Category: DNA General

Posted on

Painting Some French Canadian DNA for My Wife’s Side

MyHeritage’s Theories of Relativity are a good way to check genealogies. They come with ready made DNA connections and genealogical connections. This lends itself to the DNA Painter Program which I use.

My Wife’s Aunt Virginia

These Theories are sortable by newest, so I will do that for Aunt Virginia (also known as Aunt Suzy). I tend to reject the Theories that don’t go along with my previous research as I tend to think my research has been done pretty well.

Denise

One of the first Theories (from newer to older) that I found that has prospects is with Denise:

Denise shows as 5th cousin to Virginia. This is on the LeFevre side. First, I check my tree at ancestry:

 

Unfortunately, I don’t have siblings listed for Angelique Delisle. I aslo do not have her birth information. I see that Ancestry has Angelique’s Baptismal record:

 

This tree at Ancestry has other siblings for Angelique:

Joachim is a logical name for the son of Joachim Delisle. I’ll go ahead and add a lot of information from this tree to mine. Next, all I need is a baptismal record for Joachim born 1783. I did not find his baptism as a hint, but his marriage record will do:

This record gives his parents’ names. That tells me that the tree at least from the top connecting Virginia and Denis is accurate. Next, I will add the DNA match to see if it makes sense. Unfortunately, the first match is just below the cutoff of 7.0 cM:

I would like to add the match on Chromosome 5 as it overlaps with other LeFevre DNA:

Denis’ match is from 28 to 46 M and represents:

Lazare LeFevre.

Painting Denise

Here I lower the lime to 6 cM:

Here I added a new color for DeLisle and Matte which is dark green. As Denise overlaps on Chromosome 5, that means that the LeFevre DNA in yellow and orange is actually DeLisle DNA. The fact that there is no overlap on Chromosome 6 indicates that the yellow LeFevre DNA is probably older LeFevre DNA and that there is a crossover between the green and yellow DNA. The darker red DNA on Chromosme 6 may be misattributed or due to intermarriage as I have it attributed to Methot which is not an obvious ancestor of LeFevre.

Here is Virginia’s DNA map with added dark green:

Some of the yellow DNA got overwritten by the darker orange on Chromosome 5 when the DNA is not expanded.

Virginia and Annie

This is the relationship we are looking at:

Here is my Ancestry Tree for my wife’s side:

The J F as Eustache is for Jacques-Francois. I have some children, but not Joseph:

There is only one tree I see at Ancestry under hints which has a Joseph:

According to this, Marie Judith Tremblay had 20 children. Wow.

Here is part of Annie’s Tree:

Here is a record I found at Ancestry:

It would seem logical to look for a marriage for Joseph and Marie, though these are common names. One detail from the above is that Joseph was a Journalier:

Here is his marriage:

For some reason, I don’t see his parents listed. This marriage was in 1834. If he was 25 when he married, that would put his birth at about 1811. Here is a Jude born in 1812:

However, this appeaers to be a burial record.

At this point, I’ll just paint in the DNA match and see if it makes sense.

Painting Annie

Most of Annie’s DNA would make sense, though I don’t have a lot painted on the Pouliot side so far:

Again I kept the 6 cM cutoff:

I gave Fortin/Tremblay a periwinkle color. Before I refreshed the settings, Virginia was 36% painted on her maternal side and only 22% painted overall. Annie brought her up to 23% overall and 37% overall.

Suzy and Cecile

These two show as 5th cousins along Suzy’s Pouliot side. A few things seem irregular such as Virginia’s Girard being private and a deleted profile in Cecile’s ancestry. I can see from my tree who the missing person is on Virginia’s tree:

Cecile’s tree suppies some more detail:

I now need to figure out if Gregoire was the sister of Marie Genevieve. Based on this, it appears that there is a generation missing on Cecile’s side of the Theory of Relativity. What I need to do is prove that Elysee and Marie Genevieve were siblings.

More on Marie Genevieve

I need to spruce up my tree for Marie Genevieve. Here is a marriage record from 1804

This would put Marie Genevieve’s birth at around 1784. This appears to be her birth record:

The place and father is right, but the mother’s name is off:

I suppose the Marie part is right as I have the mother as Marie Josephte Tremblay. Here is the location:

Elysee Girard

I am having trouble tracking this person, so I will stop at this point.

Aunt Virginia and Lucien

The problem with Lucien is that his father shows as being born in 1860. Does that sound reasonable?

My Late Father-in-Law Richard

Richard matches with Annie aslo, so I don’t have to recreate the wheel with this connection. Annie matched on Fortin/Tremblay. This is on Richard’s Pouliot side:

In Richard’s Maternal side key, the Pouliot side is meant to be on the bottom. I don’t see Fortin/Tremblay there, so I can add that. Here are two Chromosomes where Annie shows up:

On Chromosome 1, Annie adds older DNA between Pouiot DNA. On Chromosome 10, Annie overlaps on even older DNA. This actually represents intermarriage as the connection is probably with an older Tremblay Line:

Annie fills in some blanks on Richard’s Chromosomes 12 and 17:

She also brings his maternal side painted percentage up to 45% from 44%:

Sylvain and Richard

Sylvain is #2 on Richard’s most recent Theory of Relativity after Annie:

Here I skipped a few generations at the bottom, but Richard and Sylvain show as 5th cousins. This is also on the Pouliot side. Here, it would be important to show that Alexis and Genevieve Gagne are siblings. Here my tree is a bit skimpy:

Here is a tree at Ancestry that implies that Genevieve died quite young:

At this time, I will attempt a shortcut. Richard has a cousin who shows at MyHeritage named Fred. Fred is also at Ancestry which means that Fred has ThruLines.

Fred is third from the right. Fred has ThruLines with 11 of these Gagne Children. Fred, like my father-in-law, descends from Alexis and has 33 DNA matches on that line. Here are the details for Marie-Genevieve:

Fred shows matches to daughters Olive and Marie-Euphrosine Gagnon. I was looking for Theophile Martel born 1790. Well that shortcut did not work. Time to abort this mission.

Richard and Jean-Francois

Let’s see if I have any better luck with Jean-Francois. First I check to see if I have already mapped or ‘painted’ Jean-Francois to Richard’s chromosomes and I have not. Here is the Theory:

Jean-Francois shows as a 4th cousin once removed to Richard, so a bit closer relationship. Here, I will check to see if Elisee and Judith are siblings. I’m going to use Fred’s ThruLines at Ancestry as a surrogate again:

Here I see that Fred has 16 DNA matches with descendants of Judith. I take that as a good sign. In fact, I have Judith in my Tree already. I’ll say that the proof is good enough to map Jean-Francois.

Here is how Richard and Jean-Francois match by DNA:

I recently added Fortin/Tremblay to Richard’s map, so time to map this new match:

On Chromosome 1, Jean-Francois overlaps with Annie mapped previously.

Above, Jean-Francois fills in some gaps.

Richard and Martin

This would be a Pouliot line that I have not mapped if the genealogy seems correct. I am tempted to again check on Fred’s ThruLines.

Fred has Antoine instead of Charles. That doesn’t mean the MyHeritage connection is wrong. I checked Richard’s two sisters’ ThruLines and no connection there either. Here is a detail from Martin’s tree:

If this is correct and Charly’s mother was born in 1844, then she would have been 62 when giving birth to Charly which doesn’t sound right. With some more work, I could probably make some of these connections, but I won’t right now. There is perhaps a generation missing.

Updating Aunt Lorraine

Here is Aunt Lorraine’s ‘painted’ Chromosome Map as 23% painted overall:

Most of the DNA identified is on Lorraine’s maternal French Canadian side. She is currently 23% painted overall and 38% painted on her maternal side.

Lorraine and Marjorie

This connection goes back to the 1700’s. This connection does not look right. I have a different mother at the top:

If this is right, then there must be a generation missing on Marjorie’s side. I’ll skip this for now. Lorriane also has a Theory with Myriam with the same issue.

Lorraine and Denise

I had painted Denise above with Aunt Suzy. The connection was with DeLisle and Matte:

Denise fills in some gaps on Lorraine’s Chromosomes 6 and 17. This brings Lorraine up to 39% painted maternally and 24% overall.

Lorraine and Paul

These two have a small DNA match. I already have a Michel in my tree, so I’ll say the connection is OK.

I didn’t hadd the smaller match as it was below 7 cM.

Lorraine and Jean-Francois

I mapped Jean-Francois to one of her siblings above, so I’ll map him to her profile also:

Jean-Francois supplies overlapping Pouliot DNA evidence on Chromosomes 3 and 4.

I decided to change this match color to blue for greater contrast:

Lorraine is up to 40% painted on her maternal side now.

Bernadette: 5th Cousin to Lorraine

This would take more work. How would Angelique Delisle be the daughter of a Lalonde?

Lorraine and a Different Martin

When I look up Girard/Tremblay trees, they all show a daughter Emerentienne born 1795. Likewise, Lorraine’s ThruLines show Emerentienne:

Here is where Martin shows up on Lorraine’s DNA Map:

Lorraine and Another Denise

I hope that these repeating names do not cause problems in the future:

I see at least one Ancestry tree with a Jean Francois Louis, so that is hopeful.

Here the DNA points out a problem as Denise is overlapping on LeFevre side and should be on the Pouliot side. That means that it is likely that Lorraine matches Denise on Lorraine’s LeFevre side and not her Pouliot side.

Lorraine and Douglas

I am going further with Lorraine than I went with Suzy or Richard:

We see again the name or Emerentienne. It helps to see unusual names. I’ll just go ahead and map Douglas based on the assumption that the tree is correct.

Douglas brings up another problem on Chromosome 6. By the genealogy, he should be on the Pouliot side, but he overlaps with DeLisle who is on the LeFevre side.

Check Lorraine’s Visual Phasing

I have done some work to figure out which part of Lorraine’s Chromosome 6 is Pouliot and which is LeFevre:

Lorriane is the top. The important part is where Pouliot goes to LeFevre or salmon to blue. If the scale on the bottom matches correctly, that should be at about 136M. So after 136M is LeFevre and before is Pouliot.

This shows Douglas’ match to be up to 135M. So that may actually be the inflection point, more typically called the crossover. That means that if I did my visual phasing correctly, then Douglas is mapped properly as Pouliot. That also means that Denise should be matching on the Pouliot side and has a connection there. I checked Denise’s match on Chromosome 17 and that should be in the region of Pouliot also.

Pouliot starts for Lorraine at 26M and Denise’s match starts at 39M.

Lorraine and Louise

This could go on forever, but I think I’ll end it here:

I see several trees at ancestry with a Marie Ann which I take to be Anne Marie above. She also shows on Lorraine’s ThruLines:

Again with reckless abandon, I will paint this match onto Lorraine’s map:

Here I made a mistake and created a new group. Then I merged it back with the old group and changed the color to purple for contrast. Louise’s matches overlap with Jean-Pierre. It turns out that Louise is related to Jean-Pierre in this way:

Summary and Conclusion

  • It seemed I got better at the mapping as I went along
  • I tried to skip any sketchy connections or situations where the MyHeritage Theories showed multiple common ancestors
  • One conflict was seemingly solved through Visual Phasing
  • It could take a while to map all the French Canadian Matches as these three siblings have so many matches
Posted on

My Cousin Woody’s DNA

I saw recently that my 2nd cousin Woody tested at 23andMe. I wrote him and now I can see the DNA results. Woody is on my Hartley side. I already have him on my DNA/Hartley genealogy Tree:

It looks like I have his grandson’s results also, if I have drawn the tree correctly. Woody descends from Greenwood Hartley born 1897. Greenwood was one of about 13 children of James Hartley and Annie Snell. Actually, I have two trees, but neither are complete:

This shows that I have some DNA results from 8 of the 13 siblings. I don’t have specific information from LH who descends from Edwin Hartley as LH tested at Ancestry and Ancestry doesn’t give the specific information of how we match. When I checked back at Ancestry, it appears that LH should be JH:

Painting Hartley DNA

I have some of my DNA mapped out or ‘painted’. Below is just my paternal side:

52% of my Hartley side is mapped out. The green part are my Hartley 2nd cousins. I recently painted in some unknown Hartley DNA on Chromosome 10 which comes up blue and covers some of the green. These 2nd cousins should add up to a theoretical total of 25% overall or 50% of my paternal side. Woody may add some more green or just add DNA in places where our other 2nd cousins are already matching me.

Adding Woody’s DNA to the Mix

At 23andMe, Woody is the third match on my list:

Woody is also a 1st cousin to Heather above. Woody and I share 337 cM of DNA:

This is about what would be expected or slightly above average for a second cousin:

I share 584 cM with Woody’s 1st cousin Heather which is at about the top amount of the range:

Here is the DNA that I share with Woody, but not with Heather:

That would be the DNA in purple on Chromosomes 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

Before I map Woody’s DNA, I note that I am 59% ‘painted’ on my paternal side. Here is my map now with Woody added:

It looks like Woody filled in some green. My paternal side is now 60% painted:

However, my overall painted DNA is still at 52%.

Woody’s YDNA

23andMe takes a look at the test and tries to figure out what the YDNA group is. To get a more specific read one would have to go to FTDNA for testing. Here is what Woody shows:

Technically, Woody and I should have the same YDNA. However, my results are more generic and Woody’s appear to be more specific. I have tested at FTDNA, so I have specific information on my YDNA:

So far, this branch of L21 Hartleys are all under R-A11134. My brother James and I are under R-FT225247 where Woody would be were he to test at FTDNA.

Where is Z16855?

Z16855 is an equivalent under Z16343. That is the SNP after Z16357 that got cut off in the image above:

I’m not sure why 23andMe chose this SNP as Z16343 is used by FTDNA to represent this block of SNPs.

Above I have highlighted where I tested long ago at 23andMe and where Woody tested. Woody is 6 steps below my L21. However, at FTDNA, Hartleys who have taken the BigY test are 4 steps below Z16343 at A11134. Woody would be in the white box if he were to take the BigY test. That would likely split the white box. We would probably match in all but one SNP and that one SNP would be the branch for my brother and me as separate from Woody. The common ancestor between Woody and me was James Hartley who was born in 1862. That means that if my brother and I formed a new branch then it would be new as of after 1862. My grandfather was born in 1891, so it would be as of 1891.

It is interesting that of all my cousins that have taken a DNA test, only Woody fits the criteria for matching me with a YDNA test. If Woody were to test and find any Private Variants, that Variant or Variants would represent the Greenwood YDNA Line of Hartleys.

Summary and Conclusions

  • My cousin Woody had his DNA tested at 23andMe. When I added his DNA matches to my Chromosome Map, his matchs filled in some areas that I did not have identified.
  • Of my many Hartley 2nd cousins that have had their DNA tested, it appears that only Woody has the unbroken Hartley line that is needed to compare YDNA.
  • Woody tested his YDNA as Z16855 which is further down the line from where I tested at L21. However, if Woody were to test at FTDNA, it would show him under FT225247. His test would likely show the YDNA split between his Greenwood Hartley Line and my James Hartley Line.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Playing with the AutoKinship Tool at Gedmatch

Gedmatch has a new Tier 1 tool called AutoKinship. This is an interesting tool that creates different trees from your DNA matches, based on AutoClusters. I put down the $10 to try this new tool at Gedmatch. Roberta Estes wrote a good article on how to use the tool. I used that when I was stuck, but preferred to try to play with it on my own.

Running, Downloading and Extracting

An important step that Roberta emphasizes is the extracting part. It is easy to run the tool at the suggested levels. It was easy for me to download the zipped file. However, opening the file doesn’t work correctly unless everything that you have downloaded is unzipped. Here is what I used:

After I extracted all the files, I opened a file that gave me AutoClusters:

This is the file minus the names. There were 19 Clusters. I recognized some of the names.

Upping the Matches to 250

I am now on my laptop and will try this again with 250 matches. This report is taking a little longer. Roberta says that there is a 10 minute limit on these reports. This time I have gone from 19 Clusters to 45. Yikes.

This time I got a more interesting analysis:

Now I have 3 AutoTrees, Common Locations and about 20 of my clusters with AutoKinship. I’ll start with a known quantity. Pink Cluster 16 has some of my well known and documented Frazer relatives:

This is near the start of the gray squares. The gray squares indicate that these clusters are inter-related. That is due to my Protestant minority ancestors in Catholic Ireland. They tended to marry others from the Church of Ireland. I have three known Frazer Lines and two known McMaster Lines in my ancestry.

The AutoKinship Tree looks like this for Cluster 16:

Things are a little mixed up, but are within the right ball park. For example, Paul is my 2nd cousin once removed, but I should be more removed than he is. Paul is actually 2nd cousin with Emily, not 1st cousin once removed as shown. Here are some of the relationships shown differently from one of my Blogs from 2018:

I’m not sure why Bill was not included. I was never sure how Shelly fit in. She has no tree at Ancestry.

I’ll use Cluster 16 as a springboard to jump to Cluster 20:

This is still in my Irish Region:

I note that the probability for this tree has an E-6 which I take to be better than the previous tree which was in the vicinity of E-12. The only person I am aware of in this AutoKinship Tree is Mel who is Emily’s daughter from the previous AutoKinship Tree. I looked for Deborah at AncestryDNA, but could not find her. I found Annette at FTDNA, but my match with her is on Chromsome 20 which on my paternal side has been out of control in that there have been so many matches on that Chromosome.

Some More Known Rathfelder Relatives on Cluster 44

Cluster 44 also has an AutoKinship Tree:

Here is the DNA tree that I have for Rathfelder:

The AutoKinship Tree is off a bit. Catherine and I should be on the same level. Anita and Inese should be a generation after me. Donna is a special case. Donna is my 2nd cousin once removed. Even my chart does not show things perfectly. That is because Donna and Iain are 1/2 second cousins with Anita and Inese. Donna and Iain are also half 1st cousin once removed with Catherine. AH shows as 4th cousin once removed to me on the AutoKinship Tree and in my DNA/Genealogy Tree.

How Does Otis Fit In?

I have Otis in this Tree:

Otis is actually in this tree twice. However, I don’t think I have a tree in it with both AH and Otis. Donna and Iain should be in this tree also under Leonhard Rathfelder. If the AutoKinship Tree is correct, then I may suspect a Schwechheimer connection for AH or a Rathfelder connection for Otis.

My Cluster 1 AutoKinship Tree

So far, I am liking the AutoKinship Trees because they give context to the AutoClusters. Also there appears to be an element of triangulation in making these Trees which gives me an additional sense that these trees are based on science. However, I after reading Roberta Estes Blog, I am not sure that the trees are based on trianulation.

This is an interesting tree. I know that my 1st cousin once removed and 2nd cousin have the correct relationships. That leaves Deb. I was able to find her on AncestryDNA. Debra and I have a shared DNA match with Rebeka:

It is difficult to figure out where the common ancestor is between Debra and myself. One pair of common ancestors is Jonathan Hatch b 1621 and Sarah Rowley. There may also be a Palmer connection in Rhode Island.

For fun, I will paint in Debra’s DNA using DNA Painter:

Debra’s DNA does not fill in any blank spots on my Chromosome 14. However, it does identify the right-hand part of Chromosome 14 in that it is Massachusetts Colonial DNA and not English Hartley DNA. I have a lot of green Hartley-Snell DNA identified, but not a lot of it is identified as to whether it is on the Hartley side or Snell side. This DNA is most assuredly on the Snell side. The top two choices for the identity of this DNA are Hatch and Palmer. Both of these connections go back to the 1600’s which is also interesting. Maury in my painted Chromosome 14 is mmg in the AutoKinship Tree and Pat is also there.

Cluster 3 AutoKinship Tree

Lee in the second row is a person that I have been following. Lee has ancestry in Colne. This is the area where my Hartleys came from. Lee also has Hartley ancestry which is not uncommon in Colne as Hartley has been one of the most popular name in that Parish over the last several centuries. The AutoKinship Tree connects myself with Lee, Geoff and Heather.

Heather tested at 23andMe.  I have written to Heather and Geoff to see if they would share their Ancestry trees with me. Now, one report at the AutoKinship Utility has Lee matching Audrey:

Audrey tested at FTDNA and has a shared match with Tracey at FTDNA. Tracey at least has a partial tree with some ancestors from Brampton, Ontario:

However, it appears that this tree only covers one side of Tracey’s ancestry. However, Tracey has a shared match at FTDNA with Amy. Amy also has Parr ancestry. Here is how Amy in blue and Tracey in red match me on Chromosome 11:

Here is part of Amy’s tree:

Amy and Tracey have the common ancestors of Joseph Parr and Calra Morrison. That means that I may have shared ancestors going back from one of these two.

Creating a Tree – But it Leads to the Wrong Line

I haven’t had much luck with these trees in the past, but I will create another tree. It turns out that this connection is on a different line:

Loughead is from County Sligo where my grandmothers Frazer and Clarke families were from. That means that either my connection with Lee is through Sligo. I do notice that Lee has Clark ancestors, but as Clark is a common name, could this be a coincidence? Lee doesn’t show any ancestors in Sligo. Lee also matches my father’s 1st cousin who has no Clarke ancestry, so I tend to think that the Lee connection is on my Hartley side.

I have heard back from Heather, so there may be a lead there.

Cluster 4 AutoKinship Tree

This is also on my Hartley side, but whereas I believe the previous tree goes back to my English Hartleys, I believe that this tree goes back to my Snell side and Colonial Massachusetts. I show a close match as a 1st cousin twice removed to two people. These are actually my second cousins. That means that I should be roughly 4th cousins with the other matches. Of course, that is based on typical matching amounts. It could be that others who matched less are not showing and that these matches could go back further in time – perhaps like the 1600’s match I mentioned above.

It helps showing these trees as it gives me hope that I may find a common ancestor or ancestors. Ned has a pretty good tree at Ancestry:

I find the Shared Surname List useful. Here is one connection:

Here we are in the early 1600’s again. Ned descends from Mary Hathaway and I descend from John Hathaway. In my previous DNA/Genealogy tree, I have gone as far back as Simon Hathaway from 1711. This is at Simon’s great-grandparent level, so back another three generations.

Adding Ned to DNA Painter

This is an interesting possibility, because Sarah Cooke’s father was on the Mayflower. Here is how Ned shows up:

This is interesting because Ned shares more DNA in this area of my paternal side Chromosome 16 than my 1st cousin once removed Maury. I didn’t paint in Jed, but he would be in about the same area.

Adding Ned to My DNA/Genealogy Tree

This should be interesting. Here is my existing Hathaway DNA matching Tree:

All I have to do is go up three generations to Arthur and Sarah Cooke and then down to Ned. Here is the connection by itself:

Of course, the connection is a bit dubious, but it is what I have. I notice that there is a Mayhew in the line which may be another connection going way back.

Cluster 6 AutoKinship Tree

This tree has an E-23 probability which seems incredibly small to me. However, of some interest to me is that there re two siblings near the top of the tree and two siblings at the bottom. If correct, then I at the 3rd cousin once removed level with Kimmy and mostly 3rd cousin level with the other DNA matches.

I found Carl at Ancestry. He has a Hannah Pontus Churchill born in Virginia in 1651. I have a Hannah Churchill in my tree born 1649 apparently in Plymouth, MA as the daughter of John Churchill and Hannah Pontus. So if my information is right John Churchill born perhaps in 1620 and Hannah Pontus would be our common ancestors. However, from above, I had that my Audrey connection was on an entirely different line going back to Ireland. Time to move on to Cluster 8

Cluster 8 Tree

Here at least I have Beth, my second cousin and the probability on this tree is not as low as the previous tree. Beth and I descend from James Hartley and Annie Snell. James Hartley had one sister. Annie was from a larger family, so my guess is that this tree could be on the Snell side. I note that GPR is a new match at Gedmatch, but I was unable to make the connection to Ancestry.

Cluster 37 Tree

This is a tree that I am familiar with:

Let’s see how accurate the AutoKinship Tree is:

 

This shows that, at least in this case, AutoKinship had each relationship closer by one-half step. The one exception is between me and Judy. The program then guesses at different possibilities:

Tree 4 seems to get it right:

The problem here is that Robert shows as a 2C2R to me where he is a 2C1R. However, the structure of the tree is more or less right. I don’t know that any of the trees got it perfect. There were just better trees and worse ones. Although this AutoKinship Tree does not give me any new information, it gives me an idea of how the Tree works.

Summary and Conclusions

  • It seems that the AutoKinship Trees help give some context to at least some of the AutoClusters
  • Looking at the AutoClusters in this way gives some hope that a common ancestor could be found some some of the unidentified clusters
  • Looking at the AutoClusters in terms of trees gives a fresh look at some old matches while also picking up some new matches that have been added to Gedmatch.
  • The real help is also in the reaching out to those I haven’t reached out to yet to try to make genealogical connections.
Posted on

Nicholson 4th Cousin Nancy at Ancestry

When I was looking at my sister’s DNA matches at Ancestry, I came across Nancy. She also matches me and we show common ancestors:

Ancestry want me to evaluate the tree. I suppose I can start with mary Ellen Nicholson. Here are the basics that Nancy has on Mary Ellen:

The thing I find interesting about Nancy is that she descends from Henry Nicholson who shows as the brother of my 2nd great-grandfather’s brother William. William was from a large family. Here are his siblings:

I also have my own DNA Matching Genealogy Tree:

This is part of the tree. I see I already have Michelle on the Henry Nicholson Branch. I suppose that is a good sign. I wrote a Blog including Michelle here.

My genealogy-only Tree doesn’t have Walter:

Doing the Genealogy to Try to Connect to Nancy

The best way to make the connection is not from the top down but from the present to the past. I’ll start a tree for Nancy:

Based on Arie’s Naturalization papers, Arie and Mary Ellen married in Sheffield, England and Mary Ellen was also born in Sheffield:

Based on this, I take this to be the Nicholson family in 1911:

All family members were born in Sheffield according to this Census.

More on Joseph Nicholson

I can get back to the 1901 Census before Mary Ellen was born:

Here is some more information from the 1901 Census:

Here is what I have for Joseph and Mary Ellen’s children:

Mary Ellen should be Boothroyd. I think that one of the record transcriptions was off. I have Joseph at least later associated with Brightside Bierlow:

In 1891, there are two Josephs associated with Ecclesall Bierlow.

Mary Ellen Boothroyd

Here is Mary Ellen in 1881:

Mary Ellen’s father was a Carter as was her later husband Joseph Nicholson. She also lived in Brightside Bierlow, so perhaps Joseph went to live near where she was from.

Back to Joseph Nicholson

FamilySearch has these two Josephs born in Sheffield:

Neither of these two have the father Walter as suggested by Ancestry. The one with the fathe Henry is promising as Joseph’s first son was named Henry. However, I’m ruling him out as he appears in the 1901 Census:

Here is a Joseph in the 1881 Census:

He appears to be the son of George and Mary Ann Nicholson and the grandson of Mitalda(?) Nicholson. I was looking in the Ecclesall Bierlow area, so that meets that criteria.

The 1891 Census Gives a Clue

Here Joseph is a Carter:

That is too much of a coincidence for me to overlook in an area that was known for the metal industry. Time to deviate from the Ancestry Common Ancestry Tree to see where this leads us:

Ancestry wants me to put in William Nicholson for the father of Joseph Nicholson. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with this line. Perhaps the connection is on another line.

Trying the Top Down Method

This is the less preferrred method, but perhaps I can test out the Ancestry model this way. Here are two records for Henry Nicholson:

As these are both bachelors, they must be two different people. Interestingly, one is the son of Joseph and one is the son of Matthew. Matthew is my 3rd great-grandfather. I have Henry married to Ann Bainbridge:

I’m not sure where I got that so I’ll change her to Elizabeth Bradshaw. That could mean that the work I had done on a previous Blog on Michelle (mentioned above in the Blog) could be wrong.

Henry and Elizabeth in the Census

Here is a Henry and Elizabeth listed as visitors. They also have a son Walter. However, how did Henry and Elizabeth get three sons if they just married in 1850? Nothing seems to add up.

Back to Michelle

I mentioned Michelle near the top of this Blog. It appears now that I have drawn her connection incorrectly and too hastily. Now it is back to the drawing board or in this case, Nicholson Tree. Here is part of Michele’s tree:

Here is 4 year old Francis Emily in 1861:

10 years earlier, this couple had no children:

This is likely the Ann Nixon that I mentioned above.

This is where things get complicated again. I found an Ann Nixon who died in Worcester, MA:

Unfortunately, Henry’s death record is missing his parent’s information:

However, from the marriage record, we know that the Henry Nicholson who married Ann Nixon had as his father Joseph Nicholson. I will go with this for Henry’s birth:

This is the closest I could find in the 1841 Census:

Here, there are many possibilities:

  • I may have the wrong family
  • Joseph may have died, but then who is John
  • Joseph may have been a John Joseph or Joseph John
  • The Census taker may have gotten the name wrong

Assuming that Joseph and Sarah are the right names, here is a wedding transcription:

I assume that this is the same family in 1851 and that the husband is correctly named now:

Henry married a local girl as the Nixon family is on the same page. I also see that Joseph was born in Thorne.

The red marker is where Thorne is.

Will the Real Nicholson Relative Please Stand Up?

I have taken Michele off of my DNA relative chart. I believe she is related, but I haven’t figured out how or where right now. Both these lines end up in the Thorne area. From my early genealogical Nicholson guesswork, I did have a Joseph Nicholson in the mix:

Concerning the Walter in the Ancestry connection shown at the top of the Blog, I coudln’t find that he had a son named Joseph. This is what one Ancestry tree shows for Walter which appears to be accurate:

Summary and Conclusions

  • Sometimes it is difficult to figure out how DNA matches match by genealogy
  • When I took Michele’s genealogy back it ended with someone who died in Thorne
  • When I took Nancy’s genealogy back, the Nicholson side also ended up in Thorne
  • These DNA matches may hark back to an earlier Nicholson connection or they may connect with an associated line to the Nicholsons.
  • At very least, I was able to correct a past mistake. I had William Nicholson’s brother Henry married to an Ann where he was apparently married to Elizabeth Bradshaw.
  • I would like to give credit to the Sheffield Indexer Website where I was able to find important Nicholson baptismal and marriage records

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Nine Years of My Hartley Branch YDNA Testing

According to my FTDNA Order History, I ordered my first DNA kit on 02/24/2013. This was about 9 years ago. I took the YDNA 12 marker kit. Those results came in on 03/18/2013. At that time, I would have had many matches. A few of these would have been Hartley matches. Most were other matches with ancestry mostly in England, Scotland and Ireland. I ordered the 37 STR test on April 25, 2013.

My understanding was at this point was that I was R1b which was a pretty generic Northwestern European Haplogroup. The Hartley YDNA Project had me as R-P311:

I think that P311 is equivalent to L151.

As I  recall, the STR results were ambiguous and it was suggested that I should take the U152 test:

U152 was an important distinction. U152 as I understood it represented the Anglo Saxon portion of England. These were people that came to England after the Roman period:

For reasons I cannot explain, I did not want to be positive for U152. I wanted to be part of the earlier Celtic Britons shown in the above map. The map explained to me the confusion of names. For example why was there a Great Britain and England? I was relieved to find out in June 2013 that I was negative for U152.

My Hartley YDNA 2014 – S5668

2013 and 2014 was a time for me to learn about the world of YDNA. At this time the stress was on YDNA. Autosomal testing was not as popular. I did my first SNP testing in 2014 with a company called Briton’s DNA. This company cost less than FTDNA. I got the results in about August of 2014. As I recall, I was listed as S5668. I believe that Briton’s DNA gave a name to this group and even had a fanciful drawing of what they believed a person from this Haplogroup may have looked like.

Here was the Chromo2 version of where I was:

Chromo SNPs tended to use an S designation. I should have used FTDNA, but used BritainsDNA as an interim measure to find out where I belonged. Even though the drawing of my ancestral tribe was laughable, I was happy to know where I fit in on the tree of mankind. I had traced my Hartley ancestry back to a certain point in time and place in Trawden, Lancashire. Now I was able to tracke my lineage down from genetic Adam more towards modern times. However, there was still a big gap between S5668 and my Trawden Hartleys.

Later in the year 2014, FTNDA and Mike Walsh were developing this L513 Tree:

I did get honorable mention in this tree, but my name was listed below the line for individual SNP testing as I had not taken the BigY test.

67 STR Test

Meanwhile, I had ordered the 67 STR test. My analysis of my 67 STR data lead me to believe that I should also be positive for Z17911. I tested positive for this SNP at YSEQ, but that made no difference at FTDNA, so then I tested positive for an equivalent to Z17911 which was Z17912 – also at FTDNA:

That means that in 2014, I went (in the eyes of FTDNA) from R-P311 (or L151) to Z17911. That was a big jump.

Here is a closeup of the L513 Tree from October 2014:

I was not on this tree because I had not paid for the more expensive BigY test. However, I now saw that if I did, I would be most closely related to Merrick and Thomas. I also kept up with an enthusiastic group on an L513 newsgroup.

My Hartley BigY500 in 2016

I had no further YDNA testing in 2015. I kept up with updates on L513. I became increasingly frustrated that others were being added to the L513 Tree, but I was not allowed as I had not done BigY testing – even though I knew where I should belong on that tree. I ordered the BigY in April 2016. At that time, the Hartley part of the L513 had not changed much:

there was now a Smith, two Haplogroups up from Z17911. The Yahoo L513 group was trying to figure out who should be in the Z17911 group by STRs. The initial June 2016 BigY results got me onto the L513 Tree:

Of course, it discovered my variants which would be useful in future branching. Now a Goff had also joined our group. At this time, I also uploaded my BigY results to YFull.

Mike Walsh pointed out that my BigY test would result in a new branch. Not for me, but for Merrick and Thomas:

The last line shows that I was red for that SNP location (Column 4), but that Thomas and Merrick have green showing that they are positive.

In September 2016, a new L513 tree came out:

As predicted, Merrick formed a new branch, though notice that it was not yet named.

2017 and SmithPlanet

In 2017, Jared Smith got more involved with SNP testing. He also created a website and his own tree for R-Z16357:

The interesting part of this tree that Jared built is that it included estimates for the dates of the SNPs. Now the Branch for Merrick, Thomas and Bennett have the name of BY11573. These dates were for the most part before the time of surnames.

Here is my Hartley section of the L513 Tree dated January 2016 but it must be from January 2017:

The new branch is now named BY11573 and includes Bennett. I believe that the Smith at the top of this section of the tree at Z16357 is different than Jared.

More Detail from Jared

Jared looked at the individual SNPs or Variants and came up with this portion of the Hartley Tree:

Here, based on A11130, Jared shows Hartley branching off. This was true for my branch of Hartleys. However, future testing would show that A11130 was not a SNP that Hartleys other than in my specific branch tested positive for. FTDNA’s practice is to not name a branch unless more than one person tests positive for it. However I appreciated Jared’s tree that went ahead and created a branch for me. This branch would later be called A111132. It seemed like I had been at Z17911 for a long time. This was my first change in over two years since 2014 when I discovered that I was Z17911.

At this time, I was also trying to build STR trees for my branch of Hartleys but found that they were difficult to build and often in opposition to the non-ambiguous SNPs.

More Updates

We are now up to about 5 years ago. Here is what Jared has near the end of February 2017:

This put everyone on the left side of the Z17911 tree and Hartley on the right side of the tree.

A New Hartley Tester in 2017

My May 2017 Blog notes the results from a new Hartley tester. This was what was needed to create a new Haplogroup for the Hartleys:

This tree is dated March 25, 2017. I noted in that Blog that the new tester moved us down the tree past A11138 to A11132.  So after a long time at Z17911, I had a double change.  This was due to two major changes. The new tester and I are now at A11132 and Jared is now at A11138. That means that Jared’s BigY results and the new Hartley’s test results must have come out at about the same time. Here Jared also has a dotted line to two boxes that are in lighter green. I assume that these are people who tested STRs but not SNPs.

The FTDNA Block Tree in 2019

In a Blog I wrote in September 2019, I have this early Hartley Block Tree from FTDNA:

According to Roberta Estes, this Block Tree came out in January of 2019. At this time, A11132 had 7 SNPs in it. This was later to change to 10 and then go down to 8 when it split. Also, Jared now has 11 Private Variants (down from his then 13 Private Variants.

In that same Blog, I posted an analysis Dave Vance did with dates:

Vance has the common ancestor for Smith and Hartley at 900 AD and the common ancestor between the two Hartleys at 1400 AD. The analysis was based on STRs. Based on SNPs, I made an estimate that our common Hartley ancestors may be in the year 1500 AD.

In November 2019, I posted a Blog trying to triangulate the genealogy of the Hartleys who either tested as A11132 or likely were due to STR testing. Here is a portion of the L513 Tree from that Blog:

 

At this time the FTDNA L513 Administrator was trying to show by colors where the ancestors of the SNP groups came from.

In December of 2019, I noted that there was a new Hartley tester named Steve. I had convinced him to take the BigY test. At this point, only the 111 STR portion of his test had come in, but he was my closest match at 111 STRs:

This screen shot was from December 2019, but it shows that I lost a Private Variant somehow. Perhaps it was decided that these this Variant was in a location that was not reliable:

 

My Hartley YDNA Updates for 2020

The first big news of 2020 was Steve and his new BigY. I ordered an upgrade for myself also at this time to make sure that our results were compatible. In January, I noticed that the L513 tree had changed. Now there were two pages of tree and the country of origin designation was removed. I was on the S5668 side.

Recall, that when I firsted tested at BritainsDNA S5668 was the extent of my testing. The test went down deeper but not on my Z16357 branch of S5668 which is a smaller branch.

Here is SNP Tracker at that time:

In the proceses of Steve’s BigY, he is now my closest match at 111 STRs. Michael did not upgrade to 111 STRs in his BigY500 test:

The Start of Two Hartley BigY Tests – January 2020

My test was an upgrade from BigY500 to BigY700. Steve’s was new.

The obvious difference other than I now match Steve is that we share 12 Private Variants between the three of us. Michael and I previously shared 2 Private Variants. It seems that I had 17 Private Variants and Steve had 19 Private Variants. I found this confusing, because I had some named SNPs from previous testing which were also Private, that is, not shared. I didn’t ask Michael how many Private Variants he had.

February 2020

In my Blog from this Month, I mention the Rule of Three as recommended by Bill Wood at the Facebook BigY Page. I realized that I should have tested my brother instead of upgrading my own BigY. That would have saved me some money. At this time, I also posted my BigY upgrade results to Alex Williamson’s Big Tree. I noted that my Private Variants went down from 10 to six:

That means that the 17 Private Variants I mentioned above could have included named SNPs. At this point, I still assumed that Steve and I would form a new Hartley Branch.

April 2020 – More Changes in the Hartley Block Tree

Here is what the Block Tree looks like now:

The Private Variants have gone from an average of 12 to an average of 4. Two new SNPs have been added to the A11132 Block based on Steve’s testing and my upgrade. I contacted FTDNA and they said that all reviews were done. That means that Steve and I did not form a new branch. That also means that the common ancestor between Steve, Michael and myself is within a specific range of years.

The Rule of Three mentioned above recommends you test yourself of course for the BigY. One of the 2 others is a close relative that needs testing. I ordered a test for my brother, Jim later in April. I was curious to see our Private Variants named and have a branch for our own particular tribe of Hartleys. Here is what I was expecting:

I had six Private Variants which I assumed would be named when my brother tested and that block of newly named SNPs would form a new Hartley Branch.

May and June 2020 – Jim’s New BigY Results

The first part of the BigY results is the 111 STR test results. I wrote about those in May 2020. The news from this test was that I had a one STR difference from my brother Jim. It turned out that I had a mutation at DYS534 that the other Hartleys did not have:

At this time, I wrote out a genealogy chart connecting three YDNA testers:

 

Michael tested for BigY500 and Lawrence and Ross tested STRs. I find these trees to be useful for reference during YDNA testing. Based on this tree, it would seem that if Lawrence or Ross were to test the BigY, they would form a new branch of Hartleys.

June 2020

When Jim’s BigY results were first posted, he was listed as A11132. I also found a new STR on the extended testing where Jim and I did not match:

I didn’t know if I had the mutation at DYS548 or if Jim did. I could now probably figure that out, but have not done this yet. New tester Lawrence has a value of 12 for DYS548. For some reason, when I check my results, I don’t show a value for DYS548:

So I can’t explain this discrepancy right now.

My June 8, 2020 Blog showed this new Hartley Branch and Block Tree:

I noted that this was my first change from A11132 since 2017. The new R-FT225247 branch has 7 SNPs. After Jim and I split off from A11132, Michael and Lawrence now have an average of 2 Private Variants. This created a discrepancy between the new FT225247 Branch and the A11132 Branch. Part of this was due to the fact that Michael took the older BigY500 test.

My Hartley YDNA Branches in 2021

My next Hartley YDNA Blog was not until March 2021. At that time, there were a few changes in the Block Tree:

Some time between June 2020 and March 2021, A11132 went from 9 SNPs to 10 and the Smith Branch went from 13 Private Variants to 11. It looks like the new SNP for A11132 was FT22040. This is something I did not look at previously.

FT22040

Here is what YBrowse shows:

This SNP was discovered in 2019. Here is what the Big Tree Page shows:

†For some mutations, their exact position on the tree is uncertain. The mutation may belong further upstream or all downstream branches may not be positive for it. This is often the case for SNPs/INDELs found in FGC kits or 1kG kits in regions not covered by BigY tests.

This note indicates that FT22040 has an uncertain position. Here are my results for this SNP:

I suppose that explains FT22040, but not the timing of when it was added. Also, I cannot explain Smith’s Private Variant drop from 13 to 11.

December 2021

I wrote a Blog which mentions John who agreed to take the BigY test. I am hoping to find a new Hartley Branch and get listed on the R1b Hall of Fame:

To do this requires our Hartley group to have three of more descendant subclades and we had only two (A11132 and FT225247). John was my closest match by STRs, so seemed a good candidate. In that Blog, I estimated that there should be at least 10,000 A11132 Hartley descendants in the World.

I also triangulated the earliest known ancestors for the four BigY testers plus the new BigY tester.

I gave a weighted score. My family and the Quaker family were from Trawden. So they got a 5. The Roger Hartley family is widely believed to be from Marsden. However, my understanding of the genealogy is that the Quaker place of meeting was in Marsden and his death record from there shows that he was from the “Forest of Trawden”. This is an older or fuller name for Trawden. Steve’s ancestors were below that in the Todmorden area. The new BigY tester John’s ancestors were from Healaugh near Tadcaster in Yorkshire County to the East. My analysis favored Trawden, but I am predisposed to that area as that is where my Hartleys were from (though about 175 years after the Roger Hartley Family).

Michael’s Private Variants

I had assumed that Michael had no Private Variants. I found out that this was not true. I had assumed that based on the average and number of Variants that Steve and Michael had, that Michael would have no Private Variants. I discoverd that the average was not based on the total list of Private Variants, but only the Private Variants that FTDNA deemed to be in reliable areas. Michael actually had two Private Variants. I compared the Variants of those who had tested and got this table:

At this point, I was reinforced in my feeling that someone else on the Roger Hartley Line needed to be tested to make up for deficiencies in Michael’s BigY500 test.

SNP Tracker is now tracking my new SNP family SNP of FT225247:

This brings our SNP from Medieval to Modern times.

2022 and Three Important BigY Tests: John, Lawrence and Mawdsley

John’s 111 STR results came in at the first of the year. They showed that John was more closely related to my brother and me at 111 STRs than to other Hartleys. However, the STR results can be misleading. In this Month also Robert Casey did a STR study for the Z16343 Group. This is important in finding other STR testers who may be part of the Z16343 Group. Dating was also included, but some of the dating seemed to go against the more consistant dating by using SNPs and SNP structure.

Here is an updated Z16343 Tree from the SmithPlanet web site:

It also includes the SNP above which is Z16357.

Lawrence and Mawdsley

I asked Lawrence from the Roger Hartley Line if he would take the BigY test and he agreed to take it. When Lawrence’s 111 STR test came in a new tester named Mawdsley also took the BigY test and his 111 STR test came in. Both Lawrence’s and Mawdsley’s BigY results were finalized (minus the manual review) at the end of January 2022.

A New Hartley Haplogroup – A11134

I got Steve, John and Lawrence to test for BigY hoping for a new Harltey Haplogroup. It took the testing of a non-Hartley (Mawdsley) to split up the existing A11132 Haplogroup and form a new Hartley A11134 Haplogroup.

February 2022 Lawrence’s BigY Results

I was disappointed to see that Lawrence’s 6 Private Variants did not produce a new Branch with Michael. This could be because Michael’s BigY500 test did not cover the positions where Lawrence’s Private Variants were located.

A16717

However, I was encouraged by the fact that both Lawrence and Michael tested positive for A16717 and the other Hartleys tested negative. The only problem is that this SNP is also used in the J Haplogroup. After 2 weeks from when Lawrence’s BigY results came in, I wrote to the FTDNA Help Desk to see if they would create a branch of A16717 for Michael and Lawrence.

Here is the new Block Tree as of the end of February 2022:

Here is the branching that I was hoping for:

Summary and Conclusions

  • It has been a wild ride looking into the YDNA of my Hartley Line
  • I have gone with STR testing, Chromo2 testing (BritainsDNA), single SNP testing at FTDNA and YSEQ and finally BigY testing.
  • Along the way I have learned a lot about YDNA ‘deep ancestry’.
  • Recently, two Hartley only surname branches have been discovered. These are A11134 and FT225247
  • I have also discovered the closest name to our Hartley Surname which is Mawdsley
  • I am now awaiting to see if FTDNA will create a A16717 Branch of Hartleys. This would be an important branch as it includes genealogy back to the early 1600s. Also many US Hartleys descend from this branch of early immigrants to Pennsylvania.

 

Posted on

An Update on a New Hartley YDNA Test

It appears that one of the two new Hartley BigYs is starting to change. I noticed on 24 January 2022 that the Haplogroup designation has changed from L21 to A11132. However, the BigY does not yet show as completed:

This preliminary determination confirms that this tester is in the A111132 Hartley group:

This is the tester with the ancestor of Wiliam Hartley from 1745. The other BigY tester who ordered a little later is the one with the ancestor of Roger Hartley b. 1628 in the 4th row of named ancestors in the image above.

The new A111132 Hartley has as his closest matches my brother James and me by STRs:

The Existing Hartley Block Tree

The new tester does not show up on my block three yet which represents four existing Hartley testers (me plus three matches). I am hoping that the new tester will break up the blue block of 7 SNPs represented by R-FT225247. In this blog, Basically if this tester is positive for all 10 SNPs in the A11132 Block, and negative for the 7 SNPs in the FT225247 Block, then there will be no changes. If he is negative for one or more in the FT225247 Block, that should result in a splitting of the Block. That would also show that the new tester is more closely related to my brother James and me than he is to Steve and Michael.

I am hoping to document the changes that take place as this Hartley tester’s BigY results progress from the initial phase through hopefully a manual review. A manual review takes place if there is a change in the Block Tree.

The New Hartley Tester and a New Mawdsley Tester

I am a little surprised that the Hartley BigY tester results seem to be coming out prior to a Mawdsley tester. Mawdsley is a new YDNA tester who took the BigY test. Based on the the Mawdsley STR results, he has many matches to Hartleys. My feeling is that Mawdsley could break up the the A11132 Block. This Block is old enough that it should predate surnames.

Here is the larger picture:

The Hartley Branch is in green.

25 January and the New BigY Results Are In

Here is John’s new Block Tree:

Although the BigY results are in for John, my experience is that things could still change while the dust settles. It could take a few weeks – especially if there is a manual review.

Looking at John’s Test Results In More Detail

I had mentioned above that if John was negative for all the SNPs in the FT225247 Block, then that Block would not be split. I can try to speed up the review and look at John’s results for the 7 SNPs in the FT225247 Block.

John’s Non-Matching Variants

John’s results will either be positive, negative, not tested or inconclusive, so the real life situation may not be all or nothing. Here are the first two people on John’s Match List:

John has 12 Non-Matching Variants with Steve and 14 Non-Matching Variants with me. It appears that all 7 SNPs that are in my branch of FT225247 are in John’s list of Non-matching Variants. That makes it look like John is negative for those 7 SNPs.

FT225247

It is possible to look at John’s test results for each SNP.  One way is through his csv file. The other more detailed way is through FTDNA’s  Y-Chromosome Browsing Tool. I’ll use the Browsing Tool:

This shows as not derived. The reference value of A is the same as the Genotype. I can’t get the Chromosome Browser to work right now, so I may come back to that later.

Another New A11132 Determination

This probably should have been in a separate Blog, but I just checked on a Mawdsley BigY test and that came in as A11132. This was the test that I hoped would split the A11132 Block.  Actually, this may come in soon. I see that Mawdsley is where the Hartley tester was yesterday:

However, it is exciting that Mawdsley has been found to be A11132. That implies to me that Mawdsley will be splitting the A11132 Block.

Back to John’s BigY Results

I am seeing the results now for the Chromosome browser for FT225247:

John was clearly negative for this SNP with many reads.

Other SNPs Under FT225247

The quick way to check is by John’s csv file. I suspect that he is negative for all 7 SNPs under FT225247:

  • A11129 – not derived
  • A11130 – not derived
  • A11131 – not derived
  • A11133 – not derived
  • A11136 – not derived
  • FT135932 – not derived

That means that John as well as Steve and Michael all appear to stem from A11132. That means also that so far, my model of how the different Hartley lines seem to be shaking out looks like what I had shown in a previous Blog:

SNPs have been said to form every 80 or 83 years. Jared Smith estimated that this number may be closer to 70 years for the Hartley part of the YDNA tree. To me, I wonder that it appears that these four Hartley lines descended from Hartleys that were born within a 70 to 80 year period. As I recall, my best guess for a common ancestor date for these lines was around 1550. That means that these four Hartley lines could be from 1550 give or take 35-40 years. Say 1510 to 1590.

John’s Private Variants

John has

These are the variants in John’s line that formed since about 1550. These variants are reported as position numbers until someone else matches them, then they are reported as named SNPs. These positions are given names pretty much right away, but those names are not reported until there is another match.

These variants show up in John’s list of Non-matching Variants:

Other Non-Matching Variants with My Family

So far, I have accounted for 7 SNPs from my family and 4 Private Variants from John. That leaves 3 Non-Matching Variant not accounted for.

FGC6800

John does not show this SNP:

I clearly have it:

Also my brother Jim:

It is not clear to me why this SNP is not noted in the Hartley Line that my brother and I are in. However, I do note that this SNP is listed in the I2 Haplogroup at YBrowse:

BY80068

This is a SNP that John has:

I don’t think that I tested for this SNP.  My brother clearly does not have this SNP.

FT27444

John shows as not derived for this SNP:

It turns out I have this SNP:

The results do not look the best, but they do seem to show I have this SNP.

Now I am curious as to my brother Jim’s results. If he was positive for this SNP, then it should have shown up. Jim’s results show as inconclusive:

I wonder if this SNP was from a low-quality area of the Y Chromosome. This is one of those cases where the deeper you get into the details, the more confusing it gets.

John and Steve’s Non-Matching Variants

Steve has 5 Private Variants. Those are the five starting with 7053124. The last four in the orange box are John’s Private Variants. That leaves three Non-Matching SNPs.

BY80068

I already discussed this SNP above. John has it. That must mean that Steve does not have it.

Y51250

My assumption is that Steve must have this SNP and he does:

FT35996

The same must be true that Steve has the SNP FT35996:

Finally, John and Michael

This is a little trickier as Michael only took the BigY500. This has less coverage than the BigY700 that the rest of us took:

That means that Michael is only negative for two of the four Private Variants that John does have (underlined above). Michael has two Private Variants which start with 203 and 126. That leaves 11 Non-Matching Private Variants.

BY80068

BY80068 is the third to last Non-Matching Variant. That means that Michael did not test positive for that SNP:

That leaves 11 SNP unaccounted for.

ZS1551

It seems odd that this is a Non-Matching Variant between John and Michael as it seems that they both are not positive for this SNP. However, as I look at Michael’s Chromsome Browser, he does show that he is positive for the SNP:

This is what Michael’s csv file showed as of last month:

YBrowse has this SNP in the J Tree:

Y30173

Michael is clearly positive for this SNP also:

But again, Michael’s csv file does not show positive for this SNP. I think I’ll skip the other Non-Matching SNPs between John and Michael as I don’t seem to be getting anywhere with them. It may be that Lawrence’s pending BigY700 test will clear this up. Lawrence is believed to be distantly related to Michael.

From L21 to A11132

John asked me if there was much difference between L21 where he was previously and A11132 where he is now. Here is an L21 map from 2011:

The map shows that there a lot of L21 people the further you go to the Northwest. Of course with those who have emmigrated to other countries, this would account for Millions of people. L21 has been associated with the Celtic people.

Here is what SNP Tracker shows:

A11132 is shown as a Medieval SNP and L21 shows as a Bronze Age SNP. Here are some SNP dates:

L21 dates to 2600 BCE and A11132 to 850 CE. Actually, I should add in my own Hartley Branch SNP:

My Hartley Branch dates to about 1500 CE which is the aprroximate common ancestor date between John and the rest of the BigY tested Hartleys. The date I mentioned that I had come up with was about 1550 CE.

New Results Due to the Mawdsley BigY Test

Here is the way Mawdsley’s Block Tree looks at the time of my writing:

This tree is in flux. In my last Blog, I predicted that John would become A11134 or A11135 as Mawdsley was negative. Here, Mawdsley has lost his other matches of the three former A11132 Hartleys. However, the three Hartleys are now showing as A11134 at least in their general YDNA listings (see below), so the change is in progress. John must have one of the fastest changes of a haplogroup after BigY testing:

I couldn’t get the other former A11132 Hartley Block Trees to display.

John and Mawdsley Common Ancestor

I have estimated the common ancestor for John and the other Hartleys to be around 1550. That would put the common ancestor between John and Mawdsley at about the year 1400. This bumps into the time when surnames were being finalized. Based on locality, social status and other factors, surnames may or may not have been finalized or were in the process of being finalized around the year 1400. It could be that the year 1400 was very close to the beginning of our Branch of Hartleys and the beginning of the Mawdsley surname.

Summary and Conclusions

  • John’s BigY Test recently came out which confirmed he was A11132 along with four other Hartley BigY testers
  • Two of those testers (my brother and I) are in a group downstream of A11132
  • I then looked at the results of a very recent Mawdsley test. Mawdsley tested close to Hartleys by STRs. The BigY test showed that Mawdsley was positive for 8 out of 10 of the A11132 SNPs
  • The two SNPs that Mawdsley tested negative for further defined the existing five Hartley BigY testers (including John). This put those Hartleys into a new SNP group called A11134. This group is most likely a Hartley-only SNP.
  • Hartley common ancestors for A11134 date to about the year 1550. The common ancestor year between Mawdsley and Hartley is around the year 1400. This year may be about the start of the (now) A11134 Hartley and A11132 Mawdsley surnames
  • FTDNA is catching up with the new information and is likely in the process of a manual review.
Posted on

A New Mawdsley BigY Test Also Defines a Hartley Haplogroup

I have been eagerly awaiting a new Mawdsley BigY test. The results just came in on 26 January 2022. I had expected that the new test would break up the A11132 Block. Previously, only Hartleys had tested positive for A11132.

Here is the current A11132 Block as seen in my view:

Above the A11132 Block is A11138. A Smith has tested positive for that SNP. The dates for the A11132 Block are approximately 900-1500 AD. Because it was believed that the connection to Mawdsley was before the time of surnames, it seemed like this test would break up the A11132 Block. That has not happened yet as FTDNA is still analyzing the test.

Breaking Up the A11132 Block

If Mawdsley is positive for one or more of the SNPs in the A11132 Block AND negative for one or more of the SNPs in the A11132 Block, then the Block will be broken up. Let’s look at Mawdsley’s results:

  • A11132 – Positive
  • A11134 – Negative
  • A11135 – Negative
  • A11137 – Positive
  • A11139 – Positive
  • A11140 – Positive
  • A16716 – Positive
  • FT22040 – Positive
  • FT226983 – Positive

Because Mawdsley is negative for two of the SNP (A11134 and A11135), then the old A11132 Block is broken up. I was expecting the Block to be broken near the top of the Block, but it appears to be broken near the bottom of the Block. There are other things that could happen, but the above is the simple explanation.

Hartleys Will No Longer Be A11132

Here is a simplified view of pre-Mawdsley BigY testing:

Here is a simplified view of what should happen soon:

Here I have started to add more SNP information. Mawdsley will take on the A11132 SNP designation which will now represent 8 SNPs as opposed to a previous 10 SNPs. Hartleys other than my branch will be given the name of either A11134 or A11135. The yellow box above represents three branches of BigY-tested Hartleys not including my branch.

Dating the Common Ancestor of Hartley and Mawdsley

I had previously estimated the common ancestor of the Hartley BigY testers at about 1550 AD. Jared Smith has estimated that in general, the SNPs in this region of the YDNA Tree could form at about once every 71 years. That would put the common ancestor of Mawdsley and Hartley at about 1408 or rounded to the year 1400.

The Adoption of Surnames

I have read different things about the adoption of surnames. Here is a quote from https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Surnames/

The introduction of parish registers in 1538 helped establish the idea of hereditary surnames. However it was still common in some parts of the country to find a person entered under one surname at baptism, married under another name and then buried under a third.

According to Wikipedia:

By 1400, most English and some Scottish people used surnames, but many Scottish and Welsh people did not adopt surnames until the 17th century, or later.

For a third opinion, I will quote FamilySearch:

Learning about the possible origin or origins of your surname is fascinating, but as surnames were established in England by 1450 and their parish registers only go back to 1538 at the earliest, most of us cannot establish our surname origin with certainty.

At any rate, at the possible time of the common ancestor between Mawdsley and Hartley surnames could have been when surnames were still in flux. It is interesting that the YDNA dating for the Mawdsley/Harltey common ancestor seems to point to that very time when surnames were likely used but perhaps not consistently.

Summary and Conclusions

  • A New Mawdsley BigY tester has broken the existing A11132 Block
  • BigY testing has nestled Mawdsley between Smith and Hartley on the YDNA Tree
  • A11132 formerly held by only Hartley testers will now become a Mawdsely SNP
  • The Mawdsley tester moves the Hartleys down the SNP tree about 8 SNPs.
  • The new Hartley SNP is narrowed down from a block of 10 SNPs to a block of two. The new Hartley SNP name will be A11134 or A11135
  • The common ancestor between Hartley and Mawdsley could be around the year 1400 AD
Posted on

An Updated Look at Hartley STRs

Presently, I am waitng for two Hartley BigYs to complete. One is for John and one is for Lawrence. The BigY for John so far has resulted in an upgrade from his previous 67 STRs to 111 STRs.

Summary of A11132 Hartley YDNA Testing

One of the best places to look at YDNA testing for Hartleys is at the FTDNA Hartley Project YDNA Results Page. The Hartleys on that page that are grouped as A11132 are under blue headers:

The last two on the list are my brother James and my results. We have both taken the BigY700 test. The other two that have a green A11132 under Haplogroup have taken the BigY test. Michael has for his ancestor Samuel Edward Hartley born 1666. Michael took the older BigY 500 test. The other three testers have taken the BigY700 test.

Looking for STR Alliances or Patterns

I shuffled the STR results around a bit and then took a look at them:

When there were multiple markers, I didn’t separate them out totally. For example, for CDY, most of the differences were on the second number, so I did separate that out. Also for DYS464, only the last of the four values changed, so I made a separate column for that last value.

This image adds in some relative speeds of mutations:

Red indicates slower mutating and green indicates faster mutation STRs. I didn’t color the last columns as FTDNA doesn’t make a distinction for these STRs. I put boxes around the values where I think that there are groupings.

The Michael and Lawrence Group (Edward Hartley Born 1666)

The first group that seems to be allied consists of Lawrence and Michael. They share the same markers for 449 and 534. I have 534 as a slow marker. I have that marker of 16, but that apparently happened in my birth as my brother does not have that marker. When two not closely related people have the same STR mutation, it is called a parallel mutation. I am prejudiced a little for these two as they show a common ancestor going back to Edward or Samuel Edward Hartley born in 1666:

This also seems to show that Michael had 6 mutations in his line since Roger Hartley born 1703. That would be 6 mutations in 8 generations which is unusually high. Lawrences line only shows one mutation during his 8 generation descent from Thomas Hartley. Ross also had his STRs tested and is a close match to Lawrence. However, I don’t have his detailed results as he is not in the Hartley YDNA Project.

The Second Cluster: John, James and Joel

This cluster is of interest to me because I am in it. It seems more than coincidental that these three share the same values for four different STRs. It is obvious that my brother and I would be in the same grouping, but it seems like John should be added also.

A Possible Third Cluster: Tim and Steve

After much gazing, it appears that Tim and Steve may be in a group also:

This connection is shown in the blue values of STRs. There is also a possible connection between Tim and Steve and John, James and Joel. Perhaps the branching of Tim and Steve occurred earlier than the branching of Steve, James and Joel.

What Do the SNPs Say?

The SNPs should be much less ambiguous than the STRs.  Here is the simple interpretation:

This shows that these four people are all A11132. Roger Hartley is the ancestor of Michael. Thomas Hartley is the ancestor of Steve. As shown, if I draw I STR tree, it should have the ability to show that there is some equality going back to A11132 for these three groups.

Building a A11132 Hartley STR Tree

This is what I was thinking for a Hartley STR Tree:

  • It looked to me like Tim and Steve were associated with John, James and Joel, but not as closesly as John, James and Joel seemed to be associated with each other.
  • Also it appeared that additional branching occurred in the John, James and Joel group after the pre-branching that Tim and Steve were in
  • In order to keep what appears to be the genealogical connetion between Lawrence and Michael and to keep the grouping of the two STRs they had in common, I put these two in a separate branch
  • The second blue row is meant to indicate, that it seems like we are all A11132 at this point.
  • Mervyn and Gary don’t appear to have close connections with each other or the other two groups, so I have them each in their own separate lines
  • I kept Tim in, even though he only tested to 37 STRs as he seemed to have a connection with Steve. I left out the two other Hartley 37 STR testers to simplify the tree.

Adding the STR Values

For simplicity, I’ll leave out the multi-value markers of DYS464 and CDY:

Here I have just added what appear to be the ancestral Hartley STR values. I didn’t indicate those ancestral or modal values for the multi-marker STRs:

A Problem with DYS455

In my scheme, I saw Tim and Steve being ancestral to my line and the Samuel Edward Hartleys as being parallel with TIm and Steve. However, for this to happen would mean thatLawrence had a parralel mutation and that John would have a back mutation from 11 to 12. This could have happened, but it would not be the simplest of scenarios. One method in creating STR trees is to try to come up with the most direct solution. However, that is with all else being equal and not knowing other information such as genealogy and SNPs.

Here is the STR Tree I have:

I have bolded the 445 STR. Michael would have a parallel mutation with the Tim and Steve Group. Then John would have a back mutation to 12. This seems to be asking a lot of this slow mutating STR. Under this scenario, John and Michael have a lot of STR mutations. If the genealogical connection between Michael and Lawrence is correct, then I think that what I have is a good solution to the STR tree – at least for Michael and Lawrence.

New 111 STR Results Just in for Lawrence

While I am pondering the above tree, I notice that Lawrence’s 111 STR results are just in.  Here are Lawrence’s new results:

 

I don’t see anything earth shattering here. If Michael had his 111 STR results, this may have made more sense. Lawrence has new STR mutations at the point of the arrow that others don’t have (DYS504). He also shares a STR of 36 with John, James and Joel at DYS710.

I won’t bother updating my SNP tree based on these new results. It will be more important to see how the SNP results come in before refining the STR tree. Unfortunately, the STR results come in first, but it would make more sense if the SNPs came in first as far as interpreting the STR results.

Another Look at STRs with Mawdsley Added

This may be in slightly different order than before. I also used conditional formatting which should be more accurate. Mawdsley is a new BigY tester awaiting results. Mawdsley believes that the connection to the Hartleys is before the time of surnames. That appears to me to be correct. Another thought is that I had linked Steve with Tim based on an 11-26 combination. That is a sort of flimsy connection as Tim has only tested with 37 STRs. I also see a possible connection of 35-21 with Mervyn and Steve. I have a lighter box around this pair as not many of the other STRs seem to match between Mervyn and Steve.

Another interesting thing is that with the addition of Lawrence and Mawdsley, the mode for DYS710 has changed from 35 to 36. This would be an improvement as more testers will improve the modal values.

GDs

The GDs are the STR differences from the Hartley Mode:

All the GDs are fairly distant from the Hartley Mode. This means to me that this Hartley tree is ancient. Mawdsley has the highest 111 STR GD from the Hartley Mode which would be expected as they don’t believe that they descend from the Hartleys. Michael has a high 8 out of 67 GD. This either indicates that he and Lawrence are not related as believed on the Samuel Edward Line or that Michael has had more than the average mutations in the 1 to 67 STR test.

Summary and Conclusions

  • While awaiting John’s BigY results, I took a look at a revised STR using his upgreaded 111 STR results, genealogy and existing SNP results
  • I looked at a possible STR tree which included a Tim and Steve group. The problem with this grouping is that TIm only tested to 37 STRs, so all the information is not there.
  • Steve also has a possible connection with Mervyn, though they also have many differences. I didn’t make a tree for that possibility
  • The tree also included a Samuel Edward Hartley branch based on what appears to be a genealogical connection. There was justification for the connection also based on the same values that Lawrence and Michael had for two STRs. The connection is confusing as it appears that Michael has had more than the average number of STR mutations.
  • While I was writing the Blog, Lawrence’s STRs were upgraded from 67 to 111 markers. This made no difference in the analysis other than a change in the mode of Hartley ancestral value from 36 to 35 for DYS710. If Michael had tested to 111 STRs, I may have been able to see more connections between the two.
  • I added in the 111 STR results for Mawdsley as he has many Hartley STR matches. The results appear to confirm that Mawdsley does not descend from Hartley, but the families may be closely related prior to the time of surnames.
Posted on

Updating My DNA Match Spreadsheet

It has been a while since I have updated my match spreadsheet with FTDNA matches. To see what I have on my exising match spreadsheet in Excel, I sorted by match date:

Where there is a blank in the Kit# column, that usually means FTDNA. The newest date I have on my list is 11/21/2019.

Sorting My FTDNA Matches

I’ll try this option:

Under the Export CSV, there is a filtered option, but that is grayed out. That means I must have to filter my matches first. I’ll choose filter by match date:

I’ll choose 11/22/2019. It turns out that these dates don’t work as all the match dates at FTDNA have been updated. For example, FTDNA shows that I match my mother as of April 18, 2021. I know that I have matched her for much longer than that. If I download my FTDNA match list, I will have many duplicates. In addition, I will be missing email contacts. Also I will be missing detailed Chromosome information:

As I recall, I need to go to the Chromosome browser to get the detailed information. On the Chromosome Browser screen, I didn’t choose a particular person, but chose Download All Segments:

That gave me a spreadsheet like this:

I guess that FTDNA decided to make it not so easy to get people’s emails at some point. Next I need to brush up on my MS Access skills and combine these two tables.

Combining the Two Downloaded Tables with MS Access

First I save the two tables and open Access. I have a lot of databases, but the one called AutosomalDNA looks good:

I need to get my new tables into the Tables section above. I can’t remember if Access is OK with csv files. When I looked for Excel tables, I couldn’t find the csv files, so I’ll convert the files. That involved opening the csv files and saving them as Excel files. Before I could import these files into Access, I had to close them in Excel.

It appears that I am having trouble telling if I imported correctly due to the truncated Table names. I deleted my old files and used the help feature to import the new files. I let Access choose a unique number for each row:

Next I choose Create>Quesry Design and add the two tables to my new Query:

I would like the ouput to look somewhat like my master spreadsheet. Here is my first shot at a query:

This query was not very good:

It looks like there could be more than one person with the initials ‘AB’. Also the query gave me 8168 rows. The Chromosome Browser results gave me 9126 rows. Also I need a total cM column. It appears that FTDNA has taken too much information away, making it difficult to reconstruct a spreadsheet.

My easy fix is to create a right hand join:

 

When I hit the view button, I get 9,528 rows which is about right. Actually there are 9,326 rows in the Chromosome Browser spreadsheet, so I have some extra rows. This is likely due to ambiguous names or initials in the database.

Second Try

I will try to use just the new Chromosome file and match it with my existing master spreadsheet. Actually, I want the names that are in Chromosome Browser file that are not in my master file. As I recall, there is not a simple way to do that in Access. I think that it takes two queries. Actually, according to Google, there is an easier way:

I tried that and got this query:

This gives me 6898 lines, so it will have to do. Some names seem to be repeats of what I have.  I copied the results of this query to the bottom of my spreadsheet:

I added today’s date for the match date. Then I sorted by Chromosome and Start Position.

Maternal or Paternal Matches?

It would have been nice if I could have combined the two tables from FTDNA because there is information on some of the matches as to whether they are maternal or paternal matches. I can go through the new matches one by one and add them to my master match list, but that will take a while.

23andMe Matches

At the bottom of the DNA Relatives list, there is a blue button that says “Download DNA Relatives Data”. After pushing that button I get an email with options:

There are many more options, but I chose “Download DNA Relatives Data”. That gave me a large spreadsheet with a lot of good information. Here are some of the fields I added to my spreadsheet:

Then I re-sorted to integrate the data. I needed to add two new headers at the right of the spreadsheet. These were for Sharing Status and Family Tree. These two items seemed important.

I had been adding a few matches at a time from 23andMe. Now I have the whole list. My spreadsheet now has over 19,000 lines. Some of this information is not important or duplicative, but still it is an improvement.

Adding MyHeritage DNA Matches

While I am at it, I might as well try to add MyHeritage Matches. I made a request to MyHeritages and got my matches. The information from MyHeritage is pretty basic:

The above is for my mother. It gives her ID#, my name, her name, and Chromosome information. I don’t think that I need the RSID numbers. Also, I don’t need the information for my close relatives as they are already on my spreadsheet.

I tried this to copy large amounts of information from this spreadsheet to mine:

I also added test company and the match date (though this would be the download date). My spreadsheet now has over 58,000 rows.

Some Applications

By looking anew at my 23andMe list, I was able to add a person to my Hartley DNA Tree:

Simone is on the Robert Hartley branch which I didn’t have on my tree before.

Lee is a person that I am interested in. He has at least one Hartley in his ancestry and some of his ancestors are from the area that my Hartleys were from.

If I can triangulate his genealogy with other matches on my paternal side near where I match Lee, I may figure out where our common ancestry is.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I downloaded detailed Chromosome match information for my DNA matches from FTDNA, 23andMe and MyHeritage
  • I had not downloaded 23andMe and MyHeritage matches in the past
  • I wish that I had downloaded information on maternal and paternal matches from FTDNA
  • I found that FTDNA matches had less information than previously
  • I need a way of mining the information that I have.
  • The MyHeritage downloads were interesting as they often will have trees attached to the matches.
  • I now have over 58,000 rows of DNA matches – though many are duplicates or small matches.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Updating Some Hartley ThruLines and AncestryDNA

Although Ancestry is a bit expensive and does not provide a chromosome browswer, it is still one of the most user-friendly platforms to review DNA matches and genealogical connections. I like to go through the kits I manage to see if there and any connections. When I am looking for matching, my two favorite filters are ‘Unviewed’ and ‘Common ancestors’.

My Sister Lori’s Match with Linda

Here I have chosen those two filters for my sister Lori:

If there is anything under this category, it could mean a new match on a ThruLine:

Normally, there would be a blue dot near Linda’s name showing that she is a new match, but I just clicked on her name and once I did that, the blue dot goes away. Here is how Ancestry thinks we connect:

Here there is a new designation on Linda. When I go back an do a sort for Linda, I see that her results came out in the last 7 days. I also see that the two lines seem pretty sure. In other words, Ancestry is not asking me to evaluate Linda’s line. I have my own spreadsheet of Frazers and how they match by DNA at Gedmatch. Let’s see how Ancestry matches up those who have tested there:

Ancestry’s ThruLines tells me that this couple has been updated which is helpful:

It turns out that Linda is an important match on Lori’s ThruLines for James and Violet Frazer. Lori has now four matches, but I don’t think that Jess was placed in the correct tree. I suppose it is possible, but if William Frazer was born in 1819, it would have been when Violet Frazer was about 16 years old. I have five siblings (including myself) who have tested at Ancestry and all but Sharon have ThruLines for Linda.

My Frazer DNA Tree

Here is one of many trees I am maintaining for Frazer DNA matches:

The yellow line is Richard Frazer’s line:

Linda was fairly easy to add in. I only added her in under my Philip Tree. Technically, she belongs under my Richard Frazer Tree aslo as Violet Frazer was the son of Richard Frazer.

Hargreaves ThruLines

I’ll start with my sister Sharon:

This couple shows up as potential ancestors. Here are some of the matches:

If I agree that our genealogy matches up, this would be one way to extend my known ancestry. These matches are shown as half cousins, but they may be full cousins.  Here is the collapsed version:

The questions would be: why would there be two daughters named Mary 21 years apart. That could account for the assumption of the half cousin relationship.

Sharon’s match Arthur has an extensive tree:

All four matches go back to Jane Creer.

As far as my ancestor James Howorth, there would be my top candidates for his wife:

My selection is based on the spelling of the Howorth name, where the family lived and the 31 January 1789 birth of their daughter Betty.  Right now I see no clear connection to this Hargrea ThruLine.

Lori’s Other Updated ThruLines

Here is one for McMaster:

The upper level view isn’t perfect asa James McMaster is listed twice.

William McMaster Branch

For some reason, I have that William was born in Scotland, but I don’t think that is right. I’ll change that to the more likely Kilmactranny Parish, County Sligo in my Ancestry Tree. Corrinne is the new match here. I can’t verify the ThruLines from her tree, but I assume that the ThruLines are right

This is probably William McMaster in Griffith’s Valuation:

Here is Cloghmne:

I have not added the William Branch to my McMaster DNA Tree:

 

Here I added the William Branch on the left:

I put my family in gold. It would be nice to have more detailed chromosome information on this line. I see that I can spruce up the right side of the tree using Lori’s MyHeritage results:

Now there is a proper tree. I have the two matches from the Archibald Line on the right in green because MyHeritage supplies detailed information on the DNA matches.

Here is how Lori matches Warwick on Chromosome 11:

Warwick represents older DNA from the 1760’s and the green matches represent DNA from the 1830’s.  Here is John added in to Lori’s DNA Painter map:

On my own Chromosome 12, I have a more complex picture:

That configuration appears to support this theory:

I have had trouble connecting the McMaster families by genealogy. This is my best attempt using DNA and guesswork.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I looked at a few paternal ThruLines
  • One potential Hargraves/Hargreaves Line seems wrong or at least not the best choice by far
  • I was glad to find a new match on my double Frazer Line
  • I spruced up my McMaster DNA Tree and solidified genealogical connections with DNA connections there.