Category: DNA General

Posted on

Cousin Rusty’s BigY Results

It has been a while since I have written about my cousin Rusty’s YDNA. Rusty’s YDNA testing resulted in his finding out that a rumored adoption of I think his grandfather in Ireland was true and that the name he was accustomed to having was not the same name as his ancestors. Here is my last Blog.  At that time, Rusty had not taken the BigY test. Since then he has. I see that previous results lead Rusty to believe that his paternal line was origingally McFarlane or McFarldand. Previously, Rusty was confirmed to be R-BY674.

Rusty’s New Group of R-BY38907

It sounds like a bunch of numbers, but it is really Rusty’s place in the tree of mankind. Here is Rusty’s Block Tree view of his results:

 

The BigY testing brought Rusty down a level to R-Y38907. There are three people in Rusty’s group with 4 variants. There is a McFarlane and a McFarland and Rusty. There are two other testers who hae split off from BY38907 to R-FT91061. If I use 100 years per variant or SNP, then McFarland are 500 years from a common ancestor and Rusty’s group are 400 years away. So a wild guess could be that these five people have a common ancestor around 450 years ago or in the 1500’s.

SNP Tracker

Let’s see what the SNP Tracker has to say about Rusty’s Haplogroup. This is a web based program.

SNP Tracker has BY38907 in Northern Ireland in Roman times. If I add in the group directly below Rusty, it brings us into modern times (1900):

I think I like my estimate better. As there  is only one SNP difference between BY38907 and FT91061, I don’t know why SNP Tracker has about 1900 years between them.

BY38907 in Context

In general terms, BY38907 is a R1b Haplogroup. This is a very common European Haplogroup. The FTDNA L21 project has what is called a Tip of the Iceberg Map or Tree for L21 people. As a Hartley, I am also in this group.

L21 has been associated with people with Celtic background, but it includes more than that. Here is Rusty’s Path:

DF63 is at the top right in brown. I know that I am in L513 in the Orange. That means that Rusty and I are related back to 2600 BC. That is actually not that distant in terms of YDNA:

Also I see that the DF63 is one of the smaller early branches of L21. From there we branched off:

My group is on the left and Rusty’s is on the right. His CT6919 is still at 2100 BC.

BY674 to BY38907

This view takes Rusty’s Block Tree back to BY674 (which descends from CTS6919):

The column on the left gives a measurement of SNPs. This shows that Rusty went from about 11-14 SNPs away with BY674 to four Private Variants away with his present designation of BY38907. The other interesting thing is that there are many McFarlands under BY674. This makes me think that BY674 was around at the time of the McFarland surname. This name is a fairly early surname dating to around 1100 from my understanding. This could also help date BY674. If any of the three people in Rusty’s group get a closer relative to test, then that closer relative and that person should form a new branch.

Rusty’s Private Variants

Rusty’s Private Variants represent his line since the common ancestor he shares with his two other matches who tested positive for BY38907 (and tested negative for FT91061).

Here are Rusty’s Private Variants:

Rusty has more than average Private Variants. The average of the group is four and Rusty has nine. This is partially explained in that Rusty took the BigY 700 and the other two testers probably had the BigY 500. That means that Rusty’s test was looking at parts of the YDNA that McFarland and McFarlane did not look at. That also means that if those two were to upgrade to the BigY 700, they may match on some of Rusty’s Private Variants. Of course, this would make them no longer private. This would also either add more SNPs to the current BY38907 Block or create or create a new branch (or both).

Rusty’s Non-Matching Variants

I’ll look at those listed with Rusty’s two closesty BigY matches:

These are Variants that Rusty has and his matches don’t have. Or they may be Private Variants that Rusty’s matches have and Rusty does not have. As Rusty has more Private Variants, these should be mostly Rusty’s Variants. Rusty’s Private Variants is really what the BigY does well at finding. These should be Variants that have not been discovered in anyone else before.

Here I have highlighted Rusty’s Private Variants in his two closest matches’ results:

This means that McFarlane has one Private Variant that Rusty does not have and McFarland has two Private Variants that Rusty does not have. Add Rusty’s 9 PVs plus the three above to get 12 PVs. Divide those by three testers to get the four Private Variants shown in the Block tree below BY38907.

If Rusty was to have his son take a BigY test, that would name most or all of Rusty’s Private Variants and put Rusty and his son into a new branch. Actually, these Private Variants are all probably already named, but they would then be shown as named. If Rusty’s son takes the BigY test, it would not tell Rusty anthing more about his genealogy. It would just give his branch of the YDNA Tree a name. Instead of Rusty having a bunch of Private Variants, he would have a named branch with a bunch of SNPs in it. This is what I did by having my brother tested:

My results are on the left. After having my brother tested for BigY, my brother and I split off from A11132 to form FT225247 in a block with 7 SNPs.

A Name for Rusty’s Private Variants

In general, FTDNA keeps the Private Variants as position numbers rather than named SNPs. Once they find a match, FTDNA reveals the name and puts the SNPs on a tree. The way to find out the names of your Private Variants is to go to ybrowse.com. Let’s try Rusty’s first which is 5173895.

Put the position number here and search:

This is where the position is on the Rusty’s Y Chromosome:

Here is the name:

This SNP (or Private Variant) was discovered when Rusty had his BigY test in 2019.

 

Posted on

DNA Relative Chris at 23andMe – a Lentz/Nicholson Descendant?

I wrote to Chris about a year and a half ago because we had a good DNA match at 23andMe. I perhaps confused Chris by mentioning another common relative named Judy as Chris would not have known the last name of Judy. I sent a message recently about being able to see Chris’ DNA results and got a message back that Chris didn’t know Judy but was curious about her ancestry. I’m curious as to where we connect also.

My DNA Connection with Chris

Here are the places that Chris and I share DNA. Based on the amount of DNA we share, 23andMe guesses that we are 2nd cousins once removed. 23andMe also put my match with Chris onto their Family Tree:

 

The Judith who I mentioned is on the left. She descends from William Lentz. By the way that 23andMe has the tree, it seems like Chris should descend from one of William’s siblings. That is assuming that the tree was created correctly. I know that Judith is my 2nd cousin. 23andMe think that Chris and I are 2nd cousins once removed. That means that he was born a generation after me.

Here are Jacob Lentz and Annie Nicholson:

Jacob is wearing a bow tie and Annie is to his right. My grandmother Emma is in front of Annie and my mother is in front of Emma. This is what I have for the other people:

TOP – Uncle Stanley, grandfather Lentz, Grandmother Lentz
MIDDLE – Aunt Agnes, Cousin Hazel, Gladys’ Mom
BOTTOM – Cousin Doris, Rob, Cousin Rob Poole, Muriel, Gladys

Some Lentz Genealogy

Since I have looked at a DNA tree, let’s look at the Lentz familyTree

Judy descends from William. I descend from Emma. That leaves Stanley and Agnes for Chris. I don’t see a record that Agnes’ son Robert was married or had children. That seems to leave Stanley Lentz.

Stanley Lentz Born 1894

These are the children I have for Stanley:

I couldn’t find much information about Hazel Lentz.

This findagrave.com record suggests that Doris may never have married:

Stanley Lentz

He had these children:

That filled in some more of my Lentz genealogy, but shed no light on how I match Chris.

William Lentz

I have that Judith descends from William. Perhaps Chris does also. I’ll look into some of his children.

Margaret Lentz

Margaret married John Viden. I couldn’t find a record that they had children.

Elva Lentz

I have this husband and children for Elval:

Bernice Lentz

In my last Blog, I had that Judy was the daughter of Florence. Now I see I should hae had her as the daughter of Bernice. I see this photo at Ancestry:

Judy shared the above photo with this caption:

My guess is that Judy is Bernice’s only child.

This family lived in Pitman, NJ:

Emma Lentz

Emma was born a little over a year before my mother:

I’m sure there were other descendants, but no clear connection to Chris, my DNA Relative at 23andMe. If Chris gets back to me with more family information, I’m sure I will be able to make a connection.

 

Posted on

A New Nicholson DNA Relative at 23andMe

Back in August, I sent out a message on 23andMe to David who appeared to have Lentz or Nicholson ancestry. I wrote:

Hi I see we have common DNA matches that I know. You must be related to me on my Lentz or Nicholson side or both. Do you have any information on your family history?

David wrote back:

Nicholson side…What do you know about the Nicholson’s??? Most of my family on both sides are from Philly. My grandfather was George Nicholson.

This sent me off to my web page on Nicholsons. I found a George Nicholson but he seemed to be born too early to be David’s grandfather:

Plus, I didn’t have that this George had any children. Then I found another George apparently named for his Uncle George:

He was born in 1902, but I hadn’t taken his line any further. I went to Ancestry and found George in the 1940 Census at 400 Chandler Street, Philadelphia:

If I have it right, this is what shows up on Google maps at 400 Chandler Street:

David’s DNA and My DNA Relatives Chart

I have a chart for my DNA matches on my Nicholson side:

Looks like I have already been tracking David’s grandfather George Dockrell Nicholson as I have David’s cousin Robert who tested at Ancestry:

Here is David:

Turns out we are third cousins. My great-grandmother Annie Nicholson was the sister of David’s great-grandfather Walter Nicholson. Here is our common 2nd great-grandfather William Nicholson:

Here is David’s 23andMe photo:

My DNA Connection with David

The DNA connection that I have with David is either from William Nicholson or his wife Martha Ellis:

That shared DNA is mostly on our Chromosome 20 with a little on Chromosome 8. I have quite a few Nicholson relatives who have had their DNA tested. Those who tested on Ancestry like Robert don’t have the detailed information on DNA that 23andMe shows, so they don’t show below:

This is the DNA that I share with William Nicholson and Martha Ellis so far. Let’s see if David adds any new DNA to the mix. I use an online program to paint my DNA called DNAPainter. This is my whole maternal side:

This shows that I have 36% or a little over a third of my maternal DNA painted or identified. The purpleish color is William Nicholson and Martha Ellis.

On Chromosome 8, I share Nicholson/Ellis DNA with David and Linda:

This is also called triangulation when three people match. It is a proof of sorts that there has to be the same common ancestor between the three of them.

Shared Nicholson/Ellis DNA on Chromosome 20

Here David adds new DNA to my profile:

David’s match with me ends about where Carolyn’s picks up. That could mean that David and I share DNA from William Nicholson and Carolyn and I share our DNA from Martha Ellis. Or it could be the other way around. The way that DNA is inherited, it comes down separately from each ancestor. However, we don’t know which one it is coming from unless it is verified from an earlier ancestor – say the parents of William Nicholson or Martha Ellis.

My match with David on Chromosome 20 brings my maternally mapped DNA up to 37%:

Here is all my paternal and maternal DNA mapped:

I don’t know where I was before, but I am at 45% mapped now. The maternal side of my DNA shows on the bottom row. For example next to Chromosome 20, the bottom row is my maternal side which is all Nicholson. This was randomly inherited. So for each of my siblings, this would look different.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I’m glad that David contacted me. I was able to update my Nicholson tree once he identifed himself.
  • I was also able to map our DNA matches as David has opted to share his DNA results with me. Most of my matches have not opted in to DNA sharing.
  • David represents the first shared DNA coming from his great grandfather Walter Ellis Nicholson born in 1877 that is identified by Chromosome.

 

Posted on

Another One of Gary’s Marshall Ancestors

In my previous Blog on Gary, I was looking at one of his ancestors who was a Marshall. The question was whether this Marshall was related to Chief Justice John Marshall. The anwer to that question was no. I assume that the question is the same for this other relative.

Here is what Gary says:

My other great grandmother Venie Marsh, was also a Marshall. 

OK. I have that Gary’s maternal grandfather was Sammie B Marsh. Here is Samuel in 1920:

Samuel was a machinist working for the government in 1920. Samuel’s father Jessie was a sailor. Vennie was born in Virginia according to the Census as Gary told me. Samuel was also born in Virginia.

Vennie Marsh

I think that Vennie is a nickname for Virginia. In 1900, Vennie was listed as being born in Maryland:

She was married about 1894 and born in 1876.

Findagrave.com has this information:

C

Come to find out that Vennie is short for Lavenia. Here she is in 1880 in Accomack County, Virginia with her mother and three sisters:

This appears to be a transcription of Lavenia’s birth record:

Here is another Samuel. Gary already has an ancestor from 1745 named Samuel Marsh:

That could mean that these two families were related as they were both from Accomack County, Virginia. That means that Sylvia’s parents could have been related to each other. We’ll see. These two Samuels were born 100 years apart.

Samuel J Marshall Born 1845

This record explains why Samuel wasn’t listed in the 1880 Census:

Too bad he died so young.

Here is a transcription of his marriage record:

Here is the young family in 1870:

Gillet Marshall

Going back to 1860, we see both Samuel and Gillet:

Here is the tree I have so far for Sammie B’s maternal side:

In 1850, Gilliett and family were farming in Accomack:

1850 is the earliest Census showing family units together. This death record gives information on Gillet’s parents:

I’m guessing that Hessie is short for Hester, but I’m not sure. I think that Hetty may be more normal. Also Gillet shows at Gilbert. If I take the Ancestry hints for the parents of Gillet, I get John A Marshall and Hester Parks:

Those are the same parents for John Taffy Marshall. I think that means that Sylvia’s parents Sammie B Marsh and Amanda Jane Evans were third cousins. They both had the same 2nd grandparents of John A Marshll and Hester Parks.

 

Posted on

Updating My 23andMe DNA Matches and Tree

Due to finding a Frazer DNA 2nd cousin once removed recently at 23andMe, I have taken a closer look at the 23andMe Tree. I last looked at 23andMe’s Tree last year in this Blog. At that time, the tree grouped together some of my relatives, but it seemed like they had a difficult time telling which of my relatives were paternal or maternal. These relatives were mixed up on both sides. For example I had both maternal and paternal relatives on both sides of my tree.

This tree has been getting a little better as time went on. Recently, I found out that I can now modify the tree to make it make more sense. I have done that and moved my maternal matches to the left side of my tree and my paternal matches to the right side of my tree:

The circle with the face is me. The red side is my mother’s side and the blue is my father’s. The colors now make sense. My Nicholson side is purple. Rathfelder is red. The Frazer side which happens to come from Ireland is green and my Hartley side is blue. Most matches are on my Hartley side as my Hartley great grandparents had 13 children.

I have added some matches to the tree manually. I am not sure how 23andMe adds matches to the tree. Here is what Diahan Southard says in one of her Blogs:

23andMe Family Tree – Beta

23andMe is beta-testing a new Family Tree builder that works based only on your genetics, with no input from your genealogy. This is especially great news for those who don’t know their family trees or haven’t entered the information into a tree file yet.

“Your genetic family tree [on 23andMe] is built automatically by an algorithm that predicts relationships based the DNA shared between you and your DNA Relatives,” explains a recent company statement. “The size of your family tree depends on how many connections and DNA Relatives you have close relationships with in the 23andMe database. Participating in 23andMe’s DNA Relatives tool helps improve the experience. As the 23andMe database grows, customers may see their trees expand.

Update in March 2020 from 23andMe:

“As of February 2020, 23andMe customers are now able to edit and add relationships to their Family Tree for richer storytelling and accuracy. Family Tree builders are now able to move individuals and groups of relatives elsewhere, and add relatives, even if they haven’t participated in 23andMe’s services. Customers can also add personal notes to the tree including ancestor names, important dates, and photos, and send messages to relatives who may offer more information and fill in further gaps on their Family Tree.”

My Hartley Tree

It takes a little while to edit these trees. I need to add more of my grandfather’s siblings to the 2nd row above. I already had my grandfather’s brother Greenwood. I was above to add three more siblings:

I added Robert, Mary and Annie Hartley. 23andMe doesn’t arrange these ancestors by their age. For example, I would have had Rober on the right as he was born in 1911. He is to the left of Mary who was born in 1895. I’m not sure who DL is as he/she didn’t answer my previous message. It appears that this cousin does not descend from the four siblings identified. Actually five, including my grandfather James.

My Frazer DNA Tree

While my Hartley tree was already in pretty good shape, my Frazer tree was not. I believe that it had a Rathfelder from my mother’s side in it and one of the Frazers which should be on my father’s side was on my mother’s side. I tried to fix it, but made some mistakes:

I added William and Hubert Frazer to the tree, but they should be brothers of James Archibald and not sons. My first correction was also a mistake. Here is William moved:

I next need to delete the old William line. Note that Katherine has a symbol by her photo. This indicates that she was placed on the tree by 23andMe – even though I had to move her. It also points out that Linda on the left, if placed correctly by 23andMe would be a Clarke relative and not a Frazer relative.

Here is the cleaned up version:

I added in George and Margaret Frazer at the top to avoid confusion. I also need to add the parents of Margaret Clarke to clear up that side. Note that there is not a DNA symbol next Stanley and Brenda. That is because I added them manually to the tree. I’m not sure why 23andMe adds some DNA relatives to the tree and others it does not.

My Small Rathfelder 23andMe DNA Family Tree

Even though this tree is small, 23andMe originally had this on my paternal side, so I had to correct it. One interesting thing about Ian is that he appears to be a direct male Rathfelder descendant. That means that 23andMe should have a basic YDNA Haplogroup for him:

Iain should not match me unless by coincidence as I am a Hartley. This Haplogroup formed about 4400 years ago and is from Central Europe. That fits in well with Germany. This map shows where the Rathfelder ancestors may have been 4400 years ago:

Further YDNA testing would refine this information and refine Rathfelder on the YDNA of all mankind.

My Lentz and Nicholson 23andMe DNA Family Tree

My grandmother was a Lentz but her mother was a Nicholson.

I added the Nicholson descendant. There is no DNA symol next to Joan.

Lentz YDNA

It should be possible to find a general YDNA Haplogroup for my Lentz ancestors:

Here, Jereme is R-Y4355. I discussed R-Y4355 in this Blog previously. This haplogroup is a further refinement of R-L2:

R1b More>L2> Z49>S8183>> Y4355

This makes sense as both these lines are German.

Here is the first part of the FTDNA Lentz YDNA Surname Project results:

This first group mentions L2, so these are probably distant relatives.

Summary and Conclusions

  • By manipulating the 23andMe Family Tree, I was able to wring some more information from my DNA matches
  • It feels good to now be able to manipulate the 23andMe family tree and correct errors that it had
  • I see that if my tree is right, then Linda matches on my Clarke and not my Frazer line.
  • I was able to get my first indication of a YDNA Haplogroup for my Rathfelder ancestors through cousin Iain

 

Posted on

Another Frazer DNA Match at 23andMe

I get emails from 23andMe on a regular basis telling me I have new DNA matches.

I don’t usually recognize who they are. This time I saw a closer than usual match with a name I recognize: Frazer.

My other new matches were predicted 4th cousins and shared less DNA. 23andMe’s Relatives in Common helped me figure out who he is:

Stan is related to Katherine and Brenda. In fact, Brenda is Stan’s sister. I wrote about Brenda here. Here is where Stan fits in:

All these people have had their DNA tested. I am at the bottom left as I descend from the eldest son and Stan is on the right as he descends from the youngest son of George Frazer. According to this chart, I am a 2nd cousin once removed to Stan. Stan is Paul’s first cousin.

Here is a photo of the five brothers:

Hubert is back right. I have more and better photos of Hubert, but I have not scanned them.

Stan’s DNA

I see that I now need Stan’s permission to see his DNA results. Here is how I match Stan’s sister Brenda on Chromosome 6 and 7:

I share three segments with Stan, so my DNA match with Stan could represent Frazer DNA that I have not yet identified. The other yellow matches are other matches with people who descend from George Frazer and Margaret McMaster.

Stan’s YDNA

23andMe gives a haplogroup for Stan’s YDNA. YDNA is interesting as it is only from the male line – in this case Frazer.

My R-L21 Haplogroup represents my Hartley lineage. Stan is R-L664 which represents Frazer YDNA. We know a lot about Frazer YDNA. There have been three Frazer BigY DNA tests done which describe Frazer YDNA in great detail. Every hundred years or so, there is a mutation in the YDNA which is passed down from father to son. Based on these changes, we can create a YDNA tree.

L664 is actually a Germanic Haplogroup going back to about 3,000 BC. That means that before our family was from Scotland, it was from Germany:

However, much has happened in the last 5,000 years. Here are some of the SNPs that have formed in the past 5,000 years:

Here are Paul’s matches:

Paul and his two Frazer YDNA matches are all R-YP6489. We awaiting two BigY tests to refine this tree. One test is from a Frazer with known ancestry. He is more closely related to Paul than to Rodney and Jonathan. The other tester is a Frazier. We don’t know how he is connected, but the connection probably goes back to Scotland before our Frazers moved to Ireland.

Here is the SNP Tracker map:

Here are some more details since L664:

Summary and Conclusions

  • It is somewhat rare to find a 2nd cousin once removed show up as a DNA match
  • Stan’s YDNA type fits in perfectly with other Frazers who were from Ireland
  • If Stan shares his autosomal DNA results, I will be able to tell how we match. This matching DNA is the same DNA that we inherited from Stan’s great grandparents and my 2nd great grandparents George Frazer and Margaret McMster.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

A New Frazer STR Tree with Associated Families

First, I don’t like to make STR trees. They take a while to build and then when the SNP results come out, I can be proven wrong with my previous STR trees. Nonetheless, I’ll forge ahead based on the new 111 STR results from a Frazier relative.

First, Who Are the Associated Families

My understanding is that our Frazer ancestors came to Scotland at some time around the time of Christ. They probably formed a small group of people around the Inverness area. At the time when people were taking on surnames, they probably took on the surnames of the people who were surrounding them at the time. This would likely account for the names of Riley, Hayes, Stuart, Grant and Frazer/Frazier below. There were likely other names adopted. The name of Chisolm comes to mind and perhaps other names that haven’t had YDNA tests.

Building a STR Tree

First I extracted STR results from Frazers and other more distantly related families:

These are 25 STR results for Riley, Hayes, Stuart, Grant and Frazer/Frazier. From this, it appears clearly that a DYS447 of 24 defines Frazer/Frazier and a DYS447 of 25 defines the families above. It appears that the value of 25 is older as there are more of that number and it is applied to three different families.

Without getting into the details, here is a simple tree:

The important thing here is that our most recent Frazier tester falls solidly in with our North Roscommon Frazers.

Further, there is a clear break between Riley and Hayes/Stuart/Grant:

This is just with 25 STR testing.

Frazer and Related Families at 37 STRs

Here is the testing up to 37 STRs:

I took out the markers that were all the same. There was a further distinction I didn’t note above in the first 25 markers that identifies the Archibald line of the North Roscommon Frazers. That is a DYS391 of 11. This is where I was before Richard’s 111 STR results came in. It looked like he was fairly closely related to the Roscommon Ireland Frazers. At the 37 STR level, one of the Stuarts drops out as he only tested to 25 STRs.

111 STRs

At this level, some more families drop out:

There is still one Riley and one Stuart left. In the last column, there was a 16, 17 and 15 for results. In that case, I assumed that the 16 was the ancestral value and that Riley mutated up and Stuart mutated down. I made a similar assumption in the column that had 12, 13 and 14.

It is in the lighter blue 38-111 STRs that Richard shows some of his differences from the North Roscommon Frazers in DYS710, 717 and 712. These are the three markers that appear to put Richard further back as a match with our Roscommon Frazers before they were in Roscommon. Again, the SNP results should give a better idea if this is indeed the case.

This is my best guess for a STR tree:

The big question is whether Richard is under Archibald Frazer or further back as I have it in the above diagram. The main reason for putting Richard’s common ancestor with Archibald Frazer descendants back before the Irish Frazers is that Jonathan’s matches with other known Irish Frazer descendants appears to be closer than with Richard. Here are Jonathan’s STR matches:

Jonathan matches known North Roscommon Frazer descendants at a GD between 1 and 4. He matches Richard at a GD of 7 which is about the same level at which he matches two Stuart descendants.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I built a Frazer STR tree which tries to take into account other related families of Riley, Hayes, Grant and Stuart.
  • Frazier seems solidly in the Frazer camp based on one of the STR markers
  • However, based on genetic distance, it seems like Richard should have a common ancestor with the North Roscommon Frazers at some point before they moved to Ireland.
  • These findings seem consistent with what I looked at in my previoius Blog on Richard’s 111 STR results
  • My guess is that Richard’s BigY SNP results will confirm what appears to be happening with his less reliable STR results

 

Posted on

My Daughter-In-Law’s Genealogy: Part 2

In my last post, I looked at my daughter-in-law Sarah’s Vezina heritage back to France. I also started looking at her Portuguese side. In this Blog, I’d like to look more into the Portuguese side. This is as far as I got in her tree for Sarah’s paternal side:

All the green leaves are hints. However, some are just directory listings. I have that all of Sarah’s paternal great-grandparents were born in Portugal. It would be nice to pin a specific place to these people.

Manuel Pimental Born 1890

I have that Manuel was a barber. Here in the 1930 Census. In that Census, I am interested in the Immigration year and Naturalization status for Manuel and his wife Mary or Maria:

Actually I need the family members also:

That is so I can make sure I have the right family in the 1920 Census:

The daughter Mary was born in Portugal. Now the immigration year is the same for Manuel and the two Marys wich makes more sense. Now the oldest three show as aliens. It may be that Manuel got his naturalization between 1920 and 1930.

In 1920, the family was living at 74 Hope Street in New Bedford:

From the Census, it appeared that many families were living at this address.

Manuel Pimental’s Naturalization

This should be the key to linking Manuel back tot he old country:

 

As a bonus, there is a photo of Sarah’s great-grandfather.

The Azores

I believe this is it. Perhaps JJ and Sarah will visit:

The population in 2011 was 436.

It appears that Sarah’s Pimental’s roots were in a remote village on a remote Island.

The naturalization record leads to a shipping record dated 15 April 1910 which can tell us a lot:

First, Maria appears to have been born when her mom was 15. Also the spelling here is Pimentel. I’m guessing that this was the original spelling. Manual’s signature seems to spell his name the same way on his Declaration of Intention above.

These columns can be helpful:

Manuel gave as a reference, his neighbor:

Here we also have the proper spelling of Achada that agrees with the Google Map above. The intended destination after arriving in New York was New Bedford.

Manuel arrived with $15. He noted that he had visited New Bedford twice before the current trip:

Once Manuel got to New Bedford, he planned on staying with his brother-in-law on Coggeshall Street:

Mother and daughter Maria were born in Achada:

On Manuel’s Declaration above he was said to be born in ‘Achado’. Here he appears to be born in Rehada. I’m not sure about the ‘R’. Perhaps they all say Achada but were written differently for some reason.

Records from the Azores

There are records from the Azores but they are difficult to read. I go to this website and find this form:

To get to Achada Baptisms, I made the following choices:

I have that Manuel was born on October 12, 1887:

According to the above, he was also married on his birthday October 12, 1893. According to the findagrave.com website, Manuel was born in 1886:

This cemetery is on Allen Street:

According to this web site on Azores Genealogy, I should be able to find out a lot of information from these records:

Also:

I tried looking at some of these records and was having trouble figuring them out. Perhaps marriage records would be easier as suggested above. However, the dates are a bit confusing. Maria is listed as 19 years old when she arrived in New York in 1910. If she married in 1903, she would have been about 12 or 13! Further, Maria’s birthdate is listed as August 30, 1893. Does that seem right? That means that I have a lot of information and dates, but are the dates accurate?

Some 1903 Marriage Discoveries

Here is marriage #4 for Achado:

I’m reading something like Maneul Rego Pimental and Dona Rosada ? Franco. Marriage #6 from November of the same year had a Maria Franco married to someone else, but was Franco her middle name?

 

Let’s concentrate on Marriage #4. Here is the Achado Church:

The first four lines of the marriage record appear to include the date and information about the Church:

Outubro is October in Portuguese, so the month is right. I don’t know how to read the day.

I would like to find out the names of the parents of Manuel and Dona (aka Maria). Here is my best guess for Manuel’s parents:

Legitimo means legitimate – or we may that Manuel was the natural son of Manuel Rego and Dona Maria de Lur. At least it looks like Lur.

That leaves this for Manuel’s wife’s parents:

Julio de Medeiros Franco and Dona Maria Rosa de Men? Unfortunately, the surname went on to another line. Here is the end of the record:

That would be Manuel’s signature I assume. The others are perhaps witnesses or even the priest? There is a lot of information on the record. I imagine that some information had to do with occupations. If Sarah has some Portuguese-speaking connections, we may get a better read on this record.

Azorean Baptismal Records

Now that I have broken the Portuguese record barrier by getting some basic information from a marriage record, I would like to find birth records for Maria aka Dona Rosa Franco and Manuel Rego Pimentel. I am guessing that the Rego could be an important hint due to the number of Portuguese Manuels.

A Possible Baptismal Record for Manuel Pimental

Here is Record #68 from October 1886:

In the margin, there is a note about America. However, the parents look different than for the marriage record above:

That means that either I had the wrong marriage above or more likely, I have the wrong baptismal record here.

Jose Mendes Born 1892

I’ll take a break from Sarah’s Pimental side and look at the Mendes side. Jose was Sarah’s great-grandfather:

In 1940, Jose was a weaver at the Sowle Mill living at 55 Collette Street.

There were more children on the next page.

Sowle was the Ancestry transcription. It was actually the Soule Mill on Sawyer Street:

Here are Collette Street and Sawyer Street on a map:

Jose’s WWII Draft Registration Card is helpful:

I am looking for Jose’s European roots. Here, he reports he is from Melo Portugal. Here is what Google Maps shows me for Melo:

The Draft Card also gives a different name for Jose’s wife. The Census had her as Elvira. Here she is Elrida. The 1930 Census shows much the same information. However, the immigration columns are important:

Jose, his wife and eldest daughter are listed as aliens. This also shows that Jose came to the US first and his wife and daughter came the next year which would not be unusual.

Next is the 1920 Census:

In 1920, Sarah’s grandmother Isabel was a baby. This shows that Jose had immigrated in 1916 and that he was an alien. They lived at 381 Coggeshall Street:

Here is 397 Coggeshall, so I guess the building is no longer there:

Here is Jose’s burial marker:

It looks like the Elvira name stuck for his wife. They were buried in St. John’s Cemetery where Manual Pimental was buried.

More on Jose Mendes

There area 10 trees at Ancestry that mention Jose Mendes. Two have parents for Jose:

Passenger Lists for Jose Mendes

This looks like Jose’s record:

This was from May 12, 1913 on the Caledonia. Note that Jose’s middle name was Augusto which is what the tree above had for Jose’s father.

Jose gave his last address as Mello Portugal. He lists wife Maria as his closest relative. I think it says her address is d’Annuciae? Sousa, Mello. His destination is New Bedford. The ship left from Scotland and landed in New York City. Jose’s plan was to stay with a friend on Coggeshall Street:

Jose was five foot three and gave his birthplace as Mello:

That is good news, because that menas that this WWI Draft Registration is also Sarah’s Jose:

However, Jose gives a different birthday here than he does on his WWII Draft Registration. Also here he gives Cambezes, Portugal as his birthplace. He also says he is single, so possibly there were two Jose Mendes? [Note: This was the wrong guy – see below.]

Three Joseph Mendes on Coggeshall Street

I was a little surprised to find three Joseph Mendes on Coggeshall Street in the 1919 New Bedford Directory:

Isn’t that confusing? Clearly Sarah’s Joseph was living at 381 Coggeshall Street. Soon after he moved to Collette Street because that is where we find the family in the 1925 Directory:

In the previous column there were a Jose and Joseph living on Coggeshall:

That means that the WWI Registration Card for Jose Ahes Mendes is not for Sarah’s great-grandfather. Also the shipping record for the Jose Augusto Mendes from Villa Cortez, Portugal was also the wrong person. I can weed out that record.

Here is the correct record again in context:

The second M in the column menas that Jose was married. The no and no meant he could not read or write. Antonio Viegias may have been a relative as Jose’s wife name was believed to be Elvira Conccica Viegas. However, his Portugal contact from this record appears to be his wife listed as

Maria d’Annuciaedo Souza. Confusing. He was from what looks to be Nabaes:

However, it is actually Nabais:

By the way, one of the other Joseph Mendes’ was from Vila Cortez Da Serra. Also note Melo not far from Nabais. Probably less than a mile and a half away. Here is a photo of Melo now that I’m sure I have the right place:

I’m sure the area is rich with history:

Melo is part of the municipality of Gouveia in the district of Guarda.

Melo was known for farming and historically for sheep and weaving. When Jose Mendes came to the New Bedford, he was listed as a weaver in a cotton mill there.

Melo Vital Records

FamilySearch has records here:

It looks like my only choice for Melo is the Parish of Santo Isidoro. I have that Jose was born on 5 March 1891, so let’s give that a shot:

When I choose Batismos, Matrimonios 1787-1910, I get this message:

It appears that I am out of luck as far as at-home research for Melo, Portugal.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was successful in getting Sarah’s Pimental line back to the Azores and her Mendes line back to Portugal.
  • Parish records exist online for the Azores but the specific records that I was looking for were difficult to find
  • I couldn’t find Parish records online for Melo, Portugal
  • Sarah had heard about her background from mainland Portugal but was unaware of here Azorean roots.
  • Both of these places look like they would be interesting to visit.

 

Posted on

DNA Support for My Children’s Warren Ancestry

In some of my previous Blogs on my children’s ancestry, I have noted a discrepancy. It appears that one of their grandparents who was a Cavanaugh should actually be a Warren. I mention how I came to that conclusion in this Blog and elsewhere. In that Blog, I gave strong evidence that Heather and JJ’s grandmother’s father John Edward Cavanaugh was actually a Warren. Although I had strong evidence for that, I was missing some evidence, including DNA correlation. That is, until recently.

Heather’s DNA and Genealogy Match with Eileen

Here is Heather’s match with Eileen:

In addition, Ancestry suggests this Warren connection:

These are ThruLines. Ancestry suggests evaluating the ThruLines. Here is Eileen’s tree on her maternal side:

Eileen has back to Blanche Sullivan. I have Bridget Warren who married John Sullivan in 1855 in Lowell:

That means that I just have to make the connection. Here is Bridget in 1880 with her family including Francis:

Ancestry transcribed Bridget as Pridy for some reason.

Francis or Frank J Sullivan

Here is Frank in 1900 in Lowell with Daughter Blanche:

This appears to be the birth record for Blanche from 1889 in Lowell:

And, to tie it all together, here is the marriage record for Francis Sullivan:

Any Other DNA Matches for Heather?

I checked to see if Heather had any shared matches with Eileen and I didn’t see any. I did see this more distant DNA match that Heather had with Robin:

I’ll need to star that as Ancestry plans to take away the smaller matches under 8 cM. Here is how Ancestry shows the connection:

That means that Robin and Eileen must be 2nd cousins. Ancestry wants me to evaluate, but I think that Robin likely knows who his mother is. Here is a bonus with Heather and Robin’s shared DNA matches:

This shows that Heather’s brother JJ matches Robin at a higher level. JJ may also match Eileen at a level under 20 cM.

JJ’s Warren DNA Matches at Ancestry

Here is JJ’s DNA match with Robin:

When I look at Robin’s tree it only shows his mother and father. However, I think that Anestry has it right:

This shows that Mary H Dwyer and Mariam Hazel Sullivan were born on the same day.

Here is the family in Lowell in 1930:

Mary Hazel’s daughter Mary Jaqueline apparently went by Jaqueline. That seems to make the connection in Robin’s tree.

JJ and Eileen

Here is JJ’s smaller match with Eileen:

This match is over 8 cM so is not in danger of being stripped away by Ancestry.

JJ’s Shared Match with Eileen and Robin

I’ll just call him N. Here is N’s maternal tree:

N is on the Dwyer Line, so he is more closely related to Robin. I’m not sure why Ancestry didn’t pick up N as having a shared ancestor with JJ. Perhaps one will come up eventually.

Putting It Together

Here is how all the DNA matches fit together:

N is 2nd cousin once removed to Eileen and Robin and 4th cousin once removed to Heather and JJ. The confusing part from what I can tell, is that Louisa Gatley was actually Louisa Cavanaugh at the time she had John Edward Cavanaugh. She was a widow and John J Warren was a widower at the time. John J died not too long after John Edward was born in an accidental drowning.

Summary and Conclusion

  • The match between Heather and Eileen was a good find as it provided additional evidence that John J Warren was the father of John Edward Cavanaugh.
  • That means that even though Heather and and JJ’s maternal grandmother was Agnes Cavanaugh, they don’t really carry any Cavanaugh DNA. That is because John Edward’s mother was only a Cavanaugh by marriage and his father was John J Warren.
  • Heather, JJ, Eileen, Robin and N form a genetic cluster which gives further evidence that the tree is correct.

Post Script

In my previous Blog, I noted that perhaps a baptismal record would show up for John Edward Warren/Cavanaugh. Here is the record from St. Peter, Lowell in August 1880:

Here is the Ancestry transcription:

Posted on

My New Hartley YDNA Branch of R-FT225247

It has been a while since my YDNA subclade has changed. I have been A11132 since 2017. My subclade changed recently because I had my brother tested for the BigY 700. Here are the results:

In 2017, I went from A11138 to A11132. Just recently FTDNA has put my brother and me in the same new subclade of R-FT225247. My brother and I have no private variants. That would be the usual case. David Vance, who is a YDNA expert points out the difference between the private variants shared between the A11132 Hartleys and the number of SNPs in my branch. He takes that to mean that my branch mutated much faster. My guess is that it did but that the A11132 testers mutated more slowly than average also. That means that if that these Hartleys had a common ancestor born in 1600, that would be 350 years from 1950 which would be around the time when some of these BigY testers were likely born. That would mean that on my branches the mutation rate was 50 years per SNP and 175 years per SNP on the A11132 branch. As the actual mutation rate as been estimated at between 83 and 144 years, the average between my two estimated Hartley SNP rates is about 113 years. So it all averages out.

This also explains why when the last Hartley tested, no new Hartley branch was formed. We must have all branched off the same Hartley tree around 1600 or so.

FT225247

FT225237 is the name given to my group but the name is actually representative of 7 SNPs.

My Previous Prediction

In my last Blog on Hartley YDNA, I looked at my private variants and my brother’s private variants. We both had 6 private variants which I thought would make up the new subclade. That means that I was mostly right. These were my private variants previously:

A quick comparison between that and the new FT225237 block shows that I was missing A11130. For some reason, this was not shown as a private variant previously. I guess it should have been a private variant.

A11130 and FGC6800

In my previous Blog, I noted that when I looked at my A11132 matches, there were SNPs in common including A11130 and FGC6800. As can be seen above, A11130 is now incorporated in my FT225237 Block. But what about FGC6800? Here are my brother’s non matching variants with the two A11132 Hartleys:

Notice that FGC6800 appears in both A11132 Hartleys. As both my brother and I have tested for FGC6800, I am not sure why it is not in the FT225237 Block. The answer appears to be here:

According to my brother’s results, FGC6800 is already on the Y Tree. According to YBrowse:

This SNP is part of the I2a-L801 haplogroup. As I am R1b, that explains why this wasn’t added to my results. This appears to be an anomalous SNP.

BY26739

Next, as I check my brother’s matches, I notice that we have this non-matching variant:

My brother didn’t test positive for this, so that must mean that I have this SNP. Here is what YBrowse shows:

Here are my brother’s results for this SNP:

It looks like the results were inconclusive. There were some poor reads here. Some showed a mutation. The high quality reads showed no mutation. I actually addressed this in my previous Blog and thought that my brother would be considered positive for BY26739. But apparently, that didn’t happen. If Jim really is positive for BY26739, then that SNP should be added to our FT225247 Block.

Next Steps

So far, we know that there are three different Hartley families who have had the BigY test. We all branch out quite early – probably around the year 1600 or before. It wold be nice to find a branch of our Hartleys that was somewhat newer. I have reached out to someone on my 67 STR match to see if he would take the BigY 700 test.

Summary and Conclusions

I was surprised at finding out so soon that I have a new subclade. This is a large old subclade, but thanks to testing with my brother it is now on the books. This goes back to really old Hartleys who were probably born before 1600 so it would be nice to split out the branching to a later date. This would require more Hartley testers.