GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-04 > 1239493036


From: Robert Stafford <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Fwd: New Matches Found for your DNA Test Results
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:37:16 -0500
References: <208366.85911.qm@web111316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <208366.85911.qm@web111316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


The contrast between the two examples illustrates the point I was making.
That is why I recommend that people initially not put a lot of time into
database matches, if they are using DNA for genealogical purposes. (Those
interested in finding biological "relatives" should kept searching and keep
SNPing.) Knowing of (or suspecting, after thorough research) a
nonpatrilineal naming is the basic reason for pursuing matches with other
surnames. Of course, it is most likely to be successful in generating a
genealogical connection when the event is fairly recent.

The second case is illustrative of one with a good possibility of some
genealogical success. You have a likely time and place. It is a little too
remote to expect an oral tradition, but any time after the early 1800s has a
much better chance of finding a written record than before. I would
certainly test as many markers as possible before flying off to do some
on-site research.

I would also deep-test the family with as many markers as possible. It is
always possible that a useful branch tag might show up. However, the chances
are not very high. It takes a lot of people, a lot of markers and, a lot of
money. It is not to be undertaken lightly.

The chances of finding a genealogical connection in the first case are
pretty slim without the advantages above. The search for a paper trail would
be unmanageable, so you would have to hope that something shows up in the
normal course of the other person's research.

Remember that the median also tells you that you probably have a common
ancestor after 350 years and the tail is very long. I usually go by FTDNA's
guidelines:

http://www.familytreedna.com/genetic-distance-67-markers.aspx

It appears that his close match is marginal even within a surname, so things
haven't really been resolved. If you want to resolve the biological
relatedness, I would have him test his most remote documented cousin(s) in
order to determine the ancestral haplotype for comparison. In case you
haven't done it, you should also determine your great grandfather's
haplotype. This should be done in the normal course of testing, so it is not
really an extra cost.

Bob Stafford


On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Michael Maddi <> wrote:

>
>
> The first one is a 42/43 match. He subsequently retested at FTDNA and
> upgraded to 67 markers. We're a 72/76 match, probably having a common
> ancestor within the last 350 years, according to the McGee utility.
>
> The second one is a 43/43 match. Unfortunately, his mother, who paid for
> the Ancestry.com test, is not interested in restesting at FTDNA, even though
> the first match and I offered to pay for that. So, I don't have a firm idea
> of the TMRCA for this match, but it may be as little as 150-200 years.
>
> Since my great-grandfather, born about 1845, was abandoned as an infant,
> the second match is tantalizing, as it gives me a strong possibility for the
> surname of my great-grandfather's father. The second match's ancestors came
> from the area of Palermo, Sicily and my great-grandfather lived in
> Mezzojuso, only about 25 miles from Palermo. The first match's ancestors
> were from Calabria, about 200 miles from Mezzojuso.
>
> Mike Maddi
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: