Butler Visual Phasing: Part 4

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

Chromosome 17

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chromosome 18

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

Next, I’ll add DNA Painter information:

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

Here is Gerry’s tree at MyHeritage:

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

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


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

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

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

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

Chromosome 19

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

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

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

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

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

A Paternal Match for Chromosome 19?

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

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

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

Chromosome 20

Here is what I had done previously for Chromosome 20:

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

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

Virginia shows Pouliot up to position 60:

Here is what Richard has:

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

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

Chromosome 21

Here is what I had done previously in Powerpoint:

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

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

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

Chromosome 22

Here is the work I did previously:

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

Summary and Conclusions

My list of completed chromosomes is getting larger:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chromosome 1

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

Here is my attempt at visual phasing:

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

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

This brings Virginia up to 18% painted.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chromosome 5

I had that this Chromosome was not started.

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

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

Next I added in matches from DNAPainter:

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

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

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

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

Chromosome 8

Here is the work I had done in 2016:

I redid Chromosome 8 in Excel:

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

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

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

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

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

Chromosome 13

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

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


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

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

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

Chromosome 16

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

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

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

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

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


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

Looking for Paternal Matches

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

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

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

Here is Rebecca in the 1870 Ward 17 Cincinnati Census:

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

Here is how Richard and James match:

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

Lorraine Matches James Also

Lorraine matches James here on Chromosomes 4 and 16:

Virginia  matches James on Chromosome 4 only.

Summary and Conclusions

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




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

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

Chromosome 11

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the finished Chromosome 11:

Kbou is also an X Chromosome match.

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

Chromosome 17

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

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

Chromosome 22

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

Chromosome 5

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

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

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

Lorraine and Alan have a small match on Chromosome 5:

Lorraine has a better match with Yvonne:

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

I don’t see a match for Virginia.

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

That means that this hint does not help.

Back to Alan

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

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

Chromosome 1

I worked on this Chromosome in 2016:

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

Thjat match represents LeFevre which I have a purple:

Chromosome 2

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

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

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

Here is Lorraine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can expand some of the segments like this:

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

The bottom three pairs of bars were visually phased.

Michelle’s DNA Matches with Richard, Lorraine and Virginia

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

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

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

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

And the answer is:

The key to solving this Chromosome:

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

The Importance of Chromosome 2 for Butler Genealogy

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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



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

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

New Butler Matches

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

Chromosome 2

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

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

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

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

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

Here is John and Richard:

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

Chromosome 7

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

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

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

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

Summary of Butler Chromosomes

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

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

Chromosome 4

This Chromosome was analyzed in PowerPoint which is not ideal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Chromosome 2

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

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

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

Chromosome 6

Here John matches only Virginia:

That small match identifies green as Kerivan:

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

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

John’s DNA Match and Chromosome 8

John matches Virginia only on Chromosome 8:

Here is what I had done previously on Chromosome 8:

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

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

Chromosome 9

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

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

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

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

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

Chromosome 10

Virginia and John match on Chromosome 10:

Right now I have no names on Chromosome 10:

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

At MyHeritage:

Here is the DNA match:

Lorraine’s match to Philip looks the same:

Philip and Richard do not match on Chromosome 10:

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

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

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

Chromosome 12

John matches Virginia and Richard here:

I had already figured out Chromosome 12:

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

Chromosome 15

Just two chromosomes to go. John matches Lorraine here:

Some of my early visual phasing was done in Word:

Virginia matches known 2nd cousin Fred at MyHeritage:

Here is the DNA match:

Here is Lorraine and Fred:

This suggests a maternal crossover for Virginia at about position 28

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

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

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

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

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

Chromosome 20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

Here is my spreadsheet:

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

My Mother-in-Law’s Ellis DNA Match Virginia

I manage my mother-in-law Joan’s DNA at Ancestry and saw not too long ago that she had a 2nd cousin DNA match in Virginia:

This is not too surprising as I have that James Henry Ellis had 13 children. I’m not sure how well George Ellis knew Eva Ellis he immigrated to the US from Prince Edward Island the year before his sister Eva was born.

Virignia also uploaded her DNA to Gedmatch which means that we can see how Joan and Virginia match by DNA:

They match by quite a bit.


I can ‘paint’ this match onto Joan’s Chromosome match using DNAPainter. This is what Joan has so far:

I have 30% of Joan’s DNA identified. Most of that DNA is on her maternal side which is the second bar of each chromosome eabove. Joan only has 19% painted on her paternal side:

Joan and Virginia have the common ancestors of James Ellis and Clarinda Gorrill, so that will bring the green DNA way up. When I add Virginia in, Joan is now 22% painted on her paternal side:

Overall, Joan is now 32% painted:

That’s a good increase. Here is the DNA passed down to Joan from George Henry Ellis and Clarinda Gorrill, as shared by four DNA 2nd cousins on Joan’s paternal chromosomes:

Virginia filled in some important missing gaps on Chromosomes 11, 18 and 20 as well as smaller gaps elsewhere.

Some Genetic Genealogy

I have a chart of Ellis DNA matches on a tree:

This chart is quite out of date. Joan only shows one 2nd cousin. Mariann was noted above on the DNA map. Here is Virginia added:

I need to add Melissa and Ronda. Here is Ronda:

Turns out Ronda is Virginia’s 1st cousin once removed.

Here is Melissa, the daughter of Mariann:

Melissa is at Gedmatch, so I was able to map her DNA. Her mother’s DNA is not there, but she tested at FTDNA which is where I found here DNA results. that means that Melissa’s DNA didn’t add anything new to Joan’s DNA map.

Debbie’s DNA Match at MyHeritage

Melissa is also at MyHeritage. She has a shared match with Debbie. Debbie had enough of a tree at MyHeritage, that I was able to trace her line back to James Henry Ellis also:

This brings in one more of James Henry Ellis’ 13 children:

While I’m adding to Joan’s DNA map, I’ll add Debbie’s Ellis/Gorrill DNA. Debbie brings Joan up to 25% painted on the paternal side:

That is a milestone. Joan is now one third painted overall:

Here is Debbie’s contribution in gray:

Debbie added significant portions of DNA on Chromosomes 1, 7 and 17. It is perhaps a bit unusual that Debbie’s match does not include any overlap with the other three Ellis/Gorrill DNA. Altogether, James Henry Ellis and Clarinda Gorrill account for one quarter of all of Joan’s DNA or one half of all her paternal DNA.

Here is Joan’s DNA map – now at 33% overall:

The paternal side where Ellis and Gorrill are are the top bar of each chromosome. Second cousin level is an ideal level for mapping. I don’t like to map 1st cousins as they include two grandparents as common ancestors.

Kerri at Ancestry

I would like to figure out how Kerri fits in at Ancestry as she is also at Gedmatch. Here is her tree:

I need it to get back a bit further to 1846. Kerri’s maternal side seems to favor Ireland, so I’ll take a look at her paternal side:

That means I need to build my own tree to try to get her family back to Prince Edward Island. I wasn’t able to do this easily, so I pulled the plug on Kerri at this time.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Virginia tested at AncestryDNA and uploaded to Gedmatch. To me, that is the best of both worlds. She has good tree matching and DNA matching at AncestryDNA and DNA details at Gedmatch.
  • I was able to update my mother-in-law’s Chromosome Map using DNAPainter
  • I was also able to update my Ellis DNA/Genealogy chart. I hope to find more Ellis relatives as James Henry Ellis born 1846 in PEI had 13 children


My Frazer DNA Relative Suzzanne

I was recently informed by another Frazer relative, that she had a new match at AncestryDNA named Suzzanne. I checked and saw that AncestryDNA had matched Suzzanne to me via ThruLines:

We show as 6th cousins which is pretty remote. Jane who mentioned Suzzanne descends from Richard P L Frazer above so they would be in the third cousin range. Here is Jane on my ThruLines:

However, something seems off as there shouldn’t be two Archibalds as son of Archibald. When I expand the tree, I see that Jane and Suzzanne should be 2nd cousins once removed:

The DNA match amounts of 15 and 11 cM are how much these two match me. They must match each other by quite a bit more. From Jane’s view, the relationship looks better:

I have one shared DNA match with Suzzanne at AncestryDNA:

That match is with Rebecca who is my 3rd cousin. This is my own DNA match chart as Rebecca does not show on ThruLines. Also, based on my own chart, I should be closer than a 6th cousin to Suzzanne. When I add in Suzzanne to my chart, I see we are actually 5th cousins:

In both our trees we have Frazers who married Frazers. Also we don’t know the wife of Richard Frazer who was born in 1777. She may be related to us in more than one way. This was all a bit too complicated for AncestryDNA apparently.

More on Suzzanne’s Frazer Ancestry

Here is what I have on my website:

Suzzanne descends from Anne. Anne apparently went with her father to Scotland. It looks like Anne went by Fannie in 1891:

Suzzanne and Shared Matches at AncestryDNA

I mentioned above that Suzzanne and I have a shared match with Rebecca. Rebecca and I are third cousins:

I checked my four siblings who I have tested at AncestryDNA and they do not have a match to Suzzanne. This is not unusual for 5th cousins.

Suzzanne and Jane’s Shared Matches

These two have a lot of shared DNA matches. One that I am interested in is Gary. Gary is Jane’s third cousin:

AncestryDNA suggests evaluating Gary’s tree. I want to devote a later Blog to Gary.

Suzzanne at MyHeritage

I see that recently Suzzanne has also showed up as a DNA match to me at MyHeritage. That is good because that will give more detail as to which Chromosome we match on.

We have a small match on Chromosome 14, but mostly math on Chromosome 17:

That would most likely be the DNA that came down to both of us through Richard Frazer born around 1777 or his unknown wife. I already have a lot of my DNA mapped by DNAPainter. Here is my Chromosome 17:

The area where I match Emily in the middle is where I also math Suzzanne. According to MyHeritage, Suzzanne, Emily and I triangulate:

That means that this segment of DNA points to a common ancestor. We already identified that common ancestor as either Richard Frazer born about 1777 or his unknown wife. I had previously mapped my match with Emily to our common ancestors. They are my 2nd great-grandparents George William Frazer and Margaret McMaster. I now know that this match is on my Frazer side, going back to the late 1700’s.

Here I have painted Suzzanne’s match to my DNA Map:

Notice that Suzzanne’s match overlaps with Emily’s. That means that my match with Emily is actually an older match and I can change her match from maroon to red to represent Richard Frazer’s (or his wife’s) DNA.

Suzzanne and My Cousin Paul

I have my 2nd cousin Paul’s DNA at MyHeritage and Suzzanne matches him also:

The match on Chromosome 9 is under that threshold that DNAPainter uses, but the one at Chromosome 12 is not.

Here, Paul has a lot going on on his paternal DNA side. We see Emily again. This is the first yellow mapped DNA. This will represent either Richard Frazer or his wife.

Suzzanne and Paul Triangulate with Lorraine

This is potentially important as this DNA points to a common ancestor.

Next I look at Lorraine’s tree, to see if there are matches:

This tree does not go back as far as I would like. However, Paul, Lorraine and Cindy triangulate:

Cindy has a good tree. Her paternal tree has some Irish lines:


I see the Tighe name come up. This name has come up before in DNA matches. Perhaps Richard Frazer married a Tighe?

Here is another match that is closer to Suzanne:

Here, Paul, Suzanne and Douglas triangulate on Chromosome 12. Also Douglas shows a McMaster in his tree:

Douglas has that Catherine was from County Sligo:

Summary and Conclusions

  • Because Suzzanne has tested her DNA at Ancestry and is also at MyHeritage, we have a lot of information about her DNA matches.
  • From what I can tell, Suzzanne descends from the two brothers: Archibald and Richard Frazer born in the 1770’s. This is not unusual in Frazer genealogy
  • I am a 5th cousin to Suzzanne, but we are still a DNA match
  • Suzzanne’s Frazer ancestor Annie ended up in Scotland
  • I looked at some DNA matches from MyHeritage. They may give some hints as to who Richard Frazer’s wife was.
  • I was reminded of another common DNA match, Gary, who I would like to write about.
  • Bottom line is that Suzzanne fits into the Frazer genealogy and DNA matching just as she should.


Irish Petty Sessions for Some Frazers and McMasters: Part 2

In my previous Blog, I looked at the Irish Petty sessions for my ancestor James Frazer and some of his relatives. This was helpful in sorting out some of these relatives as to where they lived during a time whcih has few or no Census records.

Alexander Frazer of Carrowncully

Here is the defendant, withnesses and charge:

I believe that this is this Alexander Frazer:

Doctor J Frazer 1899

This doctor had the same charge against him that my 3rd great-grandfather had:

This has me a bit stumped, but is most likely:

I suppose that Riversdale could have been mistaken for Riverstown. The 1901 Census is not much help as it shows Edward King living in County Meath at the time:

Richard Frazer of Derrycashel

This is of interest to me as my ancestors lived in Derrychashel:

I had my relatives show me the old Derrycashel Frazer House when I visited Ballindoon in 2004:

It looks like a few things were happening. Nixon Johnston of Kilmactranny trespasses on Richard Frazer’s land and refuses to leave. I don’t know which happened first but in an apparently related incident, Richard Frazer assaults Archibald H Johnston of Cloughmine (County Sligo).

Here is my guess for Richard Frazer:

This is probably Archibald Johnston in Griffith’s Valuation:

Richard’s father Archibald appears to have lived in Derrycashel at the time of Griffith’s Valuation, but died in 1863:

That means that Richard, the son of Archiabald was living in Derrycashel in 1881. Here is where these people likely lived:

Here are two Frazer/Johnston marriages:

Mary had a son named Archibald Johnston. I’m sure that my 3rd great-grandfather James Frazer knew about what was going on between the Frazers and the Johnstons, but I don’t. Also this Archibald H Johnston was from Cloughmine and not Derrycashel. Here is Cloughmine – next door to Kilmactranny in County Sligo in the heart of McMaster territory:

In 1877, Richard Frazer owed Boyle shopkeeper Michael McDonald:

Richard was looking for wages due in 1890:

Mary Frazer Derryvanny


This is one of those famous assault cases:

Both sides had the same witnesses. Mary was a spinster. This fact is very important as I assume Frazer is her maiden name. Here she is in Griffith’s Valuation:

John Peyton Frazer had some property there also. Here is a guess as to who Mary is from the James Line:

If I have identified Mary correctly, this would be her in County Sligo with her unmarried sisters in 1901:

Here her age would have been understated.

The McMaster Family

This family had their epicenter in the Parish of Kilmactranny in County Sligo. This was not very far from where the Frazers of North County Roscommon lived. My ancestor George William Frazer moved to Ballindoon, County Sligo from Derrycashel, County Roscommon. This must have been around the time that he married Margaret McMaster. They married at the Kilmactranny Church in 1866. My great-grandfather was born the next year in 1867 in Ballindoon. I have had some trouble in connecting the different branches of the McMaster Family.

This chart, which I made for DNA matches, starts to get at some of the complexities:

I believe I have the correct tree here. However, William McMaster at the top married a Frazer. My second great-grandmother Margaret McMaster married a Frazer. Her parents were both McMasters. I’ll start by searching for McMasters where the Court was in Roscommon.

Arthur McMaster of Dromore

Here is a map for reference:

Apparently Arthur was assualted in Deerpark by Thomas McManus:

Thomas also assaulted James Boyd of Carrigeenboy the same night. Here is my best guess for Arthur:

Just to make life compicated for genealogists, he married Catherine McMaster.

Hugh McMaster Derintunny, Kilbryan, Roscommon

Here is another early case from 1853. This must be Dereentunny in the heart of Frazer Country:

Here is Hugh and family:

Apparently Hugh had a maid named Margaret Kelly who took off:

So far, this is the earliest case I have found:

My Ancestor James McMaster

Here is what I have for James:

From what I understand, my 2nd great-grandmother was from Cuilnaghleragh. This was also known as Clarkwood. Here is Griffin’s Valuation for Cuilnaghleragh:

There is a James McMaster senior and junior. They both had a house in Cuilnaghlerah. Abraham looks like he had a house there also if I am reading the above corretly. I descend from the senior, I believe.

The first court case has no image:

In 1865, James didn’t want gravel on the public road:

I’m sure my ancestor had his reasons. In 1866, James was in trouble for his wandering pigs:

So pigs like mud, right? Perhaps that is why James didn’t want gravel on the road.

In 1859, James was a witness:

It looks like James was a witness for George Thompson. Apparently Thomas Boyd was putting a fend on George Thompson’s land.

Martha McMaster Cloghmine 1876

The complainant appears to be Thomas Conners:

I don’t have many guesses for this Martha, but here is one:

If I have this right, then Martha was a Rockaby and her second wedding had two witnesses named Archibald McMaster.

Here is a McMaster from Cloghmine:

Martha could have been the wife of William McMaster. I don’t see a Conners listed in Cloghmine on Griffith’s Valuation.

The Widow McMaster – Probably Anne Jane McMaster

I wonder if the Widow McMaster also in an 1876 case was Anne J(ane) McMaster:

I see that Ann J McMaster was a witness. Was she the widow McMaster? I mentioned Anne Jane McMaster in my previous blog. She was also a widow as of 1874 and was living in Aughrefinegan, Roscommon in 1886. However, in 1883, she was listed as living in Clarkewood aka Cuilnaghleragh:

Anne Jane is linked to Clarkewood and Aughrafinegan here in case there is any doubt.

William McMaster 1876 Cloghmine

When I filter by McMaster on my spreadsheet, I get this:

If William was Martha’s wife and she was a widow in the 1876, then William would have had to have died in 1876.

William McMaster 1857

I think that this is the same William McMaster in 1857:

Based on this entry, I would assume that William had land in Cloghmine but was living in Ballinlig:


Ballinlig is to the West of Highwood and Kilkere. So, I don’t know what it means that William lived in Ballinig but had land in Cloghmine. Was the family originally from Ballinig or Cloghmine? I see no McMasters in Ballinlig in the Griffith’s Valuation:

Hubert McMaster of Clarkewood

This name was transcribed as Herbert, but I see Hubert:

Apparently George Thompson and Hubert McMaster were not happy with John Boyd. I have this for Hubert:

It appears that in the 1901 Census, he was called Hugh:

In 1918 Hubert had an unlicensed dog:

Archibald McMaster

Archibald had fence problems in 1872:

I assume that Archibald (or Archable) lived in Kilkere. This 1876 case has Archibald in Kilkare:

According to Wiliam Johnston, Arhcibald’s man and animals tresspassed on his land, pulled down his fence and took turf. I see that Archibald filed even more charges against William Johnston at the same time.

Robert McMaster Dromore 1882

I see I mentioned an Arthur McMaster from Dromore above. Dromore was to the North of Highwood. This Robert is designated as Senior, so there must have been more than one Robert McMaster. This may be Robert McMaster Senior born in 1803:

McMaster Summary

One of the earliest cases involved Dereentunny which is in Roscommon. Here are the names on a map:

The map stops near the Roscommon border to the South, so the red arrow shows where Hugh and Anne were. Anne Jane was in Aughrafinegan, Roscommon.

Frazer and Roscommon Summary

Here is how that looks on a map:


From above, Hugh McMaster was in Derreentunny to the West of Derrycashel and Anne Jane (Frazer) McMaster in Augrefinegan. This shows how closely these early Frazers lived to each other. The three with the arrows go off the map. Archibald Frazer moved from Shanvoley aka Oldbrook to Drimatybonniff. Recall, this information is just from the Petty Sessions. I’m sure there were more Frazers not mentioned in these sessions.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The Irish Petty Sessions give some interesting background on the day to day lives of my ancestors and their relatives from the 1850’s to the time of the 1900 Irish Census.
  • It appears that livestock getting into your grains was an important issue as it could result in loss of revenue or even hunger.
  • My main purpose in looking at these Petty Sessions was to see where these people were living at the time. As there was no Census at this time, it puts these people in a particular place.
  • If these people were living in the same place as others of the same name, it could imply that they were from the same family. There were many people with the same names and similar sounding place names. The court cases tried to distinguish these people to make it clear who they were by saying where exactly they lived.
  • I summarized these cases in a spreadsheet and put these people on a map. The map shows the epicenter of where the McMasters lived in Kilmactryanny, County Sligo and where the Frazers lived in North County Roscommon.



More on Mayflower White YDNA

In my previous Blog on Mayflower White YDNA, I was surprised to find out that my friend’s YDNA test supported his direct descent from William White of the Mayflower. My friend always believed that he was descended from William White, but most recent genealogical scholarship seemed to put that into doubt due to an illegitimacy in his White line in early Plymouth Colony hisory. In this Blog I would like to see if I could find out any more about my friend’s Mayflower YDNA. He took the 37 STR test which is what I recommended. I had recommended that as it would have been enough to show that he didn’t match other Mayflower Whites. As it turned out, his test showed that he matched almost all Whites and one White who had a proven ancestry back to William White of the Mayflower.

Predicting the Mayflower White YDNA Haplogroup

The easiest way to predict the Mayflower White YDNA Haplogroup would be to join the R1b – All Subclades FTDNA YDNA Project and have them figure it out. I joined my friend to this group, but it is a large group, so difficult to figure out on my own where he would belong based on his limited test. My friend is R-M269 which is one of the most popular Haplogroups for Northwestern Europeans – sometimes referred to as Northern Atlantic Europeans. I joined my friend to the R1b – All Subclades Group, but it could be a while before his is put in a more specific Haplogroup. Here is the tip of the iceburg view for R1b:

M269 is near the top of this tree in the pink or red area. My own Hartley YDNA is somewhere on the bottom left in the green area under L21. I am also under L513 which has its own group and two page tree. When I say this is a large group, there are over 26,000 members. That means that to download the results takes a long time. The results go out to 111 STRs, so that means about 3 million bits of information.

One cut is whether my friend is L21 or U106, or actually P312 or U106. According to ISOGG:

Here is what my friend has for DYS390:

That looks like R-P312 so far.

Hmm, split decision.

CDYa is 37, so that favors U106. The difference between P312 and U106 is that P312 is believed to be an older YDNA from Great Britain and U102 would be from the Anglo Saxons who were originally from Germany. The name England comes from Anglo. While Britain refects the earlier P312 people. Here is a map showing where the Britons and Saxons were around the year 600:

Here is some more information:

Of the three markers, it appears that DYS390 is the most important and that would more likely put my White friend in R-P312.

YSEQ Predictor

I tried this predictor:

I downloaded the White YDN37 STRs and put them here and got these results:

This seems to be getting somewhere. My Mayflower White desendant friend is pretty sure to be R1b-DF49. The YSEQ site also has this map:

The good news is that there are fewer than 1,000 members in the DF49 FTDNA Haplogroup Project:

I was able to find DF49 on the ‘iceburg’ tree above. Here is a closeup of the L21 section of that tree:

My Hartley YDNA is under L513 in the bottom left. That is a pretty big group which has two pages of trees now. My White friend appears to be under DF49 which is under Z3+589. If this is right, that puts White under the older British people (vs the newer Anglo Saxons).

Dating Mayflower STRs

Dating these STRs is not a precise science. In the YSEQ map above DF49 is shown at 2500 BC. in the green tree above, its predecessor L21 is shown at 2300 BC, but that is in the ball park. The point is that the M269 which is what my Mayflower friend and his proven match show are actually DF49. That brings them from about 4500 BC to around 2500 BC:

That’s an improvement of about 2,000 years.

Here is some further branching for DF49:

Mayflower White is DF49 > M222?

Based on the YSEQ Haplogroup Predictor, Mayflower White is DF49. I found this at mayflowerdna.org:

From this aricle, a different predictor was used (the Nevgen.org R1b clade predictor). This Predictor came up with the M222 which is five SNPs under DF49. I don’t necessarily agree with the stated view above that the White family came from Ireland and Scotland. I don’t think that conclusion is supported by the YDNA testing. That article had this footnote which I could not find:

This article probably refers to the person at the Mayflower YDNA FTDNA Project who is listed as a proven Mayflower descendant.


FTDNA also has an M222 Haplogroup Project:

This group is larger than its parent DF49. I like trees and the one they have at the M222 Project Page:

This brings us into Roman times (100 BC). However, there is some confusion on the dating. This branching is determined by BigY testing which has not been done yet for the Mayflower White families. Not all branches are created equal. There are six branches. The most popular is S658 on the right. This is good news as it brings the Mayflower Whites from 4500 BC to 100 BC, an improvement of about 4500 years. The tree above is also called a tip of the iceburg chart as not all the branches are shown.

M222 and STRs

The “About Us” Page for the FTDNA M222 Project says this:


DYS390 = 25
DYS385b = 13
DYS392 = 14
DYS448 = 18
DYS449 = 30
DYS464 = 15-16-16-17
DYS456 = 17
DYS607 = 16
DYS413 = 21-23
DYS534 = 16
DYS481 = 25
DYS714 = 24

In some to most cases the first three STRs in the list above are adequate to establish possible membership in this group. If you have at least two of those three values and differ by only one at the mismatching marker, you may (though not certainly) a member of the R-M222 Haplogroup. A SNP test for the R-M222 marker could establish firmly.  If you are uncertain about whether you belong to Haplogroup R-M222, please contact a project administrator for advice.

My friend Gary has:

  • DYS390 = 24
  • DYS385b = 13
  • DYS392 = 15

This is interesting because Gary has only one out of three of the STRs that are supposed to define M222. Further:

  • DYS448 = 18
  • DYS449 = 30
  • DYS464 = 16-16-16-17
    DYS456 = 17
    DYS607 = 15

I bolded the values where Gary matches what would be expected of someone with M222. The additional STRs must be in the 67 STR test.

I added this kit to the M222 FTDNA Project:

The administroators think that my friend is M222 but would like him to take the BigY test to be sure and place him in the appropriate subgroup.

The White Family FTDNA YDNA Project

I added Gary to this group:

Gary is on the bottom line. He has no colored results which means he has no variations from the mode. This was discussed also in my previous Blog. The other confirmed Mayflower descendant has not joined the White Family FTDNA Project, so his results do not show there. Here is the caption for this small group of Whites:

It appears that these two other White testers with roots in Vermont may also go back to William White of the Mayflower.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Based on the YSEQ Haplogroup Predictor, my Mayflower White descendant is in the Haplogroup of DF49
  • This group is about 4500 years old and represents the older Britannic inhabitants of the present-day United Kingdom
  • I found one web site which linked the William White Line to M222 which is the largest group under DF49.
  • Based on my friend’s close STR match with a proven William White Mayflower descendant, that proven descendant must also be M222.
  • If these two were to do additional YDNA testing – especially the BigY 700 test, they would likely get their YDNA Haplogroup into the genealogical timeframe.

An 1887 Trip from Fall River to the Hartley Farm in Rochester

Abel Burrows was the husband of my great-grandfather’s sister. My great-grandfather was the father of many Hartleys, so many descendants may be interested in this Fall River Newpaper article. James’ sister was Mary Ann Hartley. She married Abel Burrows who owned a Jewelry shop in Fall River. At the time of the visit James’ parents Greenwood and Ann were still alive. James had married Annie Snell two years previous to Abel’s visit in the Summer of 1887. At that time Annie was 21. She had her first son Daniel who was one and was 7 or 8 months pregnant with her second son who did not survive infancy.

Here are Greenwood and Ann Hartley:

Here is James Hartley later in life:

Here is his wife Annie, probably close to how she looked in 1887:

Fall River Daily Herald 12 August 1887

I originally wrote about this article in a Blog about Abel Burrows. The writer of the article was John Slinn, a friend of Abel’s who worked in the insurance business. Abel’s wife is mentioned in passing. I assume that the place where they go fishing is Snow’s Pond. The place they visit is no doubt the Hartley Farm at the beginning of Snipatuit Road near the Mattapoisett River where the Memorial Day Boat Race starts.

Two days prior to the article (10 August 1887), I found this bit of news in the Fall River newpaper:

Here is the main article. August 10 was a Wednesday. The article mentions a Monday – two days previous:

This appears to be the only mention of Mary Ann Hartley Burrows. Mary Ann was 32 in 1877. Here is Mary Ann about 34 years after her trip to Rochester in 1887:

9-1/2 hours from Fall River to the Hartley Farm.

As far as I know John Slinn never published the follow-up article. I think that John may have been influenced by Mark Twain based on his writing style.

Big Y “Backbone Tests”

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

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

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

Butler and S23612

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


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

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

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

Speaking of S23897

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

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

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

Frazer Backbone Tests

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

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

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

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

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

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

BigY700 on the James Line

The same thing apparently happened for the BigY700 tester.

Here is the James Line BigY700 order history:

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

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

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

Archibald Line Results and Frazier BigY results

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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