I have some questions regarding the use of DNA in genealogy, in view of the recent postings on the subject. Much of the recent discussion, it seems to me, has been based on straw men and false dichotomies. "DNA can show your ancestry back to Adan and Eve or else it is completely worthless." No doubt this is due, at least in part, to the unrealistic claims of companies trying to sell a product. As far as I can tell - and I am certainly no expert - DNA testing can supplement documentary evidence in a few ways: - It was used to prove that the skeleton found in Leicester was in fact that of Richard III. - It could show if Granny had a secret she never told Grandpa about who was Dad's father. - It could show if people with the same surname are really related. In my case, there were several Mead families in Oxon/Bucks/Herts in the 15th and 16th centuries. One question: how far back is this reliable? For example, there are proven descendants of Thomas Mede of Henley on Thames, Oxon, born about 1550, and of Richard Mede of Watford, Herts, born about 1515. They are probably unrelated, but could DNA show a theoretical connection between them some 15 to 20 generations ago? - I have seen how it has been used to show that two people are fifth cousins, or whatever. Is this only in the male line, or in all possible relationships? I can see how DNA could be used to support documentary evidence, much as archeology is used to supplement historical evidence. Could someone give a brief summary of how it is used in genealogy? For someone who is more at home in the map and large document reading room than in a forensics laboratory.

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 8:53:34 AM UTC-7, Vance Mead wrote: > I have some questions regarding the use of DNA in genealogy, in view of > the recent postings on the subject. > As far as I can tell - and I am certainly no expert - DNA testing can > supplement documentary evidence in a few ways: > > - It was used to prove that the skeleton found in Leicester was in fact > that of Richard III. Just to be absolutely precise, it was used to show that the skeleton found at Leicester shared the same mitochondrial haplotype and documented descendants of the maternal lineage of king Richard III. It showed him to have a different haplotype from documented descendants of his paternal lineage. > - It could show if Granny had a secret she never told Grandpa about who > was Dad's father. If Grandpa is still alive, or left behind a high-quality, uncontaminated sample that could be tested, then it could demonstrate this directly. Otherwise, it could do so implicitly, if descendants of Granny had a different Y-DNA haplotype than descendants of multiple brothers of Grandpa. If there were not multiple grand-uncles with descendants, then testing of the descendants of one, plus the descendants of more remote male-line kin would also demonstrate this. > - It could show if people with the same surname are really related. We are all related (see below). It could indicate that two people with the same surname derive from the same male lineage within a reasonably small number of generations, but could not define that number. Why I said we are all related: a very-distant cousin of mine had his DNA tested along with that of another person of the same surname. The company who performed the test reported back that 'Congratulations, you are indeed related'. When he showed me the report I read the small print (which being aged 94, he could not do), where they classified what they meant by 'related' - that they shared a common male-line ancestor within the previous 25,000 years. In other words, they were both white, but that's about it. This was about 15 years ago, and I don't think any company would try to pull this kind of thing now. > In my case, there were several Mead families in Oxon/Bucks/Herts in the > 15th and 16th centuries. One question: how far back is this reliable? For > example, there are proven descendants of Thomas Mede of Henley on Thames, > Oxon, born about 1550, and of Richard Mede of Watford, Herts, born about > 1515. They are probably unrelated, but could DNA show a theoretical > connection between them some 15 to 20 generations ago? Yes, it could. > - I have seen how it has been used to show that two people are fifth > cousins, or whatever. Is this only in the male line, or in all possible > relationships? Male-line testing or female line testing can only show that you are of the same male or female lineage, not the number of generations (unless you have very precise information that is beyond the scope of most testing). There is another type of testing, Autosomal testing or SNP testing, hat can tell if two people are distant cousins, in the range of 2nd - 6th or so, but it cannot tell you precisely how close. > I can see how DNA could be used to support documentary evidence, much as > archeology is used to supplement historical evidence. Could someone give > a brief summary of how it is used in genealogy? I can give several examples. If a man married two wives and you don't know which was mother of a female child, then you could test maternally-inherited mtDNA for a female-line descendant of that child, and also from descendants of sisters of the two wives, and whichever matches, that is the family to which the child's mother belongs. Another female-line example. If there were two first cousins, daughters of brothers, both with the same name and no document to determine which was the later wife of that name, then testing female-line descendants and comparing them to the lineages of the wives of the two brothers would tell you which couple's daughter was the one who married. Male line examples: Your name is George Webster, and you can trace your male line back through the censuses to 1800 in New England, but not before. You find records in town histories that identify multiple Websters there, some descended from Gov. John Webster of Conn., others descended from the other John Webster, ancestor of Congressman Daniel Webster. You can compare your DNA to descendants of both immigrants and determine whether your line descends from one or the other (or neither). Likewise, as you suggest, you can determine if two immigrants of the same surname were of common English origin. In a family blessed with a lot of tested samples and a lucky mutation or two, it could even narrow down to which branch of a family a line belongs. Male-line testing is also very useful in cases of illegitimacy or poorly documented paternity. I have a Rev. War ancestor who is first documented picking a guardian at age 14 as the son of an unmarried woman. He has a different surname than her, and based on this, I have a guess who the father might be. DNA could be used to confirm that my guy shared the same Y-chromosome as his prospective son. In terms of the Autosomal testing, the earliest uses are still the most rigorous. It can demonstrate unambiguously 'who's your daddy' as long as everyone is still around to be tested and your daddy didn't have a twin brother. More generic applications are 1) a fishing expedition for missing information - you will get a list of distant relatives, and by sorting out how they relate, it may reveal connections you don't know about. It can also be used more directly to confirm a pedigree. My Pennsylvania g-g-grandfather 'died due to a fall from a ladder'. It must have been a long ladder and took him a long time to croak, because he landed in Kentucky with a different wife, or so it seems. There are no male-line descendants on my side, and no absolute proof the two are the same man, so I could do an autosomal test with a Kentucky descendant and if it reported a connection in the 2nd-to-5th cousin range, then it would be a strong indication that I have things reconstructed correctly. If it also showed linkage to someone else not descended from either the Pa or Ky group (and the common ancestor is close enough that both are fully documented) then it may provide a clue to where he came from (and perhaps reveal that this was not the first ladder he fell from). Those are just some examples. taf

Vance, Commenting on your 3rd point ("...if people with the same surname are really related"): I would use this with a certain caution. Unless the two families have extremely well populated family trees (i.e., "most" ancestors identified back several centuries), a genetic link confirmed by DNA testing could be erroneously linked to the wrong family. I have tried to use DNA testing to confirm if my ROBERTS great grandfather of unknown 19th century parentage was the child of a certain known ROBERTS family. Through DNA testing. I found positive matches with several other descendants of known relatives of the ROBERTS family in question and thought that I had thereby confirmed my own gr grandfather's family identify. But in studying the family trees of some of these other ROBERTS relatives, I found other non-ROBERTS connections in our family trees in the 18th and 18th centuries that could have accounted for the positive matches. If both family trees in your study are densely enough populated so that you can rule out other possible connections within the genealogical timeframe indicated by the DNA match, then you have a higher probability that the surname match is the source, but if there are major gaps within a century or two, there could have been another family tie that remains unidentified. In reasonably small, long settled communities, it is not unlikely that two modern individuals might have inherited multiple family connections over two or three centuries. Greg -----Original Message----- From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Vance Mead via Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 11:54 AM To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com Subject: What can DNA really do? I have some questions regarding the use of DNA in genealogy, in view of the recent postings on the subject. Much of the recent discussion, it seems to me, has been based on straw men and false dichotomies. "DNA can show your ancestry back to Adan and Eve or else it is completely worthless." No doubt this is due, at least in part, to the unrealistic claims of companies trying to sell a product. As far as I can tell - and I am certainly no expert - DNA testing can supplement documentary evidence in a few ways: - It was used to prove that the skeleton found in Leicester was in fact that of Richard III. - It could show if Granny had a secret she never told Grandpa about who was Dad's father. - It could show if people with the same surname are really related. In my case, there were several Mead families in Oxon/Bucks/Herts in the 15th and 16th centuries. One question: how far back is this reliable? For example, there are proven descendants of Thomas Mede of Henley on Thames, Oxon, born about 1550, and of Richard Mede of Watford, Herts, born about 1515. They are probably unrelated, but could DNA show a theoretical connection between them some 15 to 20 generations ago? - I have seen how it has been used to show that two people are fifth cousins, or whatever. Is this only in the male line, or in all possible relationships? I can see how DNA could be used to support documentary evidence, much as archeology is used to supplement historical evidence. Could someone give a brief summary of how it is used in genealogy? For someone who is more at home in the map and large document reading room than in a forensics laboratory. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 6/11/2016 12:41 PM, Greg Vaut via wrote: > Vance, > > Commenting on your 3rd point ("...if people with the same surname are really > related"): > > I would use this with a certain caution. Unless the two families have > extremely well populated family trees (i.e., "most" ancestors identified > back several centuries), a genetic link confirmed by DNA testing could be > erroneously linked to the wrong family. > > I have tried to use DNA testing to confirm if my ROBERTS great grandfather > of unknown 19th century parentage was the child of a certain known ROBERTS > family. Through DNA testing. I found positive matches with several other > descendants of known relatives of the ROBERTS family in question and thought > that I had thereby confirmed my own gr grandfather's family identify. > > But in studying the family trees of some of these other ROBERTS relatives, I > found other non-ROBERTS connections in our family trees in the 18th and 18th > centuries that could have accounted for the positive matches. This comment is true about autosomal DNA testing, which can be very tricky to analyze, because a match could be in any line, but Y-DNA testing tests only the (biological) direct male line. Y-DNA testing can tell if two individuals have a reasonably close direct male line biological relation, but it cannot give the exact number of generations, only an estimated relationship with a certain probability. Stewart Baldwin

Many adoptees are comparing their atDNA and YDNA to others who have tested in the big three DNA genealogy companies (23andMe, ancestryDNA, familyTreeDNA) to find clues that accurately lead them to their biological parents.

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 8:53:34 AM UTC-7, Vance Mead wrote: > I have some questions regarding the use of DNA in genealogy, in view of the recent postings on the subject. Much of the recent discussion, it seems to me, has been based on straw men and false dichotomies. "DNA can show your ancestry back to Adan and Eve or else it is completely worthless." No doubt this is due, at least in part, to the unrealistic claims of companies trying to sell a product. > > As far as I can tell - and I am certainly no expert - DNA testing can supplement documentary evidence in a few ways: > > - It was used to prove that the skeleton found in Leicester was in fact that of Richard III. > > - It could show if Granny had a secret she never told Grandpa about who was Dad's father. > > - It could show if people with the same surname are really related. In my case, there were several Mead families in Oxon/Bucks/Herts in the 15th and 16th centuries. One question: how far back is this reliable? For example, there are proven descendants of Thomas Mede of Henley on Thames, Oxon, born about 1550, and of Richard Mede of Watford, Herts, born about 1515. They are probably unrelated, but could DNA show a theoretical connection between them some 15 to 20 generations ago? > > - I have seen how it has been used to show that two people are fifth cousins, or whatever. Is this only in the male line, or in all possible relationships? > > I can see how DNA could be used to support documentary evidence, much as archeology is used to supplement historical evidence. Could someone give a brief summary of how it is used in genealogy? For someone who is more at home in the map and large document reading room than in a forensics laboratory. DNA is absolutely useful for genealogy. Ignore the thread you saw, many genealogists are using DNA effectively. There are three types of DNA tests: Y DNA: Representing the paternal line only Y DNA is *immensely* useful for genealogy. For example as a Langley I've been Y DNA tested. I dead end on my ancestor with a Langley that lived in the late 1700s in South Carolina. I've Y DNA matched other Langleys that trace to people in that region, one who sold land to my ancestor. Via DNA I now know without a doubt those Langleys share a paternal ancestor to mine. Based on the amount of markers tested and how close the match is I can get a rough idea how closely we relate too, such as within 200, 300, 400, 500 years etc. When you map Y DNA to paper trails it's amazingly useful and can confirm or deny believed relations. Further if a Langley in England Y DNA matches me in the future I can confirm we share paternal ancestry and that will help me find my immigrant ancestor and where they came from in England. mtDNA: like Y DNA but purely maternal lines, this is far less useful since mtDNA mutates far less often than Y DNA. This means that you may match someone else on your mtDNA but that doesn't narrow it down to a genealogical time frame depending on the level of testing. You can usually get an idea whether two people share a maternal ancestor within 500-1000 years or so. This made the Richard III testing valuable since his mtDNA matched a maternal descendant of his believed maternal line, basically the odds of that being a coincidence are pretty insane, this is how they confirmed he was indeed Richard III. aDNA: Autosomal dna is immensely useful. You pretty much have to ignore any segments that match below 7 cM (maybe even 10 cM). But 10 cM+ is something like over 99% chance of being a relation within a genealogical time frame. The true value comes in finding a cluster of people who *all* match the same segment of aDNA. This means all those people got that same segment from the same source somewhere. So say you have 3+ people who share a segment and you find that all have a shared ancestor in their tree, it becomes very likely that specific segment came from that ancestor for each person (the more people in the cluster obviously decreases the odd everyone shares another set of ancestors that is unknown). This means you can identify segments as from certain ancestry, then match other people on that segment with no known tree overlap, you can find ancestry further up that line via this method. It takes a lot of work but has been invaluable for many genealogists, including myself.

Here is another example. The Maybury/Mayberry/Mabry family has an active Y-DNA project, the results of which show that a significant majority of them have a common biological direct male line ancestor who apparently lived in England during the period when surnames were being formed. This includes descendants of different immigrants to America and at least one line that went to Australia. The "outliers" can be plausibly explained by "non-paternal events" (adulteries, adoptions, etc.), suggesting that this is a "single-origin" family. Since my surname (Baldwin) is a patronymic, it would be expected that Baldwin is a "multiple-origin" surname, and that is exactly what the results show, with different clusters suggesting a number of different origins. One thing that stood out when I got my Y-DNA results is that I have a lot of close matches with the surname Maybury (and variants) and only a few with the surname Baldwin. I have a good "paper-trail" line of descent from John Baldwin, an immigrant who came from near the Yorkshire-Lancashire border to Pennsylvania in 1699, and had two sons (on paper), John and William. The descendants of William are for the most part very well documented, but I am the only male line descendant who has tested his Y-DNA (that I know of). William's older brother John can be traced to what is now Ashe County, North Carolina, and appears to have left a large number of descendants, but without a clear paper-trail to prove many of the exact relationships. Most of my other Baldwin-surnamed matches have a very probable line of descent back to this second-generation John Baldwin, and the others can be at least plausibly conjectured to be his descendants. The punch line is that the Y-DNA results show that one group of Mayburys is more closely related to my Baldwin matches and to me than they are to some of the other Mayburys (to whom they are also related, but not as closely). This shows pretty convincingly that one of my Baldwin ancestors was a biological son of a Maybury. The big question would then be: "When did this non-paternal event occur, and who was the culprit?" Since I have close matches with (very probable) descendants of my ancestor William's brother John, the non-paternal event was probably not later than them, because that would require a scenario where a Maybury (or more than one Maybury) was impregnating two or more Baldwin spouses, or something equally unlikely. That is about all that can be said with certainty. However, I have a specific "suspect" whom I am unable to "convict" on the available evidence. A Thomas Maybury of Bucks County, Pennsylvania sold land to my William Baldwin, and later moved to Frederick County Virginia where William Baldwin (and probably also his brother John) also moved. Thomas is a chronologically possible biological father of John and William, and shows up on the scene right about the time the older son John was born (1716, eight years after the marriage of the until-then childless immigrant John Baldwin). In contrast, the Baldwin place of origin on the Yorkshire-Lancashire border shows no likely Maybury suspects, which is of course not conclusive, since it would not be that difficult for a non-resident "traveling salesman" Maybury to leave some of his DNA behind on a visit. There are a number of unanswered questions, including Thomas Maybury's place of origin, but there is still the possibility that additional DNA evidence could reinforce or disprove my theory. The most promising possibility for testing this is that the immigrant John Baldwin had a brother William Baldwin (d. 1720) who also came to Pennsylvania. He had only one son, and still had a few male-line descendants in the early 1800's, but I don't know if his line survives. If a test from a male-line descendant of his matched me closely, that would disprove my theory, and show that the non-paternal event probably occurred earlier in England. A non-match would give my conjecture a significant boost. Stewart Baldwin