ThruLines – Part 6 – Nelson & Mercy Eliza (Taft) Barnes

ThruLines Thursday
Roberts-Barnes
DNA
by Don Taylor

Photo of Don Taylor with cat Nasi.In Part 6 of my ThruLinestm  analysis, I’m looking at matches with my 2nd great-grandparents, Nelson Barnes and Mercy Eliza Taft. They are on my Roberts line.

Mercy and Nelson had 9 children together. Three of those 9 children have descendants who have tested with AncestryDNA and have trees on Ancestry.com which suggest a Thruline. I have looked at the matches with my great-grandfather, Joel Clinton Barnes previously.  (See: Ancestry’s ThruLines dated 10 March 2019.)

The other two children of Mercy and Nelson that have descendants that match are 2nd-great-aunts Tryphenia Ann Barnes and Ploutina Mariah Barnes. There are 12 descendants of Tryphenia who have tested. Two of them through Susan Catherine Burnett. I will look at those connections in this paper.

ThruLines Matches via Tryphenia Ann Barnes

DNA Relationship

My records regarding Tryphenia are consistent with ThruLines. I have the following:

  • Born: 11 Oct 1841 in New York.
  • Moved: Bef. 1850 to Sullivan County, Indiana.
  • Married: c. 1859 James E Burnett who died c. 1865.
  • Married: c. 1866 Jasper Mayfield who died c. 1891.
  • Died: 3 Nov 1915 in Sullivan County, Indiana.

The first two matches are through Susan C. Burnett. My records regarding Susan Catherine Burnett were minimal.

  • Born: c. 1860
  • Married: Unknown Padgett
  • Died: c. 1938.

DNA-RJ

“RJ” and I share 21cM of DNA across 3 segments and by our trees, we would be 3rd cousins, 2x removed. DNA Painter’s Shared cM Project 3.0 tool v4 indicates that 3rd cousins twice removed should share between 0 and 116cM of DNA with an average being 35cM. So, the proposed relationship fits the amount of DNA shared.

“RJ’s” tree indicates that Susan C. Barnett was:

  • Born: Abt 1860 in Fairbanks, Sullivan, Indiana.
  • Married: 13 Mar 1870 to George Washington Padgett in Sullivan County, Indiana.
  • Died: 1938 and buried at Union Chapel, Graysville, Sullivan County, Indiana.

These are all consistent with my previous findings. As such, I am accepting “RJ’s” direct ancestors from George Washington and Susan (Barnett) Padgett.

That includes:

  • Helen G Padgett and her three children with John Tucker.
  • Louis Shelby Tucker and his marriage to Pauline Jane John.

DNA-NH

“NH” is a third cousin three times removed. He also relates via Susan C. Burnett, however, his mother and grandmother are private and his tree doesn’t connect to his great-grandmother, rather, Ancestry has identified his great-grandmother. Some time ago, I’ve concluded that I won’t accept trees with connections via external trees, as the potential for error is greater than I wish to accept. If NH continues his research in his tree and connects to Susan C. Burnett, I will reconsider his position.

Also, “NH” and I share only 6 cM of DNA on one segment. A 3C3R should share between 0 and 69cM of DNA with an average of 22, so the amount shared is within limits. However, 6cM of shared DNA is so low, I’m reluctant to accept it.

Next time.

There are still 10 more matches that are descendants of Tryphenia Ann Barnes. Eight of them are through Rose Ann Burnett. I will look at those in my next ThruLines analysis.

If you are a descendant of Tryphenia Ann Barnes (1841-1915), please consider DNA testing with AncestryDNA®  and see if we are related. If you have tested and haven’t shared your tree on Ancestry.Com, please do so.

Note: All of my ThruLines posts are listed under the ThruLines Thursday category.

————–  Disclaimer  ————–

ThruLines – Part 5 – Samuel Vaden Scott & Amanda Jane Haley

ThruLines Thursday
Roberts, Scott
DNA

In Part 5 of my ThruLinestm analysis, I’m looking closely at matches with my 2nd great-grandfather, Samuel Vaden Scott.

UPDATE 25 Jul 2019

Note: A look at Samuel Vaden Scot’s wife, Amanda Jane Haley, show no additional individuals with shared DNA.

Original Post

I was surprised that ThruLines only had one match as a descendant of Samuel Vaden Scott. Samuel had nine children, four with Amanda Jane Haley and five with Lavina Allmend. So, I would have thought there might be more matches. Anyway, Samuel and Amanda had four girls, Clara, Clora, Florence, and Laura. Clora was my great-grandmother and Clara was my match’s great-grandmother, making us 3rd cousins.

DNA Painter’s Shared cM Project 3.0 tool v4 indicates that 3rd cousins should share between 0 and 217cM of DNA with an average being 74cM. The ThruLines match (I’ll call RC) and I share 63cM over 4 segments. So, the proposed relationship fits the amount of DNA shared.

My records for Samuel match RC’s records in birth, marriage, and death.

My records for Clora’s sister Clara included the same birth and marriage data. Although I did not have a death record for Clara, I feel confident that the relationship is correct.

According to RC, Clara had eight children. In my records, I had the names of four of Clara’s children and my four were in agreement with R.C.’s. Then, I noticed that two of Clara’s eight children were born before Clara. R.C. doesn’t maintain her test or tree, so I messaged R.C.’s test manager and tree owner about the error. I also asked R.C.’s test manager about possible photos or other documents regarding Clara, her siblings, her parents or other ancestors that he or R.C. might have that are not online.

If you are a descendant of Samuel Vaden Scott (1863-1931), please consider testing with Ancestry DNA; it is an excellent genealogical resource and can help you broaden your tree too. I’d love to learn how we are related.

All of my ThruLines posts are listed under the ThruLines Thursday category.

ThruLines – Part 4 – Patience A Marshall

ThruLines Thursday
Roberts, Marshall
DNA

In Part 4 of my ThruLinestm verification process, I’m looking closely at matches with my 2nd great-grandmother, Patience Anna Marshall Dean Roberts.

Patience married Asa Ellis Roberts in Jefferson County, Illinois on 25 August 1872. She had four children with him, Charles Wilson Roberts, Rosa Della Roberts, Florence Elizabeth Roberts, and my great-grandfather, Hugh Ellis Roberts.  I wrote about my ThruLines findings with that family in Part 3 of this series.

Before Patience married Asa, she was married to Thomas B. Dean. Thomas died in 1863, but Patience had at least one child with him[i]. Her name was Elnora Dean. My records included her birth, marriage, and death information but nothing about any children of hers.

ThruLines indicated there were four here-to-for unknown half-cousins, all descended from Elnora Dean, and have tested with Ancestry DNA.

Step one:  Does the shared DNA amount match expectations for the relationship?

  • Match 1 is a half 3rd cousin, 1x removed, with whom I share 79 cM
  • Match 2 is a half 3rd cousin, 2x removed, with whom I share 22cM
  • Match 3 is a half 3rd cousin with whom I share 60cM
  • Match 4 is a half 3rd cousin, 1x removed, with whom I share 17cM

According to the Shared cM Project 3.0 tool v4, all four of the individuals and I share expected amounts of DNA.

Step two: Do the cousin’s common ancestor with me and match my known information about that common ancestor.

Yes. My records indicated that Patience had a daughter Elnora Dean and Elnora married Samuel H Pitchford on 11 Nov 1880 in Jefferson County, Illinois. All of the ThruLines matches are descended from Elnora and Samuel.

Using the ThruLinestm, I learned that Elnora and Samuel had seven children. Mary, Edward, Grace, Blanche, Florence, Edith, and Herbert.

Blanch married Homer H Roberts and had two children Theodora and Earl. Earl was the grandfather of one of my new cousins.

Edith married twice, once to Walton Pyles where she had several children. She married a second time; that marriage produced a son Eric Lemons. Eric was the father, grandfather, and great grandfather to the other three half-cousins in my ThruLinestm.

Thanks to ThruLinestm, I added 25 new half-cousins to my chart all descended from Patience Anna Marshall’s daughter Elnora Dean.

Sadly, none of these cousins carry Patience’s mtDNA. However, hopefully adding several generations of Patience’s descendants will yield, in the future, new cousins, some of whom will carry Patience’s mtDNA.

If you are a descendant of Patience Anna Marshall, consider testing with Ancestry DNA; it is an excellent genealogical resource and can help you broaden your tree too.



Endnotes

[i] The 1900 Census for Patience Anna Roberts indicates that she had six children, five of whom were living. It is unclear if the one child that had died was a child with her first husband, Thomas Dean, or her second husband, Asa Ellis Roberts. In either event, it does not appear that the child lived to have children.

Ancestry’s ThruLines – Part 3 – Asa Ellis Roberts

In previous articles, I’ve considered Ancestry’s new ThruLinestm feature. In Part 1, I looked atThruLinestm in a general manner. In Part 2, I developed a process and decided on some caveats I would use with it.  Here in Part 3, I proof my process/procedure by using it and verify the process holds true in use.  Briefly, the process is:

  1. Confirm the shared DNA amount matches expectations for the relationship.
  2. Confirm the cousin’s descendants from the common ancestor and a known child of the common ancestor.
  3. Analyze the remaining path to the cousin, assuring things make sense.

I used the process focusing on my 2nd great-grandfather’s (Asa Ellis Robert) descendants.

All of the descendants of Asa are 3rd cousins. Asa was married twice, so descendants of Asa and Patience Anna Marshall should be 3rd cousins. Descendants of Asa and Cynthia Minerva Toney would be half third cousins to me. DNA Painter’s Shared cM Project 3.0 tool v4 indicates that a 3rd cousin should share between 0 and 217 cM of DNA and half 3rd cousins should share between 0 and 178 cM of DNA.

ThruLinestm indicates I have 18 Cousins that have tested with AncestryDNA.

  1. In all cases, the DNA amount matched matches expectations as suggested in DNAPainter.
  2. In all cases, the individuals are descended from individuals that I had independently identified as children of Asa.
  3. In all cases, the individuals have a pedigree chart that makes sense.

Thanks to ThruLinestm I added 37 new cousins to my chart all descended from Asa Ellis Roberts.

  1. 17 new cousins descended from Rosa Della Roberts.
  2. 2 New cousins descended from Charles W. Roberts.
  3. 10 New half-cousins descended from Sarah A. Roberts.
  4. 8 New half-cousins descended from William T. Roberts.

The process is much faster than any methods I ever used before to verify a person’s relationship to my tree. I’m happy with the process and feel confident that I’m adding valuable information to my tree to better the likelihood of connecting ancestors. ThruLinestm is great for widening your tree to include individuals that are descendants of a known family unit.

If you are a descendant of Asa Ellis Roberts, consider testing with Ancestry DNA; it is a great genealogical resource and can help you broaden your tree too.

Ancestry’s ThruLines – Part 2

General Genealogy
DNA, Brown Line
By Don Taylor

I was recently asked what I thought about Ancestry’s new ThruLinestm feature, how much did I use it and what do I accept from it. In using autosomal DNA results, it is always good to have a very wide tree. The wider your tree is, the more cousins you have identified, the more likely you will be able to determine the relationship between you and a DNA match.

So, I decided to look at the matches that reach my great-grandparents, Arthur and Mary (Manning) Brown. They had 12 children, 11 of whom reached adulthood, so I figured there would be many cousins there.

ThruLines for Arthur Durwood Brown (Partial)

I tend to analyze each person left to right, so I started with a 2nd cousin, descended from Victoria Brown.

ThruLines – Victoria Brown Segment
  1. Look at the centimorgan (cM) match amount. In this first case, the individual and I share 134 cM across nine segments. Our trees suggest we are 2nd The Shared cM Project 3.0 tool v4 at DNAPainter.com https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4 indicates that 2nd cousins should share between 46 and 515 cm of genetic material. So, our match is within the expected range.
  2. Does the other person’s tree match yours? In this case, we have all of the same data for her grandmother. In order to accept a ThruLinestm display, both 1 and 2 must pass.
  3. Do the other descendant entries make sense? In this case, the cousin’s father is still living (and thus redacted). I had the same person with no discrepancies in data. Therefore, I am sure of the match. I did contact the individual to learn of her first name and then entered her into my tree in the right place.
ThruLines – Edward Brown Segment

The next cousin to analyze is a descendant of Edward Lewis Brown. This cousin and I share 144 cM over seven segments, well within the expected range for 2nd cousins, once removed.

According to ThruLines, this match a great-granddaughter of Edward through her mother and her grandmother both of which have private entries.  My records indicate that Edward had ten children, seven of whom were girls. I also don’t have information on any of the granddaughters of Edward. As such, I can’t place this individual on the tree at all. I then contacted the cousin and asked her about her connection to Edward Brown. Her mother and her grandmother’s name if possible.  Once I receive that information, if her grandmother matches one of my known children of Edward Brown, I will accept her and her mother’s names from her tree.

ThruLines Arthur Brown Segment

Cousin number 3 was somewhat expected. The amount of DNA, 98 cM, fit expectations for 2nd cousins once removed. I had identical information for her grandfather and her great grandfather. Looking at my data, I had four potential women (all living) who could be the mother of this cousin. I contacted her and asked which of the sisters was her mother. She replied, and I placed her onto my tree.

I followed a similar process for all of the other cousins that ThruLinestm provided connections to.

As you can see, my process it to:

  1. Confirm the shared DNA amount matches expectations for the relationship.
  2. Confirm the cousin’s descendants from the common ancestor and a known child of the common ancestor.
  3. Analyze the remaining path to the cousin, assuring things make sense.

Then, I accept the individual’s tree as “tentative” from the grandchild of the common ancestor to the cousin.

I like ThruLinestm, but only for widening my tree to include individuals that are descendants of a known family unit.


Note: I do not even consider anything in the individual’s tree before our common ancestor.