Dutch, Unsubscribe with your old address and re subscribe with the new one. OR Go to rootsweb.com and look in their tools, I think there is a tool that allows you to do a mass change of all the lists you are subscribed to. Marleen

You unsubscribe from the list using your old email address, and re-subscribe with your new one... On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Dutch O'Connell <[email protected]> wrote: > How do I change my email address for my subscription. Thank you. Dutch O’Connell. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dear Andreas, Perhaps the thing you need to do is to let us exclude some of our matches who share long segments with us (first and 2nd cousins in particular). We don't want their really long segments to determine the size of the triangulated groups. Perhaps you will want to create an upper threshold for the length of a triangulated group in the range of 40 to 50 cMs or so. Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andreas West Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 8:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Unfortunately that won’t work Jim. Reason is that each user is part of many TG’s and having different threshold amongst your TG won’t work. Also we differentiate ourselves by making many difficult to understand decisions for the user. People don’t understand the thresholds in GEDmatch, it’s a tool for few but not for the masses. Andreas > On 2 Oct 2017, at 08:49, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andreas, > > > It would be great to have the threshold be a variable - the default at 10, 12 or 15cM, but the user could adjust it up or down. > > > Jim Bartlett > [email protected] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas West <[email protected]> > To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Oct 1, 2017 11:56 pm > Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches > > Hi Jim,I apply your method though I learned from both of you a lot ;-)This allows our web app to apply the same rule for everyone (important in coding). No information is lost, we do have the info from the closer cousins/parents who are indeed holding those smaller TG’s together.The chromosomes map which we build up automatically is key as it shows those close and far MRCA’s.I think there is still work to be done to try out which threshold is the best one for TG’s and when one should stop splitting them up further.Andreas > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Jim, I apply your method though I learned from both of you a lot ;-) This allows our web app to apply the same rule for everyone (important in coding). No information is lost, we do have the info from the closer cousins/parents who are indeed holding those smaller TG’s together. The chromosomes map which we build up automatically is key as it shows those close and far MRCA’s. I think there is still work to be done to try out which threshold is the best one for TG’s and when one should stop splitting them up further. Andreas > On 2 Oct 2017, at 01:16, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote: > > I did similar to Tim (after all, he taught me a lot). So after some time working out the biggest TGs and any other low hanging fruit, I spent 3 or 4 all nighters and went down through my spreadsheet as quickly as I could. I checked each segment against it's neighbors (up and down) in my spreadsheet, to see which ones they matched. Sometimes it was not clear, so I just skipped over those. The point was to make a full pass - beginning of Chr 1 to end of Chr 23 (X) - and group wherever I could. I tried to do several chromosomes at at time. This was in 2013 as I recall, when I had about 1/16 of the Match/segments compared to now. After that first pass, I had TGs that covered about 2/3 of my DNA. I then made another full pass, and fit some more segments into existing TGs and formed a few new ones. And by then I was taking IBC segments (didn't match either side) out of my spreadsheet. Over time, as more and more Match/segments came into my Match lists, the TGs grew a little and started touching each other and filling out large areas. Over these 4 years, the percent "coverage" has grown asymptotically toward 100%. If I were starting today, and had a program that formed the TGs, I could compress 4 years of work into a very short time - and get almost exactly the same result (and the computer wouldn't make the little mistakes I sometimes do). > > > Yes, I had several large TGs with close cousins in them with their large shared segments. If I ignore the large segment and look at the rest of the segments, it almost always naturally breaks down into smaller TGs. So I use the smaller TGs and include the close cousin's segment in each one. The close cousin creates a "knot-hole" and a "funnel" that shrinks the pool of possible Common Ancestors for the TG - see https://segmentology.org/2017/09/10/the-mrca-knothole/ The big TG has a closer MRCA, and the smaller, sub-TGs have more distant MRCAs which are ancestral to the close MRCA. Technically the TGs will continue to subdivide, but there is a limit to what we can "see", which imposed by the shared segment threshold we use. > > > Jim Bartlett > [email protected] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Janzen <[email protected]> > To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Oct 1, 2017 2:15 pm > Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches > > Dear Andreas, > The way I handle this issue is to put everyone in a triangulated group who > shares at least a portion of the DNA segment that is the longest segment in > the triangulated group. The person in the triangulated group who has the > longest segment must not have a known relationship with any of my family > members. If this segment is say 30 cMs long there may be people in the > triangulated group who don't share a DNA segment with each other, but they > could share say 5-10 cMs with the person in the triangulated group who has > the longest segment on different portions of that segment. If I ever figure > out the genealogical relationship with the person in the triangulated group > who has the longest segment, then I can always break the triangulated group > down further into two or three triangulated groups. > Sincerely, > Tim Janzen > > -----Original Message----- > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Andreas West > Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 10:20 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches > > > Btw, when you say 400 is that with splitting them into the smallest possible > groups? Many times we do see TG's where we have smaller TG's at each end > which are only connected by some DNA cousins who share the whole segment. > That would probably go above 400. > > > Andreas > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Andreas, It would be great to have the threshold be a variable - the default at 10, 12 or 15cM, but the user could adjust it up or down. Jim Bartlett [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Andreas West <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Oct 1, 2017 11:56 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Hi Jim,I apply your method though I learned from both of you a lot ;-)This allows our web app to apply the same rule for everyone (important in coding). No information is lost, we do have the info from the closer cousins/parents who are indeed holding those smaller TG’s together.The chromosomes map which we build up automatically is key as it shows those close and far MRCA’s.I think there is still work to be done to try out which threshold is the best one for TG’s and when one should stop splitting them up further.Andreas

Dear Andreas, I agree with Jim that it would be nice to have the threshold variable. I have a fair number of TGs where the longest segment covering everyone in the TG is in the 30 cM range. Sincerely, Tim -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Bartlett Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 9:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Andreas, It would be great to have the threshold be a variable - the default at 10, 12 or 15cM, but the user could adjust it up or down. Jim Bartlett [email protected]

Hi Jim, I was waiting for you to react to this, as I know we've discussed the point of how many TG's there are. It's obviously determined by the size of these groups (meaning how far one goes back). But when I saw that I immediately thought of your magic 400 number. Now Ancestry uses a minimum of 20cM to show them as shared matches, as I wrote I can only imagine that this is such a large number due to colonial ancestry on her BF's side. Btw, we are still reading the data, she has even more shared matches groups now and it will be interesting to see how many turn out to be TG's. Will surely feedback when we do have a much larger base to calculate on, as you know we're still beta testing with a handful (literally) of users only. Btw, when you say 400 is that with splitting them into the smallest possible groups? Many times we do see TG's where we have smaller TG's at each end which are only connected by some DNA cousins who share the whole segment. That would probably go above 400. Andreas > On 1 Oct 2017, at 20:44, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote: > > would

I did similar to Tim (after all, he taught me a lot). So after some time working out the biggest TGs and any other low hanging fruit, I spent 3 or 4 all nighters and went down through my spreadsheet as quickly as I could. I checked each segment against it's neighbors (up and down) in my spreadsheet, to see which ones they matched. Sometimes it was not clear, so I just skipped over those. The point was to make a full pass - beginning of Chr 1 to end of Chr 23 (X) - and group wherever I could. I tried to do several chromosomes at at time. This was in 2013 as I recall, when I had about 1/16 of the Match/segments compared to now. After that first pass, I had TGs that covered about 2/3 of my DNA. I then made another full pass, and fit some more segments into existing TGs and formed a few new ones. And by then I was taking IBC segments (didn't match either side) out of my spreadsheet. Over time, as more and more Match/segments came into my Match lists, the TGs grew a little and started touching each other and filling out large areas. Over these 4 years, the percent "coverage" has grown asymptotically toward 100%. If I were starting today, and had a program that formed the TGs, I could compress 4 years of work into a very short time - and get almost exactly the same result (and the computer wouldn't make the little mistakes I sometimes do). Yes, I had several large TGs with close cousins in them with their large shared segments. If I ignore the large segment and look at the rest of the segments, it almost always naturally breaks down into smaller TGs. So I use the smaller TGs and include the close cousin's segment in each one. The close cousin creates a "knot-hole" and a "funnel" that shrinks the pool of possible Common Ancestors for the TG - see https://segmentology.org/2017/09/10/the-mrca-knothole/ The big TG has a closer MRCA, and the smaller, sub-TGs have more distant MRCAs which are ancestral to the close MRCA. Technically the TGs will continue to subdivide, but there is a limit to what we can "see", which imposed by the shared segment threshold we use. Jim Bartlett [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Tim Janzen <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Oct 1, 2017 2:15 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Dear Andreas, The way I handle this issue is to put everyone in a triangulated group who shares at least a portion of the DNA segment that is the longest segment in the triangulated group. The person in the triangulated group who has the longest segment must not have a known relationship with any of my family members. If this segment is say 30 cMs long there may be people in the triangulated group who don't share a DNA segment with each other, but they could share say 5-10 cMs with the person in the triangulated group who has the longest segment on different portions of that segment. If I ever figure out the genealogical relationship with the person in the triangulated group who has the longest segment, then I can always break the triangulated group down further into two or three triangulated groups. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andreas West Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 10:20 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Btw, when you say 400 is that with splitting them into the smallest possible groups? Many times we do see TG's where we have smaller TG's at each end which are only connected by some DNA cousins who share the whole segment. That would probably go above 400. Andreas

Andreas, I run stats about every 2 weeks and, as usual, I'm a little behind (visiting granddaughers...) As of 9/11/17 I have 270 TGs with some Common Ancestor beyond a parent (138 paternal, 132 maternal); and 93 TGs formed with shared segments but no credible Common Ancestor, yet (42 paternal, 51 maternal); and 23 gaps, or filler TGs, with NO shared segments (9 paternal, 14 maternal - usually on the smaller size. A total of 386 TGs that cover all of my DNA. My mother's mother was from 1850s immigrants, which is why I have more no-CA and gap-TGs on my maternal side. I can easily determine the Mbp for each of these - so that's what I use for percentages: 79.7% with CAs, 18.0% w/o CAs, 2.3% gaps Jim Bartlett [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Andreas West <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Oct 1, 2017 1:20 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Hi Jim, I was waiting for you to react to this, as I know we've discussed the point of how many TG's there are. It's obviously determined by the size of these groups (meaning how far one goes back). But when I saw that I immediately thought of your magic 400 number. Now Ancestry uses a minimum of 20cM to show them as shared matches, as I wrote I can only imagine that this is such a large number due to colonial ancestry on her BF's side. Btw, we are still reading the data, she has even more shared matches groups now and it will be interesting to see how many turn out to be TG's. Will surely feedback when we do have a much larger base to calculate on, as you know we're still beta testing with a handful (literally) of users only. Btw, when you say 400 is that with splitting them into the smallest possible groups? Many times we do see TG's where we have smaller TG's at each end which are only connected by some DNA cousins who share the whole segment. That would probably go above 400. Andreas > On 1 Oct 2017, at 20:44, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote: > > would

Eric, I have one Triangulated Group [18H36] with an uncle, two 4C, an 8C and two 9C - all on the same line. However, there is also a 5C1R and an 8C1R on a different line, so I won't be comfortable until I get some more intermediate cousins on this TG. On TG [14G25] I have a 2C1R, a 5C, a 6C and a 7C all on the same line (still searching for a 3C or 4C). On [11L25] I have a 2C1R; a 3C1R, a 5C and a 7C all on the same line. On 07L24] Half 1C; 5C, 6C, 7C1R on one line. On [06E24] Half 1C; 2C; 4C1R, 5C one line. [06C24] is strange and exciting. It has a 2C, and four Matches (widely separarted from each other) who are about 5C or 6C with each other, on a surname not in my Tree - perhaps their Common Ancestor is on the other side of my brick wall (I can always hope...) My best one: [04P36] with: 4C1R, 5C, 5C1R, two 6C1R, two 7C, 7C1R, and SIX 8C. Several of these entries represent 2 or 3 close relatives in one family, counted only once. Each of these are on one of the 3 generations of HIGGINBOTHAMs in my Tree. This started a year or so ago when I noticed a lot of Matches with HIGGINBOTHAM ancestry at AncestryDNA - so I searched on that surname and got over 100 hits (some fell out as not my line). I messaged all my cousins, and promised if they would upload to GEDmatch, I'd report back on the DNA analysis. Many did, and many of those are on this TG and a smaller number on two other other TGs - we all descend from 3 sons of the Patriarch, and most of them are closer cousins to each other (which they had not known about in most cases). This particular family generally had double digit children for several generations. I make no "proof" claims - there can be a bazillion follow up questions and maybe 2 bazillion reasons why any one of these might not be the correct genetic ancestral line. To me they all represent true DNA data, evidence, clues, etc., in my spreadsheet. Several years ago, I could keep up with the influx of data - now I am almost hopelessly behind. The data is out there.... We need automated ways to feed in the DNA data and GEDcoms and get the TGs grouped and the CAs for each TG. At that point a genealogist has to step in and do some analysis and make some judgement calls. Jim Bartlett [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Eric S Johnson <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Sep 30, 2017 6:22 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data Do we have any information about *proven* MRCAs of a certain size/distance? By which I mean, has anyone ever *definitely* traced a (say, 20-cM) HIR to an MRCA of (say) 7C0R? ... which would require literally "walking it back," ... ... i.e. not "oh, well, she and I share 9g-grandparents, so ..." (because many of us with similar ancestry share lots of 9g-grandparents (I have one "DNA cousin" with whom I've identified NINE pairs of shared 8g- ad 9g-grandparents--and those are only the ones we "know" about), but that doesn't disprove the possibility of a more-recent connection we haven't identified). The furthest I've *definitely* walked back a connection (i.e. *every generation!*) is 5C0R.

Andreas, You note the person you are helping has "way over 1200 shared matches groups". Given that she has say 7200 total cM on both sides, that would be an average of 6cM per group. This is way too many if you are equating "shared match groups" to Triangulated Groups, and using a 7cM threshold. Note that a 7cM threshold does not equate to any TG that is 7cM - it usually equates to TGs in the 10cM to 30cM range. My estimate of 400 TGs would result in an average of 18cM per TG - with a wide range. Jim Bartlett [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Tim Janzen <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Sep 28, 2017 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Dear Andreas, It makes sense to concentrate on matches who share the most DNA with you when you are working with someone who has a poorly developed pedigree chart. However, in my case I have all my family lines traced back to 1800 or earlier for my mom's ancestry so focusing on triangulated groups that I can readily sort out with single segment matches at Ancestry.com has proven to have the most value for me. It is generally relatively easy for me to figure out the genealogical connection for people who share more than 2 segments with my mom. My mom fortunately doesn't come from an endogamous ancestral background, which is helpful when working with her triangulated groups. Endogamy definitely complicates things. Sincerely, Tim -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andreas West Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 2:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Thanks Tim for your success story. I do hope to see the same success rate when people are asked to upload their raw DNA data to our web app for automatic triangulation. The person I'm helping find her BF has way over 1200 shared matches groups. This seems to indicate colonial ancestors with most likely lots of triangulated groups that will have several segments of more than 20cM. Surely it won't be easy to untangle this in her case. I like your advise on concentrating on one segment shared matches groups to make the triangulation easier but then again with it being done automatically there is no more human being slowing the process down. Andreas

Dear Andreas, The way I handle this issue is to put everyone in a triangulated group who shares at least a portion of the DNA segment that is the longest segment in the triangulated group. The person in the triangulated group who has the longest segment must not have a known relationship with any of my family members. If this segment is say 30 cMs long there may be people in the triangulated group who don't share a DNA segment with each other, but they could share say 5-10 cMs with the person in the triangulated group who has the longest segment on different portions of that segment. If I ever figure out the genealogical relationship with the person in the triangulated group who has the longest segment, then I can always break the triangulated group down further into two or three triangulated groups. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andreas West Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 10:20 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Btw, when you say 400 is that with splitting them into the smallest possible groups? Many times we do see TG's where we have smaller TG's at each end which are only connected by some DNA cousins who share the whole segment. That would probably go above 400. Andreas

Do we have any information about *proven* MRCAs of a certain size/distance? By which I mean, has anyone ever *definitely* traced a (say, 20-cM) HIR to an MRCA of (say) 7C0R? ... which would require literally "walking it back," ... ... i.e. not "oh, well, she and I share 9g-grandparents, so ..." (because many of us with similar ancestry share lots of 9g-grandparents (I have one "DNA cousin" with whom I've identified NINE pairs of shared 8g- ad 9g-grandparents--and those are only the ones we "know" about), but that doesn't disprove the possibility of a more-recent connection we haven't identified). The furthest I've *definitely* walked back a connection (i.e. *every generation!*) is 5C0R. > -----Original Message----- > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Tim Janzen > Sent: September 30, 2017 15.01 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data > > My point was that it is impossible to accurately predict the genealogical > relationship for someone who shares between say 5 cMs and say 50 cMs with > you based solely on a one-to-one comparison. Those genealogical > connections could be as far back as 20th cousins or even further back. We

If such lines are well documented, yes. In most cases they are not. Andreas > On 30 Sep 2017, at 02:05, Wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 20th cousins? > So you're saying it *is* possible to use atDNA to confirm lines into medieval times > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Janzen <[email protected]> > To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, Sep 28, 2017 8:26 pm > Subject: Re: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data > > Dear Belinda, > I have been emphasizing in my presentations for quite a few years that > trying to predict the precise genealogical connection between any two people > who share say 50 cMs or less with each other is fraught with problems. I > try to emphasize that the relationship could be as close as 2nd cousins or > could be as distant as 20th cousins. You can improve the predictions if you > start using cousin clusters to generate the prediction for the genealogical > relationships. However, none of the companies are doing that yet. We need > to see the companies automate chromosome mapping, but that hasn't happened > yet either. > Sincerely, > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Belinda Dettmann > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 5:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data > > Thanks for that, Tim. The degree of endogamy becomes important in the > context of predicting relationships. Examples are in the statistics and > guidelines given in references such as ISOGG where values only apply to > populations with a degree of endogamy similar to that found in the USA. As a > practical guide, the commonly used predictions (at FTDNA, 23andMe and > ancestry.com) for known relationships from third cousin outward are not > correct for ancestry which comes from mixtures of populations with less > inbreeding than in the USA overall. > As an Australian with mixed ancestry from 8 different regions of the British > Isles, plus Germany and Poland, I have thousands of DNA matches, for which, > for third cousins and worse, the predictions are all wrong. The > relationships are much more distant than predicted and most links are > impossible to find. Ranges usually cover the right value, but the actual > predictions are rubbish. Similar situations apply for testers who live in > the British isles, or South Africa, or New Zealand, or Poland, to my certain > knowledge. > We all find it disconcerting when told how close our middle-distance matches > should be, when we know they are nothing of the kind. > I agree that chromosome mapping is essential in doubtful situations, and I > routinely download DNA for my known relatives to Gedmatch for that purpose, > if they agree. There again, the guidelines for length of segments need some > adjustments, as I find that fewer long and more short segments are the order > of the day for known cousins of third degree or more in testers from mixed > populations. > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

My point was that it is impossible to accurately predict the genealogical relationship for someone who shares between say 5 cMs and say 50 cMs with you based solely on a one-to-one comparison. Those genealogical connections could be as far back as 20th cousins or even further back. We can come up with average predicted relationships for each cM total, but at the end of the day we are still simply left with a range of possible relationships. As I mentioned in my last message, you can improve your predictions if you use clusters of cousins for the comparisons. At some point we may be able to accurately map some segments back as many as 12 to 15 generations. I think that getting to 20 generations is going to be nearly impossible due to the lack of genealogical records for most people more than about 10 to 15 generations back. Mapping segments to ancestors who lived 7 to 10 generations back is possible now. Tim -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andreas West Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data If such lines are well documented, yes. In most cases they are not. Andreas > On 30 Sep 2017, at 02:05, Wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 20th cousins? > So you're saying it *is* possible to use atDNA to confirm lines into medieval times

Dear Andreas, What I mean is that if you run one-to-one comparisons between a cluster of known cousins and someone whose genealogical relationship to you is unknown, you can more accurately predict the genealogical relationship than you can by simply running a single one-to-one comparison. For example, if you take a look at the blog I wrote in 2012 at https://blog.23andme.com/ancestry/who-were-the-parents-of-jacob-youngman/ you will note that I made 5 one-to-one comparisons between people who had a known relationship to each other and Troy McCoy, whose relationship to my cousin cluster was uncertain prior to the start of that project. As you can see by looking at the data from those 5 comparisons, there was a wide range in terms of the amount of autosomal DNA that these cousins shared with Troy. However, the average was consistent with a half third cousin genealogical relationship, which was the degree of relationship I had hypothesized to be true prior to starting the DNA project. This type of analysis is definitely something that you could include in your app. Sincerely, Tim -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andreas West Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 12:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data Hi Tim, Do you mean by your remark that with more DNA cousins in the TG you can make better predictions for their relationship to each other than rather focusing on just one relationship estimate between two people? If you are interested to try your idea out, then let's take the discussion offline and I will give it a try in my web app. BTW, we do automatic Chromosome mapping. Unfortunately can't send a picture on this email list to show you. Andreas

This needs more discussion. There is a big difference between a shared 7cM segment coming from an ancestor 20 generations ago - a real possibility; and some specific ancestor 20 generations ago being the one who passed down that segment - an extremely low probability. Some ancestor 20 generations ago may be true, but which one requires a LOT more evidence that just two very deep Trees which include the same ancestor. atDNA will "work" well beyond 4C, determining the Common Ancestor is much harder. Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > On Sep 29, 2017, at 7:00 PM, Andreas West <[email protected]> wrote: > > If such lines are well documented, yes. In most cases they are not. > > Andreas > >> On 30 Sep 2017, at 02:05, Wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 20th cousins? >> So you're saying it *is* possible to use atDNA to confirm lines into medieval times >>

20th cousins? So you're saying it *is* possible to use atDNA to confirm lines into medieval times -----Original Message----- From: Tim Janzen <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Sep 28, 2017 8:26 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data Dear Belinda, I have been emphasizing in my presentations for quite a few years that trying to predict the precise genealogical connection between any two people who share say 50 cMs or less with each other is fraught with problems. I try to emphasize that the relationship could be as close as 2nd cousins or could be as distant as 20th cousins. You can improve the predictions if you start using cousin clusters to generate the prediction for the genealogical relationships. However, none of the companies are doing that yet. We need to see the companies automate chromosome mapping, but that hasn't happened yet either. Sincerely, Tim -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Belinda Dettmann Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 5:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data Thanks for that, Tim. The degree of endogamy becomes important in the context of predicting relationships. Examples are in the statistics and guidelines given in references such as ISOGG where values only apply to populations with a degree of endogamy similar to that found in the USA. As a practical guide, the commonly used predictions (at FTDNA, 23andMe and ancestry.com) for known relationships from third cousin outward are not correct for ancestry which comes from mixtures of populations with less inbreeding than in the USA overall. As an Australian with mixed ancestry from 8 different regions of the British Isles, plus Germany and Poland, I have thousands of DNA matches, for which, for third cousins and worse, the predictions are all wrong. The relationships are much more distant than predicted and most links are impossible to find. Ranges usually cover the right value, but the actual predictions are rubbish. Similar situations apply for testers who live in the British isles, or South Africa, or New Zealand, or Poland, to my certain knowledge. We all find it disconcerting when told how close our middle-distance matches should be, when we know they are nothing of the kind. I agree that chromosome mapping is essential in doubtful situations, and I routinely download DNA for my known relatives to Gedmatch for that purpose, if they agree. There again, the guidelines for length of segments need some adjustments, as I find that fewer long and more short segments are the order of the day for known cousins of third degree or more in testers from mixed populations. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

List More mtDNA sequences from FTDNA customers who have made their own submissions are on the GenBank database. The sequence belong to Haplogroups: C1c, H1c5a, H1e2c, H3h,  H7, H13a1a1a, H15a1a, H26a, I3a, K1c2, T1a1q, T2a1a, U4d1a1, V1a1, W4b Please note 'MF975783' is erroneous as about 80 bases are missing from the sequence. As usual I have added the sequences to my 'Checker' program to ensure accuracy of transcription. Ian www.ianlogan.co.uk --------------------------- MF948152(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup K1c2 27-SEP-2017 A73G T146C T152C A263G 315.1C C498- A750G T1189C A1438G A1811G A2706G A3480G A4769G C7028T A8860G A9006G G9055A T9698C A10398G A10550G T11299C A11467G G11719A A12308G G12372A A14002G G14040A C14167T C14766T T14798C A15326G T16224C T16311C C16320T T16519C MF948153(Italy) FTDNA Haplogroup W4b 27-SEP-2017 A73G T119C G143A A189G C194T T195C T196C T204C G207A A263G 315.1C G709A A750G T1243C A2706G A3505G A4769G G5046A G5460A C7028T G7444A G8251A A8860G G8994A C11674T G11719A A11947G T12414C C12705T C14766T A15326G G15884C A15924G C16223T C16256T C16292T T16519C MF948154(Finland) FTDNA Haplogroup T1a1q 27-SEP-2017 A73G T152C T195C A263G 309.1C 315.1C G709A A750G A1438G G1888A A2706G T4216C A4769G A4917G C7028T G8697A A8860G T9899C T10463C A11251G C11266T G11719A C12633A G13368A C14766T G14905A A15326G C15452A A15607G G15928A T16126C A16163G C16186T T16189C C16294T T16519C MF948178(Czechia) FTDNA Haplogroup V1a1 27-SEP-2017 T72C A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G A2706G G4580A T4639C A4769G C5263T T5277C C7028T A8860G A8869G A15326G C15904T T16298C MF948179(Czechia) FTDNA Haplogroup H26a 27-SEP-2017 A210G A263G 309.1C 309.2C 315.1C C522- A523- T721C A750G A1438G A4769G A8860G A9545G T11152C A15326G T16519C MF959511(Cherokee) FTDNA Haplogroup C1c 27-SEP-2017 A73G A249- A263G A290- A291- 309.1C 315.1C T489C A750G A1438G G1888A A2706G T3552A A3948G A4715G A4769G C7028T C7196A G8584A A8700T A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G A10398G C10400T T10873C G11719A G11914A T12696C C12705T A13263G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A G15301A A15326G A15487T G15930A C16223T T16298C T16325C C16327T MF967030(Czech) FTDNA Haplogroup H1e2c 27-SEP-2017 A73G A263G 315.1C A750G A1438G G3010A A4769G G5460A A8860G A15326G A15817G G16153A T16519C MF967567(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup T2a1a 27-SEP-2017 A73G T252C A263G 315.1C G709A A750G A1438G G1888A A2706G T2850C T4216C A4769G A4917G T7022C C7028T G8697A A8860G T10463C A11251G G11719A A11812G G13368A T13965C A14233G A14687G C14766T G14905A A15326G C15452A A15607G G15928A T16126C C16256T C16294T C16296T T16519C MF973195(Kazakstan) FTDNA Haplogroup H15a1a 27-SEP-2017 T55C T57C 60.1T A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G A4769G T5495C T6253C A8860G C11143T T11410C C14953T A15326G MF973196(Finland) FTDNA Haplogroup H1c5a 27-SEP-2017 T152C A249- A263G 315.1C T477C A750G A1438G G3010A A4769G A8803G A8860G T8864C A15326G T16519C MF973198 FTDNA Haplogroup H7 27-SEP-2017 T152C A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G A4769G A4793G A8860G A15326G T15519C T16519C MF975781(Denmark) FTDNA Haplogroup H3h 27-SEP-2017 T152C A263G 315.1C A750G A1438G A4769G T6776C T8594C A8860G T12811C A15326G T16311C T16519C MF975782(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup H13a1a1a 27-SEP-2017 T152C A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G C2259T A4745G A4769G G7337A A8860G T13326C C13680T G14831A C14872T A15326G MF975783(Russia) FTDNA Haplogroup H5b 27-SEP-2017 Needs to be corrected MF975784(Swedish) FTDNA Haplogroup I3a 27-SEP-2017 A73G T152C T199C T204C G207A T239C T250C A263G 309.1C 309.2C 315.1C 523.1C 523.2A 523.3C 523.4A 523.5C 523.6A 573.1C 573.2C 573.3C 573.4C A750G A1438G G1719A A2706G G3882A A4529T A4769G A6040G C7028T G8251A T8260C A8860G T10034C T10238C A10398G G11719A G12501A C12705T A13780G A13974T C14766T G15043A A15326G A15924G T16086C G16129A T16189C C16223T G16391A T16519C MF975786(Finland) FTDNA Haplogroup U4d1a1 27-SEP-2017 A73G T195C A263G 309.1C 315.1C G499A 523.1C 523.2A T629C A750G A1438G A1811G 2405.1C A2706G C2772T T4646C A4769G A5984G T5999C A6047G C6938T C7028T T8260C 8289.1C 8289.2C 8289.3C 8289.4C 8289.5C 8289.6T 8289.7C 8289.8T 8289.9A A8860G C11332T A11467G G11719A A12308G G12372A C14620T C14766T A15326G T15693C T16356C T16519C

Thanks for that, Tim. The degree of endogamy becomes important in the context of predicting relationships. Examples are in the statistics and guidelines given in references such as ISOGG where values only apply to populations with a degree of endogamy similar to that found in the USA. As a practical guide, the commonly used predictions (at FTDNA, 23andMe and ancestry.com) for known relationships from third cousin outward are not correct for ancestry which comes from mixtures of populations with less inbreeding than in the USA overall. As an Australian with mixed ancestry from 8 different regions of the British Isles, plus Germany and Poland, I have thousands of DNA matches, for which, for third cousins and worse, the predictions are all wrong. The relationships are much more distant than predicted and most links are impossible to find. Ranges usually cover the right value, but the actual predictions are rubbish. Similar situations apply for testers who live in the British isles, or South Africa, or New Zealand, or Poland, to my certain knowledge. We all find it disconcerting when told how close our middle-distance matches should be, when we know they are nothing of the kind. I agree that chromosome mapping is essential in doubtful situations, and I routinely download DNA for my known relatives to Gedmatch for that purpose, if they agree. There again, the guidelines for length of segments need some adjustments, as I find that fewer long and more short segments are the order of the day for known cousins of third degree or more in testers from mixed populations. -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Janzen Subject: Re: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data Dear Belinda, You make some valid points. A point I would like to make is that endogamy is population specific. There is a lot of admixture in some populations and little in others. Even in the U. S. you have some areas and populations where there is a lot of endogamy and others where there is little. As a general rule, the Americans who live on the West Coast (outside Utah) have less endogamy than those who live on the East Coast who have early Colonial American roots... The importance of chromosome mapping can't be overemphasized since you can't use segments linked to one ancestral branch as part of the quantitative analysis of a genealogical research question for a different ancestral branch. Sincerely, Tim -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Belinda Dettmann Subject: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data It is important to realize that DNA testers with predominantly US ancestry come from an endogamous background, compared with the rest of the world. That is, there is a degree of inbreeding in the USA, compared with the rest of the world. This may not be apparent to local researchers, as most of the statistics are calculated from USA data, where endogamy has been ASSUMED to be zero. It is small indeed when compared to Ashkenazi or French-Canadian populations, but it is larger than in mixed populations generally.