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
 

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!

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

Dec 2018: over 15cMs

Jun 2017: over12cMs

DNAPainter Maternal by Grandparent Dec 2018 : over 15cMs

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!!!