RootsChat.Com

Tx.  Their trees suggest they are full siblings but they are not as DNA says they arent!! Two sisters taking a test at the same time does beg questions!!

As my BiL is related to both by DNA I presume that he is related to the parent they have in common but unfortunately I dont know which one that is.  I have now contacted both in a very generic manner but nada from either response so far.

I will try WATO but apart from this 313/45 cM shared Match I mention in the OP the others are in the grass at 30 odd cM and less

I dont like posting these puzzles but I'm hoping fresh RC eyes can help me out of this frustrating jam!!

My brother in law has a new Ancestry Match who shares 52 cM.  Lets call her J.  This was a mildly interesting development.

Next day there was another Match who shares 108 cM.  Lets call her B. Now this is a Top 15 Match so things are getting quite interesting now.

J and B share the same surnames and have sufficiently unique given names that I have built their trees. So I know they were born within 3 years of each other in the 1990s and incidentally, in the same town as my brother in law.  J and B share 1,649 cM so are very probably half siblings rather than a cross generational relationship like aunt/niece or grandmother. I cannot yet connect their tree to our tree.

The main connection we do have is that J shares 313 cM with my brother in law's 2C2R, but her seeming half sister only shares 45 cM with her.  Assuming no pedigree collapse I am struggling to reconcile what relationship two (half) siblings can have with someone sharing 45 and 313 cM. Maybe 2C but thats in the 99.5% decile for 45 cM!!

There are other interesting wrinkles with other Matches but I didnt want to make things too complex straight away.  Any insight into this particular relationship will no doubt assist our endeavours.

Am I missing a scenario?

Thank you

I don't think it's unfair to say that it's another DNA 'feature' that many think is the answer to everything when it's nothing of the sort. With a large and robust set of matches it may offer a bit of time saving but I still feel that it provides no more answers than diligent grouping and tree building in most cases.

I completely agree!!! Correct me if I'm wrong but this feature does not provide us with any NEW information about Matches or anything for that matter - it just slices and dices information already available and presents it in a new way.  Like I say, please correct me if I am missing something

Just look at how many Matches have minimal or no trees - linked or unlinked you have and I would hazard that the lion's share of those dont give a tinker's cuss about who they Match with - hence zero dialogue with Matches, either way.

I also find that many of those who have photographs and/or state that they are willing to help on their profile tend NOT to respond - virtue signalling I guess.

Btw, today I received a new Ancestry message that simply said " How do you know William Saunders, my grandfather?" .  That attitude combined with the fact I manage over 40 different trees under my Ancestry name means I'm not particularly eager to help out any time soon