Wednesday 26 June 2024

Finding Grace - update June 2024

Group 3a of the O'Malley DNA Project represents the O'Malley clan of Mayo, of which Grace O'Malley (the Pirate Queen) is the most famous member. And presumably, if we could test Grace's direct male forbears, they would also belong to Group 3a. The Finding Grace project was set up to try to establish the specific Y-DNA signature of Grace O'Malley's great great grandfather, Dermot (born about 1400 AD). Previous articles about the Finding Grace project are available here, here, and here.

There are now 53 participants in Group 3a (the largest in the O'Malley DNA Project) and of these 40 have undertaken SNP marker testing (mainly the Big Y test). The SNP testing allows us to place these participants on very specific branches of the Tree of Mankind (a.k.a. Y-Haplotree). This is summarised in the diagram below which is from FTDNA's Group Time Tree (available here).

The overarching SNP marker for the entire group is BY35730, which was passed down to every single member of Group 3a by a common ancestor who lived about 750 AD (current estimate 765 AD, range 417-1044 ... see here). The next descendant branch is BY35760, and this was passed on to all but one of the members of Group 3a by a common ancestor who lived about 1100 AD (current estimate 1106 AD, range 862-1304 ... see here). Thereafter, there are two descendant branches - FTC73000, which was passed on by an ancestor who lived about 1200 AD (see here); and FT86146, which was passed down by an ancestor who lived about 1250 AD (see here). The FT86146 branch is the largest branch within Group 3a, and 30 of the 40 SNP-tested participants sit on this branch (or one of its sub-branches).


The above diagram is in 3 parts and you can click on each part to enlarge that section. Also, a pdf version of the above diagram is available to download here.

For the Finding Grace project, we tracked down 13 men whose genealogy indicated that they reportedly descended (along a direct male line) from Dermot (born about 1400), the great great grandfather of Grace O'Malley. These 13 men sat on 3 major branches below Dermot:

  • Line 1 - the 5 men on this branch are reported to descend from Melaghlin (born about 1545), a supposed brother of Grace O'Malley. The Ross House O'Malley's are part of this branch as are some Achill O'Malley's. Three of the 5 members did the Big Y test.
  • Line 2 - the 6 men on this branch are Kilmilkin O'Malleys and are reported to descend from an uncle of Grace O'Malley, namely Dermot (born about 1490). Three of the 6 men did the Big Y test.
  • Line 3 - the 2 men on this branch are from the Ballyburke O'Malley family. They are reported to descend from Donal (born about 1430), who is supposed to be a brother of Grace's great grandfather. Both men did the Big Y test.
These three lines, and the reported connections between them, are illustrated in the diagram below.

The reported genealogy of the 13 descendants of Grace O'Malley's great great grandfather
(click to enlarge)

Our plan was to test the 13 men initially with the Y-DNA-37 test, and thereafter (if indicated) upgrade each one of them to the Big Y test. The Y-DNA-37 test assesses 37 DNA markers, the Big Y test assesses over 200,000 DNA markers (and, as mentioned above, allows people to be placed on very specific branches of the Tree of Mankind). This higher level test was able to determine beyond any doubt that there are significant inconsistencies between the reported genealogies and the DNA data.

The first major finding was that the Kilmilkin O'Malley's of Line 2 were not related to Group 3a at all. They belong to Group 3g, which shares a common ancestor (DF105) with Group 3a (the Mayo O'Malleys) who lived about 200 AD (see here). This could possibly indicate a long-standing error in the genealogies, or an NPE (Non-Paternity Event, or DNA switch) that occurred some time prior to 1600 (the age estimate for the FTC36168 branch that the Kilmlkin O'Malleys sit on is currently 1573, range 1300-1763 ... see here). Either way, because of this DNA disconnect, the data from Line 2 was not going to be helpful in our quest to identify the Y-DNA signature of Grace O'Malley's great great grandfather.

The second finding was that the Line 1 O'Malleys did not match each other as expected. The Ross House O'Malleys sat on the FTC67000 branch whereas the Achill O'Malleys sat on the FTC91082 branch. These two branches have a common genetic ancestor in branch FT86146, which has a current age estimate of 1255 AD (range 1048-1422 ... see here). This genetic age estimate is very different to the birth year of their reported genealogical common ancestor, namely Teige O'Malley born about 1655. So this finding suggests an error in the genealogies, or an NPE (DNA switch).

The third major finding was that the Line 3 O'Malleys of Ballyburke sit on exactly the same branch as the Ross House O'Malleys of Line 1, namely FTC67000. The age estimate for this DNA marker is currently 1669 AD (range 1451-1820 ... see here), which is far removed from the estimated birth year of their genealogical common ancestor, namely Dermot (born about 1400), the great great grandfather of Grace O'Malley. So this result also indicates a discrepancy between what the genealogies say and what DNA tells us. Again, this could be due to a long-standing error in the genealogies or an NPE / DNA switch.

The genealogical data with genetic data superimposed on top,
demonstrating the mismatch between the genealogical and genetic data (2023 data)
(click to enlarge)

Nevertheless, the data produced so far by the Finding Grace project allows us to generate some hypotheses that can be tested as we move forward. Firstly, it seems reasonable to assume that one or both of Line 1 & 3 descend from the O'Malley chieftain line. And as they both sit on the same branch (FTC67000), then one of the upstream SNP markers is likely to have been carried by an O'Malley chief. Now, we know that Grace's great great grandfather Dermot was born about 1400 and thus he may very well have carried a SNP marker above FTC6700 that is estimated to have arisen around this time. So let's look at the list of ancestral SNP markers above FTC67000 ...

  • R-BY35730 > BY35760 > FT86146 > FTA85293 > FTC67000

... and the respective current age estimates for each of these branches is as follows ...

  • FTC67000 ... 1669 AD (range 1451-1820 ... see here)
  • FTA85293 ... 1424 AD (range 1158-1621 ... see here)
  • FT86146 ... 1255 AD (range 1048-1422 ... see here)
  • BY35760 ... 1106 AD (range 862-1304 ... see here)
  • BY35730 ... 765 AD (range 417-1044 ... see here)

As Dermot's estimated birth year (i.e. 1400) falls within the current range for both FTA85293 and FT86146, it seems probable that he carried the SNP marker FT86146, and it seems possible that he carried the SNP marker FTA85293, and passed them on to all his descendants, including the O'Malleys of Line 1 and Line 3.

The portion of the Big Y Block Tree showing BY35760 > FT86146 > FTA85293 > FTC67000

Also, because the FT86146 branch is relatively the most successful branch in Group 3a (30 of 40 SNP-tested members sit here), this could indicate that it represents the royal line, which, being wealthier and more powerful than the lines of more common folk, would have produced more surviving descendants.

Another line of enquiry would be to explore the other descendant branches of FTA85293 for additional clues. Members who sit of the FGC50642 branch include the Michigan O'Malleys and members called Mealue.

The genetic neighbours of Line 1 & Line 3 (2023 data)

Hopefully, over time, additional Big Y test results will further illuminate this current working theory. And we are still in search of extensive O'Malley lineages to test, in the hope that new Big Y results will throw light on some of the remaining questions. We are currently pursuing a branch of O'Malley's in France that dates back to the 1500s ... the trouble is we have yet to identify a direct male line that has survived to the present day. 

But hope springs eternal.


Maurice Gleeson
June 2024



 


Thursday 16 May 2024

Update on Group 5 (May 2024)

New Big Y results recently came back from the lab for a member of Group 5 of the O'Malley DNA Project and this has spurred me to write an update on this particular group.

Group 5 now contains 4 members, two of whom have results from SNP testing - one man did the Big Y test, but the other man received a Y-DNA haplogroup designation as part of the new feature on FTDNA that gives very top-level Y-DNA results from the analysis of autosomal DNA results (i.e. via FTDNA's "Family Finder" test). Further haplogroup assignments for the other group members may follow in the coming months as FTDNA continues to roll out this new feature.

Group 5 on the public Results Page

The new Big Y results indicate that Group 5 project members are associated with the SNP marker FT91246 which in turn is a descendant of YP564. The list of ancestral SNPs is as follows and age estimates for each ancestral SNP can be found here (note that the current estimates differ considerably from those postulated in the previous project update for Group 5):

  • R-M198 > M417 > PF6162 > Z283 > Z282 > Z280 > S24902 > FT3245 > YP561 > YP564 > YP566 > YP4668 > YP4664 > YP4660 > YP6007 > FT91190 > YP6008 > FT91246

This is illustrated more fully on the Time Tree below to which I have been able to add (some) information on surnames and EKAs (Earliest Known Ancestors) associated with the branches in this portion of the Tree of Mankind (Y-Haplotree). This information was gathered by doing a simple google search for the SNP marker associated with each branch (e.g. "FTDNA FT91246") and finding projects that contained the information on their public Results Page or their Group Time Tree. In fact, all the available information below was gathered from the Joyce DNA Project.

Time Tree with Surnames for Group 5
click to enlarge

The most striking aspect of this "genetic family tree" is that the single Group 5 O'Malley individual is surrounded on all sides by men called Joyce. There are 13 of them (in blue above) and they all fall under the overarching SNP marker YP6007, which is associated with an age estimate of somewhere between 760 & 1219 AD (with a central estimate of about 1013 AD). And this suggests that the Joyce surname (which was reportedly a Norman name of Welsh origin that was evident in Ireland by the end of the 1100s) was passed on "hand in hand" with the SNP marker YP6007.

The Group 5 O'Malley individual shares a common ancestor with the Joyce men on the FT91246 branch and this ancestor would have lived about 1434 AD (95% CI 1256-1576 AD).

So it seems that the Group 5 O'Malley's have probably been carrying the O'Malley surname for several hundred years, but prior to about 1450, the surname associated with their genetic signature was originally Joyce. Currently we do not know why there was a change in the surname from Joyce to O'Malley, but this could have been due to a variety of different factors, both modern and medieval.

Only one member in Group 5 has supplied a geographic origin for their EKA and that is Kilmilkin (Kilmeelickin), right in the heart of Joyce Country in Co. Galway (see previous post).

If some or all of the other O'Malley men in Group 5 did the Big Y test, this would give us a much better estimate of when the switch from Joyce to O'Malley occurred.

Maurice Gleeson
May 2024





Tuesday 7 February 2023

The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Puzzle in the O’Malley Family Tree

There was fierce debate between O'Malley genealogists in the late 1800s and early 1900s regarding how certain ancestral lines of the wider O'Malley clan connected to the ancient "royal" line of the chieftains. Brendan O'Malley (former Clan Chieftain & my fellow DNA Project Administrator) has been exploring the correspondence that was exchanged back and forth between the intrepid genealogists of the day, and reports on some of his findings in the article below.

Maurice Gleeson
February 2023

The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Puzzle in the O’Malley Family Tree

by Brendan O’Malley

The Project

The Finding Grace project seeks to identify the genetic signature of Grace O’Malley, the famous pirate queen, so that present day O’Malleys and possible descendants of her O’Flaherty and Bourke husbands can use DNA testing to establish how closely they may be related to her. The first phase of the project has been to study the historical record in order to trace possible modern day descendants of her immediate O’Malley ancestors. See the accompanying family tree diagram to see the relationships between the individuals named in this article.

Grace O’Malley

We know that Grace was born around 1530, the only daughter of the Chieftain of the O’Malley clan, Owen Dubhdara O’Malley. At that time, the O’Malleys ruled over the Barony of Murrisk, or Umhall Uachtarach, including the lands on the south and east side of Clew Bay in Co. Mayo, as well as the islands large and small that are such a feature of the area.

Grace’s life and achievements, as well as the details of her immediate family are well documented in Anne Chambers’ definitive biography, based on extensive research in the English state papers. These archives include Grace’s correspondence with Lord Burghley ahead of her visit to the court of Queen Elizabeth 1st at Greenwich in 1593.

In Ireland, the oldest written records are the Annals, which record significant events affecting the great landholding families, including battles, marriages, deaths and genealogies of chieftains. Many of these genealogies reach back over 2,000 years, but prior to 600 AD, they are generally regarded by academic scholars as unreliable. Genealogies were well preserved in the oral tradition, as they were very important in determining who had the right to occupy which pieces of land and who had to pay what tribute (usually in the form of livestock or grain) to whom as a result. These oral histories were often written down for the first time many years or centuries later. There are several events recorded in the Annals relating to O’Malleys, Lords of Umhall.

From these various sources, we can determine with some certainty that Grace was the daughter of Owen Dubhdara, son of Cormac (who died in 1523), son of Owen (killed in a raid on Killybegs in 1513), son of Dermot, probably born in the early 1400s. For the purposes of the project, we decided to start by looking for possible male O’Malley descendants of Dermot who would be willing to take a Y-DNA test. Any similarities in these tests could then help us to verify or correct the historical record and zero in on Dermot’s Y-DNA signature. Y-DNA is only present in men and, like surname, is passed down from father to son with very little variation from generation to generation. It is these small variations that provide the genetic markers we are looking for.

The Records

To follow the lines of descent from Dermot, we looked at the work done by other genealogical scholars. These scholars researched the annals and later records relating to ownership of land, as the English regime gradually spread into Connacht and the chieftains either submitted and held on to their lands, or were replaced and some or all of their lands passed to others.

  • In 1832, Sir Samuel O’Malley of Rose Hill in Co Mayo, commissioned the Chief Herald of Ireland, Sir William Betham, to produce a pedigree for him. It is a beautifully produced leatherbound book, which today is in the library of the University of Galway. 
  • In the early 1900s, Dr Austin O’Malley of Philadelphia investigated the family history and in 1913 produced a short history of the clan plus a list (very much in the style of the annals) of O’Malley-related events from the year 190 up to 1913. There is a copy in the National Library of Ireland. 
  • Major Harold O’Malley and his brother Captain Tyrrell O’Malley, sons of Middleton Moore O’Malley of Ross House, near Newport in Co Mayo, inherited the Betham pedigree and other papers. In the 1940s, they engaged with the Genealogical Office to have corrections made to Betham’s pedigree, seeking to bring it more in line with Dr Austin’s version. Their correspondence is in the library of the University of Galway.
  • Prof Conor O’Malley of Galway was another who researched the O’Malleys and who commissioned a coat of arms from the Genealogical Office in the 1940s. He was one of the founders of the O’Malley Clan Association.
  • A little later, Sir Owen O’Malley on his retirement to Carrigahowley from the UK Foreign Office after the second World War, also conducted considerable research into the family. He published several papers through the Galway Historical and Archaeological Society and wrote a detailed manuscript on the Belclare branch of the O’Malleys. His papers are in the National Library in Dublin. He was also one of the founders of the O’Malley Clan Association.

Dr Austin, Harold, Tyrrell, Sir Owen and Prof Conor published articles, wrote to newspapers and corresponded with each other and with the Genealogical Office (successor to the Chief Herald’s office after 1943), frequently disagreeing with each other in fairly heated terms! An important issue for several of them was to establish which line of descent was “the Chieftain branch” and which were of lesser rank. This quest was of dubious significance given that the chieftainship of Irish clans passed on the death or dispossession of the Chieftain to his pre-selected second-in-command, the Tánaiste. This man was the strongest candidate of the wider family members (usually out to second cousins), and not necessarily the eldest son of the former chieftain. When the English system of primogeniture was forcibly introduced, it applied to titles conferred by the English crown and to the inheritance of land, but the old Irish chieftainships largely died out and Owen of Burrishoole (1650 – 1738) is generally considered to have been the last Gaelic chieftain of the O’Malleys.

There are several branches of the O’Malleys who claim descent from Dermot, although the details of their trees vary. The main areas of disagreement and uncertainty relate to the period from Grace’s time, in the late fifteenth century through to the late seventeenth century. Those two hundred years saw the transition from the old gaelic chieftains to the dominance of English law and the sovereignty of the English Crown. This transition led to numerous disputes over land between those with rights under the old system and those who embraced the new. Furthermore, in that period, there are multiple Owens, Edwards, Thomases and Teiges who seem to have been confused with each other in some cases, resulting in the attaching of some family lines to the wrong ancestor. This is becoming very clear thanks to DNA, which is helping to identify inconsistencies between the genetic family tree and the reported family trees. 

Key Figures

Some key figures are of particular interest, as we can place reasonable levels of confidence in the records showing their descendants, even if there is less certainty about their own connections back to Dermot.

  • Captain Charles O’Malley (1635-1710)
  • Captain Thomas O’Malley (No definite dates, but around the same time as the others)
  • Owen O’Malley of Burrishoole (1650 – 1738)
  • Eamonn an Saighdiur O’Malley (1644 – 1712)

Family Tree of the royal line of Grace O'Malley
(click to enlarge)



The previous diagram in 3 sections
(click to enlarge)


Captain Charles O’Malley (1635 – 1710) of Belclare was a Jacobite officer (supporter of the Catholic King James II) and went with the King into exile in France after his defeat by the Protestant King William 1st. Sir Owen O’Malley published a letter from Captain Charles dated 1691 to his son Teige in Ireland discussing the prospects of recovery of their lands in Mayo and advising Teige not to pursue a claim until King James might be restored to the throne – which of course never happened. Charles died at St Germain-en-Laye in France.

By some accounts, he was also called Cormac Dubh (dark-haired Cormac), although there is no primary evidence to support the existence of a Cormac Dubh. He may or may not have been a son of Edmond of Cahernamart, son of Owen of Cahernamart (often referred to as the Great Chief), a great great grandson of Dermot, our starting point.

Charles is the ancestor of the Belclare line, including the O’Malleys of Hawthorn Lodge, of Prospect and of Snugborough, near Castlebar. Sir Owen O’Malley’s family and a branch descended from Charles Anthony O’Malley who emigrated to Canada in 1844 are also descended from him. Sir Owen and other family genealogists were very clear that this line descended from the Cahernamart Chieftains of the O’Malleys. Unfortunately, the direct male line appears to have died out in all of these lines of descent, so we cannot make use of DNA testing to establish just how Captain Charles and his descendants may have connected back to Dermot.

Captain Thomas O’Malley was born in the early 1600s, although we do not have definite dates for him. He was a Captain in Owen Roe O’Neill’s army, which fought in Ireland between 1642 and O’Neill’s death in 1649. He had a son, William of Caher, who in turn had a son, Teige of Achill. Teige married Mary MacSweeney of Rathmullen in Donegal. Their son Owen, born in 1695, held the family farm at Slievemore in Achill, where some of his descendants still live today, while others have been traced to Cleveland in the USA. Another son of Teige and Mary was Edmund, who married Martha Crump and had 4 sons. One of these sons, Edmund, had descendants who moved to Philadelphia, among whom was Dr Austin, whose researches referred to above have been the source of many versions of the family tree. We have found no living descendants of this Philadelphia line. Another son, Teige (born about 1725), was the father of Peter, a saddler who lived in Westport and was the father of Middleton Moore O’Malley of Ross House, several of whose descendants are alive today.

The various sources mentioned above agree that Captain Thomas’ father was called Edmond, but which Edmond was he? Dr Austin wrote that he was Edmond, chief of his name, who lived from 1579 – 1651 and that he in turn was the son of Melaghlin, Chieftain in 1576 and mentioned as such in the Composition of Mayo 1585. Controversially, Dr Austin further asserted that Melaghlin was a son of Owen Dubhdara and therefore a brother of Grace O’Malley. In correspondence in 1945 with Major Harold, Terrence Grey of the Genealogical Office, opined that Captain Thomas’ father Edmond was Edmond of Cahernamart (also 1579 – 1651!), the son of Owen of Cahernamart, known as the Great Chief, who had a well-documented dispute with Tibbot-na-Long Burke (Grace’s son) over land in 1602. Betham shows Edmond of Cahernamart as the son of Owen of Cahernamart, but says he had no children.

This Owen was mentioned in the Composition of Mayo 1585 as Owen of Cahernamart, Gentleman, and in an Inquisition of 1607 as Owen O’Malley of Cahernamart, Chief of his name. We don’t have an exact date for Melaghlin’s death, but it would seem that Owen succeeded him as Chieftain sometime between 1585 and 1607. Owen is shown in the Betham pedigree as the great-grandson of Donal O’Malley and his wife Bridget O’Neill of Tullyvanagh. Donal was the brother of Grace O’Malley’s ancestor Owen (another Owen!) O’Malley killed in Killybegs in 1513, and so a son of the Dermot who we have chosen as our starting point. Betham does not mention Melaghlin at all. Grey, however, suggests that Melaghlin was not the son of Owen Dubhdara but of his brother Dermot and so was Grace’s first cousin rather than her brother. Ann Chambers, Grace’s biographer is adamant that Grace had no full siblings and only one half-brother, Donal-na-Pioba.

So Captain Thomas may have been descended from Dermot via Melaghlin (according to Dr Austin, but unlikely), or via Owen of Cahernamart (according to Terrence Grey).

Owen of Burrishoole (1650 – 1738) was an important figure and is generally held to have been the last of the O’Malley Chieftains. According to Dr. Austin, he was an officer in the Jacobite army in 1689. In Betham’s pedigree, he is shown as having two sons, George and Patrick, but other accounts describe 4 more: James, Austin, Peter and Owen. It was the custom at the time and well into the nineteenth century that genealogies only included members of the established (Protestant) church. Catholic marriages were not recognised and any resulting children were seen as illegitimate, at least as far as inheritance was concerned. At Owen’s time, there was considerable pressure on landholders to convert to the established church and his sons George and Patrick certainly did so. George was the ancestor of Sir Samuel, first baronet O’Malley and Patrick’s grandson was Major-General George O’Malley of the British Army, who served under Wellington at the battle of Waterloo in 1815 and later commanded the Connaught Rangers. George’s line died out, but the Ballyburke O’Malleys descend from Patrick and there are several of them alive today in Co Mayo and elsewhere.

Of the other 4 sons of Owen of Burrishoole, who remained Catholic, we have no record of Austin; James was the father of Seamus Bán, hanged as a rebel after the defeat of the French at the battle of Ballinamuck in 1798. The third son Owen’s grandsons Joseph and Austin were also on the losing side, but survived, with Austin emigrating to France to serve in Napoleon’s Irish legion where he married a French woman and his son Auguste-André O’Malley became a major-general in the French army. The fourth son Peter was the grandfather of the infamous Captain George the smuggler. Unfortunately, none of these direct male lines survive to today.

Owen of Burrishoole’s descent from Dermot, like the other key figures above, is not entirely certain. The Betham pedigree showed his father as Edmond Oge, son of Owen O’Malley of Lecanvey, while Dr Austin’s version has his father as Edmond Bacach (in Irish, Bacach means ‘lame’) of Clare Island, son of Owen O’Malley of Lecanvey. Both show Owen of Lecanvey’s father as Tully-na-Mart, great grandson of Tuathal of Kilgeever, son of Donal, and grandson of Dermot. This version would make Owen of Lecanvey a fourth cousin to Captain Thomas. Grey, however, suggests that Owen of Lecanvey might have been a son of Edmond of Cahernamart and therefore a brother of Captain Thomas.

Eamonn an Saighdiur O’Malley (1644 – 1712) is the ancestor of the Kilmilkin O’Malleys from the Maam valley in Co Galway. He was reputedly a soldier in Colonel John Browne’s regiment, raised in 1689 in support of King James II, and a descendant of Dermot, brother to Owen Dubhdara, Grace’s father. The pedigree of the Kilmilkin O’Malleys was featured in an article by Prof Conor O’Malley entitled ‘Memories of a Connemara Childhood’ and was also recorded in several family memoirs, notably based on the recollections of Bartley O’Malley (1844 – 1926) who was regarded as knowing all there was to know about the family history. Eamonn an Saighdiúr’s great grandson Sean na Fírinne (Truthful John) O’Malley (1740 – 1801) was Bartley’s great grandfather and has many descendants via his sons Tomás and Pádraig. Many of this family have had distinguished medical careers in Ireland and the USA.

Combining the historical record with Y-DNA tests

The O’Malley DNA project now includes tests on 303 people, of which 155 are men who have taken a Y-DNA test. They have been divided into groups with similar genetic patterns. The largest group - 46 in all, share a Mayo ancestry and have been called the Mayo group 3a. Five of these appear on historical family trees as descendants of Dermot (our chosen starting point) and have taken a Big Y test. A second group of 8 are the Kilmilkin O’Malleys, descendants of Sean na Fírinne, labelled group 3g and three of these have taken a Big Y test.

Within the Mayo group 3a, DNA testing of two of the Ballyburke O’Malleys, descendants of Owen of Burrishoole, gives a common ancestor born in a timeframe centred on 1845, which fits very well with the William G O’Malley born in 1845 shown on their family tree.

The next oldest genetic marker that we have found in the Ballyburke line is FTC67000, which is shared with the Ross House O’Malleys, whose family tree shows them as descendants of Captain Thomas. The common ancestor who passed down DNA marker FT67000 to all his O’Malley descendants is estimated with 95% statistical confidence to have been born in a date range of 1451-1820, centred on the year 1669 AD. [3] This result implies a closer relationship between these two branches (Ballyburke and Ross House) than would be indicated by their family trees, even agreeing with Grey that Owen of Lecanvey was Captain Thomas’ brother. From a DNA perspective, Owen of Burrishoole (born in 1650) is the most likely candidate for a common ancestor of both lines. However, the range of possible dates for this common ancestor is wide, so does not definitely prove that the family trees are wrong.

Within Group 3g, DNA testing has come up with a definitive genetic signature for Sean na Fírinne. Unfortunately, this does not match the O’Malley men in Mayo Group 3a, which makes it clear that there was a DNA switch somewhere along Sean na Fírinne’s direct male line. So even though his descent from Dermot 1400 was accepted, the DNA switch makes this impossible to confirm.

The Results so far

One important point needs to be made. DNA testing can show how closely the people tested are related to each other. By testing sufficient numbers a genetic family tree can be built, showing genetic lines of descent. However, this process cannot tell who these common ancestors were. Only by combining the historical record with the DNA results can we hope to build an accurate picture.

DNA testing so far has given us two genetic signatures that we can tie to specific ancestors with a high degree of confidence, namely FTC6857 being passed down by William G O’Malley of Ballyburke (1847-1925) and FTC36168 being passed down by Sean na Fírinne of Kilmilkin (1740-1801). In both cases, their family records indicate descent from Dermot 1400, our starting point, but, because of the DNA switch on the Kilmilkin line, this does not help us triangulate on the DNA signature of Dermot 1400.

We have also identified a number of earlier markers that are significant, even though we cannot as yet tie them to specific historical individuals. The DNA markers that appear to be closest in age to Dermot 1400 are FT86146 and its descendant branch FTA85293. The common ancestor who passed down DNA marker FT86146 to all his O’Malley descendants is estimated with 95% statistical confidence to have been born in a date range of 1064-1448 centred on the year 1278 AD. In the case of DNA marker FTA85293, the 95% confidence date range is 1148-1642, centred on 1434 AD. One of these markers may be the characteristic Y-DNA marker of Dermot 1400. [1,2]

Where we go from here

Only adding new results from other family members will help to narrow down the date ranges and establish at what historical point their lines merge. We have a number of potential candidates to test and continue to search for records of other people who by taking the Y-DNA test could add to our knowledge. Despite the dead ends that have arisen in several lines of descent, there are potentially many more, where the historical record is yet to be discovered. Who knows what old notebooks or legal papers are languishing in attics or old legal files? Perhaps some O’Malley sleuth will uncover a clue or two to help the project move forward.

We also continue to look for funding to help pay for Big Y tests. Our GoFundMe page is at: https://gofund.me/a6fadccd and we have also received donations via the general fund at : https://www.familytreedna.com/group-general-fund-contribution.aspx?g=Maley

In the longer term, we plan to look at Grace’s direct descendants through her marriages to Donal O’Flaherty and Richard Bourke. There are extensive historical records of both families, so there are definite opportunities to make progress along this line.

We will continue to post updates from time to time as we discover more.

Brendan O'Malley






Monday 12 September 2022

Multiple WATO Analyses identify my O'Malley 2x great grandfather

This guest post from project member Georgiann Gibson is a wonderful example of how the right use of the right tools can help DNA to break through your O'Malley Brick Wall and identify an extra generation of ancestors. Georgiann takes us through the various  methods she used to try to tackle her genealogical conundrum, and finally, with a lot of tenacity, all her hard work paid off. Enjoy!

Update (Sep 18th): some additional commentary is included at the end of the article based on feedback from various discussions on Facebook. This comes after the photos at the end, and addresses some of the more technical aspects of the article.

Standby for another major update coming soon!! (Oct 4th)

Maurice Gleeson


Like most Americans, my ancestry is mixed. My lineage traces back through several European and Scandinavian countries. While my siblings and I were curious about our ancestry as children, my Dad always insisted that we were “just Americans”. Of course, we and our parents were born in the U.S., but his patriotism was undoubtedly heightened because of his service in the South Pacific campaign of WWII. However, within our family there was always a reverence for the Irish. The rationale for that seeming discrepancy is that my father adored an “Irish” lass named Mary O’Malley, my mother; they were married just before he was shipped overseas. One of my earliest childhood memories was seeing a picture of my dad standing on the wing of a fighter plane which he had named IRISH. 

My Dad, Charles Cheatle, and his plane (c. 1944)

Even though my grandfather, Francis Thomas Colton O’Malley, was born in Ireland, not much was known about his family, his life there, or why his family emigrated to the U.S. As my mom explained, “he just didn’t talk about it.” Francis’ parents (Edward O’Malley, born 1819, and Alicia Colton) died before my mother was born and Francis died when she was 21. That left little opportunity for unearthing those precious memories and stories. Traditional paper records were scarce, and as far as tracing my Irish ancestry further back through first-hand accounts, I had run into the proverbial brick wall.

With that as a backdrop, my Irish genealogy success journey began with a handwritten list of O’Malley names and birthdates found in a family “Bible,” my mother’s autosomal DNA test results, and a list of DNA matches on ancestry.com.

The O'Malley Family Bible

I had recently read Blaine Bettinger’s book “The Family Tree Guide to DNA Testing and Genetic Genealogy”. Other than that basic information, I had very little knowledge about what to do with all of the DNA information at my disposal, so I set a goal to learn how to use DNA to solve my seemingly unsolvable puzzle: finding parents for my mother Mary’s paternal grandfather, Edward O’Malley, a native of Ireland who emigrated to the U.S. in 1896 at age 77. 

My first step was to sign up for a Roots Tech Conference that offered a strand focusing on DNA. It was through these presentations that I gained a better understanding of DNA in general and Y-DNA specifically (which traces back along the father, father, father line). However, it was primarily due to Dr. Maurice Gleeson’s presentation at that conference that I became enthused about trying to find a way to use Y-DNA to solve my Irish puzzle. After finishing the conference, I contacted a male cousin (TMO) and asked him to take a Y-DNA test. Because he wasn’t interested in genealogy, I offered to pay for his Y-DNA test and use my email so I could manage the process. Luckily, he agreed, and we ordered a Y-DNA test from Family Tree DNA (FTDNA). The wheels were now set in motion. 

While waiting for the results of the Y-DNA test, I started looking through the list of people who had DNA relationships with my mother on Ancestry.com. Since she obviously had more O’Malley DNA than me, it was easier to find stronger DNA relationships. While I could identify most of the closely related people, there were others who seemed to have reasonably strong relationships but who were unknown to me. One person, JR, shared 179 centimorgans (cM’s) of DNA with my mother. There were a lot of O’Malley’s in his family tree and the tree was well-documented. His great-grandfather, John O’Malley (b. 1825), was born within a few years of my great-grandfather, Edward (b. 1819), and in a town within a few miles of where my great-grandfather is thought to have been born. Both of these men were also known to be stone masons. It seemed plausible that John O’Malley could be a brother of my great-grandfather Edward. When I contacted JR, he referred me to his cousin Christine L, who was their family genealogist and historian.

Before contacting her, I used DNA Painter’s Shared CM Tool to look for possible relationships between JR and Mary. The tool indicates that sharing 179 cM with someone is associated with a 51% probability for a relationship of either 2C1R, 1C3R, Half 2C or Half 1C2R. Using their chart to develop a visual representation, I placed text boxes with the names of the people from each of our trees into what seemed to be the most logical relationship based on age and birth year (see below). I then sent it to Christine to get her thoughts.

Using the Shared cM Chart to help visualise my mum's connection to JR

Christine is a genealogy enthusiast and had herself been looking for potential parents and siblings for John O’Malley. She not only agreed with my speculation about the relationship, but helped find one of her male cousins (TLO) who agreed to take a Y-DNA test. My hopes were high that Y-DNA would help us find a conclusive answer.

In the meantime, both men, joined FTDNA’s O’Malley Project. As you know, Dr. Maurice Gleeson is the O’Malley Project Administrator. Once both tests were analyzed, Maurice explained to us that based on the Y-DNA testing comparison, the two men were 4 genetic steps apart at the 111-marker level. Because there is a very large margin of error associated with estimating the Time to a Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA), Maurice's crude estimate indicated that the two men could have shared a common ancestor any time between roughly 1570 and 1870 or so. This news was a big disappointment because we were expecting to hear that there were 0 steps between the two men. So after several weeks of waiting, all we knew was that these two men were related, but not how. We had no confirmation that Edward and John were brothers. At that point, our hypothesis was still just a hypothesis. Would we have to wait for more O’Malley men to take a Y-DNA test? Was this a dead end? Another brick wall?

Not to worry. Maurice had another strategy. He said that to determine if Edward and John are brothers it will require autosomal DNA work. Our next steps would be: using Ancestry’s Shared Matches, find people who Mary and JR both share in common and note how many cM’s of DNA they share with Mary. After that, comb through their family trees in search of an O’Malley connection and make a colorized chart that incorporates each person’s O’Malley pedigree and amount of DNA shared. You can see the colorized DNA Relationship chart below. Each row forms a line of descent from the presumed MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor); the amounts of shared DNA (last cell in each row) are in relation to my mother, Mary. Each family is represented by a different color; colors change slightly as they descend through the generations and also change when there is more than one sibling in the line. 

Through this process I found another family (with 3 branches) who shared DNA relationships with Mary. The parents of this family were Thomas Mealy (born c.1780) and Mary Murphy. And the 3 branches were headed by their 3 children: Jane (born 1811), Michael (1812), and Bridget (1817).

I now have people from four different branches (most from Australia, some from England) all related to my mom. The 5 lines can be summarized as follows:
Line 1 … Edward 1819 (my mom’s line, with 4 autosomal test-takers)

Line 2 … John 1825 (with 5 autosomal test-takers)

Line 3 … Jane 1811 (with 1 autosomal test-taker)

Line 4 … Michael 1812 (with 3 autosomal test-takers)

Line 5 … Bridget 1817 (with 0 autosomal test-taker)

All these “heads of family” were born within 14 years of each other and could all be potential siblings.

As you can see in the table, there is at least one person in three of the branches that shares a fairly strong amount of DNA with Mary. All of the matches in the table trace back to three potential brothers and one of the two sisters (the second sister, Bridget, has no living descendants that have done an autosomal DNA test as yet); my presumption is still that they are all siblings. 

Of course, as prescribed by traditional genealogy, I made a general review of each tree for documentation. There is strong evidence that the parents of Jane 1811, Michael 1812 and Bridget 1817 are Thomas Mealy (born c.1780) and Mary Murphy. At the end of this article, I’ve included a copy of an Australian immigration document and photos of John O’Malley’s home near Tulla, Ireland (then and now) as examples of the quality of the documentation.

Colorized Relationship Chart showing test-takers, amount of DNA shared, and their lines of descent

This layout of the data looks even stronger than my Shared cM chart, but does it prove my hypothesis? I had heard about another strategy called "overlapping DNA segments.” Overlapping DNA segments can indicate that two or more people share a common ancestor. It sounded like that strategy might provide the proof I needed.

It just so happened that my family’s autosomal DNA had previously been uploaded to a site called GEDmatch, so I decided to see if anyone else from the colorized chart might have their DNA uploaded to that site. As luck would have it, I found that people who descended from four of the five potential siblings had autosomal DNA Kits on the website. Using the One-To-Many tool I found 6 matching people. After finding their Kit Numbers, I used a Chromosome Segment Mapping tool to find out if any of them had overlapping DNA segments with Mary. The chart below depicts 22 of Mary’s chromosomes and shows where each of her 6 matches' chromosome segments overlap with hers.

Overlapping segments on Chromosome 7

A general guideline for comparing overlapping chromosome segments is that they should be greater than 10 cM’s. Mary (Line 1), JR (Line 2) and FT (Line 4) had the most significant overlaps with one another on chromosomes 7, 10 and 16. On all three chromosomes, across all three comparisons (Mary and JR; Mary and FT; and JR and FT) the shortest overlap length was 15.9 cM's between JR and FT on chromosome 10 and the longest was 59.8 cM's between Mary and JR on chromosome 16; others fell in between. 

From the chart, it is clear that members of Line 2 and Line 4 share common DNA segments with Mary on Chromsomes 7, 10 and 16, and are thus likely to all share the same common ancestor. Line 1 and Line 2 share an overlapping segment on Chromosome 7, indicating that they share a common ancestor with Mary. However, Line 3 does not share an overlapping segment with the other Lines. Nevertheless, these overlapping segments suggest that at least Lines 1, 2 and 4 share the same common ancestor. However, the question remains, which one? It looks like it could be Line 4’s MDKA Thomas Mealy born c.1780, but is there any other way of gathering further supportive evidence?

Once again, Maurice had a strategy to evaluate whether these five O’Malley’s were siblings or cousins. He suggested using DNA Painter’s What Are The Odds (WATO) tool to explore several alternative scenarios, but in a kind of "reverse way" to how WATO is usually used. To begin that process I need to know how many cM’s of DNA each of Mary’s matches shares with her and also with each other. By using available matching kits, GEDmatch created the Autosomal Matrix Comparison chart below with the shared DNA amounts for each person. 

Shared DNA Matrix generated by GEDmatch


Additionally, I gathered other shared DNA data by contacting everyone in my colorized chart who shared DNA with Mary. Of course, not everyone replied, but I was heartened by how many people were willing to help supply that data from their Ancestry Shared Matches. I then combined data from both sources into a Shared DNA Matrix table. I used the largest DNA amounts reported for each person and rounded fractional amounts to the nearest whole number. 

Shared DNA Matrix incorporating data from GEDmatch and Ancestry 
(the latter obtained by writing to individual matches)

Once the shared DNA data was compiled, four theoretical scenarios were generated to enter into the WATO tool. The strong documentary evidence that Jane, Michael & Bridget were siblings, allowed us to keep the three of them grouped together for these WATO analyses. The four scenarios were:
A. Jane, Michael, Bridget, Edward and John are siblings.

B. Edward and John are 1st cousins to the rest.

C. Edward is a 1st cousin and the others are siblings.

D. John is a 1st cousin and the rest are siblings.
For each of these scenarios a WATO tree was built based on the pedigree shown in the Colorized Relationship Chart discussed previously. DNA quantities taken from the Shared DNA Matrix were entered, along with names and birth years. I only used the recommended DNA amounts of 40 cM’s or greater, so you will see that PO, for example, did not have enough shared DNA to evaluate.

The first step was to run analyses for all four of the above scenarios using Mary as the “main comparator”. The WATO analyses for both Scenario C and D resulted in a 0% probability score, so we could see straight away that those scenarios were genetically impossible. With those relationships ruled out, it now appears that Jane, Michael, Bridget, Edward and John will either be siblings (Scenario A), or Edward and John will be first cousins to Jane, Michael and Bridget (Scenario B). Let’s look more closely at Mary’s results for Scenarios A and B, because the results for those two scenarios were not as straightforward as the results we found for Scenarios C and D. 

The first set of screenshots below reveal Mary’s WATO results for the “Sibling” scenario (A). Screenshot 1 shows the tree I built to reflect that Jane, Michael, Bridget, Edward and John were siblings and Thomas Mealy, their father. I created a mirror position in the tree for Mary, shown as Hypothesis 4, so that her actual pedigree position would be visible. The tan rectangles in the tree reflect the amount of cM’s each person shares with Mary. In each WATO tree, potential hypothetical relationships are shown in blue shades, with an associated probability score for that relationship shown in either green (possible) or red (impossible). Note that we already know that Mary sits at the Hypothesis 4 position - the other (impossible) “hypotheses” are merely included to generate comparative probability scores as a "sense-check". Remember, we were using WATO in a "reverse way" and so really only one hypothesis was necessary per analysis (i.e. Hypothesis 4) and the outcome we were looking for was either "possible" or "not possible".

Screenshot 1: WATO Chart for Scenario A (all are siblings)

Screenshot 2 shows the calculated odds for each generated hypothesis and the associated relationships. You can see that all potential relationships in five of the six hypotheses appear to be genetically possible because they all show positive percentages above 0%. Hypothesis 3 is ruled out based on birth years. However, looking more closely at the Combined Odds Ratios along the bottom line, Hypothesis 4 is roughly three times more likely than the next highest scored hypothesis. This result supports the correct positioning of Mary within her family tree and is a useful "sense check". Based on these results, the sibling hypothesis looks like a distinct possibility. However, in order to be certain, we need to rule out the “First Cousin” hypothesis. That leads us to the second set of screenshots below.

Screenshot 2: WATO Table for Scenario A - Hypothesis 4 is not ruled out so Scenario A is possible

This second set of screenshots illustrate the “First Cousin” scenario for Mary (Scenario B). As you can see in the family tree screenshot, Thomas Mealy is now shown as an uncle to Edward and John, with Jane, Michael and Bridget being their first cousins. 

Screenshot 3: WATO Chart for Scenario B (Edward & John are cousins to the rest)

In the screenshot below, you can see the calculated odds for the “First Cousin” scenario (B). Again, Mary is in a position that corresponds with Hypothesis 4 in these screenshots and the other (impossible) hypotheses are merely included to generate comparative probability scores.

Screenshot 4: WATO Table for Scenario B - Hypothesis 4 is not ruled out so Scenario B is possible

Similar to our “Sibling” WATO analysis (Scenario A), all of these “First Cousin” relationships also appear to be genetically possible. The most likely of these four hypotheses can be seen again on the Combined Odds Ratio line. The odds for Hypothesis 4 are about two and a half times more likely than the other hypotheses, again supporting Mary's correct placement within her family tree.

At this point, either the “Sibling” hypothesis or the “First Cousin” hypothesis looks to be genetically possible for Mary. Once again, neither analysis provides a strong case for determining which scenario is correct. Another stalemate!?

However, there is hope. We have one more chance to shed some light on a possible resolution. We can rerun WATO comparisons of Scenarios A and B for Mary’s 6 other DNA matches to see if one or more of the other matches’ results can rule out either Scenario A or B.

In the table below, you will find a summary comparing all of those WATO comparisons. The participants, Mary, LL, JR, FT, PH, CL and AM, are listed down the left side of the chart. For each person there are three horizontal rows; one indicating the predicted relationship, another the probability of that relationship (extracted from the WATO output) and finally, the number of cM’s shared. Across the top of the chart, each person is listed again with columns that correspond to their results for Scenarios A and B. 

Table summarising results of multiple WATO analyses - Scenario B is ruled out
(click to enlarge)

The most significant thing to note in this chart is the result of Scenario B for both JR and FT. In each case, highlighted in red, you can see that there is a 0% probability of them being a 4C1R to each other. That relationship between these two people is genetically impossible based on the amount of DNA they share (105cM), and accordingly, the “First Cousin” scenario (B) is impossible. Eureka!!

Finally, when we look collectively at all of the individual pieces of documentation that we have accumulated through this process, there seems to be very convincing evidence that the “Sibling” hypothesis is the most likely scenario for Edward, John, Jane, Michael and Bridget! 

Update (Sep 18th): there are some limitations that may influence this conclusion and these are discussed in the commentary at the end of this article.

Prior to having any knowledge of this type of analysis, I would have been happy to accept the fact that my initial hypothesis was correct because it was logical. Both Edward and John O’Malley shared closely related birth towns, ages and professions. Mary and JR fit neatly into the Shared cM chart and JR’s family had a great deal of solid documentation. I probably would not have even thought about alternative relationships for them. 

However, I think there would always have been a nagging doubt about the accuracy of my assumption. By systematically analyzing this from multiple angles - a traditional genealogical approach, scientifically researched methods, two types of DNA and a statistical analysis - I have much more confidence that my initial suspicion is true. An unexpected benefit is that I found a whole branch of people descended from Thomas Mealy to whom I am related. That connection led me to credible parents for Edward and added another generation to my Irish family tree. I would not have found his parents or the other siblings had I initially just accepted John O’Malley as Edward’s brother.

Without finding birth records for Edward verifying parentage, will I ever know for certain? Perhaps not. But for now, with Maurice’s help, and the magic of DNA, I believe I have done a thorough analysis and that my sibling hypothesis has been proven "beyond reasonable doubt". 

Regardless of what future developments in DNA analysis may offer to prove or disprove my current theory, I am now more deeply connected to my Irish roots. I have learned much, forged friendships and gained a “new family” in the people who willingly shared so much to help me prove my hypothesis. It truly was a “global” effort. Sometimes I think our ancestors are trying to help us find them - or perhaps, they put angels in our path to help guide us to them.
Georgiann Gibson
Sep 2022

Documents & Photos


Michael Mealy’s Australian immigration record noting his parents, Thomas Mealy and Mary Murphy. Similar records were found for Jane and Bridget and their husbands. All immigrated at the same time.

Photo of a home of John O’Malley (b.1825) in Ashler, a suburb of Tulla, Ireland (Date unknown). Interestingly, the small outbuilding to the right of the house is reported to have been host to clandestine meetings. Photo and story courtesy of TLO.

Photo of the same house today as seen on Google Earth. Courtesy of TLO.

Mary O’Malley (c. 1945)

Francis Thomas Colton O’Malley (c. 1932) 

Resources
Dr. Maurice Gleeson: 

Family Tree DNA: BigY-DNA analysis 

GEDmatch: gedmatch.com

DNAPainter: - dnapainter.com - Shared cM and WATO Tools 

Science the Heck Out of Your DNA by Dr. Leah Larkin. The DNA Geek: Mixing Science and Genealogy at thednageek.com

Blaine T. Bettinger. Blaine T., The Family Tree Guide to DNA Testing and Genetic Genealogy, Penguin Random House LLC, Copyright 2016 and 2019. ISBN 978-1-44030-057-8

Vance, David, The Genealogist’s Guide to Y-DNA Testing for Genetic Genealogy, Copyright 2020. ISBN: 9798621504779 

Some additional commentary 

by Maurice Gleeson (Sep 18th)

Georgian's article has attracted quite a lot of positive comment in various Facebook groups including the the Genetic Genealogy Tips & Techniques group and the DNA Painter: WATO users group.

An interesting point was raised about the pivotal role of the 4th cousin once removed relationship (4C1R) in the analysis of Scenario B. The 105 cMs shared between JR and FT was deemed to be a "not possible" relationship (Probability = 0.00%), using WATO version 1 for the analysis. Thus Scenario B fell down and and was accordingly ruled out.

Extract from the final Table in the article above
- WATO v1 deems 105 cM to be incompatible with a 4C1R relationship

However, it was pointed out in the discussion on Facebook that 105 cM has been observed in 4C1R relationships. So why was a 4C1R relationship ruled out as impossible by WATO? 

The upper limit of shared DNA for a 4C1R relationship varies depending on which reference you consult. For example, the range in the Shared cM Relationship Chart for 4C1R is 0-126cM but in WATO (v1) the upper range appears to be 98cM (probability 0.08%) because 99cM generates a 0.00% probability. And with WATO (v2) the range is 0-114cM, as 115cM generates a score of 0.00% probability. So, to summarise, the ranges for the various tools are as follows:

  • WATO version 1 ... 0 - 98 cM 
  • WATO version 2 ... 0 - 114 cM
  • Shared cM Relationship Chart ... 0 - 126 cM 

Why are these ranges different? and (more importantly) does it matter? does it have a significant impact on the outcome to the analysis described in the article? The short answer is no, probably not ... and I'll deal with this first.

The Shared cM Relationship Chart

The frequency distribution histograms associated with the Shared cM Tool (v4) on the DNA Painter website tell us what percentage of submissions fall above the upper limits for 4C1R associated with each of the three tools. Only 1.2% of 4C1R submissions are 98 cM or greater, only 0.3% are 114 cM or greater, and only 0.1% are 126 cM or greater.
98 cM is the upper limit associated with WATO version 1
114 cM is the upper limit associated with WATO version 2
126 cM is the upper limit associated with the Shared cM Relationship Chart
Only 0.7% of reported 4C1R relationships share 105 cM or greater

Furthermore, putting each of these values into the Shared cM Tool generates probabilities for a 4C1R no greater than 0.08%, meaning that the chances of it being some other relationship are 99.02% or greater.

The probability that 98 cM is associated with a 4C1R is no greater than 0.08%

So, in relation to the case explored in the article, the chances of the connection between JR and FT being a 4C1R appears to be less than 1%.

Even if we used WATO version 2 to compare JR and FT, the probability for a 4C1R relationship (Scenario B) would be 0.5% and a 3C1R relationship (Scenario A) would be 4%, making Scenario A eight times more likely than Scenario B (i.e. 4 / 0.5 = 8). And because we have ruled out all other permutations of the connections between the 5 families, Scenario B remains the most logical explanation.

Scenario A in WATO v2 ... JR & FT are 3C1R
Scenario B in WATO v2 ... JR & FT are 4C1R

So, even though a value of 105 cM has been observed for some 4C1R relationships, it is the least likely of the two Scenarios considered and therefore this does not substantially influence the conclusions of the exercise - that the 5 family groups are more likely to be siblings than any other relationship.

The only caveat is the possibility of a second connection. What is the likelihood that more than one connection is present between the two people compared? and thus the amount of DNA they share represents more than one connection in common?

Even if we allowed for more than one connection, and reduced the amount shared from 105 cM to say 65cM, the Odds Ratio would still favour Scenario A over Scenario B, making the former 16 times more likely (i.e. 16% vs 1%).

And even if we drop it to 30 cM, Scenario A would be 3 times more likely than Scenario B.

So, despite these limitations, Scenario A remains the most logical conclusion.

Of course, it would be nice if the conclusions did not hinge on a single comparison (i.e. that between JR & FT). Having 2 or more relationships turning red for a particular Scenario would increase our confidence that we could confidently rule it out. But we can only use the data that is in front of us. Still, we can always attempt to collect more data and try to bolster our conclusions with an expanded dataset.

This discussion raises some additional interesting questions which I would love to explore further at some stage, but for now I will simply raise them as points of interest and park them for discussion at some future date:

  • Has the risk of second (or more) connections been quantified? 
    • For example, how many people with a 4C1R relationship have a second connection? or a third connection? etc
    • And by what amount of cMs (on average, and the range) does this inflate the amount of DNA shared?
    • Can a correction factor be applied to any WATO calculations? 
  • What is the acceptable Genealogical Proof Standard for WATO? 
    • 99% probability? 
    • 98% probability?
    • 95% probability?
    • something else?


Let's turn now to why the three tools are associated with different ranges, as this may influence the confidence we have in the results.

The first point to note is that different approaches were used to generate the different ranges on all three tools (Shared cM Relationship Chart, WATO v1, & WATO v2). The ranges in the Shared cM Relationship Chart (and the frequency distribution histograms) are derived from Blaine Bettinger's Shared cM Project (SCP), which is based on crowd-sourced, self-reported data, whereas the ranges in WATO are based on simulated data. Both approaches have their advantages and their limitations. 

Ranges vary on the three tools

In his explanatory notes, Blaine describes how the ranges for version 4 of the SCP were derived. The amounts for each relationship were based on "Real World" data reported by people filling out the SCP submission form. In total, 59,714 submissions were made and there was an obvious error in 2.9% of these (1,739) so these erroneous submissions were removed from the analysis. A further 1% of the submissions for each relationship were then removed, 0.5% from the upper end of the range and 0.5% from the lower end of the range. This removed the extreme outliers for each relationship. So the range for each relationship represents only 99% of the "cleaned" self-reported data for that particular relationship. The values in both the Shared cM Relationship Chart and the frequency distribution histograms are based on this data. 

Why remove the extreme outliers? Because in many cases these will be incorrect. The reasons for this include:
  • a mistake was made in entering the data (e.g. instead of 130, 230 was inputted)
  • the reported relationship was incorrect (e.g. due to an error in the genealogical research, or a hidden NPE or DNA switch)
  • the relationship was only submitted if there was a substantial amount of DNA shared
  • some people had hidden double- or triple-connections in their family trees (i.e. Pedigree Collapse)

The last factor could be particularly relevant, especially when dealing with Irish family trees, most lines of which do not get past the 1800 timepoint. So, for example, someone may identify a relationship to another person as being a 4C1R (based on documentary data) and may assume that the amount of DNA they share is solely due to this relationship. But, unknown to them, they may also be 5th cousins (for example) on a different ancestral line, and 6th cousins on a third ancestral line. These connections are hidden because all the lines on their family tree stop at 1800 due to the absence of Irish records. But the amount of DNA contributed by the 5th and 6th cousin connections could be 20 cM and 15 cM respectively, inflating the total amount of DNA shared by 35 cM. And if the actual amount of DNA contributed by the 4C1R connection was only 30 cM, the total amount shared would be inflated to 65 cM by the two additional hidden relationships. Thus the amount of DNA shared for a 4C1R relationship would be falsely reported to be 65cM instead of 30cM.

So it is quite likely that a significant number of higher values reported for a given relationship were due to hidden second and third (or more) connections between the two people compared - hence the rationale for removing the extreme outliers. But does this "correction" compensate sufficiently? Possibly not. And thus the upper end of the range for some relationships, especially the more distant ones, may be falsely inflated and not an accurate reflection of reality.

And this uncertainty drives the need for a different and complementary approach ... simulated data.

Both versions of WATO use simulated data to derive the range for any given relationship. In addition, the probabilities generated by the Shared cM Tool uses simulated data. This simulated data is sourced from a project undertaken by AncestryDNA and published in their Matching White Paper (from July 2020). Leah explains more about this in her article here.

In contrast, the self-reported data from the Shared cM Project is used in the Shared cM Relationship Chart and the frequency distribution histograms. 

The advantage of simulated data is that you can control exactly what you put into a computer programme and thus you can have more confidence in the outputs ... in theory. The big limitation is that if you use the wrong model, you will get the wrong results. And another problem is that Ancestry have never published how they generated the simulated data, so their approach cannot be assessed by an independent third party for any flaws or errors.

However, Leah Larkin has been able to generate simulated data for a 4C1R relationship using the Ped-sim software and compare it to the self-reported data used in the frequency distribution histograms. Leah has shared some hugely informative analyses and graphs in the following thread in the DNA Painter: WATO users group on Facebook. The most relevant finding, for the purposes of the current discussion, is the over-representation of higher cM values. There may be several factors causing this over-representation and these may include:

  1. there is a relative under-reporting of low values and over-reporting of higher values 
  2. many of the higher values are due to more than one ancestral connection between the two people being compared
And this brings us back to the question I asked above: has this latter factor been quantified? i.e. what are the chances of you being related to a relative in more than one way, generation by generation, going back in your respective family trees? and how do the chances increase / change the further you go back? and how much additional cMs of DNA (average, and range) does this add to the "primary" connection / comparison?

Maybe there is a way of simulating this, for a variety of different scenarios (such as population size, the extent of endogamy or pedigree collapse within the population, etc)?

Nevertheless, this highlights the flaws associated with the self-reported data. And thus we have to be extra cautious when dealing with high amounts of shared DNA for more distant relationships. 

In addition, any conclusions should be based on the totality of the evidence and not simply on a Multiple WATO Analysis alone. In the current example, the evidence used to support a probable sibling relationship among the 5 family groups includes:

  1. their O'Malley "heads of family" were all born around the same time (within a 14-year period)
  2. some O'Malley heads of family were born in the same general area of Ireland
  3. some O'Malley heads of family shared the same profession (stone masons)
  4. Y-DNA evidence (GD 4 / 111) of a connection between Line 1 (Edward 1819) and Line 2 (John 1825)
  5. genealogical evidence that the heads of family of Lines 3, 4, and 5 are siblings
  6. overlapping segments 
    1. between Lines 1 & 2 on Chromosome 7
    2. between lines 2 and 4 on Chromosome 7, 10 & 16
  7. Multiple WATO Analyses ruled out all possible relationships other than Scenario A - that all 5 heads of family were siblings
No one piece of evidence "clinches the deal". But the balance of the evidence remains in favour of Scenario A being the most likely scenario compared to other possible scenarios. And over time, more data can be collected and added to the various analyses above so that the current conclusions can be subjected to ongoing re-evaluation. In addition, novel ways of examining and analysing the data may be conceived leading to more robust proof arguments that allow more confidence to be attributed to the current conclusions.

The following articles give some additional information on the topics discussed above:

  • Blaine Bettinger's explanatory notes for the Shared cM Project
  • Jonny Perl's article introducing the updated Shared cM Tool
  • Leah Larkin's article discussing the Shared cM Tool and the simulated data it uses
  • Leah Larkin's article discussing the Ped-sim programme and the limitations of simulated data
Maurice Gleeson
18 Sep 2022


Finding Grace - update June 2024

Group 3a of the O'Malley DNA Project represents the O'Malley clan of Mayo, of which Grace O'Malley (the Pirate Queen) is the mos...