Post by myghaelangof on May 26, 2017 15:14:06 GMT -5
I am sure dna has been discussed on here before, but I cant find any reference to it. Anyway, just had my ancestry dna test results back, which were slightly disappointing, not that I was expecting a family tree back to the year dot to accompany it. The results refer to genetic make up 'Thousands of years' ago.. which for me were 46% British, 39% West Europe, 7% Greek Italian, 3% Irish, and some random 1% that could be 'statistical errors'! I was under the impression that the genetic breakdown given would be for the last 500-1000 years.
That apart, ancestry.co.uk have linked me to 71 4th-6th cousins, mainly in the South West of Britain. Corresponding with one or two of these cousins, and looking through various attached online trees, I am surprised by the large number where I can find no link at all. For example one gentleman I am currently corresponding with has a large German background, and several ties with Liverpool.
Ancestry does give me links to two 3rd cousins that were very straight forward to unravel.
Has anyone had experience of trying to unravel their results, and have any suggestions on other angles I could tackle this? Any help greatly appreciated from members of this site.
Regards Mike Angove.
"A name perpetual, and a fame permanent and immortal"
Having now been playing in mysterious dark forest that is DNA assisted research for the last year, I can say that it can be extremely rewarding, and but at the same time it can also be extremely frustrating.
One of the challenges with trying to sort out DNA matches in Ancestry is the limited options available for trying to figure out a match. If the person with the match has a private tree, then the only option is to contact them. Those with associated trees can also be problematic, since often the trees only go back a generation or two and thus because the people are living they are automatically privatised by Ancestry.
Those without associated trees are also a challenge. Because of the advertising by Ancestry, many people have got tested who end up with nothing more than an isolated test, with little or no reseach connected to it, and often even trying to contact them goes no where. However I have also discovered that although showing with no associated tree on the main search page, often a test will have been done by a person with a tree, but just not associated with it. You can then select the tree and the default home person will be assumed to be the same as the tested person. The caution here is that the test may well not be for the home person (e.g. some trees make the home person an ancestor from the 1800s), but it can on occasion offer clues.
One of the tools I can recommend is a site called GEDMATCH - which has many very useful free features, though some of the more advanced require a small membership fee (can be as short as a month). You can download your test from Ancestry and then upload it to Gedmatch. Because the site allows you to compare DNA test kits in ways not available on the commercial sites (and the largely free nature of it) many more dedicated researchers have put results there. While you won't get all the same matches as in Ancestry, it has the advantage that you will also see matches that originated in other pay for use sites (Family Tree DNA, 23andMe, etc). When uploaded the kits are given a code unique to the site (Ancestry originated ones start with an A). You are able to upload GEDCOM files to associate with the test, though again many do not. If you see a match to an Ancestry kit, by looking at the associated email address you can sometimes (though not always) find the Ancestry username since many people use their email name as their Ancestry username.
Gedmatch offers a number of useful tools, quite a few of which are free. Some of these (not all free) include the ability to view where the actual DNA matches and to compare multiple kits at the same time. If you have multiple kits (e.g. you and one or both parents) you can do what is called phasing and identify which side of the family a match is on. X-DNA matches allow searching on primarily female lines (as well as your mother's direct female ancestors, includes males at each marriage but not the full male line - that is your father, and your father's mother, but not your father's father, and so on).
Coming back to Ancestry, you have probably seen that Ancestry gives an estimate of relationship, with a range of relationships. In my experience, the closer the relationship the more reliable. Out to about second cousins, Ancestry is rarely wrong. From third cousins onward, it becomes more unreliable, and Ancestry tends to call anything beyond a fourth cousin relationship "distant cousins". Part of the problem is that different levels of actual relationship can present as similar when estimating genetic connection (1st cousin twice removed can appear similar to 2nd cousins). Add in the complication that even full siblings can get quite different mixes from their parents genes, and within as little as three generations the result can be that documented cousins might not match as cousins under the standard algorithms.
I had my sister and I tested through Ancestry and have since uploaded both kits to GEDMATCH and also FTDNA (small initial once only fee, some tools available free, some at cost). Regardless of the site, quite often for the more distant cousin matches, I find that only one of us will match a given person/test. Yet we may both match other kits that share that first kit (that only one of us matches). In the cases where one of us does not show as a match to a person the other matches, sometimes if you lower the standard thresholds used in finding a match to very low levels, then whichever of my sister or I that doesn’t have a match might show as sharing some small sections of DNA with the distant cousin, just not enough to trigger a match. Other times there is no real overlap in DNA at all.
Further to the previous note, and more specifically to me, I have had some surprising successes - albeit there are many frustrations.
In my own personal case, Ancestry says I am 54% Irish, 18% West Europe, 13% British and traces from elsewhere - with my sister (full sibling) being 56% Irish, 24% British and 11% Scandinavian. Note that my sister appears to have inherited slightly more DNA from our father's English and Scottish (British & Scandinavian) ancestry than I have.
This fits fairly well with our documented history, where at least half of our two-great-grandparents were either Irish or had Irish parents. Part of the challenge here is in the way Ancestry overlaps areas. We have documented lines going back into Wales, Cornwall and Scotland (both central and far north) as well as multiple areas of Ireland. So some of what Ancestry calls Irish may in fact relate to our Scottish or Cornish lineages. The Scandinavian showing up in my sister's DNA (and at a much lower trace level in me) is likely due to a combination of our Sutherlandshire Scottish ancestors with the probable addition of genes from a 4xgreat-grandmother on that side of the family who was born in the Orkneys, and move south to near Newcastle, England around 1785 marrying into a Durhamshire family (again a remote possibility for Scandinavian genes).
My feeling is that generally the trace DNA identified by Ancestry can be considered of doubtful usefuleness and unlikely to be more than random coincidental matching. For example both my sister and I supposedly have a less that 2% match to the Pacific Islander DNA matches, and a similarly low level to Asia. While neither are completely impossible in the distant past, I am completely confident that there is absolutely no possibility of a DNA contribution from these areas in the last 300 years.
However, there was one trace match that did get my attention. We both show trace levels of African DNA - me at 2% African South Eastern Bantu, my sister at <1% Cameroon/Congo. The reason for my interest is that through one of my 3xgreat-grandmothers I have a documented African Negro ancestry going back to slaves owned by the British South Seas Company on their Atlantic Ocean stronghold on the island of St. Helena (where Napoleon Bonaparte ended his days). While there is no document evidence for where the original slave ancestors were taken, the normal process was that during the early 1700s ships returning from India would acquire a slave or two from one of the ports on the eastern coast of Africa and deposit them at St. Helena on the way back to Britain, though the process had basically ceased by the late 1700s.
Where this gets interesting is that the group I am connected to, the South Eastern Bantu, are actually considered a sub grouping of the wider Bantu race. The Bantu actually originated in the Cameroon/Congo region and spread out across pretty much all of sub-Saharan Africa. So the combination of my sister and I suggest that some or all of our African Negro ancestors were collected from the southeast of Africa, though from a group that had genetic origins in the Cameroon/Congo region. The low levels of DNA are consistent with the fact that the last near full blood Negro in our ancestry was our 3xgreat-grandmother - her daughter and our ancestor had a father believe to be European - possibly Dutch in origin or perhaps English? - and she and all her descendants married people with British origins. As well, even the earlier Negro generations had some European ancestors to further thin the African DNA.
However the perhaps the biggest surprise was one match that was actually made by Ancestry. Generally with Ancestry, while the matches rated as High, Very High and Extremely High are solid matches that you have a good chance of figuring out, those rated Good or Moderate are usually frustrating to sort out.
One of my lines includes a couple of First Fleet convicts to Australia. This couple (family surname Lucas) have a well documented huge family - a couple of decades ago I published a huge book (1800 pages) covering their then known descendants - all 41,000 of them (63,000 names in total including spouses). I was doing some filtering by the Lucas surname in Ancestry to identify the matches there that related to the Lucas family's Australian descendants and not surprisingly found quite a large number of them.
However one lower level Moderate match eventually caught my attention. The person tested was another dedicated researcher with a well documented online tree. Yet when I first looked at her tree I couldn't find the Lucas surname. It was only when I dived deeper that I found it.
According to Ancestry, we were: Distant Cousins, Moderate Confidencce, predicted range being 5th - 8th cousins. What I eventually found was that we were 8th cousins once removed.
The interesting point is that Ancestry had made the match based solely on DNA. While the other person had what turned out to be the common ancestor in her online tree, at the time I had not extended my online tree that far back, and there was a two or three generation gap in my tree. Our common ancestors turned out to be my 7xgreat-grandparents, John Lucas (1656-1737) and Sarah Wheatland (?-1741). As I also have another line of ancestry going back into the same area of Surrey where the Lucas family originated, I was unable to find any commonality between the second line of mine and the Lucas cousin match. So the match has to have been through our common Lucas ancestry.
The distance in time back to the match, not to mention the fact it was nine generations back, was certainly a surprise. But I can't explain other than through this Lucas lineage.
The other nice point that arose from this match is that it proved conclusively that my male First Fleet convict was indeed the son of the parents we had always thought were his. While there was only one possible family in the village were he was born, there was a gap of around ten years in the local parish registers that spanned the year in which he was born and would have been baptised. So we had never had a firm paper trail to prove the connection, but DNA now does that for us. I am hoping that eventually I will find other matches in the descendants of the First Fleeter back to the my shared match in Surrey to prove the match to me beyond any doubt of being a coincidental random match.
From a Cornish point of view, I have just recently finally found a proven match (through FTDNA) to one of my Cornish ancestors. I now have a definite match to another descendant of my 4xgreat-grandparents Edward Eddy (1791-1861) and Margaret Oats (1788-1875).
Further searching on the Cornish side still ongoing of course!
Last Edit: May 26, 2017 20:49:45 GMT -5 by gandolf
Hi Gandolf, The Lucas name caught my eye as my maternal gt grandmother was a Lucas from Surrey. I am fairly sure that she was descended from the Lucas family that farmed at Alfold. I haven't ventured into the world of DNA testing partly because I think it would be clouded by the line of my German grandfather, and partly because the Cornish connection is already so enormous!
Hard to say at this stage whether there is a connection, though it is not impossible. My lot were mostly based further north and east, centred primarily around Leatherhead, Fetcham, Mickleham and immediate areas.
Post by myghaelangof on May 27, 2017 4:15:57 GMT -5
Hi Gandolf, wow that is a fairly comprehensive response to my questions, which will require some taking-in. Many many thanks for taking the time to explain in detail. I am going to work shortly, so will have a good read through before coming back to you. There is obviously a lot more work for me to do.
"A name perpetual, and a fame permanent and immortal"
I am still attempting to wrap my head around the process and my results after 15 months. It did take while for Ancestry DNA results to populate (and then a year for me to review them all!) After this year's holiday specials on test kits, I continue to see 2-5 dozen new matches a day. I work with the ones that present enough of a tree to be useful and also note any where I have shared matches. That has become a major feature for me recently. Enough "cousins" have tested that I now have some frame of reference for Trewhela, Blewett, Harvey, Semmons, Sampson, Kitto, some Calf & Ford families to help point me in the right direction. Matches are also lining up that look like they help with my "gaps" in the Mitchell and Taylor families. I also seem to have a Polkinghorne streak going back further than I would have expected. I decided to highlight my matches in my family group spreadsheets that I keep-- they are becoming rather colorful!
Mike, I wonder if the earlier ethnicity match time-frame you are hoping for is part of the new Genetic Communities? It's been in beta testing; I don't know if released in all markets yet? I have been assigned to the South West English Peninsula group.(With uncertain confidence percentages since this only relates to my mother's side! 53 of mine known matches are there with me.) My brother and I share pretty much the same long-ago groups, except he gets a dash of Finnish/NW Russian that I don't
We have an interesting DNA discussion in the Spanish Genes in Cornwall? thread-- that's probably what you remember.
Post by myghaelangof on Jun 1, 2017 11:22:52 GMT -5
Hi Zibetha and Gandolf, I havent got my head around the Communities as yet, or rather how they allocate them. However my Communities results are: South West Britain 'Very Likely', and West Midlands 'Possible'. The South West bar is almost full but I cant see any way of obtaining more detail. The West Midlands bar is about 1/6th along. The rest of my Ethnicity estimate, covers Great Britain (not Ireland) and West Europe. From my perspective I could probably have guessed roughly at these areas/percentages given: (1) My dad was Saltash born, his dad from a long term West Penwith background, and his mum's mixed Cornwall/Devon ancestry. My research going back to the 1500's has revealed a West Cornwall mix of Sassenach's, Bretons, and long term native Cornish. The Plymouth end could be a right old melting pot, more of which later. (2) My mum was a Warwickshire girl, with family drifting through Northants, Oxfordshire and Berkshire. The Berkshire line, my great grandma, comes from a Hugenot family - more French.
Hopefully as I review the connections I have found, using a spreadsheet, I will make more sense of it all, and unravel one or two interesting stories.
"A name perpetual, and a fame permanent and immortal"
Post by myghaelangof on Jun 1, 2017 11:57:30 GMT -5
Hi Gandolf and Zibetha,
Gandolf, many many thanks for your detailed mail regarding Gedmatch. Following your guidance, and that of a YouTube 'how to' video (rather like paint by numbers lol) I easily uploaded my dna results to Gedmatch. The result was 2000 matches, just over 1000 of which were down to 6th cousin (6.0). The top 2 results at 4.0 were the same person, a descendant of my Great Grandma Bennetts' sister from St.Just. An easy line to prove and confirm the results. Result number 6, at 4.5 generations, was also easy to align, as he had an Ancestry online tree linking back to my St.Just Williams' Great Great Great Grandparents. At about no.20 is a lady I have now had email correspondence with and we have established a link at 7g grandparents level, slightly out from Gedmatch 4.6. However given the intercousin relationships in St Just I wonder if this clouds the dna breakdown for modern research, or if there is another 'discrete' link in there.
I have created a spreadsheet of the top 100 ancestry matches, 80 of whom are 4-6th cousins, and two 3-4th cousins. One of the top two ancestry results are a lady with the same grandparents as my mum, and she even has some of the same photos as me on her tree. I know where she got them from! The other is HARVEY (Zibetha?) and I believe he is the half brother to my GG Grandma WILLIAMS/SHAKERLEY.
For the spreadsheet I have cross referenced all matches to each other and can create a breakdown thus: West Cornwall 20 matching dna tests (all interlinking!! ie matching to the same researchers give or take) East Cornwall 11 & 4 (2 different lines) Warwickshire 5 (known line that went to NZ) Warwickshire 2 Unknown locations: 2, 3 & 3 No known match to anyone else: 48
Of these, approx half have online trees ranging from 3 to 13000 people. Ideally I have found the best ones to look at, when not locked/private, to be those with 50-500 entries. With 13000 people in your tree it is very hard to work out links, or even if the submitter is a direct link to you.
I have started playing with the gedmatch tools and see ranges of dna that overlap, but not gone into any detail about the meaning as yet.
My initial thoughts are this is going to be a long haul research project and that I should start with the matches that only tie in wioth me. For example the 20 persons who match me in Penwith should be easily located in the family database, and trying to establish which is the stronger gene, the 5th generation back, or the 9th geenration back, may prove tricky. Therefore if I can find a link to the tests that only match me, I may breakdown some of my brickwalls, much like your First Fleeter Gandolf. I have already had one email asking if I am related to the Scottish Kennedy's. Maybe it is someone clutching at straws and we have a remote link elsewhere in the 6-7th cousin line, or maybe, just maybe, it is that elusive AngloIrish line of my GG Grandma.
Plenty of work to do, and another weekend coming up. Many thanks to you both, and everyone on here over the years. Mike
Mike, Gandolph said it all! I have made decisions about how I would quantify and address the information flowing to me. My spreadsheet goes to the extent of 4-6 generation matches plus anyone beyond thatwith whom I share DNA matches or locations make sense. (With a strong preference to Cornwall.) I think it helps to decide on how to prioritize and organize ones' results. Then you take it a step at a time from there. My best wishes to you in terms of your progress --- and Harveys? Let me know.
Having now dipped your toes into DNA assisted research, you are likely in for an interesting - though at times frustrating - ride. I am still far from being an expert, but after a year or so of playing in the area, and with some guidance from others, I am starting to get useful results.
One of the reasons I like the GEDMATCH site is that there are some nifty tools there that are not really available through Ancestry or FTDNA. While some of them are available for free, some of the others (the Tier 1 tools) only come with payment of a fee, though that is not horrific expensive and can be paid in as little as a single month's membership.
In the latter group, the Triangulation tool can be useful as you get more advanced, since it helps to identify other kits that match your kit and details exactly where on the chromosomes the matches are. I took a short membership last year to look more closely at a group on one of my Irish ancestral families where we have a large number of descendants from the group now identified and tested. The autosomal DNA (aDNA) evidence is now getting stronger by the day that there is a single Most Recent Common Ancestor for everyone of the same surname who can trace their family back to a small catholic parish in western County Clare, with that MRCA being likely to have lived as recently as the mid to late 1700s. The challenge is making the leap down one or two undocumented generations, since local parish registers only survive from the 1830s and there are only limited other tools (e.g. Tithe Records) to identify people.
What I used the triangulation tool to do was help me identify the shared sections of each chromosome between various cousins. I then used this to devise a chart which showed the areas on each Chromosome where the inherited DNA has a good chance of coming from the common ancestor since it has been inherited by multiple descendants (the more with the shared DNA, the more likely it was from the same common ancestor).
A word of caution however in relation to autosomal DNA matches. Something that is very easy to forget is that every gene in a chrosomome is actually a pair, with a segment of DNA that two people match on will actually only be one half of a grouping of paired genes. From the point of view of autosomal DNA comparison (such as Ancestry does), the fact that the genes are a pair is basically ignored as irrelevant and as long as two people have large enough matching segments (regardless of which "half" of the gene the match is on), they will be considered as related.
However, because of the fact that it is a pairing, the result is that it is possible to have a scenario where three people can appear to share matches on the same segment of a chromosome, yet while one person might match both the other two, those other two might not match each other. To try to explain how this works, consider the following three names and an example of a rather simple segment of DNA for each of them:
Peter's DNA: AAAAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBBBB
Paul's DNA: BBBBBBBBBBBBB CCCCCCCCCCCCC
Mary's DNA: CCCCCCCCCCCCC DDDDDDDDDDDDD
In this scenario, Paul would show as a match to both Peter (via the BBBBBBBBBBBBB) and Mary (via the CCCCCCCCCCCCC). However a direct comparison of Peter and Mary would indicate that they are not a match on the relevant segment since there is no common DNA at all (thus they may not even show as a cousin to each other, and indeed might not even be related to each other in any way).
So I find the best solution is to look to see how many shared matches you can locate between any two or more people, since the more common matches, the more likely to be related. Further as you start to establish known matches, you can quickly see what known matches show up in the shared list that might help narrow down the corner of the family to look for the match in.
One good way of doing this in GEDMATCH is with one of the free tools - the "People who match one or both of two Kits" tool. Concentrate on the shared matches section at the top, since this is the group of kits that match both of the two sample kits you are comparing (typically that would be your kit and the unidentified 'cousin', though can be any two kits).
Another tool that I am using a lot with my western Co. Clare family is the Multiple Kit Analysis tools. There are a number of comparison tools grouped there that allow you to compare many different kits together at the same time. These can also be very useful, particularly once you start getting multiple known cousins established. If you are unsure where a new match might fit, you can throw the new kit in with several other kits with known relationships and see how they all compare against each other in various matrices. This is another way you can identify whether a new match is on, for example, your mother's side of the family or father's side, or which branch of the tree on a given parent's side.
It can all be great fun at times, and in the longer term will likely lead to new breakthroughs on the family.
The other point that has also been touched upon in some of the comments, is that in some more isolated population groups, there has been an inevitable higher level of intermarriage (often between cousins = whether close or distant) that has the potential to perhaps skew predicted relationships somewhat.
My suspicion is that West Penwith is likely to be something similar (though perhaps to a lesser extent) to what I have seen in the relatively isolated regions in the west and south of Ireland where there is considerable intermarriage of between local families and quite often between people documented as cousins.
With the family in western Co. Clare that I am currently trying to untangle, there are several instances of marriage of first cousins from this same family in the earlier generations, which are then further complicated when several of the descendants in the families arising from the first cousin marriages also end up taking their spouses from the same other family in the parish. The end result is any two living descendants could be at least double cousins (e.g. double third cousins due to their great-grandparents being first cousins), with perhaps one or even two other common shared cousin-ships through other common ancestry from outside the first family.
The end result is that many of the DNA estimated relationships can end up skewed due to higher than normal levels of shared ancestry - the family I am looking at on occasion appears to be out by at least a half generation, often a full generation, in the estimates to the MRCA due to having multiple lines of descent from the same people.
From my reading last year, the Jewish population (due to close inbreeding for centuries), are such an extreme example of the above situation that estimating relationships for Jewish populations requires special consideration.
I have noticed isolated or limited population groups within my own research. I, too, suspect the Cornish may be one. A great-grandfather (not Cornish) of mine who lost his father at age three and thus did not know his family history has turned out to have a very interesting heritage. Born in Indiana, he descended from both English and Swiss relatives who sought religious freedom in the US. I finally confirmed his parents 4 and a half years ago. I have been surprised/shocked to find Evangelical Church of the Brethren, Quaker, and Mayflower ancestry. We thought he was English-- which is true but not the whole story. On his mother's side, I have a 9 times great grandfather, Thomas Casey, probably born in Ulster province, Ireland. He may have have been of English parentage though.
Post by myghaelangof on Jun 17, 2017 13:11:54 GMT -5
Well, a couple of weeks on, and my head is buzzing with so much info. I was surprised to see how many of my dna links have family trees dating back to the 17th century new colonies, which can make it difficult to find links that far back. In response to Zibetha above, I note that a lot of the early colonists were English escaping religious persecution, ie Quakers to name one. Ancestry gives me 10,000 matches, and Gedmatch stops at 2000, but I'm sure there are more. As you go down the lists the amount of shared centimorgans (cm) does reduce rapidly to the point where any tangible benefit is far outweighed by the work you'd need to do, if indeed you could, to trace the link. Maybe these contain one of two really elusive 1850's Cornish links I cant unravel due to illegitamacy.
Overall the closest matches I have are at least three 4th cousins, one I can tie directly into my maternal gg grandparents, another to my paternal St. Just GG Grandparents SHAKERLEY/BENNETTS, thus confirming that the science does work! The other appears to be 4th cousin once removed to my WILLIAMS/WARREN family in St Just. None of these have so far responded to contact, even though they have been online. Perhaps my reputation precedes me !!!
There is a variety of information available on Ancestry and Gedmatch to help you along. However, it does depend how much info, ie how big a family tree, others have posted online. And also whether you can access their tree, or contact them. So far I have found that some participants are happy to respond, others maybe havent been on line for a while, and some probably arent even members of the site any longer!
With so many links to investigate where does one start? On Ancestry I have worked out that you can search by surname for links with family trees. Using this method I have found only 3 cousins with Angove links. This could be useful as I am stuck on my William ANGOVE married 1792 St.Levan. We did previously have several theories which are borne out by these results, and at the moment, by dna, the jury is out by 2-1. Two of these three link to Abel Angove at Illogan, and the 3rd to Edward of Gwinear. Not as clearcut as it might be, as there are other names thrown into the equation that might be affecting the cm's. Can I match upon GedMatch and use the "Matching segments". Maybe if I can establish they have uploaded to Gedmatch. Something for the future.
Tonight I have been looking at 2 matches on Gedmatch that come in at 4.8 generations, and 18.9 centimorgans. One, has a mother named PENROSE, born in USA, but with numerous Penwith connections only several generations back, hence highly likely to be a close cousin. The other has almost exclusively USA family back to the 16&1700's with the only common name(if we exclude Smith for now) being RATHBONE, born 1688 in Maryland. This is 9 generations back. Mine go back to Warwickshire, England about 7 generations (b.1732). From these 2 examples I cant marry up the 4.8 generations on GedMatch. Lets say there were 5th cousins, then our common link would be around 4G grandparents, mine being born circa 1800. There are some gaps in the second tree, and maybe someone has some errors? Who knows.
Anyway, this research is taking up a lot of time, and somehow I must get a system to be able to cross reference everything, including the shared matches with me, or within my matches to another match, if that makes sense.
Apart from the Angove line, I have a possible lead on a Northamptonshire brick wall, again backing up an earlier formed theory, and probable confirmation of another theory re Shakerley line in Barbados being directly linked to the St Just branch.
I'm sure as I get more proficient I will establish more strong evidence. At least my dad appears to be my dad, and grandad etc for quite a lot of generations. And if any of this can help anyone else struggling to unravel dna, I'll be happy. Best wishes to all, Mike
"A name perpetual, and a fame permanent and immortal"
Post by myghaelangof on Jun 17, 2017 13:15:22 GMT -5
p.s. Gandolf, I havent even started looking at the Multiple Kit Analysis yet. I will though, in time. Thank you for your thoroughness in explaining everything. Might be useful if I can persuade a couple of cousins to have the test done.
"A name perpetual, and a fame permanent and immortal"