A Z17911 STR Tree

Previously, I wrote a Blog on a STR Tree for Hartleys that were likely Z17911’s. In this Blog, I would like to look at others that have tested to be Z17911 or are likely Z17911 due to STR patterns. Since my last Blog, a lot has been going on in the little area of Z17911.

Z17911 in the L513 Tree

Z17911 is a small group under the L513 Group. L513 is a group under L21 which is a part of R1b. The L513 Tree is presently bursting at the seams:

One of the larger branches of L513 is S5668. That takes up about 2/3 of the lower left of the tree above. Here is a blowup of the Z16357 Branch of S5668.

At the time that I wrote the last blog, Merrick and Thomas were in the same location under an unnamed SNP. Now it has been named as BY11573. The placement of Merrick and Thomas below Z17911 was a result of my Big Y Test. Now Bennett has also taken a Big Y and found to be BY1157.

Enter Jared Smith on the Z17911 Scene

Jared Smith has been a large contributor on the Z17911 scene of late. He tested positive of Z17911 recently and has ordered a Big Y test. He is not to be confused with the Z16357 Smith above. Jared has developed an excellent web page called The R-Z16357 DNA Project. Jared has also created a discussion list for Z16357. Here is Jared’s updated version of the Z16357 Tree:

The part that I am most interested in is Z17911 and BY11573.

My First Attempt at a Z17911 STR Tree

First I took the 15 people listed as having STR results at the FTDNA L513 project. There are 6 that have tested positive for Z17911. There are an additional 9 that the administrator has put into a JM STR Cluster. The administrator figures that based on the STRs, they should also be Z17911’s. According to the administrator, Mike Walsh:

“You can see the “J” people 390=25,26 458=18,19 449=31 446=14. I would call this the “J” STR signature.”

I looked at the significant STRs for the 15 known or suspected Z17911’s and got this:

This was just for the first 37 tested STRs. I have the STR names at the top. I have the mode for L513, S5668 and Z17911. I tried to group the YDNA testers by patterns in their STR values. The GD is the Generational Distance. That means that the Phillips are closer to the Mode and Bullock and Bennett are furthest away. That would mean that Phillips should have the oldest pattern and Bennett the newest.

Here is the tree I built based on the above:

My intention was to have the oldest STR groups branching at the top and the newest branching nearer the bottom. I note that when I built my STR Tree for the Hartleys, I did it the opposite way.

The Problem with my first Z17911 STR tree

The tree was OK based on the way I did it. However, it did not account for one very important thing:

The STRs should account for the fact that the BY11573 SNP derives from Z17911. SNPs are the anchor and STRs may vary. Maurice Gleeson has promoted this type of analysis. In the old days, there were not as many SNPs. Now, due to Big Y type testing, there has been a tsunami of SNPs and it is now possible to incorporate them into STR analysis. When I added the SNPs to my STR chart, I noticed something interesting:

It took a while to see it, but I saw that all the BY11573 men had 13 or more for DYS439. All those who were Z17911 and not positive for BY11573 had a DYS439 of 12. Then I decided to sort my chart by DYS439:

Next I changed the DYS439 Mode for Z17911 from 13 to 12. This created a new oldest line of Gilroy. If DYS439 is the break between Z17911 and BY11573, then Phillips is now in the older, more signature BY11573. The results of a pending Phillips Big Y test will tell us for sure soon whether Phillips is BY11573 positive or not.

More SNP Structure

Jared Smith built a more  detailed SNP tree here based on recent testing information:

Here is the Z17911 part I’m interested in:

I would expect that the STR tree would follow the SNP tree. Here is a simple SNP/STR Tree with a few signature STRs that I have added in on the left top and bottom:

What if DYS439 = 12 is Z17911 and DYS329 = 13 is BY11573?

The Z17911’s I’m talking about are negative for the SNP below of BY11573. Until more testing comes in, that is the out on a tree limb assumption I’m making. Based on that and some other Hartleys that have had the YDNA tested, here is a spreadsheet for Z179111 positive and BY11573 negative people.

This Chart does not show DYS439 as these are all of the above have a value of 12. In the Chart above, I note a Gilroy/Goff/Smith signature of DYS391 = 11 and DYS576 = 16. That leaves the Hartley signature as DYS391 = 10 and DYS576 = 17, 18. I went back to the older S5668 Mode to get a feel for the overall direction of the STR mutations.

Z17911 STR Tree

Here is the tree I drew from the above STRs.

I tried to learn how to make these trees using two different methods, so it gets a bit confusing. In this method, only two lines are allowed to come out of each box. I like that method, but it required me to put in a Hartley Ancestor box under the West Yorkshire Hartley Ancestor box. On the bottom line, Gilroy probably has the oldest Z17911 signature. The Hartleys on the right have the newest signatures. Actually Wm. Hartley going up has the most STR changes (7), so I suppose he would have the most recent STR signature. Jared Smith has noted that I am positive for the SNP A11130, so it will be interesting to see if this is a defining Hartley Family SNP or not. Above I made a guess on the West Yorkshire and Lancashire Hartley split based on the knowledge that one of the Hartleys has West Yorkshire ancestors and that I on the bottom right have Lancashire Hartley ancestors.

Some BY11573 Patterns

I’m not ready to build a BY11573 Tree yet. However, I did note some BY11573 patterns.

Interestingly, most of the places where I found patterns were on the BY11573 positive people shown in darker blue above. If I were to draw a 37 STR BY11573 Tree at this time, it would just include those above highlighted in blue. The actual list of names was taken from Jared’s website and includes other names.

Next Steps

Next we wait for pending tests to come in and others who may decide to test. We are also awaiting analysis of the Bennett Big Y test from Alex Williamson at the L513 Page of the Big Tree.

A Hartley Z17911 STR Tree

In my previous blogs on Hartley YDNA, I mentioned that my terminal SNP is Z17911. That is a part of the L513 Branch of the larger L21 Branch of R1b. Here is what the L513 Branch looks like. This Tree represents those who have taken the Big Y Test in the colored area above.

l513chart

My Hartley Z17911 is difficult to see but it is slightly to the left of the middle and to the left of an orange area. The checkerboard pattern shows the part of England that my Hartleys are from. As far as I know I am the only Hartley that has had SNPs tested positive for Z17911, or for L513, for that matter.

STRs and Z17911

However, quite a few Hartleys have tested their YDNA. They have tested STRs. As a result, it is possible to do a comparison to others taking this test. STRs are not SNPs which are a more definitive designation of where you are on the Y Tree. However, they can suggest what SNP you should belong to. I belong to an L513 and the Administrator Mike is actively looking for others that might be in L513. As a result, Mike has put out lists of people that appear to be L513 based on their STR patterns. I have mentioned in past Blogs that some of those people are Hartleys.

Here is a recent list:

suspectedz17911

The first on the list above is me. Then follows three other Hartleys. Administrator Mike has grouped these other 3 Hartleys next to me. Based on their STRs, he has grouped them as Z17911. This is even though these 3 have not tested for Z17911, L513, or probably not even for L21 which is way up on the Y Tree. The row with the orange, green and yellow above the results has what is called STR Rates. These are the rates at which each individual STR mutates. Some are very slow and some mutate relatively quickly. The selected mode above is likely the mode of L513. This will come in handy later on in this Blog in a few ways.

Z17911 and Signature STRs

It turns out that STRs form themselves into groups. That means that for groups of people that are related by YDNA have combinations of STRs that are almost always unique to that group. Here I will make an assumption that the other 3 Hartleys are indeed Z17911, even though they haven’t tested their SNPs.

In the results section to the right of the Hartley names are the values for each STR marker. The colored values are the ones that vary from the L513 Mode. These values, especially the ones that are in the darker colors will result in a signature for these Z17811 Hartleys. The darker colors indicate more of a variance or distance from the mode. Another way to put it, is that the L513 mode is the older value and the Z17811 Hartley numbers are the newer values for the STRs that have mutated away from the L513 mode.

Up or Down?

These Z17811 STRs may mutate up or down. The blue shaded numbers are going down and the reds are going up. Why is this important? It is important as I’d like to build a tree from these 4 Hartleys. I will need to know who is descending from whom. Or at least, which of the 4 branches of Hartleys may be the oldest.

Here is an example:

str-example

These are some of the results of our 4 presumed positive Z17911 Hartleys. It is  difficult to create a mode of these results as the mode is the value which occurs the most. If there are 2 of each value, which value do you use? This happens the #449 Marker results. I am 31 at the top, but there are two 31’s and two 32’s. I have the L513 mode at the top of the image. The value for Marker #449 is 29. That means I have the older 31 value and the other 2 Hartleys have newer 32 values. They are moving away from 29.

Defining Hartley Z17911 STRs

Next, I looked at all the STRs where the 4 Hartley had different results. The other results are interesting but in comparing Hartley to Hartley they don’t matter if they are the same. Well, they might matter if there was a STR that mutated up and back down again, but the chance of that happening should be relatively rare.

hartley-strs

Here I have compacted 67 STR results to 12. This is a good time to point out the STR rates. The rate for 447 is about 0.09. The rate for CDYb is 35. That means that CDYb will change over 350 times as fast as 447. Another point is that Hartley #4 seems to be a special case. He was categorized as a non-L513 person which was thought by the L513 Administrator Mike to be a mistake. I don’t know if that was ever resolved. I do note that some of his STRs are a bit different than the other 3 Hartleys, but not totally different. I also note that he has tested positive for R-L21, so perhaps this has been resolved.

But Wait, There’s More

I had forgotten, there is one more Hartley in the group. He doesn’t have a Hartley last name but believes that he is descended from the Hartley Line. Great news. I will call him Hartley #5.

5-hartleys

Previously, I had missed Marker 481. Also when I copied things, my numbers didn’t get colors, but that’s alright. Now I have 13 markers and 5 Hartleys.

References for Trees

I’m aware of 3 references for creating STR trees.

  • Robert Laurence Baber – He has written quite a few articles on STR trees. I have not read them all yet. I downloaded a 5 part study he wrote but I don’t totally understand his method yet – though I understand some of the principles. He uses an upstream STR mode as I tried to do above.
  • Robb Hand Drawn Tree example – He compares a hand drawn tree to the Fluxus software. Although he likes the hand drawn version better, he learns some from using difficult to use the Fluxus software
  • Gleeson STR Tree – Maurice Gleeson gives a method and example of how to build a STR tree

More on Modes

I seem to be getting hung up on Modes:

more-modes

Here I have the L513 Mode and various modes from downstream SNPs. The 458 mode went quickly from 17 for L513 to 19 for S5668 and then appeared to stay there for quite a while.As a result, I chose 19 for the mode. Had I just looked at the older L513 Mode, I may have come to a different conclusion as to which way this STR was mutating.

Then the very fast CDYb seemed to move up in a regular way through the ages. Of course, in reality, it could have gone up and down over that period of time, but we wouldn’t know it if it did. I picked the lower 39 value for the CDYb STR at the Hartley mode level. To the right, I have the GD or generational distance from the Hartley Mode. This says that these Hartleys should be related at about the same level – around 4 or 5 GDs or STR mutations.

A 5 Hartley Likely Z17911 STR Tree

Here is the tree I came up with. It is along the line of and in the form of the Gleeson STR Tree example mentioned above:

5hartleytree

  • The Hartley common ancestor’s signature STR values are listed at the top. The mutations from that are shown down the branches to the individual Hartleys.
  • I also added some dates assuming that on average, a STR will mutate every 170 years given a test of 67 STRs. The lower horizontal lines above happen at the 2 or 3 STR mutation rate (which is the same as the GD). The top horizontal line happens at a GD of 4 or 5. The Hartley #5 horizontal line is up higher as the 358b mutation is a double one from 16 to 18.
  • In the above scenario, Hartley #5 is by himself. Another scenario would have Hartley #4 and Hartley #5 together as they share a mutation at 389b. Instead, I chose the above tree due to Hartley #1, 4, 3, and 2 each sharing 2 STRs.

This image shows some of my rationale for the tree:

5hartley-groping

I chose the double combo of 25-32 that Hartley #2 and #3 shared. I also chose the double combo of 17-40 (in yellow) that Hartley #1 and #4 shared. Other possible single combos that I didn’t choose to group were the two step 16>18 mutation for Hartley #4 and 5, the 11 mutation for Hartley #1 and 5 and the 16 mutation for Hartley #1 and 3. The principle used is to try to get the tree as simple as possible. This is what Gleeson calls the parsimony principle. My assumption is that my groupings achieve that goal.

How Do the Hartleys Compare to the Z17911 Mode?

In comparing Hartleys to the Z17911 Mode,  I go from the age of surnames to before the age of surnames. There are 4 that have tested positive for Z17911. They are Hartley (me), Goff, Thomas and Merrick. In that group, the level of GD’s and the variance in surnames indicate a pre-surname common ancestor.

So the GD’s will be further back also.

z17911gds

Here I am assuming no back mutations. Under the previous tree I assumed that Hartley #5 had a back mutation at CDYb. Due to the volatility of this marker, it is sometimes ignored in these analyses. Notice that now the range of GDs is from 3 to 8. Again, I group Hartley #1 and #4 together and Hartley #2 and #3 together.

z17911tree

Hartley #4 has the GD of 8. This is due to 2 double mutations. That pushes back his connection to Z17911 to around the year 600. This seems to be pushing back to a possible age of Z17911. Z17911 positive Thomas has submitted his Big Y results to YFull, so I am hoping to get a date from YFull for Z17911. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. The structure of the tree is the same as the previous Hartley Tree. I just adjusted the relative heights of the horizontal arms.

Summary and Conclusion

  • STRs from 5 Hartleys who have tested their YDNA seem to indicate a relatively close relationship – at least in YDNA terms
  • I have had my SNPs tested and the administrator of the R1b-L513 project has grouped the other STR-testing Hartleys in the same Z17911 group as me based on similar STR patterns. That is quite a way down the SNP tree.
  • If any of these Hartley were to test for for the L513 SNP or further down for Z17911, it could confirm what the STRs seem to be saying. Then I wouldn’t be the lone SNP tested Z17911 Hartley
  • SNPs create a solid reliable marker for relationships. It is best to have the SNP relationship established through testing before doing this type of STR analysis. However, even without SNP testing, STR trees can be informative
  • Back mutations and the different mutation rates leading to unpredictable STR mutations are the 2 major variables that make STR testing less accurate than SNP testing
  • The weakness of the SNP testing is that many have not done it. The other issue is SNP testing may only take you up to a certain date. After that date, STR analysis is  more useful
  • STR testing is best used in conjunction with SNP testing
  • Making a STR tree takes some practice and knowledge of STRs and mutations.
  • This YDNA research and resulting connections could shed light on the history of this branch of the Hartley family over the past 400-1400 years or so.

 

Updates to Whitson, Whetstone and Butler YDNA: A Proposed Whitson/Butler Tree

There have been some good news since my last Blog on Whitson and Butler YDNA. I wrote that almost 2 months ago. The biggest news is that there are new people in the group.

whitsonbutlerydnatestees

There is now one new category – R1b>R-M239 Whetstone (in yellow). There are 2 new people there. There is a new person in the I1>M253 Whitson/Whetstone Group (McIntyre). There is a new Whitson under I2>M223 who has taken the 111 STR test which is one of the best available. He shows up under the green section as having an ancestor Jacob Whitson. I believe that he had tested before when Ancestry had YDNA testing, but unfortunately, it is not easy to compare the two tests. His results are of special interest to me as he is in the group with my Butler father in law. There are now 3 Whitsons and 3 Butlers in this I2 Subgroup.

In this Blog, I will be analyzing and drawing trees for the green I2 Whitson/Butler Subgroup as they have the most in the group. With too few people in a group, it is difficult to draw trees.

YDNA – What Does It All Mean?

As many know, YDNA shines a laser bean down the male line to the far past. YDNA can quickly show who is not related. For example, in the chart above, the people in the different colored subgroups cannot be related. The connection between these groups could be in the 1,000’s or 10’s of thousands of years. To find who is related by YDNA is more difficult. The probability of relationships are predicted. This is because distance is measured in STRs and STRs can mutate whenever they want, even though on average that all mutate at a certain rate. Then some STRs may mutate faster than others – or much more slowly.

The TIP Report

FTDNA’s TIP Report is a good tool, because it estimates how closely 2 people may be related in generations based on probabilities. It takes into account the number of STRs tested and rate at which the STRs mutate.

batt and butler TIP

i2whitson-burtler

First, we will look at #1 and #4 on our list. They both tested at 111 STRs. The Report shows the likelihood that those 2 would share a common ancestor in the previous generations:

batt-peter

I usually feel that 90% is pretty likely. Let’s say a generation is 34 years. That would be 408 years ago or 1608 from now or even further back if we start from when someone was alive today and born in the 1950’s. Then it could be as close as 4-8 generations. Hopefully, we would know if the match was 4 generations ago, but the point is that the number of generations to a common ancestor could vary quite a bit.

I did a comparison for everyone in the Green Group above:

tipchart

I found the results quite interesting:

  • Mr Batt appears to be the same distance from each person in this group – irrespective of whether the match is a Butler or Whitson descendant
  • #4 Butler varies the most between 8 and 18 generations
  • #3 Butler was on average related most closely to the group
  • It appears that a sort of tree could be drawn from these results
  • It appears that this group of Whitsons and Butlers have been related to each other for quite a while. The number 12 comes up a lot for generations to a common ancestor. My guess that these two families have been related to each other for between 8 and 12 generations

These are my interpretations from just the TIP Report so far. I am open to other theories.

A tree from tip reports

I have never seen a tree drawn from these TIP Reports, but it would be interesting to try. Here is my first try:

whitbuttreept1

This shows the furthest and closest relationships based on the TIP Report. #4 is 17 generations away from #2 and #4 is 8 generations away from #3. Now I just need to add one more Butler and 2 more Whitsons. But How? Here is a simple solution:

simple-tree

Here this assumes that all the GDs above 8 are pretty much equal and that everyone matches above at the common Whitson/Butler Ancestor. Here is another option:

tip-tree-2

This looks nicer, but I can’t say that it is more accurate given the TIP Reports. Here is a 3rd try:

tiptree3

This doesn’t seem to do the TIP Report justice either. I’ll go on to the more traditional trees made using STRs.

STR Analysis

I’ll now try to create a tree using a method developed by Robert Baber in 2014. Here is an example of one of his trees:

baber-example

In my previous Blog, I looked at signature STRs. Those are the similar STRs that define a group. However, to created a tree, I will be looking at the STRs that are different.

I2 Whitson/Butler STRs

Here is a chart of the defining differences in the I2 Whitson/Butler Group:

i2whitsonbutlerstrs

modes

The first mode above is an I-A427 mode from the FTDNA I-M223 Y Haplogroup Project. So this mode should be a more generic version of the Whitson/Butler Group. The assumption is that the mode for this larger group goes back further in time than the Whitson/Butler Group. The reason that this is important is that it should tell us which way the STRs are moving.

  • In the first column with numbers above, the A427 mode is 29, the W/B Mode is 31 and 6 Butler (Michael) is 32. That means the STRs are mutating up.
  • Look at DYS576. That is a red STR. That means it is a fast mover. A427 mode is 18, W/B mode is 16 and Batt is 15. That means that the trend of STR mutation is going down over time.
  • CDY is a fast mover and difficult to interpret. Some people might ignore the CDY results for this reason.
  • Finally look at the last 2 columns above. The A427 (older) modes are 14 and 12. The Whitson/Butler modes are 16 and 14. That would indicate that the trend in STR values is upward. However at that level of STR testing (111), the 2 Whitsons are at the higher level and the Butler is at the lower STR level. If we were just looking at the 3 Whitson and Butler STR results here in isolation, we would think that the Whitson higher level STRs were older and that Butler is changing away from them. However, by using the broader I-A427 vantage, we can see that it is likely that is Whitson changing away from Butler. This could have implications as we try to determine who came first – the Butlers or the Whitsons in this I2 subgroup.
  • It is possible that if all those in the I2 group had tested for 111 STRs, that the above point would be clearer.

Just based on the last 2 STRs of the 67-111 STR results, I would draw a tree like this:

butlerwhtson111tree

Unfortunately, I am having a lot of trouble understanding the Baber Paper and I am pulling the plug on that method for now. However, there are interesting concepts in it that are helpful.

From Baber to Robb

John Bartlett Robb put out a paper in 2012 called:

Fluxus Network Diagrams vs Hand-Constructed Mutation History Trees

In that paper Robb gives a procedure for drawing trees.

In his paper, Robb uses only the STRs in common, so in our case, that would be the 37 STRs. He also creates a Root Prototype Haplotye (RPH). In our case that RPH would just be the Whitson/Butler Mode. Then he notes deviations from that RPH in lime green:

robbstrs

Here are the Mutation Rates for the applicable STRs extracted from the Robb Paper:

mutation-rates

The faster mutations are on the bottom and slower ones on the top. I added in the people on the right that had the mutations. On 37 markers, everyone had one mutation except for Butler (James) who had 3.

Proposed Whitson/Butler Tree

Here is the tree I came up with based on 37 STRs:

proposed-whitsonbutler-tree

From there, I recall a rule by Baber which says, in my terms, “you should only have 2 lines going into each box”. Here is a tree that meets that rule:

treebaberrule

So reading down from the top, we have the common ancestor which I have as Butler Ancestor 3. That ancestor has a certain signature based on STRs. Then I have my father in law branching off with a 389ii that goes from 31 to 32. I took my father in law as the first mutation as he had the second slowest mutation after #4 Butler. I couldn’t choose #4’s slowest mutation at that point as that mutation apparently happened after the common mutation (of 570 22 to 23) he had with #3 Butler. Branching down from Butler Ancestor 2 is Whitson Ancestor 2. From him I have #2 Whitson (Jacob) branching off as he has a slow moving STR also. Then from Whitson Ancestor 1, I have #5 Whitson (Isaac) and #1 Batt (Wm Whitson).

Also from Butler Ancestor 2 I have the common mutation of STR 570 which went from 22 to 23 in a presumed common ancestor of #3 Butler (Laurence) and #4 Butler (James). After this common mutation, the #4 Butler line had two additional mutations – one on the very slow mutating STR and one on the very fast mutating one.

The technique takes a little logic, a little guesswork and some knowledge of how the STRs mutate. If I had plugged #6 Butler into Butler Ancestor 2 and Whitson Ancestor 2 into Butler Ancestor 3, it wouldn’t have made much difference. I did it the way I did based on the speed of the STR’s mutation rate – all other things being equal. The overall idea is to get from the common ancestor signature STR to the individual members’ STRs.

I think the above tree is a likely scenario considering:

  • I see the Whitson STRs changing off the Butler STRs in my charts above.
  • The Butler STRs are slightly slower changing STRs which could indicate an older line.

Some other points:

  • It is likely that the Whitsons and Butlers are grouped together by surname as I have them.
  • The Butlers all descend from Ireland. If the chart is correct, then the Whitsons in Subgroup I2 could also descend from Ireland. A more complicated speculation would have both lines in England. Then the Butler line could have gone to Ireland and the Whitson Line to the U.S.

Whitson and Butler YDNA and Signature STRs

Two Types of YDNA: SNPs and STRs

As many know, YDNA is the DNA of the male line.

SNPs can be seen as the trunk and branches of the tree and the STRs can be seen as the twigs and leaves. Before we analyze the twigs and leaves, it is good to know if we are in the right tree. However, even when looking at the leaves, it is sometimes possible to guess the type of tree.

maple-leaf

For example, in the Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) Whitson project, there are officially nine people listed. There are more that have tested, but not with FTDNA. In the list below, there are three broad groups represented by the colors orange, teal, and yellow. These are the SNP groups, or the tree types. These three groups are I1, I2 and R1b.  These SNPs break down into finer and finer distinctions. However, there is no connection between I and R in the range of 10,000’s of years. There are also a huge amount of years between the I1 and I2 SNP Haplogroups.

Whitson FTDNA Project Results
Whitson FTDNA Project Results

Once people are grouped in the SNPs, then it is possible to compare the STRs. These are the numbers to the right. These are what I was referring to as the twigs and leaves. However, these are only compared within the other major groupings of SNPs.

Why Are There Three SNP Types for the Whitsons?

There are various reasons:

  1. When surnames were being developed, this name could have developed independently at different locations.
  2. An adoption could have taken place at some point. This is under the category of Non-Paternal Event (or NPE) as are #3 and #4 below.
  3. An unwed mother could have had a child that had her name. However, as the father has the YDNA, his YDNA would be carried on to the male child in the line.
  4. A relationship outside a marriage would tend to break the YDNA line also.

The SNP Types or Haplogroups

SNP groupings are called Haplogroups. Here are some of the Whitson Haplogroups:

I1>I-M253

The first Haplogroup above are the I1>M253 Whitsons. There are 2 Whitsons in that Haplogroup. FTDNA has a group just for I1’s. There are currently about 6000 people in this group. Not much analysis can be done with these 2 right now as they match by STRs exactly. If these 2 Whitson join the FTDNA I1 Project, it may be possible to find a signature STR for these 2 (see below).

I1 people have sometimes been associated with the Vikings. This group of people did seem to take a Northern route in their distant ancestry, so that is where the association comes from. However, there may be finer distinctions once we learn more about this I1 Whitson Group.

I2>I-M223

FTDNA has an I-M223 YDNA Project. The Whitsons and Butlers in our project are in a section of that projects called:

1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1- M223>…>L701>P78>S25733>A427 (Cont3a1 Group 2)

One of the Butlers in the group has tested positive for the SNP called A427. The other 4 were put in that group due to their similar STRs. This is like saying what tree you are by your leaves. A427 is quite a way down on the SNP tree. Using my tree analogy, this would be a very specific type of tree.  Below are all the people in the A427 SNP Group. I only included up to the 36th STR (small numbers) as the image was all ready small enough. There were actually more STRs tested to the right of this image.

Whtson Butler STRs

Now the A427 SNP is like the specific tree and the STRs which are the numbers listed are like the different branches, twigs and leaves. I would like to point out here a specific fingerprint for our Whitsons and Butlers. Here are our 5 Whitson/Butlers outlined in red:

Whtson Butler STRs Highlight

The first 3 rows of numbers are the minimum, maximum and mode of this A427 Group for each STR. The purple colors are the STRs that are less than the mode and the pink colors are the values that are more than the mode. Our 5 Whitson/Butlers will have a unique STR signature among all those who are in this A427 Group. Here is the same shot, with just the most important numbers outlined in yellow:

STR Heards

Whtson Butler STRs Signature

And the I2 Whitson/Butler signature is:

DYS389II=31 or higher, DYS454=12, DYS448=21 or higher, DYS449=26

Note that for all those in the A427 Group, only our group of Whitson/Butlers has this signature. This signature is just in the 1st 21 markers (or STRs). In this Whitson/Butler Group, 2 have tested 37 STRs, 1 has tested 67 and 2 have tested 111 STRs. Now above the 37 STRs, there are likely more Whitson/Butler signature STRs for those that have tested to that level. The marker (STR) names are listed above. The markers that have a reddish background are those that are faster moving markers. They change more often than the blue background markers.

This Group of YDNA have sometimes been associated with the ancient Goths. So far we have Vikings and Goths with our Whitson or Whitson/Butler Groups.

R1b-R-U106 group

This Group has been associated with the Anglo-Saxons. Although this group is sometimes associated with the modern English, they likely began in an area of current Germany or Belgium and invaded “England” some time after the Romans left the Island.

Right now there are only 2 Whitsons that have tested with FTDNA in this group. There is an additional Whitson who has done the old Ancestry test that is no longer available. The Ancestry test doesn’t match perfectly, but for the STRs that were tested, all the STRs match.

Both these R-U106’s have joined FTDNA’s R-U106 Project. The first person descends from Henry Whitson who lived on Long Island in the 1600’s. He has tested for 67 STRs and has this designation from the U106 Project:

Z381>Z156>Z306>Z304> DF98 ??? Need to order Big Y or R1b-Z156 SNP Pack

These are the SNPs that the U106 Project specialist thinks this person would test positive for if he had tested SNPs. Perhaps the specialist was not so sure about DF98. That is followed by what the U106 specialist recommends for those that are in the group. The Big Y is quite an expensive test but very definitive and actually finds new SNPs. The SNP Pack tests for several SNPs, in this case below Z156. [However, see my own recommendation below.]

The second person in this group matches all STRs at 67 STRs with the previous person. However, he has tested 111 STRs and has tested his SNP to be R-S23139. He is in a different section of the U106 Project:

Z381>Z156>Z306>Z304> DF98>S18823>S22069>S11739>S23139

Note that the U106 Project specialist doesn’t have any more recommendations for this person, because he has done all the testing down to R-S23139. My guess is that if the first person were to test for R-S23139, he would be positive for that SNP also. That would get these 2 Whitsons together for the U106 Project. That would also cost less many than taking the SNP Pack.

Here is a snapshot of the R-S23139 Group:

U106 Peter

Here our lone Whitson is with some others that appear to be from Germany. In looking for a unique STR for our 2 U106’s, first I see a value of 12 in the last column above for DYS531. If I counted this right, it is the 38th marker, so this signature Whitson U106 STR would not have shown up on a 37 STR test. In our previous Whitson/Butler Group there were many signature STRs in the first 37 markers.

Let’s look for some more signature Whitson STRs in the R-S23139 Group:

U106 67 STRs Header

U106 67 STRs

I am starting where I left off at the signature 12 in the first column. Then I see a unique 16, 12 and 11. This means our R-S23139 signature (assuming our 1st Whitson is positive for R-S23139) is:

DYS531=12, DYS594=16, DYS568=12, DYS487=11

After that, there is a 36 and 28 that are unique, but they are in the 111 STR group. The 111 STR group is also indicated in the header where the STR names have a lighter blue background. There are many other STRs after that that are likely unique in the 111 STR test also.

Any Other Whitsons?

Yes. The Whitson Family Group contacted another person and found out that he was R1b, but a different brand of R1b. This R1b was associated with the people who were in the British Isles before the time when the Romans, Vikings, Danes, and Anglo-Saxon entered the area.

Summary and Recommendations

  • So far, for a small group of Whitsons and a few Butlers, there are many types of DNA groups. These represent people that are distantly related to each other genetically.
  • There are some Whitsons that had taken the old Ancestry test. They could benefit by also taking the FTNDA test. I know of one Whitson who has already gone that route and is awaiting results.
  • Some Whitsons may benefit by taking an additional SNP test, to make sure they are in the right tree -so to speak.
  • Those Whitsons in the I1 YDNA group could benefit by joining the FTDNA I1 Project.
  • With the close matches in the I1 Group and the R-U106 Group, it seems like it should be possible to find some common ancestors.

 

 

 

 

 

My Hartley Big Y Results: Part One

Back before I got my Big Y results, I wrote an article called My Hartley YDNA. This covered issues relating to Hartley SNPs and STRs. As many know, the Big Y is the ultimate Family Tree DNA product for testing the YDNA that is passed down from father to son since the beginning of such passing down of YDNA. While other YDNA tests identify existing STR and SNP markers, it is the purpose of the Big Y to look at one’s DNA and discover new SNPs.

Hartley Big Y Testees

As far as I know there are a total of 3 Hartley Big Y testees – including me. I am correctly but awkwardly saying testees as the testers are those in the lab testing the DNA. I may slip back to the more comfortable ‘tester’ at some point.

William on the I Line

The first Hartley to have the Big Y is William who is the Hartley DNA administrator. He is in the I Haplogroup. In the old nomenclature, he would be along the line of I1a2a1a2. I1 and I2 are the main I branches and are extremely distantly related to other known Hartleys – at least by YDNA. Other Hartleys so far tested have been R1b.  I agree with what William says about his connection to other Hartleys:

My last common [I1] ancestor was about 1,800 years ago and also likely an Angle [Anglo-Swedish Angle]. So that commonality may be why we both later adopted the Hartley surname and both our ancestries are found around Yorkshire and Lancashire.

I added the I1 in brackets for clarification.

The second Hartley Testee: James Hartley ancestor – R1b-S1051

The second Hartley testee was more closely related than the I1 Haplogroup. We are both in the R1b group.  Further, we are both in the L21 group. This group has sometimes been associated with the Celts. L21 is also associated with the older peoples that lived in the British Isles prior to the arrival of Vikings, Anglo Saxons and Normans. However, our common ancestor was likely 1,000’s of years ago.  The second Hartley testee is in a tiny branch called S1051 which I have pointed out with a red arrow. I am in the gold regions of L513 a few steps up from S1051

L21 Tree S1051

This chart is from July 2015. I believe that it is no longer updated as it has gotten so crowded due to Big Y testing. There are 151 people in the R-S1051 Project. According to the R-S1051 Project web page:

Recently many new SNP’s have been discovered for this unique haplogroup which is located below DF13. 

The majority of this family group have 5 main Patriarch SNP’s (S1051, FGC9655, FGC9661, FGC9658 and FGC9657). The current age estimate for these Patriarch SNP’s is approximately 3,200 to 4,500 years old and likely originated within what is known as the Bell Beaker culture. When examining other haplogroups of a similar age the S1051 people are very few by comparison.

Evidence suggests that the geographic origin of this family group could have been from what is now modern Scotland.

Our fellow Hartley Big Y testee #2 is on the FGC9655 Line. Here is my attempt to spray paint out the IDs below on the Alex Williamson Big Tree:

Alex S1051 tree

It looks like our Hartley has the most Big Y company in the R-S1051 Group. The belief is also that the Hartleys came from the North of England originally. This theory that this S1051 group was from Scotland originally would tend to support the Northern UK origins of the Hartleys. Brewer in the reddish color has not been analyzed yet, so things are still developing in the FGC9655 SNP Group.

That is a good segue into my results. I called this blog Part One because, like Mr. Brewer, my results have not been analyzed yet either. Due to all the Big Y testing recently, there has been a bit of a backlog in analyzing the results.

The Third Testee (Me) – R-L513

I already knew where I was on the L513 Chart. Now, due to the fact that I have taken the Big Y test, I am listed on the top part of the tree. This is like being elevated to YDNA Heaven.

L513 Tree June 2016

Here is a closer up shot:

L513 Blowup

I am hoping that other Hartleys will test and find to be positive for Z17911. Like Hartley Big Y Tester #2, I am in the Big Tree. Unlike Tester #2, my data has not been analyzed by Alex Williamson, so I am still shown in a reddish color. This time I’ll erase the kit numbers for privacy:

Hartley on Big Tree

Way at the top, there is Smith. He is positive for a SNP named Z16357. All the other names share the Z16357 SNP with Smith. Smith does not share Z16343 and the block of other SNPs listed below with Hay(e)s, Pillsbury, Merrick, Thomas and Hartley. The tree portion above shows that Hay(e)s is down from the Pillsbury Line. Merrick, Thomas and Hartley have only 2 named SNPs: Z17911 and Z17912. A few other observations:

  • If one is positive for Z16343, then they are likely positive for most or all of the other SNPs listed in the Z16343 block
  • There is no one currently that is positive for Z16343 that isn’t also either Z17911 or Z16855
  • If we maintain the 150 years per SNP, then the block of about 25 SNPs in the Z16343 block could represent 3,750 years. There are some detailed reasons why that number of years could be less. However, it is still a long amount of time.

Public SNPs, Private SNPs, Terminal SNPs

But wait, there’s more. There are different categories of SNPs with different names. The terminology can get confusing. A terminal SNP means the last SNP on your line that you could be based on current knowledge. For me, that is Z17911. However, what was terminal in the past, what is terminal now and what may be a terminal SNP in the future are different things.

Public SNPs are those SNPs with listed names such as Z17911 or those in the block under Z16343. These are also a moving target. At one time, these SNPs were just position numbers.

Private SNPs are those that are not yet public SNPs or may be family SNPs. Family SNPs are those that just belong to a single family name – probably within a genealogical time frame. So, if your genealogy goes back 350 years, there could be on average 3 SNPs during that time. Those would be considered family SNPs.

Novel Variants and unique SNPs

FTDNA reports Novel Variants. In my Big Y test, I have 30 Novel Variants listed. Those that are not shared by anyone else would be considered my unique or private SNPs. Note that this definition of Private SNPs bumps up against the Private SNP definition that I had above which was a family SNP. This means that either I have it wrong or there are 2 different ways of looking at Private SNPs.

Here is a screen shot from an excellent video called,

Building a Family Tree with SNPs, STRs, & Named People (Maurice Gleeson)

Maurice SNP Types

Hopefully the above diagram simplifies my complicated explanation.

The Mike Walsh L513 Discovery Spreadsheet

I am fortunate to be in the R-L513 Haplogroup with Mike Walsh as an administrator. He is very active in that group looking for new people to further test and for people who aren’t in the group already but perhaps should be due to the signature of their STR tests. He has developed a Discovery spreadsheet based on the Big Y results – specifically from the VCF files. VCF stands for Variant Call Format. Here is part of his file for my little piece of the YDNA world which includes Hay(e)s, Pillsbury, Thomas, Merrick and Hartley.

Walsh Discovery

Here we have the SNP position number. The H is the YDNA group based on STRs. The status looks to be Public consistent, public semi-consistent, multi-family surname or single family surname. These statuses are analogous to the public and private SNPs that I was mentioning above. Grade is how good the SNP is. Frequency is how many times it occurs – in this case out of the 6 people in the test group. Then the results are colored according to the grade and other factors for Hayes, Pillsbury, Hartley, Merrick and Thomas. Note that the SNPs with poor grades were never named. They are just position numbers.

Z17911

Here is the second page of the Discovery Spreadsheet:

Discovery p2

The blanks are no-reads. These would be inconclusive. Red means that there was a read, but the SNP was not present. This shows that for the Z17911 and Z17912 SNPs, Hayes and Pillsbury were negative and Hartley, Merrick and Thomas were positive. That is how these two groups separated ways and are on different branches of the L513 SNP Tree.

Does the Spreadsheet tell us anything new?

When Mike first added me to his spreadsheet, he noted the following:

This isn’t on the Big Tree but Merrick and Thomas have this which you do not have:
19581481-G-A

Here is the unnamed SNP Mike mentioned that I don’t have:

Discovery part3

Note that Hayes, Pillsbury and Hartley are negative for 19581481 and Thomas and Merrick are positive for it. This was a little different than the Z17911 above. It appears that 1951481 at the bottom of my screen capture may become a named SNP for Merrick and Thomas and put  them in a branch below me. So perhaps my Big Y has helped someone else after all. Perhaps the next Big Y tester will in this region will help me out.

The YFull Analysis

While I am waiting for Alex Williamson’s analysis, I am also waiting for a YFull analysis. This is a company in Russia that will look at the BAM file from the Big Y test. They will add my results to their YFull tree. They also give estimated dates to my SNPs. Finally, they will, as a lesser priority, find STRs that they can extract from the Big Y test. The only downside is a small fee and that I will only be compared to others that are in the YFull system.

YFull

 

My Hartley YDNA

After writing over 50 Blogs on genetic genealogy, I realized that I hadn’t written a blog on my Hartley YDNA. I have written on Frazer YDNA and my wife’s family YDNA (Butler), but not one just on Hartley YDNA. This will not be on all Hartley YDNA as I know the most about mine. There are other Hartley Lines that aren’t closely related to mine.

Many reading this blog will know already that the YDNA is used often in Surname studies. This is because YDNA is passed mostly unchanged from father to son. I say mostly because there are slow changes that occur. These slow changes are what make the differences in the different STRs and SNPs.  STRs and SNPs are the 2 major types of YDNA of importance in genetic genealogy. In this Blog, I’ll write about my own STRs and SNPs and how they relate to each other. I’ll also look at a few ways of analyzing YDNA results. There is a lot to cover here.

SNPs – Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms

SNPs are formed due to genetic mutations and are very specific and unambiguous. They can be used to trace one’s line back to a genetic Adam and place one into a specific group of people. Here is the broad difference between SNPs. They are listed between the letters A and T below.

All SNPs

My Hartley Line is broadly R1b. My Frazer line is R1a. They split off at some point and appear to have taken a more northerly route through Europe. R1b is the most common YDNA in Western Europe. Further, there are 2 branches that are common within R1b. These 2 types are listed by their test names. They are R-U106 and R-P312. In England, the R-U106 represents the Anglo Saxons. They came from the areas around Germany.  It turns out that I am R-P312 and further L21. See the bottom left of the tree below.

Tree to L21

L21 is known for the Irish and Scots. But there are also English L21. Actually, I would like to think of myself as British. The British represents the older stock in England whereas the Anglo (hence English) Saxon are the late comers. More of the U106 are found in the Southeast England where the Anglo Saxons entered. The L21’s are found more in the North and West of England and in Ireland.

L21 Map

For some reason, I was relieved to find out that I was R-L21. I guess I liked the idea of being associated with the old timers vs. the invaders. Also, even though the Celts are not a genetic group per se, they have been associated with R-L21. Here is a map of England in 600 A.D showing the British/Anglo Saxon split.

Briton 600

More on L21

It took me quite a while testing my YDNA to find out that I was L21. There are many levels of subdivisions below L21. Here is an L21 Tree that is almost 2 years out of date. On it, I tried to place some of the Hartleys that had tested up to that point. Some that I wasn’t sure of I put in the upper left of the chart.

L21 2014 Map

At that time, I had put my ancestor, Robert Hartley in the L513  Group (dark yellow) and one step under that at S5668. Due to in a large part, people doing a Big Y test, many new SNPs have been discovered and placed  in the tree. Now R-L513 has it’s own Tree.

L513 map

Finally, I have tested positive for Z17911 and Z17912. These are equivalent SNPs.  The people listed on the main tree are ones that have taken the Big Y or equivalent tests. Once I get my results, my name will show above with Merrick and Thomas – or perhaps in my own group.

L513 Tree Section

As far as I know, Z17911 is the end of the line or what has been referred to as a terminal SNP. However, Big Y testing may reveal more. There are also SNPs which are called private or family SNPs. One or more of these may be found in my BigY results for the Hartley family.

STRs – Short Tandem Repeats

The STR was the first type of YDNA to be used for genetic genealogy. I think of these as a stutter in the DNA. These are extra copies that happen in specific areas of the YDNA that are noted and used for comparison purposes. Standard tests range from 12 STRs to 111 STRs or more. The more you test, the more you pay. Each of these STR locations have their own rates of change. There are the fast changing STRs and the slower ones.

My Hartley STRs

Here are some of my Hartley STRs. First I’ll explain the headings below. Dark blue is the first panel of 12 SNPs. Maroon represents the faster changing STRs. The next set of lighter blue is up to 25 STRs. The next lighter blue is up to the 37 level. The  lightest blue on the right is STR 38 to 67. I didn’t include all my 67 in the image below.

STR Locations JoelJoel's Z Strs

This image is small, and it is taken from the Z17911 group. These people have tested positive for Z17911 and are listed in the FTDNA R1b-L513 Project. The rows of numbers are the STR values (or numbers of repeats). The rows are:

  • Minimum value (in this case of those that have tested positive for Z17911)
  • Maximum value
  • Mode – this has also been used to approximate an ancestral value for the group
  • Hartley (me)
  • Thomas
  • Goff
  • Merrick
Genetic distance (GD)

There are a few ways STRs are used. One is GD or Genetic Distance. When I compare my STR test to another Hartley, for example, it counts the number of differences between the two tests. Some of the numbers in the rows above are highlighted in either purple or pink. The purple values for the 4th line (Hartley) are less than the mode. The pink values are more than the mode. So in the first 37 STRs for my results there are 6 highlighted values. That would be a GD of either 5 or 6. There are 2 ways of counting. For the 5th maroon named marker there are 4 values. There is a method called Infinite Alleles Model which would only count any changes within that named maroon region as one.

Note that of these 6 differences or GD’s in my results, 4 are in the slower moving areas and 2 are in the faster moving areas. I note that at Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) I am not shown as related to any within my Z17911 Group. However, that is OK. For 37 STRs my highest GD is 4. I don’t think FTDNA shows higher than that. For 67 STRs, FTDNA’s highest GD is 7.  This is because, when more STRs are compared, more GDs are allowed to make a match.  I further note that at 37 STRs, I match 3 Hartleys, one believed to be descended from a Hartley and 2 non-Hartleys. At the 67 YDNA match level at FTDNA, I have the same person believed to be descended from a Hartley and 3 other with the Hartley surname. So it seems like the FTDNA system is working. However, to get the matches that are further away, one must look at a SNP project or surname project.

where is the common ancestor for STR matches?

FTDNA uses a TIP Report to guess how closely related I am to my YDNA matches. My closest match at the 67 STR level is at a GD of 4. That isn’t very close. However, close is relative.

The first one on my YDNA match list is Sanchez – believed to be of Hartley descent. The TIP Report tells me this:

Sanchez TIP

The second on my 67 STR YDNA match list has a Hartley surname. We also have a GD of 4 and the TIP Report looks like this:

Hartley TIP

Notice that the TIP Report shows a better likelihood that I’m related to Hartley than Sanchez. This is because the TIP Report considers the speed of change of the markers. The markers that are different between Hartley and myself are faster moving ones than the ones that are different between Sanchez and myself. As there are only averages of how often these markers change, this is not an exact science. The tables just show likelihood of when we may have had a common ancestor.

strs used to predict the r-L513 SNP

Here I should mention the difference between a haplogroup and a haplotype. I mention it partially, because I forget which is which. A haplogroup has to do with a SNP. Examples of a haplogroup are R1b, L21, etc. Sometimes the smaller groups are called subclades or subgroups. According to Wikipedia, “Subclades are defined by a terminal SNP…”. So my Z17911 would be a subclade.

Apparently there is more than one definition of haplotype. The one I am thinking of refers to a specific grouping of STRs that stands out. One such grouping of STRs (haplotype) defines the R-L513 Haplogroup. Before the L513 SNP was discovered, people analyzed the STRs and noticed certain patterns. Based on those patterns, the STR results were put into different groups. One such pattern was (and is) DYS406s1>=11 and DYS617=13. When people testing their STRs found these 2 values, they were almost always L513 as confirmed by their SNP testing. So for the longest time, the group was called the 11-13 Combo group rather than the L513 group. Let’s look at the top of the L513 YDNA results page to see if this pattern is true:

406S1 617

Notice that there are a few here that are different, but these may represent rare mutations.  In my Z17911, we all meet the criteria.

Strs predicting Z17911 SNPs

I noticed in the L513 Yahoo Mail Group that I belong to, there were some predictions based on STRs that there could be more Z17911’s. Here is part of a post from March 2016 on the Yahoo L513 Group from the administrator,

“Below is a list of the people I’ve added in the last three weeks, the project I found them in and their predicted variety. This is sorted by variety label.
293533 William Hartley b. 1745 d. after 1807 Hartley 513-5668-16357-16343-17911-JM
372104 Sanchez, b. Spain L513 513-5668-16357-16343-17911-JM”

Sanchez believes he has a Hartley ancestor. So it is interesting that I will likely have more company at the Z17911 SNP. Here is another interesting post from the administrator of the L513 Yahoo Mail Group in October 2015 to Jared who felt he was mis-grouped:

Hi Jared, I mis-grouped you. I will fix. I intended to put you in the “J” STR variety/cluster.  I’m not positive you are in “J” and could be in “H” or a little different yet. It’s hard to make judgements on this, particularly at only 37 STRs.

Here are all the people that I’m aware that off modal values for STRs 390=25 389i=14 458>=18 449>=31 464c=16 and high CDY numbers. You might actually fit in better with the Phillips and Vaughan side of “J” than the Merrick or Thomas.

We think this group is all Z17911+ but I’m not sure. I would say you are Z16343+ at he very least. Z16343 also marks the “H” variety people (Hayes/Pillsbury). No guarantees.

f307773    Smith    R1b-L21>DF13>L513
fN56253    Gilroy    R1b-L21>DF13>L513
fN114296    Gilroy    R1b-L21>DF13>L513
f275990    Hartley    R1b-L21>DF13>L513>S5668>Z16343>Z17911
f280251    Hartley    zzL21suspect
f117349    Hartley    zzL21suspect
f200669    Head    zzL21suspect
f160646    Phillips    zzL21suspect
f271571    Phillips    zzL21suspect
f158089    Phillips    zzL21suspect
f160637    Phillips    zzL21suspect
f113390    Phillips    zzL21suspect
f306961    Phillips    zzL21suspect
f116935    Vaughan    zzL21suspect
f160729    Vaughan    zzL21suspect
f271772    Vaughn    zzL21suspect
f105064    zzzUnk(Phillips)    zzL21suspect

I am the first Hartley mentioned above. Then there are 2 others that may be Z17911. So that means that rather than me being all alone at Z17911, there may be 4 other Hartleys joining me. That is progress. Based on the L513 Administrator’s (Mike’s) STR analysis those 4 would be Z17911. Here are my STR values highlighted in blue with Mike’s Z17911 signature STRs.

Z17911 STRs

I meet all the Z17911 signature STRs which makes sense as I have tested positive for Z17911. These predictions can save a lot of money for people testing SNPs. Rather than testing a series of 4 or 5 SNPs to see where they are on the SNP Tree, they can just test for Z17911 to see if they are positive for that.

Using STRs to Create New SNPs

ISOGG is the International Society of Genetic Genealogists. They have a guidelines for naming new SNPs:

The objective of the ISOGG Tree at this time is to include all SNPs that arose prior to about the year 1500 C.E. This guideline may be measured through STR diversity or alternative evidence.

Where a new terminal subgroup is being added, STR marker results or other evidence described below for two men with the new SNP are needed.

STR Diversity
To be accepted the SNP must be observed in at least two individuals and must meet the STR diversity requirement. A SNP that does not meet this requirement will be classified as a Private SNP (see definition above).

The STR diversity requirement is met if the following conditions are satisfied:

  1. If the SNP is a Non-Terminal Branch SNP, no further proof of diversity is required.
  2. Genetic distance is calculated using the Infinite Alleles Model (IAM). A marker for which there is a null value in one sample must be discarded from the calculations. Otherwise, most laboratories use the IAM.
  3. All markers tested by both individuals must be compared.
  4. If 74 markers (or fewer) are compared, the minimum genetic distance to meet the diversity requirement is 5.
  5. If 75 (or more) markers are compared, the diversity requirement is a minimum of 7%, computed by dividing the genetic distance by the number of markers compared, and rounding to the nearest integer value.

This is what happened when my Terminal SNP was accepted. Usually, one would be looking for a low GD for a match, say. Here, for the addition of new SNPs a higher GD is needed to show that the SNP is not a private SNP. Here is another message written June 2015 by a fellow Z17911 from the Yahoo L513 Mail Group that I’m in:

Hi Mike,

I tried to figure the Infinite allele GD for the three current SNP-tested members of Z17911 (if I understood DYS464 and CDY correctly):

Hartley/Merrick = GD 14
Hartley/Thomas = GD 12
Merrick/Thomas = GD 10

I hope this is helpful.
Charles Thomas 8633 

Mike followed up with:

Yes, Charles. It looks like Z17911 and Z16855 are clearly public making upstream Z16343 public too.

And the rest is history – at least for my little branch of the YDNA tree.

Analysis of STRs Using the RCC Method

The RCC method may be somewhat obscure to some, but I find it very interesting. This method uses STRs to create trees of descent, like the SNP trees I showed above. As it uses STRs and not SNPs, it is helpful as a check to the validity of the SNP trees. The RCC method was developed by Bill Howard. In November 2014, Bill came up with the tree below based on 67 STR results. I was at the top of the list in that study of a relatively small group of people.

RCC 67

Note how this method mirrors today’s SNP tree:

L513 Tree Section

The RCC method show that Z16855 branched from Z17911 out of Z16343 at over 60 RCCs. For this 67-marker analysis, 1 RCC = 38.05 yrs. So that would be over 2300 years ago. The present year is considered as 1945-1950. Hartley shows as splitting from Merrick and Thomas at about 30 RCCs. That is over 1140 years from 1945 or around the year 800 A.D. As there were no surnames at that point, this would explain why Hartley, Thomas and Merrick could be in the same grouping. The closest RCC to Hartley at the time of this study was Gilroy. An RCC of 18 translates to 685 years. This brings us up to about the year 1265 A.D. Surnames in England were being sorted out around the 1400’s.

Here is my interpretation of the RCC 67 STR Tree with SNPs and dates added:

RCC 67

Assuming that the vertical line at RCC 30 represents Z17911, it appears that there is room for at least one other SNP on the Hartley Branch that includes Gilroy, Phillips, Vaugh[a]n and Griffin.

Comparing two Rcc studies (67 Vs. 111 Strs)

More recently, at the end of March 2016, Bill Howard ran the data for 555 L513 testees that had 111 STR markers or more. I have only tested for 67 markers, so I was not included, but there was one Hartley in that group. He does not show up on my match list as I count that I have a GD of 10 with him at the 67 STR level. This is beyond the match limit of 7 for FTDNA.

Here is the small section of the 555 that included the Hartley I mentioned above.

RCC 111

Now the vertical dashed lines happen every 20 RCCs. For this study, the RCC = 44.8 years. Mike Walsh, the Administrator of the L513 Project looked at this and felt that, based on his experience with SNPs, that the 44.8 may be a bit high and mentioned a factor of 34.65 years that he thought may work better.

Here is my interpretation of the 111 STR RCC Tree with dates and SNPs. One RCC = 44.8 years.

RCC 111

First, because there are fewer results at 111 STRs, this spreads out the branching. I don’t know who Pitt is. In the previous study Z17911 and Z16855 branched at about 490 B.C. Here, it appears to be in a similar location, I guess about 440 B.C. In the 111 Tree ZS849 branches off in the 1400’s Vs. the 1600’s in the 67 STR Tree. I would assume that the previous study could be slightly more accurate due more available results at the 67 STR level. However, the results are quite close to each other.

Historical 37 STR RCC Tree from September 2014

All these RCC Studies reminded me of a study done in the old days – back in 2014. At the time, I was amazed at how close Bill Howard got to the SNP tree with just using 37 STRs. At the time, I had recommended that the results of 21 L21’s be included in the study, but Charles was too quick in sending 14 L513 results to Bill Howard and Bill gave us this tree:

37 STR RCC Tree

Charles said that 1 RCC should equal 43 years. I’ll put what we know now onto the 2014 RCC tree.

37 STR RCC Tree

The main difference in the older study is that the Z17911/Z16855 branching is shown at a later date (A.D. Vs. the newer studies’ B.C. dates). Also there is an Evans in my group here. I’m not sure who he is.

So Which is Better, SNPs or STRs?

Most people tend to like SNPs over STRs. SNPs may be considered UEPs or Unique Event Polymorphisms. It is the unique part that makes them better. I like the way my L513 Administrator, Mike Walsh says it,

Some people say have used the words that SNPs trump STRs. That’s probably the correct general perspective. Assuming the specific SNPs considered are actually very stable Unique Event Polymorphisms (EUP), any SNPs that differentiate are most important and therefore provide fencing for which do additional evaluation using surnames, genealogy, geographies, etc. AND STRs.

STRs may back mutate, which is a hidden weakness in a way. Say that you have a perfect match with someone based on STRs. One of those STRs may have mutated and back mutated. This would mean that you are not a perfect match, but a GD of 2. There is not an easy way to know if that has happened or not. So that introduces some uncertainty. However, that is not to say that STRs are not important. I feel as they are underrated by many and should still be considered for the reasons I mention in this Blog and in the section below.

Summary, Conclusions and Comments

  • I’m looking forward to my BigY results to see what they may include
  • I am currently classified as Z17911 – a relatively recently discovered terminal SNP
  • By STR signatures, there appear to be 4 other Hartleys who would test positive for Z17911. These Hartleys should be encouraged to take the Z17911 SNP test.
  • I have used a similar method to analyze STRs and predict my own SNPs before I tested positive for them.
  • STRs are useful for determining relatedness to other STR matches using GD and FTDNA’s TIP Report
  • The TIP Report also gives an estimate to the Most Recent Common Ancestor for YDNA matches.
  • STRs are also useful in determining whether a new SNP is private or public using ISOGG guidelines
  • The RCC analysis is useful in creating STR trees and for confirming SNP trees
  • The RCC analysis can also give a time period for the branching of different SNPs and families.
  • STRs and SNPs complement each other

 

 

 

 

Butler YDNA

This blog is not about all Butler YDNA, but about my father in law Richard’s YDNA. His results came in this week, so I thought I’d write a little about them. As he had 10 children, I thought that they might be interested.

Butler Genealogy

The Butlers are Irish. They are believed to come from the Kilkenny area. However, the documentation for that is not the best. Michael Butler was b. in Ireland around 1810. His son, Edward was b. in the 1830’s and made his way to the New World. He likely arrived in St. John, New Brunswick where he married Mary Crowley in 1855. I mention more details in my Blog on the Butler Brick Wall.

Deep Roots of the Butlers and Family Lore

My wife says that Butler is a Norman French name. She says the Butler name came from the fact that they were wine tasters. According to Ancestry.com:

Butler Name Meaning

English and Irish: from a word that originally denoted a wine steward, usually the chief servant of a medieval household, from Norman French butuiller (Old French bouteillier, Latin buticularius, from buticula ‘bottle’). In the large households of royalty and the most powerful nobility, the title came to denote an officer of high rank and responsibility, only nominally concerned with the supply of wine, if at all.

I had been a little skeptical about the family lore and figured that the Butler YDNA would be typically Irish which is R1b. According to Family Tree DNA:

R1b, which originated in western Europe, is the most common Y-DNA haplogroup among Irish men, at a frequency of about 81.5%. I1 is the second most common with 6%, followed by I2b at 5%, R1a at 2.5%, and E1b1b at 2%. G2a is found in only about 1%. Also rare are I2a (1%) and J2 (1%).

So What Did the Results Show?

I was wrong. According to FTDNA my father in law is I-M223. According to FTDNA:

I-M223 was known as I2b1 and is now known as I2a2a by ISOGG

ISOGG is the International Society of Genetic Genealogists. I’m not sure if that means that our Butler is in the 5% or 1% group in Ireland. However, they are either quite rare or very rare there. So I signed up my father in law for the Butler YDNA project and also the I-M223 Project at FTDNA. At the I-M223 project, they put him in the group with others that are fairly close matches. Three have the name Butler and one has the name Whitson. That makes me feel like we are on the right track. It is not unusual to have other surnames match on the YDNA line. However, it is better to not be in the minority.  The FTDNA group further put my father in law Richard into this curious category:

1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1- M223>…>L701>P78>S25733>A427: test I-M223 SNP Pack or I-M223 SNP Pack or S23612

This is a group with a lot of numbers. These first numbers probably went back to when someone could tell there was a certain signature in the YDNA results, but all the SNP tests weren’t developed yet. The second numbers are the SNP tests that the administrator thinks Richard would pass if he were to take them all. That is good, because it puts him several steps down the SNP tree. The last part is what the administrator wants the tester to do. One is to take a test that will test several SNPs. The other is to test for a specific SNP. In this case, the SNP is S23612.

Origins of the I-M223 Haplogroup

The I-M223 Haplogroup came into existence about around 17,600 years before present (ybp). Give or take a few thousand. The A427 branch is much more recent at 5,200 ybp. According to one YDNA Butler match to Richard, he feels that the origin of this branch of Butler that didn’t test positive for S23612 was in England and before that Germany. Some information from the Eupedia website also mentions that the L701 branch may have arisen from the Goths. I can imagine a stimulating dinner conversation with the Butler family: “So, I hear that the Butlers are descended from the Goths.” “What…???? I thought that we were descended from the Normans”. Who knows, maybe the Goths moved into France at some point and mixed with the Normans. Or they could’ve moved from Germany to England where the Normans were and then made their way to Ireland. I’m sure that there are many possible scenarios.

More Recent Connections

Two of the more recent Butler YDNA  matches to Richard had roots in Ireland, so that makes sense. One had his earliest known Butler ancestor from the border of Laois and Kilkenny County.  That is shown by a blue balloon below. That match had a GD or Genetic Distance of 4. The other was from Wexford and had a GD of 2 with Richard.

Kilkenny Wexford

This shows some likelihood of having a common ancestor within a certain number of generations when your match has a GD of 4:

4 GD Butler

Here is a match with a GD of 2. Note the differences in Percentages.

2 GD Butler

Kilkenny or Wexford?

The 2 GD match who had a mariner Butler ancestor in Wexford is interesting for 2 reasons. When Edward H Butler, the son of Edward Butler, the immigrant ancestor died in 1925, he listed his father as being born in County Wexford, Ireland. The second reason is that the photo we have of the immigrant Edward Butler shows him in a sailor outfit.

edwardh

Compare the above with the image of sailors our helpful YDNA Butler relative sent:

Sailor Outfit

Perhaps Edward Butler had mariner background in Ireland or perhaps he was in the Navy in the American Civil War.

Two Death Certificates

Here is Edward Butler’s Death Certificate from 1915 showing that he and his two parents were born in Kilkenny

Edward Butler Death 1915

Ten years later in 1925, his son, Edward H Butler died and recorded that his father was born in County Wexford, Ireland. Why had his birthplace changed in 10 years?

Edward H Death 1925

So although the YDNA results don’t clarify the death certificates, they are consistent with where the death certificates say the Butlers were from!

 

 

Moving the Frazers Down the YDNA Tree

We have new YDNA results in for Jonathan and Paul. That’s good news. As you may recall, Jonathan had his YDNA tested about a year ago. He represents the James Line of Frazers. Then this year, Paul from the Archibald Line of Frazers tested. The tests were for 37 markers. The new tests are for 67 markers. Here is a tree that I sent to my cousin Paul who is not on the internet. Archibald, born around 1690 is believed to be our common ancestor and the husband of Mary Frazer at the top. Paul and Jonathan are 6th cousins, once removed based on our research. Paul is 2 generations below Hubert Frazer on the Archibald Branch and Jonathan is one generation below Walter Frazer.

YDNA Arch James Tree

Some Unexpected Results

  • Jonathan and Paul both showed a type of YDNA called R1a. I expected they would be R1b which is one of the most common Haplogroups in Europe. R1b is especially prevalent the further Northwest one travels in Europe.
  • Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) showed 3 mutations between Jonathan and Paul. I was expecting about zero to one. It turns out that all their mutations were on relatively fast moving markers.
  • Based on the markers, FTDNA puts people in a rough Haplogroup. Jonathan was put in R-M458 and Paul in R-M198 which is an even more broad or general category. With the new results, FTDNA has apparently backtracked and put Jonathan back into the more broad R198 Haplogroup. Usually, with more STR testing the Haplogroup should be more refined, not less.
  • At the different levels that FTDNA looks at (12, 25, 37 and 67 STRs), Paul matches on 4 people each. Normally there are many matches at the 12 level and the matches drop down to the 67 level. The apparent answer for this is that Paul has had more than the expected mutations in the earlier testing compared to Jonathan.

Genetic Distance

The Genetic Distance (GD) is the measure of how many differences there are in the STRs of 2 people. In the case of Jonathan and Paul, the GD was 3 for the 37 STRs and also 3 for the recent 67 marker test. That means all the differences were in the first 37 markers. Here are Jonathan’s results for the 37 STR test. The results of this test are also called a Haplotype.

Jonathan's 37 STRs

Here is what Paul has for STR results with the differences from Jonathan highlighted.

Paul's 67 STRs

Note that the there were 2 changes in the CDY marker. FTDNA informs me that they count this as one change as the markers represent a relatively fast mutating section of the YDNA. So in the roughly 260 years or 7 or 8 generations, there have been 4 mutations or a GD of 3 between Jonathan and Paul, assuming our genealogy is correct.

Refined TIP Report

FTDNA has a TIP Report that estimates the relationship likelihood of 2 YDNA matching people. For the previous 37 STR marker test, FTDNA thought that there was about a 44% chance that Jonathan and Paul were related at 8 generations apart. Now with the 67 marker test, that has gone up to about 65%. The percentage went up, because the GD was the same for 67 markers as it was for 37 markers. So it is more likely that these 2 are closely related. It is all based on statistics and probability.

Jonathan Paul TIP Report

Haplotypes and Haplogroups

The STR signature for Jonathan and Paul now consists of 67 markers. The combination of these markers is called a Haplotype. A Haplogroup is based on SNPs and is found one of 2 ways. The most accurate is by testing of the SNPs. The other way to estimate a Haplogroup is by the Haplotype. Jonathan and Paul have not had their SNPs tested, but have their STRs tested resulting in a Haplotype. Based on these STRs, people who are experts in looking at results can tell what your Haplogroup likely is. In our case, the L664 administer for the R1a project knew that if a DYS338 was 10, then it was veritably inevitable that if the SNP test for L664 was taken, then the tester would be positive for that SNP.

Climbing Down the YDNA Tree

FTDNA has Jonathan as R-M198 Haplogroup. This was from 6,500 B.C. Not good. Our astute L664 Dutch Administrator Martin got us down to 3,000 B.C. by noting that the Frazers are in the L664 Haplogroup. We appreciate him getting us an extra 3,500 years, but that still leaves us quite a way back in time. In my previous blog, Martin at first thought that the Frazers would not be in a SNP called S3477. Subsequently, Martin reasoned that we may be S3477 based on some similarities that he saw in the location of the Frazers and Prendergasts in Ireland. I made a prediction that the Frazers would be negative for S3477. The proof would be in the 67 STR test. If the Frazers did not have a value of 13 at DYS617, they would not belong to subgroup S3477. Let’s look at those results.

DYS617

It looks like I was right this time. Put another win in my win-loss column. The Frazers are not S3477. Speaking of SNPs, FTDNA recently came out with a new R1a panel for testing.

R1a Panel

All the grey hi-lighted SNPs above would apply to L664 Frazers. FTDNA boasts of over 40 L664 SNPs that they test for just under L664. This is a good introductory deal for $99 as it costs $39 to test a single SNP at FTDNA. To put these SNPs into context, here is how they look below our L664 Frazer Group.

L664 SNPs

The way it works, FTDNA doesn’t have to test 40 SNPs. For example, once they test S3477 and find it to be negative, they would not need to test the 10 SNPs below it. Remember, we were told that if the DYS617 STR marker was not 13, then we would be negative for S3477. In my previous blog, I mentioned that the L664 administrator didn’t think we belonged to the popular YP282 SNP. If that were true, then that would eliminate 13 SNPs. Likewise, Martin didn’t think we were part of the YP358 Haplogroup. It would be nice to know which branch the Frazers are on.

YDNA Matches

I had mentioned in an earlier blog that Paul had 4 matches at all of his levels of testing. This is quite unusual. Usually people have a large number of matches at the lower level of STR testing and fewer at the higher level. Apparently all of Paul’s mutations happened at these lower level of STR testing and wasn’t spread out over the 67 STRs. Here are his matches:

Paul's 67 STR Matches

These 4 matches are different than all the other levels of STR matches. At this level, Mr Frizelle drops out. This is not because he is not a match, but because Mr. Frizelle only tested up to the 37 STR level. Mr Latham was in the same category.  Replacing those 2 are a Stuart and a Grant.  However, the GD for these 2 are quite high and the relationship could go back to before the use of surnames. Jonathan’s matches appear to be with the same people that he matched at the 37 STR minus those who didn’t test at the 67 STR level.

Jonathan's 67 STR Matches

Here we see all of Paul’s YDNA relatives are on Jonathan’s list. So the YDNA relatives are starting to converge at this level – give or take 300 years! The Grants seem to be the most common name. It is possible that all these people came from the same area of Scotland and were related many years ago.

Summary and Future Considerations

  • A Genetic Distance of 3 at 67 STRs is closer than a match of 3 at 37 STRs for Jonathan and Paul. This was expected and supports the assumptions of our Frazer genealogy.
  • We are no further down the YDNA tree than L664 at this point. We know which part of the tree we are not on (S3477). To get further down the tree will take further analysis of the  recent 67 STR test or additional SNP testing.
  • We may want to look into the SNP panel for Jonathan and/or Paul to see where they are further down on the YDNA tree. I would assume that they both would have the same terminal SNP, so only one person would need to test for the panel of SNPs and the second could verify the terminal SNP with a single SNP test.
  • I will check with the L664 Administrator to see if he has any other analysis of the 67 STR results that would fine tune our Frazers’ place in the R1a Project

More On Frazer DNA

In this blog, I’d like to finish a few thoughts on Frazer YDNA and look at some new Frazer autosomal DNA Results.

YDNA Thoughts and Summaries

  1. The 2 Frazer Lines have now successfully tested their YDNA. The YDNA test Jonathan and Paul took is called a 37 STR (Short Tandem Repeat) test. This test has indicated a common SNP Haplogroup for the 2 lines called R1a-L664.
  2. As the 2 Frazer Lines indicate a match, this gives us confidence in our genealogy and in the autosomal DNA matches testers have between the Archibald and James Frazer Lines.
  3. These 2 tests have resulted in a unique STR signature for each line. This STR signature is called a Haplotype.
  4. The difference in the STR values between the 2 Frazer Line YDNA test results is called the Genetic Distance (GD). The GD between the 2 lines is 3 by FTDNA.
  5. When I count the GD by hand, I get a difference of 4, but FTDNA tells me this about the CDY marker: “CDY is counted using the infinite allele method.  Basically this marker is so volatile we can see multiple numeric value jumps in a single mutation.  So even if it is off by five it would still only be counted as a genetic distance of 1.” So that explains the anomaly.
  6. I had expected the GD to be lower between the 2 lines. The 2 testers should have a common ancestor 7 generations from present if our genealogy is correct. This person is believed to be Archibald Frazer b. about 1690.
  7. Some STRs have a rate of change must faster than others. The markers that have changed between the 2 lines are the faster moving markers.
  8. The haplotype for the YDNA test representing the James line appears to me to be more likely to be the haplotype of the Archibald Frazer b. about 1690. This is difficult to determine based on only 2 YDNA tests. However, I base my theory partly on the fact that the haplotype representing the Archibald line has many fewer matches to other testers than the one representing the James Line. My theory is that the Archibald Line YDNA has mutated to a more distinct state from that of the original YDNA and thus has fewer matches.
  9. More STR testing has been ordered to further refine the 2 Frazer Line Haplotypes. These results should be out by the latter part of January 2016.

I hope that makes sense. Please email me if you need further clarification.

You Gotta Lovat

All this YDNA testing has created renewed interest in some of the Project Members concerning family lore of descent from the Lord Lovat Branch of the Frasers. YDNA can certainly reach to that era and beyond.

Part of Jonathan's YDNA Match Map
Part of Jonathan’s YDNA Match Map

These striking results show that 3 out of 4 of Jonathan’s YDNA mapped matches have their most distant ancestors located in NE Scotland. At least one part of the family lore has the earliest Frazers at Keith. Notice on the map above that Keith is located to the East of the middle marker. To me, this supports traditions of the Frazers being in NE Scotland at some time before being located in Stirling and Ayrshire to the SW of Scotland. The leap of faith part is believing that both these families were in that area about 500 years or more before our respective families’ earliest verifiable ancestors.

Back to the Autosomal DNA

While we’ve been pondering our Frazer YDNA results, the autosomal testing has been moving on apace. Patricia (or Pat’s) results have come in. I was interested in her results for the following reasons:

  • Her second cousin Bill had many matches. Some of these were also with the James Line Testers
  • Pat, Bill, Paul and I also share a pair of Frazer cousin ancestors who married. These were James Frazer and Violet Frazer. DNA representing Violet’s father has already been found by triangulation. However, James’ DNA and certain genealogy have been more difficult to nail down.

Pat’s Genealogy

In an earlier Blog, I touched on Pat’s second cousin Bill’s genealogy. I’d like to expand on that here. Bill and Pat have as their common ancestors, George Frazer b. 1858 in Martinsburg, New York and his wife Susan or Susanna Price. According to one Ancestry tree, the handsome family looked like this:

Frazer Price

I mention this, because half of the autosomal DNA that Pat and Bill share would be from Susan Price. Now, again, according to Ancestry, Susan Price’s parents were John Price and Margaret Stinson both born in or around Enniskillen, Ireland. Perhaps this Margaret Stinson was related to this George’s mother’s grandmother Ann Stinson. If so, do you think that will complicate the DNA results?

Here is the DNA that Pat and Bill share in orange (representing George Frazer and Susan Price) as seen on FTDNA’s Chromosome Browser:

Pat and Bill's Shared DNA

Frazers in Martinsburg, New York in the 1850s

Here on the bottom 3 lines of the New York State 1855 Census are George Frazer’s parents: Richard Frazer and Ellen Hassard or Hazard. As mentioned above, Ellen is also the granddaughter of Archibald Frazer and Ann Stinson.

Richard Frazer 1855 Census

I have included the Johnston family above because the father William Johnston was married to Mary Frazer, daughter of Archibald Frazer and Ann Stinson. So you are perhaps seeing a Stinson pattern here as well as a Frazer pattern. In fact, in the 1901 Census for Clanwilliam, Marquette, Manitoba, we see a William Stinson b. in Ireland living near the George Frazer family. Also living in the Frazer house was George’s mother, the (by 1901) widowed Ellen (Hassard) Frazer.

Then on the previous census page of the 1855 New York Census for Martinsburg:

Hazards 1855

Here is yet another Frazer. Ann Frazer is the younger sister of Mary Frazer Johnston. I have that Ann married a John Hazard on 24 Dec 1824 at Ardcarne, Roscommon, Ireland; by licence. John tried to confuse me by going by William in the US, but apparently he is one and the same.

Let’s go back 5 years to the US Federal Census of 1850 in Martinsburg:

Patrick Frazer 1850

and on the next page:

Patrick Frazer 1850a

Here is a James Line Frazer. Patrick Frazer would be a second cousin once removed to Mary Frazer Johnston and Ann Frazer Hazard. We have this Patrick married to a Jane Lacy. However, other Ancestry trees have him married to a Jane Mostown. In the 1855 census, Jane appears to have a middle initial of M. However, the 2 Janes are either the same, or Patrick remarried a second Jane. Or, less likely, there was more than one Patrick Frazer! This sidetrack shouldn’t effect the DNA results, but it is interesting to see how these Irish families stayed together in the US.

Two Side by Side Triangulation Groups

When I started looking at Pat’s results, I noticed a new Triangulation Group (TG) right near an existing one.

2 TGs with Jane

The existing TG has Jane, Doug and Michael and clearly indicates that the DNA represents that of Archibald Frazer and Ann Stinson. We know this because Doug does not to his knowledge have multiple Frazer lines – that is, Frazer ancestors marrying Frazer ancestors.

The newer TG is on the top and includes Bill, Pat and Jane. Note that Jane is in both groups. Also note that this could indicate the common ancestor the 3 have in Richard Frazer b. about 1777. Frankly, I’m quite puzzled and stumped as to who this TG represents. I have ordered a book on Endogamy by Israel Pickholtz. Perhaps that will help. Note also that Bill and Pat match each other to location 170,00,000 (say 170) This is the area where Jane, Doug and Michael match each other, but they don’t show a match with those 3 in that area. This will take some thought to decipher.

DNA Going Two Different Ways

In a previous blog, I noted difficulty in finding the DNA from my Frazer ancestor James Frazer. He was married to a Violet Frazer who I could find due to triangulation with her father Richard. Some matches with Pat may indicate additional DNA Pat and my family share that came down from this Frazer couple.

Pat Chr 4

Here, I have Pat’s match with me (JH) on Chromosome 6. I included above that, Pat’s cousin Bill’s match with Cathy. See they are at similar locations. However, these 2 sets of matches indicate different ancestors. The Bill and Cathy match represent DNA from the Archibald Frazer Line. I am not related on that line. So even though this segments overlaps, it could never triangulate. The match I have with Pat is most likely with James Frazer and Violet Frazer. This is what I think the above means. Remember George Frazer who was born in Martinsburg. Also remember, on each Chromosome we get DNA from both our parents or rather 2 sets of Chromosomes (one Paternal set and one maternal set). George had on one Chromosome #6 DNA from his father Richard Frazer and and on the other Chromosome #6, DNA from his mother Ellen Hazard.

George and Pat Frazer Tree

It looks like George passed on his father’s Richard Frazer DNA to Richard Price “Pat” Frazer. This is easy to remember because “Pat” is the ancestor of our Frazer DNA tester Pat. This is the line that would match with me, as Richard is the son of James Frazer and Violet Frazer. The maternal Hassard Line carrying the Archibald Frazer/Ann Stinson DNA went to George Harvey on our tester Bill’s line. This is the line that matches with Cathy. So in these 2 set of matches, we appear to be splitting out the related ancestors. Complicated. But at least I have an explanation for it, unlike the previous triangulation case.

Finally, here’s a match on Chromosome 9 between Pat and Sharon for about 11 cM. I take this to represent the DNA of my kissing cousin ancestors James and Violet Frazer.

Pat Sharon Match

A Triangulation Group with a Genetic Genealogist: But Who Are the Common Ancestors?

The next Triangulation group is with a genetic genealogist named Jennifer (JZ below). I mentioned that she was in a TG with Cathy and Jane in a previous blog about Cathy’s DNA results written August 2015.

Pat Jenn TG

This TG has Pat, Cathy, Jane and Jennifer. But wait. I don’t see a match between Pat and Jane. I lowered the levels a bit at Gedmatch.com and see that all four women match each other on Chromosome 5 and that they do indeed match and triangulate:

Pat and Jane Gedmatch

We know that Cathy and Jane have a Frazer ancestor born about 1802. Cathy and Pat share a Frazer ancestor b. about 1778. There is still a mystery as to how Jennifer fits in. She had a J. Frazer ancestor, that I guessed was a Jane Frazer. I further guessed that this Jane was a sister of the Archibald that married Catherine Parker. This theory still makes sense. Jennifer has subsequently found out that her ancestor was indeed named Jane Frazer/Frazier.

Summary on Pat’s Autosomal DNA Results

  • Pat didn’t seem to have as many matches as her second cousin Bill. This means that Bill just seemed to get extra Frazer DNA including from the more distant James Line.
  • Pat did shed some light on the common cousin Frazer ancestors that her family and my family share: James and Violet
  • Pat’s DNA resulted in a new TG. This will need more analysis as to where that TG is pointing to as far as in common Frazer ancestors
  • A comparison of Pat and her 2nd cousin Bill’s matches on Chromosome 6 helped to untangle some endogamy in the family (multiple Frazer lines due to marriages of relatives).
  • Pat’s DNA solidified a TG with a genetic genealogist who didn’t originally test to show any specific Frazer ancestry

Frazer YDNA: Part 4

In the previous post, I wrote of how our Frazer testers Jonathan and Paul matched in their YDNA. This match, based on STRs, was not perfect but was a genetic distance of 3 at a level of STR testing of 37 markers. Perhaps more importantly, Jonathan and Paul both had a DYS388 Marker value of 10. This places them solidly in SNP group called L664. Here is the nice R1a Chart I had shown in Part 2 of the Frazer YDNA series from the R1a Project Page.

719235

The L664 SNP group is on the left side of the Chart in a medium blue color. This gets us to about 3,000 b.c. Now according to the L664 Administrator:

In our FTDNA R1a1-project only 5% belongs to R1a1-CTS4385 and therefor 95% belongs to R1a1-Z645.Probably R1a1-CTS4385 is also over-represented in our FTDNA R1a1-project, because many participants of FTDNA are American emigrants who have their roots mainly in NW-Europe and not so much in eastern Europe and India, where the majority of R1a1 lives. 
Now see the Chart above. CTS4385 is directly above L664. Most of the Haplogroups are to the right of CTS4385. This means that the Frazers are rare birds within their R1a YDNA classification. And, R1a is not the most common Haplogroup to begin with for people of the Northwestern Atlantic area.
More on L664?
Yes. More from our most helpful Dutch Administrator, Martin. This is what he wrote about Jonathan (which applies also to Paul):
We expect you will not belong to the largest subgroup under R-L664, which is subgroup 2.D (classified by SNP YP282) and also not to subgroup 2.A (classified by S3477) and also not to subgroup 2.C (classified by YP358).
So most probably you will belong to subgroup 2.B which is more or less a restgroup under S2857.
For this subgroup S2857 there is on the moment no relevant SNP’s which you can order separately.
So If you want to know more about your exact position in the halpotree of R1a you need to order the BigY test.
Here is a portion of the L664 Tree, which is a portion of a much larger tree.
L664 Structure
This is analogous to the left side of the Chart above (Northwestern Europe/Germanic). Martin says we Frazers are not likely part of the popular YP282 group. He doesn’t say how he knows that. Mysterious. YP282 is third from the right on the bottom row. For the same mysterious reason, Martin casts doubt on the Frazers being YP358 or S3477. So Martin seems to eliminate most of the above tree and places us somewhere under S2857 (Is that YP943?)
L664 Structure

 

The groups that Martin mentions above (i.e. 2.A, 2.C, 2.D) appear to be different L664 groups that the administrator has put Y Testers into based on the combination of STR values. Lastly, he recommends the Big Y test. This is the ultimate dream test to find out where you are on the Y Tree. This would further Frazer DNA research and help many others who are in this area of L664. However, at over $400, only the hard core YDNA researchers will likely pay for that test.

Are Our Frazers from County Mayo or Arberdeenshire?

Even though we crossed out the S3477 above, Martin had a subsequent theory in a follow-up email. His theory is that the Frazers are indeed S3477 and related to the County Mayo Prendergasts. These Prendergasts supposedly were in the County Mayo area of Ireland since the 1200’s along with the Normans. They also are L664 and apparently have some other STR similarities. I sort of doubt Martin’s theory based on our own Frazer traditions. However, Martin says, “You can also order 67 STR-markers and when your DYS617=13, then you also know you belong to this subgroup S3477.” I’m guessing that DYS617 will not be lucky 13 for Jonathan and Paul, but we’ll see. I’m willing to keep an open mind. Both Joanna and I have ordered additional STR testing for Jonathan and Paul. That will tell whether or not we are in subgroup S3477.

The County Mayo, IRE Norman Frazer connection does not have the right ring to me. Would any Frazer descendants vote for that option? I prefer the Aberdeenshire tradition. According to our Aunt Mabel researcher, the Frazers were in Keith in the late 1100’s. Now that’s a ways back. She thinks that not long after this time, they made their way down to Stirling and over to Ayrshire before they traveled to Ireland. Here is a map for some of Jonathan’s YDNA matches:

Part of Jonathan's YDNA Match Map
Part of Jonathan’s YDNA Match Map

These are 3 of the 4 matches that show up on Jonathan’s YDNA match map. The other match was Chisholm in North Carolina. Without a European location, that match location is unhelpful and inconclusive. I’m not sure why Paul doesn’t show up on the map. At any rate, I was struck by the number of YDNA matches that Jonathan has in this Northeastern part of Scotland at the 37 STR level. It seems more than coincidental. The marker in the middle is a Grant. The other two do not have their names listed. Note that Keith is in the area to the East of the middle marker. This is the place where Aunt Mabel had our first Frazer.

Simon of Keith

I’m not thoroughly endorsing the old research, but it is interesting that there can be some parallel conclusions between it and modern DNA testing. Also note that this would be about as early as there would be surnames. According to Scotlandspeople.gov.uk,

Norman influence filtered into Scotland after their invasion of England, and was actively encouraged by Scottish kings. Anglo-Norman nobles acquired grants of land around Scotland and introduced the feudal system of land tenure. For example, Robert The Bruce was a descendant of Robert de Brus who fought with William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings. Bissett, Boyle, Colville, Corbett, Gifford, Hay, Kinnear and Fraser are all originally Norman names, which first appeared in Scotland in the 12th century. Menzies and Graham are recognised Anglo-Norman surnames also first seen in Scotland at this time. 

Paul’s Other YDNA Matches

There are a few odd things about Paul’s matches. First at the level of testing that he did (37 STRs), he only has 4 matches where Jonathan has 13 matches. My unsupported theory on this is that the James Line as seen in Jonathan has more of the original Frazer STR type and the Archibald Line as seen in Paul’s results branched off or mutated away from the original STR type. Here are Jonathan’s 13 matches at the 37 STR level of testing:

Jonathan's YDNA 37 Matches

I don’t show it, but Jonathan has:

  1. One match at GD=1
  2. Two matches at GD=2
  3. Five matches at GD=3, and
  4. Five matches at GD=4

William Frizelle is at the top of both lists. However, Jonathan has a GD of 1 to him, where Paul has a GD of 3. That means that genetically, and without taking into effect the speed of mutation of the individual STRs, Jonathan is more closely related to Frizelle than our Frazer tester Paul. It does not mean that he is actually more closely related. This is due to the fact that DNA can mutate whenever it wants. Apparently it wanted to more between Jonathan and Paul than between Jonathan and Frizelle. Also, there is a phenomenon called back mutation which can confuse the issue. If a line had a specific STR value of say, 10 and it mutated to 11 and then back to 10, there would be 2 mutations, but it wouldn’t be easy to detect and it would look like there was no mutation at all. I’m not saying that is what happened here, or that it is common, but it is possible.

Obviously, Jonathan and Paul match each other. Other than that, Latham and Chisolm are on both lists. In additions, they have a GD of 4 on both lists.

Another interesting thing is that Paul does not show a match at this level with Stuart/Stewart or the many Grants that Jonathan matches.

Matches at the 25 STR Level

FTDNA posts matches at the different levels of YDNA testing. They turn out to have different matches in some cases, due to the specific STRs tested. At the 37 level, above, the cutoff for matches is a GD of 4. At the 25 level, they only allow a GD of 2 or less. Here, the differences between Jonathan’s and Paul’s matches are even greater. Jonathan has 20 matches and Paul has, again, 4. However, Jonathan’s 1st 4 matches match Paul’s 4 matches. At this level, Jonathan has a perfect match with Frizelle, where Paul has a GD of 1 with Frizelle. This tells me that Frizelle must be L664. Remember that a DYS388 Marker value of 10 means one is an L664. DYS388 is the 8th value. A 25 STR test includes the 8th value. A perfect match between Jonathan and Frizelle means that Frizelle must have a DYS388 Marker value of 10.

By the way, I wrote to Frizelle asking if he had a 10 at that marker level. It would be good to hear from him, but even if I don’t we now know he is L664. At this level of matches, Latham drops out (although, he still matches Jonathan). The common match that is replaced does not have a most distant ancestor, but the tester’s last name is listed as Plate.

Way Down to the 12 Marker Level

Here the matches between Jonathan and Paul are even greater than before. Now Jonathan has 2 pages of matches for a total of 38 matches. Paul, again, has only 4 matches. At this level, FTDNA only allows a GD of 1 or less. Here are Paul’s matches at the 12 level:

Paul's YDNA 12 Matches

Some facts and/or observations:

  • Paul has no perfect matches at any level. Again, I take this to indicate that Paul’s line has some unusual mutations in the YDNA compared to Jonathan’s YDNA.
  • If we hadn’t collaborated in this Project I wouldn’t know the STR values for Jonathan. So we wouldn’t know that Jonathan and Paul were both L664’s
  • Jonathan has 10 perfect matches. These all must be L664’s.
  • I wonder if testers #2 and #3 (Riley) in Paul’s match list above were testing to the same distant ancestor. It looks that way.
  • Tester #2 has a terminal SNP of L664, but we know that already as this person is a perfect match with Jonathan who is has the STR of 10 at DYS388.
  • Even at a level of 12 markers, Paul has a GD of greater than 1 with Frizelle.
  • Although the 12 marker and 25 marker results are interesting, the highest level of testing is most accurate and important.

Next up: I believe we have some more Frazer autosomal DNA results.