Genetic Genealogy Update

Kris Hocker on 1 May 2018

Ancestry Ethnicity Map

The AncestryDNA growth trend doesn’t seem to be slowing down. As of the beginning of the end of April, Ancestry had nine million DNA testers in the database. If my match list is anything to go by that number is growing fast.

Autosomal Testing Growth - The DNA Geek

Autosomal Testing Growth, courtesy of The DNA Geek

In February I reported that I had 408 pages or 20,373 DNA matches. That number has gone up to 24,177 matches (484 pages). 409 were added in the last seven days alone, including another of my Dad’s cousins (YAY!). While the numbers at other vendors aren’t quite so large, the growth trend is consistent there, too.

DNA test match numbers

DNA test match numbers

It’s both overwhelming and exciting. On the one hand, there’s just no way to keep up with the additions. Most of the cousins added are in the 5th-8th cousin range—a whopping 97%. The likelihood of finding a common ancestor there is small—especially when there are no family trees to compare. On the other hand, each new cousin who tests could be the one to help me break through to a whole new generation or surname to research. Having a research strategy is crucial.

By the way, if you’ve been thinking of testing, now is a great time to buy. All the vendors are celebrating Mother’s Day with a DNA sale. Here’s a list of vendors and sale prices.

Adding to the Mix

As I’ve mentioned, I uploaded my Ancestry raw DNA file to MyHeritage. They not only offer ethnicity results and relative matching, but also a chromosome browser—so you can see exactly where you and your relative match, triangulation—previously only available through 23 and me and GEDmatch, and the ability to download individual matches or all your matches.

23 and Me recently—for one day—allowed AncestryDNA testers to upload their results. In return, the user gets to see their ethnicity summary and the results to four of their health reports. To be honest, I’m not exceptionally interested in either, but I took it as an opportunity to see what the company has to offer.

The ethnicity composition at each was pretty consistent with what I know and what Ancestry and Family Tree DNA reported. MyHeritage reported that I’m European: 75.1% North & West European (France, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, and parts of Italy, Austria, Czech Republic and Poland) and 24.9% Irish, Scottish and Welsh. 23 and Me reported that I’m 99% European with trace amounts from Western Asia & North Africa and East Asia & Native American. The latter percentages are so small that they likely represent ancient DNA.

Ethnicity charts

(Click to enlarge)

Although the percentages vary, you can see that most of the results across the four testing companies are not that far off each other. The consensus is that I’m primarily of northwest European descent with a few ancestors from adjoining areas of Europe, as well.

What I found really interesting was 23 and me’s “Ancestry Composition Chromosome Painting.” This “predicts the ancestral origin of different parts of your DNA by comparing them to reference populations.” The granularity of sub-continent identification looks a bit different a varying confidence levels.

I’ve been mapping ancestors to DNA segments and painting my chromosomes using Genome Mate Pro and DNA painter. I wonder if I map this chart to the same chromosome map will it match what I know of those ancestors? What, if anything, might it tell me about the ancestry of some of those ancestors whose parentage has not yet been identified? For instance, who did I inherit the Iberian DNA from on my x-chromosome? What about that Eastern European on chromosome 6? Or the British & Irish I apparently inherited on both sides of chromosome 22?

Fascinating.

Clusters

I’ve been looking at clusters of Shared Matches lately on AncestryDNA, especially those who match my known Hocker relatives. I’ve been trying to find groups that may help me identify some of the unidentified ancestors of my great great grandmother Lillian Ainsley (Leedy) Hocker.

Sometimes in reviewing your matches you run into groups of cousins who all seem to appear in each other’s Shared Match lists. Without triangulation tools, it’s impossible to know whether the DNA you share all comes from the same common ancestor, but you can still use these Shared Matches to gain valuable insight.

If you recall, I used the matches I shared with several Snyder cousins to determine the maiden name of Henry Snyder’s mother Catharine is most likely Nuss. In researching the Shared Matches, I found I could trace a large number of them back to Conrad Nuss and Anna Margaretha Roeder. Further research into this couple revealed that not only did they have a daughter named Catharine of the correct age to be Henry’s mother, but the husbands of several of her sisters were named in the papertrail associated with Jacob and Catharine Snyder’s family.

I’m using this same technique to look at those individuals who match the descendants I’ve identified of Anthony Parsons and Catharine Bowerman. Catharine’s parentage is unproven—though I may have found candidates. I also have not proven the ancestry of Anthony’s mother. Like Catharine’s I’ve seen online family trees with family named, but, as is common, I have not seen evidence to support these identifications. Sorry, for me, other family trees do not count as evidence—clues, yes, evidence, no. So, I’m using the DNA matches to direct my research in the records. So far, it’s been minimally successful.

That’s the latest update on my genetic genealogy research. How’s yours going?

The Rupert Family of Armstrong County Who Were They and How Am I Related to Them?

Kris Hocker on 23 Apr 2018

In going through my DNA matches I occasionally come across clusters of shared matches (matches who all seem to match each other). Sometimes I know how I am related to them, sometimes I’m able to tie them to a brick wall ancestor—as with Catharina (Nuss) Schneider, but more often I’m left with a bunch of “relatives” with no clue as to how we’re related.

Such is the situation I’ve found myself in with a cluster of matches who are all descended from the Rupert family of Armstrong County. Of the 25 or so in the cluster, about nine of them also match several of my known Hoover relatives. Christian and Caroline (Kinnard) Hoover were both born in Armstrong County, so this makes sense. But I’ve traced the Hoover line back to the immigrant Michael Huber and I’ve found nary a hint of a connection to the Rupert family.

What I have found is my Hoovers (and Thomas’ and Kinnards) living in close proximity to the Ruperts. Take the 1800 federal census enumeration for Buffalo Township, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, for instance.

1800 census for Buffalo, Armstrong, PA

1800 census for Buffalo, Armstrong, PA (click image to enlarge)

George and Christian Hoover are enumerated just above Peter Rupert.1 In 1810, George Hoover is listed fourteen lines after Peter Rupert Sr. and four lines before Peter Rupert Jr.2 Christian Hoover is enumerated with Catharine Rupert, Henry Rupert, George Rupert, Frederick Rupert, and John Rupert on the following page.3

1810 census for Kittanning, Armstrong, PA

1810 census for Kittanning, Armstrong, PA (click image to enlarge)

The 1820 census is listed in alphabetical order, so it will tell us nothing about locational proximity, but in the 1830 census the Hoovers are near the beginning of Plum Creek Township’s list and the Ruperts near the end.4 Philip Hoover and Thomas Kinnard—Christian and Caroline (Kinnard) Hoover’s parents—are living near Charles Rupert, Philip Rupert, George Rupert Sr. and Peter Rupert in 1840.5 This trend continues in the following years for several of my Armstrong County families—Hoover, Kinnard, and Thomas.

So, who were these Ruperts? Is there a connection that can be traced backwards from Armstrong County to earlier locations?

The Ruperts

The Rupert family is fairly well documented online. The Armstrong County branches are actually descended from two Rupert men—Heinrich Peter Rupert and George Carl Rupert—who arrived in Philadelphia on 2 October 1749 aboard the ship Jacob. They both married and settled in Northampton County, Pennsylvania.

Henry and George Rupert signatures

Henry and George Rupert signatures from ship Jacob (list C)

Each man had a son named Peter—Henry in 1755 and George in 1768. Peter (1755) married George’s daughter Elizabeth and Peter (1768) married Henry’s daughter Catharina. These two families both left Northampton County and immigrated to Armstrong County—first Peter and Elizabeth, then Peter and Catharina years later.

What’s the Connection?

My Hoovers came to Armstrong County via Westmoreland, Somerset and Dauphin counties, the Thomas family by way of Lancaster and Westmoreland counties, and the Kinnards by way of Philadelphia and Westmoreland counties. There doesn’t appear to have been a connection between these families, not in migration paths, nor in a pattern of interfamily marriage.

The DNA matches for whom I’ve been able to build trees can all be traced back to Peter (1755) and his wife Elizabeth through their children: Peter (1779), George (1780), Frederick (1784), Elizabeth (1785), and Jacob (1795). According to Ancestry’s estimates, these descendants match me in the 4th-6th and 5th-8th cousin ranges—so 5 to 9 generations back. Assuming, of course, that these estimates are correct and the DNA segments weren’t really passed along even further back.

The matching segments I share with these relatives range from 7.3 centimorgans to 34 centimorgans. Researchers estimate that about 40% of segments measuring 20 centimorgans date back nine generations.6

Unfortunately, cousin marriages abound in the early American Rupert generations. This elevates the likelihood that the DNA we all share is higher than usual for our actual relationship and the connection is further back than the estimated 6-10 generations.

George and Eva Elisabetha (___) Hoover and Garret and Maria Magdalena (___) Thomas were my 6G grandparents—eight generations back. Thomas and Maria (Fisher) Kinnard were my 4G grandparents—six generations back. If the connection is back eight generations or more I may not be able to find it. It is likely that it may not even be here in the United States.

Genetic genealogy can be very beneficial in confirming your research and aiding in identifying new areas of research. But sometimes, I’ll admit, it can be extremely frustrating, too.

A Father for Catharine Parsons? DNA Match Suggests the Bowerman Family of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

Kris Hocker on 19 Apr 2018

A new AncestryDNA match recently popped up in my account. While our shared ancestral names included Harmon, Yeager and Lenhart, I found a possible match through the Bowerman family.

According to her family tree, this cousin traces her ancestry back to William and Maria Elisabeth (Schott) Bowerman. William was born about 1786 in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania and likely died about 1810-11 in Dauphin County. William’s brother John was born about 1784 in Northumberland County and died in April 1816 in Dauphin County. Their father Johannes was born about 1756-1761 in Northampton County and died about 1835.

Online family trees show that all three—William, John, and Johannes—had daughters named Catharina. Two of the women—William’s daughter and sister—are identified as the wife of Anthony Parsons in various trees. These two women were born about twenty years apart.

Which woman, if either, was the wife of Anthony Parsons (1793-1834)?

Anthony and Catharine (Bowerman) Parsons

What do I know about this couple? Not too much.

Anthony Parsons died intestate in Perry County, Pennsylvania on 24 March 1834. On 7 January 1835, his children, George, Anthony, Sarah, and William, petitioned the Orphans’ Court for a guardian.1 The court appointed George Parsons, most likely their uncle. George Varns’, the administrator of Anthony’s estate, presented a copy of his administration account to the court for confirmation on 4 April 1836.2

Anthony was the son of James Parsons (1752-1825) and Elizabeth (___) (1765-1835). He had brothers William (1788-1842), James (1795-1873), and George (1798-1848), and a sister, Elizabeth.

James Parsons Sr. wrote his last will and testament in 1823. In it, he mentions his son Anthony specifically. “I devise to my son Anthony Parsons the Fifty-Two Acres that I bought from John Thompson be it more or less for his use & support of his wife and & children during his life and when his oldest son comes of age ‘if after the death of his father’ if he be sober & industrious to have forever, but if he be not sober & worthy of the same then the same to be sold by my Executors and the proceeds equally divided amongst his Anthony’s children the disposal to his eldest son being at the discretion of my Executors, to whom I devise the said Estate in trust for the use of the aforesaid.”3

James’ will raises some questions regarding Anthony. James, it seems, had some reason to doubt that Anthony’s eldest son would be “sober & worthy” in 1823. To the best of my knowledge, Anthony did not have any children in 1823.4 Which makes me wonder if James deemed Anthony sober & worthy of any inheritance.

Anthony appears in the 1830 United States census for Buffalo Township with one male under five, one male 30-40, and 1 female 10-15.5 The young male was James and Catharine’s son George, born in 1826. Anthony was the male aged 30 to 40. Who was the 10 to 15 year-old female? It is unlikely his wife was aged 10-15 (at least I certainly hope not!). Perhaps she was marked in the wrong category?

Anthony and Catharine had at least four children, as follows:

  • George Parsons (1 Jun 1826-12 Jan 1860)
  • Anthony Parsons Jr. (28 Jun 1830-29 May 1912)
  • Sarah Parsons (29 Feb 1832-13 Dec 1926)
  • William Parsons (ca 1834-?)

Catharine Parsons died sometime after 7 January 1835 and before 23 March 1842.6 Her son George petitioned the Orphans Court on 10 January 1851 for the administrator of her estate to settle her account.7 There had been a delay because the original administrator William Parsons, her brother-in-law, had died. William’s estate administrator had also died in the meantime, and the subsequent administrator had not settled Catharine’s estate.8 Benjamin Parke, the administrator, answered the Court’s citation and refused to file an account. I could find no more records regarding her estate.

I have very little information about Catharine. The one census record I’ve been able to locate that should include her, either doesn’t or shows incorrect information. I have no birth date. If I assume she was at least 18 years-old at the birth of her first known child, then she had to have been born by 1808 at the latest. I have no date of death and with current sources can only narrow my estimate down to a seven year period.

If she is one of the two Bowerman girls, she was born either about 17889 or in 1808.10 Anthony was born in 1793; a wife five years his elder is not that much of a stretch. However, given James’ will, I can easily picture Anthony as a lazy, intemperate soul, and that man, I think, would be more inclined to marry a younger woman.

Furthermore, the elder Catharine would have been 38 years-old at the time of George’s birth, the younger 18 years-old. Of the two, it makes much more sense to me for Anthony’s wife to have been the woman born in 1808. If the elder Catharine had been previously married, then the timeline would make sense. But I’ve found no evidence of another family.

If she had older children, they would have been old enough to pursue her estate much earlier than 1851 and may have even been named as the administrator along with William Parsons. That it was 25 year-old George Parsons who petitioned the court makes me believe that there weren’t older interested parties.

Conclusions

Ancestry places my relationship to this Bowerman cousin between fourth and sixth cousins. Catharine (Bowerman) Parsons was my fourth great grandmother. A match through her proposed parents William and Maria Elisabetha (Schott) Bowerman would be a fifth cousin match. Because this cousin is one generation closer to William than I am, our exact relationship would be fifth cousins once removed.

This relationship is one of a number of possible relationships given our shared amount of DNA (24.1 centimorgans). The average shared centimorgans for this relationship is 21 centimorgans (cMs) with a range of 0 to 79 cMs. The average for sixth cousins—our match if Johannes Bowerman is our common ancestor—is also 21 cMs. So, the amount of shared DNA doesn’t exactly help predict the relationship.

If we share a relationship through this Bowerman line, I’m inclined to believe that our most recent common ancestor is William Bowerman, not his father Johannes. However, at this point in time, I do not have any data beyond this DNA match to suggest this relationship, let alone prove it.

Topics from the Timeline Social Sunday

Kris Hocker on 15 Apr 2018

It’s that time again. Time to share articles and posts that have caught my attention in social media and around the web. Here are some of the items I’ve found and shared recently.

The 1873 Colfax Massacre Crippled the Reconstruction Era “One of the worst incidents of racial violence after the Civil War set the stage for segregation” – There are some periods that high school history just didn’t cover well enough for me. Reconstruction is one of them.

New Research Dispels the Myth that Ancient Cultures Had Universally Short Lifespans – There is not current universally accepted method to identify the (ancient) remains of the elderly, resulting in those over 40 all being lumped into one category. One researcher hopes her method can disprove the accepted belief that short lifespans were the norm in ancient cultures. Some of my relatives lived very long lifespans—even by today’s standards—in the 18th century. Apparently the wear and tear on our teeth is the key to identifying the remains of the elderly.

Why putting a citizenship question on the census is a big deal – The census is supposed to count everyone in the United States, not just citizens. Those of us with immigrant ancestors are grateful for it. But in this age of detentions and deportations, this question will most likely make it unlikely non-citizens will be willing to answer accurately, if at all.

Snapshot of Ireland a century ago: an online photographic archive – If you have Irish ancestors an online photographic archive on Ancestry UK may be of interest to you.

Genealogists vs. Historians – Amy Johnson Crow has some thoughts on this debate. What do you think?

Time to paint – Are you using DNA Painter? The Legal Genealogist explains how to use it to “paint your chromosome.” It’s not hard and it doesn’t take a lot of time. I was impressed by just how many segments she was able to identify. I’m nowhere close to that! (Note: to use it you’ll need to have your DNA at 23 and Me, FTDNA, MyHeritage, or GEDmatch; you need segment information to paint.)

Questions You Always Wanted To Ask About Life In Colonial New England: Doctors, Medicine and the Treatment of Illness – Do you have questions about medical care in colonial New England? The Family Connection blog has some answers.

Dear Randy: Why Do You Use U.S. Census Sources from Ancestry.com Rather than FamilySearch? – On the other hand, I try to use FamilySearch for census records I share on this site. Not everyone has an Ancestry account and FamilySearch (for now at least) is free to access.

Please Upload Your DNA Results to Gedmatch.com – Jenealogy and I share the same plea. If you need instructions on how to upload to GEDmatch, you can find them in this post.

Who Owns Your Genetic Information? – The DNA Geek responded to media attention to DNA testing with an article that explains the ins-and-outs and explains each company’s terms and conditions.

The Secrets of the X Chromosome – The X chromosome does more that just determine sex.

Ohio Historical Timeline, 1614-1845 – If you have ancestors who settled in Ohio, this timeline may be of interest to you. When and where did lands “open up” for settlement?

What have you found interesting in your social media timeline or around the web?

Social Sunday - Topics from the Timeline

Photo by Brooke Cagle on Unsplash

Hamming It Up

Kris Hocker on 4 Apr 2018

1930 band hamming on ship

1930 band hamming it up on ship

In 1930, after his sophomore year at Penn State University, my grandfather travelled to Europe. In order to pay for his trip, he worked as a musician in the ship band. They apparently had a very enjoyable trip across the pond. Grandpa played the trumbone (second man on left).

1930 Glasgow ship's passenger list

Glasgow ship’s passenger list (1930)

He returned to the United States, arriving in the port of New York on 6 September 1930, on board the S.S. Transylvania sailing from Glasgow.

It’s the Little Things that Count MyHeritage Keeps Improving

Kris Hocker on 28 Mar 2018

MyHeritage has recently added several improvements to MyHeritage DNA above and beyond those I wrote about in Stepping Up the DNA Game. They’ve gone from an afterthought in my genetic genealogy work to an “I’ll have to check them out” and now to “I am really liking this site.”

Navigation

Working through a long list of matches can be time consuming and challenging, especially if you can’t easily pick up where you left off. MyHeritage has added two new features that users have requested to help.

MyHeritage Choose Page to View

Page navigation

Page Navigation

The first is to add page navigation so that you can jump to a specific page (see right). This means if you leave off reviewing your matches at page 125, you can quickly jump back to that page when you come back to the site.1 It also shows you just how many pages of results you have. You don’t have to guess.

Results Per Page
MyHeritage Choose Number of Results

Results per page

The second allows you to choose how many results you want to see on each page. Don’t have a fast connection or maybe limited screen space and don’t want a long list to scroll through, set it to the minimum (10). Want to see more, bump it up all the way up (50). You choose.

Distant Cousin Labeling

They’ve also changed how distant matches—those with relatively little shared DNA—are labelled. Initially, they were labelled “3rd cousin to 5th cousin.” While some of these matches may have fit into this category, not all did. They may have been more distantly related or even false matches.

Now, those matches with low shared DNA with Medium or Low confidence are now labelled “3rd cousin to distant cousin.” This will help you to better identify how closely you are related to your matches.

Triangulation

I talked about MyHeritage’s triangulation in my previous posts—Stepping Up the DNA Game and Triangulation Hiccups. MyHeritage added a new method of identifying which matches triangulate with each other.
MyHeritage Triangulated Segments

Now when you view a match, if a shared match is triangulated—all three of you match in the same DNA location—a triangulation symbol (see right) will appear in the shared match’s row.

Clicking on the symbol will take you to the Chromosome Browser where you can see exactly how the three of you match. Now you don’t have to go to the Chromosome Browser, search for the specific people, and add them to the browser to determine if you, your cousin and a shared match all triangulate or not. MyHeritage has done that work for you.

In my opinion, this is a big improvement on Ancestry’s shared matches. Triangulation allows you to determine that you share a common ancestor. Without it a shared match could match your cousin on a different line that doesn’t match you and you wouldn’t know it.

Kudos to MyHeritage for listening to their users and building a DNA tool that we can not only use to take our genealogy to the next level, but better meets our user experience requirements as well.

Triangulation Hiccups Not Quite Perfect Yet

Kris Hocker on 16 Mar 2018

As great as this MyHeritage upgrade sounds, it’s likely going to have some hiccups to overcome. MyHeritage initially had some issues with its matching system1 that were greatly improved with a major update to the system in January.2 It appears there are still some kinks to iron out in the triangulation process, too.

Currently, some users are reporting issues with matches who should triangulate—as shown on other platforms like GEDmatch—but are not triangulating on MyHeritage. Limiting the number compared at one time can apparently impact whether specific matches triangulate, even when they do not triangulate as a group.

I examined two of my mother’s matches (match A & B) whose DNA overlaps on chromosome 17. They triangulate—Mom matches A; Mom matches B; and A matches B. When I compare my Mom, match A, and myself, we also triangulate. However, if I add match B to the mix…no triangulation.

MyHeritage Chromosome Browser Triangulation

MyHeritage Chromosome Browser Triangulation

Match B does not show up on my match list, even though based on my comparison to Mom and match A, they should. (This is not the sole example of a person who should also match me and doesn’t.)

And it’s not an inconsequential piece of DNA. The triangulating segment is nearly 20 centimorgans. It’s not an incidental segment. A lot of the DNA matches I’ve identified sit at this end of the scale, including most of my Schneider-Nuss cousins.

MyHeritageDNA has come a long way in a short time. Once they’ve worked out the issues some users have been experiencing, I think their tools are going to uniquely position them in the marketplace. Add a marketing drive in Europe to attract more European testers and their value proposition will improve even more. I’m going to be keeping an eye on them. I may even find their site becoming the first I turn to for my genetic genealogy.

Stepping Up The DNA Game

Kris Hocker on 12 Mar 2018

When MyHeritage started accepting uploads of DNA results from Ancestry, I uploaded right away. I didn’t initially have a lot of matches, but I figured that would change over time. I still don’t have anywhere close to the number of matches that I have on Ancestry. But that’s okay. Because MyHeritage has something just as good—useful tools.

Like Ancestry, MyHeritage list the matches you share with a particular person. Unlike Ancestry, they also show the match’s estimated relationship to both you and that person, and how much DNA you each share with that person.

MyHeritage also displays your match’s ethnicities. But MyHeritage shows how your ethnicites compare to your match and highlight which you have in common.

Best of all? MyHeritage has a chromosome browser! You can see exactly where you share DNA—which chromosome, which genomic position, and how large a segment—right on the match’s page. You can also download this information—so that you can use it in a program like Genome Mate Pro or DNAPainter for further analysis.

And with MyHeritage’s announcement during RootsTech, it’s gotten even better!

Upgrade

Not only does MyHeritage have the Chromosome Browser on each matches’ page for a one-to-one comparison, you can now compare up to seven individuals in their new One-to-Many Chromosome Browser.1 This allows you to discover where your shared matches actually match. Furthermore, it will show you triangulated segments.

“If a match is shown as triangulated, it means that you, A, and B all match each other precisely on that segment, and therefore all of you are probably related, and you probably got that triangulated segment from the same common ancestor.”

Since this is the point of testing—verifiable relationships—this is awesome and MyHeritage is the only vendor offering it for free.

Furthermore, not only can you export the segment information for each match individually, you can now download all your matches and the shared DNA segment information for all your matches at once or download the shared DNA information for the matches you compare in the One-to-Many Chromosome Browser.

Wait! There’s more planned for the future.2

The company has created one big family tree based on everyone who has tested with them or uploaded DNA to be processed by them. They use this to determine your estimated relationship with your DNA matches.

The next step—and this is the future talking, the near future—is to combine your DNA matches, their trees, and their collected documentation to construct a family tree for you and your matches. They call this the “Theory of Family Relativity.” It would still need to be verified via research, of course, but would provide at minimum a starting point for that research.3

Cool, huh? For some of my matches, this would be invaluable.

For the details of this and other announcements, please visit the MyHeritage Blog (https://blog.myheritage.com).

1928 Pennsburg High School Band

Kris Hocker on 7 Mar 2018

1928 Pennsburg High School Band

1928 Pennsburg High School Band

My grandmother, Mildred (Wieder) Greulich, is the girl standing on the left, holding her violin. I believe we still have one of her violins, perhaps this one.

Do you know any of the other band members?

Social Sunday (March) Topics from my timeline

Kris Hocker on 4 Mar 2018

What I share on social media is not always directly related genealogy. That said, I want to share with you, too, even if you don’t follow me on Twitter or Facebook. So, here’s some of what’s caught my attention online in the last month.

Immigration has been a big topic lately. If you’re interested in the topic of family integration immigration, I recommend following #resistancegenealogy on Twitter. This research shows just how normal and widespread so-called chain migration is and always has been. It’s nearly impossible to examine an American’s family tree without finding examples. Take my Hockers, for instance, first Adam came in 1749, then George in 1751, then the rest of the family in 1752. And that’s only one instance from my family tree.

Tune in next month to see what I’ve found in the meantime.