RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: pandacub on Wednesday 14 September 22 10:59 BST (UK)
-
I am trying to understand how DNA Testing works but I have to admit to being thoroughly confused so I hope someone will be kind enough to help me.
My situation is that my Paternal GreatGrandfather was illegitimate. I know from his birth cert and baptism record that his father was Philip Small. My research has led to me to a Philip Small from Dundee 1845-1931, who I suspect could be my 2 x GreatGrandfather.
I have made contact with a person who is a direct descendant of Philip Small from Dundee, and had also come to the conclusion that my GreatGrandfather could be the illegitimate child of their ancestor.
We are both happy to pay for DNA Testing but are unsure if it would definitely confirm if we share the same ancestor or not?
Many thanks.
-
If you have a DNA match with the other person it will certainly confirm you are related in some way and share an ancestor somewhere. The amount of shared DNA gives an indication of the closeness of the match,
This is useful to predict possible relationships
https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4
If you and the other person are of the same generation and share a 2 x great grandfather (but have different 2 x great grandmothers) you would be half third cousins. To definitely identify the shared ancestor, you would also need to look at matches you both share, as you could share a different ancestor from the one you are expecting.
-
Thanks very much LizzieL. It sounds as if the DNA test will definitely be worth taking. One more question please. I've seen adverts from various places for the tests, is Ancestry the best one?
-
I took the Ancestry one and I think most people on here would also recommend Ancestry as they have the largest number of people on their database, so more likely to get large numbers of matches. You can also link a tree to your results. Ancestry can also find common ancestors for you by comparing trees - but beware that is based on your matches' trees which may have errors in them.
I have a half third cousin, who is obviously related because we have a lot of shared DNA, but Ancestry doesn't pick up our common ancestor, because she has a big mistake in her tree (wrong 2nd wife for my 2 x great grandfather). Another common ancestor that Ancestry picked up for me is the wrong relationship, because my match's tree shows my 3 x great grandmother's brother as her father.
It is also possible to download your raw DNA data from Ancestry and upload to a number of other sites (Gedmatch, My Heritage etc) and so increase chances of matches with people who originally tested with other providers.
-
Great, thanks very much LizzieL. I've so far avoided the Ancestry trees as I've heard about so many inaccuracies with them. I initially just put my tree on TheGenealogist as I like their system of people having to request access to view, that way I can explain about the bits of my tree that I'm not sure about. I've not made many contacts from TG though and Ancestry certainly seems to have a bigger database. So perhaps I need to think again.
Thanks again for all your help, much appreciated.
-
You can always make your tree private on Ancestry, but make it searchable so that if people find a possible common ancestor they can send you a message. Then you can either provide them with information or just allow that one person access to view - or, of course, tell them your John Smith born 1800 in Gateshead cannot possibly be the same as their John Smith born 1870 in Cornwall ;D ;D
-
Ancestry having a sale at the moment but ends 11.59 pm tonight
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/c/dna/offer?o_xid=123120&o_lid=123120&o_sch=Email+Campaigns
They usually have a sale around Black Friday as well
-
Thanks, I didn't know the Ancestry trees could be private, sounds a good option for me, especially with the current sale. I think I was put off the Ancestry trees when a neighbour showed me her family tree which she had constructed during a 14 day trial with Ancestry. There were glaring errors, I could see straight away that someone had lived to 130, someone else had got married at the age of 4 and a 70 year old woman had given birth. I asked my neighbour about checking sources but she didn't know what I was talking about. I have politely declined her offer to help me with my tree!
-
I was in the same situation, my Great Grandmother does not have a Father on her Birth Cert and on her Marriage Cert her Grandfather is listed as her Father.
Then I had a 240cM match show up on Ancestry, the match did not respond to a Message and his Family Tree was just two, but one was his Father’s forename and birth date. I built a tree and found his Great Great Grandfather was the right age to have Fathered my Great Grandmother.
Using the DNA Shared Match’s tool give my match a 2C relationship and other DNA matches to this new line all have a relationship to me in the range of Probabilities in DNA Painter.
My confirmation will be if the DNA results of a first Cousin match’s my own,
So yes DNA does work but if you have a first Cousin who you share this Great Grandfather with or even a Second Cousin you could get them to test as well and they too should share with the direct descendent of Philip Small thus giving extra confidence in your research
-
Thanks Biggles50, that's very helpful. I do have a couple of first cousins from that line who take an interest in my research so I will see how they feel about being tested.
-
Also, Ancestry trees per se are not incorrect - it is the input data that is incorrect. If you are accurate and have sources then they should be no problem with your tree - unfortunately the same can't be said for other users.
Pheno
-
Yes you are quite right Pheno, it's the input data that is incorrect. The main reason I am hesitant to put my tree online for everyone to view is because there are no sources filled in. I started my tree many years ago before I had a computer and most of my records are still only stored on paper. I did think about filling in all the sources but it's far too big a job. So I prefer to have contact first with the person who wants to view to explain this.
-
If you do put your tree on Ancestry it will provide you with plenty of record hints for each person which can be used as your source. You will need to go through them and sort the wood from the trees but as long as you only accept sources that you can verify and which you are sure relate to your person then you will soon populate your tree.
If you are going down the DNA route then you need to put your tree online otherwise you won't get any DNA matches.
Pheno
-
Thanks Pheno, that was really helpful. I still struggle with all this online stuff. I only recently came back to my research after neglecting it for several years and there are so many more sources and websites to learn about. I also think I've made a bad decision with my online tree as I've just done one big tree which includes all the branches of my tree and also my husband's tree. It's got far too big, think there are over 3000 names so far. I can see that I can chop it into sections so I think that might be the next job!
-
If you are going down the DNA route then you need to put your tree online otherwise you won't get any DNA matches.
You'll get DNA matches without a tree, but you won't get the Ancestry hints and possible common Ancestors links / thrulines with your DNA matches
OH has plenty of DNA matches but hasn't yet got round to putting his tree on line. He's trying to make it "perfect" before he exposes it to the world. ;D
-
You don't have to put your full tree on line but do put yourself as home person and build up to the grandparents you are interested in
And most importantly link your tree to your DNA results so others can see connections
There is a facility to search surnames in tees if your DNA matches so even if you don't have the putative father on YOUR. Tree you can see if you match anyone else with the surname on Their trees . If it is an usual surname of their mother has an unusual surname you will quickly see if anyone matches you on that branch
-
The red dots are where a DNA match and I share Common Ancestor(s) so you can see just how far back I have had to go with the vast majority of my matches.
Without you knowing how to build and use an online tree linking to DNA matches in your tree is likely to be hard work.
Your online tree only needs the names and the birth dates of your Ancestors then you will get Hints and more important imo Common Ancestor hints where a possible route from you to your DNA match is provided. Without an online tree this will not be possible.
Once you have started to build a tree you make it PRIVATE so nobody can see it, you even have the option of turning off it being found in searches.
If you are not prepared to build an online tree then imo you are wasting your money on a DNA test.
Without an online tree the 70 Cousins I have added to my tree would still be stuck in the either, and the same with the 78 that have been added to my Wife’s tree.
-
Thanks for all the replies. I've learnt a lot and it's given me plenty to think about to help me plan the way forward. I'm very grateful to you all for taking the time to explain things so well.
-
a neighbour showed me her family tree
There were glaring errors, someone had lived to 130, someone had married at age 4 and a 70 year old woman had given birth.
I asked my neighbour about checking sources but she didn't know what I was talking about.
I have politely declined her offer to help me with my tree!
I think you should have 'politely' offered to amend her tree ;D
Annie
-
Hi Annie.
I did try to point out one entry that was clearly wrong, but my neighbour would not accept anything could be incorrect. What infuriates me is that after 2 weeks of research she is calling herself an expert and is offering to help other neighbours start a family tree! She has left her tree with hundreds of entries for everyone to view on Ancestry, she explained to me that it was important to do that to help others!
-
It is no doubt a daunting task should you decide to put your tree online.
3000 is a pretty good number, mine is nearly 7000 after 12 years but I have never been into the numbers that many are, accuracy is far more important.
I would counsel against splitting your tree up as you can only link your DNA test results into one tree.
For DNA matching going back to 1800 and as wide as possible will help with the DNA hints especially those that have Common Ancestor(s).
-
Also DNA matches on ancestry you can compare ethnicity with your matches . If your ancestor was of Scottish origin and not just living in Dundee that will show
-
Thanks Biggles50 and bridigmac, more very helpful information.
That has made me think twice about splitting up the tree. I do have my tree input on Treeview on TG, and I have now been told I can get that in Gedcom form and export it to Ancestry. Something else for me to learn!
I also didn't realise about the ethnicity match. The Philip Small I am interested in was born in Scotland to a Scottish mother and English father. I have traced that mother back a couple of generations and her branch all seem to come from Fife.
Thanks again.
-
I am trying to understand how DNA Testing works but I have to admit to being thoroughly confused so I hope someone will be kind enough to help me.
My situation is that my Paternal GreatGrandfather was illegitimate. I know from his birth cert and baptism record that his father was Philip Small. My research has led to me to a Philip Small from Dundee 1845-1931, who I suspect could be my 2 x GreatGrandfather.
I have made contact with a person who is a direct descendant of Philip Small from Dundee, and had also come to the conclusion that my GreatGrandfather could be the illegitimate child of their ancestor.
We are both happy to pay for DNA Testing but are unsure if it would definitely confirm if we share the same ancestor or not?
Many thanks.
Not necessarily but there is a good possibility it will.
We inherit approximately 50% of our DNA from our father and inherit approximately 50% of our DNA from our mother.
This means we do not carry or inherit approximately 50% each of our parents DNA. In a similar way any children our ancestors have will only carry 50% of each of their parents DNA. We and they can only pass on the DNA we carry; we cannot pass on any DNA we have not inherited.
It is therefore possible though unlikely that two siblings do not share the same DNA and as the number of generations between the common ancestor and the living people gets larger the less likelihood of sharing DNA exists.
Luckily in many, if not most cases there is still some common DNA but the amount may be too small to differentiate between and ancestor's DNA and normal background DNA from a “local” population.
Cheers
Guy
P.S. DNA is another tool to help in your research, as with paper evidence we need to find and collate as much evidence from as many sources as possible before coming to any conclusion. We should also be aware that even after collating all the evidence we have collected our assumptions may be shown to be wrong. Unless we are aware it is always possible to draw the wrong conclusions and are willing to recheck our existing work as farther records become available we will never be able to claim or tree is totally accurate.
Any tree is always a work in progress and for a man that may even include ones "own" children, in most cases this last is not likely but it is a possibility and I only mention it to make people aware older paper records could be inaccurate.
Cheers
Guy
Corrected my spelling, sorry Guy
-
Thanks Guy, some very good advice there. I am continually grateful to everyone on this site who takes the time to help other people out.
-
I took a DNA test with Ancestry a couple of years ago now. In my case I did already have a private tree on Ancestry, but I was still hesitant about taking the DNA test. Having eventually taken the plunge, I would offer the following advice.
First of all, don't be put off by the stories you hear about Ancestry trees. Yes, there are some trees on Ancestry which are complete nonsense, but there are also well researched, carefully assembled trees which are a rich resource for your research. Just remember, an Ancestry tree is only as good as it's owner.
Don't worry about the sources. My private tree is carefully sourced, with links and details carefully explained, and with comments detailing my thinking where there may be confusion or ambiguity in the information available. When I took the DNA test, I misunderstood the information and thought I had to have the results linked to a public tree to get any benefit from eg Thrulines (I now know it works fine with a private searchable tree but such is life). Since I wanted to get the maximum benefit from the test, and needed something constructive to do whilst I waited for the results, I set to work creating a public tree, but made a conscious decision NOT to copy all the thousands of sources from the main one. So the public, DNA linked tree has births, deaths and marriages but zero sources (the one exception being I write in the parish and entry numbers for those records which came from Scotland's People). My attitude being if someone dismisses my tree simply because it appears to have no sources, that's their loss.
Related to the above - don't be a Genealogy snob. Just because a tree has some mistakes, just because it has 16 000 + entries, just because it has a mother with 4 children born in the same year, doesn't mean it is all wrong. It might be that the one tree on Ancestry which provides the crucial link to your undiscovered 5x Great grandparents is that tree with multiple obvious mistakes but which also happens to have a copy of a family bible from the 1700s of your non conformist 4x great grandparents.
ALWAYS remember that hints are just that - hints which MIGHT relate to your ancestor or relative. Crucially, also remember that thrulines are also HINTS. Check, double check and even triple check them. Most of the obvious errors you will find on Ancestry are due to people blindly accepting hints without checking - plus a few cases of even quite thorough and careful researchers sometimes being guilty of believing what they want to believe.
Don't fall into the "20 people can't all be wrong" trap - just because several trees all have the same marriage or the same parents for your ancestor does NOT mean they all researched and drew the same conclusion, nor does it mean they are all correct.
Above all, remember that even if your tree is public its still YOUR tree. If you have researched a particular person and are confident in your own mind that they do belong in the tree, go ahead and put them in. No one else has a right to tell you that they shouldn't be there if you think they should.
-
Many thanks Albufera32 for your detailed reply, it was very helpful.
I think I will end up putting a public tree on Ancestry but I will take out some of the data from my current private tree so I end up with the ancestors that I'm sure about and who are relevant to my DNA. My husband's ancestors take up half my tree and I've also got a couple of large branches passed on by contacts that only relate to former spouses with no bloodline connection to my ancestors.
I'm not sure what I should do with Philip Small from Dundee on my tree. I have built up quite a large branch whilst trying to see if I can confirm if he is my 2xGreatGrandfather or not. I don't think he should be on a public tree as I have no proof yet that he is my ancestor. However I'd like to take advantage of every opportunity to connect with more of his descendants.
-
In an Ancestry tree you can flag an individual as unverified if you want. My own view is that it’s best to keep hypothetical lines in, suitably marked, so that you can get the best of out the AncestryDNA algorithm which may (if you’re lucky) provide evidence to strengthen or disprove a hypothesis.
-
That's great thanks avm228, I will definitely include that section of the tree then and mark everyone as unverified.
-
There are a number of options available - there is no limit to the number of trees you can have on Ancestry, so you can for example have one for your own family and one for your husband's family. Either or both can be public or private. You can also do what I do, which is to have a private tree, which is very much a working tree, and a public tree which only includes those blood relations (and their spouses) of whom I am confident. There may still be a few errors even in the public tree, but not many I hope.
You can also create a tree for your potential relative in Dundee, and try to build their tree to see if you can find a common ancestor. That might well be a tree you would want to keep as a private tree.
Another option is to have a private tree with a name like "Test tree" into which you can add not just your Dundee relative but any matches you can't quite figure out, in order to build those trees to find the link.
Whatever you choose to do, I would strongly recommend that to get the most out of the DNA test you make your linked tree as "wide" as possible - For each generation, add as many siblings and their families as you are confident about.
-
another little warning even if you tag unverified some people copy
to avoid theta you can mark the person as living so their profile will not show
this may lead people to believe you are not a good genealogist if you have living people over 150 years old but avoids the trap of copying and keeps the option open to find thru lines or surname matches
-
I'm increasingly frustrated by a lack of matches in one of my pedigree lines, the names appear in other trees, I send messages which are read but do not receive a response and Ancestry can only say the other person has either not taken a test or is not a match. It's possibly the most useless piece of information to give someone. It really doesn't rule anything in or out and there can be multiple reasons why building a tree down to that person can be problematic.
The stark reality in my case is my father isn't a son of the man named on his birth cert and it's looking increasingly likely that the same applies to my maternal grandfather, there are no matches to his ancestors though the paper trail goes back at least four generations from him. I can group some of my matches to one grandmother or another but I'm left with far more I can't even place as maternal or paternal side.
-
I would say you need to put SMALL on your tree so that it shows up in the ancestors surnames box others with Small surname will see it
-
Thanks for the latest replies, all very helpful.
I am excited this morning as I've now been contacted by a descendant of Elizabeth Maddocks who was the wife of Philip Small from Dundee. They have got quite a lot of information about the background of Philip Small, crucially including some from the period around 1870 which was when my Great Grandfather was born. Hopefully it may include something that might help prove or disprove whether Philip Small could be my 2 x GreatGrandfather.
-
"I have made contact with a person who is a direct descendant of Philip Small from Dundee, and had also come to the conclusion that my GreatGrandfather could be the illegitimate child of their ancestor.
We are both happy to pay for DNA Testing but are unsure if it would definitely confirm if we share the same ancestor or not?"
DNA will only confirm you are related via that line or other line...
DNA will either confirm or refute the conclusions you've come to, however, it also depends on how reliable your matches' info. is too.
You haven't given any info. on your g g/f, where born etc; all you've given was info. on a Philip Small from Dundee with no other info; occ. or info. on his marriage &/or death.
What info. does your g g/f give on his marriage re Philip (if any) & what info. was on his death re Philip (if any).
All added snippets on any docs can help with pinning down the correct chap as his father if they tally with what's known of the 'suspected' father.
Annie
-
Hello Annie, thanks for your reply.
My greatgrandfather's birth cert shows him as Philip William Small born on 26th Oct 1870 at 13 Bermuda St Mile End. Father Philip Small, occupation painter. Mother Rebecca Bethell. His christening record, 20th Nov 1970 at St Thomas Stepney, shows parents as Philip and Rebecca Small, abode Stepney, father's occupation painter. I have found nothing to say that Philip and Rebecca were ever married.
It now starts to get complicated. Rebecca married Edward Edwards on 26th Dec 1876 at St Lukes Holborn, she is described as a widow. From then onwards my greatgrandfather was called William Edwards. His marriage cert shows that his father is Edward Edwards. The story that was passed down to me via my late father and grandfather was that my greatgrandfather knew that Edward Edwards was not his father, but he accepted him as such, and it was something the family never talked about. My greatgrandfather could not remember having a father when he was a small child, his only early memories were of his mother Rebecca and her sister.
What I have done is find everyone I can called Philip Small in various records. After a process of elimination I am left with only one possibility who is Philip Small born around 1844 in Dundee. I have located all his census entries where he is showing as a painter or scenic artist. He married Elizabeth Maddocks in Belper in 1873. He died in Paddington on 4th May 1931 aged 86 years.
So as you see I have no proof at all so far. It is just that this Philip Small from Dundee is the right age and occupation and seems to be the only candidate left after looking into everyone else I could find with that name. I'm still in the process of swapping documents with the people I have found who are descended from this Philip Small and his wife Elizabeth Maddocks. Fingers crossed there may be some clue there.
-
In an Ancestry tree you can flag an individual as unverified if you want. My own view is that it’s best to keep hypothetical lines in, suitably marked, so that you can get the best of out the AncestryDNA algorithm which may (if you’re lucky) provide evidence to strengthen or disprove a hypothesis.
In Ancestry you can assign an image to the Profile, this will show up when you view the tree or the individual and is very clearly questionable.
-
thats a great idea Biggles ...surely no one could miss a big red questionmark
Ive got a few wierd examples where someone has copied an image without checkin
i messaged the person whod copied the image for my 3xggmother which was a screen shot of her profile ,relationship to me ..I politely said you may want to change the title of this image as its my great grandmother she is your 3x great aunt !
many people put photos of their "pops" or Grandma without changing the title ..it leads to thinking that the tree holder is the grandchild of the person in the picture
-
My greatgrandfather's birth cert shows him as Philip William Small born on 26th Oct 1870 at 13 Bermuda St Mile End. Father Philip Small, occupation painter. Mother Rebecca Bethell. His christening record, 20th Nov 1970 at St Thomas Stepney, shows parents as Philip and Rebecca Small, abode Stepney, father's occupation painter. I have found nothing to say that Philip and Rebecca were ever married.
When adding addresses it's always best to add the Reg. Dist. / County / Country as there are quite a few places named 'Mile End'.
What info. do you have for the family &/or Philip on the 1871 census?
Annie
-
I think perhaps we are all going a little more deeply into the OP's question than is really necessary.
If I understand correctly, OP has a paper trail to a person called Philip Small who would be their 2X great grandfather. OP also has a possible candidate, and has made contact with a person directly descended from this possible candidate.
Assuming both of them are correct, that would, I think make them 3rd half cousins (if the person contacted is of the same generation as OP - a remove or two if they are not).
I may be mistaken, but I think the chances of that close a match not registering as a DNA match are very slim.
So assuming all the above to be correct, I think the simple answer to the OP's original question is YES, if you are correct, a DNA test taken by you both should produce a match.
-
Here are some statistics from ISOGG on the probability that 2 cousins will share enough DNA for the relationship to be detected:
https://isogg.org/wiki/Cousin_statistics
-
If I understand correctly, OP has a paper trail to a person called Philip Small who would be their 2X great grandfather. OP also has a possible candidate, and has made contact with a person directly descended from this possible candidate.
Yes that's correct, you've summed the situation up there better than I managed to! Thanks for all your help.
-
When adding addresses it's always best to add the Reg. Dist. / County / Country as there are quite a few places named 'Mile End'.
What info. do you have for the family &/or Philip on the 1871 census?
Annie
Sorry Annie, it's Mile End in London, Reg Dist is Mile End Old Town, County Middlesex.
In 1871 Philip Small was in Eldon, Sheffield, Yorkshire West Riding. My greatgrandfather was still at Bermuda St with his aunt and uncle. Philip Small's brother William Wilson Small was in St Jude Eldon St, Ecclesall Bierlow, Yorkshire West Riding. His married sister Elizabeth Olgilvie was still in Scotland. His mother Helen Small died in 1864. I can't find a death record for his father Robert Small, but think he was also dead by 1871.
Thanks for all your help.
-
An update.
I did the DNA test and I've just finally finished going through some of the many matches. I have a match with my contact who is a direct descendant of Philip Small. I also have matches with 37 other people who have Philip Small or his extended family in their trees. I still have more matches to look at but I'm hopeful I have found sufficient proof here to be sure that Philip Small was my 2xGGP.
Thanks again to everyone who helped me.
-
That's great + I want to add that I loved Albu..s hint earlier on topic
Don't be an ancestry snob
My 3rd cousin wanted to do his own tree and accepted Ancestry hints I had to slow him down before he went back too many generations as he'd got a hint for his maybe aunt in the basis that DNA match comes out as cousin ( which did turn out to be tree ) but his cousin has not included mother's maiden name .
Ancestry hint was for a birth under married name
So name was wrong
Also the person he'd added died age 2 so couldn't have been his grandmother