Friday 19 February 2016

The Truth about William and Abiah Gleason

(or Why I Learned to Look for the Original)

William Gleason was the fourth son of Thomas and Susanna (Page) Gleson. Thomas and Susanna were natives of Suffolk, England, who first appeared at Watertown in the Massachusetts Colony in 1652. William’s birth year can be approximated as 1648 based on his appearance as a witness in court records of 1671 when he is said to be 23 years of age.[i] It is unknown whether he was born in England or in the colonies. If his birth were in Watertown, there would be no baptismal record since the Watertown church records prior to 1686 are lost. For the same reason, there is likely no church record for the birth of William’s wife, or of their marriage, if these events occurred in Watertown. Although his parents moved from Watertown to Cambridge, then to Charlestown, and back to Cambridge, William lived in Watertown with his uncle William Page throughout his youth. For his services to the Page family he received a legacy of £10 in the will of William Page, to be paid at age twenty-two.[ii]

The name Abiah or Abia is a biblical name, as is Abiel, and Abijah; and the name of the wife of William can be found spelled as each of these variants. However Abiel is always a masculine name in the Bible, but Abiah and Abijah appear as both feminine and masculine. Since the name Abiah was often used for girls during that period in the colonies, Abiah is the spelling assumed here.

The Record Book of the Pastors of Watertown Church is available beginning in 1686. On 10 April 1687, an entry to these records tells of the baptism of four children of Abiah Leason [sic] who held the covenant. She is described as the “…wife of young William Leason.” The names of the children are William, Joseph, John, and Elizabeth.[iii] On 31 July, Abiah Leason [sic] was admitted to “Full Communion” in the Watertown Church. From these records, we have the knowledge that the wife of William was named Abiah, was a member of the church, and that she was the mother of his children. A birth record for only one of these children can be found. Because the couple settled at Cambridge Farms (now a part of Lexington), the birth of the oldest son of William and Abijah Gleison [sic] is entered on Cambridge records as 15 April 1679.[iv] Two more children, Esther and Isaac, were born to the couple after 1687.[v]

The facts are straightforward to this point, but now the genealogists enter the picture, confusing the facts with misinformation and transcription error.

The errors in the White genealogy
were propagated for decades

The compiler of the first genealogy of the Gleason lineage was John Barber White, a genealogist who never revealed a source, and published his genealogy in 1909.[vi] Many have quoted it as near Biblical truth. Of course we are grateful for his admirable efforts in searching vast records in a day when that was a very difficult thing to do. He created a guidebook of possibilities that we can use as a starting point for our research. Unfortunately, he employed the “best guess” technique to arrive at some conclusions. This method was used to determine William’s birth place and year. Moreover, when he found a girl named Abiah Bartlett, born 1651 in Watertown, she became the best guess for the wife of William.[vii] And it came to pass that Abiah Bartlett was accepted as his wife, and this fiction has been published willy-nilly on the Internet in countless Gleason family pedigrees. Had White looked more thoroughly into early records he would have discovered that Abiah Bartlett actually married Jonathan Sanders/Sanderson in Cambridge in 1669.[viii]

Note: Besides the aforementioned errors in William’s birth data and the error in the identity of his spouse, White is guilty of another major error concerning this family: William had no daughter Ann as he claims. According to the original church record, the Ann Leason [sic] in question was admitted as a young adult to the Watertown Church on 22 Jan 1687/8, where she held the covenant as an unmarried woman who lived with her mother.[ix] This Ann was actually the youngest child of Thomas and Susanna (Page) Gleason.

A confusing misprint crept into Torrey's book

The next genealogist to enter our discussion is Clarence A. Torrey, a man highly respected in the field and renown for his work: New England Marriages Prior to 1700.[x] He began his compilation in the 1920s and continued for years using only paper and pen. In 1985 the hand-written work was first transcribed and put into a printed version. Since that time the New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS) has published the version used today, and a search on their website for the marriage yields this later printed version. Unfortunately the NEHGS entry for William and Abiah has incorrectly placed a right parenthesis, leaving one to wonder if Abiah Gleason might have later married Sanderson.[xi]

To resolve the question, the only thing to do was to seek out the original manuscript of Torrey. When I requested a look at the original, NEHGS graciously provided a scan of Torrey’s written notes. He obviously was aware of the error in White’s Genealogy, and he intended to correct White by making a notation that William’s wife was not Bartlett [double underlined in original]. He further wrote that “she married Jonathan Sanderson,” in reference to Bartlett. He gave William’s wife’s name as “Abiah ____” which is explained, in the introduction to the book, to mean that her surname is unknown. The introduction also explains that when the date of a marriage is unknown, the date of the birth of the first child is used, preceded with “by” meaning before. Thus he gives “by 1679” as the date of marriage, which in no way implies that the marriage year was 1679. Torrey’s original got it right, and the printed result should be:

The moral of the story is that conflicts in genealogy can sometimes be resolved with a look at the original. Of course the original is not always available, and we must rely on material that is someone’s interpretation of the handwritten. So be aware when quoting any genealogical source­ - the truth may yet remain hidden.

Torrey's original handwritten notes reveal the truth (last entry)
(click to enlarge)

Judith Gleason Claassen
Feb 2016

[i] Middlesex County, Massachusetts, Abstracts of Court Files 1649-1675, (Online database. NEHGS), 2:137.
[ii] Middlesex County Probate, 16345.
[iii] Massachusetts Vital Records to 1850, Watertown: Record Book of the Pastors, 120, 121-122. (Online Database,, NEHGS). The name Gleason is often spelled as Leason throughout early church records, but civil records use a variation of Gleason. If doing a search, one should try both spellings.
[iv] Massachusetts Vital Records to 1850, Vital Records of Cambridge.
[v] Ibid.; Record Book of the Pastors, 129.
[vi] John Barber White, Genealogy of the Descendants of Thomas Gleason of Watertown, Massachusetts, 1607-1909 (Haverhill, Mass: Nichols Print, 1909, repr. Bowie, Md., Heritage Books, 1992).
[vii] Ibid., 29; Massachusetts Vital Records to 1850, Watertown.
[viii] Massachusetts Vital Records to 1850, Cambridge
[ix] Record Book of the Pastors, 126. Listed as Ann Leason.
[x] Torrey’s New England Marriages Prior to 1700. (Online database. NEHGS) Originally published as: New England Marriages Prior to 1700. Boston, Mass.: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2015.
[xi] Ibid.

Wednesday 17 February 2016

Lineage II MHT - John Murphy's version

Apart from Alex Williamson's Big Tree version of the Mutation History Tree (MHT) for Lineage II (see previous post), there are several other versions and I'll cover each of these over the next several weeks. 

It is very important, and very helpful, that several different people are each offering their own interpretation of the same data and generating their own particular version of the tree based on their interpretation. One can compare the different versions and identify any differences in interpretation which in turn leads to discussion and an exchange of scientific rationales. Ultimately, this will lead either to a consensus opinion or to a qualified disagreement, with each party knowing and understanding the rationale behind the other party's position. So far, there have been no major differences in the various versions of the Lineage II MHT generated by the different people involved.

John Murphy's Z255 Mutation History Tree

The first alternative version is that by John Murphy. John is one of the Co-Administrators for the Z255 Haplogroup Project and all members of Lineage II are encouraged to join this particular project. The project has 566 members and is for anyone who has tested positive for the SNP Z255, as have the members of Lineage II. Below is a reminder of the abbreviated SNP progression for Lineage II:
R … > M269 > L150 > L23 > L51 > L151 > P311 > P312 > L21 > DF13 > ZZ10 > Z255 > Z16437/9 > Z16438 > BY2852/3/4 > A5629

Neal Downing is the group Administrator with John Murphy, Kim Fields and Mike Walsh as Co-Administrators.  They also run a very informative Yahoo Groups Mailing List (the Z255 and Subclades Forum) and again all Lineage II members are encouraged to join this as there are some very talented people involved in discussions on this list.

Below is the relevant portion of John's version of the tree. Lineage II members can be found in the lower left-hand side.

(click to enlarge)

The format of John's tree is different to Alex's version but it is based on the same data, with one important difference - Alex only includes NGS test results in his tree (i.e. Big Y, FGC tests, 1000 Genomes Project) but John also includes people who have undertaken single SNP tests and SNP Packs such as the Z255 SNP Pack, which was introduced by FTDNA late in 2015. This is most evident on the far right of the tree (orange box).

As a result, John's version of the tree contains more individuals than Alex's version.

Both versions only show the Shared SNPs that two or more people in the overall group have in common with each other - Unique SNPs are not shown in either version of the tree.

Maurice Gleeson
Feb 2016

Monday 15 February 2016

Big Y SNP Markers of Lineage II

In the previous post, we reported on the three new sets of Big Y results, where these new results placed those members in Alex Williamson's Big Tree  and how these new data changed the overall structure of our own little Lineage II portion of the human evolutionary tree. I include the diagram again below, just to recap.

In this post, we will take a closer look at the actual SNP markers  - both the Shared SNPs within the group, and the Unique SNPs for each individual.

On the left, the 9 Lineage II members who tested on Big Y & their relation to each other

Shared SNPs among Lineage II members

The diagram above contains only the SNPs that are shared between individual members - therefore, I call this the "Shared SNP" portion of Alex's tree. But in addition, each member has unique SNPs, particular to that specific individual, that are not shared with anyone else in the world (at least for the time being ... but that is liable to change and I will explain why below). We'll take a look at the Shared SNPs first and the Unique SNPs afterwards.

Alex produces fabulous tables and matrices of the results on his Big Tree website and these are really informative.  The table below shows all 9 members of Lineage II who have undertaken the Big Y test. The positions of the relevant "Gleeson" SNPs on the Y chromosome are shown in the first column, and the SNP name (if they have one) is in the second column. Many SNPs will not have a name because they are only newly discovered and no one has got around to naming them yet! This is "cutting-edge science" after all - we are on the crest of the wave of new scientific discoveries and there will not be immediate answers to all our questions. Of the 26 SNPs in the table, only 7 have been named (currently).

The third column tells us what "block" the SNP belongs in, followed by the specific region of the Y chromosome where it is found. And the rest of the columns are the actual data for our 9 members, with the kit number, family name, & terminal SNP (or terminal SNP block) for each member at the top of each column.

It is important to appreciate what a mammoth task this is. The table below represents a distillation of approximately 26,000 SNPs from each of the 9 members of Lineage II. The SNPs in the table below are only shared among these 9 members in Lineage II and by no other of the 2000+ people who have undergone NGS (Next Generation Sequencing) testing with the Big Y and similar tests. [1]

To see the table above, go to this link (, find the Gleeson portion in the bottom right of the diagram, click on the A5629 SNP block, and on the next page click on Show Mutation Matrix.

Taking the first row of data as an example, all 9 members are positive for this SNP, which lies at position 18606400. Furthermore, the usual "base" found at this position in most people is C (cytosine) but in our case it is a T (thymine). The SNP name is A5629 and it sits within the A5629 SNP block (each block is usually named after the SNP that appears at the top of the list of SNPs within it, which in this instance is A5629 - you can see this in the tree diagram at the top of the page).

There are two different types of classification system in operation in these tables. Some cells have a white, pink or grey background; and on top of this they may contain +, *, **, or ***. Here's an explanation for these classification systems:
  1. The colour of the background gives an indication of the degree of "coverage" achieved by the particular Big Y test. In other words, the Big Y test measures the entire Y chromosome in small chunks, usually 30-100 times per chunk, but (purely by chance) some chunks are read only a few times and (purely by chance) some chunks are not read at all. So a white background indicates good enough coverage, a grey background indicates no coverage, and a pink background indicates questionable coverage. These pink regions often indicate that the individual may be positive for a SNP even if it does not show up in his data. This is important to appreciate because it has a very significant implication: just because someone does not test positive for a given SNP doesn't mean it is not there! 
  2. The +, *, **, and *** signs mean slightly different things for the Big Y test and the FGC tests. In very crude terms, I like to think of them as "definite, probable, possible, and unlikely". In other words, they give some indication of the probability that the SNP in question is a genuine SNP (and not a "false positive"). But that's just a rough guide. You can read Alex's more comprehensive explanation below. [2]
Applying these classification systems to the SNP markers in the table, you can see that 15 of them are "definite" (a + on a white background) and the rest of them are unlikely (***). If you wanted to put a probability on how likely is "unlikely" ... if you said 10% you might not be far off. In other words, "unlikely" SNPs may be genuine SNPs 10% of the time, and "false positives" 90% of the time. Hopefully time (and further testing) will tell. But for now, this raises a second important point worth appreciating: just because someone tests "positive" for a SNP does not mean it is there!

By comparing which SNPs are shared among which members, it is possible to separate out members who are more closely related to each other than to other members in the group. And in this way it is possible to construct a family tree for these people based on their SNP markers. This produces a Mutation History Tree based on SNPs alone, which is essentially what Alex's tree is - a SNP-based Mutation History Tree.

Two things will happen over time: 1) some SNPs will be reclassified (in terms of "definite, probable, possible, and unlikely"), and 2) as more people test on the Big Y (or similar tests), some of the SNP blocks will be split into smaller blocks or individual SNPs, just like we saw when member 411177 (Glisson) joined the project - the addition of his results made SNP A5628 split away from the rest of the A5629 block (see the previous post). 

In other words, as more people test, the tree will branch and subdivide. And because we currently have 16 SNPs in 4 SNP blocks, it is likely we will have an additional 16 branches added to the tree.

Unique SNPs among Lineage II members

If we go to the Lineage II portion of Alex's tree (on the right side of the diagram here) and click on any of the individual names, this launches a table with that particular individuals unique SNPs. The same classification systems for SNPs apply in terms of coverage (white, grey, pink) and probability of being genuine (+, *, **, and ***).

From the Tables below for each of the 9 individual members (each person's kit number appears in the last column), it is apparent that some have no "definite" unique SNPs (the first two members below, who are brothers) whilst others have up to 5 unique SNPs each (3 people). There are 71 "unique" SNPs in the various tables below, of which 22 are "definite" unique SNPs and the rest are mainly "unlikely" SNPs.

Two things will happen over time: 1) as above, some SNPs will be reclassified (in terms of "definite, probable, possible, and unlikely"), and 2) as more people test on the Big Y (or similar tests), some of these unique SNPs will appear in the new test results and will therefore not be "unique" any more - they will move up from the "Unique SNP" tables below into the "Shared SNP" portion of the tree.

So the Take Home message is this: the unique SNPs will become important over time in identifying further sub-divisions and sub-branches within the Lineage II portion of the human evolutionary tree.

Potentially, because we have 22 "definite" unique SNPs, this will probably translate into 22 new sub-branches. 

And if we add these 22 sub-branches to the 16 sub-branches that would develop from splitting the 4 current SNP blocks within the tree, we should (in time) see an extra 38 sub-branches develop within the Gleason Lineage II SNP-based Mutation History Tree.

However, I suspect that it may be many many more than 38 sub-branches. 

Time will tell.

(click to enlarge)

Maurice Gleeson
Feb 2016

[1] this is not entirely true. Sometimes (rarely?) mutations can occur in the same SNP in entirely different populations, just by chance.

[2] The +, *, **, and *** symbols have slightly different meanings depending on whether the kit is a BigY kit, a FGC kit, or a manual entry of my own.
  • For FTDNA kits, + implies a "PASS" result with just one possible variant, * indicates a "PASS" but with multiple variants, ** indicates "REJECTED" with just a single variant, and *** indicates "REJECTED" with multiple possible variants. The multiple variant mutations tend to fall in repetitive regions.
  • For FGC kits, the meaning of the symbols is the same as it is from the FGC interpretation files. + indicates over 99% likely genuine (95% for INDELs); * over 95% likely genuine (90% for INDELs); ** about 40% likely genuine; *** about 10% likely genuine.
  • Manual entries read directly from a BAM file will be either + indicating positive or * indicating that the data show a mixture of possible variants.

Friday 12 February 2016

New Big Y results added to the Big Tree

Recently three people from Lineage II did the Big Y test (members 438976, 402306, & 86192). This brings to 9 the number of people who have undertaken Big Y testing in Lineage II (the North Tipperary Gleeson's).

The results of these new Big Y tests have trickled in over the past three weeks or so and have been sent to Alex Williamson and Nigel McCarthy for further analysis. Alex and Nigel are two shining stars in the genetic genealogy firmament, and I'd like to explain a little why they are so important to the Gleason/Gleeson DNA Project. I'll talk about Alex in this blog post and Nigel in the next one. 

Alex Williamson & The Big Tree

Alex is a Project Administrator for two projects: the R-L21 Walk Through the Y Project and the R-S424 Project (also known as the Little Scottish Cluster Project). The Walk through the Y project started in 2009 and was the pioneering project that established many of the SNP markers downstream of marker L21. Thus Alex has been involved with SNP data analysis for the last 8 years and is one of the great experts in the field. He also runs the R-S424 Project which studies a group of men whose terminal SNP marker is S424 and who share a common ancestor about 1000 to 1500 years ago. There are many different surnames in the project but most members trace their ancestry to southern Scotland, where the common ancestor is believed to have lived.

But perhaps Alex's most famous contribution to the field of genetic genealogy is his incredible website The Big Tree. This is a draft phylogenetic tree for the R-P312 Y-DNA haplogroup and all its downstream SNP markers. It uses data from NGS Tests (Next Generation Sequencing), namely the Big Y test from FTDNA, the 2 NGS tests from FGC, and data from the 1000 Genomes Project. Most importantly, it is easy to navigate, has lots of additional features, and is probably the most user-friendly of any of the draft phylogenetic trees currently available. 

Alex's tree is particularly important for us Gleason's because the terminal SNP markers of three of our current lineages within the Gleason/Gleeson DNA Project fall within Alex's portion of the human evolutionary tree (i.e. from SNP marker P312 downstream).

To illustrate this, here is the abbreviated SNP progression for Lineages I to III in the Gleason/Gleeson DNA Project. The start of Alex's portion of the tree (P312) is highlighted within the progression and clicking on the terminal SNP will take you to that portion of Alex's tree:
Lineage I
R … > M269 > L150 > L23 > L51 > L151 > P311 > P312 > ZZ11 > DF27 > ZZ12 > ZZ19/20 > Z31644 > Z37492

Lineage II
R … > M269 > L150 > L23 > L51 > L151 > P311 > P312 > L21 > DF13 > ZZ10 > Z255 > Z16437/9 > Z16438 > BY2852/3/4 > A5629

Lineage III
R … > M269 > L150 > L23 > L51 > L151 > P311 > P312 > L21 > DF13 > ZZ10 > Z253 > Z2534 > L226 ... and then most probably* FGC5660 > Z17669 > ZZ31 > FGC5628 > FGC5659 ... and then maybe YFS231286, which appears to be an O'Brien genetic signature

New Data, New Tree

Alex has been analysing the new Gleason Big Y data and only yesterday added it to his tree. This has caused some major changes in the Lineage II portion of the human evolutionary tree!

It is worthwhile reviewing the progression of changes in our portion of the tree over time. Back in July 2015, 4 members had been tested on the Big Y and here is what the tree looked like as a result. Two brothers sit on one branch and my Dad and Mr Little sit on another. We all share in common the A5628 block of SNPs (5 SNPs altogether) but the brothers share 6 unique SNPs that the rest of us do not, and my Dad and Mr Little share a single unique SNP that the brothers do not - the single SNP does not have a name at this stage, and so is expressed as a position, namely 17349992 ... wherever that is.

Our nearest neighbours are a chap called Carroll, and more distantly a Pendergast and Phelps, and further out still a Creamer & a Miller, with a Mr Blake being over the hill and far away.

The Gleason bit, July 2015

By October 2015, two new sets of results are in. The 6 members now form 3 branches below what was the A5628 SNP block, but this had to be renamed the A5629 SNP block, because the A5628 SNP is not shared by new member Mr Glisson (411177) - he shares all the other 4 SNPs in the block but not A5628. As a result, he sits all alone, on his own branch, separate from the rest of the group. (Don't worry, it won't last long - he'll have company soon).

The other 5 members all share SNP A5628 (now also known as Y17112, just to confuse us), and below this are two branches - one branch (the brothers) is characterised by the 6 SNPs in the A660 SNP block, and the other (my Dad, Mr Little, & Mr New Member) is characterised by a block of 3 SNPs, the first of which now has a name (Y16880) instead of a position. The other two SNPs just have positions ... for the time being.

The Gleason bit, Oct 2015

Which brings us up to today, February 2016, and the addition of 3 new sets of Big Y results. This latest diagram is a lot busier than the previous ones because the neighbours are expanding like wildfire. Mr Carroll has been joined by another family member, Pendergast and Phelps remain a cosy duo (sounds like an accounting firm), Creamer and Miller have gone their separate ways, the former running off with a McCarthy, the latter with a Treacy, and the Blakes are still over the hills and far away but on the other side. It's all systems go. And not a child in the house washed!

The Gleason's & their neighbours, Feb 2016

But the biggest surprise is in our own little portion of the tree - firstly, Mr Glisson (411177) has been joined by his closest SNP cousin, a Gleason (86192), and secondly, an entirely new branch has been formed, consisting of 2 Gleeson's. So now there are 4 branches in the Gleeson tree, and the 3 new additions have had no effect at all on the first two branches that were present back in July 2015. 

New Branches, New Connections

We know that everyone in Lineage II goes back to an origin in North Tipperary, but over time, as more people join the project and do SNP testing, it may be possible to associate certain branches with specific locations or townlands. Let's take a closer look at the newer branches and see what we can glean from the available data. First off, the "Glisson" branch (411177). 

Mr Glisson's MDKA goes back to Georgia in 1816 - he has no documentary record of a link to Ireland. However his DNA clearly links him to the North Tipperary Gleeson's so we can be 99% positive that his ancestors came from this area. The new member (86192) is in fact an old member, one of the first to join the project, and was assigned the project ID number G-05 (initials RLG). He also has the following MDKA: Martin Gleason b c1836 Ireland; d 22 Mar 1918 Chester County, Pennsylvania. I've highlighted the birth location as this could potentially give us some real clues as to this branch's origin but unfortunately in this case it does not. It only tells us that there is a link to Ireland for this particular family. We can assume with a reasonable degree of confidence that if documentary evidence existed and we were able to find it, it would lead back to somewhere in North Tipperary. But at this stage we can't narrow down the location any further than that.

Incidentally, this is a very good example of the importance of supplying your MDKA information (and updating it with any new discoveries you might make). The most valuable information for those with Irish MDKAs is the location of birth, the family nickname (if there was one), and any rare forenames that occurred throughout the generations. All three pieces of information can be crucial in establishing links between different families, and all project members are encouraged to fill out an MDKA Profile that can be published to the website.

The new branch consists of members 438976 (G-71, JRG) and 402306 (G-66, JMG). The MDKAs  for these two members are as follows:
  • G-71: James Gleeson b c1789 Garryard, Silvermines, Tipperary, Ireland; d 1869 Nenagh, Tipperary
  • G-66: Thomas Gleeson b c1822 County Tipperary, Ireland; d 23 Feb 1887 Kilemakill, Tipperary (possibly born in Boherlahan)

If we look for these locations on Google Maps, we experience several of the pitfalls encountered when trying to decipher Irish place names. Firstly, we don't know if these names refer to a townland, a parish, a registration district, or some other category of place. Secondly, Kilemakill does not turn up in a search on the map, but a google search reveals that it may be near to Ballymoreen. So there is no guarantee we have found the right place. Thirdly, several places may have the same or similar names - Garryard is a townland south of Birdhill, but Garryard East & West are townlands just west of Silvermines, and it is probably here that G-71's MDKA was born. This confusion emphasises the value of local knowledge which may be required to steer us onto the right path. Thank goodness we have such knowledge within the group.

Birth & death locations for G-66 and G-71

Based on this brief analysis of the new branch, it does not appear that the MDKAs for G-71 and G-66 lived close to each other. But nevertheless, in this particular example, we can say that this branch is rooted in Tipperary. Maybe there are other pieces of genealogical evidence that can help us find a link between these two families, and maybe we can get clues from their close matches based on their STR results. 

We'll explore this and other topics in subsequent blog posts:
  • We'll also look at the actual SNP data and the unique SNPs that each of the 9 members shares. 
  • We'll look at what happens when we add STR data into the mix. 
  • We'll be looking at how closely related each of these 4 branches are to each other, and how far back are the common ancestors that sit at each of the branching points in this Gleason portion of the human evolutionary tree.
  • And finally, we'll generate the next version of our own Lineage II-specific Mutation History Tree and see what changes occur compared to our first version (below).
Lineage II Mutation History Tree
(for best viewing, click to enlarge, then right-click to download ...
or download a pdf version here)

Thank you, Alex

So I think you'll agree that Alex provides a great service to our particular surname project and I for one am hugely grateful for his incredible contribution, all of which is done on a voluntary basis as a service to the community. No wonder he has won awards for his work! 

Instructions for sharing your Big Y results with Alex can be found on his Instructions page. And be sure to check out his Frequently Asked Questions page - this is hugely informative.

Maurice Gleeson
Feb 2016

* these downstream SNPs are estimated from the terminal SNPs of close STR matches of members in Lineage III


And of course no sooner had I published the post than Michael Gleeson found the true whereabouts of Kilemakill, spelt without the 'e' in the middle ... another peril of Irish place names: different spellings of the same thing. It's about 5 miles east-north-east of Thurles, not too far from Ballymoreen. Here it is (marked by a yellow marker) on the revised map ...

Saturday 6 February 2016

MDKA Profile – Thomas Gleeson 1834-1916 (G-54, 334030)


Name of MDKA                                   THOMAS GLEESON

Date & location of birth:                      c1834-1843        NENAGH, TIPPERARY, IRELAND

Date & location of death:                     24 SEPTEMBER 1916    NEW LYNN, AUCKLAND, NZ

Residence(s) based on birth, baptism, & marriage records:    

Occupation:                                          SOLDIER/PRIVATE, DAIRYMAN, MILKMAN, FARMER 

Other family occupations:                    (SON) BLACKSMITH, SOLDIER/TROOPER, FARMER

Religion:                                               ROMAN CATHOLIC

Wife's name:                                         CATHERINE JACKSON

Date & location of wife's birth:            c1850   INDIA

Date & location of wife's death:           23 APRIL 1933    BAYSWATER, AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND

When & where married:                       5 MAY 1867         WAIUKU, NEW ZEALAND

Sponsors at wedding:

Children's birth order:   
1.   ANNIE CATHERINE (Thomas’s mother’s and wife’s name)
2.     ELIZABETH JANE     (Thomas’s wife’s mother/grandmother’s names)
3.     PATRICK              (Thomas’s father’s name?)   
4.     MARY
5.     CAROLINE AGNES    (Thomas’s wife’s sister's names)
6.     JAMES THOMAS      (James is Thomas’s wife’s father’s name)
7.     WINIFRED                                        (died in infancy)
8.     THOMAS WILLIAM                      (died in infancy)
9.     JOHN EDWARD JOSEPH           (died in infancy)

Possible name of father & mother           PATRICK and CATHERINE (O’NEILL)

Sponsors at children' baptisms (numbered, and in order of children's birth):

DNA kit number(s):         334030   YDNA 111
                                         333401   MtDNA and FF

Project ID number(s):      G-54

DNA tests taken:              SEE KIT NUMBERS ABOVE

Terminal Y-SNP sequence:

Closest match(es) ID No (with Genetic Distance in brackets): 
G73 (6); G51 (6); G39 (6); G57 (7); G55 (8); G66 (9)

Place on the Lineage II tree:   BRANCH 10

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE DOCUMENTATION (click here for digital copies)

Name of MDKA                    Army Attestation Record 1 Marriage Certificate 2 Death Certificate 3 and Children’s birth records4

Date & location of birth:               Army Attestation Record1, Marriage 2 and Death Certificates 3

Date & location of death:             Death Certificate 3                             

Residence(s):                                Marriage record 2  Children’s birth records 4        

Occupation:                                  Army attestation record 1. Children’s birth records4 Electoral Rolls 5

Other family occupations:            Army enlistment 6, Electoral Rolls7

Wife's name:                                 Marriage record 2

Date & location of wife's birth:    Her Death Certificate 8

Date & location of wife's death:   Her Death Certificate 8

When & where married:               Marriage certificate 2

Order of children's birth:              NZ Dept of Internal Affairs, official Birth Deaths and Marriage records 9

Possible name of father & mother   His Death Certificate 3

Closest match(es) ID No (with Genetic Distance in brackets):    FTDNA results (Dec 2015)