Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1290347578

From: Ann Turner <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Pilgrim & Indian ancestors;GeneTree pre-Thanksgiving special
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 05:52:58 -0800
References: <><><>
In-Reply-To: <>

David, I sent a query to Ugo Perego of SMGF. Here is his reply:

"A true genetic genealogist should use either tool (pedigrees or DNA or
both) as the occasion permits or allows. Not everytime you need DNA and not
everytime you can rely on the pedigree data, but when you have both
available and for a large group of people, then all sort of fun stuff are
possible, including researching Ycs and mtDNA lineages in lines other than
the strict paternal and maternal one respectively. In the case of the
pilgrim/native story, most of the data came from our genealogy department."


On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Ann Turner <> wrote:

> 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: