Category: YDNA

Posted on

A Fourth U106 Whitson BigY Test

A new BigY test is in for Pete’s brother Patrick. In my previous Blog on Whitson U106 YDNA, I was hoping that Patrick would answer some of the questions we had on previous testing in this area. Right now I don’t see any differences between the old Block tree and the new one. Here is the old one:

This shows Pete matching Tom and Norton under a block called R-FT137411. This block contains 23 SNPs. Here is the new Block Tree from the viewpoint of Patrick:

The only difference appears to be that there are now four in this group. I also see that the average number of Private Variants for R-BY62217 has gone down by one for some reason.

According to SNP Tracker, BY62217 appears to have stayed in Germany:

The Whitson Group headed over to England at some time during the Medieval Period:

Private Variants and Non-Matching Variants

The question that came up previously in my blogs on the U106 Whitsons was why were there so few Private Variants. The common ancestors between Pete (and his brother Patrick) and Norton is in the 1800’s. The common ancestor between Pete and Tom was in the 1700’s. Between the four of them, there was only one Private Variant with Norton. FTDNA normally pulls from the the Private Variants for new branches. However, new branches also require matching with someone else. With only one Private Variant, there could be no matching.

That is when I started looking at the Non-Matching Variants. My understanding is that these could be there due to testing in non-reliable regions of YDNA or incomplete test resutls. In my previous Blog, I came up with this chart for Non-Matching Variants between the three testers:

However, looking at this now brings up some questions. Norton had a private variant at 5014418. This is an unnamed variant. I think that Private Variants are generally unnamed locations. However, it seemed like Pete should have two named private Variants at BY44298 and BY55572. Further, if Patrick is positive for these two SNPs I would think that Pete and Patrick would be on a new branch for these two SNPs.

Patrick’s Results: BY44298 and BY55572

Here is what Patrick shows for BY55298:

This shows that the results for Patrick were not conclusive:

Patrick had only one read and it didn’t show a mutation. That was unfortunate, as it is likely that Patrick, as Pete’s brother, should have the same mutation for BY44298.

Next, I look at BY55572:

Again, there is a similar situation:

These two SNPs are in close proximity to each other on the Y Chromosome. However, I don’t know which regiosn are troublesome vs. easy to read. Here is Pat on my spreadsheet:

I think that if the test was better, then it should have shown Pat positive for these two SNPs.

In additions, Pat shows very little in the way of non-matching variants:

Patrick’s only Non-Matching Variant was Norton’s Private Variant.

Patrick’s Results for the Previous Non-Matching Variants

Next, I can fill in the rest of my Excel Spreadsheet for Patrick:

Where NT means not tested. That means that these are disapppointing results. Pete and Norton got results for all the SNPs on the list Tom had results for two SNPs.. Patrick had results for none of the SNPs. Most of the ? results only had one read. I was hoping that Patrick would have matches to many of Pete’s non-matching variants. Logic would dictate that Pete and Patrick should have most if not all the same variants as they are brothers.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Previous testing has shown that Pete was positive for 10 SNPs that Norton was negative for
  • Subsequent testing showed that Tom was negative for two of those SNPs and had inconclusive test results for the other eight. However, there has to be two people positive for a SNP for a new branch to form
  • When Pete’s brother Patrick tested, I had thought that he would have matching SNPs with Pete which would form a new YDNA Branch. However, Patrick’s results were inconclusive for 8 of his SNPs that Pete was positive for and for two, that region of YDNA was not covered.
  • With the information I have seen, the Whitson Block tree may remain the same. However, it is possible that the manual review has not been completed and FTDNA may see more detailed information from the test results which could shed some more light and give a new branch for Pete and Patrick. If the manual review is done, I would recommend asking why Tom and Patrick’s results did not cover the important Non-Matching Variants between Pete and Norton. I don’t know if Pete and Norton just had really good results or if Tom and Patrick had unusually bad test results.
Posted on

More on Mayflower White YDNA

In my previous Blog on Mayflower White YDNA, I was surprised to find out that my friend’s YDNA test supported his direct descent from William White of the Mayflower. My friend always believed that he was descended from William White, but most recent genealogical scholarship seemed to put that into doubt due to an illegitimacy in his White line in early Plymouth Colony hisory. In this Blog I would like to see if I could find out any more about my friend’s Mayflower YDNA. He took the 37 STR test which is what I recommended. I had recommended that as it would have been enough to show that he didn’t match other Mayflower Whites. As it turned out, his test showed that he matched almost all Whites and one White who had a proven ancestry back to William White of the Mayflower.

Predicting the Mayflower White YDNA Haplogroup

The easiest way to predict the Mayflower White YDNA Haplogroup would be to join the R1b – All Subclades FTDNA YDNA Project and have them figure it out. I joined my friend to this group, but it is a large group, so difficult to figure out on my own where he would belong based on his limited test. My friend is R-M269 which is one of the most popular Haplogroups for Northwestern Europeans – sometimes referred to as Northern Atlantic Europeans. I joined my friend to the R1b – All Subclades Group, but it could be a while before his is put in a more specific Haplogroup. Here is the tip of the iceburg view for R1b:

M269 is near the top of this tree in the pink or red area. My own Hartley YDNA is somewhere on the bottom left in the green area under L21. I am also under L513 which has its own group and two page tree. When I say this is a large group, there are over 26,000 members. That means that to download the results takes a long time. The results go out to 111 STRs, so that means about 3 million bits of information.

One cut is whether my friend is L21 or U106, or actually P312 or U106. According to ISOGG:

Here is what my friend has for DYS390:

That looks like R-P312 so far.

Hmm, split decision.

CDYa is 37, so that favors U106. The difference between P312 and U106 is that P312 is believed to be an older YDNA from Great Britain and U102 would be from the Anglo Saxons who were originally from Germany. The name England comes from Anglo. While Britain refects the earlier P312 people. Here is a map showing where the Britons and Saxons were around the year 600:

Here is some more information:

Of the three markers, it appears that DYS390 is the most important and that would more likely put my White friend in R-P312.

YSEQ Predictor

I tried this predictor:

I downloaded the White YDN37 STRs and put them here and got these results:

This seems to be getting somewhere. My Mayflower White desendant friend is pretty sure to be R1b-DF49. The YSEQ site also has this map:

The good news is that there are fewer than 1,000 members in the DF49 FTDNA Haplogroup Project:

I was able to find DF49 on the ‘iceburg’ tree above. Here is a closeup of the L21 section of that tree:

My Hartley YDNA is under L513 in the bottom left. That is a pretty big group which has two pages of trees now. My White friend appears to be under DF49 which is under Z3+589. If this is right, that puts White under the older British people (vs the newer Anglo Saxons).

Dating Mayflower STRs

Dating these STRs is not a precise science. In the YSEQ map above DF49 is shown at 2500 BC. in the green tree above, its predecessor L21 is shown at 2300 BC, but that is in the ball park. The point is that the M269 which is what my Mayflower friend and his proven match show are actually DF49. That brings them from about 4500 BC to around 2500 BC:

That’s an improvement of about 2,000 years.

Here is some further branching for DF49:

Mayflower White is DF49 > M222?

Based on the YSEQ Haplogroup Predictor, Mayflower White is DF49. I found this at mayflowerdna.org:

From this aricle, a different predictor was used (the Nevgen.org R1b clade predictor). This Predictor came up with the M222 which is five SNPs under DF49. I don’t necessarily agree with the stated view above that the White family came from Ireland and Scotland. I don’t think that conclusion is supported by the YDNA testing. That article had this footnote which I could not find:

This article probably refers to the person at the Mayflower YDNA FTDNA Project who is listed as a proven Mayflower descendant.

M222

FTDNA also has an M222 Haplogroup Project:

This group is larger than its parent DF49. I like trees and the one they have at the M222 Project Page:

This brings us into Roman times (100 BC). However, there is some confusion on the dating. This branching is determined by BigY testing which has not been done yet for the Mayflower White families. Not all branches are created equal. There are six branches. The most popular is S658 on the right. This is good news as it brings the Mayflower Whites from 4500 BC to 100 BC, an improvement of about 4500 years. The tree above is also called a tip of the iceburg chart as not all the branches are shown.

M222 and STRs

The “About Us” Page for the FTDNA M222 Project says this:

THE MODAL STR VALUES THAT COLLECTIVELY INDICATE R-M222 STATUS

DYS390 = 25
DYS385b = 13
DYS392 = 14
DYS448 = 18
DYS449 = 30
DYS464 = 15-16-16-17
DYS456 = 17
DYS607 = 16
DYS413 = 21-23
DYS534 = 16
DYS481 = 25
DYS714 = 24

In some to most cases the first three STRs in the list above are adequate to establish possible membership in this group. If you have at least two of those three values and differ by only one at the mismatching marker, you may (though not certainly) a member of the R-M222 Haplogroup. A SNP test for the R-M222 marker could establish firmly.  If you are uncertain about whether you belong to Haplogroup R-M222, please contact a project administrator for advice.

My friend Gary has:

  • DYS390 = 24
  • DYS385b = 13
  • DYS392 = 15

This is interesting because Gary has only one out of three of the STRs that are supposed to define M222. Further:

  • DYS448 = 18
  • DYS449 = 30
  • DYS464 = 16-16-16-17
    DYS456 = 17
    DYS607 = 15

I bolded the values where Gary matches what would be expected of someone with M222. The additional STRs must be in the 67 STR test.

I added this kit to the M222 FTDNA Project:

The administroators think that my friend is M222 but would like him to take the BigY test to be sure and place him in the appropriate subgroup.

The White Family FTDNA YDNA Project

I added Gary to this group:

Gary is on the bottom line. He has no colored results which means he has no variations from the mode. This was discussed also in my previous Blog. The other confirmed Mayflower descendant has not joined the White Family FTDNA Project, so his results do not show there. Here is the caption for this small group of Whites:

It appears that these two other White testers with roots in Vermont may also go back to William White of the Mayflower.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Based on the YSEQ Haplogroup Predictor, my Mayflower White descendant is in the Haplogroup of DF49
  • This group is about 4500 years old and represents the older Britannic inhabitants of the present-day United Kingdom
  • I found one web site which linked the William White Line to M222 which is the largest group under DF49.
  • Based on my friend’s close STR match with a proven William White Mayflower descendant, that proven descendant must also be M222.
  • If these two were to do additional YDNA testing – especially the BigY 700 test, they would likely get their YDNA Haplogroup into the genealogical timeframe.
Posted on

My Mom’s Lentz Family and Roberta Estes’ Lentz Family

Roberta Estes has blogged about her Lentz family. I have also blogged about my Lentz family. Roberta and I have checked to see if there was an autosomal DNA match between our two families, but we were unable to find any significant match. Recently, in checking my 23andMe results, it seems like there may be a way to see if we are related by YDNA.

My Mom’s Lentz Family YDNA

I have tested my DNA at 23andMe and have a few Lentz matches there. One good thing about 23andMe is that when you take an autosomal test, they also give you a rough estimate of your YDNA haplogroup. I have has two Lentz matches at 23andMe who are brothers. They both have this Haplogroup:

I’ve sent off messages to the two brothers. I don’t know exactly how we are related, but based on the size of the autosomal DNA match and where they live, my guess is that our common ancestors must be Jacob George Lentz and Annie Nicholson:

I don’t have record of William Lentz born 1892 as having any sons. William did have a brother named Stanley who had sons, so that may be where the two matches fit in. At any rate, their YDNA would go up through the Lentz side.

What is R-Y4355?

I would expect that 23andMe has an accurate haplogroup though not recent. Here is what YFull has on Y4355:

Above the tree, YFull gives the YDNA Line for this branch of Lentz back to Genetic Adam (listed as Home). This shows that Y4355 is about 4200 years old, so fairly old. I recognize R-U152 in that line as a major branch.

Roberta Estes’ Lentz YDNA

Here is what Roberta has in one of her Blogs:

Roberta has invested in the Big Y test for her Lentz relatives, so this is likely to be extremely accurate and fairly recent. YFull does not have BY39280, but has some information on KMS75:

Actually KMS75 is listed as +1SNPs above. The equivalent at YFull is Y20993 which was formed 4800 years ago. So this particular SNP is not that recent. BY39280 would be more recent but perhaps not by much.

The Short Answer

I would say that based on the 23andMe Haplogroup and the work that Roberta has done, these two families are not related. The common ancestor is R-L23 which was formed 6400 years before present. I’ll draw a tree for the two Lentz families:

I would have thought that Roberta’s Lentz Line would be longer, but it must be an older branch or a branch with less branching in it. So from the top of the tree to the bottom is about 2,000 years, but we still have about 4,000 years to get to the useful genealogical time.

Here is an R1b Tree:

I have an arrow pointing to where my Mom’s Lentz family and Roberta’s Lentz family split. The split goes to Western Altantic for my Mom’s Lentz family and Eastern for Roberta’s Lentz family. Interesting. U152 is a major branch. U152 begins below the ‘ic’ of Atlantic. Checking the YDNA was pretty easy. That concludes the YDNA part of the Blog. Next I’ll add my Lentz autosomal DNA to DNAPainter

Adding Lentz DNA to DNAPainter

I can add the autosomal DNA to DNA Painter for the two Lentz matches I have at 23andMe. Here is one match added to my Lentz/Nicholson common ancestors:

Jereme adds important DNA that I didn’t know about before. I didn’t have any DNA from these two common ancestors previously on Chromosomes 2, 3, 4 and 15. I have less of a match with Jereme’s brother Will:

I’ll paint in Will also even though he doesn’t add new information. Jereme matches me by 95 cM compared to Will’s 72 cM.

Jereme and Will upped my percentage of maternal mapped DNA from 30 to 32%. That is a significant jump at this stage of mapping:

Here is the maternal and paternal side:

I changed Lentz/Nicholson to a sort of pea green because it was the same blue as Clarke on my paternal side. I now have 41% DNA painted overall. I assume that this went up although I didn’t check to see what it was previously.

Summary and Conclusions

  • 23andMe has a useful feature that predicts your YDNA Haplogroup at no extra charge.
  • This feature can be used to see if you are related to male relatives of the same surname. In this case, I was related to two Lentz brothers with a predicted haplogroup. Roberta Estes had Lentz relatives tested for YDNA resulting in a known Haplogroup. I checked on Roberta’s Lentz relative’s YDNA haplogroup and it didn’t match up with my Lentz relative’s Haplogroup. I then found the common Haplogroup for the two Lentz families. The common haplogroup was over 6,000 years old.
  • It would be interesting to see if this could be used in other situations.
  • This Blog was short so I painted the autosomal DNA of my Lentz relatives using DNA Painter.

 

 

 

Posted on

Looking at Stuart’s Big Y-700

I told Stuart (his last name for privacy) that I would look at his Big Y-700. I hesitate to write this Blog, because I am not an expert on Big Y-700 and describing the differences between Stuart’s Big Y-500 and Big Y-700 is likely to be difficult. Stuart is not part of the Frazer YDNA Project that I am part of, but he is in a line that has had a common ancestor with the Frazer’s before the Frazer were Frazer’s. I am also interested in learning about the Big Y-700 as none of the Frazer testers have tested to that level yet. That makes Stuart a pioneer in this area of YDNA testing.

Stuart at YFull

Stuart has uploaded his Big Y-700 and previous Big Y-500 results to YFull. This is helpful in giving probable dates on when the different family lines had their origin. In the big picture, Stuart is R1a.

I see one difference already due to Stuart’s Big Y-700 test. Here are Stuart’s pre-Big Y-700 results:

Before, the number of years to Stuart’s common ancestors were lower. Stuart’s common ancestor with my Frazer relatives used to be 700 years ago. Now it is 800 years ago. Stuart’s common ancestor with his closest group of R-BY26344 used to be 225 years ago. Now it is 425 years ago. That has implications as there is a Stuart and a Grant in that group. The obvious implication is that the mixup in names could have happened up to 200 years further back in time than previously thought.

Stuart’s Big Y at FTDNA

Here is the same tree shown as a block tree at FTDNA but only up to the YP6479 level:

The thing I don’t like about the FTDNA tree is that it filters out too much. For example, I had my Frazer cousin tested shown as YF09981 at YFull above, but he doesn’t show as a match to Stuart at FTDNA. FTDNA shows a stingy 4 Big Y matches for Stuart

By comparison, YFull does a better job at matching SNPs and gives Stuart 71 matches:

More is better. My 2nd cousin with the Irish Flag shows correctly above, ahead of Hayes who has a common ancestor with Stuart of 1150 years ago.

Stuart’s Private Variants at FTDNA

Stuart shows an average of 13 Private Variants with his match Grant above. I would expect that Stuart would have more private variants than Grant as the Big Y-700 is supposed to pick up more than the old Big Y test.

 

This is the first page of Stuart’s Private Variants. He has 19 altogether. These Private Variants are shown above as position numbers. Once they find a match in another Big Y tester, they will be given a name. In order for Stuart and Grant to have an average of 13 Private Variants, Grant must have 7 Private Variants. As there are two in this YP6488 group, it would be helpful to have a third Big Y tester. This additional tester should refine the results in make a new branch for Stuart or Grant.

Tie-Breaking Candidates

Here is a group from the R1a Project:

The two testers with the green R-YP6488 results above are the ones who took the Big Y tests. The other two testers with the red R-M512 results would be the best bets for an additional Big Y test to match with the existing 26 Private Variants to form a new YDNA Branch on the tree of all mankind. I note that the one with the ancestor of Arthur Grant has genealogy that goes back the furthest. However, this is still within the 425 year timeframe for the common ancestor. In other words, there could have been an adoption or other name-changing event before the time of 1683 which separated Stuart from Grant.

Stuart At YFull

Stuart has two kits at YFull.

Big Y-500

I assume the shorter numbered kit is the Big Y-500. Here are Stuart’s 3 Private Variants:

 

This shows on Stuart’s original Big Y-500 test, he had one best quality Novel SNP and two that were acceptable. This SNP has two different position numbers based on the old system (HG19) and the new system (HG38). Due to newer technology and new SNPs being found, there had to be a new numbering system. It appears that this Private Variant already has the name of Y14660. However, different companies may have different names.

Here are the other two  private SNPs or Novel SNPs as YFull calls them:

 

They are of Acceptable quality. The last Novel SNP has a check by it:

It says that someone did a single test for this and it came up negative. Apparently the person who tested for this was someone other than Stuart.

Big Y-700

I’m curious to see any differences here.

Here are some huge differences. Now Stuart is up to 13 Best quality Novel SNPs. I can see the checked SNP from the previous Big Y-500. This has moved up from Acceptable to Best Quality.

Note that 6 Novel SNPs are marked as Homologous. I’m not sure what this means. I think it means that there is a SNP in a totally different haplogroup that looks the same.

One other difference is that YFull used the VCF analysis for Stuart’s Big Y-500. I checked the Big Y-500 test I had done for my Frazer cousin and the BAM file was used for that. My understanding is that the BAM file should be the one to use if possible.

Note that at FTDNA, Stuart had 19 Private Variants. At YFull, Stuart has 13 Novel SNPs of best quality and three of acceptable quality. This seems to be due to differences in how FTDNA and YFull choose which SNPs they should use.

Here is the side by side comparison between YFull and FTDNA:

For the YFull list, I only used the best quality list. That means that there were 7 Best Quality SNPs that YFull found that weren’t used by FTDNA.

Upon further review, I see that FTDNA has a second page of SNP Variants:

 

Now the comparison is closer. FTDNA has 19 Private Variants and YFull shows 15 Novel SNPs that match FTDNA’s. YFull has 13 SNPs of best quality and 3 SNPs of acceptable quality. These private SNPs are measuring Stuart’s non-matchedness. In other words, these are SNPs that are waiting to be matched, so that Stuart can form a new YDNA branch.

When I look at SNPs under different categories at YFull, it adds one SNP that FTDNA had. This brings up the importance of YFull. It is not necessarily showing that FTDNA is wrong but gives a second independent opinion to the analysis of the results.

YFull STR Matching

Here are the results of Stuart’s STR Matching at YFull:

When I try to choose Stuart’s old Big Y test, I get no results, so these are based on the more recent Big Y-700 test. The results are interesting, though generally not as precise as SNP results. Stuart’s closest match is correctly with Grant with a distance 0.03. After that, there are two Frazer’s, a Hayes and another Frazer. The last Frazer with the Irish Flag is my 2nd cousin once removed. Clearly the Hayes connection is much further back than the Frazer connection:

Extended STR Matching at FTDNA

This is available, but not in one place like YFull has it:

Here are Stuart’s 111 STR matches. If they have taken the Big Y test, then those results will show also. YFull showed 5 extended results. These are all the Frazer results. The rest of the group can be found at Stuart’s 67 STR match page:

For whatever reason, my second cousin once removed seems to have more than the average number of mutations, or that STRs that changed were the faster moving STRs to begin with.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Based on YFull, Stuart had a large increase of Private Variants or SNPs between his Big Y-500 and Big Y-700 test. Based on the Big Y-500, Stuart had 3 Private SNPs. This went up to 16 Private SNPs with the Big Y-700 test.
  • Stuart’s original YFull analysis was based on his VCF file and his Big Y-700 YFull analysis is based on his BAM file. My understanding is that the BAM analysis is more detailed.
  • Stuarts dates for a common ancestor to his Grant match and to his Frazer matches increased. This is apparently due to the increase of Stuart’s newly found Private SNPs. The more unmatched SNPs you have, the further you have to a common ancestor.
  • The new date for the common ancestor of 425 years before present between Stuart and Grant has genealogical implications. That goes back to before the year 1600. That means that the mixup between Grant and Stuart could go back that long, or it could be that these surnames were less set in stone at that time.
  • I don’t know how to look at Stuart’s old Big Y-500 results at FTDNA. It doesn’t seem like the old results are kept separately like YFull does.

 

 

Posted on

Cousin Rusty’s YDNA – MacFarlane or James?

I recently had an email from my Cousin Rusty. He had received an email from some from a member of a James surname project telling him that he belonged to the James family originating in Wales. I’m sure that was a surprise as Rusty was thinking that due to an Irish adoption and YDNA testing that he was actually a MacFarlane. So which is it?

A Look at Rusty’s Past YDNA Analysis

I had taken a look at Rusty’s YDNA in this Blog in April 2017. That was two years ago. Could things have changed that much in two years? At that time, Rusty had done the 37 STR test and had just upgraded to the 67 STR test.

SNPs and STRs

I had estimated, based on STRs, that Rusty was in the DF63 SNP category. SNPs are important because they define what branch we are on the SNP tree. I further noted that further down on the three was a SNP called BY674:

Under that SNP almost all the people who had taken the Big Y test were either MacFarlanes or MacFarlands. Under BY674 were 13 branches of variations of MacFarlanes. That means that if Rusty tested for these SNPs, he would have a good idea of which branch of MacFarlanes he was from. Of course, this is doing it a bit backwards. It is assuming that Rusty is a MacFarlane first. Technically, it would have been better to do the SNP testing first and then determine that Rusty was a MacFarlane.

A month after my Blog, I got an email from Rusty saying he tested for DF63 and was found to be postive for that.

Rusty’s YDNA 2019

That brings us up to present. Now Rusty is:

That confirms Rusty into the MacFarlane group from the Big Tree above.

The Current Big Tree

Guess what? The Big Tree didn’t get any smaller in the past two years. I take the Big Tree to be pretty authoritative as it is based on the Big Y or equivalent test. This is about the ultimate in YDNA testing and is quite accurate. Here is the entire branching beneath R-BY674:

Previously, there were 13 branches under BY674. Now there are 20. Almost every branch has a MacFarlane or MacFarland. I don’t see any James surnames. Actually there are seven major groups under BY674 and then some additional branching under those 7 groups. The last three people on the right descend directly from BY674 with no sub-groups. I don’t see any James surnames. That means that they don’t belong in this group or none of the James that match Rusty have done the Big Y test.

The flags by the tested people’s names are meant to show where their earliest traceable ancestors of the YDNA-tested people came from. I count 14 Flags from Scotland and 7 from Northern Ireland. Rusty’s known Irish ancestors were from Northern Ireland.

The Lennox Cluster

I had alluded to the Lennox Cluster in my previous Blog on Rusty’s YDNA. Here it is at the Big Tree shown in green:

BY674 takes up about 2/3 of this Lennox Cluster.

Here are the ancient arms of Lennox:

Here is what the FTDNA Lennox, MacFarlane, Leckie – cadet clans of Lennox Page says:

Cadets Lineage.  [Scions of the mormaers/earls of Lennox if not also of their branch the Macfarlane clan chiefs.]  This is our project’s largest lineage (including its sub-lineages) consisting of over one hundred eighty men, several of whom can trace their respective descents from the earls of Lennox via the Macfarlane chiefs through one or another of their cadets.  In a Scottish clan yDNA project the largest lineage found should always be that of the chiefs and their cadets and thus it is in our case even though the House of Lennox consists of three extant clans (Lennox, Macfarlane, & Leckie) rather than just one.  As the Macfarlane chiefs descended from a younger son of the second earl of Lennox those men in this lineage who have agreed to show their cadet house on the yDNA test results page start with “Lennox” for the earls, then “Arrochar” for the chiefs, and then whichever cadets and/or sub-cadets they may belong to such as “Gartartan.”  To appear in this lineage on said page a man must have done some level of yDNA STR testing (12, 25, 37, 67, 111 markers or the Big Y which now includes over 700 markers).  Once his markers (however many) are displayed on our project’s yDNA test results page further applicable testing will be recommended in the most beneficial order: the Big Y; the R1b-DF63 SNP Pack; a single SNP test; upgrading STR markers; and finally the Family Finder.  It has been found that SNP F489 was carried by the Lennox dynasty, and hence the Macfarlane chiefs, therefore every member of this lineage should SNP test for F489 as soon as possible (unless they have already taken the R1b-DF63 SNP Pack or the Big Y).  Furthermore it has been found that SNP BY674 was carried by the Macfarlane chiefs, therefore all the Macfarlane surnamed men of this lineage should SNP test for BY674 as soon as possible (unless they have already taken the R1b-DF63 SNP Pack or the Big Y).  The men who have only tested their yDNA STR markers need to at least take a SNP test as mentioned above or take the R1b-DF63 SNP Pack to confirm that they belong in this lineage.  It is important that as many of these men as possible take the Big Y Next Generation Sequencing SNP test, as this will reveal more details about the ancestry of the mormaers/earls of Lennox and how the various branches descended from them.  Please note that the Big Ycan be ordered without already having taken any previous STR testing but the price is higher to do so. Once they have finished testing their yDNA, as above, they should consider testing their autosomal block DNA via the Family Finder so that we can more accurately define the relationships within this lineage (i.e. branching within the last several generations possibly beyond the reach of the Big Y).  As several of the men of this lineage can trace their respective descents from the Macfarlane chiefs and the earls of Lennox, and all the participants’ yDNA STR test results are very close, it follows that all the men of this lineage must descend from the chiefs and/or their ancestors the mormaers/earls.  [NOTE: Those listed in this lineage who do not bear a variant of the Macfarlane (or Lennox) surname may have come off the line of our chiefs (or the mormaers/earls) before surnames became fixed or from fosterage, adoption, or an extra-marital event.]  And given this descent from the chiefs and/or earls it is critical to House of Lennox and Macfarlane research that all the members of this lineage test as much of their individual yDNA (STRs and SNPs) and autosomal block DNA as they can afford over time.  Once they have completed their own testing we hope that they will consider contributing to our project’s General Fund to help fellow lineage-mates upgrade their testing.  To help find lost cadets, they should set their “Personal” page “User Preferences” to compare their test kit results against the lab’s entire database rather than limit it just to our project’s database.

There is a lot of information above and instructions. I have highlighted the part about the BY674. Basically, Rusty descends from a famous line of very well-documented people with ancient roots in Scotland. Here is where the Lennox Clan was from and ruled in Scotland:

The County is callled Dumbartonshire.

DF63 SNP Pack

I see that Rusty has taken the DF63 SNP Pack. That is the test that got him down to BY674. However, that test also eliminated various SNP beneath BY674:

The red are SNPs that Rusty tested negative for. The blue are SNPs that haven’t been tested. They weren’t in the SNP pack or are new since Rusty took the test. It looks like there are 7 major branches. Rusty was negative for three branches. He didn’t test three branches. One branch he tested for a sub-branch, (A7799) so may not be positive for the main branch (A7798).

Combining the Big Tree and the DF63 SNP Pack

The Big Tree is big as the name implies, so I’ll split it in half for the BY674 Branch:

I crossed out the parts that Rusty tested negative for and put a green box around what he hasn’t tested for. That narrows down his options.

Here is the next section of BY674:

Here I made a judgement call. The first X is over three SNPs in the top box. Rusty tested negative for Z73:

These three SNPs are in what is called a block. If Rusty had taken the Big Y test, it is possible that he could have broken up this block, but not likely, so my guess was that he would have tested negative for A7798. Rusty is possibly in the last three green squares (as well as possibly being in the previous three green squares. The last square is not obvious. Rusty would be in that box if he were BY674 and tested negative for all the branches.

Taking Rusty Further Down the Tree to BY38907 and BY 38908

Rusty’s closets STR matches are here:

Rusty has a 4 GD match with McFarland who has a Terminal SNP of BY3907. This McFarland has also taken the Big Y test. This could be McFarland in the Big Tree:

Here the Big Tree has McFarland as BY38908, but that is equivalent with three other SNPs including BY38907. It could be that if Rusty were to take the Big Y test, then there would be more branching under BY38908. McKinnon in the same group may be Rusty’s third STR match above. Rusty’s fourt match is McAfee I see a McAfee under BY7779, but Rusty already tested negative for BY7779. My best guess is that Rusty belongs in the box with McKinnon and McFarland.

I note that the third match on Rusty’s STR list is McFarlin who is BY7777. This is in the first group under the Big Tree above and I had eliminated it due to Rusty’s SNP Pack results.

What About the James Line?

I found the James YDNA Project. The man who wants to claim Rusty is in this group:

Two people in this group have tested positive for BY71106. The second person listed with green results is in the Big Tree:

Compare that to the general area of the MacFarlane Group:

Here is the Big Tree page for DF63:

The top unnamed light block is DF63. Five blocks down from there we reach BY674 where Rusty is. If I am reading this correctly, Rusty and the James Family share the L21 SNP.  L21 has been around since about 2500 BC, so the connection between Rusty and the James family could go back pretty far.

This chart shows the two main branches of L21. DF63 is on the top right. All other branches are everything not in the green box. That means that these two branches probably separated a long time ago.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Rusty is part of the BY674 SNP Group. This group is very specific to a Cadet Line of the Lennox Clan and is very well defined. That Cadet Line is MacFarlane with some  name varations.
  • This BY674 SNP group is now up to 20 sub-groups. Rusty has been eliminated from about 14 of these groups by YDNA testing. That leaves 6 groups he may be in.
  • Rusty’s matching to the James family by STRs is coincidental. Any match to this group could go back 4,000 years or more based on SNPs. Whenever there is a discrepancy between STRs and SNPs, the SNPs are most accurate.

 

 

Posted on

Cousin Rusty’s Surprise YDNA Results

First, my first cousin Rusty surprised me by ordering an autosomal DNA test. I saw his results and it was the first, first cousin autosomal match that I’ve had. Next, Rusty decided to order a YDNA test of 37 STRs. His results surprised us both a bit. He found out that he had no matches to the last name he grew up with. Instead, his matches were predominantly variations of the MacFarlane surname. Since the test results came in, Rusty tells me his grandfather was adopted which could account for the surprise.

In this Blog, we’ll look at Rusty’s YDNA results and some of his genealogy.

YDNA – The Male Lineage Indicator

YDNA is good for surname studies. It follows the DNA that the father passes down to the son. This passing down has been going on since genetic Adam. Little changes in this YDNA account for the various YDNA branches that are in the world today. In addition, there are other branches that have just died out.

R1b – The Common YDNA for europe

Rusty and I share an R1b heritage. We are both on a branch of the R1B tree called L21. I was glad when I was first testing my YDNA to find out that I was part of the L21 group. This represents a group of people that aren’t identical to, but are associated with what has commonly been called the Celts. These would be the older people of the British Isles prior to invasions by the Danes, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons. The dark red indicates the older L21 people being moved over to the Northeast by the later invaders.

This map shows the highest concentration of R-L21 in the NW of Europe. The map shows the association with the Celtic cultures of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Normandy.

The R-L21 Tree

Here is an outdated R-L21 Tree

The main reason that the tree is outdated is that the tree grew so much, there was not room to put all the branches on it. There are two main branches under L21. I believe that Rusty is on the smaller branch of DF63 at the top right of the image above. I am on the larger DF13 Branch. Below that I am in the L513 Branch with a rectangle around it.

R-DF63

Why do I think that Rusty is DF63? Let’s take a look. Rusty recently upgraded his 37 STR test to a 67 STR test. The STRs are markers that can change in two different directions. These STRs are used to estimate how close someone else may be related. They are also used to estimate SNPs. DF63 is an SNP. This is a more marker that is more stable than an STR that indicates a specific branch of mankind.

Here are Rusty’s two closest STR matches.

Both these matches are a Genetic Distance (GD) of 3 from Rusty. That means that out of the 67 STRs compared, there is a difference of three for both of these men to Rusty. Both these men have McFarland ancestors. Note that the first one had an ancestor that was born in Northern Ireland and died in PA. Rusty is from PA, but his grandfather was from Ireland. This means that this particular person could not be Rusty’s ancestor, unless he left children in Ireland.

Here is the TIP report for these two as they compare to Rusty. This report shows the probability of how long ago Rusty and Rusty’s match had a common ancestor:

This is showing that it should be pretty likely that either or both of these matches should predict a common ancestor in the last 8 generations. When I check 8 generations in my tree, that brings me to about 1680. So that is in the range of the first ancestor shown in the list above.

This is interesting, but I still haven’t shown how Rusty could be DF63. Let’s look at Rusty’s top two matches again. On the right are their Terminal SNPs. The first Terminal SNP is R-CTS6919. The second is BY674. These are both under (or children of) DF63 as shown by the FTDNA Haplotree:

So it stands to reason if Rusty matches two people who have SNPs that are below DF63, then he would surely be DF63.

BY674 – Mostly McFarlanes

A lot of McFarlane descendants have taken the BigY test. This is a test that discovers new SNPs and helps to build new branches of the SNP tree (or Haplotree as FTDNA calls it). Those that have taken the BigY test, have been put into something called the Big Tree, created by Alex Williamson. Here are the McFarlanes in that Big Tree:

Note that there is a McFarlane or similar name in every branch of BY674. The one exception is the McAfee/Givens branch. Based on this, I could argue that Rusty is not only DF63, but also BY674. Rusty plans to take the DF63 panel. With that test, he should be able to tell which branch of McFarlanes he is in. Here is what the DF63 Panel looks like:

So if Rusty takes the SNP pack, it should tell him that he is positive for DF63, CTS6919, A92, Z16506, and BY674. From there, Rusty could be in 7 different branches. One of those branches could be that he would remain in BY674 with McFarland and McKinnon. If he is in one of the other 6 branches, there may or may not be branching below that.

The MacFarlane family ydna project

Rusty also joined the MacFarlene Family YDNA Project. He was placed in this group:

I think that the Cadet Lineage refers to the idea that the MacFarlane Clan may be an offshoot of the House of Lennox. That sounds like a big deal.

So that covers Rusty’s YDNA pretty well. He is related to McFarlanes by STRs and SNPs. Next, I’ll look at Rusty’s genealogy and see how he is now apparently a Scotsman where before he thought he was an Irishman.

Rusty’s Paternal Genealogy

Rusty is related to me on his mother’s side. I’ll be looking at his dad’s side. And specifically, I’ll be looking at his dad’s dad’s side. We are interested in how the Breen turned into a McFarlane going from now to then. Or how the McFarlane went to a Breen. So far the tree looks like this:

However, I won’t be following the McCullough line. Rusty says that his dad told him that his father was orphaned young and joined the British Army at age 14. Rusty further got in touch with his cousin and found this out:

She thinks it is probably due to my grandfather being adopted.  I knew this, but always assumed he was older and retained he biological fathers name.  Actually I knew he was orphaned.  Margie says he was brought up by a Other than Catholic minister, but that there was some sort of agreement that he was to be raised Catholic.  Maybe he never knew his biological fathers name.

What an interesting story. It looks like Rusty’s grandfather may have been brought up by a non-Catholic Minister that raised him as a Catholic. How did that work out? What was the minister’s name?

Barriers of distance and time

Distance and time tend to erode family stories. Traveling from Ireland to the United states as well as the loss of parents results in the loss of a lot of family history. Where did John Alexander Breen come from?

Naturalization records

John left some paperwork behind when he came to the U.S.

In this document, John said in 1917 that he was 29 and wanted to become a citizen. It shows he was 1/2 inch short of six foot tall. His residence in Ireland was what looks like Omagh, County Tyrone. At the time of the application, he was a steel worker in Philadelphia. He came into the port of New York on the Ship California in what looks to be September 29th, 1910. This document from Ellis Island on the Declaration appears to correct his arrival time:

According to his 1923 Petition, he was born in County Armagh:

Here’s a simple map of Northern Ireland:

From the Naturalization records, it appears that John Alexander Breen was born in County Armagh and later lived in Omagh in County Tyrone before coming to live in Philadelphia. However, based on the research that follows, perhaps Count Armagh got mixed up with Omagh. I’m not seeing other evidence of County Armagh.

Sailing on the s.s. california

I have the an image of the ship records when John sailed to the US from Londonderry. Here is some information from the top of the ship record:

I included last address and nearest relative for John Breen on the bottom. Then I included three other people near him as they had an Omagh/Philadelphia connection. Here are the names, in case there is any connections:

Of course, this raises a few questions. Who is Susan Breen if John was orphaned and adopted? Was that her maiden name? Was that her married name, and if so might she have been married before? From what I can tell, Susan was living in Deverney:

According to Townlands.ie, Deverney is a part of the Townland of Recarson.

The second page of the shipping record says that John was also born in Deverney. Also that he planned to stay with a friend, rather than a relative in Philadelphia:

Here ‘s the shipping record from the UK side showing that folks kept the same order. Now John is a mechanic.

1911 British census

One year before John sailed to New York, he was indeed in the military.  He was a private with the 1st Battalion Royal Innishkilling Fusiliers.

I highlighted his birthplace. It would be nice to know where this is. I am not getting Deverney out of it. Apparently, this is Drumragh, which is both a Civil Parish and Townland near Omagh. Here is where townlands.ie shows the Townland to be:

This looks to be fairly close to Deverney.

Other Irish census results?

I am having trouble finding John Breen in the 1901 Census. I am also having trouble finding Jane Breen. So I will look at the women that were traveling with John on the Ship to New York.

The first I’ll look at is Mary McGinn. I see her in 1911:

Her story holds together as she is a seamstress. She was likely closer to 29 than 25 when she sailed to Philadelphia. Let’s say that John was watching over these women on the way to Philadelphia. After all, he appears to have been a world travels already from his British Army experience.

Here’s Tattyreagh where Mary McGinn lived:

Next is Mary McGaughey:

Here is the seamstress connection. She is shown in 1911 in Aughtermoy (Ballyneaner, Tyrone). On the ship, she gives her cousin Charles McGinn as the closest relative for some reason. I’m not positive I have the right person above as on her ship record, she says her last address was Philadelphia. Also this family was Presbyterian.

John in the 1st Battalion Royal Innishkilling Fusiliers

Rusty mentioned his grandfather’s military service. From the census, I found John in Hong Kong in 1911 with the 1st Battalion Royal Innishkilling Fusiliers. After some searching I found an enlistment record dated June 29, 1908 for a John O’Brien:

This could explain why it was so difficult to find John Breen in the 1901 Census. Now, when I look up the Breen surname online, I learn that the name comes from O’Brien if I understand it correctly. This military record is interesting as we found out in the 1911 Census that John was with the Fusiliers. The age of this person is very close to the John we are looking at.  20 years and 4 months from this time would put us at February or March of 1888 and John was born March 1888.

Are John Alexander Breen and John O’Brien the same Person?

The enlistment paper above shows that O’Brien was born near Drumquin, Parish Longfield, County Tyrone. If nothing else, I’m learning a bit about Northern Ireland geography.

The 1901 Census shows a John O’Brien as a servant in Doogary:

Here is townlands.ie rendition of Doogary near Omagh.

Under the scenario, John O’Brien would have been orphaned and became a servant. Probably soon after 1901, he joined the army. Note that when O’Brien signed in 1908, he was already part of the armed services.

O’Brien’s re-enlistment showed that he was already part of the Innishkilling Fusiliers. I am guessing that at some point in the Fusiliers, O’Brien changed his name to Breen.

More military papers for O’Brien

Under O’Brien’s 1908 enlistment papers, I found other military records. This is O’Brien’s initial enlistment from [February?] 1905:

Assuming O’Brien and Breen were the same, the age would be very close, as he would have been 17 within a month. Interesting that in 1905 they asked about O’Brien’s present (or former) Master. This appears to be M. McNulty in or near Dromore.I’m a little curious as to the term Master. I assume that this means that under a certain age, you were under the control of a Master, be it your father or someone else.

Dromore is shown on the previous Drumquin map:

On O’Brien’s Military History Sheet, I find this:

So if Breen and O’Brien are the same, then I have to work out why the mother was Susan Breen for one and Annie O’Brien for the other.

Annie O’Brien

Going with my Breen/O’Brien theory, it would make sense to look for Annie O’Brien in the Census. The oldest Annie O’Brien I found in the 1911 census in County Tyrone is here:

She is listed as 37 which would make her 14 in 1888. However, ages are quite unreliable in the Census. She could have been much older in 1888. I find it odd that a single woman would be the head of household, by herself and a dairymaid. Here is the Townland of Ballyard where she is shown as living:

Let’s try 1901. Now there are a lot of people listed with Annie. She is in the same Townland of Ballyard, though perhaps not the same house.

Look at all the company she has now. Annie’s age is consistent with the 1911 census as she is now 27. Following out on my house of cards theory. What if this was the family that raised John Breen/O’Brien? Annie is the only Catholic in the house.

Summing It Up

I could tell a story about what I’ve found so far. I’m not sure it’s right yet, but it’s a start.

Annie O’Brien was born in County Cork and made her way as a teenager to County Tyrone. While there [probably Deverney], she had a child John Alexander O’Brien. She was apparently a single mother and was taken in by a protestant family. Perhaps this is the same family of Funstons in Ballyard where she was a dairymaid in 1901. Perhaps the father was a McFarlane. John went to work as a farm servant in Doogary. John enlisted twice in the Royal Ennishkilling Fusiliers where he apparently traveled to Hong Kong as he was there in 1911. In 1912, he sailed from Londonderry, Ireland to New York. From there he made his way to a friend’s house. The rest, is history.

Postscript: 1920

However, there is a little more. There always seem to be with genealogy. Fast forward 8 years to when John Alexander Breen is married with two children. Here they are on 1208 Eleventh Street, Philadelphia:

I notice a boarder named Felix McAnulty. This reminds me of John O’Brien’s Master M. McNulty when John first enlisted in 1905. Also next door is John Cassidy. Remember, John was going to stay with an Eliza Cassidy in Philadelphia when he sailed from Londonderry to New York.

I wasn’t able to find Felix in the Irish 1901 Census, but I did find a Falix:

This place is very close to Deverney which is one of the places where John was supposed to have been born:

Actually, it seems like I’ve covered almost everywhere around Omagh. So that seems to be it for now. If my story is right, Rusty is still a Breen, or rather an O’Brien through Annie. And he is a MacFarlane.

Late Breaking News

I just checked the 1911 Census again. This time, I see that there is a John Breen listed there in Recarson. This is quite confusing but may be good news.

This will certainly change the story. It is not now clear if the John O’Brien in the military is the same one as the one in the Hong Kong Census or the one here (or neither). The interesting thing about the document above is that this is for Recarson. Recall that Deverney where John was from is part of Recarson. My understanding is that the Census was to be taken at the same day for everyone, so unless there was some mistake, John Breen could not have been in Recarson and Hong Kong at the same time.

My, this is embarrassing. Now I have two competing stories for Rusty. Let’s say that this should be more accurate. The best part about the census above is that there is a grandmother. That means three generations are represented as well as other relationships. That is always good. I’ll leave it to the reader to adjust the story based on the Census above. I’ll continue this story in a subsequent Blog.

 

Posted on

A Hartley Z17911 STR Tree

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

l513chart

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

STRs and Z17911

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

Here is a recent list:

suspectedz17911

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

Z17911 and Signature STRs

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

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

Up or Down?

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

Here is an example:

str-example

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

Defining Hartley Z17911 STRs

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

hartley-strs

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

But Wait, There’s More

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

5-hartleys

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

References for Trees

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

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

More on Modes

I seem to be getting hung up on Modes:

more-modes

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

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

A 5 Hartley Likely Z17911 STR Tree

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

5hartleytree

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

This image shows some of my rationale for the tree:

5hartley-groping

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

How Do the Hartleys Compare to the Z17911 Mode?

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

So the GD’s will be further back also.

z17911gds

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

z17911tree

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

Summary and Conclusion

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

 

Posted on

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

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

whitsonbutlerydnatestees

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

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

YDNA – What Does It All Mean?

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

The TIP Report

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

batt and butler TIP

i2whitson-burtler

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

batt-peter

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

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

tipchart

I found the results quite interesting:

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

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

A tree from tip reports

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

whitbuttreept1

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

simple-tree

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

tip-tree-2

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

tiptree3

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

STR Analysis

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

baber-example

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

I2 Whitson/Butler STRs

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

i2whitsonbutlerstrs

modes

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

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

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

butlerwhtson111tree

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

From Baber to Robb

John Bartlett Robb put out a paper in 2012 called:

Fluxus Network Diagrams vs Hand-Constructed Mutation History Trees

In that paper Robb gives a procedure for drawing trees.

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

robbstrs

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

mutation-rates

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

Proposed Whitson/Butler Tree

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

proposed-whitsonbutler-tree

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

treebaberrule

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

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

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

I think the above tree is a likely scenario considering:

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

Some other points:

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

Whitson and Butler YDNA and Signature STRs

Two Types of YDNA: SNPs and STRs

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

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

maple-leaf

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

Whitson FTDNA Project Results
Whitson FTDNA Project Results

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

Why Are There Three SNP Types for the Whitsons?

There are various reasons:

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

The SNP Types or Haplogroups

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

I1>I-M253

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

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

I2>I-M223

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

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

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

Whtson Butler STRs

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

Whtson Butler STRs Highlight

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

STR Heards

Whtson Butler STRs Signature

And the I2 Whitson/Butler signature is:

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

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

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

R1b-R-U106 group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a snapshot of the R-S23139 Group:

U106 Peter

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

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

U106 67 STRs Header

U106 67 STRs

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

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

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

Any Other Whitsons?

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

Summary and Recommendations

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

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

My Hartley Big Y Results: Part One

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

Hartley Big Y Testees

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

William on the I Line

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

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

I added the I1 in brackets for clarification.

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

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

L21 Tree S1051

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

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

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

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

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

Alex S1051 tree

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

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

The Third Testee (Me) – R-L513

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

L513 Tree June 2016

Here is a closer up shot:

L513 Blowup

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

Hartley on Big Tree

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

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

Public SNPs, Private SNPs, Terminal SNPs

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

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

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

Novel Variants and unique SNPs

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

Here is a screen shot from an excellent video called,

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

Maurice SNP Types

Hopefully the above diagram simplifies my complicated explanation.

The Mike Walsh L513 Discovery Spreadsheet

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

Walsh Discovery

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

Z17911

Here is the second page of the Discovery Spreadsheet:

Discovery p2

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

Does the Spreadsheet tell us anything new?

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

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

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

Discovery part3

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

The YFull Analysis

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

YFull