Saturday, 29 December 2018

and for the downside....

For the second time on FamilySearch the same person has (re)merged my paternal grandfather with his namesake born in the same month and year, despite my collaborative note - which is now yet more detailed as to why NOT to merge them.

They were born a fortnight apart, one registered in Oamaru, the other in Palmerston North, ie separate islands of New Zealand.
The separate NZ Historical BDM index entries show their different parents had been added to a note on each, but that didn't deter this person.
Yes on the surface it looks like the one who married first may have moved islands and remarried but he didn't. He remarried a bit further north.
It doesn't help that the older fiche birth indexes for New Zealand don't make it easy to find them to add the place details to the exact birth dates and parents available from the Historical BDM index online at the Dept of Internal Affairs.
Both are indexed as Archifold Hinderson instead of Archibald Henderson!

This time I've added yet more research into the note on both profiles.
The North Islander has been placed safely up in Te Kuiti with his 2nd wife in the 1919 electoral roll, his father's obit has been added  as well, which places him in Cambridge (Waikato, North Island) whilst my granddad is recorded down in Woodhaugh, Dunedin in 1919 with his first and only wife Agnes later moving to Roxburgh, Otago (South Island).
I do know that he once ventured north, at least as far as Wellington, on his honeymoon, but he did not already have a son by then, at least not Cyril.

I've also sent the chap a message via FamilySearch to PLEASE STOP merging these Archibalds.

WikiTree has also been updated with a disambiguation note on Granddad, with the other chap now also added there, he is after all nearly family - his son married my mother's 2nd cousin!
But there are other things I'd rather have been researching last night in the time spent doing the additional research that should, hopefully STOP the "helpful" person from merging them again.

Thankfully such persistance is rare, and an apology has just been received.

This does not detract from the overall benefit of sharing tree research.
We do not own our ancestors but we do owe it to them to be remembered accurately.

Such trees do tend to get better over time as duplications are reduced, research notes added etc.

Just the other day I was re-examining the scant tree of a DNA match on Ancestry wondering where his missing link to my DAWE family was and this time round, someone had added exactly the link I was missing.
The FamilySearch tree has now been extended to link him back to the rest of his ancestors already there.
This allowed me to breakthrough that mystery and connect in a newfound 3rd cousin thanks to both DNA and the collaborative tree at FamilySearch.

So mark your key people to be "Watched" so you can keep an eye on changes, you never know what you will learn, or who you will "meet" as a result.

Collaborative trees - the upside

Many of you may already have realised I'm a great fan of collaborative trees, WikiTree and FamilySearch in particular.

The downsides (enthusiastic newbies connecting up families with the scantest of evidence, or agin the evidence without a thought) are far far outweighed by the benefits of sharing.

Examples of both hit home strongly last night. (See next post for yesterday's example of the downside.)

For the huge plus side, my weekly Watch list email from FamilySearch highlighted that someone had added both a previously unknown child to the family of my 4x great grandparents Archibald Fairbain and Alison Crosser, and a baptism source for my 3x great grandfather Walter. (FamilySearch / WikiTree)

Which latter in particular is a bit embarrassing.

After all my research into Fairbairns you'd think I'd have gone back and rechecked my early work looking for the gaps that could now be filled.

There he is, baptized just across the border in Norham.
Which fits his 1841 census entry saying he was born in England, even if he did recant on that by 1851.

It's hardly an out of the way place for them to have been.
Courtesy of google we can see that it was 4 miles between Norham and Swinton where by the time the 1851 census came round Walter said he was born, having forgotten that 10 years earlier he'd said "England".

Unfortunately, there appear to only be the two baptisms there, no marriage for Archibald and Alison to fill that record gap, but also none for the presumed eldest son Archibald to contradict that he is the one baptized in Whitsome & Hilton, Berwickshire in 1783. :)
There seems to be only one other Fairbairn baptizing his children around this timeframe (1760 to 1800), a Thomas, with a William and an Ann.

Thank you to the person updating the Fairbairn tree that brought this to my attention.
Updates will ensue on WikiTree (done) and my Webpages

Monday, 17 December 2018

Mapped chromosomes down to 12cMs

Here's my 2018 end of year snapshot overall chromosome map, down to 12cM segments, by assigned Grandparent to give me as good a picture as I can as at now - both for ease of reference and as a measure of progress at the end of 2019.

It was a bit easier than I thought it might be to update the chromosome maps from yesterday down from the 15cMs used for those to the 12cMs minimum segment size used for the below. I had apparently been keeping up with the new smaller matches after all.

Gained a whole 6% more mapped DNA but it took over 450 more segments (from 12 to 15cMs) to add that 6%.
Dec 2018 Chromosome Map, by Grandparent, of 12+cM segments - DNAPainter
Still way too many yellow/orange/brown mysteries in there, hopefully disguising good clues to the brickwalls.

FWIW a table of the numbers of mapped segments per Side and Grandparent, split by 12-15cMs and over 15cMs is thrown in for contemplation.

Side GrdParent 12-15 GT15 Total Result
A Paternal? or Maternal? Side A 4 6 10
B Paternal? or Maternal? Side B 1 6 7
M Ern ANDREWS b. 1881 (TNK) 60 103 163

Ern ANDREWS b. 1881 (TNK) assumed 25 24 49

Honor ROWE b. 1886 (TNK) 43 144 187

Honor ROWE b. 1886 (TNK) assumed 6 8 14

Maternal - branch unknown 86 143 229

Maternal assumed - branch unknown 6 15 21
P Agnes Manson DAVIDSON b. 1885 (OTG) 49 64 113

Agnes Manson DAVIDSON b. 1885 (OTG) assumed 7 3 10

Archibald HENDERSON b. 1883 (OTG) 106 176 282

Archibald HENDERSON b. 1883 (OTG) assumed 20 22 42

Paternal - branch unknown 51 29 80

Paternal assumed - branch unknown 12 12 24
Total Result
476 755 1231

39% 61% 100%
The data comes from the main testing companies, FamilyTreeDNA, MyHeritage, 23andme, ie the ones who actually supply the segment level detail necessary (ie excludes Ancestry who refuses too). With many testers only on their original company it is not always possible to compare matches with known relatives at the right spots for accurate assignments, hence the "assumed" and "unknown" categories.
Do please consider transferring your DNA file to GEDMatch where cross company comparisons may be made!

Saturday, 15 December 2018

And now for the Paternal Chromosome Map

That didn't take as long as I thought to produce!
I've obviously kept up with my mapping down to 15cM segments reasonably well, with only one to assign, although it has been a couple of years since I last did one of these.

Reducing the segment size included down to 12cMs looks like I've not much work needed to redo both the Maternal and Paternal maps to see what increased coverage of my chromosomes that gives me - later.

For now, adding the Paternal down to 15cMs increased coverage to 58% mapped from 749 segments painted to the guilty grandparent (an increase from 30% from 443 segments with just the Maternal allocations painted)

Dec 2018 Paternal - to 15cMs (Segment Mapper)
Dec 2018 Paternal - to 15cMs (DNA Painter)

and for the two years ago Paternal version, down to 10cMs (Segment Mapper)

Apples and oranges

I'm really concentrating on my (paternal) Amelia MILLAR's brickwall's matches, honest.

But I'm also trying to snapshot my chromosome mapping "progress".

Which appears to be woeful.
Must try harder.
Here are two snapshots approximately about 18 months apart of the Maternal segments I've allocated to a grandparent.  (Unlike last time I posted a chromosome map update, this time a paternal map will follow, shortly.)

The apples/oranges title of this post being because the more recent map only shows segments over 15cMs, so I haven't necessarily really regressed with fewer mapped segments over all.

The data comes from my matches on all the testing companies who provide the required level of detail (segment level matches by chromosome), so excludes any matches found on Ancestry unless the matches have also transferred to GEDMatch, or tested at another company, or transferred their Ancestry file to MyHeritage or FamilyTreeDNA. (Some links/thoughts about testing/transferring here)
It is using extracted segment data from my (private) DNA database of matches run through Kitty Cooper's Segment mapper, aggregating it up to the allocated grandparent.

The equivalent (Dec 2018) data mapped in DNAPainter follows, adding the information that the 443 segments mapped cover about 30% of my DNA.
Can definitely to better.
Wonder if adding in the Paternal will add an equivalent amount of data?
See next post, which may take a while checking out the Paternal / Suspected Paternal, but as yet unmapped to Grandparent/MRCA* segments.
* MRCA = Most Recent Common Ancestor

Maternal chr map by grandparent: Dec 2018
Dec 2018: over 15cMs

Maternal chr map by grandparent: Jun 2017 over 12cMs
Jun 2017: over12cMs

DNAPainter Maternal by Grandparent Dec 2018 : over 15cMs

Tuesday, 11 December 2018

What is Elizabeth CHRYSTAL's mtDNA haplogroup?

Well I now know a lot more about assorted MILLAR and CHRYSTAL families from around Kippen, Stirlingshire and environs.
We also have a few more DNA matches to add to the web of clues that might eventually lead to cracking the Amelia MILLAR brickwall I'm trying to keep focussed on at the moment.

Her WikiTree Brickwall page has a few more families of interest linked to it.

One family I believe to be doubly of interest is that of David MILLAR and Elizabeth CHRYSTAL, as DNA matches between descendants and a few of the assorted tested descendants of James HENDERSON and Amelia MILLAR, intersect at the couple.

But is the connection via the MILLAR or the CHRYSTAL?
Or possibly both!

Can DNA help even further?

We know that Amelia MILLAR's mitochondrial DNA haplogroup is T2e.

Would love to hear from a direct female line descendant of Elizabeth CHRYSTAL's to see what her haplogroup is.
I'll gradually add potential lines of descent to WikiTree and those inheriting her mtDNA can be checked by clicking on the link "carriers of Elizabeth's mitochondrial DNA" over on the rhs of her profile

A match would make it a possible connection*, a mismatch will rule her out as a direct female line ancestor of Amelia's, although she could still connect in other ways.

* and would be an absolute miracle given that I don't know how ANY of the mtDNA matches connect to any of the mtDNA tested individuals I monitor - but I live in hope!!!

Wednesday, 12 September 2018

Archibald Henderson brickwall hints?

It may have been Amelia's turn, but somehow Archibald seems to be getting more attention as a result.

Keep an eye on my Archibald Henderson brick wall  page on WikiTree for updated info on potential connections, including links to the trees of interest where they are also on WikiTree.

Families of particular interest that are popping up in assorted DNA matches to descendants of James Henderson and Amelia Millar:
  • Robert Buchanan and Janet Monteith (married 1738 Logie, Perthshire lived Kincardine by Doune, Perthshire))
  • Peter Junkine/Jenkins and Mary Buchanan (married 1781 Port of Menteith, Perthshire)
  • Donald Eadie and Jean Faichney (married 1788 Crieff, Perthshire, lived Muthill)
  • William Faichney and Jean Innes (married 1795 Dunblane, Perthshire)

embeddable family tree updated live from WikiTree

Wednesday, 5 September 2018

What do Sarah, Emma and William have in common?

Not a lot other than all three have been long pegged in my database as potentially being one and the same person as their namesakes in their respective potential "home" families.

Also that in the last few days investigating DNA matches, AND the matches of the new match, has led me to re-evalutate sources, search for more information, and in all three cases, merge the namesakes as I've finally been convinced that they are indeed whom I have long thought they might be.

DNA alone cannot prove a relationship, that takes research, perseverance - and notes to self about why you think they might belong to a particular family.

William is William McAdie, Customs Officer in London, born about 1830 Caithness. Marriage certificate shows father as George.
Long pegged as potentially William born Killminster, Wick to George McAdie and Elizabeth Rosie.
But there were other options, and only one had been truly ruled out of contention.
The one in Oz has still not been ruled out, but with DNA matches now popping up between descendants of William, and of the extended McAdie family, I've finally joined all those trees that had long ago connected William to George and Elizabeth. Thank you in particular to Susan and Noel, without your match on MyHeritage triggering a re-investigation of the DNA matches now available I would still have two separate William's in my database.

Emma is Emma Bidgood, born in Canada to Nicholas Richard Bidgood and his first wife Elizabeth Osborne. Was she the Emma who marries Daniel Treloar and ends up in Connecticut?
There are quite a few Emma Bidgoods and no definitive record I've yet found that connects Daniel's wife Emma to the daughter of Nicholas. Plenty of circumstantial evidence, just no records along the lines of handy marriage entry stating her father, any family members together with the Treloars in any census etc.
But in the last few days several DNA matches have popped up to join the sole tested descendant of Emma that I had already noted. Thank you Jeffory and Greg in particular, both for testing and for uploading to GEDMatch and MyHeritage (which is where I first spotted this set of matches) and for sharing an Ancestry Match list, which latter is where I found .....
a shared match whose tree included Sarah.

Sarah Bidgood married Richard Nicholas (son of Sarah Dawe). She was of an age to be the daughter of Abraham Bidgood or Turner and wife Joan Smith Dawe (Sarah's sister) but I'd not found her baptism and she never appeared with them in any census.
She does however appear in the 1841 an 1851 census records with Abraham's mother Mary, the 1851 census explicitly stating she is Mary's granddaughter, so definitely connected to Abraham somehow.
This time round, her marriage certificate was now readily available in the filmed FindMyPast Devon Parish Registers, and states that her father was Abraham Bidgood, labourer and that she was resident Newton Mill. Tick.
Bearing in mind the ambiguity of Abraham's last name, and with the filmed registers now available on FindMyPast, I also found the Jan 1835 baptism of one Sarah daughter of Abraham, labourer, and Joan Turner, of Newton.
So Sarah and Richard are first cousins.

Isn't it odd how lucky you can get when you work at your DNA matches?
But above all, keep looking, keep notes, review old research and never give up.

Sunday, 5 August 2018

Amelia's turn

Haven't posted for a while so you'll have to believe me that I've been busy behind the scenes, just not publishing.

For nigh on the last two years we've been working on a Mystery Grandfather case that took a few twists and turns, throwing up a few curve balls along the way, particularly in the tree of one of the closer matches which resulted in the case being extended to two Mystery Grandfathers.
With that now behind us, case solved as best it can be, it's time to return to my own brickwalls, particularly given the demolishing of the Jane GIBSON brickwall last October.

So now I'm trying to concentrate on Amelia MILLAR born Kippen, Stirlingshire, see suggested, rather empty, pedigree below, and follow progress of research on DNA suggested connections at my WikiTree page for this brickwall.
It could take some time, particularly as it is often not yet clear if the DNA matches being investigated come from Amelia's DNA or James' - which latter can be consigned to a subsequent investigation.
My main problem - staying focused!!

embeddable family tree updated live from WikiTree