Haplogroup non-matches -- both Y-DNA and mtDNA

[MarcuccioV]

I found a picture of Frank Morris online, and the year and place of birth fit.

I wonder if this is your Frank Morris?

Gotta love that hairdo on his monkey...

[darkerhorse]

Are you automatically related by blood to everyone who has the same paternal and/or maternal haplogroup as you, or can someone have the same haplogroup as you but not be related by blood?

[MarcuccioV]

Are you automatically related by blood to everyone who has the same paternal and/or maternal haplogroup as you, or can someone have the same haplogroup as you but not be related by blood?

I guess that depends on how far back you want to go, I suppose.

For example, all R-M69's came from a single source. That source probably lived thousands of years ago. So there have been many, many gens since that have mutated into further subclades.

For your specific subclade (mtDNA especially) I believe the answer would be yes (at least to the extent of the history of that particular subclade).

Whether that makes any sense, I'm not sure. My reasoning tends to confuse most people...

[darkerhorse]

If persons in the same haplogroup share a common direct ancestor then don't they have to be related by blood?

[MarcuccioV]

If persons in the same haplogroup share a common direct ancestor then don't they have to be related by blood?

CDA's are related by blood yes, but I'm not sure that matters as much as the gens increase and the admixture gets more diluted. Perhaps I misread the intent of your question...