Using MyHeritage’s Theory of Family Relativity™

The genealogy company MyHeritage recently announced it had refreshed the data for its ‘Theory of Family Relativity™’, a tool that computes hypothetical family relationships from historical records and DNA matches. It does this by ‘…incorporating genealogical information from [its] collections of nearly 10 billion historical records and family tree profiles, to offer theories on how you and your DNA Matches might be related.

In yesterday’s webinar I looked at a MyHeritage theory of the relationship between my husband Greg and his cousin Pearl. MyHeritage suggests that Pearl is Greg’s second cousin once removed. This is confirmed by the historical records. Greg and Pearl have well-developed and reliable family trees, so it wasn’t difficult to calculate the relationship.

It’s hard to say what’s new in MyHeritage’s new Theory. It’s possible that new ways of massaging the data have been developed, but it seems more likely that, with larger volumes of data being processed to develop Theories, ‘new’ simply means more, as in ‘newly-added’.

Anyway, I thought I’d give it a try.

MyHeritage’s announcement included a note advising users that ‘If we have found new theories for you in this update, you’ll see a banner about the Theory of Family Relativity™ at the top of your DNA Matches page. Click “View theories” to see all the theories we’ve found, both old and new.’

I couldn’t find this banner, but I eventually found my way to the filters on the DNA results page where by using the “All tree details” filter, I could select “Has Theory of Family Relativity™”

1 choose DNA from top menu bar – 4th option, 2 choose to look at DNA Matches, 3 select filters, 4 click on “All tree details and from the drop down menu select the top option “Has Theory of Family Relativity™” indicated by the green arrow

My husband Greg has 14 matches with theories. Back in March 2019 I counted 7 matches with theories so I looked at this list of matches again to see if I can learn anything new. In March 2019 Greg had 4313 DNA matches at MyHeritage. Now he has 6399, 50% more.

Several of the 14 matches in the list were matches I had not previously reviewed. I decided to look at S, whose DNA kit is managed by T from Canada.

2 of the 14 matches which have a Theory of Family Relativity: in the post I have looked at the second match in this list

closer view of screenshot of the 2nd match

Greg and S share 35 centimorgans across 1 segment. MyHeritage estimates them to be 3rd to 5th cousins. S appears in a family tree with 250 people. S is the 4th cousin of Greg according to the Theory of Family Relativity™. Ancestral surnames appearing in both trees include Dawe; Daw and Smith. Ancestral places common to Greg and S include Great Britain and Ireland.

I clicked on View Theory which I have highlighted with the green arrow.

There are three paths to support the theory that Greg and S are 4th cousins.

The first path uses 3 websites: my tree, a tree by B R from Australia and the third website the tree by T who administers the DNA kit for S. MyHeritage states “This path is based on 3 MyHeritage family trees, with 55% confidence”

The green arrow highlights that there are three paths to review, the first path is displayed. The letters a and b show the links between the trees and there is a confidence level that they have a match between the trees which is shown immediately above the letters a and b.

The link is William Smith Dawe (1810-1977), Greg’s third great grandfather. I have on my tree that he is married to Mary Way (1811 – 1861). B R’s tree has William’s dates (1819 – 1877) and has William’s wife as Elizabeth Hocken 1821 – 1884 and the daughter of William and Elizabeth as Thirza Dawe 1824 – 1891. Thirza is the great great grandmother of S.

MyHeritage thinks the probability that the two William Smith Dawe’s on my tree and B R’s tree is 100% despite the differing birth dates. MyHeritage thinks the probability that Thirza Daw on B R’s tree is the same Thirza Daw on T’s tree is only 55%. I clicked on the small 55% immediately above the green letter b and got the following pop-up.

I have highlighted the 55% confidence with a green arrow up the top. Both Thirza’s have the same birth and death dates and places. The significant difference between the two Thirza’s is their parents. In B R’s tree Thirza is the daughter of William Smith Dawe and Elizabeth Dawe born Hocken. In T’s tree Thirza is the daughter of Isaac Smith Dawe and Betsy Dawe born Metters or Matters

There are several problems with this first path of the theory calculated by MyHeritage. I don’t believe our William had two wives and Thirza born 1824 would have been born when William and Elizabeth were extremely young. I know this family does have common names and these are repeated across several generations. There are also several cousin marriages in this branch of the tree.

I looked at the second path to see if it is more plausible. MyHeritage states “This path is based on 4 MyHeritage family trees, with 70% confidence.”

The four trees are mine and the tree by T who administers the DNA kit for S plus a tree by JS from Australia and a tree by MT from Australia.

This path goes from Greg’s great grandmother Sarah Jane Way (1863 – 1898) to her mother Sarah Way née Daw (1837 – 1895). The Daw surname sometimes is spelt with an extra e as in the tree by J S. From Sarah Dawe on J S’s tree we go to Sarah Ellen Dawe (1837 – 1895) on the tree by M T. I am not sure where the middle name came from. I don’t recall it on any document. I will check the documents I have.

M T’s tree has the parents of Sarah Ellen Dawe as Betsey Metters 1792 – 1863 and Isaac Smith Dawe 1795 – 1851. From Isaac we link to T’s tree. He shows Isaac Smith Dawe 1797 – 1851 and Betsy Metters (Matters) 1792 – 1863 as the parents of Thirza Daw 1824 – 1891, the great grandmother of S.

This theory seems more plausible to me, but I need to verify this against source documents. At the links between the trees MyHeritage assigns a confidence level. Most of the links are 100% but MyHeritage is only 70% confident that Sarah Dawe in J S’s tree is the same person as Sarah Ellen Dawe in the tree by M T.

I clicked on the 70% and got the popup showing the comparison which gives additional detail from both trees. The difference is that the tree by J S has no parents has no parents but the tree by M T has Sarah Ellen Way’s parents as Isaac Smith Dawe and Betsy Metters. M T’s Sarah Ellen Daw has the same dates and places of birth and death as the Sarah Daw in my tree. I have plenty of documents to back up that sarah’s parents were not Isaac and Betsy but instead Isaac’s brother William Smith Daw.

This theory almost but not quite adds up. The need to go across several surnames is because of the spelling variations between Daw and Dawe. In my tree I have spelled the surname without a final ‘e’. I think MyHeritage has placed too much emphasis on the surname variation and not enough on other variations.

The third path “…is based on one community tree and 4 MyHeritage family trees, with 52% confidence”.

This path uses our tree, the tree by Greg’s cousin Pearl, a tree managed by S R from Great Britain, Family Search Family Tree, and the tree by T who administers the DNA kit for S.

Pearl’s tree provides the link between Sarah Daw on our tree spelt without an e to Sarah Dawe with an e and from there to her father William Dawe – surname with a final e. From there the link is to S R’s tree with William Smith Dawe (1810 – 1877), MyHeritage are only 72% confident they have the right man. William Dawe is not a direct forebear of Pearl and she has not provided many details for him in her tree.

S R shows Thirza Dawe (1824 – 1891) as the daughter of William Smith Dawe. From there the link is to FamilySearch Family Tree but with only 52% confidence. I clicked on the 53% to find out why MyHeritage is not confident they have the same person.

There are some important differences. The dates are the same and the place name variations are minor. FamilySearch, however, has Isaac Smith Dawe as the father of Thirza, not William Smith Dawe.

This path is rated 52% confidence by MyHeritage. The level of confidence is determined by its assessment of the weakest link.

I don’t think this path is correct. S R’s tree shows William Smith Dawe fathering Thirza when he was only 14, which is unlikely.

Of the three paths I think path 2 is most plausible but even then it is not quite right as it relies on the wrong father for Greg’s great great grandmother Sarah Way born Daw and does not fit with known records.

The next step is to review records and update my own tree using those records. After all, the Theory of Family Relativity generated by MyHeritage is meant to be a hint and not a proven conclusion.

I did not have Thirza Daw(e), the great great grandmother of S in my tree.

I have Isaac Smith Dawe (abt 1797 – 1851) and his wife Betsy Metters (1792 – 1863) in my tree. They show as Greg’s 4th great uncle. I have only one daughter showing for that marriage, the forebear of another match. Because Isaac is off to one side I have not researched all that family.

Isaac Daw appeared on the 1841 English census as a 40 year old miller living at Newton Mill, Tavistock, Devon. In the same household was Betsy Daw aged 45, and four children Betsy Daw aged 15, Honor aged 9, Jane aged 8, David aged 4.

On the 1851 census Isaac S Daw is a 54 year old miller employing 4 men and 1 boy living at Lumburn, Tavitock. In the same household are his wife Betsy aged 58, a niece aged 15 and a servant, a miller’s labourer, aged 30. All children have left home.

At the time of the 1841 census there may have been other children who had already left home.

Research by another cousin Lorna Henderson which she shared to Wikitree showed “entry in Beer Ferris in Tavistock parish register for 25 Aug 1818 shows Isaac Smith Dawe as sojourner of this parish, and Betsey Metters of this parish spinster, “married in this church by banns with the consent of their parents” by Harry Hobart, Rector. Both signed: Isaac Smith Daw and Betsey Matters. Wit: Humphrey Roberts, Mary Box (neither of whom witnessed other marriages on the page)”. I navigated to the Wikitree entry from MyHeritage when I searched Isaac Smith Dawe (Daw)/Dawe in All Collections. MyHeritage has 13,676,346 results for Isaac Smith Dawe (Daw)/Daw – far too many, the problem with a common name – they would of course be reduced as one narrowed down the search parameters.

I have been in correspondence with Lorna Henderson before and I know she is a most conscientious researcher and that Isaac is her direct forebear. She has a website for her family history at http://LornaHen.com and the details she has researched about Isaac Smith Daw are at http://familytree.lornahen.com/p28.htm . Lorna records there that in his will of 1847, William Smith Daw mentions his daughters: “My Daughters Names are as follows Mary Cook Betsey Bennett, Thirza Daw, Honor Daw and Jane Daw” and also his sons “my too sons Isaac Daw and David Daw”.

I could not find a baptism record for Thirza Daw in the MyHeritage record collections. On Wikitree cousin Lorna recorded that Thirza Daw was baptised 5 APR 1824 Tavistock, Devon, England. I found an image of her baptism in 1825 at FindMyPast. She was the daughter of Isaac Smith and Betsy Daw. Their abode was Newton Mill and Isaac’s occupation was Miller. I have updated Wikitree with the slightly revised date.

I am confident that Thirza is the daughter of Isaac Smith Daw, Greg’s 4th great uncle. Thyrza Daw shows up on the 1841 census as a female servant in another household. She married in 1850.

I traced down to S through English and Canadian censuses and other records. I found that she was Greg’s 5th cousin. S and Greg share 4th great grandparents Isaac Daw(e) 1769 – 1840 and Sarah Daw née Smith 1774 – 1833. Greg is descended from William Smith Daw 1810 – 1877 and S is descended from his brother Isaac Smith Daw 1797 – 1851.

I will update my family tree at MyHeritage. The Theory of Family Relativity won’t update straight away but at least I know that the next time it updates it may use the opportunity to trace a more accurate path.

As mentioned above I feel the algorithms MyHeritage used placed too much emphasis on the variation between Daw and Dawe and not enough emphasis on the parents named in the trees though there was obviously some weighting for variations in parents.

Nothing has changed about the MyHeritage theories particularly that I can see although I had not noticed previous theories that I reviewed making use of the tree at FamilySearch.

The Theories of Family Relativity generated by MyHeritage are just that, theories or hints. But they did point me in the right direction to make the connection between S and Greg and build my tree a little further.

Related posts

• William Smith Daw (1810 – 1877)
• A webinar presentation
• DNA: finding new connections with the latest tools

A webinar presentation

Last November I agreed to give a webinar (Web-seminar) – a live Internet presentation – for the genealogy company MyHeritage. Scheduled to be broadcast on Tuesday, September 22, 2020, it was to be called “Finding new cousins and building your family tree with DNA”.

The webinar was to start at 2 p.m. North American Eastern Time. I can’t remember if I realised that this would be 4 a.m. here in Ballarat.

What with bushfires and a pandemic I’d forgotten about this. Then last Friday I got an email scheduling an audio-visual test of the webinar software and hardware. It was on.

The walk-through went well, with only one hiccup: my Macintosh was reluctant to give microphone permissions to the webinar software. I gave up trying and used my Windows laptop instead.

My presentation was based on several posts, especially:

• A new chromosome browser in MyHeritage and
• Triangulating Matilda’s DNA

To comply with the convention that living people should not be identifiable, I asked the few people affected if they would mind being referred to by forename only. No one refused and I am very grateful. I also spent some time blurring their surnames where these were visible in screenshots and also blurring the details of other DNA matches.

My webinar was about using the MyHeritage DNA tools. Users interact with a web page for this. It’s complicated, and people new to it sometimes struggle to understand what’s going on. I tried to explain, emphasising that:

• Find your matches where you know how you are related. MyHeritage has 4.2 million DNA kits in its database. You do not match all of these people but the number of matches you do have is probably overwhelming. Work from these known matches on to the matches you share with these matches.
• Build or upload your family tree and link that tree with your DNA kit. If you are trying to work out how a match might be related you may need to work on their family tree to find the path to your shared most common recent ancestors and also to ensure there are no other possible relationships that could explain the shared inherited DNA.
• There is a lot of data on the website and you have to explore often by scrolling down, and by clicking on the screen to reveal more even when there are not obvious prompts.
• I pointed out the messaging icon and also the notes icon. Not everybody responds to your messages but many do. I recommend keeping the message short and offering to work with your match to find your shared ancestry.
• I use the notes facility to keep track of when I messaged somebody and if I had received a reply plus any brief thoughts I might have about how they are related.
• I looked at some of the tools MyHeritage offers: my favourite is the AutoClusters tool, an automatic tool that organizes your DNA Matches into clusters that likely descended from common ancestors. The tool was developed by Evert-Jan Blom and I have previously looked at the tool in my post DNA: experimenting with reports from GeneticAffairs.com.

All in all, it went well. The feedback was good. Most people found the session useful and in line with their expectations.

Next time I’ll use a headset for better quality audio and I’ll show simpler slides. And I will try to make sure the navigation tool for the presentation does not pop up.

And, er, um, um, I’ll try to say “Um” less.

The presentation was recorded. You can enjoy it, umms and all, through
https://news.legacyfamilytree.com/legacy_news/2020/09/finding-new-cousins-and-building-your-family-tree-with-dna-free-webinar-by-anne-young-now-online.html

Adding colour to black and white photos with new MyHeritage in Color tool

Did you know that black-and-white photographs can be colourised?

A new tool to do this, easy to use and free to MyHeritage subscribers, is now available at:

https://www.myheritage.com/incolor

Not everyone would agree that artificially colourised photographs are better than black-and-white photographs. Perhaps it depends on the photo.

What do you think?

Here are some of the photos in my collection that have been colourised with the new tool.

My grandmother wrote on the back of the photograph that it was taken in 1908 and the names: Back row, left to right: Queenie Magee; Kate Cudmore; Nellie Millet Middle row, L to R: Eva Gedge; May Gillett Front centre: Kiddie Bennett

colourised picture of Cavenagh-Mainwaring daughters 1908 using the MyHeritage color tool

My great grandmother, Kathleen Mary Cudmore formerly Cavenagh-Mainwaring née Cavenagh, and her sisters in about 1908. I wrote about them at N is for Naval husbands.

Hans Boltz is sitting in the 4th row 2nd from the right wearing a sailor suit

Hans Boltz school about 1919 Photo colourised using the MyHeritage photo colorisation tool

The school in about 1919 of my grandfather, Hans Boltz (1910 – 1992)

Hans is younger in this photograph than with his classmates above

Hans Boltz as a child, photo colourised using the MyHeritage photo colourisation tool

And a picture of my grandfather as a young boy. I wrote about him at Hans Boltz’s school photograph

 

John Young with his step children Bob and Mary Whiteman and his sons Jack and Cecil Young. Photograph taken 1898-9. A copy of this photograph came from the Tunks family (relatives on the Young side) but a copy is also held by the Way family (relatives of the children’s mother).

John Young, his two sons Cecil and Jack, and his two step-children Bob and Mary Ann Whiteman. Photo colourised using the MyHeritage photo tool

A photograph taken about 1899 of Greg’s great grandfather John Young (1856 – 1928) with Greg’s grandfather Cecil (1898 – 1975), Jack Young (1896 – 1918), and John’s two step-children Bob (1883 – 1957) and Mary Whiteman (1884 – 1945). I wrote about this photo at Y is for Young family photographs.

Recommending DNA tests

Last week I met one of my cousins, N., for the first time. He is interested in family history and, among other things, we talked about autosomal DNA testing.

A genealogical DNA test examines the nucleotides – the building blocks of DNA and RNA – at specific locations on a person’s DNA.

An autosomal DNA test looks at the 22 pairs of chromosomes that are not sex chromosomes (the X chromosome and the Y chromosome are sex chromosomes). These 22 chromosomes are known as autosomes. Autosomal DNA tests can be used to find cousins, and this often helps geneological research.

N.’s brother has already taken a test with AncestryDNA. We talked about whether it would it be better to take a test with another company and how much DNA might he and his brother share.

My recommendation is to test at AncestryDNA. N. and his brother will share close cousin matches but will also share different matches with more distant cousins.

AncestryDNA has by far the largest number of users. In May 2019 it had 15 million kits in its database.

The second largest database is 23andMe, with more than 10 million people in April 2019. It is an expensive test for Australians, however, as shipping costs are $40 US per kit. As a result there are fewer Australian participants. I have not tested with 23andMe.

FamilyTreeDNA (FTDNA) is one of the smaller databases. It is estimated to have about 1 million kits in its database. It is not marketed as aggressively as the other companies. However, with FTDNA, you can test not only autosomal DNA but also Y-DNA and maternal DNA, and so you are able to trace your direct paternal line and your direct maternal line further generations back. You can also transfer your DNA data from other
testing companies to join the database.

MyHeritage is a newer testing service. It allows people to transfer their DNA data into the MyHeritage database. In May 2019 it had about 3 million kits in May 2019.

Another service is GEDMatch. It is not a testing site but you can transfer your DNA data there and compare data and find matches with people who have tested at other companies. In May 2019 GEDMatch had about 1.2 million participants.

AncestryDNA does not allow users to transfer data into its database. To participate you have to test at its site.

Given this variety of testing and analysis services, I recommend testing at AncestryDNA and uploading your DNA data to FTDNA, MyHeritage and GEDMatch. A small fee at each of these separate sites can unlock some more advanced analysis tools.

If N. is interested in pursuing his paternal and maternal genealogy he would probably also be interested in testing at FamilyTreeDNA and taking their two additional tests for Y-DNA and Mitochondrial DNA.

Your siblings have inherited part of your parents’ DNA that you don’t carry. There is some overlap with your DNA. You would expect siblings to share about 50% of their DNA. In fact there is some variation. Siblings have been found to share 2209 to 3384 centimorgans of 6800 possible centimorgans, from 33% to just under 50%.

Schematic representation of the transmission of the autosomes of the grandparents to three siblings. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons, diagram created by Jordi picart – Own work, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

It has been estimated that up to 10% of third cousins and up to 50% of 4th cousins will not share enough DNA to show up as match. (Third cousins share great great grandparents and 4th cousins share 3rd great grandparents.)

Having your siblings’ DNA analysed will increase your chances of finding cousin matches. This will probably help you to make progress with your family history.

Sources

• International Society of Genetic Genealogy Wiki
  • Genealogical DNA test
  • Autosomal DNA statistics
  • Cousin statistics
• Larkin, Leah. “Genealogical Database Growth Slows.” The DNA Geek, Leah Larkin, 22 June 2019, thednageek.com/genealogical-database-growth-slows/.
• Bettinger, Blaine. “August 2017 Update to the Shared CM Project.” The Genetic Genealogist, Blaine Bettinger, 26 Aug. 2017, thegeneticgenealogist.com/2017/08/26/august-2017-update-to-the-shared-cm-project/.
• DNA Painter: The Shared cM Project 3.0 tool v4

DNA: finding new connections with the latest tools

AncestryDNA and MyHeritage have recently released new tools for showing how you might be related to your DNA cousins. Both companies look at your tree and the tree of your DNA cousin. If those trees do not connect, the company tentatively connects them using in addition other public trees in their databases.

Cousinships found in tentatively-connectly trees of course need to be verified. However, although you may seem to descend in the way suggested by the tentatively-connectly trees it is possible that you could be also descended from other ancestors not presently shown on the family trees. Confidence that the DNA match is from a particular couple increases with tree completeness. This confidence increases for both you and your match if your are able to establish that there are likely no other shared ancestors. Increased confidence that you are indeed related to the suggested DNA cousins comes from sharing common ancestors and simultaneously sharing DNA other cousins who also descend from the same common ancestors

AncestryDNA’s new Thrulines tool has given me many more Common Ancestor Hints to look at. I decided to look at DNA cousins who are also descended from my fifth great grandparents Dominique Pierre La Mothe (1731 – 1807) and his wife Susannah La Mothe nee Corrin (1741 – 1803). ThruLines suggests that my father may be related to 8 DNA matches through Dominique Pierre Lamothe.

One of these matches is me; another match is one of my second cousins, my father’s first cousin once removed. These relationships are well documented. We have met my father’s third cousin, R, and I also have confidence in the documentation of that match. However, we have not met H, my father’s 3rd cousin once removed. The relationship corresponds with my family history researches, and the shared 21 centimorgans of DNA fits within the range of a 3rd cousin once removed relationship as predicted by the shared centimorgan tool at DNAPainter.com.

Four matches descend from other children of Dominique and Susannah La Mothe.

These matches were all new to me. I had not previously corresponded with these cousins, nor was I aware that our trees had common ancestors. The shared DNA is small, but is greater than the 7 centimorgan small-match-limit usually suggested for genealogical significance. The number of shared centimorgans corresponds with the hypothetical relationships.

I decided to review cousin C who is predicted to descend from Frederick John Dominique Lamothe (1805 – 1864). I had not previously documented his descendants. The family tree attached to C’s DNA has only 27 people: she lists paternal grandparents and her mother, who died in 2015; there are no maternal grandparents listed. Thrulines incorrectly shows C’s grandfather’s information as common from her tree, but that does not correspond with the only public member tree attached to her profile, so perhaps C has a private but searchable tree on Ancestry.com.

I traced 13 children of Frederick John Lamothe, of whom five were daughters. His youngest daughter Ann Jane Lamothe (1857 – 1929) married William Galloway (1854 – 1909) on 5 August 1879 at Lezayre, Isle of Man. They had ten children. The second oldest was William Edward Galloway (1884 – 1967). That he was the father of Jean (1927 – 2015) is documented on a 1951 US Border-crossing document from Canada to the US. Her husband is also named in the document, further confirming the family relationship to C. I am satisfied with the genealogical links between C and Dominique Pierre and Susannah Lamothe based on baptism, marriage, death, and census records as well as the border-crossing record.

My father has eight matches at MyHeritage where MyHeritage has build speculative trees that may explain how Richard Rafe Champion de Crespigny and some of his DNA Matches are related. Of these I had already determined the connection for six and been in contact with the six cousins. The other two matches are his cousins, brother JJ and sister MJ, whose DNA kits are administered by Jo M, the daughter of JJ. My father shares 31.3 centimorgans of DNA with MJ and 8.3 centimorgans with JJ. The shared DNA figures are within the range appropriate for 5th cousins.

My Heritage demonstrates how the two trees combine and gives a level of confidence about the match, in this case 82%. While I did not have these cousins on my tree previously I have now added these descendants to my tree on the basis of birth, death, marriage, and census records.

MyHeritage provides a chromosome browser and lists segment details. I have painted these matches on to my father’s DNAPainter profile. The overlaps of the segments all correspond with forebears who descend from Dominique Pierre Lamothe and Susannah Corrin. To date 25% of my father’s DNA has been attributed to named forebears.

In his talk Essential Considerations for DNA Evidence, presented at RootsTech 2019, Blaine Bettinger, an American genetic genealogist claimed that “Without a report of tree completedness, it is nearly impossible to evaluate the use of DNA in a genealogical conclusion, even if it is soundly supported by documentary evidence!”

I last looked at tree completeness in May 2018 when I could name 45 of the possible 64 5th great grandparents I had. I did not split my result between my father’s family history and my mother’s but when I reviewed the statistics, it appeared that 44 of my possible 5th great grandparents that I know of are on my father’s side. That is, I know the names of 68% of my father’s fourth great grandparents, the generation that includes Dominique and Susannah LaMothe. I have improved my knowledge slightly. I now know 70% of my father’s 3rd great grandparents and 42% of my father’s 4th great grandparents, i.e. those forebears he would share as most common recent ancestors with fifth cousins. The overall tree completeness score at the 5th cousin level for my father is that we know 106 of a potential 127 individuals or 83%: 17% of the tree is unknown.

Chart showing the fourth great grandparents of Rafe de Crespigny. (Generated using MacFamilyTree)

In the case of the Thrulines match with C, her tree has only 27 people and could not be regarded as complete.

In the case of the MyHeritage tree maintained by Jo M and associated with the matches of MJ and JJ, the tree has only 84 people and is also incomplete. Jo M has trees on Ancestry.com but they show that Jo M has shown only 41 of the people associated with the trees of JJ and MJ up to the 4th great grandparent level, or 32%; thus her tree could be said to be 68% incomplete.

AncestryDNA’s Thrulines tool and MyHeritage’s Theory of Family Relativity tool are similar. Both tools have come up with matches at the fifth cousin level that seem plausible. In verifying the lines of descent and contacting the matches, I have discovered a little more about the descendants of my forebears. One cousin, Jo M, has shared pictures she took of our forebears’ graves on the Isle of Man. She has also traced the La Mothe family line further back than I have.

Related posts

• S is for Suky
• Progress on my tree
• DNA Painter – a new tool

DNA: variations in DNA matches between companies

My father has a second cousin once removed, ‘GH’. I am GH’s 2nd cousin twice removed.

GH’s daughter administers his DNA kits. She asked me an interesting question. On the DNA evidence, is this the same person:

• Ancestry – AnneYoungAU on Ancestry (shares 33 cM with my father)
• Family Tree DNA – Christine Anne Young (shares 93 cM with my father)
• GEDmatch – Anne Young A947648 (shares 63.5 cM with my father)
• My Heritage – Anne Young (shares 56.3 cM with my father)

If they are the same person, how can the results be so different?

Also, on the DNA evidence, are these the same person:

• Ancestry – RRC001 (shares 110 cM with my father)
• Family Tree DNA – R. Rafe Champion De Crespigny (shares 134 cM with my father)
• GEDmatch – RD A587626 (shares 113 cM with my father)
• My Heritage – Richard Rafe Champion De Crespigny (shares 98.3 cM with my father)

DNA aside, of course, we know that they are the same two people. The first is me, the second is my father.

The reason that the amount of shared DNA seems to vary so widely has to do with different assumptions and techniques used to calculate genealogically significant DNA. As a species we share DNA with other forms of life, but much of this is irrelevant genealogically. Discarding the parts we share as living beings and concentrating on what we share as family relatives introduces different emphases. The result is apparent differences between DNA analysis by different companies.

AncestryDNA explains it in these terms:

“If you choose to upload your AncestryDNA raw DNA results to another website, they will look different for a number of reasons. Other companies do not use the same algorithms, database or methods to translate the data. Only AncestryDNA has access to the unique information available on Ancestry, including the family trees and records to help power the accuracy of the results. In addition, the proprietary algorithms that we use to calculate results are based on documented family trees and a one-of-a-kind, comprehensive database of DNA samples from around the world.”

Curious about the detail, I used DNAPainter, an online chromosome mapping tool, to investigate a little further.

I was interested to see the variation in what segments my father and I shared with GH so I painted the matches from MyHeritage, FamilyTreeDNA and GedMatch at DNAPainter using the default parameter excluding segments under 7 centimorgans and also experimenting with including all segments greater than 1 centimorgan (the lowest threshold allowed).

Reviewing the data for segments of 7 centimorgans or more I found that MyHeritage did not include matching segments on chromosome 1. The segment matched with GH corresponds to a known pile up area and is indicated with grey shading on the DNAPainter diagram. It probably indicates shared DNA without genealogical significance.

DNA profile comparing matches for GH with Rafe and Anne: 7 centimorgan threshold

Reviewing the data for all segments greater than 1 centimorgan I found that Family Tree DNA and GedMatch included these segments whereas MyHeritage did not. I shared some small segments with GH but my father did not indicating that I did not inherit these segments from the most common recent ancestor GH, my father and I share. In general 7 centimorgans is considered necessary before a segment is possibly inherited from a common ancestor.

DNA profile comparing matches for GH with Rafe and Anne: 1 centimorgan threshold

The MyHeritage estimates of shared DNA make sense in view of the 7 centimorgan threshold and by not including the shared DNA at the pileup region on chromosome 1. Unfortunately because the detail of the match at AncestryDNA is not revealed by that company I cannot comment on what data they chose to include or exclude for their match.

All this is a reminder that DNA matching, though a technique of great precision, makes certain assumptions, and operates within recognised limits. Its apparent accuracy will occasionally seem to vary. Be careful how you interpret DNA results. You are indeed related to the fly  you just swatted- you murdered a distant cousin – and you are related to yourself, since your DNA, though analysed differently by different companies is all yours. Somewhere between you and blowflies are your cousins and other family members, not all of whom you’d want to claim for immediate relatives.

Further reading

• “International Society of Genetic Genealogy Wiki ISOGG Wiki.” Identical by Descent, International Society of Genetic Genealogy, 23 Nov. 2018, isogg.org/wiki/Identical_by_descent.

Tools for interpreting DNA results

My husband Greg and I have had our DNA tested. We used ancestry.com. The tools that ancestry.com employs to compare details of family trees and shared DNA matches to help establish how we are related to others who have also tested at ancestry.com are quite useful but could be better. However, ancestry.com does not provide a chromosome browser.

A chromosome browser produces a diagram of where on your chromosomes you share DNA with your match. If you know how you and your match are related, you can deduce that you have both inherited that shared DNA from your shared ancestors. You can then attribute that shared DNA to those ancestors. When you don’t know how you are related, you can look at where you match and based on your analysis of who you inherited that bit of DNA from, you can predict how you are related. Ancestry.com in effect does this calculation for you with their shared matches tool but ancestry.com doesn’t show the calculations in making its predictions.

The tools offered by MyHeritage.com, GedMatch and Family Tree DNA include a chromosome browser which ancestry.com does not provide. A chromosome browser gives you the detail of what DNA you and your cousin share.

MyHeritage chromosome browser showing where Greg and one of his second cousins share DNA

 

So far with matches from MyHeritage, GedMatch, and FTDNA, Greg has been able to attribute 27% of his DNA to particular ancestors. The tool DNAPainter graphs attributed DNA based on matches with multiple cousins.

One of the genealogical puzzles I sought to solve with DNA was the parentage of Greg’s great grandfather Henry Sullivan. I produced a hypothesis that he was the son of Matilda Sullivan nee Hughes. I need more data on how various cousins share DNA to show that Matilda Sullivan nee Hughes was indeed the mother of Henry Sullivan. The shared matches tool of ancestry.com is incapable of showing that descendants of Eleazar Hughes, Matilda’s first son are definitely connected to descendants of Henry Sullivan. A chromosome browser would help to show that these cousins do indeed share inherited DNA.

To download DNA data from ancestry.com, choose the settings link on the top right hand corner of the AncestryDNA home page. On the right hand side you are given the option to download your raw DNA data. The steps are:

1. From the AncestryDNA status page click the link ‘manage test settings’.
2. On the ‘manage test settings’ page click the ‘Get started’ button on the right under ‘Download your raw DNA data’.
3. Enter your password. This will trigger an email that will be sent to your email account on file, which will include a link to confirm download of the DNA data.
4. Open the email and click the ‘Confirm data download’ button in the email.
5. On this download page click the button “Download Raw DNA Data”.
6. The file will then download to your computer.

Uploading your DNA data to MyHeritage is done at the page www.myheritage.com/dna/upload and the process is explained at www.myheritage.com/help-center#/path/DNA/Upload-DNA-data/ . It takes about a week before the data is processed and you can see your matches and the details of where you share DNA.

A new chromosome browser in MyHeritage

MyHeritage.com has introduced new functionality for DNA analysis.

I uploaded our raw DNA data to MyHeritage some time ago. Recently I was pleased to see a match of shared DNA between Greg and one of his cousins who is also descended from George Young and Caroline Clark. PL is Greg’s second cousin once removed. We have been in correspondence for a number of years exchanging family history information.

The new functionality includes a chromosome browser. The number of DNA matches have also increased with the update.

I will work through the new matches later

The topmost portion of the screen shows the match, has a contact button, shows the amount of shared DNA, and shows potentially relevant information from the family trees that we and PL have uploaded.

 

There are many information buttons that click to reveal pop-up windows. For estimated relationships the popup shows a generic tree highlighting potential relationships with likely relationships based on shared DNA also highlighted. PL and Greg are 2nd cousins once removed, one of the highlighted potential relationships.

Scrolling down the match screen, displays shared matches. PL and Greg have 108 shared matches. The top few are not names I recognise. It may be that a review of these matches will help us extend our family tree beyond Greg’s great great grandparents George Young (1826-1890) and Caroline Clarke (1835-1879).

Further down the screen family trees are displayed. You can toggle between your family pedigree and the pedigree view of the match to see if you have forebears in common.

This second screen shows the pedigree of PL.

Probably the only thing missing is the ability to look at ancestral places. Sometimes the names on the tree might not match but the coincidence of birthplaces gives a clue as to where the geographical connection might be.

Further down the screen there is an ethnicity estimate, including a comparison with the ethnicity of the match. This might be useful. There is also a chromosome browser. For me this is the big improvement. If you want to be sure about shared ancestry, particularly when comparing several matches, you need to have data about the shared chromosome segments.

Clicking on the Advanced options better allows you to download the data as a dot csv file (comma-separated values, spreadsheet format).

I used this data in DNA painter. I have previously written about my experiences with DNA Painter. The DNA Painter developer has promptly responded to the changes in MyHeritage so that you can copy and paste the downloaded data from MyHeritage.

From within DNA Painter click on “Paint a New Match” in the top right hand corner.

Copy from the spreadsheet downloaded from MyHeritage and paste into the blank box that popped up in DNAPainter.

The next screen allows you to describe the match and check if there are overlapping segments with previously painted matches. I have entered the ancestors’ names, confirmed that the match is on the paternal side of the tree, and chosen a colour for the group.

The updated view of Greg’s chromosomes. 11% has now been attributed to different forebears. Knowing which segment belongs to which forebear will help to narrow down the shared ancestry of future matches.

Related posts

• DNA Painter – a new tool
• DNA research – index of posts

Greg’s English roots

The subject of yesterday’s post was the information about ethnicity said to be derivable from a person’s DNA, mine in this case.

Today I thought I would look at the ethnicity conclusions extracted from my husband Greg’s DNA data to see whether these are consistent with what we know independently about his family tree: to see how Greg’s DNA ethnicity compares with his documented descent. I have enough tested matches between his known cousins and people with whom Greg shares DNA to be reasonably sure his paper-trail tree matches his genetic tree for several generations back.

I know the birthplaces of all of Greg’s great-great grandparents. Twelve were born in England, two in Ireland, one in New Zealand of English parents, and the other in Australia of English parents. Most of his English forebears were from the south of England. There is no hint in what we know of their surnames, religion, or occupations to suggest that Greg’s great-great grandparents were recent migrants from outside the region.

AncestryDNA reports Greg’s genetic ancestry as 100% European:

•  78% Great Britain
•  11% Ireland
•  7% Europe West
•  3% Iberian Peninsula
•  1% Europe East

Greg’s ethnicity estimate as predicted by AncestryDNA 22 July 2017 (click to enlarge)

Greg’s mother, who believed that some of her Cornish ancestors had come from Spain, would have been very interested in this. The ethnicity results seem to suggest that there was indeed an Iberian connection of some sort (though not necessarily through Cornwall).

MyHeritage also reports Greg’s ethnicity as 100% European:

•  North and West Europe 96.4%
  •  Irish, Scottish, and Welsh 46.0%
  •  North and West European 29.5%
  •  English 16.5%
  •  Scandinavian 4.4%
•  South Europe 2.6%
  •  Iberian 2.6%
•  Ashkenazi Jewish 1.0%

Greg’s ethnicity estimate from MyHeritage as at 23 July 2017

AncestryDNA has recently added a new feature, which it calls ‘Genetic Communities’. Ancestry predicts at the 95% confidence level that Greg belongs to the ‘Southern English Genetic Community’. This certainly matches his family tree. 71 people with whom Greg shares DNA, including Greg’s first cousin, several second cousins, and known third cousins, have also been linked to the Southern English Genetic Community.

Greg’s connection to the Southern English Genetic Community

AncestryDNA attempts to provide support for its notion of a ‘Southern English Genetic Community’ with a brief history of the region, noting that in the early nineteenth century London was the largest city in the world, that many people emigrated from London and southern England to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the U.S.A.

The Ancestry website links people in Greg’s pedigree to the ‘Southern English Genetic Community’ through their birthplaces, broadly indicated on a large-scale map.

screenshot showing Greg’s pedigree and associated birthplaces overlaid with the Southern English community data for the early 19th century

screenshot showing Greg’s family tree data combined with the Southern English genetic community pedigree. Many of Greg’s forebears from Southern England did indeed migrate to Australia in the 1850s and siblings or cousins migrated to America and Canada (Immigration in the 1850s was by sea).

I think that when it is placed in context with genetic relatives and historical events, the ‘Genetic Community’ interpretation of family history specific to our family tree is impressive and convincing. It agrees with what I have found in my own family history research.

Greg, however, is being difficult. He says his ethnicity is dinky-di Aussie, and the best thing you could say about all these Southern Poms is that they were (unwittingly) proto-Australians.

Related posts

• Looking at my ethnicity as determined by DNA testing
• DNA testing results one year on

Further reading

• AncestryDNA have provided a white paper on ethnicity testing. It is dated October 2013. It talks about reference panels based on 3,000 samples from “individuals alive today who can trace their ancestry to a single geographic location.” https://www.ancestry.com.au/cs/dna-help/ethnicity/whitepaper
• MyHeritage also provide information about how they calculate the ethnicity estimate: http://helpcenter.myheritage.com/DNA/Ethnicity-Estimate/. MyHeritage compares my DNA with the DNA of living people around the globe whose genetic ethnicity is known and refers to these people as the Founder Populations. MyHeritage claims that they have sampled the DNA of thousands of people and have a data set of more than 100 ethnicities and the ability to show ancestral roots with far greater resolution than any other DNA service.

Looking at my ethnicity as determined by DNA testing

Besides its use in genealogical research, DNA testing is also employed for a simpler purpose: people have their DNA analysed to find out where their family is from, to trace their ethnicity.

I thought it might be interesting to compare the ethnicity predictions from my own DNA test results with what I know about my family tree. I have enough tested matches between documented forbears and people with whom I share DNA to be reasonably sure I’m getting it right.

Map from MyHeritage showing events from my family tree overlaid with my ethnicity estimate. The events are arranged by country. (click on image to enlarge)

My mother is from Germany. On her side of the family five of my great great grandparents were born in Brandenburg, two in Baden-Württemberg and one in Schleswig-Holstein. Based on their occupations, surnames, and religion, I have no reason to believe their immediate ancestors were from other parts of Europe.

On my father’s side, five of my great great grandparents were born in Australia. Of my 64 paternal fifth great grandparents:

• 21 were English 33% or 16% of my DNA
•  17 born Scotland 27% or 13% of my DNA
•  18 from Ireland, though this may include some Anglo-Irish 28% or 14% of my DNA
•  4 from Wales 6% or 3% of my DNA
•  2 from the Isle of Man 3% or 1.5% of my DNA
•  1 from France 1.5% or < 1% of my DNA
•  1 English but of French Huguenot extraction 1.5% or < 1% of my DNA

AncestryDNA predicts my ethnicity to be 100% European:

• 59% from Great Britain, which includes England, Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man
• 20% Europe East
• 12% from Ireland
• 4% from Finland / North-west Russia
• 2% from Europe-West
• 2% from Italy/Greece
• <1% from the Iberian peninsula

These results appear to underestimate the German contribution to my DNA mix. I’m not sure why.

 

 

My genetic ancestry as reported by AncestryDNA on 22 July 2017. The orange  region is the genetic community “Munster Irish” which AncestryDNA calculates I “possibly” belong to. I will make that the subject of a separate blog post. (Click on image to enlarge).

MyHeritage also provides an ethnicity estimate. I uploaded the same data I had submitted to AncestryDNA to MyHeritage. The result: 100% European:

• North and West Europe 80.1%
  • English 73%
  • Irish, Scottish, Welsh 7.1%
• East Europe 13.5%
  • East European 11%
  • Baltic 2.5%
• South Europe 6.4%
  •  Italian 6.4%

Ethnicity estimate from MyHeritage retrieved 22 July 2017

AncestryDNA and MyHeritage draw different conclusions from the same data. They agree I am 100% European, but differ considerably in the regional proportions.

I don’t think these ethnicity estimates are well defined. Where does ‘southern’ Europe start? What does ‘Baltic’ mean? And how reliable are the estimates? Where does the 6% Italian come from? Were some of my English forebears descended from the Roman invaders? What’s the connection between ancient Rome and modern Italy?

To me there’s nothing very interesting about the ethnicity results and there’s certainly nothing in them at this time to guide my research.

Further reading

• AncestryDNA have provided a white paper on ethnicity testing. It is dated October 2013. It talks about reference panels based on 3,000 samples from “individuals alive today who can trace their ancestry to a single geographic location.” https://www.ancestry.com.au/cs/dna-help/ethnicity/whitepaper
• MyHeritage also provide information about how they calculate the ethnicity estimate: http://helpcenter.myheritage.com/DNA/Ethnicity-Estimate/. MyHeritage compares my DNA with the DNA of living people around the globe whose genetic ethnicity is known and refers to these people as the Founder Populations. MyHeritage claims that they have sampled the DNA of thousands of people and have a data set of more than 100 ethnicities and the ability to show ancestral roots with far greater resolution than any other DNA service.

Related posts

• DNA testing results one year on