Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ok here the deal, back around 1850 I lose the parent of my gggg grandfather. But there a lot of other family in the area, according to census that wasnt burned in civil war.
I got the big y test at FTDNA and i dont have a single namesake at all, but thousand of another name. so Im thinking bastard child here. neighborhood comes over for a quicky, they get stuck in the woodpile, get ran off with a shotgun, kids raise by family, so whaata think
my question is there a dna test that can test mama side but back around 1850.
one more point, those that i have found in my tree but split around 1850, their y dna is no where close. not in the same ball park. I think im pulling my namesake from the female side
ok here the deal, back around 1850 I lose the parent of my gggg grandfather. But there a lot of other family in the area, according to census that wasnt burned in civil war.
I got the big y test at FTDNA and i dont have a single namesake at all, but thousand of another name. so Im thinking bastard child here. neighborhood comes over for a quicky, they get stuck in the woodpile, get ran off with a shotgun, kids raise by family, so whaata think
You can't make that assumption. What is your closest Y match - how many markers do you share, and at what genetic distance? It's entirely possible they are all distant enough matches that your shared Y ancestor predates the surnames, therefore the surnames developed independently/differently generations later.
Even if you can identify a non-paternity event (which takes a lot more work than just seeing that non of your Y matches share your surname), you are making some pretty bold assumptions with how it happened and why.
Quote:
my question is there a dna test that can test mama side but back around 1850.
You mean your mother's side, or the mother of this child that may or may not have been the result of a non-paternity event?
Quote:
one more point, those that i have found in my tree but split around 1850, their y dna is no where close. not in the same ball park. I think im pulling my namesake from the female side
Again, you can't make that assumption just based on what surnames you're seeing in your Y matches unless those surnames are rare.
371596 marker that we share, the genetic distance 2
That sounds like you're looking at your Big Y SNP matches. I mean your STR matches, do you match at 12 markers, 25, 37, 67, or 111?
https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/dna-basics/ydna/ - the chart here explains that at 37 markers, a GD of 2 has a 95% chance of their MRCA being within 14 generations. That's a 12th great grandparent. At 12 markers, even a GD of 2 is not likely to be within a genealogical time frame and probably predates surnames.
My understanding is that Big Y is only relevant to deep (ancient/prehistory) ancestry, and not to recent genealogy.
I've learned it's not as unusual as you might think. A family history written in the early 1900's, traces my paternal lineage back to the late 1500's. For that reason, I had never bothered with Y-DNA until about a year ago. Funny thing... I have 0 matches to my surname, but a ton to a surname I'd never previously encountered. The project admins for both my surname project and the matching surname project indicated that NPE's show up in Y-DNA testing pretty regularly. I was so convinced it was a bad test that I paid to test my son. (No brothers or other close male cousins) - same results.
At Y-67, I've got 19 matches at 0-2 distance, and at Y-111, 3 matches at 0-3 distance. I have absolutely no autosomal matches to the mystery surname, so the NPE was most likely over 5 generations ago. Admins from both projects have been incredibly helpful and patient, but it's not likely I will ever definitively solve the mystery. Through triangulation, the matching surname admins have pointed me to a probable ancestor born around 1680, but getting from him to me has been a puzzle without answers.
i got 111 marker and hundred of matches to a surname that not mine, hundred within 5. I got results of other direct members of my tree that split around 1850, no where close at all, not even in the same ball park. so the question, can the name be pick of of a female dna, that really hard to understand, not my mama but a female on my dad side 200 years ago,
is there a test that just pull female dna out of a male, that might match someone 200 years ago
I'll follow this thread because I have kind of the same situation. Don't know who my mom's parents were. She was supposedly adopted, but we don't know if it was a legal adoption or she was just taken in by relatives. We have her maiden name as one name on all our birth certificates except one half sibling, where her maiden name is listed as something different. I have wondered if she was an illegitimate child and was a secret. Or if her family disowned her. She was only 15 when she got married the first time. I don't find her on any public family trees on Ancestry. I find her on a census in 1940 but there's no real information about the people she was living with and I don't know who they were or if they were even related to her. There is no record of her birth; I'm sure she was born at home. I know where she grew up but no one there knows anything about her or if they do they aren't saying.
Another thing is she was supposedly either 1/4th or 1/8th (I can't remember which) American Indian and I have tried to search records for that information but haven't found anything there, either.
I am going to do a DNA test to see if there are any matches that might point me in the right direction, but not sure which DNA test might give the best results for this kind of thing. I am thinking if a half sibling and I (both same mother) both tested then any matches we had in common must be on our mother's side.
i got 111 marker and hundred of matches to a surname that not mine, hundred within 5. I got results of other direct members of my tree that split around 1850, no where close at all, not even in the same ball park. so the question, can the name be pick of of a female dna, that really hard to understand, not my mama but a female on my dad side 200 years ago,
is there a test that just pull female dna out of a male, that might match someone 200 years ago
No. Autosomal DNA will provide DNA from all your ancestors (to an extent), but it will not pinpoint one in particular and sorting one from another takes work. mtDNA only provides matches on the direct maternal line - your mother's, mother's, mother's, mother, etc. So unless you can find someone who is a descendant of the woman in question through a direct/exclusive female line, mtDNA won't be helpful (and it does not follow surnames anyway, since surnames don't follow female lines).
I'll follow this thread because I have kind of the same situation. Don't know who my mom's parents were. She was supposedly adopted, but we don't know if it was a legal adoption or she was just taken in by relatives. We have her maiden name as one name on all our birth certificates except one half sibling, where her maiden name is listed as something different. I have wondered if she was an illegitimate child and was a secret. Or if her family disowned her. She was only 15 when she got married the first time. I don't find her on any public family trees on Ancestry. I find her on a census in 1940 but there's no real information about the people she was living with and I don't know who they were or if they were even related to her. There is no record of her birth; I'm sure she was born at home. I know where she grew up but no one there knows anything about her or if they do they aren't saying.
Another thing is she was supposedly either 1/4th or 1/8th (I can't remember which) American Indian and I have tried to search records for that information but haven't found anything there, either.
I am going to do a DNA test to see if there are any matches that might point me in the right direction, but not sure which DNA test might give the best results for this kind of thing. I am thinking if a half sibling and I (both same mother) both tested then any matches we had in common must be on our mother's side.
Get the AncestryDNA test kit because it is on sale now. You can then upload the results to some of the other sites...roselver will tell you how on the sticky note on top of forum.
I think getting your half sib is good idea. The more results you have to compare, the more interesting the process is.
What state was your mother born in? Some states have opened their adoption records & you can get original birth certificates (pre-adoption name changes).
I'll follow this thread because I have kind of the same situation. Don't know who my mom's parents were. She was supposedly adopted, but we don't know if it was a legal adoption or she was just taken in by relatives. We have her maiden name as one name on all our birth certificates except one half sibling, where her maiden name is listed as something different. I have wondered if she was an illegitimate child and was a secret. Or if her family disowned her. She was only 15 when she got married the first time. I don't find her on any public family trees on Ancestry. I find her on a census in 1940 but there's no real information about the people she was living with and I don't know who they were or if they were even related to her. There is no record of her birth; I'm sure she was born at home. I know where she grew up but no one there knows anything about her or if they do they aren't saying.
Another thing is she was supposedly either 1/4th or 1/8th (I can't remember which) American Indian and I have tried to search records for that information but haven't found anything there, either.
I am going to do a DNA test to see if there are any matches that might point me in the right direction, but not sure which DNA test might give the best results for this kind of thing. I am thinking if a half sibling and I (both same mother) both tested then any matches we had in common must be on our mother's side.
In a time long ago and far away, women died at some point in childbirth. In that long ago time, most men could not raise kids and work too. Usually, a family member would take his kids from his deceased wife in (this could be a relative on either side of the family) so he could marry again and start over. Sometimes a new wife would raise the previous wife's kids, but many times another couple in the family took the kids.
If it was indeed a true adoption out of the family altogether, it was probably handled by the Catholic Church (not always, but most were). It is pretty much impossible to get the church to release any information on these adoptions, even if the adoption was more than 300 years ago.
Just a couple stumbling blocks I found when doing my own research.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
