Should we block DNA tests for profiles with dates of birth before 1850?

Question

It seems that the current system allows DNA test to be entered for anyone, not all managers realized that test must be entered on the profile of the individual that took the test.

In  some cases tests are entered on a suspected ancestor that could not have taken the test and this leads to some strange information on profile pages.  William Carpenter Jr. (abt. 1605 - 1659) is one example  I am sure there are others.

Comments

Philip, I think it is a great idea.  However, on the profile you reference, I see that a PM has put this message on the DNA test page:  "This William Carpenter (b. abt 1605) has been dead for several centuries. The Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project has reconstructed his Y-DNA (74 markers) through a process called triangulation. All without digging him up!"

I don't think anyone is supposed to put a DNA test on a profile unless that profile has taken the test.  Regardless of whether the DNA has been 'reconstructed' (the same thing's been done with my dad's Athey immigrant ancestor from the 1600s, but I don't show him as having taken a DNA test....), I don't believe that a DNA test should be shown as having been 'taken' by this ancestor, since it in fact hasn't!

---

Several months ago I requested that the admin of the Carpenter Project use WikiTree's DNA features as they were intended.  A note about the  reconstructed haplotyes can go in the note field or under a DNA (Y-STR) heading in the biography.  I was unsuccessful in getting him to agree.   At what point can another person justify making the correction?

---

I concur. Mags

---

There are some cases, and I can think of one surname project, that has a rare haplogroup, at least in western Europe and Britain, in which over 40 members share that haplogroup. The Genetic Distance of about 15 of the participants indicate that the common ancestor lived either 676 + or -100 years or at the time of the conquest, those that don't share the same surname or it's phoneme.

The best information to date is that these related persons distant ancestor lived in he North of England, in that region once called Northumbria.

Hereditary surnames did not exist until the poll tax of 1377, so people with a common pre 1377 ancestor would have different surnames, some based on occupation, others on patrynomy, location, physical characteristic. Regional accents and social class, as well as degree of literacy accounts for differences in spelling of the same surname ancestor after 1377 (in Britain or America).

Most of the members of the project have a Genetic distance that proves that they descend from a common American immigrant.

In fact all who share, whether they belong to the project or not, and only three persons to date have refused to join the project, but do share that DNA share a common ancestor who arrived in England about the time of the conquest. (not necessarily in the host of William though)

Given that, is it inappropriate to assign that provable, by DNA, common ancestor, a haplogroup?

This maybe one of the few cases of a provable YDNA hg being traced to an ancestor. With the caveat, there is more than one immigrant who arrived in the Virginia Colony in the 17th Century with the same surname, It is possible that these other persons also share the same ancestry, hence the same SNP, as the immigrant ancestor mostly claimed.

There are also members with the same Surname or Variant, that are not of the same rare haplogroup, but their DNA ancestor either came from a different region of the British Isles, such as the Midland Counties, or Norfolk County  but shared the same occupation as the 14th century Northumbrian group , or the DNA ancestor was born in  Africa.

---

William, that's very interesting.  You can add DNA information in the bio section of the profile.  Philip's question deals with someone marking a profile of a pre-1850 person as that person having taken a DNA test.  We know it's extremely rare for anyone born prior to 1900 to have taken a DNA test. As such, their profile shouldn't indicate that they took one, when in fact they didn't.

---

Thanks, I understand, I think.  I could test my great grandfathers DNA, if I could get permission to exhume his body, however it really isn't necessary as my 2nd cousin and I have the exact same DNA at Y37, there might be, should be at least one mutation past Y67, and since mutations occur between father and son, it is not uncommon for father and son, even at Y37 to be a 36/37 or even a 35/37 match (the last being a double step mutation of an STR).

---

Yes.  The bottom line is that if a person hasn't personally done a DNA test (which most people born prior to 1900 haven't), then you shouldn't click the 'add DNA test' to that person's profile.  This is what has occurred with the William Carpenter profile mentioned above.

---

I created a new maintenance category, DNA Test Misplaced, for situations like this.

---

EXCELLENT!  Thank you.

---

How does one remove the "DNA-Tested" information from a profile that has already had it added?  I see that Carpenter-19 still displays that he took a DNA test.

---

Jillaine,

I went to the profile to see about deleting the DNA test.  Here's what it says (the yellow highlight is from me): 

This William Carpenter (b. abt 1605) has been dead for several centuries. The Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project has reconstructed his Y-DNA (74 markers) through a process called triangulation. All without digging him up!

See: http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Rehoboth_Carpenter_family#Genetic_research

Group 3 of the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project represents descendants of this William Carpenter. See Table 1 (&2&3&4) on the main web page and the lineage page at:http://carpentercousins.com/carpdna.htm#table1 & http://carpentercousins.com/generallineage.htm#reho

AGAIN - The is reconstructed Y-DNA and not a direct test. Apparently WikiTree never heard of this in their rules. Another shortfall! Please do not delete.

Test details URL: https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:DNATests&u=56122&id=11
Added by John R Carpenter. Last edit on Oct 14, 2015.

As such, I think a consensus or Chris should determine what to do about it.  At this point, I'm not comfortable removing it, although I believe it doesn't belong there.  One of my ancestors has also had his Y-DNA reconstructed, but I don't show him as having taken a DNA test, since he didn't!  The situation is the same here...

---

Information about the reconstructed haplotype belongs in the note field for the Y-DNA information on the DNA Tests page of the actual tester and/or under a DNA heading on the profile of the ancestor whose haplotype is suspected to be reconstructed.

On each person's profile WikiTree asks "Has [name] taken a DNA test for genealogy?" Suggestions are welcome for ways to make it more clear that if the answer is no, then users should not say yes and enter information on that untested person's DNA Tests page.

Thanks and sincerely, Peter

---

If the descendants of William Carpenter are allowed to continue to pretend that inferences made about his Y-DNA based on tests of his descendants are the same thing as a test on him, I expect that a number of other folks will start making similar assertions, and the DNA Test data field will become less and less useful.

---

Ellen, I agree.  But I believe that one of the leaders of the DNA Project should remove it...

Answer 1

If someone were to dig up those graves and do a DNA sample of an individual, should they be prevented from including the DNA information? DNA has a half-life of about 520 years.

Personally, I say we should leave it be.

Edit: That is to say, we should certainly look to educate people new to WikiTree and/or DNA on what we mean for entering DNA. Maybe a warning when you go to add DNA for someone who has been dead for more than 50 years or who was born more than 120 years ago. "WARNING: You are trying to add DNA to (person name) (birth year-death year)! Did you have a DNA test performed for this person? If so, please click continue."

Comments

I agree with this as well, though doing forensic DNA and adding actual DNA to a profile would be rare. Doing what Peter suggest will keep people from adding information which can not be proven. I know triangulation is used for proof, but unless you have the persons DNA you can't say that a triangulated DNA result is their DNA.

Triangulation is best practice until someone comes up with something better, something closer, like digging up a grave or finding Richard in a car park.

Mags

---

Rather than an absolute ban on adding DNA data, I'd endorse a warning message (similar to the new yellow and red error warnings) for anyone adding a DNA test to a person born before 1900. The warning should explain that tests should only be added for people whose own DNA was tested, not for ancestors or other relatives of people whose DNA was tested. This should help reduce the confusion that causes people to list their own DNA tests on their ancestors' profiles, while allowing inclusion of DNA data for unusual cases like DNA tests on corpses exhumed from permafrost.

Answer 2

Philip, you make an excellent point! That would be great if the system just didn't allow it. There are lots of instructions on WikiTree about entering information about DNA, but not everyone reads the instructions. I think I would suggest a birth after 1890 instead of 1850. Most DNA tests we're currently using were not available before 1990, and that would allow someone who took a test up to age 100.

Answer 3

Agree with all of you that this example (http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Carpenter-19) should be changed. It's misleading, even the comment as it's wrong.

Triangulation doesn't reconstruct DNA, it confirms a part of ancestral DNA that all people who triangulate carry still today (or whenever the DNA tester died).

As a matter of fact if you would take NGS (next generation sequencing) like Big-Y or Full-Y tests, you will find that yes there are markers on the Y chromosome that are exactly the same till today, but some have changed over time with the descendants.

Also, Y-DNA is only proving that a male family member is the "right one", so it could actually be a (unknown) brother of William Carpenter.

Answer 4

I have to disagree.  I had my 96 year-old grandmother's dna tested.  She was born in 1920.  Based on your proposition, no relations further back than her grandparents would be included.

Comments

Katie,

The suggestion was for the test itself, not the connections to ancestors.  So the test for your grandmother is perfect and that test will show on all of her ancestors.  However her parents did not have a test taken and they will not have a badge, but their profiles will show that a descendant had a DNA test.  Assuming that you have had the test as well, your gr-grandparents will show that both you and your grandmother had test done, but only you and your grandmother will have a badge.

---

Ooops!  My apologies for reading your question wrong.  In which case, I agree with blocking.  I mean, how common is it really to get dna samples from an exhumed corpse?  If they are obtained, perhaps permission could be granted on a case-by-case basis to enter the results here, thus allowing for the potential while blocking the common errors?

While I like G. Bartomeo's suggestion, I can't help but think too many will will just click the "WARNING...." to continue without fully understanding, just like when they add duplicate profiles even though it is clearly stated, everywhere, that there should only be one profile per individual. (Big pet peeve of mine!)

Answer 5

I have to disagree, though I myself do not understand DNA confirmation of profiles sufficiently enough [yet] there I can see no basis for prohibiting profiles older than 250 years to have test results on them. The exact process of validation of let's say a pre-1700 profile is still unclear to me, but I concur with Mags: "Triangulation is best practice until someone comes up with something better, something closer, like digging up a grave or finding Richard in a car park."

Within the Dutch Cape Colony project than I part coordinate, we are first building a validated (baptism & other primary records) structure to facilitate eventual DNA triangulatory "validation" if you will. A lot has already been proven or dis-proven outside of WikITree concerning familial connections. DNA research will be increasingly important for mankind in the future on many different levels.

But first things first - validate genealogical lines with primary sources first, and then the DNA "enhancement" will follow.

@ Bartomeo: "That is to say, we should certainly look to educate people new to WikiTree and/or DNA on what we mean for entering DNA." Easier said than done. Because (@Kay) "There are lots of instructions on WikiTree about entering information about DNA, but not everyone reads the instructions." - instructions are not always clear and many people simply [myself included] find the whole new science of incomprehensible and are at a total loss [I still am].

But I focus my priorities on getting the validation of the profiles in this huge project done so that eventually I too will have the luxury of having time to study DNA-genealogical confirmation.

 

Comments

On WikiTree, DNA test information should always be entered on the profile for the person who took the test. WikiTree then displays that information on the profiles of people who likely share that DNA with the test taker. It is totally inappropriate to enter DNA test information on the profile of someone whose own DNA was not tested. It is extremely frustrating for me to see you make a statement that you disagree, when right after that you say that you don't understand how DNA confirmation is done. I've spent a lot of time trying to say that to you politely, and I apologize in advance if it comes across as rude.

---

I have been tested. The results you see are my results. I have asked for help. I have had help. The research is not finished yet. Rome was not built in one day. It is totally appropriate to display my own results on my own profile. I take objection to your frustration. Thanks for removing your message on my homepage - though I do find your comments insulting and your attitude to me condescending, despite your attempt at politeness. You are right - they are rude. See my previous questions here, here and other places in the G2G-feed (there are more but I cannot find them now).

---

I'm really sorry if I offended you, Philip!  I'm not frustrated that you displayed DNA information on your own profile. I was frustrated that you disagreed with blocking the entry of test information on a profile of someone who was born before 1850 and hadn't taken a DNA test. I must have misunderstand your statement "I have to disagree". I thought you were disagreeing about blocking entering DNA test information on the profile of someone who hadn't been tested.

---

I apologize too. The way you explain it now the original question makes more sense. Though I still do not understand the context completely - why would people do that? or rather - is it allowed for me to enter the triangulated results (if I knew how) on the profile of the French ancestor of with whom I share [or are supposed to share] the same Haplo-group markers?

---

Thanks, Philip! Exactly, why would people do that?! People are working on trying to use DNA of living people to re-create what an ancestor's DNA might have been. And it may be possible to do that eventually. But the whole point here is how we record DNA information on WikiTree. And on WikiTree, the DNA test information should be entered on the profile of the person tested. Then if family members are correctly connected on WikiTree, the appropriate DNA information will be automatically displayed by WikiTree on each person's profile, including on the profiles of their ancestors. If you enter that you took a yDNA test, that information will display on the profiles of all of your direct male line. If you took an auDNA test that information will display back a certain number of generations (don't remember right now exactly how many), but only back as far as auDNA might go (usually about 5th cousins unless there's endogamy--another potential issue to be dealt with). And mtDNA will display up your direct female line. But those are just 'hints' and you still need to compare the DNA test results to everyone else, to see if they actually do match up as expected. When then do, then we may be able to say that certain relationships have been 'confirmed with DNA'.

---

You can describe the triangulation results in the text section of the ancestor's profile.

What we are trying to prevent is people who go to Add DNA Test Information for an ancestor and report that the ancestor took a DNA test at AncestryDNA or 23andMe or FTDNA. (A number of users have gotten confused and mistakenly added their personal DNA test information to everyone on their family trees.)

---

Ok, regardless of how much I understand or not, here lies the rub: "Then if family members are correctly connected on WikiTree, the appropriate DNA information will be automatically displayed by WikiTree on each person's profile, including on the profiles of their ancestors."

* family members [all people with my surname share the same progenitor) who have been tested, do show up on certain profiles as far back as the early 1600's.

* They are not automatically displayed on my home page, despite my efforts to do so.

* The purpose of the project is to get at least the founding progenitors correctly [validated] connected. This is still a work in progress. That's why profiles are being protected and also Project-profile protected [parental connections]. But there are still many gaps and outside of the project (post-1806 - the nineteenth century) many incorrect connections or no connections at all where there should be ...

So the real question to me seems how valid is DNA test results on WikiTree when the basic genealogical information [i.e. lines, profiles] are not sufficiently corroborated by primary records ...

Perhaps this is the context of the original question ... !/?

---

Philip, For your first * comment, if you're interested in following all people with your surname who share the same progenitor you will likely do better with a yDNA test. That follows the male (surname) line. It won't follow 'all people' but it will follow all the direct line men with that surname. For your second * comment, no, cousins will only display on your profile if they took an auDNA test and they're related to you closely enough (probably 5th cousin or closer) so that they might have enough auDNA to match you. For your third * comment, if the 'paper trail' (what is entered on WikiTree) is not correct, then the DNA test information won't be displayed correctly. WikiTree doesn't analyze DNA test results. That analysis has to be done outside WikiTree.

---

Exactly my point. Besides, I'm as much interested in my female DNA trace as my male.

So my point that the validatory status of WikiTree's DNA confirmation stands or falls with the correctness of the "paper trail", is correct.