But are you sure...

Are you sure? :p

Lol..☺goodo.

Lmfaoo

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics If you were born and raised in the USA, can you're ethnicity be American?

The exact thing that autosomal testing (commonly called ethnicity) is actually the tendency for some proportion of your ancestry in around the 1700s to have come from areas with relatively stable long-term populations, such that they could homogenize their local genetics out. Its those stabilities that the genetics companies are hunting for. So in a way it could be called "race", but its far below the level of most morphology. You are right that it has nothing to do with nations and politics; it has to do with stability and local geography.

Its not like this in every county. Lets say in Greek and Cyprus. We Greece are Greece because we belong to the Greek nation. For any Greke to belong to the Greek nation and be Greek he must have Greek parents and grandparets etc so our nation is our race. Today...many people thing that they are Greek just because they were born in Greece... and those leftish idiots say that its not the blood but the place u rise. False. But in America is like u said because there is not american race. America is a multiculture country.

Ethnicity comes from the Ancient Hellenic world εθνος or ethnos in latin writing. Well Herodotus was the first to defy this word and he did this this way; "Is a group of people that have same blood (aka dna) , same lifestyle/culture/politism, same language, same religion."

@@jimb8296 όπως τα λες φίλε. Άντε γιατί θα μας τρελλάνουν. ΕΛΛΑΣ ΜΟΝΟ

@jeisa Jeis 400 years not 800. And there isnt any turk blood into Greek blood. There is greek blood into Turk blood because many Turks are Greeks Kurds and Armenians. Todays Greeks of Greece and Cyprus according to scientists and historians dont have turkish dna.

Thanks, we'll keep it up, if you have any suggestions, let me know.

Family History Fanatics I have seen Horn African dna results and they tend to come up with Middle Eastern and North African dna. They always having discussion on being Arabs or not etc. What do you think ? Haplogroups don't help too as E1b1b is in Middle East Africa and Europe.

@@jbaron8120 They are considered North African, and sometimes Middle Eastern.

@@jbaron8120 Some consider them Arab, some don’t.

Glad it was helpful!

Thank you

Butterfly effect

I believe that.

Interesting point..am puzzled by mine!

They are based on reporting levels within certain populations. It Also assumed that different polymorphism are unique to certain population and that just isn't true

While I think the percentages are certainly unreliable the results left no surprises from what I already knew about my family

@@esterherschkovich5002 As am I, especially about the 1.4% Central Asian and the Welsh part of the 27.4% Irish, Scottish, and Welsh ancestry.

Any time.

Awesome. This is one of the positive things that the ethnicity results can do for you. If there is a significant amount (>5-10%) of something that you didn't already know about, it is probably a good clue to look for ancestors from there.

It might interest you to know that Ireland carries strains of all the tribes of Europe and western asia as well, over the last 5000+ years.

Glad to provide some explanation.

U adopted

I hope not! 😂 I listen to reggaetòn everyday. They’re was an update in my test a couple months ago. My 22% French went down to 10% and the other 12% was Iberian (Spain).

Luca Cruz Half Puerto Rican - I was wondering where all that French came from in my results! 😂

Staci lol 😂

Continents accurate, countries might be accurate but there really isn't enough data to tell.

And also, you have to remember that borders have changed throughout history and that when it comes to African countries for example, ethnic groups can be spread in different countries and share a similar DNA since most of them were historically nomades.

Yeah, that's right. The barriers that prevented much mixing in the 1000 years before 1700 were mainly geographical, so counties apply only in the circumstances where their borders are geographical rather than the result of war or diplomacy. Oceans, mountain ranges, rivers before transportation rose above domesticated animals, deserts. The things that kept the eager swain on his side of the fence more often than not.

Lol it said I have 2% European Jewish: stick to it!

"Country" is not a valid concept in genetic placement. Ethnicity might be. "Rough area" might be a better claim.

The regional clusters are confusing to be sure.

Glad yo uliked it.

Ask and ye shall receive. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q7angKydsczMlp8.html

You might, but very low percentages could just be noise. The Oceanian reference population for 23andMe is only a few dozen people, and that is supposed to be representative of those from Madagascar to Hawaii? Not quite I would think.

Thanks for sharing your insights.

I took the Ancestry.com test. I'm from America but predominantly English in descent. This username is ironic because I have a Scottish surname but only a small amount of Scottish ancestry. It's somewhat common over here for people to retain surnames that no longer reflect their ethnic make-up. I had something similar to you, with much higher Celtic and Scandinavian results than to be expected, as well as one other. I received a very low percentage for British (English). The rest was W. European (W. Germanic). My English ancestors all came over in the 1600s, and mostly from SE England. I have some German ancestry as well, and they came over from, well, exactly where the Saxons came from when they settled in the area my English ancestors came from. I'm willing to bet before industrialization the two populations, albeit in different countries, were genetically more similar than they are today. I hadn't understood why the Celtic results were so high on mine, but what you are saying could help explain it. But also, for people who are English or of English descent, watch out for the mix-up with Western European, which might also be called W. Germanic, or sometimes summed up as German & French. The Ingvaeonic people, the Angles/Saxons/Jutes/etc. were W. Germanic. To give some perspective, none of these tests can distinguish Irish from Scottish, and those two populations have been separate for a longer time than the English from the Germans.

Yeah, it's often difficult to breakdown with accuracy and obviously it is only an estimate, but I have also done research on my ancestors and most are of indigenous stock from England going back centuries in Yorkshire and some in Lancashire. Apart from some Irish (my great Grandmother) and also Viking going back 1,000 years which I traced through my surname, there is no Scottish or Welsh so being as high as 64.1% Irish, Scottish and Welsh doesn't add up, but the Proto-Celt connection does. I have a new kit from Ancestory.com, the results will be interesting.

Scotty McScott their genetics are so similar remember they're all in one island so the genetics will be so similar that's why ancestry doesn't give you a specific country they give a region. For example the Great Britain region includes Scotland Ireland wales England and northwestern France.

Not with MyHeritage.com, they said I was Scottish, Welsh and Irish and no English dna despite my traced English ancestry. This was the point I made earlier, they were wrong.

DickTurpin it's pretty hard to separate which is which because they all share one island it's like determining Native American from the us and a native from Mexico it's going to be hard to differentiate. So that Scottish they gave is either English or you ancestors were really from Scotland and moved to England a long time ago you can't even find paper records. But it's a highly likely they couldn't tell the difference between the two so in conclusion you're English af.

It is fascinating to be sure.

Sometimes.

Each company classifies things differently and each is using a difference reference set to make that classification. Most genetic genealogists will tell you that results at the continental level are consistent, but at smaller divisions there may not be consistency.

If you really want to head down this path... Buy an Ancestry DNA kit and a 23andMe kit. Transfer your Ancestry kit to MyHeritage, Family Tree DNA, and GEDmatch. For the price of 2 kits you can be in five databases. There are some minor transfer fees for MyHeritage. Don't transfer the 23andMe kit to any place. Now you will come to see that the companies will not agree. Instead, take the Ancestry test and start building your genetic family tree. It would be money better spent. kzfaq.info/sun/PLcVx-GSCjcdmsw25mbI-wJin_9_9QQUzI

That ethnicity result lines up perfectly with where Poland is located.

I would start with 23andMe. They seem to have larger reference populations for your expected ethnicity.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics will do, thank you

Yep. That's to be expected. You're a mix of the Mediterranean.

It likely shows up as Iberian and maybe Native American (if there is a reference population that is a close match).

I notice like me you are from Yorkshire. The eastern part of Yorkshire does have a higher percentage of Scandinavian than many other parts of England (although still a minority), the dialect from that part of the world is derived from old Norse and the breakdown up until just after WWII was actually around 15% Scandinavian dna, so it sounds about right if your family is also from the eastern half of Yorkshire, but bear in mind the western part of Yorkshire where I am from, is heavily Proto- Celtic, hence Brythonic sounding place names such as Pen-y-Ghent.

Stachel Schwein If you're Slavic that's highly likely since Finland is really close to Russia so i wouldn't be surprised if Scandinavians crossed over settled in whatever country you're from and interbred

I got 16% Scandinavian too. I'm not sure these tests are actually accurate.

Yorkie Bar Indeed, it's not surprising that Scandinavians migrated to the UK and Ireland. In my case, it's not surprising that there was mixing among North Africans, Arabs, and Southern Europeans.

..I was born in the UK but was given 100% Celt,I knew I had Irish connections+was placed in an Orphanage..but I ve received messages from people in the States(an Uncle+Nephew)the Uncle comes up strong 1 st Cousin,could be their Grandfather/GG is my father but would.nt I have some other connection to Europe like them??Any ideas?Thanks.

I watched the video again, and what you are describing is the same thing that I am saying (although using different words). If you think it is different, could you give me a more thorough explanation?

Perhaps. I haven't done that.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics thank you, is CRI genetics worth buying from?

I usually try to focus on people that I have at least 3 segments with (preferably on different chromosomes).

Having an Irish surname doesn't mean you're predominantly Irish. It simply means that you more than likely have an Irish ancestor. You can have an Irish ancestor and 0% Irish DNA depending on how far back your Irish ancestor lived. Many of your 4th great grandparents will have passed on no DNA to you at all

English and Irish are nationalities not races.they are very very similar with mixing with each other

You are looking at segments. You share 22 segments with your Mom because you share 22 chromosomes. With your grandparents and aunt you share more segments, but the segments are smaller so the total cM you share is less than with your Mom.

Tested with 23andMe and Ancestry. Moved 23andMe kit to FamilyTreeDNA and MyHeritage. Moved both 23andMe and Ancestry kits to Gedmatch.

I apologize. So to clarify: You took two different tests. #1 23andme #2Ancestry. Is this correct? Why is that necessary? DNA is DNA I was told. Each one tests against a different group, however. Thanks again

I just listened again. It is a different "chip". Got it. I tested with LivingDNA out of England last Rootstech and just submitted the results to Gedmatch

@@4allmyancestors I've listened to a lot of these videos so my memory on this might be a little mixed up. However I am pretty sure that I heard that the different companies test different parts of the DNA segment. So different results may arise because of positioning on the DNA segment.

Glad you can find value in ethnicity results. Don't stop there. Use the tests to piece together how folks are related using segment data. However, with endogamy common to Jewish ancestry, you're in for a difficult ride.

Wich one is good for jewish please?

If you convert you are not an etnic Jew. You can only be an etnic Jew by birth. That is why converts do not get any results

Each DNA company is hindered by the fact that all of them struggle to have enough people in their control groups (reference populations) to provide accuracy and reliable ethnicity results. This is why I tell people to be in (Ancestry, Family Tree DNA, MyHeritage DNA, and GEDmatch). Build your family tree through records and DNA cousin matching and don't worry too much about the ethnicity results. A Beginner's Guide to Getting Started in Genealogy kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fN5ih8mXkriRqX0.html The Basics of Building a Genetic Family Tree kzfaq.info/sun/PLcVx-GSCjcdnEg-YtkXA7Nj2YxxamaYKA

Different reference databases + different algorithms = different results. Some of those different results are minor like in my case, and some are major like in your case.

Michael Finnie I know myharitage states I am 9% North African but I don’t believe it.

@@viviansalg12 You might have North African ancestry. You never know. 😉

I understand what you're saying. However, there are some genetic markers that many groups who lived in specific regions shared. For those who wish to learn more about their heritage, DNA testing can help. However, there isn't enough for which as to compare ourselves to the reference populations to ensure accuracy. But building our tree following the tips my wife shares on this channel, we'll be able to know our heritage and that can help us with our identity. .

Short response... depends on the question asked.

Percentages less than 5% are sketchy at best. This is especially true if the population in question borders another one to which you have a significant amount (like what you are showing).

Family History Fanatics Thank you for the quick response! That’s what I figured however my South Asian percent was quite low as well

Since the mitochondrial haplogroup is only from your matrilineal line, it is entirely possible that its origin doesn't match your predominant ethnic origins. 23andMe tests a significant portion of the mtDNA, more than enough to make an accurate identification of your haplogroup. While C1c is one of the six founding haplogroups of Native Americans, it doesn't preclude it not being present elsewhere in the world. It is possible that you are descended matrilineally through a Native American or you might be an outlier of C1c from somewhere else in the world.

Might I suggest that you keep watching my videos about DNA + Ethnicity. kzfaq.info/sun/PLcVx-GSCjcdlvwsLScE4NPKwGA-XUNhhM It's entirely possible that you won't get better results from MyHeritage. If you really want to know your heritage, please take the action of building your family tree with the knowledge you have and see where that road goes. It'll be much better in the long run for your results.

Check out this video to see if it helps explain. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/icmKp6umup2cnmg.html

The Anglos and Saxons and Jutes were Germanic tribes that settled in England in 500, so some English genes will be from them. Just the same as the ones who didn't migrate and stayed in Germany.

It depends on how much the percentages are

If you want to maximize information, then get everyone tested. The reason is all types of DNA can be used for genetic purposes. 1) Testing your mother will get her autosomal DNA (chromosomes 1-22). You have some of this and your brother has some of this. 2) Testing you and your brother will get most of the same autosomal DNA as your mother (each of you will have a different portion) but it will allow you to do DNA triangulation easier. This will help to separate false matches from true matches. 3) Testing you and your brother will get most of the autosomal DNA from your father (which I am assuming you can't test directly since you didn't mention him). Between the two of you, you will have about 75% of the autosomal DNA from your father. 4) Testing your brother will get the Y-DNA from your father 5) Testing your aunt (along with your mother) will get about 75% of the autosomal DNA of your grandparents. 6) Testing all of the people you mentioned will get the Mitochondrial DNA, which should be identical so if you are doing a specific Mitochondrial DNA test (through FamilyTreeDNA) you only need to do one person. I cover all of these topics or plan to cover them in future videos. You are started on the right path. Keep watching and learning, the answer to your question is a lot more complicated than one comment can answer.

Thank you for your most thorough reply; it is much appreciated. Our father has passed on. I shall make a copy of what you have shared. I look forward to further videos of yours.

None of them are anywhere close to 100% accurate when it comes to ethnicity results

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics I agree!

They can be very accurate in terms of which race you are but not exactly from which region

@@jalousy100k7 True! I believe that too.

@@manniesreactionchannel3808 the reason is because through times people have been mixing due to wars etc if you look in WW2 a lot of German soldier pics there is a lot of them who look exactly a like buy now there is a lot of mixing and those who claim to be full German aren’t really full German even if they take a dna test they might be a bit German buy not as much as it shows this is because they grabbed dna samples from people of Germans who have probably mixed with others

We have a video on this in the works, actually just waiting for the second test results to get back.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Ok, perfect. Thank you. I'm very curious.

No company claims they can tell your ethnicity with only 0.1% error. Most will report results down to 0.1%, but if you dig into their literature they will also tell you that anything below 1%-5% could just be noise and probably isn't accurate.

They also only guarantee 50% accuracy in the results. The basic problem here is that they are trying to find markers that are particularly indicatrive of specific regional groups. Right now they claim to be able to differentiate between about 20 such groups worldwide. Their marketing shows that people want more and more specificity, but the trade-off there is accuracy. Ten years ago they only claimed to be able to see 3 groups: European, African and American Indian. I believe their accuracy then is uite a bit higher than today. But they are gathering more and more data, and will find better and better markers out of the billions possible.

Not really. DNA tests are great at establishing heritage at the continental level, but not specific regions at specific times.

Reference populations from the Americas are primarily from Central and South America because those populations have pockets of people who have not interbred with the Europeans and Africans. Most all of the US native americans are an admixture of European and Native American so they don't make a good reference set. The Central American reference set is probably closest to your native heritage genetically.

I had the same problems with My Heritage vs Ancestry DNA. They were completely different. My Heritage even told my blond haired, blue eyed Scot/German husband that he came from Nigeria and N. Africa.

Not really because how would you know who that person is without genealogical records? Autosomal DNA really only stretches reliably to your 5th great grandparents.

Geno 2.0 is being discontinued. 😞😔

23andMe reports the Neanderthal variants. I don't think any of the other genealogy companies do. Unless all of your ancestors are from Africa, you have Neanderthal DNA. Denisovan DNA is not as widespread as Neanderthal DNA.

I don't believe Neanderthals were human or that the Human race is descended from them. I think it's a lot of BS propagating Evolution. Humans are descended from Adam & Eve. Those Neanderthals are a result of DNA splicing by Extraterrestrials.

Moontrucker lol I enjoyed that

@@moontrucker8939 If that is what you believe then DNA is not for you it is based on science not religion.

Hypnosis.

You need to think geographically. It is a section of Eastern Europe. It's not in Southern or Western Europe.

@@ELee-zv5ud Geographically it is the north Europe as the east of Europe stretches beyond Latgale (the east border of Latvia and Russia/Belorussia).

That is marketing talk. Both are testing the same thing.

Not exactly. DNA is compared to a reference population. This consists of public genetic databases and users identified by the company to fit their criteria to represent a region. (Typically, the taker has documented evidence that all of their grandparents or great-grandparents lived in a specific area.)

That's interesting.

The vast majority of Americans have DNA origins from Europe.

I will take that into consideration. However, based on the general principles casting doubt on the accuracy of ethnicity results, what has really changed? The reference populations are still small around the world and some groups refuse to participate. Thus, I'm not sure an update to this particular topics is warrant. Unless I misunderstood your premise.

None of the DNA testing companies provide information to 3rd parties without your consent. It would be illegal in the US as well as Europe I believe and result in a class action lawsuit rather quickly.

Lol wtf

DNA doesn't lie, but it doesn't tell the whole truth. And the ethnicity algorithms are doing the best the can with the available data. The biggest need is for more people to test for the reference populations around the world. After that, fine tuning of categories would be open for serious discussion.

That depends on who you ask, now doesn't it?

Very little DNA data is available on native americans (north american) so their results don't usually show up.

Even people who think they are pure native and even have a status card can well have some European DNA.The fur traders from the 1600s onwards lived in native villages and there would have been people having fun. So it may be back a few generations but it's most likely there.

Yeah, just click on Admixture proportions rather than Chromosome painting

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Oh okay cool, I got the test and me and my brother are both a little more than half black but we didn't know exactly how much European we had in us lol. Thanks!

Future Trunks Greetings. Just to point out that “race” has nothing to do with DNA as race is not a biological, genetic, or scientific term. It has always been a socio-political term. By the way, all human beings have the exact same alleles (AGCT) and due to environmental pressures give rise to the different frequency of genes, which in turn give rise to the different population groups we see worldwide. Furthermore, the continent of Africa contains the most genetic diversity than all other continents combined. Moreover, Europeans are genetically closest to Africans whereas there are many population groups who may physically resemble some Africans (e.g., some South Pacific Islanders and the Sentinels); however, they are they farthest genetically from Africans. All these DNA tests do is provide estimates of your ancestral makeup. Nothin more and nothing less.

I'm saying at a country level I don't know. It may be correct, the percentages may be right, but they may be different. There may be other groups involved in your ancestry that are not within the representative populations.

Is this true 😯

Do you have any solid evidence that they take your surname into account? If they do that, it defeats the whole purpose of the test. And, as you said, many surnames are shared by peoples of absolutely unrelated ethnicities.

I've wondered this myself. I have a British surname, but that part of the family where the name comes from were all full blood Choctaw indians.

Erik Ludlow Yeah the surname thing is not true. My surname is so rare, and I had not put any other info other than that and my results were pretty accurate.

My maiden name is hella Italian but I got 0% Italy in my results. Which could be correct, but I was expecting a pretty small amount at least.

Over the last decade the companies have also increased the size of their reference populations which allows for the the specificity to more admixture breakdowns.

Yes, they have. Any estimate on how accuracy differs from what it was 10 years ago? If it is about the same, then marketing is spreading the specificity out about as fast as the reference population is growing.

In my opinion the best way is through classical paper-trail genealogy. Thankfully, that can, today, be done from the comfort of your home. You'll need a subscription to ancestry.com or other equivalent service, good family tree software (could be ancestry as well), and time. The key to accurate results is documentation. You find documents that nail down dates and places for life events, like birth, baptism, death, burial, marriages and spcial events, tie them to evidential records, and copy and organize copies of the documents. Use documents from your family, compare against others, resolve problems, and work your way outwards. That is what I've done.

It all depends on who is defining West Asian. Geographically, I agree with you. However, when it comes to genetic populations, each algorithm defines their results differently

My original results by the way were done by the Genographic Project 2.0, while my brother had it through MyHeritage. I transferred my results over to MyHeritage to compare with his.

I've read that it is quite common for siblings to have entirely different results from DNA tests. There was a famous case of beautiful triplet fraternal twins who all had different results.

Several problems, first the populations you mention haven't done much DNA testing so it is more difficult to get accurate info, Second did you both test with the same company and at the same time Each company uses different data sets, so there will be differences because of that, also at different time the company improves their chip so it samples more and so the results will be different as the later one will be more specific. Also remember you share only 50% of your genes with your brother. Your 100 % genes are made up of 50% from your father and 50% from your mother. Each time a new sex cell is made (sperm ,ovum) the genes are reshuffled. So the 50% that you got from your mother will not be the same a 50% that your brother got. Some will be the same but not all, you each will get some ones the other didn't from the other 50% that was not used from your mother's genes. Same with your father. You are not identical twins so there will be differences in what shows up and how much. Sounds normal for an area in which there was a lot of mixing. It's in the history of that region.

No, they are based on a measurable concept which lacks sufficient data to be accurate at anything more than a continental level.

Good for you.

and benin and togo

Excellent. We need more people with African ancestry to test so that the reference databases can improve.

From a Geography standpoint, you are correct, however, reference groups are defined by the different companies so Baltic may be Eastern European for genetic genealogy purposes in some cases.

Poland and Russia can be described as Eastern European. The rest of those countries I have always thought of as Northern European/Scandinavian. Thank you for your reply and explanation.

Most DNA testing companies pretty clearly distinguish between Baltic and Eastern European.

You're fortunate. My wife's percentages (and many others) vary wildly below the continental level.

Depending on your genetic makeup, your ethnicity will likely come from all over the work. My Sister-in-law from Mexico has quite the mix.

Two things to remember. First, is that you are probably matching only through one side of this person's tree. Without knowing what the other half is, that may skew the results. For instance if your sister and your granddaughter are all European heritage it is entirely possible to match with someone who is majority Asian or African with only a minor percentage of European, and your ethnic ancestry results will be much different. Second, how ethnicity results are calculated in no way relates to how your relationships are calculated. Relationship calculations (at least for 2nd cousin and closer) are very accurate and for up to 6th cousins have a decent degree of accuracy. Ethnicity results are based on reference populations which may or may not actually be representative of that population in the near or distant past.

Did you view the person's family tree to see if you had a common ancester? Is it possible that the father had a child out of wedlock? Happens all the time.

My sister had her DNA tested first and several months later my grand daughter had her DNA tested. The reference population for the person they are both matched with must have changed in the short time between their DNA tests. This could explain why this person has a different ethnicity on my grand daughter's site compared to my sister's site.

Cheryl de Silva my heritage is more accurate but they are fixing a problem right now on the close relations right now. So be careful if you follow your DNA to any distant cousins in your list. Go with gedcom and plug in your info. It's reccomended by genetic genealogist for better results.

I had the same problem with my heritage about where I'm from. It doesn't make sense. Look up the phone number on the site and give them a call. They are pretty friendly. Or you can write this lovely lady CeCe Moore who is also on Facebook as 'CeCe Moore DNA.' But here is her email for questions. yourgeneticgeneologist@gmail.com and she is a professional.

It says how your DNA compared to reference populations which included a sampling of individuals who have taken a DNA test and have all of their grandparents (and sometimes great-grandparents) from a specific area.

Each DNA testing company compares your DNA to its own reference population. I talk about that in this video kzfaq.info/get/bejne/icmKp6umup2cnmg.html

All ethnicity estimates are only estimates. They are not definitive results in any way (despite what the marketing departments of the companies want you to believe). For Europeans, they are pretty decent (but not what I would call accurate), because the vast majority of testers (80%+) have been of European descent. So there is a lot of data to compare it to. In your case, having a lot of native american (which have had the least amount of DNA testing of any population) would make the results sketchy at best.

@Tangerine Sky333 I couldn't find anything past my maternal great-grandparents in the census while I found nothing in my paternal census. All of my grandmother's parents were born in Durango, Mexico to wealthy French gold hunters who arrived in Durango and later modified their identifications. I even have a photo of my French great-great grandfather who looks full-blown French/Germanic. Hell, my grandma is even unhappy to have French ancestry and would still refuse to believe our DNA results - 0% French.

Thanks for sharing. As a genealogist, ethnicity clues can help direct you to records upon which to build family trees. Thus, I appreciate the groups that may be identified.

Ethnicity results should be used as clues to guide your efforts to build your family tree using DNA matching. kzfaq.info/sun/PLcVx-GSCjcdmsw25mbI-wJin_9_9QQUzI

That could be because the reference population databases do not have enough people with Turkish ancestry to provide you that estimate. Learn more about reference population databases here kzfaq.info/get/bejne/icmKp6umup2cnmg.html