Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!

Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! (http://genealogistsforum.co.uk/forum/index.php)
-   DNA Questions (http://genealogistsforum.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=46)
-   -   My DNA Results - baffled (http://genealogistsforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=27434)

Anstey Nomad 20-02-19 15:28

My DNA Results - baffled
 
I have been looking at my DNA results for over two years now and I’m still confused.

I have two second cousins. One I know, the other is a complete mystery. For the record, all my great grandparents are accounted for and none of the names in the second cousin’s tree appear in mine.

I have one third cousin, who is matched with the mysterious second cousin, so she’s a mystery as well. I tried to do the colours thing, but it doesn’t seem to work because I don’t have enough ‘close’ matches.

I then have about 26 pages of fourth cousins and distant cousins and only about six show a link that I can understand. There are a couple of Bodycotes in the US, some Bradburys, an Allen and a Smith. There are however a chunk of matches that also match with the mysterious second and third cousins. Where they have bothered to upload anything like a proper tree, they all have the same marriage showing. This is a marriage in the mid 19th century, in a place where none of my known relatives lived, between two people whose names don’t appear in my tree.

I just can’t get my head round this at all. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I could start to try to unravel it?

Thanks in advance.

kiterunner 20-02-19 15:39

AN, if you want to PM me some info such as links to the ancestry profile pages for the second and third cousins and some of the other shared matches, and to your tree if you have one on ancestry, I could have a look and see if I can come up with anything. Though I can't promise I will solve it! I still have loads of DNA matches of my own which I haven't identified how they are related to me, but they are 4th cousins or more distant.

Kit 21-02-19 00:07

An I did the colour thing for my Dad and I have colours that I can work out what branch they come from. I have an extra column though which is those I can't work out. This column is multi colour coded in that those who relate to each other have the same colour, I just don't know how they relate to me/Dad.

marquette 21-02-19 21:58

I did the same thing Toni, different colours for different branches and one colour for all the ones with no named connections. It did help to try and sort out where those without family trees would belong - a strong cluster of matches showed they belong to THAT particular line.

The ones I puzzle over are the ones that share DNA with my Dad only, but no-one else - none of his close or even distant cousins. With no other matches, it is impossible to figure out where the common match is and mostly they have no family trees worth anything. I have marked these with a Starred Match symbol, and I check occasionally whether there are any new common matches.


Di

Kit 22-02-19 06:23

I have an advantage in that Dad's first cousin and a different first cousins son have also tested. So shared matches with them are maternal and the rest paternal. Strangley the first cousin does not match for Dad's grandmother's side at all which helps sort people too.My unknowns are multicoloured though, there are clearly groups of matches, so that group gets it's own colour. I have 2 lines for Dad with no matches so some unknowns fit in there but I don't know who. I'll check for updates in a while, hopefully people put up a tree.

Anstey Nomad 17-06-19 12:46

And now I have another third cousin, connected to the mysterious second cousin and the other third cousin.

These people are my closest DNA matches and I have no idea who they are!

What I don't quite understand is how the CM thing works.

With the second cousin I know, with whom I share great grandparents, the shared DNA is 315cM across 17 segments.

With the second cousin I don't know, the shared DNA is 291cM across 10 segments.

is that more or less shared DNA overall? is there any merit in dividing the number of cM by the number of segments? I don't know.

Phoenix 17-06-19 13:17

Are they mysterious because they have trees you don't recognise, or names you don't recognise? Every relative I manage is under an alias, and only aunt has a tree, so the curious have to contact me for info.

Phoenix 17-06-19 13:20

Re dividing cM by segments, it could be 10 x 29cM or 280cM plus 9 fragments. Either way, it's a lot!

kiterunner 17-06-19 13:50

As far as I know, there is no point dividing the number of cM by the number of segments. The total number of cM is the most important number. But I don't think you can read anything into the fact that one is a bit lower than the other with such high numbers.

My offer to have a look into it if you PM me some info still stands.

Anstey Nomad 17-06-19 16:06

Phoenix, these people are completely unknown to me. Two are in Australia and one is in the US. All have trees online, which I can see, and all have the same people in their trees. They all go back to a marriage in MQ1878 in Caistor Registration District in Lincolnshire, which is not even my part of the world. They are great grand-daughters, or great great grand-daughters of that marriage.

I have none of their names in my tree and they have none of mine in theirs.

Do we have relatively large amounts of DNA in common then?


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:05.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.