![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-30-21_42_01-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis new Channon test is a brother of a previous test. He has done what I did with my brother in the first column. I had my brother tested, so we could get our own branch. Notice a few things above:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Smith is from a much earlier branch before. Smith and Hartley broke off before surnames were commonly used.<\/li>\n
- Mawdsley is also separate and likely split before or at about the time that surnames came into common use.<\/li>\n
- Channon is surrounded by other Hartleys. Channon can trace their genealogy to the Nutter surname, but must have been Hartley at some point.<\/li>\n
- It seems to me that Channon will have to have their own branch, but it does not show yet. Both Channon testers are shown initially in R-A11134.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The New Tester and Non-Matching Variants<\/h2>\n
Here is how the new tester matches some of the previous testers:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-30-21_52_20-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThere are really three categories here. I show up later on the list as my branch has a lot of variants in it. So that means that there are more non-matching variants and my brother and I are further down on the list. First on the list is the previous Channon tester. These two have one non-matching variant. After that are the two other Hartleys who share A11134. The next three testers are in the R-A16717 Branch. These are a branch of Hartleys that emmigrated to Pennsylvania around the year 1700 or so.<\/p>\n
Non-Matching Variant 5672076<\/h2>\n
One might wonder why the two brothers have a non-matching variant. There are a few reasons. One may be that one of the brothers has formed a new branch of the YDNA tree. Another reason could be that there was no or incomplete coverage for one of the two tests at location 5672076.<\/p>\n
Here is the result for the new Channon Tester:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-30-22_12_24-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nHere is the older Channon results:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-30-22_15_35-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThat is interesting as the original Channon should form a new branch. However, FTDNA does not name a branch until another tests positive for this Branch. This would be a Private Variant for the original tester. However, it is possible to find this location’s SNP name at YBrowse:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-30-22_22_02-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe original tester should eventually be a part of this branch: Y354158.<\/p>\n
Y16496<\/h2>\n
The first non-matching variant the new Channon tester has with the first Hartley on the non-matching list is Y16496. The new Channon tester has that SNP:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-30-22_55_28-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe first Hartley on the non-matching list does not have that SNP:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-30-22_57_12-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nMy guess is that this would be a new Channon Branch. The original Channon BigY tester is also positive for this SNP:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-30-22_58_53-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nA Proposed Tree<\/h2>\n
It would be interesting to try to create a proposed tree. I have an old tree that I used previously:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-31-16_25_16-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis was probably accurate at the time.<\/p>\n
I had also created this colorful tree to predict what would happen at FTDNA previously:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-31-16_26_36-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis was more in the format of the Block Tree that FTDNA uses. The above tree also accounts for Lawrence and Michael who are in what I call the Pennsylvania Branch of Hartleys. I like this format better. Here I have updated that tree to show what FTDNA has now (except for the private variants):<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-31-16_33_26-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI am not sure how the new Block Tree should look, but this is how a simplified tree would look:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-31-16_53_18-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nUnfortunately, I do not believe that FTDNA will put Channon ‘Old Test’ on his own branch. They will likely just give him one Private Variant if I understand the process correctly.<\/p>\n
15646418<\/h2>\n
Here is part of the New Channon Tester’s match list:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-31-16_57_26-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nHere is that position for the new Channon tester:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-31-17_03_31-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nHe is clearly positive at this position.<\/p>\n
Next, I check the new Channon tester for his closest Hartley match Ethan:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-31-17_08_47-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nEthan is clearly not positive for that Variant. Here is what YBrowse shows:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-31-17_11_38-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThat modifies my SNP tree like this:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-31-17_18_50-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nFGC7804<\/h2>\n
Using the same reasoning, It could be that FGC7804 is in the new Channon Branch. If this branching is so obvious, I don’t know why it doesn’t show up yet in the Block Tree at FTDNA. Perhaps they are waiting for a manual review.<\/p>\n
New Channon Tester:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-31-17_33_45-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIt is interesting that the new tester has two variants quite close to each other. However, the one I am interested in has the arrow on top of it.<\/p>\n
Ethan:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/2024-12-31-17_35_45-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAnother reason the Block Tree may not have changed is that usually if a SNP is named, that means that it is already in a tree somewhere. So far, two of these SNPs have already been named for some reason.<\/p>\n