Can the following be of help ? The registers are at the Central Library. They may tell you where they are buried. Mike Morris Toronto Canada  | Lancashire Death indexes for the years: 1886 | | Surname | Forename(s) | Age or Date of Birth | Sub-District | Registers At | Reference | | CARLETON | Catherine | 34 | Chorlton-on-Medlock | Archives+, Manchester Central Library | CHO/95/52 | | Lancashire Death indexes for the years: 1914 | | Surname | Forename(s) | Age or Date of Birth | Sub-District | Registers At | Reference | | CARLETON | Andrew | 64 | Ardwick | Archives+, Manchester Central Library | ARD/3A/349 | From: Lynn Elves <elvesgandalf@hotmail.com> To: "lancsgen@rootsweb.com" <lancsgen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 11:55 AM I am visiting from Australia, and have tried finding burials for relatives who lived in Chorlton/Ardwick. Catherine Carleton died 1886 (Chorlton on Medlock) Andrew Carleton died 1914 <snip>

Lynn According to a memorial notice in the Manchester Evening News in 1915 - Andrew died 16 January 1914. Using this I found an entry in the same paper on the 17 January 1914 (transcription error but I submitted the correction) According to this he was to be interred on the 21st Jan at Moston Cemetery Can find nothing it the papers for Catherine - possible in the same grave but would depend on whether it was a public one or not Regards John Hanson - researching the Halstead/Holstead/Alstead names Researcher, the Halsted Trust, http://www.halstedresearch.org.uk New family history conference in 2018 http://www.secretlives.org.uk -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Elves [mailto:elvesgandalf@hotmail.com] Sent: 24 May 2018 16:55 To: lancsgen@rootsweb.com Subject: [LAN] CARLETON - I can't find burial area HI ALl I am visiting from Australia, and have tried finding burials for relatives who lived in Chorlton/Ardwick. Catherine Carleton died 1886 (Chorlton on Medlock) Andrew Carleton died 1914 I can find death records in Lancs BDM and Free BDM I tried searching Manchester area graves/cemeteries to no avail. Does anyone have any clues? _______________________________________________ :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: GENUKI - a virtual reference library of genealogical information. http://www.genuki.org.uk/ Contact the list administrator at LancsGen-admin@rootsweb.com :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/postorius/lists/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Archives: https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

HI ALl I am visiting from Australia, and have tried finding burials for relatives who lived in Chorlton/Ardwick. Catherine Carleton died 1886 (Chorlton on Medlock) Andrew Carleton died 1914 I can find death records in Lancs BDM and Free BDM I tried searching Manchester area graves/cemeteries to no avail. Does anyone have any clues?

I have read about these identical triplets before, I think they actually gave them tattoos around birth and they have been famous all their lives. (one had nothing, next one had one dot and third one had two dots) http://www.kiwireport.com/identical-triplets-take-dna-test-just-discover-wor rying-truth/38/ Cheers Marg -----Original Message----- From: Ralph Taylor <rt-sails@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2018 7:31 AM To: lancsgen@rootsweb.com Subject: [LAN] Re: LANCSGEN Digest, Vol 13, Issue 68 Re: " Yes the classic case of the identical triplets who showed as Identical DNA - but - had quite a variance in their ethnicity (How could that be?)" IF the DNA was truly identical, as it should have been for identical twins or triplets -- then all "should" show the same admixture (ethnicity) results. But this is a complicated technology and things aren't always what they seem. Perhaps, the triplets weren't "identical". That is, the triplets didn't result from a single fertilized egg splitting into three, but from multiple fertilized eggs. That would make them fraternal triplets whose DNA isn't necessarily identical. Perhaps, aftr a single fertilized egg split, DNA recombination occurred in which a block on one-half of a chromosome pair over-wrote its complementary part. That would render some of the DNA non-identical. Perhaps, some of the ethnicity involves populations under-represented in the reference database. In such cases, the algorithms pick the "next closest thing". Bottom line: Don't believe everything on TV. There's a tendency to gloss over important details. -rt_/) _______________________________________________ :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: GENUKI - a virtual reference library of genealogical information. http://www.genuki.org.uk/ Contact the list administrator at LancsGen-admin@rootsweb.com :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/postorius/lists/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Archives: https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Re: " Yes the classic case of the identical triplets who showed as Identical DNA - but - had quite a variance in their ethnicity (How could that be?)" IF the DNA was truly identical, as it should have been for identical twins or triplets -- then all "should" show the same admixture (ethnicity) results. But this is a complicated technology and things aren't always what they seem. Perhaps, the triplets weren't "identical". That is, the triplets didn't result from a single fertilized egg splitting into three, but from multiple fertilized eggs. That would make them fraternal triplets whose DNA isn't necessarily identical. Perhaps, aftr a single fertilized egg split, DNA recombination occurred in which a block on one-half of a chromosome pair over-wrote its complementary part. That would render some of the DNA non-identical. Perhaps, some of the ethnicity involves populations under-represented in the reference database. In such cases, the algorithms pick the "next closest thing". Bottom line: Don't believe everything on TV. There's a tendency to gloss over important details. -rt_/)

I do not know if we saw the same TV report (I am aware of two different ones, one on "Inside Edition" and the other on NBC's Rosen Reports), and the advertising for the stories was rather misleading when compared to the actual stories. The Rosen Report actually verified the accuracy of three different testing companies. Inside Edition's report made it sound like there were huge variations when the actual differences were in fact very small. The "European Estimate was identical, and the difference was in the subgroups such as English and Scandinavian. Those results came back something like 9%, 8%,, and 12%. My recollection from my college statistics class was that any thing less than a 5% variation is not considered "statistically significant", although I assume some may argue that. Also, some differences are explained by the fact that different companies define ethnic regions differently. I do, however, return to my original point that the ethnic estimates are really the least important (and the least accurate) part of the DNA test results. Pay more attention to your actual matches and you will learn much more about your background than by looking at the ethnicity estimates. ----- Original Message ----- From: "marg" <marg_alt@iinet.net.au> To: martin@mbriscoe.me.uk, lancsgen@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 3:43:15 AM Subject: [LAN] Re: DNA Testing Yes the classic case of the identical triplets who showed as Identical DNA - but - had quite a variance in their ethnicity (How could that be?) it was on a TV show in US. marg -----Original Message----- From: Martin Briscoe (W10 laptop) <list@mbriscoe.me.uk> Sent: Monday, 21 May 2018 6:20 PM To: lancsgen@rootsweb.com Subject: [LAN] Re: DNA Testing I think most people believe the ethnicity results are promoted by Ancestry because they are a selling point in the American market where people will have a wider range of ethnicity than in the UK. Many also lost any faith in it when Ancestry originally grouped all "Celtic" origins under one label "Irish". They have changed that now and the ethnicity fits roughly with what is expected though the odd person but get something unexpected. At times it can be accurate, I have mentioned before that I have been able to prove fairly conclusively that someone born in the early 19th Century was illegitimate. I was also able to help someone abroad find who his Grandmother's father was, which had been completely unknown. Martin Briscoe Fort William Ancestry DNA, FTDNA (B68554), GEDMatch (A374507) -----Original Message----- From: genscan@tds.net [mailto:genscan@tds.net] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 2:17 AM To: lancsgen@rootsweb.com Subject: [LAN] DNA Testing I have worked with DNA testing for a number of years now, and manage tests for around 30 people. I would like to make two points based on what I have experienced: First, people put far too much emphasis on the ethnicity estimates. These estimates are the least important part of the test. They are very general in nature, and are unlikely to teach you very much, especially if you already know you have several ethnic groups in your background. Second, the relationship matches are usually very accurate, and can be a great tool if analyzed properly. You can use it to verify the accuracy of your pedigree lines, and reveal new relationships. But remember, DNA testing is just an additional tool; it is not intended to replace traditional forms of research. If you expect the DNA test to provide you with a complete pedigree with no work on your own part, you will be very disappointed. I do encourage people to test, however, as the larger the pool of test takers becomes, the more useful the results will be. _______________________________________________ :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: GENUKI - a virtual reference library of genealogical information. http://www.genuki.org.uk/ Contact the list administrator at LancsGen-admin@rootsweb.com :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/postorius/lists/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Archives: https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: GENUKI - a virtual reference library of genealogical information. http://www.genuki.org.uk/ Contact the list administrator at LancsGen-admin@rootsweb.com :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/postorius/lists/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Archives: https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

You get half your mother's and half your father's DNA but you could get opposite halves of each. Grandchildren get approx 1/4 but not exactly, so each generation loses some connections that are there but don't show in the DNA. On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:43:15 +1000, marg wrote: Yes the classic case of the identical triplets who showed as Identical DNA - but - had quite a variance in their ethnicity (How could that be?) it was on a TV show in US. marg ---yal RootsWeb community

Yes the classic case of the identical triplets who showed as Identical DNA - but - had quite a variance in their ethnicity (How could that be?) it was on a TV show in US. marg -----Original Message----- From: Martin Briscoe (W10 laptop) <list@mbriscoe.me.uk> Sent: Monday, 21 May 2018 6:20 PM To: lancsgen@rootsweb.com Subject: [LAN] Re: DNA Testing I think most people believe the ethnicity results are promoted by Ancestry because they are a selling point in the American market where people will have a wider range of ethnicity than in the UK. Many also lost any faith in it when Ancestry originally grouped all "Celtic" origins under one label "Irish". They have changed that now and the ethnicity fits roughly with what is expected though the odd person but get something unexpected. At times it can be accurate, I have mentioned before that I have been able to prove fairly conclusively that someone born in the early 19th Century was illegitimate. I was also able to help someone abroad find who his Grandmother's father was, which had been completely unknown. Martin Briscoe Fort William Ancestry DNA, FTDNA (B68554), GEDMatch (A374507) -----Original Message----- From: genscan@tds.net [mailto:genscan@tds.net] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 2:17 AM To: lancsgen@rootsweb.com Subject: [LAN] DNA Testing I have worked with DNA testing for a number of years now, and manage tests for around 30 people. I would like to make two points based on what I have experienced: First, people put far too much emphasis on the ethnicity estimates. These estimates are the least important part of the test. They are very general in nature, and are unlikely to teach you very much, especially if you already know you have several ethnic groups in your background. Second, the relationship matches are usually very accurate, and can be a great tool if analyzed properly. You can use it to verify the accuracy of your pedigree lines, and reveal new relationships. But remember, DNA testing is just an additional tool; it is not intended to replace traditional forms of research. If you expect the DNA test to provide you with a complete pedigree with no work on your own part, you will be very disappointed. I do encourage people to test, however, as the larger the pool of test takers becomes, the more useful the results will be. _______________________________________________ :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: GENUKI - a virtual reference library of genealogical information. http://www.genuki.org.uk/ Contact the list administrator at LancsGen-admin@rootsweb.com :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/postorius/lists/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Archives: https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hi, I tested via FTDNA (autosomal FamilyFinder and maternal MtDNA ) and more recently via Ancestry. My husband tested via FTDNA (FamilyFinder, Y-DNA, MtDNA) For my husband, we've been able to verify existing paper research for key lines, recognized other family lines for others, and learned more details on a couple of lines via people adding him to their histories. My results are more iffy. I thought that with 4 grandparents coming from 4 different countries, recognition would be 'easy'. Not so. I did create a direct-line tree for each of us on FTDNA (thinking more 'protected' info within a DNA-research focus). I have yet to post any tree on Ancestry. Have been happy to share during paper research, but skeptical/cautious re copy/paste/perpetrating errors on Ancestry. Realize something is needed and will post a simple ancestor tree there (stuck on editing down an ancestral tree and knowing how to post it). I have the most paper trail research for my English grandfather and expected to easily find/recognize some of the extended family. Particularly optimistic re a 3rd cousin, once removed. We're not a match; I haven't found/recognized any of my grandfather's paternal line; I did recognize a connection to his maternal line. I've been told the lack of match is not necessarily significant, but now wondering . . . . . Marsha Stringer (nee MEERE) stringer@mstringer.net -----Original Message----- From: John The Genes via LANCSGEN [mailto:lancsgen@rootsweb.com] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 9:41 AM To: lancsgen@rootsweb.com Cc: John The Genes Subject: [LAN] Re: DNA I found out that my father's father wasn't his father. ???? That was interesting, though having met my grandmother I didn't find it surprising, John Lynch

I found out that my father's father wasn't his father. ???? That was interesting, though having met my grandmother I didn't find it surprising, but it has not so far enabled me to find out who she really did couple with. It did throw new light on the irreparable rift between her and the rest of the Lynches that appeared around the time my father was born. I found out years later that the children and grandchildren of my "grandfather's" older sister were told they were the only ones -- none of her siblings had children. (They had a younger brother and two younger sisters but - very Irish, this - none of the three married and they ended up sharing a home in north London). If you have an Irish name, the paddies always want to adopt you. I'm now able to say, 'Sorry, mate, I know I have the name but I don't actually have any Irish genes.' -- John Lynch

I have had fairly good success figuring out these cousin relationships. What really helps is to have some KNOWN cousins tested, so for example, different descendants of each set of your great-grandparents are represented. Then when you use the "shared matches" feature on an unknown cousin match, you will likely be able to determine which great-grandparent line the unknown cousin is connected to. That really narrows down the search arena. From there you can look for similar locations in posted family trees. It is of course not nearly as helpful if the person tested didn't bother to post a pedigree. I am not suggesting this is always easy, as it is often not. It takes time and study. It helps a lot if you enjoy genealogical research. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christine Shelmerdine" <cmshelmerdine@gmail.com> To: lancsgen@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 5:06:52 AM Subject: [LAN] DNA Both my husband and myself have had our DNA tested through Ancestry and found that it has not been any use to us. Okay it mentions third and fourth cousins but no route to them. I consider it a waste of time and money _______________________________________________ :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: GENUKI - a virtual reference library of genealogical information. http://www.genuki.org.uk/ Contact the list administrator at LancsGen-admin@rootsweb.com :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/postorius/lists/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Archives: https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hi, Had mine tested...loads of 4th cousin matches (father's side) to lines I already knew about. Nothing unexpected in the results. Thought it was a little bit of a waste of time. However...recently I was looking at the odd match and there was one I could not place anyone on my tree, but there was one comman surname for someone in London. Fortunately they had a public tree on Ancestry and I managed to get this back another generation which did give me a name I had on my tree, a 3x great uncle that I had a baptism for and I knew he was still alive 40 years later, but did not know where he went, if he married etc. I was one of those sitting on Ancestry with no tree...if you want matches of use allow people to see your tree! I have now put a tree up, but just direct ancestors and not much detail, I am happy to share with relatives but not agree to Ancestry's copyright conditions. Best Wishes Dorri ________________________________ From: Christine Shelmerdine <cmshelmerdine@gmail.com> Sent: 21 May 2018 11:06:52 To: lancsgen@rootsweb.com Subject: [LAN] DNA Both my husband and myself have had our DNA tested through Ancestry and found that it has not been any use to us. Okay it mentions third and fourth cousins but no route to them. I consider it a waste of time and money _______________________________________________ :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: GENUKI - a virtual reference library of genealogical information. http://www.genuki.org.uk/ Contact the list administrator at LancsGen-admin@rootsweb.com :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/postorius/lists/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Archives: https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

As has been written, you have to work at it. Ancestry has the big problem that many people do not have a tree attached and don't reply to messages. But you can check to see if they have a tree and sometimes get clues from that. You can get a proper figure rather just Ancestry's interpretation of "Confidence" - "Amount of Shared DNA - 191 centimorgans shared across 10 DNA segments" Keep checking for any new matches appearing. Look at Shared Matches then investigate them. I often look first at the map (if they have a tree) and see if we share similar areas. It is worth putting your test sample on GEDMatch (unless you are worried about being investigated for any crimes!). There are EMail addresses there so easier to contact people. I like the tool to compare matches for yourself and someone else, can give you new shared matches and sometimes more important, ones you do not share. Martin Briscoe Fort William Ancestry DNA, FTDNA (B68554), GEDMatch (A374507) -----Original Message----- From: Christine Shelmerdine [mailto:cmshelmerdine@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 11:07 AM To: lancsgen@rootsweb.com Subject: [LAN] DNA Both my husband and myself have had our DNA tested through Ancestry and found that it has not been any use to us. Okay it mentions third and fourth cousins but no route to them. I consider it a waste of time and money

Hello All, I have tested through both Ancestry and FTDNA. While I have also tested several of my family members through FTDNA, I also tested my son through Ancestry but uploaded all of our results to Gedmatch. Gedmatch provides the ability to graph the chromosomes and determine exactly which chromosomes we share with others. I believe it is an essential tool for anyone who has tested through Ancestry. I agree that Ancestry can be frustrating, particularly since they have even limited their search engines. I used to be able to type in a surname and find matching surnames within the 5th to 8th cousin group. I no longer get some of the matches that I used to find. I recorded some of them so I have proof that these search engines have been altered. While these issues remain, Ancestry still reaches many more people than the other testing companies. Apparently, the new 23 and Me tests cannot be compared as they once were on Gedmatch. That alone prevented me from recommending this company although i have heard good things otherwise. In trying to overcome brick walls, I would like the largest number of matches available but the means to determine if and how they are real matches to me. Bev W -----Original Message----- From: Christine Shelmerdine <cmshelmerdine@gmail.com> To: lancsgen <lancsgen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, May 21, 2018 6:07 am Subject: [LAN] DNA Both my husband and myself have had our DNA tested through Ancestry and found that it has not been any use to us. Okay it mentions third and fourth cousins but no route to them. I consider it a waste of time and money _______________________________________________ :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: GENUKI - a virtual reference library of genealogical information. http://www.genuki.org.uk/ Contact the list administrator at LancsGen-admin@rootsweb.com :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/postorius/lists/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Archives: https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Both my husband and myself have had our DNA tested through Ancestry and found that it has not been any use to us. Okay it mentions third and fourth cousins but no route to them. I consider it a waste of time and money

I think most people believe the ethnicity results are promoted by Ancestry because they are a selling point in the American market where people will have a wider range of ethnicity than in the UK. Many also lost any faith in it when Ancestry originally grouped all "Celtic" origins under one label "Irish". They have changed that now and the ethnicity fits roughly with what is expected though the odd person but get something unexpected. At times it can be accurate, I have mentioned before that I have been able to prove fairly conclusively that someone born in the early 19th Century was illegitimate. I was also able to help someone abroad find who his Grandmother's father was, which had been completely unknown. Martin Briscoe Fort William Ancestry DNA, FTDNA (B68554), GEDMatch (A374507) -----Original Message----- From: genscan@tds.net [mailto:genscan@tds.net] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 2:17 AM To: lancsgen@rootsweb.com Subject: [LAN] DNA Testing I have worked with DNA testing for a number of years now, and manage tests for around 30 people. I would like to make two points based on what I have experienced: First, people put far too much emphasis on the ethnicity estimates. These estimates are the least important part of the test. They are very general in nature, and are unlikely to teach you very much, especially if you already know you have several ethnic groups in your background. Second, the relationship matches are usually very accurate, and can be a great tool if analyzed properly. You can use it to verify the accuracy of your pedigree lines, and reveal new relationships. But remember, DNA testing is just an additional tool; it is not intended to replace traditional forms of research. If you expect the DNA test to provide you with a complete pedigree with no work on your own part, you will be very disappointed. I do encourage people to test, however, as the larger the pool of test takers becomes, the more useful the results will be.

I have worked with DNA testing for a number of years now, and manage tests for around 30 people. I would like to make two points based on what I have experienced: First, people put far too much emphasis on the ethnicity estimates. These estimates are the least important part of the test. They are very general in nature, and are unlikely to teach you very much, especially if you already know you have several ethnic groups in your background. Second, the relationship matches are usually very accurate, and can be a great tool if analyzed properly. You can use it to verify the accuracy of your pedigree lines, and reveal new relationships. But remember, DNA testing is just an additional tool; it is not intended to replace traditional forms of research. If you expect the DNA test to provide you with a complete pedigree with no work on your own part, you will be very disappointed. I do encourage people to test, however, as the larger the pool of test takers becomes, the more useful the results will be.

I have done two DNA tests. An early one (which was very general, even taking me back in a small way to Africa) and the Ancestry one. I feel cheated with both. I think I was beguiled by the advertising. Regards, Penny On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 8:34 PM, Penny Trueman <maudtrueman@gmail.com> wrote: > I have done two DNA tests. An early one (which was very general, even taking > me back in a small way to Africa) and the Ancestry one. I feel cheated with > both. > I think I was beguiled by the advertising. > Regards, Penny > > On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Ralph Taylor <rt-sails@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> Peter's referring to what we call an "admixture report", an analysis of >> your >> autosomal DNA by locations: X percentage from A, Y % from B, Z % from C, >> etc. >> >> In these analyses, parts of your DNA are compared against reference >> databases for various populations. Obviously, accuracy of the analysis >> depends heavily on the reference databases. >> >> There are some problems with genetic ancestry mixtures: >> >> 1. What DNA can tell us doesn't match our expectations. DNA doesn't know >> political borders; genetics on one side of a border will look a lot like >> genetics on the other side. It especially can't tell the difference >> between >> English and Scots. (Both sides of this border are predominantly Celtic >> with >> infusions of Germanic and Scandinavian.) >> >> 2. Humans have been moving to-and-fro for many millennia, most especially >> the latest one. Everywhere a group went, it mixed DNA with other groups. >> That's made many modern populations (including "English") amalgams of more >> ancient populations. >> >> 3. DNA isn't inherited in a precise fashion. Different parts get passed >> down >> from parent to child; some siblings get different parts. It's therefore >> likely that full siblings will seem to differ in "ethnic makeup". >> >> I'd refer those interested to the People of the British Isles (POBI) >> study, >> which identified many sources for "British DNA". >> >> -rt_/) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 17:47:57 +0100 (BST) >> From: "Peter Metcalfe" <Peter-redfern@runbox.com> >> Subject: [LAN] Re: Thoughts on DNA Testing >> To: "lancsgen" <lancsgen@rootsweb.com> >> Message-ID: <E1fJiXt-0004mj-6Q@rmmprod06.runbox> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> I haven't had it done yet but I am not interested in contacting cousins, I >> just want to know which countries I came from in the distant past. >> >> Peter >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: >> >> GENUKI - a virtual reference library of genealogical information. >> http://www.genuki.org.uk/ >> >> Contact the list administrator at LancsGen-admin@rootsweb.com >> >> :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: :-+-: >> _______________________________________________ >> Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >> >> Unsubscribe >> https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/postorius/lists/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ >> >> Archives: >> https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/lancsgen@rootsweb.com/ >> >> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: >> https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >> >> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb >> community > >

Peter's referring to what we call an "admixture report", an analysis of your autosomal DNA by locations: X percentage from A, Y % from B, Z % from C, etc. In these analyses, parts of your DNA are compared against reference databases for various populations. Obviously, accuracy of the analysis depends heavily on the reference databases. There are some problems with genetic ancestry mixtures: 1. What DNA can tell us doesn't match our expectations. DNA doesn't know political borders; genetics on one side of a border will look a lot like genetics on the other side. It especially can't tell the difference between English and Scots. (Both sides of this border are predominantly Celtic with infusions of Germanic and Scandinavian.) 2. Humans have been moving to-and-fro for many millennia, most especially the latest one. Everywhere a group went, it mixed DNA with other groups. That's made many modern populations (including "English") amalgams of more ancient populations. 3. DNA isn't inherited in a precise fashion. Different parts get passed down from parent to child; some siblings get different parts. It's therefore likely that full siblings will seem to differ in "ethnic makeup". I'd refer those interested to the People of the British Isles (POBI) study, which identified many sources for "British DNA". -rt_/) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 17:47:57 +0100 (BST) From: "Peter Metcalfe" <Peter-redfern@runbox.com> Subject: [LAN] Re: Thoughts on DNA Testing To: "lancsgen" <lancsgen@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <E1fJiXt-0004mj-6Q@rmmprod06.runbox> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I haven't had it done yet but I am not interested in contacting cousins, I just want to know which countries I came from in the distant past. Peter

Then don't bother. Ancestry did not give countries just an area such as Ireland, Scotland and Wales is classed as one country. Another is South Asia. This is about nine countries. Of what use is this to you ? Oh! I forgot to mention the 'Tit Bit', I have one percent native American. Of what use would you find this except for a laugh with your mates. But with family history, I love the puzzle. Just how did a native American get involved with my family ?. As for South Asian, my reading is 41%. Now that's a mystery I am working on and through family history research I have located similar DNA relations in England and the USA.. The puzzle is how are we related? Regards, Mike Morris   Toronto Canada   GEDmatch A540721 From: Peter Metcalfe <Peter-redfern@runbox.com> To: lancsgen <lancsgen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 12:48 PM I haven't had it done yet but I am not interested in contacting cousins, I just want to know which countries I came from in the distant past. <snip>