For most of the twentieth century, the question of who Frances “Fanny” Tolles really belonged to was a paper problem. In the twenty-first century, it became a DNA problem.

Like many genealogists, I had hoped DNA would provide the missing proof. If Fanny was truly the daughter of Elnathan and Lydia Tolles, then I should eventually match people who descend from their other children. And one day, I did.

An Ancestry DNA match appeared who traced their lineage back to another child of Elnathan Tolles — not through Fanny, but through a different branch of the Tolles family. According to Ancestry’s tools, we shared 9 centimorgans on one segment, a tiny match, but one that the Shared cM Project says can fall within the range of sixth cousins. That just happens to be exactly the relationship I would have if Fanny were Elnathan’s daughter.

For a moment, it felt like a breakthrough.

But genealogy is never that simple.

As I began building out that match’s family tree — generation by generation — another surname kept appearing: Mix. It was a name I recognized immediately. I already had Mix ancestors in my own tree. So I followed that line back.

And there it was.

The DNA match and I were not connected by just one line. We were connected by two — one through Tolles, and one through Mix. The Mix connection was older and more robust. That meant the small 9 cM segment could easily come from that shared ancestry instead of from Elnathan Tolles.

In other words, the DNA match did not prove what I wanted it to prove.

This is one of the hardest lessons in genetic genealogy: a match can be real, but still be misleading. Small segments, especially those under 10 cM, are easily inherited from distant ancestors and can survive for many generations. When multiple lines connect two people, DNA alone cannot tell you which ancestor supplied the shared segment.

So DNA did not solve the Tolles–Munson question. It simply told me that the two families were tangled together in more than one way.

And that meant I had to go back to something far older — something far more reliable.

I had to go back to the law.

In the next post, I’ll show how a thick, tedious, 66-page probate file did what DNA could not: it quietly but definitively tied Frances “Fanny” Tolles to the parents who raised her.

---

Sources

1. AncestryDNA, shared DNA match between the author and a descendant of another child of Elnathan Tolles, showing 9 cM across one segment (author’s private test results).
2. Shared cM Project 4.0, The DNA Painter, relationship probability tool for centimorgan values, indicating that 9 cM can be consistent with sixth-cousin relationships.
3. Blaine T. Bettinger, “The Shared cM Project,” The Genetic Genealogist (https://thegeneticgenealogist.com), methodology for interpreting small DNA matches.
4. International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG), guidelines on triangulation and multiple ancestral paths affecting DNA interpretation.
5. Author’s compiled family tree and research notes on the Mix and Tolles families, showing multiple shared ancestral lines.