• Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

  • If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  • This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  • It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here

One Grandparent Hogs My Matches

GrahamC

GrahamC

LostCousins Member
When possible I usually classify each of my matches (Ancestry) as belonging to one of my four grandparents' lines. I have found that one grandparent has more matches than the other three put together. Could it be the simple fact that more people in this branch are interested in family history or is there a more technical reason.
 
You mention here that your parents are 2nd cousins. Is the grandparent with lots more matches one through whom their ancestry joins up?
 
You don't inherit an equal amount of DNA from each grandparent - you could in theory have 50% from one and 0% from another.

But you haven't told us what the numbers are or how you are determining which quarter of your tree the matches come from - the anomaly could be random (eg if the numbers are small), or the numbers could be biased in some way by your methods.
 
peter said:
or the numbers could be biased in some way by your methods.
Click to expand...

Or possibly the numbers could be biased due to where in the world the ancestors ended up. If say a couple of cousins from that line (regardless of how far back) went to the US and none of the other lines did, then the chances of getting a match on Ancestry are dramatically higher due to the fact that the number of tests sold to Americans is way more than all the other countries combined.
 
Alexander Bisset said:
Or possibly the numbers could be biased due to where in the world the ancestors ended up. If say a couple of cousins from that line (regardless of how far back) went to the US and none of the other lines did, then the chances of getting a match on Ancestry are dramatically higher due to the fact that the number of tests sold to Americans is way more than all the other countries combined.
Click to expand...
That could be the reason. I'm getting a lot of matches (confirmed by family trees) from USA in this particular line but also some from England and Australia. Several people are known to have emigrated to both Australia and USA.
 
Another possibility is that the surnames associated with that grandparent are rarer, so it's easier to identify matches. That's one reason why I asking about numbers - if the total number of matches you've been able to allocate to the different quarters of your tree is only a few hundred out of tens of thousands, there are all sorts of possible biases.

And if you have managed to allocate more than a few hundred matches to the different quarters of your tree, you've done a lot better than me!
 
I took my first hundred matches as a sample. After ignoring one first cousin I had 99.
Paternal gfather 8
Paternal gmother 44
Maternal gfather 2
Maternal gmother 4
Unknown 41

Paternal gfather and maternal gmother are first cousins.
 
My DNA matches could be said to be dominated by two things - either by my paternal side, but even within that, by links from a single 2x great grandparent. I get far more results from my fathers side, which has a lot of emigration to the USA and there are more results from there, but my Ashkenazi Jewish results (that 2x great grandmother) are numerous, probably because they were such an enclosed community.

But I have had more matches with cousins I can chat to and compare notes on my maternal side, so I think it all evens out!
 
If I look at my first hundred matches (99 + my sister) I likewise find one grandparent with more matches than the others, though it might be more accurate to say my mother is the one hogging all my matches!

Paternal grandfather - 2
Paternal grandmother - 5
Maternal grandfather - 25
Maternal grandmother - 12

My connection to the other 45 matches is unknown, but of those 28 are in a 'shared matches' group, so whichever grandparent they connect to would actually have the most matches.

So as Peter says, I guess figures from this small a sample don't really signify much.
 
Pauline said:
of those 28 are in a 'shared matches' group, so whichever grandparent they connect to would actually have the most matches.
Click to expand...
I have a couple groups like that. I suppose its also possible that they are all related to each other but don't really belong to me at all.

Pauline said:
So as Peter says, I guess figures from this small a sample don't really signify much.
Click to expand...
It certainly looks that way. Its interesting to see your figures from a similar sample. I'd be interested to see some other peoples figures.
 
This thread inspired me to tot up my DNA matches, and I found that so far I've positively identified only 38, the grandparent split being:
Paternal grandfather - 15
Paternal grandmother - 4
Maternal grandfather - 5
Maternal grandmother - 14
The numbers obviously don't mean much on such a small sample. I was just glad to find some relatives on all 4 branches!

Out of interest, I compared this with the split of my cousins found by traditional research (i.e. no DNA matching involved) which is:
Paternal grandfather - 9
Paternal grandmother - 4
Maternal grandfather - 24 (half of these are 2nd cousins I knew about before starting research!)
Maternal grandmother - 12
Again, too small to draw any conclusions, but again relatives on all 4 branches is reassuring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top