Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Adoption/lost Y-DNA line

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

  • #16
    Thank you for your reply

    Originally posted by lc0 View Post
    >> below is an email i sent to a member of the family tree dna "murphy" surname group.
    >> i guess my first mystery is where was my grandfather, richard charles emery was conceived?

    Here are some comments/thoughts/questions:

    1. The name of your gf is richard charles emery, but while you don't know for sure the name of your ggf, did the birth certificate list for sure that alice emery was your ggm? I presume so, but you don't mention this...

    yes, alice is listed on both certificates as his mother.

    2. You never wrote anywhere if your ggm ever got married and with whom. I gather she did not? Meaning you have no clue who your real ggf was. Please correct if i got that wrong

    alice married john thomas stevenson in north adams. Richard charles, alice's son, was raised by his grandparents, charles and ann (stephenson emery.

    3. Whos' the person who made the birth registration of your gf?, maybe it was his uncle named richard davies and they got the names mixed up at the registry (known to happen)

    i don't know.

    4. Your gf was born 8/21/'86 - i see what you are getting at when it comes to conceivement, but if he was conceived before alice departure, in wales, she would almost certainly not have known that she was actually pregnant before she arrived. In any case she would have bought the ticket before such an event. I don't think your theory of "being sent away" holds.... (?) but i agree on wales.



    5. If you have/order the original ships manifest of her arrival you can probably see if she [alice] was traveling with someone, did you check? I guess she wasn't.



    6. Arrival of parents... Here it gets tricky. I have checked castelgarden.org and never found arrivals in july 1886 for the germanic. But i did find a charles emery arriving 18.may.1885 with the gallia from liverpool, age 48, travelling (almost certainly) with one mable emery, age 16. So maybe your theory of "and wanted to be a part of his life" is completely off. That's what i think, at least. Why did you not mention this arrival? As i said, i could not find the 1886 arrival - can you tell what are your sources?

    for #5 and #6 above ... I posted the info on rootsweb and received the information i posted here. I am not certain as to the arrival of charles and ann.

    7. Why did you write "adoption" in the title of your post?

    i guess i consider my case similar to an adoption case ... I simply do not know who richard charles emery's paternal grandparents were. I am sorry if this was confusing.

    8. Ydna checks ... I have no idea why you are after murphy as it seems the paper trail still has a few things to be answered for. As others mentioned, exact is only relevant if it is >> 12 markers, like 37/37 or better. Theoretically it is possible that the missing ggf was very closely linked to someone who has their ydna tested and could magically pop up as a link but it would have to be a very close match, like 36/37 or - preferably - better. Obviously the persons at hand also need to have the same (exact) haplogroup.

    my best "matches" (only, but several) are murphys, but i do understand that "67 marker - genetic distance - 2" is more distant than i would like.

    9. Paper trail - have you exhausted your 2nd/3rd/4th cousins, in terms of paper trail, family stories, historic documents, etc. My (g)gparents emigrated in the same period (10 years later) and together with my 6th cousin (which took some time to trace!) we were able to put together many pieces of the puzzle of what made them leave etc etc.

    Maybe there are a few things you can further clarify
    - how good are the matches
    - what's the source of the 1886 ships records
    - what about the 1885 arrival
    - was alice ever married
    etc
    12345678910

    Comment


    • #17
      If you have a match at 67 markers with a genetic distance of two you do not need to worry it is too far back. yDNA is naturally going to be matching with some years between. Depending on which marker(s) depends on how many years back.. Each one has it own mutation rate... still this is good enough to confirm you have the right surname, especially if your other matches are also the same surname.

      If you want to find matches closer than 67-2 or 67-1 either wait until more men are in the database or look into Family Finder, or other kinds of autosomal based DNA tests. yDNA is geared for ancestry testing but not relationship testing like autosomal DNA tests are.

      Matt.

      Comment


      • #18
        I remember reading on the forum a long time ago that an uncle and nephew were a distance of 2 with 67 markers. A mutation can occur between brothers, and between father and son.

        If you match a distance of 2 in 67 markers to Murphy, I think your ydna line is Murphy. And I think he could have been on the ship too.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by mkdexter View Post
          If you have a match at 67 markers with a genetic distance of two you do not need to worry it is too far back. yDNA is naturally going to be matching with some years between. Depending on which marker(s) depends on how many years back.. Each one has it own mutation rate... still this is good enough to confirm you have the right surname, especially if your other matches are also the same surname.

          If you want to find matches closer than 67-2 or 67-1 either wait until more men are in the database or look into Family Finder, or other kinds of autosomal based DNA tests. yDNA is geared for ancestry testing but not relationship testing like autosomal DNA tests are.

          Matt.
          This is simply not true, or I don't understand what you are saying.

          I know a man and his son that are a 65/67 match.

          What exactly are you trying to say here?

          Comment


          • #20
            I am saying his match should conclude he definitely is related to a Murphy surname. It sounded to me like he wants more proof by looking for a 67/67 match. He does not need to look for a closer match.

            I was keying off of his statement "but I do understand that a 67 marker - genetic distance of 2 - is more distant than I would like"
            Last edited by mkdexter; 8 April 2010, 04:17 AM. Reason: added info

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Darren View Post
              To elaborate further on Rainbow's post. 14-15 days from the first day of the last menstrual period is when ovulation and conception will normally occur.

              -Darren Marin
              Family Tree DNA
              Thank you Darren.

              And to elaborate further, not all women have a regular cycle. When doctors count 40 weeks and calculate conception, they can't say when fertilization of the egg started (without a sonogram), that is why doctors ask "when was your last period?" and that is why doctors count weeks from the first day of the last period. I know that fertilization can happen three weeks after a period because it happened to me years ago. A doctor calculated my weeks (said I got pregnant on) from March 15th. I freaked out and told him it wasn't possible. I didn't have sex at all in March. Not in February either. I did only on April 04th (with Murphy in Brooklyn). Later I had a sonogram that indicated I got pregnant on April 06th. The doctor said that sperm can live for a week.

              Comment


              • #22
                Thank you, and to all who replied to my post

                I do have a couple of questions:

                1) Does 67 with a distance of 2 mean 65/67?

                2) I notice that you have done many different tests. Would you say that products such as what 23andme offers are worth doing? What addition information would make it so?







                Originally posted by rainbow View Post
                I remember reading on the forum a long time ago that an uncle and nephew were a distance of 2 with 67 markers. A mutation can occur between brothers, and between father and son.

                If you match a distance of 2 in 67 markers to Murphy, I think your ydna line is Murphy. And I think he could have been on the ship too.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I sometimes write 67/65 which is not really correct in all cases but its easier to write it that way. Technically specifying genetic distance is the proper way to state it.

                  Matt.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by mkdexter View Post
                    I sometimes write 67/65 which is not really correct in all cases but its easier to write it that way. Technically specifying genetic distance is the proper way to state it.

                    Genetic distance is largely abused since STR's are all but equal. Some mutate much faster then others. Mutation rate needs to be combined with the number of generations back that you are seeking a connection to decide which ones are meaningfull and which ones not.

                    Generelly one expects genetic difference to increase with mutation rate of the the STR's, therefore generally the slow-mutation markers have much more meaning as a first pass filter.

                    Matching should be selective a/o weighted and based upon how far back you are searching.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by temery1961 View Post
                      I do have a couple of questions:

                      1) Does 67 with a distance of 2 mean 65/67?

                      2) I notice that you have done many different tests. Would you say that products such as what 23andme offers are worth doing? What addition information would make it so?
                      Hi. Yes, a distance of 2 with 67 means 65/67. It's an excellent match.

                      Why I did several kinds of tests is a slightly odd and long story. But for you, 23andme might be useful if you get lucky and have Relative Finder matches with people who are related to you thru your paternal grandfather's biological father. I think it's worth a shot. But those unknown cousins would have to have tested also. If there are Murphy descendants that had ydna tests done, then some could have done 23andme too.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lc0 View Post
                        Genetic distance is largely abused since STR's are all but equal. Some mutate much faster then others. Mutation rate needs to be combined with the number of generations back that you are seeking a connection to decide which ones are meaningfull and which ones not.

                        Generelly one expects genetic difference to increase with mutation rate of the the STR's, therefore generally the slow-mutation markers have much more meaning as a first pass filter.

                        Matching should be selective a/o weighted and based upon how far back you are searching.
                        Yes true. I think what I tried to say without being too technical is that 65 matching markers out of 67 can end up being any possible values of genetic distances thus 65/67 would be better stated as genetic distance to be more accurate. A genetic distance of 3 is just as possible as genetic distance of 2 for those 2 markers that do not match out of 67. There are many possibilities actually.

                        So to really state it accurate it is best stay with what FTDNA tells you in their FTDNATiP(tm) because it accounts for all of the above technical aspects - even putting your best matches at the top of your of each panel list.

                        http://www.familytreedna.com/faq-tip.aspx

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Thank you

                          I think I am beginning to understand this a bit more. Are you saying that for two matches that are both 65/67, the genetic distance could be very different based on which "two" are not matches? Is it also possible for the TiP to be different among people who match 65/67?






                          Originally posted by mkdexter View Post
                          Yes true. I think what I tried to say without being too technical is that 65 matching markers out of 67 can end up being any possible values of genetic distances thus 65/67 would be better stated as genetic distance to be more accurate. A genetic distance of 3 is just as possible as genetic distance of 2 for those 2 markers that do not match out of 67. There are many possibilities actually.

                          So to really state it accurate it is best stay with what FTDNA tells you in their FTDNATiP(tm) because it accounts for all of the above technical aspects - even putting your best matches at the top of your of each panel list.

                          http://www.familytreedna.com/faq-tip.aspx

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Genetic distance is the number of mutations between markers whether it is 1 marker with a genetic distance of 2 - or 2 markers with a genetic distance of 1 each - both scenarios are a genetic distance of 2.

                            When you need to compare two different matches who both have the same genetic distance then the comparison has to be made by which markers are mismatching as some markers mutate faster then others.

                            TiP figures all this out for you and puts your best matches at the top of your list of names so that, say in your 37 genetic distance 1 list, the person listed at the top of the list is a better match the second person listed even though both are a genetic distance of 1 (unless of course they are a tie, both mistmatching at the same mark and genetic distance).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Here's an example:

                              I have a 67 marker match with a genetic distance of 6.
                              534 16 vs. 17 (gen dist. 1)
                              413b 21 vs. 23 (gen dist 2)
                              576 20 vs. 19 (gen dist 1)
                              444 12 vs. 11 (gen dist 1)
                              391 11 vs. 10 (gen dist 1)

                              That is 62/67 markers that do not match.
                              That is a 6 genetic distance between my 67 markers and anothers or some may say 61/67.

                              In truth its 62 markers that match, 5 that dont'... out of the mistmatch it is a genetic distance of 6 and that is because you can see on marker 413b there is a genetic distance of 2 just from that mismatch... add them up and I get a genetic distance of 6.

                              In this case 62/67 is not accurate but 61/67 is misleading as to how many makers to not match. a genetic distance of 6 is correct which is why TiP will display your lists as 37 genetic distance 0, 37 genetic distance 1, etc. etc. and never tell you just how many markers are not matching up - only what the genetic distance is.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X