Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

65/67 match but with different surnames

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    67 match with several surnames

    I like many dna-genealogists out there have many matches with several
    surnames not of my family surname. but early on in my research I found
    many reason for a man to change his name, but not realizing that his DNA
    doesn't with it. I am not sensitive to the fact that I have a surname not
    matching with my family bloodline but have learned much by my research
    as I am also still learning so keep an open mind whenever you run in to
    this situation, John in Ks

    Leave a comment:


  • TSBinLV
    replied
    Originally posted by tomcat
    Keeping a family name 'alive' by 'adopting' a surname could be another explanation.
    I'm not sure what you mean by this....

    Leave a comment:


  • tomcat
    replied
    Originally posted by TSBinLV
    ...We also have some talented paper researchers looking into where these two groups may have intermixed. They have already found some evidence of two men with surnames Dowell and Martin owning property adjacent to each other in early VA at about the time when the paper trail for this Dowell cluster ends. This suggests maybe a Dowell daughter having a Martin child and the child keeping the mother's last name - although any number of scenarios are possible. Our researchers have noticed that the name Martin is used a lot in this Dowell cluster as a middle name.
    Keeping a family name 'alive' by 'adopting' a surname could be another explanation.

    Leave a comment:


  • FredSpringer
    replied
    I think that DNA testing is going to provide an interesting vista for visualizing our position in the structure of society.
    In order to research my mother's paternal lineage, we tested her brother's DNA. I had always perceived my maternal grandfather's line as being very straightforward, father to son, all carrying the same surname.
    Immediately after testing with FTDNA, we were presented with a different surname match which ultimately ended up being a 66/67 match with a GD of 3, as well as a couple of same surname matches. Going to different DNA databases, we found other different surname matches of significant factor. One database yielded a match of 37/37 GD of 0, and yet another database yielded two different surname matches of 34/34 GD of 0.
    This makes so far three different surname matches which could be significant.
    In trying find where these connections might have occurred, it finally dawned on me that there may have just been one connection to a different surname for my maternal grandfather's line. The other surname connections may have occurred between the other surname families.
    While in the end we are all one big genetic family, there may be no method to connect my uncles DNA to one or more of the different surname matches.
    Last edited by FredSpringer; 14 September 2007, 02:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Donald Locke
    replied
    Originally posted by groundscanner
    First off I want to thanks everyone for taking the time to comment on my first posting. You guys are great!

    In reponse to one of the comments there are geographical connections between my family and my matching different surname. Both are likely from SC. Also in addition there are marriage connections between the family. Also these extended families moved from SC to AL and then later to the same location in MS.

    Thanks again for the help.

    Michael
    Hi Michael, you just sort of answered your own question!
    To find a geographical connection along with intermarriage(s) between the 2 surnames is exactly where you need to be searching the paper records.

    All it would need to have happened is, for a lady with children from a previous marriage to have remarried and the children took on their step fathers surname, "poof" you don't match the step fathers lineage, you match the mothers 1st husband's lineage.

    What you can try to prove through the paper records is, find all the marriage records for the familys involved, and see if one of the ladies had been married prior to being married to your male ancestor. Some marriage records will state
    she was a Widow, or the former Mrs. " so and so ". I wouldn't expect that to happen, but there are some marriage records which did indicate a lady was married once before. It is worth the time and effort to look in to it anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • TSBinLV
    replied
    Isn't there some number of generations back where FTDNA says a perfect 67/67 match gives a 100% chance of a common ancestor? I thought I saw that somewhere and now I can't find it...

    We don't have any perfect 67/67 matches in our project yet so we don't have any FTDNAreports for this kind of match. But it seems like someone posted one of these somewhere...I just can't remember where I saw it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    First off I want to thanks everyone for taking the time to comment on my first posting. You guys are great!

    In reponse to one of the comments there are geographical connections between my family and my matching different surname. Both are likely from SC. Also in addition there are marriage connections between the family. Also these extended families moved from SC to AL and then later to the same location in MS.

    Thanks again for the help.

    Michael

    Leave a comment:


  • K. Campbell
    replied
    Matches with Other Surnames

    My thoughts on high resolution matches with other surnames

    http://www.familytreedna.com/forum/s...ght=Rethinking

    Leave a comment:


  • TSBinLV
    replied
    Joe,

    We have a similar situation developing in our Dowell DNA Project. We have one cluster of Dowells who are matching DNA with members of the Martin DNA Project. We are just starting to see these matches, but will be pursuing this full force, because certain researchers from this cluster of Dowells have been trying to connect to other Dowells with paper for years now. It seems this search has been in vain because DNA is instead revealing a connection to the Martin surname - perhaps as recent as 8 - 12 generations ago.

    We have a strategy to test more Dowells and Martins from these clusters to see where it takes us. We also have some talented paper researchers looking into where these two groups may have intermixed. They have already found some evidence of two men with surnames Dowell and Martin owning property adjacent to each other in early VA at about the time when the paper trail for this Dowell cluster ends. This suggests maybe a Dowell daughter having a Martin child and the child keeping the mother's last name - although any number of scenarios are possible. Our researchers have noticed that the name Martin is used a lot in this Dowell cluster as a middle name.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joe Grimes
    replied
    When my match results came in I was very surprised also. I did not match with any other Grimes or Graham. I matched to a multitude of Rains and Raines
    (the numbers below are all different individuals, i.e. the 65/67 match
    is not included in the lesser marker matches):

    1 - 65/67 Rains
    1 - 64/67 Raines
    1 - 36/37 Rains
    5 - 34/37 (3 Raines, 2 Rains)
    6 - 24/25 (3 Rains, 3 Raines)
    4 - 23/25 (2 Rains, 2 Raines)

    The differences are fast moving: DYS439,CDY-a.
    I have since joined the Rains/Raines Surname Project and have been in contact with several helpful individuals. Still can't find any connections, yet. Maybe the split occurred before coming to America.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Barrett
    replied
    Michael,

    I agree with Elise on all points.

    Leave a comment:


  • efgen
    replied
    Michael,

    I am not aware of any case where a close 67-marker match is a 'false positive' or has resulted simply from convergence. At lower marker levels, yes. But at 67 markers, no.

    There could be a myriad of reasons for the different surname. An illegitimacy always seems to be the first thought, but there could have been a purposeful change of surname, an adoption (not necessarily recent), or even someone who had a relative test, but put their own name down as the contact/tester. I'm sure there are many other possible reasons.

    I suggest contacting your match and simply talking about it. You may find that they're well aware of a reason that the surnames don't match. Or maybe they'll be just as surprised as you. Either way, the two of you should compare paper trails and see where they cross. With a 65/67 match, there's definitely a connection somewhere -- you just need to try to find it.

    Good luck!

    Elise
    Last edited by efgen; 9 September 2007, 09:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • gthirkleby
    replied
    What is your ysearch number?
    This match must be fairly recent, but still before the surname dash.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I am not sure if I am using the correct term. I was wondering if this could be a random near-match that is the result of haplogroup R1b being so common.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben_Redeker
    replied
    Originally posted by groundscanner
    I have a 65/67 match with a person that has another surname. One step mismatch at each of the two non-matching markers, with one being a fast mutating marker. We are both R1b1.

    My question is what are the chances of this being a false positive? I would love to have comments.

    Thanks

    Michael
    Michael,
    What precisely do you mean by the phrase "false positive"? Do you mean that the wrong dna information was posted to your account?
    ben-redeker

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X