Mitochondrial DNA: Part 3 – Haplogroups Unraveled

This is the third article in a series about mitochondrial DNA.

The first two articles are:

This third article focuses on haplogroups. They look so simple – a few letters and numbers – but haplogroups are a lot more sophisticated than they appear and are infinitely interesting!

What can you figure out about yours and what secrets will it reveal? Let’s find out!

What is a Haplogroup?

A haplogroup is a designation that you can think of as your genetic clan reaching far back in time.

My mitochondrial haplogroup is J1c2f, and I’ll be using this as an example throughout these articles.

The description of a haplogroup is the same for both Y and mitochondrial DNA, but the designations and processes of assigning haplogroups are different, so the balance of this article only refers to mitochondrial DNA haplogroups.

Where Did I Come From?

Every haplogroup has its own specific history.

mitochondrial migration map link.png

Looking at my DNA Migration Map at Family Tree DNA, I can see the path that haplogroup J took out of Africa.

mitochondrial migration map j.png

This map is interactive on your personal page, so you can view your or any other haplogroup highlighted on the map.

mitochondrial frequency map J.png

On the frequency tab of the Migration Map, you can view the frequency of your haplogroup in any specific location.

mitochondrial results tab

On my Results tab, I’m provided with this information:

The mitochondrial haplogroup J contains several sub-lineages. The original haplogroup J originated in the Near East approximately 50,000 years ago. Within Europe, sub-lineages of haplogroup J have distinct and interesting distributions. Haplogroup J1 is found distributed throughout Europe, from Britain to Iberia and along the Mediterranean coast. This widespread distribution strongly suggests that haplogroup J1 was part of the Neolithic spread of agriculture into Europe from the Near East beginning approximately 10,000 years ago.

Stepping-Stones back in Time

The haplogroup designation itself is a stepping-stone back in time.

Looking at my full haplogroup, J1c2f, we see 5 letters or numbers.

The first letter, J, is my base haplogroup, and each letter or digit after that will be another step forward in time from the “mother” haplogroup J.

Therefore, 1 is a major branch of haplogroup J, c is a smaller branch sprouting off of J1, 2 is a branch off of J1c, and f is the last leaf, at least for now.

Ages

In the supplementary data for the article, A “Copernican” Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root, by Doron M Behar et al, published in the Journal of Human Genetics on April 6, 2012, he provides age estimates for the various haplogroups and subhaplogroups identified at that time.

My haplogroup breakdown is shown below.

Haplogroup

Time Estimate (Years) SD (standard deviation in years)
J 34,258.3 4886.2
J1 26,935.1 5272.9
J1c 13,072.3 1919.3
J1c2 9762.5 2010.7
J1c2f 1926.7

3128.6

  • Time estimate means how long ago this haplogroup was “born,” meaning when that haplogroup’s defining mutation(s) occurred.
  • SD, standard deviation, can be read as the range on either side of the time estimate, with the time estimate being the “most likely.” Based on this, the effective range for the birth of haplogroup J is 29,372.1 – 39,144.5. In some of the most current haplogroups, like J1c2f, the lowest age range is a negative number, which obviously can’t happen. This sometimes occurs with statistical estimates.

The first question you’re going to ask is how can these age estimates be so precise? The answer is that these are statistical calculations – because we can’t travel back in time.

What Came Before J?

Clearly J is not Mitochondrial Eve, so what came before J?

In the paper announcing the latest version (Build 17) of the Phylotree by van Oven, meaning the haplotree for mitochondrial DNA, this pedigree style tree was drawn to show the backbone plus 25 subtrees.

mitochondrial Build 17 tree.png

Haplogroup J descended from JT, fourth from right on the bottom right.

The MRCA, most recent common ancestor at the root of the tree would be the RSRS (Reconstructed Sapiens Reference Sequence), known colloquially as Mitochondrial Eve.

Branches and Names

Haplogroups were named in the order they were discovered, using the alphabet, A-Z (except O). Branches are indicated by subsequent numbers and letters. Build 17 of the phylogenetic tree includes 5437 branches, increasing from 4809 in build 16.

Occasionally branches are sawed off and reconnected elsewhere, which sometimes plays havoc with the logical naming structure because they are renamed completely on the new branch. This happened when haplogroup A4 was retired in Build 17 and is now repositioned on the tree as haplogroup A1. I wrote about this in the article, Family Tree DNA’s Mitochondrial Haplotree.

It’s easier to see the branching tree structure if you look at the public mitochondrial haplotree on the Family Tree DNA website. Scroll to the very bottom of the main Family Tree DNA page, here, and click on mtDNA haplotree.

Mitochondrial mtDNA haplotree.png

You can search for your haplogroup name and track your ancestral haplogroups back in time.

mitochondrial J1c2f search.png

J1c2f is shown below on the tree, with haplogroup J at the top.

mitochondrial J1c2f tree

Click to enlarge

Where in the World?

Whether you’ve tested at Family Tree DNA or not, you can view this tree and you can see the location of the earliest known ancestor of people who have tested, agreed to sharing and have been assigned to your haplogroup.

You can mouse over the little flag icons or click on the 3 dots to the right for a country report.

mitochondrial country.png

The country report details the distribution of  the earliest known ancestors where people on that branch, and those with further subbranches are found.

mitochondrial country report J1c2f

You can click to enlarge the image.

J1c2f is the lowest leaf on this branch of the tree, for now, so there is no difference in the columns.

However, if we look at the country report for haplogroup J1c2, the immediate upstream haplogroup above J1c2f, you can see the differences in the columns showing people who are members of haplogroup J1c2 and also downstream branches.

Mitochondrial country report J1c2

Click to enlarge the image.

I wrote more about how to use the new public tree here.

Haplogroup Assignment Process

There’s a LOT of confusion about haplogroup assignments, and how they are generated.

First, the official mitochondrial tree is the Phylotree, here. Assigning new haplogroups isn’t cut and dried, nor is it automated today. The Phylotree has been the defacto location for multiple entities to combine their information, uploading academic samples to GenBank, a repository utilized by Phylotree for all researchers to use in the classification efforts. You can read more about GenBank here. Prior to Phylotree, each interested entity was creating their own names and the result was chaotic confusion.

Individuals who test at Family Tree DNA can contribute their results, a process I’ll cover in a future article.

The major criteria for haplogroup assignments are:

  • Three non-familial sequences that match exactly. Family mutations are considered “private mutations” at this time.
  • Avoidance of regions that are likely to be unstable (such as 309, 315 and others,) preferably using coding region locations which are less likely to mutate.
  • Evaluating whether transitions, transversions and reversions are irrelevant events to haplogroup assignment, or whether they are actually a new branch. I covered transitions, transversions and reversions here.

Periodically, the Phylotree is updated. The current version is Build 17, which I wrote about here.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

While change and scientific progress is a good thing, it also creates havoc for the vendors.

For each vendor to update your haplogroup, they have to redo their classification algorithm behind the scenes, of course, then rerun their entire customer database against the new criteria. That’s a huge undertaking.

In IT terms, haplogroups are calculated and stored one time for each person, not calculated every time you access your information. Therefore, to change that data, a recalculation program has to be run against millions of accounts, the information stored again and updating any other fields or graphics that require updating as a result. This is no trivial feat and is one reason why some vendors skip Phylotree builds.

When you’re looking at haplogroups at different vendors, it’s important to find the information on your pages there that identify which build they are using.

Vendors who only test a few locations in order to assign a base or partial haplogroup may find themselves in a pickle. For example, if a new Phylotree build is released that now specifies a mutation at a location that the vendor hasn’t tested, how can they upgrade to the new build version? They can’t, or at least not completely accurately.

This is why full sequence testing is critically important.

Haplogroup Defining Mutations

Build 17 example

Using the Build 17 table published by Family Tree DNA that identifies the mutations required to assign an individual to a specific haplogroup or subhaplogroup, you can determine why you were assigned to a specific haplogroup and subgroups.

Mutations in Different Haplogroups are Not Equal

What you can’t do is to take mutations out of haplogroup context for matching.

Let’s say that someone in haplogroup H and haplogroup J both have a mutation at location G228A.

mitochondrial mutation comparison.png

That does NOT mean these two people match each other genealogically. It means that the two different branches of the mitochondrial tree, haplogroup J and haplogroup H individually developed the same mutation, by chance, over time. In other words, parallel, disconnected mutations.

It may mean that both individuals simply happen to have the same personal mutations, or, it could mean that eventually these values could become haplogroup defining for a new branch in one or the other haplogroup.

How Common Are Parallel Mutations?

From the Build 17 paper again, this table shows us the top recurrent mutations after excluding insertions, deletions and location 16519. We see that 197 different branches of the tree have mutation T152C. My branch is one of those 197.

Mitochondrial build 17 mutation frequency.png

I think you can see, with location T152C being found in 197 different branches of the Pylotree why the only meaningful match between two people is within specific haplogroup subclades.

Within a haplogroup, this means that two people match on T152C PLUS all of the upstream haplogroup defining markers. Outside of a haplogroup, it’s just a chance parallel mutation in both lines.

Therefore, if another person in haplogroup J1c2f and I match a mutated value at the same location, that could be a very informative piece of genealogical information.

Partial and Full Haplogroups

Some vendors, such as 23andMe and LivingDNA provide customers with partial haplogroups as a part of their autosomal offering.

Family Tree DNA (full haplogroup) 23andMe LivingDNA
J1c2f J1c2 J1c

23andMe and LivingDNA provide partial haplogroups because they are not testing all of the 16,569 locations of the mitochondrial DNA. They are using scan technology on a chip that also processes autosomal DNA, so the haplogroup assignment is basically an “extra” for the consumer. Each chip location they use for mitochondrial (or Y) DNA testing for haplogroups is one less location that can be used for autosomal testing.

Therefore, these companies utilize what is known as target testing. In essence, they test for the main mutations that allow them to classify people into major haplogroups. For example, you can see that LivingDNA tests the mutations through the J1c level, but not to J1c2, and 23andMe tests to J1c2 but not J1c2f. If they tested further, my haplogroup designation would be J1c2f, not J1c or J1c2.

For full sequence testing, complete haplogroup designation and matching, I need to test at Family Tree DNA. They are the only vendor that provides the complete package.

Matching

mitochondrial matches link.png

Family Tree DNA provides matching of customer results. Consumers can purchase the mtPlus product, which tests only the HVR1/HVR2 portion of the mitochondria, or the mtFull product which tests the entire mitochondria. I recommend the mtFull.

In addition to haplogroup information, customers receive a list of people who match them on their mitochondrial sequence.

mitochondrial matches result

Click to enlarge

Matches with genealogical information allow customers to make discoveries such as this location information, provided by Lucille, above:

mitochondrial villages map.png

Lucille’s earliest known ancestor, according to her tree, is found just 12.6 km, or 7.8 miles from the tiny German village where my ancestor was found in the late 1600s.

Of course, matching isn’t provided in the 23andMe and LivingDNA databases, so we can’t tell who we do and don’t match genealogically, but haplogroups alone are not entirely useless and can provide great clues.

Haplogroups Alone

Haplogroups alone can be utilized to include or eliminate people for further scrutiny to identify descendancy on a particular line.

mitochondrial advanced matches link.png

For example, at Family Tree DNA, I can utilize the advanced matching tool to determine whether I match anyone on both the Family Finder autosomal test AND on any of the mitochondrial DNA tests.

mitochondrial advanced matches

Click to enlarge

My match on both tests, Ms. Martha, above, has not tested at the full sequence level, so she won’t be shown as a match there. It’s possible that were she to upgrade that we would also match at the full sequence level. It’s also possible that we wouldn’t. Even an exact mitochondrial match doesn’t indicate THAT’s the line you’re related on autosomally, but it does not eliminate that line and may provide useful clues.

If my German match, Lucille and I had matched autosomally AND on the full sequence mitochondrial test, plus our ancestors lived 7 miles apart – those pieces of evidence would be huge clues about the autosomal match in addition to our mitochondrial match.

Alas, Lucille and I don’t match autosomally, but keep in mind that there are many generations between Lucille and me. If we had matched autosomally, it would have been a wonderful surprise, but we’d be expected not to match given that our common ancestor probably lived sometime in the 1600s or 1700s.

If I’m utilizing 23andMe and notice that someone’s haplogroup is not J1c2, the same as mine, then that precludes our common ancestral line from being our direct matrilineal line.

At GedMatch, people enter their haplogroup (or not) by hand, so they enter their haplogroup at the time they upload to GedMatch. It’s possible that their haplogroup assignment may have changed since that time, either because of a refined test or because of a Build number update. Be aware of the history of your haplogroup. In other words, if your haplogroup name changed (like A4 to A1), it’s possible that someone at GedMatch is utilizing the older name and might be a match to you on that line even though the haplogroup looks different. Know the history of your haplogroup.

Perhaps the best use of haplogroups alone is in conjunction with autosomal testing to eliminate candidates.

For example, looking at my match with Stacy at 23andMe, I see that her haplogroup is H1c, so I know that I can eliminate that specific line as our possible connection.

mitochondrial haplogroup compare.png

At Family Tree DNA, I can click on any Family Finder match’s profile to view their haplogroup or use the Advanced matching tool to see my combined Family Finder+mtDNA matches at once.

Mitochondrial match profile.png

Haplogroups and Ethnicity

My favorite use of haplogroups is for their identification of the history of the ancestral line. Yes, in essence a line by line ethnicity test.

Using either your own personal results at Family Tree DNA, or their public haplotree, you can trace the history of your haplogroup. In essence, this is an ethnicity test for each specific line – and you don’t have to try to figure out which line your specific ancestry came from. It’s recorded in the mitochondrial DNA of each person. I’ve created a DNA pedigree chart to record all my ancestors Y and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups.

Ancestor DNA Pedigree Chart

Using Powerpoint, I created this DNA pedigree chart of my ancestors and their Y and mitochondrial DNA.

Roberta's DNA Pedigree Chart 2019

You can see my own mitochondrial DNA path to the right, in red circles, and my father’s Y DNA path at left, in blue boxes. In addition to Y DNA, all men have mitochondrial DNA inherited from their mother. So you can see my grandfather, William George Estes inherited his mitochondrial DNA from his mother Elizabeth Vannoy, who inherited it from Phoebe Crumley whose haplogroup is J1c2c.

This exercise disproved the rumor that Elizabeth Vannoy was Native American, at least on that line, based on her haplogroup. You can view known Native American haplogroups here.

So Elizabeth Vannoy and her mother, Phoebe Crumley, and I share a common ancestor back in J1c2 times, before the split of J1c2c and J1c2f from J1c2, so roughly 2,000 years ago, give or take a millennia.

Haplogroup Origins

My own haplogroup J is European. That’s where my earliest ancestor is found, and it’s also where the migration map shows that haplogroup J lived.

mitochondrial haplogroup origins tab.png

The information provided on my Haplogroup Origins page shows the location of my matches by haplogroup by location. I’m only showing my full sequence matches below.

Generally, the fewer locations tested, at the HVR1 or HVR1+HVR2 levels, the matches tend to be less specific, meaning that they may reach thousands of years back in time. On the other hand, some of those HVR1/HVR2 matches may be very relevant, but it’s unlikely that you’ll know unless you have a rare value in the HVR1/HVR2 region meaning few matches, or both people upgrade to the full sequence test.

mitochondrial haplogroup origins results

Click to enlarge image

You can see by the information above that most of my exact matches are distributed between Sweden and Norway, which is a very specific indicator of Scandinavian heritage ON THIS LINE alone.

By contacting and working with my matches of a genetic distance of 1, 2 and 3, I determined, based on the mutations, that the “root” of this group originated in Scandinavia and my branch traveled to Germany.

This is more specific than any ethnicity test would ever hope to be and reaches back to the mid-1600s. Better yet, I can make this same discovery for every line where I can find an individual to test – effectively rolling back the curtain of time.

Ancestral Origins

mitochondrial ancestral origins tab.png

Haplogroup Origins can be augmented by the Ancestral Origins tab which provides you with the ancestral location of your matches’ most distant known ancestor.

mitochondrial ancestral origins results

Click to enlarge

Again, exact matches are going to be much more relevant to you, barring exceptions like heteroplasmies (covered here), than more distant matches.

New Haplogroup Discoveries

You might wonder, when looking at your results if there are opportunities for new haplogroup subgroups. In my case, there are a group of 33 individuals who match exactly and that include many common mutations in addition to the 11 locations in my results that are currently indicated as haplogroup identifying, indicated in red below.

mitochondrial haplogroup defining mutations J1c2f

Click to enlarge image

My haplogroup defining mutation at A10398G! is a reversion, meaning that it has mutated back to the ancestral value, so we don’t see it above, because now it’s “normal” again. We just have to trust the ancestral branching tree to understand that upstream, this mutation occurred, then occurred a second time back to the normal or ancestral value.

The two extra mutations that everyone in this group has may be enough to qualify for a new haplogroup, call it “1” for purposes of discussion – so it could be named J1c2f1, hypothetically. However, there may be other sub-haplogroups between f and 1, so it’s not just a matter of tacking on a new leaf. It’s a matter of evaluating the entire tree structure with enough testers to find as many sub-branches as possible.

Attempting to assign or reassign branches based on a few tests and without a full examination of many tests in that particular branching haplotree structure would only guarantee a great deal of confusion as the new branch names would have to be constantly changed to accommodate new branching tree structures upstream.

This is exactly why I encourage people to upload their results to GenBank. I’ll step through that process in our last article.

What’s Next?

My next article in this series, in a couple weeks, will be Mitochondrial DNA: Part 4 – Techniques for Doubling Your Useful Matches. I more than doubled mine. There’s a lot more available than meets the eye at first glance if you’re willing to do a bit of digging.

But hey, we’re genealogists – and digging is what we live for!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on the link to one of the vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Genographic Project Prepares to Shut Down Consumer Data Base

Today, on the National Geographic Society’s Genographic Project page, we find this announcement:

Genographic end

This is a sad day indeed.

  • Effective May 31, 2019, you can no longer purchase Genographic kits.
  • If you currently have an unsubmitted kit, you may still be able to submit it for processing. See this link for more information about your specific kit.
  • The Genographic website will be taken down December. 31, 2020. Your results will be available for viewing until then, but not after that date.
  • Data will be maintained internally by the Genographic project for scientific analysis, but will not be otherwise available to consumers. Miguel Vilar with the Genographic Project assures me that the underlying scientific research will continue.

Please Transfer Your DNA Results

The original Genographic project had two primary goals. The first being to obtain your own results, and the second being to participate in research.

If you are one of the 997,222 people in 140 countries around the world who tested, you may be able to transfer your results.

Depending on which version of the Genographic test you’ve taken, you can still preserve at least some of the benefit, for yourself and to scientific research.

Family Tree DNA Genographic transfer

Note that only Y and mitochondrial DNA results can be transferred, because that’s all that was tested. How much information can be transferred is a function of which level test you initially took, meaning the version 1 or version 2 test.

According to the Family Tree DNA Learning Center, people who transfer their results also qualify for a $39 Family Finder kit, which is the lowest price I’ve ever seen anyplace for an autosomal DNA test.

  • If you tested within the US in November 2016 or after, you tested on the Helix platform and your results cannot be transferred to Family Tree DNA.

If you have already tested your Y (males only) and mitochondrial DNA at Family Tree DNA, there is no need to transfer Genographic data. Family Tree DNA information will be more complete.

Salvage as Much as Possible

As a National Geographic Society Genographic Project Affiliate Researcher and long-time supporter, I’m utterly heartsick to see this day.

Please transfer what you can to salvage as much as possible. We already lost the Sorenson data base, Ancestry’s Y and mitochondrial DNA data base along with YSearch and MitoSearch. How much Y and mitochondrial DNA information, critical to genealogists and the history of humanity, has been lost forever?

Let’s not lose the Genographic Project information too. Please salvage as much as possible by transferring – and spread the word.

Please feel free to repost or preprint this article.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on the link to one of the vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

 Genealogy Research

Mitochondrial DNA: Part 2 – What Do Those Numbers Mean?

This is the second part in a series about mitochondrial DNA. The first article can be found here:

When people receive their results, generally the first thing they look at is matches, and the second thing is the actual results.

Mitochondrial personal page

You can click smaller images to enlarge.

We’re going to leave working with matches until after we discuss what the numbers on the Results page actually mean.

Fair warning – if you’re not interested in the “science stuff,” then this article probably isn’t for you. We’re going to talk about the different kinds of mutations and how they affect your results and matching. I promise to make the science fun and understandable.

However, it’s only fair to tell you that you don’t need to understand the nitty-gritty to make use of your results in some capacity. We will be covering how to use every tab on your mitochondrial DNA page, above, in future articles – but you may want to arm yourself with this information so you understand why tools, and matching, work the way they do. All matches and mismatches are not created equal!

The next article in the series will be “Mitochondrial DNA: Part 3 – Haplogroups Decoded” in which we’ll discuss how haplogroups are assigned, the differences between vendors, and how haplogroup results can be utilized for genealogy.

If you have your full sequence mitochondrial results from Family Tree DNA, it would be a good idea to sign on now, or to print out your results page so you can refer to your results while reading this article.

Results

I’m using my own results in these examples.

When you click on the “Results” icon on your personal page, above, this is what you’ll see.

Mitochondrial results 1

Please click to enlarge image.

After you read the information about your haplogroup origin, your eyes will drift down to the numbers below, where they will stop, panic spreading throughout your body.

Never fear – your decoder ring is right here.

Where Did Those Numbers Come From?

The numbers you are seeing are the locations in your mitochondrial DNA where a mutation has occurred. Mutations, in this sense, are not bad things, so don’t let that word frighten you. In fact, mutations are what enables genetic genealogy to work.

Most of the 16,569 locations never change. Only the locations that have experienced a mutation are shown. Locations not listed have not experienced a mutation.

The number shown is the location, or address, in the mitochondrial DNA where a mutation has occurred.

However, there is more than one way to view your results.

Two Tabs – rCRS and RSRS

Mitochondrial RSRS tab

Please click to enlarge images.

You’ll notice that there are two tabs at the top of the page. RSRS values are showing initially.

rCRS and RSRS are abbreviations for “revised Cambridge Reference Sequence” and “Reconstructed Sapiens Reference Sequence.”

The CRS, Cambridge Reference Sequence was the reference model invented in 1981, at Cambridge University, when the first full sequencing of mitochondrial DNA was completed. Everyone has been compared to that anonymous individual ever since.

The problem is that the reference individual was a member of haplogroup H, not a haplogroup further back in time, closer to Mitochondrial Eve. Mitochondrial Eve was not the first woman to live, but the first woman to have a line of continuous descendants to present. You can read more about the concept of Mitochondrial Eve, here and about rCRS/RSRS here.

Using a haplogroup H person for a reference is kind of like comparing everyone to the middle of a book – the part that came later is no problem, but how do you correctly classify the changes that preceded the mutations that produced haplogroup H?

Think of mitochondrial DNA as a kind of biological timeline.

Mitochondrial Eve to rCRS.png

In this concept example, you can see that Mitochondrial Eve lived long ago and mutations, Xs, that formed haplogroups accrued until haplogroup H was born, and additional mutations continued to accrue over thousands of years.

Mitochondrial Eve to H and J.png

Haplogroup J, a different haplogroup, was born from one of mitochondrial Eve’s descendants with a string of their own mutations.

The exact same process occurred with every other haplogroup.

You can see a bare-bones tree in the image below, with H and J under different branches of R, at the bottom.

Mitochondrial bare bones tree.png

Using the rCRS model, the descendants of haplogroup J born today are being compared to the rCRS reference person who is a descendant of haplogroup H.

In reality, everyone should be being compared directly to Mitochondrial Eve, or at least someone much closer to the root of the mitochondrial phylotree than haplogroup H. However, when the CRS and then the revised CRS (rCRS) was created, scientists didn’t know as much as they do today.

In 2012, Dr. Doron Behar et al rewrote the mitochondrial DNA phylotree in the paper A “Copernican” Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root by discerning what mitochondrial Eve’s DNA looked like by tracking the mutations backwards in time.

Then, the scientists redrew the tree and compared everyone to Mitochondrial Eve at the base of the tree. The RSRS view shows those mutations, which is why I have more mutations in the RSRS model than in the rCRS model where I’m compared with the haplogroup H person who is closer in time than Mitochondrial Eve. In other words, mutations that were considered “normal” for haplogroup J because haplogroup H carried them, are not considered mutations by both haplogroup J and H because they are both being compared to Mitochondrial Eve.

Today, some papers and individuals utilize the CRS version, and others utilize the RSRS version. People don’t adapt very well or quickly to change. Complicating this further, the older papers, published before 2012, would continue to reference rCRS values, so maintaining the rCRS in addition to the RSRS seemed prudent.

You can see the actual mtDNA haplotree here and I wrote about how to use it here.

Let’s look at the differences in the displays and why each is useful.

The Cambridge Reference Sequence

My rCRS results look a little different than the RSRS results.

Mitochondrial RSRS tab

You can click to enlarge images.

I have more mutations showing on the RSRS page, above, than in the rCRS page below, including only the information above the second row of black headers.

Mitochondrial rCRS page

Click to enlarge.

That’s because my RSRS results are being compared to Mitochondrial Eve, much further back in time. Compared to Mitochondrial Eve, I have a lot more mutations than I have being compared to a haplogroup H individual.

Let’s look at the most common example. Do you see my mutation at location 16519C?

Mitochondrial 16519.png

In essence, the rCRS person carried this mutation, which meant that it became “normal” and anyone who didn’t have the mutation shows with a mutation at this location.

Therefore, today, you’re very likely to have a mutation at location 16519C in the rCRS model.

In the RSRS results below, you can see that 16519C is missing from the HVR1 differences.

Mitochondrial DNA RSRS mutations.png

You can see that the other two mutations at locations 16069 and 16126 are still present, but so are several others not present in the rCRS model. This means that the mutations at locations 16129, 16187, 16189, 16223, 16230, 16278 and 16311 are all present in the rCRS model as “normal” so they weren’t reported in my results as mutations.

However, when compared to Mitochondrial Eve, the CRS individual AND me would both be reported with these mutations, because we are both being compared to Mitochondrial Eve.

Another difference is that at the bottom of the rCRS page you can see a list of mutations and their normal CRS value, along with your result.

Mitochondrial HVR1 rCRS mutations.png

For location 16069, the normal CRS value is C and your value is T.

Why don’t we have this handy chart for the RSRS?

We don’t need it, because the value of 16069C in the RSRS model is written with the normal letter preceding the location, and the mutated value after.

Mitochondrial nucleotides.png

You might have noticed that you see 4 different letters scattered through your results. Why is that?

Letters

The letters stand for the nucleotide bases that comprise DNA, as follows:

  • T – Thymine
  • A – Adenine
  • C – Cytosine
  • G – Guanine

Looking at location 16069, above, we see that C is the normal value and T is the mutated value.

Let’s look at different kinds of mutations.

Transitions, Transversions and Reversions

DNA is normally paired in a particular way, Ts with As and Cs with Gs. You can read more about how that works here.

Sometimes the T-As and C-Gs flip positions, so T-C, for example. These are known as transitions. A mutation with a capital letter at the end of the location is a transition.

For example, C14352T indicates that the normal value in this location is C, but it has mutated to T. This is a transition and T will be capitalized. The first letter is always capitalized.

If you notice that one of your trailing letters in your RSRS results is a small letter instead of a capital, that means the mutation is a transversion instead of a transition. For example, C14352a.

Mitochondrial DNA transitions and transversions.png

You can read more about transitions and transversions here and here.

When looking at your RSRS results, your letter before the allele number is the normal state and the trailing noncapital letter is the transversion. With C14352a, C is the normal state, but the mutation caused the change to a, which is a small letter to indicate that it is a transversion.

Original Value

Typical Transition Pairing (large trailing letter)

Unusual Transversion Pairing (small trailing letter)

T

C a or g

A

G

c or t

C

T

a or g

G A

c or t

An exclamation mark (!) at the end of a labeled position denotes a reversion to the ancestral or original state. This means that the location used to have a mutation, but it has reverted back to the “normal” state. Why does this matter? Because DNA is a timeline and you need to know the mutation history to fully understand the timeline.

The number of exclamation marks stands for the number of sequential reversions in the given position from the RSRS (e.g., C152T, T152C!, and C152T!!).

Mitochondrial DNA reversions.png

This means that the original nucleotide at that location was C, it changed to T, then back to C, then back to T again, indicated by the double reversion-!!. Yes, a double reversion is very, very rare.

Insertions

Mitochondrial DNA insertions.png

Many people have mutations that appear with a decimal point. I have an insertion at location 315. The decimal point indicates that an insertion has occurred, and in this case, an extra nucleotide, a C, was inserted. Think of this as DNA cutting in line between two people with assigned parking spaces – locations 315 and 316. There’s no room for the cutter, so it’s labeled 315.1 plus the letter for the nucleotide that was inserted.

Sometimes you will see another insertion at the same location which would be noted at 315.2C or 315.2A if a different nucleotide was inserted.

Complex insertions are shown as 315.XC which means that there was an insertion of multiple nucleotides, C, in this case, of unknown length. So the number of Cs would be more than 1, but the number was not measurable so the unknown “X” was used.

Some locations, such as 309 and 315 are so unstable, mutating so often, that they are not included in matching.

Deletions

Deletions occur when a piece of DNA is forever removed. Once deleted, DNA cannot regenerate at that position.

A deletion is indicated by either a “d” or a “-“ such as 522d or 522-.

Deletions at locations 522 and 523 are so common that they aren’t utilized in matching either.

Extra and Missing Mutations

On the RSRS tab, you’ll notice extra and missing mutations. These are mutations that vary from those normally found in people who carry your haplogroup. Missing and extra mutations are your own personal DNA filter that allow you to have genealogically meaningful matches.

Mitochondrial DNA extra and missing mutations.png

Extra mutations are mutations that you have, but most people in your haplogroup don’t.

Missing mutations are mutations that most people have, and you don’t.

Heteroplasmies

A heteroplasmy is quite interesting because it’s really a mutation in progress.

What this means is that you have two versions of the DNA sequence showing in your mitochondrial DNA at that location. At a specific location, you show both of two separate nucleotides. Amounts detected of a second nucleotide over 20% are considered a heteroplasmy. Amounts below 20% are ignored. Generally, within a few generations, the mutation will resolve in one direction or the other – although I have seen some heteroplasmies that seem to be persistent for several generations.

Heteroplasmies are indicated in your results by a different letter at the end of the location, so for example, C16069Y where the Y would indicate that a heteroplasmy had been detected.

The letter after the location has a specific meaning; in this case, Y means that both a C and a T were found, per the chart below.

Mitochondrial DNA heteroplasmy.png

Heteroplasmy Matching

Technically, using the example of C16069Y, where Y tells us that both C and T was found, this location should match against anyone carrying the following values:

  • C (original value)
  • T (mutated value)
  • Y (letter indicating a heteroplasmy)

However, currently at Family Tree DNA, the heteroplasmy only counts as a match to the Y (specific heteroplasmy indicator) and the CRS value or C, but not the mutated value of T.

Genetic Distance

The difference in matching locations is called the genetic distance. I wrote about genetic distance in the article, Concepts – Genetic Distance which has lots of examples.

When you have unusual results, they can produce unexpected consequences. For example, if a heteroplasmy is found in the HVR 1 or 2 region, and a woman’s child doesn’t have a heteroplasmy, but does have the mutated value – the two individuals, mother and child, won’t be shown as a match at the HVR1/2 level because only exact matches are shown as matches at that level.

That can be pretty disconcerting.

If you notice something unusual in your results, and you match someone exactly, you know that they have the same anomaly. If you don’t match the person exactly, you might want to ask them if they have the same unusual result.

If you expect to match someone, and don’t, it doesn’t hurt to begin discussions by asking about their haplogroup. While they might be hesitant to share their exact results values with you, sharing their haplogroup shouldn’t be problematic. If you don’t share at least the same base haplogroup, you don’t need to talk further. You’re not related in a genealogically relevant timeframe on your matrilineal line.

If you do share the same haplogroup, then additional discussion is probably warranted about your differences in results. I generally ask about the unusual “extra and missing” mutations, beginning with “how many do you have?” and discussing from there.

Summary

I know there’s a lot to grasp here. Many people don’t really want to learn the details any more than I want to change my car’s oil.

I understand that completely which is why I provide both Quick Consults and Personalized DNA Reports for those who want information either quickly or as a report for either Y or mitochondrial DNA. Quick Consults allow up to an hour to answer a specific question, and Personalized DNA Reports provide you with a written document of 70-100 pages that explains your results and what they mean to you.

You can also call, e-mail or e-chat with the support department at Family Tree DNA which is free.

Next Article – Haplogroups

Your haplogroup, which we’ll discuss in the next article, can eliminate people as being related to you in the past hundreds to thousands of years, but you need the information held in all of your 16,569 locations to perform granular genealogical matching and to obtain all of the available information. In order to obtain all 16,569 locations, you need to order the mtFull Sequence test at Family Tree DNA.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on the link to one of the vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Mitochondrial DNA: Part 1 – Overview

This is Part 1 of a series about mitochondrial DNA, abbreviated as mtDNA, and how to use it successfully for genealogy.

What is Mitochondrial DNA and Why Do I Care?

Mitochondrial DNA.jpg

Mitochondrial DNA is different from nuclear, or autosomal, DNA. Nuclear DNA resides within the nucleus of a cell, while mitochondrial DNA resides outside the nucleus.

Mitochondrial DNA nucleus.png

Every cell has thousands of mitochondria while it only has one nucleus.

Mitochondrial DNA is a circular ring with 16,569 base pair locations. The biological purpose of mitochondria is to power the organism, converting chemical energy into a form that the cells can utilize.

Mitochondrial DNA is also different from autosomal DNA in how it is passed to offspring.

Inheritance Path

Mitochondrial DNA is unique because all people, males and females, inherit their mitochondrial DNA from their mothers, but only females pass it on to their children.

Y and mtDNA inheritance

The chart above illustrates which individuals in your tree inherit their mitochondrial DNA from whom.

Mitochondrial DNA inheritance.png

The daughter and son both inherit their mitochondrial DNA from their mother, who inherits hers from her mother, and so forth – on up the direct matrilineal line. You can read about the difference between matrilineal and maternal lines, here. In essence, maternal can be referring to anyone on your mother’s side of your tree, while matrilineal is your mother’s mother’s mother’s line ad infinitum.

However, every person in this tree carries mitochondrial DNA of specific ancestors.

Mitochondrial DNA inheritance 2.png

The red arrows show the inheritance path of mitochondrial DNA for individuals whose contributors are also in the tree.

The father of the children inherited his mitochondrial DNA from his magenta mother’s matrilineal line.

His father inherited his mitochondrial DNA from his lavender mother’s line.

The maternal grandfather in dark blue inherited his mitochondrial DNA from his red mother’s line.

Mitochondrial DNA inheritance 3.png

The gold arrows show that the contributors of these individuals are not shown on this tree, but they all inherited their mitochondrial DNA from their matrilineal lines as well.

When discussing mitochondrial DNA, we generally think in terms of ourselves, but the application of mitochondrial DNA to genealogy is as far reaching as all of our ancestors.

Each line has its own unique story for us to harvest – assuming we can find an appropriate candidate for testing or find someone who has already tested.

Why Mitochondrial DNA Works

Mitochondrial DNA is inherited from our matrilineal line directly, with no genetic contribution from any males. This inheritance path allows us to use mitochondrial DNA for matching to others reaching back generations as well as providing a way to view beyond the line-in-the-sand of surnames.

In other words, because mitochondrial DNA is not mixed with DNA from the fathers, it’s very nearly identical to our matrilineal ancestors’ mitochondrial DNA many generations ago.

In fact, by tracing a series of mutations, we can track our ancestor over time from mitochondrial Eve, born in Africa tens of thousands of years ago to where we are today.

Mutations Happen

If mutations never occurred, the mitochondrial DNA of all people would be identical and therefore not useful for us to use for genealogy or to peer back in time beyond the advent of surnames.

Mutations do occur, just not on any schedule. This means that it’s difficult to predict how long ago we shared a common ancestor with someone else based solely on mitochondrial DNA mutations.

There might be a mutation between us and our mother, or there might be no mutations for hundreds or even, potentially, thousands of years.

Part of the success of matching genealogically with mitochondrial DNA testing has to do with the regions tested.

Testing fewer locations results in matches that are much less relevant.

The Regions

Mitochondrial DNA is divided into 4 regions used for genealogy.

  • HVR1 – Hypervariable Region 1 – locations 16021-16569 (548 total locations)
  • HVR2 – Hypervariable Region 2 – locations 1-437 (437 locations)
  • HVR3 – Hypervariable Region 3 – locations 438-576 (138 locations)
  • Coding Region – the balance of the mitochondria (15,445 locations)

If you think of mitochondrial DNA as a clock face, the hypervariable regions span the time from approximately 11-1. The Coding Region is the balance.

Mitochondrial DNA loop.png

Family Tree DNA bundles the HVR3 region with the HVR2 region in their results. They test the entire D Loop, meaning a total of 1124 locations in their mtPlus product.

Matching at the HVR1 or HVR1 plus HVR2/3 levels alone can reach back thousands of years in time. I strongly encourage testers to test at the higher full sequence level with the mtFull product, allowing much more granular matching.

The HVR1, 2 and 3 regions are exactly as their name suggests – hypervariable – meaning that they mutate faster than the coding region.

The mtFull or full sequence test tests the entire mitochondria – all 16,569 locations.

Genealogists need a full sequence test in order to do two things:

  • Match with other testers reliably
  • Obtain a full haplogroup which acts as a periscope in time, allowing us to look much further back in time than autosomal and on one specific line. There’s no confusion as to which line the results came from with mitochondrial DNA.

If you’ve only taken the mtPlus test, don’t worry, you can sign on here and upgrade at any time to the mtFull.

Medical Information

The coding region carries most of the potentially medically relevant locations. Medical data is not provided in the results of the testing – only genealogically relevant information.

Family Tree DNA does provide for HVR1 and HVR2/3 results to be shown in projects that testers join, if testers so choose. Coding region results are never shared anyplace unless individual testers share them individually with each other.

I’m personally not concerned about this, but mitochondrial DNA testing has been occurring for 20+ years now and it was uncertain at that early date what medical information might be discovered in the coding region, so the decision to not share was made by Family Tree DNA at that time and remains in effect today.

Today, Family Tree DNA is the only vendor to test your full sequence mitochondrial DNA and provide matching. Therefore, all examples in this series utilize results and tools at Family Tree DNA.

So, what can people see of your actual results?

What Matches See

Mitochondrial DNA match view

You can click this image to enlarge.

People whom you match can see that you do match, but they can’t see any differences or mutations. They see the name you’ve entered, your earliest known ancestor and can send e-mail to you. Aside from that, they can’t see your results or mutations unless you’ve joined a project.

Within projects, participant names are never listed publicly. In other words, your matches can’t tell that it’s you unless they recognize your earliest known ancestor on the project list and you are the only person with that ancestor.

Don’t worry though, because only your HVR1 and HVR2 region results are listed in projects, as shown in the next section.

Benefits of Joining Projects

The great news is that even if you’ve just ordered your test and are waiting for results, you can research and join projects now.

Projects at Family Tree DNA provide testers with access to volunteer administrators to help as well as clustering users in projects that are meaningful to their research.

Mitochondrial DNA hap A project.png

The haplogroup A project is shown above with maternal earliest known ancestor (EKA) names as provided by testers.

Another important project feature is the project map function, allowing testers in a specific haplogroup to view the locations of the earliest known ancestors of other members of the same haplogroup – whether they match each other or not. Your ancestors traveled with theirs and descended from a common ancestor. Cool, huh!

Mitochondrial DNA hap A10 map.png

For example, here’s the haplogroup A10 cluster around Montreal. What’s the story associated with that distribution? Whatever it is, it’s probably important genealogically.

Mitochondrial DNA hap A5a1a1 map.png

Here’s haplogroup A5a1a1 in Japan.

Do you have clusters? You can see if you join relevant projects.

Another type of project to join is a geographical or interest group.

The Acadian AmerIndian Project welcomes descendants who have tested the Y, autosomal and/or mitochondrial DNA of the various Acadian families which includes French and English settlers along with First Nations indigenous ancestors.

Mitochondrial DNA Acadian Amerindian project.png

The map shows the distribution of the haplogroup A2f1a ancestors of various Acadian testers.

Mitochondrial DNA Acadian hap A2f1a map.png

Projects such as the Acadian AmerIndian Project facilitate genealogists discovering the haplogroup and information about their direct line ancestor without testing.

For example, if Anne Marie Rimbault, shown above, is my ancestor, by viewing and hopefully joining this project, I can harvest this information about my ancestor. I can’t personally test for her mitochondrial DNA myself, but thankfully, others who do descend matrilineally from Anne Marie have been generous enough to test and share.

Furthermore, I’ve contacted the tester through the project and gained a great cousin with LOTS of information.

Just think how useful mitochondrial DNA would be to genealogists if everyone tested!

Finding Projects to Join

I encourage all testers to join appropriate haplogroup projects. There may be more than one. For mitochondrial haplogroup J, there is only one project, but for those who carry haplogroup H, there is a haplogroup H project and many additional subgroup projects.

I also encourage you to browse the selections and join other interest projects. For example, there are projects such as Cumberland Gap which is regional, the American Indian project for people researching Native ancestry, in addition to your relevant haplogroup project(s).

When deciding which projects to join, don’t neglect your mitochondrial DNA. Your selection may be a huge benefit to someone else as well as to your own research.

How to Join Projects

Sign on to your personal page at Family Tree DNA and click on myProjects at the top, then on “Join A Project.”

mitochondrial dna project join.png

Next, you’ll see a list of projects in which your surname appears. These may or may not be relevant for you.

Mitochondrial project list

You can click to enlarge this image.

You can search by surname.

Mitochondrial project search.png

More importantly, you can browse in any number of sections.

Mitochondrial project browse.png

For mitochondrial DNA, I would suggest specifically mtDNA haplogroups, of course, along with mtDNA Geographical Projects, Dual Geographical Projects, and mtDNA lineage projects.

Surname projects are more challenging for mitochondrial DNA since the surname changes every generation.

When you find a project of interest, click to read the description written by the volunteer administrators to see if it’s a good fit for you, then click through to join.

Next Article in the Series

Of course, you’re probably wondering what all of those numbers in your results and shown in projects mean. The next article in about a week will address exactly that question.

Reference Articles

These articles may be of interest.

Mitochondrial DNA is often confused with X DNA, and they are not at all the same.

Mitochondrial DNA can quickly confirm or put to rest that Native American ancestor family story.

A great example of using mitochondrial DNA to break through a brick wall that would never have fallen otherwise!

If you haven’t yet tested, your can order your mtFull Sequence test today!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on the link to one of the vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

 

Mother’s Day, Mitochondrial DNA and New Series

Mother's Day 2019 sale

What better way to celebrate Mother’s Day than by testing your (or your Mom’s) mitochondrial DNA?

Everyone, males and females both receive their mitochondrial DNA from their mothers, but only females pass it on to both genders of their children.

yline mtdna

This means that your mitochondrial DNA tracks your direct matrilineal line, shown above with the red circles. This is your mother’s mother’s mother’s line – back in time until you run out of mothers that you can identify.

However, your DNA doesn’t stop there and provides you with the story of your ancestors before they have names and are present in your tree.

In other words, mitochondrial DNA can peer behind that veil of time into history plus match you to current people.

Mitochondrial DNA can also break down brick walls. Here’s just one example.

But I Don’t Understand Mitochondrial DNA…

I’m at a genealogy conference this week, as I write this article, and people have mentioned that they don’t understand mitochondrial DNA, how it works, or how to use it.

So, drum roll….I’ll be writing a short series, as follows:

  • Decoding Mitochondrial DNA – how it works, why it works, and what those numbers mean
  • Using Mitochondrial DNA for Genealogy – how to utilize the various tools on your Family Tree DNA personal page
  • Breaking Down Brick Walls with Mitochondrial DNA – taking mitochondrial DNA one step further

So, here’s the deal.

Mitochondrial DNA is on sale at Family Tree DNA for Mother’s Day. They are the only DNA testing company to offer the full sequence test and matching which is the combination you need for genealogy.

If you’ve tested elsewhere and obtained your haplogroup – that’s not enough. You need the mtFull, full sequence test.

A haplogroup test tests a few mitochondrial locations – just enough to assign a base haplogroup.

The mtPlus test at Family Tree DNA is the “toe in the water test” and tests about 2000 locations – enough for basic matching plus a basic haplogroup assignment.

The mtFull test tests all 16,569 locations in the mitochondria. This is the test needed for genealogical matching and for your full haplogroup assignment.

Sale

The Family Tree DNA Mother’s Day sale is in effect now offering 25% off of the mitochondrial DNA, autosomal Family Finder and bundled tests through May 13th.

Mother's Day 2019 sale prices

If you haven’t purchased a mitochondrial DNA test, click here to purchase the mtFull sequence test.

If you have taken the mtPlus test, click here to sign on to your account and upgrade to the mtFull.

I suggest ordering the autosomal Family Finder if you haven’t taken that test or transferred your raw data file to Family Tree DNA from elsewhere.

Using the Family Tree DNA advanced matching tool to compare Family Finder in conjunction with the mtDNA test matches is one of the steps in utilizing the mitochondrial DNA test for genealogy. I strongly suggest that you have the results of both tests available.

Fortunately, Family Tree DNA is offering a bundled package savings for both tests for $198, normally $278. The regular price of the mtFull alone is $199 – so in essence the Family Finder is free when you buy the bundle. That’s a GREAT DEAL!

Be Ready for the Series

I’ll begin the series of articles soon – so by the time your results are ready, you’ll have a roadmap available.

We’re going to have a lot of fun. Who knows what you might discover!

PS – Don’t forget to test your Dad too, or his siblings if he’s not available to test – because you didn’t receive your Dad’s mitochondrial DNA and it holds genealogical secrets of his mother’s line!

_____________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on the link to one of the vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay, but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

Concepts – Endogamy and DNA Segments

Members of endogamous populations intermarry for generations, creating many segments that match, especially at small centiMorgan levels. These matching segments occur because they are members of the same population – not because they are genealogically related in a recent or genealogical time-frame.

Said another way, endogamous people are all related to each other in some way because they descend from a small original population whose descendants continued to intermarry without introducing people outside of the community into the genetic line. In other words, the DNA segments of the original population simply keep getting passed around, because there are no new segments being introduced.

If you only have 10 segments at a specific genetic location to begin with, in the original population – then the descendants of those original people can only have some combination of the DNA of those original people until another person is introduced into the mix.

Examples of endogamous populations are Ashkenazi Jews, Native Americans, Acadians, Mennonite, Amish and so forth.

If you have some family lines from an endogamous population, you’ll match with many members of that group. If you are fully endogamous, you will have significantly more matches than people from non-endogamous groups.

I suggest that you read my article, Concepts: The Faces of Endogamy to set the stage for this article.

In this article, I want to provide you with a visual example of what endogamy looks like in a chromosome browser. It doesn’t matter which vendor you use so long as you can drop the cM count to 1, so I’m using FamilyTreeDNA for this example.

I’ve used three people as examples:

  • Non-endogamous European
  • Ashkenazi Jewish
  • Native American (Sioux)

For all testers, I selected their closest match above 200 cM total plus the following 4 for a total of 5 people to compare in the chromosome browser. I have only shown chromosomes 1-8 because I’m trying to convey the concept, not exact details of each chromosome, and 8 chromosomes fit into one screen shot.

If you’re not familiar with the terminology, you can read about cM, centiMorgans, in the article “Concepts – CentiMorgans, SNPs, and Pickin’Crab.”

Let’s take a look at our 3 examples, one at a time.

Non-Endogamous European Individual

The tester is non-endogamous. Four of the 5 individuals are known family members, although none were target tested by the tester.

Endogamy non-endogamous.png

The tester’s matches at 1 cM are shown below:

Endogamy non-endogamous 1cM.png

Note that the grey hashed regions are regions not reported, so no one matches there.

Below, the same 5 matches shown at 7 cM where roughly half of the matches will be identical by chance. Identical by descent segments include identical by population. You can read about the various types of “identical by” segments in the article, “Concepts – Identical by…Descent, State, Population and Chance”.

Endogamy non-endogamous 7cM.png

Ashkenazi Jewish Individual

The tester, along with both of their parents have tested. None of the matches are known or identified relatives.

Endogamy Jewish.png

Even though none of these individuals can be identified, two are related on both sides, maternal and paternal, of the person who tested.

In the chromosome browser, at 1cM, we see the following:

Endogamy Jewish 1cM.png

At 7cM, the following:

Endogamy 7cM.png

Native American Individual

The tester is 15/16 Native from the Sioux tribe. It’s unlikely that their matches are entirely Native, meaning they are not entirely endogamous. None of the matches are known or identified family members.

Endogamy Native.png

At 1 cM shown below:

Endogamy Native 1cM.png

At 7 cM, below:

Endogamy Native 7cM.png

Side by Side

I’ve placed the three 1 cM charts side by side with the non-endogamous to the left, the Jewish in the center and the Native, at right.

endogamy side by side.png

It’s easy to see that the Jewish tester has more 1 cM segments than the non-endogamous tester, and the Native tester more than both of the others.

Summary Comparison Chart

The chart below shows the difference in total number of segments, number of segments between 1 and 6.99 cM, and number of segments at 7 cM or larger. I downloaded these results into a spreadsheet and counted the rows.

Total Segments Total segments at 1 – 6.99 cM Total at 7 or > cM % 7 or >
Non-Endogamous 98 70 28 29
Jewish 168 139 29 17
Native American 310 295 15 5

You’ll note that the non-endogamous individual only has 58% of the number of total segments compared to the Jewish individual, and 32% compared to the Native American individual. The Jewish individual has 54% of the number of segments that the Native person has.

I was initially surprised by the magnitude of this difference, but after thinking about it, I realized that the Native people have been endogamous for a lot longer in the Americas than the Ashkenazi Jewish people in Europe. At least 12,000 years compared to roughly 2000 years, or approximately (at least) 6 times longer. Furthermore, the Native people in the Americans were entirely isolated until the 1400s, with no possibility of outside admixture. Isolation lasted even longer in the tribes that were not coastal, such as the Sioux in the Dakotas.

Note that the Jewish person and non-endogamous person have almost as many 7cM segments as each other, but the Native person has roughly half as many when compared to the other two. That means that because I made my selection starting point based on total cM, and the Native person has a LOT more 1-6.99 cM segments than the others, at that level, there are fewer strong segment matches for the Native individual.

The Native person’s percentage of 7 cM or greater segments is a much smaller percentage of the total segments.

As a percentage, the 7 or greater cM segments are 29% of the non-endogamous person’s total, 17% of the Jewish person’s, but only 5% of the Native person’s total.

Endogamy not only makes a difference when comparing results, but the specific endogamous population along with their history, how heavily endogamous they are, and how long they have been endogamous appears to factor heavily into the comparison as well.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on the link to one of the vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Thirteen Good Reasons to Test Your Mitochondrial DNA

Your mitochondrial DNA is a treasure trove of information for one specific line of your genealogy – providing refined information that autosomal tests simply can’t provide.

Some people say mitochondrial isn’t useful, but here’s just one example of mitochondrial DNA bulldozing a brick wall, along with some helpful tips.

But, I Already Know My Haplogroup

Customers who take autosomal tests receive basic haplogroup information from both 23andMe and LivingDNA for their matrilineal line – but that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Let’s talk about why someone would want to take the full sequence mitochondrial DNA test (mtFull Sequence) at Family Tree DNA if they have already received their haplogroup.

Let’s start out with a very brief description of exactly how mitochondrial DNA testing works.

OK, How Does Mitochondrial DNA Work?

Mitochondrial DNA follows the matrilineal line directly, meaning your mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s line on up the tree until you run out of mothers and smack dab into your brick wall.

Your mitochondrial DNA is not mixed with DNA of the various fathers, so what you’re seeing is the same mitochondrial DNA that your ancestors carried for many generations, sometimes with a few mutations that accrue over time.

Mitochondrial DNA Who to Test

Please note that you can click on any image to enlarge.

In the pedigree chart above, the pink daughter or son at the bottom of the chart inherited their mitochondrial DNA from the pink direct matrilineal lineage, while their light blue father inherited his mitochondrial DNA from his mother’s magenta lineage.

Stepping back a generation, the dark blue maternal grandfather inherited his mitochondrial DNA from his red mother. The light blue paternal grandfather inherited his from his buttercup-yellow mother – and so forth.

Everyone, males and females both, can test their mitochondrial DNA to see what secrets it reveals.

You don’t know what you don’t know – and if you don’t test your mitochondrial DNA, you’re leaving undiscovered information relevant to several ancestors on the table.

What Information Do I Receive When I Test?

Let’s look at the benefits of testing, the information you’ll receive and what it can do for you. I’m using my own results at Family Tree DNA as an example.

  • Matching – The number one reason to test your full sequence mitochondrial DNA is matching. Your results are matched to the results of other testers. This means you have the opportunity to discover distant cousins who share direct matrilineal ancestors.

mitochondrial matches

I have 71 full sequence matches, about half of which have entered an “Earliest Known Ancestor.” Many have uploaded trees – 4 of the 5 shown above. You may discover other testers who share the same ancestor, a common geography, or people who have pushed your ancestral line back another generation or two. Matching includes your matches trees, if they create or upload one, and their e-mail address so that you can reach out and share.

I’ve broken through more than one seemingly impossible brick wall utilizing mitochondrial DNA matches.

  • Your Full Haplogroup – While autosomal DNA tests can “target test” a few haplogroup defining locations, they can’t test every location needed for a complete haplogroup. For example, my haplogroup at the various vendors is only a subset, like J1c, of my J1c2f. To learn about the history of my ancestors, I need the entire haplogroup.

mitochondrial DNA J1c2f.png

  • Identifying Origins – Mitochondrial DNA haplogroups provide a periscope view into origins, such as Native American ancestors, those of European origin, Asian or African, and subgroupings therein.

Haplogroup J is European, but some of my other ancestors carry Native American mitochondrial DNA which serves to unquestionably prove that line is Native, regardless of how far back in time. Autosomal DNA ethnicity testing can’t do this and is nonspecific to any particular line.

Think your direct matrilineal line might be Native? This is the acid test!

  • Periscope Through Time – Mitochondrial DNA testing allows you to peer behind the veil of your brick wall in that specific line, to view the origins of that ancestor and where her ancestors originated hundreds and thousands of years before surnames originated.

Mitochondrial periscope.png

  • Your Actual Results – Your actual test results, including mutations, hold interesting information, such as genetic locations where you have insertions or deletions along with unusual extra and missing mutations which are the sources of your differences when you match other testers. These mutations arose in a relatively recent time-frame, genetically speaking. Some mutations known as heteroplasmies carry even more information about very recent “mutations in process.”

Mutations are your personal “genetic filters,” meaning that the more matching mutations you have with someone, the closer your common ancestor.

mitochondrial results.png

Look, I have 5 extra mutations and all of my full sequence exact matches have all of those extra mutations too!

  • Haplogroup Origins – Geographic locations where your haplogroup is found and how many of your matches are found in that location.

mitochondrial DNA haplogroup origins.pngmitochondrial DNA haplogroup origins chart.png

It appears that haplogroup J1c2f is found exclusively in Northern Europe and Scandinavia. Is there a message here?

  • Ancestral Origins – Countries where your matches indicate that their earliest known mitochondrial ancestor is from.

mitochondrial DNA ancestral origins.pngmitochondrial DNA ancestral origins chart.png

Wow – my full sequence exact matches are almost all Scandinavian.

  • Match Maps – Match maps show you the locations of the earliest known ancestors of your matches, plus the identity of each match by clicking on the colored pin. I’m the white pin.

mitochondrial DNA match map.png

My exact matches, in red, are mostly found in Sweden and Norway, but one is located in Russia and one in Poland. I wonder what history would account for this distribution. There’s a story that needs to be uncovered and told.

  • Migration Map – The path your ancestors took when migrating out of Africa to the location where you find them.

mitochondrial DNA migration map.png

Haplogroup J is found in Europe, but not in Africa, the Americas or Asia.

  • Haplogroup Frequency Map – The frequency by percentage of the people from a specific location that carry a particular haplogroup.

mitochondrial DNA frequency map.png

This interactive map shows that 9.34% of Europeans carry a subset of haplogroup J today. It’s easy to see where the haplogroup is and isn’t found.

  • Projects – Testers can join numerous projects at Family Tree DNA administered by volunteers that reflect specific interests. For example, for people with Native American ancestors, the American Indian project is a good choice.

Haplogroup projects provide the ability to view your results grouped with others in the same subhaplogroup – even if you don’t match everyone in that group. Projects also provide maps of the locations of earliest known ancestors in each group.

mitochondrial DNA haplogroup map.png

I’m a member of the haplogroup J project. Ancestral locations of other people in the project who are members of haplogroup J1c2f are shown above. This map includes people that I match as well as people that I don’t, but with whom I still share an ancestor further back in time.

  • Mitochondrial DNA Haplotree – Not only can you view the Haplotree, but the results of Family Tree DNA’s customers who have taken the full sequence test provide the data for the tree. Testing isn’t just about obtaining information, but contributing to the science as well. I wrote abut the haplotree here.

Mitochondrial DNA haplotree.png

You can see your haplogroup in pedigree format as it descends from its main branch, in my case, J. To the right, the countries where J1c2f is found. The mitochondrial haplotree is important because it’s not limited to people who match you, or to people who join projects.

  • Haplogroup Country Report – The Haplogroup Country Report breaks down the information behind the little flags on the haplotree, above.

Mitochondrial DNA country report.png

41.67% of the people in haplogroup J1c2f have ancestors found in Sweden. I was quite surprised, given that my earliest known ancestor is found in Germany.

  • Your Other Lines – You may be lucky enough to discover that someone who descends from one of your other lines whose mitochondrial DNA you don’t carry has tested. For example, if your father or one of his siblings tests and shares their results with you, you would be “gifted” with mitochondrial information of your paternal grandmother.

If everyone were to test, just think how much information would be available for genealogists to share. How many of your lines would benefit? Can you find testers for some of them?

What About You?

How much of this information could you discover without mitochondrial DNA testing?

None.

As a genealogist, you want to know every single thing you can unearth about each ancestor, right?

Mitochondrial testing holds a world of treasure that’s easily available to everyone.

You might notice that Family Tree DNA offers two tests, the mtDNA Plus and the mtFull Sequence.

Which Test?

The mtDNA Plus test only reads two regions (HVR1/HVR2) of the mitochondria, about 2000 locations out of 16,569 total. You do receive a base haplogroup and matching along with the other tools described above. However, without the full sequence test, your matches may be thousands of years in the past. I think of the mtDNA Plus test as the beginners test.

To use mtDNA successfully for genealogy and to receive the most granular information possible, you need the full sequence test which tests the full mitochondria. This is the test for serious genealogists.

The great news is that if you’ve already taken the HVR1/HVR2 mtDNA Plus test, you can easily upgrade to mtFull Sequence by signing on to your personal page and clicking upgrade.

The full sequence mitochondrial DNA test is on sale right now for $149, a $50 savings, through April 25th for DNA Day.

Discover the secrets in your mitochondrial DNA!

Click here to order.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on the link to one of the vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

Using Ancestry’s New Match Grouping Dots aka “MyMatchDots”

I’d like to say that yesterday’s article titled “Using Ancestry’s Tree Tags” was a little test to see if you were paying attention, but it wasn’t.

I conflated two different new features, and today, I’d like to straighten that out.

First, a shout out to Paula Williams for catching this. Thank you.

What Happened?

Flat out – I messed up. Mea culpa.

Ancestry introduced several new beta features at the same time. Cumulatively, it’s a big change. The functionality is interconnected AND they don’t all work reliably or consistently, so it’s more than a little confusing, or at least it obviously was for me. There is also no “i” information button describing the new features or providing instructions. However, I did find information on MyTreeTags in Ancestry Support here and grouping of matches using colored dots here.

Grouping matches using colored dots also doesn’t have a “name” like MyTreeTags, so it was easy to conflate with the tags. I wish they had named the grouping dots something like “MyMatchDots” to clearly differentiate the function from MyTreeTags, especially since they were released at the same time. Therefore, I’m referring to them at “MyMatchDots” because that’s a lot easier than “grouping matches using colored dots.”

I wasn’t just flying blind. I did watch the training video and thought I understood, but clearly I didn’t have all the moving pieces and parts straight. Maybe you don’t either, and this will help.

There is no graceful recovery here, except to apologize and fix the issue by publishing the correct information.

The good news is that I described the functionality of the colored dots for grouping matches (MyMatchDots) accurately.

The bad news is that I called it by the wrong name in the title and I referred to the colored grouping dots as “tags.” Seemed like a perfectly fitting name to me. Somehow, now I need to bleach that out of my mind. MyMatchDots, MyMatchDots, MyMatchDots…

The error, or course, HAD to be obvious AND in the title – a publishing sin that’s simply non-recoverable. Just like the tool you drop will roll to dead center under the table, bed or the vehicle where you can’t possible reach it. In case anyone had any doubt, Murphy lives!

So, from time to time, those of us who publish just get to suck it up and issue a correction. Today it’s my turn. Thank you for your tolerance and understanding.

One positive aspect – I’ve included additional information about MyMatchDots as well, based on questions and comments from the earlier article.

Groups (MyMatchDots) and MyTreeTags – the Difference

There are now two methods of grouping at Ancestry.

Groups (MyMatchDots) – Colored grouping dots that I described in the original article and am republishing below. I have deleted the earlier article with the incorrect title. The instructions for how to use match grouping dots in that article were and are accurate, but I’ve updated here.

MyMatchDots and MyTreeTags are different in that grouping dots (MyMatchDots) allow you to select up to 24 colored dots to append to and tag YOUR DNA MATCHES on your match list.

MyTreeTags – Tree tags allow you to tag people IN YOUR TREE, living or deceased, with predefined or custom tags.

Here’s a quick screenshot of examples of MyTreeTags as part of a new beta Workspace. In the next few days, I’ll publish an article with examples of how to activate and use MyTreeTags and more about the beta Workspace.

MyTreeTags beta workspace

What follows is the re-publication of yesterday’s instructions for defining and using the colored grouping dots, plus, how to sort and filter using the colored groupings (MyMatchDots.)

Using Ancestry’s New Color Grouping Dots (MyMatchDots)

One of Ancestry’s new beta features is their grouping feature using colored dots that’s I’m referring to as MyMatchDots – my name, not theirs. To enable, you need to click on “Extras” on the top black menu bar, then “Ancestry Lab” on the dropdown, then enable both MyTreeTags and New and Improved DNA Matches.

Ancestry lab.png

No, I don’t know what happens if you only enable one of the features, or turn them off and on. These features seem to be pretty tightly coupled. Feel free to experiment, but I haven’t.

Your DNA Matches

Everyone utilizes matching differently, for different purposes. Your goal should be to devise a grouping methodology that will support the way you are using DNA matching.

I’m showing you how I’m utilizing the colored dots for grouping my matches, and why, but your preferred method and mine may not be at all the same.

Next, click on DNA Matches.

Ancestry matches with tags.png

This shows my closest 2nd cousin matches. You’ll notice that many don’t have trees, or have unlinked trees, but since these are second cousin matches, it was relatively easy for me to figure out quickly which lines they descend from based on who I match in common with them. You can see my comments just below “Add/edit groups” and the little colored dots.

The little colored dots (MyMatchDots) are the group identifiers that I’ve added to each match.

By clicking on the “Add/edit groups” to the right of the colored dots, you can view the legend, meaning the groups you’ve defined. This is what you’ll see every time you want to group someone.

Ancestry tags.png

Notice that the first person, which is my own V2 (version 2) kit, is showing with a green dot, meaning I’ve identified the common ancestor. I could select any number of dots that I’ve defined, or I could define more dots by creating a custom group.

Ancestry custom groups.png

You have 24 colors to select from. I know that sounds like a lot, but you’ll need to do some planning.

MyMatchDots Grouping Strategy

I thought about creating a maternal and paternal match group, but that seemed like a waste of colored dots, so for now, I haven’t. The only way I have to identify maternal and paternal at Ancestry, because neither parent is available to test there, is via known ancestors – and that information is immediately evident to me by the comment indicating the common ancestor.

I tried to think about how I would use the colored dots for sorting.

I decided on the stop light analogy. A green dot for “identified ancestor,” yellow for either “probably identified” or darker yellow for “speculative,” and red for “I’m working on this but it’s tough.” In other words, red means not yet identified. No colored dot means I haven’t worked on that match.

I made both “messaged” and “private” both darker red dots, because often those are used together when I have a show stopper. I want to revisit matches in both of those categories, so I’ll want to be able to sort for them to see if:

  • trees have become public
  • more helpful shared matches exist
  • messages have been answered and I didn’t notice

What’s Missing?

Did you notice what’s missing? That little green leaf on your match list indicating that this person is a DNA match AND has a shared ancestor.

Ancestry common ancestors dropdown.png

While Ancestry just recently re-indexed the trees, the Shared Ancestor Hint “Common Ancestors” leaf is still missing on the matches page where it used to be displayed. I’m hopeful that it will be back as an icon on the match list.

Worse yet, when you click on the “Common Ancestors” filter to display only common ancestors, this error message appears.

Ancestry common matches.png

I do have common ancestor matches – 704 of them to be exact.

Let’s hope that this is a temporary glitch that will be fixed soon.

For me, being able to see the green leaf on my full match list is extremely important because I want to be able to quickly discern which of those matches have shared ancestors.

Fortunately, I made a note for each shared ancestor previously identified, so I sorted for “Notes” in order to group appropriately.

Ancestry notes.png

However, if you haven’t already made those notes, then sorting for notes isn’t useful.

If your account displays Common Ancestors when you select that option, skip to the “Ideas for Using MyMatchDot Groups” section of this article.

If your account does NOT display Common Ancestors, read the Work-Around section, next.

Work-Around

Utilizing my “regular” kit, which does NOT have ThruLines because I have two kits attached to “me” on the same tree, I can group by color (as you’ve seen), but Common Ancestors green leaf function is broken.

Utilizing my second kit V2 kit, which DOES have ThruLines, I can click on “704 Shared Ancestor Hints” from my main DNA Summary page or select the “Common Ancestors” dropdown.

Ancestry shared ancestor links.png

This works.

Ancestry common ancestor leaf.png

I understand that you can “force” common ancestors sorting to work on kits without ThruLines by toggling the Beta option for Advanced Matching to off, but after all the work I just did grouping all 704 of my shared matches, I’m not willing to risk losing all of those dots to test this workaround. The Beta “off” or “on” is for the entire account, not for each individual kit on the account.

What I will do, shortly, is to create a “twin” in my tree and connect my kit that doesn’t have ThruLines to that twin so both kits aren’t attached to “me.” That may or may not solve the problem.

If you do NOT have ThruLines yet, and you want to retain any existing New Ancestor Discoveries (NADs), you must do so before you make a change that enables ThruLines, because NADs are gone on my account that HAS ThruLines, but they exist on the account without ThruLines. NADs have not been updated in many months, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to retain the existing information. I wrote about how to archive both your Circles and NAD information in this article. My account with ThruLines did retain the Circles. You can toggle back and forth from having ThruLines to not having Thrulines to view your NADs, but eventually, I’m sure they will disappear.

Sorting MyMatchDots

Now that you have matches grouped by color, how do you sort for those clusters? On your matches page, the dropdown for “All matches” shows the groups as well as reports how many people are in each group.

Ancestry groups sort

Ideas for MyMatchDot Groups 

I’ve shared my MyMatchDot grouping strategy, but I’ve kind of stumbled around playing with what works and what doesn’t. I’m sure I haven’t thought of everything.

One person mentioned to me that they are using dots to identify Leeds clusters. I wrote about the Leeds Method in this article which includes links to several articles by Dana Leeds who developed the methodology. She has also written this update. I may group based on Leeds clusters as well as the group dots I’ve already defined.

The great news is that you can assign any number of colored dots, through 24, for groups associated with any individual match.

Someone else mentioned that they were initially grouping based on Genetic Affairs clusters, but matches can change clusters, especially if the thresholds change, so that might not be such a good idea.

In the next article, we’ll talk about how to activate and use MyTreeTags.

Ancestry’s ThruLines Dissected: How to Use and Not Get Bit by the ‘Gators

Ancestry’s new tool, ThruLines has some good features and a lot of potential, but right now, there are a crop of ‘gators in the swimmin’ hole – just waiting for the unwary. Here’s help to safely navigate the waters and not get bit!

Gator

Let’s start with first things first.

Maybe it’s wishful thinking or a slip of the keyboard (or phone) but I see people referring to ThruLines as TrueLines, and that’s absolutely NOT true. ThruLines must be verified and proven, just like connections with trees must always be proven – especially when new ancestors are suggested.

ThruLines are not necessarily true lines.

Having said that, there’s lots to unpack here, so let’s get started looking at Ancestry’s latest discovery tool, ThruLines.

It took me a few days to wrap my head around this – meaning what ThruLines is attempting to do, with what information, and why. In other words:

  • How is ThruLines supposed to help us?
  • How can ThruLines actually help us?
  • What are the limitations and dangers?
  • How can we avoid the problems?

The difference in the answer depends on your goals. Let’s dissect ThruLines into pieces to see how it can help with genealogy, when and where – along with what to avoid. There are some useful features here alongside some very large neon-flashing danger signs right beside the ‘gator pond.

What is ThruLines?

Ancestry’s blog announcing ThruLines can be seen here.

ThruLines does two things:

  • ThruLines groups DNA matching descendants by ancestor. ThruLines shows you, by ancestor, which people match your DNA and claim to be descended from that same ancestor. Notice the words “claim to be.” As always, when other people’s trees are involved, there is a danger of conflated trees and other concerns. We’ll discuss that shortly.

Especially for more closely related relatives, this grouping of DNA matches by ancestor is a great feature because their trees and who they believe they are descended from are more likely to be accurate in the past 3 or 4 generations when the relationship with the ancestor is a result of direct knowledge as opposed to further back where the relationship to an ancestor is a result of genealogical research. This also means the relationship to your match is easier for you to confirm, if you don’t already have your match in your tree. These gathered matches allow you to add family members and cousins to your tree. You never know who might have photos or other information, so matching and discovering that you are connected makes it easy to reach out.

These match groupings use ancestors that you already have in your tree.

  • ThruLines provides “suggestions” for potential ancestors by extrapolating from other trees. These “suggestions” include replacing your researched ancestors with other ancestors from other people’s (often inaccurate) trees, many of whom are not DNA matches to you. This is Gatorland!

Ancestry has provided this product announcement but has not yet released a white paper about how ThruLines performs the following:

  • Utilizes DNA matches.
  • Utilizes trees, including how decisions are made about which trees to use and how to suggest potential ancestors.
  • How Ancestry determines when to ignore your existing ancestor in your tree in favor of a suggested replacement.
  • The weighting between DNA and tree evidence. In some cases, nonsensical ancestors are being suggested through people’s step-parent’s lines, or ancestors’ “other spouses” lines that the tester is not biologically connected to, so the Ancestry selection process cannot be solely based on DNA matching and in some cases, is clearly not based on DNA matching at all.

Hopefully, a white paper will be coming shortly.

Caveats

If you’re an experienced genealogist, I’m not worried about you. You already understand about ‘gators, meaning the caveats and concerns about the massive number of incorrect trees.

My primary concern is that ThruLines encourages people to believe that ancestors are being suggested because DNA has confirmed that a specific ancestor is theirs. In many cases, erroneous trees have propagated for years, and now all of those people are “wrong together” so their incorrect ancestor is being suggested as an ancestor for many more people. Worse yet, multiple wrong trees are being stitched together by Ancestry in ThruLines.

I wish Ancestry provided a visible warning someplace where users CAN’T MISS IT. MyHeritage does exactly that, even in the name of their similar feature, Theory of Family Relativity.

Buried in the Ancestry support document for ThruLines, I found this:

ThruLines accuracy

This should be a required clickthrough before anyone can use ThruLines.

Accessing ThruLines

Not everyone at Ancestry has ThruLines yet. Ancestry has been struggling the past few days and ThruLines have been coming and going. ThruLines is in beta and will be rolled out during the month of March.

For ThruLines to work, you must be sure:

  • Your tree is connected to your DNA.
  • Your tree is either public or a private searchable tree. Unsearchable trees won’t have ThruLines.
  • Your tree is at least 3 or 4 generations deep.
  • You only have one kit for any individual person connected to that person in the same tree. If you have multiple kits for the same person connected to one tree, only one kit will have ThruLines. If this is your situation, you can create a “twin” to yourself in your tree and attach the second kit to that person and both kits should get ThruLines. There aren’t many people like me who have tested twice with AncestryDNA, so this shouldn’t be a problem for most people.

You can have multiple kits attached to the same tree, but each kit must be connected to a different person in the tree

If you want to know if ThruLines is available on your account or you are having problems with ThruLines, I wrote about that in the article, “Ancestry’s Disappearing ThruLines – Now You See Them, Now You Don’t.”

Myths and Misconceptions

  • ThruLines is NOT telling you or confirming that a specific ancestor IS your ancestor.
  • ThruLines is NOT modifying or automatically doing anything to your tree. The ThruLines “trees” you are seeing are constructed for ThruLines.
  • You are NOT necessarily related to, nor have DNA matches with the people whose trees are used to suggest potential ancestors.

Warning

For individuals seeking unknown parents, if you see your name beneath a placard that shows a “private” individual in a hashed box above your name, this does NOT mean your parent has been discovered. This only means that Ancestry has “paired” you with a potential ancestor that happens, in your case, to be a parent based on some combination of name similarity (yours) and a person with a similar surname in someone else’s tree.

If you have a parent/child match, it will be the first match on your match list. Look there.

It’s heartbreaking to get excited only to learn that the ThruLines “potential parent” shown for you has nothing to do with genetics – so be prepared for this possibility and don’t get excited. Check your DNA match list.

Facts

  • According to Crista Cowan in her RootsTech video, ThruLines is a replacement for Circles. After working with both my ThruLines and Circles, it became obvious very quickly that Circles have not been updated for some time, probably months. If you have Circles or New Ancestor Discoveries (which have been dormant for the past couple years), please archive them so you don’t lose any information you might have. I wrote about how to do that here.
  • New Ancestor Discoveries were discontinued roughly two years ago, so you may not have any.
  • Shared Ancestor Hints (green leaves) is no longer working. Neither is Filter By Common ancestors. I sure hope they fix both of these (probably related) bugs.
  • Any ThruLine card in a dotted edge box is a POTENTIAL ANCESTOR and is very likely incorrect.ThruLines hashed line.png
  • Any ThruLine card in a solid line box when you mouse over the card is an ancestor currently found in your tree. It’s as correct as your tree.ThruLines solid line.png
  • Just because you have an ancestor in your tree does NOT mean that Ancestry will use that ancestor. Ancestry may provide another potential ancestor from someone else’s tree. Watch for the hashed lines and be cognizant of who is already in your tree, and why!
  • On the ThruLine trees, any person, meaning ancestor OR other person in a grey hashed line box is only a suggestion based on someone else’s tree or multiple trees.
  • ThruLines shows you which tree that ancestor was “suggested” from, allowing you to click through to that tree and view their documentation.
  • On the ThruLine trees, any person in a solid edge box is from your own tree, shown with red arrows below, while any suggested individual is shown with hashed edges, shown with green arrows.

Thrulines tree.png

  • The summary below the ancestor’s name may indicate that you’re related to XYZ ancestor in <some number> of ways, but review the people you match very closely because you may be related to them, but not through the ancestor or in the way shown.

ThruLines number of matches.png

  • If there was a second marriage, ThruLines may be attributing your relationship to the un-related spouse. The descendants shown may be from the “other” marriage and that person’s ancestors. If you’re thinking the unrelated spouse’s ancestors can’t be genetic, you’re right – at least not through that line. Be very careful. You’re in ‘gator territory.
  • Furthermore, Ancestry may be suggesting ancestors of the “step-spouse” or other tangential line as well. More ‘gators.
  • Just because you match 5 descendants of XYZ ancestor, that does not mean any of these people match each other. In fact, you may match some of these people through another line entirely.
  • You can still click through to view the DNA comparison feature at Ancestry. However, since the Shared Ancestor Hints (green leaves) is not working at all, you will not be able to see the side-by-side tree comparison feature☹

ThruLines common ancestors.png

  • Using Shared Matches on the comparison page, you may be able to determine if some of these individuals do in fact match each other which helps to increase the likelihood of common ancestry in a specific line.

ThruLines shared matches 1.png

  • ThruLines does not replace Shared Ancestor Hints (green leaves) although ThruLines organizes the Shared Ancestor Hints by ancestor. Currently Shared Ancestor Hints is not working and says you have no matches with shared ancestors which is clearly incorrect if you previously had any Shared Ancestor Hints.
  • ThruLines may “add” projected ancestors to matches whose trees don’t reach far enough back in time, but who connect with another tree who connects with your tree. This occurs in ThruLines, not in your own tree unless you specifically add the information there. This additive “tree extension” effort is very similar to the WeRelate application which was infamously wrong – more like WeDontRelate.
  • You will still receive potential parent hints for ancestors on your actual tree, some of which will (or may) also be reflected in ThruLines. In some cases, the hint on your tree and the ThruLine suggested “potential ancestor” are different, so check both places.

Thrulines potential parent tree.png

  • ThruLines only reaches back 7 generations, so if you’re looking for a breakthrough or descendants from ancestors before that time, you won’t see them in ThruLines. Previously in this regard in relationship to Circles, Ancestry had said that there were too many unknown family lines and multiple relationship paths that far back in time.
  • Many of the ancestor ThruLines share exactly the same descendants. For example, my Dutch line only has a limited number of testers, so the same 10 people are listed for generation after generation going up in the pedigree (back in time.)
  • Once ThruLines offers a potential ancestor, they continue offering parents and grandparents of that potential ancestor until they run out of ancestors, reach the 8th generation or some other criteria for stopping. If this is a legitimate line, great – and if not, it’s a royal pain without an “off” button to reject known erroneous “potential ancestors.” “Gators having baby ‘gators!
  • There is no way to “ignore,” “reject” or tell Ancestry to “disconnect” or remove a potential ancestor. I hope they will add this feature soon. This could be useful if they suggest another ancestor, especially in lines where you are truly at a brick wall. New “potential ancestors” would provide you with ideas for who/where to search.
  • There is also no way to mark a ThruLines card as “seen” so you don’t review it again.
  • Having two kits connected to the same person in your tree will (at the time of this writing) prevent one of those kits from receiving ThruLines. In my case, I took a V1 and a V2 test and had them both connected to my own record. This can be solved by adding yourself as a sibling and connecting one kit to the sibling.
  • ThruLines is free for everyone for now but may require a subscription in the future. (Don’t forget about the Insight subscription to access DNA features only, assuming it still exists, but you must call support to obtain that limited subscription.)

Suspicions

  • That trees with “more” sources are weighted more heavily than trees without “more” sources. Case in point is my own tree for an ancestor who little is known about, so I only had an estimated birth and death year. However, Ancestry suggested a replacement with a very robust but nonsensical tree that incorporates “lots” of documentation. In fact, this amazing woman has birth records from Washington DC 1830-1955 (which didn’t exist in the 1700s when this woman lived), New Hampshire 1714-1904, PA 1669-2013 and who died in TN but is buried in PA. Any modicum of logic would have immediately down-weighted this tree’s veracity.
  • That not all relationships are genetically based. For example, I have 15 ancestors for whom I’m the only DNA tester listed, legitimately, so why are those ancestors shown as a ThruLine for me? No DNA is involved.
  • That Ancestry created, updated or still has a version of that “One World Tree” someplace, because some of this information is drawn from old trees with information removed long (as in years) ago. Does Ancestry know where this information was obtained from customer trees, and how they selected the specific tree to use? Do they update it? How often and what logic decides what is incorporated into that tree? I notice that in some cases, suggested ancestors’ spouses came from different users’ trees, even when the same spouse was in the same tree.
  • That projected ancestors are entirely tree based only, not genetically based.
  • Although Ancestry has not yet told us how they weight tree matches, it stands to reason that the most complete records are the most likely to be matched successfully – so be sure your ancestor’s records are as complete as possible.
  • Having said that, some of the suggested potential ancestors replacing my existing ancestors have much LESS documentation than my own tree, including some with the only “source” being Ancestry trees. I have no idea what Ancestry is actually doing, when, or why.

Accessing ThruLines

Sign on to your account and click on DNA and then “Your DNA Results Summary.”

Click on “Extras” and then “Ancestry Lab.”

ThruLines Ancestrylab

Once there, enable the beta functions. I’m not positive you need to do this for ThruLines, but there have been so many issues that I’d recommend doing this, just in case.

ThruLines Ancestrylab enable

If you have ThruLines available on your account, you’ll see this on your DNA Summary page.

ThruLines explore.png

Click on the green box to access ThruLines.

Please note that as of this writing, ThruLines is not stable, meaning that ThruLines and ancestors, as well as matches are tending to come and go. Some features are working sporadically and some not at all. The Shared Ancestor Hints and Common Ancestors filter is not working at all, even when ThruLines is functioning.

Sorting ThruLines

After working with ThruLines, I discovered, for me, working the different types of records together was easiest, because what I do with those records differs.

Records fall into the following categories:

  • Existing ancestors in your tree
  • Potential (suggested) ancestors

In fact, Ancestry provides the ability to filter in exactly that fashion, at the top of the ThruLines page on the left side.

ThruLines filter.png

Let’s look at these two types of records individually, because I use them differently.

In case you’re wondering how I track my ThruLines, I created a spreadsheet that includes columns for:

  • Number – numbered so that I know I’ve accounted for all 254 ancestors through 7 generations
  • Generation in which that ancestor is found – for example my 4 grandparents are generation 2
  • Surname of Ancestor
  • First name of Ancestor with birth year if multiple people by that same surname
  • “Should Be” column for when Ancestry suggests a replacement ancestor for a correct Ancestor I have in my tree. “Should be” is the correct ancestor’s name.
  • Existing – meaning does the ancestor exist in my tree already and is the ThruLines card provided by Ancestry for this existing ancestor from my tree
  • Potential – meaning is this a “potential ancestor” as indicated by a hashed line. Believe it or not, I have several cases where I have an ancestor by a specific name in my tree and Ancestry has suggested a different ancestor by the same name that is a conflated version of my ancestor and another person by that same name, so the answer can be yes for both “existing” and “potential.”
  • Members – how many people match in this ancestor’s group. The number of matching people is easy to see at the top of the ThruLine card when you click on the Ancestor card to open.

ThruLines may be related.png

  • Comments – anything that comes to mind such as why the suggested ancestor is wrong, something to look at, if they are a Y or mtDNA candidate, etc.

ThruLines spreadshet.png

Here’s an example of my spreadsheet.

I also color coded the ThruLines ancestors according to the groups identified later in this article so that I could filter by color. In the example above, the grey entry is an example of a correctly gathered ancestor and the red entry is a hypothetical example of an incorrect entry. If an incorrect person was listed, I would enter the correct ancestor in the “should be” column.

I had to create this spreadsheet to wrap my head around what Ancestry was doing with ThruLines, and to some extent, perhaps determine why.

I would suggest that you read through this entire article before deciding how to handle your ThruLines, then come back and create this spreadsheet if you want to. I had to create a spreadsheet to wrap my head around what was going on with ThruLines so I could write this article.

Existing Ancestors

ThruLines only “sees” ancestors on your linked tree. That means the tree linked to your DNA results.

If you switch trees, you’ll have to give Ancestry some amount of time to switch your results to the new tree. No, I don’t know how long that is in actuality. Hours to days. Ancestry suggests two days. Many people are reporting much longer waits.

What you’ll see when the process is complete is a very nicely organized set of “ancestor cards” that begins with the closest ancestors you have in your linked tree.

ThruLines cards.png

Linking Your Tree

If your tree is not linked, PLEASE LINK IT. You will not have ThruLines if your tree is not linked correctly.

To link your tree, click on “DNA” at the top of the page, and then on DNA Summary.

ThruLines settings.png

Click on the Settings gear in the upper right corner of the page.

Be sure you are participating in matching and then link your tree in this section:

ThruLines link tree.png

Exploring ThruLines

I have 161 individual ancestors listed on cards at Ancestry, along with 49 potential ancestors, although this number varies from hour to hour and day to day.

Existing ancestors in your tree have a solid line around their card when your cursor is above the ancestor.

ThruLines existing ancestor.png

Potential ancestors have a hashed line around their card.

ThruLines potential ancestor.png

This might be a good time to mention that Ancestry includes information from searchable but private trees. This means that information from many of those private trees that so frustrate genealogists is included. It may also mean that trees people are using as “quick and dirty trees” and they forgot to make unsearchable are included too.

However, if you have a private searchable tree, this now means that you too will have ThruLines.

As frustrating as these “private” cards appear at first glance, they actually aren’t useless. I clicked on this private placard and look what I see.

ThruLines private.png

This potential ancestor happens to be inaccurate, but at least I can see something.

ThruLines contact.png

Sometimes you’ll see this instead (even if the person lived so long ago that they can’t possibly be living), or if you’re lucky, the following which at least provides the name of the suggested ancestor so you can search elsewhere.

ThruLines private ancestor identified.png

I’m very grateful for this change to provide the ability to at least identify the ancestor being referenced.

Looking at my Ancestry tree, to the 8th generation (meaning 7 generations, inclusive, counting from my mother, means that if you expand your tree once, every ancestor other than the last column should be shown on a ThruLines card as illustrated below.

ThruLines 7 generations.png

In 7 generations, there are a total of 254 ancestors, counting our parents as generation 1.

Let’s break my 254 ancestors down into categories based on the Ancestry ThruLines.

Group 1 – Ancestors with No DNA Matches

Based on the fact that I’m the only child that has tested as a descendant of my mother, and she has a card, Ancestry appears to have taken every one of those 254 individuals and processed them in some fashion. I say this because I have a total of 20 ancestors in my tree with whom there are no DNA matches attributable to that ancestor.

ThruLines no matches.png

In fact, it’s this line of relatively recent German immigrants, the parents having arrived in the mid-1850s. Jacob Kirsch and Barbara Drechsel (Drexler) didn’t have a lot of children and many of those children didn’t marry and have children, which leaves a small descendant pool to test.

Clearly, based on this, the ThruLines, meaning the cards shown, aren’t generated based on a DNA match. That’s fine, except that I understood that a ThruLines card meant that you HAD a DNA match first, then secondarily a matching tree as well.

Obviously, that’s a misconception.

I’ll be keeping a running scorecard of my 254 ancestors and how they break down in ThruLines.

Ancestors Number Comments
Total ancestors in 7 generations 254
Ancestors with no DNA matches 20 German immigrant line
Remainder 234

Group 2 – Missing Ancestors Altogether

This next group is probably the easiest to account for, because they are missing in the Ancestry ThruLines cards altogether. They are clearly in my tree, but they have no ThruLines card showing that they exist. If they were only in the 7th generation, I could understand that they are missing AND don’t have hints about ancestors in earlier generations – because Ancestry (unfortunately) doesn’t provide anything in the 8th generation, but that’s not the case here. Two full generations are missing entirely.

ThruLines missing branch.png

This entire branch of my mother’s tree is missing altogether – both parents and all 4 grandparentts of Angenietje Houtsma.

It’s clearly NOT because there aren’t any DNA matches, because the Kirsch branch in the last example has no matches and still has ThruLines cards for ancestors.

It’s not because there aren’t parents, because Angenietje Houtsma has grandparents who should have cards as well, AND, those grandparents have record hints. So, it’s not like these people are unknown to the system, because they aren’t. In this one line alone, 6 ancestors are missing.

In the 6th generation, I have a total of 4 missing ancestors who are in my tree but have no cards, and in the 7th generation, 10, for a total of 14 missing ancestors. Where are these ancestors and why don’t they have a ThruLines card?

I have no idea.

Ancestors Number Comments
Total ancestors in 7 generations 254
Ancestors with no DNA matches 20 German immigrant line
Missing Ancestors 14
Remainder 220

Group 3 – Ancestors in My Tree with Gathered Descendants

This next group is the largest group of matches after eliminating the missing ancestors and those with no DNA matches.

This group consists of ancestors who have cards from my tree shown by Ancestry AND with whom I have DNA matches attributed to that line.

Keep in mind that many more people may have DNA tested and are descended from these ancestors, but their DNA doesn’t match my DNA. The only resource available to see that those people match others descended from that ancestor is if you have a Circle for that ancestor, you can check for people NOT shown in this ThruLine grouping.

Ancestry has stated that they are not going to continue to add to the Circles, so if you want that information, archive it now. I wrote about how to do that here.

I will be doing that for every ancestor with a Circle.

Let’s look at Lazarus Estes. He’s my great-grandfather and I know of most of his descendants, or at least I think I do. I have 6 DNA matches that descend from Lazarus.

Thrulines ancestor gathered descendants.png

Ok, maybe I don’t know most of his descendants. I know most of his descendants a generation ago. One of these names I’ve never heard of. The good news is that they might have information that I don’t. Pictures, stories, something.

If your goal is to connect with LIVING people, you’ll love this ThruLines feature.

In recent or relatively close generations, people are likely to know their genealogy which means their parents and grandparents. For example, I don’t question for a minute that the three descendants of Gracie Estes Long know that she’s their grandmother. I would hope that Tyler knows that my half-sister is his great-grandmother, but I suspect he has no idea who I am. His mother and grandfather are still living, which is why they are marked as private and have hashed lines, so he could ask them and I’m sure they know both who Edna was and who I am.

As you move further back in time where people are depending on historical research, that’s when the trees become more problematic, entering ‘gator territory, because they adopt and incorporate other people’s trees, believing them to be accurate.

One point that this graphic illustrates quite well is the difference in inherited DNA in the green boxes. Note that with my three 2C1R (second cousins once removed), I share 170cM, 161 cM and a paltry 25cM of DNA with them. That’s a very large difference. Then note that I share LESS with my half 2nd great-nephew, with whom I’m more closely related than with two of my 2C1R. Roll of the genetic dice.

You might notice that I can’t drop down the middle box because there’s not enough space for all 6 matches to show simultaneously. Sometimes you have to scroll back and forth to see the entire graphic, including all the siblings, so you can click at the top on the “List” link to see the people you match who descend from this ancestor in a list format.

ThruLines list.png

There are three additional pieces of information available from this “List” screen.

If you click on “View Relationship,” it takes you back to the tree where you will see only your relationship with that person.

ThruLines relationship.png

Notice that the solid lines mean these people are in my tree, but there’s another hint too. You can see that Becky’s father was taken from her own tree, but her grandmother, Lucy was taken from someone else’s tree. Is that accurate information? Don’t ever assume that it is. The trees are all hotlinks. Verify, verify, verify!!!

If you click on the person’s initial box or name, you’ll be taken to the DNA comparison screen that we’re all familiar with. Be sure to note how you’re related so you can check easily.

ThruLines match info.png

This confirms that Becky didn’t provide any more information than her parents in her tree.

If you click on the segment information in the middle of the “List” screen, you will see the following:

ThruLines relationship percents.png

Please note that these percentages do not correlate with the DNAPainter tool here which I use extensively. Ancestry does remove segments that they feel are “too matchy.”

ThruLines DNAPainter percents.png

There’s a pretty large difference between 40% and almost 52%. I wonder if Ancestry is a victim of their own incorrect trees where relationships are reported inaccurately. If that’s how they are calculating these statistics, it could well explain the discrepancy.

I would think that genealogists who care enough to make the effort to enter their DNA information into Blaine Bettinger’s Shared cM Project, from which the DNAPainter tool is derived would care enough to make sure the relationships reported are accurate. You can contribute to this crowd-sourced effort here.

I have a total of 148 “Ancestor Gathered Descendant Trees.” I know for a fact that not all of them are accurate for any number of reasons, but what I do know is:

  • That my path to the ancestor is accurate because it’s my tree and I’ve spent 40 years performing original research and documenting those ancestors.
  • That I’m somehow related to these people, assuming that the segment is not identical by chance.
  • The identical by chance scenario can be lessened for each match by looking at the Shared Matches for hints based on other people that also descend from the same ancestor.

ThruLines shared matches.png

Checking my match with cousin Beverly to help eliminate the identical by chance scenario, I discover that I do have shared matches with her, and that two of the closest common matches are people I recognize. Becky from my example above and another cousin I know well – both who descend from the same lines and help confirm the legitimacy of Beverly’s match.

Ancestors Number Comments
Total ancestors in 7 generations 254
Ancestors with no DNA matches 20 German immigrant line
Missing Ancestors 14 No ancestor cards at all
Ancestors from my Tree with Gathered Descendants 149 My ancestor is accurate. Ancestor of matches may or may not be accurate.
Remainder 71

Group 4 – Ancestors with Unknown Parents But No ThruLine

These are the individuals I was truly hoping would have a potential ancestor.

With one exception, all of these 9 ancestors are females with no surnames. In the one case where the ancestor is a male, the potential father is incorrect and no mother is offered. Based on the other mothers offered connected to incorrect fathers, the mother would be the wife of the incorrect father.

Ancestors Number Comments
Total ancestors in 7 generations 254
Ancestors with no DNA matches 20 German immigrant line
Missing Ancestors 14 No ancestor cards at all
Ancestors from my Tree with Gathered Descendants 149 My ancestor is accurate. Ancestor of matches may or may not be accurate.
Ancestors with Unknown Parents 9 Generally, missing parents of females with no surnames and no potential parents offered.
Remainder 62

Group 5 – Ancestors Shown as Potential Ancestors are Already in Tree

In 3 cases, I have Potential Ancestor cards for the same exact person that is listed in my tree already, with much the same information, making me wonder why mine was ignored and the other offered as a replacement.

The good news is that the other person’s tree from where these suggestions arose looks to be quite well documented, so I look forward to contacting them and researching what they have attached.

Ancestors Number Comments
Total in 7 generations 254
Ancestors with no DNA matches 20 German immigrant line
Missing Ancestors 14 No ancestor cards at all
Ancestors from my Tree with Gathered Descendants 149 My ancestor is accurate. Ancestor of matches may or may not be accurate
Ancestors with Unknown Parents 9 Generally, missing parents of females with no surnames and no potential parents offered.
Potential Ancestors Already in Tree 5
Remainder 57

Group 6 – Possibly Accurate Potential Ancestors

Only two Potential Ancestors are possibly accurate. Both of these individuals are the parents of a known and proven ancestor. A cousin has done some research on this line and eliminated a number of candidates, but I need to work with her to research further to determine if the suggested couple has been researched or eliminated.

Ancestors Number Comments
Total in 7 generations 254
Ancestors with no DNA matches 20 German immigrant line
Missing Ancestors 14 No ancestor cards at all
Ancestors from my Tree with Gathered Descendants 149 My ancestor is accurate. Ancestor of matches may or may not be accurate
Ancestors with Unknown Parents 9 Generally, missing parents of females with no surnames and no potential parents offered.
Potential Ancestors Already in Tree 5
Possibly Accurate Potential Ancestors 2
Remainder 55

Group 7 – Inaccurate Potential Ancestors (‘Gator City)

I saved this group for last because it’s just painful. As a genealogist, I have to say that truthfully, the fact that Ancestry has suggested 55 ancestors that I know positively are inaccurate terrifies me for the sheer fact that less experienced genealogists will grab gleefully onto these “new ancestors” and perpetuate the Ancestry-provided incorrect trees like kudzu vines. The perception is that these trees are now “proven” by DNA – a statement I’ve seen repeatedly the past several days.

THESE ANCESTORS AND TREES ARE **NOT** PROVEN BY DNA!!!

These trees are predicated upon other people’s inaccurate trees with suggestions being made to replace your ancestors, currently in your trees, with other ancestors from other people’s trees. There seems to be no consistent logic that applies in ‘Gatorland.

The end result will be that even more people will receive inaccurate “Potential Ancestors” because there are yet more of those incorrect trees skewing the algorithm. I don’t know if the criteria for ancestor suggestion is “most numerous” tree or something else. This scenario is the very definition of a vicious ‘gator circle.

The incredibly frustrating aspect of ThruLines for me is when Ancestry ignores the ancestor in my tree that I’ve spent years (if not decades) researching and documenting, and instead suggests a “Potential Ancestor” that defies logic. LHM!

In some cases, such as with Lydia Brown, wife of William Crumley III, the widely disseminated Elizabeth Johnson is shown as the mother of my ancestor, Phoebe Crumley, instead of Lydia Brown. Not only is Elizabeth Johnson incorrect, it’s been proven incorrect for several years now via mitochondrial DNA, AND, I’ve written and published about this case.

Imagine my frustration, to put it mildly, to discover that Ancestry is now ignoring my carefully proven ancestor and suggesting that I replace her with the unproven, erroneous ‘gator. Not only that, but I fully suspect that my tree is NEVER going to be suggested to others, because it’s a (nearly) lone voice lost in the forest of incorrect ancestors.

Truthfully, this makes my blood boil – 55 separate painful times. Once for each incorrect ‘gator masquerading as an ancestor. Why would Ancestry think that replacing my ancestors in my tree with ones from other people’s trees is even remotely a good idea?

To suggest that I “consider” a different ancestor or information in another tree is vastly different than simply ignoring the ancestor I have in my tree and providing a “Potential Ancestor” replacement, like the one in my tree doesn’t even exist. (Not to mention that this attitude in and of itself is both arrogant and condescending.)

If I should consider a different ancestor, I’d at least like for that ancestor to have lived in remotely the right place and time. People did not have children at age 5 nor after they died (except occasionally for men within 9 months), nor did they have 30 children, nor were they married, having children and living in multiple places at the same time. Well, at least not most ancestors😊

The Quality of a potential tree should be part of the recommendation factor, especially if Ancestry is blithely ignoring my existing ancestor in favor of another potential ancestor from someone else’s tree.

Simply telling you how wrong these suggested Potential Ancestors are would not do the situation justice. I’ve documented the circumstances, briefly, with the hope that you will use my experience trying to sort through this ‘gator swamp as a warning for what to look for and consider in your own ThruLines, and how.

What’s worse, when Ancestry ignores your existing ancestor and suggests others, they don’t stop with that one ancestor, but then continue to suggest and propagate ancestors on up your tree for the erroneously suggested ancestors. These recommendations are not based on DNA or your existing ancestor in your tree but on “those other” trees alone.

Let’s look at an example of what Ancestry “suggested” for my Crumley branch. The red Xs document where Ancestry replaced a known ancestor with suggested incorrect ancestors – including on up the tree. (I should have used little ‘gators instead of Xs.)

Thrulines bad tree.png

Unknown H2a1 is an unknown wife of William Crumley II with the H2a1 mitochondrial haplogroup. Ancestry did not assign a potential ancestor for her, but obviously Ancestry “believes” that she was a Johnson, because her father is suggested as Andrew Johnson. Of course, this means that H2a1’s mother is incorrectly “suggested” as well as Andrew Johnson’s wife.

I know this is wrong, because Elizabeth Johnson was a second wife who married William Crumley in 1817, long after his son, my ancestor, William Crumley III was born in 1785. Therefore, it’s impossible that Elizabeth was William III’s mother. Not only that, she was 12 years YOUNGER than William Crumley III. Twelve years younger than her step-son.

Furthermore, Lydia Brown, the proven mother of Phebe Crumley through William Crumley III in the next generation, was ignored as well, and his wife was also given as Elizabeth Johnson through a different tree. This Elizabeth Johnson’s parents were assigned as different parents than the Elizabeth Johnson who married William Crumley II in 1817. Are you confused yet? Believe me, so was I and obviously, so are other people as well as Ancestry.

The end result of this is that not only were my existing ancestors ignored and replaced, but the erroneous trees that are themselves full of impossibilities for the person they are documenting are then suggested to replace mine. Those trees are then cobbled together by Ancestry in a Frankenstein mosaic of patched together ancestors that are blatantly wrong and very difficult to unravel.

And this in only one branch of my extended tree. This scenario happened on multiple branches. If you’re thinking to yourself, “How bad can this really be?”, here’s the graphic of every branch affected, and how.

That old “picture is worth 1000 words” thing.

If you think I’m overreacting, take a look at these graphics which do NOT include missing ancestors or the two that that might potentially be accurate – only the “Potential Ancestors” provided by Ancestry that I know positively are inaccurate.

ThruLines bad tree 2.png

The red Xs show where my ancestors have been ignored and alternative incorrect ancestors suggested as “potential ancestors.”

ThruLines bad tree 3.png

ThruLines bad tree 4.png

ThruLines bad tree 5.png

ThruLines bad tree 6.png

ThruLines bad tree 7.png

ThruLines bad tree 8.png

Thrulines bad tree 9.png

ThruLines bad tree 10.png

ThruLines bad tree 11.png

ThruLines bad tree 12.png

My tree is literally bleeding red Xs. And I just realized while proofing that there are now more than there were initially, and I missed one X. Sigh. The ‘gators are “propagatoring.”

If your jaw just dropped looking at those red Xs, let this serve as a warning for your own tree.

Below, brief descriptions of what is wrong, and how. Think of this as the ‘gator trap.

Ancestor Suggestion to Replace Accurate with Inaccurate Ancestor
Joseph Bolton My ancestor ignored and suggested similar Joseph Bolton from tree with significantly less information than mine.
Lydia Brown Proven incorrect ancestor based on widely spread speculative misinformation.
Elisabeth Mehlheimer’s mother I already have her mother, Elisabetha Mehlheimer, in my tree. Why suggest a “private” person instead? (This has since disappeared.)
William Moore Replaced my William with another William Moore proven via Y DNA not to be from the same line. The William they suggest has 30 children from 3 “wives” who are obviously the same woman by different variations of a common surname, with many “children” by the same name. This tree has obviously been constructed by indiscriminately “gathering” from other trees. Yet, that tree, according to Ancestry, trumped my own carefully curated tree.
Lucy, wife of William Moore Suggested wife of yet a different wrong William Moore, above, ignoring Lucy in my tree. Birth shown in Giles County, VA but also with an attached England birth document. Shows marriage to two different William Moores, at the same time, neither one where mine lived.
Daniel Vannoy Suggested his brother, Francis, ignoring Daniel in my tree. The Francis tree has many spurious references to IGI records, Family Data Collection and Ancestry trees, but does NOT include my Elijah as his child, so how Ancestry decided to make this connection is baffling.
Sarah Hickerson Suggested Daniel’s wife from a different tree than above where Elijah is included as a child. Which Vannoy brother fathered Elijah Vannoy was proven through DNA matches to the Hickerson family, not Millicent Henderson, wife of Francis Vannoy.
Jotham Brown Because the right wife, Lydia Brown, was ignored, the wrong line continued to be suggested upwards in the tree instead of Jotham Brown, Lydia’s proven father. This “private” tree is for Zopher Johnson, as shown by his connected children even though “Zopher” himself is private. Another Potential Ancestor shows Zopher as a card a generation earlier, along with wife Elizabeth Williamson Cooper, perpetuating this wrong information up the tree another generation.
Phoebe Cole Because the right wife, Lydia Brown, ignored, the wrong line continued to be suggested upwards in the tree instead of Phebe Cole, the wife of Jotham Brown, Lydia’s proven father in my tree. This “private” ancestor is for Catherine Harrison, wife of Zopher Johnson.
James Mann Substituted James Robert Mann, the wrong person, ignoring the accurate person. This continues upstream for 2 more generations.
Mary Cantrell Substituted Mary Jane Wilson, wife of James Robert Mann. The wrong line continued up the tree for 2 more generations.
Michael McDowell Suggested replacing my Michael with a different, less correct, possibly conflated, Michael McDowell.
Samuel Muncy Suggested Samuel Munsey-Muncy, ignoring my Samuel, from a tree that shows a Civil War service record for a man who died in the early 1800s and would have been about 100 during the Civil War. Miraculous! Lots of Family Data Collection and Ancestry Trees sources.
Andrew McKee Suggested replacing my Andrew with a different, incorrect “private” Andrew McKee. The original tree for Andrew has now been made completely private.
Elizabeth, wife of Andrew McKee Ignored my Elizabeth and suggested replacing with another Elizabeth. The matches look to be correct, so the other tree has the two Elizabeths conflated. The only source for the replacement tree is “Ancestry Family Trees.” Sheesh, Ancestry.
James Moore Ignored my proven ancestor and suggested replacing him with a William Moore proven via Y DNA not to be of the same line. This William in the person’s tree was said to be born in Henrico Co., VA, but has an attached birth record from England. Can’t be both.
Mary Rice Ignored Mary Rice and suggested Margaret Hudspeth, wife of the incorrect William Moore, above. Again, shown to be born in Henrico County, with English birth record attached along with IGI record as only sources.
Charles Hickerson Since Sarah Hickerson was ignored, the incorrect family line was perpetuated up the tree with a wrong ancestor for the second generation instead of Charles Hickerson.
Mary Lytle Since Sarah Hickerson was ignored, the incorrect family line was perpetuated up the tree with a wrong ancestor instead of Mary Lytle.
Sarah Rash Ignored mine and suggested replacing with a Sarah Rash that appears to be more fleshed out, but the dates are all based on records not belonging to the correct Sarah, including a birth in England despite a shown birth date in 1732 in Spotsylvania Co., VA. We have our Sarah’s birth from the family Bible.
William Moore’s wife, Lucy’s father Nancy Moore’s erroneously given mother’s supposed father, Samuel Little Harwell. This erroneous tree now perpetuated to the second generation.
William Moore’s wife, Lucy’s mother Nancy Moore’s erroneously given mother’s supposed mother, Anne Jackson. Woman who died in 1765 has a SSDA claim record and an 1800s immigration record, even though she was supposedly born in Brunswick Co, VA in 1712. Married Samuel Harwell 5 different times – clearly has simply collected and attached data to their tree without evaluation, but Ancestry thought it was “better” than my tree.
Jotham Brown’s father Because Lydia Brown was misidentified, so was Jotham Brown, and now his father as well, perpetuating garbage up the tree for two more generations
Jotham Brown’s mother Because Lydia Brown was misidentified, so was Jotham Brown, and now his mother as well, perpetuating garbage up the tree for two more generations
John Cole Since Phebe Cole was misidentified, so was her father.
Mary Mercy Kent Since Phebe Cole was misidentified, so was her mother
Michael McDowell Sr. Since the wrong Michael was identified earlier, a wrong father, John McDowell, was also identified, proven by Y DNA not to be related. The son of this John McDowell is yet a different John McDowell than the one Ancestry substituted for my John McDowell.
Wife of Michael McDowell Sr. We don’t know who she was, but we know she wasn’t Magdalena Woods, married to John McDowell. The Magdalena Woods tree they recommended includes 13 Ancestry Family Tree, Family Data Collection and IGI records as sources, plus a German birth record for a person born (supposedly) in 1705 in Ireland, according to the tree itself. Pretty tricky!
Isabel, wife of Michael McDowell Jr. Suggested private father, Ebenezer Hall, and erroneous mother, Dorcas Abbott who lived her entire life in New Hampshire, not Virginia.
James Claxton’s parents Suggested erroneous private father and mother, widely distributed but proven via Y DNA testing not to be of the same line. Ironically, there are other trees for this person that are not private. How and why Ancestry selected the private one is a mystery. Ancestry also suggested his mother, from another tree as Catherine Kathryn Caty Middleton which is incorrect as well.
Joel Cook Ignored Joel, proven ancestor via military records to suggest Henry Cook. Henry’s only daughter, Sarah, in the suggested tree would have been 5 years old when she married and 6 when her first child was born. Another miracle!
Alice, wife of Joel Cook Ignored Alice to suggest wife of Henry Cook from a different tree with the only source being Ancestry Family Trees.
Samuel Muncy Ignored Samuel to suggest Obediah Muncy.
Agnes Craven Ignored, Agnes, wife of Samuel Muncy to suggest “private” person who was the wife of Obediah listed as “Mrs. Obediah.”
Andrew McKee Ignored Andrew McKee who is proven to suggest Hugh McKee who did not live in the correct state to have his child. The next generation up the tree is also incorrect, suggesting a George McKee who had Elizabeth Barnes, mother of Ann McKee, according to Ancestry. Ann McKee’s mother was actually Martha (probably) McCamm. Another potential ancestor card suggests George McKee’s wife is Anna Elizabeth Carney with no sources at all.
Martha possibly McCamm Ignored Martha and suggested wife of Hugh McKee, Mary Nesbit, perpetuating erroneous information for another generation up the tree. Some very convoluted trees in this mess with only source being “Ancestry trees.” This has now been made entirely private.
Elizabeth, wife of Steven Ulrich. Ignored my Elizabeth and suggested Elizabeth Cripe, a surname/person that has been disproven but rampant in trees.
Marie LePrince Ignored proven genealogy that Marie LePrince is the mother of Marguerite de Forest and replaced with Marie Claire Rivet. Shown marrying both in France and in Nova Scotia.
Hannah Drew Ignored my Hannah Drew and replaced with wrong Hannah Drew from another tree with less information, showing only an Ancestry Family Tree and a record showing the birth of her son in England, while the rest of the tree shows his birth in the colonies.
Samuel Mitchell Ignored my Samuel Mitchell and replaced with an erroneous Samuel Mitchell who was supposed to have died in 1756 in Maine, but has a Michigan death record from after 1867. I had no idea people lived to be almost 200 years old. Wow!
Elizabeth, wife of Samuel Mitchell Ignored my Elizabeth and suggested Elizabeth Penglase as the mother of Catherine Mitchell. Elizabeth Penglase was born in 1698 in Kittery Maine, but with at London England birth/baptism attached to the record. Also shows her father as Christopher Mitchell and two marriages to her husband. Tree is very confused and conflated.
Susanna Koob Ignored Susanna who is proven and suggested replacement with Anna Margaretha Kirsch with only source being “Ancestry Family Trees.” No DNA matches, so how was this done, exactly?
John Herrell Ignored my John and substituted John Isaac Herrell, incorrectly from a different location, with no documentation.
John Herrell’s father Because John Herrell was incorrectly substituted, so is his father, shown as Davie Harrell.
Francois LaFaille’s father Suggested Jean Francois LaBelle who did not live in the right location to be the parent of Francoise LaFaille, nor is the surname correct.
Francois LaFaille’s mother Suggested Marie Genevieve Auger Baron who as the mother of Francois LaFaille, who was the wife of Jean Francois LaBelle.
Jacques De Foret Ignored proven ancestor, Jacques de Foret and replaced with Bonaventure Foret who did not live where my ancestor lived.

Evaluation

If you are looking for close cousins and know your tree well, you may well find some individuals with whom to collaborate based on the grouping of DNA matching descendants by ancestor. Perhaps you’ll be fortunate and discover previously unknown family photos, history or stories.

The further back in time ThruLines reaches, the more problematic the frankentrees that are unrelated to DNA become.

The suggested “replacements” of known, proven, ancestors with incorrect ancestors are found in my tree as follows:

  • 1 individual at generation 4
  • 2 individuals at generation 5
  • 12 individuals at generation 6
  • 40 individuals at generation 7

Here’s the final scorekeeping chart.

Ancestors Number Comments
Total ancestors in 7 generations 254
Ancestors with no DNA matches 20 German immigrant line
Missing Ancestors 14 No ancestor cards at all
Ancestors from my Tree with Gathered Descendants 149 My ancestor is accurate. Ancestor of matches may or may not be accurate
Ancestors with Unknown Parents 9 Generally, missing parents of females with no surnames and no potential parents offered.
Potential Ancestors Already in Tree 5
Possibly Accurate Potential Ancestors 2
Correct Ancestors Replaced by Incorrect Potential Ancestors 55

By any measure, this is an abysmal report card relative to “Potential Ancestors,” with only 2 potential new ancestors that could be accurate and 55 wildfires that can never be extinguished – with gasoline thrown on, encouraged and propagated by Ancestry themselves. What a terrible example of stewardship. This is not just a disservice to me, but to the entire genealogy community. We should be striving for accuracy, not feeding the ‘gators and fertilizing Kudzu vines frankentrees.

Goals and Benefits

My goal with genetic genealogy, and genealogy as a whole, is fourfold, as shown in the following chart. The questions is, how does ThruLines help me achieve these goals?

Goal ThruLines
To confirm known ancestors through DNA

 

This is best achieved by segment matching which Ancestry does not provide, but less conclusive evidence can certainly be obtained through close matches and shared matches that match both me and close family members. Unfortunately, Circles which is a form of genetic networks would provide additional confirmation but is being discontinued.
To document the lives of my ancestors accurately for future generations

 

ThruLines encourages the propagation of erroneous trees by suggesting them, by linking to them, and by failing to use any discernible quality measure. A quality tree is NOT a tree with conflicting sources about the same event, the same timeframe or unreliable sources such as “Ancestry Family Trees.” We, as individuals, can’t put these fires out as fast as Ancestry flames them, especially if quality trees are discounted for larger “scavenged” trees. Size does not = accuracy.
To break through brick walls

 

The two individuals that I have yet to research, as well as perhaps viewing trees for others whose DNA I match and share a common ancestor may be illuminating. It would be difficult to sift through the chaff for a newer genealogist.
To reconstruct and paint the DNA of my ancestors For this, I need at least segment data, if not a chromosome browser. I hope that Ancestry customers will transfer their DNA files to FamilyTreeDNA, MyHeritage and GedMatch to reap the added advantages of the tools at those sites – including the availability of segment information and the resulting confirmation ability.

ThruLines Recommendations

The “Potential Ancestor” feature could have been, and still can be presented in an entirely different way, facilitating responsible genealogy, including the following:

  1. Extremely visible and repeated warnings cautioning that ThruLines are not definitive, only hints and MUST BE VERIFIED with research.
  2. Do not ignore the ancestor in the customer’s tree.
  3. Providing “suggestions” to look at alternate ancestors or trees for additional information for ancestors, not doling out “potential ancestors” to replace your existing ancestors.
  4. Implementing artificial intelligence (machine learning) for accuracy including factors such as looking for multiple births in various locations (a person can only be born once), cobbled together frankentrees, multiple marriages at the same time in different places, births too late or early in the lives of potential parents, and more red flag factors that should down-weight trees as being “recommendation worthy.”
  5. Sharing with the customer why these trees were considered as recommendation worthy, similar to the MyHeritage confidence factor and side-by-side comparisons.
  6. Eliminating “Ancestry Trees,” IGI records and other similar “word of mouth” types of sources as being “recommendation worthy.”
  7. The ability to “dismiss” a “Potential Ancestor” suggestion and for that dismissal to be part of the AI learning process relative to future recommendations.
  8. Ability to group ThruLines, such as by categories: Dismiss (inaccurate), Accurate and processed, Reviewed but unknown accuracy, In Process, New and not yet reviewed, etc.
  9. Restoration of shared ancestor hints.
  10. Fix bug in common ancestors causing no matches with common ancestors to be found, which I would presume is supposed to replace Shared Ancestor Hints.
  11. Permanently archiving Circles and NADs.
  12. If the Circles must be replaced, find another way to provide a genetic network that includes people who descend from the same ancestor, have DNA tested and match some of the people in the Circle or NAD but not everyone.
  13. The ability to know when looking at a tree of a descendant of an ancestor if they have tested, and if so, if they match you.
  14. Much more adequate product testing before release. By any measure, this release has been miserable and was not adequately tested in advance. No one expects new code to be bug-free, but this is unacceptable.

Ancestry, I hope you’re listening, cause the ‘gators are circling and you need to help us escape from this mess you created.

Gator

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on the link to one of the vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay, but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

Ancestry’s Disappearing ThruLines – Now You See Them, Now You Don’t

Ancestry has quite a mess on its hands right now, and genealogists are losing their collective minds. I have some information here to help.

You are always welcome to post links to my articles on other sites, but this article in particular may help many people – so please feel free to pass it on.

I’ve been trying to write an article on ThruLines, but the Ancestry site has been experiencing so many issues that I can’t manage to actually get through my ThruLines to evaluate them and write the article.

There are two different scenarios:

  • You’ve never had ThruLines and you aren’t sure if they have been rolled out to your account yet. They will be rolled out to everyone through the month of March.
  • You’ve had ThruLines, but now you don’t and your account has reverted back, meaning ThruLines no longer shows and the Circles placard has returned, or the Ancestry site simply doesn’t work and says the pages are no longer present.

Scenario 1 – Never Had ThruLines – Does My Account Even Have Them at All?

If you’re never had ThruLines yet, or aren’t sure, you need to do the following in order to qualify for ThruLines and to make sure they work.

For ThruLines to work, you must be sure:

  • Your tree is connected to your DNA.
  • Your tree is either public or a private searchable tree. Unsearchable trees won’t have ThruLines.
  • Your tree is at least 3 or 4 generations deep.
  • You only have one kit for any individual person connected to that person in the same tree. If you have multiple kits for the same person connected to one tree, only one kit will have ThruLines. If this is your situation, you can create a “twin” to yourself in your tree and attach the second kit to that person and both kits should get ThruLines. There aren’t many people like me who have tested twice with AncestryDNA, so this shouldn’t be a problem for most people.

You can have multiple kits attached to the same tree, but each kit must be connected to a different person in the tree

Do the following:

At the top of your Ancestry DNA Summary page, you’ll see “Extras.” Click there and then on Ancestry Lab.

ThruLines Ancestrylab.png

To enable Ancestry’s new features, you’ll see the following screen.

ThruLines Ancestrylab enable.png

I’m not positive you need to enable to active ThruLines, but if you want the other new features, you definitely do, so enable just to be sure.

If you see this next “we’re sorry” screen instead of the one above, you’ll need to move to the Scenario 2 and clear your cookies, but read the instructions all the way through, first, please – to save yourself a lot of grief.

ThruLines sorry.png

Do You Have ThruLines on Your Account?

If you’ve already had access to ThruLines and now it’s not functioning correctly, move to the next section, Scenario 2. If you’ve never had ThruLines, read this.

If you don’t have access to ThruLines, you’ll see this screen with Circles showing to the far right:

ThruLines not available.png

If you have access to ThruLines, but you don’t have any ThruLines, you’ll see this placard, below:

ThruLines available but you have none.png

You do have ThruLines if you see the next screen, with the green “Explore ThruLines” box at the bottom of the ThruLines box. Click on that green box to view your ThruLines.

Thrulines present.png

Scenario 2 – You Had ThruLines But Don’t Now or They Don’t Work

I had ThruLines on one of my two accounts. They were present and I was working through them one at a time – right up until they stopped working a couple days ago. Initially, it was flakey, like the Ancestry site was having problems, but then, the old screen showing the Circles placard in place of ThruLines reappeared and ThruLines were entirely gone.

This, on top of the issues with the ThruLines themselves is proving incredibly frustrating. I’ve called ThruLines an array of not-very-complimentary names derived from Thru…but I’ll be the better person and not print those here:)

I waited, not so patiently I must admit, but today in the Genetic Genealogy Tips and Techniques group of Facebook, Paula Williams posted about how to clear specific cookies. Not ALL of your cookies and not your cache – just the Ancestry cookies. I was very skeptical, since “clear your cookies” is always the “go to” answer when the answer is unknown and it almost never works. It’s kind of the last resort and won’t hurt anything, but will make it so that no “memory” functions if you have sites that remember your preferences, for example.

However, Paula’s instructions tell you how to clear specific cookies for one site only, and they aren’t destructive to other cookies.

Best of all, this actually worked to correct the “disappeared” ThruLines issue.

I have no idea why Ancestry is having so many problems right now, but these suggestions should help you restore your ThruLines if they have disappeared or the Ancestry site is acting flakey.

Good luck and thanks to Paula. Instructions reproduced with permission, below.

Deleting Specific Site Cookies

Many of us have had issues with Ancestry in the last day or so. Deleting your Ancestry cookies should fix problems such as not being able to load pages. This particular issue is in the cookies, so you’ll need to delete your **cookies** and not your cache.

Here are some links that explain how to delete your cookies. Do note that many of these sites also explain how to delete cookies from just one site, so you can delete just your Ancestry cookies if you’re afraid to delete any others.

Chrome (note the Computer, Android, and iPhone/iPad tabs just above the words “Clear All Cookies”) :
https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95647…

FireFox:
https://support.mozilla.org/…/clear-cookies-and-site-data-f…

Safari (Mac):
https://support.apple.com/…/manage-cookies-and-website-…/mac

Safari (iPhone / iPad):
https://support.apple.com/lv-lv/HT201265

Microsoft Edge:
https://support.microsoft.com/…/4027…/windows-delete-cookies

Internet Explorer:
https://support.microsoft.com/…/windows-internet-explorer-d…

If I’ve missed your browser, go to Google and search for “delete specific cookies” (without the quotation marks) and your browser or device – for example, delete specific cookies Samsung Galaxy.

I’ll still be writing about ThruLines as soon as I can actually finish the review.

Other Options

With or without ThruLines working, there are other DNA comparison options you may want to consider.

The MyHeritage Theories of Family Relativity tool is working fine and you can transfer your DNA file easily.

Both GedMatch and FamilyTreeDNA, although they didn’t make any announcements of new products recently work just fine too. You can also compare your segments at all three sites which you can’t do at Ancestry.

I wrote about how to transfer to MyHeritage here and FamilyTreeDNA here.

Have fun, enjoy!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on the link to one of the vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay, but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.