A new BigY test is in for Pete’s brother Patrick. In my previous Blog on Whitson U106 YDNA, I was hoping that Patrick would answer some of the questions we had on previous testing in this area. Right now I don’t see any differences between the old Block tree and the new one. Here is the old one:
This shows Pete matching Tom and Norton under a block called R-FT137411. This block contains 23 SNPs. Here is the new Block Tree from the viewpoint of Patrick:
The only difference appears to be that there are now four in this group. I also see that the average number of Private Variants for R-BY62217 has gone down by one for some reason.
According to SNP Tracker, BY62217 appears to have stayed in Germany:
The Whitson Group headed over to England at some time during the Medieval Period:
Private Variants and Non-Matching Variants
The question that came up previously in my blogs on the U106 Whitsons was why were there so few Private Variants. The common ancestors between Pete (and his brother Patrick) and Norton is in the 1800’s. The common ancestor between Pete and Tom was in the 1700’s. Between the four of them, there was only one Private Variant with Norton. FTDNA normally pulls from the the Private Variants for new branches. However, new branches also require matching with someone else. With only one Private Variant, there could be no matching.
That is when I started looking at the Non-Matching Variants. My understanding is that these could be there due to testing in non-reliable regions of YDNA or incomplete test resutls. In my previous Blog, I came up with this chart for Non-Matching Variants between the three testers:
However, looking at this now brings up some questions. Norton had a private variant at 5014418. This is an unnamed variant. I think that Private Variants are generally unnamed locations. However, it seemed like Pete should have two named private Variants at BY44298 and BY55572. Further, if Patrick is positive for these two SNPs I would think that Pete and Patrick would be on a new branch for these two SNPs.
Patrick’s Results: BY44298 and BY55572
Here is what Patrick shows for BY55298:
This shows that the results for Patrick were not conclusive:
Patrick had only one read and it didn’t show a mutation. That was unfortunate, as it is likely that Patrick, as Pete’s brother, should have the same mutation for BY44298.
Next, I look at BY55572:
Again, there is a similar situation:
These two SNPs are in close proximity to each other on the Y Chromosome. However, I don’t know which regiosn are troublesome vs. easy to read. Here is Pat on my spreadsheet:
I think that if the test was better, then it should have shown Pat positive for these two SNPs.
In additions, Pat shows very little in the way of non-matching variants:
Patrick’s only Non-Matching Variant was Norton’s Private Variant.
Patrick’s Results for the Previous Non-Matching Variants
Next, I can fill in the rest of my Excel Spreadsheet for Patrick:
Where NT means not tested. That means that these are disapppointing results. Pete and Norton got results for all the SNPs on the list Tom had results for two SNPs.. Patrick had results for none of the SNPs. Most of the ? results only had one read. I was hoping that Patrick would have matches to many of Pete’s non-matching variants. Logic would dictate that Pete and Patrick should have most if not all the same variants as they are brothers.
Summary and Conclusions
- Previous testing has shown that Pete was positive for 10 SNPs that Norton was negative for
- Subsequent testing showed that Tom was negative for two of those SNPs and had inconclusive test results for the other eight. However, there has to be two people positive for a SNP for a new branch to form
- When Pete’s brother Patrick tested, I had thought that he would have matching SNPs with Pete which would form a new YDNA Branch. However, Patrick’s results were inconclusive for 8 of his SNPs that Pete was positive for and for two, that region of YDNA was not covered.
- With the information I have seen, the Whitson Block tree may remain the same. However, it is possible that the manual review has not been completed and FTDNA may see more detailed information from the test results which could shed some more light and give a new branch for Pete and Patrick. If the manual review is done, I would recommend asking why Tom and Patrick’s results did not cover the important Non-Matching Variants between Pete and Norton. I don’t know if Pete and Norton just had really good results or if Tom and Patrick had unusually bad test results.