Penny of the California James Line of the Frazers

I have had a few emails from Joanna about Penny. Joanna is interested in Penny’s DNA results as both Joanna and Penny are on the James Line of the Frazers of Northern Roscommon, Ireland. Joanna tells me that Penny “…is descended from William Fitzgerald Frazer of Sacramento – if you remember he is my great grandfather Thomas Henry Frazer’s oldest brother”.

Some James Line Frazer Genealogy

Penny is on the bottom left of the chart. Clyde and Carol were all alone on the Frazer/Grant line but now they have Penny. Joanna is about the middle of the chart in red. If all has gone according to the chart, then Penny is a 3rd cousin to Clyde and a 3rd cousin once removed to Joanna.

Penny’s DNA and the James Line Frazers

Joanna has given me permission to look at her DNA results at AncestryDNA. This what Joanna’s match to Penny looks like:

Ancestry is sometimes conservative with their predicted relationship based on the DNA vs. the actual, so this sounds about right.

As mentioned above, Penny’s closest relative in the Frazer DNA Project is Clyde. This is what Penny’s and Clyde’s DNA match looks like at Gedmatch.com:

This represents the DNA that Penny and Clyde both got from their shared ancestors William Fitzgerald Frazer and Margaret Graham. Both segments could be from one or the other ancestor or one segment could be Frazer and another could be Graham DNA. I say this because if both segments that were passed down were Graham DNA, then Clyde and Penny would not be matching others in the Frazer DNA – at least not on the Frazer side. An MRCA of 4.5 could be a 3rd cousin once removed by DNA. This just means that Penny and Clyde share a little less than the average amount of DNA for 3rd cousins.

Penny’s DNA and All the Roscommon-Descended Frazers

Here I have sorted the matches into Archibald Line and James Line. This shows that most of Penny’s matches are on the James Line side. This makes sense given the genealogy we have.

Penny’s DNA in the James Line Group

Here is a larger view of Penny in just a portion of the James Line. Here Penny matches others by DNA  in the Archibald b. about 1792 Branch except for Charlotte, Mary and Madeline.

This does not mean that Charlotte, Madeline and Mary should be kicked off the Archibald line as Madeline has good matches with Jonathan, Janet, Betty and Clyde. I checked Penny for triangulation in the James Line group, but didn’t see any obvious triangulation groups.

Penny’s Matches with Joanna and Janet

Here is the match that Penny has with Joanna as seen in Gedmatch. Penny has the exact same match with Joanna’s sister Janet, but not with Jonathan.

I mention this because I have done some Chromosome Mapping for Joanna and her family. Here is Chromosome 15:

This shows that Joanna and Janet have a full dose of Frazer on their Paternal side. Jonathan is about 1/3 Frazer and 2/3 Frazer on the Paternal side of his Chromosome 15. Note the CY on the Map. This is for Charlotte who also matches Joanna and Janet on Chromosome 15. Charlotte descends from the McPartlands of North Roscommon. Their ancestor Owen McPartland married an Ann Frazer who could have been born around 1830.

Triangulation with Charlene, Penny, Joanne and Janet

We don’t have triangulation with known trees, but we do have triangulation with unknown trees. By unknown, I mean that we don’t know how the trees connect to our Frazer trees.  My most recent Blog on the McPartland connection is here. Based on this triangulation, one scenario could be that Ann Frazer b. about 1830, could have been the daughter of Archibald b. about 1792. Making this assumption, this could be how the Triangulation Group (TG) plays out:

Adding Speculation to Speculation – My McMaster Line

In my previous Blog on the McPartland connection, I showed this TG:

Now what if Margaret Frazer was a brother to Archibald Frazer b. around 1792? That would move the left side of my old TG on Chromosome 9 up a generation. I do that in part to fit the dates. Here is what I come up with:

Charlene is a key player in all of this. She is in a TG with Sharon, Paul, Karen and Chris in purple and in a TG with Penny, Joanna and Janet in yellow. This is the best explanation I have at this time. Hey, all these people had to come from somewhere. And all their DNA had to come from somewhere.  This is one explanation. It fits the McPartlands into the Frazer tree and some of my McMaster ancestors into the Frazer tree at the same time.

Checking the Purple TG9

When I check how Paul matches Sharon, Charlene, Karen and Chris, this is what I get:

This means that there are actually 2 TGs here. One is with Paul, Sharon and Charlene and one is with Paul, Sharon, Karen and Chris. Still, the overall effect is the same. The common ancestor as per my diagram would be the elder Archibald Frazer b. 1751. So that goes back quite  a way.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I believe that Penny’s DNA results clearly confirm that she is in the James Line of Frazers
  • Charlotte, Madeline and Mary seem to show less than average DNA matches for their relationships within the Archibald (b. about 1792) Branch.
  • I used Penny’s TG with Charlene, Joanna and Janet to come up with a proposed McPartland tree
  • I then used TGs with Paul, my sister Sharon, Charlene, Chris and Karen to come up with a Frazer/McMaster Tree.  Actually, I already had the McMaster/Frazer tree and wasn’t sure where it fit in. I had already assumed based on previous X Chromosome analysis and other factors that this tree should be on the James Line.
  • The tree I drew fits the information that I have now. Further testing may further support or disprove this theory.

Don’s Frazer DNA

I recently had an email from Ros introducing me to her 3rd cousin Don. Don is a Frazer descendant and genealogist who had recently taken an autosomal DNA test. Both Ros and Don are from Australia. I am happy to write a Blog about Don and his DNA. Unfortunately, due to a storm here in Massachusetts, our power is out. No problem, I can use my laptop. However, I had to figure out to connect to the internet through my cell phone. Now I know how to do that.

Before the electricity went out, I checked Gedmatch and Don matches my sister Lori.

This is quite interesting as I have mapped out the DNA for myself and 4 of my siblings. Lori is the only one out of 5 tested siblings that has Frazer DNA in that area of Chromosome 13. The map shows how we got the DNA from our four grandparents. Our grandparent of interest to this group is Frazer.

The others siblings have mostly or all Hartley DNA on their paternal sides. Also Lori was the last sibling that was tested. This points out the importance of testing siblings.

Here is the line that Don is on:

As Don is a 3rd cousin to Ros, that means that he descends from John Parker Frazer and Honora White on the left purple line. My sister Lori isn’t even on this line. She descends from a Frazer one layer up making her a 6th cousin to Don. That is quite a way back for DNA to be working, so that’s pretty good. Put another way, Lori and Don’s common Frazer ancestor is 7 generations away.

Don’s Frazer/Stinson Line DNA Matches

Don’s closest relative on the Frazer/Stinson DNA chart above is Vivien. She is a second cousin once removed to Don. Vivien is also Don’s top match on his ‘One to Many’ list at Gedmatch.

Don and Vivien’s common ancestors John Parker Frazer and Honora White are actually 3.5 generations away. That is, 3 generations from Vivien and 4 from Don average out to 3.5 generations. Gedmatch shows that the common ancestor by DNA is 3.4 generations away. That means that Don and Vivien share a slightly less amount of DNA than average. I would expect that about half of the DNA they share would be Frazer DNA and half would be Frazer DNA.  One odd thing was that I didn’t see Vivien’s daughter Jean on Don’s list of DNA matches.

don and ros

The next person on Don’s ‘One to Many’ list is Ros. By that list, it looks like they share 28 cM of DNA/ However when I choose the actual match, it shows that they share much less DNA than that for some reason:

An average amount of DNA shared between 3rd cousins is 74 cM, so that raises some questions. Did Ros just get a lot less than average (which is possible) or perhaps there was a second marriage for one the ancestors in common or other explanation.

don and michael

Based on the chart above, Don and Michael are 4th cousins, once removed.

Note that Don and Michael share a segment on Chromosome 7. This is the same segment that Don and Vivien shared. That would mean that Don and Michael would have gotten this DNA from either Archibald Frazer, b. 1778 or Ann Stinson. That is pretty old DNA.

The New and Improved Frazer Autosomal Matrix

I made some changes to the Frazer Autosomal DNA Matrix

I tried to put the Matrix more in line with what I think the genealogy is.

  • Heidi through Gladys descend from Violet and James Frazer. Violet is the daughter of Richard. James father is unknown, but I have put him as a son of Philip Frazer as a likely candidate.
  • Patricia, Susan, Bill and Gladys under that scenario descend from all three sons in the Archibald Line: Philip, Richard and Archibald (who married Ann Stinson).
  • I have Michael and Jane descending from Richard and Archibald
  • Cathy through Don descend only from the Archibald that married Ann Stinson.

Don’s Triangulation Group (TG) Matrix

Here I have added Don to the existing Frazer DNA TG Matrix.

Don is in two Triangulation Groups. The first one I already had with Michael, Vivien and Janet.

I took Michael from the Richard Line as I don’t know if the match is with him there or in the Archibald/Stinson Line. I don’t know for sure that the common ancestor that the DNA is identifying is the original Frazer couple in Ireland or someone else. A good candidate for the ‘someone else’ would be anywhere there is an unnamed spouse in the direct ancestry.

The second TG is new and is with Pat and Susan.

This seems more straightforward than the previous TG. However, this TG could represent a common ancestor a generation earlier as the yellow family above also descends from the Richard Frazer line (brother of the Archibald above). However, that would be less likely than the above scenario.

Don’s YDNA

Don hasn’t tested for YDNA, but as a direct Frazer descendant, he would be a good candidate for it. So far, three Irish Frazers from our DNA study roup have taken the YDNA STR test. Two have been from the Archibald Line and one from the James Line. These lines go back to the early 1700’s in Ireland. The most recent STR tree that I drew for the Irish Frazers is here:

That STR tree reflects this genealogical tree:

Right now the STRs 391=11 and CDYa = 45-50 define the Archibald Frazer born about 1715 Line. The STR 444 = 13 that Rick has defines the Richard Patterson Frazer b. 1830 Line. The STR 576 = 19 defines the George Frazer b. 1838 Line. If Don were to test his YDNA STRs, that would define the line of Archibald Frazer b. about 1778 who married Ann Stinson Line.

Frazer YDNA Update and Some Early Frazer Research

A few things have been going on the Frazer DNA and genealogy front:

  • Results are still coming in from our Frazer-related Stewart/Stuart BigY test results
  • A new YFull Tree has come out
  • A Frazer researcher has shared some of his information with us on Frasers in Scotland

Stewart/Stuart Big Y Results

In my last Blog on the subject I gave more information, so this is just an update. Once our Stewart tester got his Big Y results, there was still more analysis by the R1a YDNA project administrator, Martin. I was interested to hear what Martin has to say as these administrators are talented and take their volunteer position seriously. I found this part of Martin’s analysis interesting:

Around 1000 AD this subclade YP6488 splits in 3 family lines Grant, Stuart and Frazer. The date 1000 AD is not very certain because we see a wide variation in the number of private SNP’s in these family lines. Normally we calculate with 130 years per SNP (or one SNP mutation in 4-5 generations), but this average figure is only valid for a large number of samples. The total average number of SNP’s downstream M417 is on average about 50 for Subclade R1a-L664. However Grant and you have only resp 42 and 45 (see red number at bottom of chart) and the Frazer’s have more or less the average number of 50 (excluding the extra SNP’s found in the Yfull analysis). So the best guess for the MRCA of the Grant/Stuart/Frazer families is for me still 1000 AD, but with a large margin.

Here is the new R-YP5515 portion of the tree with Stuart added:

I erased the FTDNA kit numbers for privacy. I hadn’t realized that the red numbers were important at the bottom of the tree. Now I realize that they are, so I have included them. [See the explanation above in italics.] The addition of Stuart to the group has the effect of changing the separation date of the Frazers, Grant and Stuart to the year 1,000 A.D. Before Stuart, it showed Frazer and Grant separating at the year 900 A.D. Not a big difference, but it does show the effect of the Stuart test on  Grant and Frazer.

I was also in touch with Martin and he was seemed excited about a new member to the group:

Today we have new member, which I think is interesting for the members of subclade YP5515>YP6479  It is #______ from Sweden and he has the typical STR haplotype for this subclade. Up to now all members of YP5515 had their roots in Scotland/Ireland, but we expect YP5515 came originally from Scandinavia. This new member could be a proof that YP5515 came from Scandinavia if he is willing to do a BigY test.

So we will have to wait to see how this plays out. It appears that if this person were to do the BigY test, this could give us a more exact time of when our ancestors came from Scandinavia to Scotland. Speaking of this, I thought about Martin’s comments to our Stuart tester and came up with this drawing:

I used a little bit of guessing. It seemed like the best route from Sweden to Scotland would be by water. Perhaps our ancestors made some stops in current Norway before settling in the Inverness area. Their route from Inverness to the shore SE of Glasgow is based on some Frazer traditions. I noted that it is a pretty straight shot from there to County Roscommon where they certainly were according to the 1749 Census. They could have traveled by boat again, but there have been Scots known to be in Ulster also.

A New YFull YTree v 5.06

YFull analyzes Big Y results. For those that use their service, they come up with a tree and other analyses. Here is the current version of YFull’s YTree:

Compared to the last YTree, this has added YP6488 and YP6489. The Stuart tester is not yet included in this analysis. So his analysis should come out as YP6488. Note that YFull has a TMRCA of 800 years before present for YP6488 or roughly 1200 A.D. This is an important date as it is where there is a split between the Grant, Stuart and Frazer families. I feel that Martin’s tree may be more accurate. On his tree, the analogous date appears to be 1,000 A.D. That seems to get into those red numbers that I mentioned above. Perhaps YTree saw the fewer SNPs for Grant and Stuart and figured that represented a more recent date. Martin, being a real person, was able to take ambiguities into account and give a more plausible date.

Early Frazer Research

I am grateful to Alan for bringing together and to light research on Frasers in Scotland that might link to our Frazers in County Roscommon, Ireland. Alan’s research appears to indicate the following:

  • James Fraser of Knock married Mary Ramsay in 1628.
  • That James was the son of John Fraser of Knock
  • Mary Ramsay was the daughter of “Mr Andrew Ramsay one the ministers of Edinburgh
  • James was associated with “…Montrose during the sojourn of the royal forces in the west of Scotland. The laird of Knock [James] denied having had any concern in the protection…”
  • “James Fraser of Knock
    March 13, 1649: Presbytery of Irvine: it was reported on this day to the Presbytery that “upon the day of tendering the Covenant, the laird of Knock, because it was told him that he wald not admitted to the Covenant, absented himself from the kirk in the afternoon”. For “his scandalouslie absenting himself fra the kirk the day of swearing the covenant”, the Session of Largs were ordered not only to proceed in the process against the laird, but that this latter offence should be taken into the process. Paterson states ‘that in 1650 the process was still continued against him, though meantime he had fled to Ireland to escape the persecution to which he and others were subjected’.
    [Paterson, James: History of the County of Ayr, Vol. II, p. 309]”
  • Apparently this same James shows up in 1673 in Aberdeenshire as a “minister of word of God at the Church of Ellen

Knock is part of Largs Parish:

Here is a modern view of the updated Knock Castle:

Alan informs us that the modern day spelling of Ellen is Ellon:

This looks like it would be an interesting place to visit.

  • There is mention of an Archibald and William Frazer in reference 11 compiled by Alan. This appears to be in a document signing over the property at Knock. However, the relationship of Archibald and William to James and his younger brother Alexander are not apparent.

So where does this leave us? Alan’s research adds some clarity to the traditions of the Frasers of Knock circulated among some of the Frazer descendants. It shows that there was a controversial figure named James Fraser of Knock who held the Knock Castle and property. He got into some trouble with the authorities in the area of Largs, fled to Ireland for a while and showed up in Aberdeenshire as a minister where he apparently died.

My assumption is that the Frazers that moved to County Roscommon were familiar with James of Knock and probably were living in the same area before moving to Ireland. What is not sure is whether our Irish Frazers were closely related, distantly related or unrelated to James Frazer of Knock. Joanna of our study group has mentioned that there are Frasers and Frazers still around in the area of Largs. It would interesting to find out if there is any DNA connection between these Fraser/Frazers and our Frazers.

Any comments are welcome in case I have misinterpreted Alan’s research.

Stuart Added to the YDNA Group of Frazer, Grant, Hayes and Patton

I just found out about some exciting news. A Stuart that likely originates from the same area in Scotland as the Frazers has gotten his BigY results back. This is one of the best tests for YDNA. It places people in YDNA trees and shows how families originated. I’d like to look at those results to see where this Stuart fits in with Frazers and other related families.

BigY and YDNA Basics

The important thing to remember about YDNA is that it is very simple. You are only dealing with one Chromosome versus the 22 autosomal chromosomes. Then you are only dealing with one line of ancestors. That is your father’s, his father’s father’s and so on. The Big Y tests SNPs. SNPs are mutations that happen every four or so generations on average. The Big Y tests these SNP and how they have changed since our original ancestor – called genetic Adam. When you get your Big Y results you get a lot of SNP names. These are the SNP differences between you and Adam:

You will have the first SNP that differentiated you from “Adam” up to the one that got you into the R group. Our group of Frazer, Hayes, Grant, Patton and Stuart are in a still very general group called R1a. The understanding is that this group traveled a bit to the North of the R1b group. The thought is that our R1a group made their way up through the current country of Germany to Scandinavia. From there they made their way somehow to Scotland.

snps and variants

These SNPs carry down to what is called a terminal SNP. This is the last or most recent SNP that is named and is usually shared with another person. After that, the SNPs are not generally named and called Variants. These are the newest of all. Once others test and these Variants can be placed in a tree, they will extend the branches of the tree further into the present and will also be named.

what is confusing about YDNA?

STRs are a little more confusing, but I won’t be looking at them here. They can be confusing because the values for these can go up or down. SNPs however happen once and then they are set in stone. One of the major confusing things about SNPs are their names. The SNP names are based on the lab or group that discovered the SNP. That means that there is no logical progression in the name that shows the change from an older SNP to a newer SNP.

Here is an example from the R1a Project spreadsheet:

This shows two Frazers and an unnamed tester. The turquoise heading shows the progression of the SNP names. They start at M417 and end at R-YP6489. The unnamed person did not have his SNPs tested, so he has a conservative red designation for his SNP based on the values of his STRs which appear to the right. He is probably actually R-YP6489 based on his STRs, but he hasn’t taken the test, so he has a SNP value that is likely thousands of years older than R-YP6489. I’ll try to address a few more items of confusion as they come up. However, in general they have to do with the naming of SNPs.

So far:

  • YDNA SNPs are simple. According to YFull, there is a new high quality family SNP in your line every 144.41 years. They change about every four generations just on the direct male line. In my 2nd cousin once removed Paul’s case, four generations takes him back to his 2nd great grandfather. Between Paul b. 1944 and his great grandfather James Frazer b. about 1804 there are 140 years. Between those 5 people there is likely a new SNP. Or maybe none or two. But most likely one.
  • Based on these changes back to Genetic Adam we can make a YDNA tree.
  • The SNP names are complicated and don’t represent the progression of the SNP changes in the YDNA Tree.

Three Different YDNA Trees

There are three different YDNA trees for our R1a Group all trying to show the same thing. They are:

  • FTDNA Haplotree
  • FTDNA administrator Tree
  • YFull YTree
ftdna haplotree

FTDNA is the Big Y testing company. They have a tree that shows the end result of the Big Y testing. They call their tree the Haplotree. Here is the current tree for my Frazer cousin that I had tested:

There are several levels above this, but this is the current bottom of the tree. It ends in R-YP6489. This is consistent with the FTDNA R1a Project Spreadsheet above. A lot has been happening since I wrote my last Blog on the subject just two months ago. At that time our Frazer terminal SNP on this tree was YP432. Now we are four levels below that.

ftdna administrator R1a tree

This is a good tree, but it is private, so it is not published anywhere. I had referred to it in previous Blogs by taking out some of the ID’s. The other issue is that I got to see it when our Frazer Big Y test results came in, but I haven’t gotten any updates. Here is what I had before. It looks like FTDNA has since caught up with the FTDNA R1a Administrator tree:

One good thing that the Administrator does is put dates on the SNPs. So for example the date of our common Frazer ancestor is 1600. That is very close to the actual date of 1690 which is when we believe the common ancestor to have been born. Another good check is to see if the date between different surnames is before the advent of surnames. Notice that the year 900 A.D. splits off Grant (and now Stuart) from Frazer. I recently heard that the advent of surnames was around 1,000 A.D. and they came into use for several hundred years after that depending on the region and other factors. Another point is that, if the 1600 A.D. date is correct for this SNP, it would ensure that this is indeed a Frazer Family SNP. Any male Frazer that want to prove his Frazer lineage, would just have to test for this SNP. This SNP should separate the Frazers from non-Frazers – or at least our brand of Frazers.

From a recent Stuart email, I gather that his new result is R-YP6488 which is what Grant is also. That would place Stuart next to the Grant in the middle line above. Time to pull out the Clan map of the Inverness and South. This shows Fraser (Frazer), Grant, and Stewart (Stuart). For me, the geography pulls together what the DNA is showing us. That is, that at least this group of Frazer/Grant/Stewart had a common ancestor probably before the beginning of taking on of surnames in this area South of Inverness.

According to the R1a Administrator: “It looks like between 1400 BC and 400 BC some (or maybe only one) YP432 people migrated from Scandinavia to Scotland.” I am guessing they hung out there for 1,000 years or so. In 900 A.D., one of those former Scandinavians had children. Their descendants stuck around in the Inverness area for several hundred years. When people were taking on clan names, they took on the names of Fraser, Stewart or Grant probably based on where they were living at the time. We have another Chisolm/Chisum who has tested STRs but not the Big Y. He appears to fit into this pattern also.

Yfull Ytree

I wrote my last two Blogs on Frazer YDNA in mid July and the new YFull YTree v5.05 is dated 30 July 2017. It is big news when this tree comes out. Here is the latest version.

On YTree’s web site, they say they try to come out with a new YTree every month, but it seems more like two months before they come out with a new one. So it is now that YTree is lagging behind FTDNA. The Frazers are shown as being at R-YP6479. That is correct, but outdated. They actually are YP6479>YP6488>YP6489. When the new YTree comes out, this should be corrected. Note that next to YP6479, it says, +12 SNPs. When you hover over this box, the additional 12 named SNPs appear. They include the SNPs YP6488 and YP6489 which now form branches. By seeing these new SNPs, it is like we are going back 1200 years or so and seeing these new branches and families form.

What people wait for is the YTree’s dates. YFull has YP5515 as formed 3200 years ago and the TMRCA which is time to the most recent common ancestor as 2200 years ago. It will be especially interesting to see what YFull comes up with for dates on YP6489. At this time, YP6489 seems to be a Frazer family-only SNP as no other families have laid claim to it.

One of the down sides of YFull is that they don’t have all the testers. They only have people in the tree that have signed up for their service. Another issue is that YFull uses ID’s only, so in order to find out who the ID’s belong to you need to message the ID contact. In the tree above, my Frazer cousin is the ID without the ‘new’ designation after it. However, they do have advantages over FTDNA which make them a worthwhile option to use in Big Y analysis.

FTDNA SNP Matching and the Mystery SNP L1012

FTDNA’s Big Y SNP matching is one of those things that doesn’t work well. As I mentioned, my cousin Paul and (by inference) I share our terminal YP6489 with one other Frazer tester. However, when I choose to look for SNP matches at zero difference, it appears to give me 35 entries. Our new tester Stuart is not included in those 35. It appears that the SNPs have not been updated for this search. I think that FTDNA tried to correct this by putting in a subclade search option at the top of the SNP matching area:

 

This feature usually works. However, the R-Y2894 SNP seems out of place as it is several layers above R-YP5515. Here is the result when I choose R-YP6488:

The right people come up (Grant and Stuart), but it shows that there is not a match on L1012. When I look Up L1012, it appears to be an early “Adamic” SNP:

I suppose that there a few kinks in the FTDNA system, unless I am missing something.

Implications of R-YP6489

YP6489 is a fairly recent SNP. So far, this SNP has been dated at about the year 1600 by the R1a Administrator. This SNP came about because of tandem Big Y Frazer tests. As a result, we were able to get a SNP that represents the Frazer family. This SNP can be used to verify that a Frazer male is part of our Irish Frazers. There is another possible use of this SNP. Say that a Frazer with no known Irish history were to test positive for this SNP. That would forge a link between Ireland and the part of Scotland that the Frazers moved from. There may be no further paper records to be found that would link the Frazers to Scotland. There were no immigration requirements for moving from Scotland to Ireland. Many of the vital records have been lost or destroyed. However, the DNA could be the “record” that would link our Frazers to other Frazers that never moved to Ireland.

The YP6488 SNP does not show a single family origin for Grant and Stuart. YP6488 is also shared by our two Frazer testers. The Grant and Stuart families likely have a SNP at the level of YP6489 that represents each of their families. To get to this level would require an addition Grant or Stuart Big Y test. However, if another Stuart or Grant were to test positive for YP6488 by just doing a single SNP test, they would have proof that they are looking in the right area.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Our new Stuart tester is a welcome and enthusiastic addition to our part of the YDNA tree.
  • The Stuarts, Grants, Frazers and others have shared early ancestry. This has now been determined by YDNA testing
  • The area that the Stuart, Grant and Frazer families originated from was likely just South of Inverness
  • Single testing of YP6489 should indicate Frazer ancestry.
  • Single testing of YP6488 should indicate at least Grant, Frazer or Stuart.
  • The next step is to wait for updated YDNA trees from YFull and the R1a Administrator.

More Irish Frazer Autosomal DNA

After a bit of break, the autosomal portion of the Irish Frazer DNA project is roaring into action. This is thanks to Pat who had her cousin Susan test. Pat also gave a boost to the Frazer YDNA by having Susan’s brother Rick test at the 67 STR level. The YDNA portion of the Frazer DNA project has been chugging along and needs an update, but I last wrote on the Autosomal side in March 2017 when Doug’s Aunt Rita was tested from the Frazer/Stinson Line.

Susan’s Genealogy by Richard Frazer

It is always good to start with the genealogy to see where Susan’s DNA is coming from:

A few notes:

  • This chart only those who descend from Richard Frazer and have tested for DNA
  • David is in white. His line was added based on DNA and the fact that we had an extra James in the genealogy. However, I am not sure David is sure of this placement.
  • Jane was also added by DNA, but her placement here seems more secure.
  • Rick has only taken the YDNA DNA test and not the autosomal.
  • Those in the yellow and blue lines descend from two Frazers: Violet and James. Violet is the daughter of Richard. James is not well documented. I have him as a first cousin to Violet and a son of Philip (brother of Richard). However, this has not been proven.
  • I would like to be able to pull apart the DNA of James and Violet for analysis. It seems like this could be possible by comparing the yellow/blue lines who descend from James to all the other Frazer descendants.
  • Both Jane and Michael are also in the Archibald/Stinson Line

DNA on the Richard Frazer Line

The autosomal matrix for the Richard Frazer descendants looks like this:

The area in the dark box represents those that are descended from James and Violet Frazer. The DNA that they got from Violet and James is at the intersection of the Richard Paterson Frazer (RPF) Line and the George William Frazer (GWF) Line. So for example, Susan from the RPF Line shared from zero to 73 cM with those in the GWF Line (Heidi through Paul). The highest amount shared was between Gladys and Sharon. That means that it appears that Gladys and Sharon each have 86.9 cM of DNA in them from James and Violet Frazer. Here is what their match looks like:

Of these matches, I already had Triangulation Groups (TGs) on Chromosomes 9 and 12, but the TG on Chromosome 18 is new. More about those in the next section.

The Frazer TG Matrix

I have been keeping track of the TGs that I have found. I found some new TGs:

I took out the pink George Frazer/Price TGs that I had in a previous TG Matrix to save room.  Perhaps they should be in a separate chart. However, I see that there are still some TGs that could be George Frazer/Price TGs. These are the ones that only have matches with Bill, Pat, Susan, or Gladys. These are TG09A and 09B. Also TG10A. In addition, it appears that I should be able to combine TG09A and 09B. The yellow TGs are interesting to me. They just have people from the first two groups in them, so they could represent James Frazer or Violet Frazer. TG18C in yellow was new based on Susan’s results.

Actually, when I look at the matches, Heidi should be in the matrix also, so I need to fix my matrix. There are a lot of details in doing this and sometimes I miss things:

Susan’s Genealogy by Archibald Frazer

Susan also descends from Archibald Frazer who married Ann Stinson.

Here we see that Jane and Michael who were in the Richard Frazer Line are also in this line. Based on Susan’s matches, we should be able to tell which line the matches are from:

Let’s Look at the George Frazer/Price group:

  • Where they just match my family, I have them in yellow. That means that this could represent DNA from James and Violet Frazer.
  • Where they match each other, that could indicate DNA from George Frazer or his Price wife. Examples of this would be TG9A, TG9B and TG10A. These should probably be in pink.
  • Where this group matches just Michael or Jane, we can’t tell if the match on the Richard Frazer or the Frazer/Stinson Line. See TG03C and TG04B
  • In TG05A, Pat and Gladys are in a TG with Cathy from the Stinson line. This puts their common ancestor at Archibald Frazer or his wife Ann Stinson.

Comparing All the Frazer DNA

When I look at all the Frazer DNA, I see this:

This is quite small, but it does tell by how many cM each Frazer descendant matches each other Frazer descendant. One thing that stuck out to me on the chart is that Jane and Vivien match each other at about 110 cM. On the Archibald/Stinson genealogy chart, they show as 3rd cousins to each other. A typical 3rd cousin would share about 74 cM, but the range is 0-217. For example, Cathy shares 34.8 cM with Jane and 31 cM with Vivien and she should be a third cousin with those two. On the other hand, Michael is 4th cousins with Rita and Vivien and shares more DNA with those two than the 3rd cousin relationships I just mentioned.

Susan’s largest match outside the Frazer/Price line is with me:

This is quite a bit considering we are 4th cousins on paper. This is a little over twice the typical amount that 4th cousins might share. My brother Jonathan makes up for it by sharing no DNA with Susan.

Mapping my family’s chromosome 7

Here is what my Chromosome 7 looks like compared to my sisters Heidi and Sharon. This raw data phasing was done by MMacneil from Canada.

I got brighter red Frazer DNA from my father’s mother. This is where I match Susan. Notice that Heidi and Sharon got their paternal side DNA from their Hartley paternal grandfather instead of their Frazer maternal grandmother at the beginning of the Chromosome where I matched Susan.

I should be able to phase myself against my brother Jonathan and sister Lori also at Chromosome 7:

It wasn’t as easy as I thought because what looked like a crossover for me at position 70 was actually a crossover for Lori and Jonathan. All this to show why Susan has a smaller match with Lori than with Joel. It has to be smaller because the DNA that Lori got from her dad switched from his mom’s Frazer side to his father’s Hartley side at position 28.

The Bigger Picture

I alluded to it before, but Susan and her Frazer/Price relatives appear to descend from three Frazer brothers. As such, they would have quite a bit of the DNA from Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilly:

For example, one child gets 50% of the DNA that the parents had. Add a child and it is up to 75%. I would think that with three children, that number would be up to 87%.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Susan’s DNA has added to our knowledge of the Frazer family – especially on the Archibald side.
  • Her results have also helped in the mystery of the James Frazer/Violet Frazer marriage.
  • It would appear that the matches to Susan and her Frazer/Price relatives that aren’t shared by other Richard Frazer descendants would more likely be James Frazer (b. about 1804) matches.
  • A new look at the Frazer matching DNA matrix has shown some high matches between specific people. This leads us to wonder who was the wife of Richard Frazer (b. about 1777).
  • Next up, I’d like to get back to the YDNA. More results are coming in from people related distantly to the Frazers. In addition, there should be a new update to FYull’s Ytree and updates to other genetic trees related to the Frazers.

A New Frazer Tests for YDNA

It is big news when a Frazer tests for YDNA. YDNA is what is passed down from father to son only. So it is the perfect test for a family surname study like we have for Frazer of Roscommon, Ireland. The other reason that it is big news is that there are not that many male Frazers around to do the testing. We previously had 2 tested for YDNA. Now with Rick’s new test, we have three.

Frazer YDNA and Genealogy

I (and others) have pieced together a Frazer genealogy. It is not perfect, perhaps. That is why DNA testing is needed to affirm the work that has been done. Autosomal DNA is good, but the effectiveness tapers off as we go back more generations. Also autosomal DNA is not specific to a surname, so it could apply to any of hundreds of ancestors the further we go back in time. YDNA on the the other hand, is specific to one male line – in this case Frazer. There are two types of YDNA. One is STRs which Rick tested for. These are good, but there are some problems in interpreting them as I will explain later in the Blog. SNPs are the most exact YDNA test. The other two Frazers, Paul and Jonathan have tested for SNPs through the BigY Test.

Rick descends from George Frazer from Martinsburg, NY. George Frazer moved his family to Canada and left many descendants. I have more on that family here. [Edit: Rick’s cousin Pat replies, “It was Richard Patterson Frazer that brought his family to Canada from Martinsburg.   George was born there but came to Canada with his family as a child.”] Many years ago, I convinced Bill, one of those descendants,  that he and I were related based on genealogy. Even though I wasn’t 100% sure myself, I argued my point with Bill and he finally agreed that we were related. Later, I convinced Bill to take an autosomal DNA test which did show that he was related to my family and many other Roscommon, Ireland Frazer Families. Since then, others have tested and confirmed the relationships. Now we have Rick who has tested his YDNA proving a more certain link on the male Frazer line. So this has been a several year journey starting with traditional genealogy, followed up with autosomal DNA and YDNA testing. Here is the tree of the three male Frazers who have tested for YDNA:

This genealogy is the best that we could do with what we have. There are some uncertainties about it. We have other’s research with names but no references. We have the Elphin Census of 1747 and this includes a widow Mary Frazer. She is presumed to be the widow of Archibald Frazer born around 1690. There are two other Frazers in that Census who represent the Archibald and James Lines. Further, I have supposed that James Frazer b. about 1804 is my ancestor. However, this requires the marriage of two first cousins. This was not that unusual apparently back in the day. Those belonging to the Church of Ireland wanted to marry other Church or Ireland people. In fact, there were laws in place requiring that. However, those from the Church of Ireland were in the minority.

According to the chart above:

  • All the testers have the top Archibald as a common ancestor. Rick and Paul also have James Frazer b. about 1804 as their common ancestor.
  • Rick is 9 generations from Archibald b. about 1690. Paul is 8 generations away and Jonathan is 7 generations away from the first Archibald.
  • Paul and Rick are third cousins once removed
  • Jonathan is a 6th cousin once removed from Paul and 6th cousin twice removed from Rick.
  • Assuming that Rick, Paul and Jonathan were born around 1950, there would be about 260 years from the first Archibald to our three YDNA testers.

Rick’s New YDNA STR Results

Based on the above tree, we would expect that Rick would be more closely related to Paul than Jonathan. That is the case. Ricks closest match is to Paul with a Genetic Difference (GD) of 2. His GD to Jonathan is 3. The GD is the difference in STR mutations between two people. Here are all of Rick’s matches by STRs. He has more matches than Paul or Jonathan:

Here is how Rick’s STR matches compare with Paul’s and Jonathan’s. The numbers are GDs. So a larger GD is a more distant YDNA match. A blank means more than 7:

  • I put the matches together that matched all three Frazers.
  • The light blue highlighted names have taken the BigY Test
  • The SNP Tree below based on BigY SNPs shows that Grant is a closer match to Frazer than Hayes. This seems clear from the STR matches above also
  • The chart points out all the Grant matches. Half of the 10 Frazer STR matches are with Grants.
  • Rick is the only Frazer matching Hayes. This backs up the SNP tree below.

These are the same names that I have been tracking by SNPs. So that is good that the SNPs and the STRs agree with each other. Here is the new SNP tree that was developed by the R1a L664 Administrator Martin:

  • Patton is the most distantly related to Frazer and doesn’t show on any Frazer’s STR match list.
  • Grant shows as the closest match, then Hayes.
  • Chisum doesn’t show on the SNP map as Chisum has not taken the BigY Test.
  • Stuart doesn’t show yet, but he is in the the process of taking the BigY Test, so he will eventually show on the SNP Tree.
  • If Rick had taken the BigY test, he would have formed a branch under the Archibald line on the lower right of the tree. Rick and Paul would likely share some of the SNPs now shown as private SNPs for Paul and both Paul and Rick would then have their own new private SNPs.
  • Rick must share all the SNPs in the yellow box above the ca 1600 A.D date. These are the five brand new SNPs YP6489 through YP6493 that are right now Frazer only SNPs.

A Simple New Frazer STR Tree

A STR Tree for the Frazer should follow the genealogical tree and the SNP tree. Here are the STRs and where Jonathan, Paul and Rick differ:

Normally, the mode would be taken as the oldest STR. However, in the case of DYS391 I believe that based on comparison with other STR tests for Grant, Chisum, Whittaker and Stewart, that the 10 value of DYS391 is the older value. Likewise for CDY which changes more quickly than other STRs, I took 35-38 to be the older value. Prior to Rick’s results, I had this tree for Jonathan and Paul:

In this simple tree, Paul had all the STR changes since the 1690 Frazer ancestor and Jonathan had none. However, there is some guesswork in drawing this out. One rule is to make the chart as simple as possible, which is what I did. This means having the least amount of changes. It is sometimes called the rule of parsimony. Ambiguities in STRs is why some people prefer the SNP trees as there is little or no ambiguity in SNPs. Now note the above chart. Paul and Rick share 391 = 11 and CDYa = 35-40. Here is the new Frazer STR Tree with Rick included:

This shows:

  • Paul has his own STR mutation of 576 = 19 which happened sometime after 1804.
  • Likewise, Rick has his own STR mutation of 444 = 13 which defines Rick’s relatively recent branch.
  • The GD of 2 noted above between Paul and Rick are for markers 576 and 444.
  • The GD of 3 between Paul and Jonathan are for markers 576, 391 and CDYa.
  • The GD of 3 between Rick and Jonathan are for markers 444, 391 and CDYa.
  • The STR tree gets more difficult to draw further back from the present time. This is because more variables come into play such as parallel mutations and back mutations.
  • It would be possible to draw a STR Tree for the Grant, Hayes, Stewart, Chisum, Whittaker Tree, but I will leave that for another time.

Summary

  • The Big Y test for Paul and Jonathan have defined shared SNPs for the Frazer line and Private SNPs for the Archibald and James Lines
  • Ricks STR test has defined shared STRs for the line of James Frazer who was born about 1804. Any future testers from this line should be able to confirm descent from this line by testing for 391 = 11 which is a slower moving STR. CDYa would be a less reliable STR as it is a STR which changes much more often than most.
  • STR mutations that are unique to Rick and Paul cannot be dated precisely as they could have happened anytime after James Frazer of 1804 was born until Rick and Paul were born. That would be roughly between 1830 and 1950.
  • At the 67 STR testing level, on average, one STR change takes place about every 140 years. Jonathan shows no STR changes the way the chart was drawn. This would be less than average for him. Paul and Jonathan should have had 2 changes each, but each had 3 changes. This means they got the extra two STR changes that Jonathan should have had since 1690. It all averages out.
  • All this DNA testing makes me feel more close to my Canadian Frazer cousins.

 

A New R1a-YP5515 Tree: Patton, Hayes, Grant, and Frazer

Thanks to a Patton, Hayes, Grant and 2 Frazers that have had a BigY test, and the R1a-L664 Administrator, we now have a new SNP Tree. I was happy to hear that Martin, the L664 Administrator, fresh from a 6 week holiday in Australia, had come up with a new tree for YP5515.

First, the YP432 Tree

Technically, at FTDNA where the testing took place, Patton, Hayes, Grant and Frazer are still listed as YP432. FTDNA is a bit behind. Here is the YP432 Tree that Martin has recently updated:

I had mentioned previously that YFull, a business that analyzes these results had branching under YP431, but not under YP5515. The above tree by Martin now shows 5 branches under YP5515 vs. 6 under YP431 on the right side above. Here is YFull’s version of the tree. In their defense, they are coming out with a new YTree this month.

Dating the New Tree – Scandinavians and Scotsmen

The other good news about the new tree Martin developed is the dates. Before the new tree came out, we had YFulls date of a common YP432 ancestor of 2800 years ago. That was not very helpful. Martin’s tree has a date for YP432 which is about 1500 B.C which is even older by 700 years. I will be watching for the new YFull YTree to see if they have a date adjustment for YP432 and a new date for YP5515. Martin goes all the way up to 900-1600 A.D. for the SNPs that the two Frazers share. That is a huge difference from YP432 to the Frazers of 3100 years. Martin also points out that it was likely between 1400 B.C and 400 B.C. when our Scandinavian ancestor or ancestors decided to move to Scotland.

That means that the Frazers and their Patton, Hayes and Grant relatives are actually Scandinavian if we go back far enough. I suppose after a few hundred years of being in Scotland, no one could tell that they weren’t originally Scots. They were certainly in the area before the adoption of surnames. And when those surnames were adopted, they were Scots surnames. On the other hand, the YP431 Branch of YP432 appears to have remained in Scandinavia for the most part.

The YP5515 Tree

The YP5515 Tree is very new even though it dates back to 400-1400 B.C. And at this point there are only 5 BigY tested people on the tree, so we are part of an exclusive club:

Here I have taken out the ID’s for privacy for Patton, Hayes, Grant and Frazer. I did add the two Frazer lines: James and Archibald. This shows that Patton branched off quite early. The tree also appears to show that as late as 800 A.D. Hayes, Grant and Frazer had a common ancestor. Keep in mind that this would have been before the adoption of surnames. Roughly between 800 and 900 A.D. Grant branched off. The dating of the common ancestor of James and Archibald Frazer at 1600 is interesting as we believe the genealogy shows a common ancestor at around 1690 or so. The biggest change was in the SNPs of the two Frazers. They went from FTDNA’s official YP432 to YP432>YP5515>YP6479>YP6488>YP6489.

The above Tree should be taken as quite authoritative. However, it is possible that it could change by the addition of branches as others test for the new SNPs. It appears with all the Patton SNPs that there is quite a bit of room for additional branching. In my previous Blog, I had mentioned a Stewart and Chisolm. These matched by STRs, but had not taken the BigY or SNP tests. It would be possible for Stewart and/ór Chisolm to test and more precisely place themselves on the tree above (based on the SNPs they test positively or negatively for).

Another thing to note on Martin’s Tree is that there are now SNP names rather than just position numbers. For those SNPs that are shared most of them now have YP numbers. The private SNPs that are unshared, remain as position numbers.

Where My YP5515 Tree Went Wrong

When Martin came up with his tree, he noted that mine was mostly right. Here was my mistake:

I had a question mark by Patton as he had a bunch of missing SNPs that others had. Martin rightly had Patton descending from YP5515 on one side and Hayes, Grant and Frazer on the other being all YP6479. It is a subtle distinction, but an important one. Basically it means that Hayes, Grant and Frazer do not descend from the Patton Line, but they both have a common ancestor.

The other difference I notice is that I had the James Line with 4 private SNPs and Martin had them with only 3. Martin does not show the James Line as having the Private SNP #19995371. I checked our James Line tester against Grant and see that they both share that SNP, so that cannot be a private SNP for our James Line tester.

Frazers One Step Further

There is one other male Frazer on the Archibald Line who is in the process of testing YDNA for STRs. If I were to get a test method for each of the Archibald Line Private STRs and this tester were to test for each of these, we would be able to have one more branch on the Archibald Line with a named SNP defining that branch. Those two people have the common ancestor of James Frazer b. about 1803.

What’s Next?

Next we wait for the new YFull YTree. This will give a second opinion on Martin’s Tree. However, YFull does not have all the tested people that Martin has. After that, we wait for the STR results of the other Archibald Line person.

First YFull Analysis of a Frazer BigY Test

I have written quite a bit on Frazer BigY testing. To see my Blogs on the subject, they should be categorized under Frazer YDNA. Paul and Jonathan have both tested for the BigY. BigY finds all the SNPs of the YDNA of a male. These SNPs are both known and previously unknown SNP. These SNPs change roughly every 100 years. There are terminal SNPs, private SNPs and public SNPs, so it gets a bit confusing.

Frazer of North Roscommon, Ireland Terminal SNP

First, I forgot to mention what YFull is. YFull analyzes the Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) BigY test. For Haplogroups like R1a, which is what the Frazers are, they are good at analyzing the information and coming up with new SNPs. Sometimes, they are more up to date than FTDNA which seems ironic as it is FTDNA that did the test to begin with. For example, YFull has my cousin Paul as R-YP5515. FTDNA has Paul’s terminal SNP as R-YP432 which is older. This is how I have drawn it in previous Blogs:

The bottom line is that Frazer and Grant and perhaps Patton are all R-YP5515, but FTDNA doesn’t show it yet. YP5515 is in a box with many other SNPs, but YP5515 is the representative SNP for the group. That means that a bunch of SNPs are in that block, but we don’t know which one was formed first. At any rate, it is a point at which branching occurs. That is one good thing about SNPs. As they are unambiguous, they are good at forming SNP trees, which as basically ancient family (or clan) trees.

FTDNA’s Haplotree Vs YFull’s YTree

Here is how Frazer shows up on FTDNA’s Haplotree:

FTDNA only shows YP431 branching off, but not YP5515.

Here is YFull’s YTree:

In the tree above, Paul is indicated with a red “new”. The YTree tells me a lot more than the FTDNA Haplotree:

  • The R-YP5515 branch beneath R-YP432 is a lot smaller presently than the R-YP431 branch.
  • FTDNA is missing a lot of SNPs under the YP431 branch
  • The R-YP431 branch has a lot of people that appear to have Norwegian ancestors. From my previous Blogs, I have shown that the YP5515 branch appears to be from Scotland.
  • YFull is popular for it’s dating. YP431 shows a common ancestor at 1900 years before present. I assume that once Jonathan’s results are submitted to YFull, there will be new SNPs named and a new date for YP5515.

YFull’s Look At Private SNPs

Here we get into terminology. YFull calls these Novel SNPs, but when I choose them, they are listed as Private.  A simplified explanation is that a Novel SNP is an unnamed one and a Private one is one that is not shared with anyone else (at YFull). YFull gives novel SNPs a YFS number. Here is the list of Paul’s best quality Novel SNPs:

This shows that Paul has 42 Novel SNPs. What I don’t show is that there were 16 ambiguous SNPs. The other categories beyond ambiguous had no Novel SNPs. Those categories are Low Quality, One Reading and INDELs.

I can download the Novel SNPs to an Excel Sheet. Here are Paul’s SNPs that are not shared with Jonathan:

This shows that Paul has 4 Novel SNPs, what FTDNA calls Variants. In my tree above, I had that Paul had 5. When I checked Variant 28804880, I see that was a mistake, so I’ll take that one out.

This is a better result as now there is symmetry between the Archibald Line and the James Line. This shows exactly 4 new novel variants on the Archibald Line and the James Line since their common ancestor. 150 years is an average period for new SNPs, so that could mean 600 years to the common ancestor if these are all actually new SNPs. This could mean that the Frazer had more variants than average or that this R1a branch of YP5515 has more than average. The actual time to the common ancestor is about 260 years if we have done the genealogy correctly.

FTDNA VS YFull

YFull exists because FTDNA is not the best at analyzing its own BigY results. However, FTDNA has a few features that YFull does not have. With FTDNA, one can tell who the matches are. In YFull the matches are just by ID. With FTDNA, I can match by Variants which is useful. At Yfull I can only find matches by known SNPs.

Number of Novel variants

As above, YFull shows 42 Novel SNPs for Paul. This is close to what FTDNA shows. FTDNA shows that Paul shares 36 Novel Variants with Jonathan and that he has 4 unique Variants. That adds up to 40. That would give the impression that YFull is showing 2 more Novel Variants compared to FTDNA. But that is not the case. Actually, there is very little agreement at all.

This is the top of my spreadsheet that compares the Variants. Y5515 is in gold. YFull does not report any of the Variants in the YP5515 block or above. FTDNA does as it is out to date with its Variants. That is why there are so many blanks in the Paul YFull column. That is a difference of 21 SNPs to begin with. Going down the spreadsheet, the Variants that are listed as being the same in both FTDNA and YFull are shown in the Paul YFull column:

This shows that there are only 17 Variants out of 40-42 reported that are the same in both FTDNA and YFull. Below this are 25 Variants that YFull lists that FTDNA does not list. This is perhaps because FTDNA lists only the highest quality Variants. The 25 Variants that YFull lists includes Acceptable and Ambiguous Quality SNPs.

Next Steps

I have recently heard from Martin who is the L664 Administrator. He is back from a trip to Australia and working on getting these SNPs into a new tree. Hopefully Jonathan’s results will make their way to YFull also for analysis and help build out the YTree.

 

 

 

BigY Update On R1a Frazers

The Frazers originating from North Roscommon, Ireland are R1a in YDNA terms. That makes them a bit of an oddball compared to other Frazers. Most other Frazers spell their name Fraser and are R1b. Our Frazer branch is L664 under R1a. That group of people lived around the North Sea according to the L664 YDNA Project administrator.

That means that at some time our Frazer ancestors probably moved from the Netherlands or Germany up to Denmark or Norway and then over to Scotland. Or they may have gone directly to Scotland or up through the England. We don’t know. We do know that this probably happened before the time when surnames were used. Once in the area of present day Scotland, they mixed with the earlier Britains who were R1b. Perhaps this is the area where they lived when they took on the Fraser/Frazer name:

The map above shows Fraser, Chisolm, Grant and Stewart. All these names have been found to be related to Frazer by YDNA. Hayes is also related by YDNA, but I think Hayes may actually be a Grant around the year 1600 or after. Here is a closeup of the Fraser Lands in 1587, showing proximity to the Chisolm and Grant Lands:

Stewart Update

In my previous Blog on BigY, I had drawn a STR tree without Stewart. Here is the new one with him included:

Stewart/Stuart is in red above. He is important, because his STR signature is the same as the common ancestor for Grant, Hayes and Stewart. If I had room, I would draw another line to the bottom of the page with Stewart showing no STR changes. Here is Stewart added to the SNP Tree:

The Stewart on the chart has expressed interest in BigY testing, so there should be more updates to come.

Grant Update

I was pleasantly surprised to see the results of a recent Grant BigY test. In the SNP tree above, the bolded names have taken the BigY, so I will need to update Grant. In my STR tree, I had two Grants. The one that took the BigY test had his most distant ancestor as:

James GRANT “of Carron”, 1728 – 1790

Here is my STR update for Grant of Carron. All I did was make it more clear which Grant was which:

Grant of carron BigY

The Grant BigY test threw me off a bit as the results showed that he was one SNP away from Paul and Jonathan. Usually, I am looking for a zero SNP difference. Grant of Carron shows a L1012 SNP that Paul and Jonathan do not have. Unfortunately, I don’t know why that is the case. Also I don’t know much about the L1012 SNP. It could be that the L1012 SNP was tested in error, or that Paul and Jonathan should have that SNP or that the L1012 SNP is branching below the green box where I have Grant on my SNP tree. The last option does not seem likely as I don’t have named SNPs in the green box, so there shouldn’t be named SNPs below the box.

Grant matched Paul and Jonathan on Variant 23614618. However, Hayes did not match on that variant. That could lead to this tree:

This change pointed out an earlier mistake I had made. I had 23619535 in the Archibald Line and in the orange box. I should have had 23614618 in the orange box. At any rate, that variant is now moved up to the Frazer/Grant mustard colored box. Another option would have been to move 23614618  to the green box of Hayes, Grant and Stewart. This would be assuming that Hayes should have been positive for 23614618 but had a poor test result. All these trees are preliminary until I wait for the R1a Administrators to come up with a more official tree. Another option would be to wait for the YFull analysis. However, that is dependent upon testers using their service. At any rate, it is good to have fewer SNPs in the orange box as we are bumping up against a likely Frazer date of 1690. The final change in the SNP Tree has to do with Chisolm. We don’t have a BigY for this YDNA relative. That means I don’t know if Chisolm goes with the mustard box or the orange one. I’ll leave him with the orange right now as there are so many SNPs there.

Summary and What’s Next

  • I have added Stewart to my SNP Tree and STR Tree
  • A BigY Test for Grant pointed out a mistake I made earlier for one of the variants on my proposed tree
  • The Grant BigY results may result in a small node where the Grants and Frazers had a common ancestor.
  • Once the R1a and L664 administrators are done with their analysis, I would like to see three or four levels below the official level of R-YP432 for Frazer. These would include branching for Hayes and Grant also.
  • I’m a bit unsure of Patton. He tested positive for R-YP5515 but is missing some of the other variants that are seen in other BigY results. However, that would not make a difference in the overall structure of the SNP Tree.
  • I am looking forward to a BigY test for the Stewart/Stuart in the group.

Comparing Frazer Big Y Tree With STR Trees

Recently, I have written some Blogs on Frazer BigY results. Here is the most recent BigY Blog. My cousin Paul’s results are in and Jonathan’s results are in. These two people represent the major Frazer lines from North Roscommon, Ireland in the early 1700’s. Maurice Gleeson was one of the first people to compare BigY results and STR results. His video on the subject is here:

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

BigY Frazer Results: Looking Into the Future

I have built a tree based on the initial two Frazer BigY results. I call this looking into the future as the variants shown as just numbers below, will be the future SNPs which people will test to find out what branch of the YDNA tree they are in. Here is the SNP tree I have so far:

This is a compressed zig zag tree to save space. The tree is with the reference of the Frazers as those are the tests I’m familiar with. This doesn’t mean that Frazer descended from Hayes who descended from Patton. Patton and Hayes should have their own branches descending down also. This tree means that at the Hayes level, Frazer and Hayes shared the same ancestor (and variants). Likewise, at the R-YP5515 level, Patton, Hayes and Frazer all shared the same common ancestor in the quite distant past.

STR Trees: What About the Grants?

My distant cousin on the James Line of the Frazers wondered what happened to the Grants after we did the BigY test. She wondered because the Grant name was the one that came up quite consistently as a Frazer STR match. Well, I don’t think that the Grants that matched Jonathan have taken the BigY test, so they didn’t show up there. However, the closest non-Frazer match in the BigY test was a Hayes. Here is a first shot at a Frazer/Grant/Hayes STR Tree with dates:

The idea behind making a STR Tree is to find the common STR values. These become the ancestral STRs at the top of the tree. Then find the fewest changes going down to create a tree. Finally, make a guess as to the dates. At the 67 STR level, I think there is a chance of a new STR every 150 years or so. However, this varies. Also, as in the SNP tree above, I know that the common ancestor between Paul and Jonathan is about 260 years ago. This STR tree should correspond roughly with the SNP Tree up to where the Hayes come into the picture. That means the 700 year guess for my STR tree corresponds with the SNP tree of 260-760 years plus 348-900 years or 608-1660 years. What the second tree does is to help calibrate the dates. As the SNPs are more set in stone than the STRs, the SNP tree also sets the structure for the STR tree. The STR tree has to follow the SNP tree.

The STR tree also points out that Paul and Jonathan should be equally related to Grant1, Hayes and Grant2. That is because, if the tree is drawn correctly, they all have the same Frazer/Grant/Hayes ancestor. This is despite the fact that Grant1, Hayes and Grant2 have different genetic distances to Paul and Jonathan. This is also assuming that they all have about the same number of generations to the common ancestor.

The other thing that the STR tree shows is that Hayes should be more closely related to Grant than the Frazer family.

On the Chisolm Trail

Now that I see that the SNP tree supported the Frazer/Grant/Hayes STR tree, I will add Chisolm to the STR Tree. Two names that are on Paul and Jonathan’s STR match list are Chisolm and Stuart. I had looked at Stuart before and the Stuart STRs seem to fall in line with Grant and Hayes. However, after my first look at the Chisolm STRs, it appears that Chisolm is more aligned with the Frazers.

Chisolm STRs

Here are some of the Chisolm STRs at the Chisolm YDNA Project page:

The first line is the Chisolm mode. The mode is the most commonly occurring STR value. The next four lines are R1a Chisolms. The Chisolm that matches the Frazers is on the bottom line. Note that any of the highlighted STRs indicate a variation from the mode. That means that this Chisolm is not a very good match to the other Chisolms. Here are some of the Chisum/Chisolm STRs on the bottom row compared to Frazers, Grants and a Stuart:

Most notably, Chisum is aligning with Frazer at position 389b = 30 and 534 = 14 rather than with Grant, Hayes or Stuart. This appears to be leaving 447 – 24 as a signature Frazer STR.

New STR Tree with chisolm

This is a bit of odds and sods tree with four different surnames.

Paul/Chisolm Parallel mutation

Paul and Chisolm have a parrallel mutation at 576=19. This has the effect of the STR test making it look like Paul is a closer match to Chisolm than he really is. Chisolm shows up as Paul’s closest STR match after Paul’s match with his cousin Jonathan. FTDNA show that both Paul and Chisolm have a value of 19 for STR 576. However, assuming the STR Tree is correct, Paul and Chisolm both developed that STR mutation independently. Regardless, if my STR tree is correct, then Chisolm is a closer match to Frazer than to either Grant or Hayes. I had not expected this result.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Ideally, a BigY test for Grant and Chisolm would sort things out.

Based on the STR tree, I have put in where I think Grant and Chisolm would be on the SNP tree. If Chisolm were to take the BigY test, then it would be clear which of the orange variants are Frazer variants and not Chisolm and which new variants are Chisolm and not Frazer. A BigY test by one of the Grants would also sort out the Grants and Hayes variants. By the way, a Stuart match STR match should be included with Hayes and Grant on the above SNP Tree.

Summary and Observations

  • In broad strokes a SNP change should happen about at the same rate that a 67 STR marker would happen. This means that a SNP tree should mimic a STR tree in both shape and the rough number of mutations of both STRs and SNPs.
  • A SNP tree should be the undisputed tree when comparing SNP trees and STR trees. This is because a SNP is a one-time event. A STR mutation may be a one time event, a back mutation or a parallel mutation.
  • Comparing SNP trees and STR trees can be helpful in calibrating dates of trees. A known common ancestor date is certainly helpful also.
  • When considering dates, it is important to know when the use of surnames became common practice. One reference I read for Scotland was that the date was the 16th century. That date is interesting as my STR tree guesses at a common ancestor for Chisolm and Frazer at about 1400 A.D.
  • The same reference says that in the Highlands and northern isles of Scotland surnames did not fully take root until the year 1800. If Hayes and Grant were from the Highlands, this could explain the different surnames.
  • This late date of adoption of surnames could explain why the surnames are not matching well with the YDNA testing. A late-adopted surname would not have time to build up a head of steam or a large amount of descendants.
  • I will be looking forward to FTDNA adopting the R-YP5515 SNP. FTDNA also needs at least two more levels of SNPs. One at the Hayes/Frazer level and one at the Frazer level.