Golden Nuggets in the 1940 Census

Three weeks ago, the 1940 census debuted and this event celebrated the fact that it is the first census to be initially offered online for free. As per regulations, 72 years must pass before a US Census is made public. Since I’ve been seriously studying my roots since 1978, I’ve seen the release of the 1910, 1920, and 1930 censuses. For the 1910 and 1920, I searched for family by using the Soundex version. I remember waiting anxiously for the microfilm I had ordered from the National Archives to be delivered to local libraries to gain additional knowledge about my family. The 1930 was different because it was also offered online via certain subscription services such as Ancestry and Rootsweb. Being a member of both, I waited for the scanned pages online and the census' subsequent indexing.

I’ve heard many of my genealogical friends exclaim that they were interested in seeing their parents listed in a census for the first time. Being a little older than some of my peers, I had that experience with the 1920 census. Since I personally knew many people in this census, I was originally not that excited regarding its release, but that would change, as I had an opportunity to learn about certain aspects that made this particular census rewarding. Initially, I was going to only look for my parents and then I was going to wait for the index, as many of the people I desired to identify in the census would require the use of an index.

April 2 came and went – I tried unsuccessfully accessing the census web site that evening, but it was impossible to get through. Early on Tuesday, April 3, I finally gained access and found my parents. Knowing my hometown’s geography made this search easy. Even though my parents lived in another section of town prior to my birth, I was able to find them and in the process I stumbled upon others that I personally knew. During that first look at the census, I passed the names of parents of my classmates, my first grade school principal, and people with whom I had attended church.

I finally found my parents, but there were no real surprises; however, there were a few bits of interesting information. One item was the value of my parents’ first home. Prior to adding onto their original structure several times as their family grew, the original house was extremely small and not valued very much. The entry listed its worth as $300. My house payment is over twice that amount – so a piece of real estate valued that low was surprising.

When my parents sold the home in 1951, it garnered $7,500 – 25 times its 1940 value. That’s quite an increase in value in such a short period of time. Our last home nearly doubled in value in 16 years. Had it increased 25 times, I think I could have retired right then and there – but such was not the case.

In understanding the value of my parents’ first home in 2012 dollars, I needed to understand the buying power of a 1940 dollar. Not all things will correspond, as other factors such as property value and the minimum wage need to be consulted to make an accurate comparison; however, not always are property values available.

According to genealogist Philip Hermann (2012), the spending power of $1.00 in 1940 is equivalent to $16.26 today. Unfortunately, that places my parents’ domicile at below the poverty level as in today’s finances it was worth $4,878. Luckily, they were able to get more out of the property when they eventually sold it.

Another issue in which my mom was particularly interested was my father’s income in 1940. His wages were listed as $1400 for 1939. This averages to $28 a week and a whopping 70 cents an hour for my dad. While this doesn’t sound like much, the federal minimum wage in 1939 was 30 cents – so I guess my dad was doing pretty well at the time by comparison. When I started working in an hourly job in 1973, the minimum wage was $1.60 per hour.

When you adjust for inflation, my father was making the 2012 equivalent of $22,764 as a skilled laborer. This is lower than the minimum salary wage of $23,660 of today; however, it is still better than today’s full time minimum hourly wage which equates to $15,080. The 30¢ minimum wage of 1940 provided a yearly wage of $624. In 2012 dollars, that is $10,146.26 or $4.88 an hour.

To put income into context, 1940 prices averaged as follows (“Money and Inflation 1940’s,” 2005).

Item	1940 Price
New House	$3920.00
New Car	$ 850.00
A Gallon of Gas	$ 0.11
Men’s Suit	$ 24.50
Refrigerator	$ 239.00

Finding People in the 1940 Census

Searching the census seemed to be easy enough, if I had a clue where people lived at the time of the census. Ancestry provides city directories which are helpful in locating addresses and the enumeration districts for 1930 are useful if the family hadn’t moved. A third party tool constructed by Drs. Stephen P. Morse and Joel D. Weintraub found at http://stevemorse.org/census/unified.html is invaluable in providing the 1940 enumeration districts.

Armed with this data, I was fortunate to find all of my parents’ siblings, my three living grandparents, two living great-grandmothers, my stepfather, my stepfather’s stepmother, and certain siblings of my grandparents and great-grandparents. For now, I think that is all I can easily find without relying upon a full index – for which I can wait, but I am happy with some of the data I culled from the 1940 census.

There are several areas that make this census special and were not offered in previous versions. They include the following aspects of the subject: the identity of who was providing the information, educational attainment, wages, and 1935 location.

The Identity of Person Supplying the Information

The latter is extremely helpful when determining whether questionable information was provided by the subject or someone else in the household. The person who supplies the information is identified by either an “X” or an “X” in a circle. I specifically learned this important piece of information from Judy G. Russell’s blog, The Legal Genealogist.

I found two errors of fact regarding educational attainment for my uncle and my stepfather. Knowing that my mother was the only one in her family to graduate high school, I found it unusual that her oldest brother was listed as having attended four years of high school. His second wife provided that information and she did not know my uncle at the time he attended high school. My mother verifies that he only attended the 11th grade.

My aunt supplying the info for her and my uncle.

For my stepfather, he is listed as finishing two years of high school; however, living under the same roof with him from 1966 to 1973, I knew that he had only finished 9th grade when he quit school and joined the labor force at the local steel mill at the age of 14. His father-in-law was the individual who supplied that information and he probably answered what he thought was correct.

Additionally, I noticed that this mark was missing for some of my family members. Although the census taker was required to identify the source person, it didn't always happen.

No source identified with my double great/great-great Aunt and Uncle

Educational Attainment

Knowing that both my parents were the only ones of their respective families to graduate high school, I was curious of how much schooling my grandparents and my father’s siblings had. I already knew of my mother’s three siblings, but not my father’s.

My dad’s oldest sister Nathalie (or Nath as she was known) was only listed as attending grammar school without a requisite number of years. This could mean she attended anywhere from first grade to completing eighth grade. Their sister Blanch attended through the seventh grade and their sister Ruth had attended up through the eighth grade.

As for my grandparents, my mother’s parents completed a grammar school education, which was common in their generation. My father’s mother only finished the sixth grade. I have some of her correspondence and her grammar and spelling had some issues and the lack of a more formal education was probably to blame.

I would have thought my grandfather’s sister Martha Leppzer would have had more education, as her parents had enrolled her in a girls’ school in Roxbury, Massachusetts. She is listed as only completing the fifth grade. Her uncle, John Merriman, sadly only attended up through the second grade. His wife, who was also my grandmother’s sister, went as far as the sixth grade – like my grandmother.

One of my living great-grandmothers (Marie Katherine Manewal Schad) finished eighth grade and the other (Ida Samantha Staley Brakeall) attended through the sixth grade. My grandfather’s cousin who was adopted as his sister (Marie Hasson) is listed as attending high school; however, no corresponding years were listed.

1939 Income

As I previously mentioned my father’s income, I was curious of the wages made by other men in my family. I remember my mother telling me that certain family members made more than my father, so I decided to make the comparison. I found some surprises in the data.

Relationship To Me	Occupation	1939 Wages	Weeks Worked	2012 Wages*
Father	Lathe Hand - Airbrake	$1400	50	$22,764
Stepfather	Piercer Operator – Steel Mill	$1620	35	$37,625
Grandmother	Matron – Westinghouse Electric**	$660	50	$10,732
Uncle	Shipper: Steel Mill	$900	48	$15,252
Uncle	Inspector: Steel Mill	$1000	52	$16,620
Uncle±	Firefighter	$980	32	$24,894
Uncle±	Laborer: Pipe Mill	$1100	36	$24,845
Uncle±	Machinist: National Steel	$1446	40	$29,398
Uncle±	Steel Roller: Steel Mill	$3963	40	$80,552
Great Uncle±	Chemist: Sterling Steel	$2000	52	$32,520
Great Uncle±	Skilled Laborer: Steel Works	$2500	44	$46,195

  *Income was adjusted to 50 weeks worked at 2012 values.

**My grandmother worked at the Westinghouse Airbrake and not Westinghouse Electric.

±Uncle by marriage.

This exercise put incomes into context. All of the above were in the McKeesport, Pennsylvania area with the exception of my uncle Raymond Baldridge who had the highest salary of the bunch. He lived in suburban Detroit.

In addition, another great uncle (John F. Leppzer who was married to my grandfather’s sister) living in Barberton, Ohio was listed as having $0.00 income in 1939, although he worked 52 weeks as an electric foreman. His wife, my great aunt Martha, provided the information. I discussed this with their granddaughter (my second cousin) and she believed that since her grandmother was a very private person, she would not have released her husband’s salary. Mystery explained.

Location in 1935

With the family members I’ve found so far, nothing unusual or unknown has been revealed. I imagine when I start searching the indexes for others, I will find valuable information in this area. Although my family was fairly stable (regarding location – the jury is out on mental state), this will be an invaluable tool for those tracing a family’s migration pattern between censuses.

I hope you have as much fun as I have while browsing the 1940 census records. Remember, as with any data source, it may contain mistakes of fact. These could be transcription errors by the census taker, ignorance of the facts by the person supplying the information, and/or a lie perpetrated by the family member - sometimes this occurs in regard to ages. Keep this in mind, and to paraphrase Judy Russell, it is only one source among many that you may have.

References

Hermann, P. (2012, April 18). The value of a 1940 dollar. The Weekly Genealogist, 15(16).

Money and inflation 1940’s (2005). The People History. http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1940s.html

Morse, S.P. & Weintraub, J.D. (2011). Unified 1940 census ED finder. http://stevemorse.org/census/unified.html

Russell, J.G. (2012, April 9). 1940 census just one source. The Legal Genealogist. http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2012/04/09/1940-census-just-one-source/

The sixteenth census of the United States of America (2012), Washington, DC: National Archives. http://1940census.archives.gov/

Tying a Y-DNA Mutation to a Specific Ancestor

A while back, I posted regarding the three families who bear my surname and the possibility of doing Y-DNA testing to prove if all three have a common ancestor. Back last fall, we were able to confirm that yes all three Owston groups had a common source.

Three of the participants – one from each family – even matched at 100% indicating the modal haplotype for the surname. We have since continued the study and are attempting to test at least one person from all 23 extant lines of Owstons and Oustons. Currently we have 17 participants – with results presently returned for twelve. Since three lines have two participants, 14 out of the 23 Owston lines (61%) are represented. Eleven distinct lineages (48%) have returned data.

Today we received the latest results in the Owston/Ouston Y-DNA project and I am pleased to announce we are able to determine where a Y-DNA mutation entered a specific family grouping – the Thorpe Bassett branch of the Sherburn Owston family.

Because we have so few lineages in which to test, I had no indication I would be able to narrow down a specific mutation to a particular generation or person; however, today, we can isolate the source of a mutation on the DYS442 marker. Typically in our family, this marker has 17 repeats (FTDNA counts 12) of the code TACT; however, we have two individuals from the Thorpe Bassett branch of the Sherburn family that have a loss of a repeat with a series of only 16 (FTDNA counts 11) on DYS442.

Y-DNA mutations are harmless as they do not affect the genetic makeup of a person nor do they have any adverse effects on someone’s health.  These are changes that occur in the number of repeats of a sequence in a non-coding region (sometimes called “junk DNA”) on the Y chromosome.  These single tandem repeats or STRs are slow to mutate and, therefore, provide the ability to conclude whether someone is from a particular lineage or family.

The first person to display this mutation, as well as another a two-step mutation on DYS458, was our subject identified as Sherburn03 of the Durham line. Without the ability to triangulate when these mutations occurred, the best we could hope for is to identify both mutations as occurring with or downstream from Peter Owston who was born in 1661.

Since Peter’s brother John’s descendent from the Richard Ouston lineage did not have either one of these mutations, we knew that the DYS442 and DYS458 mutations were not upstream from these brothers, but could not determine where in Sherburn03’s lineage either of these occurred. That was until today.

With the results from Sherburn06 from the Lincolnshire line, we can determine that the DYS442 16 repeat mutation occurred with Sherburn03’s and Sherburn06’s common ancestor, Peter Owston (1661-1699). Peter Owston was born and lived his entire life in Thorpe Bassett in the East Riding of Yorkshire and is the progenitor of the Thorpe Bassett Branch of gentleman farmers. In addition, Peter was married to Elizabeth Donkin. The Donkin surname occurs frequently among the marriages within this lineage. Peter and Elizabeth produced five children: Dorothea, Elizabeth, John, Thomas, and Robert.

While his descendents have lived in England, Canada, Australia, and the United States; only three extant lines descend from Peter Owston (1661-1699): the Lincolnshire line, the Durham line, and the Michigan line. We are currently awaiting results from one of the two living male members of the Michigan line. Sherburn06 is the last living male in the Lincolnshire line. Only the Durham line has multiple Owston males that constitute three generations of that particular lineage. Several other lines descended from Peter Owston became extinct during the twentieth century.

Since the DYS442 mutation is the only one occurring in Sherburn06’s results, it is currently impossible to determine at what point Sherburn03’s other mutation of 16 to 18 on DYS458 had occurred. Because the Durham line is the only extant line from John Owston (1696-1770), it will never be possible to determine where this other mutation occurred as there are no other relatives through which to triangulate the results. It could be anywhere within a range of seven generations that includes both Thomas Owston (1696-1770) and the subject himself.

Since Sherburn06 is only one marker different from the modal haplotype, his Y-DNA is 97.67% similar to the unknown common ancestor of all Owstons – an individual who probably lived in the mid to late 15th century.

While I never imagined being able to determine when a mutation entered the Owston family, this provides hope to be able to identify the source of additional mutations found in other lines through additional testing.

For the latest version of the study, see http://www.owston.com/dna/Owston_Family_Y-DNA_Study.pdf

DNA Portraits: Second Cousins

On the PBS program “Finding your Roots” a few weeks ago, Henry Lewis Gates, Jr. set out to discover the identity of Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker’s white great-grandfather. It seems that when Booker’s grandfather was 13, his mother took him to the doctor. As they were leaving, his mother told the boy that the doctor was his real father. Gates narrowed the possibilities to Stephen H. Brown, MD. In order determine if Brown was Booker’s great-grandfather, a living descendent of Brown could be tested for matching autosomal DNA.

They were in luck as a living descendent who consented to be tested was located. On the show, 23andMe scientist and Senior Director of Research Dr. Joanna Mountain stated, “Virtually all pairs of second cousins share long segments of DNA that are matching – usually several of those segments. We’ve done simulations to figure out what to expect there and if they are second cousins we should be able to see that in the DNA.”

2nd Cousins Booker & Hislop

The test confirmed that Cory Booker and Michael Hislop were descended from the same man and that they were second cousins with matches on the 1st, 4th, and 10th chromosomes. While termed as second cousins, the two are actually “half second cousins.” As the name indicates, they only share one great-grandparent and they share half the DNA that full second cousins would normally share.

According to the program, we should be able to determine if a suspected second cousin is just that. So genetically, what do second cousin pairs look like? I turned to data from 23andMe to find out the answer. Over a year ago, genetic genealogist Andrea Badger asked members of the 23andMe community to provide family member statistics. All sorts of relationship data was generated that included 33 second cousin pairs.

These were full second cousins only and therefore second cousins, once removed; second cousins, twice removed, double second cousins, and half second cousins were not included in the 33. Of that number, the highest percentage share was 6.32% and the lowest was .93%. The mean score was 2.94% while the median score was 2.90%. Generally speaking, it is expected that second cousins would share on average 3.13% of their DNA; however, the sample relationships skewed lower.

My own extended family provided nine second cousin pairs. Interestingly enough, the second (5.22%) and third (4.45%) highest percentages, the lowest percentage (.93%), and the median score (2.90%) all were found within my family. Seven of those pairs descended from one couple while the remaining two were from unique couples. Our numbers skewed slightly higher than the average expected DNA percentage for second cousins at 3.22%.

Couple 1: Newton French Owston & Mary Emma Merriman

Relationship 1-A

Not counting my great grandfather's two sons to his second wife, my great grandparents gave birth to a total of five children; four of the five attained adulthood and three (Martha, George, & Ovington) produced issue. While there are numerous second cousins from this couple, five have been tested via 23andMe and represent each of the three children. Among these five, there are a total of seven second cousin relationships.

Three of the participants are brothers and provide an interesting look at segments that are passed down from their father compared to those from the children of his first cousins. The brothers include me (in the light blue) and my two older brothers in represented dark blue and green. The comparison person is our second cousin through Ovington French Owston – the brother of our grandfather George Hood Owston. The following illustration shows the randomness of recombination and gives us an indication of what we inherited from our father from his father and mother.

While the segments are somewhat long, take notice of the segments on chromosome 4 and 10 – they are the two longest segments. My oldest brother shares a very long segment on chromosome 4 that is 114cM in length. He received this segment from my father and my grandfather – the same with our second cousin who received this long segment from his father and grandfather.

It is likely that this segment (as it has remained intact via two different lines) probably came from one or the other of our great-grandparents. Comparing our matches with a second-cousin once removed from the Merriman family (and who is related to all five of us) further suggests that this long segment came from our great-grandfather Newton French Owston’s ancestry; however, without further proof this supposition is inconclusive.

When comparing this segment with a number of fourth cousins from the Owston family, none match on this area of chromosome 4. While this may indicate that the match comes from Newton French Owston’s mother (Martha Newton French), it does not completely rule out his father’s ancestry either. Some of the others matching us on this segment can be attributed to Newton French Owston’s great-grandmother’s surname of Fraser. Other portions of this segment appear to be Irish in origin and may be connected to Martha Newton French’s mother of Rebecca McAnulty who had Irish forebears. Time may indicate if this is correct.

The sections of chromosome 4 that my other brother and I do not match with our second cousin came from our father’s mother’s side of our family. Comparing these segments with two of my grandmother’s relatives confirms this hypothesis.

On chromosome 10, I match this same second cousin with a segment that is 112cM in length. While my middle brother does not match him at this location, my oldest brother shares a portion of the segment that is 56.9cM long. This segment is a little more difficult to place. By checking with 23andMe’s Ancestry Finder tool, none of the public individuals who match my cousin and me have any surnames or locations that are congruent with our known family lines.

In addition, our Merriman relative does not match us on this segment; however, it is impossible to conclude that this match does not come from that particular family. While my Merriman relative is a second cousin to me and my brothers via my Day family, she is also my second cousin, once removed through the Merrimans – a relationship she has with all of the Owston second cousins. Her grandmother was my grandmother’s sister (Day family) and her grandfather was my great-grandmother’s brother (Merriman family).

Those segments that can be identified to the Merriman family are as follows:

• The segment on chromosome 3
• The segment on chromosome 8
• The first segment on chromosome 9

Relationship 1-B

During fall 2011, another second cousin in my father’s line had her DNA tested with 23andMe. Being the granddaughter of my grandfather’s oldest sister, Subject 5 as she is called here was probably the best choice in our genetic genealogy study, not only does she match her second cousins recorded here, she matches all of the Owston fourth cousins and fourth cousins, once removed as well as our two Merriman cousins. Because she matched so many people, her results were perfect for providing triangulation.

While my brothers matched my second cousin with nearly twice as much DNA as me, the following illustration shows the number of long segments to which Dr. Mountain alluded in the television broadcast.

I am particularly interested in three long segments on chromosome 1 that are shared by my oldest brother (Subject 1) and our second cousin (Subject 5). It appears that these three segments may have been part of one long segment passed down from one ancestor and that these were split due to recombination.

When comparing this same chromosome with our mutual second cousin (Subject 4), it indicated that there was probably an even longer original segment. Our Merriman second cousin, once removed did not match any of the five of us in this region, so it may be that this particular segment came from our great-grandfather’s lineage. None of our other Owston fourth cousins were matching to this section of chromosome 1 either.

I checked with the public matches on 23andMe’s Ancestry Finder (AF) tool and found a match to a gentleman whose paternal ancestry was unknown as his father had been adopted. His father’s birth and adoption occurred in Detroit and this segment may suggest a common ancestor in the personage of our second great grandparents. From as early as 1859 to as late as 1863, my second great grandfather lived in Detroit.

The 1860 census lists the family as containing my second great grandparents, my second great grandmother’s maternal aunt, and the couple’s two children: Fanny (AKA Fannie and Frances) and French (or Newton French) Owston. The surname was misidentified as Austin, but it was clearly our family from the other data. I dealt with finding this census entry in a previous post.

The daughter, Frances Owston, is the mystery. I have only found three references to her – the first was a sample of her hair that was dated 1859 and found within a family bible I was given in 1977. Another reference was her birth record in 1852; it was the first birth to be recorded in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The final reference is the 1860 Detroit census.

While I have searched for her in all of the cities where her family lived – Detroit, Saginaw, and Pittsburgh, I have never been able to find her marriage or death. It may be possible that our AF match is descended from the elusive Frances Owston.  (In 2014, we found Frances and her family in Western Pennsylvania.  This relationship is probably not through her.  See our post on this at http://linealarboretum.blogspot.com/2014/11/its-just-another-brick-from-wall.html).

As far as the other sections, we are able to confirm that some of these came from our great grandmother’s Merriman family roots. By comparing with our Merriman second cousin, once removed, we can conclude that following segments are related to our Merriman line:

• The second segment on chromosome 3
• The second segment on chromosome 7
• The second segment on chromosome 11
• The segment on chromosome 17

The other segments are not as easy to track. An AF match on the first segment on chromosome 3 has roots in Western Pennsylvania and may be indicative of either the Merriman or French families. The other segments cannot be triangulated at the present.

Couple 2: Thomas Wesley Day & Amy Alice Champlin

My double second cousin is also a second cousin to my half cousin – the son of my father’s half sister. My half cousin and my brothers and I share a grandmother. Our second cousin’s grandmother was our grandmother’s older sister and my half cousin’s matches are confined to the Day/Champlin lineage; however, since our grandfather was her grandfather’s nephew, my brothers and I share additional segments via our Merriman ancestry.

At the present, it is difficult for us to determine whether the segments were from the Day line or the Champlin line as both had colonial ancestry.

Notice the long (122cM) segment on the X chromosome. Because of the unique transmission of the X chromosomes, these two second cousins share a segment which neither my brothers nor I share with her – although, my father should have matched as well as he had an X chromosome passed from his mother as did my aunt.

The only difference is that my aunt could pass an X chromosome onto all of her children and my father, who only had sons, could not. Had we had a sister, she would have probably had a match on the X chromosome as well. The matching segment could come from either one of our great-grand parents or a combination of both.

Couple 3: Charles William Owston & Emma Lydia Morton Shephard

Although, I am not directly descended from this couple, Charles William Owston and my great grandfather, Newton French Owston, were first cousins. While both of these individuals match others in the Owston clan, none of these segments match any of our tested fourth cousins.

At the present, we cannot determine from which great-grandparent these segments can be traced. This particular second cousin relationship is also the smallest (at .93%) of 33 recorded second cousin pairs on 23andMe. Compare the above with our family’s largest second cousin share (at 5.22%) depicted below.

Can We Determine Second Cousins with DNA?

While I’ve met several second cousins, I haven’t found one that looks like me; although, I did meet a second cousin, once removed who looked more like my father than I do. Genetically, we should be able to confirm whether a person is a second cousin or not.

There is one word of caution - recombination sometimes allows more or less shared DNA than the average prediction; therefore, a second cousin, once removed or a third cousin may share as much as the average second cousin. A second cousin sharing less may appear to be a second cousin, once removed or a third cousin - so while segment size matters, it is not always conclusive by the amount shared.

In our families, we have 39 relationships that are not strict second cousin relationships, but that have individuals that share within the same range as the second cousins. I have also included 23andMe's predicted relationships. These relationships include the following:

Half Cousin – Average Share 6.25%
5.95%; 446cM; 13 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin
5.76%; 432cM; 15 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin
5.07%; 380cM; 14 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin

First Cousin, Once Removed – Average Share 6.25%
8.23%; 617cM; 27 segments; Predicted: First Cousin
7.67%; 575cM; 20 segments; Predicted: First to Second Cousin
6.95%; 521cM; 22 segments; Predicted: First to Second Cousin
6.56%; 491cM; 25 segments; Predicted: First Cousin
5.29%; 397cM; 20 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin
4.47%; 334cM; 18 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin

Second Cousin / Second Cousin, Once Removed –
Average Share 4.69% (Double Relationship)
5.79%; 434cM; 20 segments; Predicted: First to Second Cousin
5.34%; 401cM; 15 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin
4.98%; 373cM; 14 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin

First Cousin, Twice Removed – Average Share 3.13%
3.64%; 273cM; 12 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin

Half Cousin, once removed – Average Share 3.13%
3.93%; 295cM; 9 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin
3.83%; 287cM; 10 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin
2.80%; 209cM; 9 segments; Predicted: Second to Third Cousin

Second Cousin, Once Removed / Second Cousin, Twice Removed –
Average Share 2.34% (Double Relationship)
3.41%; 255cM; 10 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin
3.04%; 228cM; 10 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin
2.79%; 209cM; 8 segments; Predicted: Second to Third Cousin

Second Cousin, Once Removed – Average Share 1.56%
2.47%; 185cM; 4 segments; Predicted: Second to Fourth Cousin
2.22%; 167cM; 10 segments; Predicted: Second to Third Cousin
2.14%; 160cM; 6 segments; Predicted: Second to Third Cousin
1.82%; 137cM; 8 segments; Predicted: Second to Third Cousin
1.51%; 113cM; 5 segments; Predicted: Second to Third Cousin
1.47%; 110cM; 4 segments; Predicted: Second to Fourth Cousin
1.30%; 97cM; 7 segments; Predicted: Second to Third Cousin
1.29%; 97cM; 5 segments; Predicted: Second to Fourth Cousin
1.17%; 88cM; 5 segments; Predicted: Second to Fourth Cousin
1.15%; 87cM; 4 segments; Predicted: Third to Fourth Cousin
0.92%; 69cM; 2 segments; Predicted: Third to Fifth Cousin
0.83%; 62cM; 4 segments; Predicted: Third to Fourth Cousin
0.30%; 23cM; 2 segments; Predicted: Third to Sixth Cousin

Second Cousin, Twice Removed / Third Cousin, Once Removed – Average Share 1.17%
2.68%; 268cM; 10 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin
2.36%; 177cM; 9 segments; Predicted: Second to Third Cousin
0.76%; 57cM; 5 segments; Predicted: Third to Fourth Cousin

Second Cousin, Twice Removed – Average Share 0.78%
1.56%; 117cM; 6 segments; Predicted: Second to Third Cousin

Third Cousin, Once Removed / Fourth Cousin
Average Share 0.76% (Double Relationship)
1.73%; 130cM; 8 segments; Predicted: Second to Third Cousin
0.75%; 56cM; 3 segments; Predicted: Third to Fourth Cousin
0.23%; 17cM; 2 segments; Predicted: Third to Sixth Cousin

For comparison, here are the 9 second cousin relationships

Second Cousin – Average Share 3.13%
5.22%; 329cM; 11 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin
4.45%; 334cM; 10 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin
3.59% 269cM; 15 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin
3.57%; 268cM; 15 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin
3.28%; 246cM; 8 segments; Predicted: Second to Third Cousin
3.27%; 245cm; 13 segments; Predicted: Second Cousin
2.90%; 218cM; 9 segments; Predicted: Second to Third Cousin
1.85%; 139cM; 8 segments; Predicted: Second to Third Cousin
0.93% 70cM; 6 segments; Predicted: Second to Fourth Cousin

According to Family Tree DNA, there is a 99% probability that we will share DNA with those related to us at the second cousin level and closer. As Dr. Mountain intimated, the longer segments should be the proof of the suspected relationship and a confirmation of a known relationship.

Finding your Roots Video

I have embedded the episode of “Finding Your Roots” below.

Watch John Lewis and Cory Booker on PBS. See more from Finding Your Roots.