The Danner research saga continues

In many of my DNA-focused blog posts, I have demonstrated how a genetic network—also called a genetic group—can reveal previously unknown connections, solve longstanding mysteries, identify a potential ancestor, and confirm family relationships. DNA matches, especially when analyzed as part of a network, are at the heart of genetic genealogy. This article explores another group of matches connected to my mother’s great-grandfather, Edward Danner of Panola County, Mississippi, and illustrates how such networks can be identified and evaluated effectively.

Several of my recent posts have focused on the discovery of two people who may have been Edward Danner’s siblings. Around 1859, Dr. William Bobo purchased Edward from the Thomas Danner family in Union County, South Carolina, and transported him to northern Mississippi, permanently separating him from his family. Without autosomal DNA testing, I may never have uncovered his long-lost relatives in South Carolina. For genealogical research of this kind, DNA has truly been a godsend.

A New Genetic Network Emerges

This new network surfaced as I studied the family trees of shared DNA matches who descended from the same ancestor or ancestral couple. That is the first step in identifying a genetic network: determine whether a cluster of shared matches descends from a common ancestor or couple, and then research that ancestor or couple for clues.

The network connected to Edward Danner includes descendants of Spencer Yarborough (1856–1928) and his wife, Emma Wilburn (1859–1924), of Union County, South Carolina. I identified at least nine of their descendants, representing four of their children, who share between 15 and 52 centimorgans (cM) with great-grandchildren of Edward Danner. There are additional matches, but these nine were the descendants I could confidently connect to Spencer and Emma. Their descent from four different children is significant because it strengthens the evidence that the genetic connection belongs somewhere within this ancestral couple’s family.

Chromosome Evidence Connects the Families

Fortunately, Cousin A and her paternal half-sister, Cousin B, circled above, had tested with 23andMe before the company discontinued its chromosome browser and stopped providing valuable segment data in 2023. I imported the 24 cM segment data they shared with my mother into DNA Painter. There, I observed that both women triangulated with my mother on her maternal chromosome 5. This is the same region where my mother shares a 66 cM segment with the late Marvin Porter, a great-great-grandson of Albert Porter, whom I discussed in a recent blog post. See DNA Painter diagram below.

Cousin B had also taken an AncestryDNA test. Among the matches she and my mother shared were at least four descendants of Matilda Danner Beaty, a proposed sister of Edward Danner. Taken together, the triangulation and shared-match evidence place Spencer or Emma Yarborough, Edward Danner, and Edward’s proposed siblings—Albert Porter and Matilda Danner Beaty—within the same genetic network. The next question was whether Edward’s biological connection ran through Spencer or through Emma.

Documentary Research Reaches a Brick Wall

On Ancestry.com, I located death certificates for Spencer and Emma. Unfortunately, Spencer’s informant, identified only as the “S.C. State Hospital,” did not know the names of his parents. Spencer died in Columbia, South Carolina, in 1928 from general arteriosclerosis and was buried in Union County.

Emma died in 1924 from Bright’s disease. Her son, Sing Merrick Yarborough, reported that her father was “—– Wilburn” and her mother was “Sallie —–.” He apparently knew only his maternal grandfather’s surname and his maternal grandmother’s first name. Death records for several of Spencer and Emma’s other children, along with an online obituary for their daughter Estella, also identified Wilburn as Emma’s maiden name.

For now, the documentary evidence has not revealed whether Spencer or Emma was related to Edward Danner—or how that relationship occurred. This remains a brick wall, but the genetic evidence has narrowed the field and established a promising direction for continued research.

Ten Tips for Finding and Evaluating Genetic Networks

1. Study—and verify—the family trees of your DNA matches. Extend sparse trees when necessary, and verify even well-developed public trees because they may contain errors.
2. Use tools that reveal how mutual matches relate to one another. For serious genetic-genealogy research, AncestryDNA Pro Tools can be especially useful because it shows how much DNA mutual matches share with one another. This can help identify relationships among matches who have no public family trees.
3. Examine each match’s shared-match list. Review the mutual matches connected to every key DNA relative. This deeper analysis may uncover relatives or patterns that were initially overlooked.
4. Look for repeated ancestral couples. When no familiar connection is apparent, note matches who descend from the same ancestor or ancestral couple.
5. Pay close attention to descendant patterns. If matches descend from multiple children of the same ancestral couple, the connection likely lies with one member of that couple or within one of their ancestral lines.
6. Consider the spouse when matches descend through only one child. If all relevant matches descend from a single child of the ancestral couple, the true connection may be through that child’s spouse—or through the biological parent of that child’s children.
7. Chart the network. Create a diagram showing how the matches descend and how much DNA each shares. I use the SmartArt Hierarchy tool in PowerPoint, although a manual sketch can work just as well. A chart can reveal patterns that are difficult to see in a list. For example, several matches may appear to descend from John and Bessie Dillon, but a chart may show that every match descends specifically through their son Arthur and his wife, Sarah Alexander. Further research might then identify Sarah—not John or Bessie—as the source of the connection.
8. Shift the research focus once you identify the likely common ancestor. After narrowing the network to a particular ancestor, research that person intensively to determine how your ancestor may have been related to him or her. This method can be especially valuable when tracing enslaved ancestors and reconnecting family members separated by slavery.
9. Account for endogamy. In endogamous communities, two people may share more than one ancestor or ancestral couple. If matches repeatedly descend from several of the same families, additional analysis will be necessary to determine which ancestral line produced the DNA connection. I wrote the following blog post of how I worked through DNA matches from a highly endogamous community, “Weaving Through a Highly Endogamous Web.”
10. Use chromosome data and triangulation whenever possible. Encourage willing matches to upload their data to GEDmatch or another service that provides segment information. Importing chromosome data into DNA Painter can help determine which side of the family a connection belongs to and whether multiple matches triangulate on the same segment.

The Research Continues

This case demonstrates why genetic networks are so valuable: even when documentary records fail to name parents or explain a relationship, a carefully studied cluster of DNA matches can identify the correct family, confirm connections among multiple branches, and point the research in a productive new direction. The precise relationship between Edward Danner and the Yarborough-Wilburn family remains unresolved, but the network provides a strong foundation for the next phase of investigation.

To learn more about combining DNA evidence with genealogical research, see my latest book, From Fragments to Foundation: Uncovering a Buried History of Tragedy and Triumph.