Category: Frazer

Posted on

Sorting Out the Philip Frazers of Roscommon, Ireland

I’ve written a bit about Philip Frazer. He was born probably in Roscommon, Ireland between the 1750’s and 1770’s. In one of my previous Blogs, I proposed this tree:

 

In a recent e-mail from Richard to myself and Bonnie, we have this to consider:

I am trying to tie up some loose ends about my Frazer family in Ontario in the mid-1800s.  

In Joel’s blog about my third cousin, Martha, http://www.jmhartley.com/HBlog/2018/10/22/frazer-dna-analysis-for-martha-richards-3rd-cousin/

Joel speculates that Philip W. Frazer, in the household of Philip Frazer and Jane in Plympton, Lambton County, Ontario in the 1871 census, is the son of Philip Frazer, the first child of Philip Frazer (b. 1805) and Mary Taylor, b. in Kilmactranny Parish in January 1825.  However, Bonnie’s Frazer tree on Ancestry shows this Frazer family as descended from James Frazer and his wife Violet Frazer.  It seems clear that the Frazer family in Plympton, Ontario is related to my ancestor, Ann Frazer (b. 1832), m. Robert Johnston c. 1853 and raised their children in Blenheim Twp., Oxford County, Ontario and died in 1871.  Based on Bonnie’s Frazer tree, Philip Frazer (father of Philip W.) and Ann Frazer would be first cousins rather than siblings.  Does this sound right to both of you?

I have trouble picturing all this, so let’s look at Bonnie’s tree:

The way it worked, is that it would have been traditional to name your first son after your father. Well, Philip and James, under this scenario both were the sons of Philip and both named their first son Philip. Bonnie has Philip’s first son born in 1825 and James’ son born 1828  – both named for the elder Philip. This makes life for genealogists quite confusing. Under Bonnie’s tree, Richard descends from James and Violet Frazer. I would say that Bonnie’s tree looks better than mine:

I don’t even have Philip as the son of James and Violet – even though I have had him on my web page for a long time:

My October 2018 Blog – Philip Frazer Son of Philip Or James?

Here is the Blog that Richard was referring to:

In my Blog, I assumed that the 45-year-old Philip Frazer in the 1871 Ontario Census descended from Philip and not James and Violet. I can see that I did not at the time consider the other possibility.

Arguments For Philip Frazer of Ontario Being the Son Of James Frazer

Seeing as I did not consider this before, I will now. First, Bonnie’s tree has Philip Frazer married to Jane Hayward. I notice in the 1861 Ontario Census, Jane Hayward Frazer was living in the Haywood household:

Philip was an early Frazer with a connection to Kilmactranny. My own 2nd great-grandfather, George William marries a woman from Kilmactranny Parish and later moves to the area. This may or may not be a coincidence.

Richard Frazer who would have been Philip’s brother under this scenario also lived in Ontario for a while. This could also be considered coincidence.

Here is a photo from my grandmother’s photo album from Toronto:

I have no idea who this mysterious young woman is.

If Philip was the brother of my ancestor George, he may have named a son for him. However, I have that both Philip and James had a brother named George.

I have that my ancestor George lived in the house of his father James. If Philip or Richard, George’s older brothers, continued on in Ireland, then this may have not been the case.

I have not come up with a convincing argument, but I think that Bonnie’s tree is probably right. It feels right.

Other Trees

Joanna, who is a noted Frazer researcher, has this in her Ancestry Tree:

 

Joanna agrees with Bonnie though I think they do collaborate some.

The Counter-Argument: Philip Frazer is the Son of Philip Frazer

My original suggestion was based a lot on naming patterns. It would have been traditional for Philip, son of Philip to name his first son Philip. If Philip was the son of James, why didn’t he name his first son James instead of Philip? James’ first son was Philip. James’ second and third sons were Richard and George William. Richard’s first son was James Archibald born 1856. He died in 1861. George William’s first son was also James Archibald who was born in 1867.

Philip in Kilmactranny or Ardcarn?

I believe that Philip was from Ardcarn Parish. A search for Frazers in the Tithe Applotment Books shows 18 entries for Frazers in County Roscommon and none in County Sligo. Ardcarn Parish is in Roscommon and Kilmactranny Parish is in County Sligo. Here is Philip in 1834 in Derrycastle aka Derrycashel with some of his relatives:

Here is an early marriage record from the Kilmactranny Church:

This clearly indicates that Philip was from Ardcarne and Jane was from Kilmactranny. A search for Johnstons in Kilmactranny Parish in the Tithe Applotment reveals three Johnston families in Dromore in 1834: William, Alexander and John. Perhaps they were brothers of Jane. Here is Dromore:

The dotted line to the South of Kilmactranny is the County Roscommon border.

Here is another try at a Philip Frazer Tree:

 

This tree focuses on the Philip’s and omits some of the siblings. I have a Philip marrying Jane Johnston and then Mary Taylor. If he first married in 1818, I would guess that he could have been born around 1795.

Another Ancestry Tree

Here is a Tree that is not associated with the Frazer DNA Project:

Here they have more information on George Frazer. They also have a William Frazer who would make for a young parents for James and Violet Frazer. This William is also unexpectedly born in Edinburgh. The tree has the generally accepted Philip husband of Jane Hayward as the son of James and Violet Frazer:

 

The DNA?

I mentioned in the Blog that Richard referred to, “All we need to do next is to see if there are descendants of Philip W, Alfred, Mary, Emily and George and see if they would take a DNA test.” I don’t know of any of the descendants of the Philip Frazer family of Plympton, Ontario who have had their DNA tested. Perhaps one will soon. This would be especially interesting to me as we would have the common ancestors of James and Violet Frazer – assuming the above tree is right.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Thanks to Richard’s diligence, he pointed out a disagreement between my previously proposed Philip Frazer tree and what others had in their Frazer Trees.
  • Given what I know now, I think that the most recent tree above should be fairly accurate. Next time I need to check existing trees before suggestiing a new line.
  • If any descendants of Philip Frazer and Jane Hayward have their DNA tested, it would likely give more proof as to whether the above trees are correct.
  • I haven’t seen a death record for the elder Philip Frazer. It could be that he died before there were good death records available. If that was the case, that would mean that it would be his son Philip who was in the 1834 Tithe Applotment.

 

 

Posted on

Cousin Frank on the James Frazer Line and His DNA

Joanna is great at finding Frazer’s and getting them to upload their DNA to Gedmatch. That is where I do my analysis, to see how they compare to other Frazer’s in the Frazer DNA Project. Here is an old map of the general area where the Frazer’s came from in Ireland:

The early Frazer’s settled in the lands between Lough Arrow and Lough Key around the early 1700’s.

Frank’s Genealogy

Frank’s DNA will not make a lot of sense outside his genealogy. Here is Frank’s Ancestry Tree:

There are two sides to the Frazer DNA Project. There is the Archibald and the James Branches. Frank is from the James Branch.

This tree represents the James Line descendants in red who have had their DNA tested and uploaded to Gedmatch. There are two major branches above under the James Line: Archibald born 1751 and Michael born 1764. Frank is from the Michael Line. I’ll add him in there:

 

Here Frank sits comfortably with other Michael Frazer descendants. However, he is in the Fitzgerald Frazer Branch all by himself. Fitzgerald Frazer moved to New York from Ireland. I assume that he felt his prospects would be better there. He was living in Haverstraw, NY in 1850.

The Census indicates that he was in New York at least by 1835 when his eldest daughter was born. He apparently married in New York before that time.

Frank is 4th cousin to the other DNA-tested Michael Frazer descendants. Frank is 5th cousin or further out to other James Line descendants. My guess is that Mary Gordon, Fitzgerald’s wife, was not related to Fitzgerald. At least, if she was not related to him, that would make the DNA analysis easier.

Frank’s DNA

I would like to look at Frank’s DNA to see how he matches with other Frazer’s. First, I ran Frank’s matches against all in the Frazer project with no known genealogical link to the James Line and came up with this:

Paul is my 2nd cousin, once removed. Karen, Chris, and Charlene are from the McPartland Connection. I forget how Jenn fits in. I have written a lot about my family’s connection with the McPartlands and likely James Line connection. I hope to make some suggestions later in this Blog.

Here is how Frank matches the above and those from the James Line:

This Matrix is difficult to interpret.

  • The McPartland Group seems to match the Archibald Frazer/Peyton Group the best
  • Marilee has a large match with Bob from the McPartland Group. I have discussed Marilee in past Blogs.
  • Frank’s best match is with Betty from the Archibald/Peyton Group. He also has good matches with the McPartland Group. Frank matches one of the four Michael Frazer descendants above 7cM.

Triangulation to the Rescue?

I like to look at triangulated segments or Triangulation Groups (TGs). The theory is that when three or more people share the same DNA that indicates a unique shared ancestor for the group. If Frank triangulates with any of the above people, it could shed some light.

Chromosome 12

 

Here Frank is in a TG with Paul and Joanna. I find this interesting for a few reasons. First, I believe that this TG represents Paul’s McMaster/Frazer side. This is from my web page from about 15 years ago.

 

Here I speculate that Michael Frazer could have been Margaret Frazer’s father or brother. If Margaret was 20 when she married, she would have been born in 1793. I now have that Michael Frazer could have been born in 1764 which would have made him 29 at the time of Margaret’s birth – assuming I am on the right track.

Here I will try out my theory:

Here I have Paul and my family under the Michael Line, but we are one or two generations down from the others. I don’t know if we belong here or to the left under Archibald and Catherine Peyton. Here is what the triangulation would look like assuming that Paul and family descend from the Michael Line:

The common ancestor would be the same whether I put Margaret Frazer under Michael or his brother Archibald.

Not Being in TG12

Interestingly, Prudence, Karen and Chris could have been in this TG, but they were not.

A wild guess could be that Karen and Chris from the McPartland Line descend from Archibald born about 1792. Then it would have to be that Chris, Prudence and Karen were sharing the DNA from Archibald’s mother Catherine Peyton. That could explain some of the McPartland DNA matches here:

This is what the McPartlands would look like under this scenario:

They would be the green family on the left. I would be in the green family on the right. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. It doesn’t hurt to build these make-believe trees as it helps to see where these families could be. However, I would rather have the McPartlands and my green branch under the same side. I’ll explain why in the next section.

Chris and My Sisters Match on the X Chromosome

Here is how Chris from the McPartland Line matches my three sisters on the X Chromosome:

Those are pretty big matches. The only way for Chris to match Lori, Sharon, and Heidi on the Frazer Line is by going through the McMaster side. This is the scenario that I am proposing:

Under this scenario, the X Match would head up to Catherine Peyton. My second choice would be to have both green branches under the Michael Line. In that case, the X Chromosome matches would go back to Margaret Stewart. I’m sure I’ll do more analysis on this in the future. If we had more information on where all these people lived it may also make things more clear.

Usually X matches are not helpful in surname studies such as this. That is because the X Chromosome is not passed down from father to son. However, this case is different. On the McPartland side, the Frazer ancestor is deep in the ancestry on the maternal side. In my family’s case, I have Frazer on more than one line. One of those lines goes back on my grandmother’s father’s mother’s line which is McMaster. In fact, my three sisters got all their paternal side X Chromosome from their paternal grandmother. She in turn got all her paternal side X Chromosome from her paternal grandfather who was Margaret McMaster born 1846.

Back to Triangulation and Non-Triangulation

Above, I had mentioned how Paul, Frank and Joanna Triangulated, but Prudence, Karen and Chris did not even though they matched on the same segments. How can that be? Here is one possible explanation:

Prudence, Chris and Karen could be matching on Peyton DNA and Joanna, Paul and Frank could be triangulating on Frazer DNA. With DNA, at a certain level, there are only two choices. The DNA is either from the mother or the father. In this scenario, either Archibald Frazer or Catherine Peyton. Of course, there are other possibilities, but those would be based on different possible family histories.

I have more Triangulation Groups (TGs) in this Blog. However, some of them need to be updated based on the information from this Blog. It is interesting after that reading that Blog to see how I was heading in the right direction and see the answers starting to unfold. In this Blog, the answers are continuing to unfold as to how my family, the James Line and the McPartland Line all tie together.

Frank’s DNA Matches

Here’s a summary of Frank’s matches:

The facts of Frank’s DNA matches are simple. The interpretation is complicated as the genealogy is skimpy.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Frank’s DNA results are important as he provides a new Michael Line on the James Line.
  • That line is a bit isolated from other Michael Line descendants and Frank only matches Bonnie from that Line. Statistically, Frank should be matching 4th cousins on this line at greater than 50%. In reality, he matches one out of four of his fourth cousins on this line.
  • On the Archibald Line, Frank matches five out of about 15 tested descendants. That is better than the >10% reported for fifth cousins.
  • Frank is in a Triangulation Group with Paul and Joanna. For Paul, who is my cousin, that most probably on a line that goes from Frazer to McMaster to Frazer.
  • I proposed a scenario where Paul’s Line and the McPartland Line fits on the Archibald Frazer/Peyton Line.
  • This proposed tree includes that fact that Frank’s closest matches seemed to be with the McPartlands. The McPartland line and my sisters share a large block of X Chromosome. The pathway of X Chromosome inheritance narrows down many matching possibilities and therfor common ancestors. Paul, Frank and Joanna were in a TG which gives rise to certain possibilities for common ancestors.
  • As I look at the genealogy, I notice that Frank has a William and a Fitzgerald in his anestry. I see those names also on the Archibald Line. However, Fitzgerald also appears in Beverly’s Line on the Michael Frazer side.
  • As I look at previous Blogs, it seems like the answers are coming together slowly, though there is no definitive answer yet. I am not sure how much more definitive one can get with just DNA testing and minimal genealogy.
Posted on

Caz: A DNA Tested Frazer

I heard from Caz recently who responded to one of my Frazer Blogs. Caz tells me that her grandmother was a Frazer. She also says that she is a third cousin to Ros. That would put her near here:

Here is a slightly bigger picture:

Fortunately, Jane gave me access to her matches and I found Caz as one of Jane’s Shared Ancestry Hints. I’ll add Caz to the Australian Line of Frazers:

 

This is becoming a good group.

Caz’ DNA

Here is Caz in what I call the Stinson Group:

The furthest out relationship on this branch is 5th cousin. Here are some guidelines for the chances of matching a specific cousin.

Here is what I get for the DNA for the above group:

I left out the blue line as I am not as sure about them. The matrix shows how everyone matches everyone else in the group. It is a little complicated as some of the Frazers intermarried and some of these people are matching Frazers outside this specific group. Note that everyone matches each other within the Archibald Stinson/Catherine Parker Group. Everyone in that group is a third cousin once removed or closer.

Caz and Triangulation

Triangulation is when three people match each other on the same segment of the chromosome. Here is one example:

Here Caz matches Michael and Jane. For these segments to triangulate, Michael also has to match Jane which he does. Notice that Michael also matches Vivien. Vivien would be in the Triangulation Group (TG) also, but Vivien probably matches Caz below the match threshold of 7 cM.

Here is how I would show the TG on a tree:

This should be important information for Jane and Michael. That is because Jane and Michael also match on the Richard Frazer Line.

Although it is possible that the DNA is from the Richard Frazer Line, it is much more likely to be from the Frazer/Stinson Line. That is because a match between Caz and Jane or Michael would be an extra generation away.

A Closer TG

This TG is less ambiguous:

Caz, Don and Cathy are not known to be descended from other Frazer Lines.

A Frazer/White TG

When people are in a TG, they share a common ancestor.

For example these three may be sharing the DNA from either John Parker Frazer or Honora White. However, their children were Frazers, so we consider the DNA to be Frazer DNA.

This TG is similar to the second one I looked at:

In this case, Vivien replaced Don in the TG. These four TGs represent DNA from ancestors from three different generations of Frazers – from 1778 to 1827.

Caz Compared to All the Other Frazers

Here I will do a little fishing expedition to see who Caz matches and who she doesn’t. Here is what I get:

This brings up some interesting possibilities and may make me revise what I wrote above. First, let’s look at Charlene. She is on the McPartland Line. I have written many Blogs about this family. This is a small match that Caz has with Charlene, so it may or may not be valid.

The more interesting match is on Chromosome 1. Here there are two possibilities. One is that Paul, my family (Heidi, Lori, James and Jon) and Emily all have McMaster ancestry. So the TG could be on that family. Another is that this is part of an older Frazer TG.

Here is what the TG with the older Frazers would look like:

Note that my blue family is also part of the Richard Frazer group. Michael and Jane are in the Richard and Stinson group. I circled Vivien because she matches some of these people but not all. I think that she would be in this TG if I lowered her match threshold levels. Probably what is happening is that Emily, Paul and my family are triangulating with each other from George Frazer. This in turn was probably DNA from George’s mother Violet who was the daughter of Richard Frazer born about 1761 (on this chart but 1777 on the other chart). The blue circled people then match Jane and Michael as part of the Richard line also. Then Caz matches everyone else through Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilly. This DNA would have come down to Caz by way of Archibald Frazer and Ann Stinson. That means that this is a multiple level TG and a rolling TG. What I mean by rolling is that others come into it at different parts of Chromosome 1.

More on the Chromosome 1 TG

Seeing as so many people triangulate at the right side of Chromosome 1, let’s take a closer look. Here is an old list of matches tha I have been tracking:

PF is my cousin Paul. MFA is Michael. MB is Mike. I don’t know who he is, but he is in the TG and is likely related. BR is Bill who is related to Gladys. LH, HHM and Jon are my siblings. VO is Vivien. At the time, the common ancestor seemed to be Richard Frazer, now with Caz in the mix, that seems to have changed.

Pre and Post-Caz TGs

I stared at the numbers for quite a while. I’ll go through the matches. They seem to sort into pre and post-Caz TGs. This will be a little in-depth, so I apologize in advance. I’ll take a tour of Chromosome 1 starting at about position 181 M. My cousin Paul is matching with Jonathan from England on some other line than the TG that Gladys, Jon (my brother), Jim and Doreen are in. I called this TG the Pre-Caz TG:

 

This is a fairly recent TG as it represents Frazers born in the early 1800’s:

Paul breaks away from the Jonathan from England and joins the Caz TG around position 202M.

The Caz TG is a large one consisting of ten people. I took out some of the matches as gedmatch doubles the matches and ten people all matching each other is a lot of matches. Vivien drops out of this TG at 203M. Paul joins in at 202M. My family joins in at 205M and Emily joins at 209M. This could be considered two TGs or what is called a rolling TG with people exiting and entering.

I originally had the Caz TG starting later, but Caz does match Vivien on Chromosome 1 if I lower the threshold:

 

Here is the much older Caz TG:

 

This is a more detailed description of the TG I discussed earlier in the Blog.

The Post-Caz TG

In the Post-Caz TG, Caz and Emily drop out and Bill joins the group:

However, Michael and Jane are still in the group, so that makes this Post-Caz TG a Richard Frazer TG. Here are some of Michael’s matches:

 

I went back and did a more detailed analysis. Caz dropped out of the above TG but dropped into another one.

Here she is with Don and Cathy:

My normal guess would be that they share Parker DNA because they are overlapping another Frazer TG.

However, with multiple Frazer Lines I wouldn’t want to say that for sure.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I’m glad that Caz got in touch and that I was able to look at her DNA results.
  • Caz added some good depth to the Frazer/White Line of Australian Frazer descendants.
  • Chromosome 1 has been a hotbed of activity for many Frazer matches. Caz added some clarity to those matches and TGs. That is probably because she only matches on one Frazer Line – The Archibald/Stinson Line.
  • Using Caz’ DNA results I was able to take a detailed look at the many matches on Chromosome 1 and sort out the different TGs. These TGs represent four sets of ancestors in three different generations. These Frazer relationships are complicated by the fact that it appears that two sets of Frazer first cousins married each other.
Posted on

Keith’s McMaster DNA and Genealogy

From what I can tell, Keith is my best DNA match on the McMaster side. Here is how Keith appears at AncestryDNA:

Keith is a Shared Ancestor Hint. That means we have common ancestors and shared DNA. Here, Keith shows as my 3rd cousin once removed. Keith is an especially good match because he doesn’t show any recent Frazer ancestor that could confuse the DNA match. Also, Keith uploaded his DNA results to Gedmatch.com which means that we can compare more specific DNA matches and figure out how they relate to our shared ancestors.

McMaster Genealogy

My McMaster Genealogy for this Blog focuses on those who have taken a DNA test. Here is Keith’s Tree as seen at Ancestry:

Note that our shared McMaster Line also includes a Margaret Frazer. However, this match is further back and will be less likely to show up in a DNA match.

Here are the McMasters that I know of that have had their DNA tested:

Any DNA matches that Keith has with my family (Joel) or with Emily, and Paul will represent the DNA from James or Fanny McMaster.

A Summary of My McMaster Genetic Genealogy Research So Far

John

John is in the lower left of the chart above. I wrote about him here. John tested at MyHeritage which is good, but I don’t think he has uploaded to Gedmatch.com. If he did, that would show how he matches others with McMaster ancestry that haven’t tested at MyHeritage.

Stephen and Ron

I have these two as descending from Thomas Leroy McMasters. However, I have Edward as the son of Abraham. This seems unlikely has Abraham was born about 1764 and Edward was born in 1851. Here is my correction based on my Blog of Stephen and Ron here.

What I found out about Stephen and Ron was that I am more closely related to them on my Clarke side than on my McMaster side. Stephen tested at 23andme. 23andme is not compatible with Gedmatch with their current testing method. I believe that Ron has tested at MyHeritage and AncestryDNA, but has not uploaded his results to Gedmatch.com which makes DNA comparison more difficult.

Emily and Paul

Emily, Paul and my family have common Frazer and McMaster ancestors. That means that I can’t tell which of our shared DNA is Frazer or McMaster without independent Frazer or McMaster matches on the same segment of the Chromosome.

My Match with Keith at Gedmatch

Here is how I match Keith at Gedmatch:

Based on the amount of DNA we share, Gedmatch estimates that our common ancestors are 4.7 generations away. Keith and I are 3rd cousins once removed, which means that our common ancestors are 3.5 generations away. The once removed accounts for the half generation. However, these numbers are based on averages and I share less than the average amount of DNA with Keith. For example, my brother Jim shares about twice the amount of DNA with Keith compared to me:

Painting My DNA

There is an on-line utility called DNA Painter. That is a fun way to figure out what DNA you got from whom. This match with Keith shows DNA that we both got from James and Fanny McMaster. Here is what I have so far:

The top bar of each chromosome is my paternal side. That is where I am related to the McMasters. I match Keith from position 3 to 10 million. That is at the beginning of Chromosome 19 which is currently blank. At the right side of Chromosome 19, I have DNA from George Frazer and Margaret McMaster (the daughter of James and Fanny McMaster).

Here is the update at the beginning of Chromosome 19 in a light shade of blue:

In the key, I now have James and Fanny McMaster. James was born about 1806. This couple is in a section which represents my father’s mother’s side. This is the largest of my four grandparent groups in the key above.

A Triangulation Group (TG) for Keith

A Triangulation Group is when three or more people match each other by DNA. When this happens, this is almost certain proof that the DNA came down from the same ancestor.  Here is Keith’s match with Emily and Paul on Chromosome 12:

In order to make sure this is a true TG, we need to see if Paul and Emily also match each other on Chromosome 12 around position 92M:

Yes, it looks like they do.

We were already pretty sure by genealogy that Keith, Emily and Paul had the same two McMaster 2nd great grandparents, but the DNA also confirms it.

The fact that no one in my family is in the TG does not mean that we do not also descend from James and Fanny. It just means that we didn’t share the same exact portion of DNA that Emily, Paul and Keith did.

Shared Matches at AncestryDNA

AncestryDNA does not show specific Chromosome matching information, but it does show shared matches. These shared matches tend to indicate that I match Ron on the Clarke side and Keith on the McMaster side. I have 12 shared matches with Keith at AncestryDNA. Three of those 12 are my sisters. The remaining 9 are guessed to be 4th cousins by DNA. Ancestry only looks at Shared Matches out to the 4th cousin level.

Here is the comparison:

I have my comparison with Keith in the right hand box above. I also included Keith’s comparison with two of my sisters. These matches should represent those with McMaster ancestry. On the left box, I have my AncestryDNA Shared Matches with Ron. These people should represent those on my Clarke side. The point is, that these are two different groups. The only Shared Match was GG. This could mean that GG has Clarke and McMaster ancestry, or she is matching both Ron and Keith with McMaster ancestry.

I also note that BV is a strong Shared Match between Keith and my family. BV has a Maryann McMaster born 1819 in her tree as a direct ancestor. Here is Maryann’s photo from Ancestry:

MaryAnn McMaster – But Which McMaster?

BV at Ancestry doesn’t have information on MaryAnn’s parents. By DNA, Maryann could be related to me on my James McMaster side or my Fanny McMaster side. That makes things a little more complicated. I have that James’ father was Abraham McMaster. Here is what I have on my McMaster Web Page:

Note that I have a Marrianne, daughter of William McMaster and Margaret Frazer baptized 9 January 1820. This must be the same as BV’s Maryanne. Here is how I show I’m related to BV:

This shows that I am a 3rd cousin, twice removed to BV. That is equivalent, by DNA, to a 4th cousin. Now I just need to add some other McMasters:

This shows that BV is a 3rd cousin once removed to Emily, Paul and Keith. If BV uploads her DNA to Gedmatch, that could give clues on our common McMaster and Frazer ancestors. This tree also shows that BV is related to those on the right side of the chart on the Fanny McMaster and not the James McMaster side.

Putting the Two McMaster Lines Together

This comes out a bit small. The McMaster/Frazer Line is on the left. The Abraham Line is on the right. Note that Abraham as shown is about 26 years older than William McMaster. That means he could be an uncle to William or even a father to William. However, I doubt that William was the son of Abraham as that was not mentioned in William’s Lease of land:

I assume that the William and elder Abraham are the two lines I have above. In the lease above, it is stated that Abraham had a son named Abraham, but does not mention William as Abraham’s son.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Keith is the first good McMaster match who has also uploaded his DNA results to Gedmatch for comparison.
  • Keith tested at Ancestry. As a result, shared matches between Keith and my family are likely along the McMaster Line.
  • B.V. is a good shared match between my family’s AncestryDNA results and Keith’s AncestryDNA results. She also has a McMaster ancestor from Ireland that fits into research I had previously done on the McMaster family.
  • Finally, I combined the Abraham McMaster Tree and William McMaster/Margaret Frazer tree to see how they fit together. I have them lined up by the current generation at the bottom. However, that might not be the way they should be lined up.

 

 

 

Posted on

Kim’s (Irish?) Match to My Family

I recently had a message from Kim at AncestryDNA. Kim wrote:

Hello… I am trying to figure out how we are related because you don’t match any of my closest relatives well there’s not that many that have tested anyway. My relatives are from England Scotland Ireland and Sicily.

Kim matched my sister Sharon at AncestryDNA. I wrote back saying that she didn’t match my mom. My guess was that Kim matched my Clarke side.  My father’s maternal grandmother was a Clarke. They lived in County Sligo, Ireland but I don’t know much about that family. Before Ireland they may have lived in England or Scotland. I said that I would know more if Kim uploaded to Gedmatch. Kim wrote back to say that her DNA results were already at Gedmatch. Kim’s tree is private as she doesn’t want people copying any mistakes. She also wrote:

I’m pretty new at the DNA stuff and it’s so confusing how some people can match more with other people in the same family.

Kim at Gedmatch

I had told Kim I would know more based on Gedmatch. That is because my family’s DNA is mapped out by chromosome to each of our grandparents. Here is Chromosome 5 for me and two of my sisters:

Below is Kim’s match with my sister Sharon. Kim matches on our paternal side. That is the bottom red bar. The lighter red is from my grandmother. Both her parents were born in Ireland (Frazer and Clarke). Here is the detailed information of how Kim and Sharon match at Gedmatch.com:

This means that Sharon and Kim match on Chromosome 5 between about position 11 and 35 million. At Sharon’s red bar, her lighter red goes to darker red right where she stops matching Kim. That is because Kim and Sharon match on Sharon’s paternal grandmother’s side. Sharon got her DNA from her paternal grandmother up until position 35 million. After that point, the DNA that she got was from her paternal grandfather. If you look at my red bar at the top, I got almost all my Chromosome 5 paternal DNA from my dad’s dad. This is the dark red side where Kim and our family don’t match. That explains why Sharon matches Kim up to 35M and I don’t.

Why Doesn’t Kim Match Heidi at AncestryDNA?

It appears from the map above that Kim should match Heidi more than Sharon as Heidi has more light red on her paternal side. Here is how Heidi and Kim match at Gedmatch:

These matches are pretty close. Note however, that Kim and Heidi match up to 36M. This is just a little way past Kim and Sharon’s match at 35. That is the point where Sharon’s Frazer DNA stopped and her Hartley DNA started on Chromosome 5. My guess is that Gedmatch’s information is more precise than AncestryDNA’s. Even Kim’s ‘One to Many’ list Sharon match shows as being closer than Heidi’s. It is only when the One to One analysis is done, that we see that Heidi is a closer match.

Here is Kim’s ‘One to Many’ List at Gedmatch:

Sharon is at the top of this portion of Kim’s match list. My brother James is next, but I tested him at FTDNA. That means he would not show as a match at AncestryDNA. Heidi is at the bottom of the portion of the list that I copied.

Where Do Kim and Sharon Match Genealogically?

Here is my grandmother’s tree at Ancestry:

Based on Gedmatch, Kim and Sharon could be 3rd cousins, once removed. Let’s round that up to 4th cousins. If they are in the same generation from a common ancestor and they are 4th cousins, then they would have a common ancestor in the column starting with James Frazer above. Note that I have two Spratt ancestors missing. That means that one of my missing ancestors is a Spratt and the wife’s surname is unknown. If the common ancestor is further out, the news gets worse. I have only 6 ancestors at that level out of a potential 16.

As I mentioned, I have not seen Kim’s tree. It is private. However, if we were to look for a common ancestor, a good place to look would be in the area of the last two rows above. The people I have identified lived in Ireland. So that would be a good starting place to look for a common ancestor.

One Last Gedmatch Trick

Gedmatch has a useful utility with a clumsy name: “People who match one or both of 2 kits”. I want to find other people that match both Kim and Heidi. I picked Heidi as she matched Kim slightly higher than Sharon at Gedmatch. Here are some people that match Kim and Heidi on Chromosome 5:

The reference point is Heidi. Heidi’s match with Kim is #2. A yellow match is higher than a green match. #1 above is Catherine. I recognize her at AncestryDNA. In my Ancestry notes for Catherine at Ancestry, I have that Catherine is Heidi and Sharon’s largest match with an unknown connection. Here is one of Catherine’s Sligo ancestors. Sligo is where the Clarke’s lived:

Summary and Conclusions

  • I explained by Chromosome mapping how one sibling could match someone and another one would not.
  • I confirmed a guess that Kim matched my sisters on their paternal grandmother’s side. This grandmother’s parents were both from Ireland. Searching in Ireland for a common ancestor between Kim and my family would be a good start.
  • I made a guess as to why Ancestry showed Kim matching Sharon and not Heidi.
  • I found another person who was on Ancestry and Gedmatch. Catherine has a Tighe ancestor in Sligo. This person lived not too far from where my grandmother’s Clarke mother came from.  Perhaps my grandmother’s grandmother Jane Spratt was related to the Tighes.
Posted on

Barry’s Irish Frazer DNA

I had a message from Richard that he had his brother Barry’s DNA tested. The last Blog I wrote on Richard was here.

A Summary of Richard’s Frazer Line and DNA

In summary, it seems clear from my earlier Blog, that Richard was related to the same Frazers that I was related to from the areas of South County Sligo and Northern County Roscommon. Based on guesses, family given names and DNA, I came up with this likely tree for Richard in green:

Here is a summary of Richard’s matches:

The Mystery of Michael

A second look at this list shows that Richard had a large match also with Michael who I don’t have as descending from the Philip Line. However, he could match on other lines. For example, we don’t know who the wives were of Philip and Richard Frazer born in the 1700’s. Just looking at Richard’s matches of Paul, Gladys and Michael, it would appear that Richard would come from the Richard Frazer Line (born about 1777). However, Richard did not have a known son named Philip.

Barry’s DNA Compared to His Brother Richard

Barry’s DNA results should even out his brother’s results. What that means is that Richard or Barry could have DNA matches that are on the high or low side. However, when taken together, their results should be indicative of the DNA that their Frazer side mother has. At Gedmatch, I have compared Richard’s and Barry’s matches using their ‘One to Many’ lists:

The purple results are from the line of George Frazer who was born about 1838. The yellow line is from George’s older brother Richard Frazer who was born in 1830. When I last wrote about Richard, I didn’t mention Emily. She is a new match. I have written about Gary, Brian and Karen in other Blogs. The McPartland connection is one that comes up a lot. This family has a Frazer ancestor. The main point in presenting the above chart was to show the differences in matches between Richard and Gary. For example, my sister Sharon does not show up as a match to Richard above the 7.0 cM threshold. However, Sharon matches Barry at 54.7 cM in his One to Many list.

Comparing Barry to Others in the Frazer DNA Project

I added in the McPartlands above. Richard matches that family but his brother doesn’t. That means that my purple and blue table above is wrong that shows Barry matching McPartlands.

A Surprise Off-Topic Discovery

Based on the chart above, I found something surprising. Marilee and Bob match. I wrote a Blog about Marilee here. She appears to descend from the John Line of Frazers. I have her as the only known descendant in the John Line. I actually did look at the match Marilee had with Bob in my previous Blog.

Here is Marilee’s line in pink. Assuming that I have the tree right, that could mean that the McPartlands descend from the John Frazer Line. Perhaps the Ann Frazer who married a McPartland was the daughter of Archibald Frazer and Jane White:

It is a theory based on the match between Marilee and Bob. Here is Bob’s tree with my previous guess that pulled three families together using triangulation.

 

Well, it looks like I had thought of this before. If this is right, then it means that I descend from the John Line as well as the Philip and Richard Lines of Frazers. One cannot have enough Frazers in their ancestry!

Back to Barry’s DNA

Sorry for the tangent. Here is Barry’s DNA grouped a little differently:

I had trouble grouping Michael and Jane. I should have put them in the Stinson Section. They also descend from Violet Frazer who was the husband of James Frazer and daughter of Richard Frazer. However the Chart above emphasizes James Frazer who was the son of Philip Frazer (if I have it right).

In general if I were to draw a box around all the people believed to be descended from Philip born about 1776, it seems like the matches would hold together.

It is a little difficult to see the distinction as Michael and Jane also have connections to the Richard Frazer Line as a mentioned above. Notice that the matches drop off for Jane when she gets to Richard and Barry, but they don’t drop off for Michael. That could mean that there is some ancestral connection that Michael has to Richard and Barry that Jane does not.

Barry and Jamie – A Johnston Connection?

I see that Barry and Jamie have a large match. I have that Jamie is in the Stinson Section. However, Jamie and John have no matches with the other Stinsons and a pretty good match with Richard and Barry. However, this match may be due to a Johnston connection. Both Barry and Jamie have Johnstons in their ancestry. Other connections are possible. Richard, Barry, Jamie and her brother John all have Johnston grandparents. Their Frazer ancestors go much further back.

Barry and DNA Triangulation Groups

If Barry has a match with two people by DNA and those two people also have a DNA match with each other, that is called a triangulation group. This is a strong DNA match that indicates a  common ancestor. I leave the triangulation step until the end as it takes a little bit of work. To triangulate, I need to compare the 28 people that are in the Archibald Frazer descendant group and compare them to each other.

Triangulation Group (TG) Chromosome 12

From my spreadsheet of matches, I see this group on Chromosome 12:

Here Barry matches Jamie and Paul. Paul also matches Jamie. That makes a TG. This means that this DNA on Chromosome 12 came down to these three people from one specific ancestor. Here are two possibilities for common ancestors:

Here at the top of the tree is Archibald Frazer born about 1720 and Mary Lilley.  If it wasn’t for the match with Paul, we might guess that Jamie and Barry were matching on a Johnston ancestor as they both have Johnston ancestors. Paul, however, has no known Johnston ancestors. That leaves the above possibility for the TG on Chromosome 12.

TG at Chromosome 17

I already described this TG in my Blog on Richard. However, now Barry has joined the TG. Also Jamie from the Stinson Line. I think that I found out about Jamie after I wrote the Blog on Richard.

These people could be represented with the same common ancestors as in TG 12 above.

This gets confusing, because Lori and I also descend from the Richard Frazer Line. In addition, Michael also descends from the Stinson Line. Also, note that Paul and Marilee have a small match. Perhaps these two would be in the TG if I lowered the DNA match thresholds.

Again, if this was just a match between Barrie and Jamie, I would suspect that it could be from a common Johnston ancestor. However, as Lori, Joel and Michael have no known Johnston ancestors, it appears more likely that this is a Frazer TG.

A New TG on Chromosome 18

Here is a new TG between Barry, Richard, Jamie and Emily.

Again, there seems to be something special about Jamie’s DNA or ancestry, that she has shown up in all three TGs.

I should note that Jamie has the same line as her brother John. That makes me think that Jamie got the Frazer DNA. I wrote a Blog about John here. I would like to write a Blog about his sister Jamie to look into some of the questions that were raised in this Blog.

Here is the match between Jamie and Barry:

Barry has no DNA match with Jamie’s brother John. Barry’s brother Richard has this match with Jamie:

 

Summary and Conclusions

  • I showed how two brothers could have different DNA matches.
  • I have put Barry and Richard in the Philip Line. This seems to be supported by the DNA, common first names, and the genealogy that we know of.
  • I looked at threeTriangulation Groups (TGs). All of these included Jamie from the Stinson Line. It may help to look more closely into Jamie’s family tree. Perhaps she has other connections to Frazers or to their collateral lines. Or perhaps Jamie has inherited more than the usual amount of Frazer DNA.
  • Given that we are not totally sure of the genealogy of many of these lines and that there was intermarriage of Frazers and perhaps other lines, the analysis of the DNA and genealogy is very complicated.
  • There is need for more analysis of the DNA matches (and the genealogy). I should look more closely into Jamie’s DNA.
Posted on

Uncle Mike’s Jame’s Line Frazer DNA

The results of Kathy’s Uncle Mike’s DNA came in. This resulted in some interest from those Frazers from the James Line Branch. Here is where Mike is on the James Line DNA testing chart:

I stuck Mike in with his sister Madeline to save space.

Uncle Mike and Visual Phasing

It appears that there are three siblings that have tested. This means that it would be possible to do visual phasing on these three. This is a way to tell what portions of their grandparents’ DNA has been passed down to Madeline, Mike and Charlotte. For example, about one-quarter of Minnie Frazer’s DNA has been passed down to these three siblings in different ways. Put another way, about half of Mike’s maternal DNA would be from Minnie born in 1865. I give an example of Visual Phasing later in this Blog.

Uncle Mike and the Line of Archibald Frazer born 1792

Here is a closer up view of Mike in the left branch of the James Line:

Here, Mike is a third cousin to Rodney, Betty, Janet, Joanna, and Jonathan. He is third cousin, once removed to most others in red above. This shows three DNA-tested branches: William, Edward and Thomas. Ancestry shows these branches as Circles:

I got the above figure from Joanna’s AncestryDNA results. The Walter group includes Joanna and family. They descend from Thomas. Uncle Mike is in the Frazer Emmet Group from Edward. The C.W Family is on the left descending from William. However, Ancestry does not have all the tested descendants.

The William, Edward and Thomas Frazer Branches at Gedmatch

Here is what the three Frazer Branches look like when the DNA of the tested descendants is compared at Gedmatch:

Mike matches everyone except for Penny. He also matches Joanna, but below the normal cutoff of 7 cM. Note that Penny doesn’t match anyone in the Edward Wynn Line, but her sister Toni does. This points out the importance of sibling testing.

Further Out in the James Line

If we have the genealogy right, Mike is a 4th cousin to Prudence and a 5th cousin to those in the Michael Frazer (born 1764) Branch.

Mike’s Interesting X DNA Match

This is how Mike matches Clyde at #3 and others of his close family on the X Chromosome. The interesting part is that this would have to be the DNA from the wife of Archibald born in 1792:

 

We can know this because the X Chromosome never travels from father to son. Going up from Clyde, we see females up to William. Going up from Mike, we see females up to Edward. William and Edward got no X Chromosome from their father, so that means that this match is from the their mother. This means that they had the same mother who would have been the wife of Archibald. There is a small chance that this X Match could be along another common line between Clyde and Mike. But I don’t think that is likely.

More on Visual Phasing

This Blog was sort of short, so why not try a little visual phasing? Here are some of Mike’s DNA matches (other than with his siblings or nieces):

It looks like a lot is going on at Chromosome 5. Mike matches Bonnie at 31.3 cM. By my chart above, Mike and Bonnie should be 5th cousins. Unless they match on another line, this would be DNA going all the way back to James Frazer born about 1720.

Visual Phasing of Chromosome 5 for Mike and His Two Siblings

Stephen Fox has an excellent spreadsheet that does a lot of the hard work in the visual phasing. I found his spreadsheet at The Visual Phasing Working Group on Facebook. It took a while to download the different matches but it is better than doing it by hand.

Here is Chromosome 5:

The first bar is Mike and Madeline Compared. The second is Mike and Charlotte. The third bar is Madeline compared to Charlotte. Next, I try to line up the crossovers:

Unfortunately, they are not lining up easily. Perhaps the X Chromosome would be easier

Chromosome 23

Here, I still have some problems. I only had crossovers for Mike and Charlotte. I didn’t see any obvious crossovers for Madeline. The first two bars are comparisons between Mike and Madeline and Mike and Charlotte. There are no solid blue sections because Mike gets no X Chromosome from his dad. Madeline and Charlotte in the last comparison have a solid green section as they both got an X from their dad. The green means that they have the same DNA from two grandparents – a maternal and paternal grandparent.

When I map out the Madeline and Charlotte’s green areas, I get this:

 

The green area is a Fully Identical Region or FIR. That means that the yellow and green grandparents sent down their DNA to the same places on Charlotte’s and Madeline’s X Chromosome. My simple view of the crossovers was that Madeline had no crossovers, so that means that she would be missing the DNA from one of her grandparents. The missing grandparent would have to be on her mother’s mother’s side. That is because she is already missing her paternal grandfather on the X. That is because he sent no DNA to Madeline’s father (or to Charlotte’s father). We know that Madeline and Charlotte match Clyde. That would be a Frazer match. The Frazer match maps to Madeline’s mother’s mother who was Minnie Frazer.

This is the view of the right side of Mike, Madeline and Charlotte’s X Chromosome. The bottom three blue bars represent where Clyde matches Mike, Madeline and Charlotte. Note that Charlotte has a shorter match with Clyde. That means that Charlotte’s crossover at the right side of the match is where her DNA goes from Frazer to Emmet. At this point we need to make a decision as to whether we want Frazer to be G1 or G4.

Here, by putting a G3 on Charlotte’s bottom part of her X Chromosome, I made that the maternal side. That means that G4 is Frazer and Emmet is G3. That also means that the bottom part of the X is set as the maternal side of the Chromosome. That then means that G1 is paternal.

The blue is the paternal grandmother who is Cronin. I must have made a mistake, because Mike should only have one side of his maternal Chromosome. Here is a probable map:

Mike only has a maternal side to his X Chromosome. That means that wherever he has a crossover, that means that the DNA he got goes either from Emmet to Frazer or Frazer to Emmet. This map assumes that I have the right crossovers. More matches with cousins could confirm or alter the map. I have some areas on the right and left of Charlotte’s map not filled in.

Note that Mike does not match Madeline, but does match Charlotte in the first section. As I have Mike with Emmet there, that means that Madeline has Frazer in that segment and Charlotte must have Emmet. Here is a filled-in map:

To do this right, I should have put numbers in for the locations of the crossovers.

Any Problems?

Yes, there are problems. Here is an X match with 5th cousin Bonnie:

Note that Bonnie matches Madeline on the middle bar but not Mike or Charlotte. It makes sense that she doesn’t match Mike as Mike has Emmet (purple) in that segment. This could be a false positive match for Madeline, or Charlotte could have a match there that did not show.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Mike’s testing brings interesting mapping possibilities with his two sisters. The mapping of these four grandparents goes back to about the 1860’s.
  • Mike’s DNA testing adds an important piece to the Archibald Frazer (born 1792) Line.
  • Mike also has interesting matches with James Line relatives that are further out.
  • Mike has an interesting X Chromosome match with Clyde that appears to represent DNA from the wife of Archibald Frazer born 1792. It is possible that other X Chromosome matches in common with Clyde and Mike could reveal other common ancestors that would lead to confirmation or clues to the identity of the wife of Archibald Frazer.

 

 

Posted on

Elizabeth’s DNA from the Australian Line of Frazers

I recently had an email from my Austrian cousin Ros. Her 2nd cousin Elizabeth had taken a DNA test. Here is how Elizabeth fits in with the Australian group of Frazers:

I wrote a Blog about Don here. While looking at Elizabeth’s DNA matches, I noticed that Jean had a sister Kathy that had tested, so I added her to the tree. This brings us back to 1827. Here is one generation earlier:

That brings us back to 1802 and adds in Cathy and Jane. John Parker Frazer and Honora White were the ancestors of the Australian Frazer Line in purple above. Elizabeth is related to Vivien as a 1st cousin once removed. She is a 2nd cousin to Ros, Jean and Kathy and a 3rd cousin to Don. Elizabeth is a 3rd cousin once removed to her non-Australian cousins Cathy and Jane.

The Archibald/Stinson Line

Going back one more generation gets us the Archibald/Stinson Line:

Unfortunately, even at this level, I am not on the tree. My Frazers descended from two of the siblings of the Archibald that married a Stinson at the top of the tree. I suppose that would make me a double 6th cousin to Elizabeth.

Elizabeth’s Australian DNA

To simplify things, I’ll compare Elizabeth to Don, Vivien and Ros. I’ll skip Jean and Kathy because Vivien’s children got all their maternal DNA from Vivien. So Vivien’s children could not match Elizabeth any more than Vivien does.

When I compare Elizabeth to Vivien and Ros, there will roughly half a chance that some of the DNA will be from the Boots family. However, when Don matches Elizabeth, that DNA would have to be from either John Parker Frazer or Honora White.

Here is an example from Chromosome 1:

Here Elizabeth matches Don and Vivien in green in the same area. This represents DNA from John Frazer or Honora White. This match stops at about position 4M. Then Elizabeth matches Ros. One likely possibility is that the yellow match between Ros and Elizabeth above is from the Boots side.

Here is a summary of Elizabeth’s Australian Frazer DNA matches:

Here are some DNA match ranges for Elizabeth compared to Vivien, Ros and Don:

Elizabeth and Vivien share 455.9 cM which is about average for a 1st cousin once removed. Ros and Elizabeth are also about average for 2nd cousins. However, Elizabeth and Don are below average for third cousins. As, I mentioned above,  the DNA ranges start to vary more the further out the relationship is.

Elizabeth’s DNA One Step Beyond Australia

 

Here I added Cathy and Jane who don’t have Australian ancestors. I wrote a Blog about Cathy nearly three years ago, back in the early days of Frazer DNA Blogs. From what I can tell, Cathy is from North Carolina and Jane is from Colorado.

In the darker box, I have the Elizabeth’s Australian cousins. Elizabeth is a 3rd cousin once removed to Jane and Cathy. An average or typical amount of DNA shared for a 3rd cousin once removed is about 48 cM. As can be seen for the amounts of DNA shared with Elizabeth’s cousins, the amounts go down from right to left on the top row in the above chart. Any DNA that Elizabeth shares with Cathy and Jane would likely be from Archibald Frazer born in 1802 or his wife Catherine Parker.

Pushing Back Elizabeth’s DNA to the 1700’s

The next logical step is to look at the generation before Archibald Frazer and Catherine Parker.

This adds 11 people to the 6 we have already looked at. We are not sure when this Archibald was born, but a guess was put at 1778. This is sometimes referred to as the Stinson Line as Archibald married Ann Stinson. The light blue line on the left was put in by DNA as a likely guess. Elizabeth should be a 4th cousin once removed or 5th cousin to most of these new people.

Here is how Elizabeth matches by DNA to her more distant cousins:

Unfortunately, I didn’t list these cousins in the best order. Out of the 11 more distant cousins, Elizabeth has a DNA match with three: Michael, Ken and Susan. The chances that Elizabeth will match a 4th or 5th cousin get smaller.

Elizabeth and More Distant Frazer Cousin

The next step up for Jane goes to Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilly

This couple had four sons that had descendants with tested DNA. I am in the blue line descended from Philip and Marilee is in the pink line descended from John. The descendants of Richard are also in the Archibald/Stinson line, so they are accounted for. Here Elizabeth would be 5th cousin once removed or 6th cousins to her more distant Frazer cousins. Based on the Chances of Finding a Match Chart above, her chances of having a DNA match with these people are very small.

Here is the Philip Line:

Those in yellow are already in the Archibald/Stinson LIne. Richard in green was added due to a DNA match as a likely Philip descendant.

Here is how Elizabeth matches her more distant cousins:

Elizabeth only matches Emily and Paul. And she matches them at below the normal cutoff of 7 cM.

Elizabeth and the James Line: The Final Frontier

Here the James Line is shown in white boxes:

Elizabeth would be typically a 6th cousin once removed to a 7th cousin to these people. From the list above, Elizabeth matches two people: Mary and Janet in the 5 cM range.

Summary and Conclusions

Elizabeth’s DNA behaves in an expected manner. I traced her matches from her closest Australian cousins down to her most distant James Line Frazer cousins. At each step further out, those DNA match levels go down. Elizabeth’s DNA testing confirms the genealogy we have. It also reminded me of others that had tested that I had forgotten about.

A review of the testing of Frazer DNA over the past three years, shows how the project has grown and come together.

 

Posted on

A Third Frazer Big Y 500: Part 2

Last month, I took a first look at Rodney’s Big Y 500 results. At that time, I was looking for unnamed SNPs that Rodney and Jonathan shared on the James Line. I was unable to find any. It looks like FTDNA and YFull were unable to find any also. When I wrote my first Blog, Rodney’s results were not at YFull yet. YFull is a popular service for interpreting Big Y results. I’ll take a look at Rodney’s YFull Results in this Blog. Before I do that, here is where Rodney fits into the Frazer YDNA testing tree:

Paul, Rodney and Jonathan have taken the Big Y test and Rick has taken the YDNA STR test.

Rodney at YFull

Before Rodney’s results were in, this was the YTree:

Jonathan and Paul were the last two id’s. Here is the present YTree:

YTree Changes

I see two major changes to the YTree. One is that there is a new non-Frazer Branch. The second is that the Frazer branch common ancestor is refined from 475 ybp to 375 ybp. From what we can tell, at the tree above, Archibald was born around 1690. That is roughly 325 years ago. So 375 years ago by YDNA is pretty close. I was expecting a new SNP for the James Line of the Frazers. These SNPs form about every 144 years. Note that at 375 years ago, that should represent 2 or three new SNPs. From my work on the STR side of the YDNA testing, it has seemed like the STR differences have been primarily on the Archibald Branch of the Frazer tree and not on the James side. It seems like this must be true for the SNPs also. This would have to be verified by Big Y testing of someone else in the Archibald Line. The only other possibility is that there is indeed another SNP for the James Line, but the testing results were not clear enough to determine that.

A New Parallel SNP Line to the Frazers

Here is the new line of R-BY26344:

While I’m thinking of it, there is another interesting point. The YTree shows that YP6488 was formed 1100 years ago. [The date that the SNP was formed is earlier than the common ancestor dates listed above. For the formed dates, see the YTree above.] The two branches below YP6488 were formed 700 years ago. However, the Frazer branch of YP6489 consists of six total SNPs listed here:

From 1100 to 700 years ago is 400 years. SNPs are formed on average every 144 years but in 400 years somehow the Frazer seemed to get 6 SNPs. On the other hand, BY26344 has is only represented by two SNPs over 400 years. That could mean that the Frazer line had all it’s SNP mutations between 1100 and 700 years ago, so now they are just coasting, so to speak.

Who Does BY26344 Represent?

YFull uses ID’s, so it can be difficult to tell who these people are. In the past, I have been tracking the Grants as their YDNA STRs have had similarities to the Frazers. That appears to be the case. However, there is also a Stuart as well as a grant in the YP6488 Group.

Here Grant and Stuart are still listed as YP6488, so that means that FTDNA may be a bit behind YFull for Grant and Stuart.

This is interesting as it shows us that Grant and Frazer had a common ancestor about 1300 A.D. To me, this would be before the time that surnames were in common use. However, by 225-375 years ago, surnames should have been in common use. This should mean that the two SNPs at the bottom of the tree should represent Grant and Frazer respectively. This also has interesting parallels to my wife’s line. A surname that was related to hers was also found to be a common ancestor about 700 years ago.

As a reminder, here is a map showing how close the Frasers and Grants lived in 1587:

My assumption is that this is where the common ancestors of the Grants, Stuarts and Frazers lived around the year 1300. This is to the Southwest and West of Inverness. The Frazers had the Grants surrounded. Also the Grants and Frazers surrounded Loch Ness.

I also note that one of the YDNA Grants testers mentions Carron. If I have the right Carron, it is to the Northeast of Glasgow. The Frazers were believed to be from the area of Ayr. I have also added dates to the various areas that the Grants and Frazers may have lived these areas.

Note where I have Grant above, I should have also included Stuart.

Further Questions on the Grant/Stuart Line

Assuming that the two IDs at YFull on the YTree are indeed Stuart and Grant, that poses additional questions for those two lines:

  • A common ancestor of 225 years ago is within the surname era. That means that there was some mixing of the two surnames due to adoption or other event.
  • Stuart appears to have been in Virginia before 225 years ago and Grant in Carron before that time. If this is correct, then the 225 years for a common ancestors may not be right.

I point this out partly, because it shows some common issues that could arise in a surname project. Fortunately, the testing of the Frazers so far has not resutled in similar issues.

Big Y 500 STRs

YFull looks at STRs deduced from the Big Y test. Here is how Rodney matches Jonathan and Paul:

This shows that, by STRs, Rodney is much more closely related to Jonathan than Paul. I think that there is a way to convert the distance to years, but I can’t find it right now. However, it appears to show that Rodney is more than twice as closely related to Jonathan as Paul is. This makes sense based on the genealogical tree at the top of the Blog.

Rodney is Running Out of SNPs

Here are Rodney’s novel SNPs at YFull:

Note that Rodney has no best or acceptable quality Novel SNPs. Novel SNPs are the ones that don’t match others. That means that all of Rodney’s good SNPs are already matched up with Paul and Jonathan as they should be. This makes sense as the time between the birth of Rodney, Jonathan and their common ancestor of Thomas Henry Frazer is likely less than 144 years.

For comparison, here are Paul’s Novel SNPs:

Paul has 10 Best or Acceptable Quality novel or private SNPs. It is likely that one or more of these SNPs could become an Archibald Line SNP if another Archibald Line Frazer descendant tests for the Big Y.

Perhaps a better comparison would be with Jonathan’s novel SNPs:

Jonathan is really out of Novel SNPs. He has no novel SNPs of any kind of quality.

Summary and Conclusions

 

  • Rodney’s Big Y 500 test has refined the YTree and dates of common ancestors
  • Many new SNPs prior to about the year 1300 may account for no identified SNPs after that date for the James Line
  • Another Big Y tester on the Archibald Line may create a new SNP for that branch
  • Assuming that the new Branch of BY26344 was for Stuart and Grant, that raises questions about the origin of those lines and about the date of the common ancestor for those two surnames.
  • The common ancestors for the Frazer distant relatives of Stuart and Grant has been moved up from 800 years ago to 700 years ago.
  • The common ancestor for the three Frazer testers has also been moved up 100 years: from 475 to 375 years ago.
  • The STR testing confirms the relative DNA closeness of Rodney and Jonathan who are in the James Line. This is also confirmed by autosomal DNA test results.
Posted on

More on Emily’s Frazer DNA

In March, I wrote my first Blog about Emily. She is a 2nd cousin, once removed who tested her DNA at MyHeritage. Emily and her daughter Mel who are related to me on my Frazer Line have also uploaded their DNA results to Gedmatch. MyHeritage does not show X Chromosome results but Gedmatch does.

The X Chromosome

The X Chromosome is interesting as it is not inherited from father to son. As a result, when there is an X Chromosome match with someone, it is possible to narrow down where that DNA came from.

Here is how my sisters and I are related to Emily:

Note that cousin Paul got no X Chromosome on his father’s Frazer side. Also Joel, Jon and Jim got no Frazer X Chromosome. That Leaves Emily, Melanie, Heidi, Sharon and Lori.

McMaster DNA from the X Chromosome

A further interesting point is that if Heidi, Sharon, or Lori match Emily by the X Chromosome, then it would have to be from Margaret McMaster, born 1846. How do I know that? Emily got her X from Susan Fairbanks. Susan got hers from Violet Frazer. Violet Frazer got an X from George Frazer and Margaret McMaster. However, my sisters got their Frazer X from their dad. He got his only from his mother. Marion Frazer got her Frazer X DNA from her dad. James Frazer got his X DNA only from his mom Margaret McMaster. Therefore if Emily matches Heidi, Sharon, or Lori by X Chromosome, it has to be from Margaret McMaster.

Emily’s X Chromosome Matches with My Sisters

I will just be considering Emily as Melanie got half her DNA from her mother. Here is how Emily matches Lori, Sharon and Heidi on the X:

That means that Lori, Sharon and Heidi each have about 38 cM of DNA from their 2nd great grandmother.

Painting Lori

It is possible to paint or map Lori’s match using a great utility called DNAPainter:

While I’m at it, I’ll map Lori and Emily’s other non-X matches:

The blue side represents Lori’s paternal side and red is her maternal side. The greenis segments represent either George Frazer or Margaret McMaster. We can’t tell which right now. The blue indicates that we know that particular DNA is from Margaret McMaster.

Emily and My Brother Jim

I mentioned Emily and my brother JIm in my previous Blog. Even though Jim was the sixth of six siblings tested in my family, his DNA test showed he had some Frazer DNA that the other five siblings did not have. Jim’s unique Frazer segment is on Chromosome 5 as shown with his match with Emily below:

As shown in the lower left key, Jim’s matches with Emily represent DNA they both have from George Frazer and Margaret McMaster.

Going Back a Generation

Jim also matches Gladys. She is a third cousin once removed. Jim and Gladys’ common ancestors are James Frazer and Violet Frazer. From what I can figure out, these were first cousins that married each other.

This couple in yellow were the parents of George Frazer. What is interesting to note is that the match with Gladys and Jim overlaps the match with Emily and Jim on Chromosome 5. That would be considered triangulation. This indicates that this match is actually from older Frazer DNA. This also tells me that the blue DNA that Jim matched with Emily is actually Frazer and not McMaster DNA.

In theory, the DNA segments that are older should be smaller and more broken up and the DNA segments representing more recent ancestors should be larger. However, the DNA didn’t read that section on DNA theory. In practice, larger segments sometimes get passed down from many generations ago.

Next up: more painting or mapping of Lori and Jimmy’s DNA.