Thanks very much, as always, Tim, for your help. Barton On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Tim Janzen wrote: > Dear Barton, > Multi-step mutations can occur. That could account for the move from > 12 to > 9. There could have also been a series of single-step mutations or a > single-step mutation as well as a two-step mutation. Also consider > the > possibility of lab error. Testing out to 67 markers can sometimes be > helpful in situations like this. Testing a paternal first or 2nd > cousin of > Curtis' with a 37-marker test could also help pinpoint where the > mutations > in Curtis' line occurred. However, it would appear that the three > Bennetts > share a common ancestor who lived within the past 500 to 600 years or > so. > You might want to consider doing an autosomal test on Ken, Jon and > Curtis to > see if they share any autosomal segments and also consider testing > some of > their close relatives to see if any of those close relatives share any > autosomal segments with Ken, Jon or Curtis. > Sincerely, > Tim Janzen >

Dear Barton, Multi-step mutations can occur. That could account for the move from 12 to 9. There could have also been a series of single-step mutations or a single-step mutation as well as a two-step mutation. Also consider the possibility of lab error. Testing out to 67 markers can sometimes be helpful in situations like this. Testing a paternal first or 2nd cousin of Curtis' with a 37-marker test could also help pinpoint where the mutations in Curtis' line occurred. However, it would appear that the three Bennetts share a common ancestor who lived within the past 500 to 600 years or so. You might want to consider doing an autosomal test on Ken, Jon and Curtis to see if they share any autosomal segments and also consider testing some of their close relatives to see if any of those close relatives share any autosomal segments with Ken, Jon or Curtis. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barton Lewis Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 8:06 PM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Y-DNA Question My Bennett cousins (Jon and Curtis) appear to be descended from brothers, based on strong circumstantial evidence, both born around 1810. They mismatch on 2 markers out of 37, 1 step on DYS460 (11 v. 12) and 3 steps on DYS442 (9 vs. 12). Curtis's value of 9 here is the only one for the entire group of 11 men that is not a 12. Another man, Ken, is a prefect match with Jon. But Ken, though not without paper trail evidence to a common ancestor a few generations back, does not seem so closely allied with Jon as is Curtis. If Jon and Curtis share a closer common ancestor, could their mutations have occurred somewhere further down the line? What about the odd value for Curtis at DYS442? Thanks, Barton

Hello list, this is a question about Y-DNA. Sorry to ask it here, but this is the only list I belong to now. It's brief, so I hope someone can help. My Bennett cousins (Jon and Curtis) appear to be descended from brothers, based on strong circumstantial evidence, both born around 1810. They mismatch on 2 markers out of 37, 1 step on DYS460 (11 v. 12) and 3 steps on DYS442 (9 vs. 12). Curtis's value of 9 here is the only one for the entire group of 11 men that is not a 12. Another man, Ken, is a prefect match with Jon. But Ken, though not without paper trail evidence to a common ancestor a few generations back, does not seem so closely allied with Jon as is Curtis. If Jon and Curtis share a closer common ancestor, could their mutations have occurred somewhere further down the line? What about the odd value for Curtis at DYS442? Thanks, Barton

Thank you Linda! In a message dated 11-Oct-13 15:40:52 Pacific Daylight Time, lboorom@fuse.net writes: Ann, If you are trying to find "in common with" with the new improved FTDNA, if you search for A, let's just say his surname is Smith, by filling in the field looking for any Smith, and then try to Triangulate with Mr. Smith AND still have SMITH in the surname field, FTDNA will only list matches in common Mr. Smith that have the surname SMITH. You need to go up and delete, backspace, whatever, but get SMITH out of the surname field so that you will see all ICW for Mr. Smith, not just those ICW with Mr. Smith that have SMITH as a surname. The same rule applies if your searched for someone with a particular name in the ancestor box, if that name is still in the box when you try to triangulate, you will only get results for that name in the ancestor box. Might be good, but not really the results you were looking for. FTDNA has made a step forward, allowing us to triangulate with all of our matches w/o having to assign a relationship, but there is need for improvement in the search functions to make it less confusing. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: <AGilchrest@aol.com> To: <autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 11:41 AM Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] In Common With not making sense > > Hello, > I have Family Finder tests for myself, my mother, her sister, and a nephew > of my mother & aunt. We all match person A. However the ICW for person A > on all of the above kits shows "no results found" in the ICW. > I don't know what to make of the results. The MCRA is known from the paper > trail. The relationships are Mom and Aunt 3rd cousin once removed and 4th > cousin to myself & the nephew. There is a duel relationship with the match. > The matches ancestor and my ancestor are brothers. The matches ancestor > married a 1st cousin. > The match segments are as follows: > Chrom 4 > Aunt start 16776906 stop 26666286 longest 12.81 total SNP 2383 > Chrom 6 > Me start 41737704 stop 52174583 longest 9.79 total SNP 2470 > Mom start 42117561 stop 52174583 longest 9.55 total SNP 2370 > Aunt start 42366271 stop 52174583 longest 8.85 total SNP 2270 > Chrom. 8 > Me start 138913853 stop 146264218 longest 10.83 total SNP 2056 > Mom start 138913853 stop 146264218 longest 10.83 total SNP 2056 > Aunt start 139233752 stop 146264218 longest 10.42 total SNP 1956 > Chrom. 9 > Nephew start 92732809 stop 100329812 longest 9.56 total SNP 1652 > Thank you, > Ann G. >

Ann, If you are trying to find "in common with" with the new inproved FTDNA, if you search for A, let's just say his surname is Smith, by filling in the field looking for any Smith, and then try to Triangulate with Mr. Smith AND still have SMITH in the surname field, FTDNA will only list matches in common Mr. Smith that have the surname SMITH. You need to go up and delete, backspace, whatever, but get SMITH out of the surname field so that you will see all ICW for Mr. Smith, not just those ICW with Mr. Smith that have SMITH as a surname. The same rule applies if your searched for someone with a particular name in the ancestor box, if that name is still in the box when you try to triangulate, you will only get results for that name in the ancestor box. Might be good, but not really the results you were looking for. FTDNA has made a step forward, allowing us to triangulate with all of our matches w/o having to assign a relationship, but there is need for improvement in the search functions to make it less confusing. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: <AGilchrest@aol.com> To: <autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 11:41 AM Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] In Common With not making sense > > Hello, > I have Family Finder tests for myself, my mother, her sister, and a nephew > of my mother & aunt. We all match person A. However the ICW for person A > on all of the above kits shows "no results found" in the ICW. > I don't know what to make of the results. The MCRA is known from the paper > trail. The relationships are Mom and Aunt 3rd cousin once removed and 4th > cousin to myself & the nephew. There is a duel relationship with the match. > The matches ancestor and my ancestor are brothers. The matches ancestor > married a 1st cousin. > The match segments are as follows: > Chrom 4 > Aunt start 16776906 stop 26666286 longest 12.81 total SNP 2383 > Chrom 6 > Me start 41737704 stop 52174583 longest 9.79 total SNP 2470 > Mom start 42117561 stop 52174583 longest 9.55 total SNP 2370 > Aunt start 42366271 stop 52174583 longest 8.85 total SNP 2270 > Chrom. 8 > Me start 138913853 stop 146264218 longest 10.83 total SNP 2056 > Mom start 138913853 stop 146264218 longest 10.83 total SNP 2056 > Aunt start 139233752 stop 146264218 longest 10.42 total SNP 1956 > Chrom. 9 > Nephew start 92732809 stop 100329812 longest 9.56 total SNP 1652 > Thank you, > Ann G. > > > ______________________________ > 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 >

Thank you, Tim. Barton On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 08:10 PM, Tim Janzen wrote: > Dear Barton, > You need to open the zipped files for the people in question and > review the raw data files. The raw data files are .csv files, which > can be > readily opened in Excel. It can be difficult to determine if there was > a > genotyping error. You first have to compare the raw SNP data for the > people > in question to see where the SNPs are not consistent with a shared IBD > segment. This can readily be done in Excel either by visually > reviewing the > data or writing a small formula that does that for you. Once you have > narrowed down the SNPs that are not consistent with a shared IBD > segment you > need to look at the total number of these SNPs for the region in > question. > If there are only one or two SNPs that are discrepant in a relatively > long > run of 2000 SNPs or so, then there could be a genotyping error. > However, if > you find that there are 5 to 10 or more discrepant SNPs in a run of > 2000 > SNPs, then it is much more likely that the region in question is not > an IBD > segment. You can then review the data from parents or children of the > people in question to see if the data for those particular discrepant > SNPs > is consistent with the data you have from the parents or children of > the > people in question. In my experience there are about 200 to 300 > genotyping > errors in the raw data files of a 2 parent/1 child trio. > Sincerely, > Tim Janzen > > -----Original Message----- > From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of BARTON LEWIS > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 7:24 AM > To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com > Cc: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Same or different segment? > > Dear Tim, thank you. In the event of a possible genotyping error by > the testing company resulting in a failure to call the intervening > segment an HIR, how would one confirm that? My assumption is that the > Download Raw Data option in FTDNA which yields a zip file can be > accessed and one needs to actually look at the alleles for each SNP. > Is that correct? I have never tried this. When you unzip the file, > does it generate a single Excel file that you can open to see the > reported alleles? > > Barton > > > > ______________________________ > 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 >

Hello, I have Family Finder tests for myself, my mother, her sister, and a nephew of my mother & aunt. We all match person A. However the ICW for person A on all of the above kits shows "no results found" in the ICW. I don't know what to make of the results. The MCRA is known from the paper trail. The relationships are Mom and Aunt 3rd cousin once removed and 4th cousin to myself & the nephew. There is a duel relationship with the match. The matches ancestor and my ancestor are brothers. The matches ancestor married a 1st cousin. The match segments are as follows: Chrom 4 Aunt start 16776906 stop 26666286 longest 12.81 total SNP 2383 Chrom 6 Me start 41737704 stop 52174583 longest 9.79 total SNP 2470 Mom start 42117561 stop 52174583 longest 9.55 total SNP 2370 Aunt start 42366271 stop 52174583 longest 8.85 total SNP 2270 Chrom. 8 Me start 138913853 stop 146264218 longest 10.83 total SNP 2056 Mom start 138913853 stop 146264218 longest 10.83 total SNP 2056 Aunt start 139233752 stop 146264218 longest 10.42 total SNP 1956 Chrom. 9 Nephew start 92732809 stop 100329812 longest 9.56 total SNP 1652 Thank you, Ann G.

Am a gen-genealogy newbie. Am contacting matches on 23andMe and ftDNA. I don’t have much exome triangulation to go on yet, so if I correctly understand the process, ideally one compares patriarchs’ surnames lists hoping to see an intersection. Is there an optimal way to share this list with matches depending on how related we seem to be? I.e. if someone is offered as a “3rd to 5th cousin,” it would seem to me un-useful to share with that person my surnames more than X generations old, since it’s less likely our common ancestry goes that far back. Does one provide maybe two alphabetical lists-first, that of all patriarchs up to (e.g.) five generations ago (since that’s likely where we’re most likely to find the common ancestry), and then another list of the next three generations (since that’s a second-most-likely range)? I realize recombination is unpredictable and also that a given DNA overlap is indicative of sum of our “vertical” and “horizontal” relationship distance, but it still seems to me there ought to be one or two statistically-sweet-spot groups of surnames in which to search. Or do we order our surnames from “most likely” to “less likely”? And for a “5th cousin or more distant,” add another list of the next three generations or whatever? AIA if any of my terminology is incorrect. Best, Eric OpenPGP <http://keyserver.pgp.com/vkd/DownloadKey.event?keyid=0xE0F58E0F1AF7E6F2> : 0x1AF7E6F2 ● Skype: oneota ● XMPP/OTR: berekum@jabber.ccc.de <mailto:berekum@jabber.ccc.de> ● Silent Circle: +1 312 614-0159

Dear Barton, You need to open the zipped files for the people in question and review the raw data files. The raw data files are .csv files, which can be readily opened in Excel. It can be difficult to determine if there was a genotyping error. You first have to compare the raw SNP data for the people in question to see where the SNPs are not consistent with a shared IBD segment. This can readily be done in Excel either by visually reviewing the data or writing a small formula that does that for you. Once you have narrowed down the SNPs that are not consistent with a shared IBD segment you need to look at the total number of these SNPs for the region in question. If there are only one or two SNPs that are discrepant in a relatively long run of 2000 SNPs or so, then there could be a genotyping error. However, if you find that there are 5 to 10 or more discrepant SNPs in a run of 2000 SNPs, then it is much more likely that the region in question is not an IBD segment. You can then review the data from parents or children of the people in question to see if the data for those particular discrepant SNPs is consistent with the data you have from the parents or children of the people in question. In my experience there are about 200 to 300 genotyping errors in the raw data files of a 2 parent/1 child trio. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of BARTON LEWIS Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 7:24 AM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Cc: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Same or different segment? Dear Tim, thank you. In the event of a possible genotyping error by the testing company resulting in a failure to call the intervening segment an HIR, how would one confirm that? My assumption is that the Download Raw Data option in FTDNA which yields a zip file can be accessed and one needs to actually look at the alleles for each SNP. Is that correct? I have never tried this. When you unzip the file, does it generate a single Excel file that you can open to see the reported alleles? Barton

Eric, If you've got surnames, give them surnames--lots of them! The 3rd-5th cousin estimated range may be inaccurate. Also, the last ancestor they know of may be a ways down in a female descent from the common male ancestor. I focus on geographic areas rather than surnames, because half of my ancestors were Scandinavian and had no fixed surnames before reaching the US. Geography is also of use for my Scots because if a match's Todds (for instance) are all from southern England, chances are it's some other line of Todds (not that I rule them out, but I don't focus on them). Karla On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Eric S Johnson <crates@oneotaslopes.org>wrote: > Am a gen-genealogy newbie. Am contacting matches on 23andMe and ftDNA. I > don’t have much exome triangulation to go on yet, so if I correctly > understand the process, ideally one compares patriarchs’ surnames lists > hoping to see an intersection. > > > > Is there an optimal way to share this list with matches depending on how > related we seem to be? I.e. if someone is offered as a “3rd to 5th > cousin,” it would seem to me un-useful to share with that person my > surnames more than X generations old, since it’s less likely our common > ancestry goes that far back. Does one provide maybe two alphabetical > lists-first, that of all patriarchs up to (e.g.) five generations ago > (since > that’s likely where we’re most likely to find the common ancestry), and > then another list of the next three generations (since that’s a > second-most-likely range)? I realize recombination is unpredictable and > also > that a given DNA overlap is indicative of sum of our “vertical” and > “horizontal” relationship distance, but it still seems to me there ought > to be one or two statistically-sweet-spot groups of surnames in which to > search. Or do we order our surnames from “most likely” to “less likely”? > > And for a “5th cousin or more distant,” add another list of > the next three generations or whatever? > > > > AIA if any of my terminology is incorrect. > > > > Best, > > Eric >

Barton Whenever a Match has more than one shared segment, most of the time it will be from the same Common Ancestor, but not always. Each IBD segment should be treated in its own right - as if it came from any of the Common Ancestors between the two. Often, with Colonial American ancestry, Matches will actually share several Common Ancestors. Usually the closest one will be the one who provided the shared segment, but not always. That too is random. So keep your options identified and open until you can find another Match on that segment who agrees on the Common Ancestor = genealogy Triangulation. Your second question was how close do segments have to be to make it likely they are from the same Ancestor? This is an unusual question for me, because all segments from ancestors abut each other. One SNP will be from one ancestor, and the next SNP will be from a different ancestor. Somewhere on each chromosome there is a crossover point (technically between two SNPs; in practice, the algorithms look at blocks, so the actual crossover point is a little fuzzy). Actually, as discussed before, on Chr 1, there are usually 3 such points (on Chr 20 usually 1) that separate your grandparents on that Chr. So the much smaller segments that are adjacent at that point are from much deeper ancestors from your grand parents. Similarly all crossover points from many generations will create segments from different ancestors. Now if you have, say, a 20cM segment that was passed along several generations, you my find Matches from the first part of that segment (say 12cM) with a different Common Ancestor than Matches from the other part (8cM). These two ancestors would be closer than usual, with one ancestral to the husband and the other to the wife who provided the 20cM segment. In reality, of course, the DNA comes down from many distant ancestors. But a way to look at it in the last paragraph, is like a branching tree, starting with a main trunk from your father, and splitting into say 4 large large branches (2 for each of your father's two grandparents); and then in the next few generations each of those branches splitting into two more branches. In practice each branch is not split in half at each generation going back; instead, on Chr 1 for example there will be an average of about 3 branchings each generation. I need to make a picture of this with Kitty's mapper (for her to show in a blog) to show that each segment is not divided at each generation.... Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:50 AM, Barton Lewis <bartonlewis@optonline.net> wrote: > Hi list, > > My aunt matches her fifth cousin on chr 17 as follows: > > 25354798 30027010 7.84 1249 > 33868089 47167537 12.67 2900 > > Is it likely these 2 sections are from the same ancestor? How close do > segments have to be to make it likely they are from the same ancestor? What > accounts for a section being "broken up" in this way? What's a good > layman's way of understanding "how big is big" when talking about these > kinds of break up on a chromosome? > > Thank you. > > Barton >

Barton If you can upload to GEDmatch, you can see the chromosomes compared in pretty good detail. You'd look at the position in question and see if it could be considered two adjoining, smaller segments that some algorithms call one larger segment, some don't. I've run across this several times. Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:23 PM, BARTON LEWIS <bartonlewis@optonline.net> wrote: > Dear Tim, thank you. In the event of a possible genotyping error by the > testing company resulting in a failure to call the intervening segment > an HIR, how would one confirm that? My assumption is that the Download > Raw Data option in FTDNA which yields a zip file can be accessed and one > needs to actually look at the alleles for each SNP. Is that correct? I > have never tried this. When you unzip the file, does it generate a > single Excel file that you can open to see the reported alleles? > > Barton > > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 01:29 AM, Tim Janzen wrote: > >> Dear Barton, >> It is certainly reasonable to believe that both of these HIRs >> (presumably IBD segments) can be traced back to the known shared >> ancestors >> at the 5th cousin level of relationship. I have an example in my >> family of >> two fifth cousins sharing 33 cMs in two segments. However, you should >> always keep in mind the possibility that one of the two segments comes >> from >> a different shared ancestor than the known shared ancestors at the 5th >> cousin level of relationship. My mom recently had a match at 23andMe >> that >> shares two HIRs with her. I had previously mapped one of those >> segments to >> my mom's father and the other to my mom's maternal grandfather using >> data >> from first and second cousins. When one is dealing with people from >> endogamous populations then one has to be particularly alert for >> situations >> such as this where one shared segment came from one shared ancestor >> and the >> other shared segment came from a different shared ancestor. This is >> where >> your chromosome map is crucial. If you have tested a fair number of >> first, >> second, and third cousins then you will have a good idea whether two >> segments you share with a 5th cousin may have came from the same >> shared >> ancestor if you have previously mapped the segments in question. The >> location of shared segments within the genome is entirely random. You >> can >> certainly have crossovers that split a shared segment such as what >> appears >> to be the case in this situation. I recently had a similar situation >> in my >> family's results at 23andMe. However, you should also keep in mind >> that one >> or more genotyping errors in the section between 30027010 and 33868089 >> could >> be preventing the company from calling this particular section an HIR. >> In >> such cases, the entire HIR (from 25354798 to 47167537) is actually a >> shared >> IBD segment. >> Sincerely, >> Tim Janzen >> >>

Thanks Jim. I think my last question reflected some (or much) of my ignorance as to how crossover works. This is something I am still fuzzy about and am rooting through various blogs and archives to find a selection of explanations for. Also I just ordered FF (having done it for both my paretns already) and am hopeful that when I begin phasing in about 6 weeks, this concept will begin to gel. Barton On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 05:28 PM, Jim Bartlett wrote: > Barton > > Whenever a Match has more than one shared segment, most of the time it > will be from the same Common Ancestor, but not always. Each IBD > segment should be treated in its own right - as if it came from any of > the Common Ancestors between the two. Often, with Colonial American > ancestry, Matches will actually share several Common Ancestors. > Usually the closest one will be the one who provided the shared > segment, but not always. That too is random. So keep your options > identified and open until you can find another Match on that segment > who agrees on the Common Ancestor = genealogy Triangulation. > > Your second question was how close do segments have to be to make it > likely they are from the same Ancestor? This is an unusual question > for me, because all segments from ancestors abut each other. One SNP > will be from one ancestor, and the next SNP will be from a different > ancestor. Somewhere on each chromosome there is a crossover point > (technically between two SNPs; in practice, the algorithms look at > blocks, so the actual crossover point is a little fuzzy). Actually, as > discussed before, on Chr 1, there are usually 3 such points (on Chr 20 > usually 1) that separate your grandparents on that Chr. So the much > smaller segments that are adjacent at that point are from much deeper > ancestors from your grand parents. Similarly all crossover points from > many generations will create segments from different ancestors. > Now if you have, say, a 20cM segment that was passed along several > generations, you my find Matches from the first part of that segment > (say 12cM) with a different Common Ancestor than Matches from the > other part (8cM). These two ancestors would be closer than usual, with > one ancestral to the husband and the other to the wife who provided > the 20cM segment. > In reality, of course, the DNA comes down from many distant ancestors. > But a way to look at it in the last paragraph, is like a branching > tree, starting with a main trunk from your father, and splitting into > say 4 large large branches (2 for each of your father's two > grandparents); and then in the next few generations each of those > branches splitting into two more branches. In practice each branch is > not split in half at each generation going back; instead, on Chr 1 for > example there will be an average of about 3 branchings each > generation. I need to make a picture of this with Kitty's mapper (for > her to show in a blog) to show that each segment is not divided at > each generation.... > Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:50 AM, Barton Lewis wrote: > >> Hi list, >> >> My aunt matches her fifth cousin on chr 17 as follows: >> >> 25354798 30027010 7.84 1249 33868089 47167537 12.67 2900 >> Is it likely these 2 sections are from the same ancestor? How close >> do >> segments have to be to make it likely they are from the same >> ancestor? What >> accounts for a section being "broken up" in this way? What's a good >> layman's way of understanding "how big is big" when talking about >> these >> kinds of break up on a chromosome? >> >> Thank you. >> >> Barton >> > > > > ______________________________ > 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 >

My results at 67 Markers.  56% Scandinavian 35% Central European  7% British Isles  2% Uncertain.  Recently advised that results are in process that would change the above.  Looking forward to receipt.  Ancestry has been criticised due to the Scandinavian results, unfairly, I opine, after careful research of the British Isles history as well as the German Provinces.  We must remember that we are not testing for the past few generations as depicted by our paper genealogies, and have patience with the process.  My test results match up well with my paper genealogy, with ancestors on the Isle of Man, 1500's, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England. Same spelling "Bittle" not Biddle.  Paternal... Maternal found my Frick's in Switzerland, Zurich area in the 1400's, migrating to the British Isles prior to immigrating to the New World.  All were seeking religious freedom and escape from totalitarian regimes, perhaps?  What do I not understand?

Dear Tim, thank you. In the event of a possible genotyping error by the testing company resulting in a failure to call the intervening segment an HIR, how would one confirm that? My assumption is that the Download Raw Data option in FTDNA which yields a zip file can be accessed and one needs to actually look at the alleles for each SNP. Is that correct? I have never tried this. When you unzip the file, does it generate a single Excel file that you can open to see the reported alleles? Barton On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 01:29 AM, Tim Janzen wrote: > Dear Barton, > It is certainly reasonable to believe that both of these HIRs > (presumably IBD segments) can be traced back to the known shared > ancestors > at the 5th cousin level of relationship. I have an example in my > family of > two fifth cousins sharing 33 cMs in two segments. However, you should > always keep in mind the possibility that one of the two segments comes > from > a different shared ancestor than the known shared ancestors at the 5th > cousin level of relationship. My mom recently had a match at 23andMe > that > shares two HIRs with her. I had previously mapped one of those > segments to > my mom's father and the other to my mom's maternal grandfather using > data > from first and second cousins. When one is dealing with people from > endogamous populations then one has to be particularly alert for > situations > such as this where one shared segment came from one shared ancestor > and the > other shared segment came from a different shared ancestor. This is > where > your chromosome map is crucial. If you have tested a fair number of > first, > second, and third cousins then you will have a good idea whether two > segments you share with a 5th cousin may have came from the same > shared > ancestor if you have previously mapped the segments in question. The > location of shared segments within the genome is entirely random. You > can > certainly have crossovers that split a shared segment such as what > appears > to be the case in this situation. I recently had a similar situation > in my > family's results at 23andMe. However, you should also keep in mind > that one > or more genotyping errors in the section between 30027010 and 33868089 > could > be preventing the company from calling this particular section an HIR. > In > such cases, the entire HIR (from 25354798 to 47167537) is actually a > shared > IBD segment. > Sincerely, > Tim Janzen > > -----Original Message----- > From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barton Lewis > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 7:51 PM > To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Same or different segment? > > My aunt matches her fifth cousin on chr 17 as follows: > > 25354798 30027010 7.84 1249 33868089 47167537 12.67 2900 > Is it likely these 2 sections are from the same ancestor? How close do > segments have to be to make it likely they are from the same ancestor? > What > accounts for a section being "broken up" in this way? What's a good > layman's way of understanding "how big is big" when talking about > these > kinds of break up on a chromosome? > > Barton > > > > ______________________________ > 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 >

Eric There is a trade-off involved, and *optimal* depends on your objectives. A first cousin generally has more cM and segments, but can only point to 2 grandparents (depth into ancestry is less); a second cousin doesn't have as many cM or segments, but does point to the specific grandparent and his/her parents (so depth is greater). I personally think the best strategy is coverage. That is some cousin for each grandparent; and when that is satisfied, you have to decide if additional cousins are needed to do the most for each grandparent, OR go to more distant cousins for each great grandparent. I believe if you test at all 3 companies and use GEDmatch, you'll get 1-2 thousand Matches with Colonial ancestry. This is sufficient to randomly cover 90 percent (my estimate) of all your chromosomes. As you pay for 3rd cousins and beyond, the number who will match you drops off quickly. They are still helpful in proving the biology of that ancestral line (they will match others in the line), even though they don't have a matching segment with you. I guess the bottom line, IMO, is that *optimal* strategy changes as you go along. You need to reevaluate after each test is posted, when you see what the results actually are. Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:19 AM, "Eric S Johnson" <crates@oneotaslopes.org> wrote: > Jim, Elizabeth--I hear you (and understand why: 50%, 25%, etc.) about how > the strategy I've proposed will have potential holes in it. > > But the original question (in which I'm very interested, too) was about the > *optimal* strategy to choose "who to test next," not "how to have a set of > tests which are collectively perfect." > > If I've tested myself, and my two parents (and none of my grandparents are > alive), and I only have enough resources to test one more person, wouldn't > it be smartest to spend that a parent's cousin ... etc. (up through the > chain I described). > If I have lots of resources, then the time will come when my > strategy's exhausted itself (because I won't have enough information to find > person number 11), and *at that point* the highest marginal value for "the > next test" would come from another cousin of one of my parents, etc. ... ? > > I'm not at all sure of myself--just trying to apply my own primitive logic > to the question. > > Best, > Eric > OpenPGP: 0x1AF7E6F2 ● Skype: oneota ● XMPP/OTR: berekum@jabber.ccc.de ● > Silent Circle: +1 312 614-0159 > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:autosomal-dna- >> bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jim Bartlett >> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 21.57 >> To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Matches with a common surname >> >> Eric >> >> This process is a good one, but it won't cover all your Matches at each >> generation. >> >> At the parent generation, your Matches fall into 4 categories: Parent 1, >> Parent 2 either Parent 1 or 2 (when the parents are related) and IBS (not >> from either parent) - these latter two you recognized in your post. >> Aunts/uncles will help some here, if you can't test a parent.

Jim, Elizabeth--I hear you (and understand why: 50%, 25%, etc.) about how the strategy I've proposed will have potential holes in it. But the original question (in which I'm very interested, too) was about the *optimal* strategy to choose "who to test next," not "how to have a set of tests which are collectively perfect." If I've tested myself, and my two parents (and none of my grandparents are alive), and I only have enough resources to test one more person, wouldn't it be smartest to spend that a parent's cousin ... etc. (up through the chain I described). If I have lots of resources, then the time will come when my strategy's exhausted itself (because I won't have enough information to find person number 11), and *at that point* the highest marginal value for "the next test" would come from another cousin of one of my parents, etc. ... ? I'm not at all sure of myself--just trying to apply my own primitive logic to the question. Best, Eric OpenPGP: 0x1AF7E6F2 ● Skype: oneota ● XMPP/OTR: berekum@jabber.ccc.de ● Silent Circle: +1 312 614-0159 > -----Original Message----- > From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:autosomal-dna- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jim Bartlett > Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 21.57 > To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Matches with a common surname > > Eric > > This process is a good one, but it won't cover all your Matches at each > generation. > > At the parent generation, your Matches fall into 4 categories: Parent 1, > Parent 2 either Parent 1 or 2 (when the parents are related) and IBS (not > from either parent) - these latter two you recognized in your post. > Aunts/uncles will help some here, if you can't test a parent. > > At the grandparent generation, a first cousin only shares 25 percent of the > atDNA of the grandparent, and so will only match a fraction of the Matches > from that grandparent with other cousins (prospective Matches). And due to > randomness, even 8 widely separated first cousins wouldn't provide full > coverage. > > A second cousin only has 12.5 percent of each great grandparent's atDNA > and the coverage drops (by a factor of 4), with each succeeding generation. > > And this presumes you are only interested in mapping your own atDNA. > Because you got only half of each parent's atDNA, you will not match with > roughly half their Matches. > > However, your process will provide a lot of help, and give you good coverage > over all your ancestry. > > I'll add that, although the plan is good, it is not as easy as it appears. The > break down occurs in the genealogy arena. Most of your Matches will be > greater than 5th cousins and few people have good genealogies that cover > that area. Look at your own genealogy to see what percent of 6G > grandparents you know (they are need for 7th cousins). If you and your > Match each know 50 percent of those ancestors, the two of you will find a > Common Ancestor 1/4 of the time. > > So to your point - your process will help map the chromosomes at the first > few generations (and this is very helpful), but determining the Common > Ancestor for most Matches will still be a challenge. > > Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! > > On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:29 AM, "Eric S Johnson" <crates@oneotaslopes.org> > wrote: > > >> From: Linda Boorom > >> Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 11:59 AM > > > >> I'm thinking I need to go back a generation or 2 & find some more > >> distant cousins to test? > > > > I'm a newbie at genetic genealogy but it seems to me the goal > > (assuming limited resources) would be to test ... > > 1) yourself > > 2) one of your parents > > Then any time *you* hit an atDNA match with someone, you immediately > > know which side of the family shares a joint ancestor with your match, > > depending on whether the match also hits (2). So the next goal would > > be to be able to figure out which of your four grandparents' > > ancestors' lines the match is in. To do that, you need to also have on > > hand another test from one of those two lines, and the binary answer to > "does your match hit that person too" > > answers your question. So you also need to test ... > > 3) your other parent > > 4) a cousin of one of your parents (your 1st cousin 1x removed), or > > oldest available descendant thereof > > 5) a cousin of your other parent, or oldest available descendant > > thereof So now you can determine which of your four grandparents' > > ancestries your match is descended from. And next, you'd want to be > > able to determine which of your eight great-grandparents your match is > > in, which would require testing ... > > 6) the oldest available descendant of any of your maternal > > grandmother's cousins (your 1st cousin 2x removed) > > 7) the oldest available descendant of any of your maternal > > grandfather's cousins > > 8) the oldest available descendant of any of your paternal > > grandmother's cousins > > 9) the oldest available descendant of any of your paternal > > grandfather's cousins And so on; i.e. to the extent that you have > > information about who these people are, your next 8 steps should be to > > test one descendant of each of your 8 great-grandparents' cousins ... > > > > All other things being equal, wouldn't this strategy be the > > fastest/highest-yield in terms of being able to determine which of > > your x-great grandparents is the point where your ancestry intersects > > your match's? I.e. better this approach than trying to test any more > > than just one person among a line's descendants? (I.e. assuming you > > have tested *at > > least* one of your parents, you'd get more value out of testing > > persons (4) and (5) above than out of testing any of your aunts and > > uncles and cousins?) > > > > I guess this strategy presumes all relationships are biological > > (because it assumes that if there's not a match with a descendent on > > one side of a binary tree, there necessarily would be a match with > > someone on the other > > side) ... and aren't generated within endogamous populations ... > > But so, at what point would this strategy have a statistically > > important chance of breaking down (because it's a very unsure thing > > whether the person you've managed to test has much likelihood of share > > any DNA with your match)? > > > > Best, > > Eric > > > > ______________________________ > 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

Dear Jim and others, It is clear that if we get enough people tested and pair their documented genealogies with their genetic data that we can reconstruct significant portions of our ancestors' genomes. A recent study by the team at Ancestry.com used "several hundred individuals with an 18th century couple as a known MRCA ... to tile together these individuals' IBD segments" and was "able to reliably construct the ancestral couple's four haplotypes in large genomic regions with high coverage of IBD segment." See http://www.ashg.org/2013meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f130120903.htm. What Ancestry.com did in this situation is clearly what the genetic genealogy community needs to be doing on a large scale. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jim Bartlett Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 7:30 AM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Matches with a common surname Linda I agree with Tim that surnames are OK. By talking it up, among BARTLETT researchers, we've uncovered two dozen descendants of my line who have atDNA tested - across all 3 companies. By collaborating, we've determined that while we don't all match each other, we do match some who match others. And we are identifying signature segments from those ancestors. As cousins, we share names to look for in our match lists. If, a big IF, we can get some some people atDNA mapped to the 80-90 percent level, those will be great roadmaps (or DNAmaps). Additional matches on known segments can bevpointed directly to a proven ancestral line. This will help break right through brick walls. At that time a great increase in synergy will occur - helping each other fill out our DNAmaps. Jim

Dear Barton, It is certainly reasonable to believe that both of these HIRs (presumably IBD segments) can be traced back to the known shared ancestors at the 5th cousin level of relationship. I have an example in my family of two fifth cousins sharing 33 cMs in two segments. However, you should always keep in mind the possibility that one of the two segments comes from a different shared ancestor than the known shared ancestors at the 5th cousin level of relationship. My mom recently had a match at 23andMe that shares two HIRs with her. I had previously mapped one of those segments to my mom's father and the other to my mom's maternal grandfather using data from first and second cousins. When one is dealing with people from endogamous populations then one has to be particularly alert for situations such as this where one shared segment came from one shared ancestor and the other shared segment came from a different shared ancestor. This is where your chromosome map is crucial. If you have tested a fair number of first, second, and third cousins then you will have a good idea whether two segments you share with a 5th cousin may have came from the same shared ancestor if you have previously mapped the segments in question. The location of shared segments within the genome is entirely random. You can certainly have crossovers that split a shared segment such as what appears to be the case in this situation. I recently had a similar situation in my family's results at 23andMe. However, you should also keep in mind that one or more genotyping errors in the section between 30027010 and 33868089 could be preventing the company from calling this particular section an HIR. In such cases, the entire HIR (from 25354798 to 47167537) is actually a shared IBD segment. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barton Lewis Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 7:51 PM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Same or different segment? My aunt matches her fifth cousin on chr 17 as follows: 25354798 30027010 7.84 1249 33868089 47167537 12.67 2900 Is it likely these 2 sections are from the same ancestor? How close do segments have to be to make it likely they are from the same ancestor? What accounts for a section being "broken up" in this way? What's a good layman's way of understanding "how big is big" when talking about these kinds of break up on a chromosome? Barton

Hi list, My aunt matches her fifth cousin on chr 17 as follows: 25354798 30027010 7.84 1249 33868089 47167537 12.67 2900 Is it likely these 2 sections are from the same ancestor? How close do segments have to be to make it likely they are from the same ancestor? What accounts for a section being "broken up" in this way? What's a good layman's way of understanding "how big is big" when talking about these kinds of break up on a chromosome? Thank you. Barton