NPEs

If we just consider our own ancestral line, we may miss some NPE’s. We may have an NPE as an Ancestor, IF we haven’t explored the whole family.

Way back, NPE was Non-Paternal Event, but we’ve seen non-Maternal events, too. So we changed it to Not the Parent Expected. The whole issue centers around the expectation of a family with two “expected” parents. Important: an NPE is usually for one child – perhaps your Ancestor; perhaps a different child in the family. We “expect” all the children in a family to be from the husband and wife.  So “usually” an NPE is a one-off event. But life unfolds in many different ways…

A man and a woman create a child – sometimes one of them is not married (i.e. living with their parents, or on their own) – or perhaps this is the case for both of them. Sometimes they are both married to someone else. Sometimes the man is not (or ever) aware the woman got pregnant. Again – in life, there are many variations to this. The point is the NPE does not apply to a family – it applies to a child. This is important to DNA analysis, and how we use Pro Tools.

I have this case for one of my Ancestors. The pregnant woman was an unmarried child in a family who raised her and her son, giving him their surname (which has confused genealogists to this day). It appears the father was not yet married either, but he went on to marry and have children. I know because I got some DNA from him (through the NPE child) and have Matches who descend from him through his other children (half cousins), and though her children by her later marriage (half cousins). [NB: Challenging in my Common Ancestor spreadsheet.]

Getting back to Pro Tools – the DNA truth-teller/helper. In general, the higher-cM SMOM interrelationships lead to one generational level in my Tree – to one MRCA couple. They may be cousins 1 or 2 or 3 times removed (because I’m old), but usually all go back to one MRCA. Then, as I scroll down the SMOM list, I often find SMOMs who descend from one generation further back. This is normal and expected. These would be a generation more distant to us, and should have appropriately smaller cMs, on average. In fact, if this doesn’t happen, we should be suspicious.

NB: Alternatively, some highest-cM Matches may be tied to a closer generation (which should be, on average, a higher-cM relationship). If these higher-cM Matches are at the same generation level, it may be due to multiple segments and, perhaps, additional relationships (with Colonia Virginia ancestry, I sometimes find multiple relationships with some Matches).

Finally, back to NPEs… If one of the Ancestors in an MRCA couple is an NPE, you wouldn’t get any Matches to that couple (just like with an only child; an exception would be if they had more than one child together).  So, instead, look to see that *some* of the Matches are from each bio-parent.  This is how I solved a Brick Wall. I had many Matches to my A36 (4C level) Ancestors [Thomas NEWLON & unknown wife]. As I kept looking at the Shared Matches, I found some smaller-cM Matches to my A72 (5C level) couple [Thomas NEWLON’s parents] who had been well researched. Analysis of “other” Shared Matches revealed many had the CUMMINGS surname (now my A74; 5C level ancestor).

The point is that if Pro Tools points to a group of higher-cM Matches to a 3C, 4C, etc MRCA; the lower-cM Match should point to groups for the next two MRCAs back. This is true whether these MRCAs are well known or an NPE or a Brick Wall. If you find a consensus Ancestor among these smaller-cM Matches you may have found GOLD.

Bottom Line: When dealing with an NPE, think carefully about what that means to Pro Tools, and target your “rabbit holes” appropriately;>j

[22CY] Segment-ology: Pro Tools Part 17 – NPEs by Jim Bartlett 20241208

Sacrilegious Genetic Genealogy

For this post I want to explore a deviation from the normal genealogy and DNA research “requirements”.

Do we need to do comprehensive research on each cousin Match? Do I really need to find the complete link between each Match and our Common Ancestor? The sacrilige: do I care about all my distant cousins – to the extent that I must develop their complete link to me? Do I really care how much DNA they share with me? Must I link the DNA to the Common Ancestor? Or, is it enough to determine that they are on a specific branch of my Tree? I think so!

My standard mantra: our bio-Ancestors and DNA segments are set! We compare each Match to our Tree and DNA to find a Common Ancestor. I’m very close to finding out how 10% of my 100,000 Matches (at Ancestry) are related to my bio-Ancestors.

My experience with Pro Tools indicates many more can be easily found. I acknowledge that some shared DNA segments under 15cM will be false – but that doesn’t mean those Matches aren’t related to me.  Most of our true cousins beyond 3C will not share any DNA with us, so is the cM amount beyond 3C meaningful?  I acknowledge that some Matches will be related beyond a genealogy timeframe.

However, given these negative factors, I believe a lot more of my Matches are related to me within 9 generations back [8C level] – perhaps somewhat more than 20% of my total Matches. It’s taken me 14 years to “collect” and document approximately 10% of my Matches as cousins.  It’s daunting to think what time and effort I’d need to double that.

My sacrilege is to give up on full genealogy research for each Match. Using Pro Tools I’m finding lots of 6-10cM (small segment) Matches (to me) that are children, nieces/nephews, or 1C to strong higher-cM Matches that I have placed in my Tree. Clearly, these Matches are part of a family group well within a genealogy time frame.

I’m inclined to just quickly:

1. Add these small-segment Matches to my Common Ancestor spreadsheet

2. Add a Match Note (at Ancestry) to indicate the Common Ancestor and/or Ahnentafel [e.g. #A0062]

3. Give them my standard star and MRCA Dot; but not the Dot indicating a linked Match

4. Use a new Dot to indicate “Likely” in a family group under the MRCA; but not complete research [I could always filter on that Dot later, and do the research, some day…]

5. Add a shorthand note like:  SMOM: 3,442cM/son of “Match Name” [SMOM: Shared Matches of Match – the cM between them]

I’m looking for a more efficient way to group Matches into known family lines.

There are several points here:

1. Identify additional Matches within a genealogy timeframe (is it over 50% of all Matches?)

2. Group Matches under my Ancestor Couples – often under a specific child or grandchild (why would I need to dig deeper – unless the Match had a robust Tree with many records…)

3. Build a firm interrelated framework for later research on each extended “twig” of my Tree. Get some confidence of my Ancestors and their children and grandchildren.

4. Identify Brick Walls through clear absence of interconnected Matches. My spreadsheet has an Ahnentafel header for each of my Ancestors back to the 8C level – some of them have no known Matches, or what is clearly a small mess of non-interconnecting Matches. These are a judgment call, but with many more Matches involved, these few “problems” become more and more obvious.

5. Connect Floating branches – I now have several strong “clumps” of interconnected Matches, under a single MRCA couple, that I cannot link to my Tree. This is a strong hint in light of #4 above. I plan to explore this more in a separate blogpost.  

For DNAGedCom, Genetic Affairs, DNA Painter: Any way to automate the Clusters/Groups to include only those Matches who interrelate, say, over 90cM (and make that threshold adjustable)?

Bottom line: I think many more , if not most, of our Matches will turn out to be real cousins within a genealogy timeframe (out through 8C level). This includes Matches with no Trees, Private Trees, UnLinked Trees and scrawny Trees – all of these are now put into the mix through Pro Tools. For me, compiling data from my 100,000 Ancestry Matches will be a way to bound (if not counter) the continued warnings that many of our Matches are false and/or distant. Some are, some are not – what can we learn?

As usual, I value your feedback – on the sacrilege of adding Matches to Tree branches based on strong interrelationships, but without fully documenting the genealogy; as well as the bigger picture of possibly linking Floating branches to “bare spots” in our Trees.

[22CX] Segment-ology: Pro Tools Part 16 – Sacrilegious Genetic Genealogy by Jim Bartlett 20241205

Shared Match Cluster Hints

I’ve written in this Pro Tools series about the power of Shared Matches. They form manual Clusters of Matches. Like all Clusters, they *tend* to point to a Common Ancestor. Each individual Match has their own ancestry, and they may relate to us in several different ways (particularly with my Colonial Virginia ancestry). With auto-Clustering this is displayed by placing the Match in a Cluster with the strongest ties to other Shared Matches – and using gray-cells to indicate ties to other Clusters. This shows up in a Shared Match list with a mix of Shared Matches tied to one Common Ancestor, along with other Shared Matches who may be related in different ways, and even some Shared Matches who might not be interrelated at all.

So, to make a point: Shared Match Clusters (or concentrations in Shared Match Lists) should be considered as a Hint. The stronger the consensus, the stronger the Hint. The chore that still remains is tracing the genealogy from the Match to a Common Ancestor(s).

I find that consensus is a judgment call. But when I make that call, I usually find other Matches with a genealogy link as expected. But not always…

Segment Triangulation is fairly precise – each of our DNA segments came to us from one particular ancestral path. Shared Matches (aka In Common With, aka Relatives in Common, etc) are not equivalent to Triangulation. When Shared Matches form a Cluster, it’s a strong Hint. And a 20×20 Cluster is much stronger than a 3×3 Cluster. And a 20×20 Cluster where each Match matches almost all of the other Matches is very strong, compared to a 20×20 Cluster where each Match only matches, say, half of the others… I have found large, strong Clusters (beyond close cousins) usually turn out to include one TG (maybe two), but there is no hard rule.

Summary: Shared Matches can grouped into Clusters. Clusters are not the same as Triangulated Groups (TGs), but they can be good pointers and helpful Hints.

[22CW] Segment-ology: Pro Tools Part 15: Shared Match Cluster Hints by Jim Bartlett 20241125

Jigsaw Puzzles

Our genetic genealogy is very much like a jigsaw puzzle. Our Ancestors and our DNA segments are both pieces of a large jigsaw picture (ourselves). Soon after the moment of conception – when sperm meets egg – our DNA segments and crossover points are determined. And, of course, our Ancestors, each with 2 biological parents, are determined. There may be lots we don’t know, but those configurations (DNA and Ancestors) are fixed – waiting for us to discover them. Just like a box of jigsaw puzzle pieces, all the pieces  are there – and they only go together one way (like our DNA segments and our  Ancestors).

Now think about our DNA Matches – perhaps 100,000 of them – as we open our list…   The overarching concept is that a Match sharing at least 15cM with us is always a true (Identical By Descent or IBD) relative; and over half of the remaining Matches will also be IBD and a true relative. Of course, some of these Match-relatives will be distant cousins.

Based on my deep dive with Pro Tools, I’m now convinced at least 20% of my DNA Matches at Ancestry are relatives within a genealogy time-frame. I’ll go out on a limb and say 8C or closer!.

So, to the point of this blog post… 20,000 of my 100,000 Matches are probably 8C or closer. Each one of them is a jigsaw puzzle piece. Each one interlocks with me (sometimes in multiple ways) and very often with other Matches (look at *their* Shared Match list). In many cases they form interlocking relationships with each other, from siblings to parent/child to 1C and 2C and 3C interrelationships. Just like a jigsaw puzzle. Some will be like the jigsaw lake, or forest, or barn or road – all of which “clumps” of the puzzle will eventually integrate – only one way – into the grand picture….

With Pro Tools’ new Sort feature (the Shared Matches’ *close to distant* Sort), it’s a whole lot easier to form small branches. Think of it this way…. You have 1,000 Matches, and you can easily find links that result in 500 pairs….  In a flash, you’ve cut your workload in half. And as you form larger clumps of Matches – all of your Matches in that clump must lead back to you! Put another way, look at the clump and see where all of your Matches have a Common Ancestral line – out of the clump and directly into your Tree – somehow…

The jigsaw puzzles:

1. The Ancestors must interlock in pairs and form an entire “Tree” jigsaw picture>
2. The DNA segments must array adjacently and form a Chromosome Map picture
3. Our Matches will interlock with us; each other; and our Ancestor Tree.

[22CV] Segment-ology: Pro Tools Part 14: Jigsaw Puzzles by Jim Bartlett 20241124

Status of Common Ancestor Spreadsheet

I have a spreadsheet of all Matches with Common Ancestors with me. It includes my Ancestors and their children down to each Match. See more at https://segmentology.org/2021/12/19/segmentology-common-ancestor-spreadsheet/ It’s a lot of work, so feel free to adapt it suit your needs.  

I have been reviewing all of these Matches and adding a LOT more using Pro Tools. I posted various ways to do this here, and I’ve gone down all those rabbit holes. I’m now on a march to review these Matches methodically – from closest Ancestors to more distant. I’ve found that it’s essential to have “known” Matches highlighted in Shared Match lists to speed the process of determining new Matches with CAs and forming family groups. So I’m adopting a two phase process. First: Recheck all Matches for firm relationships and having a clear set of Dots that will spotlight them in a Shared Match List – probably out to 5C level; Then: I’ll go back and use Pro Tools to tease out new Matches to add in.

Toward this end, I’m going to paste a Table below that shows my progress to date; and later I’ll update the Table to show the effect of Pro Tools. I’ve used Ahnentafel numbers (male of an ancestral couple) – their names are not needed for this exercise, although I did use given names for children for the first two generations. The comment column gives some reasons why the cMs deviate from the averages as when there are double Cousins or half Cousins, or Ancestors out of the US. You may also note the high number of Matches for Ahnentafel 70 – it’s because I jumped to that Ancestor, and used Pro Tools to find several key Matches to help with a burning question.

Here is where I stand now:

Note that this summary has 2477 Matches, through the 5C level (4XG grandparents). I have another 6,070 Matches in the 6C to 8C group.  My total is 8,547 Matches from AncestryDNA, out of about 100,000 total – I wanted to see what impact Pro Tools will have. We’ll see how far I can get…

[22CU] Segment-ology: Pro Tools Part 13 – Status of Common Ancestor Spreadsheet  by Jim Bartlett 20241117

The jokes on me… heads up!

In my last post I noted that the Pro Tools cM relatedness was pretty accurate! Today I found two Matches who were 1C – their parents were brothers. But the SMOM said 1,637cM they had to be half siblings. I checked with DNAPainter – 1,637cM is 100% half siblings (for same generation relationship). Back to the drawing board… Did the two brother marry (or have children with) the same wife? Maybe one brother died, and the other married the widow… Nope. Checking some more – the two brothers married two sisters! They were double 1C! Not in the DNA Painter range of options, but spot on for twice the 1C cMs. All is OK, but it had me scratching my head for a few minutes.

[22CT] Segment-ology: Pro Tools Part 12 – The Jokes on Me by Jim Bartlett 20241028

Ways to analyze Shared Matches Of Matches (SMOM) cMs.

Pro Tools gives us a LOT of new information. Not quite segment Triangulation, but very powerful data.

For example a Match shares 8cM with me and does not have a Tree. However, a SMOM shares 3,489cM with the Match, and Ancestry (with insider info) says the SMOM is the mother of the Match; and shares 17cM with me. As it turns out, I know the SMOM is a 3C1R with me on a particular Ancestor couple. It’s easy to 1. add the Match to my Tree; 2 add the Match to my Common Ancestor Spreadsheet; and 3. add a synopsis of this info (as a 3C2R) to the Match’s Notes. Of course this doesn’t happen every time, but it does happen some of the time.

The above example is a parent/child relationship, and Ancestry usually knows if it’s a son or daughter and a mother or father. Ancestry usually knows niece/nephew and aunt/uncle.

But the thrust of this blog post is about a family group and their interrelationships.  I’ve tried several methods to document and analyze new Match/SMOM cMs. All methods utilize my Common Ancestor Spreadsheet which is arranged by family groups [I sort by Ahnentafel of the Common Ancestor; and the birth years of children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.] This CA spreadsheet is my foundation of “known” cousins – I’m looking at their Shared Matches to see if I can determine how we are related and add them to the spreadsheet; and checking to see that the existing cousins are interrelated to each other as expected.

First try was to add about 10 blank columns to the spreadsheet. I’d then type an asterisk [*] for a Match in a column, and enter the shared cMs with the other Matches in the spreadsheet in the same column. It was sort of like a Cluster matrix; and anyone who had a faulty genealogy was easily highlighted. But two issues: 1. It was a lot of work for a family group; 2. some of the Matches were in fact related up or down a generation [not physically close on the spreadsheet]; and 3. it was difficult (for me, anyway) to determine how an unknown Match would fit in… [someday I’ll try DNA Painter or BanyanDNA…]

The second try was just one new column, and I would type in the highest cM found among all the Shared Matches; the suggested relationship [almost always accurate for high cMs];  the Match name; and any known info. Issues: again, a lot of work; and some Matches don’t have any high cM SMOM with me.  I still add these when they are the only evidence I have for adding a new Match to my Common Ancestor spreadsheet.

Third/current try involves about 3 new columns and I color in a column where Matches match most of the others. Sort of like LEEDs column-coloring. This is somewhat easier to do, without a lot of typing. And the colored “stripes” are comforting to see (and to highlight Matches who may not “belong” and/or need further research.)

Also, I’m hopping around some these days, working on specific issues (Brick Walls, questionable genealogy, trying to link in (or out) selected Matches). It appears that the closer generations have one stripy column and as I work on more distant Ancestors, the number of colored columns grows.

I’m still fiddling with good/efficient ways to use/display SMOM cMs; or even if I need to at all. I’ve worked on about 10% of my Matches in the Common Ancestor Spreadsheet. At every turn, Pro Tools is helping me find more and more Matches for whom I can determine our relationship. So still a long way to go – and I’m sure there are many more Matches to add to my spreadsheet.

You are encouraged to post in the comments any insights, tricks or hacks you’ve developed for using SMOM cMs…

[22CS] Segment-ology: Pro Tools 11 – Ways to Analyze SMOM cMs by Jim Bartlett 20241027

Branch Groups

I’m methodically working my way through my Ancestors and Matches using Pro Tools. My main tool is my Common Ancestor Spreadsheet, which is now growing very rapidly. I’m not really in it for the bulk, but for the advantages of Branch Groups. What I call Branch Groups are groups of my DNA Matches under one child or grandchild of one of my Ancestors – these Matches are on the same Tree “branch”.  Such Matches are closer to each other (than to me) and tend to share more DNA with each other. They stand out with DNA shares over 90cM; and I take notice. I can often “fit” them into a Branch Group. On the other hand, I’ve found some Matches that have the right genealogy for a Branch Group, but they don’t share much DNA with others in the Group – more on this below.

Here are some thoughts and observations:

SMOM – Shared Matches of Matches aka “Rabbit Holes” – haha.  When you select a Match and click on the Shared Matches button – you get a list of all the Matches you both have in your respective Match lists. These are your Shared Matches (SMs) with that Match. Each of these SMs shares some DNA with you that you both got from the same Common Ancestor (CA). And, with Pro Tools, you know how much DNA each of these SMs also shares with the “base” Match that *they* got from some CA. Often these two CAs are the same (or one is ancestral to the other); but sometimes the CAs are completely different – *their* CA could be unrelated to you or related to you on a  different line – see Outliers below). When we’ve done our homework and entered Notes for many Matches, we can usually look down the SM list and easily see if there is a consensus, or not – see Birds of a Feather below. Like with auto-Clustering, a consensus indicates a group of Matches that mostly match each other, indicating a Common Ancestor among them. Usually, their CA is also one of your Ancestors – BINGO! This is a Branch Group.  Sometimes their CA is unknown to you – this could be a random happenstance. Or it could be a Floating Branch Group – see below.

Branch Group aka Cluster. When you find SMOMs who share high levels of shared DNA (cMs) with each other they usually form a Branch Group. By “high levels” I mean at least 90cM; but I often drop down to around 50cM as the group grows larger. I consider 20-25cM as “in the noise”, and usually not worth the trip down a rabbit hole. [For your own situation, experiment to find a threshold that usually gives you efficient results.] Sometimes you can get 5-10 (or more) of these SMOMs which link under a child or grandchild or Great grandchild of one of your Ancestors. And then it’s easier to find other SMOMs that fit into the Branch Group. Use an SMOM in a Branch Group to make a new Shared Match list, invariably with new SMOMs… the clues (or rabbit holes) are everywhere! As it turns out in a Branch Group, not all Match descendants will Match all of the other Matches in the group. Remember: at the 4C level, roughly 50% of true 4C won’t show up as matches to each other.

Birds of a Feather.  On many Shared Match lists, a scan of the Notes indicates a clear consensus – most SMs have Notes indicating the same CA; and some are from the same line (up or down a generation). These are birds of a feather – they cluster together. And Pro Tools shows them to be close relatives – these are a Branch Group. In these cases, I’m much more likely to review Matches not yet linked in, and to build their Trees back to find the link. As a quick check, click on a Match and see *their* SMs with you – are they indeed Birds of a Feather? Or not?. For some Shared Match lists, a quick scan of existing Notes may indicate they are all over the place – on both sides; on different branches – so, it’s difficult to determine a consensus. Move on…

Outliers – linked by genealogy, but not linked by shared DNA.  I’ve now run into a very few cases of DNA Matches who are clearly genealogy relatives (in my Common Ancestors spreadsheet) under Ancestor XYZ, but they do not share DNA with other close cousin Matches under XYZ. In each case, so far, they are also related to me in another way, and they do share DNA with their other cousins.  Thinking about multiple segments and/or multiple relationships leads me to Triangulated segments, but I’ll put that discussion off for a future blog post. Just be aware that a Match with one shared segment can only be genetically related one way. Pro Tools may help determine which one.

Collateral SURNAMES in Branch Groups. Less than 1% of my Matches have the same SURNAME as the CA we share [Y and mt lines are pretty rare]. This means my Common Ancestor spreadsheet (tracking the lines of descent down to Matches) includes Collateral SURNAMEs. As I’m working on an MCRA Branch Group in my spreadsheet, I’m reviewing each of my Match cousins, and reviewing all of the  SMOM shared cMs, and checking the Trees of those over 90cM (and glancing at some down to 50cM). Often there is enough to tie those Matches to my Tree (even some with no Trees). It really helps to review the Collateral SURNAMEs already recorded in my spreadsheet for that Branch – that’s usually where I’m going to find a link. And it means I don’t have to build a tree back for each Match – I can usually copy the line of descent of an existing Match in the spreadsheet, and just change the last few generations. A big time saver – in searching and typing… Recognizing a Collateral SURNAME in a Match’s scrawny Tree is helpful. Sometimes I’ll filter a long Shared Match list by a Collateral SURNAME…

Floating Branch Groups. A few times I’ve found a Branch Group that I cannot link to my Tree. They usually include parent/children, siblings, aunt/uncle/niece/nephew, and maybe some 1C or 2C, all in a tight family group. All the interrelationship cMs are on target. But, other than being on a Shared Match list with some known Matches in a Branch Group, I cannot find a link. In most cases this has happened “near” a Brick Wall (or “iffy”) Ancestor of mine. So I’ve created a Floating Branch in my Tree, so I can link other Matches to it. I need to do a study of closest known Matches to see where this Floating Branch is headed – another rabbit hole. Such a Floating Branch could just be a mirage (not really linked to me), or I might find some “tendril” Matches (maybe through a Collateral SURNAME filter) that help find the link. I operate under the belief that ALL Matches over 15cM (and many under 15cM) are true cousins, and many are within a genealogy timeframe and should fit in my Tree somewhere.   

I am now convinced of two things: A) A lot more of our under-20cM Matches are well within our genealogy timeframe than I originally thought; and B) our Brick Walls (out to at least 8C level) have plenty of Matches forming Branch Groups. With each generation going back, it’s harder and harder to figure them out, but Pro Tools can often provide new insights. This helps offset the fact that many Matches have NO Trees or very scrawny Trees. There is hope! But it takes work!

[22CR] Segment-ology: Pro Tools Part 10 Branch Groups by Jim Bartlett 20240812

Build A Foundation

I feel like I’ve been drinking though a fire hose – there are just so many good clues in the Shared Match cM lists. I’ve tried all of the four Plans of Action I previously laid out – and I’ve found myself still jumping from one to another – good clues are just too hard to pass up. And a parent/child, sibling, aunt/uncle/niece/nephew and even a 1C will suck me in like a magnet – particularly when one has NO Tree and another has a good Tree. AND, if I’m working in a small sub-branch so I know many of the collateral SURNAMES and the geography,  I’ve got to capture that info before I move on…

Observation 1: As I scroll through hundreds of Shared Match lists, I see lots of Shared Matches with the same MRCA I’m researching [almost all of my over-20cM Matches have a Note indicating a validated MRCA, or a likely/imputed one]. And I see lots of Shared Matches one generation up or one generation down. For instance, I’m working on my MRCA couple 40P, and I see Shared Matches that are also 40P, and Matches who are 20P and 80P and 82P. I shouldn’t be surprised, because we are all on the same ancestral line; AND a 20P Match who is a 3C (or 3C1R) with me, is also related to my Matches on 40P – maybe as 4C or 3C1R, etc. This is very comforting to see a Match with Shared Matches up and down one of my lines.

Observation 2: Each of the MRCAs that I focus on – usually for a few days – has seen a significant increase in the number of Matches that I can verify exactly how we are related. Plus, if they are closely related to a known Match AND have a bunch of Shared Matches with me along this same line, I can add them to my Common Ancestor Spreadsheet anyway, with confidence they are on the same sub-branch.  In any case, I’m winding up with a lot of Matches under each MRCA; and a lot of new Notes for them.

Recommendation/Tip: Combining 1 and 2 above, I now think the best path forward is to build the foundations and then work back in our Ancestry.  I have no 1C, so this means starting with my great grandparent MRCA couples and, using Pro Tools, teasing out as many Matches as possible for each one of my 4 MRCA couples [8P, 10P, 12M, 14M] – and adding their info into the Match Notes. Then, as I move to the next generation further back, I will see many of these Notes in the Shared Match lists for Match-cousins back to MRCAs16P to 30M. In general, the Shared Matches to these MRCAs will “stay in their lane,” and that is a strong indication. Remember, some Shared Matches may match you one way and match the base Match another way – those Matches will usually have a shorter, random list of Shared Matches – I skip over those quickly and move on.

Bottom Line: If we start with our closest MRCA couples and “Note” all the Matches we can, we’ve built a strong foundation for when we get to the next generation. This will become more and more valuable as we work out through more distant generations. I think such a foundation will be essential when we get to 4C and beyond.

[22CQ] Segmentology: Pro Tools Part 9 Build A Foundation; by Jim Bartlett 20240724

Group Process

Here is (sorta) my process for working with a Match and their Shared Match list with me.

1. Pick a Match with an MRCA (I don’t have good criteria yet, but I like one with a good Tree; and it’s helpful to know that they have several close cousins in my Common Ancestor spreadsheet).

2. First pass: look though all of their Shared Matches for Notes that indicate they share the same MRCA.  [sometimes I note the shared cM in a new column; sometimes I just use a highlight color in a column – in either case to indicate a group with the Match in #1]

3. I’ll stop at any Match who is very close – parent/child; sibling; even aunt/uncle/niece/nephew. If not in my spreadsheet, I add them in and add appropriate Notes to their profile to highlight the MRCA and relationship to me – e.g. #A0038P/4C1R: ALLEN/Elizabeth.

4. Then I make another pass through the Shared Match list – opening the Matches who share above 90cM (generally within about 2C to the original Match in #1 above).  From my spreadsheet I know of other SURNAMES the other Matches have in their path back to the MRCA – so I’m looking for those surnames in addition to the MRCA surnames. For example: MOESZINGER led me to 4 other new Matches from my ALLEN MRCA.

5. Repeat #4 (a third pass) looking at above 50cM or so – digging a little more (and by this time, I usually have additional Matches with helpful Notes to play off of.

6. Now, start at the top of the #1 Shared Match list (a fourth pass), and open each Match who does share the MRCA with you. Look down each such Match’s Shared Match list with you, using the #4 process above. The idea here is that not every cousin will share with every other cousin (remember only 50% of all your true 4C will share DNA with you; 50% will not!). So using this step usually adds a few more Matches to the group. [If you use a highlight color column, all of the Matches in a part of a Common Ancestor spreadsheet should get colored in.]

7. If you’re working on a Brick Wall (or NPE or bio-Ancestor, etc), go through the remaining Matches who have Trees and jot down the SURNAME in their Trees. Look for a Common Ancestor among those (usually more distant) Matches, who would be a good potential for an Ancestor at or beyond the Brick Wall.

In each case above, I add new Matches to my Common Ancestor Spread Sheet (now about 7,000 from Ancestry), and add them (and their path) to my Ancestry Tree (they are always living and private).  

Sidebar: My Common Ancestor spreadsheet is a good tool for each family group based on an MRCA. I haven’t found a good way, yet, to analyze the Shared Matches who are related to me through the children or ancestors of the MRCA. However, I do note that they show up in the Shared Match list. For instance, I’m now working on my MRCA – 38P (this is the Ahnentafel representing Joseph ALLEN, along with his wife Elizabeth [39P on her own] – maiden name unknown). It’s comforting to note that many of the Shared Matches have Notes starting with #A0018P (an MRCA representing my Ancestor who married A19P, the daughter of 38P) and some close Matches with #A0008P), an even closer descendant of 38P. Normally, I would have some smaller cM Matches back to 76P and 78P (representing the two MRCA couples who are ancestors of 38P and 39P, but both 38P and 39P are brick walls…  So Group Process #7 above, is next on my list.  

The above is a classic example of the iterative nature of genetic genealogy, and the importance of having a good Note system that lets you see the key elements in a Shared Match list. It all comes back to doing the homework of keeping good, visible, Notes at Ancestry. Tip: I now add a Match’s SURNAMEs to the Notes if I don’t have any other clues – I can then see these SURNAMEs in the Notes fields in a Shared Match list…

Bottom Line: I think the Pro Tools Shared cM feature needs an iterative process of reviewing Shared Matches to add in as many new Matches as possible under our MRCA groups. This also includes noting Shared Matches closer and more distant to each MRCA group; and analyzing remaining (usually smaller cM) Matches to break through more distant Brick Walls. Lot’s to do….

[22CP] Segment-ology: Pro Tools Part 8 Group Process; by Jim Bartlett 20240719