GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-10 > 1099003078


From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] New Group Administrator Questions
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:37:58 +1300
References: <200410281514.i9SFEeuI015765@smtp.mcn.org>


Hi Mitzi,

I realize that my following comments don't directly address your question,
but they show one way of refering to participants, using my ABCXYZ system.

In my project, I give participants a 3 part number. Take as an example, a
participant which I have labeled A12 B1 C1. In this example...

A12 = is the participant's individual identification number, and this will
never change for that participant.
B1 = is the "paper trail family" which the participant identifies with.
The B numbers may change as the project develops, if a participant is able
to extend his family tree, and show connection to a larger family unit.
C1 = is a haplotype match, "or near match". It is perhaps like a "mini
haplogroup". The C numbers may change for a participant as the project
develops, as more information becomes available. (Two participants started
out as an 8/12 match, which looked unrelated. This is now 32/37, and FTDNA
say a relationship is indicated. It looks like a rare 3 step mutation on
marker 385b.)

Participant A12, would start out as A12 B12 C12, until he is identified as
matching another family paper trail group or matching haplotype. Because he
was from the same paper trail family as other participants (eg A1 and A18),
I assign him the lowest B number of a related family member, and the lowest
C number of the "mini haplogroup" which he seems to fit. He was of the same
paper trial family to A1 B1 C1, and was a matching DNA to A1, so participant
A12 gets his total ID number adjusted to A18 B1 C1.

To me, the advantage of this system, is that when you look at a group of
near matching haplotypes on the results table, you can see which
participants have documented relationships, and which ones do not. This
effects how you might interpret a match. A 10/12 match might be given more
significance if it was between participants with the same B number, showing
a documented relationship. You can also see any patterns of DNA which might
relate to specific family B groupings. This to me reveals more about the
participant than just his kit number.

When sufficient members of a known family have been tested to identify a
Y-DNA profile of a known common ancestor, I give that ancestor a Z number.
For example, A1 and A18 descend from separate sons of a known person born in
1787. This enables a haplotype estimate for that ancestor. A1 was the
lowest numbered participant descending from that ancestor, so the ancestor
is assigned the number Z1. His full description would be Z1 B1 C1 in this
case. (If several Z ancestors can be identified individually, I call them
Z1a and Z1b etc.)

For groupings of participants with matching DNA, but no specific known
common ancestor, a suspected unknown common ancestor's Y-DNA might be
inferred. I give these unknown common ancestors Y numbers. Y2 for example,
is an unknown common ancestor of a group of participants, who is thought to
have lived in Kent some time between 1066 and 1650.

Sometimes I find persons from possibly related surnames, which I wish to
refer to from time to time. I give these person's haplotypes X numbers.

Below my results table, I have direct line trees for participants. In
general, I identify a participant only by his A number, unless the
participant requests his name be given. I identify they next 3 generations
up the tree as "son", and all generations before that I give names, dates,
locations etc. I think this gives participants a degree of annonimity if
they want it. It effectively means no living ancestor is named. If
participants request more information be shown, I show it. I think as a
default, we should be erring on the side of privacy, although I understand
many who say everything should be revealed. If a person of the surname has
an interest or possible relationship to a particular participant, they can
always contact the project administrator, and if it seems appropriate, they
can be given more information, or referred directly to the participant who
can tell them as much as he wants. Failure to specifically name a
participant in my view does not cause an insurmountable difficulty.

Regards,
John.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mitzi Bateman [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:39 AM
> To:
> Subject: [DNA] New Group Administrator Questions
>
> As a new group administrator awaiting our first Tipton results, I have
some
> questions. I know that some surname projects just list participants by
> their kit numbers. Others include names and email addresses. Of course,
> the latter is easier for contact purposes, but have any of you had privacy
> problems with this method?
>
> Should we send out emails to participants to get their permission, or
should
>
> we just assume that their signing the FTDNA release form gives us posting
> permission? Also are there any things that you seasoned administrators
> wish you had known early in the process? FTDNA really makes it easy, but
I
> still feel like I'm overlooking something important. I'd appreciate any
> feedback and suggestions.
>
> Thanks and if Ann thinks it best, you can email me off list.
>
> Mitzi
>

This thread: