Karen, My one and only "Davidson DNA match" (so far) confirmed what I had always suspected (thankfully), and without that test, I would never have been able to prove my connection back to the Davidsons who were in James City Co., VA by the 1680s. Based on "paper trails"/"documentation" alone, it appears that there were at least a dozen (!) or so Davidson/Davison/Davisson families in just Virginia alone, from the 1600s through the 1800s. I never dreamed that this surname was that common. DNA continues to show that at least most of these families truly do NOT share a common male Davidson/Davison/Davisson ancestor within any "genealogically significant timeframe." I wish that we could get a donor from ALL of those families (we probably have donors from about half of them at this time). Note: As I always like to say, if we believe in a "first man" and a "first woman"....who were the ancestors of everyone else....then we are ALL related. It is just a matter of "how far back is too far" for DNA to be a useful/reliable tool. Once you get back to the time before surnames were even used (e.g., Jesus, Moses, etc.), genealogy starts to get a little "crazy" anyway. Our Davidson/Davison/Davisson DNA testing project now has about 80 people segregated into 16 separate/"unrelated" families. We also have about 40 people who do not currently match/closely match anyone (or who have done only 12 markers, and that is not enough to make "definitive connections," in most cases). Not only were there more "unrelated" families with the same surnames in early-America than most of us apparently expected, there were also apparently many more "non-paternity events" (adoptions, "affairs," etc.), as well as name changes (for all kinds of reasons), than most people probably imagined. I also have two "non-Davidson" DNA matches/close matches (at the 37 marker "level"), and one of these men lives in the United States and has the surname of "Bishop." The other man lives in Finland, and his surname is "Paananen" (but he has traced his line back just a few generations to a man with the surname of "Johansson"). Per DNA, both men have over a 95% chance of sharing a common male ancestor with me within about the last 16 generations, as I recall. My DNA test shows that I probably have a "Viking heritage" (per my haplotype of "I"), and I can only guess as to when my ancestors "adopted" the name of "Davidson." They probably did so after eventually "blending-in" with Scottish society (LONG before Christopher Columbus). In my opinion, anyone who is truly interested in their lineage should have a male of the appropriate surname participate in the DNA test. As a matter of fact, I can't even imagine anyone not participating (I would literally not take a million dollars for my "match results"). Unfortunately, not everyone can find a male with the surname of interest, and some cannot afford the roughly $190 for a 37 marker test. The Davidson/Davison/Davisson group is in the early stages of trying to set-up a fund, to which people can contribute. This fund would then be used to help pay for DNA testing, where needed. DNA testing for "genealogy purposes" is still fairly new. I think that we are the "pioneers" in the use this technology, and we need to get as many men as possible to join.....before certain "male surname lines" are gone forever. I look at genealogy as just another search of history....just on a more individual/family level. To "lose history" forever (or to simply ignore it) is always rather sad, in my opinion. I know of "non-Davidson" men, as well as several Davidson and "non-Davidson" women, who would LOVE to find a viable male Davidson from their family who would join the DNA test, and many of these folks would gladly pay for the test, if such a donor was available, but not willing (or able) to pay. It appears that some people do not have the proper understanding of just how good and reliable the Y chromosome DNA test is. Many don't see how this test can possibly "zero-in" on their father's direct line, since there are untold numbers of other families/surnames in his "blood"/"family tree." The key is, of course, that this particular test "looks" just at the common DNA that goes from father to son, and it essentially "ignores" all of the other male and female lines that we all have in our "blood"/"family trees." That is why my test was able to show that I have a 99+% chance of sharing a common ancestor with my matching Davidson donor, despite our "most recent common ancestor" being all the way back in the early-mid 1700s. This type of result is quite typical, so many people probably don't realize "what they are missing" by not joining. Even if a person matches no one, that is still great information (no sense "chasing" the "wrong" family in future research efforts). You mentioned the Mason family. My Davidson family married into the Mason family in Charlotte Co., VA, and it appears that this Mason family came out of Campbell Co., VA. Was this Mason family in the Charlotte/Campbell/Bedford Co., VA area related to your Mason family? Best regards, Bill Davidson To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html