DNA – A Pennsylvania Dutch Genealogy

Wishlist for DNA Match Lists

Kris Hocker on 7 Aug 2022

Have you ever been working your AncestryDNA matches and thought, “Gee, I wish I could do…”? I bet you have; I know I do quite frequently. What would you wish for to make your workflow easier or better?

Here are five things I would like to be able to do:

1. Search the notes

I add relevant information—such as the most recent common ancestor or a shared surname—in the notes field for each match I’m working on. The existing search doesn’t find information in the notes. If I’m looking for a surname, it has to either be the match name or a surname in their tree.

Sometimes, however, I find a common surname when the match does not have it in their tree and put that information in the notes. I’d like to be able to somehow search for this and currently, I can’t.

It would also be great to not have to click down to an individual match’s page, but to be able to enter the information while viewing a list. [Note: This feature has been added since I wrote this post.]

2. See Shared Matches Less Than 20 cMs

Ancestry only shows matches greater than or equal to 20 centimorgans in the Shared Matches lists. Since most of the time I’ve been working with ancestors five or more generations back, I’m often looking at matches smaller than that. Being able to quickly identify those smaller matches that match to my 3rd, 4th, or even 5th cousins might help me to identify unknown 4th, 5th or 6th great grandparents—or at the very least families and surnames I need to research in more depth.

While there are workarounds and 3rd party tools to find those shared matches, they are very time consuming—not only in compiling the information, but also in filtering it to get at the specific data I need. As a result, my research trail gets interrupted. It can be difficult to remember where I left off and what trail I was trying to follow once I’ve found the information I wanted.

3. DNA Circles for Shared Matches

Ancestry used to have a feature called DNA Circles. These circles were clusters of people who connected back to a set of MRCAs (most recent common ancestors). These were really useful! Unlike ThruLines, the circles included not just the people in the group who match me, but also those who matched my shared matches and connected back to the MRCAs. Building these kind of networks could be invaluable for those matches I can’t identify.

4. Identify MRCA between Shared Matches

If possible, Ancestry will show me the common ancestor between me and my DNA match, even if they don’t have a complete tree back to that ancestor. Wouldn’t it be great if you could select two (or more) shared matches and see who (if anyone) the algorithm could find as a common ancestor? Even if it wasn’t done in realtime, being able to run a set of matches and come back later would be enormously helpful! Even if it could only identify common surnames or locations, it would aid the research.

5. Triangulation

Ancestry has long held that they will not provide segment data due to privacy concerns. I hate it, but can understand—and even agree to an extent with—their reasoning. But the shared match list includes both matches who share a common ancestor with you and the selected match and matches who share different ancestors with you and the match you’re viewing. This can make it incredibly frustrating and difficult to identify an unknown shared ancestor.

For example, I’ve been researching my Force ancestry. I’ve identified DNA matches who descend from my 3rd great grandfather Jefferson Force and his wife Susan Mulhollan and several individuals who I’ve long theorized were his siblings and they share matches among them. This means they likely share common ancestors. In looking at the DNA matches I share with the descendants of these people, I’ve been seeing Walker family descendants.

Based on what I know of the Force family tree, there should be no DNA connection to the Walker family. My Walker ancestry is thru other family lines. However, the ancestors behind Jefferson’s parents are unknown.

So the question is: where does that connection come into the family tree? Before our MRCA or after? Did one of their more recent relations marry a descendant of the Walker family, making that particular DNA connection one of chance? Or was one of the unknown ancestors of our MRCA actually related to the Walker family or their ancestors?

Based on the information Ancestry provides, I can’t know the answer. I can create family trees for all the matching individuals to find any points of intersection, but I may not find the answer. It would be incredibly helpful to know whether any two shared matches match me in the same way. At least then I would know that the Walker connection was shared through our Force MRCA and could research accordingly.

What do you wish for?

Some Thoughts on the Parentage of Jefferson Force (1833-1910)

Kris Hocker on 27 Dec 2020

My third great grandfather Jefferson Force is my most frustrating brickwall ancestor. He was born 9 December 1833 and died 20 October 1910 in Pine Glen, Burnside Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania¹ and was buried in the cemetery just down the road from where my grandmother’s family lived.² He married Susan Mulhollan in 1857³ and they had a family of 14 children, three of whom died as infants.

Nothing is really known about Jefferson’s ancestry. He first appears in the 1860 U.S. census in Burnside Township and remains in the township’s records through his death in 1910. At no point is there so much as a hint of his parentage in the record. His death certificate simply says “don’t know” under the names of father and mother.

Siblings?

Several other Forces—who I’ve taken as possible siblings—can be found in the 1850 census for Centre County. They appear in a number of disparate households:

• George W. Force (b. ca 1829/30) in the William & Mary Tate family, Spring Township
• Martin V. Force (b. ca 1835/36) in the John M & Mary Barnhart family, Howard Township
• David Force (b. ca 1835/36) in the Jackson & Elizabeth Watson family, Howard Township
• Agnes Force (b. ca 1839/40) in the George & Amey Cline family, Howard Township
• Philip Force (b. ca 1840/41) in the John & Barbara Neidic (Neidie?) family, Liberty Township

Assuming that these are all children of the same family, the parents must have married prior to 1829 and most likely died sometime between 1841 and 1850. If one or both parents were still alive in 1850, then they were unable to care for their children for some reason.

Isaac and Polly

A descendant of Agnes informed me that the names Isaac and Polly Force were handwritten on a Bible page that belonged to Agnes. DNA testing has shown that Agnes—and Martin V.—were related to Jefferson, probably his siblings. So, Isaac and Polly would also be Jefferson and Martin’s parents if the notation is correct.

I’ve seen this couple identified online as Isaac Force (1785-1843 or 1859) and Phebe Crowell (1789-1841), who married 20 March 1813 in Essex County, New Jersey.⁴ Isaac was allegedly the son of Isaac Force and Hannah Ward and 2G grandson of Matthew Force and Elizabeth Palmer.

I have a cluster of AncestryDNA matches that I’ve traced back to Benjamin, Thomas, and Mark, sons of Matthew and Elizabeth, plus a number that trace back to Forces that I can’t connect further back.

So far, this is consistent with Isaac and Phebe being the parents of Jefferson et al.

Questions and Conflicts

However, the more I research Isaac Force and Phebe Crowell, the more uncertain I am about them being Jefferson’s parents.

When I compare the birth years of those possible siblings of Jefferson to those of Isaac and Phebe, I see that the couple would have been 44 and 40, respectively, at the birth of George W. (born 1829), and 54 and 50 at the birth of Agnes and Philip (born 1839). While certainly not impossible, it’s pushing the limits. Furthermore, since they married in 1813, one would expect to see children born starting about 1815 or so. If there were older children, why weren’t any of those in the 1850 census found in a Force household?

Furthermore, Isaac allegedly died in 1843 in Pennsylvania, but other information shows he died 20 September 1859, and that both he and Phebe were buried in Ithaca. ⁵ Census records show an Isaac Force, aged 40-50, in Ithaca in 1840 with only a female, aged 40-50—presumably his wife Phebe.⁶ The 1830 census for Ithaca also shows an Isaac Force, aged 40-50, with one female, aged 40-50, and one male, aged 10-15.⁷

Neither of these records is consistent with a couple that had children between 1829 and 1839. Nor have I seen evidence of this Isaac in Centre County, Pennsylvania. Why would the children be in Centre County, Pennsylvania if the parents were in Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York?

There are a couple of possibilities based on this information:

Ithaca Isaac and Phebe are NOT a match to Isaac and Polly, but ARE the couple married in 1813
Ithaca Isaac and Phebe are NOT a match to Isaac and Polly and are NOT the couple married in 1813
Ithaca Isaac and Phebe ARE a match to Isaac and Polly, but NOT the parents of the Centre County Force children from the 1850 census
Ithaca Isaac and Phebe ARE a match to Isaac and Polly AND somehow related to the Centre County Force children from the 1850 census, but are NOT the parents
The Centre County Force children—except Jefferson, Martin V. and Agnes—are NOT all siblings (explains age discrepancy) AND some of them belong to Isaac and Polly

At this point, I’m at a loss. I’m inclined to believe that Isaac Force and Phebe Crowell are NOT Jefferson’s parents, but are somehow related. It’s possible that another Isaac and his wife Polly were Jefferson’s parents, but I’ve yet to see evidence of them in any records outside the Bible page belonging to Agnes (Force) Shope (which I haven’t seen).

Based on the DNA, however, I’m fairly certain that Jefferson is a descendant of Matthew and Elizabeth (Palmer) Force. The question, of course, is how.

AncestryDNA Cluster: Philip Craver

Kris Hocker on 15 Feb 2020

While assigning my Mom’s AncestryDNA™ matches to an ancestral line using the Leeds Method, I noticed there were a number of matches to my more recent Snyder cousins who were not actually Snyder descendants. Instead, they all seemed to be related to one specific couple: Philip Craver of North Carolina and his wife.

At first I wondered about the surname. I have Garbers in my tree. Did I get that surname wrong? Did the name get garbled somehow? But that’s a completely different ancestral line and no one in this cluster matched other members of it.

The Gräber Family

I know there was a family of Gräbers (aka Graber, Graeber, Craver), living the same areas in Montgomery County as my Mom’s ancestors. Andreas Gräber settled in Upper Hanover Township. He had two sons with his first wife: Andreas (1725-1807) and Ludwig (1732-1797); he had one son with his second wife: Philip (1745-1820). Andreas and Ludwig remained in Pennsylvania, while Philip moved to North Carolina.

The curious thing, however, is that I have found no DNA matches that can be traced back to either Andreas or Ludwig. None. Zip. Zero.

Since their descendants lived, in may cases, right down the street from many of my Mom’s ancestors, you’d think if I were related to the Gräber family, there would be matches to the Pennsylvania Gräbers. Since there aren’t, I can only draw one conclusion. I’m not genetically related to the Gräber family.

Philip Craver

Huh? But what about Philip, you say?

It’s entirely possible that he’s not the relevant party in this scenario—just the one I can identify by name. Since Philip’s children got their DNA from both their dad and their mom, it’s possible that the relevant DNA comes from Philip’s wife.

I currently don’t know her name—given or surname. The online sources do not agree. One, however, refers to a deed abstract in which Philip Craver of Rowan County, North Carolina sold land in 1787 and his wife Sarah signed the deed with her mark. This is the right family, but whether or not Sarah was the mother of Philip’s children, I do not know. The year 1787 seems to be after all the children were born. Therefore it’s possible she was step-mother to Philip’s children.

So, possibility #1 is that I’m genetically related to the mother of Philip Craver’s children—possibly through a woman named Sarah.

Andreas Gräber

While I’m apparently not related to Andreas (Jr.) or Ludwig Gräber, I can’t rule out the family completely. Philip was the son of Andreas’ second wife Gertraut (___) Muss Gräber. So, a second possibility is that Philip is the provider of the DNA in question, but he didn’t inherit it from his father. Instead, it could be from his mother.

I don’t know much about her, except that she was Andreas’ second wife and had herself been married previously. Two step-daughters are named in Andreas’ will: Anna Christina and Anna Margaretha Muss. Anna Christina married Carl Doerr and Anna Margaretha married Peter Laber/Lebar/Lauer/Lawar. To the best of my knowledge I haven’t found descendants of either of these couples among my Mom’s AncestryDNA matches, but I haven’t been looking specifically for them either. That will need to change.

Connection Points

This cluster provides two possible points of shared ancestry: 1. Philip Craver’s wife and 2. Philip Craver’s mother. Finding out more about them might give me an idea on where my tree intersects with theirs. Currently, I have only a general idea.

I mentioned above the cluster matches to some of my more recent Snyder cousins. More specifically, it connects with descendants of Joseph Snyder (1826-1895) and Judith Deischer (1830-1906). This tells me the shared ancestor is most likely among their ancestors.

Given the generational difference—Philip born in 1745, Joseph in 1826, and Judith in 1830, I’m probably looking at Joseph and Judith’s great grandparents or, more likely, 2x great grandparents as the common ancestors. That makes these ancestors, whoever they are, my mother’s 6x great grandparents and my 7x great grandparents.

Joseph Snyder

I can rule out one of Joseph’s ancestral lines—his paternal line. No one in this Craver cluster matches any of the core members of the Snyder or Nuss clusters. This means the common surname is not likely to be Schneider, Betz, Nuss, Reiher (Reyer), Röder (Roeder), or Zimmerman.

His maternal line is complete back to his great-grandparents and only missing one set of 2x great-grandparents. But I do not have maiden names for his maternal great-grandmother Esther (___) Wißler or maternal 2x great grandmother Magdalena (___) Wißler.

Sarah Wisler Snyder's pedigree — Sarah (Wißler) Schneider’s pedigree

Judith Deischer

Both Judith (Deischer) Snyder’s ancestral lines provide research opportunities. Her maternal grandmother’s maiden name is unknown and I’ve no information on her paternal grandmother’s family, allegedly named Rein/Rhein. There’s plenty of research to do on this branch of the family tree to identify the possible common ancestor.

Peter Deischer's pedigree — Peter Deischer’s pedigree

Anna Maria Trump's pedigree — Anna Maria (Trump) Deischer’s pedigree

Where to Start

The hardest part of identifying the common ancestor may be in deciding where to start. The best place may lie with a couple of the cluster members who share other surnames from my family tree. This may show where the connection lies. How? By allowing me to identify the ancestral line of Joseph or Judith to which the common ancestor belongs—assuming I’ve already identified an ancestor of that name.

If the common surname is not one I’ve already identified—e.g. one of those unknown maiden names, then at least I’ll have a surname and location (Montgomery County, PA) in which to start searching.

Additionally, I could simply start working to fill in the holes I’ve identified in the Wißler, Deischer, and Trump pedigrees all the way back to persons born in the late 1600s.

Either way, I won’t know until I do more research.

Elizabeth (Snyder) Rantz: More Thoughts

Kris Hocker on 5 Feb 2020

I just added a couple of new matches to the Elizabeth (Snyder) Rantz match group. In doing so, I’ve been reviewing the shared matches associated with this group and realized something.

All of the group members’ match lists include members of the larger Schneider cluster. However, in about half of the cases, the lists also include members who’ve been identified as descendants of Jacob and Catharina (Nuss) Snyder, my 5th great grandparents.

While not a great surprise—we are all Schneider descendants, after all—I’ve come to associate the appearance of these specific individuals in match lists with the possibility of there being Nuss DNA involved with the match.

What does this mean?

The presence of Snyder-Nuss descendants in the match lists to this degree, I believe, ups the likelihood that Elizabeth (Snyder) Rantz’s descendants are also Snyder-Nuss descendants.

I can pretty much rule out Elizabeth (Snyder) Rantz as being a child of Jacob and Catharina (Nuss) Snyder. I’ve documented Jacob and Catharina’s adult lives in Upper Hanover Township, Montgomery County and, for a short time, in Hereford Township, Berks County. Furthermore, I’ve researched their daughter Elizabeth and can place her in Upper Hanover after William Rantz and Elizabeth Snyder were married in Columbia County, Pennsylvania in 1824.

At this time, I only have one other Snyder-Nuss connection identified: Elias and Anna Maria (Nuss) Schneider—Jacob’s presumed parents. I’m not an expert, but this seems to indicate that my hypothesis that Elizabeth was the granddaughter or great granddaughter of Elias and Anna Maria through their son Conrad or grandson Daniel is the correct one.

I don’t, unfortunately, believe that it proves the hypothesis correct. I’m going to keep searching for documentation on this family line. To quote the X-Files, the truth is out there. It may take me a while, but I’m going to find it.

Update: 5 Tips to Get the Most Out of Your AncestryDNA Results

Kris Hocker on 19 Jan 2020

Waaay back in December 2017, I wrote a post entitled “5 Tips to Help You Get the Most Out of Your AncestryDNA Results.” Given that a lot has changed since then would I make the same suggestions today?

Let me first remind you of those 5 tips:

Add a family tree
Connect your family tree to your DNA test
Trace collateral lines
Make your tree public
Download your DNA results

For the most part, I’d make those same recommendations today. However, I don’t know that they would all be in my top five. Given the changes Ancestry has made and the tools they’ve added, I would tweak some of them or replace them with new tips altogether.

So, here’s my updated top five tips.

1. Add a family tree

This is absolutely still my top tip—and my number one frustration with new DNA matches. It’s absolutely impossible to identify our common ancestry if I don’t know who any of your ancestors were. I mean, I’m good. But nobody is that good unless they already know you personally.

Ancestry family tree example shown in pedigree layout — Ancestry Family Tree (pedigree)

So, build a tree. Even if the first few generations are private—as they should be for living people—I can work with your deceased ancestors to build a tree to knit our respective branches together. It’s more work than if it’s already complete, but it can be done.

And this ties into the next tip.

2. Connect your family tree to your DNA test

This is not absolutely necessary. I’ve worked successfully with unlinked trees. But it’s always easier when you know how the DNA test taker fits into the family tree. That’s not always clear with unlinked trees.

So, go ahead and tie the test to your entry in the family tree. It will help immensely with my ability and that of Ancestry’s ThruLines™ to locate our shared ancestry.

3. Make your tree searchable

When Ancestry switched from DNA Circles to their ThruLines, they changed the way in which family trees were used to make the connections. First, they changed which trees were used. With Circles only public trees were used. Now with ThruLines, Ancestry will use both public and private trees, but will only use a private tree if it is searchable. (Here’s how.)

They now also use multiple trees. It doesn’t just match between the public trees of two DNA matches. Their algorithm builds connections between the individuals in multiple trees—some may not even be related—back to the common ancestor. So, it might match your Grandpa Joe to someone else’s cousin Joe, then connect his great grandpa Thomas to someone else’s ancestor, and so on until it makes a connection to Henry in my tree. Giving us both a common ancestor.

Pro tip? Follow up each common ancestor with your own review. I’ve sometimes found that a match and I do indeed share the provided common ancestor, but the DNA we share comes through another ancestor. How did I determine this? Our Shared Matches were related through someone else—who I found with a little research we both also shared.

4. Create custom groups

While the first three tips will help both you and your DNA cousins to make connections, this tip benefits primarily you.

How to create an AncestryDNA custom group — Ancestry Custom Group

Ancestry added custom groups at the beginning of last year. Many users, including myself, have been using them to assign DNA matches to an ancestral group following the Leeds Method by Dana Leeds. It’s a useful method of identifying which branch of your family tree a DNA match belongs to and can help identify a common ancestor or couple.

One column on your Shared Match list contains the group (and the ability to add/edit it) and your notes for each match included. Once you’ve started using a method to group and color tag your matches, you can use your Shared Match list to identify and group the match you’re reviewing.

On the main match page, you can filter your match results based on the custom group and use additional search parameters to narrow the list even further if you wish. This allows you to easily work with a subset of your matches.

5. Make use of Ancestry’s ThruLines

Use Ancestry’s ThruLines for tips and hints. As I mentioned in tip #3, a ThruLines match can be valid and still be incorrect as a common ancestor between you and a specific DNA match (or match group).

Ancestry ThruLines showing my ancestors and number of DNA matches

You can use the information it provides as a suggestion for additional research. Evaluate what you find. Does it corroborate the information or contradict it? How reliable it that piece of evidence? Does it suggest other avenues for research.

You may find that your existing or new research proves ThruLines correct, semi-correct, or not at all correct. But evaluate it before making a decision.

Conclusion

These are my top five tips, as of the beginning of 2020. Depending on new developments they will likely change in the future. I’ll let you know.

AncestryDNA Cluster: Elizabeth (Snyder) Rantz

Kris Hocker on 11 Jan 2020

Every so often I identify a subgroup within a collection of AncestryDNA Shared Matches™ for which I’ve identified a common ancestor, but can’t connect that person to the larger group’s family group.

Such is the case with Elizabeth (Snyder) Rantz. I’ve identified about two dozen of her descendants in the match lists, ranging from 8 to 29 cMs of shared DNA. They all match to various members of the larger Schneider cluster. The descendants come from ~~four~~ five of her children: Harriet (Rantz) Goyette, Hannah (Rantz) Wilson, Caroline (Rantz) Mannie, ~~and~~ Lydia (Rantz) Brousseau, and Margaret (Rantz) Bomboy.

Thus, there’s every reason to believe that Elizabeth (Snyder) Rantz is a descendant of Conrad and Eva Catharina (Betz) Schneider. The problem, of course, is that I haven’t been able to find the papertrail to connect them.

According to the family trees of these descendants, Elizabeth was born 22 February 1807 in Pennside, Berks County, Pennsylvania.¹ She married William Rantz 9 May 1824 in Columbia County. The family left Pennsylvania before 1838 and settled in Illinois. Elizabeth died in Bourbonnais, Kankakee County, Illinois on 21 January 1889.² I’ve seen no hint of her parentage anywhere.

Now I’ve identified members of my Schneider and Nuss families who moved into Berks County, and members of my Nuss family who moved to Columbia County, but I have not identified a Schneider who did both. If I had to take an educated guess—and that’s all this currently is—I’d say it’s possible that she is a descendant of Elias and Anna Maria (Nuss) Schneider.

Of Conrad’s five sons, Elias is the only one with a connection to Berks County. He was born 12 August 1733 in Upper Salford Township, Philadelphia (now Montgomery) County,³ married Anna Maria Nuss on 7 December 1756 in Upper Salford (probably at his father’s house),⁴ and likely died before 31 March 1779 in Oley Township, Berks County⁵ with his wife, Anna Maria, serving as his estate administrator. Three of Anna Maria’s sisters lived in Berks County during their lifetimes. Three of her brother Conrad’s children moved to Columbia County.

Elias and Anna Maria had a son, Conrad, born 19 November 1757 and baptized 20 January 1758 at Old Goshenhoppen Lutheran Church.⁶ I believe Conrad remained in Berks County. He may have married Margaret (___) and had at least six children between 1784 and 1795.

Either Conrad or his son Daniel, born 10 May 1789, would have been of the right age to have had a daughter in 1807. This would make Elizabeth’s descendants 6th or 7th cousins to my mom—feasible given the shared DNA.

Addendum:
If you are a descendant of William and Elizabeth (Snyder) Rantz and you’ve taken a DNA test and would like help working through your DNA matches to identify Elizabeth’s ancestry, I would be thrilled with the opportunity to help. Contact me.

Update (May 2020): Additional descendant matches were found for Margaret Priscilla (Rantz) Bomboy. The post has been edited to include this fact.

Margaretha (Schneider) Reppert (1764-1831)

Kris Hocker on 10 Aug 2019

So, I had a new AncestryDNA match appear for my Mom recently. I was doing a search for matches with Schneiders in their tree born in Pennsylvania otherwise I probably wouldn’t have found them.

It’s a fairly small segment—only 15 cMs on one segment. I wasn’t overly excited until I saw our Shared Match. There was only one, but it happened to be the cousin I identified as sharing both Schneider and Nuss segments with my Mom. He’s been pivotal to identifying my Schneider DNA relatives.

This new match traces their ancestry back to Jacob Reppert and Margaret Schneider of Berks County, Pennsylvania. According to their family tree, Margaret was born 2 June 1764, no parents listed, and married Jacob Reppert in Oley Township, Berks County on 10 January 1786.¹

There were only two other trees listing Margaret—one included parents William and Susanna, the other no parents. William and Susanna did indeed have a daughter Margaret, but church records attached to that tree show she was born 23 December 1760,² not the 2 June 1764 found on Margaret’s profile. The alternate tree that showed no parents also had a different birth date: 2 July 1764.

Margaretha Schneider in 3 Ancestry Family Trees

That birth date gave me an ah-hah moment. Elias Schneider and Anna Maria Nuss had a daughter Anna Margaretha born 2 July 1764 and baptized at Old Goshenhoppen Church (no date given).³ Since there were no sources provided for either the June or July birth dates, it could be either. The DNA match, however, makes me suspect the July date may be correct.

When I identified my 5G grandfather Jacob Schneider as a descendant of Conrad and Catharina (Betz) Schneider, I stated that their son Elias might be Jacob’s father. I also found the he was proving to be rather elusive. So, he’s probably the one child of Conrad and Catharina for whom I’ve been hoping the most to locate genetic descendants.

Here are five reasons that I believe Margaret is the daughter of Elias and Anna Maria (Nuss) Schneider. None of them are sufficient alone, but together they start to build a circumstantial case for the relationship.

1. Name

Elias Schnieder and Anna Maria Nuss had a daughter Anna Margaretha born 2 July 1764 and baptized at Old Goshenhoppen Lutheran Church.⁴ She was sponsored by George Gaugler and Anna Margaretha Nuss (Maria’s sister).

2. Date

All three Ancestry Family Trees that include Anna Margaretha (Schneider) Reppert agree that she was born in 1764.⁵ Two of them claim she was born on 2 June 1764 and one on 2 July 1764. Since none of them provide a source to support the claim—except other trees—I can only accept the year. But they are all really close to or exactly the 2 July birth date of Elias’ daughter.

3. Location

The last known potential location I have for Elias Schneider is Oley Township, Berks County. An Anna Maria Schneider was granted Letters of Administration for the late Elias Schneider of Oley Township, Berks County on 31 March 1779.⁶ Henry Kersten of Oley Township and Adam Hamsher of Rucombmanor Township were bondsmen for the administration bond.⁷ The estate inventory was submitted 10 April 1779, appraised by Daniel Guldin and Elias Waggoner.⁸

Both the “Widow Snyder” and Conrad Snyder appear in tax records for Oley Township in the following years—the widow through 1782 and Conrad through 1787.

The first known location I’ve found for Margaretha (Schneider) Reppert is also Oley Township. She married Jacob Repport at Salem Reformed [now UCC] Church in Oley Township on 10 January 1786.⁹ Margaretha and Jacob, like Conrad and Margaretha, also had children baptized at Salem Reformed Church in Oley. Jacob is found in township tax records from 1786 through 1799.¹⁰

4. Family Ties

Margaret (Schneider) Reppert’s daughter Elisabetha was sponsored on 11 August 1793 at Oley (Salem) Reformed Church by Catharina Schneider.¹¹ If Margaretha was Elias’s daughter, then her daughter was sponsored by her younger sister.

Additionally, Daniel Schneider of Ruscombmanor was listed as a bondsman on the administration bond for Jacob Reppert on 14 June 1837.¹² Usually family members serve these roles because they have some influence over the people involved and can help to ensure that they fulfill their responsibilities. With the exception of George Schlotman, I’ve identified all the others listed on the bond as being members of Jacob’s family, sons and sons-in-law. Daniel Schneider was likely a family member from Margaretha’s side of the family.

Conrad Schneider, quite likely Margaretha’s brother, had a son named Daniel born in 1789. He would have been of age to be a match to the Daniel Schneider found in the 1840 United States Census enumeration for Ruscombmanor Township.¹³

Furthermore, there is an association between Nuss family members and Berks County. Anna Maria’s sister Elisabetha (Nuss) Gottschall Wagner resided in Reading and Alsace Township in Berks County during her lifetime. Her brother Conrad Nuss died in Hereford Township. And her sister Anna Margaretha (Nuss) Leinbach lived in Reading.

5. DNA

My mother is a DNA match to two descendants of Margaretha (Scheider) Reppert. They are from the same family, so I’d like to see more matches before drawing conclusions. But a review of their family tree from their shared ancestor back did not reveal a closer potential match than Margaretha. Furthermore, the amount of DNA they share with my Mom is within the probability for the presumed relationship, according to the Shared CM Project, given Elias Schneider and Anna Maria Nuss as our common ancestors.

And finally, the AncestryDNA matches these Reppert descendants share with Mom are all members of the Schneider cluster I’ve identified, including the cousin who, like my mom, descends from Jacob Schneider and Catharina Nuss.

Conclusions

I’m really excited to find this match. While I don’t feel that current evidence proves the relationship, I do feel that it’s more probable than any of the alternatives I can come up with.

Now I’ll just eagerly await the next Snyder/Schneider DNA match and the clues it will provide.

My Genetic Pedigree

Kris Hocker on 7 Mar 2019

I’ve been remarkably absent from this blog for much 2019 so far. That’s because I’ve been ~~obsessed~~… uh, busy researching my DNA matches, looking for common ancestors—particularly those who match my known Snyder cousins. Since that’s the case, I thought it might be helpful to determine just how much of my genetic pedigree I’ve established.

We all have two pedigrees: our genealogical pedigree and our genetic pedigree. The genealogical pedigree contains every ancestor from whom we descend who we’ve been able to identify. The genetic pedigree includes every ancestor from whom we’ve received DNA.

Below you can see my genetic pedigree chart through my 5th great grandparents (click to enlarge).

The green indicates ancestors who have been identified as a common ancestor between an AncestryDNA match and I or a DNA connection—meaning one of their ancestors (and most likely their spouse) is the common ancestor. I’ve overlaid the surnames I’ve found in my genealogical research. Those cells without names are people I need to find.

As you can see I’ve managed to confirm a considerable about of my genealogical tree. What’s interesting to me is that they are in my lines that have been in America since the 1700s. The two largest gray areas—Greulich and Smith—are the two most recent immigrant ancestors. William and Eliza (Bonnington) Smith came to the U.S. in the 1890s and Carl Greulich arrived in New York on 28 January 1856.

Confirming those ancestors with DNA will require me to investigate more of my non-U.S. based matches. So, I should spend some of my research time on MyHeritage and those non-Ancestry test takers in GEDMatch.

The rest of the gray areas may be filled in by analyzing some of the matches for whom I’ve yet to determine which of my great grandparents’ lines they belong to. Perhaps one of the clusters I’ve noticed but not yet identified.

If you’ve been researching your DNA matches, have you tried to figure out how much of your genetic pedigree you’ve found?

Ancestry’s ThruLines™

Kris Hocker on 1 Mar 2019

Ancestry is replacing their DNA Circles with a new feature: ThruLines. What is it? How does it work? Will it help you break through your brick walls? Let’s take a look.

Ancestry’s ThruLines will show you how your DNA matches that of another person through an ancestor you both share. The tool uses Ancestry’s family trees—public and private—to build a path—or ThruLine—from your match to a common ancestor. Private individuals are represented but not named in the path.

How is this different from DNA Circles? The main differences are 1) it uses both public and private trees (as long as they’re searchable) and 2) it doesn’t just use your tree and your match’s tree, it uses all of Ancestry’s searchable trees. So, it will work for any of your matches that have ancestors in their trees who can be found in another tree.

Does this mean that your shared DNA is from this common ancestor? Maybe.

What Ancestry is doing is creating a quick and dirty tree for your match. It’s just taking the human out of the process. The ThruLine that it creates is only as good as the information in family trees available at Ancestry. And we’ve all seen how reliable some of those trees are.

How To Use It

Access to ThruLines can be found in three locations. It replaces the DNA Circles box on the DNA Summary page (or you can choose to continue to use Circles for now). Clicking on “Common Ancestor” for a match on the match list page (see below). And it is also found on the new match detail page for applicable matches.

ThruLines Page

Clicking on the “Explore ThruLines” button takes me to a page that looks a lot like the DNA Circles page.

Speculative Ancestry ThruLines ancestor display with image, name, relationship, birth and death years, and dashed outline box — Speculative ThruLines ancestor

This page shows all my direct ancestors as entered in my linked family tree (or should) and a few speculative ones, as well. The speculative ancestors are differentiated with a dashed outline and tagged “potential ancestor.”

I can filter these ancestors to show: all the matches, potential ancestors, or ancestors from my linked tree.

Match List

If your match has a tree that is searchable and tree members can be found in other Ancestry tree(s), then the “Common ancestor” tag with leaf will be found in their listing. This indicates a possible connection has been found.

Match Detail

If I click on “Common ancestor” (yes, it’s clickable), then I’m taken to the match detail page which shows me our common ancestor(s). In this case two ancestors are shown—father and son.

Clicking on “View Relationship” for either man will take me to a page that shows me how my match and I are related to that individual.

Accessing ThruLines through the match lists will only show you a possible ancestor for a specific match. Accessing it from the summary page and selecting a specific ancestor will show you all the cousins identified as potentially descended from your ancestor.

Is It Accurate?

I’ve been using this tool, reviewing the individuals in the trees used to try to determine whether or not the path—and common ancestor—is accurate. The results have been mostly “yes, it appears accurate,” but not completely so. And in a couple of cases it isn’t quite working as expected.

I have entered both Jacob Schneider and Catharina Nuss—ancestors I’ve identified using both DNA research and traditional genealogy—and Catharina’s ancestors in my linked family tree. Only Jacob appears on my ThruLines page. Instead of Catharine, a speculative mother for Henry Schneider shows up—Susanna Yeakel (Wagner) Schneider.

Here’s Jacob’s ThruLine expanded to actually show descendants. It shows four DNA matches to me. I’ve identified more, but some of them share DNA with my mother and not me.

Here’s the ThruLine for Susanna Yeakel (Wagner) Schneider.

ThruLines for Susanna Yeakel Wagner (aka Wiegner)

It’s suggesting that descendants of Jacob Schneider also match a descendant of Susanna. If I look at the tree associated with Susanna Yeakel (Wagner) Schneider, there’s no son named Henry Schneider. Susanna Wiegner married George Schneider on 25 April 1784.

Furthermore, I can identify the family as belonging to the Schwenkfelders. Susanna’s mother is my 6G Grandaunt through the Yeakel family—I descend through her brothers Johannes Heinrich and Jeremias—and her father is my 1st cousin 8x removed through his mother, Susanna Seipt. Despite all the Schneiders in my ancestry, I’m not (to my knowledge) related to George at all.

Additionally, I’ve yet to see ThruLine suggest multiple common ancestors for a match like the current shared ancestors does. And quite a few of my matches share multiple lines of descent with me. If your ancestors stayed in one place like most of mine, sooner or later someone married a cousin.

And remember that this tool will not tell for sure from which ancestor you and your match got your shared DNA. It compares family trees.

So, should you use the tool? Yes, but… verify the information. For some of your matches it will shortcut the research process. For others, not so much.

Ancestry’s New & Improved DNA Matches

Kris Hocker on 28 Feb 2019

RootsTech 2019 has started and Ancestry and MyHeritage are announcing new tools that will be accessible to users on their websites. Yesterday, I spent time working with Ancestry’s new tools: the improved DNA match list page, ThruLines and MyTree Tags. Here’s my take on the new match list and match detail pages.

New & Improved Match List Page

Streamlined match page

AncestryDNA's New Matches page — AncestryDNA’s new match page

As you can see, Ancestry’s new and improved match page looks much different. The display is condensed and features infinite scrolling, adding additional matches as you reach the bottom of the page.

Additionally, if Mom and/or Dad have tested, your matches are tagged according to which side (or both) of your family they match. Unfortunately, this feature only works if Mom and/or Dad has tested with Ancestry.

In the past, I’ve used a third-party browser add-on to display my notes on the match list page. That is no longer necessary. Any notes added are now displayed as part of the page. No more hovering over an icon to see what the note says.

Filtering & Groups

They’ve also changed the filtering and added groups. Filtering allows you to see matches that have

common ancestors (previous Ancestor Hints),
new (unviewed) matches,
those you’ve messaged,
with notes,
private trees,
public linked trees, and
unlinked trees.

Filtering based on ancestral communities/regions has been removed.

As you can see in the images, in the past I’ve tried to visually tag my matches according as maternal or paternal lines using the colored, heart emoticons. We now have the ability to tag our matches as part of Ancestry’s interface. We can create up to 24, color-coded groups which we can then use to filter the match view by group.

Ancestry included the star in this tool, in effect giving you a 25th tag for your matches. To see the name of an assigned group on the list page—it can be hard to remember what each color represents, click on the colored dot and the “add to group” menu pops-up.

I’ve already made good use of this tool, creating 12 groups. The colors I’ve used are marked by the white slash, indicating they can’t be selected when creating a new group.

The group list also includes the ability to filter by:

all matches,
new matches,
close matches (4th cousin or closer),
distant matches,
hidden matches, and
matches shared with a parent (if tested).

Switch Kits

One addition I particularly like was the ability to switch between the kits you manage directly from the match list.

Now you don’t have to return to your DNA overview page to see another kit’s match list.

Match Detail Page

The match detail page has also changed dramatically (see below). We got a preview of these changes when Ancestry added the compare button allowing us to compare ethnicities with a match.

The page is divided into information blocks. Below that header images of you and your match (if available), is a summary block that includes the predicted relationship, amount of shared DNA and any notes.

Next, there is a block with information about your match’s tree. To see the tree you need to click on the “preview tree” button to go to the old match detail page. As a designer, I understand the decision not to show it on this page, but as user I think it’s a step in the wrong direction.

However, perhaps Ancestry assumed the “Common Ancestors” on this page would negate the need for the tree. This is their new ThruLines™ as incorporated into the match detail page. I will wrote more about this feature, but in short it suggests a common ancestor between you and your match. If you click on one of the people, you will see the path to this ancestor for you and your match.

The page shows several of your shared matches. Clicking on the “View all shared matches” button will take you to a list of all your shared matches. On this page, you can add each match to a group.

Below this, there is a map display comparing ethnicity estimates for you and your match, as well, as any shared migrations you may have.

Concerns

I’m thrilled that Ancestry has made these changes. They’ve taken some of the techniques we’ve been using to manage our genetic genealogy research and incorporated them directly into the Ancestry experience. It’s not ground-breaking, but it’s a heck of a lot more convenient.

However, there are a couple of changes I would like to see. A couple of things I’d like to be able do on the match detail page:

Edit your notes
See the group to which this match is assigned and/or add the match to a group
See all your common ancestors—so far, I’ve only see one couple displayed
Switch to another kit who also matches this person

Currently, this page is a display page. You can get some information on the match and go elsewhere for more details, but you cannot interact with or manage it on this page. The old page was much more useful.

On the match list page—particularly when viewing a shared match list—it would be great to be able to bulk add matches to a list. Currently, you have to do it one-by-one.

The tool is still in beta so I expect there will be some changes. If you have ideas, please provide your feedback to the Ancestry team.

Opt-In/Out

You can opt-in or opt-out of this feature by selecting Ancestry Lab under the Extras menu.

To opt-in click the Enable link in the “New & Improved DNA Matches” box. Opting out is a simple as clicking the Disable link.

Tag: DNA