Statement of Problem:

   The DNA from Dwight and Greg match each other and the DNA of Mike and Walter match each other but Dwight and Greg
   do not match Mike and Walter. The paper-trail genealogies support the expectation that all 4 should have been
   a common match. The mismatch indicates an error somewhere in the paper-trail genealogy, i.e. an NPE.

Notation (the several early men named Lewis):

   Lewis I:   Lewis Hogg [162880] b.ca.1775, Gloucester Co. son of Fileding
   Lewis II:  Lewis Hogg [162885] b.1818, Gloucester Co. son of Lewis I
   Lewis Sr.: Lewis Hogg Sr. [90318] b.1773, Gloucester Co. d.1852, York Co.
   Lewis Jr.: Lewis Hogg Jr. [88520] b.1810, York Co. d.1856, York Co. son of John Sr.
   Lewis III: Lewis Hogg III [88511] b.1838, York Co. d.10_Feb_1912, York Co. son of Lewis Jr.

Expectations based on the paper-trail genealogies:

   The paper-trail genealogies "prove" that Dwight, Greg, and Mike are all descendants of Richard Hogg Sr. Walter is a
   descendant of Thomas Hogg Sr.  who's parents are not proved but are suspected to be a descendant of either
   Richard Hogg Sr. or one of Richard's brothers.

   The DNA match between Walter and Mike requires that they are closely related and the DNA match between Dwight
   and Greg requires that they are closely related. For purposes of discussion, therefore, it is necessary only to
   explain the disconnect between Dwight and Mike. The paper-trail genealogies lead to the following "proven" relationship:

   1. Richard Hogg Sr. is the common ancestor of Mike and Dwight
   2. Fielding Hogg, son of Richard Hogg Sr. is Mike's ancestor
   3. John Hogg Sr., son of Richard Hogg Sr. is Dwight's ancestor

   The DNA mismatch between Dwight and Mike requires that one of these statements is false.

Hypotheses that provide an explanation (meant to include all possibilites):

   1.   Hyp-00: DNA testing error

   2.   Hyp-A1: Fielding was not the son of Richard Sr.

   3.   Hyp-A2: Thomas Sr. and Lewis I were brothers, but not the sons of Fielding

   4.   Hyp-A3: Lewis I was son of Fielding, Lewis II was son of Thomas Sr. but Thomas Sr. was not the son of Fielding

   5.   Hyp-B1: John Sr. was not the son of Richard Sr.

   6.   Hyp-B2: Lewis Jr. was not the son of John Sr.

   7.   Hyp-B3: George Edward was not the son of Lewis Jr.

   8.   Hyp-B4: George Thomas was not the son of George Edward

   9.   Hyp-B5: Otis M. was not the son of George Thomas

Discussion and Recommendations:

1. Hyp-00: DNA testing error

   Discussion:

      very unlikely. (1) Dwight's data was tested by two independant labs with no discrepencies, (2) Greg's
      data matches Dwight's data, (3) Mike's data matches Walter's data.

   Recommedation:

      If Mike and/or Walter were to submit a sample to SMGF that would be a way to increase confidence that their
      data is correct at no additional cost.

2. Hyp-A1: Fielding was not the son of Richard Sr.

   Discussion:

      unlikely given birth record in Abingdon Parish Register.

   Recommedation:

      test a descendant of Richard Jr. If his data matches Mike's and Walter's data that would essentially contain
      the NPE to the John Sr. side of the family and rule out this hypothis as well as A2 and A3.  On the other
      hand, if his data matches Dwight's data that would contain the NPE to the Fielding side of the family, confirm
      A1, A2, or A3, and rule out all of the Bx hypotheses.

3. Hyp-A2: Thomas Sr. and Lewis I were brothers, but not the sons of Fielding

   Discussion:

      unlikely given the Gloucester Co. personal property records of 1798 lists Lewis, son of Fielding.

   Recommedation:

      the test recommended under Hyp-A1 above would have the same significance here.

4. Hyp-A3: Lewis I was son of Fielding, Lewis II was son of Thomas Sr. but Thomas Sr. was not the son of Fielding

   Discussion:

      sounds a little far fetched but possible.

   Recommedation:

      again, the test recommended under Hyp-A1 above would have the same significance here.

5. Hyp-B1: John Sr. was not the son of Richard Sr.

   Discussion:

      unlikely given birth record in Abingdon Parish Register. However, the truely open minded must entertain the
      possibilty that the John Hogg Sr.  who showed up in York Co. in 1794 was not the same John Hogg who's birth
      is recorded in the Abingdon Parish Register in 1757.  See the discussion of an "alternate theory" at the end
      of this paper.

   Recommedation:

      test a descendant of Richard Jr. If his data matches Dwight's data that would essentially rule out all of the
      Bx hypotheses. On the other hand, if his data matches Mikes's and Walter's data that would confirm one of
      Bx hypotheses and rule out the Ax hypotheses.

6. Hyp-B2: Lewis Jr. was not the son of John Sr.

   Discussion:

      this is inconsistant with the fact that John Sr. named Lewis Jr. as son in his will. However, since we do not
      know the name of John Sr.'s wife or even how many wives he had, it is possible that Lewis Jr. was an adopted
      step son, i.e. the son of a second wife by a previous husband.  At this time, this seems to be the most likely
      hypothesis.

   Recommedation:

      test a descendant of John Sr. through one of his sons other than Lewis Jr.  If his data matches Mike's data and
      Walter's data that would confirm this hypothesis or B3, B4, or B5 and rule out B1 and all of the Ax hypotheses.
      Also test a descendant of Lewis Jr. through one of his son other than George Edward.  If his data matches Dwight's
      data it would rule out hypotheses B3, B4, and B5.

7. Hyp-B3: George Edward was not the son of Lewis Jr.
8. Hyp-B4: George Thomas was not the son of George Edward
9. Hyp-B5: Otis M. was not the son of George Thomas

   Discussion:

      there is no reason to suspect any of these hypotheses. any of these would be a totaly shocking revelation.
      furthermore, they can all be ruled out by the following test.

   Recommedation:

      test a descendant of Lewis Jr. through one of his sons other than George Edward.  If his data matches Dwight's
      data all of these hypotheses would be ruled out.

Summary of suggested additional tests:

1. test a descendant of Richard Jr. this test would be most decisive because it would isolate the NPE to one side of
   the family or the other.  If the data from this test matches Mike's and Walter's data that would contain the NPE
   to the John Sr. side of the family and rule out all of the Ax hypotheses. On the other hand, if the data from this
   test matches Dwight's data that would contain the NPE to the Fielding side of the family and rule out all of the
   Bx hypotheses.

2. test a descendant of John Sr. through one of his sons other than Lewis Jr.  If the data from this test matches
   Mike's data and Walter's data that would rule out B1 and all of the Ax hypotheses, leaving B2, B3, B4, or B5 as the
   only remaining possibilites.

3. test a descendant of Lewis Jr. through one of his sons other than George Edward. If the data from this test matches
   Dwight's data that would rule out hypotheses B3, B4. and B5.

Other possibilities worth thinking about (an alternate theory):

   The Hogg families that we know of in York County are thought to have all originated in Gloucester County before
   moving to York County.  The three Hogg men who moved from Gloucester Co. to York Co. are (1) Richard Hogg Jr.,
   the second son of Richard Hogg Sr., (2) John Hogg Sr., the third son of Richard Hogg Sr., and (3) Lewis Hogg Sr.,
   who's parents are unknown, but the 1850 census in York Co. lists his place of birth as Gloucester Co.  However,
   there were other Hogg families in York County before the arrival of these three.

   The earlest known Hogg in York Co. is a John Hogg who is mentioned in a will in 1691. He might be John Jr. the son
   of John Hogg of New Kent Co. He is followed by Charles Hogg (Charles I) who died in 1736.  He is discussed on
   pages 420-422 in Mrs. Ironmonger's book.  Apparently, there was also a Richard Hogg living in upper York County,
   near Williamsburg, from 1762 to 1768 as noted on pages 422-424 in Mrs.  Ironmonger's book.  Finally, there
   was a second Charles Hogg (Charles II) in York County who was listed as father of a son, Stephen, born 1786 in
   Charles Parish, York Co. Charles II died in York Co. in 1809.

   In the family tree posted on my web site, I made the assumption that all Hoggs in Gloucester and York Counties
   are descendants of John Hogg of New Kent Co., and using guesswork where needed, placed every known
   Gloucester/York Co. Hogg somewhere in the tree descending from John Hogg of New Kent Co. Based only on guesswork,
   I placed Charles I as the son of John Jr., the Richard of upper York Co. as the son of Charles I, and
   Charles II as the son of this Richard.  All of this is plausible, but it could all be wrong. On the other hand,
   it is possible that Charles I was not a descendant of John of New Kent County and was the descendant of a second
   Hogg immigrant unrelated to the large family descending from John of New Kent Co. Also, it seems possible that
   the Richard Hogg who left records in upper York Co. between 1762 and 1768 was the same as Richard Hogg Sr. of
   Gloucester Co. and it is possible that Charles II was the son of Charles I.

   This line of Hoggs in York County prior to the arrival of Richaed Jr., John Sr., and Lewis Sr. is a potentially
   significant piece of the puzzle because it is obvious that John Hogg Sr., and Lewis Hogg Sr. were associated
   with Charles II and were probably related to him.  It appeares that John Hogg Sr. lived on rented land adjacent
   to Charles II and that John Sr. purchased Charles' land in 1812, after Charles' death in 1809.  Lewis Sr.
   lived only a mile or so away from these other two. All three were frequent witnesses of each other's wills and deeds.

   An alternate theory that might be offered as an explanation for the DNA mismatch between descendants of John Sr.
   and descendants of Richard Sr. is this: perhaps the John Sr. who was the founder of one of the Hogg families
   in York County was not the son of Richard Sr. Perhaps Richard's son John was a different man. Perhaps the John
   Hogg Sr. in York Co. was a brother of Charles II and this Hogg line descends from a different unrelated immigrant
   ancestor, not John Hogg of New Kent County.

   If the additional DNA testing suggested above leads to the conclusion that hyp-B2 is not possible and hyp-B1
   is confirmed, then this alternate theory would gain credibility. Also, it would be desirable to obtain DNA data from
   a descendant of Lewis Hogg Sr. in addition to the three specific tests listed above.  We are not aware of any
   living descendants of Charles II, but if one were found, DNA data from him would certainly be a valuable contribution.

   A recent discovery has been made that resonates with this alternat theory: there is a birth record in the Bruton
   Parish (Williamsburg) Register that documents the birth of John Bond Hoge, son of Daniel and Ann Hoge in 1759.  This
   is a very plausible alternative choice for John Hogg Sr. of York Co.

   Another note: there is evidence of a second Hogg immigrante to New Kent Co.  The Vestry Book and Register of St. Peters Parish,
   New Kent and James City Counties, Virginia, 1684-1786.  Transcribed and edited by C. G. Chamberlayne, 1936. (975-54 v26c)
   has the following two entries:

      p.670.  John Hog is transported to New Kent Co. by Capt. William Bassett along with 21 others as part of a land grant in 1695.

      p.679.  William Hogg witnesses an indenture in New Kent Co. in 1738.