![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/2018-12-08-13_05_03-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThese are the 33 Clusters I came up with at FTDNA. I decided that FTDNA pads their DNA a bit. This padding problem blew up my orange Cluster 1 where there are a ton of matches on my Chromosome 20. These are on my Frazer grandmother’s side.<\/p>\n
Here is a summary of some of my AutoClustering that I did previously:<\/p>\n
The FTDNA results are in the middle column. It looks like I figured out 6 of the 33 Clusters.<\/p>\n The Leeds Color Analysis also creates clusters, though not as graphically as the AutoCluster method. The good thing about the Leeds method is that it doesn’t rely on a\u00a0 computer program and it requires some interpretation from the user. These could also be considered negatives.<\/p>\n Here is what I came up with using a Leeds Color Analysis of my FTDNA\u00a0matches:<\/p>\n In the Leeds Analysis, I used my father’s cousin as the lead Hartley person. He did not show up in the AutoClustering as he was too close a DNA match compared to the thresholds I used. However, the second person in the Blue column is Benjamin. He matches my father’s cousin Jim and becomes the lead person in the AutoClustering. A search for Benjamin in the AutoCluster shows that he is in Cluster #10.<\/p>\n The problem is that Cluster 10 only has three people in it:<\/p>\n In the Leeds Color Analysis, there were 20 in the Blue column. When I go to my match with Benjamin at FTDNA and choose ICW, I get three people. So that makes sense. This is just one flavor of Hartley. A look at the ancestral names of these matches makes me think that this could be a Colonial SE Massachusetts branch. I’ll call this a Snell\/Bradford Line as that covers all my Colonial ancestors:<\/p>\n I could be wrong, but that is my best guess right now. Next, I filtered for Hartley (blue on the Color Analysis) and added a column for the AutoCluster number to keep track of the Cluster number:<\/p>\n The other two people in AutoCluster #10 were not in the Leeds Color Analysis.<\/p>\n It would seem logical to go down the Blue list and put an AutoCluster numbers in for each person. I find the results interesting:<\/p>\n I would trust the Clusters except for #6 as that shows more than one color. I was a bit surprised that they didn’t all relate to AutoCluster numbers. I’m not sure why that is. Part of the reason is that I went by FTDNA predicted relationship and AutoCluster probably goes by total DNA match in cM.<\/p>\n I plugged these number back into my AutoCluster Summary:<\/p>\n Notice that I had one Hartley in Cluster 4 which I previously had as Frazer. Turns out that was a mistake and she should have been in Cluster 2. It all works out. It turns out I made another mistake and there is no obvious Hartley Cluster 8.<\/p>\n I suppose it would be possible to further break down the Hartley into Colonial or non-colonial, but I’ll hold off on that for now. The Hartley List worked well, so I’ll move on to Frazer.<\/p>\n Here is what I get:<\/p>\n Again, I’m unsure why the people at the bottom of the list are not in clusters. The Clusters I found were not shared with other colors, so that was good. Now I feel like I am getting somewhere:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nCan the Leeds Color Analysis Help Figure Out More Clusters?<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
Starting with Hartley<\/h3>\n
Cluster 10<\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nGoing Down the Blue List<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nCorrected FTDNA Cluster Summary<\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nPlugging Leeds Frazer Colors Into AutoCluster<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n