You cannot legitimately match with someone who shares an ancestor with your mother's line without her showing the match as well. In most cases, if you have a match that your mother doesn't have, you can safely conclude that they are from your father's side. However, if the match is under ~7 cMs, it might be coincidental - identical by state - in other words a false positive, in which case it won't show up in either parent and is not worth pursuing. CeCe   www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com www.studiointv.com > From: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:44:41 -0500 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Fundamental autosomal DNA question > > I’m sure this fundamental question has been answered before, but I have missed it. > > If both my mother and myself have tested, can I match with someone from a known ancestral line of hers while she does NOT? OR, would the match mean that I MUST be related to this person through my paternal line? > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I was SO looking forward to upgrading my dad to 111 STRs with a big fat discount, but no such luck. However, this IS a great sale :) melissa

Details are on my blog: http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/11/ftdna-holiday-sale.html CeCe www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com www.studiointv.com

I’m sure this fundamental question has been answered before, but I have missed it. If both my mother and myself have tested, can I match with someone from a known ancestral line of hers while she does NOT? OR, would the match mean that I MUST be related to this person through my paternal line?

Thank you, Ann! melissa On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Ann Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess I'd treat the South American tribes as a proxy for the broader > label Native American. I do have the impression that most people with > Native American ancestry from North America show up with similarities to > the Maya and Pima, the other two Native American populations in the > reference populations. They're in the Central American category here: > > https://www.familytreedna.com/faq/answers.aspx?id=22#1039 > > The limited number of populations do serve reasonably well as a proxy, > since all Native Americans are descended from a relatively small number of > founders relatively recently (compared to Europeans). However, I'd be > curious to know if there's any common denominator among people who are > classified in the South American section. Maybe you could post a query on > the FTDNA Forums and ask how many people get that result. > > Ann Turner > >

I guess I'd treat the South American tribes as a proxy for the broader label Native American. I do have the impression that most people with Native American ancestry from North America show up with similarities to the Maya and Pima, the other two Native American populations in the reference populations. They're in the Central American category here: https://www.familytreedna.com/faq/answers.aspx?id=22#1039 The limited number of populations do serve reasonably well as a proxy, since all Native Americans are descended from a relatively small number of founders relatively recently (compared to Europeans). However, I'd be curious to know if there's any common denominator among people who are classified in the South American section. Maybe you could post a query on the FTDNA Forums and ask how many people get that result. Ann Turner On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:45 PM, M Robards <[email protected]> wrote: > I need some understanding on some FF results > > In the Population Finder, can someone give me some insight to the > South American portion here for: > > Native American (South American) Columbian, Karitiana, Surui > 2.74% ±0.18% > > this is the total: > Europe (Western European) Orcadian 85.88% ±2.47% > Native American (South American) Columbian, Karitiana, Surui > 2.74% ±0.18% > Middle East Druze, Iranian, Jewish, Palestinian, Adygei, Bedouin > 11.39% ±2.52% > > To date I really only 'get' the Orcadian part (meaning it doesn't mean > this portion comes only from the Orkney Islands, but from a larger > surrounding area (right?) > > I looked up Karitiana and Surui and these are two Amerindian groups > from Brazil, but does this mean the person referenced is really up to > 2.74% Brazilian Amerindian, or really a mixture of Columbian, > Karitiana and Surui exactly? or just part of a more inclusive group > of South American Amerindians? Not sure if I'm making sense, but I > think I know what I mean. > > melissa springer robards > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I need some understanding on some FF results In the Population Finder, can someone give me some insight to the South American portion here for: Native American (South American) Columbian, Karitiana, Surui 2.74% ±0.18% this is the total: Europe (Western European) Orcadian 85.88% ±2.47% Native American (South American) Columbian, Karitiana, Surui 2.74% ±0.18% Middle East Druze, Iranian, Jewish, Palestinian, Adygei, Bedouin 11.39% ±2.52% To date I really only 'get' the Orcadian part (meaning it doesn't mean this portion comes only from the Orkney Islands, but from a larger surrounding area (right?) I looked up Karitiana and Surui and these are two Amerindian groups from Brazil, but does this mean the person referenced is really up to 2.74% Brazilian Amerindian, or really a mixture of Columbian, Karitiana and Surui exactly? or just part of a more inclusive group of South American Amerindians? Not sure if I'm making sense, but I think I know what I mean. melissa springer robards

I should have added that A has no full siblings, or any known half siblings from A's father. ~m

If anyone wants to be tortured can you take a look at this situation? I'll pay you half of my left over Halloween candy :) PersonA has a close relationship with PersonB (A and B are half siblings). PersonB has a close relationship with PersonC ( B=child, C=father). The mother of PersonA and PersonB (PersonD) is deceased and cannot be tested. All three (A, B, C) have a match to someone else, PersonX, of various segment lengths. My mystery is, BEFORE these FF tests were done, I was approached by a Y-twin of PersonX who suggested a connection with a Y-line of one of the surnames of PersonD, and I was asked to try and find a living male who would Y test from that surname line to see if there was a Y connection between the two surnames. So previously it had been determined through Y tests that PersonC is a distant cousin of PersonD, back sometime before 1750, as far back possibly as after 1680s. So here come the FF results of A, B, and C. and they all show this connection to X. How are we supposed to look at this. Half siblings A & B: A -> X = 11 matching segments, largest is in Chromosome 13 83339105-98287751 15.88 (4200 SNPs) B -> X = 17 matching segments, largest is in Chr 2 224292322-234598298 14.48 (2786 SNPs), but also a segment in Chr 13 83339105-94106590 8.41 (2500 SNPs), and a small segment in Chr 12 72127478 76510591 4.23 (1000 SNPs) Non-shared Father C (father of B) C -> X = 13 matching segments, (none in Chr 2, and only a 2.2 cM segment in Chr 13 that does NOT overlap with A and B's matches with X) but the largest segment is in Chr 12 51411412-76510591 25.09 (6200 SNPs) Note that the small segment of B's in Chr 12 is shared by C who has a much larger match to X in Chr 12. I need some help in trying to figure this out. It looks like A, B, and C are all related to X. C has a larger segment match than A and B. A and B overlap in segment 13. B and C overlap in segment 12. X is supposedly possibly a match to Mother D of A and B, but still unproven as no male from that surname/family of D has Y STR tested, even though there is someone from that surname who claims the same overall line who has tested 12 markers and those STRs do match X's first 12 (but doesn't seem to want to upgrade or join that surname's project). I see no way for C to be related to X in the same way that A and B (and assuming D) are. C's lines all pretty much appear to be northern USA states moving east to west from 1700 to early 1800s. There is one line that came out of the south, NC, and went up and then west. Yet, it looks to me like C and D are both related somehow to X, and so A and B picked up different segment matches, and A inherited some of that match from D, and B inherited some from D and some from C????? But I'm wondering if this whole thing is from the Y surname line of C, since C and D are distant cousins (remember, from somewhere before or shortly after 1700 but no later than 1750ish). There is only one more sibling of A and B to test, who also descends from both C and D. There are children from another full sibling of B, but then I would think it would already be too diluted to be useful since those children are grandchildren of both C and D. If no one can tell what the heck I'm talking about, I will gladly try and share the little spread sheets that FTDNA generated for A, B, and C. D is not in my projects so I can't do one from that point of view. I'm just hoping someone can tell me what I'm looking at, and if there's any point in trying to figure out a relationship between X and A, B, C, and/or D. I can give more detail in a private conversation, to protect the participants' identities, which might make more sense if I did. Thank you! melissa springer robards

You mentioned the imminent release of this book in the UK. Amazon is showing April 1, 2012 for the US release. Greg Matthews On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:13 PM, CeCe Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > > I posted a review about Debbie Kennett's new book "DNA and Social > Networking": > > > http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/11/debbie-kennetts-dna-and-social.html > > CeCe > www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com > www.studiointv.com > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I posted a review about Debbie Kennett's new book "DNA and Social Networking": http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/11/debbie-kennetts-dna-and-social.html CeCe www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com www.studiointv.com

Thanks Ann Karen On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Ann Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > It is possible for siblings to have no match on a specific chromosome. > > Discounting the short segments reported by FTDNA (which have a high > probability of being pseudo-segments), 4th cousins have about a 50-50 > chance of sharing a segment. Some known 4th cousins might still share two > or (rarely) even more segments, but the probability favors zero or one > matching segment at that level. > > Ann > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Karen Hodges <[email protected]> wrote: > >> When an immediate family member[parent/sibling] tests with another >> immediate family member it would be expected that they would match on >> all chromosomes. >> >>  How distant does the relationship need to become before it is reduced >> to a single chromosome so that you know that number chromosome matches >> to a particular branch on your tree? >> >> Karen >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

When an immediate family member[parent/sibling] tests with another immediate family member it would be expected that they would match on all chromosomes. How distant does the relationship need to become before it is reduced to a single chromosome so that you know that number chromosome matches to a particular branch on your tree? Karen

It is possible for siblings to have no match on a specific chromosome. Discounting the short segments reported by FTDNA (which have a high probability of being pseudo-segments), 4th cousins have about a 50-50 chance of sharing a segment. Some known 4th cousins might still share two or (rarely) even more segments, but the probability favors zero or one matching segment at that level. Ann On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Karen Hodges <[email protected]> wrote: > When an immediate family member[parent/sibling] tests with another > immediate family member it would be expected that they would match on > all chromosomes. > > How distant does the relationship need to become before it is reduced > to a single chromosome so that you know that number chromosome matches > to a particular branch on your tree? > > Karen > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Many Ancestry.com subscribers received email invitations today to participate in the launch of Ancestry.com's autosomal DNA test: http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/11/more-details-on-ancestrycoms-new.html CeCe www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com www.studiointv.com

Hi, Researcher Karin Corbeil and I are working on solving our Purdy brickwalls with DNA testing. I wrote about it on my blog today: http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/10/investigating-long-held-genealogical.html CeCe Moore www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com www.studiointv.com

I tested another 2nd cousin at 23andMe. Here is the latest installment of "Second Cousin Studies" on my blog: http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/10/known-relative-studies-at-23andme.html CeCe   www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com www.studiointv.com

Thanks for asking this question Lou as I was confused about that too. Thanks Ann for that simple answer. Karen On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Ann Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > The confusing part about the Chromosome Browser is that it doesn't > distinguish between the chromosome you inherited from your father and the > one you inherited from your mother. That would actually be impossible, given > the current state of the art. If the segment your sister shares with your > match came from your mother, then you and your sister are sharing the > segment you inherited from your father (or vice versa). > > Ann Turner

Thanks, Ann. Well, I loved the book and learned a lot from it, so I was just hoping! :) In a message dated 10/16/2011 7:46:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Yes, I was the co-author (with Megan Smolenyak) of "Trace Your Roots with DNA." It was published in 2004, but the basic principles of heredity haven't changed :) I think we're all on a learning curve with the autosomal stuff, though, so I have no plans to write anything extensive on that topic. Ann

You are welcome, Karen! Glad to know I'm not the only confused one! :) In a message dated 10/16/2011 6:51:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Thanks for asking this question Lou as I was confused about that too. Thanks Ann for that simple answer.