More On My Butler Brother-In-Law’s BigY 700 17 Private Mutations

My brother-in-law’s BigY 700 test results came in on February 14th this year. One thing that seems strange to me is that he has 17 private variants. This leads me to believe that FTDNA has not yet finished it’s manual review. In my previous Blog, I didn’t have access to my brother-in-law’s results. Now I do.

Private Variants

Normally there should not be any private variants or perhaps one at the most between a father and son. So where did these come from? My guess is that they could be from earlier YDNA branching. Private variants show as position numbers on the Y Chromosome. Here are the first 10 belonging to my brother-in-law:

I’ll check the first position at YBrowse, to see if there is any more information there:

This is interesting, because this appears to be a new, unnamed SNP. Here are my brother-in-law’s test results:

They look like good results. I’m starting to guess now, but perhaps my brother-in-law picked up a new SNP that no one has ever tested for before.

Let’s try the next position:

This looks new also.

12,227,342

This position at least gave me a SNP number:

Here are some more details:

This tells me that this is a named SNP, but it is a new one as of 2020. This SNP was probably named as a result of my brother-in-law’s BigY test.

I’m beginning to see a trend here. Here is Richard’s csv file for that position:

Richard’s test didn’t cover as many YDNA locations as it was an older test. So the position that his son tested for is new.

Here is a spreadsheet for looking at my brother-in-law’s new private variants:

I’m going down the list. The private SNP at 26M was discovered earlier by a different company:

Summary of My Brother-In-Law’s New 17 Private Variants

Notice the last column. That is the one that says that Richard’s test never covered the position or new SNP that his son has. That explains the 17 new private variants.

Spreading the Net Wider to England

The next logical step is to check my brother-in-law’s private variants against the other BigY Butler tester in England.

Now I’m getting somewhere. The question mark means that EB was tested for the position number but that the results were inconclusive. EB was not tested for the first two position numbers, so they remain without a SNP name. I assume this is where my brother-in-law could match his father or theoretically have a new private variant. That means that my brother-in-law could end up with two private variants down from 17.

In a previous Blog, I had predicted that these new SNPs may go in the Block above Batt under I-Y128591 or even above that. This is still a good place for these 15 SNPs.

Going Up a Level To Batt

I can go one level further. This sheds some further light:

The question marks mean that there was not enough information to say that the tester was positive or negative for a mutation at the location. However, the fact that Batt had a possible mutation at every position of my brother-in-law’s private variants suggests that my brother-in-law will end up with zero private mutations. Mystery solved.

Summary and Conclusions

  • A comparison between my brother-in-law and his father showed that my brother-in-law had 17 private variants. However, that was because those 17 locations were not covered in my father-in-law Richard’s BigY test.
  • A comparison between my brother-in-law and his next closest Butler match showed that match had been tested at 15 of those locations, but the results were inconclusive.
  • I then went out another level and found that Batt had been tested at every location of my brother-in-law’s private variants, but the results were inconclusive at all of those locations.
  • It is likely that my brother-in-law’s test results will confirm each questionable test and that he will end up with no private variants.
  • I guessed where the extra 17 SNPs will end up, but I don’t have enough information to be sure that they will be in the I-Y128591 Block or above that.

 

Update on the New Butler Haplogroup

In my previous Blog, I looked at the new Butler Haplogroup. It turned out that these were actually two new haplogroups.

The two new SNPs are both in the I2 Haplogroup. They are I-Y129564 and I-FT241564. Here is what the genealogy looks like on the Richard Butler side.

I’m not sure I did the tree right, as technically, Richard’s son should be below Richard. I just meant to show that they both had the two SNPs shown above.

These two SNPs formed between the time of birth of the common ancestor between Richard and the Butler from England. I don’t know when that common ancestor was born. I’ll say it was 1700 to be conservative. Richard was born in 1932. The means that these two SNPs formed in about 200 to 232 years. As SNPs form on average between 83 and 144 years, this time period makes sense.

English Butler Private SNPs

The English Butler who is I-Y128364 has 2 private variants:

Here they are:

If the English Butler has a close relative who does the BigY test, these two Private Variants would form their YDNA Branch.

13619832

I’ll use YBrowse to find out more about the English Butler’s private variants:

Thiss position number shows up as BY122010

This SNP was discovered when the English Butler did his BigY test in 2018:

15906031

For some reason, this SNP was discovered a year earlier:

I retyped the tree for what is a likely outcome for the English Branch of Butlers:

At the top is the Butler/Whitson ancestor. The Butler tree is on the left. Now I have Richard’s son below Richard. This shows four BigY testers. Notice, sometimes I put an I before the SNP name and sometimes not. Either way is OK. All these are within the I2 Haplogroup. There is a 30,000 year difference between I1 and I2:

The above depiction is from the Eupedia website.

Batt

The Batt Line from I-Y128591 has 5 Private Variants:

I could do the same exercise that I did for the English Butler, but I won’t. If a close relative of Batt were to take a BigY test, that would likely name the 5 SNPs that have formed in the previous 700 years.

My Brother-In-Law’s Private Variants

My Brother-in-law still has apparently about 16 private variants. I haven’t seen them yet, but his father Richard has 0 private variants and the average private variants between father and son is 8.  From Richard’s Non-Matching Variants:

These are Richard’s non-matching variants compared to his son, the Butler living in England and Batt. The fact that both my brother-in-law and EB (English Butler) have BY28891 and BY29432 seems significant. The fact that Richard doesn’t share these SNPs with his son or EB suggests that his son and EB share these SNPs with each other.

Here is Richard’s results for this SNP:

This shows Richard had only one positive read out of about 10 for this SNP. EB, on the other hand, had about 13 good reads:

Let’s take this SNP up a step to Batt:

Batt actually had 9 good reads, but because Richard had a lousy test, it was not originally included. That means that this SNP should be added to the Butler/Whitson Block:

The SNP could even be further upstream, but it is likely where I show. Putting a new SNP in this Block would not increase the distance between Butler and Batt, but would increase the number of years between Butler, Batt/Whitson and the next closest YDNA relative on the tree. These next matches are quite distantly related and have ancestors from Scotland and the Russian Federation:

BY29432

I’ll check this SNP, to see if it follows the same pattern. In this case, Richard has a much better read:

There is a little arrow at the location of the read.

EB has a bit of a wild read:

I say wild because the Genotype is C and the mutation shows as changing first to A and then to G, but mostly to G like Richard’s results.

Next, I’ll check Batt:

This shows some confusion in the test:

Batt’s faded reads were low quality and the mutation apparently also called the genotype came out as T. There were more than 10 reads of C > G. There is also tow more pages of results for Batt:

Above is the last page. The second page had some more faded T’s. This last page has a good read for a C > A which appears to correspond to EB’s C > A reads, though I think EB’s reads were lower quality. Bottom line is that I think that FTDNA should also add this SNP to the Butler/Whitson Block, but I don’t know all of FTDNA’s standards. If they do, my brother-in-law’s results would be the tippng point.

This is the kind of manual review that FTDNA will be doing with my brother-in-law’s new BigY 700 results. This, in addition to looking at his Private Variants.

Looking At the Butler YDNA Project and Ancestry

There are 599 members of the Butler YDNA Project. There are 5 members who mention Wexford in their ancestry:

  • Two Butlers are I1,
  • two are I2 and
  • one is R1b. R1b is traditionally Irish, though more detail would be needed as this could include England or other parts of Europe also.

Richard is not included in the Wexford Butlers, even though his ancestry probably goes back there. I have him in the YDNA Butler Project as having Kilkenny ancestry as that is as far back as I’ve gotten in the genealogy.

Butlers with Kilkenny Ancestry

I also see five Butlers who show Kilkenny Ancestry:

  • One I2 – This is Richard, but he probably will end up being listed as from Wexford.
  • One R1a – R1a could indicate Scandinatvian origin.
  • Three R1b’s – However, two of these have the Fitzpatrick name

That means that, in this unscientific survey, Wexford Butlers are more likely to be I2 or I1 but less likely R1b. Due to the results including Fitzpatricks, the results for KIlkenny seem inconclusive.

All-Ireland YDNA

When I expand the list to Ireland, I get this:

This seems to indicate that the further away from Wexford you get, the more likely it is that your Butler ancestor will be from the R1b group. There is only one R1a which I would associate more with the I1 and I2 Groups. The R1a ancestor is from Glenmore which is interesting as it seems to be in the area where my wife’s Butlers were from:

Glenmore is in the area of Kilkenny that is near Counties Waterford and Wexford.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I looked at the Private Variants for a BigY Butler tester from England. He is the closest BigY match to the two American Butler testers.
  • It is believed that the common Butler ancestor for these three BigY testers is in Wexford. I drew a BigY tree for what would likely happen if the a close relative of the English Butler BigY tester was to also do the BigY test.
  • The next closest BigY tester has the Batt surname, but can trace his ancestry back to England under the Whitson surname.
  • I looked at some non-matching Variants between my brother-in-law, father-in-law, the other Butler Tester and a Batt BigY tester and showed where they may fit in.
  • I looked at the YDNA data for the FTDNA Butler Project. This suggests that the Wexford Butlers are more likely to the I1, I2, or R1a as compared to R1b. R1b is considered a more native Irish YDNA type. I1, I2, and R1b came later in Irish history – perhaps as part of a Norman conquest.
  • I’m still waiting for FTDNA to finish their manual review of my brother-in-law’s Private Variants.

 

 

 

A New Terminal YDNA Subclade for My Wife’s Butler Family

I have been testing my late father-in-law’s YDNA since 2015, so this has been a long journey. Recently my brother-in-law also had his YDNA tested. He went all out and got the BigY-700 test. This was good because once two people who are closely related both have this test done, then it defines the terminal subclade for that specific family.

So, What is the New Subclade?

The new Subclade is:

Here is how it looks in FTDNA’s Block Tree:

Previously my father-in-law, Richard was I-128364. The odd part about this is that the figure still shows 8 Private Variants between Richard and his son. I don’t see any private variants for Richard. That must mean that his son has about 16 private variants as this is an average of the two. My guess is that FTDNA has not updated the Private Variants yet.

SNP Tracker

The SNP Tracker has not yet tracked I-FT241245. However, this is what it now shows for I-Y128364:

This tracks the migration that the Butler family took since the dawn of time. Note that the Roman period is skipped over and this just brings us up to Medieval times. The Roman period must be bound up in the block of 23 SNPs that are listed here under I-Y128591:

I-FT241245 Is Not the Terminal SNP I Was Expecting

David Vance from the Big Y Facebook Page points out that:

By the way this also says that the father and son both share two variants that are unique to their line, FT241245 and Y129564. Those are two separate SNPs that apparently occurred on the father’s line after his most recent common ancestor with the Butler in England. FT241245 is at position 4195963 and Y129564 is at position 20968182.

This surprised me a bit as previously, I thought that Richard would have one SNP. This is based on the fact that Richard previously had one private variant. My guess is that either the manual review is not finished yet, or Richard’s son had a SNP at position 4195963 resulting in and that Richard had that also, though perhaps they weren’t sure before that Richard had it

I have found that YDNA can be full of surprises.

FT241245

I looked at Richard’s CSV file and found this:

This shows that Richard already tested for this SNP but that there was a question. this is shown as a known SNP because this is a new CSV file. I assume that the original file only showed this as a position number.

The FTDNA Y Chromosome Browsing Tool shows this for Richard:

Richard had only two reads for this SNP and several more reads are needed before they are accepted.

This was accepted based on his son being positive for this SNP:

The other question I can’t answer is why they chose this SNP to name the branch and not Y129564.  I might have chosen Y129564 due to the testing problems for Richard of FT241245.

Y129564

Here is how Richard tested for Y129564:

 

Why Do Richard and His Son Have Two Terminal Subclades?

Here is the tree I had before Richard’s son tested:

I-Y128364 appears to represent the Wexford Butlers. At least that is the opinion of the Butler researcher from England. That makes sense because my wife’s ancestor, though he was probably born in Kilkenny, was born near the Wexford border. The George Butler family from Cincinnati who my wife’s family is related to by autosomal DNA was originally from Wexford. Also the English researcher’s family was from Wexford.

Above, the 225 years before present date is important. Here is the new tree:

The English Butler and the American Butlers shared a common ancestor around 225 years ago. This date could be earlier based on known research. However, since that time, the American branch of Butlers has had 225 years or so for new SNPs to form. New SNPs form at about the rate of every 83 to 144 years depending on the coverage of the BigY test taken. So in those 225 years or more, there was time for two SNPs to develop in the American Butler Line. Unfortunately, without further testing, we don’t know which SNP formed first.

This would be a good place to look for additional BigY testers:

Richard had a Great Uncle George born about 1873. This George had 8 sons. We just need to find a surviving male Butler from that line to test. This descendant of George Butler would probably be either I-FT241245, Y129564 or less likely neither. If he was neither, that would mean that the two new SNPs happened only on the line of George’s brother Edward Henry Butler born 1875.

Private Variants

Here is the Block Tree again:

Richard

Richard’s Private Variants do not show. However, he presently has 0 private variants. Before Richard’s son tested, Richard had one private variant. However, we now know that he should have had 2 private variants. One of those private variants had ambiguous results. Those 2 private variants formed I-FT241245 and Y129564.

Richard’s Son

I can only assume that Richard’s son has about 16 Private Variants as Richard has 0 and the average private variants between the two is 8. I have asked Richard’s son for his private variants. I assume that these may be bad readings or false readings or matches with Batt or the England Butler or new SNPs from up the tree. The other issue is that Richard’s son has taken the BigY 700 which has more coverage than the other BigY testers. That means that Richard’s son may have new SNPs that were not previously discovered.

Butler (England)

This Butler has two private variants which is consistent with Richard’s two New SNPs. If this tester finds a close relative to test the BigY, he will likely have his branch named with two new SNPs. If he finds a more distant relative, he may define one out of two of his now private variants.

Batt

Batt has 5 private variants. He shows his ancestry going back to Joseph Whitson in England in 1615. If we say that the SNPs were formed every 144 years for this older BigY test, that gets us back 720 years. That is roughly the year 1300, so quite a while ago. That suggests that the common ancestor between Butler and Whitson was in England at this time. Perhaps one line stayed in England and became Whitson, while another line went to Ireland and became Butler.

Next Steps

  • FTDNA is likely looking at Ken’s private variants. These should get down to one or zero for Ken.
  • We will want to check the SNP Tracker to see if it picks up the new SNPs for Richard’s line. I don’t know if they wait until FTDNA’s manual review is over or not.
  • It would be nice to have additional BigY testers.

 

 

Butler DNA and Genealogy Update

Butler researchers Peter and Neil in England have been working hard to tie together the George and Edward Butler families. Both these families lived in Cincinnati for a while. There are genetic ties between the two families as well as circumstantial ties. Neil believes that he descends from (I think) either George’s father or grandfather. Below is my attempt to connect the two families:

I have Henry Butler’s family on the left and Michael Butler’s family on the right. I don’t know the father of either, so this is speculation based on DNA matches between the two families. The DNA matches between the two sides seem to support the tree above. The main family under Henry is George Butler who moved to Cincinnati from Wexford, Ireland. The main family under Michael is Edward (Henry) Butler. He lived in Cincinnati for a while but moved around a bit.

Circumstantial Connections Between the George Butler and Edward Henry Butler Families

Mary A Butler Born 1858 in Cincinnati

My wife’s ancestor Edward Henry Butler married Mary E Crowley in 1855 in St. John, New Brunswick. The family moved after that to Cincinnati. George Butler had a daughter Mary A Butler born in Cincinnati in 1858. She moved to St. John and married Thomas Joseph Murphy in 1878.

Murphy descendants match my wife’s Edward Henry Butler side of the family

Edward Butler, Son of Henry Born 1839 Wexford

Peter found this announcement:

Peter’s research shows Edward as the 7th child of Henry Butler:

Above, the newspaper funeral notice mentioned that the funeral was at 220 California Street, Newton. Here is the Newton Directory for 1993:

I had rejected that my wife’s ancestor Edward could have been a clerk as I thought that he could not read or write. However, he must have picked up reading and writing as the 1910 census says that he could do both.

The Veteran’s Census has Edward H in Newtonville in 1890:

There must have been a connection between Edward H Butler and Edward Butler of Wexford, in order for Edward H to host Edward’s funeral.

A New Holman Connection

Peter has been bringing the Cincinnati George Butler family forward:

Peter asked Neil and  me to check for DNA matches to Grogan, Holman and Middendorf. I was able to find a Holman match:

He matched with my wife’s Aunt Lorraine at AncestryDNA. He also matched my wife’s Aunt Virginia. This couple had three boys. The Holman above must descend from one of these three. Here is the new branch on the right:

More on the Holman/Butler Match

The match I will call Holman has shared matches with my wife’s two Aunts at Ancestry DNA. Here are the results:

The two in yellow are also matches to Neil’s nephew who tested at AncestryDNA. In the last column above EHB stands for Edward H Butler and GB stands for George Butler. These are the two lines that are connected by DNA.

It would make sense to do this same exercise with at least Patty and Michael.

I don’t think that gave me any more information. I looked at Michael’s shared matches and didn’t see anything helpful there either.

One Side Benefit

I did put a few close Butler DNA matches on the Butler DNA tree here:

I added in Deborah and Chester on the Alice Mary Butler line.

Summary and Conclusion

  • I like to summarize and conclude because while I’m blogging I sometimes get off the subject.
  • The main point here is to secure the connection between the George Butler and Edward H Butler Lines.
  • The other point is to secure Neil from England by DNA as he appears to be connected to the George Butler Line.
  • We were able to make DNA connections between Neil’s nephew who tested at AncestryDNA and one match confirmed to be on the George Butler Line. Neil’s nephew also matches another common match who has no listed tree.
  • Through Peter’s research a new George Butler descendant line has been found. A person from the Holman family was found to be a shared match across with Neil’s nephew and my wife’s Aunts. This further solidified the Butler family connections.

 

 

My Butler Brother-In-Law’s New BigY 700 Results Are In

I had been looking for my brother-in-law’s new BigY 700 results. Finally I got a note from a more distant relative Peter in England that Ken’s results were in. Here is the image that Peter shared from his perspective:

The first Richard on the list above is my father-in-law. I manage his results. The second Richard is a more distant relative in a different haplogroup (I-Y128591). I’m not sure why Ken is listed third on Peter’s match list. Peter and Ken have the most Shared Variants. It looks like the list is sorted by Non-Matching Variants. Peter and Ken have more of these because Peter, and the two Richard’s took the BigY 500 test. Ken’s BigY 700 tested for 50 percent more variants than the older BigY 500 test..

Peter’s Non-Matching Variants

From looking at Peter’s list of Non-Matching Variants, I think that I can learn a few things. Non-Matching Variants are a little confusing because they could not only be a variant that Peter has and Ken does not. It could also be a variant that Ken has and that Peter does not have.

15906031 and 13619832

I note that the variants at position numbers 15906031 and 13619832 are common to all three of Peter’s matches. That likely means that Peter has these variants and the other three do not. That means that if Peter has a close relative with the same last name tested, that relative should also have 15906031 and/or 13619832 and that probably one of these two would be Peter’s terminal haplogroup.

20968182

Both Richard and Ken have 20968182. This is likely the position for the variant that will become Richard and Ken’s terminal haplogroup. I can look up this position at YBrowse:

Here is what the position looks like:

My further guess is that Richard and Ken will have the terminal haplogroup of Y129564:

This haplogroup was ‘discovered’ by YFull in 2018. That was when I tested my father-in-law Richard and uploaded the results to YFull. Here are Richard’s results at YFull:

Richard had no Novel SNP’s in the Best quality category. But he did have one in the Acceptable category which is Y129564.

What’s Next?

FTDNA will do a manual review on the results. It could take a while for them to get to the Butler results. However, I don’t see any possible outcome than the one I outlined above. Ken’s father Richard previously had one private variant. Ken matched this variant, which has the position number 20968182. It also has the name Y129564. This should be the new branch for what I would call the American Butlers. That means that Peter should remain in the now older branch of I-Y128364:

I-Y128364 should represent the now older Kilkenny/Wexford Branch of Butlers.

 

Shared Clustering for My Wife’s Aunt Suzy

My wife’s brother recently took a YDNA test. I can’t do an AncestryDNA Shared Clustering for my wife’s father because he didn’t test at AncestryDNA, but I can look at Aunt Suzy’s Shared Clustering

What Is Shared Clustering?

Shared Clustering is looking at shared DNA matches. The theory if you have a bunch of shared matches that also match each other they are likely from a common ancestor. Jim Bartlett got the idea of walking back your shared clusters. That means starting with your more recent clusters and going back through the years to check on and verify your older clusters which represent more distant ancestors. Jim used Jonathan Brecher’s Shared Clustering Program.

Let’s Download Aunt Suzy

I used Jonathan Brecher’s program to download Aunt Suzy’s AncestryDNA results:

Aunt Suzy also goes by Virginia which is probably a more official name. Suzy has over 68,000 total DNA matches. That should take a couple of hours to download. Once the download is down I’ll be able to look at Suzy’s clusters.

What I Expect Based on Suzy’s Ancestry

I already know what to expect in general from this excercise. Half of Suzy’s ancesty is French Canadian. They will result in many matches. The other half is Irish and they will result in fewer matches and shared ancestors.

Suzy’s dad was from an Irish background. Suzy’s mom was more recently from French Canada.

A Test Run of Shared Clustering

Suzy has 82 third cousins. Where do I set my first cluster level? Ancestry says that Suzy should start getting third cousins at 199 cM. However, I clicked through a lot of Suzy’s actual cousins and the third cousins didn’t show up until somewhere bettween 128 and 118 cM. So I’ll set the first cutoff at 123 cM. Odd number:

This was good enough to give me a paternal and maternal view of Suzy’s ancestry:

Cluster 1 is paternal and Cluster 2 is maternal. The thing that looks like a Red Cross plus sign in the middle would be Suzy’s closer relates. They match on her father’s and mother’s sides.

I’m going to put Suzy’s cluster results in a chart sorting her clusters by grandparent:

Spoiler alert is that Suzy should have a lot of LeFevre matches. I could put in Suzy’s paternal and maternal single clusters in the chart, but that would be a waste of space. Instead, I’ll bring Suzy’s cluster level down to a maximum of 50 cM from 123 cM:

Still there are only three numbered clusters, though, as above, I can see clusters within the clusters. I’ll go lower still.

At a 40 cM Limit, Suzy Has 8 Clusters

I’ll be happy to start here:

Things get a bit blurry at this level. There are 216 matches on this chart. They are not all in clusters, but most of them are.

Cluster 1

This should be easy:

Here as a Common Ancestor, Joseph Pouliot is listed as well as Pepin. However, this relationship goes back several generations:

Maybe not so easy. The Pouliot that I was thinking of is in Cluster 5:

Three of the matches have the common ancestor of Joseph Pouliot and Josephine Fortin:

I’ve been in touch with Fred. Because there are two common ancestors, I don’t know which one the DNA goes with, so for now I choose the daughter in Virginia’s line who is Emma Pouliot:

On to Cluster 2

I put Cluster 1 on hold. Cluster 2 is quite large:

In order to tame it, I retrieved all the common ancestors from Cluster 2 and put them in alphabetical order:

This name comes up quite often:

However, this goes quite a ways back. I think I need a new set of clusters. I’ll go back up to 45 cM to see if this makes things simpler:

5 Clusters for Suzy at 45 cM

The thought is, that if these clusters are obvious, they should map to the 40 cM clusters.

Cluster 1 Is Large

By the common ancestor names, this must be a LeFevre cluster. Here is a popular common ancestor:

One step backward, two steps forward?

Cluster 2

This should be the same Cluster that Fred was in above:

Cluster 3 Goes To Old Common Ancestors

This was the problem I was having with Cluster 1 at 40 cM. In fact, I’ll go to Access to compare the 40 cM clusters with the 45 cM Clusters:

I start with the 40 cM clusters as there are more with them. I join them to the 45 cM clusters by the Test ID. Then for the join I choose option 2. That says include all the records from Virginia’s 40 cM cluster and only those records from Virginia’s 45 cM Clusters where the joined fields are equal. Then on the part below in the query screen, I reverse the order with the 45 cM results first, so it will look more like my summary table.

It is possible to do this without Access but it would take quite a bit of time. I also group my query results. This takes out the duplicates:

This shows that the Cluster 3 I was looking at with the 45 cM cutoff, maps to Cluster 2 at 40 cM. Cluster 2 at 40 was the same one I looked at above and was having trouble with because the common ancestors were so ancient. I then took the clusters up to 47 cM:

This shows Clusters 4 and 5 at 47 cM. Cluster 4 is the more recent Pouliot Cluster. That tells me that there are a lot of connections between the two Clusters and that the bigger cluster must be an ancestor of Pouliot (or Fortin).

Here are the same two corresponding clusters at th 45 cM cutoff:

Now they are Clusters 2 and 3. As the larger cluster is an ancestor of Pouliot, I’ll extend Emma Pouliot’s tree:

This brings Suzy out to her 5th cousin level. However, some of the common ancestors were out at the 6th cousin level. The confusion could be that there are two Trembely or Tremblay lines. However, both Tremblay lines go through Josephine Fortin. Here is her line with the Cluster 3 common ancestors highlighted. Actually, these are the Cluster 2 Common ancestors from the 40 cM run:

All these common ancestors funnel down through Emma Fortin. Imagine that you are John Brecher’s computer program and you had all of these ancestors. What would you do? You would probably come up with something like Cluster 3.

Bottom line:

Here I mapped Cluster3 at 45 cM to Cluster 2 at 40 cM. It’s a lot of work to map one Cluster, but I feel as though I got it right.

Cluster 4 at the 45 cM Cutoff

Cluster 4 is off to the bottom left of Cluster 3. Cluster 4 has some affinity with Cluster 3 as can be seen by some of the matches to the left of Cluster 4 and underneath Cluster 3. Cluster 4 at 45 cM maps to Cluster 1 at 40 cM. This is one that I got stuck on above.

I’ll take what I learned with Cluster 3 and apply it to Cluster 4. I’ll just say that this Cluster goes to Joseph Pouliot born 1848:

Above I highlighted the AncestryDNA suggested Common Ancestors for Cluster 4.

Cluster 5 – The First Irish Cluster

So far, I have been dealing with French Canadian clusters. This is the first Irish one.

This Cluster has both of Suzy’s Irish grandparents, so I’d rather not put it in my spreadsheet just now. In general Butler is at the top left and Kerivan is the rest of the Cluster. I note that, based on my previous Access query, this will be mapping to two Clusters at 40 cM.

Back to the 40 cM Clusters

Irish Cluster 5 at 45 cM mapped to Clusters 6 and 7 at 40 cM. I’ll start with those.

In addition, there are now Clusters 8 and 9. Due to close relatives, Cluster 6 has Butler and Kerivan still. Here is the area with just Butler:

I’ll call that 6a.

Clusters 6b and 7

Here are Clusters 6b and 7:

However, both Clusters have the same two common ancestors. It could be that one Cluster favors Kerivan and the other Rooney. I would rather assign them both to the daughter at this point.

Clusters 8 and 9

Clusters 8 and 9 are small. They seem to favor the Kerivan side. One person in Cluster 8 has a tree with 247 people:

I notice he has a Bridget Rooney in his tree. At this point, I could try to build out his tree or wait to see what happens with further clustering. I’ll create a tree as I’m curious. I’m having trouble getting back to Bridget from Alice McCusker. Here is a transcription of her baptismal record:

One of the witnesses was a Patrick Rooney.

It looks like the family was enumerated as McCarty in 1870:

In 1880, Bridget was a widow:

This record pulls things together:

From that record, I get this:

Lawrence and Suzy are third cousins.

I don’t like the look of Cluster 9, so I’ll ignore it for now:

When I say I don’t like the look of it that is because it appears that this could be two small clusters.

Clusters 3 and 4

In my mapping, the previous Cluster 1 went to Cluster 4, so that is LeFevre. Here are the listed Common Ancestors for Cluster 4:

The Butler entries are too close for clustering. Most of the Common ancestors seem to go back to Lazare Lefevre and Adelaide Boure:

However, one went back to Methot and Anger:

Ancestry would like me to evaluate this tree. I’ll bite.

I am questioning why Armand Petrelli is the son of Alphonse Moreau. The 1930 Southbridge Census has Armand as the son of Joseph Petrelli:

Actually, I see what happened.

Robert got his tree backwards:

His mother is Moreau. His maternal grandfather should be Alphonse Moreau – ot Joseph Petrelli.

Here is Jeanette in 1920:

The other problem is the Athanase I have in my tree is a man and Robert’s connection to me is shown through a female Athanase.

I think I’ll just assume that this is an earlier LeFevre Cluster rather than Methot:

That leaves the new Cluster 3:

Cluster 3 has four connections to Cluster 2 (Fortin) and two to 4 (LeFevre). I don’t have a lot of information, so I’ll just add Cluster 3 near Fortin:

This could be a long Blog, but I like that the clusters seem to be falling into place – even with the French Canadian families.

Suzy’s 18 Clusters at 35 cM

This looks like the 1,000 foot view:

In Access here is how the previous clusters map to this set of clusters:

This is interesting because the Cluster 3 I was looking at above, maps to 7 and 8 but Cluster 2 also maps to Cluster 7.

Cluster6 mapped to 9, but I had a 6a and 6b. It turns out that the Cluster 9 has not separated out yet due to Suzy’s close relatives being in that cluster. From above, it looks like a lot of the action is in the French Canadian quarters.

Looking At the Irish Side – Down to 30 cM

I’ve decided to take a new easier approach. I am more interested in the Irish side at this point. The French Canadian side is interesting, but much of the genealogy is seemingly well-defined. At least the answers seem to be there if you dig deep enough. Describing the French Canadian clusters may be interesting, but it is a lot of work. I had some luck above with Rooney, so I’ll stick with the Irish and go down another level to 30 cM.

I ran the Shared Clustering program and came up with some more large French Canadian Clusters. I notice there is a button where you can filter out the larger clusters.

I thought I wanted to use the first box, but that is for the entire file. I want the second box to get rid of the large French Canadian clusters. Without this filter I get:

  • Cluster 2 goes from row 15-266
  • 21 goes from 441 to 485
  • 22 which I want goes from 487 to 509 or about 23 rows

I’ll try setting the cutoff at 40 members. I like this because I can now see what is going on:

This reduces the number of clusters and changes the cluster numbers, but that is OK. I’ll just put another heading on my Summary Chart:

I brought these new restricted clusters into Access and compared them:

Here I have only 5 clusters. That made a huge difference. Without the 40 member cutoff, I get 31 clusters. Life just got simpler.

Above Cluster 9 goes to Clusters 1 and 2. Cluster 9 was the one that I had split previously. Here are the new Clusters 1 and 2:

Cluster 1 is the Kerivan side and Cluster 2 is the Butler side.

This is interesting because former Clusters 10 and 11 reclustered into the new Cluster 1. Now I’m curious to see how the unfiltered Clusters would have mapped:

This goes off the page above. One unexpected result is that under this configuration the previous Cluster 9 now only maps to one Cluster 4. However, now the old Clusters 10 and 11 map to their own clusters. With the restriction of the large clusters, I was expecting no effect on the Irish clusters, only on the large French Canadian clusters. However, the restriction also had an effect on the Irish Clusters.

The bottom line is that I could work with either the restricted or non-restricted clusters, however, for the purpose of looking at the Irish clusters, I would rather deal with the restricted clusters.

Irish Cluster 1

At 30 cM with a restiction 40 per cluster, I get two Irish Clusters. The first one is the Kerivan side. The first person on the list is not in the cluster but has matches to Cluster 1. He has a small tree with a Hanrahan in it. The fourth on the list shows a correclation to Cluster 1 and has a public tree. I don’t see any obvious match and would prefer not to build out this tree.

The last person before the Kerivan Cluster 1 has a curious common ancestor named Mary:

This looks worth pursuing. The relationship is shown as half first cousin, but it is likely a full cousin relationship unless Mary married two different Rooney’s. Here is Suzy’s tree starting with her Kerivan grandfather:

The Ancestry shared ancestry tree looks suspicious also because it appears to show that there were two brothers named Timothy Rooney. I’ll try to recreate Daniel’s tree to see what is going on. I was having trouble with the tree, then I found a chart I had made a while ago:

This shows John Henry descending from a first wife of Timothy Rooney. I’ll put that on my new Rooney Tree:

I’ve ended up with a half relationship after all. However, it now appears that Daniel and Suzy are 1/2 third cousins once removed. I tried to distinguish the two branches with different colors.

The next person in Cluster 1 who I haven’t looked at yet is FG:

FG has an unlinked tree:

I noticed the name McCusker:

I like the easy ones. See, I’m a Rooney specialist.

Andrew from Cluster 1

The next person in Cluster 1 with a usable tree is Andrew:

After a little snooping around Ancestry, I came up with this:

Andrew goes on my Rooney Tree:

That brings up a point. The first three matches are not Kerivan matches. Technically, that makes Cluster 1 a Rooney Cluster.

Russell and Sandra

Russell and Sandra should be easy as they show Common Ancestors at Ancestry:

Bob’s Tree Looks Hopeful

Bob, who is in Cluster 1, has this tree:

Here is a quick tree to get him on my Chart:

Donna and John

I have a note that Donna is the mother of John and that I wrote a Blog about John. Here is John at Ancestry:

It looks like a good time to start a separate Kerivan Tree:

I found Donna’s sister in the mix also.

H6 and a More Challenging Tree?

H6 is in Cluster 1 with a match of 141 cM:

These families lived in New Jersey and some came from Sweden or Italy, so I had trouble getting this back to Kerivan easily.

On To Butler Cluster 2

The first two with small unlinked trees are Kerry and Janice.

Kerry’s tree:

Janice’s tree:

 

I’m thinking it would be a lot of work to track these trees down. Here is some more on Mary Ann:

I decided to look into this tree based on the fact that I also found a Rooney in the ancestry. Mary Ann’s mother was Rose Rooney.

That could explain the link of Cluster 2 to the Rooney Cluster 1:

Butler’s I’m Already Tracking

 

I already had Donna, Janice and Barbara. I added Harry also from Cluster 1.

Suzy’s Clusters of 40 Members or Less at 25 cM

I checked Suzy’s clusters at 25 cM without the 40 member limit and she had 69 clusters. With all those clusters, I couldn’t see all the clusters on the chart even at the minimum 10%. With the 40 member limit, Suzy had 12 clusters:

 

 

I’m curious what these clusters will show.

Running the 25 cM Clusters by Access

I’ll compare these clusters to the 30 cM clusters in Access.

This says that Clusters 1 and 2 both split three ways. That means that there were also 6 new clusters. I expect the new clusters were a mix of Irish and French Canadian. It seems odd that only the two Irish Clusters that I was working on at the 30 cM limit mapped as I had 5 clusters previously. I’m guessing that the other three clusters mapped clusters of over 40 members, so were screened out.

Cluster 1

I don’t like how Cluster 1 doesn’t cluster well, but I’ll take a look anyway:

In looking over these 4 mathces, I don’t see an obvious connection. Something more may show up at the 20 cM Cluster run.

Cluster 2

This Cluster seems to have an affinity with part of Cluster 7, which looks like a Kerivan Cluster.

Cluster 3

This mapped from previous Cluster 1. I see one person who has a Rooney in their ancestry. This is a person I looked at in the previous Cluster 1:

I’ll put Cluster 3 here:

However, I’ll have to go back and check in Access to see if that looks right:

It is right as it mapped back to Cluster 11 at the 35 cM limit. Also I see that the Cluster 1 at 35 cM that I had looked at above came from the previous Cluster 2 at 30 cM which was a Butler Cluster.

Cluster 4

Cluster 4 is new. Here is the tree for Suzy’s first match in Cluster 4:

Ancestry has Rooney in green as it notices that name in Suzy’s tree. Thomas Rooney above was said to be from County Roscommon. Here is the largest tree from Jean of Cluster 4:

 

Timothy Rooney from Suzy’s tree is supposed to be from Leitrim. Daddy Mick Roone is supposed to be from Galoway (Galway?). Thomas above shows from Roscommon. They could all be right and all be related.

Cluster 5

The person above Cluster 5 seems associated with Cluster 5 and has a tree. However, that person also has connection with Rooney Cluster 3. Here is some Rooney information from the tree:

Here is more of the tree:

Suzy has both Rooney and Sullivan ancestry:

The question is whether Cluster 5 is a Sullivan or Rooney Cluster.

I’ll build out the other unlinked tree from Kerry in Cluster 5:

I’m guessing the connection is on the Gilmartin side as that name sounds familiar. However, I couldn’t get the tree to match with a familar surnam, so I gave up for now.

Anyway, based on the Clusters, I should be looking on the Bulter side for these Cluster 5 matches:

It is easy to get thrown off my conmon surnames. That is why we have to pay attention to the shared clusters. However, having said that Cluster 5 did seem to match both Clusters 4 and 6. So for now, I’ll put Cluster 5 on the Butler side:

Cluster 6 – A Butler Cluster

This is an interesting Cluster because it includes a Cincinnati branch of Butlers who are related to Suzy’s Butlers, but we don’t know how yet. Here is my guess how they could match:

The George Butler Branch from Cincinnati is on the left. The Edward Butler branch who lived for a while in Cincinnati ended up in the Boston area.

Within Cluster 6 is the Boston group and the Cincinnati group:

The last two matches that I don’t have a green box around are closer Butler relatives.

Cluster 7 – Back to the Kerivan Side

I don’t see any new matches in this group, so no new news.

Clusters 8-12

These are all new clusters:

I don’t know if these are Irish or French Canadian Clusters.

On to the Final Clustering at 20 cM

In this run, I’ll choose 6 cM and have a maximum cluster size of 40 keeping in mind that Ancestry’s shared matches are generally at the 20 cM size or larger. This gives me 20 Clusters and some greater detail on what I had already.

First I’ll pull this new information into Access to see how the Clusters map:

This cut off a few clusters at the top. First I see in the 7th row from the bottom, Cluster 2 that went to 1 has no cluster in the last row. That was the cluster that I was wary of.

Here is a sort by the previous run of Clusters:

This tells me the new Cluster 1 is from the previous Cluster 2. The new Cluster 2 had no precedent. One large tree in Cluster 2 had a Crowley ancestor from Cork, but that may be a coincidence.

Cluster Three maps to previous Cluster 9 which I haven’t looked at. I see another Gilmarting in Cluster 3. His ancestry goes back to Leitrim, Ireland. After clicking through a lot of connections, I would guess that the connection is through Ireland. Also a lot of the connections are in Leitrim and I found one tree with a Rooney in it from Leitrim:

Here is an interesting match between Clusters 3 and 4:

This wants to tie together the Jeremiah and John Rooney Lines.

ThruLines suggests another Rooney Line:

Skipping Down to the Butler Clusters

The new Cluster 11 mapped to the previous Cluster 6:

There is nothing new in Cluster 11 itself, but the interesting part is outside Cluster 11 proper:

However, there are four matches above Cluster 11 that show association with Cluster 11. The first person is managed by Patty who I already know about:

Patty is on the George Butler Line. George Butler came to live in Cincinnati.

The third person in the group of matches that are correlated to Cluster 11 is Regina. Here is her tree:

I recognize the Branch name above.  Here is the marriage record for Alma from 1925:

Another person in the group that is correlated with Cluster 11 is Ryan. Here is his tree:

Both of Ryan’s parents were born in Cincinnati. I need to build yet another tree to see if I can find a match:

With a little snooping around, I was able to get back to Alma Branch:

Christy is on the other side of the Cluster 11:

She fits in on the Boston George side:

Emily married an unrelated Butler.

Next under Christy is Larry:

Larry matches clusters on either side. Here is here small tree:

The tree is interesting as both parents are from Wexford. Some of the Butler ancestors were also from Wexford. Unfortunately, the tree is a bit confusing to follow. Was Bridget’s maiden name Browne or Hesse?

Larry has shared matches with Suzy, Brian, Barbara and Janice:

That seems to make Larry a sort of missing link.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I did a first shot at looking at Suzy’s Shared Clusters
  • Not too far into looking at Suzy’s clusters, her French Canadian Clusters got very large.
  • I restricted the size of Suzy’s clusters so I could look more at her smaller clusters on her Irish side.
  • This lead me to some interesting finds on her Kerivan and Butler side.
  • One Butler match was very interesting as it was shared with two Butler branches that I have been trying to connect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My Wife’s Theories of Relativity and DNA Painting

My wife Marie has Butler, Ellis, Lefevre and  Upshall. Butler is originally from Ireland, Ellis from PEI, LeFevre from Quebec and Upshall from Newfoundland. I have uplaoded Marie’s DNA results to MyHeritage. They have a utility called Theories of Relativity. This matches DNA with family trees. Once I get those connections, I can map Marie’s DNA using DNA Painter an online utility.

DNA Painter

I have already mapped quite a bit of Marie’s DNA here:

This shows that Marie is 30% painted or mapped. I’d like to improve this by looking at MyHeritage’s Theories.

Marie’s Theories of Relativity (TOR)

Marie’s top TOR is already mapped. That is Fred. Marie’s second TOR is Jo-Ann. Their common ancestors are Hopgood and Watson:

Marie and Jo-Ann match here:

I downloaded the details of this DNA match and entered them in at DNA Painter. I didn’t have these ancestors at DNA Painter, so I added them along with a new suggested color:

When I do this, I notice a potential problem:

This indicates that Jo-Ann’s match is bumping into Sarah’s match. That makes me suspect that I have mapped Sarah wrong. Sarah may have Hopgood/Watson ancestors also that I didn’t notice.

Another Look at Sarah

Sarah’s results are at AncestryDNA and Gedmatch. This is how I have Sarah at Ancestry:

That means that there is a mix-up somewhere. The reason I suspect it is on Sarah’s side is because the DNA match for Marie and Sarah is high for a 4th cousin once removed. I don’t want to try to fix this at this time, so I’ll just note the discrepancy. The problem is that one shared segment should represent one shared common ancestor. In this case it represents two.

Even with the overlaps, Jo-Ann brings up Marie’s mapped DNA to 31%.

Caroline and the LeFevre/Boure Line

Next is Wallace who I already mapped. Then Caroline. TOR shows a common ancestor with this couple:

This tree is also not without its problems. How could Charles Lefebvre be born in 1891 and have a daughter born 1870? This Ancestry Tree from Marie’s cousin has a Charles:

When I checked details on Caroline’s tree, it said that Charles was born before 1891. So I’ll say Caroline’s tree is OK. Caroline doesn’t add much new DNA, but doesn’t conflict with other DNA

Caroline overlaps with orange and pink but those are also LeFevre matches from more recent generations:

Pierre -Luc and an Older Pouliot Ancestor

Here is how MyHeritage shows the connection:

My suspicious side says that there could be other ancestral connections, but my lazy side says, put this in as is. Pierre-Luc’s DNA doesn’t bump into anyone that it shouldn’t bump into.

Pierre-Luc bumps into Joe and Patricia but they have common ancestors with Marie of LeFevre and Pouliot. That means that Joe and Patricia’s pink segments above Pierre are most likely Pouliot DNA. That means that if I wanted to get fancy, I could re-assign those two Joe and Patricia segments to Emma Pouliot. But I won’t.

The Problem with Daniel: Too Many Ancestors

Here is how MyHeritage shows Daniel:

But also like this:

DNA Painter may help figure out which DNA goes where. First, I’ll put Daniel in ambiguously:

Here are the hairs we are trying to split:

On Chromosome 2, we still can’t tell where Daniel belongs:

 

First I had to change Daniel’s color to green so he would show up better. In order to tell where Daniel belongs, we need an older match. The pink, orange and blue matches are too recent. That means that I entered Daniel correctly as Methot or LeFevre. For brevity, I left out the spouses. Sorry, spouses.

Daniel’s DNA matches with Marie were just under the limit of 7 cM, so they didn’t get painted:

Irma with PEI Ancestry

Matches on Chromosomes 2 and 3 will be too small to paint:

Painting this brings up more problems:

Here we have some bad overlaps between Ellis, Hopgood and MacArthur. One may be explained in that Irma has a different path to Ellis:

The Hopgood segment was one we just mapped from Jo-Ann – but with reservations.

Here is another path for Jo-Ann:

Here is a more likely, but slightly more distant relationship:

 

The Problem with Marie’s DNA Matches

Marie has four grandparents as do we all:

  • Ellis from PEI – Island genealogy and intermarriage, but the records are pretty good
  • Upshall from Newfoundland – More intermarriage like in PEI, but the records are not as good or missing
  • Butler from Ireland – No known intermarriage but very few relatives who have tested or posted genealogies
  • LeFevre from Quebec – Very good genealogies but a lot of intermarriage

Summary and Observations

  • Marie has confusing intermarriage issues on three out of four sides of her tree. This makes analyzing her genetic genealogy difficult
  • The further back the match is, the more possibility there is that the DNA could represent multiple sets of common ancestors
  • DNA Painter points out some of these issues. However, it is possible that DNA Painter could also sort out from which ancestors these DNA matches come from where there is more than one possibility.
  • I may come back to this later and try to sort this out.

 

 

Edward H Butler May Not Be the Son of Michael Butler and Margaret Croke?

In my previous Blog, I wrote an update on Butler DNA. In that Blog, I discussed a match between my wife’s Aunt Lorraine and Brian:

Brian shows up at AncestryDNA as a potential third cousin to Lorraine. That means that unless there is an unusual circumstance, my proposed DNA/genealogy chart cannot be right.

That chart shows Brian and Lorraine as 4th cousins once removed. However, reported data indicates that sharing 147 cM of DNA is outside the range of 4C1R possibilities, but is within the realm of likelihood (albeit on the high end) for a 3C1R:

As we have a birth record for George Butler, but not for Edward H Butler, that suggests that Edward H (likely Henry) Butler could have been the son of Henry Butler and Ann Russel.

Playing With the Butler Family Tree

There, I just made Lorraine and Brian third cousins, once removed. However, Edward H just lost MIchael Butler as his father. Here is the family tree that Butler researcher Peter has:

HENRY1 BUTLER was born in 1800 in Wexford. He married Ann Russel on 02 Jul 1824 in Wexford.

She was born in 1800 in Wexford.

Henry Butler and Ann Russel had the following children:

i. GEORGE2 BUTLER was born on 03 Oct 1826 in Wexford, Ireland. He died on 23 Dec 1890 in Hamilton County, Ohio. He married (1) MARY WHITTY, daughter of Richard Whitty and Margaret, on 12 Jun 1849 in Mountain Gate Rathangan Wexford. She was born on 03 Dec 1824 in Rathangan Wexford, Ireland. She died on 11 Jan 1865 in Hamilton County, Ohio. He married (2) MARGARET SINNOTT on 11 Nov 1868 in All Saints Catholic Church Cincinatti. She was born in 1845 in wexford Ireland. She died in 1887 in Hamilton County, Ohio.

ii. NICHOLAS BUTLER was born on 23 Apr 1828 in Wexford. He married Christina Lambert on 06 Oct 1848 in Wexford Ireland. She was born in Wexford.

iii. ELIZA BUTLER was born on 06 Mar 1830 in Wexford.

HENRY BUTLER was born on 29 Mar 1832 in Wexford.

MARY ANNE BUTLER was born on 23 Mar 1833 in Wexford.

BRIDGET BUTLER was born on 15 Jul 1836 in Wexford.

vii. ADAM BUTLER was born on 24 Jul 1839 in Wexford. I think this is a Baptism date

Peter also found another daughter for this family born in 1842:

Peter notes that George’s other name also appeared as Adam on his baptismal record and that the Adam born in 1839 went by Edward. There are a few reasons why Edward H may have been part of the Henry Butler/Ann Russell family:

  • The large DNA match between Lorraine and Brian
  • The fact that Edward did not name any of his children after Michael nor after Margaret
  • Edward did name his first son George and lived in Cincinnati for several years where the (presumably) elder George Butler lived.
  • The middle name of Henry which was carried down could have been for the Henry Butler born about 1800 in the genealogy above.
  • There has been no birth record found for Edward as son of Michael (nor as son of Henry).
  • Most records for Edward’s sons list his father born in Kilkenny. However, one record lists his father as being from Wexford.

Under my scenario, Edward is born to Henry in Wexford but is adopted by Michael Butler of Poulrone, Killkenny for some reason.

James Butler Born About 1823 Kilkenny, IRE

I have noted before that it appears that Edward was a brother to a James Butler. This was inferred from the US Census of 1910:

Here Mary Mellie is actually Mary Butler, the daughter of James Butler and Mary Quinn. She was born in 1858, though she would like us to think that she was born in 1880. That is quite a difference. Joanna, born in 1860 would have liked to have us think she was born in 1877. Edward Butler was clearly not Mary’s father. That lead me to believe that Edward and James could have been brothers and Edward was acting as Mary’s father. If Edward gave his correct age, he would have been born about 1832 (see below).

However, I note that this James Butler’s eldest son was Michael Butler:

Perhaps this James actually was a son of Michael Butler. James’ son Matthew could have been named for his brother.

Here is Mathias or Matthew Butler who is recorded as a son of Michael Butler and Margaret Croak:

So under this scenario (likely or not), Edward goes to live with and Uncle and considers the Uncle and Aunt his parents. He also considers James and Matthew his brothers.

So Where Does Edward H Butler Fit In?

Peter recently discovered  Naturalization papers for an Edward Butler from Poulrone:

In those papers, he gives his birth year as 1825. However, if he is the same as Henry born in Wexford in 1832, that would fit in better with other recorded birth years for Edward:

If Henry was named for his father, it would make sense that he might go by a different name to avoid confusion. One problem with the timing is that if Edward came to the US in 1843, he would have been only 11. That leaves a few possibilities:

  1. Edward was actually born 17 August 1825. To do that, he would have been squeezed in between his parents’ marriage and the birth of George in 1826.
  2. Edward was born in 1832, came to the US, say in 1848 when he was about 16 and was naturalized at about age 18. That would results in several fibs as his witnesses were supposed to have known him for 5 years before his naturalization.

More DNA Analysis

As I mentioned above, the DNA match between Lorraine and Brian has lead me to the above scenario. Here is an AutoCluster I performed for Lorraine earlier in the year:

These clusters are difficult to see. Clusters are where you match people in a group and that group of people match each other for the most part. Lorraine is part French Canadian and part Irish. The French Canadian took over for the most part. Lorraine’s Irish clusters are in the bottom right. Brian is in Cluster 35 which has 7 members.

Here is a closeup of the Clusters 33-36:

 

Brian is the second person in Cluster 35. He matches Barbara, Donna, Patty and Kim:

That means that in Cluster 35, there are three descendants of Edward H and three descendants of George Butler. I don’t know if the fact that there are three people on each side make the proposed tree more likely or not. To me, it suggests that it could be more likely.

Cluster 34

Brian also matches two people in Cluster 34. That is a Kerivan Cluster, but Edward H’s son Edward Henry born 1875 married a Kerivan, so that explains the connection. Brian is matching on the Butler side of the Kerivan Cluster. Brian matches Amanda and Dawn in Cluster 34. Unfortunately, Amanda and Dawn either have no tree or not enough to figure out their ancestors.

Analyzing the Size of DNA Matches

There are two ways to do this. One is by the Chart I showed at the top of the Blog. It is possible to analyze the possibilities at Ancestry also. Here is how AncestryDNA shows Brian and Lorraine:

Their most likely relationship given the match would be 2nd cousin once removed. However, they have a 1% chance of being 3C1R. I’ll put that into a chart:

I’ll be looking at my wife’s Aunt Lorraine and her sister Virginia as I manage their DNA results. Here is how the results look:

Were it not for the match between Lorraine and Brian, I would say that the results are inconclusive. However, there appears to be no chance that Brian and Lorraine could be fourth cousins once removed.

Looking at Gedmatch

I can also look at Gedmatch, however, there is not a one-to-one correlation between AncestryDNA and Gedmatch. Here is how the match between Lorraine and Kim looks at Gedmatch:

Gedmatch expresses it’s guesses in generations. So a 4.5 means generations to a common ancestor. That would be equivalent to a third cousin once removed. The green above represents the new chart that I have with George Butler and Edward H Butler as brothers. The yellow represents George Butler and Edward H Butler as first cousins.

Here is some more data, though, again, I don’t see any clear conclusions:

Summary and Conclusions

  • A high DNA match between Lorraine and Brian in conjunction with lack of some key birth records has lead me to believe that George Butler born 1826 and my wife’s ancestor Edward H Butler could be brothers.
  • That would mean that Edward H Butler’s parents would be Henry Butler and Ann Russell.
  • The why would tradition and records on the Edward H Butler line have his parents as Michael Butler and Margaret Croke? One possibility is that Michael and Margaret were Edward’s Uncle and Aunt and that he went to live with them and considered them to be his parents. Perhaps MIchael needed help on his farm or Edward had some falling out with his family.
  • This should lead to a renewed interest to find out more about the Henry Butler and Michael Butler families.
  • I would be open to other interpretations, but due to a high DNA match which indicates that George Butler and Henry H Butlers should be brothers, no other clear possibilities come to mind right now.
  • I still surmise that Henry Butler and Michael Butler could be brothers. I have a birth record for Matthew, son of Michael and my assumption is that Michael Butler had a son named James. James had several children. One of his daughters was Mary who married a Mellie and housed Edward H Butler in Newton, Massachusetts according to the 1910 Census.

 

 

 

 

2019 Updates on Butler DNA

I recently posted an update on Butler genealogy. Here is an update on Butler DNA. I have found that DNA matches work well to get good genealogical results. For the Butler project, the two main relevant test are YDNA and the autosomal DNA tests. I have discovered new relatives through both the YDNA tests and the autosomal DNA test results.

Butler YDNA and the BigY Test – I-Y128364

The two major YDNA tests are the Big Y and the STR testing. Two Butlers have taken the Big Y test. One is my late father-in-law. The other is Peter from England. This has placed my wife’s Butler family (and Peter’s) on the YDNA tree. That Place is called I-Y128364. This is actually an I2 Group. This is further broken down to I-M223 (or I2-M223). One way to show I-Y128364 is on FTDNA’s Block Tree:

The discovery of I-Y128364 is important as it describes the specific branch of Butlers that Peter, my father-in-law Richard’s family and other related Butlers belong to.

I-M223 was formed about 15,000 years ago. There is more branching that goes on, but this just shows the direct line from I-M223 to I-A427. At that point it shows additional branching. One way to get a rough date for the common ancestor is to take their average number of private variants (shown in the green boxes above) and multiply those by 144 years. This results in a common ancestor for Peter and Richard of about 288 years. Richard was born in the 1930’s, but we’ll use 1940 as a starting date. That would give a rough date of 1650 for a common ancestor between Peter and Richard. The average man has his middle child at age 34, so 288 years turns out to be about 8.5 generations.

Here is a migration map for the I Haplogroup:

The question is how the Butler’s got to Ireland. One possibility is through the Normans. These were Norse men who lived in France and invaded England. Some of those would have ended up in Ireland also. Other routes are possible.

Here is a more detailed look from SNP Tracker:

The Butler ancestors were in Southern Germany from the later Paleolithic to the early Neolithic. The one Bronze Age SNP is shown in the water. I take this to mean that these people could have been in Scandinavia or around the North Sea where the blue dot is. Iron and Roman Ages are missing and then we end up in Ireland in the Medieval period. The Medieval period was from 476 to 1450 AD. So between the blue dot and orange dot above, a lot of time goes by. The light dot in the North Sea represents a tester by the last name of Batt. The common ancestor between Batt and Butler was about 700 years ago.

Butler YDNA and the STR Test

Here is how Peter and Richard match on their STR test:

Peter and Richard match on all but 6 STRs out of the 111 tested. Plus they match on all but 6 STRs on the 412 STRs identified by the BigY results. Here is the TIP Report for Richard and Peter:

Richard and Peter have a 60% chance of having a common ancestor within 8 generations.

Neil – the Newest STR Match

Neil, who has Butler ancestors from Wexford has taken the 37 STR test. His results came back in July 2019. He matches my father-in-law Richard exactly at the 37 STR level. Here is the TIP Report between Neil and Richard:

I put in the report that Richard and Neil did not share an ancestor within the last three generations. The 37 STR test is not as accurate as the 111 STR test, so more variation may be expected in the results. Neil, Richard and Peter are all in the Butler YDNA Project at FTDNA:

Neil’s ancestor is Richard Butler born 1817 in Wexford. Neil and my father-in-law Richard share at value of 32 for a STR called DYS389ii. None of the other Butler testers share this value, so this value likely defines the specific branch of Butlers that Neil and Richard are in. Likewise, Peter and the descendant of Laurence Butler born 1830 Wexford share a value of 23 for a STR called DYS570. That STR likely defines their Butler Branch.

Neil is very likely a closer match to my father-in-law Richard than Peter is. He may also be a family finder match by autosomal DNA. Peter suggests that the older Butler line was from Wexford and branched out from there. It appears that the limited DNA matches would support that also. Based on the closeness of Neil’s DNA test to my wife’s Butler family, renewed effort is being made to make a genealogical connection.

Butler STR Overview

There are 576 members in the FTDNA Butler YDNA Project. These represent most of the Butlers and related families who have had STRs tested. Of those 576, most of the Butlers and associated families are R1b. These are probably what are considered traditionally as the more Celtic or native people to the British Isles. Of those 576, about 49 or 8.5% are I1. According to FTDNA, I1 has a common ancestor of about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. 25 Butlers or associated families are listed as I2 in the Butler YDNA Project. This represents 4.3% of the people in the Butler YDNA project. Of those 25 I2’s, all but three are I-M223. According to FTDNA, the I-M223 Tree is about 17,400 years old. That means that the Block tree I showed earlier in this Blog represents well over 17,000 years of “Butler” history. Of course, the Butler name was only attached to this history since some time in the last 1,000 years.

How does this compare to Ireland in general? Here is part of a Eupedia.com Chart:

From what I can tell, this represents percentages of Haplogroups. Above, I found that 4.3% of the Butlers were I2. From the above chart, it appears that about 6% of Irish are I2 (adding I2a and I2b). A review of the Butler YDNA Project results shows that the Butler’s in general were from many different Counties in Ireland and had many different Haplotypes. That means that no one Haplotype can be associated with the Butler name. However, different branches of Butlers can be associated with specific haplotypes.

Butler Autosomal DNA

In general, it could be said that the YDNA tests take over at the point that the autosomal DNA tests fade away. What that means is that autosomal DNA matches may be found with this probability:

The hope is that once these matches are found that there would be a genealogical connection or possible connection. Around the point where the autosomal results fade out, say about the 5th cousin level, the YDNA tests are helpful for establishing relationships going back hundreds and thousands of years. With the BigY tests, and closest matches for the STR tests, these results may overlap.

Finding New Butler Relatives Through DNA

I have found new Butler relatives through DNA matches in the following three categories:

  • Relatives who have common Butler ancestors that we already knew about
  • Relatives who have Butler ancestors that we hadn’t known about previously. Right now, the main Butler ancestor that we found out about is George Butler born in Wexford, Ireland and died in Cincinnati. It is clear that he was related to my wife’s ancestor Edward Henry Butler. But we don’t know exactly how. They may have been first cousins.
  • Relatives who have common ancestors with Butlers, but those ancestors perhaps go back beyond the time when there were good records kept – or the connection has not yet been discovered. Therefore, the connection to a comman ancestor may not be clear, but the connection to an area may be guessed at – such as Weford, Ireland. A good example of this category would be with Peter who is a YDNA match, but we don’t know who the exact common ancestor is.

Here are some lines that were discovered by autosomal DNA Matches:

This tree represents two branches that are real branches. Some of the descendants of the Henry Branch on the left match some of the descendants of Michael Butler Branch on the right. I have put the two together as potential brothers to explain the DNA matches.

Brian and Nathan (Butler/Whitty LIne)

Brian and Nathan descend from George Butler and his first wife Mary Whitty. This couple moved from Ireland to Cincinnati where they had Mary Ann. Mary Ann moved to St John, New Brunswick where she married and had descendants including Brian and Nathan who have had their autosomal DNA tested.

Nathan is in green because he has uploaded his DNA results to Gedmatch. Here is how Nathan matches my father-in-law, Richard:

A MRCA of 4.5 suggests a third cousin, once removed. By the tree above, Richard and Nathan would be fourth cousins, twice removed.

Brian tested at AncestryDNA and has a large match with my wife’s Aunt Lorraine:

The Problem with Brian and Lorraine

Ancestry predicts that Lorraine and Brian should be third cousins by the amount of DNA they share. By my proposed chart they would be fourth cousins, once removed. It seems like Lorraine and Brian share too much DNA to be 4th cousins, once removed. Here is part of a 2017 chart showing reported ranges of DNA matching for different relationships:

The highest reported DNA match for a 4C1R is 117 cM. That seems to rule out the chart I have above unless Brian and Lorraine match on another line such as the Crowley line. If Lorraine and Brian are actually third cousins, once removed, that leads to some strange conclusions. That would mean that Henry Butler is actually Michael Butler and that Ann Russel is actually Margaret Croke. Or that Henry/Michael Butler had two wives and that Lorraine and Brian are half third cousins once removed. I don’t know of DNA statistics for 1/2 3C1R, but 147 cM seems like it would be high for that relationship also. Another possibility is that Edward Henry Butler was the son of Henry Butler and Ann Russel but adopted by Michael Butler and Margaret Croke.

Here is how Brian matches my wife’s Aunt Virginia:

Ancestry suggests a 4th cousin match which is more in line with the proposed tree that I have showing that Lorraine and Brian could be fourth cousins, once removed.

Patty and Kim (Butler/Sinnett or Sinnott Line)

Patty matches Lorraine at 39 cM and Virginia at 30 cM which is more in line with my proposed chart. My proposed chart showed Lorraine and Virginia as 4th cousins. 35 cM is an average match for a 4th cousin.

Here is Patty’s tree:

Patty has a shared match with Terri. Here is Terri’s tree:

My guess is that Elmer could be a brother of George. Based on this 1920 Marriage record, that was the case:

That means that I can expand the Butler DNA match/genealogy tree:

Terri matches Virginia by 26 cM and doesn’t match Lorraine.

Kim at gedmatch

Kim’s DNA results are at Gedmatch. Here are three of her DNA matches with people on my larger chart:

Summary and Conclusions

  • In this Blog, I tried to give an overview of all the different types of applicable DNA matching results to my wife’s Butler Line
  • These DNA matches have resulted in finding new Butler relatives and a renewed effort to find genealogical connections.
  • One surprising result is that Brian and Lorraine match by too much DNA for them to be fourth cousins, once removed. If Brian and Lorraine don’t match on other family lines, then it would appear that their ancestors George and Edward Henry would have been brothers rather than 1st cousins. One scenario would have Edward Henry as the son of Henry Butler and Ann Russel and adopted by Michael Butler and Margaret Croke. This would explain why no birth record has been found for Edward H as the son of Michael Butler and Margaret Croke.Although this explanation answers some questions, it also raises other questions. If Edward was the son of Henry Butler, then why does family tradition say that he was the son of Michael Butler?

 

Updates on Butler Genealogy

I had an email recently from Butler researcher Peter with a big find:

While I was getting ready to write this Blog, I came across another surprise. This was from the Charlotte County, New Brunswick records:

Anne Butler

Let’s start with Anne. I think that this record should say that her parents were Edward Butler and Mary Crowley. Perhaps this is Julia Ann who was three in 1860 in Cincinnati. If they are the same, This Anne would have been born about 1857 and would be about 44 in 1904.

But was Julia born in New Brunswick or Elizabeth City, NJ?

Here is a Julia in Nelson, New Brunswick:

William was widowed.

This is likely Annie who was a single laundress in 1901:

This is also likely the same person in 1896 in St John:

Just to be confusing, FamilySearch has a different version of the marriage license:

Now Anne is from Boston. I thought that this would be a lot easier.

Anne’s Death Record

One genealogy has Anne dying in Taunton, MA in July 1918. I did find a death record, but is this the right person?

This is a very confusing record. I’ll look at this closely:

  • Taunton was known as Taunton Mental Hospital. Could she have been in Taunton for the ‘senile psychosis’?
  • Husband Silas B. Deshon – As far as I know, there was only one Silas B Deshon. There is a listing for Silas in the 1919 Taunton Directory:

  • ‘Hannah’ was in the hospital for one year and two months. Silas apparently moved to Taunton for part or all of this period to take care of his wife.
  • Hannah is about 63. That would put her birth at 1855. I have about 1857. By the way, this is the first time I have seen her name as Hannah.
  • Birthplace: Elizabeth, NJ – This matches with one of her marriage records.
  • Father: Daniel O’Leary – No idea where this came from.
  • Mother: Mary Croak – This matches her marriage record. Julia Ann’s mother was Mary and her grandmother’s maiden name was Croak or Croke.
  • Place of Burial: New Britain CT – I don’t know the reason for this. This could be something to follow up on.

My conclusion is that this is the same person as the Julia Ann Butler in the 1860 Cincinnati Census – assumed to be the daughter of Edward H Butler and Margaret Crowley. The informant was hospital records, so that may explain some of the confusion.

Edward Butler’s Naturalization Papers

I had assumed that Edward Butler would have applied for Naturalization some time while the family lived in the Chicago area in the 1870’s. It turns out that he applied for US Naturalization much sooner than I realized.

This means that Edward was in the US for the 1850 Census. It also means that he came from Ireland to New York in 1843 then to Boston to St John to Cincinnati to Chicago and back to the Boston area.

Here is one possibility for Edward:

That seems to be this Boston couple from 1855 but the age differential has changed:

Here are the two that vouched for Edward:

These two look to be John Ryan and Hugh Gray.

or

Here is a 27 year old Edward in working at a farm in Dedham:

This is possibly the same Edward in 1855:

Edward Butler in the Boston Directories

Here are the entries for 1848-1849:

Here there are only three choices. Edward was probably a laborer and not a clerk. Below, I show that the Edward I’m interested in lived at 9 Belmont next to Hugh Gray at 8 Belmont Street. That means that the 44 Vine Edward is not ours. That means that the Edward at 18 Washington moved to 9 Belmont or moved out of the area and our Edward moved in in 1849.

Here are some Edward Butler’s from the 1849 Boston Directory:

My assumption is that the Edward I am looking for was a laborer. 9 Belmont seems to be in Charlestown:

There is a 44 Vine Street in the South of Boston:

1851 Boston Directory

This list is similar except there is an additional laborer at 18 Stillman in the North End of Boston:

Here is Hugh Gray in 1851:

Fortunately, there was only one Hugh Gray in the Boston Directory. That means that our Edward must have lived at 9 Belmont Street – unless this is a great coincidence.

There are many more John Ryan’s:

Here is Hugh Gray in the 1850 Census in Boston Ward 8 right next to Edward Butler:

Hugh married Ann Carr in Roxbury in 1847:

One would think that Ward 8 would be in Charlestown, but it isn’t:

Sorting Out Belmont Street

I assume that there was a Belmont Street in Boston that isn’t there today. Charlestown is not in Boston. The 1848-1849 Boston Directory gives the location for Belmont Street:

Here is where Edward and Hugh lived:

 

I would say based on proximity, that our Edward lived at 18 Washington Ave in 1848. That would be when he was 21. In 1856, this area was in Ward 7:

Edward Butler in 1850 and 1855

Unfortunately, the 1850 Census does not show relationships? Who was Bridget Butler – a sister or wife? Also Hugh Gray was from Canada. Would Hugh have influenced Edward going to Canada?

There is an Edward Butler and Bridget in the 1855 Massachusetts Census which reflects June 1 of that year. I have that Edward Butler married Mary Crowley on 1 May 1855 in St John. That means that at least the Edward Butler in the Massachusetts Census of 1855 is very unlikely to be the one that I am interested in.

The Boston Directory 1852

This is back down to four entries.

1856

I see Edward is still at Belmont in the 1856 Directory. Does this mean we have the wrong person?

It could mean that the 1856 Directory was a bit behind the time?

In 1856 Edward’s friend Hugh is here:

1865 Boston

I didn’t expect to see Edward at 9 Belmont.

Edward’s living in Boston could explain why he put down Boston for his wife’s and daughter’s birth in the 1870 Cincinnati Census:

Summary and Conclusions

  • The big news is the finding of Edward Butler’s Naturalization papers. This ties him down to Poulrone, Kilkenny Ireland and Boston around 1850 and gives some specifics as to how he got to the US.
  • Previously, I had thought that Edward had emigrated from Ireland to St. John, New Brunswick, as that would have been a normal point of entry. Edward apparently went against the tide and went from Boston to St John, married, had two daughters there and then moved to Cincinnati, then Chicago and then back to the Boston area.
  • The discovery of the Naturalization record lead to the discovery of Edward Butler in the 1850 Census in Boston where he was living with a Bridget Butler, one year younger than Edward. She also was born in Ireland.
  • Julia Ann Butler was born in New Brunswick about 1857 and showed up in the Cincinnati Census of 1860. After that I did not see her and suspected that she had died young. However, I discovered that she married Silas DeShon in St. John in 1904 at about the age of 47.
  • I further followed up on an Ancestry Tree lead and found a death record for Julia Ann (Hannah) Butler DeShon.