Eric wrote: > I’d like to prune my tree of the “least-useful” people in it. I could > prune everyone who’s not directly related to (the descendants of the > ancestors of) my kid (the root person in my tree), but I don’t want to be > quite that exclusive. It’s useful to have (whatever-distance) cousins’ > spouses’ parents, for instance, because they provide triangulation > information on that “branch” which is useful when tree-comparing-trying to > figure out whether the Robert Wheeler in my tree is the same as the one in a > DNA cousin’s tree. Sounds like a job for LifeLines (an open source database on SourceForge). The LifeLines programming language has functions ancestorset(), descendantset(), and parentset(), as well as union(). These functions return respectively the set of all ancestors of anyone in the argument set, the set of all descendants of anyone in the argument set, and the set of all parents of anyone in the argument set, (and union does the obvious). You could start with a set containing any collection of interesting persons, such as your kid, and then successively take the union of it and its ancestorset and then the union of that with its descendantset and finally the union of that with its parentset. The resulting set can be output to GEDCOM and then imported into a new database. (There are also spouseset(), childset(), and siblingset() functions if you need them.) John Chandler

Post your whole tree to rootsweb But post your trimmed tree and use that one to link to your dna kit Sent from AOL Mobile Mail On Thursday, November 26, 2015, Eric S Johnson via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: Earlier on, it seemed wise to add to my tree anyone I could. Now, too often, someone writes me to say “Hey! We both have Gabiashvilis in our tree! That must be how we’re related!” (not to pick on the Georgians; simply, I love Georgian cuisine). But my Gabiashvilis are, like, 9g-grandparents of 3rd cousins of in-laws of a 7th cousin. I’d like to prune my tree of the “least-useful” people in it. I could prune everyone who’s not directly related to (the descendants of the ancestors of) my kid (the root person in my tree), but I don’t want to be quite that exclusive. It’s useful to have (whatever-distance) cousins’ spouses’ parents, for instance, because they provide triangulation information on that “branch” which is useful when tree-comparing-trying to figure out whether the Robert Wheeler in my tree is the same as the one in a DNA cousin’s tree. Can anyone think of a way to prune from a tree the most-distantly-related folks? Best, Eric OpenPGP <http://keyserver.pgp.com/vkd/DownloadKey.event?keyid=0xE0F58E0F1AF7E6F2> : 0x1AF7E6F2 ● Skype: oneota ● XMPP/OTR: berekum@jabber.ccc.de <mailto:berekum@jabber.ccc.de> ● Silent Circle: +1 312 614-0159 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Jim, Thank you. I wondered why I had so few matches in 25 pages of X matches. I've book marked your web site and will forward the link to the new cousin in Canada who has just received her FF results. Since we know how we are related, perhaps we can start by finding others who share the same segments. I have two other matches with whom I can do the same. By the way, Walter Chiles is one of my ancestors, too. Most of my mine arrived in Virginia in the 17th century, although the latecomer John Lindsey (arrived c 1832) should provide more interesting matches to English families. Lindsey -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> To: Lindsey Britton <lplantagenet@aol.com>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Cc: rpaine <rpaine@vom.com> Sent: Thu, Nov 26, 2015 5:16 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Question about Crossover on X Chromosome Lindsay The raw data has more X Matches than FTDNA reports. Upload to GEDmatch to see them all using their X-only utility. Plus even more X Matches who tested at 23andMe and AncestryDNA. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Lindsey Britton via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Robert--do you know what changes FTDNA is proposing? I received a notice several weeks ago that changes--I assumed improvements and better tools--were coming, but have no idea what they might be. While autosomal is interesting, it is too tedious to work with at present except when one is almost sure of the genealogical connection before contacting the match (this has been the case with all three contacts I initiated, and probably a fourth who never replied); however, those cases are rare since many FTDNA customers do not provide a surname list, or if they do, fail to note the location. As they say in real estate, location is everything. > > Lindsey > > > PS I searched 25 of 39 pages of X chromosome matches this afternoon using the standard you and Ann suggested and found only seven matches! > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Paine <rpaine@vom.com> > To: Lindsey Britton <lplantagenet@aol.com>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thu, Nov 26, 2015 2:25 pm > Subject: Re: [DNA] Question about Crossover on X Chromosome > > Lindsey > I ignore any segments for any chromosomes that are smaller than 5cM. My > early colonial and Irish ancestry cause many of the tiny segments to have > multiple lines of possible connection and segments smaller than 10cM to have > a much higher error rate. > > I think that Family finder would be more useful if they eliminated the > requirement for a total of 20cM shared Dna and eliminated the use of the > tiny segments. > > I have 14 project members in family finder but have pretty much stopped > working with family finder, I find that I prefer 23andme but am curious it > that will remain the case with the changes 23andme and Ftdna are proposing. > > RPaine > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lindsey Britton via > Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 10:34 AM > To: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] Question about Crossover on X Chromosome > > > Are you speaking of FTDNA? They are including very small segments. I think > you need to download all records from the chromosome and just focus on the > largest X segments (at least 7 cM and preferably 10 cM). > > Ann Turner > > **************** > > Thank you--yes, I was speaking of. FTDNA. What about other > chromosomes--does the threshold need to be that high, especially when a > common ancestor has been identified? > > Lindsey > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Ann It is true that 23andMe and AncestryDNA have larger atDNA databases than FTDNA. But it's tricky. I actually have more Matches wth segment data at FTDNA than either of the other two companies. At 23andMe, most of the Matches in their database are Anonymous and/or don't share with us - so what is the benefit of a million plus database if you cannot see the Matches or the data? And every week I get more FTDNA Matches, while 23andMe keeps a cap. And, although I now have over 10,000 Matches at Ancestry, reportedly based on phased data - but what good is that to me in chromosome mapping, triangulation or proving my ancestral lines. I could actually get even more Matches at Ancestry by just researching their Trees - no DNA test needed (since I can't see that data anyway). Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 26, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Ann Turner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > But... those are just Y and mtDNA results (until now), and not a very high > proportion of those are integrated into the FTDNA databases accessible to > customers. I hope the new Next Generation web pages will promote transfers > better than previously. I do think some people are misled by the statement > about having the largest database when they're considering where to > purchase an autosomal test. > > Ann Turner > > Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >> Andreas >> >> FTDNA has hundreds of thousands of Geno kits on file, plus some from their >> science side. I'm not sure what the grand total of all of them are. >> >> Jim - www.segmentology.org

Lindsay The raw data has more X Matches than FTDNA reports. Upload to GEDmatch to see them all using their X-only utility. Plus even more X Matches who tested at 23andMe and AncestryDNA. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Lindsey Britton via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Robert--do you know what changes FTDNA is proposing? I received a notice several weeks ago that changes--I assumed improvements and better tools--were coming, but have no idea what they might be. While autosomal is interesting, it is too tedious to work with at present except when one is almost sure of the genealogical connection before contacting the match (this has been the case with all three contacts I initiated, and probably a fourth who never replied); however, those cases are rare since many FTDNA customers do not provide a surname list, or if they do, fail to note the location. As they say in real estate, location is everything. > > Lindsey > > > PS I searched 25 of 39 pages of X chromosome matches this afternoon using the standard you and Ann suggested and found only seven matches! > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Paine <rpaine@vom.com> > To: Lindsey Britton <lplantagenet@aol.com>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thu, Nov 26, 2015 2:25 pm > Subject: Re: [DNA] Question about Crossover on X Chromosome > > Lindsey > I ignore any segments for any chromosomes that are smaller than 5cM. My > early colonial and Irish ancestry cause many of the tiny segments to have > multiple lines of possible connection and segments smaller than 10cM to have > a much higher error rate. > > I think that Family finder would be more useful if they eliminated the > requirement for a total of 20cM shared Dna and eliminated the use of the > tiny segments. > > I have 14 project members in family finder but have pretty much stopped > working with family finder, I find that I prefer 23andme but am curious it > that will remain the case with the changes 23andme and Ftdna are proposing. > > RPaine > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lindsey Britton via > Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 10:34 AM > To: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] Question about Crossover on X Chromosome > > > Are you speaking of FTDNA? They are including very small segments. I think > you need to download all records from the chromosome and just focus on the > largest X segments (at least 7 cM and preferably 10 cM). > > Ann Turner > > **************** > > Thank you--yes, I was speaking of. FTDNA. What about other > chromosomes--does the threshold need to be that high, especially when a > common ancestor has been identified? > > Lindsey > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Robert--do you know what changes FTDNA is proposing? I received a notice several weeks ago that changes--I assumed improvements and better tools--were coming, but have no idea what they might be. While autosomal is interesting, it is too tedious to work with at present except when one is almost sure of the genealogical connection before contacting the match (this has been the case with all three contacts I initiated, and probably a fourth who never replied); however, those cases are rare since many FTDNA customers do not provide a surname list, or if they do, fail to note the location. As they say in real estate, location is everything. Lindsey PS I searched 25 of 39 pages of X chromosome matches this afternoon using the standard you and Ann suggested and found only seven matches! -----Original Message----- From: Robert Paine <rpaine@vom.com> To: Lindsey Britton <lplantagenet@aol.com>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thu, Nov 26, 2015 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Question about Crossover on X Chromosome Lindsey I ignore any segments for any chromosomes that are smaller than 5cM. My early colonial and Irish ancestry cause many of the tiny segments to have multiple lines of possible connection and segments smaller than 10cM to have a much higher error rate. I think that Family finder would be more useful if they eliminated the requirement for a total of 20cM shared Dna and eliminated the use of the tiny segments. I have 14 project members in family finder but have pretty much stopped working with family finder, I find that I prefer 23andme but am curious it that will remain the case with the changes 23andme and Ftdna are proposing. RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Lindsey Britton via Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 10:34 AM To: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Question about Crossover on X Chromosome Are you speaking of FTDNA? They are including very small segments. I think you need to download all records from the chromosome and just focus on the largest X segments (at least 7 cM and preferably 10 cM). Ann Turner **************** Thank you--yes, I was speaking of. FTDNA. What about other chromosomes--does the threshold need to be that high, especially when a common ancestor has been identified? Lindsey ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Robert, Thank you--I thought there must be a problem somewhere, but didn't know the nature of it. I will use these filters from now on--they should shorten my list of 39 pages of X matches considerably. It's unfortunate FTNA doesn't have a sex-based filter and better tools in general for FF. I'm sorry 23 and me combines medical and genealogical tests--otherwise, I would probably have opted for 23 and me over FF because of the additional genetic information that test provides, but I don't want a medical test which might cause unnecessary concern. We haven't yet reached the point where the consequences of various mutations are properly understood. Lindsey -----Original Message----- From: Robert Paine <rpaine@vom.com> To: Lindsey Britton <lplantagenet@aol.com>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thu, Nov 26, 2015 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Question about Crossovers on X Chromasome Lindsey The smaller X-matches at Ftdna are not very reliable. I apply the 23andme sex based filter when looking at Family finder X-matches. The match must be larger than both the cM and SNP thresholds X (male vs male): 200 SNPs, 1 cM X (male vs female): 600 SNPs, 6 cM X (female vs female): 1200 SNPs, 6 cM Females show a high percentage of false X-matches at Ftdna, probably over 70% of them are Identical by chance rather than by descent. I am male and show 21 X-matches out of over 1300 total matches. My full sister shows 287 X-matches out of over 1400 total matches My sister inherited about 10% more of our grandparents UK Dna than I did, which is reflected in our total number of matches. RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Lindsey Britton via Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 6:40 AM To: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Question about Crossovers on X Chromasome I have done very little with my Mother's FF test but last week an e-mail from a match (I'll call her #1) inspired me to start searching for the common ancestor. That search produced a second (#2) and closer match (new on November 4th) for my mother. Match #1 has also tested her mother, son, and several other relatives; however, she matches my mother and match #2 on the X chromosome whereas the her mother does not, indicating that the X match came from her father's side.. (The other relatives, including her sister, don't match at all.) I wrote to Match #2 because she has ancestors in Oxfordshire just as we do, and her reply identified at least one ancestral line. I am now waiting to hear exactly how she is related to my mother's 3rd great grandmother Mary Eley. FTDNA lists them as 2nd-4th cousins--probably third, but she does not descend from Mary so the relationship will be somewhat more distant. There is no question about this relationship, though; our Eley line is well-documented back to the 1600s in Oxfordshire. The question is: do we have other lines in common which make this relationship appear closer than it is? Mary Eley passed her X chromosome to her son John Lindsey, but since it did not descend to his son (my mother's grandfather), there must be at least one more common line of descent unless the X matches lie within a pseudoautosomal region. Can anyone tell me the exact locations of PAR1, PAR2, and PAR3? The matches are at the centromere, but I don't know whether they extend beyond that region. Match 1: 53915099-67881743 Match 2: 51333207-67881743 I have checked every X match on the first two pages of X matches and discovered 14 more with the same end point. Of the four others with different end points, two had the same start point as Match #1. A third had the same start point as one of the group of 16, and the fourth, like Match 2, had a unique (so far) start point. Another related question--how does one decide, in the absence of paper evidence, that the match is actually on the same chromosome when either the start or end point doesn't match exactly or when the matching regions overlap but neither the start nor end point matches? Last question--does anyone know when FTDNA plans to make the new FF tools available? Lindsey ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Are you speaking of FTDNA? They are including very small segments. I think you need to download all records from the chromosome and just focus on the largest X segments (at least 7 cM and preferably 10 cM). Ann Turner **************** Thank you--yes, I was speaking of. FTDNA. What about other chromosomes--does the threshold need to be that high, especially when a common ancestor has been identified? Lindsey

Thank you all for the insights on the Y DNA test! They provide lots of additional useful information for me to forward to our group member. Karla On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Doris Wheeler <doriswh@gmail.com> wrote: > I have found that many people choose to not disclose 12 or even 25 markers > Therefore, you won't see those unless you do upgrade. > > Doris > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Karla Huebner via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> A member of our local DNA interest group has tested her brother at what >> sounds like 12 markers. He has no matches. She wonders whether adding >> markers would up his chances of getting a match. >> >> I said that my understanding was that usually it would not, but that if >> the >> non-matching markers were concentrated in the 12, conceivably a 25 or 37 >> marker upgrade might produce a match. >> >> Let me know if I have misrepresented anything there so that if necessary I >> can correct what I told her--I am not that experienced with Y so I am >> tentative about advising people on it. >> >> -- >> Karla Huebner >> calypsospots AT gmail.com >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > -- Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com

I've now looked at the first 10 pages of X chromosome matches, and most of them match in the same region and have one of only several end points. So how useful are X chromosome matches like these? Lindsey

Lindsey I ignore any segments for any chromosomes that are smaller than 5cM. My early colonial and Irish ancestry cause many of the tiny segments to have multiple lines of possible connection and segments smaller than 10cM to have a much higher error rate. I think that Family finder would be more useful if they eliminated the requirement for a total of 20cM shared Dna and eliminated the use of the tiny segments. I have 14 project members in family finder but have pretty much stopped working with family finder, I find that I prefer 23andme but am curious it that will remain the case with the changes 23andme and Ftdna are proposing. RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Lindsey Britton via Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 10:34 AM To: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Question about Crossover on X Chromosome Are you speaking of FTDNA? They are including very small segments. I think you need to download all records from the chromosome and just focus on the largest X segments (at least 7 cM and preferably 10 cM). Ann Turner **************** Thank you--yes, I was speaking of. FTDNA. What about other chromosomes--does the threshold need to be that high, especially when a common ancestor has been identified? Lindsey ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Right, and if you add up all the Y-DNA, including Big Y and SNPs, mtDNA, and atDNA, I'll bet the number exceeds Ancestry's and 23andMe's. Doris On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Jim Bartlett via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Andreas > > FTDNA has hundreds of thousands of Geno kits on file, plus some from their > science side. I'm not sure what the grand total of all of them are. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Loretta Layman via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > Thank you for the correction as to atDNA Andreas. Perhaps FTDNA should > > restate their claim. It certainly was true for many years, but no doubt > > Ancestry's superior assets and advertising have begun to pay off in atDNA > > customers. As with society in general, those who have more money are > able > > to invest more and thus gain more. > > > > > > > > In any case, it still stands that Ancestry's reply claiming a lack of > female > > interest in Y-DNA is simply false. > > > > > > > > Loretta > > > > > > > > From: Andreas West [mailto:ahnen@awest.de] > > Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 3:18 AM > > To: Loretta Layman; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > > Subject: FTDNA's claim to have the largest DNA database is wrong! > > > > > > > > Loretta, > > > > > > > > > > > > a small correction. FTDNA's claim to have the world largest DNA database > is > > wrong. Either 23andme or Ancestry has it, both have over 1 million atDNA > > tests since months. FTDNA doesn't even have half of that. > > > > > > > > They have the largest Y-DNA and mtDNA database in the world. > > > > > > > > I know it's just Marketing bla bla but let's keep it straight and factual > > > > > > > > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO > > > > > > > > My ancestors: <http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23> > > http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23 > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Karla Most of us tend to be more knowledgeable about our own haplogroup so you can probably get better information if you mention what haplogroup the friend is working with and what part of the world the lineage came from. The databases are largely composed of men with ancestry from western Europe. RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Karla Huebner via Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 9:53 AM Cc: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Y DNA query Thank you all for the insights on the Y DNA test! They provide lots of additional useful information for me to forward to our group member. Karla On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Doris Wheeler <doriswh@gmail.com> wrote: > I have found that many people choose to not disclose 12 or even 25 markers > Therefore, you won't see those unless you do upgrade. > > Doris > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Karla Huebner via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> A member of our local DNA interest group has tested her brother at what >> sounds like 12 markers. He has no matches. She wonders whether adding >> markers would up his chances of getting a match. >> >> I said that my understanding was that usually it would not, but that if >> the >> non-matching markers were concentrated in the 12, conceivably a 25 or 37 >> marker upgrade might produce a match. >> >> Let me know if I have misrepresented anything there so that if necessary >> I >> can correct what I told her--I am not that experienced with Y so I am >> tentative about advising people on it. >> >> -- >> Karla Huebner >> calypsospots AT gmail.com >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > -- Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Lindsey The smaller X-matches at Ftdna are not very reliable. I apply the 23andme sex based filter when looking at Family finder X-matches. The match must be larger than both the cM and SNP thresholds X (male vs male): 200 SNPs, 1 cM X (male vs female): 600 SNPs, 6 cM X (female vs female): 1200 SNPs, 6 cM Females show a high percentage of false X-matches at Ftdna, probably over 70% of them are Identical by chance rather than by descent. I am male and show 21 X-matches out of over 1300 total matches. My full sister shows 287 X-matches out of over 1400 total matches My sister inherited about 10% more of our grandparents UK Dna than I did, which is reflected in our total number of matches. RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Lindsey Britton via Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 6:40 AM To: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Question about Crossovers on X Chromasome I have done very little with my Mother's FF test but last week an e-mail from a match (I'll call her #1) inspired me to start searching for the common ancestor. That search produced a second (#2) and closer match (new on November 4th) for my mother. Match #1 has also tested her mother, son, and several other relatives; however, she matches my mother and match #2 on the X chromosome whereas the her mother does not, indicating that the X match came from her father's side.. (The other relatives, including her sister, don't match at all.) I wrote to Match #2 because she has ancestors in Oxfordshire just as we do, and her reply identified at least one ancestral line. I am now waiting to hear exactly how she is related to my mother's 3rd great grandmother Mary Eley. FTDNA lists them as 2nd-4th cousins--probably third, but she does not descend from Mary so the relationship will be somewhat more distant. There is no question about this relationship, though; our Eley line is well-documented back to the 1600s in Oxfordshire. The question is: do we have other lines in common which make this relationship appear closer than it is? Mary Eley passed her X chromosome to her son John Lindsey, but since it did not descend to his son (my mother's grandfather), there must be at least one more common line of descent unless the X matches lie within a pseudoautosomal region. Can anyone tell me the exact locations of PAR1, PAR2, and PAR3? The matches are at the centromere, but I don't know whether they extend beyond that region. Match 1: 53915099-67881743 Match 2: 51333207-67881743 I have checked every X match on the first two pages of X matches and discovered 14 more with the same end point. Of the four others with different end points, two had the same start point as Match #1. A third had the same start point as one of the group of 16, and the fourth, like Match 2, had a unique (so far) start point. Another related question--how does one decide, in the absence of paper evidence, that the match is actually on the same chromosome when either the start or end point doesn't match exactly or when the matching regions overlap but neither the start nor end point matches? Last question--does anyone know when FTDNA plans to make the new FF tools available? Lindsey ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have done very little with my Mother's FF test but last week an e-mail from a match (I'll call her #1) inspired me to start searching for the common ancestor. That search produced a second (#2) and closer match (new on November 4th) for my mother. Match #1 has also tested her mother, son, and several other relatives; however, she matches my mother and match #2 on the X chromosome whereas the her mother does not, indicating that the X match came from her father's side.. (The other relatives, including her sister, don't match at all.) I wrote to Match #2 because she has ancestors in Oxfordshire just as we do, and her reply identified at least one ancestral line. I am now waiting to hear exactly how she is related to my mother's 3rd great grandmother Mary Eley. FTDNA lists them as 2nd-4th cousins--probably third, but she does not descend from Mary so the relationship will be somewhat more distant. There is no question about this relationship, though; our Eley line is well-documented back to the 1600s in Oxfordshire. The question is: do we have other lines in common which make this relationship appear closer than it is? Mary Eley passed her X chromosome to her son John Lindsey, but since it did not descend to his son (my mother's grandfather), there must be at least one more common line of descent unless the X matches lie within a pseudoautosomal region. Can anyone tell me the exact locations of PAR1, PAR2, and PAR3? The matches are at the centromere, but I don't know whether they extend beyond that region. Match 1: 53915099-67881743 Match 2: 51333207-67881743 I have checked every X match on the first two pages of X matches and discovered 14 more with the same end point. Of the four others with different end points, two had the same start point as Match #1. A third had the same start point as one of the group of 16, and the fourth, like Match 2, had a unique (so far) start point. Another related question--how does one decide, in the absence of paper evidence, that the match is actually on the same chromosome when either the start or end point doesn't match exactly or when the matching regions overlap but neither the start nor end point matches? Last question--does anyone know when FTDNA plans to make the new FF tools available? Lindsey

Are you speaking of FTDNA? They are including very small segments. I think you need to download all records from the chromosome and just focus on the largest X segments (at least 7 cM and preferably 10 cM). Ann Turner On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Lindsey Britton via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I've now looked at the first 10 pages of X chromosome matches, and most of > them match in the same region and have one of only several end points. So > how useful are X chromosome matches like these? > > Lindsey > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

But... those are just Y and mtDNA results (until now), and not a very high proportion of those are integrated into the FTDNA databases accessible to customers. I hope the new Next Generation web pages will promote transfers better than previously. I do think some people are misled by the statement about having the largest database when they're considering where to purchase an autosomal test. Ann Turner Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Andreas > > FTDNA has hundreds of thousands of Geno kits on file, plus some from their > science side. I'm not sure what the grand total of all of them are. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Loretta Layman via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > Thank you for the correction as to atDNA Andreas. Perhaps FTDNA should > > restate their claim. It certainly was true for many years, but no doubt > > Ancestry's superior assets and advertising have begun to pay off in atDNA > > customers. As with society in general, those who have more money are > able > > to invest more and thus gain more. >

Thank you for the correction as to atDNA Andreas. Perhaps FTDNA should restate their claim. It certainly was true for many years, but no doubt Ancestry's superior assets and advertising have begun to pay off in atDNA customers. As with society in general, those who have more money are able to invest more and thus gain more. In any case, it still stands that Ancestry's reply claiming a lack of female interest in Y-DNA is simply false. Loretta From: Andreas West [mailto:ahnen@awest.de] Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 3:18 AM To: Loretta Layman; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: FTDNA's claim to have the largest DNA database is wrong! Loretta, a small correction. FTDNA's claim to have the world largest DNA database is wrong. Either 23andme or Ancestry has it, both have over 1 million atDNA tests since months. FTDNA doesn't even have half of that. They have the largest Y-DNA and mtDNA database in the world. I know it's just Marketing bla bla but let's keep it straight and factual Andreas (WEST) born BASSO My ancestors: <http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23> http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23

Loretta, a small correction. FTDNA's claim to have the world largest DNA database is wrong. Either 23andme or Ancestry has it, both have over 1 million atDNA tests since months. FTDNA doesn't even have half of that. They have the largest Y-DNA and mtDNA database in the world. I know it's just Marketing bla bla but let's keep it straight and factual Andreas (WEST) born BASSO My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) "Loretta Layman via" <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > FamilyTreeDNA does all the DNA tests for > National Geographics Genographic Project and has the world's largest DNA > database.

Andreas FTDNA has hundreds of thousands of Geno kits on file, plus some from their science side. I'm not sure what the grand total of all of them are. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Loretta Layman via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Thank you for the correction as to atDNA Andreas. Perhaps FTDNA should > restate their claim. It certainly was true for many years, but no doubt > Ancestry's superior assets and advertising have begun to pay off in atDNA > customers. As with society in general, those who have more money are able > to invest more and thus gain more. > > > > In any case, it still stands that Ancestry's reply claiming a lack of female > interest in Y-DNA is simply false. > > > > Loretta > > > > From: Andreas West [mailto:ahnen@awest.de] > Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 3:18 AM > To: Loretta Layman; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: FTDNA's claim to have the largest DNA database is wrong! > > > > Loretta, > > > > > > a small correction. FTDNA's claim to have the world largest DNA database is > wrong. Either 23andme or Ancestry has it, both have over 1 million atDNA > tests since months. FTDNA doesn't even have half of that. > > > > They have the largest Y-DNA and mtDNA database in the world. > > > > I know it's just Marketing bla bla but let's keep it straight and factual > > > > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO > > > > My ancestors: <http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23> > http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message