Posts

Posted on

A Kerivan Match to My Wife’s Aunts

I’ve had a few messages from Jack. He shows as a potential 2nd cousin match to my wife’s aunt Virginia. Here is Jack’s tree at Ancestry:

 

Here is Virginia’s tree:

Due to the dates, it could be that Jack’s great-grandfather George E Kerivan was the son of Virginia’s John Kerivan. If I expand Virginia’s tree, I get this:

That means that Jack and Virginia have the common ancestors of John Kerivan and Alice Rooney. That would make Virginia and Jack 2nd cousins, once removed. Here is a top down drawing of how Virginia and Jack are related:

When I run shared matches at AncestryDNA between Jack and Virginia, John and Gaby also show up.

More of Jack’s Relatives at AncestryDNA

I also see Donna and Dott at AncestryDNA. Here is Donna’s tree:

That would make Donna Jack’s mother or aunt.

Here is Dott’s tree:

 

How Does Sandra Fit In?

Sandra is a 2nd cousin once removed to my wife’s Aunt Lorraine (and her Aunt Virginia and her dad).

It turns out that Thomas was an older brother to George and Lillie. Thomas married Catherine Collins:

I had a message from Ancestry from Jack saying his mom is Donna. That means that the tree would look like this:

More Specific Information at Gedmatch.com

My wife’s family and Gaby have uploaded their DNA results to Gedmatch.com. John and Gaby have also. If Sandra, Jack, Dott and Donna uploaded their DNA to Gedmatch also, we would be able to see exactly where the Kerivan and Rooney DNA is coming from. We would be able to see on which chromosome they match.

Summary and Conclusions

  • My wife’s family has great matches with Jack, Dott, Donna, and Sandra on the Kerivan/Rooney side.
  • These matches are on the order of 2nd cousin. Second cousin is an important relationship as it defines a grandparent side.
  • If Sandra, Dott, Donna and Jack were to upload their DNA results to gedmatch.com, we would be able to see exactly where the Kerivan and Rooney DNA is coming from. It is possible that there would be more Kerivan matches found also at Gedmatch.

 

Posted on

An Adoptee’s Match with My Wife’s Mother and Aunt

I recently had a message from an adoptee named Martha. Martha was understandably enthused about a match she had with my wife’s Aunt Elaine and mom, Joan.

Martha’s DNA Matches

Here is how Martha matches Aunt Elaine:

Based on the match, MyHeritage puts Martha and Aunt Elaine between 1st cousin twice removed and 2nd cousin twice removed.

Here is how Martha matches Elaine’s sister Joan:

The big difference is that Elaine had a match on Chromosome 19 with Martha that Joan did not. Joan and Martha are said to be between 3rd cousin and 5th cousin. I find it interesting that MyHeritage distinguishes between 2nd cousin twice removed and third cousin as from a DNA standpoint, I would think that they would be quite similar.

Martha and Joan at FTDNA

Martha and Joan are both at FTDNA. Martha mentioned that she and Joan match on the X Chromosome, but I don’t believe that the match is significant:

My understanding is that a match between two women of less than about 15 cM is not significant. These matches are all below 7 cM and are quite tiny. I suppose that the matches could represent some type of general ethnic similarity.

Where is the Common Ancestor between Joan, Elaine and Martha?

If Martha is a 3rd cousin with Joan and Elaine, that means that their common ancestor would be back 4 generations. MyHeritage shows Shared Matches which come in handy:

Joan and Martha’s first shared match is, of course, Elaine. After that, the next match is Vance. Let’s look at his tree:

The father’s side is missing. However, I did find this additional information on a Family Tree at Ancestry:

That gives me a better feeling about Vance’s family tree.

Here is Joan’s father’s tree. It seems like Martha and Joan must match in PEI:

George Ellis and Lillian Rayner are Joan’s paternal grandparents. My guess is that Martha and Joan may match on more than one line. The two names I see in common in the tree of Vance and Joan are MacArthur and Yeo. However, MacArthur appears more recently in Joan’s tree than Yeo. So this may be the closer match.

Back to the DNA and Triangulation

Using Triangulation, we can know where Martha, Vance, Joan and Elaine have common DNA. This DNA should correspond to a specific common ancestor.

This shows that Joan, Martha and Vance triangulate on Chromosomes 4, 17 and 18. I checked between Elaine, Martha and Vance and the triangulated segments are the same.

Martha at Ancestry

Martha also tested at Ancestry. At AncestryDNA, Martha and Elaine are predicted as 4th cousins which is a big difference from what MyHeritage showed. Based on the color mapping of Elaine to her four grandparents, it seems like Martha matches on the Ellis side rather than the Rayner side.  This type of mapping is also known as the Leeds Method. Based on this, my best bet is that the match could be through the MacArthur side.

 

This seems to be confirmed by the spreadsheet that I have for Joan:

Based on past research I had found a common ancestor of MacArthur/MacDougall. This was for a DNA match that Joan and Barry had right at the spot where there were triangulated segments on Chromosome 4 between Vance, Joan, Elaine and Martha.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Different testing companies have different ways of representing what relationship the test results represent. AncestryDNA turns out to be fairly accurate.
  • I looked at common matches at Ancestry between Elaine and Martha. These seemed to put Martha and Elaine’s match along the Elaine’s Ellis ancestry Line.
  • Martha, Joan, Elaine and Vance triangulated at MyHeritage. Vance had Yeo and MacArthur in his ancestry which was shared with Joan and Elaine. However, the MacArthur ancestry occurs more recently in Joan and Elaine’s ancestry.
  • Joan’s worksheet shows that I had identified MacArthur as a common ancestor with another match on Chromosome 4. This was in the same place as the triangulated segments between Vance, Joan, Elaine and Martha. Right now, MacArthur seems like the best bet for a common ancestral surname between Martha and Elaine. Assuming that Malcolm MacArthur is the common ancestor, that would make Elaine and Martha about 4th cousins. The DNA matches could be higher due to matches on other more distant lines.

 

Posted on

More on My DNA Matches with My Latvian Cousins

In my previous Blog on Anita and Inese, my Latvian cousins, I went answered some questions that they had on DNA. However, I didn’t get to look at other common matches that I have with Anita and Inese.

Latvian Matches from Different Testing Companies

Anita and Inese tested at MyHeritage. This is a good testing company. However, other people test at different companies, so different analyses are needed based on what the companies have to offer. One good solution is to upload your DNA results to Gedmatch.com where the results from different testing companies can be compared. Anita and Ines have done this.

Otis  with Schwechheimer and Gangnus Ancestry

One of my closest DNA matches is Otis. His ancestors are from Latvia. My Latvian ancestors are for the most part German and lived in the German colony of Hirschenhof. This is the somewhat complicated tree showing how I am doubly related to Otis:

Now I need to add some closer relatives:

Note the double relationship to Otis. I also notice an extra Gangnus connection:

This shows that Charlotte Gangnus married a Schwechheimer and had Rosine who married a Rathfelder and had my mother’s grandfather Heinrich Rathfelder. Heinrich married Maria Gangnus. Here is a Gangnus tree:

This shows that Heinrich Rathfelder married Maria Gangnus who was his 3rd cousin. On the Gangnus side, I am a 4th cousin and a distant 6th cousin to Otis. On the Schwechheimer side, I am the same 4th cousin and a 5th cousin. This tree could also be drawn out wider to include Rusty, Cindy, Catherine, Anita and Inese. However, it would be quite wide as much of the tree would be repeated twice.

Otis and Triangulation Groups (TGs)

Otis is in several triangulation groups (TGs). Here is one of the largest ones on Chromosome 3:

A triangulation group is where three or more people match each other. It means that they have common DNA that came down from a common ancestor. When there is only one pair of most common ancestors, this makes things easier. In this case where there are three sets of common ancestors, I assume that the match is on the most recent of the common ancestors. This represents DNA from the latter part of the 1700’s.

It is also less likely that the match represents Markus Schwechheiner or Georg Gangnus. However, Otis and Gladys (my mom) and Otis and Cindy have relatively large DNA matches which likely represents the closer relationship. I didn’t include myself or my siblings in this analysis as each sibling gets half the amount of DNA each parent has.

Astrid’s Rathfelder DNA

Here is a tree I worked out for Astrid:

This was a difficult tree. The strangest thing was that Hans Jerg Rathfelder had two children both by the name of Johann Georg. He must have really liked that name. Apparently one child went by Johann and the other by Georg. Here I should note that Hans Jerg married Juliane Bittenbinder. This is important because a DNA match to Astrid could be either from Hans Jerg or Juliane. The good news about this tree is that there aren’t any obvious double relationships like we had with Schwechheimer and Gangnus.

A Few Problems with the Rathfelder Tree and with Astrid’s DNA

The problem with Astrid’s tree is that there were two Adeline Wilhemine Rathfelders. One was born in 1838 and one was born in 1844. If the 1844 Wilhemine was the mother of Friedrich Spengel, she would have been 15 at his birth.

In my Blog on Anita, I pointed out that the DNA matches as reported at Gedmatch showed that there should be a closer relationship to Astrid based on the DNA:

Here is what the alternative (younger Wilhemine) tree looks like:

This changes Astrid from a 4th cousin to my mom Gladys to a 2nd cousin once removed. Using the same analysis as above, I get this:

Here, the young mother tree seems to be a better fit by the DNA as seen at Gedmatch. This was the original idea that I had. So for now, I will just put those two trees out there until more information comes to light. In summary, the first analysis showed that the actual DNA matches were one generation closer than shown by the tree. By the second analysis, the DNA suggested that the relationships were about 1/3 generation further away than the young mother tree.

Any Help from Ancestry on Astrid’s Tree?

Astrid’s sister Ingrid has been tested at AncestryDNA, but the results have not been posted to Gedmatch.com. Ancestry estimates that both Astrid and Ingrid are 4th cousins to Gladys. That would support the tree #1 theory.  Here is my mom’s match to Astrid at AncestryDNA:

Here is how that same match looks like at Gedmatch.com:

Gladys and Ingrid’s DNA at Ancestry DNA

This shows that my mom’s DNA match with Ingrid was 75% lower than my mom’s match with Astrid.

This table shows that AncestryDNA favors Tree 1:

Under Tree 1, my mom is a fourth cousin to Astrid. AncestryDNA estimates a fourth cousin by DNA. My siblings and my cousin Cindy are all fourth cousins, once removed under Tree 1. By AncestryDNA my siblings are a fourth cousin and Cindy would be a fifth cousin.

Another consideration is that if Tree 2 or the young Wilhemine Rathfelder tree were the correct one, perhaps Otis above would be more likely to be matching with Astrid by DNA on their Schwechheimer side. Under the young Wilhemine scenario, Otis and Astrid would be 4th cousins and would have a greater than 50% chance of matching each other. However, at Gedmatch, they don’t match each other. This is not proof that Tree 1 is right, but just possible supporting evidence. Unless, I think of another reason, I will stick to my original tree for Astrid and her sister Ingrid.

Triangulating with Astrid

On Chromosome 10, Astrid matches Catherine, Inese and Anita:

If we have the right tree, the TG would look like this:

Anita’s TG on Chromosome 17

Perhaps Alexander got the Chromosome 17 Rathfelder DNA and Leonhard got the Chromosome 10 Rathfelder DNA.

Wolf at MyHeritage

Wolf had his DNA tested at MyHeritage. This is the same place where Anita and Inese had their DNA tested. I wrote a Blog about him here. Like many others descending from the colony of Hirschenhof, it seems like I match Wolf on different lines. The closest match is through Schwechheimer, like with Otis above.

The difference is that I match Wolf a generation earlier than I match Otis. Here is how Gladys and Wolf match at MyHeritage:

Gladys’ Latvian Matches at AncestryDNA

It is possible to group matches by looking at shared matches at AncestryDNA. I have done that and tried to look at just my mother’s father’s side. He was the one from Latvia.

The point of this is that my mom has a lot of Schwechheimer matches, but only two matches that are on the Rathfelder line. Those two matches are sisters: Astrid and Ingrid. Some of these people fell easily into groups and some did not. I also see tha I have two columns for Schwechheimer in orange and blue. It could be that the blue line has Schwechheimer in it, but I am more closely related on another line. Someone named Valdis matches both the orange and blue group.

Summary and Conclusions

  • My grandfather was a Rathfelder, but I am not finding many DNA relatives with the Rathfelder name.
  • My great great grandmother was Rosine Schwechheimer from the German Colony of Hirschenhof. I am able to find many DNA matches with people who have Schwechheimer ancestors.
  • I took a second look at Otis. He is a close DNA match on the Schwechheimer side. However, we also share Gangnus ancestry.
  • I looked at one of my few Rathfelder DNA matches: Astrid. I compared two possible trees with two Wilhemine Rathfelders. One tree would have favored a Wilhemine giving birth at an early age. Based on a match I didn’t have with Otis on the early birth tree and suggestions by AncestryDNA matches, I favored my earlier tree which had Wilhemine giving birth at a more reasonable age.
  • I took another look at Wolf. He also matches on the Schwechheimer Line, but one generation further back than Otis.

 

 

Posted on

Keith’s McMaster DNA and Genealogy

From what I can tell, Keith is my best DNA match on the McMaster side. Here is how Keith appears at AncestryDNA:

Keith is a Shared Ancestor Hint. That means we have common ancestors and shared DNA. Here, Keith shows as my 3rd cousin once removed. Keith is an especially good match because he doesn’t show any recent Frazer ancestor that could confuse the DNA match. Also, Keith uploaded his DNA results to Gedmatch.com which means that we can compare more specific DNA matches and figure out how they relate to our shared ancestors.

McMaster Genealogy

My McMaster Genealogy for this Blog focuses on those who have taken a DNA test. Here is Keith’s Tree as seen at Ancestry:

Note that our shared McMaster Line also includes a Margaret Frazer. However, this match is further back and will be less likely to show up in a DNA match.

Here are the McMasters that I know of that have had their DNA tested:

Any DNA matches that Keith has with my family (Joel) or with Emily, and Paul will represent the DNA from James or Fanny McMaster.

A Summary of My McMaster Genetic Genealogy Research So Far

John

John is in the lower left of the chart above. I wrote about him here. John tested at MyHeritage which is good, but I don’t think he has uploaded to Gedmatch.com. If he did, that would show how he matches others with McMaster ancestry that haven’t tested at MyHeritage.

Stephen and Ron

I have these two as descending from Thomas Leroy McMasters. However, I have Edward as the son of Abraham. This seems unlikely has Abraham was born about 1764 and Edward was born in 1851. Here is my correction based on my Blog of Stephen and Ron here.

What I found out about Stephen and Ron was that I am more closely related to them on my Clarke side than on my McMaster side. Stephen tested at 23andme. 23andme is not compatible with Gedmatch with their current testing method. I believe that Ron has tested at MyHeritage and AncestryDNA, but has not uploaded his results to Gedmatch.com which makes DNA comparison more difficult.

Emily and Paul

Emily, Paul and my family have common Frazer and McMaster ancestors. That means that I can’t tell which of our shared DNA is Frazer or McMaster without independent Frazer or McMaster matches on the same segment of the Chromosome.

My Match with Keith at Gedmatch

Here is how I match Keith at Gedmatch:

Based on the amount of DNA we share, Gedmatch estimates that our common ancestors are 4.7 generations away. Keith and I are 3rd cousins once removed, which means that our common ancestors are 3.5 generations away. The once removed accounts for the half generation. However, these numbers are based on averages and I share less than the average amount of DNA with Keith. For example, my brother Jim shares about twice the amount of DNA with Keith compared to me:

Painting My DNA

There is an on-line utility called DNA Painter. That is a fun way to figure out what DNA you got from whom. This match with Keith shows DNA that we both got from James and Fanny McMaster. Here is what I have so far:

The top bar of each chromosome is my paternal side. That is where I am related to the McMasters. I match Keith from position 3 to 10 million. That is at the beginning of Chromosome 19 which is currently blank. At the right side of Chromosome 19, I have DNA from George Frazer and Margaret McMaster (the daughter of James and Fanny McMaster).

Here is the update at the beginning of Chromosome 19 in a light shade of blue:

In the key, I now have James and Fanny McMaster. James was born about 1806. This couple is in a section which represents my father’s mother’s side. This is the largest of my four grandparent groups in the key above.

A Triangulation Group (TG) for Keith

A Triangulation Group is when three or more people match each other by DNA. When this happens, this is almost certain proof that the DNA came down from the same ancestor.  Here is Keith’s match with Emily and Paul on Chromosome 12:

In order to make sure this is a true TG, we need to see if Paul and Emily also match each other on Chromosome 12 around position 92M:

Yes, it looks like they do.

We were already pretty sure by genealogy that Keith, Emily and Paul had the same two McMaster 2nd great grandparents, but the DNA also confirms it.

The fact that no one in my family is in the TG does not mean that we do not also descend from James and Fanny. It just means that we didn’t share the same exact portion of DNA that Emily, Paul and Keith did.

Shared Matches at AncestryDNA

AncestryDNA does not show specific Chromosome matching information, but it does show shared matches. These shared matches tend to indicate that I match Ron on the Clarke side and Keith on the McMaster side. I have 12 shared matches with Keith at AncestryDNA. Three of those 12 are my sisters. The remaining 9 are guessed to be 4th cousins by DNA. Ancestry only looks at Shared Matches out to the 4th cousin level.

Here is the comparison:

I have my comparison with Keith in the right hand box above. I also included Keith’s comparison with two of my sisters. These matches should represent those with McMaster ancestry. On the left box, I have my AncestryDNA Shared Matches with Ron. These people should represent those on my Clarke side. The point is, that these are two different groups. The only Shared Match was GG. This could mean that GG has Clarke and McMaster ancestry, or she is matching both Ron and Keith with McMaster ancestry.

I also note that BV is a strong Shared Match between Keith and my family. BV has a Maryann McMaster born 1819 in her tree as a direct ancestor. Here is Maryann’s photo from Ancestry:

MaryAnn McMaster – But Which McMaster?

BV at Ancestry doesn’t have information on MaryAnn’s parents. By DNA, Maryann could be related to me on my James McMaster side or my Fanny McMaster side. That makes things a little more complicated. I have that James’ father was Abraham McMaster. Here is what I have on my McMaster Web Page:

Note that I have a Marrianne, daughter of William McMaster and Margaret Frazer baptized 9 January 1820. This must be the same as BV’s Maryanne. Here is how I show I’m related to BV:

This shows that I am a 3rd cousin, twice removed to BV. That is equivalent, by DNA, to a 4th cousin. Now I just need to add some other McMasters:

This shows that BV is a 3rd cousin once removed to Emily, Paul and Keith. If BV uploads her DNA to Gedmatch, that could give clues on our common McMaster and Frazer ancestors. This tree also shows that BV is related to those on the right side of the chart on the Fanny McMaster and not the James McMaster side.

Putting the Two McMaster Lines Together

This comes out a bit small. The McMaster/Frazer Line is on the left. The Abraham Line is on the right. Note that Abraham as shown is about 26 years older than William McMaster. That means he could be an uncle to William or even a father to William. However, I doubt that William was the son of Abraham as that was not mentioned in William’s Lease of land:

I assume that the William and elder Abraham are the two lines I have above. In the lease above, it is stated that Abraham had a son named Abraham, but does not mention William as Abraham’s son.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Keith is the first good McMaster match who has also uploaded his DNA results to Gedmatch for comparison.
  • Keith tested at Ancestry. As a result, shared matches between Keith and my family are likely along the McMaster Line.
  • B.V. is a good shared match between my family’s AncestryDNA results and Keith’s AncestryDNA results. She also has a McMaster ancestor from Ireland that fits into research I had previously done on the McMaster family.
  • Finally, I combined the Abraham McMaster Tree and William McMaster/Margaret Frazer tree to see how they fit together. I have them lined up by the current generation at the bottom. However, that might not be the way they should be lined up.

 

 

 

Posted on

Kim’s (Irish?) Match to My Family

I recently had a message from Kim at AncestryDNA. Kim wrote:

Hello… I am trying to figure out how we are related because you don’t match any of my closest relatives well there’s not that many that have tested anyway. My relatives are from England Scotland Ireland and Sicily.

Kim matched my sister Sharon at AncestryDNA. I wrote back saying that she didn’t match my mom. My guess was that Kim matched my Clarke side.  My father’s maternal grandmother was a Clarke. They lived in County Sligo, Ireland but I don’t know much about that family. Before Ireland they may have lived in England or Scotland. I said that I would know more if Kim uploaded to Gedmatch. Kim wrote back to say that her DNA results were already at Gedmatch. Kim’s tree is private as she doesn’t want people copying any mistakes. She also wrote:

I’m pretty new at the DNA stuff and it’s so confusing how some people can match more with other people in the same family.

Kim at Gedmatch

I had told Kim I would know more based on Gedmatch. That is because my family’s DNA is mapped out by chromosome to each of our grandparents. Here is Chromosome 5 for me and two of my sisters:

Below is Kim’s match with my sister Sharon. Kim matches on our paternal side. That is the bottom red bar. The lighter red is from my grandmother. Both her parents were born in Ireland (Frazer and Clarke). Here is the detailed information of how Kim and Sharon match at Gedmatch.com:

This means that Sharon and Kim match on Chromosome 5 between about position 11 and 35 million. At Sharon’s red bar, her lighter red goes to darker red right where she stops matching Kim. That is because Kim and Sharon match on Sharon’s paternal grandmother’s side. Sharon got her DNA from her paternal grandmother up until position 35 million. After that point, the DNA that she got was from her paternal grandfather. If you look at my red bar at the top, I got almost all my Chromosome 5 paternal DNA from my dad’s dad. This is the dark red side where Kim and our family don’t match. That explains why Sharon matches Kim up to 35M and I don’t.

Why Doesn’t Kim Match Heidi at AncestryDNA?

It appears from the map above that Kim should match Heidi more than Sharon as Heidi has more light red on her paternal side. Here is how Heidi and Kim match at Gedmatch:

These matches are pretty close. Note however, that Kim and Heidi match up to 36M. This is just a little way past Kim and Sharon’s match at 35. That is the point where Sharon’s Frazer DNA stopped and her Hartley DNA started on Chromosome 5. My guess is that Gedmatch’s information is more precise than AncestryDNA’s. Even Kim’s ‘One to Many’ list Sharon match shows as being closer than Heidi’s. It is only when the One to One analysis is done, that we see that Heidi is a closer match.

Here is Kim’s ‘One to Many’ List at Gedmatch:

Sharon is at the top of this portion of Kim’s match list. My brother James is next, but I tested him at FTDNA. That means he would not show as a match at AncestryDNA. Heidi is at the bottom of the portion of the list that I copied.

Where Do Kim and Sharon Match Genealogically?

Here is my grandmother’s tree at Ancestry:

Based on Gedmatch, Kim and Sharon could be 3rd cousins, once removed. Let’s round that up to 4th cousins. If they are in the same generation from a common ancestor and they are 4th cousins, then they would have a common ancestor in the column starting with James Frazer above. Note that I have two Spratt ancestors missing. That means that one of my missing ancestors is a Spratt and the wife’s surname is unknown. If the common ancestor is further out, the news gets worse. I have only 6 ancestors at that level out of a potential 16.

As I mentioned, I have not seen Kim’s tree. It is private. However, if we were to look for a common ancestor, a good place to look would be in the area of the last two rows above. The people I have identified lived in Ireland. So that would be a good starting place to look for a common ancestor.

One Last Gedmatch Trick

Gedmatch has a useful utility with a clumsy name: “People who match one or both of 2 kits”. I want to find other people that match both Kim and Heidi. I picked Heidi as she matched Kim slightly higher than Sharon at Gedmatch. Here are some people that match Kim and Heidi on Chromosome 5:

The reference point is Heidi. Heidi’s match with Kim is #2. A yellow match is higher than a green match. #1 above is Catherine. I recognize her at AncestryDNA. In my Ancestry notes for Catherine at Ancestry, I have that Catherine is Heidi and Sharon’s largest match with an unknown connection. Here is one of Catherine’s Sligo ancestors. Sligo is where the Clarke’s lived:

Summary and Conclusions

  • I explained by Chromosome mapping how one sibling could match someone and another one would not.
  • I confirmed a guess that Kim matched my sisters on their paternal grandmother’s side. This grandmother’s parents were both from Ireland. Searching in Ireland for a common ancestor between Kim and my family would be a good start.
  • I made a guess as to why Ancestry showed Kim matching Sharon and not Heidi.
  • I found another person who was on Ancestry and Gedmatch. Catherine has a Tighe ancestor in Sligo. This person lived not too far from where my grandmother’s Clarke mother came from.  Perhaps my grandmother’s grandmother Jane Spratt was related to the Tighes.
Posted on

A Question on YDNA Naming

Pete from the Whitson/Butler YDNA Group recently had this question:

Can you please help me to further understand the “Y” SNP nomenclature. If I have it correctly, the Alpa prefixing indicates the ‘lab’ in which that SNP was discovered. What does the numeric suffixing delineate? the base pair count placement along the ‘Y’ chromosome?

This is a good question. However, I find it easier to answer these questions in Blog format. Pete is R-S23139. The first R is the major YDNA group that Pete is in. The S is for the lab. According to this website, the S prefix was named by “James F. Wilson, D.Phil. at Edinburgh University”.  The number after the S is just a lab identification number. It has no significance other than the longer number is usually the more recently discovered SNP.

Every YDNA SNP Has a Number

To find out more, Ybrowse.org is a good reference. At that website, they have a browser, similar to the autosomal DNA browser, but this one is for YDNA:

The gray and white bar represents YDNA. Every SNP, such as R-S23139, has a reference number. This gives the location or address of the SNP along millions of locations along the YDNA. The reference number is a more logical designation. These numbers are sequential and lower on the left side of the browser and higher on the right side.

Here, I have put  S23139 into the search box at YBrowse. Conversely, I could have put the reference number in to see if there was a named SNP if I already knew what the number was. In the default browser image above, the red line is at about 14 million.

When I click the search button, I see that the location is here in the 19 million range:

 

In the above image, I cut off the right side of the Y Chromosome Browser.

When I click on the S23139, I get this further information at YBrowse:

Here we see that the mutation at this position went from T to G.

The BigY Test

Here is Pete and two others in his group that have tested for STRs:

Pete is in the middle row in this group of R-U106 people. Pete and the other two did not take the BigY test. However, if Pete did, he would likely get SNPs that are unnamed. They would just be identified with a number. Once someone else in the group BigY tested, they may match on the same numbered SNP. At that point the SNP would be named and they would have a SNP that is just for their Whitson Group. This new SNP could then be considered a family SNP – just for the R-U106 Whitsons. Any additional unnamed SNPs could have developed since the match with the other Whitson-tested person.

Many people upload their Big Y results to a service called YFull where there is further analysis. One important part of the analysis is the estimated date of the SNP and the estimated date of the common ancestor of the people that have tested for the particular SNP. This can be useful when looking for family connections in genealogical research.

Right now, Pete and his closer relatives are sharing R-S23139 with others with German heritage. Perhaps R-S23139 represents the Anglo-Saxons that came to England and those that stayed in what is now Germany.

This shows that R-S23139 represents a point in time before surnames were developed. It probably indicates a time prior to when the Anglo-Saxons came to England.

Here is a table of dates from McDonald.

My understanding of this table is that the tested people within the red above would have a common ancestor around 227 BC. BigY testing would get new SNPs that should be within the genealogical time frame or since the time of surnames.

 

Posted on

Barry’s Irish Frazer DNA

I had a message from Richard that he had his brother Barry’s DNA tested. The last Blog I wrote on Richard was here.

A Summary of Richard’s Frazer Line and DNA

In summary, it seems clear from my earlier Blog, that Richard was related to the same Frazers that I was related to from the areas of South County Sligo and Northern County Roscommon. Based on guesses, family given names and DNA, I came up with this likely tree for Richard in green:

Here is a summary of Richard’s matches:

The Mystery of Michael

A second look at this list shows that Richard had a large match also with Michael who I don’t have as descending from the Philip Line. However, he could match on other lines. For example, we don’t know who the wives were of Philip and Richard Frazer born in the 1700’s. Just looking at Richard’s matches of Paul, Gladys and Michael, it would appear that Richard would come from the Richard Frazer Line (born about 1777). However, Richard did not have a known son named Philip.

Barry’s DNA Compared to His Brother Richard

Barry’s DNA results should even out his brother’s results. What that means is that Richard or Barry could have DNA matches that are on the high or low side. However, when taken together, their results should be indicative of the DNA that their Frazer side mother has. At Gedmatch, I have compared Richard’s and Barry’s matches using their ‘One to Many’ lists:

The purple results are from the line of George Frazer who was born about 1838. The yellow line is from George’s older brother Richard Frazer who was born in 1830. When I last wrote about Richard, I didn’t mention Emily. She is a new match. I have written about Gary, Brian and Karen in other Blogs. The McPartland connection is one that comes up a lot. This family has a Frazer ancestor. The main point in presenting the above chart was to show the differences in matches between Richard and Gary. For example, my sister Sharon does not show up as a match to Richard above the 7.0 cM threshold. However, Sharon matches Barry at 54.7 cM in his One to Many list.

Comparing Barry to Others in the Frazer DNA Project

I added in the McPartlands above. Richard matches that family but his brother doesn’t. That means that my purple and blue table above is wrong that shows Barry matching McPartlands.

A Surprise Off-Topic Discovery

Based on the chart above, I found something surprising. Marilee and Bob match. I wrote a Blog about Marilee here. She appears to descend from the John Line of Frazers. I have her as the only known descendant in the John Line. I actually did look at the match Marilee had with Bob in my previous Blog.

Here is Marilee’s line in pink. Assuming that I have the tree right, that could mean that the McPartlands descend from the John Frazer Line. Perhaps the Ann Frazer who married a McPartland was the daughter of Archibald Frazer and Jane White:

It is a theory based on the match between Marilee and Bob. Here is Bob’s tree with my previous guess that pulled three families together using triangulation.

 

Well, it looks like I had thought of this before. If this is right, then it means that I descend from the John Line as well as the Philip and Richard Lines of Frazers. One cannot have enough Frazers in their ancestry!

Back to Barry’s DNA

Sorry for the tangent. Here is Barry’s DNA grouped a little differently:

I had trouble grouping Michael and Jane. I should have put them in the Stinson Section. They also descend from Violet Frazer who was the husband of James Frazer and daughter of Richard Frazer. However the Chart above emphasizes James Frazer who was the son of Philip Frazer (if I have it right).

In general if I were to draw a box around all the people believed to be descended from Philip born about 1776, it seems like the matches would hold together.

It is a little difficult to see the distinction as Michael and Jane also have connections to the Richard Frazer Line as a mentioned above. Notice that the matches drop off for Jane when she gets to Richard and Barry, but they don’t drop off for Michael. That could mean that there is some ancestral connection that Michael has to Richard and Barry that Jane does not.

Barry and Jamie – A Johnston Connection?

I see that Barry and Jamie have a large match. I have that Jamie is in the Stinson Section. However, Jamie and John have no matches with the other Stinsons and a pretty good match with Richard and Barry. However, this match may be due to a Johnston connection. Both Barry and Jamie have Johnstons in their ancestry. Other connections are possible. Richard, Barry, Jamie and her brother John all have Johnston grandparents. Their Frazer ancestors go much further back.

Barry and DNA Triangulation Groups

If Barry has a match with two people by DNA and those two people also have a DNA match with each other, that is called a triangulation group. This is a strong DNA match that indicates a  common ancestor. I leave the triangulation step until the end as it takes a little bit of work. To triangulate, I need to compare the 28 people that are in the Archibald Frazer descendant group and compare them to each other.

Triangulation Group (TG) Chromosome 12

From my spreadsheet of matches, I see this group on Chromosome 12:

Here Barry matches Jamie and Paul. Paul also matches Jamie. That makes a TG. This means that this DNA on Chromosome 12 came down to these three people from one specific ancestor. Here are two possibilities for common ancestors:

Here at the top of the tree is Archibald Frazer born about 1720 and Mary Lilley.  If it wasn’t for the match with Paul, we might guess that Jamie and Barry were matching on a Johnston ancestor as they both have Johnston ancestors. Paul, however, has no known Johnston ancestors. That leaves the above possibility for the TG on Chromosome 12.

TG at Chromosome 17

I already described this TG in my Blog on Richard. However, now Barry has joined the TG. Also Jamie from the Stinson Line. I think that I found out about Jamie after I wrote the Blog on Richard.

These people could be represented with the same common ancestors as in TG 12 above.

This gets confusing, because Lori and I also descend from the Richard Frazer Line. In addition, Michael also descends from the Stinson Line. Also, note that Paul and Marilee have a small match. Perhaps these two would be in the TG if I lowered the DNA match thresholds.

Again, if this was just a match between Barrie and Jamie, I would suspect that it could be from a common Johnston ancestor. However, as Lori, Joel and Michael have no known Johnston ancestors, it appears more likely that this is a Frazer TG.

A New TG on Chromosome 18

Here is a new TG between Barry, Richard, Jamie and Emily.

Again, there seems to be something special about Jamie’s DNA or ancestry, that she has shown up in all three TGs.

I should note that Jamie has the same line as her brother John. That makes me think that Jamie got the Frazer DNA. I wrote a Blog about John here. I would like to write a Blog about his sister Jamie to look into some of the questions that were raised in this Blog.

Here is the match between Jamie and Barry:

Barry has no DNA match with Jamie’s brother John. Barry’s brother Richard has this match with Jamie:

 

Summary and Conclusions

  • I showed how two brothers could have different DNA matches.
  • I have put Barry and Richard in the Philip Line. This seems to be supported by the DNA, common first names, and the genealogy that we know of.
  • I looked at threeTriangulation Groups (TGs). All of these included Jamie from the Stinson Line. It may help to look more closely into Jamie’s family tree. Perhaps she has other connections to Frazers or to their collateral lines. Or perhaps Jamie has inherited more than the usual amount of Frazer DNA.
  • Given that we are not totally sure of the genealogy of many of these lines and that there was intermarriage of Frazers and perhaps other lines, the analysis of the DNA and genealogy is very complicated.
  • There is need for more analysis of the DNA matches (and the genealogy). I should look more closely into Jamie’s DNA.
Posted on

Uncle Mike’s Jame’s Line Frazer DNA

The results of Kathy’s Uncle Mike’s DNA came in. This resulted in some interest from those Frazers from the James Line Branch. Here is where Mike is on the James Line DNA testing chart:

I stuck Mike in with his sister Madeline to save space.

Uncle Mike and Visual Phasing

It appears that there are three siblings that have tested. This means that it would be possible to do visual phasing on these three. This is a way to tell what portions of their grandparents’ DNA has been passed down to Madeline, Mike and Charlotte. For example, about one-quarter of Minnie Frazer’s DNA has been passed down to these three siblings in different ways. Put another way, about half of Mike’s maternal DNA would be from Minnie born in 1865. I give an example of Visual Phasing later in this Blog.

Uncle Mike and the Line of Archibald Frazer born 1792

Here is a closer up view of Mike in the left branch of the James Line:

Here, Mike is a third cousin to Rodney, Betty, Janet, Joanna, and Jonathan. He is third cousin, once removed to most others in red above. This shows three DNA-tested branches: William, Edward and Thomas. Ancestry shows these branches as Circles:

I got the above figure from Joanna’s AncestryDNA results. The Walter group includes Joanna and family. They descend from Thomas. Uncle Mike is in the Frazer Emmet Group from Edward. The C.W Family is on the left descending from William. However, Ancestry does not have all the tested descendants.

The William, Edward and Thomas Frazer Branches at Gedmatch

Here is what the three Frazer Branches look like when the DNA of the tested descendants is compared at Gedmatch:

Mike matches everyone except for Penny. He also matches Joanna, but below the normal cutoff of 7 cM. Note that Penny doesn’t match anyone in the Edward Wynn Line, but her sister Toni does. This points out the importance of sibling testing.

Further Out in the James Line

If we have the genealogy right, Mike is a 4th cousin to Prudence and a 5th cousin to those in the Michael Frazer (born 1764) Branch.

Mike’s Interesting X DNA Match

This is how Mike matches Clyde at #3 and others of his close family on the X Chromosome. The interesting part is that this would have to be the DNA from the wife of Archibald born in 1792:

 

We can know this because the X Chromosome never travels from father to son. Going up from Clyde, we see females up to William. Going up from Mike, we see females up to Edward. William and Edward got no X Chromosome from their father, so that means that this match is from the their mother. This means that they had the same mother who would have been the wife of Archibald. There is a small chance that this X Match could be along another common line between Clyde and Mike. But I don’t think that is likely.

More on Visual Phasing

This Blog was sort of short, so why not try a little visual phasing? Here are some of Mike’s DNA matches (other than with his siblings or nieces):

It looks like a lot is going on at Chromosome 5. Mike matches Bonnie at 31.3 cM. By my chart above, Mike and Bonnie should be 5th cousins. Unless they match on another line, this would be DNA going all the way back to James Frazer born about 1720.

Visual Phasing of Chromosome 5 for Mike and His Two Siblings

Stephen Fox has an excellent spreadsheet that does a lot of the hard work in the visual phasing. I found his spreadsheet at The Visual Phasing Working Group on Facebook. It took a while to download the different matches but it is better than doing it by hand.

Here is Chromosome 5:

The first bar is Mike and Madeline Compared. The second is Mike and Charlotte. The third bar is Madeline compared to Charlotte. Next, I try to line up the crossovers:

Unfortunately, they are not lining up easily. Perhaps the X Chromosome would be easier

Chromosome 23

Here, I still have some problems. I only had crossovers for Mike and Charlotte. I didn’t see any obvious crossovers for Madeline. The first two bars are comparisons between Mike and Madeline and Mike and Charlotte. There are no solid blue sections because Mike gets no X Chromosome from his dad. Madeline and Charlotte in the last comparison have a solid green section as they both got an X from their dad. The green means that they have the same DNA from two grandparents – a maternal and paternal grandparent.

When I map out the Madeline and Charlotte’s green areas, I get this:

 

The green area is a Fully Identical Region or FIR. That means that the yellow and green grandparents sent down their DNA to the same places on Charlotte’s and Madeline’s X Chromosome. My simple view of the crossovers was that Madeline had no crossovers, so that means that she would be missing the DNA from one of her grandparents. The missing grandparent would have to be on her mother’s mother’s side. That is because she is already missing her paternal grandfather on the X. That is because he sent no DNA to Madeline’s father (or to Charlotte’s father). We know that Madeline and Charlotte match Clyde. That would be a Frazer match. The Frazer match maps to Madeline’s mother’s mother who was Minnie Frazer.

This is the view of the right side of Mike, Madeline and Charlotte’s X Chromosome. The bottom three blue bars represent where Clyde matches Mike, Madeline and Charlotte. Note that Charlotte has a shorter match with Clyde. That means that Charlotte’s crossover at the right side of the match is where her DNA goes from Frazer to Emmet. At this point we need to make a decision as to whether we want Frazer to be G1 or G4.

Here, by putting a G3 on Charlotte’s bottom part of her X Chromosome, I made that the maternal side. That means that G4 is Frazer and Emmet is G3. That also means that the bottom part of the X is set as the maternal side of the Chromosome. That then means that G1 is paternal.

The blue is the paternal grandmother who is Cronin. I must have made a mistake, because Mike should only have one side of his maternal Chromosome. Here is a probable map:

Mike only has a maternal side to his X Chromosome. That means that wherever he has a crossover, that means that the DNA he got goes either from Emmet to Frazer or Frazer to Emmet. This map assumes that I have the right crossovers. More matches with cousins could confirm or alter the map. I have some areas on the right and left of Charlotte’s map not filled in.

Note that Mike does not match Madeline, but does match Charlotte in the first section. As I have Mike with Emmet there, that means that Madeline has Frazer in that segment and Charlotte must have Emmet. Here is a filled-in map:

To do this right, I should have put numbers in for the locations of the crossovers.

Any Problems?

Yes, there are problems. Here is an X match with 5th cousin Bonnie:

Note that Bonnie matches Madeline on the middle bar but not Mike or Charlotte. It makes sense that she doesn’t match Mike as Mike has Emmet (purple) in that segment. This could be a false positive match for Madeline, or Charlotte could have a match there that did not show.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Mike’s testing brings interesting mapping possibilities with his two sisters. The mapping of these four grandparents goes back to about the 1860’s.
  • Mike’s DNA testing adds an important piece to the Archibald Frazer (born 1792) Line.
  • Mike also has interesting matches with James Line relatives that are further out.
  • Mike has an interesting X Chromosome match with Clyde that appears to represent DNA from the wife of Archibald Frazer born 1792. It is possible that other X Chromosome matches in common with Clyde and Mike could reveal other common ancestors that would lead to confirmation or clues to the identity of the wife of Archibald Frazer.

 

 

Posted on

Elizabeth’s DNA from the Australian Line of Frazers

I recently had an email from my Austrian cousin Ros. Her 2nd cousin Elizabeth had taken a DNA test. Here is how Elizabeth fits in with the Australian group of Frazers:

I wrote a Blog about Don here. While looking at Elizabeth’s DNA matches, I noticed that Jean had a sister Kathy that had tested, so I added her to the tree. This brings us back to 1827. Here is one generation earlier:

That brings us back to 1802 and adds in Cathy and Jane. John Parker Frazer and Honora White were the ancestors of the Australian Frazer Line in purple above. Elizabeth is related to Vivien as a 1st cousin once removed. She is a 2nd cousin to Ros, Jean and Kathy and a 3rd cousin to Don. Elizabeth is a 3rd cousin once removed to her non-Australian cousins Cathy and Jane.

The Archibald/Stinson Line

Going back one more generation gets us the Archibald/Stinson Line:

Unfortunately, even at this level, I am not on the tree. My Frazers descended from two of the siblings of the Archibald that married a Stinson at the top of the tree. I suppose that would make me a double 6th cousin to Elizabeth.

Elizabeth’s Australian DNA

To simplify things, I’ll compare Elizabeth to Don, Vivien and Ros. I’ll skip Jean and Kathy because Vivien’s children got all their maternal DNA from Vivien. So Vivien’s children could not match Elizabeth any more than Vivien does.

When I compare Elizabeth to Vivien and Ros, there will roughly half a chance that some of the DNA will be from the Boots family. However, when Don matches Elizabeth, that DNA would have to be from either John Parker Frazer or Honora White.

Here is an example from Chromosome 1:

Here Elizabeth matches Don and Vivien in green in the same area. This represents DNA from John Frazer or Honora White. This match stops at about position 4M. Then Elizabeth matches Ros. One likely possibility is that the yellow match between Ros and Elizabeth above is from the Boots side.

Here is a summary of Elizabeth’s Australian Frazer DNA matches:

Here are some DNA match ranges for Elizabeth compared to Vivien, Ros and Don:

Elizabeth and Vivien share 455.9 cM which is about average for a 1st cousin once removed. Ros and Elizabeth are also about average for 2nd cousins. However, Elizabeth and Don are below average for third cousins. As, I mentioned above,  the DNA ranges start to vary more the further out the relationship is.

Elizabeth’s DNA One Step Beyond Australia

 

Here I added Cathy and Jane who don’t have Australian ancestors. I wrote a Blog about Cathy nearly three years ago, back in the early days of Frazer DNA Blogs. From what I can tell, Cathy is from North Carolina and Jane is from Colorado.

In the darker box, I have the Elizabeth’s Australian cousins. Elizabeth is a 3rd cousin once removed to Jane and Cathy. An average or typical amount of DNA shared for a 3rd cousin once removed is about 48 cM. As can be seen for the amounts of DNA shared with Elizabeth’s cousins, the amounts go down from right to left on the top row in the above chart. Any DNA that Elizabeth shares with Cathy and Jane would likely be from Archibald Frazer born in 1802 or his wife Catherine Parker.

Pushing Back Elizabeth’s DNA to the 1700’s

The next logical step is to look at the generation before Archibald Frazer and Catherine Parker.

This adds 11 people to the 6 we have already looked at. We are not sure when this Archibald was born, but a guess was put at 1778. This is sometimes referred to as the Stinson Line as Archibald married Ann Stinson. The light blue line on the left was put in by DNA as a likely guess. Elizabeth should be a 4th cousin once removed or 5th cousin to most of these new people.

Here is how Elizabeth matches by DNA to her more distant cousins:

Unfortunately, I didn’t list these cousins in the best order. Out of the 11 more distant cousins, Elizabeth has a DNA match with three: Michael, Ken and Susan. The chances that Elizabeth will match a 4th or 5th cousin get smaller.

Elizabeth and More Distant Frazer Cousin

The next step up for Jane goes to Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilly

This couple had four sons that had descendants with tested DNA. I am in the blue line descended from Philip and Marilee is in the pink line descended from John. The descendants of Richard are also in the Archibald/Stinson line, so they are accounted for. Here Elizabeth would be 5th cousin once removed or 6th cousins to her more distant Frazer cousins. Based on the Chances of Finding a Match Chart above, her chances of having a DNA match with these people are very small.

Here is the Philip Line:

Those in yellow are already in the Archibald/Stinson LIne. Richard in green was added due to a DNA match as a likely Philip descendant.

Here is how Elizabeth matches her more distant cousins:

Elizabeth only matches Emily and Paul. And she matches them at below the normal cutoff of 7 cM.

Elizabeth and the James Line: The Final Frontier

Here the James Line is shown in white boxes:

Elizabeth would be typically a 6th cousin once removed to a 7th cousin to these people. From the list above, Elizabeth matches two people: Mary and Janet in the 5 cM range.

Summary and Conclusions

Elizabeth’s DNA behaves in an expected manner. I traced her matches from her closest Australian cousins down to her most distant James Line Frazer cousins. At each step further out, those DNA match levels go down. Elizabeth’s DNA testing confirms the genealogy we have. It also reminded me of others that had tested that I had forgotten about.

A review of the testing of Frazer DNA over the past three years, shows how the project has grown and come together.

 

Posted on

A Third Frazer Big Y 500: Part 2

Last month, I took a first look at Rodney’s Big Y 500 results. At that time, I was looking for unnamed SNPs that Rodney and Jonathan shared on the James Line. I was unable to find any. It looks like FTDNA and YFull were unable to find any also. When I wrote my first Blog, Rodney’s results were not at YFull yet. YFull is a popular service for interpreting Big Y results. I’ll take a look at Rodney’s YFull Results in this Blog. Before I do that, here is where Rodney fits into the Frazer YDNA testing tree:

Paul, Rodney and Jonathan have taken the Big Y test and Rick has taken the YDNA STR test.

Rodney at YFull

Before Rodney’s results were in, this was the YTree:

Jonathan and Paul were the last two id’s. Here is the present YTree:

YTree Changes

I see two major changes to the YTree. One is that there is a new non-Frazer Branch. The second is that the Frazer branch common ancestor is refined from 475 ybp to 375 ybp. From what we can tell, at the tree above, Archibald was born around 1690. That is roughly 325 years ago. So 375 years ago by YDNA is pretty close. I was expecting a new SNP for the James Line of the Frazers. These SNPs form about every 144 years. Note that at 375 years ago, that should represent 2 or three new SNPs. From my work on the STR side of the YDNA testing, it has seemed like the STR differences have been primarily on the Archibald Branch of the Frazer tree and not on the James side. It seems like this must be true for the SNPs also. This would have to be verified by Big Y testing of someone else in the Archibald Line. The only other possibility is that there is indeed another SNP for the James Line, but the testing results were not clear enough to determine that.

A New Parallel SNP Line to the Frazers

Here is the new line of R-BY26344:

While I’m thinking of it, there is another interesting point. The YTree shows that YP6488 was formed 1100 years ago. [The date that the SNP was formed is earlier than the common ancestor dates listed above. For the formed dates, see the YTree above.] The two branches below YP6488 were formed 700 years ago. However, the Frazer branch of YP6489 consists of six total SNPs listed here:

From 1100 to 700 years ago is 400 years. SNPs are formed on average every 144 years but in 400 years somehow the Frazer seemed to get 6 SNPs. On the other hand, BY26344 has is only represented by two SNPs over 400 years. That could mean that the Frazer line had all it’s SNP mutations between 1100 and 700 years ago, so now they are just coasting, so to speak.

Who Does BY26344 Represent?

YFull uses ID’s, so it can be difficult to tell who these people are. In the past, I have been tracking the Grants as their YDNA STRs have had similarities to the Frazers. That appears to be the case. However, there is also a Stuart as well as a grant in the YP6488 Group.

Here Grant and Stuart are still listed as YP6488, so that means that FTDNA may be a bit behind YFull for Grant and Stuart.

This is interesting as it shows us that Grant and Frazer had a common ancestor about 1300 A.D. To me, this would be before the time that surnames were in common use. However, by 225-375 years ago, surnames should have been in common use. This should mean that the two SNPs at the bottom of the tree should represent Grant and Frazer respectively. This also has interesting parallels to my wife’s line. A surname that was related to hers was also found to be a common ancestor about 700 years ago.

As a reminder, here is a map showing how close the Frasers and Grants lived in 1587:

My assumption is that this is where the common ancestors of the Grants, Stuarts and Frazers lived around the year 1300. This is to the Southwest and West of Inverness. The Frazers had the Grants surrounded. Also the Grants and Frazers surrounded Loch Ness.

I also note that one of the YDNA Grants testers mentions Carron. If I have the right Carron, it is to the Northeast of Glasgow. The Frazers were believed to be from the area of Ayr. I have also added dates to the various areas that the Grants and Frazers may have lived these areas.

Note where I have Grant above, I should have also included Stuart.

Further Questions on the Grant/Stuart Line

Assuming that the two IDs at YFull on the YTree are indeed Stuart and Grant, that poses additional questions for those two lines:

  • A common ancestor of 225 years ago is within the surname era. That means that there was some mixing of the two surnames due to adoption or other event.
  • Stuart appears to have been in Virginia before 225 years ago and Grant in Carron before that time. If this is correct, then the 225 years for a common ancestors may not be right.

I point this out partly, because it shows some common issues that could arise in a surname project. Fortunately, the testing of the Frazers so far has not resutled in similar issues.

Big Y 500 STRs

YFull looks at STRs deduced from the Big Y test. Here is how Rodney matches Jonathan and Paul:

This shows that, by STRs, Rodney is much more closely related to Jonathan than Paul. I think that there is a way to convert the distance to years, but I can’t find it right now. However, it appears to show that Rodney is more than twice as closely related to Jonathan as Paul is. This makes sense based on the genealogical tree at the top of the Blog.

Rodney is Running Out of SNPs

Here are Rodney’s novel SNPs at YFull:

Note that Rodney has no best or acceptable quality Novel SNPs. Novel SNPs are the ones that don’t match others. That means that all of Rodney’s good SNPs are already matched up with Paul and Jonathan as they should be. This makes sense as the time between the birth of Rodney, Jonathan and their common ancestor of Thomas Henry Frazer is likely less than 144 years.

For comparison, here are Paul’s Novel SNPs:

Paul has 10 Best or Acceptable Quality novel or private SNPs. It is likely that one or more of these SNPs could become an Archibald Line SNP if another Archibald Line Frazer descendant tests for the Big Y.

Perhaps a better comparison would be with Jonathan’s novel SNPs:

Jonathan is really out of Novel SNPs. He has no novel SNPs of any kind of quality.

Summary and Conclusions

 

  • Rodney’s Big Y 500 test has refined the YTree and dates of common ancestors
  • Many new SNPs prior to about the year 1300 may account for no identified SNPs after that date for the James Line
  • Another Big Y tester on the Archibald Line may create a new SNP for that branch
  • Assuming that the new Branch of BY26344 was for Stuart and Grant, that raises questions about the origin of those lines and about the date of the common ancestor for those two surnames.
  • The common ancestors for the Frazer distant relatives of Stuart and Grant has been moved up from 800 years ago to 700 years ago.
  • The common ancestor for the three Frazer testers has also been moved up 100 years: from 475 to 375 years ago.
  • The STR testing confirms the relative DNA closeness of Rodney and Jonathan who are in the James Line. This is also confirmed by autosomal DNA test results.