Contradictory DNA info between Ancestry and My Heritage

[canadianbeth]

I received an e-mail yesterday from My Heritage telling me about a new one of their "theories of family relativity" It completely contradicts some of the information I have from Ancestry and yet the people listed all have DNA matches to my 2nd great-grandmother on my mother's side.

My gg grandmother was Mary Ann Moss. She married William Riches and the marriage record lists her father as Francis Moss (you might remember my previous posts about his name looking like Moff and the conversation about old spelling). Anyway, according to Ancestry, I have four different matches to Mary Ann's brother William Edward Moss. One is G.W., a 4th cousin with 34cM, one is J.R., a 3rd cousin with 9 cM, one is H.J., 4th cousin once removed 3cM, and two from the same family, father and daughter, are Jeremy, 4th once removed 18cM and Rachael, 4th cousin twice removed 19cM. Francis' father is, according to all the little green leaves, James Moss, who married Hannah Hinks. Francis married Elizabeth Sibley and I have a couple more matches to Sibley as well, and the marriage record for Francis and Elizabeth.

However, over at My Heritage, Mary Ann's father is listed as William Francis Moss. His brother is Hugh Moss and the DNA goes down from him to Kathleen, 5th cousin 19.3 cM. I can accept that Francis might have had the first name of William but his father is given as Robert and his mother as Margaret Kelsall. Then there is a second one with Mary Ann's father given as William "Jackson" Moss with a brother John Cole-Ross and matches going down to yet another Kathleen (different surname) 3rd cousin, 19.3cM. This William Moss's father is John but the mother is Katherine Jackson.

How is it possible that I have DNA matches for all of these people when the ancestors connected to Mary Ann are so different? I have fourteen of these so-called "theories" and the rest appear to be correct. They are also nearly all connected to my Dad's maternal Joyce branch.

 

[Sue_3]

Hi, I've just read this, so maybe you've found an answer somewhere else by now?

I think you have to remember that both the 'little green leaves' on Ancestry and the 'theories of relativity' on My Heritage are only suggestions generated by those sites and in both cases are generated automatically by the software attempting to match the information in your tree with information in the trees of other people you have DNA matches with. Sometimes they are very useful suggestions and sometimes they aren't.

I'm not so familiar with My Heritage but I know that Ancestry invents 'potential ancestors' for me, based solely on what other researchers have put in their trees. Such suggestions might be correct, but they are not always and, in any event, need to be carefully checked out by reference to my own research.

Always keep an open mind, because the other researcher may have found some evidence that you haven't - or may have a different and valid understanding of the same evidence - but don't assume that their tree is correct as they might have jumped to a conclusion without finding any evidence or without interpreting the evidence correctly?

Good luck with figuring it all out,

Sue

 

[canadianbeth]

I have just ignored the My Heritage stuff.

 

[Sue_3]

I have just ignored the My Heritage stuff.

I wouldn't completely ignore it, the DNA doesn't lie so you are definitely related to all of your My Heritage matches, but if your match's tree doesn't obviously connect up with your own tree then you need to figure out how you are related. I have a few of these, where it's fairly clear on which line the link is likely to be, but my match's tree does not tie in with mine. One of us has clearly missed something and I will keep revisiting, in the light of my most recent research, in the hope that light eventually dawns. One or more of those matches might be on the other side of one of my brick walls ... just need to keep building my knowledge of both the paper trail and the DNA until it starts to makes sense?

 

[canadianbeth]

Well, since I have the marriage record for Mary Ann and William, stating that her father was Francis, that is what I shall keep. It is Francis' father that is the problem - Ancestry has one and MyHeritage has two different ones. And different siblings. So I think that my Moss tree will have to end with Francis.

 

[peter]

DNA doesn't lie so you are definitely related to all of your My Heritage matches

DNA doesn't lie but it can mislead. A significant proportion of the smallest matches are spurious, and even where there is a genuine match it is usually impossible to be certain how close the relationship is unless there are other supporting matches (ie multiple cousins from one family match multiple cousins from another family).

I have the marriage record for Mary Ann and William, stating that her father was Francis

Just because a record says something doesn't make it true - marriage registers are full of errors. However, if the paper evidence is supported by DNA evidence then it probably is true.

I'm sure both of you knew these things, but other people reading the discussion might not.

 

[canadianbeth]

When I click on Thrulines for Francis' mother, (Hannah Hinks) he has a brother (not Hugh or John); according to them, I have a 4th cousin once removed with just 8cM. He may have had five other siblings but there are no matches to them. It is the ones from MyHeritage that have me confused since they are so different.

 

[Pauline]

It is the ones from MyHeritage that have me confused since they are so different.

The important thing here is what you have found in your research into this family. As has already been pointed out, ThruLines is only as good as the trees it uses to make its suggestions towards potential ancestors.

I've had a very quick look at this family, and while the link between Mary Ann Moss and Francis looks plausible, the assumption that Francis is son of James and Hannah looks less certain. But this is from a quick look and using only those records easily available online - there may well be other records available which clarify that Francis was indeed son of James & Hannah.

From what you say above (unless I've misunderstood), it seems that your DNA matches in this line support the likelihood that Mary Ann was daughter of Francis, but that information on earlier generations comes only from other trees and hints.

And some trees showing this family seem to have adopted the "this is only baptism I can find so it must be the right one" approach, regardless of whether it is inconsistent with other available information. So you need to check very carefully, and do your own research, before drawing too many conclusions.

 

[canadianbeth]

rom what you say above (unless I've misunderstood), it seems that your DNA matches in this line support the likelihood that Mary Ann was daughter of Francis, but that information on earlier generations comes only from other trees and hints.

Yes, I believe the information regarding Mary Ann and William and their subsequent children is correct, especially since I have a confirmed match to a first cousin once removed through my great-grandfather Benjamin Riches. Francis is listed as a cabinet maker in the marriage record, and also in any other information regarding the baptisms of at least two of his children, including Mary Ann. The only information I have regarding his birth is from census records, although there is one listing for a baptism in 1793 giving his parents as James and Hannah. I have high cM matches to Mary Ann's brother William as well. I have to believe that Francis the cabinet maker was her father and not the William Francis or William "Jackson" as given in MyHeritage. I just do not understand how I can have DNA matches from those incorrect people. I did search the other two Moss' and could find no connection them or to their alleged spouses.

 

[peter]

I just do not understand how I can have DNA matches from those incorrect people

95% of DNA matches can't be explained because they're too far back - it doesn't mean that they're not valid matches. The fact that MyHeritage have made an unsuccessful stab at coming up with an explanation in this case doesn't make it significantly more likely that they're spurious.

 

[Pauline]

I just do not understand how I can have DNA matches from those incorrect people.

From what you've said above, it sounds like the trees of these matches may be incorrect. Either they are confusing two different people called Mary Ann Moss, or they have simply got the wrong parents for her in their trees.

 

[JimP]

It is important to treat ThruLines as hints, not as truth. I have several matches where the ThruLines given are impossible -- birth dates of one person less than 13 years after the birth of their supposed parent. Based on common matches, I generally know that those DNA matches are related to a particular line in my tree, just not how ThruLines connects them.

 

[peter]

It is important to treat ThruLines as hints

Absolutely - they're based on Ancestry trees, not on DNA.