Author Topic: More Distant Clusters of DNA Matches on Ancestry  (Read 332 times)

Offline 4b2

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
More Distant Clusters of DNA Matches on Ancestry
« on: Tuesday 13 May 25 00:21 BST (UK) »
Just sharing a few bits and pieces after having worked on a few of my various unaccounted for DNA clusters, which all have primary matches with lower cM.

This has confirmed for me something I already suspected - the smaller the shared cM of the largest cM match in a cluster the more likely it is to be a more distant relation than you'd expect.

If you have a cluster of matches where the largest match is, say, 46cM, the relationship is more likely to closer to the most likely relationship. For 46cM: 4C, H3C, 3C1R.

The smaller a largest match in a cluster is, the more distant the relationship is likely to be. If you have a cluster when the largest match is 23cM, the most likely relationship for that amount of cM is about 5th cousin. However, when part of a cluster with no moderately sized matches, say 40cM+, it seems the relationship will be to the more distant end of what you could expect from shared cM.

This makes sense, as when dealing with matches with whom you share more distant MRCAs, the chance of inheriting large enough segments to match with other closer matches decreases. We will all inherit some small chunks of DNA that could be used to triangulate with 7th-8th cousins, but very few descendants will have just the right amount of the right segment to become a cluster of matches.

To illustrate, a tree:



You may have a cluster of DNA matches with common ancestry from Samuel Ward (1788) and Charlotte Payne. Let's say 40 matches, and on average your 5th cousins. The chances of you and those 40 matches inheriting enough DNA to also match with descendants of Samuel Ward (1726/7) and Jane Williams is quite low. Some descendants may inherit enough, but not many.

But you may be one of the ones who does happen to inherit enough to have matches with the descendants of Samuel Ward (1726/7) and Jane Williams. And it's likely that few if any of the descendants of Samuel Ward (1788) and Charlotte Payne will share the matches. So you will probably have a separate cluster of matches that has no apparent bearing to any of your lines; and in turn making it more difficult to identify MRCA.

***

As one case, I had a cluster of matches where I found nine matches, descendants of Sara Humphrey (1810) m John Price (1799). The only clue as to where it may relate to my tree is one of my 4th cousin matches, descendants of Anna Humphreys (1811) m Richard Evans (1806) matches two people in this "Sara Humphrey" cluster.

Sara Humphrey (1810) was born in a parish near my line, while her husband was from about 30 miles away. So I focused on her ancestry. Sara was an immigrant to the US, but her children had distinctive names and she emigrated in 1856, thus her place of birth was listed in the 1851 census. Her date of birth could also be extrapolated from her headstone, which listed her age at death with months and days. A baptism was found 1 year and 7 days after the listed date of birth. Likely a typical error. And someone has uploaded a hymn book owned by her, in which she listed her mother as Elizabeth Williams (turned out to be a surname from a second marriage). So it was not too difficult to be sure of having the correct baptism.

With the amount of shared cM with the matches with identified common ancestry (between 10 and 22), I was expecting the parents of Sara Humphreys to also be my ancestors. But they were not. Her father was a Thomas Humphreys, born around 1765, and his wife Elizabeth Morgans (later Williams). It turns out the MRCA between all matches was my ancestor Lewis Humphreys, born 1731, father of Thomas Humphreys just mentioned.

One of the matches at 21cM was a 7th cousin. I wasn't expecting so much to be inherited over such a number of generations. But obviously it can happen.

***

I have a lot of clusters like this, when I've found common ancestors among the matches and the matches share low 20-something cM at most. In such cases I'd assumed I was closely related to one of the common ancestors among the matches.

Let's say you have matches with common ancestors Thomas Perry (1790) and Sarah Turner of Tipton, Staffordshire, and at most 22cM shared. There are no matches identified with ancestors from previous generations. It's quite likely that your MRCA with these matches is rather a grandparent of Thomas Perry (1790) and Sarah Turner, rather than a parent.

So when dealing with such clusters, you need to have a good solid tree of them back to about the 1730s. Between your various clusters, you may find some that indicate common ancestry.

***

One thing that might be able to help with this is tests of cousins. If you have access to them, you can use profile pages on Ancestry (accessible by clicking on the match's name on the match page). At the top of profile pages is a drop down, which you can use to toggle between different DNA tests.

The shared matches page only shows some shared matches - not sure on what parameters (?). You'll generally have far more matches in common that shown there, including some that cluster for you both.

Offline Biggles50

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,452
    • View Profile
Re: More Distant Clusters of DNA Matches on Ancestry
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday 13 May 25 10:26 BST (UK) »
Interesting read, many thanks for posting your thought.

One of my most recent is a 3 C 1R, & we share 24cM with the longest Segment 26cM, I met her a month ago to compare research and exchange family info.

At 3 C my own spread of matches is from 144cM to 26cM with 3 C 1 R going down to 15cM.

As for Triangulation I have had no success at all despite three DNA matches who are 1 C to each other, two are on My Heritage and the each share about 100 cM with me yet no triangulation, in fact very little shared Segments between them.

DNA does do ones head in at times, well its not so much the DNA it is identifying exactly who the DNA match is, weird user name and no tree.  Yes, one can work out which branch they are on but that is it.

A darkened room beckons.


Offline 4b2

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
Re: More Distant Clusters of DNA Matches on Ancestry
« Reply #2 on: Tuesday 13 May 25 16:36 BST (UK) »
Yes. It's difficult to piece to puzzle together with all these clusters. I have as many matches clustered into clusters with unknown MRCAs, as with known MRCAs. It's more work to try and find a link between them, than to find mutual ancestors in matches' trees.

I have one ancestor born in Calcutta in 1858. There are matches for her maternal line, but nothing at all for her paternal. Yet there are matches I am now assuming are 6th-7th cousins that fit into that hole. A 2nd cousin's test has two clusters, so it can be narrowed down to that line. One cluster has common ancestors just north of Cambridge and another from just south of Cambridge. So I assume those two are probably related. But then you need to reconstruct trees with a relatively high chance of not finding anything.

I asked Grok (AI) what are the chances of inheriting 20cM or more from a 6th great-grandparent

Quote
Genetic genealogy data and simulations (e.g., studies by Bettinger, Speed, and others) indicate that the probability of inheriting a segment ≥20 cM from a 6th great-grandparent is low but non-zero. Based on empirical data:
The chance of inheriting any DNA from a 6th great-grandparent is ~90% (due to the possibility of no segments surviving by chance).

Among those who inherit DNA, the largest segment is ≥20 cM in roughly 5–10% of cases, based on shared segment distributions for distant cousins.

Based on how many lines I have DNA proved back to 6th great-grandparents, this 5-10% sounds right. Then there is the phenomena that other descendants of those 6th great-grandparents may have inherited >= 8cM segments from them, but not overlapping enough or at all with you. So the chances of matching with 7th cousins via the 6GGPs is probably more like 1-2%. And thus you are likely to get few overlaps with related clusters from closer generations.

Offline 4b2

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
Re: More Distant Clusters of DNA Matches on Ancestry
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday 21 May 25 00:13 BST (UK) »
To illustrate a bit better. Consider this tree, and a descendant of Edward Ashton and Mary Preece happens to have DNA matches individually from each generation back to Athelstan Ashton.



Let's say we have three 3rd cousin matches, descendants of Edward Ashton (1830) and Mary Preece.

It's likely that those matches will variably have shared matches who are mutual 4th and 5th cousins via Ashton and Preece.

From memory I think the rough probability of matching a 4th cousin is 50%. The chances of three 4th cousins matching in a cluster is about 25%.

For 5th cousins it's about a 30% chance of matching, and about 15% of three 5th cousins matching.

For 6th cousins it's about a 10% chance of matching, and abut 5% of three 5th cousins matching.

If you have a second cousin, there is a good chance that you will match with common 3rd, 4th, a few 5th and maybe a smattering of 6th cousins. It's often easy to see the intersection of multiple generations with these closer matches.

Yet with the more distant 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, the chances of three cousins inheriting the same segment become so low that you might not have any intersecting matches to point in the direction of marriages. Or there are just a few wisps of overlaps with a handful of matches, that could be coincidence.

Thus clusters for 5th and particularly 6th-8th cousins can appear as isolate clusters with no intersections with other clusters to indicate where they fit in with your by this point 100s of ancestors.

Further, consider these two clusters, where these are the ten matches with the most cM shared:



There are 40 matches in "cluster 1" and 25 in "cluster 2".

In "cluster 1", because we have multiple lower (more ambiguous) cM matches intersecting with multiple larger cM matches, it suggests they are towards the closer range of relationship of those cM. Since the chances of multiple 6th-8th cousins overlapping in a cluster with 2nd-3rd cousins is very low. So Hannah Jones in "cluster 1" is more likely to be in the range of a 4th-5th cousin.

"Cluster 2" does not overlap with any other clusters and the closest match is 30cM. If that 30cm was a closer cousin (say 4th), then it would probably intersect with another cluster of matches (depending on the quantity of matches you have). That it does not suggests that this cluster is more distant, with the 30cM being towards the more distant possible, e.g. 6th-7th cousin.


Offline SouthseaSteel

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: More Distant Clusters of DNA Matches on Ancestry
« Reply #4 on: Wednesday 21 May 25 11:55 BST (UK) »
Very insightful.  Many thanks for your efforts.