* What to do with Trees of DNA Matches?

[E Wilcock]

What to do with Trees of DNA Matches?
One of my ancestors arrived in UK about 1785. Many of my most interesting DNA matches have the same or similar surnames but their researched trees do not reach as far back as the actual DNA links.

My difficulty is what to do with the trees made available to me by these DNA matches?
Does anyone here think it a good idea to create a new project?
I dont really want to enlarge my family history project or website with trees of people whose connection to me remains unknown.
I used to use Custodian until an upgrade failed (probably user error). And gave up when I moved to TMG. Fh seems good at collecting and searching lists.

One of the things I miss about TMG is that one could keep several trees together in an overall project.

[tatewise]

You can keep as many unconnected subtrees as you like in one FH Project (just like TMG I suspect).
When you upload to your website only the main family history tree need be included.
Similarly for Diagrams and Reports only one tree need be included.

It is potentially easier to discover and create links to those separate DNA trees when in the same Project.

However, separate Projects are perfectly feasible. You just have to export and merge to join a DNA tree to your main family tree.

[E Wilcock]

You can keep as many unconnected subtrees as you like in one FH Project (just like TMG I suspect).

Mike sorry. I cant find anything about sub trees in the fh help. I didnt know they existed.

[tatewise]

No, I doubt if there is anything in the Help about subtrees as such.

There is the command Add > Unrelated Individual to create a new Individual record unrelated to any other tree.
Adding new relatives to that Individual record builds a family tree separate from any other family tree.
That process of using Add > Unrelated Individual may be repeated as many times as you like.
You can similarly use Add > Into a Diagram > New Individual/Couple to display an All Relatives Diagram for a separate family tree of one person or a couple. Then further details and relatives can be added to enlarge that subtree.

The View > Standard Queries > Search for Orphans is something of a misnomer as it is actually listing Pool numbers identifying each unrelated subtree. The Family Historian Sample Project has two such unrelated subtrees: the well known MUNRO family tree with all relatives (Pool 1); and also the CAMERON unrelated subtree (Pool 2).

[E Wilcock]

Thank you. Even now I am not sure I understand unrelated additions as constituting a sub tree.

I used add unrelated person hundreds of times to build history research projects in fh - emigration and deportation lists etc. So have added many thousands of unrelated people.

I also do the same with DNA matches using Jane's system - I never thought of their ancestors as a sub tree.
It is the terminology.

[tatewise]

Your original posting said:

One of the things I miss about TMG is that one could keep several trees together in an overall project.

It seems that you have been creating several trees together in one Project by using Add > Unrelated Individual to create records that form separate trees. So I don't understand what feature of TMG you are missing?

My main family tree is the largest tree, so I consider any other smaller unrelated trees as subsidiary trees (subtrees).
Sorry for the confusing terminology.
Nevertheless, the feature you say you miss from TMG, you seem to have been using all the time in FH.
Now I am confused by your terminology

[ColeValleyGirl]

I'm not sure calling subsidiary trees subtrees is helpful -- to me a subtree would be a subset of the main tree.

I think of the trees I keep in my main project alongside the main tree just as 'other trees'. (Secondary trees would imply that they're of lesser importance).

[E Wilcock]

This is an example of how I used the TMG system.
The overall Project can consist of one or more data sets.
You have to open the Project and then select how many of the data sets within it you wish to open.

The multiple datasets mean that, if someone related sends you a tree connected with your own family, you can retain that tree as a data set within that project. Or a further tree for people not related. In my Sadler project (my Ganny's family tree) for example there is a third data set. I identified all the people in my gt gt grandfather's photgraph album and put a note by their name in the tree. There were 8 photos of the family of a fellow student met at medical colleage who became doctor to Queen Victoria. So I added that doctor's family, but as a separate tree (Data set) within the Project.
That tree did not export to Second Site and has not been imported into fh.

Similarly, I might keep a separate tree of people with a common surname from one of my trees e.g. Marks or Greenhalgh who I was listing and trying to sort out but had not yet linked to my own families. The sort of list I had previously kept in Custodian.

My First World War TMG project started as part of my Grandfather's family tree - his friends and correspondents and I then hived it off as a project of its own.

Going back to TMG makes me quite nostalgic.

[ColeValleyGirl]

That makes it quiet clear that TMG operates in a different manner to the simple separate trees within a project in FH -- you can't restrict the working dataset(s) within FH.

Although you might be able to approximate it manually, by adding individuals in each tree to a dedicated Named List, it would be hard to maintain and also you could only work with one Named List at a time (or write custom queries to aggregate more than one list) -- it would be messy and not IMO worth pursuing in FH.

[E Wilcock]

Just to thank you Helen for a taking the time and a clear reply