Friday, November 8, 2013

Update - 11/08/13



To begin to use autosomal DNA results, we need to understand the standards that have been offered to us by the experts.  We need to be flexible, as this is still a new science and it changes constantly.  In the very beginning the supposition was that the “larger the segment shared” the closer the relative.  Now it is becoming apparent that there are exceptions to this “rule”.  When we share multiple lines, it is becoming apparent that we may share larger segments with an individual.  
But let us work with the best scenario and leave the exceptions to when we can prove that they apply.  As a general rule, we will find our most recent relatives with the larger segments.  I like to work with “5”, “3” and “1” for the most distant.  For this example I have decided to use “3cm”.
Where do we find out matches?
We must begin with the company that we used for the testing.  I can only talk about 23&me and Family Finder.  The information that we need to find is the mathematical data.
23&Me:  Log in
1.       Family and Friends
2.       List view
3.       Search, enter desired surname
4.       Write down results
5.       My Results
6.       Ancestry Tools
7.       Family Inheritance: Advanced
8.       Compare, enter yourself in the left side
9.       Enter three of your results in the right side (start with first name)
10.   View in table
You now have the chromosome and segment numbers and enter these into a spreadsheet
                Family Finder Log In
1.       Family Finder, Matches
2.       Click on Name and enter surname
3.       Under the name there is a small arrow, click on it
4.       Click on Triangulate
5.       Select In Common With
6.       Write down all these names
7.       Family Finder…Select Chromosome Browser
8.       In the Compare List set to 1+cM
9.       Enter up to five of your names from your list
10.   Select either Download to Excel or view in table
11.   Enter into a spreadsheet
Now that we have our first group of matches, email each one to see if they will exchange family information.  Both programs allow the user to upload a tree or surname list but this is not always available.
This is an example of what your spreadsheet will look like.

 Vivian



 Seaver



 Rogers


1
158,756,598
161,158,673
3.8
1
51,807,655
54,665,329
3.3
1
156,324,315
158,165,537
3.6
3
173,854,623
176,416,047
4.2
12
24,410,776
26,227,678
3.2
4
169,836,208
172,670,009
3.1
8
118,547,283
121,954,642
3.1
13
27,313,344
28,932,813
3.3
6
149,352,370
151,504,339
3.6
12
120,876,421
127,803,723
17
15
55,853,982
57,294,971
3.8
9
15,372,572
17,627,196
4.2
13
73,514,955
75,637,403
3.6
18
14,795,376
20,331,033
3.3
12
100,311,739
102,667,212
3.2
15
68,302,207
72,247,928
3.8
20
53,032,288
54,725,950
3.9

















Lacey 



 Davis



 T'ce


4
106,253,927
110,011,156
3.3
1
243,020,188
244,833,058
5.4
9
16,977,379
18,823,547
3.1
4
142,032,095
147,108,788
4
1
115,711,947
118,185,784

2
222,201,673
224,641,143
3.6
4
167,900,239
171,471,365
4.1
2
900,327
8,146,182
17
4
79,502,667
83,315,548
3.3
4
168,752,070
172,355,024
4.2
2
115,802,934
121,173,329
4.2
11
63,088,630
68,737,364
4.6
5
36,672,573
39,475,736
5
3
25,296,239
27,825,729

12
64,401,326
66,237,533
3.3
5
137,995,633
141,408,284
3.2
3
129,986,222
134,844,999
4.5
12
77,580,544
80,923,788
3.1
6
106,397,898
108,427,889
3.4
4
86,543,070
90,335,455

15
24,885,965
27,592,476
7.9
8
52,662,702
55,299,106
3.3
7
138,468,079
140,650,779

15
89,928,716
91,094,879
4.3
12
77,038,924
79,914,155
3.3
8
49,992,695
54,000,624
3.7
20
36,324,098
39,047,713
3.1
13
92,132,507
94,190,488
3.8
15
92,085,646
93,505,041
5.1




14
100,822,472
103,552,390

18
22,569,191
26,869,734
4.7




17
29,068,391
30,865,850

17
34,176,036
39,043,136





20
1,675,964
3,095,024
3.4
17
53,118,652
56,718,515





20
51,999,678
53,612,204
3.5
20
51,986,187
53,690,324
3.6








21
19,623,560
21,434,555
3.7





























 Phyliss


Steve
 Steve



Rutledge 


8
43,515,717
53,917,714
4.4
1
243,020,188
244,833,058
5.4
1
145,860,034
150,747,278
3.2
7
145,998,726
147,842,073
3.1
2
900,327
8,146,182
17
3
24,883,674
27,825,729
3.8
15
86,135,284
88,240,964
3.3
2
115,802,934
121,173,329
4.2
5
147,341,097
149,471,027
3.2




3
129,986,222
134,844,999
4.5
5
32,503,741
34,771,107
3.9

Bennett 


8
49,992,695
54,000,624
3.7
7
89,225,562
92,861,504
3.2
3
118,635,492
127,209,770
7.2
15
92,085,646
93,505,041
5.1
9
128,521,053
131,149,449
3.9
4
85,127,183
89,107,137
3.5
18
22,569,191
26,869,734
4.7
12
77,608,737
81,939,715
3.9
6
11,722,606
13,315,352
3.3
20
51,986,187
53,690,324
3.6
15
89,808,801
90,867,745
3.7
6
100,740,059
105,597,956
3.7
21
19,623,560
21,434,555
3.7
17
70,428,636
72,550,034
4.1
10
56,440,442
60,864,440
3.2




19
53,060,589
54,885,243
4.7
17
11,990,422
13,481,243
3.4




21
20,691,564
22,894,194
3.8
17
54,915,321
58,976,435
3.8





















 Lynn



Hogan 



Foster 


1
179,602,130
182,174,845
3.3
1
38,333,555
41,062,822
4.5
1
78,984,517
81,934,589
3.4
2
14,940,202
17,836,578
5.9
2
166,869,666
169,757,175
3.7
1
119,565,063
148,420,574
4.1
2
134,316,407
138,614,699
3.5
2
154,204,396
158,150,251
4.1
3
18,905,129
21,367,311
3.5
5
92,899,283
96,057,851
3.2
2
192,779,683
197,786,195
3.2
3
173,659,634
175,895,375
4
9
9,000,662
10,487,345
3.3
3
184,903,843
187,325,217
4.4
4
984,414
3,774,084
4
9
124,631,247
127,832,155
3.1
7
25,194,640
28,348,671
3.4
4
85,127,183
89,107,137
3.5
10
111,602,656
114,538,944
3.2
9
16,205,744
18,248,312
3.8
6
11,722,606
13,315,352
3.3
10
116,034,715
118,557,662
3.3
9
133,803,249
135,474,113
3.6
6
100,740,059
105,597,956
3.7
12
20,269,484
22,209,722
3.2
10
87,528,599
92,008,818
4.1
18
71,034,991
72,410,800
3.8
13
107,635,592
109,102,058
3.6
12
64,695,982
66,442,193
3.2




14
101,268,349
104,784,494
4.3
13
35,322,630
37,261,450
3.2








17
58,127,473
62,868,639
5.1







Now you will have to “ find the matches”
Make a color system of 22 colors.  I then change the font color for different segments on the same chromosome.

 Vivian



Seaver



 Rogers


1
158,756,598
161,158,673
3.8
1
51,807,655
54,665,329
3.3
1
156,324,315
158,165,537
3.6
3
173,854,623
176,416,047
4.2
12
24,410,776
26,227,678
3.2
4
169,836,208
172,670,009
3.1
8
118,547,283
121,954,642
3.1
13
27,313,344
28,932,813
3.3
6
149,352,370
151,504,339
3.6
12
120,876,421
127,803,723
17
15
55,853,982
57,294,971
3.8
9
15,372,572
17,627,196
4.2
13
73,514,955
75,637,403
3.6
18
14,795,376
20,331,033
3.3
12
100,311,739
102,667,212
3.2
15
68,302,207
72,247,928
3.8
20
53,032,288
54,725,950
3.9

















 Lacey



 Davis



 T'ce


4
106,253,927
110,011,156
3.3
1
243,020,188
244,833,058
5.4
9
16,977,379
18,823,547
3.1
4
142,032,095
147,108,788
4
1
115,711,947
118,185,784

2
222,201,673
224,641,143
3.6
4
167,900,239
171,471,365
4.1
2
900,327
8,146,182
17
4
79,502,667
83,315,548
3.3
4
168,752,070
172,355,024
4.2
2
115,802,934
121,173,329
4.2
11
63,088,630
68,737,364
4.6
5
36,672,573
39,475,736
5
3
25,296,239
27,825,729

12
64,401,326
66,237,533
3.3
5
137,995,633
141,408,284
3.2
3
129,986,222
134,844,999
4.5
12
77,580,544
80,923,788
3.1
6
106,397,898
108,427,889
3.4
4
86,543,070
90,335,455

15
24,885,965
27,592,476
7.9
8
52,662,702
55,299,106
3.3
7
138,468,079
140,650,779

15
89,928,716
91,094,879
4.3
12
77,038,924
79,914,155
3.3
8
49,992,695
54,000,624
3.7
20
36,324,098
39,047,713
3.1
13
92,132,507
94,190,488
3.8
15
92,085,646
93,505,041
5.1




14
100,822,472
103,552,390

18
22,569,191
26,869,734
4.7




17
29,068,391
30,865,850

17
34,176,036
39,043,136


 Hogan


20
1,675,964
3,095,024
3.4
17
53,118,652
56,718,515

1
38,333,555
41,062,822
4.5
20
51,999,678
53,612,204
3.5
20
51,986,187
53,690,324
3.6
2
166,869,666
169,757,175
3.7




21
19,623,560
21,434,555
3.7
2
154,204,396
158,150,251
4.1








2
192,779,683
197,786,195
3.2

 Phyliss






3
184,903,843
187,325,217
4.4
8
43,515,717
53,917,714
4.4
Steve
 Steve


7
25,194,640
28,348,671
3.4
7
145,998,726
147,842,073
3.1
1
243,020,188
244,833,058
5.4
9
16,205,744
18,248,312
3.8
15
86,135,284
88,240,964
3.3
2
900,327
8,146,182
17
9
133,803,249
135,474,113
3.6




2
115,802,934
121,173,329
4.2
10
87,528,599
92,008,818
4.1




3
129,986,222
134,844,999
4.5
12
64,695,982
66,442,193
3.2

 Bennett


8
49,992,695
54,000,624
3.7
13
35,322,630
37,261,450
3.2
3
118,635,492
127,209,770
7.2
15
92,085,646
93,505,041
5.1
17
58,127,473
62,868,639
5.1
4
85,127,183
89,107,137
3.5
18
22,569,191
26,869,734
4.7




6
11,722,606
13,315,352
3.3
20
51,986,187
53,690,324
3.6




6
100,740,059
105,597,956
3.7
21
19,623,560
21,434,555
3.7




10
56,440,442
60,864,440
3.2








17
11,990,422
13,481,243
3.4








17
54,915,321
58,976,435
3.8





















 Foster







 Rutledge


1
78,984,517
81,934,589
3.4
1
179,602,130
182,174,845
3.3
1
145,860,034
150,747,278
3.2
1
119,565,063
148,420,574
4.1
2
14,940,202
17,836,578
5.9
3
24,883,674
27,825,729
3.8
3
18,905,129
21,367,311
3.5
2
134,316,407
138,614,699
3.5
5
147,341,097
149,471,027
3.2
3
173,659,634
175,895,375
4
5
92,899,283
96,057,851
3.2
5
32,503,741
34,771,107
3.9
4
984,414
3,774,084
4
9
9,000,662
10,487,345
3.3
7
89,225,562
92,861,504
3.2
4
85,127,183
89,107,137
3.5
9
124,631,247
127,832,155
3.1
9
128,521,053
131,149,449
3.9
6
11,722,606
13,315,352
3.3
10
111,602,656
114,538,944
3.2
12
77,608,737
81,939,715
3.9
6
100,740,059
105,597,956
3.7
10
116,034,715
118,557,662
3.3
15
89,808,801
90,867,745
3.7
18
71,034,991
72,410,800
3.8
12
20,269,484
22,209,722
3.2
17
70,428,636
72,550,034
4.1




13
107,635,592
109,102,058
3.6
19
53,060,589
54,885,243
4.7




14
101,268,349
104,784,494
4.3
21
20,691,564
22,894,194
3.8

Lynn has the most matches so I am starting the analysis with her.  She has 6 matches and she descends from James/Lydia Sizemore, James/Elizabeth Wells
1.       12   Me,
2.       15 Rogers, Fields, Sizemore
3.       17 Rutledge
4.       18 Sizemore
5.       19 Cathy Bennett, Celeste Hogan, Davis
6.       21 Cathy Bennett, Sizemore
I descend from Nathan Blevins brother of James who married Lydia Sizemore, so that is our most recent shared grandparents
1.       Lynn has more matches to Sizemore than to me but is one generation more recent.  Also, several of the Sizemore families have Blevins ancestors but so far the marriages are in the 1750 time period.
Lydia Sizemore George Edward 1750 Annie Hart
The Sizemore sisters descend from William 1798 and Anna Asher (Dillon Asher/Collett) Clay Co Ky, Dillon is the son of William Asher and Margaret Blevins
Cathy Bennett descends from  Keziah Sizemore 1829 daughter of John R and Nancy Bowling (James Boling and Sarah Blevins).  She also descends from Dillon Asher/ Collett
The most recent Sizemore grandparents are Old Ned Sizemore.

The remainder of the group share Blevins ancestry but the most recent shared grandparent is undetermined at this time.

Rutledge is a descendent of Elisha Walling1707/Mary Blevins and Elisha Walling Jr and Catherine Blevins and both of these wives need confirmed. The shared Blevins most recent grandparent has to be from  1720 back due to the known James Blevins  grandfather was born 1740 and has to go back at least one more generation.

These Blevins might connect at any point back to 1720 or this is the common grandparent. 

Celeste Hogan is a descendent of Richard Blevins 1785 and Mary Jones of Arkansas.  This line is on the Old Settlers Roll. Minimum 65 years gap.
Wash. Co. Court Pleas and Quarterly Sessions,1778-1798 Vol. 1,pg 363. Ordered to lay off a road from Greasy Cove to the head of Limestone Cove,on the road to Burke Co.,NC. John Blevins,William Blevins,Jonathan Blevins,Daniel Blevins,Elisha Blevins,Richard Blevins,also named was William Lewis(my ancestor),John Hales,Isham Hales,William Hales,James Ward,William Samms,Joseph Culbertson and others.  Could one of these be the father of Richard 1785

JACaltonDavis descends from Hugh Torbett Blevins 1804 and Anna Looney of Rhea Tn. His father is very likely David 1776 and Sarah Torbett .  Controversy exists  surrounding his father but it is accepted that Hardin same age 1810 Wash Va is a brother.  Next door to each other in that census and then the families migrate to Rhea Co Tn.  Census records support this location for this family.

Mr Rogers is Anna Foster another Elisha Walling and Mary Blevins descendent but though son John Allen 1734 and Millicent Jones.

Anna Foster and I match on the same Chromosome#1 segment.  Since the first Blevins match for Anna is the Elisha Walling and Mary Blevins whose children begin about 1732 and my James was born 1740 he is most likely a nephew and his father would most likely be a brother to Mary.  Elisha Walling, John and Daniel Blevins are in the 1733 Ann Arundel Tax lists.  Clement Redd in his correspondence with Lyman Draper states that Mary Blevins is the daughter of John Blevins and the sister of William.  I would suggest that my James is also a brother, supported by the fact that my line stayed close to the Skaggs and Wallen family and my Nathan first wife was Lydia Skaggs, daughter of Longhunter  Charles Skaggs. 

Next week, I will show how to add the spreadsheets of JACalton Davis and  Celeste Hogan to see if we can find any Chromosome segments that might fill in the gaps back to 1725.

2 comments:

  1. I am very much interested in spreadsheets, but I don't know the first thing about spreadsheets. How will a s/s help me? Is the information produced by a s/s relialable?
    I have not had time to study your article covering s/s, but intend to do so. I want to thank you for taking the time to show how to do this.
    I have been trying for years to find the father of my maternal G G grandfather which was an NPE. About the only thing I have learned via DNA testing is, my great grandfather was the son of a half breed Indian, who was the son of a full blood Indian woman and a white man of either Scottish or Irish decent. Do yo think a s/s will help me to discover the correct surname of my mother's ancestors.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, I do. It is working for me. The data is reliable because you control the sources and what is in it. Are we related? I don't have your name in my project notes but I know that others have shared our site. Do you know what surname your Native American ancestor used? Has either of your parents or their siblings been tested? The more you narrow the field, the easier it is to get results. I will be posting more about Native American soon.

    ReplyDelete