{"id":19046,"date":"2021-12-17T02:06:21","date_gmt":"2021-12-17T02:06:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/?p=19046"},"modified":"2021-12-17T02:06:21","modified_gmt":"2021-12-17T02:06:21","slug":"another-detailed-look-at-r-a11132-hartley-ydna","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/2021\/12\/17\/another-detailed-look-at-r-a11132-hartley-ydna\/","title":{"rendered":"Another Detailed Look at R-A11132 Hartley YDNA"},"content":{"rendered":"

This Blog is a follow-up on my previous Blog<\/a>. That Blog was about a new A11132 Hartley BigY tester. It was also about his genealogy and the genealogy of the other three existing A11132 Hartley BigY tester groups. I had this simple graphic for the existing situation of A11132 Hartleys:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The new tester was not included in this graphic as his test will take six to ten weeks to finalize according to FTDNA.<\/p>\n

Finding Answers As To Why the Roger Hartley Branch Has No Private Variants<\/h2>\n

That is one of the questions that I am\u00a0 trying to answer. Here is my Block Tree:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I have 7 SNPs. Steve has 5 Private Variants and Michael has no Private Variants. I would like to know why in around 500 years, Michael shows no Private Variants.<\/p>\n

Test Coverage<\/h2>\n

My understanding is that Michael took the BigY 500 test. That seems to be true based on this comparison:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Michael has about half as many Named Variants compared to Steve, Joel and Jim. That seems to confirm that he had the earlier BigY 500 test. There are 10 Named Variants per page.<\/p>\n

Comparing Private Variants<\/h2>\n

First, one of my assumptions seems to be wrong. Michael shows two Private Variants:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This does not make sense as Steve has 5 private Variants. The average of 7 Private Variants should be three of four, not two. I asked about this in the FTDNA – BigY Facebook page and got this answer:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

My takeaway is that all the Private Variants are used in the individual lists. However, when they average the Private Variants, they only use the best variants to be consistant with the variants used for calling SNPs.<\/p>\n

I have started a Private Variant comparison Chart:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In the chart above, Steve has five Private Variants and Michael has two. I checked Steve’s first PV against Michael and Michael’s results were inconclusive. That means that Micjael and Steve may share a SNP in that location.<\/p>\n

My brother and I have no Private Variants, but we have SNPs during the time Steve and Michael were having Private Variants:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Hopefully, these SNPs have been checked out, but I will put them in to see for myself.<\/p>\n

Comparing Steve’s 5 PVs with Michael;s Results<\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

For Steve’s first two PVs, Michael had a ? in his results. I am not looking at the detailed results, just a summary table. However, that tells me that there is a possibility that Steve and Michael could share results which would mean that they would share a SNP and a new Hartley Branch.<\/p>\n

Comparing Steve and Michael’s PVs with My Results<\/h3>\n

These results were unambiguous:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I clearly had none of the PVs that Steve and Michael Show.<\/p>\n

Comparing Michael’s Two PVs with Steve’s Results<\/h3>\n

In this case also, the results leave no doubt:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It is also possible that one position may be covered in on test and not in the other. However, that has not happened so far, the A11132 Hartleys.<\/p>\n

Comparing My Hartley Branch SNPs with Steve and Michael<\/h3>\n

I’m curious.<\/p>\n

The results with Steve are clear:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

My Hartleys and Michael<\/h4>\n

Here are the results for my first Hartley Branch SNP:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Here is my Chart:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I didn’t check my brother’s results as they would likely be the same as mine. I gave Michael an NT twice in the last column for ‘not tested’. I assume that ‘no reads found’ means that FTDNA didn’t cover that position.<\/p>\n

By each tester:<\/p>\n