Does anyone know if GSMD has budged re Constance (Snow) Doane?

Question

Constance (Snow) Doane, Snow-1847. Is anyone aware if the Mayflower Society might have altered its determination that Constance is not the daughter of Constance Hopkins & Nicholas Snow? Thanks!

Comments

GSMD?

---

General Society of Mayflower Descendants

---

Thank you, I wish folks would define those so the dummies like me can learn. Though, if I donʻt recognize it, I likely donʻt have the answer!

---

Point taken, thanks! GSMD (headquartered in Plymouth, MA) is also commonly called "Plymouth," such as, "I've sent your application off to Plymouth," or, "I'll ask Plymouth for clarification."

---

I've done the same many times. No one recognizes all the acronyms that are considered "in common use" on this website. It's a good habit to spell it out the first time it's used, along with the acronym/abbreviation. Except of course DNA.... I don't think I could spell that one right anyway . So "If in doubt, spell it out!

Answer 1

A couple of years ago, the GSMD tracked down matrilineal (all female line) descendants of Daniel Doane and his wife (said to be Constance Hopkins). They found and mtDNA tested two individuals. Neither one of them matched the known mtDNA signature of Constance (Hopkins) Snow, discovered by mtDNA testing matrilineal descendants of her other known daughters.

Interestingly, the two individuals supposedly descended from Daniel Doane fell into different mtDNA haplogroups. Either one (or both) individuals' lines were wrong, or Daniel Doane was married more than once.

In the end, this mtDNA testing likely puts the "final nail in the coffin" for Daniel to have married a daughter of Constance (Hopkins) Snow.

Comments

Raymond, this is really useful information. Could you take a minute to add it to the Notes section on that profile? I expect many descendants would find it informative, and maybe save a few folks from going down a dead end GSMD application process.

---

"The Question of Constance Snow as the Daughter of Constance Hopkins and Nicholas Snow" by Muriel Curtis Cushing appeared in the Fall 2019 Mayflower Quarterly. Since mtDNA testing has proven where the wife of Daniel Doane CANNOT be Constance Snow, her profile (Snow-1847) should be disconnected from the family of Daniel Doane (Doane-39). In fact, there is no evidence where Nicholas and Constance Snow even had a daughter named Constance. We do know they had more children than what has been discovered to date as Bradford (in his Of Plimoth Plantation) stated Nicholas and Constance had twelve children and to date only ten have been discovered.

---

There are way too many holes in the GSMD "Women of the Mayflower" endeavor, and I do not accept that it is the "final nail in the coffin" for Constance/Constant (Snow) Doane. Great idea, but perhaps poorly executed.
The mtDNA ‘study’ appeared in the above-cited Mayflower Quarterly basically as a human-interest blurb, as well it should have. I have not located a more detailed explanation with research parameters, appropriate citations or evidence (such as the proven descendancy of each of Constance Hopkin’s daughters’ descendants), or any of the like required of any substantial genealogical finding.
WoM found and tested two descendants of “the questionable daughter Constance” (Snow) Doane, of Constance Hopkins and Nicholas Snow. The author wrote, “the [paper] research of the lines was admittedly sketchy….” What?!!
Then, da-dum, the mtDNA of the descendants of Daniel Doane’s daughters (possibly from Constance Snow) Ruth (Doane) Mayo and Constance (Doane) Shaw, did not match their alleged (some degree) great grandaunts’ mtDNA (Sarah, Ruth, and Mary Snow), nor did they (descendants of Ruth (Doane) Mayo and Constance (Doane) Shaw) match each other “well.”
Good grief. My forte is not DNA, but, boy, something smells off here.

---

I disagree with your characterization of this study, but as there are ongoing DNA studies being organized by the GSMD, I expect this will be more clear in the near future. They already have well established YDNA results for the male passengers and last time I checked, the mtDNA for many of the female lines. Like it or not, the DNA analyses are going to resolve many unverified lines, and probably break a few previously paper-verified ones too.

---

I would love to read how you disagree with my "characterization of this study." I'd love to hear from anyone who has a better understanding of mtDNA than I do in regards to WoM's effort here. I like, I will welcome, transparent DNA studies, be they mtDNA or Y-DNA, and I understand that they may open new lines and/or abolish some 'proven' lines. I'd love my GSMD 'proven' lines to be validated, or unvalidated, by DNA. I like truth, above all else, and I don't like 'sacred cows' - in this case, GSMD via WoM being above critical analysis.

---

Perhaps I can better summarize the article thus: 1.the GSMD now has reliable mtDNA data for Constance Hopkins. 2. None of the 3 tested matrilineal Doane family lines matched that mtDNA result, and so those specific lines could not descend from Constance Hopkins.

If any future matrilineal Doane line tests indicate a match to the known Constance Hopkins mtDNA, then those specific lines would not be excluded from possible descent.

To date (2019), the existing mtDNA study fails to provide any support for the supposed Doane - Hopkins connection. More test data from matrilineal descendants will enable a broader application of this conclusion. Or not.

---

Any research report/study/article of this import should provide details of the report’s data.

1.    The reliable mtDNA: The tested lines of the unquestioned-daughters were not GSMD approved lines; they were “good lines” and the ‘paper trails were researched’. That they matched “perfectly” cannot be determined by a reader because there is no data. That WoM “had a good signature of Constance Hopkins and a base for comparison” must be open to interpretation and analysis. The reader is supposed to be satisfied as to the verity of the matching because one Jason Kolowski confirmed the results. Mr. Kolowski is possibly still the Principal Consultant of Forensic Insight Consulting (his own company), and possibly the Official Geneticist for the General Society of Mayflower Descendants. Mr. Kolowski’s experience seems to mainly entail mtDNA analysis from very recent cases (e.g., Natalee Holloway). His experience in mtDNA going back for many generations is unknown to me, and not identified on his website.

2.    WoM “located” two lines of descent from the questionable Constance-as-mother, supposed wife-of-Daniel Doane. The International Society of Genetic Genealogy writes: “If two people have an exact FMS match they will generally share a common ancestor within the last 22 generations (about 550 years).[3] Conversely it is sometimes possible for mothers and daughters or siblings to have differences in their mtDNA. These differences usually take the form of a heteroplasmy.” https://isogg.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA_tests

In short, again, the mtDNA study/report provided no data by which it might be reviewed. Hence, Constant/Constance (Snow) Doane must remain in play as the wife of Daniel Doane and as the daughter of Constant/Constance (Hopkins) Snow.

---

If you feel so strongly, why not write to the editor of the Mayflower Quarterly requesting a correction or retraction of the article? This is standard procedure in the scientific community, and enables the original authors the opportunity to respond. Attempting to do this here is pointless, as you lack the needed information, and the other side is not even in on the conversation.

---

Daniel Doane Sr. married Sarah (Sally) Cole, and Daniel Doane Jr. married Silvenia Bostwick. This info was given to me by a Doane Ancestor.

Answer 2

Probably the best person to ask would be the Historian General at your state society. The contact information for the state societies is on the GSMD webpage.

Answer 3

I am a Mayflower Society State Historian, and according to the latest info I have from GSMD, this rejected connection (rejected in 1948) is still in place.  The rejection statement is that Daniel Doane is not proven to be married to Constance, d/o Constance Hopkins and Nicholas Snow.

Comments

Thank you!!