About robertajestes

Scientist, author, genetic genealogist. Documenting Native Heritage through contemporaneous records and DNA.

Smokey Robinson – Who Do You Think You Are – “Overcome with Joy”

Courtesy TLC

On this Sunday’s episode of Who Do You Think You Are? at 10/9c on TLC, Motown legend and icon Smokey Robinson dives into his late mother’s family history. He searches for answers behind the mystery of why his grandfather disappeared from his children’s lives, and finds a man tangled in a swirl of controversy. Then Smokey uncovers the story of his great-grandfather, and comes face to face with an unbelievable history.

Anyone in my generation is familiar with Smokey Robinson, nicknamed “Smokey Joe,” from his days with The Miracles beginning in the mid-1950s through his more recent continuing performances even though he’s no youngster anymore.

You can hear his infamous “Agony and “Ecstasy” here.

One of the aspects of this episode that I really enjoyed was that Smokey seems so “real.” He’s not an actor, and you can tell that what he says is absolutely sincere and often, the same exact emotions we feel as genealogists. It’s so easy to relate to him. In fact, I checked the We’re Related app, just to see, with no luck.

Smokey’s music is iconic, as is the man himself. Someone many can identify with, struggling through and triumphing over poverty, infidelity, drugs and many other stumbling blocks that life has to offer.

As it turns out, his ancestors, and probably many of ours as well, struggled with the same temptations in one form or another.

I have one thing to say to Smokey Robinson – “I feel you!”

Many people whose ancestry reaches back into the times of slavery find pursuing their genealogy somewhat difficult, but they aren’t the only people with this problem. I have the exact same issues with one of my family members who just seems to “disappear” from time to time, and in both cases, Smokey’s and mine, it has nothing to do with slavery at all. It has to do with human choices!

Smokey’s Parents

Smokey begins by telling us the story of his parents. His mother, Flossie Mae Smith, born in Memphis, Tennessee in 1907, died when Smokey was 10, and as he said, “the world stopped.” She was his closest friend. Such a sad moment. Even more than half a century later, these early painful memories are so close to the surface.

Courtesy TLC

Smokey’s parents were divorced when he was 3, so he didn’t know much about either side of his family. He did know that the Warr surname was one he had heard on his mother’s side, but he didn’t know how it connected and was anxious to find out. Smokey said he knows that his mother is going with him on this journey.

Yes, Smokey, I’m sure she did.

Smokey met with a genealogist at the LA Public Library to review what he did know, finding census records showing his mother as a child in the 1910 census. However, that record proved to be confusing, because while his mother was age 2, and his grandmother’s marital status was married, her husband was not listed with the family.

Who was the grandfather and where was he? Why was he not with the family in the census? Why had Smokey never heard one thing about the man?

I swear, I think Smokey and I must be related, because my father’s side of the family is full of this kind of intrigue. It’s fun when it’s someone else’s story, but it’s not one bit fun when it’s your story AND you can’t find the next step.

Thankfully, Smokey had help.

Memphis, Tennessee

Smokey was off to Memphis, Tennessee where he met with both an archivist and a professional genealogist at a restaurant in old town that I thought sure had something to do with the show, but apparently did not.  I kept waiting for the genealogist to say, “And this is the building he owned” or “where he worked,” but it didn’t happen. I would have loved to have vicariously sampled some southern food.

Smokey found his grandfather, Ella Smith’s husband, Benjamin J. Smith, in various records in Memphis, including a 1914 divorce record. That does explain why Smokey had never heard of him, but it doesn’t explain where he was on the 1910 census.

Smokey says, “I want to know where he was.” Can I ever understand that feeling. How DARE our ancestors be missing in a census!

Smokey knows that his uncle, Dewey, was born in 1901, so by inference he knows that his grandmother was married to Benjamin Smith since at least 1900 until their divorce in 1914.

Or does he?

Enter Euzelia – the other woman. Except no, maybe she wasn’t the other woman. Maybe his grandmother was.

GRANDMA??? The other woman?? Nooooooo

No one wants to think of grandma as the other woman. Surely, there is some mistake here.

Looking at the 1900 census, sure enough, Benjamin was married to Euzelia. Ok, so maybe they got divorced.

They did, in 1902.

Uh, Ok.

But Uncle Dewey was born in 1901?????

Smokey said, “I am very confused.”

Like I said Smokey, I feel you.

But then, but then….they found Benjamin in 1910.

In Birmingham, Alabama.

Doing the last, and I mean the VERY last thing you would have expected him to be doing.

I don’t want to spoil the surprise, but you will be…let’s just say…shocked.

Smokey got it right when he said that his grandfather was “A Player” and he didn’t mean in musical terms.

Warr

Having reached the end of the Smith line with Benjamin, Smokey shifted to his grandmother’s side of the family to see if he could discover where the Warr surname came from – which involved a trip to the National Archives in Washington, DC.

Unlike grandfather Benjamin’s death certificate which listed his parents as “unknown,” his grandmother Ella’s death certificate listed her parents as Adam Warr and Sarah, surname unknown.

Ella was born in 1889, in Fayette County, near Memphis, so Smokey has already gone back quite some time using her death certificate information. Once again, using the census, they found Adam Warr in 1870, living with his family. With a lot of digging, they discovered one document where Adam Warr gave a deposition, in his own words. That was an amazing discovery, actually, given the circumstances…and something we all hope for. Those are the only words from Adam’s mouth that Smokey will ever hear.

Since they were looking at original documents, the “X” where his grandfather signed was also by his own hand.

The genealogist told Smokey that she had found the location where Adam Warr lived, in Fayette County, Tennessee. So back Smokey went, to Fayette County, outside Memphis.

Roots in the Land

Smokey is a man after my own heart. He had to go back to his ancestor’s land. He was drawn there. He wondered if his grandmother, Ella, visited there often. That’s probably where she was born. This is the field where the grandmother he knew and loved would have played as a child. She walked here, and so did her parents, Adam and Sarah.

Courtesy TLC

Smokey needed to stand where Adam stood. Where Adam lived, where he worked, and probably, where he breathed his last.

Courtesy TLC

Adam’s bones as well as Sarah’s may even rest on this land.

Courtesy TLC

Smokey is simply “overcome with joy.”

This is such a positive, uplifting story. I was sorry to see it end. But isn’t that the best way to feel at the end of anything. I hope you enjoy it on Sunday evening as much as I did during the screening.

Introducing the Match-Maker-Breaker Tool for Parental Phasing

A few days after I published the article, Concepts – Segment Size, Legitimate and False Matches, Philip Gammon, a statistician who lives in Australia, posted a comment to my blog.

Great post Roberta! I’m a statistician so my eyes light up as soon as I see numbers. That table you have produced showing by segment length the percentage that are IBD is one of the most useful pieces of information that I have seen. Two days to do the analysis!!! I’m sure that I could write a formula that would identify the IBD segments and considerably reduce this time.

By this time, my eyes were lighting up too, because the work for the original article had taken me two days to complete manually, just using segments 3 cM and above. Using smaller segments would have taken days longer. By manually, I mean comparing the child’s matches with that of both parents’ matches to see which, if either, parent the child’s match also matches on the same segment.

In the simplest terms, the Segment Size article explained how to copy the child’s and both parents’ matches to a spreadsheet and then manually compare the child’s matches to those of the parents. In the example above, you can see that both the child and the mother have matches to Cecelia. As it turns out, the exact same segment of DNA was passed in its entirety to the child from the mother, who is shown in pink – so Cecelia matches both the child and the parent on exactly the same segment.

That’s not always the case, and the Segment Size article went into much greater detail.

For the past month or so, Philip and I have been working back and forth, along with some kind volunteers who tested Philip’s new tool, in order to create something so that you too can do this comparison and in much less than two days.

Foundation

Here’s the underlying principle for this tool – if a child has a match that does NOT match either parent on the same segment, then the match is not a legitimate match. It’s a false match, identical by chance, and it is NOT genealogically relevant.

If the child’s match also matches either parent on the same segment, it is most likely a match by descent and is genealogically relevant.

For those of you who noticed the words “most likely,” yes, it is possible for someone to match a parent and child both and still not phase (or match) to the next higher generation, but it’s unusual and so far, only found in smaller segments. I wrote about multiple generation phasing in the article, “Concepts – Segment Survival – 3 and 4 Generation Phasing.” Once a segment phases, it tends to continue phasing, especially with segments above about 3.5 cM.

For those who have both parents available to test, phased matching is a HUGE benefit.

But I Have Only One Parent Available

You can still use the tool to identify matches to that one parent, but you CANNOT presume that matches that DON’T match that parent are from the other (missing) parent. Matches matching the child but not matching the tested parent can be due to:

  • A match to the missing parent
  • A false match that is not genealogically relevant

According to the statistics generated from Philip’s Match-Maker-Breaker tool, shown below, segments 9 cM and above tend to match one or the other parent 90% or more of the time.  Segments 12 cM and over match 97% of the time or more, so, in general, one could “assume” (dangerous word, I know) that segments of this size that don’t match to the tested parent would match to the other parent if the other parent was available. You can also see that the reliability of that assumption drops rapidly as the segment sizes get smaller.

Platform

This tool was written utilizing Microsoft Excel and only works reliably on that platform.

If you are using Excel and are NOT attempting to use MAC Numbers, skip this section.  If you want to attempt to use Numbers, read this section.

I tried, along with a MAC person, to try to coax Numbers (free MAC spreadsheet) into working. If you have any other option other than using Numbers, so do. Microsoft Excel for MAC seemed to work fine, but it was only tested on one MAC.

Here’s what I discovered when trying to make Numbers work:

  • You must first launch numbers and then select the various spreadsheets.
  • The tabs are not at the bottom and are instead at the top without color.
  • The instructions for copying the formulas in cells H2-K2 throughout the spreadsheet must be done manually with a copy/paste.
  • After the above step, the calculations literally took a couple hours (MacBook Air) instead of a couple minutes on the PC platform. The older MAC desktop still took significantly longer than on a Microsoft PC, but less time than the solid state MacBook Air.
  • After the calculations complete, the rows on the child’s spreadsheet are not colored, which is one of the major features of the Match-Maker-Breaker tool, as Numbers reports that “Conditional highlighting rules using formulas are not supported and were removed.”
  • Surprisingly, the statistical Reports page seems to function correctly.

How Long Does Running Match-Maker-Breaker Tool on a PC Take?

The first time I ran this tool, which included reading Philip’s instructions for the first time, the entire process took me about 10 minutes after I downloaded the files from Family Tree DNA.

Vendors

This tool only works with matches downloaded from Family Tree DNA.

Transfer Kits

It’s strongly suggested that all 3 individuals being compared have tested at Family Tree DNA or on the same chip version imported into Family Tree DNA.

Matches not run on the same chip as Family Tree DNA testers can only provide a portion of the matches that the same person’s results run on the FTDNA chip can provide. You can run the matching tool with transferred results, but the results will only provide a subset of the results that will be provided by having all parties that are being compared, meaning the child and both parents, test at Family Tree DNA.

The following products versions CAN be all be compared successfully at Family Tree DNA, as they all utilize the same Illumina chip:

  • All Family Finder tests
  • Ancestry V1 (before May 2016)
  • 23andMe V3 (before November 2013)
  • MyHeritage

The following tests do NOT utilize the same Illumina testing platform and cannot be compared successfully with Family Finder tests from Family Tree DNA, or the list above. Cross platform testing results cannot be reliably compared. Those that DO match will be accurate, but many will not match that would match if all 3 testers were utilizing the same platform, therefore leading you to inaccurate conclusions.

  • Ancestry V2 (beginning in May 2016 to present)
  • 23andMe V4 (beginning November 2013 to present)

The child and two parents should not be compared utilizing mixed platforms – meaning, for example, that the child should not have been tested at FTDNA and the parents transferred from Ancestry on the V2 platform since May 2016.

If any of the three family members, being the child or either parent, have tested on an incompatible platform, they should retest at Family Tree DNA before using this tool.

What You Need

  • You will need to download the chromosome match lists from the child and both parents, AT THE SAME TIME. I can’t stress this enough, because any matches that have been added for either of the three people at a later time than the others will skew the matching and the statistics. Matches are being added all the time.
  • You will also need a relatively current version of Excel on your computer to run this tool. No, I did not do version compatibility testing so I don’t know how old is too old. I am running MSOffice 2013.
  • You will need to know how to copy and paste data from and to a spreadsheet.

Instructions for Downloading Match Files

My recommendation is that you download your matches just before utilizing this tool.

To download your matches, sign on to each account. On your main page, you will see the Family Finder section, and the Chromosome Browser. Click on that link.

At the top of the chromosome browser page, below, you’ll see the image of chromosomes 1 through X. At the top right, you’ll see the option to “Download all matches to Excel (CSV Format). Click on that link.

Next, you’ll receive a prompt to open or save the file. Save it to a file name that includes the name of the person plus the date you did the download. I created a separate folder so there would be no confusion about which files are which and whether or not they are current.

Your match file includes all of your matches and the chromosome matching locations like the example shown below.

These files of matches are what you’ll need to copy into the Match-Maker-Breaker spreadsheet.

Do not delete any information from your match spreadsheets. If you normally delete small segments, don’t. You may cause a non-match situation if the parent carries a larger portion of the same segment.

You can rerun the Match-Maker-Breaker tool at will, and it only takes a very few minutes.

The Match-Maker-Breaker Tool

The Match-Maker-Breaker Tool has 5 sheets when you open the spreadsheet:

  • Instructions – Please read entirely before beginning.
  • Results – The page where your statistical results will be placed.
  • Child – The page where you will paste the child’s matches and then look at the match results after processing.
  • Father – The page where you will paste the father’s matches.
  • Mother – The page where you will paste the mother’s matches.

Download

Download the free Match-Maker-Breaker tool which is a spreadsheet by clicking on this link: Match-Maker-Breaker Tool V2

Please don’t start using the tool before reading the instructions completely and reading the rest of this article.

Make a Copy

After you download the tool, make a copy on your system. You’ll want to save the Match-Maker-Breaker spreadsheet file for each trio of people individually, and you’ll want a fresh Match-Maker-Breaker spreadsheet copy to run with each new set of download files.

Instructions

I’m not going to repeat Philip’s instructions here, but please read them entirely before beginning and please follow them exactly. Philip has included graphic illustrations of each step to the right of the instruction box. The spreadsheet opens to the Instructions page. You can print the instruction page as well.

Copy/Pasting Data

When copying the parents’ and child’s data into the spreadsheets, do NOT copy and paste the entire page by selecting the page. Select and copy the relevant columns by highlighting columns A through G by touching your cursor to the A-G across the top, as shown below.  After they are selected, then click on “copy.” In the child’s chromosome browser download spreadsheet, position the curser in the first cell in row 1 in the child’s page of the Match-Maker-Breaker spreadsheet and click on “paste.”

Do NOT select columns H-K when highlighting and copying, or your paste will wipe out Philip’s formulas to do calculations on the child’s tab on the spreadsheet.

The example above, assuming that Annie is the last entry on the spreadsheet, shows that I’ve highlighted all of the cells in columns A-G, prior to executing the copy command. Your spreadsheets of course will be much longer.

I wrote a very quick and dirty article about using Excel here

The Match Making Breaking Part

After you copy the formulas from rows H2 to K2 through the rest of the spreadsheet by following Philip’s instructions, you’ll see the results populating in the status bar at the bottom. You’ll also see colors being added to the matches on the left hand side of the spreadsheet page and counts accruing in the 4 right columns. Be patient and wait. It may take a few minutes. When it’s finished, you can verify by scrolling to the last row on the child’s page and you’ll see something like the example below, where every row has been assigned a color and every match that matches the child and the father, mother, both or is found in the HLA region is counted as 1 in the right 4 columns.

In this example, 5 segments, shown in grey, don’t match anyone, one, shown in tan is found in the HLA region, and three match the father, in blue.

Output

After you run the Match-Maker-Breaker tool, the child’s matches on the Child tab will be identified as follows:

This means that segment of the child that matches that individual also matches the father, the mother, both parents, the HLA region, or none of the above on all or part of that same segment.

What is a Match?

Philip and I worked to answer the question, “what is a match?” In the Concepts article, I discussed the various kinds of matches.

  • Full match: The child’s match and parent’s match share the same exact segment, meaning same start and end points and same number of SNPs within that segment.
  • Partial match: The child’s match matches a portion of the segment from the parent – meaning that the child inherited part of the segment, but not the entire segment.
  • Overhanging match: The child’s match matches part or all of the parent’s segment, but either the beginning or end extends further than the parents match. This means that the overlapping portion is legitimate, meaning identical by descent (IBD), but the overhanging portion is identical by chance (IBC.)
  • Nested match: The child’s match is smaller than the match to the parent, but fully within the parent’s match, indicating a legitimate match.
  • No match: The person matches the child, but neither parent, meaning that this match is not legitimate. It’s identical by chance (IBC).

Full matches and no matches are easy.

However, partial matches, overlapping matches and nested matches are not as straightforward.

What, exactly, is a match? Let’s look at some different scenarios.

If someone matches a parent on a large segment, say 20cM, and only matches the child on 2cM, fully within the parent’s segment, is this match genealogically relevant, or could the match be matching the child by chance on a part of the same segment that they match the parents by descent? We have no way to know for sure, just utilizing this tool. Hopefully, in this case, the fact that the person matches the parent on a large segment would answer any genealogical questions through triangulation.

If the person matches the parent but only matches the child on a small portion of the same segment plus an overhanging region, is that a valid match? Because they do match on an overhanging region, we know that match is partly identical by chance, but is the entire match IBC or is the overlapping part legitimate? We don’t know. Partly, how strongly I would consider this a valid match would be the size of the matching portion of the segment.

One of the purposes of phasing and then looking at matches is to, hopefully, learn more about which matches are legitimate, which are not, and predictors of false versus legitimate matches.

Relative to this tool, no editing has been done, meaning that matches are presented exactly as that, regardless of their size or the type of match. A match is a match if any portion of the match’s DNA to the child overlaps any portion of either or both parent’s DNA, with the exception of part of chromosome 6. It’s up to you, as the genealogist, to figure out by utilizing triangulation and other tools whether the match is relevant or not to your genealogy.

If you are not familiar with identical by descent (meaning a legitimate match), identical by population (IBP) meaning identical by descent but because the population as a whole carries that segment and identical by chance (IBC) meaning a false match, the article Identical by…Descent, State, Population and Chance explains the terms and the concepts so that you can apply them usefully.

About Chromosome 6

After analyzing the results of several people, the area of chromosome 6 that includes the HLA region has been excluded from the analysis. Long known to be a pileup region where people carry significant segments of the same DNA that is not genealogically relevant (meaning IBP or identical by population,) this region has found to be often unreliable genealogically, and falls outside the norm as compared to the rest of the segments. This area has been annotated separately and excluded from match results. This was the only region found to universally have this effect.

This does not mean that a match in this region is positively invalid or false, but matches in the HLA region should be viewed very skeptically.

The Results Tab – Statistics

Now that you’ve populated the spreadsheet and you can see on the Child tab which matches also match either or both parents, or neither, or the HLA region, go to the Results tab of the spreadsheet.

This tab gives you some very interesting statistics.

First, you’ll see the number and percent of matches by chromosome.

The person compared was a female, so she would have X matches to both parents. However, notice that X matching is significantly lower than any of the other chromosomes.

Frankly, I’ve suspected for a long time that there was a dramatic difference in matching with the X chromosome, and wrote about it here. It was suggested by some at the time that I was only reporting my personal observations that would not hold beyond a few results (ascertainment bias), but this proves that there is something different about X chromosome matching. I don’t know what or why, but according to this data that is consistent between all of the beta testers, matching to the X chromosome is much less reliable.

The second statistics box you will see are statistics for the matches to the child that also match the parents. The actual matches of the child to the parents are shown as the 23 shown under “excluded from calculations.”

The next group of statistics on your page will be your own, but for this example, Philip has combined the results from several beta testers and provided summary information, so that the statistics are not skewed by any one individual.

Next, the match results by segment size for chromosomes 1-22. Philip has separated out segments with less than 500 SNPs and reports them separately.

You will note that 90% or more of the segments 9 cM and above match one of the two parents, and 97% or more of segments 12cM or above.

The X chromosome follows, analyzed separately. You’ll notice that while 27% of the matches on chromosomes 1-22 match one or both parents, only 14% of the X matches do.

Even with larger segments, not all X segments match both the child and the parents, suggesting that skepticism is warranted when evaluating X chromosome matches.

Philip then calculated a nice graph for showing matching autosomal segments by cM size, excluding the X.

The next set of charts shows matches by SNP density. Many people neglect SNP count when evaluating results, but the higher the SNP count, the more robust the match.

Note that SNP density above 2,200 almost always matched, but not always, while SNP density of 2,800 reaches the 97% threshold..

The X chromosome, by SNP count, below.

X segment reach the 100% threshold about 1600, however, we really need more results to be predictive at the same level as the results for chromosomes 1-22.  Two data samples really isn’t adequate.

Once again, Philip prepared a nice chart showing percentage of matching segments by SNP count, below.

Predictive

In the Segment Survival – 3 and 4 Generation Phasing article, one can see that phased matches are predictive, meaning that a child/parent match is highly suggestive that the segment is a valid segment match and that it will hold in generations further upstream.

Several years ago, Dr. Tim Janzen, one of the early phasing pioneers, suggested that people test their children, even if both parents had already tested. For the life of me, I couldn’t understand how that would be the least bit productive, genealogically, since people were more likely to match the parents than the children, and children only carry a subset of their parent’s DNA.

However, the predictive nature of a segment being legitimate with a child/parent match to a third party means that even in situations where your own parent isn’t available, a match by a third party on the same segment with your child suggests that the match is legitimate, not IBC.

In the article, I showed both 3 and 4 generations of phased comparisons between generations of the same family and a known cousin. The results of the 5 different family comparisons are shown below, where the red segments did not phase or lost phasing between generations, and the green segments did phase through multiple generations.

Very, very few segments lost phasing in upper (older) generations after matching between a parent and a child. In the five 4-generation examples above, only a total of 7 groups of segments lost phasing. The largest segment that lost phasing in upper generations was 3.69 cM. In two examples, no segments were lost due to not phasing in upper generations.

The net-net of this is that you can benefit by testing your children if your parents aren’t available, because the matches on the segment to both you and the child are most likely to be legitimate. Of course, there will be segments where someone matches you and not your child, because your child did not inherit that segment of your DNA, and those may be legitimate matches as well. However, the segments where you and your child both match the same person will likely be legitimate matches, especially over about 3.5 cM. Please read the Segment Survival article for more details.

If you want to order additional Family Finder tests for more family members, you can click here.

Group Analysis

Philip has performed a group analysis which has produced some expected results along with some surprising revelations. I’d prefer to let people get their feet wet with this tool and the results it provides before publishing the results, with one exception.

In case you’re wondering if the comparisons used as examples, above, are representative of typical results, Philip analyzed 10 of our beta testers and says the following:

The results are remarkably consistent between all 10 participants. Summing it up in words: with each person that you match you will have an average of 11 matching segments. Three will be genuine and will add to [a total of] 21 cM. Eight will be false and add to [a total of] 19 cM.

Philip compiled the following chart summarizing 10 beta testers’ results. Please note that you can click to enlarge the images.

The X, being far less consistent, is shown below.

We Still Need Endogamous Parent-Child Trios

When I asked for volunteer testers, we were not able to obtain a trio of fully endogamous individuals. Specifically, we would like to see how the statistics for groups of non-endogamous individuals compare to the statistics for endogamous individuals.

Endogamous groups include people who are 100% Jewish, Amish, Mennonite, or have a significant amount of first or second cousin marriages in recent generations.

Of these, Jewish families prove to be the most highly endogamous, so if you are Jewish and have both Jewish parents’ DNA results, please run this tool and send either Philip or me the resulting spreadsheet. Your results won’t be personally identified, only the statistics used in conjunction with others, similar to the group analysis shown above. Your results will be entirely anonymous.

Philip’s e-mail is philip.gammon@optusnet.com.au and you can reach me at roberta@dnaexplain.com.

Caveat

Philip has created the Match-Maker-Breaker tool which is free to everyone. He has included some wonderful diagnostics, but Philip is not providing individual support for the tooI. In other words, this is a “what you see is what you get” gift.

Thank You and Acknowledgements

Of course, a very big thank you to Philip for creating this tool, and also to people who volunteered as alpha and beta testers and provided feedback. Also thanks to Jim Kvochick for trying to coax Numbers into working.

Match-Maker-Breaker Author Bio:

Philip’s official tagline reads: Philip Gammon, BEng(ManSysEng) RMIT, GradDipSc(AppStatistics) Swinburne

I asked Philip to describe himself.

I’d describe myself as a business analyst with a statistics degree plus an enthusiastic genetic genealogist with an interest in the mathematical and statistical aspects of inheritance and cousinship.

The important aspect of Philip’s resume is that he is applying his skills to genetic genealogy where they can benefit everyone. Thank you so much Philip.

Watch for some upcoming guest articles from Philip.

Family Tree DNA myOrigins Ethnicity Update – No April Foolin’

The long-anticipated myOrigins update at Family Tree DNA has happened today. Not only are the ethnicity percentages updated, sometimes significantly, but so are the clusters and the user interface.

Furthermore, because of the new clusters and reference populations, the entire data base has been rerun. In essence, this isn’t just an update, but an entirely new version of myOrigins.

New Population Clusters

The updated version of myOrigins includes 24 reference populations, an increase of 6 from the previous 18 clusters.

The new clusters are:

African

  • East Central Africa
  • West Africa
  • South Central Africa

Central/South Asian

  • South Central Asia
  • Oceania
  • Central Asia

East Asian

  • Northeast Asia
  • Southeast Asia
  • Siberia

Europe

  • West and Central Europe
  • East Europe
  • Iberia
  • Southeast Europe
  • British Isles
  • Finland
  • Scandinavia

Jewish Diaspora

  • Sephardic Diaspora
  • Ashkenazi Diaspora

Middle Eastern

  • East Middle East
  • West Middle East
  • Asia Minor
  • North Africa

New World

  • North and Central America
  • South and Central America

Note that this grouping divides Native American between North and South America and includes the long-awaited Sephardic cluster.

New User Experience

Your experience starts on your home page where you’ll click on myOrigins, like always. That part hasn’t changed.

The next page you’ll see is new.

This myOrigins page shows your major category results, with a down arrow to display your subgroups and trace results.

Now, for the great news! Family Tree DNA is now displaying trace results! Often interpreted to be noise, that’s not always the case. However, Family Tree DNA does provide an annotation for trace amounts of DNA, so everyone is warned about the potential hazard.

It’s now up to you, the genealogist, to make the determination whether your trace amounts are valid or not.

Trace DNA inclusion has been something I’ve wanted for a long time, so THANK YOU Family Tree DNA!

MyOrigins now identifies my North and Central American ancestry, which translates into Native American, proven by haplogroups in those particular family lines.

Clicking on the various subcategories shows the location of the cluster on the map, along with new educational material below the map.

Pressing the down arrow beside any category displays the subcategories.

Clicking on “Show All” displays all of the categories and your ethnicity percentages within those categories.

Clicking on “View myOrigins Map” shows you the entire world map and your cluster locations where your DNA is found in those reference populations.

The color intensity reflects the amount of your DNA found there. In other words, bright blue is my majority ethnicity at 48% in the British Isles.

In the information box in the lower left hand corner, you can now opt to view your shared origins with people you match and share the same major regions, or you can view the regional information.

Accuracy

I’ve already mentioned how pleased I am to find my Native American ancestry accurately reported, but I’m also equally as pleased to see my British Isles and Germanic/Dutch/French much more accurately reflected. My mother’s results are more succinct as well, reflecting her known heritage almost exactly.

The chart below shows my new myOrigins results compared to the older results. I prepared this chart originally as a part of the article, Concepts – Calculating Ethnicity Percentages. The new results are much more reflective of what I know about my genealogy.

Take a look at your new results on your home page at Family Tree DNA.

Summary

All ethnicity estimates, from all sources, are just that…estimates.  There will always be a newer version as reference populations continue to improve.  The new myOrigins version offers a significant improvement for me and the kits I administer.

Ethnicity estimates are more of a beginning than an end.  I hope that no one is taking any ethnicity estimate as hard and fast fact.  They aren’t.  Ethnicity estimates are one of the many tools available to genetic genealogists today.  They really aren’t a shortcut to, or in place of, traditional genealogy.  I hope what they are, for many people, is the enticement that encourages them to jump into the genealogy pool and go for a swim.

For people seeking to know “who they are” utilizing ethnicity testing, they need to understand that while ethnicity results are fun, they aren’t an answer.  Ethnicity results are more of a hint or a road sign, pointing the way to potential answers that may be reaped from traditional genealogical research.

If your results aren’t quite what you were expecting, or even if they are and you’d like to understand more about how ethnicity and DNA works, please read my article, Ethnicity Testing – A Conundrum.

Jessica Biel – A Follow-up: DNA, Native Heritage and Lies

Jessica Biel’s episode aired on Who Do You Think You Are on Sunday, April 2nd. I wanted to write a follow-up article since I couldn’t reveal Jessica’s Native results before the show aired.

The first family story about Jessica’s Biel line being German proved to be erroneous. In total, Jessica had three family stories she wanted to follow, so the second family legend Jessica set out to research was her Native American heritage.

I was very pleased to see a DNA test involved, but I was dismayed that the impression was left with the viewing audience that the ethnicity results disproved Jessica’s Native heritage. They didn’t.

Jessica’s Ethnicity Reveal

Jessica was excited about her DNA test and opened her results during the episode to view her ethnicity percentages.

Courtesy TLC

The locations shown below and the percentages, above, show no Native ethnicity.

Courtesy TLC

Jessica was understandably disappointed to discover that her DNA did not reflect any Native heritage – conflicting with her family story. I feel for you Jessica.  Been there, done that.

Courtesy TLC

Jessica had the same reaction of many of us. “Lies, lies,” she said, in frustration.

Well Jessica, maybe not.

Let’s talk about Jessica’s DNA results.

Native or Lies?

I’ve written about the challenges with ethnicity testing repeatedly. At the end of this article, I’ll provide a reading resource list.

Right now, I want to talk about the misperception that because Jessica’s DNA ethnicity results showed no Native, that her family story about Native heritage is false. Even worse, Jessica perceived those stories to be lies. Ouch, that’s painful.

In my world view, a lie is an intentional misrepresentation of the truth. Let’s say that Jessica really didn’t have Native heritage. That doesn’t mean someone intentionally lied. People might have been confused. Maybe they made assumptions. Sometimes facts are misremembered or misquoted. I always give my ancestors the benefit of the doubt unless there is direct evidence of an intentional lie. And if then, I would like to try to understand what prompted that behavior. For example, discrimination encouraged many people of mixed ethnicity to “pass” for white as soon as possible.

That’s certainly a forgivable “lie.”

Ok, Back to DNA

Autosomal DNA testing can only reliably pick up to about the 1% level of minority DNA admixture successfully – minority meaning a small amount relative to your overall ancestry.

Everyone inherits DNA from ancestors differently, in different amounts, in each generation. Remember, you receive half of your DNA from each parent, but which half of their DNA you receive is random. That holds true for every generation between the ancestor in question and Jessica today.  Ultimately, more or less than 50% of any ancestor’s DNA can be passed in any generation.

However, if Jessica inherited the average amount of DNA from each generation, being 50% of the DNA from the ancestor that the parent had, the following chart would represent the amount of DNA Jessica carried from each ancestor in each generation.

This chart shows the amount of DNA of each ancestor, by generation, that an individual testing today can expect to inherit, if they inherit exactly 50% of that ancestor’s DNA from the previous generation. That’s not exactly how it works, as we’ll see in a minute, because sometimes you inherit more or less than 50% of a particular ancestor’s DNA.

Utilizing this chart, in the 4th generation, Jessica has 16 ancestors, all great-great-grandparents. On average, she can expect to inherit 6.25% of the DNA of each of those ancestors.

In the rightmost column, I’ve shown Jessica’s relationship to her Jewish great-great-grandparents, shown in the episode, Morris and Ottilia Biel.

Jessica has two great-great-grandparents who are both Jewish, so the amount of Jewish DNA that Jessica would be expected to carry would be 6.25% times two, or 12.50%. But that’s not how much Jewish DNA Jessica received, according to Ancestry’s ethnicity estimates. Jessica received only 8% Jewish ethnicity, 36% less than average for having two Jewish great-great-grandparents.

Courtesy TLC

Now we know that Jessica carries less Jewish DNA that we would expect based on her proven genealogy.  That’s the nature of random recombination and how autosomal DNA works.

Now let’s look at the oral history of Jessica’s Native heritage.

Native Heritage

The intro didn’t tell us much about Jessica’s Native heritage, except that it was on her mother’s mother’s side. We also know that the fully Native ancestor wasn’t her mother or grandmother, because those are the two women who were discussing which potential tribe the ancestor was affiliated with.

We can also safely say that it also wasn’t Jessica’s great-grandmother, because if her great-grandmother had been a member of any tribe, her grandmother would have known that. I’d also wager that it wasn’t Jessica’s great-great-grandmother either, because most people would know if their grandmother was a tribal member, and Jessica’s grandmother didn’t know that. Barring a young death, most people know their grandmother. Utilizing this logic, we can probably safely say that Jessica’s Native ancestor was not found in the preceding 4 generations, as shown on the chart below.

On this expanded chart, I’ve included the estimated birth year of the ancestor in that particular generation, using 25 years as the average generation length.

If we use the logic that the fully Native ancestor was not between Jessica and her great-great-grandmother, that takes us back through an ancestor born in about 1882.

The next 2 generations back in time would have been born in 1857 and 1832, respectively, and both of those generations would have been reflected as Indian on the 1850 and/or 1860 census. Apparently, they weren’t or the genealogists working on the program would have picked up on that easy tip.

If Jessica’s Native ancestor was born in the 7th generation, in about 1807, and lived to the 1850 census, they would have been recorded in that census as Native at about 43 years of age. Now, it’s certainly possible that Jessica had a Native ancestor that might have been born about 1807 and didn’t live until the 1850 census, and whose half-Native children were not enumerated as Indian.

So, let’s go with that scenario for a minute.

If that was the case, the 7th generation born in 1807 contributed approximately 0.78% DNA to Jessica, IF Jessica inherited 50% in each generation. At 0.78%, that’s below the 1% level. Small amounts of trace DNA are reported as <1%, but at some point the amount is too miniscule to pick up or may have washed out entirely.

Let’s add to that scenario. Let’s say that Jessica’s ancestor in the 7th generation was already admixed with some European. Traders were well known to marry into tribes. If Jessica’s “Native” ancestor in the 7th generation was already admixed, that means Jessica today would carry even less than 0.78%.

You can easily see why this heritage, if it exists, might not show up in Jessica’s DNA results.

No Native DNA Does NOT Equal No Native Heritage

However, the fact that Jessica’s DNA ethnicity results don’t indicate Native American DNA doesn’t necessarily mean that Jessica doesn’t have a Native ancestor.

It might mean that Jessica doesn’t have a Native ancestor. But it might also mean that Jessica’s DNA can’t reliably disclose or identify Native ancestry that far back in time – both because of the genetic distance and also because Jessica may not have inherited exactly half of her ancestor’s Native DNA. Jessica’s 8% Jewish DNA is the perfect example of the variance in how DNA is actually passed versus the 50% average per generation that we have to utilize when calculating expected estimates.

Furthermore, keep in mind that all ethnicity tools are imprecise.  It’s a new field and the reference panels, especially for Native heritage, are not as robust as other groups.

Does Jessica Have Native Heritage?

I don’t know the answer to that question, but here’s what I do know.

  • You can’t conclude that because the ethnicity portion of a DNA test doesn’t show Native ancestry that there isn’t any.
  • You can probably say that any fully Native ancestor is not with in the past 6 generations, give or take a generation or so.
  • You can probably say that any Native ancestor is probably prior to 1825 or so.
  • You can look at the census records to confirm or eliminate Native ancestors in many or most lines within the past 6 or 7 generations.
  • You can utilize geographic location to potentially eliminate some ancestors from being Native, especially if you have a potential tribal affiliation. Let’s face it, Cherokees are not found in Maine, for example.
  • You can potentially utilize Y and mitochondrial DNA to reach further back in time, beyond what autosomal DNA can tell you.
  • If autosomal DNA does indicate Native heritage, you can utilize traditional genealogy research in combination with both Y and mitochondrial DNA to prove which line or lines the Native heritage came from.

Mitochondrial and Y DNA Testing

While autosomal DNA is constrained to 5 or 6 generations reasonably, Y and mitochondrial DNA is not.

Of course, Ancestry, who sponsors the Who Do You Think You Are series, doesn’t sell Y or mitochondrial DNA tests, so they certainly aren’t going to introduce that topic.

Y and mitochondrial DNA tests reach back time without the constraint of generations, because neither Y nor mitochondrial DNA are admixed with the other parent.

The Y DNA follows the direct paternal line for males, and mitochondrial DNA follows the direct matrilineal line for both males and females.

In the Concepts – Who To Test article, I discussed all three types of testing and who one can test to discover their heritage, through haplogroups, of each family line.  Every single one of your ancestors carried and had the opportunity to pass on either Y or mitochondrial DNA to their descendants.  Males pass the Y chromosome to male children, only, and females pass mitochondrial DNA to both genders of their children, but only females pass it on.

I don’t want to repeat myself about who carries which kind of DNA, but I do want to say that in Jessica’s case, based on what is known about her family, she could probably narrow the source of the potential Native ancestor significantly.

In the above example, if Jessica is the daughter – let’s say that we think the Native ancestor was the mother of the maternal great-grandmother. She is the furthest right on the chart, above. The pink coloring indicates that the pink maternal great grandmother carries the mitochondrial DNA and passed it on to the maternal grandmother who passed it to the mother who passed it to both Jessica and her siblings.

Therefore, Jessica or her mother, either one, could take a mitochondrial DNA test to see if there is deeper Native ancestry than an autosomal test can reveal.

When Y and mitochondrial DNA is tested, a haplogroup is assigned, and Native American haplogroups fall into subgroups of Y haplogroups C and Q, and subgroups of mitochondrial haplogroups A, B, C, D, X and probably M.

With a bit of genealogy work and then DNA testing the appropriate descendants of Jessica’s ancestors, she might still be able to discern whether or not she has Native heritage. All is not lost and Jessica’s Native ancestry has NOT been disproven – even though that’s certainly the impression left with viewers.

Y and Mitochondrial DNA Tests

If you’d like to order a Y or mitochondrial DNA test, I’d recommend the Full Mitochondrial Sequence test or the 37 marker Y DNA test, to begin with. You will receive a full haplogroup designation from the mitochondrial test, plus matching and other tools, and a haplogroup estimate with the Y DNA test, plus matching and other tools.

You can click here to order the mitochondrial DNA, the Y DNA or the Family Finder test which includes ethnicity estimates from Family Tree DNA. Family Tree DNA is the only DNA testing company that performs the Y and mitochondrial DNA tests.

Further Reading:

If you’d like to read more about ethnicity estimates, I’d specifically recommend “DNA Ethnicity Testing – A Conundrum.

If you’d like more information on how to figure out what your ethnicity estimates should be, I’d recommend Concepts – Calculating Ethnicity Percentages.

You can also search on the word “ethnicity” in the search box in the upper right hand corner of the main page of this blog.

If you’d like to read more about Native American heritage and DNA testing, I’d  recommend the following articles. You can also search for “Native” in the search box as well.

How Much Indian Do I Have In Me?

Proving Native American Ancestry Using DNA

Finding Your American Indian Tribe Using DNA

Native American Mitochondrial Haplogroups

Jessica Biel – Who Do You Think You Are – “Lore, Legend or Lies”

On this Sunday’s episode of Who Do You Think You Are? at 10/9c on TLC, actress Jessica Biel makes surprising discoveries that change what she thought she knew about her heritage. She sets out to debunk, or confirm, three tales of family lore.

Jessica starts with her father’s side where she had always heard that her Biel side was German, and that there was a small village in Germany by that name.

The episode begins with a genealogist in Los Angeles who helps Jessica find her Biel family in Chicago in the census records. Jessica and the genealogist locate the census records for her ancestors from 1910, finding the immigrant ancestors. Instead of Germany, Jessica’s ancestors were from the Austro-Hungarian empire, the part that is now Hungary. The political configuration of countries has changed and borders between then and now have moved several times.

However, the contents of the census revealed information lost in the past 100 years to Jessica’s family. Morris Biel, shown below, is Jessica’s great-great-grandfather, and Edward, age 15, is her great-grandfather.

Can you spot the clue?  You can click to enlarge.

And the clue is….Yiddish.

Morris’s daughter-in-law speaks Yiddish, and Yiddish equates to Jewish heritage. Jewish people marry Jewish people.

Sometimes all you need is one clue – and as Jessica said, “This changes everything.”

Chicago

Jessica’s first trip takes her to Chicago, Illinois where she meets with a specialist in Jewish history. He explains about Jewish migration to the US, and translates what this means to Jessica’s family.

The immigration dates from the census are utilized to continue to find additional information for Jessica, but I wanted to use this example to do something else – that the program doesn’t include.

Where Did They Live?

In the census records, you can often find actual street addresses. That was the case in this episode. In the census, the street is written to the left side, and it’s the same street for all of the residents on that page. The house number on the street is 3318.

Jessica’s ancestors lived at 3318 Lexington Street.

You can also find addresses in newspapers. I use www.newspapers.com extensively. In Jessica’s case, an article in 1926 tells about her ancestor’s 50th wedding anniversary and includes their pictures in addition to giving their address in Chicago.

Courtesy TLC

Morris and Ottilia had moved sometime between 1910 and 1926. Can we find those properties today, and do the original homes still exist? Maybe we’ll be lucky.

Using Google Maps, enter the address, in this case, 1315 Granville Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. You may want to follow along using Google Maps, step by step, if you’ve never done this before.

The pin locates the property on the map.

Click on the Earth view, in the bottom left corner of the map, shown above. The property will still be highlighted with a red pin and look much more real.

Before going to the next step, orient yourself. In this case, Granville is heavily treed. There are two buildings that on the map are located side by side to the right of the red balloon and labeled as the church. 1315 is right next door. Now, click on the street directly in front of 1315 Granville.

A small grey pin will appear.

Click in the middle of the small picture in the center bottom of photo, shown above, beside the words “1310-1314 Granville.”

The map will then orient itself towards that location from the street at the grey pin location, although Google Maps doesn’t always drop you directly in front of the house you expect.  That’s why it’s important to orient yourself as to how many houses from the corner, etc.

In this case, I can see the church building and both houses, but I need to move slightly left.

By navigating with arrows up and down the street, and clicking on the street itself in the direction you want to move, you can put yourself in front of the house directly.

By moving up and down the street and scrolling in and out, you can get a better view yet.

So, Jessica could have seen where her ancestors lived in 1926 when they celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary.

Depending on the location, sometimes you can obtain views from sidestreets and even paved alleys.

Here’s the back from the alley.

You can look around at the neighborhood and get an idea of how they lived. It’s a beautiful little neighborhood, with gardens in the front between the street and the sidewalks.

In the 1910 census, the family lived at 3318 Lexington Street, which is the white house with the green steps, in the picture below. It’s easy to see those green steps from the satellite view, so this home is unmistakable.

This neighborhood looks less prosperous than the homes on Granville, so Jessica’s great-great-grandparents truly were “moving on up,” as George Jefferson used to say.

You can also enter both locations into Google Maps to give some idea of proximity. In their case, they moved quite a distance.

I hope the genealogists in the episode helped Jessica find her ancestral homes. Her family lived in Chicago for more than 3 decades, so these locations are quite relevant to their story. This was “home” to them.

The wonderful thing about Google maps is that you can find your ancestor’s locations too, without going to Chicago! Have fun looking for all the places your ancestors lived!

I also Google the address and look for real estate sites.  Even if the property isn’t for sale today, it may have been and there may be an inside tour and more information available.  You never know if you don’t look.

More Surprises

Jessica continues her search for her Native American ancestor and a third ancestor, whose name is unknown, but who is rumored to have been killed somehow crossing a river. Tune in for a history lesson on the Civil War in Missouri and to see just what Jessica discovers on the banks of the Mississippi.

April Fool Meltdown Thanks to William Sterling Estes – 52 Ancestors #154

You tell me, is this a good day or a bad day, genealogically speaking?

  • You discover that your father was married under an alias. Ugh, not probably good.
  • You discover the alias that your father was married under. That’s good, sort of.
  • …in a newspaper article about him going to jail. That’s bad.
  • Where his wife testified. Uh oh.
  • Before she divorced him. Ough.
  • Oh, that’s going to jail…again…according to the article. That’s really bad.
  • You discover that your father had yet another, earlier, alias too. Getting even worse.
  • And another, very young, wife. Holy chimloda.
  • Who he married when she was 15 and lied about her age. Not looking good.
  • Before he was arrested the day they married for having intimate relations with her a few days before they were married, according to her mother.
  • Who testified to send him to jail. Marriage didn’t save him. I don’t think his new mother-in-law liked him, at all.
  • A few months later, the young wife divorced him, for cruelty, while he was in prison…asking for her maiden name back…in 1939. Did they even do that in 1939?
  • You discover his prison number…#24884.
  • And cry, for all kinds of reasons.

Who says that ancestors cannot reach from beyond the grave to play April Fools jokes on you?

  • Oh yes, and did I mention I apparently have a half-sister too?
  • Who’s deceased…
  • Whose mother is neither wife above and appears to have been married to someone else when the half-sister (if she actually is my half-sister) was conceived. And yes, she still has two living children who would be candidates to DNA test. No, I have not attempted to contact them.  What exactly do I say, all things considered?
  • At the time my half-sister was conceived, my father was married to the first wife mentioned above. Maybe that’s part of why she testified against him in court???

If you’re saying Holy Smokes about now…uh, me too.

I swear, my family has given me a working example of every possible situation.  Maybe that’s the silver lining. It was already difficult enough to discover that my brother wasn’t my brother. Now this.

Um, I think my father might have been a scoundrel.

I have only one thing to say to my father as I try desperately to unravel and wrap my head around this.

NOT ONE DAMNED BIT FUNNY!!!

It’s OK if you’re laughing. I will be too, eventually, as soon as I get over the shock. But talk about rocking the world as you think you knew it. You know, it might have been easier to simply discover he wasn’t my father. But he is my father, warts and all.

My mantra has always been to “not judge” the ancestors, because you can’t walk a mile in their shoes and you don’t live in the timeframe and society they did.  But I never thought of my father as an “ancestor” in that sense and this would be a lot easier had I not known him.  He died when I was 7 and it’s easy to idolize someone who is gone. I never saw his warts up close and personal, only through others and painful revelations like this.

But look at it this way…you’ll eventually get one heck of an article out of this one. I believe in the truth and it wouldn’t be fair not to share this part of the journey with you too. And I must admit, it IS very interesting!

I’m considering titles for the new article(s):

  • Veritas (hat tip to Rosario)
  • Uncomfortable Truths (hat tip to Shannon)
  • Be Careful What You Ask For (hat tip to my husband who is even more confused than I am, even after the full explanation)
  • Rock My World
  • An Inconvenient Truth (hat tip to Janet)

Other suggestions? What do you think?

It’s certainly an April Fool’s Day I’ll never forget. I would have been happy solving a brick wall, you know, 200 years ago or so. Scoundrels are fun when you didn’t know them personally and you didn’t inherit half of their DNA.

More About Genetic Communities and Display Problem Hints

You don’t know what you’re missing, sometimes, until you see that someone else has one. Isn’t that how the seeds of discontent are often sewed?

It was in my case. Blaine Bettinger also wrote about Genetic Communities, here, and in his article, he had connecting lines and pins. I experienced difficulty during the BETA with the maps (which continues), so I never saw pins and I only saw connecting lines flash one time, then disappear. I did report this to Ancestry, but never heard back before launch.  However, just now, my contact did provide this link for suggestions about how to resolve issues with displaying their maps as related to browsers.

I asked the genetic community about lines and pins, and thankfully, someone else had figured this out. Hat tip to Sue and Traci! I was trying my iPAD and laptop, thinking somehow it was a browser issue. It wasn’t.

It’s a “hidden” feature that’s not at all intuitive, combined with display issues, so let me share what I’ve discovered with you. If you haven’t read my first article about Genetic Communities yet, you might want to read it now so that you’ll be familiar with how to navigate the features to this point.

When you first click on Genetic Communities, you’ll see the screen above. Click on the Genetic Community you want to view, at left. If your maps don’t load, try it again, or try clicking on the community or go back to the DNA home page and try again. Mine load sporadically, about every third time, using Internet Explorer, Chrome and Edge.  I have not tried Firefox.

Clicking on the Settlers of the Alleghenies and Northeast Indiana Community, I see this screen which defines the locations of the Community, along with the boundaries.

In order to make the connecting lines and pins appear, click on the various date ranges in the stories to the left. Yes, this was the hidden piece.  Not very hidden if you know what to do, but not intuitive either.

In this case, I clicked on “Religious Mecca of the New World,” which then listed the ancestors in my tree that fell into this category, below the text.

First, I was very excited, then I realized that we have a bit of an, ahem, problem.

You’ll notice that the community, as defined by Ancestry, does not include New Jersey. In fact, the eastern-most portion only includes southern Pennsylvania and Maryland not further east than the Hagerstown region.

However, if I look at the pin showing my ancestors included in this group, I see Susannah Anderson born in Hunterdon Co., NJ and died in Wilkes County, NC. That’s a bit of a fly in the ointment, because she clearly does not belong in this red group.

However, expanding the screen shows something different.

The people showing aren’t just in the Community, but seems to be all of my ancestors in the tree born in this general area during this timeframe. The red circles show where other people who match me have ancestors born during this timeframe too. Had I not expanded this map, I would have thought that I was only seeing people from the Settlers of Alleghenies Community, not a more general view, based on both the context and the coloration.

I hope that users don’t interpret this to mean that these ancestors showing on their map were all part of the Alleghenies and Northeast Indiana community, because they clearly aren’t. In my opinion, the red circles that aren’t part of this Community should not be colored the same color as the circles that are part of the community – red in this case.

This extends across the pond too, with Johann Michael Miller’s pin, who does belong to the community, settling in Hagerstown, Maryland, being located right beside Jacob Kobel and Isaac DeTurk who do not belong in the Community, settling in Schoharie County, NY and then in Berks County, PA, both of which are outside of the defined Genetic Community – but shown on top of or with red circles.

Hopefully display issues are a short term problem and Ancestry can get them resolved quickly. I really don’t think they are all browser related, but some probably are.

But more important long term, I hope Ancestry will consider making some changes in the coloration and display that will not confuse newbies. The confusing coloration is probably less important to seasoned genealogists, because we can look at the display and quickly surmise that what we are seeing is not quite as it would initially appear – but new people are much more likely just to take information at face value and run with it.

In the mean time, I hope you can find a new hint or clue that will be helpful to your search!