Author: joel@jmhartley.com

Posted on

Checking the New Online Mayflower Descendants Database for My Mayflower Ancestors

In at least one of my previous Blogs, I have looked at the Mayflower Database that Familysearch has. These previous Blogs mostly have to do with my Mayflower Descendants Application through William White.

William White

My previous look at William White in the Mayflower database brought me down to my father’s Aunt Annie Louisa Hartley:

That lead me to believe that one of their offspring had applied for the Mayflower Descendants. It also lead me to believe that they had applied under William White, because the Mayflower database lead down to them from William White. I don’t know if I assumed correctly. My thought today was to check on my other Mayflower ancestors and to see where their descencants lead.

Governor William Bradford

This ancestor is one of great interest to me. He was an ancestor of Hannah Thomas Bradford and Harvey Bradfor above. The reason I didn’t apply for membership under Bradford was that the trail back from Harvey Bradford and records were not as available. Here are Harvey’s Bradford ancestors based on my Ancestry Tree:

Governor Bradford was Harvey’s 4th great-grandfather. Here is the Mayflower database:

I don’t have all the children of the William Bradford in the arrow showing below:

However, I follow down from Josiah to Samuel Bradford. From there I get back to Hartley and Snell:

James Hartley and Annie Louisa Snell were my great-grandparents. That gets back to the same couple I had descending from William White:

I don’t know if that means that someone in the Gurney family applied under Bradford as well as White or that the Mayflower Society makes their own connections. I assume that it is the former. Apparently my more distant Snell relative applied for the Mayflower Society under William Bradford:

Actually, when I take the family down from William White through Harvey Bradford, I get the same image as above, so the database is likely showing all those who applied and who descend from Harvey Bradford.

Elder William Brewster

I descend from Brewster two different ways. The first way gets me back to Bradford fairly quickly.  The second takes a longer route:

Here I started with Love Brewster, the son of William Brewster on the right side of the image above. That route only goes through one Bradford – Sarah.

Interestingly, the Mayflower database has a dead end at Rebecca Bartlett:

It also has her born a different date and married to a different person than I have in my tree. So perhaps my tree is wrong.

Checking My Tree

I’ll start with Churchill and Barnes and go back:

Page 182 of the silver Mayflower Families on Bradford has Hannah Barns born 1717 married to Stephen Churchill born also 1717. So far so good. Page 50 of the same book has Sarah Bradford born about 1686 married to Jonathan Barnes born 1684. At this Point it would make sense to switch to the silver Mayflower Book on Brewster. Page 354 has Sarah Bradford born before 18 December 1686 and married to Jonathan Barnes.

Reading up more on Rebecca Barlett on Page 348 of the silver Mayflower Brewster Book, I see that Rebecaa Bartlett married first William Bradford, second Robert Stanford and third Caleb Samson.

When I click on Rebecca Bartlett in the Mayflower database, I get this:

This shows her three marriages, but the database tree shows a dead end at Rebecca Bartlett. I am not sure how to interpret this. I assume that no one has applied for membership to the Mayflower Society based on Brewster through descendants of Rebecca Bartlett. However, I am glad to know that my tree is correct. Or, this may be a glitch in the Mayflower database.

When I click on the hyperlink for Husband William Bradford above, I get this:

This shows a disconnect from my tree. I have that in the first column, there should be a Lucy Chuchill born 1767. She should be at the top of the list in the first column. Again, I don’t know how to interpret the database. When I choose Harvey Bradford in the Mayflower database, I draw another blank at the point of Lucy Churchill:

This again makes me think that no one has applied to the Mayflower Society by this route of Brewster to Lucy Churchill. That being the case, the Society had no reason to check into the parentage of Lucy Churchill.

Francis Cooke

As far as I know, I only descend from Francis Cooke in one way. My Hathaway ancestors have a Cooke as their ancestor. Like my Mayflower White ancestry, my Cooke ancestry is through Harvey Bradford’s wife, Wealthy Hathaway:

Francis is the father of John Cooke. I’ll show this in two parts;

Here is the early part of the Mayflower Database version:

I descend from the John Hathaway at the top left. I have an early dead end on the Cooke Line also. The Mayflower Database appears to stop at my ancestor John Hathaway born 1653:

The Mayflower Database shows 11 of John Hathaway’s children by his first wife (not all shown above). The silver Cooke Mayflower book shows that John had 16 children including Arthur Hathaway born in 1690.

Looking at Hathaway in the Mayflower Database from the Bottom Up

Here I am drawing a blank with Joseph Hathaway. Again, my assumption is that no one below the Wealthy Hathawy level has applied to the Mayflower Descendants on the Cooke Line. This view also shows the missing parents of Lucy Churchill that I mentioned above.

Richard Warren

Unlike Francis Cooke, I descend from Richard Warren on about 5 different lines in three different generations. That means that means that depending on the Line, Richard Warren could be 11, 12 or 13 generations away from me.

My most unique Warren Line (that is, with the least other Mayflower ancestors) would be through Joseph Warren. That is the Line where I am only 11 generations from Richard Warren. On my Ancestry tree:

Here is the early part of my tree:

From the Mayflower Database:

Here are two more generations:

 

Then from Josiah Bradford, we get down to Harvey Bradford:

One interesting thing here is that there are three Bradford lines that carry down: Stephen Churchill, Ellen and Harvey Bradford. I assume these three lines have members in the Mayflower Society. However, when there are mulitple lines of descent, I’m not sure on which lines the descendants got their approval to join the Mayflower Descendants.

My Wife’s Cousin Pat and the Richard Warren Line

I found out that my wife’s 1st cousin is applying to the Mayflower Society under the Richard Warren Line. This is on her paternal side where she is not related to my wife. I came up with this chart to see how I was related to Pat:

I am a 12th cousin, three times an 11th cousin once removed and a 10th cousin twice removed to Pat. Let’s see where Pat’s line is on the Mayflower Database:

For some reason, the database has John Churchill which is not correct. The silver Mayflower Book has John Church. Apparently, this family moved to Little Compton, Rhode Island. After that, Pat’s line goes to Edward and Hannah Church:

Apparently a descendant of Esther Church is in the Mayflower Society, but not other descendants of Hannah as the line appears to stop here for Pat.

One More of My Richard Warren Lines

Now that I have charted my Warren Lines, I want to also check my first one:

This line does not appear to have other obvious Mayflower descendants in it. Actually, just Sarah Bradford.

Here the Database deviates from my tree. This is for the same reason as above where Rebecca Bartlett has multiple husbands. I can choose Rebecca Bartlett and get more information:

The is the same place I got stuck under Brewster above, and the results are the same. Interesting.

Summary and Conclusions

  • It was fun playing around with the Mayflower Database at FamilySearch
  • Where I ran into dead ends, it made me think that there has been no one from that line who has applied for acceptance to the Mayflower Descendants
  • One exception is where a person has more than one spouse. Then clicking on the correct spouse may continue that line
  • Many Mayflower descendants married other Mayflower descendants, so there are a lot of crossovers in the genealogies. That means if the database shows your line descends from a particular Mayflower passenger, that doesn’t necessarily mean that some applied for membership based on that passenger, it may be from a different passenger in the line.
  • It helped for me to chart out my five Richard Warren Lines. My wife’s cousin was curious as to how we are related.
Posted on

Taking a Different View of My Hartley Haplogroups: FTDNA’s Colored Dots

FTDNA has two major ways to view your Haplogroup. The most common is the Block Tree. The other is through one’s badge. Here is the Hartley badge:

This Haplogroup of R-FT225247 was obtained when I tested my brother’s YDNA using the BigY 700 test. This distinguished our branch from other Hartleys who were A11132. Here is the Block tree from the viewpoint of my test:

By getting my brother tested, that gave me someone closely related to match my Private Variants. Once they are matched, those Private Variants went up on the tree into our old branch. The other Hartleys are to the right of our Branch in A11132 where I previously was. The problem is that FT225247 is still an old Haplogroup. I’m guessing that it could go back about 450 years to 1570.

FTDNA’s Y-DNA-Haplotree

When I click on the badge above, I get this:

Actually, I get more, but this is enough.  Under R-FT225247, it shows the other SNPs that make up the group.  There are a total of 7. To the left of each SNP is a dot. Here is the key:

I don’t find the yellow dot accurate. It is only used when that is the SNP used for the tree. Actually, for every SNP on my tree, I should not have a grey dot. For example, I am part of A11132. BY16417 is part of that group. I should be presumed positive for that SNP, not presumed negative. The same should be true for BY4026 and BY4028 which make up Z16357.

For the SNP below me, I should have Tested Negative for those, but as the results must not have been clear, I was Presumed Positive. The advantage of the Y-DNA Haplotree is that it gives more information on the quality of the SNPs tested.

Looking At My Brother’s Y-DNA Haplotree

Here my brother had better results than me at Z16357. He at least test positive for that SNP.

SNP Testing Quality

Above, I was presumed positive for Z16357. This is how the test results for that SNP show up for me:

The results look good to me. There are twelve good reads of a mutation and one good read that shows no mutation.

Next, I’ll see my brother’s test:

My brother had 12 good reads, but no read showing no mutation, so FTDNA must have a formula that deals with that.

A11130

My brother’s Haplotree appears to say that his A11130 test was presumed negative. However, the actual test, shows that he is definitely tested positive:

That makes me wonder about my test results:

My results are even better. The lesson is: don’t trust the little dots by your SNPs. Better to check the test results.

Negative Results

The negative results are important as are the positive ones. Here is my Haplotree:

The places where I have arrows are the gray SNP boxes which I should be negative for. I should have red dots for these SNPs and their equivalents. Here is the key again:

I don’t have any red dots which is suspicioius. I’ll check my A7 which is a higher level SNP. The 232 next to it must mean that there are 232 testers in that Haplogroup. Clearly I have tested negative for A7:

Clearly I am negative for A7. Perhaps FTDNA only shows negative if I take the single SNP test?

Summary and Conclusions

  • I looked at the Haplotree view for my BigY test and my brother’s BigY test
  • The Tested Positive green dots seem accurate.
  • The Presumed Positive is accurate but on in the case where that SNP is the defining SNP for the Block of SNPs. In my case, that was for SNP Z16357
  • The Presumed Negative is also inaccurate. The actual test results need to be checked. If you are positive for a block of SNPs, then you should be positive or Presumed Positive for all the SNPs in that Block.
  • The blue dot would be helpful in showing downstream SNPs. However, as I had my brother and myself tested, there are no downstream SNPs.
  • It seems like the red dot for Tested Negative should appear much more often unless it is reserved for the Single SNP test at FTDNA.
  • My conclusion is that the color coded dots for the SNPs do not work well
Posted on

New YDNA Results Seem to Conflict with Mayflower White Genealogy

In my previous Blog on the subject, I wrote about my application to the Mayflower Descendants and problems my friend Gary was having with his application. The problem that Gary was having was that the latest genealogical research showed that his ancestor Martha Doty had a child before the couple married. This was assumed to be John White (junior). That brought into question Gary’s unbroken line to William White of the Mayflower.

Gary’s YDNA

As a result, I suggested that Gary take a YDNA test. He took the 37 STR test, because that would have been enough to confirm the latest genealogical research on the Mayflower White Line. It is much easier for YDNA to confirm that you are not related to someone than it is to tell that you are related. I was surprised by Gary’s results:

Of Gary’s 6 matches, 5 of them had the White surname and one showed proven descent from Wiliam White, Mayflower Passenger. I asked Gary to get in touch with the match with the proven Mayflower descent. Gary did and this is the connection:

This shows that Gary is an 8th cousin twice removed to his YDNA match with proven descent from William White. This also shows that Gary must descend from Wiliam White. That is because Gary’s weak connection was the second John after Samuel White. If Gary’s YDNA match descended from this second John, then it could be that they were both from an illegitimate John. However, this suggests that John Sr fathered John Jr and perhaps later married Martha Doty.

Gary’s TIP Report with Mayflower White Descendant YDNA Match

This TIP Report at FTDNA takes into account the various results of the STR testing. These STRs can mutate on a relative basis very slowly or quickly. The differences can be off by a factor of about 1,000, so it is very important to take this information into consideration:

Here are the results. On the proven Mayflower Line, there are 9 generations to Resolved White. Gary has 11 generations going back to Resolved, his YDNA match’s common ancestor with Gary. From the above chart, that should be between about 92% and 96% accurate.

Looking at the Individual STRs

Here are the STR results at the Mayflower FTDNA YDNA Project page:

Gary’s results are not yet posted there. The reader will have to click on the image to be able to see the numbers. What are we looking at? There are four testers. The most important one is the first who is Gary’s YDNA match with proven connection to William White. The first two testers did a 67 STR test. The second two took at 37 STR test, so I did not continue further than the 37 STR results. The first three rows after the yellow row give the minimum, maximum and mode of the STR values. The Mode is most important as that is generally assumed to be the oldest result. The thinkng is that the mutations are newer and those shared by the most testers are the ancestral results.

The last line is a bit confusing as this is for a Donovan and the results do not match well at all. The colored numbers on the chart are variations from the Mode. I would have left Donovan off the list.

Here is more of a close-up:

Again, the third row is the Mode and I’d like to ignore the last row for Donovan. The proven William White descendant differs from the mode with his first blue 29. He differs also in the compound result of 38-38. This is a fast moving STR. This is sometimes even not used as it is a bit errratic. I’m not sure how the Mode was determined in this case either. What is missing is the heading for these columns:

The reddish STRs are the faster moving STRs. That is taken into account by the TIP Report discussed above. If Gary was part of this Project, it would be easy to compare his results.

Comparing Gary’s YDNA to the Mayflower YDNA Results

Here are Gary’s YDNA 37 STR Results:

We know that Gary differs from Mayflower Descendant by two STRs, but how does he differ from the White Mode? The White Mode can be thought of as the STR signature that William or Resolved White may have had.

Here is the close-up view again:

Gary had 30 in the first column for the STR named DYS449. Here Gary has the same ancestral STR where the other Resolved White descendant had a mutation to 29. That would account for one of Gary’s differences to the proven Mayflower descendant. At the CDY STR, Gary had a value of 37-38. This likely was the second difference to his Mayflower descendant YDNA match. I would have chosen 37-38 for the mode in this case. That would make Gary ancestral for this STR also.

Comparing Gary’s YDNA Results to the Mayflower White Mode

Here is an interesting and fun fact:

Gary matches the mode at every point. Here are the other STRs:

The only place Gary doesn’t match, which is at CDY. I don’t agree with the Mode. In addition, if Gary’s results were added, 37-38 would become the Mode as Gary would tip the scales. The Mode is the value occuring most and Gary would make the 37-38 the only repeat value for the Mayflower match testers for CDY.

Anything Else? A STR Tree

There are three Whites in the Mayflower Project. We can call them White1 (proven), White2 and White3. White3 has the same 37 STR signature as Gary. He is also the other White who only did the 37 STR test. You would think that could mean that White3 is more closely related to Gary than the others. However, STRs are a bit fickle, so it is difficult to know for sure. It would be interesting to know all these White genealogies with YDNA matches to Gary.

If I put the STR results for the four Whites, this is what I get:

The tree is accurate as far as the STR values go, but as we don’t know the genealogy for White2 and White3, it is a bit confusing. This shows that Gary and White3 probably have the ancestral STR signature for William White (and/or Resolved White). White2 has one STR difference from Gary and White3. The proven William White descendant White1 has a 2 STR difference (also called a GD of 2) from what appears to be the Mayflower White signature.

Further Analysis

Gary’s YDNA match brings up an interesting point. There is DNA and there is genealogy. They should be working together, but what happens when they disagree or appear to disagree? Some sort of reconciliation is needed. In Gary’s case, the YDNA match to a known William White Mayflower descendant appears to make Gary a William White descendant also. The reconcilliation could be that John White Senior had child John White Junior with Martha Doty prior to their marriage and that John Senior was the unnamed father. However, that does not explain the fact that John White Jr was left out of his father’s will.

The saying is that DNA does not lie. This is true, but there are different levels of DNA testing and differing interpretations. The best test is the BigY 700 test. If enough people take this test who are related, an accurate YDNA tree can be made. This tree reflects the testers’ genealogy. This test looks for SNPs which are more predictable than STRs. If the proven White descendant and Gary were to take this test, there would be better proof of the common William White descent. However, at the level of testing that has been done, it seems like there is a very good indication that Gary and the proven William White descendant have the common ancestor of Resolved White as shown above.

Gary has submitted his initial application in to the Mayflower Society. Hopefully that will tell him if his genealogy is OK for an application. If they say the genealogy is not good based on more recent research, I would say that we have a case to overturn or modify the recent research with the DNA results.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Gary’s proposed application to the Mayflower Society was fraught with peril due to the Mayflower Silver Book and other sources claiming that his ancestor John White was illegitimate.
  • I proposed a YDNA test for Gary at the 37 STR level to give evidence as to whether or not he really did descend from William White of the Mayflower.
  • The test came back showing that Gary matched 5 out of 6 people with White surnames. The 6th match which was the most distant one was not a match.
  • Gary contacted his YDNA match who had proven ancestry to William White of the Mayflower. The common ancestor between Gary and his match was with William’s son Resolved born in 1615.
  • Gary and I ran TIP Reports which showed that a common ancestor between Gary and his proven William White ancestor was over 90% likely.
  • It is unclear whether or not the Mayflower Society would entertain an application from Gary based on the genealogy alone. Gary has a Mayflower Lineage Match request submitted that hopefully will answer that question.
  • Based on Gary’s YDNA testing, he has an excellent case to show that John White Jr was indeed the son of John White Sr.
Posted on

A Different Look at the I2 Butler/Whitson BigY Results

In my previous Blog, I set out to look at the finalized results of my brother-in-law’s BigY test. While doing that, I saw that a Whitson in the I2 section of the Whitson/Butler Project had also taken a BigY Test. That test apparently helped to place a lot of my brother-in-law’s previous Private Variants onto the YDNA Tree. Here is a summary of the overall Whitson Project:

The part that I am looking at in this Blog is the green area. This is on the YDNA tree in the general area of I2. Those who have taken the BigY test are in green. My brother-in-law is the next to the last tester on the list and my father-in-law is the last. Batt, Butler tester with James Butler as ancestor and my father-in-law Richard, had the older BigY500 tests. The new Whitson tester who doesn’t show an ancestor and my brother-in-law had the new BigY 700 tests.

The BigY Block Tree for Whitson/Butler at I2

Here is the Block Tree:

The Butlers are under I-Y128364. Batt has Whitson ancestry. that means that I-BY115420 is the Whitson side. Above this is a large Block of SNPs from position 7 to position 45 (not shown) collectively named for one of the SNPs in the Block: I-Y128591. The Block tree is from my brother-in-law Ken’s perspective, so he is not shown but is in the left column under I-FT241245. Because the older tests of BigY 500 did not cover a lot of the SNPs, the two new testers (one Butler and one Whitson) have greatly helped to improve the tree. However, I think that the tree could be better. I will likely discuss that later in the Blog.

The Different Look

Here is the different look from FTDNA. I’ll start with Ken. This just focuses on the individual, where the Block tree represents 5 testers. Here are the headings for the tree:

The detail will be in the five categories of tested SNPs.

There is no need to go too far up this tree. As I mentioned above, I-Y128591 has 39 SNPs in it. This could represent about 3900 years. I-Y128364 represents the Butler with the James Butler ancestor. I-BY115420 is the Whitson group. Ken only has two colors of the dots representing ‘tested positive’ or ‘presumed negative’. I would think that he should have some yellow dots for ‘presumed positive’. For example, Ken should be presumed positive for BY48499 under A427, then he should be presumed positive for FGC70597, etc.

Here are Ken’s results for BY48499:

This shows four out of five runs came up with a mutation at this location.

My Father-In-Law’s Version of the Tree

This view is pretty much the same except that, as he had the older BigY 500 test, he has more gray dots (which I believe should be yellow dots).

Tester with James Butler Ancestor

These results introduce a few more colored dots. FT241245 has a blue dot for downstream. He also has a red dot for S23897. That confirms that he tested negative for this SNP and was not just presumed negative. Again, I believe that all the gray dots above the highlighted row should be yellow dots.

New Whitson Tester

Here I highlighted a SNP with a red shopping basket. It is noted that this SNP is part of a SNP Pack.

Batt

I would expect to see more gray dots for Batt’s BigY 500 test:

Back to Private Variants

I spend a lot of time on Private Variants as they are on the cutting edge of the BigY tests. If these are really private variants, then they should describe a future branch of the tree. If they are not, then they should be describing an upstream branch of the YDNA tree.

Ken and His Dad

Due to the closeness of the relationship, Ken’s dad should not have any SNPs that Ken does not have. Richard has no Private Variants, but he also took a less comprehensive test. As these SNPs form about every 100 years on average, it would be rare also for Ken to have Private Variants. Yet he has three:

I have Ken’s Private Variants (PVs) in yellow above. These positions were not tested for in his father, but if they were, he would most likely test positive for them. The next to test is Eng Butler or the Butler with James as his ancestor. I have that he has a ? by his results for 17140468:

Batt has the same ambiguous results and Whitson has a definite no. That means that we don’t know if Ken’s ‘Private Variants’ should show up under FT241245 or Y128364:

Ken’s PVs probably would not show up under Y128591 as Whitson tested negative for these PVs.

James Butler Ancestor Private Variants

The tester with James Butler as an ancestor has these Private Variants:

If we can trust these are truly Private Variants, then we can say that they define the James Butler Line down to the present day tester.

Here, Ken tested negative for these two positions. So the two Private Variants for the James Butler ancestor are valid. There may be other positions that were not tested for under the BigY 500 test that could be private variants also.

Whitson Private Variants

These are from the newest tester in the group:

Whitson has three Private Variants. I’ll check Whitson’s closest match who is Batt. Batt is actually negative for 12984909:

The other two positions are unclear:

That means that it is possible that the second two positions could actually be SNPs for Batt and Whitson under BY115420.

Batt Private Variants

Batt has two PVs:

My guess is that these two should be valid. Again, I’ll check Batt’s closest match who is Whitson:

Whitson does not have the first position.

Whitson has a clear ‘no’ for 19550845 also. This means that Batt has two unambiguous Private Variants.

Common Ancestor Dating

This is easier to see in the Block Tree view:

 

The places where the common ancestors are dated are in the ewhite space btween the SNPs. The common ancestor between Butler and Whitson is in the white space where the second arrow is. The common ancestor between the two Butler families is in the white space where the first arrow is.

Common Butler Ancestor

In order to get to the date for the Butler ancestor we need to assume a number of years per SNPs or Private Variant. I will use 100 as a round figure. I know that Ken has three private variants, so I will say that he shares 1.5 private variants with his father. That is assuming that FTDNA is right with the analysis. It is also possible that Ken actually shares his Private Variant with the other Butler Branch. That would put those SNPs in a Block under Y128364.

I’ll add those 1.5 private variants to the the two SNPs under FT241245 to get 3.5 SNPs. Then I’ll average those with the other Butler’s two Private Variants to get 2.75. Based on the assumption of 100 years per SNP, that would results in a common ancestor for the two Butler Lines of 275 years ago or the year 1745. That sounds pretty recent.

Common Butler/Whitson Ancestor

There are many more SNPs on the Whitson side compared to the Butler side. This means that it is possible that the Whitson SNPs came about more often than the Butler SNPs. However, the end point has to be the same for the common ancestor for these two groups. that is where the second red arrow is above. Average 2.75 with 6 to get 4.375 or 438 years. That puts the common ancestor for Butler and Whitson at the year 1582. If I come back down on the Butler side and add 100 years for Y128364, I get 1682 compared to the 1745 I previously had.

I used the 1682 date above because it was based on averaging more SNPs. For the second Butler Line, that means that a SNP was formed about once every 130 years assuming that tester was born around 1940. Also, that tester may actually find more Private Variants if the test was upgraded to BigY 700. If we use the present date, then there would be a SNP every 170 years.

On the Whitson side, there were 6 SNPs in about 440 years to present. That is a new SNP every 73 years.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I took a look at 5 BigY tests from the point of view of their individual Y-DNA Haplotrees. This look gives some extra imformation on the testing results for testers’ individual SNPs.
  • I took another stab at estimating dates to common ancestors based on the way that FTDNA has the SNPs and Private Variants for the five Butler/Whitson BigY testers. These results were very similar to what I came up with in a previous Blog.
Posted on

A Different Look at the Frazer YDNA Tree

In this Blog, I would like to look at the 5 BigY Frazier/Frazer testers looking at their FTDNA YDNA Trees. In the past, I have looked at the Block Tree. Here is the Block Tree from Rick’s perspective:

Starting from the left I first see Rodney. To find Rodney’s Y Tree (which FTDNA calls the Y-DNA Haplotree), I click on his YDNA Badge:

Here is Rodney’s Y-DNA Haplotree:

The difference between this tree and the Block Tree I showed earlier is that the Block Tree shows the tester and his matches. This Haplotree only shows the one tester’s results at a time. However, there  is more information on the quality of each SNP tested. Above, I show how Rodney descends all the way down from R-YP6483. The actual tree goes much further back. All the groups that he is positive for are in green and the groups that he does not belong in are in gray. Here is the heading for the tree:

The dots by Rodney’s SNPs are also either green for Tested Positive or gray for Presumed Negative. There are some SNPs within the green groups that have gray dots. I think that those should be yellow dots for Presumed Positive. That is because if you are in a group, you need to be positive for each SNP within that group.

Going back from his terminal Haplogroup, BY116270 is the first SNP that Rodney has that shows as presumed negative.

Also in the heading, FTDNA says ‘View by Variants’. These are technically Variants, but in order to not get mixed up with Private Variants, they could have called them SNPs.

Jonathan’s Y-DNA Haplotree

Jonathan’s tree must be the same as Rodney’s except for the gray dots. Jonathan had the older BigY 500, so he should have more gray dots:

Here, Jonathan does get a yellow dot for R-FT421618 and he gets yellow for the whole group which means presumed positive. To find Jonathan’s test results for FT421618, I need to get out of the Y-DNA Haplotree and look at his BigY Matches or Results. I usually look at the Matches and then choose the Named Variants Tab:

At the bottom of the list (not shown), Jonathan has 1051 Named SNPs. I’ll search for FT421618. I have to search under all results, because I won’t find this SNP under Derived. This SNP comes up with a question mark.

Here are Jonathan’s test results for that SNP. He was positive for each of the four reads for a Variant there, but usually 10 reads are needed to prove that he was positive for this SNP. However, as Jonathan is positive for child SNP of R-Y151390, he must also be positive for the parent SNP of FT421618.

While I’m looking at Jonathan’s results, he (like Rodney) has a gray dot for BY116270:

Rodney shows 17 reads where there is a mutation from T to G. However, he also shows 10 cases where there is no mutation. FTDNA must use some formula to determine that this does not make the grade.

Let’s see what Rodney shows:

This shows the same funny pattern. I don’t know what the black means. I guess it may mean that there was no read there. Rodney had fewer good reads compared to Jonathan. However, because this is in a SNP group that is four levels above Rodney’s and Jonathan’s terminal Haplogroup, they shoul both be presumed positive for this SNP.

Bottom line is that Rodney and Jonathan are solildly in R-Y151390. Y151390 represents the James Branch of the Frazer family or more specifically the Thomas Henry Branch from 1836:

All the other SNPs that are upstream of Y151390 based on the testing of the other matches are less closely related.

Rick and Paul in the Archibald Branch of Frazers – R-Y85652

Y85652 has a shorter number. This should be an older SNP, discovered in 2017 – probably when Jonathan had his BigY done. Rick, like Rodney has the newer BigY 700 test. Here is Rick’s private tree:

I went a little higher on the tree this time, just to show tht the tree keeps going back. One interesting thing is that we see that Rick is presumed negative for Y151390 that Rodney and Jonathan had. That may be worth looking into. Looking up at Rodney’s and Jonathan’s trees, we see that they were also presumed negative for Y85652.

When I put the trees of Rodney, Jonathan and Rick together, this is what I get:

There are a lot more question marks than are ideal. However, the positive tests so far, are what are breaking the testers into their two groups.

Do Paul’s BigY Results Help?

Paul had the older BigY 500 test. I am a second cousin once removed to Paul. That makes me a fourth cousin to Rick.

Paul also has no negative for sure results. If he did, these would appear as red dots. Ideally, Paul would show negative for R-Y15130 and FT421607 as he is not in that group. The last verified negative result that I had found was in the Frazier BigY that I had discussed in my previous Blog:

The negative is shown in red above and we will get to that test later in the Blog. Above with Rick and Paul, they are presumed negative because Rodney and Jonathan are positive for Y151390. This is what I see for Paul’s test at Y151390:

I assume that this is the same as not being tested as no position number is given. Next I’ll look at FT421607 for Paul:

Here he had one read but it didn’t make it to that Position. I would say that Paul has not been tested for this SNP:

Rick’s Testing for Y151390

That makes me curious as to how Rick made out on the James Frazer Line SNPs. So far, there are different flavors of SNP testing:

  • Positive
  • Presumed Positive
  • Negative
  • Presumed Negative
  • Not Tested

Here I am a bit surprised:

Rick is definitely negative for this SNP. So I had the wrong information previously:

Here I have a red N for Rick for Y151390.

Next, I’ll look at FT421607. This shows why it is important to check the results and the Y Chromosome Browser.

This means the results are better than I thought previously:

This chart shows a clearer demarcation between the James Line and the Archibald Frazer Line. When defining Haplogroups, it is important not only to show that one group is positive for a SNP, but that the other group is clearly negative for that SNP.

Clearing Up the SNPs

Looking at the above chart, I should check all the question marks. The first is for Jonathan at FT421607:

Here, Jonathan was 100% positive for FT421607, but only had one read.

Here are Jonathan’s results for Y85652:

These results are different from what I had previously. Either I entered them wrong before or FTDNA has clarified by additional testing. I think that the results of the Backbone Tests have come in, because, I am seeing different results now. I checked all of Jonathan’s Archibald Line SNPs and he is now negative for them:

Now we can see a clearer border between what I call the J Line and the A Line.

The next logical step is to re-check Rodney’s results. Starting with Y85652, Rodney is now negative:

He doesn’t have as many reads but quite a few more than 10. The other two SNPs from the Archibald Line followed suit for Rodney:

It appears that the only questionable tests now are Jonathan’s test for FT421607 which only had one read and Paul’s two James Line SNPs which didn’t get tested. These results have me going back to Rodney’s Y-DNA Haplotree. The one that I started out looking at in this Blog:

Rodney should have red dots next to the SNPs to the right of R-Y85652. Red would mean tested negative which is what Rodney’s Y Chromosome Browser now show. However, Rodney’s Haplotree still shows gray dots for presumed negative. Perhaps FTDNA is in flux.

In addition, it appears from Rodney’s order history that his backbone test has not yet been completed:

There is a completed the same day as the order whcih does not make sense. Then there is a later ‘Completed’ with no date.

Frazier Y-Haplotree

So far, I have not looked at Frazier results in this Blog. He will have a shorter Haplotree as he has an older terminal Haplogroup of R-YP6489:

The difference in the Frazier Haplotree is that it has a blue SNP or Haplogroup in it. That is FT421618. Blue indicates downstream. Here is what I already had for Frazier:

This started out being a chart for Private Variants, but now includes more. I’ll change it so, in general, the older SNPs are at the top.

First, I’ll look at the Frazier results for FT421618. Frazier split the previous Frazer/Frazier block in two by his results.

Frazier has no letter within the dashed results which means that he is negative for this SNP. My guess is that that this Haplogroup was chosen to represent the three SNPs in it because Frazier was clearly negative for FT421618. Frazier has a gray dot by YP6491. Gray means presumed negative:

This single T in the G column is why this test did not get a perfect score. However, I question this later in the Blog and presume that this is a negative result.

While we are at it, I will also look at YP6492:

Frazier is clearly negative for this SNP, so I don’t think that FTDNA is reporting these correctly in their Y-DNA Haplotree.

Frazier’s YDNA Haplotree shows that he is positive for the three SNPs in R-YP6489. I checked out the other Frazier results and get this:

The split in the former Frazer/Frazier Block occurs in the Frazier results where the results go from green to red or from yes to no. The last ? could be a no, but I don’t understand FTDNA testing requirements well enough.

Here are the rest of the results from the Frazier test as far as I have tracked them on this spreadsheet:

Next, I should fill in the blanks. That would be 24 tests. But if I add in Paul and Rick, that will show where the changes are between the Haplogroups. Here are Paul’s results:

Above on Paul’s Y-DNA Haplotree, I showed that he was presumed postive for FT421618. Here are his results:

I would put those results in the sketchy category. Paul had two low quality reads neither of which showed positive results. However, based on the other testing he gets to be presumed positive.

Here are Rick’s results:

Rick’s results were straightforward. There was a Frazier result with a question mark, but the more I looked at it, the more I felt is should be a ‘n’.

As Jonathan had a presumed positive for FT421618, I would like to check that.

Jonathan seems clearly positive for this SNP, but didn’t have as many reads as needed for the best results. I added an extra SNP result for Jonathan on my spreadsheet, to make it look better.

Summary and Conclusions

I could write more, but I think that I have enough for one Blog:

  • I wanted to take a look at the four Frazer and one Frazier BigY tester from the perspective of their Y-DNA Haplotrees at FTDNA
  • I found while looking at another project, that the labels on the specific SNPs on these trees are not always accurate. For example, a red dot by a SNP should mean ‘tested negative’. I did not see any red dots on these trees. Yet there are many negative tests shown in my testing summary above shown with a red ‘n’.
  • Because many of the results seemed to have changed for Rodney and Jonathan compared to what I had previously shown on my spreadsheet, I surmised that their backbone tests may now be completed or in the process of being completed. Whatever the source of the results, what I have found make the results of the testing between the James Line and Archibald Frazer Line Haplogroups clearer.

 

Posted on

The Finalized Butler BigY Results for My Brother-In-Law and a New Whitson BigY

I last looked at my brother-in-law’s BigY 700 results in April of 2020. That was quite a while ago. At that time, Ken had 17 Private Variants. That was odd as his father had also tested and he shouldn’t have had that many Private Variants. He should only have one if any. The problem was that FTDNA had not yet finished their manual review and dealt with all of Ken’s Private Variants. The other problem was that Ken had done the BigY 700 and his father had taken the BigY 500 which does not have as good of coverage in identifying SNPs on the Y Chromosome. That means that Ken had extra SNPs identified that his father’s test did not cover.

Here is a look at Ken’s Private Variants now:

Ken is now down to 3 Private Variants from a previous 17. That is a big difference. Here is Ken’s Block Tree:

Ken;’s three Private Variants are averaging out to 1 Private Variant on the Block Tree. Ken’s late father had no Private Variants.

Dating the Block Tree

Now that the tree is finalized with respect to Ken’s results, let’s try to date it. SNPs form between about every 83 and 144 years. I’ll use 100 years as a round number. The common ancestor of the two Butlers, Whitson and Batt should be at the level just above what is shown on the image above. To get to that level Ken’s branch has four SNPs and the next Butler branch has three SNPs. I’ll average that at 3.5 SNPs. The Whitson/Batt Line has 6 SNPs to get to the same level. 6 averaged with 3.5 SNPs is 4.75 SNPs or 475 years. 475 years ago is about the year 1545. That is quite a while ago.

From there we can work forward. We had 3.5 SNPs on average on the Butler Lines. 475/3.5 is 135 years. That means that the common ancestor on the Butler Lines could be around 1680.

More on Dates

1680 is a possible date for a common ancestor between the two Butler Lines. Both these lines are from Ireland, so that would also be a top candidate for the location of the common ancestor of the Butler side of the Block Tree. Butler researcher Peter thinks that my wife’s branch of Butler originates in Wexford County, Ireland.

The 1545 date is more complicated. My understanding is that the Whitson side is said to be from England. Here is some information from the Batt tester’s tree:

Assuming that this information is right, then the Butler family could have been in England in 1545. So far, the Butler genealogy stalls out in Ireland in the early 1800’s. Then the other question is why there is a Butler Line and a Whitson Line. Did one Whitson Branch move to Ireland and change the name to Butler? Was the English Whitson Branch originally Butler and change the name to Whitson in England?

YDNA and SNP Tracker

There is a website called SNP Tracker that makes some guesses as to dates and places also. Here is the SNP for Whitson – BY115420:

This map misses the Roman and Iron periods. That must be the big Block of SNPs where there are no matches. So between the blue dot and orange dot on the map there is a great unknown. Here is a timeline going back 10,000 years:

SNP Tracker for the Butler SNPs

This should be a little more refined as there are three testers and one father-son pair:

This shows Butler as going through England in Medieval times.  Here is the timeline:

Here I don’t agree with the timelines – especially for FT241245. This is a SNP that both Ken and his father share. However, it was formed much earlier. In my own dating I had the date of 1680 above this SNP. That means that this SNP could have formed around 1700 – so I am  not too far off from SNP Tracker. However, before that SNP Tracker has Y128364 at 1300 CE. That should only be one SNP older than FT241245, so I don’t agree with the 300 year period between these two SNPs. As a reality check, Y128364 appears to be at the same level as the Whitson BY115420 which is dated at 1700 CE by SNP tracker. Bottom line: I like my own dates better.

SNP Tracker also has a new mapper just for Great Britain and Ireland:

This shows Butler going to County Kilkenny. I’m not sure I agree with that. I think that many of the Kilkenny Butlers may be R1b, instead of my wife’s Butlers who are in the I Haplogroup. I’m not sure if SNP Tracker accounts for that. Here is some more detail from SNP Tracker:

Where DId Ken’s Other Private Variants Go?

In my previous Blog, I had suggested that most of Ken’s Private Variants should end up here:

However, I notice another change since this image. Before the right column was just Batt. Now there are Whitson results.

A New Whitson BigY

I see by the new Whitson match list, that his test must have been finalized last October:

Here is the new Whitson Block Tree:

Here I have highlighted some of the new SNPs that have appeared in the block above since my brother-in-law Ken tested. There are now 15 new SNPs in that Block potentially representing about 1500 years of time. Also of interest is that the Batt match on the Block Tree has Whitson ancestry. That means that we can simplify this tree somewhat between Butler on the left and Whitson on the right.

The new Whitson tester had a good result for Batt. Previously, Batt’s defining SNP was I-Y128591. That was 35 SNPs from present based on the previous image with the pink arrow. That could be from around 3500 years ago or roughly 1500 BC. Now Whitson and Batt have a defining SNP of I-BY115240 which I have dated at approximately a little later than 1545. That is an improvement of 3,000 years.

Back to Ken’s Private Variants

Most of Ken’s Private Variants turned into older SNPs. These in effect moved back the I-Y128591 Block 1500 years to about 4500 years ago or 2500 BC. Here is my comparison spreadsheet of Ken’s old 17 Private Variants:

My guess is that the new Whitson BigY test was the one that moved these SNPs up to the I-Y158591 Block. In the chart above, N means that the SNP was not tested. Rich is Ken’s dad above. A question mark means that the SNP was tested but the results were inconclusive.

Comparing Ken’s Old Private Variants (PVs) to the new SNPs in the I-Y158591 Block.

As I had named 15 of Ken’s old PVs and there were 15 new SNPs in the I-Y158591, it seems like there could be a one to one match. But there wasn’t:

Three of Ken’s old PVs didn’t make it up to the Y158591 Block and three of Ken’s SNPs not previously named made it there. First, I’ll see if Ken’s first two PVs have names yet:

Ken’s first PV is the newer FT394377. I would say newer, due to the higher number of the SNP. Ken’s second previously unnamed SNP is now also named:

This gets us close to reconciling Ken’s list. Here are Ken’s present Private Variants:

I have put Ken’s current Private Variants on the table as PVs. That leaves one extra SNP not previously accounted for. Right now, of Ken’s previous 17 PVs, 14 made it up to the Y128591 Block and three remained as PVs. That leaves FT394717.

FT394717

Here are Ken’s results for FT394717:

The reason that this position or SNP did not appear previously is that the results were ambiguous. Here are the detailed test results:

Ken shows that he did have FT394717. However, he had only one read and usually 10 positive reads would be acceptable. Next, I’ll check the new Whitson BigY results.

The New Whitson Tester and the New SNPs in Y128591

It appears that the new Whitson tester matched with many of Ken’s previously Private Variants. That resulted in FTDNA adding these as SNPs to the already large block of Y128591. Here is one that the new Whitson tester tested positive for:

This is FT394777:

The new Whitson tester must have been positive for the other SNPs in the orange box also.

Ken’s New Private Variants

In order for Ken to have new Private Variants, the new Whitson tester should have tested negative for those Variants. This is a little more difficult to determine. However, partial results are in the new Whitson tester’s csv file. Here are Ken’s Private Variants;

Let’s look at the Whitson tester at position 17140468:

The reference and the genotype are both T for Whitson. For Ken, there is a mutation from T to A. However, I would question whether this is a true PV for Ken as his father did not have that position tested. It is more likely that Ken’s father is also positive for that position:

Ken’s dad’s results clearly did not have position 17,140,468 tested. It would be likely that there would be no Private Variants when a father and son test.

New Whitson Private Variants

The new Whitson tester also has three Private Variants:

I’ll check Ken to see if he has no variant at position 12984909. I will have to download his csv file to find this out:

Ken is not positive for this variant.

What about Batt?

Batt is questionable for this position. That means that the Whitson Private Variant is also questionable. Whitson has it, but it may be a shared SNP with Batt and not just a Private Variant. In fact, all the Whitson Private Variants are in the same category:

Summary and Conclusions

  • When I checked on the 17 Private Variants my brother-in-law had, I was glad to see that these have been resolved.
  • I was also glad to see that there is now another Whitson BigY tester.
  • It was probably the new Whitson BigY tester that resolved my brother-in-law’s Private Variants
  • These Private Variants became older SNPs going back to the period between about 2500 BC and 1550 AD. They increased the age of the I-Y128591 Block by about 1500 years. This period is somewhat mysterious as
  • The new Whitson tester matched with the Batt tester who has Whitson ancestry and gave them both a much more recent SNP than Batt already had. Batt’s defining SNP moved up from 1500 BC to about 1550 AD.
  • I made a guess on the time and place for the common ancestors of the Butler BigY testers: about 1680 in County Wexford, Ireland
  • I also made a guess for the date common ancestors of the Butler and Whitson Lines. This was the same 1550 date mentioned above. The place could be England. However, was the original name Whitson or Butler. Which branch changed and why is unclear. A single mother could have giver her name to her child, or there could have been an adoption. Those are two possibilities.
  • I looked at the SNP Tracker to see what results were there for Butler and Whitson
  • I looked at the Butler and Whitson Private Variants. It is unlikely that Ken should have any Private Variants. Also the Whitson Private Variants are questionable. The result, if Batt and Ken’s father upgraded to the BigY 700, is that these Private Variants could turn into Butler and Whitson shared SNPs.

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Waiting for the Frazier BigY Manual Review and Frazer Y-HAP-Backbone Test

A lot has been happening with Frazer YDNA recently. In January, Rick’s new BigY 700 came in. Rodney upgraded his BigY 500 to a BigY 700. This came in at about the same time as Rick’s results. At the beginning of February, the new Frazier BigY 700 results started to come in. However, there are still a few loose ends.

  • I assume that there will be a manual review of the Frazier results by FTDNA
  • Rodney and Jonathan from the James Frazer Line both have pending Y-HAP-Backbone tests ordered by FTDNA. These were apparently ordered to fill in gaps from their BigY testing.

What Gaps Do Rodney and Jonathan Have in Their BigY Testing?

This was discussed some in my Blog: Frazer YDNA Loose Ends and Private Variants. In that Blog, I looked at Private Variants. The conclusion of my review was that I thought that FT420438 and FT420010 should be added here:

Let’s see if that still makes sense now that the Frazier results are in. In my last Blog on the Frazier results, I came to the conclusion that these SNPs should be added:

FT420010

The good news is that in both my analyses, I had FT420010 in the R-YP6489 Block. The bad news is that in my first Blog, I had FT20438 in that Block and not FT426078. In my more recent Blog, I had FT426078 in the R-YP6489 Block and not FT20438. Confusing, isn’t it? My assumption is that FT420010 does indeed belong with R-YP6489. I will just check Frazier to make sure:

Position #5987829 is the position for the SNP FT420010:

Here is a chart I just made to compare the testing results between the five testers:

This shows that for FT420010, the three people who had the BigY 700 tested positive. Jonathan and Paul had the BigY 500 and their tests were inconclusive. That means that there were not enough reads or not enough positive reads. All this to say that FT420010 checks out. What I don’t know is if it belongs even further upstream – say to where the Stuarts are on the Block Tree:

FT426078

This is a SNP that I suggested should go in the area of YP6489. Here is the position number:

Did Frazier test positive for this SNP? Here are the six Private Variants for Frazier:

Frazier did have Position number 4056256.

Paul’s results were inconclusive for this position number on his YDNA test:

This is where my comparison chart should come in handy:

Next, I fill in the other boxes:

The unfortunate part about this is that Rick’s BigY 700 which should have had more covereage than the BigY 500 tests, did not test for Position #4056256. However, based on Rodney and the Frazier tester  testing positive, I think that FT426078 will be added to the Frazer/Frazier group of R-YP6489.

FT420438

Prior to the Frazier BigY test results, I had suggested that FT420438 be added to the area of R-YP6489. Let’s see if that still makes sense.

Here is a summary of what I had for my earlier Blog:

At that time Frazier was not yet tested. What are the Frazier results for this position? Again, these are the six Private Frazier Variants:

I see nothing in that list starting with 118… Next, I’ll look at Frazier’s csv file:

It was worthwhile downloading the large Frazier csv file, because the results are interesting. This shows that Frazier has no mutation at this reference. If the Reference and Genotype are the same, that means that there was no mutation –  unlike Rodney and Rick:

In testing YDNA, a negative result is as important as a positive one. That means that FT420438 is a defining SNP for the Roscommon Frazer group along with the three others they already have.

A Predicted Frazer/Frazier Block Tree

Here is what this appears to show:

This view is from the perspective of the new Frazier tester who would be in the right column. Two of his six Frazier Private Variants will go up to R-YP6489 reducing the Frazier Private Variants to four. Rodney will have a reduction of four in his Private Variants. That will likely reduce the average Private Variants of Rodney and Jonathan from 4 to two. Rick will have a reduction of two Private Variants. That should reduce Rick and Paul’s Group from three Private Variants to two.

More on the Frazer/Frazier Block Tree

It seems like this area of the Tree where the red arrow is pointing is important:

This must be the are where the two Frazer/Frazier branches divided from each other. However when was this date? From the Rodney/Jonathan Line there should be 8 SNPs below the point where I show the arrow. On the Rick/Paul Line there should be 9 SNPs. On the Frazier Branch there should be a mere 4 SNPs if my analysis is correct. The average Frazer Line is 8.5 SNPs long. I’ll average that with the Frazier Branch that has 4 Private Variants to get 6-1/4 SNPs. I’ve seen various number of years to apply to these SNPs. I’ll try 84. 84 times 6.25 is 525 years. That brings us back to about the year 1495. That is a little earlier than my previous guess of 1600. If I apply the 84 years to the remaining 5 SNPs that I have in R-YP6489 that is another 420 years. That brings us back to the year 1075 when we are bumping up against the Stuarts and possibly Grant. That would make sense as it would help if this date was around the time (or before) of the adoption of surnames.

So where I have the arrow pointed should be about 1075. The next break in the blocks should be around 1495. The next break in the blocks on the left two Frazer lines should be around 1690 which is the date we are guessing that Archibald Frazer, the father of the James and Archibald Lines was born. The number of 84 per SNP breaks down between 1495 and 1690 as there would be four SNPs during this period. This is a little less than 50 years per SNP. As the 84 years should be an average, it could be that there were a lot of SNPs forming during this period of time on the Frazer Line. It seems like the Frazier Line was helpful here as this line perhaps had fewer SNPs forming between 1495 and the present. At an estimated 4 Private Variants over about 525 years, that is one SNP about every 131 years. The same effect can be seen in the Stuart and Grant Lines, though this could be partly due to the Stuarts taking the BigY 700 and Grant taking the BigY 500 test.

Rodney and Jonathan’s Y-HAP-Backbone Tests

I’m still not sure why FTDNA ordered Y-HAP-Backbone Tests for Rodney and Jonathan.

Jonathan was missing some information on these three positions. However, Jonathan had good result for these three positions. It could be that there were some discrepancies between Frazer/Frazier and Stuart/Grant with other SNPs that I don’t know about that FTDNA wanted to clear up.

Summary and Conclusions

  • In my previous two Blogs, I came to some conclusions as to where some of the Private Variants should end up for the five Frazer/Frazier testers. However, in this Blog I put that information together to give a fuller picture.
  • In order for there to be a new SNP that is unique to the Frazers of Roscommon, it has to be positive for that group, but also negative for the Frazier tester. That was the case for FT420438. That would also be true for the existing three SNPs in the Roscommon Ireland Frazerr Block of FT421618. I didn’t check FTDNA’s work for the existing three SNPs in the Block, but I assume that they were right.
  • I showed where I think that Frazer/Frazier Block Tree will end up once FTDNA has finished its manual review. I also did some guesswork as to the dates at some important junctures in the Block Tree.
  • The Stuarts and Frazers seem to go their separate ways around the year 1075
  • The Frazer and Frazier lines seem to separate around 1495.
  • I’m still curious as to why FTDNA ordered Y-HAP-Backbone tests for Rodney and Jonathan.

 

Posted on

More Newspaper Entries for My Wife’s Family

In my previous Blog on my wife’s family in the Newspapers, I looked at some of the members of her Upshall, Butler and Ellis ancestors. In this Blog, I’ll start with Edward Henry Butler (born 1904) and Estelle LeFevre (born 1905):

Estelle LeFevre

14 September 1972

From the Boston Globe:

Here is another entry from the same day:

Not the best condition, but has more information on the LeFevre side.

Edward Henry Butler (born 1904)

This one could be confusing as there was more than one Edward Henry Butler. Here is one mention under the heading of marriages:

6 December 1959

This was from the Boston Globe.

Here is Edward’s Obituary:

17 April 1985

Kerivan

It occurs to me that I have not looked at the Kerivan famiy. One of my wife’s paternal great-granmothers was Lillie Kerivan:

Lillie Kerivan Born 1874 Needham, MA

There was a Lillie Kerivan at the Nantasket Poice Ball reported on 21 August 1896:

I can’t prove this was the same Lillie.

Obituary for Lillian in the 18 January 1932 Boston Globe. The heading will describe why this was difficult to find:

I can see how the program would interpret the L of Lillian as a T.

Here is 19 Derby Road:

I think that is a 19 to the left of the door:

 

 

Posted on

My Daughter-In-Law’s French Canadian Ancestry: Houde Dit Desrochers

I last looked at my daughter-in-law Sarah’s  French Canadian Vezina heritage in this Blog. I was able to trace her family back to La Rochelle, France. However, that was only one line. In this Blog, I’ll take a look at some of her other French Canadian Lines.

Sarah’s Existing Tree

Here is where I am now with Sarah’s four French Canadian great-grandparents:

McGee doesn’t sound French Canadian. I’m assuming that Ethel’s maiden name was not Chapdelaine and that Lydia’s maiden name was not Vezina. Otherwise, Ancestry has some hints for me for potential 2nd great-grandparents.

Beatrice B McGee

I’ll start with Sarah’s non-French Canadian sounding great-grandmother. According to the 1940 Census, Beatrice was born in Massachusetts. That same Census has her in New Bedford in 1940, but in Fall River in 1935.

It appears that Beatrice was a Mary at birth in 1907 in Fall River:

The family lived at 272 William Street. Mary’s father was a weaver born in Canada and Mary aka Beatrice’s mother was Eliza Lafleur born in Massachusetts. Beatrice was part of a large family as seen in the Fall River 1910 Census:

Here is 272 William Street:

Arthur McGee

Here is Arthur’s Marriage record from Fall River from 16 June 1884:

Eliza’s birthplace appears to be the US, but I am not sure. Arthur and his wife were quite young at the time. Arthur’s parents were Edward and Anne or Annie. This puts Arthur’s birth at about 1864. Here is Arthur and family in Fall River in 1900:

Arthur reports that he immigrated in 1865. That means that he should have been with his parents at that time:

Arthur also states that he was a citizen. The Na means naturalized. I’m having trouble finding out more about Arthur, so I’ll go on to another line.

Eliza Lafleur

Eliza was Arthur’s wife. Let’s see what we can find out about her.

According to the death record of Eliza’s son Louis, Eliza was born in Millbury, MA:

The 1930 Census gives a different story:

The couple now state they were a year younger at marriage.

Elizabeth now says she was born in Canada. She arrived in 1880 and her husband in 1882. Also Arthur is no longer naturalized, but has only applied for Naturalization ‘Al’. Both Arthur and Elizabeth are French speaking.

That means that I am getting stuck on Sarah’s Lafleur Line also. There are generally difficulties in traciing one’s ancestors back to another country. Even when that Country is Canada.

Lydia Wife of George Edouard Vezina

Ancestry already thinks that it has parents for Lydia who was born aout 1868. Ancestry has some hints for me as to George E’s marriage:

I’ll try the second one. Unfortunately, that is only an index.

However, in 1914, George and Lydia’s son married. In that record, Hector gives his mother’s name as Lydia Derochers:

Some Desrochers Genealogy

Now we know we have a Desrocher Line to follow. Here is Lydia’s marriage record from 7 January 1890 in Fall River:

Lydia’s parents were Peter and Cedulie. Both George and Lydia were born in Canada. Lydia would have been born about 1868. This appears to be Lydia in 1868:

Pierre and Cedulie were listed as:

A charerretier is a carter. According to one genealogy forum, a carter was a:

Driver of (horse-drawn) vehicles for transporting goods. A Carter typically drove a light two wheeled carriage.

Here is Warwick:

According to Wikipedia:

Warwick is a small town north east of Montreal, located in Arthabaska county, Quebec, Canada. The town was incorporated in 1861 and named after a city of the same name in England. Up until 2014 the town hosted Quebec’s annual summer cheese festival, which showcases many of the locally produced artisanal cheeses.

One researcher posted this:

The relationships are a bit confusing on the stone. Here are Pierre and Cedulie in Fall River in 1900:

Pierre is listed as retired. Cedulie shows that she she had 5 children and 2 are now alive. That does not appear to be correct as Lydia, at least, was still alive along with Josephine and Edmund.

Pierre lived a long life:

Here is Cedulie’s death record:

Her parents were Augustin Garneau and Marguerite Morisette.

This information brings us close to the end of the 1700’s:

Here is the marriage record for Cedulie:

Next page:

Here the names of the parents of Pierre and Cedulie match up with what I have above.

The next step would be to look for a Desrocher/Martel marriage. This source looks hopeful:

This website does not give much more information:

However, I like the fact that the names line up and the date lines up. The next record is from this book:

This place is closer to Quebec City:

Here is the marriage record:

Now the spelling of Desrochers is Derocher.

Dit Names

The marriage record brings up the issue of dit names. Here Augustin is Houde or Houdes dit Derocher. His father has the same name. Dit names are a French thing.

Here is part of an article from thoughtco.com:

By Kimberly Powell

Updated August 04, 2018

A dit name is essentially an alias, or alternate name, tacked on to a family name or surname. Dit (pronounced “dee”) is a French form of the word dire, which means “to say,” and in the case of dit names is translated loosely as “that is to say,” or “called.” Therefore, the first name is the family’s original surname, passed down to them by an ancestor, while the “dit” name is the name the person/family is actually “called” or known as.

Dit names are found primarily in New France (French-Canada, Louisiana, etc.), France, and sometimes Scotland. They are used by families, not specific individuals, and are usually passed down to future generations, either in place of the original surname, or in addition to it. After several generations, many families eventually settled on one surname or the other, although it isn’t uncommon to see some siblings within the same family using the original surname, while others carried on the dit name. The use of dit names slowed dramatically during the mid- to late-1800s, although they could still be found used by some families into the early twentieth century.

Why a Dit Name?

Dit names were often adopted by families to distinguish them from another branch of the same family. The specific dit name may also have been chosen for many of the same reasons as the original surname – as a nickname based on trade or physical characteristics, or to identify the ancestral place of origin (e.g. Andre Jarret de Beauregard, where Beauregard refers to the ancestral home in the French province of Dauphine). The mother’s surname, or even the father’s first name, may also have been adopted as a dit name.

Augustine’s mother appears to be Genevieve Baudet. Angelique’s parents appear to be Francois Martel and Angelique Tangrelle:
This is probably a transcription:
Here is what I have so far for Lydia’s paternal side:
I need to fill in some dates here. Augustin father of Pierre must have been born in the 1700’s. I can cheat a little by googling the name. Here is Augustin’s father:

The other Augustin was born in a time where it was a little more difficult to find his birth year. He was before published genealogies. This is probably his baptism:

In the left margin, it appears to say that this is the Baptism of Augustin Houde Desrochers. And it appears that his father’s name is given as Augustin Derochershoude. The date is difficult to decipher. It may be 1777 which would be when his father was only 20. Also the record appears to say tha the mother was Marie Marguerite(?):

I had his mother as Genevieve.

Here is another possibility from 1803:

This record is even more difficult to read. However, according to the Geni record, the father died in 1799. Also I had that this Augustin married in 1813, so he could not have been born in 1803.

The Tanguay Genealogical Dictionary

Fortunately, there is a book with most of the French Canadian families in it up to a certain point. Here is Sarah’s Line:

As I recall, the 1752 would be the marriage. At least that would make sense. The (2) footnote refers to dit Desrochers. This record says that Joseph, son of Joseph was born in 1728 and married Marie-Therese Tousignan. They had three children.

Next I go to page 518 of Volume 4 of Tanguay:

At this point I don’t see the dit Desrochers name, so that can go away. It looks like this marriage took place at St-Nicolas – closer to Quebec City:

The Joseph above was born in 1700 and was the son of Louis.

This Louis was born in 1675 and buried in 1729 at Ste-Croix. Here is a progress update:

This starts on the left with Pierre Desrochers who died in Fall River in 1914 and starts on the right with Louis Houde who was born in 1675.

Louis Houde France to Quebec

That brings us to the first Louis Houde in Quebec:

I was able to find a web page at geni.com on Louis in French. I used the translate feature on the web page:

This tells some more of the history of Louis and how the two branches of the family got their names. Here are some cliffs in Ste-Croix:

Here is some more from geni:

I did notice the difference in age of about 24 years between Louis and Madeleine but I didn’t realize that she was just 13 years old when they married.

Here is Manou:

Summary and Conclusions

  • I started out looking at Sarah’s McGee and Lafleur ancestry.
  • Both these lines were from Quebec, but I had trouble tracking those families back to Quebec
  • I then looked at the wife of George Vezina. Her name was Lydia Desrochers – Sarah’s 2nd great-grandmother
  • Lydia was born 1868. She moved with her family to Fall River some time before 1890 when Lydia married there. I was able to trace her line back to her immigrant ancestor Louis Houde who was born in Manou, France in 1617.
  • Louis had a son also named Louis. The son inherited the father’s land by the cliffs and rocks of Ste-Croix, Quebec. This branch of the family picked up the name Desrochers. Roche means rock.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

The First Frasher/Frazier BigY Results

The long-awaited Frasher/Frazer BigY results are starting to come in. This test was ordered around the time Rick from the Roscommon Frazer group ordered his test last August. However, the Frasher/Frazier test was delayed due to quality issues.

The Status of the Frazer BigY Project

Prior to the Frasher/Frazier test results, there were four Frazer BigY testers. They all had pretty well-defined relationships based on genealogy:

Rick was the one who ordered a new BigY test. Also around the same time, Rodney upgraded his BigY 500 to a BigY 700. That means that now Rick and Rodney have BigY 700 results and Paul and Jonathan have the older BigY 500 results. Here is the Block Tree pre Frasher/Frazier:

My second cousin once removed Paul is R-Y85652. This is called in general the Archibald Branch. Rodney and Jonathan are in R-Y151390. This is called the James Branch of the Frazer Line. These two lines were previously under R-YP6489. For some reason, another group formed between YP6489 and the two Frazer Branches. This is R-FT421618. As it is usually necessary for a new tester to form a new group, I had assumed that the new Frasher/Frazier test would end up as FT421618.

New Frazier/Frasher Results

Here is the new Block tree from my cousin Paul’s perspective:

The new tester, Richard is listed as R-YP6489 and not FT421618. That means that it is likely that it was Richard that split the YP6489 Block into two. The YP6489 Block must have previously had had six SNPs. Now there are two blocks with three SNPs each.

FT421618 and YP6489

R-FT421618 is the newest SNP and represents the Haplogroup of the Frazers from Roscommon, Ireland. This is the SNP in common with the four BigY Frazers whose roots go back to Archibald Frazer who apparently lived in Roscommon Ireland sometime before 1749. The new Frazier/Frasher tester does not share these SNPs.

Based on the Block tree, it appears that Richard, the newest BigY tester shares three SNPs with the Roscommon, Ireland Frazers. These SNPs are YP6489, YP6490 and YP6493. Collectively, these are called YP6489.

Where and When is YP6489?

When Did YP6489 Form?

This is the big question. We can date FT421618 to about 1690 to when we believe that the first Frazer lived in Roscommon Ireland. That means that the oldest SNP in the Block of YP6489 formed three SNPs before 1690. The question then is, how often does a SNP form? I have seen a number as low as 86 years per SNP as I recall. However, the scale on the left is showing 9 SNPs up to FT421618. If we take that time from very recently then 2020 minus 1690 is 530 years. That means that it looks like a SNP formed about every 59 years.  Let’s use 86 years for the three SNPs in the YP6489 Block. That gives us 258 years before 1690 or 1432 for the formation of the oldest SNP in the YP6489 Block. However, see further down in the Blog as I surmise that there should be more SNPs in this Block which would make YP6489 even older.

When was the Common Ancestor Between Richard and the Roscommon Frazers?

This is a different question. It appears from the Block tree that Richard and the Roscommon Frazers share the top three SNPs in YP6489. That means that the common ancestor would be closer to 1690 than to 1432:

In the image above, “Your branch” is Frasher/Frazier. We know that Richard does not descend from Archibald Frazer probably born in 1690, but he could have descended from Archibald’s father or grandfather. Let’s say that the common ancestor between Richard and the Frazers of Roscommon was 1600. My reasoning is that the most recent common ancestor would have to have a SNP shared by Richard and the other Frazers. That would be the most recent SNP in the group of YP6489. That most recent SNP probably formed about 86 years or so before FT421618.

SNP Tracker

This is a program that gives a rough estimate of dates of and locations of SNPs. Here is what SNP Tracker shows for FT421618:

SNP Tracker has that SNP in Ireland in Medieval times. That is probably based on the 9 SNPs I mentioned above. I think that FT421618 should be 1690. Here is more from SNP Tracker:

Roscommon is in the top three here and the numbers are pretty similar for Armagh, Down and Roscommon. Here is some more information, though I don’t agree with these SNP Tracker results either:

Offshore means continental Europe. That part would be quite certain.

Back Before Frazer with the Stuarts and Grants – YP6488

Whereas YP6489 is the umbrella group for the Frazer/Frasher/Frazier group, YP6488 is the umbrella group for Frazer, Stuart and Grant. The explanation for these relationships is not clear. I can come up with a few guesses:

  • This could represent the period when surnames were adopted. One group adopted Frazer, one Stuart and one Grant.
  • There could have been a Frazer/Stuart marriage and the children of one group could have taken on the Stuart name rather than Frazer for some reason.

Whatever the reason, the YDNA is sorting out the matches between Frazer on the one side and Stuart/Grant on the other.

The Block Tree makes it look like Grant is one SNP away from being a Frazier/Frasher and vica versa. However, that is only because there are not other close matches for Grant and Frazier/Frasher. If there were, that would put their groups further down on the Block tree similar to Frazer and Stuart.

Grant

It is interesting to note that Grant only has three variants bringing him to an equal level with FT421618. I had dated this as 1690. My guess is that Grant had the BigY 500 which did not discover as many SNPs or Variants. If we use the older 144 years per SNP based on the BigY 500 test that would date Grant at 432 years ago or about 1590. This is still early for my proposed 1690 date for FT421618.

Where Was the Common Ancestor for Frazer and Frazier/Frasher – YP6489?

This depends partly on the dating of Richard’s common ancestor with the Roscommon Frazers and partly on genealogy and Frazer history. Perhaps other could speculate better than I. Did the same events that resulted in the Roscommon Frazers moving to Ireland result in Richard’s ancestors move to the New World? Did a common ancestor move to Northern Ireland and then one brother moved to Roscommon and another brother or relative move to Virginia? It is even possible that Richard’s ancestor moved to Roscommon, Ireland and then to America.

Here is a map from Irish Ancestors:

Here is some more information:

Richard’s DNA Testing

FTDNA will do a manual review if a new YDNA branch is formed. Technically, the new branch formed before Richard’s test results were completed. However, this new branch of FT421618 seems to have formed based on Richard’s results.

Richard shows under “Your branch”. What appear to be missing are Richard’s Private Variants.

Richard’s Private Variants

These are the Richard’s SNPs that have no matches at this time called Private Variants. They form Richard’s personal line since the three SNPs in the Block that form YP6489:

This is some of the most important information from the BigY test as these are for the most part new variants that have been discovered in Richard that have never been discovered in anyone else in the World. I haven’t checked Richard’s Private Variants to see if they are all truly Private. However, the number of Private Variants seem to be a reasonable number at six. Above, I gave a possible date of 1600 for a common ancestor between Richard and the Roscommon Frazers. That means that, since 1600, six Variants formed as opposed to the approximately 9 that formed in the Roscommon Frazer Line.

I can look up these positions in YBrowse. 10059190 is too new and does not appear there yet as a Variant:

The same is true for Richard’s next three Private Variants. I found some information on 4056256:

This is a new SNP as of 2021. My guess is that that this “Private Variant” may have come about from Rick or Rodney’s BigY 700 tests.

That leaves one more Private Variant for Richard. Position 5987829 has been named also:

Next, I need to check Rick and Rodney for these two positions. Rick has one of the two:

Rodney has both of these ‘Private Variants’:

Here is my guess of what should happen:

It seems like these two SNPs should go up into the YP6489 Group. Also Rick should lose one of his Private Variants and Rodney and Richard should lose two each. It could be partially due to these discrepancies that FTDNA ordered additional testing for Paul and Jonathan. The other question is, why didn’t Rick show that he had position #4056256? Here are Rick’s results:

It appears that Rick’s BigY 700 testing missed that position number.

For Jonathan and Paul, the results seemed inconclusive for these two positions. Here is what Jonathan’s results looked like for Position #4056256:

Summary and Conclusions

  • Richard’s BigY test represents the first BigY test for a Frazer/Frazier who doesn’t descend from Archibald Frazer of Roscommon Ireland
  • Richard’s BigY test benefits from the prior testing of four Frazers. Without this he would have shown that he is related to two Stuarts and a Grant.
  • Due to the Frazer testing and genealogy, the common ancestor between Frazer and Frazier/Frasher should be about 1600
  • I made some guesses as to where this common ancestor lived, but I don’t know. Finding a Frazer with Scotland-only genealogy who has tested for YDNA would help.
  • I made some guesses as to where Richard’s Private Variants would end up.