The Path Is Key
This may be an extension of my “genealogy sacrilege” outlook or rant.
But before I begin, to each their own – you get to choose your objectives.
My two main objectives are to get my genealogy right; and to get the Chromosome Map of segments from my Ancestors at each generation right. My objectives do not include finding all of the descendants of all of my Ancestors. However, I do think that documenting how my DNA Matches interrelate to me and each other is very helpful in achieving my two objectives – and this swells my Tree somewhat. I’m finding: Match paper trail paths (and ThruLines clues) that are impossible, given the DNA evidence; and DNA evidence that has revealed genealogy paths I never would have otherwise found (not just limited to breaking through brick walls).
So, a lot of work to do to document what will be over 10,000 Matches… Time is precious…
When documenting DNA Matches and their line of descent from our MRCA to them, the “Path Is Key”. Dotting all of the “i”s and crossing all the “t”s is NOT! The DNA segments do not “know” their hosts’ names (or dates, or places), just that the segments are passed along. We genealogists document what we can about each of these Match ancestor DNA hosts. It helps us keep track – in time and place. But how much effort do we need to put into documenting our Matches’ lines? My opinion is: not much! We need to be sure of the path. We don’t need to know the full names, or pet names, or titles. It’s nice to know the birth/death years, but how much digging should we do to find the complete birth date or place? What do we do when several different descendants insist on different given names … I could go on and on, but I’ve decided it’s not my job to adjudicate their family “wars” – my objective is to be clear of the path.
Therefore, I’m now using terms like Pvt, Unknown, GUESS, sibling of XYZ, etc. to describe Match Ancestors – particularly those close to the Match.I don’t really care about their parent’s or grandparent’s names or genealogy info – just the path that must exist for a DNA segment. [NB: proving a specific genealogy-DNA link is a separate issue; a potential path is not a proven path.]
I am still documenting the child and grandchild of the MRCA (given name and birth year at least). But, IMO, the further down the path from the MRCA to the Match, the less precise this info needs to be. The Key Is the Path. I don’t want to introduce incorrect info, so I’m introducing “other” terms in the name field when it is unclear, in debate, or might take days to research and resolve. I note the “path” that has to be and move on.This allows me to get as many DNA Matches as possible into the spreadsheet. Then the interrelationships can be better evaluated.
SUMMARY: Don’t worry about “fully” documenting the MRCA-to-Match path; just that the path does exist, and no incorrect info is introduced (unless your Tree is private). And, of course, it’s up to your own judgment as to if/how much of this recommendation to follow. My plan is to get as many Matches as possible into MRCA family groups in a spreadsheet, and then study the interrelationships with ProTools. Get Matches in my Tree and my Common Ancestor spreadsheet, but “do no harm”.
[22DG] Segment-ology: ProTools 25 – The Path Is Key by Jim Bartlett 20250222
segment-ology 
Yes I agree and like your approach, a lot of time can be wasted for no good reason.
I am using the tools in Ancestry of verified or unverified, DNA match or DNA connection along with notes where appropriate.
LikeLike
Julie – thanks for the feedback. Yes, I am using the DNA Tags – your idea of using the verified/unverified TAGS is a good one. Jim
LikeLike
Jim, good perspective here, as usual. I also find it challenging to come up with reasonable, but limited, documentation research to have confidence in “the path”. There are so many different circumstances establishing “rules” is problematic. In many cases the ah-ah findings can give you a virtual certainty of your connection. In other situations you pause and consider alternatives. The extent of the differences in paths matter (not just close family), the geography matters, the date range matters, working with NPE’s matter, etc. etc. I don’t believe anything approaching the “reasonably exhaustive” genealogy standard makes any sense at all here. These paths often instantly can provide better real Probabilities than all the paper records in existence. I do think the WATO trees (or Banyan) may be the basis of pathway “proofs”.
LikeLike
I agree. The GPS was developed before DNA came along. With ProTools (and at MyHeritage), we often get very strong evidence of close relationships. As you point out they can be better that paper records in many cases. For 1C and closer, I don’t think we need WATO or Banyan for the purpose of determining a group or Cluster. Perhaps there are some cases where we need more definition (for instance a bio-grandparent). Jim
LikeLike
So, if I am understanding you correctly, the fact that I can definitively tie certain matches of my mom’s to one of her 3GG grandmothers (but without knowing exactly how they relate — just somewhere upstream) is sufficient, because I know the path has to be on that 3GG grandmother’s line? (I’m lucky in that mom’s paternal grandparents are Italian immigrants so her paternal matches on Ancestry are negligible)
LikeLike
Cathy – Yes! Even tho we cannot guarantee it, the evidence is very strong. I would rank it with finding someone in the same family in 3 census records – there is still a slim chance that the person was adopted. But in our cases, with ProTools forming tight family groups, an adopted person would not Cluster. With your Italian branch you have a strong grouping. Jim
LikeLike
Very good post, and I’ve found myself in the same boat constantly. What I now often do is create profiles with names such as “not sure which son Smith,” and “not sure which daughter Wilson” to document the path accurately. In many cases, I’m able to quickly research the family and find the actual names of the children, say, from an obituary, but if there are three sons in that family group, and I can’t determine which one is the correct one within 10 to 20 minutes, I move on to the next task.
I’ve also found that weeks or months down the road, a new clue comes in that makes it clear which child it is, which I can then quickly refine by simply combining the “not sure which son Smith” profile with the actual profile with a name that I have already added to my tree from my research.
LikeLike
Jeff – exactly! for the purposes of: creating family Groups; for Clustering; for giving a “home” in my Tree to as many Matches as I can – the methods you and I use, work just fine. Jim
LikeLike
Jim, thank you for all these posts.
Protools does not give you the chromosome segment, right? So how does it fit with the goal of a chromosome map. Could you consider spending one blog on a recap on how it contributes to this goal for folks who do not yet have Protools. This might be a ‘review’ post that summarizes highlights.
I have found Ancestry Thru-lines kind of amazing in fitting together family tree info and names turn up there that I had seen on 23andMe,FTDNA, etc, .
Thanks!
John Abbott
LikeLike
John, A good suggestion – thank you. I have gone over some of the points again; and I have a Power Point that summarizes them, too. Correct that Ancestry doesn’t give segment location. However, I’ve found over 1,000 Ancestry Matches also at other companies and know their TGs (just sort 5,000 Matches at GEDmatch by company, and work through them… – because of Timber, not all will also be at Ancestry).
Big picture: DNA and Genealogy – ProTools is amazing for getting the Genealogy right. In combination with a Common Ancestor spreadsheet, I easily see close family groups which will Cluster and usually share the same TG segment. So, in that sense, ProTools helps with a Chr Map. Jim
LikeLike
One of my questions about “Path” is how to best (and most concisely) explain the concept of “Path” to those new and less experienced cousins on the other end of the communication ? My experience in real world communications is that most folks don’t respond at all and those that do don’t quickly grasp enough about what I’m attempting to accomplish to be immediately helpful. So … what is the “best” way to communicate the essence of that “path” to those new genealogy participants (cousins) ??
LikeLike
John, My recommendation is: don’t try to explain it to them – unless/until they first show some interest. What do you need from a Match anyway? Virtually none of your Matches care about your objectives. Usually when I message a Match it’s about one of three things: 1. I think our CA is XYZ – FYI; or 2. Our CA is XYZ and you have an all male/female line – have you considered a Y-DNA/mtDNA test that would benefit our whole family research; or 3. your line is particularly important to me to get through a brick wall – have you tested at any of the other companies. Just 1 or 2 sentences to see if they have any interest at all. Jim
LikeLike
Actually that does make a lot of sense. I guess the educator in me just pops out trying to encourage folks more than just seek input. BUT … as I age the time available for such comes into better perspective.
LikeLike