Although my DNA says that I have Maguire DNA, it doesn't say how that came about. One speculation would be that a McCown ancestor married a Maguire widow with Maguire sons or
perhaps one on the way and then adopted her son(s). The McCown ancestor would
have had McCown DNA but the adopted sons would have Maguire DNA. It also
does not address whether they were living in Scotland or Ireland at he time of the
One reason I am pursuing this line of reasoning is that Family Tree DNA has a tool called Ancestral
Origins. That provides percentages of those tested in Scotland, Ireland or wherevere.
Percentages above 4% are said to be especially meaningful in determining where
ancestors live. The calculation is admittedly based on only 11/12 markers, but the results are of some
interest. They are Scotland, 6.4%, Ireland, 4.9% and Northern Ireland 4.9%.
Jim McKown is in contact with Bill McKown who has devoted a lot of time to
finding his ancestors and he says that Jim's earliest known ancestor is Scottish.
Jim and I are closely matched and had a Most Recent Common Ancestor about
1661 AD so it is entirely possible for us both to have Maguire DNA but have
This brings to the fore the critical need for taking FTDNA's Y-DNA tests because
documented genealogy can be fraudulent, but if it is supported by DNA, that is
considered by FTDNA as being the gold standard of genealogy. One Maguire and
one McCarthy both attempted to change their genealogy by falsifying their family
trees. This wasn't detected and rejected many years later after first having been
Many people make the mistake of taking only the 12 marker test when they should
take a minimum of 37 markers to find their most meaningful matches.