![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/2022-01-24-20_37_48-myFTDNA-Dashboard.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis preliminary determination confirms that this tester is in the A111132 Hartley group:<\/p>\n
This is the tester with the ancestor of Wiliam Hartley from 1745. The other BigY tester who ordered a little later is the one with the ancestor of Roger Hartley b. 1628 in the 4th row of named ancestors in the image above.<\/p>\n The new A111132 Hartley has as his closest matches my brother James and me by STRs:<\/p>\n The new tester does not show up on my block three yet which represents four existing Hartley testers (me plus three matches). I am hoping that the new tester will break up the blue block of 7 SNPs represented by R-FT225247. In this blog, Basically if this tester is positive for all 10 SNPs in the A11132 Block, and negative for the 7 SNPs in the FT225247 Block, then there will be no changes. If he is negative for one or more in the FT225247 Block, that should result in a splitting of the Block. That would also show that the new tester is more closely related to my brother James and me than he is to Steve and Michael.<\/p>\n I am hoping to document the changes that take place as this Hartley tester’s BigY results progress from the initial phase through hopefully a manual review. A manual review takes place if there is a change in the Block Tree.<\/p>\n I am a little surprised that the Hartley BigY tester results seem to be coming out prior to a Mawdsley tester. Mawdsley is a new YDNA tester who took the BigY test. Based on the the Mawdsley STR results, he has many matches to Hartleys. My feeling is that Mawdsley could break up the the A11132 Block. This Block is old enough that it should predate surnames.<\/p>\n Here is the larger picture:<\/p>\n The Hartley Branch is in green.<\/p>\n Here is John’s new Block Tree:<\/p>\n Although the BigY results are in for John, my experience is that things could still change while the dust settles. It could take a few weeks – especially if there is a manual review.<\/p>\n I had mentioned above that if John was negative for all the SNPs in the FT225247 Block, then that Block would not be split. I can try to speed up the review and look at John’s results for the 7 SNPs in the FT225247 Block.<\/p>\n John’s results will either be positive, negative, not tested or inconclusive, so the real life situation may not be all or nothing. Here are the first two people on John’s Match List:<\/p>\n John has 12 Non-Matching Variants with Steve and 14 Non-Matching Variants with me. It appears that all 7 SNPs that are in my branch of FT225247 are in John’s list of Non-matching Variants. That makes it look like John is negative for those 7 SNPs.<\/p>\n It is possible to look at John’s test results for each SNP.\u00a0 One way is through his csv file. The other more detailed way is through FTDNA’s\u00a0 Y-Chromosome Browsing Tool. I’ll use the Browsing Tool:<\/p>\n This shows as not derived. The reference value of A is the same as the Genotype. I can’t get the Chromosome Browser to work right now, so I may come back to that later.<\/p>\n This probably should have been in a separate Blog, but I just checked on a Mawdsley BigY test and that came in as A11132. This was the test that I hoped would split the A11132 Block.\u00a0 Actually, this may come in soon. I see that Mawdsley is where the Hartley tester was yesterday:<\/p>\n However, it is exciting that Mawdsley has been found to be A11132. That implies to me that Mawdsley will be splitting the A11132 Block.<\/p>\n I am seeing the results now for the Chromosome browser for FT225247:<\/p>\n John was clearly negative for this SNP with many reads.<\/p>\n The quick way to check is by John’s csv file. I suspect that he is negative for all 7 SNPs under FT225247:<\/p>\n That means that John as well as Steve and Michael all appear to stem from A11132. That means also that so far, my model of how the different Hartley lines seem to be shaking out looks like what I had shown in a previous Blog:<\/p>\n SNPs have been said to form every 80 or 83 years. Jared Smith estimated that this number may be closer to 70 years for the Hartley part of the YDNA tree. To me, I wonder that it appears that these four Hartley lines descended from Hartleys that were born within a 70 to 80 year period. As I recall, my best guess for a common ancestor date for these lines was around 1550. That means that these four Hartley lines could be from 1550 give or take 35-40 years. Say 1510 to 1590.<\/p>\n John has<\/p>\n These are the variants in John’s line that formed since about 1550. These variants are reported as position numbers until someone else matches them, then they are reported as named SNPs. These positions are given names pretty much right away, but those names are not reported until there is another match.<\/p>\n These variants show up in John’s list of Non-matching Variants:<\/p>\n So far, I have accounted for 7 SNPs from my family and 4 Private Variants from John. That leaves 3 Non-Matching Variant not accounted for.<\/p>\n John does not show this SNP:<\/p>\n I clearly have it:<\/p>\n Also my brother Jim:<\/p>\n It is not clear to me why this SNP is not noted in the Hartley Line that my brother and I are in. However, I do note that this SNP is listed in the I2 Haplogroup at YBrowse:<\/p>\n This is a SNP that John has:<\/p>\n I don’t think that I tested for this SNP.\u00a0 My brother clearly does not have this SNP.<\/p>\n John shows as not derived for this SNP:<\/p>\n It turns out I have this SNP:<\/p>\n The results do not look the best, but they do seem to show I have this SNP.<\/p>\n Now I am curious as to my brother Jim’s results. If he was positive for this SNP, then it should have shown up. Jim’s results show as inconclusive:<\/p>\n I wonder if this SNP was from a low-quality area of the Y Chromosome. This is one of those cases where the deeper you get into the details, the more confusing it gets.<\/p>\n Steve has 5 Private Variants. Those are the five starting with 7053124. The last four in the orange box are John’s Private Variants. That leaves three Non-Matching SNPs.<\/p>\n I already discussed this SNP above. John has it. That must mean that Steve does not have it.<\/p>\n My assumption is that Steve must have this SNP and he does:<\/p>\n The same must be true that Steve has the SNP FT35996:<\/p>\n This is a little trickier as Michael only took the BigY500. This has less coverage than the BigY700 that the rest of us took:<\/p>\n That means that Michael is only negative for two of the four Private Variants that John does have (underlined above). Michael has two Private Variants which start with 203 and 126. That leaves 11 Non-Matching Private Variants.<\/p>\n BY80068 is the third to last Non-Matching Variant. That means that Michael did not test positive for that SNP:<\/p>\n That leaves 11 SNP unaccounted for.<\/p>\n It seems odd that this is a Non-Matching Variant between John and Michael as it seems that they both are not positive for this SNP. However, as I look at Michael’s Chromsome Browser, he does show that he is positive for the SNP:<\/p>\n This is what Michael’s csv file showed as of last month:<\/p>\n YBrowse has this SNP in the J Tree:<\/p>\n Michael is clearly positive for this SNP also:<\/p>\n But again, Michael’s csv file does not show positive for this SNP. I think I’ll skip the other Non-Matching SNPs between John and Michael as I don’t seem to be getting anywhere with them. It may be that Lawrence’s pending BigY700 test will clear this up. Lawrence is believed to be distantly related to Michael.<\/p>\n John asked me if there was much difference between L21 where he was previously and A11132 where he is now. Here is an L21 map from 2011:<\/p>\n The map shows that there a lot of L21 people the further you go to the Northwest. Of course with those who have emmigrated to other countries, this would account for Millions of people. L21 has been associated with the Celtic people.<\/p>\n Here is what SNP Tracker shows:<\/p>\n A11132 is shown as a Medieval SNP and L21 shows as a Bronze Age SNP. Here are some SNP dates:<\/p>\n L21 dates to 2600 BCE and A11132 to 850 CE. Actually, I should add in my own Hartley Branch SNP:<\/p>\n My Hartley Branch dates to about 1500 CE which is the aprroximate common ancestor date between John and the rest of the BigY tested Hartleys. The date I mentioned that I had come up with was about 1550 CE.<\/p>\n Here is the way Mawdsley’s Block Tree looks at the time of my writing:<\/p>\n This tree is in flux. In my last Blog<\/a>, I predicted that John would become A11134 or A11135 as Mawdsley was negative. Here, Mawdsley has lost his other matches of the three former A11132 Hartleys. However, the three Hartleys are now showing as A11134 at least in their general YDNA listings (see below), so the change is in progress. John must have one of the fastest changes of a haplogroup after BigY testing:<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThe Existing Hartley Block Tree<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nThe New Hartley Tester and a New Mawdsley Tester<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n25 January and the New BigY Results Are In<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nLooking at John’s Test Results In More Detail<\/h2>\n
John’s Non-Matching Variants<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nFT225247<\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nAnother New A11132 Determination<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nBack to John’s BigY Results<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nOther SNPs Under FT225247<\/h3>\n
\n
<\/a><\/p>\nJohn’s Private Variants<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nOther Non-Matching Variants with My Family<\/h2>\n
FGC6800<\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nBY80068<\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nFT27444<\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nJohn and Steve’s Non-Matching Variants<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nBY80068<\/h4>\n
Y51250<\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nFT35996<\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nFinally, John and Michael<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nBY80068<\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nZS1551<\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nY30173<\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nFrom L21 to A11132<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nNew Results Due to the Mawdsley BigY Test<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n