Elizabeth: A DNA Match from the Cincinnati Butlers; Lisa’s Butler Connections

I recently discovered that Elizabeth was a match to my late father-in-law Richard. I found her by doing a Tier 1 Cluster Analysis at Gedmatch. Richard’s clusters look like this:

All the gray squares connected to the colored squares probably indicate Richard’s French Canadian side. The last two small clusters likely represent Richard’s Irish side as they are not connected to the other clusters. The last two people in the last cluster are Elizabeth and Nathan. I wrote to Elizabeth and she confirmed that she was from the Cincinnati Branch of Butlers. I probably would not have known about Elizabeth if she had not uploaded her DNA to Gedmatch as Richard did not test at Ancestry. His two sisters tested there, but they don’t match Elizabeth by DNA.

Here are Nathan and Elizabeth on a tree:

The green boxes are for people who have detailed information on their chromosomes. They have tested at FTDNA, MyHeritage or 23andMe or uploaded their AncestryDNA results to Gedmatch.  The people in the bottom white boxes are connected by DNA and genealogy at Ancestry, but don’t have detailed information on their DNA.  This is what I call the Cincinnati Branch of Butlers. Nathan descends from the first wife of George Butler and Elizabeth descends from a second wife. Nathan’s ancestors moved to Nova Scotia where my wife’s ancestor married. Because of the genealogy, any DNA that Nathan and Elizabeth share have to come from George Butler but not either of his wives.

Here is the whole tree:

Because there are so many DNA connections between these two lines, I have proposed a Butler father to Michael Butler the earliest known ancestor of Richard and Henry Butler, the earliest known Butler ancestor of Elizabeth.  There are other possibilities.

Lisa with Possible Butler Ancestry

I wrote to Lisa about a year ago, because she had a large match with my wife’s two Aunts. Lisa would like to know how she fits in. Here is my wife’s side of the tree:

If I put up some DNA match numers for Lisa, it should tell where Lisa fits in on this tree:

That means that Lisa most likely descends from Marguerite Butler born in 1912. Here are some possible relationships between Amanda and Lisa:

My guess would be that Amanda and Lisa could be 1/2 first cousins or first cousins once removed. When I look at shared matches between Lisa and Amanda, I see a Herman in there which means that Lisa may have Herman and Butler ancestry somehow. This should give Lisa something to work on.

Lisa and Elizabeth

I bring Lisa up here because she also has a small match with Elizabeth:

That means that Lisa also has ancient Butler DNA links going back to Ireland.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was fortunate to find Elizabeth through Gedmatch’s Cluster Program
  • Elizabeth is from the Cincinnati Butlers which link my wife’s Butlers back to Ireland
  • Lisa, who I had corresponded with previously also has a small match with Elizabeth
  • Lisa was unsure of her ancestry
  • Lisa gave me access to her DNA results at Ancestry. I compared her results to my wife’s Butler lines and she matched best with the Marguerite Butler Line.
  • Lisa and Marguerite’s granddaughter Amanda also have a shared match with a Herman which means that Lisa and Amanda could be as close as first cousins once removed.

 

 

 

Butler Visual Phasing: Part 4

In my previous Blog, I worked on updating the visual phasing for my late father-in-law and his two sisters. While doing this, I updated their DNA Painter Maps. I made an interesting discovery based on an old Cincinnati Butler descendant match that I had found back in 2015. The old spreadsheet that I had on Richard was helpful, so I updated that for him and one of his sisters. I will next update Virginia’s spreadsheet from Gedmatch.

Chromosome 17

My note says that this is done but  the paternal side needs to be idendified:

On Chromosome 17, I was trying to figure out what DNA my wife inherited from her father based on the Chromosome Mapping.

The key to Chromosome 17 is finding paternal matches. Not unlike the key to all the chromosomes. I’ll run Virginia against Jack, who is a top Kerivan match. I’ll look for the matches in common at Gedmatch and then run a Matching Segment Search. I come up with one match on Chromosome 17:

It looks like Virginia’s paternal crossover is around 6. That would mean that paternal GP1 would be Kerivan. I see that Richard has a match with Jane also:

I don’t see a DNA match between Jane and Lorraine.

I’m ready to declare victory over Chromosome 17 and move on to the next battle.

Chromosome 18

Assuming my previous work was correct, I first need to identify the easier maternal side:

Next, I’ll add DNA Painter information:

This works well, except for Richard’s purple match with Fortin/Tremblay. Based on my visual phasing, there should be no crossovers in that purple area. My guess is that orange is LeFevre and that the purple match that Richard has with Gerry is not right.

Here is Gerry’s tree at MyHeritage:

MyHeritage was not able to figure out our common ancestor. I’m not sure how I came up with what I did. I would say now that it is not right or that there is a closer common ancestor. I decided to delete Gerry from Richard’s map until I can figure out how he belongs.

The remaining question is the location of Virgina’s maternal crossover. That can be found at the Gedmatch full resolution image of the match between Richard and Virginia:

 

That happens here at about 42.5. That fits in with Virginia’s Lefevre match on Chromosome 18:

Next, I need to find a paternal match to identify the paternal side of Chromosome 18.

It appears that the salmon colored paternal side is predominately all Kerivan or all Butler. An in common match between Jack (who represents Kerivan) and Virginia didn’t show any matches on Chromosome 18. That means that I should run an in-common match for one of the Butler matches. Lorraine has a pretty good match with Kim at Gedmatch:

I haven’t connected these two families by genealogy but they are connected by DNA and many circumstantial incidences. I had no luck finding Chromosome 18 matches with this comparison either.

Chromosome 19

I’ll add the DNA Painter map to the bottom of the work I had done previously:

It looks like Lorraine should have a maternal crossover where her match ends, but Richard’s Lefevre green is actually two matches:

The problem is that I have not mapped Jane to Lorraine’s map. Mapping Jane onto Virginia’s map helps show Virginia’s Pouliot segment between the two Lefevre segments:

It looks like there should be a crossover for Lorraine on the right side of her match with Jane. However, it appears that the match between Jane and Richard was larger previously. Now it is in line with the matches between Lorraine and Virginia:

I guess the algorhythm changed at Gedmatch. I don’t feel like changing Richard’s results right now.

A Paternal Match for Chromosome 19?

Using my previous in-common analyses, I have this Kerivan-type match for Lorraine:

I have this Butler-type match – also for Lorraine:

Unfortunately, that does not fit in with the way I have Lorraine mapped, unless I change the visual phasing. Due to uncertainties, I’ll leave Chromosome 19 for now.

Chromosome 20

Here is what I had done previously for Chromosome 20:

I’ll convert this to Excel from Powerpoint. I also want to look at the DNA Painter maps for these three siblings. Here is Lorraine:

She has LeFevre DNA at the beginning and Kerivan DNA at the right end of Chromosome 20. Lorraine’s matches appear to define Paternal GP1 as Kerivan.

Virginia shows Pouliot up to position 60:

Here is what Richard has:

When I re-do this Chromosome, I’ll start from the righ hand side as the left-hand first crossover is not as important. I did this but got the same results:

However, now I know the paternal side. At some time, I need to look at Virginia’s match list to see where her matches are falling out after position 60.

Chromosome 21

Here is what I had done previously in Powerpoint:

I’ll start by looking at the three DNA Painter maps. Only Richard has one match so far. That is for Pouliot between 10 and 22:

When I bring this into Excel, I need to see the left-hand side:

With the left side completed, I see the only color that Richard has uniquely there is blue, so that has to be Pouliot. That defines the maternal side of the three siblings’ Chromosome 21 and defines the maternal grandparents. However, it leaves a gap in Lorraine’s Chromosome 21.

Chromosome 22

Here is the work I did previously:

All l need to do is identify the two paternal grandparents. I checked the three DNA Painter maps and saw no paternal matches that would help me.

Summary and Conclusions

My list of completed chromosomes is getting larger:

I now have only 8 chromosomes that are not completed. If I do some more work on these, I may be able to complete one or two more.

  • It was helpful referring to the DNA Painter maps for these three siblings.
  • Looking at in common matches was helpful at Gedmatch
  • I will likely continue working on these unfinished chromosomes and follow up on some of the paternal in common DNA matches – especially on the Butler side.

Visual Phasing My Father-in-law’s Butler Side: Part 3

Here is where I am with visual phasing of my father-in-law’s Butler side:

I started about four or five years ago and recently have been updating their visual phasing. Visual Phasing maps out in what way three siblings got their DNA from their four grandparents.

I’ll look at the chromosomes that I haven’t completed and see if I can complete or improve on any of them.

Chromosome 1

I’ll update this to Excel and start over. The crossovers seem straightforward until we get to the right end. Then there are three in a row:

Here is my attempt at visual phasing:

When there are two crossovers in a row for the same person, it means that there is usually a Half Identical Region (HIR) which goes unidentified.

If I add some more Pouliot to Virginia’s DNAPainter map, it will help. I will also add more LeFevre:

This brings Virginia up to 18% painted.

Next, I’ll add the LeFevre matches to Lorraine’s map:

This doesn’t add any new LeFevre information for Lorraine, but may be helpful for other chromosomes. Next, I put the DNAPainter maps below the Visual Phasing Chart. This will tell if the theoretical and actual matches agree:

The scales may not match here. For Lorraine, it is clear that there is a crossover from LeFevre (blues) to Pouliot at 205:

:

I checked Richard vs. Virginia and that crossover is actually 204, not 202.

Virginia has a crossover from Pouliot to LeFevre at the same location:

That likely means that Richard does not have a crossover at 204. That is good to know.

Now Chromosome 1 is starting to come into it’s own. I see that Richard has a crossover here:

At 217, the crossover goes from Pouliot to LeFevre. I also see that Richard matches a LeFevre here:

I now have Richard and Virginia’s maternal sides finished and identified:

I think that this is as far as I can get, unless I find more matches between 0 and 70:

Chromosome 5

I had that this Chromosome was not started.

I recopied these comparisons from Gedmatch as he previous ones didn’t seem right. This is what I get without looking at Half Identical Regions (HIRs):

When I add my one allowed HIR, I get this:

Next I added in matches from DNAPainter:

Virginia has a large match that Lorraine and Richard do not have. This match is from 75 to 118. Michelle represents LeFevre, so green must represent Lefevre. Dark blue on Lorraines bar is also Lefevre, so that would support salmon being Lefevre.  Then there are the three Michelle matches near the beginning of Chromosome 5.

  • Lorraine: 18-31
  • Virginia: 28-34
  • Richard: 18-34

This suggests that Lorrain has Lefevre to Pouliot crossover at 31 and that Virginia has a Pouliot to Lefevre crossover at 28. That is good, but it means that I have to adjust my crossovers. Instead of two Richard crossovers, there is a Virginia crossover and then a Lorraine crossover. I think the problem is that I didn’t add enough detail to the comparisons. For that, I will need to lower the match level to 3 cM:

This shows another segment from 35 to 38. I may have to come back to this Chromosome as it seems quite complicated – especially in the region around the 30’s.

Chromosome 8

Here is the work I had done in 2016:

I redid Chromosome 8 in Excel:

This time I saw an R and L crossover where I saw a V crossover previously on the right side of the Chromosome. This is what I get this time:

The small blue segment on Lorraine’s top bar looks ridiculous, so I will take that out. Next, I add information from DNAPainter. However, these matches are Lefevre only:

This tells me that Lefevre is salmon and Pouliot is green.  This completes the mapping for Lorraine and Richard, but it does not identify and paternal segments. The arrows point out where the crossovers were for Richard and Lorraine, that I had previously identified as a Virgininia crossover:

It may look like Virginia should have a maternal crossover, but that is only because I did not map one of her segments. I just did that and here is here extra segment:

Joseph Methot was the father-in-law of Edmund LeFevre, so on the LeFevre side.

Chromosome 13

Here is what I had done with Chromosome 13 in 2017:

An identifying match for Virginia would help between 39 and 59.

 

It turns out that Virginia’s match with Philip that I just added is helpful. The match was between 40 and 60:

It appears that there was a match to a Rooney descendant which is on the Kerivan side. That helped identify the maternal side of Chromosome 13. While I’m at it, I’ll add Philip to Richard’s DNA Painter Map:

Richard’s match with Philip starts at 36, so it defines Virginia’s crossover from Pouliot to Lefevre at 39 or 40.

Chromosome 16

I had origingally worked on this Chromosome in Word. I redid the work in Excel and came up with the same basic results:

Next, I look at DNA Painter. Here is what I have for Richard:

He shows Pouliot at the start and near the end. then in the middle, there is some really old Lefevre DNA going back to 1715. This is from a match from Christine, that I found at Gedmatch. She had uploaded from Ancestry, but I can’t find her at Ancestry right now. However, I assume that I had the common ancestors correct. I see that Richard also has a match to Doris at MyHeritage. This common ancestor is on the Pouliot side:

This should define a Pouliot to Lefevre crossover at about 50. The problem is that I haven’t identified a crossover for Richard or any crossover at the 50 location on Chromosome 16.

One thing that I do know is that all three Butler siblings match on the Pouliot side at the beginning of the Chromosome:

 

Virginia and Lorraine do not match on the Pouliot side near the end of the Chromosome, so I came up with the above map. I think that French Canadian intermarriage may have messed with the middle of the Chromosome, so I may have to change this at some point.

Looking for Paternal Matches

I went to Gedmatch to download 1,000 of Richard’s newest matches. Most of these should be from Ancestry. As Richard tested at FTDNA, I would be better off downloading VIrginia and Lorraine’s results. They tested at Ancestry. However, I did find something interesting on Richard’s old spreadsheet:

Here is a match James who I have on Richard’s maternal side. My note says he has Cincinnati roots. Here is  the maternal side of his tree at FTDNA:

The least documented side is Branch where I think the connection is. Alma’s mother was Rebecca Butler based on Alma’s marriage record:

Here is Rebecca in the 1870 Ward 17 Cincinnati Census:

My working theory is that my wife’s Butlers are related to these Butlers. That helps me solve Chromosme 16:

Here is how Richard and James match:

This is how I have connected the two trees, but I don’t have the genealogy to do it at the top level.

Lorraine Matches James Also

Lorraine matches James here on Chromosomes 4 and 16:

Virginia  matches James on Chromosome 4 only.

Summary and Conclusions

  • 9 out of the Butler sibling’s chromosomes are believed to be completed
  • While looking for paternal matches for Visual Phasing, I found one that I had discovered in 2015. It turns out that this match was a descendant of the Cincinnati Butlers who are related to my wife’s Butlers by DNA.
  • DNA Painter has been helpful in identifying matches also and I have been adding to these three Butler siblings’ maps
  • The only cousins on the Butler grandparent side used to check the visual phasing are those that have not been proved by genealogy, but are certainly cousins by DNA.
  • I will continue on with Chromosomes 17 through 22 in a subsequent Blog

 

 

 

Updating the Visual Phasing of My Father-in-law’s Butlers: Part 2

In my previous Blog, I was successful in updating the visual phasing for the four grandparents of my father-in-law. I was able to complete several of the 23 chromosomes. This was my previous summary:

Chromosome 11

It appaears that I should be able to find some maternal matches to complete Chromosome 11. This is what I had come up with in 2016:

Here is what I have for Richard on his Chromosome 11 in DNAPainter:

I found this match for my wife from a previous Blog:

This indicates that Kbou would be on the Pouliot side for my father-in-law. From the key for Richard’s DNAPainter map, it appeared that Gagne/Girard was improperly put in a group with LeFevres, so I will move that down:

That means that Richard’s crossover at position 117 is his change from Pouliot to LeFevre:

Here is the finished Chromosome 11:

Kbou is also an X Chromosome match.

Marie Girard was my father-in-law’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother. If Richard or one of his sisters were to have the mitochondrial DNA test, that would pass to the mother’s only side also.

Chromosome 17

This was some of my early work in Visual Phasing as it is in Word:

As paternal matches are very scarce, it is difficult to identify whether blue or purple is Butler or Kerivan.

Chromosome 22

Unfortunately, I could find no paternal matches on Chromosome 22.

Chromosome 5

The crossovers were complicated in this Chromosome which is perhaps why I did not pursue this Chromosome previously:

I’ll give this a shot now. I’ll start in the middle:

Things seem clearer there. The confusing par is around 30 to 40. I’ll work on solving the right side and hope for good matches on the left side. Here is a partial solution:

Lorraine and Alan have a small match on Chromosome 5:

Lorraine has a better match with Yvonne:

This would be a good match to compare with Richard and Virginia. Here is Richard’s match with Yvonne:

I don’t see a match for Virginia.

Unfortunately, Richard and Lorraine have a Fully Identical Region from 77 to 116:

That means that this hint does not help.

Back to Alan

Virginia and Richard show no match with Alan on Chromosome 5. If Lorraine’s match is valid, I show this:

That match identifies the top bar as maternal and the bottom as paternal. That would also meanj that Lorraine and Richard would have LeFevre DNA between 77 and 116 which corroborates with the Yvonne match. I’ll leave Chromosome like this for now:

Chromosome 1

I worked on this Chromosome in 2016:

On Richard’s DNAPainter map, he has this second green match with KK:

Thjat match represents LeFevre which I have a purple:

Chromosome 2

This Chromosome is interesting as it has some Butler DNA from an unidentified Butler ancestor. I will re-do this Chromosome in Excel. Richard’s DNAPainter map shows that he has Kerivan DNA on the right side of his paternal copy of Chromosome 2:

Light blue represents Kerivan and dark blue is unknown Butler DNA.

It would be helpful to ‘paint’ Lorraine’s paternal Chromosome 2 as well as Virginia’s.

Here is Lorraine:

As a bonus, Lorraine’s match with Kim shows a bonusk segment of unknown Butler in Chromosome 4.

I don’t have anything mapped for Virginia yet. I’m not showing a match between Virginia and Kim. Here is Virginia’s matches with Jack who has Kerivan ancestry:

This mapping is not necessary, but it is helpful to see where Virginia’s Kerivan matches are. At the right side of Chromosome 2, I also see the possibility of a double crossover:

Instead of two Virginia crossovers, the last Virginia may be a Richard and Lorraine crossover. Here is what I get for the right side of Chromosome 2:

Next, I need some more maternal side for Lorraine. I unlocked something at FTDNA so I could get a good match. This is with Michelle – on Lorraine’s LeFevre side:

Next I unlock Virginia’s FTNDA results. Here is how she matches Michelle:

I have not been consistent with the colors between siblings. From just cousin matches, the Chromosome 2 Map looks like this:

I can expand some of the segments like this:

That leaves the left side of the chromosome undone. I can pretend I don’t know the results for the right side, solve the left side and then add in the right side.

The bottom three pairs of bars were visually phased.

Michelle’s DNA Matches with Richard, Lorraine and Virginia

I am hoping that key to solving Chromosome 2 lies in Michelle. Michelle matches:

  • Lorraine 31-69
  • Virginia 37-115
  • Richard 38-75

The key appears to be in the beginning of the matches. My guess is that Michelle who represents LeFevre is the salmon color:

That also means that the map would be the same except that the colors for LeFevre and Pouliot are switched. Virginia will still have the blue Kerivan on her paternal side. Green will be Butler and orange will be Pouliot.

And the answer is:

The key to solving this Chromosome:

  • Matches with Michelle and Jack
  • Solving the left side as if I didn’t know about the other DNA matches and then adding them in.
  • A double crossover for Richard and Lorraine at position 227.6.

The Importance of Chromosome 2 for Butler Genealogy

The green Butler segments of Chromosome 2 are where Richard and Lorraine match Kim and Nathan. This is my best guess of how the Butler families tie together:

Kim and Nathan descend from George Butler who lived in Cincinnati . My wife’s 2nd great-grandfather Edward Butler also lived in Cincinnati for a while – not too far from George Butler. Here is how Nathan and Kim match each other:

This is the DNA that Kim and Nathan share that came down from George Butler who was born in 1826 in Ireland.

Summary and Conclusions

  • 12 of the chromosomes have been completed.
  • It takes time to get matches to confirm and improve the work
  • As Butler matches are scarce, it would be better to try to get some Butler matches from AncestryDNA to upload to Gedmatch, MyHeritage or FTDNA.
  • It takes a long time to figure out who matches you on a specific chromosome. If you have a profile on DNAPainter, that makes the job easier.

 

 

Updating My Wife’s Father’s Side Butler Visual Phasing

Several years ago, I worked on the visual phasing of my wife’s paternal side. I administer the DNA for my wife’s father and two aunts. That gives me enough information to do visual phasing. I downloaded the Stephen Fox spreadsheet, but this does not work well now. That means that I can just update my old excel individual Chromosome maps.

New Butler Matches

Part of the problem I had with visual phasing of the Butler family is that there were a lot of matches on their maternal French Canadian side, but not as many matches on their Irish side. In there past several years, there should be new matches that could help in identifying the paternal grandparents.

Chromosome 2

This is what I had for Chromosome 2 – last worked on in 2018:

Here Gaby is not very helpful as she is a first cousin. Here is another match on Chromosome 2:

Lorraine and John are 2nd cousins, once removed on the Kerivan side. Here is how John and Lorraine match:

John will be even more helpful on Chromosomes 7, 15 and 20.

The position of 227M is significant as it occurs at a crossover. Here is John’s match with Virginia:

Here is John and Richard:

This shows that my former Chromosome 2 map was wrong on the right. All the DNA on the right should be Kerivan and not Butler. I’m a bit out of practice with these, so I’ll move on to Chromosome 7 which I hope will be easier.

Chromosome 7

Here is what I had for Chromosome 7 back in 2017:

It looks like I was having trouble with this one also as I have two different tries. I can now see by Richard’s match with John, that his crossover at 83 is on the paternal side:

Following John’s matches, it appears that this could be the answer:

This is a case where one good match can map both the paternal and maternal sides of a whole Chromosome. While that is good, you can see that there is quite a bit of Butler [green] DNA missing between these three siblings. It would be a good idea to verify the maternal side. I checked MyHeritage and Fred matches Virginia there on Chromosome 7 where I show Fred’s sister matching between about position 70 and 80. That confirms my earlier work. It is satisfying to have this Chromosome finished.

Summary of Butler Chromosomes

It would make sense to summarize the condition of the Butler 23 chromosomes in a spreadsheet.

It took a while to go through all my files. This shows that six out of 23 chromosomes are phased by grandparent. At this point, I will assume that the green highlighted chromosomes are correct. Next I can leither look at the yellow highlighted chromosomes or revisit the Butler matches with John on the Kerivan side.

Chromosome 4

This Chromosome was analyzed in PowerPoint which is not ideal:

These larger chromosomes can have a lot of crossovers. Fortunately, we now have John’s DNA match at Gedmatch. From above, I see:

  • John doesn’t match Lorraine
  • John matches Virginia in three places
  • John matches Richard in one place near the right end of Chromosome 4 (at 183 to 185)

From this it seems obvious that Butler is green and Kerivan is blue on the map above. This is how the paternal side comes out:

Richard’s match to John ends at 185, so that describes his last paternal crossover at 185. VIrginia’s match to John is from 183 to 189. The question then is why doesn’t Lorraine match John on the right side of the Chromosome if she shows blue Kerivan there? I can show more detail on the match between Lorraine and John:

I’m really showing nothing – especially on the right hand side. That means that Lorraine should be all Butler maternally and other adjustments have to be made. Here is my correction for the right side of Chromosome 4 which appears to be closer to the truth:

I moved Richard’s crossover to 185. I ignored the two crossovers for Lorraine.

Back to Chromosome 2

I will stay with the John matches and see if I am closer to tackling Chromosome 2. Here I added John’s DNA matches at the bottom:

Because Virginia matches John sooner than Richard and Lorraine do on the right, this could indicate multiple crossovers. I’ll take out the last Virginia crossover and add in two for Richard and Lorraine.

I’m not sure how I would have figured out that there was a double crossover at 227.5 were it not for the match the Bulter family has with John.

Chromosome 6

Here John matches only Virginia:

That small match identifies green as Kerivan:

However, it raises the question as to why Lorraine does not match John between positions 103 and 108. When I lower thre threshold, I see that she does:

That tells me that this was a valid match between Lorraine and John. It just got clipped on both ends. This also confirms Lorraine’s paternal crossover at about 107.5.

John’s DNA Match and Chromosome 8

John matches Virginia only on Chromosome 8:

Here is what I had done previously on Chromosome 8:

John’s match with Virginia is to the far right of Chromosome 8. That means that blue is Kerivan and Green is Butler.

John’s match with Virginia did not define any new crossovers but it did make the work that I did previously more useful. For example, if Richard comes across a paternal match on the right side of Chromosome 8 at 75 or higher, it will be on the Butler side.

Chromosome 9

John matches Virginia and Richard (but not Lorraine) on the same area:

I had already ‘solved’ Chromosome 9 previously, but let’s see if John’s two matches fit in:

I see already that I had a labeling error as I have Butler in the orange and green segments. Also I have Lorraine and Virginia as the same paternal color which is wrong. Problems. Here is the link to the Blog where I made the mistakes. This was how I had Chromosome 9 before I went wrong:

It seems like this is a better rendering of Chromosome 9:

I changed Virginia’s first crossover to her  maternal side. This is because she matches John who has Kerivan ancestry at position 8-14. I notice again, if I mapped this right, that the Butler DNA is skimpy. If there is a big Butler match waiting to be found in the middle of Chromosome 9, it will not be found by these three siblings.

Chromosome 10

Virginia and John match on Chromosome 10:

Right now I have no names on Chromosome 10:

I would need more matches to figure out if that is maternal or paternal.

At MyHeritage:

Here is the DNA match:

Lorraine’s match to Philip looks the same:

Philip and Richard do not match on Chromosome 10:

Unfortunately, even that does not help. Thinking a bit more, the first match between John and Virginia does help:

That match with John representing Kerivan must be on the salmon color. That is because no one else matches Virginia’s salmon color in that area of the match. If the match was in the green, then Lorraine would also have to match John there. This appears to be the answer:

From looking at first cousin matches previously, I seem to have figured out the maternal and paternal sides of this Chromosome.

Chromosome 12

John matches Virginia and Richard here:

I had already figured out Chromosome 12:

The match with John supports the mapping on the right as Lorraine shows Butler in yellow.

Chromosome 15

Just two chromosomes to go. John matches Lorraine here:

Some of my early visual phasing was done in Word:

Virginia matches known 2nd cousin Fred at MyHeritage:

Here is the DNA match:

Here is Lorraine and Fred:

This suggests a maternal crossover for Virginia at about position 28

I’m going to try to start Chromosome 15 again. This time in Excel:

I put in who owns the crossovers and most of the positiongs. I started at the right where Lorraine and Richard have no matches, so opposite colors. I then moved Lorraine’s colors to her next crossover. Lorraine and Virginia have a Fully Identical Region (FIR) in green so I added that in. Next, I’ll do a random half identical region between Lorraine and Virginia and see where that goes.

That looks better. It is all done except for the left side. I now see that John’s match with Lorraine must be on the salmon color. That is because John matches only Lorraine and not Virginia nor Richard. That means that salmon represents the Kerivan quarter and blue the Butler quarter.

Now I just need to look at the two Pouliot matches from MyHeritage. This should be the finished Chromosome 15 for Richard, Lorraine and Virginia:

That match between Fred, Lorraine and Virginia helped define two maternal crossovers. One was at 28 and one at 33. These were a little off from where I drew the original crossover lines at 27 and 31. On this Chromosome, some Pouliot DNA was lost between the three siblings from 60 to 95. I put Richard’s crossover at35 on his paternal side as he should have had a match with Fred (Pouliot side) if his crossover was on the maternal side.

Chromosome 20

Chromosome 20 looks fairly simple. I used a first cousin match somehow to come up with the map. Lorraine and Richard have this match with John (Kerivan side):

The way I mapped it, Virginia and Richard have the same Paternal grandparent. That means that I made a mistake or that the match is wrong. The one place I can go to for matches by Chromosome is DNAPainter. I have painte some of Richard’s DNA there:

This shows no paternal matches for Richard, but matches with two people on the maternal side. Michelle is at FTDNA here grandfather was Joseph Martin LeFevre. Richard descends from a first wife and Michelle from a second wife. That means that there is only one common ancestor between Michelle and Richard. From DNAPainter, I see that the match is from 0-8. That means that LeFevre is right for the left part of Richard’s

Line is at Gedmatch and goes back to Delisle who is on the LeFevre line. This would also be correct for the right side of Richard’s Chromosome 20. Here is Line and Lorraine:

That means that the right side of Lorraine’s Chromosome 20 is right. I don’t see Line matching Virginia at Gedmatch, so that would support the right side of Virginia’s Chromosome 20 also.

At this point, I’m at an impasse. It could be that Virginia has two extra crossovers here:

I’ll just leave this Chromosome as is for now and try to solve it later.

Summary and Conclusions

Here is my spreadsheet:

  • I went from 5 to 10 chromosomes completed.
  • I corrected one Chromosome I thought had had completed previously (Chromosome 9).
  • I improved some chromosomes without solving them, making them more useful
  • The chromosomes were helped by a match to second cousin once removed  John. He has his DNA at Ancestry and at Gedmatch.
  • MyHeritage was also helpful as they have ‘Theories of Relativity’ which give likely common ancestors and have detailed chromosome matching information.
  • Finally, DNAPainter is helpful in looking at specific chromosomes to see who the matches are there.
  • I will need to follow up on ‘painting’ Virginia and Lorraine.
  • I will also need to follow up on working on completing more of the visual phasing for the DNA of siblings Richard, Lorraine and Virginia.

Big Y “Backbone Tests”

I recently noticed that a Backbone Test had been ordered for my late father-in-law. This surprised me as it was a bit dated.

I mentioned this at the BigY Facebook group and got an interesting answer from Bob:

I think you will find that this Y-HAP-Backbone was ordered as a part of a manual review process triggered by another user’s test results.
Originally, the Y-HAP-Backbone test was performed if FTDNA was unable to unambiguously predict a person’s high-level haplogroup from their STR test results. They would actually perform enough SNP testing to resolve the ambiguity.
In the case of somebody who has actually done a BigY test, there should be no necessity to predict a haplogroup from the STRs.
Normally, the automated caller will consider a result to be a no-call if there are not at least ten reads for that position. If a new kit has a result that might affect the haplogroup definitions, a manual review of the other kits assigned to the haplogroup may occur. The analyst doing the review will look at the raw data and may decide to override the no-call reported by the automated caller. To do this override, the analyst orders the Y-HAP-Backbone procedure. In this case, no actual lab work is involved. It is simply a database operation to report the new result for that SNP.
If you display the user’s Private Haplotree, you can scroll to the top of the page and click on the “SNP Results” link, you will see a list of SNPs. If there are any overridden SNP results, they should be sorted to the top of the list. The test type will be shown as Y-HAP-Backbone. The result may be positive or negative.
If you scroll down through the pages of this report, in addition to any BigY test results, if the user has done any other SNP testing, you will see those results listed. In the case of BigY test results only positive results are shown. (After all, you are negative for several hundred thousand SNPs.)
In my own surname project, until recently our haplogroup had one subclade. We had three men assigned to the main haplogroup and six men assigned to the subclade. Even though our BigY test results actually showed the three of us to be negative for the SNP defining the subclade, these negative results were not being shown in the SNP Results list in our Private Haplotree. During an early manual review, the analyst ordered the Y-HAP-Backbone procedure for the three of us. The result is that we now are shown as negative for this SNP. The color coding in the tree now indicates that we are “Tested Negative” instead of being indicated as “Downstream”. Since that time, a new kit was found to share an additional SNP with one of the three. This resulted in a second subclade being defined. The analyst creating the subclade did not bother to override the calls for the two men remaining in the main haplogroup, so we show “Downstream” for the new subclade.
By the way, the order status for the three of us with negative results for the Y-HAP-Backbone procedures for the SNP defining the original subclade still shows that order as pending. Apparently because no lab work was performed, they failed to mark the order as completed. We have other Y-HAP-Backbone procedures (with positive results) that did get reported as completed.
Does the entry in the SNP Results list for your member’s kit show negative results, or are they all positive?
I was happy to get this reply as it answered many questions I had for my Butler father-in-law’s test as well as a Frazer project I am working on. I posted this image of my father-in-law’s SNP results at the BigY Facebook  Page:
I asked Bob this clarifying question:
Sorry, though, still a bit confused. Are you saying an override does not involve SNP testing? So in this case, the Backbone means no test and the tested negative means that a test was done?
Bob’s response:
While it may be a little confusing, the answer to both is yes. FTDNA does not offer a single-SNP test for FT241245, so the backbone procedure did not involve a laboratory test. They just looked at the raw data from the BigY test. You should be able to do something similar using the chromosome browser. When looking at this user’s BigY Results (Named Variants tabs, change the Derived? filter to Show All and enter the SNP name in the SNP Name Search box.
I suspect that it will show a ? In the Derived? And Genotype columns. Click on the SNP name to bring up the chromosome browser. I suspect that you will have fewer than ten reads shown, resulting in a no-call.
By the way, the Y-HAP-Backbone procedure results in the line being added to your SNP Results list. However, it does not actually result in a change to your raw data or what is shown in the Named Variants tab.
In response, I posted this image of my father-in-law’s results for FT241245:
I wanted to memorialize Bob’s comments as they were so helpful. I have been looking at “Backbone Test” results in a Frazer YDNA Project that I am involved in and Bob’s response answered so many of my questions.

Butler and S23612

As alluded to above, S23612 shows on the SNP results as ‘tested negative’. Let’s look for those results:

 

Just as Bob predicted, this shows up as tested negative. However, I’m not sure why this particular SNP was chosen. I would think that I-S23907 would have made more sense or perhaps BY115420.

Here are my father-in-law Richard’s results for S23612:

He is already clearly negative. Plus this SNP appears to be about 4 or 5,000 years old.

Speaking of S23897

I see that I mentioned S23897 in a previous Blog on Butler YDNA.

This is for a Butler relative with common Irish roots, but we have not yet established a genealogical connection. Now, thanks to Bob, I know where to find this Butler’s secret testing results:

Well, perhaps not secret, but they were to me previously. This Butler has a surprising 7 Negative SNP results. What I am seeing is that this Butler relative must have ordered these SNP separately before he did his BigY:

Frazer Backbone Tests

I have been waiting for Frazer ‘backbone tests’ to complete. However, according to Bob, these could be manual overrides instead of actual tests. Also, confusingly, these tests may not have an end date if the reviewer forgot to put in a date.

Here is a view of the Frazer BigY testers from the view of one of the testers from the James Frazer Line who took the BigY500 test:

My labels didn’t come out too well. The first column represents the James Frazer line and the ‘Your Branch’ represents the BigY500 tester on that line. At the top of his SNP results, we see this:

From the comments from Bob, the Y-HAP-Backbone should represent a manual override for Y151390 which is the defining Haplogroup for the James Frazer Line. Here is the order history for that same tester:

This is confusing because of the batched designation which shows after the ‘completed’ designation. However, I assume that these three entries were for the one override for Y151390. Here are his test results:

Here, he only has 7 positive reads where FTDNA would like to see 10. However, the manual review said they were all positive, so let’s say he is Y151390.

BigY700 on the James Line

The same thing apparently happened for the BigY700 tester.

Here is the James Line BigY700 order history:

This takes some interpretation. I assume that the Backbone got entered twice by mistake and that only the one entry that was actually done shows as completed. Keep in mind here that ‘backbone’ means manual override of inconclusive test results. Here are the BigY700 test results for Y151390:

This is a bit surprising as the results show positive for Y151390, so there were no questionable results to override.

My guess is that the manual review took a look at these results and agreed with them.

Archibald Line Results and Frazier BigY results

The BigY500 tester had no overrides in his SNP results. The same for the BigY700 tester. That must mean that FTDNA had no questions about their results.

That leaves the Frazier BigY results. He also has no unusual results on his list of SNPs. That means that the review was completed for Frazer/Frazier BigY’s some time in early February.

Summary and Conclusions

  • It was a help for Bob from the BigY Facebook Page to show me where to find the SNP Results link at the top of the BigY Haplotree view
  • This gave more clarification to the manual review which FTDNA performed and explained why it looked like a Backbone test was outstanding
  • FTDNA has a confusing array of places where they store information and show the results of the work they have done. They also seem to do things inconsistently. However, with perserverence and help from others who have gone through the process, it is possible to get an idea of how one’s BigY test was reviewed and processed.

 

 

 

A Different Look at the I2 Butler/Whitson BigY Results

In my previous Blog, I set out to look at the finalized results of my brother-in-law’s BigY test. While doing that, I saw that a Whitson in the I2 section of the Whitson/Butler Project had also taken a BigY Test. That test apparently helped to place a lot of my brother-in-law’s previous Private Variants onto the YDNA Tree. Here is a summary of the overall Whitson Project:

The part that I am looking at in this Blog is the green area. This is on the YDNA tree in the general area of I2. Those who have taken the BigY test are in green. My brother-in-law is the next to the last tester on the list and my father-in-law is the last. Batt, Butler tester with James Butler as ancestor and my father-in-law Richard, had the older BigY500 tests. The new Whitson tester who doesn’t show an ancestor and my brother-in-law had the new BigY 700 tests.

The BigY Block Tree for Whitson/Butler at I2

Here is the Block Tree:

The Butlers are under I-Y128364. Batt has Whitson ancestry. that means that I-BY115420 is the Whitson side. Above this is a large Block of SNPs from position 7 to position 45 (not shown) collectively named for one of the SNPs in the Block: I-Y128591. The Block tree is from my brother-in-law Ken’s perspective, so he is not shown but is in the left column under I-FT241245. Because the older tests of BigY 500 did not cover a lot of the SNPs, the two new testers (one Butler and one Whitson) have greatly helped to improve the tree. However, I think that the tree could be better. I will likely discuss that later in the Blog.

The Different Look

Here is the different look from FTDNA. I’ll start with Ken. This just focuses on the individual, where the Block tree represents 5 testers. Here are the headings for the tree:

The detail will be in the five categories of tested SNPs.

There is no need to go too far up this tree. As I mentioned above, I-Y128591 has 39 SNPs in it. This could represent about 3900 years. I-Y128364 represents the Butler with the James Butler ancestor. I-BY115420 is the Whitson group. Ken only has two colors of the dots representing ‘tested positive’ or ‘presumed negative’. I would think that he should have some yellow dots for ‘presumed positive’. For example, Ken should be presumed positive for BY48499 under A427, then he should be presumed positive for FGC70597, etc.

Here are Ken’s results for BY48499:

This shows four out of five runs came up with a mutation at this location.

My Father-In-Law’s Version of the Tree

This view is pretty much the same except that, as he had the older BigY 500 test, he has more gray dots (which I believe should be yellow dots).

Tester with James Butler Ancestor

These results introduce a few more colored dots. FT241245 has a blue dot for downstream. He also has a red dot for S23897. That confirms that he tested negative for this SNP and was not just presumed negative. Again, I believe that all the gray dots above the highlighted row should be yellow dots.

New Whitson Tester

Here I highlighted a SNP with a red shopping basket. It is noted that this SNP is part of a SNP Pack.

Batt

I would expect to see more gray dots for Batt’s BigY 500 test:

Back to Private Variants

I spend a lot of time on Private Variants as they are on the cutting edge of the BigY tests. If these are really private variants, then they should describe a future branch of the tree. If they are not, then they should be describing an upstream branch of the YDNA tree.

Ken and His Dad

Due to the closeness of the relationship, Ken’s dad should not have any SNPs that Ken does not have. Richard has no Private Variants, but he also took a less comprehensive test. As these SNPs form about every 100 years on average, it would be rare also for Ken to have Private Variants. Yet he has three:

I have Ken’s Private Variants (PVs) in yellow above. These positions were not tested for in his father, but if they were, he would most likely test positive for them. The next to test is Eng Butler or the Butler with James as his ancestor. I have that he has a ? by his results for 17140468:

Batt has the same ambiguous results and Whitson has a definite no. That means that we don’t know if Ken’s ‘Private Variants’ should show up under FT241245 or Y128364:

Ken’s PVs probably would not show up under Y128591 as Whitson tested negative for these PVs.

James Butler Ancestor Private Variants

The tester with James Butler as an ancestor has these Private Variants:

If we can trust these are truly Private Variants, then we can say that they define the James Butler Line down to the present day tester.

Here, Ken tested negative for these two positions. So the two Private Variants for the James Butler ancestor are valid. There may be other positions that were not tested for under the BigY 500 test that could be private variants also.

Whitson Private Variants

These are from the newest tester in the group:

Whitson has three Private Variants. I’ll check Whitson’s closest match who is Batt. Batt is actually negative for 12984909:

The other two positions are unclear:

That means that it is possible that the second two positions could actually be SNPs for Batt and Whitson under BY115420.

Batt Private Variants

Batt has two PVs:

My guess is that these two should be valid. Again, I’ll check Batt’s closest match who is Whitson:

Whitson does not have the first position.

Whitson has a clear ‘no’ for 19550845 also. This means that Batt has two unambiguous Private Variants.

Common Ancestor Dating

This is easier to see in the Block Tree view:

 

The places where the common ancestors are dated are in the ewhite space btween the SNPs. The common ancestor between Butler and Whitson is in the white space where the second arrow is. The common ancestor between the two Butler families is in the white space where the first arrow is.

Common Butler Ancestor

In order to get to the date for the Butler ancestor we need to assume a number of years per SNPs or Private Variant. I will use 100 as a round figure. I know that Ken has three private variants, so I will say that he shares 1.5 private variants with his father. That is assuming that FTDNA is right with the analysis. It is also possible that Ken actually shares his Private Variant with the other Butler Branch. That would put those SNPs in a Block under Y128364.

I’ll add those 1.5 private variants to the the two SNPs under FT241245 to get 3.5 SNPs. Then I’ll average those with the other Butler’s two Private Variants to get 2.75. Based on the assumption of 100 years per SNP, that would results in a common ancestor for the two Butler Lines of 275 years ago or the year 1745. That sounds pretty recent.

Common Butler/Whitson Ancestor

There are many more SNPs on the Whitson side compared to the Butler side. This means that it is possible that the Whitson SNPs came about more often than the Butler SNPs. However, the end point has to be the same for the common ancestor for these two groups. that is where the second red arrow is above. Average 2.75 with 6 to get 4.375 or 438 years. That puts the common ancestor for Butler and Whitson at the year 1582. If I come back down on the Butler side and add 100 years for Y128364, I get 1682 compared to the 1745 I previously had.

I used the 1682 date above because it was based on averaging more SNPs. For the second Butler Line, that means that a SNP was formed about once every 130 years assuming that tester was born around 1940. Also, that tester may actually find more Private Variants if the test was upgraded to BigY 700. If we use the present date, then there would be a SNP every 170 years.

On the Whitson side, there were 6 SNPs in about 440 years to present. That is a new SNP every 73 years.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I took a look at 5 BigY tests from the point of view of their individual Y-DNA Haplotrees. This look gives some extra imformation on the testing results for testers’ individual SNPs.
  • I took another stab at estimating dates to common ancestors based on the way that FTDNA has the SNPs and Private Variants for the five Butler/Whitson BigY testers. These results were very similar to what I came up with in a previous Blog.

The Finalized Butler BigY Results for My Brother-In-Law and a New Whitson BigY

I last looked at my brother-in-law’s BigY 700 results in April of 2020. That was quite a while ago. At that time, Ken had 17 Private Variants. That was odd as his father had also tested and he shouldn’t have had that many Private Variants. He should only have one if any. The problem was that FTDNA had not yet finished their manual review and dealt with all of Ken’s Private Variants. The other problem was that Ken had done the BigY 700 and his father had taken the BigY 500 which does not have as good of coverage in identifying SNPs on the Y Chromosome. That means that Ken had extra SNPs identified that his father’s test did not cover.

Here is a look at Ken’s Private Variants now:

Ken is now down to 3 Private Variants from a previous 17. That is a big difference. Here is Ken’s Block Tree:

Ken;’s three Private Variants are averaging out to 1 Private Variant on the Block Tree. Ken’s late father had no Private Variants.

Dating the Block Tree

Now that the tree is finalized with respect to Ken’s results, let’s try to date it. SNPs form between about every 83 and 144 years. I’ll use 100 years as a round number. The common ancestor of the two Butlers, Whitson and Batt should be at the level just above what is shown on the image above. To get to that level Ken’s branch has four SNPs and the next Butler branch has three SNPs. I’ll average that at 3.5 SNPs. The Whitson/Batt Line has 6 SNPs to get to the same level. 6 averaged with 3.5 SNPs is 4.75 SNPs or 475 years. 475 years ago is about the year 1545. That is quite a while ago.

From there we can work forward. We had 3.5 SNPs on average on the Butler Lines. 475/3.5 is 135 years. That means that the common ancestor on the Butler Lines could be around 1680.

More on Dates

1680 is a possible date for a common ancestor between the two Butler Lines. Both these lines are from Ireland, so that would also be a top candidate for the location of the common ancestor of the Butler side of the Block Tree. Butler researcher Peter thinks that my wife’s branch of Butler originates in Wexford County, Ireland.

The 1545 date is more complicated. My understanding is that the Whitson side is said to be from England. Here is some information from the Batt tester’s tree:

Assuming that this information is right, then the Butler family could have been in England in 1545. So far, the Butler genealogy stalls out in Ireland in the early 1800’s. Then the other question is why there is a Butler Line and a Whitson Line. Did one Whitson Branch move to Ireland and change the name to Butler? Was the English Whitson Branch originally Butler and change the name to Whitson in England?

YDNA and SNP Tracker

There is a website called SNP Tracker that makes some guesses as to dates and places also. Here is the SNP for Whitson – BY115420:

This map misses the Roman and Iron periods. That must be the big Block of SNPs where there are no matches. So between the blue dot and orange dot on the map there is a great unknown. Here is a timeline going back 10,000 years:

SNP Tracker for the Butler SNPs

This should be a little more refined as there are three testers and one father-son pair:

This shows Butler as going through England in Medieval times.  Here is the timeline:

Here I don’t agree with the timelines – especially for FT241245. This is a SNP that both Ken and his father share. However, it was formed much earlier. In my own dating I had the date of 1680 above this SNP. That means that this SNP could have formed around 1700 – so I am  not too far off from SNP Tracker. However, before that SNP Tracker has Y128364 at 1300 CE. That should only be one SNP older than FT241245, so I don’t agree with the 300 year period between these two SNPs. As a reality check, Y128364 appears to be at the same level as the Whitson BY115420 which is dated at 1700 CE by SNP tracker. Bottom line: I like my own dates better.

SNP Tracker also has a new mapper just for Great Britain and Ireland:

This shows Butler going to County Kilkenny. I’m not sure I agree with that. I think that many of the Kilkenny Butlers may be R1b, instead of my wife’s Butlers who are in the I Haplogroup. I’m not sure if SNP Tracker accounts for that. Here is some more detail from SNP Tracker:

Where DId Ken’s Other Private Variants Go?

In my previous Blog, I had suggested that most of Ken’s Private Variants should end up here:

However, I notice another change since this image. Before the right column was just Batt. Now there are Whitson results.

A New Whitson BigY

I see by the new Whitson match list, that his test must have been finalized last October:

Here is the new Whitson Block Tree:

Here I have highlighted some of the new SNPs that have appeared in the block above since my brother-in-law Ken tested. There are now 15 new SNPs in that Block potentially representing about 1500 years of time. Also of interest is that the Batt match on the Block Tree has Whitson ancestry. That means that we can simplify this tree somewhat between Butler on the left and Whitson on the right.

The new Whitson tester had a good result for Batt. Previously, Batt’s defining SNP was I-Y128591. That was 35 SNPs from present based on the previous image with the pink arrow. That could be from around 3500 years ago or roughly 1500 BC. Now Whitson and Batt have a defining SNP of I-BY115240 which I have dated at approximately a little later than 1545. That is an improvement of 3,000 years.

Back to Ken’s Private Variants

Most of Ken’s Private Variants turned into older SNPs. These in effect moved back the I-Y128591 Block 1500 years to about 4500 years ago or 2500 BC. Here is my comparison spreadsheet of Ken’s old 17 Private Variants:

My guess is that the new Whitson BigY test was the one that moved these SNPs up to the I-Y158591 Block. In the chart above, N means that the SNP was not tested. Rich is Ken’s dad above. A question mark means that the SNP was tested but the results were inconclusive.

Comparing Ken’s Old Private Variants (PVs) to the new SNPs in the I-Y158591 Block.

As I had named 15 of Ken’s old PVs and there were 15 new SNPs in the I-Y158591, it seems like there could be a one to one match. But there wasn’t:

Three of Ken’s old PVs didn’t make it up to the Y158591 Block and three of Ken’s SNPs not previously named made it there. First, I’ll see if Ken’s first two PVs have names yet:

Ken’s first PV is the newer FT394377. I would say newer, due to the higher number of the SNP. Ken’s second previously unnamed SNP is now also named:

This gets us close to reconciling Ken’s list. Here are Ken’s present Private Variants:

I have put Ken’s current Private Variants on the table as PVs. That leaves one extra SNP not previously accounted for. Right now, of Ken’s previous 17 PVs, 14 made it up to the Y128591 Block and three remained as PVs. That leaves FT394717.

FT394717

Here are Ken’s results for FT394717:

The reason that this position or SNP did not appear previously is that the results were ambiguous. Here are the detailed test results:

Ken shows that he did have FT394717. However, he had only one read and usually 10 positive reads would be acceptable. Next, I’ll check the new Whitson BigY results.

The New Whitson Tester and the New SNPs in Y128591

It appears that the new Whitson tester matched with many of Ken’s previously Private Variants. That resulted in FTDNA adding these as SNPs to the already large block of Y128591. Here is one that the new Whitson tester tested positive for:

This is FT394777:

The new Whitson tester must have been positive for the other SNPs in the orange box also.

Ken’s New Private Variants

In order for Ken to have new Private Variants, the new Whitson tester should have tested negative for those Variants. This is a little more difficult to determine. However, partial results are in the new Whitson tester’s csv file. Here are Ken’s Private Variants;

Let’s look at the Whitson tester at position 17140468:

The reference and the genotype are both T for Whitson. For Ken, there is a mutation from T to A. However, I would question whether this is a true PV for Ken as his father did not have that position tested. It is more likely that Ken’s father is also positive for that position:

Ken’s dad’s results clearly did not have position 17,140,468 tested. It would be likely that there would be no Private Variants when a father and son test.

New Whitson Private Variants

The new Whitson tester also has three Private Variants:

I’ll check Ken to see if he has no variant at position 12984909. I will have to download his csv file to find this out:

Ken is not positive for this variant.

What about Batt?

Batt is questionable for this position. That means that the Whitson Private Variant is also questionable. Whitson has it, but it may be a shared SNP with Batt and not just a Private Variant. In fact, all the Whitson Private Variants are in the same category:

Summary and Conclusions

  • When I checked on the 17 Private Variants my brother-in-law had, I was glad to see that these have been resolved.
  • I was also glad to see that there is now another Whitson BigY tester.
  • It was probably the new Whitson BigY tester that resolved my brother-in-law’s Private Variants
  • These Private Variants became older SNPs going back to the period between about 2500 BC and 1550 AD. They increased the age of the I-Y128591 Block by about 1500 years. This period is somewhat mysterious as
  • The new Whitson tester matched with the Batt tester who has Whitson ancestry and gave them both a much more recent SNP than Batt already had. Batt’s defining SNP moved up from 1500 BC to about 1550 AD.
  • I made a guess on the time and place for the common ancestors of the Butler BigY testers: about 1680 in County Wexford, Ireland
  • I also made a guess for the date common ancestors of the Butler and Whitson Lines. This was the same 1550 date mentioned above. The place could be England. However, was the original name Whitson or Butler. Which branch changed and why is unclear. A single mother could have giver her name to her child, or there could have been an adoption. Those are two possibilities.
  • I looked at the SNP Tracker to see what results were there for Butler and Whitson
  • I looked at the Butler and Whitson Private Variants. It is unlikely that Ken should have any Private Variants. Also the Whitson Private Variants are questionable. The result, if Batt and Ken’s father upgraded to the BigY 700, is that these Private Variants could turn into Butler and Whitson shared SNPs.

 

 

 

 

More Newspaper Entries for My Wife’s Family

In my previous Blog on my wife’s family in the Newspapers, I looked at some of the members of her Upshall, Butler and Ellis ancestors. In this Blog, I’ll start with Edward Henry Butler (born 1904) and Estelle LeFevre (born 1905):

Estelle LeFevre

14 September 1972

From the Boston Globe:

Here is another entry from the same day:

Not the best condition, but has more information on the LeFevre side.

Edward Henry Butler (born 1904)

This one could be confusing as there was more than one Edward Henry Butler. Here is one mention under the heading of marriages:

6 December 1959

This was from the Boston Globe.

Here is Edward’s Obituary:

17 April 1985

Kerivan

It occurs to me that I have not looked at the Kerivan famiy. One of my wife’s paternal great-granmothers was Lillie Kerivan:

Lillie Kerivan Born 1874 Needham, MA

There was a Lillie Kerivan at the Nantasket Poice Ball reported on 21 August 1896:

I can’t prove this was the same Lillie.

Obituary for Lillian in the 18 January 1932 Boston Globe. The heading will describe why this was difficult to find:

I can see how the program would interpret the L of Lillian as a T.

Here is 19 Derby Road:

I think that is a 19 to the left of the door:

 

 

More Painting of My Wife’s DNA

I call this painting my wife’s DNA because I use a program called DNA Painter. But really, it is a DNA map of my wife’s identified DNA matches. Here is what I have so far for Marie:

The top row of every one of Marie’s chromosomes is what she got from her father and the bottom row is what she got from her mother. Likewise on the key to the bottom right of the image, the top part shows the shared paternal ancestors represented in different colors on Marie’s map. The bottom part of the key has Marie’s maternal ancestors represented as colors that she got from her DNA matches.

Marie is About One Third Painted

Actually a little less:

Marie is actually doing the best as far as DNA matches go, on her paternal side:

Now that I think of it, that makes sense as there a lot of French Canadian matches on that side. That must mean that Marie is less painted on her maternal side:

Marie only has 57 DNA segments painted on her maternal side. My goal in this Blog is to get Marie’s numbers up somehow. It is not easy as there has to be a link to a common ancestor and they have to have had their DNA tested at a place that gives detailed DNA match information. AncestryDNA is the biggest tester and they don’t give detailed information on their DNA matches.

Searching for More DNA Matches for Marie

The easiest place to search would be at MyHeritage. They have an option called Theories of Relativity where they match up DNA matches and common ancestors. One of the first matches I see at MyHeritage that I haven’t mapped yet is with Ivan:

Ivan has two paths to Marie and Ivan’s proposed common ancestors of Peter Upshall and Margaret Burton.

Here is the DNA that Marie and Ivan share:

By default, I don’t think that DNA Painter will map Chromosome 11 as the match is 6.9 cM and DNA Painter has a 7.0 cutoff. That is sort of too bad because here is Marie’s Chromosome 11:

Marie’s matches with Esther, Anne and Edward are with ancestors on the Upshall side. But I don’t want to change the default either. Here is what the data looks like that will go into DNA Painter:

Unfortunately, Ivan’s areas of matches were already taken up with others for the most part. There was a small exception on Chromosome 1:

Here Ivan’s match with Marie in green was a little longer than Marie’s match with her half great Aunt Esther.

Marie’s Theory with James

Here is what MyHeritage shows:

James Ellis and Marion (with variations) MacArthur (or McArthur) are Marie’s third great-grandparents. Marion MacArthur was James Ellis’ second wife:

I show Thomas Birch Ellis as James Heny Ellis’ brother so that is good.

I’ll paint this match onto Marie’s map:

The parts of James’ DNA matches that were over 7 cM were on Chromosomes 1 and 2. They are in Ellis regions. There is no overlap, so they constitute new unmapped areas for Marie. This gets Marie up a percent overall from 31% to 32% mapped. On Marie’s Maternal side, she went from 24% to 25% mapped. Progress. I see that Marie also matches Stephen who may be James’ brother. However, Stephen does not appear to add any more DNA than James added.

Marie and Glenys

Glenys shows as a third cousin to Marie:

MyHeritage has her descended from Alexander Upshall. The record I have for him says he died at a lunatic assylum:

Let’s map this match out using DNA Painter. DNA Painter gives a hint:

I’m not sure if this is helpful or not, but it seems like the bottom hint is right. Glenys’ matches with Marie on Chromosomes 9 and 11 are already taken up:

The match on Chromosome 22 is Marie’s first on her maternal side:

This small match is not enough to increase Marie’s percantages, but it helps.

Keep Going with Marie’s DNA Match Caroline?

Caroline is supposed to match Marie on the LeFevre/LeFebre Line:

The connection looks legit. LeFebvre is the older way of spelling LeFevre. Someone left out the b along the way. Hopefully the 1891 for the Charles in Caroline’s line isn’t for his birth as that would to make sense. 1841 would make more sense. At this point, I can either assume that Caroline has the right tree or check on it myself. As I’m feeling lazy today, I’ll just check the DNA to see if it is in the right vicinity.

Turns out I already have Caroline mapped. Here is her bigger connection to Marie on Chromosome 12:

That match is solidly in LeFevre territory, so the connection is likely right.

Marie and Alan

This time I’ll go right to the DNA:

Alan overlaps other DNA Matches except for Chromosome 13:

Alan also adds a new French Canadian common ancestor to Marie’s DNA match who are Joseph Methot and Marguerite Anger.

Marie and Edna

This could be a long Blog. I see that Marie has at least five pages of Theories of Relativity. Edna is Marie’s first Theory on Page 2.

Edna adds some old Christopher Dicks DNA from 1784 on Chromosomes 1, 9 and 12. Here is the connection:

I’m not sure if Planter is the right last name for Margaret. One problem is a DNA overlap on the Ellis side at the end of Chromosome 1:

It could be that Edna’s small match with Marie there is a false positive.

Marie and Marilyn

I think that I have been in touch with Marilyn before as I have done some work on the Dick’s Line:

Marilyn doesn’t add new DNA, but shows that the match Marie has with Esther and Anne goes further back than the 1870’s or 1812. I’m still trying to get Marie’s painted DNA up to 33% but I’m not there yet.

Marie and Andre

Now we are up the 5th cousin level for Marie. As you might expect, the match levels are smaller:

Andre adds a little DNA to Chromosome 15 at the end and gives older DNA bac to 1773 on the LeFevre Line. I’m still not up to 33% painted for Marie:

However, we have 200 segments painted.

Marie and David

This match goes back to Gorrill:

As I don’t see this couple in my DNA Painter Key, this must be a non-painted match.

David provided Marie’s first maternal mapped DNA match on Chromosome 14:

This match got Marie up to 1/3 painted or 33% overall:

That got Marie from 25% to 27% painted on her maternal side.

Reorganizing Marie’s Key

At this point, it would make sense to reorganize the Key in Marie’s DNA Painter Map. Right now I have a line separating Marie’s paternal and maternal matches. Marie’s four grandparents are Butler, LeFevre, Ellis and Upshall. I can organize Marie’s key that way. Unfortunately, I only see one Butler match right now.

The LeFevre matches I just organized by date.

Marie’s Ellis and Upshall matches split out more evenly:

I see a mistake as I left Richard Gorrill up with the LeFevre’s.

Marie’s match with Robert on the Ellis Line

 

Robert adds some new DNA on Chromosome 3 and gives corroborating evidence on Chromosome 4.

Nathalie: A Fifth Cousin Match on the LeFevre Line

I’ll paint in Nathalie’s DNA as I don’t want to take the time to check every tree:

Nathalie provides new DNA mapping for Marie on her Chromosomes 14 and 19. Now Marie is 40% mapped paternally:

Marie’s Progress Update

Marie has DNA mapped on every chromosome. However, she is missing paternal DNA on Chromosome 5 and 17 and she is missing maternal DNA mapped on Chromosome 16.

Marie and Charolette

I am a little suspicious of this match as there may be a connection on Charolette’s MacArthur side also.

So whether Marie and Charolette connect on the William Ellis Line, MacArthur line or both is a fine point. This could be resolved possibly by further looking into Charolette’s ancestry. Marie is now 34% mapped or painted overall.

Marie and Agnes

Marie and Agnes have several potential connections:

This is the closest theory, so I would go with this one. The other theories are further out:

I don’t show an Edward Rayner in my tree, but I do show that the John Rayner at the top of the tree was the son of Edward John Rayner, so it would make sense if he named a son after his father. Here is where Agnes sorts out on Marie’s map:

 

Marie and Barbara – Still at MyHeritage

I made a mistake with Barbara at DNA Painter. I put down that she descended from Ellis/MacArthur:

She actually descends from Ellis/Ramsay. That should be easy to fix in DNA Painter. I can edit Barbara in DNA Painter:

I thought that I had an entry for just James Ellis 1801, but I don’t. So I’ll create a new group.

I’m getting there, but it says that James Ellis is not a known ancestor. I need to change that. I go back to the edit section for Barbara and check the known ancestor box:

Barbara fills in some new areas on three chromosomes:

This is turniing out to be a long Blog, but I am getting a lot of mapping done.

Marie and Gilles

As expected, Gilles matches Marie on her French Canadian side. This is on her Fortin/Tremblay side where Nathalie matched earlier in the Blog:

Under Nathalie, the common ancestors were Eustache Jacquies and Marie Judith, but these must be the same ancestors. Gilles adds some more DNA on Chromosome 1. His matches on other segments were below the 7 cM threshold.

I changed the Fortin/Tremblay mapped color to light blue as the previous color was too close to the pink LeFevre color. This match with Gilles maps some older DNA from the latter part of the 1700’s.

Two Possibilities for Jason

I am leaning away from Theory 1:

My tree shows that Marie descends from John Rayner, not James Rayner. However, Jason and Agnes triangulate on Chromosome 4:

I had mapped Agnes to Rayner. I think I’ll skip Jason for now.

Let’s Try Richard

Richard is on Marie’s MacArthur/MacDougall Line.

Richard added DNA to Marie’s map in previously unmapped areas on Chromosome 1, 9 andd 17:

This finally gets Marie mapped overall up to 35%. If I mapped this right, Richard’s match to Marie on Chromosome 17 points out a crossover. The green and light blue are from Marie’s Upshall side and the dark blue is from Marie’s Ellis side. This shows about where Marie’s maternal DNA went from Upshall, then to Ellis and Back to Upshall.

Marie’s X Chromosome

I don’t think that MyHeritage covers the X Chromosome. That is covered at Gedmatch and FTDNA. Here are Marie’s X Chromosome matches at Gedmatch:

Marie’s top two matches are her Aunts. They would be too closely related to map. The third match has a large X Chromosome match, but no autosomal match, so I would not be able to locate that match at Ancestry.

Marie and Lise

The fourth match is with Lise at Ancestry. Perhaps I can find her. I found someone who looks like Lise at Ancestry, but she does not have a maternal line given.

Marie and Muriel

After some dead ends, I came across Muriel. She is at Ancestry and Gedmatch and shows a common ancestor:

Here is where Gedmatch shows the X Chromosome (or 23) match:

This mapping was in a previously mapped area with Marie’s 2nd cousin. It does show that this is old DNA going back to the early 1700’s if Ancestry is right:

I also added Muriel’s matches on Chromosome 14:

Although I didn’t add much new information, I did show that I could add X Chromosome information.

Marie’s New Chromosome Mapped Update

 

Summary and Conclusions

  • My primary goal for this Blog was to update Marie’s Chromosome Map which I did.
  • The secondary goal was to get Marie at least 33% mapped and I did that also. I was able to get Marie mapped overall from 31% up to 35%
  • I also looked into Marie’s X Chromosome but that was more difficult as MyHeritage does not include information on the X Chromosome.
  • I also improved Marie’s Key and changed some of the colors on Marie’s map