Draft 12 January 2023
“Who
your distant cousins think your ancestors are”
An
experiment to unmask and suggest Common Ancestral lines for single surnames using
distant shared DNA Matches of a DNA testing platform. We create an encoding
technique on the family trees of Identity by Descent (IBD) DNA cousins with a
20-count frequency to suggest an ancestral line.
This experiment is conducted based on multiple thought experiments resulting in an experiment to reverse the perspective normally used to consider and evaluate individual DNA results. It is conducted using the results provided by Ancestry.com which are well defined in these white papers: Genetic Communities™ and DNA matching. If successful, it would be an incremental advancement in method and useful to consumers.
This experiment will cause the creation of an encoding scheme to help in organizing and interpreting results. This will be a manual system using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets primarily in recursive sorting.
Should the outcome merit deployment it is envisioned that combining the power of IBD shared DNA matching with the full spectrum of data encoding and advanced recursive data analytics would be a useful tool.
This experiment design uses an indeterminate sampling set and uses recursive searching, steps and levels added contemporaneously as merited by findings. It is a meta search of IBD DNA relatives using numerous factors to make guided suggestions. It may be useful to a consumer researcher without insight as to the origin of distant ancestors or absent of useful guideposts for search targeting and genealogical line development.
A Monte Carlo (named after the gambling destination in Monaco ) simulation is used to model the probability of different outcomes in a process that cannot easily be predicted due to the intervention of random variables. The program takes these variables that has uncertainty and assigns it a random value. The model is then run, and a result is provided. This process is repeated many thousands of times while assigning many different values to the variable in question.
In a causal game of play, if you were to throw “snake eyes” a few times you would consider that luck. But if you were to throw the same dice 10,000 times and you threw “snake eyes” 8,500 times then you might consider it to be something beyond luck. Perhaps it would be suggestive of a certainty, but the meaning remains masked.
How would this apply to genealogy? Conventional thinking suggests that the “Present Moment You” is thinking about how the future will turn out considering several options you might choose from. Let us say however that we are thinking about the “Present Moment” of one of our ancestors in A.D. 1500. Your distant ancestor surely thought ahead wondering how certain things might go considering decisions they might make at that time. Things like occupations, which side to serve on during a war, where to live, who to marry and how many children should they create.
Consider again, as the “Present Moment You”, that you are the result of your ancestor’s future thinking; you and all the cousins that were created over time. In this perspective, you are the end of the game, just one of the many, many possibilities that the Monte Carlo simulation could have produced.
In this study, we are reversing the perspective and asking the question as to how to gather up all we know about our IBD cousins to reconstruct the pathway backwards to find our distant common ancestor.
When viewing Ancestry.com’s Thrulines® the emphasis is placed on seeking out common match cousins. This experiment reverses this view and instead, we focus on unmasking common ancestors at a greater granulated degree. Doing so helps in guiding us toward suggested distant common ancestors and thereafter suggesting MRCA’s based on higher frequency of IBD cousin matches.
Proof of Concept Design
The task is to figure out who came from a similar past such that they share DNA and then try to find and confirm those ancestors. The project coordinator accessed and organized each participant’s atDNA matches using Ancestry.com’s share functionality. The goal was to select 20 qualified DNA matches each to supply a frequency pool of unduplicated matches. A qualified match was defined as a match that shared 9-15 cM’s of DNA and provided a searchable family tree with at least one Yates surname.
For this first round we will use two groups of five individuals. G1members are a closely related Yates family: four first cousins and a one-half Yates paternal uncle. Their immediate ancestors lived in the Mid-West. G2 Members are Yates DNA cousins who descend from a Yates line where the line splits with a different grandmother, all live in New Jersey. A male Yates in G2 is a 109/111 Y-DNA match with the study coordinator who is included in G1. This is important as there is a 95% confidence level that we have a common ancestor that is a Yates alive during our research period.
The data sets of 20-lines individuals will be combined into sets of data for either G1 or G2 individuals. When these five data sets of 20 are sorted it is expected that common ancestral lines will sort the 100-line unduplicated pool to confirm the unmasked of ancestral lines.
Processing the individual lines and collection data elements have been built on routines so we can compare the data lines. By using lower CM IBD cousins we are using matches that are distantly related to the IBD ancestors approaching 6-10 generations.
By using distant lower CM cousins, we are using matches that are NOT directly influenced by highly related matches that have already decided who their correct ancestors might be, confirmed or not. Using distant IBD matches makes effective use of DNA match territory that is, voluminous, often overlooked with the focus on large matches and involves looking at large numbers of connections.
As a result of collecting a 20-line ancestral pool for each participant and aggregating the results of the lines, a most common ancestral line appears; we created a 7-generation ancestral spread consisting of the Yates Given names, spouse last name and Yates birth year. Encoding like this allows the ancestral group to be sorted, and the different branches can be seen to split. This is useful in connecting all our current orphaned Yates ancestral lines.
Aggregating the results of the lines with the selected data it is possible to see with greater suggestive rationale, where an orphaned Yates ancestor might be properly connected to the 7-generation ancestral spread.
The assumption is someone can suggest to you that you might be related to the Yates line present in Anne Arundel, Maryland is one thing; however, if you can be given the detail of 7 DNA cousins who do connect to that line then it might suggest that you also have that connection.
Using Identity by Descent (IBD) matches now allows us to start with using known related cousins, only. This ends the guessing game of genealogy wondering if the person you are spending time on is even related. With IBD cousins, you may not yet know the connection, but you can be confident there is one.
Ancestry.comDNA matching decides how people in their DNA database are related to one another by using identical-by-descent analysis, they find pairs of customers who have long segments of identical DNA that is suggestive of a recent common ancestor. The number of these shared segments predicts the closeness of the relationship.
The sampling pool was indeterminate because certain trees were excluded after review such as, trees set to private therefore not searchable; a tree was available but small containing only recent family members; trees were present, but parents and grandparents were set to private for privacy and not easily researched and trees outside of the continental US. This primarily included UK and Australian matches which will researched independently after this project.
An aim of the project framework was to set a minimum number of DNA matches because the belief is that frequency and clustering of findings will shade the conclusions and credibility of the study. This was a manually constructed project and it required a mean of 90 minutes to be comfortable with each unduplicated line. Encoding each unduplicated line is a vital part of the study to allow for aggregating results to make conclusions and unmask until now unknown Yates ancestors with a suggested ancestral line. The study included 100 unduplicated I.B.D. cousins and their ancestral line.
Genealogy-Group 1
The results will be described in two broad ways, very distant common ancestors and then groups of more recent MRCA’s.
At the conclusion of data preparation, 16 (16%) of matches could not connected with certainty:
Three matches connect to James C. Roper born in 1766 in Virginia (son of James David Roper and Sarah Ann Yates). His spouse was Mary O'Neil. Mary born in 1766. Children: Elijah Roper was born in 1794; and Samuel Roper was born in 1806.
Two matches connect to John Yates, Sr. was born about 1740 in Columbus, North Carolina; his spouse was Elizabeth Barfield born about 1740 Children: Luke Barfield Yates born in 1767 in North Carolina; John Yates, Jr. was born in 1769 in Bladen, North Carolina; Thomas Church Yates was born in 1780.
Two matches connect to William Yates born 1720 in Staffordshire, England. His spouse was Anne Thornbury born about 1714 in Baltimore, Maryland. (daughter of John Thornbury and Elizabeth Tayloe) Children: John Yates born in 1746; William Yates born in 1749. Mary Mollie Yates born in 1750.
Two matches connect to William Yates was born in 1820; His spouse was Esther Pike born in 1818. Children: Henry H Yates was born in 1842; George WW Yates was born in 1844 in Pittsfield, Pike, Illinois; Mary F Yates was in 1846 in Illinois; Sarah Elizabeth Yates born in 1851 Illinois; Amanda Yates in 1856.
At the conclusion of data preparation, all 84 (84%) of remaining match ancestral lines connect to one very distant common ancestor and then splits into three groups of distant common ancestors with each of these three splitting into recognizable more recent MRCA’s.
The very distant common ancestor in this study is Richard Yates, born in 1440 in Charney Bassett, Berkshire, England (son of Charney Bassett, Edmund Yates and Margaret Cornell). Richard married Joan Ashendon in 1489. Joan was born in 1445; died in 1499. The Yate(s) home was at Charney Manor, Berkshire, England from 1332. Some to live there were William, his son Edmund, and grandson Richard, above. Next to it is St. Peter's Church, Charney Bassett, Berkshire, England, built in the 12th century.
It is at this point with Richard’s son, John Yates, that his descendants that two notable Yates family lines are created in Berkshire, England.
One split of the line is referred to the Buckland, Berkshire, England line and was created by issue of John’s marriage to Heir Joan Goddard in 1496. Joan (daughter of Richard Goddard) was born in 1476. Because of their success in wool production and managing the Wool enterprise between England and France, this line was made a baronet in 1622; John Yates, 4th Baronet was the last Baronet when he died without issue in 1690. No lines in this study connect to this Yates family line.
After the death of his first spouse, John married Alice Hyde in 1504 in Lyford, Oxfordshire, England. Alice (daughter of Oliver Hyde, Of S Denchworth) was born in 1498; died in 1523. It is the family line created by issue with Alice Hyde, which is known as the Lyford, Berkshire, England line. Although not Barons, these are people of means with certain professions and liberties in a feudal society.
All remaining 84 (84%) of unduplicated ancestral lines of this study will flow through the Lyford, Berkshire, England line via one of three Yate(s) line splits of distant common ancestors and thereafter several MRCA’s.
1st of 3
Yate(s) line splits of distant common ancestors
Fifty-two (52%) of unduplicated ancestral lines of this study flow through John Yates and Mary Elizabeth Tattersall. John Yates was born on 10 Jan 1612 in Lyford, Berkshire, England (son of Thomas Yates and Dorothy Stephens); migrated to Virginia and died on 14 Sep 1653 in Lower Norfolk, Virginia. John married Mary Elizabeth Tattersall (His first cousin) on 13 Jul 1633 in England. Mary (daughter of George Tattersall and Elizabeth Yates) was born on 22 Jun 1613 in England and died in 1658 in Virginia.
Descendant Flow of Four recognizable MRCA’s
Of John Yates and Tattersall issue:
1. John Yates and Elizabeth Kilgore (18 matches). John was born in 1699 (son of John Yates and Elizabeth Tucker of Anne Arundel, Maryland); he died on 23 Apr 1778 in Pittsylvania, Virginia. John married Elizabeth Kilgore in 1748 in Bedford, Virginia. Elizabeth (daughter of Thomas Kilgore and Lydia Yates) was born in 1718 in Bedford, Virginia and died on 3 Feb 1793 in Pittsylvania, Virginia.
Children: William Yates was born in 1749 died in 1845 in Robertson, Tennessee; Stephen Yates was born in 1750 in Pittsylvania, Virginia and died in 1836 in Pittsylvania, Virginia. Thomas Yates was born in 1752 in Bedford, Virginia and died in 1834 in Robertson, Tennessee. John Yates was born in Mar 1753 in Pittsylvania, Virginia and died in 1835 in Wilkes, North Carolina. Peter Yates was born in 1755 in North Carolina and died in 1826 in Georgia. James Yates was born in 1762 in Bedford, Virginia and died in 1844 in Robertson, Tennessee. Jesse Robert Yates was born in 1770 in North Carolina.
2. George Yates, 4th and Anne Guiney (14 matches). George was born in 1727 (son of George Yates, 3rd and Anne Guiney) and died in 1777 in Caroline, Virginia. George married Frances Fielding Lewis born in 1731 in Gloucester, Virginia and died in 1778 (daughter of John Lewis and Frances Fielding).
Children: John Yates was born in 1750 in Caroline, Virginia; died on 4 Jul 1823 in Adair, Kentucky. Charles Lewis Yates was born in 1751 in Caroline, Virginia; died on 13 Jul 1807 in Culpepper, Virginia. James Lewis Yates was born on 3 May 1753 in Caroline, Virginia; died on 21 Sep 1828 in Culpepper, Virginia. Richard Yates was born in 1755 in Caroline, Virginia; died in Nov 1815 in Culpepper, Virginia. Frances Yates was born in 1759 in Caroline, Virginia; died on 27 Sep 1834 in Adair, Kentucky. William Edward Yates was born in 1763 in Caroline, Virginia; died in Jul 1820 in Adair, Kentucky. Mary Martha Yates was born on 17 Aug 1767 in Spotsylvania, Virginia; died on 16 Jul 1839 in Adair, Kentucky. George Yates, 5th was born in 1770 in Caroline, Virginia; died in 1840 in Virginia. Warner Yates was born in 1768 in Caroline, Virginia; died on 4 Jul 1808 in Adair, Kentucky.
Children: Benjamin Yates was born in 1755; died in 1830. Alexander Alsey Yates was born in 1758; died in 1815. Matthew Tyson Yates was born in 1760 in Wake, North Carolina; died on 16 Oct 1837 in Wake, North Carolina. William Yates was born in 1762 in Wake, North Carolina; died in 1827 in Georgia. Sarah Yates was born in 1770; died in 1849. Eli C Yates was born about 1778 in Georgia; died in Jun 1859 in Georgia. Mildred Milea Yates was born on 12 Mar 1784; died on 9 Jan 1863. Margaret Yates was born in 1788; died in 1859.
4. Samuel Yates and Johannah Gould (5 matches). Samuel was born in 1703 in Baltimore, Maryland (son of George Yates, 2nd and Rachael Warfield); died on 4 Apr 1773 in Loudoun, Virginia. Samuel married Johannah Gould in 1729 in Fairfax, Virginia. Johannah was born in Oct 1708 in Maryland; died in 1778 in Loudoun, Virginia.
Children:
Rachel Yates was born in 1726 in Fairfax, Virginia. Mary Ann Yates was born in
1731 in Cecil, Maryland. George Yates was born in 1738 in Loudoun, Virginia.
Frances Yates was born in 1739 in Loudoun, Virginia. Joshua Yates, Sr. was born
in 1741 in Loudoun, Virginia. Benjamin Lloyd Yates was born in 1745 in
Baltimore, Maryland. Samuel Bedford Yates was born in 1757 in Nash, North
Carolina.
2nd of 3 Yate(s) line splits of distant common ancestors
Twenty (20%) of unduplicated ancestral lines of this study flow through James Yates and Agnes Webster. James Yates was born on in 1662 in Walton, Lancashire, England (son of Thomas Yates) and died on in 1733 in Newtown, Bucks, Pennsylvania. James married Agnes Webster in 1693 in Bucks, Pennsylvania. Agnes (daughter of Peter Webster) was born in 1668 in England.
Children: Peter Yates was born in 1692. Joseph Webster Yates was born in 1694. Agnes Yates was born in 1696. Isabelle Yates was born in 1698. “Walking Boundary” James Yates was born in 1699 (and did not perish on the walk), he died in 1737 in Bucks, Pennsylvania. Sarah Webster Yates was born in 1696. Margaret Yates was born in 1717. Robert Yates was born in 1706. Elizabeth Yates was born in 1708 and died in 1804 in Loudoun, Virginia.
Descendant Flow of
Three recognizable MRCA’s
Of Yates and Webster issue:
1. William Yates and Nancy Ann Gibson (11 Matches). William was born in 1737 in Bucks, Pennsylvania (son of Joseph Webster Yates and Margaret Rigg); died on 19 Feb 1827 in Virginia. William married Nancy Ann Gibson born in 1740 in Bucks, Pennsylvania (daughter of Abraham Gibson and Sarah Ann Stephens).
Children: James Yates was born about 1766 in Virginia. William Yates, Jr. was born about 1770 in Virginia. William Yates was born in Aug 1775 in Wilkes, North Carolina. James Henry Yates was born about 1775. Lewis Yates was born in 1771 in Fauquier, Virginia. John Yates was born in 1773 in Fauquier, Virginia. Mary Yates was born in 1780 in Virginia. Jean Yates was born in 1783 in Virginia. Nancy Yates was born in 1784 in Virginia. Martin Yates was born in 1786 in Virginia. Elijah Yates was born in 1793 in Virginia. Lawson Yates was born in 1795 in Fauquier, Virginia and died on 30 Aug 1885 in Virginia.
2.
Elizabeth Yates and Jacob Wildman (4 matches). Elizabeth was born on 21 Oct 1708 in Newtown,
Bucks, Pennsylvania (daughter of James Yates and Agnes Webster) and died on 4
Jan 1804 in Loudoun, Virginia. Elizabeth married Jacob Wildman born I 1718 in
Bucks, Pennsylvania.
Children:
Mary Walton Wildman was born on 15 Jun 1746; Massey Wildman was born in 1750;
Joseph Wildman, Sr. was born in 1755 in Loudoun, Virginia; Grace Wildman was
born on 30 Jan 1760 in Pennsylvania; Johann Georg Wildman; and Rachel Wildman
was born on 22 Sep 1776.
3.
Isabelle Yates and Richard Iliff (4 matches). Isabelle was born in 1698
in Newtown, Bucks, Pennsylvania (daughter of James Yates and Agnes Webster) and
died in 1775 in Maryland. Isabelle married Richard Iliff who was born in 1709
in England. Richard died in Dec 1783 in Bucks, Pennsylvania.
Children: John Yates Iliff was born on 4 Apr 1745 in Bucks, Pennsylvania; Mary Iliff was born in 1765; and, Joseph Iliff was born in Nov 1733 and died on 22 Dec 1777.
3rd of 3 Yate(s) line splits of distant common ancestors
Twelve (12%) of unduplicated ancestral lines of this study flow through John Thomas Yates and Elizabeth Hatfielde. John was born in 1572 in West Hanney, Berkshire, England (son of Thomas Yates); died on 12 Apr 1658. He married Elizabeth Hatfielde born in 1570 in Mansfield, Nottingham, England.
Children: John Yates was born in 1581 in Berkshire, England and died in Norfolk, Virginia. Robert John Yates was born in 1597 in West Yorkshire, England and died in 1651 in West Yorkshire, England. Christian Marrington Yates was born in 1609 in England; died in 1671 in Virgina.
Descendant Flow of Two
recognizable MRCA’s
Of Yates and Hatfielde issue:
1. Hannah Eveline Yates and William Shelton (4 matches). Hannah was born in 1743 in Pittsylvania, Virginia (daughter of “Dan River” John Yates) and died in 1812 in Henderson, Kentucky. Hannah married William Josiah Shelton born on 4 Mar 1734 in Middlesex, Virginia and died in Feb 1794 in Pittsylvania, Virginia.
Children: William Josiah Shelton was born on 4 Jan 1763 in Pittsylvania, Virginia and died on 16 Aug 1849 in Illinois. John Shelton was born in 1764 in Virginia and died in 1830. Mary Polly Shelton was born on 29 Dec 1765 and died on 6 Jul 1846. Agnes Fanny Shelton was born in 1766 and died in 1855. Elijah Frank Shelton was born on 4 Jun 1769 in Virginia; and died on 4 Jun 1849. George Washington Shelton was born in 1773 in Virginia and died on 29 Mar 1858. Josiah Cyrus Shelton was born in 1777 and died on 21 Nov 1864.
2. Joseph Christopher
Yates and Huybertje Marcelis (4 matches). Joseph
was born on 26 Dec 1647 in England (son of Robert John Yates and Mary Dyson)
and died on 22 May 1730 in New York and was buried in Reformed Dutch Church
Cemetery, Albany, New York. Joseph married Huybertje Marcelis born in 1662 in
New York and died on 13 Jul 1730 in New York and was also buried in Reformed
Dutch Church Cemetery, Albany, New York. (daughter of Janse Marcelis and
Annatie Ryerse Gerritse).
Joseph Yates was an English soldier, who came over with Colonel Nichols, commander of the English forces, to whom Stuyvesant, the Dutch Director General of New Amsterdam, was compelled to surrender. This signals the change of Dutch rule to English rule and New Netherlands becomes New York. Joseph’s arrival begins the long New York line of the Yates family.
Children:
Maria Yates was born in 1683 in Albany, New York. Christoffel Yates was born in
1684. Johanna Yates was born in 1686. Robert Joseph Yates was born on in 1688.
Charity Yates was born in 1690. Catelyntje Yates was born in 1691. Celia Yates
was born in May 1693 in Albany, New York. Joseph Yates was born in 1695 in
Albany, New York. Sara Yates was born in 1698 in Albany, New York. And, Abraham
Yates was born on 1 Mar 1704 in New York.
Group # 1 Genealogy
findings:
Focusing on significant frequency we found three splits of Most Recent Common Ancestors (MRCA’s) below along with their sub-descendance.
For
group # 1 this study has proven to be transformative. All earlier work has been the traditional
paper-trail family trees aided by visitation to family relevant historical
visitations in Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky where this Yates line is
documented in census and tax records.
These visitations included significant cemetery, library, and county
clerk record examination when available.
With all these good efforts the ancestral line was a “brick wall” stuck
with a John Yates, Sr. b. ca 1764.
We find that this study has supplied results which are highly suggestive and persuasive as to our distant ancestral line. A targeted ancestral line now exists for this group where none existed previously.
Although a gap still exists between our known line and our new distant ancestral line, we find that based on these highly suggestive and persuasive results that several key descending lines offer targets as to possible Most Recent Common Ancestors based on frequency of unduplicated cousin lines.
Compared to the earlier “brick wall” we now have highly suggestive and persuasive ideas for renewed and targeted search efforts seeking traditional confirmation of proper findings. This is a success for group # 1 and allows for proper resource allocation and expenditure of effort.
Genealogy-Group 2
The study of group # 2 includes a new variable which must be resolved by more research. Of the 100 unduplicated lines reviewed 61 lines were attributed to union of Richard Yates / Joan Ashendon. This compares to 84 lines attributed to them in the group # 1 study. The attribution of the remaining 39 lines split between 14 to an England based ancestor without a known connection and 25 lines attributed to a US based ancestor with a “brick wall” without a known ancestral connection.
While these 25 US based lines may later connect it is a large uncertain variable to consider. This must be resolved with more research. It is noteworthy that three autosomal DNA unduplicated lines were unmasked. Prior to this study these connections between group #1 and #2 were not know. One of these shows a connection only previously seen in the Yates Y-DNA study with the test of Charlie Martin Yates. The other two lines are the first autosomal results showing a connection between the members of Group # 1 and Group # 2. Specifically, this is the John Yates, Jr. line and the Robert Yates line.
Although more information is needed to improve certainty, we find that based on these highly suggestive and persuasive results that several key descending lines offer targets as to possible Most Recent Common Ancestors based on frequency of unduplicated cousin lines.
Out of 100 unduplicated ancestral lines reviewed, 30 lines flow through the union of John Yates and Mary Elizabeth Tattersall. The later descendant flow is fairly spread based on limited frequency.
Compared to an earlier “brick wall” at Abraham Yates b. 1783, we now have highly suggestive and persuasive ideas for renewed and targeted search efforts seeking traditional confirmation of proper findings. This is a success for group # 2. When further details are found on the larger unknown lines this will allow for proper resource allocation and expenditure of effort.
Discussion of study design
An analysis of near distant relatives in a surname study can add value to the overall project.
A shortcoming of this study was the manual labor-intensive nature of researching the data and figuring out a common way to make comparisons. We had to redefine the 7-generation ancestral spread which needed significant re-encoding. While a manual method can aid the individual researcher, the application of machines, storage and programming could greater benefit individual consumers trying to find masked ancestors.
It is a possibility that software engineers could devise a surname (or other characteristic) related to known unions that produce an issue, which could be encoded and stored creating a type of data not unlike repeated DNA code that produce Genetic markers such as with the marker system used in Y-DNA testing.
Such a marker, when detected, would allow for building a suggested ancestral line with backward and forward capability. DNA and matching platforms, such as Ancestry.com, could also use private trees to strengthen the building of any algorithms.
References
The Shared cM Project
4.0 tool v4
Addendum 1
10 January 2023
“Who your distant
cousins think your ancestors are”
This addendum describes the additional content of forty unduplicated ancestral lines of a common ancestor and creates a sample pool of 140 unduplicated lines from six cousins. One of these cousins also is a one-half paternal uncle to four first cousins.
The common ancestral line descends from John Yates, Jr (1790-1846) and Mary Swift (1795-1865). John and Mary issued 11 children. We believe both John and Mary Swift may have been born in Maryland and then married in Barren, Kentucky. They migrated to Crawford, Indiana in the early 1820 and thereafter to Illinois.
The original Group #1 consisted of Jim Yates, Ron Yates, Tim J. Yates, Andrea Yates Russett, and, Pat Yates Parker. The additional ancestral lines are generated by the cousin matches of Glenn Wishard and Tim Brian Yates.
This additional content highlights several lines that in turn provides an improved granularity unmasking Most Recent Common Ancestor’s (MRCA) that can be targeted for new search efforts. We have also improved the display of this information to name the MRCA, then the next level up ancestor and how that ancestor connects to unmasked distant ancestors.
Ten cousin matches were single counts leaving 130 ancestral lines to sum up into frequency counts starting with two through the highest of twenty unduplicated matches. This highest accumulator was for George Yates, 4th 1727 and Frances Fielding Lewis. They alone account for 15% of all cousin matches. Frequency count is one parameter to consider when isolating candidates for linkage between MRCA’s and closer ancestors we are seeking to connect.
This revised granular view simplifies the listing of targets based on frequency. Specifically, additional genealogy searching will focus on the descendants and allied relatives of this listing of Most Recent Common Ancestor-Targets.
A secondary listing creates a reference listing of how these MRCA’s aggregate through ancestors. A third list is also available providing a reference to connect all three lists. This is an enhancement in keeping the ancestral line in mind and allowing perspective.
Attachment 1
(Attachment 1 shows all three lists of
ancestors)
Comments
Post a Comment