When I checked on my brother’s BigY results today, I saw this message from Family Tree DNA (FTDNA):
That was good news. I noticed yesterday that the Haplogroup for Jim had changed from a basic haplogroup to a specific Hartley haplogroup. However, I believe that a manual review will put us in an even more specific haplogroup.
Jim’s BigY Matches
Jim matches with me first, then two other Hartleys, then a Smith and a Pillsbury. My guess is that the Hartley matches go back to after the use of surnames and Smith and Pillsbury represent common ancestors who were before the advent of surnames. Here are the Hartley matches:
Jim and Me and BY26739
Theoretically, I would think that Jim and I would have no differences in variants. There is a few reason we would have a non-matching variant. One is that Jim or I formed a new SNP. In that case there would be a new branch of Hartley’s. Another reason may be that one of our tests did not cover that SNP or didn’t test conclusively positive for that SNP.
I’ll check for this SNP at YBrowse:
This SNP appears to be at the right end of the Y Chromosome.
This SNP was named in 2018. Here are Jim’s results:
It looks to me that Jim had six good reads, but that wasn’t enough to make him positive for this SNP. I think that when a manual review is done, that Jim will be positive for this SNP. My guess is that I will have more reads for this SNP than Jim:
Well, it looks like I guessed wrong. Do I get another guess? The genotype is C and the reference is A. I have two good reads of A to C. Then there are a lot of (11) what appear to be low quality reads of A to C. In Jim’s good quality reads, it showed that he had A at that position. However, his 9 low quality reads showed A to C. As BY26739 is not a non-matching variant with my other BigY matches, I can assume that they also have this SNP. That means that there is no new Hartley YDNA branch between Jim and myself.
STR Differences Between Jim and Me
In my previous Blog on STRs, I discussed a STR difference Jim and I had in the 111 STR test. Now Jim and I have an additional difference. Here is my match with Jim:
This shows that out of 586 STRs Jim and I have a difference of two. From my previous Blog, I found that Jim had a 15 at DYS534 and I have a 16. That means that at this marker I had one additional repeat compared to Jim.
Jim and I have different values for DYS548. In order to find this, downloaded my STRs and Jim’s STRs. I transposed the results in a spreadsheet. Then I subtracted one value from the other. When the value was 1, that meant there was a difference.
Jim and I don’t match on two STRs out of 586, but we were tested for about 830 STRs. In these 15 least STRs, I didn’t have results for two STRs and Jim was missing results for 6 STRs. That means that 7 out of these 15 STRs could not be compared. Also, I do not know whether Jim had the mutation at this location or I did. To figure this out, I would need access the results of at least one of our other close matches. I may ask my other close BigY match at some point for his STR results out of curiosity.
I like to make predictions as to what might happen one there is a FTDNA manual review. Here is the situation now:
Under R-A11138 there is one branch. A11132 only has Hartleys. A11138 is quite old. The common ancestor between Hartley and Smith is probably 1,000 years old or more. If Jim and I match on a SNP or SNPs that the other two Hartleys don’t have, we should form a new Hartley Branch.
Here are my matches:
I have already discussed BY26739. I think that will go away. As I compare, my matches I see that match 2 and 3 have some variants in common. They are:
However, the fact that these variants are listed could mean one of two things. It could mean that Steve and Michael have these and Jim and I don’t. Or it could mean that Jim and I have these variants and Steve and Michael don’t. Or, more likely, it could be a combination of the two.
Based on previous work, I had listed these as my private variants:
Here are the ones that are listed above:
That seems to indicate that Jim and I should have the highlighted variants. But what about the two FT variants? I’ll think about those later. The ones left from my original list are:
It appears that these should be the two SNPs that Steve and Michael Share that Jim and I don’t have. That is, unless FTDNA renamed these two SNPs. First, I’ll look at FGC6800. From FTDNA’s Chromosome Browser, it seems like I do have that:
That is at position 9,309,609, so it wasn’t on my previous list. I better check my private variants:
They seem to match what I had. Next I’ll check my brother Jim’s Private Variants:
Well, that’s good. We have the same private variants. It seems like these should make up our new branch.
Next, I wonder about A11130. I am checking JIm’s results:
Jim shows he has this as well. I am sure I do also. As I recall a ways back, it was thought that A11130 would be my Haplogroup until others in my group were found not having it. So the group became named for A11132 instead. I guess here is where I get confused between FTDNA calling some SNPs private variants and some named variants.
I guess Private Variants are what they say they are. They are private for a person until they have a match. In this case my brother and I do match, but we are awaiting a manual review to tell what to do with the private variants.
FT225247 and FT135932
These were my two other private variants that I said I’d get back to. FTDNA would refer to these as their position numbers while they are private, but they all really have names. These were the two variants that did not show up as non-shared variants with my other BigY matches.
Summary and Conclusions
In this Blog, while I was waiting for FTDNA’s results, I made some guesses as how those results might come out. The results appear to out now, so I’ll take a look at those in my next Blog.