DNA Confirmation statements using FTDNA studies rather than WikiTreers?

+5 votes

Edit to add: This is not a general DNA question, but a very specific question about writing confirmation statements for WikiTree's DNA Confirmed Status.  If you have questions or opinions about what DNA Confirmed Status is, please start your own g2g post. Thanks!


I'm trying to get a better grasp of the DNA confirmation statements for "DNA Confirmed Status."  I feel like I know how to do this for Y-DNA when both people who have tested are on Wikitree. OR if they are not, I understand as long as I know the relationship and genetic distance between the two test-takers that I can complete the statement.

Sometimes I've seen just FTDNA Study's linked to, without identifying kits and relationships.  Is this considered enough? Some studies are better than others and will show the first two or three generations of descent to give you an idea, but sometimes there's only the oldest "known" ancestor (who may not be truly known).

Is referring to a study enough information for a confirmation statement if you don't know the relationships between the test-takers and their connection to the MRCA?

in Policy and Style by M Cole G2G6 Mach 4 (45.5k points)
retagged by M Cole

2 Answers

+7 votes
Best answer

In answer to your question, I'm afraid not. As it says in the directions, Step 1.2, "Do you know your relationship?" if you do not know the relationship, more genealogy needs to be done.

It is the genealogy that is confirmed with DNA, after all.

by John Kingman G2G6 Mach 4 (47.7k points)
selected by M Cole

Okay, thanks, John.  That makes sense to me.  

Although, its not necessarily a case of more genealogy being done...I guess one possibility is to contact the study and see if they are able to provide the relationship, even if the test takers remain anonymous?

And instead of DNA Confirmed status, the study can be referenced in a statement that there is evidence that supports the relationship?  For example, I'm looking at the Spencer Study.  Looking at the top group of the four brothers, they've done a pretty good job of defining the branches and there's lots of data.  I think that's useful information.

But on the other hand, I co-admin a study where two branches (a southern and northern branch) were shown to be related, and there is a suspected common ancestor. All we've done is show that theory is possible.  Yet, several of the participants insist on putting that unproven name as their earliest ancestor.  When you look at the report, it looks like there's a MRCA identified, and there's not.  So, I guess caveat emptor.

Yes, the study information could could well fit in a Research Notes section.

+3 votes

Here is a Link to the the DNA Help Page for confirmation.

Even with YDNA test results, your match needs to be close enough for the relationship.  You'll need a close match at least at the YDNA-111 level for this to be within the genealogical time frame of the last 1000 years.  Autosomal test are usually better within the last few generations, but not before then.

Pointing to a study is not enough.  I know because I manage a study myself and there are lots of people in the  same study whose relationship goes back a long ways in time; say 26,000 years ago.  

by Andrew Ross G2G6 Mach 3 (31.1k points)

Thanks, for the reply (I've read the help page, many times)  

Confirmation for DNA confirmed status on wikitree does not require testing at the level of 111 markers, only 37. 

In this situation, consider that I'm looking at the reported DNA results, and I can see the genetic distance between two kits. I'm not necessarily generically referring to a study, but the issue is that I may have limited information on the ancestral lines of the test-takers.

I thought DNA confirmation was with respect to a particular parent in which case you can't use a Y-DNA test for confirmation, as the mutation rate for any markers is too slow.

DNA confirmed status has a very specific meaning on WikiTree.  Its basically saying the results confirm something already established by traditional genealogy. Its not the same thing as proving a relationship. 

According to Wikitree policy, what type of Y-DNA test results can be used to mark a father as confirmed by DNA? Where does it say Y37? What GD?


Here's the Y-DNA Confirmation Test page:


The GD is a good question.  I don't see that specified in the help.  (For the cases I'm looking at the GD is 1 or 2 which changes on fast markers, so I'm not really worried about that).I suggest maybe posting that as a separate question.

It says "Does the Family Tree DNA TiP report predict a similar number of generations between the test takers as traditional genealogy? If so, you can mark the paternal relationships as Confirmed with DNA."

Seems problematic because even though it's not "proof" per se, it's still being used to attest for a father-son relationship within some acceptable probability which could easily include distant cousins as offspring.  I've got 20 Y37 matches with GD of 2. 19 of which have MRCA perhaps 400-900 years ago. 

Seems like there is some disparity as it's not acceptable for a dozen documented 4th-cousin, mutual atDNA matches to establish a MRCA.

Mike if you have issues with DNA confirmed status, please start your own g2g post. That’s not what this post is about. Thanks!

Related questions

+6 votes
5 answers
+7 votes
3 answers
+6 votes
2 answers
255 views asked Jul 2, 2018 in Policy and Style by Kathleen Cobcroft G2G6 Mach 8 (83.0k points)
+11 votes
1 answer
322 views asked Oct 17, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Robin Lee G2G6 Pilot (751k points)
+4 votes
2 answers
+1 vote
2 answers
173 views asked Mar 15, 2020 in The Tree House by Robert Wood G2G6 (7.8k points)
+8 votes
1 answer
120 views asked Nov 16 in Policy and Style by Joseph Murray G2G6 Mach 3 (35.1k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright