My dad’s mother’s side, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick planters and loyalists whose families before they came or subsequently intermarried considerably, meaning when you are looking at multiple MRCA and internal endogamy in either or both sides of the matches.
When autoclusters came out (and as I discover supplemented with clues from theories of family relativity and maps), they promised that would provide the ultimate avenue to cutting through all the above confusion created by the above situation - prevalent here and of course in the American colonies now constituting New England in my example.
Yesterday, I received a coast to coast enquiry about a decent sized match with my dad. Both of us had reasonably developed trees which also helped.
As we walked through the possibilities, we came across one and then a second couple of my dad’s third great grandparents. Now i have found actual DNA matches to one of these couples - but not through her (and of course that does not mean that we are not related through them). but had we we not had the autocluster, we would have stopped there,
But she was in my autocluster 14 and on working on all the group, I came across the ACTUAL common couple related to that match, there was only one common couple, who happen to be both my dad’s fourth great grandparents and 5th great grandparents (We descend from an older and a younger daughter). In fact, because of that nuance, we can determine which of the couple that it came from.
So my question is what will that do to the language of analysis. We may have most recent common ancestors MRCA - might we need to add to our vocabulary ADCA (actual DNA common ancestors) who may or may not be the most recent-or the only recent - and of course on some cases, this may be shared if there are multiple independent segments.
I should note that will these tools, based on a scan of my dad’s remaining 20 autoclusters, the predominant number due to large families and 100s of samples that I will actually be able to hive off several actual accurate pinpointed DNA matches.
So it seems that in these cases which are not that uncommon, the traditional acceptable match statement will become woefully inadequate and in fact misleading and confusing.
As an afterthought, it shows that some very legitimate paper matches will still be accurate but that portion may not have been passed down in one or the other matching pairs - so non matches should not lead to false conclusions and it may be reassuring to some potential testers.
We don’t change for change sake but when it is successful, we need to do so or become irrelevant it seems.
Any common experience or thoughts on the matter?