> 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

Jim, I do have a CARRICO FAMILY PROJECT at FTDNA with currently 40 or so members with known CARRICO ancestry. There are a few more actually in the project w/o Carrico ancestry, such as my father and my adopted son (to ease my logins to their kits) and few others with suspected Carrico Ancestry or connections to Carrico ancestry. Each time there are new matches and/or new members I add to a compiled database of "Matches in Common" with other members of the Project. I find that a lot of tutoring is involved with individual members as to what this might mean and am trying to get them to look closer at some of those matches in common with other members of the project. I have also set up a website at myfamily.org where I can upload those matches in common and have space for discussion, yet thus far, discussion is not occuring because I don't think many understand what it might all lead to? I do have an easier time looking closer at those matches in common with my own relatives I've tested (self, mother, father, 2 maternal great aunts and maternal 3rd cousin, waiting for results from 2 maternal uncles and mothers 1st cousin) as I know my own linage. Need to find time to look closer at some of the other Carrico Family Project matches (after becoming familiar with their direct ancestry) so to not only help others from the Project, but to also help the project as a whole. Perhaps to close with a thought on Eric Johnson's post to this thread and assorted replies. I am finding as new matches come in, and am rescently finding more "confirmed" cousins, my focus on who to test next changes. I figure it will do this for awhile as I build both my paper trail and my atDNA matches and what question I want to answer. I do think the older the relative, the sooner you need to test. I wish I had my grandmother to test, but she passed in 2004. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Bartlett" <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> To: <autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 10:29 AM 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. > > During my talks, I usually include some examples - like the Peter RUCKER line with many Y-DNA > matcher; or the HIGGINBOTHAM and GRAVES and HARRIS lines with incorrect genealogies (proven by > Y-DNA) all over Ancestry, but we still find atDNA matches by looking for that incorrect Tree which > many have. Almost every time, someone will note that they are from that line and have or will test > atDNA, so lets look for a match. I'm getting more and more feedback from Boards I posted on two > years ago. > > 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 - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! > > On Oct 5, 2013, at 2:58 PM, "Linda Boorom" <lboorom@fuse.net> wrote: > >> Tim, >> >> TY, just the encouragement I was hoping for :-) While I know it's much too soon to actually label >> this segment as coming from the immigrant ancestor, I think I have enough to red flag it. Of >> course, >> it could be from a female who married a Carrico........ I can only to hope to someday stumble >> across >> a will where grandpa is leaving something to his Carrico grandchildren!!! On chromosome 14, there >> doesn't appear to be any matches in common with any of the 3 individuals involved. There are >> other >> segments to study, but this particular one caught my interest. Will work on the others next. >> >> Uh oh, I just typed the surname in question w/o thinking, but don't think I'm really sharing >> anything here about living people who have tested by doing so. >> >> There is a Y-DNA group for this surname who Diana Matthiesen administers (a brick walled Carrico >> descendant herself). I believe (at last count) 23 have tested that match each other and there are >> no >> matches with other surnames (or didn't undergo a surname change in their linage) even at 12 >> markers. >> Roughly, only 25% of those tested can trace their roots back to the immigrant Peter Carricoe. >> Diana >> has others tested with the same or similar surname from Portugal, Turkey and Greece, none who >> have >> yet to match with our immigrants descendants. >> >> Will Family Finder testing help us to figure out where our immigrant ancestor came from? I don't >> know, perhaps in time. I'm more interested in trying to break down some of these brick walls here >> in >> the US and figure out how we all conect back to Peter. >> >> I'm hoping with a story about at least loosening a brick in the wall, even if it didn't topple >> the >> wall, might encourage others to test, esp. some of those who have already had the Y-DNA test >> done. >> >> I do have 3 pending tests from my own family, both of my mom's brothers and now mom's first >> cousin. >> I'm thinking I need to go back a generation or 2 & find some more distant cousins to test? >> >> Again Tim, TY >> >> Linda >> > > > > ______________________________ > 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 >

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. During my talks, I usually include some examples - like the Peter RUCKER line with many Y-DNA matcher; or the HIGGINBOTHAM and GRAVES and HARRIS lines with incorrect genealogies (proven by Y-DNA) all over Ancestry, but we still find atDNA matches by looking for that incorrect Tree which many have. Almost every time, someone will note that they are from that line and have or will test atDNA, so lets look for a match. I'm getting more and more feedback from Boards I posted on two years ago. 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 - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On Oct 5, 2013, at 2:58 PM, "Linda Boorom" <lboorom@fuse.net> wrote: > Tim, > > TY, just the encouragement I was hoping for :-) While I know it's much too soon to actually label > this segment as coming from the immigrant ancestor, I think I have enough to red flag it. Of course, > it could be from a female who married a Carrico........ I can only to hope to someday stumble across > a will where grandpa is leaving something to his Carrico grandchildren!!! On chromosome 14, there > doesn't appear to be any matches in common with any of the 3 individuals involved. There are other > segments to study, but this particular one caught my interest. Will work on the others next. > > Uh oh, I just typed the surname in question w/o thinking, but don't think I'm really sharing > anything here about living people who have tested by doing so. > > There is a Y-DNA group for this surname who Diana Matthiesen administers (a brick walled Carrico > descendant herself). I believe (at last count) 23 have tested that match each other and there are no > matches with other surnames (or didn't undergo a surname change in their linage) even at 12 markers. > Roughly, only 25% of those tested can trace their roots back to the immigrant Peter Carricoe. Diana > has others tested with the same or similar surname from Portugal, Turkey and Greece, none who have > yet to match with our immigrants descendants. > > Will Family Finder testing help us to figure out where our immigrant ancestor came from? I don't > know, perhaps in time. I'm more interested in trying to break down some of these brick walls here in > the US and figure out how we all conect back to Peter. > > I'm hoping with a story about at least loosening a brick in the wall, even if it didn't topple the > wall, might encourage others to test, esp. some of those who have already had the Y-DNA test done. > > I do have 3 pending tests from my own family, both of my mom's brothers and now mom's first cousin. > I'm thinking I need to go back a generation or 2 & find some more distant cousins to test? > > Again Tim, TY > > Linda >

This is a logical strategy, but based on my own experience I think you'll get more information by testing your parents, if living, and as many of their first and second cousins as you can find and persuade. Let the more distant relatives accumulate from matches to other people you find through the testing company. I've tested seven of my mother's paternal first cousins, plus one person who is their mutual second cousin. In aggregate the first cousins' results are more informative than seven more distant relatives would be, because they also match each other in various combinations, permitting deductions about who got what from each of their grandparents. For example, if my mother matches first cousins A and B, but not second cousin Z, we can't conclude much from that information alone. But if we also know that first cousins C and D match each other over the same region of the same chromosome, and do match second cousin Z (who is related to their grandfather), then we also know that my mother, A and B inherited that chromosomal segment from their grandmother. This analysis works best in my experience if you use the raw data to determine the exact endpoints of matching segments. That's somewhat tedious, but still quite feasible. Elizabeth Harris ncgen@mindspring.com On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:29 AM, Eric S Johnson 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 > >

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

I concur with the general premise, except that I've found it helpful to test each of my siblings (one at 23andme and one at Ancestry) to collaborate with my own test results at FamilyTree DNA and match to others within the data pools. Some folks don't know to upload to www.Gedmatch.com so they aren't yet available there to match to. Also, recombinant DNA is random, thus each sibling matches differently to different distant relations so there is value in testing them. Each cousin I add, matches to different relatives so my approach has been: 1. Test my parents (do Y-DNA on father) [I actually did mt-DNA on both parents but it hasn't been helpful] 2. Test myself 3. Test my parents living siblings (test Y-DNA on maternal uncle) 4. Test my parents first or second cousins (Use Y-DNA on some difficult maternal lines of mine that they have Y-DNA for) 5. Test my parents uncles, including their Y-DNA as surrogates for deceased grandparents 6. Continue to expand as time and money allows. 7. Share fun stories and the enthusiasm may spread Help as many contacts as possible with their questions and then they will be more interested in collaboration. Encourage EVERYONE to upload to www.Gedmatch.com as that is the greatest common denominator for comparing matches amongst the three primary testing companies. [FamilyTree DNA, 23andme, Ancestry] Denise in Oregon -----Original Message----- > I'm thinking I need to go back a generation or 2 & find some more distant cousins to test?

Mary ICW shows people who share DNA segments, but it doesn't tell you which segment they match on. If you match A and B on the same segment, most of the time, when they are ICW each other (you already know they are ICW with you on a particular segment), their shared segment will be on the same segment and you'll have Triangulation on that segment. But sometimes they don't match each other on the same segment you match them - and then there is no Common Ancestor. When you have say 20 matches on a segment (not hard if you test at all 3 companies and use GEDmatch) - and they are all IBD segments - they should sort into two Triangulated Groups - one on each of your patent's chromosome. These two larger segments - one from each Common Ancestor - are usually offset from each other. And each Group can band together as a research team to find their Common Ancestor - everyone in the Group benefits. But if you have some of them in the same group who don't really match each other on that s! egment, their input to the group's research will really point in the wrong direction - wasting a lot of time and effort. So it always pays to verify that those who should match each other in a Triangulation Group, really do. Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On Oct 7, 2013, at 9:51 PM, Mary E Hall <just23gen@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to hear more on our concerns. > > Actually, I was somewhat "surprised" that when I started playing around > with "In Common With" and chromosome browser together this weekend, I > saw amazing clusters of matches along one segment of DNA. > > I had enough info on some of the paperwork pedigrees that it seemed either > "too good to be true", an amazing coincidence, or something very strange. > > I co-lead our local genealogical DNA special interest group, mostly due to > my interest in DNA and because I believe it holds great future. But I also > temper my "enthusiasm" so that people have realistic expectations and spend > their money wisely. And I try to be honest in my assessment of the > various companies strengths and weaknesses. > > I'm not sure what to make of the new Triangulation/Chromosome matching > feature of FT DNA. > > So, am interested in others opinions, too. > > Mary

Dear Mary, I think that the new triangulation/ICW tool in Family Finder is a nice step in the right direction. It simply doesn't go far enough. I would still much prefer that FTDNA take the step 23andMe did last year and allow you to compare your matches directly to each other in the Family Finder chromosome browser. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mary E Hall Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 6:51 PM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Triangulation at FTDNA Actually, I was somewhat "surprised" that when I started playing around with "In Common With" and chromosome browser together this weekend, I saw amazing clusters of matches along one segment of DNA. I had enough info on some of the paperwork pedigrees that it seemed either "too good to be true", an amazing coincidence, or something very strange. I'm not sure what to make of the new Triangulation/Chromosome matching feature of FT DNA. So, am interested in others opinions, too. Mary

I'd like to hear more on our concerns. Actually, I was somewhat "surprised" that when I started playing around with "In Common With" and chromosome browser together this weekend, I saw amazing clusters of matches along one segment of DNA. I had enough info on some of the paperwork pedigrees that it seemed either "too good to be true", an amazing coincidence, or something very strange. I co-lead our local genealogical DNA special interest group, mostly due to my interest in DNA and because I believe it holds great future. But I also temper my "enthusiasm" so that people have realistic expectations and spend their money wisely. And I try to be honest in my assessment of the various companies strengths and weaknesses. I'm not sure what to make of the new Triangulation/Chromosome matching feature of FT DNA. So, am interested in others opinions, too. Mary On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Emily Aulicino <aulicino@hevanet.com> wrote: > Devil's advocate here ... (what's new!) And I know this was discussed on > one > of the DNA lists a bit recently, but ... > > > > I'm concerned with the FTDNA term Triangulate as their new pop-up window > for > In Common With and Not in Common With. > > > > I think the novice will/could be greatly confused if they are also trying > to > map their chromosomes (and many are starting to map). They may think that > FTDNA is now doing some magic and triangulating the matches for them. OH > Yeah, when that does happen! (IF FTDNA can convince me that this will be > the window to doing that, I will shut up ... as long as the timeline for it > is coming soon.) > > > > We can't use the same terms for different situations unless the meaning is > the same. > > > > If there is any agreement out there, let's hear it and come up with a word > better suited for FTDNA's Triangulate...then suggest they change it. It > would be MUCH easier to change the word on their site than for all of us to > change what is met by triangulating for Y or for atDNA. > > > > Opinions? > > > > Thanks, > > Emily > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Linda Boorom > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 12:51 PM > To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Triangulation on FTDNA > > > > The only thing I find, which could be corrected by FTDNA, is that once you > triangulate, then select individuals to chromosome browse, the individual > you initially selected to triagualte with is NOT included in the chromosome > browse & must be added once you get to the chromsome browser. > > > > Seems to me they could/should automatically include the triangulated > individual to the list to show in the chromosme browser. > > > > Linda > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mary E Hall" < <mailto:just23gen@gmail.com> just23gen@gmail.com> > > To: < <mailto:autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com> autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:13 AM > > Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Triangulation on FTDNA > > > > > > > It's also easier to select individuals to chromosome browse, once you > > > triangulate. Before, you'd have to write down the names and find them in > > > that long list (which you could make shorter by having established some > > > sort of relationship). > > > > > > Mary E Hall > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Ann Turner < <mailto:DNACousins@aol.com> > DNACousins@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > >> As far as I can tell, the only difference (but a very welcome one) is > that > > >> you no longer need to manually assign a relationship before you can pick > a > > >> person for comparison. Previously, people would simply assign a "distant > > >> cousin" relationship in order to look at the ICW feature. And previously > to > > >> the previously, the other party had to confirm the relationship. > > >> > > >> Ann Turner > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Elizabeth < > <mailto:eargs2@windstream.net> eargs2@windstream.net> wrote: > > >> > > >> > How does one use the new Triangulation feature that replaced IN Common > > >> > With? > > >> > I have read the FTDNA help but found nothing. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks to all. > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > ______________________________ > > > For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please > see: > > > <http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html> > http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > <mailto:AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com> > AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the > > > word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________ > > For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: > > <http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html> > http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > <mailto:AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com> > AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ______________________________ > 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 >

Agree. That was surprising to me, too (but then the ICW would count against one of the magic 5!). On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Linda Boorom <lboorom@fuse.net> wrote: > The only thing I find, which could be corrected by FTDNA, is that once you > triangulate, then select > individuals to chromosome browse, the individual you initially selected to > triagualte with is NOT > included in the chromosome browse & must be added once you get to the > chromsome browser. > > Seems to me they could/should automatically include the triangulated > individual to the list to show > in the chromosme browser. > > Linda > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mary E Hall" <just23gen@gmail.com> > To: <autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:13 AM > Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Triangulation on FTDNA > > > > It's also easier to select individuals to chromosome browse, once you > > triangulate. Before, you'd have to write down the names and find them in > > that long list (which you could make shorter by having established some > > sort of relationship). > > > > Mary E Hall > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Ann Turner <DNACousins@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> As far as I can tell, the only difference (but a very welcome one) is > that > >> you no longer need to manually assign a relationship before you can > pick a > >> person for comparison. Previously, people would simply assign a "distant > >> cousin" relationship in order to look at the ICW feature. And > previously to > >> the previously, the other party had to confirm the relationship. > >> > >> Ann Turner > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Elizabeth <eargs2@windstream.net> > wrote: > >> > >> > How does one use the new Triangulation feature that replaced IN Common > >> > With? > >> > I have read the FTDNA help but found nothing. > >> > > >> > Thanks to all. > >> > > >> > > > > > > ______________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > > ______________________________ > 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 >

I agree Emily. I was disappointed when I selected triangulate and saw that it really only led to 'in common with' or 'not in common with'. Not the same as my concept of 'triangulate'. Denise in Oregon -----Original Message----- From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Emily Aulicino Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 2:25 PM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com; ISOGG@yahoogroups.com Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Triangulation at FTDNA Devil's advocate here ... (what's new!) And I know this was discussed on one of the DNA lists a bit recently, but ... I'm concerned with the FTDNA term Triangulate as their new pop-up window for In Common With and Not in Common With. I think the novice will/could be greatly confused if they are also trying to map their chromosomes (and many are starting to map). They may think that FTDNA is now doing some magic and triangulating the matches for them. OH Yeah, when that does happen! (IF FTDNA can convince me that this will be the window to doing that, I will shut up ... as long as the timeline for it is coming soon.) We can't use the same terms for different situations unless the meaning is the same. If there is any agreement out there, let's hear it and come up with a word better suited for FTDNA's Triangulate...then suggest they change it. It would be MUCH easier to change the word on their site than for all of us to change what is met by triangulating for Y or for atDNA. Opinions? Thanks, Emily -----Original Message----- From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Linda Boorom Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 12:51 PM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Triangulation on FTDNA The only thing I find, which could be corrected by FTDNA, is that once you triangulate, then select individuals to chromosome browse, the individual you initially selected to triagualte with is NOT included in the chromosome browse & must be added once you get to the chromsome browser. Seems to me they could/should automatically include the triangulated individual to the list to show in the chromosme browser. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary E Hall" < <mailto:just23gen@gmail.com> just23gen@gmail.com> To: < <mailto:autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com> autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Triangulation on FTDNA > It's also easier to select individuals to chromosome browse, once you > triangulate. Before, you'd have to write down the names and find them > in > that long list (which you could make shorter by having established > some > sort of relationship). > > Mary E Hall > > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Ann Turner < > <mailto:DNACousins@aol.com> DNACousins@aol.com> wrote: > >> As far as I can tell, the only difference (but a very welcome one) is that >> you no longer need to manually assign a relationship before you can >> pick a >> person for comparison. Previously, people would simply assign a >> "distant >> cousin" relationship in order to look at the ICW feature. And >> previously to >> the previously, the other party had to confirm the relationship. >> >> Ann Turner >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Elizabeth < <mailto:eargs2@windstream.net> eargs2@windstream.net> wrote: >> >> > How does one use the new Triangulation feature that replaced IN >> > Common >> > With? >> > I have read the FTDNA help but found nothing. >> > >> > Thanks to all. >> > >> > > > ______________________________ > For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: > <http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html> http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to <mailto:AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com> AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the > word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of > the message > ______________________________ For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: <http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html> http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to <mailto:AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com> AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ______________________________ 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

I have a situation with FTDNA that I am extremely disappointed in and I would like to know if there is a logical explanation. I would also like to know who to contact to try and get an explanation. I had my father's YDNA tested in 2004. He died in 2006. When the FF test came out I was very interested in having my father tested. I inquired as to whether or not there was enough DNA in storage to do this and was told probably not. So through the months and years I monitored the mailing lists to see if this might change. Sure enough I started reading of similar cases that the requirement for DNA for the FF test had come down considerably. So I inquired again and was told that in all probability there was enough. I jumped on it and ordered the test in July. The test was assigned a batch number than a completion date estimate. The completion date was extended several times and then something happened that I hadn't wanted to see. I recently received a kit in the mail that requested more DNA. I was told "in all probability" so I understand there was a chance there wasn't enough DNA. But in the intervening time between July and now several things happened that make me wonder if "mishandling" came into play. First I'm a project admin and I received an email that one of my participants had his FF results uploaded. The thing is he had not ordered FF and there were no FF results. He had ordered a 111 marker upgrade and after four delays it has come in. I received an email back that stated "The email was sent to you since you are in the same project. This information is given so you know what tests they have had so you can compare with the tests that you have had. You might want to contact your project administrator for more information on this." I immediately replied that I was the project admin and what was going on? I received this reply "Recently a glitch in our lab ordering system entered an order for Family Finder for you in addition to the test or tests you ordered. You may have already gotten some match notifications and wondered why you were receiving them. We apologize for any confusion or inconvenience this might have caused you. We're working on entering the front-end order that will allow you to have access to the Family Finder results - the very same test that normally retails for $289 will be available through your myFTDNA page as early as the end of next week at no charge to you. However, in the event you would prefer not to have it, we can remove the Family Finder from your page. Again, we apologize for the error, but hope you benefit from the results!" This member has not ordered FF and to this day he doesn't have any FF tests listed as being ordered. At the same time this was going on I'm reading many things on the mailing lists re goofs, screw-ups and other bad things going on with FTDNA. I think you can see why I'm not asking FTDNA about this situation. I'm hoping someone can give me a contact that might give me some info. If there is a logical explanation as simple as not enough DNA then so be it. But I can't help but think something was mishandled and I have lost a golden opportunity to test my Dad. At the time I place the order I was wishing there was some way to flag the test as being a deceased person.

The only thing I find, which could be corrected by FTDNA, is that once you triangulate, then select individuals to chromosome browse, the individual you initially selected to triagualte with is NOT included in the chromosome browse & must be added once you get to the chromsome browser. Seems to me they could/should automatically include the triangulated individual to the list to show in the chromosme browser. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary E Hall" <just23gen@gmail.com> To: <autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Triangulation on FTDNA > It's also easier to select individuals to chromosome browse, once you > triangulate. Before, you'd have to write down the names and find them in > that long list (which you could make shorter by having established some > sort of relationship). > > Mary E Hall > > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Ann Turner <DNACousins@aol.com> wrote: > >> As far as I can tell, the only difference (but a very welcome one) is that >> you no longer need to manually assign a relationship before you can pick a >> person for comparison. Previously, people would simply assign a "distant >> cousin" relationship in order to look at the ICW feature. And previously to >> the previously, the other party had to confirm the relationship. >> >> Ann Turner >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Elizabeth <eargs2@windstream.net> wrote: >> >> > How does one use the new Triangulation feature that replaced IN Common >> > With? >> > I have read the FTDNA help but found nothing. >> > >> > Thanks to all. >> > >> > > > ______________________________ > 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 >

Devil's advocate here ... (what's new!) And I know this was discussed on one of the DNA lists a bit recently, but ... I'm concerned with the FTDNA term Triangulate as their new pop-up window for In Common With and Not in Common With. I think the novice will/could be greatly confused if they are also trying to map their chromosomes (and many are starting to map). They may think that FTDNA is now doing some magic and triangulating the matches for them. OH Yeah, when that does happen! (IF FTDNA can convince me that this will be the window to doing that, I will shut up ... as long as the timeline for it is coming soon.) We can't use the same terms for different situations unless the meaning is the same. If there is any agreement out there, let's hear it and come up with a word better suited for FTDNA's Triangulate...then suggest they change it. It would be MUCH easier to change the word on their site than for all of us to change what is met by triangulating for Y or for atDNA. Opinions? Thanks, Emily -----Original Message----- From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Linda Boorom Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 12:51 PM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Triangulation on FTDNA The only thing I find, which could be corrected by FTDNA, is that once you triangulate, then select individuals to chromosome browse, the individual you initially selected to triagualte with is NOT included in the chromosome browse & must be added once you get to the chromsome browser. Seems to me they could/should automatically include the triangulated individual to the list to show in the chromosme browser. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary E Hall" < <mailto:just23gen@gmail.com> just23gen@gmail.com> To: < <mailto:autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com> autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Triangulation on FTDNA > It's also easier to select individuals to chromosome browse, once you > triangulate. Before, you'd have to write down the names and find them in > that long list (which you could make shorter by having established some > sort of relationship). > > Mary E Hall > > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Ann Turner < <mailto:DNACousins@aol.com> DNACousins@aol.com> wrote: > >> As far as I can tell, the only difference (but a very welcome one) is that >> you no longer need to manually assign a relationship before you can pick a >> person for comparison. Previously, people would simply assign a "distant >> cousin" relationship in order to look at the ICW feature. And previously to >> the previously, the other party had to confirm the relationship. >> >> Ann Turner >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Elizabeth < <mailto:eargs2@windstream.net> eargs2@windstream.net> wrote: >> >> > How does one use the new Triangulation feature that replaced IN Common >> > With? >> > I have read the FTDNA help but found nothing. >> > >> > Thanks to all. >> > >> > > > ______________________________ > For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: > <http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html> http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to <mailto:AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com> AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the > word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ______________________________ For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: <http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html> http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to <mailto:AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com> AUTOSOMAL-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks Tim Karen On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Tim Janzen <tjanzen@comcast.net> wrote: > Dear Karen, > I don't have much data for half-siblings and the other > relationships > you mention. In any case, you simply cut in half the percentage you would > have for full relationships. For instance, half-siblings should in theory > share about 25% of their autosomal DNA and half-first cousins should share > about 6.25% of their autosomal DNA. > Sincerely, > Tim Janzen > > -----Original Message----- > From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Karen Hodges > Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2013 4:09 PM > To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] once removed etc. > > Hi Tim > > I found the link very helpful but noticed for close relatives there was no > inclusion of half siblings, half Uncles and Aunts or Half nephews or nieces > and half first cousins. Is it a matter of just halving full numbers? > > Karen > > > > ______________________________ > 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 >

Hi Tim I found the link very helpful but noticed for close relatives there was no inclusion of half siblings, half Uncles and Aunts or Half nephews or nieces and half first cousins. Is it a matter of just halving full numbers? Karen On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Tim Janzen <tjanzen@comcast.net> wrote: > Dear Barton, > If you take a look at > http://kquilting.homeserver.com/23andme/ref.html and then click on the > link > to "Distant relatives, non-endogamous" you can download a spreadsheet that > has this information in it. If you have Ann Turner's book Trace Your Roots > with DNA, review p. 120. > 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 05, 2013 9:53 PM > To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] once removed etc. > > Dear list, > > I seem to recall seeing that for purposes of amount of DNA shared, a cousin > once removed is roughly equivalent to the next higher number (e.g. 2nd > cousin once removed is = to third cousin). Is this correct? > > What about cousins twice or thrice removed? How are those amounts > quantified? > > 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 > > > > ______________________________ > 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 >

It's also easier to select individuals to chromosome browse, once you triangulate. Before, you'd have to write down the names and find them in that long list (which you could make shorter by having established some sort of relationship). Mary E Hall On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Ann Turner <DNACousins@aol.com> wrote: > As far as I can tell, the only difference (but a very welcome one) is that > you no longer need to manually assign a relationship before you can pick a > person for comparison. Previously, people would simply assign a "distant > cousin" relationship in order to look at the ICW feature. And previously to > the previously, the other party had to confirm the relationship. > > Ann Turner > > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Elizabeth <eargs2@windstream.net> wrote: > > > How does one use the new Triangulation feature that replaced IN Common > > With? > > I have read the FTDNA help but found nothing. > > > > Thanks to all. > > >

As far as I can tell, the only difference (but a very welcome one) is that you no longer need to manually assign a relationship before you can pick a person for comparison. Previously, people would simply assign a "distant cousin" relationship in order to look at the ICW feature. And previously to the previously, the other party had to confirm the relationship. Ann Turner On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Elizabeth <eargs2@windstream.net> wrote: > How does one use the new Triangulation feature that replaced IN Common > With? > I have read the FTDNA help but found nothing. > > Thanks to all. > > > > ______________________________ > 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 >

You can use an Adblocker extension on your browser so that you are not bothered by all these ads. I use Adblocker Plus with Google Chrome. Debbie

Thanks Tim. I've added a link to your Dropbox chart on the autosomal DNA statistics page: http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_statistics Jim, It would be nice to include some data on the range of percentages for any given relationship. At the moment we have no empirical data other than the statistics in Tim's spreadsheet. I will try and incorporate some of Tim's statistics when I have a bit more time. We do say that the percentages cited are averages and that the actual amount will vary. Debbie -----Original Message----- From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tim Janzen Sent: 06 October 2013 18:01 To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] once removed etc. Dear Debbie, I just uploaded a version of my spreadsheet that includes data on the median and the average number of shared cMs for people who are related to each other from the first cousin once removed level of relationship to the 5th cousin level of relationship to my Dropbox account at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21841126/compare%20genes%20function%20in %2023andMe%20(distant%20relatives%2C%20non-endogamous)(public).xls. The Tiny URL for this is http://tinyurl.com/lgwt7kr. This is an updated version of what is at http://kquilting.homeserver.com/23andme/ref.html. I have additional data to add to this file, but haven't had time to extract all the data I need yet. In any case, I think that some people will find this file of help as they review their personal results. In any case, my general rule of thumb is that when people share less than about 100 cMs or so, the genealogical relationship could range from as close as 2nd cousins to a relatively distant cousin. When you are trying to determine the precise relationship, testing more people and then aggregating the data as I did in my Youngman project at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21841126/Youngman%20DNA%20summary.doc makes the most sense. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:autosomal-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Debbie Kennett Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2013 8:04 AM To: autosomal-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] once removed etc. I've added some more statistics for "once removed" cousins to the autosomal DNA statistics page in the ISOGG Wiki: http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_statistics I wonder if there are any clever programmers out there who might be able to create web tool or spreadsheet that will allow people to input a relationship and generate the average percentage. Debbie ______________________________ 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