Cousins

[darkerhorse]

I just want to double check family relationships.

Is the grandchild of your grandmother's brother your 2nd cousin?

Is the great-grandchild of your great-grandfather's brother your 3rd cousin?

If the 3rd cousin carries your surname and the 2nd cousin doesn't, is the 2nd cousin still a closer relative?

[MarcuccioV]

I just want to double check family relationships.

Is the grandchild of your grandmother's brother your 2nd cousin? YES

Is the great-grandchild of your great-grandfather's brother your 3rd cousin? YES

If the 3rd cousin carries your surname and the 2nd cousin doesn't, is the 2nd cousin still a closer relative? YES

The 3rd cousin is simply on your paternal direct line; the surname doesn't affect the relationship distance.

[darkerhorse]

Isn't the direct parental line of special interest?

[MarcuccioV]

Isn't the direct parental line of special interest?

Only for Y-DNA (as maternal direct line is for mtDNA). For relationships, it's no different than any line in the tree.

[darkerhorse]

So, the genealogist just views the surname line as an historical accident?

[MarcuccioV]

So, the genealogist just views the surname line as an historical accident?

I wouldn't go THAT far. It's valuable in researching the Y-DNA line to it's source (relatively speaking, of course). But it has no bearing on closeness of relationship -- it just means that it came through that direct paternal line.

Basically all your 3rd cousins are close to the same cM range to you (but it will vary to a point). 2nd cousins should show a higher cM number, as they are a closer gen.

Is it possible that your 3rd (surname) cousin has an equal cM level as your 2nd cousin..? I suppose it's possible, but highly unlikely. The random recombination thing is just too unpredictable, and it doesn't really care about surnames or direct lines...

[darkerhorse]

But reality is that the history of male dominance is reflected in surname inheritance (in the West) and it's only natural to identify (and identify with) persons with your own surname.

So, from the viewpoint of social psychology (rather than DNA) I'd say the surname line is of disproportionate importance in practice.

For example, it's much more likely that you'll know 3rd cousins who share your surname than those who don't.

3rd cousins from female-to-female lines will have changed surname a couple of times and the family connection could be easily lost or at least not as visible. Geographic mobility adds another layer.

[MarcuccioV]

But reality is that the history of male dominance is reflected in surname inheritance (in the West) and it's only natural to identify (and identify with) persons with your own surname.

So, from the viewpoint of social psychology (rather than DNA) I'd say the surname line is of disproportionate importance in practice.

For example, it's much more likely that you'll know 3rd cousins who share your surname than those who don't.

3rd cousins from female-to-female lines will have changed surname a couple of times and the family connection could be easily lost or at least not as visible. Geographic mobility adds another layer.

I can't argue your reasoning, but practice and science are different animals...

[darkerhorse]

Yeah. To be fair, you answered my original question with hard science which is what I was asking. I then went beyond that with social science. Which isn't really science at all.