GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1290271591


From: Ann Turner <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Pilgrim & Indian ancestors;GeneTree pre-Thanksgiving special
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 08:46:31 -0800
References: <AANLkTik2Y=HD+cR6_nqJZ-GZtBEqrk5OTsA3Qd+U2Z9g@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTinuFLu1CBhwzs4UqOWoB3z-ckmSyjJ60zWuJ8SO@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinuFLu1CBhwzs4UqOWoB3z-ckmSyjJ60zWuJ8SO@mail.gmail.com>


I don't know the details for this particular case, but the general method
uses a genealogy database correlated with DNA results. For instance, a woman
may have a Bradford some generations back in her pedigree, who ties in to a
male-line descendant of William Bradford in the database. She may also tie
in to someone in the database who has a Native American mtDNA haplogroup,
although she herself has neither the Y nor the mtDNA. The woman need not
have submitted the entire pedigree herself (and obviously didn't in this
case), but SMGF can merge pedigrees together where they reach a common
ancestor.

Ann


On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 7:03 AM, David Faux <> wrote:

> Ann,
>
> Am I missing something here? I don't see where they explain how they
> determined this woman's 9th or 10th great grandparent (who would of course
> be unlikely to be in the genetic tree) was Indian. Was it mtDNA? D9S1120
> at 9 repeats? Was it strictly genealogy? The latter seems unlikely since
> they state that they don't know who the client's Indian ancestor was
> ........................... So little detail, and we are just supposed to
> buy it as we see it in this article ............ no genetic genealogist
> would accept any of this without more information.
>
> David K. Faux.
>


This thread: