RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: Jill Eaton on Friday 30 March 18 11:20 BST (UK)
-
Has anyone else come up against the brick wall of trying to identify where exactly where a DNA match fits/doesn't fit into a family tree? Especially when the Ancestry match doesn't match and other matches but mine.
Apparently the match is about 4th cousin, confidence HIGH, 40 centimorgans so we should share a gt gt gt grandparent. This was looking promising since of the two trees from my match it was likely, the most probability was that their Wheeler family came from Bermondsey, London and so do many of my ancestors. My illegitimate gt Grandmother Mary Ann Lane was born in Rotherhithe and since I don't know her ancestry she seemed a good candidate for a possible connection.
The family for the Wheeler match went to Australia in 1839 though not the whole family with the earliest Wheeler on the tree called John Wheeler and his son James Wheeler (born 1806 in Bermondsey) would be the 3 x gt grandfather. The family were apparently Victuallers. Since then I've spent many hours trying to find a Lane/Wheeler link in the Southwark area.
The problem isn't that I haven't found any - it's that I've found several!! And still can't sort out which one is relevant.
If it wasn't for DNA matching I'd have never looked or I'd have assumed that the Lane surname and it's connection to Wheeler was purely coincidental. Now I can't ignore it ::) ;D
And what if it's the other possible family tree from my Australian contact - the Parish family? I haven't even started to look at those yet. again, they'd have been of no interest to me. Now I've got to spend time on research that may actually be totally fruitless.
Anyone else given up because they simply couldn't find the connection?
-
Just move on to the next one. Something somewhere will be kicked loose at a later stage
Thats how I treat my DNA close matches .
-
Just move on to the next one. Something somewhere will be kicked loose at a later stage
Thats how I treat my DNA close matches .
Its excellent advice except that since I was the one who initiated the original contact with my match, and since they've emailed a couple of times to see if I've found anything, I now feel an obligation to find an answer ::) ;)
-
You shouldn't feel obliged to find the answer even though you initiated contact. You're just an amateur and there finding any matches should be a two way street I think. :)
I've given up trying to find connections with my close matches.
I think it must be driving you mad to try to find the connections with matches of as little as 40cM!
My closest match is 109 cM and I had already established our connection via paper trail and more recently discovered our DNA tests too - she is a second cousin once removed.
My next closest match is 99 cM so should be a fairly similar sort of match. I have seen her tree but can't find any connection at all except that our families lived in the same county, though not the same town. I keep returning to this puzzle in case something jumps out at me, but I tend to give up fairly quickly.
i have little patience. ;)
-
You shouldn't feel obliged to find the answer even though you initiated contact. You're just an amateur and there finding any matches should be a two way street I think. :)
I've given up trying to find connections with my close matches.
I think it must be driving you mad to try to find the connections with matches of as little as 40cM!
Almost all my 212 matches at Ancestry are 40cM or less. The only ones higher than that are two first cousins, my daughter, and 2 people who haven't responded. This particular 40cM match has trees with information that is incorrect - place names in England in the wrong counties and regions and dates for ancestors/decendents that are biologically impossible. I'm not infallible by a long way but I do ty to double check my research as much as is possible. Hence, whilst I'm happy to research alongside someone else I still feel the need to double-check.
My matches at MyHeritage DNA tend to be higher numbers of centimorgans. There is also a small circular national flag by each match's name which identifies their location. I try to contact those from Britain first as their ancestors are likely to have been someone in the same geographical position as mine at a far more recent date. I wish Ancestry would do something similar, especially on Private Trees.
I've found the DNA matches for the US and Australia come from trees where their family have emigrated before 1837 making it much harder to prove a paper trail.
-
Jill, You say "Almost all my 212 matches at Ancestry are 40cM or less."
Surely you have more matches than that at ancestry?! I have many thousands, too many to look at and most other people seem to as well.
Or did you mean 4th to 6th cousins? These go down to 20 cM at ancestry, anything below that shows up as 5th to 8th cousins.
Ruskie, You say "I think it must be driving you mad to try to find the connections with matches of as little as 40cM!"
I have found very valuable matches with my 5th to 8th cousins. These go down to 6cM at ancestry, though none of my confirmed matches are that low.
My lowest confirmed match shares as little as 6.9 cM with me. He is my 4th cousin and is also in one of my DNA circles, shared with my first cousin Sarah and 3 other people, all of the latter 4th cousins. The other 2 share 23.8 cM and 0 cM with me, but they are first cousins to each other. They share 0 cM with my first cousin
So Sarah shares no DNA with any of them, I share DNA with Sarah and with 2 of them.
Goes to show the randomness of DNA inheritance.
Regards Margaret
-
DNA does not follow a surname, so common surnames can be a red herring if there are a couple (or more!) lines of descent that have a '?' not many generations back. You might share relationships on completely unexpected lines, or through step-siblings.
I've found some useful matches on Ancestry DNA, which have been a real comfort in confirming my paper-trails back 4 or 5 generations.
But you can only link up with the paper trail if;
1. It exists (not everybody leaves the right paperwork behind!)
2. You and your match have 100% accuracy on all your lines of descent
If the person you are seeking a match with has incorrect data on their tree, then I should put your energies somewhere else. Especially if they seem to be expecting you to come up with the answers. They sound suspiciously like the 'click and paste' genealogists who rely on Ancestry hints, or the first answer they come across. If you want to continue, that's the joy of research, but you'll be needing to check every line of descent for errors, not just the one you currently think is correct - since they might have got an incorrect link elsewhere, which, once corrected, might prove to be your missing link.
Are there any common matches between you and this match? Or do they come up as a common match between you and a different match? Focusing on one or two trees can help when you start to see them converge, although it multiplies the number of lines of descent to investigate. I found it useful to create my own lists of 'sub-groups- matches that seem to link up with each other, but not with other 'sub-groups'. Then when I start spotting common lines of descent amongst them, I can start to focus on whether that might be the line that connects to me (although that still might just be a coincidence and the common line/s with me be completely different).
-
Jill, You say "Almost all my 212 matches at Ancestry are 40cM or less."
Surely you have more matches than that at ancestry?! I have many thousands, too many to look at and most other people seem to as well.
Or did you mean 4th to 6th cousins? These go down to 20 cM at ancestry, anything below that shows up as 5th to 8th cousins.
Regards Margaret
Margaret, Yes I should have clarified - 212 4th to 6th on Ancestry ;) I've no idea how many there are beyond that point.
Myheritage informs me that I have a total of 1812 matches. I certainly haven't discounted 5th to 8th cousin matches from either site. I've started an excel spreadsheet noting who shares with whom and whether I can identify a paternal or maternal connection. It's very early days yet and I'm still finding my feet. fascinated by the whole concept though
-
If the person you are seeking a match with has incorrect data on their tree, then I should put your energies somewhere else. Especially if they seem to be expecting you to come up with the answers. They sound suspiciously like the 'click and paste' genealogists who rely on Ancestry hints, or the first answer they come across.
That may well be the case and we know it does happen but I also think that this will be a new challenge for genealogists - both amateur and professional. DNA matches now link people from all continents in a way that could only be followed by a really good paper trail in the past. DNA shows a possible familial connection that may only have been suspected before.
My present contactee (yes I know that's usually a alien contact term but it seems the easiest and quickest terminology for this situation) is descended from two lines who were sent to Australia in the early part of the 19th century. The vast majority of their trees are centred on an entire different continent. Anything they do know about their ancestors before they left Britain's shores is likely to be hear-say and legend. Add to that trying to locate places in a country you have no knowledge of with a registration, and recording system that may be entirely different to the one you are used to and all sorts of mistakes and misunderstandings are likely to occur.
I have an ancestor from Leicestershire. Birth registered in Melton Mowbray. it's about 45 minutes from where I live. On various websites her place of birth is transcribed as Branstone and Braunstone. I don't know which of those is correct? Are there two places near Melton Mowbray with similar names? is it the same place badly written? Are neither correct? I'm 90% certain it's Branstone but her surname is very common in the region and if there are two places with similar names I could easily have identified the wrong person.
I've tried identifying places in Ireland. That's a challenge in itself. Parishes, townlands, baronies, it's all a bit mysterious to me. Imagine what it's like trying to research relatives on a landmass thousands of miles away! ;D
-
I am marking this page... to check it out later :) see if I can get to grips with my results.
xin
-
A distant cousin of mine (4th!) who is a full-time genealogist persuaded me to take the FTDNA Family Finder test, and quite frankly I wasn't too impressed with the results. Plenty of so-called matches, but who on earth were they? Hardly any of them had a family-tree that made any sense to me.
Then my relative asked for permission to upload my details onto MyHeritage. Carry on, said I, not expecting much from that either. In fact, right from the start I have been blown away by the matches I have found on MyHeritage, many of whom are related to me in recent time. The first one I checked out turned out to be the daughter of a 2nd cousin I used to exchange emails with most Saturday afternoons.
But the star of the show is a chap with a name that meant nothing to me, but he shared 7.5% of my DNA, 544.1cM(!) and we had shared segments on 22 out of the 23 chromosomes. I noticed that he also matched several people who matched me on my paternal Watson side, so he had to be close family. My dad was the youngest of 10 children, and I knew pretty well who my various cousins were, except that I did have an uncle who moved from Scotland to England before I was born and we lost touch with him and his family, although I knew he and his wife had 6 children.
Cutting a long story short, with the help of my genealogist 4th cousin I have established that this chap is the grandson of my long-lost uncle, hence my 1st cousin, once removed. Unfortunately he hasn't responded to my email, but at least my curiosity is satisfied, and autosomal DNA is vindicated!
Harry
-
My dad was the youngest of 10 children, and I knew pretty well who my various cousins were, except that I did have an uncle who moved from Scotland to England before I was born and we lost touch with him and his family, although I knew he and his wife had 6 children.
Cutting a long story short, with the help of my genealogist 4th cousin I have established that this chap is the grandson of my long-lost uncle, hence my 1st cousin, once removed.
This illustrates how a DNA match is only as useful as the pre-existing paper trail. Unless its really close - within one or two generations - then without a paper trail a more distant cousin DNA match might just as well be a total non-match (which is also a point - that there will be lots of distant cousins who will be non-matches even though you are related)
Unfortunately he hasn't responded to my email, but at least my curiosity is satisfied, and autosomal DNA is vindicated!
Harry
The fact that this cousin has yet to (and may never) answer you is one of the frustrating things about the DNA matches. So many people do it just out of curiosity or novelty, and not with any active genealogical interest. It is of course personal choice to get involved with the genealogical community (plus the companies make a nice profit), and it might get some people interested in family history at some point, but it does leave you with a long list of DNA matches that are, from a practical point of view, useless.
-
Jill, if this gives you pleasure, then do it. But potentially you are now researching their tree both up and down, and still no guarantee that the name you have in common is the actual DNA link.
You said this DNA match descends from two lines from the 19th Century that emigrated to Australia. I really hope that isn't true (think of the in-breeding!). Surely all their lines emigrated to Australia? So it could be any of those multiple lines, not just the two you think it might be - considering that you can't be sure any of the lines have been traced correctly!
-
Add to that trying to locate places in a country you have no knowledge of with a registration, and recording system that may be entirely different to the one you are used to and all sorts of mistakes and misunderstandings are likely to occur.
I'm a bit confused by this. If your Australian DNA contactee has researched their lines of descent, then surely its been their knowledge of their countries registration system they used? So its not going to be "entirely different to the one they are used to". Or do you mean their research in this country?
-
I have an ancestor from Leicestershire. Birth registered in Melton Mowbray. it's about 45 minutes from where I live. On various websites her place of birth is transcribed as Branstone and Braunstone. I don't know which of those is correct? Are there two places near Melton Mowbray with similar names? is it the same place badly written? Are neither correct? I'm 90% certain it's Branstone but her surname is very common in the region and if there are two places with similar names I could easily have identified the wrong person.
What century was the birth in? As long as the county stays consistent, then just look on a decent map, or in a gazetteer.
-
Add to that trying to locate places in a country you have no knowledge of with a registration, and recording system that may be entirely different to the one you are used to and all sorts of mistakes and misunderstandings are likely to occur.
I'm a bit confused by this. If your Australian DNA contactee has researched their lines of descent, then surely its been their knowledge of their countries registration system they used? So its not going to be "entirely different to the one they are used to". Or do you mean their research in this country?
This caught my eye as well. Apart from a few births, deaths and marriages, most people don't have any deaings with their countries' registrations systems, and even then it is only on the most basic level, eg filling in a form or someone else doing it for you. Add to that the fact that going back in time those systems were different, and in Australia each state is different, and holds their own records.
Your dilemma about Branstone Braunstone could just as easily happen to someone living in Bransone - it doesn't just happen to people who live in different countries. I agree with IJDisney in that finding a good map or two will help enormously, particularly contemporary maps and parish maps.
-
Jill, if this gives you pleasure, then do it. But potentially you are now researching their tree both up and down, and still no guarantee that the name you have in common is the actual DNA link.
I know!! ;D
You said this DNA match descends from two lines from the 19th Century that emigrated to Australia. I really hope that isn't true (think of the in-breeding!). Surely all their lines emigrated to Australia? So it could be any of those multiple lines, not just the two you think it might be - considering that you can't be sure any of the lines have been traced correctly!
The two trees/lines I was sent (private trees but I was given access) was because Ancestry gave an estimate of the probable relationship and these are the lines they thought would be a possibility. I'm aware this may be wrong - it's only an estimate and that they have a lot of ancestors' on their other trees I can't access. It could be any one of their ancestors who didn't go to Australia so have to assume what they've found in their own country is sound. It's their British research which is more speculative. This is why my tree is public so that others can look for a possible link too. Hence my original thread title of why DNA testing can be so frustrating.
But unless you/they are prepared to some research there isn't much point in posting a tree on Ancestry or anywhere else. Just use it for the Ethnicity Estimate if you have any faith in the results.
-
I actually spent a lot of my childhood in Braunstone Leicester :)
Gooding Avenue..
peaceful happy place
ahhh
xin
-
Just use it for the Ethnicity Estimate if you have any faith in the results.
I have little faith in the Ethnicity results. I'm just 1% British according to Ancestry, and MyHeritage replaces that with 1% Native American. Yet all my lines back to 1800 were born in Britain. Unless almost all of the preceding generation (64 different families) were an immigrant (and I know most were not), I don't see how their interpretation can be accurate. "Ethnic" is a very vague term anyhow, and its just the interpretation of the different providers. Its useful if you have absolutely nothing else to go on, and also fuels the romantic fantasy side of genealogy (e.g. my results say I'm 5% Spanish, and 19% Irish, so clearly I descend from the Spanish Armada sailors shipwrecked in Ireland!! And as 1% Native American, I must be descended from Pocahontas!)). But I put no faith in it.
I have greater faith in the DNA matches, but am aware of how very limiting they are (as compared to how they are advertised!). 'DNA' matches are only about the DNA they choose to test - not all your DNA, and it certainly does not reflect all your ancestral lines.
-
I have little faith in the Ethnicity results. I'm just 1% British according to Ancestry, and MyHeritage replaces that with 1% Native American. Yet all my lines back to 1800 were born in Britain. Unless almost all of the preceding generation (64 different families) were an immigrant (and I know most were not), I don't see how their interpretation can be accurate. "Ethnic" is a very vague term anyhow, and its just the interpretation of the different providers. Its useful if you have absolutely nothing else to go on, and also fuels the romantic fantasy side of genealogy (e.g. my results say I'm 5% Spanish, and 19% Irish, so clearly I descend from the Spanish Armada sailors shipwrecked in Ireland!! And as 1% Native American, I must be descended from Pocahontas!)). But I put no faith in it.
I have my autosomal DNA uploaded on MyHeritage and MyFamilyTree as well as Ancestry where the test was actually one and they all agree that I'm 100% European
Both MyHeritage and MyFamilyTree give me a 2.8% and 3% ethnicity of Southern Europe/Greece. Now I'm really fond of holidaying in the Greek islands but there is absolutely no indication in my paper trail that I have any family from there. Ancestry only allocates me 1% but I'm prepared to accept that I carry some Mediterranean genes and are therefore entitled to visit the land of my forebears! ;)
All three sites do give an Irish/Welsh/Scottish estimate that makes up the largest part of ethnicity estimate with MyHeritage and MyFamilyTree making it around the 85% mark
-
Grr! Grr! Frustrating indeed.
When I got my results back last year I contacted some of my close matches. Reply from manager of 2 of my closest matches was polite but not sure of connectIon, no online tree.
With more people testing and strong shared matches, the link became stonger, so sent two more messages, outlining where I thought the link could be, last one in Nov 17. No reply.
Until today that is.
''None of the names you mention have anything to do with our tree. No one in our family tree moved out of x or came in to x from the places you mention."
Although she had a couple of illegitimacies, they were nothing to do with my family.
My 2G grandfather travelled all over x county with his job, as did his son in law. I wonder if a son or grandson (or even 2G himself) fathered one of her illegitimacies?!?!?!?!? I would like to know, even if she doesn't.
Margaret
-
Nearly everone is upset, surprised or disappointed at their ethnicity results because they don't match their paper trail, but how far back in history do the results go? 500 years? 1,000 years? Not many of us have paper trails for all lines back that far. The results also relate to others who have tested, so if millions of Americans with Jewish heritage have taken tests, and only a few thousand from the UK have taken tests, then the results will reflect those sample groups won't they?
This may help explain it:
https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/user-guide/family-finder-myftdna/myorigins-methodology/
-
I've found, with most of my matches, that I have to be prepared to be the main 'instigator'.
I started out by just sending a pretty standard message to my top matches just saying words to the effect 'we match - you have no tree/or small tree/ what are your locations and names'.
Most don't react to that kind of message - I'm generous and assume they're probably still in work or have a family to look after but, basically, let's face it, most people can't be bothered to do the work. Hence the huge lack of family trees.
I've found that they are more likely to respond if you mention others who share the match (don't assume they already know!), especially if you are lucky or astute enough to identify a possible name or location with one of the pool and tempt the others with that snippet of info.
The above has worked for me 3 times so far - mostly because I'm a persistent little bu--er and won't give up. if I have to get back to them again, I usually start with an apology but then try to gain their interest but always put a bit at the end to say if you're not interested in pursuing this, just let me know and I'll go away! That in itself might make them feel guilty and prompt a response!
Once the match is found, everyone is happy!
-
Most don't react to that kind of message - I'm generous and assume they're probably still in work or have a family to look after but, basically, let's face it, most people can't be bothered to do the work. Hence the huge lack of family trees.
I wish I shared some DNA with you Jill. I'd be confident your info would be correct. I'm still in full-time work and don't speak to my colleagues during my lunch-breaks as I'm busy on various family history websites. If they bore with me with football results or celebrity gossip I send them into a glassy-eyed torpor by explaining census returns. I'd be more than happy to accept some input from my contactees, particularly if it was evident they had done their own research and not copied it from another family tree.
But to perfectly honest I actually really enjoy the searching, results and surprises - even when it turns out to have little relevance to me. I now know that there were a large collection of lighterman and watermen around Bermondsey called Wheeler and that various members of the Lane family (perhaps mine but nothing proved) lived with and sometimes married into them. I know a lot about various Lane families in Bermondsey, Lambeth and Camberwell - how they connect to each other and what they did for a living. Should I ever prove a link to my illegitimate Mary Ann Lane the work is largely already done and saved.
It would still be much easier and perhaps more rewarding for my own family research if people would
a) post a tree and if there was some sort of disclaimer on the websites whether they were actually interested in their own genealogy or simply ethnicity
b) have a public tree that at least had surnames and approximate dates so there was a starting point for us both to try and find a match.
c) had a tree rather than a late flowering twig. 4 people isn't a tree ;)
d) That Ancestry would indicate which country the match is from. A small national flag next to the name would be perfect
-
All good suggestions, Jill. I'd like to be able to go into my 'sent' box and know who I've sent each message to, as I can identify who has sent the messages in my 'in' box. I mean, it ani't rocket science, is it?! ???
You threw me there, by changing your picture. It looks like an older version of you in black & white!
I know what you mean about friends and family rolling their eyes or glazing over when family history comes up. Yesterday my 23 year old niece brought the subject up with ref to DNA and genes (honestly, it wasn't me!) and asked my sister in law about her grandfather who was from Liverpool (said sister in law was also born there). My niece asked SiL if that meant she had Liverpool genes in her. the answer came that no, she didn't because she'd never been there so why should she? I bit my lip, held my counsel etc etc. I've learned by bitter experience that said SiL thinks its all a waste of time and that anything past her memory is not worth pursuing. I'm sure there are lots of others out there who would agree with her. Their loss - and anyway perhaps the earth is flat...... ::)
-
Just got results back from My Heritage and with the same RAW DNA I am now 100% English.
ho hum
(happy ho hum :)
xin
-
@Jill Eaton
I noticed that you have a Sutcliffe line listed at the bottom of your post, if you upload your DNA profile to the Gedmatch Genesis site (not the main Gedmatch site but the new beta) you might end up matching me. I am a female descendant, (maiden name Sutcliffe), of a branch of Sutcliffes that lived in Huddersfield, Todmorton, Habringham Eaves and Burnley Lancs. I also have an extensive Sutcliffe tree on Ancestry.com.
Regards,
Paula
-
I have finally got a match that came out of the blue and is an actual true real one ... 2nd cousin once removed.. and she lives 40 miles away..
brilliant..
big meet up soon
fantastic.
I am so impatient.
xin
-
That's great, Xin.
Did she find you or did you find her? I ask because it always seems to be me contacting others. It would be nice if someone would actually contact me and say 'hey, we could be 3rd/4th (whatever) cousins, lets try and work this out'. But it aint happened yet. :'(
I have made quite a few connections by being proactive but ...
Jill
-
Just heard that they've received my sample so I now have to sit and wait. I'm not expecting very much from it. It would be nice to find a link to my mysterious great grandfather but I don't think I will.
Gadget
-
Same here, Jill. Have had about 2 people contact me, I've sent hundreds of messages.
Regards Margaret
-
I initially sent a response to her ... and out of the dozen or so I sent... sadly she is the only positive response.
But she is such a close rellie it is really wonderful.
Just a shame its a few years to late for her to meet my wonderful father.
:(
still who knows .. what will come of it.
xin exciting.