It has been a busy year for my branch of Hartleys. In January, a new Hartley test came in at A11132. This is where other Hartleys from the same branch had been testing. Shortly after that Hartley BigY results, a Mawdsley tested who was two SNPs removed from the other Hartley A11132 test results. That put Mawdsley at A11132 and the Hartleys at A11134.
Lawrence and Michael
The new tester is Lawrence. Here is how Lawrence and Michael show as being related by genealogy:
That would make them 7th cousins if the genealogy is right. Hopefully, the BigY test will support the genealogy. So far, it the STR results between Lawrence and Michael make the genealogy seem off. However, when there is a discrepancy between SNPs from the BigY test and STRs, the SNPs are far more reliable.
The New BigY700 Results
Michael did the BigY500 test, so the comparisons may not be exact, but let’s take a look. This morning, it was clear that FTDNA decided that Lawrence was now A11134. However, that could change. Here is Lawrence’s Block Tree as of today:
Here Lawrence is just added in under A11134. This tree will likely change in some way – especially and at least in the area of Private Variants.
Lawrence’s Private Variants
Lawrence has 6 Private Variants:
These are important as they can show either places where Lawrence may match with other BigY tester’s Private Variants and they can show how long Lawrence’s tree is from his closest tested common ancestor.
Lawrence’s Private Variants do not match up with Michael’s two Private Variants:
That means that Michael and Lawrence will not form an obvious new branch based on these Private Variants.
Checking Deeper Into Michael’s Private Variants
Unfortunately, Michael was not tested for 11503251:
Michael is missing 12197124:
Michael is missing 13636160:
Michael is missing 19708663:
Michael is missing 26634402:
Michael is missing 5742283:
That means that Michael was not tested for any of Lawrence’s Private Variants. That also means that we don’t know if Michael and Lawrence would form a new Hartley Branch based on any of Lawrence’s Private Variants.
Checking Michael’s Two Private Variants on Lawrence’s Results
Lawrence tested for 12695002 but was not positive for this Variant:
Lawrence tested for 20317042 but was not positive for this Variant either:
That means that, as far as the BigY testing goes for Private Variants, it seems as Michael and Lawrence are like ships passing in the night.
Implications of Lawrence’s Private Variants Vs Michael’s
The following implications are based on the fact, further along in the Blog, that Lawrence and Michael are positive for A16717. The further implication from this is that Lawrence and Michael are related as shown in the genealogy chart near the beginning of this Blog:
- As Lawrence tested negative for Michael’s Private Variants, I would consider Michael’s two Private Variants to be true Private Variants
- Lawrence has six Private Variants, but Michael’s BigY testing did not appear to cover any of Lawrence’s Private Variant locations.
- It is possible that Michael, had he had more coverage in his BigY test, could have tested negative for all of Lawrence’s Private Variants. In this case all of Lawrence’s Private Variants would be true Private Variants.
- It is also possible that had Michael’s BigY test covered all of Lawrence’s Private Variant Locations, that Michael could have been found positive for one or more of those variants. In that case a new Branch would have formed (those SNPs would be added to A16717 Branch).
More Variants Compared
In a previous Blog, I had compared Variants:
These Variants are Steve’s Private Variants, Michael’s Private Variants and my brother and my SNPs shared. I should have added John to the list. Part of my reasoning for having Lawrence test the BigY was to fill in the yellow areas of Michael’s test. I may do further filling in of this chart in a subsequent Blog.
A16717
It appears that Michael and Lawrence may share A16717. Let’s take a look. I noticed that in the list of non-matching variants, A16717 showed up with Lawrence’s matches except for with Michael. That means that Lawrence and Michael must share that SNP:
I checked and both Michael and Lawrence are positive for this SNP. This SNP was named by William Hartley in 2017 – probably when Michael first tested:
Today, FTDNA does not name these until there is a match, but back then they were named sometimes.
Here is my initial idea of how the new Hartley Branch should look:
Day 2 of Lawrence’s BigY Results
A day after the Lawrence’s BigY results started coming out and the average number of Private Variants went up for the A11134 Hartley group from 2 to 3:
Now it is time to wait to see if FTDNA comes to the same conclusions. Jared Smith had this to say about the new developments:
It will be interesting to see if they create a new A16717 branch. This SNP is not in the BED region, but with them both having it I’d suspect they will form a new branch. If they don’t do so after manual review, I’ll take a closer look and see if we can make a case via Mike W. for FTDNA to give it consider forming this branch. In the past we’ve identified SNPs like this that they’ve created branches on after our request for another closer review.
Summary and Conclusions
- After a less than patient wait on my part for Lawrence’s BigY results, the initial results are now in.
- I wanted Lawrence to test his YDNA because of his important Hartley genealogy that goes back at least to the early 1600’s and because of his relationship with Michael who has that same genealogy.
- I was disappointed that Lawrence’s Private Variants did not match up with areas of YDNA that Michael had tested.
- Fortunately, Michael and Lawrence match on a previously named Private SNP that Michael had. We need to wait and see if FTDNA figures that out and puts them in a new A16717 Hartley Branch.
- The location for A16717 is not in the most reliable area, but Michael and Lawrence are clearly positive for this SNP.