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