Possible Baruch Lousada Indicators

Our first recognition of possible indicators came when we updated our 7-relative study to include Bob Leuzarder and Ernest Lloyd Luzadder while excluding MW (see here). This led us to 4 candidate Lousada indicator segments on Cr2, Cr5, Cr8 and Cr21 (our collection of indicators was however to change over time with the latest candidates shaded in yellow):

As Ernest Lloyd did not match any of the 7 relatives at the 4 candidate indicators, we were sceptical that he had Baruch Lousada ancestry via a female line. However ultimately we concluded that Ernest Lloyd probably does have Baruch Lousada ancestry through a female line, a conclusion made possible when we used a set of 12 relatives. These 12 relatives comprised the original 7 used above, plus Julian's 1st cousin Allan and 4th cousin Jeremy (whose autosomal DNA eventually became available from the samples submitted for Y analysis referred to above). Randy's parents were included as they - especially his mother - matched at our indicators while his father was a relative anyway via Baron Lyon de Symons #118. Finally TP, a Papacin-Lousada descendant, was added once she was discovered by Bob Leuzarder after our 2023 8 by 8 study as she had probable Lousada genealogy (descending from the older Benjamin #2609).

Further work with the complete set of our probable Baruch Lousada descendants failed to discover any indicators distinguishing those with Barrow genes compared to those without; that is, Barrow matches may demonstrate nothing but shared Baruch Lousada ancestry!

Though useful in our work, indicators are not straightforward to use - thus, the absence of an indicator does not imply the tester is not Lousada and neither does the presence at an indicator prove Lousada descent (see here for an example where not only does a person from our random sample match many Baruch Lousadas at the Cr8 indicator, but she seems to have a non-Lousada genetic linkage with some of us of a strength comparable to the Baruch Lousada linkages we are seeking to prove!).

Our set of indicators not only distils genetic commonality from the sample of relatives which gave rise to it, but will change when the sample changes. Thus the Cr5 indicator was irrelevant to the 5 new relatives (A, J, RM, RF and TP) added to the original 7 (Ju, JG, SW, E, B and Je) and it now seems to be merely a type of multiple one can get with a random sample and by no means the strongest at these settings (cf the 2nd Cr1 multiple shown here). After further work, we identified (the 7.1-8.1m region of) Cr18 as another indicator for it is sandwiched between a pair of RSBCs which our Cr8 and Cr21 indicators are not. However the Cr22 possible indicator on 18.2-19.1m falls within a well-known 'pile-up' area and is disregarded. We currently favour those indicators on Cr2 and Cr18.

Another view of our indicators is that together they provide an average measure of shared DNA across the sample.