List Readers might be interested to look at this new paper: 'Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans' Zuzana Hofmanová, et al. which is a free download on: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/11/25/032763 The paper is accompanied by 7 mtDNA sequences with the GenBank accession numbers KU171094-KT171100 (which will be available shortly, no doubt) Ian ----------------- Abstract Farming and sedentism first appear in southwest Asia during the early Holocene and later spread to neighboring regions, including Europe, along multiple dispersal routes. Conspicuous uncertainties remain about the relative roles of migration, cultural diffusion and admixture with local foragers in the early Neolithisation of Europe. Here we present paleogenomic data for five Neolithic individuals from northwestern Turkey and northern Greece, spanning the time and region of the earliest spread of farming into Europe. We observe striking genetic similarity both among Aegean early farmers and with those from across Europe. Our study demonstrates a direct genetic link between Mediterranean and Central European early farmers and those of Greece and Anatolia, extending the European Neolithic migratory chain all the way back to southwestern Asia.

Thomas, Many thanks for this. I guess the "inconsistent" calls could be parallel mutations in different lines.... We are presumably dealing with very long time frames, so parallel mutation might be expected. As limited as this data is, and perhaps being very ancient DNA, prone to contamination and error, can any rough inferences be seen as to the time of branching from the line to humans? Clearly from your information it seems before A00. John. Sent from my iPad > On 25/11/2015, at 8:53 pm, Thomas Krahn via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Dear Ian, > > Thanks very much for your updates and analysis. > > I have made something similar with the Y chromosome side for Denisova8. > This is of course way more speculative since the few reads most of the > time only have a 1x coverage and the most part consists of huge gaps. > Anyways, since there are no Neanderthal Y sequences, we're grasping for > straws. Finally some really ancient Y-DNA. > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2lGDNiBM85QUllVS1g3eFVSdHc/view > > I was actually surprised that in context with gorilla, chimp and A00 > sequences, some of the base changes made sense. We can see multiple A0-T > markers that we previously discovered from A00 samples confirmed. At > least 20 mutations match up with chimp and gorilla and can therefore be > attributed to the novel branch A00-T with significant confidence. > Note that this number of 20 ancestral Denisova8 alleles is significantly > higher than the 8 phylogenetic inconsistent mutations that I've found. > > I have also registered 130 mutations that could potentially be derived > in Denisova, however they are purely speculative. > I have not filtered them for quality or for stable regions. Only > consider them with a grain of salt. They are not worth a publication, > but when more ancient Y-DNA sequences become available they may be used > for comparison. > > Thomas > > >> On 11/24/2015 11:39 AM, Ian Logan via wrote: >> List >> >> Readers might be interested to see the mitochondrial details >> and abstract that accompany this paper: >> >> "Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences from two Denisovan individuals" >> Sawyer,S., Renaud,G., Viola,B., Prufer,K., Kelso,J. and Paabo,S. >> >> A free download on: >> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/11/1519905112.full.pdf >> >> The date of divergence of the Denisovan line from the modern human line >> would appear to be around 900-1,000 kya. >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > 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 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 >

David, I am still grieving for the loss of the ancestry Y-DNA database, and the Sorenson databases. Before those closed I tried for ages to download a record copy of matches for my family tested with them, but alas I was unable to access the web site to recover all the information I needed. All I can hope is that a future owner of Ancestry will be more enlightened, and reactivate their dormant resources.............. If they can still find them at the bottom of the trash can. Ancestry told me that there were only 3 billion males on earth, so it wasn't sufficient potential market for them to be involved in Y-DNA. Of the living females on earth, only 3 billion were thought by Ancestry to have had a male parent, so they were not considered sufficient market either. Clearly they don't think females are particularly interested in the male side of their ancestry. Perhaps to save money, Ancestry should remove all males from their on line trees, census returns, parish registers, and genealogical resources generally. Am I all bitter and twisted about it? I refuse to answer that question! Ancestry still have some useful resources, but do I think that as a company they can be trusted...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... John. Sent from my iPad > On 25/11/2015, at 5:22 pm, David Faux via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > And this should bring me consolation? The outcome is the same - and as you > can probably sense, I am furious with Ancestry based on what they have done > to me (including siphoning 2 grand from my bank account and leaving me and > a hundred or so cousins with nothing). > > David. > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Drew Smith via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, David Faux via < >> genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I guess that I am looking at all these changes on a relative scale - >>> relative to what Ancestry.com did to us when they precipitously cancelled >>> MyFamily (which they had earlier purchased). >>> >> >> Ancestry didn't purchase MyFamily. Ancestry changed the name of its >> holding company from Ancestry to MyFamily in 1999. MyFamily had always >> belonged to Ancestry. >> >> Drew Smith >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

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

My adopted has only this year received his 1st 12 marker distant match in Russia, he R1a1a1. There is a percentage of men who receive zero matches and testing additional markers seldom changes things. His haplogroup will have a bearing on his number of matches. Is he tested at Ftdna or did he test through the Nation Geographic Geno 1 project. If Geno 1 make sure he has transferred his results and sample to Ftdna. Make sure that he has opted to be compared with the entire Ftdna database and that he he joins the appropriate Ftdna haplogroup project. RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Karla Huebner via Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 2:18 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Y DNA query 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

Dear John, I've changed the topic so that we don't hijack Ian's thread. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2lGDNiBM85QUllVS1g3eFVSdHc/view I should have mentioned that there is another tab (Sheet 2) in the file that shows the phylogeny roughly as I see it. Considering 20 mutations consistent with the hypothesis that a A00-T branch exists, versus only 8 mutations that speak for any alternative constellation (e.g. Denisova-A0-T with A00 on a different branch or Denisova as a branch of Chimp etc.), I'm very confident that the given phylogeny is the correct one. If those were random mutations, we'd expect about 3/4 of them to not match the A00-T hypothesis and only 1/4 to match it. Yes, you are right that the "inconsistent" calls could be back- or parallel mutations. But there is also a significant margin of technical error. At a layer of 1x there are simply a lot of bogus base calls with NGS sequencing. I'm already very pleased that there is at least some weak evidence that confirms the phylogeny we've found from our A00 samples. The whole field of non-contemporary human Y chromosome research is in very early stages. The biggest problem is the lack of male DNA samples. All Neanderthal samples are females, as well as the gorilla sequence at UCSC. I had to make my own hg19 mapping for the gorilla Tzambo from the Great Ape Genome Project. http://biologiaevolutiva.org/greatape/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/SRX243503[accn] That's why I think it's important to support Bonnie Schrack's A00 Cameroon Project: https://experiment.com/projects/go-west-young-man-in-search-of-the-a00-haplogroup-among-peoples-of-western-cameroon We have now several hundred samples and almost 40 of them are in A00. It is now important to pick selected samples for NGS sequencing and someone needs to pay for that. I have always helped Bonnie with free extra SNP tests, but NGS testing also exceeds my personal budget. So please consider donating a little to this project. How about taking a coupon code for your own Big Y and pledging the difference to the Cameroon A00 project :) Thanks, Thomas On 11/25/2015 09:39 AM, AJ Marsh wrote: > Thomas, > > Many thanks for this. > > I guess the "inconsistent" calls could be parallel mutations in different lines.... We are presumably dealing with very long time frames, so parallel mutation might be expected. > > As limited as this data is, and perhaps being very ancient DNA, prone to contamination and error, can any rough inferences be seen as to the time of branching from the line to humans? Clearly from your information it seems before A00. > > John. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 25/11/2015, at 8:53 pm, Thomas Krahn via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Ian, >> >> Thanks very much for your updates and analysis. >> >> I have made something similar with the Y chromosome side for Denisova8. >> This is of course way more speculative since the few reads most of the >> time only have a 1x coverage and the most part consists of huge gaps. >> Anyways, since there are no Neanderthal Y sequences, we're grasping for >> straws. Finally some really ancient Y-DNA. >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2lGDNiBM85QUllVS1g3eFVSdHc/view >> >> I was actually surprised that in context with gorilla, chimp and A00 >> sequences, some of the base changes made sense. We can see multiple A0-T >> markers that we previously discovered from A00 samples confirmed. At >> least 20 mutations match up with chimp and gorilla and can therefore be >> attributed to the novel branch A00-T with significant confidence. >> Note that this number of 20 ancestral Denisova8 alleles is significantly >> higher than the 8 phylogenetic inconsistent mutations that I've found. >> >> I have also registered 130 mutations that could potentially be derived >> in Denisova, however they are purely speculative. >> I have not filtered them for quality or for stable regions. Only >> consider them with a grain of salt. They are not worth a publication, >> but when more ancient Y-DNA sequences become available they may be used >> for comparison. >> >> Thomas >> >> >>> On 11/24/2015 11:39 AM, Ian Logan via wrote: >>> List >>> >>> Readers might be interested to see the mitochondrial details >>> and abstract that accompany this paper: >>> >>> "Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences from two Denisovan individuals" >>> Sawyer,S., Renaud,G., Viola,B., Prufer,K., Kelso,J. and Paabo,S. >>> >>> A free download on: >>> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/11/1519905112.full.pdf >>> >>> The date of divergence of the Denisovan line from the modern human line >>> would appear to be around 900-1,000 kya. >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

First, make sure he's in a project of some sort to see ALL his matches at 12 markers. I learned this little nuance earlier this year, that only exact matches show at 12 markers unless they are in a project (join Project Pending if their isn't a suitable surname) https://www.familytreedna.com/group-join.aspx?Group=Project_Pending Next it would probably depend on the haplogroup whether it makes sense to add additional markers. Good luck~ Mary E Hall Santa Barbara, CA On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:18 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 >

I don't know what Ancestry.com is saying, but I can confirm that many of want to know more about our families, regardless of whether it is a paternal or maternal lineage. These different types of DNA are just tools. There are several nice things that Y DNA can show. It provides great resolution through stable SNPs (passed down as is) that occur every couple-three generations and STRs that also mutate frequently and help form a huge matching database. Then Y DNA also can provide cross-validation via surnames. This is particularly helpful where genealogical records leave off going back in time. Going back to the statements, I'm male but I definitely care about both my grandmothers' ancestry. Good gosh, I have Civil War and Revolutionary War veterans in them. Besides, I could never do anything wrong in a grandmother's eyes. atDNA is helpful but not so much for the deep connections I'd like to see too, so mtDNA is good but mtDNA doesn't have the resolution that Y DNA does. Good news, though, my grandmothers each had fathers. duh! but I've got (via cousins) the Y DNA of three of four great-grandfathers so I just need one more. That gives me partial coverage of my grandmothers' heritage as well as my father's line, in a very high resolution way. I'd love to get all eight great-great-grandfathers. I don't think I will get that far though. Regards, Mike W On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Loretta Layman via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Ancestry is dead wrong about females not being interested in paternal > ancestry. Time and again, I have men being recruited for Y-DNA by their > sisters, nieces, aunts, and female cousins for my project at FamilyTreeDNA. > I myself am a contact for my brother's FTDNA account, created and > administer > the project for our surname, and have spent 35 years in traditional > genealogical research of my father's lineage more than all my other family > lines combined. > > My suspicion is that Ancestry simply couldn't compete with FTDNA for Y-DNA. > No business is perfect, any more than individuals are perfect, but some > clearly are better than others. FamilyTreeDNA does all the DNA tests for > National Geographics Genographic Project and has the world's largest DNA > database. > > As to MyFamily, that is a sore point with me as well. There nearly 1,000 > images on my MyFamily site, about half of which were uploaded by distant > cousins. They were invaluable. Unfortunately, when I downloaded them > ahead > of the announced closing date, every one of them came with generic file > names assigned by MyFamily/Ancestry rather than the original file names. > The result is that every image needed scrutiny and renaming. > > Loretta > > -----Original Message----- > From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:21 AM > To: David Faux; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] new 23andMe > > David, > > I am still grieving for the loss of the ancestry Y-DNA database, and the > Sorenson databases. Before those closed I tried for ages to download a > record copy of matches for my family tested with them, but alas I was > unable > to access the web site to recover all the information I needed. > > All I can hope is that a future owner of Ancestry will be more enlightened, > and reactivate their dormant resources.............. If they can still > find > them at the bottom of the trash can. > > Ancestry told me that there were only 3 billion males on earth, so it > wasn't > sufficient potential market for them to be involved in Y-DNA. Of the > living > females on earth, only 3 billion were thought by Ancestry to have had a > male > parent, so they were not considered sufficient market either. Clearly they > don't think females are particularly interested in the male side of their > ancestry. > > Perhaps to save money, Ancestry should remove all males from their on line > trees, census returns, parish registers, and genealogical resources > generally. > > Am I all bitter and twisted about it? I refuse to answer that question! > > Ancestry still have some useful resources, but do I think that as a company > they can be > > trusted..................................................................... > > ............................................................................ > ..................................................................... > > John. > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 25/11/2015, at 5:22 pm, David Faux via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > > > And this should bring me consolation? The outcome is the same - and > > as you can probably sense, I am furious with Ancestry based on what > > they have done to me (including siphoning 2 grand from my bank account > > and leaving me and a hundred or so cousins with nothing). > > > > David. > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Drew Smith via > > <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > >> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, David Faux via < > >> genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I guess that I am looking at all these changes on a relative scale - > >>> relative to what Ancestry.com did to us when they precipitously > >>> cancelled MyFamily (which they had earlier purchased). > >>> > >> > >> Ancestry didn't purchase MyFamily. Ancestry changed the name of its > >> holding company from Ancestry to MyFamily in 1999. MyFamily had > >> always belonged to Ancestry. > >> > >> Drew Smith > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Ancestry is dead wrong about females not being interested in paternal ancestry. Time and again, I have men being recruited for Y-DNA by their sisters, nieces, aunts, and female cousins for my project at FamilyTreeDNA. I myself am a contact for my brother's FTDNA account, created and administer the project for our surname, and have spent 35 years in traditional genealogical research of my father's lineage more than all my other family lines combined. My suspicion is that Ancestry simply couldn't compete with FTDNA for Y-DNA. No business is perfect, any more than individuals are perfect, but some clearly are better than others. FamilyTreeDNA does all the DNA tests for National Geographics Genographic Project and has the world's largest DNA database. As to MyFamily, that is a sore point with me as well. There nearly 1,000 images on my MyFamily site, about half of which were uploaded by distant cousins. They were invaluable. Unfortunately, when I downloaded them ahead of the announced closing date, every one of them came with generic file names assigned by MyFamily/Ancestry rather than the original file names. The result is that every image needed scrutiny and renaming. Loretta -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:21 AM To: David Faux; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] new 23andMe David, I am still grieving for the loss of the ancestry Y-DNA database, and the Sorenson databases. Before those closed I tried for ages to download a record copy of matches for my family tested with them, but alas I was unable to access the web site to recover all the information I needed. All I can hope is that a future owner of Ancestry will be more enlightened, and reactivate their dormant resources.............. If they can still find them at the bottom of the trash can. Ancestry told me that there were only 3 billion males on earth, so it wasn't sufficient potential market for them to be involved in Y-DNA. Of the living females on earth, only 3 billion were thought by Ancestry to have had a male parent, so they were not considered sufficient market either. Clearly they don't think females are particularly interested in the male side of their ancestry. Perhaps to save money, Ancestry should remove all males from their on line trees, census returns, parish registers, and genealogical resources generally. Am I all bitter and twisted about it? I refuse to answer that question! Ancestry still have some useful resources, but do I think that as a company they can be trusted..................................................................... ............................................................................ ..................................................................... John. Sent from my iPad > On 25/11/2015, at 5:22 pm, David Faux via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > And this should bring me consolation? The outcome is the same - and > as you can probably sense, I am furious with Ancestry based on what > they have done to me (including siphoning 2 grand from my bank account > and leaving me and a hundred or so cousins with nothing). > > David. > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Drew Smith via > <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, David Faux via < >> genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I guess that I am looking at all these changes on a relative scale - >>> relative to what Ancestry.com did to us when they precipitously >>> cancelled MyFamily (which they had earlier purchased). >>> >> >> Ancestry didn't purchase MyFamily. Ancestry changed the name of its >> holding company from Ancestry to MyFamily in 1999. MyFamily had >> always belonged to Ancestry. >> >> Drew Smith >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 ------------------------------- 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

Dear Ian, Thanks very much for your updates and analysis. I have made something similar with the Y chromosome side for Denisova8. This is of course way more speculative since the few reads most of the time only have a 1x coverage and the most part consists of huge gaps. Anyways, since there are no Neanderthal Y sequences, we're grasping for straws. Finally some really ancient Y-DNA. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2lGDNiBM85QUllVS1g3eFVSdHc/view I was actually surprised that in context with gorilla, chimp and A00 sequences, some of the base changes made sense. We can see multiple A0-T markers that we previously discovered from A00 samples confirmed. At least 20 mutations match up with chimp and gorilla and can therefore be attributed to the novel branch A00-T with significant confidence. Note that this number of 20 ancestral Denisova8 alleles is significantly higher than the 8 phylogenetic inconsistent mutations that I've found. I have also registered 130 mutations that could potentially be derived in Denisova, however they are purely speculative. I have not filtered them for quality or for stable regions. Only consider them with a grain of salt. They are not worth a publication, but when more ancient Y-DNA sequences become available they may be used for comparison. Thomas On 11/24/2015 11:39 AM, Ian Logan via wrote: > List > > Readers might be interested to see the mitochondrial details > and abstract that accompany this paper: > > "Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences from two Denisovan individuals" > Sawyer,S., Renaud,G., Viola,B., Prufer,K., Kelso,J. and Paabo,S. > > A free download on: > http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/11/1519905112.full.pdf > > The date of divergence of the Denisovan line from the modern human line > would appear to be around 900-1,000 kya. > >

Ian, this was just awesome to see!  So many mutations are familiar---and even though I know the Denisovans are ancient cousins but not ancestors, it is a thrill to see the connection.   More importantly, this gives me a chance to publicly thank you yet again for your eternal diligence in seeking out, checking and posting mtdna sequences from studies as they come out.  I have discovered that adding the relevant sequences from research studies to my mtdna match group data charts does wonders for clarifying connections, evaluating the value and behavior of various mutations and assessing valid times to common ancestors...in other words, to piece together the amazing untold historical tale lurking in the mtdna.  Without your work, doing this enlightening analysis would be difficult, if not impossible.  Words are inadequate for expressing the depth of my appreciation! DNA Detective and Denisovan-loving Dame Debra KatzmtDNA L2a1, HV1, U6a7, W3a, H1a, K1a1 From: "genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com" <genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 10:44 AM Subject: GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 641 Message: 1 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:39:25 +0000 From: Ian Logan <ianlogan22@btinternet.com> Subject: [DNA]  Denisovan8 mtDNA sequence now on GenBank (21-NOV-2015) To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <56543E5D.1020309@btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed List---Readers might be interested to see the mitochondrial details and abstract that accompany this paper: "Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences from two Denisovan individuals" Sawyer,S., Renaud,G., Viola,B., Prufer,K., Kelso,J. and Paabo,S. A free download on: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/11/1519905112.full.pdf The date of divergence of the Denisovan line from the modern human line would appear to be around 900-1,000 kya. Ian ----------------------------- Abstract: Denisovans, a sister group of Neandertals, have been described on the basis of a nuclear genome sequence from a finger phalanx (Denisova 3) found in Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains. The only other Denisovan specimen described to date is a molar (Denisova 4) found at the same site. This tooth carries a mtDNA sequence similar to that of Denisova 3. Here we present nuclear DNA sequences from Denisova 4 and a morphological description, as well as mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequence data, from another molar (Denisova 8) found in Denisova Cave in 2010. This new molar is similar to Denisova 4 in being very large and lacking traits typical of Neandertals and modern humans. Nuclear DNA sequences from the two molars form a clade with Denisova 3. The mtDNA of Denisova 8 is more diverged and has accumulated fewer substitutions than the mtDNAs of the other two specimens, suggesting Denisovans were present in the region over an extended period. The nuclear DNA sequence diversity among the three Denisovans is comparable to that among six Neandertals, but lower than that among present-day humans. ------------ KT780370 Denisovan8 21-NOV-2015  (371 CRS mutations) End of GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 641 **********************************************

And this should bring me consolation? The outcome is the same - and as you can probably sense, I am furious with Ancestry based on what they have done to me (including siphoning 2 grand from my bank account and leaving me and a hundred or so cousins with nothing). David. On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Drew Smith via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, David Faux via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > > I guess that I am looking at all these changes on a relative scale - > > relative to what Ancestry.com did to us when they precipitously cancelled > > MyFamily (which they had earlier purchased). > > > > Ancestry didn't purchase MyFamily. Ancestry changed the name of its > holding company from Ancestry to MyFamily in 1999. MyFamily had always > belonged to Ancestry. > > Drew Smith > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

OK, I have uploaded a spreadsheet to http://www.wwjohnston.net/famhist/SamMom.xlsx There are two worksheets. The first worksheet ("Map") shows how all of the seven tested people descend from Joe & Mary, with the two alternate scenarios for who is Sam's mother. The generations are aligned, so that they are all clear. There are 2 pairs of siblings (Belle & Bill, Dan & Don) and one pair of 1/2 siblings (Alice & Arnold), all of which are identified as such, so that these relationships are clearly understood. The second worksheet ("Matrix") has six different matrices of the seven people tested. The top two are the actual known relationship matrices, one for Mary as Sam's mother and one for one of Mary's daughters as Sam's mother. Below these is the GEDMatch-generated Generations Matrix. This is where Belle shows at 3.5 from both Stan (Sam's son) and Ann but Belle's brother Bill shows at 3.2 from Stan and 3.7 from Ann -- the conflicting data supporting opposite conclusions about who Sam's mother was. Then there is a black bar, to signify that below it there are no assumptions about who is Sam's mother. These three matrices are all based on GEDMatch. The top two are the total cM values for (a) the values show in the GEDMatch Match List and (b) the GEDMatch-generated atDNA matrix. Most of the values in the matrices are the same but not all. I am not sure why they are different -- probably something to do with GEDMatch's different thresholds for the two different presentations. Both of these matrices seem to support the opposite conclusions when looking at Belle and Bill's values compared to Stan and Ann. The bottom matrix shows the "largest cM" values from the GEDMatch Match List. This is the only place were Belle and Bill compare in the same way with Stan and Ann -- 38.9 with Stan for both Belle & Bill but 28.4 and 23.2 with Ann, respectively. So this matrix (unlike all the others, which support both scenarios for who was Sam's mother) seems to support Mary as the mother of Sam. I just do not see anything in all this that conclusively resolves the question of whether Sam's mother was Mary or one of Mary's daughters. The only matrix that does show a clear indication is the largest cM matrix. But the other matrices all have evidence to support both conclusions -- and thus neither one conclusively. Am I not seeing something here that makes things more conclusive than I am seeing them? From: Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> To: Wesley Johnston <wwjohnston01@yahoo.com>; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [DNA] Real Mother - the Mother or adult Daughter? Wesley, you are at an advantage to most of us. You know the relationship between the testers. So focus on one assumption, eg real mother = mother and then check all amount of shared DNA vs the relationship they have under this assumption. I had a similar case and we could easily proof that someone's great grandma cheated. So in your case I would put up a spreadsheet, put both assumptions  next to each other, name the relationship and give the total cM (remember to not change the standard setting of Gedmatch for one-to-one) next to it. Then do the same for the alternative assumption (real mother = adult daughter) Then upload that spreadsheet so that you can post the link here (attachments aren't allowed on this mailing list) and get the wisdom of the crowd as to which assumption is more likely. Without looking at that spreadsheet I can't rule out that it's not working (my method I explained in the private email and above) because the shared DNA with the testers should be different for both assumptions. Oh and a little overview of the testers relationships (just some simple cells showing who is descendant of whom) in the spreadsheet would help as well (to visualize). I know you're very familiar with the case but for everyone else it's hard to get a grip on it without looking at a simple family tree. Andreas > On 24 Nov 2015, at 09:42, Wesley Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > OK, thanks to your off-list note, I have looked at Blaine Bettinger's table. > And it really just emphasizes what I found with the GEDMatch Generations table. For definitively determining whether Mary or her daughter was Sam's mother, using the averages is simply not going to work. There is just too much of a range for evey one of those boxes in Blaine Bettinger's table. So a matching cousin who shares 331 cM could be any one of the following: > 1C2R, 1C1R, 2C1R, 1C, 2C, 3C (though just barely), 1C1R, 2C1R, 3C1R (though just barely), 1C2R, 2C2R > Using only the average, the 331 comes closest to 2C or 1C2Rm with 1C1R a bit further away. But restricting any conclusion to just those two or three is simply not supportable by the ranges in the table. You cannot rule out any of the other ones listed above. > > So the bottom line is the same: the chart does not suffice. And looking at the chart leads me to think that method 2 (below) is not going to resolve this, no matter who else we find to test, since the variabilty is so high (even in just 2 generations, a grandchild with average 1760 can have an actual range of 875 to 2365). > So Method 1 is the only method by which we could answer the question -- with testing of enough descendants of Mary's husband Joe's sibling to assure that a non-match with Joe is real and not just a fluke of one or two descendants who happened not to inherit a particular segment.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, David Faux via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I guess that I am looking at all these changes on a relative scale - > relative to what Ancestry.com did to us when they precipitously cancelled > MyFamily (which they had earlier purchased). > Ancestry didn't purchase MyFamily. Ancestry changed the name of its holding company from Ancestry to MyFamily in 1999. MyFamily had always belonged to Ancestry. Drew Smith

Wesley, you are at an advantage to most of us. You know the relationship between the testers. So focus on one assumption, eg real mother = mother and then check all amount of shared DNA vs the relationship they have under this assumption. I had a similar case and we could easily proof that someone's great grandma cheated. So in your case I would put up a spreadsheet, put both assumptions next to each other, name the relationship and give the total cM (remember to not change the standard setting of Gedmatch for one-to-one) next to it. Then do the same for the alternative assumption (real mother = adult daughter) Then upload that spreadsheet so that you can post the link here (attachments aren't allowed on this mailing list) and get the wisdom of the crowd as to which assumption is more likely. Without looking at that spreadsheet I can't rule out that it's not working (my method I explained in the private email and above) because the shared DNA with the testers should be different for both assumptions. Oh and a little overview of the testers relationships (just some simple cells showing who is descendant of whom) in the spreadsheet would help as well (to visualize). I know you're very familiar with the case but for everyone else it's hard to get a grip on it without looking at a simple family tree. Andreas > On 24 Nov 2015, at 09:42, Wesley Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > OK, thanks to your off-list note, I have looked at Blaine Bettinger's table. > And it really just emphasizes what I found with the GEDMatch Generations table. For definitively determining whether Mary or her daughter was Sam's mother, using the averages is simply not going to work. There is just too much of a range for evey one of those boxes in Blaine Bettinger's table. So a matching cousin who shares 331 cM could be any one of the following: > 1C2R, 1C1R, 2C1R, 1C, 2C, 3C (though just barely), 1C1R, 2C1R, 3C1R (though just barely), 1C2R, 2C2R > Using only the average, the 331 comes closest to 2C or 1C2Rm with 1C1R a bit further away. But restricting any conclusion to just those two or three is simply not supportable by the ranges in the table. You cannot rule out any of the other ones listed above. > > So the bottom line is the same: the chart does not suffice. And looking at the chart leads me to think that method 2 (below) is not going to resolve this, no matter who else we find to test, since the variabilty is so high (even in just 2 generations, a grandchild with average 1760 can have an actual range of 875 to 2365). > So Method 1 is the only method by which we could answer the question -- with testing of enough descendants of Mary's husband Joe's sibling to assure that a non-match with Joe is real and not just a fluke of one or two descendants who happened not to inherit a particular segment.

I guess that I am looking at all these changes on a relative scale - relative to what Ancestry.com did to us when they precipitously cancelled MyFamily (which they had earlier purchased). We were given a few weeks to "download" our data before the entire site went blank. I was out of the country, and busy with other things, and before I knew it the site was gone. When I brought up the matter on Ancestry's facebook pages, I was criticized by them for not recovering my data in a timely fashion. When I asked others what they obtained from their "downloads" it was nothing more than pictures without captions and gibberish. All of the messages between distant cousins, the explanations as to how everyone was related, the family tree, the e-mail addresses - all gone - and Ancestry could not possibly have cared less. They could have used pdf to create a package of all the info on my 5 sites for which I had paid over $2,000 over the years. So we were left with nothing - at least with 23andMe we will have some approximation of what we used to have they will not pull an Ancestry.com and simply remove everything then blame the customer for it all. I will never forgive Ancestry from their callous attitudes toward customer concerns, but I will give 23andMe the benefit of the doubt on all occasions. David. On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Tim Janzen via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Dear Pam, > >From what I have read, many other people are having similar experiences. > See > http://annettekapple.blogspot.com/2015/11/ancestrydna-takes-few-steps-forward.html > and > http://blog.kittycooper.com/2015/11/initial-report-on-the-new-23andme-for-the-more-advanced-users. > I am still on the old 23andMe website and have limited experience with the > new version. I hope that 23andMe is able to restore the original > functionality of 23andMe soon. Christine from 23andMe posted some > information about changes that 23andMe is planning make in the near > future. I am inserting her comments as below. See > https://www.23andme.com/you/community/thread/41597 and > https://www.23andmeforums.com/discussion/112 for further discussion. > Sincerely, > Tim Janzen > > > "We're excited to be moving forward with the new site experience and we > appreciate all the feedback that is being shared. The transition has > included a lot of complex challenges and tradeoffs around timing and > feature availability. Many of the following updates and improvements were > already part of the plans even before we heard this feedback - we know that > these are important items and we are committed to addressing these as soon > as possible. > > * Downloads for DNA Relatives match list and DNA View > Downloads have been temporarily paused as part of the transition to the > new site. You will be able to download both your match list and the > comparison information - including segment start and stop points - from the > DNA View. (This was previously available via Family Inheritance: Advanced.) > > * Viewing Ancestry Composition for your shares and Open Sharing matches > Interacting with your share's reports is different on the new site. Rather > than accessing their results from each individual report or tool, you can > view their reports and how you compare to them in the Share and Compare > tool or within DNA Relatives. The Ancestry Composition section of the > compare view in either of these tools shows a comparison table where you > can see your percentages side-by-side with your share. We are working on a > more in-depth view of the Ancestry Composition report for the profiles you > are sharing with, which will include a view of how the ancestry appears > across your match's chromosomes. > > * Searching vs. scrolling on lists of shares > In the DNA View and in Share and Compare, your matches are listed in sets > with the option to > select matches from that list. However for profiles that have extensive > lists of shares, the loading and selecting is not easy or efficient at the > moment. We will be adding search capabilities to these pages so you can > type the name of a profile you're looking to compare with to locate it more > quickly. > > * Recency sorting in DNA Relatives > There are lots of sorting tools available in DNA Relatives, but we > acknowledge that when everyone has been transitioned and new customers are > being added, it is critically important to be able to easily see new > matches. A recency sort will be added to DNA Relatives, in addition to the > Notifications that will let you know when you have new matches, > invitations, or messages. > > * Open Sharing and Expanded Profiles > Every person who logs in to the new experience - whether he or she is just > receiving results or transitioning from the old site - is prompted to > confirm participation in DNA Relatives by either selecting a display name > or opting out. This prompt also includes the options to add profile > information like surnames and locations, as well as opt in to Open Sharing. > We have received feedback about the discoverability of these sections and > will be evaluating ways to improve their visibility. > > There are more items that we'll be addressing in the coming months as we > continue the transition to the new 23andMe, including the speed and > performance of the site, message organization, and additional options for > sorting in DNA Relatives." > > > -----Original Message----- > From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto: > genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of P. Paschke via > Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 7:29 PM > To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List > Subject: [DNA] new 23andMe > > One of the account I manage has switched over to the new 23andMe. ACK! > It is not at all user friendly - nearly impossible to find things. And > everything is so big! No more nice lists. In order to see enough on one > page, I had to adjust my Chrome browser settings to 67%, which then ruined > everything else I viewed in my browser, so I had to switch it back. The > Ancestry Composition no longer allows the chromosome view (the view I > always used and found so useful), but only has a big circle with colors and > the accompanying world map - pretty useless visuals. The list of areas is > still there, but no nice feature to highlight ethnicity locations by > chromosome (I REALLY miss that!). There is no message center with lists - > just large copies of the most recent messages the user has sent -- doesn't > appear to be any sort of in box where you can go to your most recently > received messages. And all I found in the message archives were messages > I sent out. I'm not sure if the mes! > sages received are anywhere! > there are some nice features. Information about your match is combined on > one page (with very large type), and it allows you to make notes, which is > nice. Apparently any notes you had previously made are gone. > I did once find the new family inheritance advance page - again, not > condusive to easy comparisons. I left the page and could not find it > again... Overall, I'd say they tossed the idea that people will be using > this site for genealogical research, communication, and analysis. Just > awful, in my view. I have already been recommending FTDNA if only for the > 23andMe price increase. And now, the unfriendly genealogical interface is > one more reason to recommend testing elsewhere. This should be a great > boost to FTDNA for folks interested in genealogy! > I am SO disappointed! > Pam Paschke > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

List Readers might be interested to see the mitochondrial details and abstract that accompany this paper: "Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences from two Denisovan individuals" Sawyer,S., Renaud,G., Viola,B., Prufer,K., Kelso,J. and Paabo,S. A free download on: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/11/1519905112.full.pdf The date of divergence of the Denisovan line from the modern human line would appear to be around 900-1,000 kya. Ian ----------------------------- Abstract: Denisovans, a sister group of Neandertals, have been described on the basis of a nuclear genome sequence from a finger phalanx (Denisova 3) found in Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains. The only other Denisovan specimen described to date is a molar (Denisova 4) found at the same site. This tooth carries a mtDNA sequence similar to that of Denisova 3. Here we present nuclear DNA sequences from Denisova 4 and a morphological description, as well as mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequence data, from another molar (Denisova 8) found in Denisova Cave in 2010. This new molar is similar to Denisova 4 in being very large and lacking traits typical of Neandertals and modern humans. Nuclear DNA sequences from the two molars form a clade with Denisova 3. The mtDNA of Denisova 8 is more diverged and has accumulated fewer substitutions than the mtDNAs of the other two specimens, suggesting Denisovans were present in the region over an extended period. The nuclear DNA sequence diversity among the three Denisovans is comparable to that among six Neandertals, but lower than that among present-day humans. ------------ KT780370 Denisovan8 21-NOV-2015 (371 CRS mutations) A73G G94A T146C T152C T195C 244.1A G247- T252C A263G T282C A291- C299- 315.1C 315.2C A385G C456T C486T C505T C522- A523- C534T C575T T596C G709A C736A T825A A827G C868T A928G C1009T G1018A T1040C C1048T C1405T G1442A G1709A G1719A A1761T G1888A G2056A C2284T A2402G T2404C C2523T T2649C G2758A G2831C T2885C T2955C A3221G G3277A T3290C G3357A G3496T T3504A G3591A C3594T C3600T C3603T C3636T A3714G C3747T T3753C A3816G C3832T C3870T C3888T C3909T C3921T A3957G C3978T T4047C G4048A G4092A A4104G C4312T C4318T C4456T A4562G T4586C T4622C G4659A A4769G T4856C C4904T C4914T T4928C T4937C C4940T A4958G G4959A G4991A T5021C G5147A C5270T C5320T A5351G C5387T C5447T C5456T A5474G T5508C A5516G A5539G T5580C 5813.1A G5821A C5840T C5895A 5899.1C 5899.2C 5899.3C 5899.4C 5899.5C 5899.6C G6023A T6152C T6221C C6242T A6266C G6366A C6452T C6483T A6485G A6509G T6512C C6542T C6566T C6569A C6617T T6641C T6719C G6917A C6935T C6938T T6956A C7028T A7146G C7232T C7256T T7270C G7316A A7490G G7521A T7609C T7621C C7650T G7664A T7705C T7741C G7789A C7810T C7868T C7891T T7961C A8008G A8021G G8065A C8140T G8152A T8167C C8203T C8406T C8455T C8461T C8488T T8503C A8521G G8545A C8655T A8659G A8677C A8701G A8718G T8772C A8784G A8860G C8943T G8994A G9053A C9060A C9075T A9080G C9168T A9254G T9325C G9329C A9434G C9527T T9530C C9536T T9540C C9566T A9629G T9647C G9755A T9758C T9797C C9839A C9869T C9884T T9899C G9932A G9966A T10101C A10151G G10172A C10196T C10223T T10238C C10307T T10324C A10385G A10397G A10398G C10547T G10586A C10670T G10688A T10742C A10750G T10790C T10810C T10873C A10876G T10915C T10966G G11016A A11065G C11071T T11075C T11147C C11215T C11270T C11503T C11549T A11551G A11590G C11623T G11719A T11770C T11864C G11914A C11977T C11983T A12001G G12007A C12064T T12189C A12193T T12311C C12346T G12372A T12375C G12406A A12420G C12474T T12477C G12528A G12561A G12630A G12684A A12699G C12705T T12714C G12756A C12801T T12879C A12921G T13020C A13062G T13095C A13105G A13269G A13276G G13359A G13368A A13434G T13488C C13506T A13528G A13629G T13635C C13650T T13656C C13680T A13722G A13827G T13879C G13889A T13896C C13923T G13928A G13968A A14007G T14020C T14034C G14040A A14053G C14073T T14088C A14296G G14305A T14311C A14409G G14476A T14494C G14560A G14569A A14605G A14662G A14693G T14757C C14766T C14800T A14839G C14950T A14954G T14956C T14971C G15043A C15100T G15110A G15148A G15172C T15191A C15250T A15326G G15355A C15403T C15443T C15490T A15562G C15643T A15649G C15667T C15742T G15883A A15924G T15941C A16051G A16070G A16081G C16111T G16129A C16148T T16172C A16182- A16183- C16188- 16193.1C 16193.2C 16193.3C T16209C G16213A C16239T T16243C C16245T A16247G C16259A G16274A C16278T T16311C C16355T T16356C T16362C T16368C A16487G A16497G T16519C C16527T

The "cMs per cousinship" charts are based on the total of IBD segments. So I would drop down to 5cM segments and use Triangulation to weed out most of the IBS segments. This might sharpen the cM totals, which is probably more accurate than longest cM. Per GEDmatch notes, I wouldn't put much stock in their Gen estimates past 2nd cousins. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 24, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Wesley Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > OK, I have uploaded a spreadsheet to http://www.wwjohnston.net/famhist/SamMom.xlsx > There are two worksheets. > The first worksheet ("Map") shows how all of the seven tested people descend from Joe & Mary, with the two alternate scenarios for who is Sam's mother. The generations are aligned, so that they are all clear. There are 2 pairs of siblings (Belle & Bill, Dan & Don) and one pair of 1/2 siblings (Alice & Arnold), all of which are identified as such, so that these relationships are clearly understood. > The second worksheet ("Matrix") has six different matrices of the seven people tested. > The top two are the actual known relationship matrices, one for Mary as Sam's mother and one for one of Mary's daughters as Sam's mother. > Below these is the GEDMatch-generated Generations Matrix. This is where Belle shows at 3.5 from both Stan (Sam's son) and Ann but Belle's brother Bill shows at 3.2 from Stan and 3.7 from Ann -- the conflicting data supporting opposite conclusions about who Sam's mother was. > > Then there is a black bar, to signify that below it there are no assumptions about who is Sam's mother. These three matrices are all based on GEDMatch. > The top two are the total cM values for (a) the values show in the GEDMatch Match List and (b) the GEDMatch-generated atDNA matrix. Most of the values in the matrices are the same but not all. I am not sure why they are different -- probably something to do with GEDMatch's different thresholds for the two different presentations. Both of these matrices seem to support the opposite conclusions when looking at Belle and Bill's values compared to Stan and Ann. > > The bottom matrix shows the "largest cM" values from the GEDMatch Match List. This is the only place were Belle and Bill compare in the same way with Stan and Ann -- 38.9 with Stan for both Belle & Bill but 28.4 and 23.2 with Ann, respectively. So this matrix (unlike all the others, which support both scenarios for who was Sam's mother) seems to support Mary as the mother of Sam. > > I just do not see anything in all this that conclusively resolves the question of whether Sam's mother was Mary or one of Mary's daughters. The only matrix that does show a clear indication is the largest cM matrix. But the other matrices all have evidence to support boOK, I have uploaded a spreadsheet to http://www.wwjohnston.net/famhist/SamMom.xlsx > There are two worksheets. > The first worksheet ("Map") shows how all of the seven tested people descend from Joe & Mary, with the two alternate scenarios for who is Sam's mother. The generations are aligned, so that they are all clear. There are 2 pairs of siblings (Belle & Bill, Dan & Don) and one pair of 1/2 siblings (Alice & Arnold), all of which are identified as such, so that these relationships are clearly understood. > The second worksheet ("Matrix") has six different matrices of the seven people tested. > The top two are the actual known relationship matrices, one for Mary as Sam's mother and one for one of Mary's daughters as Sam's mother. > Below these is the GEDMatch-generated Generations Matrix. This is where Belle shows at 3.5 from both Stan (Sam's son) and Ann but Belle's brother Bill shows at 3.2 from Stan and 3.7 from Ann -- the conflicting data supporting opposite conclusions about who Sam's mother was. > > Then there is a black bar, to signify that below it there are no assumptions about who is Sam's mother. These three matrices are all based on GEDMatch. > The top two are the total cM values for (a) the values show in the GEDMatch Match List and (b) the GEDMatch-generated atDNA matrix. Most of the values in the matrices are the same but not all. I am not sure why they are different -- probably something to do with GEDMatch's different thresholds for the two different presentations. Both of these matrices seem to support the opposite conclusions when looking at Belle and Bill's values compared to Stan and Ann. > > The bottom matrix shows the "largest cM" values from the GEDMatch Match List. This is the only place were Belle and Bill compare in the same way with Stan and Ann -- 38.9 with Stan for both Belle & Bill but 28.4 and 23.2 with Ann, respectively. So this matrix (unlike all the others, which support both scenarios for who was Sam's mother) seems to support Mary as the mother of Sam. > > I just do not see anything in all this that conclusively resolves the question of whether Sam's mother was Mary or one of Mary's daughters. The only matrix that does show a clear indication is the largest cM matrix. But the other matrices all have evidence to support both conclusions -- and thus neither one conclusively. > Am I not seeing something here that makes things more conclusive than I am seeing them? > > From: Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> > To: Wesley Johnston <wwjohnston01@yahoo.com>; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 9:36 PM > Subject: Re: [DNA] Real Mother - the Mother or adult Daughter? > > Wesley, > > you are at an advantage to most of us. You know the relationship between the testers. So focus on one assumption, eg real mother = mother and then check all amount of shared DNA vs the relationship they have under this assumption. > > I had a similar case and we could easily proof that someone's great grandma cheated. > > So in your case I would put up a spreadsheet, put both assumptions next to each other, name the relationship and give the total cM (remember to not change the standard setting of Gedmatch for one-to-one) next to it. > > Then do the same for the alternative assumption (real mother = adult daughter) > > Then upload that spreadsheet so that you can post the link here (attachments aren't allowed on this mailing list) and get the wisdom of the crowd as to which assumption is more likely. > > Without looking at that spreadsheet I can't rule out that it's not working (my method I explained in the private email and above) because the shared DNA with the testers should be different for both assumptions. > > Oh and a little overview of the testers relationships (just some simple cells showing who is descendant of whom) in the spreadsheet would help as well (to visualize). I know you're very familiar with the case but for everyone else it's hard to get a grip on it without looking at a simple family tree. > > Andreas > > > >>

Yes, individuals show a wider range of cMs the more distant they are. See also my graphic at www.segmentology.org for the concept of "tails" on the range of possibilities. However, as you get several more tests, they will generally tend to average out. Unless you have some ancestry on one alternative vs some different ancestors on the other alternative (allowing you to check for Matches on the unique ancestors), you are pretty much stuck with analyzing the cMs between pairs. Then use judgement for the best fit. The more tests you can get, the clearer the picture should become. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 23, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Wesley Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > OK, thanks to your off-list note, I have looked at Blaine Bettinger's table. > And it really just emphasizes what I found with the GEDMatch Generations table. For definitively determining whether Mary or her daughter was Sam's mother, using the averages is simply not going to work. There is just too much of a range for evey one of those boxes in Blaine Bettinger's table. So a matching cousin who shares 331 cM could be any one of the following: > 1C2R, 1C1R, 2C1R, 1C, 2C, 3C (though just barely), 1C1R, 2C1R, 3C1R (though just barely), 1C2R, 2C2R > Using only the average, the 331 comes closest to 2C or 1C2Rm with 1C1R a bit further away. But restricting any conclusion to just those two or three is simply not supportable by the ranges in the table. You cannot rule out any of the other ones listed above. > > So the bottom line is the same: the chart does not suffice. And looking at the chart leads me to think that method 2 (below) is not going to resolve this, no matter who else we find to test, since the variabilty is so high (even in just 2 generations, a grandchild with average 1760 can have an actual range of 875 to 2365). > So Method 1 is the only method by which we could answer the question -- with testing of enough descendants of Mary's husband Joe's sibling to assure that a non-match with Joe is real and not just a fluke of one or two descendants who happened not to inherit a particular segment. > > > > What are the cM's they share with each other and the suspected generations/family relationships? With Blaine's table and other available averages for genetic distance there might be some clue (all calculated given the standard settings at Gedmatch). > > Andreas > >> On Nov 23, 2015, at 00:49, Wesley Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> I want to share what I found out in a first step toward method 2 below. >> I generated a GEDMatch generations matrix for Sam's son and six of his documented cousins who have tested (closest of whom is either a 1st cousin once removed or 2nd cousin, depending on who was the mother of Sam's father -- and most distant of whom is either a 2nd, 2x or a 1st, 3x). >> It turned out to be a calibration of the GEDMatch generations matrix against the two forms of the actual generations matrix (one form for Mary as the