Updating my Ahnentafel index

When I started this blog eight years ago, one of its pages was a pedigree spreadsheet with Ahnentafel numbering. Today I updated the published index on this website.

An Ahnentafel (German ‘ancestor board’) table assigns a unique number to each person.

On your own Ahnentafel chart you are number 1. In the previous generation your father is 2 and your mother is 3. Your father’s number is calculated by doubling yours; your mother’s number is one plus double yours.

This scheme continues up the generations. Your paternal grandparents are 4 and 5. Your maternal grandparents are 6 and 7. Men have even numbers; women odd.

My table starts with my children as number 1 and incorporates both my husband Greg’s forebears and mine.

I use Ahnentafel numbering to keep track of our Most Recent Common Ancestors (MRCA), ancestors we share with our DNA matches, provided, of course, that I have been able to establish what the genealogical relationship is.

The update of my Ahnentafel index made me think about our progress on the tree. The last time I reviewed our tree progress was March 2020. At 31 March 2020 my tree showed 344 of the possible 1023 forebears up to 10 generations of 7th great grandparents. I know all 32 of my children’s 3rd great grandparents and thus all 62 of their possible ancestors to that level. At the 4th great grandparent level I know 53 of their 64 possible 4th great grandparents.

Direct ancestors whose names I know are coloured; blanks represent those whose names are unknown to me. Chart generated by DNAPainter.

In the four months since March I haven’t made any progress in identifying more ancestors in these 10 generations, but I have made a little progress in the generations beyond, with two more 8th great grandparents, four 9th great grandparents, two 10th great grandparents, and two 11th great grandparents. Adam and Eve are coming up.

Generation	Ancestors identified	Tree completeness at this level
Parents	2 of 2	100%
Grandparents	4 of 4	100%
Great-Grandparents	8 of 8	100%
2nd-Great-Grandparents	16 of 16	100%
3rd-Great-Grandparents	32 of 32	100%
4th-Great-Grandparents	53 of 64	83%
5th-Great-Grandparents	72 of 128	56%
6th-Great-Grandparents	76 of 256	30%
7th-Great-Grandparents	80 of 512	16%
8th-Great-Grandparents	66 of 1024	6.45%
9th-Great-Grandparents	43 of 2048	2.10%
10th-Great-Grandparents	31 of 4096	0.76%
11th-Great-Grandparents	21 of 8192	0.26%
12th-Great-Grandparents	12 of 16384	0.07%

Tree completeness calculated by DNAPainter.
There is limited pedigree collapse: 10 people appear twice as our children’s 3rd great grandparents John Way and Sarah Daw were cousins who married.

Our family tree, including indirect relatives, has grown from 10,481 people in March 2020 to 10,928 as at August 2020. It now has 17,204 records (previously 16,099), 2,238 images (previously 2,109), and 305 stories (previously 289). I have added 65 posts.

These statistics give me a quick measure of the progress I’ve made. There still a long way to go…

Related posts

• Tree progress March 2020
• My Most Recent Unknown Ancestors
• lifespans of 2nd great grandparents
• X, her mark

Tree progress March 2020

In May 2018 I calculated a simple index of my family tree’s so-called ‘completedness’: how many of my forebears could I name?

I was especially interested in the number of forebears I could name in the previous ten generations, that is, up to and including seventh great grandparents. The possible maximum, if you include yourself, is 1,023 individuals. [Cousins sometimes marry, so there might be duplicates, which in practice could reduce the actual number considerably.]

Looking at our tree from our children’s perspective the figure was then 31%, 319 of the possible 1,023 forebears.

In July 2019 Dnapainter.com introduced a tree function to generate trees and calculate tree completedness. This tree function can also be be used to mark ancestors shared with genetic cousins.

As of 31 March 2020 my tree shows 344 of the possible 1023 forebears, 25 more. This just is 33.6%, slow progress of 2% over nearly two years.

Direct ancestors whose names I know are coloured; blanks represent those whose names are unknown to me.

These numbers of course don’t show all we’ve learned about our forebears and their relatives. I have done a great amount of research about the lives of people in our tree. Moreover, our family tree including indirect relatives has grown by almost half again, from around 6,000 people to 10,481 people.

The large increase is mainly due to my adding genetic cousins to the tree, among these many descendants of my forebears. I try to verify all connections. Our tree on ancestry.com now includes 16,099 records, 2,109 images, and 289 stories.

Not all of the forebears in our tree have associated genetic cousins. Some cousins have not tested their DNA. Some have tested but I have been unable to verify the connection.

Even for the cousins where I have found a connection, the shared DNA is not necessarily attributable to a particular ancestor. [There are ways of developing confidence about these attributions, some of which I described in my account of the triangulation technique I used to verify that Matilda Sullivan formerly Hughes née Darby was the mother of Henry Sullivan.

I have made the least progress on my German forebears. My mother very kindly submitted her DNA for analysis, but dissappointly, I have made no connections through her DNA. She has very few cousins and they are not close: her father was an only child, and her mother’s siblings had no children. DNA testing is not popular in Germany. On the AncestryDNA site my mother has only 27 4th cousins or closer and 12,882 matches in total; her closest match shares only 50 centimorgans. By contrast my father has 358 matches of 4th cousin or closer, his closest match shares 570 centimorgans, and he has a total of 43,912 matches on the AncestryDNA website. My suave and handsome husband Greg (editor of this online research journal) has 320 matches that are 4th cousin or closer, his closest match shares 1003 centimorgans, and he has a total of 31,875 matches on the AncestryDNA website.

On the MyHeritage website my mother has 2,035 DNA matches and her closest match shares 39 centimorgans. My father has 10,244 matches and shares 777 centimorgans with his closest match. Greg has 5,976 matches and his closest match shares 1,035 centimorgans of DNA.

On Greg’s side of the family – the left hand side of the fan – I have still to make progress on his Young, Cross, Sullivan and Morley forebears.

There is still lots of work to be done in identifying the relationships with genetic cousins, building the tree, and filling in the family history.

Related posts

• Progress on my tree
• creating trees in DNA Painter
• Triangulating Matilda’s DNA
• ‘ethnicity’ DNA: beware of inheritance from daughter to mother

 

Mary Skerritt nee Brown 1804 – 1879: a quiet life in Lincolnshire

I have been reading about X-DNA inheritance. Greg inherited 12½% of his X-DNA from his 3rd great-grandmother Mary Skerritt nee Brown (1804 – 1879), so I thought I would see what I could learn about her. I found her christening record and added her parents. Doing this brought my family tree up to 10,000 people.

Greg’s X-DNA inheritance is research in progress, a story for another day. However, I thought I would commemorate the 10,000 people milestone by writing about Mary.

Mary Brown, born in 1804, was baptised on 26 August 1804 at Sapperton, Lincolnshire, England. Her parents were John Brown and Jane [probably Jane Shipwright].

Map highlighting places in Lincolnshire associated with Mary Skerritt nee Brown’s life. From Sapperton to Grantham is only 8 miles.

On 26 June 1792 John Brown, bachelor of Sapperton, married Jane Shipwright at St Wulfram’s Grantham. She was ‘of this parish’. John could not sign his name but Jane Shipwright could. The witnesses were William Marshall and John Scarborough.

St Wulfram’s Church Grantham is 8 miles north-west of Sapperton.

“North East View of Grantham Church, Lincolnshire” by J M W Turner watercolour c 1797. The church has been described as having the finest steeple in England.

I have found no other children of John Brown and Jane baptised at Sapperton. I think it is likely that Mary Brown had siblings, but Brown is a common surname and without knowing which parish the baptisms took place it is hard to link family members. It is possible that Elizabeth Brown baptised in 1805 in Osbournby, Lincolnshire and William Brown also baptised 1806 in Osbournby are siblings. Osbournby is 6 miles north-east of Sapperton. I haven’t have enough information to decide. There are also children baptised at Grantham to John Brown and Jane but these include another Mary baptised in 1812. It is quite likely that more than one family surnamed Brown is included in these baptisms.

Similarly I have not yet been able to identify John and Mary Brown’s deaths or find out more about them; the names are too common.

On 26 November 1829 Mary Brown married Robert Skerrett at Welby, Lincolnshire. Welby is 5 miles north-west of Sapperton. Neither Mary nor Robert could sign their name. Both were of the parish. The witnesses were John Fisher, Catherine Sensicall, and John Cheetham.

Robert and Mary Skerritt had at least the following children:

• Robert Skerrit 1830-
• Jane Skerritt 1833- 1835
• Ann Skerrit 1836- 1906
• Eliza Skerrit 1838-1899
• John Skerrit 1841-
• Lucy Skerritt 1843–1888
• George Skerrit 1846–

The following baptisms in St Wulfram’s, the parish of Grantham, Lincolnshire, are recorded for the children of Robert Skerritt and Mary

• Robert baptised 26 September 1830, Robert is a labourer, their abode is Grantham
• Jane 23 June 1833, Robert is a labourer, the abode is Little Gonerby
• Ann 27 December 1835, Robert is a labourer, their abode is Little Gonerby
• Eliza 2 April 1838, Robert is a labourer, their abode is Little Gonerby
• John 8 January 1841, Robert is a labourer, their abode is Little Gonerby
• Lucy 3 January 1844, Robert is a labourer, their abode is Little Gonerby
• George 3 September 1846, Robert is a labourer, their abode is Little Gonerby

The following burial appear to be of Mary’s infant child

• Jane Skerrett aged 1 of Little Gonerby was buried in Grantham on 10 March 1835

On the 1841 census Mary Skerrett aged 30 was living at Manthorpe cum Little Gonerby with Robert Skerrett aged 35, a labourer. In the same household were John (? probably Jane) aged 12, Robert aged 10, Nora (? probably Ann) aged 6, Eliza aged 3, John aged 6 months. All members of the household were born in Lincolnshire.

On the 1851 census Mary Skerritt age 46 born Sapperton was recorded as living at New Street in Manthorpe cum Little Gonerby with her husband Robert aged 50, a labourer, born Barrowby. In the same household were Robert unmarried aged 20, a labourer born Little Gonerby; Ann unmarried aged 15, a servant, born Little Gonerby; Louisa (Eliza?) aged 13, a servant, born Little Gonerby; John aged 10; Lucretia (Lucy) aged 7; George aged 4. The three youngest children had no occupation and were all born in Little Gonerby. Six of Mary’s seven children had survived infancy and all were living at home in 1851.

On the 1861 census Mary aged 51 or perhaps aged 57 was living with her husband Robert aged 60 and their unmarried son George aged 16. Both Robert and George were Agricultural Labourers. Also in the same household was their daughter Ann, her husband George Futcher and two grandchildren aged 3 and 1.

On the 1871 census Mary Skerritt, aged 66, was lodging with her oldest son Robert. Robert had been recently widowed and had 4 children aged between 13 and 3. Mary was described as a charwoman.

I have not been able to locate Robert Skerritt senior on the 1871 census.

Mary’s husband Robert died on 17 September 1877 at Little Gonerby. He was aged 77. His death was announced in the Grantham Journal of 22 September 1877.

Mary died exactly two years later on 17 September 1879. Her death was announced in the Grantham Journal of 20 September 1879.

death notice of Mary Skerritt published in the Grantham Journal 20 September 1879 page 4. Image retrieved from the British Newspaper Archive via FindMyPast

Mary’s parents were the 9,999th and 10,000th relatives added to my family tree. My tree also has 1,979 photos (including images of records), 267 stories, and 14,749 attached records. Much research remains to be done.

Sources

• ancestry.com
  • England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 [database on-line] Name: Mary Brown Gender: Female Baptism Date: 26 Aug 1804 Baptism Place: Sapperton,Lincoln,England Father: John Brown Mother: Jane FHL Film Number: 504748, 508033
  • England, Select Marriages, 1538–1973 [database on-line] Name: John Brown Gender: Male Marriage Date: 26 Jun 1792 Marriage Place: Grantham, Lincoln, England Spouse: Jane Shipwright FHL Film Number: 432509, 432510, 432511, 432512, 436035
  • England, Select Marriages, 1538–1973 [database on-line] Name: Mary Brown Gender: Female Marriage Date: 26 Nov 1829 Marriage Place: Welby,Lincoln,England Spouse: Robert Skellet [mistranscribed should be Skerrett] FHL Film Number: 508084
  • English census records
    • 1841 Class: HO107; Piece: 625; Book: 4; Civil Parish: Grantham; County: Lincolnshire; Enumeration District: 7; Folio: 47; Page: 34; Line: 10; GSU roll: 438760
    • 1851 Class: HO107; Piece: 2103; Folio: 285; Page: 4; GSU roll: 87732
    • 1861 Class: RG 9; Piece: 2351; Folio: 59; Page: 32; GSU roll: 542958
    • 1871 Class: RG10; Piece: 3360; Folio: 8; Page: 10; GSU roll: 839361
  • FreeBMD. England & Wales, Civil Registration Death Index, 1837-1915 [database on-line]. Name: Mary Skerritt Estimated birth year: abt 1803 Registration Year: 1879 Registration Quarter: Jul-Aug-Sep Age at Death: 76 Registration district: Grantham Inferred County: Lincolnshire Volume: 7a Page: 268
• FindMyPast.co.uk
  • • baptism records including images from Lincolnshire Baptisms
    • burial record including image from Lincolnshire Burials
    • British Newspaper Archive images of the Grantham Journal

Related post

• Concerting Mary’s daughter Eliza: X, her mark, revisited

creating trees in DNA Painter

Many tools have been developed to help users interpret the results of DNA tests.

DNA Painter maps segments of DNA to chromosomes. This helps to show which ancestors gave us which DNA segments, and how new matches are related.

On the basis of matches with his cousins, I have mapped 28% of Greg’s chromosomes, identifying the forebears from whom he inherited his DNA.

The company, DNAPainter.com,  has recently introduced a new feature: users can now upload a GEDCOM file directly.

My main tree is on Ancestry.com and has 9,992 people, with 1,975 photos, 267 stories and 14,669 records. It contains most of my research about my own and my husband’s forebears.

I regularly download a GEDCOM file as a backup. GEDCOM is a data structure created by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for storing and exchanging genealogical information. Many different different computer programs use it. GEDCOM files have
the file name suffix ‘.ged’. The GEDCOM file I downloaded today was 9.6 MB.

I uploaded the file quickly and easily to DNAPainter. I was asked whether I wanted to hide, as private, living people and who I wished to be the starting point. I used our son. His ancestors, of course, comprise my own and those of my husband. The direct ancestors of our son, 624 people that I have identified and documented, were uploaded.

DNA Painter produces a summary report on tree completeness, how many forebears have been identified, compared with the number of potential forebears. The reports highlights pedigree collapse by naming people who appear more than once in your tree.

There are three ways to show the tree:

• Tree with branches highlighted in different colours

• Fan view. This is more compact, showing more generations but no names. Tree completeness is shown, with grey cells representing forebears that have not yet been identified. Hovering highlights the names and and shows where the person appears more than once in the tree when cousins have married.

• Text view showing key dates and places

You can mark people as genetic ancestors, and add notes and surname clues. You can also modify the imported data.

I look forward to this functionality being further refined.

update : Frequently Asked Questions answered by Johnny Perl, the developer 

Q: How does it work?
A: You can build a tree manually by simply typing in the names of ancestors, or you can import a GEDCOM file exported from a genealogy site or desktop genealogy software:
– Browse your computer for your GEDCOM file
The site will extract all the people from it into an ‘autocomplete’ list
– Type some letters into the autocomplete box and select the person whose ancestors you want to extract
– At this point, the site builds a tree for the chosen person and saves it in the site’s database.
– The default option is to hide living people, replacing them with ‘Living’, so their details are never uploaded at all. You can optionally override this.
– Another default sets the import to a maximum of 10 generations beyond the home person. Unless you have lots of pedigree collapse, the site should be capable of importing more distant ancestors too. If you’d like to try this, just select ‘Import all available generations’

Q: How do I add new ancestors to my tree
A: Within the tree view, hover over a node and choose ‘add parents’ (or just ‘add mother’ or ‘add father’)

Q: Can I use my main GEDCOM file or should I extract just my direct line?
A: It’s up to you; unless you have a huge tree (e.g. more than 50,000 people), it should be fine to use your entire file.

Q: Why can’t I find myself in the list of people extracted from my tree?
A: When you created your GEDCOM file, it may be that it was privatised by your desktop family tree software. You might be listed under ‘Private’ or ‘Living’, for example.

Q: Do you store my GEDCOM file?
A: No, your GEDCOM file does not leave your computer; instead, the site extracts just the ancestors of the person you select.

Q: What is the maximum filesize?
A: The file can be reasonably big (since it’s not being uploaded anywhere!), but needs to be less than 60MB in order for your browser to be able to load the list of people. If you have an older or slower computer it may need to be smaller than this.

Q: Is my tree private?
A: Yes – just as with the chromosome maps, a tree is only ever viewable by you, the person who created it, *unless* you click on ‘share’, in which case a link will be created that allows others to view the tree if they have this link. This share status can be revoked by the owner at any point, at which time the share link will no longer work.

Q: What does ‘mark as a genetic ancestor’ mean?
A: This is intended to help users indicate which parts of their ancestral pedigree they’ve been able to verify via DNA (aka their ‘genetic family tree’). For example, if I have a confirmed DNA match with my 3rd cousin who descends from a sister of my great-grandfather David Heatherington, I might mark David as a genetic ancestor. I can then use the ‘show genetic ancestors’ filter to show just the ancestors where I’ve identified DNA connections.

Q: How can I get the help info to come up again?
A: Click the ‘?’ Icon at the top right of the toolbar on a tree page.

Q: Can I link ancestors in my chromosome map to my tree?
A: Not yet, but this is being developed at the moment for release later in 2019.

Q: Can I download a picture of my tree?
A: Not right now, but this feature will be added in future.

 

Related posts

• DNA Painter – a new tool
• Progress on my tree
• DNA: finding new connections with the latest tools

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

Progress on my tree

One way to measure how far you’ve got with your family history research is to count how many forebears you can name at each generation.

I know the names of all my great great grandparents and all my husband’s, Greg’s, great great grandparents.

A useful statistic is the number of forebears you can name in the previous ten generations. The possible maximum, including yourself, is 1,023 individuals. [Cousins sometimes marry, so there might be duplicates.]

On my side of the family I can name only 22%, 230 of the possible 1,023. On my husband’s side I know the names of only 13%, 138. If I look at our tree from our children’s perspective the figure is 31%, 319.

When I did these sums two years ago I could name only 25%, 253, of our children’s forebears back 10 generations. Since then I have documented the names of 66 more. There’s a lot left.

Chart generated by MacFamilyTree8. A larger version of this chart is available. Direct ancestors back to the tenth generation whose names I know are coloured; blanks represent those whose names are unknown to me.

Generation	Possible number	Me	Greg	Children	me %	Greg %	Children%
1	1	1	1	1	100%	100%	100%
2 parents	2	2	2	2	100%	100%	100%
3 grand parents	4	4	4	4	100%	100%	100%
4 great grand parents	8	8	8	8	100%	100%	100%
5 great great grand parents	16	16	16	16	100%	100%	100%
6 3rd great grand parents	32	24	30	32	75%	94%	100%
7 4th great grand parents	64	35	32	54	55%	50%	84%
8 5th great grand parents	128	45	22	67	35%	17%	52%
9 6th great grand parents	256	49	19	67	19%	7%	26%
10 7th great grand parents	512	46	4	68	9%	1%	13%
Total	1023
Score to generation 10		230	138	319
as a %		22%	13%	31%

Some of my progress has been helped by DNA testing. I think DNA matching with cousins will be an important tool for finding my missing ancestors.

Several bloggers have reported on the completeness of their family tree as measured by this counting method. Among them are:

• Crista Cowan in 2012
• Kris Hewitt in 2013
• Randy Seaver in January 2016