ThruLines – William Henry Brown – Part 1

ThruLines Thursday
Brown
DNA

In Part 7 of my ThruLinestm analysis, I’m looking closely at matches with my 2nd great-grandfather, William Henry Brown (c. 1843- c. 1888). The first group of matches included 12 matches descended from Arthur Durwood Brown. I looked at those matches just a few months ago in Part 2 of this series. However, as I have learned how to use ThruLines better, I feel it is important to revisit them.

The 12 Children of Arthur Durwood & Mary Elizabeth (Manning) Brown

Clyde Leroy Brown (1894-1971) – No DNA Matches.

Clyde Leroy Brown – Married twice – had seven children (that I know of).

Victoria C. Brown (1896-1998) – One Known Match

I confirmed the one descendant of Victoria C Brown who has tested with Ancestry DNA and who has a tree on Ancestry previously.

Clarence Arthur Brown (1897-1988) – No DNA Matches.

Clarence Arthur Brown – Married twice – had four children (that I know of).

Martin Brown (1900-1900) – Died as an infant.

Cora Elsie Brown (1901-1986) – No DNA Matches.

Cora Elsie (Brown) Seaborn Petersen – Married twice – had four children (that I know of).

Richard Earl Brown (1903-1990) – Four DNA Matches

The four matches descended from my grandfather Richard Earl Brown. I either manage or am in regular contact then.

Dorothy Brown (c. 1906-1908) – Died as a young child.

Edward Lewis Brown (1908-1998) – One DNA Match.

Next is a descendant of Edward Lewis Brown. After contacting “TB,” I have determined that “TB” is a 2nd cousin once removed.

Arthur Eugene Brown (1912-1996) – Two DNA Matches.


Next, are two descendants of Arthur Eugene Brown. The first one, “J.B.,” and I have been in contact previously.

The second match reminds me that Ancestry DNA ThruLines does get it wrong sometimes. “JO,” according to Ancestry, is a 2nd cousin with whom I share 20 cM of DNA. That is far below the range expected of 2nd cousins (should be 46 to 515 cM). His online Ancestry tree only has his father’s name and doesn’t connect with anyone I have in my tree. So, I’ve emailed him to see if he has a tree elsewhere. Followup!

Charles William Brown (1914-1990) – No DNA Matches

Charles William Brown – Married twice – had six children (that I know of).

Delores Sarah Brown (1917-2011) – Three DNA Matches

I have two second cousins and one second cousin once removed that descend from Delores Sarah Brown. The three are each descended from a different “Larson” girl.

“TB” and I share 180 cM across 12 Segments. I have been in contact with him, however, not for several years.

“CL” is descended a great-grandchild of Deloris. We share only 25 mM of DNA. That is lower than typical but still within the range of 2nd cousins once removed. I have messaged him on Ancestry twice earlier this year and have not received a response. He appears not to have logged into Ancestry since January 2018 (over a year ago). Followup!

“CB” and I share 147 cM over nine segments. CB and I share trees and are friends on FaceBook.

Nettie M V Brown

Finally, I have two 2nd cousins descended from Nettie Brown. I have been in contact with “BB” and “NB” through both email and Facebook.

Conclusion

I was astonished to learn that of the ten children of Arthur and Mary Brown who lived to adulthood, I only had DNA Matches on Ancestry with six of them. If you are a descendant of Clyde, Cora, Clarence, or Charles and have not tested with Ancestry DNA, I encourage you to do so. It will be great to see you added to the tree. Also, if you have tested with Ancestry DNA and haven’t linked you and your DNA to a place on a tree, please do so. It will help us better understand this pioneer family’s descendants. Although Arthur died long before I was born, I remember Great-grandma Brown quite well from the dozen or so visits we had in Motley.

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

————-Disclaimer————-

The ads and some of the links on this website are “affiliate links.” If you purchase after clicking on them, I will receive a small commission which will help me pay for this site. Please see my Disclaimer Page for more information.

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 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.

Ancestry’s ThruLines

By Don Taylor

One of the many huge announcements made at Roots Tech was Ancestry unveiling of ThruLinestm. Many bloggers have been writing about it, and I thought I’d see what it can do for me and the DNA Kits that I manage on Ancestry.

Immediately upon entering  AncestryDNA®, you now see ThruLines as the right-hand block which used to house DNA Circles.  There is a link in the block to restore DNA Circles if you wish, but I wanted to Explore ThruLines.

ThruLines then presents a block of my ancestors, parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., all the way to my 5th great-grandparents. (About the limit of what Autosomal DNA results can predict relationship at.)

As I clicked on my parents, ThruLines presented my half siblings for whom I’ve known about for several years now. The same thing was true when I looked at my grandparents’ entries. Looking at my great-grandparents, Hugh and Clora Scott Robert’s ThruLines yielded a 2nd cousin that I’ve corresponded with before.

Clicking on the 2 down block opens up the names of two individuals from Beth’s tree.

When I looked at my Great Grandparents, Joel Clinton and Marada Alice (Lister) Barnes, the power of ThruLines came alive. Two new lines showed. It showed my paternal grandmother had two sisters — one a half great-aunt to me the other a great-aunt. I had known about Essie’s sisters, Flora and Mabel, but hadn’t traced their descendants down. ThruLines provided links to a half 2nd cousin 1x removed (Beth) and to another 2nd cousin 1x removed (JK). In both cases, I know about their grandparents (Flora & Mable) but I didn’t have descendants for either Flora or Mable. The first one, “Beth” had a tree that provided names, dates, and relationships.  That line should be easy to replicate with sources. The second person, cousin “JK,” had two “Private” individuals between her and my great-aunt Mabel.  I should be able to follow Mable’s descendants to that cousin fairly quickly also. However, because ThruLines shows JK’s mother and grandfather are the pathway to her great-grandmother Mable, JK’s line is clear enough to provide information to be able to ask clear and concise questions regarding JK’s ancestors.

Continuing to look at my great-grandfather Arthur Durwood Brown, I found seven DNA cousins with whom I share Art Brown as a common ancestor. Two of the seven were new to me. That is to say, I knew they were DNA cousins before, but I didn’t know exactly how they were related.  Thanks to ThruLines, it is clear.

One problem I do see with ThruLines is that it relies entirely upon individual’s trees.  That is to say, if someone has a mistake, the mistake takes shape and form throughout the system. As an example, I believe my 2nd great grandfather is William Henry Brown, but many others think that Arthur Durwood Brown’s father was Henry “Mack” Brown. ThruLines won’t show anyone who believes that Henry “Mack” Brown might be the common ancestor because he doesn’t show as an ancestor in my tree. So, if your tree is right, ThruLines will confirm your tree. But if your tree is wrong, then ThruLines will confirm your tree with the wrong trees of someone else.  I think it is a dangerous path to follow.

So, it is essential for you to do your own research to validate any “hints” you receive from anyone and  ThruLines is no exception to that rule. Consider what ThruLine provides as a hint and you’ll be okay.  I like ThruLines much better than I liked DNA Circles. It will be more useful in helping me to quickly develop width to my tree, something that is important in understanding DNA match results.

———- Disclaimer ———-

 

DNA Doesn’t Lie – John Montran

Brown-Montran Line
By Don Taylor

Photo of Don Taylor with cat Nasi.For a few years, I’ve hypothesized that my great-grandfather, John F. Montran and John Foster Montran were the same person.

I have been unable to find a record of John F. Montran and my great-grandmother, Ida Mae Barber marrying in 1892. My grandmother was born in 1893 with the name Donna Montran and when Ida remarried in 1897 to Max Fisher she indicated her surname was Montran and that she was married once before. So, I believe John Montran and Ida were married about 1892.  Donna indicated in 1911 that her father was dead. Certainly, John F. Montran doesn’t seem to exist anytime in the 20th century. I have found no records for John F. Montran after my grandmother’s birth in 1893.

John Foster Montran married Maude Minnie Winter in 1894. I have found no records for John Foster Montran before 1894. He had two children with Maude, Thelma M. Montran and Ruth Grace Montran, in 1895 and 1897 respectively. In the 1900 Census, Maude is listed as a widow and John appears nowhere else.

  • 1892 – John Montran married Ida
  • 1893 – Donna was born.
  • 1894 – John and Ida separate.
  • 1894 – John married Maude Minnie Winter
  • 1895 – Thelma is born.
  • 1897 – Ruth is born.
  • 1898-1900 John dies.
  • 1911 – Donna indicates her father, John Montran, was dead.

All the parts appeared to fit. The locations weren’t too far off. Donna indicated her father was born in Pennsylvania but had lived in Canada. Maude indicated her husband was born in Canada, but Maude and (her) John married in Pennsylvania.

DNA image by Caroline Davis2010 via Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

I figured that DNA testing would prove the two John Montrans were one. I began researching the descendants of John and Maude (Winter) Montran. In 2015, I found a living descendant, I’ll call Sue[i]. I contacted her and asked if she would be interested in doing a DNA Test. The results should prove my hypothesis that the two John’s were the same person. She wasn’t interested in testing then, but maybe sometime.

I continued searching and finally found another descendant of John and Maude (Winter) Montran, I call him James[ii]. I contacted him, and learned he wasn’t interested in testing either.

I continued searching but didn’t find any additional living descendants of John and Maude and I set the project aside for a while.

It had been nearly two years since I had contacted Sue, so I thought I’d follow-up with her and see if she was interested in testing now.  She replied that she had tested with 23 and Me and had her results.  My mother tested with 23 and Me several years ago. My mother and Sue should show as a match. If my hypothesis is correct, they would be half first cousins, once removed. No match on 23 & Me. When you look for matches on 23 & Me, the page says, “Note: your anonymous matches have been opted out of DNA Relatives and are no longer visible within the tool.”  I thought, maybe Sue opted out of DNA Relatives. I asked her to double check her settings. She responded that she opted in to DNA Relatives the day before. She also shared her results with me.  Again, nothing, nada.

Using Blaine Bettenger’s “Shared cM Project 3.0 tool v4,” I could see that half first cousins, once removed (1C1R) should share 226cM of DNA. And that the range seen for half-1C1Rs was from 57 to 530.  I even decreased the match criteria from the usual 7cm segment match required to only 4cM segment match and still no match with Sue.

Of course, it is possible that there was a non-paternal event that caused these DNA results, and it is always good to keep an open mind.  However, these results prove to my satisfaction that my great-grandfather, John F. Montran, and the John Foster Montran who married Maude Minnie Winter were two different people.

Further Actions / Follow-up

  • Separate John F and John Foster in all my records and notional work and indicate that they were definitely different individuals.


————–  Disclaimer  ————–

Endnotes

[i] Surnames are removed from living individuals. First Names used may or may not be the same as the living individual’s name.

[ii] Ibid.