A New Channon/Hartley BigY Test

It is always exciting when a new BigY test shows up on your branch of the tree of mankind. Here is the new Channon test (from the viewpoint of my test):

This new Channon test is a brother of a previous test. He has done what I did with my brother in the first column. I had my brother tested, so we could get our own branch. Notice a few things above:

  • Smith is from a much earlier branch before. Smith and Hartley broke off before surnames were commonly used.
  • Mawdsley is also separate and likely split before or at about the time that surnames came into common use.
  • Channon is surrounded by other Hartleys. Channon can trace their genealogy to the Nutter surname, but must have been Hartley at some point.
  • It seems to me that Channon will have to have their own branch, but it does not show yet. Both Channon testers are shown initially in R-A11134.

The New Tester and Non-Matching Variants

Here is how the new tester matches some of the previous testers:

There are really three categories here. I show up later on the list as my branch has a lot of variants in it. So that means that there are more non-matching variants and my brother and I are further down on the list. First on the list is the previous Channon tester. These two have one non-matching variant. After that are the two other Hartleys who share A11134. The next three testers are in the R-A16717 Branch. These are a branch of Hartleys that emmigrated to Pennsylvania around the year 1700 or so.

Non-Matching Variant 5672076

One might wonder why the two brothers have a non-matching variant. There are a few reasons. One may be that one of the brothers has formed a new branch of the YDNA tree. Another reason could be that there was no or incomplete coverage for one of the two tests at location 5672076.

Here is the result for the new Channon Tester:

Here is the older Channon results:

That is interesting as the original Channon should form a new branch. However, FTDNA does not name a branch until another tests positive for this Branch. This would be a Private Variant for the original tester. However, it is possible to find this location’s SNP name at YBrowse:

The original tester should eventually be a part of this branch: Y354158.

Y16496

The first non-matching variant the new Channon tester has with the first Hartley on the non-matching list is Y16496. The new Channon tester has that SNP:

The first Hartley on the non-matching list does not have that SNP:

My guess is that this would be a new Channon Branch. The original Channon BigY tester is also positive for this SNP:

A Proposed Tree

It would be interesting to try to create a proposed tree. I have an old tree that I used previously:

This was probably accurate at the time.

I had also created this colorful tree to predict what would happen at FTDNA previously:

This was more in the format of the Block Tree that FTDNA uses. The above tree also accounts for Lawrence and Michael who are in what I call the Pennsylvania Branch of Hartleys. I like this format better. Here I have updated that tree to show what FTDNA has now (except for the private variants):

I am not sure how the new Block Tree should look, but this is how a simplified tree would look:

Unfortunately, I do not believe that FTDNA will put Channon ‘Old Test’ on his own branch. They will likely just give him one Private Variant if I understand the process correctly.

15646418

Here is part of the New Channon Tester’s match list:

Here is that position for the new Channon tester:

He is clearly positive at this position.

Next, I check the new Channon tester for his closest Hartley match Ethan:

Ethan is clearly not positive for that Variant. Here is what YBrowse shows:

That modifies my SNP tree like this:

FGC7804

Using the same reasoning, It could be that FGC7804 is in the new Channon Branch. If this branching is so obvious, I don’t know why it doesn’t show up yet in the Block Tree at FTDNA. Perhaps they are waiting for a manual review.

New Channon Tester:

It is interesting that the new tester has two variants quite close to each other. However, the one I am interested in has the arrow on top of it.

Ethan:

Another reason the Block Tree may not have changed is that usually if a SNP is named, that means that it is already in a tree somewhere. So far, two of these SNPs have already been named for some reason.

This is my best bet at how the tree will look for Channon.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I am glad to see the results for the new Hartley BigY test. The test is from a Channon who has Nutter ancestry, but the testing shows that the family most certainly was a Hartley at some point in time – perhaps in the 1600’s.
  • The new tester did not match his brother in one of the variants. That means in this case that the older tester has formed a new branch and has a variant that his brother does not have.
  • It appears that the new Channon Branch should include three SNPs.
  • I will be interested to see the new branch come out at FTDNA and to see how this plays out in the FTDNA Time Trees.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *