I must have a genealogical Angel- an adoption success story

Monday two things happened to me. I came down with pneumonia and I received a message from a DNA match who was an adoptee.

The match was pretty significant to a kit I manage at 110 centimorgans. She also matched in common five other family members from this family. At first I was using a screenshot of her top matches but eventually we shared results.

Being too sick to work, when I was not napping I worked on the matches. What I found was within her top 25 matches the majority of the matches were identified as either my family or another family the Hinote family.

 

With this information and the size of the matches, I knew not only exactly which place in my tree that this person could fit but where. The largest Hardy match was equivalent to the second degree first cousin match with my father. The largest matches for the Hinotes ranged from second cousin once removed to second cousin.

There's only one family in my tree where Hinote and Hardy's intermarry. So I took my next logical step I started looking for information.  

Using Google I found a website that commemorated a small community in Baldwin County Alabama. Among the students listed at the high school and at the local Lutheran Church was a brother and sister with the same name she was given at birth.

I tried reaching out to Hinotes on Facebook, but heard nothing back. Eventually I made a few phone calls and talked to the sister-in-law of the birth mother. After several hours she called back and gave me the number for the birth mother who I called and has since reunited by phone with her daughter.

But this is not just the story of a success in finding her family. Because when I spoke to the birth mother she told me the name of the father. Neither the birth mother nor this father share any genealogical history with either of the Hardy or the Hinote families other than where they live.

This is not the first time that I have found the answer to a brick wall by searching in the right place for the wrong thing. A lot of people would tell you that I'm pretty good at this geological stuff. However, I do know that there's no explanation why I have found on multiple occasions  the right answer by looking for the wrong thing.

In my head I attribute this to genealogical Angels. Some ancestor who is looking out for me and wants the stories to be told. In this case it would be to assist in my first successful attempt at helping an adoptee discover their identity.

Although in this case the DNA doesn't lie, I have no explanation for the difference in information.  Given the plethora of matches she has to both the Hinote family and the Hardy family somehow either one of her parents is not the child of their parents or the mother's mistaken. It is in many ways a miracle that I was able to find the birth mother so easily and for that I'm truly grateful.

Here is a look at her top matches

1.       Hainut001 … granddaughter of John William Hinote (brother of Archie)

2.       Shynote13 no info

3.       C D .. great grandson of Mattie Lee Hinote (dtr of Archie and Ella)

4.       H.H. … granddaughter of Robert Henry Hardy (brother of Ella)

5.       S.S. daughter of Lester Claude Highnote.. father was George Walter Highnote

6.       C.A. great granddaughter of Augustus Hinote (brother of William H. Hinote.. Archie’s Uncle)

7.       D.K. great granddaughter of Nicie Elmira Hinote (sister of William H. Hinote.. Archie’s Aunt)

8.       J. G. no info

9.       S.L  no info has tree

10.   51pamelak51 most likely Black (Archie’s mom’s family)

11.   Vkpwyo67 granddaughter of Leila Hardy (Ella’s niece)

12.   R.G. ? grandson of Leila Hardy (Ella’s niece)

13.   Connieposton1 no idea, in common with other Hinotes

14.   Jenniferhsrn (me) great granddaughter of Shepard Hardy Jr (Ella’s brother)

15.   Mckochanskyj no idea, matching in common other hinotes

16.   L.W. no tree

17.   Wegivens53 no tree

18.   Cingrumjr1 no idea

19.   Skipping some with no info

20.   MLW  great granddaughter of Robert Hardy (Ella’s uncle)

 

Just what is a Double cousin and how does that affect my DNA?

Technically, anytime you share more than one line you can be called a double cousin. My paternal tree is chock full of cousins with more than one family. It just isn't a joke when I say I am related to half of Santa Rosa and Escambia counties. That said, when I use that term I refer specifically to one set of circumstances alone. A double cousin is when you have a pair of siblings marry another pair of siblings. In my case, my great grandfather's sister married the brother of his wife.

So how does that affect DNA? Well looking at the ISOGG table, a first cousin would normally share 12.5 percent of DNA. Children of the double cousin marriage would share an average of 25 percent DNA. They also have the potential to have full and not half DNA matches.

Because I have tested both my father and his sister, and we have matches available who are double cousins, and multiple cousins, I am going to illustrate a difference in the shared DNA totals.

First let's take a look at CP. CP is the half first cousin once removed of my father and his sister, but CP is also their third cousin from another family. I haven't identified the segments for CP with my Aunt yet, but my father shares DNA from both families with her.

A half first cousin once removed has an estimation of sharing 3.125 percent of their DNA or 212.5 cM and a third cousin has the estimation of sharing 0.78 percent or 53.13 cM. Now we know it really should be a range, and that it is possible to share more or less with a match. So how does CP compare with my Aunt and my Dad? An average would be 265.6 cM. Dad shares 209.6 cM and his sister shares 361.5.

Next look at a double cousin. (I have several who have tested but results aren't available for both siblings). The first double cousin, DB is available to compare to both my dad and his sister. DB is a second cousin once removed from my Dad. The table shows double second cousins at 6.25 percent, so they should share 3.125  percent or about 212.5 cM. DB shares 370 cM with my Dad (220 cM with me!) and 215 cM with my Aunt.

The next double cousin is a first cousin of DB and is on Ancestry. DF shares 150 cM with me and 222 cM with my Aunt. Dad has two more on 23andme, sisters, they are also 2nd cousins once removed from a different child of the double cousin connection. One shares 4.58 percent, the other shares 2.81 percent. (23 and me gives percentage only, one is above the 3.125 average, one is below).

So let's look at another multiple cousin grouping from Dad's McCurdy line. So we have two sets of multiples to look at. The first is my Dad's great grandmother's sister who married her first cousin. Now I am not sure I am competent enough to tell you how much DNA they should share but, it is more than the normal relationship. We  have a plethera of testers now from this branch, but let's look at two, granddaughters of Carrie McCurdy and Jack. PM shares 168.9 cM with Dad and 193 cM with my Aunt, both of them are 2nd cousins once removed (average 106 cM). CM shares 107 cM with Dad and 187 cM with my Aunt. I have left off the X DNA matches in the total, they are 39.9 and 18 for Dad (PM and CM) and 36.9 and 19.6 for his sister. (Actually they are second cousins once removed and third cousins once removed).

Let's look at scenario number two. These are grandchildren of Dad's great great grandfather and his second wife, who happened to be his great niece. So they are half 2nd cousins twice removed on one side, and full fourth cousins on the other. ( I know it's complicated). JW shares 73 autosomal and 28.2 X cM with Dad, his first cousin JM shares 103 autosomal and 33 X cM with Dad. JW shares 122 autosomal and 28 X cM with my Aunt, his first cousin JM shares 108.9 Autosomal and no X with her.

So even when you share multiple lines, you may not share "more" DNA but you can share DNA from multiple lines, but if you are a "double" cousin, well, you will share a lot of DNA. So what is the difference? Double cousins share four not two grandparents in common, and I think that that's what makes the biggest difference, aside from genetic distance in generations in how much you share with a multiple cousin.

Hope this helps!

Just how does my DNA matches stack up?

I have a confession to make, though I have tested at both Ancestry and 23andme, I rarely work on my own DNA matches. Since I tested both my parents at 23andme, and they are on both Gedmatch and FTDNA, I work on their matches and not my own.

Since I manage several kits, I do work on the larger matches for my cousins that I have tested, and I do identify the family connections on closer matches in AncestryDNA, though without triangulation it is useless unless the kit is on Gedmatch. And since I have been doing this for a while now, I don't look at matches smaller than 30 cM unless it is pertinent to a triangulation, or it is my Great Aunt who has no larger matches to work on. (The majority of her matches are going to the 17th century when identified).

I just mentioned why I think I have only one community on Ancestry's genetic communities, so I thought I would compare the differences in my largest matches across the four websites (Ancestry, 23andme, Gedmatch and FTDNA, I am on myheritage and DNAland but both are duplicates of other sites).

On AncestryDNA, my closest match is my daughter followed by my father's sister. In the first cousin section I have two of my father's paternal first cousins and my maternal great Aunt. In the second cousin section I have another of my father's paternal first cousins, a second cousin from the same paternal line, and my maternal grandfather's first cousin. In the third cousin section I have 10 matches, one is from my maternal side, and the rest are all paternal, mainly from my father's paternal side.

Ancestry lists my largest 4th cousin match at 84 cM and it is from my father's maternal line. The smallest is listed at 20 cM in the 4th cousin section. According to Ancestry I have 877 4th cousins or closer, 18 of which are third cousin or closer. I know I have more maternal matches in the 4th cousin range, but I have not looked at everyone who has a tree, and that is probably no more than 30 percent of the matches, but of my 55 DNA circles, only 6 are from my maternal side.

On Gedmatch my first three matches are my daughter and my parents, followed by my Dad's sister, my maternal great Aunt, my maternal first cousin, my maternal grandfather's first cousin, a paternal double 3rd cousin,  and my mother's half first cousin.

Between 50-116 cM I have 13 matches, only one is a maternal match. The largest 116 cM is listed as 84 cM on Ancestry. Between 30-50 cM I have 83 matches, I haven't identified them all but what I have is about 30-40 percent maternal.

So on Gedmatch, I share more maternal matches than on Ancestry. What about 23andme? It's a bit harder, my matches there are by percent, but I know 1 percent is 74 cM so 0.5 percent should be around 37 cM.

Through 1 percent I have the following identified matches in order, my parents, my maternal first cousin, a paternal double cousin I haven't contacted, a paternal double 3rd cousin, my mother's half first cousin, a maternal second cousin once removed, another paternal double cousin (sister to first unidentified), and two paternal 2nd cousins 1 removed.

From 0.5-1 percent I have 59 matches. Close to 1/3 are anonymous, and it's close to 50/50 on what I have identified. From 0.25-0.5 percent I have 850 matches, most I haven't even examined. a 0.25 percent match is roughly 19 cM in length.

I used my 23andme kit to transfer to FTDNA with the new availability to transfer the later version of the chip. I don't have all that many matches on there yet, though I know my older kits matches grew with time. In total I have 764 matches at ftdna, 400 identified as paternal and 241 as maternal according to their browser.  A lot of the matches here seem to be smaller than I would normally look at so I am not going to analyze the matches.

Ancestry Genetic Communitities

When I logged into my Ancestry account yesterday, my DNA homepage looked different. The brand new Genetic Communities has rolled out. I was intrigued, but thus far, what the communities are showing me is information I already knew.

I have tested several family members at this point, in fact, I will be sending the kit to two more family members this week. Although I have a fairly robust tree, the tree for my great Aunt is a bit sparse, mainly because she is so much closer to the brick walls that appear in that side of our tree. And most of the testers I have tested have far fewer circles at this point, because although I have worked on their other parts of the tree, it isn't with the same degree of intensity that I have for my own.

Thus I attribute my abundance of circles in comparison to the other kits (except my daughter and my Dad's sister) to a tree which is not as robust and most likely, fewer testers from relatives to some of the testers (like my great Aunt who has very few larger matches, the bulk only start at 38 cM on gedmatch).

So I was rather surprised that I  had only one genetic community, and that community was Early settlers of Alabama and the Florida panhandle, but I already knew that, that's the reason I have had groups on myfamily and FB called Panhandle Pioneers for the last 16 years, so in my case the genetic community didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

But why don't I share the Early settlers of Georgia or South Carolina with my Aunt? And why don't I share the Settlers of New England with my great Aunt? I think because almost exclusively, all my matches on ancestry fourth cousin or closer are to my father's panhandle family, where I only have a few matches closer than 4th cousin on my maternal side.

I may be getting some of the names wrong on the communitites, but my grandfather's first cousin has two communities, both related to Tennessee and Arkansas, which is consistent with his paternal and part of his maternal tree. My great Aunt has two Midland in England communities and two for the New England area, all are consistent with her tree. My Dad's sister is exclusively in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina, which is consistent with her tree.

My daughter has a third group, supposedly representing her closer matches that are paternal, but to be honest, part of my mom's tree also comes from the same areas. And though she shares DNA with many of my matches, the lack of  closer (or larger) matches with my mother is something she and I share. Though on Gedmatch, 23andme, and FTDNA, we actually have more of the matches with my Mom's side in common.

So the idea behind Genetic Communities is really an excellent idea, but I hope it advances. Because I think the smaller matches (say 15-30 cM) may be more indicative of our past. That's not to say that they don't look at those, but based on all the tests I tested and have access to the results all have genetic communities consistent with the places of those close matches, I kind of have my doubts.

 If there is a flaw is that they use the trees on ancestry as part of the way to determine the community. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of excellent researchers on Ancestry, and all of them will tell you there is a lot of rubbish in the trees. A lot of trees with the wrong information, parents of children who are too young to have had the child, or had been dead for years. Connections to a person in one state with another elsewhere that is not connected. So if there is a weakness to the science behind the community concept it would be the reliability of the information they are basing it on.

My verdict, it is an interesting feature that will be most useful to those who have not done a lot of research and for whom locations may be beneficial. Without the ability to compare DNA and triangulate, like the DNA circles and hints, it is a tool to help guide to the identification of matches but it is not a way to verify with certainty that the matches are accurate to the family connection.

I love the idea of the communities, I just think, it really may take some time for it to be useful to all users.

Addressing the Choctaw in Great Crossing Part two

There is not a lot of genealogy in the book Great Crossing that I critiqued but there is some things that deserve correction, clarification, or further explanation.

I addressed John Pitchlynn's father in my critique. This is one of those inaccuracies that won't seem to go away. Isaac Pitchlynn wrote two letters to the government. The originals are available as digital images at the Mississippi Archives in the Territorial Paper collection. Look them up if you have questions. Both of the letters were written after 1800, by this time, John had long been a father.

I do find her description of Pierre Juzan a bit misleading. His speech of 1826 in particular. It is suggested that he had already mastered many subjects and spoke eloquently. He may have been an excellent speaker, however, examples of his writing show a man who wasn't as comfortable with the English language. His grammar and use of language is in the manner of someone of which English is obviously a second language.

We have examples of Greenwood Leflore (similar) and many other's of the same time frame. Thomas Wall and Samuel Foster who we don't know the education of, and James L. McDonald, Robert M. Jones and Peter Pitchlynn whom we know spoke English from childhood. To say Pierre was the brightest in that first class is questionable for me. He would have had the opportunity to have learned at the missionary school at his father's home since 1820, but his youngest sister was far superior in her use of written English than Pierre.

John Riddle's expulsion is detailed in the book. I quite appreciated John Riddle all the more when I learned the reason for his expulsion. However, his family connection was completely omitted. In a letter from the school at Mushulatubbee's the students are named, among them is John Riddle and his brother, William, who were named as nephews of the "King". Lack of response to his expulsion on the part of the Choctaws most likely had more to do with the political struggles his Uncle, Mushulatubbee and his cousin Peter Pitchlynn were undergoing at the time.

A clarification is also necessary in regard to Peter Pitchlynn. Though Mushulatubbee does refer to Peter as his Uncle in the letter in the Peter Pitchlynn Collection, it is Peter's mother who is Mushulatubbee's niece, Peter is his great nephew. John Riddle's mother, Caty was Mushulatubbee's sister and an Aunt to Sophia Folsom. Among the Choctaw however, John and his siblings were most likely to refer to Sophia Folsom Pitchlynn as their half sister. Thus Peter would have been intimately acquainted with the Riddle family in the matriarchal society.

The Trahern's in the book are covered more prominently than I would have expected. There are however a few facts that are not accurate. George Washington Trahern was the youngest son of Wesley Trahern and Delilah Brashears as mentioned in the book. William Trahern, who was also mentioned was his elder brother. They had one other brother, Wesley Brashears Trahern who married Lucy Juzan, did not attend the Academy, and died by 1834.

William Trahern attended the Choctaw Academy much earlier than his brother. The boys father had remarried after the death of Delilah and had another son and daughter. Wesley Trahern died in 1825, at which time his brother, also named William Trahern, became the executor. Another brother, James Trahern was also residing in Jackson at the time, he was the father of James N. Trahern. It is George Washington Trahern, James Trahern, and Joseph Lancaster (a maternal cousin of James) that were sent together in 1831 to the Academy.

William Trahern, the brother of Wesley, moved into the home that Wesley had built, and on the land that Wesley had acquired from the treaty of 1820. It appears that until the death of James Trahern in 1830 he kept the children of both James and Wesley in his home, because in 1830 he has boys the age of James, his brother Jerry and George in his home. However, examining the estate and land records show that William never resolved the estate, registered his brother's land in his name, and was involved in land companies that speculated on land allotments of the Choctaws, including the land of his nieces, nephews, and Peggy Trahern.

The autobiography of William's son, William Eustace Trahern speaks of his father dying in debt and his mother being forced from her home. In all reality, the new executor may have been the one who did so. Sadly, when the estate was finally settled, though some were just a few counties away, none of the heirs of Wesley ever received a penny from the estate of their father.

My point is that it is highly doubtful given the treatment by which Agnes, Wesley's widow, his children and Peggy and her children received, that George Washington Trahern ever had an ounce of privilege. While I know of no evidence that George Washington Trahern stopped briefly in Indian Territory, I do know that he joined his two sisters and their husbands in Texas, where he joined the Texas Rangers and fought in the Mexican War.

In California, he not only raised cattle and became a very wealthy man (a millionaire by today's standards) he raised race horses and is, with the exception of a distant cousin who invented a pump, the Trahern most often mentioned in newspapers. Though he gave biographical information and the interview, he never referred to his heritage.

William Trahern on the other hand was already a young man when he attended the academy. He returned, married a mixed blood Choctaw and lived the rest of his life in Holmes county, Mississippi, but he never obtained his dream of becoming a doctor.

There is a mention of Delilah from the treaty of Dancing Creek in the chapter on the Trahern's. It is not correct though that this Delilah is in anyway connected to the children of Wesley. Land records show the correspondence of Delilah's nephew, Robert M. Jones, and his efforts on the behalf of her children. Her lone son, Joseph Lancaster is mentioned in the book. Joseph Lancaster was a cousin to Robert M. Jones (half) , James L McDonald (half)  and James N Trahern.

It is a delightful notion to attribute the education of James L. McDonald to the efforts of his mother Molly. I say notion, because despite the uniqueness of the woman, and the property for which she was responsible, unusual for a woman of any race, it is not likely that she would have been the driving influence. When James was sent to school, somewhere around 1816 or 1818, children were governed by their maternal Uncle. James lacked a maternal Uncle. But just as the case was  where Mushulatubbee took an interest in Peter, and Robert Cole would have been the one to look out for the Leflore's, a great Uncle would have looked out for James.

We don't know for certain who this was, but we have clues in the benefits Molly received over the years, one square mile of land from the treaty of 1820 which was reaffirmed in 1825, and land for not only her, but her son and grandson in 1830. Molly had influential family ties. Given her land location which was just south east of Jackson and a few miles from Wesley Trahern, we know she was from the Western district. We know she was neighbors to the Vaughn family and likely a relative of not just the Vaughn's but Apuckshunnubbee as well. It is more than likely that James was sent to the Quaker's by Apuckshunnubbee and not his mother.