Tag: DNA

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.

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).

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.

Building Pedigrees for Shared Matches How DNA Matches Helped Me to Better Understand Jacob Schneider's Paper Trail

Kris Hocker on 18 Dec 2017

Building Pedigrees for Shared Matches

A funny thing happened as I researched the pedigrees of the AncestryDNA matches I shared with my presumed Snyder cousins. A specific surname kept showing up. And it wasn’t Snyder.

I’ve been trying to prove that my four times great grandfather, Henry, was the son of Jacob Schneider and his wife Catharine of Upper Hanover Township, Montgomery County. Part of that effort has involved working with my AncestryDNA matches to find potential Snyder matches and determine how we match. I believe I’ve identified three Snyder cousins—one possible descendant of Henry’s brother Samuel, and two descendants of a potential sibling Jacob Snyder.

To help organize my research, I entered these three individuals (in orange, below) into their own version of the spreadsheet I’ve been using to track my DNA cousins. One column includes a list of our Shared Matches from AncestryDNA.

I used this to identify individuals who turned up over and over again and entered them into the spreadsheet with their Shared Match list. This gave me a list of top candidates for additional research.

Snyder DNA match spreadsheet

DNA match spreadsheet

Some of them had family trees; most did not. Still, I was able to start building family trees on Ancestry for some of these individuals using searches on Google, Ancestry, FamilySearch, and—where possible—Facebook. A lot of it was “pinging” names to see what I could find online, especially possible associates or family members. If I was able to get to parents or grandparents, I was sometimes able to locate obituaries which helped fill in the tree to the point which I could use census and other records on Ancestry and FamilySearch.

All told I was able to locate ancestors who resided in the Upper Hanover Township/East Greenville area and/or were members of the New Goshenhoppen Reformed Church for four of the Shared Matches (marked blue in the Shared Matches column). They all could be traced back to one of two families. A fifth included one of the surnames, but I haven’t been able to tie it to the same couple, yet.

Who were these people? Conrad Nuss and his wife Maria Margaretha Roeder.

The Nuss/Roeder Family

Conrad Nuss, son of Jacob and Anna Maria (Reiher) Nuss, was born 17 March 1743, Upper Salford Township, Montgomery County, and died 18 March 1808 in Upper Hanover Township.1 He married Maria Margaretha Roeder, daughter of Johann Michael and Maria Susanna (Zimmerman) Roeder, at New Goshenhoppen on 22 August 1769.2 She was born 27 June 1745.

They had the following children (italics indicates descendant matches):

  1. Catharina Nuss, born 3 May 17703
  2. Jacob Nuss, born 22 September 17714 and died 18575
  3. Susanna Nuss, born 3 November 17736 and died before 14 Feb 17757
  4. Anna Maria Nuss, born 4 May 17758 and died 29 August 18679
  5. Johannes Nuss, born 4 September 1780 and died 13 March 185210
  6. Elisabeth Nuss, born 25 December 175211 and died 30 April 184312
  7. Susanna Catharine Nuss, born 5 May 178513
  8. Michael Nuss, born 16 June 178714 and died 2 October 185815
  9. Anna Margaretha Nuss, born 12 July 178916
  10. Daniel Roeder Nuss, born 19 June 1791 and died 21 December 186717
  11. Sarah Nuss, born 7 March 1795 and died 25 July 184418

It turns out that I had already researched the Conrad Nuss family. Why? Remember Jacob Schneider’s FAN Club? There were connections between Jacob and members of the Nuss family, but I didn’t realize their importance.

Jacob Snyder's FAN Club

Jacob Snyder’s FAN Club

Connection #1

On 2 April 1810, Jacob Schneider purchased 85 acres of land in Upper Hanover Township from Henry and Margaretha Roeder.19 This land adjoined that of John George Brey, John Griesemer, Andreas Gräber, Conrad Brey and Conrad Marks. Henry Roeder was the half-brother of Conrad Nuss’ wife Anna Margaretha Roeder.

If Catharina was Conrad’s daughter, then Jacob bought his land from her uncle.

Connection #2

Michael Gery was named as the guardian of Jonas Schneider in the 1829 Orphans Court records for Jacob’s estate.20 This Michael was one of two men: Michael Gery, son of Jacob and Gertraut (Griesemer) Gery, or his nephew Michael Treichler Gery, son of Jacob and Elizabeth (Treichler) Gery Jr. The elder Michael married Anna Maria Nuss and the younger Michael married Sarah Nuss, both women Conrad’s daughters.

Regardless of which Michael Gery the document refers to, if Catharina was a Nuss, Jonas’ guardian was his uncle.

Connection #3

After Jacob’s death, Catharina and Henry, his administrators, sold his land on 21 November 1829.21 To whom? Michael Gery of Hereford Township. Both uncle and nephew of this name were living in Hereford Township. I have not done enough research to determine which one made the purchase.

However, in either case, if Catharina was a Nuss, then they sold the land to her brother-in-law.

Connection #4

Conrad Nuss and family were members of the New Goshenhoppen Church. Baptisms for most of his children—including including his eldest daughter Catharine—can be found in the church records. My four times great grandfather Henry and presumably several of his siblings—Jacob, Elizabeth, and Catharina—were confirmed and/or took communion at the church.22 Henry and sister Catharine were both buried in the church’s graveyard. It’s not uncommon for children to be baptized in their mother’s church.

If Catharina was Conrad’s daughter, then finding her children in New Goshenhoppen Church records—even though I don’t find their father Jacob—makes a lot of sense.

Connection #5

Daniel Nuss sponsored Carl Schneider’s baptism at New Goshenhoppen Reformed Church on 21 February 1836.23 Carl was the son of Daniel and Sara Schneider. Jacob and Catharina had a son named Daniel.

If this is their son—and I think it possible—and Catharina was a Nuss, then her youngest brother sponsored her grandson.

Lastly, I guesstimated Catharina’s birth year at being between 1770 to 1775, based on Henry’s 1792 date of birth. I lean toward 1770 in the estimate. Conrad Nuss’ daughter Catharina was born in May 1770. This fits the family timeline and the picture that’s emerging from all the various pieces of evidence.

Conclusions

I was able to trace the ancestry of several DNA matches I share with presumed Snyder cousins back to Conrad and Maria Margaretha (Roeder) Nuss of Upper Hanover Township. My relationship to each—mostly 5th cousins—fits nicely into the 4th-6th cousin range, as estimated, with 20+ centimorgans of shared DNA.

Because Conrad’s son Johannes married Esther Schultz, daughter of Andrew Schultz and Charlotte Yeakel, my 5x great grandparents, two of these matches can not be used to prove a relationship to the Nuss family without using a chromosome browser. Which Ancestry does not have.

Fortunately, I’m also related to descendants of Elizabeth (Nuss) Hertzel, Michael Nuss, and Daniel Nuss, three of Conrad and Margaretha’s other children. This supports the idea of a familial connection between Henry Schneider and his potential grandparents Conrad and Margaretha.

Without the DNA evidence, the facts found in the paper trail did not connect for me. I knew they were meaningful, but I did not know exactly how. Knowing the connection could be through the Nuss—not Gery, Brey or Griesemer—family and their associations helps to explain the evidence found in the documentation.

Based on this research, I’m hypothesizing that Henry’s mother, Catharina, was the eldest daughter of Conrad Nuss and Maria Margaretha Roeder.

 

Addendum

When I mentioned this research and the conclusions to my Mom, she said, “Oh, yes. Nuss is very common up around East Greenville. My dad told me we’re related to them.” Thanks, Mom.

5 Tips to Help You Get the Most Out of Your AncestryDNA Results

Kris Hocker on 8 Dec 2017

I’ve been using AncestryDNA for more than a year now. Like most anything, there are good points and bad points, things I like and things I don’t like. Here are my five top tips to help you turn my top frustrations into your opportunities to get the most out of your AncestryDNA test results.

1. Add a family tree

What’s the number one thing you can do to maximize the benefit of taking an AncestryDNA test? Add or build a family tree on Ancestry. If you want to make connections to your DNA matches, they’ll need something to connect to.

You don’t need to be able to trace your ancestors back to the original immigrant. Add yourself, your parents, your grandparents and so on as far back as you can. If you can only get a couple of generations, that’s okay. If you can get back to those born before 1940, that’s even better. (See tip #3 for why this is important.)

And, please, add dates and places. Sometimes, when surnames don’t click, places can point a match to the appropriate line in your respective trees to research further.

2. Connect your tree to your DNA test

If you don’t connect your tree to your test, your matches will see the “No family tree” image beside your information, even if you have a tree. They won’t know you have a tree unless they click to view the match. And if it says “no family tree” they may not think they have any reason to view your match. So, please link your DNA test to your tree.

Update: Ancestry has changed this up a bit. They now provide multiple status designations for tree: # People to show there is a tree, Unlinked Tree for trees not linked to the DNA test, a lock icon to show the tree is private, a leaf to show there’s a common ancestor, No Trees, and Tree Unavailable.

Attach the DNA test to you. If you manage another test, attach that test to the correct person in your tree—or their tree if you’ve set up a separate one for them. Don’t make your matches guess whether or not the testee matches the home person in the tree.

I can’t tell you how many matches I’ve looked at where the test belongs to a male and the person shown in the tree is female, or vice versa. My reaction is always the same. Next match.

3. Trace collateral lines

Since the point of taking a DNA test is to connect with cousins (aka matches), building out your collateral lines—aunts, uncles, etc.—as far as possible makes it easier for Ancestry (in the form of Shared Ancestry Hints, aka shaky leaves) and your matches to find your most recent common ancestor. I’ve found it not only increases the number of Shared Ancestry Hints, but I can also recognize names more easily in a match’s tree, even if their tree doesn’t go back far enough to connect to our common ancestor.

In most cases I can build out collateral lines down to those born before the 1940 census. I can often take them further, especially in Pennsylvanian lines, if I luck out and find military compensation files, pre-1964 death certificates, obituaries, and/or Find A Grave entries. If I can datamine online directories and Facebook, I can often flesh out a tree to the present.

4. Make your tree public

A lot of people make their trees private. I can understand that; I have a private tree that I use for my most of my research. I also have a public tree that’s tied to my DNA test. If you want to get DNA Circles, your tree will need to be public.

What’s the benefit of DNA circles? Besides easily finding testers who descend from a specific ancestor, you will also find testers who you do not match, but who match other descendants of that ancestor. For instance, there are six members of the Philip Hoover and Hannah (Thomas) Hoover DNA circles. I only match three of the members. One of these matches shares DNA with all the other Circle members. I can “View Relationship” with each member to see how we’re related. Even if we do not share DNA.

The largest Circle of which I’m a member is the George M. Walker DNA Circle. It has 28 members. Considering he had 26 children with two wives, this is hardly a surprise. These matches—and non-matches—can help me build out the descendants in his family tree.

You can also get “New Ancestor Discoveries” if your tree is public. If two or more of your matches share a common ancestor in their tree and share DNA with you and each other, you’ll see their common ancestor as a New Ancestor Discovery. You may or may not actually be related to them, however. Several of my matches are descended from Jeremiah Rupert (1852-1924) and Abby Ann Heasley (1857-1908). I’ve traced a couple of these matches back to Philip Hoover and Hannah Thomas. The rest I’m unsure about. So far, I’ve found no direct connection between the Rupert family and any of my direct ancestors.

5. Download your DNA results

And the final tip, download your DNA results. Why? So you can upload it to1 :

  1. GEDmatch
  2. Family Tree DNA
  3. MyHeritage
  4. LivingDNA

Each of these sites will provide you will additional DNA matches—for free!2 Granted AncestryDNA has the largest database, but it’s not everyone’s first choice. By uploading to these sites, you’ll be able to include those potential cousins in your research, too. You never know when you might find the cousin who has the family Bible or photos.

On GEDmatch and FTDNA (for a small fee) you’ll also get access to additional tools. Both of these sites will not only list your DNA matches, but will show you where you match on the chromosome(s). This allows you to use more sophisticated techniques—like triangulation—to determine which segments of your chromosomes map to which ancestors.

This creates a more definitive identification of a shared ancestor between you and specific matches than Ancestry’s Shared Ancestor Hints—which is based more on the matches in your respective trees than DNA shared between you.

So, these are my top five tips. I’m sure there are others. What do you do to get the most out of your AncestryDNA results?

5 tips to get the most from your AncestryDNA results

The Snyder Connection Inching Closer to Proof of Henry's Parentage

Kris Hocker on 5 Dec 2017

The Snyder Connection Inching Closer to Proof of Henry's Parentage

Ever since I discovered that Heinrich Schneider (aka Henry Snyder) of Upper Hanover Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania was the father of my 3x great grandfather Joseph Snyder, I’ve been on a mission to trace the family back further.

I discovered a couple who may be Henry’s parents—Jacob Schneider, who died in 1829, and his wife Catharina. Montgomery County Orphans Court records list Jacob’s children as:

  • Henry
  • Jacob
  • Elizabeth
  • Catharine
  • Samuel
  • Daniel
  • Michael
  • John
  • Sarah
  • Jonas

Henry served as one of the administrator’s of Jacob’s estate.1 Sarah and Jonas were both underage as of 19 October 1829. Sarah, however, was over 14 years-old, so she was born between 19 October 1808 and 19 October 1815.2 Jonas was under 14 years-old; he was born after 19 October 1815 and before 19 October 1829.3

In September, I located a gravestone for a Catharine Snyder, born 24 January 1793 and died 24 August 1877, in the New Goshenhoppen Church cemetery in East Greenville. She was buried in the same plot as Henry’s daughters and son-in-law, indicating she was family. I believe her to be Henry’s sister and my 4x great aunt.

I traced one of my AncestryDNA matches’ family back to Samuel and Judith (Wolf) Snyder. I was able to determine that Judith was a daughter of Jacob and Magdalena (Brey) Wolf, and, therefore, sister to my 3x great grandfather Joel Wolf.4 But since Samuel had a brother named Jonas,5 he may have been a son of Jacob and Catharina, and thus my blood relative, too, making “E” doubly related to me.

Recently, I found two matches who trace their ancestry back to Jacob Snyder (1796-1882) and Anna Maria Fluck (1800-1870). To the best of my determination, Snyder is our only common surname. Jacob and Maria resided in Springfield Township, Bucks County, not far from Upper Hanover Township where my presumed ancestor Jacob (Sr.) owned land.6 This Jacob was born 9 January 1796,7 making him only four years younger than Henry.

Jacob Sr.’s household had 3 males born after 1790 as enumerated in the 1800 census8 and one male aged 10-15 in 18109, making it possible that this Jacob was Henry’s younger brother. Jacob Schneider, presumably Henry’s brother, was confirmed at New Goshenhoppen Evangelical Lutheran Church on 1 April 1815, aged 17 years.10 It’s not an exact match, but I’m keeping it as a definite possibility given the DNA matches.

Both of these matches descend through Jacob and Maria’s son Joseph, through children of both of his wives. Both appear in my Shared Matches list for the other. One of them also matches “E,” the descendant of Samuel and Judith (Wolf) Snyder, but does not have the surname Wolf in her family tree.

Assuming that we all match through children of Jacob and Catharina (___) Schneider, this is what our tree would look like.

Snyder chart

I match each of them a little over 20cMs on 2 segments, according to AncestryDNA. These numbers are consistent with the proposed relationships fifth cousin (T), fourth cousin once removed (T2 and E). Unfortunately, they’re also consistent with a range of other cousin relationships, too.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, I can’t pinpoint the relationship to these matches with certainty. I believe that the Snyder family is likely the connection—Jacob fits given his dates and locations. So, my working hypothesis is that Jacob was the son of Jacob and Catharina (___) Schneider. I’m going to continue to work through our shared matches to see if I can identify additional points of connection.

Who knows? I might even determine Catharina’s maiden name.