Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In need of help, please

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

  • In need of help, please

    I have a strong paper genealogy of males in my birth family, and I had my brother's son YDNA at 37 and 67 markers to validate. Turns out, there were only 2 birth-family-name matches at 25 genetic distance of 2, none at 37 markers, two at 67 markers at a genetic distance of 7. There are, as far as I know, no other males who have tested from this particular male line of this rather common surname. I was told by a project administrator that there was an NPE. I know for a fact there is not an NPE going back 5 generations, and again the paper genealogy is very strong going back 6-7 generations. One GD 2 at 67 match has a surname who was a neighbor of my family ancestors in 1814/1815 which is a possibility, but I cannot pinpoint it via paper trail yet, and I cannot get a response from the match for further info. That TIP report is (4)89.79 (8)98.96 (12)99.89 (16)99.99 (20)100. Another oddity is that two other matches, one at GD 2 at 67 with TIP report (4)89.79 (8)98.96 (12)99.89 (16)99.99 (20)100 and the other GD 3 at 67 with same TIP did not come "across the pond" until more recently, one specifically only came to Canada. Is it possible that the "NPE" happened before immigration happened? I am starting to believe that this problem stems from not having any other males tested from our particular line of males. Is there a way to triangulate where an NPE took place in YDNA?

  • #2
    I'll accept DNA over a paper trail any day.

    I don't know where you are from, but where I live when a baby is adopted a birth certificate is issued saying the adoptive parents are the birth parents.

    If a married woman gives birth to a child fathered by someone other than her husband do you think she will list the true father as the birth father or does she list her husband.

    How do you get a 'strong paper trail' for births that occurred before birth certificates?

    Comment


    • #3
      The way to triangulate with Y-DNA which generation would be to test the lines of different sons at each generation to find the odd one(s) out. If a woman remarried and her first sons were by a currently unknown first husband it would point that fact out more clearly. Although if she had a first son conceived out of wedlock and another man made it right by marrying her and you didn't know the date of that marriage, it may point you in the wrong direction to look for the date of the marriage record. Testing one male line descendant from a son and having that second line match would be enough to tell you that generation is not an NPE, but if a male descendant came up as not a match, the question is where did the discrepancy come from in the descent which would mean checking more people to confirm the result. So triangulating things using Y-DNA is not the most efficient, but can be accomplished. Also it goes more toward your point of the problem stemming from not having enough males tested from your lineage. The more men that are tested, the clearer the picture of what happened and where the paper records may not match the genetic records. Autosomal testing for ancestors back 5, 6, and 7 generations back become more complicated by making sure there is not a secondary connection and that inheritance may mean there is not shared DNA for that distant of a cousin and having to test numerous people throughout the descendants in order to get good evidence.

      Comment


      • #4
        Mr Barrett and bhemph, thank you both for your responses. Mr Barrett, there is no adoption involved. As to the question of what father a married woman would indicate, I couldn't say, but that is what makes matching DNA and paper genealogy so difficult sometimes. I have a strong paper trail through multiple affidavits; letters of correspondence to court officers, etc; court documents; medical records; census records; and my own family's information.

        bhemph, having more males test does make sense to try to make more sense of the situation.

        Again, thank you both.

        Comment

        Working...
        X