The table (table format at Space:Table of Known Ancestors) below summarizes the extent of the information on my ancestry that is included in Wikitree. For the ten generations previous to mine, it shows the number of possible ancestors, the number of these ancestors who are currently identified/documented included in WikiTree, and the percentage of the possible ancestors who are identified here. Cumulative (overall) totals are also provided. Generations 9 and 10 are not up to date.
"Identified" ancestors include some with unknown last names at birth. It also includes some questionable identifications and people that I have not researched.
|ANCESTORS BY GENERATION||OVERALL ANCESTORS (CUMULATIVE)|
|Gen. #||Direct Relation to Self||Dates of Birth||Matches||#||# Identified in WikiTree||% Identified in WikiTree||Total #||Total # Identified||Total % Identified|
|3||great grandparent||1850s to 1870s||2nd Cousins||8||8||100.0%||14||14||100.0%|
|4||2nd great grandparent||1810s to 1850s||3rd Cousins||16||16||100.0%||30||30||100.0%|
|5||3rd great grandparent||1770s to 1820s||4th Cousins||32||32||100.0%||62||62||100.0%|
|6||4th great grandparent||1740s to 1790s||5th Cousins||64||52||81.2%||126||114||90.5%|
|7||5th great grandparent||1700s to 1760s||6th Cousins||128||89||69.5%||254||203||79.9%|
|8||6th great grandparent||1670s to 1740s||7th Cousins||256||141*||55.1%||510||344||67.5%|
|9||7th great grandparent||1650s to 1700s||8th Cousins||512||250*||48.8%||1022||594||58.1%|
|10||8th great grandparent||1590s to 1670s||9th Cousins||1024||401*||39.2%||2046||981||47.9%|
*There are several duplicates (people who appear on multiple branches of the tree) in these generations (see "Endogamy" section below for a list). These people are counted more than once in the numbers for both possible ancestors and identified ancestors. Cumulative numbers of distinct individuals in my WikiTree-documented ancestry are: 340 at generation 8, 560 at generation 9, and 914 at generation 10.
See this page.
Autosomal DNA matching with me may be complicated by the number of ancestors who are represented in my lineage more than once. These distant ancestors' DNA may be somewhat amplified in my DNA. Also, if the same ancestor appears on different branches of my family tree, that may reduce the chance of triangulating a particular DNA segment to a particular common ancestor.
Identified ancestors appearing in multiple lines of my ancestry include (this list is not yet complete):
Have you taken a DNA test for genealogy? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.
On 17 Oct 2018 at 20:20 GMT Liz (Noland) Shifflett wrote:
On 17 Oct 2018 at 16:22 GMT Liz (Noland) Shifflett wrote:
Is that still the current thinking about fraud categories? I seem to recall a proposal to only have the category on the fraudulent profiles & a research note in profiles that weren't (and of course I can't find that now).
Anyway, Watkins-311 is sourced. It's a real person in a real family. If the intent is to alert people that the family name might be tainted by the fraud, doesn't having the info in the Research Notes section do that?
On 11 Oct 2018 at 05:06 GMT Jeff Clark wrote:
My Clarks came to Bangor, maine by way of the St. John Valley. Rebels in Nova Scotia that ducked the authoraties rather than report to them, the records are scarce.
Looks like Elias and Moses Clark of Cornwallis are 'warm leads', but they are not descendents of Asa --> Daniel Clark, so they arrived in Cornwallis independent. Other Clarks went straight to Maugerville as did some related Bubiers... It's a ball of yarn with a lot of knots!
On 11 Oct 2018 at 03:05 GMT Virginia (Butter) Fields wrote:
Earlier this evening you asked if Johannes Thoma was part of the Germanna Colony. Yes, he arrived with the 2nd group in 1717.
On 8 Oct 2018 at 02:51 GMT Erika Fels wrote:
On 7 Oct 2018 at 19:45 GMT Lyssa Jada-Marie Hawgood wrote:
The ancestry profile is all I have. I copy everything from that page and put it in the notes. So, I'm unsure what to do. I was told by to add all I could from that page so i dont know what else to do. Im kinda new to this. Sorry.
On 6 Oct 2018 at 14:06 GMT jo Steamasar wrote:
To answer your question; The reason I have not joined as a volunteer is because I am afraid I will make mistakes and mess something up. So I just use guest mode and research my family ancestry. Jo
On 3 Oct 2018 at 10:04 GMT Tanya Lowry wrote:
Never mind Letters...bibles...documents... those too...all forged. Curiouser and Alice in Wonderlandish. I will let my Grandmother's family know right away to burn it all. Then...I am going go buy new relatives because these ones were very gullible. Lol T.
On 2 Oct 2018 at 15:48 GMT Mary Richardson wrote:
I think I had a brain freeze when adding Fremont County , thus removed..
2015 I think, (long long ago) we did US Southern Colonies Project, Subproject Nueva Espana which had a map that connected the Southern Colonies on the Eastern Coast to Nueva Espana, Mexico and Texas Colony, then Republic of Texas, and later territories of New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. which began as colonies, then Territories, until States.. (cut off dates for that project..
However that category appeared incorrect. Hope Adams is better now..
On 28 Sep 2018 at 01:12 GMT Tanya Lowry wrote:
anyway...I put that there for Connie, to look at as I don't like stepping on toes or trees. In my opinion its her baby, not mine as it was there before i came on this site. I just thought I'd share. If someone wishes to use it, great! I have enough to do with navigating this site and learning to do this sourcing thing. Note: I don't need your assistance...I have a mentor already and they explain things well and they seem to understand my learning style. Oh by the way...thanks for taking care of the project New_Netherland I trust that garden (tree) is absolutely fabulous. Unfortunately, I will never add another thing to it because my family tree is considered a myth these days and that leads me to believe a DeGraff was a pathological liar...oh well! :-)