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