Category: Hartley YDNA

Posted on

Mawdsley, Holland and Hartley YDNA

I recently got an email that there was a new YDNA BigY test on the Mawdsley Line. From previous testing it would appear that Mawdsley broke off from Hartley not too long before the appearance of surnames in England. Here is the new test from my perspective on the Block Tree:

Going from right to left would be more chronological.

  • Smith is in the oldest group and has no matches
  • A11132 is empty but all those below it are A11132 historically speaking.
  • Holland and Mawdsely are a branch under A11132 called R-FTB95522.
  • R-A11134 – There are three Hartleys under this branch with no further branching. My assumption that all that are under A11134 are Hartleys and this SNP came out after the advent of the Hartley surname.
  • R-FTE2655 – There are two Channon testers under this branch. This name was historically associated with the Nutter surname. However, the assumption is that before Nutter the surname should have been Hartley.
  • R-A16717 – This SNP is associated with an early Quaker Hartley branch that fled religious persecution around the year 1700 and reloacted to Pennsylvania. This branch appears to have the oldest verified genealogy of the Hartley Branches that are on this Block Tree.
  • R-FT225247 – This branch contains the largest number of SNPs. My brother and I are in this branch.

Why is This Test Important to the Hartley Branch?

If I am right, then the boundary between Mawdsley/Holland and Hartley should start the dating for when the Hartleys began as a surname. Here is the Time Tree:

This still needs updating as it shows Mawdsley and Holland under A11132. A11132 is dated on this tree at around 1163 CE.

How Old is R-FTB95522?

When I was notified of the new SNP, there was no date on FTDNA or SNP Tracker. I tried FTDNA and the web site was not working well. I see this from SNP Tracker:

Here are some details from SNP Tracker:

Where the date represents the tMRCA date. That means that the common ancestor between Hartley and Mawdsley/Holland is around the year 1160. To put that into perspective, the Magna Carta was signed in the year 1215. The orange color represents the Medieval Period. However, a quick look at the the internet suggests that the Medieval Period could have ended around 1500. At any rate, this should surely be within the period of surnames in England. The problem is that the two testers have different names: Mawdsley and Holland. As I am not familiar with these two genealogies, I am not sure which name may be more likely for the common ancestor. SNP Tracker further shows 12 testers under A11132 which corresponds to the BigY testers listed at FTDNA.

FTDNA is working better now and I see this note on the Match Tree feature:

More from FTDNA

When FTDNA was not working right, I could not find the Private Variants. Now they are back:

The greenish block shows that Private Variants. Mawdsley and Holland have an average of 7 private variants which suggests that their connection could be quite old. Above, from SNP Tracker, the tMRCA for FTB95522 is the year 1590. Visually, the Private SNPs from Mawdsley/Holland fit in between the long list of SNPs from my branch and the short list of SNPs directly to the left of Mawdsley/Holland. I still believe that A11134 and below are all Hartley and that FTB95522 is the split for non-Hartleys. In other words, Hartley and Mawdsley/Holland appear to have a common ancestor which predates the advent of surnames.

Another point from the Block tree above: FTB95522 did not split off the 8 SNP block which is called A11132. FTB95522 was apparently a private Variant of Mawdsley until Holland tested and that became their new Branch of the YDNA tree of mankind. Also, Mawdsley was previously A11132 which is now vacant. His tMCRA has moved, according to SNP Tracker, from 1160 to 1590.

Some Variant Information

Holland is my 10th match out of 14:

I do not know if 5/20/2025 was when the Holland BigY test finalized. If so, it has taken a while to get the new SNP onto the FTDNA Time Tree. Holland and I have 23 non-matching Variants.

Nine of the non-matching variants are numbers, so are likely to be the private variants for Holland.

These are the SNPs under A11134:

That appears to account for two of the non-matching variants:

Here are the 7 SNPs my brother and I have:

This accounts for 6 non-matching variants:

I should have included A11136, so that accounts for all 7 of the SNPs in the branch my brother and I are in.

That means that I have not accounted for the following non-matching variants:

A11136 should not be on the list.

FGC6800

This appears to be a SNP that my brother and I have. This is how it appears at YBrowse:

This appears to be under I2a rather than R where I am, so there is some confusion about this SNP:

I would think that this should be given another name for my branch of the YDNA tree, but I’m not in charge of these things.

BY26739

I also show this as a non-matching variant between myself and my brother. That means that it is likely I have this variant and my brother does not, making it a new variant. Here is what YBrowse shows:

This has a date of 2018. It is unclear where this appears on the YDNA tree. There is also a strand. I do not know what a strand means. I ordered my BigY500 in 2016 and my BigY700 in 2019. So the date of this SNP does not match up with my two BigY dates.

BY28775

It appears that only Holland has this SNP:

YBrowse results are similar to the previoius SNP I looked at:

FT27444

This is a SNP that I have, but the reads were low quality.

When I check Mawdsley for FT27444, there are some positive reads, negative ones and lower quality reads. When I check Mawdsley for this SNP, the readings seem to be inconclusive:

FTB95522

This SNP is about three years old:

This actually was accounted for as this is the new Branch for Mawdsley and Holland. This was formerly a private SNP of Mawdsley and when Holland tested, it formed a new group.

FTDNA Update

A date of 1386 is earlier than the estimate at SNP Tracker of 1590. If SNP tracker is right, then it is likely that Mawdsley and Holland descend from the same surname. If FTDNA is right, then the Mawdsley and Holland surnames could be on separate parallel tracks. I prefer the FTDNA rendition as it gives the most recent common ancestor of Holland and Mawdsley as before A11134 which I believe to be reserved for Hartleys. Here are some names and dates:

Mawdsley/Holland represents the first non-Hartley branch under A11132:

 

It appears the the new test has pushed back A11132 a little. Here is a screen shot from a Blog I wrote last February:

Summary and Conclusions

  • The new Holland BigY is good for Mawdsley as it gives the two a new Haplogroup
  • Before we suspected that Mawdsley was pre-Hartley. This new test further supports that.
  • The new test pushes back A11132 by 75 years.
  • The new test aslo pushes back the Hartley SNP of A11134 by 10 years.
  • I also looked at some of the non-matching variants between myself and Holland.

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Hartley YDNA and the Time Tree

My last Blog on Hartley YDNA had to do with a Channon test. Channon has known Nutter ancestry and based on YDNA, he must have also had some Hartley ancestry in the past 400 years or so. At that time, the new YDNA Time Tree had not been updated. However, before I get to that, I will give some background.

Hartley YDNA Background

According to Mynamestats.com:

HARTLEY is ranked as the 1027th most popular family name in the United States with an estimated population of 37,550.

Accoring to Forebears.io:

Approximately 87,232 people bear this surname

That seems like a pretty exact number for an approximation.

However, not all branches of Hartleys are related in the genealogical time period. Here is my tribe of Hartleys on the YDNA tree:

Here 17 have tested for STRs or have done the BigY test. All are probably A11134 except for Mawdsley. Mawdsley is one branch upstream of Hartley which was before the genealogical time period. It is difficult to estimate the percentage of Hartleys that this branch represents. I will guess that we represent about 1/3 of the Hartleys worldwide, so roughly 30,000 Hartleys.  say this to suggest that these 16 YDNA tests represents 30,000 Hartleys or so or certainly tens of thousands.

The FTDNA YDNA Time Tree

Here is the current Hartley YDNA Time Tree:

At the top is a scale of years going from 500 to 2000 CE. The first tester is a Smith and the connection to Hartleys goes back to before the year 500 CE. The next is Mawdsley:

I assume that this time of 1170 CE is correct. However, only nobility would have had surnames at this time, so this would be considered to be before the genealogic:

al time period. The previous date given was 1174, so there has not been much of a change.

A11134

So far, it appears that A11134 and the Hartley surname are synonymous.

Prior to the Channon test, this date was 1471, so the fact that the date was pushed back 5 years is interesting but probably not significant. Hartley BigY testers Ethan, John and Steve are R-A11134. This is the general designation of the Tree that represents an estimated 25-30,000 Hartleys worldwide.

FT225247

This is the branch that my brother and I are in. It represents our father:

This has not changed which I suppose makes sense as our branch is independent of the Channon Branch. Interestingly, my father was born in 1918.

A16717

This is a branch of Hartleys who had the Quaker belief and moved from England to Pennsylvania ostensibly to get away from persecution in England.

This changed only one year from a previous 1684. I would tend to think that this SNP is actually older:

Assuming that Edward Hartley had this SNP, this SNP should be no new more recent than 1664. If his father or grandfather also had the SNP, that would move the date further back.

Channon and FTE2655

This test brought the Channon branch up from 1466 to 1905.

Here is the Block Tree:

This represents the 10 A11134 Hartley Branch BigY testers. I do not show up as the tree is from my viewpoint. For some reason my branch has 7 SNPs in it. Perhaps that will be important some day in figuring out my branch’s genealogy. The Channon Branch has two SNPs and the Quaker branch has one. A11134 has three SNPs but they will not likely be separated as they have not been separated so far.

Also the fact that my FT225247 Branch is later than the Channon Branch of FTE2655 may be because there are many more SNPs in my Branch (7) and fewer in the Channon Branch (2).

Here is the Match Time Tree:

Summary and Conclusions

  • The time tree update is the last piece of the new Channon BigY Test
  • The test gave Channon its own branch of the YDNA tree
  • FTDNA shows that there are 6 major Branches of the R-A11134 Hartley YDNA tree. Their common ancestor is still very early at an estimated date of 1466 CE.
  • It would be nice to find out what Hartley YDNA branching occurred in the 1700’s and 1800’s.

Here are some things going on in England in the 1400’s according to metmuseum.org:

At the start of the period, concurrent with the accession of Henry IV (r. 1399–1413), England’s first Lancastrian king, Great Britain and Ireland are rife with internal tensions, including Welsh revolt, a series of baronial rebellions led by the Percy family of Northumberland, and ongoing warfare among the Anglo-Irish nobility. In 1415, Henry V (r. 1413–22) renews the war with France that has continued, with interruptions, for nearly a century. His endeavors are temporarily successful, gaining large territories in France and securing his claim to the French throne. During the reign of his son Henry VI (1422–61; 1470–71), however, the English are expelled from France with the help of Joan of Arc, a French peasant girl, and political turmoil erupts at home when the king’s frequent illnesses place England in the hands of a Protector, Richard, duke of York. By the end of the fifteenth century, civil war between the Yorkists and Lancastrians seriously undermines the power of the monarchy and leaves the nobility fractured and vulnerable to the prevailing Tudor family.

 

Posted on

A New Hartley/Channon YDNA Branch Confirmed

In my previous Blog on the subject, there had been a new Hartley/Channon BigY test taken and completed, but the Branch result had not yet come out. I had made some predictions for fun to see how closely FTDNA’s final results  would match what I had.

Hartley Block Tree at FTDNA

Above, I have highlighted the Hartley Haplogroups inside a red box. The umbrella Hartley Haplogroup as I have it is A11134. The original Channon tester was in that group until very recently. Now we have Ethan, John, and Steve in that group. My group is FY225247. I am in the lower left of the Block Tree with my brother Jim. Next is A16717. This is a branch of Hartleys who moved to Pennsylvania around the year 1700 ostensibly to get away from  persecution in England as they were Quakers. Finally there is the brand new Haplogroup of FTE2655.

I believe that the date of A11132 goes back before the time of common surname usage. That means that Hartley and Mawdsley had the same ancestor but both branched off with different surnames before the time of surname usage. A11138 is certainly much older than when surnames were used. Smith is in that Haplogroup.

The Next Big Thing

The next thing to look forward to is an updated Time Tree. Here is the Match Time Tree which is not yet updated:

Oddly, Channon is not on the match list – perhaps due to the recent update.

  • A11138 appears to be a little before the year 500.
  • A11132 a little before the year 1200.
  • A11134 alittle before the year 1500
  • A16717 a little after the year 1500.
  • FT225247 should represent my father who was born in 1918

Hovering over the Haplogroups gives a more exact estimate. The exact estimates are:

  • 479
  • 1174
  • 1471
  • 1684
  • 1916

I am interested in seeing how the new Channon Branch changes the current Time Tree.

R-FTE2655

Here was my prediction for the new Hartley/Channon Branch:

I had predicted three SNPs in the new Branch. However, none of my predictions were FTE2655.

Here is FTE2544 at YBrowse;

I see, YBrowse has FTE2655 at the same location as Y16496. I did have that one.

I noted in m:y previous Blog that both Channon testers were positive for Y16496. However, now their Branch is called FTE2655:

Note the difference in that FTE2655 has a mutation of G to T where Y16496 has the mutation of G to A. My guess is that FTDNA wrongly reported the Channon testers as positive for Y16496. The manual review apparently caught the error and it was corrected. Here is a screen shot for the new Channon tester from my previous Blog:

See the mutation was from G to T for Y16496. However, that should have been the mutation for FTE2655.

Y364187 and FGC7804

I had predicted Y364187 which agrees with FTDNA. But I also predicted FGC7804. Here is FGC7804 at YBrowse:

This SNP was found by Full Genomes Corp in 2013. I also mentioned this SNP in a previous Blog I wrote for the first Channon’s BigY results. I cannot explain why FGC7804 is not one of Channon’s listed SNPs. I could write FTDNA and may get an answer. My guess is that the SNP is in some sort of ambiguous region.

Summary and Conclusions

  • At first at looked like my predictions for the new Channon/Hartley Branch were off. However, at second look it was based on an incorrect initial classification by FTDNA. This was apparently corrected in a subsequent manual review.
  • A second SNP I had predicted agreed with the FTDNA desidgnation
  • A third SNP that I had predicted did not appear on the FTDNA Channon Branch. I would have to write to FTDNA to find out why that was not included.
  • I am happy to see the new Branch of Hartleys and would be interested to see if the results make any changes to the existing Time Tree for the Harltey SNPs.
Posted on

A New Channon/Hartley BigY Test

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

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

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

The New Tester and Non-Matching Variants

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

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

Non-Matching Variant 5672076

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

Here is the result for the new Channon Tester:

Here is the older Channon results:

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

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

Y16496

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

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

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

A Proposed Tree

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

This was probably accurate at the time.

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

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

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

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

15646418

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

Here is that position for the new Channon tester:

He is clearly positive at this position.

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

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

That modifies my SNP tree like this:

FGC7804

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

New Channon Tester:

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

Ethan:

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

 

 

Posted on

More on Hartley YDNA and STRs

So far, there have been 9 Hartley BigY tests taken by men in my branch of the YDNA Tree. Here is the FTDNA Time Tree:

All these Hartleys fall under A11134. Here is a new tree that FTDNA has called the Classic Tree:

This shows the same information in a different way. The date I am interested in here is 1500. This is the estimated date that our Hartleys descend from based on currrent BigY testing. Four of the BigY testers are A11134. The next group which is FT225247 also descends from 1500 but with seven SNPs.

Finally, there is what I call the Quaker Hartleys. Their ancestor was from NE Lancashire and left for Pennsylvania ostenibly to avoid religious persecution. This group also harks back to 1500. That means that there are four individuals and two subgroups that descend from an ancestor who was born around the year 1500.

Before I tested my brother, I was in the A11134 Group.

How Do STRs Fit In?

At this point, I am interested in my group of FT225247 and the A11134 Group. I am not as interested in the A16717 Group as they already have an older defined subgroup and we know about their genealogy. It is possible by an analysis of the STRs to try to determine which line is closer or further from the other non-Quaker Hartleys.

SAPP

I have used a program called SAPP to analyze STRs in the past. This time, I will try plugging in just the 6 BigY tests that I am interested in to see how the branching looks. I had previously run Ethan through SAPP in this Blog. Ethan is the latest BigY Tester in my Hartley Group.

Here is an initial screen when I run SAPP:

As expected, I (275990) am close by Genetic Distance to my brother (757486), but not to the others as we go back to roughly 1500 in our Hartley Lines. Here is the tree that SAPP comes up with for these 6 Hartleys:

 

 

So here where the SNP Tree has 5 Branches coming done from 1500 (not counting the Quaker Hartleys), the SAPP Tree has 3 branches coming down from 1600. Some observations:

  • Group MRCA is also A11134
  • TMRCA is 1600 versus the SNP Tree’s 1500. However, these are within the ranges we might expect
  • The Genetic Distance (GD) between John and me is the least at 6, but the SAPP Tree has John in a different branch (Node #8)
  • Node #8 is one of the most interesting aspects of this tree as it suggests that Nutter and Ethan are most closely related to each other (after my brother and me) and that John, Nutter and Ethan are in a group together.
  • Confusingly, the TMCRA for the Group MRCA, Node #9 and Node #7 are the same. By the configuration, it would appear that these should be at least a generation away from each other.

Adding Two More 111 STR Testers

The two who have tested to 111 STRs but have not yet taken the BigY Test are Mervin and Gary. I will add them in:

Mervin and Gary are at the end of the list. Gary is closest by GD to Nutter and Ethan. Let’s run the SAPP Tree:

 

I think that this is the best 111 Hartley Tree which does not include the Quaker Hartleys. Notice that by adding two more 111 STR Hartley tested men, the tree is now more complicated. Some observations and thoughts:

  • Group MRCA is now at the year 1500 which compares well with the STR Tree. This suggests to me a more accurate STR Tree.
  • Now Mervin and Nutter are in their own old branches
  • This suggests that Ethan and Gary would have a common ancestor around the year 1600, if the tree is right. That suggests that it may be helpful for Gary to take the BigY test
  • Further, the tree suggests that Steve and my branch have a common ancestor around the year 1650. I question whether that is right because my branch of FT225247 has 7 SNPs in it. There are 450 years between 1500 and 1950. When I divide 450 years by 7 SNPs, that means that my branch has a new SNP every 64 years. That being the case, there should have been a new SNP between the year 1500 and 1650 where my family should have matched Steve if this STR tree above was right.

Finally, Add in Two More 111 STR Quaker Hartleys

Of the three BigY Quaker Hartleys, only two have STRs tested to the 111 level. That means that I need to add in John Robert and Lawrence. Here are the GDs:

The Quaker Hartleys start with 693 and 117.

Here is the latest (and greatest?) STR SAPP Tree:

I like this tree better as it is wider and seems to mirror the STR Tree more.

Notes:

  • The STR Tree sorted out the Quaker Branch on the right (Node #13). I did not tell SAPP that they had their own SNP Branch.
  • I question Node #12 that has my branch in the same group as John Nicholas. My reasoning is the same as above. It would mean that there were no SNPs between 1550 and 1700 where my branch would mach John. However, if the STR tree is right, it would mean that the mutations in my line were even more frequent perhaps averaging a mutation per generation.
  • Group MRCA is now 1550 which suggests a more streamlined tree. Because of my objection to Node #12, it may be that the tree is too streamlined.
  • This tree seems more accurate that my attempt in a previous Blog which looked at tested Hartleys at levels below 111 STRs.

Next Steps

Here is the A11134 Block Tree:

Including myself, there are 9 BigY tested Hartleys. There are 15 Hartleys in our Branch of the Hartley YDNA Project at FTDNA:

Perhaps the other 6 would consider taking the BigY test to see if we could get any further branching in our group. I have been in touch with a second cousin of mine to take the BigY, but that would only help on my own narrow Hartley Line.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The most recent BigY tester was Ethan. I was hoping that Ethan’s BigY results would give us more branching in the YDNA Hartley SNP Tree.
  • It didn’t, so I thought that I would look again at the Hartley 111 STR results.
  • The most accurate results appear to be when I looked at the 10 Hartleys who tested for 111 STRs. 8 of those 10 had taken the BigY test. An additional Quaker Hartley Line tester had the older BigY test which did not include the 111 STRs. However, he is from his Branch is fairly well defined as to genealogy and has its own SNP Branch of A16717.
  • The last STR SAPP tree above suggests that Steve and Ethan have a more recent common ancestor from about the year 1650
  • The same STR tree produced from SAPP suggests that my brother and I may be more closely related to John Nicholas with a common ancestor from around the year 1700.
  • Due to the vagaries of STRs, these interpretations are up in the air. However, they do suggest possibilities which may be looked into.
  • As always more BigY testing should result in more clarity in this Hartley Branch of mankind.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

A New Hartley BigY

Every so often a new Hartley BigY comes out. One just came out which is in my Tribe of Hartleys. What I mean by that is that in the YDNA tree of man there is more than one branch of Hartleys. These YDNA branches are distantly related.

A11134

My Branch of Hartley YDNA is called A11134. It is shown on the FTDNA Block Tree here:

This tree is from my perspective. I am in an offshoot of A11134 called FT225247. John R., Michael, and Lawrence are in another off-shoot called A16717. This was a branch of Hartley Quakers from the 1600’s that emigrated to Pennsylvania. Ethan is curently in the main Branch of Hartleys under A11134 along with Channon, John N., and Steve. I believe that Channon may have Hartley in his ancestry going back. Mawdsley is related to the Hartleys, but the branches probably split prior to the common use of surnames and his surname would have developed independently. So we don’t think that Mawdsley ever had Hartley in their ancestry. Smith is a separate branch that is very old.

Some other observations:

  • My branch has the most SNPs for some reason – 7
  • A11134 is actually a block of three different SNPs
  • As there are 7 SNPs in my Branch and an average of three Private Variants under A16717 and A11134 and other branches, there is more room for further branching.

FTDNA Time Tree

This time tree shows that Smith has been alone in his Branch of A11138 since about the year 500 AD (or CE). Mawdsley’s Line split off around the year 1200. The rest of the Hartleys are quite old – going back to the 1500’s or possibly even earlier.

YDNA SNP Theory

SNP Theory is simple:

  1. If you have a SNP that no one else has, it is a Private SNP or Variant
  2. If you match someone else with a SNP that puts you in a group with them
  3. If you do not have SNPs that others have in a lower branch, that puts you in a higher branch. For example, in the Hartley example above, Ethan, Channon, John N. and Steve do not have FT225247 or A16717, so they are currently in the higher or earlier Hartley Branch of A11134

In practice, interpreting these principles is difficult. All BigY tests are different. If the test has poor coverage for a SNP, or no coverage, it will be difficult to interpret the results.

Ethan’s Private Variants

FTDNA shows that Ethan has one private variant at position 17071491. However, I do not understand the results as the Reference is G and the Genotype is T. However, the test results give a ‘C’. Now if Ethan has only one private variant, that seems to indicate a relatively short time to common ancestors or that he has very few mutations compared to the average amount of mutations.

Here is Ethan’s Match List:

Ethan’s closest matches are John R and Channon. He has 5 non-matching variants with these two. Note that Private Variant 17071491 shows up in these list. That means that each of these testers could have tested negatvie for this Variant. However, we have to check to make sure.

This gets confusing as there are two John R’s. The one who took the BigY descends from the Quaker Hartleys:

John has a ton of reads, most of which are negative. That means that he is not positive for the Variant that Ethan has.

Channon’s results for Ethan’s Private Varinat position are similar:

Does Ethan Have Any New Matches with Existing Hartley Testers?

This seems to be the big question as that would put Ethan in a new group. Another corollary is: Does Ethan have non-matches which would put other Hartleys in a new group.

I see from a previous Blog I wrote, that I have this colorful spreadsheet:

I used an add-on called BAMsAway to look up variant results that FTDNA normally does not show. The colors give the various gradations that are possible with the results. This shows how one SNP was added to the Hartley Tree – namely MF 205420. I think that I used this chart to get FTDNA to put Michael, Lawrence and John into their own Branch.

Here I have added Ethan and his own Private Variant. All I have to do is to fill in the new row and column. Here is the column:

I had forgotten how I had the light green codes. For example B?4+ means that there were 4 positive reads. Usually 10 are needed. B?5- means that there were 5 negative reads. So the shortcoming of the designation is that a plus is a likely SNP and a minus is a likely ancestral value (no mutation).

I didn’t bother checkign each SNP in my own Hartley Branch as Ethan is likely not positive for those SNPs. I should also note that Michael has a lot of ‘no reads’. This is likely because he took th eolder BigY 500 which tested fewer locations on the YDNA.

The outcome of the exercise is that Ethan clearly does not share any of the Private Variants of the other testers. If Ethan had a no read for one of these positions, then perhaps we could say he matched one of the other Hartleys, but that was not the case.

Checking the Other BigY Tested Hartleys for Ethan’s Private Variant

As Ethan only shows one Private Variant, it is not likely that this Variant would be shared with anyone else, but I will check. Here is my result:

I see that there was a mutation in one read only, but the overall effect is that I am not positive for this mutation. It turns out that all the results were negative for Ethan’s SNP:

The bottom line is that my Hartley Branch has an unusually large number of SNPs since these Hartley Branches split and Ethan has an unusually small amount of Private Variants – one.

FGC SNPs

Earlier in the Blog, I looked at Ethan’s BigY Match List:

Here are a few non-matching variants in his list starting with FGC. I have looked at FGC6800 before. This is already a named SNP in the I branch of the YDNA and I am in the R branch. I have a feeling that FTDNA cannot handle two SNPs that are the same in different branches. I do not believe that I have looked at FGC7804 before. I’ll just add them to my spreadsheet:

I found that Nutter aka Channon has the SNP (or Private Variant) of FGC7804

According to YBrowse, the Branch for this SNP is unknown:

However, it was discovered in 2013 which is before Channon tested. I would tend to look at FGC7804 as a Private Variant for Channon.

Here, I didn’t check the Hartley Quaker descendants for the two FGC SNPs as they were in a different Branch.

Summary and Conclusions

  • My Hartley Branch has 7 SNPs, or 8 if FGC6800 is counted. That is a new SNP about ever 63 years or close to every other generation.ItSteve has 5 Private Variants (PVs), John has 4 PVs, Nutter has 3-5 PVs depending on the testing company, and Ethan has one PV
  • Ethan has only one PV in about the last 500 years. That seems very unusual.
  • The Quaker Line is about 200 years newer than the general Hartley Haplogroup. In that group, Michael has 2 PVs, but he took the older BigY 500 test. Lawrence has 5 PVs and John R has 4 PVs.
  • It does not appear that a manual review will be required by FTDNA
  • I don’t know if Ethan’s results will change the dating of the FTDNA Time Tree.
  • It appears that there were many Hartleys around the year 1500 or before. We have now 5 lines descending from that time – My branch with my brother, Steve, John N, Channon or Nutter and now Ethan. However, between 1500 and now there were no closer relatives beween those 5 lines or branches. That means that even with all the testing that has been done, there needs to be more to establish more Hartley Branches between the year 1500 or so and now. The would establish more lines like the Hartley Quaker Branch that we know was from around the year 1600 and connected by genealogy.

 

 

 

Posted on

A New Hartley BigY Test

I have been in touch with Michelle who is a co-adminitrator of the Hartley YDNA Project (as am I). She has interest in the Hartley surname and had a test taken for Ethan. So far Ethan’s STR results are out. We are still awaiting the more important SNP results.

Here is Ethan listed at the Hartley YDNA Project:

Ethan is listed at the top. I show his first STR result, but there are 110 more to the right of that that I do not show. There are more Hartleys who have done YDNA testing. A few notes:

  • There are other Hartleys in the Hartley Project, but many Hartleys are not closesly related to each other by DNA.
  • The bright blue above is one group of Hartleys that are related to each other by YDNA
  • The first group has a Mawdsley in it. This is the oldest group called A11132. It was unclear previously whether Mawdsley was origingally a Hartley or whether the names split off before the time of surnames. I have assumed the latter. Now Ethan has been placed in this group.
  • The second group is the second oldest group. These are all people who are sure they are related to each other by the Hartley surnames. However, the Hartley connections are quite old. The connections could go back to the 1400’s or earlier.
  • Finally, there are the next two branches off of A11134. The first branch is a group who descend from an early Quaker Hartley who moved from England to Pennsylvania ostensibly to get away from persecution in NE Lancashire England.
  • The last two testers are my brother and myself. We would have the newest branch. Our ancestors were from Trawden, Lancashire.

The FTDNA Time Tree

I have taken the FTDNA Time Tree and added a few notes:

First, I do not think that Ethan will end up as A11132. It is more likely that he will be in the A11134 group with the rest of the Hartleys.

Running Ethan through SAPP

SAPP is a program that automatically makes a tree using STR data. This program was develped by David Vance. First the STR data goes into a text file:

This is just part of the data from the tribe of DNA Hartleys that I belong to. Ethan’s data is first. The third kit (Time) must be for 37 STRs as there are fewer STRs. I omitted a few kits that were less than 37 STRs. That left 14 Hartleys in the group.

When I run SAPP, I get a lot of information:

In my first email back from Michelle, she noted that Ethan had a value of 11 for STR 511. This is shown in the top right of the image above.

The last chart on the first page of the SAPP analysis has this:

This chart gives genetic distance corrected for differences in the level of STR testing. To find Ethan’s Genetic Distance one could look etiher at the second column or second row. Looking down the secon column , we see in the note that results with different colors are different level of tests. I believe that green is 37 STRs and brown is 67 STRs. What I see is that Ethan is not closely related to any of the 37 or above STR testers in our Hartley group. This is consistant with what I have seen in the past. What this says to me is that there were a lot of Hartleys a long time ago and they all had separate lines that were not closely related to each other.

Here is the SAPP Tree:

This is small and difficult to read. Here are a few initial observations:

  • Testers are indicated in yellow. So, for example, the yeloow tester at the top left of the tree is current day as are all the other yellow testers.
  • This tree was created withouth knowledge of SNPs and the solid branching that they create. So, in cases where the STR tree conflicts with the SNP tree, the SNP tree is the right answer
  • There is a way to add SNP infomration to this tree, but I have not done that here
  • The tree shows four major branches. The person in his own branch is Mervin

I can see at least one problem right away:

There are three in the Quaker Hartleys of Pennsylvania. The kit starting with 617 belongs with the other two Hartleys with Quaker roots in Pennsylvania. This problem would have been solved had I added the YDNA Branch name to SAPP.

Also, in this initial run, Ethat is in Node #19 with Mawdsley. This is interesting as this is where Ethan was placed on the Hartley YDNA Project. (See the first image in the Blog.)

SAPP Tree with SNP Data

I look at a David Vance video to figure out how to do this:

I need to add SNP data for people.

Here if there was a hartley that did not test for SNPs, I gave a question mark which says perhaps they are A11134.

The first page of analysis gives a new chart which points out a mistake I made:

I put in the Mawdsley kit number twice. I’ll just fix that.

I ran it again:

Now the results are correct for Mawdsley, but wrong for Ethan. I don’t want to show Ethan positive for A11134 as I do not yet know that. My Blogs would be shorter is I took out my mistakes. However, I am hoping that my mistakes are instructive:

Now that this chart looks the way I want it to, I will push the SAPP Tree button:

This tree looks quite different. There are now three branches. A few comments:

  • This does not take into account that the Hartley YDNA Administrator believes that most of the Hartleys who have not done the BigY are A11134.term
  • This also does not take into account the fact of the common Hartley surname for most testers.
  • The program still wants to put Ethan with Mawdsley. I would tend to disagree with this, but we will see when the BigY results come out.
  • Mervin shows in his own branch. I would tend to disagree with that also.

I see one additional thing that could help. In one of my previous Blogs on Hartley SAPP trees, I used an asterix after the SNP to indicate the current  terminal SNP:

This gives some clarity for the three BigY testers who tested as A11134. Unfortunately, that did not change the results. In my previous Blog on the subject, I kept in the two Hartleys that only tested 12 SNPs. Perhaps I should add them back in, as I got better reults last time.

I tried adding them back, but that had no effect on the tree.

Possible BigY Outcomes for Ethan

Here is my Block tree:

  • If Ethan is truly related to Mawdsley, he may form a new branch under A11132
  • Ethan my show as A11134 and result in no change to the Hartley YDNA Tree. That would mean that he would form another parallel branch with Channon, John N., an Steve
  • Ethan may have a SNP in common with one of the testers in A11134 and form a new branch under that SNP.

The Wolka Connection

Ethan’s closest match at 111 STRs is Wolka:

The Genetic Distance [GD] between Ethan and Wolka is 3. This is by far Ethan’s closest 111 STR match. Ethan’s next closest match is with Steve at a GD of 7. Wolka has many other Hartley matches. The assumption is that this particular Wolka male line goes back to a Hartley Line at some point. Unfortunately, not much is known about this tester’s genealogy. It may be assumed that that the terminal SNP that Ethan tests positive for will likely apply to Wolka also.

As a side note, Ethan is Mawdsley’s closest STR match at a GD of 8. Mawdsley’s next match is Wolka at a GD of 9.

Here is FTDNA’s time predictor for a GD of 3 at 111 STRs:

This means that the likely date for the common ancestor between Ethan and Wolka is around 1750.

Summary and Conclusions

  • There is a new Hartley BigY tester However, so far, only his STR results are in
  • The Hartley YDNA Project administrtor has grouped Ethan with Mawdsley
  • My previous understanding was that the connection between Mawdsley and Hartley go back before the time of surnames.
  • I tried using the SAPP Program on Ethan’s STR results, but I was not satisfied with the results compared to my understanding of Hartley YDNA at this point
  • STRs are very difficult to analyze and interpret. In constrast, SNPs tend to give more straightforward answers
  • It will be interesting to see if Ethan’s BigY test creates a change in the YDNA tree of man and specifically in the Hartley part of the YDNA tree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

A Deeper Dive into the Review of A11134 Using BAMsAway

My Haplogroup is A11134. I share that group with 7 people of Hartley Surname (though one changed his name to Hartley, partly as a result of the testing). An 8th BigY tester in the A11134 group has Nutter heritage. His is the most recent results. Here is where Nutter is under A11134 in the lower right below. This shows he shares A11134 with two other Hartleys

My previous analysis of Nutter’s results and other Hartley results has left me with some questions that I would like to look into further. Previously, I had been working on this list of Variants:

BAMsAway

This is a Chrome Browser extension that looks into positions on the YDNA BigY test that FTDNA may not provide information on. Recently, I was looking at Nutter’s Private Variant with Position number 5672076. It appeared from my download that FTDNA had not tested that location for me. However, using BAMsAway, I see this for that position looking at my results:

This shows that clearly I was negative at this position. While I’m at it, I’ll check all my Variants that I previously thought were not covered by my test:

I’m not so concerned about the last three testers, as I know more about their genealogy back to the 1600’s. However, the first two positions that I checked were clearly negative, so that is a good sign.

6906758

This position is interesting as Nutter showed that this was one of his Private Variants at YFull based on his non-FTDNA testing. I show negative for the Variant:

Here is what Nutter’s results show:

I am not sure why Nutter’s results did not show this as a Private Variant at FTDNA. This may be something to look into further.

BAMsAway ‘No Reads Found’ at 13807922

Here is the first Variant that I looked up with no reads found:

Here is how the Browser displays:

However, the position number does not show. I suppose this would make sense if there were no reads. I showed this result in blue on my spreadsheet:

 

I had previously shown this as not tested and ‘no reads found’ is the same thing. This is the first BAMsAway result that confirms what I thought to be the case previously. Here is what Nutter shows at that position:

Here there were only 2 good reads. Many assume that 10 good reads are needed by FTDNA, so this Position has some logic to not being a Private Variant for Nutter.

My Results Adjusted by BAMsAway

Out of 10 positions I showed Not Tested, 8 of those were tested and found negative. 2 of those positions were actually no reads (or not tested). Those two Positions corresponded with Nutter’s Private Variants at YFull which were not considered Private Variants by FTDNA. When I check Nutter’s Position 19374424, I see that there were no reads at FTDNA:

I am thankful to David Vance at the L513 Facebook Page who steered me to BAMsAway.

Updating My Brother’s Results

My guess is that my brother’s BigY BAMsAway results should be similar to mine. After some copying and pasting into BAMsAway, I get these results for Jim:

For Position #13669903, BAMsAway confirms that Jim only had one read (but that was a negative for the Variant).

Updating Steve’s Results

FTDNA shows that Steve has 5 Private Variants:

The arrow points to the BAMsAway extension for the FTDNA Chromosome Browser. When I choose the extension a popup asks me to add the new SNP name or position:

When I do that, a new position is added to Steve’s list of Private Variants:

I choose the user added position to get this:

This shows that Steve is clearly negative for this Variant. He has no mutation from ‘T’. Here are Steve’s results:

This gives clarity to show that Steve is negative for other A11134 testers’ Private Variants. He gets a No Read for 19374424. This is apparently in a difficult to read portion of the Y Chromosome.

John N’s Results

So far, my chart is shaping up well. John has four Private Variants.

I gave John N a questionable for 13807922 as he had only 4 reads. However, they were all negative. I would say negative. John N also has no reads for 19374424.

Summary of Steve, John N and Nutter

These are the three who tested postive for A11134, but did not form a branch below that level. My major question is why Nutter does not have a Private Variant at 6906758. I will likely write to FTDNA to ask why. I had previously checked Nutter’s results to make sure that he was negative for the 7 SNPs in my Haplogroup. Those are the 7 SNPs at the end of the list above.

Michael, Lawrence and John R

These three BigY testers are in a separate genealogical group that I call the Quaker Line of Hartleys. The ancestor of this group escaped persecution in Lancashire, England and came to Quaker-friendly Pennsylvania around the year 1700. The genealogy of this group can be traced to some time in the 1600’s.

Because I had added NTs or Not Tested to their list based on their incomplete downloadable files, I would like to correct that information using the BAMsAway extension. That will corrrect my comparison chart of Private Variants.

Lawrence and Position 7153793

One of the first interesting results is for Lawrence in position 7153793:

Lawrence has three positive reads for this position. I could argue that this result should form a new branch of ‘Quaker’ Hartleys. YBrowse has two SNPs for this position, but the first is a G to C mutation where Lawrence has a G to A mutation:

The second SNP is listed twice for some reason, but has the G to A mutation:

My feeling is that Lawrence should be in a new Branch called MF205420. This is also consistant with the genealogy:

John and Lawrence share a branch. However, Michael would have to be negative for this Variant for this to be a true Branch separate from John and Lawrence. Michael had an older test:

His test did not cover that position. That means that it is not clear whether MF205420 would apply to all three testers or just two. So this is a case where there should be an extra SNP, but it is not clear where it belongs.

Here is the end of what I looked up for Lawrence:

I indicated in the notes that Lawrence had 3 positive reads. For 13807922, Lawrence had 2 negative reads which would be expected.

John R’s BAMsAway Results

I have five more NTs to get rid of. There were no surprises with this recent BigY test:

This is what I have so far. It was interesting to look at the results. You don’t know whwat you will find until you look. It would be interesting (but take a little work) to fill in the rest of the blanks.

More on Lawrence

Larwence has 6 Private Variants:

Here I filled in the rest of Lawrence’s blanks including the SNPs from my branch of Hartleys:

 

 

Quaker Line Michael

Michael took the older BigY500 test. I had missed one of his Private Variants last time, so I will add that in:

Michael may find more Private Variants if he updates to BigY700.

Michael had 2 negative reads for one of Lawrence’s Private Variants. He also had no reads for two of my Branch’s newer SNPs which makes sense.

John R’s Results Completes the Quaker Hartley Analysis

  • Here we see the difference between Michael’s BigY500 test and Lawrence and John R’s BigY700 test. Michael has many more ‘no reads’.
  • Where there is more than one B? in a row, my note at the end is ambiguous
  • I probably should have had different colors for the B? designation depending on whether the low read was positive or negative.
  • Some results are more important than others. For example, the results within the Hartley Quaker Group is more important than comparing the Hartley Quaker Group with the non-Quaker Group as we know that those two are not closely related by genealogy.

Filling In Nutter

I did see one unexpected result here:

Nutter had 7 positive reads for a Private Variant that John R in the Hartley Quaker Group had. I made the notation withing the cell and added that the mutation was G to A. Here is what John R shows:

That means that it looks like John R’s Private Variant is not really Private. That is why it pays to look at each of these positions.

MF205420

This Position describes MF205420 which I mentioned above. Apparently, this could be another Hartley-wide Variant. Now I want to see the results for the other Hartley BigY testers. Here it looks like I have found a new Hartley SNP:

However, to be sure, I need to go upstream one level to Mawdsley:

He has 9 negative reads for this position. What that means is that John R’s Private Variant of 7153793 should actually be SNP MF205420 in the A11134 Hartley Group:

Here I have pointed to where MF205420 should be added. Here John R had at least 10 reads, so the 10 read rule came into play:

I just need to convince FTDNA to add MF205420 to the Hartley Group. MF is apparently the designation for a Chinese Company. So far, it has paid off to look at all these positions.

Filling in John N’s Blanks

I don’t see any surprises here:

Filling in Steve’s Blanks

No surprises here.

Joel and Jim

Any difference between these two brothers should be from testing coverage.

It doesn’t look like a lot, but it took a while to get all this information. The two recommendations are noted in yellow in the Note Column. The yellow BY is the same as the Y for the last 7 SNPs in the list. The BNR is equivalent to what I thought I was getting in my previous list where I had NT for Not Tested.

 

Summary and Conclusions

  • I had tried to do an analysis of A11134 BigY testers using downloadable files. However, the results were confusing and I found out that these files are not complete.
  • I used BAMsAway and found the complete picture
  • From my analysis, Nutter needs one more Private Variant than he has.
  • Also, the A1134 should have one more SNP in it’s group for a total of three SNPs. The new SNP would be MF205420. That SNP is now a Private SNP that John R has from the Quaker Hartley group. However, 5 other testers who had reads all had positive reads for that SNP (though below what FTDNA usually finds adequate).

 

 

Posted on

A New A11134 BigY Test Results: Nutter

The long awaited Nutter BigY test results came in. As expected by previous testing, he is A1134. The tester’s name is not Nutter but changed along the way at some point. I will call the tester Nutter or Michael for privacy reasons. Here is my list of BigY Matches:

After my brother, the new tester, Michael, is my next match. This may or may not be significant. the listing is based on the number of Non-Matching Variants. I have fewer Non-Matching Variants with Michael (other than with my brother) than with other BigY testers. I will be looking at Variants in greater detail later in this Blog.

I and my brother are fifth and sixth on Michael’s match list. The first 7 testers on the list are Hartleys (other than Michael). After that, there are other surnames. This indicates to me that Michael’s ancestors were likely Hartleys at some point in history. Tester #8 on the list Mawdsley and those after likely have a common ancestor before the time of surnames. Also Mawdsley and others have an earlier Haplogroup than the first 7 testers.

Michael in the Block Tree

One way that FTDNA shows test results is in a Block Tree. Here is the Block Tree from Michael’s viewpoint:

The part that says ‘Your Branch’ actually has three people in it: Nutter plus two of his Hartley matches.

I didn’t show that part of the Block Tree that has Mawdsley. He is further to the right under A11132. This shows that:

  • Michael is the only Nutter under A11134
  • My branch of FT225247 on the left has 7 variants under A11134
  • There are 4 variants under A16717
  • Under Michael’s branch there are 3 Private Variants on average
  • The people in the bottom block represent now. That means the time back to the A11134 should be about the same for each of the three branches above.

Michael’s Private Variants

Why are these important? These represent Michael’s Line since the common ancestor of the A11134 group that he is in. Above, note that those in Michael’s group have an average of 3 Private Variants. However, right now, Michael’s results show that he has two Private Variants.

These two Private Variants show as numbers which are position numbers on the YDNA. So far, no one in the world has tested positive for these two positions. Once a match is found to one of these two Positions, they will form a new branch of mankind. This would be a branch that is likely in common with the Nutter name.

Position 15646418

This position is already in YBrowse. That is probably from when Michael tested with another company.

That SNP is named Y354187. The Y designation is from YFull.

YFull gave this SNP a name when Michael uploaded his results there last year.

5672076

I suspect the same is true for 5672076. This SNP is called Y354148:

Comparing Michaels Results with Other A11134 Testers

This part may get a bit boring, but it is necessary. There is only one way to match with another tester. However, there are different ways to not match:

  • One tests postive and one test negative for a SNP
  • One test positive and another’s test does not cover that SNP
  • One tests negative and another’s test does not cover that SNP

Then there are incomplete test results which further complicate matter. Usually there need to be about 10 reads to have a good test result. If there are less than 10 reads or some reads are positive and some are negative, you get into a grey area.

Here is what I have so far in comparing Private Variants:

This shows who tested for what:

  • Y means positive
  • N means negative
  • NT means the test did not cover that position
  • ? means inconclusive

Above, Joel and Jim are A11134 > FT225247; Steve, John N. and Nutter are A11134 and Michael, Lawrence and John R. are A11134 > A16717. I am not sure what the blanks mean.

Here I’ve added a column for Nutter’s FTDNA results as the previous column was for his other test. I was already tracking SNPs Y354148 and Y354187 which I mentioned above. I would also like to add the SNPs in my branch as there are so many.

Here I have shown that Nutter has none of the 7 SNPs in the branch of Hartleys that my brother and I share. Next I went through the Private Variants of the other BigY Testers and checked to see if Michael tested positive for any of those Private Variants:

This shows that Nutter did not test positive for any of the other testers’ Private Variants. For example here is Nutter’s results for 11071280 which was one of Steve’s Private Variants:

Because Nutter’s Genotype is the same as the Reference, that means that Nutter is ancestral or not positive for that Variant. It is confusing, because these results were found in a download called Derived Variants (which is the opposite of Ancestral Variants).

What this means is that no new branches should be formed based on Private Variants. If my analysis was correct above, it also indicates that none of the other 7 Hartley tests covered the Nutter Private Variants. Nutter should have on average 4 Private Variants, so the two that he has are probably right. That means that the Nutter line had mutations about twice as slowly as the average. On the other hand, my Harltey Branch had 7 mutations during the same time period with mutations about as twice as fast as average.

A11134 Time Tree

Nutter is not yet on the FTDNA Time Tree. That Tree estimates that A11134 formed around the year 1450:

Hartley Branches under that formed at a later date. For example, FTDNA says that A16717 formed around 1650:

This date follows closely the genealogy of this branch:

These are the YDNA testers under A16717.

 

It would stand to reason, that other Hartley Branches formed around the same time as A16717 in the 1600s:

I drew an arrow to FT225127 where my brother and I and two other Hartley Lines are. The Nutter Line will be added in that same area.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The new Nutter BigY test shows that he is in the A11134 Branch, a Branch formerly held only by Hartleys
  • Nutter has two Private Variants which defines his own private line
  • Nutter forms a fifth branch under A11134. However, three of these branches are not named yet and won’t be named until they get matches withing those branches
  • My guess is that these branches formed in the 1600’s and represent an explosion of the Hartley surname
  • My interpretation is that this Nutter tester had a Hartley ancestor probably in the 1600’s.
  • The next step is to see the Nutter BigY results added to the FTDNA Time Tree. I don’t know if those results will make a change to the date of A11134.

 

Posted on

New YTree Changes at YFull for Hartley, Smith and Nutter at A11138

I was informed recently by a person with Nutter surname heritage that there were some changes at YFull in my area of the YDNA Tree. Here is the current YTree:

YF00890 is Smith. YF106096 is Nutter and the last two ID numbers are my brother and me.  When I press the live button on the tree, I get this:

This is how the YTree looked for A11132 late last year:

This just included Nutter and myself. This must have changed when I added my brother’s kit. Notice that this had a formed date and a TMRCA. Last year’s formed date of 1700 ybp seems way off as that would be roughly the year 300 AD. Here is what FTDNA has:

Changes under A11132

First, I will look at changes under my branch. It makes sense that I would be under a new branch by adding my brother. At FTDNA, that branch is called FT225247. At YFull it is called A11136. What the A11132 tree is telling me that my brother and I share all the SNPs under A11132. They are:

  • A11132
  • A11134
  • A16716
  • A11135
  • A11137
  • A11140

It also tells me that we don’t share:

  • A11133
  • A11136
  • A11129
  • A11130

This is consistant with Variants that my brother and I have under FT225247:

 

The difference is that the Mawdsley BigY tester does not have his results posted at YFull. He is the one that split the previous A11132 into A11132 and A11134. As Nutter tested positive for A11134 and A11135, he would be A11134 also.

A11138 to Y82274

Mr. Smith who was in the former A11138 group would be better positioned to do this analysis, but I’ll see what I can see from my viewpoint. Here is the present (non-Live) view of the YTree:

This shows that Mr. Smith with the low ID# shares his group now with two new memebers. One member appears to be from Australia or have ancestors from Australia. The Tree shows that A11138 has three SNPs:

  • A11138
  • FT22040
  • MF205420

This is interesting because A11138 used to be in it’s own group of one.

Here is the new designation under the ‘Live’ Tree:

Now Mr. Smith is under Y82274 (which is under A11138) and the new testers are under Y82274 at Y445810. Mr. Smith’s Y82274 appears to have 19 SNPs, so would be quite old. Y445810 is in a group of 4 SNPs, so would be younger. These new testers must have not tested at FTDNA as they do not show up there. So, as I was writing this Blog, Mr. Smith who was previously A11138, got pulled down to Y82274, then the two new testers were more closely relataed to each other. They left Mr. Smith at Y82274 and moved down to the newer Y445810. The next step is for YFull to come up with TMRCA numbers. Most people greatly appreciate having those dates. This is one case where YFull has more testers directly under this branch of A11138 than FTDNA has, so their estimates should be more acccurate.

As there are four SNPs in Y445810, that could indicate that SNP is from around the 1600’s. However, it may be earlier if the two new testers have private variants. My guess is that there will be little difference between the date of A11138 and Y82274. YFull previously had A11138 around the 350AD and FTDNA has it at around the year 500AD.

Why So Many SNPs for Y82274?

Or, the question could be, why does Smith have so many SNPs now? My guess is that is because he took the older BigY500 test. This test covered less of the Y Chromosome compared to the newer testing. When the new testers tested, it was clear that they shared many of their SNPs with Smith. Under the older testing at FTDNA, Smith had 11 Private Variants since A11138:

Now, he is showing 20 SNPs at YFull:

In addition, Mr Smith likely has Private Variants in parallel with the 4 extra variants that the new testers have. That means that as a result of the new testing, Mr. Smith’s Variants have about doubled.

Summary and Conclusions

  • R-A11138 is under a state of flux due to two new testers
  • A11138 used to be held by Mr. Smith. He is now at one level down at Y82274.
  • The two new testers are one level below Y82274 at SNP Y445810.
  • YFull has not come out with new date estimates for A11138, Y82274 and Y445810. This will be important as the new testers are not at FTDNA.
  • My brother and I are now shown as A11138. However, FTDNA has many more teseters in this area. That means that their tree and dating should be much more accurate than what YFull has.