Projection vs Proved Haplogroup

Private User answers: "Ian, I totally agree. I think this South African mtDNA - Female Progenitors project has a large part to play, in this regard, in future.

Instead of listing a number of living mtDNA descendants under a particular SM/PROG, list their descendants by their most recent common ancestor, clearly indicating projected / attributed haplogroup. Degree of testing i.e. HVR1, HVR2 or FMS also seems logical.

Knowing the most distant common ancestor is essential, but having tiers of more recent common ancestors that can be confirmed tier-by-tier would be incredibly helpful. Your example of Charlette Barron Hoppe and Glynis van der Walt's more recent common ancestor Maria Catharina Grobler is great, as their results are being used side-by-side as evidence toward an N21 haplogroup for Cathrina van Malabar.

Once Geni.com removes the 10 generation projection cap and profile managers are faced with three or four (or more?) project mtDNA haplogroups, things are going to get interesting. Having this project as reference would be invaluable."

I think these are very good points.

Before GEni was uploading & propagating DNA results, I was using the project and Curator notes to delineate broad research lines. The Haplogroup on the Prog's Curator note acting somewhat like a null hypotheses, until disproved.

I think dividing the project into broad Prog descendant categories (as it is now) is still important. As Drummond says: "Knowing the most distant common ancestor is essential"

But adding in a SubCategory under each Prog showing the Most Recent Common Ancestor confirmed by triangulation (or biangulation :-)) of two or more descendants is a really good step in clarifying what we almost certainly know, and what we only think we know.

I'm trying to think what a template for showing that might look like. Ideas?

Ian says
=Would it not be possible for each and every result to have one of the following appearing in brackets next to it:
- (predicted)
-(confirmed by test)
-(confirmed by triangulation)

This is important in that confirmed results can pinpoint mistakes in a tree. Whereas predicted results can only indicate a mistake somewhere along the line, they can't be used as reliable evidence until confirmed.=

Originally I thought about just nesting them under each other i.e.

*Catharina van Malabar N21?/u2c1?
**Adriaantje Gabrielsz u2c1
**Cornelia Pyl N21
***MRCA: Maria Catharina Grobler, confirmed FMS: Charlette Barron Hoppe and Glynis van der Walt.

There's also the option of linking to a SM/PROG specific project with a descendant report, adding the mtDNA results to that with the three points raised by Ian i.e. Geni.com projected, confirmed by test, triangulated etc.

Hace a look at our updated the Catharina van Malabar entry on the project:

*Catharina van Malabar SM/PROG Predicted Haplogroup N21 or U2C
mtDNA Descendants on Geni:
Charlette Hoppe [confirmed N21 by genetic test]
Glynis Van der Watt[confirmed N21 by genetic test]
Beth Hawkins [confirmed U2C genetic test]
Discussions
http://www.geni.com/discussions/142201?msg=997399
http://www.geni.com/discussions/152391?msg=1063888

Any ideas how to show that Charlette & Glynis's tests confirm by triangulation of their Most Recent Common Ancestor, that Cornelia Claasen Pyl, b3 SM is N21?
It has to be sufficiently intuitive that ordinary users can figure out how to input & understand it.

Sorry, cross-posted. Reading you post now.

That could work.
What does this mean?
=MRCA: Maria Catharina Grobler, confirmed FMS: Charlette Barron Hoppe and Glynis van der Walt.=
ie MRCA? and FMS?

Oh, Most Recent Common Ancestor :-/ I've just written it.

So I take it FMS is Full Mitochondrial Sequence? :-)

I gave it a quick edit, see what you think? Change it back if you don't like it.

Oh damn, I think we're both editing at the same time :-)
Put it here in case I edited over you :-)

*Catharina van Malabar SM/PROG Predicted Haplogroup N21 or U2C
mtDNA Descendants on Geni:

Maria Catharina Grobler [confirmed N21 by triangulation of: Charlette Hoppe & Glynis Van der Watt's genetic test results]
Charlette Hoppe [confirmed N21 by genetic test]
Glynis Van der Watt[confirmed N21 by genetic test]
Beth Hawkins [confirmed U2C by genetic test]

Discussions
http://www.geni.com/discussions/142201?msg=997399
http://www.geni.com/discussions/152391?msg=1063888

equal = almost equal ≈

Instead of a "top down" listing, another option would be to list each descendant's most distant confirmed ancestor:
(this would be similar to the way Y-DNA charts arrange descendants on FTDNA surname projects. For example:

Catharina van Malabar SM/PROG Predicted Haplogroup N21 or U2C
mtDNA Descendants on Geni:

Charlette Hoppe [confirmed N21 by genetic test] most DISTANT ancestor confirmed by triangulation =Maria Catharina Grobler.
Glynis Van der Watt[confirmed N21 by genetic test] most DISTANT ancestor confirmed by triangulation =Maria Catharina Grobler.
Beth Hawkins [confirmed U2C by genetic test]

Yes. That is another good way to do it. Thinking. ..
This project is so successful , partly because it encourages users to add and edit themselves. it has to do it in a way that is sufficiently intuitive to keep them doing it.
So we need to decide which way makes it most obvious to users how to input the info they have.

It seems to me that the aim of the project may predetermine a top- down approach. Prog categories are top down categories.

But the bottom-up approach does have the benefit of showing only living testees.
It does, however add more text into the project- the 'most distant ancestor confirmed by triangulation' ( here I'd add the names of the rest of the triangle or we lose data we have in the top down version) will need to be repeated for every user.

It may be, however, that I just liked your original nested categories so much, that I'm stuck in the groove of preferring them. Give me some time to wiggle my brain a bit :-)

I think the key is the common ancestor, for example, Gabriel Gert Fredrik Venter and I have matching h1ak1 mtDNA haplogroups. If we follow the lines back our most recent common ancestor happens to be Geetruij Willemsz. He's a descendant of Cornelia Helm and I'm a descendant of Maria Helm. Emmerentia Frederika Landman is a descendant of Dirkje Helm i.e. as I understand triangulation, we have three mtDNA results, from three different lines, belonging to three daughters of Geetruij Willemsz i.e. our most recent common ancestor also happens to be our most distant common ancestor and confirmed haplogroup is h1ak1.

What would the best way be to illustrate that? I think:
*Geertruij Helm, SM/PROG
**Dirkje Neeff, b5 SM
***Emmerentia Frederika Landman h1ak1 FMS FTDNA
**Maria Helm, b3 SM/PROG
***Private User h1ak1 FMS FTDNA
**Cornelia van den Bosch
***Gabriel Gert Fredrik Venter h1ak1 FMS FTDNA

Just a thought. The only limitation is Geni.com project formatting, in my opinion, as the suggestion by Ian re: table of members, showing each MDCA with mtDNA haplogroup would be great.

Could upload the table as an image? And reference image in main project page?

C.Barry the almost equal symbol idea is a good one. I'm trying to figure out a shorthand to show 'predicted' on Curator notes, which have space limitations.
I cannot, however, find an easily accessible key on my tablet for it. It may be that there is one on my laptop: I'll go and look upstairs once my coffee had kicked in :-), but we immediately face the difficulty that users need to be able to find it easy to do if they're going to edit the project themselves.

Good morning Sharon Doubell

A good approximation symbol is the standard symbol for a predicted outcome, which is a y with a circumflex (U+0177)

http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/0177/index.htm

Hmm, but I can't put a kappie on top of my letters using my present keyboard anyway ... :-)

While (U+0177), I'm afraid to admit, is Greek to me :-)

Drummond, I've been thinking about your earlier point about linking to a specifically created project. Were you thinking to have one for each of the Stammoeders?

In that case, there would have to be sufficient info on it to justify that using a section of the About on their profile would not work just as well.
But, for a couple of the Progs - with multiple tested descendants, this might be justifiable. It does, however, need people prepared to put in the work to do it. Just creating hypertexted matrilineal lines for two different users can take a whole evening.

On the link to an image of a table. This is not something everday users can easily update, so it could only be in addition to the data on the project - and somebody would have to volunteer to keep it updated. (hint hint :-))

We have to remember that the priority for this project is to get people to add their DNA results under their predicted Prog ancestor.
So it has to be intuitive to figure out, and easy to do with the basic editing options Geni provides.

We can expect many more NPE (non-parental events) along the way as more Geni users begin adding their DNA results to Geni.

If two or more people have the same stammoeder but do not share the same mtDNA haplogroup, there needs to be an easy reference as to why it is so, preferably in the Curator's note.

In genetic genealogy circles the term NPE is commonly known and used to refer to this type of situation. Just note the inconsistency by using the abbreviation NPE

The profiles from different lineages (branches) that share the stammoeder and have the same mtDNA haplogroup should then revert to the main mtDNA lineage.

Hope this is helpful ...

The updated mtDNA project is looking good! I think the system works nicely :)
Was your example for Geertriuj Willemsz theoretical Drummond?.....or will she be our first and only SM/PROG with a confirmed haplo?

This discussion caught my eye. On this topic, I am administering the "South African mtDNA" Group Project" on FTDNA. I started that project about 8 years ago when I could not find any matches with my own results. I also thought at the time that it was a good idea to organise incoming results and to identify South African progenitresses (stammoeders) through mtDNA. Many groups were lookiung after yDNA, esp by surname - but mtDNA was being neglected.

The results are currently organised by haplogroup to enable the comparison of results and hopefully the identification of (common) ancestors. I am able to change the classification system.

Technology have come a long way since 2008, and I have been looking for fresh ideas (and assistance) to take that project forward. It sounds like there may be some synergy here given the ftDNA/Geni initiative. Opinions?

Thanks for all mucking in guys. It is looking good. Private User messaged me about duplicates of C Barry & Beth Hawkins. I don't see any - so I assume he just looked mid page edit?

Very welcome Private User - your FTDNA project pages are awesome! Feeding info between them and geni sounds like a win/win situation - &,as you say, - only logical.

Private User, on putting Non Parental Event in the Curator note. Walk me through that a bit... I'm just not seeing that being so common on the Matrilineal tree. To me, it references a situation where the person who thought he was the father (or, in this case, the person who thought she was the mother) wasn't. In the mother's case that must involve babies being swapped at birth, to my mind.

Is NPE commonly used in genetic genealogy to indicate a situation where the genealogist has got the paper trail wrong?