![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-17-08_16_36-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis tree is from my perspective. I am in an offshoot of A11134 called FT225247. John R., Michael, and Lawrence are in another off-shoot called A16717. This was a branch of Hartley Quakers from the 1600’s that emigrated to Pennsylvania. Ethan is curently in the main Branch of Hartleys under A11134 along with Channon, John N., and Steve. I believe that Channon may have Hartley in his ancestry going back. Mawdsley is related to the Hartleys, but the branches probably split prior to the common use of surnames and his surname would have developed independently. So we don’t think that Mawdsley ever had Hartley in their ancestry. Smith is a separate branch that is very old.<\/p>\n
Some other observations:<\/p>\n
- \n
- My branch has the most SNPs for some reason – 7<\/li>\n
- A11134 is actually a block of three different SNPs<\/li>\n
- As there are 7 SNPs in my Branch and an average of three Private Variants under A16717 and A11134 and other branches, there is more room for further branching.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
FTDNA Time Tree<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-17-08_24_49-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis time tree shows that Smith has been alone in his Branch of A11138 since about the year 500 AD (or CE). Mawdsley’s Line split off around the year 1200. The rest of the Hartleys are quite old – going back to the 1500’s or possibly even earlier.<\/p>\n
YDNA SNP Theory<\/h2>\n
SNP Theory is simple:<\/p>\n
- \n
- If you have a SNP that no one else has, it is a Private SNP or Variant<\/li>\n
- If you match someone else with a SNP that puts you in a group with them<\/li>\n
- If you do not have SNPs that others have in a lower branch, that puts you in a higher branch. For example, in the Hartley example above, Ethan, Channon, John N. and Steve do not have FT225247 or A16717, so they are currently in the higher or earlier Hartley Branch of A11134<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
In practice, interpreting these principles is difficult. All BigY tests are different. If the test has poor coverage for a SNP, or no coverage, it will be difficult to interpret the results.<\/span><\/p>\n
Ethan’s Private Variants<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-17-11_11_14-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nFTDNA shows that Ethan has one private variant at position 17071491. However, I do not understand the results as the Reference is G and the Genotype is T. However, the test results give a ‘C’. Now if Ethan has only one private variant, that seems to indicate a relatively short time to common ancestors or that he has very few mutations compared to the average amount of mutations.<\/p>\n
Here is Ethan’s Match List:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-17-11_17_50-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nEthan’s closest matches are John R and Channon. He has 5 non-matching variants with these two. Note that Private Variant 17071491 shows up in these list. That means that each of these testers could have tested negatvie for this Variant. However, we have to check to make sure.<\/p>\n
This gets confusing as there are two John R’s. The one who took the BigY descends from the Quaker Hartleys:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-17-11_26_15-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nJohn has a ton of reads, most of which are negative. That means that he is not positive for the Variant that Ethan has.<\/p>\n
Channon’s results for Ethan’s Private Varinat position are similar:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-17-11_29_19-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nDoes Ethan Have Any New Matches with Existing Hartley Testers?<\/h2>\n
This seems to be the big question as that would put Ethan in a new group. Another corollary is: Does Ethan have non-matches which would put other Hartleys in a new group.<\/p>\n
I see from a previous Blog I wrote, that I have this colorful spreadsheet:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-18-11_47_50-Hartley-Variants-Compared-Excel.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI used an add-on called BAMsAway to look up variant results that FTDNA normally does not show. The colors give the various gradations that are possible with the results. This shows how one SNP was added to the Hartley Tree – namely MF 205420. I think that I used this chart to get FTDNA to put Michael, Lawrence and John into their own Branch.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-18-12_03_40-Hartley-Variants-Compared-Excel.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nHere I have added Ethan and his own Private Variant. All I have to do is to fill in the new row and column. Here is the column:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-18-14_37_00-Hartley-Variants-Compared-Excel.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI had forgotten how I had the light green codes. For example B?4+ means that there were 4 positive reads. Usually 10 are needed. B?5- means that there were 5 negative reads. So the shortcoming of the designation is that a plus is a likely SNP and a minus is a likely ancestral value (no mutation).<\/p>\n
I didn’t bother checkign each SNP in my own Hartley Branch as Ethan is likely not positive for those SNPs. I should also note that Michael has a lot of ‘no reads’. This is likely because he took th eolder BigY 500 which tested fewer locations on the YDNA.<\/p>\n
The outcome of the exercise is that Ethan clearly does not share any of the Private Variants of the other testers. If Ethan had a no read for one of these positions, then perhaps we could say he matched one of the other Hartleys, but that was not the case.<\/p>\n
Checking the Other BigY Tested Hartleys for Ethan’s Private Variant<\/h3>\n
As Ethan only shows one Private Variant, it is not likely that this Variant would be shared with anyone else, but I will check. Here is my result:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-18-14_49_12-Big-Y-Results.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI see that there was a mutation in one read only, but the overall effect is that I am not positive for this mutation. It turns out that all the results were negative for Ethan’s SNP:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-18-15_03_38-Hartley-Variants-Compared-Excel.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe bottom line is that my Hartley Branch has an unusually large number of SNPs since these Hartley Branches split and Ethan has an unusually small amount of Private Variants – one.<\/p>\n
FGC SNPs<\/h2>\n
Earlier in the Blog, I looked at Ethan’s BigY Match List:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-18-15_24_50-Big-Y-Results.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nHere are a few non-matching variants in his list starting with FGC. I have looked at FGC6800 before. This is already a named SNP in the I branch of the YDNA and I am in the R branch. I have a feeling that FTDNA cannot handle two SNPs that are the same in different branches. I do not believe that I have looked at FGC7804 before. I’ll just add them to my spreadsheet:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-18-16_15_00-Hartley-Variants-Compared-Excel.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI found that Nutter aka Channon has the SNP (or Private Variant) of FGC7804<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-19-14_32_03-Big-Y-Results.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAccording to YBrowse, the Branch for this SNP is unknown:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/2024-05-19-19_07_15-GBrowse-Details_-id_87693.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nHowever, it was discovered in 2013 which is before Channon tested. I would tend to look at FGC7804 as a Private Variant for Channon.<\/p>\n