Posts

Posted on

Caz: A DNA Tested Frazer

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

Here is a slightly bigger picture:

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

 

This is becoming a good group.

Caz’ DNA

Here is Caz in what I call the Stinson Group:

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

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

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

Caz and Triangulation

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

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

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

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

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

A Closer TG

This TG is less ambiguous:

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

A Frazer/White TG

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

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

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

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

Caz Compared to All the Other Frazers

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

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

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

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

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

More on the Chromosome 1 TG

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

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

Pre and Post-Caz TGs

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Here is the much older Caz TG:

 

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

The Post-Caz TG

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

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

 

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

Here she is with Don and Cathy:

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

Painting My Wife’s Chromosomes

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

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

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

Which Matches Do I Paint for Marie?

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

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

Here is what that looks at DNAPainter:

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

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

 

The X Chromosome expands to this:

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

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

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

Adding Some Pouliot DNA

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

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

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

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

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

Starting Marie’s Maternal Side DNA Painting

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

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

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

More Painting

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

This brings Marie to 23% mapped:

Next: More LeFevre DNA

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

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

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

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

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

Adding Anne to Marie’s Maternal Side

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

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

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

Ronda: An Ellis Match for Marie

Ronda is next on the list at Gedmatch:

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

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

An Unknown Upshall Side Match

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karen and Martha with Newfoundland Roots

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

 

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

 

For Martha, I have another best guess tree:

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

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

Michelle at FTDNA on the LeFevre Side

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

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

Transferred to DNAPainter:

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

More Maternal DNA for Marie on the Upshall Side: Edward

Edward and Marie have this common ancestor:

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

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

This gets Marie up to 150 segments mapped.

Marie and Wallace at MyHeritage

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

Here is where I have Wallace:

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

That is what 22% filled in looks like.

Adding Cheryl and More of Martha’s family

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

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

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

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

Back to LeFevre

Here is a match on the LeFevre side:

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

A Butler Kerivan Match with Lindsey

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

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

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

Connecting John and John Kerivan

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

Here is the connection on Lindsey’s paternal side:

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

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

Kerivan DNA

This shows where Richard and Lindsey match at MyHeritage:

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

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

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

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

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

Lindsey and Chromosome Mapping

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

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

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

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

Mapping My In-Law’s Chromosome 12

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

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

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

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

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

Solving the Chromosome 9 Map with Lindsey

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

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

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

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

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

Chromosome 2

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

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

Lindsey and Triangulation

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

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

Back to Mapping Chromosome 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

 

Posted on

Sorting Hartley DNA from Snell DNA with the Leeds Color Method

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

Joyce’s Family Tree

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

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

Sorting Joyce’s Matches Using Shared Matches

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

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

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

I then put this information into a spreadsheet:

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

Finding Gurney and Rounseville Matches

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

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

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

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

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

Going Down Joyce’s DNA Matches at Ancestry

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

 

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

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

The next match is with Bird:

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

A Second Snell Match

Charles is likely related to Chuck:

Joyce’s Last Two 2nd Cousin Matches by DNA

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

Joyce’s 3rd Cousins by DNA

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

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

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

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

Joyce’s Miller Double Match

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

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

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

Hopefully, these will sort themselves out soon.

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

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

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

Joyce and CL

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

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

Joyce’s 50th Match: Jessica

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

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

That makes Joyce and Jessica 2nd cousins twice removed.

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

Page 2 of Joyce’s DNA Matches

Salley is match number 51:

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

Joyce’s 4th Cousins by DNA

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

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

Here are some more for the chart:

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

The First Hartley Match

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

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

Joyce’s Top 100 Matches

Here are Joyce’s top 100 matches:

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

What I Have Learned

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

Project Update

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

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

This helps to better build out the Snell DNA tree:

 

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

 

 

Posted on

Another Butler DNA Connection

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

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

The First Butler Match: Barbara

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

This tree is good enough to get back to Butler.

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

The Second Butler Match: Brian

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

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

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

Stitching the Two Butler Families Together

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

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

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

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

Do the DNA Results Support the Unified Butler Tree?

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

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

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

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

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

Here I have put some statistics in to look at:

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

DNA Matching at AncestryDNA

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

Virginia and Brian’s Shared Matches

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

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

Lorraine and Brian’s Shared Matches

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

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

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

Kim at Gedmatch and Butler DNA

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

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

Butler Triangulation on Chromosome 2

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

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

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

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

Shared Matches Between Patty, Lorraine and Virginia

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

 

 

Posted on

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

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

Steve’s Genealogy

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

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

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

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

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

Steve’s DNA

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

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

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

Steve and Triangulation Groups at MyHeritage

According to MyHeritage:

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

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

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

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

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

Another of Steve’s TGs Confirmed – McMaster DNA

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

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

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

Finding Other Clarke Relatives

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

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

Shared Matches at AncestryDNA

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

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

AncestryDNA Circle with New Ancestor Discovery Long

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

 

Posted on

My Closest DNA Match at MyHeritage with Unknown Connection

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

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

My Closest Unknown Match: Molly

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

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

Shared Matches between Gladys and Molly

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

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

Beth’s Family Tree

Beth has a pretty good family tree:

Here is my mom’s tree:

 

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

A Pote Connection

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

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

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

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

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

What About Molly?

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

Here are some statistics:

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

Going Down Molly and Gladys’ Shared Match List: Annette

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

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

The Philadelphia Bakers

Annette and Gladys are third cousins:

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

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

Painting the Baker/Faunce common ancestors.

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

 

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

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

Molly’s Next Shared Match with Gladys: Danielle

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

The area where the triangulation occurs is on Chromosome 3.

Here is Danielle’s tree:

Here is another tree I found at Ancestry:

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

 

Summary and Conclusions

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

A Kerivan Match to My Wife’s Aunts

I’ve had a few messages from Jack. He shows as a potential 2nd cousin match to my wife’s aunt Virginia. Here is Jack’s tree at Ancestry:

 

Here is Virginia’s tree:

Due to the dates, it could be that Jack’s great-grandfather George E Kerivan was the son of Virginia’s John Kerivan. If I expand Virginia’s tree, I get this:

That means that Jack and Virginia have the common ancestors of John Kerivan and Alice Rooney. That would make Virginia and Jack 2nd cousins, once removed. Here is a top down drawing of how Virginia and Jack are related:

When I run shared matches at AncestryDNA between Jack and Virginia, John and Gaby also show up.

More of Jack’s Relatives at AncestryDNA

I also see Donna and Dott at AncestryDNA. Here is Donna’s tree:

That would make Donna Jack’s mother or aunt.

Here is Dott’s tree:

 

How Does Sandra Fit In?

Sandra is a 2nd cousin once removed to my wife’s Aunt Lorraine (and her Aunt Virginia and her dad).

It turns out that Thomas was an older brother to George and Lillie. Thomas married Catherine Collins:

I had a message from Ancestry from Jack saying his mom is Donna. That means that the tree would look like this:

More Specific Information at Gedmatch.com

My wife’s family and Gaby have uploaded their DNA results to Gedmatch.com. John and Gaby have also. If Sandra, Jack, Dott and Donna uploaded their DNA to Gedmatch also, we would be able to see exactly where the Kerivan and Rooney DNA is coming from. We would be able to see on which chromosome they match.

Summary and Conclusions

  • My wife’s family has great matches with Jack, Dott, Donna, and Sandra on the Kerivan/Rooney side.
  • These matches are on the order of 2nd cousin. Second cousin is an important relationship as it defines a grandparent side.
  • If Sandra, Dott, Donna and Jack were to upload their DNA results to gedmatch.com, we would be able to see exactly where the Kerivan and Rooney DNA is coming from. It is possible that there would be more Kerivan matches found also at Gedmatch.

 

Posted on

An Adoptee’s Match with My Wife’s Mother and Aunt

I recently had a message from an adoptee named Martha. Martha was understandably enthused about a match she had with my wife’s Aunt Elaine and mom, Joan.

Martha’s DNA Matches

Here is how Martha matches Aunt Elaine:

Based on the match, MyHeritage puts Martha and Aunt Elaine between 1st cousin twice removed and 2nd cousin twice removed.

Here is how Martha matches Elaine’s sister Joan:

The big difference is that Elaine had a match on Chromosome 19 with Martha that Joan did not. Joan and Martha are said to be between 3rd cousin and 5th cousin. I find it interesting that MyHeritage distinguishes between 2nd cousin twice removed and third cousin as from a DNA standpoint, I would think that they would be quite similar.

Martha and Joan at FTDNA

Martha and Joan are both at FTDNA. Martha mentioned that she and Joan match on the X Chromosome, but I don’t believe that the match is significant:

My understanding is that a match between two women of less than about 15 cM is not significant. These matches are all below 7 cM and are quite tiny. I suppose that the matches could represent some type of general ethnic similarity.

Where is the Common Ancestor between Joan, Elaine and Martha?

If Martha is a 3rd cousin with Joan and Elaine, that means that their common ancestor would be back 4 generations. MyHeritage shows Shared Matches which come in handy:

Joan and Martha’s first shared match is, of course, Elaine. After that, the next match is Vance. Let’s look at his tree:

The father’s side is missing. However, I did find this additional information on a Family Tree at Ancestry:

That gives me a better feeling about Vance’s family tree.

Here is Joan’s father’s tree. It seems like Martha and Joan must match in PEI:

George Ellis and Lillian Rayner are Joan’s paternal grandparents. My guess is that Martha and Joan may match on more than one line. The two names I see in common in the tree of Vance and Joan are MacArthur and Yeo. However, MacArthur appears more recently in Joan’s tree than Yeo. So this may be the closer match.

Back to the DNA and Triangulation

Using Triangulation, we can know where Martha, Vance, Joan and Elaine have common DNA. This DNA should correspond to a specific common ancestor.

This shows that Joan, Martha and Vance triangulate on Chromosomes 4, 17 and 18. I checked between Elaine, Martha and Vance and the triangulated segments are the same.

Martha at Ancestry

Martha also tested at Ancestry. At AncestryDNA, Martha and Elaine are predicted as 4th cousins which is a big difference from what MyHeritage showed. Based on the color mapping of Elaine to her four grandparents, it seems like Martha matches on the Ellis side rather than the Rayner side.  This type of mapping is also known as the Leeds Method. Based on this, my best bet is that the match could be through the MacArthur side.

 

This seems to be confirmed by the spreadsheet that I have for Joan:

Based on past research I had found a common ancestor of MacArthur/MacDougall. This was for a DNA match that Joan and Barry had right at the spot where there were triangulated segments on Chromosome 4 between Vance, Joan, Elaine and Martha.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Different testing companies have different ways of representing what relationship the test results represent. AncestryDNA turns out to be fairly accurate.
  • I looked at common matches at Ancestry between Elaine and Martha. These seemed to put Martha and Elaine’s match along the Elaine’s Ellis ancestry Line.
  • Martha, Joan, Elaine and Vance triangulated at MyHeritage. Vance had Yeo and MacArthur in his ancestry which was shared with Joan and Elaine. However, the MacArthur ancestry occurs more recently in Joan and Elaine’s ancestry.
  • Joan’s worksheet shows that I had identified MacArthur as a common ancestor with another match on Chromosome 4. This was in the same place as the triangulated segments between Vance, Joan, Elaine and Martha. Right now, MacArthur seems like the best bet for a common ancestral surname between Martha and Elaine. Assuming that Malcolm MacArthur is the common ancestor, that would make Elaine and Martha about 4th cousins. The DNA matches could be higher due to matches on other more distant lines.

 

Posted on

More on My DNA Matches with My Latvian Cousins

In my previous Blog on Anita and Inese, my Latvian cousins, I went answered some questions that they had on DNA. However, I didn’t get to look at other common matches that I have with Anita and Inese.

Latvian Matches from Different Testing Companies

Anita and Inese tested at MyHeritage. This is a good testing company. However, other people test at different companies, so different analyses are needed based on what the companies have to offer. One good solution is to upload your DNA results to Gedmatch.com where the results from different testing companies can be compared. Anita and Ines have done this.

Otis  with Schwechheimer and Gangnus Ancestry

One of my closest DNA matches is Otis. His ancestors are from Latvia. My Latvian ancestors are for the most part German and lived in the German colony of Hirschenhof. This is the somewhat complicated tree showing how I am doubly related to Otis:

Now I need to add some closer relatives:

Note the double relationship to Otis. I also notice an extra Gangnus connection:

This shows that Charlotte Gangnus married a Schwechheimer and had Rosine who married a Rathfelder and had my mother’s grandfather Heinrich Rathfelder. Heinrich married Maria Gangnus. Here is a Gangnus tree:

This shows that Heinrich Rathfelder married Maria Gangnus who was his 3rd cousin. On the Gangnus side, I am a 4th cousin and a distant 6th cousin to Otis. On the Schwechheimer side, I am the same 4th cousin and a 5th cousin. This tree could also be drawn out wider to include Rusty, Cindy, Catherine, Anita and Inese. However, it would be quite wide as much of the tree would be repeated twice.

Otis and Triangulation Groups (TGs)

Otis is in several triangulation groups (TGs). Here is one of the largest ones on Chromosome 3:

A triangulation group is where three or more people match each other. It means that they have common DNA that came down from a common ancestor. When there is only one pair of most common ancestors, this makes things easier. In this case where there are three sets of common ancestors, I assume that the match is on the most recent of the common ancestors. This represents DNA from the latter part of the 1700’s.

It is also less likely that the match represents Markus Schwechheiner or Georg Gangnus. However, Otis and Gladys (my mom) and Otis and Cindy have relatively large DNA matches which likely represents the closer relationship. I didn’t include myself or my siblings in this analysis as each sibling gets half the amount of DNA each parent has.

Astrid’s Rathfelder DNA

Here is a tree I worked out for Astrid:

This was a difficult tree. The strangest thing was that Hans Jerg Rathfelder had two children both by the name of Johann Georg. He must have really liked that name. Apparently one child went by Johann and the other by Georg. Here I should note that Hans Jerg married Juliane Bittenbinder. This is important because a DNA match to Astrid could be either from Hans Jerg or Juliane. The good news about this tree is that there aren’t any obvious double relationships like we had with Schwechheimer and Gangnus.

A Few Problems with the Rathfelder Tree and with Astrid’s DNA

The problem with Astrid’s tree is that there were two Adeline Wilhemine Rathfelders. One was born in 1838 and one was born in 1844. If the 1844 Wilhemine was the mother of Friedrich Spengel, she would have been 15 at his birth.

In my Blog on Anita, I pointed out that the DNA matches as reported at Gedmatch showed that there should be a closer relationship to Astrid based on the DNA:

Here is what the alternative (younger Wilhemine) tree looks like:

This changes Astrid from a 4th cousin to my mom Gladys to a 2nd cousin once removed. Using the same analysis as above, I get this:

Here, the young mother tree seems to be a better fit by the DNA as seen at Gedmatch. This was the original idea that I had. So for now, I will just put those two trees out there until more information comes to light. In summary, the first analysis showed that the actual DNA matches were one generation closer than shown by the tree. By the second analysis, the DNA suggested that the relationships were about 1/3 generation further away than the young mother tree.

Any Help from Ancestry on Astrid’s Tree?

Astrid’s sister Ingrid has been tested at AncestryDNA, but the results have not been posted to Gedmatch.com. Ancestry estimates that both Astrid and Ingrid are 4th cousins to Gladys. That would support the tree #1 theory.  Here is my mom’s match to Astrid at AncestryDNA:

Here is how that same match looks like at Gedmatch.com:

Gladys and Ingrid’s DNA at Ancestry DNA

This shows that my mom’s DNA match with Ingrid was 75% lower than my mom’s match with Astrid.

This table shows that AncestryDNA favors Tree 1:

Under Tree 1, my mom is a fourth cousin to Astrid. AncestryDNA estimates a fourth cousin by DNA. My siblings and my cousin Cindy are all fourth cousins, once removed under Tree 1. By AncestryDNA my siblings are a fourth cousin and Cindy would be a fifth cousin.

Another consideration is that if Tree 2 or the young Wilhemine Rathfelder tree were the correct one, perhaps Otis above would be more likely to be matching with Astrid by DNA on their Schwechheimer side. Under the young Wilhemine scenario, Otis and Astrid would be 4th cousins and would have a greater than 50% chance of matching each other. However, at Gedmatch, they don’t match each other. This is not proof that Tree 1 is right, but just possible supporting evidence. Unless, I think of another reason, I will stick to my original tree for Astrid and her sister Ingrid.

Triangulating with Astrid

On Chromosome 10, Astrid matches Catherine, Inese and Anita:

If we have the right tree, the TG would look like this:

Anita’s TG on Chromosome 17

Perhaps Alexander got the Chromosome 17 Rathfelder DNA and Leonhard got the Chromosome 10 Rathfelder DNA.

Wolf at MyHeritage

Wolf had his DNA tested at MyHeritage. This is the same place where Anita and Inese had their DNA tested. I wrote a Blog about him here. Like many others descending from the colony of Hirschenhof, it seems like I match Wolf on different lines. The closest match is through Schwechheimer, like with Otis above.

The difference is that I match Wolf a generation earlier than I match Otis. Here is how Gladys and Wolf match at MyHeritage:

Gladys’ Latvian Matches at AncestryDNA

It is possible to group matches by looking at shared matches at AncestryDNA. I have done that and tried to look at just my mother’s father’s side. He was the one from Latvia.

The point of this is that my mom has a lot of Schwechheimer matches, but only two matches that are on the Rathfelder line. Those two matches are sisters: Astrid and Ingrid. Some of these people fell easily into groups and some did not. I also see tha I have two columns for Schwechheimer in orange and blue. It could be that the blue line has Schwechheimer in it, but I am more closely related on another line. Someone named Valdis matches both the orange and blue group.

Summary and Conclusions

  • My grandfather was a Rathfelder, but I am not finding many DNA relatives with the Rathfelder name.
  • My great great grandmother was Rosine Schwechheimer from the German Colony of Hirschenhof. I am able to find many DNA matches with people who have Schwechheimer ancestors.
  • I took a second look at Otis. He is a close DNA match on the Schwechheimer side. However, we also share Gangnus ancestry.
  • I looked at one of my few Rathfelder DNA matches: Astrid. I compared two possible trees with two Wilhemine Rathfelders. One tree would have favored a Wilhemine giving birth at an early age. Based on a match I didn’t have with Otis on the early birth tree and suggestions by AncestryDNA matches, I favored my earlier tree which had Wilhemine giving birth at a more reasonable age.
  • I took another look at Wolf. He also matches on the Schwechheimer Line, but one generation further back than Otis.