|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Ancestry Grouping Crisis?!!
So, I've created a few groups (4) and now I've got despondent/confused.
My 4th group has 11 people in it. Most of these individuals either have no tree or a tree of Americans who I don't recognise. However, two people in the group have a Common Ancestor leaf thing. I clicked one of these and then realised the owner is someone I used to email about FH about ten years ago so I know who he is related to (he is on my tree!) and his tree on Ancestry reflects this. Our common ancestors are my FMM's parents. He is my 3rd cousin once removed. As I looked at this one first, I named the group after this branch of my tree. I then looked at the tree of the other Common Ancestor match, only to find our common ancestor is in a completely different part of my tree, so I'm confused. Instead of being connected via my FM line, they are connected via my FF line in a different part of the country. This person is my 5th cousin once removed. They both show up as potentially being 4th-6th cousins, so that part seams reasonable. So, how is this DNA shared when one person is connected through my FM and the other through my FF? I feel like I now have no idea about the other people in the group and I the name of the group is now misleading. Advice please
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Also, I have looked at some other people who have matching trees but don't come up in shared matches. What's that all about?
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Or they share less than 20 cM with the other person. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
So, would I add them to the group they look like they belong to? (of course that's the group that has these two conflicting people in it and I'm not sure which one perhaps shouldn't be in the group! So, which to put them with?!) I suppose I could re-title the group to reflect the two branches and then bung 'everyone' in it?
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Are you sure someone hasn't just dropped all my results on the floor and then mudded them up?
I have matches where one person has a tree full of my dad's ancestors and they apparently share DNA someone whose tree is all my mum's ancestors. One lot in Bristol and the other in London. Then I have people with matching trees but no shared DNA. Is the idea to put shared matches in all the groups they share matches with even when they make no sense at all? (even though I don't know if any of the matches are true?)
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Either they didn't take a DNA test, or they are distant enough that they don't actually share DNA with you even though you have shared ancestors, or their trees (or yours!) are wrong.
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
It's up to you, but I usually leave them out if they look likely to confuse the issue.
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
What do you mean, "they didn't take a DNA test" - I had assumed (yeh, I know) everyone in my DNA results would have taken a DNA test Quote:
I'm not yet feeling as if my mental block with this is clearing yet!
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
|
|