A couple weeks ago, when I was writing about lineage societies for the open thread, I cut a paragraph about how lineage societies don't accept DNA evidence for membership. The diary was getting too long, but it's a good thing I deleted that statement, as it is no longer completely true.
Follow me over the the Great Orange Doodle for more about how DNA research is being used to enhance traditional genealogical research.
As I've written here before, I've had DNA analysis done, and it hasn't led me to any new discoveries. I'm the sole McGee family in Group 2 of the McGee project, for example.
Ancestry has very recently changed how it reports autosomal DNA results. This change didn't change the matches ~ just the ethnicity results. Anoither explanation/analysis of the changes is ate the blog The Genetic Genealogist (that blog is very much a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the topic).
Under the previous way of reporting results, I'd been about evenly split between Scandinavian and British Isles ancestry, with a bit of unassigned. Under the new version, it's 43% western Europe, 30% Ireland, 11% Iberian Peninsula, 4% Great Britain, and smaller miscellaneous others. It also now reports a range for each ethnicity (the above percentages fall about in the middle of the ranges), so I'm guessing my western Europe is closer to the 22% that is the bottom of the range, as I only have two lines that I've found that don't go back to Britain/Ireland in the 1600 to 1700 range, so even allowing for earlier/prehistoric migrations, 43% seems high....but we'll see ~ I'm sure testing will get much more detailed in my lifetime.
But no actual matches for me closer than about 10th cousins (and only a couple of those, with a common ancestor from about 1650) so far :-(
Despite the lack of success personally, there is a lot of interesting work being done with genealogical DNA testing.
So, on the DAR ~ it won't be accepting lines based only on DNA, but it will (as of January) allow Y-DNA evidence to be used with other, more traditional proof of descent for new memberships.
Thoughts on this: guessing it won't really change much in how lineage societies do their memberships, at least as the technology is now. Likely most useful for cases where two unrelated men with the same name settled in the Midwest (or other places, like northeastern PA and northwestern Maine, where land was given in place of cash pensions) after the Revolution, and DNA can sort out which family in older settlements each man belongs to ~ but the research/paperwork to show the DNA connections may be more than the traditional requirements by a fair bit, as proving multiple lines will likely be necessary.
Some of what is being done is just plain fun ;-) It's a few years old, but this study of Genghis Khan's DNA is a good example of how one powerful man's DNA can survive.
Another interesting finding was that Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak (despite having the same family name as her husband, with both lines originating in the same small village in Slovakia) didn't share a Y-DNA line (her father was tested) with her husband. Note: video is 17 minutes long ~ we'll wait if you get distracted ;-)
Scientists of identified relatives of Otzi the Iceman, a 5000 year old body found in the Alps in 1991. Similarly, scientists found relatives of 'Cheddar Man' in the same area of England, 9000 or so years later. Another round-up of ancient DNA results ~ only short bits about each finding, but with links to more details. Ditto for this summary of 'famous' DNA.
The International Society of Genetic Genealogy has links to many geographical DNA projects.
An 80 year old man, raised in an orphanage, found his birth family.
So....
Have you have a DNA test done? If so, which kind (Y-DNA {straight paternal line), mitochondrial {straight maternal line}, or autosomal)? Have the results led to any new discoveries?
Have you seen other fun stories about DNA-related genealogical findings?