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.

 

 

 

 

AutoClustering My Wife’s Aunt Lorraine’s AncestryDNA Results

AutoClustering is working well. I have previously run an autocluster report for Lorraine’s sister Virginia:

Here are some comparisons:

Virginia’s number of 4th cousins or closer and her SAHs are as of today and I did her autocluster about a month ago. I changed the upper limit for Lorraine to 600 cM because I was having trouble identifying some of the clusters. I had set the lower limit down to 12 because I was looking for distant Butler relatives.

Lorraine’s AutoCluster

Since the time I ran Virginia’s autocluster, the clusters have been arranged differently to show connections between the clusters. This has been a very helpful innovation.

Adding Names to Lorraine’s Clusters

I’ll start with a table:

This table starts with each of Lorraine’s clusters. That is followed by the top match name in the cluster and the amount that top match has in cMs. I just need to fill in which grandparent side each cluster belongs to and which common ancestors the cluster seems to point to,

Lorraine’s Ancestors

These are some of the ancestors that I will pick from:

I am interested mostly in the top part of the tree. The bottom part is where most of the matches will be. The bottom represents the maternal French Canadian side.

Name Those Clusters

To get the ball rolling, I’ll start with Fred. I have have been in touch with Fred who a second cousin on Lorraine’s Pouliot maternal grandparent side:

Turns out that is Lorraine’s largest Cluster:

That’s a lot of Pouliot’s. These could be all descended from a certain common ancestor along the Pouliot or Fortin Lines.

The Second Largest Cluster: LeFevre

Sandra shows up a lot in my analyses. Here she is:

Sandra is also in Lorraine’s Cluster 1:

Skipping Down to Clusters 34 and 35: Kerivan and Butler

These are the Clusters I am more interested in.

Clusters 34 and 35 are the purple and tan Clusters. They show a lot of connections between those two Clusters.

Cluster 34 – Kerivan

Amanda is the first person in Cluster 34, but she has no tree. Donna is the third match in Cluster 34. Here is the paternal side of her tree:

Turns out Donna is a second cousin to Lorraine also:

Cluster 35 – Butler

The top match for Lorraine in her Cluster 35 is Barbara. Barbara has a short tree:

Here is Barbara in a tree with other Butlers:

 

 

She shows up as Lorraine’s 2nd cousin. What is interesting about Cluster 35 is that it includes Butlers from Cincinnati. My guess is that they are related this way:

There is a branch on the left of Cincinnati Butlers headed by a George Butler born about 1826. My wife’s ancestor Edward Butler was also living in Cincinnati for a while. His first son was named George – perhaps after the Cincinnati Georg Butler. I haven’t worked out all the details yet, but the DNA is showing a definite connection.

Lorraine’s Cluster Summary

Here are the bones of Lorraine’s clusters:

It is possible that there are 33 French Canadian Clusters and 3 Irish Clusters. I would have to look at all the clusters to be sure. However, as I scan the clusters, it looks like that could be the case. Here is my best guess:

That means that finding the 1/2 Irish side among the French Canadian half, is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Comparing Lorraine’s Clusters to Virginia’s Clusters

Here is a comparison of the two sisters’ clusters:

This shows that Virginia split in two both of Lorraine’s Clusters 34 and 35. Here are some of the clusters that I tried to identify for Virginia:

So with that comparison and looking at some of Lorraine’s Shared Ancestor HInts at AncestryNDA give me this cluster chart for Lorraine:

It is possible that Cluster 16 is wrong based on the placement within Pouliot’s.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Lorraine’s AutoCluster Chart looked like a mess at first but seemed to sort out between her four grandparents.
  • I didn’t look at why there were so many matches between the Kerivan and Butler Lines.
  • I compared Lorraine’s Clusters to her sister Virginia’s Clusters
  • The new ordering of clusters makes a lot of sense and makes the identification and organization of clusters much clearer.

 

 

 

 

 

AutoClustering My Wife’s Aunt’s Ancestry DNA

My wife’s father had his DNA tested at FTDNA before he passed away. I also had his two sisters’ DNA tested at Ancestry. I’ll use his sister Virginia’s AncestryDNA results for Autoclustering as a stand-in for my later father-in-law Richard.

AutoClustering Virginia

I could have picked either sister, so I picked Virginia for no special reason. Actually, my thought was to pick Lorraine, as she is closer in age to Richard, but I picked Virginia. I chose a low threshold of 12 cM for the AutoClustering.

First the Genealogy

Virginia and siblings have half French Canadian and half Irish DNA. In my experience, the French Canadian DNA tends to take over. This is due to the common ancestry of French Canadians, and many descendants who have tested.

The top part of the tree is Irish and the bottom is French Canadian. I am more interested in the top because there are some missing black arrows. Those are the places where there are missing ancestors. The ancestry is filled in to the level of 2nd great-grandparents. The column on the right represents third cousin, but in many matches this should show as third cousin, once removed.

Looking at Virginia’s AutoCluster

Here is the key for Virginia’s Clusters:

The Key is on the Chart, so there are grey dots representing those that didn’t fit well into the clusters. Cluster 1 is no doubt French Canadian. Between Cluster 18 and 19, the cluster size goes down from three to 2. These numbers do not include Virginia who is in every cluster.

Name That Cluster

The game is to name the clusters. Before I do that, I notice that there are not too many grey dots between the first and second Cluster. I take that to mean that these two groups are not closely related. Perhaps the green Cluster is Irish and the orange is French Canadian.

Identifying Cluster #1

This should be easy as there are so many people. First I go to the list of people below the chart and search for Virginia’s second cousin Fred who is an avid genealogist. He is there in Cluster #1.

Fred’s shared ancestors with Virginia are here:

However, there are 120 members in Cluster #1. Next, I went down the list of people in Cluster #1. The last person I had notes for was Girard. Here is Michel’s Shared Ancestor Hint (SAH) with Virginia:

Michel has 72 people in his tree. The problem with that is that Michel and Virginia could have shared ancestors on other lines. Here is Louis Marie Henri Girard and his wife on Virginia’s tree:

I would say that Louis Girard is a hint as to where the cluster is going. I’ll try another SAH. The next person going up the list has six SAH’s and a large tree. Here is the most likely source of the DNA that is shared between Virginia and this match:

These matches so far tend to be around the bottom of Virginia’s French Canadian Tree:

I’ll try one more. The next SAH has over 1,000 people in his tree and his common ancestor with Virginia is Francoise Gagne:

So far, I would say that these are all ancestors of Elizee Fortin and Rosalie Gagne. It is even possible that I could name this Gagne/Girard if the person with six SAH’s has an ancestor there. It turns out our six-matcher has these ancestors also:

That means I would tend to call this a Gagne/Girard Cluster. I like to get the name as far back as possible to be the most specific name for the cluster.

I’ll look at one more SAH to make sure. Lucie has a good tree, but six SAH’s. For some reason her first hint puts her at 6th cousin once removed to Virginia and her second hint puts her at 6th cousin to Virginia. I’ll choose the 6th cousin which goes to Pierre Girard and Marie Anne Vesina. This ancestral couple is also on the Gagne/Girard Line. This is not a life or death decision, so I’ll go with the Gagne/Girard Label for Cluster #1:

That’s one down and 33 to go. I like to keep track of these clusters in a spreadsheet:

This way I can expand to the right for Richard at FTDNA eventually.

I’m Guessing Cluster #2 Is Irish

However, as I look at my notes nicely displayed by AutoCluster, I see that this cannot be:

This means that the LeFevre side is not as closely matched to the Pouliot side as the Pouliot side matches some other names. This makes sense also.

Name That Cluster #2

It is obvious that Cluster #2 is on the LeFevere side. However, I want to be more specific as in Cluster #1 above. The match at the bottom of the list shows a SAH of Maguerite Anger. The husband is not shown as he is shown as marrying her three times. However, I assume that the husband should be there also:

The husband is Joseph Methot. I am now just showing the line of Virginia’s LeFevre grandfather Joseph Martin as we know that this cluster is along the LeFevre Line. If I were to name this Cluster based on a sample size of one, it would be Methot/Anger. However, I want to be more sure and it is easy to look at these SAH’s by just clicking on a link from the AutoCluster list of matches in Cluster #2.

Going up the Cluster 2 Match List from the bottom, the next SAH is here:

This brings the name of this cluster one generation towards the present:

Based on a sample size of two, I would name this cluster LeFevre/Methot.

I’ll call in Jane for a tie-breaker:

I can see that Jane adds evidence to my previous guess:

Cluster #3 – French Canadian?

By looking at the Cluster Graph above, it appears that the red cluster will be more closely allied to the Pouliot side. There are not as many linked trees for Cluster #3:

Judy has an unlinked tree:

Cousin Fred is not in this Cluster even though he is closely related. This could be a case that he is too closely related to Judy. Judy’s tree shows that she is a second cousin to Virginia on the Pouliot/Fortin Line. This seems to be the best name for this Cluster:

Cluster 4 – Slim Pickings on Trees

Cluster 4 has very few linked trees:

The match names appear to be French Canadian, so that is a hint. The largest tree above is private. From the above three clusters, it appears that I am getting different flavors of French Canadians. Match #3 has a small unlinked tree:

I really don’t want to build out this tree, though I could. I see Gobeil in Virginia’s tree here:

Alexandre is Virginia’s match #6 on Cluster 4. He also has an unlinked tree:

Here is another small tree from Match #8:

Again, I’m not willing to build out his tree. Match #9 had an unlinked tree and Match #10 had a small tree, but they were not helpful. I’ll go with Pouliot/Gobeil for now.

Cut to the Irish Side

This is going slowly, so I’ll start looking for Irish matches. Here is a Leeds color analysis that I did for Virginia about three months ago:

I need to pick out some of these green and blue matches and see where they cluster. The first match is Donna. She matches at 417.5 cM, so this is a case where I set the upper limit too low. The four in a row green Kerivan matches are also all too high for the upper match limit that I picked. Here is part of the tree of the first Butler match that didn’t get filtered out:

The common ancestors are Edward Butler and Mary Crowley. This match is in Cluster 12:

Based on the notes, I can see that I have been tracking three out of four of these matches. I wrote a message to John to see if he has any family history. It may be that he pre-dates the Butler/Crowley connection by one generation.

This Butler/Crowley Cluster is small, but important.

Is There a Kerivan in the House?

The green in the Leeds Color Analysis above stands for Kerivan. Here are some Kerivan descendants in Cluster 11:

I have written about Gaby already as a Kerivan relative. She is Thomas’  Aunt. Here is the tree showing how Virginia and Gaby connect:

Virginia is a second cousin once removed to Gaby and 2nd cousin twice removed to Thomas. Here are the common ancestors on Virginia’s tree:

David: Match #2 in Cluster 11

Here is David’s tree on his maternal side:

I am interested in David’s tree enough that I will build it out a bit. I’m curious to find the common ancestors. I start with David and mark the tree private at Ancestry.  Here is David’s maternal grandmother Joan Kerivan in 1940 Newton, Massachusetts:

Here I use a split screen for working on David’s tree. The tree I am making is on the left and David’s tree is on the right:

I accepted Ancestry’s Joseph Edward Kerivan hint but not his wife as it was different than what David had. It seems like it should be an easy tree. I have the DNA match, the Kerivan name and the right area (Newton, MA).

Here’s David’s great-grandfather in 1910:

Next, Joseph’s birth record comes in handy:

I see on George E Kerivan’s marriage record, that his parents are John Kerivan and Alice. These are the couple that I am looking for. Here is part of my selective tree for David:

Alice is no doubt my wife’s ancestor Alice Rooney.

As an added bonus, I color-coded the Clusters in my summary spreadsheet based on my wife’s Aunt’s grandparents. These are the same colors I used in the Leeds Color Analysis.

The clusters are now taking shape. The magnitude of the French Canadian matches compared to the two Irish clusters is obvious.

Comparison with the Leeds Color Method

Next, I put the cluster names by the appropriate names from the previous Leeds Analysis I did:

I see that one of the people from the Butler Cluster was not in this analysis, so he must have gotten his test results since I did this analysis three months ago. The first green block that doesn’t have an assigned cluster represents Russel. Russel is in Cluster 7.

Cluster 7 – Kerivan?

Here are Virginia’s seven Cluster 7 relatives:

Here is Russell’s tree on his mother’s side:

Time for a Quick Tree for Russell

I found this hint at Ancestry for Thomas Kerivan:

This gets me to where I want to be. Here is my quick tree for Russell:

One might wonder why there is another Cluster for this same couple. It could be that one Cluster is Kerivan and one is Rooney.

Here is Sandra. She has the same mother as Russel, so I could have saved myself some time:

Actually, there is a Rooney in this cluster, so I’ll call this the Rooney/Kerivan Cluster.

There are a few new people in the Rooney/Kerivan Cluster that I should get in touch with.

Cluster 19 – A Butler Cluster on the Outskirts

Here are Brian and Michael:

I associated Brian with the Butler family due to a shared match with Patty. Neither Brian nor Michael have family trees, but it would be worthwhile to follow up with these two.

My guess is that the Cluster 19 Butler predates the Cluster 12 Butler/Crowley families. This is a good place to be as I am trying to pin down a place in Ireland where the Butlers came from.

Where is Patty?

One Butler DNA match I have been tracking is Patty. I couldn’t find her in the AutoCluster. Based on her shared matches at AncestryDNA, I would have expected her to be in Cluster #12. AutoCluster provides a list of names that didn’t match other people. I didn’t see her in that list either.

Summary and Conclusions

  • AutoCluster by Genetic Affairs continues to be a fun and useful tool to use to sort through your DNA matches.
  • The program is similar to the Leeds method but is more useful and takes the guesswork and human error out of the equation for the most part.
  • AutoCluster gives a visual as to where the bulk of the DNA matches are
  • In this Blog AutoCluster highlighted some important new matches. It would be worthwhile to contact these new matches.
  • The list of people in the Ancestry Clusters is especially helpful. I can click on each name and quickly go to their AncestryDNA match and see if they have a SAH or linked or unlinked tree.
  • Even though AutoCluster is one of the best things since sliced bread, it is not perfect. I could not find Patty in the clusters. Also the runs that I get are spotty. It seems to work about half the time for me. I would like to get better results at Ancestry for myself and my mother, but am not able to get results at the thresholds that I want. It may be that these glitches will be fixed as this is such a new tool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Painting My Wife’s Chromosomes

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

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

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

Which Matches Do I Paint for Marie?

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

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

Here is what that looks at DNAPainter:

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

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

 

The X Chromosome expands to this:

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

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

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

Adding Some Pouliot DNA

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

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

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

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

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

Starting Marie’s Maternal Side DNA Painting

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

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

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

More Painting

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

This brings Marie to 23% mapped:

Next: More LeFevre DNA

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

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

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

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

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

Adding Anne to Marie’s Maternal Side

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

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

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

Ronda: An Ellis Match for Marie

Ronda is next on the list at Gedmatch:

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

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

An Unknown Upshall Side Match

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karen and Martha with Newfoundland Roots

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

 

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

 

For Martha, I have another best guess tree:

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

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

Michelle at FTDNA on the LeFevre Side

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

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

Transferred to DNAPainter:

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

More Maternal DNA for Marie on the Upshall Side: Edward

Edward and Marie have this common ancestor:

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

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

This gets Marie up to 150 segments mapped.

Marie and Wallace at MyHeritage

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

Here is where I have Wallace:

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

That is what 22% filled in looks like.

Adding Cheryl and More of Martha’s family

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

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

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

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

Back to LeFevre

Here is a match on the LeFevre side:

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

A Butler Kerivan Match with Lindsey

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

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

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

Connecting John and John Kerivan

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

Here is the connection on Lindsey’s paternal side:

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

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

Kerivan DNA

This shows where Richard and Lindsey match at MyHeritage:

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

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

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

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

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

Lindsey and Chromosome Mapping

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

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

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

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

Mapping My In-Law’s Chromosome 12

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

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

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

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

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

Solving the Chromosome 9 Map with Lindsey

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

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

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

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

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

Chromosome 2

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

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

Lindsey and Triangulation

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

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

Back to Mapping Chromosome 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

 

Another Butler DNA Connection

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

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

The First Butler Match: Barbara

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

This tree is good enough to get back to Butler.

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

The Second Butler Match: Brian

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

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

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

Stitching the Two Butler Families Together

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

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

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

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

Do the DNA Results Support the Unified Butler Tree?

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

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

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

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

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

Here I have put some statistics in to look at:

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

DNA Matching at AncestryDNA

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

Virginia and Brian’s Shared Matches

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

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

Lorraine and Brian’s Shared Matches

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

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

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

Kim at Gedmatch and Butler DNA

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

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

Butler Triangulation on Chromosome 2

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

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

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

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

Shared Matches Between Patty, Lorraine and Virginia

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

 

 

Visual Phasing: My Father in Law’s Chromosome 22

Looking through the visual phasing of my father in law’s family, I notice I am missing a map for Chromosome 22. Chromosome 22 is the easiest and hardest Chromosome to visually phase. It should be the easiest because it is the shortest Chromosome and should have the fewest number of crossovers. It should be the most difficult because it should have the fewest cousins matches. I assume that I haven’t visually phased Chromosome 22 because of the hard part.

Gedmatch One to One Comparisons

To do visual phasing, I need to compare my late father in law Richard to his two sisters in the Gedmatch Chromosome browser. Here is how Richard matches one of his sisters, Lorraine:

This shows that Richard matches his sister Lorraine all along the Chromosome except for a little segment between 43.6M and 43.8M. Hopefully this is accurate. Other comparisons should bear this out. By comparing siblings, we are looking at how many grandparents’ DNA they share. Green means that Richard and Lorraine share two grandparents’ DNA. More specifically, they share one maternal grandparent and one paternal grandparent.

Yellow means they share one grandparent on a maternal or paternal Chromosome and don’t share the grandparent on the opposite Chromosome. For example, if they share the DNA from a maternal grandparent, that means that they don’t share DNA from the same grandparent on the paternal Chromosome. This is all important information for visual phasing.

Finally, above the break in the solid blue line above is a red area. That means that in that little segment, Richard and Lorraine share DNA from neither of their grandparents. This is important information. Richard’s paternal grandparents are Butler and Kerivan. His maternal grandparents are LeFevre and Pouliot. So say Richard gets his DNA from Butler and LeFevre in that red area. That means that Lorraine must get her DNA from Kerivan and Pouliot in the red area. Those are the rules for Visual Phasing.

Next I put the three comparisons into Excel.

Then I look for changes in the colors on the Chromosome Browser. These changes should come in pairs. The first two changes are in the first two bars. The colors go from green to yellow. That means that the shared DNA goes from two grandparents to one. Lorraine’s name is associated with both those comparisons, so we say that Lorraine has a crossover there. A crossover is where Lorraine’s DNA changes. Before the crossover, she is getting DNA from one grandparent, and after the crossover, she is getting her DNA from another grandparent.

Again, these crossovers show up in pairs. A top/top pair assigns the crossover to Lorraine. A top/bottom pair goes to Richard. A bottom/bottom pair of changes assigns the crossover to Virginia. Above, Lorraine and Virginia got 2 crossovers each and Richard got three crossovers.

Next, I show the two Chromosomes that everyone has – in this case for Chromosome 22. Unfortunately, I don’t know which side is maternal and which side is paternal at this point.

These two copies of Chromosome 22 are blank for each sibling right now, but I’ll fill them in with four colors representing the DNA they got from each of their 4 grandparents. When the DNA changes from Butler to Kerivan on the paternal copy, for example, that is where the crossover is for a particular sibling.

Visual Phasing

Richard and Lorraine share a large green area. That means that they got the same DNA from one grandparent on the maternal side and the same DNA from one grandparent on the paternal side. The DNA from those two shared grandparents will be represented by two colors.

The blue and orange colors represent the DNA that Richard and Lorraine both share from the same grandparents: the same maternal grandparent and the same paternal grandparent. Unfortunately, I don’t know which side is maternal or paternal at this point and which grandparents they share. I just know they share the same grandparents.

Note also that Richard has a crossover at the beginning and end of this colored-in segment. We don’t know if his crossovers are on his maternal Chromosome 22 or paternal Chromosome 22 – or it could be that one crossover is maternal and one is paternal. That means that we will keep his blue and orange segments where they are – for now. However, Lorraine’s first crossover is to the left of the green shared area. That means her blue and orange DNA segments can move to her first crossover. The same segments can also be moved to the right up to Lorraine’s next crossover. No crossover means no change in the DNA.

This show that Lorraine got two pretty long segments of DNA. Let’s say she got them from Grandparents A and C.

Next we need more grandparents. We only have two out of the four. In the middle of Chromosome 22, notice that Lorraine and Virginia have no match. There is a large break in the dark blue line. That means that in that area, If Lorraine has DNA from Grandparents A and C, Virginia has DNA from grandparents B and D. Now we need two different colors:

To check notice that Richard and Virginia also have no match in a smaller area, therefor they also show two different colors in that area. Virginia has the last crossover, so I move the brown and green segments to that crossover.

Richard and Virginia have a smaller green area starting at position 43.8.

Richard has no crossover that prevent the brown and green segments from going to the end of Chromosome 22. That is as far as we can go with the bright green areas (which are also called Fully Identical Regions or FIRs) and the red non-matching areas. At this point we could look at the yellow areas which are also called Half Identical Regions or HIRs. Or we could look at cousin matches to see if they give any hints. I’ll look at cousin matches.

Cousin Matches

A first cousin should sort out the maternal or paternal side. I pulled up Virginia’s spreadsheet where I have a lot of her matches. On Chromosome 22, I notice 2 of Virginia’s maternal 1st cousins, Joe and Pat:

 

In Virginia’s spreadsheet, I have these positions in pink for Virginia’s maternal side. Next, I checked out some of the matches at Gedmatch and got this:

Here, #1 is John, a nephew. Nephews are not as helpful as they can be related on the maternal or paternal side. Note also that something seems to be going on around 25.4 M. This could be Virginia’s maternal crossover. In fact, I think that is more likely than having four other people having their crossovers there. #2 and #3 are Pat and Joe.  #4 is a maternal 2nd cousin once removed named Sandra. More about her later. Now that I know where there is a likely maternal crossover at 25-1/2M, I’ll go back to the visual phasing.

Visual Phasing HIRs

So far with the visual phasing, everything is equal on the chromosomes. That is because, we have only dealt with FIRs and no matches. HIRs upset that balance and make us choose sides. Because the HIR creates an imbalance of one copy of the Chromosome vs. the other, we only get one shot at doing that. I don’t know if my reasoning is right, but because I have some information already for the left side of the Chromosome (Sandra), I will choose an HIR on the right side. I will choose the small HIR Lorraine and Virginia have starting at 43.5M.

Here on one copy of Lorraine’s Chromosome 22, the blue goes to brown while the other copy remains orange. Next, I see that Lorraine has no more crossovers, so I can move the DNA colors over to the right.

In addition, Lorraine and Virginia have an FIR on the right, so I can copy Lorraine’s colors onto Virginia’s maternal and paternal side. Now I have a lot of Chromosome 22 mapped out, but I still don’t know which side is maternal and which is paternal. Here is how Pat matches with Virginia, Richard and Lorraine:

Remember that Pat is a maternal cousin. It is important to note that Pat matched Virginia and Richard but not Lorraine. The yellow pattern of Pat matching Virginia and Richard matches the green above that I mapped out. That tells me that green and orange are the maternal side and brown and blue are the paternal side.  So thanks to Patricia, my in-law’s have identified maternal and paternal sides. Yay.

Next I bring back some cousin matches:

I had guessed that Virginia had to have a maternal crossover due to cousin matches at about position 24.5M. #4 above is Sandra. She is one of my in-law’s top maternal Gedmatch matches. She also is a match at AncestryDNA. She doesn’t have a public tree but she told me who their common ancestors are:

 

Sandra is a 2nd cousin once removed to Lorraine, Richard and Virginia. As such, they share only one of my in-law’s grandparents’ lines which is LeFevre.

Here is how Sandra matches Virginia and Richard:

Now I can add in LeFevre in the green segments.

Once I know green is LeFevre, then orange has to be Pouliot.

Next, I was pretty sure that Virginia had a maternal crossover at 25.5. Knowing that, I can fill in the rest of the puzzle:

  • Note that on the left had side of Chromosome 22, there are three FIRs in a row going from top to bottom. That means the three siblings have their DNA from the same two grandparents. They all have Pouliot on the maternal side and either Butler or Kerivan on the paternal side.
  • The maternal side is French Canadian.
  • The paternal side is Irish.
  • There aren’t as many paternal cousins matches to fill in the blue and brown as there are maternal matches. I’m looking for cousin matches to fill in the blanks
  • Virginia has DNA from only one paternal grandparent shown in reddish brown.
  • Lorraine has DNA from only one maternal grandparent – Emma Alphonsine Pouliot
  • There will be parts of the Chromosome where there is no DNA representation from one grandparent. For example, no one got green LeFevre DNA at the beginning of the Chromosome. No sibling got blue paternal grandparent DNA at the beginning or at the end of Chromosome 22.

 

 

More On Early Butlers In the US

In my previous Blog on the subject, I noted how two Cincinnati Butler families were connected by DNA. These were the George Butler family and the Edward Butler family. Edward Butler is an ancestor of my wife. Since then, with the help of Peter Butler, I have expanded the George Butler tree a little. Now it looks like this side by side with the Edward Butler tree.

Previously, I was hoping that Edward and George were brothers and that they would have the same fathers. However, that now does not look likely. However, it could be that George and Edward were first cousins. If that is the case, that would make Lorraine, Richard and Virginia 4th cousins to Pat and 4th cousins twice removed to Uncle Naffy.

DNA Connections Between the George and Edward Butler Families

The tree above is pared down to include only those in lines that have had their DNA tested. Uncle Naffy tested at FTDNA and uploaded his results to Gedmatch. Lorraine, Richard and Virginia are also at Gedmatch, but Uncle Naffy matches only Richard and Lorraine. Here is the Uncle Naffy’s match with Richard which is the same as his match to Lorraine.

Assuming Richard and Uncle Naffy are 4th cousins twice removed, this was a fortunate match as the chance of them matching is only a little over 10%.

By comparing Lorraine, Richard and Virginia to each other and with the help of matches with Uncle Naffy and a paternal second cousin, I was able to map out the DNA for these three siblings:

Here I presumed that the Uncle Naffy match was on the Butler DNA side of my in-law’s family. That meant that the paternal cousin’s match below had to be Kerivan as that is the only other paternal grandparent my in-law’s have. Further, the paternal cousin Gaby only matched Lorraine on the left side of the pink segment, so that meant Gaby and Lorraine had to match on their Butler side DNA.

Lorraine and Virginia match Patty

Lorraine, Virginia and Patty all tested at AncestryDNA and match each other. Lorraine and Patty are predicted 4th cousins at AncestryDNA. Unfortunately, Ancestry doesn’t show on what Chromosome the match is like Gedmatch does. Virginia and Pat also show as 4th cousins. Further Pat, Lorraine and Virginia have shared matches with those on the blue line of the tree above. All of this confirms the DNA connection between the George and Edward Butler families.

Life For the Butlers in Civil War Era Cincinnati

I would not like to have lived in Cincinnati around the time of the Civil War. For one thing, there was a war going on. For another thing Cholera outbreaks were rampant. Here was a Mrs. Butler that died of cholera in 1866:

This could have been George’s first wife Mary Whitty – except the address seems off. At this time, people didn’t understand that cholera was the result of drinking contaminated water. At this time there was a George Butler, laborer listed in the Cincinnati Directories as living at 890 East Front Street. Perhaps around here:

The 17 on this 1869 map is for Ward 17 where George Butler lived in 1860 and 1870. My research friend Peter was able to obtain a copy of George Butler’s second marriage to Margaret Sinnott.

I have the greatest sympathy for the transcriber who wrote down Surwott for Margaret’s maiden name. The marriage was on November 11, 1866 at All Saints Roman Catholic Church in the Fulton area of Cincinnati. I’m not sure where Fulton is, but there is a Fulton Avenue in the map above. Apparently Fulton was a Town in the area that got incorporated into Cincinnati around the 1840’s.

Edward Butler and Family

According to the 1860 Census, Edward also lived in Ward 17. The Cincinnati Directory of 1860 lists a laborer named Edward Butler living at the c. (corner?) of Goodloe and Leatherbury. I was interested in this location because during the same year there was a listing for George who was also a laborer b. (boards?) Reed and Leatherbury. Here is the 1869 Ward 17 map again:

Here Leatherbury is spelled Litherbury for some reason. The Street above “Continued” is East Front. The Street below “Continued” may be Goodloe. For some reason, it gives me pleasure to figure out where ancestors lived. In this case, my wife’s ancestor Edward Butler and his likely cousin George Butler.

Edward: 17th Ward to the 3rd ward

For some reason, Edward Butler and family moved to the 3rd Ward where they are listed in the 1870 Census.  When I was looking at the Ward 3 map I found the All Saint’s Church. It looks like the Church also had a school.

It is near the T and L of LYTLE’S in the bottom right of the map above. The Church appears to be in Ward 1 and Whittaker’s in Ward 3. Here is how Wards 1, 3 and 17 connect:

Edward Butlers in the Cincinnati directory

There appear to be more than one Edward Butler in Cincinnati at the time. Here are some of my listings from 1859 to 1869:

The most consistent listing is for 66 Avery, but I don’t think that is our Edward. I mentioned that I liked the 1860 listing of Goodloe and Leatherbury. Then in  1862 928 R. Front looks good. After that, in 1865, Front and Whitaker looks good. That location is on the Ward 3 Map above. That listing matches up with his Civil War service that I have elsewhere. Here are some more listings from 1870 to 1876:

I had forgotten that I had ruled out Avery in the past as I have that Edward had a son George who was believed to be born in Chicago in 1873. Here the 1870 listing of e. 3rd is a possibility. The southern half of East 3rd is in Ward 3 which is consistent with Edward Butler’s 1870 Census listing. High Street in the Ward 3 map above is also 3rd.

The takeaway story could be that Edward lived near his cousin George in Ward 17 when he first moved from St. John, Nova Scotia to Cincinnati. He moved to nearby Ward 3 to work for the Navy at the end of the Civil War. He stayed in Ward 3 until moving out of Cincinnati. This move was probably around 1870 as his son George was believed to be born in Chicago in June 1873.

Edward Butler Family 1880 Census

That leads me to the 1880 Census. I had found this Census a while ago and have gone back and forth as to whether it is my wife’s Edward Butler family or not. There is a lot right and a lot wrong with the Census record.

I’ll look at each thing that appears wrong:

  • The mother is listed as Ellen rather than Mary. However, I have her as Mary E. Crowley. Mary’s mother was Ellen which is likely her middle name.
  • Ellen is listed as widowed which I don’t believe she is. She is also listed as what appears to be wife, though possibly transcribed as ‘self’.
  • Ellen is listed as being born in Illinois. However, her parents are shown as being born in Ireland which would be correct.
  • Edward Butler is not listed. Perhaps he is traveling or working away from home?
  • I have no record of Cornelius but he may have married in the area or died. He would have been born around 1871, so this agrees with the apparent early move date to Illinois for the family.
  • Henry born in 1875 could be Edward Henry
  • I have no other record of John being born in 1879, so he may have died young or stayed in the area.

This means that I am convincing myself that this is a valid document. I notice that other related Butler researchers have used this Census as a reference in their Family Trees. This does not place the family in Chicago, but at least they are in Illinois.

Milton, Illinois

Here is a Google map of Milton:

Milton is a lot closer to St. Louis than it is to Chicago. According to Wikipedia, Milton is in Pike County.

1920 Census: A nail in the coffin for Milton

On the other hand, there is the 1920 Census. This shows that we had the wrong family in Milton in 1880:

Here we have the same Ellen, Cornelius, George and John. However, this cannot be my wife’s family as the mother Mary (Ellen?) was dead by now and George and Edward Henry were living in Massachusetts. However, that is helpful as there is no need to further pursue Milton, Illinois. We still need to find the family in 1880.

where was the edward butler family in 1880?

I have been looking for census records for quite some time. I have basically lost track of the family between 1870 and 1890. I have the Cincinnati Census of 1870. I have indirect evidence that they were in Chicago for the birth of George Butler in 1873 and Edward Butler in 1875, but no direct records of the family being in Chicago. Here  is the Cincinnati Edward Butler family in 1870.

Here is Edward Butler 20 years later in Massachusetts.

This is from FamilySearch. The top says Newton. However, the bottom of the handwritten schedule says Newtonville. The transcription on the bottom says Watertown. All these places are very close.

The search continues.

 

Two Cincinnati Butler Families

One of my Butler genealogy breakthroughs happened with a DNA match between my father in law and someone I called Uncle Naffy. I wrote a Blog on that in 2015.

Prior to that breakthrough, I had trouble tracking my wife’s immigrant ancestor Edward Butler. Uncle Naffy was from St. John, New Brunswick and told me his great great grandmother was Mary A Butler. She was living in Cincinnati and moved to St. John. There she married. Armed with that information, I was able to find the marriage record between my wife’s ancestors, Edward Butler and Mary Crowley in St. John. The record was found in scrawly handwriting on a microfilm that was in the New England Historical and Genealogical Society Library in Boston.

This St. John/Cincinnati connection confirmed the research that I had done that had located Edward Butler and family in Cincinnati in the 1860 and 1870 censuses.

Uncle Naffy’s Great Great Grandmother Mary A Butler

Recently it occurred to me that it would be a good idea to create a tree for Mary A Butler to see if we could match up the two Cincinnati Butler families (George and Edward).

This was my first attempt. As I show later, the older children of George Butler would be from a second wife. My hope was that I would find that the George Butler above was the brother of my wife’s ancestor Edward Butler. One good thing is that I have that George Butler above, married Mary Whitty. Whitty is a less common name than Butler. A search for George Butler at Ancestry turned up this as a clue:

Here is a George Butler and Mary Whitty that gave birth to an Anne Butler on March 31st 1850 in the Parish of Ferns, Wexford. The good news is that the George Butler Family in 1860 in Cincinnati also had a daughter named Ann born about 1850 in Ireland. This is a good match.

A little more searching revealed a marriage between George “Butta” and Mary Whitty:

The transcriber saw Butta, but I can also see Butler there. I doubt that Butta is a very common name! As in the birth of Anne above, there is a Whitty and Hendricks as witness. The additional information is that they lived in Mountain Gate. I was curious as to where Mountain Gate is and was able to find a Mountaingate:

I have panned the map out a bit to show the relationship between Mountaingate and Mooncoin. They appear to be about 25 miles from each other. In one of my previous Blogs, I pointed out the my wife’s ancestor Edward Butler is listed as being from Wexford on one of his son’s death certificate.

Another Wife for George Butler?

There is also a tree at Ancestry that has Margaret Sinnett as George Butler’s wife. It appears to me that Mary Whitty died sometime between 1860 and 1870 and that George remarried.

Here is it clear that Mary must be from the first marriage as she was born before 1860 when Mary Whitty was still around. I could guess that Henry would be the son of Mary Whitty as there are 7-1/2 years between him and Rebecca. However, I cannot be sure just from the Censuses. So my basic take is like this:

I’m missing some children from George’s second marriage to Margaret Sinnett. I was having a hard time making this family come out right on the Ancestry Tree.

One last point about Margaret is that Pat has her mother Catherine as being from Killaspy, County Kilkenny. Here is a map showing an arrow where Killaspy is:

This was interesting to me because with the help of a Butler researcher in England, my wife’s Butler family has been located near Mooncoin on the top left of the map above. Mooncoin appears to be about 5 miles away from Killaspy.

Another Cincinnati Butler DNA Match

The previous image brings up another interesting point. My wife’s two Aunts have had their DNA tested at Ancestry. They both match Pat who descends from Rebecca Butler b. 1869 above. My father in law matches Uncle Naffy at Gedmatch. That makes a good case that George Butler is related to Edward Butler, my wife’s ancestor who also lived in Cincinnati.

Here is Rebecca Butler’s Certificate of Death showing her two parents.

This could be a case where the death record is not the best source of a birth date as Rebecca was shown as being 6 months old in the 1870 Census and born in October. So the day and month only are probably right in the death certificate.

Here is how my wife’s Aunt Lorraine matches Pat:

Pat matches my wife’s Aunt Virginia a little less: 29.9 cM across two segments.

Another Shared DNA Match At Ancestry

Pat and my wife’s two Aunts also have two shared DNA matches. These matches have this tree:

I’m not sure if it was Donna that took the AncestryDNA test. It appears that more than one in the family did. At any rate, the match is much higher. It is now at 183 cM across 9 segments. The average amount of DNA shared between a 2nd cousin once removed is 129 cM.

In comparison, here is Lorraine and Virginia’s tree next to the previous tree:

In the above scenario, Lorraine, Richard and Virginia would be 2nd cousins once removed to Donna and family. I’m not sure if Cornelias and John in Donna’s tree are right. Also, Donna’s tree has Henry, where I have Edward Henry. They are apparently the same person.

So Where Does That Leave the Butlers?

Here is a partially combined tree:

I say partially combined, because I haven’t connected the orange with the green side by genealogical research. I slimmed the tree down to just include the direct lines of those who have had their DNA tested. Uncle Naffy matches Richard at Gedmatch. Pat and Donna’s lines have not uploaded their results to Gedmatch. Pat and Donna’s line have shared DNA matches at AncestryDNA where they tested. Pat also matches Lorraine and Virginia at AncestryDNA. In addition, Donna matches Lorraine and Virginia. Richard and Uncle Naffy have tested at FTDNA, so unless Donna’s line and Pat upload to Gedmatch, those matches won’t be made known.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The George and Edward Butler families are linked by new and old world locations and DNA
  • More work is needed to link the George and Edward Butler families by paper research.