Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bringing Strays Into the Fold

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

  • Bringing Strays Into the Fold

    A surname project has tested 15 men so far. Five of them match fully on 12 markers. The others are, for all practical purposes, unrelated to each other. Of the five who match, three have results for 67 markers. A fourth member is expecting them and additional members are expecting the results of their intial tests. The three share a surname, ethnicity, and geographic origins. They are clearly related, and the only question is how. Let’s call them Albert, Andrew, and Arthur.

    You can see their results at
    http://www.familytreedna.com/(0ebcgz...xed_columns=on
    Albert is #5, Andrew is #3, and Arthur is #4. All of their mismatched markers are fast moving. Testing above 37 markers did not indicate any differences among the three. Albert’s is the group’s tentative modal haplotype. The FTDNATiP Report, without considering external indicators, predicted that there is a 53% probability that Andrew and Arthur (the outliers) are related to each other within 9 generations, and 89% within 15 generations. The surname originated around 1400 CE and Andrew can trace his patrilineal genealogy to 1655 CE and probably earlier.

    Two men who are not members of the surname project, each with a different surname, seem to be related to each other and share our ethnicity. They also, to different degrees, match Albert and Andrew -- Bill more closely and Bob further away. They are closest to modal Albert. I have inferred that they differ from him by a slower-moving marker.

    I have tried to recruit Bill and Bob to our surname project, but they did not respond. When I met Bill last week, he told me that he is related to Bob but not to us. I then asked him to at least upgrade to 67 markers. He is an involved genealogist. What can I do to persuade him to cooperate?

    The genetic distances among the five are detailed in the attachment.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by Itzhak Epstein; 23 August 2006, 12:02 PM.

  • #2
    Hi,

    I can only respond from my own point of view, so please dont take offence.
    Maybe Bill and Bob are happy with the line of research they are taking, and dont feel the need to upgrade to 67 markers to suit your surname project. It may not be of any benefit to themselves. (Also, are they already in a surname project of their own?)
    You may consider offering to pay for their upgrade, as it will be of benefit to your group.

    I only say this as I have considered the situation myself, what if at 37 markers someone wants me to upgrade to 67, if it was of no benefit to myself, would I consider it.
    Am I being selfish??? Are Bob and Bill??

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rivergirl
      Hi,

      I can only respond from my own point of view, so please dont take offence.
      Maybe Bill and Bob are happy with the line of research they are taking, and dont feel the need to upgrade to 67 markers to suit your surname project. It may not be of any benefit to themselves. (Also, are they already in a surname project of their own?)
      You may consider offering to pay for their upgrade, as it will be of benefit to your group.

      I only say this as I have considered the situation myself, what if at 37 markers someone wants me to upgrade to 67, if it was of no benefit to myself, would I consider it.
      Am I being selfish??? Are Bob and Bill??
      I am not at all offended by your omments.

      It does not look like Bill and Bob have a surname project. If they are involved in one, I would be very surprised. Also -- Surnames are labels, suggesting genealogy. DNA is genetics, a strong indicator of genealogy.

      Neither Bill nor Bob responded to my email messages. Had they said that it is not worth the money or that they tested for a lark, I would have understood. Bill, the inolved genealogist, said when I ran into him that he is not related to us. Five of his 12 markers' six perfect matches are members of our project. There is roughly a 50% probability that Bill and Albert share a common ancestor within the past 7 geenrations. At the very least, he can join and help us resolve the uncertainties. What can the line of research with which he is very happy be?

      Sometimes, uprgrading is a waste of money. For serious genealogists who are uncertain about how they relate to an established line, it is a wise move.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Itzhak Epstein
        Sometimes, uprgrading is a waste of money. For serious genealogists who are uncertain about how they relate to an established line, it is a wise move.
        Have you considered the fact that he may not be able to afford the upgrade. Maybe he is on a fixed income that is already stretched to the limit.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jim Barrett
          Have you considered the fact that he may not be able to afford the upgrade. Maybe he is on a fixed income that is already stretched to the limit.
          I am very sensitive to this issue. Several potential participants have raised the cost issue and I am trying to resolve the problem.

          I have considered the means issue, and it is unlikely in this case. I do not know if Bill is rich, but he does not seem to be of such limited means. Also -- Going to 37 markers is less costly, but still helpful. Anyway, it does not cost anything to share his data with us by joining our project.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think I can sympathize with you desire to get more information from Bob and Bill, but the 24/25 or 23/25 matches are a great start.

            I'd be much more interested in getting patrilineal pedigrees from Bob and Bill (so you could compare towns and dates for possible overlap with Albert, Andrew, and Arthur) than getting more markers. It sounds like finding that sort of overlap would be crucial to encouraging a marker upgrade anyway.

            Also, unless I am reading your data wrong, Bill and Albert are a 24/25 match. Thus, they have a 50% probability of sharing an ancestor in 12 to 18 generations (depending on the mututation rate you assume), not seven generations.

            Comment

            Working...
            X