My Sister Heidi’s AutoSegments

In my previous Blog, I looked at my own autosegments. I had 6 maternal and 20 paternal segments. I’ll look at my sister Heidi’s AutoSegments and try to unlock her clusters

My Sister Heidi’s AutoSegments

My sister received a different combination of DNA from our parents than I did. Here are her autosegment clusters:

Heidi has 33 clusters or 7 more than me given the same input parameters. This is a sort of a fingerprint of her Gedmatch DNA matches.

By comparison, here are mine:

Heidi and I have a similar profile on our Chromosome 20 where our large clusters are. Heidi’s large red Frazer Cluster corresponds with my large purple Frazer Cluster.

Heidi’s Clusters One by One

I filled in a spreadsheet for my clusters. I can do the same for Heidi. Cluster 1 is easy as it goes back to Richard Frazer who was born around 1777:

Here is how that looks in my spreadsheet:

Cluster 2

Cluster 2 is interesting as there are known and unknown people in this Cluster:

I know all the matches and how we connect except for Brian and Elizabeth.  This cluster also goes back to Richard Frazer from around 1777. It is possible that one cluster is for Richard and one for his unidentified wife.

Large Cluster 3

There is one fairly close cousin in this cluster (Emily) and many unidentified DNA matches. Emily matches on my Frazer/McMaster side.  The connection between Cluster 2 and three is with Emily:

Emily matches with the last three in Cluster 2:

However, as Jane is not in this Cluster and her connection would be on the Violet Frazer side (Violet is the daughter of Richard Frazer), this Cluster may be on the James Frazer side who goes back to Philip Frazer.

Cluster 4

The connection between this cluster and the previous Cluster 3 is through Marguerite. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to figure out the trees of anyone in Cluster 4. Cluster 4 has matches on Chromosome 5:

These matches are near where I put the red lines:

Heidi and my brother Jim map to Frazer in this area of Chromosome 5.

Clusters 5-11

I recognize Joshua in Cluster 5:

Joshua is connected by either Lentz or Nicholson. I found the other two matches from this cluster at Ancestry, but I didn’t see any obvious connection by genealogy.

Cluster 6 and a Confusing Connection

Here Joshua in Cluster 5 matches three people I’m related to on my paternal Hartley side in Cluster 6:

These three are Hartley/Gifford matches. I suppose that Joshua may be related on the Gifford side where I am not related.

Cluster 7

This is the gray cluster above. My cousin Pat is there. We are related through Hartley, Snell and more distantly on our Bradford sides.

Cluster 8

Cluster 8 in green is interesting because of the connections. Heather has a connection to Cluster 10 where Lee is. Lee is interesting because he is from England and has Hartley ancestors from the same area of Lancashire as my Hartley ancestors.

Cluster 9 and Beth

Interestingly, Beth was on my large Hartley Cluster, but with Heidi, she is in a cluster of only three.

These connections are on Chromosome 17.

Cluster 10 and Lee

These matches are on Chromosome 13. I’m not sure why they are broken into two sections. Geoff shows up twice and tested at FTDNA. He doesn’t have a tree there. Sandra is a new match at Gedmatch and has a UK email address. She also has a GED at Gedmatch. Interestingly, Sandra has two ancestors from Hartley:

It may be possible to compare Lee and Sandra’s trees to see if there are any similarities. I tried doing that and didn’t notice any obvious similarities. However, I did notice that Lee had a Baldwin in his line and my guess for one of my ancestors was Betty Baldwin:

Cluster 11

There were only two in this Cluster. Sandra from Cluster 10 matches both these people. That makes this an English Hartley ancestor cluster.

More of Heidi’s Clusters

Heidi’s Cluster 12 is on Chromosome 22. I don’t have anything mapped for Heidi on Chromosome 22. There are only two in this Cluster making it difficult to map. I have Heidi phased and one of the matches is on her paternal side. From there I go to my visual phasing map. But first, here is part of the AutoSegment results:

LL matches between 36 and 46M.

36M is about hwere I put the arrow on the chart above. That maps to Hartley.

Cluster 13 – Frazer

I can tell by the match names that this is a Frazer match on Chromosome 2:

Heidi’s matches end at 221 which is around where I put the red arrow and in Heidi’s Frazer area. In this Cluster. There are two matches that I know and one that I don’t named Fay. Fay tested at 23andMe where Heidi didn’t test.

The AutoSegment connection is on Chromosome 2. However, Faye also matches Heidi on the X Chromosome also called Chromosome 23.

The X Chromosome connection likely follows this specific path:

This is my paternal grandmother’s line. Heidi as a female, got an X Chromosome from her father. That was the same X Chromosome that he got from his mother Marion Frazer. Likewise, Marion got her X Chromosme passed down from Margaret McMaster via her father. Margaret got an X Chromosome passed down intact from Margaret Frazer via her father James McMaster. From Margaret, the DNA could have come from either Michael Frazer or Margaret Stewart.

Fay’s third largest match is from Beverly who I have as descending from Michael Frazer and Margaret Stewart:

I have written to Fay and I hope that I hear back.

Cluster 14 and 15

This Cluster is at the beginning of Chromosome 2:

I’ll look at Heidi’s paternally phased DNA to see if that is where the matches are. I found Charlie and Jonathan there, so I’ll say these are paternal matches.  Heidi’s matches are between 9 and 29M on Chromosome 2:

That is roughly in this area of Heidi’s paternal Chromosome 2. Heidi has the most orange Hartley DNA of these 6 siblings in that area with Jim coming in second. I couldn’t tell anything else out about this Cluster.

Cluster 15 is on Chromosome 6:

This is also a Hartley Cluster:

I’m about halfway done and only have one maternal cluster:

Cluster 16

Bonnie is found on Heidi’s maternally phased match list at Gedmatch. That turns out to be on Heidi’s Lentz side:

I couldn’t figure out the link between these two matches and Ancestry.


Cluster 17

I’m about half way through. Cluster 17 only has two people at the beginning of Chromosome 20:

Margaret is on Heidi’s paternal side. That is on Heidi’s Frazer side:

I checked Ancestry and one tree that apparently corresponds to H E T has a Spratt and Armstrong in her tree and Irish connections. Spratt is my line I know least about.

Cluster 18 on Chromosome 7

This is a maternal match.

I haven’t been able to get Kathy’s genealogy, but the connection with Nigel goes way back on the Nicholson Line.


I haven’t gotten to any of Heidi’s Rathfelder ancestors yet but we still have many clusters to go.

Revealing Cluster 19

There are 6 people in this Cluster. One match is on her paternal side, so I’ll go with that:

When I scroll over Chromosome 12 at AutoSegment, I see the range where the match is: between 10 and 25M.

I was expecting this to be on Heidi’s Hartley side, but it is on her Frazer side. The James above may be a famous DNA Blogger.

Cluster 20 and 21 on the Rathfelder Side

Inese and Donna are my second cousins. I know how I am related to Otis but not how I am related to Daniel.

Here is Cluster 20 and 21:

Otis in Cluster 20 matches two of my 2nd cousins in Cluster 21. All the matches in Cluster 21 are known except for one who tested at 23andMe.

Cluster 22 – Back to Paternal

That puts these two triangualted matches on Heidi’s Frazer side:

I wouldn’t have these two matches as I inherited Hartley DNA in that region of my paterrnal Chromosome 1.

Clusters 23 and 24

These go back to my Nicholson and Ellis ancestors:

Cluster 25

These matches are on Heidi’s side – at least Gloria is and I assume the others are also. The matches are from about 56 to 81M. When I mapped Heidi a long time ago, she came out as Frazer in that area:

Cluster 26

There are two in this Cluster. The match on Heidi’s paternal side on Chromosome 2:

That is in Heidi’s blue Frazer portion of her Paternal Chromosome 2:

Other than that, I don’t know a whole lot about these matches.

A Recognizable Cluster 27

Steve is related to me on my Clarke/Spratt side and more distantly on my McMaster side:

Cluster 28

Cluster 28 is on the larger side:

Catherine is in the light green group. She is on Ancestry and has a Tighe ancestor from Sligo:

Catherine matches on Heidi’s Frazer side as expected:

My guess is that Catherine is related somewhere along my Clarke/Spratt ancestors as that family lived in County Sligo.

Cluster 29

Cluster 29 is also a paternal one for Heidi:

Cluster 30 on the Rathfelder Side

Astrid is in Cluster 30. Here is how she is related:

This gets Heidi up to 8 maternal clusters out of 30:

Unlocking Cluster 31

That is a fancy way of saying identifying Cluster 31. There are only two matches there:

The second match, Brad, is at Ancestry and matches my Mom. These matches land on Heidi’s Lentz side on the maternal copy of her Chromsome 2:

Cluster 32 – Back to Paternal

Jacqueline is at Ancestry and has an ancestor named James Savage from Ireland:

Here we have two separate triangulations, but David, Jacqueline and Ron are in both on Chromosome 19:

I’m not sure about this Cluster, but my guess goes back to my unknown Clarke and Spratt ancestors from County Sligo. Having said that, I see that David, who tested at FTDNA, has a match in cousin with my Frazer 2nd cousin Paul who is not known to be related on the Clarke/Spratt side.

Heidi’s Laster Cluster: 33

This last group of trianulated matches is on Chromosome 20.

I don’t see Ann on Heidi’s paternal match list at Gedmatch, so that leaves the maternal side:

All Heidi’s Segments

Here is the summary:

Summary and Conclusions

  • Less that 1/3 of Heidi’s clusters were on her maternal side
  • Heidi had only three maternal Rathfelder Clusters out of a total of 33 clusters, but they were all well defined
  • Clarke/Spratt continue to be a mystery
  • I continue to have few matches on the Lentz side
  • Likewise, I have few matches on my Hartley side which is from Lancashire England as opposed to the Snell side which is Colonial Massachusetts



My AutoSegment Report

There is a new report on Gedmatch called AutoSegment. From my understanding it clumps together triangulated matches into clusters. If I were creating this report, I might have called it AutoTriangulator or something similar. I figured it was worthwhile putting down $10 to get one month’s worth of Tier 1 Subscription at Gedmatch

Running My AutoSegment Report

I ran it and was not sure if I was supposed to get an email back with the results. The first time I didn’t get any results, so I ran the report again and got results on the same page where I ran the report. I was asked to download files, so I did. My downloaded file looked like this:

I opened up the file and got this:


The first html file is the one to open:

That gave me 26 clusters of triangulated matches. I am quite sure that the purple cluster is my Chromosome 20 matches. That chromsosome is out of control for some reason. I have written about this before in 2016.

Chromosome 20

There is a more detailed report below:

The purple Cluster is # 24. This Cluster involves three chromosomes. Chromosome 20 has a part to play in four clusters. That makes sense as Chromosome 20 has a paternal component and maternal component.

Identifying My Triangulated Clusters

I recognize the first two matches in Cluster 1. They are two of my Hartley second cousins: Beth and Mike. That relationship goes back to my Hartley/Snell great grandparents. It looks possible that those connections could carry down through Cluster 11.

The other matches are:

  • Charles – He shows up twice and tested at 23andMe
  • Lori and Phyllis – These two are at Ancestry and are administered by the same person.
  • Edith – Administered by the same person who administers Lori and Phyllis but Edith tested at FTDNA.

Lori has the best tree at Ancestry, but I don’t see any obvious connctions. It is possible that building out her tree would give some clues as to the connection.

Pat in Cluster 4

Pat is related to me in two ways. One is as a second cousin in my Hartley/Snell side. The other is Bradford/Hathaway as 4th cousins:

So from Pat’s point of view, she is related to me as a 2nd cousin on her mother’s side and 4th cousin on her father’s side.

A Cluster Spreadsheet

Here I put some of the information into a spreadsheet:

The matches are 2nd cousins except for Jim. These matches go back to Hartley. This family was from England. Or they go back to Snell who were Colonial Massachusetts. Cluster 5 is interesting as at least one match (Matt) is recently from England.

An Out of Place Cluster 8

Cluster 8 is between my paternal clusters but I believe that it is a maternal cluster:

Joshua is the first person in the light green Cluster 8. He matches with Mike in Cluster 1 and his sister Tracy in Cluster 6. Here is where I have Joshua on my mother’s side:

That fact that Joshua matches Mike and Tracy was a bit misleading. The other person in Cluster 8 is Brittany. It is possible that if I built out her tree, I would get back to Nicholson or Lentz.

Lee in Cluster 11

I would like to connect to Lee in Cluster 11:

Lee has Hartley ancestors from the same part of England where my Hartleys are from. That does not necessarily mean that the connection is through those Hartleys, but may be through another set of ancestors. This appears to be the end of the Hartley Clusters for now:

Martin in Cluster 12

Martin is on my mother’s side. His ancestry is from Latvia, so that goes to my mother’s father who was also from Latvia. The connection is on Martin’s paternal side, but his genealogy stops with his father who was born in Latvia.

Cluster 17 – Rathfelder

Cluster 17 is easy as I can identify all Rathfelder relatives there:

Martin was in the green cluster above. I find it interesting that this group contains triangulation in the X Chromosome:

Clusters 18 an 19 – Nicholson

The light green and light blue clusters above are both Nicholson Clusters. I am not sure why they are separated:

Without getting into the specifics, my guess is as follows. Matches and triangulated matches go back to one of the two common ancestors. That means that for each segment where I match any of these people, the DNA we share is actually either from William Nicholson or Martha Ellis. Let’s say that my match with Carolyn favors the Nicholson side. That would mean that the other matches might favor the Ellis side. That would also mean that one cluster is a Nicholson Cluster and the other one an Ellis Cluster.

More on Cluster 19

Cluster 19 has Carolyn, Joan and Iain. Iain has contacted me and I told him the general direction of where the DNA was leading (to Nicholson in Sheffield). The other match tested at FTDNA and appears to be Joan. Joan has a tree at FTDNA. However, it is very basic. I can build this out to see if there is a connection. Joan’s roots are in Alabama mostly:

I make my trees at Ancestry, and here is how Joan’s tree is shaping up:

According to the 1910 Census, Tilden’s father was from North Carolina:

My attempt to make a connection by building out Joan’s tree failed:

This is not unusual. If the connection with Joan is at the fourt cousin level, then the connection would be out one level beyond what I have above. If it is at the 5th cousin or perhaps 4th once removed, it would be out two levels from what I show. The other problem is that the female line identifications become more scarce the further out you go.

Steve in Cluster 22

The next person I recognize is Steve:

Steve (or Stephen in my chart above) is important, because his primary connection with me is on the Clarke Line. I’m a bit stuck on this line beyond John Clarke. Unfortunately, Steve connects on my McMaster side also further back. Steve is a fifth cousin on that line. When I hover over Cluster 22, I see this:

It looks like Susan is the next largest match to Steve.

Finishing the Clusters with Known Names

I mentioned Cluster 24 as the large cluster. Cluster 25 is on my Frazer side also:

Susan, Doreen and Ken are in the orange square and G is Gladys in the yellow area. Our common ancestors are James Frazer and Violet Frazer. Gary is from an area near the Frazers and Shelly has not shared her ancestry to my knowledge. This is what I have so far:

I have 7 clusters on the paternal side and three on the maternal side. I have Lee who seems to be on my paternal side.

Checking by Phased Results

I have some phased kits that a genetic genealogist Martin made for me, so I can tell by the matches at least what grandparent side these clusters should be in.

Joshua’s Confusing Match on Cluster 8

My phased Hartley grandfather kit shows to match Joshua. However, the genealogy shows that he matches my mother’s mother’s side. Here is some more detailed AutoSegment information for Joshua in Cluster 8:

This indicates that the two triangulate with each other and me. Next, I’ll check my paternally and maternally phased kits. These were generated at Gedmatch based on my mother’s DNA test. Joshua matches me there on my maternal kit. When I recheck, it appears that Joshua does indeed match on my mother’s mother’s phased kit. So I don’t know what I was seeing before. I keep these mistakes and corrections in my Blogs to remind myself how easy it is to get off track with all the information out there.

Here is a continuation of my spreadsheet:

Here I have also color coded the grandparents. Haretly and Snell are blue, Frazer/Clarke is green. Lentz/Nicholson is orange and Rathfelder/Gangnus is yellow.

Clusters 14-16: Frazer Side

Cluster 14 seems to favor the McMaster side:

The first blue line in each case is Marshall and the second is Craig.

The key is with Keith. My common ancestor with him is with James and Fanny Mcmaster. My common ancestor with Susan and Katherine are Frazer/McMaster. However, their overlap with Keith seems to mean that the connection is on the McMaster side. Marshall and Craig have a match overlapping with Katherine but starting at 15M, a little later than Katherine’s which starts at 7M.

Margaret is in Cluster 16. She has some ancestors near Enniskillen:

This location comes up a lot. This may be on my Clarke side or from an unidentified Frazer wife’s family. She also has a Henderson and MacGregor in her tree:

Henerson was a second wife of Clarke (though not known to be related to me). McGregor comes up as a possible ancestor on my ThruLines at Ancestry:

From what I can tell, the MacGregor name comes from a George MacGregor Frazer who is in some people’s Ancestry Trees:

Filling in the Rest of My Spreadsheet

Here I have under the GP column, blue for Hartley, green for Frazer, yellow for Rathfelder and orange for Lentz. It looks like I only have four clusters to go.

Cluster 20

Cluster 20 is on Chromosome 4. Another way to check on these clusters is by DNAPainter or Visual Phasing.

The match seems to go through a maternal crossover, so my guess is that this match is on my paternal Frazer side. The last of the trhee matches in Cluster 20 is Gabrielle. She tested at Ancestry. At Ancestry, her match is reduced to 18 cM. She shows no shared DNA matches, probably due to the low match level.

From DNAPainter, these Cluster 20 matches are probably from my Clarke side:

This is a side with a brick wall.

Cluster 21

Cluster 21 is from Chromosome 22.

That area between the two arrows is not well mapped on my Chromosome 22. Orange Cluster 21 is medium sized:

Although the are of Chromosome 22 is not well identified, I can identify that the connection is through my Frazer grandmother.

Cluster 23

This Cluster has two triangulated matches at the beginning of Chormosome 18:

The matches are with Patricia and Carl.

I’m leaning toward Patricia and Carl being in the Clarke/Spratt section of my DNA. I have Patricia on my paternal side so that means I must be right.

Cluster 26

That leaves one last cluster.

The first three matches are from Ann and her close relatives. From my spreadsheet of matches, Ann is on my Lentz side:

That match is around the red arrows and would be more specifically on my Nicholson/Ellis side.

The Completed Key

Based on Visual Phasing, my match spreadsheet and DNAPainter, I was able to identify all my clusters at least back to one grandparent.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Out of the 26 clusters, 6 were maternal clusters.
  • Of the remaining 20 clusters, they were split fairly evenly between Hartley and Frazer
  • It seems like I could have differentiated my Hartley clusters more.
  • Every tool seems to give some new understanding to my DNA matches
  • It would be interesting to look at other of my 5 siblings’ AutoSegments to see how they differ from mine

Re-Running My FTDNA Autoclusters

It looks like I have not run my autoclusters at FTDNA since 2018. As I recall, I didn’t get as much out of FTDNA as I did with Ancestry autoclustering. However, Ancestry autoclustering is not a valid option. I figured that autoclustering would be a good summary to show any important new matches that I may have missed.

First Try

I used the suggested parameters the first time, but the lower cutoff for a match at 50 cM was way too high. I just got three known Frazer relatives. This was less than helpful:

My assumption is that P means paternal side match as FTDNA makes that distinction based on testing or your own input. This showed that everyone matched everyone else except for Paul and Kenneth.

Second Autocluster with a Lower Cutoff of 15 cM

15 cM is a pretty good number because that is usually considered to be a high chance that the match is not by chance. Here is the 2nd run minus the names:

The Frazer Cluster – Red

The three Frazers who were in my first botched attempt are now in the red Cluster 3. There are an additional three people in that Cluster. Two I know and one I don’t know. One that I do know is sister to Susan who showed up in the first three person autocluster. That leaves Larry who shows a tree. Good news. His tree is a little sparse:

It’s sort of fun trying to build out these trees, but often frustrating finding the link. Here are some of Larry’s surnames:

Oldham and Hamilton were helpful names:

So I didn’t find an obvious connection. Too bad. I tried. Something may show up in the future.

Frazer/McMaster Connections Between Cluster 2 and 3

I think that the gray match between Robert and Paul is in the McMaster side. However, Benjamin and Robert don’t have trees at ancestry. My guess is that Robert descends from Edward Mcmaster and Celia Clarke:

Cluster 1 – Rathfelder

Cluster 1 is on my Rathfelder side based on a test by my cousin Catherine. However, I don’t know anything about Pamela and Romy. Romy appears to be from Germany. Pamela has a tree, but I don’t feel like going back a few hundred years of genealogy to figure out the connection:


Cluster 4: Maternal/Paternal Connection?

Cluster 4 is a bit mysteriious as it shows as a maternal cluster.

However, Craig has matches with Susan and Margaret. My assumption is that the connection is not through either of the two lines that I am related to these three people. I thinnk that Kenneth and Margaret are siblings.

Cluster 5: Big, Brown and Paternal

My assumption is that this could be my colonial Massachusetts side due to the number of matches. I also assume that the boxes with a P in it are the larger matches. Again, we see a maternal/paternal crossover. I would assume that this person (Brandy in the pink cluster) matches my mom but also has colonial Massachusetts ancestry.

Letterless Clusters 7 and 8

I’m on my own to figure out if these two clusters are maternal or paternal.

Cluster 7 in gray has a P connection with the brown cluster. Cluster 8 has connections with the pink and blue Maternal Clusters. Ned is the top match in Cluster 8. I had thought that my match with him went back to the Pilgrims on my paternal side, which seems to go against the side matches shown in gray.

Sarah in Cluster 9

Sarah is a familiar name in Cluster 9. She is my third cousin once removed:

However, that is almost impossible to tell from her FTDNA tree:

Her Margaret Shreak should be Margaret Shroek.

Clusters 10-13

Here there is no maternal or paternal designation. I’m on my own to figure these out:

I recognize Tracey as the first match in Cluster 12. She has a tree which I have built out in the past:

I have many matches which go back to the name of Lougheed in Ireland. I suppose this would be on my Spratt Line which I know the least about – or possibly Clarke.

Amy is also in that small Cluster 12:

Amy and Tracey are no doubt close relatives as they both share the ancestor of William Alexander Parr born 1939.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Autocluster is a good way to look at your matches as it puts them in groups with similar matches. It helps make sure you haven’t missed any important DNA matchs.
  • AncestryDNA autoclusters are more helpful, but they have not been available for a while. Perhaps FTDNA has tweaked their matching criteria which has also made FTDNA autoclustering more useful.
  • With thirteen clusters, one might expect these matches to be at around the third cousin level. Sarah was, but others are unidentifiable, so likely go out further.
  • The gray connections between clusters can be confusing, as they seem to indicate connections between maternal and paternal clusters in many cases.
  • When checking for connections, you have to look at locations. In my case, where I am missing information on my Clarke and Spratt ancestors from Sligo, finding common Sligo ancestry with my DNA matches can be a hint.


Updating My Wife’s Mother’s Ellis DNA

I manage my wife’s mother’s DNA kit and my wife’s mother’s sister’s DNA kit. Their names are Joan and Elaine. I was looking at Elaine’s DNA this morning.

Ellis Line Match with Joseph

The match I found for Elaine this morning was with Joseph. He is a good match because he is on Gedmatch and Ancestry. He also has trees on Ancestry and Gedmatch. Using DNA Painter, I added Joseph’s match to Elaines DNA Map:

Joseph matches Elaine on Chromosomes 7 and 14. The match appears to go back to 1775. Here is how Elaine and Joseph connect:

Elaine and Joseph show as 4th cousins going back to 1775. Ancestry also has this highly unlikely scenario:

Joseph has a smaller match with my mother-in-law Joan. They only match on Chromosome 7. I’ll add that match in:


Here Joseph in orange is bumping into Debbie in green. That could mean that I have some of the genealogy wrong. I can’t find the Debbie’s DNA match anymore, so that doesn’t help.

Elaine’s DNA Map makes more sense:

Here we see the split between Rayner and Hopgood:

Elaine’s great-grandfather is Abraham Rayner and her great-grandmother is Henrietta Hopgood.

A Rhynold Match with Stuart at MyHeritage

MyHeritage shows this Theory of Relativity between Joan and Stuart:

Rhynold is on Joan’s maternal side. Here is what DNA Painter has to say:

They are finding DNA overlap with other ancestors, so is this really Rhynold DNA? I’m curious, so I’ll try painting him in.

There is no overlap on Chromosomes 7 and 20 and only a minimal overlap on Chromosome 1, so I think that we have the right common ancestors.

I had already painted Stuart onto Elaines Chromosomes 7, 9 and 20. Elaine doesn’t match Stuart on Chromosome 1, because she has larger Upshall matches on that Chromosome:

Rynault is on the Daley side:

James Robert Theory of Relativity: Ellis/MacArthur

Joan and James Robert show as third cousins:

I’ll paint James Robert in to see if that makes sense. Here is how I painted James Robert in to Joan’s map:

James Robert is the orange match on Chromosomes 1, 2, and 5. The reason is that there are two entries for James Ellis born 1801 is that James had two wives. His first wife was Jane Ramsay. However, Joan descends from the second wife who was Marion MacArthur. In some cases, the DNA match is just with James Ellis, in other cases, it is with James and his wife Marion MacArthur.

Next, I’ll paint James Robert onto Elaine’s map. She already has an Ellis/MacArthur entry:

For some reason, there was not any overlap between Elaine’s DNA matches with James Robert and Robert who I show as also descending from James Ellis and Marion MacArthur.

Painting MacArthur/MacDougall

MG has a double Theory of Relativity with Elaine. However, MacArthur/MacDougall is the closer relationship:

The other common ancestor is with James Yeo, but is a half 5th cousin relationship. Let’s paint Elaine’s DNA match with MG to see what happens. When I go to paint MG, I get this message:

That actually makes sense because Marion would be a daughter or Malcolm MacArthur:

MacArthur/MacDougall is painted in in maroon in Chromosomes 4, 17, 18 and 19. This gets Elaine up to 20% painted on her paternal side. Chromosome 19 is where the small overalp occurs:

I also reorganized the key so it makes more sense.  MacArthur is on the Ellis side.

For Joan, I already had a listing for MacArthur/MacDougall:

Elaine’s match with Barry and MG overlap on Chromosome 4. I assume that would be considered triangulation:

MyHeritage shows triangulation by circled segments.

Edna on the Dicks Line

Edna fits in well with my Dicks DNA Project:

Edna also has this Theory of Relativity:

I’m not as sure that this is right. Here is the DNA tree I have:

I added Edna in under the left circle. HereI have painted Edna on to Joan’s DNA Map:

Edna has good overlap with other Christopher Dicks descendants. I think that Henry Dicks is from a more distant line. There is also overlap on Chromosome 21:

Edna overaps with Joan’s Aunt Esther. Esther overlaps with a more recent Dicks Line. So while Edna adds no new Dicks DNA to Joan’s map, this exercise places Edna within the DNA framework I have for Christopher Dicks born 1784 and his wife Margaret.

For some reason, I could not find Edna on Elaine’s MyHeritage match list.

Nat’s Theory on the Ellis Side

Nat has three Theories of Relativity with Elaine at MyHeritage. Here is the closest:

Theory two is similar to Theory one but involves a 4th cousin once removed. Theory three is more distant on the MacDougall side.

Here we have a problem on Chromosome 6:

Hopgood (yellow) and Ellis (blue) should not be sharing the same space on the Paternal side of Chromosome 6. That means that there is a problem with the genealogy or some mixing of lines. I see that Jo-Ann has three Theories of Relativity. Here is Theory Three:

Turns out that Jo-Ann’s Chromosome 6 match with Elaine is most likely on the Ellis/Tawton side. I can fix this in DNA Painter:

Unfortunatley, that changed all of Jo-Ann’s matches. Here is the screen I should have used:

This is what I had wanted:

After checking chromosomes, I found another issue:

Jo-ann is bumping into Robert on Chromosome 4. I’m in deep on this one. I’ll assume that Robert has no Hopgood ancestry and change this segment also.

I hope that Jo-ann doesn’t mind me messing around with her DNA!

Next, I paint Nat onto Joan’s map:

Nat and Joan only match on Chromosome 6. Here I need to switch Jo-ann from Hopgood to Ellis like I did above:

That looks better. The three yellow segments now match up.

AutoClusters at Gedmatch

Here are Joan’s AutoClusters at Gedmatch between 35 and 250 cM:

This is how I see Joan’s matches shaking out. What about the clusters inbetween the two connected sets of clusters? Green Cluster 8 has someone with Guysborough, Nova Scotia ancestry. That is likely on Joan’s Daley side, but I was not able to match up the genealogy.

Elaine’s AutoClusters

Elaine, as may be expected has a similar profile to her sister Joan between the levels of 35 and 250 cM.

The configuration is inverted for Elaine. Her Newfoundland cluster group is in the top left and her PEI cluster group is in the bottom right. Elaine has four clusters in the middle compared to Joan’s three. My guess is that all or most of these clusters could be on the Daley side.

Barry is in blue Cluster 9. He appears to have PEI ancestry.

This shows Barry’s connection to Joan but the connection to Elaine would be the same.

Tammy is in brown Cluster 10. She has Rhynold in her tree. Tammy’s tree goes back a bit further than what I have.

Tammy’s maternal side goes back to Johann Rheinhold:

He apparently married Ann Lowry and had Tammy’s ancestor John Gleason Rhynold and Frederick born 1792 who was my wife’s ancestor. Tammy has Johann Capar Rheinhold born in Frankfurt and marrying in Cornwall, then settling in Guysborough, Nova Scotia.

I can add this couple to my wife’s family tree. I’ll add Tammy to DNA Painter:

Tammy is right below Stuart mentioned earlier in the Blog. Actually, the four in  Cluster 10 are probably all closely related.

Cluster 11 has Susan. She has PEI MacArthur ancestry.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I started updating the four grandparents of my mother-in-law. They are Ellis and Rayner from PEI. Also Upshall from Newfoundland and Daley from Nova Scotia.
  • One easy way to update DNA matches is through MyHeritage’s Theories of Relativity. I like to use DNA Painter to map out those DNA matches.
  • I also used Gedmatch AutoClusters. In this case, it was easy to pick out the large amount of Newfoundland matches as well as the PEI matches. There are not many Daley side matches.
  • It was possible to connect many of the Ancestry uploaded Gedmatches to their Ancestry profiles to check on family trees.
  • I found a new connection to Germany through the Rheinhold line connected with the Ellis’ Dale side. Johann Caspar Rheinhold apparently was born in the area of Frankfort, married in England and moved to Guysborough, Nova Scotia. I have not tried to confirm the genealogy, but it is in several trees and the match by DNA supports or confirms those trees. This surname was later changed to Rhynold and Rynault
  • In using DNA Painter, it is possible to sort out the DNA matches where there is more than one possible pair of common ancestors that the DNA may have come from.
  • DNA Painter also points out that the DNA matches are not evenly distributed by the four grandparents. There were very few matches shown on the Daley side at the match levels chosen. Most matches were on the Upshall side.
  • I didn’t break down the clusters between Ellis and Rayner, but I think that there are more Ellis matches than Rayner matches as there were many large Ellis families.

Playing with Phased Grandparent DNA at Gedmatch

Some kind person worked on my DNA to phase it to my four grandparents and uploaded the results to Gedmatch. One of those 4 grandparents was my my maternal grandmother Frazer side. This is exciting territory as this is an area of genetic genealogy that I haven’t looked at before in over 500 Blogs that I have written.

My Top Frazer Match at Gedmatch

I can run this kit which would be equivalent to my siblings’ Frazer matches at Gedmatch. My top match at Gedmatch is Tony. Let’s see if that match pans out. The phasing was not perfect, so there could be some errors.  The largest match with Tony is 193 cM, but when I run the details, it is only a small match:

My guess is that other matches with large largest segments are not correct. My first real match appears to be my second cousin once removed Paul. Here is what the match with my composite Frazer kit looks like:

Matches in Common with Paul

I ran matches in common with Paul and the composite Frazer Kit and then put those matches in a matrix:

I recognize at least half of these matches.

Painting My Frazer Matches

It occurs to me that I can paint my Frazer matches. As this DNA painting represents my grandmother, I’ll say that the person is female:

The first person on the match list under Paul is rosco. This is actually Keith:

Keith is in the last green box on the right next to Paul. I put that Keith is on my grandmother’s paternal side:

DNA Painter has my grandmother <1% painted. The next question is how closely should I ‘paint’ my grandmother’s DNA? In the past I have only gone to grandparent level. I think I’ll change and go to 1st cousin level. A first cousin shares two grandparents.

Adding Paul

Paul would be a first cousin once removed to my Frazer grandmother:

This gets my grandmother up to about 2% painted. I next added Emily. Emily’s common ancestors with mine are the same as Paul’s: George Frazer and Margaret McMaster.

Adding Gladys

Gladys’ common ancestors go back a generation to James Frazer and Violet Frazer:

Here, I changed the dark green to a lighter green, so it wouldn’t blot out the older DNA. So far, I have been only painting the Frazer paternal side. The maternal side is Clarke and I know less about Clarke genealogy than Frazer genealogy.

Painting Michael: Common Ancestor Richard Frazer

Notice Chromosome 1. The blue segment shows as all Richard Frazer. However, this is how it breaks out:

That means that the green segment is really Frazer and not McMaster. The Orange segment under the blue is Violet Frazer as she was the daughter of Richard Frazer.

Clarke DNA

My grandmother’s mother was Margaret Clarke. However, Margaret died when my grandmother was young.  I have a few fairly good DNA matches on the Clarke side, but the best matches are not at Gedmatch. Stephen is probably the closest match. Here is Stephen:

Stephen is also related on the McMaster side which confuses things. However, the closer match is on the Clarke side.

Now my grandmother is about 6% painted. Yellow is her first maternal DNA. I haven’t looked at X Chromosome matches as those are treated separately at Gedmatch.

Next, I looked for matches in common with Stephen and my phased Frazer kit:

The problem is that some of these matches are the same that were in common with my cousin Paul. Paul has no Clarke relatives. That means that this comparison is probably picking up the McMaster connection also. However, it may be possible to tease the two apart.

Grandmother Frazer AutoCluster

I thought that I had done these before, but perhaps not. At standard Gedmatch defaults, I get 19 clusters for my Frazer Grandmother:

There are a narrow range of DNA matches. They range from about 19 to 23 cM. I recognize matches from the last three clusters. Cluster 17 has Jonathan. Our common ancestor goes back to about 1690, but I have a feeling that there is a more recent match – probably on the James Line. James Frazer was born around 1717. Here is where Jonathan matches:

There appears to be a small overlap between Paul and Jonathan.

Pat and Bill are in Cluster 18. Here is how Pat and Bill fit in:

Our common ancestors are James Frazer and Violet Frazer.

In Cluster 19, I recognize Marilee who is related on one of my Frazer lines also.

I changed the limits to between 22 and 250 cM and got this autocluster:

In this AutoCluster reiteration, Clusters 11-14 are the Frazer Clusters. The good news is that I can identify 4 clusters. The bad news is that there are 16 clusters which I cannot identify. Actually, Jonathan is in Cluster 2, so that is one more Frazer cluster that I am aware of. However, the match for this Frazer Cluster ois probably through my McMaster side:

This is the ancestry of my 2nd great-grandmother Margaret Frazer. Turns out that she had a Frazer ancestor that went to a common ancestor with Jonathan. They were James Frazer and Katherine Fitzgerald, born in the first half of the 1700’s.

Barry is in Cluster 11. This is how I think I am related to Barry:

For some reason, I don’t see Barry on my DNA Painter profile. I’ll add him in:

This shows that Barry overlaps with Michael who I match on the Richard Frazer Line. Richard was a brother of Philip. We are showing we match on the common ancestor of Archibald Frazer who was born about 1720. Some of these dates are relative. I have a chart showing Archibald born in 1743. Also many charts have Philip and Richard born earlier than the 1770’s.

Charles in Cluster 12

Charles is in Cluster 12 with Shelly and Martha. Charles has not been on my radar before. His tree is helpful in that he has a shamrock for his Irish ancestors:

The red symbol indicates Scotland. Shelly has a match in common with Gladys. I’m related to Gladys on my Frazer side. Martha from Cluster 12 is here:

One guess is that Charles could be related from this Philip tree or from the wife of Philip.

Cluster 13

I recognize three out of four in Cluster 13. They are Jane, Doreen, and Susan. Here is how they match my family by genealogy:

These families go back to Richard Frazer. The one I don’t recognize if Elizabeth. I can’t figure out how she fits in.

One Last Frazer Cluster Between 23 and 250 cM

By just shifting the lower number up to 23 cM, I go from 20 clusters to 13:

Now my Frazer Clusters are 1 and 2. Cluster 2 is interesting, beause it includes both my Frazer and McMaster Lines. Those are both double lines because two Frazer cousins married in that Cluster and two McMaster cousins married. The 145 cM match has a common ancestor with my family of James McMaster and Fanny McMaster. They had Margaret McMaster who was my 2nd great-grandmother. That match matches my closer matches in the cluster – those who descend from Margaret but not my more distant Frazer relatives. The only one in the green Cluster 2 who I don’t recognize is Nicolas and I have written to him. He appears to be a fairly close relative of Emily who my Frazer kit matches at 125 cM.

In Cluster 1, I know how I am related to all but Gary at 26 cM. However, I have been in touch and he knows my Frazer relatives in Ireland. In the above analysis, I went from further out clusters to more closely related clusters. It probably would have made more sense to start with the more recognizable clusters, but I had to start somewhere.

The last cluster is the false one I mentioned further up in the Blog.

Downloading Frazer Segment Data from Gedmatch

This could help in identifying other match groups or clusters. Roberta Estes has a helpful article on how to do this. Once I get the data from Gedmatch, I like to put it into my own format in an Excel spreadsheet. For example, I should be able to look at the region where I have Clarke matches to identify other potential Clarke Clusters. Unfortunately, when I got to the Download button at Gedmatch, it didn’t work.

I guess I’ll have to explore these matches later.

Grandfather Hartley DNA

This is all exciting and new territory for me. This time, I will start my grandfather Hartley Cluster with the range of 23-250 cM:

Even at this level, I get a lot of unrecognizable clusters. Cluster 11 has Lee in it. He has Hartley ancestry in the area of Colne where my Hartley ancestors were from, but I was unable to make a connection.

Hartley Clusters 25-1,000 cM

This brings in some of my 2nd cousins and 1st cousins once removed. Here Cluster 2 is Lee again with the Hartley ancestry. He has a shared match with my 1st cousin once removed. That shared match has Shackleton ancestry, so that is a possible connection.

For some reason, the AutoCluster at Gedmatch does not work as well on my Hartley side as it did on my Frazer side. This is possibly because I have worked to have a lot of my Frazer relatives out to the level of clustering upload their results to Gedmatch.

My Maternal Grandfather: Rathfelder

My maternal grandfather was German but grew up in Latvia. Here are some of the clusters for that side. The limits I set were between 20 and 1,000 cM:

The purple cluster has some relatives that are still in Latvia. The top match in red Cluster 3, Otis, has Schwechheimer ancestry in common with my mother’s side.

My Maternal Grandmother’s AutoClusters

This should finish off the Blog. My maternal grandmother was a Lentz. However, I get many matches to her Nicholson mother’s side. This run is between 19 and 500 cM:

Many of these names and clusters are identifiable. Cluster 3 is Nicholson. Cluster 4 has my mom’s relative who is both Nicholson and Lentz.

Sadie, Joan, Linda and Carolyn are in the red Cluster 3. The largest match in Cluster 4 is with Judy who is a first cousin once removed to my mother. As such, she is related on the Nicholson and Lentz side.

Father and Daughter in Different Clusters?

Yes it happens:

Robert is in brown Cluster 5 and his daughter Sadie is in red Cluster 3. As these both have the common ancestors with me of Nicholson and Ellis, my guess is that one cluster could favor Nicholson DNA and the other Ellis DNA.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I took one of my first looks at my four synthetic grandparent kits at Gedmatch
  • I had the best luck with my Frazer side. This is probably because I’ve spent a lot of time working on getting Frazer relatives to upload their results to Gedmatch.
  • I started a DNA Painter map for my paternal grandmother’s Frazer side.
  • I tried clustering my four grandparent results. I recognized the fewest clusters on my Hartley side.
  • I found an interesting match with Elaine on my Frazer side using clustering. However, I couldn’t find further information on her family tree and couldn’t find her Ancestry account.
  • I tried downloading segment information for my grandparents, but I couldn’t get that utility to work at Gedmatch
  • There is still a lot of work that could be done with these four Gedmatch kits that represent the DNA for my four grandparents.



Elizabeth: A DNA Match from the Cincinnati Butlers; Lisa’s Butler Connections

I recently discovered that Elizabeth was a match to my late father-in-law Richard. I found her by doing a Tier 1 Cluster Analysis at Gedmatch. Richard’s clusters look like this:

All the gray squares connected to the colored squares probably indicate Richard’s French Canadian side. The last two small clusters likely represent Richard’s Irish side as they are not connected to the other clusters. The last two people in the last cluster are Elizabeth and Nathan. I wrote to Elizabeth and she confirmed that she was from the Cincinnati Branch of Butlers. I probably would not have known about Elizabeth if she had not uploaded her DNA to Gedmatch as Richard did not test at Ancestry. His two sisters tested there, but they don’t match Elizabeth by DNA.

Here are Nathan and Elizabeth on a tree:

The green boxes are for people who have detailed information on their chromosomes. They have tested at FTDNA, MyHeritage or 23andMe or uploaded their AncestryDNA results to Gedmatch.  The people in the bottom white boxes are connected by DNA and genealogy at Ancestry, but don’t have detailed information on their DNA.  This is what I call the Cincinnati Branch of Butlers. Nathan descends from the first wife of George Butler and Elizabeth descends from a second wife. Nathan’s ancestors moved to Nova Scotia where my wife’s ancestor married. Because of the genealogy, any DNA that Nathan and Elizabeth share have to come from George Butler but not either of his wives.

Here is the whole tree:

Because there are so many DNA connections between these two lines, I have proposed a Butler father to Michael Butler the earliest known ancestor of Richard and Henry Butler, the earliest known Butler ancestor of Elizabeth.  There are other possibilities.

Lisa with Possible Butler Ancestry

I wrote to Lisa about a year ago, because she had a large match with my wife’s two Aunts. Lisa would like to know how she fits in. Here is my wife’s side of the tree:

If I put up some DNA match numers for Lisa, it should tell where Lisa fits in on this tree:

That means that Lisa most likely descends from Marguerite Butler born in 1912. Here are some possible relationships between Amanda and Lisa:

My guess would be that Amanda and Lisa could be 1/2 first cousins or first cousins once removed. When I look at shared matches between Lisa and Amanda, I see a Herman in there which means that Lisa may have Herman and Butler ancestry somehow. This should give Lisa something to work on.

Lisa and Elizabeth

I bring Lisa up here because she also has a small match with Elizabeth:

That means that Lisa also has ancient Butler DNA links going back to Ireland.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was fortunate to find Elizabeth through Gedmatch’s Cluster Program
  • Elizabeth is from the Cincinnati Butlers which link my wife’s Butlers back to Ireland
  • Lisa, who I had corresponded with previously also has a small match with Elizabeth
  • Lisa was unsure of her ancestry
  • Lisa gave me access to her DNA results at Ancestry. I compared her results to my wife’s Butler lines and she matched best with the Marguerite Butler Line.
  • Lisa and Marguerite’s granddaughter Amanda also have a shared match with a Herman which means that Lisa and Amanda could be as close as first cousins once removed.




Looking at Madeline’s AncestryDNA Frazer Shared Clusters

I hope the title makes sense. I just finished working on Joanna’s Shared Clusters here. It turns out I generated more questions than answers in that Blog. One question had to do with the lack of DNA matches that Joanna had with Madeline’s line.

Madeline’s Genealogy

Here are Madeline and Joanna. They show as third cousins. Third cousins should match each other about 90% of the time according to FTDNA:

However, in my previous Blog, I didn’t see consistent matching between Joanna and Madeline’s branch which should have showed up in Shared Clustering.

Madeline’s Shared Clustering

I’ll just jump into Madeline’s Shared Clustering. The good (and bad) thing about that is that I’ll need to know a little more about Madeline’s genealogy. It looks like I have access to Madeline’s sister Charlotte’s DNA also. Well I’ve already downloaded all of Madeline’s matches, so I’ll go with her.

Here are Madeline’s matches according to the Shared Clustering Program:

Here is Madeline’s sister Charlotte’s tree:

The basic things I need to know is that Madeline’s and Charlotte’s four grandparents are:

  • Crowley
  • Cronin
  • Emmet
  • Frazer

I’ll start with the basic matches for Madeline at 50 cM or greater. This was a bit basic as it gave me just one embryonic cluster.

I say embryonic, because I can see things happening within Cluster 1 and outside of it. Next I’ll ratchet Madeline’s matches down to 35 cM.

Madeline’s 7 Shared Clusters at 35 cM

This is everything you need to know about Madeline’s AncestryDNA matches at 35 cM and above:

Madeline has a large Cluster 4. The next step is to do some basic identification of the Clusters and narrow down to Madeline’s Frazer side. The easiest way to identify common ancestors is by the Common Ancestors column in the image above.

Cluster 4 appears to be on Madeline’s paternal side which is Crowley and Cronin. Kathy who is Charlotte’s daughter has done some work and she has the small Cluster 1 as Frazer:

Kathy’s code for pink in the second colored column is for Catherine Matilda Frazer and the reddish color in Cluster 1 is labeled Frazer.

The next Cluster that has mostly Frazer is Madeline’s Cluster 7:

However, Kathy has Lyall coded as yellow which is Crowley.

Madeline’s Clusters at 27 cM

Ancestry’s shared matches go down to 20 cM, so 27 cM is about halfway down from 35 cM. Kathy shows some possible Frazer connection in Clusters 5, 8 and 9.


Basically Clusters 5-9 may have a connection with each other. However, still no common ancestors have been identified by AncestryDNA.

Madeline’s 20 cM Clusters

This is the lowest level Ancestry has Shared Matches. The Shared Clustering Program calls this ‘all visible shared matches’. At this level, Madeline has 45 Shared Clusters. Now Madeline has some clusters with identified Frazer common ancestors:

One thing I notice is that the clusters with Frazer common ancestors don’t have affiliated clusters. That is the last column before the colored columns. The other observation is that the Cluster 8 Frazer is separated from the Frazers at the bottom of the list in Clusters 38 and 40.

Madeline’s Cluster 8 match is Clyde:

I see that I also have access to Toni’s AncestryDNA matches. In order to see this tree from the sides of the three brothers (William Fitzgerald, Edward Wynn and Thomas Henry Frazer, it would be a good idea to look at Toni’s shared clusters also. However, due to changes at AncestryDNA, it has been difficult to download to Shared Clustering lately, so this third analysis may have to wait.

More on Cluster 8 and David

David from Cluster 8 has a Fraser in his ancestry, so let’s take a look:

Hopefully this is more than a coincidence. I’ll see if I can build out David’s tree. According to the 1930 Census,

Keith’s father was from Canada and mother from Ohio.

Further, I see from the 1910 Census, that Augusta’s parents were from Ireland. That means I may have been on the wrong track with the Fraser lead:

It turns out that the Wilson side was from Ireland also:

The clusters are easy, but the genealogy is a pain. I did find this information at Ancestry, but I don’t know if it is accurate:

This family would have been in an area of County Roscommon that would not have been too far from where the Frazers lived.

Gerald From Cluster 8

Gerald is the only other match from Cluster 8. I notice that Gerald has Michigan ancestry which makes me curious.. That means that I get to build out Gerald’s tree. Fortunately, I don’t enjoy watching TV much. This is what Gerald has:

That means in Madeline’s Cluster 8, we see 100% of the matches have trees. Here is where I got with Gerald’s tree:

The paternal side seemed to be going to French names, so I looked at the maternal side and found Gertrude Dwignan. This sounds like the Duigan that I found above.

Here is Getrude “Dwignan” in the 1900 Census:

Things get a little complicated with the extended family. Gertrude is living in her husband’s mother’s house. There is a boarder named William Duignan also living in the house who is likely Gertrude’s brother. 

Here is Gertrude in 1880:

We see Gertrude’s brother William and her father John also. Unfortunately, her father was a widower at age 30. You may recognize Augusta from the previous genealogy I did above.

That leads me to this tree:

I have seen Henry Fry from a marriage certificate. I have seen Abigail Knott in many trees, but I have not verified that. However, my assumption is that Madeline’s Cluster 8 goes back to the Knott name. Here is one Archibald Frazer who married a Knott:

All this to say that it appears that Cluster 8 could be a Knott Cluster. I notice that Clyde who matches Madeline from Cluster 8 has a William Knott who married Elizabeth Knott in her tree also – though not as a direct ancestor.

Taking Shared Clustering Down to 6 cM

This doesn’t add new clusters, but adds matches around the clusters that are associated with the clusters. For Cluster 8, there was not a lot of change:

Madeline’s unaffiliated matches above Cluster 8 are associated with Cluster 7.  Madeline’s unaffiliated matches below her Cluster 8 are affiliated with Cluster 9 except for two matches. These matches were above 20 cM, so could have been in a cluster but they didn’t have enough matches. Again, Cluster 8 is not associated with any other cluster, so that makes me think that it could be an old cluster, perhaps going back to a Knott or other Irish ancestor.

Madeline’s Clusters 38 and 40

I had identified these two Clusters as having Frazer common ancestors:

However, as I look at Cluster 38, I see some connection with Cluster 37 and no connection with Cluster 36. That means that it would make sense to look at Cluster 37 also.

Cluster 38

Let’s see what we are dealing with in this Cluster first. Madeline has two matches: SC and LC. From checking AncestryDNA, I see that these two are siblings. Here are Madeline’s ThruLines for her common ancestor James Frazer born in the early 1700’s:

LC and SC are shown above. My claim to fame in the James Line is that I descend from Margaret Frazer. I am also a match to CK. I am pretty sure that this is the line that Margaret Frazer fits into.

Some SC Genealogy

This is what SC’s administrator has for a maternal side tree for SC:

This answers a question I had as Kathy had a category for Catherine Matilda Fraser and mentions her a lot. Here she is above in SC’s tree.

Here is Catherine in Leeds, Ontario in 1871:

This shows that George and Catherine were born in the United States, which may be wrong. Here is Catherine and family in 1851 in Leeds, Ontario:

Now she shows that she was born in Ireland. There appears to be some confusion as to the parentage of Catherine Matilda Frazer. Ancestry suggests that her mother could have been Mary Wooleghan and that Mary Wooleghan’s father was Michael Frazer. However, I am not seeing an obvious connection there. The tree that has Mary Wooleghan has this:

From this tree, it looks like Mary is the daughter of Michael Frazer and Margaret Stuart. I assume that the intention was to have William the son of Michael Frazer and Margaret Stewart.

Claire from Cluster 38

I’m hoping that Claire will shed some light on Cluster 38:

I took a guess on building out Claire’s maternal side. I got a little lazy and accepted some of Ancestry’s suggested hints. On that side I saw three of Claire’s ancestors from Ontario:

I have that Fanny Bellows was from Beachburg, Ontario. Beachburg is WNW of Ottawa. I have that Crysler Cook and Susan Wallace were from Stamford Township, Welland County, Ontario. Here is Susan Wallace in 1851:

Susan’s father appears to be Alex ‘Wallis’ a Presbyterian from Ireland. Crysler’s father was a Baptist named Abner who was born in Canada. I see that Madeline has Wallace in her tree but she was on the Emmet side.

Madeline’s Cluster 40

The next and last Cluster that Madeline has with Frazer common ancestors is Cluster 40.

This is a fairly small cluster with five people in it. However, there are many people outside the cluster. Those outside the Cluster have a low DNA match below 20 cM which could mean a more distant match that 4th cousin. Ancestry uses 20 cM as its cutoff for 4th cousin and for shared matches.


Here is Gail:

By the chart, Madeline and Gail are third cousins.

NB and BZ

NB has the largest match with Madeline in the cluster (33.9 cM). She has a large tree, but unfortunately, it is private. BZ is Betty on the chart above.

DO and PO

D.O.’s tree is confusing because the tree opens up to one person who I assume is DO’s spouse. Here is the tree I get for the spouse:

I assume that the O in the DO is for O’Hair, but I can’t be sure. Here is the Henry name mentioned as a possible common ancestor between Madeline and Gail:

Archibald Frazer, Mary Ann Henry (?)

Here is what DO’s tree has for Anne Henry:

If the connection is with Henry, then that could mean that Cluster 40 is a Henry Cluster and not a Frazer cluster. Also I see Palmer in the tree which is also in Gail in Betty’s tree.

PO is one generation younger than DO. Here is PO’s tree:

This means that Madeline matches PO on POs paternal side.

Matches Affiliated with Cluster 40

From the small sampling of matches in Cluster 40, the common denominator could be Henry. Let’s look at some of the other matches affiliated with Cluster 40 that are genetically more distant.


Toni does not have a tree, but I have her in my tree here:

Toni and Madeline have a small match of 7 cM.


Madeline also has a match with SH of 16.2 cM. SH shows as the child of Walter Frazer along with Gail here:


Kay appears to be Betty’s niece and matches Madeline by 17 cM:


Going down the list of those affiliated with Cluster 40, I see WG. WG only matches Madeline by 7 cM. As WG should be Madeline’s second cousin once removed, this seems like a very small match.

According to AncestryDNA, this is the chance of WG being Madeline’s 2nd cousin once removed:

The closest shared match between WG and Madeline is Sandy. Sandy and Madeline share 188 cM. Sandy is in Madeline’s Cluster 16 where Madeline has a White and Burrows common ancestor:

Here is Sandy’s tree:

I see that I already made my own tree for Sandy, so I must have gone down this road before:

These ancestors have New York State births, so fit in geographically with Madeline’s ancestors. However, I don’t see the specific matches as I probably didn’t go back far enough in time. The name of Susan Price is interesting as there was a Susannah Price who married a George Frazer who was born in Martinsburg, NY in 1858. However, he was from a different Frazer line.

Remember Sandy is in Cluster 16. She is not in Cluster 40 like WG, but is related in some secondary way.


Timothy is next in the list of small matches above Madeline’s Cluster 40 that are affiliated with that Cluster. Here is his tree:

Here I notice a Mary Fraser married to Hugh McKay. I have come across Mary in the past and have built my own tree here:

Above is the paternal side for Timothy. There is even a photo for Mary M Fraser. I have that she was born in New York, but I think that Canada is a possibility also. The last time I looked at Mary Fraser, I was looking at the Michael Line:

However, I don’t think I made the genealogical connection.


Patricia is the 6th person associated with Cluster 40, but outside the cluster due to her DNA match of less than 20 cM with Madeline. Here is her tree:

The maternal side of Patricia’s tree goes back to a Mary Armstrong who was born in Manorhamilton. Patricia has her mother as Margaret Palmer.

Joanna’s Brother and Sister

Madeline also matches Frazer researcher Joanna’s brother and sister in the group of DNA matches that is affiliated with Cluster 40. They should be third cousins, but by the DNA they would be less than that.

One of Joanna’s siblings matches Madeline at 9.4 cM and matches four out of five in Cluster 40. The other sibling matches Madeline by DNA at 10.0 cM and matches 3 out of 5 in Cluster 40. However, it is not totally clear to me that the match is on the Frazer side. Note above that Patricia also has a Palmer ancestor as does Joanna’s family. Kimberly also shows between Joanna’s two siblings but does not have a tree.


SW shows this connection to Madeline:

SW is not on my chart.

I’m not sure if SW is the daughter of Sharon or of another daughter of Walter James Frazer. However, SW would be a second cousin once removed to Joanna. SW matches Joanna at 93 cM across 5 segments, which is about right for a 2nd cousin once removed. That tells me that something strange may be going on in the Edward Wynn Frazer line as Madeline has a low match with WG and a low match with Joanna’s family.

After SW there is a small match with WW, but I can’t figure out WW’s tree.

Below Cluster 40

Below Cluster 40, Madeline has four matches affiliated with Cluster 40:

Dean and Dot

Dean has a large tree, but it is private. Dot has a smaller tree, but I can see it:

Dot’s maternal side goes back to Henry. That was a possible spouse for Archibald Frazer born about 1795. I see there is some circumstantial evidence for the Palmer name also:

I’m too lazy too do my own tree for Dot, so I’ll skip that part.

Pamela and Christy

Pamela has no tree. Christy has this one:

A quick look at this tree shows Buchanan in common with the previous tree. Francis was from Belfast and his two parents are listed as being from Ireland.

Where Are Madeline’s Frazer Matches?

Madeline is one quarter Frazer, so theoretically one quarter of her matches should be on her Frazer side. As I saw above, it seems like some of the matches that are attributed to Frazer could be explained by matches to other ancestors. The problems seem to start here:

Madeline has normal matches to Mike, Charlotte, Kathy and Mary, but the match to WG is small.

At one step out, the matches on the to Thomas Henry Frazer Line are small also.

Let’s check WG, to see how this person matches others. Madeline has shared matches with WG:

David has no tree. NB has a large private tree. NB and DO are managed by the same person. BZ is the great grandaughter of Thomas Henry Frazer. It seems significant that none of Madeline’s very close relatives match WG – at least not at 20 cM or more.

An Analogy from My Own Genealogy

Actually the analogy is from my mother’s genealogy. My mother’s mother was a Lentz. My mother is one quarter Lentz and one quarter Nicholson. However, a lot of the closer matches are both Nicholson and Lentz, so it is difficult to separate the two. Here is my Lentz DNA/genealogy tree:

The Lentz/Nicholson relatives are on the left. The common ancestors go back to Jacob George Lentz and Annie Nicholson. The were born in the 1860’s. The DNA matches that are only Lentz have an common ancestor that goes way back to 1792 or three generations further back. It would be possible that Madeline has this same type of issue with her Frazer ancestors. However, Madeline’s situation seems a little different in that she has WG that she should match and doesn’t also other Frazer branches that should match more closely do not. But they do match faintly, so it gets confusing. Madeline could be matching on a more distant Frazer line or a more distant line that is collateral to the Frazers.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The small DNA matches suggest that something could be amiss with Madeline’s Frazer side genealogy.
  • However, she does have some small matches which suggest a match further back in time on the Frazer side or on lines that married the Frazers.
  • Madeline has a very small match with her second cousin WG. If WG matched other Frazer lines, that that would tell me that his genealogy is right and that Madeline’s is wrong. However, he doesn’t, so that means that there could be a double problem in the genealogy.
  •  I had looked at Joanna’s line [Thomas Henry Frazer] in a previous Blog. I had also wanted to look at the Willliam Fitzgeral Frazer Line (born 1821) to see how they fit in with the other two lines, but there was a trouble with Ancestry working with Shared Clustering, so that will have to wait.


Looking At Joanna’s Frazer Shared DNA Matches and Shared Clustering

Frazer genealogist Joanna recently expressed some interest in Shared Clustering, so I thought I’d take a look at her shared DNA matches and shared clusters. I won’t go into how shared clusters work, but the output is supposed to organize your DNA matches into ancestral lines.

Joanna’s Ancestry

I am mostly interested in Joanna’s Frazer ancestry, as I am distantly related to her on at least one of her Frazer lines. Here is what I see for Joanna’s tree:

Joanna is divided into four parts: Frazer, Seymour, Dickins and Williams.

Shared Clustering

Shared Clustering has a basic 50 cM setting. Here are Joanna’s matches sorted at 50 cM and above:

Cluster 1 looks like Joanna’s Williams side. Cluster 2 is Joanna’s close relatives and Dickins side. Cluster 3 is Joanna’s Frazer side. I didn’t see anyone from Joanna’s Seymour side. That means that she doesn’t have close matches on that line or not enough close matches to make a cluster. Because Joanna has many close relatives tested, the demarcations between the clusters don’t show up well. Close relatives will be in all clusters. I put a yellow box around the Frazer Cluster 3.

At 30 cM Joanna Has 7 Clusters

Here is a shrunken down image of all of Joanna’s matches and how they are clustered into 7 groups:

The places where the red markers go a long way in a line are Joanna’s closest relatives.

The Cluster that I recognize at this level is Cluster 2 – Gail and Sharon are in this Cluster. They are Joanna’s second cousins with common ancestors Thomas Henry Frazer and Eliza Jane Palmer. Gail and Sharon also show that they have a correlated cluster in Cluster 1. I take that to mean that Cluster 1 could be a Palmer Cluster.

More on Joanna’s Cluster 2 at 35 cM

Joanna’s Cluster Two is a bit of a compound Cluster:

The first part of Cluster Two is somewhat separated from the second part but not totally.  Let’s look at my Frazer DNA/Genealogy Chart:

Here I’m at a bit of a loss as I am not an expert on Joanna’s side of the Frazer tree. However, one interpretation is that the two sides of Cluster Two could be for William Fitzgerald Frazer and Thomas Henry Frazer. The question could then be: what happened to the descendants of Edward Wynn Frazer born 1830? There has been a problem with Joanna’s family matching this branch in the past, so let’s keep an eye on this branch. I see that I have permission to look at Madeline’s DNA, so it may make sense to look at her shared matches to see how they fit in. This will probably require a separate Blog.

Kelly in Cluster 2

Joanna has a match in Cluster 2a with Kelly who has Frazer genealogy. Let’s take a look. Cluster 2a is the William Fitzgerald Frazer Branch.

Here we see that Kelly shows her ancestry goes back to a William Frazer born 1824. Also notice that Kelly’s ancestor has a middle initial of W. Here is how Joanna shows Kelly’s ancestor:

So while I was thinking that Kelly would fit into the William Fitzgerald Line, the genealogy shows that she is in the William Wynn Line. Here is Kelly’s ancestor grave marker:

This seems further supported by the 1851 Census of Ontario:

That leaves me with this possible interpretation of Joanna’s Cluster:



This shows that Joanna matches Thomas Henry closely (through second cousins). She matches William Fitzgerald descendants who are third cousins once removed. Then she matches a group that appears to be descended from William (not Edward) Wynn Frazer. This is probably William Frazer:

That leads to this crazy situation:

This shows that Joanna is a 5th cousin twice removed to Kelly. I say it’s crazy because the relationship is so far out. Joanna matches Kelly on two segments which means that they could be related on more than one line. For example, Joanna doesn’t have a wife for her ancestor Archibald Frazer born 1792. Perhaps his wife was a Knott. Or Kelly and Joanna just have a randomly large DNA match considering the relational distance.

A Transitional Clustering at 30 cM

I already ran this Shared Clustering for Joanna, so I’ll show it.

Here, Joanna’s second cousins popped out into their own Cluster 3. Cluster 2 now appears to just be William Wynn Frazer and Kelly and William Fitzgerald Frazer in the lower right part of the Cluster.

Thomas From Cluster Two

Because I only have one known person (Kelly) in the first part of Cluster Two, I’ll look at Thomas. He has an Alexander Frazer in his tree from Pennsylvania. I’ll take what Thomas has and see if I can make a connection:

This appears to be Alexander and family in 1920:

Alexander’s brother William was said to be born in Connecticut. Here is Archey’s Declaration of Intention:

Archibald was transcribed as being born in “Roocommon”.  That narrows it down. It appears that Joanna was ahead of me and already has this line:

However, this is in a different Frazer Line than Joanna is in, so more mystery. I’ll be glad to add him to my Frazer/Stinson Tree:

So the mystery deepens. Joanna, what is going on? Again, I suspect that there could be a non-Frazer connection somewhere. The question now is how Kelly and Thomas are related?

Joanna also matches Emily on this Line. My guess is that Emily is Thomas’ daughter. In fact, that is how Joanna has Emily.

Taking Joanna’s Shared Clustering Down to 20 cM

At this level of DNA matches, Joanna has 31 Clusters. Let’s see what they show.

Emily, Thomas and Kelly are still in the same Cluster, but now it is Cluster 22. The fact that these three are still in the same cluster tells me that this could be a fairly old set of common ancestors. This is one possibility in addition to this being a non-Frazer cluster (or a cluster that has Frazer and another common ancestor).

Going Down to 6 cM for Joanna’s Clusters

Doing this doesn’t create any new clusters, but it shows people that probably would be in clusters if clusters did go down that low. I am setting my expectations low here. I am just hoping for not too many more questions to come out of this.

The extra matches that Joanna has are above and below Cluster 22. Here are the ones above:

What I find interesting is that the top part of Cluster 22 has a pink designation. Joanna has this as McMaster/Frazer/Haire/Bowles if I am reading it right. The green is Frazer.

Here are the extra matches at the bottom of Cluster 22:

They form at transition between Clusters 22 and 23. Cluster 23 has Toni from the William Fitzgerald Frazer Branch. Notice that Joanna’s pink designation has mostly gone away for Cluster 23.

Joanna’s Other Clusters

Joanna’s Cluster 26 is the McPartland Cluster:

There are only three in that Cluster. That McPartlands can trace back to an Ann Frazer. Here is where Joanna has Ann:

However, this is genealogy is just a guess at this point. I have written many Blogs about the McPartland including one on Joanna’s sister.  However, after looking at how the clusters are associated, I can see where Joanna would come to the conclusion that this is the place to put the McPartland family in her genealogy. The McPartland Cluster 26 has an affinity for Joanna’s Cluster 27:

Cluster 27 and Different Common Ancestors

Here is another thing to sort out. Cluster 27 and matches associated with that Cluster have differrent common ancestors:


As per above, the McPartland Cluster had common ancestor Archibald of Tullynure. That Cluster had an affinity for Cluster 27. It looks like all the Common Ancestors that are in Cluster 27 proper have Archibald of Tullynure (or Thomas Henry Frazer). It doesn’t seem normal that there should be a group that is associated with Cluster 27 includes Palmer in Notley. If these were really Palmer and Notley, I would assume that these matches should be associated with Palmer and Notley Clusters. That leads me to believe that could be some relationship between Archibald of Tullynure (or his wife) and Palmer or Notley (or their spouses).

Here I have filtered Joanna’s clusters and matches by Palmer and Notley common ancestors:


I also included the row number to the left. Cluster 1 has a Notley common ancestor in the cluster. Cluster 10 has a Thomas Palmer common ancestor. Then rob has a Notley common ancestor associated with Clusters 1 and 10 which makes sense. I’m saying that it doesn’t make as much sense that Claire, Alexander, etc have Notley and Palmer common ancestors that are associated with Cluster 27 which is a Thomas Henry or Archibald of Tullynure Cluster.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Many Blogs I set out trying to solve all the genealogical problems, but in reality I end up inching toward the truth
  • The Blog raised more questions than providing answers
  • One question: How does the Edward Wynn Frazer/Ismena Jane White branch fit in as the DNA connection is not clear? I hope to look at the DNA from this branch in my next Blog
  • Next questions: Joanna is in a cluster with Kelly who appears to be a 5th cousin twice removed.
  • This Kelly is also in a Cluster with Thomas who is in an even more distant Line of Archibald Frazer/Stinson. How are these two connected?
  • My last question had to do with Joanna’s Cluster 27 at the lowest resolution of clustering. She had many matches with Palmer or Notley ancestors in a Cluster which had her ancestor Archibald of Tullynure. This suggests that the two families could be related.
  • I looked at a small McPartland Cluster. This cluster seems to support the way Joanna has this family in her genealogy. However, I also match this family through X Chromosome matches. It would be interesting to try to integrate the connections between Joanna, McPartlands and my family.

Continue reading “Looking At Joanna’s Frazer Shared DNA Matches and Shared Clustering”

A New Nicholson DNA Match with Robert at MyHeritage

MyHeritage occasionally sends me updates on my new DNA matches. Robert was one that stood out recently. Here is how my DNA match looks like with Robert:

Robert and I match on the above 5 chromosomes.

Robert’s Genealogy

Because of past experience, I know that I will match Robert on his maternal side. I believe that Martha Pote is a daughter of a Nicholson. Here is the relative spot where Robert fits in on my DNA matching/Nicholson Genealogy Tree:

I say relative place,  because I don’t know for sure whether Robert is Sadie’s father or uncle. If they had both tested at MyHeritage, I would be able to tell. Actually, I may be able to tell, because I have Sadie’s DNA painted. Either way, Robert is my third cousin and we share Nicholson and Ellis DNA – specifically from William Nicholson and Martha Ellis.

DNA Painter

Here is Sadie at DNA Painter. This is how she matches me:

If Sadie only had DNA matches that contain Roberts, she is most likely his daughter. If she has DNA matches that are different than Robert, then Robert is likely not her father. This is based on the fact that Sadie got all the DNA that matches me from her father. When I check DNA Painter, Sadie’s DNA is contained in Robert’s DNA matches, so it is likely her father. Plus I see Sadie’s email listed for Robert at Gedmatch, where his results also show up.

I have quite a few Nicholson matches already, but Robert adds some new DNA (see circled below):

The new areas of Nicholson/Ellis matches are on Chromosomes 1 and 5.

Here are some other matches on my maternal side Chromosome 1:

I have left out the names for privacy, but Robert is the purple match. He is right over Judith who is a closer match under Lentz/Nicholson. This tells me that my match with Judith is on her Nicholson side and not on her Lentz side.

Here are all my maternal matches:

Note that Robert’s purple match on Chromosome 1 is obscured by the green matches. Expanding Chromosome 1 shows the details.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Robert descends from Sarah Nicholson who was the older sister of my great grandmother Annie Nicholson, making us third cousins
  • I was able to paint Robert’s DNA onto my Chromosome map. This DNA represents the DNA Robert and I share from either William Nicholson or Martha Ellis. This couple was born in Sheffield, England and moved to Pennsylvania.
  • Robert’s DNA added to my Nicholson/Ellis DNA as well as adding to my mother’s DNA profile and my siblings’ chromosome maps.
  • In one case, due to a matching overlap, I was able to tell that a closer Lentz/Nicholson match was actually on the Nicholson side.
  • When we match an ancestral couple, the DNA is actually from one or the other of the couple, but we usually don’t know which. For the example of the match with cousin Judy, Robert identified that the DNA was from Annie Nicholson and not her Lentz husband.