{"id":26661,"date":"2025-02-28T17:07:44","date_gmt":"2025-02-28T17:07:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/?p=26661"},"modified":"2025-03-01T12:46:04","modified_gmt":"2025-03-01T12:46:04","slug":"a-new-ftdna-mitotree","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/2025\/02\/28\/a-new-ftdna-mitotree\/","title":{"rendered":"A New FTDNA Mitotree"},"content":{"rendered":"

I was notified recently via the Facebook Page, Mitochondrial DNA for Genealogy that something big was happening. The big thing is that FTDNA has a new Beta Mitotree for Mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA. MtDNA is the DNA that women receive from their mother’s mother’s mother’s line and so on. This is passed down to daughters but also to one generation of sons.<\/p>\n

My mtDNA: H5’36<\/h2>\n

I took the mtDNA Full Sequence test in 2014 so over 10 years ago. I am currently H5’36, but apparently all tht could change with the new Mitotree. Roberta Estes was involved with the new tree and wrote a good Blog on the Mitotree here<\/a>. When I put my current Haplogroup into the FTDNA search, I get this message:<\/p>\n

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

My guess is that either H5’36 is being shuffled around and\/or being renamed in update or that the search is having trouble with the ‘ charachter. Instead, I will type in plain old H5:<\/p>\n

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

Now I should point out that I am not H5, but H5’36. H5’36 predates H5 but was added in later as it was discovered after H5. The H5 story continues:<\/p>\n

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

This screen shot is interesting as it shows H5’248 as the precursor to H5. I assume that H5’248 may be my new Haplogroup – or an equivalent to what I have now. It is interesting that these two Haplogroups have the same date of 4750 BCE – really old. The following timeline does not add much information, but just displays it in a different way:<\/p>\n

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

Am I Now H5’248?<\/h2>\n

This is my assumption, but it is unclear why the change from H5’36 to H5’248 was necessary unless there is now a new naming protocol. All this seems to be laying the groundwork for new branches under H5’248. The next logical step is to do a search fo H5’248.<\/p>\n

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

Again H5 is the popular descendant of H5’248 which I am not part of.<\/p>\n

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

Here is another new Haplogroup called H5’248^. I guess there was a lot going on around 4800 BCE with my mom’s side mitochondrial DNA. Of interest above, is that H5’248 is the parent to H5, H248 and one yet unnamed lineage. As I am not H5, that means that I am likely H5’248, H248 or an unnamed lineage.<\/p>\n

Here is another view:<\/p>\n

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

I like this view because it shows over 1,000 H5 testers which I am not part of below me.<\/p>\n

However, I would think that there would be more branching under H5’248. From a Blog I wrote 2 years ago, I had this possible tree:<\/p>\n

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

This tree was based on information at YFull.<\/p>\n

YFull’s MTree<\/h2>\n

Apparently, the chart I drew 2 years ago is now outdated. I am now H5’36e according to YFull’s MTree:<\/p>\n

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

I am at the very bottom of the MTree for H:<\/p>\n

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

Note that this is a new subclade:<\/p>\n

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

I am wondering how much YFull’s MTree was responsible for FTDNA’s Mitotree. Here is my interpretation of what YFull’s MTree is showing now:<\/p>\n

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

The over 1,000 testers under H5 obviously have many branches that I did not show. H5’36-b and H5’36b have some branching, but the other H5’36 branches have no further branching under them. I am a bit surprised how far behind FTDNA got in it’s Mitotree. I suppose that is why it may take a while for them to get up to speed.<\/p>\n

FInally, I note from FTDNA:<\/p>\n

Updates are rolling out over the next few weeks, with Haplogroup H coming after the other haplogroups since it is so large.<\/em><\/p>\n

My Wife’s mtDNA<\/h2>\n

I tried to test my wife’s later mother’s mtDNA, but the test failed, so I am now trying to test my wife’s which is also an old sample. It turns out that this is an old sample also. I see from FTDNA:<\/p>\n

Standard Average Processing Times<\/b><\/div>\n
\n