We continue our look at using DNA to support our “documentary tree” by making sure our citations are informative and to standards.
Disclaimer: This is only an example of how I would incorporate the evidence offered by DNA if I had to do my portfolio over. I have no idea if my “solution” would be acceptable or not. Guidance on the topic is slim, but I am using the website to guide my DNA documentation, because it is all I have at the time of writing. Also, this field is changing so rapidly that this post will be “old news” in a very short period of time, but may still provide the future reader with a perspective and help them formulate questions they might not have thought of.
Here is a list of the parts and the links to the previous posts:
- Part 1: Problem identification
- Part 2: Understanding the rubrics and the Genealogy Standards.
- Part 3: Identifying possible matches
- Part 4: Crafting citations
- Part 5: Analysis and Correlation
- Part 6: Entering the data into my RootMagic database
- Part 7: Writing it up!
Elizabeth Shown Mills in her “QuickSheet: Citing Genetic Sources for History Research, Evidnece Style” states that “when citing results posted online, you use a basic website citation.”[1]
If I was citing the whole Ancestry DNA results page for me. The first reference note might look like this:
“DNA Results Summary: Jill Morelli,” database report, Ancestry(http://www.ancestry.com/dna: accessed 31 October 2018); a non-public online database.
If I was citing the DNA Circle:
“Jan Middents Cornelius Bode DNA Circle,” AncestryDNA(http://www.ancestry.com/dna: accessed 30 October 2018), non-public circle for Jill Morelli, showing Bode1 as a “good confidence” match, and Jan Middents Cornelius Bode as most recent common ancestor . Jill Morelli’s tree provides sound evidence of each assertion. Bode1 provides no documentation: all his lines and assertions need to be verified.
If I was citing the match itself:
“AncestryDNA Results for Jill Morelli,” database report, AncestryDNA(http://www.ancestry.com/dna: accessed 30 October 2018), predicting 4th to 6th cousin genetic match with user “Bode1.” “Bode1” identifies his great great great grandfather as John Middents Cornelius Bode ; no kinship to Bode1 or Jan has been proven.
The reference note is clear that there is nothing proven about this relationship yet.
Next: Part 5: Analysis, and correlation of the match.
[1]Elizabeth Shown Mills, “QuickSheet: Citing Genetic Sources for History Research, Evidence Style,” (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2015) unpaginated, p. 2.
Genealogy Certification: My Personal Journal 
Why is the additional information about the entry included in the citation? I see this more and more in genealogy, but not in other areas. Why not include this information in the actual article?
Cindy, Evaluation of the sources or provenance should be in the body of a portfolio–and since I was writing this as a portfolio submission–you are right that where that information should have been placed.
I also believe that until you have an actual article in which to place this citation, it is best to keep this information with it, as you write the citation.
Yes.
I think citing a match should include some details of the match, that is centimorgans and segments shared. I find the citations suggested at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:DNA_Confirmation helpful as templates for the details provided by the different testing companies.