DNA tests ... the only ones you should be seriously consider

In today's Newsletter there is a link to the 'DNA Masterclass' and near the top of that there is this:

"Here's all you really need to know:

"Most of the DNA tests on offer to family historians, and the only ones you should be seriously considering, are autosomal DNA tests; they can takenby both males and females, and they have the potential to solve puzzles anywhere in your family tree within the last 6 or 7 generations (around 250 years), but can sometimes reach back even further. ..."

I have put into bold text the statement I wish to discuss. First this statement is true for Ancestry's tests as they do indeed only offer 'Autosomal tests'. But it is not true for all tests, nor are these autosomal tests the only ones we should be considering.

Two other classes of tests to be considered are the sex-related DNA ones, the Y-DNA for males and the mtDNA for females. I have done some work with Y-DNA testing and none (so far) with mtDNA, so will not be writing futher on mtDNA, though I am aware of the major importance of mtDNA tests in the research that identified Richard III's bones in Leicester car-park..

Y-DNA is passed on, principally unchanged, solely through the male lines. Occasionally some minor mutation occurs which enables the people who inherit it to identify as a lineal descent. This is different to autosomal testing where genotypes can and do vanish after a few generations, so that autosomal testing is of no use in validating lines of descent. Y-DNA testing can totally validate lines of descent, going back centuries and millenia.

This is the difference for Y-DNA testing. Ancestry do not offer this, so their testing catalogue is immediately inferior to the companies that do offer Y-DNA testing. One of the firms that do offer Y-DNA testing is FamilyTreeDNA.

Might I then plead that the so-called 'DNA Masterclass' be updated to include at least Y-DNA testing and also a more dispassionate and authentic list of the firms that provide tests and what features their tests include. It is not fair to regularly praise Ancestry's testing practices without also explaining what else is available and giving reasons why one firm is to be preferred and others should not be used. I even think that 'Masterfile' is the wrong word to use currently for an essay that does not include the alternative DNA tests and would recommend a change to a title that communicates that it is a limited study only of the DNA resources available to genealogists and family historians.

 

Tim, which DNA test you start with depends on what you want to achieve.

In my case I did a Y-DNA test with FamilyTreeDNA, because I am the last male of my surname line that I can trace via paper records. I am still hoping to get a match with another living male, so far nothing. I went on to do all the other tests that FamilyTreeDNA have and got family members to do the same.

But maybe someone in my line has tested with another company and have put my FamilyTreeDNA autosomal DNA and other family members results on other sites such as MyHeritage.

That is when I learnt the hard way before the good advice that is consistently given and the first 'DNA Masterclass' was published. Start with autosomal DNA and as you surmise on Ancestry. Why, simply because Ancestry has the largest database, and hence highest probability of matches even if you are trying to trace your male line. And as a bonus you can transfer from Ancestry, but not to them.

 

When I finally took the plunge and submitted my saliva for an Ancestry atDNA test a couple of years ago, I also sent a sample to FTDNA for a Y-37 test. I was not expecting much to appear from the Y-37 test after reading Peter's comments but was hoping to get some agreement with my paper research which had traced my surname back to various Shropshire villages before 1600.

I now have over 130 shared common ancestors identified from the Ancestry results and maybe 5 or 6 which are still in doubt due to difficulties in finding the correct paper records where multiple instances of names and dates cause confusion. In addition, another couple of hundred testers have been identified as close relatives with more than 20 cM of shared DNA with me.

In comparison, the Y-37 results were very disappointing with just 3 matches identified, none of which have the same surname as me and do not reach as far back as my atDNA results. I have not spent much time trying to make sense of these results, partly because there are so few researchers who seem to have tested in comparison with the Ancestry atDNA test.

I think that anybody still in doubt about which test to pay for would do well to follow Peter's advice.