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.
You can get a "Genetic Community" without having a tree. I believe (and PAUK can offer more) that the Genetic Communities are based on your cousin matches. If a close cousin, or a bunch of semi-close ones have trees that connect to one geographic area, you can get the same "genetic community."
Instead of 88% Jewish, I'm now 100%. No big surprises here!
Unless it changes. I went from being 20% Nigerian to 1 percent, and from little Central African to 38%.
Different databases, according to the DNA in them classify people very different. The Jewish portion of my DNA gets classified by FTDNA as Sephardic, West Mediterranean, South European, and North Africa. DNA.Land classified that as mostly Italian/South European with some slavic.
I do not have any ranges on mine. It flat out says 40% Italy, 27% Ireland, 22% England,etc.
Yes, you do, if you tested at AncestryDNA, you just have to click on the category to see your range for it. Everyone who has tested at AncestryDNA will have ranges. Here is details on how it's calculated: https://www.ancestry.com/cs/dna-help.../bootstrapping
Quote:
Now in addition to those straight line circles around regions, I have smaller doted circle lines. Under Italy, I have Southern Italy and Salerno with dotted lines. Same for Ireland with Munster in a dotted circle. My Maternal Great-Grandma was from Salerno. My Paternal Great-Grandma was from County Clare.
Fine print says these results come from "Genetic Community". What does that mean? Search of other pedigrees based on surnames and other family trees submitted online from all sites?
Not exactly. Genetic Communities (and Migrations) are created when they identify a large enough group of people (testers - this is different from the reference panel used to determine the ethnicity percentages) who all share enough DNA, and all have origins from the same area. They do use trees to identify where the shared DNA is coming from, but once the GC is established, they can identify people who share DNA with that group but don't have a tree attached to their test. So even people who are adopted, for example, and don't know their background and don't have a tree anywhere let alone on Ancestry, may get Genetic Communities.
I submitted my DNA under my married name. Ok, so DNA would show the genetics, but not be as specific. I had the same specifics before I linked my results to my submitted family tree on Ancestry. However, long ago I did submit my tree on Genealogy.com. So I suppose they could have done a search of my ancestors from that, and linked this to other trees and possible relatives.
Are anyone elese's this specific and do you have some online family tree somewhere? I don't question these results, just the method of getting them. Not from DNA alone.
Like I say, you can get GCs even if you have no tree anywhere. They only use trees to establish and identify a GC. Once it's established, they assign it to other people who don't have trees based on your shared DNA.
If these results are from Ancestry, you can click on your category "Italy" and it will show the range of your dna which matches Italy. 40% is the average. Then the results are broken down further into Southern Italy and finally Salerno.
I have a similar result. Under "Ireland and Scotland" it says 40%. The range is actually 31-56%. Then it is broken down into Scotland and further the Scottish Highlands.
I don't have any Genetic Communities listed because I haven't uploaded a tree. I know my father's ancestry is well documented online at other sites so maybe your theory is correct.
Ok, I now see that. My range for Italy is 38% to 40%. Very high range. My Mom's cousin (a Judge) went to Italy and spent his retirement years searching the family tree. So, I trust his leg work, and knowledge of what would be considered a legal document and not.
My range for Ireland is 0 to 27%. Yet, they have included the Province of Munester in that. How? 0%? I only know that my Great-Grandma was born in County Clare, BUT I know from Irish Heritage sites, that O'Sullivan is one of the most common names there. Again, online trees with her name? Many years ago, my Dad got an inheritance from his Mom's side. No will. Professional genealogists went about finding the legal heirs. I have that document. Not to be trusted?
My range for England and Scotland is 0 to 22? I spent decades tracing Dad's Paternal side in England. Not online, but writing to England for birth certificates, marriage licenses, death certificates, British census records, etc. The British were very though in their documents going farther back than the US. I have gone very far back with this seeing how my surname changed over the centuries until in Old English it was nothing like today. Paper trails get sketchy by that time period though.
I definitely agree with the DNA maximum results, but not the ranges based on my own research. Back in the 70's I was certified to be a genealogist. When I appeared before the board, I had to tell them what would be considered legal proof of family heritage.
Ok, I now see that. My range for Italy is 38% to 40%. Very high range. My Mom's cousin (a Judge) went to Italy and spent his retirement years searching the family tree. So, I trust his leg work, and knowledge of what would be considered a legal document and not.
My range for Ireland is 0 to 27%. Yet, they have included the Province of Munester in that. How? 0%? I only know that my Great-Grandma was born in County Clare, BUT I know from Irish Heritage sites, that O'Sullivan is one of the most common names there. Again, online trees with her name? Many years ago, my Dad got an inheritance from his Mom's side. No will. Professional genealogists went about finding the legal heirs. I have that document. Not to be trusted?
My range for England and Scotland is 0 to 22? I spent decades tracing Dad's Paternal side in England. Not online, but writing to England for birth certificates, marriage licenses, death certificates, British census records, etc. The British were very though in their documents going farther back than the US. I have gone very far back with this seeing how my surname changed over the centuries until in Old English it was nothing like today. Paper trails get sketchy by that time period though.
I definitely agree with the DNA maximum results, but not the ranges based on my own research. Back in the 70's I was certified to be a genealogist. When I appeared before the board, I had to tell them what would be considered legal proof of family heritage.
My new ethnicity ranges are the same. My top region, England, is the only one that doesn't have a "bottom estimate" of 0%.
Ok, I now see that. My range for Italy is 38% to 40%. Very high range. My Mom's cousin (a Judge) went to Italy and spent his retirement years searching the family tree. So, I trust his leg work, and knowledge of what would be considered a legal document and not.
My range for Ireland is 0 to 27%. Yet, they have included the Province of Munester in that. How?
Yes, so they are saying there's a chance that you don't have any ancestry from the region primarily located in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, but there's also a chance you have as much as 27% from there. Obviously, since you have documented ancestry from Ireland (and possibly Scotland and Wales?), you know the 0% doesn't apply but that you probably fall somewhere in between 1% and 27%.
Quote:
I only know that my Great-Grandma was born in County Clare, BUT I know from Irish Heritage sites, that O'Sullivan is one of the most common names there. Again, online trees with her name? Many years ago, my Dad got an inheritance from his Mom's side. No will. Professional genealogists went about finding the legal heirs. I have that document. Not to be trusted?
The ethnicity percentages don't look at your tree at all, so it doesn't matter if you have an online tree or not. If you're saying you have a Genetic Community in Munster, Ireland, that covers County Clare (Munster is a province that includes County Clare, among several other counties), that makes a lot of sense because you have a great grandmother from Munster.
Quote:
My range for England and Scotland is 0 to 22? I spent decades tracing Dad's Paternal side in England. Not online, but writing to England for birth certificates, marriage licenses, death certificates, British census records, etc. The British were very though in their documents going farther back than the US. I have gone very far back with this seeing how my surname changed over the centuries until in Old English it was nothing like today. Paper trails get sketchy by that time period though.
I definitely agree with the DNA maximum results, but not the ranges based on my own research. Back in the 70's I was certified to be a genealogist. When I appeared before the board, I had to tell them what would be considered legal proof of family heritage.
To clarify, the range isn't saying there's a 0-22% chance of you having ancestry in that region, it's saying 0-22% of your DNA matches that region. It's just showing the range you probably fall somewhere within, and they estimate the final number, but by showing you the range, they are saying that the final percentage may be off, and that it could actually fall anywhere within that range.
72% England, Wales & Northwestern Europe (72% to 100% range)
25% Ireland and Scotland (0% to 25% range).
Remaining 3% is Norway.
Kind of amazed that both my mother and father's families have been in Australia for around 5-6 generations and my genetic makeup still is very much British.
Finally got around to checking my updates. England, Wales and Northwest Europe went from 47% to 62%. Ireland and Scotland went from 24% to 35%. Also, not included before, France 2% and Spain 1%. How do they determine these changes?
Knowing my family history it was no surprise but am wondering about the migration charts. It shows a LOT of Appalachian settlement from England, etc. but that would be my dad's side of the family and if, as I found out, my dad might NOT have been my dad...well, I don't know. My maternal family settled in the Ohio, Iowa, Illinois region and that matches what I know. They migrated there from New England. I'm still not sure I should believe that my dad's family isn't mine but when I look for DNA matches NONE of his ancestors come up. At least I don't recognize any of the family names. I DO recognize many maternal names though. I think I need to have some more family members do DNA testing.
Finally got around to checking my updates. England, Wales and Northwest Europe went from 47% to 62%. Ireland and Scotland went from 24% to 35%. Also, not included before, France 2% and Spain 1%. How do they determine these changes?
Knowing my family history it was no surprise but am wondering about the migration charts. It shows a LOT of Appalachian settlement from England, etc. but that would be my dad's side of the family and if, as I found out, my dad might NOT have been my dad...well, I don't know. My maternal family settled in the Ohio, Iowa, Illinois region and that matches what I know. They migrated there from New England. I'm still not sure I should believe that my dad's family isn't mine but when I look for DNA matches NONE of his ancestors come up. At least I don't recognize any of the family names. I DO recognize many maternal names though. I think I need to have some more family members do DNA testing.
I wouldn't jump to those conclusions - maybe it's possible your dad was adopted and didn't know it, because that could also cause his entire ancestry to be different among his matches. You definitely need to test some close family members on his side (assuming he is not available or willing to test himself). To rule out the possibility that your dad was adopted though, you'd had to test a sibling of yours. If he was adopted, any of his siblings or children of them wouldn't share DNA with you, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's not your biological father.
If you have other reasons for believing he may not be your dad, then maybe it is true, but perhaps your bio father was of the same background (that's not unusual considering people in the same area often are of the same backgrounds).
I wouldn't jump to those conclusions - maybe it's possible your dad was adopted and didn't know it, because that could also cause his entire ancestry to be different among his matches. You definitely need to test some close family members on his side (assuming he is not available or willing to test himself). To rule out the possibility that your dad was adopted though, you'd had to test a sibling of yours. If he was adopted, any of his siblings or children of them wouldn't share DNA with you, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's not your biological father.
If you have other reasons for believing he may not be your dad, then maybe it is true, but perhaps your bio father was of the same background (that's not unusual considering people in the same area often are of the same backgrounds).
Thank you for the links. I thought I had seen them all...guess not!
Not jumping to conclusions. My dad was definitely not adopted. He passed away 14 years ago so, no, can't test him! I did have my brother do the test and we don't match. Well, he's my half brother...different moms...but we still should have matched the same as first cousins, at least. My sister is gone too but I'm talking to her son about being tested. She was my only full sibling so there 'should' be a match, right? My parents were married 10 months and 4 days before my birth so I just find it very strange that my brother and I wouldn't have a match. I remember hearing 'gossip' that she was pregnant when they married but I doubt she carried me well over nine months! Oh, and one of my paternal cousins was also tested and, again, no match.
Another oddity in my matches...there are three matches that I know for SURE about because they are cousins on my maternal side that I grew up with. BUT there's another one that doesn't match THEM but also shows up as a first cousin to me. However, she WAS adopted and I'm not sure she knows who her bio parents are. She was born same place as I was too. It's quite possible that she and I share the same paternal lines and it would be interesting to find out. We are working on it.
I haven't been terribly active with finding out though because at this late date I just don't think it matters much. My dad has been my dad for 76 years so I'm sure if I DID have a different one he would be long gone as well. I admit to being curious but, no matter what, it's not going to change my life in any way. Well, unless there's a big fat inheritance somewhere. LOL
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.
No big surprises here!
