As of May 1, 2008, there are more than two dozen active participants in the test program, with many of the lineages listed at this web site.  The number of participants is increasing month by month.  Some volunteers are from the same lineage, which helps solidify the accuracy of the results.  Also, some volunteers opted for the 12-marker test, others the more detailed 25-marker test.

The lines are identified by the name and date of the first known male ancestor rather than the name of the Project participants.  This helps other descendants of the of Thorpe lineages determine whether they already have volunteers as part of the Project, as well as protects the identity of the volunteers.

Thus far, the following lines have been tested:

1. Thomas Thorpe (1631) of Woodbridge, New Jersey.
2. Thomas Tharp (1640) of Maryland.
3. Zebulon Tharp (early 1700's) of Virginia.
4. John Henry Tharp (1830) of Somerset County, New Jersey.
5. Benjamin Tharp (1770) of Virginia.
6. Solomon Tharp (1750) of Delaware.
7. James Tharp (1799) of Virginia.
8. George Thorpe (late 1700's) of England.
9. William Thorpe (1605) of New Haven, Conn.
10. Thomas Thorp (1818) of Ontario, Canada.
11. John Jacob Thorp (1776) of Morris County, New Jersey.
12. John Thorp (abt 1720) of Rahway, New Jersey.

Please note that many of these lineages began their histories in places other than those I have assigned for them.  For example, Benjamin Tharp (1773) was born in New Jersey, but relocated to Virginia early in his life, is associated with that state, and many of his descendants continue to reside there.  While I could have correctly called him "Benjamin Tharp of New Jersey," it made more sense to attach him to state of Virginia.  Additionally, if a Thorpe ancestor tended to move around a lot in his life, I chose to assign the state to which he was born as his identifying state.  For example, we don't know where Solomon Tharp was born, and he moved around extensively throughout his life.  However, Solomon married Hannah Tate, who was from Delaware, and appears in the will of William Tate (1813), Hannah's father,  which is housed in the Delaware Archives.  Keeping in mind as well that many descendants of Thomas Tharp of Maryland settled in Delaware, I have assigned Solomon to the state of Delaware, though this isn't a determination that Solomon was born in that particular state.

For a more in-depth historical review of the various Thorpe lineages participating in the Project, please refer to the section entitled "Project Participants."


BRIEF SUMMARY: 

We found a genetic match between Thomas Thorpe of Woodbridge (#1), Zebulon Tharp of Virgina (#3), Benjamin Tharp of Virginia (#5), Thomas Thorp of Ontario, Canada (#10), and John Jacob Thorp of New Jersey (#11), indicating that these lines all descend from a single Thorpe ancestor and represent a single Thorpe lineage.  While most are likely descendants of Thomas Thorpe (1631) himself, the Ontario Thorpes must descend from a common 15th or 16th century English Thorpe ancestor with the Woodbridge Thorpes, as Thomas Thorp of Ontario indicates on the early 19th century censuses that he was born in England. We also found a match between Thomas Tharp of Maryland (#2) and the lineage of Solomon Tharp (#6).  We have not yet found a genetic match for the lines of John Henry Tharp of New Jersey (#4), James Tharp of Virginia (#7) or George Thorpe of England (#8).  We have therefore determined that there are six separate genetic lineages or haplotypes for the Thorpe families tested so far.

The results from the first eight lines (#1-10) are summarized in the table below.  They represent six distinct lines bearing some variant of the surname "Thorpe."  The rows are identified in the following manner: the first line represents the number of markers tested - it extends all the way up to the number 25, although some volunteers only took the 12-marker test.  The second row is called "markers" and  represents the numeric DYS labels geneticists have attached to each marker on the Y-chromosome (in reality, the numbers represent locational markers on the Y-chromosome).  Finally, the columns are labeled according to how the Thorpe lineages are listed directly above (Thomas Thorpe of Woodbridge is #1, Thomas Tharp of Maryland is #2, Zebulon Tharp is #3, and so on).


17171KKKKKK17EEEFKFKKD

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25
markers	393	390	19	391	385a	385b	426	388	439	389-1	392	389-2	458	459a	459b	455	454	447	437	448	449	464a	464b	464c	464d
#1	13	23	14	12	11	14	12	12	12	13	13	29	17	9	9	11	11	24	14	19	28	15	16	17	18
#2	13	24	14	11	11	15	12	12	12	14	13	30
#3	13	23	14	12	11	14	12	12	12	14	13	30	17	9	10	11	11	24	14	19	28	15	16	17	18
#4	13	24	14	11	11	14	12	12	12	13	13	29	18	9	9	11	11	25	15	19	29	15	15	17	18
#5	13	23	14	12	11	14	12	12	12	13	13	29	17	9	10	11	11	24	14	19	28	15	16	17	18
#6	13	24	14	11	11	15	12	12	12	14	13	30	17	9	10	11	11	25	15	18	29	15	15	17	17
#7	13	24	14	11	10	14	12	12	11	12	13	28	16	9	10	11	12	26	15	19	29	15	16	17
#8	14	23	16	10	15	15	11	13	13	14	12	31	16	8	10	11	11	25	15	20	27	11	14	15	15
#9	13	22	14	10	14	14	11	14	11	12	10	28	15	8	9	8	11	24	16	20	27	12	14	15	15
#10	13	23	14	12	11	14	12	12	12	13	13	29	17	9	10	11	11	24	14	19	28	15	16	17	18
#11	13	23	14	11	11	14	12	12	12	13	13	29	17	9	10	11	11	24	14	19	28	15	16	17	18
#12	13	23	14	12	11	14	12	12	12	13	13	29

RESULTS ANALYSIS:


Genetics interprete the results in the following manner.  First, certain markers are considered quick mutators, other mutate at a more regular rate.  Quick mutators include: DYS # 385a & b, 458, 459a & b, 464a-d, 449, 439.  Although Family Tree DNA does not include DYS #389-1 & #389-2 as a quick mutator, other genetics do include this marker in that category.  Geneticist have not yet attached a calculation for determining how quickly these markers actually mutate.  All we know at this point is these markers mutate more quickly than the others, closing the time gap between two lines that may differ from each other by primarily by quick mutators rather than the slower mutating marker.

Additionally, DYS #389-1 and #389-2 are scored differently than other markers.  This is because these markers tend to duplicate each other - if a one-step mutation is observed at #389-1, then #389-2 will also show a one-step mutation, resulting in double-reporting of repeats.  To calculate the correct number of  total mutations on this marker, you need to figure out the mutations on DYS #389-1 by subtracting one volunteer's value from another.  In our example, you subtract #389-1 for Thomas Thorpe of Woodbridge from value assigned to the same marker for Zebulon Tharp of VA (13 - 14 = 1).  Then to see how many mutations are at #389-2, just subtract the first volunteer's #389-1 value from the SAME VOLUNTEER'S #389-2 value.  Now compare.   So in our example, if you subtract the values for Thomas Thorpe of Woodbridge: 13 - 29 = 16.  Then for Zebulon Tharp:  14 - 30 = 16.  So there is NO real mutation on DYS #389-2 between these two lineages.  The total mutation between these lineages on the DYS #389 markers = 1.

Finally, markers 464a-d are copies found at different locations on the Y-chromosome.  Results are always reported from low to high, reading from left to right.  When a mismatch occurs, it must be taken into consideration whether the number of apparent mismatches are a results of the order of presentation of the markers.  The order of the results for these markers may make it appear as if there are more mismatches than are actually present.  In other words, most two-step mutations occuring on DYS #464 should be treated as a single marker mutation when comparing two lineages.

Out of the samples tested so far, we have determined there is a close exact genetic match between the #1 lineage (Thomas Thorpe) and #3 lineage (Zebulon Tharp).  Although this match was originally announced to the public as a 24/25 match, it now appears to be a bit more distant: 23 out of 25 markers match.  The two mismatches are DYS #389 (counted as one mismatch only) and #459b.  Note that both mismatches occur on quick mutator markers, making the calculation of time the two lineages share to the MRCA (most recent common ancestor) extremely difficult to calculate.  Family Tree DNA merely states for a 23/25 match that the two lines are "probably related."  In other words, "the probability of a close relationship is good," however, the results show mutations, and therefore more time between Zebulon's and the Woodbridge line has elapsed than with a perfect 25/25 match.  There is about a 50% probability with a 23/25 match that the two lines shared a MRCA with 28 generations, or 700 years.  However, because the markers in this case are quick mutating, the time to the MCRA could be considerably shorter, perhaps 14 generations (I'm just dividing 28 generations in half until we have better studies to answer this question) and a mere 350 years, putting the split between these lines in America rather than Europe.  Since genealogy researchers that determined that Zebulon Tharp was born sometime in the early 1700's, putting the split from the Woodbridge lineage at least 9 generations ago, then the MCRA between the two lines is probably between 10 - 14 generations ago.

The results between the two lines (#1 and #3) are close enough for these to lines to be considered a single haplotype, particularly in light of the fact that Family Tree DNA has deemed a 99.9%  likelihood that the two lines were a single lineage some point in recent time.   I have therefore designated the lines of Thomas Thorpe (1631) of Woodbridge and Zebulon Tharp (early 1700's) of Virginia as HAPLOTYPE #1.

Additionally, the results for Benjamin Tharp (abt 1770) of Virginia show an almost complete genetic match between this lineage and that of Thomas Thorpe (#1) and Zebulon Tharp (#3).  The match is 24/25 with both #1 & #3; however, the mismatch between Benjamin's results and that of Thomas Thorpe (#1) is marker 459(b), a quick mutating marker.  Thus, the time to the most recent common ancestor between these two lines is approximately 9 generations or 225 years (50% probability), fitting exactly with birthdate of Benjamin himself about 1770.   The single mismatch between Benjamin's line and that of Zebulon Tharp (#3) is marker 389(1) & (2).  The estimated time to the most recent common ancestor between these two lineages is 17 generations, or about 425 years.  However, these estimates are extremely conservative.  It must be remembered that a mutation, either on a quick or slow moving marker, can happen at any time, even between fathers and sons (or between brothers).  Studies are now being performed by Family Tree DNA to better determine the mutation rates of marker #389, along with remaining 24 markers used for this analysis.

Although not conclusive, it appears likely that both Zebulon Tharp and Benjamin Tharp are direct descendants of Thomas Thorpe of Woodbridge.  While it is possible that both Benjamin and Zebulon descend from Thorpe ancestors closely related to Thomas of Woodbridge, no evidence of another Thorpe relation has ever been found in the records.  Additionally, while it is possible that Benjamin is a direct descendant of Zebulon of Virginia, this appears unlikely for the following reasons:

1. Benjamin Tharp makes his first appearance in the records as part of the Shrewsbury Baptist Chruch in Monmouth County, NJ.  While Thomas Thorpe's lineage is centered in Woodbridge, Middlesex County, by the early 1700's descendants had moved out into neighboring Union & Monmouth Counties.  2. The DNA results show a connection between Benjamin and Thomas Thorpe on DNA marker #389.  It is also likely that Zebulon's marker #389 mutated sometime after the lineage split from the other two in the early 1700's.

It is possible that Zebulon Tharp and Benjamin Tharp both match on marker #459b because they both descend from the same son of Thomas Thorpe.  This marker may have mutated with this son, before the two lineages split from each other.  However, it is also possible is that this marker represents a mutation within the branch of descent of the Thomas Thorpe volunteer, and that the other two lineages have remained unchanged on this marker.

It should be noted that a second volunteer from the Thomas Thorpe of Woodbridge line has participated in the DNA Project using the 12-marker test.  Since the two volunteers from this line had exact matches on their DNA test, the DNA fingerprint of the Woodbridge line has been determined.

Finally, it was recently discovered that there was an unexpected genetic match between between the Thomas Thorpe of Woodbridge line (along with the related branches of Zebulon and Benjamin Tharp) and that of Thomas Thorp (abt 1818) of Goderich Township, Huron, Ontario, Canada.  Thomas Thorp is listed as #10 on the DNA results graph.  Since we know from census information that Thomas Thorp was born in England, it lends support to the suspicions that the line of Thomas Thorpe of Woodbridge originated in England in the early 1600's.   It also appears that the name "Thomas" may be a traditional family name of this line.  The two branches of Thomas of Woodbridge and Thomas of Ontario have been separated for at least two hundred years.

As suspected by genealogists over the decades, John Jacob Thorp/Tharp of Morris County, New Jersey, is also a genetic match to the various branches of Woodbridge Thorpes, as well as the Ontario Thorp line.  John Jacob varies only on marker #391.  It is likely that he descends from Thomas Thorpe's (1631) son, Daniel Thorpe.  Once this family settled in Indiana, the surname spelling was modified to "Tharp." 

John Tharp of Rahway, New Jersey, born about 1720, married to Margaret Frezier (probably originally "Frazier") was also found to be related to the Thomas Thorpe of Woodbridge lineage thanks to DNA testing.

All members of this Thorpe/Tharp line belong to haplogroup R1b1b2.



Moving on in the analysis, two volunteers tested from the line of Thomas Tharp (1640) of Maryland, thereby solidifying the genetic "fingerprint" of this particular line.  Comparing the test results of Thomas Tharp (1640) of Maryland (#2) with that of Thomas Thorpe of Woodbridge (#1), we find there is NO GENETIC MATCH between these two early American lines.  Using the first 12 markers for a comparison, we find only 8 out of 12 markers match (8/12).  This kind of low marker match essentially means that the two lines are not related to each other  in the recent past (past 1500 years).  There are simply too many mutations for the two lines to share a MRCA.  The four markers that mismatch are DYS #390, 391, 385b and 389-1 & 2. 

Comparing the test results of Thomas Tharp (1640) of Maryland (#2) with that of Zebulon Tharp of Virginia (#3), the match is 9/12.  Thus, only 9 out of the 12 markes match between these lines, indicating NO GENETIC MATCH between #2 and #3.  The markers that mismatch are 390, 391 and 385b, the same markers that mismatch between the Woodbridge and Maryland lines as well.

The recent results for the Solomon Tharp line (abt 1750) show an exact genetic match to that of the Maryland Tharps on the 12-marker test.  We have expanded the test for the Thomas Tharp lineage from a 12 to a 25-marker test and are awaiting the results.  An expanded test will help us better determine when Solomon's line split from the Maryland line, but at this point in time, it appears that Solomon is in fact a direct descendant of Thomas Tharp of Maryland (1640).  Since many descendants of Thomas Tharp of Maryland eventually settled in Delaware, and since Solomon Tharp has significant connections with the state of Delaware, the documentary evidence supports the DNA findings.

Therefore, we have found that Thomas Tharp (1640) of Maryland and Solomon Tharp of Delaware (abt 1750) represents a separate, distinct genetic lineage, and so designate members of these two families HAPLOTYPE #2. 

Again, it should be noted that two volunteers from the line of Thomas Tharp of Maryland have participated in the DNA Project and the genetic fingerprint of this lineage has been determined.  Members of this lineage belong to haplogroup R1b1.



Two volunteers tested from the John Henry Tharp (abt 1830) line of Somerset County, New Jersey.  One volunteer participated in the 12-marker test, the other in the 25-marker test.  Since the two volunteer's results were an exact genetic match (12/12) we have used to the full 25-marker test for comparison with the other lineages.

Comparing the results of John Henry Tharp of New Jersey to Haplotype #1, we find there is NO GENETIC MATCH between these lines.  Thus, the lineage of John Henry Tharp is not genetically related to that of either Thomas Thorpe of Woodbridge or Zebulon Tharp of Virginia.  Them match between these lines is only 18 out of 25 markers (18/25), much too distant for these lines to share a MRCA.

Comparing the results of John Henry Tharp of New Jersey to Haplotype #2,  we find there may be a very distant genetic match between the two lines.  Since Haplotype #2 only has a 12-marker test for comparison, there is less certainty about the relationship between John Henry's line ad that of the Maryland Tharps.  The match between the lines is 10 out of 12 markers (10/12).  Clearly, the two lines are not recently related (within the last 400 years), but may be related in the distant past, particularly in light of the fact that the markers that mismatch, DYS #385b and 389-1 & 2 (one mutation mismatch only), are considered quick mutators.

Again, it is difficult to calculated the time to a MRCA between Thomas Tharp of Maryland and John Henry Tharp of NJ.  In the future, if Haplotype #2 is expanded to include a 25-marker test, we may discover that there is no genetic match between these two lineages.  In the meanwhile, I have used some calculations provide dby geneticists to determine the time to MRCA.  There is a 50% probability that lines of John Henry Tharp and Thomas Tharp of Maryland were related approximately 30-40 generations ago, or 800-1000 years.  There is a 90% probability that they may have been related 1500-2000 years ago, before the use of surnames even began!  However, because these calculations are based on very conservative estimates of time and general lack of knowledge concerning rates of mutation among the quick mutator markers, then the time between the lines to the MRCA could be much shorter, say 400-600 years ago (I'm dividing the time in half again).

Because the possible relationship between the lines of John Henry Tharp and Haplotype #2 remain to uncertain at this point, I have designated HAPLOTYPE #3 to include the lineage of John Henry Tharp (abt 1830) of New Jersey.  Members of this lineage belong to haplogroup R1b.

We are hopeful that we will eventually discover a genetic match for the volunteers from the lines George Thorpe (late 1700's) of England (# 8) and James Tharp (abt 1799) of Virginia (# 7).   George Thorpe was born in England, but emigrated to America with his son George (1819) in 1830.  Descendants of this lineage settled in various locations, including Missouri, Texas and Kansas.  This lineage belongs to haplogroup "I".  Since George Thorpe's line represents a completely different  haplogroup than our other lines, we know this lineage is completely unrelated (genealogically-speaking) to our other participants.  To match lineages, you must first match haplogroups, then haplotypes.  Note as well that the volunteer from this line participated in the 37-marker DNA test; however, our present table is only designed for 25-markers.  If you would like the additional 12 markers, please contact me.. George Thorpe's line has been designated HAPLOTYPE #5.

I await information regarding the lineage history of James Tharp (1799) of Virginia.  I have designated this lineage HAPLOTYPE #4.

HAPLOTYPE #6 belongs to the line of William Thorpe of New Haven, Connecticut (#9).  Like the line of George Thorpe, William's line also belongs to haplogroup "I", though the two lines do not share a common Thorpe ancestor.  Two participants have provided DNA samples for this line, solidifying the genetic fingerprint of William's DNA. 

To review the Haplotype lineages that the Project has thus far revealed:

1. Haplotype #1: Thomas Thorpe (1631) of Woodbridge, New Jersey; Zebulon Tharp (early 1700's) of Virginia; Benjamin Tharp (abt 1770) of Virginia, Thomas Thorp (1818) of Ontario, Canada; John Jacob Thorp/Tharp (1776) of Morris County, New Jersey.
2. Haplotype #2: Thomas Tharp (1640) of Maryland and Solomon Tharp (abt 1750) of Delaware.
3. Haplotype #3: John Henry Tharp (abt 1830) of Somerset County, New Jersey.
4. Haplotype #4: James Tharp (1799) of Virginia.
5. Haplotype #5: George Thorpe (late 1700's) of England.
6. Haplotype #6: William Thorpe (abt 1605) of New Haven, Connecticut.

Because of the lack of genetic connection between Haplotype #1 and #3, both New Jersey lines, it is quite possible that the numerous Thorpe lineages found in New Jersey throughout the 1800's represent separate Thorpe lines that are genetically unrelated to each other.  As more volunteers from NJ Tharp/Thorpe lines join the Project, the clearer the picture we will obtain of this obviously complex genetic relationship.