^{The News}
Dedicated to Austrian-Hungarian Burgenland Family History

Location (red star) of the villa within Deutschkreutz

As of today, the tentative plan is that the site is to be preserved and incorporated into the building project as an open-air museum. The Deutschkreutz city council has passed a resolution and the mayor, Manfred Kölly, has declared that the city will strive to establish it in cooperation with the Land, the federal government, the EU and some individuals. He says that "Carnuntum is also happening and why should that not be possible in Deutschkreutz?"

You might also reasonably ask why such a building was ever located there in Deutschkreutz... one answer is that the main Roman road in the area, built over the ancient Amber Road, passed only about a thousand yards east of the villa (the road is now Deutschkreutz' Hauptstrasse ...see map above), so it was, effectively, right on the main Roman thoroughfare of the time. It also was placed just north of a good water supply, the Goldbach (the Gold Creek), which is evident in the above map as the dark green area across the street to the south of the villa location and then winding through the city.

It will be interesting to see if Deutschkreutz can follow through with their new plan, one which early estimates indicate may take at least five years to bring to fruition.



Find-A-Grave Memorials: BB member Kathy Middendorf wrote to me recently to suggest a proactive effort to photograph and add Burgenland gravesites to the Find-A-Grave memorial website at http://www.findagrave.com/. I'll quote her below so you can see what she has in mind.

She writes (in part): Hi Tom, perhaps some folks are doing this already and you are aware of it. But since 2010, when I was in Halbturn, I took a bunch of pictures of tombstones while there. I have been “sitting” on them for awhile, so to speak. On Tuesday evening, I went to the local genealogy club meeting in St. Cloud. Part of the discussion that night was on Find A Grave. I was told that cemeteries in Europe (and perhaps elsewhere), are put into Find A Grave also.

So I’ve been playing around with it since then and have have found it an easy thing to do. Now I’ve been putting in the pictures I took that year. Then I thought: “why not everyone do this?” If all the folks that go to Burgenland in the years to come take pictures while there, they could do likewise. Soon all the cemeteries in Burgenland might be in Find A Grave. In fact, that might be the only opportunity for folks that don’t travel to see tombstones of ancestors out of that area. Wouldn’t that be cool??

So if you mention this in your monthly BB newsletter, this might be a wonderful project to add to their travels while there and it would benefit others at the same time. Even better yet, would it not be great for local folks to do it for us!



Well, I agree... so I'm mentioning it in this newsletter! And I'll give a few facts and make a few comments too.

Find-A-Grave, at the date of this writing, had 456 Austrian cemeteries within their database, of which 24 are located in Burgenland. Within those 24 cemeteries, a current total of 1,577 graves are documented (among some 138 million total graves in the Find-A-Grave database!). Over 1,000 of those Burgenland graves are in just four cemeteries (Inzenhof, Kukmirn, Limbach and Moschendorf) and are the work of one person, another BB member, Kim DiRoberts. Kathy Middendorf is currently responsible for 16 records (so you have a long way to go to catch up with Kim, Kathy!).

I have never attempted to document how many cemeteries there are in Burgenland, however, based on the number of villages in Burgenland and the number of faiths, I'd estimate that there is somewhere around six hundred cemeteries. Thus the current 24 is barely a start.

Kathy gives some reasons for documenting these graves and I'll give another: Burgenland’s gravesites are recycled (reused) when family stop paying to maintain the grave. Therefore there are currently very few really old gravestones and there is no guarantee that the current gravestones will remain. If we wish some record of the current gravestones, memorializing them in Find-A-Grave is a great idea.

You may ask what Find-A-Grave is and who is behind it. According to their FAQ, "Find a Grave's mission is to find, record and present final disposition information from around the world as a virtual cemetery experience." It was founded in 1995 by Jim Tipton of Utah "...because he could not find an existing site that catered to his hobby of visiting the graves of famous people." However, some 400,000 volunteers are mostly responsible for the millions of graves documented on the site.

Given its massive growth, Jim was finally forced to turn to Ancestry.com to provide the resources and support needed to maintain it. As of Sep 30, 2013, Ancestry acquired it under an agreement that Find-A-Grave will continue to run separately, as its own website and under its existing philosophy. That means that all photographs, etc. uploaded to the site remain the copyright property of the original owner/photographer. You can read the Find-A-Grave FAQ for more information on this and the full operational philosophy.

I'll conclude by noting that Kathy has agreed to answer any questions you have; just drop her a note at mkmidden@albanytel.com.



GEDmatch – The Basics: If you have had an autosomal test performed, you likely are aware of GEDmatch.com, a site that accepts (free of charge) autosomal results generated by the three major DNA testing companies. Currently, there are about 120,000 kits (result sets) uploaded to GEDmatch. However, AncestryDNA and 23andMe each have over one million kits on their sites and FamilyTreeDNA is approaching 200,000 kits. With the pool of kits available for transfer so high, the long-run potential for ever-increasing uploads to GEDmatch is indeed significant.

There are two primary reasons why you should want to place your data on GEDmatch: First, the individual company databases are closed to test results from the other companies (though some allow kit transfers for a fee). Thus, you cannot match with someone who used a company that differs from yours. But you both can put your data on GEDmatch and then do a match comparison. Second, GEDmatch offers different and interesting data analysis tools beyond what are offered on the company sites. Thus, putting your data on GEDmatch gives you additional options for looking at your data and matching to other participants.

The basic report in GEDmatch is called the “one-to-many” report. It provides names and other information about the people who genetically match you most closely (and have allowed sharing of such info) and data on the extent of the match. Of Richard Potetz’s top 30 “one-to-many” matches on GEDmatch, 13 had been tested by AncestryDNA, 13 by 23andMe, and 4 by FamilyTreeDNA. Of these matches, many came from Burgenland and its environs (Richard swapped emails with quite a few of his matches and knows which village(s) their Burgenland ancestors lived in). Interestingly, most ancestors came from the southern area of Burgenland (Jennersdorf Bezirk). This would seem to validate that a relationship indeed exists between many of these people and Richard, which would not be the case if he found that the towns of origin were spread throughout Burgenland.

Kit numbers associated with particular Burgenland locations are listed below. (The prefix “A” stands for a test conducted by AncestryDNA; “M” stands for 23andMe; and “F” stands for FamilyTreeDNA). These are the people currently known to have Burgenland (or nearby) ancestry who have copied their autosomal DNA results to GEDmatch and have given their permission for us to list them here:

The closest match on Richard's “one-to-many” list, George Lombardo, was discovered to be a second cousin of to Richard by George's daughter, Nancy Robertson, nine years ago when both were researching via Ancestry.com the same Zotter's in Neumarkt a/d Raab: János and Theresia Holtzman Zotter, who married in 1837. (János and Theresia are Nancy's ggg-grandparents through their son Ferencz, and they are Richard's gg-grandparents through their daughter Maria.)

GEDmatch has another report query called “People-who-match-both-kits.” It is similar to the “in-common-with” option in FamilyTreeDNA’s FamilyFinder. Richard generated this report for himself and Jeff Brewer, who has known connections to Neumarkt a/d Raab. The report showed other people also connected to Neumarkt a/d Raab.

When he switched to Debbie Hooper’s kit number, the “People-who-match-both-kits” report included people who are connected to villages near Oberdrosen, where both Debbie and Richard have known ancestors. In that list were Lauren Reimer (ancestors in Neuhaus am Klausenbach) and Marilyn Terrell (ancestors in Neuhaus am Klausenbach). So he should not be surprised if Debbie, Lauren, Marilyn and he found shared ancestors in the Neuhaus am Klausenbach area.

The report can be generated even for people who are not in your respective match lists. For example, Richard asked for people who were both on his match list and Tom Steichen’s match list, even though Tom is not on Richard's match list. Understandably, all of the reported people shared very little DNA with either Richard or Tom. If they are in some way be connected to Burgenland, the nature of that connection could not be determined.

Other GEDmatch grouping reports have not been as useful for Richard... but he does like the “Are-your-parents-related” tool. That tool verified his parents were third cousins and was his first indication that his paper genealogy agreed with his DNA. He says he has as many matching DNA segments with himself (between chromosome pairs) as he shares with the people on his “one-to-many” matching list.

It is relatively simple to access the database and upload your data. Attached is a link which will enable you to join and do the upload. http://v2.gedmatch.com/register.php. If you have any problems, email Richard Potetz at rpotetz@sbcglobal.net, and he will try to facilitate the process.

  -- the above material is from Richard Potetz, Frank Paukowits and Tom Steichen



New Kid on the DNA Block: Recent start-up DNA.Land (https://dna.land/), which opened in August 2015, appears to be similar to GEDmatch in that autosomal results is what they accept and in that they plan to offer some specialized tools for looking at DNA data (no special tools yet, though). It is run by a group of geneticists from Columbia University and the New York Genome Center. They are independent of the testing companies, having no financial or business connection with them.

The stated purpose of DNA.Land is to provide "a place where you can learn more about your genome while enabling scientists to make new genetic discoveries for the benefit of humanity. Our goal is to help members to interpret their data and to enable their contribution to research."

I think they only have ~8,600 kits databased currently but they are growing rapidly. They also appear to be going through growing pains, as their algorithms seemed to generate some apparently poor results in some cases… the early kits, however, are being used to help recalibrate their approaches. In time, I suspect it (eventually) will be as good (or bad, depending on your viewpoint) as what is offered by GEDmatch or the testing companies. Check it out and decide for yourself whether it is worth trying.



23andMe Now Includes Reports That Meet FDA Standards: Anne Wojcicki, CEO of 23andMe, released a note on Oct. 21, 2015 that, as she says, "...marks a great milestone in the history of personal genetics. I am thrilled to let you know that 23andMe is now the first and only genetic service available directly to you that includes reports that meet FDA standards."

23andMe invested nearly two years of work with the FDA and the extensive user comprehension testing needed to launch a complete redesign that includes carrier status, wellness, trait and ancestry reports. They also claim new and improved tools to share and compare one's genetics with friends and family, and to provide new insights to explore.

Existing customers will continue to have access to the current health reports but the new version will include redesigns of many of the health and ancestry reports, as well as some new features and tools. The plan is to roll out the new version by early next year, with current customers notified by email when their account is updated.

In light of the new health features, the price for autosomal testing through 23andMe has increased to $199 from the prior $99.



Canadian Naturalization Database Expanded: Library and Archives Canada is pleased to announce the release of a new version of the online database, Naturalization Records, 1915-1951. The nominal index has been extended with the addition of more than 68,000 names and now covers the years from 1915 to 1944, inclusively. Work is ongoing to extend the nominal index to 1951, and volunteers are welcome to help. Those interested should write to Cdn-Nat-Coord@jgs-montreal.org.

This database is one of the few Canadian genealogical resources specifically designed to benefit researchers having roots other than British. The reference numbers indicated in the database can be used to request copies of the original naturalization records, which are held by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Library and Archives Canada would like to thank the Jewish Genealogical Society of Montreal and its volunteers, without whom this project would not have happened.



Kudos to the Austrian Donau Society: We applaud the Austrian Donau Society of New Britain, CT, for granting annual scholarships to deserving high school seniors, with special consideration given to students of Austrian/German descent. Dennis Kern, the current president of the society said the goal is to recognize the achievements of our youth and help them attain the dream of a higher education. Over the past seven years, close to $20,000 in awards have been given out.

The latest news is that the society has chosen the Community Foundation of Greater New Britain as ongoing steward for its Austrian Donau Scholarship Fund. Per Dennis Kern, “By partnering with the Community Foundation, this scholarship fund will live on in perpetuity, benefiting many more students for years to come.”

The Donau Society was formed in 1920 by the merger of four prior local Austrian and German organizations as a social venue for Austrians and Germans in the New Britain area of Connecticut. The Austrians largely came from the Jennersdorf Bezirk in southern Burgenland. Its first president was John Ruck, who came from Minihof-Liebau. The society’s clubhouse still serves today as a gathering place for Burgenland descendents who want to keep the traditions alive.



Neumarkt im Tauchental Gathering: BB member Jack Fritz wrote to tell me about a "get together" this past October of fourth cousins having ancestors from Neumarkt im Tauchental. As you may recall, Jack has shared stories in the BB newsletter about his upbringing in a Neumarkt im Tauchental / Burgenland enclave in Chicago.

Jack writes (in part): The 2015 meeting did indeed happen on Sunday October 11th hosted by Peter & Pam Hudson. We did miss Pat and Ray Laubsted and Mary Kamper Sheridan. Pam went all out with a superb lunch, including a very tasty baked ham. Peter served his home brew, which was brewed in accordance with the German Rheinheitsgebot, which is the German purity standard.

[Below] are photos taken from the porch above the lake. From left to right are Jim Fritz, Jack Medema, Jack Fritz, Maureen Medema (Pam's 1st cousin), Sandy (Pam's sister), Grace Tierney, Pam, Peter, Rich Tierney (Pam's 1st cousin), Bill Fritz. On the other photo, Peter is replaced by my wife Mary Jane Fritz.



Needless to say, it was a gorgeous location with gracious hosts and quite a pretty day. The conversation flowed well, as also did the beer and wine.



Old Photos: In response to my note about how old is an "old" photograph, BB member Béatrice (Betty) Venturini sent me a note and a photo, along with a birth record that helps tie down the year of the photo. I'm pleased to share her note with the readership.

Betty write (in part): Dear Tom, I'm very pleased to send you a photograph, dated 1858, of my great-grandmother Anna (the baby) with her parents. Anna was born 05/06/1856 in Gyanafalva [Jennersdorf, Burgenland].

My great-grandmother's parents were Maria Dax, b.1829 in Nagyfalva [Mogersdorf], and Michael Merth (Mirth/Murth) born ~1830. Unfortunately I've never known his birth place :( My grandfather, Antal Merth, was born 02/06/1892 in Gyanafalva too.

I know this photograph is in poor condition but it's an Old Timer :) You'll find also my great-grandmother's birth certificate [not shown here].

Best regards and many thanks for your BB News. Through this [news]letter I found all my grandfather's sisters and brothers.

I replied, thanking Betty for sharing this photo and commenting that "I’m sure it is a family treasure, even if old and in poor condition! Your photo is right in line, time wise, with the explosion in photo-taking in the 1850s. I would not be surprised if it were the first such photograph in the whole family, so a treasure even back then!" I then provided some advice for finding out where her great-great-grandfather was born (i.e., obtain the microfilmed church records for his marriage and for the birth of her great-grandmother, as both should contain his birthplace).

Betty replied, confirming that the photo is a family treasure and the first in the whole family... she also noted that she has ordered the microfilm, so I wish her great success in searching those records!

 

Locate a Loved One: The Diocese of Brooklyn "Catholic Cemeteries" has announced its new Locate a Loved One search engine. The database is searchable by full or partial surname. Given names are optional unless there are too many hits on the surname alone. The database reports the interred's full name, interment date and location, a cemetery map and directions, including the crypt/niche or section, row, and grave number. Further details, such as age of deceased, death date, and gravestone photos, may be obtained for a fee.

It includes interments in St. John Cemetery in Middle Village, St. Charles/Resurrection Cemeteries in Farmingdale, Mount St. Mary Cemetery in Flushing, and Holy Cross Cemetery in Brooklyn. See http://www.ccbklyn.org/information-news/locate-a-loved-one/.



Update for book "The Burgenländer Emigration to America": Here is this month's update on purchases of the English issue of the 3rd edition of Dr. Walter Dujmovits' book "Die Amerika-Wanderung Der Burgenländer."

Current total sales are 940 copies, as interested people purchased 13 more books this past month.

As always, the book remains available for online purchase at a list price of $7.41 (which is the production charge for the book, as we purposely choose not to make a profit so we can avoid dealing with the income tax consequences and so you can obtain the book at as low a cost as possible!), plus tax & shipping. See the BB homepage for a link to the information / ordering page and for any current discounts (and there is at least one discount on price or shipping available most of the time... if not, wait a few days and there will be one!).



Burgenland Recipes: Another recipe from cookbook "Recipes for the New Millennium" (© 2000, Morris Press), subtitled "A Collection of Recipes from Former and Present Parishioners of Holy Ghost Church, Bethlehem, PA."

Quick, easy, delicious...what more can you ask? And I'll bet that those cinnamon and peach aromas make everyone come and see what you are doing!

PEACH KUCHEN
(from Mary Elliot & Irene Krafty)

Crust:
1/2 c. margarine          1/2 tsp. salt
2 c. flour                2 T. sugar
1/4 tsp. baking powder

Filling:
1 c. sugar                4 c. fresh peach slices
1 tsp. cinnamon
(Note: if using canned peaches, well drained, cut sugar to 3/4 cup.)

Topping:
2 egg yolks               1 c. heavy cream

Crust and Filling: Mix crust ingredients with fork or pastry blender until it looks like corn meal. Pat into deep 9-inch baking dish. Mix filling ingredients and put into crust. Bake at 375° for 15 minutes.

Topping: Beat egg yolks; add heavy cream. Pour over top of peaches. Bake at 350° for 35-40 minutes, until golden brown.



Cartoon of the Month: (Unfortunately, I can see myself as the male character in this cartoon! ...though I still have a full head of hair!)

1. Ferenz Poeltl (b.1844 in _____; d.1905 in _____) married Julia Muik (from _____) in 1874 in ______. They had two children:
   1. Theresia (b.1875 in Güssing; d. _____ in ______).
   2. Maria (b.1883 in _____; d.1905 in ______) immigrated to the United States in 1904. She married Alois Sorger in Allentown, PA, on Oct 15, 1904.
2. Johanna Poeltl (b.1845 in _____; d.1931 in ______) married Joseph Muehl (b.1834 in ______; d.1885 in ______). Her children were Joseph (b.1875 in Güssing; d.1971 in ______), married Anna Berdelle in 1909 in Allentown, PA; and twins Franciska (b.1885 in Güssing; d. ______ in ______); and Hedwig (b.1885 in Güssing; d.1978 in ______).
    
3. Joseph Poeltl (b.1846 in _____; d.1935 in ______) married Anna Tamerler (b.1853 in _____; d.1928 in _____) on Jan 28, 1877 in ______. Joseph, Anna and their daughter Angela immigrated to the United States aboard the Zeeland, arriving at Ellis Island on May 22, 1907. The children of Joseph and Anna were:
   1. Anna Poeltl (b.1878 in _____; d.1960 in ______) immigrated to Lehigh Valley, PA, and married Johann Tretter from Strem in Catasauga, PA, in 1902. The Tretter family in Lehigh, PA, included Reinholdt (b.1898 in _____; d.1976 in ____); Annie (b.1907 in _____; d. _____ in _____); John (b.1908 in _____; d.1984 in ____); Laura (b.1911 in _____; d.2010 in _____), who married Michael Sherrock in ____; Cecilia (b.1916 in _____; d. ____ in ____); and Albert (b.1918 in _____; d. _____ in _____), married Helen Wolfer in 1949 in Allentown, PA.
   2. Charles Poeltl (b.1880 in Güssing; d.1952 in ______) immigrated to the United States in 1904 and settled in Allentown, PA, where he was employed as a bricklayer at Bethlehem Steel. He married Julia Weinhofer (b.1887 in Heiligenkreuz?; d.1939 in ____) in 1905 in Allentown. Their children included Karl (b.1907 in _____; d.1908 in _____); Joseph (b.1908 in _____; d.1910 in ______); Olga (b.1912 in _____; d.2004 in ______), who married Joseph Hoffner and jointly operated Hoffners Jewelers in South Bethlehem, PA; and Emil Carl (b.1917 in _____; d.2011 in ______), who was employed by Bethlehem Steel, and married Clara Irma Skrovanek in 1943 in Allentown, PA.
   3. Karolina “Lena” Poeltl (b.1882 in _____; d.1959 in ______) immigrated to the United States in 1904 with her brother Charles aboard the Vaterland when she was 21 years old. Lena did not marry. She worked in a silk factory in Allentown and died May 4, 1959.
   4. Emmerich Poeltl (b.1884 Güssing; d. _____ in ______).
   5. Theresia Poeltl (b.1889 in Güssing; d.1899 in ______).
   6. Angela Poeltl (b.1891 in Güssing; d.1972 in Allentown, PA) married Sebastian Moletsky in 1912 in Allentown, PA and had son Edman in 1914 in Allentown.

Any assistance will be greatly appreciated!

Of course, other vendors offer mtDNA analysis but, to be honest, I did not consider them, mostly because I was reasonably happy with what FamilyTreeDNA had provided for my prior autosomal test and I liked the idea of having all of my results available via just one log-in, and I presumed there would be no significant price difference between vendors for the mtDNA test as there was no difference in price for the atDNA tests [however, Richard Potetz tells me that 23andMe recently increased their atDNA test price from $99 to $199, as health reports are now included, so once-similar atDNA test prices now differ].

Note: Having said the above, I decided to research whether my presumptions were correct that "...other vendors offer mtDNA analysis" and that prices would be similar. Much to my surprise, what I found was that FamilyTreeDNA is just one of two companies that currently provide a full-sequence mitochondrial DNA test (and the other one charges $528!). So I stand self-corrected. Some additional companies offer partial analyses (often processed by FamilyTreeDNA) but, given what I have learned, I can't recommend such tests.

My source for information about available tests is the ISOGG (International Society of Genetic Genealogy) Wiki webpages (we provide a link to it on the BB DNA pages). I include links below to their comparisons for the different types of DNA analysis. One thing that seems apparent is that FamilyTreeDNA appears to be the clear "market leader" for personal Y-DNA and mtDNA testing. As for atDNA tests, 23andMe and AncestryDNA each have completed over one million tests while FamilyTreeDNA has done less than 200,000.

http://www.isogg.org/wiki/MtDNA_testing_comparison_chart
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Y-DNA_testing_comparison_chart
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_testing_comparison_chart

You may be asking why I had an additional analysis performed when I already had the autosomal analysis, or why I chose the maternal (matrilineal) mtDNA analysis rather than the paternal (patrilineal) Y-DNA analysis? My answer for the second part of that question is easier to answer: first, mtDNA was on sale and Y-DNA was not; second, my wife was a motivator for more testing and she could not have a Y-DNA analysis done directly (she'd have to talk one of her brothers into being swabbed); third, I could have the mtDNA test directly and my connection to Burgenland is via my matrilineal line.

This reminds me to remind you that the Burgenland DNA Project, run by Frank Paukowits, recently added both mtDNA and atDNA to the Project (it was only Y-DNA at its inception). Currently there are 36 Project members with mtDNA results, 29 with atDNA results and 130+ with Y-DNA results among 151 total members (some, like me, have more than one type of results). See the BB DNA pages for more information and do consider joining the Project if you choose to be tested!

My answer for why more testing when I already had autosomal results is that the new analysis provide additional, different information.

Autosomal DNA is capable of informing you about your predominant deep cultural-origin mix, as it includes bits and pieces of DNA from most of your ancestors... I say only most (rather than all ancestors) because random inheritance of bits of DNA effectively guarantees that that minute bit of DNA surviving in one of your parents from at least one distant ancestor will not be passed along to you.

Note: Humans have about 6800 cM of autosomal DNA (the actual number varies based on being male or female and inclusion or not of the X and Y-chromosome data). Because half comes from the mother and half from the father, the amount available to be shared at each generation from each ancestor is, on average, halved. Thus, it only takes going back to a 12th-great-grandparent for the average length of DNA shared between that ancestor and descendant child in question to be less than 1 cM. However, because DNA is shared in chunks (it does not break a gene apart, for example), there is a real possibility that the available small chunk from a particular ancestor will not be randomly selected to be passed to a child... and the further back you go, the smaller the chunks and the greater the probability that an ancestor will not be included in the selection of DNA.

Autosomal is also good for confirming relationships among (relatively near) cousins. Given the rather rapid dilution of shared inherited autosomal DNA (because it is a recombined mix from that of the mother and father in each ancestral generation), current autosomal tests allow identification only out to fourth or fifth cousins; beyond that, the amount of common DNA is too little to be useful [where useful here means being statistically reliable for showing relationships]. Further, having more than one common ancestor can cause the amount of shared DNA to appear to indicate a closer relationship than is really true. This can occur if (as was so common in feudal Burgenland) when shared ancestors lived for generations in just one village, causing many of those ancestors to be interrelated in multiple ways.

Mitochondrial DNA, however, comes only from your mother's maternal line, as only females can pass it along (as the media in the egg that surrounds the nucleus). Rather than being recombined (mixed) at each generation, it is passed unchanged from mother to child (male or female). If it were not for mutations, all humans would share identical mtDNA. But mutations do occur, so mtDNA changes... though very slowly (still, mitochondrial mutations occur 5-10 times more rapidly than nuclear DNA mutations).

Nonetheless, there existed a Mitochondrial Eve, defined as the most recent woman from whom all currently living humans descend (in actuality, she would be the eldest representative of all women who once carried mitochondrial DNA identical to hers). She is estimated to have lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago, most likely in East Africa. No, she was not the only female alive at that time... but all once-competing female lines of descent died out (when the last female descendant in those lines did not have a daughter). This extinction was driven, in large part, by an Ice Age cooling some 70 to 100 thousand years ago that reduced the total human population to under 10,000 people... and likewise reduced the number of surviving matrilineal lines of descent. [Note: Because not all people have been tested, it is still possible that there exist humans who do not descend from this current Mitochondrial Eve; if so, then a new Mitochondrial Eve will be defined to encompass these additional humans.]

Likewise, groups (more accurately mitochondrial haplogroups), defined by a set of characteristic mutations of their mitochondrial genome, can trace back along their maternal line to a prehistoric woman who descends from Mitochondrial Eve [descends, in the sense that she has just one mutation set that differs from Eve, where a "mutation set" may be one or more mutations]. These haplogroups are given letter codes as labels (though a 2001 book called "The Seven Daughters of Eve" assigned actually female names starting with those letters to the haplotypes that were claimed to classify all modern Europeans into seven groups: Xenia, Ursula, Katrine, Helena, Velda, Jasmine and Tara).

Humanity's full ancestral mitochondrial "tree" is much more complex, with the following table showing only major, top-level relationships and concentrating on the so-called "European" lines:



In this tree, haplogroups M and N were the mothers of all who left Africa [note: I will italicize words mother, daughter, parent, etc. when I am referring to such in the sense that they are mtDNA-based mutational relationships like those in the table above]. Most M daughters emigrated into Asia, Australia and Siberia and from there to the Americas. N is the mother of all "European" lines, with her daughter R parenting all but the X European haplogroup.

I'm a T, whereas my wife is an H. So, according to the above "tree," I trace my maternal lineage from T back to JT and then pre-JT (also known as R2'JT), before joining R, who is the most-recent common female ancestor I share with my wife (who goes from H to HV to R0 [also known as pre-HV] and then to R). Jointly, we share R, N, L3, L1-6, and then L (Eve).

The tree structure implies that my T haplogroup shares all of JT's mutations but is differentiated from it by having an additional mutation set. One (sort of) surprise is that, when mapped by FamilyTreeDNA, the split of J and T is positioned almost exactly on Burgenland! ...which is the birth location of my oldest known maternal-line (matrilineal) ancestor (known, that is, according to the records-based genealogy I have performed). Likewise, my wife is an H and a Finlander, and FamilyTreeDNA maps the split of the parent HV haplogroup via an arrow pointing directly into Finland. Thus for both of us, FamilyTreeDNA's general mapping of haplogroup locations is exactly correct (as least correct based on the limits of the records-based genealogy I've done).

A comment on terminology: I refer to each mitochondrial group, as defined by its set of characteristic mutations (such mutation sets are called a haplotype), as a haplogroup, regardless of where it is in the evolutionary tree. However, it is common to call the sub-groups (descendants) of a particular haplogroup as subclades of that haplogroup. Thus my T is a subclade of JT (and also of all of JT's ancestors). However, you will also see the terms clade used somewhat interchangeably for subclade. Now, if you see these words used elsewhere, you'll know what they mean ...but I won't be using them further in this article.

Taking Mitochondrial Eve as a starting point, it is possible to follow the migration of humans out of Africa. Below is an example migration chart. Like all of these, it is only approximate... but its "big picture" is adequate.





In actuality, my mtDNA analysis defined me much more accurately than just being a T; my full FamilyTreeDNA designation is T2a1b1a1. Likewise, my wife is really a H3h1. All these additional numbers and letters are the labels needed to acknowledge the additional defining mutations we carry that cluster us into consecutively still-smaller subgroups. [By the way, in February 2014 there were already 3,872 distinct mitochondrial haplogroups defined... and I'll presume that number has increased some since then. But, assuming that number of haplogroups and a world population of 7.4 billion, that means there are, on average, nearly 2 million people per haplogroup... so these groupings are not that small.]

However, even saying I'm a T2a1b1a1 is a slight fib... the "keeper" of the most up-to-date version of the mtDNA tree is the Department of Forensic Molecular Biology at the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, Netherlands, via their website www.phylotree.org and their database called Phylotree. Updates are released frequently and Phylotree is now on Build 16. It is reported that, as of January 2013, FamilyTreeDNA was using Build 14 and had indicated that they "have plans to upgrade to V15 as part of a coordinated effort with the National Geographic Genographic project." Nonetheless, the online help on the FamilyTreeDNA website still indicates they are using Phylotree Build 14.

However, I have discovered that an up-to-date haplogroup assignment can always be obtained from James Lick's mtHap utility at http://dna.jameslick.com/mthap/, a tool that is usually updated within 24 hours of the release of each new Phylotree build (this tool requires that you upload a FASTA-format file for its analysis; the file can be generated easily within FamilyTreeDNA by clicking the FASTA button at the bottom of the mtDNA Results page). Running the mtHap utility against my mtDNA results, I discovered that my haplogroup assignment has now changed to T2a1b1a1b (the last b is new; FamilyTreeDNA has me as just a T2a1b1a1). As for my wife, her assignment did not change. [An alternative tool for determining an up-to-date haplogroup assignment is HaploGrep2, found at: http://haplogrep.uibk.ac.at/.]

Given this more-complete haplogroup assignment, I am 19 mutation sets removed from Mitochondrial Eve whereas my wife is only 14 sets removed (an in-family joke has always been that my wife is "less evolved" or a "knuckle-dragger" because of her quite long arms... and now I have proof! LOL ;~) [OK, I really don't have proof... but it made her smile and wave her arms wide (really wide!) when I told her this!]

If interested, you can do a 'graphic trace' from Mitochondrial Eve to your own haplogroup at PhyloD3 and then count the branch points. A very low-resolution image of my trace is shown below. However, the Phylo3D webpage will let you zoom in on all the parts so you can see the detail. You can also trace to multiple haplogroups so, for example, you can see how closely (or not) you are related to your spouse!





You might logically ask why a haplogroup assignment can change... the first answer is that changes occur when sufficient additional data is gathered to allow additional refinement of the group assignments. The second answer is that mistakes get made ...and then get corrected.

My change from T2a1b1a1 to T2a1b1a1b is an example of additional data allowing further refinement.

As for the issue of mistakes, up above I had mentioned that I purchased FamilyTreeDNA's mtFullSequence analysis rather than their lower-cost mtDNA+ analysis. The mtDNA+ analysis only looks at what is called the HVR1+HVR2, where HVR stands for "hyper-variable region." Together, these two HVR's contain less than 9% of the full mitochondrial genome, though they are regions with lots of mutations. The mtFullSequence analysis, as the name implies, looks at 100% of the genome; the additional 91% is called the coding region (because it contains functional genes). Previously, FamilyTreeDNA also sold an analysis called mtDNA that looked only at HVR1, but they dropped that level of analysis in 2011. My expectation is that the mtDNA+ analysis (HVR1+HVR2) will also go away soon too, mostly for two reasons: first, the cost of doing the full sequence is low enough not to be prohibitive; and second, because the lower-level tests are not accurate enough to be really useful.

James Lick (author of the mtHap utility) says this about the lower-level mtDNA tests: "These tests are enough to get an approximate haplogroup assignment most of the time, but usually cannot be very specific. In some cases a haplogroup determination based on these tests can be wrong. ...You shouldn't put too much faith in haplogroup determinations made based on the type of tests discussed in this paragraph. It will be at best approximate for most people."

I ran into this issue of an assigned haplogroup change for one of my three matches... the person had only HVR1+HVR2 results that were done in 2007 and he was designated as a T4 at that time. The match contacted me so I looked him up on my list of matches and noted that he was marked as a T2, not a T4. Naturally, I assumed he had misspoke when he claimed T4, especially after I looked at the T subtree and saw there was no such thing as a T4! However, he insisted that he had documentation for his T4 claim, as he held a FamilyTreeDNA "certificate" documenting his haplogroup and involved mutations and it clearly reported T4.

Digging deeper on the web, I discovered that the T subtree was reevaluated in 2012 and haplogroups T3, T4, and T5 were determined to be subgroups under T1 and T2, rather than independent branches... so the error was corrected. T4 became T2a1b and the T4 designation went away. For us, this was good news, as T2a1b is a parent haplogroup to mine, so this put us a number of mutations closer together than if he really was a T4 (which would have implied that our most recent common ancestor was T). Based on our discussions about this, he has decided to have the full sequence test done... so we will see if we are even closer.

What makes this "match" interesting is that his "most distant known maternal ancestor" was born in Apetlon, Burgenland, a town that is just five miles away from where my "most distant known maternal ancestor" was born, Wallern (where "known" here indicates that we can link to these ancestors via conventional records-based genealogy).

Another example of mistakes/changes is tied to where I mentioned that haplogroup pre-JT was also known as R2'JT. In the early days of mitochondrial DNA, when the main haplogroups were being labeled, it was assumed (based on the data available then) that haplogroup JT descended directly from R. When more data became available, it was clear that R was the grandmother (rather than mother) to both JT and R2 and that the mother of both JT and R2 needed to be inserted into the tree. Rather than rename lots of haplogroups to correct the problem, the concatenated name R2'JT was chosen for the real mother. However, since R2 was a near-terminal branch (she had no granddaughters), the formal R2'JT concatenated name became known, informally, as pre-JT. If you look closely at the full mitochondrial tree, you will see many other examples of concatenated haplogroup names that were created for similar reasons, including multiple ones for the informal name L1-6 in the above partial evolutionary tree.



When it comes to mtDNA, there are so many topics that interest me ... and too many to put them all in one article. Given that, I will close this article with a few select topics... and maybe return someday with yet another mtDNA article. I must warn you that these topics are complex... but I'll make them as simple as I can.



rCRS Versus RSRS

If you look at mtDNA results reported before 2012, you will see that mutations were almost always reported as differences from the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence (rCRS), which is the name given to the first complete contemporary European mtDNA sequence (published in 1981) and which is now known to belong to the European haplogroup H2a2a1.

That reporting policy (i.e., as differences from the rCRS) was called into question with the 2012 publication of paper: A “Copernican” Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root, by Doron M Behar, Mannis van Oven, Saharon Rosset, Mait Metspalu, Eva-Liis Loogväli, Nuno M Silva, Toomas Kivisild, Antonio Torroni, and Richard Villems, as published in The American Journal of Human Genetics, 2012 Apr 6; 90(4): 675–684 (available online here).

As is stated by the authors about the rCRS, "This historical choice is a continuous source of inconsistencies, misinterpretations, and errors in medical, forensic, and population genetic studies." Instead, they propose a new reference sequence, the Reconstructed Sapiens Reference Sequence (RSRS), which is the back-calculated mitochondrial sequence for haplogroup L (i.e., Mitochondrial Eve).

Using a tree as a metaphor, think of the rCRS as a leaf on a branch way up on the left side of the tree... then, to "position" some other leaf (haplogroup) on the tree (say, way over on the lower right), think about tracing the path starting from the rCRS leaf, along the twig it is on, to the slightly larger branch that that twig is on, to the next larger branch (and so forth) until you reach the trunk of the tree or some branch that also holds your target leaf (i.e., haplogroup)... then reverse that process going up and out via ever-smaller branches until you reach the twig that hold the leaf (haplogroup) that you wish to position. That is what it is like with rCRS as the reference point.

Using RSRS as the reference point, you position everything by starting from the trunk of the tree (haplogroup L), then move up and out via a main branch to ever-smaller branches until you reach the twig that hold the leaf (haplogroup) that you wish to position. This is conceptually identical to starting with Mitochondrial Eve and tracing the path through the appropriate daughter, then granddaughter, etc., until you reach the intended haplogroup.

Now, granted, if you wished to position haplogroup H2a2 relative to the rCRS (i.e., H2a2a1), it is much quicker to mention only the two mutations sets needed to distinguish H2a2 from H2a2a1, but that is a very Euro-centric way of thinking and makes it much harder to position (sensibly) Asian or other distant haplogroups.

Because of this, FamilyTreeDNA now reports mutational differences from both RSRS and rCRS, with what I think is a slight bias toward RSRS, even though rCRS remains the industry "standard" (given the large number of papers and databases that historically have used rCRS, including many supported by FamilyTreeDNA). My expectation is that there will be a slow, industry-wide move toward RSRS, as it is a much more logical reference point.

I'll also point another reason I favor RSRS over rCRS: Using rCRS is tantamount to presuming that the then-current 1980 state of haplogroup H2a2a1 (the rCRS haplogroup) is considered “normal” and thus any differences are “mutations.” And that's just plain silly. For example, "mutation," or should I say "DNA state," 16519C is present in well more than half of current people ...but was not present in the anonymous person who is the rCRS (rCRS had a T rather than C at position 16519). But since she/he did not have that C, a C at 16519 in the rest of us is reported as a "mutation" when the reference is rCRS. However, one could argue that the presence of C at 16519 is really the “normal” ancestral state of mtDNA (C is present there in Eve, the RSRS); if so, the absence of that C is the mutation. Regardless, 16519C is relatively useless for comparing your results to others because so many people have it.



Why I Don't Recommend Lower Level Tests

The mutations I carry that differ from reference sequence RSRS, grouped by the section of mtDNA they appear in, and where the bolded numbers in parentheses after the section name are the counts of mutations within that section, are:

HVR1 (12): T16126C, A16129G, T16187C, C16189T, T16223C, G16230A, T16278C, C16294T, C16296T, C16311T, T16324C, A16335G

HVR2 (6): C146T, C195T, A247G, 315.1C, 522.1A, 522.2C

CR (50): G709A, A769G, A825t, A1018G, G1888A, T2141C, A2758G, C2885T, T3335C, T3350C, T3594C, G4104A, T4216C, T4312C, A4917G, G7146A, T7256C, A7521G, A8463G, T8468C, T8655C, G8697A, G8701A, T9117C, C9540T, G10398A, T10463C, T10664C, A10688G, C10810T, C10873T, C10915T, A11251G, A11812G, A11914G, T12705C, C12741T, G13105A, G13276A, G13368A, T13506C, T13650C, T13965C, A13966G, A14233G, A14687G, G14905A, C15452a, A15607G, G15928A

Side note: Had I chosen to list mutations that differ from reference sequence rCRS, the list would be quite different, with some above-listed mutations missing and some additional ones added:
HVR1 (6): 16126C, 16294T, 16296T, 16324C, 16335G, 16519C
HVR2 (4): 73G, 152C, 263G, 315.1C
CR (32): 709A, 750G, 1438G, 1888A, 2141C, 2706G, 3335C, 3350C, 4216C, 4769G, 4917G, 7028T, 8463G. 8697A, 8860G, 9117C, 10463C, 11251G, 11719A, 11812G, 12741T, 13368A, 13965C, 13966G, 14233G, 14687G, 14766T, 14905A, 15326G, 15452A, 15607G, 15928A.

By the way, mutations relative to RSRS use a slightly different notation versus the same mutation relative to rCRS. For example, my RSRS mutation T16126G is denoted 16126G in rCRS-speak. The number, in both cases, is the position within the DNA strand. The trailing, suffix letter is the value at that position. Thus both notations say I have a G at position 16126. The RSRS notation adds, as a prefix before the number, the value Eve has at that position: T in this example.

For my haplogroup, T2a1b1a1, and relative to RSRS, all but the ones in red or blue are considered defining for the haplogroup... without some of these, I'd be in a different haplogroup. The colored ones are considered "Extra" or "Private" (depending on whose terminology is used).

As you can see, relative to RSRS, my HVR1 holds 11 defining mutations, HVR2 holds 3, and the Coding Region (CR) holds 47. Had I only HVR1+HVR2 results, I would not (and could not) know I was in haplogroup T2a1b1a1, because most of its defining mutations (47 of 61) are in the Coding Region. Simply put, if you want to go beyond just an upper-level haplogroup (like T2 for me), you need the full sequence test.

Actually, I fudged a bit when I said "...without some of these [defining mutations], I'd be in a different haplogroup." I have a mutation, C152T, that is considered "missing" in RSRS-speak (if one can "have" something that is missing). That position (152) mutated from C to T in haplogroup L2'3'4'5'6, which is one of my ancestors, but I have a C at 152, like Eve. However, despite "missing" this mutation, there is enough information in my pattern of mutations that I can still be defined as a T2a1b1a1 (kind of like if I drop a letter out of a wrd, you can still tell what it says: in this case, word). [By the way, if you look at the partial mitochondrial evolutionary tree shown above, you will not see L2'3'4'5'6 as an ancestor to L3 and eventually to T2... but it is, as L1'2'3'4'5'6, L2'3'4'5'6, L2'3'4'6, L3'4'6, and L3'4 are hidden in informal name L1-6.]

I mentioned that the red and blue mutations are considered "Extra" or "Private," depending on whose terminology is used. I prefer the "Extra" form, as these mutations are clearly extra for defining haplogroup T2a1b1a1. The "Private" terminology arose because such mutations were assumed to be recent and affected only a few close relatives in your ancestry... so private to you or your family. However, it seems logical that, rather than being truly private, they may be defining for subgroups yet to be defined, right? In fact, my mutation T3350C (shown in red above) is the defining mutation that moves me from T2a1b1a1 to T2a1b1a1b. So, for this new haplogroup, it is neither extra nor private! I'll also note that blue mutations 315.1C, 522.1A, and 522.2C are considered non-defining as they are extremely volatile and appear randomly in many haplogroups... so it would be hard to call them "private." That leaves me with three remaining "extra" mutations... maybe they are "private" ...but I'll wait and see!

[Note: notations like 315.1C indicate an insertion into the DNA strand. In this example, 315 is the position after which an insertion occurs. The .1 indicates it is the first insertion after that position and the trailing C gives the value there. As you can see, I have two insertions after position 522, with values A and C. Given these are insertions, there is no prefix letter, even in RSRS notation.]



mtDNA Matches

I can only speak to what FamilyTreeDNA provides with respect to matches, as it is the only vendor I have used. That said, FamilyTreeDNA divides matches into three groups that correspond to the three levels of testing that they have provided over the years (as noted above, the lowest-level test is no longer available... but there remain people on FamilyTreeDNA that have never upgraded beyond that level). The most obvious first question is "how close are you related if you match someone at a particular level?"

FamilyTreeDNA provides this table to answer that question:



You should read this table as follows:

First, if you had only the mtDNA test performed, then only HVR1 was evaluated, so a perfect match there means you have a 50% chance that your common ancestor lived within the last 52 generations or within 1300 years... of course, that also means there is an equal chance that that common ancestor lived more than 1300 years ago and more than 52 generations back.

Second, if you had the mtDNA+ test performed, both the HVR1 and HVR2 were evaluated, so a perfect match in both means you have a 50% chance that your common ancestor lived within the last 28 generations or within 700 years... again, of course, that also means there is an equal chance that that common ancestor lived more than 700 years ago and more than 28 generations back.

Third, if you had the mtFullSequence test performed, then HVR1, HVR2 and the Coding Region were evaluated, so a perfect match in all three means you have a 50% chance that your common ancestor lived within the last 5 generations or within 125 years... again I repeat, that also means there is an equal chance that that common ancestor lived more than 125 years ago and more than 5 generations back... however, for this level of testing, you can also be 95% certain that the common ancestor lived within 22 generations or less than 550 years ago.

What is not said here is that these are "average" results across all haplogroups. That means that, for some haplogroups, that common ancestor for matches lived more recently than these estimates and, for other haplogroups, that common ancestor for matches lived less recently than these estimates.

While I have not seen haplogroup-specific time estimates for common ancestors, I have seen time estimates for when the defining mutation (or mutation set) occurred that separated each particular haplogroup from its parent haplogroup. The paper I mentioned above (A “Copernican” Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root) provides such estimates in Table S5 found online in its Appendix pdf file mmc1.pdf.

For my T2a1b1a1 haplogroup, the defining mutation (C12741T) is estimated to have occurred about 8,400 years ago! So, by that standard, I could have a full haplogroup match with someone and yet our common ancestor may have lived multiple thousands of years ago and hundreds of generations back! For my wife, the mutation that created her H3h1 haplogroup is estimated to have occurred about 1,570 years ago. So, though her defining mutation is much more recent, even full haplogroup matches for her seem inconsistent with the time estimates in the above table.

There is actually a good reason for this... remember those seven "Extra" and/or "Private" mutations for myself that I showed in color above? They are considered when estimating the generation and time estimates in the FamilyTreeDNA table. A perfect match says my matching person also matches on these (and not just on the haplogroup-defining mutations).

Perfect matches are required for listings in both the HVR1 and HVR1+HVR2 sections but differences of up to 3 "extra" or "missing" mutations are allowed in the HVR1, HVR2, Coding Region section. In this last section, matches are listed along with their "Genetic Distance" (GD), where the GD is the count of mutational differences between yourself and that matching person. For the one match I have at this level, our GD is 3, so our common ancestor probably (on average) lived further back than 5 generations and/or 125 years.

Previously, I had mentioned in passing that I have only three matches (one at each level). The HVR1-only match is simply too weak to get excited about. I've already told you about my HVR1+HVR2 match (the one that goes back to Burgenland just 5 miles from my oldest known maternal ancestor). My highest-level match (the GD=3 match) lists his oldest known maternal ancestor as being born in Ohio circa 1796... hmmmn... my maternal ancestors were in Burgenland at that time! ...and never came close to Ohio! I don't know what to think about this one but I doubt we will be able to connect.

Given my small number of matches, you may think mtDNA is a major bust, telling you little about your ancestry and connecting you to hardly anyone. Before you conclude that, let me tell you about my wife... she has 920 matches at the HVR1 level, 200 matches at the HVR1+HVR2 level, and 22 matches at the HVR1, HVR2, Coding Region level, with 4 of the highest-level matches having GD=1, 8 with GD=2, and the remaining 10 with GD=3. We have yet to pursue contacting any of her matches but it seems likely that some of those GD=1 matches are likely recent enough that a records-based connection can also be made (though we likely will need to go back more than five generations).

Why does she have so many matches? One reason is because she is a Finn and Finlanders have had DNA analyzed in an exceptionally high proportion, so the odds of finding a match are much greater for her. Finland was also a fairly insular society, far from the crossroads of Europe, so marrying "within one's own kind" was the norm. This matching differential is also echoed in our autosomal atDNA (Family Finder) count of matches... I have 11 ...she has 1,201!



Health Info?

As you might expect, given that mitochondrial DNA is DNA, there are inheritable diseases that are affected (either positively or negatively) by certain mutations in mtDNA. Most of these diseases apparently appear relatively early in life, so if you are old like me, you have little to fear from them. The table in this link shows a selection of them: PMC1762815/table/T2/. Given that mitochondria are the energy production plants of the cell, it should be of little surprise that our energy-using muscles can be affected by mtDNA mutations nor that inheritable diabetes is also affected (sugar is the body's main fuel for energy and diabetes relates to the mismanagement of that sugar). Some seemingly random issues (blindness, deafness) are also tied to mtDNA mutations, as well as some seemingly 'more logical' problems related to pregnancy (this is maternally-inherited DNA, after all).

I don't want to (nor have the knowledge to) address these issues; rather, I'll point out a resource, HaploFind, that can identify the mitochondrial mutations you carry that may relate to a particular disease: https://haplofind.unibo.it/. This site also requires that you have a FASTA-format file to upload for its analysis (but, as I noted above, that can be generated easily within FamilyTreeDNA with just one click of the FASTA button at the bottom of the mtDNA Results page). Once you upload your data, you add your email address and an arbitrary identifying "batch" ID, then click the Submit button. The Results window will open and, depending on how busy the site is, your results will appear shortly (however, at busy times there can be significant delays, which is why your email address is needed: they will email a link to your results when they are ready). In my limited experience, the delay is usually only 10-15 seconds, so I suggest waiting.

The top Results box will hold your "Sequences" ...click anywhere in your sequence line to populate the lower "Sequence details" boxes. The one on the left will contain your haplogroup "Assignment tree" (i.e., the path from 'Eve' to your most probable haplogroup; note that you may need to move the window 'slider' to make it show in that small window). The middle "Sequence details" box will list your mutations and any disease associations and the right box will report "missing" mutations, if any.

I will warn you that the "disease association" information is fairly cryptic so you will likely need to look up what the acronyms mean. Some common ones are: Bipolar disorder (BD); Alzheimer's disease (AD); Parkinson's disease (PD); Diabetes mellitus (DM); Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). Others can be found in this list: MitoDiseases. I'll also note that the report only says you have a mutation somewhere in that particular gene... and the odds are good that the exact location of your mutation does not match the exact location within that gene that is known to cause the listed disease(s). So don't worry too much about these associations.



I'll stop here... mostly because this article has become way too long rather than because there is no more to talk about. So, until that next article...