I am not sure how yDNA testing would imply a common ancestor within a couple of generations. In our family DNA project we have one 4th cousin and three sixth cousins from four different sons of our common ancestor that was born in 1720. These four men are perfect matches at 67 out of 67 markers. There are many others who descend from one of these four sons or two of their brothers and have one to three mutations in the 67 marker test. We have also had three who tested that turn out to be in the NPE category but we have been able to determine when each of these three occurred. Two of the three were from families with an unmarried daughter (18 and 21 years old) and the grandparents raised the child as their own. These events were in the 1850s and 1860s. Les On 5/19/2012 3:00 AM, roots-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > On another line, The Rev Robert Bruce was born in Scone, Perthshire, > Scotland in 1778, attended U of Edinburgh, emigrated to the US ca 1801. He > became chancellor of the "Western University of Pennsylvania", now the > University of Pittsburgh. His history is well documented in church records. > > In the yDNA groups, these two are quite close, implying a common ancestor > within a couple of generations.

Testators of wills. 18 volumes added. NY - Albany co vol. 38-41 (1890-1893) 1003 records NY - Richmond co vol. L-O, 83-85 (1869-1879, 1965-1966) 1035 records NY - New York co vol. 100-105, 1022-1023 (1849-1853, 1915-1916) 1242 The site is completely debugged and links fixed (pardon me for absence for over a month without any new additions) http://www.sampubco.com/ There are other recent additions, not just New York but Pennsylvania, Virginia and Ohio and please use Freefind to search. Google site search is having problems (now getting better but not as good as FreeFind yet.) W. David Samuelsen

here are more official websites... from a from a friend on the genealogy-dna mailing list.. Wikipedia is good but not really official. Here's some alternative, not-so-good but more official sources: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/howmanychromosomes http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Chromosomes.html http://www.genomebc.ca/education/articles/chromsome-fundamentals/ Nelda L. Percival, Administrator of Y-DNA surname projects Gilpin, Cupp, Bonstein and Gillock My Genealogy - http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/index.htm GeneticGenealogy - http://www.geneticsand.us Blog - http://aircastles-lets-talk.blogspot.com/ GilpinGenetics: http://www.gilpingenetics.us/ Web Mistress for LCRG - http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg

For information in the chromosome pairs : see: Dear Nelda, You could just refer him to something basic like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosomes. It shows the fact that the autosomal chromosomes come in pairs in a diagram at the top of the web page. Sincerely, Tim Janzen TIM JANZEN IS A Doctor Here is an email that was on the Genealogy-DNA mailing list about pairs.... She wrote: > The father matches the son on chromosome 15 from 18,334,687 to 100,278,685, > 118 cm and 21756 SNPs. The father matches a 4th cousin once removed by the > same surname on chromosome 15 from 31,109,924 to 85,833,111, 62 cm and 14018 > SNPs. > > Given that the areas on chromosome 15 overlap entirely, and it is a large > segment, how can the cousin not show as a match to the son? Bear in mind that a "match" is actually not an identity, but rather a half-identity. The father has two chromosome 15's, and it could be that one matches his son while the other matches his cousin. It is certainly curious that the matching segments overlap completely, but I'm guessing that there are lots of other matching segments, too, and this one just happens to be the most striking case. Also, don't forget that the matching is not a rigorous comparison of phased chromosomes, but rather a test for half-identity or better on successive diploid loci. The apparent long matching segment with the cousin might turn out to be a fortuitously stitched-together composite of shorter genuine matches Nelda L. Percival, Administrator of Y-DNA surname projects Gilpin, Cupp, Bonstein and Gillock My Genealogy - http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/index.htm GeneticGenealogy - http://www.geneticsand.us Blog - http://aircastles-lets-talk.blogspot.com/ GilpinGenetics: http://www.gilpingenetics.us/ Web Mistress for LCRG - http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg > Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 00:32:22 -0400 > From: jholl0829@bellsouth.net > To: roots@rootsweb.com > Subject: [ROOTS-L] best DNA test/company > > I am considering ordering a DNA test to help me with my family research. > I am also interested in finding out health information. I saw that > 23forme has a test, however their site doesn't clarify if they are doing > an autosomal test. It would appear from recent posts that most are > agreed that is the best for genealogy testing. I am interested in the > best bang for my buck like most people. I also am not interested in > repeating this if my subscription runs out. > > I am feeling quite naive about all of this. Can anyone help me sort this > out. It would appear the 23forme or the ftdna sites are the better ones. > Does FTDNA provide health information as well? > > Thanks so much, > Jean Holley > ===== > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

For those interested in the "name" thing, go here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/familyhistory/get_started/surnames_01.shtml " New surnames continued to be formed long after 1400, and immigrants brought in new ones. Many Irish and Highland Scottish names derive from Gaelic personal names, as do those of the Welsh, who only began to adopt the English system of surnames following the union of the two countries in 1536. This is all too far back to be helpful in researching family origins, although the study of a particular surname may be useful when the investigation points to an area where it appears often." And this: http://www.gen-find.com/assets/uploads/surname_origins__history_741.pdf Pat -----Original Message----- From: roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Kith-n-Kin Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 10:18 AM To: 'BARTON LEWIS' Cc: roots-l@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] DNA Or, not a "non-paternal event" at all. I have a Bruce line that goes back, and matches, a Bruce line in Scone, Scotland. "My" line originates in Virginia, with John Bruce who immigrated bef 1748, and his "second wife/mother of his children" (he apparently left Wife 1 in Scotland, alive and well), Margaret. We know he left for Scotland (return to first family?) and Margaret and children stayed behind. On another line, The Rev Robert Bruce was born in Scone, Perthshire, Scotland in 1778, attended U of Edinburgh, emigrated to the US ca 1801. He became chancellor of the "Western University of Pennsylvania", now the University of Pittsburgh. His history is well documented in church records. In the yDNA groups, these two are quite close, implying a common ancestor within a couple of generations. Now, then, there are two other names with this close yDNA groupings. One, (Burton) perhaps, is a "NPE", but the other, Boyd, appears to stem from an earlier ancestor, as We have to understand here that we didn't always have surnames, even if we did always have paternal ancestors <G>. Here's something I wrote sometime back on this subject: " For kicks, I looked up one of my yDNA name challenges,Brus/Bruce. We have Peter de Brus, The reference has ...pro Petro de Brus. -- Dominus rex concessit Petro de Brus quod mercatum suum quod teneri... (Dec 1227) and other similar references. The forenames are Pterus, Petro, and range from 1227 to 1231.. ." So, the surname (as an "of Brus") occurred as early as 1227. For common people, the surnames came much later. It is possible that some cousins or brothers (without surnames) took the names of Brus and others took the name Boyd. Or, some of these could have been serfs of a Brus and others serfs of a Boyd, and "assigned" the names. I suppose you *could* call this a "non-paternal" event, but not in the sense we usually see it. We're not talking about adoption or "different-father" events, we are talking about the choosing of surname. Also, combining this with the high frequency of cousin marriages at that time and in that place, I suspect there would be a compression of the yDNA "generations." However, I am no expert in the DNA issues. I just feel that people should look at all the possibilities, rather than focusing on a few. So, to use the example below, both the Walkers and Harrelsons could descend from an ancestor with no surname, or an entirely different surname. Pat In Tucson -----Original Message----- From: roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of BARTON LEWIS Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 6:44 PM To: viking@rvi.net Cc: roots-l@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] DNA I see that I have confused Joyce's and Kristen's particular scenarios. Sorry about that. It is entirely possible that the common ancestor to the Walker-Harrelson group had the name Walker and, as you say, no other Walker descendant has tested. The NPE occurred and several descendants of the Harrelsons (after they became Harrelsons, though descended from a Walker) tested and matched. Or it could be the other way around. The point is that these people share a common ancestor, and you don't know where the NPE occurred (and therefore whether the common ancestor was a Walker or a Harrelson). If someone has no matches with their surname, and it is a somewhat common surname, but they match with another surname, that indicates the possibility that they descend from the other surname originally. But it's not proof. Barton ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Or, not a "non-paternal event" at all. I have a Bruce line that goes back, and matches, a Bruce line in Scone, Scotland. "My" line originates in Virginia, with John Bruce who immigrated bef 1748, and his "second wife/mother of his children" (he apparently left Wife 1 in Scotland, alive and well), Margaret. We know he left for Scotland (return to first family?) and Margaret and children stayed behind. On another line, The Rev Robert Bruce was born in Scone, Perthshire, Scotland in 1778, attended U of Edinburgh, emigrated to the US ca 1801. He became chancellor of the "Western University of Pennsylvania", now the University of Pittsburgh. His history is well documented in church records. In the yDNA groups, these two are quite close, implying a common ancestor within a couple of generations. Now, then, there are two other names with this close yDNA groupings. One, (Burton) perhaps, is a "NPE", but the other, Boyd, appears to stem from an earlier ancestor, as We have to understand here that we didn't always have surnames, even if we did always have paternal ancestors <G>. Here's something I wrote sometime back on this subject: " For kicks, I looked up one of my yDNA name challenges,Brus/Bruce. We have Peter de Brus, The reference has ...pro Petro de Brus. -- Dominus rex concessit Petro de Brus quod mercatum suum quod teneri... (Dec 1227) and other similar references. The forenames are Pterus, Petro, and range from 1227 to 1231.. ." So, the surname (as an "of Brus") occurred as early as 1227. For common people, the surnames came much later. It is possible that some cousins or brothers (without surnames) took the names of Brus and others took the name Boyd. Or, some of these could have been serfs of a Brus and others serfs of a Boyd, and "assigned" the names. I suppose you *could* call this a "non-paternal" event, but not in the sense we usually see it. We're not talking about adoption or "different-father" events, we are talking about the choosing of surname. Also, combining this with the high frequency of cousin marriages at that time and in that place, I suspect there would be a compression of the yDNA "generations." However, I am no expert in the DNA issues. I just feel that people should look at all the possibilities, rather than focusing on a few. So, to use the example below, both the Walkers and Harrelsons could descend from an ancestor with no surname, or an entirely different surname. Pat In Tucson -----Original Message----- From: roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of BARTON LEWIS Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 6:44 PM To: viking@rvi.net Cc: roots-l@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] DNA I see that I have confused Joyce's and Kristen's particular scenarios. Sorry about that. It is entirely possible that the common ancestor to the Walker-Harrelson group had the name Walker and, as you say, no other Walker descendant has tested. The NPE occurred and several descendants of the Harrelsons (after they became Harrelsons, though descended from a Walker) tested and matched. Or it could be the other way around. The point is that these people share a common ancestor, and you don't know where the NPE occurred (and therefore whether the common ancestor was a Walker or a Harrelson). If someone has no matches with their surname, and it is a somewhat common surname, but they match with another surname, that indicates the possibility that they descend from the other surname originally. But it's not proof. Barton

Hi there, sorry that it is late for people in England to see this but other people might be able to help me with this! My uncle was in the UK air force in the 2nd world war and he went to Canada for part of his training. I am having problems finding out where he trained in Ontario Canada. Would anybody know on this list where to look for where he trained please? The air force museum in Canada wasn't any use as they didn't know whom to ask!! Hoping that some of you could help me in this search. Thanks very much for reading this. Diane

Thanks, Nelda. I was unaware of these lists and this is good to know about. Barton On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Nelda Percival wrote: > Hi, There are two major mailing lists at rootsweb.com for the > discussion of DNA testing. > 1. dna-newbie@rootsweb.com this rootsweb.com mailing list is for > people just learning, It has several Doctors and geneticists that help > you learn about DNA testing for genealogy. > 2. Genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com this rootsweb.com mailing list is more > for administrators of DNA projects and geneticists. But will answer > questions as they can.. Some of the different DNA companies staff also > answer questions. > > You might want to check them out for correct answers to your genetic > questions. > > Nelda > > > > Nelda L. Percival, Administrator of Y-DNA surname projects Gilpin, > Cupp, Bonstein > and Gillock > My Genealogy - > http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/index.htm > > GeneticGenealogy - http://www.geneticsand.us Blog - > http://aircastles-lets-talk.blogspot.com/ > > GilpinGenetics: http://www.gilpingenetics.us/ Web Mistress for > LCRG - http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg > > > > ===== > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to > roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dave, Point well taken -- in most all cases you will get more matches with the autosomal tests. I have to add my two cents re this kind of test, though. I think the predictions FTDNA makes about how to interpret the results are unreliable -- not in the sense of whether a match indicates a relationship, but how close it is. I say this for the following reasons: (1) I have paper trails for several matches that prove them to be off the predicted relationship -- 3rd cousins instead of 5th, and the other way around. (2) I have many matches that I have no way of knowing the relationship, and that are predicted 3rd cousins. Since I know all sets of grandparents going back to my 5th great grandparents (and many of my 6th), and since I have traced almost all of the lines down, I should be finding these people, but I don't. I suspect the relationship is further back than predicted -- quite a ways. At first, these results made me question whether the autosomal test was giving false positivies. But as time went on and my dad and mom both picked up cousins for which we could prove the relationship, I stopped questioning that. Still, people should know that this test can yield results which can be highly mistifying. And they should know, more importantly, that FTDNA's predictions are more of an art, than a science (in my opinion). Barton On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Dave Michaelson wrote: > Barton, I am glad you got a Y-DNA match so very quickly. This is > great! My comments were made with the fact in mind that the Y-DNA > test only tests > the Y-chromosome and thus the probability of finding a match is much > less > than that of finding a match across the entire spectrum of chromosomes > used > in autosomal testing. It is great that you got a match as you > described but > that does not lessen the fact that the probability is still in favor > of > autosomal testing. Like most DNA testing customers, Most of my > SIGNIFICANT matches have been in > the autosomal testing area rather than the Y-DNA or MT-DNA testing. I > would > love to get a SIGNIFICANT match in the Y-DNA because it could possibly > get > me in touch with someone that has broken through the walls that keep > me in > the dark. Thanks for the great news! Dave -------Original > Message------- From: BARTON LEWIS Date: 05/17/2012 08:08:55 To: > viking@rvi.net Cc: odinaz@comcast.net; roots-l@rootsweb.com Subject: > Re: [ROOTS-L] Autosomal testing Kirsten, I'm not Dave, but you are > correct as to the 3 assumptions in your first paragraph. How many > generations back is the common ancestor? If it's more than 5, FTDNA > tells you there is a small chance of your matching with a descendant > of that person. I think that's conservative, and it's further back -- > more like 7 or 8. Most of my mom's and dad's matches are 5th cousins > or greater. That said, there may be many more people who have tested > who do not show up as matches -- hence your statement about not making > a match not being proof there of a non-relationship. The FAQ on FTDNA > provides a chart which shows the probability of matching with each > level of relationship. Also, you don't need to do 2 tests -- one on > each (maternal and paternal) side. You could take the test yourself > since, of course, you have DNA from both parents, and hope for a > match. If you have an idea how the other tester is descended from the > common ancestor, presumably you know which side it's on, and the match > just confirms your assumption. One thing you should know about the 2 > testing companies is that FTDNA allows you to identify which other > matches you have in common with any given match. This can be helpful > in isolating your relationship to an individual. Also, as an aside, I > have to take issue with Dave's comment that finding a match through > Y-DNA is "very slim." When I tested my Y-DNA, I found a close match to > a distant cousin immediately. I have sponsored about 10 other cousins > on other lines and have had great success with Y-DNA. I was able to > identify the birth parents of my 2nd great grandfather, adopted in > Wisconsin in the early 1860s. There was circumstantial evidence (the > 1860 census), but the test proved it as a male descendant of his > brother, whom he never knew, tested, and both men were a near perfect > match. A match doesn't always answer the question "who's my ancestor's > daddy?", but it often can isolate a group of people or a geographical > locale where that person should be found. For example, I think my > maternal Lewis ancestor is found in the 1810 Westmoreland Co., PA > census. When a descendant of his tested, he matched with another Lewis > whose ancestor is found in that county at the same time. We don't know > how they're related, but it confirms for both of us that our ancestors > are most likely those men with the same names found in records there > in the early late 18th/early 19th centuries. Barton On Wed, May 16, > 2012 at 10:16 PM, Kirsten Bowman wrote: >> Dave: >> Oh, thank you! Now we're getting somewhere. So if I'm interpreting >> correctly, you're saying that two (or more) parties must have >> autosomal tests and that there's no possibility for matching my >> autosomal or mtDNA test with existing yDNA results to find a common >> ancestor who is neither direct paternal nor direct maternal. Further, >> I'm understanding that the more generations between test candidates >> and the common ancestor, the slimmer the chances of a match from >> autosomal testing. And that with autosomal testing a non-match is not >> necessarily proof of no common ancestor. Is all of that correct? >> Since I would probably have to pay both sides of FTDNA's $289 (or >> wait for the sale), and in view of the distance to the possible >> common ancestor, it sounds like a fairly expensive shot in the dark. >> I'm not terribly interested in identifying my general ethnicity >> (that's already pretty well established), and I'm not heavily >> involved in tracing lines other than this particular one. >> Unfortunately the member of our surname project who has already done >> the Family Finder test is a half-sibling and connects to the main >> tree even a couple of generations above me, so I'd guess that that >> makes a match even more unlikely. >> Altogether it seems I'd be better off spending my money in hiring a >> researcher in Canada to try and turn up a lead that I may have missed >> in my 12 years of searching. Do you disagree? >> Again, thanks so much for writing. >> Kirsten >> -----Original Message----- From: Dave Michaelson Sent: Wednesday, May >> 16, 2012 9:11 PM To: viking@rvi.net ; Roots-L@rootsweb.com ; >> gale_gorman@me.com Subject: Autosomal testing >> Kristin, >> >> >> Several of the answers given concerning DNA testing for Genealogical >> purposes were quite good but the did not clearly answer your >> question. >> >> >> Your answer is possibly, if you choose the right test. >> >> >> Y-DNA (of the strict father-father-father... etc line) and MT-DNA >> (for the STRICT mother-mother-mother... etc line) will tell you if >> you have a match IF the person you want to match is a member of the >> above strict lines (the edges on a ancestry chart ONLY). The >> autosomal tests are for all the other lines. In other words the Y-DNA >> and MT-DNA ONLY test two lines in your ancestry chart and are pretty >> much useless for identifying specific individuals. What those two >> tests are good for is giving you your haplogroup and telling where >> your ancestors came from 30,000 or so years ago. In other words, >> beyond 20 generations AT LEAST! The chances of you finding a specific >> individual randomly that falls on the two lines given above are VERY >> SLIM. >> >> >> The autosomal testing is not at all like that. It tests ALL lines in >> the family tree back about 5 to 7 generations quite accurately. >> Beyond that, the autosomal clues are pretty much diluted out as far >> as identifying specific families or individuals that are related to >> you... but all lines are tested. If you want to identify if a family >> is related to you AND THEY HAVE BEEN TESTED, or their DNA is >> available to test, then the autosomal tests will probably give you >> much more information than the Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA testing. >> >> >> As far as Autosomal testing - Family Tree DNA is the largest in the >> world and provides one of the best testing services. Ancestry.com is >> just starting out and I know little about their testing but the >> general rule of thumb is that you get what you pay for. It is your >> choice though but unless there is a large enough database to compare >> against, it is useless for you to go looking for a match... if you >> know what I mean. FTDNA does have the Family Finder on sale from time >> to time for $199 or is you are a member of a surname group or other >> recognized group, you could get a special offer. You can go to >> ftdna.com and check all this out - they are very open about letting >> people browse to learn about DNA testing and what is available and >> what it will do you you. Check it out, what do you have to loose? >> >> >> And also MT-DNA is NOT found in the nuclear wall or membrane, it is >> found in all cell cytoplasm within the cell in structures called >> mitochondria - thus the name MT-DNA. >> >> >> Hope this helps and if you have further questions, you can email me >> direct if you wish. >> >> >> Dave Michaelson >> >> >> >> >> >> >> P.S. >> >> >> Gale, >> >> >> Y-DNA testing will not give you the information you are looking for - >> neither will MT-DNA testing. These test only test two SPECIFIC lines >> as I mentioned above. Autosomal testing will test the other lines but >> will only help you if both parties have been tested (or the situation >> in the next paragraph exists) which is true for all DNA testing. >> >> >> ALL these tests are useless for identifying people whose DNA is not >> available. What the autosomal testing is good for is to test people >> alive today that have provided their DNA and been tested and compare >> their DNA to yours. In that way, using information from both (yours >> and theirs) trees, you could possibly get the data you need. The more >> people that match you, the easier it is to narrow your search and >> identify specific individuals and/or families. >> >> >> Again, I hope this helps. >> >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> ==================================== >> >> >> In you email, you wrote - >> >> >> "Kirsten Bowman" <viking@rvi.net> >> Subject: [ROOTS-L] Autosomal DNA? >> >> >> I have a fair understanding of the use of yDNA in genealogy but the >> blurbs I ve read about autosomal DNA don't give a clue to whether >> that test would help solve a longstanding brick wall in my maternal >> linewhich is as follows . . >> >> >> My 3rd great-grandfather was born in 1788 in a sparsely-populated >> region of Canada. I suspect he was the son of one of 7 brothers who >> settled in the area in the early 1780s. Roughly a dozen direct male >> descendants of those 7 brothers have done yDNA tests through FTDNA. >> Some have tested up to 67 markers and one has done the FTDNA Family >> Finder test. My own line daughtered-out with my 2nd great-grandfather >> and I?m unable to locate any direct male cousins for yDNA testing. >> >> >> Now I'm wondering whether an autosomal DNA test would tell whether >> I'm related to any of the fellows who have already testedor would an >> autosomal test of a female descendant of one of those 7 brothers show >> a relationship to me? Would the $99 test from Ancestry.com do the >> trickor is the $289 Family Finder test from FTDNA necessary? I >> realize that no testing could tell *which* of the 7 brothers was the >> parent of my 3rd great-grandfatherI'm simply wondering if I can >> narrow him down to a certain clan. >> >> >> Can anyone answer those questions or direct me to a site that gives a >> thorough explanation of what autosomal DNA testing will do? >> >> ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to >> roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... >> ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please >> send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the >> message

I see that I have confused Joyce's and Kristen's particular scenarios. Sorry about that. It is entirely possible that the common ancestor to the Walker-Harrelson group had the name Walker and, as you say, no other Walker descendant has tested. The NPE occurred and several descendants of the Harrelsons (after they became Harrelsons, though descended from a Walker) tested and matched. Or it could be the other way around. The point is that these people share a common ancestor, and you don't know where the NPE occurred (and therefore whether the common ancestor was a Walker or a Harrelson). If someone has no matches with their surname, and it is a somewhat common surname, but they match with another surname, that indicates the possibility that they descend from the other surname originally. But it's not proof. Barton On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Kirsten Bowman wrote: > Barton and Joyce: > > Isn't it also very likely that Joyce's Walker is, as she says, simply > from a different line having the same surname? Walker is a fairly > common name. Couldn't someone have linked a family member in error > somewhere along the line? If her living Walker's yDNA test does > happen to match a Harrelson group does that necessarily mean that he > stems from a Harrelson clan? > > I ask because in our Markle surname group there is a man who matches > many other Markle descendants but his surname is Long. Of course it > could be the result of a non-paternity event, but couldn't it also > mean that this man's Long family hasn't yet been identified in yDNA > testing? > > Kirsten > > -----Original Message----- From: BARTON LEWIS > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 7:36 AM > To: bjreece@bellsouth.net > Cc: roots-l@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] DNA > > It's most likely there was a non-paternity event (NPE) somewhere along > the line. This most often occurs as an unacknowledged adoption, out > of > wedlock birth where the male took his mother's name or the mother had > a > child by a man other than her husband, but there are other scenarios. > This is not at all an infrequent occurrence, but it is often hard to > determine where the NPE occurred. > > Barton > > > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Joyce Gaston Reece wrote: > >> I have someone who is surnamed Walker and we have a firm paper trail >> back to Mordecai born 1805. He's had a 67 marker test. He does not >> match any of the Walker's currently tested. The family has been told >> that they match a group of Harrelson's. Now here's the question. >> With a 67 marker test does this mean anything? Am I dealing with a >> line of Walker's that just hasn't been delved into thus far or should >> I be looking at Harrelson's? >> >> >> >> Joyce Gaston Reece

Hi Kirsten, I misinterpreted your statement about needing two tests. I thought the other person had tested and you were going to test both dad and mom to see where there might be a match. By the way, for anyone testing, if both your parents are living, I suggest getting them to test -- maybe not at once because of the cost, but going back that extra generation increases the likelihood of finding a match. It sounds like in your case it is worth doing the test. As I said, my folks have many 5th cousin matches and I suspect a bunch are more like 6th or 7th. You're right, Y-DNA and autosomal DNA have nothing to do with one another in terms of the matches they produce. I took Dave's comment to mean that autosomal testing typically yields more matches than the Y. Still, as someone who has sponsored 10 different lines for Y testing, with varying success on each (but with hits in every case), I still recommend it. Good luck, and keep us posted as to what turns up on Mordecai. Barton On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Kirsten Bowman wrote: > Barton: > > Thanks for the encouraging information. I've found a woman whose 4th > great-grandfather is the man who I hope/suspect is also my 4th > great-grandfather, making her my possible 5th cousin (7 generations > back, > counting me and my unidentified ancestor). From what you and others > say, there > is a chance (although not a strong one) that we might find a match > through > autosomal testing. The issue of two tests came up because I would > have to > pay for her test as well as mine since she has unquestionable paper > proof of > her lineage and no motivation to test for her own purposes. > > I don't recall that Dave said chances of finding a match through yDNA > testing would be > very slim; rather, I should think it would be impossible since there's > apparently no way to compare an autosomal test from me with yDNA tests > done > by male descendants of the line I'm working on. That was my original > hope > and the reason for my initial post, but I've learned that it's not in > the > cards. > > Kirsten > > -----Original Message----- From: BARTON LEWIS > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:07 AM > To: viking@rvi.net > Cc: odinaz@comcast.net ; roots-l@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Autosomal testing > > Kirsten, I'm not Dave, but you are correct as to the 3 assumptions in > your first paragraph. > > How many generations back is the common ancestor? If it's more than > 5, > FTDNA tells you there is a small chance of your matching with a > descendant of that person. I think that's conservative, and it's > further back -- more like 7 or 8. Most of my mom's and dad's matches > are 5th cousins or greater. That said, there may be many more people > who have tested who do not show up as matches -- hence your statement > about not making a match not being proof there of a non-relationship. > The FAQ on FTDNA provides a chart which shows the probability of > matching with each level of relationship. Also, you don't need to do > 2 > tests -- one on each (maternal and paternal) side. You could take the > test yourself since, of course, you have DNA from both parents, and > hope > for a match. If you have an idea how the other tester is descended > from > the common ancestor, presumably you know which side it's on, and the > match just confirms your assumption. > > One thing you should know about the 2 testing companies is that FTDNA > allows you to identify which other matches you have in common with any > given match. This can be helpful in isolating your relationship to an > individual. > > Also, as an aside, I have to take issue with Dave's comment that > finding > a match through Y-DNA is "very slim." When I tested my Y-DNA, I found > a > close match to a distant cousin immediately. I have sponsored about > 10 > other cousins on other lines and have had great success with Y-DNA. I > was able to identify the birth parents of my 2nd great grandfather, > adopted in Wisconsin in the early 1860s. There was circumstantial > evidence (the 1860 census), but the test proved it as a male > descendant > of his brother, whom he never knew, tested, and both men were a near > perfect match. A match doesn't always answer the question "who's my > ancestor's daddy?", but it often can isolate a group of people or a > geographical locale where that person should be found. For example, I > think my maternal Lewis ancestor is found in the 1810 Westmoreland > Co., > PA census. When a descendant of his tested, he matched with another > Lewis whose ancestor is found in that county at the same time. We > don't > know how they're related, but it confirms for both of us that our > ancestors are most likely those men with the same names found in > records > there in the early late 18th/early 19th centuries. > > Barton > > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Kirsten Bowman wrote: > >> Dave: >> >> Oh, thank you! Now we're getting somewhere. So if I'm interpreting >> correctly, you're saying that two (or more) parties must have >> autosomal >> tests and that there's no possibility for matching my autosomal or >> mtDNA >> test with existing yDNA results to find a common ancestor who is >> neither >> direct paternal nor direct maternal. Further, I'm understanding that >> the >> more generations between test candidates and the common ancestor, the >> slimmer the chances of a match from autosomal testing. And that with >> autosomal testing a non-match is not necessarily proof of no common >> ancestor. Is all of that correct? >> >> Since I would probably have to pay both sides of FTDNA's $289 (or >> wait for >> the sale), and in view of the distance to the possible common >> ancestor, it >> sounds like a fairly expensive shot in the dark. I'm not terribly >> interested in identifying my general ethnicity (that's already pretty >> well >> established), and I'm not heavily involved in tracing lines other >> than >> this particular one. Unfortunately the member of our surname project >> who >> has already done the Family Finder test is a half-sibling and >> connects to >> the main tree even a couple of generations above me, so I'd guess >> that >> that makes a match even more unlikely. >> >> Altogether it seems I'd be better off spending my money in hiring a >> researcher in Canada to try and turn up a lead that I may have missed >> in >> my 12 years of searching. Do you disagree? >> >> Again, thanks so much for writing. >> >> Kirsten >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Dave Michaelson >> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:11 PM >> To: viking@rvi.net ; Roots-L@rootsweb.com ; gale_gorman@me.com >> Subject: Autosomal testing >> >> Kristin, >> >> >> >> Several of the answers given concerning DNA testing for Genealogical >> purposes were quite good but the did not clearly answer your >> question. >> >> >> >> Your answer is possibly, if you choose the right test. >> >> >> >> Y-DNA (of the strict father-father-father... etc line) and MT-DNA >> (for the >> STRICT mother-mother-mother... etc line) will tell you if you have a >> match >> IF the person you want to match is a member of the above strict lines >> (the >> edges on a ancestry chart ONLY). The autosomal tests are for all the >> other >> lines. In other words the Y-DNA and MT-DNA ONLY test two lines in >> your >> ancestry chart and are pretty much useless for identifying specific >> individuals. What those two tests are good for is giving you your >> haplogroup >> and telling where your ancestors came from 30,000 or so years ago. In >> other >> words, beyond 20 generations AT LEAST! The chances of you finding a >> specific >> individual randomly that falls on the two lines given above are VERY >> SLIM. >> >> >> >> The autosomal testing is not at all like that. It tests ALL lines in >> the >> family tree back about 5 to 7 generations quite accurately. Beyond >> that, >> the >> autosomal clues are pretty much diluted out as far as identifying >> specific >> families or individuals that are related to you... but all lines are >> tested. >> If you want to identify if a family is related to you AND THEY HAVE >> BEEN >> TESTED, or their DNA is available to test, then the autosomal tests >> will >> probably give you much more information than the Y-DNA or >> mitochondrial >> DNA >> testing. >> >> >> >> As far as Autosomal testing - Family Tree DNA is the largest in the >> world >> and provides one of the best testing services. Ancestry.com is just >> starting >> out and I know little about their testing but the general rule of >> thumb is >> that you get what you pay for. It is your choice though but unless >> there >> is >> a large enough database to compare against, it is useless for you to >> go >> looking for a match... if you know what I mean. FTDNA does have the >> Family >> Finder on sale from time to time for $199 or is you are a member of a >> surname group or other recognized group, you could get a special >> offer. >> You >> can go to ftdna.com and check all this out - they are very open about >> letting people browse to learn about DNA testing and what is >> available and >> what it will do you you. Check it out, what do you have to loose? >> >> >> >> And also MT-DNA is NOT found in the nuclear wall or membrane, it is >> found >> in >> all cell cytoplasm within the cell in structures called mitochondria >> - >> thus >> the name MT-DNA. >> >> >> >> Hope this helps and if you have further questions, you can email me >> direct >> if you wish. >> >> >> >> Dave Michaelson

Kirsten, DNA results from any type of test is like a finger print. It identifies your family grouping. First men must match their Y Haplogroup. Y haplogroups are basically used for population migration. Then you test for current genealogy this uses the STR marker. These results can be dated from current to 2,000 to 10,000 or so years ago. Depending when your haplogroup developed from the parent haplogroup, tells you when your branch of that group developed. But as this happens you also develop changes in your STRs. So, this is why a man normally has lots of matches at 12 markers, but as you test more markers you have fewer matches, at FTDNA we project admins like to see a male tested to at least 37 markers. This gives enough fast and slow mutating markers to identify family groupings. Can a man who genetically matches another man close enough to be considered related, actually be from a different genetic lineage. Anything is possible, but is it likely? Maybe 1 in a few hundred million. I sugest that you join the DNA Newbie list and ask Dr. Ann Turner or CeCe for a better explanation. At least their advise can't be questioned by any one. nelda and these are my website I created... Nelda L. Percival, Administrator of Y-DNA surname projects Gilpin, Cupp, Bonstein and Gillock My Genealogy - http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/index.htm GeneticGenealogy - http://www.geneticsand.us Blog - http://aircastles-lets-talk.blogspot.com/ GilpinGenetics: http://www.gilpingenetics.us/ Web Mistress for LCRG - http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg > From: viking@rvi.net > To: bartonlewis@optonline.net; bjreece@bellsouth.net > Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 18:29:26 -0700 > CC: roots-l@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] DNA > > Barton and Joyce: > > Isn't it also very likely that Joyce's Walker is, as she says, simply from a > different line having the same surname? Walker is a fairly common name. > Couldn't someone have linked a family member in error somewhere along the > line? If her living Walker's yDNA test does happen to match a Harrelson > group does that necessarily mean that he stems from a Harrelson clan? > > I ask because in our Markle surname group there is a man who matches many > other Markle descendants but his surname is Long. Of course it could be the > result of a non-paternity event, but couldn't it also mean that this man's > Long family hasn't yet been identified in yDNA testing? > > Kirsten

Hi, There are two major mailing lists at rootsweb.com for the discussion of DNA testing. 1. dna-newbie@rootsweb.com this rootsweb.com mailing list is for people just learning, It has several Doctors and geneticists that help you learn about DNA testing for genealogy. 2. Genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com this rootsweb.com mailing list is more for administrators of DNA projects and geneticists. But will answer questions as they can.. Some of the different DNA companies staff also answer questions. You might want to check them out for correct answers to your genetic questions. Nelda Nelda L. Percival, Administrator of Y-DNA surname projects Gilpin, Cupp, Bonstein and Gillock My Genealogy - http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/index.htm GeneticGenealogy - http://www.geneticsand.us Blog - http://aircastles-lets-talk.blogspot.com/ GilpinGenetics: http://www.gilpingenetics.us/ Web Mistress for LCRG - http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg

Barton and Joyce: Isn't it also very likely that Joyce's Walker is, as she says, simply from a different line having the same surname? Walker is a fairly common name. Couldn't someone have linked a family member in error somewhere along the line? If her living Walker's yDNA test does happen to match a Harrelson group does that necessarily mean that he stems from a Harrelson clan? I ask because in our Markle surname group there is a man who matches many other Markle descendants but his surname is Long. Of course it could be the result of a non-paternity event, but couldn't it also mean that this man's Long family hasn't yet been identified in yDNA testing? Kirsten -----Original Message----- From: BARTON LEWIS Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 7:36 AM To: bjreece@bellsouth.net Cc: roots-l@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] DNA It's most likely there was a non-paternity event (NPE) somewhere along the line. This most often occurs as an unacknowledged adoption, out of wedlock birth where the male took his mother's name or the mother had a child by a man other than her husband, but there are other scenarios. This is not at all an infrequent occurrence, but it is often hard to determine where the NPE occurred. Barton On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Joyce Gaston Reece wrote: > I have someone who is surnamed Walker and we have a firm paper trail > back to Mordecai born 1805. He's had a 67 marker test. He does not > match any of the Walker's currently tested. The family has been told > that they match a group of Harrelson's. Now here's the question. > With a 67 marker test does this mean anything? Am I dealing with a > line of Walker's that just hasn't been delved into thus far or should > I be looking at Harrelson's? > > > > Joyce Gaston Reece

Barton: Thanks for the encouraging information. I've found a woman whose 4th great-grandfather is the man who I hope/suspect is also my 4th great-grandfather, making her my possible 5th cousin (7 generations back, counting me and my unidentified ancestor). From what you and others say, there is a chance (although not a strong one) that we might find a match through autosomal testing. The issue of two tests came up because I would have to pay for her test as well as mine since she has unquestionable paper proof of her lineage and no motivation to test for her own purposes. I don't recall that Dave said chances of finding a match through yDNA testing would be very slim; rather, I should think it would be impossible since there's apparently no way to compare an autosomal test from me with yDNA tests done by male descendants of the line I'm working on. That was my original hope and the reason for my initial post, but I've learned that it's not in the cards. Kirsten -----Original Message----- From: BARTON LEWIS Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:07 AM To: viking@rvi.net Cc: odinaz@comcast.net ; roots-l@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Autosomal testing Kirsten, I'm not Dave, but you are correct as to the 3 assumptions in your first paragraph. How many generations back is the common ancestor? If it's more than 5, FTDNA tells you there is a small chance of your matching with a descendant of that person. I think that's conservative, and it's further back -- more like 7 or 8. Most of my mom's and dad's matches are 5th cousins or greater. That said, there may be many more people who have tested who do not show up as matches -- hence your statement about not making a match not being proof there of a non-relationship. The FAQ on FTDNA provides a chart which shows the probability of matching with each level of relationship. Also, you don't need to do 2 tests -- one on each (maternal and paternal) side. You could take the test yourself since, of course, you have DNA from both parents, and hope for a match. If you have an idea how the other tester is descended from the common ancestor, presumably you know which side it's on, and the match just confirms your assumption. One thing you should know about the 2 testing companies is that FTDNA allows you to identify which other matches you have in common with any given match. This can be helpful in isolating your relationship to an individual. Also, as an aside, I have to take issue with Dave's comment that finding a match through Y-DNA is "very slim." When I tested my Y-DNA, I found a close match to a distant cousin immediately. I have sponsored about 10 other cousins on other lines and have had great success with Y-DNA. I was able to identify the birth parents of my 2nd great grandfather, adopted in Wisconsin in the early 1860s. There was circumstantial evidence (the 1860 census), but the test proved it as a male descendant of his brother, whom he never knew, tested, and both men were a near perfect match. A match doesn't always answer the question "who's my ancestor's daddy?", but it often can isolate a group of people or a geographical locale where that person should be found. For example, I think my maternal Lewis ancestor is found in the 1810 Westmoreland Co., PA census. When a descendant of his tested, he matched with another Lewis whose ancestor is found in that county at the same time. We don't know how they're related, but it confirms for both of us that our ancestors are most likely those men with the same names found in records there in the early late 18th/early 19th centuries. Barton On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Kirsten Bowman wrote: > Dave: > > Oh, thank you! Now we're getting somewhere. So if I'm interpreting > correctly, you're saying that two (or more) parties must have autosomal > tests and that there's no possibility for matching my autosomal or mtDNA > test with existing yDNA results to find a common ancestor who is neither > direct paternal nor direct maternal. Further, I'm understanding that the > more generations between test candidates and the common ancestor, the > slimmer the chances of a match from autosomal testing. And that with > autosomal testing a non-match is not necessarily proof of no common > ancestor. Is all of that correct? > > Since I would probably have to pay both sides of FTDNA's $289 (or wait for > the sale), and in view of the distance to the possible common ancestor, it > sounds like a fairly expensive shot in the dark. I'm not terribly > interested in identifying my general ethnicity (that's already pretty well > established), and I'm not heavily involved in tracing lines other than > this particular one. Unfortunately the member of our surname project who > has already done the Family Finder test is a half-sibling and connects to > the main tree even a couple of generations above me, so I'd guess that > that makes a match even more unlikely. > > Altogether it seems I'd be better off spending my money in hiring a > researcher in Canada to try and turn up a lead that I may have missed in > my 12 years of searching. Do you disagree? > > Again, thanks so much for writing. > > Kirsten > > -----Original Message----- From: Dave Michaelson > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:11 PM > To: viking@rvi.net ; Roots-L@rootsweb.com ; gale_gorman@me.com > Subject: Autosomal testing > > Kristin, > > > > Several of the answers given concerning DNA testing for Genealogical > purposes were quite good but the did not clearly answer your question. > > > > Your answer is possibly, if you choose the right test. > > > > Y-DNA (of the strict father-father-father... etc line) and MT-DNA (for the > STRICT mother-mother-mother... etc line) will tell you if you have a match > IF the person you want to match is a member of the above strict lines (the > edges on a ancestry chart ONLY). The autosomal tests are for all the other > lines. In other words the Y-DNA and MT-DNA ONLY test two lines in your > ancestry chart and are pretty much useless for identifying specific > individuals. What those two tests are good for is giving you your > haplogroup > and telling where your ancestors came from 30,000 or so years ago. In > other > words, beyond 20 generations AT LEAST! The chances of you finding a > specific > individual randomly that falls on the two lines given above are VERY SLIM. > > > > The autosomal testing is not at all like that. It tests ALL lines in the > family tree back about 5 to 7 generations quite accurately. Beyond that, > the > autosomal clues are pretty much diluted out as far as identifying specific > families or individuals that are related to you... but all lines are > tested. > If you want to identify if a family is related to you AND THEY HAVE BEEN > TESTED, or their DNA is available to test, then the autosomal tests will > probably give you much more information than the Y-DNA or mitochondrial > DNA > testing. > > > > As far as Autosomal testing - Family Tree DNA is the largest in the world > and provides one of the best testing services. Ancestry.com is just > starting > out and I know little about their testing but the general rule of thumb is > that you get what you pay for. It is your choice though but unless there > is > a large enough database to compare against, it is useless for you to go > looking for a match... if you know what I mean. FTDNA does have the Family > Finder on sale from time to time for $199 or is you are a member of a > surname group or other recognized group, you could get a special offer. > You > can go to ftdna.com and check all this out - they are very open about > letting people browse to learn about DNA testing and what is available and > what it will do you you. Check it out, what do you have to loose? > > > > And also MT-DNA is NOT found in the nuclear wall or membrane, it is found > in > all cell cytoplasm within the cell in structures called mitochondria - > thus > the name MT-DNA. > > > > Hope this helps and if you have further questions, you can email me direct > if you wish. > > > > Dave Michaelson

I work with jpg, usually at the 80% quality selection. The trick is to do all image adjustments in one go, as the image loss is cumulative, getting a little worse each time you load the file into your editor, adjust it, save and exit. Instead, load, adjust, adjust and adjust -till perfect- then save and exit. Also these increasing imperfections hardly show in a real world picture or scan, being lost at first in the normal picture noise. I did an open-adjust-save sequence three times on a 60% quality jpg of a text file (direct from draw program, not scanned, so it had no noise). In this case extreme zoom showed awful pixel scattering, but without zoom it was quite tolerable. YMMV. Color is better for special cases such as dirty images, where the dirt is a different color than the printing. You can play with the color channels to bring out the ink, suppress the grime. Except for that, go with B&W, but NOT 8-bit. A lot of census images and especially photographs of documents have a wide range of exposure, and you need all the depth you can get. The file size is 2x larger for 16 bit B&W, but still much smaller than for color. Ol' Bab On 5/12/2012 3:37 PM, Nivard Ovington wrote: Thanks David Appreciate the feed back The Epson V700 has a max resolution of 6400, way higher than needed really for most cases There is a point with photos where the greater resolution brings no value, just a larger image size Agree with you on TIFF rather than JPEG as JPEGs diminish each time, TIFFs remain lossless Also agree with the comment on cleanliness, they are dust magnets, and of course the better the scan of the negative, the better the scan of the dust also :-( Not worried about printing as thats not something I want or need to do, digital is far better in my opinion, plus it saves money (and the planet I guess :-) I also use Irfanview The Epson V700 has a light above as well as below the negative so no need for the white paper in this ones case It seems to handle the colour negatives OK but have only done a few testers, its the black and white I have more concern over My fear is having to do them all again at a later date, as its very time consuming I would rather do it all in one go if I can Appreciate your advice Its interesting to see the results of the scans I have done so far , most I have never seen before as they are from way before I was born Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) >> What I learned from the presenters on this. >> >> 1. Scan them at MAXImum dpi setting. If your scanner has 600 as top, use >> that. 1200? Use that. >> >> 2. Save them in tiff, not jpg or any other format. Tiff is loss-proof. > ===== > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Barton, I am glad you got a Y-DNA match so very quickly. This is great! My comments were made with the fact in mind that the Y-DNA test only tests the Y-chromosome and thus the probability of finding a match is much less than that of finding a match across the entire spectrum of chromosomes used in autosomal testing. It is great that you got a match as you described but that does not lessen the fact that the probability is still in favor of autosomal testing. Like most DNA testing customers, Most of my SIGNIFICANT matches have been in the autosomal testing area rather than the Y-DNA or MT-DNA testing. I would love to get a SIGNIFICANT match in the Y-DNA because it could possibly get me in touch with someone that has broken through the walls that keep me in the dark. Thanks for the great news! Dave -------Original Message------- From: BARTON LEWIS Date: 05/17/2012 08:08:55 To: viking@rvi.net Cc: odinaz@comcast.net; roots-l@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Autosomal testing Kirsten, I'm not Dave, but you are correct as to the 3 assumptions in your first paragraph. How many generations back is the common ancestor? If it's more than 5, FTDNA tells you there is a small chance of your matching with a descendant of that person. I think that's conservative, and it's further back -- more like 7 or 8. Most of my mom's and dad's matches are 5th cousins or greater. That said, there may be many more people who have tested who do not show up as matches -- hence your statement about not making a match not being proof there of a non-relationship. The FAQ on FTDNA provides a chart which shows the probability of matching with each level of relationship. Also, you don't need to do 2 tests -- one on each (maternal and paternal) side. You could take the test yourself since, of course, you have DNA from both parents, and hope for a match. If you have an idea how the other tester is descended from the common ancestor, presumably you know which side it's on, and the match just confirms your assumption. One thing you should know about the 2 testing companies is that FTDNA allows you to identify which other matches you have in common with any given match. This can be helpful in isolating your relationship to an individual. Also, as an aside, I have to take issue with Dave's comment that finding a match through Y-DNA is "very slim." When I tested my Y-DNA, I found a close match to a distant cousin immediately. I have sponsored about 10 other cousins on other lines and have had great success with Y-DNA. I was able to identify the birth parents of my 2nd great grandfather, adopted in Wisconsin in the early 1860s. There was circumstantial evidence (the 1860 census), but the test proved it as a male descendant of his brother, whom he never knew, tested, and both men were a near perfect match. A match doesn't always answer the question "who's my ancestor's daddy?", but it often can isolate a group of people or a geographical locale where that person should be found. For example, I think my maternal Lewis ancestor is found in the 1810 Westmoreland Co., PA census. When a descendant of his tested, he matched with another Lewis whose ancestor is found in that county at the same time. We don't know how they're related, but it confirms for both of us that our ancestors are most likely those men with the same names found in records there in the early late 18th/early 19th centuries. Barton On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Kirsten Bowman wrote: > Dave: > > Oh, thank you! Now we're getting somewhere. So if I'm interpreting > correctly, you're saying that two (or more) parties must have > autosomal tests and that there's no possibility for matching my > autosomal or mtDNA test with existing yDNA results to find a common > ancestor who is neither direct paternal nor direct maternal. Further, > I'm understanding that the more generations between test candidates > and the common ancestor, the slimmer the chances of a match from > autosomal testing. And that with autosomal testing a non-match is not > necessarily proof of no common ancestor. Is all of that correct? > > Since I would probably have to pay both sides of FTDNA's $289 (or wait > for the sale), and in view of the distance to the possible common > ancestor, it sounds like a fairly expensive shot in the dark. I'm not > terribly interested in identifying my general ethnicity (that's > already pretty well established), and I'm not heavily involved in > tracing lines other than this particular one. Unfortunately the > member of our surname project who has already done the Family Finder > test is a half-sibling and connects to the main tree even a couple of > generations above me, so I'd guess that that makes a match even more > unlikely. > > Altogether it seems I'd be better off spending my money in hiring a > researcher in Canada to try and turn up a lead that I may have missed > in my 12 years of searching. Do you disagree? > > Again, thanks so much for writing. > > Kirsten > > -----Original Message----- From: Dave Michaelson > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:11 PM > To: viking@rvi.net ; Roots-L@rootsweb.com ; gale_gorman@me.com > Subject: Autosomal testing > > Kristin, > > > > Several of the answers given concerning DNA testing for Genealogical > purposes were quite good but the did not clearly answer your question. > > > > Your answer is possibly, if you choose the right test. > > > > Y-DNA (of the strict father-father-father... etc line) and MT-DNA (for > the > STRICT mother-mother-mother... etc line) will tell you if you have a > match > IF the person you want to match is a member of the above strict lines > (the > edges on a ancestry chart ONLY). The autosomal tests are for all the > other > lines. In other words the Y-DNA and MT-DNA ONLY test two lines in your > ancestry chart and are pretty much useless for identifying specific > individuals. What those two tests are good for is giving you your > haplogroup > and telling where your ancestors came from 30,000 or so years ago. In > other > words, beyond 20 generations AT LEAST! The chances of you finding a > specific > individual randomly that falls on the two lines given above are VERY > SLIM. > > > > The autosomal testing is not at all like that. It tests ALL lines in > the > family tree back about 5 to 7 generations quite accurately. Beyond > that, the > autosomal clues are pretty much diluted out as far as identifying > specific > families or individuals that are related to you... but all lines are > tested. > If you want to identify if a family is related to you AND THEY HAVE > BEEN > TESTED, or their DNA is available to test, then the autosomal tests > will > probably give you much more information than the Y-DNA or > mitochondrial DNA > testing. > > > > As far as Autosomal testing - Family Tree DNA is the largest in the > world > and provides one of the best testing services. Ancestry.com is just > starting > out and I know little about their testing but the general rule of > thumb is > that you get what you pay for. It is your choice though but unless > there is > a large enough database to compare against, it is useless for you to > go > looking for a match... if you know what I mean. FTDNA does have the > Family > Finder on sale from time to time for $199 or is you are a member of a > surname group or other recognized group, you could get a special > offer. You > can go to ftdna.com and check all this out - they are very open about > letting people browse to learn about DNA testing and what is available > and > what it will do you you. Check it out, what do you have to loose? > > > > And also MT-DNA is NOT found in the nuclear wall or membrane, it is > found in > all cell cytoplasm within the cell in structures called mitochondria - > thus > the name MT-DNA. > > > > Hope this helps and if you have further questions, you can email me > direct > if you wish. > > > > Dave Michaelson > > > > > > > > P.S. > > > > Gale, > > > > Y-DNA testing will not give you the information you are looking for - > neither will MT-DNA testing. These test only test two SPECIFIC lines > as I > mentioned above. Autosomal testing will test the other lines but will > only > help you if both parties have been tested (or the situation in the > next > paragraph exists) which is true for all DNA testing. > > > > ALL these tests are useless for identifying people whose DNA is not > available. What the autosomal testing is good for is to test people > alive > today that have provided their DNA and been tested and compare their > DNA to > yours. In that way, using information from both (yours and theirs) > trees, > you could possibly get the data you need. The more people that match > you, > the easier it is to narrow your search and identify specific > individuals > and/or families. > > > > Again, I hope this helps. > > > > Dave > > > > > > ==================================== > > > > In you email, you wrote - > > > > "Kirsten Bowman" <viking@rvi.net> > > Subject: [ROOTS-L] Autosomal DNA? > > > > I have a fair understanding of the use of yDNA in genealogy but the > blurbs I > ve read about autosomal DNA don't give a clue to whether that test > would > help solve a longstanding brick wall in my maternal linewhich is as > follows > . . > > > > My 3rd great-grandfather was born in 1788 in a sparsely-populated > region of > Canada. I suspect he was the son of one of 7 brothers who settled in > the > area in the early 1780s. Roughly a dozen direct male descendants of > those 7 > brothers have done yDNA tests through FTDNA. Some have tested up to 67 > markers and one has done the FTDNA Family Finder test. My own line > daughtered-out with my 2nd great-grandfather and I?m unable to locate > any > direct male cousins for yDNA testing. > > > > Now I'm wondering whether an autosomal DNA test would tell whether I'm > related to any of the fellows who have already testedor would an > autosomal > test of a female descendant of one of those 7 brothers show a > relationship > to me? Would the $99 test from Ancestry.com do the trickor is the $289 > Family Finder test from FTDNA necessary? I realize that no testing > could > tell *which* of the 7 brothers was the parent of my 3rd > great-grandfatherI'm > simply wondering if I can narrow him down to a certain clan. > > > > Can anyone answer those questions or direct me to a site that gives a > thorough explanation of what autosomal DNA testing will do? > > > ===== > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to > roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Nelda, I apologize if you feel I have offended you; that was not my intention. Nor was it my intention that you post my PRIVATE emails to you on Rootsweb. They were private because I did not want to embarrass you to the world with the fact that your DNA knowledge is full of faulty DNA 'facts' that you are giving out to people that have asked for help. I felt I could deal with this privately without the need to notify the WORLD that you are NOT a fountain of accurate information on DNA or DNA testing, regardless of the web sites you are "affiliated" with or post on, per your signature information that use on each and every post you make. I spend a good deal of my free time trying to de-bunk a lot of the 'facts' given out by people that should learn rather than teach and at times it is frustrating and a losing battle for me. My intention is to help people, not baffle them with jargon and half truths so that I look smart. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority! If you feel that my manors[sic] are not up to your standards, then perhaps you need to look at the email YOU sent to me initially -- understand (as YOU put it!)? People, you do not need to listen to me or Nelda if you are unsure - you can get the same facts that I am telling you directly from FTDNA (familytreedna com) and other testing sites. But you turn to your friends on Rootsweb because it is more 'personal'. This being the case, I feel it is my obligation to do my best to answer your questions and give you a good site on the web to verify what you are being told. I do not advertise my qualifications', certifications or affiliations because this is not about me it is about helping you. Perhaps, Nelda, you should take the same stance, rather than broadcasting to the world just how smart you THINK you are. People ask questions because they need to know the answers, they do not need to baffled with BS for whatever reasons you have. Dave -------Original Message------- From: Nelda Percival Date: 05/17/2012 15:50:36 To: odinaz@comcast.net; roots-l@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [ROOTS-L] Autosomal testing Dave, You might know genetics but one day you might learn some manors.You know I could be as rude as you, but I choose not to be. Yes a chromosome is a pair it is not singular...yes it is tested and yes it is compared to another person's results at the same place. Have a good day. and yes I understand fully... Sorry my email offended you, I'll ensure you never get another directly from me. copy kept for record. Nelda L. Percival, Administrator of Y-DNA surname projects Gilpin, Cupp, Bonstein and Gillock My Genealogy - http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.ancestry com/~bonsteinandgilpin/index.htm GeneticGenealogy - http://www.geneticsand.us Blog - http://aircastles-lets-talk.blogspot.com/ GilpinGenetics: http://www.gilpingenetics.us/ Web Mistress for LCRG - http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:54:08 -0700 From: odinaz@comcast.net To: nelda_percival@hotmail.com Subject: RE: [ROOTS-L] Autosomal testing Nelda, I am not sure why you sent this "explanation" to me. Your explanation of DNA testing is misleading and inaccurate. DNA testing is done on specific loci (Alleles) on the chromosomes, it has NOTHING to do with Chromosome pairs. The same loci (Alleles) are tested on another person's chromosomes to determines if a match has taken place. -- Understand? Also, I find your signature information would tend to mislead the ignorant that you actually know something about DNA testing - that is, until you actually run into someone who DOES! Dave -------Original Message------- From: Nelda Percival Date: 05/17/12 09:50:03 To: viking@rvi.net; odinaz@comcast.net; roots-l@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [ROOTS-L] Autosomal testing Hi, YOUR: So if I'm interpreting Correctly.... SNIP Absolutly correct.. Each chromosome pair is different from the next Just like the Y chromosome is different from the X chromosome. autosomal chromosome, number one is different from chromosome number two, each is even different in size. so they must be compared to its match number one to number one and Y to Y and X to X ... ect THat is why the data found from testing the Y chromosome can not be compared to Autosomal chromosome number five.. each has its own base pairs ... Its like DNA is fruit and Y is an Apple X is an Orange, autosomal number one is a cherry, autosomal number two is a bannan, three is a lemon; they are all different types of fruit... Understand? Nelda L. Percival, Administrator of Y-DNA surname projects Gilpin, Cupp, Bonstein and Gillock My Genealogy - http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.ancestry com/~bonsteinandgilpin/index.htm GeneticGenealogy - http://www.geneticsand.us Blog - http://aircastles-lets-talk.blogspot.com/ GilpinGenetics: http://www.gilpingenetics.us/ Web Mistress for LCRG - http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg

Hi Everyone I'm researching the above Dr. Rose 1897-1983, he is buried in the Evergreen Cemetery in Leechburgh Co. Armstrong. He is the son of Andrew C. ROSE 1851-1940 and Sarah J. ROSE 1866-1827. (All buried in Evergreen). Earl. A. Rose served in WW1 and WW11 his siblings are Russell Robert ROSE 1887-1947 and Leroy S. ROSE 1887-1947. Finding details on the above family may help with research into Mary Ann Rose (Fuller) who is Andrew Roses's sister. Kindest regards Dianna from Oz

Hi, YOUR: So if I'm interpreting Correctly.... SNIP Absolutly correct.. Each chromosome pair is different from the next Just like the Y chromosome is different from the X chromosome. autosomal chromosome, number one is different from chromosome number two, each is even different in size. so they must be compared to its match number one to number one and Y to Y and X to X ... ect THat is why the data found from testing the Y chromosome can not be compared to Autosomal chromosome number five.. each has its own base pairs ... Its like DNA is fruit and Y is an Apple X is an Orange, autosomal number one is a cherry, autosomal number two is a bannan, three is a lemon; they are all different types of fruit... Understand? Nelda L. Percival, Administrator of Y-DNA surname projects Gilpin, Cupp, Bonstein and Gillock My Genealogy - http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/index.htm GeneticGenealogy - http://www.geneticsand.us Blog - http://aircastles-lets-talk.blogspot.com/ GilpinGenetics: http://www.gilpingenetics.us/ Web Mistress for LCRG - http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg