Information About the Rogers DNA Web Site

May Rogers surname males who were tested by a company other than Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) include their data on this web site?

Yes. Even though the site originally used data from people tested by FTDNA, it is our hope that people tested by other companies will also make their data available for inclusion here. We suggest you also check with FTDNA about getting a conversion kit to make your DNA results comparable.

May males who do not have the Rogers surname also include their data?

Yes, if there is reason to believe that they have a direct male line to a Rogers male. Examples include a direct male Rogers ancestor whose surname name changed through adoption, or someone whose genealogical DNA matches someone with the Rogers (Rodgers) surname. We believe a DNA match may prove to be even more important than a surname match in establishing common ancestry.

May females with the family name of Rogers also include their DNA?

We encourage women (of any surname) to participate in our discussion groups. However, we have not yet figured out how to include mitochondrial DNA into our site in a meaningful way. We are open to suggestions. Hopefully there will be a solution to this problem as work on autosomal DNA (Nuclear DNA inherited from both parents) progresses.

Why do you use kit numbers rather than names when presenting DNA in the Rogers Family Relationship Chart?

This is done to protect the privacy of DNA donors.

I have found someone on your web site whose DNA matches mine. How do I contact him?

We suggest you first try to contact him through the discussion group. You may also contact us and we will attempt to email the person telling of your interest and asking him to contact you if he wishes. Keep in mind, however, that we are volunteers who are busy with other things and therefore may not be as efficient as you would like.

What do you mean by "Family Relationships" in your chart?

Great question! Family relationships sound simple, but are a difficult thing to define. The problem is time.

Basically, people are related if they have a common ancestor (as a surname group, we are concerned with a common male ancestor). All people are related if you wish to go back to the original modern human being. S/he was the common ancestor to all of us. "Family relationships" defined as including the whole world as being the same family, however, are not very helpful to a genealogist.

Somewhat more meaningful are haplogroups. People in the same haplogroup all have a common ancestor with each other. This ancestor may have lived tens of thousands of years ago however. In our Family Relationship Chart we give a quick summary of haplogroup history. It is interesting to learn that your direct male ancestors were the artists who painted on cave walls or were early farmers. While you are related to everyone else in your haplogroup, it does not give you the insight you need to find your smaller family.

So, in defining a family group, how recently should the common ancestor have lived? We believe the relationship becomes of interest to genealogists when the common ancestor lived sufficiently recently that a paper trail to that person might be possible.

In reviewing the DNA data, there are some data that show an obvious family relationship where all, or nearly all of a large number of DNA, matches. There are also many cases where the match is less apparent. Presumable, this latter case is the result of a more distant common ancestor. Both of these cases, however, may provide information about a relationship in which the common ancestor was sufficiently recent that a paper trail to him might be established.

In our Family Relationship Chart we have made an initial stab at showing recent and somewhat less recent family relationships. We are working on more sophisticated ways of doing this. First, our Family Relationship Chart has divided all DNA data into the appropriate haplogroups. Next, we have placed more obvious relationships based on DNA test results, in rows without any spaces between. These people seem to have a quite recent common ancestor. Next, we placed DNA results with an apparently more distant common ancestor, on rows with one blank row separating them. Finally, individuals who do not seem to be related to anyone else by a common ancestor in recent history, are separated from others by two blank rows.

The method for making these judgments was crude and should not be taken as final. As indicated above we are working on more sophisticated measures.