeth Arnold Comstock had a son Daniel [1686 -1768, Smithfield, RI] whose first wife and mother of his two sons in unknown.

…Daniel Comstock and an unknown wife had a son Daniel [1717-1753], who married Martha Brown

…Daniel and Martha Brown Comstock had a son Daniel [1745, Smithfield- 1814, Lexington, KY] whose first wife was Patience Jenckes.

…Daniel and Patience Jenckes Comstock had a son William [1770-1818, Breckinridge Co KY], who married Winny Ann Hardin 1794 in Hardin County KY.  [If you follow this family in The Comstock Family in America, by John A. Comstock, you will find a very erroneous date of death for William – the date of death as recorded in the book was that of his son Elijah.]

…William and Winny Ann Hardin Comstock had a son Ephraim [1795-1847, Perry Co TN], who married as his third wife, Nancy Goodman, 1823, in Maury Co TN.

…Ephraim and Nancy Goodman Comstock had a son Elijah Thomas “Tom” [1838, Perry Co, TN, - 1917, Crawford Co AR], who married Miranda Jane Brown, 1859, McDonald Co, MO.  Tom and Miranda were the great, grandparents of the cousins tested.

A third person, Kit #21268, has been tested and matches one of the first two exactly and has only one variation from the other.  His lineage is the same down through the third Daniel, but he descends from Daniel (1745-1814] through his second wife, Sarah Fuller, rather than the first wife Patience Jenckes.  His ancestor is the youngest son of Daniel & Sarah Fuller Comstock - Brown Comstock [1797-1852].

...Brown Comstock married Hannah Cook and their only child was George Cook Comstock [1821-1845].  George was the great, great grandfather of this person.

The two descendants of Christopher Comstock share Abel Comstock (1721-1814) and his wife Judith Paine as common ancestors.  Abel was a great, grandson of Christopher Comstock.  One of the men descends from Abel's son Daniel (1763-1824) and the other from Abel's son Solomon/Salmon (1766-1845).

All of the above are close enough matches that is no doubt Christopher and Samuel Comstock were closely related.

Kit #230541 does not match the other Comstocks.  He is a Comstock by virtue of his female line, not his Y-DNA. 

Kit #238076 also does not match the descendants of Christopher and Samuel although there is a paper trail to the immigrant William's sons Daniel.  Until other descendants of Daniel have been tested, no judgment can be made about these results.

Further testing for subclade was done on the Haplogroup of one of the descendants of Samuel Comstock and the result was :   R1b1a2a1a1b4 (R-L21) 
This subclade is defined by the presence of the marker L21, also referred to as M529 and S145.  It is the most common Haplogroup found in England and Ireland (25-50% of the whole male population).  And in fact his first twelve markers indicate that the Y-DNA if considered the "Atlantic Modal Haplogroup" - again the most common haplogroup.  There could be "false" matches especially if only a minimum number of markers (12-25) are tested.

Two ladies have contributed FamilyFinder results and both are Comstock descendants, but at least 10th cousins and they have no evident matching genetics.  One has also contributed mtDNA results.  These of couse would not match Y-DNA that is specifically male.