Continued from Part 1
[This article was originally published in The California Nugget, Spring 2025 edition.]
157 New Cousins
The next step in the analysis was to review each of the new cousins. This involved searching for public or private family trees on Ancestry, noting the surnames on those trees, examining their shared matches list, and checking for any relevant ThruLines® data. The focus was to find patterns similar to Cousin 64’s match list, which had revealed a high-confidence DNA connection to a previously unknown sister (Cousin 64A).
Among the 157 new cousins, twenty-nine subclusters were identified based on strong DNA matches, particularly those consistent with parent, sibling, nibling, or pibling relationships. Any matches greater than 400 cM were also noted for further investigation.
At this stage, confirming the genealogy of these matches has not yet been done. The primary goal is to identify new research potentials. Many LCMs only had a highest match of 40 cM and were linked to a single person on a private, unlinked tree, still making them dead ends for further research. However, discovering a parent-child or sibling match can serve as a strong starting point for building new research trees.
An unexpected outcome of analyzing the 157 cousins was the emergence of two distinct genetic clusters. One group clustered neatly with the Grant line and the other clustered with the Laughner line. Only six people crossed both groups. In previous research, matches from these two lines were mixed in a single table, similar to Table 1. With new data, the clusters became more distinct. Since the research interest is focused on the mystery man in the Grant line, any Laughner cousins were excluded from further analysis. This elimination of 49 matches significantly focused the research, making the process more manageable.
In Table 1, page 13, the green area (or top left shaded area) represents the Grant line, the orange area (middle shaded area) represents the Laughner line, and the blue area (lower right shaded area) represents the Piatt-Grant cluster.
Significant Finding Towards the Mystery Man
The 157 new cousins were anonymized with unique codes, ranging from LCM001 to LCM157. Among them, LCM058 presented the most intriguing research opportunity.
This individual is a ThruLines®-identified descendant of Robert Sloan Grant and Nancy Cousins, the parents of the four candidate brothers. Matches like LCM058 are crucial to this research, providing the potential to exclude certain brothers from consideration, and ultimately helping to identify the mystery man. This match shares 10 cM with the main tester and their ThruLines connection was not available during previous research.
According to ThruLines®, LCM058 has the following ancestral line: Marion Alfred Grant (1866–1910) > his daughter, Joanna Conway Grant (1901–1980) > her daughter, Mary K. McDonough (1925–1969) > her son, LCM058. This line has been confirmed through genealogical records, strengthening its reliability as a esearch lead.4
Although a descendant of one of the four brothers has finally been identified, other than James Grant’s two known DNA descendants, these data do not bring
us closer to a conclusion. Placing LCM058 in the family tree shows they are a half-second cousin twice removed to the main tester, if Marion were the mystery man. If James, Ralph, or Charles were the biological father of Ernest, then LCM058 would be a third cousin twice removed from the main tester. According to the Shared cM Project, both potential relationships have an equal probability of 15 percent when 10 cM is shared.
For comparison, the newly identified Piatt line descendants, Cousin 64A and Cousin 150A, share 9 cM and 10 cM, respectively, with the main tester. If James Grant were the mystery man, his descendant might be expected to share a higher cM value than his brother’s descendants and vice versa. However, the fact that three different descendants (LCM058, Cousin 64A, and Cousin 150A) all share between 9 and 10 cM does not provide enough differentiation to eliminate any of the four brothers from consideration.
With Pro Tools data we can examine LCM058’s relationship with documented cousins on the Grant Line. LCM058 has three third cousins: Cousin 329 (27 cM), Cousin 403 (44 cM), and Cousin 1736 (22 cM). LCM058 also has three 3C1R, Cousin 138, Cousin 405, and Cousin 405A, but LCM058 only shares DNA with Cousin 405 (30 cM).
On the Piatt Line, LCM058 shares 44 cM and 40 cM with siblings Cousin 64 and Cousin 64A, respectively, but does not share DNA with siblings Cousin 150 and Cousin 150A. If Marion was the ancestor of this group, then LCM058 would be half-2C to Cousin 64 and Cousin 6A, and half-2C1R to Cousin 150 and Cousin 150A. If James was the ancestor, then the relationships would be 3C and 3C1R, respectively.
There is little difference between LCM058’s relationship to documented cousins versus mystery line cousins. Once again, there is insufficient evidence to eliminate any brother from consideration. More Grant line testers are needed to refine these relationships and confirm the identity of the mystery man. It is also possible that even with additional testers, the genetic distance spanning five generations will remain too great to differentiate among the four brothers.
A New Subgroup: The Cussins/Nulph line
The next intriguing match was LCM081, who serves as an anchor for a new subgroup of thirteen matches that share common ancestors Samuel M. Cussins (1814–1889) and Mary Ann Nulph (1814–1868). Four of these thirteen matches were new discoveries, increasing the LCM population from 157 to 161. Samuel Cussins and his first wife, Mary Ann Nulph, were the maternal grandparents of the four candidate brothers, through their daughter Nancy Cousins, the wife of Robert Sloan Grant.5
Analysis of this subgroup has vastly expanded the known Cussins/Nulph line, and a detailed discussion of that cluster is beyond the scope of this article. Table 2 below illustrates how the original thirteen individuals relate to each other by DNA, highlighting several large cM values. Note in column two, all except one, are LCMs sharing less than 20 cM with the main tester.
Creating this detailed DNA relationship chart was not possible before the Pro Tools Advanced DNA feature. Once again, Pro Tools proves its value by helping to position LCMs that were previously buried in the vast sea of data.
Discovering a common ancestor subgroup connected to the maternal line of the four brothers strengthens the hypothesis that one of Nancy Cousins’ sons was the mystery man. This maternal line data reinforces the genetic links between the Grant and Piatt lines.
Conclusion
Only twenty-eight new family trees remain to be explored in hopes of uncovering new connections that could finally reveal the identity of the mystery man. However, at this stage, the evidence remains insufficient to determine which brother is the correct ancestor.
Ancestry’s Enhanced DNA Tools has proven its worth, particularly in surfacing LCM matches that were previously inaccessible to researchers. As demonstrated in this study, properly connecting LCMs to other shared matches leads to several valuable research outcomes. Pairings or small clusters of high-cM DNA can identify parent-child, sibling, or other close relationships Connections to distant ancestors are also possible, as seen with the Cussins/Nulph subgroup, which links the main tester to a four-times great-grandmother through DNA. Pro Tools can also uncover clues that bypass barriers posed by unlinked, private, or minimal trees.
An annual Ancestry subscription is already a significant investment, and the additional $10 per month ($120 per year) for Pro Tools may give some researchers pause. However, for those using DNA analysis to break through genealogical brick walls, the Enhanced DNA Tools is a game changer.
Endnotes
1. Blaine Bettinger and Jonny Perl, “The Shared cM Project 4.0 tool v4,” DNA Painter Tools (https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4 : accessed 12 April 2025).
2. Pibling is a gender-neutral term for an aunt or uncle. Nibling is a gender-neutral term for the children of a sibling, such as a niece or nephew.
3. Maryanne Grant, obituary, 28 February 2011, Legacy.com (https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/cantonrep/name/maryanne-grant-obituary?id=25332792 : accessed 11 October 2023).
4. For Marion’s marriage to Katherine Ivory, see Allegheny, Pennsylvania, marriage record, 7060, Marion A. Grant and Katharine T. Ivory, 26 March 1892; digital images, Ancestry, “Pennsylvania, U.S., Marriages, 1852-1968” (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/61381/ : accessed 11 October 2023) > Allegheny > Marriages, v. 21-22 (B: 6001-9000) 9 Jan 1892, image 178 of 502. Their daughter Joanna Conway Grant married William Anthony McDonough and their wedding announcement named her mother as Catherine Ivory Grant; see “Attractive Autumn Wedding,” announcement, The Pittsburgh Press (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), 4 November 1923, p 71; database with images, Newspapers.com (https://www.newspapers.com/ : accessed 30 January 2025). Also, Allegheny, Pennsylvania, marriage record, file no. 002033381, Walter D Shoemaker and Mary Kathleen McDonough, 20 September 1948; digital images, Ancestry, “Pennsylvania, U.S., Marriages, 1852-1968” (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/61381/ : accessed 30 January 2025) > Allegheny > Marriages, series Y, no· 9350-10021, 9 Sept 1948, image 2012 of 2592. Finally, Mary K Shoemaker connects her to her mother and to a child who is LCM058, “Showmaker (McDonough),” obituary, The Pittsburgh Press (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), 19 December 1969, p. 41; database with images, Newspapers.com (https://www.newspapers.com/ : accessed 30 January 2025).
5. For Nancy’s relationship to her parents, see 1850 U.S. census, Jefferson, Pennsylvania, pop. sch., Barnett, p. 9b, lines 3-12, dwell. 46, Samuel Cozens and daughter Nancy (age 9) household; digital images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/8054/ : accessed 30 January 2025); NARA microfilm M432, roll 786; and 1860 U.S. census, Forest, Pennsylvania, pop. sch., Barnett, p. 513, lines 27-40, dwell. 131, Samuel Cozzens household; digital images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/7667/: accessed 30 January 2025); NARA microfilm M653, roll 1110. For Nancy as the mother of James Grant and wife of Robert Sloan Grant, see Ohio, West Virginia, death records, 273, James R. Grant, 22 October 1907; digital images, West Virginia Department of Arts, Culture and History, “Vital Research Records Search Selection” (https://archive.wvculture.org/vrr/va_select.aspx : accessed 11 October 2023).
This genogram illustrates the DNA relationships between the Piatt and Grant lines. The centimorgan (cM) values below each cousin indicate the amount of shared DNA with the main tester, J.T. (bottom left). The smaller bubbles containing centimorgan values and relationships are new data from Pro Tools Advanced DNA, revealing how these DNA matches relate to one another.
Leave A Comment