More on Whitson R-U106 BigY Results

In my previous Blog, I looked at two new BigY U106 initial results. I say U106 because there are different branches of Whitsons that aren’t related closely by YDNA. This is not unusual in surnames. In that review, the two new testers were brought down to the level of Pete (an earlier BigY tester) who was at R-BY97752.

A Change in the Results

Recently, those who were watching closely, noticed that there was another change for the three U106 BigY testers who I am calling Pete, Tom and Norton:

By adding Tom and Norton, the three have gone down two levels and have their own group separate parallel to the group to the left of them which is R-Y62217.

Private Variants

Note that under FT137411, there are no private variants listed. That is because between the three testers, there is only one private variant which averages out to 1/3 or rounded to zero. Norton has one private variant at position 5014418:

FTDNA does not show a name for this variant as there have been no matches yet to this variant. In order to check this against Tom and Pete, I had to download their CSV files. Peter shows that he has no variant at that position:

A variant here would have to have a different letter than G in the last column.

If I check Tom’s results, I should see the same thing. I checked it, and his results are the same. So for Norton to have a private variant, he has to test positive for that and everyone else in the tested BigY world has to be tested negative. That is what we see here.

Private Variants for Tom?

On Tom’s BigY match list, he shows no Private Variants.

However, in my previous Blog, when I checked the private variants, it looked like Pete should have had two private variants:

What happened to 3242552 and 6464378? Here are Tom’s results:

Tom was not tested for the variant at position 3242552. That means that if someone has not been tested for a variant you have been tested for, you don’t know if that would be your private variant or not. To be certain, I’ll download Norton’s CSV file:

Next I look for 6464378 under Norton’s results:

Tom’s results:

Where Did All the SNPs Come From in the FT137411 Block?

There are now 23 SNPs showing in the block represented by FT137411. In my previous review of the three testers’ former ‘private variants’ they had 21 variants in common. These likely make up 21 of the 23 SNPs in the FT136511 Block. But where did the other 2 come from? Unfortunately, I would have to look at each SNP in the Block individually.

Here are the first three SNPs in the Block:


I didn’t look at 12086294 in my previous Blog. My guess is that this named SNP had previously shown up under Pete’s results. Due to FTDNA naming conventions, it would not have shown up as his private variant even though he didn’t get a match until now. Or, it could be that Pete’s results were inconclusive, but after seeing the results for Dan and Tom, they considered Pete also positive for BY178619. Well, the second scenario can’t be right, as here are Pete’s results for that SNP:

Here is what YBrowse shows:

This is confusing as it shows BY178619 on the J branch of the YDNA Tree. That means that I have another guess. Pete tested for this previously and they said, That can’t be right, that is on the J Tree not the R. I think that this happends sometimes. In fact, herer is another YBrowse shot:

This shows that position 12086294 already has three names. The other two names are on the O and J1 branches respectively. If I understand this Variant correctly, it must occur on four different branches of the YDNA Tree.


F17396 is position 8827436. I did not see this in my previous analysis. For this position there are two SNPs:

YBrowse has F17396 on the J YDNA Branch also:

The other SNP is a different Mutation:

This mutation is from G to T. The Whitson mutation was from G to A. Here are Tom’s results:

That appears to be the second SNP at a position which was not accounted for in my previous Blog. They are both unusual SNPs in that the mutation occurs in other trees.

A Note from Pete

Pete has been monitoring these BigY results quite closely and had a few questions for me:

Well, that came out a bit small. The blurred name is the one I am calling Norton. This is interesting as Norton is more closely related to Pete than Tom is. I think that Pete’s estimate of 300 years could be a bit off. If Pete and Tom’s common ancestor was born in 1725 and Pete was born around 1950, that would be closer to 225 years. Still, that is quite a while. Let’s go back to my chart from my previous Blog:

This will also be a good summary:

  • Norton, who is more closely related to Peter has one Private Variant which is 5014418.
  • Pete has two variants which don’t match with Norton or Tom because the BigY tests for Norton and Tom didn’t cover those two posititions. That means that we can’t tell if those are Pete’s Private variants or part of the FT137411 Block.
  • Tom’s previously listed private variants were in common with all of Norton’s and Tom’s previously listed private variants which are now listed as SNPs in the FT137411 Block.
  • In addition to the 21 shared SNPs, there were two additional SNPs which had been identified previously in other unrelated YDNA trees. I suppose that you could call these SNPs which are doing double duties in different trees.

The other thing that Pete mentioned was that the FTDNA Manual Review had been completed. I said that I could see where that would make sense. However, not all of Pete’s questions have been answered. I can hazard a few guesses to try to answer Pete’s questions:

  • Norton’s common ancestor with Pete was born 1835, so about 115 years ago. That means that Dan’s branch and Pete’s branch should have had on average one private variant in that time. We see that Norton’s branch did buy Pete’s did not during that time.
  • BIgY 700 SNPs should be forming on average every 86 years or so, as I recall. However, that does not mean that this is a regular occurance. There could have been SNPs that happened in the past more frequently and now they are taking their time to form to average out.

Non-Matching Variants

Ready for more detail? Non-matching Variants are not necessarily the same as Private variants. Let’s first look at Norton’s results:

In this case, the numbered variant is Norton’s one Private Variant. It makes sense that if 5014418 is not matching Tom or Pete, that it has to be a Private Variant for Norton.

Norton’s Non-Matching SNPs with Pete

Then there are 10 SNPs where Norton and Pete do not match on SNPs. My guess is that these are due to test coverage or low quality reads. Might as well start with BY44298. Non-matching means that either Pete or Norton tested positive for this SNP and the other person did not test positive. Here Norton did not test positive for BY44298:

That means that Pete must have tested positive for this SNP to be non-matching.

Norton’s results above show only three high quality reads, but none show a mutation. My understanding is that FTDNA is looking for 10 good reads. Here are Pete’s results:

Now I am curious as to Tom’s results for BY44298:

Tom shows a non-matching variant with Pete at BY44298. That must mean that Tom also is not positive for this SNP:

As I expected, Tom had a poor read at this location also. Even though the tests were not good for Tom and Norton, I suspect that this SNP should have been a Private Variant for Pete. Pete told me that his brother is taking a BigY test. If Pete’s brother is positive for BY44298, then that should be a new Branch for Pete and help answer part of Pete’s question. Keep in mind that new Branches are not created without a match, so Pete’s brother will likely provide that match. If Pete’s brother tests negative for BY44298, that would mean that Pete would have that mutation all to himself.


I seemed to have some progress with BY44298. I notice that Tom and Pete also have a non-match with BY55572. Could this be part of a new emerging Whitson Branch also? Here are Pete’s results:

These results are similar to Pete’s results for BY44298. These two SNPs are also in the same region of YDNA.

Tom’s test results for BY55572:

Again, Tom had two good reads.

Norton’s results for BY55572:

At this point, I’ll declare victory and say that BY55572 could also be a future branch for Pete.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Of the three BigY U106 Whitson testers, only (Norton) shows a Private Variant presently
  • Pete may have two additional private variants but due to the fact that the BigY test for Norton and Tom did not cover those locations, we cannot tell if those are Pete’s Private Variants or two more to add to the the FT137411 Block
  • The initial results for the Whitson U106 Group had their representative FT137411 block containing 21 SNPs. The new results have these up to 23 SNPs due to two weirdo SNPs which are doing double or more duty on other branches of the YDNA tree.
  • When I check the non-matching variants for the three testers, Pete has two SNPs that he is clearly positive for. On the other hand, Norton and Tom seem negative for those two SNPs, but the testing quality was not the best.
  • It is likely that the test results for Pete’s brother will put Pete and his brother into a new Whitson Branch that will include SNPs BY44298 and BY55572
  • These two SNPs could explain the question Pete had about why there were no private variants between their most recent common ancestor which was about 116 years before Pete’s birth.
  • Between Norton and Pete there are other non-matching variants which I have not looked at.






One Reply to “More on Whitson R-U106 BigY Results”

Leave a Reply to Pete Whitson Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *