My Heritage & whole genome testing.

[Biggles50]

1st March

DNA Raw Data produced.

[Biggles50]

3rd March

The results are in.

Out of the 10 highest matches 6 were already in my tree, one has a tree of one and the matches currently give no clues.  Another has a tree where there are a lot of holes in her tree but the potential is there in one of our Shared Matches.  They seem to be First Cousins to each other and from his tree I found that I share the same GGGP’s with him.  Alas his 1C is not visible in his tree and no names in her tree are shown in his.  Awaiting a response from him.

As yet I have not got beyond looking at matches and ethnicity.

Ethnicity, as shown by MH it is still the same as its reputation, not accurate at all.

[4b2]

Out of the 10 highest matches 6 were already in my tree

What would be the reason behind now being shown higher cM matches that were not there previously?

And is there any conformation this is really a full genome test?

[Biggles50]

I am not with your thinking.

Looking through the closest matches there does not seem to be any change in cM values compared to my recollection of the first MH test.

I have linked four new DNA Cousins into my Ancestry tree from the MH matches but that is only due to them having trees on MH that have recognisable family members.

So not really much benefit as far as I can ascertain so far from the new MH testing process.

Now by my logic, whole genome should enable far more accurate use and results of using the Chromosome Browser and Auto Clusters.

The Chromosome Browser with the limited testing applied by myself does not seem any different to the prior system, still zero triangulation and any useful indication using DNA matches who are close relations to each other.

The Auto Cluster has taken a while to generate but it used the highest 100 matches to cluster.  The result is a largest cluster of 15 with the top one having more shared matches than the others but with just their name and no tree, they are not presently worth any time researching.  Nor is no tree, “Auntie M” for obvious reasons.

Again spurious results with DNA matches who are closely related not in the same cluster yet in another cluster they are there.

Ethnicity as stated, way off the mark.

I am 50% Cheshire/Yorkshire going back 250 years, 25% Irish and 25% Italian both going back to 1800 and beyond. 

MH shows me as 31% Scottish/Welsh, 25% English, 15% Italian, 11% Irish & 7% French then a smattering of other origins.

[Zaphod99]

Biggles, I don't pay a lot of attention to ethnicity results, as it's not really of interest, but I have always understood that they relate to 500 to a thousand years ago. That's a lot more remote than the dates that you give, 225 to 250 years ago.

Your ancestors from 500 to a thousand years ago may have come from different places, compared to your own research of the last 200 to 250 years.

Zaph

[David Nicoll]

Hi,

   I would tend to agree with Zaphod99. I think the more revealing and interesting stats come from the Ancient Origins data, and Genetic Distance data. The can explain some of the apparently anomalous “Ethnicities” or at lest they do in my case, the also possibly explain the maybe came from before 1700 for a couple of my families.
   I just wish Ancestry would provide similar rather than PetDNA and Traits.

[Biggles50]

Yet, Ancestry gets my ethnicity breakdown to match the research.

My Heritage does not.

It is all down to data processing so best thought of as a rough approximation.

It is all a bit of fun in any case and taken with a bag of Saxa.

The whole point of taking the revised DNA Whole Genome test was to see if it offered anything new to genealogical research.

Jury is still out on that.

[Biggles50]

So it has been a few weeks and quite a few additions have been made to my tree.

Been in contact with a new 3C and a very informative outcome that has been.

The DNA Tools are so far not proving much different.

Not getting any Triangulation but a couple of potentials.