UsefulCharts Turned a Cat DNA Similarity Test Into a Family Tree It Couldn’t Prove

Matt Baker’s 2021 UsefulCharts video delivers a satisfying revelation: Milo, a large, talkative cat assumed to be part Siamese, apparently has a Maine Coon grandparent. Two younger cats receive different breed percentages that seem to explain their personalities. There is just one problem. The DNA test did not establish the ancestry that gives the story its payoff.

This is not a minor distinction invented by a skeptical critic. A Basepaws sample report explains that the percentages represent genomic similarity and warns that matching regions “do not necessarily indicate pedigree ancestry.” Basepaws’ current explanation of its results makes the distinction explicit: similarity to modern breeds is not a family tree.

Baker shows the uncertainty in his own footage. Then he draws conclusions that the uncertainty cannot justify.

A Maine Coon resemblance is not proof of a Maine Coon grandparent

Milo’s report assigns him nearly 28% Maine Coon similarity under the “maybe” setting. Under the more conservative “confident” setting, 70% of his DNA becomes ambiguous, while the report assigns 16% to Maine Coon, 6% to American Shorthair, 5% to Siberian and 2% to Ragdoll.

Baker nevertheless calls the result “pretty solid evidence” that Milo probably had a Maine Coon grandparent.

The inference does not follow. A percentage describing how closely parts of Milo’s genome resemble modern Maine Coons is not a percentage of his ancestors inherited from that breed. The same number cannot establish that a particular grandparent existed.

Basepaws compares a cat’s genome with a reference panel of pedigreed cats. It does not reconstruct the cat’s family history from samples of its parents, grandparents and other relatives. Its current terms of service, last updated in March 2023, describe the product as estimating genetic similarity to certain breeds, not identifying a pet’s breed.

That distinction matters because the report’s numbers look far more precise than the family-history conclusions they can support. A percentage is easy to interpret as a measurement of ancestry, even when it measures something else.

The 70% ambiguous result does not, by itself, prove that Basepaws’ test is inaccurate. It shows that the report leaves most of Milo’s DNA unassigned under its strictest setting. The error is treating the remaining matches as evidence of a specific grandparent.

There is another revealing development: Basepaws subsequently removed the report’s chromosome map and confidence slider after receiving feedback that the features were confusing. The company now presents static summaries of genomic similarity instead. That does not prove the old method was scientifically invalid, but it reinforces the central problem with Baker’s presentation: the interface invited interpretations that required more caution than the video supplied.

A genetic classification chart is not an evolutionary family tree

Baker also presents the domestic cat’s breed history as a family tree, describing western, eastern and exotic branches, with Persian cats forming a separate branch from the western group.

The difficulty is that Basepaws’ categories are based on similarities among the genomes of modern breeds. The company describes its four groups as genetically distinguishable clusters, not as a demonstrated sequence of ancestral populations from which every breed descended.

The distinction becomes clearer when the company’s own history is examined. In an earlier version of its report, Basepaws used three groups: Western, Eastern and Hybrid. After expanding its database and analyzing more samples, it identified a distinct Persian-related cluster and introduced a fourth group.

That is a classification system changing as the reference data improves. It is not evidence that domestic cats literally evolved along four branches corresponding to those categories.

A family-tree diagram can be a useful educational shortcut, but its visual authority matters. Branches imply relationships of descent. Genetic clusters establish patterns of similarity; determining historical descent requires additional evidence. The video moves between these concepts without adequately distinguishing them.

The problem is not that breed relationships cannot be studied genetically. It is that the chart encourages viewers to interpret a practical classification as a definitive account of evolutionary history.

The breed histories are sometimes more certain than the evidence

The video’s account of exotic breeds illustrates the danger of compressing complicated breeding histories into simple formulas.

Baker says Asian leopard cats were crossed with Egyptian Maus to create Bengals, while servals were crossed with Maus to create Savannahs. The International Cat Association’s Bengal history documents the foundational Bengal crosses as Asian leopard cats paired with domestic cats. It records Egyptian Mau backcrosses in a particular 1986 breeding program, but that is not the same as establishing the Egyptian Mau as the universal domestic ancestor of Bengals.

The Savannah claim is also misleading as a general explanation. TICA identifies the first recorded Savannah, born on April 7, 1986, as the offspring of a domestic female cat and an African serval male. Its account does not identify the mother as an Egyptian Mau.

These distinctions matter because breed formation is not always a single cross between two named breeds. The Bengal history itself shows multiple breeding programs and later crosses. Presenting one particular cross as the complete origin story erases that history.

The Ragdoll explanation is more problematic still. Baker says the breed originated from a mutation, probably in a Turkish Angora or Persian, that causes the cats to go limp when picked up.

The Cat Fanciers’ Association’s Ragdoll history instead traces the breed to Ann Baker’s selective breeding program in California during the 1960s, using domestic longhaired cats. Its account describes Josephine, the foundational white domestic longhair, and explains how the Ragdoll breed developed from selected offspring.

TICA recounts Baker’s claim that Josephine’s genes were altered after a car accident, but presents it as part of the breed’s historical story—not as an established genetic mechanism.

The distinction is straightforward: a breed may be selected for a particular temperament, but that does not establish that a specific mutation caused the behavior. Baker presents a speculative mechanism as a biological explanation without showing the evidence needed to establish it.

The cats’ personalities are not genetic test results

Milo’s talkativeness, Ketzel’s affection and Chuti’s fearlessness give the video its personal appeal. They also become the basis for further genetic interpretations.

Baker connects Milo’s behavior to Maine Coon characteristics, suggests that Ketzel’s Ragdoll similarity might explain his cuddliness, and associates Chuti’s Siberian similarity with her bravery and independence.

These are plausible stories, not demonstrated genetic findings.

Basepaws itself acknowledges that feline behavior involves complex traits whose genetic basis remains incompletely understood. Its explanation of breed analysis discusses the limitations of identifying the markers responsible for behavioral differences. The company’s terms also state that its tests are not designed to predict behavior.

Even if a breed has recognizable behavioral tendencies, a resemblance score does not establish that the breed caused an individual cat’s personality. The video provides no controlled comparison, behavioral measurements or genetic analysis linking these particular traits to particular ancestry.

Baker’s observations about his cats remain observations. The unsupported step is turning those observations into explanations supplied by a DNA report.

The sponsorship was disclosed. The scientific boundary still mattered.

Baker openly states that Basepaws supplied the kits free for review and offers viewers a 15% discount. The video therefore does not conceal the commercial relationship, and there is no evidence here that Basepaws dictated its conclusions.

But disclosure cannot make an unsupported inference scientifically sound.

The central issue is not whether the test has any value. Comparing a cat’s genome with reference populations can provide useful information about genetic similarities, and genetic screening can identify particular disease-associated variants. The problem is presenting those results as evidence of a family history or explanation of personality when the test does not establish either.

The distinction is particularly important for a general audience. A viewer who sees “28% Maine Coon” may reasonably interpret it as a quarter of the cat’s ancestry, especially when the presenter immediately proposes a Maine Coon grandparent. The same viewer may then treat the other percentages as explanations for the animal’s behavior.

The result is a compelling story built from a misleading interpretation of precise-looking numbers.

The verdict: The numbers are real; the family story is unproven

UsefulCharts offers an accessible introduction to cat breeds and consumer DNA testing, but its most memorable conclusion goes beyond the evidence presented. Milo’s report does not establish that he had a Maine Coon grandparent, and the breed percentages do not prove that genetic ancestry explains the three cats’ personalities.

The more defensible conclusion is narrower: Milo’s genome resembles portions of the genomes of modern Maine Coons and other reference breeds, while a substantial proportion remains unclassified under the strictest setting.

That may be interesting. It is not a reconstructed pedigree.

AngryPages should challenge the leap from genetic resemblance to family history—not claim that the test is fraudulent, and not mistake uncertainty for proof of inaccuracy. The decisive failure is the gap between what the report measures and what the video tells viewers it means.

References

• I Tested My Cats’ DNA using BasePaws | Family Tree of Cat Breeds — UsefulCharts, Matt Baker, July 23, 2021. The original episode establishes the Maine Coon grandparent inference, the personality interpretations and the disclosure of free kits and a discount.
• Poe’s Genetic Report — Basepaws, 2020 report. The report explains that breed percentages reflect genomic similarity and do not necessarily establish pedigree ancestry.
• Updated Basepaws Cat DNA Report: What’s Included and What’s Not? — Basepaws, current report guidance. It distinguishes genomic similarity from a family tree and explains why the chromosome map and confidence slider were removed.
• Terms of Service — Basepaws, last updated March 2023. The terms define the product’s intended use as estimating genetic similarity, not identifying a pet’s breed or predicting its behavior.
• Basepaws Breed Report: Newest Iteration — Basepaws. The company’s own explanation documents changes to breed-group classification as its reference database expanded.
• Bengal Breed History — The International Cat Association, compiled by Anthony Hutcherson, June 16, 2021. The historical timeline distinguishes the foundational Asian leopard cat–domestic cat crosses from particular later Egyptian Mau backcrosses.
• Savannah — The International Cat Association. The breed history identifies the first recorded Savannah as the offspring of a domestic female and an African serval male.
• Ragdoll — The Cat Fanciers’ Association. The breed history documents Ann Baker’s selective breeding program and distinguishes the established development history from claims about the founding cat’s temperament.