Distracted by DNA Part 1

It's been a particularly difficult week for me, in terms of motivation. Maybe I plowed through too much while I was on staycation....but I still want to keep moving ahead on my tree. I've picked back up my project of adding people from a well established family history book on my paternal side. It doesn't require a lot of mental energy, just time. The family history is typically very accurate and it's the fastest way to get to a point where I can figure out where to place more of my DNA matches in my tree. Why does this suddenly matter so much? Read on!

I was contacted by an Ancestry.com user who viewed the adoptee tree I'm working on for a friend. Let's call this person Sally (not her real name.) Sally was adamant there was no adoption in their family. She was sure of it!  Her husband John (not his real name) is a descendant of who we believe is the 2nd great grandfather of my friend. Based on information Sally provided, John is his 3rd cousin. Her initial contact was a little terse and I was concerned she was both put off and upset at the potential revelation.

Turned out, she was looking at a more distant relative in the tree (a 2nd cousin 1x removed), not the direct line I'm hoping to prove. There really was no adoption in the family she was familiar with. Still, I took the time to write back, and since her Ancestry.com profile shows she has many years of family history experience herself, I gently appealed to her to keep an open mind, since not all adoptions were talked about, and asked her to review what we think we've found and what we're hoping to use DNA to prove. Turns out, after reviewing what we know, she and her husband were very willing to help us try to find out more...incredibly eager actually! It was a very pleasant surprise. We've had several additional communications and she shared John's GEDmatch test kit number with me so I could do some comparisons. She also provided some additional contacts within the family we're exploring, and links to more information. As I learn more I'm looking forward to talking with Sally again! I believe there is value in communicating with any person willing to share. Maybe they have something to add to the tree...maybe not. But if I dismiss any potential research lead, I'd be doing a disservice.

With permission from my friend, I uploaded his Ancestry.com DNA results to GEDmatch. I used the one to one autosomal DNA comparison to John. This was the first time I'd actually looked at a comparison on the site, and to be honest, it was more than a little overwhelming. I'd run a few of their tools on my own DNA kit and there were lots of pretty colors, numbers, lines and charts, but it made virtually no sense to me. The results from John were no less daunting and I realized it's time for me to learn more about working with DNA details. What I think I saw was my friend matches John in several chromosome locations, and the total cM is within what would be expected for a 3rd cousin, but there was nothing spectacular. The good news is we now have many new GEDmatch DNA matches to research, using more detailed DNA information than is found on Ancestry.com.

Since it's easier for me to work with known DNA as I learn, I decided to jump over to my own tree and set out to learn more about working with DNA. I wanted to fill out as much of my paternal branch as quickly as I can to add new DNA matches, but I still like to have some documentation to support who I'm adding. Enter the family history book. I've been slowly using it to add to my tree over the last couple of years, but with no real sense of urgency. It seemed like a perfect time to hunker down and finish the project. (On my maternal line, where my biggest brick wall is, I don't have the luxury of a verified family history, only the research done by one family member. I'd prefer to continue to do my own research on the maternal line. Adding DNA matches there takes significantly more time).

I will definitely spend more time checking out GEDmatch (both for myself and my friend) but I decided maybe it's time for me to dig a little deeper and do some reading on working with DNA, so I can be more effective in my research. There are many wonderful free tutorials and I'm starting to dive in. It was an unexpected and wonderful surprise to be contacted by Sally. It just goes to show how open and kind some people in the genealogy community are. Even on social media, genealogy fans are some of the most wonderful people I've met and I value them all, whether they're related to me or not! In my next post, I'll update on what I'm learning using my own DNA matches.

Image by 652234 from Pixabay

Clues in Cause of Death Codes

 

Death certificates are a veritable treasure trove of information. From birth and death dates, last known addresses and the often elusive name and place of birth of parents are typically included. You're also likely to find the person's occupations, marital status and potentially names of spouses. The medical section can give clues to any ongoing health concerns as well as the primary and contributory causes of their death. The informant is quite often another family member, and sometimes the funeral home and location of the cemetery may be noted.  

I do want to caution information provided may not be 100% correct. These facts were most likely provided to the coroner by the informant, and there is a possibility of error. But none the less, the information may be a good jumping off point for further research. What I find extremely useful is the cause of death code.

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is a standardized system for coding cause of death. It originated in 1893 and provided a more standardized way of of classifying the cause. It's used around the world and has been updated close to a dozen times over the past 130 years, now including specialized lists for Oncology and Miscellaneous causes such as Industrial Accidents.

These codes can help provide additional clues to family members who are no longer with us. The primary medical cause of death  and any contributing factors can often be challenging to decipher. We all know doctors don't always have the best handwriting! It can be frustrating to decode them, especially since some diseases have been renamed (or deprecated) over the years and may be unfamiliar. Generally, when codes are included, they're pretty easy to read. The only question is "what do they mean?"

Wolfbane.com International Classification of Diseases contains indexes of all the causes of death used since the 1893. Once you select the appropriate index year, the codes are listed in numerical order for simplicity.  The numbering does not necessary stay the same year to year, and referring to the incorrect year may not provide accurate information. Be sure to double check the year of death before referring to the ICD.

In the example above, the main cause of death for Willis Edward Berendes, who died before the age of 2, is listed as dysentery and the contributing factor as acute nephritis. This certificate is from 1920 and refers to ICD code 16c - other or unspecified dysentery. While this certificate wasn't terribly difficult to read, some can be like readying hieroglyphics. The ICD code is often the only way to decipher the cause of death. It makes me wonder what contributed to the diagnosis in this case? Unsafe water? Illness from improper cooking or contaminated food? Or was it a viral/bacterial infection sweeping through the area?

Take time to look at the cause of death codes when you find a death certificate. It only takes a few moments to confirm what the code means, and it may open up some clues you might not find elsewhere. I personally add a Cause of Death fact if I have one. It reminds me to  take a moment and reflect on what the person, or their family, may have been dealing with when the person passed on.

Staycation Research Update

 

My week-long staycation is just about over. I was able to dedicate over 40 hours last week to my research. I wish I had more time, but it's back to work tomorrow. I have 6 people "pre-planned" for this coming week. There are a lot of records for these people, so my goal is simply to get thru these 6.

Since my last post on my new research plan (about 2 weeks ago), I reviewed and transcribed facts from 5 pages or handwritten notes my mother had assembled about her siblings and their children. This included several names, as well as birth and marriage dates I didn't have previously. I also added current and updated facts to several people based on an email I received from my maternal cousin a few weeks ago. I always cite this type of information as "Family Knowledge" and include the name of the person who provided the facts in my citation. 

I added 15 new people to my tree, for a total of 1572. Most new additions were 1st cousins 1x removed (children of my cousins and a few of their spouses).

Along the way, I also happened to run an "Undocumented Fact" report from FTM (my preferred desktop software). As expected, many entries were missing sources for sex (which should resolve as I work through my process) but I also discovered I had a bunch of facts I'd missed adding to sources somehow. As I'm reviewing each person, I'm resolving any issues as I'm completing their profile. 

I finished my review of 60 additional existing people in my tree, bringing my total completed to 99 (and nope, I just couldn't squeak out one more today to make 100). A few "completed people" have had hints pop up since my review (I'm not worrying about them right now), but in general my process seems to be working fairly well. As more record collections are added and updated, there will invariably be new hints for people I've already completed. Complete is only accurate until the next hint appears. And the beloved Ancestry algorithm is happily reaching out to find more hints for people on each branch of my tree as I'm working thru this new process. Shhhh...not that I'm looking at my hint count or anything.....but (...whispers...) it's up to  8240!

Image by Foundry Co from Pixabay

OurRoots Promised to be the "Google for Genealogy"

Ourroots.com. Never heard of it? That's because it STILL hasn't launched. In a 04 November 2020 post on the Rootsfinder blog, Dallan Quass, PhD (a developer who's been involved with many reputable and successful genealogy sites) proclaimed it would be the "Google for genealogy", a search engine indexing "(almost) all genealogy on the web." It was supposed to launch 2021 and it was bound to be impressive, right?

As 2021 turned into "the pandemic", the launch date shifted to 2022. Then it shifted again to 2023. And as of the date of this post (although the ourroots.com site hasn't been updated with this information) the original blog post on Rootsfinder.com now states "Unfortunately, due to extenuating circumstances the google for genealogy project has been indefinitely postponed." Is that really indefinitely postponed? Or has it been shelved forever? 

In theory, it sounded amazing! We all know how frustrating it can be sifting through Google search results....or worse, not having any viable results appear. Ourroots.com could've been the solution we've longed for and dreamed of. Imagine a search engine returning untold numbers of relevant results to our eagerly waiting fingertips. Oh, how the brick walls might've crumbled...!

Such a great concept, but will the miracle ever happen? I rather suspect indexing all those sites was a bigger project, requiring far more working capital and programming, than anticipated. They also claimed you'd be able to upload records and books (possibly some copyright issues there??) as well as your tree, and they'd make them searchable too. That's certainly a lot of moving pieces...and promises. 

There is an ourroots.org site. It's a database management system for genealogy societies where they can upload records, media and books and make them searchable on their websites (hmmm....sounds a little familiar...was ourroots.com going to springboard off this?). This open source project appears to have had some success (how much is hard to tell). There's a Facebook page withs posts in late 2022 with users asking questions. But the last GitHub updates appear to have been 8 months ago. Though there were some "see it in action" links making it appear functional, it looks like maybe this project stalled as well.

I have to wonder if ourroots,com will ever actually sprout into a full fledged search engine after all. I hope this venture eventually reaches fruition. It could be a game changer for amateur (and maybe professional) genealogists everywhere. For now, we're left wondering whether this grand idea will ever see the light of day.

Image by stokpic from Pixabay