PDA

View Full Version : how to determine lineage



annalubov
01-04-2018, 08:13 PM
How to figure out this problem: mother/daughter tested, both have of course X chromosome (haplo is D4). On Gedmatch largest X match was of different haplo T1. Having X matches but have completely different haplgroup? Can someone help me to understand it ?

msmarjoribanks
01-05-2018, 12:41 AM
Significant X match for a woman need not have the same haplo, because X match and mtDNA are different.

For example, mother and daughter share mtDNA AND are an X match.

Daughter and father do not share mtDNA but are an X match (daughter gets X from both parents).

Here, the daughter and mother both match another person, but the other person need have gotten his or her matching X segment from someone sharing a matrilineal line with them. For example, the mother and daughter have a matching X segment from the mother's father, someone with whom they would not have an mtDNA match. If the other person matched is a woman, that person's matching X segment could be from her father, so again would not go with matching mtDNA.

You can simply rule out that this person is a matrilineal match.

Hope that makes sense.

geebee
01-05-2018, 08:10 PM
The same thing is true for males. Although my eldest brother inherited both his mtDNA haplogroup and his single X chromosome from our mother, she didn't get both from the same source.

Like everyone else, of course, she inherited her mtDNA haplogroup from her mother. But the X chromosome she passed on to my brother contained DNA only from her father. In other words, she passed on an unrecombined copy of the same X chromosome she inherited from her father -- which he, in turn, inherited from his mother.

This is not the only time she passed on an unrecombined X, either. One of my sisters also inherited a maternal X chromosome with no contribution from our grandmother. As a result, her X chromosome has half identical matching with our brother across the entire chromosome.

My own X does contain some DNA from our grandmother, though not much: only about 20 cM surrounding the centromere. The rest is from my maternal grandfather.

One way the X chromosome can be very useful in genealogy is that it has vastly fewer possible contributors as compared with other chromosomes. It can be helpful to fill out a chart like the one found here (http://https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2008/12/21/unlocking-the-genealogical-secrets-of-the-x-chromosome/). Just remember, not everyone who is a potential contributor to the X chromosome will necessarily be an actual contributor.

Webb
08-07-2019, 01:58 PM
Significant X match for a woman need not have the same haplo, because X match and mtDNA are different.

For example, mother and daughter share mtDNA AND are an X match.

Daughter and father do not share mtDNA but are an X match (daughter gets X from both parents).

Here, the daughter and mother both match another person, but the other person need have gotten his or her matching X segment from someone sharing a matrilineal line with them. For example, the mother and daughter have a matching X segment from the mother's father, someone with whom they would not have an mtDNA match. If the other person matched is a woman, that person's matching X segment could be from her father, so again would not go with matching mtDNA.

You can simply rule out that this person is a matrilineal match.

Hope that makes sense.

Help?!?!?! Please Help?!?! I didn't want you to think I was being rude. My dad's 2nd or 3rd cousin just tested at FTDNA. She is a Webb, a descendant of my great grandfather's sister, which means she is a crucial match because my Webb line is the one where my great grandfather's father is a mystery. My dad's first cousin already tested at FDTNA a few years ago so now I can triangulate. While using the chromosome browser tool, I expanded to 1+ centimorgans and this new match, 2nd or 3rd cousin to my father shares 2.1 cm on the X with me. Is this normal? Is there anyway to use this to help me determine which line my X comes from? Thanks.

geebee
08-08-2019, 03:25 PM
Help?!?!?! Please Help?!?! I didn't want you to think I was being rude. My dad's 2nd or 3rd cousin just tested at FTDNA. She is a Webb, a descendant of my great grandfather's sister, which means she is a crucial match because my Webb line is the one where my great grandfather's father is a mystery. My dad's first cousin already tested at FDTNA a few years ago so now I can triangulate. While using the chromosome browser tool, I expanded to 1+ centimorgans and this new match, 2nd or 3rd cousin to my father shares 2.1 cm on the X with me. Is this normal? Is there anyway to use this to help me determine which line my X comes from? Thanks.

I'm sorry to say that a match of this size is really too small to be considered meaningful. It might reflect distant relatedness, but by "distant" I'm talking about possibly being well beyond any genealogically-significant timeframe. Potentially dozens or more generations. We're all related at some point.

In any case, your father's X chromosome came from his mother, and only his mother.

msmarjoribanks
08-12-2019, 02:26 PM
Help?!?!?! Please Help?!?! I didn't want you to think I was being rude. My dad's 2nd or 3rd cousin just tested at FTDNA. She is a Webb, a descendant of my great grandfather's sister, which means she is a crucial match because my Webb line is the one where my great grandfather's father is a mystery. My dad's first cousin already tested at FDTNA a few years ago so now I can triangulate. While using the chromosome browser tool, I expanded to 1+ centimorgans and this new match, 2nd or 3rd cousin to my father shares 2.1 cm on the X with me. Is this normal? Is there anyway to use this to help me determine which line my X comes from? Thanks.

Yeah, it's normal and as geebee says it's meaningless. That size match can be just coincidence, and need not indicate any connection at all (and here it would not).

I had a similar thing since FTDNA indicates an X match even where the match is super tiny. My dad has a match who unquestionably is from his paternal side, yet had X match listed, so I was worried for a while it might be an "on both sides" match (the match with my grandmother would have to be very very far back, as the match was in the UK). Finally I realized that the X match was likely not a real match. That's why they have the default 5 cM on the chromosome browser, I assume.

mxcrowe
11-08-2019, 08:20 PM
Maybe some of you have some thoughts on the X chromosome data I am seeing on 23andMe. My mom's first cousin once removed shares 48 cM on X (3871 SNPs) as well as a bunch of autosomal DNA - so far, so good. A significant number of 23andMe matches seem to share parts of or all of this same segment on one of my mom's X chromosomes. For instance, she has a cousin whose place in the tree is not certain to me, but shares at total of 170 cM, including 12.6 cM that apparently triangulate to this segment on X. In this case, I would assume that the 12.6 cM is genetically significant within a reasonable (several generations) timeframe? Then, another cousin seems to triangulate on this segment (via the 23andMe chromosome browser) at 48 cM, essentially all of the segment that my mom's 1C1R shares. But, this other cousin shares no autosomal DNA. Is this DNA match genealogically significant, or could 48 cM of X still be from someone many generations back?

I have a high number of DNA matches to my mom's 23andMe kit who appear to match to this segment on X, but show no other segment matches. I've never been able to figure out where they fit in my tree, except that they must share ancestors only in the female X-inheritance slots in my mom's tree. Is this typical for others who are trying to sort out how X-matches might fit?

geebee
11-12-2019, 06:39 PM
Maybe some of you have some thoughts on the X chromosome data I am seeing on 23andMe. My mom's first cousin once removed shares 48 cM on X (3871 SNPs) as well as a bunch of autosomal DNA - so far, so good. A significant number of 23andMe matches seem to share parts of or all of this same segment on one of my mom's X chromosomes. For instance, she has a cousin whose place in the tree is not certain to me, but shares at total of 170 cM, including 12.6 cM that apparently triangulate to this segment on X. In this case, I would assume that the 12.6 cM is genetically significant within a reasonable (several generations) timeframe? Then, another cousin seems to triangulate on this segment (via the 23andMe chromosome browser) at 48 cM, essentially all of the segment that my mom's 1C1R shares. But, this other cousin shares no autosomal DNA. Is this DNA match genealogically significant, or could 48 cM of X still be from someone many generations back?

I have a high number of DNA matches to my mom's 23andMe kit who appear to match to this segment on X, but show no other segment matches. I've never been able to figure out where they fit in my tree, except that they must share ancestors only in the female X-inheritance slots in my mom's tree. Is this typical for others who are trying to sort out how X-matches might fit?

One of the cool things about the X chromosome -- especially for males -- is that it's often possible to determine which ancestor contributed a segment on that chromosome that's shared with another person. This is because there are many fewer possible "transmission paths" on each side.

For example, I have a cousin with whom I share two segments on the X chromosome. One segment, located in the p arm of the chromosome, is 24 cM. The other segment, located in the q arm, is 34 cM. I searched both of our trees to find an ancestor who is in the "X chromosome pathway" on each side, and the most recent such person is a woman named Rachael Jones Sizemore.

Rachael was my 4th great grandmother, but she is my cousin's ancestor by multiple paths. By the closest path, she's his 2nd great grandmother; and her husband, Henry Sizemore, is my cousin's 2nd great grandfather and my 4th great grandfather. However, Rachael cannot be an X-chromosome contributor to my cousin through this path, since it is through his father. But his parents were 1st cousins to each other, and there are two paths from Rachael that lead through his mother. Only one of these is an X-chromosome pathway, and it leads through one of Rachael's sons to one of the son's daughters to my cousin's maternal grandfather, then to my cousin's mother.

You might notice that this path alternates males and females, which is the path that includes the fewest opportunities for an X chromosome to recombine. Recombination is only possible when a parent has two X chromosomes. A father's single X chromosome doesn't have a X with which to recombine. Also, on my side, the path is somewhat longer but likewise alternates male and female, except for one generation, in which the path was mother to daughter.

The point is, it is indeed possible to inherit fairly large segments on the X chromosome from several generations back. 48 cM shared with a 1st cousin once removed, where the common ancestors aren't that far back, is not at all unusual. In fact, my daughter shares over 94 cM with a 1st cousin once removed -- my sister's grandson; and my brother's daughter shares over 120 cM with the same 1st cousin once removed. That's because my brother and my sister inherited an identical X chromosome. Obviously, it's my sister's maternal X chromosome and my brother's only X chromosome. All the matches on this X chromosome are on our maternal grandfather's side, and collectively these span their entire X chromosome -- meaning that the chromosome includes no DNA from our maternal grandmother.

My X chromosome is identical to theirs except that I have a 20 cM region surrounding the centromere which came from our mother's mother. That's why my daughter's match with my sister's grandson is less than my brother's daughter's match. (The fact that the difference isn't exactly 20 cM is due to slight variation in the calculation of start and stop points of matches. Otherwise, my daughter's matches on her paternal X chromosome should always be exactly the same as my matches on the X chromosome, and my niece's matches on her paternal X chromosome should be exactly the same as her father's matches on the X.)

So when you're trying to traces matches that include segments on the X chromosome, keep in mind the possible transmission paths on each side. These will be fewer than possible transmission paths for autosomal DNA, and which makes identification of the source of an X chromosome segment much more feasible even over several generations -- as long as you know the family tree reasonably well on both sides.

If you can identify the source even on one side, then there will also be a connection to the same source on the other side -- or to someone closely related to that source, following an X chromosome transmission path.

EDIT:

To clarify my final sentence, suppose I find someone who matches at one of the X chromosome segments I share with the cousin I mentioned in the second paragraph. I'm immediately consider whether this person who matches me here might also descend from Rachael, or from an ancestor in her X-chromosome transmission path.

I've actually found other cousins like this, who turned out to have also be descendants of Rachael Jones Sizemore via an X-chromosome pathway.

JoeyP37
11-13-2019, 02:04 AM
Interesting. I have a small Native American segment on my X which comes from my maternal grandmother's maternal grandfather; since my mother is three quarters English and an eighth Irish, it is predominantly British and Irish, my X, though.

vettor
11-16-2019, 05:13 PM
One of the cool things about the X chromosome -- especially for males -- is that it's often possible to determine which ancestor contributed a segment on that chromosome that's shared with another person. This is because there are many fewer possible "transmission paths" on each side.

For example, I have a cousin with whom I share two segments on the X chromosome. One segment, located in the p arm of the chromosome, is 24 cM. The other segment, located in the q arm, is 34 cM. I searched both of our trees to find an ancestor who is in the "X chromosome pathway" on each side, and the most recent such person is a woman named Rachael Jones Sizemore.

Rachael was my 4th great grandmother, but she is my cousin's ancestor by multiple paths. By the closest path, she's his 2nd great grandmother; and her husband, Henry Sizemore, is my cousin's 2nd great grandfather and my 4th great grandfather. However, Rachael cannot be an X-chromosome contributor to my cousin through this path, since it is through his father. But his parents were 1st cousins to each other, and there are two paths from Rachael that lead through his mother. Only one of these is an X-chromosome pathway, and it leads through one of Rachael's sons to one of the son's daughters to my cousin's maternal grandfather, then to my cousin's mother.

You might notice that this path alternates males and females, which is the path that includes the fewest opportunities for an X chromosome to recombine. Recombination is only possible when a parent has two X chromosomes. A father's single X chromosome doesn't have a X with which to recombine. Also, on my side, the path is somewhat longer but likewise alternates male and female, except for one generation, in which the path was mother to daughter.

The point is, it is indeed possible to inherit fairly large segments on the X chromosome from several generations back. 48 cM shared with a 1st cousin once removed, where the common ancestors aren't that far back, is not at all unusual. In fact, my daughter shares over 94 cM with a 1st cousin once removed -- my sister's grandson; and my brother's daughter shares over 120 cM with the same 1st cousin once removed. That's because my brother and my sister inherited an identical X chromosome. Obviously, it's my sister's maternal X chromosome and my brother's only X chromosome. All the matches on this X chromosome are on our maternal grandfather's side, and collectively these span their entire X chromosome -- meaning that the chromosome includes no DNA from our maternal grandmother.

My X chromosome is identical to theirs except that I have a 20 cM region surrounding the centromere which came from our mother's mother. That's why my daughter's match with my sister's grandson is less than my brother's daughter's match. (The fact that the difference isn't exactly 20 cM is due to slight variation in the calculation of start and stop points of matches. Otherwise, my daughter's matches on her paternal X chromosome should always be exactly the same as my matches on the X chromosome, and my niece's matches on her paternal X chromosome should be exactly the same as her father's matches on the X.)

So when you're trying to traces matches that include segments on the X chromosome, keep in mind the possible transmission paths on each side. These will be fewer than possible transmission paths for autosomal DNA, and which makes identification of the source of an X chromosome segment much more feasible even over several generations -- as long as you know the family tree reasonably well on both sides.

If you can identify the source even on one side, then there will also be a connection to the same source on the other side -- or to someone closely related to that source, following an X chromosome transmission path.

EDIT:

To clarify my final sentence, suppose I find someone who matches at one of the X chromosome segments I share with the cousin I mentioned in the second paragraph. I'm immediately consider whether this person who matches me here might also descend from Rachael, or from an ancestor in her X-chromosome transmission path.

I've actually found other cousins like this, who turned out to have also be descendants of Rachael Jones Sizemore via an X-chromosome pathway.

I presume this Henry Sizemore 1810-1877 is from Virginia, his ydna is T and part of T project........iirc, also in yfull
His father is Henry William Sizemore

geebee
11-18-2019, 02:14 PM
I presume this Henry Sizemore 1810-1877 is from Virginia, his ydna is T and part of T project........iirc, also in yfull
His father is Henry William Sizemore

We don't appear to be talking about the same Henry Sizemore. Mine was also called Henry "Hunting Shirt" Sizemore, his birth was in 1790 -- but, yes, in Virginia -- but his father was named George, sometimes called George All Sizemore. George's YDNA is Q-M346.

I did a brief search at Ancestry for relatives with the surname "Sizemore". Only four showed up in the "4th cousin or closer" group, though there were probably dozens of more distant cousins with this surname. In addition, I have many additional "4th cousins or closer" who are Sizemore descendants -- or more specifically, descendants of George "All" Sizemore and Agnes (Shepherd).

But, with the four Sizemores I mentioned, they have "Indigenous Americas - North" of 8%, 3%, 2%, and 2%. The fourth one also has "Indigenous Americas - Yucatan Peninsula" of 2%, so a total of 4% for "Indigenous Americas".

There's a potential downside to Ancestry's inclusion of several new "Indigenous Americas" categories, since some of their customers elect to show matches only ancestries they have in common.

A match of mine who has made this election and has no "Indigenous Americas - North", but instead has "Indigenous Americas - Yucatan Peninsula" might well have inherited this from the same ancestor -- but perhaps not from the same location in that ancestor's genome. And, of course, Ancestry can't actually say how many different "Indigenous Americas" categories a given Native American who lived a century or more ago, might show if he or she could be tested.

So the result would be that matches would not always be able to tell when a relative might merely have a different "Indigenous Americas" percentage that -- possibly -- is from the same ancestor or ancestors. I've already found a couple of matches that used to share some "Native American - North, Central, West". On my side, that category -- which was at 2% -- dropped to 1% "Indigenous Americas - North". On their side, it may have disappeared altogether ... or, since the ancestries I can see no longer quite add up to 100%, they may simply have a different "Indigenous Americas" category. I can't see it, since I don't share it.

EDIT:

Actually, I've added up the percentages for the four Sizemore cousins above, and one only sums to 99%. This could be due to rounding, but the only categories we don't share -- Spain and Finland -- appear only on my side. So it's at least possible that there is a second "Indigenous Americas" category with 1% that could be added to my match's 3% Indigenous Americas - North. Or, as I said it could be simply due to rounding that my match's ancestries don't add up to 100%, or the 1% could be any other "unshared" ancestry.

geebee
11-18-2019, 02:18 PM
No, his father is not Henry Sizemore. His father is actually named George, sometimes called George All Sizemore. His YDNA is Q-M346.

Lots of Sizemores have had their Y DNA tested. While it's true that some lines do not show Y DNA associated with the Americas, some lines do. This is true for at least the Y-line descendants of George All Sizemore's that I've seen.

vettor
11-19-2019, 02:11 AM
Lots of Sizemores have had their Y DNA tested. While it's true that some lines do not show Y DNA associated with the Americas, some lines do. This is true for at least the Y-line descendants of George All Sizemore's that I've seen.

thanks

this is what I have for the T ydna Sizemore

William Henry Sizemore, 1844 - 1922
William Henry Sizemore was born on June 6 1844, in Christian, Kentucky, USA, to Henry William Sizemore and Elizabeth Messamore (born Parker).

He served in the Confederate States CSA during the civil war ..............but must of left Kentucky for South Carolina as Kentucky stayed in the Union even though it was a slave state
he was part of
3rd Battalion, South Carolina Light Artillery (Palmetto Battalion)

His Father Henry was born in 1809, in Virginia, USA.
His Mother Elizabeth was born in 1814, in North Carolina, USA.

Yfull = YF06979

geebee
12-04-2019, 03:10 AM
thanks

this is what I have for the T ydna Sizemore

William Henry Sizemore, 1844 - 1922
William Henry Sizemore was born on June 6 1844, in Christian, Kentucky, USA, to Henry William Sizemore and Elizabeth Messamore (born Parker).

He served in the Confederate States CSA during the civil war ..............but must of left Kentucky for South Carolina as Kentucky stayed in the Union even though it was a slave state
he was part of
3rd Battalion, South Carolina Light Artillery (Palmetto Battalion)

His Father Henry was born in 1809, in Virginia, USA.
His Mother Elizabeth was born in 1814, in North Carolina, USA.

Yfull = YF06979

Yes, I've seen a couple of people named "William T. Sizemore" in the Sizemore DNA group at FTDNA. One shows T-M70; the other shows T-CTS11984. There are also something like 18 mentions of "George All Sizemore" or a Y-line ancestor of his. All but one of these show a haplogroup of Q-M242; the sole exception shows Q-M346.

The Wikipedia article on Q-M242 says:


Q-M242 is the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup among Native Americans and several peoples of Central Asia and Northern Siberia. It is also the predominant Y-DNA of the Akha tribe in northern Thailand and the Dayak people of Indonesia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M242

So Q-M242 isn't exclusive to the Americas, nor is its subclade Q-M346. But it more common in the Americas than elsewhere. It's also generally believed that George All Sizemore was Native American. He was at least Native American in his father's line -- rather unusually. Most "white" Americans with Native American ancestry will trace back to a female as their most recent Native American ancestor.

George All is believed to have been born in Halifax County, Virginia, in 1750 and died in Kentucky -- most likely Clay County -- in 1822. By some accounts, George's wife Agnes Shepherd was also Native American; other accounts do not agree. Agnes was reportedly born in 1750 in Cherokee County, North Carolina, and died in 1833 in Leslie County, Kentucky.

I'm descended from George and Agnes through two of their children. Through their daughter Susan Sizemore, who married John Bowling; and through their son Henry "Hunting Shirt" Sizemore, who married Rachael Jones. At least five of those who show Q-M242 "George All Sizemore" as their most distant Y-line ancestor trace his lineage through Henry -- but again, this is Henry "Hunting Shirt" Sizemore, and not Henry W. Sizemore.

Susan, of course, as a female would not have continued her father's Y-line. Also, it turns out that there at least three individuals in the Sizemore DNA group who have traced their mtDNA back to Agnes Shepherd. Their mtDNA haplogroup is T2 in all three instances. Haplogroup "T" is thought to have had a Near East origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T_(mtDNA)

My maternal grandfather's mother was Hannah Louise (Muncy), and her connection to George All and Agnes is through both of her parents. Her father was a descendant of Susan Sizemore; and her mother was a descendant of Henry "Hunting Shirt" Sizemore.

But, since the thread is about the X chromosome, I'll mention again -- at least, I think I mentioned this in an earlier post -- only one of my five siblings shows any Native American on her X chromosome. This is my youngest sister, who like my other two sisters inherited an X chromosome from both our mother and our father. The Native American is from our mother's mother, which means it does not trace back to George All Sizemore.

Instead, it traces to our grandmother's ancestor Magdaleine Pany Baudreau. Magdaleine, according to her marriage record, was "the natural daughter of Jean Baptiste Baudreau and an Indian woman". (Natural daughter is a way of saying that her father was not married to her mother. Quite likely he owned her.)

Like my sister, I do have a couple of segments that may have come from Magdeleine's mother, just not on the X chromosome. Most of my X is from my maternal grandmother, and the little bit (20 cM) that is from my maternal grandmother does not trace back to Magdeleine -- or at least, not to her mother's side, and probably to a different ancestor altogether.

As a final point -- but again wandering a little from the topic -- I find it interesting that whereas 23andMe had shown my Native American ancestry as 2.3% before the most recent update, it is now 2.1% and half of that difference has been replaced by 0.1% "broadly Central and South Asian". The reason for this interest is that one of the two tiny segments associated with this ancestry is located immediate adjacent to my Native American segment on chromosome 18; the other segment is located at the end of chromosome 18.

I have no known ancestry from either Central or South Asia; but considering only Central Asia, 23andMe mentions says the reference datasets include Afghan, Burusho, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Pashtun, Pakistani from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Tajik, Uzbek, Turkmen.

It's thought that at least some of the ancestry Native Americans came from the region of the Altai Mountains. As it happens, Kazakhstan is located next door. In fact, the Altai Mountains are located "where Russia, China, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan come together". https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/2/120203-native-americans-siberia-genes-dna-science/

I think it's entirely possible that 23andMe has picked up a small amount of my Native American ancestry as being "Central Asian" for that reason, but it can't be any more specific because it isn't actually Central Asian, but connected to my Native American ancestry (reflecting their own, very distant ancestry). Just a thought.

vettor
12-05-2019, 04:28 AM
Yes, I've seen a couple of people named "William T. Sizemore" in the Sizemore DNA group at FTDNA. One shows T-M70; the other shows T-CTS11984. There are also something like 18 mentions of "George All Sizemore" or a Y-line ancestor of his. All but one of these show a haplogroup of Q-M242; the sole exception shows Q-M346.

The Wikipedia article on Q-M242 says:


Q-M242 is the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup among Native Americans and several peoples of Central Asia and Northern Siberia. It is also the predominant Y-DNA of the Akha tribe in northern Thailand and the Dayak people of Indonesia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M242

So Q-M242 isn't exclusive to the Americas, nor is its subclade Q-M346. But it more common in the Americas than elsewhere. It's also generally believed that George All Sizemore was Native American. He was at least Native American in his father's line -- rather unusually. Most "white" Americans with Native American ancestry will trace back to a female as their most recent Native American ancestor.

George All is believed to have been born in Halifax County, Virginia, in 1750 and died in Kentucky -- most likely Clay County -- in 1822. By some accounts, George's wife Agnes Shepherd was also Native American; other accounts do not agree. Agnes was reportedly born in 1750 in Cherokee County, North Carolina, and died in 1833 in Leslie County, Kentucky.

I'm descended from George and Agnes through two of their children. Through their daughter Susan Sizemore, who married John Bowling; and through their son Henry "Hunting Shirt" Sizemore, who married Rachael Jones. At least five of those who show Q-M242 "George All Sizemore" as their most distant Y-line ancestor trace his lineage through Henry -- but again, this is Henry "Hunting Shirt" Sizemore, and not Henry W. Sizemore.

Susan, of course, as a female would not have continued her father's Y-line. Also, it turns out that there at least three individuals in the Sizemore DNA group who have traced their mtDNA back to Agnes Shepherd. Their mtDNA haplogroup is T2 in all three instances. Haplogroup "T" is thought to have had a Near East origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T_(mtDNA)

My maternal grandfather's mother was Hannah Louise (Muncy), and her connection to George All and Agnes is through both of her parents. Her father was a descendant of Susan Sizemore; and her mother was a descendant of Henry "Hunting Shirt" Sizemore.

But, since the thread is about the X chromosome, I'll mention again -- at least, I think I mentioned this in an earlier post -- only one of my five siblings shows any Native American on her X chromosome. This is my youngest sister, who like my other two sisters inherited an X chromosome from both our mother and our father. The Native American is from our mother's mother, which means it does not trace back to George All Sizemore.

Instead, it traces to our grandmother's ancestor Magdaleine Pany Baudreau. Magdaleine, according to her marriage record, was "the natural daughter of Jean Baptiste Baudreau and an Indian woman". (Natural daughter is a way of saying that her father was not married to her mother. Quite likely he owned her.)

Like my sister, I do have a couple of segments that may have come from Magdeleine's mother, just not on the X chromosome. Most of my X is from my maternal grandmother, and the little bit (20 cM) that is from my maternal grandmother does not trace back to Magdeleine -- or at least, not to her mother's side, and probably to a different ancestor altogether.

As a final point -- but again wandering a little from the topic -- I find it interesting that whereas 23andMe had shown my Native American ancestry as 2.3% before the most recent update, it is now 2.1% and half of that difference has been replaced by 0.1% "broadly Central and South Asian". The reason for this interest is that one of the two tiny segments associated with this ancestry is located immediate adjacent to my Native American segment on chromosome 18; the other segment is located at the end of chromosome 18.

I have no known ancestry from either Central or South Asia; but considering only Central Asia, 23andMe mentions says the reference datasets include Afghan, Burusho, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Pashtun, Pakistani from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Tajik, Uzbek, Turkmen.

It's thought that at least some of the ancestry Native Americans came from the region of the Altai Mountains. As it happens, Kazakhstan is located next door. In fact, the Altai Mountains are located "where Russia, China, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan come together". https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/2/120203-native-americans-siberia-genes-dna-science/

I think it's entirely possible that 23andMe has picked up a small amount of my Native American ancestry as being "Central Asian" for that reason, but it can't be any more specific because it isn't actually Central Asian, but connected to my Native American ancestry (reflecting their own, very distant ancestry). Just a thought.

ok

just some clarity ........99% of T ydna have M70 snp ......................The oldest T found appears in Germany, Armenia and Bhutan

CTS11984 belongs to the T-L131 branch ...............or as most call it mow T1a2 branch .................CTS11984 now sits with CTS54 ( this is the main snp of that group )

all of these are central or south central asian people Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tajik, Uzbek, Turkmen.

the ancient term asiatics noted by ancient historians refers to asia minor ( now Anatolia )

for me .....although sizemore belongs to my T branch we seem to have no relationship , even though I have other british matches

good luck on your findings