You are receiving this because your address is subscribed at: www.jaunay.com/newsletter.html
Proformat News
No: 128
October 2016
News
October Seminars & Heritage Walks
12: South Australian resources for family history WEA Centre 10:00-1:00pm
16: Adelaide SW Corner Heritage Walk 2:00 to 4:00pm NEW
19: How to be a successful family historian (1st of 7 weekly sessions) WEA Centre 8:00 to 9:30pm
26: How to be a successful family historian (2nd of 7 weekly sessions) WEA Centre 8:00 to 9:30pm

November Seminars & Heritage Walks
2: How to be a successful family historian (3rd of 7 weekly sessions) WEA Centre 8:00 to 9:30pm
9: How to be a successful family historian (4th of 7 weekly sessions) WEA Centre 8:00 to 9:30pm
13: Semaphore Heritage Walk 2:00 to 4:00pm
16: How to be a successful family historian (5th of 7 weekly sessions) WEA Centre 8:00 to 9:30pm
23: How to be a successful family historian (6th of 7 weekly sessions) WEA Centre 8:00 to 9:30pm
27: Glenelg Heritage Walk 2:00 to 4:00pm
30: How to be a successful family historian (final of 7 weekly sessions) WEA Centre 8:00 to 9:30pm

All bookings must be made with the hosting organisation. All heritage walks are hosted by the WEA.

See the seminar program for more details and bookings.


Coming to grips with my DNA: 3

After waiting just over two months my atDNA results were made available and what a surprise!

Even though I had read about the possible number of results I was not expecting 825 matches. Scanning the names I did not recognise a single one and I noted no estimated closer relationship than 2nd cousin. How is this possible? I have researched my family for years and have been particularly keen to not only work back in time finding ancestors but working forward in time to find remote cousins in the hope they knew something I did not!

In this issue:
News
October Seminars
November Seminars

Feature article
Coming to grips with my DNA: 3

header

Graham Jaunay

Glandore SA 5037
Australia


genealogy@jaunay.com


Breaking news: fb

Services
Drafting charts
Locating documents
Seminar presentations
SA lookup service

Graham Jaunay uses
The Genealogist - for UK census, BMD indexes and more online simply because it contains quality data checked by experts.


Proformat News acknowledges the support by awe AWE


Now it seems I have many more to follow up and a need to prioritise. I am well aware from talking to others that although many may have taken the DNA tests, it seems that few are willing to respond to possible cousins. I am not quite sure why this would be so. Perhaps my reasons for taking the test were a little unusual. I lecture in family history and I want to understand the process, however, I do have some relatively recent barriers I would like to break through. They may be just too remote because they are all missing 3g-grandparents:
  1. the parents of George JOHNSON (b. 1820 somewhere in the UK).
  2. Thomas WARD – the father of illegitimate Louisa WESTBURY (b. 1861 Adelaide SA).
  3. Sarah HARRIS’ (b. ca1795 Sheerness) maiden name.
  4. Jane KING’s (b. ca1795 somewhere in the UK) maiden name.
My understanding is that I have approximately one thirty-second of their atDNA. Surely some of the matches I have are their descendants! Descendants of these people will be my 4th cousins. The International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) suggest that in the case of Family Tree DNA (FTDNA), I have a less than 50% chance that such a cousinship will be detected! Some academics suggest a mere 30%.

Approximate percentage of atDNA you share with others who may be living
50%
25%
12.5%
>6.3%
3.1%
parents
grandparents
g-grandparents
1st cousin 1 rem
2nd cousins
siblings
grandchildren
1st cousins
half 1st cousins
1st cousin 2 rem
children
uncles/aunts
g-uncles/aunts
dble 2nd cousins
 
nieces/nephews
g-nephew/nieces
 
double 1st cousins
g-grandchildrenn
1.6%
0.8%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
2nd cousins 1 rem
3rd cousins
3rd cousins 1 rem
4th cousins
4th cousins 1 rem
1st cousin 3 rem
2nd cousin 2 rem
3rd cousins 2 rem
3rd cousins 3 rem

It seemed important to me to chart my ancestry surnames to gain an understanding of matches and where the focus needs to be:

Surnames on my father’s side with Ahnentafel numbers:
gparents ggparents gggparents ggggparents
4 Jaunay
8 Jaunay
16 Jaunay
32 Jaunay
33 Howell
17 Gilmour
34 Gilmour
35 Cunningham
9 Cawley
18 Cawley
36 Cawley
37 Edwards
19 Puttick
38 Puttick
39 Cox
5 Beasley
10 Beasley
20 Beasley
40 Beasley
41 Barrel
21 Sharp
42 Sharp
43 Bullock
11 Fisher
22 Fisher
44 Fisher
45 Ford
23 Smith
46 Smith
47 Tremayne

Surnames on my mother’s side with Ahnentafel numbers:
gparents ggparents gggparents ggggparents
6 Johnson
12 Johnson
24 Johnson
48 Johnson
49 ?
25 Cannell
50 Cannell
51 Larner
13 Westbury
26 Ward
52 Ward
53 ?
27 Westbury
54 Westbury
55 Wall
7 Harris
14 Harris
28 Harris
56 Harris
57 ?
29 Summerhayes
58 Summerhayes
59 Hudson
15 King
30 King
60 King
61 ?
31 Grummitt
62 Grummitt
63 Saunders

While the Jaunay table is complete as far as names are concerned, the Johnson table has a number of female lines that just appear out of nowhere! Clearly these are my focus but how to address this seems to be another problem! Given this I decided to put this approach to one side. It may have worked but for two factors with my matches. Firstly not one match name was recognisable and secondly only some participants have declared their family surnames of interest and even fewer have uploaded their family tree as a GEDCOM.

Looking at my results I resolved to start with the better matches, given I had no name clues which I thought before undertaking this exercise was essential. I seem to be working in the dark! FTDNA atDNA matches are published indicating the amount of shared DNA recorded in centimorgans [cM] and the longest matching segment. I have been told that the more significant result is the length of the longest matching block. I note some matches but they are dreadfully common names like the names featured in my barriers above. Smith being the most common English surname, Johnson 11th, Harris 22nd, King 24th, Edwards 31st, Ward 40th, Cox 65th with almost 96,000 people today bearing the name. The rarer names are Jaunay, Tremayne, Summerhayes and Grummitt.

Every name match in the following table is in my mother’s family!

Top 10 Matches with names
Block length in cM
Surname
match
*
Note
Richard Herbert C
34.4
Ward
U
 
Keith Stuart M
23.6
Johnson
U
 
Lois   Y
22.1
Ward
N
 
Albert  A
21.9
Harris
N
 
Diane  B
21.4
Johnson
N
 
Barbara Lindegren P
20.9
Ward
U
Deceased; relatives responded
Eliza Belle B
19.6
Wall
U
 
John Robson B
19.6
Harris; Wall
U
 
Gene  C
18.6
Johnson; Wall
U
 
Matthew  B
17.8
King
N
 
* N = no response; E = email bounced; U = responded but unhelpful; H = helpful response but no outcome; H+ = helpful response with an outcome.

The following good matches did not provide any surnames but some responded with common names:

Top 10 Matches with no names
Block length in cM

Surname
match

*
Note
Douglas R
51.49
 
U
 
F H
25.6
 
N
 
James R  M
24.9
Howell
H
 
Mary Elizbth Hancock H
24.9
 
N
 
Joel Amos G
24.8
 
U
 
Mary Evelyn  L
23.7
Smith
H
Deceased; relatives responded
Adrienne L H
23.7
 
N
 
Karen Denise Mc
22.7
 
N
 
Lue  H
22.7
 
N
 
Mary  Riley D
22.5
 
N
 

Given the negligible outcome I turned to the other criteria—the amount of shared atDNA. In my case this person also has the longest block in common with me. The fact that the same person heads both this and the above list suggests that he is a person of great interest. Those in bold in the following list are also in the previous tables and none proved helpful.

Top10 new matches
Shared cM

Surname
match

*
Note
Douglas R
91.4
 
U
 
Murble  P
74.0
 
U
Deceased; nephew responded
Jerry  C
71.9
 
N
 
John Edwin D
64.8
King
U
 
Richard Herbert C
64.3
Ward
U
 
Tamara  C
60.5
 
N
 
Billie  Dean Griffin M
59.0
 
U
 
Kenneth Wayne  K
57.5
 
N
 
Pamela F
56.0
 
N
 
F H
55.7
 
N
 
Barbara J M
55.0
Howell
U
James R  M (above responded
Myron N
55.0
Cox
H
 
John Robson B
55.0
 
U
 
* N = no response; E = email bounced; U = responded but unhelpful; H = helpful response but no outcome; H+ = helpful response with an outcome.

I quickly became aware that respondents were not only trying to match names but also locations.

Birthplaces on my father’s side with Ahnentafel numbers:
gparents ggparents gggparents ggggparents
4 Reims FRA
8 Londonderry IRL
16 St Martin in Fields MDX
32 Chantilly FRA
33 Albrighton SAL
17 Londonderry IRL
34 Londonderry IRL
35 Castelcooley IRL
9 Hackney MDX
18 Bridport DOR
36 Allington DOR
37 Whitchurch C DOR
19 Cowes HAM
38 Kirdford SSX
39 Petworth SSX
5 Gawler SA
10 Linton VIC
20 Wiveliscombe SOM
40 Chipstable SOM
41 Milverton SOM
21 Wetwang ERY
42 Wetwang ERY
43 Skipsea ERY
11 Unley Park SA
22 Walcot SOM
44 Batheaston SOM
45 ?
23 Bath SOM
46 ?
47 ?

Birthplaces on my mother’s side with Ahnentafel numbers:
gparents ggparents gggparents ggggparents
6 Rosewater SA
12 Dry Creek SA
24 ?
48 ?
49 ?
25 Banningham NFK
50 Matlaske NFK
51 Suffield NFK
13 Adelaide SA
26 ?
52 ?
53 ?
27 Fairford GLS
54 Fairford GLS
55 Fairford GLS
7 Parkside SA
14 Pimlico MDX
28 ?
56 ?
57 ?
29 Pimlico MDX
58 Pimlico MDX
59 Bristol GLS
15 Pimlico MDX
30 Harlow ESS
60 ?
61 ?
31 Biggleswade BDF
62 Houghton Conq BDF
63 Clophill BDF

Having locations by generation and family name proved helpful in formulating responses. Most respondents appreciated my comprehensive replies but it soon became apparent they knew little about their ancestry.

I had been told by others that many would not respond. This seems a strange attitude. Why are they paying money to follow up their roots and then not responding to the matches? Interestingly I have had my results for almost a month and, assuming the matches can see me on their pages, I wonder why none have bothered to contact me? I expect some may have been subscribers for quite some time and may have given up. Perhaps others have changed their emails or the mail sent was automatically junked. As it turned out some were dead, but at least a family member responded!

Parallel with the direct approach to fellow FTDNA subscribers, I intended to use GEDmatch as well. GEDmatch is a free to use volunteer website that allows you to upload your atDNA data.

Using this third party website I am hopeful that potential matches who used Ancestry DNA, and 23andMe will have uploaded their results. They may be more inclined to respond as I suspect they may in fact be active family historians! Let's hope so!

In the meantime YouTube has a good 42 minute session on how to access GEDmatch: GEDMatch Basics.

…to be continued.
To unsubscribe send a blank email via the following link using the same address you subscribed to:
newsletter-leave@jaunay.com