Half Sibling?

+6 votes
933 views

Very unsure. Ancesrty results (Shared DNA: 1,019 cM across 37 segments, Longest 80cm) say 1st cousin, however not convinced. Also has half-sibling at <1%...

GEDmatch Autosmal results:

Largest segment = 77.4 cM

Total Half-Match segments (HIR) 1018.9cM (28.41 Pct

Estimated number of generations to MRCA = 1.9

38 shared segments found for this comparison.
466341 SNPs used for this comparison.
56.859 Pct SNPs are full identical

X DNA - Chr23 comparison:

Largest segment = 36.5 cM
Total segments 95.2cM (50.118 Pct)
3 shared segments found for this comparison.
19023 SNPs used for this comparison.

I don't see how these people could be a grand X to each other. How could I confirm the half-sibling connection? Or exactly what the relation is?

in The Tree House by Candice Delaney G2G Crew (400 points)
edited by Michael Cayley
Also it will be helpful for you to know the sex of the two matches, if they are both males and share segment(s) on the X-chromosome, then they are related through their mother(s).
Both are female.
Then one thing is ruled out - they are not paternal half-sisters, as paternal half-sisters would share one entire X-chromosome.

Chances are though, they are not half-sisters as low for that.

The two things that could help is building trees, uploading to FTDNA an MyHeritage (both free, but if promising matches show up, small fee). AncestryDNA also helpful. With doing more tree work, and testing also at Ancestry, possibility exists to figure out to greater degree of certainty the relationship.
Neither have any information from their father's side and therefore have nothing to compare there. Only a DNA match through Ancestry has indicated the connection.

As they have 3 shared XDNA segments, would this mean they have common great grandfather then?!
I mean build out their trees with what is known. The x-chromosome is tricky for females as they get one from each parent.  I would ignore what is unknown at first; if they ate both on Ancestry, and if both tested there, I would build trees fully with what is known. I would include siblings of ancestors and then the spouses of the ancestors' siblings, and their children. Thrulines at Ancestrydna can give hints which sometimes are useful. Also ages & places of birth. I have found key for me is to figure out what I know and see who might fit in the unknown branch(es). Also help can be found at Facebook with SearchSquad & DNADetectives.
Let me summarize here the additional info you've provided in comments, for reference:

* Both are female; they are 3 years apart in age

* "Neither have any information on their father's side ..."; "their mothers are not related"

* "Both have similar father stories/descriptions, time periods and look heavily alike ..."

* "There are multiple shared DNA matched between them for 4-5th and 5-6th cousins, no 2-3rd cousins listed."

3 Answers

+6 votes
This seems too low for a half-sibling. 1,019 cM is about 13% shared DNA, while half-siblings share approximately 25%.

I think this is either a first cousin, half-aunt/uncle, half-niece/nephew, or a great-aunt/uncle.

For what it's worth, on my 23andMe my two confirmed maternal first cousins share 11.22% and 10.47% of their DNA with me, respectively.
by Jessica Key G2G6 Pilot (315k points)

Hey thanks for the quick response :) 

Yes, low but from some reading I found it can be from 550 - 1330 for half-siblings? Only share 15% DNA. 
How could this be a half-aunt/uncle, half-niece/nephew? Would it have to be the fathers were half brothers/cousins? 
It's rather perplexing...both have no known father, both have similar father stories/descriptions, time periods and look heavily alike...Is there a way the family link could be confirmed?
Thanks.

I agree with Jessica. Given the numbers, it's highly unlikely these are half-siblings.

There is a lot myth and heresay on the internet concerning correlations between centiMorgans shared and possible relationships. Even using the data from the Shared cM Project, without reading the full PDF report and understanding its limitations can lead to errors. It's all obtained through unvetted and unverified crowd-sourced data, though the compiler, Blaine Bettinger, does his best to eliminate the most glaring outliers. One telling fact there is that Blaine can go no deeper than a 4C1R equivalency in estimating standard deviations in the reported data. But even if we take the Shared cM Project information as presented, a 95% confidence interval range for half-siblings would be 1,347cM to 2,151cM; tightening that to a 68% CI, it would be 1,548cM to 1,950cM.

His "Group #3," which includes 1st cousins and half-aunt/half-uncle, is a 95% CI at 535cM to 1,195cM, and a 68% CI at 700cM to 1,030cM. Mind, the Shared cM Project, as does AncestryDNA, excludes any sharing on the X chromosome in arriving at the total autosomal figure.

If the ages of the test takers are close, you may be able to effectively rule out great-grandparent/great-grandchild, and possibly great-aunt/uncle/niece/nephew.

My money is with Jessica: the relationship is most probably a 1st cousin (double 2nd cousin in an unusual pedigree collapse situation) or one is half-aunt to the other. This would happen if the grandfather of one woman is the same as the father of the other, but the grandmother and mother, respectively, are unrelated. The father/grandfather would be the most recent common ancestor, but the women in the line would be unrelated, so only his DNA is shared between them. Since there is also significant xDNA sharing in the scenario, you would then know that it is the half-niece's mother who is the child of the male ancestor. It can't be the niece's father because he would carry none of his father's xDNA.

Edited: Typos R' Us.

Thank you for such a thorough response. Yes, it is looking like a 1st cousin scenario. Now it's about trying to work out who the father's are and which one belongs to which female  Thanks again.
The fact that a half-sibling shows virtually no match means that all the shared DNA is coming from your fathers. The fact you share 50% of X-DNA means that your fathers must have identical X-DNA. The fact that you share about 1/8 autosomal DNA with your match means your fathers would share about 1/2. So they could only be full brothers (making you and your match first cousins) or father and son. If father and son then the father's daughter would have to be a paternal half-sister to the son otherwise you'd share 1/4 autosomal DNA rather than 1/8.

I'm afraid I'm not following parts of your explanation, Matthew. By definition, a half-sibling means that one parent is shared, the other is not. We get one set of autosomal chromosomes from the father, and one set from the mother. Barring the distinction between half-identical regions and fully-identical regions (and barring chromosomal structural abnormalities like aneuploidy) we inherit precisely half our autosomal DNA from each parent. Can't happen any other way; that's why we have 22 full pairs of autosomes. At a half-sibling level of relationship, it doesn't matter if the father or the mother is the in-common parent, the relative amount of autosomal sharing would be the same.

The father, son, and a paternal half-sister to the son doesn't work because the son received none of his father's xDNA to pass down to his daughter; all of his came from his mother...who presumably would be unrelated to the half-sister. In that scenario, the two female matches--one descended from the father and one from the son by a different mother--would nominally have no matching xDNA.

A perfectly normal 1st cousin relationship with brothers as the fathers might satisfy the amount of DNA sharing displayed, though the amount of autosomal sharing is  higher than would be expected for 1C. Theoretical sharing there would be 12.5%. The major testing and reporting companies vary a bit on the centiMorgan totals they use to represent a whole genome, but for typical half-identical region reporting that 12.5% equates to a range of 846cM to 897cM. In close relationships (1C1R and closer) there usually isn't the kind of variability we see as the cousinships become more distant. Even accepting the potential errors in the Shared cM Project data, a 68% confidence interval for a 1C would place the range at roughly 700cM to 1,030cM. So Candice's 1,019cM would be a modest percentage outlier even within the Shared cM Project data.

Another potentially telling element is the number of shared autosomal segments reported, 37 by AncestryDNA and 38 by GEDmatch. There's even less consistency in number of segments than in expected percentage sharing, but for full 1st cousins the number of segments generally ranges between about 21 and 41. For avuncular relationships that usually starts at about 34 and ranges as high as full siblings (which can exceed 50 the way our testing sites calculate). That said, the middle of the overlap of 1C and aunt/uncle conveniently lands right around Candice's situation of 38 segments.

As I described, though, a half/aunt and half/niece sharing the same person as father and grandfather, respectively, also nicely fits what we see in the autosomal and xDNA sharing. It fits the total autosomal sharing, the ~50% xDNA sharing, and the number of shared segments.

Oops you're quite right of course.I knew there was something wrong with the last case but rushed it and managed to confuse myself.

However doesn't the fact that Candice and her match share exactly 50% X-DNA imply that their respective fathers have identical X-DNA? [I am assuming - perhaps incorrectly - that Candice and her match know that their mothers are not closely related]
Yep, Matthew, it does. Although if we knew nothing else about the scenario, it would be possible, but much less likely, for the children of a brother and sister--a daughter of the brother and the son of the sister--to also see approximate 50% xDNA sharing (about 77.5 million base pairs, or around 97cM). On the whole, the X chromosome undergoes recombination (crossing over) at meiosis in the mother with about the same frequency as a similar-sized autosome, Chr 7. But around 14% of the time, there is no recombination and one of the mother's X chromosomes gets passed intact (a single crossing over happens about 30-31% of the time, and two crossovers about 32-33% of the time).

If the common ancestor(s) is a father, though, it's a high probability that it's either the same man (the half-aunt scenario), or two full brothers (the 1st cousin scenario).

That the two matches Candice is working on share almost 170cM more autosomal DNA than the theoretical expected in either scenario (and about 155cM more than the average from the Shared cM Project) still makes me lean toward the half-aunt, half-niece possibility. All our genealogy testing and reporting companies work only with sex-averaged centiMorgan values but, using the broad averages from Harvard's David Reich, the female genome undergoes crossover about 1.7 times as frequently at gametogenesis than the male: around 45 crossovers compared to 26.

The net result is that, for recent generational distances, it can make a difference if we look at the cM estimates as male/female and not just as sex-averaged values. The mother will be distributing--again, very rough average--46 segments (including the X) to each child, while the father will be giving only 27, including a Y. The chromosomes are all the same size, though (discounting the sex chromosomes for the moment), so what will happen is that in the next, subsequent generation larger but fewer segments will come from the grandfather, and smaller but more segments from the grandmother. This is the root of the reason that, when we try to look at distant matches like 4C and beyond, we most often end up seeing more matches on the maternal line than the paternal. There are considerably more segments to spread around.

The half-aunt, half-niece scenario would have the same man as the common ancestor, with an extra generational step (birth event and meioses) on one side. This could explain the greater than normal autosomal sharing over a 1C possibility, and also fit with the greater number of segments typically seen in avuncular relationships as opposed to 1st cousins.
Thank you Matthew and Edison for your comments. The people being discussed are only 3 years apart in age, and their mothers are not related and have many physical features in common. I have ran the DNA info through 2 other DNA testing sites and all produce 1st cousin results. However, I am still stuck on why such high autosomal matching and from discussions above the half aunt/niece scenario could be possible...If there was confirmed DNA from the paternal side say 4-6th cousin, could this in any way help confirm the relationship?
+3 votes
Dna Painter Shared cM tool is useful for this https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4/1019

They have half siblings between 1160 and 2436 and the low end of that would be pretty unlikely.

From what you say about similar stories for their father's, my guess is their fathers are brothers. Do you have access to their shared matches to see if there are any names that pop up in trees multiple times?
by Paula Staunton G2G6 Mach 3 (38.0k points)
There are multiple shared DNA matched between them for 4-5th and 5-6th cousins, no 2-3rd cousins listed. How could it be confirmed that their fathers were brothers?
0 votes
It seems pretty clear to me that they are 1Cs, with their fathers being brothers.

We know who the mothers are, and they are unrelated, so obviously they are related through one or both of their unknown fathers. The father of one woman is the uncle of the other, but that could mean he's the brother of either the other mystery father or of the other mom. Let's consider the more likely case, that of the two fathers being brothers first.

The unknown fathers cannot be the same person (that is, the women can't be half-sisters) because if that were the case they would both have their father's complete X chromosome, and match 100% on their XDNA.

1019cM is high for a 1C match, but by no means impossible. It's also really really too low to be the next closest relation. My own highest 1C match is 966cM, and my wife's highest 1C match is coincidentally the exact same number. So of course a 1C match can go as high as 1019cM.

So this practically HAS to be a 1C level relation (but that means it could also be half-aunt / half-niece or a great-niece / great-aunt, if they are one or two generations apart, respectively. Given how close they are in age, these options seem unlikely - it's probably 1C.

The XDNA shared by a brothers can vary all over the place (occasionally they don't match at all!), but on average they should share about 1/2. Well, what do you know? These ladies each have their dad's exact X chromosome (so their XDNA match would be exactly the same as their fathers'), and match almost exactly 50% (that's 1/2, for the mathematically challenged).

From what I read about XDNA, I was led to believe that you should only see one or two segments for brothers, but the stats Edison gives show that 0 or 1 crossover happens only about 1/2 the time (what I read says that that's what usually happens) - so yeah, 3 segments shouldn't be unusual after all.

If one of the mystery fathers was a brother of one of the known moms, I think you'd expect about 1/4 XDNA match between such 1st cousins, half of what you're seeing. But the best way to rule out this possibility is simply to identify the best DNA matches for the women that are known to be on their moms' sides, and see if the other woman matches them. Easy-peasy. I'm guessing they don't, and the mystery fathers are brothers.

To be more rigorous, I'd give a closer look to the possibility that the two women are a generation apart (the half-aunt, half-niece situation), but it gives me a headache thinking about it. But I'd guess that the XDNA situation doesn't really work for that.

Really, both the auDNA and XDNA are both pretty clear on this - the two mystery dads are brothers, making the two women who match 1Cs.
by Living Stanley G2G6 Mach 9 (91.2k points)
I just thought to check my own XDNA match to my (full) brother's on GEDmatch.

It says 88.4cM (46.6%), on three segments, with the largest being 45.7cM. Really, the graphic makes it look like it's really just one big segment.

Yeah, your XDNA result looks just like that of full brothers!
I also thought to check my GEDmatch statistics.

I have 64 matches identified at the 1C relationship level, and they range from 597.9cM to 1158.9cM. My average is 855.5cM. Your 1018.9cM is pretty high, but definitely within the range of what I see for 1C.

At the next closest relationship level (half-sibling), I have found 109 matches, and the minimum match was 1315.4cM. That level just doesn't go down as low as 1018.9cM.

The next more distant relationship level (half-1C) only goes as high as 606.8cM, in what I've seen.

The 1C level is the only relationship level that 1018.9cM falls into.
I find this to be a very interesting discussion.  I have two female first cousins who match me over 1,000cM.  The one born from my mother’s sister matches me at 1,206 cM and the one born from my mother’s brother matches me at 1,028 cM.  Does this mean they are outliers? All three of us tested at Ancestry.

In regards to your statement “Given how close they are in age, these options seem unlikely - it’s probably 1C”,  I have known nieces and aunts who were born the same year. The lady who drove me to school as a child and her eldest daughter were pregnant at the same time, so aunt and niece were about the same age. As I recall, the niece was just a little older than her aunt.

One thing that I have learned with my family and friends is that age is only useful as a guide for ruling in or out potential parent/grandparent relationships. It just isn’t a good guide at all for cousins and no guarantee for aunt/uncle/niece/nephew relationships either.

Sorry for any typos. My cataracts and this phone don’t get along with each other. Have a blessed day.

Edited to add testing company.
As far as your 1Cs go, I only have 16 of them in my AncestryDNA database, which is not all that many. My average is 817cM, and if you go out three standard deviations the range is 517cM->1116cM (although my actual matches only range from 606cM to 966cM). Plus or minus three standard deviations should include 99.5% of the distribution. Your 1206cM is outside of that, but not by a lot.

Given my lack of data, my range has to be considered to be pretty imprecise. It's also probably not a perfect normal (gaussian) distribution, either. So I don't know that I can call 1206cM an "outlier", but it's pretty high as these things go, I think.

I've found 64 1C matches on GEDmatch, however. That average is 856cM, and the three standard deviation range is 503cM->1208cM. GEDmatch cM numbers tend to be a bit higher than AncestryDNA numbers though (Ancestry throws away what it considers overly common segments).

So I'd guess that 1208cM is within at least the top few percentiles, for a 1C, if not the top percentile, from what I'm seeing.

With that being said, once in a great while a really long segment gets passed down by chance and you get a freaky high number. My brother shares a 71cM segment with a guy that seems to be beyond a 6C.

There's also the possibility that you're related to those 1Cs in more than one way - maybe you're also a 3rd cousin, for example. That's called "endogamy", and it inflates the number. I have a 6C that I match 50cM, but that's because I'm descended from our common pair of ancestors in two ways. In some small populations that have been isolated for a long time, the number can be inflated even if you can't identify any extra ways that you're related.

The Shared cM Project has 1C going up to 1225cM, for what it's worth. That's crowd-sourced data, and I don't trust it much because the averages they give are often way too high. It has biases built in, and if somebody thinks someone is related to them in a certain way - but it turns out they really aren't related that way - there's no way to go back and look at it and fix it. DNAPainter uses that same suspect data in its calculations, BTW.
Thank you for your response, Frank.  I wish that I had 16 of my 1Cs in my match list You're so lucky!  I only have 4 in there, though I have over 20 maternal 1Cs.  The other two are as follows:

969 cM, female, maternal 1C through uncle (paternal half-sister to 1,028 cM 1C listed above).

807 cM, male, maternal 1C through a different aunt than 1,206 cM 1C cousin listed above.

I have seen hints of a possible other connection to the 1,028 cM 1C, but nothing solid.  But, I have seen an even bigger hint for another connection to her half-sister (the 969 cM 1C). This 969 one sorts into maternal columns on my Leeds chart, but also sorts into one of my paternal columns.  The 1,028 one only sorts into maternal columns.

The 1,206 cM cousin and I share at least 5 segments that are over 50 cM (along with quite a few other segments, of course). Two of those are 63 and 65 cM and another is 80 cM.  According to GEDMatch, we also have 2 segments on the X chromosome, one at 49.1 cM and one at 22.3 cM. According to Ancestry, our largest segment is 79 cM.  The longest segment with 1,028 cM, according to Ancestry, is 88cM. She will not upload to GEDMatch, so I don't have that data.

I haven't yet run into endogamy or pedigree collapse in my maternal direct lines. Some spots get a bit twisted up and induce migraines, but so far, none of the direct line people have genetic connections to me more than once. I have no idea what waits beyond 3rd great-grandparents, though.

Thank you for the information about the Shared cM Project and DNA Painter data. For the most part, I generally don't pay too much attention to the suggested relationships beyond a starting point for further research. I've learned to take nothing as gospel in regards to DNA. There are too many variables and too many people touting absolutes that do not pan out with my family.

Does your brother share only that 71 cM segment with that beyond 6C match, or does he have other shared segments with them, too?
I'm going out of order, but you got me looking at my brother's giant segment again. I remembered wrong - it's actually a little bigger - 78.1cM. It's on Chromosome 16, so that's over half of the chromosome. Yes, it's the only segment that he matches with the guy.

From GEDmatch, we know that we match 6Cs from our paternal line on that segment (original surname spelling was "Standley").

With a little research, I discovered that this guy is a great-grandson of a mysterious Standley who showed up the next town over from my gt-gt-gt grandfather, shortly after the Civil War. This is in western PA. My gt-gt-gt grandfather Standley was b in NJ, and this mystery Standley was born in NC, but his father was b in NJ.

I think I have my Standley lines that lead to my 6Cs mapped out, and he's not there. Standley is not all that rare of a surname, but mine is the only family with that name in the county in PA and in the county in NJ where he's from. Mystery Standley shares his given name too - Andrew.

My mystery match also matches known relatives from my paternal line, although only the last two match on that segment: 2C1R, 3C, 3C1R, and 3C, 6C.

My gt-gt-gt grandfather had a 2nd uncle, that I don't know what happened to, so I guess if he went to NC this might be a 6C. I think I looked into that, and it didn't seem to work, but it's been a while.

I have a complete list of my father's 3C on that side, so he has to be pretty distant, however he's related.

It gets even crazier, though. My brother and the mystery match triangulate 49.1cM on this segment with a third party. This third party's tree is entirely British! That's where the surname came from, but that was over 300 years ago. Other Brits match there, too.

They say that DNA doesn't get "chopped up" as much when it gets handed down by a male, so I figure this has to do with it being my male line. Also, the 16th chromosome is so short, maybe it was passed down completely intact for many of those generations.
This is all so fascinating!

Have you checked the counties surrounding your New Jersey and Pennsylvania counties for your Standley surname?  Maybe the county lines changed somewhere along the way and the records you're seeking are in one of the nearby counties instead of where you've looked already. I've run into multiple county boundary changes in my South Carolina research. Maybe that is the case for you.

It will be interesting to hear when you get that British tree connection to you and your brother figured out. Very interesting!  My sole 0 gen mtDNA match on FTDNA is from England, but we have found no connection between our trees yet.  Of course, we both have very recent brick walls along our matrilineal path. Mine is at my 2nd great-grandmother and his is his grandmother.

I think that I have also read about there being fewer recombinations with males than with females, too.  With my 1,206 cM cousin, our largest segment match, 80 cM,  is on C-13, which appears to be a smallish (though not smallest) chromosome. But, we're dealing with a maternal match for both of us as our mothers were sisters.

I look forward to reading about your progress on this Standley mystery.

Related questions

+5 votes
3 answers
148 views asked Jul 4, 2018 in WikiTree Help by Donald Broussard G2G5 (5.5k points)
+3 votes
1 answer
+1 vote
1 answer
85 views asked Oct 4, 2023 in Genealogy Help by Linda Baird G2G4 (4.0k points)
+6 votes
0 answers
113 views asked Jul 12, 2023 in Genealogy Help by Janice Sawitoski G2G6 Mach 1 (19.5k points)
+4 votes
2 answers
+5 votes
2 answers
279 views asked Jan 10, 2023 in Genealogy Help by T. McDaniel G2G Crew (310 points)
+2 votes
1 answer
235 views asked Mar 22, 2022 in WikiTree Help by Judy Woods G2G3 (3.8k points)
+3 votes
2 answers
334 views asked Mar 8, 2022 in Genealogy Help by Julie Still G2G Crew (670 points)

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...