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.

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.

 

 

My First 1st Cousin DNA Results

Not too long ago, I was at a car dealer with my wife picking up her new car. I checked my email on my phone and was surprised that I had gotten an email from FTDNA saying that my mom had a new close relative. I checked and it was my first cousin on my mother’s side, Rusty. I have been looking at DNA for quite some time now and have written over 100 Blogs, but this was my first 1st cousin DNA results. As a first cousin Rusty’s DNA matches are comparable to mine on my mother’s side.

Rusty on the Family Tree

Here is the family tree on my mother’s side with those that have had their DNA tested:

Rusty matches on my mother’s side. This includes the Rathfelder (blue), Lentz (yellow) and Nicholson (red) families. As Rusty got different DNA from his mom that my 3 siblings and I got from my mom, he will have some of the same and some different matches with all those that have tested so far.

Rusty’s 1st Cousin Matches

I’ll look at my matches with Rusty first as they are more straightforward than his matches with my mom. At least we are both in the same generation. Rusty matches me at 1,164 cM as reported at Gedmatch which is also on the high side for a first cousin. Here is how my matches with Rusty look like on the FTDNA browser:

By the looks of it, Rusty and I light up about half of the positions of the chromosomes.

Why do Rusty and I match as we do?

I like to look at DNA matches in terms of grandparents. That is because I have tried to map all my ancestral DNA to my four grandparents. For example, here is how I have used a visual method to map to my 4 grandparents on Chromosome 10. I am using Chromosome 10 as it comes up later in this Blog:

I will assume that I did the visual phasing correctly. I have the raw data to check, so it can be corrected later if it isn’t 100% right. My sister Sharon is in the first row, Heidi in the second, I’m in the third row and my brother Jon is in the fourth row. The numbers at the bottom are the rough positions of the crossovers. My siblings and I will match Rusty on the blue and purple segments only (maternal side). Looking back up at the FTDNA browser above for Chromosome 10, it shows that I match Rusty at three segments. It is clear that the third match must be a Rathfelder segment match as a little more than half of my Chromosome 10 is mapped to Rathfelder on the right side.

Let’s see how Rusty matches with me and my siblings on Chromosome 10.

This points out an error in my original visual mapping. Based on these matches with Rusty I should be able to correct my Chromosome Map. First, this shows on the right segment, that Rusty matches me (#4) and not my three siblings. That means that my three siblings will have different DNA than me on the maternal side. Note above that difference is not reflected in my Chromosome Map. I have purple Rathfelder mapped to all my siblings on the maternal side. Previous work that I’ve done has shown that my three siblings have a small Rathfelder match at the right end of this Chromosome and I do not. That match is between 132 and 135M. I take that to mean that my yellow segment match above with Rusty must be on the Lentz side and not the Rathfelder side. So, back to the drawing board.

Checking my laptop, I see that I had done a raw DNA analysis on Chromosome 10 in the past. I went back and checked the raw data and found that I had missed my last maternal crossover. I just added that one in to get this corrected Chromosome 10 Map.  The map format below was developed by M MacNeill [prairielad_genealogy@hotmail.com].

The segment that I had missed was the yellow Lentz portion of DNA to the right of my Chromosome. A few points from comparing the Chromosome Map above to Rusty’s matches with the map:

  • Chromosome 10 was heavy on Lentz DNA for me and my 3 siblings (yellow vs. Rathfelder brown)
  • As a result, Rusty only matches me and my siblngs on Lentz DNA
  • Other Chromosomes would likely yield Rathfelder DNA
  • By comparing Rusty matches to my family to all my family’s Chromosome maps, I could create a spotty Chromosome map for Rusty on some chromosomes and a more complete one on others (see below)
  • Rusty’s match with me was helpful in finding a crossover I had missed on my Chromosome 10 Map on the maternal side.
A simpler Chromosome (16)

Perhaps this example is clearer. I will show my visual phasing map followed by Rusty’s matches to my siblings:

 

  1. Heidi
  2. Jon
  3. Joel
  4. Sharon

Unfortunately, the order of my siblings is different in the two representations. I am the only one in the same relative position in both representations. A few observations:

  • Rusty’s inherited DNA from his maternal grandparents lined up well with the my family’s inherited DNA on the maternal side.
  • Rusty’s matches with me and my siblings confirms the visual mapping that I have done for me and my siblings on Chromosome 10
  • Rusty appears to have two large segments of DNA on his maternal side. The larger one on the left is from the Lentz side and the slightly smaller DNA segment on the right side of Chromosome 16 is from our shared Rathfelder side.
  • Rusty’s crossover from Lentz to Rathfelder DNA appears to be at the abrupt end of his first bunch of matches to me and my siblings at about 49.7M.

This figure is a likely representation of Rusty’s Chromosome 16 on his mother’s side. That means that any matches he has on Chromosome 16 in the red part before position 49.7M will be on his Lentz side and any matches he has in the yellow part of Chromosome 16 will be on his Rathfelder side.

Rusty’s Aunt Match

According to the ISOGG web page, Rusty should match my mom (his aunt) and my 3 siblings and me as follows:

This is a visual show of how Rusty matches my mom:

He lights up the browser pretty well. At FTDNA he shows a match of 2,085 cM. This is close to what Gedmatch shows at 2,160.6 cM. Both of these matches are over the reported average of 1744 cM for an aunt/nephew relationship.

Rusty and Rathfelder DNA

Rathfelders are difficult to find. So far, I have found one other person that tested at AncestryDNA who I have been able to link up to the Rathfelders. I wrote about that Rathfelder match in two Blogs. Here is a link to the second Blog. As best as I can tell, the person I found has the following link to Rusty and my family:

I find it unusual that a couple would give the same name (Johann Georg) to two of their sons. Also to make life confusing, the father, Hans Jerg, was also known as Johann Georg. The chart above shows the person I found (Astrid) as a 4th cousin to my mom and a 4th cousin, once removed to my second cousin Catherine, my family and 1st cousin Rusty.

A Rathfelder Triangulation Group

Here is how Astrid matches my mom and Rusty on Chromosome 17.

Astrid, my mom and Rusty are in a Triangulation Group as they all match each other at least in the green area above. Assuming I have the genealogy right, this points back to an early Rathfelder ancestor:

This shows that the shared Chromosome 17 DNA came from Hans Jerg Rathfelder and his wife. This couple were among some of the early settlers of Hirschenhof which was a German colony in Latvia.

Rusty’s Lentz and Nicholson DNA

I only have one distant cousin, Al,  that matches only on the Lentz line. This person does not match Rusty at standard thresholds, so I’ll be mostly looking at Rusty’s Nicholson DNA shown in red below.

On the chart above, Judy and Joshua descend from the Lentz and Nicholson sides. Joan, Linda, Carolyn and Nigel descend from Nicholsons. That means that any match Rusty has with those on the red lines should be a Nicholson match.

Rusty’s oldest Nicholson dna

Rusty matches my mom and Nigel on Chromosome 1. This represents the DNA he got from John Nicholson who was baptized 1765 and his wife Sarah Staniforth.

The browser above shows Rusty’s DNA match with my mom (#1) and Nigel (#2). My mom and my family had a large match with Nigel. So large, in fact, that some on the ISOGG Facebook Page questioned whether that large match could be possible. Here is my Blog about Nigel. Rusty has a more moderate level DNA match and forms a Triangulation Group between himself, my mom and Nigel.

William Nicholson dna

Our shared ancestor, William Nicholson moved his family from Sheffield England to Philadelphia around 1869. Rusty matches Carolyn, Joan and Linda on quite a few Chromosomes. So if I was to map Rusty’s Chromosomes, wherever he matches these three I would map that DNA back to William Nicholson and his wife Martha Ellis. Here is a typical match that Rusty has with my mom (#1) and Joan (#2):

The green segment on Line 2 represents Rusty’s match with Joan and DNA that he got from William Nicholson and his wife.

Chromosome 10

Here is an interesting situation where Rusty matches his 2nd cousin once removed Carolyn (#1) for a longer segment (in orange) than his Aunt – my mom (#2):

The green segment is Rusty’s match with Linda (#3). Linda and Carolyn are both cousins on the Nicholson side. What does this mean? Let’s see how Carolyn matches my mom. In the places where she matches my mom, there would be triangulation:

Here, my mom matches Carolyn in the same segments where Rusty matches my mom. That leaves the blank on Line 2 above between the blue and yellow segment. Why doesn’t Rusty match my mom in the blank spot? Note that above and below on Lines 1 and 3 that has to be Nicholson DNA due to those Rusty is matching. Here is how I see it.

My mom got her DNA on her maternal side from her Lentz and Nicholson grandparents. In the area that Rusty doesn’t match her by Nicholson DNA, my mom must have Lentz DNA.

a Closer look at Chromosome 10

Here is a closer look at some of the closer Nicholson and Lentz relationships:

Here is how the DNA tested people above match each other by the numbers on Chromosome 10:

In the above spreadsheet, the three sections in gold are Triangulation Groups.

Summary and Further Study

Well this Blog wore me out a bit, so I’ll stop here. There is quite a bit to a first cousin’s DNA:

  • I found that Rusty had above average matches to me and my siblings. In addition, he had above average matches to my mom.
  • I looked at how Rusty’s match helped correct an omission I had on my Chromosome 10 Map.
  • Based on my maps, it should be easy to tell what maternal grandparent line Rusty’s matches are when they match with those on my family’s Chromosome Maps.
For Further Study
  • I may look more into what makes up an Aunt/nephew match with Rusty and my mom.
  • I’d like to look at Rusty’s X Chromosome matches.
  • Anything else that happens to come up as I’m blogging

A Shared Ancestry Hint of a French Canadian 8th Cousin and Visual Mapping

Recently I have been looking at my wife’s French Canadian Pouliot ancestry and DNA. My thought has been to find a Shared Ancestor Hint (SAH) at AncestryDNA. Then if the person in the Ancestry hint has uploaded their results to Gedmatch, I would be able to analyze those results. In this case, I would like to check using visual phasing to determine whether the match is on the Pouliot line or another line.

Here is the SAH:

Lorraine is my wife’s paternal Aunt. Here is what the DNA looks like at AncestryDNA:

Here is how the match looks like at At Gedmatch,

Actually, based on this person’s email, there are 2 matches. This is the Ancestry one. The other test was at 23andme. They are likely the same person. This AncestryDNA match got higher results perhaps due to the comparison within the same company.

The Goal: Compare Gedmatch, AncestryDNA and Visual Mapping

My goal as stated above is to map one or more of the matching Chromosomes to see if the match along the Pouliot line is likely. I do have two Pouliot 2nd cousins to Aunt Lorraine which will help. It would make sense to map the Chromosomes where they match Aunt Lorraine. Here is how Fred, who is a Pouliot 2nd cousin to Lorraine matches Lorraine on Chromosomes 4:

  1. Richard, my father in law
  2. Richard’s sister Lorraine
  3. Richard’s sister Virginia

Now To Visually Map Richard, Lorraine and Virginia On Chromosome 4

The good news is that there is a lot of Pouliot DNA for mapping this Chromosome. The bad news is that the original Chromosome match between Ann and Lorraine was fairly small.

First I compare the 3 siblings using the Gedmatch Chromosome Browser:

In the image above, I’ve added the crossovers and the approximate locations on the Chromosome where they occur. There are a lot of crossovers bunched up on the right side. Next I assign the crossovers to a particular sibling. Note that I added two crossovers that I missed in the previous image:

  • Virginia has 109 crossovers
  • Richard has 3
  • Lorraine has 4 for a total of 17 crossovers. I have a question mark my Lorraine’s last crossover as I’m not sure if there is one there or not.

Next I map the 3 siblings based on crossover, Fully Identical Regions (FIRs in green), Half Identical Regions (HIRs in yellow) and the places where the siblings don’t match in red.

I’ll start in the middle of the Chromosome where Lorraine and Virginia have a FIR going over two segments (before positions 120):

This gets us started. The DNA that these 3 siblings inherited from two of their same grandparents are represented by green and purple and extend to each of their crossover lines. Next, I look for other FIRs or places where the siblings don’t match. For example, Richard and Virginia don’t match between 59 and 84, so I’ll add two new colors to Virginia, to show the DNA she got from the other two grandparents.

Here it looks like I’m stuck for now:

Now I add a HIR. Our Gedmatch match between Lorraine and Ann was between 33 and 40, so I’ll add one for Lorraine there.

I did this by arbitrarily extending one of Lorraine’s colors to the left and choosing another color to add so Lorraine and Richard would be HIR between 31 and 84. Then I extended those colors to the left as Lorraine had no crossovers on the left side of the Chromosome. Based on this HIR, I can fill in some more on the left had side:

Now I have a lot of the left side of Chromosome 4 mapped out. I also have Fred who is a second cousin on the Pouliot side. I’ll mush all the information together and then try to figure out what color Pouliot is:

Here I’m leaning toward a purple Pouliot. The reason is that Richard has a purple segment (and Pouliot match) from 4 to 14. Richard, Lorraine and Virginia match Fred from 102-126, but Richard may not be mapped in that area yet. However, Lorraine and Virginia have purple in that segment. In addition, I don’t have positions for the two crossovers between 95 and 120. I can get those from Gedmatch by comparing Richard and Virginia’s FIR at full resolution:

The FIR starts a little after 100M and ends at about 106.5. Those two positions numbers define the two crossovers between 95 and 120. That also confirms that Pouliot is purple. This defines a grandparent and the maternal and paternal sides of the Chromosome as Pouliot is on the maternal side for these three siblings. It also defines the other maternal grandparent (LeFevre) as being the red or maroon color.

Next, I can fill in all the other Pouliot sections provided by these 3 siblings’ Pouliot cousin Fred:

A few notes on the mapping:

  • Virginia didn’t match Pouliot from 4-14 where Richard did so she gets a LeFevre segment there.
  • Virginia also does not match Pouliot from 120 to 135 where her siblings do match Pouliot. So I give her another LeFevre segment there.
  • Virginia starts matching Pouliot again at 172. This points out a crossover location that I mislabeled previously as 177. Corrected above.
  • There is still a few small segments on the right that I haven’t filled in for Virginia and Richard.
Some additional adjustments

A close look shows that between 180 and 185, Lorraine and Richard don’t match. In order to meet the FIRs, HIRs, and no-matches on the right hand side, I came up with this:

I’m not sure if this is totally right on the right hand side, but it seems close. I show Virginia as having nine maternal segments which seems quite unusual. I would like to point out that the match on Chromomse 4 between Lorraine and Ann. Ann did not match Virginia or Richard on Chromosome 4. Those results (and lack of results) are consistent with the mapping above.

Back to the Original Match Between Lorraine and Ann

A big part of this Blog was to determine whether Lorraine’s small Chromosome 4 match with Ann was on a Pouliot segment. After all that mapping, I would say that the match could not have come through Lorraine’s Pouliot side. The largest LeFevre segment between the three siblings belongs to Lorraine between 0 and 95M.

From the above analysis, I made conclude:

  • The 8.6 cM match between Ann and Lorraine is did not come down to Lorraine through the Pouliot side
  • The match is either by chance or on the LeFevre side. There are 15 names in common between Ann and Lorraine. They are all French Canadian names. My assumption would be that I could rule out a DNA match on the paternal (Irish) side.
  • Ann and Lorraine still have matches on 3 other chromosomes.

Summary and Conclusion

  • I was not surprised that this match did not match on the Pouliot side given the inter-relatedness of French Canadian genealogy
  • It was possible that this shared match on Chromosome 4 could have been from the Pouliot side, but it wasn’t.
  • It is best to not assume that a Shared Ancestor Hint and the shared DNA match go back to the same shared ancestor(s)
  • I need to build out these French Canadian lines more at Ancestry
  • The best match between Ann and Lorraine was on Chromosome 19. However, there were no 2nd cousin Pouliot matches on that Chromosome.
  • This Blog satisfied my curiosity on at least one part of the match between Lorraine and Ann and got me to map out Chromosome 4 for these 3 siblings

 

 

 

Using a Triangulated Match With Visual Mapping

This Blog follows up on my recent Blog on Pouliot DNA. My in laws have French Canadian Pouliot ancestry. I was able to find some Triangulation Groups (TGs) using known relatives and a more distant Gedmatch relative, Robert.

Here is the TG in spreadsheet form:

Richard is my father in law. Virginia is his sister. Patricia is their maternal 1st cousin.

Here is the TG in genealogy chart form:

Here is Robert’s match with Richard (1) and Virginia (2) on Chromosome 3:

It looks like I am seeing a crossover for Richard and Virginia already. Can you see them?

My premise in this Blog is that TGs and Visual Mapping should work well together.

Visual Mapping Starts By Comparing At Least Three Siblings

Those siblings are Richard, Lorraine and Virginia:

The crossovers got a little messy at around 151M. There seems to be a lot going on there. I’ll start the mapping by the largest Fully Identical Region (FIR) in green and hope that I can resolve the other mess later.

The blue and green represent the DNA that Lorraine and Virginia received from the same two grandparents in their Fully Identical Region. Lorraine has no crossovers in the first part of the Chromosome, so I expanded her DNA to her first crossover at 155M. Note also above in the match between Lorraine and Richard. I ignored the small match that they had after 70M.

This is what I call the Swiss Cheese part of the Visual Phasing:

adding a HIR to the map

According to Kathy Johnston, I have one shot a creating a HIR. This will set the paternal and maternal sides. I would like to set it between 70 and 133 as I have a known Pouliot match there.

time to look at some cousin matches

At this point I like to look at real world DNA matches with cousins. Here is the visual phasing map with Robert’s matches below. He is a 4th cousin, twice removed to these 3 siblings.

Robert’s longer match (1) is with Richard and the shorter one (2) is with Virginia. That sets the purple as Pouliot. I can imagine Robert’s yellow matches from the Gedamatch Chromosome Browser fitting right into the Visual Phasing Map above the Browser. That means that the large blue stretches can be assigned as LeFevre DNA. I don’t know about the paternal side as there are no reference matches – yet.

Bring in the 1st cousins and nephew

Here John is a nephew, so he may match on the paternal or maternal side. Patricia and Joseph are 1st cousins on the mother’s side. It looks like with all these matches, we should be able to figure out something.

The first thing I notice is that Richard has a maternal crossover at 12M. How do I know this? Because if he didn’t, he would continue to match Patricia and Joseph to 72 as his two sister did.

Here I added in Richards maternal crossover at 12M on the top bar. Then as Richard and Virginia are fully identical from 0-12M, I made their two colors the same in that segment.

Also, as Richard does not match Patricia nor Joseph from 33-60M and Patricia and Joseph match Lorraine and Virginia in that stretch, Richard got his DNA from Pouliot in that region and a green segment can be added below that.

Lorraine matches her 1st cousin Patricia from 157-184M. Assuming the small segment I have before 176M is correct, then the whole maternal Chromosome will be from LeFevre for Lorraine. However, that created an odd result. When I checked my numbers, I see that I had the last crossovers mislabeled. Here are the correct numbers:

This makes sense as I thought that I was seeing more crossovers at higher numbers. Lorraine and Virginia both match Patricia from 190-195. That must be LeFevre if I have it mapped correctly.

This puts Lorraine’s last crossover on the paternal side. Then I put the opposite colors in for Richard as Lorraine and Richard have no match in that area. As Richard has no crossovers in that area, I carried his segments to the left. Lorraine have no match in Lorraine’s last open space. That calls for opposite colors. Then I can fill in Virginia’s teeny tiny blank space as it appears that she doesn’t match Richard there.

Here is the filled in Chromosome 3 with maternal grandparents identified:

Observations

  • The previous Pouliot Triangulation worked well as an aid in mapping this Chromosome and identifying maternal grandparents
  • First cousin maternal matches were a big help in filling in the missing segments and identifying crossovers
  • Lorraine has a long stretch of green which may help in identifying the paternal grandparents.

 

 

Visual Mapping of Butler Chromosome 5 Reveals an Identical By Chance (IBC) AKA False Match

I would like to try to map my in law’s Butler DNA on Chromosome 5. This is based on a rare paternal match that was found at AncestryDNA and cross-referenced at Gedmatch based on similar names and matches.

I have already mapped Chromosome 11 here. I would now like to map Chromosome 5 with the help of one match that my father in law Richard has with a Rooney descendant named Jeanette. That Rooney match is on Richard’s paternal grandmother’s side (Kerivan)

Mapping Chromosome 5

Chromosome 5 is one of the larger chromosomes with 1 being the largest. Now I compare the three Butler siblings: Lorraine; Richard; and Virginia and I add in crossover lines.

I have the locations of the proposed crossovers at the top. Note the smallest match between Lorraine and Virginia. I think that I have the resolution too low for that match, so I will take it out as there is no indication of a change from HIR to FIR (Half Identical Region to Fully Identical Region) or match to non match status in the other sibling comparisons. That will simplify things in the area of 35/38.

Just pretend the match between Lorraine and Virginia at 34 is not there. I will now assign the crossovers to the siblings. The first crossover goes to Richard as he is represented in a FIR (green) to HIR (yellow) change in the 1st comparison and in the HIR to FIR in the 3rd comparison.

The crossover tallies are in:

  • Richard (R) – 5
  • Virginia (V) – 4
  • Lorraine (L) – 2

Actually, I would not be surprised if Lorraine had an additional crossover at the very far right end of the Chromosome, but as it is so small, I am ignoring it for now.

Recall that Richard’s Kerivan Line match was 66-75M. That is probably within the segment R-V ending at 75.5M above. When I compare Lorraine and Richard at full resolution at Gedmatch I get this for Chromosome 5:

This defines Richard’s crossover (from HIR to FIR) and is at about 61M as every ^ is 1M. That means that my assumption about the Rooney/Kerivan match was correct. I am curious to see if I will be able to map the Butler paternal side with just one match.

time to map based on no match, HIR’s and Fir’s

I’ll just start with the large FIR between Lorraine and Richard.

The green FIR above translates to the same blue grandparent DNA on one side and the same green grandparent DNA on the other side for Lorraine and Richard. Then we need to expand these regions of DNA to the crossover lines for Lorraine and Richard:

Lorraine had no crossover to the left to keep her 2 grandparents’ DNA from expanding there. Richard goes to the right to his last crossover. Then we can add in other FIRs and put in opposite colors for the areas where siblings don’t match (red on the chromosome browser above).

This is what I call the Swiss Cheese phase of visual mapping.

comparing gedmatch cousin matches

At this point I would like to compare Gedmatch matches. There is one thing already that doesn’t make sense. According to Gedmatch, Richard has a Kerivan match between 66 and 75M. However, the mapping shows that Lorraine and Richard are in a FIR there. That means that if Richard has this match, then Lorraine should also. Let’s check Lorraine again. I still get no match. When I lower Lorraine’s threshold to 5 cM, I only get a small match with Jeanette on Chromosome 20. That could mean that Richard’s match with Jeanette on Chromosome 5 is by chance. That was disappointing, but informative.

That leaves us the maternal side. Are there matches there?

Here are the matches that I show for our 3 Butler siblings on Chromosome 5. Virginia shows a match on the maternal side with her 1st  cousins Patricia and Joseph (in pink). This could be helpful. But in this case, it appears that it isn’t. That is because in this segment, Virginia doesn’t match her two siblings. Should I give up? I have one more idea. As I mentioned above, Virginia has a maternal match from 88 to 118. However, John matches Richard and Lorraine in that same area. That means that John’s match in that area has to be paternal. John is a nephew, so he shares maternal and paternal matches. Unfortunately, as Richard and Lorraine are FIR in this segment, it tells us no more.

update based on reader comment

I had a comment questioning my apparently too hasty assertion that the John match above (from 81-115M) to Richard and Lorraine was paternal. I did put a little thought into that comment. M MacNeill has kindly phased John’s raw DNA on a different chromosome (Chromosome 1) and came up with this result.

This gets to the old adage about a picture being worth 1,000 words. As John is in a different generation (as is Marie, my wife – his cousin) it gets confusing. However, the above image shows the DNA John got from his four great grandparents on his paternal side.

The segment we are looking at above is between 75.5 and 117. In that stretch all 4 grandparents are represented by four different colors. This is part of what makes the analysis difficult. If there was an HIR in that region, the analysis would have been easier as there would have been only 3 grandparents to consider in that segment.

We know that John matches Virginia on a maternal match, but we don’t know which grandparent it represents. That leaves one other maternal grandparent and two paternal grandparents (from the viewpoint of the above map). John’s match with Richard and Lorraine from 88 to 115M could therefor be with one of Richard and Lorraine’s maternal grandparents or with either of the two paternal grandparents. This tells me that there is a bigger chance of the match being on the paternal side, but that the maternal side is not ruled out.

Updates on the Update

Since my update, I had a few important responses on the ISOGG Facebook Page that I would like to preserve in this Blog. Kathy Johnston, from whom I learned the visual mapping technique responded with a possible visual mapping:

I liked how she put in the Patricia and Joseph match suggesting that the purple could be the maternal side. I also received a response from M MacNeill who has been so helpful in working on the raw phasing of the Hartley and Butler families:

Here is a screenshot of comments relating to the image above:

Summary and Conclusions

  • I could map out one further HIR, but I won’t at this point
  • I had high hopes in mapping some paternal segments to specific grandparents on Chromosome 5, but it didn’t work out
  • I did find an apparent Identical by Chance (IBC) or what I call a false match between Richard and Jeanette at Chromosome 5. It appeared to be real before I mapped it out.
  • Future identified cousin matches may resolve the mapping of Chromosome 5
  • I appreciate comments from readers that help me to re-think my conclusions