Genealogy, and Genetic Genealogy, are largely lonely, individual hobbies/projects. I think about the many thousands of messages and emails I’ve sent out over the years, and the few hundred responses. And that’s further reduced to a few tens of folks who really want to trade info – or work together to solve a problem. Maybe it’s just me… or maybe most of us are in the same boat. This applies to both our ancestral families as well as our DNA relationships.
Recently I posted about a collaboration concept that involved each of us contributing to a world family Tree. Some of us do that on a genealogy level, but very few do it on a genetic level. There is a lot of power in knowing the cM relationship with a Match AND between our Matches (I am *still* drinking through that firehose at Ancestry and MyHeritage). But I can only dream of collaboration with Matches, including with folks who, gasp, have tested but don’t Match! As I’ve said before, the vast majority of our true cousins will not share enough DNA with us to wind up as a Match. But all those cousins who have tested can stitch together their Trees just as we build our own – and, particularly on a true genealogy level, our overlapping families should be exactly the same… Think about that.
But I don’t harbor illusions that we are going to start writing/calling/Zooming each other. Perhaps the easiest way to stay in isolation, but help each other is contributing our researched information to the several “world Trees”.
However, another thought came to mind…. I call it The 1810 Census Project. I looked it up. The 1810 US Census counted 7,239,881 individuals (1,101,362 were enslaved). This was for 587 counties in 17 states and 6 territories (and of course, some info has been lost). It is estimated there were about 1.2 million households – that’s roughly 2,000 families per county. Many counties have genealogy societies… Suppose many of these genealogy societies took this on as a project. Document each family and, somehow, list and link DNA test takers to each family. Of course, each of us would probably go back to a number of counties extant in 1810; and the membership of the local county societies would not necessarily have roots in their own county. However, in this digital age, each of us, individually, could connect; and the societies could, nevertheless, build and track the genealogy (and genetic) data… For example, I still have a Tree: “Northern Neck of Virginia Families”, with over 100 Editors who have entered 13,000 people rooted in the Northern Neck.
The US has almost entirely been a country of immigrants – people came into the US; few moved out. So the 7 million in 1810 were a combination of descendants of earlier immigrants, and some new immigrants. AND virtually all of their descendants were in succeeding census records (plus some new immigrants). For the most part, your Ancestors go back to the 1810 census or to a more recent immigrant. For me, the focus has been to push back in America to the original immigrants (while each genealogist has their own objectives.)
And, with an 1810 Census Project, think of the possibilities for identifying and sharing DNA relationships. Think of the Y-DNA and mtDNA threads… I’m thinking of that right now!! I’m working on a family that has three of my lines intertwined: Benjamin WELCH born c1775 VA married 1797 VA to Mary BARTLETT born c1778 (they were 1C, on my WELCH, CARROLL and BARTLETT lines). The 1810, 1820, and 1830 census indicates they had 5 daughters; the on-line genealogies have a dozen different given names, with very little circumstantial proof for most of them. So far we have 4 Test Takers with J2a1a1 mtDNA from probable intersecting lines. What we need are female lines from each of the wannabe daughter lines down to someone we can test. That *should* weed out a few wannabes. I’m sure many of you have gone through this drill of tracking down families and begging them to take a free mtDNA test.
Well, anyway… I’m still thinking of ways to stimulate collaboration among the active genetic genealogists… I dream of documenting the interconnecting DNA of our roots. We are each documenting little pieces – we need a way to build a bigger picture.
[22DN] Segment-ology: Collaboration; by Jim Bartlett 20260717
segment-ology 
Jim, I like the general idea a lot. This is what I thought DNA testing was supposed to do when I first tested. Then, I learned otherwise. You are courageous to try to find a way. But there are significant obstacles, which would need to be overcome to achieve your vision.
To begin with, since the pre-1850 censuses only list heads of households, you would not be getting information on couples and their children, and it would mostly be men. There is evidence that a lot of the family connections in communities in that era came about through the chain migration of close female relations, which don’t show up in surnames. (See URL: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10847&context=etd
The societal and governmental flux, massive migrations, and loss of stable record-keeping institutions in the post-revolutionary era makes the timeframe you have focused on particularly hard to research. This is where the collaboration would come in – people who have scoured through every other kind of record in that area at that time, who know the local laws and customs and geography and history, and who know how to extract information that is not obvious.
This is why your idea of basing it in DNA is important. But in current times, privacy concerns have become paramount. My brothers all refused to test from the getgo. The data breaches at MyHeritage and 23andMe, where my nephew had tested at my request, nearly cost me my relationship with him. I no longer have access to his y-DNA results at FTDNA because of this. I don’t dare ask him to let me back in to that. I just don’t ask people to test anymore. Trust is a rare commodity in these times. It’s not worth it to me.
How can we add another website to all the DNA and genealogy sites, which we already can’t keep up with? At least, I can’t.
What you are envisioning seems to me to be not just another website, but a kind of meta-website (not referring to the company) pulling data from all the other sources. AI is already starting to do this, able to track individuals across multiple sites without having personally identifying data. But privacy concerns are very important, and protective technology should try to prevent this as much as possible.
There is also the fact that genealogy and DNA testing have become big business. Information is owned and protected behind paywalls, though also vulnerable to data breaches.
I really appreciate you putting this idea forward, though. I hope people smarter than I am will find solutions!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maggie, Thanks for your input to this discussion. It’s evolving. Yes, on the one hand it could be a huge project… On the other hand, the DNA Test Takers are spread out over much of the USA’s population – not all, but a lot. I’m trying to figure out a doable approach. Several large groups have tried to create the World Tree – maybe someday, but probably not in my lifetime. We need smaller groups to work on pieces… AND the main point is we need to incorporate a Pro Tools type of observations. It’s hard to do from one vantage point, but several folks getting involved – circling the wagons – could help. And we’d need a method to link via DNA without being too intrusive. I’ve been involved with several genealogy groups who have tried to collect info (marriages, Family Group Sheet’s, etc) but usually without a way to tie it together. About 20 years ago, I searched through all the census records up to 1880, in a dozen southern states for BARTLETTs – I put together an indexed document basically with nested Family Group Sheets that sorting the families out for the most part. But that was just one SURNAME… And I worked on that project for about 3 years to support the BARTLETT surname Y-DNA project. It was a good tool, that helped a lot of researchers focus on their own BARTLETT line and not stumble through the others. I’m thinking of an Ancestry Tree rooted around a county census – maybe that’s also too broad. We need “something” that hobby genealogists and Test Takers would be encouraged to add their piece of the puzzle along with some DNA evidence. TBC… Jim
LikeLike
So … one way to “move the bar” a little would be to take ONE PAGE of a Federal Census … just one … at least in the model in my head at the moment. I’d grab the 1790 Census page where my George SMELSER shows up as my example. And the output developing in the process would be BOTH a for “ME” and for “ALL” situation where the building out of this WIKI page / WIKI Group, centered around a single (or maybe a couple) Federal Census page(s) (as the example of the moment in discussion), could be built out as a “one stop” WIKI concept page for that linked population, in this case linked by time and space if not by biology (which many would be). We’d seek out all forms of available or to be developed data … mtDNA data, Y-DNA data, and to the degree possible (particularly over time) build some links to autosomal data for the respective lines. A “One Stop” shop as it were. Is that more along the lines of what you are suggesting ??? I could see a real emerging collaboration there if the target was NOT too big. I suspect ALL of the 1810 census might be a little too aggressive to make a lot of progress on … but if the initial ones just demonstrated the concept well enough the idea would naturally build.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, A great idea. A win-win-win-win-win – for you; for all the other lines on that page; for a local county genealogy group; for other descendants of the men on that page; and for all of us who want to move the bar.
I’m thinking of setting up a public Tree for a county where my Ancestors were, and after a litte work, see what the county society says about it; and the others I could rope in along the way.
Jim
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jim, you and I have discussed various concepts, a way to identify and share mtDNA information about our known ancestors, so I am very much interested in your most recent comments and ideas. Like you, I have lots of mtDNA information about the segments/chromosomes that represent the contributions to my mtDNA from my various ancestors, but I have no place to collaborate, to share it publicly where it is accessible. I have probably mapped 60% of my mtDNA to various ancestors, as have others who invest a lot of time in pursuing genetic genealogy.
Although I have assembled many triangulations that confirm my associations of segment/chromosomes with particular ancestors, privacy rights have to be considered, so I have not published that information. As a temporary means of assembling my information, I have put on Ancestry, in a Notes field, information that shows my ancestor(s), the mtDNA that I have inherited from them, the size, segment and chromosome and my Gedmatch kit number.
I believe that if we could assemble the information that all of us have gathered about our own particular mtDNA relationships with various ancestors, we could collaborate and begin to prove ancestral lines’ mtDNA. I would hope that the information could be assembled by an organization that has national scope, i.e. Gedmatch, DNAGedcom, and/or Wikitree. It would be a stand-alone database.
Putting the information in local genealogical societies would make it far less accessible for several reasons – our ancestors moved frequently, indexing by Google might not find small local databases, and people with brick walls would not know the locations.
If a mtDNA match had a match with my test on, for example, chromosome 1, from 820,000-750,000, and the database was searchable by test-taker, a searcher could find that I had associated that segment with ancestry from a particular ancestor or ancestral couple. There is a problem with that, though, as if several descendants had the wrong ancestor(s), the information would be misleading, but eventually, I suspect that the database could prove to be corrective. Perhaps a means of “challenging” a finding would be a beneficial approach. A Y-DNA database would be very helpful, too, but perhaps X-DNA would not be as useful.
Many of our brick walls come before the 1850 census, so I would begin with DNA information about ancestors who are more readily available on the 1850 census, rather than earlier. Ancestors who can be attached to DNA on the 1810 census would be highly valuable for those who have brick walls, though. Your idea of attaching DNA information about our ancestors, with reference to their census records, is an interesting means of identification. The generational distance between the 1950 and 1850 censuses is more doable, especially with the changes in surnames for female ancestors, it is an easier research than 1950 to 1810. It would be especially helpful in cases of NPEs and adoptions.
Having worked on my family’s genealogy for many years, I began in the pre-DNA years when a lot of genealogical “information” came from poorly researched family histories with lots of guesses and errors that are reflected in the many errors, including in my own family tree, in every genealogical website. In fact, of the eight or nine errors on my family tree, worked on to date, all were discoverable and correctable by using mtDNA. Using mtDNA is a far more provable concept than old family histories – or even census records – and it is a necessary corrective, if we are interested in having accurate family trees.
None of the genealogical websites that I know of provide enough information about mtDNA matching and ancestors to have a corrective influence. It seems to me that it would be an easy task to set up a serchable database that contains information about the test-taker, ancestor (or usually ancestral pairing of husband-wife) the size of the DNA match, the segment and chromosome. Perhaps information about the website where the mtDNA can be found and the census year(s) where the ancestors can be found.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quick clarification: with *mtDNA* are you referring to mitochondrial DNA that is passed from mother to children; or are you talking about autosomal DNA (atDNA) which is our 44 autosomes and the basis for most DNA testing these days. Jim
LikeLike
My mistake! Thank you. My post applies to autosomal DNA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was trying to select a small, doable, group to build a foundation. Then build up to the 1850 census, or even to the 1880 census. As an engineer, I’m always thinking of a strong foundation. And we’d need to develop a standard/protocol to identify genetic info: Y-DNA and mtDNA when know, for sure. For atDNA it gets a little more complex. Perhaps a DNA Tag and/or a “Fact” format that user XYZ shares atDNA to/through this Ancestor; and/or here’s a GEDmatch #. Maybe work with Ancestry for a link each genealogist could add if they wanted…. Jim
LikeLike
Yes, my comments apply to autosomal DNA. Perhaps the most workable solution is to set up a new website with various projects, with collaboration, and designed to augment each other. What would be the costs for the website and the domain name? A database would be needed, too.
None of the current genealogical websites have usable technologies to undertake any of the projects that have been discussed.
Some years ago, I was the webmaster for my local genealogical society, but am an octogenarian, too now, so wouldn’t want to take on the major operations. Other contributions, yes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sandy, I read it as autosomal – and we are in agreement that all kinds of DNA would be helpful. With collaboration we can come at an issue from several directions. ProTools is a great example – how about a group of cousins all applying ProTools to the same issue. They will have relationships I don’t have or know about….
I’m now mulling over one Ancestry Tree, run by a county society (which would out live me). I have dozens of Trees that I host, and could start one if it could be transferred. One is the Northern Neck of Virginia Families – public – with over 100 Editors all adding their links to Colonial Ancestors (and supposedly adding lots of records…). This is all free to view, I think. I’ve now entered and tagged about 400 Matches and their paths back to our Common Ancestors in my own Tree. All we’d need is a format to enter DNA links that had to pass through each one. Maybe Ancestry would accommodate that with us…
And we could select several proactive/interested county societies to test this out… I’m a life member of Hacker’s Creek Pioneer Descendants (contribute many articles to their quarterly newsletter); at one point I was President of the Fairfax Co, VA GS, and often participate in their DNA group…
I think our discussions here may help us determine a path forward.
Jim
Jim
LikeLike
Ciao Jim. Perché la mia triangolazione dna su mhyeritage ha volte inizio e fine uguale e ha volte inizio uguale fine diversa?ma il mio segmento triangolato del tg va da 826-846mbp ma alcune corrispondenze nel tg sono uguale altre no vanno da 819-853 cosa può significare?
LikeLike
Ah Jim….I agree so much with your sentiment. So many emails sent, against the inclinations of this resolute introvert and still barely any response. I am a molecular biologist who works in cancer research and I dived into the DNA pool in 2002…after convincing myself it was better to use a commercial lab than try and do the sequencing myself. I have tested over 50 members of my family over the years and I have 3 separate yDNA projects. I track all my mtDNA lines as well. I do this for my parents and my husband and his parents as well. I have tested at all the DNA companies. I have used DNA to solve family mysteries and it has in turn offered up a few I did not expect. Science at it’s best.
I thought I could just focus on the yDNA surname projects but then I would fall down a rabbit hole of building dedicated town projects: all the families I could connect with DNA in Mildenhall, Suffolk, England from 1750 forward. All the families I could connect with DNA from Trysil, Hedmark Norway. Maybe connect all the families in Trysil from the 1801 Census. DNA connections to Camden Co. Missouri 1900 and forward. Diving into the DNA of the Hutterites of North and South Dakota proved mind melting…too much endogomy. It’s frustrating to work on these without any collaborators. I have tried using the FTDNA projects but the members I recruit rarely participate past taking a test. Without associated trees I can’t build a complete project. I have tried using Wikitree to build dedicated place or surname projects but I find their cumbersome coding and input workflow tiresome after all these years. And again, I can’t get any of my DNA matches or family members to join in…it’s too confusing for them. I can’t add most of the DNA information I have because the test members are still alive but they won’t engage with Wikitree.
I see your dream of using DNA to connect families back to 1810 or even 1790 as John Smeltzer suggests. Hmm. I think I used to talk to John about distant Smeltzer/Smelser families back in the 90’s.
LikeLike
Kristin – Great to hear from you. I’m an engineer, and my wife has a PhD in virology – managed cancer grants for years at NIH. I’ve sponsored and manage a number of kits at FTDNA, and I, too, have tested and uploaded everywhere. When MyHeritage had FGS kits for $20, I sent them $200, and passed out kits to family, in-laws, friends and neighbors… But my focus is on the segment jigsaw puzzle (I’m a puzzle guy). So I tend to focus on my own kits – I now have over 10,000 Matches with known MRCA(s) in a spreadsheet – arranged like a giant, nested Family Group Sheet – this automatically puts family groups together – with strong DNA ties to each other and weaker DNA ties between branches – it’s very comforting to see. And it also provides a QC function when adjacent folks don’t line up right.
I”ve dabbled with WikiTree too, and have some of the same thoughts as you. And it’s hard expanding my Ancestry Tree (I’ve got about 1/3 of my MRCA Matches added to my Tree so far (which I really believe facilitates more ThruLines…); and working in WikiTree, FS Tree and Geni just to keep my direct lines correct.
So little time… but I enjoy it.
Thanks again for your input. Jim
LikeLike
2015 … working a CHEEK line tied to STEVENS / COSTIN with some overlap into the SMELSER group … out of old Pendleton District SC and Hart County (old Barren County) KY ….
LikeLike
Hi Jim – Thought you might find this interesting. Moycullen is a small village in County Galway, Ireland. Moycullen Heritage (a local family history organization) is pretty far down the path with a project that lines up with your idea of tying DNA testing to a past census. They have a large private family tree on ancestry that has been built to connect the local descendants and diaspora of that town.
https://moycullen.galwaycommunityheritage.org/content/new-contributions/moycullen-heritage-dna-project
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pat, That is an interesting project. Like that project, I’m thinking of a definded/comprehensive population. Almost all marriages would be between neighbors. One side bar would be to track newcomers, and folks who moved out (and to which other county) – but many would stay and grow in their county. Of course, I’m trying to weave in the DNA angle… Jim
LikeLike
My ancestors often married neighbors during the period between 1760-1830 or so, but it often leads to endogamy, which is a complication that is difficult to navigate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pat, It occurs to me that I could set up an Ancestry Tree for one of my counties, and type in say 2,000 head of household names in a few days. Link each one to the census record. They’d all be Floating Branches. I’d then add in anyone as an Author, if they would flesh out some of them (usually their own family). If the county had a marriage file, many of the 2,000 families could be linked. All of the Authors would be charged to link records to each one – census, marriage, death, land, etc. Sounds like a simple enough idea – my guess is that the execution would be spotty… but, improved over time as more and more people could use it as a resource. We could add Tags for Y and mt Haplogroups. And a format for atDNA segments – it would be like adding (Painting) atDNA segments on an extant Tree. Maybe work with Jonny Perl on an export method from DNAPainter…. The key is to establish the base, and see how it could grow and who would help. Jim
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes! Soon!
LikeLiked by 1 person
And those tens of people who we interact with – they are like diamonds. I love thinktanking with them. They keep me honest. As long as I don’t have to physically talk to them of course, ha ha.
As to the World tree project, why not develop it within wikitree.com. You can tag people with the census dates, and there is provision for DNA information.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jean, Good feedback. I’ve written to WikiTree management, and – when I’m not drinking though a fire hose – I will start working in WikiTree and add some DNA notes (particularly the Y and mt lines I know about). Jim
LikeLike
And, I will concur on several of your points in the blog post. 1. Thousands of notes / emails sent … and less than 10% responded to. And then … with only (and I’m guessing of course) about 10% of the information I’d love to have from the contact. 2. I’d say make it the 1790 Project … few folks, earliest U.S. census … and I know where a couple of my kin were at that time and IN the census … and post Rev. War so many on land grants. 3. In my rapidly advancing age I’ve got SO MANY things I want to do … that sometimes the genealogy lags … my body still allows me to move and come and go and interact with others and my extroverted side wants “out” …. and my “introverted” side is ok with that !!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, agree that 1790 census would form a smaller base, which is OK. My concern is that that census is hard to deal with (for me in VA, anyway). Actually, I’d give a lot of leeway to the genealogy societies (or any other group). The objective is a solid, comprehensive “base” to tie DNA Test Takers (TT) to. Oh, how I miss the rootsweb boards and mail lists… Jim PS. I too am aware of my age – as I neared 80 a few years ago, I asked my doctor if I would be able to rototil my garden. He looked at my chart and gave me an OK – so my summer routine is usually alternating between garden and genealogy… life is still good;>j
LikeLike
So your thinking would take this to the group level / community level to look more closely at the inter-relationships between / within those families? I’ve dabbled a little with that 1790 Census (Old Pendleton District, SC) that I tossed out here … where my George SMELSER is located at that time …. and I tried to work associated names from that very list as best I could. General Benjamin Cleveland being one … I’ve printed off all of those pages but when I get into the SMITH’s and JONE’s and get lost my energy levels drop quickly to continue to the chase … how do we get around that ???
LikeLike
John, The whole point here is not about *ourselves*; it’s about building a fairly simple platform that becomes a reference and anchor for many researchers. I don’t know all the folks in an 1810 census, but I know some of my Ancestors and I often know a some others who were neighbors or in shared records. Someone else may add information about them. Once we establish the 2,000 Heads of Households in 1810 for county X, we then add to them their children – one Tree per county would be perfect for this. Different people would flesh out different HOHs. At some point, we might each need to tackle a few which haven’t been developed again. Virtually all the folks in the 1820 census should build on the 1810 foundation (and some others would need to be added). I think the geographic focus would help. Some counties have very active genealogy groups.
Side story: c2005 or so, I took on a project to document all the BARTLETTs in the 1850 to 1880 census, and group them where I could. I did a booklet for VA, WV, MD, DE, NC, SC, GA, TN, KY and parts of several other southern states. I developed an outline for each family and tied them to the lines we were finding with the BARTLETT surname Y-DNA Project I started in 2002. It was amazing to see the lines gel – between census and Y-DNA a large percentage of lines were tagged. I think those are still available in a public Dropbox folder – and I refer to them all the time. It would be relatively easy for me to incorporate that info into appropriate county 1810 Projects. I’m guess that many FTDNA surname Admins would welcome the opportunity to incorporate their info into the 1810 Project Trees – going back and forward – for public access. I could see an LDS summer intern taking this on as a project (and adding to the FS Tree also).
The central key here is for a county organization to manage each public Tree. Each Tree cannot remain under one individual – at 83, I grow more and more sensitive to how to perpetuate this kind of reference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So Jim … where do we overlap ?? It’s been quite a while since I’ve looked into this. But I’m game and willing to help with the demonstration of the “How to” …. John F. Smeltzer – Colorado / Iowa …. we might have to look at a cousin line but I have access to 100 kits or so ….
LikeLike
From a 2012 exchange …. and there is that 1790 Federal census referenced!!
“Now I’m looking at Elijah BARLET …. (BARTLETT ?) …. interesting that one of the autosomal DNA guys may be connection to him … Jim BARTLETT … I sent him an email to double check.
But look at this …. a trend seems to be in the works here that we may have suspected in the past but this continues to confirm it.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BARTLETT/2009-09/1252968467
Pendleton District SC to Green Co., KY to Barren Co., KY to AR ……. ???
If you’re following this story, Nimrod BARTLETT was b in SC (he was in 1790 Pendleton Dist, SC census) and is in 1795 Green Co, KY; 1799-1805 Barron Co, KY PPTL; now in Hardin Co 1807-1811 at least – I think he winds up in Clark Co, AR with Gambril COX by 1820“
“By the way, Gambril COX and Beverly COX are in the PPTL at least 1808-1810 (I didn’t look every year, and the LDS threw me out at closing while I was on 1811..”
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
My George SMELSER is also seen in 1790 Old Pendleton District enumerated on the same page as General Benjamin CLEVELAND of the King’s Mtn Battle of the Rev. War. And ties to the WARDRIP family who were participants in King’s Mtn. We believe our SMELSER group provided wagons and horses.
LikeLike
John, This is why we need collaboration. When I formed the BARTLETT Y-DNA project in 2002; lots of BARTLETT researchers joined in – we collaborated. As it quickly turned out I had 4 groups of Y-DNA Matchs (all the unusual E-V13) = my group was the WV BARTLETTs we knew were from Fauquier Co, VA during the RevWar – Patriarch Thomas BARTLETT; another group were from a BARTLEY line in Culpeper and Fluvanna Co, VA – Patriarch John BARTLEY; another from Richmond Co, VA – Patriarch Elisha BARTLETT; and one from Barron Co, KY then Clark Co, AR, which we could back up to Pendleton Dist, SC. One of the lines we hadn’t connected that of Thomas BARTLETT c1705-1783 of Richmond Co, VA whose Will named John, Thomas, Joseph and Elisha – BINGO! The collaboration in a Y-DNA project brought us all together – like a magnet. I believe atDNA is like a magnet also – we just need to come up with a method to collaborate. The testing companies do this for us in DNA Matching, but we need an extra push to get the collaboration to work.
Thanks for the memories – and your collaboration – we used rootsweb to the max, and I really miss that collaboration forum. Jim
LikeLike
John, Not sure where to start between two individuals. My thought was to build a Tree for each county (can use 1790 or 1810 census, or some other method that would cover most of the population). The point is that marriages back then were between neighbors. And if a good base could be set up, the rest could grow from that – maybe limit it to the base group plus single lines of descent down to living test talkers (Y, mt, atDNA). Trying to fill it out to, say, the 1950 census would be way too much, I think – maybe set a limit with the 1850 census… Just thinking on the fly… JIm
LikeLike
Understand … I agree that WIKI is a place to look and try … I have a primitive effort there and of course the thinking is more of the ME side of things. I never feel there is enough time to do much more than dabble at that level …. ’cause the tomatoes are coming on and the green beans need picked and the grandkids are coming and the grass needs mowed and we have a meeting in an hour … and and and … !!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person