ThruLines at AncestryDNA is meant to be a tool to help analyze matches that have at least a partial family tree attached to their DNA results. The purported tree connecting you to the DNA match may or may not be correct.

The white boxes (John G, John M, and Theodore Trautvetter) in the illustration are names and relationships that are in the tree I have attached to my test results. The gray boxes (with “evaluate”) in the corner are names and relationships that have been pulled using AncestryDNA’s automated “tree stitching” based on one or more user submitted trees.

The tree of the match may only go back so far as the parent of the match. The names and relations may have been pulled from one or more trees others have submitted to AncestryDNA and those trees may or may not be connected to any DNA results. Each name and relationship in the gray boxes will have to be evaluated manually.

The white boxes are from your tree. The others are not and, like a therapist, you’ll have to evaluate those relationships for viability.

Ancestry.com’s ThruLines is a means to facilitate working with DNA matches that have trees attached to them. ThruLines then extends the tree in an attempt to show you how you connect with the DNA match. People are only in your ThruLines if they are:

• a DNA match to you,
• have a tree attached to their DNA results,
• able to be connected to your genealogical tree using the “big ol’ tree” Ancestry.com uses to make connections.

The connection to you and the match via ThruLines is only as accurate as the genealogical pedigree information in their “big ol’ tree.” Because that “big ol’ tree” is made from compiled trees, the information in it may be inaccurate. Because of that the suggested path of connection may not be entirely correct. There may be extra generations, not enough generations, etc. It is also possible that your genealogical connection to that DNA match is through another family and not the one that ThruLines suggests.

The illustration is a good example of individuals who are connected to me, but whose connection to me is incorrect–because it is based on trees of other individuals that contain incorrect information. To make the craziness of the ThruLines as simple as possible to understand, a man named Alexander Neill (son of John Neill shown in the illustration as my 3rd great-grandfather) is in the big ol’ tree three times–twice as nephews of his actual father and once correctly (but not shown in the illustration). These two incorrect Alexanders have lines of descent down to my known DNA matches.

So all the DNA matches in the illustration actually descend from John Neill (my 3rd great-grandfather). None descend from any siblings of this John. ThruLines suggests that the DNA shows evidence that I descend from an earlier John Neill (born in 1773) and his father Charles McNeill. That’s not correct. All my DNA matches (related to this family) are known to come from John Neill my 3rd great-grandfather. The only way a DNA match would suggest a descent from the earlier John or Charles would be if that DNA match descended from the earlier John or Charles–without descending through my 3rd great-grandfather John Neill.

There’s “tree evidence” of the connection between John Neill and his “father” and “grandfather”–using that phrase very loosely–but no DNA evidence at all. The paper “evidence” of the earlier John (and Charles) is weak, weak enough that I’ve not put that information in my actual tree. And there’s no DNA evidence (yet) connecting the earlier John or Charles to me because no DNA matches to me have John or Charles in their tree without also being a descendant of my 3rd great-grandfather.

ThruLines is a tool. Personally I find it helpful to sort out matches that have a tree. But I have to doublecheck those connections.

We’ve released the recording and handout for my “Images on FamilySearch” webinar. More details have been posted on our announcement page.

The introductory rate will work through 4 October 2021–despite what it says on our announcement page.

If you pre-ordered and have not received your materials, contact me at the email address on your receipt.

DNA matches that have no trees or whose submitters fail to respond can be a challenge to those working through their genealogy DNA matches. Sometimes there’s a clue in that username that may help you to determine who that match likely is.

These approaches are best done after you’ve worked on matches that you can determine. That work usually allows a researcher to have an idea of what general part of your tree a match is from. Two treeless matches with submitters who did not respond were likely determined using their username. Unfortunately those usernames did not appear to be the actual name of the submitter.

In both cases, the shared matches that I had with the match in question allowed me to know which portion of DNA testee’s tree the match was related through. That helped.

The MySpacer

This match was known to connect to the test kit submitter through the submitter’s maternal grandmother. The connection to the kit submitter was in the second-third cousin range and not someone who could easily be identified as closer matches were. This match had no tree and did not respond to a couple of contact attempts. A Google search was conducted for their username that was used for their DNA results. It turned out an old MySpace account had the same user name. Looking at the public information on that page (including their actual name) provided enough identifying information that the match’s identity and relationship to the DNA kit I managed could be determined.

Named for my parents

This match was known to connect to my DNA results through one of my paternal great-grandfathers George Trautvetter. The username, which I have changed, was of the form “bobandesmerelda.” There was no attached tree and no response to communication. In reviewing all the descendants of George Trautvetter’s grandfather (also a George Trautvetter), I located a deceased great-granddaughter named Esmerelda who I had not researched any further. Information on her indicated her husband was named Robert. While I’m not certain exactly who the match is, it seems possible that the submitter named the account for their parents–Bob and Esmerelda. The genealogical cousinship I have with Esmerelda is consistent with the predicted relationship range based upon the shared DNA. Not 100% proof, but suggestive enough for me to classify the match as determined.

In both cases, my analysis is in my DNA match notes so that I remember later exactly how these matches were determined and can re-evaluate later if necessary.

Due to a scheduling issue, we’ve moved the FamilySearch webinar to 28 Sept. at 7:30 pm. central time. Recordings will also be available for those who cannot attend live. Details on our announcement page.

There is more information on the completion of the FamilySearch digitization of microfilm project on their website.

The one thing that always concerns me is whether or not the images I get online from FamilySearch as as high of a quality as the high quality scans I made directly from microfilm myself at the Family History Library years ago. In most cases, really high quality scans don’t impact the legibility of the text, but there are times where they do.

Getting the Most from FamilySearch 7:30 pm. central 28 Sept 2021 (note date/time change). Attend live (handout included) or pre-order recording and handout–registration information below.

The FamilySearch site contains images of records from around the world—most available right from your internet connection. This presentation will focus on the actual records that are on FamilySearch and the finding aids that have been created to some of those records. We will not be discussing the online trees in this session and will concentrate on the “digital microfilm” and how that information can be navigated and used for your research. We will break the material down into two large categories: indexed and unindexed digital records. Presentation will be made by Michael John Neill and will include:

Generalized search strategy. It is easy to become overwhelmed with what is on FamilySearch. We will start with a generalized organizational strategy to effectively and efficiently navigate what is on the site.

Searching indexed digital record sets: determining what records are in the database, determining what names from the records are in the index, creating effective search queries, and organizing and tracking conducted searches.

Searching the catalog for non-indexed record images: making certain all political jurisdictions covering a specific location have been searched, determining if locally created indexes were created to records, and tracking manual searches of unindexed digital images.

Requesting copies of records will also be discussed.

Live presentation—via GotoWebinar—on 28 September 2021 at 7:30 pm. US Central Time.

Register for live attendance—$16.

Pre-order recording and handout from session–$12.

AncestryDNA recently released a significant update in matches to individual tests. It was time for me to review my matches–just not all of them.

One reason I had a DNA test done was to try and make some connections to my Irish immigrant ancestors, Samuel and Annie (Murphy) Neill. These Irish immigrants married in New Brunswick, Canada, in the 1860s and migrated to Illinois with Samuel’s brother Joseph before the 1870 census enumeration. Samuel’s origins (born in the 1830s) in NewtonLimavady, County Derry, Ireland, were known before I took the DNA test. My matches did confirm one suspected brother of Samuel, Alex–who remained in Ireland. A suspected sister based upon vital records in the area (Roseanne [Neill] Scott) has not been confirmed with any DNA matches and cannot be located after birth records for her children in the 1880s. Annie’s Irish origins are unknown with any specificity.

There are approximately twenty descendants of Samuel and Annie whose DNA test results are in AncestryDNA.

It was hoped that DNA matches to other known descendants of Samuel and Annie would be more distantly related to me that the descendants of Samuel and Annie are and that those more distant matches would either be descendants of one of Samuel’s ancestors or one of Annie’s ancestors–but not descendants of Samuel and Annie. I’ve made significant headway on tying matches to descendants of Samuel’s brother Alex. The thought is that some of those shared DNA matches with other descendants of Samuel and Annie are related to me through Annie’s family and not through Samuel’s.

But…

There’s always a but. In this case there are two. The first is that the relationships predicted by AncestryDNA are just predictions based on amounts of shared DNA. Genealogically I am more closely related to descendants of Samuel than I am of Alex–because Samuel is my great-great-grandfather and Alex is his brother. There are some descendants of Alex with whom I share more DNA than I do with descendants of Samuel (based on what I currently know it does not look like we are related in more than one way). The amount is not huge, but serves as a reminder that the amount of shared DNA with one match may be slightly greater than the amount of shared DNA with someone who is related to you one generation closer. That’s the first but: relationships are not known precisedly based on an autosomal DNA test.

The second but is a bigger one and requires me to stay on my toes.

Three children of Samuel and Annie married grandchildren of their neighbors James and Elizabeth Rampley, including my great-grandfather Charlie Neill. This means that many descendants of Samuel and Annie Neill (including me) are also Rampley descendants. Descendants of the Neill-Rampley marriage share more matches with me than other children of Samuel and Annie Neill.

So to not create additional confusion and skew my analysis with multiple relationships, my attempts to locate more distant Neill-Murphy relatives focuses on shared matches that I have with descendants of Samuel and Annie Neill who are not also descendants of James and Elizabeth Rampley. That leaves me with DNA matches of Neill descendants who did not marry into the Rampley family.

Fortunately several of those descendants have done DNA tests. Unfortunately a few of them are related to me yet other ways or have shared relatives with other families of mine. This is what happens when your family has lived in the same small area for generations with some families migrating to that area from other shared small areas.

Fortunately for me one son of Samuel and Annie married outside my genetic tree and that son moved to Montana where he married and had several children. The descendants of that grandson–several of whom have done DNA tests are where I have focused my searches because they do not have overlap with my families.

Reminders:

• Relationships based on the autosomal DNA test at AncestryDNA are predictions.
• Always consider multiple relationships to individuals–especially if your family remained in the same area for generations.
• Look for more distantly related matches to known descendants of your problem person.
• Begin your search for those more distantly related matches with a family member whose migration pattern took them away from where your family lived.

Don’t concern yourself with the ethnicity results unless a significant portion of your ethnic heritage is direct conflict with your ancestral tree. Even if there is direct conflict, it means that you should:

• Review and critique your paper trail for errors.
• Look at your shared matches. Are there individuals you cannot figure out? Are there close relatives you have no idea who they are?

Determine the exact genealogical relationship with as many of your first and second cousin matches as possible. Continue this work on third cousin matches.

Reach out to known cousins (whether they are “into” genealogy or not) to see if they have done a DNA test at the same location you have. Is it possible that they’ve tested you and that you are not DNA match with them? That’s a bigger genealogical problem than the 2% Russian you have in your tree. Don’t assume that if you cousins tested that they would be on your list of matches. They won’t be if for some reason they are not actually biologically related to you.

Generally speaking, work on making your tree as complete as you can and on determining the relationship to as many DNA matches as you can.

That’s better time spent than trying to “reverse engineer” your ethnicity at AncestryDNA to figure out “where they got it.”

To celebrate our move to our new email server, we’re offering copies of Genealogy Tip of the Day for only $20 postpaid. This link will process payment at that amount.

There is more about the book on our Genealogy Tip of the Day website. But the link for the discount rate is only in this post.