Category: Frazer

Posted on

A DNA Review of Joanna’s Paper on Her Ancestry

In this Blog, I’ll do something that I don’t usually do. I’ll be looking at the DNA aspects of Frazer researcher Joanna. Here is the title of Joanna’s paper:

I feel I’m in a bit over my head on the land deeds as well as the surnames other than Frazer, but I’ll look at some of the paper’s DNA aspects.

Joanna’s Family Tree

Here is Joanna’s tree on her paternal side:

We see Joanna has Frazer and Fitzgerald in her tree. I don’t see McDermottroe or O’Farrell in her tree, so those must be collateral lines. As such, I won’t need to consider them while looking at the DNA aspects. That should simplify matters.

Joanna’s DNA Match of Concern

Joanna’s sister Janet matches a Marcas which Joanna finds significant. Here is a depiction from Joanna’s paper of Janet and how she matches Marcas and other Frazer relatives by DNA on Chromosome 14:

Janet and Shared Clustering

Before I look into Chromosome 14, I will look at Janet’s Shared Clustering at AncestryDNA. Shared Clustering is a program developed by Jonathan Brecher that is similar to AutoClustering. First I download Janet’s matches and shared matches at AncestryDNA. This is what Janet shows for DNA matches at Ancestry DNA:

In theory, the shared clusters should break down into four categories. Those would represent matches for Janet’s four grandparents. I don’t have Janet’s grandparents memorized, so I’ll have to look them up:

They are:

  • Frazer
  • Seymour
  • Dickins
  • Williams

Here is Janet’s match with Marcas at AncestryDNA:

Marcas shows as a distant cousin at 16 cM. Here is Marcas’ McPartland side:

Marcas and Janet have one shared DNA match who is Gail. Gail is Janet’s second cousin:

Starting Janet’s Shared Clustering

Picking a level to start Janet’s shared clustering is a bit of trial and error. I’ll try 40 cM:

This results in four clusters. However, this does not necessarily mean that these four clusters have a one to one relationship with Janet’s four grandparents. Clusters 1, 2 and 3 seem to indicate that they are related to each other. However, part of the reason for this is that Shared Clustering includes Janet’s two siblings.

Next, I like to open up the Common Ancestor column:

I blurred some common ancestors out, because they are still living. It looks like Cluster 1 could be Edmonds, Cluster 2 Dickins and Cluster 3 Frazer/Palmer. Cluster 4 is not identified. As Janet’s Seymour side is missing some ancestry, that is a possible area for Cluster 4.

Summing up the first run, I have this:

Putting Cluster 4 on the Seymour side is a guess. Fortunately, Dickens had more than one wife, so we can trace the common ancestor to him specifically in at least one case.

Janet’s Shared Clustering at 30 cM

This brings Janet up to five clusters.

I was able to trace four of the five clusters. Cluster 5 is now the Frazer Cluster.

Two identified common ancestors go back to Archibald Frazer in 1795:

The fact that both these matches are in the same cluster seem to support the genealogy.

Janet’s Shared Clustering at 25 cM

Now the Frazer Cluster is #11. There are 12 Clusters. Cluster 12 seems like it could be related to the Frazer Cluster:

Janet’s 23 Clusters at 20 cM

Now the Main Frazer Cluster seems to be Cluster 10. Janet’s close relatives are in Cluster 11:

The Correlated Cluster column is important. Cluster 10 has some connections with Clusters 2, 4, 17 and 19. However, there is only one connection with Cluster 2.

Here are Clusters 17 through 19:

These are interesting because Cluster 19 is the McPartland Cluster.

Here Cluster 10 is at the top left and Cluster 19 is at the bottom right.

Janet’s Clusters Down to 6 cM

At this level, Janet won’t have any more clusters than at 20 cM, but she will have more matches, such as Marcas. However, when I look for Marcas on the 6 cM, he doesn’t show up. So what does that mean? At the top of the Blog, I mentioned that Marcas and Janet only had one shared match who was Gail. Gail is in Cluster 10. The McPartlands broke away from Cluster 10 to form their own McPartland Cluster 19. However, Marcas doesn’t show obvious affinity to either of those clusters.

Marcas’ McPartland Genealogy

Marcas has his ancestor Thomas or Hugh or Michael McPartland being born in the early 1800’s and coming from Arigna, County Roscommon:

The McPartland Cluster 19 Group have their earliest ancestor as Patrick McPartland:

Here is a map of Derreenargan:

This is not far from Arigna. However, I believe that this McPartland family actually lived in Dereenagan:

These were ancestral lands of the Frazers and would explain why Owen McPartland born 1813 would have married Ann Frazer.

I see one problem with the McPartland connection. The first, is that there is no obvious connection between the two McPartland families. However, even if there was it wouldn’t matter, because the Cluster 19 connection to Janet and other Frazers is through Ann Frazer and not the McPartlands.

What all this means is that Marcas’ connection to Janet and Gail is likely not on the Frazer side like Cluster 19 connection is. It is likely due to a McPartland marriage into a non-Frazer family.

Back to Shared Clustering

I notice that Judith who was not in a cluster previously is at the level of 20 cM:

Judith is found here in the Frazer tree:

Cluster 7 appears to represent the whole Michael Frazer Born 1764 Branch of Frazers. It might be interesting to try to build out the trees of the other Cluster 7 matches to see if they lead back to the Michael Frazer Branch.

Janet and Marcas at Gedmatch

Here is how Janet and Marcas match at Gedmatch:

When I run who is matching Janet and Marcas at Gedmatch, I recognize Betty, Kim, and Rodney:

As there are no other shared matches from known Frazer descendants, it makes me wonder if the match between Janet and Marcas could be happening on Janet’s Palmer side.

Janet and Marcas at MyHeritage

The first person that Janet and Marcas triangulate with at MyHeritage is Gerry:

Gerry also shows up at Gedmatch and Ancestry. My suggestion would be to try to triangulate between Gerry’s, Marcus’ and Janet’s family trees to see if there is a connection between the three – either in name or location. That may give a clue as to where the common ancestors came from.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I ran shared clustering for Janet hoping to figure out in which cluster Marcas fit in.
  • It turned out that Marcas didn’t fit into any of Janet’s clusters. However, the fact that he doesn’t fit in could be significant.
  • I looked at Janet’s and Marcas’ McPartland genealogy. Janet has no known McPartland ancestry and her connection to them on another McPartland Line is only by marriage. That means that Janet’s match by DNA to Marcas should not be on the McPartland side. In addition, it is probably not on the Frazer side as other known Frazer descendants would probably be matching also.
  • I then looked at Janet and Marcas’ shared DNA matches at Gedmatch. Those known shared matches were only within Janet’s known second cousins. Because other Frazers were not involved with this match, it seemed possible that the match could be somewhere down the ancestry of Janet’s Palmer side.
  • I then looked at Janet and Marcas’ DNA match at MyHeritage. Janet and Marcas triangulate with Gerry there. Gerry also has his DNA at Ancestry and Gedmatch. It may be possible to triangulate between Marcas’, Janet’s and Gerry’s tree to find a common ancestral location and/or ancestors.

 

 

Posted on

Looking at Stuart’s Big Y-700

I told Stuart (his last name for privacy) that I would look at his Big Y-700. I hesitate to write this Blog, because I am not an expert on Big Y-700 and describing the differences between Stuart’s Big Y-500 and Big Y-700 is likely to be difficult. Stuart is not part of the Frazer YDNA Project that I am part of, but he is in a line that has had a common ancestor with the Frazer’s before the Frazer were Frazer’s. I am also interested in learning about the Big Y-700 as none of the Frazer testers have tested to that level yet. That makes Stuart a pioneer in this area of YDNA testing.

Stuart at YFull

Stuart has uploaded his Big Y-700 and previous Big Y-500 results to YFull. This is helpful in giving probable dates on when the different family lines had their origin. In the big picture, Stuart is R1a.

I see one difference already due to Stuart’s Big Y-700 test. Here are Stuart’s pre-Big Y-700 results:

Before, the number of years to Stuart’s common ancestors were lower. Stuart’s common ancestor with my Frazer relatives used to be 700 years ago. Now it is 800 years ago. Stuart’s common ancestor with his closest group of R-BY26344 used to be 225 years ago. Now it is 425 years ago. That has implications as there is a Stuart and a Grant in that group. The obvious implication is that the mixup in names could have happened up to 200 years further back in time than previously thought.

Stuart’s Big Y at FTDNA

Here is the same tree shown as a block tree at FTDNA but only up to the YP6479 level:

The thing I don’t like about the FTDNA tree is that it filters out too much. For example, I had my Frazer cousin tested shown as YF09981 at YFull above, but he doesn’t show as a match to Stuart at FTDNA. FTDNA shows a stingy 4 Big Y matches for Stuart

By comparison, YFull does a better job at matching SNPs and gives Stuart 71 matches:

More is better. My 2nd cousin with the Irish Flag shows correctly above, ahead of Hayes who has a common ancestor with Stuart of 1150 years ago.

Stuart’s Private Variants at FTDNA

Stuart shows an average of 13 Private Variants with his match Grant above. I would expect that Stuart would have more private variants than Grant as the Big Y-700 is supposed to pick up more than the old Big Y test.

 

This is the first page of Stuart’s Private Variants. He has 19 altogether. These Private Variants are shown above as position numbers. Once they find a match in another Big Y tester, they will be given a name. In order for Stuart and Grant to have an average of 13 Private Variants, Grant must have 7 Private Variants. As there are two in this YP6488 group, it would be helpful to have a third Big Y tester. This additional tester should refine the results in make a new branch for Stuart or Grant.

Tie-Breaking Candidates

Here is a group from the R1a Project:

The two testers with the green R-YP6488 results above are the ones who took the Big Y tests. The other two testers with the red R-M512 results would be the best bets for an additional Big Y test to match with the existing 26 Private Variants to form a new YDNA Branch on the tree of all mankind. I note that the one with the ancestor of Arthur Grant has genealogy that goes back the furthest. However, this is still within the 425 year timeframe for the common ancestor. In other words, there could have been an adoption or other name-changing event before the time of 1683 which separated Stuart from Grant.

Stuart At YFull

Stuart has two kits at YFull.

Big Y-500

I assume the shorter numbered kit is the Big Y-500. Here are Stuart’s 3 Private Variants:

 

This shows on Stuart’s original Big Y-500 test, he had one best quality Novel SNP and two that were acceptable. This SNP has two different position numbers based on the old system (HG19) and the new system (HG38). Due to newer technology and new SNPs being found, there had to be a new numbering system. It appears that this Private Variant already has the name of Y14660. However, different companies may have different names.

Here are the other two  private SNPs or Novel SNPs as YFull calls them:

 

They are of Acceptable quality. The last Novel SNP has a check by it:

It says that someone did a single test for this and it came up negative. Apparently the person who tested for this was someone other than Stuart.

Big Y-700

I’m curious to see any differences here.

Here are some huge differences. Now Stuart is up to 13 Best quality Novel SNPs. I can see the checked SNP from the previous Big Y-500. This has moved up from Acceptable to Best Quality.

Note that 6 Novel SNPs are marked as Homologous. I’m not sure what this means. I think it means that there is a SNP in a totally different haplogroup that looks the same.

One other difference is that YFull used the VCF analysis for Stuart’s Big Y-500. I checked the Big Y-500 test I had done for my Frazer cousin and the BAM file was used for that. My understanding is that the BAM file should be the one to use if possible.

Note that at FTDNA, Stuart had 19 Private Variants. At YFull, Stuart has 13 Novel SNPs of best quality and three of acceptable quality. This seems to be due to differences in how FTDNA and YFull choose which SNPs they should use.

Here is the side by side comparison between YFull and FTDNA:

For the YFull list, I only used the best quality list. That means that there were 7 Best Quality SNPs that YFull found that weren’t used by FTDNA.

Upon further review, I see that FTDNA has a second page of SNP Variants:

 

Now the comparison is closer. FTDNA has 19 Private Variants and YFull shows 15 Novel SNPs that match FTDNA’s. YFull has 13 SNPs of best quality and 3 SNPs of acceptable quality. These private SNPs are measuring Stuart’s non-matchedness. In other words, these are SNPs that are waiting to be matched, so that Stuart can form a new YDNA branch.

When I look at SNPs under different categories at YFull, it adds one SNP that FTDNA had. This brings up the importance of YFull. It is not necessarily showing that FTDNA is wrong but gives a second independent opinion to the analysis of the results.

YFull STR Matching

Here are the results of Stuart’s STR Matching at YFull:

When I try to choose Stuart’s old Big Y test, I get no results, so these are based on the more recent Big Y-700 test. The results are interesting, though generally not as precise as SNP results. Stuart’s closest match is correctly with Grant with a distance 0.03. After that, there are two Frazer’s, a Hayes and another Frazer. The last Frazer with the Irish Flag is my 2nd cousin once removed. Clearly the Hayes connection is much further back than the Frazer connection:

Extended STR Matching at FTDNA

This is available, but not in one place like YFull has it:

Here are Stuart’s 111 STR matches. If they have taken the Big Y test, then those results will show also. YFull showed 5 extended results. These are all the Frazer results. The rest of the group can be found at Stuart’s 67 STR match page:

For whatever reason, my second cousin once removed seems to have more than the average number of mutations, or that STRs that changed were the faster moving STRs to begin with.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Based on YFull, Stuart had a large increase of Private Variants or SNPs between his Big Y-500 and Big Y-700 test. Based on the Big Y-500, Stuart had 3 Private SNPs. This went up to 16 Private SNPs with the Big Y-700 test.
  • Stuart’s original YFull analysis was based on his VCF file and his Big Y-700 YFull analysis is based on his BAM file. My understanding is that the BAM analysis is more detailed.
  • Stuarts dates for a common ancestor to his Grant match and to his Frazer matches increased. This is apparently due to the increase of Stuart’s newly found Private SNPs. The more unmatched SNPs you have, the further you have to a common ancestor.
  • The new date for the common ancestor of 425 years before present between Stuart and Grant has genealogical implications. That goes back to before the year 1600. That means that the mixup between Grant and Stuart could go back that long, or it could be that these surnames were less set in stone at that time.
  • I don’t know how to look at Stuart’s old Big Y-500 results at FTDNA. It doesn’t seem like the old results are kept separately like YFull does.

 

 

Posted on

The DNA of Effie Jean (Jane) McMaster Born Ontario 1861

In my previous Blog on Effie, I looked at some possible parentage. In this Blog, I’ll get into some genetic genealogy, looking at the DNA of Effie’s great-granddaughter, Jean. Jean recently uploaded her Ancestry results to Gedmatch for comparison.

Effie’s Possible Ancestry

Based on reasons I presented in my previous Blog, it seems like Effie’s grandparents should be William McMaster and Margaret Frazer. Here is a pre-Effie tree that combines DNA-tested descendants of William and Margaret McMaster with an ancestry chart:

I had guessed that Effie was the daughter of Isabel McMaster who should fit in on the second row above. I note that Jean told me that she matches Keith by DNA. So that is further evidence that Jean and Effie may belong on this chart.

Here I entered Jean’s line in a different color as we are still figuring this out.

Jean and Keith

It turns out that Jean is Keith’s fourth highest DNA match and my brother Jim is Keith’s fifth highest DNA match at Gedmatch. Here is how Jean and Keith match:

The DNA doesn’t tell who the common ancestor is, but suggests that Jean and Keith have a common ancestor. On the chart above, Keith and Jean’s common ancestors are 5 generations away. Gedmatch is guessing that the common ancestor could be as close as 4 generations away. By the chart above, if I am right, Keith and Jean would be 4th cousins.

By comparison, here is where Keith and my brother Jim match:

If Jim, Keith and Jean all matched on overlapping areas, then we could say that the three triangulate and share the same common ancestors. However, the fact that they don’t all match on the same segments doesn’t mean that they don’t share common ancestors. Sounds confusing, I know.

Jean and Emily

The next person I recognize on Jean’s DNA match list is Emily. Here is how they match:

Jean and Paul

Jean has a smaller match with my cousin Paul:

 

None of my family has DNA matches with Jean but that is not unusual for a 4th cousin once removed. However, one could say that we are related in the sense that Paul and Emily are related to Jean as my siblings and I are 2nd cousins once removed to Paul and Emily.

BV – Descendant of Mary Ann McMaster

BV had uploaded her results to Gedmatch, but now I don’t see them. It could be that there was a problem with the results or a private button was turned on. I wrote a Blog about BV’s DNA here. It’s too bad that those are missing as I would have liked to have seen how Jean matched BV. Right now the only DNA uploaded to Gedmatch is from Jean and descendants of Fanny McMaster. [However, see below in the Blog.]

Jean and the X Chromosome

Jean probably would be a good X Chromosome match with others, but her X Chromosome DNA did not get uploaded to Gedmatch. The reason that she would be a good match is that the X Chromosome is never inherited by a son from the father. So for example,

The places that I have red boxes, show where there cannot be an X Chromosome passed down. This means that BV can match Jean, my sisters,  or Emily by the X Chromosome. In order to show this, we would need to get BV’s DNA back up on Gedmatch and get Jean’s X Chromosome results to Gedmatch.

Jean’s Matches with Frazers

I have a Frazer DNA project, so I’ll check some of these people to see if Jean mathes any of them. Here Jean matches Cathy:

Here is Cathy’s tree as it relates to the Frazer family:

Jean and Cathy’s common ancestors could be Frazer, Stinson, Parker, Moore, or someone not even on this chart. Cathy is on the Archibald Line of the Frazer family. The best guess for Jean’s ancestor Margaret Frazer is that Margaret is on the James Line of the Frazer family.

Jean and Jamie

I found a small match here:

Jean and the James Line of the Frazers

Here Jean matches Toni:

Here is where Toni is on the DNA/genealogy chart for the James Frazer Line:

This means that if I Margaret Frazer placed right and Toni placed right, they would be on opposite sides of the James Line Chart. That means that Toni and Jean would be about 6th cousins, or something may be wrong in the chart. The other possibility is that they match on a  different line.

Rodney and Jean’s DNA Match

Here is Rodney on the Chart:

All the same caveats are in effect for this match that were in effect for Jean’s match with Toni above.

Frank and Jean

I’m looking for trends here. So far the trend is that Jean is matching more Frazers on the James Line side as compared to the Archibald LIne.

Here Frank shows as a closer relative to descendants of Margaret Frazer based on where I have her placed in the tree.

Keith and Jean

I already mentioned Keith above.

However, above, I was thinking about the McMaster side. The assumption is that Keith and Jean match on the McMaster and Frazer sides, so we wouldn’t know which side the matches above are on.

Barbara and Jean

It’s a good thing that I went through my list twice, as I missed Barbara the first time:

Finding BV

It turns out that the Barbara above is actually the BV I was looking for. If I search for BV at Gedmatch by her kit#, Gedmatch tells me that there is no such kit. But if I put in her kit number into Gedmatch for comparison, I can find matches. This is the missing information that I was looking for.

Based on the proposed tree, BV and Jean are third cousins, once removed.  Based on Gedmatch’s best guess, BV and Jean have a common ancestor 4.4 generations away. William McMaster and Margaret McMaster are 4 generations from BV and 5 generations from Jean. That averages out to 4.5 generations. Seeing as a common ancestor would never be 4.4 generations away, that is pretty close.

Triangulation, Crossovers and Chromosome 8

If BV, Jean and Emily each matched each other on Chromosome 8, that would be a strong indication that they each received that DNA from the same ancestor. However, look at what happened. BV and Jean match each other on Chromosome 8 between positions 57M and 71.  Emily and Jean match each other between positions 71 and 104M:

This could indicate a crossover. A crossover is where the DNA we inherited from one ancestor cross over to the DNA we inherited from the spouse of that ancestor. In this case, the crossover could be between William McMaster and Margaret Frazer. Our crossovers are inherited from our grandparents. So, if this is a crossover between William McMaster and Margaret Frazer it would be a crossover that came down to BV or Jean either through Elizabeth Shannon or Effie McMaster.

Here is Elizabeth:

Here is Effie:

Summary and Conclusions

  • Jean uploaded her DNA to Gedmatch for comparison. That comparison shows that she matches BV, Emily and Paul. These four descend from William McMaster and Margaret Frazer.
  • By a proposed chart, Jean would be third cousin once removed to BV. She would be fourth cousin to Keith, Emily and Paul. She would be 4th cousin once removed to me and my five siblings. Jean and my direct family do not show shared DNA, but that is not uncommon for that level of relationship. However, our family has matches to BV, Keith, Emily and Paul and the genealogical connection is more secure.
  • Jean’s X Chromosome results did not get uploaded to Gedmatch. A comparison of those results should give further evidence that Jean shares the common ancestors of William McMaster and Margaret Frazer with BV, Keith, Emily, and my direct family.
  • I was not able to triangulate Jean’s DNA matches. Triangulation would indicate a specific common ancestor. However, the fact that Jean’s matches didn’t triangulate does not mean that the proposed genealogy is wrong. I also looked at a possible crossover between DNA inherited from William McMaster and DNA inherited from Margaret Frazer.
  • In general, the DNA results support the assumption that Jean descends from William McMaster and Margaret Frazer. In order for that to be the case, Effie McMaster would have to have been the child of one of William and Margaret’s children. I had proposed Isabel as that child. However, I have no direct proof that Isabel is the child of William and Margaret and no proof that Effie is the daughter of Isabel. Having said that, there is a likelihood that Isabel could be the daughter of William and Margaret and that Effie could be Isabel’s daughter.
  • So what I am saying is that the DNA gives more evidence that William and Margaret are the grandparents of Effie, but do not supply additional evidence that Isabel is the mother of Effie. The evidence that Isabel may be the mother of Effie has to do with the fact that Isabel was in the right place at the right time and had the last name of McMaster.

 

Posted on

Comparing Grant, Stuart and Frazer by YDNA

In my previous Blog, I looked at Frazer STRs and came up with a STR Tree. It is a bit of a mess, but it tries to show where the STR mutations are:

I like one explanation I read about STRs. STRs are short for Short Tandem Repeats. This excerpt is from an FTDNA article called Understanding YDNA Matches:

Our bodies work as copy machines when it comes to the Y-DNA. You can have a copy machine doing 1,000 copies without a problem, and then, the 1,001 copy may have an “o” that looks more like an “e”. And when we use this copy to make additional ones, all the new ones will now have an “e” instead of an “o”. This is a simple way to explain how mutations occur in our Y-DNA when it’s transferred (copied) from father to son. Mutations don’t happen frequently, on the contrary, very seldom, but they can happen randomly in time, which means that I could be one mutation off of my father. That is why all those matches or close matches on 12 markers will in most of the cases go away when they happen between different surnames, and we increased the numbered of markers that are compared: more mutations showing up, which means way back in time when the common ancestor lived.

Ancestral and Derived – What’s the Big Deal?

STRs are either ancestral or derived. That means that they are older or newer. Older or newer is important if you are trying to figure out timelines. It is also important in creating trees and figuring out who belongs in which branch of the tree.

Grant YDNA

In my previous Blog, I noted that the Frazer marker of DYS710 with a value of 34 was probably ancestral:

Assuming that to be the case, that meant that DYS710 = 33 would define the James Line of the Frazers above.

I wrote to Grant to get the STR values from his Grant BigY test. However, it appears that the Grant STR value for DYS710 is missing along with the STRs from 68-111. I don’t know if this is a mistake by FTDNA or not:

Grant Matches Paul by BigY but Not by STRs

Another surprise is that Grant matches one Frazer by the BigY and not by STR matching. Here is my cousin Paul’s matches by BigY:

Here are Paul’s 67 STR matches:

Here Paul matches a Grant, but not the same one who took the BigY test. Note that the Grant above doesn’t show that he had Big Y tested.

How Does Grant Match Jonathan?

Jonathan had fewer STR mutations, so perhaps he matches Grant. Below, we see Jonathan matches many Grants, including the one who took the BigY test:

There is one interesting thing to note here. Look at Jonathan’s match with Stuart who took the big Y. At 67 markers, there is a Genetic Difference (GD) of 3. With Grant the GD is twice as much at 6. However, when the BigY markers are added in, the differences between Jonathan and Stuart are 12 and only 11 with our BigY Grant.

Comparing Grants Extra 435 STRs with Jonathan

Thanks to the Grant family sending me the Grant BigY STRs, I can now compare them. In my previous Blog, I noted these differences between the Frazer Archibald Line and the James Line:

Paul is from the Archibald Line and Jonathan and Rodney are both from the James Line. Grant could be the tie-breaker to tell which values are older for these markers.

FTY299

What do you think? Based on the above, and knowing nothing else, I would say that 12 is ancestral and 13 is derived. That puts FTY299 as a marker for the Archibald Line. I’ll add that to my STR tree after I look at the other two markers.

DYS523 and Good Old FTY269

 

Here we go again. The mutations seem to be skewed more toward the Archibald Line. However, recall that these are mutations that Paul has, so they could have taken place any time between Archibald in 1715 and Paul:

If Rick had taken the BigY test, we could have narrowed that down a bit.

A New BigY 500 STR Tree

With this new information, I can build a New BigY STR Tree:

Here I wrote Paul’s results a little differently as I didn’t have room at the top. The first number is ancestral and should apply to Archibald Frazer born around 1690. The second is Paul’s value. This mutation could have happened between about 1715 and when Paul was born.

Any Other Differences?

It seems that there must be. Jonathan had 5 additional differences in the BigY STRs. However, these may be differences between Grant and Frazer in general.

Here in DYS514, we see a difference between Frazer and Grant. We can’t tell which one is older, because we need a tie-breaker.

Parallel Mutation or Back-Mutation

Let’s consider DYS516. I had said that the value of 18 for STR DYS516 represented the overall Frazer line because it was shared by Paul and Jonathan whose common ancestor was the original known Irish Frazer from about 1690. However, Grant has a value of 17 shared with Rodney. In other cases, we had considered the value to be shared by Grant and Frazer to be the older one. What happened? This is a case of back mutation or parallel mutation. It could be that the old value shared by Grant and Frazer was 17. Then sometime before 1690 it went up to 18 for Frazer. Then Rodney’s branch went back down to 17. That would be a back mutation. For a parallel mutation, the original value that Grant and Frazer shared would have been 18. Then at some time Grant mutated down to 17. In an unrelated (or parallel) way, Rodney’s branch also went down to 17. By getting more information on other people’s BigY results, it might be possible to figure out which happened.

There is a less likely scenario where 17 would be ancestral. That would have to mean that Jonathan and Paul had independent or parallel mutations. As this would have happened over a shorter period of time, it is less likely that this happened.

DYS542

Here is another of Jonathan’s 5 of 435 STR mismatches with Grant:

Note that Grant and Frazer have a difference of two. Again, we don’t know if 12, 13 or 14 was the ancestral value. It could be 13. In that case Frazer would have mutated up and Grant mutated down.

FTY289

This should be the 4th out of 5 differences between Jonathan and Grant.

FTY510

This should be the 5th difference or GD.

Grant Vs Rodney

I would suspect that Grant and Rodney’s results should be similar to Grant and Jonathan’s results.

They are the same except the number of BigY STR results tested are slightly lower.

FTDNA Block Tree Vs YFull’s YTree

Both FTDNA and YFull have SNP trees. Sometime one gets ahead of the other. Here is the FTDNA Block tree from Jonathan’s perspective:

Jonathan matches two Frazers at YP6489. Further out he matchs Grant at YP6488. At at more distant level he matches Hayes at YP6479. That doesn’t mean that Frazer descends from Grant and Stuart who descends from Hayes. It just means that these families descend from a common ancestor.

Another point to note is that the Frazer SNP of R-YP6489 is probably a family SNP. That means that this SNP probably applies to just our Frazer branch. YP3189 is one step below YP6488. That means that it is more recent. YP6488 is older and represents Frazer, Grant and Stuart. Because there is more than one family that shares this SNP, it would not be considered a family or surname SNP.

Here is the YTree version:

R-BY26344 Is for Grant and Stuart

This tree goes back one more level and includes dates. Then there is one important detail I missed previously. It appears that Grant and Stuart have a new SNP called R-BY26344. YFull uses IDs, but it appears that those IDs are for Grant and Stuart. This is the part where YFull’s YTree goes ahead of FTDNA.

My interpretation of the YFull YTree above:

Again, this does not show that Stuart, Grant and Frazer descend from Hayes, but that all four surnames descend from a common ancestor born around 900 AD. This shows that the tested Stuart, Grant and Frazer had a common ancestor from around 1300 AD. I assume at that time, surnames may not have been settled or commonly used in Scotland. According to scottish-at-heart.com:

The use of  ‘fixed’ (or recognized) Scottish surnames appeared occasionally as early as the 10th or 12th centuries, but didn’t begin to be used with any sort of consistency until the 16th century.

Even this, this practice was slow to ‘catch on’, and it took until the late 18th and early 19th century to spread to the Highlands and northern isles.

A New Terminal SNP for Grant and Stuart and a New Mystery

In my previous Blog, I had missed that Grant and Stuart have a new Terminal SNP. They are now BY26344. However, YFull gives a common ancestor for Grant and Stuart at 225 years before present. I roughly called that 1775. The problem is that if Stuart and Grant had a common ancestor in 1775, was it Grant or Stuart? Also, it appears that the Grant and Stuart genealogies don’t match up as to where these families lived at that time.

Grant and Stuart Genealogies

This is an area where I have very little knowledge. I have that the Grant BigY tester’s earliest verifiable ancestor was James GRANT “of Carron”, 1728 – 1790. From a quick Google search, this appears to be Carron:

The Stuart tester has this information:

Charles Stewart/Stuart b. abt 1695 d. 1753 Virginia

This is the problem. If Stuart and Grant had a common ancestor around 1775, then how could Stewart have been in Virginia in the early 1700’s and Grant been in Scotland in the early 1700’s? This suggests that one of the genealogies is wrong or that the common ancestor dating is wrong. The closest reconciliation that I could make up is that Charles Stewart was actually Charles Grant. He had James Grant in Scotland, then came to Virginia and changed his name. I feel uncomfortable making wild guesses for others’ genealogies that I know little about, so I will not go further in this direction.

TMRCA By YFull and FTDNA

What if YFull is wrong with their date of most recent common ancestor? Here is the 6488 Branch:

I don’t totally understand YFull’s dating. However, the reasoning is that the more SNPs in your branch, the older your branch. That makes sense to me. For example, the Frazer R-YP6489 includes 6 other SNPs. The Grant/Stuart branch of R-BY26344 has only two other SNPs. It stands to reason that BY26344 would have a more recent common ancestor than YP6489. The Frazer date checks out well, but three people tested. We think our common ancestor was born in the vicinity of 1690 which is about 329 years ago. YFull gives 375 years as a date. That seems pretty close to me.

A scroll-over of the 375 years before present for the Frazer common ancestor shows this:

This gives a pretty wide margin of error.

For BY26344, there is a larger margin of error:

I assume that the reason is that only two people tested for BY26344.

FTDNA is not as helpful with dates. In addition, FTDNA does not have Stuart and Grant as BY26344. Perhaps if they update their tree, they will and there may be a way to estimate a common ancestor then. However, having said that, the a YDNA project administrator has made this prediction for Grant and Stuart in an email to Stuart:

You had 19 Unnamed variants and now you have 19 – 2 = 17 left over. 

Out of these 17 SNP’s there was 1 SNP which you share with Grant.

So both of you create a new Subclade BY26344 downstream YP6488

(btw. FTDNA has not identified this new subclade yet)

Now my best estimate for your MRCA with Grant is about 1200 AD. 

This is interesting because this is an earlier date than what YFull has. The discrepancy may be due to the fact that Stuart did the Big Y 700 and other testers have only done the Big Y 500. Also, I don’t think that Stuart has uploaded his Big Y 700 results to YFull. It will be interesting to see if that makes a difference with YFull’s common ancestor calculations.

The FTDNA administrator further writes to Stuart:

Up to now you are the only one in subclade YP432 with a BigY-700, thus we will only know where these SNP’s are exactly located when they are willing to upgrade from BigY-500 to BigY-700.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Grant and Stuart are the closest YDNA matches to the Frazer family
  • I used some of the Grant and Stuart STR results to find out which of the STR vaules were older or newer for the two Frazer Lines.
  • Grant and Stuart are in a new Branch of R-BY26344
  • There are discrepancies for the date of the common ancestor between Grant and Stuart. These calculations were done by YFull and an FTDNA administrator. These dates may be fine tuned by Stuart adding his Big Y 700 results to YFull and/or by others in the YP432 Group doing Big Y 700 testing.

 

 

Posted on

Frazer YDNA STRs Compared

Blaine Bettinger recently has started a project comparing STR differences to known relationships. It turns out in our Frazers of Roscommon DNA Project, we have four people who have tested where we know their relationships. Here are those relationships:

Rick has tested 67 STRs and Paul, Rodney and Jonathan have tested for the BigY 500. Here is how the numbers look:

Generally, what we see is that going from top to bottom, the further out the relationship is, the more differences there are in the STRs. The numbers between 0-5 above are the genetic differences. Then as the test gets higher there should be more differences going from left to right as more STRs are being tested.

Paul’s Odd Results

However, Paul’s number goes down when he is compared to Jonathan between the 111 STR test and the BigY 500 test. Why is that? My assumption is that the Big Y test missed one of the STRs tested in the 111 STR test. It should be possible to find this STR looking at the results.

DYS710

Checking Paul’s result, he has a different result from Rodney and Jonathan for marker DYS710. DYS710 is the first marker tested in the 111 STR test. Paul has 34 and Rodney and Jonathan have 33.

Here is Paul’s BigY STR result for DYS710:

Here is Jonathan’s result:

So that is not the answer. I can’t explain how FTDNA came up with a lower genetic distance for the BigY 500 STR results.

A Frazer STR Tree

Over a year ago, I came up with this tree:

This shows the genetic differences. It basically shows that there is a difference of three between the two Frazer lines of Archibald and James. In general, the two lines differ over DYS391 and CDY. At some point between Archibald Frazer of 1720 and James Frazer of 1804, there were two mutations that defined the Archibald Line from the original ancestral Frazer DNA. Then under the James branch of 1804, there are two branches. Rick’s branch is defined by DYS444 and Paul’s branch is defined by DYS576 being 19. However, we don’t know when these mutations occured. For Rick’s branch it could be anyone starting at Richard Patterson Frazer down to Rick. For Paul’s branch it could be anyone between Paul and George Frazer.

An Updated Frazer STR Tree with DYS710

However, the above Frazer STR tree doesn’t explain all the differences. Paul and Rodney have a difference of 5 STRs at 111 markers. I need to add in DYS710. Recall that Paul had a value of 34 for DYS710 and Rodney and Jonatham had 33. But which is ancestral? Or which came first?

The last time I looked for ancestral STRs, I looked at the Frazers more distant relatives: the Grants and Stuarts:

Note that their SNP is R-YP6488. FTDNA now has a block tree:

This block tree was taken from Jonathan’s perspective. However, it shows that R-YP6488 represented by matches with Grant and Stuart is an older SNP. Hayes is from an even older group represented by SNP R-YP6479. I had originally thought that 33 was the older STR for DYS710 but Stuart has a value of 34. Hayes would make a good tie-breaker but he only tested out to 67 STRs.

Checking YFull

Perhaps Hayes has uploaded his results to YFull.

Under Paul’s distant STR matches I see someone who shows as R-YP6479. This is likely Hayes. However, it doesn’t tell me what his value was for DYS710.

Back to the Updated Frazer STR Tree

Assuming that there were no parallel mutations, I’ll try this:

This shows a value of 34 for DYS710 as ancestral. Then on the James line, somewhere between James and Thomas Henry Frazer DYS710 changed from 34 to 33. That means that at least the Thomas Henry Frazer branch is characterized by a value of 33 for for DYS710.

In order to check my tree, I look at Paul and Rodney:

They have a Genetic DIstance (GD) of 5 at 111 STRs. Looking at the tree, we see that the STR differences add up to 5.

  • The Archibald Line has 381 = 11 and CDY = 35-40
  • The George McMaster branch has 576 = 19
  • The James Line has DYS710 = 33
  • The William Frazer branch has 552 = 24

The Mystery of Paul and Jonathan Solved

I posted my question to the Genetic Genealogy – Tips & Techniques Facebook Page. Skip tells me that the 3 of 425 differences are additional differences. That adds up to 7 of 536 STRs. That leads to this observation. Rodney and Jonathan have a GD of 2 of 427. Paul has a GD o f 3 of 425 with Jonathan and 5 of 415 with Rodney. That seems to indicate, if my logic is right, that the extra two mutations are on Rodney’s side.

A BIgY 500 Frazer STR Tree

This leads to another change in the Frazer STR tree. In order to find the GDs between Rodney and Jonathan, I downloaded all the results. These appear to be the two extra differences:

These were on Lines 425 and 475 of my Excel Spreadsheet. This shows that the mutations belong to Rodney. The mismatch column was just to point out any differences between Jonathan’s and Rodney’s STR results.

Here I ran out of room to describe Rodney’s branch at the top of his branch, so the extra descriptors went on the bottom. Keep in mind that STRs can mutate up or down in number. These last two mutations that Rodney had went down in number. In fact, it appears that all the STR mutations on the James Line are going down.

Any Other STR Differences?

Yes. There are a few more differences between the Archibald and James Branches of the Frazers:

Here, Paul represents the Archibald Line and Jonathan and Rodney represent the James Line. Unfortunately, as the newer STR results are not posted on-line, I would not know how to figure out which values are ancestral and which are the newer values.

The Big Picture: SNPs and Haplogroups

The Big Picture is that our Frazers have the haplogroup of R1a:

Most Frazers in general are R1b and not even closely related by DNA. However, before Frazers became Frazers, some of our Scandinavian R1a’s made their way to Scotland and became Frazers when the R1b Frazers were also becoming Frazers.

The R1a Tree

Here is an outdated R1a Tree. It is still nice as it has images on it:

Here is another shot of our Frazer Block Tree:

The trick is connecting the two trees. The Block tree listing at the top mentions R-M198. The “picture’ tree has that at about 6,000 BC, so that is a start.

R-M417 shows as 4800 BC on the picture tree. Next is R-CTS4385:

This shows that before our Frazers were Scots, they were Germanic. Next were the L664 Group:

Our L664 ancestors entered the scene about around 3,000 BC. They still have plenty of time to make it to Scotland. They could have hopped over to England around then, but likely made their way up to Western Scandinavia first.

From there, our ancestors kept branching as families do:

That brings us down to the bottom of the picture chart. S2880. S2880 is right above R-YP432 where the Frazer Block Chart starts:

This shows flags. My interpretation is that during the time of R-YP432 our ancestors were living in Scandinavia. The flag on the right that connects to YP432 is the Swedish flag.

The YFull YTree dates YP432 at 3100 years before present.

Between looking at the Block Tree, the YTree and the R1a Administrator’s Tree, it could be that our ancestors could have made their way to Scotland around the time of Christ. At the time the Frazer Clan was formed, our ancestors were in the area of what is now Inverness, Scotland.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Getting data to a project which compares YDNA STR matches to known relationships gave me a chance to look at our Frazer YDNA STR matches.
  • This lead to a better understanding of what the BigY 500 STR results mean.
  • For the four people who have taken the YDNA test and especially the three Frazers who have taken the Big Y test, I was able to refine the YDNA differences between the different lines and branches.
  • After that I gave a rough overview of how our Frazer ancestors made their way to Scotland from Scandinavia perhaps around the time of Christ.
  • Based on the YTree and other DNA sources, our own Frazer branch of R-YP6489 began around the early 1300’s, but our common ancestor in that branch was from the early 1600’s.

 

 

Posted on

Penny’s Frazer ThruLines

My last Blog on Penny is here. That was prior to ThruLines. I also wrote a Blog on Penny’s sister Toni here. Toni’s DNA is not linked to her tree, so she does not have ThruLines.

Penny’s Genealogy

Penny is in red in the lower left. She descends for William Fitzgerald Frazer. This tree is based on research by Frazer researcher, Joanna.

William Fitzgerald Frazer Born 1821 Ireland

I am interested in William Fitzgerald Frazer:

Penny mentions a biography in her Ancestry Tree:

This was from An illustrated history of Sacramento County, California. Containing a history of Sacramento County from the earliest period of its occupancy to the present time published in 1890. Penny further gives this chronology for William:

This raises questions as to the mother of the first three children. Penny also mentions another daughter Angelina G Frazer as mentioned in William’s will. She is named as Angeline G Law. That gives a hint:

In 1911, Angelina is listed as Gracella. I assume that was her middle name:

This puts William Fitzgerald in Leitrim in the 1840’s. Here is another interesting record:

In this record Angelina “Gracenda” is listed as Augustine. Here is Angelina’s wedding publication from 1872 – not long after her father’s divorce:

This more specifically puts William in Drumkeerin:

That means that William Fitzgerald Frazer lived in Drumkeeran. He had Angelina Gracenda around 1843. His second daughter appears to have been Mary Ann Frazer. Penny has her born in 1844.

Mary Ann Frazer

Mary Ann married in 1864:

About a year later, these two were living in Poughkeepsie, New York:

Thomas Quinton may be William’s father. Margaret Frazier is Mary A’s sister. Poughkeepsie is on the Hudson River:

How Can the DNA Help Us?

Right now on the James side of the Frazer Tree, descendants have been placed into two main branches:

There is an Archibald Branch on the left where Penny is. There is a Michael Branch on the right. There is an Elizabeth branch in the middle also. However, her daughter Catherine Knott married Archibald believed to be the son of Michael on the right side. We can use the DNA matches to test the genealogies above. First, I try to see if the DNA supports that the people within the box on the left match each other. Then I see if they match the people in the box on the right at the appropriate levels.

Penny’s ThruLines

Penny’s first cousin level ThruLines are good:

89% of the time Penelope’s match with Pamela should be a 1st cousin once removed or similar relationship:

Penny’s ThruLines with William Fitzgerald Frazer

At Penny’s Frazer great grandparent level there are no new ThruLines. There are some at the 2nd great-grandparent level:

These matches are from the descendants of Mary Ann Frazer. I’ll start a chart for Penn y:

Penny and Frazer Third Great-grandfather ThruLines

This part goes beyond Penny’s Ancestry Tree to work that Frazer reasearcher Joanna has done:

Here there are 7 matches to Penny on the Thomas Henry Frazer Line. Joanna has that Thomas Henry Frazer was born in Drumkeerin, so there is that connection. Joanna is on the Edward F Frazer Branch. I should point out that Penny has no matches on the Edward Wynn Branch:

Edward Wynn is the brother in the middle group above.

Penny’s Distant ThruLines

When I put the common ancestor up two more generations to James Frazer born about 1720, I pick up two additional matches for Penny:

These two matches were recently added under Michael to explain DNA matches. It would make sense that Penny could match these two, as the theory is that Mary married William Frazer:

Adding Penny’s ThruLines to Madeline’s and Charlotte’s

Although Penny doesn’t share any ThruLine matches with Madeline and Charlotte, they both match some of the same matches as shown in blue below:

I think that Charlotte’s match to JS above is really Janet. The question is: if Penny, Charlotte and Madeline have many of the same ThruLines, then why doesn’t Penny match Charlotte and Madeline? I suppose there could be many explanations:

  • The common ancestor is Archibald born 1792. Charlotte and Madeline may be related on the Archibald side and Penny may be related on Archibald’s wife’s side. That would result in Penny not matching Charlotte and Madeline.
  • Another variation of that is that Archibald may have had more than one wife. Penny may descend from one wife and Charlotte and Madeline from another.
  • It may be that we have the genealogy wrong.
  • There may be other connections on collateral lines.

Adding In Joanna

If I add in Joanna to the mix, I’ll have representatives from the three brothers:

 

These are William Fitzgerald, Edward Wynn Frazer and Thomas Henry Frazer (Joanna’s great-grandfather). Here is a partial list of Joanna’s ThruLines:

I’m more interested in the matches at the third cousin level. Here we have the two brothers plus Ann. The third brother doesn’t show here as he shows at the 2nd cousin level for Joanna. For some reason, the ThruLines seemed to skip a generationbetween William Fitzgerald 1821 and Minnie Jane born 1895. I have written quite a bit about the McPartland Branch. They have the Ancestor Ann Frazer who has been difficult to place. Joanna has made a guess that she was the daughter of her 2nd great-grandfather Archibald born 1792. I have been going back and forth as to whether Ann should be under Archibald or Michael Frazer.

Another interesting point is that Edward Archibald born 1867 ended up in Poughkeepsie, NY where Mary A Frazer Quinton and Margaret Jane Frazer lived in 1855. I don’t know if this is a coincidence or not.

I see that Joanna matches WG. WG is on the Edward Wynn Branch where Madeline and Charlotte are. Joanna has a good match with WG but Madeline and Charlotte do not. This may be a coincidence, but I would keep my eye on this situation. For Charlotte and Madeline the level that they match WG indicates a second cousin once removed only <1% of the time:

I added WG into the tree here:

Joanna and James of Clerragh

I didn’t see any additional ThruLines for Joanna at her Archibald/Peyton level. However, there are some new ones at the level of James of Clerragh:

The odd thing with this ThruLine is that Archibald born 1690 who is usally the father of James of Clerragh is shown as James’ son. However, the relationship shown is correct at 2nd cousin once removed.

When I add the results in with the others, I get this:

Those are a lot of numbers to look at. Basically:

  • Penny had no ThruLine matches at her 2nd cousin level.
  • Joanna shows good match levels at the 2nd cousin level. That is, except with Chris
  • Madeline and Charlotte show poor 2nd cousin match levels. However, the matches are just with one person. Perhaps there are not many descendants on this line who have had their DNA tested.
  • At the third cousin level out of all the matches, there are no perfect scores. I am not sure why that is. If I add up all the percentages for the relationships and divide by the top percentages in the third cousin range, I get 42%. As these ThruLines are somewhat new, I don’t know how usual or unusual that is. The results seem anemic to me. It is as if Archibald Frazer had each of his sons by different wives.

Here are the rest of the results:

At the fourth cousin level, Penny has matches with the Thomas Henry Branch, but not the Edward Wynn Branch.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Looking back at my Blog on Penny’s sister Toni, it appears that Toni had better Frazer matches. However, Toni has not linked her DNA to her Ancestry Tree and therefor does not show up on ThruLines.
  • If Toni links her DNA to her Ancestry Tree, we should get a fuller picture of the situation.
  • I had fun getting a better understanding of Penny and Toni’s genealogy.
  • Perhaps as a result of Penny’s less than average matches on the Frazer side, the DNA matches looked a bit anemic.
  • However, having said that, at the third cousin level there are a lot of matches under Archibald Frazer born in 1792. However, they appear to be all less than perfect matches, with only one match that I see that is above average. That is the match between Charlotte and Gail at 97 cM.
Posted on

My Scottish DNA and Matchbox Results

Someone signed me up for the Scottish DNA Facebook Page. Probably because I administer a Frazer DNA Project. The Scottish DNA Facebook Page has a Matchbox utility which I had never used until now. The administrators checked the people who hadn’t used it and put out a request for Scottish DNA members to run matchbox. Their interest got me to act.

My Scottish Matchbox Matches

My grandmother was a Frazer. That is Scottish, but her ancestors since the 1700’s at least lived in Ireland. That means that I am potentially up to 25% Scottish. However, I would think it possible that I could match other members of the Scottish DNA Facebook Page on non-Scottish Lines. I ended up with 21 matches.

 

I had run Matchbox at the Newfoundland Gedmatch Facebook Page before, so I was a little familiar with it. Still, it took a little while to figure out how to use it. The Facebook Name on the right is to identify Scottish DNA members so they can be tagged. Then they will know that someone matches them or a DNA kit they administer.

Jane at Scottish DNA Matchbox

I match with Jane at the above Matchbox match list about halfway down the list. I have looked at Jane’s DNA quite a bit as she is part of the Frazer DNA Project that I administer. In fact, due to intermarriage, we match on two different Frazer Lines:

I’m not in the next Frazer Branch shown:

Jane is in this Archibald Frazer/Stinson Branch. The place where we match is one level up. Our common ancestor is another Archibald Frazer.

Here is my DNA match with Jane:

I have mapped out my DNA. Here is my Chromosome 12:

I am the third sibling down (Joel). My match with Jane is to the right side of the Chromosome where I am clearly Frazer on my paternal side.

I also triangulate with Jane and other people from the Richard Frazer Branch on Chromosome 12:

Green in the box indicates a triangulating DNA match. This indicates that our common ancestor is Richard Frazer and his unknown wife. As expected, the DNA match is not with the more distant (to me) Archibald Frazer/Stinson Branch.

Top Matchbox Match Sharon

Sharon is at the top of my list above. When I run the one to one for Sharon, the match is not as close as it looks on the overall list:

Sharon and I have two smaller matches on Chromosomes 9 and 10.

At the start of my Chromosome 9, I have mapped myself as (orange) Hartley:

That means a non-Scottish match as my Hartley ancestors were from Lancashire, England.

However, at the right end of my Chromosome 10, I have Frazer DNA:

Hartley Matches: Babe, Neil, Cindy and Teckie

To make sure, I run my match against my paternal side phased kit at Gedmatch and get this match with Babe:

Unfortunately, on this part of my Chromosome 10, I have Hartley DNA also:

Neil on my match list also shows as under my Hartley DNA, but on Chromosome 1. Cindy maps to my Hartley side on Chromosome 15. Teckie is a Hartley match on Chromosome 16.

Matchbox Amy, Donna, Greene, WTD, Joan and John: Neither Here Nor There

I show a match with Any, but when I look for her on my phased paternal and maternal DNA match lists at Gedmatch, I can’t find her. That must mean that her match got phased out. So far, other than Jane, nothing is panning out.

I get the same thing for Donna further down the list. Here is what her non-phased match looked like:

I got similar results for Greene, WTD, Joan and John.

Gary and Elizabeth: Non-Scottish Match

These two appear to be related. Here is my match with Gary:

Here is a broken match. I have Chromosome 9 mapped as Hartley for myself, so I’ll rule this out also as a Scottish match. Elizabeth is about the same match, but only the second part of the match above.

Elizabeth #2: Genuine Scottish

The second Elizabeth on my list has DNA in the area of the Jane I mentioned above who shares Frazer ancestry with me:

I take that as a good sign. If Jane and Elizabeth match each other, that means that we have triangulation. Here is how Jane and Elizabeth match each other:

My guess is that Elizabeth’s ancestry goes back to the Frazers in Roscommon, Ireland.

Sallee, MPS, Jane and Shannon Match on Chromosome 20

Sallee, MPS, Jane and Shannon match on an area of Chromosome 20 that is mapped to my Frazer side. Unfortunately, I have what I consider to be an overmatch area on Chromosome 20 with hundreds of matches. Here is my match with Sallee:

These matches may be significant, but due to the number of matches I have, it would take a lot of work to analyze these matches. Plus the number of matches that I have make me skeptical as to the quality of the matches.

The Jane I mention above is the 2nd Jane on my list.

Jean: Genuine Scottish DNA

Here is my match with Jean:

I have all Frazer (blue) DNA on my Chromosome 22:

My Match with Bear on Chromosome 6

I have all Frazer DNA on Chromosome 6. Here is the match:

This match is in an area I have mapped to my Clarke and Spratt ancestors who lived in County Sligo:

Let’s see if Bear matches Stephen:

As expected, they match and triangulate.

Here is how Stephen matches me:

Statistics

 

All the Matchbox matches were either on my paternal side or false DNA matches.

  • Paternal – 71%
  • Unphased (false matches) 29%

Of the paternal matches more came out on my Frazer Scottish side than my Hartley non-Scottish side: 9 Frazer and 7 Hartley. My match with Sharon was on both sides.

Two of the matches triangulated with known matches that have known genealogical connections to me. These were with Elizabeth and Bear and would be worth following up on.

Two of the Frazer side DNA matches were in chromosome areas where I had no identified Frazer matches.

Four matches were from Chromosome 20 where I have hundreds of matches that I cannot identify.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Use your phased results if they are available. When I did this, I found that 29% of my matches fell out as false matches.
  • If you have mapped your DNA, use that information. That will further eliminate matches that you are not looking for.
  • 9 out of 21 or 43% of my Matchbox matches were along my Frazer (Scottish) grandparent side
  • If you have existing identified matches with Scottish background, check to see if there is triangulation with those matches to determine common ancestors.
  • These results are based on my own genealogy where only one of my grandparents has Scottish background.

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Following Up On a Frazer ThruLines Shared Match

In my previous Blog, I was looking at a ThruLines match I have named Susan. When I looked at Susan’s ThruLines, it seemed to confirm that we share the common ancestors of Michael Frazer born about 1764 in County Roscommon Ireland and Margaret Stewart. Susan and I had one Shared DNA Match named Patrice

Building a Tree for Patrice

Patrice’s DNA and tree was managed by someone else. The other person had a larger tree, but only a smaller tree for Patrice. I built out Patrice’s tree out to her 2nd great-grandparents like this:

This was a pretty quick and dirty tree and I used mostly Ancestry hints to get out this far. I was worried I wouldn’t find a connection. Then Mary Fraser showed up:

My guess is that Mary is the one to follow. She has 16 Ancestry hints. In this Civil War Pension record, she is Mary M McKay:

Every initial is potentially important in following Mary’s trail.

Here is the 1860 Census:

This helps us trace the McKay family geographically. This means that the family should have been in Canada between 1846 and 1853.

Bell above is Isabella. She seems to have been born in Warwick, Canada:

That opens the door to Canada:

Above is my best guess for Warwick.

Here is another interesting record from Warwick:

Apparently a John Stewart Fraser McKay was also born to Hugh and Mary M McKay in the town of Ancaster in 1850. From what I can tell, this is Ancaster:

That gives us a short chronology for the Hugh McKay family. The family is living in Ancaster outside of Hamilton in September 1850 when John Stewart Frazer is born. The Ontario 1851 Census doesn’t happen until January 1852. We don’t know where the family was living at that time. Isabella McKay is born June 1853 in Warwick, Ontario. The family is still in Warwick when both children are baptized in April 1854 at a Wesleyan Methodist Church by the Reverend George Case.

The naming of John Stewart Fraser McKay seems to be a clue as to Mary’s background:

Trying to Place Mary Fraser in the Frazer Family

Mary states that she was born in New York, but I wonder. I think that she was born in County Roscommon, Ireland. Here is one guess for her birth:

Here is an online view of Mary:

Although the date seems to fit for Mary, I was expecting her to be from the James Line of Frazers due to the shared DNA match between Patrice and myself. I have that the Mary from Roscommon would be from the Archibald Line under John Frazer. This is what I have so far for DNA matches on that line:

My guess is that Mary could fit in between John Frazer and William Frazer above.

How Could Mary Be On the Archibald Frazer Line?

Patrice, Susan and I have shared DNA matches. That does not mean that we share the same ancestors. For that to happen, I would need to show triangulation which is not possible with Ancestry results. I have two Archibald Frazer Line ancestors and one James Line Ancestor. My match to Susan is on the James Line. It looks like my match to Patrice is on the Archibald Line. Patrice may match Susan distantly on the Frazer side or more closely on a non-Frazer line.

Review of the John Frazer Branch

In my pink DNA/genealogy chart above, I have brothers John and William Frazer. I have that John was probably in Canada in 1849 and in Niagara County, New York in 1851. That was my explanation why I couldn’t find him in the Canadian 1851 Census nor in the US Census of 1850. Perhaps Mary took a similar route. John spent most of his time in Lockport, New York.

William Frazer Born 1828

When William married in 1863, he was living in Tecumseth Township, Ontario. In 1871 William and family were in Gwillimbury West, Ontario. Here is a map:

Mary was living in Ancaster in 1850. John was in Canada in 1849 but moved probably to Lockport by 1851 and was in Lockport, NY in 1855. William was in Tecumseth in 1863 when he married Mary Jane Wilson.

An Additional ThruLine to Add to the Evidence (Or Confusion)

Ancestry has provided me with this additional ThruLine:

Here ThruLines did something that I would consider doing. It found a match between me and Bob and matched our two trees together based on an available Anne I had in my tree on the John Frazer Branch. I was having trouble placing this McPartland Branch. My most recent guess had them on the James Line:

Ann Frazer and the McPartland Branch: Archibald Line or James Frazer Line?

I can see some arguments for having the McPartlands under the Archibald Line and John Frazer Branch:

  • I have a baptismal record for 6 Jan 1823    bpt.      Anne dau. of Archibald and Jane (WHITE)
  • The McPartlands settled around the Buffalo area. This is not far from Lockport where John Frazer from the John branch lived.

Adding Bob to the McPartland DNA/Genealogy Tree

I see that I am missing Bob from the McPartland tree above. So I need to add him in:

Summary and Conclusions

This Blog was more of an exploratory Blog rather than one that came up with conclusions. I was looking into a Shared match between someone on a Michael Frazer ThruLine and myself. That shared match was Patrice. I looked into her tree and found a Fraser named Mary. I expected that this Mary would fit into my Michael Frazer ancestry. However, she seemed to fit in better with a John Frazer Branch. I am also related distantly on the John Frazer side. To complicate matters more, Mary consistently claimed that she was born in New York State rather than Ireland. In addition, I have found no record stating who Mary’s parents were. Mary lived in the same area of Ontario that both the Michael and John Branches of Frazers migrate to.

Finally, when checking around for other possible shared DNA matches, I came upon Bob. He shows in a ThruLine with me as being potentially from the John Line of Frazers. I had also tentatively placed his McPartland Line on the James Frazer Line of Frazers. James was the father of Michael Frazer. At that point, the Blog went spiralling out of control and I went into Frazer genetic genealogy overload. I decided that rather than put Mary and Bob into the John Frazer Line, that I would step back, think about it and do more analysis on the DNA and genealogy. I did add Bob to the McPartland DNA/genealogy tree. To complicate matters, Karen and Chris above tested with FTDNA, Charlene tested at MyHeritage, and Bob tested at AncestryDNA. However, I believe that all four have posted their results at Gedmatch which is now Gedmatch Genesis. This should make analysis of their DNA results easier.

Posted on

Susan is Back on My Michael Frazer ThruLines

At my first look at ThruLines I had an interesting match with Susan. Unfortunately, her ThruLines went away. I predicted that she might come back and she did. Here she is again:

After Susan disappeared I tried tracing her ancestry back anyway, but got stuck at her Patterson great-grandmother level.

Building Susan’s Tree: Part 2

Here is where I got stuck last time:

Between James Hazzard and Mary Jane Patterson, we go from Susan’s tree to Barry’s tree on ThruLines. Here is a nice record I would like to borrow from Barry’s tree:

Here are James’ parents:

I have James’ mother as Mary Jane. Here she shows as Mary. In Barry’s tree she is Mary Jane. This critical marriage record ties together Barry’s and Susan’s trees.

According to Barry’s tree, Jane was quite young when she married. At least by today’s standards:

Here I owe a lot to Barry:

Jane dies young at thirty one years eight months. That would put her birth in 1854.

Making the Jump from Patterson to Frazer

From Mary Jane, I need to figure out how to get back to Frazer. Here, Barry shows that way again:

This is Catherine’s second marriage. Here she is linked to Arthur, Ontario. She is also linked to Ireland and Archibald Fraser and Catharine Nott. She went from marrying a ‘Pattison’ to a Patton. Without Barry’s tree, I think I would have struggled with this genealogy.

Here is the Township of Arthur:

Here is Catherine in 1861 not too long after her second marriage to Andrew Patton:

I’m glad to see Jane listed here also. This family of four lived  in a log house. Here is a map of where these families lived in 1861 in Southeast Arthur:

A Sneak Preview of Where We May Be Headed with Archibald Frazer and Catherine Knott

Here is my combined DNA/genealogy chart:

It looks like Susan should end up under the orange circle. I am in the left branch. That is in green because I’m mostly sure that is right. The same is true for the McPartland Branch which is also under Archibald Frazer and Catherine Knott. If I match Susan and she is in this group, that adds to the likelihood that I have it right.

Here is Catherine’s death record:

Here she is listed as being born in  County Sligo. Many Frazers were from North Roscommon, but some were over the border in County Sligo. Here is a birth record from Kilmactranny Parish in County Sligo for an Ann Jane:

Anne Jane Frazer  daughter of  Archibald and Catherine Frazer
Born  Dec 13, 1828                                                     
Bapt.  Dec 17, 1828

If Susan’s Catherine was born between 1830 and 1842, it would not show as there is a gap in the Kilmactranny Registers for that period. The other issue is that I have that Archibald and Catherine were married in 1829 at Kilmactranny:

Mar 02, 1829    Archibald Frazer of Ardcarne

                                         Catherine Knott of Kilmactranny

                                             Witnesses:  Archd. Frazer,  Cath Frazer

That means that the Ann Jane above could have been the daughter of a different Archibald and Catherine Frazer.

Here is the Patton family in 1871 with a few extra children:

Putting It Together – Margaret and Catherine Frazer

If I have it right, the genealogy probably looks like this:

This shows that I descend from Margaret Frazer who was the sister of Susan’s 2nd great-grandfather Archibald Frazer.

My James Line Discrepancy

Unfortunately, my chart above doesn’t match what I have on Ancestry Tree.

I show Archibald and Catherine coming from Archibald Frazer and Catherine Peyton. I do show a Mary born much later married to Richard Hazzard. So the Hazzard names comes up more than once.

In addition to this, I have two different versions of the James Line on my Frazer web pages. In one, I followed one Frazer researcher and in the other I followed another Frazer researcher. My combined DNA/genealogy chart is more in line with my Frazer Web Page called Production Update:

The difference here is that I am missing Margaret which is the line I descend from. It appears that Margaret should be the eldest daughter of Michael Frazer born in 1794 and married to William McMaster. Above, there is another tie-in as I see that the above genealogy from my Frazer web page has Archibald dying in Arthur Township in 1866. That was where Catherine Frazer lived. Here is an entry at the Find A Grave Website:

Here is Kenilworth:

Here is a better version for my Ancestry Tree:

Here I still have a problem, as I have Catherine Peyton Frazer born in 1829 to Archibald Frazer and Catherine Knott. I believe that the Catherine of this Blog was just plain Catherine and likely born to a different Archibald and Catherine Frazer. I’ll say that Susan’s Catherine was born in 1834.

Here is the family in the 1851 Census:

Here are the ages:

This family lived in a log house. Jane was born in Ireland in 1845 according to this Census, so the family moved to Canada between 1845 and 1852. Here is A. Frazer’s farm in 1861:

Kenilworth is near the middle of the Arthur map:

The upper circle is for Frazer. The lower circle is where Catherine Frazer Patton lived in 1861.

A Short Story of Archibald Frazer and Catherine Knott

It helps me to put some of these events into a narrative. Archibald Frazer was born about 1801 probably in Ardcarn Parish North Roscommon. His parents were Michael Frazer and Margaret probably Stewart. In 1829 he married Catherine Knott from Kilmactranny Parish in Sligo at the Kilmactranny Church. Witnesses at the wedding were another Archibald Frazer and Catherine Frazer. Their first daughter Catherine may have been born as early as December 1829:

The records appear to show two different Catherine’s baptized in October and December of 1829. Archibald and Catherine were married 2 March 1829, so if this is Susan’s Catherine she would have had a little over 9 months to be born.

The couple had at least seven children. They were born between about 1829 and 1846:

  1. Catherine
  2. William Wynn
  3. Margaret Stewart
  4. James
  5. Fitzgerald
  6. Michael
  7. James

Probably around 1844, Archibald’s older sister (my ancestor) Margaret Frazer McMaster moves to Ontario with her three daughters and a son. Between 1846 and 1852, the Archibald Frazer family moves to Canada and settle on a farm in Kenilworth, Arthur, Wellington County, Ontario. In 1852,. By 1852, the oldest daughter, Catherine had been already married twice – first to Thomas Patterson or Pattison and then to Andrew Patton. Catherine has two daughters with Thomas and more children with Andrew. Catherine Patton lives on a farm also in Arthur in 1852.

The Census for 1861 is a little difficult to read:

Here it looks like the eldest son, William Wynn Fraser, has married – probably Rachel Reid. Likely widowed, she is 36 and a 13 year old Reid is living with them. They then have two of their own children. Either Archibald married another Catherine or she has not aged at all in 9 years.

1871

Here is Catherine in 1871. She is now widowed and living with her two single sons:

Another Correction: Jane Frazer

In my tree above that I moved, I had Jane Frazer married to a Hazzard. That is apparently not right:

Perhaps she married again later?

Summary and Conclusions

  • I’m glad that Susan came back on my ThruLines. It allowed me to track the likely connection we have through common ancestors Michael Frazer and his wife in County Roscommon, Ireland
  • I was able to trace Susan’s Canadian ancestry from Hazzard to Patterson, to Fraser or Frazer.
  • Susan’s ancestors that made the move from Ireland to Ontario were Archibald Frazer and Catherine Knott.
  • I have long known that I had a Frazer ancestor named Margaret who married a William McMaster. I only recently discovered that Margaret made her way to Ontario. I am now following up on her apparent brother Archibald’s family in Ontario.
  • Susan and I also have a shared DNA match. It may be worthwhile to check that connection out.
  • It would also take a bit more to tell the longer story of this family in Canada. I see from my DNA/genealogy chart descendants of Fitzgeral and Michael Frazer. They likely know their ancestors’ stories better than I do.

 

 

Posted on

A Strange Frazer Lineage at ThruLines

I was going through all my ThruLines. Here is one that caught my eye:

The first thing that I noticed was that I had an extra Archibald 5th great-grandfather. I suppose that is all right because I am descended from him twice from what I can tell. This potential Archibald was said to be born in 1732 in Armagh:

Here are the ThruLines:

ThruLines mysteriously added a William Frazer to Archibald. This is despite the fact that the tree above had no William as a son and the William Fraser tree had no parents for William.

Going up from MA, ThruLines starts with MA’s private tree up to MA’s grandfather. Then it switches to Heather’s tree for two generations. Add on Merilyn’s tree for two generations ending with Lee’s tree at the top. Perhaps the Ancestry computers had a bad night.

Working Out MA’s Lineage

I can build a tree for MA, but it will be a little tricky. MA’s mother is listed as living and private. As a result, I don’t have a surname for MA. However, that shouldn’t matter. When I click on MA’s grandfather, I see this:

Ancestry gives me hints but they are all for Johnston Magill Fraser. This is not bad as the connection between the Johnston and Frazer families is known to have occurred in County Roscommon. I like to hold off on accepting tree hints at Ancestry. Here is a birth for Johnston in Peel County, Ontario:

Here is Johnston in 1953:

Here is Johnston in 1911:

Johnston’s father William was a farmer in Chinguacousy, Ontario. Under race or tribe, William and his children are listed as Irish and William’s wife Maud is listed as English. Irish is a good clue.

Looks like the former Chinguacousy is near current-day Brampton:

Moving Back a Generation to William John Frazer

According to the Census, William was born in Ontario in November 1869. This appears to be William in 1891 in Chinguacousy:

This gets us up to John Frazer born in Ireland in about 1832.

John Fraser Born About 1832 In Ireland

This John has 16 hints at Ancestry. I don’t see John’s original marriage record, but this information looks to be important:

Here we find out where Johnston got his middle name. Also, we now have John’s parents names: James and Elizabeth. Here is the family in 1861:

John would have named his first son after his father. I don’t see James in the 1871 Census.

Now I’m running out of hints at Ancestry. Here is one:

Here is a son of John named James Johnston Fraser. This is his marriage record. My guess is that John Fraser’s mother may have been a Johnston. Another possibility is that Jane McGill’s mother may have been a Johnston also, but I associate the Stinson name with Frazer.

David – Another John Fraser Descendant

I match another person by DNA who descends from John Fraser. He is David. This is his tree on his maternal side:

Back in 2015, I suggested that he should be in the Richard Frazer Branch of the Frazers based on triangulation and the fact that there was an available James in that Line who was unattached.

David is on the line on the left. Here I have added MA:

I’m not sure that David fully embraced being in this tree. I have had my doubts also, but my rationale still holds from 2015. Here is my triangulation analysis from 2015:

This shows that David triangulates by DNA with me (JH), my sister (HHM), Bill (BR) and Jane on Chromosome 12:

Since 2015, I can add Ken, Susan and Gladys to the list of those who triangulate with David. Here is Susan’s match with David – also on Chromosome 12:

The strength of triangulation is that it indicates a common ancestor. The problem is that the common ancestor is not always obvious. In this case, the common ancestor could be with Richard or his unknown wife or the common ancestor could be the parents of Richard’s unknown wife. However, if the ancestor is on the Frazer side, it seems like Richard would be the correct person as a lot of other Frazers have tested and David would be matching them also.

Back To My ThruLines Tree to MA

I don’t think that this tree can pass the straight face test.

This tree is OK up to John Fraser than it falls apart. John’s parents were James and Elizabeth Fraser. Ancestry picked a couple in Scotland who lived around that time with those names.

However, this couple does not show that they had a son named John born in Ireland. This couple would have had to have moved to Ireland and then had John. However, this tree has this James living in Scotland in 1861 and dieing there in 1869. They would have had to have moved to Ireland, had John and then moved back to Scotland.

William Fraser

The same problem exists for William. I have seen no other record indicating that Archibald had a son named William. If he did, he would have had to have traveled to Scotland from Ireland, had William and then traveled back. It all seems quite unlikely.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Ancestry used a DNA match I had with MA and stitched together a very unlikely link between me and MA
  • I built out MA’s tree and saw that it matched the genealogy of David who I also had a DNA match with
  • I had shown previously that David Triangulates with other Richard Frazer descendants. Richard was said to have a son named James born around the time that David and MA’s brick wall ancestor James was born.
  • Based on the triangulation I had put David in the Richard Branch of the Frazer line. I added MA to that Branch also.
  • I can’t tell if MA also triangulates with the other members of the Richard Frazer Branch as she has not uploaded her DNA results to Gedmatch.
  • With ThruLines, I will likely be repeating this process for other ‘strange’ lines.