Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Roberta estes crumley y dna

1,554 views

Published on

Roberta Estes' presentation on Crumley YDNA to autosomal case study from the 2015 International Conference on Genetic Genealogy.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Roberta estes crumley y dna

  1. 1. 1 Crumley Y DNA to Autosomal Case Study – Kicking It Up a Notch Going from 5 to 50 in 3.7 Seconds Presented by Roberta Estes
  2. 2. Crumley Y DNA Project • Established 2004 • Before Autosomal • One Burning Question • Did George and James Share a Common Ancestor? – James b c 1712 d 1764 Frederick Co., VA – George b 1740 d 1806 Sullivan Co., TN 2
  3. 3. 3 Answer • 4 James Crumley Males • 2 George Crumley Males • Not Same Ancestor • Descendants Migrated to Same Areas • Often Can’t Determine Ancestry by Location • Common first names like John, William and George • Project Became Stagnant
  4. 4. 4 Genetic Genealogy Holy Grail • Who • Where • Female Surname Discovered in non-typical ways…
  5. 5. 5 Y to Autosomal – Why? • Administrators Have More Opportunity • Project Provides Established, Firm Foundation • Proven Y Descent Lines – No Question • Project Members Know Each Other • Project Members Know Admins • Project Name Attracts Descendants • All Relevant People in One Place • Best Chance of Success • You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know
  6. 6. 6 Y to Autosomal – How? • No box to click • No autosomal page – nothing to show publicly • All people won’t show – mtDNA only – Security setting default • New Y people who do show are not Crumley • Create “Crumley Autosomal” Group • Transition is “administrator powered” • Why, How, Tools and Discoveries
  7. 7. 7 Recruiting • Asked Existing Members to take FF Test • Invited Known Cousins to Join/Test • Asked Members to Contact Cousins • Checked Project Members FF for Crumley Matches – By surname – all spellings – Ancestral Surname field – ICW because not everyone adds surnames – ICW plus surname – Matrix • Ancestry Matches – Invited to Transfer and Join Project • Rootsweb lists and boards, Google
  8. 8. 8 Benefits to Non-Y Crumleys • Intra-project Matching • Female Inclusion • Non-Crumley Surname Inclusion – Many people don’t understand the different kinds of DNA and tools • Collaboration • New Opportunities – New Co-Admin • Unknown Discoveries – You don’t know what gold nuggets you’ll find until you shake the pan.
  9. 9. 9 Intra-Project Matching • Big Lure - Incentive • Can compare to everyone in the project at once • Little known tool
  10. 10. 10 Advanced Matching
  11. 11. 11 Unexpected Benefits • Several People Brought Family Groups to Project • Several People Tested More Family Members • Total 50 People • Across 2 of James Crumley’s Sons • Became the Perfect Research Project JamesCrumley+CatherinepossiblyGilkey | | JohnCrumley + HannahFaulkner WilliamCrumley + HannahMercer
  12. 12. 12 Curious Minds Want to Know? • Would the descendants of John and William match each other? • At a distance of greater than 8th cousins? • How much DNA would they share? • Would it triangulate? • How much of James Crumley’s genome can we reconstruct, if any? • Are there discoveries waiting that we wouldn’t otherwise find?
  13. 13. 13 Meet James Crumley The Moonshining Quaker • Born about 1712, Location Unknown, Rumored England and Ireland • First found in Chester Co., PA 1732 • Moved to Frederick Co., VA among Quakers in 1744 • Member of Quaker Church and Community • Married Catherine, surname unknown about 1732 Rumored Gilkey Rumored Bowen • Had 5 children, 4 males • Died 1757 with Will
  14. 14. 14 Son John – 15 Blue Participants | siblings Johnb1737mHannahFalkner | | 1st cousins Thomas b1762 Benjaminb1779 | | | | | | 2ndcousins Johnb1795 Henryb1792 Thomas b1799Leanderb1829Robertb1800Rachel b1816 | | | | | | | | 3rdcousins Williamb1841Edneyb1828Johnb1825 Johnb1838Sarahb1857Levib1853Francisb1850 Mary | | | | | | | | | | 4thcousins Thomas b1868Rosaline b1756Alfredb1852Georgeb1856MaryJane b1863Williamb1880Robertb1890Emmerb1880 Marcus Bertha | | | | | | | | | | 5thcousins parent Johnb1875Johnb1877Charlsieb1890NellieMae1891Mildred parent parent parent parent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 6thcousins KenC Jamesb1900parent Sherman b1923parent parent JerryC EarlC RoseG Elda R MaryC ErvineH AlfredB JeanD | | | | | 7thcousins parent JohnW. C.parent CamilleS BenS | | 8thcousins WilliamC Tara B
  15. 15. Son William – 20 Green Participants 15
  16. 16. 16 Unconnected Crumleys 20 Participants >>not James Crumley line>> unconnected unconnected unconnected unconnected unconnected unconnected Jesse b1802 mEmiline Loftis Thomas b1799 mSusanTerrellJames Crumley b1801 IrelandJohnb1795 SC | | | | Williamb1838 mMargaret Harriett b1840 Jane Crumley b1835 mJosephGreeneEdney b1818 mJoseph | | | | Jesse b1864 Samuel Joeva John Alfred b1852 mMargaret CopelandWilliamSebronb1848 | | | | | | Ransomb1898 mIva Warren Ross Robert Emily JohnPleasant | | | | | | | Jack Elise b1931 Donna living Helen James Hoke Smith | | | | | | Jack Pam BH Brenda James James n | | | | | Steve Bradley Dale b1970 Rhonda Leonora Chris note this includes Freda,Valerie,Lee andRuth
  17. 17. 17 Create Relationship ChartPam Ken Steve Roberta Jerry Ruth Freda Larry Camille Karen Betty Charlene David Debbie Carl Buster Harold Dean BH James SarahM Tara John RobertD EarlC RoseG EldaR KennyH MaryC Ervine AlfredB JeanD Anna Crawford Stacy Pam na x x x x x x x Ken na 6C1R 5C 6C1R 4C1r 6C 6C1R 7C 6C1R 7C 6C 6C 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R+ 7C 6C1R 4C 4C1R 6C1R 5C 5C 5C 7C 5C 5C 5C 5C 6C1R 6C1R 6C3R Steve na x x x Roberta na 6C1R 5C 7C 4C1R 4C 1C1R 2C 2C1R 2C1R 1C1R 3C 3C 7C+ 4C1R 5C 7C1R 7C 5C 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 5C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 5C 5C great-aunt Jerry na 6C1R 5C1R 6C 6C1R 7C 6C1R 7C 6C 6C 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R+ 7C 6C1R 5C2R 5C1R 6C1R 4C 4C 4C 7C 4C 4C 4C 4C 6C1R 6C1R 7C2R Ruth na x x Freda na Larry na 7C 4C1R 5C 5C1R 5C 5C1R 4C1R 4C1R 5C 5C 7C+ 5C1R 5C 7C1R 7C 5C 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 5C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 4C 5C 5C2R Camille na 6c1R 7C 7C1R 7C 7C1R 6C1R 6C1R 7C 7C 7C+ 7C1R 7C 5C1R 5C1R 7C 5C1R 5C1R 5C1R 7C1R 5C1R 5C1R 5C1R 5C1R 7C 7C 7C2R Karen na 4C1R 4C2R 4C1R 4C2R 4C 4C 4C1R 4C1R 6C+ 4C2R 4C1R 7C 6C1R 4C1R 6C 6C 6C 4C2R 6C 6C 6C 6C 4C1R 4C1R 4C3R BettyCrawford na 5C1R 5C 5C1R 4C1R 4C1R 5C 5C 7C+ 5C1R 5C 7C1R 7C 5C 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R nephew 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 4C 4C1R 4C2R Charlene na 2C1R 3C 2C2R 1C2R 3C1R 3C1R 7C1R+ 5C 5C1R 7C2R 7C1R 5C1R 6C2R 6C2R 6C2R 6C 6C2R 6C2R 6C2R 6C2R 5C1R 5C1R 1C3R David na 1C1R 2C1R 1C1R 3C 3C 7C+ 4C1R 5C 7C1R 7C 4C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 5C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 5C 5C 2C2R Debbie na 2C2R 1C2R 3C1R 3C1R 7C1R+ 5C 5C1R 7C2R 7C1R 5C1R 6C2R 6C2R 6C2R 6C 6C2R 6C2R 6C2R 6C2R 5C1R 5C1R 2C3R Carl na 2C uncle uncle 6C+ 3C2R 4C1R 7C 6C1R 4C1R 6C 6C 6C 4C2R 6C 6C 6C 6C 4C1R 4C1R 2C3R Buster na 2C1R 2C1R 6C+ 3C2R 4C1R 7C 6C1R 4C1R 6C 6C 6C 4C2R 6C 6C 6C 6C 4C1R 4C1R 1C3R Harold na siblings 7C+ 4C1R 5C 7C1R 7C 5C 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 5C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 5C 5C 3C2R Dean na 7C+ 4C1R 5C 7C1R 7C 5C 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 5C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 5C 5C 3C2R BH na 7C+ 6C1R+ 7C1R+ 7C+ 6C1R+ 6C1R+ 6C1R+ 6C1R+ 7C+ 6C1R+ 6C1R+ 6C1R+ 6C1R+ 7C+ 7C+ 7C2R+ James na 5C1R 7C2R 7C1R 5C1R 6C2R 6C2R 6C2R 6C 6C2R 6C2R 6C2R 6C2R 5C1R 5C1R 4C3R Sarah na 7C1R 7C 5C 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 5C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 5C 5C 5C2R Tara na 3C1R 7C1R 5C2R 5C2R 5C2R 8C 5C2R 5C2R 5C2R 5C2R 7C1R 7C1R 7C3R John na 7C 5C1R 5C1R 5C1R 7C1R 5C1R 5C1R 5C1R 5C1R 7C 7C 7C2R Robert na 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 5C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 6C1R 5C 5C 5C2R EarlCoker na siblings siblings 6C2R siblings 2C 3C 3C 6C1R 6C1R 6C3R RoseGunn na siblings 6C2R siblings 2C 3C 3C 6C1R 6C1R 6C3R EldaRobinson na 6C2R siblings 2C 3C 3C 6C1R 6C1R 6C3R KennyH na 6C2R 6C2R 6C2R 6C2R 4C1R 4C1R 5C3R MaryCoker na 2C 3C 3C 6C1R 6C1R 6C3R Ervine na 1C 1C 6C1R 6C1R 6C3R AlfredB na siblings 6C1R 6C1R 6C3R JeanD na 7C1R 7C1R 7C3R AnnaEvans na 2C 5C2R CrawfordJones na 5C2R Stacy na
  18. 18. 18 Relationship Chart • Bolded = FTDNA Match • 4 Current generations testing • Most Distant is 7C3R=8C1R • Closest Across Divide – 11 Descendants who are 6th cousins • DNA survived division combined total of 16 times to match • Omitted Children when Parent Tested
  19. 19. 19 The James Crumley Spreadsheet • Included people with uncertain connections in original spreadsheet • Over 1250 individual comparisons – NOT FUN • Duplicates Removed • 8300 Rows in James Spreadsheet • Included to 3cM, 300 SNPs • Download to GedMatch allows universal comparisons
  20. 20. 20 Second Spreadsheet – James Only Across the Divide • James is the Divide • Second Spreadsheet is a subset of the first • Narrows focus to known lines – excluded others • Removed Everyone Except John, William and BH • Resulting DNA is James’ and Catherine’s • No Wife’s DNA is Causing Interference • Only Blue to Green or BH to Blue or Green matches – Across the Divide • 3000 Rows in James Only Spreadsheet JamesCrumley+CatherinepossiblyGilkey | | JohnCrumley + HannahFaulkner WilliamCrumley + HannahMercer
  21. 21. 21 James Only Spreadsheet Details Matching cM Length Number of Matches Over 20 3 Over 10 12 7-10 29 6-7 32 5-6 182 4-5 532 3-4 2189 Closest relationship is 6th cousins.
  22. 22. 22 The Fun Begins Matching and Triangulating • Tools Used Normally Individual Matches ICW (In Common With Matches) Matrix and Group Matching Chromosome Browser • Tools Used Differently For Group Project Group Matching Triangulation
  23. 23. 23 Begin with Individual Matches There is a difference between individual matching, group matching and triangulation, especially for group projects.
  24. 24. ICW Tool With Surname 24
  25. 25. 25 Matrix • Admins Can Run Matrix for Individuals – Includes all their matches – Match but not necessarily on same segment – Invite matches to join project • Admins Can Run Matrix for All Project Members – Includes only project members – Match but not necessarily on same segment
  26. 26. 26 Chromosome Browser • Segment Matches • Admins can confirm matches between project members • If all members not in project, can’t confirm 3 way match
  27. 27. 27 Match Group and Triangulation Groups – On your Personal Spreadsheet – all match to you – All compared to you – download at once – Group project is Ancestor Reconstruction spreadsheet – Many descendants who match each other – Compare everyone to everyone – Compare all who can at FTDNA – threshold 20cM total, 7cM individual segment Person Match Chr Start Location End Location cM Earl Tara 1 72,017 2,398,694 5.4 Mary C Tara 1 72,017 2,398,694 5.4 Earl Carl 1 72,017 2,420,477 5.5 Earl Jerry 1 72,017 2,420,477 5.5 Mary C Carl 1 72,017 2,420,477 5.5 Mary C Jerry 1 72,017 2,420,477 5.5 Ervine Earl 1 72,017 2,420,917 5.5 Ervine Mary C 1 72,017 2,420,917 5.5 Ervine Jerry 1 72,017 2,928,557 7.1
  28. 28. 28 • Know that Bridget and John both match Jerry • Same segment • Don’t know that Bridget and John match each other • Could match Jerry on different parent’s sides NAME MATCHNAME CHR START END cM SNPs Jerry Bridget 2 6809121 37530175 43.07 8554 Jerry John 2 6809121 37530175 43.07 8554
  29. 29. 29 • May not be able to prove John and Bridget if not project members • Invite to Join Project • A Matches B • A Matches C • B Matches C NAME MATCHNAME CHR START END cM SNPs Jerry Bridget 2 6809121 37530175 43.07 8554 Jerry John 2 6809121 37530175 43.07 8554 John Bridget 2 6809121 37530175 43.07 8554
  30. 30. Confidence Spectrum • Sometimes you can’t Triangulate everyone • Creates mishmash of match types • OK – Goal is different – personal spreadsheets trying to prove an ancestor – group spreadsheet knows the ancestor • How much confidence can you have in each match type? • See article on www.dna-explained.com called “Autosomal DNA Matching Confidence Spectrum” 30
  31. 31. 31 Confidence Spectrum Grid
  32. 32. 32 Recreating James • James Only Spreadsheet (blue to green and gold BH) • Three match groups (example) • These matches don’t Triangulate because blue to blue removed • Return to large spreadsheet for triangulation
  33. 33. 33 Additional Columns • Triangulation: Easy to flag with column – these example have not been triangulated. Why? 8000 lines by hand • Relationship: The relationship between the two individuals who are matching to each other. • James: The original spreadsheet includes all descendants, including people who know they have Crumley ancestors, but don’t know exactly how they connect, so the James column was added for me to easily sort everyone whose most distant ancestor is James and not another Crumley. For example, this means that two cousins who both descend from William, James’ son, do NOT have an X in this box, because their most recent common ancestor is William, not James. This allows me to sort (“recreate”) James without the matching DNA of his son’s wives interfering. • “Before James” applies to BH because their most distant common ancestor is before James. • “FTDNA Only” means that I was not able to run this individuals DNA against everyone else. They did not upload to Gedmatch.
  34. 34. 34 Match Groups Suggest Common Ancestor – Match Groups suggest, not prove common ancestor – Some match groups are very large – Triangulation is the highest confidence “Proof” – Ancestor Reconstruction includes a lot of Stepped Matches – Also called Heel to Toe or Staggered Matches – First and third don’t overlap, but are joined by second individual who overlaps both BH Jerry 4 186,859,173 188,088,282 4.6 440 BH Mary 4 187,961,308 189,352,225 3.4 342 BH Crawford 4 188,143,360 189,667,786 3.6 414
  35. 35. Discoveries • Incorrect Genealogy – Not George Afterall • A Third Crumley Line • Reconnecting the NPE – Y DNA + Autosomal • Connect the Dots – The When of a Y Match • Which Brother? • Unknown Connection – A Surprise Location • Catherine’s Surname (Maybe) – Late Breaking Development 35
  36. 36. Connecting the Dots – The When of Y • Y Match • Don’t know connection • Dual Y + FF approach using Advanced Matches • Depends on most of project members having done FF+Y tests 36
  37. 37. Which Brother? • James had 4 sons 1. John Crumley born about 1733 who married Hannah Faulkner and moved to Newberry Co., SC by 1790. 2. William Crumley born about 1735 who married Hannah Mercer and lived his entire life in Frederick County, VA on the border with Beckeley Co., WV. 3. Henry Crumley was born before 1745 and married a Sarah whose last name is unknown. He apparently moved from the area in 1770 when he appointed his brother power of attorney and had died by 1792, but nothing more is known about Henry. 4. Samuel died as a minor. 37
  38. 38. Pam’s Purple Line • Believed by proximity to be John’s line • If ancestor is John or William, should match one group of descendants more closely • If Henry, should match both groups about equally 38
  39. 39. 39 Pam’s Results Person Match Chr Start Location End Location cM SNPs John W. Pam 4 147,757,514 178,498,889 32.4 5,814 Tara Pam 2 51,161,579 79,751,289 28.5 7,138 Jerry Pam 2 29,472,182 38,763,906 11.9 2,822 Larry Pam 10 60,021,669 70,724,086 9.9 2,464 Anna Pam 10 60,433,476 70,726,156 9.5 2,385 Robert D Pam 19 35,925,188 40,512,515 8.5 1,134 Jean D Pam 15 24,845,173 27,757,327 8.3 615 Elda Pam 2 29,670,304 36,318,771 8.1 1,896 Earl Pam 2 29,670,304 36,032,848 7.8 1,813 Mary Pam 2 29,670,304 36032848 7.8 1,822 Rose Pam 2 29,670,304 36032848 7.8 1809 Jerry Pam 14 20,272,176 21,770,791 7.4 550 Betty Pam 10 59,835,392 67,752,397 7.1 1,804 Roberta Pam 18 7,154,754 8,777,299 7 595
  40. 40. 40 Pam’s Line’s Results Person Match Chr Start Location End Location Centimor gans (cM) SNPs John W Pam 4 147,757,514 178,498,889 32.4 5,814 Tara Pam 2 51,161,579 79,751,289 28.5 7,138 Freda Ken 9 100,647,846 117,610,247 21.5 2,334 Tara Ruth 2 64,475,512 79,719,708 19.5 3,952 Rose Freda 19 55,127,559 59,518,852 18.9 767 John W Ruth 7 143,237,167 153,153,073 18.8 2,311 Jean D Freda 20 19,539,023 42,471,663 18.4 1,789 Dean Freda 12 103,608,331 116,344,369 18.1 2,312 Tara Freda 2 66,384,227 80,083,549 17.6 1,598 Ervine Freda 20 19,855,740 42,258,901 16.9 1,684 Elda Freda 19 55,391,316 59,203,727 16.7 682 Freda Roberta 9 86,892,946 94,958,464 13.3 983 Alfred Ruth 17 12,344 4,449,944 13.3 1,326 Karen Steve 12 28,084,340 46,559,162 12.1 3,849 Pam Jerry 2 29,472,182 38,763,906 11.9 2,822 John W Freda 4 148,286,077 159,143,955 10.9 875 Carl Freda 1 208,794,138 217,140,581 10.1 1,676 Earl Freda 19 55,391,316 57,878,648 9.9 457 Tara Freda 22 46,371,971 47,975,247 9.9 367 Larry Pam 10 60,021,669 70,724,086 9.9 2,464 Anna Pam 10 60,433,476 70,726,156 9.5 2,385 John W Steve 4 148,237,037 157,390,651 9.4 1,650 Carl Freda 9 136,552,476 138,619,790 9.2 607 Dean Freda 15 24,494,746 27,538,255 9.1 522 Robert D Pam 19 35,925,188 40,512,515 8.5 1,134 Jean D Pam 15 24,845,173 27,757,327 8.3 615 Alfred Freda 16 77,650,818 80,108,983 8.2 499 Elda Pam 2 29,670,304 36,318,771 8.1 1,896 Earl Pam 2 29,670,304 36,032,848 7.8 1,813 Mary Pam 2 29,670,304 36032848 7.8 1,822 Rose Pam 2 29,670,304 36032848 7.8 1809 Camille Ruth 22 18,575,591 22,030,907 7.6 533 Pam Jerry 14 20,272,176 21,770,791 7.4 550 Dean Steve 20 57,303,751 59,022,667 7.4 611 Sarah Steve 20 57,390,784 59,051,195 7.4 593 Stacy Ruth 7 82,214,060 91,880,952 7.2 2,092 Stacy Ruth 22 18,109,138 21,618,277 7.2 690 Charlene Steve 14 20,315,379 21,878,594 7.2 581 Debbie Freda 22 23,284,832 25,598,535 7.1 592 Betty Pam 10 59,835,392 67,752,397 7.1 1,804 Pam Roberta 18 7,154,754 8,777,299 7 595 • Blue at the top • Green at bottom • Pam’s group even more profound than Pam’s results • Strongly suggestive of John’s line – significantly closer • Pam needs to move to wife’s surname • John married Hannah Faulkner • John’s son, Thomas married a Morgan • Pam’s group matches Morgans from this line
  41. 41. 41 Pay Attention - Surprise • BH is autosomal Crumley match from circa 1850 • Line daughtered out • I didn’t pay attention • Crumley ancestor on 1850 Harrison County, Ohio census born in Ireland • Matches James Crumley line • Means common ancestor is likely in Ireland • Where is 1850 James Crumley actually “from?” • This may well be the key we’ve been looking for
  42. 42. 42 BH Match • The Most Distant Common Ancestor • MRCA “Before James” • Still several matches of significant size Person Match Chr Start Location End Location (cM) SNPs Relations hip BH Laurie 20 38667637 46673777 13.04 2600 BH John W 4 94,745,940 106,504,539 8.6 2,173 7C+ BH John W 14 55,914,883 63,769,203 7.2 1,925 7C+ BH Charlene 9 128,995,968 132,365,974 6.6 901 7C1R+ BH Crawford 2 28,449,568 33,569,246 6.4 1,551 7C+ BH Ruth 22 18608542 21606219 6.3 463 BH Harold 1 9864705 12590908 6.2 722 7C+ BH Steve 14 20122099 21052472 6.1 351 BH Elda 17 13615647 14705190 6 518 6C1R+ BH Ervine 18 6970457 8231986 6 430 6C1R+
  43. 43. 43 Maybe Catherine’s Surname • Surname Rumored to be Gilkey – Daughter of David and Barbara Gilkey • Collaborative project contribution of “Everything Known” • Brought to light one reference in letter to Bowen as surname – Daughter of Henry Bowen • James Crumley bought land from both men • Both men were neighbors in Frederick County • Bowen land was significantly discounted • Bowen was Quaker, Gilkey wasn’t (that we know of) • James and Catherine named son Henry • Bowen had will – No mention of James or Catherine • No DNA matches to Gilkey line • Two DNA matches to two of Henry Bowen’s children at FTDNA • Unknown wife in that Crumley line • It’s a hint – We don’t know yet
  44. 44. 44 Nits and Grits • 30 people in John, William, BH group • Average of 190 matching segments with other 29 participants • 53% of matching segments in a match group of 3 or more individuals on that particular segment • Created individual and summary Statistics Tables of longest, average, range, etc.
  45. 45. 45 Person Total Match Segments Total in Match Group % in Match Group Alfred 220 133 60 Anna 152 69 45 Betty 162 91 56 BH 372 256 69 Buster 139 70 50 Carl 148 80 54 Charlene 174 98 56 David 169 90 53 Dean 142 68 48 Crawford 154 66 43 Camille 218 121 56 Debbie 82 33 40 Earl 206 97 47 Elda 243 131 54 Ervine 223 119 53 Harold 136 76 56 James 182 100 55 Jean 228 117 51 John W 245 132 58 Karen 156 74 47 Kenny H 147 75 51 Larry 182 112 61 Ken C 248 157 63 Mary 239 131 55 Robert D 148 78 53 Roberta 154 80 52 Rose 261 148 57 Sarah 173 90 52 Stacy 182 100 55 Tara 218 127 58 Total 5703 3119 1608 Average 190.1 103.9666667 53.6
  46. 46. 46 Relationship Match Chart Relationship #Samples Longest Match cM Average Match cM Predicted cM Match Total Segment cM Average Segment cM Total Matching Segments Average Matching Segments Total# Segments >10cM Average# Segments >10cM Total# Segments 7-10cM Average# Segments 7-10cM Total# Segments 5-7cM Average# Segments 5-7cM Total# Segments 4-5cM Average# Segments 4-5cM Total# Segments 3-4cM Average# Segments 3-4cM 6C 21 4.1-12 6.29 0.83 24.6-68.1 43 234 11 3 0.14 2 0.1 14 0.67 56 2.67 159 7.57 6C+ 3 4.7-5.9 5.1 14.7-36.8 29 24 8 0 0 0 0 1 0.34 4 1.34 19 6.34 6C1R 92 3.7-12.6 6.07 0.42 21.9-74.8 46 1104 12 7 0.08 15 0.16 93 1.01 149 1.62 847 9.21 6C1R+ 6 4.3-5.4 4.98 27.8-66.9 53 84 14 0 0 0 0 6 1 18 3 60 10 6C2R 25 4-7.1 5.3 0.21 13.1-77.8 46 305 12 0 0 1 0.04 20 0.8 73 2.92 204 8.16 6C3R 6 5.7-12.9 7.25 0.1 49.8-78 62 93 15 1 0.17 1 0.17 10 1.67 17 2.83 67 11.17 7C 36 3.4-21.5 6.29 0.21 19.2-77.1 48 457 13 2 0.06 4 0.11 28 0.78 81 2.25 342 9.5 7C+ 13 4.5-7.2 5.38 27.4-75 49 170 13 0 0 1 0.08 14 1.08 30 2.31 125 9.62 7C1R 24 3.8-10.7 5.41 0.1 21.4-75.9 44 280 12 1 0.04 2 0.08 14 0.58 52 2.17 212 8.83 7C1R+ 3 4.9-6.6 5.63 19.1-43 32 25 8 0 0 0 0 2 0.67 7 2.3 16 5.33 7C2R 1 5.1 5.1 0.05 47.8 48 13 13 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 3 9 9 7C2R+ 5 4.1-5.9 5.16 20.2-6.3 37 48 10 0 0 0 0 5 1 12 2.4 31 6.2 7C3R 1 7.6 7.6 0.025 53.9 53 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 12 8C 1 8.2 8.2 0.05 35.9 36 10 10 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 8 8
  47. 47. 47 Reconstructed James and Catherine • Kitty Cooper’s Tool • Not Used as Designed • Each “Match” is 3-4 people, not 2
  48. 48. 48
  49. 49. 49 Reconstructed James Only – Through BH
  50. 50. 50 AccomplishmentsY Only •James and George are two separate Crumley lines •NPE Autosomal Plus Y •Reconnected NPE •Determined Age of Y Connection •Connect Participants to Line •Discovered Unknown Connection •Probable Irish Origins •Reconstructed James/Catherine •Reconstructed Partial James Only •Catherine’s Surname (possibly) •Discovered Connections of 9th cousins •Added more than 40 people to the project •Discovered Third Crumley line •Renewed Research Interest •New Admin •Trip to Apple Pie Ridge
  51. 51. 51 Summary • Y DNA Project was Fantastic Foundation • Ancestry Wasn’t Close • Enthusiasm is Key • Look for Opportunities
  52. 52. 52 How To Transition a Project • In the project description, state that Family Finder (autosomal testers) are welcome • Recruit current members to take the Family Finder test • Ask current members to ask their known family members to test as well • Ask current members if they know other researchers from that family line who would test • Check autosomal results for project members who have taken the Family Finder test for surname matches • If anyone has tested at 23andMe or Ancestry, recruit from their matches as well • Encourage Ancestry and V3 23andMe matches to transfer their results to FTDNA – Use matching entire project as incentive • Encourage project members to download results to GedMatch and recruit from matches there • Set the Y project up with an Autosomal Match section • Tell people that you would like to join the project that there are special matching tools within projects • Give new recruits directions for intra-project matching and the ICW tool
  53. 53. 53 Acknowledgements • Family Tree DNA – Project Structure and Tools • Crumley Project Members • GedMatch • Kitty Cooper • Co-Administrators, James Crumley and Pam Hush It takes a village!!!
  54. 54. 54 www.dna-explained.com roberta@dnaexplain.com http://www.dnaexplain.com

×