World Families Forums - Dont know my surname!

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 22, 2014, 06:14:16 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  Dont know my surname!
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Dont know my surname!  (Read 1765 times)
gferrill
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« on: November 28, 2006, 04:48:02 PM »

While researching my family tree I discovered that my Great Great Grandfather was adopted. I have heard that his real surname might be Gray but that is only speculation. Would a DNA test be useful for me at all? Is there any way I could find out anything about my history?
Logged
dcb123
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2007, 04:59:27 PM »

Hello,
Sadly, I can relate to your problem.
I had my so called family history dated back to the 1300's. Then it all came crashing down.
While in Scotland doing research it was discovered that my GGG grandfather was a bastard.
No record of a Father or Mother.
I have searched and researched. Paid several professionals to search.
Wills, census, various registers,maps, etc. etc.
Nothing.
I do not want to say I have given up. But I am not actively searching.

I will be content to find out where my ancestors have come from. To that end I am deeply engaged in DNA research.

 David
Canada
Logged

David Burnett
Canada

Ysearch 2UYN8
FT kit 59275

FTDNA
L11+ L21- M126- M153- M160- M173+ M18- M207+ M222- M269+ M343+ M37- M65- M73- P107- P25+ P310+ P311+ P312+ P66- SRY2627- U106- U152- U198-


Ethnoancestry
M18, M73, M306, M269, M37, M65, M126, M153, M160, SRY2627, M222, S21-, S28-, S29-, S26, P25, P66, S68, S116+, S127, S128, S129, S121, S122, S123, S124, M28, S136, S139, S50, S144, S145



Paper trail to 1794 Scotland.
andyhokanson
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2007, 06:42:34 PM »

I have the same problem. Only, I am the bastard one with no paperwork. My approach was to get tested and post my markers everywhere I could and hope to get some matches that might give me some paternal names to search on.

Andy
Missouri
« Last Edit: February 04, 2007, 06:44:10 PM by andyhokanson » Logged
Terry Barton
Administrator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1661


« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2007, 10:41:53 AM »

It is possible that you can find your ancestry - even if you don't find your birth family.  Not too long ago, I found several fellows in the FTDNA database who were a remarkably close match to my genetic group - which has a modestly unusual result at one of the first 12 markers.  This was the outcome:

1.  One fellow, with a different surname - who was adopted at birth, turned out to be a perfect match to one of our family branches with an earliest ancestor in the late 1700s.  So, we know his specific ancestral family - but so far - no one is willing to go throughout the current generations of that family asking: are you the father of a baby given up for adoption in _____ year and _____ place.   Success - but not total.   Match to our ancestral haplotype - 36/37 and 66/67.  Match to his family branch:  67/67

2.  Another fellow with a different surname to ours was a very close match.  He had no idea of a shared heritage with us.  He found that his paper trail family was in the same place at the same time as one of our families he matches.  His research is now very focused  - and continues.  Match to our ancestral haplotype (and to a large family branch): 66/67

3. A third fellow, also with a different surname, was a perfect match at 25 markers.  I contacted him (somewhat self-importantly) and announced that he must be one of us.  He wasn't so sure.  A few weeks later, the rest of his results came back.  What was 25/25 became 32/37 (a maybe??) and then 52/67 (no way).  Needless to say, I was a bit embarrassed and apologized for my hastiness.  I learned that a 25/25, even with a modestly unusual result, is not a sure match.

Over time, I have come up with this thinking:

11/12 & 12/12 - with a solid connecting paper trail - "probably".  If the researchers are satisfied with a modest probability - they can stay at 12 markers

11/12 & 12/12 - without a connecting paper trail  - "maybe".  An upgrade to 25 markers is the minimum upgrade if the men share the same surname.  A comparison at 37  (or 67) markers would be better.  (I have seen a half dozen 12/12 matches with the same surname fail)

10/12 - without a connecting paper trail  - "outside chance".  An upgrade to 25 markers is the minimum upgrade if the men share the same surname.  A comparison at 37  (or 67) markers would be much better.  (only a small percentage of the 10/12 comparisons turn into matches)

23/25, 24/25, 25/25 - with a solid connecting paper trail - "probably".  If the researchers are satisfied with a moderate probability - they can stay at 25 markers

23/25, 24/25, 25/25 - without a connecting paper trail  - "maybe".  An upgrade to 37 markers is the minimum upgrade if the men don't share the same surname.  A comparison at 67 markers would be better.  (I have seen a 25/25 match with a different surname fail)

34/37, 35/37, 36/37, 37/37 - "probably".   Depending on the number of markers matching, paper trails and desire for certainty, this degree of match will be satisfactory for many researchers.  As 37/37 matches can go 400 years or more before connecting, and men can be separated by only a few generations and be “only” 34/37 – I don’t make great distinctions between any of these 4 results.  Researchers desiring a higher probability should upgrade to 67 markers.

32/37 & 33/37 - "possibly".  This is the point where an upgrade to 67 markers becomes important - as this near match may be a random closeness, or two men with a couple of mutations each away from the ancestral haplotype, or two men who sharea common ancestor many 100s of years ago. 

Terry

Logged
Timothy Paul Gallagher
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2007, 08:11:16 PM »

i know someone with  a surname they know is not right. It comesdown from their GGG-mother who was not married and who retained her maiden name. What size test would be the best for identifying their correct surname?

 Is this even possible ?

Thanks

TGP
Logged
Terry Barton
Administrator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1661


« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2007, 10:51:47 PM »

Hi Timothy.  Here is my standard reply to "Which Surname (yDNA) Test"?

If you are trying to match to a different surname without a paper trail - I always recommend 37 markers as a minimum.   67 can be helpful (this is your friend's situation)

If you know the surname you should match, you can probably get by with 25 markers, but many folks want 37 or 67 to get the clearer insight.

If you are only interested in your "deep ancestry" (haplotype) or in proving that you don't share a common ancestor with a specific family, 12 markers are adequate.

I also tell folks that if they are serious about their genealogy - that they will end up with at least 37 markers – and probably wind up at 67.
 
You can go in steps, upgrading a bit at a time - or buy the markers all at once.  Prices:
 
12 markers $99
25 markers $148
37 markers $189
67 markers $269
 
Upgrades from one test to the next are $49.  (37 to 67 is a two step increase and is $99)

This person could start out in the surname they carry.  As each person is allowed to be in 2 surname projects at FTDNA, they should be in their current surname and in the one of their genetics.

You can search here for the surname project closest to their current name:

http://worldfamilies.net/search.html

Terry

If you want to look at your own surname project, it's:

Project 6 Page Website:
http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/g/gallagher/
Pedigree Forum:
http://www.wfnforum.net/index.php?topic=1891.0

To order a test now, click this link:
http://www.familytreedna.com/DNAList.asp?Group=gallagher


Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


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

Page created in 0.085 seconds with 17 queries.