Tag: Ancestry

AncestryDNA Rolls Out New Features

Kris Hocker on 3 Nov 2018

Over the last couple of weeks new features have been appearing in my AncestryDNA account. A couple can be considered “keeping up with the Jones'” additions, but some are unique. Let’s take a look at them.

The Sound of You

AncestryDNA Sound of you

The first to appear was the “What’s the sound of you?” banner, highlighting a partnership between AncestryDNA and Spotify. The tool allows you to create a playlist based on the regions associated with your DNA. You select the regions and the tool creates a playlist with artists from those locations. You can add the playlist to your Spotify account and share it on social media.

AncestryDNA Spotify Playlist

It’s a creative and playful way to highlight music from your ancestral regions. I haven’t seen anything like it on any of the competitors’ sites. But it doesn’t teach me anything about my family history or heritage. Nor does it help me connect with my genetic cousins or solve my genealogical brick walls. Nice, but there are tools I would have liked to see much more.

Matches Map

AncestryDNA Map Matches Beta

The Matches Map is still in beta. When you click the “Matches Map” link in the header, it will show the locations of your AncestryDNA matches on a map. This is separate from and different to the Map and Locations you can find on each match’s page.

Ancestry Matches Map

Knowing your match’s physical location is helpful when you need to identify their possible ancestors. It helps you identify just which John D. Ancestorson is the correct one in your search.

However, it requires that your match has entered a location in their Ancestry profile. In my experience, not many do. Furthermore, while the map make a nice visual, it’s no more useful than simply displaying the match’s location with their username—which Ancestry had already been doing.

Shared DNA

I wrote about using the MED Better DNA extension for Chrome to display my notes for an individual match on the main match list. My notes included the amount of shared DNA and any information I’d come up with regarding how I connected with that DNA match.

Ancestry Shared DNA display

Apparently, Ancestry has been paying attention to how people are using their site, because they added the Shared DNA amount to the information they display with each match on the list. Yay!

Compare Ethnicities

AncestryDNA compare ethnicity button

Clicking the “Compare” button allows you to compare ethnicities with a match. There are buttons on both the DNA Matches page and the individual DNA Match page for an individual.

AncestryDNA Compare Ethnicitiy

I’ve seen this elsewhere, but Ancestry’s visual display is on a separate screen and includes not only the shared ethnicity percentages and map, but also a list of shared matches (below Ethnicity Estimates, not included in screenshot). Furthermore, clicking “view all” in the shared matches, bring you to a list of all the matches you share with that person.

For me, ethnicity is interesting, but, given our current knowledge and ability to tie DNA to ethnicities, not particularly helpful in solving my genealogical mysteries.1 A match and I share a Northwestern Europe ethnicity? Great! Can that tell me which European ancestor we descend from? Can it tell me which village they came from? Or even, can it tell me which country they came from? Not so much.

AncestryDNA Traits

AncestryDNA Traits

The most recent addition to the toolset is AncestryDNA Traits.2 It allows you to examine what your DNA can tell you about 18 traits, including: taste (sweet, savory, bitter, cilantro aversion), hair curl and thickness, eye color, male hair loss, chin dimple, skin pigmentation, finger length, freckling, ear lobe type, etc.

Ancestry will identify where those traits come from around the world (“Where does your curly hair come from?”) and permit you compare your traits against your DNA matches (“Does your cousin also have the DNA for blue eyes?).

And you can get all this information without further testing—for $19.99 per kit.

Conclusions

Ancestry sure has been busy. They’re rolling out a lot of new… stuff. But to be honest, I’m not sure what value most of it has to me—the user, the customer.

I use Ancestry—and now AncestryDNA—for one thing: to build my family tree. At first, I accomplished this by searching Ancestry’s databases and accessing primary records. I built my tree based on the conclusions I drew from that research. It was great because I had the convenience of accessing the information from my home.

When AncestryDNA came along I used my genetic matches and their knowledge of their family trees (or ones that I built) to add to my tree or to identify specific families to research so that I can break down brick walls. It’s great because DNA gives me another form of evidence that can be used, even where I lack information from the genealogical record (ie. paper trail).

Do these additions help me to match my genealogical tree to my genetic tree? Do they help me see patterns or make connections? Do they help me prove relationships? Do they help me build my family tree?

If I measuring these new tools and products against my goals for using the site, most of these additions are fun or interesting diversions. I might try them out, but I likely won’t be using them with any regularity. They do not assist me in reaching my goals and therefore, ultimately, do not add value. My 2¢.

Majority of MyHeritage and Ancestry DNA Accounts Include Family Trees

Kris Hocker on 25 Oct 2018

The DNA Geek, Leah Larkin, posted her updated research into the prevalence of accounts at the DNA testing companies and GEDmatch having family trees. She examined 500 matches for ten accounts at each of the following: MyHeritageDNA, AncestryDNA, Family Tree DNA, GEDmatch, and 23 and Me.

She found that for MyHeritage and Ancestry far more accounts had family trees than didn’t, averaging 88% at MyHeritage and 75% at Ancestry. The other sites were all less—significantly less in some cases—than 50%.

For the full account, please read her blog post (below).

The Glass Is More Than Half Full—2018 Version

She only checked for the availability of a family tree and “did not consider tree size, quality, accessibility, or documentation. Some of the sites allow a tree with a single person, and some trees contain only living people who are privatized. In this study, only presence/absence of a tree was tallied.”

My Results

I ran my own little experiment, but I changed it a little bit. I looked at the matches for two accounts on Ancestry, MyHeritage and GEDmatch. I have significantly fewer matches at FTDNA so I did not use those accounts.

I also used slightly different parameters for each. I looked at 500 matches for each, but used criteria that were specific for each tool.

On AncestryDNA, I found that between 42-46% of matches had trees linked to their DNA. An additional 29% had unlinked trees. So, 71-75% of these matches had a family tree of some sort—consistent with Leah’s average. Of those who had trees about 7% (for me) and 4.6% (for mom) had shared ancestors identified in their trees (shaky leaves) and a little over 7% had private trees.

On MyHeritage, 87% had trees. Again, this is consistent with Leah’s data. However, I also looked to see how many of those with had fewer than seven members—the minimum number of people required in a three generation tree1—and how many had only one person in their tree. About 30% of matches had fewer than 7 people in their trees; this was true for both accounts. Somewhere between 10.8% and 12.6% had only one person.

For GEDmatch, I performed a ‘One-to-Many’ search for each account and copied the first 500 matches into a spreadsheet. For both accounts, there were about 70 matches that had uploaded a GEDCOM to their account and about 10 who had linked to a Wiki. So, about 16% had a family tree of some type attached to their account. This is slightly higher than the average Leah found in her research.

Conclusion

I’ll admit, given my impressions on using Ancestry, MyHeritage and GEDmatch to determine the ancestry Mom and I share with our matches, I was expecting my numbers to be lower than Leah’s. A lot lower. Instead, they pretty much confirm her findings.

The discrepancy between my impression and the real numbers, I believe, can be found in the difference between having a tree and having a useful tree. The quality of the information provided in a tree has an impact on the overall impression of whether or not users “have trees.”

A tree that includes only one person, not much help. A tree that has multiple generations, but all are “private”? Again, no help. A tree in which I can’t find a common thread? Well, that feels like it’s a lack on my part, not the tree’s, and definitely leaves a different impression after the fact.

I can and do build trees for my matches—sometimes starting with very little. That’s how I’ve made most of my discoveries using my DNA matches. But I do need something to start with. A username may or may not lead to a name. A name may or may not lead to other names. But names, dates, and places provide a much better starting point.2

So, while it’s heartening to see that the overwhelming majority of test takers do, in fact, add trees to their accounts, I’d be able to better appreciate that if more of them included information I could reliably build on. I’ll keep hoping that with time and continued discussion, more of them will.

Quick & Dirty Trees for DNA Matches

Kris Hocker on 14 Oct 2018

I’ve talked about building pedigrees for my AncestryDNA matches and how it’s helped to identify some of my unknown ancestors. I haven’t really gone into detail about what all that entails.

Blaine Bettinger of The Genetic Genealogist shared a video he made about how he builds a quick and dirty tree for his genetic matches to identify their shared ancestor. Click the video below to watch or go to YouTube for a larger version.

When I build a tree, I do something a little different.

First, I usually build the tree in my Reunion file since it’s my go-to for my genealogy research. I can make the connection to shared ancestors and track genetic cousins in the database, even—now that I’ve figured out how—quickly find the genetic matches I’ve identified who descend from a shared couple.

Second, I don’t get information from family trees. I usually search for online records, using relevant sources based on the target’s lifetime. These may include Ancestry, FamilySearch, Fold3, Internet Archive, Google, Facebook, and other websites that compile information.

I search for just enough information from records to reliably know I’ve got a specific family group, then move on to keep going up the family tree. The amount of research varies from family to family based on what’s available and how easy it is to find. I only really use trees when I’m totally stuck and searching for clues.

I guess my process is not quick & dirty by this standard. But it isn’t up to the Genealogical Proof Standard either. It falls somewhere in between. That’s why I usually hedge my statements or refer to relationships as being a “working hypothesis.”

However, these trees—either the quick & dirty method Blaine outlines or my method—provide an excellent starting point for breaking through brick walls in your family tree using your DNA matches. They help you to identify connections so that you can focus your research in the right area, saving time, effort, and maybe even some money.

Slow Down, Don’t Move Too Fast

Kris Hocker on 11 Oct 2018

Question for my Hocker readers, can you spot what’s wrong with this family group sheet? There are several errors, including two mistakes in assigning parentage.

Hocker Group Sheet

I’ve seen this family grouping in databases across the internet and it never fails to make me shake my head. I can understand why people make these mistakes, but still.1 Even if you haven’t done the research and don’t know the Hocker family well, you should be able see why these errors are, in fact, errors.

Let’s start with the most obvious mistake: two sons named Adam?! Yes, families often used the same name more than once for their children, but—and this is important—it usually happened when an older child died and a younger child was given their name. Two Adams who both lived to adulthood? Nope. George Foreman is not the norm.

The first Adam Hocker in the list of children is not the son of John and Christiane (Sterling) Hocker. The second Adam in the list is their son. C’mon, people, just look at the dates! John got Christiane pregnant when she was ten years-old?! Nope.

Adam Hocker (1812-1870) married Eve Hamaker, daughter of Adam and Magdalena (Snavely) Hamaker III, on 22 February 1838. They were both from Derry Township. They remained in Dauphin County all their lives, raising nine children: Jacob H., John, Adam H., Elizabeth, Sarah, David R., Eve Malinda, Martin M. and Anna C. Adam’s tenth child, Mary Ann, was from an unknown first marriage.

I have a very good idea who Adam’s parents were. It’s still only a guess—without any proof, documentary or otherwise. But, I can tell you they are not John and Catharine (Sterling) Hocker.

John and Catharine’s son Adam travelled to Ohio with the family in the late 1830s. He married Anna Engle, daughter of Jacob and Nancy (Moyer) Engle, on 19 April 1859 and died in Randolph Township, Montgomery County on 8 September 1907.2

The second error? I bet my Colorado Hocker relatives saw it straight away.

John Hocker (1788-1868) was not the son of Martin and Christiana (Beinhauer) Hocker. Yes, they had a son named John, but he was born 6 May 1804 in Derry Township and died 28 Jun 1884 in Pennsylvania, likely in Cumberland County.

No, John Hocker (1788-1868) was the son of Adam and Sophia Maria (Hershey?) Hocker, also of Derry Township, my 5x great grandfather and Martin’s older brother. John was Adam’s eldest son, born while the family was still living in Harrisburg. I’ve written about my research tying the Montgomery County, Ohio Hockers to Adam and Mary, because it’s one of the families my Uncle Bill got wrong in his Hacker-Hocker genealogy.

But even without knowing the research or the family, you should be able to see there’s something wrong here. Martin and Christiana married 22 March 1799 at Salem Evangelical Lutheran Church. He was 31 years-old and she was 22 years-old. Having a child 11 years earlier when Christiana was 11 years-old? It’s just not feasible—or reasonable—even if you didn’t know their marriage date.

Additionally, John and Catharine’s daughter Anna was born 15 October 1824, not in 1828. Their son John K. Hocker died 11 July 1914 in Ludlow Falls, Miami County, Ohio, not in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.

So…

I didn’t write this post to shame the owner of this family tree. Everybody makes mistakes. Been there, done that, bought the damn t-shirt.

The point is that a little thought, a little analysis, can go a long way toward preventing mistakes like this. Do the dates make sense? Are the ages appropriate for the implied actions? Yes, our ancestors may have married young—though not as many as you might think. But how young?

I understand the drive to find a family for your ancestor. It can be almost compulsive, the need to connect a generation to a previous generation, to tie off all the lose ends, to fit everybody into a family. Especially when you’re eager to move on to the next person, the next discovery.

But taking the extra time to get it right is worth it. There’s a difference between making a convenient familial connection for an ancestor and making the correct one. Believe me; I’ve done both.

It’s like the difference between fitting two puzzle pieces together and finishing the puzzle. When it all comes together, when all those bits of information you’ve found work together, it all just makes sense.

So take my advice—I’m trying to follow it, too: slow down.

There’s no trophy for getting there first. But there is a reward for getting it right. It’s the feeling of satisfaction you get in knowing you did everything you could to get it right, and, as a result, can be reasonably certain that you did. And it feels pretty darn good.

Is This a Schneider Breakthrough? DNA Points to a Possible Family for Jacob Schneider

Kris Hocker on 1 Oct 2018

So another Schneider family—actually two have come up in my ongoing search to find Jacob Schneider’s family. It’s a fairly common occupational surname, but if they are related, just not to Jacob, they will be the fourth and fifth Schneider families in my pedigree. As a comparison, I’m only descended from one Smith and one Jones family.

I’ve been working with the matches I share with four cousins who presumably descend from Jacob and Catharina (Nuss) Schneider’s son Jacob. They each share two DNA segments with me. One of them, however, shares three segments with my Mom.

I noticed recently that while he shares some of the same shared matches that I’ve traced back to the Nuss family, he also shares DNA with another cluster of individuals.1 Wondering if perhaps this group represented the Schneider side of the family, I started researching these matches.

As with most of my DNA matches, I haven’t been able to research most of them. No family trees. Usernames instead of real names. No locations. But there were a handful for whom I was able to build pedigrees.

By tracing the pedigrees of these matches, I was able to find a common ancestral couple: Conrad Schneider and his wife Catharina Betz. This cluster includes descendants from two of their offspring—Catharina (Schneider) Bender and Balthasar Schneider. To better understand all the relationships, I built a chart showing how each match fits in the family and the amount of DNA (in centimorgans) they share with my mother.

Snyder DNA chart

Schneider DNA matches chart

On the chart, my Mom is shown in yellow, my Schneider cousins who match the presumed Nuss cluster in blue, and those cousins who match in the presumed Schneider cluster in the darker green.

The question is how does Jacob Schneider fit into this family. Assuming, of course, that these DNA matches indicate that he does and not some other currently unknown family connection.

I tried fitting Jacob into the family three different ways in the What Are the Odds? tool. This tool allows you to test out various hypotheses using the shared cM from multiple matches to create a statistical probability. The first hypothesis places Jacob as a grandchild of Conrad and Catharina, the second as a son, and the third as a nephew to Conrad. According to the tool, option three is not statistically possible. Both option one and two are equally possible, statistically.

However, based what I know about the family members, it’s more likely that Jacob was a grandchild of Conrad and Catharina. I estimate that Jacob was born between 1756 and 1765 based on his recorded ages in multiple census enumerations.2 Conrad was born 17 March 1699 and died between 12 July and 10 August 1759. he cannot be Jacob’s father. His age makes it unlikely that he’s Jacob’s father.3 Furthermore, no son named Jacob is mentioned in Conrad’s probate records.4

So, if my Jacob was a grandson of Conrad, who were his parents? On the Schneider side of the family, there are five options—Conrad’s sons:

  1. Leonhard Schneider (1725-1797)
  2. Elias Schneider (1733-?)
  3. Michael Schneider (1735-1806)
  4. Balthasar Schneider (1738-1800)
  5. Henry Schneider (1740-1821)

Leonard Schneider (1725-1797), Conrad’s eldest son, married Maria Christina Hens in 17525 and had five surviving daughters. He married three more times after her death, but according to his estate papers, did not have a son named Jacob.6

Elias Schneider (1733-?) married Anna Maria Nuss, Conrad Nuss’ sister, 7 December 1756 at Old Goshenhoppen Church.7 I only have information on the births of three children: Conrad (1757), Anna Margaretha (1764), and Catharina (1771).8 My Jacob, born 1756-1765, could easily fit into this family. But at this point I have nothing to indicate that he does—besides, maybe, DNA.

Michael Schneider (1735-1806) married Anna Maria Cressman.9 His eldest son, named Jacob Adam, was born in 1765, but he married Elizabeth Yost and lived in Bucks County.10 He’s not my Jacob.

Balthasar Schneider (1738-1800) married Maria Sophia Vogel at Old Goshenhoppen 3 December 1757.11 I did not find a baptismal record for a Jacob in church records associated with other children of Balthasar. However, the will of Balser Schneider of Heidelberg Township, Northampton (now Lehigh) County, does refer to a son named Jacob, as far as I can interpret.12

However, three of the matches I’ve placed as descended from him can be traced back to Jacob Schneider (1774-1850) and Margaret Brandstetter (1783-1836) of Lehigh County. Given the location and birth year, I find it more probable that this Jacob is the son of Balthasar, than my Jacob.

Henry Schneider (1740-1821) married Maria Christina Freyfogel on 14 September 1763. He lived in Marlborough Township and had a son named Jacob born in 1765.13 Based on analysis of the baptismal records for Henry’s children at Old Goshenhoppen, however, I would conclude that this Jacob married Elizabeth (___) and had children starting in the early 1790s baptized at Old Goshenhoppen. This rules him out as a possible match to my Jacob.

So, at this time, I have no documentary evidence that includes a possible match for my Jacob to this family. Given the DNA data I have, the probabilities for each possibility are equal regardless of which son he may descend from. But I think I may have narrowed it down to one.

My current working hypothesis is that he may be a son of Elias and Anna Maria (Nuss) Schneider. It would certainly help to explain the apparently close ties to the Nuss family and the large number of genetic matches to the Nuss family I’m finding in my research.

Unfortunately, Elias is proving quite elusive. He served as an administrator of his father’s estate in 1753 and remained in the area until at least 1771, based on his children’s baptisms at Old Goshenhoppen. But I’ve found no other evidence of him in Upper Salford or Marlborough townships. I may have to get really creative to find a paper trail for him or his family members.

Note: Minor edit for third option on What Are the Odds?. It should have been nephew, not brother. (2 Oct 2018)
Note: Correction of Conrad’s date of death. (8 Oct 2018)
Note: Added “to the Nuss” family to provide additional clarity regarding my hypothesis for Jacob’s parentage. (13 Dec 2020)

AncestryDNA Updates Ethnicity Estimates

Kris Hocker on 12 Sep 2018

Kris' Updated Ethnicity

If you’ve been reading the genealogy blogs today, you probably already know. Ancestry updated their AncestryDNA ethnicity estimates. It is based on a significantly larger reference population (3,000 -> 16,000 samples) and includes more regions (26 -> 43) and subregions (363 -> 380). You can see Ancestry’s announcement on their blog.

Currently—and for a limited time, you can compare your old results to the new ones on the map. The ethnicity estimate percentages also provide the specific, numerical changes for each region. Here is my original map.

Ethnicity Map

2017 Ancestry Ethnicity Map

It included:

  • 63% Europe West
  • 16% Ireland/Scotland/Wales
  • 5% Scandinavia

There were also a number of low confidence regions, including the Iberian Peninsula (4%), Great Britain (4%), Caucasus (4%), Europe South (2%), European Jewish (<1%), and Asia South (<1%).

And here’s my new ethnicity map.

Kris' Updated Ethnicity

2018 Ancestry Ethnicity Map

Not only have the amounts changed, but the way the areas are grouped has changed, as well. For instance, England/Wales/Northwestern Europe (yellow) is now one category. 61% of my DNA is from the areas it encompasses. Ireland/Scotland (green) is now 18%. Germanic Europe (teal), once part of Europe West, is now it’s own category and 18% of my ethnic makeup. Previously, Scandinavia was one block, now it is two categories: Norway and Sweden. I’m apparently 5% Norwegian. Additionally, I am now 1% Eastern European/Russian and 1% Greece/Balkans. The last two are really the only categories I could question.

If you look at my estimates from my paper trail versus Ancestry’s estimates, it breaks down like this:

Region Pedigree Ancestry 2017 Ancestry 2018
Western Europe 72.82% 63% 61%
Germanic Europe (see W. Europe) (see W. Europe) 13%
Ireland/Scotland 14.04% 16% 18%
Scandinavia 3.12% 5% 6% (Norway)
England/Wales 3.12% 4% (see W. Europe)
Italy/Greece — 2% 1%
Iberian Peninsula — 4% —
European Jewish — <1% —
Unknown 6.24%  — —
Caucasus — 4% —
Eastern Europe/Russia — — 1%

Once you get past the organizational changes, you can that, in reality, not much has changed at all in how my ethnicity is classified. I’m still an American mutt of largely Western European—Germanic and British—descent.

In fact, the interesting bits have disappeared, meaning that unknown 6.24% is most likely from the same areas in Western Europe as the majority of my other ancestors.

To read more about today’s changes, check out these blog posts.

New in Ancestry Trees – Potential Ancestors

Kris Hocker on 19 Jun 2018

I’ve been seeing references to this new feature on Ancestry Trees in online social media groups to which I belong. I kept checking my account and couldn’t seem to find what they were accessing.

Until this past weekend.

I finally saw it show up in both my public and private trees. This is what it looks like when you are looking at your pedigree view.

Adam Greulich Pedigree - Ancestry Family Tree

Ancestry Trees – Pedigree View

In this example, Ancestry is suggesting a possible mother for my four times great grandfather, Johann Adam Greulich (18 Feb 1751-21 Feb 1808). I had already located this information through FamilySearch—they’ve extracted vital records from some German church books, but I hadn’t entered the information in my private tree on Ancestry.

According to the information I found on FamilySearch, Johann Adam’s parents were Hans Adam (aka Johann Adam) Greulich (1721-1797) and Anna Elisabetha Gerich (1728-1758). What did Ancestry find?

Potential Mother Adam Greulich - Ancestry Trees

Potential mother for Johann Adam Greulich (1751-1808)

It’s a match!

The question I now have is from where did Ancestry get this information? Their records? Family trees? A partnering website? That information is not provided. No source citation is added if you claim that potential ancestor as your own. In this case, they may have even pulled this information from my public tree. The locations are exactly as I entered them, not Ancestry’s suggested location.

According to posts online, these potentials should also show up in the profile view of an individual in your tree. So far, I haven’t seen that.

What do I think of this feature?

I think it’s pretty cool. If it’s accurate. As with any information you find, you need to be able to assess it and verify it. Without context, without knowing where the information comes from, you can do neither. I’ve already seen some that I can dismiss just by date and location alone.

I’m going to consider these potential ancestors—as I do a lot of what I find—a research suggestion. This means I’ll add the individual(s) to my research to-do list for further digging. Once I’ve verified that it’s correct, I can analyze the source and the information within the context of what else I know about the family, comparing it to other information I may find. Hopefully, this will be enough to determine whether or not the relationship—as displayed—is accurate.

I hope that these potentials turn out to be correct. I like adding ancestors to my pedigree chart. I like fitting the pieces together and making connections between families and places in far-off countries.

Ultimately, however, it’s just a start. Names, dates, locations alone are not all that interesting in the long run. There’s so much more to learn.

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?

Genetic Genealogy Update

Kris Hocker on 24 Feb 2018

As the kits sold during the holidays have come online, my matches have continued to grow. As of 24 February 2018, I have 632 4th cousins or closer, 175 matches with Shared Ancestry Hints, and I’ve starred (favorited) 226 matches. I’ve gotten 558 new DNA matches over the last seven days, mostly 5th-8th cousins, but a handful of 4th-6th cousins, too.

All told I have 408 pages or 20,373 DNA matches.1 In contrast I have 292 matches on Family Tree DNA2 and 1,430 matches at MyHeritage. GEDmatch only shows you the closest 2,000 matches, but doesn’t tell you the total number of matches to you in their database.

Family Lines

With so many matches, it can be overwhelming. I’m trying to be strategic in what and who I research. I’m focusing on specific lines where I lack a paper trail, hoping the DNA will provide evidence of relationships.

Schneider-Nuss

I’m still working on the Jacob Schneider and Catharina [Nuss?] line, researching matches as they come up. The preponderance of evidence regarding Catharina’s maiden name being Nuss continues to grow.

One of my presumed Snyder cousins uploated to GEDmatch (yay!), so I believe our matching Snyder DNA can be found on chromosome 17. Just recently a new match at that location has cropped up, so another possible match to research.

Hoover-Thomas

In addition to working on my Schneider line, I’ve also been keeping track of the cousins who match me through Philip Hoover and Hannah Thomas.

Currently their DNA Circles have eight members. There have been a few additions as wells as some losses since I wrote A Beautiful Circle. They are all still descendants of either Christian Hoover, Margaret (Hoover) Pitt, or Sarah (Hoover) Blystone. There have been no matches from Jacob Hoover—the only other child who I’ve been able to trace.

To date, I’ve found 23 cousins who have tested, including two on Family Tree DNA, who I’ve traced back to Philip and Hannah Hoover. Twelve of these cousins are descendants of Christian, five descend from Margaret, and six from Sarah.

Based on the chromosome data from the FTDNA matches, the shared DNA from Philip and Hannah most likely comes from chromosome 16. Fortunately, one of these cousins also uploaded to GEDmatch and triangulates with five other people, giving me more cousins to research.

Force-Mulhollan

One of my most mysterious lines remains my 3G great grandfather Jefferson Force. I believe he was orphaned young and evidence of his parentage has not been forthcoming. However, I have a large number of matches who seem to match the Force-Mulhollan line.

Recently, I found one genetic cousin who descends from Jefferson’s presumed sister, Agnes (Force) Shope. I’m hoping to trace more of my matches to Centre County Force families.

Online Tools

I’ve also been looking for and working with other tools to try to aid my genetic genealogy.

MedBetterDNA

I’ve started using MedBetterDNA. It’s an extension for the Chrome internet browser. It allows me to set parameters on what will be displayed on an AncestryDNA page, including making the notes field always visible. This is very useful. I use the notes field to store things like known or presumed family line for the match, the size of the shared segment, location or relationship. Having it visible makes it easier to find what I’m looking for, especially if I can’t remember a match’s username.

I can also use tags (i.e. #Hocker) to showing only those matches for a particular family line. It’s not perfect—it only works on a page-by-page basis—but it does make it easier to find what I’m looking for.

GEDmatch

GEDmatch has been an awesome tool. Using the Tier 1 tools bumps it up a level. I’ve been able to find matches who tested at 23 and Me, Family Tree DNA, and Ancestry, widening the pool of matches. The overlap with Ancestry adds segment information that AncestryDNA doesn’t provide.

GEDmatch also has phasing tools. Because both my mother and I have tested, I’ve been able to phase my DNA. GEDmatch compared our DNA and gave me two files—each identifies exactly what I inherited from each parent. So, I can quickly run a “One to Many” tool to see who matches my mother’s DNA and who matches my father’s DNA. The only thing better would be having my father’s actual test results. That would provide genetic cousins who match the 50% of his DNA that I didn’t inherit.

The Tier 1 tools add triangulation of my matches. How does this help? It allows me to see which people not only match me on the same chromosome segment, but also match each other on that very same segment. This significantly increases the likelihood that we all inherited the DNA from the same common ancestor.

How is this different that Ancestry’s Shared Matches? I’ve indentified a number of cousins who descend from Conrad Nuss and his wife Margaretha Roeder. This points to Conrad and Margaretha as our most recent common genetic ancestors, right?

But if cousin A matches me on chromosome 2 and cousin B matches on chromosome 3 and they match each other on chromsome 4, we all share DNA with each other. However, our shared DNA must not come from this couple, even if we all descend from them. Therefore, while we apparently have a genealogical relationship—via the paper trail (assuming we’ve found it)—we do not have a genetic relationship and thus can’t use the AncestryDNA match as evidence of our relationship to Conrad and Margaretha Nuss.3 If we only relied on information provided by Ancestry’s Shared Matches, we might assume that our DNA match is to Conrad and Margaretha and we’d never know otherwise.

I’m also working with Genome Mate Pro and looking at DNA Painter. Hopefully, I can write more on these another time.

So, the genetic genealogy is ongoing and, I believe, yielding some new information. It’s not only supporting my existing genealogy research, but also helping to make connections where previously I only had theories—two prime examples: the relationships of  Christian Hoover to Philip and Hannah (Thomas) Hoover and Henry Schneider to Jacob and Catharina (Nuss) Schneider. Not bad for a $69 investment.