World Families Forums - Recent Posts

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 25, 2015, 11:29:08 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10

 on: October 22, 2015, 10:24:27 PM 
Started by crossdrew - Last post by Terry Barton
No way to download.  You can copy-paste into an excel spreadsheet.  When we did it, we found internet explorer worked best - but it might be different now

Be very careful with tMRCA calculations, as they are statistical - which means there is not one answer - but is a range.  Also, statistics is for large  quantities of data and you are working with a very small quantity

 on: October 22, 2015, 05:56:35 PM 
Started by rbowers - Last post by rbowers
Boy howdy. Computers. I had difficulty logging in so that I could reply. I agree with your statement about the books and inserted DNA, and I would very much like to look at your analysis. Please send it to my email: Thanks, Rodney

 on: October 22, 2015, 05:35:11 PM 
Started by rbowers - Last post by rbowers
I believe you are understanding correctly. There are a number of possible reasons why the different haplotypes are listed. First, there may be adoptions or what I'll call unusual parentage events involved. The farther back these may have occurred, the more likely they are to produce many Hanna(h)(y)s with different haplotypes. We will may never know with certainty which genetic line is tied to Sorbie, but it may become clear there is a main line most likely to be connected. Genetic testing of Hannays in Scotland could be very helpful in sorting this out.

I am one of the I2 Hannas, my ancestor is Robert Hanna, who I can document was born in Virginia in 1744, died 1821. A book about him indicates his grandfather came from County Down. He, too, is shown in Hanna of Castle Sorbie, with a tree that appears to go back to Odo Hannay. There are two major R lines in the project, and one is only very, very distantly related to the other. They cannot have had a common ancestor who owned the castle. There are still other single entries in the project who also cannot be closely enough relate to other haplotypes in the project for all to have been related to owners of Sorbie.

The Hanna of Castle Sorbie book is not well documented. I believe it is based in part on Stewart Francis's book on the Hannays, which is more scholarly and refers to documents such as deeds, court cases and estates.  I am in the process of analyzing the records in that  book to see to what extent they support Hanna of Castle Sorbie. I have found many errors and misconstructions in Hanna of Castle Sorbie. To date, I believe that Francis's book does not support one of the main parts of the Hanna of Castle Sorbie tree.

I have written a brief analysis of the DNA evidence to date I'd be happy to provide if  you give me your email address. It is also available on the Facebook page for Clan Hannay.
I agree that there are errors in the books. I would like to see your analysis. I can be emailed at Thanks, Rodney

 on: October 22, 2015, 02:54:37 PM 
Started by Arthur C. Barker - Last post by Arthur C. Barker
Assuming one or more testing candidates have been nominated during January of next year, the next step will be the voting (selecting) of those you wish to test.  I have mentioned previously that I would like to use a form of Approval Voting for this, but there are different versions of that method of selection.

Each contributor to the General Fund, excluding me, earns the number of Approval Votes equal to the number of dollars contributed for each candidate nominated.  This is not cumulative, unlike some corporate board elections.  In other words, if you have 25 Approval Votes and there are three candidates, you do not have 75 votes you can cast for one.  It is more like one of those surveys where you are asked how much you agree on a statement from 1 to 10 where 1 means completely disagree and 10 means completely agree.  Each contributor has anywhere from 0 to their maximum number of Approval Votes for each candidate and may cast any number in that range to reflect how much or little they agree with testing that candidate.  So, for example, with three candidates, a contributor with 25 Approval Votes might cast 25 out of 25 for one, 15 out of 25 for another and 0 out of 25 for a third.  Or 25 for all three.  Or 0 for all three.  There are a huge number of variations in how a contributor can vote.

There are also multiple ways that the results can be determined.  One is the traditional way in most political elections and the Academy Awards where one person "wins" who has the most votes.  The problem with this system is that there may be more than one person who merits selection or there may be none.  I prefer a system of meritocracy, like the various sport Hall of Fames use, or the prestigious American Society of Genealogists employ to elect their Fellows, of which no more than 50 are alive at any one time.  The requirement to become a FASG are rigorous and include in the end an 80% affirmative vote of the members present at one of their annual meetings.

I do not think we need to use an 80% threshold for selection, but 50% as a starting point seems about right.  Therefore, for a testing candidate to be selected, the proposal must win a majority of Approval Votes.  Currently, with 75 total Approval Votes, that number would be 38.

If the requested amount of funding of all the selected testing candidates exceeds the current amount in the General Fund, I will proportionally adjust downward the grants and ask each proposer if they are willing to make up the difference.  If any of them decline to do so, I will recalculate the values if necessary and inquire again whether the remaining proposers will accept the lower amount.  And so on.  Effectively, this is the same procedure I would use if there was simply one selected testing candidate but the amount requested exceeded the amount then available in the General Fund, although one presumes that no proposer would under those circumstances make such a request.

If none of the testing candidates receive the required minimum (cross the threshold), then effectively None of the Above (NOTA) will have won and this round will be closed.  The amount in the General Fund will be retained for future rounds or other types of selection methods.

Again, if you have any questions about this process or you would like to suggest an alternative method, please do not hesitate to contact me.  So far, so good in this effort to allow broader participation in the selection of testing candidates.  However, if this experiment in encouraging broader participation in the use of our General Fund is not successful, I have a Plan B in mind.

 on: October 21, 2015, 05:51:32 PM 
Started by b j roberts - Last post by b j roberts
Hi, Greg, I can't join because it's too far back in a female line, but I can post my short Ansty tree in case someone else can plug into it.  Here it is:
    John de Ondestye bn. by1311, alive 1332 in Cuckfield, SSX
       _____ de Onsty
          John Onstye fl.1397-1410
               Walter Onstye fl.1450
                    Thomas Onsty junior fl.1462

There was also an older Thomas who lived in Hailsham, SSX. I descend from one of Thomas jr.'s sisters, who married Richard Field, and their issue used a double surname, Ansty-Field, until 1640, maybe later. The homestead, Ansty Farm, is now a historical trust of the SSX Archaeological Society.

 on: October 21, 2015, 04:24:45 PM 
Started by Arthur C. Barker - Last post by Arthur C. Barker
I would again like to express my appreciation to those Project Members who have generously contributed to our General Fund in order for us to further discover our genetic heritage as a group.

Once the "vote registration" (fundraising) process ends on 31 December of this year, I will post a final tally of the "Voting Statistics" -- the total funds available in the General Fund and the number of Approval Votes.  At that point, nominations for test candidates may be made over the course of January.

To nominate someone for testing, send me an e-mail that identifies the name and associated kit number of the person you represent, which might be yourself.  Since I already know this information, using that in conjunction with your e-mail address, will allow me to verify your eligibility to nominate someone.  Again, any Project Member may nominate anyone, including themselves, for testing.  But only contributors to the General Fund will vote (decide) on which nominations to be funded.

In your e-mail, besides the name and kit number, give me the real name of the person you wish to test and their precise relationship (brother, uncle, first cousin, etc.) to this kit.  Tell me what test you are proposing, either new or an upgrade, how much it costs (which you can find out by either clicking on the Order Test tab in our Project and/or the blue Upgrade button on your FTDNA account Dashboard page) and how much you intend to contribute toward this test.

Once I verify your eligibility, you have two choices in how you announce your nomination.  You can either post it yourself in this thread or I will do it for you.  In either case, do not give any names in order to protect your privacy.  Simply say something like "The Member associated with Kit 394294 would like to nominate a brother (uncle, first cousin) to take a Y-DNA37 (or whatever) test and will pay 50% (or a dollar amount) of the total costs of $149.00."  At your option, you can add additional information as to why this test would be particularly helpful in your genetic genealogical research, such as establishing a Lineage.

Feel free to send me an e-mail if there is anything you do not understand about this process or if you have other ideas about how we should do this.  None of this is cast in concrete.

 on: October 21, 2015, 11:15:02 AM 
Started by Karl M Thacker - Last post by Karl M Thacker
Had a somewhat major change in my understanding of things.

A Civil War pension file contains depositions where relatives and friends have stated David Thacker was the half-brother of Thomas Thacker, NOT his father.

The fun continues.....

Oh, and I do have a couple of new/fairly recent Swift 'matches' that tested to the 37 marker level. Hopefully they will pursue 67 marker testing.  

 on: October 17, 2015, 07:34:54 PM 
Started by Paul Burns - Last post by Andrew RJ Byrne
My pedigree kit 434730 :

Terence Byrne, bc 1790, Pallas, Tipperary, Ireland, m Hannah Gleeson

Laurence Byrne, b 1821 Pallas, Tipperary, Ireland m 1: Ellen Butler, no offspring; m 2: (Pallas,1856)  Margaret Butler b 1826

William Byrne, b1858 or 1860 Burrisleigh, Tipperary, Ireland; m Mary Anne Power (in Mackay, Australia, 1886) b 1855 or 1861 Frankfort, Co. Kilkenny

John Charles Byrne,  (also known as Charles William Byrne) b 1897 Mackay, Australia; m (Mackay 1923) Phyllis Josephine Janke b 1906

Ronald John ("Mick") Byrne, b 1929 Mackay, m Renata Grossetti (Babinda 1956) b 1931, Ingham, Australia

 on: October 17, 2015, 05:11:58 PM 
Started by crossdrew - Last post by crossdrew
Hi: Our branch of the Holt surname family would like to use some utilities to determine time to MCRA based on the Y-DNA tests.  Is there some way to download the data for Lineage J? I have copied&pasted but it hasn't worked very well and it would be lovely if one could just download that particular table. If it is possible, Please advise how to do it.  Thanks! Candace Cross-Drew

 on: October 17, 2015, 02:24:07 PM 
Started by mcnamaraprecita - Last post by mcnamaraprecita
I am searching for ancestors from San Francisco and/or Ireland with the last
name McNamara who lived in San Francisco from l850 on (approximate).

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10

SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.089 seconds with 15 queries.