A Dorset, Newfoundland and New Zealand Connection by DNA

Heather first contacted me through AncestryDNA. This was in December 2015. She lived in New Zealand and matched my wife’s great Aunt Esther. What I know about Esther was that all her ancestors came by way of Newfoundland and her line came from Harbour Buffet. I took a look at Heather’s Ancestry Tree and didn’t see any Newfoundland ancestors. I did see a Crann ancestor she had from Dorset, England. I had heard from someone who thought that Aunt Esther should have some Crann relatives (at least that was my memory – Hann is also a Harbour Buffet name). So I thought that this was interesting. Perhaps we could find an English connection for a Newfoundlander and a New Zealander.

Since that time, I recommended that Heather upload her results to Gedmatch and also join the Newfoundland Gedmatch Facebook group. She did that and I’d like to take a look at the DNA to see what may be found.

Genetic Relatives and Family Trees

First, here is the match between Heather and Esther:

The estimated number of generations to a common ancestor is 3.7. That could mean a few things. However, someone in the 3rd cousin range may be suggested. Here are Heather’s Crann ancestors:

Harold is Heather’s dad, so Samuel Crann would be out 4 generations from Heather.

Here are Esther’s ancestors:

Frederick and Margaret were Esther’s parents. Even at three generations back from Esther, there are a few gaps. Interestingly, looking up the Upshall name on the internet appears to link it to Dorset. The early records of Harbour Buffet mention a Peter and a Thomas Upshall. As a wild stab, I notice these two transcribed Upshall births from the Hazelbury Bryan Parish records in Dorset.

In the original records, Peter is referred to as ‘base-born’. Here is a map of Hazelbury Bryan showing proximity to nearby ports:

Below is Netherbury, where Heather’s ancestor Samuel Crann lived in the early 1800’s. He was a bit to the Southwest of my stab in the dark Upshalls.

Esther and My Mother in Law

My mother in law is Esther’s half niece. She is related through Esther’s paternal side only – barring intermarriage issues.

Here is how Heather matches my mother in law Joan:

This tells us that for these matches, Heather and Joan are matching more on the Upshall side rather than Esther’s Shave side. A slight point of confusion is that Esther has the Dicks family on her father’s and mother’s side.

A Triangulation Group?

It appears that Heather, Esther and Joan are in a Triangulation Group on Chromosome 1. That would mean that Heather, Esther and Joan should have a shared ancestor based on the DNA.

Heather to Esther:

Heather to Joan:

Esther to Joan to complete the triangle:

For some reason, there is a break in the Esther to Joan match. However, clearly there is a triangulation group (TG). That means that at least 2 out of 6 segment matches that Heather has with Esther and Joan are on the Upshall side.

AncestryDNA Shared Matches

So far, I have shown that at least part of the DNA match could be on the Upshall line. I have also shown that some Upshalls lived not too far from some of Heather’s ancestors in Dorset. The next step is to see if there are any Dicks family related to Heather. I have headed up quite a large Newfoundland Dicks family project. If Heather is related to Newfoundland Dicks, perhaps we would have already known that. One easy way to check is to check the Shared Matches at AncestryDNA.

This list shows two 3rd cousins and nine 4th cousins. Even though these are shared matches between Heather and Esther, the relationship shown here is to Esther.  The first person on the list comes up as a probable 3rd cousin to Esther. His name is Terence. When I choose him and then choose his shared matches, I see Heather on Terence’s Shared Match list as a possible 4th cousin. The bad news about Terence’s Ancestry Tree is that there are 4 people on it. The good news is that one of those four, his mother, is listed as a Crann.

Now I feel like I am getting somewhere. I feel like I should be focusing on the Upshall side of Esther’s tree. This, of course, is the side least known:

Esther and heather’s 2nd Shared match

Esther and Heather’s second shared match at AncestryDNA is Elsie. She is a possible 3rd cousin to Esther. Like Terence, Elsie is a possible 4th cousin to Heather. Like Terence she has an Ancestry Tree of 4 people. Her names are Chafe and Hann. Hann is a name that was known to be in Harbour Buffet, Newfoundland where Esther’s parents came from. Elsie also notes some ancestry from Placentia, Newfoundland. Harbour Buffet is in Placentia Bay. The Chafe name sounds familiar to me also.

So far, I have two interesting connections with the first two Shared Matches between Heather and Esther. Too bad my mother in law, Joan, is not also on AncestryDNA. At this point, I could try to work Terence’s and Elsie’s genealogy back up the Crann Line. However, I’ll keep looking at more Shared Matches. Now I’m down to Esther’s 4th cousins.

Fourth Cousin shared matches between Heather and esther

Now we are getting a bit further out. Rather than detailing each Shared Match, I have summarized my findings in a table.

My conclusion from all this is that there is a Crann/Netherbury, Dorset connection between Heather and Esther.

Building a Crann Tree

From here, I could look at the matches of the matches. This could get further out results that I don’t want. So instead, I’ll look to build out Terence’s four person tree. First, I will start a tree with the one Crann that he has in the tree. I find the one Crann in the 1930 Census:

This is helpful as it shows Arline’s parents, their ages, where they were born (Newfoundland) and where their parents were born (also Newfoundland).

Connecting the dots

Hopefully, I’m connecting the right dots. Here is John Crann’s World War II Registration:

This was helpful as it gives his John’s date and place. Here is Trinny Cove about 7 miles across the Bay from Harbour Buffet:

Here is a 1921 Census of Trinny Cove from a Newfoundland Genealogy website:

It looks like there were three houses in Trinny Bay and two of those were Crann houses. The two eldest Cranns were born in Harbor Buffett. I now have two potential sets of parents for John Crann, with my first choice being Richard. I do note that John’s first son was named Richard, so that adds weight to my assumption. In addition, his first daughter was named Julia.

Here’s John and Anastacia’s marriage on 8 Oct 1911, thanks to FamilySearch:

Bell Island is on the NE side of Newfoundland. At about this time I got stuck finding out the parents of John from the bottom up.

Richard crann b. 1856 b. harbour buffet

I thought why not check to see if there is a tree for Richard Crann from the Trinny Cove Census of 1921? I went on to Ancestry and found a familiar sounding Crann. Here was a Samuel Crann. His grandfather was listed as being from Netherbury, Dorset.

The Henry who had all the children was shown as being born in Jean de Baie, Placentia Bay, Newfoundland and dieing at Flat Islands, Newfoundland. Now I have made at least one connection between one Crann who was from Netherbury and moved to Newfoundland.

A Google search helped me find a Crann Families of Newfoundland Web Page:

RICHARD2 CRANN (CRANN1) was born December 1856 in Harbour Buffett, NF, and died December 13, 1941 in Fair Haven, NF.   He married JULIA REID  She was born September 1858 in Little Harbour, NF, and died October 20, 1940 in Fair Haven, NF.

Children of RICHARD CRANN and JULIA REID are:

JOHN BENJAMEN3CRANN

ELIZA CRANN , b.December 1877, Harbour Buffett, NF

ELIZABETH CRANN , b. November 1898, Trinny Cove, NF; m. JOHN PEDDLE; b. Corner Brook NF

What I’ve done:

  • I’ve connected Terrence to Esther and Heather by DNA.
  • I have also connected Terrence’s mom to the Newfoundland Cranns and more specifically a Crann born in Harbour Buffet.
  • I have also found a Crann family showing ancestry to Netherbury, Dorset, England.

What I haven’t done:

  • Haven’t connected the Newfoundland Cranns to Heather’s Cranns in Netherbury
  • Haven’t connected Esther’s family to the Cranns other than by location
  • Haven’t connected Terrence’s ancestor Richard Crann to earlier Cranns

So I’m about halfway there. Let’s look to see if we can connect Heather’s Cranns to this John Crann from Netherbury, Dorset.

John Crann Born 1791

This appears to be the record of John’s baptism in Netherbury:

Here is Heather’s Tree:

Here is a more fleshed out tree I found at Ancestry:

This tree shows that the Newfoundlander John Crann and New Zealander Samuel Crann were brothers. Talk about going different ways! This seems to make Henry Crann b. 1757 the common ancestor of Esther and Heather.

Wild Guessing Time

That’s about it for the research. Now I get to wildly guess and make assumptions. Assumption one is that John Crann’s brothers did not also move to Newfoundland. I have the William above died in England, the first John died young and Samuel went to New Zealand. I’m not sure what happened to the other Robert.

Another Crann Tree

While poking around Ancestry, I found yet another Crann Tree called Henwood. This tree seems to fill in a few blanks:

There are a few things I like about this tree. One thing is that it gives the spread of John Crann’s children from 1817 to 1836. Secondly, it shows a likely tie-in with one of Esther’s matches. Way up above in my Blog I mentioned that Heather, Esther and Terrence had a match with someone named Matson. Part of Matson’s tree looks like this:

It ended with one of Matson’s great grandmothers who was Marina Irene Crann b. 1877. It showed her husband as having died in Harbour Buffet. If I stitch the two trees together at Marina, I get a tree for Matson. While I’m at it, I’ll add Heather in. She’s in green for New Zealand.

Heather and Matson show up at AncestryDNA as 4th cousins with a possible range between 4th and 6th cousins. This tree shows them as 4th cousins, once removed. I’ll now add Terence’s Line and Esther’s Line.

A Proposed Crann Tree

At first, I had Esther’s tree up a generation, but that didn’t give any room for John Crann to have a daughter that could fit into Esther’s tree. Esther has two places where a Crann daughter could fit. One is the wife of an Upshall. The other is Elizabeth, wife of Christopher Dicks. From my diagram above, it looks like Terrence’s missing ancestor would have to be a son of John Crann. Under the above scenario, Esther would be a 4th cousin to Heather and a third cousin once removed to Terrence and Matson.

For a few reasons, I’m favoring the theory that a Crann married an Upshall. I suppose that Catherine Crann who I have in one tree as being born 1821, could have married Upshall in 1840 and had Henry Upshall in 1841.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Comparison of Crann Trees and Crann DNA matches lead to a suggested new Crann Tree
  • By carefully placing the separate trees together, it indicates where the missing Crann in the tree would likely go.
  • If more Crann descendants upload their DNA to Gedmatch, it could help verify these lines through triangulation.
  • It appears that there is more room for analysis. In my Excel spreadsheet of compared matches, there were multiple matches between Ninky, Elsie, Heather and Esther. However, that would make the blog too long.

 

A New Frazer DNA Test on the Stinson Line

It has been a while since there has been a new Frazer test. With the results of Doug’s Aunt Rita in on the Stinson Line, the Frazer DNA Project has roared back into life. Here is the Stinson Line of the Frazers:

I tried to air brush out some of the last names for privacy. Doug and Aunt Rita are on the green line. They share 1,894.6 cM of DNA which is a bit higher than the average posted on the ISOGG Web page:

Note that in comparing those in the chart above, that they may match on the Frazer Line or the Stinson Line. However, in matching those outside this chart, they would be more likely to match on the Frazer Line.

The Numbers, Please

Now it’s time to run the numbers. I found a cool new tool at Gedmatch for doing this. First I added all the Frazers to a group.

Then I just had to choose that group for different analyses. Here is the Autosomal Matrix. This is like ordering the “everything” pizza. This Matrix has ALL the Frazers:

This is also known as the Frazer eye test. I have the Frazer/Stinson group in yellow. These Frazers are only in the Frazer/Stinson Line. Then, there is the green group. They are in the Stinson Line but also in at least one other Frazer Line. There are some good matches where green and yellow intersect, notably with Jane. These are more likely to be Frazer/Stinson Line matches. Where the green intersects with green, it will be difficult to tell if the DNA is from the Frazer/Stinson Line or from another line. The names in white are from my family. I recently had my sister Lori tested. Now there are 5 siblings tested in my family. Paul is a second cousin, once removed. Purple represents the James Line of the Frazers. There is a purple Jonathan and a white Jonathan. Scanning the yellow names from left to right, they match my family a bit more than the James Line Frazers in purple. There are a few exceptions where there are higher matches. This may be due to a match on a collateral line. Or this may be due to the effect that if a match is going to break through a distant relationship it can just as well break through as a somewhat larger match than as a smaller one.

Triangulation Groups

I like to use Triangulation Groups to sort out some of these families. A Triangulation Group points to a particular ancestor which should point to a particular Line of Frazers. The problem in this was alluded to above. That is, what if some Frazers are from more than one line? In order to somewhat get around this, I’ll make special note of the Frazers that are known to be only in the Frazer/Stinson Line. Namely, Rita, Cathy, Ros, Doug and Vivien.

Chromosome 1

In Chromosome 1, I see a Frazer/Stinson  Line Triangulation Group (TG). I previously had my brother Jon in that group, but that appears to have been a mistake:

Here is the what the TG likely looks like:

I say likely, as Jane and Michael also descend from the Richard Frazer Line. However, that would put the common ancestor as Archibald the father of this Archibald Frazer which would be a less likely match.

Chromosome 3

The next TG is also difficult to explain:

Here we have Michael and Rita, both in the Frazer/Stinson Line. They both match Prudence from the somewhat distant James Line of Frazers. I had to double check to find the match between Michael and Rita to finalize the TG. Here is a possible rendering of that TG:

I pulled Michael (pink box) off the Richard Line as he wasn’t put into the Frazer/Stinson Line on this chart to save room. This particular representation forces our attention to the parents of the James (on the right) and Archibald Lines (on the left above). However, a slightly later unknown common collateral line would also be possible. For example, Prudence has a Peyton ancestor. If Michael and Rita also had the father of Prudence’s Peyton ancestor as their ancestor, that would put the top circle one level down. The TG is sure. The interpretation of who the TG represents is not as sure due to holes in the genealogy near the top of the chart.

Chromosome 4

Here is a new TG with Jane, Cathy and Rita:

This TG is important because it is most certainly a Frazer/Stinson Line TG. I had to take down the Gedmatch levels to get the match between Jane and Cathy. If I were to map out the Frazer side grandparents for Rita, Cathy and Jane, they might look something like this:

As you compare Cathy and Jane’s green sections with each other, you can see that the Frazer overlap is relatively small.

Chromosome 5

In Chromosome 5, there is a similar situation with Pat, Cathy and Jane:

Again, I had from my Gedmatch download that Cathy matched Patricia and Cathy matched Jane. What was missing was the Cathy to Jane match. I lowered the Gedmatch thresholds and found a Cathy to Jane match right in the expected area between 73 and 76. Note that the Patricia to Cathy match ended at about 77M. The Jane and Cathy match started about 73.

73 is the crossover for Jane from McBride to Frazer. It is the number that Jane has in common with both her matches. Likewise, Patricia’s crossover from her Frazer grandparent to her Gray grandparent is at 77M. It is the number that she has in common with both her matches. So that tells me something is going on there (i.e. a crossover). The area between 73 and 77 is where Patricia and Jane match.

In reviewing my past work, I see that I had shown a TG with Gladys, Pat and Cathy in this area. To see that, I need to go further up my spreadsheet:

So let’s map out Gladys’ DNA from her grandparents. It looks like her match with Cathy and Patricia tell me that she has Frazer DNA from 54M to 134M. But where is her match with Jane? When I run a one to one match at Gedmatch between Gladys and Jane, I get this:

5 73,514,449 76,680,718 5.3 842

With this information, I’ll draw a revised Chromosome 5 Map:

It was a little tricky to draw this map. I think that what happened was that Patricia and Gladys share the common ancestors: George Frazer and Susannah Price. Notice that Patricia and Gladys have a large match. I think that match is picking up the older crossover in Patricia of George Frazer and Susannah Price at position 77M. Well, you can see I’m still working these things out!

Chromosome 9

Here is a new Frazer/Stinson TG at the end of Chromosome 9:

In it, we have Doug, Rita and Patricia. Interestingly, Ros, Vivien, Gladys and Bill don’t appear to be in this TG. They seem to be busy being related to each other on their non-Frazer sides.

Anything Else, Summary, Conclusions?

  • I found it interesting that Rita matched Prudence. Rita’s match with Prudence was a little larger than any found so far and Rita and Prudence are on the two most distant Frazer Lines of Archibald and James.
  • It is interesting to look at the autosomal matrix for the Frazers as the higher number indicate family groupings. Overlaps in the families where Frazer cousins married cause even higher cMs in the matches.
  • A focus on the Frazer/Stinson TGs helped shore up that line of the Frazers. In cases where a TG could be from one line or the other, the addition of a Frazer/Stinson only Line tester gave more evidence that those TGs were more clearly in the Frazer/Stinson Line.
  • I did some Chromosome mapping based on the TGs. The TGs gave clear indications of crossovers. However, it was not always clear as to which generation we were mapping to as far as specific ancestors.
  • Here is an update of the Frazer TG Matrix:

More Frazer/McPartland DNA and the Mush Move

Since my last post on the Frazer/McPartland connection, one of the McPartland descendants, Charlene, has uploaded her DNA to Gedmatch. Basically, the McPartlands have in their genealogy that they had a Frazer ancestor. This Frazer ancestor is thought to be related to the Frazers that lived in North Roscommon, Ireland. This relationship has been made more sure by the fact that the McPartlands lived near the Frazers and that McPartlands and Frazers have matching DNA.

Here are some of the McPartlands:

I am focusing on the green part as those are the ones that have had their DNA tested and uploaded the results to Gedmatch. The McPartland/Frazer connection is seen at the top where Owen McPartland married Ann Frazer. From this chart, we can also see that Charlene is a 3rd cousin to Karen and Chris.

Charlene’s X Chromosome

When I look at Charlene’s X matches at Gedmatch, I see something very interesting. Her top match is to my sister Heidi:

And here is how Charlene matches her 3rd cousin, Karen:

Notice how close these two matches are. Just to close the loop, here is the huge X match between Heidi and Karen:

The above comparison shows an X triangulation. This, to me, is proof that the three are related.

Here is a possible Frazer McPartland tree which could explain the above X matches:

For this to work well, the Frazer at the top would most likely have two wives. Margaret would have been born from the first wife and from the second wife. The other solution would be to have another generation between Ann and the top Frazer. However, that also introduces problems as the X Chromosome does not travel from father to son. That scenario would require Ann Frazer’s mother to be a Frazer which would mean Ann’s father would also be a Frazer.

Here is a late breaking update on Ann Frazer from a McPartland researcher:

Hi Joel,
Ann was born between 1818 and 1823 (1901 census age 78, and her death registration, also 1901, age 85).
The 1823 date seems likelier, since her last child was born in 1866, and she might well have personally given her age to the census taker, while with the death registration, we’re depending on her son John, with whom she lived, to give the correct date.
All the best,
Sandy
This is good news as it would now not require the Frazer at the top of the tree to have had two wives. If the top Frazer’s wife was born in 1780, she could have had Margaret around 1800 when she was 20 and Ann in 1823 when she was 43. I could narrow that down even a bit further. She could have been born in 1783, had Margaret in 1803 when she was 20 and Ann in 1823 when she was 40.

Who Is the Unknown Frazer? By James Line Genealogy

One way to look at this is through the existing Frazer genealogy. There is the Archibald Line and the James Line. My past assumption has been that this unknown Frazer is in the James Line. But what James Line Frazer would fit the bill? If our genealogy is right, then the sons of James were born to soon to fit the bill of someone born around 1780
JAMES1 FRAZER was born circa 1717 at Aghrafinigan, Ardcarne, Roscommon. He married Katherine Fitzgerald in 1745.
He was a farmer.
Children of James1 Frazer and Katherine Fitzgerald were as follows:

  •       i.   (–?–)2 was born circa 1746.
  •       ii.   ELIZABETH was born circa 1748. She married William Knott.
  •     2.  iii.   ARCHIBALD was born circa 1751. He married Catherine Peyton, daughter of John Peyton and Hannah Wynne, in 1780. He was buried on 13 Aug 1835 at Ardcarne.
  •       iv.   PATRICK was born circa 1755 at Aghrafinigan, Ardcarne, Roscommon. He died in 1831 at Aghnasurn.
  •     3.  v.   MICHAEL was born circa 1764. He married Margaret (–?–). He died on 17 Mar 1837 at Ardcarne.

The children of the above were born too late. The only one who could have fit the bill is John Peyton, son of Archiald But he doesn’t have known Frazer descendants:

JOHN PEYTON3 FRAZER (Archibald2, James1) was born circa 1781. He married Frances Carlton. He died on 22 Nov 1865; aged 84.
Children of John Peyton3 Frazer and Frances Carlton both born at Ardcarne Parish Church, Roscommon, were as follows:

  •       i.   FRANCIS CARLTON4 was baptized on 10 Jun 1824.
  •       ii.   KATHERINE PEYTON was baptized on 20 Dec 1829. She married David Burns, son of Stephen Burns, on 8 Oct 1849.

The Unknown Frazer By Archibald Line Genealogy

By genealogy, it appears that the Archibald Line has more potential for our mysterious link between the Frazers and McPartlands.

Our genealogy has these four Archibald Line brothers born around 1780. That could put any of them as potential candidate to be Ann and/or Margaret’s father.

A Little McPartland Genealogy

Here is the 27 October 1860 Baptismal record that Joanna (a Frazer researcher) found in the Aghanah Catholic Parish record:

This is a record of the birth of Cath. Janam (Jane) [Mc]Partland daughter of Eugene and Ann Frazer. It appears that a Patrick Partland and a Healy were there and that the family lived in Annagh. Annagh is a very popular place name in Ireland. However, the closest Annagh to Dereenagan appears to be here on the shores of Lough Key:

Annagh is in the lower left of the map above. This is a bit confusing as one branch of the Frazer family had an Annagh House (or Lodge) in the Townland of Aughnacloy in County Sligo. To further confuse things, an Ireland Townlands website has Annagh further to the East and North:

It looks like my first choice may have been the better one. Here is a Roman Catholic Parish map of Ballinafad which historically was Aghanagh. This map was taken from the Leitrim-Roscommon Genealogy web page.

Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was another explanation! It gets confusing with overlapping parishes. I think that the Civil Parishes are equivalent to the Church of Ireland Parishes. The NLI website has Aughanagh Parish in County Sligo.

Back to the DNA

Above, I established that Heidi, Charlene and Karen all matched on the X Chromosome. It looks like my sister Sharon also matches. Here is how Charlene matches Heidi, Karen, and Sharon on the X Chromosome:

Back to Autosomal dna

Charlene matches Karen autosomally. They are known 3rd cousins. Charlene and Heidi don’t match autosomally. Charlene and my sister Sharon do match on Chromosome 9 from position 22-36M:

Here is Sharon’s Chromosome 9 map showing why she matches Charlene and Heidi and I don’t:

Lighter red is Frazer DNA. Sharon got a full load of that on her Chromosome 9. Heidi and I got nearly all Hartley DNA (darker red) on this Chromosome.

triangulation groups

With the McPartland/Frazer matches, I would like to focus on triangulation groups as they have a good chance of indicating a common ancestor.

Here are Charlene’s matches with my cousin Paul and my sister Sharon on Chromosome 9:

According to my last Blog, Karen and Chris also had matches in the same area. This indicates a common ancestor:

I have the Frazer at the top with a question mark as we are not sure which Frazer this is. It is quite likely to be a correct scenario. I base that on the combination of X Pattern matches and the triangulation. Although the match shows with Heidi, the actual match in this case was with my sister Sharon. Also note that Paul had no X match as he has two male Frazers above him and X does not travel from male to male.

The prudence triangulation group (TG)

Here Charlene matches Prudence, Chris and Karen:

#4 is Betty who is a cousin of Joanna’s family. From my last Blog, Prudence also matched Karen and Chris to complete the triangle. Here is Prudence’s tree.

How can we fit the McPartlands in here? Prudence is on the James line. Earlier in the Blog, I had mentioned John Peyton Frazer as a not likely person of interest. I’ll re-consider him here:

What if John had two other daughters: Margaret and Ann? They would fit in. The problem with this is that I have a baptism of and Ann and a Hannah already in 1823 that may fit the bill. They were born to an Archibald and a James Frazer respectively. There are many possibilities. One would be that the match is through the Peyton side.

The Anne above had a White mother. Perhaps Catherine Peyton had a sister than married a White and had Anne? What if the James above was an unknown James Line descendant? He would fit the bill also.

Here is the simple portrayal of my first scenario:

Here I just mushed the two trees together where this could be seen. In this scenario, The Frazer on the McPartland part would be John Peyton Frazer (or perhaps the James that I know little about). That would make Prudence, Charlene, Karen and Chris 4th cousins, once removed. Under this scenario, Paul and my family fall out from DNA matching as we are a generation or two below the McPartlands.

Joanna’s TG – Chromosome 15

This figure shows Charlene’s matches with Joanna and her sister Janet. After that is Joanna’s cousin Betty. Finally is my cousin Paul. The green section is not a TG as Janet and her sister only count as one in a TG. The yellow section is a TG. Paul does not appear to be in the TG. Is this showing us that Paul’s match with Charlene is on a different line than Joanna’s TG?

Time for my two family mush move (again for illustration purposes only):

This would be a scenario similar to the Prudence TG above (except I forgot to add the ?????). In this scenario the relationship would be 3rd cousin twice removed. This is slightly closer than the 4th cousin once removed Prudence TG scenario.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The addition of Charlene’s McPartland/Frazer DNA to gedmatch has resulted in some interesting comparisons
  • The X match between the McPartlands and my family gives a strong indication of a match along the Frazer line.
  • This X match has also been backed up by a four way Triangulation group between two McPartland families and two Frazer families (my family and my cousin Paul)
  • I used a new (to me) technique called the mush move. This is where in a TG I mush the two trees together.
  • Even thought the connection was not proven, it gives an indication of where the connection likely is.
  • In the comparison between the Prudence TG and the Joanna TG, it shows that Joanna’s higher level of DNA matches are the result of a likely closer relationship with the McPartlands.
  • The mush move technique is helpful in seeing possible links between families as well as possible problems of links between families.
  • In the beginning of the Blog, I was favoring an Archibald link between the McPartlands and the Frazers. At the end of the Blog, I was favoring the James Line. It seems like the existing paper genealogy favors Archibald Line and that the DNA seems to favor a James Line connection. One possible way to reconcile the two would be to have James (wife of Margaret) be the missing James Line Frazer. In that scenario James’ eldest daughter Margaret (my ancestor) would have been named after her mother which would have been traditional.
  • Perhaps more research will bring something to light concerning James Frazer who married Margaret and had Hannah in 1823.

Determining Whether a Match Is Irish Or French Canadian By Visual Phasing

In this Blog I will look at a DNA match that my in-laws have. I would like to know whether the match is Irish or French Canadian. I will use Visual Phasing of my father in law and his two sisters’ DNA match to try to figure that out.

Irish at First Look

Something caught my attention with one of my father in law’s matches at FTDNA. My father in law Richard’s match Ann had this tantalizing detail under her Ancestral Surnames:

White (County Waterford Ireland to New Brunswick Canada)

I had recently found out, with the help of DNA and DNA researchers, that my father in law’s immigrant ancestor had shipped out from Waterford to New Brunswick. I have very few DNA matches for my father in law on this Irish side that I have identified. Most of the matches are French Canadian.

Irish or French Canadian?

At first, I didn’t notice other French Canadian names in Ann’s ancestry. However, after finding out she was listed at Gedmatch and Ancestry, I looked at her Tree and did see some French Canadians.

Visual Phasing

I do have DNA from my father in law Richard and his two sisters Lorraine and Virginia. So perhaps Visual Phasing will give and answer to the question whether the match with Ann is French Canadian or Irish. Ann’s best match to Richard, Lorraine and Virginia is on Chromosome 9:

Lorraine has the largest match above followed by Richard and Virginia. It looks like Richard and Virginia have crossovers at about position 107M.

I have used MS Word for phasing, but it wasn’t the best. PowerPoint worked well, but lately I have preferred using Excel. First I cut and paste the comparison of the my 3 in-laws into Excel.

Then I add the crossover points for the three siblings:

At first I thought that the first crossover belonged to Richard. however, there is a short break in the Lorraine V. Virginia comparison, so that adds an additional first crossover for Virginia. Actually the Virginia/Richard should be Virginia/Lorraine. There are likely 2 close crossovers there. I ignored the last small match between Lorraine and Virginia as there wasn’t anything going on in the comparisons above and below that match. Next I add the locations of the crossovers:

Lorraine and Richard have the largest Fully Identical Region (FIR) shown in green. I map that with the same two colors for Lorraine and Richard:

Lorraine only has two crossovers, so we extend her colors all the way to her left crossover and on the right to her crossover (L):

As Lorraine only had two crossovers, this perhaps explains why she had the largest match with Ann on Chromosome 9. Next, I fill in FIRs and Regions that don’t match (shown as red in the Gedmatch comparisons) with corresponding colors:

Unfortunately, that lead to a bit of a dead end. Instead, I’ll try starting with the Richard and Virginia FIR on the bottom comparison:

This version looks better. Next we choose a Half Identical Region (HIR) shown as yellow above. The longest one starts at position 14 between Lorraine and Virginia. A HIR maps as matching only one color and not matching the other.

Above, I chose for Lorraine and Virginia to match on the green and not match on purple and yellow. That is how the HIR is represented. I can then extend Lorraine’s purple and green to her crossover (L) on the right and fill in more FIRs and non-matching areas:

Now, except for the two ends of Virginia and Richard, I have a four grandparent map represented by four colors. Next, we have to identify the grandparents.

The Pouliot French Canadian Connection

One of my in-laws’ grandparents is a French Canadian Pouliot. Fortunately, my in-laws have a Pouliot cousin named Fred. Fred’s sister has also tested. Here is Fred’s matches with Virginia (78-83.5 and 107-110) and Richard (107-115).

Here is Fred’s sister’s matches with Virginia, Richard, and Lorraine.

Note that Lorraine only has one small match with Fred’s Pouliot sister. This is leading me to believe that the match with Ann is on the Irish side. Can we use these Pouliot matches to identify our blank map above? I think we can. The 2 green matches above are for Virginia and Richard at 17-31M. The only place between 17 and 31 where Fred’s sister could match Virginia and Richard, but not Lorraine is on the yellow. If the match were on the green segments, Fred’s sister would have had to have matched all three siblings at that location. Note that mapping out the smaller matches should also be on the yellow segments.

I should point out that my in-law’s had a father of Irish descent and mother of French Canadian descent. This means that both their paternal grandparents were Irish and both their maternal grandparents were French Canadian. As Pouliot is the maternal grandfather, that sets the maternal side of the map as yellow and purple. That also sets purple as the other maternal grandparent: LeFevre. Further, salmon and green now represent the paternal Irish grandparents.

So Is Ann a French Canadian or Irish Match?

Although I was leaning toward the Irish earlier, I now think that the match is French Canadian. Take another look at the match between Ann and Lorraine, Richard and Virginia:

The pattern looks a lot like the purple LeFevre segments. Lorraine’s larger match is on top. Richard’s green match stops where the purple LeFevre segment stops. Virginia’s smaller blue match starts where the purple Lefevre segment starts again. I’ll put the matches in the same order as Gedmatch to make it easier to see:

If Ann were to have matched on the green paternal grandparent area, there would have have to have been three equal matches in that region shown on the Gedmatch browser.

The fact that Ann did not match with the French Canadian Pouliot grandparent did not mean that she was an Irish match. In this case, it meant that she matched the other French Canadian Grandparent.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Visual Phasing can help map an unknown match to a grandparent.
  • That phasing needs to be in conjunction with at least one known cousin to identify a grandparent.
  • These results help to know where to invest genealogical research time. There is no sense in barking up the wrong tree.

An Updated Z17911 Hartley STR Tree

In my last Blog on the subject, I wrote about a Hartley Z17911 STR Tree. Since that time, I created a broader Z17911 STR Tree. However, that broader tree was not the best idea. Soon after creating that tree, I found out that at least one person in that tree was actually in a new SNP group further downstream from Z17911. This was based on Big Y and SNP testing. Within not too long from creating my tree, the SNP tree as created by Jared Smith went from this:

to this:

The link to Jared’s Website is here.

So, while Goff appeared previously to be in my SNP group, in fact, he was not. He was as far as 4 SNPs away. That means that any closeness in STRs could have been coincidental. When comparing SNPs and STRs, the rule is that SNPs take precedence.

A STR Tree for Hartleys Only

At this point, it seems to make sense to create a Hartley only STR tree. There is still no guarantee that Hartleys that are related to me by STRs will have the same SNP results as me. However, I think that it is more likely than not that they will.

Since my previous Blog, there have been two new Hartley STR testers. I have the results for one of those that tested at 67 STRs and one I don’t have results for yet who tested at 111 STRs. Previously, there was one other Hartley testing at 111 STRs. I have had my STRs tested indirectly through the BigY test. YFull analyzed 500 of my STRs – although some of the results were inconclusive. That means that there are three Hartleys with about 111 STRs tested, but I only have the results for two. I should be able to create a very simple tree from that.

The First Ever Hartley 111 STR Tree

At least I think it is the first. Those in the group I’ll call West Yorkshire Hartley,  and me. My ancestors are from Lancashire, so I’ll be Lancashire Hartley. I think that this will be interesting as I feel that the Lancashire Hartleys predated the Hartleys for West Yorkshire. However, I get the impression that my Hartley YDNA administrator favors an earlier date for the West Yorkshire Hartleys. Here are the differences in 111 STRs between a West Yorkshire Hartley and a Lancashire Hartley:

There are a few interesting things from the numbers above:

  • The 16357 Mode is the SNP above Z17911, so it would be older.
  • STR 449 could be a back mutation. It goes from 32 to 31 and back to 32 for West Yorkshire Hartley.
  • The 455 STR has an orange number above it. That refers to the slowest STR mutation rate. As that is the slowest STR rate and my result is the same as the 455 modes, I infer that my STR test represents the older Hartley version. However, a sample of 2 is not much.
  • I am a GD of 14 from the West Yorkshire Hartley.
  • Both the West Yorkshire and the Lancashire Hartley are a GD of 7 from the Z17911 mode. That would have given us a tie for the oldest STR profile if we hadn’t considered the effect of mutation rates.
The simple 111 STR Hartley tree

This Tree is a bit on the conceptual side. However, it does point out some things:

  • These two Hartleys likely descend from a common Hartley. However, at this stage, we don’t have the 111 STR Mode for that common Hartley.
  • The STR mutations are therefor shown to Z17911 rather than to a common Hartley.
  • As mentioned above, I favor the theory that the West Yorkshire Hartley Line originated in Lancashire. This is partly based on something called the founder effect. That means that due to the large number of Hartleys in the Colne/Trawden area, it is possible that the area was a founding area for the Hartleys. However, the distance between the Lancashire and West Yorkshire Hartleys is not far.
  • I did not include all the STRs for simplicity. The slowest marker is shown in orange.
  • The three last slower moving STRs (540, 445 and 1B07) are in the 111 panel, so will not show up in the 67 STR analysis.
  • I have the year of 1075 (125 years per STR mutation) shown above. This is supposed to represent a difference of 7 GD. However, I don’t know if that date should represent the Hartley Mode or the Z179111 Mode. If the date were to represent the Hartley mode, then that would likely be at the beginning of when Surnames were beginning to come into use.
  • As the overall GD difference between the two Hartleys is 14, I don’t see how the difference to a common Hartley ancestor could be less than 7.
  • There is also the possibility that these two Hartleys had a common ancestor just before the implementation of surnames and that due to this relationship, common area of origin or by coincidence they both took on the Hartley surname

Back to 67 STRs

Let’s keep the above tree in mind as we get down to the six Hartleys with 67 STRs tested. Checking the tree I made in a previous Blog, I see that Lancashire Hartley (me) and West Yorkshire Hartley were at opposite sides of that Tree:

In the above tree, Hartley #2 is the same  as West Yorkshire Hartley.

The New 67 STR Hartley Tree

The Hartley we want to add is believed to have Quaker roots in Lancashire in the 1600’s. He also is taking a Big Y test which is exciting. The results for that exploratory YDNA test will likely show us the first Hartley family SNP. I currently have many private SNPs. However, once the Quaker Hartley tests, his SNPs that are in common with my now private SNPs should become the new Hartley family SNPs. Here are the new Hartley 67 STR results:

  • Due to the fact that there are now 6 Hartley results, this causes there to be a tie in some of the modes. In these cases, shown with a 3 in the bottom row, I used the older values. This ended up in also being the lower values.
  • I chose to make a split on STR 455. This STR has the lowest mutation rate of those in the table. I didn’t think it likely that these last three results would have mutated independently.
  • This split also separates the two Lancashire Hartleys from the two West Yorkshire Hartleys
  • Again, the Lancashire Hartleys tend to be the older group as they are closer to the Hartley mode by one GD (STR difference).
  • For these markers the Z17911 Mode is identical with the Hartley Mode. This suggests that Hartley is an old Surname.  This result agrees with the 111 STR analysis above.

A New 67 STR Hartley Tree

Here is my interpretation of the above data in a tree form:

  • The Hartley Mode results are shown in 2 boxes at the top of the Tree. This is meant to represent a common Hartley signature or the signature of a common Hartley ancestor in the distant past.
  • I split the two branches at the top based on the slow moving STR 455. These two branches appear to represent a Lancashire Hartley Branch and West Yorkshire Hartley Branch
  • On the Lancashire side, Sanchez and Joel are together due to their STR similarities
  • Similarly, Hartley #3 and Bradford West Yorkshire Hartley are together as due to their similarities
  • It appears that the Quaker Hartley’s mutations happened between the Quaker Ancestor and our Hartley tester. However, these mutation would be spread out up to the common Hartley Lancashire ancestor. The same would be true for the Hartley tester with the West Yorkshire ancestor William Hartley. However, his mutations would be spread out up to a common West Yorkshire ancestor under the above scenario.
  • Based on the above point, the Quaker Anc. and Wm. Anc. boxes in the Tree above are not really needed.
  • An early split between these two branches could explain the parallel mutations. For example, Sanchez and W Yorkshire William both have double mutations at location 398b. However, they are shown in different branches and not grouped together. Under my scenario, these two double mutation would have happened independently over a long period of time.
  • Unique mutations are in bold italics.
  • Adding the mutations up the tree gives the GD to the Hartley mode. The double mutations must be counted as two.
  • A rough guess for dating the tree would have the Hartley mode at 1100. The split between Lancashire and West Yorkshire at 1300. The further divisions around 1500. These dates are give or take 100 years or so. The bottom line represents tested Hartleys living today.

Here is the streamlined version of the new Hartley Z17911 Tree with some rough guesses on timeframes:

Summary and Conclusions

  • There would be other ways to draw the 67 STR Hartley Tree. This one seemed most logical to me.
  • The addition of a new Hartley 67 STR tests helped to define a Hartley ancestral mode. It appears to have defined a Lancashire and West Yorkshire branch of Hartleys
  • A pending BigY test should result in one or more Hartley Family SNPs.
  • It is possible that there are unique SNPs for the two Hartley branches shown as coming from Lancashire or West Yorkshire. However, it may take a BigY test from a Hartley from the West Yorkshire Branch to confirm this.

A Z17911 STR Tree

Previously, I wrote a Blog on a STR Tree for Hartleys that were likely Z17911’s. In this Blog, I would like to look at others that have tested to be Z17911 or are likely Z17911 due to STR patterns. Since my last Blog, a lot has been going on in the little area of Z17911.

Z17911 in the L513 Tree

Z17911 is a small group under the L513 Group. L513 is a group under L21 which is a part of R1b. The L513 Tree is presently bursting at the seams:

One of the larger branches of L513 is S5668. That takes up about 2/3 of the lower left of the tree above. Here is a blowup of the Z16357 Branch of S5668.

At the time that I wrote the last blog, Merrick and Thomas were in the same location under an unnamed SNP. Now it has been named as BY11573. The placement of Merrick and Thomas below Z17911 was a result of my Big Y Test. Now Bennett has also taken a Big Y and found to be BY1157.

Enter Jared Smith on the Z17911 Scene

Jared Smith has been a large contributor on the Z17911 scene of late. He tested positive of Z17911 recently and has ordered a Big Y test. He is not to be confused with the Z16357 Smith above. Jared has developed an excellent web page called The R-Z16357 DNA Project. Jared has also created a discussion list for Z16357. Here is Jared’s updated version of the Z16357 Tree:

The part that I am most interested in is Z17911 and BY11573.

My First Attempt at a Z17911 STR Tree

First I took the 15 people listed as having STR results at the FTDNA L513 project. There are 6 that have tested positive for Z17911. There are an additional 9 that the administrator has put into a JM STR Cluster. The administrator figures that based on the STRs, they should also be Z17911’s. According to the administrator, Mike Walsh:

“You can see the “J” people 390=25,26 458=18,19 449=31 446=14. I would call this the “J” STR signature.”

I looked at the significant STRs for the 15 known or suspected Z17911’s and got this:

This was just for the first 37 tested STRs. I have the STR names at the top. I have the mode for L513, S5668 and Z17911. I tried to group the YDNA testers by patterns in their STR values. The GD is the Generational Distance. That means that the Phillips are closer to the Mode and Bullock and Bennett are furthest away. That would mean that Phillips should have the oldest pattern and Bennett the newest.

Here is the tree I built based on the above:

My intention was to have the oldest STR groups branching at the top and the newest branching nearer the bottom. I note that when I built my STR Tree for the Hartleys, I did it the opposite way.

The Problem with my first Z17911 STR tree

The tree was OK based on the way I did it. However, it did not account for one very important thing:

The STRs should account for the fact that the BY11573 SNP derives from Z17911. SNPs are the anchor and STRs may vary. Maurice Gleeson has promoted this type of analysis. In the old days, there were not as many SNPs. Now, due to Big Y type testing, there has been a tsunami of SNPs and it is now possible to incorporate them into STR analysis. When I added the SNPs to my STR chart, I noticed something interesting:

It took a while to see it, but I saw that all the BY11573 men had 13 or more for DYS439. All those who were Z17911 and not positive for BY11573 had a DYS439 of 12. Then I decided to sort my chart by DYS439:

Next I changed the DYS439 Mode for Z17911 from 13 to 12. This created a new oldest line of Gilroy. If DYS439 is the break between Z17911 and BY11573, then Phillips is now in the older, more signature BY11573. The results of a pending Phillips Big Y test will tell us for sure soon whether Phillips is BY11573 positive or not.

More SNP Structure

Jared Smith built a more  detailed SNP tree here based on recent testing information:

Here is the Z17911 part I’m interested in:

I would expect that the STR tree would follow the SNP tree. Here is a simple SNP/STR Tree with a few signature STRs that I have added in on the left top and bottom:

What if DYS439 = 12 is Z17911 and DYS329 = 13 is BY11573?

The Z17911’s I’m talking about are negative for the SNP below of BY11573. Until more testing comes in, that is the out on a tree limb assumption I’m making. Based on that and some other Hartleys that have had the YDNA tested, here is a spreadsheet for Z179111 positive and BY11573 negative people.

This Chart does not show DYS439 as these are all of the above have a value of 12. In the Chart above, I note a Gilroy/Goff/Smith signature of DYS391 = 11 and DYS576 = 16. That leaves the Hartley signature as DYS391 = 10 and DYS576 = 17, 18. I went back to the older S5668 Mode to get a feel for the overall direction of the STR mutations.

Z17911 STR Tree

Here is the tree I drew from the above STRs.

I tried to learn how to make these trees using two different methods, so it gets a bit confusing. In this method, only two lines are allowed to come out of each box. I like that method, but it required me to put in a Hartley Ancestor box under the West Yorkshire Hartley Ancestor box. On the bottom line, Gilroy probably has the oldest Z17911 signature. The Hartleys on the right have the newest signatures. Actually Wm. Hartley going up has the most STR changes (7), so I suppose he would have the most recent STR signature. Jared Smith has noted that I am positive for the SNP A11130, so it will be interesting to see if this is a defining Hartley Family SNP or not. Above I made a guess on the West Yorkshire and Lancashire Hartley split based on the knowledge that one of the Hartleys has West Yorkshire ancestors and that I on the bottom right have Lancashire Hartley ancestors.

Some BY11573 Patterns

I’m not ready to build a BY11573 Tree yet. However, I did note some BY11573 patterns.

Interestingly, most of the places where I found patterns were on the BY11573 positive people shown in darker blue above. If I were to draw a 37 STR BY11573 Tree at this time, it would just include those above highlighted in blue. The actual list of names was taken from Jared’s website and includes other names.

Next Steps

Next we wait for pending tests to come in and others who may decide to test. We are also awaiting analysis of the Bennett Big Y test from Alex Williamson at the L513 Page of the Big Tree.

Beth’s Hartley DNA

In this Blog, I will be looking at Beth’s autosomal DNA. That is the DNA that she got from both her parents. However, I am more interested in Beth’s father’s mother’s DNA as she was a Hartley and the DNA that we share would be Hartley DNA.

Hartley Tree of DNA Testers

Here are those closer relatives that have had their DNA tested and uploaded to Gedmatch.com:

Here Hartley is shown as green and Snells are shown as yellow. The DNA testers are in gold. Any DNA that the four DNA testers have in common will belong to James Hartley and Annie Snell. However, it will be difficult to tell which. Any DNA that Patricia and Beth share could also belong to Charles Nute which Jim and my family will not share. Here is an example of that on Chromosome 1.

Here is a photo believed to be Mary Hartley with her sister Nellie:

Hartley and Nute DNA On Chromosome 1

This is a Chromosome browser from Gedmatch.com showing where Beth shares DNA with Heidi (1), Joel (2), Sharon (3), Jim (4) and her first cousin Patricia (5). Is the DNA that Beth and Patricia share Hartley DNA or Nute DNA? To find that out we can look at Patricia’s DNA browser. If she shares DNA in this same area with Heidi and Jim, then it will be Hartley DNA.

The above Browser shows Patricia matching Beth (1), Jim (2) and Joel (3). This means that the DNA that first cousins Beth and Patricia share in Chromosome 1 is Nute DNA. If I were to map Patricia’s maternal Chromosome 1, it would probably look like this:

This shows that Patricia got her green DNA (matching Jim and me) from her Hartley maternal grandmother and her pink DNA (matching Beth) from her Nute maternal grandfather.

First Cousins Vs. Second Cousins

First cousins share two grandparent as their most recent common ancestor. Second cousins share two great grandparents and get their shared DNA from one of them. The first cousin DNA matches will be larger in general. The second cousin matches will tend to be smaller.

First cousins

As shown above, first cousins will share the DNA from two of their grandparents. In the case of Patricia and Beth, those two grandparents will be maternal grandparents. The catch is, that when two first cousins match each other, they won’t know which grandparent they match on. They just know that it will be one or the other. In the example above, we did know which grandparent matched because of other second cousin matches.

second cousins – Two common Great grandparents

Second cousins have as their most recent common ancestors two of their great grandparents. But again they won’t know which great grandparent they are matching on.

The best way to identify which great grandparent the gold people match on would be to have a third cousin that is only related on the Hartley side OR the Snell side. I don’t know of anyone in this category right now, so I’m a bit stuck. I would like to figure out which DNA is which. The main reason is that I’m stuck on the Hartley genealogy. I know that Greenwood’s father was Robert, but before that, I’m not sure. If we could find another Hartley relative going back then it might break down the Hartley brick wall.

Any Other Way To Separate Hartley DNA From Snell DNA?

There is one main difference from James Hartley and Annie Snell above as it relates to their DNA. James was born in Bacup, Lancashire, England and Annie was born in Rochester, Massachusetts. All of James ancestors would also have been born in Lancashire. On the other hand, all of Annie’s ancestors that would produce matches go back to Colonial Southeastern New England. That means that if we find a match that is from England and has no ancestors in the United States, there would be a good chance that that DNA match was through the James Hartley side.

Beth’s X Chromosome

First, let’s look at my family. There is  no Hartley X Chromosome sharing with this group because the X-DNA does not travel from father to son.

Second, look at Beth compared to Jim:

Beth got one of her X Chromosomes from her dad. This was the same X that he got from his mother Mary. Jim got an X Chromosome from his mother. She got it from James Hartley b. 1862 and Annie Snell. So Beth and Jim have James Hartley and Annie Snell in common.

These pieces of blue where Beth and Jim match represent DNA that they share from James Hartley and/or Annie Snell.

How do Patricia and Beth compare by X-DNA?

Next we will look at Patricia and Beth. They will share X-DNA with their grandmother Mary Hartley. Beth’s dad got no X-DNA from his Nute dad, so Beth and Patricia will only match on Mary Hartley.

Note here that Beth and Patricia share some X-DNA from their grandmother that isn’t shared between Jim and Beth on the left side. They also share a longer segment at the right hand side than Beth and Jim shared. However, Jim and Beth shared a segment from 123 to 138M that wasn’t shared between Patricia and Beth.

Let’s See How Patricia Compares With Jim

The only comparison left is between Patricia and Jim.

I compared the three comparisons and came up with a bit of an X Chromosome map. In the first match between Beth and Patricia, I have that match in red. On the very right there are three matches, so I have that as great grandparent 1. We don’t know which great grandparent it is – just that it is the same one. On Jim’s map, it is his grandparent 1. Going from right to left on Jim’s map, he changes from getting his X-DNA from grandparent 1 to grandparent 2. However, Patricia and Beth continue to match on great grandparent 1. In the middle there are no matches, so we can’t tell what is going on. Also the two reds and one blue on the left may actually be two blues and a red as we don’t know how they match with the segments on the right.

Beth’s Hartley (and Snell) Chromosome Map

If we look at all the matches Beth has with Jim, my siblings and me, we will have a map of her known Hartley (and Snell) DNA:

I didn’t use the DNA shared between Patricia and Beth as they are first cousins. As such, they will share Nute and Hartley DNA and it will not be as easy to tell which is which. So second cousins are good for these maps. The red is in the bottom part of each chromosome. That represents the paternal chromosome. We have not mapped any of Beth’s maternal chromosome. If Beth were to look for Hartley or Snell matches, it looks like her best bet would be on Chromosome 12.

For comparison, here is my Chromosome Map.

On my map, the blue corresponds to Beth’s red Hartley DNA. We seem to share a stretch of Hartley DNA on Chromosome 1. But where Beth has a long stretch of Hartley DNA on Chromosome 12, I have none.

 

The Frazer/McPartland Connection: Genealogy and DNA

It all started around 1850 in Ireland when Owen McPartland married Ann Frazer. Owen (or Eugene in the Latin) was Roman Catholic. Ann was from a traditionally Church of Ireland Frazer family. Perhaps this caused waves. Perhaps Owen and Ann had to go out of the area to marry. At any rate, this couple produced offspring and we have the DNA and genealogy to prove it today.

Frazer/McPartland Genealogy

I’ll start in 1901.

This enumeration is for the small Townland of Derreenagan in the North of Roscommon. By this time Owen McPartland has died and left his wife Annie with her son John and their young family. Annie is said to be 78 at the time, so we suppose that she was born in 1823.

Who were the parents of Annie Frazer?

This is a common question that genealogists are always asking. I have two candidates:

This is from a compilation of vital records from Michael of the Frazer study group. These two Frazer girls were born very close in time to each other. I don’t know much about James and Margaret. Richard Frazer born around 1777 was believed to have a son – probably the eldest – named James. Then the Archibald I have above was probably the son of John Frazer born around 1775. Both these families were from the Archibald Line of the Frazers.

Derreenagan

Here is a map of Derreenagan -where the  McPartlands lived:

Derreenagan was in the historical Frazer area. Frazers lived in the surrounding Townlands of Derrycahel, Derreentunny, Shanvoley, Cleragh and Aghrafinigan.

Griffith’s valuation

This Valuation published about 1858 for Derreenagan is important due to the lack of an Irish Census for that time period.

Here we see Edward Frazer as the major occupant. Next to him is Patrick Partland who I take to be a McPartland. William Frazer was the only lease holder for this Townland. He and Edward Frazer were likely brothers from the James line of the Frazer family.

Here is the Griffith’s Valuation Map showing Derreenagan:

Alexander Frazer lived in Shanvoley. Edward Frazer should have the largest house in Derreenagan based on his assessment. I’m not sure where Patrick Partland lived.

McPartland genealogy: Shuffle off to buffalo

One of our Frazer researchers, Joanna, writes:

I have found a couple of baptismal records in Aghanagh Parish (Catholic records) Ballinafad Co Sligo – for Catherine Jane bap 27 Oct 1860 parents Eugene McPartland and Anna Frazer.  Eugene is apparently Latin for Owen.  Also a John McPartland – same church bap 23 Feb 1866 parents Eugene McPartland and Elizabeth Frazer – either she was Anna Elizabeth or there was another marriage to another Frazer in the meantime. 

A review of Ancestry Trees shows:

  • Mary Ann a daughter of Eugene and Ann may have died in Buffalo, New York
  • John McPartland (above b. 1866) had sons James and Patrick who died in the Buffalo. [I have mentioned a Patrick and a James above. Could these be hints for the parents of Owen and Ann?]
  • John had another son Eugene who died in San Francisco
  • Catherine Jane (Jennie) McPartland is the daughter of Owen. Her great granddaughter matches Joanna of the Frazer DNA Study group. Jennie also lived in Buffalo.

Here is a McPartland partial family tree:

The two on the bottom left have taken DNA tests. I didn’t follow the tree down on the right as I don’t believe that this line has tested for DNA. The bottom two McPartland/Frazer descendants are 3rd cousins to each other.

Now, the Frazer/McPartland DNA

I have previously blogged about the X match my two sisters have with Karen. Karen descends from the Maryann McPartland Branch of the family. Karen matches my two sisters by more X Chromosome DNA than her own brother. However, there is a reason for that. Karen’s brother Chris gets no X Chromosome from his dad Walter – only a Y. The match that Frazer descendants have with Karen is through Walter. Karen’s X Chromosome that she got from her father is the entire X Chromosome that he got from his mother Agnes. That helps to explain the large X Chromosome match between Karen and my sisters.

Above are Karen’s X-DNA matches with her mother, my sisters Heidi and Sharon and her brother Chris.

Here is the route of Karen’s X-DNA:

The red arrow indicates that Karen’s DNA from Walter is the same he received from Agnes.

Here is a possible way Heidi and Sharon got their X-DNA from the Frazer side:

Note that the route is a bit longer. Also it goes from Frazer to McMaster and back to Frazer again. Imagine that Margaret Frazer (circled in the bottom right of the image above) had a brother who had Ann Frazer. This could account for the X-DNA match between Frazer and McPartland. Another interesting thing is that Sharon got one X Chromosome from her dad which is the same that he got from his mother. Let’s take it one step further. My grandmother also got an X DNA from her dad which is the same X-DNA that he got from his mother. That should mean that my sister Sharon has a chance to get a large chunk of X-DNA from her 2nd great grandmother Margaret McMaster – which is apparently what happened.

Non-X, Autosomal DNA matches

Here are some of the other matches between the McPartlands and the Frazers:

Jonathan is Joanna’s brother. He is in a small Triangulation Group with Chris and his 2nd cousin Betty – a Frazer descendant. A Triangulation Group (TG) is a sure way of knowing that those in the group have a shared ancestor. However figuring out who that common ancestor is can be difficult.

In the blue area above, there are small matches between Karen and Chris on the McPartland side and Jane, Melissa, Charlotte and Judith in the Frazer DNA Study Group. Charlotte also has an X match along with Sharon, Heidi and Karen, tying the four of them together. It should be noted that some of these common matches may not be Frazers, but spouses of Frazers.

In the green is a larger TG between Karen, Paul and Sharon. Paul is Sharon’s second cousin once removed. That means that Sharon’s second great grandparents are the same as Paul’s 1st great grandparents: George Frazer and Margaret McMaster.

Finally, we see some good matches between Karen, Chris, and Prudence. Prudence descends from Edward Frazer who is believed to have lived in Derreenagan. OK, what was going on in Derreenagan in the 1800’s?

Here is part of the James Line working tree for the Frazer DNA Project:

This is quite a busy chart. Charlotte and Madeline both have X matches to Karen. Edward Frazer who lived in Derreenagan is circled above Prudence. Most of these circles go up to Archibald Frazer b. 1751. I’m not sure how Judith fits in. Probably through James Frazer at the top or a Frazer spouse’s Line.

I don’t have Jane on this Chart as she is on the Archibald Line – a different chart. I’m not sure how Melissa fits in. I had a note that she may be related to Margaret Frazer.

So, Where Are We?

The above genealogy and DNA have given a lot of food for thought:

  • My genealogy summary left me looking at two sets of parents for Ann Frazer that appear to be on the Archibald Line of the Frazers
  • The DNA matches seem to favor the James Line of the Frazers (Jonathan, Joanna, Betty, Charlotte, Madeline, Judith and Prudence)
  • If the match is through a collateral Frazer spouse, then that could account for both lines. Unfortunately, many of the Frazer spouses names are missing
  • The largish match between Prudence and McPartand descendants Karen and Chris looks suspicious given that Prudence’s ancestor probably lived next to the McPartlands.
  • Further, there was a Patrick Partland in Derreenagan. He could be the father of Owen/Eugene McPartland.

 

My First 1st Cousin DNA Results: Part 3 – The X Chromosome

In my first Blog about Cousin Rusty’s DNA matches, I discussed some maternal matches. I also looked at how first cousin DNA matches worked. In my second Blog about Rusty, I looked at the more complicated matching of nephew to aunt. In this Blog, I would like to look at the X Chromosome.

Here is how Rusty matches my family on the X Chromosome as shown in the Gedmatch Browser:

These are his matches with:

  1. Mom
  2. Sister Heidi
  3. Me (Joel)
  4. Sister Sharon
  5. Brother Jonathan

Here is an X Chromosome Map produced by M MacNeill before my brother Jonathan’s DNA results were in. He made this using our raw DNA results.

The blue is the maternal side where there are matches with Rusty. The red is what my sisters inherited on the Hartley side. MacNeill did not designate the blue by grandparent. The choices for maternal grandparents here are Alexander Rathfelder and Emma Lentz. Let’s try to figure out which is which.

Speaking of Emma and Alexander, here they are with their five children:

Rusty’s mom is the girl on the left and my mom is the girl on the right.

The X Path

The X Chromosome follows a particular path from our ancestors. The rule is that the X DNA never travels from male to male. So that means that two males in a path will break the X chain. Here are my top picks for X Chromosome matches:

The matches in the browser were through the green people up to Rathfelder and Lentz. Judy has the potential to match on the Lentz/Nicholson side. Joshua could also have shared X, though he is further down the ladder. Carolyn could match on the Nicholson side.

Carolyn’s Nicholson X DNA

I’ll look at Carolyn’s X DNA matches.

She matches:

  1. My Mom
  2. Sharon from 106672721 to 113198089 (7.056 cM)
  3. Jonathan from 139830607 to 143171128 (11.542 cM)
  4. Judith
  5. Joan

Based on Sharon’s small match, I would initially say that the darker blue is Lentz and the lighter is Rathfelder on the MacNeill Map. However, the problem with that theory is that I should match Carolyn also in that area. If I reduce the match level, I do have a match there with Carolyn:

Mapping Jonathan’s X

In order to be sure, we need to map Jonathan’s X. He has a larger X match with Carolyn than Sharon does – even though it looks smaller on the browser. Here is some previous X Mapping I had done for my sister Sharon (S), me Joel (J) and my sister Heidi (H).

It looks like I had already guessed that orange would be Lentz. Recall that Sharon’s (S) match with Carolyn was 106-113 and mine was 109-113 within the orange segments. When I compare Jon to his siblings, it looks like he has 3 crossovers:

As we are only looking at Jon’s maternal Chromosome, we are looking at the blue areas on the Chromosome Browser where he matches his siblings and the non-blue areas where he does not match his siblings.

This was pretty easy. I started on the right. Jon matches all his siblings, so that has to be green. Going from right to left, the segments alternate between green and orange. The only ambiguous part is on the left hand side where Heidi has a small orange Lentz segment. However, if I lower the thresholds for Jon’s match with Heidi, I get this left side match which clears up the ambiguity:

Gedmatch normally has a SNP cutoff at 500, but apparently they have not lowered that for the X One to One match and must still have a 700 SNP cutoff.

Now back to Jon’s match with Carolyn. I had noted above that it was at position 140 to 143. That just fits in to Jon’s Lentz mapped orange segment as shown by the red arrow below:

This confirms that yellow should indeed be assigned to Lentz. That means that green has to be Rathfelder – the only other maternal grandparent.

Now I’ll bring Rusty back into the picture with his matches to my family:

  • Rusty’s match with my mom is line 1
  • Heidi is line 2. You can see her Lentz indent on the left of her match with Rusty.
  • Joel is line 3. You can see the space left by Lentz in the middle of my large match with Rusty
  • Sharon is 4. Her match with Rusty stops at her Lentz (orange) segment
  • The newly mapped Jonathan is 5. He matches Rusty on his green Rathfelder segments.

So would we be able to guess Rusty’s X Map?

Rusty’s X Chromosome is either mostly or all Rathfelder. The part I’m unsure of is between 120 and 140 cM. The reason that I think that it might be Rathfelder is because Carolyn matches Judith and Joan in that segment and Rusty does not match any of those three by the X Chromosome. However, as Carolyn’s Nicholson matches go back at least another generation, that is not proof.

Looking at the ??????? Gap

I’m curious as to what is happening where Rusty and my mom don’t match. The answer to this goes back a generation. Alexander Rathfelder’s parents were Rathfelder and Gangnus. My mom and Rusty’s mom had two different X Chromosome maps showing how they got their X DNA from their grandparents. However, on their paternal side, their Rathfelder father gave them a full X Chromosome unchanged from his mother Maria Gangnus.

Here is Maria:

So due to the fact that Rusty’s mom and my mom both have the same paternal grandmother DNA on the entire length of their X Chromosome, that means that Rusty cannot have Rathfelder aka Gangnus DNA from 120 to 140. If he did, then he would have to show a match to my mother.

The result of our little thought experiment is that Rusty has to have Lentz DNA. Here is a possible scenario of what could have happened. This shows Rusty with his maternal grandparents. Then we see Rusty’s mom and my mom with their X Chromosome grandparents. Maria Gangnus is Alexander Rathfelder’s mother and Emma Lentz’s parents are George Jacob Lentz and Annie Nicholson.

What we know for sure is that Rusty’s mom and my mom both had a full X Chromosome from their paternal grandmother, Maria Gangnus. The only place for there to be difference is on my mom’s and Rusty’s mom’s maternal X Chromosome. Suppose that Rusty’s mom got her DNA from her maternal Nicholson grandmother and my mom got her DNA from her maternal Lentz grandfather. That would be why Rusty’s Lentz DNA would not match my Lentz DNA or my sibling’s Lentz DNA. We only got the X DNA that we received from our mothers and these mothers got DNA from different maternal grandparents in this location. We now know what Rusty’s X Chromosome map looks like. We don’t know what our mother’s maternal X DNA looks like. We only know they had DNA from different maternal grandparents from 120M to 140M.

First 1st Cousin DNA Results: Part 2 – Trying to Explain Aunt/Nephew Matches

First, Another Look at First Cousins

In my last Blog I took a first look at my 1st cousin, Rusty’s DNA. I went into some detail on how he matched on a few of the lines we have in common. I looked at how Rusty compared to me and my siblings on Chromosome 16. Here is a visual summary of that comparison:

The first image is a chromosome map of the DNA that my 3 siblings and I got from our four grandparents. The red and yellow grandparents are the maternal ones shared with Rusty. The second image shows Rusty’s matches with me and my 3 siblings. Note that the long segments shared are similar to the Lentz segments on the left and the Rathfelder segments on the right. Note that as Rusty and my siblings are of the same generation, we share the same long segments with our grandparents. From this, I was able to create a maternal Chromosome Map for Rusty.

As there were a lot a matches, I would assume that the DNA profiles of my mom and Rusty’s mom were somewhat similar to each other on Chromosome 16.

Rusty Compared to His Aunt – My Mom

In the above example, the common ancestors of Rusty and me are our two maternal grandparents. When I compare Rusty and my mom, I will be looking at two different generations.

Here Rusty and my mom share the same common ancestors as me and my mom. However, do Rusty’s and my mom’s shared segments represent my mom’s parents’ or my mom’s grandparents’ DNA?

Does rusty share DNA with my mom’s grandparents (his maternal great grandparents)?

My thinking is that when I compare Rusty to my mom the DNA compared goes up a generation from when I compare Rusty to myself and my siblings. Here is Rusty again at Chromosome 16 compared to my mom:

My mom has a full Lentz and a full Rathfelder Chromosome from her parents. Yet there is a place in the middle of Chromosome 16 where Rusty and my mom do not match. That makes me think that we are comparing my mom’s grandparents with Rusty’s great grandparents. Let’s assume that to be the case. That means we need to bring in another generation.

With what we know of Chromsome 16, Rusty and my mom must share all of the same Lentz next generation up. That would be either Jacob Lentz or Annie Nicholson. The same must be true for the Rathfelder side from position 56M to 88M. However between about 50M and 56M Rusty and my mother must get their DNA from different paternal grandparents of my mom.

a look at chromosome 10

Here is the way I have mapped my mom’s chromosomes using Kitty Munson’s Chromosome Mapper:

The DNA match in purple is my from my mom’s Nicholson only side. It is mapped to William Nicholson and Martha Ellis who were the parents of my mom’s grandmother Annie Nicholson.

First, let’s look at my mom’s matches on Chromosome 10. I had discussed this Chromosome in my previous blog also.

#1 is mom’s match with Carolyn which maps to the Nicholson side. #2 is mom’s match with Rusty. #3 is a small match with Catherine which I’ll ignore for now.

Here are Rusty’s matches:

#1 is Carolyn. #4 in my mom. 2, 3, 5 and 6 are me and my siblings – not so important for this comparison. #7 is Linda (Nicholson descendant) and #8 is Catherine (Rathfelder descendant).

A possible explanation of a maternal aunt/nephew match

I have to admit that this gets a bit confusing.

When we compare my mother to Rusty, we are looking at my mom’s maternal and paternal chromosome. However, the match to Rusty is all on his maternal chromosome. Conceptually, I think that it would look something like this.

The top showing my mom has her 4 grandparents on her maternal and paternal chromosomes. I don’t know how my mom’s paternal side might look, so I made something up there. My mom’s four grandparents are equivalent to Rusty’s 4 great grandparents, but those 4 great grandparents are all on Rusty’s maternal Chromosome. So they are cramped in to a smaller space.Said another way, Rusty’s maternal DNA is alternating between Rathfelder and Lentz. However, that Rathfelder grandparent may be broken up further to two great grandparents of Rathfelder and Gagnus. Likewise the Lentz grandmother may be broken up to Lentz and Nicholson great grandparents.

In the first segment, my mom has Nicholson DNA due to the match with Carolyn. Rusty has a Rathfelder match in that segment. However, as my mom doesn’t also match Catherine in that segment, it must be from a different Rathfelder. My mom’s grandparents were Rathfelder and Gagnus. So here my mom has either one of those grandparents’ DNA and Rusty has the opposite. That is why I have blue for my mom there and green for Rusty.

A final note is that the last small segment match that Rusty has with Catherine cannot be right. Or it cannot be Rathfelder. That is because Rusty’s DNA is alternating  between Rathfelder and Lentz. The last segment has to be Lentz, so there is no room for Rathfelder DNA there. On the other hand, my mother’s #3 match is with Catherine, which is a Rathfelder match. She has room for that match along with her Nicholson match as she has a maternal and paternal chromosome to match on.

Summary

  • In a 1st cousin match, the DNA from my two grandparents are compared to the same DNA that my first cousin got from those same two grandparents
  • In a nephew/aunt match, the great grandparents of the nephew are compared to the grandparents of the Aunt
  • The aunt, however, has her 4 grandparents’ DNA on 2 chromosomes
  • The nephew has his 4 great grandparents’ DNA On only one chromosome
  • Those 4 great grandparents have to fit within the appropriate alternating grandparents of the newphew

The Segmentology Blog, Segments: Bottom-Up explains it well. Here is an image from that Blog:

In my example above, this Segmentology image would be like Rusty’s maternal DNA. In Rusty’s grandparent look, his maternal DNA alternates between Rathfelder and Lentz. However, in his great grandparent look, the DNA may be split up between the parents of those grandparents within the crossovers of the grandparent look.

For my mom, I am just looking at her grandparents. However, there will be two lines of grandparents: maternal and paternal for her. Also the crossover points will in most cases be different than for Rusty as he got his DNA from his mom – my mom’s sister.