Another Daniel Miller – A Y DNA Tale – 52 Ancestors #135

Just when you think you have the family all straightened out, a left hook comes along, sneaks up and sucker-punches you.

Indeed, as if there wasn’t enough confusion about the various Daniel Millers, we now have yet another very interesting twist in the Daniel Miller saga, thanks to DNA.

And a conundrum it is too.

In the article, “Daniel Miller (1755-1822), Musical Graves, 52 Ancestors #130” I provided this summary of the various Daniel Miller’s that we know existed in Montgomery County, Ohio at or about the same time that my Daniel Miller (1755-1822) lived there, or subsequent generations. Below is the summary from that article.

Daniel (1) is my ancestor and was born to Philip Jacob Miller and his wife, Magdalena, whose last name is unknown, on April 8, 1755 in Frederick County, Maryland. Daniel was married to Elizabeth Ulrich and died in Montgomery County, Ohio on August 26, 1822. Those are the easy dates. The rest are difficult.

Daniel (2) arrived in Montgomery County from Huntington County, PA. Daniel (2)’s wife was Susanna Bowman and Daniel (2) lived in what would become the City of Dayton proper where he settled on Wolf Creek in November of 1802, according to the History of the City of Dayton and Montgomery County, Ohio, Volume 1.   For those specifically interested in this line, the Brethren Heritage Center has an article available written by Gale Honeyman.

Daniel (3) is the son of Daniel (1). According to the family Bible he was born on March 30, 1779 and he died on June 25, 1812. He would have been 33 years old, and unless he was disabled in some way, he was likely married and may well have had children. He would only have been about 20 when his father Daniel floated down the Ohio on a raft, probably in 1799. Daniel (3) could have remained in Clermont County when his father and uncle, David Miller, left for Montgomery County sometimes around 1802. There is no mention of an estate for Daniel (3) in Montgomery County.

Daniel (4) is the grandson of Daniel (1) through his son Stephen Miller. Daniel (4) was born in 1797 in Bedford County, PA and died in 1879 in Preble County, Ohio.

Daniel (5) is the son of Michael Miller and Salome Cramer of Montgomery County. Michael is the son of David Miller who died in 1845. David was the brother of Daniel (1). Michael obtained and farmed his father’s farm in Randolph Township. Daniel (5) was born in 1822, died in 1903 and was married to Isabella Cook.

Daniel (6) is the grandson of Daniel (1) through son Jacob A. Miller born in 1776 who married first to Elizabeth Metzger and second to Catherine Zimmerman. Jacob farmed his father’s land in Randolph Township past 1851 and likely until his death in 1858. Jacob’s son Daniel (6) by his first wife was born about 1800, married Susanna Hardman on November 1, 1819 and died about 1835 in Montgomery County.

Daniel (7) born in 1815 is the son of Isaac Miller, son of Daniel (1) and his wife Elizabeth Miller who is the daughter of David Miller, brother of Daniel (1). I know nothing more about Daniel (7).

Daniel Y. (8) born in 1808 is the son of John Miller, son of Daniel (1).  John’s wife Esther Miller, daughter of David Miller, brother of Daniel (1). Daniel Y. (8) married Margaret Bainter and died in 1833.

Daniel (9) is the son of Daniel (2) and his wife, Susan Bowman. Daniel (9) was born about 1808 and died about 1863 in Montgomery County, marrying Susan Oliver.

Daniel (10) is the son of the Elder Jacob Miller by either his first or second wife, who are unknown. This Daniel was born on September 6, 1780 and died on November 15, 1858 in Monroe County, Iowa. Daniel (10) married Elizabeth Shidler or Shideler on April, 13, 1808 in Montgomery County, Ohio, but by 1813, it appears that they had moved on to Union County, Indiana. When Daniel lived in Montgomery County, he owned land near the 4 Mile Church, east of Cottage Creek, about one and one half miles west of the Lower 4 Mile Church.

Today’s article specifically deals with Daniel (2), referred to in this article as Dayton Daniel to keep him separate from Daniel (1) who lived in Montgomery County at the same time as Dayton Daniel (2).

To this group, we need to add two more Daniels. It’s OK to groan now. I’ve been groaning all week!

Daniel (11) who is the son of Lodowich Miller, brother of Philip Jacob Miller. Daniel (11) was born about 1752, probably in Frederick County, Maryland and moved with Lodowich’s family to the Shenandoah Valley about the time of the Revolutionary War. Daniel (11) died in Rockingham County, Virginia in 1819.

Daniel (12), the son of John Miller, also a brother to Philip Jacob Miller. This Daniel was probably John’s eldest son and was one of the executors of his father’s estate in 1794 through 1799 when the estate paid the heirs.

Therefore, Daniel (1), Daniel (11) and Daniel (12) were all first cousins to each other – and Daniel (2), Dayton Daniel, we’ve discovered this week, was also somehow related as well.

The question is, who is Dayton Daniel and how is he related?  And how do we know he’s related?

Michael Miller’s Sons

As a short review, let’s take a look at the immigrant Michael Miller’s sons. He has three proven sons, and only three; Philip Jacob, Lodowick (Lodowich) and John, parents of Daniel (1), Daniel (11) and Daniel (12), respectively.

For many years, every stray Miller male in a several-hundred-mile radius around Frederick County, Maryland was pinned to Michael Miller like tails on the proverbial donkey. To date, we have disproved every line that has tested utilizing Y DNA. In fact, that’s the purpose of the Miller Brethren DNA Project – to sort out the various Brethren Miller lines.  I expected several lines to match Michael’s descendants, but surprisingly, they haven’t – until now.

Before this week, not one line that was not from Michael Miller’s proven sons has ever matched Michael’s line utilizing Y DNA. But then came today and all that changed.

And of course, the end of line oldest ancestor for the new Miller Y DNA participant was none other than Daniel Miller (2), Dayton Daniel, found originally in what would become the City of Dayton, in Montgomery County, Ohio, very early – his arrival date stated variously as either 1802 or 1804 and having come from Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania.

If you recall from the article about “my” Daniel Miller, the son of Philip Jacob Miller, the son of Michael Miller, the immigrant, Daniel lived in Bedford County from sometime in the 1780s until around 1800 when he floated down the Ohio River and joined his father and siblings in Clermont and Warren Counties in Ohio. My Daniel migrated on to Montgomery County by 1805, about the same time as Dayton Daniel. In fact, when I first began researching Daniel Miller in Montgomery County, I found the information about the Daniel in Dayton and thought for some time that he WAS my Daniel, until I found additional information and pieces of the puzzle began not fitting. I figured out that there were indeed two Daniel’s living in Montgomery County at the same time, thanks to tax lists and other information. Actually, there were three Daniels until 1813 when Daniel (10), who is not descended from the Michael Miller line, did us the huge favor of moving on.

Dayton Daniel was also Brethren, but that alone does not mean he is related to my Daniel. Another man was Brethren too – the Elder Jacob Miller, who everyone thought surely WAS related to Michael Miller, but who, it turns out, is not – at least not through the paternal line. So just being a Miller male, a Brethren and being found in Frederick County, Maryland, then Montgomery County, Ohio does not guarantee a kinship relationship – as unlikely as that seems. I can see why people reached those earlier conclusions, before Y DNA testing, but they were wrong.

Michael Miller, the immigrant, had three proven sons – and only 3, who were:

  • John Miller who died in 1794 in Washington County, Maryland, formerly Frederick County, with a will which listed his children. This John had a son Daniel (12).
  • Lodowich Miller who died about 1782 and whose children (if not Lodowich too) moved south to the Shenandoah Valley about this same time also had a son Daniel (11) who died in Rockingham County, Virginia in 1819.
  • Philip Jacob Miller also had a son Daniel (1) who married Elizabeth Ulrich, moved to Bedford County, Pennsylvania, then on to Ohio where he was the Daniel who wound up in Montgomery County but did NOT live in Dayton. This is my Daniel.

After I published my article about Daniel, sorting through the various Daniel Millers in Montgomery County, a cousin, Doug, contacted me and was confused. Doug descended from Dayton Daniel (2), born in 1765, and he wondered, if his Daniel was not descended from Johann Michael Miller, why did Doug’s autosomal DNA so strongly match my mother and cousins. Obviously, I couldn’t answer that question, so Doug set about finding a male Miller, his second cousin, who descended from Dayton Daniel, to test. That participant is referred to as TM in this article.

Obviously, if TM’s DNA representing Dayton Daniel’s Y DNA had not matched my Daniel’s Y DNA, you either would not be reading this article right now, or it would be a very different story. But Dayton Daniel’s Y DNA does match the Michael Miller line.

Um….so now what? Who is Dayton Daniel (2) and who are his parents?  They can’t be the only three proven sons of Michael Miller – because all 3 of them had sons named Daniel and all 3 are accounted for.  So, who were Dayton Daniel’s parents?  Let’s walk through the possibilities and look a the DNA results.

The Y DNA

Looking at the Miller Brethren project, we can see 5 men descend from Michael Miller. There are also two additional men, but they are not project members.   One is private, so I can’t even e-mail him.

robertas-view

The first thing I noticed was that marker 449 has two different values, shown at far right, in purple, above. I mapped them to the participants, with the hope that TM’s marker 449 would tell us which line he was from. In other words, I was hoping that 449 was a line marker mutation.

michael-miller-desc-pedigree

TM, shown at far left, has a value at marker 449 of 30. One of Philip Jacob’s descendants, RM as well as both of Lodowich’s descendants carry the same value. So no, marker 449 does not indicate a specific son’s line of Johann Michael Miller.

How can this same marker show up in two of Daniel’s sons’ lines, represented by HAM and RWM, but not in the third son’s line, represented by RM? Apparently this marker value has mutated in both Isaac and John’s lines, sons of Daniel, independently, someplace between Daniel and the testers, HAM and RWM today. We know that the original marker value is 30 because it is found independently in the lines of two different sons, Daniel and Lodowich, and probably a third son now with TM.

Ok, we know that marker 449 doesn’t help us, so where do we look next?  Let’s take a look at the genealogy.

Candidates for Dayton Daniel’s Father

Obviously, the first place to look for this Daniel is among the grandchildren of Michael Miller.

Dayton Daniel’s wife is Susanna Bowman who was born in Bedford County, Pennsylvania. They are both buried with tombstones that give their age at death, so we can extrapolate that information to obtain a birth date and year.  Thanks to the tombstone, we know that Daniel was born in 1765 and because he married Susanna who was born in the next county, we know that they were living there about 1785, marriage age.

Knowing Daniel’s birth year helps us rule out various grandchildren of Michael Miller.

We have already ruled out Philip Jacob Miller as Dayton Daniel’s parent, because his son was my Daniel (1), according to the family Bible.

Two of our other Y DNA testers descend from Lodowick’s son, Daniel (11), who was born in 1752 and died in 1819 in Rockingham County, Virginia. Clearly, this is not the Daniel living in Montgomery County, Ohio who died in 1849.

That leaves Michael Miller’s son, John, who also had a son Daniel (12).  Could Daniel (12) actually be Dayton Daniel?  Let’s see.

John Miller, Michael’s third son did us the favor of executing a will just days before his death listing his children.

john-miller-will

Children named:

  • Daniel
  • John
  • Jacob
  • Abraham
  • Ludwick
  • David
  • Michael
  • Catherine
  • Susanna
  • Mary
  • Elizabeth

Underage sons were Ludwick, David and Michael.

Son Daniel Miller and son-in-law John Fisher were executors.

The will was made Dec 13, 1794 and recorded Dec. 20, 1794. Clearly John was literally on his death bed when he made his will.

On April 9, 1799, Daniel Miller and John Fisher, executors of John Miller’s estate made a distribution of 2010 pounds, 5 shillings and 9 pence, in equal parts to the 10 remaining children, all apparently now 21 years of age. The order of the named heirs is: Daniel Miller, John Fisher, Susanna Wissinger, Mary Studanbaker, Elizabeth Cameron, Jacob Miller, Abraham Miller, Lodwick Miller and David Miller. Michael is missing in the distribution list so he apparently died sometime between 1794 and 1799. Washington County Distribution Liber I, folio 80.

In 1799, when the estate was paid, all children would have reached the age of 21. The youngest child, Michael, apparently did not survive, so if we can presume he wouldn’t have become 21 until 1801, that means that he was born in about 1780. There were a total of 11 children, so a child was born every two years, with no deaths, then the oldest child, presumably Daniel, would have been born about 22 years before the youngest, or about 1758.

There is some confusion about John Miller’s name, because while most deeds and documents, such as his will, refer to him clearly as John, which would mean his German name was Johannes, with no middle name, one deed refers to him as Peter, not Johann Peter, just Peter. Was the deed in error, or was John really Johann Peter? We don’t know.

Did Michael Miller Have Other Sons?

The answer to this question is yes, he did, according to German church records. What we don’t know is if they lived, how many he might have had that are unrecorded, and if he had children after he arrived in Pennsylvania. Yes, there are a lot of unknowns.

In Frederick County, Maryland in the 1760s, there is a Michael Miller Jr. and a Hans Michael Miller, both of whom are involved with Michael Miller, the immigrant. It would be very unlikely for Michael to have two sons named so closely, but then again, stranger things have happened. One or both could also be grandsons. Or the two men could be one and the same.

In the Michael Miller article, I introduce both of these men. I did not follow either one forward in time, but it might well behoove the descendants of Dayton Daniel to pick up the trail where I left off.

Birth Records in Germany

My retired German genealogist friend, Tom, has found records of the births of several of Michael Miller’s children, in Germany. Unfortunately, the church records are missing for a time period, so we don’t know if all of the children lived, or how many more children might have been born. Tom is reading every single entry on every single page, just to be sure we don’t miss something.

Yes. Every. Single. Entry. On. Every. Single. Page.

Tom is my super-hero!

Michael Miller married Susanna Berchtol in 1714, who was born in 1688, in Konken, Germany. Their first child was born the following year, also in Konken.

  • Hans Peter Miller born January 19, 1715 (This might be John.)

The next children were born in Kallstadt.

  • Johann Jacob Miller baptized May 26, 1716
  • Regina Maria Elisabetha born August 30, 1717
  • Johannes Michael Miller born April 24, 1719 (This could be Hans Michael or Michael Jr.)
  • Johann Ludwig born April 10, 1721. (This would be Lodowich.)

Very unfortunately, by 1722, Johann Michael Miller and Susanna Berchtol had moved to Lambscheim where they live until 1726 where the records indicate they immigrated. I will be documenting these movements in a special update article about Michael Miller and Jacob Stutzman soon, but for today, we just needed the names of Michael’s sons.

We next find Michael’s immigration record, along with Jacob Stutzman, in 1727.

We know that Philip Jacob Miller was born about 1726, so he was probably a babe in arms on the boat.

If Michael Miller and Susanna Berchtol continued having children in the same pattern, they would have had another child in 1723.

Susanna would have probably had children until she was in her early 40s, so until about 1730. Therefore, in addition to Philip Jacob in about 1726, they could have had another child in 1727, 1729 and perhaps even 1731.

This gives us the opportunity for 4 additional sons (besides Philip Jacob) not recorded in existant church records. Of course, additional children may not have been male, and may not have survived.

Is John the Same Person as Hans Peter?

If John who died in 1794 is the same child as Hans Peter born in 1715, then he would have been age 43 in 1758 when his first child was born. That’s actually quite unusual for a man in that timeframe, so one of a number of situations have to be the case.

  1. The John Miller who died in 1794, brother to Philip Jacob is not the same Hans Peter who was born in 1715.
  2. The John Miller, brother to Philip Jacob who died in 1794 had more than one wife, and had children before 1758 who are all omitted from the will.
  3. The Hans Peter born in 1715 died and Johann Michael Miller had another son by the same or a similar name either in 1723, 1727, 1729 or 1731. This would make John between the ages of 27-35 in 1758, which is still on the older side for a Brethren man to be marrying, but more believable than age 43 for a first marriage.

However, even allowing for these possibilities, it still doesn’t seem reasonable that Dayton Daniel Miller who died in 1849 in Montgomery County, Ohio and was born in 1765 is the oldest child of John Miller. That would mean that the next 10 children were born beginning in 1767 and continue being born until 1787. However, we know that all of John’s surviving children were of age by 1799. Therefore, Dayton Daniel simply cannot be the son of John.

It’s also possible that John’s son Daniel was not the eldest, but the children seem to be listed in order, twice – once in the will and once in the distribution.  Daniel is listed first in both documents. It’s typical for the eldest son to be the executor.

Therefore, for all these reasons, I don’t think it’s feasible that Daniel Miller of Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania who was born in 1765 is the son of John Miller who died in 1794.

However, Dayton Daniel’s descendant matches the Y DNA of Johann Michael Miller. Furthermore, Dayton Daniel’s descendants match several of Johann Michael Miller’s proven descendants utilizing autosomal DNA, so he has to be related in a reasonable timeframe. Autosomal DNA becomes less and less likely to match with each passing generation beyond third cousins.

Other Candidates?

Our next best candidate as the father of Dayton Daniel is Michael Miller Jr. and/or Hans Michael Miller.

I did not track them forward in time, but other researchers have spent some time on this endeavor. It is reported that Hans Michael Miller lived in Franklin County, PA and what is now Mineral County, West Virginia, and had a will. He reportedly paid taxes in Antrim Township in Franklin County and New Creek, now in Mineral County, WV, according to the 1772 Frederick County Tax list. He was given money by Michael Miller to purchase land called Pleasant Gardens, which could be Garden’s Delight and Add Garden’s Delight on the 1772 tax list as well.  This information is detailed in the Michael Miller article.

Michael Miller could have had other sons that did not accompany him to Frederick County in about 1750 from York County, Pennsylvania, or who do not appear recognizably as his sons in the Frederick County records. Those sons would have been 20 or slightly older by the time that Michael left Pennsylvania and moved to Maryland. It’s certainly possible that one of Michael’s sons survived infancy, the voyage overseas and the frontier, married, and did not elect to move to yet another frontier – instead, remaining in York County or striking out on his own.  Possible, but not terribly likely.  There was safety and help in groups, especially for a small religious denomination who were known as “dissenters” and not terribly well liked because they would not defend themselves, or the neighborhood where they lived.  Brethren tended to stick together, moving in groups.  Young families would not be inclined to stay behind, especially not if the rest of the family moved on.

If Michael Miller’s son, Johann Michael Mueller, born in 1719 is the father of Dayton Daniel, he would have married sometime around 1740 and could still have been having children in 1765. It’s also possible that Dayton Daniel was the grandson of Johann Michael born in 1719, but to do so, both Johann Michael and his firstborn son would have bad to have married young.

DNA Findings

When Doug and I first realized we were cousins, and I mean via DNA, we didn’t know exactly how. Doug had always assumed that Dayton Daniel was indeed a descendant of Michael Miller, the immigrant. However, as the documentation surrounding Michael Miller’s life unfolded, we realized that we needed more information and documentation. Doug and I discovered additionally that we are also both descended through the Stephen Ulrich line, so Doug and I could have been matching through that line and not the Miller line. That’s when Doug reached out to Dayton Daniel’s Miller descendant, TM.

Unlike Doug, TM does not descend through the Ulrich line, so any of the known Michael Miller descendants that TM matches should be matching through the Miller line only.

michael-miller-autosomal-pedigree

TM’s matches are shown above, in red. Of course, he matches his second cousin, Doug, as expected. But aside from that, he matches four of Philip Jacob’s descendants, and none of Lodowich’s, as shown above and below on the chromosome browser.

tm-mtches

It’s exciting to think that the segment on chromosome 14 is shared by four of Michael Miller’s descendants. A piece of Michael or his wife that still exists today and is identifiable. That’s just amazing for a man and his wife who were born before 1700.

Is this Michael Miller or Susanna Berchtol’s DNA?

I have access to the kits that TM matches, and the DNA segments that match the other Miller descendants do triangulate, so we know for sure that these segments do indeed belong to the Miller line, descended from Michael Miller or his wife, Susannah Berchtol.  We can’t tell which, of course, without matching someone from another Miller, like Michael’s brother, or a Berchtol.  So now, we can simply say this matching DNA comes from this couple.

I know what you’re going to ask next? Did Michael have a brother that could have also immigrated and father’s children who, in turn, had Dayton Daniel in 1765?  Great question.

There is absolutely no evidence that Michael had a Miller brother who immigrated. In fact, according to the church records in Steinwinden, Germany, no other children born to Michael’s parents survived. Michael was the last child born before his father’s death.

Autosomal Messages

Let’s look at what the autosomal DNA suggests in terms of how closely related TM and these 4 matching individuals might be. The table below shows TM’s matches to the 4 Miller descendants, except for Doug.  We already know how TM and Doug are related.

Shared cM Longest block Segments >5cM *Estimated Relationship **Shared DNA Range ***Predicted Relationship Average DNA****
Barbara 98 27 5 6C 0-21 2-4C 2C1r-2C2r
Donald 87 29 4 6C 0-21 2-4C 2C2r
HAM 77 35 2 5C1r 0-41 2-4C 3C
Cheryl 57 29 3 6C 0-21 2-4C 3C1r

*Estimated relationship presumes (I know, bad word) that Dayton Daniel is Michael Miller, the immigrant’s grandson. Dayton Daniel cannot be Michael’s son, because Michael married a widow woman about his same age by 1754, after his wife died. In 1765, Michael would have been 73.

** Shared DNA Range is the range of the lowest and highest amounts of DNA found for the estimated relationship in the Shared cM Project.  In other words, this is how much DNA someone of that Estimated Relationship is found to share.  6th cousins share a range of 0-21 cM DNA, not 98cM like TM and Barbara share.

***Predicted Relationship is the relationship level predicted by Family Tree DNA based on the amount of shared DNA.

****Average DNA is the best fit from the chart I compiled in the article, “Concepts – Relationship Predictions” that combines information from several sources on the expected, actual average and ranges of DNA for each relationship type. The average DNA is taken from the column titled “Blaine’s Shared cM Average” which are results from a crowd sourced project indicating the actual amount of shared centiMorgans from various relationships.  In this case, the best fit for Barbara and TM would be between second cousins once removed (2C1r) and second cousins twice removed (2C2r).

Even though the average DNA suggests that these people are some flavor of second or third cousins, we know from the proven genealogy that these relationships cannot be in the second or third cousin range, because we know beyond a doubt that Dayton Daniel born in 1765 cannot be more closely related to Barbara, Donald, HAM and Cheryl than the nephew of Philip Jacob Miller, their common ancestor.  In fact, they cannot be related more closely than the 5th or 6th cousin level, as shown in the Estimated Relationship column.

Clearly, the amount of shared DNA exceeds the expected average for 6th cousins or 5th cousins once removed, significantly, for all 4 matches – comparing the value in the Shared cM column with the Shared DNA Range column. The amount of shared DNA also exceeds the maximum amount of shared cMs in the range, by at least double. In the case of Barbara and Donald, they exceed the maximum DNA for 6th cousins by 400%.  That’s not a slight deviation.   What could cause this?

There can be three possible causes for the amount of shared DNA to so dramatically exceed the maximum amount found for the estimated relationships.  I’ve listed these in the order of probability.

  • TM is related to Barbara, Donald, HAM and Cheryl through a secondary line. However, TMs mother is English and his paternal line is well researched back through Dayton Daniel. If TM and Barbara, Donald, HAM and Cheryl share more than one line, that occurred in or before Dayton Daniel’s father’s generation and Philip Jacob Miller’s generation. We do not know the surname of Philip Jacob Miller’s wife, Magdalena, nor have we identified the parents of Dayton Daniel. This shared secondary line is the most likely scenario for why TM shares so much DNA with Barbara, Donald, HAM and Cheryl.
  • For some reason, a very large amount of common DNA has been passed to TM and Philip Jacob Miller’s descendants. This is not one “sticky segment” but multiple segments, which makes this scenario less likely.
  • All 4 matches, meaning TM to Barbara, TM to Cheryl, TM to Donald and TM to HAM are extreme outliers in the relationship range shared centiMorgans. This is the least likely scenario and it would have had to have happened independently four different times.

If Philip Jacob Miller and the father of Dayton Daniel married women who were related, that would cause a higher amount of matching DNA in the descendants of both lines – but not to people the Lodowich line, which is exactly what we are seeing.

It’s also possible that in addition to being related to each other, both of their wives were also related to or descended from the Berchtol line, which would also drive up the shared amount of DNA in the descendants. We know during that timeframe it was not unusual for people to marry their first cousins and there were not a lot of Brethren brides to choose from on the frontier.

What Have We Learned?

This exercise has been very interesting and we have learned a number of things.

  • Via DNA and genealogy combined, we have probably confirmed that the immigrant Michael Miller did in fact have another son that survived and had offspring. Based on records alone, that son may be Michael Jr., or Hans Michael Miller. Additional genealogy work needs to be done to follow the records for these men from Frederick County, Maryland forward in time.
  • Via Y DNA, we know that Dayton Daniel does positively share a common ancestor with the descendants of Philip Jacob Miller and Lodowich Miller, both sons of Johann Michael Miller, the immigrant.
  • Via genealogy records, we have proven that Dayton Daniel cannot be the son of Philip Jacob Miller, Lodowich Miller or John Miller, the three proven sons of  Michael Miller, the immigrant.  All three of Michael Miller’s sons had sons named Daniel, but all three Daniels are accounted for and eliminated as being Dayton Daniel born in 1765 by other records.
  • Via autosomal DNA, we confirm that the relationship between TM and the Miller descendants he matches is in a genealogical timeframe, not back in Germany several generations. Due to the fact that Michael had no Miller siblings that survived, if the relationship was further back in time, it would have to be at least two generations before Michael Miller, the immigrant, making DNA matching between TM and Michael’s descendants unlikely at all, and certainly not at the level they match, as they would be at least 8th cousins.
  • Via autosomal DNA, we suspect that there may be a secondary matching line, and the best candidates for secondary lines would be Magdalena, the wife of Philip Jacob Miller along with the mother of Dayton Daniel.
  • Given the very high amount of shared DNA, more than double the expected maximum amount, it’s also suggestive that in addition to being related to each other, than the wives of Dayton Daniel’s mother and Philip Jacob’s wife, Magdalena Miller, may also have been related to Michael Miller and Susanna Berchtol. We know that Susanna Berchtol had relatives in York County. Michael Miller did not, except for his step or half-brother, Jacob Stutzman, whose will we have and who did not have a daughter Magdalena who married a Miller, nor another unknown daughter who also married a Miller.
  • Because of the Brethren Miller DNA Project, we have gathered together the descendants of several Brethren Miller lines which allows us to compare the Y and autosomal DNA and work together to solve this ongoing mystery.
  • Doug and I have now confirmed that we are related on both the Miller and Ulrich lines – and now perhaps a third mystery line as well.

As with all genealogy, every question answered produces several new ones. What a wonderful puzzle to unravel and how lucky we are to have DNA tools in our genealogy toolbox today!!!

New Pedigree View Tree at Family Tree DNA

Ask, and ye shall receive.

pedigree-view

It’s great when a vendor listens to what I’m sure probably wasn’t perceived as constructive criticism.

Family Tree DNA designed a new tree some time back, but with only a Family View.  Most genealogists utilize the Pedigree View, shown above, most often.  A few months ago, genetic genealogists asked Family Tree DNA to redesign the tree and include a pedigree view.  Today, the new tree view was added to everyone’s personal page!

The pedigree view is relevant for direct line ancestors.  This screen shot is of my own tree, but this view works for any of your matches who have trees attached as well.  You can see 4 generations of ancestors at once and click to expand to the next 4 generations with the right arrow at any end-of-line ancestor.  You can also scroll or click to make the tree larger or smaller.

pedigree-view-expanded

The Family View still works just fine, and if you want to see siblings or children of ancestors, other than your direct line, the Family View is what you’ll want to select.

family-view

Thank you, thank you, Family Tree DNA!!!  Both for listening and for the new Pedigree View tree.

Haplogroup X2b4 is European, Not Native American

For many years, there has been a quandary in the genealogy community relative to the genesis of mitochondrial haplogroup X2b4.

The source of this question was the mitochondrial DNA test results of several of Radegonde Lambert’s descendants.

Radegonde Lambert, an Acadian woman, was born about 1621, possibly in Cap-de-Sable, Acadia according to the compiled research of professional genealogist Karen Theriot Reader.  She is thought by some to be the daughter of Jean Lambert, born in France but one of the original Acadian settlers, and a female reported to be a Mi’kmaq (Micmac) Indian, but with no confirmed documentation, despite years of looking.  An alternate origin for Radegonde is that she came to Acadia with her French husband, Jean Blanchard.

The DNA results of Radegonde’s direct matrilineal descendants proved to be haplogroup X2b4, but unfortunately, for a very long time, the ONLY people who took the full sequence mitochondrial DNA and had that haplogroup were descendants of Radegonde or people who did not know where their most distant matrilineal ancestor was originally from. So, the answer was to wait on additional test results – in other words, for more people to test.

Recently, I had reason to look at the results of one of Radegonde’s descendants again, and discovered that enough time has elapsed that new results are in, and based on full sequence matches and other evidence, it appears that X2b4 is indeed European and not Native.

X2b4 Mutations

Haplogroup X2b4 is characterized by several distinctive mutations, as follows.

Haplogroup or Subgroup Required Mutations
X T6221C, C6371T, A13966G, T14470C, T16189C!, C16278T!
X2 T195C!, G1719A
X2b C8393T, G15927A
X2b4 G3705A

Of the above mutations, only two, the mutations at 16189 and at 16278 are found in the HVR1 region, and only the mutation at 195 is found in the HVR2 region. The balance of these mutations are found in the coding region, so a haplogroup cannot be predicted at a higher level that X or perhaps X2 without the full sequence test.

Radegonde’s Mutations

Radegonde’s descendants carry all of these haplogroup defining mutations, and more. In fact, Radegonde’s descendants also have extra mutations at locations 16145 and 16301. We know this because at least a dozen of Radegonde’s descendants match exactly at the full sequence level, with no mutations. In other words, in those descendants, Radegonde’s mitochondrial DNA has remained unchanged for just shy of 400 years – and because they all match exactly, we know what Radegonde’s mitochondrial DNA looked like.

Turning now to other full sequence matches, we find that one of the individuals who matches Radegonde’s descendant with 3 mutations difference is from East Anglia in England, and his ancestors have never lived outside of England. In other words, this isn’t a case of someone whose ancestors immigrated and they may have incorrect genealogy.

Two more full sequence matches live in Norway and their ancestors have never lived elsewhere.

One match’s ancestor, Ally Lyon was born and married in Glenisa, Scotland in 1760.

Another match was born and lives in Germany and her ancestors were born there as well.

In summary, for matches, other than Radegonde and people who don’t know where their match was from, we have ancestors proven to be born in:

  • East Anglia
  • Norway
  • Norway
  • Glenisa, Scotland
  • Germany

Of Radegonde’s descendant’s matches, 5 individuals who tested still live in the country or location where their ancestor was born and their family/ancestors have never lived elsewhere.

Furthermore, there are no Native American mitochondrial DNA matches for haplogroup X2b or X2b4 in either contemporary testers or ancient burials

Base Haplogroups

It’s certainly possible and feasible for Native people to have base haplogroup matches from locations other than America, meaning haplogroup X in this case, but not for full sequence haplogroup matches, like X2b4, which suggest a common ancestor in a much closer timeframe.

Looking at the history of the migration of the Native people, if haplogroup X2b4 was indeed Native, and matched people in Europe, that would mean that haplogroup X2b4 would have been born more than 12,000 years ago when it’s believed that the Native people crossed the land bridge from Asia to the Americas. In order for migration to both the Americas and Europe from a common location to occur, probably in the Altai region of Asia, that date would probably have to be pushed back further, probably more in the range of 15,000 to 25,000 years ago to a common ancestor for descendants to be found in both the New World and Europe. It just isn’t feasible that haplogroup X2b4 was born that long ago.

When Was Haplogroup X Born?

Dr. Doron Behar in the supplement to his publication, “A Copernican” Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root” provides the creation dates for haplogroup X through X2b4 as follows:

Haplogroup Created Years Ago Statistical Variance
X 31,718.5 11,709.2
X2 19,233.8 2640.9
X2b 9675.9 2466.0
X2b4 5589.2 2597.2

Statistical variance, in this instance means plus or minus, so this chart would read that haplogroup X was born 31,718 years ago plus or minus 11,709 years, so most likely 31,718 years ago, but sometime between 20,639 and 42,979 years ago. Think of a bell shaped curve with 31,718 in the center, or the highest part of the peak.

X2, on the other hand, was born roughly 19,000 years ago. We do know that haplogroup X2a is indeed Native, as is X2g and possibly X2e. So some of haplogroup X2 went east, incurring mutations that would become Native American haplogroup X2a, X2g and possibly X2e while others went west, winding up in Europe and incurring mutations that would become haplogroup X2b and subclades.

The X2b4 Project

Moving now to the X2b4 haplogroup project at Family Tree DNA, in addition to the X2b4 matches mentioned above for Radegonde’s descendants, we find other occurrences of X2b4 in:

  • The Czech Republic
  • Devon in the UK
  • Birmingham in the UK

The three locations in France, shown on the map below, are individuals who descend from Radegonde Lambert and believe her most distant ancestor to be French, so that is what they entered in their “most distant ancestor” location.

Other locations on the map (below) not noted as X2b4 (above) are X2b, the parent haplogroup of X2b4.

x2b4

Taking a look at the map, below, from the larger haplogroup X project that includes all of haplogroup X and all subclades, we see that haplogroup X is found widely in Europe, including X, X2 and X2b, among other subclades.

mtdna-x-project

National Geographic, Genographic Project

As a National Geographic affiliated researcher, I am privileged to have research access to the Genogaphic Project data base of just under 900,000 international participants.  While the identity of the participants is not held in the data base, their ancestor information, as they have provided, is included.  For haplogroup X2b4, there were 62 results, indicating just how rare this haplogroup is worldwide.  Unfortunately, not everyone provided the place of birth for their earliest known maternal ancestor.

Of the 37 individuals who did provide a birth location for their earliest maternal ancestor, none were Native American and the following locations for places of birth for their earliest maternal ancestor were listed, other than the United States and Canada.  Many of the participants and their grandparents are still living in the regions where their ancestors were born:

  • Ireland
  • Czech
  • Serbia
  • Germany (6)
  • France (2)
  • Denmark
  • Switzerland
  • Russia
  • Warsaw, Poland
  • Norway
  • Romania
  • England (2)
  • Slovakia
  • Scotland (2)

Conclusion

As you can see, based on Radegonde’s descendants full sequence matches in multiple European locations, Dr. Behar’s paper dating the birth of haplogroup X2b4 to approximately 5500 years ago, the Genographic Project X2b4 locations and other X2b and X2b4 haplogroup project members’ matches in Europe, it’s impossible for X2b4 to be Native American.

Therefore, Radegonde Lambert did not have a Native mother. Her mother was very probably French, like the rest of the Acadian immigrants.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank:

  • nat-geo-logoNational Geographic Society Genographic Project and Dr. Miguel Vilar, Science Manager
  • My Haplogroup X2b4 project co-administrators, Marie Rundquist and Tom Glad
  • The haplogroup X project administrators, Carolyn Benson and Tom Glad
  • Radegonde Lambert’s descendants and others for testing, joining projects, and making their results public for all to share. Without public projects and results, discoveries like this would not be possible.
  • Family Tree DNA for providing the projects and support that enables us to further both scientific and genealogical research.

The Stranger in my Genes – A DNA Test That Changed a Life

Bill Griffeth, anchor of CNBC’s Closing Bell, and now author of the book, “The Stranger in My Genes” had something startling to say in a recent interview:

“My father wasn’t my father….and I blame this man…Max Blankfeld.”

No, Max isn’t Bill’s father, but Max is the COO of Family Tree DNA, established in the year 2000, the company that ran Bill’s DNA test.

max-cnbc

You can watch this great interview here.

This is absolutely wonderful exposure for DNA testing, whether for heritage, ethnicity or genealogy and yes, to see if your Y DNA matches the line you think it will. Using DNA to confirm your family lineages is something every genealogist should do.

After the initial, shocking, finding, Bill wanted a second opinion, so he ordered a second test from the National Geographic Society’s Genographic project. The results confirmed that Bill’s original test was correct. It was only afterwards that Bill discovered the irony that Family Tree DNA is the partner to the National Geographic Society and the Family Tree DNA on-premises lab runs the tests for Genographic.

Bill’s story isn’t unique, by any stretch, but every person who makes an unexpected discovery in either traditional or genetic genealogy has a unique and interesting story to tell. Everyone’s story is different and begins a journey. Many people, after that initial discovery, use genetic genealogy to solve the mystery of their missing ancestor, whether it’s a parent or further back in time.

Here’s what Amazon has to say about “The Stranger in my Genes”:

stranger-in-my-genes

“Bill Griffeth, longtime genealogy buff, takes a DNA test that has an unexpected outcome: “If the results were correct, it meant that the family tree I had spent years documenting was not my own.” Bill undertakes a quest to solve the mystery of his origins, which shakes his sense of identity. As he takes us on his journey, we learn about choices made by his ancestors, parents, and others—and we see Bill measure and weigh his own difficult choices as he confronts the past.”

You know, I am going to have to read this book. I hope that everyone who reads this book DNA tests.

Personally, I find it amazing, as one who began their genetic journey in 2000 or 2001, that 15 years later, I can watch Max on CNBC. I’m so proud of what Max Blankfeld and Bennett Greenspan have done with Family Tree DNA, taking it from a startup company, forming a partnership with the National Geographic Society and ultimately, becoming the foundation of an entire industry.

I suppose it would be unprofessional to jump up and down, shouting “WooHoo” and “Way to go Max!”, but that’s what I wanted to do when I saw this interview!!!!  This segment is great exposure for genetic genealogy.

Concepts – Managing Autosomal DNA Matches – Step 2 – Updating Match Spreadsheets, Bucketed Family Finder Matches and Pileups

We’re going to do three things in this article.

  1. Updating Your DNA Master Spreadsheet With New Matches
  2. Labeling Known Pileup Areas
  3. Utilizing Phased Family Finder Matches

You must do item one above, before you can do item three…just in case you are thinking about taking a “shortcut” and jumping to three. Word to the wise. Don’t.

OK, let’s get started! I promise, after we get the housework done, you’ll have a LOT of fun! Well, fun for a genetic genealogist anyway!

Updating Your Chromosome Browser Spreadsheet

If you haven’t updated your chromosome browser spreadsheet at Family Tree DNA since you originally downloaded your matches, it’s time to do that. You need to do this update so that your DNA Master Spreadsheet is in sync with your current matches before you can add the Family Finder bucketed matches to your master spreadsheet. Just trust me on this and understand that I found out the hard way. You don’t have to traipse through that same mud puddle because I already did and I’m warning you not to.

Let’s get started updating our DNA Master spreadsheet with our latest matches.  It’s a multi-step process and you’re going to be working with three different files:

  • File 1 – Your DNA Master Matches spreadsheet that you have created. This is the file you will be updating with information from the other two files, below.
  • File 2 – A current download of all of your chromosome browser file matches.
  • File 3 – A current download of a list of your matches.

The steps you will take, are as follows:

  1. Download a new Chromosome Browser Spreadsheet, but DO NOT overwrite your existing DNA Master spreadsheet, or you’ll be swearing, guaranteed. This chromosome browser spreadsheet is downloaded from the Family Finder chromosome browser page. Label it with a date and save it as an Excel file.
  2. Download a new Matches spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is downloaded from the bottom of your matches page. Label it with the same date and save it as an Excel file too.
  3. Update your Master DNA Matches spreadsheet utilizing the instructions provided below.

If you need a refresher about downloading spreadsheet information from Family Tree DNA, click here.

Your Matches spreadsheet will include a column labeled “Match Date.”

concepts2-match-date

On your Matches spreadsheet, sort the Match Date column in reverse order (sort Z to A) and print the list of matches that occurred since your last update date – meaning the date you last updated your DNA Master Spreadsheet.

If you need a refresher about how to sort spreadsheets, click here.

concepts2-match-list

This list will be your “picklist” from the new chromosome browser match spreadsheet you downloaded. I removed the middle and last names the matches, above, to protect their privacy, but you’ll have their full name to work with.

After your spreadsheet is sorted by match date, with the most current date at the top, you’ll have a list of the most recent matches, meaning those that happened since your last file download/update. Remember, I told you to record on a secondary page in your DNA Master Spreadsheet the history of the file, including the date you do things? This is why.  You need to know when you last downloaded your matches so that you don’t duplicate existing matches in your spreadsheet.

Why don’t you just want to download a new spreadsheet and start over?

concepts2-headers

Remember the color coding and those pink columns we’ve been adding, at right, above, so you can indicate which side that match is from, if the segment is triangulated, how you are related, the most recent common ancestor, the ancestral line, and other notes? If you overwrite your current DNA Master spreadsheet, all of that research information will be gone and you’ll have to start over. So as inconvenient as it is, you’ll need to go to the trouble of adding only your new matches to your DNA Master spreadsheet and only add new matches.

Utilizing the new Chromosome Browser match spreadsheet, you are going to scroll down (or Ctl+F) and find the names of the people you want to add to your master spreadsheet. Those are the people on your Matches spreadsheet whose test date is since you last downloaded the chromosome browser information.

When you find the person’s name (Amy in this example) on the Chromosome Browser Match spreadsheet, highlight the cells and right click to copy the contents of those cells so that you can paste them at the bottom of your DNA Master Spreadsheet.

concepts2-pick-list

Next, open your Master DNA Spreadsheet, and right click to paste the cells at the very bottom of the spreadsheet, positioning the cursor in the first cell of the first row where you want to paste, shown below.

concepts2-paste

Then click on Paste to paste the cells.

concepts2-paste-position

Repeat this process for every new match, copy/pasting all of their information into your DNA Master Spreadsheet.  I try to remember to do this about once a month.

Housekeeping note – If you’re wondering why some graphics in this article are the spreadsheet itself, and some are pictures of my screen (taken with my handy iPhone,) like the example above, it’s because when you do a screen capture, the screen capture action removes the drop down box that I want you to see in the pictures above. Yes, I know these pictures aren’t wonderful – but they are sufficient for you to see what I’m doing and that’s the goal.

Combined Spreadsheets

In my case, if you recall, I have a combined master spreadsheet with my matches and my mother’s matches in one spreadsheet. You may have this same situation with parents and grandparents or your full siblings if your parents are missing.

You will need to repeat this process for each family member whose entire match list resides in your DNA Master spreadsheet.

I know, I groaned too. And just in case you’re wondering, I’ve commenced begging at Family Tree DNA for a download by date function – but apparently I did not commence begging soon enough, because as of the date of this article, it hasn’t happened yet – although I’m hopeful, very hopeful.

After your spreadsheet is updated, we have a short one-time housekeeping assignment, then we’ll move on to something much more fun.

Known Pileup Regions

I want you to add the following segments into your DNA Master spreadsheet. These are known pileup regions in the human genome, also known as excess IBD (identical by descent) regions. This means that you may well phase against your parents, but the match is not necessarily genealogical in nature, because many individuals match in these areas, by virtue of being human. Having said that, close relationships may match you in these regions. Hopefully they will also match you in other regions as well, because it’s very difficult to tell if matches in these regions are by virtue of descent genealogically or because so many people match in these regions by virtue of being human.

concepts2-known-pileup-regions

You can color code these rows in your spreadsheet so you will notice them.  If you do, be sure to use a color that you’re not using for something else.

I have used several sources for this information, including the ISOGG wiki phasing page and Sue Griffith’s great Genealogy Junkie blog article titled Chromosome Maps Showing Centromeres, Excess IBD Regions and HLA Region. The HLA region on chromosome 6 is the most pronounced. Tim Janzen states that he has seen as many as 2000 SNP segments in this region that are identical by population, or at least they do not appear to be identical by descent, meaning he cannot find the common ancestor. His personal HLA region boundaries are a bit larger too, from 25,000,000 to 35,000,000. Regardless of the exact boundaries that you use, be aware of this very “matchy” region when you are evaluating your matches.  This is exactly why you’re entering these into your DNA Master spreadsheet – so you don’t have to “remember.”.

By the way, Family Tree DNA and GedMatch use Build 36, but eventually they will move to Build 37 of the human genome, so you might as well enter this information now so it will be there when you need it. If your next question is about how that transition will be handled, the answer is that I don’t know, and we will deal with it at that time.

I do not enter the SNP poor regions, because Family Tree DNA does not utilize those regions at all, and they are the greyed out regions of your chromosome map, shown below.

concepts2-snp-poor-regions

On my own spreadsheet, I have a few other things too.

I have indicated chromosomal regions where I carry minority ancestry.  For both my mother and me, chromosome 2 has significant Native admixture.  This Native heritage is also confirmed by mitochondrial and Y DNA tests on relevant family members.

concepts2-native-segments

If you carry any Native American or other minority admixture, where minority is defined as not your majority ethnicity, as determined by any of the testing companies, you can utilize GedMatch ethnicity tools to isolate the segments where your specific admixture occurs. I described how to do this here as part of The Autosomal Me series. I would suggest that you use multiple tools and look for areas that consistently show with that same minority admixture in all or at least most of the tools. Note that some tools are focused towards a specific ethnicity and omit others, so avoid those tools if the ethnicity you seek is not in line with the goals of that specific tool.

Ok, now that our housekeeping is done, we can have fun.

Adding Phased Family Finder Matches to your Spreadsheet

I love the new Family Tree DNA phased Family Finder matches that assign maternal or paternal “sides” to matches based on your matches to either a parent or close relative. If you would like a refresher on parental phasing, click here.

We’re going to utilize that Match spreadsheet you just downloaded once again.

In this case, we’re going to do something a bit different.

This time, we’re going to sort by the last column, “Matching Bucket.” (Please note you can enlarge any image by clicking or double clicking on it.)

concepts2-match-bucket

When you’re done sorting the “Matching Bucket” column , you will have four groups of matches, as follows:

  • Both
  • Maternal
  • N/A
  • Paternal

I delete the N/A rows, which means “not applicable” – in other words, the match did not meet the criterial to be assigned to a “side.” You can read about the criteria for phased Family Finder matches here and here. If you don’t want to delete these rows, you can just ignore them.

The next thing I do is to add a column before the first column on the spreadsheet, so before “Full Name.”

In this case, you can highlight either the entire column or just the column heading, and right click to insert an entire column to the left.

concepts2-insert-column

If these are your matches, add your name in the “Who” column. If these are your parents’ or full siblings’ matches, add their names in this column. When you have a combined spreadsheet, it’s critical to know whose matches are whose.

Then select colors for the maternal, paternal and both buckets, and color the rows on your spreadsheet accordingly.

I use pink and blue, appropriately, but not exactly the same pink and blue I use for the mother and father spreadsheet rows in my DNA Master spreadsheet. I used a slightly darker pink and slightly darker blue so I can see the difference at a glance. The yellow, or gold in this case, indicates a match to both sides.

concepts2-bucket-colors

You’re only going to actually utilize the first two columns of information.

Highlight and copy the first two columns, without the header, as shown below.

concepts2-bucket-columns

Then open your master spreadsheet and paste this information at the very bottom of your spreadsheet in the first two columns.

concepts2-bucket-paste

After the paste, your spreadsheet will look like this.

concepts2-bucket-rows

Next, sort your spreadsheet by match name, this case, RVH is the match (white row).

concepts2-bucket-match-sort

Be still my heart. Look what happens. By color, you can see who matches you on which sides, for those who are assigned to parental buckets.  Now my white RVH match row is accompanied by a gold row as well telling me that RVH matches me on both my maternal and paternal sides.

Let’s look at another example. In the case of Cheryl, she is my mother’s first cousin. Since I have combined both my mother’s and my spreadsheets, you can see that Cheryl matches both me and my mother on chromosome 19 and 20 below. Mother’s match rows are pink and my rows are white.

concepts2-bucket-match-maternal

In this example, you can see that indeed, Cheryl is assigned on my maternal side by Family Tree DNA, based on the dark pink match row that we just added. Indeed, by looking at the spreadsheet itself, you can confirm that Cheryl is a match on my mother’s side. I am only showing chromosome 19 and 20 as examples, but we match on several different locations.

I don’t have as many paternal side matches, because my father is not in the system, but I do have several cousins to phase against.

concepts2-bucket-match-paternal

Here’s my cousin, Buster, assigned paternally, which is accurate. In Buster’s case, I already have him assigned on my Dad’s side, but if I hadn’t already made this assignment, I could make that with confidence now, based on Family Tree DNA’s assignment.  The blessing here is that the usefulness of Buster’s assignment paternally doesn’t end there, but his results, and mine, together will be used to assign other matches to buckets as well.  Cousin matching is the gift that keeps on giving.

Because my DNA Master spreadsheet includes my mother’s information as well, we need to add her phased Family Finder matches too.

Mother’s Family Finder Matches

Because I have my mother’s and my results combined into one DNA Master spreadsheet, I repeat the same process for my mother, except I type her name in the first column I added with the title of “Who.”

concepts2-mother

Continue with the same “Adding Phased Family Finder Matches” instructions above, and when you are finished, you will have a Master DNA Spreadsheet that includes your information, your parent’s information, and anyone who is phased for either of you maternally, paternally or to both sides will be noted in your spreadsheet by match and color coded as well.

Let’s take a look at cousin Cheryl’s matches to both mother and I on our spreadsheet now with our maternal and paternal buckets assigned.

concepts2-cheryl-to-mother

As you can see, my results are the white row, and my Family Finder phased matches indicate that Cheryl is a match on my mother’s side, which is accurate.

Looking at my mother, Barbara’s matches, the pink rows, and then at Barbara’s Family Finder phased match information, it shows us that Cheryl matches mother on the blue, or paternal side, which is also accurate, per the pedigree chart below.

Margaret Lentz chart

You can see that Barbara and Cheryl are in the same generation, first cousins, and Barbara matches Cheryl on her paternal line which is reflected in the Family Finder bucketing.

I have updated the “Side” column to reflect the Family Finder bucketing information, although in this case, I already had the sides assigned based on previous family knowledge.

concepts2-bucket-matching-blended

In this example of viewing my mother and my combined spreadsheet matches, you are seeing the following information:

  • Cheryl matches me – white rows
  • Cheryl matches me on my maternal side – dark pink row imported from Match spreadsheet
  • Cheryl matches mother (Barbara) – light pink rows
  • Cheryl matches mother on her father’s side – blue row imported from Match spreadsheet

I find this combined spreadsheet with the color coding very visual and easy to follow.  Better yet, when other people match mother, Cheryl and I on this same segment, they fall right into this grouping on my DNA Master spreadsheet, so the relationship is impossible to miss.  That’s the beauty of a combined spreadsheet.

You can do a combined spreadsheet with individuals whose DNA is “yours” and they don’t share DNA with anyone that you don’t. Those individuals would be:

  • Either or both parents
  • Grandparents
  • Aunts and Uncles
  • Full siblings
  • Great-aunts and great-uncles

Why not half siblings or half aunts-uncles? Those people have DNA from someone who is not your ancestor. In other words, your half siblings have the DNA from only one of your parents, and you don’t want their matches from their other parent in your spreadsheet. You only want matches that positively descend from your ancestors.

While your grandparents, great-aunts, great-uncles, parents, aunts and uncles will have matches that you don’t, those matches may be critically important to you, because they have DNA from your ancestors that you didn’t inherit. So your combined DNA Master spreadsheet represents your DNA and the DNA of your ancestors found in your relatives who descend directly ONLY from your ancestors. Those relatives have DNA from your ancestors that has washed out by the time it gets to you.

Why can’t your cousins be included in your DNA Master spreadsheet?

I want you to take a minute and think about the answer to this question.

Thinking…..thinking….thinking…. (can you hear the Jeopardy music?)

And the answer is….

If you answered, “Because my aunt or uncle married someone with whom they had children, so my cousins have DNA that is not from an ancestor of mine,” you would be exactly right!!!

The great news is that between a combined spreadsheet and the new Family Finder bucketed matches, you can determine a huge amount about your matches.

After discovering which matches are bucketed, you can then use the other tools at Family Tree DNA, like “in common with” to see who else matches you and your match. The difference between bucketing and ICW is that bucketing means that you match that person (and one of your proven relatives who has DNA tested) on the same segment(s) above the 9cM bucketing threshold.  You can still match on the same segments, but not be reported as a bucketed match because the segments fall below the threshold.  “In common with” means that you both match someone else, but not necessarily on the same segments.

Here’s a nice article about utilizing the 9 tools provided by Family Tree DNA for autosomal matching.

The Beauty of the Beast

The absolutely wonderful aspect of phased Family Finder Matching is that while you do need to know some third cousins or closer, and the more the better, who have DNA tested, you do NOT need access to their family information, their tree or the DNA of your matches. If your matches provide that information, that’s wonderful, but your DNA plus that of your known relatives linked to your tree is doing the heavy lifting for you.

How well does this really work? Let’s take a look and see.

On the chart below, I’ve “bucketed” my information (pardon the pun.) Keep in mind that I do have my mother’s autosomal DNA, but not my fathers. His side is represented by 8 more distant relatives, the closest of which are my half-sister’s granddaughter and my father’s brother’s granddaughter – both of which are the genetic equivalent of 1st cousins once removed. My mother’s side is represented by mother and two first cousins.

Total Matches Maternal Side Bucket Paternal Side Bucket Both Sides Bucket Percent Assigned
Mother 865 13 106 2 14
Me 1585 356 361 3 23

Mother has the above 106 paternal bucketed matches without me doing anything at all except linking the DNA tests of mother to her two first cousins in her tree.  In my case, the combination of mother’s DNA and her two first cousins generated 356 maternal side bucketed matches, just by linking mother and her two first cousins to my tree.

concepts2-tree

Mother does have one third cousin on her mother’s side who generated 13 maternal bucketed matches.  So, while third cousins are distant, they can be very useful in terms of bucketed “sides” to matches.

It’s ironic that even though I have my mother’s DNA tested, I have slightly more paternal matches, without my father, than maternal matches, with my mother. Of course, in my case, that is at least partly a result of the fact that my mother has so many fewer matches herself due to her very recent old world heritage on several lines. Don’t think though, for one minute, that you have to have parents or siblings tested for Family Finder bucketed matching to be useful. You don’t. Even second and third cousins are useful and generate bucketed maternal and paternal matches. My 361 paternal matches, all generated from 8 cousins, are testimony to that fact.

The very best thing you can do for yourself is to test the following relatives that will be used to assign your resulting matches with other people to maternal and paternal sides.

  • Your parents
  • If your parents are not both available, all of your full and half siblings
  • Your grandparents
  • Your aunts and uncles
  • Your great-aunts and great-uncles
  • All first, second and third cousins unless they are children of aunts and uncles who have already tested

The new permanent price of $79 for the Family Finder test will hopefully encourage people to test as many family members as they can find! For autosomal genetic genealogy, it’s absolutely the best gift you can give yourself – after testing yourself of course.

Just 3 More Days – Family Tree DNA Sale Ends August 31st

Family Tree DNA announced that their Sizzling Summer Sale will end at midnight, Wednesday, August 31st, Houston (central) time.

This sale includes the lowest price ever for Family Finder – $69.

The best thing you can do for your autosomal DNA research, aside from testing yourself, is to test your closest relatives, in particular, the oldest generation who are closer, generationally speaking, to your ancestors.  Test aunts, uncles, first cousins, anyone who is a known relative – except for your children who only received your DNA – so your children’s DNA won’t be helpful to your genealogy.

If your parents are available to test, test them as well. If your parents aren’t available, test your siblings, as their matches are as relevant to your genealogy as your own.

Think about who you’ll be seeing this fall and over the holidays. You can take the kits with you and have your relatives swab during a visit. That way, you can be sure swabbing happens and the kit is returned to the lab for processing. Oh, and by the way, these prices include return postage within the US.

Product Regular Price Sale Price Savings
Family Finder (FF) $99 $69 $30
Y37+Family Finder $268 $228 $40
Y67+Family Finder $367 $327 $40
Comprehensive (FF+Y67+Full Mitochondrial) $566 $499 $67
Family Finder+Full Mitochondrial $298 $258 $40

Bundles must remain bundles and cannot be split between multiple individuals.  Only males can test for Y DNA, because only males have a Y chromosome.  Females, however, can find males from the surname line they are interested in to test on their behalf – such as a father, brother or uncle.

The Y DNA test tests your direct paternal (surname) line, if you are a male. Tests for both genders include the mitochondrial test that tests your direct matrilineal line (mother’s mother’s mother’s line) and Family Finder that tests your autosomal DNA, matching you to cousins from any or all of your ancestral lines, plus provides ethnicity estimates. For a brief description of how these different kinds of tests work, click here.

Otherwise, click here to order and stock up on test kits. You can order the kits now, and enter the name of who they will be used for later. I keep a test kit in my purse and one in my car at all times. Yes, seriously. And I have used them unexpectedly. That’s called a golden opportunity and thank goodness I was prepared!

Here’s wishing you many golden opportunities!

Sizzling Summer Sale – Family Finder $69 + More Bundles

sizzling summer sale2

I received the following information from Family Tree DNA this evening. Not only is there a sale, but Family Finder is $69. I think that’s the cheapest I’ve ever seen an autosomal DNA test.  I love sales because that always means more people testing their Y, mitochondrial and autosomal DNA – and more cousins for those of us who have already tested!!!

Summer in Houston means relentless heat. Ruthless sunshine punctuated by the occasional thunderstorm. The hum of air conditioner compressors is the season’s soundtrack.

You know what else it means?

Yep. You got it. It means the Sizzlin’ Summer Sale is about to launch!

This summer the focus is on bundles that include Family Finder: Y37 + Family Finder, Y67 + Family Finder, FMS + Family Finder, and Comprehensive Genome (FF+Y67+FMS). The prices are in the chart below.

But wait – there’s more!

The heat must have gotten to Bennett because the only individual test he’s reduced pricing on is Family Finder, which will be $69. You read that right. $69 US DOLLARS!

(For those of you who are new and may not be aware, Bennett Greenspan is the founder and president of FTDNA.)

Not only has he set the Family Finder price ridiculously low, but he’s not giving us an end date for this sale. It could last a few days or a few weeks – we don’t know and he’s not telling!

So what we’re saying is, take advantage of these great prices while they’re hot!

Here’s the pricing:

Product Retail Pricing Sale Price Group Price
Family Finder $99 $69 $69
Y37 + Family Finder $268 $228 $218
Y67 + Family Finder $367 $327 $317
Comprehensive Genome (FF+Y67+FMS) $566 $499 $489
FMS + Family Finder $298 $258 $258

**Please note – these bundles must remain bundles. If you buy at the sale price for future use, the entire bundle must be used on one tester. Canceling tests from the bundle will cause tests to revert to regular price.**

We’ll be emailing customers starting tomorrow morning, but we wanted to let project administrators know now.

You can click here to order after the sale starts, which is probably tomorrow, August 3rd.