Edward and the Dicks Family Autosomal DNA

My last Blog was about Edward and his Newfoundland Dicks YDNA. In this Blog, I’ll look at the autosomal side of Edward’s DNA.

Edward’s Newfoundland Genealogy

Edward descends from Christopher Dicks who was believed to be from Harbour Buffett, born 1812:

This Christopher was believed to be the son of another Christopher who was born around 1784. The 1784 Christopher had many children and their ancestors have had their DNA tested. I have been trying to tie that DNA as best I can back to Christopher. This is somewhat complicated by intermarriages. My wife has also tested. She is the daughter of Joan. Esther is a half Aunt of Joan and has Dicks on her father and mother’s side. By this chart, Edward is Esther’s 2nd cousin, once removed, Joan’s third cousin and my wife Marie’s third cousin, once removed.

Edward’s Dicks DNA

Here is Edward’s match with Esther:

The estimated number of generations to their common ancestor is about what one would expect for a 1st cousin once removed. That could mean that Edward and Esther share ancestors outside of their Dicks ancestors shown above.

Here is Edward’s match with Joan:

Joan and Edward also share more DNA than expected. The 3.5 generations estimated to a common ancestor would usually indicate a 2nd cousin once removed. However, this is still within normal ranges. Also note that Joan shares some DNA with Edward that Esther does not. See Chromosome 6, for example.

My wife, as expected also got a little more DNA than average for a 3rd cousin once removed:

The DNA that Esther, Joan and Marie share with Edward should represent the DNA shared with Christopher Dicks b. 1812 and his wife Elizabeth. This is especially true for Joan and Marie. Remember I said that Esther has a Dicks ancestor on her maternal side, so this is a complicating factor.

The Autosomal Matrix for Dicks Descendants

I’ll do a multiple kit analysis at Gedmatch with 24 descendants of Christopher Dicks b. 1784. Then I put the results in a matrix:

I’m quite happy with the results as all the Christopher Dicks descendants scored well (inside the bold box). Everyone is well behaved. Hayley has slightly lower scores with Joan but that is expected as she is one generation removed from Edward, Barry and Joan. Edward has some notable matches outside the Christopher Line of around 100 cM with Molly and Ken that could be worth pursuing. I’m still a bit puzzled with the large match that Ken has with Esther.


Next I take all the specific segment matches between the 24 Dicks descendants and compare them to each other. Actually, I have done this already for 23 of the Dicks descendants, so I need to look to see what difference Edward makes in all these comparisons. Now we will be unlocking the secrets of Edward’s genetic past. The say something like that on the Finding Your Roots TV show that I watch.

Triangulation Group (TG) Chromosome 5

The first significant TG is see is at Chromosome 5. It looks like this in spreadsheet form:

Gedmatch repeats the matches, so each match shows up twice. Here we see that Esther, Edward and Joan all match each other.

It would be logical to assume that the common ancestors for this TG are Chritopher, born about 1812 and his wife Elizabeth. The theory is that the TG points to only one ancestor, so the DNA for this TG is only from Christopher or Elizabeth. So, what about Hayley? She is not in the TG. She shows as matching Pauline who is also not in the TG. That tells me that their match is coming from a different direction. Hayley does have Christopher and Elizabeth as ancestors, but Pauline does not. We would have to look for another common ancestor that these two have. Pauline is on the Dicks/Joyce Line.

Grace, Dorothy and Catherine are all from the Dicks/Adams line, so it could be likely that they are matching on that line only.

A nested TG on Chromosome 5

This next TG on Chromosome is a little more complicated:

In my previous work on Dicks DNA, I had noted the TG with Wallace, Judy, Katherine and Cathy. I also had Nelson in there, so I probably lowered some thresholds for that. This time, there is also a TG with Edward, Esther and Barry above, and Edward is added to the TG below. I interpret this as meaning that the top TG harks back to Christopher and Elizabeth and the second one is for the elder Christopher b. 1784 and his wife Margaret.

This should be an interesting visual:

The black TG is the first TG that is more recent (Christopher of the early 1800’s). The second TG goes back to the elder Christopher (from the late 1700’s) and wife in red. Edward is in both TGs. My strong guess is that the red TG is truly a TG for Christopher and Margaret. This is because the DNA is coming from four of the children. It is possible, but not likely that each of these four lines has a common ancestor with a surname other than Dicks.

Why is Edward in two TGs and Barry and Esther only in one. I can only guess. My guess is that Edward inherited DNA from Christopher b. 1784 and Margaret. Perhaps Esther and Barry inherited DNA from only Christopher or Margaret. Any more guesses would make my brain hurt too much, so I’ll stop there.

TG Chromosome 6

There is a similar situation on Chromosome 6.

At the top, there is Grace, Sandra and Dorothy. They are from the Elizabeth Dicks/Thomas Adams Line. Katherine, also a part of that line, pops in below. Wallace, Judy, Molly and Howie are in the Rachel Dicks/James Joyce Line.  So picture these Dicks line outside of the highlighted TGs.  The highlighted TG could be one TG where Cathy opts out and decides to start matching Cheryl. Edward opts into the TG not far from where Cathy opts out. The other way to look at it would be like the previous TG. Barry, Edward and Hayley all have Christopher b. 1812 and his wife as ancestors.

Well, that’s pretty ugly. In this situation, I’m not sure if Cathy, Barry, and Hayley might not have another common ancestor. My best guess right now is that I have the ancestors right.

another brain twister on chromosome 6


Here Edward is in the middle of two new TGs. Edward matches Esther and Pauline in one TG and Joan and Ken in the other. Here are the two TGs in a Chromosome Browser from Edward’s point of view:

  1. Esther
  2. Pauline
  3. Joan
  4. Ken

We know that neither of these TGs have Christopher b. 1812 and his wife in them. That is because, as far as we know, Pauline and Ken do not have these two as ancestors.

I have shown in the past from DNA that Esther and Joan have Crann in their ancestry. One place where Crann may have come in could be that the Margaret that married the Christopher in the top red circle was a Crann. That would make the red TG a Crann TG and the yellow one a Dicks TG. Again, it is a bit of wild speculation, but it does help explain why Ken has such large matches with other Dicks. He is likely related on many lines.  Note above that he descends from a Dicks/Crann Line.

Cathy and TG7

Cathy was in a TG above with Barry and Haley on Chromosome 6. Here she is in a TG with Edward and Esther:

This makes me wonder what Cathy has in common with Edward, Esther, Barry and Haley. I see by her family tree that she had Harbour Buffett ancestors.

One or two new TGs Chromosome 9

This was a little difficult to see, so I hid some of the duplicate matches:

Aah, the mysteries of DNA. There is one good thing about my mother in law being in TGs. She is a half niece to her Aunt Esther, so that cuts down on some of the possible lines. Below is Esther’s family tree. Joan is only related on Esther’s paternal side which includes those ancestors within the red box.

The bad news is that there are a ton of gaps in the tree. The only two surnames I have for sure are Upshall and Dicks. Plus it is difficult to be sure about the two oldest Dicks families on the tree. The point is that the TGs on Chromosome 9 have to be on the top part of the tree highlighted in red.


Esther and Edward have at least one ancestor in common with Ken who is from the Dicks/Crann Line:

TG11 Christopher b. 1812


TG13 – Dorothy from the Adams Line


I must be near the end.

TG14 – back to home base and Christopher


This is all solidifying that Joan, Edward and Esther have the same relatively recent common ancestors.

TG18 on the Adams Line with Grace and Nelson

TG19 – With Wallace and Judy on the Joyce Line


Those are all the TGs. Now I just need to summarize them.

TG Matrix

The matrix is getting big, so I will have to show it in two screen shots. I hid a few of the people. One person, I don’t see in Gedmatch anymore. Sandi was in only one TG and Forrest was in none. I hid Clayton as he is unsure of his Dicks ancestry.

Assuming that all these TGs represent Dicks, we should be amassing quite a bit of information on the various Dicks Lines and for their parents Christopher Dicks and his wife Margaret. In fact, I show at least one triangulated segment for each chromosome.

Filtered TG matrices

Here I filtered just by Edward’s TGs:



Finally, the Matrix filtered for Ken’s TGs:

This further shows Ken’s affinity to the Christopher Line by TGs.

I’ve gone on way too long, so it’s time to quit.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Edward has contributed a substantial amount of information to the Newfoundland Dicks DNA Project
  • Edward is clearly in the same group as Esther, Joan, Barry and Hayley and has formed many new TGs
  • The arrival of DNA results recently for Edward, Barry and Hayley has more than doubled what was available for the Christopher DIcks b. 1812 descendants.
  • Ken continues to play an interesting part in his matches and TGs
  • Filtering the TG Matrix showed some promise. It appears that Ken is more closely related to Joan than to Edward based on filtering.  However, Ken showed up most in Edward’s TGs other than TGs Edward had within the Christopher Line.

Edward and the Dicks Family YDNA

I recently had an email from Edward. He had found my Blogs on Dicks DNA via Google. He had done a lot of Dicks genealogy in the past and now has had his DNA tested. That is great news. Edward is someone with a great knowledge of Dicks genealogy and has tested his Autosomal and YDNA.

First, Dicks YDNA

Seeing as I knew nothing up until now about Dicks YDNA, I’ll start with that. Edward is R-L371. That needs a bit of explanation. In very broad strokes, that shows that the branch of Dicks that we are looking at is R1b > L21 > L371. L21 is an interesting branch. L21 has been called the Celtic branch. This may be inaccurate, but to me it typifies the old inhabitants of the British Isles. As you know, the British Isles have been invaded by many different groups. I suppose you can say the L21’s are the invaded rather than the invaders of the British Isles.

Here is L371 on the L21 Tree:

This is from an outmoded tree. The creator of the tree gave up updating it in 2015 as so many L21 branches have been discovered. You will notice that some groups have more branches than others. L371 has very few branches. YFull tracks (for a fee) branches for people that have taken the BigY YDNA test or equivalent.

The interesting thing about the YFull Tree is that it gives dates. It shows that R-L371 was formed 4300 years ago. However, it has R-Y15149 right under it formed only 350 years ago. That is a long time span.

For R1b, Alex Williamson’s Tree is another resource. This tree also analyzes BigY testers.

I erased the ID’s for privacy. From the above, it looks like there are three L371 people that have taken the BigY test and uploaded to the Big Tree. This shows that McKee and Stewart share one variant (with a number) and two SNPs. SNPs are the ones starting with letters, like BY11922. If two Dicks descendants were to take the Big Y test, it would be likely that a new SNP would be found that would be unique to the Dicks family.


I started out discussing SNPs above as they are more certain than the STRs. SNPs are Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. The Single is the important word and it means that they are singular or unique. STR stands for Short Tandem Repeat. A repeat is a number of copies of a position at your YDNA that gets repeated more or less due to a mutation. Because the value of the STR can go up or down over time, this makes for some ambiguities.

STRs and SNPs have an interesting interplay. For example, STRs are used to estimate a SNP, then SNPs are further tested for verification. This is unless a BigY or similar test is taken. The BigY finds all your named SNPs and then discovers new or unnamed SNPs which would be named at a future date once someone else tests positive for them. Once one has tested for a SNP or Haplogroup that is as close to the present as can be found, the STRs can be used as a sort of fine tuning within that SNP.

Ed and Harold’s STRs

Ed forwarded me the results of his 111 STR test. 111 STRs are a lot. That is pretty much the maximum number of STRs that people take at FTDNA. Ed also sent me Harold’s 111 STR results. Harold is a Henry Dicks (b. 1774) Line descendant and Ed is a Christopher Dicks (b. 1789) Line descendant.

This came out quite small. Harold is listed first. the value in red is Harold’s Haplogroup. It is in red because this SNP is a very general SNP estimated on his STRs. Ed has the haplogroup or SNP of R-L371 that I mentioned above. This is in green indicating that Ed has tested for that Haplgroup or SNP confirming that he has it. Ed highlighted in yellow the STRs that differed between him and Harold. He noted that there were only 4 out of 111 STRs that were different. That likely means that Harold and Ed share the same Haplogroup of R-L371.

FTDNA L371 YDNA Project

FTDNA has many Projects for surnames and different Haplogroups. I find the Haplogroup Projects to be more helpful. Ed is in the Dicks surname group and the L371 Group. I haven’t seen Harold’s results in either group. Here is the grouping that Ed is in within the FTDNA L371 Group:

Ed is placed with six other YDNA tested people because they have similar STRs. The heading he is under is called Modal 1.3. When I look at the L371 Group description, it says that:

Modal 1, R-L371+                   Represents an early Briton (Celtic?) group found heavily today in Wales and scattered across south England.

The modal for this group is important. The modal is basically the number for the STR that occurs most often. This modal is considered to be the representative number for the group or can be considered the older number. The colored numbers are the ones that deviate from the Modal. So in this case, I take the modal to be the modal for the group that consists of Thomas, Monroe, Reese, Phillips and Dicks. As there are five different surnames, I am guessing that this group has been around since before there were surnames in that area. That area probably being Wales according to the information above.

A Dicks YDNA Signature STR

A signature STR would be a set of STRs that would define the Dicks surname. I looked at the places where Ed and Harold were different than the Modal 1.3. It turns out these were the STRs that Ed and Harold were different from each other:

The exception was for DYS534. However, without Harold, the Modal was tied between 15 and 17. With Harold added the modal would have been 17, so I’ll leave that one out. Assuming that the Mode is the older, that means that Ed would have the older STRs for DYS449, CDY and DYS710. Harold would have the older STR for DYS549. Another point is that the STRs in maroon are the faster moving STRs.

A Simple Dicks STR Tree

Here is one guess of how a STR tree could be drawn for the Dicks family including Harold from the Henry Dicks Line and Ed from the Christopher Dicks Line.

Keep in mind that these trees are not an exact science. This is just one possibility of how to draw a tree. More information would refine this tree. You may wonder why Harold had three STR changes and Ed had only one if they were the same distance from a common ancestor. All I can say is this is pretty typical. DNA seems to have a mind of it’s own. Harold’s first two changes were the fast STRs, so that makes sense. Harold and Ed only had one STR change each for non-fast STRs. Some people even tend to disregard some of the fast moving STRs such as CDY as they can be misleading over a long time period. Another interesting fact is that the difference between the mutation rate of the fastest and slowest mutation STRs could be as much as a factor of 1,000 times.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I didn’t know anything about Newfoundland Dicks YDNA. Now I do.
  • Even though some complicated things happen with YDNA, the changes are confined to one long line going from father to son where all the fathers and sons follow a straight line – in this case Dicks line.
  • The Newfoundland Dicks Haplogroup appears to be R-L371
  • Harold is almost certainly R-L371 based on STR similarities to Edward
  • There is likely at least one haplogroup below R-L371 that would further define the Dicks surname. However, finding new haplogroups requires the BigY or similar testing.
  • In a previous Blog I tied together the Henry Dicks and Christopher Dicks Lines together by looking at autosomal DNA matches. The YDNA matches between Edward and Harold do the same thing in a more precise manner.
  • I’ll look at Edward’s autosomal DNA in an upcoming Blog.


Marie’s Connection to Richard and Newfoundland by DNA

Marie is my wife. Richard is a person on Marie’s Gedmatch match list. In fact,  Richard is, at the time I write this, Marie’s 495th match on her ‘one to many’ match list. Marie and Richard don’t know each other, so how do I know they have a Newfoundland connection?

Marie and Richard’s DNA Match

Marie and Richard’s DNA match looks like this at Gedmatch:

This shows that Richard and Marie share modest amounts of DNA on three of their Chromosomes. By DNA they could have a common ancestor about 5 generations ago. That means that they could be roughly 4th cousins. Marie could have gotten this DNA from her mom or dad, but she got it from her mom, Joan. This is how Richard and Joan match:

Joan shows as 4.3 generations away from Richard. The difference between Joan and Richard and Marie and Richard should be 0.5 generations roughly. This is because Joan is one generation closer to Richard and her common ancestor, but Richard is no closer or further. So it should average out to 0.5 generation difference roughly. Richard and Joan should be about 3rd cousins once removed, or something similar. Now I’ve narrowed down Marie’s match to about half of all her DNA matches.

Marie’s 1/2 Great Aunt Esther

Marie’s Aunt Esther is the key to understanding her match to Richard. Richard and Esther also match by DNA. Both of Aunt Esther’s parents were from Harbour Buffett, Newfoundland. So if Richard matches Esther, Joan and Marie and Esther, Joan and Marie match each other in the same DNA segment, that means they all have a common ancestor. Here is Richard’s match to Esther:

This shows that Esther, Joan, Marie and Richard only share DNA on Chromosome 11 from about position 12-19 M. That shared DNA would likely represent the common ancestor between Richard, Esther, Joan and Marie. Here is Marie’s family tree up to Aunt Esther:

Fred Upshall’s first wife Elizabeth died in the flu epidemic. Marie descends from Elizabeth. Esther descends from Fred’s second wife Margaret who was also from Harbour Buffet, Newfoundland. Any shared DNA with Joan, Marie and Esther must come from Frederick or one of his ancestors and not from the Shave side. That is how I know that Richard and Marie connect through Newfoundland and more specifically through Harbour Buffet, Newfoundland. Even more specifically, the Upshall side of the Harbour Buffett tree. We have narrowed down Marie’s DNA match with Richard to her mother’s side. Then to Marie’s maternal grandmother, Florence. Next, Marie has eight great grandparents, but we have narrowed down the DNA she shares with Richard to one of her eight great grandparents, Fred Upshall. Put another way, Marie has 2,000 matches on her ‘one to many’ match page at Gedmatch. This would narrow those matches down to 250, on average.

Richard’s Genealogy

So far, I haven’t looked at Richard’s genealogy at all. Richard and Esther have both tested at AncestryDNA. Richard shows as a predicted 3rd cousin to Esther at AncestryDNA. Above, Gedmatch estimated 3.5 generations to a common ancestor. This would be equivalent to a 2nd cousin once removed.

Richard’s Newfoundland side is through his father. Here is Richard’s paternal Newfoundland Line:

Two Trees Together: Where Are the Common Ancestors?

This is the difficult part. The genealogy of Newfoundland is missing much information. Here are Richard’s and Esther’s trees side by side:

Ancestry points out that Richard and Esther have the common Kirby surname. It could be that Joseph and John Kirby were brothers.

The Crann Connection

In a previous Blog, I show a triangulation between Esther, Joan and a Crann back to England. I show that Elizabeth and an Upshall spouse could have come from John Crann, but I now see that they could have come from another child of Henry Crann. I’m sure there are other possibilities.

This is where things get interesting. The John Crann in the diagram above is the same as in Richard’s tree. Remember when I said that Richard, Esther, Joan and Marie all matched on only one segment? That is the same segment represented by the Triangulation Group (TG) in the diagram above:

All I have to do is to see if Richard matches Heather from New Zealand. The good news is that he matches Heather. The bad news is that it is not on Chromosome 11:

Sometimes the DNA doesn’t behave like I would like it to. This could be a case where Richard and Heather are matching on the Collins side and Esther, Joan and Heather are matching on the Crann side (or the other way around). A TG only points to one ancestor. Here is Richard added to the Crann Tree:

In this tree, Richard matches Forrest (his third cousin twice removed):

Richard matches Wayne:

And Heather matches Wayne for a triangulation on a specific segment on Chromosome 8:

What I’d like to make clear is that the line is green is from New Zealand. The line in white is from Newfoundland. The ancestors Henry Crann and Elizabeth Collens were from Netherbury, Dorset, England and their children headed off in opposite directions. So this is a long range triangulation. This helps those with intermarried Newfoundland roots as the New Zealand descendants have just the Crann/Collens ancestors. This makes finding common ancestors easier clearer.

Summary and Conclusion

In this Blog I traced a DNA match between my wife, Marie and Richard. This match went up through Marie’s mom and through a common match with Marie’s 1/2 great Aunt up through one of her eight great grandparents. This greatly narrowed down where the match came from.

Then I looked at common ancestors. Richard and Esther have a Kirby surname in their ancestry, but the Kirby isn’t in Joan and Marie’s ancestry. After that, I looked at the Crann connection that Richard has. This was based on previous DNA work I had done. It turns out that Richard triangulates with Crann descendants from New Zealand that have never had ancestors in Newfoundland. This New Zealand triangulation removes some of the complications of intermarriage in Newfoundland. The Crann connection also confirms the previous work I did showing that there must be a Crann somewhere in the ancestry of Esther, Joan and Marie.

My Mother in Law’s Ellis DNA and Genealogy

I’ve been Blogging about Genetic Genealogy for over 2 years and I don’t think that I’ve written on my mother in law’s Ellis DNA and Genealogy. I have Blogged about about her mother’s Newfoundland Upshall and Dicks DNA and genealogy, but not the Ellis side.

Joan’s Ellis Ancestors

I have a web page on Ellis genealogy here. The Ellis family started out around Northam, Devon, England:

In 1818, William Ellis, ship builder and husband of Hannah Tawton moved his family to Prince Edward Island. There they had many descendants. William’s great grandson, George Ellis moved to Massachusetts where he married Lillian Ethel Rayner in 1898. He was the grandfather of my mother in law, Joan.

Joan’s DNA

Joan’s second largest Ellis DNA match at Gedmatch is with Melissa:

Gedmatch shows an estimated 3.6 generations to a common ancestor. That would make Joan and Melissa 2nd cousins once removed. Melissa says that she and Joan share common ancestors James Henry Ellis b. 1846 and Clarinda Gorrill. That was easy:

Melissa tells me her mom was from PEI, so that line stayed there a few more generations than my wife’s Ellis family. That would make Melissa a 3rd cousin to my wife, Marie. Of course, now I’m curious as to how Marie and Melissa match by DNA:

Marie got DNA from half the chromosomes where her mom matched Melissa. However, Marie got the smaller match on Chromosome 3 and only part of the match her mom had on Chromosome 17.

Joan’s DNA Match with David

Joan’s top Ellis match at Gedmatch is with David.

I sent an email to the match. The email went to David’s daughter Betty who was working on her dad’s genealogy. She said her paternal grandmother was “Laura Freda MacArthur  from O’Leary Prince Edward Island.” I was able to find Betty’s tree at Ancestry:

I then found another Ancestry tree that showed that Nathaniel was born 1867. It has Nathaniel’s father as Hugh Malcolm MacArthur 1812-1870. Then his father was Malcolm MacArthur b. in Scotland 1783 and died 1865 PEI. The same Ancestry Tree has Marion MacArthur born between 1812 and 1835. The tree has her dad as the same Malcolm MacArthur. Using this Ancestry Tree, I get this connection:

Under this scenario, David and Joan would be 3rd cousins once removed. I would have expected a closer relationship based on the DNA match. Either that is the way the DNA shook out or perhaps Joan and David match on another line. David and Melissa would be 3rd cousins twice removed. Melissa does match David here:

However, the match is less than expected also and not on the same Chromosome. So my theory is not without its problems, but it is better than what I had before.

Joan’s next dna match: Sarah

I found Sarah’s tree on Ancestry:

Here she has Agnes Ellis, George Russell Ellis and Bridget MacArthur. Fortunately James Monroe Ellis appears to be from a different Ellis line. Sarah’s three ancestors I mentioned above are 4 generations from Sarah. She would likely match Joan at Sarah’s generation 5. Joan and Sarah appear to be 4th cousins three different ways.

Joan and Robert’s DNA and Common ancestor match

On Robert’s maternal side, I see William Ellis and his wife Hannah twice again, as well as a MacArthur. In addition, he has the Rayner name.

That could take a while to sort out. The good news is that this is starting to look like a PEI DNA project.

The Rayner connection

Here are Joan’s Rayner ancestors:

Robert above has both a GED and Wiki Tree at Gedmatch. On the GED, Robert shows his 4th great grandfather:

 Edward Rayner, b. 1775, Whittlesford, CAM, ENG, d. 1847, Tiltons Creek, PEI, CAN

This is the same person as Joan’s 3rd great grandfather. That makes Robert and Joan 4th cousins once removed by that line.

Joan’s PEI Common Ancestors

Next, I put all of Joan’s common ancestors for her top PEI gedmatch matches in an Excel Spreadsheet:

These are for David, Melissa, Sarah and Robert. I didn’t check the last two MacArthur/MacDougall ancestors, but I think that there was only one MacArthur family on the Island at the time. Assuming, I am right above, the DNA should agree.

Continuing Down Joan’s Gedmatch List

Joan’s next match is with Dorises. I can’t figure out how she fits in right now, so I’ll skip her. The common ancestor may even be in England. Betty, Daughter of David is in there also, so I’ll skip her. Agnes is next on Joan’s Gedmatch match list. Agnes appears to be the mother of Robert. Her match to Joan is very similar to Robert’s:

However, I would rather use Agnes in the PEI project as her matches with others should be better than the matches her son Robert has.

Joan at FTDNA

Joan’s DNA was taken at FTDNA. That means, I can only see her Ancestry matches if they have uploaded their results to Gedmatch. At FTDNA, I found John. He has no tree, so I sent him an email. He does have in ‘in common’ match with Melissa, so I suspect that he could have PEI genealogy.

The next paternal match for Joan at FTDNA is Glenda. She is listed above Melissa on Joan’s FTDNA match list. Glenda has Ellis, Rayner and MacDougall ancestors. That would make Joan and Glenda 3rd cousins once removed on the Rayner line. They would be half 3rd cousins on the Ellis line. That is because James Ellis married twice. I suspect if there is a MacDougall common ancestor, that would be further out. I can check that out later if I need to.

Here I have sorted the common ancestors into surnames. I have added Glenda and Joan’s common ancestors on the bottom row. Note that the wife of James Ellis b. 1801 is not a common ancestor as he had two different wives (Ramsay and MacArthur). Joan and Glenda are descended from different wives.

Back to Gedmatch

Joan matches Barry next. Barry does not have a tree listed at Gedmatch and has an AncestryDNA Kit number. Here is how he matches Joan:

I noticed that at Chromosome 11, Barry and Joan matched where David and Joan matched. That means that there could be a common ancestor. To find out I triangulate. All that means is that I check to see if Barry and David match each other at the same segment on Chromosome 11.

This shows that even though I don’t have Barry’s ancestry tree, I can tell that David, Joan and Barry have a common ancestor. Based on what I know now, that common ancestor could be MacArthur or MacDougall.

I wrote to Barry and he tells me he does have a MacArthur ancestor. His great great grandmother was Ellen MacArthur. She was born in 1845 or 1846 I suppose based on the age of her death in 1938.

A search for Ancestry Trees shows that Ellen’s dad was likely Hugh Malcolm MacArthur. His mother was Susanna Dyment or Mae Diamond. Hugh’s dad was Malcolm b. 1775.

Note that Barry and David are 2nd cousins once removed. Joan and Melissa are also 2nd cousins once removed, but in a different generation with respect to the MacArthur Line.

Joan and Lee

I had followed up on this match about a year ago. At the time, Lee’s daughter Elizabeth had decided the match could be on the MacArthur name.

Lee’s MacArthur Line appears to go back one more generation:

Here Lee and David are 4th cousins.

Joan’s MacArthur DNA

Joan’s Ellis tree has quickly turned into a MacArthur DNA tree. This is due to the fact that there appear to be many MacArthur descendants and importantly descendants that have had their DNA tested.

I have another Ellis descendant to try to balance out my DNA tree. That is Jane. I have been in touch before and she descends from James Ellis b. 1801. I put Jane on the Ellis tree so she would be easier to see:

It Takes (At Least) Three to Triangulate

Next I want to compare these people to each other. For this I use the Multiple Kit Analysis at Gedmatch. Then I choose the Segment CSV File. This gives me all the matches of everyone to everyone else, including the detailed information. The goal is to find Triangulation Groups (TGs). These will match each other at least three ways. Here is the beginning of my list of matches:

Note under Chromosome 1 that Melissa matches Agnes and Sarah matches Agnes, but Melissa doesn’t match Sarah. How is this? Actually Melissa and Sarah do match, but below the threshold. Usually, it is not advisable to lower the matching threshold, but in the case of TGs, I sometimes do. Here is how Melissa and Sarah match at a threshold of 5 cMs:

What this is telling me is that the following have common ancestors:

  • Melissa, Agnes and Sarah (Chromosome 1)
  • Joan, Sarah, Jane (Chromosome 2)
  • Melissa, Sarah, Agnes (Chromosome 2)
Finding the common ancestor for joan, Jane and sarah

The triangulation is the easy part. Finding the common ancestor is difficult. Let’s look at Joan’s TG as I have the list of common ancestors based on her ancestry:

I’m not sure if this list is complete. Joan’s TG has Joan, Sarah and Jane. That means that the DNA from that TG represents one common ancestor. The common ancestors between Joan, Jane, and Sarah appears to be William Ellis and Hannah Tawton. In fact, Sarah, has William and Hannah in her ancestry twice. I would think that would up the chances of those two being the common ancestors. We can’t know from this whether the TG represents William or Hannah, but we will say Ellis due to naming considerations. Their children who brought the DNA down to the present generation would have been named Ellis. However, what about MacArthur? Jane’s tree shows a Hugh MacArthur married to Nancy Ramsay. This couple is 6 generations from Jane. If I’m counting right, William Ellis and Hannah Tawton are listed as 7 generations from Jane. Now I’m back to the Ancestry trees. It appears that Hugh’s grandfather was probably Hugh MacArthur that married Flora Gillis. They would be common ancestors, but as Hugh was born before 1750, we will say that common ancestor is much less likely.

This common ancestor thing drives me a little crazy as I have to know everyone’s genealogy. I need to add Sarah to my Ellis DNA tree:

This shows that Jane, Joan and Sarah are all 4th cousins to each other. The DNA that they share on Chromosome 2 was likely from either William Ellis or Hannah Tawton. This does not show that Melissa does not belong to this line. If Melissa were to be in this TG, Melissa would have had to have gotten DNA from her mom’s dad Stanley. However, at this particular location, she may have gotten her DNA from her mom’ mom which would have kicked her out of this DNA match.

Also note on the yellow line that Jane descends from the first wife of James Ellis who was a Ramsay. However, that does not really change the common ancestors for Ellis. It would mean that Jane and Joan would not have a MacArthur common ancestor on this line.

Joan’s MacArthur TG on Chromosome 11?

Joan’s other TG with the group I looked at in this Blog is on Chromosome 11:

This shows that Joan, David and Barry have a common ancestor. David and Barry have MacArthur ancestry but not Ellis as far as I know.

Summary and Conclusions

I have started to take a look at Joan’s paternal side PEI DNA to see how she triangulates with others. The others that she matches also have PEI genealogy. For the two TGs that I looked at, one on Chromosome 2 is most likely Ellis/Tawton DNA. The second TG on Chromosome 11 appears to be MacArthur/MacDougall DNA. Using this I could map Joan’s DNA to these ancestors. In addition, other DNA tested people that are in a larger TG in these areas should have Ellis/Tawton or MacArthur/MacDougall genealogy. This is a good way to confirm existing genealogy and to focus genealogy where researcher are unclear on their genealogy. For example, in this Blog, I started out looking at the Ellis name, but the DNA and common genealogies pushed me in the direction of MacArthur.

There were other TGs that Joan was not in that I didn’t look at closely. This is because I am not sure of the different ways that these people may have common ancestors. I have identified some, but there may be others that I don’t know about. It takes a bit of work to look for common ancestors where there are common DNA matches. Where there are multiple common ancestors, this complicates matters.

As a result of this exercise, I have identified new PEI ancestors for my mother in law. These ancestors appear to be confirmed by Ancestry Trees and DNA, but could use further confirmation.



Don’s Frazer DNA

I recently had an email from Ros introducing me to her 3rd cousin Don. Don is a Frazer descendant and genealogist who had recently taken an autosomal DNA test. Both Ros and Don are from Australia. I am happy to write a Blog about Don and his DNA. Unfortunately, due to a storm here in Massachusetts, our power is out. No problem, I can use my laptop. However, I had to figure out to connect to the internet through my cell phone. Now I know how to do that.

Before the electricity went out, I checked Gedmatch and Don matches my sister Lori.

This is quite interesting as I have mapped out the DNA for myself and 4 of my siblings. Lori is the only one out of 5 tested siblings that has Frazer DNA in that area of Chromosome 13. The map shows how we got the DNA from our four grandparents. Our grandparent of interest to this group is Frazer.

The others siblings have mostly or all Hartley DNA on their paternal sides. Also Lori was the last sibling that was tested. This points out the importance of testing siblings.

Here is the line that Don is on:

As Don is a 3rd cousin to Ros, that means that he descends from John Parker Frazer and Honora White on the left purple line. My sister Lori isn’t even on this line. She descends from a Frazer one layer up making her a 6th cousin to Don. That is quite a way back for DNA to be working, so that’s pretty good. Put another way, Lori and Don’s common Frazer ancestor is 7 generations away.

Don’s Frazer/Stinson Line DNA Matches

Don’s closest relative on the Frazer/Stinson DNA chart above is Vivien. She is a second cousin once removed to Don. Vivien is also Don’s top match on his ‘One to Many’ list at Gedmatch.

Don and Vivien’s common ancestors John Parker Frazer and Honora White are actually 3.5 generations away. That is, 3 generations from Vivien and 4 from Don average out to 3.5 generations. Gedmatch shows that the common ancestor by DNA is 3.4 generations away. That means that Don and Vivien share a slightly less amount of DNA than average. I would expect that about half of the DNA they share would be Frazer DNA and half would be Frazer DNA.  One odd thing was that I didn’t see Vivien’s daughter Jean on Don’s list of DNA matches.

don and ros

The next person on Don’s ‘One to Many’ list is Ros. By that list, it looks like they share 28 cM of DNA/ However when I choose the actual match, it shows that they share much less DNA than that for some reason:

An average amount of DNA shared between 3rd cousins is 74 cM, so that raises some questions. Did Ros just get a lot less than average (which is possible) or perhaps there was a second marriage for one the ancestors in common or other explanation.

don and michael

Based on the chart above, Don and Michael are 4th cousins, once removed.

Note that Don and Michael share a segment on Chromosome 7. This is the same segment that Don and Vivien shared. That would mean that Don and Michael would have gotten this DNA from either Archibald Frazer, b. 1778 or Ann Stinson. That is pretty old DNA.

The New and Improved Frazer Autosomal Matrix

I made some changes to the Frazer Autosomal DNA Matrix

I tried to put the Matrix more in line with what I think the genealogy is.

  • Heidi through Gladys descend from Violet and James Frazer. Violet is the daughter of Richard. James father is unknown, but I have put him as a son of Philip Frazer as a likely candidate.
  • Patricia, Susan, Bill and Gladys under that scenario descend from all three sons in the Archibald Line: Philip, Richard and Archibald (who married Ann Stinson).
  • I have Michael and Jane descending from Richard and Archibald
  • Cathy through Don descend only from the Archibald that married Ann Stinson.

Don’s Triangulation Group (TG) Matrix

Here I have added Don to the existing Frazer DNA TG Matrix.

Don is in two Triangulation Groups. The first one I already had with Michael, Vivien and Janet.

I took Michael from the Richard Line as I don’t know if the match is with him there or in the Archibald/Stinson Line. I don’t know for sure that the common ancestor that the DNA is identifying is the original Frazer couple in Ireland or someone else. A good candidate for the ‘someone else’ would be anywhere there is an unnamed spouse in the direct ancestry.

The second TG is new and is with Pat and Susan.

This seems more straightforward than the previous TG. However, this TG could represent a common ancestor a generation earlier as the yellow family above also descends from the Richard Frazer line (brother of the Archibald above). However, that would be less likely than the above scenario.

Don’s YDNA

Don hasn’t tested for YDNA, but as a direct Frazer descendant, he would be a good candidate for it. So far, three Irish Frazers from our DNA study roup have taken the YDNA STR test. Two have been from the Archibald Line and one from the James Line. These lines go back to the early 1700’s in Ireland. The most recent STR tree that I drew for the Irish Frazers is here:

That STR tree reflects this genealogical tree:

Right now the STRs 391=11 and CDYa = 45-50 define the Archibald Frazer born about 1715 Line. The STR 444 = 13 that Rick has defines the Richard Patterson Frazer b. 1830 Line. The STR 576 = 19 defines the George Frazer b. 1838 Line. If Don were to test his YDNA STRs, that would define the line of Archibald Frazer b. about 1778 who married Ann Stinson Line.

Fitting Barry into the Dicks Genealogy by DNA

My wife’s mom and 1/2 great Aunt Esther seem to be getting some good Dicks descendant matches at Gedmatch recently. One of the newest ones is Barry. Barry is match #5 on Esther’s ‘One to Many’ list at Gedmatch. Barry is match #8 for my mother in law Joan. #8 out of 2,000 matches is not bad.

The Genealogy

Barry tested at Ancestry. He hasn’t linked his tree to his DNA test, but I have found a little tree that Barry put together:

I quickly started off by recreating the tree. However, I headed in the wrong direction. There was a Harbour Buffett marriage on-line for a William Dicks and Edith Hann which I assumed was the right one. Apparently there were two William Dicks/Edith Hann married couples. One was in Harbour Buffett and the other in Little Harbour East. Here’s a map posted at the Newfoundland Gedmatch Facebook Page that I high-lighted:

Little Harbour East apparently is adjacent to Little Harbour.

Barry’s tree connects to Hayley’s tree.

My previous Blog was on Hayley’s DNA. According to Barry, this branch of Dicks moved from Harbour Buffett to Little Harbour East in the 1860’s. Hayley helped me out by sending along the Little Harbour East Censuses for 1921 and 1935:

I was unable to find Bertram on my own, probably due to a Census misspelling. Here is a photo of the twice-married William Dicks sent to me by Hayley:

Barry’s DNA

Hayley is Barry’s first match on his ‘One to Many’ list at Gedmatch:

They have all sorts of DNA shared. A common ancestor of 2.5 usually means a 1st cousin, once removed. That is what we have here:

Esther is a 2nd cousin once removed to Barry based on the chart above. By DNA, on average, their common ancestor should be 3.5 generations away. Here is what the DNA match between Esther and Barry shows:

This shows that either Barry and Esther share more than the average DNA for a 2nd cousin once removed or that they have extra ancestors in common. Based on Newfoundland genealogy, I would guess the latter. By DNA, Barry and Esther look to be more like 2nd cousins.

Joan and Barry should be 3rd cousins by their common ancestor, Christopher Dicks. At Gedmatch, that would be on average 4.0 generations to a common ancestor. Here is what Gedmatch shows for the DNA match between Barry and Joan:

The difference isn’t as pronounced with Joan. Perhaps because her ancestry is one quarter Newfoundland and Esther’s is 100% Newfoundland.

The Autosomal Matrix

I like to look at the matches in Gedmatch’s Autosomal Matrix as the different lines of descent sometimes become apparent.

If I look at Barry going across, his largest non-close family match is with Esther. This tells me that compared to all these other Dicks descendants, he fits in the Christopher Dicks group.

  • Barry has a good match with Ken in the Crann group, but not with others in that group. This could indicate a non-Dicks match between Barry and Ken.
  • Ken has large DNA matches with many of the Dicks descendants on the Matrix.
  • I had forgotten that Ken has a Dicks ancestor on the Burton line also. The matrix seems to show he is more closely matched to that line than the Cran Line. I had forgotten about Ken’s Dicks/Burton ancestors, so the Matrix didn’t highlight that.
  • Esther and Nelson match others more as they are one generation closer to their common ancestors than others.
  • Esther has an additional Dicks line that I haven’t figured out yet.
  • Others will have other relationships with families outside the Dicks family which would cause interference.

Triangulation Groups: A Better Way

A Triangulation Group (TG) is a group of three or more people. All their DNA matches each other in every combination. When this happens, the group should have a common ancestor. In a group of all Dicks descendants, the common ancestor is more likely to be a Dicks ancestor (or spouse). The problem with creating a large Dicks TG Matrix is that it takes a while to look at all the possible matches.

The goal when I have done all the Dicks triangulation is to put all the results into another matrix. I had done that before with the Henry line which is a brother line to Christopher Dicks, b. about 1784. I took out the Henry Line for simplicity below:

Looks like I am missing at least Ken, Sandi, Hayley and Barry. I should also add in Clayton, as there is some question as to which line he is in. The pink TGs indicate that the DNA could be coming from the spouse of a Dicks. For example, an all Adams line TG, could be DNA coming just from Adams and not Dicks. Marilyn aka Molly and Howie are siblings. If two siblings plus another match, this is not usually considered a TG as the siblings have the same parents. Esther and Joan are in many TGs, but as they were the only two at the time from the Christopher b. about 1813 Line, those TGs go outside that line (or are from the unknown wife of Christopher).

When I do this comparison of Dicks DNA, I get 1620 lines of matches. However, each combination is repeated, so it is only 810 lines really. When I make the new TG Matrix, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that Ken and Barry especially have created a lot of new TGs. The bad news is that it makes the TG Matrix show up very small:

I made a slight adjustment in the TG Matrix. I put Molly and Howie in just one row, but that row is for Joyce and Crann. A few other observations:

  • Barry appears to be in TGs 7 times with the Christopher Line. That appears to place him solidly in the Christopher (born about 1813) line
  • Barry appears to be in TGs 3 times with Nelson of the Adams line. This could be partially because Nelson is one generation closer to common ancestors.
  • Ken’s results are confusing to read. He seems to be in TGs outside the Cran group more than in it.

Ken’s results

Ken’s closest relationship in his Dicks/Cran line is 3rd cousin, once removed. That is with the common ancestor of Robert Dicks and Jane Cran.

However Ken is also 3rd cousin once removed with Esther and Nelson with the common ancestor of Christopher Dicks, the father of Robert Dicks born about 1784. It may also be that Ken is in many non-Dicks TGs with Dicks descendants as he may be more closely related on those lines than the Dicks lines. For example, I know that Ken has an Upshall ancestor. The TG that he has with Esther and Joan could be a Dicks TG, an Upshall TG or some other name where we have a missing ancestor. Compare the Christopher Line to the Cran Line:

Barry is only 2nd cousin once removed to Esther and 3rd cousin to Joan. This makes a big difference in the DNA comparisons compared to Ken’s Cran relative results. Another thing that I forgot was that Ken has ancestors in the Dicks/Burton line also:

Let’s say that Ken’s case is advanced DNA analysis and I don’t have to figure out all his matches right away.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Barry and Hayley appear to be linked closely by DNA to Esther and Joan. The interpretation is that they are linked in the same Christopher Dicks Line.
  • Without Barry’s results, it would have been difficult to interpret Hayley’s results by the TGs. However, as we know that Hayley is closely related to Barry, his results apply to Hayley’s
  • Ken’s results aren’t easy to interpret just within the context of the Dicks DNA study. I left my previous Blog on Ken thinking there was more to be discovered about all his matches and I still feel that way.


Hayley’s Harbour Buffett Dicks

I was glad to find a DNA match between Hayley and my wife’s family. This DNA match represents a shared Harbour Buffett, Newfoundland heritage. Here is a painting of Harbour Buffett I found on the internet by Charlene Pafford Sharpe:

I can tell I’ve been doing this research for a while, as I recognize the Pafford name.

Here is how the tree was for my mother in law Joan and her Aunt Esther:

I was beginning to think that there was something wrong with my narrow Christopher Dicks, Jr. tree. However, I am happy to now see Hayley on that tree also:

See, much better. Esther is at Ancestry where Hayley shows as a 3rd cousin as predicted by DNA. Hayley is actually a 2nd cousin twice removed to Esther, which by DNA is virtually the same level of match.

Matches Between Hayley, Esther, and Joan

These matches should zero in on their common ancestors of Christopher Dicks born around 1812 and his wife Elizabeth. I put these matches together in a spreadsheet:

Here we have two categories of matches. The gold highlighted matches triangulate. That means that Hayley matches both Joan and Esther. Also Esther and Joan match each other at those areas.

Hayley Compared to the Larger Dicks DNA Project

Here is Hayley in a Matrix of Dicks descendants:

  • These matrices work better when people aren’t related different ways.
  • The Adams dark box makes the most sense as they have higher numbers among their own group.
  • Adams refers to the married name of the female Dicks, daughter of the Christopher Dicks that was born around 1784.
  • Esther has more than one line of Dicks in her ancestry, but I don’t know what the second line is.
  • Molly and Howie descend from two Dicks Lines
  • Hayley has matches with Forrest, Ken and Sandi from the Dicks/Crann line. Perhaps Hayley has some Crann ancestry also?

Hayley’s Dicks Triangulation Groups (TGs)

This is the part I don’t like to do as it is a bit of work. I choose all those who have said that they are descended from the Christopher Dicks born around 1784. I check how to see they match each other. I look for TGs out of that group of matches. Gedmatch will run a TG report, but it will include all of your ancestors. The TGs that I want to look at here are supposed to be specifically narrowed down to the Dicks family as much as possible.

Here is where Hayley triangulates with Nelson and Sandra from the Dicks/Adams Line:

This means that these three have a common ancestor. As Nelson and Sandra are closely related, I could not guarantee that the common ancestor would be Dicks. Assuming the common ancestor is Dicks, the TG would look like this:

Hayley has another TG with Nelson on Chromosome 18:

Nelson is a good choice to be in a TG with as he is closer to the common ancestor than many. Also if only Grace’s sister had tested and not Grace, we would not know about this TG. Note that Esther and Joan are not in this TG, but match each other. That would mean that the DNA that Esther and Joan got in that Chromosome 18 match was probably non-Dicks and probably Upshall.

That’s It

  • I didn’t see any more TGs for Hayley. Looking over her tree perhaps there was not a lot of overlap with other Dicks collateral names.
  • I’m glad to have another DNA-tested Christopher Dicks, Jr. descendant on the tree.
  • Hayley’s DNA testing supports her tree. That tree shows a common ancestor of Christopher Dicks, Jr. and his wife Elizabeth for Hayley, Esther and Joan
  • Hayley matches with three Crann line testers. This connection may be worth looking into.



A New Harbour Buffet DNA Match

My wife’s great Aunt Esther is Ms. DNA for Harbour Buffet. She likely matches anyone else by DNA who has Harbour Buffet ancestors. Both Esther’s mom and dad were from Harbour Buffet:

I noticed recently that Esther has a new match at Gedmatch named Doug. Doug is Esther’s fourth match on her ‘One to Many’ list at Gedmatch. Her first is my mother in law. The second is my wife. The third is Ken who I blogged about here.  I have a feeling that Ken and Doug will match by DNA.

Here is Doug’s tree:

A lot of Douglas’ ancestors were from Harbour Buffet. Douglas has two Samuel Kirby’s in his ancestry. Also an Upshall which is great. Notably missing from Douglas’ ancestry is the Dicks name. I have written many blogs about the Dicks family.

Here is Doug’s match to Esther by DNA at Gedmatch:

Remember that I thought that Doug would have a big match with Ken above? Well I checked and didn’t see Ken on Doug’s ‘One to Many’ match list at Gedmatch. This is a little surprising as they appear to share at least two surnames.

Doug and My Mother in Law, Joan

My mother in law, Joan is related to her 1/2 Aunt Esther on the Upshall line, but not the Kirby line. Here is how Joan matches Doug by DNA:

When I add in Esther to the mix, here is a simplified view of their combined ancestry:

  • It is simplified to show common ancestors and potential common ancestors
  • Further it is missing two of Douglas’ Kirby lines
  • It is meant to show that Joan does not descend from the Kirby family
  • It is possible that Henry and Jane Upshall could have been siblings.
  • Note that the two potential Upshall siblings Henry and Jane are shown in different generations.

DNA Triangulation – Upshall?

Triangulation as implied by the name requires the DNA matching between three people. The potential for this happens at Chromosome 2. Esther and Douglas match between about 209 and 243M. Douglas and Joan and Esther and Joan match between about 238 and 243M. When this happens, it is likely that the three people share a common ancestor. In this case, an Upshall common ancestor would be possible based on the genealogy. That is, possible, until I consider Molly.

Molly is in the Dicks DNA Project that I have been working on for some time. She also matches Douglas on Chromosome 2. Here is how Douglas matches Esther (1) Molly’s brother Howie (2), Molly (3) and Joan (4):

This shows that Molly and her brother Howie are in a Triangulation Group (TG) with Douglas and Esther. Then Douglas, Esther and Joan are in a TG. How can this be?

A Possible Crann Explanation for Douglas, Esther, Molly, Howie and Joan

The problem above is that Molly has no known Upshall ancestry but has Crann and Dicks ancestry. Douglas has no known Dicks ancestry but has Upshall ancestry. In a previous Blog, I had theorized that either an Upshall or a Dicks had married a Crann:

This was based on Crann lines in green above with no Newfoundland ancestry. What if the father of Henry Upshall above married a Crann? Supposing that Crann was also the mother of Jane Upshall? This is perhaps a house of cards, but an interesting theory that would explain the DNA matches. Under this scenario, the TG for Molly, Howie, Esther and Douglas would represent Crann DNA. The TG for Douglas, Esther and Joan could either be Upshall or Crann DNA.

a few arguments against my theory

The theory above is not without its problems. One is that Douglas doesn’t match any of the non-Newfoundland people with Crann ancestry. The other problem is that I notice Douglas has a tree on Ancestry with different ancestors for Jane Upshall:

This would also be confusing, if true, as Esther has Burton ancestors on her maternal side.

Well, as they say, Rome was not built in a day.

Summary and Conclusions:

  • Douglas and Esther have a large DNA match
  • Douglas and Joan (who doesn’t have Kirby ancestry) match to a lesser extent
  • I assume that most of Douglas and Esther’s DNA matching has to do with their common Kirby and Emberley ancestors. However, as these names are not in my wife’s and mother in law’s ancestry, I have not been following these names.
  • Douglas, Joan, and Esther share the ancestral Upshall name which appears to be somewhat rare.
  • Some of the DNA shared between Douglas and Joan appears to be from a common Upshall ancestor
  • A Triangulation group between Molly, Howie, Douglas and Esther could be from a Crann line. However, this is a theory at this time. As part of that theory, a Crann would have married an Upshall.
  • I was expecting Douglas to match Ken who I had looked at before. Ken also has an Upshall in his ancestry. However, I could not find a DNA match between Douglas and Ken.

Blaine’s X Chromosome Challenge

Recently, Blaine Bettinger challenged people on his Genetic Genealogy Tips & Techniques page:

Who is your closest X match at GEDmatch, that you didn’t target test? 

Blaine’s previous challenge challenge produced some interesting results and I was running out of ideas, so I thought that I’d try it. Technically, my closest X match is fourth on my Gedmatch list below. That match is my maternal 1st cousin Rusty at 120 cM, but I think that Blaine meant to look for the first match that we didn’t know.

The top six matches are my mom, four siblings and a maternal 1st cousin. I have four matches at the bottom of the list. They all have the same email address, so I assume they are closely related. These are my highest X Chromosome matches where I don’t know how we are related. A good surprise is that the top match Alice has a family tree indicated by a GED hyperlink.

I quickly checked the GED link looking for maternal matches. My mom’s matches are usually German on her dad’s side, or from Sheffield, England. I was disappointed to not see any of those places on the list. I did however see a Pennsylvania name of Faunce. My mom is from Pennsylvania and has a Faunce ancestor.

Here is Alice’s tree as posted at Gedmatch :

Here is my mom’s tree:

If Alice’s tree had a Jacob Faunce, then I would have had a match and Catherine and Elizabeth Faunce could have been sisters. However, it is not that easy.

Back to the DNA

Here is the detailed match I have with Alice:

Here is the results of mapping the X Chromosome to myself and 4 siblings:

My match with Alice was in my Lentz area which leads back to Faunce. I have the bar starting with J. It looks like Sharon and Jonathan should also match Alice on the X. Here is the path that the X Chromosome inheritance could have taken for my mom:

Alice also has a clear sailing path for her X Chromosome. It goes from her mom Rosalie, to her grandmother Alice, then her great grandmother Ida, 2nd great grandfather Anson Hale and finally to Alice’s 3rd great grandmother Elizabeth Faunce. Now that I’ve established a route where there could be an X Chromosome match, I need to get back to the genealogy.

Catherine Faunce and Her Daughter Mary A Baker

It took me a long time to figure out who was the wife of my 2nd great grandfather George Washington Lentz b. 1840. I was determined to find out who she was. The 1910 Census George’s son Jacob Lentz gave me a hint.

Here on Earl Street there were three generations of Lentz. My grandmother, Emma, her dad Jacob Lentz and his mother Mary Lentz. Of particular interest was the fact that an Aunt, Sohpia Kemble was living with them. She was 72 at the time. Next, I go back 10 years to 1900:

Mary Lentz is living with her two sisters in Palmyra, NJ. One of Mary’s sisters is single – Elizabeth Baker. That gives me the maiden name of Mary Lentz. The Findagrave.com has an article on Mary Baker Lentz’s mom who was Catherine Faunce:

Here is the marriage record for Catherine Faunce in 1824:

The record reader interpreted Faunce as Fanner.

Elizabeth Faunce

Alice has her ancestor Elizabeth Faunce as the mother of Anson Hale on her tree. Here is Anson and mother Elizabeth in 1860 along with the rest of the family with them at that time:

Here Elizabeth was born in Pennsylvania. I had a lot of trouble finding information on Elizabeth outside of Ancestry Trees. This makes me suspicious that the trees are copying each other. The 1880 Census tells us that Elizabeth’s parents were also born in Pennsylvania. I was able to find a tree Alice put on FamilySearch:

Above, I’m not sure the jump from Pennsylvania to Plymouth, MA is warranted. My understanding is that the Philadelphia Faunce family was originally the German Fans which got anglicized to Faunce.  The Plymouth, MA Faunce was probably always the English Faunce. Another point is that in the 1880 Census, Elizabeth [Faunce] Hale lists both her parents as being born in Pennsylvania.

William Hale and Elizabeth are in Howell in 1850:

Joseph appears to be their eldest. He was born around 1832, so let’s say William and Elizabeth married in 1831. It turns out that may have been a good guess as I find this at Ancestry:

I at least feel better finding a record outside of a Family Tree. Now I feel justified in adding the Faunce surname to Elizabeth. However, note that these two were married in Philadelphia where my mom’s Faunce ancestors lived. From my tree, I have a Jacob Faunce living in Kensington, Philadelphia in 1820. At this time, Elizabeth would have been between 7 and 12 depending on whether she was born in 1809 or 1813.

There were eight people living in Jacob’s house in 1820. Let’s say there were two parents and six children. Of the six children, four were girls. One was under 10, two were 10-15 and one was at least 16. It could be that Elizabeth Faunce was one of these four girls.

Summary and Conclusion

  • My closest non-identified X match is on my Lentz line
  • That X inheritance line could follow back to my ancestor Catherine Faunce in Philadelphia
  • My closest match Alice’s X inheritance line could follow back to her ancestor Elizabeth Faunce who married William Hale in Philadelphia in 1831
  • Alice has a father for Elizabeth who was from Plymouth Massachusetts
  • Based on the DNA and genealogy I believe this Plymouth father may not be correct for Elizabeth Faunce.
  • I am suggesting that Elizabeth Faunce is linked with a Philadelphia Faunce family based on DNA and genealogy.
  • Although I have shown that it is possible for Elizabeth’s father to be my Ancestor Jacob Faunce, I have not been able to prove that by the DNA and genealogy.


Cousin Mike Joins the Fray

I was presently surprised when looking over my AncestryDNA matches recently. I saw my second cousin Mike. Now due to the fact that I have many second cousins descending from James Hartley and Annie Snell, I don’t happen to know them all personally. Fortunately, I do know Mike and if I met him somewhere would surely say hi.

Mike at AncestryDNA

At AncestryDNA there is a button to push called Shared Matches. When I look for Shared Matches between me and Mike, I get a lot of people. I first get my 4 tested siblings. Then I get 11 second cousins. These are actually 2nd cousins by DNA. In other words, Ancestry looks at the amount of DNA shared and guesses that these should be in the 2nd cousin range. So Ancestry has the first four of my list of shared second cousins in the 1st to 2nd cousin range. The rest on the list are in the 2nd to 3rd cousin range. However, these are all actual second cousins that Mike and I share. These would be descendants of the 13 children that my great grandparents James Hartley and Annie Snell had. Actually, first on his list of 2nd cousins is Joyce. She is a first cousin once removed. I had her tested at the last family reunion. I wrote a Blog about her results here, and about Mike’s sister Holly here. Down in the Third Cousin Shared Matches there may be 2nd cousins once removed. There is also one non-Hartley Snell relative listed there.

Mike at Gedmatch

I asked Mike to upload his DNA results to Gedmatch. That is where you can find out more about your DNA. For example, here is how Mike matches his sister Holly on Chromosome 15:

I bring up this example, because full siblings match each other in a different way than any other relationship.

  • We all get a chromosome from our mom and one from our dad. They in turn got one from their mom and one from their dad. That means there are four ways that we can get DNA from our parents. Those four ways are from our four grandparents
  • The blue bar on the bottom shows where Mike and Holly match by DNA.
  • The yellow bar above the blue means that Mike and Holly share the DNA from one parent only. And they get their DNA from only one parent of that parent. However, we don’t know which one right now.
  • The green bar above the blue bar means that Mike and Holly share DNA from both their mother and father. Not only that, they share the DNA from one of the mother’s parents and one of the father’s parents. However, we don’t know which one yet.
  • The red area is where Holly and Mike share no DNA from either parent. That is the opposite of the green area. That means Mike may get his DNA from a maternal grandfather and Holly from a paternal grandmother in that area. I’ll give some examples below.

Here are Mike and Holly’s grandparents:

Here is how Mike and Holly match each other on Chromosome 7:

Below the first green bar (which is called a Fully Identical Region or FIR), I have split this out for Mike and Holly. This is split to identify Mike and Holly’s maternal and paternal sides (but we don’t know which yet). Mike and Holly have two of the same colors. That means that they got the DNA from the same two grandparents. One of those grandparents is paternal and one is maternal. We don’t know which is which yet, but we can easily figure out the paternal grandmother. We can do that because all of Mike and Holly’s second cousin DNA matches on the Hartley side that I mentioned above.

The first match is Mike’s 1st cousin once removed Joyce. Then there are my 4 siblings. #6 and 7 are two other Hartley-descended 2nd cousins. That means that all this DNA maps to Mike’s grandmother Grace May Hartley. Put together, these matches go from 15.6M to 95.6M for Mike.

Here I assigned blue as Mike and Holly’s paternal grandmother. In the green area, Holly had to have the same DNA from the same Hartley grandmother. In the red area, Holly had to have the DNA from her Gifford grandfather because neither grandparent matches in a red area. Now let’s look at Holly’s 2nd cousin matches.

Above, Holly matches Joyce from 6-42M.

Because Holly gets her DNA from her Hartley grandmother before about the 16M mark, that must mean Mike gets his paternal DNA in that area on his Gifford side. Otherwise, he would have matched at least one of his Hartley cousins there.  Then I moved some of the orange DNA to the left. This would be maternal DNA which is from either Jenney or Murray. This also meets the requirement of the first yellow area. That area is called an HIR or Half Identical Region. It is where Mike and Holly share the DNA from one grandparent but not the other. In order to know which grandparent that DNA is from, we would need to have a match to a Murray or Jenney. In order to do this right we would also need another color for the 2nd maternal grandparent.

This is also a lot easier when there are three siblings to compare because then we could find out where the crossovers are. An example of a crossover is on Mike’s DNA where the DNA he got on the paternal side goes from Gifford to Hartley.

Me and Mike and Our DNA

When I look at my DNA matches at Gedmatch, my match with Mike is the highest level shared between any of my second cousins – at least the cousins that have uploaded to Gedmatch. Mike’s sister Holly had the record before that. Here is what the specifics look like between Mike and myself:

At the bottom of the list is a number of 2.7 generations. That is how far back it looks like our common ancestors are based on the DNA match. They are actually 3.0 generations away. That means that we share more than the average DNA for 2nd cousins. Some of my second cousins will share more than average amounts and some will share less than average amounts of DNA. If I look at Mike’s match list, he shares more DNA with two of my sisters and another 2nd cousin than he does with me.

Mapping My DNA By Cousins

I showed one way to map DNA from your grandparents comparing siblings’ DNA. Another way is to directly map your cousins’ matches to a chart. Kitty Munson has developed some software to do this. Right now my map looks like this:

The darker blue maps to James Hartley and Annie Snell. That would be via my 1st cousins once removed and my 2nd cousins with the same ancestors. Mike’s DNA fills in a few blanks in my map:

I guess the changes are subtle. The Hartley side should only ever fill up about one half of my paternal chromosomes. The other half for me would be for Frazer and Frazer ancestors.

Mike’s X Chromosome Matches: No Hartleys There

Mike’s biggest X Chromosome match is with his sister Holly:

Mike, like me, won’t match any Hartley relatives on the X Chromosome. That is because a father never passes an X Chromosome down to a son – only a Y Chromosome. The big match between Mike and Holly is from their mom. She got her X Chromosome from some combination of Jenney and Murray.

Mike’s Lancashire DNA Match

These matches above represent Lee’s DNA matches on Chromosome 13 with 5 siblings in my family, our two 1st cousins once removed and Mike in the green.

I have mentioned in a previous Blog about Joyce, that Hartley descendants have a match with Lee at AncestryDNA and Gedmatch. Lee shows all his ancestors as being from England.

In this match, Lee’s ancestors are in orange and mine are in blue. When I zoom in to Trawden, where the Hartleys were from, I see Lee has ancestors in this area:

At the time our ancestors were in Trawden, they had to go to Colne for baptisms, weddings and funerals as there was no Church of England Church in Trawden. Colne is represented by the orange to the NW of Trawden.

The Snells came to this country in the 1600’s and the Hartleys in the 1800’s. That means that Lee’s matches would be on the Hartley side vs. the Snell side. Lee has two interesting people in his ancestry. One is Margaret Hartley b. 1836 and another is Mary Baldwin b. 1836.

  • Although these two women were both born in 1836, they are in different generations from Lee
  • Margaret Hartley is on Lee’s paternal side and Mary Baldwin is on Lee’s maternal side. If Lee were to ever test his mom, we would know on which side the Hartleys match.
  • Lee doesn’t show any parents for Margaret Hartley or Mary Baldwin

I have our Trawden born ancestor Greenwood Hartley with a Baldwin grandmother:

This is really on the edge of my knowledge. I chose Betty Baldwin and James Hartley as the most likely parents for Robert Hartley out of many potential candidates.

Lee had a dead end for his Margaret Hartley ancestor. Here are some potential parents I found for Margaret:

This was the same issue I had for finding parents for Robert. Was Margaret the daughter of John and Susan Hartley, John and Hannah Hartley or John and Margaret Hartley? Or perhaps even someone else? At least one of the Margarets died young.

Greenwood is staring at me from the past and saying, “You can’t figure out who my are grandparents are? They are _______ and _______”

a look at Mary Baldwin b. 1836

Due to a problem finding Margaret Hartley’s parents, I’ll take a look at a less common surname in Mary Baldwin. Based on this scrawly writing, she was baptized a Wesleyan in Colne:

This baptism was outside the Church of England.  A Wesleyan, perhaps what we would consider Methodist was considered a non-conformist church. Here is some information on Mary’s dad Eli:

And here is a brother of Eli:

I still need to get back a ways to get to our potential ancestor, Betty Baldwin who was born perhaps around 1780. Any potential shared ancestor would likely be Betty’s parents or before. We’ll say that Jane Baldwin was actually Jenney Spencer:

Again, we get a multiple choice for the father of this James Baldwin. Here is a batch of them from around 1790:

Here I will choose the James from Barrowford for a few reasons. One is that his dad was Elias and two, he was from Barrowford. Here is the 1851 Census showing that this James Baldwin was born in Barrowford.

This also shows James son David b. in 1812. That gets us back to the old-timers: Elias and Peggy Baldwin. Unfortunately, it looks like Elias didn’t do too well:

He died of decline at age 35. Betty could have been his daughter, but it would have made for some tight time frames. She would have had to have been born perhaps late 1783. Then she would have been only about 17 at the time of her marriage. So the genealogy is the difficult part of the genetic genealogy.


Well I looked at some aspects of Mike’s DNA:

  • How Mike and Holly have Fully Identical Regions (FIRs) in their matches with each other. Normally, these FIRs only occur between full siblings.
  • I looked at how to use the matches between Mike, Holly and their cousins to map out which grandparent they got their DNA from on certain parts of their chromosomes.
  • I looked at another way of mapping DNA developed by Kitty Munson.
  • I looked at a DNA match Mike shares with some other Hartley cousins. This DNA match is from an English man with Lancashire ancestors and probably represents deep Hartley ancestors that haven’t been identified yet.