RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Next Page
Total: 20/4094
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: First cousins once removed marrying amount of DNA effecting relationships.
    2. Ann C Gilchrest
    3. Tim, I haven't found that to be the case back at least 5 generations. Ann -----Original Message----- From: TIM JANZEN <tjanzen@comcast.net> Sent: 01 March, 2019 21:15 To: Ann C Gilchrest <agilchrest@aol.com>; autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] First cousins once removed marrying amount of DNA effecting relationships. Dear Ann, The fact that Edward's grandparents are 1C1R removed doesn't change the expected amount of shared DNA between Edward and the adoptee. The only complication would be if the adoptee's other parent was closely related in some way to Edward. Sincerely, Tim > On March 1, 2019 at 9:10 PM Ann C Gilchrest <agilchrest@aol.com> wrote: > > > Thank you, Tim. I wasn't sure what effect 'Edwards' grandparents being 1C1R would have other than perhaps a higher than average amount of shared DNA. > Ann

    03/01/2019 10:18:46
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: First cousins once removed marrying amount of DNA effecting relationships.
    2. TIM JANZEN
    3. Dear Ann, The fact that Edward's grandparents are 1C1R removed doesn't change the expected amount of shared DNA between Edward and the adoptee. The only complication would be if the adoptee's other parent was closely related in some way to Edward. Sincerely, Tim > On March 1, 2019 at 9:10 PM Ann C Gilchrest <agilchrest@aol.com> wrote: > > > Thank you, Tim. I wasn't sure what effect 'Edwards' grandparents being 1C1R would have other than perhaps a higher than average amount of shared DNA. > Ann

    03/01/2019 10:15:04
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: First cousins once removed marrying amount of DNA effecting relationships.
    2. Ann C Gilchrest
    3. Thank you, Tim. I wasn't sure what effect 'Edwards' grandparents being 1C1R would have other than perhaps a higher than average amount of shared DNA. Ann -----Original Message----- From: TIM JANZEN <tjanzen@comcast.net> Sent: 01 March, 2019 21:04 To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Cc: Ann C Gilchrest <agilchrest@aol.com> Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] First cousins once removed marrying amount of DNA effecting relationships. Dear Ann, Based on the amount of shared cMs, an uncle/nephew relationship is very reasonable. Don't get hung up on the fact that they share 70 segments per Ancestry.com. They probably don't actually share that many segments if you were to compare them at GEDmatch. Keep in mind that because Ancestry.com's phasing isn't perfect it is reasonably common to see situations where a single shared segment is broken into 2 or even 3 segments when reported by Ancestry.com. Sincerely, Tim Janzen > On March 1, 2019 at 6:46 PM Ann C Gilchrest via AUTOSOMAL-DNA <autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > > I am working with an adoptee. He has a match I will call Edward. The > adoptee and Edward share 1545 cM's across 70 segments at Ancestry. > Edwards grandparents were 1C1R. Due do ages and several other pieces > of evidence I suspect Edward is the adoptees uncle and that the 70 > segments are due to Edward's grandparents being 1C1R. I would expect > to see between 1349 and > 2175 cMs between the adoptee and Edward. Is this a reasonable hypothesis? > > > > Thanks, > > Ann Gilchrest

    03/01/2019 10:10:47
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: First cousins once removed marrying amount of DNA effecting relationships.
    2. TIM JANZEN
    3. Dear Ann, Based on the amount of shared cMs, an uncle/nephew relationship is very reasonable. Don't get hung up on the fact that they share 70 segments per Ancestry.com. They probably don't actually share that many segments if you were to compare them at GEDmatch. Keep in mind that because Ancestry.com's phasing isn't perfect it is reasonably common to see situations where a single shared segment is broken into 2 or even 3 segments when reported by Ancestry.com. Sincerely, Tim Janzen > On March 1, 2019 at 6:46 PM Ann C Gilchrest via AUTOSOMAL-DNA <autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > > I am working with an adoptee. He has a match I will call Edward. The adoptee > and Edward share 1545 cM's across 70 segments at Ancestry. Edwards > grandparents were 1C1R. Due do ages and several other pieces of evidence I > suspect Edward is the adoptees uncle and that the 70 segments are due to > Edward's grandparents being 1C1R. I would expect to see between 1349 and > 2175 cMs between the adoptee and Edward. Is this a reasonable hypothesis? > > > > Thanks, > > Ann Gilchrest

    03/01/2019 10:03:59
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] First cousins once removed marrying amount of DNA effecting relationships.
    2. Ann C Gilchrest
    3. I am working with an adoptee. He has a match I will call Edward. The adoptee and Edward share 1545 cM's across 70 segments at Ancestry. Edwards grandparents were 1C1R. Due do ages and several other pieces of evidence I suspect Edward is the adoptees uncle and that the 70 segments are due to Edward's grandparents being 1C1R. I would expect to see between 1349 and 2175 cMs between the adoptee and Edward. Is this a reasonable hypothesis? Thanks, Ann Gilchrest

    03/01/2019 07:46:24
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Survey - Experiences with DNA Ancestry Tests
    2. Kimberly Baker
    3. Kathryn A. Sweeney (Purdue University Northwest) and Kimberly M. Baker (University of Northern Iowa) are conducting a study to learn more about people’s experiences with DNA ancestry tests. Below is a link to an online survey asking about your choices to take DNA testing, motivations, experiences, and reactions to the results. The survey will take about 20 minutes to complete. To participate in this study, you must meet the following criteria: ● Have completed and received results from a DNA ancestry test (such as those offered by 23andme, Ancestry, Family Tree DNA, My Heritage etc.) ● Currently reside in the United States ● Be 18 or older Please note that this survey is anonymous. The researchers will not be able to identify who you are from your answers unless you choose to disclose your contact information. To access the survey, please click on the link: http://tinyurl.com/DNAAncestry-Survey <http://tinyurl.com/DNAAncestry-Survey> Please forward this email to anyone you know who might be interested. Thanks! Kathryn A. Sweeney, Associate Professor, Purdue University Northwest, Kathryn.Sweeney@pnw.edu <mailto:KATHRYN.SWEENEY@pnw.edu> Kimberly M. Baker, Associate Professor, University of Northern Iowa, Kimberly.baker@uni.edu <mailto:Kimberly.baker@uni.edu>

    02/15/2019 03:05:29
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: Question about a match
    2. McDonald, J Douglas
    3. Most matches cannot triangulate. A match cannot triangulate without chromosome level detail. Anceastry.com, where most matches with paper trails are, does not provide chromosome level detail, and requests to the match for the raw data almost always fail. I've said before, I have a 33% success rate for very close cousins, and zero outside that range. That's why I asked my question. Whether there is a paper trail most certainly DOES affect the probability of IBD. The Rev. Bayes long ago explained that. I can do extremely rough guesses using his method in my head, getting numbers combined right needs expertise. Doug -----Original Message----- From: Tim Janzen <tjanzen@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 10:45 PM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: Question about a match Since we have two of each autosomal chromosome then we have two triangulated groups for any region of a specific chromosome. If an HIR represents an IBD segment then it will be in a triangulated group. However, the smaller the IBD segment is, the lower the probability that we will be able to determine the shared ancestor. Tim

    01/21/2019 08:01:55
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: Question about a match
    2. Tim Janzen
    3. Since we have two of each autosomal chromosome then we have two triangulated groups for any region of a specific chromosome. If an HIR represents an IBD segment then it will be in a triangulated group. However, the smaller the IBD segment is, the lower the probability that we will be able to determine the shared ancestor. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eric S Johnson [mailto:crates@oneotaslopes.org] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 8:05 PM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: Question about a match Seems to me the "that has a purported matching pair of ..." qualification is irrelevant; whether there's a known paper-trail connection doesn't affect the probability. But, in the end, all that's relevant is whether it triangulates. Don't we find that *all* chromosomal addresses eventually have two TGs at them, and Doug's HIR thereupon either does, or does not, fall into one of those TGs? In which case the question of a small HIR being IBD becomes irrelevant ... or, at any rate, academic ... no?

    01/20/2019 09:44:48
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: Question about a match
    2. Eric S Johnson
    3. > What is the probability that a 4 or 5 or ... 10 CM HIR segment is really IBD, > from a matching person that has a purported (on paper) matching pair of > ancestors > n generations back, and m other surname (not exact person) matches also n > generations back. One of course has to specify the commonness of the > surname list. > This is a non-triangulated segment. Seems to me the "that has a purported matching pair of ..." qualification is irrelevant; whether there's a known paper-trail connection doesn't affect the probability. But, in the end, all that's relevant is whether it triangulates. Don't we find that *all* chromosomal addresses eventually have two TGs at them, and Doug's HIR thereupon either does, or does not, fall into one of those TGs? In which case the question of a small HIR being IBD becomes irrelevant ... or, at any rate, academic ... no?

    01/20/2019 09:04:47
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: Question about a match
    2. Tim Janzen
    3. Dear Doug, This really is best broken up into two questions: 1. What is the probability that an HIR of n length in cMs and containing m SNPs is IBD? This has been fairly well addressed in my opinion by analysis that John Walden, others, and I have done. See https://isogg.org/wiki/Identical_by_descent for a summary of what John and I have done. The bottom line is that the 50-50 split between IBD and false matches is about 7 cMs. I continue to believe that no one has ever demonstrated that an HIR over 15 cMs containing at least 2000 SNPs was a false match. The number of SNPs is an important variable in the entire issue of whether an HIR is IBD or is a false match. HIRs that contain less than 500 steps are frequently false matches. HIRs that contain between 500 and 1000 SNPs are sometimes false matches. HIRs that contain between 1000 and 1500 SNPs are sometimes false matches not all that frequently. 2. What is the probability than an IBD segment truly came from a shared ancestor that you have identified n number of generations back in time? The answer to this question depends on a number of significant variables including the following: 1. The depth in terms of the number generations back in time the pedigree charts have been accurately established for the 2 people sharing the HIR. 2. The relative degree of endogamy in the ancestries of the 2 people sharing the HIR. In my experience, relatively few people have their pedigree charts accurately trace back more than about 8 generations on all lines. This complicates things substantially. We also know from the simulations that Speed and Balding did (see https://isogg.org/wiki/Identical_by_descent) that many IBD segments over 10 cMs involve a shared ancestor 20 generations or more back in time. You therefore have to be fairly careful when you are attributing DNA segments to specific ancestors. Ideally, you do extensive chromosome mapping using data from 1st to 10th cousins to "walk an IBD segment back up your family three". Triangulation where you have 3 or more people who share the same ancestor and the same segment n number of generations back in time helps provide evidence, but even in such situations I suggest caution if one or more of the matches doesn't have the segment accurately mapped back to an ancestor relatively closely related to the shared ancestor n number of generations back. Sincerely, Tim -----Original Message----- From: McDonald, J Douglas [mailto:jdmcdona@illinois.edu] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 4:47 PM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: Question about a match A different question. What is the probability that a 4 or 5 or ... 10 CM HIR segment is really IBD, from a matching person that has a purported (on paper) matching pair of ancestors n generations back, and m other surname (not exact person) matches also n generations back. One of course has to specify the commonness of the surname list. This is a non-triangulated segment. This sort of statistics make my head spin. Our University has a Statistical Help Service for things "sort of" like this. One talks to a grad student flunkie first and if they can't help, one gets to ask a real professor. I've tried questions "like" this and in fact this exact one. They give up ... I think they can only answer exact canned problems! But there has to be an Answer! Oh yes ... one has to multiply in one minus the probability that the paper match is a bogus Ancestry.com wrong paper trail ... but this is just a general static multiplier. An answer to this would be a miracle. Doug McDonald

    01/20/2019 07:01:03
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: Question about a match
    2. McDonald, J Douglas
    3. A different question. What is the probability that a 4 or 5 or ... 10 CM HIR segment is really IBD, from a matching person that has a purported (on paper) matching pair of ancestors n generations back, and m other surname (not exact person) matches also n generations back. One of course has to specify the commonness of the surname list. This is a non-triangulated segment. This sort of statistics make my head spin. Our University has a Statistical Help Service for things "sort of" like this. One talks to a grad student flunkie first and if they can't help, one gets to ask a real professor. I've tried questions "like" this and in fact this exact one. They give up ... I think they can only answer exact canned problems! But there has to be an Answer! Oh yes ... one has to multiply in one minus the probability that the paper match is a bogus Ancestry.com wrong paper trail ... but this is just a general static multiplier. An answer to this would be a miracle. Doug McDonald ________________________________ From: Christina Finn Hunt <chrisnina@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 5:08 PM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: Question about a match Thanks Tim. On Sun, 20 Jan 2019, 4:55 PM Tim Janzen <tjanzen@comcast.net wrote: > Dear Chris, > There is a high probability that many or all of the HIRs under 4 cMs are > false matches. I suggest that you ignore those unless you have proof that > they are IBD. Just because 2 siblings share an HIR with a match that > starts > and/or ends on the same position doesn't necessarily indicate that the HIR > in question is IBD. I have definitely run into situations in my family > where two crossovers have occurred in close proximity to each other on the > same chromosome which has resulted in a gap between 2 IBD segments that > were > passed down from the same ancestor. However, the IBD segments were over 7 > cMs in those cases. > Sincerely, > Tim Janzen > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christina Hunt [mailto:chrisnina@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 10:37 AM > To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Question about a match > > My husband's brother recently got a decent match (13.3 cm) on Chromosome > 1. It was of interest because many of her ancestors and my husband's > Irish ancestor are from the same small town. > > My husband and his cousin didn't show up at all. > Just wondering if my thinking is right. On Chromosome 1 there are two > segments that start or end with the same number with the brothers ie > 102,289,362. > > Is this because the chromosome has split up further? Does the fact that > I am only finding one match meet the 7 cm threshold that the common > ancestor is farther back than the 5+ generations suggested. > > Thanks, > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > > ______________________________ > For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: > http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community > _______________________________________________ ______________________________ For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

    01/20/2019 05:47:26
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: Question about a match
    2. Christina Finn Hunt
    3. Thanks Tim. On Sun, 20 Jan 2019, 4:55 PM Tim Janzen <tjanzen@comcast.net wrote: > Dear Chris, > There is a high probability that many or all of the HIRs under 4 cMs are > false matches. I suggest that you ignore those unless you have proof that > they are IBD. Just because 2 siblings share an HIR with a match that > starts > and/or ends on the same position doesn't necessarily indicate that the HIR > in question is IBD. I have definitely run into situations in my family > where two crossovers have occurred in close proximity to each other on the > same chromosome which has resulted in a gap between 2 IBD segments that > were > passed down from the same ancestor. However, the IBD segments were over 7 > cMs in those cases. > Sincerely, > Tim Janzen > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christina Hunt [mailto:chrisnina@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 10:37 AM > To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Question about a match > > My husband's brother recently got a decent match (13.3 cm) on Chromosome > 1. It was of interest because many of her ancestors and my husband's > Irish ancestor are from the same small town. > > My husband and his cousin didn't show up at all. > Just wondering if my thinking is right. On Chromosome 1 there are two > segments that start or end with the same number with the brothers ie > 102,289,362. > > Is this because the chromosome has split up further? Does the fact that > I am only finding one match meet the 7 cm threshold that the common > ancestor is farther back than the 5+ generations suggested. > > Thanks, > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > > ______________________________ > For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: > http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

    01/20/2019 04:08:55
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Re: Question about a match
    2. Tim Janzen
    3. Dear Chris, There is a high probability that many or all of the HIRs under 4 cMs are false matches. I suggest that you ignore those unless you have proof that they are IBD. Just because 2 siblings share an HIR with a match that starts and/or ends on the same position doesn't necessarily indicate that the HIR in question is IBD. I have definitely run into situations in my family where two crossovers have occurred in close proximity to each other on the same chromosome which has resulted in a gap between 2 IBD segments that were passed down from the same ancestor. However, the IBD segments were over 7 cMs in those cases. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: Christina Hunt [mailto:chrisnina@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 10:37 AM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Question about a match My husband's brother recently got a decent match (13.3 cm) on Chromosome 1. It was of interest because many of her ancestors and my husband's Irish ancestor are from the same small town. My husband and his cousin didn't show up at all. Just wondering if my thinking is right. On Chromosome 1 there are two segments that start or end with the same number with the brothers ie 102,289,362. Is this because the chromosome has split up further? Does the fact that I am only finding one match meet the 7 cm threshold that the common ancestor is farther back than the 5+ generations suggested. Thanks, Chris

    01/20/2019 02:55:13
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Question about a match
    2. Christina Hunt
    3. My husband's brother recently got a decent match (13.3 cm) on Chromosome 1. It was of interest because many of her ancestors and my husband's Irish ancestor are from the same small town. My husband and his cousin didn't show up at all. Just wondering if my thinking is right. On Chromosome 1 there are two segments that start or end with the same number with the brothers ie 102,289,362. Is this because the chromosome has split up further? Does the fact that I am only finding one match meet the 7 cm threshold that the common ancestor is farther back than the 5+ generations suggested. I have researched this person's tree as far back as 5 generations with nothing other than location seeming to match. Brother one 1 3,645,052 4,379,687 2.2 233 1 102,289,362 105,725,458 2.8 541 << 1 160,318,984 162,630,894 3.8 611 1 242,594,868 244,106,113 3.0 275 << 1 245,630,414 246,429,058 2.2 254 Brother two 1 3,645,052 4,379,687 2.2 230 1 102,289,362 105,720,186 2.8 531 << 1 160,420,036 162,722,216 3.7 599 1 167,532,944 168,569,112 2.0 288 1 216,240,301 230,862,034 13.3 3,472 1 242,599,000 244,106,113 3.0 266 << 1 245,630,414 246,429,058 2.2 253 For Brother two Largest segment = 13.3 cM Total Half-Match segments (HIR) = 144.4 cM (4.027 Pct) 52 shared segments found for this comparison. 613979 SNPs used for this comparison. 55.774 Pct SNPs are full identical Thanks, Chris

    01/20/2019 11:36:41
    1. Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Question about X-DNA and sisters
    2. Greg Lovelace
    3. Tim, Ann, and Curtis, Thank you for your responses. It looks like the two sisters in question are not full sisters. Tim agrees with the assessment of Ann, and so do I. It looks like they are half-sisters with different fathers. Needless to say, this has come as a shock to the ladies involved. Waiting to see what fallout occurs. Thanks, folks. Your input is appreciated! Peace, Greg Lovelace  Part of the Tree Research Services 683 Edmonds Drive Charleston, SC 29412 greg@part-of-the-tree.com www.part-of-the-tree.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Janzen [mailto:tjanzen@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 3:42 AM To: greg@part-of-the-tree.com; autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Question about X-DNA and sisters Dear Greg, If you look at Blaine Bettinger's chart at https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Relationship_Ch art_FINAL_August_2017.jpg you will see that he doesn't have any data indicating that full siblings share anything less than 2209 cMs. There could be situations where full siblings share less than that, but I agree with your conclusion that A and B are 1/2 siblings. The fact that B and C share no autosomal DNA at a 5 cM threshold means that that can't be any more closely related than 2nd cousin once removed. It would appear that A and B share the same mother, but that A and B don't share the same father. The father of A is the brother of the mother of C, but the father of B isn't closely related to either A or C. Inheritance of the X chromosome among siblings can be variable. If two sisters have fully-identical regions then they are very likely to be full sisters, but apparently A and B don't share any fully-identical regions. Sincerely, Tim Janzen

    01/24/2018 03:43:02
    1. Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Question about X-DNA and sisters
    2. Curtis Rogers
    3. Kitty Cooper has an outstanding analysis for determining half vs. full siblings: http://blog.kittycooper.com/2016/04/full-versus-half-sibling-dna-matches/#comment-444215 Curtis Rogers On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Greg Lovelace <greg@part-of-the-tree.com> wrote: > Greetings, all. > > I am working on a project that I need a little help on. I've tried going > through all the DNA blogs and still can't come up with a definitive answer, > so I'm hoping some of you have faced this situation and can give some > guidance. > > > > I am looking at two sisters and their female 1st cousin. The sisters (call > them "A" [Shirley] and "B" [Boni]) were raised as full siblings. However, > they only share ~1700 cM of DNA at the 5cM threshold, indicating to me that > they are only half-siblings. Is this a correct assumption? > > > > Now the cousin (call her "C" [Doreen]) and "A" share ~860 cM of DNA, > placing > them correctly as full first cousins (the average for 1st cousins is 874 > cM). The father of "A" and "B" is the brother of the mother of "C." At > the > 5 cM threshold, "B" and "C" have no shared segments of DNA. And "A" and > "B" > only share about 50% of the DNA on their X-chromosome, indicating to me > that > they only share one parent. Is that a valid assumption? > > > > Thanks for any insights. > > > > Peace, > > Greg Lovelace > > Part of the Tree Research Services > > 683 Edmonds Drive > > Charleston, SC 29412 > > <mailto:greg@part-of-the-tree.com> greg@part-of-the-tree.com > > <http://www.part-of-the-tree.com/> www.part-of-the-tree.com > > > > > > ______________________________ > For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: > http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > --

    01/24/2018 01:35:32
    1. Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Question about X-DNA and sisters
    2. Tim Janzen
    3. Dear Greg, If you look at Blaine Bettinger's chart at https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Relationship_Ch art_FINAL_August_2017.jpg you will see that he doesn't have any data indicating that full siblings share anything less than 2209 cMs. There could be situations where full siblings share less than that, but I agree with your conclusion that A and B are 1/2 siblings. The fact that B and C share no autosomal DNA at a 5 cM threshold means that that can't be any more closely related than 2nd cousin once removed. It would appear that A and B share the same mother, but that A and B don't share the same father. The father of A is the brother of the mother of C, but the father of B isn't closely related to either A or C. Inheritance of the X chromosome among siblings can be variable. If two sisters have fully-identical regions then they are very likely to be full sisters, but apparently A and B don't share any fully-identical regions. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: AUTOSOMAL-DNA [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Greg Lovelace Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 11:41 AM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Question about X-DNA and sisters Greetings, all. I am working on a project that I need a little help on. I've tried going through all the DNA blogs and still can't come up with a definitive answer, so I'm hoping some of you have faced this situation and can give some guidance. I am looking at two sisters and their female 1st cousin. The sisters (call them "A" [Shirley] and "B" [Boni]) were raised as full siblings. However, they only share ~1700 cM of DNA at the 5cM threshold, indicating to me that they are only half-siblings. Is this a correct assumption? Now the cousin (call her "C" [Doreen]) and "A" share ~860 cM of DNA, placing them correctly as full first cousins (the average for 1st cousins is 874 cM). The father of "A" and "B" is the brother of the mother of "C." At the 5 cM threshold, "B" and "C" have no shared segments of DNA. And "A" and "B" only share about 50% of the DNA on their X-chromosome, indicating to me that they only share one parent. Is that a valid assumption? Thanks for any insights. Peace, Greg Lovelace Part of the Tree Research Services 683 Edmonds Drive Charleston, SC 29412 <mailto:greg@part-of-the-tree.com> greg@part-of-the-tree.com <http://www.part-of-the-tree.com/> www.part-of-the-tree.com ______________________________ For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

    01/23/2018 05:41:37
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Question about X-DNA and sisters
    2. Greg Lovelace
    3. Greetings, all. I am working on a project that I need a little help on. I've tried going through all the DNA blogs and still can't come up with a definitive answer, so I'm hoping some of you have faced this situation and can give some guidance. I am looking at two sisters and their female 1st cousin. The sisters (call them "A" [Shirley] and "B" [Boni]) were raised as full siblings. However, they only share ~1700 cM of DNA at the 5cM threshold, indicating to me that they are only half-siblings. Is this a correct assumption? Now the cousin (call her "C" [Doreen]) and "A" share ~860 cM of DNA, placing them correctly as full first cousins (the average for 1st cousins is 874 cM). The father of "A" and "B" is the brother of the mother of "C." At the 5 cM threshold, "B" and "C" have no shared segments of DNA. And "A" and "B" only share about 50% of the DNA on their X-chromosome, indicating to me that they only share one parent. Is that a valid assumption? Thanks for any insights. Peace, Greg Lovelace Part of the Tree Research Services 683 Edmonds Drive Charleston, SC 29412 <mailto:greg@part-of-the-tree.com> greg@part-of-the-tree.com <http://www.part-of-the-tree.com/> www.part-of-the-tree.com

    01/23/2018 07:41:18
    1. Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Question about X-DNA and sisters
    2. Ann C Gilchrest
    3. Hi Greg, Just based on the fact that C & B share no DNA tells you that A & B have different fathers. There are no cases where first cousins don't share DNA. Ann Gilchrest -----Original Message----- From: AUTOSOMAL-DNA [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Greg Lovelace Sent: 23 January, 2018 11:41 To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Question about X-DNA and sisters Greetings, all. I am working on a project that I need a little help on. I've tried going through all the DNA blogs and still can't come up with a definitive answer, so I'm hoping some of you have faced this situation and can give some guidance. I am looking at two sisters and their female 1st cousin. The sisters (call them "A" [Shirley] and "B" [Boni]) were raised as full siblings. However, they only share ~1700 cM of DNA at the 5cM threshold, indicating to me that they are only half-siblings. Is this a correct assumption? Now the cousin (call her "C" [Doreen]) and "A" share ~860 cM of DNA, placing them correctly as full first cousins (the average for 1st cousins is 874 cM). The father of "A" and "B" is the brother of the mother of "C." At the 5 cM threshold, "B" and "C" have no shared segments of DNA. And "A" and "B" only share about 50% of the DNA on their X-chromosome, indicating to me that they only share one parent. Is that a valid assumption? Thanks for any insights. Peace, Greg Lovelace Part of the Tree Research Services 683 Edmonds Drive Charleston, SC 29412 <mailto:greg@part-of-the-tree.com> greg@part-of-the-tree.com <http://www.part-of-the-tree.com/> www.part-of-the-tree.com ______________________________ For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

    01/23/2018 05:06:09
    1. [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Use of "overlapping" kits for extending the "Triangulated Group" or "TG"
    2. John F Smeltzer
    3. Question of the morning .... Say I have a cluster of kits matching my core family kits on Chromosome 5 and I work them forming a TG with my known core family kits. Now, included in that emerging TG is another kit, known to me to be a cousin kit but with the precise relationship to my core family still a bit unclear (there is a sibling relationship without confirmation of parental overlap involved). I observe that this cousin in fact matches the base kit, the one I'm doing the comparisons too, much more strongly than my core family kits match that same base kit. In fact .... using this new cousin kit allows me to in effect extend the TG beyond where my core family kits took it. The question: Is that a legitimate way to extend the usable TG and if so can I then use those newly discovered kits (the ones that essentially extend the TG) to my benefit ?? It would seem as if that technique could be value-added to simply forming a TG around my core family? John F. Smeltzer Colorado/Iowa

    12/22/2017 10:52:28