Family Tree DNA’s annual holiday sale begins NOW and has two parts.

First, the prices are reduced for almost all tests and upgrades – for new and existing customers, both.

Second, existing customers whose e-mail is in the data base will receive a new coupon every Monday and the mystery discount can be applied IN ADDITION to the sale price upon checkout.

Please note, if you don’t receive the e-mail on Mondays, it may be caught in a spam filter someplace or the internet troll grabbed it.  Just sign on to your account and the coupon is displayed there as well.

Like last year, you can list your coupon discounts available, if you’re not going to use them, for others to use in the comments of each week’s blog article about the sale and sharing.  You can also request something specific.  I’ll start.

My coupon this week is R7DU2DHF and it’s for $5 off of any mtDNA test – so if you’ve been wanting to test or upgrade, now might be a good time.  Each coupon can only be used once (so first come, first serve of shared codes) and expires the following Monday when the next coupon is issued.

Click here to order or upgrade tests, see prices, or redeem coupons.

Read below for the details.

Dear Group Administrators,

We’re excited to announce the launch of our 2015 Holiday sale! It will starts today  and ends on December 31st @ 11:59PM Central Time.

You’ll find a full list of the sale prices on the FTDNA website. Similar to last year, we’re adding a treat to this year’s great deals – our Mystery Reward discounts! The Mystery Reward will be a randomized discount (up to $75 off) that can be applied on top of the already reduced Holiday Sale prices. You’ll get a new Mystery Reward every week as well as after making a purchase. You can use the discounts or share them with friends!

The Mystery Reward icon will appear on testers’ myFTDNA dashboard each week. Each code will expire the night before the next Mystery Reward appears. We’ll also send an email notification to the kit’s primary email address when a new code is available for use or sharing.

Sincerely,

The Team at Family Tree DNA

Click here to order.

Family Tree DNA held their 11^th International Conference of Genetic Genealogy from November 13-15, 2015 in Houston, Texas.

First and foremost, I want to thank Max Blankfeld and Bennett Greenspan, founders of Family Tree DNA, for hosting and subsidizing this conference.  It’s the only conference of its type anyplace in the world and Family Tree DNA has been hosting this conference now for 11 years.

Now to the fun part – the conference itself.

The first year I attended, which was the first conference in 2004, I remember thinking and probably saying as well that I felt like I was drinking from a firehose.  It reminded me of grad school.

This was both the good news and the bad news. The good news was that I loved every minute.  The bad news is that I didn’t understand everything that was being said.  And there was one session in particular where I was sure I had wandered into the wrong conference room…but when I saw Max and Bennett, I was sure I was in the right room….but not at all sure I was in the right place.

However, we were all newbies together because the field of genetic genealogy didn’t exist until about the year 2000….so these were truly first baby steps – although they certainly didn’t seem like it at the time.

Fast forward to this year.  Thanks to technology and the leaders in this field, the edge of the envelope is still being pushed, and there are still very exciting topics on the agenda for those of us who know a bit more now.  Those topics didn’t even exist in 2004.

Looking at the 2015 agenda, there were 7 main sessions, plus the breakouts and lab updates and such.  Of those 7 main sessions, none of them, not one, could have been presented at the conference just 5 years ago.  Why?  Because the products and the tools didn’t exist then.  We have advanced a HUGE distance in just 5 years and much of this has been due to citizen scientists.

But not every conference session was at an advanced level.  Thanks to Max and Bennett, there were also breakout sessions for newbies who I’m sure, feel like they are drowning in that fire hose.

There were 206 attendees at this year’s conference, and of those, I think there were 70 first-timers.  I surely hope they come back, because it does get easier as you learn more about the topics at hand.

The conference always begins with a reception hosted by Family Tree DNA on Friday evening, the ISOGG party (where we all contribute food and beverages) on Saturday evening and whoever is left on Sunday evening tends to gather and eat the nonperishable leftovers from Saturday’s gathering.

Indeed, we have fun and visit from the time we get up in the morning until we close our eyes each evening.  We take advantage of every minute.

Dressing the Part and Sharing the Love

You can tell you’re in a group of genetic genealogists.  Just look at their clothes – Katherine Borges and Linda Magellan’s clothes in particular.  They could start a helix clothing line!

But it doesn’t end there.

Look at the carpet too.

Not only that, I’m sure Katherine’s nail tech is sticking pins in a voodoo doll of Katherine.

Katherine’s break-out session was titled, “Nulls, the Value of Nothing” and she had named her nails 389, 425, 464, etc. for the markers that sometimes have null values.

I want to infect you with some of the rejuvenation and excitement we feel, especially those of us returning year after year.  It’s how we charge our genetic batteries.

The conference, aside from providing us with an incredible learning opportunity, provides us with the opportunity to network and to visit with each other.  There is indeed a lot of shop-talk going on…but there is also a lot of just plain visiting and laughing and fun.  It’s kind of like a cross between a class reunion, a professional academic conference and a family reunion.  And really, it’s the only place you can go and have these kinds of discussions.  I mean truly, your family does not want to hear about this over the Thanksgiving table.  But your genetic genealogy friends do!

Jennifer Zinck did us all a huge favor and took exceptional notes during the conference in the sessions she attended.  Her posts are at these two links.

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/11th-international-conference-on-genetic-genealogy/

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/11th-international-conference-on-genetic-genealogy-sunday/

Due to the internet speed in the hotel, Jennifer was not able to upload any photos.  I’m not about to recreate all of Jenn’s hard work, so what I am going to do is share some photos and what I considered to be salient and high points of the conference.

Now for the bad news, my camera battery ran out at the end.  I thought I had an extra one with me, but I didn’t, so I don’t have photos of every main session, nor of the breakouts.

Update:  Please note that the speaker’s slides are available here.

Welcome

Max and Bennett always open the conference with some comments and a welcome.  Bennett shared a story I never knew about him.  When Bennett was 13 years old, he drew his first genealogy pedigree chart after talking to his grandparents and older family members.  While that is remarkable enough, he was bright enough to draw it – IN PENCIL.  I’m still not bright enough to do that apparently.

If you ever wonder if the cosmos has a sense of humor, consider that Bennett has paid to test 68 Greenspan men and none of those 68 men have been a match to his line.  However, 15 years into this adventure, a Mr. Green approaches Bennett at a conference and wonders if they are related.  Bennett is tired of paying for unproductive tests and really doesn’t think there is ANY chance of Mr. Green matching him.  So, Mr. Green pays for his test and you know what’s coming don’t you….yep….Mr. Green is Bennett’s closest match….and Mr. Green has a village name in the old country.  I’m betting Bennett is going to be going on a trip soon to that village….don’t you!  Maybe Mr. Green will go along.  I’m extremely glad Bennett is finally reaping the harvest of his infinite patience.

Peter Sjolund – Y DNA Maps Scandinavian Family Trees from Medieval Times and the Viking Age

The first presentation was Peter Sjolund from Sweden.

The Scandinavians have become extremely excited about genetic genealogy and have been very active in projects and testing, including Big Y tests.

The first thing that happened was that I became exceedingly envious that the Hersesson family Peter was discussing in his presentation has 18 generations of documented family.

The great question to be answered was whether or not the farmer family was genetically related to the noble family.

The descendants were able to find enough direct male descendants to Y DNA test, and the answer was no, they weren’t.  However, they discovered that STR markers just didn’t reach far enough back in time to provide matching and delineation or the farmer line who did match each other, so they added the Big Y test and managed to prove the oral history from 1350 to present.

In essence, Peter was building the family tree with SNP and STR data instead of records and the two sources confirm each other.

You know those stories about “there were two brothers – one went east and one went west?”  Well, it’s true in this case, and using SNPs from the Big Y, Peter was able to prove it.

Peter’s next slide shows the historical events that spread these SNPs.

It was so enlightening to see exactly how this worked to prove the families, but also to connect to ancient history.  Max summed it up well at the end when he said that “testing is not only a contribution to family history but also to confirming history itself.”

Razib Khan – Populations in Autosomal DNA

Razib, a doctoral candidate studying evolutionary genomics at UC Davis has been working with Family Tree DNA on updating their myOrigins product.

I loved Razib’s comment that all of this would have been considered science fiction 15 years ago.  He’s absolutely right.

Razib described our autosomal ethnicity as being a rich diaspora and that it has to be measured, matched and then reduced to 50 narrative threads.  He said it also gets a bit messy sometimes, because if we don’t fit into a thread exactly, or maybe our correct thread doesn’t have a deep enough reference population, we’re forced into the next best genetic thread – even though it may make no sense to us today.  That does explain some of the odd results we see from time to time.

In order to improve myOrigins, the next version, due out in mid-late first quarter of 2016 will include several new reference populations, including a second reference population for Native American people.

Not all of Razib’s presentation was about ethnicity – some was about recombination – which of course, when you think about it, affects ethnicity dramatically.

He mentioned, almost in passing that in each meiosis, a male has 25 recombinations and a female, 35.  This has the potential to affect the amount of autosomal DNA that we inherit through an all-female line of ancestors, for example, as compared to an all-male lineage.  This means, in essence, that we are likely, over time, to carry more of our male lineages, or lineages heavily male, than we are do all female lineages – because the DNA divides less.  I have to wonder if this is built into any of the calculations for relatedness by any of the vendors?

Razib mentioned that based on the results of ancient genome sequencing that the people of ancient Europe looked much different than the Europeans of today.

Razib also mentioned at least three instances where a combination of ancient DNA sequencing, population genetics and oral history have, together, proven the oral history to be accurate.  One of these instances is the Aboriginal oral stories of the tribes in Australia that recall an Australia with a very different shoreline than today’s continent.

In the slide above, the light tan areas are now underwater, but the Aboriginal people still carry stories about these areas that have been “discovered” underwater.

Another “myth” is of giants in Biblical times.  Recently one of the remains excavated was nearly 7 feet tall – a person who would surely have been considered a giant among men of that time.

Razib also talked a bit about full genome sequencing and a few other speakers touched on it as well.  In essence there are four issues relative to full genome sequencing for the consumer marketplace.

• The cost of sequencing itself.
• The current lack of and cost of developing tools to compare full genomes.
• The knowledge of how to utilize the comparative results in a genetic genealogy context.
• The lack of any comparative database of other people.

Yes, I know that the other forms of DNA testing also started out with no data base, but those tests didn’t cost thousands of dollars either.  So, in a nutshell, the technology to reduce the cost of the test itself hasn’t reached the level at which the consumer marketspace would embrace that testing.  That’s probably when the work will be done on the tools, if at all.  We really don’t know that more, in this case, full genome sequencing, would be enough better to warrant additional testing and development.

Razib closed by wondering if we will be able one day to “recreate the face of our ancestor” by utilizing the combined DNA of their descendants.

I have to admit, this would be VERY cool.  It will be interesting to see what the next decade brings us in terms of technological advances.

I know one thing, if one had to do the “rebuild” by hand, the way I had to do the spreadsheet for James Crumley born in 1712, there won’t be very many faces recreated.  Hopefully, by then, we’ll have better tools.

Razib’s memorable comment:  “Treasure your exceptions.”

Dr. Michael Hammer – R1b and the Peopling of Europe: an Ancient DNA Update

I could hardly wait for this presentation by Michael Hammer.

For the past two years, Michael has updated us on the cumulative finds of ancient DNA, and translated or speculated upon what that means or will mean.  Michael says that ancient DNA has changed the way we think of human origins and it will continue to do so in the future.  I think that’s one the most dramatic understatements I’ve ever heard.

He also mentioned that humans incur about 70 mutations throughout their genome in each generation.

Michael went on to remind us that just because we find a population, as defined by a SNP, in very high numbers in a location today, doesn’t mean that is the origin of the population.  The best example is that because R1b is found in about half of the European males today, it was long assumed that R1b was birthed in Europe – but it wasn’t.

Then Michael dropped the bomb on us – R1b is ANE and specifically is found among the Yamnaya.  We had discussed this possibility last year, because no R1b is found in the earliest hunter-gatherer ancient remains in Europe.  Subsequent research proved it.  R1b comes from the Russian Steppes as is proven in the Haaks paper published in June 2015.

Today, 10 ancient Yamnaya samples have been analyzed, and all 10 are R1b.  Hmmmm….

I wrote about the Yamnaya here.

One of the factors that has helped immensely with this problem is that in 2014, there had been about 30 ancient DNA samples sequenced and in 2014, there had been less than 80 sequenced.  Today that number is at 160 and unexpected revelations are occurring.

We’ve known there were two populations for a long time that settled in Europe, the original-hunter gatherers and the farmers, but we didn’t know about a third population until relatively recently.  Ironically, the day after the conference, word of a 4^th population, from the Caucasus, broke.

The last group anyone expected R1b to emerge from was the ANE.

This map shows the influx of various cultures into Europe, and when.

Which haplogroups arrived when?

Oh, you wanted SNPs?  Ok, here goes!

One word of caution from Michael is that when reading papers, understand that they may not always be comparing apples and apples.  For example, the reason one SNP may not be present in a paper is not because it’s absent in the population or that particular sample, but because that lab for whatever reason, didn’t test for it.  So, no assuming nor drawing non-match inferences allowed.

I had discovered this recently when reading a mitochondrial paper.  They only tested for select locations and not others.  Makes me absolutely crazy.

BreakOut Sessions

Emily Aulicino talked about “Supercharging Your Project Members.”
Jim Brewster talked about “Getting Started with GAP.”
Dr. Doron Behar discussed “The Origin of Ashkenazi Levites.”

I attended Dr. Behar’s lecture.

Doron’s focus for many years has been on the Jewish population.

Recently, he has re-evaluated the available data and used new Big Y data in order to attempt to define the source of the Levite population.

I particularly like this slide, below, because it so succinctly illustrates the difference between traditional Sanger sequencing which is what is being done when you take the traditional 12, 25, 37, 67 and 111 markers tests, and the next generation sequencing like the Big Y.

Sanger sequencing is illustrated on the bottom.  Reactions at specific locations are measured and then analyzed by humans and then recorded to reflect a specific value.

Next generation sequencing utilizes scanning.  In the top part of the slide, you can see several scans of each area.  The quadrant on the left, if I’m counting right, had 27 scans of the same area.  This is called coverage.  The scans then are recorded and they have to be aligned.  As you can see, the start and stop locations are not the same.  Then the results at a particular location are counted.  In this case, the dark squares show the same value in a particular location.  So not all of the scans show the same thing.  Of course, the value is compared to a reference chart for what is “normal” and then the variant values are recorded.  Assuming in this case that the variant values are colored dark blue, 18 recorded the same variant value but one is misaligned.

So, if you’re wondering why there is so much discussion about read coverage, alignment and valid results in Big Y tests…this is it in a nutshell.  Not to mention, as shown in the upper right quadrant, sometimes that location doesn’t read at all, so we have what are called “no-calls” to muck up the gears.  Family Tree DNA has to decide what is a “valid” result when they return results to customers.  Not everyone agrees with that threshold, so some people and groups do their own analysis.  What really is valid?  We don’t know for sure but the reason that the ISOGG tree requires Sanger sequencing before adding a new SNP location to a tree is to verify that the Big Y scans are accurate.

Doron designed a study utilizing both STR and SNP markers found in the Big Y to discover additional information about the source of the Levite population.

Based on several samples both within and outside of the known Jewish community, plus one family, the Horowitz, whose genealogy reaches far back into Jewish history, Doron was able to confirm that the Levite population did arise in the Near East.

I loved Doron’s comment, “The role of a scientist is to doubt.”

I would add that’s also the role of a genealogist and in particular, a genetic genealogist.

But Doron said something else EXTREMELY profound and I was extremely heartened to hear it.

“I was wrong.”

Yep, that’s what he said.  Let me tell you why I found this so inspiring and encouraging.

In the academic community, researchers are encouraged to research and publish their findings, along, of course, with their research data and the reasons why they reached their conclusion.

In the future, new information or technology may become available, and that original information may need to be adjusted, corrected, or it may be outright wrong.

There is NO SHAME in being wrong.  The only people who are never wrong are the people who do nothing.  Thomas Edison’s lab was filled with many “failures,” all of which were learning exercises that led to success.

In fact, the bigger shame is in not publishing and keeping your data and discoveries to yourself.  If you wait until you know “exactly,” that will never happen and you’ll never publish anything.  Even if the information turns out to be incorrect, it’s still a foundation for future research.

If another academic disagrees with a paper, they don’t publicly berate their colleague as “incompetent”, suggest they are suffering from “ascertainment bias,” state that the global “we” don’t approve of their research methods, nor do they say their research is a folly – at least not in a public forum.  If they have something to say, they are expected to do so with professional decorum and write a rebutting paper to share their own research and information as to why they disagree and how the data proves their point.

As has been proven, sometimes papers, especially early papers, are simply incorrect.

Often, as in Dr. Behar’s case, the original researcher, due to their high level of interest in the topic at hand makes additional discoveries that refutes or adjusts their earlier work.

Again, open research is encouraged.

I am hopeful that the genetic genealogy community can act within the same professional decorum standards.  Participating in character assassination of those engaging in research discourages open sharing, discourages research and assuredly discourages new people from participating.  No one wants to become a target.

In a professional setting, people disagree with ideas but remain friends.  Disagreements aren’t personal attacks.  There are no DNA police.

I am very encouraged not only by Dr. Behar’s work, but by his professional demeanor as well.  Doron said that we all hold important information relevant to these discoveries.  He’s right, and the way to free that information is to both test and continue to question,  research and publish.

Miguel Vilar – Genographic 2015: New Markers, New Geno Kit and Accessing the Data Base

Dr. Miguel Vilar is the Science  Manager for National Geographic’s Genographic project as well as a molecular anthropologist.  He attended the Family Tree DNA conference in 2013 and we were very pleased to have him back this year to update us on the Genographic Project, now celebrating its 10^th anniversary.  It has been an incredibly exciting decade.

Ten years ago, the Family Tree DNA Conference was at the National Geographic headquarters in Washington DC to celebrate the FTDNA/Nat Geo collaboration.

The Genographic Project has been very successful with over 670,000 public participants.

In the beginning, the Genographic test was either a basic mtDNA test for females, or a 12 markers Y test for males.  The Geno 2.0 test changed dramatically, and the new Geno 2.0 Next Generation test offers even more.

However, the Geno 2.0 Next Generation test isn’t either the 2.0 test nor next generation sequencing.  So don’t get confused by the name.

For someone who has already taken all of these tests, there is no incentive to test again, but for a new person who wants a base mtDNA haplogroup, a Y haplogroup, ethnicity, autosomal results and to transfer into Family Tree DNA for autosomal matching – the $149 price tag is certainly a good value and it’s a great starting point.  The unlock price at FTDNA will be $39, same as for Ancestry or the 23andMe V3 chip.

After transferring to Family Tree DNA, males can test the Y STR markers and they will already have over 17,000 haplogroup defining SNPs tested.  Bennett said the SNPs known about a year ago when the cutoff for the new chip was made were included.

The new Geno 2.0 NG chip is an Illumina chip, customized but compatible with the chip used by Family Tree DNA.

National Geographic wants to expand their research partnerships as well to include qualified genetic genealogists, citizen scientists and those in other academic fields.

Nat Geo has established an application process.  If you are interested, contact Dr. Vilar at his e-mail above.

Additionally, National Geographic has 11 new grantees doing fieldwork now in Chilean Patagonia.

An exciting aspect of this work is that 48 ancient DNA samples are being included and compared to 70 modern samples.

National Geographic continues to publish research papers and have published 55 to date, with 5 more being near publication which is expected yet this year.  I will publish a list shortly on this blog.

One of the questions that has been concerning genetic genealogists is how the recent sale of part of the National Geographic assets will affect the Genographhic project.

I asked Miguel privately, and he said that the research arm stays under the nonprofit National Geographic, but that the kit and website have both fallen in the group of products that have been sold to 21^st Century Fox.  Miguel said that he really didn’t have any answers at this time, but that the research continues and that the details are being worked out.

For those who don’t know, Spencer Wells stepped down as the director of the Genographic Project several months ago, but remains involved in a consulting capacity.

Michael Davila, Director of Product Marketing

Bennett introduced Michael Davila, the new Director of Product Marketing.  Michael isn’t new to Family Tree DNA.  He worked there for several years, from 2004-2011 when he left to work for a few years in the oil and gas industry, returning to FTDNA a few months ago in his new capacity.

Michael had one very short message.  He knows there are problems and he is committed to getting them fixed and to providing tools for customers.  The message, “Tools, tools, tools.”

Short, sweet and right to business.

I had a chance to meet with Michael outside of the conference room and I want to say that I’m very encouraged by Michael’s direct approach.  He is insightful, understands the situation at hand and knows what needs to be done.

After Michael’s brief commentary, a general Q and A session followed.  One of the questions was for Michael, and I just happened to catch this candid of Michael and Bennett!  Not sure what Michael was saying, but it looks like it gave Bennett a migraine!

Actually, I think Bennett is concentrating on deciphering a question submitted by an attendee.

ISOGG Party

Saturday evening is traditionally the ISOGG party, but it’s not like a party you might generally think of.  There is a lot of tutoring and collaborating that goes on.  Friendships are made and renewed.  Just being together is great.  I mean, it’s not like we can have a discussion about SNP mutations rates at the dinner table at home.

You can see two different groups discussing aspects of genetic genealogy here.

At the party and also at Sunday’s sessions, lot of people were wearing the cool t-shirts gifted to participants by Family Tree DNA.

When we got back to our rooms, we discovered that even the hotel staff was in the spirit!!

ISOGG Meeting

Sunday morning is traditionally the ISOGG meeting.  Not everyone attends, unfortunately, because not everyone is a member.  Everyone is welcome, and since membership is free, it’s easy to join at www.isogg.org.

Katherine Borges was the original founder of ISOGG and still functions as the Director.  ISOGG is celebrating its 10^th anniversary this year, after being founded after the first genetic genealogy conference in Houston in 2004.

Katherine found a few photos of that first conference which was only one day and was held in a facility later destroyed by hurricane Ike, I believe.  You can see more 2004 photos here and photos from other years here.

I don’t think Max (above) and Bennett had any idea what kind of a legacy they were creating with that first conference.  History was being made.

Another function of ISOGG was the creation and maintenance of the Y SNP Tree.  The tree was begun 9 years ago and has been organized and maintained by Alice Fairhurst this entire time.

In 2012, the Y tree had 800+ SNPs, but beginning with the introduction of the Big Y test, the SNP tsunami began.  Today, there are over 15,000 SNPs on the tree, all entered by hand by Alice.  Fortunately, each haplogroup has a coordinator, but still the increase in SNPs and the magnitude of the task at hand has been overwhelming.

Quality has to be maintained, because the tree is regularly referenced by academics as well as by genetic genealogists.  Today, any SNP found in a Big Y type of next generation scan test must but be confirmed by Sanger sequencing.  I know this is frustrating to some, but given the uncertainty of scanned SNPs, it’s also essential to maintaining the tree’s integrity.

Alice recently retired from heading the ISOGG Tree project and was presented with an award for her nine years of service to the genetic genealogy community by Katherine Borges on behalf of ISOGG.

In Alice’s comments, she said that “We have all driven a new industry.”  Alice played a central and pivotal part.

Alice received a richly deserved standing ovation.

But we weren’t the only ones thanking Alice.  Max and Bennett presented Alice with a certificate of appreciation for her years of service as well.

I was really pleased to see this.  Not only is Alice extremely deserving of the recognition, but volunteers are too often unthanked and under-appreciated.

Panel Discussion:  Protecting Ourselves: AHGS and Genetic Genealogy Standards

Have you ever been invited to a party, had to decline with genuine regrets, then later, been very glad that you didn’t attend.  This describes the AHGS meetings for me.  In 2013, I was invited to the first conference and couldn’t attend, but given what transpired and the difficult environment at the conferences, I’m grateful in retrospect.

Those who did attend, and those who subsequently developed the Genetic Genealogy Standards document formed a panel, moderated by Bennett Greenspan, to discuss those meetings and standards.

Panel members left to right, Katherine Borges, Steven Perkins, Dr. Tim Janzen, Jennifer Zinck and Debbie Parker Wayne.

In a nutshell, genetic genealogy had come to the attention of the American Human Genetics Society and not in a positive way.  They didn’t understand what we are doing, and they became somewhat polarized on the idea of “harms.”  What harms, you ask? Well, so did we.  Apparently the harms they are concerned about are things like Y DNA testing revealing non-parental events.

The good news is that after this years meeting, it appears that the word “harms” has been removed and as a proactive measure, the genetic genealogy community created its own standards and guidelines.

You can read the resulting standards created by genetic genealogists here.

Brad Larkin Presents Genetic Genealogist of the Year Award

Brad Larkin, on behalf of the Surname DNA Journal, presented the second annual Genetic Genealogist of the Year Award to Maurice Gleeson.

The Surname DNA Journal would be a wonderful resource to publish many of these presentations – hint, hint to the presenters!!!

Maurice has organized Genetic Genealogy Ireland in Dublin since 2012, in addition to presenting widely.  He also has a very successful series of genetic genealogy videos on YouTube which I highly recommend.

Maurice is a man of many talents – a psychiatrist and pharmaceutical physician, a professional actor and of course, a genetic genealogist.  He has another talent as well – he can make absolutely anything interesting.  If you ever hear that Maurice is giving a lecture on dust – by all means attend! It will be the highlight of your week, I guarantee.

Maurice, congratulations on your well-deserved honor and Brad, thank you for recognizing one of our colleagues.

Maurice Gleeson – Combining SNPs, STRs and Genealogy to Build a Surname Origins Tree

Maurice, like many of us, wants to be able to use STRs and SNPs in combination with genealogy records to construct accurate lineage trees.  In addition, when genealogy records connecting people to their common ancestor are missing, we’d still like to be able to construct at least a hypothetical or genetically accurate tree.

During this process, Maurice encountered several challenges, including.

• Parallel mutations
• Back mutations
• Markers behaving unusually
• Multi-copy markers
• Unstable markers
• Lack of mutation rate for some markers
• Lack of standardized mutation rate for SNPs
• Difficulty determining if a SNP is present or absent
• Convergence issues
• False negatives
• False positives
• Unregulated naming
• Project members testing at different levels

Maurice did, however, provide us with the secret to success.

He began with hot cocoa and chocolate, but he said by the end of the project, he had an empty whiskey bottle and was taking anxiety medication:)

Maurice began by drawing a typical pedigree chart, based upon the project results, reflecting what he believed would be where the mutations would have occurred based on line marker mutations.

Then, with the assistance of Ralph Taylor, he drew Fluxus diagrams of the likely joining patterns of each set of possible outcomes.  The outcomes included and then omitted various markers experimentally for various reasons related to the challenge list above.

Maurice shared lots of slides with us reflecting several different mutation sequence possibilities.  I have omitted them, in part because I can’t explain why Maurice did what he did.  I understood it at the time, but without the slides to take notes on, I don’t think I could reconvey it correctly.  I would suggest that you obtain his slides from this link and view those in conjunction with Jennifer Zinck’s notes from his lecture.

In the end, Maurice did reach a “most probable” fit for both STRs and SNPs, although with some caveats, some of which were caused by participants who had only tested at 37 markers.

Maurice closed with lessons learned and future opportunities.

Maurice, this would make a fantastic YouTube video!!  It was a wonderful lecture.

James Irvine – Surname Projects, Some Fresh Ideas

James has been working with the Scots-Irish Irvine project for the past ten years.

James Irvine and Maurice Gleeson are both trying to achieve many of the same goals, but are using somewhat different methods.

James creates his own spreadsheets for his project members which include not only STR markers, but lineage defining SNPs as well.  Furthermore, James utilizes weighting for each STR marker based on its mutation rate, something the main project spreadsheet does not take into consideration in the step-wise mutations.  However, James feels the TIP calculations, which do take mutation rate into consideration are really quite accurate, based on his reconstructed pedigrees.

Unfortunately, it’s at this point that my camera battery died completely, so I don’t have any further photos of his presentation, but would encourage you to download his slides for yourself at this link.

James discussed the varying SNPs reported by different entities and compares the results.  The Big Y from Family Tree DNA, the results as analyzed by the appropriate project administrator(s), by a third party entity and then what he found himself.  The various analysis and what they considered to be valid SNPs varied significantly.

Which one is accurate, and why and how does this in reality affect what we can surmise of the genealogy and constructing family trees?  We just don’t know yet – but we are working with what we have.

One thing he mentioned is that the 495 STRs extracted by third parties from Family Tree DNA Big Y files are not necessarily reliable – which of course calls into question the reliability of any STR extracted from a next generation sequenced file.  This also confirms why Sanger sequencing is required for SNPs to be added to the ISOGG tree.

Break Out Sessions

Sunday’s breakout sessions once again included sessions that would hopefully appeal to a wide range of audiences.

Katherine Borges – Nulls: The Value of Nothing (Y-DNA)
Matt Dexter – Surveying Ancestry Using Autosomal DNA Results
Jim Brewster – Getting Started with GAP

I attended Matt’s session, capturing only one photo with my phone.  My apologies.

Matt discussed the foundation principles of autosomal testing and analysis, and how adoptees use this technology to find their families.

Roberta Estes – Y-DNA to Autosomal Case Study – Kicking It Up a Notch

(Thank you Jennifer Zinck for permission to use this photo.)

Lots of folks have sleepy Y DNA projects and wonder what else can be discovered utilizing these core projects.  I did too, so I decided to try and see what happened if I expanded the Crumley Y project to include autosomal.

We began with 4 men who were Y DNA descendants of James Crumley born in 1712.  These men descended from two of James’ sons, John and William.

We began our transition from Y to Y+Autosomal by upgrading all 4 men to the Family Finder test.  We then set about recruiting additional members including those who are not male and do not carry the Crumley surname today.

The response was quite surprising and we quickly had 50 members, about 30 of whom descended from those same two sons.  However, the descendants of the sons are today 7 generations distant, so 6^th cousins, at the closest generation.  The furthest distant from each other were 8^th cousins once removed.

This begged several questions.

While the prediction models suggested that they wouldn’t match, they did.

In essence, we began to reconstruct the genome of James Crumley through his descendants by creating a spreadsheet showing how each Crumley descendant matched each other Crumley descendant.  We utilized the same tools that we use for our own autosomal comparisons, some in a slightly different way.

This shows an example of three match groups of James’s descendants where the blue son, John’s descendants, are matching to the green son, William’s descendants on portions of chromosome 1.

Because I’m a visual person, I wanted to reconstruct James and Catherine’s genome on their chromosomes, so I utilized Kitty Cooper’s tools in ways they really weren’t quite designed for.  Normally they are used to place your ancestral segment on your own chromosomes.  Here, I used them to map James descendants matching DNA onto “James” chromosomes.

We actually accomplished several things and made multiple discoveries, many of which were entirely unexpected.  I showed what we had discovered in the Y only project contrasted to the Y+autosomal project.

Last, I discussed how to transition a project from Y only to Y+autosomal.

My slides are available at this link, and I will be writing a series of articles from this research to be published in the upcoming weeks on my blog.

Dr. Connie Bormans, Laboratory Director, Tom Richard, Customer Support Manager and Mike Alexander, Director of Engineering

All three of these individuals have extremely critical positions at Family Tree DNA, all with very specific challenges.

Connie discussed sequencing technology and the differences between the different types of technology utilized for different tests.

Tom talked about several things he has done in less than a year at Family Tree DNA to improve customer service – and it has improved greatly.  I spoke with him offline as well, and he has lots of plans going forward.

It’s wonderful to see such capable and motivated management team members.

Me with Tom Richard.  I love meeting the staff and seeing them each year.  It makes communicating with someone you know the rest of the year much easier.

Mike Alexander comes from NASA and his motto is the famous Gene Kranz statement, “Failure is not an option.”  For those who don’t know, Kranz was the flight director credited with saving the Apollo 13 crew.

Little did Mike know, a few years ago, I sat in that seat in the Johnson Space Center and I have a t-shirt with that very saying.

Needless to say, I am greatly encouraged by Mike’s NASA experience and believe it will serve him, and Family Tree DNA, very well.  Because, well, failure is not an option.

The Sale

I don’t know if Max and Bennett ever meant for this to happen, but it’s become a tradition that they announce a sale of some type during or at the end of the conference.  They closed this conference with the announcement that the Holiday Sale was beginning and would continue until the end of the year.  You can read about the sale and exchange coupons here.

Thank you Max and Bennett!

In Summary

This was an absolutely wonderful conference.  I so enjoyed renewing old friendships and meeting new people.  I’m very glad to see younger people and new admins interested and involved as well, because they are the next generation that will push what we’ve viewed as the frontier into the mainstream.

One day, we really will be constructing and reconstructing ancestors.  We may be able to see their faces, know the color of their eyes and perhaps some of their traits.  In another five years, we’ll be doing things we can’t even imagine today, and we’ll be pushing yet another line in the ever-expanding frontier of genetic genealogy.

Like I said when I closed my session, it takes a village.  A village of participants to test, a village of administrators organizing and analyzing results, and pushing the proverbial research envelope.  And it requires advanced tools and the supportive and incubational environment provided by Family Tree DNA.  Without any of those things, we would fail.  Thankfully, we won’t.

Maurice Gleeson perhaps said it best in his closing, “Max, Bennett, without you, there is no us.”

We truly are a partnership!

Week 2 of Family Tree DNA’s sale is here.  Existing customers should receive an e-mail announcing their weekly coupon, or you can view your coupon by signing in to your account and looking for the Mystery Reward featured prominently at the top of your account.

Coupons can be used in addition to the sale prices, shown below, for products.

Please list your coupon discounts available, if you’re not going to use them, for others to use in the comments of each week’s blog article about the sale and sharing.  You can also request something specific.

Here are a few from accounts that I manage.  I used 4 coupons myself last week – so Happy Holidays to me and my ancestors I’m going to discover a little more about. If you’ve been wanting to test a family member or upgrade, now might be a good time.

Each coupon can only be used once (so first come, first serve on shared codes) and expires the following Monday when the next coupon is issued.

Click here to order or upgrade tests and redeem coupons.

Thanksgiving is hard for some folks.  Life didn’t turn out exactly as they hoped or planned.

It’s easy for me to sometimes get tied up in the melancholy.  Thanksgiving when I was younger was a festive time on the farm.  The kitchen was overflowing onto tables in the living room. Aunts, uncles, siblings, lots of kids, sometimes foster children, boyfriends, girlfriends…the house was full. Mom and I were cooking and everyone brought a dish to pass.  It never occurred to me that one day those times would only be a memory.

It’s not like that now.  All of those people are gone, including my siblings.  In fact there are only a handful of people alive now who experienced those days and most of them are scattered to the winds.

So, I have to actively think of things to be thankful for at Thanksgiving.  Obviously, I’m thankful for my family, my children, their spouses, grandchildren and grandpuppies who do live close by.  And I’m really thankful that my husband likes to cook – and so are my kids!!!

Then, last night, on Facebook, I saw this inspirational saying by http://www.ibelieve.com.

That is just spot on.  I have never thought about things quite like this before.

And of course, my thoughts immediately turned to genetic genealogy.

Twenty years ago, DNA testing didn’t exist nor did we have any clue that it might.

Fifteen years ago, Bennett Greenspan and Max Blankfeld were just starting Family Tree DNA.  They are today the only one of the early testing companies still in business and the only one to offer a full complement of DNA tests for genealogy.  Am I ever thankful for them and their success.

Ten years ago, we thought we had come a long way because we could test males Y chromosomes to 25 or 37 markers and the female line mitochondrial DNA.  I don’t recall whether we were doing full sequence testing yet a decade ago.

Five years ago, autosomal DNA testing had just been introduced and we were ecstatic.  Little did we know it would open the floodgates.

And today, the genetic genealogy world is one I couldn’t even have dreamed of.  I wonder what the next 5 years holds.

Indeed, times have changed dramatically, and for all we’ve lost through the natural processes of life, we’ve gained incredibly.  Not only have we gained new relatives and immediate family through birth and marriage and birth…but we’ve gained the tools to get to know our distant relatives.

By distant, I mean both in terms of miles and ancient.  The new relatives who live distantly we now get to know through social media like Facebook.  One of the ways we find those new relatives is through genealogy and sometimes, DNA testing.  I’ve become very close to some of the people I’ve met through genealogy.

But I also mean distant as in distant or ancient ancestors, my great-great-great-great-great grandfather Estes.  My most distant Estes ancestor was Nicholas Ewstas born in 1495 in Deal, Kent, England.  Today, through the magic of DNA testing, I know what his entire Y chromosome looked like, through his descendants.  I know that many of us today probably share small portions of his autosomal DNA.  I know how to identify his descendants by matching them to his Y chromosome results.  I know where in the world he came from, before Kent.  I know how his ancestors got from Africa to Europe and then to England, at least roughly.

Furthermore, the more people who test, the more direct Y and mtDNA relatives I can find to complete my DNA pedigree chart.  The more I can learn about these distant ancestors, by meeting more of my distant relatives in this lifetime.  The more people who test, the more ancestors available for all of us to find!!!

My biggest regret is that I didn’t know about DNA testing back in the day – that I can’t go back and swab those aunts and uncles.  I wouldn’t make that mistake today.  I now carry swab kits in my purse.  And yes, those of you who know me know I’m dead serious.  I would test all of them for autosomal DNA, Y and mtDNA if those lines had not already been tested and posted publicly for other descendants to find.

Indeed, I am extremely fortunate to find myself living in a time of miracles I didn’t even know enough to hope for.  I am very thankful.

DNA testing is the gift that gives twice.  Once to the person you give the kit or upgrade to and once to you, presuming you’re related to the recipient.

Actually, that’s not quite the whole story – it’s the gift that keeps on giving – forever.

If you’re testing Y DNA, who knows what descendants of a common ancestor hundreds of years ago will come along and want to know about the story told by that ancestor’s DNA.  And that information can only be found by testing direct paternal line descendants of that man today.  Everyone descended from that man but not on a direct paternal (surname) line needs someone who does carry that surname to test.

Same story for mitochondrial DNA – except fewer people have tested, so it makes those tests even more valuable.  They document the direct matrilineal line – your mother’s mother’s mother’s line on up the line until you run out of mothers.

And autosomal DNA – well – that’s like winning at the cousin slot machine.  When your results come back, the cousins just come pouring in.  It’s jackpot day!

Family Tree DNA’s holiday sale continues, with new weekly discounts arriving every Monday.  If you are a customer and don’t received your coupon in an e-mail, just sign on to your account and your package awaits you on your home page.

Like always, share this week’s coupon codes that you’re not using and which tests they apply to in the comments below – and look for something you need.  If you use one, please place a note on that comment.  Enjoy and click here to redeem coupons and to order kits and upgrades.

It’s Monday and new gift coupon codes should be arriving in your mailbox today that are valid on top of the holiday sale prices.

If you are a Family Tree DNA client, and you didn’t receive your e-mail, just sign on to your account to discover your gift!  Just click on the gift-wrapped box.

My cousin sent me a very nice note this past week that I want to share with you.  She told me that an old Chinese man shared this with her years ago.

“You die twice.  Once when the breath leaves your body; the second time when people stop saying your name.”

My cousin went on to say, “Just think…your ancestors not only have their names still being said, but you are re-creating their Name in DNA!  Now that is “keeping them alive”.”

I love that – Recreating their Name in DNA!!!!  And DNA is forever!  In a way, we’re making our ancestors immortal.

That’s what you’re doing by DNA testing.  So, buy those kits, purchase those upgrades – you are freeing and recovering the history of your ancestors for eternity!!!

Remember, you can order kits in advance and just take them along to family functions.  Family Finder tests work on males and females both.  You can add additional tests based on the gender of the person later.

If you have coupons this week that you won’t be using, please list the coupon code and what it applies to in the comments.  If you use a coupon, list that on the comment too.  Coupons are only good once each.  Click here to redeem coupons, upgrade or order kits.

Update:  Please note that if your gift box link in the e-mail doesn’t work, just sign on to your personal page and that works just fine!!!

I wish very much that the names of Family Tree DNA and Family Tree Maker weren’t so similar, because it has created a lot of confusion over the years and that confusion has intensified this past week with Ancestry.com’s announcement that they are discontinuing support of their genealogy software package, Family Tree Maker.

Let’s clear up that confusion right now.

• Family Tree Maker is a genealogy software package to track your genealogy information and it is owned by Ancestry.com.
• Ancestry.com also offers a DNA testing product called AncestryDNA that tests your autosomal DNA and provides you with a list of DNA matches.
• Ancestry.com’s DNA product offering, AncestryDNA, and their genealogy software program, Family Tree Maker, are in no way connected to each other. They don’t share any functionality and their only commonality is that Ancestry owns them both.
• Family Tree DNA is a DNA testing company that does NOT provide genealogy software and DOES provide an extensive array of DNA testing products and tools, such as autosomal DNA through their Family Finder product, similar to the AncestryDNA product. Family Tree DNA also provides additional DNA testing such as Y and Mitochondrial DNA, which Ancestry.com does not offer. Family Tree DNA’s only products are DNA tests.
• There is no connection whatsoever between Family Tree DNA and Family Tree Maker.
• There is no connection whatsoever between Family Tree DNA and Ancestry.com.

Ancestry Retires Family Tree Maker Software

On December 5, 2015, Ancestry.com announced that it would no longer be selling their genealogy program, Family Tree Maker and will be retiring the product.  You can read their announcement here.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Ancestry’s DNA testing product, AncestryDNA and nothing whatsoever to do with Family Tree DNA, an entirely different company.

1. If you are an AncestryDNA customer, you are entirely unaffected by this announcement.
2. If you are a Family Tree DNA customer, you are entirely unaffected by this announcement.
3. If you are a Family Tree Maker genealogy software user, you’ll be needing to find a new genealogy program in the next year or so.  Ancestry will be supporting the current Family Tree Maker software through January 1, 2017 and it will likely continue to function after that, at least until you purchase a new computer or update your operating system software – but you’ll be on your own at that point.  I would not recommend using the software beyond when Ancestry terminates support.  So, you have time – a full year.  There is no reason to panic.

Selecting New Genealogy Software

You can easily convert to a new genealogy package by exporting a GEDCOM file from Family Tree Maker into your new software package of choice.

There has been a lot of online discussion about the pros and cons of various software packages for both the PC and MAC platforms since Ancestry’s announcement.

Judy Russell covered the topic here and Shannon Christmas covered it here.

Here’s a wiki page of genealogy software programs, but I found it a bit overwhelming.  Here’s another review site by feature.

On the ISOGG Facebook group, we’ve been discussing this very topic as well.  To distill this conversation for you, I would suggest considering either Legacy or RootsMagic software if you are a PC user and either Rootsmagic or Reunion if you are a MAC user.

My understanding is that all of these programs support Y and mitochondrial DNA information in some fashion, although I’m sure exactly how varies by program.  Personally, I just record the haplogroup as a “second middle name” so I can see the haplogroup lineage on pedigree charts. So while DNA support is important, there are multiple ways to achieve this and I don’t think it’s a make-it or break-it criteria when choosing your new software.  My biggest concern is that all of my images and notes transfer, regardless of size/length.

The good news is that most of the genealogy software packages are taking advantage of Ancestry’s retirement of Family Tree Maker with sales to entice you and even step by step instructions and videos of how to convert and use their software.

So, take a deep breath.  Family Tree DNA is totally unaffected by this.  DNA results at either company are entirely unaffected by this.  And if you are a Family Tree Maker user, you have plenty of time to evaluate alternatives and make your decision.

…And all through the house,
Mom was depressed because
She hadn’t bought anything yet,
Not even one blouse.

She looked at the calendar,
Wondering what she would do,
When a wise mouse piped up,
Right out of the blue.

Order DNA kits for everyone,
The gift of ancestors past,
And they can still be here for Christmas,
If you order fast.

Ok, so I won’t plan on giving up my day job anytime soon to be a poet!

Yep, it’s midnight Monday and this week’s coupons should be arriving any minute from Family Tree DNA and will be waiting for you when you wake up.  If your e-mail isn’t in  your inbox, it likely means the internet troll ate it or your internet service provider thinks it’s spam – so just sign on to your account to see your new code.  Coupons are valid on top of the already attractive sale prices.

This week’s coupons are valid through Sunday and next Monday, you’ll receive new coupons.

If you received coupons that you’re not using, please list them in the comments of this article and if you use one, note that too.

Click here to redeem coupons or place those orders for holiday giving!

Mom swabbed for me, several times in fact.  She wasn’t terribly interested in DOING genealogy, but she was quite interested in the outcome of the process, and she loved to go along with me on our “larks,” as she would call them, where we would go and find our family land, or house…or something interesting…like the original bar in the Kirsch House, below.

On the Kirsch House adventure, above, Mom and my daughter and I went back to Aurora, Indiana to find the location of “The Kirsch House,” the hotel and tavern owned by Mom’s great-grandfather and great-grandmother, Jacob Kirsch and Barbara Drechsel, below.

Mom didn’t know Jacob, who died the year before she was born in 1922, but Barbara didn’t pass away until 1930, so Mom knew Barbara.

Mom loved those adventures.  She just wasn’t interested in doing genealogy by herself.  I didn’t understand then, but I think genealogy made her sad.  Probably because the easiest places to visit were where she had lived, had grown up, and had personal memories of those who had passed on.  I remember visiting the graves of her mother, her grandmother and the day we found the tombstone of her great-grandmother, Barbara Drechsel Kirsch, who had died when Mom was 8.  Mom was Barbara’s namesake.

The Kirsch family immigrated from Germany to Aurora, so going further back in time from Aurora meant jumping the pond.  When we did get back to Germany in the records…we couldn’t visit that location in person.

It’s not that I didn’t want to take a trip to Mutterstadt, Germany to visit the Kirsch homelands, it’s that I couldn’t pry Mom away from her work long enough to take a trip like that.  Mom worked as an Avon lady, her third career, until she was 83 years old.  And she didn’t retire then because she wanted to, but because her health was failing due to dementia and other factors.

And…truthfully…she only retired then because we stole her car.  Well, we didn’t EXACTLY steal it…it’s just that after she had another of those accidents that she didn’t know how occurred…it so happened that it took months for her car to be repaired.  She forgot that she even owned a car until the insurance bill came…and was she ever hot then when she remembered about her car.  I blamed my brother who blamed the car repair place who claimed the part would be there any day now!

Do you know how difficult it is to hide a bright red sports car?  Yes, she bought a red sports car with mag wheels, dual exhaust, front and rear spoilers and a loud engine that made rumbling sounds as her last hurrah.  She had always wanted one.

It’s pretty humorous now, but at that time my brother and I were 50 and 60 year old kids who had gotten caught with our hands in the proverbial cookie jar!  She was not a happy camper when she remembered that she had a red sports car, and she let us know about it in no uncertain terms!

I asked Mom to swab, again, in the spring of 2003.  She simply asked what this one was for and swabbed in a resigned sort of way.  I know she had to be thinking to herself, “the things we do for our children.”  Had she lived long enough, she would have been both “spittin’ and swabbin’.”  Sounds like a dance doesn’t it!

It was at that point in time that I was suspecting that perhaps one of her ancestral lines held Native ancestry – but it wouldn’t be until after her death that I was able to prove such…not by her DNA at that time, but by breaking through a brick wall and proving those lines via plain old genealogy and the DNA of direct paternal and matrilineal DNA descendants of those Acadian lines.  Oh, how I wish she could have been here to hear about that!  We would have been on our way to Nova Scotia tout suite, guaranteed.

In 2003, when Mom first tested, autosomal DNA testing had yet to be introduced, so Mom’s DNA was archived at Family Tree DNA for 25 years.  Now Family Tree DNA wasn’t started until in 2000, so they aren’t going to have to figure out what to do with archived DNA until about 2025.  Mom’s DNA has only been there for 12 years.

Mom passed away in the spring of 2006.  She was 84 years old and her health had failed.  One is never ready for the death of a parent, but one does know sometimes that it needs to happen.  Death was a release.

I took at this photo of Mom in the window of the church in Aurora, Indiana where her grandmother was baptized, as was her great-grandmother and where her great-great-grandmother attended church after arriving from Germany, probably extremely thankful that weeks-long miserable boat trip was over and everyone survived.  This reflective image is how I think of Mom.

Not really gone, but kind of ethereal and slightly out of reach.  But not all of Mom is physically gone.

When autosomal DNA testing became available, I ordered an upgrade for Mom in August of 2011.  Bennett Greenspan called me and told me that they had been having limited success with older samples, especially those older than 5 years.  Just because they can archive the DNA, and just because they can amplify the DNA to increase their probability of success, doesn’t mean there is enough quantity or the quality of the DNA is adequate for the kinds of tests that require a significant amount of DNA – those tests being the Family Finder and Big Y tests, although Mom obviously would never be a candidate for the Big Y (because women don’t have a Y chromosome.)  Amplifying the good DNA also amplifies any contaminant DNA as well, like from bacteria.

I told Bennett I had to try, so he agreed.  The wait seemed much longer than it was, but the day her results arrived, I cringed and clicked to open the link to find her actual results and matches, not a message saying that the test had failed.  I surely held my breath, because at that time we were at the 8 year mark since she had swabbed, and 5 years since her death, so there was no opportunity to get another DNA sample.

Mom hadn’t failed me, and neither had Bennett, luck nor technology.

A couple of years ago, I visited Family Tree DNA after the 2013 conference.  I received a lab tour in a small group, but it was pretty quick and the space was small and tight.

This fall, I visited again and was afforded a private tour.  (Thank you Bennett.)  It was much quieter and more personal.  The lab looked a lot like the tour of a couple years ago, except for some new equipment, but this time, I actually got close to the freezer.

Mom wore a ring that her parents gave her when she was 16.  She wore it every day for 68 years.  Now I wear it on a chain around my neck because I don’t want to have it sized.  The band is too thin, and although I know I can have it built back up, I wanted to wear it as she had.  The fact that the band is hair thin speaks of her lifetime and all the activities that wore the metal away, and I don’t want to change that memory.

I wore the ring to Houston, taking Mom along with me.  She goes with me on many journeys now.  We’ve been to places Mom could never have imagined and assuredly wouldn’t like.  For example, evacuating during a hurricane on Hatteras Island…but I digress.

Standing in front of the freezer, touching her ring, I told Bennett that I was visiting Mom, that she was in there and there was more of “her” in there now than any other place in the world, except maybe in me.  But then again, I only carry half of her DNA.  Bennett just kind of paused for a minute, smiled, and opened the freezer door for me.  I could see the robotic arm moving back and forth and of course, I have no idea where Mom was in this little mini-freezer-cemetery.  But she was there just the same, and I visited her.

I stood there for a long minute peering inside, said a little private prayer and tried to hide the tears welling up in my eyes.

I know Bennett probably had no idea just how important it would be to people, like me, to be able to resurrect a little bit of Mom, and along with her, our ancestors’ history, after someone’s death.  Had it not been for his foresightedness to archive the DNA for 25 years, and his willingness to purchase a custom $600,000 (choke) freezer to do it, I would never have been able to recover Mom’s autosomal DNA, and along with it, that half of her autosomal DNA that I didn’t inherit.  Not only that, when someone matches both mother and I, it’s a sure fire way to know that match is from her side of the family.

I thank mother for swabbing and giving me the eternal gift of her DNA, the gift that truly does keep on giving, every single day.

So, when you’re wondering where to test your DNA, strongly consider the fact that Family Tree DNA archives your DNA.  You may not care, but your family just might.  Transferring your results from another company is not the same as having your DNA at Family Tree DNA.

Mom is not the only case I’ve come across.  There are many, including Bennett’s own father – and the DNA archival service is included in the cost of the test.  Of the three primary testing companies, Family Tree DNA is the only company that offers more than one test – so even if the other companies did or do archive your DNA, if there is nothing more to order, that archived DNA can’t be of benefit to you.

I wanted to take flowers when I visited Mom, but flowers aren’t allowed in the lab due to contamination concerns, so I guess Mom will just have to make do with this rose from my garden.

I surely do miss Mom, but at least I didn’t have to miss out on everything!  There’s no bringing Mom back, but at least we were able to salvage a bit of her.

And now that I think of it, she’s not at all alone in that freezer-cemetery.  I’m in there with her, as are some 610 of her cousins who match her autosomal DNA as well as her mitochondrial matches. I hope she’s getting to know them.  Knowing Mom, she has organized a mini-freezer-reunion and has rearranged everyone so her cousins can be in the same tray with her.  I surely hope she is getting all those connections straightened out and will find a way to share that information with me!  I’m dying (pardon the pun) to know how her matrilineal ancestors got from Scandinavia to Germany, for example.

I guess I should be telling Mom to rest in peace, but that isn’t really what I want.  I want her to help out from the other side.  She can rest in peace when I get there.  We’ll have a lot of catching up to do about these great adventures, and I can’t wait to sit down and have a cup of tea with her.

I’m betting I’ll have some “splaining” to do about her red car too.  I’m just sure that my brother, my accomplice…who, by the way, wound up with that car after Mom’s passing and is already “there,” has implicated me as the guilty party!

Did you receive money for Christmas? Now’s the time to spend it on DNA tests and this just also happens to be the final week for Family Tree DNA’s holiday sale.

The last set of coupons will be arriving Monday morning via e-mail or in your account at Family Tree DNA, and the holiday sale ends at midnight December 31^st – so you only have a couple of days to apply coupon discounts on top of sale prices.

You know, I think we often give, in life, what we want to receive. In my case, that’s more relatives, confirmation of existing ancestors and hopefully breaking down brick walls.  The only way for me to do that, aside from traditional genealogy, is DNA testing.  That’s why I’ve purchased so many DNA tests over the years.  Other people hold the key to the ancestors I need to know about – be it through the matrilineal mtDNA line, the paternal Y DNA line or other lines reported via autosomal testing.

So, this is your last chance to give that DNA test this year that will also help you receive. Do you have a cousin who needs to be tested?

Click here to check for your coupon code in your gift box or to order tests or upgrades.  If you’re not going to use your code, please list it and what test it’s good towards in the comments of the blog.

Just think, in another month or 6 weeks, holiday gift tests will be bearing fruit for all of us!!!  That will be just about the middle of winter when we all need a pick-me-up.

Are you aware that when you purchase a DNA kit for genealogy testing through either 23andMe or Ancestry that you are literally giving these companies carte blanche to your DNA, the rights to your DNA information, including for medical utilization meaning sales to Big Pharm, and there is absolutely no opt-out, meaning they can in essence do anything they want with your anonymized data?

Both companies also have a higher research participation level that you can choose to participate in, or opt out of, that grants them permission to sell or otherwise utilize your non-anonymized data, meaning your identity is attached to that information.

However, opting out of his higher level DOES NOT stop the company from utilizing, sharing or selling your anonymized DNA and data.  Anonymized data means your identity and what they consider identifying information has been removed.

Many people think that if you opt-out, your DNA and data is never shared or sold, but according to 23andMe and Ancestry’s own documentation, that’s not true. Opt-out is not truly opt-out.  It’s only opting out of them sharing your non-anonymized data – meaning just the higher level of participation only.  They still share your anonymized data in aggregated fashion.

Some people are fine with this. Some aren’t.  Many people don’t really understand the situation.  I didn’t initially.  I’m very uncomfortable with this situation, and here’s why.

First, let me say very clearly that I’m not opposed to WHAT either 23andMe or Ancestry is doing, I’m very concerned with HOW, meaning their methodology for obtaining consent.

I feel like a consumer should receive what they pay for and not have their DNA data co-opted, often without their knowledge, explicit permission or full situational understanding, for other purposes.

There should also be no coercion involved – meaning the customer should not be required to participate in medical research as a condition of obtaining a genealogy test.  Most people have no idea this is happening.  I certainly didn’t.

How could a consumer not know, you ask?

Because these companies don’t make their policies and intentions clear.  Their language, in multiple documents that refer back and forth to each other, is extremely confusing.

Neither company explains what they are going to (or can) do with your DNA in plain English, before the end of the purchase process, so that the customer clearly understands what they are doing (or authorizing) IN ADDITION to what they intended to do. Obtaining customer permission in this fashion is hardly “informed consent” which is a prerequisite for a subject’s participation in research.

The University of Southern California has prepared this document describing the different aspects of informed consent for research.  If you read this document, then look at the consent, privacy and terms and conditions documents of both Ancestry and 23andMe, you will notice significant differences.

While 23andMe has clearly been affiliated with the medical community for some time, Ancestry historically has not and there is absolutely no reason for an Ancestry customer to suspect that Ancestry is doing something else with their DNA. After all, Ancestry is a genealogy company, not a medical genetics company.  Aren’t they???

Let’s look at each of these two companies Individually.

23andMe

At 23andMe, when you purchase a kit, you see the following final purchase screen.

On the very last review page, after the “order total” is the tiny “I accept the terms of service” checkbox, just above the large grey “submit order” box. That’s the first and only time this box appears.  By this time, the consumer has already made their purchase decision, has already entered their credit card number and is simply doing a final review and approval.

In the 23andMe Terms of Service, we find this:

Waiver of Property Rights: You understand that by providing any sample, having your Genetic Information processed, accessing your Genetic Information, or providing Self-Reported Information, you acquire no rights in any research or commercial products that may be developed by 23andMe or its collaborating partners. You specifically understand that you will not receive compensation for any research or commercial products that include or result from your Genetic Information or Self-Reported Information.

You understand that you should not expect any financial benefit from 23andMe as a result of having your Genetic Information processed; made available to you; or, as provided in our Privacy Statement and Terms of Service, shared with or included in Aggregated Genetic and Self-Reported Information shared with research partners, including commercial partners.

Clicking on the privacy policy showed me the following information in their privacy highlights document:

1. We may share anonymized and aggregate information with third parties; anonymized and aggregate information is any information that has been stripped of your name and contact information and aggregated with information of others or anonymized so that you cannot reasonably be identified as an individual.

In their full Privacy statement, we find this:

By using our Services, you agree to all of the policies and procedures described in the foregoing documents.

Under the Withdrawing Consent paragraph:

If you withdraw your consent for research your Genetic Information and Self-Reported Information may still be used by us and shared with our third-party service providers to provide and improve our Services (as described in Section 4.a), and shared as Aggregate Information that does not identify you as an individual (as described in Section 4.d).

And in their “What Happens if you do NOT consent to 23andMe Research” section:

If you do not complete a Consent Document or any additional consent agreement with 23andMe, your information will not be used for 23andMe Research. However, your Genetic Information and Self-Reported Information may still be used by us and shared with our third-party service providers to provide and improve our Services (as described in Section 4.a), and shared as Aggregate or Anonymous Information that does not reasonably identify you as an individual (as described in Section 4.d).

If you don’t like these terms, here’s what you can do about it:

If you want to terminate your legal agreement with 23andMe, you may do so by notifying 23andMe at any time in writing, which will entail closing your accounts for all of the Services that you use.

You can read the 23andMe full privacy statement here.

You can read the 23andMe Terms of Service here.

You can read the Consent document here.

Ancestry

Ancestry recently jumped into the medical research arena, forming an alliance with Calico to provide them with DNA information – that would be Ancestry’s customer DNA information – meaning your DNA if you’re an AncestryDNA customer. You can read about this here, here and here.

When you purchase an AncestryDNA kit, you are asked the following, also at the very end of the purchase process.  If you don’t click, you receive an error message, shown below.

Here are the Ancestry Terms and Conditions.

Here is the Ancestry Privacy Statement.

From Ancestry’s Terms and Conditions, here’s what you are authorizing:

By submitting DNA to AncestryDNA, you grant AncestryDNA and the Ancestry Group Companies a perpetual, royalty-free, world-wide, transferable license to use your DNA, and any DNA you submit for any person from whom you obtained legal authorization as described in this Agreement, and to use, host, sublicense and distribute the resulting analysis to the extent and in the form or context we deem appropriate on or through any media or medium and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed or discovered. You hereby release AncestryDNA from any and all claims, liens, demands, actions or suits in connection with the DNA sample, the test or results thereof, including, without limitation, errors, omissions, claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, right of publicity, emotional distress or economic loss. This license continues even if you stop using the Website or the Service.

From their Privacy Statement, here’s what Ancestry says they are doing with your DNA:

vi) To perform research: AncestryDNA will internally analyze Users’ results to make discoveries in the study of genealogy, anthropology, evolution, languages, cultures, medicine, and other topics.

The is no complete opt-out at Ancestry either.

Now What?

So, how many of you read the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Statements at either 23andMe or Ancestry and understood that you were in essence giving them carte blanche with your anonymized data when you purchased your tests from them?

Is this what you intended to do?

How many of you understood that the ONLY way to obtain your genealogy information, ethnicity and matching is to grant 23andMe and Ancestry authorization to use your DNA for other purposes?

How many of you understood you could never entirely opt-out?

Where is your DNA?

Who has it?

What are they doing with it?

How much did or will Ancestry or 23andMe, or Big Pharm make from it?

Why would they want to obtain your DNA in this manner, instead of being entirely transparent and forthright and obtaining a typical informed consent?

Are they or their partners utilizing your DNA to design high end drugs and services that you as a consumer will never be able to afford?

Are they using your DNA to design gene manipulation techniques that you might personally be opposed to?

Do you care?

Personally, I was done participating in research when 23andMe patented their Designer Baby technology, and I’ve never changed my mind since.  There is a vast difference between research to cure Parkinson’s and cancer and focusing your research efforts on creating designer children.

People who do want medical information (such as from 23andMe) should be allowed to receive that, personally, for their own use – but no one’s DNA should be co-opted for something other than what they had intended when they made the purchase without a very explicit, separate, opt-in for any other usage of their DNA, including anonymized data.

Period.

People who purchase these services for genealogy information shouldn’t have to worry about their DNA being utilized for anything else if that’s not their specific and direct choice.

I shouldn’t have to opt-out of something I didn’t want and didn’t know I was signing up for in the first place – a type of usage that wouldn’t be something one would normally expect when purchasing a genealogy product. Furthermore, if I opt out, I should be able to opt out entirely.  You only discover opt-out isn’t truly opt-out by reading lots of fine print, or asking an attorney.  And yes, I still had to ask an attorney, to be certain, even after reading all the fine print.

Why did I ask a legal expert?  Because I was just sure I was wrong – that I was missing something in the confusing spaghetti verbiage.  I couldn’t believe these companies could actually do this.  I couldn’t believe I had been that naïve and gullible, or didn’t read thoroughly enough.  Well, guess what – I was naïve and gullible and the companies can and do utilize our DNA in this manner.

Besides that, “everyone knows” that companies can’t just do what they want with your DNA without an informed consent.  Right?  Anyone dealing with medicine knows that – and it’s widely believed within the genetic genealogy community.  And it’s wrong.

It seems that 23andMe and Ancestry have borrowed a page from the side of medical research where “discarded” tissues are used routinely for research without informed consent of the person from whom they originated.  This article in the New York Times details the practice, an excerpt given below:

Tissues from millions of Americans are used in research without their knowledge. These “clinical biospecimens” are leftovers from blood tests, biopsies and surgeries. If your identity is removed, scientists don’t have to ask your permission to use them. How people feel about this varies depending on everything from their relationship to their DNA to how they define life and death. Many bioethicists aren’t bothered by the research being done with those samples — without it we wouldn’t have some of our most important medical advances. What concerns them is that people don’t know they’re participating, or have a choice. This may be about to change.

Change is Needed

The 23andMe and Ancestry process of consent needs to change too.

I would feel a lot better about the 23andMe and Ancestry practices if both companies simply said, before purchase, in plain transparent normal-human-without-a-law-degree understandable language, the following type of statement:

“If you purchase this product, you cannot opt out of research and we will sell or utilize your anonymized results, including any information submitted to us (trees, surveys, etc.) for unspecified medical and pharmaceutical research of our choosing from which we and our partners intend to profit financially.”

If I am wrong and there is a way to opt out of research entirely, including anonymized aggregated data, while still retaining all of the genealogy services paid for from the vendor, I’ll be more than happy to publish that verbiage and clarification.

Today, the details are buried in layers of verbiage and the bottom-line meaning certainly is not clear. And it’s very easy to just “click through” because you have no choice if you want to order the test for your genealogy. You cannot place an order without agreeing and clicking the box.

This less-than-forthright technique of obtaining “consent” may be legal, and it’s certainly effective for the companies, guaranteeing them 100% participation, but it just isn’t morally or ethically right.

Shame on us, the consumers, for not reading the fine print, assuming everyone could understand it.

But shame on both companies for burying that verbiage and taking advantage of the genealogists’ zeal, knowing full well, under the current setup, we must authorize, without fully informed consent, their use of our DNA in order to test in their systems to obtain our genealogy information.  They know full well that people will simply click through without understanding the fine print, which is why the “I accept” box is positioned where it is in the sales process, and the companies are likely depending on that “click through” behavior.

Shame on them for being less than forthright, providing no entire opt-out, or better yet, requiring a fully informed-consent intentional opt-in.

Furthermore, these two large companies are likely only the tip of the iceberg – leading the charge as it were. I don’t know of any other DNA testing companies that are selling your DNA data today – at least not yet.  And just because I don’t know about it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

Other Companies

Family Tree DNA, the third of the three big autosomal DNA testing companies, has not and is not participating in selling or otherwise providing customer DNA or data for medical or third party research or utilization.  I confirmed this with the owners, this week.

Surely, if Ancestry and 23andMe continue to get away with this less than forthright technique, more companies will follow suit.  It’s clearly very profitable.

Today, DNA.Land, a new site, offers genetic genealogists “value” in exchange for the use of their DNA data.  However, DNA.Land is not charging the consumer for testing services nor obtaining consent in a surreptitious way.  They do utilize your DNA, but that is the entire purpose of this organization.  (This is not an endorsement of their organization or services – just a comment.)

GedMatch, a third party site utilized heavily by genetic genealogists states their data sharing or selling policy clearly.

It is our policy to never provide your genealogy, DNA information, or email address to 3rd parties, except as noted above.

They further state:

We may use your data in our own research, to develop or improve applications.

Using data internally for application improvement for the intended use of the test is fully legitimate, can and should be expected of every vendor.

Bottom line – before you participate in DNA testing or usage of a third party site, read the fine print fully and understand that no matter how a vendor tries, your DNA can never be fully anonymized.

Call to Action

I would call on both 23andMe and Ancestry to make what they are doing, and intend to do, with their customers DNA much more transparent. Consumers have the right to clearly know before they purchase the product if they are required to sign an authorization such as this and what it actually means to them.

Furthermore, I would call on both companies to implement a plan whereby our DNA can never be used for anything other than to deliver to us, the consumers, the product(s) and services for which we’ve paid unless we sign, separately, and without coercion, a fully informed consent opt-in waiver that explains very specifically and clearly what will occur with our DNA.

These companies clearly don’t want to do this, because it would likely reduce their participation rate dramatically – from 100% today for anonymized aggregated data, because there is no opt-out at that level, to a rate significantly lower.

I’m reminded of when my children were teenagers.  One of them took the car someplace they knew they didn’t have permission to go.  I asked them why they didn’t ask permission first, and they rolled their eyes, looked at me like I was entirely stupid and said, “Because you would have said no.  At least I got to go this way.”  Yes, car privileges were removed and they were grounded.

Currently 23andMe reports an amazing 85-90% participation rate, which has to reflect their higher non-anonymized level of participation because their participation rate in the anonymized aggregated level is 100%, because it’s mandatory.  Their “consent” techniques have come under question by others in the field as well, according to this article.  Many people who do consent believe their participation is altruistic, meaning that only nonprofit organizations like the Michael J. Fox Foundation will benefit, not realizing the full scope of how their DNA data can be utilized.  That’s what I initially thought at 23andMe.  Did I ever feel stupid, and duped, when that designer baby patent was issued.

Lastly, I would call on both companies to obtain a fully informed consent for every person in their system today who has already purchased their product, and to discontinue using any of the data in any way for anyone who does not sign that fully informed consent. This includes internal use (aside from product improvement), not just third party data sharing or sales, given that 23andMe is planning on developing their own drugs.

If you support this call to action, let both companies know. Furthermore, vote with your money and consumer voice. I will be making sure that anyone who asks about testing firms is fully aware of this issue.  You can do the same thing by linking to this article.

Call them:

23andMe – 1-800-239-5230
Ancestry – 1-800-401-3193 or 1-800-262-3787 in the US. For other locations click here

Write them:

23andMe – customercare@23andme.com
Ancestry – Memberservices@ancestrydna.com

I genuinely hope these vendors make this change, and soon.

For additional information, Judy Russell and I have both written about this topic recently:

And Now Ancestry Health
http://dna-explained.com/2015/06/06/and-now-ancestry-health/

Opting Out
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/07/26/opting-out/

Ancestry Terms of Use Updated
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/07/07/ancestry-terms-of-use-updated/

AncestryDNA Doings
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/07/05/ancestrydna-doings/

Heads Up About the 23andMe Meltdown
http://dna-explained.com/2015/12/04/heads-up-about-the-23andme-meltdown/

For the past three years I’ve written a year-in-review article. You can see just how much the landscape has changed in the 2012, 2013 and 2014 versions.

This year, I’ve added a few specific “award” categories for people or firms that I feel need to be specially recognized as outstanding in one direction or the other.

In past years, some news items, announcements and innovations turned out to be very important like the Genographic Project and GedMatch, and others, well, not so much. Who among us has tested their full genome today, for example, or even their exome?  And would you do with that information if you did?

And then there are the deaths, like the Sorenson database and Ancestry’s own Y and mitochondrial data base. I still shudder to think how much we’ve lost at the corporate hands of Ancestry.

In past years, there have often been big new announcements facilitated by new technology. In many ways, the big fish have been caught in a technology sense.  Those big fish are autosomal DNA and the Big Y types of tests.  Both of these have created an avalanche of data and we, personally and as a community, are still trying to sort through what all of this means genealogically and how to best utilize the information.  Now we need tools.

This is probably illustrated most aptly by the expansion of the Y tree.

The SNP Tsunami Growing Pains Continue

Going from 800+ SNPs in 2012 to more than 35,000 SNPs today has introduced its own set of problems. First, there are multiple trees in existence, completely or partially maintained by different organizations for different purposes.  Needless to say, these trees are not in sync with each other.  The criteria for adding a SNP to the tree is decided by the owner or steward of that tree, and there is no agreement as to the definition of a valid SNP or how many instances of that SNP need to be in existence to be added to the tree.

This angst has been taking place for the most part outside of the public view, but it exists just the same.

For example, 23andMe still uses the old haplogroup names like R1b which have not been used in years elsewhere. Family Tree DNA is catching up with updating their tree, working with haplogroup administrators to be sure only high quality, proven SNPs are added to branches.  ISOGG maintains another tree (one branch shown above) that’s publicly available, utilizing volunteers per haplogroup and sometimes per subgroup.  Other individuals and organizations maintain other trees, or branches of trees, some very accurate and some adding a new “branch” with as little as one result.

The good news is that this will shake itself out. Personally, I’m voting for the more conservative approach for public reference trees to avoid “pollution” and a lot of shifting and changing downstream when it’s discovered that the single instance of a SNP is either invalid or in a different branch location.  However, you have to start with an experimental or speculative tree before you can prove that a SNP is where it belongs or needs to be moved, so each of the trees has its own purpose.

The full trees I utilize are the Family Tree DNA tree, available for customers, the ISOGG tree and Ray Banks’ tree which includes locations where the SNPs are found when the geographic location is localized. Within haplogroup projects, I tend to use a speculative tree assembled by the administrators, if one is available.  The haplogroup admins generally know more about their haplogroup or branch than anyone else.

The bad news is that this situation hasn’t shaken itself out yet, and due to the magnitude of the elephant at hand, I don’t think it will anytime soon. As this shuffling and shaking occurs, we learn more about where the SNPs are found today in the world, where they aren’t found, which SNPs are “family” or “clan” SNPs and the timeframes in which they were born.

In other words, this is a learning process for all involved – albeit a slow and frustrating one. However, we are making progress and the tree becomes more robust and accurate every year.

We may be having growing pains, but growing pains aren’t necessarily a bad thing and are necessary for growth.

Thank you to the hundreds of volunteers who work on these trees, and in particular, to Alice Fairhurst who has spearheaded the ISOGG tree for the past nine years. Alice retired from that volunteer position this year and is shown below after receiving two much-deserved awards for her service at the Family Tree DNA Conference in November.

Best Innovative Use of Integrated Data

Dr. Maurice Gleeson receives an award this year for the best genealogical use of integrated types of data. He has utilized just about every tool he can find to wring as much information as possible out of Y DNA results.  Not only that, but he has taken great pains to share that information with us in presentations in the US and overseas, and by creating a video, noted in the article below.  Thanks so much Maurice.

Making Sense of Y Data

The advent of massive amounts of Y DNA data has been both wonderful and perplexing. We as genetic genealogists want to know as much about our family as possible, including what the combination of STR and SNP markers means to us.  In other words, we don’t want two separate “test results” but a genealogical marriage of the two.

I took a look at this from the perspective of the Estes DNA project. Of course, everyone else will view those results through the lens of their own surname or haplogroup project.

Estes Big Y DNA Results
http://dna-explained.com/2015/03/26/estes-big-y-dna-results/

At the Family Tree DNA Conference in November, James Irvine and Maurice Gleeson both presented sessions on utilizing a combination of STR and SNP data and various tools in analyzing their individual projects.

Maurice’s presentation was titled “Combining SNPs, STRs and Genealogy to build a Surname Origins Tree.”
http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/building-a-mutation-history-tree

Maurice created a wonderful video that includes a lot of information about working with Y DNA results. I would consider this one of the very best Y DNA presentations I’ve ever seen, and thanks to Maurice, it’s available as a video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvyHY4R6DwE&feature=youtu.be

You can view more of Maurice’s work at:
http://gleesondna.blogspot.com/2015/08/genetic-distance-genetic-families.html

James Irvine’s presentation was titled “Surname Projects – Some Fresh Ideas.” http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/y-dna-surname-projects-some-fresh-ideas

Another excellent presentation discussing Y DNA results was “YDNA maps Scandinavian Family Trees from Medieval Times and the Viking Age” by Peter Sjolund.
http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/ydna-maps-scandinavian-family-trees-from-medieval-times-and-the-viking-age

Peter’s session at the genealogy conference in Sweden this year was packed. This photo, compliments of Katherine Borges, shows the room and the level of interest in Y-DNA and the messages it holds for genetic genealogists.

This type of work is the wave of the future, although hopefully it won’t be so manually intensive. However, the process of discovery is by definition laborious.  From this early work will one day emerge reproducible methodologies, the fruits of which we will all enjoy.

Haplogroup Definitions and Discoveries Continue

Often, haplogroup work flies under the radar today and gets dwarfed by some of the larger citizen science projects, but this work is fundamentally important. In 2015, we made discoveries about haplogroups A4 and C, for example.

Haplogroup A4 Unpeeled – European, Jewish, Asian and Native American
http://dna-explained.com/2015/03/05/haplogroup-a4-unpeeled-european-jewish-asian-and-native-american/

New Haplogroup C Native American Subgroups
http://dna-explained.com/2015/03/11/new-haplogroup-c-native-american-subgroups/

Native American Haplogroup C Update – Progress
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/25/native-american-haplogroup-c-update-progress/

These aren’t the only discoveries, by any stretch of the imagination. For example, Mike Wadna, administrator for the Haplogroup R1b Project reports that there are now over 1500 SNPs on the R1b tree at Family Tree DNA – which is just about twice as many as were known in total for the entire Y tree in 2012 before the Genographic project was introduced.

The new Y DNA SNP Packs being introduced by Family Tree DNA which test more than 100 SNPs for about $100 will go a very long way in helping participants obtain haplogroup assignments further down the tree without doing the significantly more expensive Big Y test. For example, the R1b-DF49XM222 SNP Pack tests 157 SNPs for $109.  Of course, if you want to discover your own private line of SNPs, you’ll have to take the Big Y.  SNP Packs can only test what is already known and the Big Y is a test of discovery.

                       Best Blog

Jim Bartlett, hands down, receives this award for his new and wonderful blog, Segmentology.

                             Making Sense of Autosomal DNA

Our autosomal DNA results provide us with matches at each of the vendors and at GedMatch, but what do we DO with all those matches and how to we utilize the genetic match information? How to we translate those matches into ancestral information.  And once we’ve assigned a common ancestor to a match with an individual, how does that match affect other matches on that same segment?

2015 has been the year of sorting through the pieces and defining terms like IBS (identical by state, which covers both identical by population and identical by chance) and IBD (identical by descent). There has been a lot written this year.

Jim Bartlett, a long-time autosomal researcher has introduced his new blog, Segmentology, to discuss his journey through mapping ancestors to his DNA segments. To the best of my knowledge, Jim has mapped more of his chromosomes than any other researcher, more than 80% to specific ancestors – and all of us can leverage Jim’s lessons learned.

Segmentology.org by Jim Bartlett
http://dna-explained.com/2015/05/12/segmentology-org-by-jim-bartlett/

When you visit Jim’s site, please take a look at all of his articles. He and I and others may differ slightly in the details our approach, but the basics are the same and his examples are wonderful.

Autosomal DNA Testing – What Now?
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/07/autosomal-dna-testing-101-what-now/

Autosomal DNA Testing 101 – Tips and Tricks for Contact Success
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/11/autosomal-dna-testing-101-tips-and-tricks-for-contact-success/

How Phasing Works and Determining IBS vs IBD Matches
http://dna-explained.com/2015/01/02/how-phasing-works-and-determining-ibd-versus-ibs-matches/

Just One Cousin
http://dna-explained.com/2015/01/11/just-one-cousin/

Demystifying Autosomal DNA Matching
http://dna-explained.com/2015/01/17/demystifying-autosomal-dna-matching/

A Study Using Small Segment Matching
http://dna-explained.com/2015/01/21/a-study-utilizing-small-segment-matching/

Finally, A How-To Class for Working with Autosomal Results
http://dna-explained.com/2015/02/10/finally-a-how-to-class-for-working-with-autosomal-dna-results/

Parent-Child Non-Matching Autosomal DNA Segments
http://dna-explained.com/2015/05/14/parent-child-non-matching-autosomal-dna-segments/

A Match List Does Not an Ancestor Make
http://dna-explained.com/2015/05/19/a-match-list-does-not-an-ancestor-make/

4 Generation Inheritance Study
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/23/4-generation-inheritance-study/

Phasing Yourself
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/27/phasing-yourself/

Autosomal DNA Matching Confidence Spectrum
http://dna-explained.com/2015/09/25/autosomal-dna-matching-confidence-spectrum/

Earlier in the year, there was a lot of discussion and dissention about the definition of and use of small segments. I utilize them, carefully, generally in conjunction with larger segments.  Others don’t.  Here’s my advice.  Don’t get yourself hung up on this.  You probably won’t need or use small segments until you get done with the larger segments, meaning low-hanging fruit, or unless you are doing a very specific research project.  By the time you get to that point, you’ll understand this topic and you’ll realize that the various researchers agree about far more than they disagree, and you can make your own decision based on your individual circumstances. If you’re entirely endogamous, small segments may just make you crazy.  However, if you’re chasing a colonial American ancestor, then you may need those small segments to identify or confirm that ancestor.

It is unfortunate, however, that all of the relevant articles are not represented in the ISOGG wiki, allowing people to fully educate themselves. Hopefully this can be updated shortly with the additional articles, listed above and from Jim Bartlett’s blog, published during this past year.

Recreating the Dead

James and Catherne Crumley segments above, compliments of Kitty Cooper’s tools

As we learn more about how to use autosomal DNA, we have begun to reconstruct our ancestors from the DNA of their descendants. Not as in cloning, but as in attributing DNA found in multiple descendants that originate from a common ancestor, or ancestral couple.  The first foray into this arena was GedMatch with their Lazarus tool.

Lazarus – Putting Humpty Dumpty Back Together Again
http://dna-explained.com/2015/01/14/lazarus-putting-humpty-dumpty-back-together-again/

I have taken a bit of a different proof approach wherein I recreated an ancestor, James Crumley, born in 1712 from the matching DNA of roughly 30 of his descendants.
http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/roberta-estes-crumley-y-dna

I did the same thing, on an experimental smaller scale about a year ago with my ancestor, Henry Bolton.
http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/10/henry-bolton-c1759-1846-kidnapped-revolutionary-war-veteran-52-ancestors-45/

This is the way of the future in genetic genealogy, and I’ll be writing more about the Crumley project and the reconstruction of James Crumley in 2016.

                         Lump Of Coal Award(s)

This category is a “special category” that is exactly what you think it is. Yep, this is the award no one wants.  We have a tie for the Lump of Coal Award this year between Ancestry and 23andMe.

               Ancestry Becomes the J.R. Ewing of the Genealogy World

Attribution : © Glenn Francis, http://www.PacificProDigital.com

Some of you may remember J.R. Ewing on the television show called Dallas that ran from 1978 through 1991. J.R. Ewing, a greedy and unethical oil tycoon was one of the main characters.  The series was utterly mesmerizing, and literally everyone tuned in.  We all, and I mean universally, hated J.R. Ewing for what he unfeelingly and selfishly did to his family and others.  Finally, in a cliffhanger end of the season episode, someone shot J.R. Ewing.  OMG!!!  We didn’t know who.  We didn’t know if J.R. lived or died.  Speculation was rampant.  “Who shot JR?” was the theme on t-shirts everyplace that summer.  J.R. Ewing, over time, became the man all of America loved to hate.

Ancestry has become the J.R. Ewing of the genealogy world for the same reasons.

In essence, in the genetic genealogy world, Ancestry introduced a substandard DNA product, which remains substandard years later with no chromosome browser or comparison tools that we need….and they have the unmitigated audacity to try to convince us we really don’t need those tools anyway. Kind of like trying to convince someone with a car that they don’t need tires.

Worse, yet, they’ve introduced “better” tools (New Ancestor Discoveries), as in tools that were going to be better than a chromosome browser.  New Ancestor Discoveries “gives us” ancestors that aren’t ours. Sadly, there are many genealogists being led down the wrong path with no compass available.

Ancestry’s history of corporate stewardship is abysmal and continues with the obsolescence of various products and services including the Sorenson DNA database, their own Y and mtDNA database, MyFamily and most recently, Family Tree Maker. While the Family Tree Maker announcement has been met with great gnashing of teeth and angst among their customers, there are other software programs available.  Ancestry’s choices to obsolete the DNA data bases is irrecoverable and a huge loss to the genetic genealogy community.  That information is lost forever and not available elsewhere – a priceless, irreplaceable international treasure intentionally trashed.

If Ancestry had not bought up nearly all of the competing resources, people would be cancelling their subscriptions in droves to use another company – any other company. But there really is no one else anymore.  Ancestry knows this, so they have become the J.R. Ewing of the genealogy world – uncaring about the effects of their decisions on their customers or the community as a whole.  It’s hard for me to believe they have knowingly created such wholesale animosity within their own customer base.  I think having a job as a customer service rep at Ancestry would be an extremely undesirable job right now.  Many customers are furious and Ancestry has managed to upset pretty much everyone one way or another in 2015.

AncestryDNA Has Now Thoroughly Lost Its Mind
https://digginupgraves.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/ancestrydna-has-now-thoroughly-lost-its-mind/

Kenny, Kenny, Kenny
https://digginupgraves.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/kenny-kenny-kenny/

Dear Kenny – Any Suggestions for our New Ancestor Discoveries?
https://digginupgraves.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/dear-kenny-any-suggestions-for-our-new-ancestor-discoveries/

RIP Sorenson – A Crushing Loss
http://dna-explained.com/2015/05/15/rip-sorenson-a-crushing-loss/

Of Babies and Bathwater
http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/05/17/of-babies-and-bathwater/

Facts Matter
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/05/03/facts-matter/

Getting the Most Out of AncestryDNA
http://dna-explained.com/2015/02/02/getting-the-most-out-of-ancestrydna/

Ancestry Gave Me a New DNA Ancestor and It’s Wrong
http://dna-explained.com/2015/04/03/ancestry-gave-me-a-new-dna-ancestor-and-its-wrong/

Testing Ancestry’s Amazing New Ancestor DNA Claim
http://dna-explained.com/2015/04/07/testing-ancestrys-amazing-new-ancestor-dna-claim/

Dissecting AncestryDNA Circles and New Ancestors
http://dna-explained.com/2015/04/09/dissecting-ancestrydna-circles-and-new-ancestors/

Squaring the Circle
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/03/29/squaring-the-circle/

Still Waiting for the Holy Grail
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/04/05/still-waiting-for-the-holy-grail/

A Dozen Ancestors That Aren’t aka Bad NADs
http://dna-explained.com/2015/04/14/a-dozen-ancestors-that-arent-aka-bad-nads/

The Logic and Birth of a Bad NAD (New Ancestor Discovery)
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/12/the-logic-and-birth-of-a-bad-nad-new-ancestor-discovery/

Circling the Shews
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/05/24/circling-the-shews/

Naughty Bad NADs Sneak Home Under Cover of Darkness
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/24/naughty-bad-nads-sneak-home-under-cover-of-darkness/

Ancestry Shared Matches Combined with New Ancestor Discoveries
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/28/ancestry-shared-matches-combined-with-new-ancestor-discoveries/

Ancestry Shakey Leaf Disappearing Matches: Now You See Them – Now You Don’t
http://dna-explained.com/2015/09/24/ancestry-shakey-leaf-disappearing-matches-now-you-see-them-now-you-dont/

Ancestry’s New Amount of Shared DNA – What Does It Really Mean?
http://dna-explained.com/2015/11/06/ancestrys-new-amount-of-shared-dna-what-does-it-really-mean/

The Winds of Change
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/11/08/the-winds-of-change/

Confusion – Family Tree Maker, Family Tree DNA and Ancestry.com
http://dna-explained.com/2015/12/13/confusion-family-tree-maker-family-tree-dna-and-ancestry-com/

DNA: good news, bad news
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/01/11/dna-good-news-bad-news/

Check out the Alternatives
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/12/09/check-out-the-alternatives/

GeneAwards 2015
http://www.tamurajones.net/GeneAwards2015.xhtml

23andMe Betrays Genealogists

In October, 23andMe announced that it has reached an agreement with the FDA about reporting some health information such as carrier status and traits to their clients. As a part of or perhaps as a result of that agreement, 23andMe is dramatically changing the user experience.

In some aspects, the process will be simplified for genealogists with a universal opt-in. However, other functions are being removed and the price has doubled.  New advertising says little or nothing about genealogy and is entirely medically focused.  That combined with the move of the trees offsite to MyHeritage seems to signal that 23andMe has lost any commitment they had to the genetic genealogy community, effectively abandoning the group entirely that pulled their collective bacon out of the fire. This is somehow greatly ironic in light of the fact that it was the genetic genealogy community through their testing recommendations that kept 23andMe in business for the two years, from November of 2013 through October of 2015 when the FDA had the health portion of their testing shut down.  This is a mighty fine thank you.

As a result of the changes at 23andMe relative to genealogy, the genetic genealogy community has largely withdrawn their support and recommendations to test at 23andMe in favor of Ancestry and Family Tree DNA.

Kelly Wheaton, writing on the Facebook ISOGG group along with other places has very succinctly summed up the situation:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/isogg/permalink/10153873250057922/

You can also view Kelly’s related posts from earlier in December and their comments at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/isogg/permalink/10153830929022922/
and…
https://www.facebook.com/groups/isogg/permalink/10153828722587922/

My account at 23andMe has not yet been converted to the new format, so I cannot personally comment on the format changes yet, but I will write about the experience in 2016 after my account is converted.

Furthermore, I will also be writing a new autosomal vendor testing comparison article after their new platform is released.

I Hate 23andMe
https://digginupgraves.wordpress.com/2015/06/14/i-hate-23andme/

23andMe to Get Makeover After Agreement With FDA
http://dna-explained.com/2015/10/21/23andme-to-get-a-makeover-after-agreement-with-fda/

23andMe Metamorphosis
http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/131724191762/the-23andme-metamorphosis

The Changes at 23andMe
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/10/25/the-changes-at-23andme/

The 23and Me Transition – The First Step
http://dna-explained.com/2015/11/05/the-23andme-transition-first-step-november-11th/

The Winds of Change
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/11/08/the-winds-of-change/

Why Autosomal Response Rate Really Does Matter
http://dna-explained.com/2015/02/24/why-autosomal-response-rate-really-does-matter/

Heads Up About the 23andMe Meltdown
http://dna-explained.com/2015/12/04/heads-up-about-the-23andme-meltdown/

Now…and not now
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/12/06/now-and-not-now/

                             Cone of Shame Award

Another award this year is the Cone of Shame award which is also awarded to both Ancestry and 23andMe for their methodology of obtaining “consent” to sell their customers’, meaning our, DNA and associated information.

Genetic Genealogy Data Gets Sold

Unfortunately, 2015 has been the year that the goals of both 23andMe and Ancestry have become clear in terms of our DNA data. While 23andMe has always been at least somewhat focused on health, Ancestry never was previously, but has now hired a health officer and teamed with Calico for medical genetics research.

Now, both Ancestry and 23andMe have made research arrangements and state in their release and privacy verbiage that all customers must electronically sign (or click through) when purchasing their DNA tests that they can sell, at minimum, your anonymized DNA data, without any further consent.  And there is no opt-out at that level.

They can also use our DNA and data internally, meaning that 23andMe’s dream of creating and patenting new drugs can come true based on your DNA that you submitted for genealogical purposes, even if they never sell it to anyone else.

In an interview in November, 23andMe CEO Anne Wojcicki said the following:

23andMe is now looking at expanding beyond the development of DNA testing and exploring the possibility of developing its own medications. In July, the company raised $79 million to partly fund that effort. Additionally, the funding will likely help the company continue with the development of its new therapeutics division. In March, 23andMe began to delve into the therapeutics market, to create a third pillar behind the company’s personal genetics tests and sales of genetic data to pharmaceutical companies.

Given that the future of genetic genealogy at these two companies seems to be tied to the sale of their customer’s genetic and other information, which, based on the above, is very clearly worth big bucks, I feel that the fact that these companies are selling and utilizing their customer’s information in this manner should be fully disclosed. Even more appropriate, the DNA information should not be sold or utilized for research without an informed consent that would traditionally be used for research subjects.

Within the past few days, I wrote an article, providing specifics and calling on both companies to do the following.

1. To minimally create transparent, understandable verbiage that informs their customers before the end of the purchase process that their DNA will be sold or utilized for unspecified research with the intention of financial gain and that there is no opt-out. However, a preferred plan of action would be a combination of 2 and 3, below.
2. Implement a plan where customer DNA can never be utilized for anything other than to deliver the services to the consumers that they purchased unless a separate, fully informed consent authorization is signed for each research project, without coercion, meaning that the client does not have to sign the consent to obtain any of the DNA testing or services.
3. To immediately stop utilizing the DNA information and results from customers who have already tested until they have signed an appropriate informed consent form for each research project in which their DNA or other information will be utilized.

And Now Ancestry Health
http://dna-explained.com/2015/06/06/and-now-ancestry-health/

Opting Out
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/07/26/opting-out/

Ancestry Terms of Use Updated
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/07/07/ancestry-terms-of-use-updated/

AncestryDNA Doings
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/07/05/ancestrydna-doings/

Heads Up About the 23andMe Meltdown
http://dna-explained.com/2015/12/04/heads-up-about-the-23andme-meltdown/

23andMe and Ancestry and Selling Your DNA Information
http://dna-explained.com/2015/12/30/23andme-ancestry-and-selling-your-dna-information/

                      Citizen Science Leadership Award  

The Citizen Science Leadership Award this year goes to Blaine Bettinger for initiating the Shared cM Project, a crowdsourced project which benefits everyone.

Citizen Scientists Continue to Push the Edges of the Envelope with the Shared cM Project

Citizen scientists, in the words of Dr. Doron Behar, “are not amateurs.” In fact, citizen scientists have been contributing mightily and pushing the edge of the genetic genealogy frontier consistently now for 15 years.  This trend continues, with new discoveries and new ways of viewing and utilizing information we already have.

For example, Blaine Bettinger’s Shared cM Project was begun in March and continues today. This important project has provided real life information as to the real matching amounts and ranges between people of different relationships, such as first cousins, for example, as compared to theoretical match amounts.  This wonderful project produced results such as this:

I don’t think Blaine initially expected this project to continue, but it has and you can read about it, see the rest of the results, and contribute your own data here. Blaine has written several other articles on this topic as well, available at the same link.

Am I Weird or What?
http://dna-explained.com/2015/03/07/am-i-weird-or-what/

Jim Owston analyzed fourth cousins and other near distant relationships in his Owston one-name study:
https://owston.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/an-analysis-of-fourth-cousins-and-other-near-distant-relatives/

I provided distant cousin information in the Crumley surname study:
http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/roberta-estes-crumley-y-dna

I hope more genetic genealogists will compile and contribute this type of real world data as we move forward. If you have compiled something like this, the Surname DNA Journal is peer reviewed and always looking for quality articles for publication.

Privacy, Law Enforcement and DNA

Unfortunately, in May, a situation by which Y DNA was utilized in a murder investigation was reported in a sensationalist “scare” type fashion.  This action provided cause, ammunition or an excuse for Ancestry to remove the Sorenson data base from public view.

I find this exceedingly, exceedingly unfortunate. Given Ancestry’s history with obsoleting older data bases instead of updating them, I’m suspecting this was an opportune moment for Ancestry to be able to withdraw this database, removing a support or upgrade problem from their plate and blame the problem on either law enforcement or the associated reporting.

I haven’t said much about this situation, in part because I’m not a lawyer and in part because the topic is so controversial and there is no possible benefit since the damage has already been done. Unfortunately, nothing anyone can say or has said will bring back the Sorenson (or Ancestry) data bases and arguments would be for naught.  We already beat this dead horse a year ago when Ancestry obsoleted their own data base.  On this topic, be sure to read Judy Russell’s articles and her sources as well for the “rest of the story.”

Privacy, the Police and DNA
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/02/08/privacy-the-police-and-dna/

Big Easy DNA Not So Easy
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/03/15/big-easy-dna-not-so-easy/

Of Babies and Bathwater
http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/05/17/of-babies-and-bathwater/

Facts Matter
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/05/03/facts-matter/

Genetic genealogy standards from within the community were already in the works prior to the Idaho case, referenced above, and were subsequently published as guidelines.

Announcing Genetic Genealogy Standards
http://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2015/01/10/announcing-genetic-genealogy-standards/

The standards themselves:
http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Genetic-Genealogy-Standards.pdf

Ancient DNA Results Continue to Amass

“Moorleiche3-Schloss-Gottorf” by Commander-pirx at de.wikipedia – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons

Ancient DNA is difficult to recover and even more difficult to sequence, reassembling tiny little blocks of broken apart DNA into an ancient human genome.

However, each year we see a few more samples and we are beginning to repaint the picture of human population movement, which is different than we thought it would be.

One of the best summaries of the ancient ancestry field was Michael Hammer’s presentation at the Family Tree DNA Conference in November titled “R1B and the Peopling of Europe: an Ancient DNA Update.” His slides are available here:
http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/r1b-and-the-people-of-europe-an-ancient-dna-update

One of the best ongoing sources for this information is Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog. He covered most of the new articles and there have been several.  That’s the good news and the bad news, all rolled into one. http://dienekes.blogspot.com/

I have covered several that were of particular interest to the evolution of Europeans and Native Americans.

Yamnaya, Light Skinned Brown Eyed….Ancestors?
http://dna-explained.com/2015/06/15/yamnaya-light-skinned-brown-eyed-ancestors/

Kennewick Man is Native American
http://dna-explained.com/2015/06/18/kennewick-man-is-native-american/

Botocudo – Ancient Remains from Brazil
http://dna-explained.com/2015/07/02/botocudo-ancient-remains-from-brazil/

Some Native had Oceanic Ancestors
http://dna-explained.com/2015/07/22/some-native-americans-had-oceanic-ancestors/

Homo Naledi – A New Species Discovered
http://dna-explained.com/2015/09/11/homo-naledi-a-new-species-discovered/

Massive Pre-Contact Grave in California Yields Disappointing Results
http://dna-explained.com/2015/10/20/mass-pre-contact-native-grave-in-california-yields-disappointing-results/

I know of several projects involving ancient DNA that are in process now, so 2016 promises to be a wonderful ancient DNA year!

Education

Many, many new people discover genetic genealogy every day and education continues to be an ongoing and increasing need. It’s a wonderful sign that all major conferences now include genetic genealogy, many with a specific track.

The European conferences have done a great deal to bring genetic genealogy testing to Europeans. European testing benefits those of us whose ancestors were European before immigrating to North America.  This year, ISOGG volunteers staffed booths and gave presentations at genealogy conferences in Birmingham, England, Dublin, Ireland and in Nyköping, Sweden, shown below, photo compliments of Catherine Borges.

Several great new online educational opportunities arose this year, outside of conferences, for which I’m very grateful.

DNA Lectures YouTube Channel
http://dna-explained.com/2015/04/26/dna-lectures-youtube-channel/

Allen County Public Library Online Resources
http://dna-explained.com/2015/06/03/allen-county-public-library-online-resources/

DNA Data Organization Tools and Who’s on First
http://dna-explained.com/2015/09/08/dna-data-organization-tools-and-whos-on-first/

Genetic Genealogy Educational Resource List
http://dna-explained.com/2015/12/03/genetic-genealogy-educational-resource-list/

Genetic Genealogy Ireland Videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHnW2NAfPIA2KUipZ_PlUlw

DNA Lectures – Who Do You Think You Are
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7HQSiSkiy7ujlkgQER1FYw

Ongoing and Online Classes in how to utilize both Y and autosomal DNA
http://www.dnaadoption.com/index.php?page=online-classes

Education Award

Family Tree DNA receives the Education Award this year along with a huge vote of gratitude for their 11 years of genetic genealogy conferences. They are the only testing or genealogy company to hold a conference of this type and they do a fantastic job.  Furthermore, they sponsor additional educational events by providing the “theater” for DNA presentations at international events such as the Who Do You Think You Are conference in England.  Thank you Family Tree DNA.

Family Tree DNA Conference

The Family Tree DNA Conference, held in November, was a hit once again. I’m not a typical genealogy conference person.  My focus is on genetic genealogy, so I want to attend a conference where I can learn something new, something leading edge about the science of genetic genealogy – and that conference is definitely the Family Tree DNA conference.

Furthermore, Family Tree DNA offers tours of their lab on the Monday following the conference for attendees, and actively solicits input on their products and features from conference attendees and project administrators.

Family Tree DNA 11^th International Conference – The Best Yet
http://dna-explained.com/2015/11/18/2015-family-tree-dna-11th-international-conference-the-best-yet/

All of the conference presentations that were provided by the presenters have been made available by Family Tree DNA at:
http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA?utm_campaign=website&utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email

2016 Genetic Genealogy Wish List

In 2014, I presented a wish list for 2015 and it didn’t do very well.  Will my 2015 list for 2016 fare any better?

• Ancestry restores Sorenson and their own Y and mtDNA data bases in some format or contributes to an independent organization like ISOGG.
• Ancestry provides chromosome browser.
• Ancestry removes or revamps Timber in order to restore legitimate matches removed by Timber algorithm.
• Fully informed consent (per research project) implemented by 23andMe and Ancestry, and any other vendor who might aspire to sell consumer DNA or related information, without coercion, and not as a prerequisite for purchasing a DNA testing product. DNA and information will not be shared or utilized internally or externally without informed consent and current DNA information will cease being used in this fashion until informed consent is granted by customers who have already tested.
• Improved ethnicity reporting at all vendors including ancient samples and additional reference samples for Native Americans.
• Autosomal Triangulation tools at all vendors.
• Big Y and STR integration and analysis enhancement at Family Tree DNA.
• Ancestor Reconstruction
• Mitochondrial and Y DNA search tools by ancestor and ancestral line at Family Tree DNA.
• Improved tree at Family Tree DNA – along with new search capabilities.
• 23andMe restores lost capabilities, drops price, makes changes and adds features previously submitted as suggestions by community ambassadors.
• More tools (This is equivalent to “bring me some surprises” on my Santa list as a kid.)

My own goals haven’t changed much over the years. I still just want to be able to confirm my genealogy, to learn as much as I can about each ancestor, and to break down brick walls and fill in gaps.

I’m very hopeful each year as more tools and methodologies emerge.  More people test, each one providing a unique opportunity to match and to understand our past, individually and collectively.  Every year genetic genealogy gets better!  I can’t wait to see what 2016 has in store.

Here’s wishing you a very Happy and Ancestrally Prosperous New Year!

It’s Christmas week. Everyone is always running around like crazy buying last minute gifts.  You’ll probably see people in the next few days that you won’t see again for another year….or maybe never again.

Did that just make you stop for a moment and catch your breath?

Well, it’s true. We don’t know who will pass, or when.  It could be them…or you.  My cousin Roy passed on yesterday morning.

Regardless, if you don’t get their DNA tested and into a data base for their Y line, if they are a male, their mtDNA for their matrilineal line, and their autosomal DNA for all of their ancestral lines…who will?

The elders are so important. They take an irreplaceable piece of family history with them when they pass on that can never, ever be replaced.  Sure, sometimes others can “sit proxy” for Y or mitochondrial DNA lines – but sometimes not.  My son and daughter are the last of my mother’s known mtDNA lines – and I mean ever.  If one of us didn’t contribute, that mitochondrial line and its history would be dead to all future researchers forever.

Think of your Aunt Lulu, for example. What line is she matrilineally descended from?  Is it represented in the data bases through your family?  How about your father?  Is his Y line tested to represent your paternal lineage?  And what about his mtDNA – his mother’s line?  Your father’s brother can contribute both his Y and mtDNA to represent your grandparents if your father is gone – but no one can replace your father’s autosomal DNA.

Collect all of the autosomal DNA of your family elders, not just one per generation. Remember, siblings both inherit half their DNA from their parents….but not the same half.  So your parents siblings will inherit pieces of their parents…and grandparents…and great-grandparents that your parents didn’t.

So, test all of those elders…while you can.

Because later may be too late.

What elders will you be seeing who have not yet been DNA tested? Most will be glad to share both stories and their DNA with you, especially if you explain how important it is to the preservation of family history.  So give them and your ancestors through them the gift of immortality.

Your discount coupons for this week will already be available in your Family Tree DNA accounts and the e-mails with the discounts will begin arriving in your in-box. If your e-mail doesn’t arrive, just check your account.

Click here to check accounts, to redeem coupons or to order those kits for your elder family members.  Remember, coupons are good on top of the sale prices as Family Tree DNA’s thank you to customers.

Have coupons you’re not going to use? Please list them in the comments to share with others, along with the test they apply to.

Here’s wishing you a wonderful holiday season and hoping that you have lots of elders to visit with…and to test!!!  They are indeed family treasures.  Love them (and swab them) while you can!

Hey Baby, what’s your sign?  Remember that?  I surely do.  It was the worst introductory, aka “pickup line” ever!

If someone asked me that today, after rolling my eyes of course, I’d just have to show them a double helix on my iphone or maybe just look at them deadpan and say “R1b,” M269” or “J1c2f.” If they know what means, well, there might be hope…

Ok, so what DO you say to someone with whom you match on your DNA?  How do you appropriately say “hello?”

When you receive a match from a vendor or via tools like GedMatch, what do you say to that new match that will elicit a response that might be useful and not make you look either like an idiot or predatory in the process? In part, that has to do with what kind of DNA match it is, meaning Y, mitochondrial or autosomal, and in part, how you ask for information.

So, first, let’s talk about some basics of how to obtain good responses and secondly, let’s look at each type of match.

The Basics

I know some of these basics sounds, well, really basic, but I wouldn’t have included them if I didn’t receive a lot of e-mails from people who obviously don’t understand these basic communications “good manners.”

1. Do use capitals and punctuation. If you don’t you’re conveying the message to the recipient that they don’t matter enough to bother constructing a complete sentence. E-mails like this are apt to be immediately deleted.
2. Don’t put the entire question in the subject line. These get deleted too.
3. Include the person’s name who you match. Don’t assume that the person whose e-mail is on the kit is the person who tested.  Many people manage multiple (as in many) kits.
4. Don’t write “dear match” e-mails and copy several people at once.
5. Title the e-mail with something relevant like “DNA Match to Robert Doe at Family Tree DNA.”  You don’t want your e-mail to wind up in their spam filter.
6. Include the basics of the match including the match’s name on the kit (or kit number) and the company (or service like GedMatch) where the match occurred.  I always add the test type as well, and if the match is particularly close.
7. Don’t say, “Can you tell me how we’re related?” without giving any other information. That comes across as sounding a bit “entitled” and the response it gets from the receiver generally isn’t positive.
8. Do not tell your life story. They won’t read it and they’ll delete it.
9. Include friendly, short, concise basic information, depending on the kind of test.
10. I always end my communications with a question for them to answer and a short, positive comment.

Y-DNA

Y-DNA tests are between males, so if you’re a female, you might want to mention that you’re the custodian for the kit for your brother, or father, John Doe. Give basic surname and lineage information for the Doe line.

Here’s an example of a contact e-mail for Y DNA:

Dear Robert Doe,

I’m the custodian for the DNA kit at Family Tree DNA of John Doe, my father. I noticed that he matches Robert Doe, which I presume is you, on the Y DNA test at 67 markers with only one mutation.  In addition, these two men carry the same surname which suggest a common ancestor.  I’ve also checked and you two don’t seem to match on the Family Finder test, so perhaps the common ancestor between you and my father is a few generations back in time.

Here is my father’s direct Doe lineage:

As you can see, I’m stuck with Martin Doe in Virginia. I’m hoping that our match might be helpful in getting beyond this brick wall.

Who is your oldest Doe ancestor and where were they located?

Thank you for your time. Here’s hoping we can find our common ancestor or at least some hints!

Jane Doe

Mitochondrial DNA

Mitochondrial DNA is a little more challenging genealogically, because the surnames change with every generation. Therefore, locations become very important clues in terms of finding a common ancestor.

Here’s an example of a mitochondrial DNA contact e-mail:

Dear Susie Smith,

I’m the custodian for the DNA kit at Family Tree DNA for my mother, Barbara Jones. I noticed that mother and Susie Smith, which I presume is you, share mitochondrial DNA at the full sequence level with no mutations difference.  This means that our common relative could be in recent generations, or maybe further back in time.  Since you’ve both also taken the Family Finder test, I noticed that you also match in the 2^nd to 4^th cousin range, meaning you and mother could potentially share great-grandparents to great-great-great-grand-parents. That could possibly be from Barbara Brown, Ellen Green or Mary on my pedigree chart below.

Here is my mother’s matrilineal line as far back as I have information:

Of course, it’s possible that our common ancestor is further back in time, but I’m hopeful that some of these names or locations might look familiar or be where your matrilineal family members are from too.

Do you see anything here that looks promising in terms of a common ancestor or location?  Where is your most distant maternal ancestor from?

I look forward to hearing from you. Maybe we can solve this puzzle together.

Jane Jones

Autosomal DNA

Autosomal DNA is, of course, genealogically more complex than either Y or mitochondrial DNA in that your matches can be from any of your family lines. That also means this test is full of potential as well, but it’s more difficult to provide your matches with enough information to obtain a useful response without overwhelming them.  With three different vendors plus GedMatch, a one-size-fits-all introductory letter doesn’t work

The first thing I do is to see if I can tell how this person may match me.

For example, my mother has taken the Family Finder test at Family Tree DNA as well, so the first thing I check on any match is to see if that person matches both me and my mother. If so, then that match is through my mother’s side of the tree.

This is easy to do with the ICW (in common with) button at Family Tree DNA.  The ICW button looks like crossed arrows and is blue, below.

The list of matches returned will either show my mother or it won’t.

If the person doesn’t match my mother, and Joy doesn’t, I see who else they do match in addition to me.  For example, let’s see who Joy matches that I match as well.

I can tell based on the ICW cousins that Joy and I both match that indeed, this match is on my father’s side and that it’s in the Vannoy line. That’s actually very helpful, because it helps me provide my match with some direction and gives us someplace to go.  This also illustrates the benefit of testing every cousin you can find!

Here’s an example of a Family Finder contact e-mail:

Dear Joy,

I notice that I have a match to Joy Smith, which I presume is you, at Family Tree DNA on the Family Finder test.  Our connection is estimated to be at the 2^nd to 4^th cousin level. This is exciting because it means we may be able to find our common ancestor.

Based on the fact that you match several of my cousins, including Stacy, Charlene, Christopher, Debbie and 3 Vannoy cousins, our common ancestor seems to be either in the Vannoy line, from which we all descend, or a common ancestral line to all of these cousins.

I’m attaching a copy of my father’s pedigree chart in pdf format so that it’s easily readable. Please note that his grandmother was Elizabeth Vannoy and take a look at her lineage. There is an index in the back of the document so you can easily scan to see if anyone looks familiar.

Are any of her ancestors your ancestors too?

I’m excited to see if we can make a family connection. I look forward to hearing from you,

Roberta Estes

Of course, if you’re sending a message to someone you match at either 23andMe or Ancestry.com, it would read a little bit differently because their tools are different from those provided at Family Tree DNA. For those vendors, my contact verbiage reads somewhat differently, in part, because my mother’s DNA is not at either of those vendors and I have much less flexibility in terms of tools and usage.

For example, at 23andMe the contact request is “blind” and you can’t see anything about matches until the contact and DNA sharing requests are accepted. This is changing shortly at 23andMe, but exactly how all of this will work is uncertain.  Also, not all 23andMe kits can be transferred to Family Tree DNA.

At Ancestry, they have no chromosome browser, so you can’t look at any comparative chromosome information. You can see who else you match in common though, in addition to the Circles.

The message is also different because both Ancestry and 23andMe contacts must be made through their internal message system where you cannot attach files and you are limited in terms of message size. Also, remember to sign your full real name.  Your screen name may not be the same and that’s all the recipient will see in the message they receive through the vendor.  I also include an e-mail address.

Here’s an example of a 23andMe or Ancestry contact message.

I notice that we are a DNA match. That’s great news.  I believe that we may match through the Estes line, but I’m not positive.  I have a number of Estes cousins who have tested from this line at Family Tree DNA that you might match as well.  You can upload your results to Family Tree DNA and see your matches for $39 instead of retesting, which is a real value.  You can also join the Estes project at Family Tree DNA.  Many of my cousins have uploaded their results to GedMatch too.  Have you uploaded your DNA results to http://www.GedMatch.com yet?  It’s a free service provided by genealogists for genealogists and allows people who have tested at different companies to compare their kits for matching.  I’d love to send you my pedigree chart, my GedMatch kit number, provide instructions for transferring your kit to Family Tree DNA and GedMatch, or answer questions.  You can e-mail me at xxxxxx@att.net.  I look forward to seeing if we can find our common ancestor.  Do you have any Estes ancestors in your tree?  Genealogy sure has gotten exciting since DNA has been added as a tool.

Roberta Estes

If I can make this contact more personal, I do. For example, if we share a common ancestor in a tree or a Circle at Ancestry, I always include that information.  I tend, in general to get more responses where I can tell the recipient at least something about how we do or might match, even if it’s nonspecific.

If you want to read more about autosomal DNA contacts tips for success, you can read this more extensive contact article here and one for adoptees here.

Making the contact takes very little effort. Not all contact requests work, of course, but I’ve found some real gems in those that do.

Let me know in the comments what contact techniques work well for you.

Have fun!!!

As with any industry that has become popular, especially quickly, there are the front runner companies, and then there is an entire cadre of what I am going to call “third tier” companies that spring up and are trying to play off of the success of the front runners and the naivety of the consuming public. I’m going to avoid the use of the words snake oil here, because some of them aren’t quite that bad, but others clearly are.  You get the drift, I’m sure.  There is a very big gulf, as in a chasm, between the three front-runners, Family Tree DNA, Ancestry and 23andMe, whose recognizable logos you see above and the rest of the pack.

Recently, we’ve seen a huge raft of people finding these “third tier” companies, purchasing their products thinking they’re getting something they aren’t, often due to what I would call corporate weasel-wording and snazzy ads, and then being unhappy with their purchase. Unfortunately, often the purchasers don’t understand that they’ve in essence “been had.”  This type of behavior tarnishes the entire genetic genealogy industry.

So, if you find a test on LivingSocial or a Groupon coupon that “looks familiar” it may by the AncestrybyDNA test that people mistakenly purchase instead of the AncestryDNA kit sold by Ancestry.com.  They think they are getting a great deal on the AncestryDNA test.  They aren’t.  It’s not the same thing at all.  AncestrybyDNA is an old, inaccurate, ineffective test called DNAPrint that has been rebranded to be sold to the unsuspecting.  Don’t buy this Groupon item.

There are other useless tests too, probably too many to mention by name, plus I really don’t want to give them any publicity, even inadvertently.

I also want to be clear that I’m only talking about genetic genealogy and ethnicity testing, not about medical DNA testing or traditional paternity testing, although some of the labs that offer paternity testing services also offer the less than forthright tests, in fact, those very two mentioned above.  I’m also not talking about add-on services like GedMatch and DNAGedcom which don’t provide DNA testing and do provide much valued services within the genetic genealogy community.  I’m also not talking about the Genographic project testing which does provide great information but is not in essence a genetic genealogy test in the sense that you can’t compare your results with others.  You can, however, transfer your results from the Genographic project to Family Tree DNA where you can compare with others.

Twisting the Truth

One of the biggest areas ripe for harvesting by sheisters are the thousands of people who descend, or think they descend from, or might descend from Native Americans. It’s a very common question.

If you find a company that says they will tell you what Indian tribe you descend from, and believe me, they’re out there, just know that you really can’t do that today with just a DNA test.  If you could identify a tribe that quickly and easily, these three leading companies would be doing just that – it would be a booming consumer product.  “Identifying my tribe” is probably my most frequently asked question and a highly sought after piece of information, so I’m not surprised that companies have picked up on that aspect of genetic genealogy to exploit.  I wrote about proving Native heritage and what it takes to identify your tribe here and here.  If that’s how they’re trying to hook you, you’re either going to be massively disappointed in your results, or the results are going to be less than forthright and truthful.

Yes, the DNA truth can be twisted and I see these “twisted results” routinely that people have paid a lot of money to receive and desperately want to believe.

Let me just give you one very brief example of DNA “fact” twisting. Person one claims (“self-identifies” in the vernacular), with no research or proof, that their maternal grandma is Cherokee, a very common family story.  Their mitochondrial haplogroup is H3, clearly, unquestionably European and not Native.  You test and share haplogroup H3 with person one.  I’ve seen companies that then claim you descend from the same “Cherokee line” as person one with haplogroup H3 and therefore you too are magically Cherokee because you match someone in their data base that is “Cherokee.” Congratulations!  I guess all Europeans who carry haplogroup H3 are also Cherokee, using that same logic.  Won’t they be surprised!

This H3=Cherokee analogy is obviously incorrect and inaccurate in several different ways, but suffice it to say that, as a hopeful consumer, you are now very happy that you are now “proven” to be Cherokee and you have no idea or understanding that it’s all predicated on one person’s “self-identification” that allows the less-than-ethical company to then equate all other H3 people to a “Cherokee lineage.” The problem is that you aren’t either proven Native nor Cherokee on your direct matrilineal line. And you’ve been snookered.  But you’re obliviously happy.

What a shameful way to exploit Native people and their descendants, not to mention the consuming public.

Unfortunately, there are lots of ways to twist the truth, intentionally or inadvertently.  If you’re looking for direction on this topic, there is a FaceBook group called Native American Ancestry Explorer: DNA, Genetics, Genealogy and Anthropology that I would recommend.

In genetic genealogy, meaning for both genealogy and ethnicity, there are three companies that are the frontrunners, by any measure, and then there are the rest, many of whom misrepresent their wares and what they can legitimately tell you. Or they tell you, and you have no idea if what they say is accurate or their own version of “truth” from their own “private research” and data bases, i.e., H3=Cherokee.

The Big 3

So, here are the Big 3 testing companies, in my preference order.

1. Family Tree DNA
2. Ancestry
3. 23andMe

Not only are these the Big 3, they are the only three that give you the value for your money as represented, plus the ability to compare your results to others.

Family Tree DNA is the only company to provide mitochondrial and Y DNA testing and matching.

All three of these companies provide autosomal tests and provide you:

• Ethnicity estimates
• Autosomal DNA Results (downloadable)
• Autosomal DNA Matching to others in their data base
• Different tools at each company that vary in quality and completeness

If it’s not one of these three companies, don’t buy, JUST DON’T.

You can debate all day about which of these three companies is the best for you (or maybe all three), but that is what the debate SHOULD be about, not whether to use one of these companies versus some third tier company.

I’m am not going to do a review of these companies in this article. Suffice it to say that my 2015 review holds relatively well EXCEPT that 23andMe is still going through something of a corporate meltdown with their genetic genealogy product which has caused me to take them off of my recommended list other than for adoptees who should test with all three vendors due to their data base matching.  Also, if you’re trying to make a decision in relation to the Big 3 companies and testing, you might want to read these two articles, here and here, as well.

I will do a 2016 review after 23andMe finishes their transition so we know how the genealogy aspect of their new services will work.

Personally, I think that everyone interested in genetic genealogy should test their mitochondrial DNA (males and females both,) and Y DNA (males only) at Family Tree DNA and their autosomal DNA (males and females both) at both Ancestry and Family Tree DNA. Family Tree DNA offers a $39 transfer from Ancestry, so you can put together a nice testing package and reap all of the benefits.  Here’s a basic article about the different kinds of DNA testing, what they cover and how, based on your family tree.

Bottom Line

So, here’s the bottom line – as heated as the debate gets sometimes within the genetic genealogy community about which of the three vendors, Family Tree DNA, Ancestry or 23andMe, is best, that really IS the question to debate.  The question should NEVER be whether to use a third tier company for genetic genealogy or ethnicity instead of one of these three.

So spread the word and hopefully none of our genealogy friends or well-meaning spouses or family members purchasing gifts with the very best of intentions will get sucked in. Stick with the Big 3.

Family Tree DNA provides three types of projects for people to join. Projects are free to join and are run by volunteer project administrators, people who have a specific interest in the topic at hand and are generally quite glad to be of assistance.  Projects are great ways to find people you match and others interested in a common topic.

There are three kinds of DNA projects:

• Surname projects – like Estes
• Haplogroup Projects – like R1b, M269 or J1c2f, for both Y and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups and subgroups
• Geographic projects – really anything else that isn’t a surname or a haplogroup, like Cumberland Gap or Cherokee or Scottish DNA

You can join unlimited multiple projects, but you want to make sure projects you join are relevant to your genealogy, your research and/or your haplogroup.

I covered haplogroup projects in depth here and surname projects in depth here, but today, I just want to do a simple “how to” instruction on how to find and join any project of your choosing.

Joining projects is easy.

First, of course, you must have tested at or transferred your results to Family Tree DNA and you must have taken the type of test relevant to the project at hand.

For example, if you have taken the Family Finder Autosomal test and not taken any other tests, you can’t join a Y DNA project because you have not tested your Y chromosome. Ladies, sorry, you can’t join Y DNA projects either because you don’t have a Y chromosome.

If you haven’t yet tested, then you can join a project and get a discount on your test at the same time. If you already have results at Family Tree DNA, skip to the next section, “Joining Up.”

Discounts When Ordering Through Projects

You can order tests through projects at a discount if you’ve never tested before. To do that, just click on this link, then type your surname of interest into the search field by the green text box.

Hint – if you’re an adoptee, just type adoptee and you’ll see the adoptee project. If you type a surname, you’ll see surname related projects.

Click on the project you’re interested in joining to see discounted project based pricing, example shown below.

Not sure what to order? You can read about the different kinds of DNA testing and how they apply to various ancestors on your tree in this “basic” DNA article.

Joining Up

If you’re already a customer at Family Tree DNA, it’s easy to join projects. First, sign on to your account.

You’ll see your home page that looks something like this at the top.

In the upper left hand tool bar you’ll see the projects tab, with 3 drop down selections, shown below.

“Learn About Projects” is basic information which you should, of course, read.

The “Manage My Projects” selection shows you which projects you are a member of and provides you with a convenient click list to visit any of your projects.

But before you can manage projects, you have to join some first.

Click on “Join Projects.”

The first thing you will see is a list, based on your surname, of projects where the administrators have entered your surname as a surname of interest to their projects. This may or may not be useful to you.  If your surname is the surname of your spouse – not useful at all.  In my case, however, Estes is my maiden name so these projects might be useful to me.

Let’s take a quick look.

• The Cumberland Gap mtDNA project isn’t relevant, because my Estes line is my paternal line and my mitochondrial DNA is my matrilineal line – so no cigar on this one.
• The Cumberland Gap Y DNA project isn’t relevant for me, because I’m a female and don’t have a Y chromosome, although my family is from the Cumberland Gap area. Hmmm…I need to find a related Estes male to test so he can join that project.
• The Estes surname project. I have it on good authority that I can join this project whether or not I’m related via the Y, mitochondrial or autosomal connection. Hint – I founded this project and yes, we welcome anyone who is Estes descended.
• Estis Jewish Ukraine – Nope doesn’t pertain to me and neither do the surnames Jester or Maestas, although clearly Estes could be derivative spellings of those surnames.
• The I-L161 project is a Y DNA haplogroup project, so I’m not sure why a surname would be listed here, but this does not apply to me as I have no Y chromosome.
• The administrators of the North Carolina Early project have obviously found the Estes surname in early records, but my line came through Virginia and Tennessee, so this doesn’t pertain to me either.

So, I can join one of these projects. Please, please take the time to read the project descriptions to see if the projects listed are a good fit for your family and for the stated project goals.

Some people think that this list is Family Tree DNA recommending certain projects, or suggesting that they join these projects. It isn’t.  The only way these projects appear is for the administrator to list your surname as one that their project is interested in – and it’s likely not universal meaning not relevant to everyone who carries the surname.  For example, Early North Carolina is confined to a specific geography and timeframe.

Obviously, there are probably other projects of interest that can’t be sensed by your surname.

At the bottom of the project list, there is a search field, followed by a list of projects that are divided into types.

First, type into the search box the surname (or word) you are trying to find. Let’s use Ferverda for example.

Yes, there is one project with 3 members for Ferverda. You can click on the project name to see additional information.  In fact, please do read the entire project description, because that’s the only way you’ll know if you qualify to join and the project is a good fit.  For example, what is the word Ferverda, or worse yet, Ireland?  Is it a surname or a place?  If it’s the place, can you join only if you are proven to descend from Ireland or can you join if might have Irish heritage?  Mitochondrial or Y DNA, or both?  What about autosomal DNA?  Read the project description to find out.

Once you’ve determined that this project is for you, click the orange join button to join. Don’t worry, you can unjoin easily if you make a mistake.  Some projects have a “request to join” feature to be sure the pairing is a good fit.

Can’t find your surname? Try an alternate spelling or scroll down and see if you can find a different kind of project that fits the bill.  (Hint – you can double click on this image to make it larger.)

For example, let’s see what’s available under the letter B under Y-DNA Geographical projects:

Hmm, I can’t join those because they are Y DNA projects, so lets look under mtDNA Haplogroup projects. I’m haplogroup J.

Look, here’s the perfect project for me!

Now all I have to do is click on the project link and then on the orange Join button to become a member.

Privacy Settings and Sharing

You will want to be sure your privacy settings are set such that your results will show in the projects you choose to join. I wrote about that here with specific instructions, so be sure to check, especially if you tested in 2015 or later, because the default is set to not publicly sharing.  This means if you don’t change your settings, your results will not be visible on the public project page.  An example of my haplogroup J project results on the public project page is shown below.

The great thing about projects is that they ultimately benefit everyone through sharing, but sharing is the key word.

For example, this map of where the J1c2f ancestors are found in Europe and Asia, generated within the haplogroup J project, would not be available if people didn’t:

1. Join projects
2. Share publicly
3. Enter the location of their most distant ancestor for that line

These maps allow us to take a look at the migration and settlement story behind this haplogroup. There are there hints based cumulatively on where our most distant ancestors are found.  We’ll never unravel the ancestral story without these hints and these hints are the results of shared information.  So, please share.  You’ll benefit from others sharing and others will benefit from you sharing.  Sort of a scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours scenario.

Have fun and find some great projects to join. You never know where your DNA will take you or the discoveries you’ll make!  What is your DNA waiting to tell you?

I mention DNA scholarships from time to time in my 52 Ancestor articles and sometimes in conjunction with other projects as well.

What, exactly, is a DNA scholarship? Who gets one?  How and why?

First, let’s talk a bit about the basics of how DNA works, because understanding that is fundamental to understanding why we have DNA scholarships in the first place, who qualifies and why. Not everyone has the DNA they need for testing specific genealogical lines – and scholarships are a way to obtain that information from others.  I think of it as a testing incentive to someone who is already interested at some level.

Every person can test their DNA, but each person carries a unique and very important type of DNA from just one or two very specific ancestors.

DNA for Genealogy – Y and Mitochondrial

There are three kinds of DNA we can use for genealogy.

Mitochondrial DNA, carried by both males and females, is your mother’s mother’s mother’s line all the way up your tree until you run out of direct line mothers.

Y DNA, which only males carry, is inherited from the father’s father’s father’s direct paternal line which typically follows the surname.

The pedigree chart path of both Y (blue) and mitochondrial DNA (red) is shown on the pedigree chart below

You’ve probably noticed that the brother, or males, carry both blue Y DNA and red mitochondrial DNA, but the sister, or females, carry only red mitochondrial DNA.

Sisters, or females, pass mitochondrial DNA on to their offspring, but males don’t.

So, males can test for Y and mitochondrial DNA and females can only test for mitochondrial DNA. In either case, the mitochondrial DNA reflects the oldest direct matrilineal ancestor in that line.

Most (but not all) of the DNA scholarships that I offer are for Y and mitochondrial DNA lineages and Family Tree DNA is the only company that offers these types of genealogical tests.

Autosomal DNA

The third kind of DNA for genetic genealogy is autosomal DNA which allows testing for all of your ancestral lines and provides matching to others who carry the same DNA. The trick is, of course, that you have to look at your common genealogy to figure out why your DNA matches, meaning which ancestor you share.  Sometimes that quest is successful, and sometimes it isn’t.

The reason autosomal DNA matching works is because you and the person you match have inherited a piece of the same DNA from a common ancestor. In the above chart, the DNA of the ancestors is colored blue, yellow, green, etc.  When you match someone else with a common segment, your goal is to determine which ancestor it came from.

Your autosomal DNA segments from any given ancestor become smaller and smaller over time with each generation, until eventually, they either become so small they don’t show up as matches, or you lose them altogether as more and more generations accrue between you and that ancestor. Ancestral DNA is “diluted” in a sense in every generation when the offspring receives half of each parent’s DNA.  The chances of carrying a particular distant ancestor’s DNA become less in each generation.

However, the Y and mitochondrial DNA are never diluted, because they are never admixed with the DNA of the other parent. They are passed intact, and therefore they provide a periscope back into the very distant past, but ONLY for that particular line.  In many cases, the haplogroup, or “clan” tells you a great deal about that ancestor, such as where they were from ancestrally.  There are African, Native American, Asian, Jewish and European haplogroups, and yes of course there is some overlap between some of those, but we have advanced tools to deal with that too.

Combining Autosomal DNA with Y and Mitochondrial

If you can discover the Y and mitochondrial DNA haplogroup of each of the ancestors on your tree, you can tell a great deal about them that may well have washed out in the autosomal DNA. For example, in the colored graph above, let’s say that the blue male line is unquestionably Native American and carries a distinctive Native American Y haplogroup, C-P39.

Using this example, if the blue male great-grandfather is 100% Native, which is very unlikely today, the “son’s” and “daughter’s” autosomal DNA would reflect something like 12.5% Native heritage.

However, if the blue great grandfather was himself only one eighth Native, he would have carried roughly 6.25% total Native autosomal DNA and his children would carry roughly 3.25%. The father in this chart would carry roughly 1.63% Native autosomal DNA and the children in the chart, only .81 or less than 1%, an amount which is generally not recognizable on autosomal ethnicity tests today.  It’s also possible that the Native autosomal DNA has “washed out” entirely by this time.

The good news is that the Y DNA is still 100% Native. So even though Native heritage may not be detectable today in the autosomal tests, it’s 100% confirmed in the Y DNA test for that line.  This makes Y DNA a very powerful tool.  Mitochondrial DNA works the very same way on the matrilineal line – it never gets diluted either.

But, what if your Native ancestor is not in either the Y (blue) or mitochondrial (red) lines that you can directly test for?  What if your Native ancestor is in the yellow, green, pink, grey, gold or aqua lines.  You won’t know what the DNA of those direct Y or mitochondrial lines tells you until you find someone appropriately descended from those lines to test.

DNA Beggars

You’ve now become a DNA beggar – begging for people who do descend from those lines through Y or mitochondrial DNA to test. If you’re a female, it can become immediately evident if you have no male siblings and your father is deceased.  In this case, you can’t test your Y DNA directly (because you don’t have a Y chromosome,) but you desperately need those results to flesh out your genealogy.

The good news is that this same information is important to other people too and they DO carry the Y or mitochondrial DNA of the lineage you need.

I call this process creating your DNA pedigree chart.  Here’s an example of mine with haplogroups, where known.

The good news is that sometimes people from those lineages have already tested and you may be able to find them through either surname projects, Ysearch or Mitosearch. When I can’t find someone who has already tested, I try various methods to recruit a suitable candidate and sweeten the pie by offering a DNA scholarship.

DNA Scholarships

Given that you want other people to test their DNA to provide information for your common ancestor – the best way to obtain that is to offer to pay for the test. Hence, the DNA scholarship.  Some people don’t feel comfortable if I say I’m paying for a test.  Sometimes, in surname and haplogroup projects, people join forces to pay for tests for someone with a particular lineage.  Regardless of who pays, or how, the result is that a DNA scholarship is available for someone of a particular lineage.

Looking for a DNA Scholarship?

You’d actually be surprised how many scholarships, or free DNA tests, are available. The ISOGG Wiki holds a list under the title of “Free DNA Tests” at this link.

The scholarships I offer, listed below, are for one person, and when someone has taken that one test, the scholarship is no longer available. I’ll update this list as I add scholarships and as they are (hopefully) redeemed.

Mitochondrial DNA Testing Scholarship for anyone who descends through any from the following people (or their female siblings) through all females only. In the current generation, meaning you, males can test so long as there are only females between the male and the ancestor.

• Frederica Moselman Lentz (1788 Germany-1863 Montgomery Co., Ohio) married to Jacob Lentz, Margaret Elizabeth Lentz Whitehead Miller (1822 Ohio -1903 Elkhart County, Indiana) married to John David Miller (1812-1902), Evaline Louise Miller Ferverda (1857 Elkhart County, IN -1939) married to Hiram B. Ferverda (1854-1925)
• Elizabeth, surname unknown married to Andrew McKee (c1766-1814 Washington Co., VA), Ann McKee Speak (1804/5-1840/50 Lee Co., VA) married to Charles Speak (1804/5-1840/50), Elizabeth Ann Speak Claxton/Clarkson (1832-1907 Hancock Co., TN) married to Samuel Claxton/Clarkson (1827-1876), Margaret Claxton/Clarkson Bolton (1851-1920 Hancock Co., TN) married to Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton (1853-1920)
• Ellen Martin Estes/Eastye (1605-1649), Ringwould, Kent, UK married Sylvester Eastye (1596-1647/49)
• Anne Woodward Eastes (1571-1630) Northborne and Ringwould, Kent married Robert Eastes (c1555-1616)
• Margaret Herrell Martin Bolton (c1810-c1892 Hancock Co., TN), Mary McDowell Herrell (1785-c1872), Isabel surname unknown, wife of Michael McDowell (1747 VA-1840 Claiborne Co., TN)
• Elizabeth Mary Angelicae Day Shepherd (17687/1699-c1750) Spotsylvania Co., VA married George Shepherd (c1700-1751)
• Mary Lytle Hickerson (1725-1793) married to Charles Hickerson (c1725 Stafford Co., VA – c1793 Wilkes Co., NC), Sarah Hickerson Vannoy (1752 – c1810) married to Daniel Vannoy, lived in Wilkes and Ashe Co., NC
• Mary Polly Phillips Johnson (1739-?) married Peter Johnson (c1715-1790 Allegheny Co., PA), Dorcas Johnson Dobkins (c1748 Dunsmore Co., VA -1831 Claiborne Co., TN) married Jacob Dobkins (1751-1833), Jane “Jenny” Dobkins Campbell (1778/80-1850/60 Claiborne Co., TN) married John Campbell (c1772/75-1838), Elizabeth Campbell Dodson (1802-1827/30) married Lazarus Dodson (1795-1861), Martha Ruthy Dodson Estes (1820-1903) married John Y. Estes (1818-1895), lived in Claiborne Co., TN
• Nancy Ann Moore Estes (c1785 Halifax Co., VA -1860/70 Claiborne Co., TN) married John R. Estes, Lucy (750/60-1830/40) surname unknown married William Moore (1750/1-1826) lived in Halifax Co., VA
• Mary Younger Estes (c1775-1820/30 Halifax Co., VA), Susanna (died before 1805) surname unknown but possibly Hart, married to Marcus Younger
• Luremia Combs Estes (1740/2 Amelia County, VA -1815/30 Halifax Co., VA) married Moses Estes (1742-1813)
• Barbara surname unknown but attributed to Brock (c1670-1721) married Abraham Estes (1747-1721) lived in Essex County, VA
• Lois McNiel Vannoy (c1786 Wilkes Co., NC -c1839 Claiborne Co., TN), Elizabeth Shepherd McNiel (1766 Spotsylvania Co., VA -1830/32 Claiborne Co., VA), Sarah Rash Shepherd (1748 Spotsylvania Co., VA -1829 Wilkes Co., NC), Mary Warren Rash (1726 Spotsylvania Co., VA -?) married Joseph Rash
• Mary, surname unknown, (c1750-1826) married to John Herrell/Harrold (1761-1828/30) lived in Wilkes County, NC
• Sallie, Sarah, Mary possibly Coates (c1740-1782/1787) wife of Reverend George McNiel (c1720-1805) lived in Wilkes Co., NC
• Hannah Mercer Crumley (c1742-c1773), mother Ann (1699/1705-1786/1790) surname given as Croat, wife of Edward Mercer, lived in Frederick Co., VA
• Catherine, possibly Gilkey or Bowen (1712-1791/2) married James Crumley, lived in Frederick County, VA
• Irena Charitas surname unknown (c1665-c1694) married to Johann Michael Mueller/Miller (1655-1695), Zollikoffen, Switzerland and Steinwenden, Germany
• Susanna Agnes Berchtol Mueller (1688-c1754), married Johann Michael Mueller/Miller, Anna Christina, surname unknown (c1666-c1696) married Hans Berchtol/Bechtel, lived in Konken/Krottelback, Germany, migrated from Switzerland
• Katharina Barbara Lemmert Kirsch (1807 Mutterstadt Germany -1889 Ripley County, Indiana) married Philip Jacob Kirsch, Gertraut Steiger Lemmert Weis or Weia (1783-c1829) Mutterstadt married Johann Jacob Lemmert, Maria Salona Reimer Steiger (1752-1791) Mutterstadt married Johann Philipp Steiger, Rosina Barbara Renner Reimer (1732-1773) Mutterstadt married Johann Jacob Reimer, Anna Barbara Raparlien Renner (1701-1750) Mutterstadt married Johann Adam Renner, Anna Barbara Hoertel Raparlien (1682-1735) Mutterstadt married Abraham Raparlien, Anna Catharina surname unknown (c1642-1709/10 Mutterstadt) married Johann Georg Hoertel

Y DNA Testing Scholarship for any male who descends from the following people through all males, meaning you carry the surname today:

• Berchtol, Hans (1641/53-1711) Konken/Krottelbach, Germany, wife Anna Christina or Hans Simon Berchtol/Bechtel, wife Catherine, living in Steinwenden, Germany in the same timeframe
• Bonnevie, Jacque dit “Beaumont” (c1660 Paris -1783 Port Royal, Acadia)
• Combs, John (c1705-1762) Amelia County, VA or brother George Combs (b 1701/05-c1765) lived in Charlotte County, VA
• Dorfler, Johann George (1732-1790), Speichersdorf and Wirbenz, Germany, married Anna Magdalena Buntzman, Johann Dorfler (1699-1779) Wirbenz married Anna Gerlin, Johann Dorfler (born c 1660) Wirbenz married Barbara Ehl
• Kirsch, Jacob (1841 Mutterstadt, Germany -1917 Aurora, Indiana) married to Barbara Drechsel, Philipp Jacob Kirsch (1806 Mutterstadt, Germany -1880 Ripley County, Indiana) married to Katharina Barbara Lemmert, Andreas Kirsch (1772-1819 Fussgoenheim, Germany) married Margaretha Elisabetha Koehler, Johann Valentin Kirsch (1744 Fussgoenheim – 1792 Carlberg, Germany) married Anna Margaretha Kirsch, Johann Wilheim Kirsch (b 1706 Fussgoenheim) married Maria Catharina Spanier, Johann Martin Kirsch (c1680 Fussgoenheim – 1741) married Anna Elisabetha Borstler, Johann Jacob Kirsch (c1660-Fussgoenheim-c1723) married Maria Catharina surname unknown, Jerg Kirsch (born c1630-died Fussgoenheim, Germany)
• Mann, John (1725 Ulster, Ireland-1774 Botetourt Co., VA) married Frances Carpenter
• Martin, Thomas (b 1577 Ringwould, Kent), father William Martin (died 1614)
• Mercer, Edward (c1704-1763) married Ann, lived in Frederick County, VA
• Woodrow/Woodward, Matthew born about 1550 probably Northborne, Kent

Haplogroup C is one of two Native American male haplogroups. More specifically, one specific branch of the haplogroup C tree is Native American which is defined by mutation C-P39 (formerly known as C3b).  Ray Banks shows this branch (highlighted in yellow) along with sub-branches underneath on his tree:

Please note that if you are designated at 23andMe as Y haplogroup C3e, you are probably C-P39. We encourage you to purchase the Y DNA 111 marker test at Family Tree DNA and join the haplogroup C and C-P39 projects.

It was only 11 years, ago in 2004 in the Zegura study, that C-P39 was reported among just a few Native American men in the Plains and Southwest.  Since that time The American Indian DNA project, surname projects and the AmerIndian Ancestry Out of Acadia DNA projects have accumulated samples that span the Canadian and American borders, reaching west to east, so haplogroup C-P39 is not relegated to the American Southwest.  It is, however, still exceedingly rare.

In August of 2012, Marie Rundquist, co-administrator of the haplogroup C-P39 DNA project performed an analysis and subsequent report of the relationships, both genealogical and genetic, of the C-P39 project members.  One of the burning questions is determining how far back in time the common ancestor of all of the C-P39 group members lived.

When Marie performed the first analysis, in 2012,, there were only 14 members in the project, representing 6 different families, and they had only tested to 67 markers. Most were from Canada.

My, how things have changed. We now have more participants, more markers to work with and additional tests to bring to bear on the questions of relatedness, timing and origins.

Today, there are a total of 43 people in the project and their locations include the Pacific Northwest, Appalachia, the Southwest and all across Canada, west to east.

If you are haplogroup C-P39 or C3e at 23andMe, please join the C-P39 project at Family Tree DNA today.  I wrote about how to join a project here, but if you need assistance, just let me know in a comment to the blog and Marie or I will contact you.  (Quick Instructions: sign on to your FTDNA account, click on projects tab on upper left toolbar, click on join, scroll down to Y haplogroup projects, click on C, select C-P39 project and click through to press orange join button.)

Marie is preparing to undertake a new analysis and provides the following announcement:

The C-P39 Y DNA project is pleased to announce a forthcoming updated and revised project report.  The C-P39 project has established a 111-marker baseline for our 2016 study and analysis will include:

• 111 marker result comparisons
• geo-locations
• tribal / family relationships
• C P39 SNP findings
• new SNPs and Big Y results

The current C-P39 Y DNA study has a healthy diversity of surnames, geo-locations, and tribal / family lines represented.

The C-P39 Y DNA project will cover the costs of the necessary 111 marker upgrades by way of Family Tree DNA C-P39 Y DNA study project fund.

Thanks to all who have contributed to the project fund and to participants who have funded their own tests to 111 markers as part of our study.  To voluntarily contribute (anonymously if you like) to the C-P39 Y DNA project funds and help our project achieve this goal, please click on the link below and please do make certain that the “C-P39 Y-DNA” pre-selected project is highlighted when you do:

https://www.familytreedna.com/group-general-fund-contribution.aspx?g=Y-DNAC-P39

Thank you to project members contributing DNA test results to the C-P39 study and for encouraging friends and relatives to do the same!  Thank you also to Family Tree DNA management for their ongoing support.

The project needs to raise $3164 to upgrade all project members to 111 markers.  Many participants have already upgraded their own results, for which we are very grateful, but we need all project members at the 111 level if possible.

Please help fund this scientific project if you can.  Every little bit helps.  I’m going to start by making a donation right now!  You can make the donation in memory or in honor of someone or a particular ancestor – or you can be completely anonymous.  Please click on the link above to make your contribution!!!  We thank you and the scientific community thanks you.

Ethnicity results from DNA testing.  Fascinating.  Intriguing.  Frustrating.  Exciting.  Fun. Challenging.  Mysterious.  Enlightening.  And sometimes wrong.  These descriptions all fit.  Welcome to your personal conundrum!  The riddle of you!  If you’d like to understand why your ethnicity results might not have been what you expected, read on!

Today, about 50% of the people taking autosomal DNA tests purchase them for the ethnicity results. Ironically, that’s the least reliable aspect of DNA testing – but apparently somebody’s ad campaigns have been very effective.  After all, humans are curious creatures and inquiring minds want to know.  Who am I anyway?

I think a lot of people who aren’t necessarily interested in genealogy per se are interested in discovering their ethnic mix – and maybe for some it will be a doorway to more traditional genealogy because it will fan the flame of curiosity.

Given the increase in testing for ethnicity alone, I’m seeing a huge increase in people who are both confused by and disappointed in their results. And of course, there are a few who are thrilled, trading their lederhosen for a kilt because of their new discovery.  To put it gently, they might be a little premature in their celebration.

A lot of whether you’re happy or unhappy has to do with why you tested, your experience level and your expectations.

So, for all of you who could write an e-mail similar to this one that I received – this article is for you:

“I received my ethnicity results and I’m surprised and confused. I’m half German yet my ethnicity shows I’m from the British Isles and Scandinavia.  Then I tested my parents and their results don’t even resemble mine, nor are they accurate.  I should be roughly half of what they are, and based on the ethnicity report, it looks like I’m totally unrelated.  I realize my ethnicity is not just a matter of dividing my parents results by half, but we’re not even in the same countries.  How can I be from where they aren’t? How can I have significantly more, almost double, the Scandinavian DNA that they do combined?  And yes, I match them autosomally as a child so there is no question of paternity.”

Do not, and I repeat, DO NOT, trade in your lederhosen for a kilt just yet.

Lederhosen – By The original uploader was Aquajazz at German Wikipedia – Transferred from de.wikipedia to Commons., CC BY-SA 2.0 de, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2746036 Kilt – By Jongleur100 – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7917180

This technology is not really ripe yet for that level of confidence except perhaps at the continent level and for people with Jewish heritage.

1. In determining majority ethnicity at the continent level, these tests are quite accurate, but then you can determine the same thing by looking in the mirror.  I’m primarily of European heritage.  I can see that easily and don’t need a DNA test for that information.
2. When comparing between continental ethnicity, meaning sorting African from European from Asian from Native American, these tests are relatively accurate, meaning there is sometimes a little bit of overlap, but not much.  I’m between 4 and 5% Native American and African – which I can’t see in the mirror – but some of these tests can.
3. When dealing with intra-continent ethnicity – meaning Europe in particular, comparing one country or region to another, these tests are not reliable and in some cases, appear to be outright wrong. The exception here is Ashkenazi Jewish results which are generally quite accurate, especially at higher levels.

There are times when you seem to have too much of a particular ethnicity, and times when you seem to have too little.

Aside from the obvious adoption, misattributed parent or the oral history simply being wrong, the next question is why.

Ok, Why?

So glad you asked!

Part of why has to do with actual population mixing. Think about the history of Europe.  In fact, let’s just look at Germany.  Wiki provides a nice summary timeline.  Take a look, because you’ll see that the overarching theme is warfare and instability.  The borders changed, the rulers changed, invasions happened, and most importantly, the population changed.

Let’s just look at one event. The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) devastated the population, wiped out large portions of the countryside entirely, to the point that after its conclusion, parts of Germany were entirely depopulated for years.  The rulers invited people from other parts of Europe to come, settle and farm.  And they did just that.  Hear those words, other parts of Europe.

My ancestors found in the later 1600s along the Rhine near Speyer and Mannheim were some of those settlers, from Switzerland. Where were they from before Switzerland, before records?  We don’t know and we wouldn’t even know that much were it not for the early church records.

So, who are the Germans?

Who or where is the reference population that you would use to represent Germans?

If you match against a “German” population today, what does that mean, exactly? Who are you really matching?

Now think about who settled the British Isles.

Where did those people come from and who were they?

Well, the Anglo-Saxon people were comprised of Germanic tribes, the Angles and the Saxons.  Is it any wonder that if your heritage is German you’re going to be matching some people from the British Isles and vice versa?

Anglo-Saxons weren’t the only people who settled in the British Isles. There were Vikings from Scandinavia and the Normans from France who were themselves “Norsemen” aka from the same stock as the Vikings.

See the swirl and the admixture? Is there any wonder that European intracontinental admixture is so confusing and perplexing today?

Reference Populations

The second challenge is obtaining valid and adequate reference populations.

Each company that offers ethnicity tests assembles a group of reference populations against which they compare your results to put you into a bucket or buckets.

Except, it’s not quite that easy.

When comparing highly disparate populations, meaning those whose common ancestor was tens of thousands of years ago, you can find significant differences in their DNA. Think the four major continental areas here – Africa, Europe, Asia, the Americas.

Major, unquestionable differences are much easier to discern and interpret.

However, within population groups, think Europe here, it is much more difficult.

To begin with, we don’t have much (if any) ancient DNA to compare to. So we don’t know what the Germanic, French, Norwegian, Scottish or Italian populations looked like in, let’s say, the year 1000.

We don’t know what they looked like in the year 500, or 2000BC either and based on what we do know about warfare and the movement of people within Europe, those populations in the same location could genetically look entirely different at different points in history. Think before and after The 30 Years War.

By User:MapMaster – Own work, CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1234669

As an example, consider the population of Hungary and the Slavic portion of Germany before and after the Mongol invasion of Europe in the 13^th century and Hun invasions that occurred between the 1^st and 5^th centuries.  The invaders DNA didn’t go away, it became part of the local population and we find it in descendants today.  But how do we know it’s Hunnic and not “German,” whatever German used to be, or Hungarian, or Norse?

That’s what we do know.

Now, think about how much we don’t know. There is no reason to believe the admixture and intermixing of populations on any other continent that was inhabited was any different.  People will be people.  They have wars, they migrate, they fight with each other and they produce offspring.

We are one big mixing bowl.

Software

A third challenge faced in determining ethnicity is how to calculate and interpret matching.

Population based matching is what is known as “best fit.”  This means that with few exceptions, such as some D9S919 values (Native American), the Duffy Null Allele (African) and Neanderthal not being found in African populations, all of the DNA sequences used for ethnicity matching are found in almost all populations worldwide, just at differing frequencies.

So assigning a specific “ethnicity” to you is a matter of finding the best fit – in other words which population you match at the highest frequency for the combined segments being measured.

Let’s say that the company you’re using has 50 people from each “grouping” that they are using for buckets.

A bucket is something you’ll be assigned to. Buckets sometimes resemble modern-day countries, but most often the testing companies try to be less boundary aligned and more population group aligned – like British Isles, or Eastern European, for example.

How does one decide which “country” goes where? That’s up to the company involved.  As a consumer, you need to read what the company publishes about their reference populations and their bucket assignment methodology.

For example, one company groups the Czech Republic and Poland in with Western Europe and another groups them primarily with Eastern Europe but partly in Western Europe and a third puts Poland in Eastern Europe and doesn’t say where they group The Czech Republic. None of these are inherently right are wrong – just understand that they are different and you’re not necessarily comparing apples to apples.

Two Strands of DNA

In the past, we’ve discussed the fact that you have two strands of DNA and they don’t come with a Mom side, a Dad side, no zipper and no instructions that tell you which is Mom’s and which is Dad’s.  Not fair – but it’s what we have to work with.

When you match someone because your DNA is zigzagging back and forth between Mom’s and Dad’s DNA sides, that’s called identical by chance.

It’s certainly possible that the same thing can happen in population genetics – where two strands when combined “look like” and match to a population reference sample, by chance.

In the example above, you can see that you received all As from Mom and all Cs from Dad, and the reference population matches the As and Cs by zigzagging back and forth between your parents.  In this case, your DNA would match that particular reference population, but your parents would not.  The matching is technically accurate, it’s just that the results aren’t relevant because you match by chance and not because you have an ancestor from that reference population.

Finding The Right Bucket

Our DNA, as humans, is more than 99.% the same.  The differences are where mutations have occurred that allow population groups and individuals to look different from one another and other minor differences.  Understanding the degree of similarity makes the concept of “race” a bit outdated.

For genetic genealogy, it’s those differences we seek, both on a population level for ethnicity testing and on a personal level for identifying our ancestors based on who else our autosomal DNA matches who also has those same ancestors.

Let’s look at those differences that have occurred within population groups.

Let’s say that one particular sequence of your DNA is found in the following “bucket” groups in the following percentages:

• Germany – 50%
• British Isles – 25%
• Scandinavian – 10%

What do you do with that? It’s the same DNA segment found in all of the populations.  As a company, do you assume German because it’s where the largest reference population is found?

And who are the Germans anyway?

Does all German DNA look alike? We already know the answer to that.

Are multiple ancestors contributing German ancestry from long ago, or are they German today or just a generation or two back in time?

And do you put this person in just the German bucket, or in the other buckets too, just at lower frequencies.  After all, buckets are cumulative in terms of figuring out your ethnicity.

If there isn’t a reference population, then the software of course can’t match to that population and moves to find the “next best fit.”  Keep in mind too that some of these reference populations are very small and may not represent the range of genetic diversity found within the entire region they represent.

If your ancestors are Hungarian today, they may find themselves in a bucket entirely unrelated to Hungary if a Hungarian reference population isn’t available AND/OR if a reference population is available but it’s not relevant to your ancestry from your part of Hungary.

If you’d like a contemporary example to equate to this, just think of a major American city today and the ethnic neighborhoods. In Detroit, if someone went to the ethnic Polish neighborhood and took 50 samples, would that be reflective of all of Detroit?  How about the Italian neighborhood?  The German neighborhood?  You get the drift.  None of those are reflective of Detroit, or of Michigan or even of the US.  And if you don’t KNOW that you have a biased sample, the only “matches” you’ll receive are Polish matches and you’ll have no way to understand the results in context.

Furthermore, that ethnic neighborhood 50 or 100 years earlier or later in time might not be comprised of that ethnic group at all.

Based on this example, you might be trading in your lederhosen for a pierogi or a Paczki, which are both wonderful, but entirely irrelevant to you.

Real Life Examples

Probably the best example I can think of to illustrate this phenomenon is that at least a portion of the Germanic population and the Native American population both originated in a common population in central northern Asia.  That Asiatic population migrated both to Europe to the west and eventually, to the Americas via an eastern route through Beringia.  Today, as a result of that common population foundation, some Germanic people show trace amounts of “Native American” DNA.  Is it actually from a Native American?  Clearly not, based on the fact that these people nor their ancestors have ever set foot in the Americas nor are they coastal.  However, the common genetic “signature” remains today and is occasionally detected in Germanic and eastern European people.

If you’re saying, “no, not possible,” remember for a minute that everyone in Europe carries some Neanderthal DNA from a population believed to be “extinct” now for between 25,000 and 40,000 years, depending on whose estimates you use and how you measure “extinct.”  Neanderthal aren’t extinct, they have evolved into us.  They assimilated, whether by choice or force is unknown, but the fact remains that they did because they are a forever part of Europeans, most Asians and yes, Native Americans today.

Back to You

So how can you judge the relevance or accuracy of this information aside from looking in the mirror?

Because I have been a genealogist for decades now, I have an extensive pedigree chart that I can use to judge the ethnicity predictions relatively accurately. I created an “expected” set of percentages here and then compared them to my real results from the testing companies.  This paper details the process I used.  You can easily do the same thing.

Part of how happy or unhappy you will be is based on your goals and expectations for ethnicity testing. If you want a definitive black and white, 100% accurate answer, you’re probably going to be unhappy, or you’ll be happy only because you don’t know enough about the topic to know you should be unhappy.  If you test with only one company, accept their results as gospel and go merrily on your way, you’ll never know that had you tested elsewhere, you’d probably have received a somewhat different answer.

If you’re scratching your head, wondering which one is right, join the party.  Perhaps, except for obvious outliers, they are all right.

If you know your pedigree pretty well and you’re testing for general interest, then you’ll be fine because you have a measuring stick against which to evaluate the results.

I found it fun to test with all 4 vendors, meaning Family Tree DNA, 23andMe and Ancestry along with the Genographic project and compare their results.

In my case, I was specifically interesting in ascertaining minority admixture and determining which line or lines it descended from. This means both Native American and African.

You can do this too and then download your results to www.gedmatch.com and utilize their admixture utilities.

At GedMatch, there are several versions of various contributed admixture/ethnicity tools for you to use. The authors of these tools have in essence done the same thing the testing companies have done – compiled reference populations of their choosing and compare your results in a specific manner as determined by the software written by that author.  They all vary.  They are free.  Your mileage can and will vary too!

By comparing the results, you can clearly see the effects of including or omitting specific populations. You’ll come away wondering how they could all be measuring the same you, but it’s an incredibly eye-opening experience.

The Exceptions and Minority Ancestry

You know, there is always an exception to every rule and this is no exception to the exception rule. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

By and large, the majority continental ancestry will be the most accurate, but it’s the minority ancestry many testers are seeking.  That which we cannot see in the mirror and may be obscured in written records as well, if any records existed at all.

Let me say very clearly that when you are looking for minority ancestry, the lack of that ancestry appearing in these tests does NOT prove that it doesn’t exist. You can’t prove a negative.  It may mean that it’s just too far back in time to show, or that the DNA in that bucket has “washed out” of your line, or that we just don’t recognize enough of that kind of DNA today because we need a larger reference population.  These tests will improve with time and all 3 major vendors update the results of those who tested with them when they have new releases of their ethnicity software.

Think about it – who is 100% Native American today that we can use as a reference population?  Are Native people from North and South American the same genetically?  And let’s not forget the tribes in the US do not view DNA testing favorably.  To say we have challenges understanding the genetic makeup and migrations of the Native population is an understatement – yet those are the answers so many people seek.

Aside from obtaining more reference samples, what are the challenges?

There are two factors at play.

Recombination – the “Washing Out” Factor

First, your DNA is divided in half with every generation, meaning that you will, on the average, inherit roughly half of the DNA of your ancestors.  Now in reality, half is an average and it doesn’t always work that way.  You may inherit an entire segment of an ancestor’s DNA, or none at all, instead of half.

I’ve graphed the “washing out factor” below and you can see that within a few generations, if you have only one Native or African ancestor, their DNA is found in such small percentages, assuming a 50% inheritance or recombination rate, that it won’t be found above 1% which is the threshold used by most testing companies.

Therefore, the ethnicity of any ancestor born 7 generations ago, or before about 1780 may not be detectable.  This is why the testing companies say these tests are effective to about the rough threshold of 5 or 6 generations.  In reality, there is no line in the sand.  If you have received more than 50% of that ancestor’s DNA, or a particularly large segment, it may be detectable at further distances.  If you received less, it may be undetectable at closer distances.  It’s the roll of the DNA dice in every generation between them and you.  This is also why it’s important to test parents and other family members – they may well have received DNA that you didn’t that helps to illuminate your ancestry.

Recombination – Population Admixture – the “Keeping In” Factor

The second factor at play here is population admixture which works exactly the opposite of the “washing out” factor. It’s the “keeping in” factor.  While recombination, the “washing out” factor, removes DNA in every generation, the population admixture “keeping in” factor makes sure that ancestral DNA stays in the mix. So yes, those two natural factors are kind of working at cross purposes and you can rest assured that both are at play in your DNA at some level.  Kind of a mean trick of nature isn’t it!

The population admixture factor, known as IBP, or identical by population, happens when identical DNA is found in an entire or a large population segment – which is exactly what ethnicity software is looking for – but the problem is that when you’re measuring the expected amount of DNA in your pedigree chart, you have no idea how to allow for endogamy and population based admixture from the past.

This example shows that both Mom and Dad have the exact same DNA, because at these locations, that’s what this endogamous population carries.  Therefore the child carries this DNA too, because there isn’t any other DNA to inherit.  The ethnicity software looks for this matching string and equates it to this particular population.

Like Neanderthal DNA, population based admixture doesn’t really divide or wash out, because it’s found in the majority of that particular population and as long as that population is marrying within itself, those segments are preserved forever and just get passed around and around – because it’s the same DNA segment and most of the population carries it.

This is why Ashkenazi Jewish people have so many autosomal matches – they all descend from a common founding population and did not marry outside of the Jewish community.  This is also why a few contemporary living people with Native American heritage match the ancient Anzick Child at levels we would expect to see in genealogically related people within a few generations.

Small amounts of admixture, especially unexpected admixture, should be taken with a grain of salt. It could be noise or in the case of someone with both Native American and Germanic or Eastern European heritage, “Native American” could actually be Germanic in terms of who you inherited that segment from.

Have unexpected small percentages of Middle Eastern ethnic results?  Remember, the Mesolithic and Neolithic farmer expansion arrived in Europe from the Middle East some 7,000 – 12,000 years ago.  If Europeans and Asians can carry Neanderthal DNA from 25,000-45,000 years ago, there is no reason why you couldn’t match a Middle Eastern population in small amounts from 3,000, 7,000 or 12,000 years ago for the same historic reasons.

The Middle East is the supreme continental mixing bowl as well, the only location worldwide where historically we see Asian, European and African DNA intermixed in the same location.

Best stated, we just don’t know why you might carry small amounts of unexplained regional ethnic DNA.  There are several possibilities that include an inadequate population reference base, an inadequate understanding of population migration, quirks in matching software, identical segments by chance, noise, or real ancient or more modern DNA from a population group of your ancestors.

Using Minority Admixture to Your Advantage

Having said that, in my case and in the cases of others who have been willing to do the work, you can sometimes track specific admixture to specific ancestors using a combination of ethnicity testing and triangulation.

You cannot do this at Ancestry because they don’t give you ANY segment information.

Family Tree DNA and 23andMe both provide you with segment information, but not for ethnicity ranges without utilizing additional tools.

The easiest approach, by far, is to download your autosomal results to GedMatch and utilize their tools to determine the segment ranges of your minority admixture segments, then utilize that information to see which of your matches on that segment also have the same minority admixture on that same chromosome segment.

I wrote a several-part series detailing how I did this, called The Autosomal Me.

Let me sum the process up thus. I expected my largest Native segments to be on my father’s side.  They weren’t.  In fact, they were from my mother’s Acadian lines, probably because endogamy maintained (“kept in”) those Native segments in that population group for generations.  Thank you endogamy, aka, IBP, identical by population.

I made this discovery by discerning that my specifically identified Native segments matched my mother’s segments, also identified as Native, in exactly the same location, so I had obviously received those Native segments from her. Continuing to compare those segments and looking at GedMatch to see which of our cousins also had a match (to us) in that region pointed me to which ancestral line the Native segment had descended from.  Mitochondrial and Y DNA testing of those Acadian lines confirmed the Native ancestors.

That’s A Lot of Work!!!

Yes, it was, but well, well worth it.

This would be a good time to mention that I couldn’t have proven those connections without the cooperation of several cousins who agreed to test along with cousins I found because they tested, combined with the Mothers of Acadia and the AmerIndian Ancestry out of Acadia projects hosted by Family Tree DNA and the tools at GedMatch.  I am forever grateful to all those people because without the sharing and cooperation that occurs, we couldn’t do genetic genealogy at all.

If you want to be amused and perhaps trade your lederhosen for a kilt, then you can just take ethnicity results at face value.  If you’re reading this article, I’m guessing you’re already questioning “face value” or have noticed “discrepancies.”

Ethnicity results do make good cocktail party conversation, especially if you’re wearing either lederhosen or a kilt.  I’m thinking you could even wear lederhosen under your kilt……

If you want to be a bit more of an educated consumer, you can compare your known genealogy to ethnicity results to judge for yourself how close to reality they might be. However, you can never really know the effects of early population movements – except you can pretty well say that if you have 25% Scandinavian – you had better have a Scandinavian grandparent.  3% Scandinavian is another matter entirely.

If you’re saying to yourself, “this is part interpretive art and part science,” you’d be right.

If you want to take a really deep dive, and you carry significantly mixed ethnicity, such that it’s quite distinct from your other ancestry – meaning the four continents once again, you can work a little harder to track your ethnic segments back in time. So, if you have a European grandparent, an Asian grandparent, an African grandparent and a Native American grandparent – not only do you have an amazing and rich genealogy – you are the most lucky genetic genealogist I know, because you’ll pretty well know if your ethnicity results are accurate and your matches will easily fall into the correct family lines!

For some of us, utilizing the results of ethnicity testing for minority admixture combined with other tools is the only prayer we will ever have of finding our non-European ancestors.  If you fall into this group, that is an extremely powerful and compelling statement and represents the holy grail of both genealogy and genetic genealogy.

Let’s Talk About Scandinavia

We’ve talked about minority admixture and cases when we have too little DNA or unexpected small segments of DNA, but sometimes we have what appears to be too much.  Often, that happens in Scandinavia, although far more often with one company than the other two.  However, in my case, we have the perfect example of an unsolvable mystery introduced by ethnicity testing and of course, it involves Scandinavia.

23andMe, Ancestry and Family Tree DNA show me at 8%, 10% and 12% Scandinavian, respectively, which is simply mystifying. That’s a lot to be “just noise.”  That amount is in the great-grandparent or third generation range at 12.5%, but I don’t have anyone that qualifies, anyplace in my pedigree chart, as far back as I can go.  I have all of my ancestors identified and three-quarters (yellow) confirmed via DNA through the 6^th generation, shown below.

The unconfirmed groups (uncolored) are genealogically confirmed via church and other records, just not genetically confirmed.  They are Dutch and German, respectively, and people in those countries have not embraced genetic genealogy to the degree Americans have.

Genetically confirmed means that through triangulation, I know that I match other descendants of these ancestors on common segments.  In other words, on the yellow ancestors, here is no possibility of misattributed parentage or an adoption in that line between me and that ancestor.

Barbara Mehlheimer, my mitochondrial line, does have Scandinavian mitochondrial DNA matches, but even if she were 100% Scandinavian, which she isn’t because I have her birth record in Germany, that would only account for approximately 3.12% of my DNA, not 8-12%.

In order for me to carry 8-12% Scandinavian legitimately from an ancestral line, four of these ancestors would need to be 100% Scandinavian to contribute 12.5% to me today assuming a 50% recombination rate, and my mother’s percentage of Scandinavian should be about twice mine, or 24%.

My mother is only in one of the testing company data bases, because she passed away before autosomal DNA testing was widely available.  I was fortunate that her DNA had been archived at Family Tree DNA and was available for a Family Finder upgrade.

Mom’s Scandinavian results are 7%, or 8% if you add in Finland and Northern Siberia.  Clearly not twice mine, in fact, it’s less. If I received half of hers, that would be roughly 4%, leaving 8% of mine unaccounted for.  If I didn’t receive all of my “Scandinavian” from her, then the balance would have had to come from my father whose Estes side of the tree is Appalachian/Colonial American.  Even less likely that he would have carried 16% Scandinavian, assuming again, that I inherited half.  Even if I inherited all 8% of Mom’s, that still leaves me 4% short and means my father would have had approximately 8%, which is still between the great and great-great-grandfather level.  By that time, his ancestors had been in America for generations and none were Scandinavian.  Clearly, something else is going on.  Is there a Scandinavian line in the woodpile someplace?  If so, which lines are the likely candidates?

In mother’s Ferverda/Camstra/deJong/Houtsma line, which is not DNA confirmed, we have several additional generations of records procured by a professional genealogist in the Netherlands from Leeuwarden, so we know where these ancestors originated and lived for generations, and it wasn’t Scandinavia.

The Kirsch/Lemmert line also reaches back in church records several generations in Mutterstadt and Fussgoenheim, Germany.  The Drechsel line reaches back several generations in Wirbenz, Germany and the Mehlheimer line reaches back one more generation in Speichersdorf before ending in an unmarried mother giving birth and not listing the father.  Aha, you say…there he is…that rogue Scandinavian.  And yes, it could be, but in that generation, he would account for only 1.56% of my DNA, not 8-12%.

So, what can we conclude about this conundrum.

• The Scandinavian results are NOT a function of specific Scandinavian genealogical ancestors – meaning ones in the tree who would individually contribute that level of Scandinavian heritage.  There is no Scandinavian great-grandpa or Scandinavian heritage at all, in any line, tracking back more than 6 generations.  The first “available” spot with an unknown ancestor for a Scandinavian is in the 7th generation where they would contribute 1.56% of my DNA and 3.12% of mothers.
• The Scandinavian results could be a function of a huge amount of population intermixing in several lines, but 8-12% is an awfully high number to attribute to unknown population admixture from many generations ago.
• The Scandinavian results could be a function of a problematic reference population being utilized by multiple companies.
• The Scandinavian results could be identical by chance matching, possibly in addition to population admixture in ancient lines.
• The Scandinavian results could be a function of something we don’t yet understand.
• The Scandinavian results could be a combination of several of the above.

It’s a mystery.  It may be unraveled as the tools improve and as an industry, additional population reference samples become available or better understood.  Or, it may never be unraveled.  But one thing is for sure, it is very, very interesting!  However, I’m not trading lederhosen for anything based on this.

The Companies

I wrote a comparison of the testing companies when they introduced their second generation tools.  Not a lot has changed.  Hopefully we will see a third software generation soon.

I do recommend selecting between the main three testing companies plus National Geographic’s Genographic 2.0 products if you’re going to test for ethnicity.  Stay safe.  There are less than ethical people and companies out there looking to take advantage of people’s curiosity to learn about their heritage.

Today, 23andMe is double the price of either Family Tree DNA or Ancestry and they are having other issues as well.  However, they do sometimes pick up the smallest amounts of minority admixture.

Ancestry continues to have “a Scandinavian problem” where many/most of their clients have a significant amount (some as high as the 30% range) of Scandinavian ancestry assigned to them that is not reflected by other testing companies or tools, or the tester’s known heritage – and is apparently incorrect.

However, Ancestry did pick up my minority Ancestry of both Native and African. How much credibility should I give that in light of the known Scandinavian issue?  In other words, if they can’t get 30% right, how could they ever get 4 or 5% right?

Remember what I said about companies doing pretty well on a comparative continental basis but sorting through ethnicity within a continent being much more difficult. This is the perfect example.  Ancestry also is not alone in reporting small amounts of my minority admixture.  The other companies do as well, although their amounts and descriptions don’t match each other exactly.

However, I can download any or all three of these raw data files to GedMatch and utilize their various ethnicity, triangulation and chromosome by chromosome comparison utilities. Both Family Tree DNA and Ancestry test more SNP locations than does 23andMe, and cost half as much, if you’re planning to test in order to upload your raw data file to GedMatch.

If you are considering ordering from either 23andMe or Ancestry, be sure you understand their privacy policy before ordering.

In Summary

I hate to steal Judy Russell’s line, but she’s right – it’s not soup yet if ethnicity testing is the only tool you’re going to use and if you’re expecting answers, not estimates.  View today’s ethnicity results from any of the major testing companies as interesting, because that’s what they are, unless you have a very specific research agenda, know what you are doing and plan to take a deeper dive.

I’m not discouraging anyone from ethnicity testing. I think it’s fun and for me, it was extremely informative.  But at the same time, it’s important to set expectations accurately to avoid disappointment, anxiety, misinformation or over-reliance on the results.

You can’t just discount these results because you don’t like them, and neither can you simply accept them.

If you think your grandfather was 100% Native America and you have no Native American heritage on the ethnicity test, the problem is likely not the test or the reference populations.  You should have 25% and carry zero.  The problem is likely that the oral history is incorrect.  There is virtually no one, and certainly not in the Eastern tribes, who was not admixed by two generations ago.  It’s also possible that he is not your grandfather.  View ethnicity results as a call to action to set forth and verify or refute their accuracy, especially if they vary dramatically from what you expected.  If it’s the truth you seek, this is your personal doorway to Delphi.

Just don’t trade in your lederhosen, or anything else just yet based on ethnicity results alone, because this technology it still in it’s infancy, especially within Europe.  I mean, after all, it’s embarrassing to have to go and try to retrieve your lederhosen from the pawn shop.  They’re going to laugh at you.

I find it ironic that Y DNA and mtDNA, much less popular, can be very, very specific and yield definitive answers about individual ancestors, reaching far beyond the 5th or 6th generation – yet the broad brush ethnicity painting which is much less reliable is much more popular.  This is due, in part, I’m sure, to the fact that everyone can take the ethnicity tests, which represent all lines.  You aren’t limited to testing one or two of your own lines and you don’t need to understand anything about genetic genealogy or how it works.  All you have to do is spit or swab and wait for results.

You can take a look at how Y and mtDNA testing versus autosomal tests work here.  Maybe Y or mitochondrial should be next on your list, as they reach much further back in time on specific lines, and you can use these results to create a DNA pedigree chart that tells you very specifically about the ancestry of those particular lines.

Ethnicity testing is like any other tool – it’s just one of many available to you.  You’ll need to gather different kinds of DNA and other evidence from various sources and assemble the pieces of your ancestral story like a big puzzle.  Ethnicity testing isn’t the end, it’s the beginning.  There is so much more!

My real hope is that ethnicity testing will kindle the fires and that some of the folks that enter the genetic genealogy space via ethnicity testing will be become both curious and encouraged and will continue to pursue other aspects of genealogy and genetic genealogy.  Maybe they will ask the question of “who” in their tree wore kilts or lederhosen and catch the genealogy bug.  Maybe they will find out more about grandpa’s Native American heritage, or lack thereof.  Maybe they will meet a match that has more information than they do and who will help them.  After all, ALL of genetic genealogy is founded upon sharing – matches, trees and information.  The more the merrier!

So, if you tested for ethnicity and would like to learn more, come on in, the water’s fine and we welcome both lederhosen and kilts, whatever you’re wearing today!  Jump right in!!!

The Crystal Ball by John William Waterhouse

It’s really unfortunate that a “conversation” that should have been private has gone public, but it has and there is no closing the barn door after the cow has left.

Genetic genealogy, and genealogy, is a highly emotional topic. Many of us feel very strongly, myself included.  After all, it’s our ancestors, flesh and blood we’re talking about.

I know that many people look to my blog for direction and commentary on these matters, so I feel obligated to say something.

For those who are not aware, in the past few days, GedMatch has stopped accepting Family Tree DNA autosomal data file uploads.  Circumstances and timing of events beyond that are murky at best and involve a bit of a “he said – she said” type of situation.  So, I’m not going to fuel any flames by reposting anything because I can’t verify the timing or order since I was not online when it occurred.  If you are a GedMatch user, you can see their announcement and commentary, which is what sparked the public portion of this issue, after signing on to your account and you can see Family Tree DNA’s responses and commentary to GedMatch’s posting on their Facebook page.

In summary, Family Tree DNA became aware of a potential security issue relative to their customer information at GedMatch and reached out to GedMatch to resolve the issue.  From that point forward, what actually happened is unclear, is only known to the “people in the room” at the time and judging from the outcome, may well involve some confusion or misinterpretation.  In any event, the resolution did not occur and GedMatch posted that they were no longer accepting uploads from Family Tree DNA.  (For the record, I am not one of the “people in the room,” so I, like you, don’t know.)

Unfortunately, this announcement fueled rampant speculation and outrage online and does nothing to resolve the potential problem for people whose kits are already being utilized on GedMatch.

So, here’s what I can and can’t tell you, and why.

What I can tell you:

This is not an issue with an individual having or sharing their DNA files.  You can still download your autosomal DNA files from Family Tree DNA.  This is not about paternalism or someone telling you what you should or shouldn’t do.  This is not about the DNA itself.  This is about security and privacy.  Period.

What I can’t tell you:

Having worked in a technology industry for years, I cannot responsibly tell you “the problem,” at least not until it’s resolved, or why it’s a potential problem, because it would then become open season for people to attempt to exploit the potential problem. And yes, they would try, in a heartbeat – just because.  This is why neither GedMatch nor Family Tree DNA have elaborated on this part of the issue.  They are being responsible, but unfortunately, their intentional and responsible ambiguity is feeding rather wild speculation in the larger community – and none of it positive.

No Crystal Ball

No one has a crystal ball. What is perfectly fine one day may not be the next due to changes beyond any one individual or firm’s control.  What is completely secure under one circumstance may not be when you add another vendor or service into the mix.  It happens continually in our high-tech world and it’s not intentional or due to negligence on anyone’s part.  Sometimes issues or potential issues don’t become evident immediately.  When they do, it’s incumbent upon the involved parties to resolve the problem or potential problem.  Where there is more than one party involved, it makes the situation inherently more difficult and calls for cooperation, which is where we are today.

What To Do

The good thing about social media is that it makes communications immediate. The bad thing about social media is that it’s very easy for misinformation and speculation to run like wildfire and to quickly take on the context of fact, fuel everyone’s emotions, and for a mob mentality to take over.  Don’t believe me?  Just look at the political rhetoric and associated “spin” this year, regardless of your position.

Here’s the bottom line. No one really knows what is going on.  Even the parties on both sides really only know “their” side and there are two sides to every story.  For outsiders, which means all of us, to jump into the fray is like the distant family taking sides in a family squabble.  Almost everyone has the information wrong, or only part of the information, but everyone has a very strong opinion based on what they think they know.  Agendas come into play and it gets ugly, very ugly, very quickly, which is again, where we are today.  I have been utterly horrified at some of the vitriol I’ve seen online.

The people who have figured out the problem, and there are a few, generally technology professionals, are doing what they should do and keeping their mouths shut. Let me translate this – they are more concerned for our security and well-being than the perception of the online community that they were “right.”   To those people, from all of us, thank you for your professionalism.

The other bad thing about social media is that even when the problem goes away, the hard feelings generated by speculation and misinformation don’t. The damage done by jumping to early, incorrect conclusions and fueling vilifying social rhetoric may never be undone either.  Damaging, or attempting to damage either party socially or otherwise is not beneficial to a resolution and may actually hinder the resolution that we want to see.  This ultimately damages all of genetic genealogy.

What I’m saying is this: We can’t do anything to actively “help” but we can certainly negatively impact the situation.  We really don’t know what is going on, and as such, should not be speculating or arriving at premature conclusions.  Rampant speculation is not helpful, is inaccurate and has the potential to make the situation much worse.  As a community, we need to give these firms some time and space without fueling the emotional flames which may indeed make their negotiations or communications, or whatever needs to happen, more difficult.

So, in the vernacular of my parenting, I’m asking us all to calm down, take a deep breath and a personal timeout:)  Let’s find something else fun and productive to do for a few days and leave GedMatch and Family Tree DNA alone, relative to this topic.  They have both stated that they want to resolve this situation.  Both of the companies are listening to us, are well-intentioned and engaged, which is far more than we receive from other companies in this field.  What more can we ask at this point?

I have every confidence that both of these firms are committed to genetic genealogists and want to resolve this issue – and that they will, given some time and space out from under the microscope and spotlight.  I’m sure they understand how the community feels regarding this issue – so at this point there is no need to say any more unless the issue isn’t resolved.

In this same vein, I apologize to my sane and rational commenters, but the comments portion of this blog posting is closed. I do not want to add to the online rhetorical issue.  If you have something to say to either party, then send it, in a polite and civil manner that would not embarrass your grandmother, directly to the parties involved.

Update 3-19-2016 – A joint announcement from GedMatch and Family Tree DNA this afternoon: