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 messages 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

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 mother of Sam and one form for Mary's daughter as the mother). It clearly showed how wide the normal natural variability can be even in close generations: two siblings showed as 1.3 generations to MRCA for example. And one pair (the most distant one) known to be actual MRCA 4.5 was estimated by GEDMatch at 7.2 -- WAY OFF. > So it is clear that in-generation variability even within one generation already was off and that as the relationships became more distant, the range of variation widened rapidly, resulting in the very large error noted above. > And the bottom line for our effort to identify Sam's mother is that it simply cannot be done from the cases we have. > This became extremely obvious in comparing how two siblings (who are either Sam's son's 1st cousins 2x removed or 2nd cousins 1x removed) were estimated in comparison of Sam's son's closest cousin in the group. One of the siblings was estimated by GEDMatch to be exactly the same (3.5) for both Sam's son and Sam's son's closest cousin, which would indicate that Mary's daughter was Sam's mother. But the other sibling was estimated by GEDMatch to be exactly a half generation apart for the same pairings (3.2 and 3.7), which would indicate that Mary was Sam's mother. > So two siblings' estimates resulted in exactly opposite conclusions. And it was entirely due to the normal range of variation of inherited DNA. > So the bottom line is that the GEDMatch generations matrix alone does not suffice with the currently tested six cousins: it does not tell us who Sam's mother was. > So we now have to start identifying key people to test, both for method 2 and for method 1. >    On 21 Nov 2015, at 16:58, Wesley) Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks very much for your responses on this. This has allowed me to see two different ways forward on this. > 1 - Elizabeth and Tim's method - Find descendants of Mary's husband Joe's siblings who are willing to test and see if they match Sam's son. If they do, the Sam's mother is one of the daughters of Joe and Mary. If they do not match, then it is evidence for Mary being Sam's mother (although we would really need to test several people and have them all not match in order to be sure it was not some fluke of atDNA inheritance). > 2 - Belinda's method - See what the existing cousins' level of relationship is to Sam's son in terms of shared DNA, maybe identifying and testing a few other relatives who could shed more light on this. > I am going to try method 2 first, since we have 7 relatives on Sam's mother's side who have already tested. So we might have enough to make a preliminary determination that way. But I ultimately see that method 1 is something we have to eventually do. >    Wesley > > > ------------------------------- > 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 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:24:23 +1300 From: AJ Marsh <ajmarshnz@gmail.com> Subject: [DNA] What are typical SNP/ novel variant rates in YElite? To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <88D8E0A3-D6DE-4520-8130-B2947DF23457@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset=us-ascii Sorry list, I know this has been addressed on list before, but my memory fails me. YFull suggest that after the SNP L617 occurred, the tree started branching out about 3,400 years ago.  L617 may have occurred much earlier than this. I have access to 4 YElite results for L617s.  One of these has 68 SNPs/ novel variants which Full Genomes feel confident enough about to name.  There are many more lower reliability mutations discovered which for the moment I have put on the back burner.  But my first observation is that if it is 68 reliable mutations in 3,400 years that would be a nice simple 50 years per mutation.  I have not yet counted the total mutations in other branch lines, it is on my to do list. I believe some have looked closely at rates of mutations found in YElite, does the 50 years per "reliable" mutation sound consistent with what others have found? Of course, the speculated 3,400 years to common ancestor in my example is not firm and final, so it is a suspect figure to use for calibration of SNP rates. John. Sent from my iPad ------------------------------ To contact the GENEALOGY-DNA list administrator, send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the GENEALOGY-DNA mailing list, send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.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 email with no additional text. End of GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 639 **********************************************

Christine has just posted today in the new forums that our issues will be addre https://www.23andmeforums.com/discussion/112/addressing-feedback-about-the-new-site#latest ssed Here is my summary of the new site. I was disappointed too http://blog.kittycooper.com/2015/11/initial-report-on-the-new-23andme-for-the-more-advanced-users/ Kitty --------------------------------------------------------------- Kitty Munson Cooper, web developer,programmer, San Diego,CA genetic genealogy blog at http://blog.kittycooper.com/ family history and genealogy at http://kittymunson.com On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, P. Paschke via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > 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 messages 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

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

Sorry list, I know this has been addressed on list before, but my memory fails me. YFull suggest that after the SNP L617 occurred, the tree started branching out about 3,400 years ago. L617 may have occurred much earlier than this. I have access to 4 YElite results for L617s. One of these has 68 SNPs/ novel variants which Full Genomes feel confident enough about to name. There are many more lower reliability mutations discovered which for the moment I have put on the back burner. But my first observation is that if it is 68 reliable mutations in 3,400 years that would be a nice simple 50 years per mutation. I have not yet counted the total mutations in other branch lines, it is on my to do list. I believe some have looked closely at rates of mutations found in YElite, does the 50 years per "reliable" mutation sound consistent with what others have found? Of course, the speculated 3,400 years to common ancestor in my example is not firm and final, so it is a suspect figure to use for calibration of SNP rates. John. Sent from my iPad

When 23andMe transfers your account to their new site, you will want to opt into Open Sharing. Here's how: http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/133747675112/how-to-opt-into-23andmes-open-sharing Very Respectfully, Shannon -- Mr. Shannon S. Christmas Chief Market Advisor | Design Strategist The Christmas Collective <http://christmascollective.wix.com/the-christmas-collective> Strategic Real Estate and Land Use Solutions New York, NY | Washington, DC P: 212.433.0586 | 202.618.1687 F: 1.888.788.5984 http://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonchristmas/

Wesley, 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 mother of Sam and one form for Mary's daughter as the mother). It clearly showed how wide the normal natural variability can be even in close generations: two siblings showed as 1.3 generations to MRCA for example. And one pair (the most distant one) known to be actual MRCA 4.5 was estimated by GEDMatch at 7.2 -- WAY OFF. > So it is clear that in-generation variability even within one generation already was off and that as the relationships became more distant, the range of variation widened rapidly, resulting in the very large error noted above. > And the bottom line for our effort to identify Sam's mother is that it simply cannot be done from the cases we have. > This became extremely obvious in comparing how two siblings (who are either Sam's son's 1st cousins 2x removed or 2nd cousins 1x removed) were estimated in comparison of Sam's son's closest cousin in the group. One of the siblings was estimated by GEDMatch to be exactly the same (3.5) for both Sam's son and Sam's son's closest cousin, which would indicate that Mary's daughter was Sam's mother. But the other sibling was estimated by GEDMatch to be exactly a half generation apart for the same pairings (3.2 and 3.7), which would indicate that Mary was Sam's mother. > So two siblings' estimates resulted in exactly opposite conclusions. And it was entirely due to the normal range of variation of inherited DNA. > So the bottom line is that the GEDMatch generations matrix alone does not suffice with the currently tested six cousins: it does not tell us who Sam's mother was. > So we now have to start identifying key people to test, both for method 2 and for method 1. > On 21 Nov 2015, at 16:58, Wesley) Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks very much for your responses on this. This has allowed me to see two different ways forward on this. > 1 - Elizabeth and Tim's method - Find descendants of Mary's husband Joe's siblings who are willing to test and see if they match Sam's son. If they do, the Sam's mother is one of the daughters of Joe and Mary. If they do not match, then it is evidence for Mary being Sam's mother (although we would really need to test several people and have them all not match in order to be sure it was not some fluke of atDNA inheritance). > 2 - Belinda's method - See what the existing cousins' level of relationship is to Sam's son in terms of shared DNA, maybe identifying and testing a few other relatives who could shed more light on this. > I am going to try method 2 first, since we have 7 relatives on Sam's mother's side who have already tested. So we might have enough to make a preliminary determination that way. But I ultimately see that method 1 is something we have to eventually do. > Wesley > > > ------------------------------- > 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 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 mother of Sam and one form for Mary's daughter as the mother). It clearly showed how wide the normal natural variability can be even in close generations: two siblings showed as 1.3 generations to MRCA for example. And one pair (the most distant one) known to be actual MRCA 4.5 was estimated by GEDMatch at 7.2 -- WAY OFF. So it is clear that in-generation variability even within one generation already was off and that as the relationships became more distant, the range of variation widened rapidly, resulting in the very large error noted above. And the bottom line for our effort to identify Sam's mother is that it simply cannot be done from the cases we have. This became extremely obvious in comparing how two siblings (who are either Sam's son's 1st cousins 2x removed or 2nd cousins 1x removed) were estimated in comparison of Sam's son's closest cousin in the group. One of the siblings was estimated by GEDMatch to be exactly the same (3.5) for both Sam's son and Sam's son's closest cousin, which would indicate that Mary's daughter was Sam's mother. But the other sibling was estimated by GEDMatch to be exactly a half generation apart for the same pairings (3.2 and 3.7), which would indicate that Mary was Sam's mother. So two siblings' estimates resulted in exactly opposite conclusions. And it was entirely due to the normal range of variation of inherited DNA. So the bottom line is that the GEDMatch generations matrix alone does not suffice with the currently tested six cousins: it does not tell us who Sam's mother was. So we now have to start identifying key people to test, both for method 2 and for method 1. On 21 Nov 2015, at 16:58, Wesley) Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: Thanks very much for your responses on this. This has allowed me to see two different ways forward on this. 1 - Elizabeth and Tim's method - Find descendants of Mary's husband Joe's siblings who are willing to test and see if they match Sam's son. If they do, the Sam's mother is one of the daughters of Joe and Mary. If they do not match, then it is evidence for Mary being Sam's mother (although we would really need to test several people and have them all not match in order to be sure it was not some fluke of atDNA inheritance). 2 - Belinda's method - See what the existing cousins' level of relationship is to Sam's son in terms of shared DNA, maybe identifying and testing a few other relatives who could shed more light on this. I am going to try method 2 first, since we have 7 relatives on Sam's mother's side who have already tested. So we might have enough to make a preliminary determination that way. But I ultimately see that method 1 is something we have to eventually do.     Wesley

Mary, Long live the 12 marker test. You highlight several its most valuable features. John. Sent from my iPad > On 22/11/2015, at 5:43 am, Mary E Hall via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > One thing I've discovered recently is that many people who don't > live/breathe genealogy & DNA think they'll have to give a blood sample! > > What we take for granted as "common knowledge" is not, and that little > misunderstanding might count for some reservation. > > You can buy a 12 marker test, with minimal investment, to send to them with > instructions...and a big Thank You. I've learned to do that anyway, after > wasting a few 37 marker tests on men who -- for whatever reason -- were not > in the same direct line as we both thought. > > Sounds like an excellent "case study" for yDNA, especially with > documentation going pretty far back. > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Wesley Johnston via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> I have been following this very relevant thread, since I have a very >> frustrating -- and thus far unsuccessful -- experience in this. >> One of our family lines split in Cornwall, probably in the 1500's -- where >> the parish registers do not go back that far. Or at least that is what we >> think. The St. Agnes branch probably originated in the Padstow/St. Merryn >> branch, with this one member moving from Padstow to St. Agnes, which is >> just down the north coast of Cornwall from Padstow. >> I have met a cousin from each branch, direct-line male descendants. In >> fact, we were all together in the home of the one in St. Agnes parish. So I >> know these cousins, and they know each other. And we all have a significant >> interest in our ancestry. >> And I have told them (via e-mail after returning home -- how I wish I had >> thought of it when we were all there together) that if they would each do >> the y-DNA test, then we could at least confirm with DNA what we all believe >> to be true but for which we will probably never find documentation. >> And I even told them that I would be willing to pay for both of their >> y-111 tests on FTDNA. >> That was several months ago, and neither of them has responded to my >> e-mail on this, although one of them has responded on other topics since >> then. >> It really is frustrating, since it seems such an obvious solution to >> confirming what we all believe but cannot prove. I don't know what more I >> can do to accomplish this. >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

Thanks Tim. I had caught that, but appreciate the correction. I also appreciate the article you shared on Jacob Youngman. A fine example of methodology in tackling all the variables to find a solution. I can also appreciate the half siblings in the case as well. Thank you again very much. Regards, Patti -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tim Janzen via Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 5:08 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Match metrics help Dear Patti, I was just looking at my last message to you as below. The following sentence was incorrect: "In this particular case, two people who share 92.5 cMs are likely to be no more distantly related than 1st cousins once removed." The sentence should have instead read as follows: "In this particular case, two people who share 92.5 cMs are likely to be no more closely related than 1st cousins once removed." Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tim Janzen via Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 3:25 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Match metrics help Dear Patti, I agree with Kathy Johnston's comments. The way I approach situations where there are matching segments on the X chromosome as well as matching autosomal segments is to first put aside the matching segments on the X chromosome and focus first on the total number of shared cMs. In this particular case, two people who share 92.5 cMs are likely to be no more distantly related than 1st cousins once removed. If there were no endogamy involved then we would expect the most likely relationship to be 3rd cousins. Since endogamy is involved a relationship as distant as 4th or 5th cousins is possible. If you are using Family Finder matching HIR data then I would suggest you delete all HIRs under 5 cMs before you start trying to predict the genealogical relationship. Blaine Bettinger's chart at http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2015/05/29/visualizing-data-from-the-sh ared-cm-project may also be of help to you. I use the X chromosome data to help determine which ancestral lines the genealogical relationship may have been on. When you are in doubt about the genealogical relationship, testing more relatives from various lines of descent can help you better estimate the most likely genealogical relationship. I average the results for the people at each generational level, as I did in this project: http://blog.23andme.com/ancestry/who-were-the-parents-of-jacob-youngman. Sincerely, Tim Janzen ------------------------------- 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

Patti, I think that it has been too difficult to design an ISOGG chart predicting relationships for the X chromosome because time to common ancestor is so variable. If you look at percentages likely to be in common using Blaine’s chart here, http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2009/01/12/more-x-chromosome-charts/ you will see that there is a big difference between alternating male-female-lines and the all-female lines in average % DNA shared with an ancestor. Every time an X is passed on by a male, there is no observable mixing. Longer X segments can be kept intact for many generations. You really don’t know how far back a common ancestor is. The average autosomal DNA shared in cM is rather misleading in the table at ISOGG because at a low level of matching and low cM, you are much more likely to have an autosomal segment either lost or kept in one generation than to have it sliced up by recombination. I would ignore those low segment size predictions of cousinships in most cases even with the autosomes. Thank you for letting us know that the donor tested at GEDmatch. That is very helpful. If these tests were all at FTDNA, then counting lots of those tiny segments is often ill advised. We also needed to know that TB is a male because a male will not get an X from his father. He gets a Y instead. Males are naturally phased which means the 22 cM largest segment plus the 18 cM segment on the X are significant. Two nice X segments could mean that there are fewer females in the line of descent as you follow the various lines back in time. I would look at TB’s mother’s father’s mother’s side first when comparing with the female “DNA donor”. I think it is normally advisable to use the autosomal predictions and not the X, knowing full well that the cousinship is also highly variable as you go farther away from a first degree relative. In your case, the X may swing the vote to a closer relationship simply because of the distribution and also because one of the X matches in the pair is a male. Not only is the X helpful in directing your search but I also see that many chromosomes (6 autosomes) are involved in the match between TB and your donor. I wouldn’t necessarily call 6 autosomal matches “little” if the same ancestor or ancestral couple is involved. Use the X pattern of inheritance for a male for TB. You will see that there are fewer lines back in time since males only have one X and the X pathways are restricted. If there is a lot of consanguinity though, segments on multiple chromosomes may not all be coming from the same common ancestor. Under normal circumstances having a robust X match plus an autosomal match often means you will be able to find the match within a genealogical time frame. However, if the match partner has unknown paternity that complicates matters. This female probably received this X match from her father coming from the paternal grandmother. The common X ancestor may not be as close as you think. If you can find triangulation with other matches on the X, that may prove helpful in the future. The X narrows the field (unless there is a lot of pedigree collapse) and this kind of autosomal match means that two good pedigrees will likely show a common ancestor. However, this match may not be a real close cousin. The paternity of the cousin is unknown so it will require a lot of effort. It would not surprise me if the matching cousin is anywhere from 2nd cousin once removed to distant cousin when compared to TB (since there could be pedigree collapse) with a very wide range in possibilities. It is still worth pursuing. I can’t tell by your note how TB is related to WD or to MJ. Are WD and MJ supposed to be distantly related to each other and they simply don’t have a DNA match, or do you think they are each related to TB through a different parent of TB? I am also lost by all the initials under MJ and MB. Kathy

Wesley, please be aware that in method no 1 not matching doesn't automatically mean anything. Especially with several generations relationships the corresponding ancestral segment might be too small to be detect by the DTC's. So it's not a general rule which might mislead other people. In your case you should indeed find a large enough segment (actually several along different chromosome) Andreas > On 21 Nov 2015, at 16:58, Wesley) Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Thanks very much for your responses on this. This has allowed me to see two different ways forward on this. > 1 - Elizabeth and Tim's method - Find descendants of Mary's husband Joe's siblings who are willing to test and see if they match Sam's son. If they do, the Sam's mother is one of the daughters of Joe and Mary. If they do not match, then it is evidence for Mary being Sam's mother (although we would really need to test several people and have them all not match in order to be sure it was not some fluke of atDNA inheritance). > 2 - Belinda's method - See what the existing cousins' level of relationship is to Sam's son in terms of shared DNA, maybe identifying and testing a few other relatives who could shed more light on this. > I am going to try method 2 first, since we have 7 relatives on Sam's mother's side who have already tested. So we might have enough to make a preliminary determination that way. But I ultimately see that method 1 is something we have to eventually do. > Wesley > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Hi Tim, Thank you for the links and responding. I think you are exactly correct, I am overwhelmed by the data. Deal with one, then deal with the other. The chart you sent is the one I use, however what is throwing me is the matches descend from GH and two different wives, and TB is farther upstream than I am used to. Also many of these families have 15+ children. I am hoping to use the X to eliminate lines and possibly place me closer to the candidate lines. I will start from scratch one thing at a time. It is also scaring me a bit that endogamy is skewing the numbers, and that even after reducing the field there are so many descendant lines. But you are correct, take the cM, then take the X and create the pathway. Thank you very much for the reply! Sincerely, Patti -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tim Janzen via Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 4:25 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Match metrics help Dear Patti, I agree with Kathy Johnston's comments. The way I approach situations where there are matching segments on the X chromosome as well as matching autosomal segments is to first put aside the matching segments on the X chromosome and focus first on the total number of shared cMs. In this particular case, two people who share 92.5 cMs are likely to be no more distantly related than 1st cousins once removed. If there were no endogamy involved then we would expect the most likely relationship to be 3rd cousins. Since endogamy is involved a relationship as distant as 4th or 5th cousins is possible. If you are using Family Finder matching HIR data then I would suggest you delete all HIRs under 5 cMs before you start trying to predict the genealogical relationship. Blaine Bettinger's chart at http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2015/05/29/visualizing-data-from-the-sh ared-cm-project may also be of help to you. I use the X chromosome data to help determine which ancestral lines the genealogical relationship may have been on. When you are in doubt about the genealogical relationship, testing more relatives from various lines of descent can help you better estimate the most likely genealogical relationship. I average the results for the people at each generational level, as I did in this project: http://blog.23andme.com/ancestry/who-were-the-parents-of-jacob-youngman. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Patti Easton via Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 6:23 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Match metrics help Hello everyone- I can desperately use some help. 1. Where should someone match on the ISOGG chart if they share 40.3 on X and 92.5 auto? 2. Is there a list similar to the ISOGG relationship-DNA cM chart, but that includes half siblings higher up? Does it matter past 3 gens up? Is there any way to estimate, or is it just too far off exponentially? Regards, Patti Easton ------------------------------- 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

Kathy, Thank you SO VERY MUCH for taking the time to provide a wonderfully explanative response. Sorry for the poor example in descendants, originally I had a diagram with sexes-- it would not post. All three matches including TB are male. All three matches share the same MCRA in GH, however TB descends off wife 2 MB, and the other two matches off wife 1 MJ. TB is the grandson of GH, and the other matches are great great grandsons of GH. TB has no additional X matches on his gedmatch list, only the dna donor. GH & wife 2 > FH > TB GH & wife 1 > EH > HC > VF > WD GH & wife 1 > CH > GJ > GJ > MJ What struck me has been the high X match, with the low cM. I agree, normally I would only evaluate the cM, but a larger X number grabbed my attention, and leaves me feeling there should be some relevant info to be gleaned, besides just losing the X with two consecutive males. But what you are saying makes sense, that the transfer by generation varies by sex and occurrence, so a 4th or 5th generation descending from all women will have a totally different X measurement than someone with one male, then women, then another male. WD descends from all women and yet has no X in common with anyone, would this be because it has diluted enough during those 4 generations? I guess that is the part I am hung up on. MJ descends thru men losing the X, but WD does not, yet still has no X in common. So although I have three common descendants of GH, this data can't help me isolate any further than using the X male diagnostic fan chart-- would you agree? I will continue mapping all descendants of TB mother's lines. Thank you again for taking the time and responding. It is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Patti -------- MJ wife 1----------GH------------MB wife 2 EH CH FH HC GJ TB* VF GJ 92.5 & X 40.3 WD* MJ* 57.6 44.6 TB matches 92.5cM (35.6 largest segment) Also 40.3 X match. WD matches 57.6 cM (28.5) no X MJ matches 44.6 cM (22.9) no X WD matches TB 64cM (26.3) MJ matches TB 75.7 (32.5) WD and MJ do NOT match each other -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of KATHRYN JOHNSTON via Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 2:55 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Match metrics help Patti, I think that it has been too difficult to design an ISOGG chart predicting relationships for the X chromosome because time to common ancestor is so variable. If you look at percentages likely to be in common using Blaine’s chart here, http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2009/01/12/more-x-chromosome-charts/ you will see that there is a big difference between alternating male-female-lines and the all-female lines in average % DNA shared with an ancestor. Every time an X is passed on by a male, there is no observable mixing. Longer X segments can be kept intact for many generations. You really don’t know how far back a common ancestor is. The average autosomal DNA shared in cM is rather misleading in the table at ISOGG because at a low level of matching and low cM, you are much more likely to have an autosomal segment either lost or kept in one generation than to have it sliced up by recombination. I would ignore those low segment size predictions of cousinships in most cases even with the autosomes. Thank you for letting us know that the donor tested at GEDmatch. That is very helpful. If these tests were all at FTDNA, then counting lots of those tiny segments is often ill advised. We also needed to know that TB is a male because a male will not get an X from his father. He gets a Y instead. Males are naturally phased which means the 22 cM largest segment plus the 18 cM segment on the X are significant. Two nice X segments could mean that there are fewer females in the line of descent as you follow the various lines back in time. I would look at TB’s mother’s father’s mother’s side first when comparing with the female “DNA donor”. I think it is normally advisable to use the autosomal predictions and not the X, knowing full well that the cousinship is also highly variable as you go farther away from a first degree relative. In your case, the X may swing the vote to a closer relationship simply because of the distribution and also because one of the X matches in the pair is a male. Not only is the X helpful in directing your search but I also see that many chromosomes (6 autosomes) are involved in the match between TB and your donor. I wouldn’t necessarily call 6 autosomal matches “little” if the same ancestor or ancestral couple is involved. Use the X pattern of inheritance for a male for TB. You will see that there are fewer lines back in time since males only have one X and the X pathways are restricted. If there is a lot of consanguinity though, segments on multiple chromosomes may not all be coming from the same common ancestor. Under normal circumstances having a robust X match plus an autosomal match often means you will be able to find the match within a genealogical time frame. However, if the match partner has unknown paternity that complicates matters. This female probably received this X match from her father coming from the paternal grandmother. The common X ancestor may not be as close as you think. If you can find triangulation with other matches on the X, that may prove helpful in the future. The X narrows the field (unless there is a lot of pedigree collapse) and this kind of autosomal match means that two good pedigrees will likely show a common ancestor. However, this match may not be a real close cousin. The paternity of the cousin is unknown so it will require a lot of effort. It would not surprise me if the matching cousin is anywhere from 2nd cousin once removed to distant cousin when compared to TB (since there could be pedigree collapse) with a very wide range in possibilities. It is still worth pursuing. I can’t tell by your note how TB is related to WD or to MJ. Are WD and MJ supposed to be distantly related to each other and they simply don’t have a DNA match, or do you think they are each related to TB through a different parent of TB? I am also lost by all the initials under MJ and MB. Kathy ------------------------------- 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 Patti, I was just looking at my last message to you as below. The following sentence was incorrect: "In this particular case, two people who share 92.5 cMs are likely to be no more distantly related than 1st cousins once removed." The sentence should have instead read as follows: "In this particular case, two people who share 92.5 cMs are likely to be no more closely related than 1st cousins once removed." Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tim Janzen via Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 3:25 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Match metrics help Dear Patti, I agree with Kathy Johnston's comments. The way I approach situations where there are matching segments on the X chromosome as well as matching autosomal segments is to first put aside the matching segments on the X chromosome and focus first on the total number of shared cMs. In this particular case, two people who share 92.5 cMs are likely to be no more distantly related than 1st cousins once removed. If there were no endogamy involved then we would expect the most likely relationship to be 3rd cousins. Since endogamy is involved a relationship as distant as 4th or 5th cousins is possible. If you are using Family Finder matching HIR data then I would suggest you delete all HIRs under 5 cMs before you start trying to predict the genealogical relationship. Blaine Bettinger's chart at http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2015/05/29/visualizing-data-from-the-sh ared-cm-project may also be of help to you. I use the X chromosome data to help determine which ancestral lines the genealogical relationship may have been on. When you are in doubt about the genealogical relationship, testing more relatives from various lines of descent can help you better estimate the most likely genealogical relationship. I average the results for the people at each generational level, as I did in this project: http://blog.23andme.com/ancestry/who-were-the-parents-of-jacob-youngman. Sincerely, Tim Janzen

Dear Patti, I agree with Kathy Johnston's comments. The way I approach situations where there are matching segments on the X chromosome as well as matching autosomal segments is to first put aside the matching segments on the X chromosome and focus first on the total number of shared cMs. In this particular case, two people who share 92.5 cMs are likely to be no more distantly related than 1st cousins once removed. If there were no endogamy involved then we would expect the most likely relationship to be 3rd cousins. Since endogamy is involved a relationship as distant as 4th or 5th cousins is possible. If you are using Family Finder matching HIR data then I would suggest you delete all HIRs under 5 cMs before you start trying to predict the genealogical relationship. Blaine Bettinger's chart at http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2015/05/29/visualizing-data-from-the-sh ared-cm-project may also be of help to you. I use the X chromosome data to help determine which ancestral lines the genealogical relationship may have been on. When you are in doubt about the genealogical relationship, testing more relatives from various lines of descent can help you better estimate the most likely genealogical relationship. I average the results for the people at each generational level, as I did in this project: http://blog.23andme.com/ancestry/who-were-the-parents-of-jacob-youngman. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Patti Easton via Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 6:23 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Match metrics help Hello everyone- I can desperately use some help. 1. Where should someone match on the ISOGG chart if they share 40.3 on X and 92.5 auto? 2. Is there a list similar to the ISOGG relationship-DNA cM chart, but that includes half siblings higher up? Does it matter past 3 gens up? Is there any way to estimate, or is it just too far off exponentially? Regards, Patti Easton

You probably need to speak to one of these folk by telephone, if emails get nowhere. It depends on how old they are, peoples' interests in family history often go round in cycles depending on other things in life, etc. Few will be as involved as you are. If a phone call does not work, then you need to turn up again at St. Agnes armed with two DNA Test Kits this time. Never under-estimate the British love of inertia. Brian -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Wesley Johnston via Sent: 21 November 2015 09:13 To: Genealogy-dna Subject: Re: [DNA] yDNA Recruiting Tips I have been following this very relevant thread, since I have a very frustrating -- and thus far unsuccessful -- experience in this. One of our family lines split in Cornwall, probably in the 1500's -- where the parish registers do not go back that far. Or at least that is what we think. The St. Agnes branch probably originated in the Padstow/St. Merryn branch, with this one member moving from Padstow to St. Agnes, which is just down the north coast of Cornwall from Padstow. I have met a cousin from each branch, direct-line male descendants. In fact, we were all together in the home of the one in St. Agnes parish. So I know these cousins, and they know each other. And we all have a significant interest in our ancestry. And I have told them (via e-mail after returning home -- how I wish I had thought of it when we were all there together) that if they would each do the y-DNA test, then we could at least confirm with DNA what we all believe to be true but for which we will probably never find documentation. And I even told them that I would be willing to pay for both of their y-111 tests on FTDNA. That was several months ago, and neither of them has responded to my e-mail on this, although one of them has responded on other topics since then. It really is frustrating, since it seems such an obvious solution to confirming what we all believe but cannot prove. I don't know what more I can do to accomplish this.

We have been told that Family Traits: Genome View will be incorporated into the DNA Relatives suite of results for DNAR matches when the new system goes live. There is a video showing it (accessible via the Facebook site but unfindable through 23andMe help, for me anyway). Belinda -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of jlerch1 via Sent: Saturday, 21 November 2015 9:44 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Family Traits? and rounding? Does anyone know what the fate of Family Traits app is on the new 23? I ask since it's the only place where it was easy to visualize where siblings had 100% IBD. I say easy. That's despite the fact that it ran really cr__py even when you had the latest OS and now it ran hardly at all. For those who haven't noticed, 100% IBD segments are non-corroborative for siblings since the sibs are virtual identical twins at that 1/4th of their genome. And does anyone know if they're going to have more apps that round down to closer than just the millions of base pair sites where a segment starts or ends. (If anyone has found the 2 places where that was true, don't let 23 know lest they screw that up too.) John L ------------------------------- 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

This is a good reminder, Mary. It seems obvious to us, but most people outside our interest group aren’t aware of how simple it is to be DNA-tested. I always tell them that it is a simple cheek swab, it comes in the mail, and they just pop it back into the mail in the provided envelope. Easy. Janis On Nov 21, 2015, at 8:43 AM, Mary E Hall via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > One thing I've discovered recently is that many people who don't > live/breathe genealogy & DNA think they'll have to give a blood sample! > > What we take for granted as "common knowledge" is not, and that little > misunderstanding might count for some reservation. > > You can buy a 12 marker test, with minimal investment, to send to them with > instructions...and a big Thank You. I've learned to do that anyway, after > wasting a few 37 marker tests on men who -- for whatever reason -- were not > in the same direct line as we both thought. > > Sounds like an excellent "case study" for yDNA, especially with > documentation going pretty far back. > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Wesley Johnston via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> I have been following this very relevant thread, since I have a very >> frustrating -- and thus far unsuccessful -- experience in this. >> One of our family lines split in Cornwall, probably in the 1500's -- where >> the parish registers do not go back that far. Or at least that is what we >> think. The St. Agnes branch probably originated in the Padstow/St. Merryn >> branch, with this one member moving from Padstow to St. Agnes, which is >> just down the north coast of Cornwall from Padstow. >> I have met a cousin from each branch, direct-line male descendants. In >> fact, we were all together in the home of the one in St. Agnes parish. So I >> know these cousins, and they know each other. And we all have a significant >> interest in our ancestry. >> And I have told them (via e-mail after returning home -- how I wish I had >> thought of it when we were all there together) that if they would each do >> the y-DNA test, then we could at least confirm with DNA what we all believe >> to be true but for which we will probably never find documentation. >> And I even told them that I would be willing to pay for both of their >> y-111 tests on FTDNA. >> That was several months ago, and neither of them has responded to my >> e-mail on this, although one of them has responded on other topics since >> then. >> It really is frustrating, since it seems such an obvious solution to >> confirming what we all believe but cannot prove. I don't know what more I >> can do to accomplish this. >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

I have been following this very relevant thread, since I have a very frustrating -- and thus far unsuccessful -- experience in this. One of our family lines split in Cornwall, probably in the 1500's -- where the parish registers do not go back that far. Or at least that is what we think. The St. Agnes branch probably originated in the Padstow/St. Merryn branch, with this one member moving from Padstow to St. Agnes, which is just down the north coast of Cornwall from Padstow. I have met a cousin from each branch, direct-line male descendants. In fact, we were all together in the home of the one in St. Agnes parish. So I know these cousins, and they know each other. And we all have a significant interest in our ancestry. And I have told them (via e-mail after returning home -- how I wish I had thought of it when we were all there together) that if they would each do the y-DNA test, then we could at least confirm with DNA what we all believe to be true but for which we will probably never find documentation. And I even told them that I would be willing to pay for both of their y-111 tests on FTDNA. That was several months ago, and neither of them has responded to my e-mail on this, although one of them has responded on other topics since then. It really is frustrating, since it seems such an obvious solution to confirming what we all believe but cannot prove. I don't know what more I can do to accomplish this.