Posts

Posted on

Another Detailed Look at R-A11132 Hartley YDNA

This Blog is a follow-up on my previous Blog. That Blog was about a new A11132 Hartley BigY tester. It was also about his genealogy and the genealogy of the other three existing A11132 Hartley BigY tester groups. I had this simple graphic for the existing situation of A11132 Hartleys:

The new tester was not included in this graphic as his test will take six to ten weeks to finalize according to FTDNA.

Finding Answers As To Why the Roger Hartley Branch Has No Private Variants

That is one of the questions that I am  trying to answer. Here is my Block Tree:

I have 7 SNPs. Steve has 5 Private Variants and Michael has no Private Variants. I would like to know why in around 500 years, Michael shows no Private Variants.

Test Coverage

My understanding is that Michael took the BigY 500 test. That seems to be true based on this comparison:

Michael has about half as many Named Variants compared to Steve, Joel and Jim. That seems to confirm that he had the earlier BigY 500 test. There are 10 Named Variants per page.

Comparing Private Variants

First, one of my assumptions seems to be wrong. Michael shows two Private Variants:

This does not make sense as Steve has 5 private Variants. The average of 7 Private Variants should be three of four, not two. I asked about this in the FTDNA – BigY Facebook page and got this answer:

My takeaway is that all the Private Variants are used in the individual lists. However, when they average the Private Variants, they only use the best variants to be consistant with the variants used for calling SNPs.

I have started a Private Variant comparison Chart:

In the chart above, Steve has five Private Variants and Michael has two. I checked Steve’s first PV against Michael and Michael’s results were inconclusive. That means that Micjael and Steve may share a SNP in that location.

My brother and I have no Private Variants, but we have SNPs during the time Steve and Michael were having Private Variants:

Hopefully, these SNPs have been checked out, but I will put them in to see for myself.

Comparing Steve’s 5 PVs with Michael;s Results

For Steve’s first two PVs, Michael had a ? in his results. I am not looking at the detailed results, just a summary table. However, that tells me that there is a possibility that Steve and Michael could share results which would mean that they would share a SNP and a new Hartley Branch.

Comparing Steve and Michael’s PVs with My Results

These results were unambiguous:

I clearly had none of the PVs that Steve and Michael Show.

Comparing Michael’s Two PVs with Steve’s Results

In this case also, the results leave no doubt:

It is also possible that one position may be covered in on test and not in the other. However, that has not happened so far, the A11132 Hartleys.

Comparing My Hartley Branch SNPs with Steve and Michael

I’m curious.

The results with Steve are clear:

My Hartleys and Michael

Here are the results for my first Hartley Branch SNP:

Here is my Chart:

I didn’t check my brother’s results as they would likely be the same as mine. I gave Michael an NT twice in the last column for ‘not tested’. I assume that ‘no reads found’ means that FTDNA didn’t cover that position.

By each tester:

  • Steve’s Line has had five Private Variants found since the common ancestor of these three lines. However, two are possibly not private as when Michael’s BigY tested two of those positions, the results were inconclusive
  • Michael – His test only found two private variants since probably around the year 1500. He should have more, so his test probably missed some. The two PVs that he did have were valid as they were negative in the other two testers
  • Joel (and Jim) – They show 7 SNPs since the A11132 common ancestor of the three groups of Hartleys. However, two of those SNPs were not covered by Michael’s BigY test

My initial conclusions are the Michael is the wild card as far as the YDNA testing goes. There are two variants where Michael could forn a branch with Steve and two where he could form a branch with my line. That doesn’t mean that he would form a branch with either, but he couldn’t form a branch with both. That is because Steve and my branch would have to match each other and we don’t. If Michael matched me on the two SNPs marked as NT, that would reduce my Hartleys’ PV from 7 to 5 and match what Steve has. That is to say that if Michael matches either Steve or my Hartley Branch, then it would seem more likely that he would match my branch.

It appears that more testing is needed on the Roger Hartley Line:

I checked with two people on the Roger Hartley Line and one got back to me and said he would look into the test, so that is good news. If the new tester adds his results to John’s then we should get an interesting Hartley tree that will extend back to before what we are to figure out from the Hartley genealogy. The YDNA should fill in some of the blanks that we have in the Hartley genealogy.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Michael’s genealogy is most important for an understanding of how the different A11132 Hartley branches fit together
  • However, Michael took the BigY 500 test unlike the other A11132 Hartleys who took the newer BigY 700 test. Because of this Michael has some ambiguity in four of his important variants. These variants have the potential to have an effect on the two other Harltey Lines (Joel’s and Steve’s).
  • Michael had ambiguous results for two out of the five Private Variants that he shares with Steve
  • Joel and Jim are brothers who both tested with the BigY. Their testing resulted in the naming of alll their 7 shared variants.  Michael clearly did not have 5 of those shared SNPs. However, for another two, Michael did not have any reads. That means that we don’t know if he shares those SNPs with Joel and Jim’s new Hartley Branch or not.
  • If the Roger Hartley descendant that I have contacted takes the BigY 700 test, he should clarify Michael’s 4 ambiguous Variants. These 4 ambiguous variants have an effect on my line and Steve’s line
  • I am looking forward to new A11132 Hartley BigY 700 results.
Posted on

A New Hartley BigY Tester

I recenly saw an interesting post from Tiger Walsh. Tiger is an expert in the YDNA line that my Hartleys are on and posted two interesting images at the R1b-L21 Facebook site. Here is the first:

This image is meant to show that BigY testing is no longer just for pre-surname branches of mankind and that it is useful for genealogy. Here is the second image:

It took me a while to find the larger list of surnames. I was disappointed to see that the Hartley name was not on the list. The reason is stated in the middle of the image above. The Hartleys need three subclades and we only have two. Here is my BigY block tree at FTDNA:

This view is taken from my perspective. James is my brother, so the R-FT225247 brach has as many SNPs as we are likely to find right now. Steve and Michael are R-A11132. They only show an average of 2 Private Variants below the line of the common ancestor of the four testers. This could be partially because Michael took the older BigY 500 test which did not cover as many SNP as the new test. That seems to be the case, as when I look in my old emails, I have that Steve has 5 Private Variants. That must mean that Michael has zero and that they averaged the 5 Variants down to 2 between Steve and Michael.

John the New BigY Tester

After seeing the Surname Hall of Fame, I decided to get over my aversion of asking people things and ask John if he would take a BigY test. John is a good candidate for at least three reasons:

  1. John has already taken the 67 STR test (where he matches me at a GD of 4), so he can upgrade to the BigY test for less money.
  2. John is from England, unlike the other four testers who are from the US
  3. because there are two testers under R-FT225247 and two under A11132, John should break one of these ties and create at least one new Hartley descendant subclades (using the Hall of Fame terminology above).

Lots of Hartleys in the World

I’m looking forward to John’s results. His ordering the BigY test is big news among the A11132 Hartleys. According to forebears.io there are over 87,000 Hartleys worldwide:

I don’t know how many Hartleys are represented by A11132. I see that the Hartley YDNA Project webiste shows 9 branches of Hartleys, so it is possible that there are 10,000 A11132 Hartleys. My bias is that A11132 is one of the larger Hartley groups, so 10,000 A111132 Hartleys could be on the low side. On the Hartley Family Tree Genealogy Facebook Page, Administrator Wiliam Hartley says that the two main Hartley groups are A11132 and A21269.

Breaking the Tie

There are four possiblel outcomes that I would expect from John’s BigY testing:

First, I should say something about the position of #4. It is controlled by the genealogy of Michael at this time. He has the oldest known genealogy. His ancestor Edward Hartley was born in 1666. He came to the US around 1700 or before. That means that Edward cannot be the common ancestor between me and Michael. That is because my Hartley ancestor was in England up until about 1869. The earliest common ancestor that I should have with Michael (assuming Edward left no children in England) would be with Edward’s father Roger John Hartley:

He was born in 1628. Therefore, I would put the number four in the block tree at 1628 at the latest.

The Four Choices on the Block Tree

  1. If John tests and ends up in this area, it means that his connection to the other BigY tested Hartleys is really old. By really old, I would say some time around the 1400’s
  2. If John tests in this area that means that he is more closely related to my Hartley line than to Steve and Michael.
  3. If John tests in this area, then he is more closely related to Steve and/or Michael than to me.
  4. If John’s BigY test puts him here, it could mean that there are three equal lines that descend from a common or near common Hartley ancestor

We will know more when John’s results come in.

Hartley BigY Geneaology and Triangulation

My own genealogy is the simplest as it doesn’t go back very far. I’ll start with my great-grandfather:

James Hartley, Greenwood Hartley and Mary Pilling all came to the US from Lancashire, England. I am certain of Robert Hartley born about 1803. However, I am not so sure about James Hartley. Someone added another ancestor of John Hartley and Anne Bracewell. I seem to get a lot of DNA matches with people who have Bracewell ancestors, but that may be coincidence.

The triangulating part comes in with the YDNA testing and with locations. The location of my Hartley ancestor was Trawden, Lancashire.

Trawden would be about where I have the red arrow in the 1577 map above. Trawden was part of the Parish of Colne.

Steve’s Genealogy

I’ll look at Steve next in order of most recent to most distant Hartley ancestor. I’ll start with Steve’s great-grandfather who was born in Todmorden, England> Todmorden appears in the lower right hand part of othe old map above.

If Steve and I have the genealogy right, then Thomas Hartley was also born in Todmorden:

Steve and I have that Thomas’ wife was Betty Barker. This couple lived in this place at the time of the birth of their son Barker in 1805:

It looks something like Rodmillend in Stang. I’m not sure where this is. This is probably Thomas in 1841:

However, Birtall is about 16 miles from where he was supposed to have died in the Todmorden area:

Steve has this burial record from Christ Church in Todmorden:

Steve has John and Ann as the parents of Thomas. That information is from this record:

That record is from 17 Mar 1766 from St. Chad in Rochdale. We further see that John was a weaver and that they were of Weurdle. If I have the right place, it seems possible:

This does not seem very far from the area of Todmorden. I”m not sure if I’m ready to accept these parents for Thomas. I don’t see any of Thomas’ children having the names of John or Ann and it would have been normal practice to name your children after your parents.

In summary, here is where my ancestors lived around 1800 and where Steve’s ancestor’s lived around 1766 as far as we can tell:

John’s Genealogy

John is in the process of having his YDNA tested with the BigY 700 test. Based on that, we may be able to find out more about our Hartley shared genealogy.

This is the tree I have built for John. John tells me he is confident of the tree up to William Hartley who was born in 1745. Ancestry want me to pick William’s parents.

William Hartley Born 1745

I have William Hartley as being from Tadcaster in North Yorkshire:

Here is the hint that Ancestry wants me to take for the father of William Hartley:

Gisburn fits in with my assumption that our earliest Hartley ancestors were from the Colne area:

However, I cannot accept the hint based on a location that I like. One of the best documented trees at Ancestry shows Thomas Hartley marrying Grace Lee in 1741:

Here is Healaugh near Tadcaster:

That same tree has that Thomas Hartley was born in Healaugh (but without reference) and has this Thomas Hartley will from October 1766:

I’m not seeing right now that Thomas was necessarily born in Gisburn. I wonder who arrived at that conclusion and why?

Michael’s Genealogy

Of the four Hartley families I am looking at, Michael has the oldest genealogy. Michael’s ancestor Edward or Samuel Edward Hartley emigrated at an early date to Pennsylvania. One account from the Geni website has this:

Edward and his brother Henry emigrated to Pennsylvania sometime between 1693 when Edward married in Yorkshire, or perhaps after the birth of a first child in England, and 1700 when he purchased land in Solebury. John M. Freund wrote that Edward was “said to have come to Solebury from Maryland” but neither of us have any documentation for this. Edward was apparently not a Friend at the time, although two of his sons later joined, and his mother was a Vipont, a family that became well-known in British Quaker circles. One source claims, without any primary source justification, that Edward was a Friends’ minister.

Roger Hartley from Trawden or Marsden?

The connection from Roger Hartley to Edward Hartley is based on history more than records. Although Edward Hartley did not appear to be active in the Quaker movement in Pennsylvania, he does appear to be one of the early Quakers in this record:

Geoge Fox who began the Quaker faith had a vision on Pendle Hill in 1652, so this was only 11 years after Fox’s vision. This record is from the Monthly Meeting of Marsden:

Here Roger at the time of his death was said to be of the Forest of Trawden. That is interesting as the Quaker Meeting was at Marsden. If Roger was from Marsden, I think that would have been recorded at the time of his death. From what I understand, Marsden is not included within Trawden. Trawden may just refer to the area of Trawden or it may include Winewall and Wycoller, but I don’t believe that it includes Marsden.

I found three trees for Roger Hartley at Ancestry. They all show a birth date of 1628. I am not sure why that Roger was chosen as there are many other Roger Hartleys in the area at the time:

I also don’t know where Chamber is.

Summary of the Genealogy and Geography

Obviously, in order to have a common ancestor of the Hartley Line, the genealogies have to come together in one person and in one place. We have:

  1. From Michael’s Line – Roger Hartley 1628-1715 – Marsden or Trawden
  2. from John’s Line William Hartley born 1745 – Healaugh near Tadcaster, Yorkshire
  3. from Steve’s Line  – Thomas Hartley born 1774 – Todmorden
  4. from my line – Robert Hartley born 1806 – Hollin Hall, Trawden

This shows that Michael has by far the best Hartley genealogy as he goes back to over 100 years before and of the other Hartley genealogies.

Next I gave Roger Hartley a score of 4 as his is the oldest genealogy and Robert a score of one. I added these two together as they are pretty much from the same area. I gave William Hartley a 3 and Thomas Hartley a 2:

Obviously Trawden/Marsden gets the highest score. John’s genealogy (of the BigY testers) is the outlier at this point.

Back to the YDNA

Here is another way to show the Block Tree:

I wasn’t consistent in my chart above. For it to be consistent, I should have had Robert Hartley 1803 in the first box. However, it is accurate as Robert Hartley may not have had this SNP. It may have formed after his time. Earlier in the Blog, I mentioned 4 different possible outcomes for John’s BigY testing. Option 4 would be the easiest to represent. In that scenario, John’s ancestor would be another equal branch coming down from A11132. I would be a little surprised if that happened. That would mean that there could be four 500 year old branches of Hartleys with no common ancestors more recent than 500 years ago.

The question is, what is the date of the line between all the testers and A11132 based on the BigY testing? I’m thinking of a rough number of about 500 years ago:

It seems like I come up with a different number each time I do this. The outlier is Michael’s test. I believe that Michael has no Private Variants.  I feel like his BigY 500 test may not have covered some of the SNPs or variants that the other BigY 700 tests covered. Assuming 500 years is correct, it would be unusual for Michael to have no Private Variants in that time. For BigY500 testers, 144 years has been used for the formation of a Private Variant or SNP. That means that Michael should have had 3 or 4 Private Variants during that time.

I just looked at the BigY 700 testers. Jim and I had 7 SNPs. I believe Steve had 5 Private Variants. That averages to 6 Private Variants or SNPs. A number of 83 years per BigY 700 SNP has been used. 83 X 6 = 498 or about 500 years. The YDNA is suggesting that the three lines shown in my simplified view have not had a common ancestor in less or more than 500 years or since the year 1500. While that seems like a long time ago, the interesting thing is, if that number holds up, is how many Hartley Lines have remained intact for that period of time and longer. Interesting.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I took a skeptical look at the genealogy of three current branches of A11132 Hartley BigY testers. I am not an expert on these lines, but I did the best I could with the time that I had.
  • The oldest genealogy is for Michael who I believe took the BigY 500 test. His ancestors were early Quakers who emmigrated to Pennsylvania around the year 1700 or before.
  • The date for the common ancestor of the three Hartley families by genealogy cannot any more recent than 1628. The place of that Hartley ancestor was likely in Trawden. Many genealogies have Roger Hartley from Marsden. I found one record showing that he was in the “Forest of Trawden” at the time of his death. These two places are close but different.
  • The date for the common ancestor by YDNA could go back to 1500
  • John is a new BigY tester who is awaiting his BigY 700 results. These results will further clarify relationships between the three existing Harltey BigY branches. In addition, they will put John’s genealogy into context of those three Hartley branches
  • John’s genealogy could use further clarification. One suggestion is that his genealogy goes back to Gisburn which would be closer to Trawden, Lancashire where my genealogy and Michael’s genealogy starts. However, another suggestion is that one generation back from where John has researched could be in the same area which is Healaugh to the North of Tadcaster, Yorkshire.
  • I estimated that there could be about 10,000 A11132 Hartleys in the World today.
  • I will be eagerly awaiting John’s BigY 700 results.

 

 

 

Posted on

My Sister Heidi’s AutoSegments

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

My Sister Heidi’s AutoSegments

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

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

By comparison, here are mine:

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

Heidi’s Clusters One by One

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

Here is how that looks in my spreadsheet:

Cluster 2

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

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

Large Cluster 3

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

Emily matches with the last three in Cluster 2:

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

Cluster 4

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

These matches are near where I put the red lines:

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

Clusters 5-11

I recognize Joshua in Cluster 5:

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

Cluster 6 and a Confusing Connection

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

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

Cluster 7

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

Cluster 8

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

Cluster 9 and Beth

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

These connections are on Chromosome 17.

Cluster 10 and Lee

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

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

Cluster 11

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

More of Heidi’s Clusters

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

LL matches between 36 and 46M.

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

Cluster 13 – Frazer

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

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

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

The X Chromosome connection likely follows this specific path:

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

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

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

Cluster 14 and 15

This Cluster is at the beginning of Chromosome 2:

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

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

Cluster 15 is on Chromosome 6:

This is also a Hartley Cluster:

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

Cluster 16

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

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

 

Cluster 17

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

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

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

Cluster 18 on Chromosome 7

This is a maternal match.

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

 

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

Revealing Cluster 19

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

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

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

Cluster 20 and 21 on the Rathfelder Side

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

Here is Cluster 20 and 21:

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

Cluster 22 – Back to Paternal

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

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

Clusters 23 and 24

These go back to my Nicholson and Ellis ancestors:

Cluster 25

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

Cluster 26

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

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

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

A Recognizable Cluster 27

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

Cluster 28

Cluster 28 is on the larger side:

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

Catherine matches on Heidi’s Frazer side as expected:

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

Cluster 29

Cluster 29 is also a paternal one for Heidi:

Cluster 30 on the Rathfelder Side

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

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

Unlocking Cluster 31

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

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

Cluster 32 – Back to Paternal

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

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

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

Heidi’s Laster Cluster: 33

This last group of trianulated matches is on Chromosome 20.

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

All Heidi’s Segments

Here is the summary:

Summary and Conclusions

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

 

 

Posted on

My AutoSegment Report

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

Running My AutoSegment Report

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

I opened up the file and got this:

 

The first html file is the one to open:

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

Chromosome 20

There is a more detailed report below:

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

Identifying My Triangulated Clusters

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

The other matches are:

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

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

Pat in Cluster 4

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

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

A Cluster Spreadsheet

Here I put some of the information into a spreadsheet:

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

An Out of Place Cluster 8

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

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

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

Lee in Cluster 11

I would like to connect to Lee in Cluster 11:

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

Martin in Cluster 12

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

Cluster 17 – Rathfelder

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

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

Clusters 18 an 19 – Nicholson

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

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

More on Cluster 19

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

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

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

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

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

Steve in Cluster 22

The next person I recognize is Steve:

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

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

Finishing the Clusters with Known Names

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

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

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

Checking by Phased Results

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

Joshua’s Confusing Match on Cluster 8

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

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

Here is a continuation of my spreadsheet:

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

Clusters 14-16: Frazer Side

Cluster 14 seems to favor the McMaster side:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filling in the Rest of My Spreadsheet

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

Cluster 20

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

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

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

This is a side with a brick wall.

Cluster 21

Cluster 21 is from Chromosome 22.

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

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

Cluster 23

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

The matches are with Patricia and Carl.

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

Cluster 26

That leaves one last cluster.

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

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

The Completed Key

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

An Updated Look at Hartley and Related Theories

In this Blog, I would like to update my Hartley Theories and beyond. I have about 10 DNA results that I have uploaded to MyHeritage. MyHeritage has Theories based on DNA matches that also have possible genealogical matches. Here is a chart I made and updated last August:

I highlighted 2 because of similar names that showed up. I also made a dstinction between paternal and maternal theories. I see that I did not include my cousin Paul’s results. This may be better sorted by common ancestors:

Looking for New Theories

Next, I need to add to the list. For me, that appears to be Jane. Jane shows a possible connection with Clarke and Bachelour:

The problem with this connection is that I have that the father of Thomase Clarke was John Clarke. That makes two matches that I have that show this apparently wrong common ancestors.

Heidi and Wolf

I previously had Wolf on my Biedermann tree and not my Gangnus tree:

This is more in line with Wolf’s tree:

The question is, which is the right Theory: MyHeritage’s or mine? I tend to want to go with my own analysis. I wrote a Blog on Wolf here.

Sharon’s Theories

My sister Sharon has the most Theories so far:

Go Sharon. I didn’t see any new Theories for Sharon.

Brother Jon’s Theories

Here is a new one:

Although the Theory seems wrong, I should double check MyHeritage’s reasoning. Also this could be a case of where there is smoke, there is fire.

I need to check the genealogy for Leonie, Jane and Susan. If they all truly go back to the same ancestors, then either:

  • Their genealogy is right and mine is wrong
  • Mine is right and theirs is wrong
  • We have a different common ancestor but near the place where it seems like our common ancestors are showing in this Theory

I think I’ll wait to analyze this later.

Lori and Jim’s Theories

I either missed Lori or had her mis-labeled as Jon. I deleted the extra Jon, so now I need to add in Lori’s Theories.

This Theory looks new for Jim. It is his last:

Ashley is from New Zealand and adds to the Clarke mystery.

Checking the DNA on Jim’s Clarke Match

Jim has 2 small DNA matches with Ashley:

These are Chromosomes 9 and 18. If these are truly Clarke or related DNA matches, then these DNA matches should be in areas mapped for Jim under his Frazer grandparent side. Here is Jim’s Chromosome 9:

Jim’s match with Ashley on Chromosome 9 is between 80 and 85M. I put an arrow where that would be. Jim’s map shows that he should have Hartley DNA in that area – assuming the match is on Jim’s paternal side.  That means that this match cannot be a Clarke match.

That match is consistent with Chromosome 18 where Jim has his paternal side mapped as all Hartley shown in orange:

Jim and Leonie

While I have Jim’s visual phasing maps out, I’ll look at his match with Leonie:

Jim shows a lot of Frazer in blue on his Chromosome 1:

On Chromosome 7, the formatting is off, but Leonie’s DNA maps to Jim’s Frazer side:

Checking Jon and Lori against Leonie

I checked Jon and he had no Theory with Leonie. That means that I had to redo Jon’s list. He has the fewest Theories of any of my siblings at 6 now:

Lori matches on the Frazer side on Chromosome 7:

Lori doesn’t match on Chromosome 1 even though that portion of her Chromosome maps to Frazer.

At this point, I’ll move on to people other than my siblings. Between my siblings, the average number of Theories we have is 12 if I have it right.

 

My Mom’s Theories

Right now, I have that my mom has 11 Theories based on my spreadsheet. When I check MyHeritage, she has 10. The issue is with matches with mulitple theories:

Wolf and Patrick have multiple Theories. It is possible that others do also. Here my mom’s theories are all on her father’s side. There are two with Lentz, but they seem off. There is another issue in that 5 Theories that my Mom does not have that at least one of her children do have. This seems a bit off. Also, it seems like my mom is the only one who seems to have the theory that I verified with Biedermann and Lautenschlager. I am not sure why her children didn’t include this theory, but they did include the Gangnus Biedermann connection that I have not been able to substantiate.

My Father’s First Cousins: Joyce and Jim

These two should help to push back further on my Hartley side. These two have many theories, but I will only look at the ones on their Hartley side. When I check Joyce, I see that I had three mentioned on my spreadsheet, but two of these I no longer see as theories. When I reviewed Jim’s results, he still had the one Theory on his Hartley side. Here is the chart so far:

Summary and Conclusions

  • MyHeritage’s Theories are worth looking at
  • The Theories seem to be in four categories:
    1. Those are obvious,
    2. those that are close to be being right, but the actual common ancestors are nearby,
    3. those that I can’t prove are right are wrong
    4. those that are obviously wrong
  • I think that some Theories have disappeared
  • I’ll keep looking at MyHeritage’s Theorys. Ancestry’s ThruLines seem better but Ancestry doesn’t show DNA segment information
  • Using other tools to test the Theories is a good idea. I used visual phasing in this Blog to show one Theory could not be right based on the DNA.
Posted on

Looking at Some New Theories of Relativity for My Wife’s Ellis Side

I had heard not too long ago that MyHeritage had developed some new Theories of Relativity. These are DNA matches where MyHeritage thinks there is a likelihood that the genealogies also match up. I thought that I would write a Blog while this ‘new’ designation was still new, but it took me a bit longer than expected to write this Blog.

My Wife’s Aunt Elaine

I’ll start with Aunt Elaine.

The New part doesn’t jump out, but it is there.

The Theory has Elaine and Isabel as 1/2 third cousins. I’ll check my Ancestry Tree to see if this makes sense. It doesn’t:

I have Abraham’s father as John Rayner. I had this tree in an earlier Blog on my mother-in-law Joan:

Unfortunately, I missed one of Isabel’s ancestors where the red arrow is. Elaine is Joan’s sister. I assume that makes Elaine and Isabel full fourth cousins. I suppose there could be another connection or connections. Here is a corrected tree:

Adding Isobel to DNAPainter

Here is the new Rayner/Watson DNA added to Elaine’s tree

Here is the same graphic for Elaine’s sister Joan who had fewer matches with Isabel:

This match gets Joan up to 41% painted overall from 40% previously.

Elaine and Mervyn

MyHeritage has this for Theory 1:

I can’t figure out how MyHeritage got this connection. Their Theory 2 and three match what Ancetry has:

The next connection is to Dicks also, but a generation further back from MyHeritage’s Theory 1:

 

I’ll assume that Mervyn’s connection is on the Upshall side. I’ve already added Mervyn to Joan’s DNAPainter Map. I’ll add Mervyn to Elaine’s map:

Mervyn doesn’t overlap with Barbara, but doesn’t conflict with other more recent Upshall matches.

Elaine and Leslie on the Reinhold Line

Next, I need to verify this connection. I see that Leslie appears on Elaine’s ThruLines at Ancestry:

I’ll assume that Leslie’s genealogy is right.

This match gets Elaine up to 28% painted overall from 27%.

Mapping Leslie to Joan’s Map

This gets Joan up another percent to 42% painted overall. Leslie adds some important DNA to Elaine and Joan’s maternal side:

A Reinhold Tree

I’m surprised that I haven’t built a Reinhold DNA/Genealogy Tree. I’ll do that now. In order to do it right, I’ll try building out Leslie’s tree. Here is a birth record for Leslie’s grandfather Leslie:

I got this far with a fast tree, and it seems OK:

Other Ancestry trees has Lydia’s husband as Frederick John Rhynold born 1792. Here is my Rhynold Tree:

I will expect more additions over time.

Back to the Upshall Family with Betty

I would like to check this Theory. There are a few ways to do this. The best way is to build a tree for Betty back to  the commn ancestors. Or I could build my tree down to Betty. Or I could check Ancestry ThruLines. I’ll start with the ThruLines as they are easiest:

Elaine has 4 matches with descendants of Alexander Upshall, so that is a good sign. Here is a late addition for Theodore from 1951:

It turns out I already had Theodore in my family tree.

Betty adds some Upshall/Dicks DNA to Elaine’s Chromosome 6 and confirms some matches on Chromosome 11.

Adding Betty’s DNA to Joan’s DNA Map

Betty’s match is similar in that it adds some DNA to Chromosome 6 and confirms other Upshall/Dicks DNA matches.

Joanne on Elaine’s Paternal Side

This relationship is supported by Thrulines at Ancestry:

Adding Joanne to DNAPainter

This added a new ancestral couple for Elaine and segments on Chromosomes 1, 4, and 12.

The next logical step is to add Joanne to Joan’s DNAPainter profile:

Joanne’s match gets Joan up another percent to 43% painted overall. This is what 43% looks like for Joan:

Edna on the Dicks Line

It took me a while to figure this one out:

Edna also has a Theory 2 with Christopher Dicks who was the father of this Christopher Dicks:

I haven’t been keeping up with my Dicks DNA Project and had Edna already but as per Theory 2:

Here I’ve added in Edna again:

Finally, I’ll add Edna to Joan’s DNAPainter profile. I turns out I had mapped Edna to the elder Christopher. She would be better mapped to the younger Christopher DIcks. I think I can fix that in this screen:

I searched for Edna on Elaine’s match list but could not find her.

Time to Start a Newcombe Tree

However, Alicia and JP are at Ancestry and I see this for JP at Ancestry:

For some reasons, MyHeritage did not pick up these other connections. I’ll go ahead and map Alicia as Newcombe:

Alicia’s results are very similar to Joanne’s. When I look at the shared matches at MyHeritage, I see that Joanne is Alicia’s mother.  That makes sense based on the results. Of course, that means that JP is Joanne.

Elaine and Diann

Diann has a Theory with Elaine on the headachey Dicks side:

 

This looks good on the surface, but I don’t have Susan so far on my DNA tree and I don’t see a Susan on the Ancestry ThruLines:

Diann would add new DNA to Elaine’s map, so this would be an interesting connection to track down in the future.

Jacqueline Shows a MacArthur Theory with Elaine

Are these charts faded-looking because they are Theories? My shortcut check for Jacqueline’s tree is by using Ancestry’s ThruLines. ThrulLines shows that Elaine has 155 DNA matches on the MacArthur Line, but 51 of those are on the marion MacArthur Line. Elaine has 20 matches on the Ellen Line.

I see that Jacqueline is actually on the ThruLines:

The ThruLines don’t prove the connection, but strongly suggest it to be right. Next, I’ll compare the DNA with other MacArthur matches:

MG is Jacqueline’s mother. Robert is also a theory with Elaine, but he is MG’s son, so would add no new DNA.

Elaine and Josh Have Three Theories

I am leaning toward this one:

The Harriet Rayner Line is well-represented by ThruLines:

I’ll add Josh to Elaine’s DNAPainter Profile:

It looks like there is a possible crossover between Josh and Josheph. That could mean a few things. One possibility is that Elaine’s match with Josh is on the Simmons side. That would be one explaination of why one match ends where the other starts.

Josh and Joan

These two match on Chromosome 4:

I had already added Josh to Joan’s profile, but I had the match from the older Hopgood/Yeo. I’ll erase this match and keep the one I just added.

David and Joan

While I’m on Joan, I’ll look at this Theory:

The good thing about this Theory is that there are not other proposed theories. Ancestry’s ThruLines gets down to David’s grandmother Evelyn:

I would say that is evidence enough for my purposes of mapping David to Joan’s profile:

It appears that I have already mapped David. When I check more on the earlier David, I see this:

I don’t know why David would have had more matches earlier and why they were mapped to MacArthur.

I tried to see if Elaine had a Theory with David, but I didn’t see one.

Joan and Margaret’s Theory on the Ellis Side

Ancestry’s ThruLines get down to John England:

Margaret adds to the confusion on Chromosome 2:

I could not find this match for Elaine.

Elaine and Ron on the Rainer Side

I have found this Theory to be wrong before.  Ron is the son of Isabel who I have mapped already, so I’ll skip Ron.

Elaine and Randy

He is also at Ancestry:

I have already mapped his father, so I don’t need to map Randy. I should be getting to the end of the new Theories. The smaller match Theories are often not as important as the bigger DNA matches.

Elaine and Rachel

Here is an interesting Threory:

A fifth cousin is pretty distant. I looked to see if there were any Ancestry ThruLines and there were not, so I will put this Theory on hold.  So that covers it for ‘new’ Theories for Elaine. There were others that I didn’t discuss as the genealogy didn’t look right. There is perhaps another connection than the one suggested.

Joan and Wendy

These next Theories should apply to Joan only as I am done with her sister Elaine:

This relationship appers to be supported by ThruLines:

In fact, Alicia is mentioned above in this Blog. Wendy looks to be a 2nd cousin once removed to Alicia. I already have Wendy in Joan’s DNA map:

I’ll need to sort out Joan’s Paternal Chromosome 2 at some point as it is quite a mess:

Summary and Conclusions

  • By now, the ‘;new’ designation is going away, so I was right in trying to look at these before that happened.
  • I assume that Ancestry has the largest DNA database. Because of that it is worthwhile to get a second opinion from Ancestry’s ThruLines, to see if these Theories make sense.
  • I was able to add to Joan and Elaine’s maps as to where they got their DNA from
  • There was some conflicting information such as in the paternal Chromosome 2 above. This is due to intermarriage, or incorrect genealogies or both.
  • The first Theories were the best. The Theories at the bottom of the less were less reliable and/or less helpful
  • MyHeritage has a good combination of genealogical trees and DNA matches with detailed DNA information (unlike Ancestry). This makes them ideal for use with the DNAPainter Program
  • Joan is now at 43% painted overall and Elaine is at 30%

 

 

 

 

Posted on

My Mother’s Cousin Dotty’s DNA Results

I have been in touch with my mother’s cousin Dotty about genealogy. She is a busy person and has said she would have her DNA tested. That time has come. Dotty tested at 23andMe where I have tested, but the rest of my family has not tested.

Where Dotty and My Mom Connect

I have a tree that shows genealogy for those with DNA matches. Dotty connects on the Lentz and Nicholson Lines. Here is the Lentz connection:

I have another tree for Nicholson and more matches on that side. I think I have the relationships right, but in one of my emails, it sounds like Dotty may be the sister of Judy.

Dotty didn’t make it to this tree but she would be where the arrow is. Here is the corrected tree:

Dotty’s DNA

Dotty has a lot of DNA in common with me as I am her first cousin once removed. What we don’t know right away is if that DNA is from the Lentz side or the Nicholson side. Here is the graphic from 23andMe:

I match Dotty on 17 chromosomes

Painting Dotty Onto My Chromosome Map

I currently am 49% ‘painted’ using a utility called DNAPainter:

Dotty will add more to the light green Lentz/Nicholson DNA. Here I am starting to add Dotty:

Dotty matches on my maternal side. Her matches show overlap with NicholsHeron and Lentz which makes sense. the overlap with Rathfelder doesn’t make sense but may be small overlaps.

Dotty’s DNA

Here is Dotty’s DNA compared to other Lentz/Nicholson descendants:

On many chromosomes, Dotty extends existing matches or adds totally new Lentz/Nicholson DNA.

Can We Tell Which Parts of Dotty’s DNA are Lentz and Which are Nicholson?

In some places I can tell, in others I can guess.

Chromosome 1

Dotty has two segments of matches with me on Chromosome 1. Dotty’s first match overlaps with Robert, so that makes me think that the first segment is from the Nicholson side. It may be that Dotty’s second match is Nicholson also. That is because Molly overlaps with Robert and Dotty’s second match. I think that the fact that Molly overlaps means that her segment is Nicholson.

Chromosome 2

This is just the first part of Chromosome 2:

Because Sarah and her father Robert descend from the Nicholson side, it appears that this could be Dotty’s Lentz side. Dotty’s match starts and the Nicholson matches start. This could be a coincindence or a changeover (crossover) from Lentz to Nicholson in my DNA.

Chromosome 3

Here, my match with Dotty overlaps with my match with Molly, so we can’t tell what side the match is on. However, my guess is that Jereme and Will have matchs on the Lentz side as they appear to form a crossover between Lentz and Nicholson with John and Nicole.

Chromosome 4

Here Dotty is in the Nicholson camp and Jereme appears to be on the Lentz side. Raimonds is from my mother’s German Rathfelder side.

Chromosome 5

Chromosome 5 is pretty well mapped on my maternal side:

Dotty is clearly in the Nicholson camp on this Chromosome. In fact, it looks like I don’t have any Lentz DNA mapped here unless it is between the other matches. Orange is on my Rathfelder side.

Chromosome 6

Dotty appears to better define the divide between Lentz and Nicholson on Chromosome 6:

Astrid on the right is a DNA match with an old Rathfelder Line.

Chromosomes 7 and 8

Chromosomes 9, 10 and 11

Here we can’t tell where Dotty’s DNA comes from. My guess is that it would be the Lentz side as there is no overlap with Nicholson descendants. We would need more matches to be sure.

Chromosomes 15, 16, 17, and 18

Again, it is difficult to conclude whether the DNA is from the Lentz or Nicholson side. I would expect roughly half from each side on average.

Finally, Chromosome 20 and 21

Dotty is in the Nicholson camp on Chromosome 20. Judith could be on the Lentz side. Dotty adds the first DNA match to my Chromosome 21. That covers all the matches I have with Dotty.

Dotty’s Relatives in Common at 23andMe

Dotty and I have a lot of relatives in common at 23andMe:

This is the first page of people that match both me and Dotty. That means that their match should be either on the Lentz or Nicholson side. Closer relatives could be on both sides. Note that there are at least 10 pages of common matches.

Jennifer and Charles and Placing Relatives in Common

These two in common matches are a bit misleading. They are related on my paternal Hartley side. Yet, somehow, they show as related quite distantly to Dotty. I will ignore those two for now. That leaves 8 people on the first page. The top match is Chris. 23andMe makes a guess as tow here these people fit in using a family tree:

23andMe guesses that Chris descends from Nicholson and Lentz. I know Dorothy and Judith’s parents, so I have them correctly in this tree. Jacob Lentz and Annie Lentz had four children. They were William, Stanley, Agnes and Emma. I descend from Emma on the yellow line above (not shown). Dorothy and Judy descend from William. That leaves Stanley and Agnes. I assume that Will and Jereme descend from Stanley. That leaves Chris who most likely descends from Agnes.

I started a spreadsheet of the Dotty and my Relaitives in Common:

Here is my guess where John fits in:

Nicole shows up as John’s first cousin and Alexander shows as John’s first cousin once removed. that means that they all are on the Nicholson side:

That brings up a problem in that there are many Nicholson relatives, but no only Lentz relatives so far at 23andMe. This is typically due to undertesting of DNA by Lentz descendants or what is sometimes called misattributed parentage.

Page 2 of Dotty’s and My Shared DNA Matches

This is what I get for the first two pages of common matches between Dotty and myself:

There are still no Lentz-only matches.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Dotty’s DNA test was a big help in me getting my DNA from 49 to 51% painted.
  • While I have identified Lentz DNA matches from other sources, I didn’t see any obvious ones at 23andMe. However, it is difficult to determine the genealogy from 23andMe in many cases.
  • Many Nicholson descendants have tested at 23andMe and I was able to identify many of those DNA matches.
  • If Dotty uploads her DNA to Gedmatch, I would be able to make some more comparisons.

 

 

 

Posted on

Painting My Sister Lori’s DNA

In previous Blogs, I have painted my other two sisters’ DNA. Now I would like tp include Lori. This will finish the painting of all three of my sisters. I will be using a utility called DNAPainter. This is what I have done so far:

Lori is at 4% painted. I would like to get her up into the 30’s. It looks like I was just looking at Lori’s paternal side. This makes sense as my mom has tested for DNA. For some reason, I don’t have a match name for the Mary Pilling DNA.

Adding Cindy’s X Chromosome Match

Cindy is a first cousin. I don’t usually add first cousins, but because the connection is through Cindy’s father, that means that Cindy’s X Chromosome match must be through Cindy’s father’s mother. She was Emma Lentz:

This was a large 100 cM match on the X Chromosome and is the first maternal match that I have painted for Lori. This brings Lori up to 5% painted.

More Gedmatch Matches

There will be a lot of Hartley matches for Lori at Gedmatch:

These Hartley matches are in light blue and bring Lori up to 17% painted, or about half of my goal for Lori.

Filling in Some More X Chromosome at Gedmatch

Notice that Cindy and Carolyn overlap but have different common ancestors. That is because that DNA that Cindy and Lori share from their grandmother Emma Lentz born 1900 is the same DNA that Lori and Carolyn share from either Nicholson born in 1836 or his Ellis wife.

Continuing with Lori’s Autosomal Matches at Gedmatch

Here is Lori at 26% painted:

 

In the key, I now have the ancestors divided into Lori’s four grandparent groups.

Lori’s Matches at MyHeritage

Lori has this important match at MyHeritage, but the relationship is shown at AncestryDNA:

Stephen is also related:

Ron and Steve are also related through the McMaster line but further back in time.

The McMaster Connection

When I paint Ron and Stephen, I see a connection to Emily who has Mcmaster ancestry:

That means that on Chromosome 13, the connection is most likely on the McMaster side:

I could add another pair of common ancestors to DNAPainter, but I’ll leave it as it is for now.

Marilee’s Theory at MyHeritage

I have  adifferent interpretation:

Marille is in the bottom left of this chart and I am in the blue section. Here we are 6th cousins instead of MyHeritage’s 5th cousins. I painted a segment for Marilee that was 6.7 cM. DNAPainter’s default is to paint only segments of 7 cM and more.

The small segment is in Chromosome 20. The jury is still out on Marilee’s ancestry. I think that I have the best guess. However, I think that MyHeritage’s Theory may be adding some bad information to the internet.

Lori and Warwick on the McMaster Line

I’m never quite sure about some of these older McMaster connections, but I’ll assume this one is right.

Assuming that Margery was not also a Frazer, this puts Paul and Susan’s green matches in the McMaster camp.

Lori at 28% Painted

This is a bit short of the 30% or more I wanted to have for Lori, but I may fill in more later:

Adding Astrid

I forgot Astrid on the Rathfelder Line:

Comparing Lori’s Common Ancestors to Other Mapped Siblings

In a previous Blog, I started this chart:

The coverage of common ancestors for Lori looks good except for Howorth.

Also I see Lori could have more matches under Nicholson and Ellis.

After adding four matches I missed, Lori is still at 28% painted:

This could mean that Lori has a larger percentage of unidentified common ancestors.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I mapped Lori out thinking that I would be able to get in the 30 percent range.
  • I was only able to get up to 28% mapped for Lori
  • It is possible that her unidentified regions are the areas where I have trouble identifying ancestors such as on the Clarke, Spratt and Hartley Lines.

 

Posted on

Painting My Sister Heidi’s DNA

In my previous Blog, I wrote about painting my sister Sharon’s DNA. The next logical step would be to paint another sister’s DNA.

Heidi’s X Chromosome

I liked painting the X Chromosome as women have two and men (like me) only have one. My only option is going to Gedmatch to find Heidi’s X Chromosome matches. Another option would be 23andMe, but Heidi has not tested there.

Heidi has some good matches with our Latvian cousins on her maternal side:

We can narrow down the match to my great-grandmother Maria Gangnus due to the way the X Chromosome is inherited.

For the same reason, we can narrow down the match between Emily and Heidi:

The DNA had to come from Margaret McMaster as George did not pass down and X Chromosome to his son James A Frazer.

That match gets Heidi up to 1% painted.

The Easy Part – Hartley Relatives

These matches will go back to my great-grandparents who were a Hartley and a Snell. The top four Hartley matches were three 1st cousins once removed and one 2nd cousin. That got Heidi up to 17% painted:

That is about half as far as I hopep to get. I would like Heidi to get up to 33% or one third painted by the end of this Blog.

Heidi at 26%

Here I have oganized the key and added dividing lines.

Many Relationships are Complicated – Like Otis’

When there are two possible relationships, I choose the closer of the two. Heidi has some good DNA matches to Otis. I gave the match color a bright red as it represents a couple from the 1700’s:

At this point, Heidi is 31% mapped.

An Old Rathfelder Common Ancestor with Astrid

Astrid gets Heidi pretty painlessly up to 32% painted:

I may be able to get beyond my 33% painted goal for Heidi. Astrid also represents the oldest DNA on this map so far.

Here is Heidi at 33% painted:

There are four ancestral groups in the key for three of Heidi’s grandparents but only one group for the Hartley side.

Adding an Old Hartley Line of Howorth

Louise and Anne have their results at Gedmatch:

Theories of MyHeritage

MyHeritage has Theories of Relativity which are likely common ancestors that have DNA matches:

Heidi and Susan have a large DNA match:

Susan adds a lot of Frazer/Mcmaster DNA to Heidi’s map and brings Heidi up to 35% painted overall.

Back to Hirschenhof with Silvia and Leva

Silvia is rellated to my sister Heidi on two different levels. I’ll choose the closer level.

I don’t recall painting Leva before. Perhaps this is a new Theory?

 

I painted Leva under the same ancestors as Silvia, but another Theory has her connection on the Lutke side.

FTDNA?

Does Heidi have any matchs at FTDNA that could add to her map? Ingrid is Astrid’s siters and matches on the Rathfelder line:

Painting this match in gets Heidi up to 36% painted overall. FTDNA also has X Chromosome information.

At this point, Heidi’s map is in pretty good shape:

Comparing Across Maps

The simplest comparison would be between siblings:

 

Putting the common ancestors in one spreadsheet gives a fuller picture. Now I only have three more siblings to go.  By cross-checking, i can see if I missed any DNA matches.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Heidi’s mapping went faster than Sharon’s for some reason
  • Heidi had fewer Theories at MyHeritage compared to Sharon
  • For Heidi, I checked FTDNA. I didn’t check Sharon’s matches there. I only added one FTDNA match for Heidi, but that also included an X Chromosome match.

 

 

 

Posted on

Painting My Sister Sharon’s DNA

I have used DNAPainter to paint or map my DNA and some limited painting of my siblings. Here is my profile:

I am currently 49% mapped overall. I have mapped 338 segments and where they belong on my 23 chromosomes. The question is: why then map my siblings. It is for the same reason that siblings are testing. Each sibling inherits different DNA or different mixes of DNA from their parents. I have mapped at least one segment for three out of five of my siblings. I am missing Heidi and Sharon, so I’ll start with Sharon.

Painting Sharon

I start by creating a new map for Sharon in DNAPainter. They want to know if she is male or female, because females have two copies of the X Chromosome and males have only one.

Starting with Gedmatch

One way to start is to look at Sharon’s largest matches at Gedmatch. I want to paint matches that share a unique grandparent. I’ll start with my father’s cousin Joyce:

Joyce and Sharon share James Hartley and Annie Snell as ancestors. Joyce brings Sharon from 0% to 8% painted. The color is different than what I have on my profile for Hartley and Snell, but a light color is good for more recent ancestors. Adding my father’s other 2 first cousins brings the total for Sharon up to 12% painted.

Two Gedmatch Matches on Sharon’s Maternal Side

This brings in some more color to Sharon’s Map:

Sharon is now 18% painted overall.

Plugging Away Down Sharon’s Gedmatch Match List

Here is what I have down to Emily at Gedmatch. Emily is related on the Frazer/McMaster side:

This gets Sharon up to 27% painted. I have not yet looked at Sharon’s X Chromosome. The best place to look at X Chromosome matches is at Gedmatch, but Gedmatch is not working this morning.

Sharon’s Theories at MyHeritage

MyHeritage has a useful utility called Theories of Relativity. Here is one for Sharon:

I’ll paint in Sharon’s match to Susan under George Frazer and Margaret McMaster. Here are Susan’s matches with Sharon highlighted just under Frazer/McMaster:

Sharon and Sylvia

This gets Sharon up to 29% painted overall:

I’d like to get Sharon up to 33% painted. I split the ancestors up into the four grandparent groups.

Back to the X Chromosome

Sharon matches our Latvian cousins Inese and Anita on the X Chromosome:

This brings up an interesting point. Alexander and his brother Leo only got their X Chromosome from their Gangnus mother. That means that Sharon’s match with Anita and Inese is from Maria Gangnus.

The X is a large chromosome. When we miss that one, we miss a lot of DNA.

Sharon and Emily

The same is true of Sharon’s match with Emily:

Because Sharon’s great-grandfather was James Archibald, James only inherited the X Chromosome from his McMaster mother:

Emily gets Sharon up to 30% painted.

Sharon and Cousin Cindy

Because Sharon’s cousin Cindy is related on her father’s side, that narrows down the X Chromosome match once more:

The match between Sharon and Cindy has to come from Emma Lentz and not her Rathfelder husband:

At this point, the oldest DNA I’ve mapped for Sharon is from 1777 and the newest is from 1900.

Interesting X Chromosome Matches for Sharon on the Frazer Line

It turns out that Sharon matches Madeline and Charlotte by the X Chromosome:

Both these matches are on the right side of the X Chromosome. It looks like it would be difficult to connect the genealogy:

Assuming that this tree is right, that means that we cannot connect at the top of this chart. The X Chromosome inheritance cannot pass beyond where I have the X marks. A weak link is the wife for Archibald Frazer born about 1792. We can do some ‘what ifs’. Suppose that Archibald’s wife was the sister of my ancestor William McMaster. Then the common ancestor could be the mother of Archibald Frazer’s wife and William McMaster. There would be many other possibilities.

Sharon also matches Charlene:

I have this tree for Charlene:

Unfortunately, it is not consistent with my previous tree which has Michael Frazer as the father of my ancestor Margaret Frazer. It would be nice to be able to reconcile these trees and families.

Back to the Autosomal DNA: Sharon and Otis

Sharon and Otis match a few ways:

Otis gets Sharon up to 31% painted overall:

Sharon and Barry

I think that this tree is right. Barry is in the green and Sharon and I are in the blue:

Astrid on the Rathfelder Side

At this point, the Gedmatch matches are beginning to peter out.

Back to MyHeritage Theories and Silvia

I’ll show Sylvia on my own chart:

Sylvia’s relationship seems a bit obscure. Here is what MyHeritage has:

I’ll add her to my Biedermann tree as the Gangnus one is getting complicated:

Now that I added Silvia, I see that I was in the Gangnus tree twice, so that makes sense.  After all that, I see I already added Silvia to Sharon’s DNA Map.

Ursula: A Schwechheimer Match

I’m tempted to say that Ursula’s tree is fine. Here is another possibility which brings up issues for DNA Painting:

I’ll skip painting in Ursula’s two small DNA matches with Sharon for now. I do note that her matches are near or overlapping Silvia’s matches.

Sharon and Warwick

I think that Warwick’s genealogoy is OK. The Ancestry ThruLines seem to support this Theory:

Warwick’s match with Sharon shows that her matches with Paul and Susan are on the Mcmaster and not the Frazer side.

Sharon and Bruscia

I think that this Theory left out a generation:

I have this tree, but it is not certain. I’ll go with the assumption that it is right. This small match brings Sharon up to 32% painted overall:

John on the McMaster Line

I painted a match similar to this one earlier in the Blog:

This match confirms the earlier match with Warwick. I had wanted to get Sharon up to 33% painted but she is 32%. One more percent to go.

Getting Sharon Up To 33% Painted

So far, I have used Gedmatch and MyHeritage Theories of Relativity. If Sharon has common ancestors at Ancestry that have posted at Gedmatch, then that would be a good source of mapping. The problem is connecting the two as the names very often do not match. Another was is to look at Gedmatch for people who have family trees.

Sharon and Michael and Jane

Michael is in my Frazer DNA Project:

Looks like I cut off Sharon. Michael adds a paternal segment of 20 cM on Chromosome 10. While I am on Frasers, I see Jane at Gedmatch. Sharon has basically the same relationship with Jane that she has with Michael.

Sharon and the Howorth Connection

Here is how Sharon matches Louise at Ancestry:

Sharon and Louse are 5th cousins according to this. The Howorth family is on my Hartley side. I also see Anne who I believe is Louise’s sister. I will paint them in as they are both at Gedmatch:

Ron at MyHeritage

Ron is from another catergory. His information is at MyHeritage but he doesn’t have enough of his tree down to create a Theory of Relativity there. Ron’s tree shows himself and an unknown father. Here is how Ron is related to Sharon on the Clarke side:

Sharon and Ron also have a more distant relationship on the McMaster side.  Sharon and Ron are third cousins once removed. Ron should bring Sharon up to 33% painted:

 

DNAPainter gave the new Clarke/Spratt matchs a bright pink color. The largest match was on Chromosome 10. The match on Chromosome 16 appears to be wrong as it overlaps with a Hartley match:

There is a likelihood that small matches may be false matches. For that reason, matches under 7 cM are not used for mapping. This match was 7.6 cM.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was able to go from zero to thirt three percent painted for Sharon
  • Painting the paternal side of Sharon’s X Chromosome was interesting as that is not an option that I have for myself
  • Some of Sharon’s X Chromosome matches show relationships on the Frazer side that are difficult to figure out by the genealogy.
  • Starting Sharon’s tree was easy but got more difficult as I got closer to 33% mapped. I had to use different techniques to find mappable matches.
  • Sharon is 38% mapped paternally and 27% mapped maternally
  • The key to the map shows that htere were only two Hartley ancestral couples mapped but 8 Frazer couples mapped. I think that the Hartleys had some small and/or understested families