Bringing it Together: Genealogy and Genetic Genealogy

My, how times change!

Six years ago I was lamenting that there was little overlap between the people I see at genealogy conferences and those I see at genetic genealogy conferences. The overlap could be counted on my fingers—without using any fingers more than once! I could not understand why many of my genealogy friends did not see how powerful and important DNA test results are to solving our research problems. I could not understand why many of my genetic genealogy friends did not see the need for the Genealogical Proof Standard and thorough research.

¹

In 2012, I got to know CeCe Moore and Blaine T. Bettinger well enough to discuss this mystery. We decided what we needed first was more education in the community. Conference presentations are great, but what you can cover in an hour, or even four, is very limited. I sent CeCe and Blaine an outline for a week-long genetic genealogy course. We all collaborated on changes and additions. We then divided the course outline into thirds. We presented the first course in the summer of 2014 at the Genealogical Research Institute of Pittsburgh (GRIP) at the invitation of directors Elissa Scalise Powell and Deborah Lichtner Deal.

The number of institute courses have exploded. The number of institute instructors has grown. Today, eight or more different week-long courses have been offered or are planned. The course at each institute is somewhat different than the similar-level course at another institute. Multiple two- to three-day courses focusing on specialties, such as adoption or forensic work, have been offered at the Council for the Advancement of Forensic Genealogy (CAFG) Forensic Genealogy Institute (FGI). Angie Bush joined the team for a period when the Salt Lake Institute of Genealogy (SLIG) decided to offer both beginner and advanced courses. Patti Lee Hobbs, CG, and Karen Stanbary, CG, joined the team as instructors at GRIP and IGHR. Debra Renard presented a case study and tools sessions at IGHR this year. Paul Woodbury is joining the SLIG team for 2017.

The craving for genetic genealogy education is worldwide and spreads beyond the institutes. For several years before these U.S. institutes started, the U.K has hosted the "Who do You Think You Are? Live" event. Since 2013, there has been a Genetic Genealogy Ireland event. Since 2013, Southern California Genealogy Jamboree has offered a DNA Day pre-conference event in Burbank, California. In 2014, the Institute for Genetic Genealogy (I4GG) offered their first two-day event focused on DNA. Many advanced sessions were offered. This year I4GG seems to be focusing more on basic adoption and unknown parentage research with a few advanced sessions. The University of Strathclyde in Scotland offers genetic genealogy courses. Blaine T. Bettinger teaches an online course at Excelsior College in the U.S. Debbie Parker Wayne developed the online, self-paced course Continuing Genealogical Studies: Autosomal DNA, offered by NGS. And there are an uncountable number of webinars and short courses available online. There have even been genetic genealogy cruises and tons of television shows!

These brief statistics demonstrate how institute education in the U.S. on genetic genealogy has skyrocketed since July 2014.

²

• 347 genealogists and adoption searchers have attended DNA institute courses (GRIP, SLIG, IGHR, offering week-long beginner, beginner/intermediate, intermediate, and advanced courses; or CAFG's FGI offering two to three day focused courses)
  
• 39 of those students (more than 10% of the total number) are credentialed by the Board for Certification of Genealogists, many have attended multiple courses (BCG has additional associates with college degrees in Biology, Biotechnology, and related fields who understand DNA even without attending one of these courses; the number of ICAPgen accredited genealogists who may have attended, if any, is not known)
  
• 31 of those students have only attended shorter courses focused on unknown parentage, adoption, or forensic specialties (perhaps because that is the focus of their work, they have not been able to schedule time yet to attend one of the longer and more comprehensive institutes, or some other reason)
  
• 232 students have taken only one course
  
• 90 students have taken two courses at differing levels
  
• 15 students have taken three courses at differing levels
  
• 10 students have taken four courses at differing levels
  
• 5 students retook the same level course more than once (this is a good thing to do if you miss some sessions the first time, to ensure you did not miss anything important the first time even if you attended every presentation, and to cement those more difficult concepts and techniques)

The genealogy community now understands the importance of genetic genealogy.

I will be even happier when we get the genetic genealogy community to become more a part of the genealogy community. Maybe we will see more DNA speakers who are well-known on the "genetic side" invited to speak at the national genealogy conferences. Studying the Genealogy Standards³ and incorporating its concepts into your DNA presentations is a good start at showing you understand both "sides" of genealogy. It would be fabulous for us all to be one community instead of two, and for all of the conference planners to know who is good at both genetic genealogy and documentary genealogy. Both are needed to be a great genealogist, which is the goal for most of us.

---

1. OpenClipartVectors, dna-148807_1280.png (https://pixabay.com/en/dna-gene-genetic-helix-rna-148807/ : accessed 26 December 2015). CC0 Public Domain.
2. Fry Library, "Old Library, History Reading Room, 1964," digital image, Flickr Creative Commons (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lselibrary/3925726829/ : accessed 5 December 2011); Fry Library. Photograph taken during the making of a BBC documentary.
3. Board for Certification of Genealogists, Genealogy Standards, 50th anniversary ed. (Nashville, TN: Ancestry Imprint, Turner Publishing, 2014).

---

To cite this blog post:
Debbie Parker Wayne, "Bringing it Together: Genealogy and Genetic Genealogy," Deb's Delvings, 13 October 2016 (http://debsdelvings.blogspot.com/ : accessed [date]).

© 2016, Debbie Parker Wayne, Certified Genealogist®, All Rights Reserved

Two-fer: Surnames and pedigree charts in DNA accounts

I just got a two-fer with a new DNA match at Family Tree DNA.

While my match and her mother were perusing my surname list, Mom noticed a name in common with her current husband whose test results are due back in a few weeks. Not only do I match the daughter on my Ryan line through her bio father, I have a common ancestor with her step-father on my Hurt line. Two matches for the price of one. The family has photos of the Hurt line I don't have. They also have Ryan photos that may help me identify some of the photos I inherited when my grandmother died. Links made through DNA matches can help us with our traditional activities as well as provide new scientific information to further genealogical research using DNA.

I only learned of the Hurt line a couple of years ago while I was researching my Parker line in Milam County, Texas. My reasonably exhaustive search¹ led through the district court indexes looking for all the surnames associated with my Parker line. The FAN club: friends, associates, neighbors, including in-laws. My ancestor surnames were not indexed, but the in-laws were. This led me to a court case that not only named my Parker ancestor and his Maples wife, but gave a maiden name to her mother, named all her sisters and half-siblings with the names of husbands for the women, and named my third great-grandfather and two of his wives.²

If I had not searched for those surnames of the FAN club, I would not have known I had a Hurt line and would not have known how I matched this Hurt cousin. If I had not included my ancestor surnames in my account at Family Tree DNA, we would know we had a common ancestor who passed DNA to us, but would have no idea who that ancestor might be.

In my DNA presentations I stress the need for a surname list and pedigree chart to determine how your DNA matches are related. If you don't include a GEDCOM file or surname list your matches won't be able to easily determine how you are related. This experience shows how important it is to include your ancestral data in your DNA account profile. Some of your matches may not contact you if they can't see how you might be related. Why spend the money to do a DNA test if the goal is not to determine HOW we relate to our matches?

Your research will benefit by including your surnames and pedigree in your account profile.

---

1. Christine Rose, Genealogical Proof Standard: Building a Solid Case, 3d ed. (San Jose, California: CR Publications, 2009).

2. Milam County, Texas, District Court Minutes, D:329–334, Nancy Stovall, et al. vs. Lizzie Richards, et al.; and District Court Civil Case #3402; District Clerk's Office, Cameron. This case settles the estate of Richard Hurt, father of Monterey Carise Hurt Maples, naming Monterey's daughters and children of the deceased daughter. It also names other heirs of Richard Hurt.

© 2012, Debbie Parker Wayne, CG, All Rights Reserved

Google and the Genealogical Proof Standard

How do you apply the Genealogical Proof Standard¹ to an online search?

A reasonably exhaustive search could take years if you just type a name into Google and try to review millions of hits. Search for samuel christopher johnson. As of today, Google gives about 16,700,000 hits. Advanced search engine features can focus your results on the best matches to solve research problems. Add quotes around the name and narrow the number of hits to 54. But don't forget there may be lots more information on this person in pages not indexed by the search engine—what is called the Deep Web.

Other advanced search engine features can narrow the focus to even more pertinent hits. Using the time limitation tools can display only those pages added or changed since the last time you did this same search (assuming you keep a research log so you know when you last searched for samuel). Restricting a search to a specific USGenWeb site (using the site option in Google) is helpful when I want something from a specific county, but that county site doesn't include a good search tool. Using a minus sign to eliminate some words is helpful when searching a surname that is also a generic word like Lake or Carpenter. Parentheses and the OR modifier help when several words or phrases might be found in pertinent sources.

Some of the most useful Google modifiers are covered in John Tedesco's blog post "How to solve impossible problems: Daniel Russell’s awesome Google search techniques."² Tedesco's article lists several of the advanced Google search terms every genealogical researcher should know. Tedesco learned about these in a presentation by Daniel Russell who studies search techniques for Google. Russell's SearchReSearch blog is one of my favorites. Tedesco's post links to this challenge on Russell's blog:

"Where are you?" posts a challenge to the researcher with solutions entered in the comments sections by readers.³ "Answer: where are you?" is Russell's solution.⁴ Any genealogist who has ever tried to glean family information from a photo will be interested in the search techniques presented here.

Two of Russell's "Search lessons" in his answer apply to everything we do in genealogy. Every time we analyze the information in a source we should remember:

— Sometimes clues can be misleading.

— Sometimes clues are hidden in the details.

Adhering to the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) reduces the chances of clues leading us down the wrong trail. These are just some of the things to think of when doing online research:

A reasonably exhaustive search lets us find other evidence that will help us determine which is the misleading clue. Using the right search terms and tools help make that search reasonable and not just exhausting.

Carefully citing our sources lets us and others know what we have searched—even if it has been years since we worked on this problem and we can't remember where the information came from without that citation. For online searches the citation should also include where we did the search and what search terms we used.

Careful analysis and correlation of those details and information about the source can eliminate the misleading clues. Analysis also tells us which sources are more reliable and should be given more weight. It is especially important to include an evaluation of online sources. Are the findings from an undocumented site put up by a cousin who is guessing about things? Or do they come from a trustworthy archive site that is making digital copies of their holdings available online? Has the entire collection been placed online or is it still a work in process with some documents not yet available?

Resolving conflicts logically lends credence to our proposed solution. Not being able to resolve a conflict may indicate the need for more research or let us know we've been misled and need to rethink the proposed solution. Many times this will indicate a need to do research in original records that aren't online yet. Those records may not even be microfilmed requiring us to visit the courthouse or repository holding the paper records.

Putting the results of that analytic process to ink and paper helps us see what we did right and wrong. It shows whether there is more we need to do as we see holes in our theory and possible sources to fill that hole.

And don't forget you can learn more about using Google from Dan Lynch's Google Your Family Tree.⁵

---

1. Christine Rose, Genealogical Proof Standard: Building a Solid Case, 3d ed. (San Jose, California: CR Publications, 2009).

2. John Tedesco, "How to solve impossible problems: Daniel Russell’s awesome Google search techniques," John Tedesco blog, posted 21 June 2012, (http://www.johntedesco.net/blog/2012/06/21/how-to-solve-impossible-problems-daniel-russells-awesome-google-search-techniques/ : accessed 10 July 2012).

3. Daniel Russell, "Wednesday search challenge (Feb 1, 2011 [sic): Where are you?," SearchReSearch blog, posted 1 February 2012
(http://searchresearch1.blogspot.com/2012/02/wednesday-search-challenge-feb-1-2011.html : accessed 10 July 2012).

4. Daniel Russell, "Answer: Where are you?" SearchReSearchblog, posted 2 February 2012 (http://searchresearch1.blogspot.com/2012/02/answer-where-are-you.html : accessed 10 July 2012).

5. Daniel M. Lynch, Google Your Family Tree: Unlock the Hidden Power of Google (Provo, Utah: FamilyLink.com, 2008).

---

To cite this blog post:
Debbie Parker Wayne, "Google and the Genealogical Proof Standard," Deb's Delvings Blog, posted 10 July 2012 (http://debsdelvings.blogspot.com/ : accessed [date]).

© 2012, Debbie Parker Wayne, CG, All Rights Reserved

Courthouse Love - or Not

Many genealogists say they love old courthouses. See Betty Lou Malesky's "Genealogy Today: My romance with courthouses" article in the Green Valley (Arizona) News. Or Nancy Hendrickson's "Courthouse Genealogy" post on her Ancestor News blog.

Am I the only one who hates visiting the sweltering (or freezing, it's always one or the other), moldy, dusty, dirty, crowded (almost every Texas courthouse is crowded with researchers looking for the owners of mineral rights), sometimes unorganized storage places we relegate our most historical documents to?

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE the records. I LOVE the information I get from those records. I LOVE analyzing the information and correlating it with other information to solve kinship problems. I'm learning to love writing it all up, trying to achieve a "soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion"¹ that others can agree with. Or straighten me out if they think I am wrong.

I'm grateful courthouses still exist and allow me to access the records that have never been microfilmed or digitized. That is how I found proof of a marriage between my third-great-grandparents in my Parker line even though the marriage records were lost in a courthouse fire in 1874² and they never appeared together on a census record where a relationship was directly stated. The Commissioner's Court records, unfilmed, undigitized, unindexed, requiring a page-by-page reading of old, faded handwriting, allowed me to find proof of a marriage (details to be documented in a forthcoming publication).

Many new researchers only know about records available online. Good researchers soon learn about records they can borrow on microfilm. Better researchers learn about records only available locally in courthouses, libraries, and archives. I HAVE to go to the courthouse and local facilities because I know information I need is only available there. But I don't love it.

I understand the thrill of holding the actual piece of paper my ancestor held in her hands when she signed it. I understand the thrill of finding evidence supporting a conclusion for which there is no document explicitly stating the relationship. But I also remember the lady who told me she spent months and months being treated for a fungal infection she got in her hands and forearms while she was going through some moldy, old documents in a Catholic archive in Mexico. Ugh.

Preserving our history and heritage is important. We shouldn't have to search for it in dungeons or dig it out of dumpsters after a court clerk's office has decided all those old documents aren't needed anymore.³ And it shouldn't require exposure to fungal infections or sneezing attacks to learn about our history.

---

1. Christine Rose, Genealogical Proof Standard: Building a Solid Case, 3d ed. (San Jose, California: CR Publications, 2009), 3.

See also: Christine Rose, Courthouse Research for Family Historians: Your Guide to Genealogical Treasures (San Jose, California: CR Publications, 2004).

2. Imogene Kinard Kennedy and J. Leon Kennedy, Genealogical Records in Texas, (Baltimore, Maryland: Clearfield/GPC, 1987), 136; record destruction confirmed during my own visits to the county clerk's office between 2005 and 2010.

3. Erin, McKeon, "200-year-old documents come to light," (Nacogdoches, Texas) Daily Sentinel, 5 March 2010, p. 1A; DailySentinel.com (http://dailysentinel.com/news/article_b160f492-2808-11df-9f63-001cc4c03286.html : subscription required for access, 10 January 2011).

Disclosure: Links in the citations above go to Heritage Books. I have no vested interest in Heritage Books and receive no favors or compensation for providing these links. I like to support those in the genealogical community whenever I can. Craig R. Scott, CG, owner of Heritage Books, is a friend who publishes new genealogical book titles and sells books in addition to those he publishes.

© 2012, Debbie Parker Wayne, CG, All Rights Reserved

Research, Proof Standards, and DNA Testing

As genealogists, we devote most of our reading time to genealogical and historical sources. We can forget how much we can learn from other disciplines. With the use of DNA testing in genealogy, science and medical sources are of interest even to genealogists who didn't devour Scientific American and enjoy biology class as a teenager.

On the discussion list of the International Society of Genetic Genealogists (ISOGG), Debbie Kennett, author of DNA and Social Networking: A Guide to Genealogy in the Twenty-First Century, posted about the book, Testing Treatments: Better Research for Better Health Care, second edition, by Imogen Evans, Hazel Thornton, Iain Chalmers, and Paul Glasziou (London: Pinter and Martin Ltd., 2011). The foreword of the book is written by Ben Goldacre, author of the book Bad Science (New York: Faber and Faber, 2010; several other editons and publishers also available) and his blog of the same name.

The Testing Treatments website has links for ordering the print version of the book. It includes a link allowing the full version to be downloaded as a PDF. After perusing the PDF, I expect to order the print version I can hold in my hands for a leisurely read on the sofa.

How does this relate to genealogy? Through common research processes and my interest in using DNA for genealogical purposes.

In genealogy, we often discuss the links between genealogical and historical research. This book shows similarities between all kinds of research:

• The very first sentence of the foreword includes a question that is critical to genealogical research as well as the subject of the book and any other kind of research:
  

  Medicine shouldn't be about authority, and the most important question anyone can ask on any claim is simple: ‘how do you know?’
  

• Throughout the book there are discussions of systematic review and looking at the totality of evidence.
  
• Discussion of assessing all the relevant, reliable evidence (emphasis added) begins on page 94.
  
• Discussion on how to recognize "vested interests and spin in systematic reviews" begins on page 98.
  

The medical research proof standard is a lot like the GPS as defined in Genealogical Proof Standard: Building a Solid Case, 3rd edition revised, by Christine Rose (San Jose, California: CR Publications, 2009):

• "a reasonably exhaustive search for all information that is or may be pertinent to the identity, relationship, event, or situation in question"
  
• where we provide "a complete, accurate citation to the source or sources of each item of information"
  
• then "analyze and correlate the collected information to assess its quality as evidence"
  
• resolve conflicts
  
• and "arrive at a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion."
  

I was first drawn to Testing Treatments so I could better understand the position of the medical community as it relates to Direct To Consumer (DTC) DNA testing. I am adamant about preserving the right to access my genetic data without going through a gatekeeper specified by government regulation. Along with other ISOGG members, I'm keeping an eye on what the international, U.S., and state legislatures and parliaments are doing as far as hearings and legislation related to DNA testing. I don't want ancestral DNA testing getting caught up in the same kind of legislation that is leading to many states closing access to vital records because they have erroneously been convinced it is a main cause of identity theft.

The portions of chapter four related to genetic tests offer some sensible cautions. We don't yet fully understand all of the interactions between our genes and our environment. But if we don't do DNA testing and analysis we won't ever understand those interactions. Maybe knowledge of genetic predispositions would make some people more fearful. I would suggest that person shouldn't have the test done. But I don't think I should be restricted from spending my own money on a test of my choosing because some other person "might" not take the time to learn what the test results may or may not mean with the knowledge we have. So many people today tout how the free market can cure all the economic ills of the world and all government regulations should be abolished. While I don't agree with that sentiment, I also don't think unnecessarily restrictive regulations should be enacted. We need to find the middle ground this country used to be proud of—striking a balance as discussed on page 48 of Testing Treatments—enough regulation to keep charlatans from abusing the uninformed public without restricting the rights of informed parties to as much information as they wish about their own bodies and genetic makeup.

In addition to seeing the similarities in genealogical, medical, and other kinds of research, I learned a lot from Testing Treatments about medicine and modern pharmaceuticals that will help me make better decisions as I am inevitably confronted by problems of aging. This book is worth your time reading for many reasons.

© 2011, Debbie Parker Wayne, All Rights Reserved

FGS Conference Ends

Most of my blogger friends have already written about the fun we all had at the FGS Conference held last week in Knoxville, Tennessee. I'm still recovering from the sleepless nights and a long drive home. I love attending conferences, but the constant swing from tired to exhilarated and inspired is exhausting.

The tiredness comes from late nights. It's difficult to make yourself go to bed at a reasonable hour when old friends and friends you just haven't met yet are telling great stories late at night. I marveled all week at how the conference planners, volunteers, and speakers managed to keep going all day, every day, when I just wanted to take a nap. I was especially impressed with the energy put into the conference by Paula Stuart-Warren, Lori Thornton, and Pat Oxley. There were dozens of others I never met who worked hard so I could have a great week. I hope everyone in attendance remembered to express appreciation for the work of all the volunteers. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Paula Stuart-Warren writes the official FGS Conference Blog and a personal blog at Paula S-W's Genealogical Eclectica. In her article "The FGS Conference was a Fantastic Success!" she indicates over 1800 people attended. It's a good thing the convention center was so big.

The inspiration and exhilaration come from learning. My favorite sessions were "Planning 'Reasonably Exhaustive' Research" by Thomas W. Jones, Ph.D., CG, CGL, FASG, FUGA, and "Reasonably Exhaustive Search: What Does That Mean?" by Laura DeGrazia, CG. These two sessions help a researcher key on the "reasonable" part of the reasonably exhaustive search required by the Genealogical Proof Standard.¹ The "exhaustive" part of the search was covered by Elizabeth Shown Mills in "Poor? Black? Female? Slave? Southern Research Strategies." She taught us about those less common and harder to find records that can bring our ancestor to life.

Now I have a couple of months to recover and get some work done before the Family Tree DNA Conference, the Texas State Genealogical Society Conference with Barbara Vines Little, CG, and the East Texas Genealogical Society Fall Seminar with J. Mark Lowe, CG.

---

  1.   Christine Rose, Genealogical Proof Standard: Building a Solid Case (San Jose, California: CR Publications, 2005).

© 2010, Debbie Parker Wayne, All Rights Reserved