Baffled by Y-DNA test.

I persuaded my male cousin, the only remaining Cox male to carry the genes of Frank Wilson born in Marylebone Sept 15 1862 and his "wife" Janetta possibly Jones aka Moxon born c 1860 Finsbury or City who both seem to have appeared in a puff of smoke, in case it ever helped with these two brick walls, to submit his DNA to the FTDNA company, going for the male line first and then paying for the female line top-up. The first results - the male ones - left my cousin, a scientist, and me completely baffled!

 

In what way were you baffled? Tell us more!

 

Was there a illegitimacy along the line? Or a change of name by Deed Poll or other means? If not how is a male with a surname Cox a direct male line descendant of a Wilson? The Y DNA test can ONLY test father to son to grandson and so on. It cannot test father to daughter to grandson. ie: a Y DNA test is only useful for the unbroken male line and the female test is only useful for the unbroken female line. Where you have mixed male/female lines you need the Family Finder test (assuming FTDNA as the company).

 

I'm about to back up my FT on the memory stick! As you can see I'm catching up on "What's New" - all of it, as far as I'm concerned. I'll go back to look at the results again and tell you later but from memory, no one was called Wilson, (my and my cousin's grandmother Jeannette Wilson + Jones/Moxon) or Cox + Staples - my grandfather Thomas Cox, and nearly everyone was American. Not a single name from any family in my FT as far as I could see, but I'll look again. I'm waiting for the first female line results at the moment.

 

Jacqueline so you can understand the Y-DNA test. Write down a list of your tested cousin's father, grandfather, g grandfather etc, back as far as you have. These are the individuals in your tree and their MALE descendants that the test is checking for a match for. If Frank Wilson is not a male descendant of one of these people you list from this process then your cousins is not (in a Y-DNA sense) the only remaining Cox male to carry the genes of Frank Wilson. From a Y-DNA perspective he does not share the genes of Frank Wilson if there is no blood link from one male to another that ONLY goes via males. If the blood link between them goes via ANY (even ONE) female then the Y-DNA test won't be of any value for determining anything about Frank Wilson.

 

My great grandfather Frank Wilson's first known record is living with his grandparents Joseph Wilson and Jane nee Bill, aged 8 (under Wilton) and still with them aged 18 in 1881. So he is illegitimate child of one of their 7 children or a legitimate orphaned child of one of them but only one by then, Elizabeth Brown nee Wilson could possibly have been dead in 1862. I have researched each of the 7 children to see who is likely or possible. I think he may not have been registered or baptised (if he was either) as either Frank or Wilson (or Brown). His daughter married Thomas Cox. But there should still be plenty of Coxes, who have a long and prolific history in Nottingham and Normanton on Soar (some did go to America...)
I'll go back to FTDNA site and see how much more I'll have to pay for the Family Finder test now! Thanks you, Alexander. And FT finally in memory stick as well...

 

Ah ok its clearer now. Yes the Y-DNA test would match your cousin to any other male line Cox's descended from Thomas Cox. However further back it will match vs Thomas' father and not his father-in-law Frank Wilson. The Y-DNA test can be extremely useful but in this case the single female breaks the chain. Thus any matches (assuming its at least a 25 marker test) will be on Cox relatives and not on Wilson ones.

 

Yes, thanks again Alexander, I got it from your previous post (we're probably Coxing and Boxing) but there should still be no end of Coxes in the results. How's that for a pun? Clearly, I must now go down the Wilson route. I have some found Wilson cousins and I'll have to look them out. I can'y afford to pay for all of them, though! So how do I follow the DNA of Janetta called Moxon (she lived with Moxon for a year and kept his name when she dumped him for a real husband) but possibly born Jones. She didn't marry Frank Wilson either!

 

It's possible that Frank was living with his grandparents because his mother was dead, but that isn't the most common reason for a child to be living with his grandparents.

 

Biologically humans have either XX or XY chromosomes XX's are female XY are male. It's the Y that makes males male. You get 50% of you DNA from your mother and 50% from your father. However because only males have a Y the Y-DNA test can only trace male to male to male.

For a mixed gender test (which FTDNA calls a Family Finder test) you are matching a percentage of your genes vs others. So for your cousin he will match about 50% with his father, 25% with his father's father, 12.5% with his father's father's father etc. However also across a female line so 50% with his mother, 25% with his mothers mother, 12.5% with his mother's mother's mother. Also across mixed genders so 50% father, 25% father's mother, 12.5% father's mother's father. etc.

Thus after 3 generations we are down to only a maximum of 12.5% shared DNA, after 4 generations down to 6.25% after 5 generations down to 3.125% etc. Now that's still hundreds of millions of DNA pairs to match on so its a huge match. However a few more generations and the percentages shrink to very dodgy chance of a match. So after 8 generations say we have only a 0.39% chance of a match. Thus FTDNA say the family Finder test is good for a match up to around 5 generations back. It sounds like your Frank will be within 5 generations of your cousin so its likely a match may be possible.

 

Jacqueline, I suggest you re-read my DNA articles from last year - you'll find them collected together here.

 

I meant to but I'm too busy reading everything on the Forum, but seriously, yes I shall read them again
. Can I also send them to my cousin somehow? I don't think he will be interested in joining LC. They leave it to me.

Mary Ann would have been 15 when Frank was born and she had a track record of having children out of wedlock much later, and her older sister Jane also had the same track record before her marriage and was a deserted and then bigamous wife, having another "fatherless" child while deserted, but neither of them farmed their children out. Mary Ann later lived with her very elderly parents and Frank with 2 very young children in 1881 before embarking on her next collection. These two are my best candidates but I'm not convinced. I think if Frank had been the child of one of the boys then it was more likely that the mother would have kept him and only one was a possibility and he married later becoming the head of the family. The only other possible female candidate, Elizabeth and her husband John Brown (!) seem to have disappeared after their marriage in 1857; one or both dead, emigrated? Leaving little Frank with her parents? In spite of the irregularities it was a close and supportive family and Frank later inherited a motherless child of one of his living cousins/ half brother and this child later took Frank's surname. Children were passed around for various reasons... and there is always the possibility that he was his illegitimate grandmother, Jane's grandson and nothing to do with her husband Joseph! It'll take me the rest of my life and if the DNA test turns something up, there's always his "wife" Janetta to keep,me out of trouble.

 

He is our mutual great grandfather. I'll look into it, thanks, Alexander

 

Yes, you're welcome to send your cousin the same link. You never know, he might decide to become a member!

 

I'd have to disagree with that. The vast majority of family historians will not know all their cousins from 3 & 4 generations back, worked forward. If they did there wouldn't be much need for a site like Lost Cousins!!

 

The FTDNA family finder test is typically good up to 4th cousins not just 1st and 2nd and indeed I've had 4th and even one 5th cousins match verified by paper records. However my point was nothing whatsoever to do with the effectiveness of the test, it was entirely to do with your assertion that any "serious" researcher knows all their close cousins. BTW your numbers are flawed ie:

1 generation is parents, match is siblings
2 generations is grandparents, match is 1st cousins
3 generations is great grandparents, match is 2nd cousins
4 generations is 2g grandparents, match is 3rd cousins
5 generations is 3g grandparents, match is 4th cousins.

FTDNA is typically good only as far as 5 generations ie: 4th cousins. I re-iterate I do not believe most researchers serious or otherwise have identified all their 4th cousins.

The problem isn't finding people further back it is tracing people further forwards. My own grandmother on my mother's side was one of 9 children. My mother has in 28 first cousins from just that branch. I have no idea of all those 2nd cousins as that requires access to data on living individual which is far harder to come by. That is then compounded when you go back to my 3g grandparents who are typically mid 1800s, bringing all that forward is a lot of work. Further compounded is that most researchers are in their 60s+ so often a 3g grandparent is early 1800s which for Scottish & English records means pre-statutory which makes things even harder.

Further the vast majority of researchers out their don't trace siblings forwards beyond a generation or so. This is dramatically more true of female siblings where finding marriages into the future and tracing surname changes means people lose interest as it becomes no longer one of "their" names, despite them being perfectly valid cousins just as they are on the male lines.

So yes we completely disagree about how likely it is people know all their 2nd, 3rd and 4th cousins.

I do however agree that it is a very much a long term thing taking a "Family Finder" DNA test. As with all these sorts of things it depends on someone else having taken the test too and that is where the system becomes a lottery. In that way it is very much like Lost Cousins ie: it relies on a critical mass of people being tested (entering data) to produce matches. You also rightly identify that the bulk of the DNA tests so far a American so unlikely to be a match.