Frazer DNA Analysis for Martha (Richard’s 3rd Cousin)

I need to come up with catchier titles on these Blogs. I have already written two Blogs about Richard. They are here Part 1 and here Part 2. Richard tells me that Martha has little interest in DNA which is fine. She is glad to let Richard handle her DNA. That reminds me of when I drove my mom to Philadelphia to visit her sister. While there, I did some genealogical research on my mom’s side of the family. My Aunt Muriel was surprised that I was interested in dead people. Putting it that way, I do sound like a nut.

Martha’s Genealogy

I have this tree for Richard and Barry:

This reminds me that I had also written a Blog about Barry. This tree is put together with a combination of traditional genealogy, guesses, DNA matches, naming patterns, and research done by a Frazer relative about 70 years ago. Irish genealogical records tend to disappear for the most part before the early 1800’s. Note also that Richard and Barry’s green line is long and narrow. This is not always the best for DNA matching. The fact that two brothers tested is a help to this problem. Also adding a third cousin helps. Here is what I get from Richard’s e-mail:

 

As I have us all in a Philip branch, I like to see another Philip Frazer (albeit under the Johnston name).

Purpose of the Blog

I would like to see if the DNA supports the tree I have. This tree goes up to the Philip Line. The green line of Ann Frazer born 1832 who married Robert Johnston appears to be a good one. As far as we know, they have no other Frazer Lines to confuse things. [However, note later in the Blog we will find out differently.] The yellow line above is in two other Frazer Lines. The blue line is  also at least in one other Frazer line. Comparing the DNA of these three lines should tell us if these groups belong together or not. It will not tell us for sure if these three groups descend from the Philip born in the latter part of the 1700’s.

Looking at the DNA: Martha Matching Richard and Barry

When I look at Martha’s ‘One to Many’ match list at Gedmatch, I see that Richard and Barry are not her closest Frazer matches based on DNA. Here is how Martha matches her two third cousins, Richard and Barry:

They have a match of 17 cM on Chromosome 17. This is on the low side of reported matches for third cousins:

Martha and Barry also have an X Chromosome match:

The X Chromosome match is interesting as the X Chromosome is never inherited from father to son. That means that this match must be from Ann Frazer born 1832 and not her husband Robert Johnston. Ann Frazer could have gotten her DNA from her Frazer father or Taylor mother. It would be interesting to know which it was. If it was from Philip Frazer, then Philip Frazer would have had to have gotten this X Chromosome from his mother. This is the mother we know nothing of. I won’t follow up specifically on the X Chromosome, but it is an area of possible future research and something to keep in mind while looking at other matches.

Martha and the Archibald Frazer Line

When I plug Martha into the Archibald Line of Frazer, this is what I get for DNA matches:

These comparisons get a bit small. Martha is highlighted in blue. I see that she has a good match with Jamie on the Stinson line, but this may be due to a Johnston connection. It would be a good idea for me to look at some Johnston genealogy at some point to see how some of these people are connected to that family. The above chart is simplified in that many of these people match on different Frazer Lines. That would explain why Michael and Jane have large matches. Jane and Michael do not descend from the Phillip Line but they and my family both descend from the Richard Line of Frazers which explains the good matches that Michael and Jane have.

Martha’s top three matches are with Gladys, Jane and Michael. Assuming that Martha and Gladys both descend from Philip Frazer, that would explain that match. But how do I explain Martha’s match with Michael and Jane? [More on this later in the Blog.]

Some Background on Richard’s Johnston/Frazer Family History

Richard tells me his line is well-documented back to Ann Frazer who married Robert Johnston. I don’t know much about this line, so I’ll see what I can find. Here is the 1916 Census for Manitoba:

According to this Census, Richard’s grandmother, Gertrude was a young teacher in Souris.

Souris is about 150 miles West of Winnipeg.

Richard’s Great-Grandfather, William Archibald Johnston Born in Ontario

Here are the first two trees I found at Ancestry for Gertrude’s father:

Ancestry wanted to give me a hint that Mariette was William Archibald Johnston’s father. The second tree agrees with what I have from Richard. I ended up accepting the second tree for the tree I am working on. Once I did that, I got this hint from Ancestry:

 

 

This tells me that Philip F Johnston got married in 1888 at the age of 33. He was a widower at the time. So Philip would be Martha’s great-grandfather. Here is Philip’s first marriage in 1880:

Here, Philip’s birthplace is given as Blenheim:

 

Here is the 1871 Census for Blenheim, Ontario that pulls things together:

The enumerator got Johnston as Johnstone. Robert was 33. Ann was 22 and Rebecca was 24. Here Robert was listed as a cooper. Rebecca is an added bonus. She looks like she could be Ann’s sister. Based on this Census Ann would have been born 1849 and Rebecca 1847.

Ireland to Ontario

I note in my Frazer Web Page that there was a Philip Frazer family living in Plympton, Ontario in 1871.

From what I understand, Ireland was not a very good place to live during and around the Potato Famine. This Philip had a son born in Ontario around 1858, so that would put Philip Frazer and Jane in Ontario at least at that time. My guess is that the elder Philip above who was born about 1826 is the same as this Philip from my web page who I have born 14 January 1825:

That would mean that Philip’s [#10 above] second wife was probably Mary Taylor.

Putting the Philip Frazer Family Back Together Again

When I reassemble the Philip Frazer family, I get this:

I even have an explanation as to why Ann Frazer was not included in my web page. Here is a compilation of Frazer vital records that Michael from the Frazer DNA project put together:

There are no Frazer Vital Records at Kilmactranny between 1831 and 1841. For some reason, the records are missing at Kilmactranny for that period. A local genealogist, Archur coined this period, the Maxwell Discontinuity. Maxwell was the parish priest for Kilmactranny. One could say that this period constituted the peak years for Ireland before people left due to the Potato Famine.

I’ll back this Frazer Line out another generation:

All we need to do next is to see if there are descendants of Philip W, Alfred, Mary, Emily and George and see if they would take a DNA test.

This appears to be Philip W and his mother Jane Frazer in the 1861 Census for East Oxford, Oxford County, Ontario:

I have not located the father Philip in this Census. Jane could have been living with her parents in 1861.

Here is a map of Oxford County:

I mentioned above that Philip Johnston was born in Blenheim.

More on the Johnston Family and the Archibald Frazer/Stinson Line

I found this marriage for Robert Johnston:

I assume that Ann Frazer died between the Census in 1871 and 1876. Here Robert marries Jane M Lindsay. This gets us back a generation on the Johnston line as it gives Robert’s parents as William and Mary Jane Johnston. I have a theory here based on my web page on the Frazers:

Here are Mary’s siblings:

This puts Mary in the Stinson line. If this is right, then Richard, Barry and Martha would be in the Philip Frazer and Archibald Frazer/Stinson Lines. This could also explain the DNA matches from Frazers in the Stinson Line. Here is a simple tree:

 

The Mary Jane Frazer above is from the Frazer/Stinson Line. Ann Frazer who married Robert is from the Philip Line based on my reckoning. I like this so much, I’ll add this to the big Archibald Frazer/Stinson Line:

Here Martha, Barry and Richard have joined John and Jamie in light blue on the Mary Frazer/William Johnston Line. John and Jamie are third cousins once removed to Martha, Richard and Barry by this tree. Jane is in the duller green and Michael is at the end of the salmon colored line. By this tree, Archibald Frazer and Ann Stinson had five children who had ancestors that had their DNA tested.

Here is my current thinking of who is in the major Frazer Lines:

I had previously thought that Martha, Richard and Barry would be just in the Philip Line. Now I see that they are in the Philip and Archibald Lines. The names in red are in all three lines. Note that I have no one that is just from the Philip or Richard Lines. I do have several that are just from the Archibald Frazer who married Ann Stinson Line.

This represents a shift in my thinking concerning Martha, Richard and Barry. I was so concerned about the effect of Johnston DNA between their line and the Frazer/Stinson Line and I missed the fact that they were related to the Frazer/Stinson Line on the Frazer side.

Some More Genealogy

Here is Robert Johnston’s death record:

Based on this record, he would have been born around 1828.

Checking the Philip Line and Archibald/Stinson Lines by DNA Matches

First, the Archibald/Stinson DNA

But before that, I will look at the common ancestors of Mary Frazer and William Johnston:

Here Martha matches John and Jamie a little better than Richard and Barry.

There is something interesting about this tree – assuming that is correct, of course.

  • If John or Jamie match Martha, Richard or Barry by DNA, the match will be from either one of the two common ancestors: Mary Frazer or William Johnston.
  • The next part has a twist to it. If Martha matches Richard or Barry by DNA, that match will represent either Robert Johnston or Ann Frazer. However, the part that matches Robert Johnston may also have Frazer DNA from Robert mother’s Mary Frazer.

The Archibald Frazer/Stinson Matrix

In this Matrix, I have separated DNA tested descendants into the five children of Archibald Frazer and Ann Stinson. Looking at the Mary Line, they will match the Ann Frazer Line either on that Line or in the Philip Line (not shown). This is because the Ann Frazer Line also descends from Philip. As far as I know, the Mary Line will match the John, Archibald and Alexander Lines on only those lines. If there is triangulation between the Mary Line and two of the other Lines, then that should represent DNA from either Archibald Frazer or Ann Stinson.

Looking for Frazer Triangulation Groups (TGs)

In looking for this TGs, I find it is best to spread the net widely. For example, if I limit the group I am looking at to just the Archibald Frazer/Stinson Line, I will miss those that are not in that group. The downside to this is that it is more work. I need to compare everyone in the Arcibald Frazer Line DNA project to everyone else.

TG Chromosome 1

Here is Martha in part of a large TG at Chromosome 1:

These matches are from position 233M to 237M on Chromosome 1. I had already shown a TG in this area:

I had assumed that this TG was in the Richard Frazer Branch. Assuming Martha’s TG is on the Frazer Line, then this would go back to Richard’s father Archibald. This is one way of portraying Martha’s TG:

Here I don’t show it, but Martha, Jane, and Michael are also in the Archibald Frazer/Ann Stinson Line on the right. In the Richard Frazer TG, we also had Emily, Gladys and Bill. Those matches dropped out about 231M. So it would be more accurate to say that TG01D in the table above should go from 203 to 231. This represents Richard Frazer DNA. Then TG01E should be from 233 to 237M and represent DNA from Archiabald Frazer born 1747 or his wife Mary Lilley.

I haven’t been maintaining this chart, but here is one update:

The reason I have TG01E going all the way up to Achibald who was born around 1747 is because:

  • I don’t have Michael and Jane in the Philip Line
  • I don’t have Heidi, Jon, Lori and Paul in the Frazer/Stinson Line
  • I don’t have Martha in the Richard Line which is where I had TG01D
  • That means the common ancestor must be Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilley

Martha’s TG Chromosome 9

This one appears a bit simpler:

In this TG, Doug and Rita match each other as nephew and Aunt. Also Martha matches Doug and Rita. This is the basic definition of a Triangulation Group.

This identifies this portion of DNA on Chromosome 9 for Martha, Rita and Doug as being from either Archibald Frazer or Ann Stinson.

TG Chromosome 12

I probably have found this before. I bring it up because it is similar to the TG above at Chromosome 1 in that appears to go back to Archibald of 1747:

I’m not sure what other connection there could be. It would be interesting if Philip Frazer born 1758 married a Johnston. I’m not sure how long the Johnstons have been in County Roscommon. It would be interesting to check out that possibility. Note that the birth dates are different on this chart. I’m not sure which version is right. I sort of favor this earlier version for the three brothers near the top of the chart. Even if Philip did marry a Johnston (and I don’t have any genealogical evidence to support that), the connection would be at the same level at the top. It would just mean a double connection for those involved.

A Frazer/Stinson TG on Chromosome 13

All TGs are good, but this is an especially good one due to the relational distance between Martha, Jamie and Caz. Think of it as a triangle with a large stable base. This also brings in the one of the Australian Frazers in the plum color. This, of course, assumes that we have the genealogy right. There is a chicken and the egg aspect as the DNA supports the genealogy, but is also dependent on it.

Unravelling Chromosome 17

I had mentioned near the start of the Blog that Martha matched Richard and Barry on Chromosome 17:

Martha also matches Jamie, Michael, Lori and me on Chromosome 17. This is a rolling TG. People are dropping out and adding in. Jamie drops out at 61M. Joel and Lori are added in at 66M. That means that if I lowered thresholds at Gedmatch.com, I would see a match between Jamie and Joel and Lori.

Here I compared myself to Jamie, lowering the threshold to 5 cM and 300 SNPs and got only one match:

As I predicted this match had to exist, I would say this is a valid match. For example, I share 3587 cM with my mom. The chance of this match being a coincidence woud be less than 0.2%. Here is one interpretation of this TG:

Again, it seems to be a pattern of my family or Paul’s with two with Johnston ancestry and Michael. It seems like there could be another explanation to these TGs, but I can’t think of one. We don’t know the wives for Philip or Richard above, so if they both married Johnstons, that would make things interesting for the DNA matches.

Martha’s TG 18: Philip or Archibald/Stinson Line?

Here Martha matches Bill, Gladys, Ken, Susan and Doreen. Bill, Gladys, Ken, Susan and Doreen are in both the Archibald and Philip Lines. However, my guess is this is the Philip Line as Martha goes on to match Emily and Mel

Emily is from the Philip and Richard Lines and not the Archibald/Stinson Line. It is likely that the match Martha has with Emily is from the same route as her match with those in yellow above.

Another Difficult to Explain TG on Chromosome 18

I had mentioned this TG in my last Blog about Barry:

Here is that familiar combination. Perhaps Emily has some Johnston ancestry?

TG20: Running Out of Chromosomes

Here Martha, Gladys, Jamie and Bill are in a TG. Bill and Gladys match each other by a large amount that isn’t shown in the spreadsheet. It is important to notice people that are not in the TG. Those are Emily, Joel, Jonathan and Mel. These four likely match on the McMaster side.

We had a chance to match on the Frazer or McMaster side. If we had matched on the Frazer side, we would be in the TG. Because we did not, that shows that our Chromosome 20 DNA was likely from the Frazer side.

Here is the TG:

This is my best guess. These people are all from the Archibald Frazer/Stinson Tree. That means that the matches with me, Lori, Jonathan, Heidi, Mel and Emily could also be from the Philip Line. The better guess would be the McMaster Line as shown above. Usually it is one or the other line, but in this case, there are multiple Frazer Lines.

That concludes the TGs. There are many more single matches, but the TGs are more significant.

Summary and Conclusions

  • After writing Blogs about Richard and Barry, I wrote one about Richard’s third cousin, Martha. I assumed that Richard and Barry were only in the Philip Frazer Line. After looking at Martha’s DNA results and genealogy, I realized that Richard, Barry, and Martha were also in the Archibald Frazer/Stinson Line.
  • I looked at TGs which fell into two categories. In one, the TGs went to either the Philip or Archibald/Stinson Line. Some went back to an earlier Archibald Line.
  • For the TGs that went back to the earlier Archibald Line, I couldn’t tell for sure if they were matching on another surname, or that they were actually going back to Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilley from the early 1700’s.
  • I made a guess that there may have been earlier marriages between the Frazer and Johnston families. However, I didn’t check the records to see how long the Johnston’s had been in the County Roscommon, Ireland area.
  • I also noted an X Chromosome match between Martha and Barry which would be worth following up on.
  • I was able to get Barry, Richard and Martha’s family history further back on their Frazer and Johnston Lines.

Matchmaker at the Newfoundland Gedmatch Facebook Page

I’ve been on the Newfoundland Gedmatch Facebook Page for a while. I have posted some of my Blogs there. But I have never used Matchmaker there. Matchmaker is a program written by Devon at the Newfoundland Gedmatch Facebook Page. I would like to figure out how to use it.

Matchmaker

Even though I have done a lot of complicated DNA analysis, I feel intimidated by Matchmaker. Like many things, I’m sure it is easy once you do it. I have read instructions in the past, but will need to find them again. Here is the Newfoundland Gedmatch Facebook Page:

On the left of the photo I see a menu. That seems to be a good place to look. Under Announcements, I see this post by Devon:

Now I am no longer floundering in the sea of the internet. I’m not a new member, but I will want to read about the Matchmaker.

Step 2 leads me to this form:

I administer many kits that would apply. However, at least three of those kits are for people who are not on Facebook. That means I’ll use my Facebook name. My Facebook name is my first name followed by my last. That is not difficult. The first kit I want to add is my wife’s 1/2 Great Aunt Esther. She has a boatload of matches as both her parents were from Newfoundland.

That was very easy. Once I did that, I got this response:

I will just add my mother-in-law, and her sister next. I won’t add my wife as she got all her DNA from her mom.

I Submitted My Forms, Now What?

Now there are three kits in the system. What is next?

I followed this Step 3 and got these instructions:

PLEASE NOTE: This tool will NOT work on Ipad, tablet, cellphone, Microsoft Edge or Internet Explorer. Therefore you need to use Chrome, Safari, Firefox etc.
After submitting your kit(s), you will need to navigate to this link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11FSvtyRLpcfUz0FC7mo4RVrbiVUD5NZvlxxc1uoV2Dg/copy

Select “Make a copy” when the page loads.

This will open the matchmaker tool.

Instructions will be listed on the “Gedmatch Results” Page (the first tab at the bottom of the sheet).

They are as follows:
– Start by running “One-to-many Matches” on your kit within your gedmatch.com account.
– When the results load, click Ctrl A on your keyboard, then the whole page will select (turn blue). Then click Ctrl C. This copies it.
– Go back to the matchmaker tool, and click Ctrl V. That will paste it. Sometimes it will take a few minutes to load as they are large files.
– Go to the “Matches” Sheet on the bottom tab, and then your matches from the group should show.

This is like one of those games where you get one instruction and it leads you to one place. Then at the next place, you get more instructions. I followed the above link and the new instructions are to “Make a copy”. As that is the only possible option, that is not too difficult. My computer thought about this for a while.

Aah, more instructions after the Make a Copy step:

First there is a warning. OK. I suppose I should try this with Aunt Esther first. I ran the ‘One to many’ at Gedmatch and got 2,000 matches for Aunt Esther. I hope I don’t break the system. Ctrl A is choose all and Ctrl C is copy, so I did that.

Copying to Matchmaker 3

I copied my results as instructed.  This put all Esther’s matches into the spreadsheet but in red letters.

This is the tab at the bottom of the sheet. The next instructions want me to click on the Matches tab.

The Matches Tab – The Meat of the Matchmaker

Here is where the fun begins. Click the Matches Tab and it narrows Esther’s matches from 2,000 to the others that have posted at Matchmaker. Esther’s matches go down to Line 84 but they start on Line 4. That must be 81 matches. I wonder how many are in Matchmaker? I know there are three more than a few minutes ago. I’ll blur out the personal stuff, which is most everything on Esther’s list of matches:

My mother-in-law Joan and her sister Elaine are already in the system at the top of the list even though I haven’t run the program for them yet. Many of these Kit names and Facebook names are familiar to me, but it will be fun to follow up on the unfamiliar ones.

Next Steps to Matchmaker Success

The instructions say post a screen shot in Facebook. The shot I posted made it down to line 32. That means that I will need to post three screen shots. I do see a lot of people doing that at the Newfoundland Gedmatch Facebook Page. I did that in three screen shots. I looked at the last two tabs which included some suggestions for updating the results. Another suggestion said to bookmark your results. Instead of that I copied the page address for Aunt Esther and copied them on a contact spreadsheet I have. A further suggestion was to tag people on Facebook. That is a good idea for getting in touch with people that I haven’t been in touch with before. That would help if they have any family history information.

Adding Joan

Joan and Elaine are important as they narrow down Esther’s matches. Joan and Elaine match their half Aunt Esther only on her father’s Upshall side. Now that I know how to do this, it should be easy.

My first step was that Make a Copy step. I think I’ll close out Esther’s spreadsheet so I don’t get confused. I copied and pasted Joan’s ‘One to Many’ matches into the Matchmaker spreadsheet. Then I checked the match tab. Joan has 36 lines of matches or 33 matches. That makes sense. Joan is one generation more recent than Esther and matches her only on Esther’s paternal side. That narrows down Joan’s matches to Esther’s paternal – mostly. I say mostly because Esther’s parents were related to each other in some way. I know there were Dicks on either side of the equation for example.

Lastly, Elaine

Now that I am on my third Matchmaker entry, I am a pro. Elaine has 31 Newfoundland Gedmatch Matchmaker matches.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Matchmaker is a great tool. I wish there were more groups like Newfoundland Gedmatch using tools like Matchmaker.
  • With Matchmaker I could compare Esther’s matches with Joan and Elaine and somewhat phase her maternal and paternal sides.
  • Matchmaker is an easy tool to use. It requires a little maintenance to catch new arrivals at Gedmatch, but this should be quickly done.
  • Matchmaker is a good way to summarize people that are already in the system – those that likely see the importance of comparing DNA to family trees to find connections.

 

Painting My Mother-In-Law’s Chromosomes

DNAPainter is a good tool for assigning ancestors to segments of your chromosomes. I’ll use DNAPainter to see how many ancestors I can find for my mother-in-law Joan’s chromosomes.

Here, I start with a blank slate for Joan. The blue is where her paternal ancestors will go and the pink is where her maternal ancestors will go. Joan has two X Chromosomes like all women.

Joan’s 1/2 Aunt Esther

Joan has a 1/2 Aunt. They share the common ancestor of Fred Upshall who was born in Harbour Buffet, Newfoundland in 1879:

The DNA that Joan and Esther share is DNA that they got from Fred Upshall:

So with one DNA match, Joan has painted 15% of her chromosomes.

A Paternal Match for Joan at Gedmatch

Gedmatch.com is a good place to find matches. Gedmatch has specific information on your matches that can be mapped or painted. Joan’s second match at Gedmatch is with Ken. However, the exact common ancestor is difficult to determine due to poor records in the area of Newfoundland where the Upshalls lived. Also there was some intermarrying between families. So I’ll look for one of Joan’s paternal matches so I can paint in on the blue side of Joan’s chromosomes.

Ronda is Joan’s 2nd cousin once removed. Ronda and Joan are also 3rd cousins once removed along the Ellis Line, but I’ll use this relationship. It looks like Joan and Ronda have one common ancestor, but like most people, they have two. James Ellis married Clarinda Gorrill. Ronda has her as Clarinda Gorrill Ellis. This confused AncestryDNA, so they didn’t show Clarinda as a common ancestor. I will, however, on DNAPainter:

Here is how Melissa and Joan match:

I’m not sure why Ronda and Joan had two Shared Ancestor Hints and Melissa and Joan only had one.

Melissa doesn’t bring a new color to the map, but does get Joan up to 19% painted.

A Third Color – On the Maternal Side

Joan has a lot of Dicks descendant relatives. The Dicks were also from Newfoundland along Joan’s Upshall grandfather’s line:

I mapped Barry because it was clear who Barry and Joan’s common ancestors were. However, we are not positive what Elizabeth’s last name was. I forgot to say that Barry was a maternal match and this is what DNAPainter does when that happens:

The match goes across the maternal and paternal side. Here I have fixed that problem:

In some places, Barry has supplied new DNA matches. In other places, they are in parts of areas already matched. Here is an expanded view of Chromosome 15:

Karen and Wallace – Upshall Relatives

I painted some of these on my wife’s Chromosomes

Jessie Kate was put in as a daughter of Henry Upshall and Catherine Dicks. I think that Wallace’s Line was better supported by a paper trail.

This brings Joan up to 21% painted, but is mostly on her maternal side.

Going Back in Time on the Ellis Line

Sarah adds some history to the Ellis Line:

Sarah’s match is easier to see by just showing the Joan’s paternal side:

This gets Joan’s paternal side up to 10% mapped.

More Ellis/Gorrill DNA: A Match with Mariann

Joan and Mariann are second cousins:

It helps drawing these out as I realize that Mariann’s father is Melissa’s grandfather. Mariann tested at FTDNA and Ancestry. I can show her FTDNA match with Joan:

One interesting thing is that Mariann and Joan have an X Chromosome match. This cannot be an Ellis match as the X Chromosome does not pass down from father to son. Some people ignore X Chromosome matches of less than 15 cM – especially between two women. This match is around 8 cM.

Now Joan is up to 24% painted. I also organized the key of ancestors into paternal and maternal.

Robert’s Ellis Ancestry

Robert and Joan also match on the Ellis side. Here is part of Robert’s tree from Gedmatch:

Robert descends from William Ellis and Hannah Totton in three ways. I think I’ll skip drawing that out. I note also that Robert also has Rayner ancestry.

Joan is a 4th cousin once removed on the Rayner Line. I said I wasn’t going to make an Ellis tree, but now I have to draw one of the three lines:

Oh my. Robert is a 4th cousin once removed on the Ellis Line. That means that Robert and Joan’s DNA matches have a 50/50 chance of being Ellis or Rayner. Isn’t that confusing.

My guess is that the Chromosome 4 match is Ellis and that the Chromosome 9 match is Rayner. It looks like Mariann and Robert should triangulate, that should mean that the Chromosome 4 match is Ellis. It would take more research to figure out the Chromosome 9 match.

Jane – A 1/2 Third Cousin

As I mentioned about Aunt Esther above, 1/2 relatives can come in handy when doing genetic genealogy. I went back and looked over information about Jane in a previous Blog I wrote about Ellis DNA and Genealogy. Here is how Jane and Joan look like at AncestryDNA:

However, both Joan and Jane descend from James Ellis. Here is the tree I drew:

Here Jane is actually a half 3rd cousin once removed to Joan. Jane descends from the Ramsay side and Joan descends from the MacArthur side. That means that any DNA that they share is from James Ellis born 1801.

Looking for Rayners and Daleys

So far, I have only found DNA on two out of four of Joan’s grandparents’ lines. I would like to find some Rayner and Daley ancestors. The Rayners were, like the Ellis’, from Prince Edward Island. The Daley’s were from Nova Scotia.

Jo-Ann and Joan: Many Common Ancestors

Jo-Ann is listed at AncestryDNA and MyHeritage. Her tree is better filled out at MyHeritage. Here is Jo-Ann’s paternal side starting with her four paternal great-grandparents:

I have circled the ancestors that are in common with Joan. I see that Jo-Ann also has an Agnes Ellis in her tree. She is probably the daughter of William Ellis and Hannah Tawton going back one more generation. That means that Joan and Jo-Ann share three sets of common ancestors in three different generations.

Here is a tree showing that Joan and Jo-Ann are third cousins:

Jo-Ann and Joan appear to also be 4th and 5th cousins. When I paint in Jo-Ann’s matches, this is the confusing picture I get:

It is confusing because on Chromosomes 2 and 4 Jo-Ann’s DNA overlaps with Sarah and Jane’s Ellis DNA. On Chromosome 6, Jo-Ann has a small overlap with Sarah. I take this to mean that on Chromosomes 2 and 4, this is Ellis DNA – even though the common ancestors are two generations away from the Hopgood match. There are segments on Chromosomes 2 and 16 that don’t match others. This could be Hopgood or Gorrill DNA. I’m not sure about Chromosome 6. I would have to compare this to other matches first.

Jo-Ann brings Joan’s chromosomes up to 25% painted.

One Last Match: Glenda

There are many avenues to follow for painting. However, some are easier than others. Glenda has her DNA at Family Tree DNA (FTDNA). I also wrote about her in my previous Blog on Joan’s DNA. Here are Glenda’s four maternal great-grandparents:

The two lines to watch are Ellis and Rayner. Here is the Ellis connection:

Like Jane, Glenda and Joan have one common ancestor: James Ellis.

Here is the Rayner connection:

Here Joan and Glenda are full third cousins once removed. They share both Commmon ancestors of John Rayner and Sarah Simmons. That means that theoretically, Joan and Glenda should share twice as much DNA on the Rayner Line compared to the Ellis Line. Here is what Glenda looks like mapped onto Joan’s map:

 

Here Glenda’s DNA which I have as Rayner/Simmons DNA is in red. I have only showed Joan’s paternal side for clarity. Here there is no overlap with Green or tan Ellis DNA. That means that it is not positive that this DNA is Ellis DNA. Perhaps this is mostly Rayner/Simmons DNA as I guessed.

Here are Joan’s 26% painted chromosomes:

  • The yellow James Ellis of 1801 doesn’t show as it is behind other Ellis colors.
  • I could have painted more Dicks DNA as I have a lot of information on that family.
  • This represents only 3/4 of Joan’s matches as there are no Daley side matches. There are Daley side matches at AncestryDNA, but AncestryDNA does not supply enough information for mapping DNA.
  • Joan has something mapped on every chromosome exept for #22. This is not unusual, as #22 is the shortest chromosome.

Summary and Conclusions

  • This exercise turned out to be more difficult than I expected. Three out of four of Joan’s grandparents were from Islands: PEI or Newfoundland. A lot of intermarrying went on between families within those islands.
  • I hope to find some Daley DNA eventually. One method is to ask a match from AncestryDNA to upload to gedmatch, FTDNA or MyHeritage.
  • The theoretical information I gave on DNA is on average of everyone. Individual DNA hardly ever complies with the averages – especially as the relationships go beyond second cousins.
  • Although I did find likely Rayner DNA, that has not been proven without a doubt
  • DNA matches that could be from one set of ancestors or another have to wait for other matches that are only from one set of ancestors to see if they match up on the chromosomal segments.

Caz: A DNA Tested Frazer

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

Here is a slightly bigger picture:

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

 

This is becoming a good group.

Caz’ DNA

Here is Caz in what I call the Stinson Group:

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

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

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

Caz and Triangulation

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

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

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

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

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

A Closer TG

This TG is less ambiguous:

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

A Frazer/White TG

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

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

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

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

Caz Compared to All the Other Frazers

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

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

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

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

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

More on the Chromosome 1 TG

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

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

Pre and Post-Caz TGs

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Here is the much older Caz TG:

 

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

The Post-Caz TG

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

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

 

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

Here she is with Don and Cathy:

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

Painting My Wife’s Chromosomes

In this Blog I’ll paint my wife’s chromosomes. I use DNAPainter for this. This utility requires a subscription for over one painting, and I’m over that now, so I subscribed. Painting DNA is taking all your DNA matches and painting them onto your chromosomes. The match that you have shows that you have DNA from a common ancestor. So what I will be showing is where my wife, Marie, inherited her DNA on which chromosome and from which ancestor. Hopefully, it will become clear as I go along.

Right now I have profiles for my mother, myself and two siblings:

Next, I’ll create a profile for Marie. DNAPainter just needs to know her name and that she is a female. This makes a difference for the X Chromosome as women have two of those.

Which Matches Do I Paint for Marie?

I will look at painting no matches closer than those that represent Marie’s grandparents. That means that I don’t want to count matches from 1st cousins. Full 1st cousins share two grandparents. The first two people who I will paint will be Marie’s father’s 1st cousins Patricia and Joe. That makes them first cousins once removed to Marie.

Marie’s match with Patricia and Joe will show up on her map as DNA from Joseph LeFevre and Emma Pouliot. That is because we don’t know who the DNA came from. It should be part LeFevre and part Pouliot. Here is Marie’s match with Patricia from Gedmatch.com:

Here is what that looks at DNAPainter:

The DNA is on Marie’s paternal side, so that is on the blue bar. The key at the bottom says who the DNA is from. Now Marie has gone from zero to 7% of her chromosomes painted with adding just one cousin:

Marie also matches Patricia on her X Chromosome. So I added that. Next I need to add Patricia’s brother Joe. This time I’ll paste in his X Chromosome match along with the other matches. Gedmatch has you do a different query for the two. Adding Joe brings Marie’s painted DNA up to 10%. Now we can expand the Chromosomes to see the details:

 

The X Chromosome expands to this:

This shows that Joe shares more X Chromosome with Marie than Patricia does. Next I added RL who matches only on the LeFevre side as far as I know. This added 1% to Marie’s map and got her up to 11% mapped.

Here is Marie’s match with RL on Chromosome 12. Where RL matches Joe, that is likely all LeFevre DNA. On the right where RL does not overlap with Joe and Patricia, we don’t know if the DNA was from the LeFevre side or Pouliot side.

[Note: I have RL in the wrong color which I correct later in the Blog.]

Adding Some Pouliot DNA

Marie has some matches with Pouliot only DNA. These matches are with Fred, Don and Sleuth:

Now, wherever Marie has a match with Fred and Patricia and those matches overlap, that will show that the match with Patricia was on the Pouliot side and not the LeFevre side.

Here is a new color and this gets Marie’s painted chromosomes up to 13%. Here is Don on expanded view on Chromosome 1:

The green overtook the pink in the expanded view. This is OK as Pouliot is the more specific match and the older one. This tells us that Marie’s match with Patricia on Chromosome 1 is from the Pouliot side and not the LeFevre side. Next I added Don’s two siblings to bring Marie’s painted DNA up to 14%

So far, I have painted 6 matches to Marie’s paternal side. This represents only one of her grandparents – the LeFevre side. This 14% represents 27% of Marie’s paternal side DNA.

Starting Marie’s Maternal Side DNA Painting

Marie has Ellis and Upshall grandparents on her maternal side. Marie matches her half great Aunt Esther on the Upshall side. The half part is important as it narrows down the match to one of Marie’s great-grandparents.

This brings Marie’s mapped DNA up to 20%. So we are one fifth complete.

Here I wanted Frederick on the bottom as he is on the maternal side. I also added a line by choosing Joseph LeFevre/Emma Pouliot. I then chose Edit Group and I checked a box saying I wanted a line below this group.

More Painting

I don’t want to stop now. Marie’s next match at Gedmatch is a first cousin once removed, but he is a younger cousin. He shares two of Marie’s grandparents as common ancestors, so we won’t map him. After Nick is Gaby. Gaby is Marie’s second cousin on Marie’s paternal side. This match represents Marie’s Irish side.

This brings Marie to 23% mapped:

Next: More LeFevre DNA

Sandra has been a big help in uploading her DNA to Gedmatch. She tells me that she is a third cousin to Marie. Their common ancestors are  Edmond Lazare Lefevre and Leocadie Methot.

Sandra manages three DNA kits including her own that are close matches to Marie. I assume that they all have LeFevre and Methot common ancestors. I mentioned RL above but didn’t put in the correct common ancestor.

Here I will want to move RL to another group, but I haven’t set up that group yet, so I’ll add KK first.

Here I have added a new pair of ancestors for Marie on her maternal side with a splash of tangerine. I moved the ancestral pair down one on the key so they would be with the other LeFevre’s. Next I moved RL to the Edmond LeFevre Group. I see now that I could have created a new group before also.

I then added Sandra which brings the mapped number of segments up to 116.

Adding Anne to Marie’s Maternal Side

As I go down the list, it takes a little bit more to figure out where the people fit in. This looks to be the right tree for Anne:

Marie is Joan’s daughter, so that makes Marie a second cousin twice removed to Anne. So we are quickly back to about 1812 with Marie’s DNA.

This is only the second maternal ancestral pair. Unfortunately, I don’t have a last name for Elizabeth. Crann would be a guess. We still have no ancestors for Marie’s fourth grandparent: Ellis.

Ronda: An Ellis Match for Marie

Ronda is next on the list at Gedmatch:

Ronda is a third cousin to Marie. Note that there is another shared ancestor hint. However, it is further out and also on the Ellis line.

As this is a new grandparent match, it means that there will be no overlaps with any other matches and this brings Marie’s painted DNA up to 26%.

An Unknown Upshall Side Match

The next match going down the Gedmatch list is Leslie. Unfortunately, I can’t see an obvious common ancestor for Leslie and Marie. I’ll have to wait until I find one.

After the unknown is Sarah. I was able to find her at AncestryDNA. She has a Shared Ancestry Hint with Marie:

This is Marie’s first painted DNA from the 1700’s. The new matches are on the maternal sides of Chromosomes 2, 4, and 6.

On Chromosome 6, I circled one of Marie’s crossovers. That is where her DNA crossed over from her Upshall side in light blue to her Ellis side in teal and orange. The actual location of the crossover is where the blue changes to teal.

Next is another unknown match. This is with Bobby. I can tell that the match is on the Ellis side, but not exactly where. I do see that Bobby also has his DNA at FTDNA. However, the tree is not all filled out there either.

Next is Danielle. I can tell by Shared Matches at AncestryDNA that she is related on the LeFevre side, but the detailed tree is missing also.

Karen and Martha with Newfoundland Roots

Newfoundland Roots means the Upshall side for Marie. I don’t have a good tree for Karen, but I have blogged about her. Based on her DNA, I have theorized this tree:

 

We’ll say I’m right. I have that Henry Upshall married Catherine Dicks. I added Karen’s match on Chromosomes 8 and 9 in lilac:

 

For Martha, I have another best guess tree:

Actually, this is double made up as we cannot easily prove that Peter Upshall is the father of Henry Upshall. However, this is a best fit tree. Marie would be a third cousin once removed to Martha’s maternal aunt. I believe that M.B. is Martha’s maternal aunt.

The good news is that I’m getting more maternal side matches for Marie. The bad news is that paperwork in Newfoundland is missing and it is hard to verify the last two matches.

Michelle at FTDNA on the LeFevre Side

I mentioned FTDNA above. Marie has matches there also. Here is an interesting one with Michelle. Michelle is related to Marie only on the LeFevre side:

Michelle’s maternal grandparents were Martin LeFevre and Mabel Ford. Marie’s great-grandparents were Martin LeFevre and Emma Pouliot. Emma died and Martin remarried Mabel. Here is Marie’s match with Michelle at FTDNA:

Transferred to DNAPainter:

I now have an entry for Joseph Martin LeFevre by himself as well as the couple of Joseph LeFevre and Emma Pouliot.

More Maternal DNA for Marie on the Upshall Side: Edward

Edward and Marie have this common ancestor:

Here Marie and Edward are fourth cousins. They have a common ancestor of Christopher Dicks and Elizabeth Crann. I’m not positive about the Crann. Here I made a couple of mistakes:

First I forgot to assign this to the maternal side and secondly I already had an entry for Christopher Dicks. Fortunately, DNAPainter had a way for me to merge this group into the right one on Chomosomes 9 and 11 (Chistopher Dicks in purple).

This gets Marie up to 150 segments mapped.

Marie and Wallace at MyHeritage

Marie has a good match with Wallace at MyHeritage. I uploaded Marie’s results there while writing this Blog.

Here is where I have Wallace:

Wallace is a 2nd cousin once removed to Marie. At this point, Marie’s maternal chromosomes are 22% filled in and her paternal chromosomes are 36% filled in. A lot of paternal LeFevre relatives have tested. Here is Marie’s maternal side only:

That is what 22% filled in looks like.

Adding Cheryl and More of Martha’s family

Cheryl has Dicks ancestry. I have written many Blogs on this family and how their descendants match up by DNA.

Cheryl is on the bottom left. She is a fourth cousin once removed to Marie. As there are some missing lines in Marie’s Newfoundland genealogy, there may be other ways Marie is matching some of these Newfoundland descendants. Here is how Cheryl compares with some others on Chromosome 9:

The light blue represents Christopher Dicks born 1784 or his wife Margaret. Many people descend from this couple.

Next, I’ll add Martha’s brother and Martha. Some of these matches are not adding new DNA.

Back to LeFevre

Here is a match on the LeFevre side:

This is on the French Canadian side. Note that there are two other pairs of shared ancestors. However, this is the most recent.

This is Marie’s first mapped French Canadian DNA from the 1700’s (in red). It is interesting that Marie and Kbou also match by XDNA. In order for this X match to occur, there cannot be any two males in a row in Marie’s or Kbou’s ancestries. Looking at their trees above we see that is indeed true. This match brought Marie’s mapped chromosomes up to 30%.

I could keep on going, but I’ll stop here.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I mapped 30% of Marie’s chromosomes using DNAPainter and matches from Gedmatch, FTDNA and MyHeritage. AncestryDNA was helpful to provide trees but it does not provide the detailed DNA information needed to map the chromosomes.
  • I was able to paint 10% of Marie’s chromosomes with two of her first matches. After that, things went more slowly.
  • Of Marie’s four grandparents, Butler matches are the most rare. Marie had one Butler match.
  • I gave an example of a crossover.
  • Marie has DNA mapped on every chromosome. However, a paternal or maternal side may be missing.
  • It would be interesting to create a DNAPainter map for Marie’s mother and father and see how they compare to Marie’s map.

A Butler Kerivan Match with Lindsey

I just uploaded my father’s DNA results to MyHeritage. He has a pretty good match at MyHeritage with Lindsey. Lindsey has this tree:

My father-in-law’s grandmother was a Kerivan. As Kerivan is not a common name, I am hoping that is where the match is.

Richard’s great-grandfather was also John Kerivan, but born 100 years before Lindsey’s John:

Connecting John and John Kerivan

The next step would be to try to connect the two Kerivans. I can do this by trying to build out Lindsey’s tree. First I start one at Ancestry. From a Duxbury Church record, I see that Arthur was born in Waltham, MA:

Here is the connection on Lindsey’s paternal side:

At this point, I like to put Lindsey into a top down Kerivan tree:

This tree shows how Lindsey is related to other Kerivan descendants who have had their DNA tested. It turns out the Kerivans had a big family. Lindsey’s great-grandfather John Arthur was a late arriver as he was born 22 years after Thomas Francis Kerivan. My last update on Kerivan DNA was here. The people at the bottom of this tree have all tested at AncestryDNA except for Richard and Lindsey. John, Lorraine, Richard, Virginia, and Gaby have their DNA also at Gedmatch. I put Lorraine, Richard’s and VIrginia’s DNA at MyHeritage, where I found the match to Lindsey. Gedmatch and MyHeritage have chromosome information, so we can compare the results of those on the right hand side of the chart.

Kerivan DNA

This shows where Richard and Lindsey match at MyHeritage:

The purple sections represent the DNA of John Kerivan and Alice Rooney that Richard and Lindsey share.

Here is how Lindsey compares with Richard’s sister Virginia:

Virginia doesn’t have the same DNA at Chromosomes 9 and 12 but does have a match on Chromosomen 15 that Richard doesn’t have.

Here is Lindsey’s match with Richard’s other sister Lorraine:

It looks like Lorraine got less Kerivan DNA compared to Lindsey when the DNA dice rolled.

Lindsey and Chromosome Mapping

In 2016, I mapped Chromosome 3 for my father-in-law Richard and his two sisters:

This shows where Lorraine, Virginia and Richard got their DNA on Chromosome 3 from their three grandparents. Their maternal side is on the top of the Chromsome. The paternal side is on the bottom but was not identified as I had no known Kerivan or Butler matches on Chromosome 3. Now it is clear that the maroon is Kerivan and the green if Butler DNA.

Here is the Chromosome map with Linsey’s match with Virginia and Richard:

The resean why Lorraine didn’t match with Lindsey on Chromosome 3 is that she had Butler DNA in that region and not Kerivan. This shows the way we inherit our DNA. We get it from our parents, but our parents are actually giving us their parents’ DNA.

Mapping My In-Law’s Chromosome 12

I have even less on my in-law’s Chromosome 12:

I notice that Lindsey matches for the first part of the Chromosome. It looks like I figured out previously from a cousin match which side would be maternal and which side would be paternal. That means that the Kerivan DNA should be blue and the Butler DNA is yellow.

My in-laws also have more matches at Gedmatch.com compared to when I first did this mapping. Here is SL who matches on the LeFevre side:

By comparing SL’s matches to Lorraine, Virginia and Richard, it is clear that LeFevre is the raspberry color. That leaves orange to Pouliot:

Now when these three siblings have a DNA match, it should be possible to figure out on what grandparent side they match. Also note that between the three siblings, they have recreated all their mother’s LeFevre DNA. On their father’s side they have shown all the Kerivan DNA that their father had. Some Butler and Pouliot is missing and was not brought down to any of these three siblings.

Solving the Chromosome 9 Map with Lindsey

Lindsey matched Richard and Lorraine at the right ends of their Chromosome 9. Here is what I had:

I was stuck on the right end of Richard’s Chromosome 9. Now I know that green is Kerivan.

That means that Richard got a full dose of Kerivan and no Butler on his Chromosome 9. Richard had a crossover at position 124M. That means that it has to be on his maternal side as Lindsey proved that he has a Kerivan DNA where she matched him on the right end of the Chromosome.

The left side of Virginia’s Chromosome 9 can be solved with results from SL who shares LeFevre DNA with these three siblings:

Here #3 is Lorraine. This shows that only Lorraine has LeFevre DNA at the left side of their Chromosome 9. Here is the completed Chromosome 9:

Chromosome 2

By the number of versions of Chromosome 2 that I have save, I can tell that I had a hard time figuring this one out. This is one version of what I had:

This shows Butler DNA on the right hand side for each sibling. However, Lindsey shows a match with each sibling from 233 to 238 M. That means that Lindsey either has a false match or I made the map wrong. I’ll have to figure this one out later and look for more matches. The lower number, longer chromosomes canbe more difficult to map than the shorter ones.

Lindsey and Triangulation

Triangulation is when three people match each other on the same segment of the chromosome. That means A = B, B = C and A = C. Most would consider triangulation more useful when it is between people that are more distant that parent/child or siblings. Lindsey, Virginia, and John triangulate, but as John is a nephew of Virginia, it is like having a triangulation of a sibling. Here is how that triangulation looks like at MyHeritage:

Here the yellow is where Virginia matches her newphew John. Red is where Virginia matches Lindsey. The circled parts are where Lorraine, Lindsey and John have triangulated segmets. That means that they all match each other. What is interesting is that Virginia, Lindsey, and John don’t triangulate on Chromosome 2. That is where I was having trouble fitting in that match on the Chromosome 2 Map. What does it mean when there is not triangulation? It means that there is no common ancestor between all three people. I look at it this way: I match my father’s sister, my Aunt and my mother’s brother, my Uncle. However that Aunt and Uncle do not match each other and the three of us do not have a common ancestor. It is a matter of a match between your maternal and paternal sides where those sides do not match each other by DNA. So, above, the circled parts indicate Kerivan ancestry and the non-circled match represents something else. The uncircled part is probably part Kerivan match and part something else.

Back to Mapping Chromosome 15

I see that I didn’t use Lindsey’s match to help map my in-law’s Chromosome 15. It has been over two years since I mapped this and was having difficulties:

At MyHeritage, only Virginia out of the three siblings matched Lindsey at the beginning of Chromosome 15. I’ll give this a second try:

This looks better. This time I started more in the middle of Chromosome 15 and worked my way out.

Here is the match with RL who is on the maternal LeFevre side:

I notice that there are three LeFevre matches from about position 77M to 88 or 90M. The only place that this could occur on the map would be in the orange. So orange must be LeFevre.

This map looks better. However, I still don’t know if Lindsey’s match with Virginia is blue or yellow. I would have to know more about the maternal or paternal side at the left-hand part of the Chromosome.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Lindsey is the only non-close relative that I have found that descends from John Kerivan and Alice Rooney and has specific information on her DNA. That DNA information is found at MyHeritage.
  • Lindsey’s matches with my father-in-law and his sisters helped me fill out their chromosome maps.
  • Lindsey has shared matches with my in-laws and triangulated segments with some of these shared matches. That means that those people would likely share common ancestors. I didn’t look into these shared triangulated matches.
  • One of Lindsey’s matches went against what I had for my in-law’s Chromosome 2 Map. However, this match segment didn’t triangulate which means that it was likely not a Kerivan only match.

 

Sorting Hartley DNA from Snell DNA with the Leeds Color Method

I use the Leeds Color Method to sort AncestryDNA matches into four categories. Those four should be the same  as a person’s four grandparents. I have tested my father’s cousin at AncsestryDNA. Joyce shares two of her grandparents as my two great-grandparents. Those are Hartley and Snell. I would like to be able to separate her Hartley matches from the Snell matches. This is because I am stuck with my genealogy on the Hartley side around the year 1800 in Trawden, Lancashire, England.

Joyce’s Family Tree

In order to separate out Joyce’s matches into four bins, I need to know her ancestry.

Joyce’s four grandparents are Gurney, Rounseville, Hartley and Snell.

Sorting Joyce’s Matches Using Shared Matches

I will be able to sort Joyce’s matches using AncestryDNA’s Shared Matches. First, I need to find Joyce’s closest 2nd cousin match or further out for each grandparent. At the 2nd cousin level, Joyce should match a person on only one of her grandparents.

Joyce has a good match with Chuck on the Snell side:

Joyce and Chuck are 2nd cousins. Their common ancestors are Snell and Bradford. However, on Joyce’s side, the match through Joyce’s Snell grandmother. That means that other Shared matches between Joyce and Chuck would be through Joyce’s Snell line or further back on the Snell ancestors.

I then put this information into a spreadsheet:

My guess up front is that it will be difficult to find Hartley DNA on Joyce’s Hartley grandparent side.

Finding Gurney and Rounseville Matches

Finding Gurney and Rounseville matches will be more difficult as I am not as familiar with the genealogy. Plus many do not have trees. Plus, I need matches that are at 2nd cousin level or further out and that is difficult to determine without trees. One rough way to figure out these matches is to look for Joyce’s matches that don’t match me.

One match that doesn’t match me is Richard. However, I don’t know if he is closer to Joyce than a second cousin. Here is his tree:

I don’t see a Gurney or Rounseville, but it could be on the mother’s side. So for now, I will add Richard to Joyce’s spreadsheet and note that the match is on Joyce’s father’s side:

The next person that doesn’t match me is Susan. Susan is more difficult than Richard to interpret. She is apparently on Joyce’s Gurney side, but she doesn’t have a tree. More confusingly, she matches Beth who is a Hartley relative. But Susan and Joyce must match Beth on Beth’s non-Hartley side.

Here I didn’t put Susan into a grandparent category. I did note she is on Joyce’s father’s side and that she matches Richard.

Going Down Joyce’s DNA Matches at Ancestry

Joyce’s next match is Gary. However, he thinks he is related on the Hartley/Snell line. That means that he is closer to Joyce than a second cousin. I had these names out of order, so I rearranged them:

 

Next is Cynthia. She appears to be on the Gurney side. I note that Chuck should be on the Hartley side, so I corrected that:

I added a column to show that Cynthia has no posted family tree.

The next match is with Bird:

Bird is on the Hartley side, but I can’t tell how close the match is. P means that Bird has a private tree. I would have to message Bird to find out more.

A Second Snell Match

Charles is likely related to Chuck:

Joyce’s Last Two 2nd Cousin Matches by DNA

J has a tree, but it is incomplete. Erin’s tree is locked:

Joyce’s 3rd Cousins by DNA

AncestryDNA estimates that these next matches are 3rd cousins to Joyce by DNA. Even at this level of DNA matches, Joyce still has cousins that are in the range of 1st cousin twice removed. However, here is a match on Joyce’s Gurney side:

Fortunately, AM had a tree posted that matched with Joyce’s tree:

AM has shared matches with Cynthia and Erin, but I don’t know if Cynthia and Erin also have Rounseville ancestors.

The next match is with Jody. The interesting thing is that Jody matches Richard, Susan and Joseph. That is interesting as she doesn’t match Cynthia and Erin. That makes me think that this could be a Rounseville match.

Joyce’s Miller Double Match

Joyce matches Miller, but they have shared matches with Chuck and AM:

That means that Miller matches Joyce on their Snell and Gurney sides. One side must match more than the other, but I can’t tell which. This doesn’t really matter as I am looking for Hartley DNA.

The next match is Bessey. She matches Chuck, and many other of my 2nd cousins, so I can’t tell if the match is just on the Snell side or Snell and Hartley side. I sent a message to Bessey to see if we could figure this out. I have the same issue with Beth:

Hopefully, these will sort themselves out soon.

This is also a bit confusing. Mark shows clearly as a Gurney match, but doesn’t have a shared match with AM:

Because of this, I put Mark in a Gurney2 slot:

Next, JM was managed by the same person as AM and matches AM but not Mark. JM has a private tree for some reason. JM also matched Miller but not Mark.

Joyce and CL

CL seems to be popular on my list. Here is CL’s tree:

The tree is a bit different than the one I have as I have Lucy Chace marrying Jonathan Gurney. I also have Lucy as Franklin’s mother in my tree. At any rate, CL pulls Mark back into the fold as CL is related to AM, Mark and JM:

Joyce’s 50th Match: Jessica

Joyce has 50 matches per page and Jessica is the last on her page. Jessica’s tree connects her to Chuck’s tree and Joyce through Florence Taylor:

Florence’s grandfather was Isaiah Hatch Snell. I can draw out a tree like this:

That makes Joyce and Jessica 2nd cousins twice removed.

Out of 50 of Joyce’s top matches, we have eight people associated with one of Joyce’s grandparents. However, we don’t yet have matches for Hartley or Rounseville only grandparents.

Page 2 of Joyce’s DNA Matches

Salley is match number 51:

Salley is a 3rd cousin, once removed to Joyce on their Rounseville side. However, notice that Salley also has Chace ancestors.

Joyce’s 4th Cousins by DNA

Here I went down the matches as they are now falling into place:

Mark is matching in and out. JR matched CL but not AM and Miller, so I put JR in the Gurney side. At some point, the DNA relatives will not match all of each other. Also one may be related to a Gurney, for example and one may be related to a Gurney grandparent ancestor that is not related to Gurney. In that case, they will not match, but the match will be along the Gurney grandparent ancestral line for Joyce.

Here are some more for the chart:

I had a second match with Rounseville that didn’t match the first, so I added another color of blue. I had two that matched Joseph, and some of the other matches were common with Gurney, so I added Joseph to Gurney. This is fine as long as Joseph doesn’t match Salley or SB. Joseph does match Salley. So I’ll keep Ashley and Kingsley under Gurney and take Joseph off of Gurney. I also took Ashley off of Gurney as I saw no other obvious matches.

The First Hartley Match

The First Hartley Match along Joyce’s Hartley grandparent line is actually has a Howorth ancestor.

Unfortunately, Victoria’s ancestor is Edmund Howorth and mine is James Howorth. However, she has shared matches with someone with “Howerth” in their line and a person with a Howorth name. I have that Joyce’s third great-grandfather was James Howorth born in 1768.

Joyce’s Top 100 Matches

Here are Joyce’s top 100 matches:

I found only one identified Hartley match on Joyce’s Hartley Line. That one is in bright blue. Most of Joyce’s matches were on her Snell or Gurney Line.

What I Have Learned

  • My goal in this exercise was to separate the Snell from the Hartley DNA matches. What I found was that there were very few Hartley matches to separate. I think the reason for this is that Robert Hartley (Jocye’s 2nd great-grandfather) born 1803 had two children: Greenwood and Ann. Greenwood had two children who lived to adulthood: James and Mary Ann. As a result there were not many descendants at this level who have tested for DNA.
  • Slogging through Joyce’s matches, I got a sense of who was related to whom. The Snell and Gurney lines go back to colonial times. At a certain point there are crossovers in the lineages. That is why there some poeple who match on on the orange and green lines.
  • The Gurney and Rounseville green and blue lines were split into two. That is probably due to the Gurney and Rounseville mothers (Chace and Evans). There would be people related to those lines that would not be related to the Gurney and Rounseville Lines.
  • 13 up from the bottom, Joyce had a match with GH. This person appears to be from Australia. This match should also be on the Hartley side. GH has a cluster of ancestors from Lancashire. It may be worth trying to build out this tree to see if there is a connection with Trawden or Bacup. GH’s ancestor’s locations are in orange:
    • A lot of DNA analysis is in the sorting. Joyce has over 1,000 matches by DNA at the 4th cousin or closer level. I went through about 100. There is still some work to be done.
    • Joyce is listed at MyHeritage also. Her brother is at FTDNA. More matches may be found there also.
    • Finding Hartley DNA is not the same as finding Hartleys. The one Hartley DNA match that I looked at had a Howorth ancestor. This family is two steps back in time from the Hartley Line.
    • That means that about 2 out of 100 of Joyce’s matches are on her Hartley grandparent’s line. As Jocye has over 1,000 4th cousin or closer matches, that means that I could expect about 20 Hartley Line matches. They could take a while to find.
    • If anyone else is ambitious, they can discover how their DNA matches sort out into their four grandparents’ lines.

Project Update

I did hear back from “Bessey” who I mention in the Blog. Looks like her name is actually Katherine:

My paternal great grandmother was Hattie Parker Snell Mendall, sister of Annie Snell Hartley. 

This helps to better build out the Snell DNA tree:

 

Katherine is 2nd cousin once removed to Joyce and Chuck and my 3rd cousin. In my looking for Hartley DNA, I ended up sorting out some Snell DNA. As far as AncestryDNA matches go, any shared match between a Hartley and Katherine or a Hartley and Chuck or Jessica would be on the Snell side and not on the Hartley side.

 

 

Another Butler DNA Connection

Recently, I’ve been playing around with the Leeds Color Method. That is a method where you should be able to put a person’s AncestryDNA matches into four bins or colors. These colors represent your four grandparents. Here are part of the results for my wife’s Aunt Lorraine:

The trick is to get matches that are no closer than 2nd cousins. That is because with 1st cousins, you will match on more than one grandparent. In this Blog, I will be looking at Lorraine’s blue Butler matches. These are the most rare matches – especially compared to all the LeFevre matches.

The First Butler Match: Barbara

I wrote to Barbara this past March, but didn’t hear back. Barbara doesn’t have a tree connected to her DNA, but does have a simple tree at Ancestry:

This tree is good enough to get back to Butler.

Barbara is at the perfect level for a DNA match. She is at the second cousin level. At this level the DNA match is very high and we can isolate the match to one grandparent – in this case Butler. Barbara shows as a potential 2nd cousin by DNA at Ancestry. In fact, she is a 2nd cousin to Lorraine.

The Second Butler Match: Brian

I wrote to Brian, who also has a good DNA match. His sister Mary Lou has an active account with Ancestry, so was kind enough to respond and show me where her family tree was:

This is Brian and Mary Lou’s paternal side of the tree. Lorraine and Brian show as potential  third cousins by DNA, so I would think that the connection would be one level higher. However, AncestryDNA does say that the range could be 3rd to 4th cousin. Here is Brian and Mary Lou’s tree with the Butler Line isolated.

Lorraine’s sister Virginia has also tested at AncestryDNA. She shows as a 4th cousin to Brian.

Stitching the Two Butler Families Together

In my Blog from over a year ago I showed this figure:

I was originally hoping that George Butler born 1825 and Edward Butler born 1835 were brothers. However, as George’s parents are believed to be Henry Butler and Ann Russel, they could have been first cousins. This scenario would have Henry and Michael Butler brothers at the top.

This is the best unified tree that I can come up with:

An interesting point from the DNA standpoint is that Pat and Brian only match by DNA on the Butler side.

Do the DNA Results Support the Unified Butler Tree?

Ideally, all of these people would have uploaded their DNA results to Gedmatch.com for comparison. Here are the ones that have their results at Gedmatch:

They are highlighted in green. Nathan is the only one from the George Branch. On the Edward Branch, there are five people at Gedmatch: John, Lorraine, Richard, Virginia and Gaby.

Here is how those six compare to each other at Gedmatch:

Nathan matches Lorraine, Richard and John but not Virginia nor Gaby.

Based on my made up ‘unified’ chart above Nathan would be a fourth cousin twice removed to Lorraine, Richard and Virginia and a fifth cousin once removed to John and Gaby.

Here I have put some statistics in to look at:

This shows average DNA matches and ranges of matches. These numbers seem about right compared to Nathan’s matches. The chances of even matching a 4th cousin are better than 50% and the chances of matching 5th cousin is better than 10% according to FTDNA.

DNA Matching at AncestryDNA

DNA Matching at AncestryDNA is different. They use shared matches and don’t give information on how you match on a specific chromosome. The catch is that AncestryDNA only gives shared matches when it thinks the shared match would be a possible 4th cousin match.

Virginia and Brian’s Shared Matches

Here I show Barbara, Donna and Patty as shared matches to Virginia and Brian along the Butler Line. In the Tree column, that is the relationship they would have in the tree I made that tries to bring the two families together. The ‘Cous’ column is what Ancestry predicts the relationship to be by DNA. The DNA and actualy relationships are pretty close except for Donna. Here is Donna added to the tree:

I should note that not all on the tree have tested at AncestryDNA. However, many have. Nathan and Richard have not to my knowledge.

Lorraine and Brian’s Shared Matches

Here things get a bit more interesting. Lorraine and Brian have the same shared matches as Virginia and Brian, but have two additional shared matches:

They are Kim and Cam. I don’t know who Cam is, but I have been in touch with Kim. I had mentioned Gedmatch to Kim and it looks like she uploaded her results there. Kim is on the George Line, so I’ll add her.

Now I should be able to match Kim with Nathan and the Edward Butler side at Gedmatch.

Kim at Gedmatch and Butler DNA

From the chart above it is clear that Kim and Nathan match only on the Butler side. This is because Nathan is from the Whitty side and Kim is from the Sinnott side. We may say that they are half third cousins once removed. That sounds a bit obscure. Here is their match:

This is the shared DNA that Kim and Nathan both have from George Butler who was born in 1826 in Ireland.

Butler Triangulation on Chromosome 2

Further, Kim matches Richard and Lorraine at about the same place on Chromosome 2:

A triangulation occurs here because Nathan and Kim match here. Also Kim matches Richard and Lorraine here. When this happens, it is most likely that those in the Triangulation Group share a common ancestor.

Here is how I show the Triangulation Group (TG) on the family tree:

This doesn’t prove the configuration that I have above, but it does prove that these families have a common ancestor. Above, if I have drawn the tree correctly, Kim would be a 4th cousin once removed to Lorraine and Richard. It possible to tie families together just using AncestryDNA Shared Matches, but I find using Triangulation at Gedmatch.com to be more precise.

Shared Matches Between Patty, Lorraine and Virginia

Patty is the highest up on the George Butler Line. She should be the best comparison with Lorraine and Virginia who have tested at AncestryDNA.

This adds Harry as a Shared Match who I believe is Donna’s brother on the Edward Butler Line. In addition, we have Mary and ML. They don’t have trees posted at Ancestry, but would appear to have Butler heritage based on the fact that they have shared matches with Lorraine and Patty.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was happy to hear from Brian’s sister who told me that their heritage went back to the George Butler Line from Cincinatti. I had been tracking this line for a while.
  • While looking at shared matches I came upon Kim also from the George Butler Line. I found that she had uploaded her DNA to Gedmatch.com.
  • When I compared Kim and Nathan at Gedmatch, I get just the DNA from George Butler born 1826. This is because Kim and Nathan descend from two different wives of George. If both Kim and Nathan had descended from the same wife of George, they would share about twice the amount of DNA, but we wouldn’t know if the DNA was from the Butler side or the wife’s side.
  • I made a proposed tree that connected the George and Edward Butler Lines.
  • This tree seems reasonable given the relationships and level of DNA matches at Gedmatch and AncestryDNA.
  • The addition of Kim’s DNA to Gedmatch resulted in a Triangulation Group between Kim, Richard, Lorraine, and Nathan. This TG is a strong indication of a common ancestor. As these four all share Butler ancestry, it would be reasonable to say that the common ancestor is a Butler.

 

 

An Update on Steve: Clarke and McMaster/MacMaster DNA & Genealogy

I recently wrote a Blog on McMaster DNA and Genealogy based on a newly tested McMaster descendant named Keith. In that Blog, I was running into issues due to McMaster descendants testing at different companies. Steve had tested at 23andme which is a good company, but their newer DNA test was not compatible with Gedmatch or MyHeritage. Since I wrote the Blog, MyHeritage figured out a way to integrate 23andme results into their program.

Steve’s Genealogy

It took me a little while to figure out that Steve and his closer relatives were related to me more closely on the Clarke line than the McMaster Line.

Here on the Clarke side, Steve and I are 3rd cousins, once removed.

On the McMaster or MacMaster side as Ron and Steve prefer, we are 5th cousins.

That is a huge difference from a DNA point of view. Here are the reported differences:

On average, I may expect a 25 cM match on the McMaster but twice as much on the Clarke Line.

Steve’s DNA

From the above chart, I might expect a match with Steve of about 73 cM. That would be an average reported amount of 48 cM on the Clarke side and 25 cM on the McMaster side. MyHeritage shows that Steve and I have a shared match with Emily:

Emily is related to me on the McMaster side, but not the Clarke side. She is also related to me on the Frazer side where Steve is not related. The above image shows that I match Steve at 49.4 cM. That amount could be all Clarke DNA  or much less likely all McMaster or part Clarke and part McMaster DNA.  I match Emily at 69.1 cM. She is my 2nd cousin once removed on my McMaster/Frazer side. Steve matches Emily’s DNA on their McMaster only side at 23.9 cM. Steve and Emily are 4th cousins once removed.

I hope that made sense. The point is, that when you are related to someone by DNA on two different lines, it is good to have someone to compare to who is only related on one of those lines to sort things out.

Steve and Triangulation Groups at MyHeritage

According to MyHeritage:

Triangulated segments are shared DNA segments that you (or a person whose DNA kit you manage) and all of the selected DNA Matches share with each other, and therefore likely all inherited from a common ancestor.

Steve, Emily and I above did not show triangulated segments, but Ron, Steve and I do:

I circled the icon that indicates that Ron, Steve and I are in a Triangulation Group (TG). Here is how it looks on a chromosome browser:

The red is me and Steve. The yellow is my match with Ron. Where they all overlap is the triangulation group. In order for this to work, Steve and Ron must match each other. Where they overlap is 9.3 cM.

This is my interpretation of what the TG indicates. I can’t prove this unless I have someone else who has Clarke only ancestors in the TG. However, this scenario is much more likely compared to the further out McMaster relationship. The TG at Chromosome 18 is a similar scenario.

Another of Steve’s TGs Confirmed – McMaster DNA

In a previous Blog highlighting Steve, I hypothesized that Steve was in a TG with my sister Lori, Ron, and Emily. Emily has no known Clarke ancestry, so that would mean that the TG on Chromosome 13 would represent McMaster DNA. Here is what MyHeritage now shows:

Lori matches Ron, Emily and Steve at the same place. MyHeritage has the match highlighted as triangulated segments.

So even, though DNA matches between Lori and Steve are more likely to be Clarke matches, this DNA match has to be a McMaster match.

Finding Other Clarke Relatives

I’d like to find more Clarke relatives as that is where I am stuck on the genealogy. Here is my grandmother’s tree:

Ron and Steve are related to my grandmother on her paternal McMaster side on the top of the tree above. They are also more closely related on her maternal Clarke/Spratt side on the bottom half of the chart. That is where I have more blanks.

Shared Matches at AncestryDNA

I went to AncestryDNA and found shared matches with Ron. He is my closest relative on my Clarke tree.

I had built a similar chart in my previous Blog on McMaster DNA. The yellow match was also a common match to Keith who had McMaster ancestry but no known Clarke ancestry. My guess is that the non-yellow shared matches should have Clarke or Spratt ancestry. Some of these people have trees, so it would be a good idea to look at them. However, my guess is that these people would have the same difficulties in finding their ancestors as I did. Instead, I’ll try something different.

AncestryDNA Circle with New Ancestor Discovery Long

Ancestry has me in a circle with others such that Ancestry thinks I may have a New Ancestor Discovery (NAD) with someone named Seymore Long.

Perhaps I can back into this Long Family through my Irish side. That is where I have some brick walls. Here is some further information Ancestry has on Seymore:

So perhaps the Long family made their way over from England or Ireland and that somehow I’m related.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Now that Steve has been incorporated into the MyHeritage results, it is easier to do DNA comparisons on him.
  • My assumption is that my AncestryDNA Shared Matches with Steve, Ron and others from that branch will be twice as likely to be Clarke relatives compared to McMaster or MacMaster relatives.
  • I gave an example of one McMaster relative based on DNA triangulation.
  • It is difficult to prove Clarke only relatives. This is because I have not found a Clarke descendant that does not have McMaster relatives. Also I have not yet found a genealogical tree to further the work I have done on the Clarke Line.

 

My Closest DNA Match at MyHeritage with Unknown Connection

Blaine Bettinger has a knack for posting polls at the Genetic Genealogy Tips & Techniques Facebook page. A recent one was:

TODAY’S POLL: how much DNA do you share with your closest ‘unknown’ match at MyHeritage? Unknown = you haven’t yet placed them in your tree. 

My Closest Unknown Match: Molly

It turns out my closest match is Molly. She also matches my mom which is a good hint. Here is how Molly matches my mom by DNA:

On interesting thing I just noticed about Molly is that she is age 20 or below. My mom is 96. I am guessing that there could be a two generation gap between Molly and my mom. Molly was born in 2003, so there could even be a three generation difference. Molly has a tree, but her parents and grandparents show as private. I assume that they are all still living. I have sent a message to Molly, so perhaps she will write back.

Shared Matches between Gladys and Molly

MyHeritage shows shared matches between my mom, Gladys, and Molly:

Beth is mom’s second closest unknown match and also matches Molly – though more distantly. Danielle and Bridget show icons which means that they have triangulating DNA. This is specific matching DNA that has come from a common ancestor.

Beth’s Family Tree

Beth has a pretty good family tree:

Here is my mom’s tree:

 

Beth’s Schroek side is from Pennsylvania. My mom’s mom was from Pennsylvania, so my theory right now is that the common ancestor is on my mom’s mom’s side on the bottom side of her above tree.

A Pote Connection

Looking a little more closely at Beth’s family tree, I see a Pote connection. My mom has no Pote in her ancestry, but she does have Nicholson and a collateral line married into the Pote family. That seems like a likely connection. Here is what I have at Ancestry:

This shows the Schroek/Pote/Nicholson connection differently than the tree Beth has.

Here Beth has Martha N. Schroek. Her maiden name by my tree should be Pote. Beth also has Sarah Pote whose maiden name should be Nicholson. So the issue is mainly one of maiden names. However, Beth has Sarah Pote’s father as Sampson Pote, where I believe her father should be William Nicholson who is my mother’s great-grandfather.

Beth must have already been on my radar as here she is in a Nicholson Tree:

Beth shows as a 2nd cousin once removed to my mother.

What About Molly?

I mentioned above that I don’t have Molly’s tree. However, I can make a good guess as to where she is on the tree. Molly is probably at the level of Joshua and has as her ancestor Annie Nicholson born 1865 in Sheffield, England. That would make Molly a 1st cousin, three times removed to my mom.

Here are some statistics:

Molly would be at the top end of a 1st cousin three times removed or in a more reasonable range for a 1st cousin twice removed from my mom.

Going Down Molly and Gladys’ Shared Match List: Annette

Annette is after Beth on Molly and Gladys’ shared match list. It looks like Annette has a good tree with some common ancestors.

This shows that Gladys and Annette share Baker, Faunce and Peol ancestors.

The Philadelphia Bakers

Annette and Gladys are third cousins:

From what I can tell, Conrad Baker was a successful fisherman in Kensington in present day Philadelphia:

Here we see in the 1850 Census: Catherine and Mary and even a Pote. If I have it right, this part of Kensington is called Fishtown today.

Painting the Baker/Faunce common ancestors.

I use DNA Painter to paint common ancestors. Here is what I have for my mom so far:

 

Here’s my mom’s “new” Baker/Faunce DNA in light blue on Chromosomes 3 and 11:

I don’t think this DNA got passed down to me as I didn’t see a match between Annette and me at MyHeritage. This brought my mom’s mapped DNA up from 22% to 23%. On Chromosome 3, the change from brown to blue represents a crossover my mom has from her Nicholson grandparent side to her Lentz grandparent side.

Molly’s Next Shared Match with Gladys: Danielle

The good thing about Danielle is that she triangulates with my mom and Molly:

The area where the triangulation occurs is on Chromosome 3.

Here is Danielle’s tree:

Here is another tree I found at Ancestry:

This was more filled out but was missing Leon Edwards. Ancestry has Danielle and my mom as distant relatives. So it may be difficult to find common ancestors. However, I didn’t see any obvious family name matches to people in my mom’s known ancestry. I’ll just have to wait until later to solve this mystery. Danielle’s ancestors were from the same areas as my mom’s, so the potential is there for finding a common ancestor.

 

Summary and Conclusions

  • A question by Blaine Bettinger lead to some DNA and genealogical research at MyHeritage
  • I didn’t figure out how I am related to Molly but guessed at a relationship to my mom and a possible Nicholson or Lentz ancestry.
  • I re-found Beth with a shared Nicholson ancestry.
  • I found Annette who has an interesting connection to my mom on the Baker/Faunce line from early Kensington in current day Philadelphia. I was able to “paint” this DNA to my mom.
  • I found a person triangulating with Molly and my mom, but was not able to find a common ancestor.