At 8/28/2015 06:26, you wrote: >I need to enter dna tests (autosomal, Y) as sources and I'm looking for >TMG source templates. I bought the Evidence Explained quick reference >sheet "Citing Genetic Sources for History Research" so have a possible >citation format but I'd also welcome hearing how others have done this. I >usually lump sources and add specifics as citation detail. > >Without having done any entries yet I think dna as a source will be mainly >for relationships. I would agree that any citations for DNA Sources would be mainly for Relationships. That said, I wonder how a single DNA test report can provide evidence of a relationship. Like a marriage, it would take two tests that show a match to be evidence. Thus I would think multiple Sources would be needed as evidence.otherwise only half the story is there. Barring the availability of citations for other reports, remarks describing the match would be needed. As to the design of the citation, I think something based on Mills' topic 3.13, Basic Forman" Artifacts in 'Evidence Explained' (p. 124) would do the trick (and illustrated on p. 93) would do the trick. The Full Footnote might be something like: [AGENCY], "[RECORD TYPE] for [SUBJECT]", [DATE], [FILE REFERENCE], [REPOSITORY], [REPOSITORY ADDRESS]<. [COMMENTS]>. giving a citations like: FamilyTreeDNA, "Y-DNA Certificate for Smith, John Q.", 10 Jan 2011, Test # 12345, John Q. Smith, Some City, State. This report of the DNA test showed matches with James W. Smitth. Lee

That helps clarify the situation I'm trying to capture. I have an autosomal match with another tester, strong enough to pretty conclusively show that we have a common ancestor within "autosomal time frame". That is, we are surely cousins. Comparison of trees with this match strongly suggests who this ancestor is, someone a generation earlier than my earliest documented, well-proven ancestor, and two generations earlier than my tester's tree documents. It is someone who I have long identified as most likely parent of my earliest proven. I have other matches in this match area who are our cousins from the same family line as well and I am working through contacting them. Response rate in these cases can be low, so I may end up relying on this single match as far as the dna component of evidence. So I have a combination of standard genealogy research and now a supporting dna match that leads me to add this earlier generation to my line. In thinking about this now I can see that adding dna as a source could be taken as asserting the relationship "proven" when it's really one element of supporting evidence. I agree that remarks need to state how much I am really concluding. This general format can work for me. Since my example is autosomal and since I lump sources, I would move date and test id to citation detail, may add names of the people who match (just the two in my case), and would likely add the specific chromosome match points. Adding match names may be a problem since it could circumvent the privacy choices made by testers when they opt to share results and who to share with. On 8/28/2015 11:33 AM, Lee Hoffman/KY wrote: > At 8/28/2015 06:26, you wrote: >> I need to enter dna tests (autosomal, Y) as sources and I'm looking for >> TMG source templates. I bought the Evidence Explained quick reference >> sheet "Citing Genetic Sources for History Research" so have a possible >> citation format but I'd also welcome hearing how others have done >> this. I >> usually lump sources and add specifics as citation detail. >> >> Without having done any entries yet I think dna as a source will be >> mainly >> for relationships. > > I would agree that any citations for DNA Sources would be mainly for > Relationships. > > That said, I wonder how a single DNA test report can provide evidence > of a relationship. Like a marriage, it would take two tests that show > a match to be evidence. Thus I would think multiple Sources would be > needed as evidence.otherwise only half the story is there. Barring > the availability of citations for other reports, remarks describing > the match would be needed. > > As to the design of the citation, I think something based on Mills' > topic 3.13, Basic Forman" Artifacts in 'Evidence Explained' (p. 124) > would do the trick (and illustrated on p. 93) would do the trick. The > Full Footnote might be something like: > > [AGENCY], "[RECORD TYPE] for [SUBJECT]", [DATE], [FILE REFERENCE], > [REPOSITORY], [REPOSITORY ADDRESS]<. [COMMENTS]>. > > giving a citations like: > > FamilyTreeDNA, "Y-DNA Certificate for Smith, John Q.", 10 Jan 2011, > Test # 12345, John Q. Smith, Some City, State. This report of the > DNA test showed matches with James W. Smitth. > > Lee >

I'm not trying to "sell" anything; just sharing information I've found to be helpful: You'll find interesting discussions regarding EE, evidence, privacy, and citations: https://www.evidenceexplained.com/ - search for DNA to find articles and discussions for that topic. The EE QuickSheet "Citing Genetic Sources for History Research" provides more information and examples For DNA citations than EE 3rd ed: http://www.genealogical.com/ - also available on Amazon. A digital version is available for Evidence Explained, 3rd edition: https://www.evidenceexplained.com/magento/ Wanda Sent from my iPad > On Aug 28, 2015, at 12:24 PM, Jerry Balkcom via <tmg@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > That helps clarify the situation I'm trying to capture. > > I have an autosomal match with another tester, strong enough to pretty > conclusively show that we have a common ancestor within "autosomal time > frame". That is, we are surely cousins. Comparison of trees with this > match strongly suggests who this ancestor is, someone a generation > earlier than my earliest documented, well-proven ancestor, and two > generations earlier than my tester's tree documents. It is someone who > I have long identified as most likely parent of my earliest proven. I > have other matches in this match area who are our cousins from the same > family line as well and I am working through contacting them. Response > rate in these cases can be low, so I may end up relying on this single > match as far as the dna component of evidence. > > So I have a combination of standard genealogy research and now a > supporting dna match that leads me to add this earlier generation to my > line. In thinking about this now I can see that adding dna as a source > could be taken as asserting the relationship "proven" when it's really > one element of supporting evidence. I agree that remarks need to state > how much I am really concluding. > > This general format can work for me. Since my example is autosomal and > since I lump sources, I would move date and test id to citation detail, > may add names of the people who match (just the two in my case), and > would likely add the specific chromosome match points. Adding match > names may be a problem since it could circumvent the privacy choices > made by testers when they opt to share results and who to share with. > >>