My Father In Law’s Autosomal DNA: Separating the LeFevres from the Pouliots

It’s been a while since I’ve looked at my Butler father in law’s autosomal DNA, so it’s time to look at it in a blog. Richard descends from an Irish father and a French Canadian mother. Richard has many large matches with many with French Canadian ancestry. In comparison, he seems to have smaller and fewer matches on his Irish side. This is probably due to several reasons:

  • The French Canadians have been around for many hundreds of years in North America.
  • Their descendants have spread throughout the region and many migrated to Massachusetts where Richard is from.
  • Many of these early French Canadians were intermarried. This tends to increase the amount of shared DNA among cousins.
  • The numerous French Canadian descendants perhaps were more likely to take DNA tests.
  • Conversely, the Irish relatives tended to emigrate later in time.
  • These Irish descendants seem less likely to have taken DNA tests.

Richard’s Known Matches – French Canadian

Richard has 2 pairs of known matches with cousins of French Canadian ancestry (other than my wife). They are:

  • 2 First cousins – They are on his mother’s (LeFevre) side
  • 2 Second cousins – They are also on the mother’s side but one generation up. The common ancestor is Pouliot. Here is a diagram of Richard’s mother’s side:

Pouliot LeFevre Diagram

My Confusion

I looked at these matches and wondered how I would be able to sort out the LeFevres and the Pouliots. This was confusing as the LeFevre line had Pouliot in it.

The Easy Answer

The easy answer is there is no easy way to pull the 2 apart with what I had. This is because at the first cousin level, it is not easy to pull out one family. If you think about it, your first cousins share 2 grandparents with you. This was the case with Richard’s 2 first cousins also. As they are on the mother’s side, they are useful for determining whether matches are on the Butler or LeFevre (Paternal or Maternal) side, but not a whole lot more. But that is quite a bit. This is a way of phasing your results. This also separates the French Canadian matches from the Irish matches.

Looking for more than can be found in a relationship can be frustrating and confusing and that was where I was a while back. I have found that it is usually good to keep it simple – especially when figuring these things out. The problem was I was comparing apples and oranges. Or in this case 1st cousins and 2nd cousins. This is why it is sometimes suggested that a second cousin is a good choice for testing.

The Pouliot Second Cousins

As mentioned above, the Pouliot second cousins represent all the Pouliot DNA shared. On the FTDNA Chromosome Browser Richard’s DNA shared with his 2 Pouliot 2nd cousins looks like this:

Butler Pouliot Chromosome Browser

From the image above, I gather a few things:

  • This is a map of the DNA that Richard received from his Pouliot great grandfather (and Fortin great grandmother) down from his Pouliot grandmother.
  • As this represents the DNA from Richard’s grandmother, it would theoretically cover about one half of his chromosome browser. This would be the amount of DNA that he actually did get from his grandmother as compared to how he matches his two 2nd cousins.
  • Richard’s theoretical amount of DNA he got from his grandmother would cover half of the browser because the browser contains both paternal and maternal matches.

Add in the 1st Cousin

I’m only adding in one LeFevre 1st cousin as the other one didn’t test at FTDNA. Here the first cousin will be in green.

French Canadian to Richard in Browswer

From looking at the above, I observe the following:

  • The green area represents Richard’s maternal side as shown through a match with a maternal cousin.
  • This green represents LeFevre on Richard’s parent level.
  • About one half of his green match represents LeFevre and one half represents Pouliot on the grandparent level.
  • Going further up the ancestor line the green represents every other ancestor of Richard’s mother. This would be French Canadians.
  • Richard got a full chromosome from his mother, so all the DNA received from his mother would fill the above chromosome browser.
  • There are areas on Chromosomes 1, 13 and 16 where Richard’s green LeFevre cousins matches overlaps with his matches from his Pouliot cousins. These areas likely represent where the LeFevre cousins match the Pouliots. This would mean that in this area of the LeFevre cousins’ chromosomes they got their DNA from the Pouliot side. I know that I said above that it was not possible to sort out what part of the LeFevre DNA was from Pouliot, but from looking at the Chromosome Browser above, it appears that it is possible. More on this later.
  • Areas where there are breaks in the matches or where the matches go from the LeFevre cousin to the Pouliot cousins likely indicate Richard’s crossover points. These are the points where the DNA he received changed from one [maternal in this case] grandparent to another. That is, the DNA he actually received went from his LeFevre grandfather to his Pouliot grandmother.
  • As the LeFevre cousins and Richard both descend from LeFevre sisters, they share X Chromosome matches. Both those sisters got their X Chromosomes from their 2 parents. Those 2 parents were LeFevre and Pouliot.
  • Due to the X inheritance patterns there can be no X Chromosome matches between Richard and his Pouliot 2nd cousins. Richard did receive Pouliot X Chromosomes from his mother’s mother. But Richard’s cousin did not as there is no X Chromosome passed down from father to son.

Triangulation – Thinking In Three Dimensions

Triangulation is when 3 or more people all get their DNA from the same ancestor and all match each other. Our best shot at finding this is at the right hand side of Chromosome 1. It looks like these 3 people who match Richard should match each other. Two are siblings, so that is a given. Here is how Richard’s 4 cousin matches look like at

Richard Gedmatch Chr 1

You will have to switch gears a bit here from the FTDNA browser. In this browser, the different colors stand for the size of the match. Here, #1 and #2 are the Pouliot 2nd cousins. #3 and #4 are the LeFevere 1st cousins. #4 was the cousin that didn’t test at FTDNA. As expected, in the area where the 4 cousin matches are stacked on top of each other, they also match each other. At this close of a match, they almost have to. The only other option would be if they matched somehow on Richard’s paternal Irish side, which would be unlikely. This means that the 5 cousins triangulate and they have as a common ancestor their great grandfather Pouliot. Another interesting thing about Richard’s Chromosome 1 is that with just 4 maternal cousins, he has much of his chromosome mapped out – at least the maternal side of it.





Slimming Down My Big Fat Chromosome 20

In a previous Blog, I mentioned My Big Fat Chromosome 20. I had discovered, for some reason, that more than one half of all my matches were on this Chromosome. This can be seen visually using a Swedish web site called

dnagen circle chart

Here the default setting is at 200%. That means that only the matches that are twice as large as the median are shown. This program uses FTDNA matches. The match names are on the outside of the circle and the lines going between the names are what FTDNA calls ICW or (In Common With). I just noted today that there is a group on this circle that doesn’t connect with others at about 9 o’clock on the circle. These matches like to stay in their own Chromosome apparently. They are in a dark color which I take to be Chromosome 3. However, that is an aside.

The real point is to show Chromosome 20 in the dark green in the lower right half of the circle. Chromosome 20 is the Hong Kong of Chromosomes. In a little space, I have  lot of matches. Remember that Chromosome 20 is one of the smaller Chromosomes. If I have about 4,000 matches, that means that over 2,000 of them are on Chromosome 20. In my previous Blog on Chromosome 20, I determined that these matches were on my Frazer grandmother’s side. Her 2 parents were born in Ireland. That means that these matches represented Irish matches and not Colonial American matches as I had previously assumed.

The Progression of Sorting Matches

Autosomal DNA matches may be grouped in different ways. When I first tested, I got a bunch of matches at FTDNA. I didn’t know who any of them were. FTDNA had suggested some relationships which were mostly optimistic. Here is some of the progression of how I have sorted my matches:

  1. Sorted by projected relationship or match level (cMs)
  2. Sorted by actual relationship if known
  3. Sorted by Chromosome. This option is not available at AncestryDNA. One has to upload the AncestryDNA results to gedmatch for this option. This is when I discovered all my Chromosome 20 matches.
  4. Sorted by Triangulation Groups. By using a Tier 1 option at Gedmatch or by finding by hand all the matches that match each other at a particular segment, I was able to find many Triangulation Groups (TGs)
  5. Sorted by Maternal or Paternal. All our valid DNA matches should match on either the maternal or paternal side. Once I tested my mother, I was able to phase my results at gedmatch and find out whether I matched other testers on my mother’s side or my father’s side. This was a big breakthrough for me. This cut down a lot of frustrating searches. For example, there are a lot of people that match my mother that have Frazer or Fraser ancestors. My Frazer ancestors are on my father’s side. Therefor, I knew that when looking for Frazers, I could eliminate all my mother’s matches who had them as ancestors and not worry about them.
  6. Sorted by other known matches. I had my father’s 1st cousin tested. This got to the level of my great grandparents on my Hartley side. However, it didn’t tell me which great grandparent. My Hartley great grandparent was a relatively recent immigrant from England. My non-Hartley great grandparent had ancestors going back tot he Pilgrims in Massachusetts. I also had other relatives tested and found other matches that I knew I was related to.
  7. Another breakthrough happened after I had my 2 sisters tested. I used a method by Kathy Johnston to find out where you got all your DNA from your 4 grandparents by comparing your DNA results to 2 siblings. This method worked pretty well on most of my chromosomes. Now I knew where the DNA was coming from at my grandparent level for most of my matches. When I had a match, I could check my map to see which grandparent that match belonged to.

That is about where I left it at my last Blog on Chromosome 20. I looked at my crossover points for Chromosome 20. Here are my sisters compared to each other and to me:

Chr 20 Crossovers

Here is how I used the above comparison to map my grandparents that gave me my Chromosome 20 segments. The blank parts are half identical and ambiguous, so rather than guessing, I left them blank. For example, on Sharon’s row on the top, either the orange goes to the left and blue starts at the lower half or the opposite: the purple continues to the left and the green starts at the crossover line.

Chr 20 Final Segment

My chromosome 20 is on the bottom. At the time I wrote my previous Blog on Chromosome 20, I discovered that the vast majority of my matches were due to my Frazer side (green) and not my Hartley side (orange). This was a surprise as my Hartley grandfather had a mother with American Colonial roots. The final point of my previous blog on the subject was:

The fact that all these matches are on my Frazer line doesn’t necessarily mean that they are Frazer matches. They could be McMaster, Clarke, Spratt or any other known or unknown ancestor of my Frazer grandmother.

It’s great that I now know that most of my Chromsome 20 matches are Paternal and that they are on my Frazer grandmother’s line. But I am still curious as to where they are coming from. Can I find out more? I would like to try.

Chromosome 20: Beyond Grandparents

One advantage I have is that I am working on a Frazer DNA project with 27 testers. There are 2 lines of Frazers. I am on the Archibald Line and there is another line called the James Line. These 2 lines are somewhat distantly related as these 2 brothers were born in the early 1700’s. Here are the matches for the project on Chromosome 20:

Chr 20 Matches

All of these matches involve at least one James Line tester which I am not on. The 2 major matches between the Archibald Line and James line are between myself (JH) and my sister (SH) on the Archibald Line and Bonnie (BN) on the James Line. As I show below, even my McMaster Line has Frazers in it, which could be the source of that match. Sharon had very few Chromosome 20 matches compared to her siblings Heidi and myself. The 1,000 plus matches I had were before the 47 million mark where I match Bonnie above. My mega-matches mostly occur on Chromosome at 44,000,000 (End Location) or before. This tells me that my mega-matches are not of the Frazer surname. If they were, I would have seen some of my closer Archibald Line matches on Chromosome 20 from the Frazer DNA Project.

Enter cousin paul

Paul is my second cousin once removed who tested for DNA. His great grandparents are my 2nd great grandparents: George Frazer and Margaret McMaster.

George Frazer Tree

When I compare myself to Paul, I get to either the Frazer or McMaster Lines. This will eliminate the Clarke line of my great grandmother and her Spratt mother as they are not in Paul’s line – only mine.

My McMasters: It’s a Bit Complicated

Here is my McMaster Line going back from my Frazer grandmother.

McMaster Ancestry

Not only did 2 McMasters marry each other, one of them had a Frazer mother! Marion Frazer is my grandmother, so she is 2 generations from me. Margaret McMaster is at 4 generations. James and Fanny McMaster are at 5 generations to me. Their parents (the left-most McMasters above) are at 5 generations out from my cousin Paul and six generations from me. This is useful to know in the Generations Estimate I have below.

Here is where the Frazer/McMaster split is.

Frazer Buggy

George Frazer b. 1838 is on the left and Margaret McMaster b. 1846 is on the right. The photo was taken in Ballindoon, Ireland in front of the Frazer family home.

At, I compared Paul and myself at:

People who match one
or both of 2 kits

I chose most of those that matched both Paul and me. I left out an apparent duplicate and one who is anonymous for now. I also left out my 2 siblings. With those results, I chose the Traceability option and got this chart:

Generations Paul Joel

Those in red are in the Frazer DNA Project. We know their genealogy. Gladys descends from the couple above George Frazer and Margaret McMaster. Michael and Jane descend from one level above that. The circle above are those that are related to Paul and me, but not to others in the Frazer DNA Project. [One exception is Jane, but she matches at generation 7 which is about as far out as Gedmatch goes. This may or may not be a real match.] If those in the circle are not Frazer, then the apparent conclusion is that they are McMaster relatives.

Back to chromosome 20

See all the Chromosome 20 matches on my Gedmatch Traceability Report:

TG Chart Chr 20

Remember I said that my 1,000 plus matches on Chromosome 20 ended around 44M? This is what the above shows. It also shows a triangulation of matches. This triangulation is also implied by the cluster of matches within the circle of the Generations Estimate Chart above. The Chromosome 20 Triangulation Group (TG) includes:

  • Myself
  • *S. S.
  • Daphine
  • Feeney
  • Gladys

Now Gladys should not be in this list as she is in the Frazer DNA Project and has no known McMaster ancestors. In fact, when I run the ‘one to one’ at Gedmatch, she doesn’t match the others in the above list. There are glitches in the Traceability Report, so caution is needed. I will take out the last 3 names in the Generations Estimate to simplify the results. Unfortunately, that didn’t fix the problem, so I had to take out Gladys from the Frazer Project (sorry Gladys).

Gen Est Paul Joel

Now my presumed McMaster relatives are in the green circle. Here are the improved and simplified matches:

TG Chart Chr 20

I note now that the 2 ‘M’ kits (indicating 23andme testers) are now matching each other which is what I had expected previously. Note that I left my previous Traceability results in the blog as a warning that the Traceability utility is glitchy. Actually the new report is not indeed improved as now Michael from the Frazer project is matching my presumed non-Frazer McMasters. I took out Michael, and then Jane from the Frazer Project developed similar bogus matches with those she is not related to!

I’ll have to take out all the other Frazer Project people out for this Traceability to work. This was supposed to have worked so smoothly. Here below Joel and Paul should be the remaining McMaster relatives:

Joel Paul R3

Here is the Chromosome 20 TG. Note that Paul is not in it, but he matches others from the TG in other Chromosomes:

TG Chart Chr 20

This chart is only mostly right. Paul’s green match is actually on Chromosome 19 rather than 15:

Paul's Actual Match with Edge
Paul’s Actual Match with Edge

Here is the globe view of my proposed McMaster relative TG:

McMaster Globe

The colors in the lines correspond to the colors in the chart above. The light blue lines are the Chromosome 20 TG from my “big fat” area. The blue lines indicate a TG as they go from each of six people to the other 5. The gray lines represent multiple matches. I am at the bottom of the globe and my cousin Paul is to my right. He is not in the blue TG on Chromosome 20, but matches all my matches on other chromosomes at least once.

Conclusions and Further Research

From what I have shown above, I feel like I have found my McMaster relatives through DNA. However, these would have to be verified by genealogy. None of my proposed ‘McMasters’ have any gedcoms at gedmatch.

  • Daphine – she is on FTDNA but with no tree and no ancestors mentioned. An ICW search reveals 59 pages of matches – likely mostly on Chromosome 20.
  • Edge – He is at FTDNA. He has a limited tree. His paternal grandmother may be a lead. He has only 52 pages of in common matches at FTDNA
  • John – A search at 23andme showed nothing. Perhaps he is anonymous there.
  • Feeney – Same result – or perhaps these people are using different names?
  • *S.S – I see an S.S at Ancestry, but it is difficult to tell if it is the same person.

I have McMaster connections through DNA and genealogy at AncestryDNA, but there is no way to tell if the connection is on Chromosome 20 without a chromosome browser. My Mcmaster matches at AncestryDNA either don’t know how to upload their DNA to gedmatch, aren’t interested or haven’t gotten to it.

Opposition to TGs

Of late, on Facebook, there has been questioning as to the validity of  TGs – especially large TGs like I have at Chromosome 20. The thought is that no common ancestors will be found as there are just too many common ancestors in these large TGs. I have not explained the 100’s of matches in my Chromosome 20 TG, but I have shown 5 people that match both myself and my cousin Paul. These 5 by DNA do not have obvious Frazer ancestry and appear to be in my McMaster Line. So I suppose we have a stalemate. I cannot prove at this time (except to myself) that my Chromosome 20 TG matches are McMaster relatives and those who are not in favor of large TGs cannot prove that these matches are not McMaster relatives.








Mapping My DNA To My Four Grandparents

I was thinking of calling this Blog “Kathy Meet Kitty“. Kathy is Kathy Johnston who taught me how to map my ancestral segments by comparing my DNA to two of my siblings’ DNA results and determining our crossover points. The crossover points can then be used to map out which grandparent you got your DNA from without having to physically test those grandparents. This is quite convenient as all my grandparents have been gone for quite a while. Kitty is Kitty Munson who has developed a Chromosome Mapper here. I have not seen a blog using Kitty’s Chromosome Mapper to map ancestral DNA segments via Kathy Johnston’s method, so I thought that I would write one. Kathy’s method is posted here.

Two Types of Segments

There are two types of segments, thus at least two types of segment mapping. This concept is best explained at the Segmentology Blog in an article appropriately called, What is a Segment?

ancestral segments

That Segmentology article first mentions ancestral segments. These are the segments that Kathy Johnston knows how to map. I have written many blogs about mapping my ancestral segments using her method. Ancestral Segments are the segments that you actually get from your ancestors. They fill up all your DNA. Here is an example of the ancestral segments that I have mapped to my four grandparents.

Joel Segment Map

Look at Chromosomes 1, 5, 6 and 7 for starters. This shows all my DNA filled in. The 2 paternal grandparents are on the top half of the chromosomes in blue and grean and the maternal two grandparents are on the bottom in red and peach color. The DNA I received alternates between one grandparent and another and fills in all the area. In fact, that is the process of recombination and can be seen in the Ancestral Segment Maps.

shared segments

These are segments that you find at for example. These are our DNA matches. These matches may have a proposed relationship based on how much DNA you and your match share. Here is an example of some of my matches using Kitty’s Chromosome Mapper.

Chromosome map 4 Apr 2016

The best way to fill in a map like this is by testing as many relatives as possible. Now look at chromosome 1, 5, 6, and 7 on the shared segment map compared to the ancestral segment map above. The ancestral segment map on Chromosome 1, for example,  shows how much DNA I actually got from my Hartley grandfather. The blue in the Shared Segment Map shows how much I matched my father’s cousin. Next look at the maternal (bottom) part of Chromosome 1. Here the Rathfelder and Lentz matches on the right hand side are filled in on the Ancestral Segment Map. However, there is an additional section of Lentz on the left hand side of the Ancestral Segment Map where I don’t even have a match. I can tell I got my DNA there from my Lentz maternal grandmother. That is due to the crossover points I have and the fact that the DNA you get from your grandparents alternates between grandparent. On the maternal side, the alternation is between Rathfelder and Lentz.

If you find any inconsistencies between my Ancestral Segment Map and my Shared Segment Map, that means I messed up somehow.

More Ancestral Segment Mapping: Sister Heidi

In order to map my ancestral segments, I needed two siblings, so I used my two sisters, Heidi and Sharon. Here is Heidi’s ancestral DNA mapped out:

Heidi Segment Map

A few observations:

  • The areas of pale blue are where I had trouble figuring out how to map the ancestral segments, so nothing is mapped in these areas. I may have mapped out some of the segments, but then had difficulty telling whether they were maternal or paternal due to lack of known cousins that had tested. So I left these areas blank
  • The maternal areas shown as MG1 and MG2 – For these areas, I knew I had two maternal grandparents but I wasn’t sure which was which. Again based on lack of known cousins that had tested. I could perhaps guess, based on actual matches I had in these segments or where those matches were from, but I noted where the crossovers were and left these grandparents un-named.
  • These unknown grandparents are consistent within each chromosome and each sibling within each chromosome, but they are not consistent between chromosomes. So the unknown MG2 in Chromosome 8 may not be the same MG2 in Chromosome 11.
  • In my (Joel’s) Ancestral Segment Map, I don’t show any DNA on my paternal side for the X Chromosome. That is because males don’t get an X Chromosome from their father.
  • Heidi shows that she got her paternal X from her dad’s mom – a Frazer. Further, that chromosome did not appear to recombine. That means that she got that whole chunk from one of her great grandparents on the Frazer side.

How Do You Know What You Are Finding If You Don’t Know Where To Look?

These maps are very helpful in showing you where to look for DNA. Many people have matches that have ancestral names that are common to us but are not related. For example, my mother has matches with people that have Fraser or Frazer ancestors. I am related to Frazer on my father’s side. That means that I can forget about following up on maternal Frazer matches.

  • If I do want to look for Frazers, I need to look in my green areas (or my sister’s green areas) which is on her paternal side.
  • My sister Heidi is in an important Frazer Triangulation Group on her Chromosome 1 on the right hand side. She triangulates with others in a Frazer DNA Project I am working on. I am not in that group. Look at my Chromosome 1. It is nearly all covered by Hartley DNA. That explains why I don’t match these other Frazers at standard thresholds.
  • What if we were to want to look for Lentz ancestors of Heidi? We need to look at the red areas. Chromosomes 1, 6, 9. 14, 20, and 22 would be a good place to look. Fortunately, I also have Heidi’s matches on a spreadsheet. They are mostly divided by maternal and paternal matches. My mother has been tested for DNA. Based on that, I have Heidi’s phased maternal and paternal results and her matches to each of those results using

Finally Sharon

My sister Sharon completes the Ancestral Segment Mapping:

Sharon Segment Map

  • The autosomal DNA that is missing on Sharon’s Map is the same for her 2 siblings. This is because Kathy Johnson’s ancestral segment mapping technique compares the siblings to each other using the chromosome browser.
  • Sharon has a lot of Frazer DNA match potential at Chromosomes 1, 8-12, 15, and 22.
  • However, Sharon is also not in the Frazer Triangulation Group in Chromosome 1 on the right hand side. In that particular section, she got her DNA from her Hartley paternal side.
  • The above point shows why it is important to test siblings.
  • Heidi and Sharon both have a large match (50+ cM) with someone on their X Chromosome. This person also has autosomal matches with my sisters and others in the Frazer DNA project.

Summary and Observations:

  • Ancestral Segment Mapping can be useful in determining which grandparent your matches match.
  • I know already whether my matches are on my maternal or paternal side. However, this goes back one more generation and further sorts my matches to grandparents. This cuts down the guessing by another half.
  • The maps also point out the areas where you can’t be as sure as to which grandparent your matches match as those areas are not mapped yet.
  • Ancestral Segments should line up with Triangulation Groups
  • Ancestral Segment Mapping can show matches that are Identical by Chance (IBC) or false matches.


Summary of Frazer Triangulation Groups

Here I will attempt to summarize the Frazer Triangulation Groups (TGs). Not all the Frazer TGs in the World. I will be looking at just the Frazer TGs from this Project.

How to Organize TGs?

In organizing the TGs for this Project, I have a lot of options:

  • In the order they were found
  • In the order of chromosomes
  • By family
  • By level of relationship

And the answer is: by level of relationship. This perhaps isn’t as intuitive as by family. I would like to look at the closer relationships first and then those that are not as close. The reason I would like to do this is that the closer relationships are the most certain ones and the TGs representing the further out relationships would be the less certain. It is generally a good idea to go from the known to the unknown (or certain to less certain).

Unfortunately, I started out looking at level of relationship, but it seems too disjointed. I’ll organize this blog by order of chromosomes, but consider the relationship levels as I go.

Frazer DNA Project Participants

At a certain point, TGs are not needed. For example, I form a TG with my 2 siblings. The common ancestors are my 2 parents. Now if my parents were unknown, the TG would be more useful. Perhaps a look at the relationships that we have in the project would be useful. First, who is in the project? The core of the project are those that have built out Frazer genealogies and are related by genealogy and DNA. A second group is related by DNA and have a Frazer ancestor from the area of North Roscommon, Ireland, but can’t really place that ancestor. The third group is related by DNA but don’t even know of a Frazer ancestor or perhaps even an Irish ancestor.

We have:

  • 27 Testers – These are split into the 2 Frazer Lines of 14 Archibald Line testers and 13 James Line testers
  • 9 of the Archibald Line Testers have multiple Frazer ancestors

Frazer Chromosomes By the Number

Chromosome 1 – The Triangulation Super Group

I call this a super group for a few reasons. It was the first one found. It was very easy to find due to the large matches that made it seem obvious.

TG 1A: Violet frazer b. 1803 tg – Third Cousin level

This TG is thought to represent Violet Frazer who was married to James Frazer. I’ve guessed that the TG was specifically for Violet as she is the daughter of Richard Frazer and this TG is also in the middle of a Richard Frazer TG. She is my third great grandmother.

Violet TG

Here my sister Heidi (HHM), my second cousin Paul, once removed Paul (PF), Bill and his Aunt Gladys are in a TG. We all descend from Violet Frazer as well as James Frazer her husband. Each of these 4 people are related to the other three in overlapping areas of Chromosome 1. That is what makes up the TG.

TG 1B: The richard frazer tg on chromosome 1 (4th Cousins)

Here I have widened the net a bit to include others that are out at about the 4th cousin level with a common ancestor of Richard Frazer born about 1777:

TG 1 Richard

Note at the bottom, I added Bill, Gladys and Pat. These last 2 entries are not part of the TG. At this point, it is likely that other factors took over. One possibility is that this could represent the Price DNA that Bill, Gladys and Pat share. Note that the TG stops at 230.2 and the possible Price DNA starts at about 230.7. This is what is called a crossover point. If Michael or Jane were mapping their DNA, they could map a fairly large slice to Richard Frazer on this Chromosome.

TG 1C: the third TG at chromosome 1 – out to the mid 1700’s

There is yet another TG on Chromosome 1. This one is out to Archibald Frazer b. 1743 and his wife Mary Lilley. Now we have a solid chain of evidence. I have mapped my sister Heidi’s DNA to our grandmother Marion Frazer, b. 1894. We know Paul and our family have a common ancestor of George Frazer b. about 1838. We have a Triangulation Group identified for Violet Frazer b. 1803. We have a TG for Richard Frazer, her father. Then we go one step further out.


In this old TG, we have Jane (US), Vivien (AUS) and Michael (UK).

Jane Michael Vivien TG

I find this quite interesting. A few points:

  • How do I know that Jane, Michael and Vivien are matching as shown and not as part of the Frazer/Stinson Line on the right? This is because Jane is in the Richard Frazer TG as well as this TG. She is the bridge between the two TGs.
  • This shows that Michael, Jane and Vivien could have matched as 4th cousins (and probably do on the Frazer/Stinson Line) But on Chromosome 1, they are matching here as 5th cousins. This gets to the Frazer endogamy discussed in my recent Blog.
  • Note that Vivien’s 5th cousin matches with Jane and Michael above are smaller, indicating a more distant relationship. This does not always hold true as also note that there are small matches with Gladys and her family representing a 3rd cousin level relationship. A smaller match at a closer relationship can be due to the DNA crossovers that I mentioned earlier.
  • I mentioned that there is a sort of chain of custody going back to Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilley. Now that we know that, there is also a chain of Frazers going from top to bottom. That means that because we know the same DNA came down, that the middle TG represents Richard Frazer and not his unknown wife. Likelwise, the newer TG represents Violet Frazer, daughter of Richard and not James Frazer who was Violet’s husband.

Chromosome 4 – Two TGs



Here is a problem. There are really two TGs here. One is for Bill, Gladys and Pat. The second has Jane, Gladys and Bill. Then there are Ros and Vivien who don’t appear to fit in the TG. The first larger TG is easy. That is just for the common ancestor of Gladys, Bill and Pat who is George Frazer b. 1858. The second one is more difficult. This is because Jane, Bill, Gladys and Pat all are believed to descend from the same two lines. Now note that Ros and Vivien have a small match to each other. Let’s assume that is a valid match even though it is quite small. If that is the case, then this TG 4A would have to be on the Richard Line and not the Frazer/Stinson Line. However, due to TG 4B, this could also be a Frazer/Stinson TG.

TG 4B – The Frazer/Stinson line

TG 4B is easier to figure out.


I have noted before that Doug (DV) has very few matches but he has made them count by being in a Triangulation Group. Also note that Michael (MFA) and Jane should be 4th cousins, not 4C, 1R as I show above. Here is how their  Chromosome 4 TG looks on our genealogy chart:

Frazer Stinson Line

TG 7 – Does This Represent the First Frazer in Ireland – Born Around 1690?

I mentioned this TG last month in a blog called A New Frazer TG and a New Gedmatch Tool. This is the only known TG with someone from the James Line and the only known TG between the James Line and the Archibald Line.

TG 7

Janet is from the James Line. Michael and Vivien are from the Archibald Line. I need to pull out the big chart for this one. Note that Michael descends from 2 Frazer Lines, so he is included twice.

Whole Frazer TG

Here is how the TG matches look on the Frazer DNA relationship chart:

A-J TG on Rel Chart

  • The blue matches are the 2 places where Michael could match Janet and Vivien. He only matches once, but we can’t tell which.
  • The match between Janet and Vivien is in red as they only had one known chance to match by DNA.
  • The area within the square are the matches between the Archibald and James Line of Frazers. In that box there are 13 James Line people related to 26 Archibald Line People. That is a potential of 338 matches. There were actually only 2 matches in our TG. That represents about 0.6% of the possible matches between the Archibald and James Lines.
  • The matches to the left of that box are Archibald line matches. The 2 blue matches in that area are the 2 places where Michael and Vivien could match each other.
  • The matches below the box are James Line only matches.
  • Michael and Vivien would be related to Janet by 6th cousin once removed under this scenario.
  • There is also a possibility that they could be just 6th cousins. This is because the box in the top left representing an additional Archibald on the genealogy chart was added to try to make better sense of dates. However, if that person does not belong there, the relationships will be slightly closer. This would result in the whole left side (Archibald Line) moving up a step with respect to the right side (James Line).
  • Another option is that these three may be triangulating on a collateral Line. That is, a line that married into the Frazers. However, as we are all descended from the Frazer line, I would tend to go with the Frazer option first.

TG 8 – A Double TG

Here is another case where we have a chain of custody so to speak. We will start with the newer TG, which in fact is not that new.

TG 8a with Bill, gladys and vivien


Here are the three in this TG on the Archibald/Stinson Chart:

TG 8A Chart

That was the easy one. TG 8B is a little more difficult to see.

TG 8B – Archibald frazer and mary lilley


Here I zoom out a bit on my previous chart. That previous chart is just the right hand side of the chart below.

TG 8B Chart

Look at all the chances to match by DNA. My guess here is that Paul is matching Bill from the left hand blue line where to the right hand yellow line. The reason I think that is:

  • The earlier TG that Paul was not in was through the Frazer/Stinson Line on the right.
  • Michael and Jane are not matching with Vivien. Michael and Jane are not in Paul’s blue line on the left.

Confusing? Yes.

Chromosome 12 TG – Back To the Richard Frazer Line

Here is a double TG also. TG 12A would have as common ancestors James Frazer and Violet Frazer b. in the early 1800’s. TG 12B is Richard Frazer b. about 1777 who was the father of Violet Frazer. So that means that TG 12A should only include Violet Frazer.

TG 12

  • TG 12A has Joel, Heidi, Sharon, Bill and Gladys
  • TG 12B has the above plus Jane and David (DF) from Canada.
  • Cathy, Ros and Vivien  have DNA in the same areas of Chromosome 12, but don’t match the others in this Richard Frazer TG. Their DNA is perhaps from another Frazer line or a collateral line (perhaps a spouse of one of the Frazers).

TG 12 Chart

TG 18: Back to the Archibald/Stinson Line

Chr 18 TG

Frazer Parker TG

That’s last TG that I see for now. This could be a Parker TG as we have no proof that it is specifically a Frazer TG. If there was another TG on Chromosome 18 to the Frazer/Stinson Line, that would prove that the TG above would have to be a Frazer TG.

Summary by the Numbers

TG Summary by Chromosome

This chart shows the TGs by Chromosome. GBP means Generations before Present. I used the people in blue for this number as they were a little closer to the common ancestors than the others. The cousin level used was also for the people in blue. For example, I am 2nd cousin once removed with my cousin Paul, because I am one generation further away from Violet Frazer than he is.

  • This chart above shows 11 TGs
  • This represents 7 groups of TGs as there are 2 purple groups (TG01 and TG12) and one green group (TG08) with overlapping TGs.
  • The chart shows that 14 people from the project are in TGs 45 times.
  • As expected, the people in blue are usually in TGs more than the ones that aren’t. Bill was an exception to that rule.
  • The people that have more than one Frazer ancestor are more likely to be in the TGs. Vivien was an exception to that rule.
  • The first purple group contains 3 overlapping TGs. As these TGs go back to an early Frazer, we expect that the middle TG is for Richard Frazer and not his unknown wife. Likewise, the later TG is for Violet Frazer, Richard’s daughter and not for James Frazer, Violet’s husband.
  • TG04A is not colored in, because I can’t tell which line the TG is for. In addition, I can’t tell if the TG is for a Frazer or the spouse.
  • TG04B, I can tell that the TG is for the Frazer/Stinson Line, but I can’t tell if the TG is for the Frazer or Stinson Line.
  • TG08A I can tell that the TG is for Archibald Frazer b. about 1778 and not his wife, because there is an overlapping TG for Archibald Frazer’s parents
  • TG18 I don’t have colored in, because I can’t tell if the TG is for Archibald Frazer or his wife Catherine Parker.

Here is the same chart sorted from newer TG to older TG:

TG Summary by Age

This basically shows that most of the TGs that have been found for this Project are at about 5 generations before present or at the 3rd cousin level.

Things Learned About TGs

  • A critical mass of testers is needed to form a TG.
  • TGs are formed more easily when people have more than one Frazer in their ancestry
  • For overlapping Frazer TGs we can tell that the newer Frazer TGs have to be for Frazers also and not the spouses’ lines.
  • An Archibald Line/James Line TG seemed improbable due to the distance of relationship of the matches. However, that seems to have been overcome by the sheer mass of potential matches (338).











More Fun Counting Frazer Relationships

Two blogs ago, I started looking at how many Frazer relationships there were. I looked at some of the cousin marriages and how that might effect the number of relationships. I proposed this formula to count the number of relationships

Number of testers minus one plus extra relationships due to intermarriage

I discussed the definition of a relationship and how it can be based on a common ancestor. Based on that, the formula could be:

Number of testers minus one plus extra common ancestors due to intermarriage

In the Frazer DNA project, there are 27 testers.

Number of Additional Relationships

The first tester I looked at had 38 relatives and I enumerated each of those relationships. I also checked that number by the formula and was able to find 2 mistakes that I had made. Above, I reasoned that the second tester would have one less relationship as her relationship to the previous tester would already be listed. Going down the line I used the same reasoning for each of the 27 testers. I added the testers and got 675 relationships. I then checked to see how many relationships there would be if there were no additional common ancestors/relationships. I found out that due to the cousin marriages in the first decade of the 1800’s there were 324 extra relationships in the project.

any questions?

I felt a little uncomfortable using that number after just trying it out on one person. For one reason, the person I used had no known extra Frazer ancestors. I thought that I had better try this on Bill, one of our testers. He along with others in his family have 2 extra Frazer ancestors. I was worried that I might be counting too many or too few. For example, am I counting Bill being related to himself? Should I be? Or if Bill descends from 3 Frazer Lines, then should I be counting each version of Bill as he descends from those lines and relates to everyone else? This would be something like taking all the testers (27) subtracting one and then multiplying by 3 to get the ways that Bill relates to all of them? 26 time 3 is 78. This is quite a bit more than the 38 I came up with in my previous blog. But then I would think that Bill should not be counting his closer relative 3 times.

Let’s field test bill

Here is the simplified chart I am using to check Bill’s relationships:

Frazer chart

I say ‘simplified’ because Bill is actually in the first blue column with me but he isn’t shown. In addition, my cousin Paul isn’t shown there.  Bill’s cousin and aunt aren’t shown. Paul and my family aren’t shown on the first yellow long to save space. Two of Ros’ cousins aren’t shown on the purple line. Michael’s 2nd salmon line was abbreviated but actually continues down to him. The group that isn’t colored in is the James Line. In the Archibald Line on the left, I needed the color coding to keep the cousin marriages sorted out. If this was drawn true to life, the colored area would be a lot more built out.

Ground rules
  • I won’t count Bill’s relatedness to himself as that seems weird. This mimics DNA testing also as you don’t find matches of yourself to yourself.
  • I’ll try not to count duplicate relationships that shouldn’t be counted
  • I will count each of the 3 versions of Bill as he is descended from Philip, Richard and Archibald Frazer and how he is related to everyone else in the project.
  • I’ll look for a formula to keep everything straight – and save time for future counting.

I have a feeling that I’ll be close to my 78 number above.

Bill from Blue Line (PHilip)
  1. Bill to Patricia – 2C
  2. To Gladys – Aunt
  3. To Paul – 3C, 1R
  4. Joel – 4C
  5. Sharon – 4C
  6. Heidi – 4C
  7. Jane – 5C, 1R
  8. From Richard: Patricia – 6C
  9. Gladys – 5C, 1R
  10. Paul – 5C, 1R
  11. Joel – 6C
  12. Sharon – 6C
  13. Heidi – 6C
  14. Michael – 5C, 1R
  15. From Archibald: Ros – 6C
  16. Jean – 6C
  17. Vivien – 5C, 1R
  18. Cathy – 5C, 1R
  19. Jane – 5C, 1R
  20. Michael – 5C, 1R
  21. Doug – 6C
  22. Patricia – 6C
  23. Gladys – 5C, 1R
  24. Carol – 8C
  25. Clyde – 7C, 1R
  26. Kathy – 7C, 1R
  27. Charlotte – 6C, 2R
  28. Mary – 7C, 1R
  29. Betty – 6C, 2R
  30. Joanna – 6C, 2R
  31. Jonathan – 6C, 2R
  32. Janet – 6C, 2R
  33. Prudence – 6C, 2R
  34. Beverly – 6C, 2R
  35. Bonnie – 6C, 2R
  36. Judith- 6C, 2R

So there, I’m up to the 38 minus the 2 times I didn’t have Bill related to himself.

Bill from first Yellow line (Richard)

Now I have to make sure I don’t repeat any relationships. I’m tempted to call this 36 times 3 and call it quits. However, when I get to those within the yellow line (Patricia, Gladys, Paul, Heidi, Joel and Sharon) I think I need to skip them as the descent from James and Violet Frazer is pretty much the same as from Violet and James Frazer.

  1. From Philip: Gladys – 5C, 1R
  2. Carol – 8C
  3. Paul – 5C, 1R
  4. Joel – 6C
  5. Sharon – 6C
  6. Heidi – 6C
  7. From Richard: Jane –  Now closer at 4C, 1R
  8. Michael –  Now closer at 4C, 1R
  9. From Archibald: Ros – 6C
  10. Jean – 6C
  11. Vivien – 5C, 1R
  12. Cathy – 5C, 1R
  13. Jane – 5C, 1R
  14. Michael – 5C, 1R
  15. Doug – 6C
  16. Patricia – 6C
  17. Gladys – 5C, 1R
  18. Carol – 8C
  19. Clyde – 7C, 1R
  20. Kathy – 7C, 1R
  21. Charlotte – 6C, 2R
  22. Mary – 7C, 1R
  23. Betty – 6C, 2R
  24. Joanna – 6C, 2R
  25. Jonathan – 6C, 2R
  26. Janet – 6C, 2R
  27. Prudence – 6C, 2R
  28. Beverly – 6C, 2R
  29. Bonnie – 6C, 2R
  30. Judith

I think I did that right. The difference was we didn’t count the James and Violet descendants again.

Let’s Try Something Different

Rather than go one by one I decided to look at all the relationships in a grid. Gedmatch uses grids for some of their comparisons, and it seems like a good idea. My first version of this blog disappeared, so I’ll spare you from some of the previous mistakes I made.

Relationship Grid Revised

In the above grid, I finished the descendants of Philip and started with the descendants of Richard in yellow on the left. I decided not to repeat the relationships between Bill’s family and mine here. That is because they are the same relationships and are from the same common ancestors of James Frazer and Violet Frazer that had already been counted from the blue section.

The last column is the sum of the relationships in a row.

Archibald Rel Grid

Above is the start of the (green) descendants of Archibald. I only colored the areas where there were multiple descendants. Here I don’t include Bill’s 2nd cousin and Aunt as they were included previously with the same common ancestors – even though those common ancestors descended from different lines. However, I did include an extra relationship between Bill and Jane and Michael. Even though the relationship of 4th cousin once removed is the same as before, this time they have different common ancestors (Frazer/Stinson vs. Richard Frazer). I had mentioned that relationships are defined by the common ancestors, so I am trying to keep that definition consistently used.

And the Answer Is: 704

Somehow, I got the number of relationships up to 704 from 27 testers. Here’s the handy-dandy 704 relationship grid that no Frazer Project tester should be without:

704 Relationship Grid

Poor Judith at the bottom has zero relationships. Not really. Her Project number is 39, so her relationships can be read from the top right. This grid is a little bulky, so I decided to take out Jean from the Archibald Line and Carol and Kathy from the James Line. They have all had their mothers tested. So technically, their own results would not be as useful as their mother’s. Here is what the grid looks without them.

Grid wo 3

It doesn’t look much different, but it gets the number of relationships down to 593. [The correct total is in the next grid.] With the 3 taken out, that makes 13 Archibald Line testers and 11 James Line testers for a total of 24. If there were no additional relationships due to intermarrying with this number of testers, that would result in 276 relationships. So the early 1800’s Frazer marriages resulted in about 320 extra relationships in our project.

Grid wo 3

Here I have colored in the matches between the Archibald Line and the James Line (inter-line matches). Some observations:

  • The shaded area is 11 by 25. That means that there are 275 ways for Archibald Line and the James Line testers to match each other.
  • If our genealogy is right, the relationships between Archibald Line and James line is between 6th cousin, once removed and 7th cousin once removed.
  • The triangle to the left of the shaded area represents matches between Archibald Line testers and other Archibald Line testers. The triangle beneath the shaded area represents matches between James Line testers to other James Line testers.
  • The relationships favor the Archibald Line (larger triangle) which helps to explain the number of Triangulation Groups as well as overall matches as compared to the James Line.
  • The James Line has 55 relationships counted (for matches just with other James Line testers).
  • The Archibald Line has 263 relationships just among the Archibald Line. That’s about 5 times the potential relationships compared to the James Line
  • I know that I have one other Frazer ancestor line, but I can’t place it. Is this all the extra Frazer Lines that are out there, or are there many more?
  • The James Line relationship triangle is all filled in. This is due to no known cousin marriages there.
  • The Archibald Line relationship triangle has people in it more than once and blank areas where I tried not to count duplicate relationships or one’s relationship to oneself.
  • These relationship levels are based on genealogy which has not always been proven. However, the number of relationships should still be the same.
  • It would be interesting to tabulate the numbers of different relationships per Line, tester, etc. This may also help to explain the matches that we have.
  • There doesn’t appear to be a simple formula that could get us to this 704 number of relationship matches. My previous formula was an OK estimate.
  • I haven’t verified every relationship.
Test driving the grid

Grid Test Drive

Here is where the rubber hits the road. I want to see if the grid works.

  • How many matches do I have? I add up my 2 horizontal Joel Lines for 30 and 22. Then I add up my vertical lines (#5 and 12). Those columns have 4 and 6 matches. That gives me a total of 62 relationship matches.
  • How many times do I match Bill? I have highlighted 5 relationships. Logically one might think there would be 6, but I eliminated the extra relationship we had under James and Violet Frazer. That is where more of the dashes are. What are the 5 relationships I have with Bill? The first is 4th cousin (represented by the aforementioned James and Violet). The second is Bill’s descent from Philip related to my descent from Richard. The third is my descent from Philip to Bill’s descent from Richard. Note that both these last 2 relationships also had to go through James and Violet. So why did I add them? I look at it this way. Do your parents have common ancestors? Mine don’t that I know of. So I descend from them once. James and Violet had common ancestors, so that is why I am adding those common ancestors as my common ancestors resulting in an extra relationship. Finally my descent from Philip and my descent from Richard connects to Bill’s descent from Archibald to form the last 2 relationships. If I’m wrong, you can sue me for breach of relationship.
Well, I may be wrong: more on endogamy

In my previous blog, I wrote more on endogamy and relationships. Let’s take Bill and me for example. Bill and I are 4th cousins on the face of it. We are also 6th cousins. The below figure shows 6 of our 6th cousin relationships. Remember cousins are defined by the number of common ancestors they share. Here we share the same common ancestors 6 times. It looks like 5 times, but it there are 6 combinations or relationships between Bill and me: B1-J1, B1-J2, B2-J1, B2-J2, B3-J1, B3-J2.

Bill Joel 6C

Here is Bill and me with our 4th cousin relationships.

Bill Joel 4C

I tried to point my line to James in the first match and Violet in the second match. These are not endogamous relationships but there are 2 non-endogamous 4th cousin relationships that we have through common ancestors. It may seem like these were counted in the previous example, but they weren’t. That chart was counting 6th cousin relationships with the common ancestor of Archibald and Mary Lilley.

As a result, it looks like I am related to Bill 8 times, not the 5 I mentioned above. Unfortunately, my relationships chart above, only has room for 6 relationships. Rather than revise my chart, I think I’ll just bump Bill and my relationships up to 6 from 5. I’ll make that 2 – 4th cousins and 4 – 6th cousins.

taking it one step further

Now what about my cousin Paul and I? We are 2nd cousins once removed. We both have as a common ancestor George Frazer b. about 1838. He is in the blue line and the first yellow line. Am I related to him once or twice? According to the Segmentology blog, it appears that it should only be once. Here is a screen shot from the Segmentology Endogamy I Blog, that I didn’t cover in my previous Blog:

No Endog

And here is my ancestry showing that George Frazer appears in my ancestry only once:

JA Frazer Ancestors

The colored charts I had above made it confusing as it looked like George was in my ancestry twice, but that was because I had him coming down from two lines. Those lines actually merge into [one] George William Frazer as shown above. The bottom line is that I should only be counting my relationship with Paul once. This would also apply to Bill, his Aunt Gladys and his cousin Pat.

So all that work and I only added 3 relationships. There are other relationships out there, but I guess we only count them for the purposes of endogamy and extra DNA matches.

Final? Count of 707

I’ll stick to this chart for now.

Final Relationship Chart







More On Frazer Endogamy

I had written a blog quite a while back (July 2015) on Frazer Endogamy. In the Archibald Line of the Frazer DNA Project at least, there were some Frazer ancestor cousins that married. This creates more DNA for the project and more confusion in figuring out what DNA came from which ancestor. Since my earlier blog, Jim Bartlett has written two interesting blogs on Endogamy at his Segmentology Blog site.

I actually started out trying to write a blog on Frazer Triangulation Groups.

As a part of writing about Triangulation, I tried counting all the Frazer relationships. This was not as easy as I thought.

Then I saw that I needed to understand endogamy better before I could look at either Triangulation Groups or Frazer relationships. In this Blog, I’ll go through the Segmentolgy Blog from December 2015 called Endogamy: Part I. I will insert Frazer examples in place of the theoretical examples used.

Here’s a simplified view of the Archibald Line:

Archibald Line for Endogamy

For example, it doesn’t show that George Frazer, my second great grandfather in the middle blue box is the brother of Richard Frazer in the first middle yellow box. Here are the Archibald Line testers from the Frazer DNA Project. Jean is the daughter of Vivien, so isn’t included here:

ALine Testers

The testers in the colored groups are in more than one line so they appear more than one time. That’s the endogamy part. Here is the Segmentology Blog’s Figure 1:

Seg Fig 1

This shows the case with no endogamy.  The chart has a lot of information on it. It shows how much DNA one gets from one parent (half). It shows how much DNA siblings share (half).  In every generation, the theoretical amount that is shared by you and your match is 1/4 of the previous generation.  In the Frazer project, a lot of our matches are in the 4th cousin or 5th cousin level. Between these two levels of matches, the level of average match goes from 13.75 cM to 3.438 cM. As many of you know, 7 cM is a normal threshold for establishing matches. Fortunately, these are averages and we do have matches at the 5th cousin level in many cases.  I won’t be using Columns 6-8 in my example.

Frazer Endogamy by the Numbers

Frazer E1 example – no endogamy

For this example, we will have to choose a match between Ros, Vivien, Cathy or Doug as the other testers descend from multiple Frazer Lines. I’ll pick Ros and Cathy. I have that they are 3rd cousins, once removed. Here is how they actually match:

Ros Cathy Match

Their common ancestor (Anc) is Archibald Frazer and Catherine Parker. I have to pick an ancestor for the example, so I’ll pick Catherine Parker.

Frazer E1

I tried to make this chart look like Jim Bartletts, but added in actual ancestors on Ros and Cathy’s sides. This says that their assumed ancestor Catherine Parker passed down 220 cM of DNA to Ros and 440 cM to Cathy. However, the amount that we share with a match is much less than the total DNA that we inherit. Ros and Cathy share halfway between theoretical 55 cM and 14 cM shown in the chart above. Halfway is about 34 cM which is pretty close to what gedmatch showed for an actual match between the two at 31.4 cM. Gedmatch thought that Ros and Cathy should be 4.4 generations to a common ancestor. They are actually a tiny bit further out at 4.5 generations.

Frazer E2 example – Two ancestors (a little endogamy) [e2]

Again I’m borrowing Jim Bartlett’s Segmentology Blog wording and adapting it for the Frazer Program. Here is Jim’s Figure 2 from his Endogamy Blog:

Jim's E2

Here he added an extra column and a splash of color. The example here has one person with a double descent from an ancestor matching or being related to another person. This happened when two second cousin married and had children. It is important to know that the A1, A2 on ‘your’ side and A on the match side above are all the same ancestor being matched. Here the same DNA gets passed down to all the children, but the amount that gets passed down to the children of parents that are related to each other is doubled. This has the net result of doubling the expected match also. The yellow represents second cousins that married. In our example, we will use 1st cousins.

For the Match Column on the right, we will need to pick from those who don’t have multiple Frazer ancestors. Let’s try Cathy with one Frazer ancestor and Michael with 2 Frazer ancestors.

MFA CR Match

Here Cathy and Michael share 16.7 cM on Chromosome 15. Their Most Recent Common Ancestors (MRCAs) are as shown. This is where it can get a little confusing. (I sure was.) They only share those ancestors in a non-endogamous way – that is, in the E1 example above. To get to the endogamous situation, we have to back another generation. Michael’s ancestors, John and Isabella Frazer married. They were 1st cousins, so their common ancestors were their grandparents. Those grandparents were Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilley. Here is what I get:

E2 Figure

When Isabella was born in 1841, she got a double dose of Frazer DNA from her parents. This is shown in the net column.

Michael and cathy are non-endogamous Fourth cousins and endogamous Fifth Cousins

Note that there are 2 different things going on here. First, Michael and Cathy are related as fourth cousins through Archibald Frazer b. about 1778 and Ann Stinson. This is not endogamous as neither of those ancestors appear multiple times in Michael’s ancestry. However, because this relationship is closer at 4th cousin, the expected match would be around 14 cM as per figure 1. Here, the further out endogamous relationship only results in a suspected match of about 7 cM which is right about at the level one would even start seeing a match. If not for endogamy, this match would only be half that amount. So which match are we seeing? I would expect that it would be the closer 4th cousin match.

Here is a representation of the issue:

E2 FigureR

The left red line actually goes through the Richard Frazer box on the second row. The middle red line goes through the Archibald in the uncolored box in the second row on the right. This shows how Michael and Cathy are 4th cousins once, but 5th cousins twice by endogamy. What happened here is that the endogamy boosted the 5th cousin theoretical shared amount by 2.  In summary Michael and Cathy’s theoretical average matches would be expected to be:

  • 4th Cousin [E1] – 14 cM
  • 5th Cousin [E2] – 7 cM
Frazer E2 example (second try) – Two ancestors (a little endogamy) [e2]

While out on a training run, I came up with a better idea. I’ll take my cousin Paul, who doesn’t descend from the same group on the right and match him with a non-endogamous Frazer tester. That will be much clearer. Here is Paul from the Philip and Richard Lines and Vivien from the Archibald/Stinson Line.

Paul Vivien Match

They are both 5 generations from Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilley. Gedmatch shows them at 4.9 generations. The chart looks the same:

Endog 2nd try

The path of the relationships is clearer:

Paul Vivien Chart

Perhaps, were it not for endogamy, Paul and Vivien would not have matched by DNA at all. Here there theoretical match would be about 7 cM (vs. about 3.5 cM without endogamy). Their actual match was 15 cM.

Three Frazer ancestors (a little more endogamy) [e3]

Here, we will take Gladys who descends from 3 Frazer Lines and compare her with Cathy. Again, we will have the issue where Gladys and Cathy will be 4th and 5th cousins. Let’s just look at the 5th cousins as that is where the endogamy is. Gladys and Cathy match like this:

Gladys Cathy Match R

Gedmatch has them at a little better than 4th cousins.

Here is our Segmentology Example:

Segment Fig 3

The above chart represents 2 cousin marriages shown in yellow. Second cousins marry in Gen 3 and then their child marries another cousin in Gen 4. This is sort of what happened in Gladys’ ancestry. She had first cousins James and Violet Frazer (also my ancestors) marry. Then their son Richard married Amelia Hassard who was the daughter of Ann Frazer. Ann Frazer was another first cousin of James and Violet Frazer. So Richard Frazer married his 2nd cousin. However, due to Richard’s parents being cousins, Amelia was his second cousin twice – or two different ways.

Here’s our Frazer E3 Example:

E3 Chart

I still have chosen the common ancestor as Mary Lilley (though it could be Archibald Frazer). I don’t have Gladys’ ancestors by name as there are 3 sets of ancestors there. The end result is that Gladys and Cathy should share a total of 10.3 cM through this 5th cousin endogamous relationship. Normally 6th cousins would share 1/3 this amount.

Where did the matching dna come from?

E3 Frazer Chart

There are 3 chances to make it to a total of 10.3 cM in the endogamous red line 5th cousin relationships. That means a possible 3 different segments of about 3.5 cM each. There is only one chance that Gladys could match Cathy at 4th cousin for a 14 cM likely match. As Gladys and Cathy match on one segment, I think that the match may be from the 4th cousin relationship shown by the blue lines above. That non-endogamous relationship should average a match of about 14 cM. Gladys and Cathy had an actual match of about 15 cM.

Two frazer ancestors X 2 (more endogamy) [e4]

segment e4

What has happened here? We see a situation where one person has ancestors that were 2nd cousins matches another person who has ancestors that were 3rd cousins. Looking at the 3rd row, those ancestors were A1 through A4. The catch is that A1, A2, A3 and A4 are all the same ancestor. I’m sure we have a similar situation in our Frazer DNA Project. One example of that would be Paul matching Michael. Here is how they match:

Paul Michael Match

E4 Chart

According to Gedmatch, Paul and Michael look like 3rd cousins based on the level that they matched by DNA. Based on our genealogy charts, they are 4th or 5th cousins. Above I show the E4 Endogamy situation. That is, Paul with Archibald (top box) as his ancestor twice is related to Michael (who has red lines going twice to Archibald in the top box also). Those all represent 5th cousins. In addition Paul and Michael are 4th cousins going up to Richard Frazer. I don’t show that as it would get too messy.

E4 Chart

Actually, the 5th cousin relationship doesn’t explain the large match. The 5th cousin E4 only results in 14 cM. Paul and Michael are also 4th cousins also, but it is not an endogamous match. The best I understand this is that Paul and Michael should share:

  • 14 cM due to a non-endogamous 4th cousin relationships with Richard Frazer as Common Ancestor
  • A total of 14 cM due to an E4 engamous relationshipe with Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilley as common ancestors.

To show that Paul and Michael are not a fluke, here are some other matches:

Chr 1 4C matches

These are all project member in a Triangulation Group with E4 Endogamy and 4th cousin or 4th cousin, once removed relationships. As Michael (MFA), Jane, Paul (PF) and my sister Heidi (HHM) all have similar match numbers and are all in a Triangulation group, we can assume similar endogamy and ancestors for each. In fact, Jane was added to this group early on in the Frazer DNA Project due to the Triangulation.

Let’s move on to the next level of endogamy, to see if that makes more sense.

Three frazer ancestors; Two Frazer Ancestors(more endogamy) [e6]

Again, I borrow the figure from the Segmentology Endogamy Part I Blog:

Fig 5 E6

Fortunately, the Frazers also have this situation. We can use Gladys on the left hand side. One the right we have the choice of Michael or Paul. I’d rather use Michael, as Gladys and Paul are related in additional ways that might make the example more confusing.

E6 Frazer Diagram Gladys Michael

The above chart shows 6 endgamous 5th cousin relationships between Gladys and Michael. There are also two 4th cousin non-endogamous relationships between the two (represented below). One has Richard Frazer as the common ancestor. The other has Archibald Frazer and Ann Stinson as common ancestors.

E6 Frazer Diagram

I enter Gladys and Michael in at Gedmatch at get:

Gladys Michael Gedmatch

Now that is a surprise. An E4 at 5th cousin got an actual match of 54. This E6, 5C match got only 7.4 cM?

E6 Frazer Chart

In summary, Gladys and Michael have:

  • 6 – 5th cousin relationships for a theoretical total of 20.6 cM
  • 2 – 4th cousin relationships of about 14 cM each

To satisfy my curiosity, I ran Gladys and Michael at a low threshold of 3 cM and got many matches at

Gladys Michael Low Threshold

I expect the matches above 6 may be valid. The Chromosome 1 match is in a defined Triangulation Group (TG) with the common ancestor of Richard Frazer. The Chromosome 7 match is in an area where there is already a match with Vivien of our project. She has as her ancestor Archibald Frazer and Ann Stinson. So the Chromosome 7 match above likely represents those common ancestors. The Chromosome 15 and 17 matches over 6 cM also likely represent the Frazer/Stinson Line. All this is to say at the 8 potential relationships we showed above for Gladys and Michael, we can find DNA evidence for 4 DNA matches.

So that is enough on Frazer endogamy for now.

Some notes and summaries
  • Endogamy from the Archibald Line of the Frazer project account for many additional relationships and chances for DNA matching
  • The theory of endogamy as set out in the Segmentology blog seems to be consistent with the Frazer relationships and DNA matches
  • One set of matches that endogamy did not account for was the many high Frazer matches that also form a Triangulation Group in Chromosome 1. These actual DNA matches were well above what would have been predicted
  • By lowering the gedmatch thresholds, it may be possible to see additional endogamous matches where they were predicted by additional endogamous relationships
  • These extra endogamous relationships seem to be responsible for the many Triangulation Groups in the Frazer DNA Project
  • This exercise reinforces that relationships are based on Common Ancestors.
  • This Blog has also helped to sort out some confusing relationships and clear up which relationships are endogamous and which ones aren’t – and at what level of cousin-ship they are at.












Counting Frazer Cousins: Who Knew It Could Be So Difficult?

I started out writing a blog summarizing all the Frazer Triangulation Groups (TGs) in a Frazer DNA Project. In order to look at these TGs, I thought that it would make sense to figure out how many relationships there are in the Frazer DNA Project. Who knew it could be so difficult? The problem is that there are 3 testers that appear to have a least two Frazer cousins that married each other in their ancestry. There are 3 testers that are descended from 3 related Frazer Lines.

Here are some ancestors of some of the Frazer cousins I am counting:


A Brief Summary

The project is broken up into 2 Frazer Lines: The Archibald Line and the James Line. These are 2 very likely brothers that were living in proximity to each other in North Roscommon, Ireland at the time of the Elphin Census in 1749. The Archibald Line has descendants that have the cousin ancestors. The James Line does not have any known cousin marriages. There are 14 testers from the Archibald Line and 13 from the James Line for a total of 27 testers. Here is a view of some of the Archibald Line:

Archibald Frazer Line Chart

The Problem

Bill (along with his aunt and second cousin who have tested) is descended from the blue line and the 2 yellow lines. That means he descends from 3 Frazer brothers: Philip, Richard and Archibald. Here are the testers with multiple Frazer ancestors:

Multiple Frazer Ancestors

I added in Archibald at the top to show that he is the father of Philip, Richard and Archibald.

The Answer I Came Up With

When in doubt, I go to the ISOGG Web Page. According to the ISOGG Page on Cousin:

“A cousin is a relative with whom a person shares one or more common ancestors.”

There you have it. I was tempted to count the relationships more than once as my cousin Paul and I were both descended from James Frazer and Violet Frazer. However, those are not common ancestors. The common ancestors would be the grandparents of James Frazer and Violet Frazer: Richard Frazer b. about 1777 and his unknown wife.

Archibald Frazer Line Chart Common Ancestor

The red circle is the point at which I start to count the extra relationships. However, this still seems to be complicated. Let’s just look at VO from Australia. She is on the purple line (further down for privacy). She does not have any known multiple Frazer ancestors.

VO’s Archibald Line relatives are:

  1. Daughter Jean (purple)
  2. 1C, 1R Ros (purple)
  3. 3C Cathy (orange)
  4. 3C Jane (green on the right) to Common Ancestor (CA) Archibald Frazer who married Catherine Parker
  5. 4C Michael (salmon on the right)
  6. 4C Gladys (yellow on the right)
  7. 4C, 1R Bill (yellow): CA Archibald Frazer/Ann Stinson
  8. 4C, 1R Patricia (same yellow)
  9. 5C Michael (salmon): CA is Archibald Frazer/Mary Lilley
  10. 5C Paul as he descends from Richard
  11. 5C, 1R me (Joel)
  12. 5C, 1R Heidi
  13. 5C, 1R Sharon
  14. 5C Jane
  15. 5C Gladys as she descends from Richard
  16. 1R Bill
  17. 5C, 1R to Patricia
  18. 5C Paul as he descends from Philip
  19. 5C, 1R me (Joel)
  20. 5C, 1R Heidi
  21. 5C, 1R Sharon
  22. 5C Gladys as she descends from Philip
  23. 1R Bill
  24. 5C, 1R Patricia

The method I used was to go up each line to a common ancestor. Due to cousin marriages, there were multiple lines for some people going up to Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilley. Bill and his 2 relatives come up 3 times as they have 3 Frazer ancestor lines.  Six others come up 2 times because they have That method resulted in finding 24 relationships for VO just on the Archibald Line. Then there would be additional relationships on the James line for those 13 testers. Having said that, let’s move on to the James Line

Is 24 the Right Number?

Sometimes I like to check my work. With 14 testers, there should be 13 relationships as you are not related to yourself. In my chart of multiple relationships, I had 21 relationships with 9 people. That should be an additional 12 relationsips. 13 + 12 = 25. I seem to be missing one. I went through my list again, and see I missed Doug. Sorry, Doug. That makes the total 25. Always check your work.

VO is 4C, 1R to Doug

The premise still stands: Who knew it could be so difficult to count relatives? The Chart I was looking at above was made before Doug tested. I need to add him in there.

James Line Relatives

There are a couple of problems here. One person has pointed out that the James Line Chart that I have been using is inaccurate. No chart is perfect, so I use it as a working model. As more testing and analysis is done, as well as more genealogy, there may be minor or major adjustments made to the chart. There is also something on the Archibald Line Chart that effects the relationships. Note in the colored chart that above Archibald and Mary Lilley there is is another Archibald. This Archibald wasn’t there in the original research done 50 or so years ago. My understanding is that he was added more recently to make more sense with the dates. But if that Archibald doesn’t belong there, it would make the relationships between the two lines closer. All this is to say that there are a lot of variables in comparing DNA to genealogy.

Here is the James Line Chart:

James Line

In the above chart, there is hot dispute as to whether Archibald who married Catherine Knott should be under Michael or rather under the Archibald that married Catherine Peyton. However, with regards to VO from the Archibald Line and her level of relationships with testers from the James Line, these specific issues should not be so important.

VO and her James Line Relationships

I use VO from the Archibald Line of the Frazer DNA Project to continue the example. I am keeping the ‘extra’ Archibald on the Archibald Line that was added to make sense with the dates. Without him, the relationships will be a little closer and move all the relationships up half a step. I wonder if perhaps that extra Archibald should not be there. That might help explain the number of DNA matches between the two lines. Or are the number of matches between the two lines due to the cousin relationships on the Archibald Line? Or perhaps both reasons apply?

James Line matches to VO:

6C, 1R (6C if we take out the added Archibald on the Archibald Line)

  1. Charlotte
  2. Betty
  3. Joanna
  4. Janet
  5. Jonathan
  6. Beverly
  7. Bonnie
  8. Judith

7C (Or possibly 6C, 1R – see above)

  1. Clyde
  2. Kathy – as a daughter of Charlotte, her DNA results don’t get used
  3. Mary

7C, 1R

  1. Carol – as a daughter of Clyde, her DNA results don’t get used

The Grand Total

I get a total of 37 relationships for VO from Australia (25 Archibald Line plus 12 Archibald Line). Recall that she is just one of 27 Project testers. Hopefully, all the testers will not have 37 relationships.  I chose VO somewhat randomly, but she was a good choice. I mention her in 2 of my fairly recent blogs

Note that Triangulation Groups came up in both the above blogs about VO. So VO (or less impersonally, Vivien) will be mentioned in my upcoming blog when I discuss all the Frazer DNA Project Triangulation Groups.

Rechecking the James Line

As I said above, always check. There are 13 James Line testers, so there have to be 13 relationships there. I missed Prudence at 6C, 1R. That means we are up to a total of 25 Archibald relationships and 13 James Line Relationships for Vivien for a total of 38. Note that the effect of intermarriage increases the number of effective relationships by a factor of almost 2 in the Archibald Line (25 vs. 13).

In formula form the total is:

Number of testers minus one plus extra relationships due to intermarriage


That is my final answer (until proven wrong).



Gladys V. The Archibald Frazer Line

In my last post, I mentioned the DNA results of Gladys as they related to my 2nd great grandparents (her 1st great grandparents) James Frazer and Violet Frazer of North Roscommon Ireland. Gladys is my third cousin once removed, twice. Twice because my 3rd great grandparents were believed to be first cousins and both Frazers. In addition, Gladys is my 5th cousin once removed on another Frazer Line (lower right below), so it gets quite confusing.

Archibald Frazer Line Chart

In simple terms, referring to the chart above, we are related on blue and yellow lines. That means that Gladys is a triple Frazer. I am also a triple Frazer, though one of my Frazers hasn’t definitively been placed in a family.

My apologies to math haters for the following. In the 1st decade of the 1800’s, Gladys had 3 Frazer 2nd great grandparents. We all have 4 grandparents. Agreed? We have 8 great grandparents and 16 2nd great grandparents. 3/16 of Gladys’ 2nd great grandparents are Frazers. As we probably know, we all get a full set of chromosomes from both our parents. So on Gladys’ father’s side, 3/8 of her DNA is Frazer from the 1st decade of the 1800’s. Of course, on her mother’s side 0% should be Frazer.

AncestryDNA Results

Gladys tested at AncestryDNA. Her 1st match is my sister Sharon shown as 3rd cousin. Then as 4th cousin Ancestry has as Gladys’ matches: Jane of this Project, myself and my sister Heidi. As I mentioned, I’m a 3rd cousin once removed to Gladys, so Ancestry’s prediction seems pretty good. Jane is also a 4th cousin – at least once (and twice if our predictions are correct).

AncestryDNA also shows Shared Ancestor Hints.

G Murray SAH

I don’t have it shown, but further down, it shows Sharon as being Gladys’ 3rd cousin once removed. At the top are our common ancestors James and Violet. Gladys’ grandfather is shown as George Frazer on the left. My sister Sharon’s ancestors are on the right. Here is how Gladys matches Michael of this project:

MFA Gladys SAH

I added this for 2 reasons. One is that Michael is shown as a “Distant Cousin” to Gladys. By this Ancestry means a 5th to eighth cousin. But on the Shared Ancestry Hint above, they are shown as 4th cousins. Why is this? This is because believes the  DNA indicates a more distant relationship than what is shown on the paper trail. The second reason I am showing this is: look at the green leaf. Next to that leaf it says, “Shared Ancestor Hint 1 of 3”. That means Ancestry shows one hint for Gladys’ match with my sister Sharon, yet 3 for her match with Michael. Hint 1 is Richard Frazer Hint 2 is Archibald Frazer and Ann Stinson. Hint 3 is Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilley. I’m not sure why that couple is included as they are the parents of Richard Frazer and Archibald Frazer.

Gedmatch Traceability

This is a fairly new tool at Gedmatch. I like this tool, because it shows the matches in a visible way. I put in 13 of the Archibald Line testers. I didn’t include Jean (sorry, again!) as her mom’s results were in there. I call this the Archibald Line Globe.

Archibald Line Globe

I notice a few things:

  • It’s very colorful
  • There are no matches on the outside of the globe on either side of F437682. That is Doug.
  • The matches are fairly well evenly distributed.

I’d like to slice this Archibald Line Globe up. The problem is, we have different groups and some of them overlap. Here are the testers:

Archibald Line Generations Estimate

As an aside, notice that Jane has matches in every column.

Here are 4 groups in the Archibald Line:

  1. As mentioned in my previous blog, the 1st 7 testers above descend from James Frazer and Violet Frazer who were both born in the 1st decade of the 1800’s. (In red below to the right of the red line.)
  2. Joel, Heidi, Sharon and Paul also descend from Richard Frazer b. about 1777, but not from Archibald b. about 1778. (In yellow below to the right of the yellow line.)
  3. Cathy, Ros, V.O and Doug only descend from Archibald b. about 1778. (In blue below to the left of the blue line.)
  4. Gladys, Bill, Patricia, Jane, and Michael descend from the 2 brothers Richard and Archibald b. around 1777 and 1778. (In pink below, between the blue and yellow line.)

Archibald Line Globe

So I hope this confuses…, I mean, clears up everything:

  • The blue group has single Frazer ancestors (Frazer/Stinson Line). They have fewer connecting lines (matches with others).
  • Michael and Jane in the top left descend from Richard and Archibald but they don’t descend from James (son of Philip) and Violet (daughter of Richard).
  • Gladys, Bill and Patricia on the bottom right are in the triple category of being descended from the 3 brothers: Philip, Richard and Archibald.
  • That brings up a slight correction to the Globe. The yellow at the top right should read: From Philip and Richard but not Archibald.
  • Note Doug (F437682) in the blue in the bottom left. He doesn’t match others in his blue group, but has lines going to others in the middle group. Does this mean that he doesn’t belong in the Frazer Stinson Line and should redo his genealogy? No. That just means that he matches with those that are in the combined Richard/Archibald Frazer group in the middle of the globe. That also tells us that where Michael, Jane and Patricia have a match with Doug, it should represent their Frazer/Stinson Line and not their Richard Frazer Line. This is a good way to tease apart the DNA from specific Frazer ancestors when there is more than one.
  • Likewise most of the 5 testers in the middle pink zone have matches with those in the blue and/or yellow sections. This should help them to tell which side their DNA came from.
  • The only problem is that the yellow testers also descend from Philip and another unknown Frazer Line. However, if the pink testers match the yellow, there is still a good likelihood that the match would be in the Richard Frazer Line.

Finally the details on the Globe:

Globe Details

  • Triangulation Groups (TGs) at Chromosome 1 and 12 were discovered early on during this Project. Gladys now joins in these 2 TGs. I’m not sure why the dark pink match isn’t included.
  • There is a new TG on Chromosome 5 (green) with Gladys, Cathy and Patricia. The common ancestors are most likely Archibald Frazer and Ann Stinson. It appears that Jane should be in that TG also.
  • TG on Chromosome 8 with V.O., Gladys and Bill. Again, the common thread is Archibald Frazer and Ann Stinson.
  • TG on Chromosome 4 with Doug, Michael and Jane. This was previously found when Doug joined the group and represents the same Frazer/Stinson Line as above.

The Richard Line

Here I’ll omit those that aren’t in the Richard Line as they are only in the Archibald Frazer/Ann Stinson Line. That is I won’t include Cathy, Ros, VO and Doug in this analysis.  The hope is to de-clutter the Globe a bit.

Richard Line Globe w Gladys

Again, the matches are evenly distributed. The major distinction here is that 7 of these testers are descended from James and Violet Frazer. Jane and Michael on the left to lower left side are not.

The Archibald Frazer/Ann Stinson Line

For this line, I just need to take out me, my 2 sisters and cousin Paul.

Archibald Stinson Globe

This Archibald Globe looks busier than the Richard Line Globe. It isn’t really. The program only labels the single matches and there are more single matches here. In the previous globe, there were more lines and many of those lines were the dark gray ones that indicate multiple matches.

Archibald Stinson Globe

Here those that have a single Frazer ancestor are on the left and those with double (or more) are on the right. This could be pictured as an overlay. The first layer is the Archibald Frazer/Ann Stinson Line. Overlaid on the right would be the Richard Frazer b. about 1777 descendants.

Gladys and the James Line

Gladys only had one match on the James Line. That was with Judy:

Glady James Line Globe

Gladys is at the bottom of the Globe. Her match with Judy looks like a railroad spur in blue going to the right. All the other lines represent matches where the James Line testers match each other.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I made a lot of globes. These globes allow one to look at a lot of information at once. However, for the individual Triangulation Groups, it is still good to look at the individual data sheets.
  • The globes point out what the various DNA testing groups are. For example: those descended from a certain couple; those descended from more than one Frazer ancestor, or; those who only have one Frazer ancestor.
  • The globes are helpful for those that are descended from more than one Frazer Line. If a testers from 2 Frazer Lines matches someone that is only in one Line, then that match should represent the DNA the 2 testers got from that single Frazer Line (for example the Frazer/Stinson Line).
  • Gladys formed 2 new TGs which reinforced the genealogy of the Archibald Frazer/Ann Stinson Line. She also was included in the existing Richard Frazer TGs.
  • At some point it would be a good idea to itemize and summarize the existing TGs. Note: idea for a blog.




Gladys V. James Frazer and Violet Frazer b. 1803

This Blog will be featuring Gladys who is a new Frazer autosomal DNA tester. She is the aunt of Bill and the 1st cousin once removed of Pat both of whom are already in the Frazer DNA Project. Not to be confused with my mother who is also a Gladys.

First Some Brief Genealogy

The Archibald Line refers to Archibald Frazer born around 1715, probably in North County Roscommon in about 1715. He had a younger brother, James who forms the other branch of this Frazer DNA Project. There are now 14 testers who have tested specifically for this project for the Archibald Line. There are 12 DNA testers who have tested specifically for the James Line of the Project. In addition, a few others have been found that know they are part of this family project or that we believe belong to the project due to DNA matches and Frazers in their ancestry. Here is a simplified view of the Archibald Line.

Archibald Frazer Line Chart

Some notes:

  • There are 3 sons of Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilley shown here: Philip, Richard and Archibald. There was a 4th son named John, but we haven’t been tracking that son’s line in the DNA Project.
  • James Frazer in the 1st blue box and Violet Frazer in the first yellow box were believed to be first cousins that married each other. This adds more DNA to the equation along with some confusion as to what DNA came from whom.
  • Likewise there are 2 salmon colored boxes. These represent 2 first cousins that married.
  • There are 2 sets of green boxes. These represent 2 lines from Jane, a tester in the project with many matches. She knew about her ancestors on the right set of green boxes. We added her to the left side based on triangulation groups and likely genealogy there.
  • The purple and orange boxes represent Frazer Lines that don’t appear to have more than one Frazer Line in each family.
  • Gladys who is the new tester would be in 3 of the above lines. That would be the blue line from James Frazer, the first yellow line descending from James cousin Violet Frazer and the second yellow line descending from Ann Frazer b. about 1807.

Forcing the DNA Through James Frazer b. about 1804 and Violet Frazer b. 1803

I can’t really force the DNA, but by picking the right people, I will be more likely to find the DNA from a certain couple. For example, with Gladys’ results, we now have 7 people who are believed to be descended from James and Violet Frazer. Therefor, if we compare those 7 testers’ results, we would think that it would be most likely that the DNA these 7 people share would be from that couple as opposed to more distant ancestors. Here are Violet Frazer and James Frazer and some of their descendants:

James and Violet Chart

Here’s Richard Patterson Frazer b. 1830:


Here is George William Frazer b. about 1836 (my 2nd great grandfather) on the left:


I have two other reasons for starting with James Frazer and Violet Frazer. One is that they are my ancestors and the second is that I am starting with a more simple situation. On the left, descending from Richard, there are 3 Project testers including Gladys. On the right, descending from George, there are 4 project testers (including myself, my 2 sisters and my cousin Paul). All the testers are either one or two levels below what I have shown above. That means that the testers will be between 3rd and 4th cousins to each other. According to FTDNA, a 3rd cousin should match over 90% of the time and a 4th cousin should match over 50% of the time. Here is a Generations Estimate from

Generations Estimate James Violet

For a 4th cousin, the generations to a common ancestor would be 5. The first 4 testers represent the blue line above starting with George Frazer b. about 1838. The last 3 testers represent the yellow line starting with Richard Frazer b. 1830.

Below is a Gedmatch tool called Traceability. I added the thick red line to show the divide between 2 of the sons of James and Violet Frazer: the Richard Line Testers and the George Line Testers.

Traceability James Violet

The 2 blue lines represent a Triangulation Group at Chromosome 12. This has been discussed previously. This TG goes through Violet Frazer up to her father Richard Frazer b. about 1777.

Looking for James

In a past blog, I wondered where all the DNA for James Frazer b. about 1804 went. In the chart above, I notice that Patricia and I (Joel) have a match at Chromosome 6. This could represent James Frazer. It is interesting that this match came up between Pat and me. Pat is one generation younger than Gladys and I am one generation younger than Paul. Unless I missed something, Gladys and Paul didn’t match anyone else on Chromosome 6.  Perhaps DNA is like water flowing down from James and Violet. When there is an obstruction, it flows a different way (through other siblings, for example). However, if the obstruction is in the parent, the faucet is shut off. The DNA trail stops there. We can’t have DNA that we didn’t inherit from our parents. Here is an example of an obstruction in Chromosome 6:

Chromosome 6 map

My sisters Sharon and Heidi are the first line. On the left hand side where I match Pat, they got their DNA from their Hartley grandfather, so they couldn’t match with a Frazer there. I match Pat in the lower left purple Frazer area from 5 to 12. There was an “obstruction” at my 2 sisters and the DNA “flowed” through me.

A James Triangulation Group

Next, note that Patricia and Sharon match on Chromosome 9. Here is what Sharon’s Chromosome map looks like on Chromosome 9. It is very simple.

Chromosome 9

In fact, it is all or nothing on my family’s paternal side. Sharon (S) got all the Frazer DNA while Heidi (H) and I (J) got all the Hartley (green) DNA. It’s a good thing that I tested my sister Sharon after testing myself and my sister Heidi. The match between Patricia and Sharon is shown as 85 to 90. On the map above, I see another match with Gladys which is 85 to 100. That is a good sign for a Triangulation Group (TG). Many others who are related to Sharon on the Violet (and her father Richard’s) side and had a chance to match them here but didn’t. So, I’m calling this a James Frazer TG. This is where we start to separate these 2 married Frazer cousins. Here’s what the TG looks like in spreadsheet form.

TG Chr 9 James Frazer

Note that Bill (BR) could’ve been in the TG also, but the match he had with Sharon (SH) was small (less than 4 cM and not shown here), so I didn’t include Bill.

Any Other Bits of James Frazer b. about 1804?

A Triangulation Group isn’t necessary to prove that DNA testers have common ancestors. However, it does add some certainty when the genealogy is less than certain. In this case, my less than certain ancestor is James Frazer b. about 1804. When the genealogy is fairly certain, it should only take 2 people to establish a common ancestor. Perhaps this match represents James Frazer also. Here is how Gladys matches the other 6 James and Violet Frazer descendants on Chromosome 18:

Chr 18 Murray Match

The first 3 green lines are for me and my 2 sisters. The pink is Paul, but as the match is small, I will disregard it. The Gladys match with my family also helped me map my Chromosome 18. Before her match, I couldn’t tell who I got my DNA from on my paternal side between my Hartley grandfather and my Frazer grandmother. All I knew was that I had purple and blue segments of DNA there.

Chr 18 Map

Again, my assumption is that, as others are not knocking down the door to match Gladys and my family here on Chromosome that this match is likely to represent James Frazer b. about 1804. Prior to this, it was found that many of the TGs that included this couple also included Violet’s Father Richard. For that reason some of the other TGs were seen to represent Violet.

How Did I Do in My Previous Guess of James’ DNA?

Get ready for a rocky ride with this one. Back in November 2015, I had a guess of where some of James Frazer’s b. about 1804 DNA came from. At that time, I was looking at a match between my cousin Paul and Bill. I guessed that this DNA was from James Frazer and not his wife Violet Frazer.

Paul Bill Match

My guess was due to a DNA match that only matched with descendants of James and Violet (i.e Paul and Bill). However, the usual other matches with testers who were descended from Violet’s father Richard were not there this time. That lead me to think that this DNA was from from James Frazer. How does my old guess stand up? First I thought I was right, then I thought I was wrong, but now I think I’m right again. As you can guess, the answer is not straightforward. Here is what Chromosome 8 looks like now.

Matches Chr 8

Above, I see a TG between Bill (BR), Gladys (GM) and Paul (PF). The Most Recent Common Ancestors (MRCAs) for those 3 are James and Violet Frazer. But what threw me off is that now VO is in there also. Now that VO is in there, the Frazer MRCA would be Archibald Frazer b. about 1743 and Mary Lilley. My theory is that this DNA did pass through James Frazer b. about 1804 and up through his father Philip like this:

Philip TG

Recall that Gladys, Bill and Paul all descend from James on the blue line. VO is related on the purple line. I didn’t have the TG go through Violet due to the lack of other matches on her line (via Michael and Jane, for example). So while the new DNA testers’ matches make things confusing, I believe that the results are still consistent with my earlier guess. That guess was that my cousin’s Paul’s match with Bill on Chromosome 8 is from James Frazer and not his 1st cousin wife, Violet Frazer.


  • It was a bit overwhelming looking at all the DNA matches from 3 of Gladys’ Frazer ancestors. So I started by looking at a subset of a subset of the Archibald Line. That subset was James Frazer and Violet Frazer.
  • James Frazer and Violet Frazer have 7 descendants in the Project. That seems to be a good number for getting plenty of good matches. This is especially true as we are starting out with 2 married first cousins.
  • James and Violet represent 2/32 of my 3rd great grandparents. Or 1/16 when both James and Violet are considered (combined). Or 1/8 combined of my paternal DNA. Remember we all have a full set of paternal and maternal DNA.
  • With Gladys and Paul in the project, these 2 testers are one step closer to James and Violet Frazer. James and Violet combined would represent 1/4 of Gladys’ and Paul’s paternal DNA. That doesn’t seem possible, but apparently it is. That means we are comparing 1/4 of Gladys’ and Paul’s paternal DNA with 1/8 of Bill’s, Pat’s and my family’s DNA. That resulted in some good chances for our DNA to match.
  • Early on in the Frazer DNA Project, Triangulation Groups were found. However, these TGs were for the parents of Violet. It was not clear at that time what happened to the DNA of James Frazer her husband.
  • I had thought that where Paul, my 2 sisters, Bill and Pat shared this double Frazer couple that it should be easy to find James Frazer’s DNA as well as Violets.
  • Thanks to Bill sponsoring his Aunt Gladys’ DNA, it seems like we now have found solid evidence of James’ DNA also.
  • James’ DNA appears to show up on Chromosomes 6, 8, 9 and 18. I had previously made a guess that I had found some of James’ DNA at Chromosome 8.

Next up: another look at Gladys’ matches with more of the Archibald Line DNA testers.



A New Frazer TG and a New Gedmatch Tool

In this blog I’d like to look at a new Frazer Triangulation Group (TG) that one of the Frazer DNA Project’s testers tipped me off to. (Am I OK ending a sentence in a preposition?) Then I’d like to take a first look at a Gedmatch tool called Traceability.

A Dual Line Multi-Continental Triangulation Group

I can tell that Joanna from the Frazer DNA Project has been reading my blogs. In a recent blog I highlighted Michael’s DNA. He is another member of the project. Joanna knew that her sister Janet also matched Michael, so she ran a Gedmatch utility that finds others that match both Janet and Michael. She came up with at least 3 new matches. I took a look and noticed that one of her ‘new’ matches was actually one of our project’s new testers that I mentioned in a recent blog. (I won’t address the other 2 new matches in this blog as they matched on a different Chromosome.)

Here is what Joanna’s sister’s Chromosome 7 DNA matches looked like:

Janet's Chr 7 Matches

#1 is Jean’s mom. Jean is from Australia and she and her mom are the newest Frazer DNA Project testers. #2 is the match with Michael. This looked like a prime candidate for a Triangulation Group. All that is needed for a TG is for Jean’s mom to match Michael to get our dual line multi-continental TG. The dual line means that Janet is from the James Line of our project and Michael and Jean’s mom descend from the Archibald Branch of the Frazer DNA Project. I suppose that multi-continental is a little over-hyped. Janet and Michael are from England and Jean’s family is from Australia. Here is the match between Jean’s mom and Michael:

Michael and Jean's Mom

The Start Location on Chromosome 7 where Michael and Jean match is the exact same Start Location where Janet and Michael matched (start of the blue segment above).

We Have a TG: Who Are the Common Ancestors?

The theory behind TGs is that when is found, it should represent the DNA from a common ancestor – or from a common ancestral couple. The problem is, who is the common ancestor? The parents of the Archibald and James Frazer Lines is always a possibility. If we use that first known Frazer set of parents as a common ancestor, Janet is a 6th cousin once removed to Michael and Jean’s mom. This seems like a long way for autosomal DNA to be valid. However, the Ancestry DNA Shared Ancestor Hints go all the way up to 8th cousins, so maybe a 6th cousin once removed or a 7th cousin is not too far off. Also a real life person should be able to do better than Ancestry’s computers which blindly mush together Ancestry Trees and DNA results. If anyone would like to find the common ancestor between Janet, Michael and Jean’s mom, you will get the Frazer DNA Project highest honors!

Traceability: the New Gedmatch Tool

The Traceability tool is a bit difficult to find at Gedmatch as it is not shown on the front page of Gedmatch. After multiple kits are chosen for comparison, it shows up as an option to choose.

Traceability Option

The Traceabililty option is the 3rd from the bottom.

I’ll start with a simple example. I’ll use the same Janet, Michael and Jean’s mom (VO) that I mentioned above. The first part of the fairly new Gedmatch Traceability report starts with a estimate of how many generations the matches’ common ancestors could be just based on the DNA matches. Note that these numbers especially between Janet and V.O or Michael would be very low if we use the Early 1700’s Frazer couple. The actual generations to that couple would be more like 7 or 8.

Generations Estimate
F383447 A541738 A007097
F383447 Janet 4.9 6.2
A541738 *V.O. 4.9 4.4
A007097 Michael 6.2 4.4

Next is the graphic and the where the matches were:

Chr 7 TG Traceability

The dark triangle is our TG. Michael is at the top left, Jean’s mom is at the top right, and Janet is at the base. Janet’s matches with Michael and VO are in blue. The note says that Dark gray line represent more than one segment. That would be the match between Michael and VO on Chromosomes 1 and 7 that I mentioned earlier. Those matches are not spelled out as it would make things too messy, apparently. I guess the utility was not made for so few matches as it cut off a few numbers.

Let’s Kick Up Traceability a Notch

The next example I’ll use will be the line of Richard Frazer born about 1777. In that line, we have the Frazer Project DNA testers Michael, second cousins Bill and Pat, my second cousin once removed Paul and myself and my 2 sisters. In addition, we have added to that group, based on triangulation, Jane who was already in the group from a different line and David who was not previously in this group. Unfortunately, this example may not be that simple, as all except David appear to be in multiple Frazer lines. I’ll start first with Michael, Bill, Pat, Paul and my family:

Generation Estimate Richard Line

This shows that we all match each other to varying degrees based on the DNA. The exception is that Patricia does not show a match with Heidi nor with Paul. [However, in reality she does match us as she is related to Bill.]

Richard Line Traceability

Now our dark triangle has grown to have 7 sides. This shows in a simple way, the 2 Richard Line TGs. One is on Chromosome 12 (in blue) and one is on Chromosome 1 (in green). Actually, the Chromosome 12 TG is not a true TG as it includes 2 siblings, but once we add Jane and David back in, it will be a true TG. Right now TG 12 includes Bill, myself (Joel) and my sister Sharon. TG 1 includes Bill, Michael and Paul. From previous experience, I know that my sister Heidi is also in that TG. She matches Bill, Michael and Paul, but because she matches on more than one segment, her Chromosome 1 matches with them are not highlighted. Her matches are therefore shown in dark gray.

This chart also sorts us by family. My sisters Sharon and Heidi are at the top and I am to the lower right of them. Paul, my second Frazer cousin once removed is to the lower left of my sisters. We are all above the red line and all descended from George Frazer b. about 1838.

Richard Line Globe w 2 lines

Below the red line is Michael, Bill and Patricia. They are all descended from George’s grandfather Richard Frazer b. about 1777.

Adding Jane and David to the Richard Line Traceability

Now we are up to 9 people. The blue TG has gotten quite large.

Richard Traceability Sphere

Richard Line Traceability Table

Jane (A974138) is shown now in the Chromosome 1 TG. She is also in the Chromosome 12 TG, but as she matches in more than one segment, that fact isn’t perfectly clear.

All the Frazers!

Next let’s try all the testers. I’ll have to leave some testers out as the Traceability seems to only work on up to 20 people. I’ll take myself out. Also Joanna and any children of testers. Also I’ll take out Patricia as her cousin Bill has some good matches.

Frazer Generational

In general, the Archibald Line is first, up to Janet. However Doug looks like he is with the James line as he is last. Actually, his only match is with the Archibald Line (Jane). So the Archibald Line is mostly top left and the James Line is bottom right:

Frazer Generational 2 Lines

I have 3 Frazer Lines. One I have not identified, but I expect that it is a James Frazer Line. That may be why it appears that my family and Paul are pulling part of Joanna’s family into the James Line section.

Here are the Frazer Global matches:

Frazer Globe

Frazers Around the Globe

We’ll give the James Line the Western Hemisphere and the Archibald Line will take the Eastern Hemisphere:

Frazer Globe w 2 Lines

Janet and Michael are on either side of the dividing line on the top right. Clyde (CS) and Doug are on either side of the James Line/Archibald Line divide. This globe shows matches within one’s line and outside of one’s line. For example, Bonnie (A154993) shows matches with everyone on the James Line except for Jonathan and Janet on top of the globe. In addition she matches the 1st four Archibald Line testers on the bottom of the globe (Doug, Bill, Heidi, and Sharon).

Bugs in the Traceability?

I noticed that in the Generations Estimate above, Doug had one match. On my own spreadsheet, he had 3 matches. However, on the ‘globe’ above, he has 7, so there seems to be a glitch in the system. Some of his matches I can’t reproduce at Gedmatch using a ‘one to one’ query. That’s too bad, because the results were getting interesting. Perhaps I overloaded it with too many names. I tried it again with the same names and Kit numbers and got this:

Frazer Globe 2

This globe had more realistic matches, at least based on Doug’s results. Doug had 3 Project matches and here Doug (F437682) has 3 matches. The only problem is, that he appears to be placed on the James side. Perhaps the computer thought he fit better there. He does show the 2 matches to the Archibald side in yellow above so he clearly belongs there. This would be the TG he is in on Chromosome 4.

Now let’s see if we can find Joanna’s TG that we mentioned in first part of the blog. That TG was with Janet, Jean’s mom, and Michael. I’ll highlight the top right part of the globe where they are.

Janet's TG on globe

The dividing line between the James Line and the Archibald Line goes between Janet and Jean’s mom. There are 3 lines forming a triangle between the 3 people. Between Janet and Jean’s mom there is a white line. On that line it says C7 0M-8M which is the Chromosome number and the position of the match. There is a longer line between Janet and Michael. Their match is also shown as C7 4M-8M. Then, to complete the triangle, there is a dark gray line between Jean’s mom and Michael. Dark gray is good because it means there is more than one DNA segment in the match. However, they are a little more difficult to see. That dark gray line finishes the triangle of the TG.

Where Are You On the Frazer Globe?

Frazer Globe with names

The above Frazer Globe is a good summary of the entire autosomal portion of the Frazer DNA project in one image. The matches going across from the James Line side in yellow to the Archibald Line side in red are the more distant matches. The closer matches are along the outside of the circle – especially where there are many lines (indicating matches).  In red, the Archibald Line testers seem to fit neatly into either a Richard Line or an Archibald Line. Finer groupings seem to be indicated also. For example, the bottom 4 testers of Bill, Heidi, Sharon, and Paul all descend from 2 Frazer cousins born in the early 1800’s. On the top of the globe in yellow, there are six James Line testers that appear to group together. Prudence is by herself which makes sense as she is on her own line. Here is the James Line by genealogy:

James Line Chart for Traceability

I didn’t need to include Carol in the globe as she is the daughter of Clyde. The groupings on the Globe other than for Prudence don’t match perfectly with the genealogy that we have. I have noted this before and the Traceability showing all the Frazers also seems to point that out. Charlotte and Mary Holly do seem to be grouped with Joanna’s family. That makes sense as that is what the genealogy shows. But in between those two groups is Bonnie and Judith who are shown on the right in the above diagram. We may have thought that they should be grouped with Beverly. Then Beverly and Clyde seem to be grouped together. They are also shown on opposite ends of our genealogy diagram. Finally Doug, who I have in yellow (but should be in Red for the Archibald Line) is on the wrong side of the globe entirely. I hope that he doesn’t mind swapping out his ancestors!

Another Look At the James Line DNA

I was going to end this blog above with the large globe of all the Frazers as the grand finale. However, I’m still curious about the James Line. I am glad I took a second look. Here is the generational estimate just based on the James Line testers:

James Line Generations

It looks like the Archibald Line was interfering with the James Line results. This now lines up with the genealogy chart above. Prudence is by herself but closest to Charlotte. Charlotte is in the right group with Mary Holly, Joanna’s family and Clyde (CSW). Then Beverly is where she should be with Bonnie and Judith. Those  3 are descended from Michael Frazer. The most important family groups are those that are closest to the diagonal line that goes from the top left to the bottom right indicated by dashes where I drew a red line. The matches further out from the red line may be considered secondary matches.

James Line Generations w diag line

James Line Globe

James Line Globe

I find this James Line Globe a little more confusing to look at than the Generations Estimate above. Remember that a dark gray line is multiple matches. A colored line therefore is a weaker match. Prudence is at the bottom of the globe. She is by herself in that there is no match on her left and only a weak one to her right (in blue on the outside of the globe). To the left of Prudence are 3 Michael Frazer descendants (Judith, Bonnie and Beverly). Going clockwise from Beverly there is a weaker green match to Clyde at the top left who continues the group all the way to the bottom right where Charlotte is.

The right of the red line below indicates descendants of Archibald Frazer b. 1751 and Catherine Peyton. This couple had another Archibald. All those to the right of the red line except Prudence are believed to be descended from him. Prudence is descended from Edward Frazer b. 1803. He married Mary Kirkwood.

James Line Globe Mich Arch

Here is how the globe looks like in numbers:

James Line Globe Chart

The chart above is similar to one I keep for Frazer DNA matches. However, the one I have for the James Line is over 100 rows long. It is also worthwhile to check matches of the same color above. These would have the potential for being Triangulation Groups. The ones above are not, but perhaps indicate stronger matches. Some of the matches of the same color are due to multiple matches in Joanna’s family to other James Line testers.


  • Joanna has pointed out a new TG without knowing it. In that email she wrote to me, “Oh – how I wish I understood what I’m looking at!!” I quote her because I believe that we all feel the same way looking at these DNA results. I have found that blogging has helped me to come to some understanding of what I’m looking at.
  • Although a DNA TG was found, it is not always easy to find the corresponding set of common ancestors. This is especially true as the TG included both relatively distant from each other Frazer Lines. This increases the number of ancestors known and unknown that could be the common ancestors indicated by the TG.
  • The traceability tool is good for visualizing the DNA match results. It needs to be used with caution. As the math teacher said, “check your work”. My initial foray resulted in some false matches for Doug that could not be replicated. These false matches went away when I tried re-ran the Traceability Report.
  • The first look at all the Frazers seemed to indicate James Line groupings that didn’t mesh with the paperwork genealogy that has been done to date. Isolating the James Line seemed to correct those groupings and produced results that matches well with the testers’ genealogical research. Yay!