Emily Michaels: Daughter of the Commonwealth

Do you ever fall so far behind on so many projects that you become crippled with indecision about where to begin and how to catch up? And the inability to make a decision means you willingly chase down every distraction you can find?

That's where I've been for several months on sharing one of my newest and greatest discoveries... because it's not quite finished yet. And maybe never will be.

As I've mentioned previously, neither one of my grandmothers knew their biological fathers. I've just talked about my maternal grandmother and her Italian roots. Finding that family and getting to know their story has been in the works for fifteen years, and has been one of the greatest joys of my life. I was walking on air for weeks afterwards, burying myself as deep into Italian research as I possibly could until I couldn't do anything else.

I was so hyped up on that discovery, I couldn't be stopped. I decided that once and for all, I was going to solve the mystery of my paternal grandmother too. And having ruled out the cousin matches from a major section of my tree, I felt confident that there was no reason I couldn't succeed. I didn't care how many nights of sleep I lost. I would do it because fifteen years is long enough to stare at a gaping hole in your family tree. I wanted that part of my identity to be filled in, and I was tired of waiting.

 So I spent hundreds of dollars on additional testing. I worked the DNA Day sales to death. I won't tell you how many kits I purchased. But I'd learned from researching my Italian family that the drop-off rate for cousin matches over even a single generation was much more than I imagined. It was likely my sample just wasn't pulling in the cousin matches I needed to solve the problem. I needed to fish in someone else's pond who had DNA I just didn't inherit.

My sister was among the people I tested. And sure enough, she had the matches I was missing. None of what I'm about to share would have come together without her. And true to the same pattern I followed with my mother's family, I found the ancestors I had in common with my cousin matches, then worked forward through their descendants until I arrived at the correct family who is related to me.

The unique thing about this case is that, in the process of doing that, I was actually able to document various older branches of this tree long before I narrowed Emily's connection to any specific list of men. And in many ways, I'm much more sure of my great grandfather's ancestors than I am of his identity at the moment, having documented his lineage across the Commonwealth.

Emily Michaels: She's British!

Let's pick up in 1939 in Ontario, Canada. That's where my grandmother Emily Michaels was born. She was born to Muriel Ince Michaels, who was abandoned by her husband several years previously, which I've talked about before. And unlike the rest of her Caribbean family, Muriel was the only person living in Ontario province. Everyone else was in Montreal, having moved there together from Halifax, Nova Scotia during World War II. Living apart from the entire extended family was not typical for them. How she came to be in the area surrounding Toronto and why is a mystery I've not yet solved. But I do know she gave birth there.

I may not know who her birth father is yet, but I do know who his parents are--and by extension, much of his heritage. To get to this point, I had to find the relationship between several different cousin matches I knew had to be related to Emily because they weren't related to anyone else. And for a long time I couldn't find any relationship between those matches, even though they were all supposed to be related. Then I got a much closer cousin match who tied them all together, and started working from her tree. If I could find the relationship between her and all our shared matches, I could narrow down who in her tree had to be Emily's birth father.

So that's what I did. I made a copy of her tree and went to work. The closer I looked at her tree and our shared matches, the more certain I was that I was on the right track. Based on the amount of DNA we shared and our relationship estimate, I was pretty sure I'd found our common ancestors. The only way for us to share the cousin matches we had, spread across England and Canada, was if she and I shared Charles Newman-Jones and Ada Cheffins in our trees.

Charles Richard Newman-Jones was born in Kent, England, which he left as a young man to start a new life in Canada. He met and married Ada Maud Cheffins, who descends from an English father and a mother whose stock goes back to early settlers in Canada. Charles and Ada were married in Regina, Saskatchewan, where they had their children and spent their lives together. They moved to the Northumberland region of Ontario some time between 1921 and 1924. Charles died and was buried in St. John's Anglican Church Cemetery in Port Hope, Ontario, Canada.

Put a pin in that last piece of information. We're going to come back to it.

They had four sons: Eric, Lewis, Charles, and Elton. I'm still working out which one of them is Emily's father and how he would have come to know Muriel. My theories up until now have all centered around brief encounters and accidental conception, with no further contact and a birth father who had no idea my grandmother existed.

The one thing that makes me question that now is a single record I never saw until after my grandmother passed away.

The Cradle Roll certificate for Emily Michaels
From Saint John's Anglican Church in Port Hope, Ontario, Canada

It took me a long time to figure out what this certificate was because I'd never heard of a Cradle Roll before. An archivist explained to me that it was a children's auxiliary in the Anglican church, and this certificate would have been issued after she was baptized. And you'll notice the church it was issued from is...

(Wait for it)

...Saint John's Anglican Church in Port Hope, Ontario, Canada.

Charles Newman-Jones was buried at the same church where my grandmother was baptized. Whatever the full story is, it's not as simple as a connection between two people who never saw each other again.

Getting Closer

The only way to narrow down the situation from here is to analyze DNA from descendants of each Charles and Ada's children. And to date, we've been able to document DNA from two of them. It may not be possible to obtain a sample from the youngest because he has no known biological descendants, having lived as an openly gay man. That is not to say he has no descendants. It would be inappropriate to exclude him from consideration based on his sexuality alone. Gay men throughout history have been involved with women and conceived children. But based on the conversations I've had with members of his extended family, they know of no children he may have had. And for all we know right now, my grandmother could be his only descendant.

It's strange to think that it's possible to fill in our family tree with perfect certainty around and beyond this one person because of DNA. Everything I've learned from traditional research is screaming at me that it shouldn't be possible to just skip a generation like this. But I've said it before and I'll say it again: DNA doesn't care about your feelings and hang-ups. All it can do is tell the truth.

And the truth is, the story that's emerging is stranger than fiction. And I can only hope that more answers are out there, just waiting to be uncovered.

Uploading Your Tree to GEDmatch

GEDmatch has become an essential tool to everyone who is serious about genetic genealogy. I'm not sure how many matches you have there. But the last time I saved my match list as a PDF, it was 23 pages long. And the last time I checked, the last page of matches stopped at about 10 cM. As more people take these tests and upload their raw data to GEDmatch, making traceable connections to our distant cousins becomes easier every day.

But are you taking full advantage of everything GEDmatch has to offer you? If you don't have a tree uploaded, the answer is "No!"

Why You Should Have a Tree on GEDmatch

In order to take full advantage of what genetic genealogy has to offer, you need three types of information:

1. Segment data
2. A tree
3. Shared matches

I like to compare this to a car. In order for a car to function, at the bare minimum it needs wheels, an engine, and a fuel source. Without any one of those elements, the car simply couldn't move. In genetic genealogy, these same three elements are THAT fundamental. Some testing companies create this data scarcity by not providing tools to convey this essential information to their users. And given that some of the newest testing companies are gravitating away from this bare minimum, it leaves some newcomers in our community at a disadvantage.

Whenever a testing company has refused to offer one of these necessities to its customers, GEDmatch has been the equalizer. AncestryDNA won't provide segment data? GEDmatch will do that. MyHeritage DNA won't provide segment data or shared matches? GEDmatch will do that. That same capacity for tree sharing is also available. The ability to cross reference people on all of the sites on which they've tested is there. But how many of us are taking advantage of it?

I've used trees on GEDmatch to match users there to their original testing companies. Once I know I have the right person on AncestryDNA, their shared matches become a powerful finding tool. I compare those shared matches to what I know about the segment data. A much clearer image of the relationships at work in my DNA begins to emerge. It makes my job on GEDmatch AND AncestryDNA easier. And when I invite these shared matches to upload to GEDmatch, and they accept that invitation, documenting and preserving this record becomes possible.

How to Upload a Tree to GEDmatch

Now that I've been focused on linking GEDmatch users to their original testing companies, I'm noticing a trend. Many who provide trees at their original testing companies haven't done so on GEDmatch. Some of these users may not realize the capability to add a tree exists, or how to do it. So I've made a video for our YouTube channel to explain the process.

The trees they produce are not fancy, by any stretch of the imagination. But they provide needed information to the discoveries we're all trying to make. If you haven't uploaded a gedcom to your GEDmatch kits, be sure to add one today!

Family Tree DNA: My Review

Over the past couple of years, you've gotten ample insight from yours truly on AncestryDNA and GEDmatch. Clearly, this conversation is incomplete without giving Family Tree DNA some long-overdue attention. So today, I'm going to be sharing my thoughts on their Family Finder/autosomal DNA test. Specifically, I'll be sharing my experience with their autosomal transfer service.

As I did in my AncestryDNA review and the follow-up, I'll be breaking down this review into a couple of different categories. I'll grade them individually, and average them together for a final score. Here are the categories:

• Cousin Matching
• Admixture
• Projects

I'm also giving them extra credit right out of the gate for offering the autosomal transfer at all. Their biggest weakness, at this stage of the game, is the size of their database of matches. It's difficult to compete with AncestryDNA's 4,000,000+ tests analyzed, especially with their last million being added between January and April of this year. Having such a common sense incentive for the customer is one of the industry's best bargains. If 23&Me would follow suit, I'd have a full house.

Cousin Matching: C+

There are so many different fronts to approach this from, so let's dive in! Family Tree DNA has an overall great interface. In my opinion, their interface has always been better than AncestryDNA. While the capability of Family Tree DNA's interface isn't as robust as GEDmatch, they have many more analysis tools to offer someone out of the gate than AncestryDNA does. And by using all of the features available on Family Tree DNA, I can see how it would help someone transition much more smoothly over to GEDmatch.

Family Tree DNA's match list is like GEDmatch's One-to-Many match list, on training wheels. It's a sortable table that allows you isolate matches in a variety of ways. You can click the column headers, which allow you to sort X-DNA matches to the top of the list. You can also use the "In Common With" button, to see which matches you share with a given relative. What AncestryDNA customers usually have to find on two different websites, Family Tree DNA has consolidated into one.

Their match list also has an additional field for surnames, which is unique to this site. Those surnames are searchable, as are your cousin matches. This feature is only available with users who fill out their profile, but many of the most active users fit that description. While I do like being able to sort by location on AncestryDNA and feel it is missing here, Family Tree DNA still has a running head start. They could easily add that functionality without a significant disruption to their interface. Which is still more than AncestryDNA can say when it comes to revisiting a cousin match. (Does anyone else realize you can use the Membership Directory to do this? Yeah, no one else does either.)

Family Tree DNA has a chromosome browser, which is also more than AncestryDNA can say. As nice as that is to have, it's actually my least favorite part of working with Family Tree DNA. However, the chromosome browser isn't the problem. It's how inefficiently it operates to do a very simple job.

I greatly dislike that this is the only way to access the full segment data for each match. To do this, I have to systematically input all 2700+ matches into the chromosome browser in batches of 5. And of course, there's literally no way to pull up 5 matches on the same chromosome in the chromosome browser. So they're just 5 random matches from an alphabetical list.

I click on each segment that appears, and copy the data from a pop-up box that has a nasty habit of disappearing if I click anywhere else. This is particularly annoying to do when the segments are small, and there are multiple segments to analyze for the same person. Since I also use Microsoft Access for my data entry, this means I have to move my Access window around my screen based on where the box appears. Many times, I lose the box while trying to situate my windows, and have to start all over again.

First World Rage!

This interface has so much potential, and has so many great features on it. I don't understand why they have it programmed to function only one way, which is the least efficient way possible. They have TWO other options through which they could present the segment data, and THIS is the one they chose. They have the match list and the Excel/CSV download feature they could be using instead.

As an Access user, I can't tell you how valuable it would be to me to export segment data on an Excel spreadsheet. I would be able to do a bulk import of segment data into Access. This would save me hundreds of hours of work, and allow me to spend more time on analysis instead of data entry. And really, what exactly is the purpose of exporting matches into an Excel spreadsheet without the segment data? Like so many things going on with Family Tree DNA, it's a fantastic idea that falls short in the execution.

[NOTE: When I used the Excel/CSV feature in preparation for this post, I used the link available from the Match List page. The matches exported from that page are as I described them: just about useless in every way. It provides the user's name, contact information, relationship estimates, and no full segment data. I didn't know that using the Excel/CSV link from the chromosome browser page would produce a different match list, which DOES include exact segment lengths and locations. The mistake here is mine, and I apologize for the confusion.

However, upon receiving this second match list, I find it equally dissatisfying for the following reasons: it does not include any of the pertinent identifying information from the previous list. It has an entire column dedicated solely to my name, and no contact information or relationship estimates. Having the relevant information I need broken up across two Excel workbooks does not, in fact, allow me to import that information into Access. And given that the segment data match list has matches smaller than 6 cM, I would have to manually remove each of them myself. According to my personal user needs, I'd like to see these two lists combined. And with the knowledge I have of DNA comparison, segments smaller than 5 cM are best removed from that match list.]

I'm also not a fan of Family Tree DNA's matching criteria. They give too much emphasis to smaller segments, with no way to set your own match criteria. With 2700+ matches to process on their website alone, I don't have time to waste with 5 and 6 cM matches. And yes, considering some of my research challenges, those matches are a waste of my time. The closest thing that Family Tree DNA has to custom match criteria is a drop down list of options on the chromosome browser. And since I haven't had anyone else closely related to me tested, most of the options are useless to me.

Family Tree DNA has room for improvement when it comes to cousin matching. But they're in a much better position to address those issues than AncestryDNA is, and I hope they recognize it. They have the potential to be a much more comprehensive service than AncestryDNA probably ever will be. What AncestryDNA has done by being the lowest of all possible fruit, Family Tree DNA can accomplish by superior performance.

Admixture: B-

It's no secret that I'm not the biggest fangirl of admixtures. We've all heard the wacky stories about how ethnicity estimates revealed that babies born a hundred years ago were switched at birth. But really, for most of us, ethnicity estimates don't have that kind of potential unless you're biologically diverse. Nevertheless, I was still curious to get a second opinion on my AncestryDNA ethnicity estimates.

European Ethnicity Estimates from AncestryDNA

myOrigins from Family Tree DNA

You'll note that there are some pretty large discrepancies here, including between ethnic groups that both companies test for. The largest disparity is the 26% Scandinavian from AncestryDNA, versus 0% from Family Tree DNA. With a difference that large, someone here is wrong. I don't have much of sense of who it could be. The more detailed view of the AncestryDNA test seems consistent with what I suspect about the unknown branches of my family. But without more traditional research and confirmation of details to back it up, it's not a question I can resolve myself right now.

I will say that unlike AncestryDNA, Family Tree DNA has a separate, distinct testing region for South America. This was news to me, and has been added since I originally did the autosomal transfer. AncestryDNA treats the Caribbean, North, Central, and South America as one homogeneous region. As someone with Caribbean heritage, with rumors of Native American ancestry I was trying to squash, being able to distinguish the two is useful. Anyone with interests in these regions will receive more detailed results from Family Tree DNA than from AncestryDNA.

Projects: C

AncestryDNA has 4,000,000+ samples in their database. There's no escaping that fact. If Family Tree DNA is going to compete with the statistical probability of making a match, they need to deliver superior service. They can accomplish this by updating features they already have, and maximizing on AncestryDNA's weaknesses.

You can't make money if you don't exist.
#Duh

From what I can see, a significant portion of Family Tree DNA's attention is still focused on Y DNA and mitochondrial DNA testing. And before anyone challenges me about it, I recognize that these tests have their place. But those tests are niche at best, and stubbornly nostalgic at their worst. There is no sense in encouraging the average person, let alone a new customer, to spend hundreds of dollars on one line in their genome anymore. Commitments to niche tests take resources away from developing autosomal testing offerings. And anyone who isn't committing the lion share of their resources to autosomal testing is making a big mistake. They are going to seem crazy when they try to explain their reasoning in ten years, if they're still around to talk about it.

One example of where I see this happening is with their projects. They are most analogous feature they have to AncestryDNA's newest Genetic Communities. With Genetic Communities, AncestryDNA approximates the geographic regions your ancestors belonged to, based on DNA and family trees. Family Tree DNA has had this feature for years, with user-operated location, lineage, and surname projects. But it's still set up specifically from back in the day when Y and mT DNA tests were all the rage.

Why haven't these been upgraded to function with autosomal testing? They're literally sleeping on one of the biggest advantages they have over AncestryDNA. The might as well stand on a street corner and give away free money, for the amount of good it's doing them.

To those who have taken DNA tests, imagine being able to pull up a map to find collaborative discussions about the communities you care about most. Everyone there is specifically talking about DNA. As you scroll in deeper on the map, more specific projects appear, on state, county, or even the city level. Each one would have surname and lineage projects associated with it, with the ability to add more projects. As much as I enjoy Ancestry's Historic Insight tree hints, these don't create or engage people in conversation. Having projects based on historical events and common experiences would spark those conversations for DNA. And unlike Facebook, where a lot of these community-based conversations are happening right now, Family Tree DNA can integrate their features into these projects and conversations.

One of AncestryDNA's critical weaknesses is not fostering effective communication between it's users. They ignore this in favor of automating as much of their user's experience as possible. Family Tree DNA already has, as part of its offerings, the solution to this problem. But those features are only available for the most expensive, niche components of their offerings. (And that's if you don't want to go as far as I will, and say that Y and mT DNA are already dead.)

As a user experience and a business strategy, it simply makes zero sense. You can't be everything to everyone. It's the same trap that restaurants fall into when they have too many choices on their menu. Instead of trying to provide value through eleven different offerings and options, why not focus on the one thing that matters, and doing it the best way you know how?

Final Grade: B-

Out of the box, is Family Tree DNA a better service than AncestryDNA? In terms of the product they offer and the features that come with it, yes. But when you factor in the size the of their respective user bases and the company's ongoing leverage, the story changes. If you're going to compete with a much larger company, and a growing playing field with increasing amounts of competition, you have to focus on innovation. You can't rely solely on carrying obsolete products your competitors don't have, and charging more for them. That is not a strategy for growth. That's a memoir for Radio Shack.

The Eighties called.
They want their DNA test back.

But from where I'm sitting, there's no reason for Family Tree DNA to be in the position they're in. They have everything they need to give AncestryDNA a serious run for their money. They just aren't using any of it to their advantage. And as a customer who is approaching the decision about purchasing secondary kits for family members, I'm finding it difficult to decide who deserves my money more. The company that doesn't listen, or the company that is moving precariously close to the wrong meaning of "throwback"?

Some might say that "only time will tell," but I disagree. It isn't time that will tell. It will be innovation and common sense that determine the future of Family Tree DNA and their Family Finder test. And the silver lining here is that innovation and common sense are 100% within their control.

Your DNA Cousin Match Database: Getting Started with my Excel Template

A reader from a recent post requested a template for setting up a DNA matching database. Because it's quick and easy to set one up in Excel, I threw one together quickly. Please feel free to reuse for non-commercial purposes, but not to repost.

When you open this file, it's going to be a View Only file in my Google Drive. In order to use it yourself, you need to download it. The link to do so is on the top right corner, next to the Print option. You'll then be free to use it in Excel, or with whatever other spreadsheet software you want to use that is compatible with Microsoft Excel.

I've got the Filters already set up and enabled, which means you'll be able to sort and filter information when you analyze the data. In order to see those matches with the greatest similarity/longest segments, sort your Segment Length column from largest to smallest. If you want to see the other matches that might also connect to a given cousin on the same chromosome, sort the Starting or Ending Point from largest to smallest. Reading the ranges between these two numbers, determine where there may be overlap. Use the matching utilities from your testing company or analysis website of choice to determine whether a match exists. Record your findings in your Notes section. If you're able to determine who the common ancestor(s) are that you share with a match, record that information in the Most Recent Common Ancestors (MRCA) column.

If you decide you want to move different columns around, or add more columns, I recommend turning off the Filters (highlight headers, Data > Filter button toggled off), changing things around, then turning the filters back on.

If you use the table in Excel, I've frozen the column headers, so they continue to show up as you scroll down through the data. To enable or disable this option, highlight the headers, go to View > Freeze Panes > Unfreeze Columns, Freeze Top Row, or Freeze First Column, according to what your preferences are. I don't know if this option works in Google Sheets or not, or in any other spreadsheet software. So bear that in mind.

However, now that I'm seeing this open in Google Sheets, I think anyone who decides to use this may want to consider using it there. Not only will this allow you to access your spreadsheet from multiple devices at once, the layout of the file itself is much nice in Sheets than in Excel. Because of the way Excel scrolls the tabs across the bottom of the screen, you have to click through a series of tabs over and over again to get from Chromosome 1 to Chromosome 22. In Google Sheets, however, all of the tabs display across the bottom without any of them being hidden. This may not be an issue, depending on the size of your monitor or display resolution. But definitely check around to see what you like/makes your life easier!

Let me know how it works out for you in the comments, and be sure to like and subscribe to our Genetic Genealogy series on YouTube!