Should I ignore these DNA matches?

[Guy Etchells]

Also consider NPEs (Non-Parental Events)

Or as the more experienced family historian would put it "Not the Parent Expected", why because every birth has a male parent and a female parent, but not every birth entry attaches the correct names to the entry, therefore the event is a Parental Event but simply does not reveal the correct parents.

Perhaps I should say (and apologies to those who have heard similar before) this is another reason why family historians should not resort to abbreviations unless the provide a key to the abbreviation used.
Cheers
Guy

[Gadget]

Also consider NPEs (Non-Parental Events)

Or as the more experienced family historian would put it "Not the Parent Expected", why because every birth has a male parent and a female parent, but not every birth entry attaches the correct names to the entry, therefore the event is a Parental Event but simply does not reveal the correct parents.

Perhaps I should say (and apologies to those who have heard similar before) this is another reason why family historians should not resort to abbreviations unless the provide a key to the abbreviation used.
Cheers
Guy

I hope you're not implying that I'm not an experienced family historian, Guy.  I've been researching since the 1950s and have relevant degrees  covering different aspects of genealogy.  I have also helped far more members than you.

The OP has referred to NPEs and is quite aware of the meaning.  The meaning that I used is the usual one used and understood.

It would help if you were less arrogant and critical.


Gadget

Add - I'm sure most of us using this forum do understand the process of conception, pregnancy and birth without instruction from you!

[Gadget]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-paternity_event

In genetics, a non-paternity event (also known as misattributed paternity, not parent expected, or NPE) is when someone who is presumed to be an individual's father is not in fact the biological father.

Add -this link may also be of use:

https://isogg.org/wiki/Non-paternity_event

[Guy Etchells]

Also consider NPEs (Non-Parental Events)

Or as the more experienced family historian would put it "Not the Parent Expected", why because every birth has a male parent and a female parent, but not every birth entry attaches the correct names to the entry, therefore the event is a Parental Event but simply does not reveal the correct parents.

Perhaps I should say (and apologies to those who have heard similar before) this is another reason why family historians should not resort to abbreviations unless the provide a key to the abbreviation used.
Cheers
Guy

I hope you're not implying that I'm not an experienced family historian, Guy.  I've been researching since the 1950s and have relevant degrees  covering different aspects of genealogy.  I have also helped far more members than you.

The OP has referred to NPEs and is quite aware of the meaning.  The meaning that I used is the usual one used and understood.

It would help if you were less arrogant and critical.


Gadget

Add - I'm sure most of us using this forum do understand the process of conception, pregnancy and birth without instruction from you!

Good for you I for one have never stopped learning about family history or genealogy since I fisrt became interested in the the subject in the early 50s, I still accept I have much to learn on the subject one of the reasons I am enrolled in a course running at the present time.
The day I stop learning will be the day when everthing is revealed as I meet my ancestors in person and I am sure they will point out all my errors.

However it it make you feel more superior then I publicly offer my profuse and abject apologies to Gadget a person who knows far more than me on the subject and who has helped more people than I have or probably every will.
Cheers
Guy
P.S. We are taliking about Family History or Genealogy not Genetics, slight difference.

[Gadget]

Guy, could you, perhaps, contriibute to pickpin's query, now.

[melba_schmelba]

I'm pretty sure there are NPEs at play here.  All the closest matches (100-500cm) have no shared ancestors on paper so I'm being really careful not to make assumptions, hence I don't want to assume these distant matches are relatives if that may not be the case.

A 217cM match isn't distant. That is 1/2 1st cousin, 2nd cousin, or 1st cousin once removed level. Or a very high level of one degree further. I wouldn't pay much attention to Thrulines, look at the shared matches of you and the 217cM match and see if they also have trees. The amount shown there is how much they link to you, not the other person, that is a common source of confusion.

[brigidmac]

I like the definition of 'not parent expected '
1 of my matches 29cm had same location and all the same higher  DNA matches
And the JONES surname but I couldn't work out how we linked until he revealed that his great grandmother was brought up by birth father  but registered under single mothers birth name
( DO we need another term for non maternal event ...NME)

On all  other records + censuses +trees she had her birthfathers surname but her father's wife NOT  birth mother was showing on records
But bio maternal side was showing on DNA matches.

Looking at clusters and shared matches of shared matches really helps .

With such a big match you have a good basis
Keep looking out for new shared matches with that person .
Good luck

[Guy Etchells]

I am working on a family tree where the paternal side is entirely unknown.  I've tried reaching out to the stronger shared matches via the Ancestry messaging service but most are still unread.  I've been able to plot out basic trees for the shared matches from what they have posted online themselves and am experimenting with putting their great grandparents into our tree to try to use thrulines to identify more distant matches to try to find where the shared ancestors might be.

For one of the close matches 217 cm are shared.  Thrulines suggested a 2nd great grandfather, who having checked the paper trail (census, births, marriages, deaths etc.) looks like the wrong guy (I've read that Thrulines can give rogue results so have been trying to double check them).  The name fits, but other aspects, such as children and parent names, dob etc. are wrong.  However, I have 3 DNA matches linking to this guy.  They are descendents of his siblings (each descends from a different sibling), so theoretically sharing a 3rd GGF.  The amount of DNA shared with these matches is very low: 8cm in 1 segment, 9cm in 1 segment and 14cm in 2 segments.  The last one I can see one of her ancestors is also related on the maternal side of my tree. I have a good tree on the maternal side and thus far all DNA matches have fitted with the paper trail.  Also looking at the shared matches with the 14cm person, they are all on my maternal side except the 217cm match and a very close relative of the 217cm match.  There are no shared matches with the 8cm and 9cm people.

I guess what I'm asking is could the two other matches (8cm and 9cm) be matching by random chance because they are so small?  Is there an amount of cm that we share with people by chance even if we are not distant cousins?

I find all this DNA stuff so fascinating, but as soon as I feel I'm making sense of things, something like this happens and I realise I really don't understand very much!

Grateful for any thoughts or insights!

As I know nothing about where you have uploaded you DNA but assume that you have tested your DNA with Ancestry as you mention Thrulines I would first suggest you upload your raw data to as many of the other DNA comparison sites as possible to try to get links with as many new matches as possible, not all testers have uploaded their data to Ancestry. These include FTDNA, 23and Me, MyHeritage and Gedmatch. (make sure you read and are happy with the terms & conditions before you upload your data)

If I understand what you have written so far you know (proved) nothing of the paternal line, so in reality the match results you can identify will be on the maternal line, that will enable you to compile a list of “unidentified” matches that will include matches from the male line along with yet to be identified female line matches.

Have you tried triangulation between you any of you known maternal matches and unknown matches to try find the possible paternal line matches by excluding those who match you and a known maternal line match, If all three of you triangulate the unknown match will also be on your maternal side? If only you and the unknown match share the same segment it is possible the unknown match is a paternal match.

In effect using DNA in the same way as using names to work from the known to the unknown

I would also suggest creating quick and dirty trees, i.e. using sources like online trees to build an unchecked data set to provide names to matches. (it goes without saying that any such use requires extra research later to prove the assumptions being made in the quick and dirty tree but it can be helpful if care is used).
As you keep triangulating and discounting maternal matches you will also build a dataset of possible paternal matches and by elimination will eventually produce pointers to the paternal lineage.
Cheers
Guy

[Gadget]

Another relationship that you might consider is a double relationship. I have a few matches that descend from different but common lines. For example, one of my matches is descended from both my paternal  grandmother's line and my paternal grandfather's line. He shows as 292 cMs