Thank you all for the replies. More below. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Fisher [mailto:m.j.fisher@btinternet.com] Sent: 29 October 2015 08:56 To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com; pjrich.ntl@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Matches on Ancestry > I imagine Peter is using dnagedcom,com 's tools, Either DNAGedcom Client Tool or AncestryDNA helper, which > produce files containing the CMs of all matches (total of all CMs ?) which Ancestry uses to rank your > relationship to matches. Where I am coming from is that I did a test on FTDNA last year and I downloaded the results from there into an Excel spreadsheet and using the matches on there I am trying to build a picture of where my sequences come from. For example I have identified that on chromosome 1 one of the sequences 108087714 to 145321460 appears to have been passed down by my ancestor Charles Aldous (1834-1907) whose first wife took her children to Salt Lake City in the 1860s leaving Charles in England. The problem I'm finding though is that the submitted trees on FTDNA are not easy to follow and I suspect that GEDMatch is for the dedicated DNA researcher, so I am struggling to get enough data to identify the many unidentified matches that I have. I thought that the recent testing initiative on Ancestry would make DNA testing more mainstream and with the more extensive trees on there I would find more data to work with, so I did a test on there. I have indeed found more matches including one which the ancestors in common can be found and would like to be able to use this match to make more sense of my FTDNA & Gedmatch matches. I am not actually familiar with the tools Mike mentions (and wonder whether they might give me the information I am after?). I also notice that Ancestry seems to have "DNA circles" for Charles Aldous, and also for his parents but does not seem to have any "DNA circles" for the ancestors I have in common with the new match I have found and I wonder why not. Regards Peter

When I triangulate a match or receive an Ancestry DNA Leaf I add a leaf photo as the primary photo so that it shows up on my tree at Ancestry. I consider it a confirmation if the tree branch continues to show "leaves". If a branch has one leaf and no more for the person's ancestors, then I start to question the branch. Ernie On 10/30/2015 9:34 AM, Eric S Johnson via wrote: > Concomitant with Jim's mention (below) of asterisks, has anyone come up with > an optimal way to "mark," in a family tree (whichever PC program or online > tree creation site you use), the degree to which a relationship has been > confirmed by DNA? I'm thinking of a kind of heat map. If I could mark in my > tree that there's simply no doubt that I'm my parents' kid (because DNA > "proves" it), and similarly cousins, and 2nd cousins etc. ... but some of > these relationships are "sure" (really close ones) and some are merely "more > sure than if I didn't have DNA" (7th cousins) ... ? > I'm looking for some way to start building a "wisdom of the crowds" > tree *which takes account of DNA*. > > Similarly, is there any GEDCOM-standard way of attaching a GEDmatch kit > number to a person's record? > >> From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna- >> bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jim Bartlett via >> I've found that Circles depend primarily on the basic info for each > ancestor: >> name, dates, places. If you and another Match list the same info, you'll > get a >> Circle. If either of you inserts an asterisk (or an Ahnentafel number, or > a middle > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Doris I've found that Circles depend primarily on the basic info for each ancestor: name, dates, places. If you and another Match list the same info, you'll get a Circle. If either of you inserts an asterisk (or an Ahnentafel number, or a middle name, or rank, etc) in the name field, it probably won't match = no Circle. I have 11 Matches in a Circle, but no Circle for her one and only husband because some people insert a rank or false middle name or guess differently on the place of birth (even tho they all use the well known/copied bible DOB), and so no Circle for him. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:47 AM, Doris Wheeler via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Peter, The rules for assigning circles are rather fuzzy. I think you'll > find most people have few or none. I have just one, despite heavy colonial > ancestry, and it is a total mystery to me. View them as "suggestions," > nothing more. > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Michael Fisher via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> Hi Peter >> >> " I also notice that Ancestry seems to have "DNA circles" for Charles >> Aldous, and also for his parents but does not seem to have any "DNA >> circles" for the ancestors I have in common with the new match I have >> found and I wonder why not. Regards Peter" >> >> If you go onto each of you Circle members and view match and click on >> "shared matches" and follow that line you can find more links. >> >> Mike Fisher in a now dry Droitwich. >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

For those who remember my recent query regarding the non-match on FTDNA between my mtDNA and my mother’s—a representative of FTDNA saw my query, checked into it, and rectified a glitch. Now we are a matched set. : ) Best, Janis Walker Gilmore Pawleys Island, SC, & Seattle, WA

Germans, like other groups, did (as Doris points out) tend to emigrate and settle together, and indeed to stay together for at least awhile. However, the length of time that they stayed together depends on which group of Germans and when they emigrated. My own German ancestors arrived in the Midwest between 1850 and 1875 and while initially they married other Germans (and to some extent their descendants have continued to marry other German descendants), by the 1920s they were pretty well assimilated. (That said, given my fairly recent German roots--I'm 3/8 German--if more Germans in Germany were to test, I would have some strong leads--a solid German DNA match helped prove my mother's unexpectedly German grandfather.) "German" in North America covers a lot of ground--people from Alsace to Russia, from the North Sea and Baltic coasts to northern Italy. That covers two major and quite a few smaller religious groups and people who emigrated over a good long period of time for diverse reasons. So I'm not surprised that Andreas gets quirky DNA results from North American matches--they may not be very closely related to one another or share much German ancestry DESPITE immigrants clumping together for awhile. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Doris Wheeler via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Henry Z. Jones Jr., the highly respected genealogist who did an extensive > study of the Palatine migration in 1709-1710 and later, is firmly convinced > that Germans "traveled together and stayed together." These people were > primarily from the Palatinate (Rhine River) region, although the group > included some Swiss and others. My own family history reflects this. Of the > 300+ families that arrived in the Hudson Valley of New York State in 1710, > I descend from more than 50, many of whom now proven by DNA. A great many > of their descendants remain in Columbia, Dutchess, Green and Ulster > Counties even today. In fact, in an effort to study the genetic patterns of > this group, I started a Palatine DNA Project at FTDNA many years ago. I'm > no longer associated with it, but it still survives and, hopefully, will > one day prove a useful database for someone. Jones also conducted studies > of other settlements of Germans in America, especially later in > Pennsylvania. The 1710 migration was the first large group to arrive in > America. > > Doris > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Andreas West via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > I hope to hear some of your views on the following: > > > > I'm seeing for a lot of my triangulated groups for my maternal side (they > > triangulate with both my mum and me, that's how I know which side) that > the > > U.S. based (and been there for many generations) cousins have lower > genetic > > distance and SNP's (hence shares less DNA) amongst themselves (means > within > > the other U.S. based cousins) than they do share with us (and my mum is > > basically 99% German with some faint traces of Bohemian and maybe Volga > > Germans (​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Germans). > > > > Given my mums ancestry it's pretty clear that our common ancestor was > > German > > and they are all descendants of German immigrants that went over the pond > > somewhere in the last 200 years (from the first German settlers to maybe > > the > > 18 hundred migrations). > > > > So if that same ancestral segment was split up through generations (given > > the > > size of max 20 cM with a median of 10 cM for our matches in the TG's) > then > > why > > is it that the randomness of DNA seems to favor more the German > connection > > (us) than the U.S. connections (the other descendants of immigrants)? > > > > From what I read it was common practice for the first settlers to marry > > within > > their own nationality/language/religious groups for the first couple of > > generations before mixing. Given that these settlers were mostly from > small > > villages (which were overpopulated given the size of farms & food > > availability) consisting of "extended family" and they keep sending > > messages > > home about who much better the new world was, thus more of their close > kin > > was > > following over and again cousin marriage happened. > > > > Whereas in Germany the poor living conditions either led to death or > those > > remaining there been forced to move to a better place within Germany, in > > combination with the start of the industrial revolution and what are now > > big > > cities with lots of jobs (we just see this as a global phenomene > happening > > again → the building of mega cities). So they had an opportunity to mix > > their > > DNA more than those immigrants in the U.S., correct? > > > > I'm wondering if anyone of you has some similar stories or theories as to > > why > > it's so. Like I wrote DNA is random, yet I see this happening way more > > often > > than not (the higher percentage of DNA with us Germans). > > > > This is a big mystery to me. Any feedback and comment is welcome. Thank > > you! > > > > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO > > > > My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- > > Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com

Peter I think that this is what you are asking about. Each person has two different copies of chromosome 3 and the other autosomes, this gives two separate values for each segment, you will not have an average of the two values. Your sister will have two separate values which may be very different than what you received. The Dna you inherited passed through your parents but it is various portions of each of your grandparent's Dna. My full sister received about 9% more of our grandparents British-Irish Dna than I received while I received more Dutch German. Because more people with UK ancestry have tested than people with German ancestry it gives my sister about 10% more matches than I have. It matters which testing company you are using. At 23andme my full sister and I share 54.4% of our Dna with .68Gb completely identical while at Ftdna they do not include completely identical so my full sister and I show as only sharing about 36% of our Dna. These are 23andme comparisons of my grandchildren with each of their grandparents. The estimates say they should share 25% with each grandparent Ethan vs. Robert, 21.9%, 1629 cM, 23 seg (zero X-chromosome) Ethan vs. Janice, 25.4%, 1892 cM, 26 seg (zero X-chromosome) Ethan vs. Rocky, 22.0%, 1638 cM, 24 seg (79cM X-chromosome, 2 seg) Ethan vs. Vivian, 28.0%, 2082 cM, 37 seg (103cM X-chromosome, 3 seg) Kalea vs. Robert, 24.1%, 1792 cM, 25 seg (zero X-chromosome) Kalea vs. Janice, 25.7%, 1909 cM, 26 seg (full X-chromosome, 182cM) Kalea vs. Rocky, 28.1%, 2089 cM, 23 seg (full X-chromosome, 182cM) Kalea vs. Vivian, 21.9%, 1631 cM, 25 seg (zero X-chromosome) Shay vs. Robert, 21.8%, 1625 cM, 23 seg (zero X-chromosome) Shay vs. Janice, 28%, 2085 cM, 24 seg (full X-chromosome, 182cM) Shay vs. Rich, 19.7%, 1466 cM, 24 seg (full X-chromosome, 182cM) Shay vs. Marcy, 30.1%, 2236 cM, 29 seg (zero X-chromosome) RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Peter J. Roberts via Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 8:00 AM To: genealogy-dna-l@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Does atDNA ethnic admixture work this way? For example my father's chromosome 3 (which he got from his mother) from 50 million to 80 million is most similar with persons from Iberia. My father's chromosome 3 (which he got from his father) from 50 million to 80 million mostly matches people from Scandinavia. Is it likely that area of my father's chromosome 3 will appear to mostly match people from "Northern France" (because it is between Iberia and Scandinavia? If so, then my chromosome 3 from my father from 50 million to 80 million is most similar with persons from "Northern France". Let us say all of my mother's ancestry is from Japan and the chromosome 3 which I received from her mostly matches people from Japan on the area from 50 to 80 million. What could my sister's admixture look like in that same area? How might it appear different from mine? Could she look mostly "French" and I look mostly east Asian from 50 to 80 million? Is there a better way to ask this question? Thanks and sincerely, Peter Peter J. Robertshttp://www.wikitree.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

For me, I match someone in that circle to a MCRA, and I can document their paper trail and paper my trail to that ancestor. Maybe I should have used better wording. I match people in these circles through traditional research and DNA. I have a few circles with 10+ people in it-- I might not match all participants, but I match some. I guess I am fairly lucky to have as many circles. I would suggest looking at these circles and mapping their genealogies. Work up your tree, then back down. Good luck, Patti -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter J Richardson via Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 8:38 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Matches on Ancestry Circles -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Patti Easton via Sent: 30 October 2015 13:05 To: 'Doris Wheeler' <doriswh@gmail.com>; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Matches on Ancestry Circles > I have 6 circles, all with verified connections. Interesting. How does a connection become verified? Is that something that I as a user do? Regards Peter ------------------------------- 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

Peter, I too have found the associated trees at Ancestry easier to work with than FTDNA's trees (can often at least assign a match to a grandparent's line), and have not yet used the second-party tools for Ancestry, but regarding DNA Circles, I would suggest you read Roberta Estes's blog posts about them at http://dna-explained.com/. Quite a few things can affect whether a DNA Circle is created, including minor spelling differences, besides which that DNA Circles sometimes involve the wrong "ancestor". Karla On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Peter J Richardson via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > The problem I'm finding though is that the submitted trees on FTDNA are not > easy to follow and I suspect that GEDMatch is for the dedicated DNA > researcher, so I am struggling to get enough data to identify the many > unidentified matches that I have. I thought that the recent testing > initiative on Ancestry would make DNA testing more mainstream and with the > more extensive trees on there I would find more data to work with, so I did > a test on there. I have indeed found more matches including one which the > ancestors in common can be found and would like to be able to use this > match > to make more sense of my FTDNA & Gedmatch matches. > > I am not actually familiar with the tools Mike mentions (and wonder whether > they might give me the information I am after?). I also notice that > Ancestry > seems to have "DNA circles" for Charles Aldous, and also for his parents > but > does not seem to have any "DNA circles" for the ancestors I have in common > with the new match I have found and I wonder why not. > > Regards > Peter >

Peter, The rules for assigning circles are rather fuzzy. I think you'll find most people have few or none. I have just one, despite heavy colonial ancestry, and it is a total mystery to me. View them as "suggestions," nothing more. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Michael Fisher via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hi Peter > > " I also notice that Ancestry seems to have "DNA circles" for Charles > Aldous, and also for his parents but does not seem to have any "DNA > circles" for the ancestors I have in common with the new match I have > found and I wonder why not. Regards Peter" > > If you go onto each of you Circle members and view match and click on > "shared matches" and follow that line you can find more links. > > Mike Fisher in a now dry Droitwich. > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

AncestryDNA uses a composite score called PersonRank to decide if two pedigrees refer to the same person. This includes names, dates, and places, but it ALSO includes family relationships. I had a circle where the husband was listed, but no circle for his wife Lydia Winter, even though the vital statistics were identical in the two pedigrees. When I added the complete family group with Lydia's siblings, she had her own circle. I changed her name to ZZZ and the circle went away. I changed her name to Lidea Winters (a spelling used in some records), and the circle came back. Thus similar spellings were tolerated. It appears to be a cumulative effect: the more elements match, the more confident the algorithm is, but it doesn't depend on exactness of any single element. Ann Turner On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Jim Bartlett via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Doris > > I've found that Circles depend primarily on the basic info for each > ancestor: name, dates, places. If you and another Match list the same info, > you'll get a Circle. If either of you inserts an asterisk (or an Ahnentafel > number, or a middle name, or rank, etc) in the name field, it probably > won't match = no Circle. I have 11 Matches in a Circle, but no Circle for > her one and only husband because some people insert a rank or false middle > name or guess differently on the place of birth (even tho they all use the > well known/copied bible DOB), and so no Circle for him. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:47 AM, Doris Wheeler via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > Peter, The rules for assigning circles are rather fuzzy. I think you'll > > find most people have few or none. I have just one, despite heavy > colonial > > ancestry, and it is a total mystery to me. View them as "suggestions," > > nothing more. >

I have 6 circles, all with verified connections. Interesting. -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Doris Wheeler via Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 6:47 AM To: m.j.Fisher@btinternet.com; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Matches on Ancestry Circles Peter, The rules for assigning circles are rather fuzzy. I think you'll find most people have few or none. I have just one, despite heavy colonial ancestry, and it is a total mystery to me. View them as "suggestions," nothing more. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Michael Fisher via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hi Peter > > " I also notice that Ancestry seems to have "DNA circles" for Charles > Aldous, and also for his parents but does not seem to have any "DNA > circles" for the ancestors I have in common with the new match I have > found and I wonder why not. Regards Peter" > > If you go onto each of you Circle members and view match and click on > "shared matches" and follow that line you can find more links. > > Mike Fisher in a now dry Droitwich. > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Henry Z. Jones Jr., the highly respected genealogist who did an extensive study of the Palatine migration in 1709-1710 and later, is firmly convinced that Germans "traveled together and stayed together." These people were primarily from the Palatinate (Rhine River) region, although the group included some Swiss and others. My own family history reflects this. Of the 300+ families that arrived in the Hudson Valley of New York State in 1710, I descend from more than 50, many of whom now proven by DNA. A great many of their descendants remain in Columbia, Dutchess, Green and Ulster Counties even today. In fact, in an effort to study the genetic patterns of this group, I started a Palatine DNA Project at FTDNA many years ago. I'm no longer associated with it, but it still survives and, hopefully, will one day prove a useful database for someone. Jones also conducted studies of other settlements of Germans in America, especially later in Pennsylvania. The 1710 migration was the first large group to arrive in America. Doris On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Andreas West via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > > I hope to hear some of your views on the following: > > I'm seeing for a lot of my triangulated groups for my maternal side (they > triangulate with both my mum and me, that's how I know which side) that the > U.S. based (and been there for many generations) cousins have lower genetic > distance and SNP's (hence shares less DNA) amongst themselves (means within > the other U.S. based cousins) than they do share with us (and my mum is > basically 99% German with some faint traces of Bohemian and maybe Volga > Germans (​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Germans). > > Given my mums ancestry it's pretty clear that our common ancestor was > German > and they are all descendants of German immigrants that went over the pond > somewhere in the last 200 years (from the first German settlers to maybe > the > 18 hundred migrations). > > So if that same ancestral segment was split up through generations (given > the > size of max 20 cM with a median of 10 cM for our matches in the TG's) then > why > is it that the randomness of DNA seems to favor more the German connection > (us) than the U.S. connections (the other descendants of immigrants)? > > From what I read it was common practice for the first settlers to marry > within > their own nationality/language/religious groups for the first couple of > generations before mixing. Given that these settlers were mostly from small > villages (which were overpopulated given the size of farms & food > availability) consisting of "extended family" and they keep sending > messages > home about who much better the new world was, thus more of their close kin > was > following over and again cousin marriage happened. > > Whereas in Germany the poor living conditions either led to death or those > remaining there been forced to move to a better place within Germany, in > combination with the start of the industrial revolution and what are now > big > cities with lots of jobs (we just see this as a global phenomene happening > again → the building of mega cities). So they had an opportunity to mix > their > DNA more than those immigrants in the U.S., correct? > > I'm wondering if anyone of you has some similar stories or theories as to > why > it's so. Like I wrote DNA is random, yet I see this happening way more > often > than not (the higher percentage of DNA with us Germans). > > This is a big mystery to me. Any feedback and comment is welcome. Thank > you! > > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO > > My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- > Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Yes or perhaps the eldest son stayed in the home country and therefore the living descendants are a generation further removed. -----Original Message----- From: jlerch1 via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>; Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> Sent: Thu, Oct 29, 2015 4:06 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] re Why is it that my U.S. cousins all shares less DNA amongst them but more with me? It occurs to me that another mechanism is: Living in the more staid old world, the years between generations may be greater. So for a given ancestor, the # of generations between your mom and that ancestor is fewer--say 5 for 4th cousins to her common ancestor: whereas, over here across the pond, it's been live fast, die hard so it's 6 or 7 generations with its concomitant lesser DNA. On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:30:39 -0000, Andreas West wrote: You are correct JAL, sorry for the confusion. I don't get your question about my mum's ancestors, my mum is 68 and no parents or grandparents live anymore (that would make my task a lot easier). Andreas (WEST) born BASSO My ancestors: http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23 "jlerch1 via" wrote:You got it backwards, Wjh--they're more related to him than to each other. The confusion arose since he said "lower genetic distance". The answer to Andreas' question most likely is: They triangulate to your mum, but do they all triangulate with your mum's mum or your mum's dad, and then on to your mum's mum's mum, mum' mum's dad....? So presumably at least some of them became their most related to each other through you by marriage. JAL Wjh wrote From: Wjhonson Subject: Re: [DNA] Why is it that my U.S. cousins all shares less DNA amongst them but more with me? To: ahnen@awest.de, genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 The most likely case would be that they match each other on some other line as well. So they might be ninth cousins to you, but actually fifth cousins to each other. -----Original Message----- From: Andreas West via To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List Sent: Thu, Oct 29, 2015 1:43 am Subject: [DNA] Why is it that my U.S. cousins all shares less DNA amongst them but more with me? Hi everyone, I hope to hear some of your views on the following: I'm seeing for a lot of my triangulated groups for my maternal side (they triangulate with both my mum and me, that's how I know which side) that the U.S. based (and been there for many generations) cousins have lower genetic distance and SNP's (hence shares less DNA) amongst themselves (means within the other U.S. based cousins) than they do share with us (and my mum is basically 99% German with ------------------------------- 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 forgot the punch line.  So for kinship between you and your American cousins, it's a total of 11 of 12 generations, and for them it's 12 or 13.  So they would have < ~1/2 the level of kinship you and they do.  (< 1/2 rather than 1/2 because of the other mechanism I mentioned in an earlier post.) On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:57:48 -0400, jlerch1@lighttube.net wrote: It occurs to me that another mechanism is: Living in the more staid old world, the years between generations may be greater.  So for a given ancestor, the # of generations between your mom and that ancestor is fewer--say 5 for 4th cousins to her common ancestor: whereas, over here across the pond, it's been live fast, die hard so it's 6 or 7 generations with its concomitant lesser DNA. On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:30:39 -0000, Andreas West wrote: You are correct JAL, sorry for the confusion.   I don't get your question about my mum's ancestors, my mum is 68 and no parents or grandparents live anymore (that would make my task a lot easier).   Andreas (WEST) born BASSO   My ancestors: http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23 "jlerch1 via" wrote:You got it backwards, Wjh--they're more related to him than to each other.  The confusion arose since he said "lower genetic distance". The answer to Andreas' question most likely is: They triangulate to your mum, but do they all triangulate with your mum's mum or your mum's dad, and then on to your mum's mum's mum, mum' mum's dad....?  So presumably at least some of them became their most related to each other through you by marriage. JAL   Wjh wrote From: Wjhonson Subject: Re: [DNA] Why is it that my U.S. cousins all shares less DNA amongst them but more with me? To: ahnen@awest.de, genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8   The most likely case would be that they match each other on some other line as well.   So they might be ninth cousins to you, but actually fifth cousins to each other.   -----Original Message----- From: Andreas West via To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List Sent: Thu, Oct 29, 2015 1:43 am Subject: [DNA] Why is it that my U.S. cousins all shares less DNA amongst them but more with me?   Hi everyone,   I hope to hear some of your views on the following:   I'm seeing for a lot of my triangulated groups for my maternal side (they triangulate with both my mum and me, that's how I know which side) that the U.S. based (and been there for many generations) cousins have lower genetic distance and SNP's (hence shares less DNA) amongst themselves (means within the other U.S. based cousins) than they do share with us (and my mum is basically 99% German with     ------------------------------- 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  

It occurs to me that another mechanism is: Living in the more staid old world, the years between generations may be greater.  So for a given ancestor, the # of generations between your mom and that ancestor is fewer--say 5 for 4th cousins to her common ancestor: whereas, over here across the pond, it's been live fast, die hard so it's 6 or 7 generations with its concomitant lesser DNA. On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:30:39 -0000, Andreas West wrote: You are correct JAL, sorry for the confusion.   I don't get your question about my mum's ancestors, my mum is 68 and no parents or grandparents live anymore (that would make my task a lot easier).   Andreas (WEST) born BASSO   My ancestors: http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23 "jlerch1 via" wrote:You got it backwards, Wjh--they're more related to him than to each other.  The confusion arose since he said "lower genetic distance". The answer to Andreas' question most likely is: They triangulate to your mum, but do they all triangulate with your mum's mum or your mum's dad, and then on to your mum's mum's mum, mum' mum's dad....?  So presumably at least some of them became their most related to each other through you by marriage. JAL   Wjh wrote From: Wjhonson Subject: Re: [DNA] Why is it that my U.S. cousins all shares less DNA amongst them but more with me? To: ahnen@awest.de, genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8   The most likely case would be that they match each other on some other line as well.   So they might be ninth cousins to you, but actually fifth cousins to each other.   -----Original Message----- From: Andreas West via To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List Sent: Thu, Oct 29, 2015 1:43 am Subject: [DNA] Why is it that my U.S. cousins all shares less DNA amongst them but more with me?   Hi everyone,   I hope to hear some of your views on the following:   I'm seeing for a lot of my triangulated groups for my maternal side (they triangulate with both my mum and me, that's how I know which side) that the U.S. based (and been there for many generations) cousins have lower genetic distance and SNP's (hence shares less DNA) amongst themselves (means within the other U.S. based cousins) than they do share with us (and my mum is basically 99% German with     ------------------------------- 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  

You are correct JAL, sorry for the confusion. I don't get your question about my mum's ancestors, my mum is 68 and no parents or grandparents live anymore (that would make my task a lot easier). Andreas (WEST) born BASSO My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) "jlerch1 via" <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > You got it backwards, Wjh--they're more related to him than to each other. > The confusion arose since he said "lower genetic distance". > The answer to Andreas' question most likely is: They triangulate to your mum, > but do they all triangulate with your mum's mum or your mum's dad, and then > on to your mum's mum's mum, mum' mum's dad....? So presumably at least some > of them became their most related to each other through you by marriage. > JAL > > Wjh wrote > From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> > Subject: Re: [DNA] Why is it that my U.S. cousins all shares less DNA > amongst them but more with me? > To: ahnen@awest.de, genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <150b4471367-69a-8824@webprd-a16.mail.aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > The most likely case would be that they match each other on some other line > as well. > > So they might be ninth cousins to you, but actually fifth cousins to each > other. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas West via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thu, Oct 29, 2015 1:43 am > Subject: [DNA] Why is it that my U.S. cousins all shares less DNA amongst > them but more with me? > > Hi everyone, > > I hope to hear some of your views on the following: > > I'm seeing > for a lot of my triangulated groups for my maternal side (they > triangulate with > both my mum and me, that's how I know which side) that the > U.S. based (and been > there for many generations) cousins have lower genetic > distance and SNP's > (hence shares less DNA) amongst themselves (means within > the other U.S. based > cousins) than they do share with us (and my mum is > basically 99% German with > > > ------------------------------- > 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

It wasn't a question as much as noting: On average, 1/2 of your American maternal cousins are going to be related to your mom's dad, and 1/2 to her mum.  And hence there would be no particular reason for them to be related to each other.  Your mom's parents may have come from the same village, but you have enough variety in the location of your Germanic ancestors, that ultimately someone's parents are not going to be related to each other. On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:30:39 -0000, Andreas West wrote: You are correct JAL, sorry for the confusion.   I don't get your question about my mum's ancestors, my mum is 68 and no parents or grandparents live anymore (that would make my task a lot easier).   Andreas (WEST) born BASSO   My ancestors: http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23 "jlerch1 via" wrote:You got it backwards, Wjh--they're more related to him than to each other.  The confusion arose since he said "lower genetic distance". The answer to Andreas' question most likely is: They triangulate to your mum, but do they all triangulate with your mum's mum or your mum's dad, and then on to your mum's mum's mum, mum' mum's dad....?  So presumably at least some of them became their most related to each other through you by marriage. JAL   Wjh wrote From: Wjhonson Subject: Re: [DNA] Why is it that my U.S. cousins all shares less DNA amongst them but more with me? To: ahnen@awest.de, genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8   The most likely case would be that they match each other on some other line as well.   So they might be ninth cousins to you, but actually fifth cousins to each other.   -----Original Message----- From: Andreas West via To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List Sent: Thu, Oct 29, 2015 1:43 am Subject: [DNA] Why is it that my U.S. cousins all shares less DNA amongst them but more with me?   Hi everyone,   I hope to hear some of your views on the following:   I'm seeing for a lot of my triangulated groups for my maternal side (they triangulate with both my mum and me, that's how I know which side) that the U.S. based (and been there for many generations) cousins have lower genetic distance and SNP's (hence shares less DNA) amongst themselves (means within the other U.S. based cousins) than they do share with us (and my mum is basically 99% German with     ------------------------------- 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  

The DNAGedcom Client app downloads that information as I recall Jon Masterson Wales UK, Florida US jon@scruffyduck.co.uk Gedmatch: A488362, M938817 Surnames: Cannon, Coulter, Clinton, Dryman, Lance, Mabey, Pryor, Wrixon On 29/10/2015 15:50, Wjhonson via wrote: > how are you getting ancestry to provide the shared cms value? > My results do not show that > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Fisher via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > To: Taryn Flock <taryn.flock@att.net>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thu, Oct 29, 2015 6:53 am > Subject: Re: [DNA] Matches on Ancestry > > > Hi > > This is the shared CMs column from DNAGedcom results in Excel on my > > AncestryDNA > results > > sharedCM > 844.827 > 43.964 > 34.998 > 31.067 > 23.817 > 21.391 > 20.459 > 20.248 > 20.151 > 19.652 > 19.652 > 19.538 > 19.394 > 18.987 > 18.436 > etc > > The first entry is a first cousin and on GEDmatch shares 952.6 CMs > The > 3rd is a match who on GEDmatch shares 60.3 CMs the fourth is 3rd's > father who > on GEDmatch shares 48.6 CMs > > Mike > > > ------------------------------- > 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

<The reason I know they were adopted was they told me so. I spoke to one of them, I believe it was Jim O. Augustine, born January 1, 1947> Even though not the actual date it must be a reasonable "guesstimate." Sam: According to your info the boys were born too late to have come on the Orphan Train. As Wikipedia says the following: The orphan trains operated between 1853 and 1929, relocating about 200,000 orphaned, abandoned, or homeless children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Train Janet Crain

Hi This is the shared CMs column from DNAGedcom results in Excel on my AncestryDNA results sharedCM 844.827 43.964 34.998 31.067 23.817 21.391 20.459 20.248 20.151 19.652 19.652 19.538 19.394 18.987 18.436 etc The first entry is a first cousin and on GEDmatch shares 952.6 CMs The 3rd is a match who on GEDmatch shares 60.3 CMs the fourth is 3rd's father who on GEDmatch shares 48.6 CMs Mike