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