Angelina: A Close Match on My Mother’s German Latvian Side

When I was out in the State of Washington visiting with my daughter and granddaughter, I came upon a close DNA match for my family. Her name is Angelina and I found her results at MyHeritage.

Here is the summary of the match between my Mom, Gladys and Angelina:

MyHeritage made a guess that these two could be 1st cousin once removed or 2nd cousin. Angelina’s DNA is managed by Georges in Switzerland.

Here is my mom’s tree on her paternal side where she must match Angelina by DNA:

If Angelina and Gladys are 2nd cousins, that would mean that their common ancestors would have to be Rathfelder/Schwechheimer or Gangnus/Lutke. That narrows it down to two choices. Seems simple.

If My Mom and Angelina Are 1st Cousins Once Removed

It is possible that Angelina could descend from this family:

Further, if this was the case, Angelina may descend from one of the daughters of Johann Heinrich Rathfelder. That would be Erna Auguste, Caroline Antonie or Marie Otilie. My reasoning is that if she had descended from a male Rathfelder, then the child would also be a Rathfelder and that Angelina probably would have known that. Unfortunately, I don’t have the information for any of the marriages above except for the last two children: Alexander and Leo.

Comparing the DNA

Here is how my mother’s DNA and Angelina’s DNA match up:

Using DNA Painter, I have painted in Angelina’s DNA matches on my mother’s chromosome map:

The above map just shows my mother’s paternal matches. I called the medium green “Unknown Latvian Ancestor” until we figure out who that ancestor is.

Here is a partial Rathfelder tree with DNA matches that I have identified:

I see that I forgot to add Inese to my Mother’s DNA Painter Map. I’ll add her now:

Between adding Angelina and Inese, that brings my mom from 32% paternally mapped to 40% paternally mapped.

Adding in Assunta

My mother also matches Assunta by DNA. Assunta appears to be the niece of Angelina. I wrote to Assunta previously, but she didn’t know anything about her ancestry. She wrote that she lives in Germany, but her family is from Italy. Assunta expands the DNA matches that Angelina has with my mother on Chromosomes 2 and 11:

Limited Genealogy Options

I am not able to see Angelina’s family tree, but these surnames are listed for her tree:

However, I can’t tell if they are ancestor surnames or descendant or collateral surnames.

Sometimes I do research on a Latvian Genealogy web site: http://www.lvva-raduraksti.lv/

However, that web site is not working now.

Summary and Conclusions

  • My first guess is that Angelina and Assunta descend from one of the daughters of Johann Heinrich Rathfelder and Marie Elisabeth Laura Gangnus.
  • The second guess is that they descend from one of set of the two sets of parents of Heinrich and Marie.
  • It’s frustrating having such a close match as Angelina and Assunta and not knowing exactly where they fit in. However, the connection has been narrowed down.

 

My Relative Eva and Our DNA Match at MyHeritage

I was checking DNA matches at MyHeritage recently and came across Eva. Here is how Eva matches my mother at MyHeritage:

Eva also has a tree at MyHeritage which is a big help:

As Eva has a Rathfelder ancestor, is from Latvia and matches by DNA, that leads me to believe that we have a common Rathfelder ancestor.

Where Does Eva Fit In the Rathfelder Puzzle?

At first, I thought that Eva’s grandfather Henrihs might fit in here:

My thinking was that there was space between 1882 and 1888. Also that Henrihs could have been named for his father Heinrich. According to Wikipedia, there are quite a few Latvian versions of Henry:

Latvian: Henrijs, Henriks, Heinrihs, Henrihs, Indriķis, Ints, Anrijs, Anrī

Another possibility is the Harry Eduard in the list. I don’t have much information about him. However, that would make Eva and me second cousins, and MyHeritage is guessing that we are 3rd or 4th cousins, so either our DNA match is smaller than usual, or we are related further back. Here is the amount of DNA expected to be shared between 2nd cousins:

The average is 233 cM, but the lower reported range could go as low as 46 cM.

Who was Henrihs Ratfelders Born 1887?

For my research I use mostly:

http://www.lvva-raduraksti.lv/

This website has a list of all Latvians as of 1918-1940.

I don’t see anyone that looks like Henrihs:

I do see Hermanis. He was born 1918-05-14. Hermanis was the son of my grandfather’s brother Leo Rathfelder. Speaking of Leo, he appears three times in the online Latvian database:

This shows correctly that he was born in Riga, but that his ancestry was in Irsu pag. which is the area where the Colony of Hirschenhof was. Interestingly Leonhards’ father’s name is given as Heinrihs. That means that Eva and I have ancestors with both the same first name and last name.

Looking for Zelma Jancevska Born 1907

It looks like there was 20 years difference between Henrihs and Zelma. I couldn’t find Zelma either:

However, I could not find my grandfather either on this list or any of his siblings except for Leo.

Deeper Into the Records of Hirschenhof

It is possible that Henrihs was born in Hirschenhof, so I’ll take a look at those records. Here are the records I need for 1887:

Unfortunately, it seems like the web site is not working properly. I guess I’ll have to try later.

Well, I figured that one out.

Eva’s DNA Matches

Because Eva seems to certainly be related on the Rathfelder side somehow, I’ll add her to DNA Painter for my Mom:

Here is the amount of DNA typically shared between third cousins:

My mother shares 74 cM of DNA with Eva. I share only 28.1 cM with Eva.

Eva’s DNA Matches Shared with My Mom at MyHeritage

These are the matches my Mom and Eva share:

Angelina is a fairly new match and will likely be the subject of my next Blog. My Mom matches her at a high amount. Inese is a descendant of my Mom’s Uncle Leo Rathfelder and lives in Latvia. Edeltraud is a more distant relative. Here is her tree:

Edeltraud has Ludwig Spatz and Emilie Schmidt as being from Hirschenhof. My mother has a Schmidt in her paternal ancestry, so that may be the connection:

Anna was born in Germany, but married and died in Hirschenhof, Latvia.

Stuck for Now

I’ll have to come back to Eva later. Here is the part of my tree that we might both descend from:

It seems like there should be more children born to Johnn Georg Rathfelder above. I only show one son, Johannes. The common Rathfelder ancestor that Eva and I have should be Johann Heinrich, Johannes or Joahnn Georg. I’ve narrowed it down to three generations!

Summary and Conclusions

  • It would seem almost certain that I share a Latvian Rathfelder ancestor with Eva. However, figuring out the genealogy for that ancestor is difficult.
  • My guess is that Eva’s grandfather Henrihs Ratfelders could have been born in the German Colony of Hirschenhof, Latvia. However, the website with those records is not working right now.
  • My ancestor Johann Heinrich is also listed as Heinrihs in the all Latvia online database.
  • Eva’s Henrihs may be the son of my great-grandfather Johann Heinrich Rathfelder, but I don’t have a record of that birth. Alternately, the Heinrich name may be a coincidence or be named after a third Heinrich that I don’t know about.
  • If Eva and I share the ancestor of Johann Heinrich, that would make us 2nd cousins. However, the DNA match levels suggest that we are 3rd or 4th cousins. That would push our common ancestry one or two generations before Johann Heinrich Rathfelder born 1846.
  • I’ll have to wait for more clues before I can figure out the puzzle of how Eva and my Rathfelder ancestry fit together. The answer is out there waiting to be discovered.

 

The Gedmatch DNA Results of Donna: My Mom’s First Cousin Twice Removed


I previously wrote a Blog about Donna here. Here is how AncestryDNA shows that Donna is related to me:

The problem with AncestryDNA is that they don’t show the specifics of how we are related by DNA. But Gedmatch.com does show:

Donna and I have a better than usual match. We are 2nd cousins once removed, but we share as much DNA as 2nd cousins. We share 220.5 cM of DNA:

233 is about average for second cousins. However, I am within the reported range for 2nd Cousin once removed.

Donna and DNA Painter

DNA Painter is a utility that maps DNA matches. Here is my current maternal side:

Our common ancestors are JH Rathfelder and M.E.L Gangnus in orange:

The orange and grey segments represent my other second cousins. Iain is in grey and is a brother or cousin to Donna. I’ll add Donna to DNA Painter:

Donna adds new information on Chromosomes 10, 12, 14 and 16. That brings up my Maternal side DNA from 32% painted to 34% painted.

Painting My Mom

Painting my mom should make a bigger difference. That is because Iain tested at 23andMe. I have tested there, but not my mom, so she doesn’t show Iain’s results.

My mom has only 24% painted overall:

Rathfelder/Gangnus shows as medium blue for my mom.

Here is my mom’s paternal DNA:

I plan to add quite a bit to the blue by adding in Donna’s DNA matches to my mom. Here is how Donna matches my mom at Gedmatch:

I’ll add Donna to my mother’s paternal grandparents’ DNA in grey below:

That brings my mom from 19% painted to 27% painted on her paternal side:

Overall, that brings my mom from 24% painted to 28% painted.

Previously, my mom had no DNA mapped on Chromosome 21. Now she has each of her chromosomes at least partially mapped.

Donna’s Other Cousins with Latvian Ancestry

All of these people are listed at Gedmatch except for Iain. He tested at 23andMe. Also I don’t see Ingrid at Gedmatch. Inese and Anita were at Gedmatch but they must not have opted back in yet.

Here is a matrix of all the matches:

This shows that everyone matches everyone else. The only exception is Jon and Astrid. However, as Jon’s five siblings match Astrid, that is not a big deal.

Here is a summary chart for Donna:

I would be curious to see how Donna matches with Inese and Anita from Latvia. Donna matches lower than average with Catherine but more than average with her other matches on average. Donna’s match with my cousin Cindy even seems to break a record:

I don’t know if this chart has been updated since 2017, but the highest reported amount of shared DNA for a second cousin once removed was 316 cM. Cindy and Donna share 329.5 cM.

Here is a tool from DNA Painter:

According to this tool second cousin once removed is possible 6.30% of the time but falls outside the 99th percentile of recorded values. Confusing.

Ancestry give Cindy and Donna’s relationship a 1% chance of happening:

Otis: Shared Match with Donna and Cindy

When I look at shared matches with Donna and Cindy, I see Otis.

His tree is a bit complicated due to some intermarriage. Donna should be in this tree also. Her grandfather was born in 1919, so between Herman and Vera. Also I need to paint Otis into my mother’s DNA Painter Map.

Otis brings my mother up to 31% painted on her paternal side:

My mom and Otis share a good amount of DNA:

I assigned the DNA to the closer Schwechheimer ancestor, but the more distant one is possible also.

Here is how Donna and Otis match:

Something to Consider: DNA Vs. Genealogy

The DNA cannot prove that my mother’s Uncle Leo Rathfelder was the father of Donna’s grandfather Leo Rathfulder Barlow. However, the name of Donna’s grandfather in conjunction with the DNA evidence makes a compelling case. From the DNA even my grandfather Alexander Rathfelder could have been the father of Leo Rathfulder Barlow. In that scenario, Leo Rathfulder Barlow would be my mother’s 1/2 brother and Donna would be my mother’s 1/2 great niece. The average DNA match for a 1/2 great niece is 432:

Compare this to my mom’s match with Donna at 463.4 cM. That would then make me a 1/2 first cousin once removed to Donna:

Oddly, this scenario makes sense given the level of DNA matches.  The average DNA matches of myself, siblings and first cousins were 212.8 cM. In addition, I have a photo of my grandfather Alexander that shows he was in London. I dated it as being around 1915, but I’m not sure what I based that on – probably his arrival in New York City in January 1916..

 

The objections to this scenario are:

  • If Leo Barlow was the son of Alexander , why would he have been named for Alexander’s brother Leo?
  • As Alexander jumped ship in New York City on January 15, 1916, I would think that it would have been unlikely that he would have gone to sea again. According to his naturalization papers, Alexander was called a “deserting seaman”.
  • I have postcards addressed to Alexander in New York City dated 1916 and 1917. Alexander was in New York City in the 1920 Census.
  • According to my Rathfelder Website, I have an undated postcard from Leo to my grandfather. That postcard was sent from England and gave Leo’s address as Glasgow.
  • I have no evidence that my grandfather Alexander was in England in 1918 or that Miss Barlow was in New York at that time.

Summary and Conclusions

  • DNA results suggest that my grandfather could have been the father of Leo Rathfulder Barlow. However, circumstantial evidence suggests that Alexander’s brother Leonhard Florentine Rathelder was the father.
  • Either way, Donna descends from the Rathfelder family with roots in Hirschenhof and Riga, Latvia.
  • It is always great to find a new cousin. It seems we are spread out a bit, though, between the US, England and Latvia.
  • Next I will look at another Latvian DNA match that I have at MyHeritage.
  • I could have used DNA triangulation to show more proof of how Donna is related to her Latvian relatives. However, that would have been a lot of work, and it is already clear that she is fairly closely related.

 

 

My Butler Brother-In-Law’s New BigY 700 Results Are In

I had been looking for my brother-in-law’s new BigY 700 results. Finally I got a note from a more distant relative Peter in England that Ken’s results were in. Here is the image that Peter shared from his perspective:

The first Richard on the list above is my father-in-law. I manage his results. The second Richard is a more distant relative in a different haplogroup (I-Y128591). I’m not sure why Ken is listed third on Peter’s match list. Peter and Ken have the most Shared Variants. It looks like the list is sorted by Non-Matching Variants. Peter and Ken have more of these because Peter, and the two Richard’s took the BigY 500 test. Ken’s BigY 700 tested for 50 percent more variants than the older BigY 500 test..

Peter’s Non-Matching Variants

From looking at Peter’s list of Non-Matching Variants, I think that I can learn a few things. Non-Matching Variants are a little confusing because they could not only be a variant that Peter has and Ken does not. It could also be a variant that Ken has and that Peter does not have.

15906031 and 13619832

I note that the variants at position numbers 15906031 and 13619832 are common to all three of Peter’s matches. That likely means that Peter has these variants and the other three do not. That means that if Peter has a close relative with the same last name tested, that relative should also have 15906031 and/or 13619832 and that probably one of these two would be Peter’s terminal haplogroup.

20968182

Both Richard and Ken have 20968182. This is likely the position for the variant that will become Richard and Ken’s terminal haplogroup. I can look up this position at YBrowse:

Here is what the position looks like:

My further guess is that Richard and Ken will have the terminal haplogroup of Y129564:

This haplogroup was ‘discovered’ by YFull in 2018. That was when I tested my father-in-law Richard and uploaded the results to YFull. Here are Richard’s results at YFull:

Richard had no Novel SNP’s in the Best quality category. But he did have one in the Accestable quality category which is Y129564.

What’s Next?

FTDNA will do a manual review on the results. It could take a while for them to get to the Butler results. However, I don’t see any possible outcome than the one I outlined above. Ken’s father Richard previously had one private variant. Ken matched this variant, which has the position number 20968182. It also has the name Y129564. This should be the new branch for what I would call the American Butlers. That means that Peter should remain in the now older branch of I-Y128364:

I-Y128364 should represent the now older Kilkenny/Wexford Branch of Butlers.

 

Waiting for My Hartley Big Y 700 Manual Review: Part 2

My Big Y 700 upgrade results came in on January 16, 2020. I had upgraded because another Hartley had tested for a new Big Y 700. Steve’s results came in on January 21, 2020. I wrote Part 1 while awaiting my Big Y manual review here. My thinking was that if Steve and I both had the Big Y 700 test done, then our results would be more consistent. I now see that I would have been better off testing my brother for Big Y.

Big Y and the Rule of Three

Bill Wood from the FTDNA BigY Facebook group developed what he calls the Big Y Rule of Three. Here is the short version of the Rule of Three:

The first candidate was me. So I’m all set there. These slides are from Bill Wood:

 

 

This is where I should have had my brother tested. The importance of this test is that my brother should match me on all or nearly all of my SNPs. These matches will then result in a terminal haplogroup for my branch of Hartley. So my next step will be to have my brother tested. Here is what I understand to be current pricing for Big Y:

Big Y is $449. I must have paid about $189 for my upgrade.

 

Here I have a lot of 2nd cousins, so that could have worked. One other person, Michael had already taken the Big Y (now called 500) test. Now we have Steve also. Steve and Michael are both greater than 4th cousin to me, but I don’t know exactly how we connect genealogically.

Alex Williamson and the Big Tree

I mentioned the Big Tree in my previous Blog on Hartley YDNA. On January 13, 2020, an administrator for the R L513 and Subclades FTDNA group wrote a message requesting that Big Y 700 results be posted to the Big Tree:

I posted my new results and they showed up at the Big Tree under my Unique Mutations. My new results are under the heading of BigY3:

My understanding is that the entries with a plus sign are the important ones:

That means that the SNPs numbered 26539382, 13658297 and 4317527 are newly detected for me by the Big Y 700 test. 13658297 is interesting because in the previous test, it was rejected.

** indicates “REJECTED” with just a single variant

Also 13658297 is important as it is listed as being in the combBED Region.  My understanding is that the combBED Region is a highly reliable region for SNP detection. This is indicated by a Y in the second column of Y’s.

Of the above three unique mutations, two show up in my FTDNA Big Y list of Private Variants:

What About 13658297?

I used to show 13658297 as a private variant, but it is no longer on the list:

That could mean that it is no longer a private variant, because Steve also has that variant. I suppose that means that FTDNA is working on its manual review. I previously had 10 private variants. Now I have 6.

Where Does That Leave Me and the Hartley YDNA Tree?

This is the chart that I came up with previously:

I had highlighted in gold those matches that I had with Steve. There are 6 variants that are not highlighted which is what I now show as having for Private Variants now at FTDNA. I don’t see any matches between Steve and Michael. I take that to mean that Steve and I will be named on a newer Hartley Branch and that Michael will remain on the older branch of A11132. We will have to wait to see what the new branch is named.

Summary and Conclusion

  • FTDNA’s manual review of Steve and my Big Y 700 results seems to be moving along
  • The upload of some of my Big Y 700 results to the Alex Williamson Big Tree web site was helpful in my understanding what some of the results meant.
  • I will be seriously considering getting Big Y 700 results for my brother when a new sale comes along. These results will get me a terminal haplogroup for my very specific branch of Hartley’s.
  • My prediction is that Michael will retain the A11132 designation and Steve and I will have a new downstream haplogroup. It will be interesting to see how many SNPs make up this new haplogroup.

Finding My DNA Cousin Brenda at 23andMe

In my previous Blog, I figured out who my 23andMe cousin Kat was. I have another DNA cousin at 23andMe Brenda. I’d like to figure out where she fits in. 23andMe thinks that Brenda could be my third cousin:

Brenda and I share some DNA on 4 different chromosomes.

Here is another hint:

Brenda and I also have DNA matches with Kat and Stephen. The match with Kat is more important, because if it is right, then Brenda is a 2nd cousin to Kat. Here is a DNA matching Frazer tree that I have:

If I am a third cousin to Brenda and she is on the Frazer tree, then our common ancestors would be George Frazer and Margaret McMaster. If Brenda is a second cousin to Kat, then Kat and Brenda’s common ancestors should be William Frazer and Amanda Skoog. There are other possibilities, but that seems the most likely.

A Look at Stephen

Actually Stephen’s match is interesting also:

Stephen is on the lower left. If I’m right, Brenda is in the Frazer section in the middle. Steve and Brenda would be 5th cousins on the McMaster side. I am a closer match to Stephen on our Clarke side.

Painting Brenda

Using DNA Painter, an online utility, I can put Brenda’s matches next to my other matches. Here are some of Brenda’s details:

Here are a few possible surprises. I painted Brenda to George Frazer and Margaret McMaster based on Brenda’s match to Kat and me. However, DNA Painter has hints that Brenda is related further out at the level of James Frazer, Violet Frazer and Richard Frazer.

When I choose “show overlapping segments”, I get this:

When I look at my larger DNA map, I see this:

My cousin Paul and Brenda have a small overlap, but not enough to be picked up by DNA Painter as being significant.

Pro’s and Con’s of Putting Brenda on My DNA Tree Where I Did

I put Brenda as having the common ancestors with me of George Frazer and Margaret McMaster.

Pro’s:

  • At third cousin to me and 2nd cousin to Kat, it seems like Brenda should be a great-granddaughter of William Frazer.
  • William Frazer had three sons. Kat descends from James Robert Frazer. That means that Brenda could descend from Albert William Frazer or Walter Stanley Frazer. I don’t know much about Walter Stanley, so that is a possibility.

Con’s

  • I would expect Brenda to have more overlap with other descendants of George Frazer and Margaret McMaster. Instead Brenda overlaps with more distant Frazer relatives.
  • With Margaret’s double McMaster parentage, I would have expected more matches with McMaster descendants – though she does match Stephen.

Walter Stanley Frazer 1924-1996

On October 10, 1937, Walter was 13 and sailing out of Galway – apparently on his own:

This stone at the National Cemetery in Culpepper, Virginia gives a very short summary of Walter’s life:

The affidavits for Walter’s Petition for US Naturalization were taken in London in 1944:

Here is some more personal information from the same document when Walter was 20:

Here is some information on Walter’s wife:

Julia was flying from Paris to New Jersey with her husband and three young children in 1959. They lived in Miami. If Brenda was part of this family, perhaps she was too young to take this trip.

I did find one of the daughters. I think that this is her school photo from Vienna Virginia, but I’m not sure. The other information would be right.

Findagrave.com mentions her two brothers but not a sister. So this may not be the family for Brenda.

One Other Possibility for Brenda

I have that my great-grandfather’s brother Hubert Alexander Frazer had a son named Calvin Coolidge Frazer and Calvin had a daughter named Brenda. I will try to get in touch with at least the most likely candidate I find on Facebook. The problem with this possibility is that Brenda should be a first cousin once removed to my second cousin once removed Paul. Brenda only shows a small overlap with Paul. That may be because I show a smaller than average match with my cousin Paul.

At some point Calvin Coolidge Frazer ended up living and dying in Sacramento. That is interesting as some Frazer’s from other branches ended up in that city also.

Summary and Conclusion

  • After figuring out one of my Frazer DNA matches at 23andMe (Kat), I tried to set out to figure out how I matched Brenda. Based on how Brenda matched Kat and me I guessed that Brenda might descend from a Great Uncle of Kat. There was one person who fit that category: Walter Stanley Frazer. I looked up some information on Walter, but I couldn’t find any record of Walter having a daughter named Brenda.
  • I painted Brenda’s match to me with DNA Painter and found that she did match me on my Frazer side. However, I was expecting some more matching on the McMaster side.
  • I looked into a Brenda Frazer who was the granddaughter of Hubert Alexander Frazer. She is a good  candidate as she has the right first name. I’ll give a shot a contacting her through Facebook. I’m pretty sure given the level of match Kat and I have with Brenda, that our common ancestors were George Frazer and Margaret McMaster. However, I am still interested in confirming that belief.
  • I thought this exercise would be easier than it was. Due to the randomness of DNA inheritance, matches do not always match up with each other at the same place.
  • Even if I don’t figure out who Brenda is, I have found out some more information about two branches of the Frazer Family.

Addendum

I did hear back from Brenda through 23andMe. She said I was right in my guess:

Brenda and I are at opposite ends of the tree. Brenda is also a first couisn to Paul. I had Paul’s DNA tested at FTDNA and uploaded his results to Gedmatch.com for analysis. Brenda got my painted chromosome up from 41% overall to 42%:

I changed my matches with Brenda to gold colored for those matches where DNA Painter showed we had an overlap with anouth Frazer match.

A 23andMe DNA Match with Frazer Relative: Kat

It took me a while to figure who Katherine was at 23andMe. Here is how Katherine and I match by DNA at 23andMe:

Here is what 23andMe says:

Katherine and I should be in the range of third cousins. Fortunately, Katherine posted a photo at 23andMe. After looking at Facebook photos, I found some that were the same as Katherine’s photos at a Frazer Family Facebook page we are both on. The mystery is solved.

Here is how I show Kat on our Frazer tree:

I recently wrote a Blog on Rebecca and our match at AncestryDNA. So it has been good to find these Frazer DNA matches. My blog on Rebecca showed that I matched her more on the McMaster side than the Frazer side. This was not surprising as our common ancestor Margaret McMaster had two McMaster parents. Also Kat’s grandfather James Robert Frazer born 1927 married a McMaster. The advantage of Kat’s test compared to Rebecca’s DNA test is that I will be able to see how Kat and I match on specific chromosomes.

Painting Kat’s DNA Match

There is a web tool called DNA Painter that I use to show where my DNA matches are. Here is my current DNA Map:

This shows my paternal and maternal sides. My Frazer matches are on my paternal side. This shows I am 41% painted overall. I circled some of the areas that Kat could match me.

Here is just my paternal side where I am mapped at 50%:

I have a lot of green as I have a lot of Hartley 2nd cousins.

Adding Kat to the Mix

Kat got my DNA mapping up a percent from 50% to 51% on my paternal side. I mapped our DNA matches to “Frazer McMaster 1838” because that is where our shared DNA comes from.

Next, I’ll expand Chromosome 19 as that is where our largest match is:

Kat’s match with me in maroon overlaps with Keith’s match with me in blue. Keith has McMaster ancestry. That means that my match with Kat on Chromosome 19 is from the McMaster side. But which McMaster? For that we have to look at Keith’s genealogy.

Keith descends from Fanny and James McMaster. That means that the DNA that Kat and I share on Chromosome 19 must be from Margaret McMaster. For simplicity, I didn’t make a new box for Kat as Kat and Rebecca both have similar genealogy. Here is Margaret McMaster on the left who married George Frazer :

 

Because I know something more specific about this DNA, I’ll make a new category for Margaret McMaster’s DNA.

I added a dark green for Margaret McMaster’s DNA.

Emily’s McMaster DNA

The reasoning is the same for Emily who matches me on Chromosome 19, but the common ancestor goes back another generation:

This match with BV seems to indicate that the DNA is coming down from the McMaster side. BV also has Frazer ancestry, but that Frazer connection is too far back in time to consider.

My Chromosome 1 Match with Kat

Most of my paternal Chromosome 1 matches are on my Hartley side:

That explains why I don’t have room for a larger match with Kat. I can’t tell if my match with Kat is Frazer or McMaster, so I’ll leave it maroon which means it could be either.

Chromosome 7

Here I have a pink arrow pointing to my match with Kat. Right below Kat is a match with my cousin Paul and I have that as a George Frazer DNA segment in yellow. If I did that right, then my match with Kat also came from George Frazer. My reasoning is based on the two blue matches. They are from Susan and Ken:

Susan and Ken are related on the Frazer side. That means our overlapping segments came from the Frazer and not the McMaster side.

Here I have turned the match that I have with Kat from maroon to gold to indicate that it is a Frazer match. Right after that I have two blue matches. That represents a crossover that my father had from his mother. My dad’s mother had a Frazer father and a Clarke mother. Where I have the arrow pointing represents the change from Frazer to Clarke in the DNA that my father got from his mother and passed down to me.

Chromosome 10 – More Frazer DNA

I have a small match with Kat on Chromosome 10 that is right below a match I have with Michael in red:

Here is Michael:

This DNA comes down from Richard Frazer to his daughter Violet Frazer. I don’t want a new entry for Violet, so I’ll say that this DNA is from George Frazer. However, the DNA Kat and I share is actually from George’s mother Violet Frazer.

Chromosome 12

Chromosome 12 gets a little tricky, but it looks to be McMaster DNA for sure:

The first maroon match is with my cousin Paul. The second maroon match is my match with Kat. The purple match is with BV. BV had that small match with Emily on Chromosome 19 above. I have the other two pink matches going back to Abraham McMaster born in 1764. There is a lot of confusion about McMaster genealogy and how all lthe McMasters fit together. This cluster of matches may be a hint to unravel that confusion.

For right now, I’ll sign over to the two maroon segments to Margaret McMaster DNA (green segments):

I also showed some of the detail of my match with Warwick and our common ancestor of Abraham McMaster.

Here is Kat’s summary from DNA Painter:

  • The maroon is George Frazer or Margaret McMaster DNA
  • The yellow is George Frazer DNA
  • The green is Margaret McMaster DNA

Kat and I have a lot more McMaster and Frazer DNA, but this is just where our DNA intersects or matches.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The fact that Kat tested at 23andMe made it easy for me to see where we matched, and by how much on each chromosome
  • Once I added Kat’s matches to my other matches using DNA Painter, I could see whether our match was on the Frazer side or McMaster side for each segment where we matched.
  • One match that I had with Kat and descendants of Abraham McMaster may be a clue as to how Abraham McMaster fits in with the other McMaster genealogy.
  • If Kat uploads her DNA results to Gedmatch.com, she will be able to see how she matches other Frazer descendants by DNA.

 

A New AncestryDNA Match with McMaster and Frazer Ancestry and My Sister Lori’s Shared Clusters

I was checking my new matches at AncestryDNA and came upon a match named Rebecca who has a Frazer ancestor from Sligo. This got me interested.

Rebecca’s Frazer Genealogy

Rebecca has a small tree. Here is Rebecca’s maternal side:

I sent a message off to Rebecca, but I’ll also try to build out her tree. It seems like this James may be the James Robert Frazer I have in my tree:

The death date is close.

My guess is that here is how I am related to Rebecca:

That makes us third cousins. She is also the first DNA match that I know of from the William Frazer Line. I did hear back from Rebecca who confirmed that James Robert Frazer was her grandfather.

My DNA Match with Rebecca

Rebecca and I match at 64 cM over 6 segments. Rebecca shows on my list as a 4th cousin, however, the AncestryDNA table for a match of 64 cM shows this:

We have a 37% chance of being third cousins and a 4% chance of being fourth cousins. Rebecca and I don’t share Whitney as a DNA match. Whitney also tested at AncestryDNA:

It gets complicated because Rebecca’s grandmother was also a McMaster. Here is Rebecca’s grandmother’s McMaster side:

I also descend from James and Fanny McMaster. Here is another way to show this:

 

This shows that Rebecca is Keith’s 1st cousin once removed. Also Rebecca is both my third cousin as well as my fourth cousin. This shows how Rebecca would be related to me on my McMaster side. Rebecca descends from Margaret and Hubert McMaster who were the children of Fanny and James McMaster. The people in green have uploaded their DNA results to Gedmatch.com. If Rebecca did this, I should be able to tease out the Frazer DNA from the McMaster DNA. A further complication is that Fanny McMaster who is at the top of the tree is the daughter of Margaret Frazer. However, this Margaret Frazer is from a different Frazer line than George Frazer who is in the tree.

Shared Matches With Rebecca

Here are my shared DNA matches with Rebecca in addition to the shared matches of my siblings and Rebecca at AncestryDNA:

I have information on how I match BV:

BV is a third cousin, twice removed to me, my siblings and Rebecca. This seems to indicate that the DNA connection is on the McMaster side.

Lori and Marshall

In doing the shared matches, with Rebecca, Lori and Rebecca have a shared match with Marshall:

Here is what Marshall has about George McMaster – his 2nd great-grandfather:

It would be nice if I could fit George into the William McMaster/Margaret Frazer Tree above. Margaret Frazer moved to Ontario with most of her children. The best way I know to review Marshall’s tree is to create my own Marshall Tree.

Here is Frederick McMaster with his family in 1911:

Father George was a farmer and Frederick Herbert appeared to be a young twin.

1871 Census

Here is Abraham McMaster and probably his father George in the 1871 Census:

1861 Census

I am finding the 1861 Census difficult to interpret:

There is a note by Abraham which appears to say married. These appear to be the same people as in the 1871 Census. However, the last name is spelled McMastrin. Also Jane shows an “m” for married but also appears to be only 10 years old! I assume that this is the same Jane who shows as 27 in the 1871 Census. A little squiggle in the 10 could be interpreted above as an 18. Here, at least George and Catherine are the same age.

1851 Census

The 1851 Census is stranger still:

Here are 5 McMasters and the oldest is 12. Did the family leave them temporarily? I assume that this is the same family, but I am not sure. If this is correct, and two year old James McMaster was born in Ireland, then that means that they must have moved to Canada around 1850.

The assumption is that Abraham was born about 1837. This seem born out by this grave marker from St. Mary’s Anglican Cemetery in Osprey, Ontario:

Getting from Abraham Back to George McMaster

If Abraham was born in Kilmactranny Parish, that would have been during the time when records were missing. Here is one George shown in the Kilmactranny records:

William son of George and Jane McMaster

Born                                      Bapt. Aug 18, 1843

However, the timeframe is off for the William above unless he was born a while before he was baptized.

Here is where Osprey or Ospry is:

Another George McMaster?

I mentioned another George McMaster in this Blog. This George was married to a Jane and had a son named George Arthur McMaster:

This George was in Vaughan as early as 1847 when his son George Arthur was born:

Vaughan is in York County a little above Toronto.

The question is, was this George, the same as the father of Abraham above? Or put another way, did this George and Jane McMaster have a son named Abraham? The George from my previous Blog married Jane McMaster. The Jane above is believed to be Jane McMaster who is a sister of my ancestor.

Just to confuse things further, Ancestry gives this hint for the George in my Tree:

That hint was based on this tree:

I put a box around my ancestors.

Any Conclusions?

From the above, I would say that the George McMaster who married Jane McMaster is most likely not the same as the George McMaster listed above in the 1861 Census along-side of Abraham McMaster. Two trees at Ancestry have the George who married Jane McMaster dying in 1847. This is likely right as Jane marries William Thompson in 1851.

The fact that Abraham was living in the same or next house as George McMaster in 1861, implies but does not prove that George was the father of Abraham:

My further guess based on the genealogy and DNA is that the shared match between Lori, Rebecca and Marshall goes back further into McMaster history. I have been unable to connect all the McMasters, but the DNA seems to be pointing in the direction of that connection.

More DNA

It seems I have made this simple match with Rebecca into a complicated Blog. That is because Rebecca’s DNA match with my family seems to point to the McMaster side of my genealogy which is a bit convoluted – not unlike the Frazer side.

Here is some more detail on Rebecca’s shared DNA matches with my family:

 

Here I have added my match numbers with Rebecca as well as my siblings’ match numbers. I have also add match numbers where they appear with shared matches. In scanning from left to right, it appears that Lori has the most shared matches. After that, I added whether the match had an Ancestry Tree. CA means that they have a tree and Ancestry indicates that we share a common ancestor. I share common ancestors with Rebecca, but either Ancestry hasn’t picked up on that yet or Rebecca’s tree is not detailed enough. There are few directions I could take at this point. I could look at more trees or at more DNA. I’ll try the DNA route.

My Sister Lori’s Shared Clusters

Jonathan Brecher has a utility called Shared Clustering. I’ll run Lori through that program as she has the most shared DNA matches with Rebecca. Here is how the Lori’s shared clusters look at a limit of 40 cM:

At that level, Lori has 4 clusters. Cluster 1 represents her paternal grandfather side. Cluster 2 represents Lori’s maternal side and Clusters 3 and 4 on Lori’s paternal grandmother’s side. Rebecca’s match is right in the middle of Cluster 3. Right above Cluster 3 is a match with Michael. He and Lori have a Frazer common ancestor, but because Cluster 3 appears to be a McMaster Cluster, Michael is not in Cluster 3.

I have circled the different Clusters in green.

Whitney also shows up in Lori’s Cluster 3:

Melanie, Emily and Paul don’t show up because they had their DNA tested at different companies. Melanie doesn’t show up on Lori’s shared match list with Rebecca. However, because both Rebecca and Melanie match other who are in the Cluster, they are included in Cluster 3.

Bringing Lori’s Shared Clusters Down to 30 cM

I’ll try Lori at 30 cM to see who we pick up along the way. At this point, I’m just interested in the Cluster Rebecca ends up in:

Now Rebecca is in Cluster 1. A new Cluster for Frazers has appeared in Cluster 2. A few matches who were previously in Rebecca’s cluster jumped ship to the new Cluster 2 at this level. The last two members of Cluster 1 appear to be fairly closely related to Cluster 2.

Here is a summary of Lori’s clusters so far:

Bringing Lori’s Shared Clusters Down to 25 cM

At this point, Lori has gone from 9 clusters to 19:

Rebecca is now in Cluster 9 with a Frazer Cluster 10 right below.

Bringing Lori’s Shared Clusters Down to 20 cM

At this level, I should see Marshall. I had looked at his Irish/Canadian McMaster ancestry earlier.

Believe it or not, I find this cluster detail very interesting.

Clusters 27 – 33

Here is my markup:

There is a connection between the two pink squares. These represent Lori’s Frazer ancestry.

It appears that Violet Frazer and James Frazer were first cousins. The second pink chart above Represents Richard Frazer and his daughter Violet. That leaves the first pink box in the Shared Cluster Chart which should represent the James Frazer side.

However, notice that the second pink square is split into two. A possible explanation is that one of the two clusters could represent the unknown spouse of Richard Frazer born about 1777. I would assume that Cluster 30 could represent Richard’s unknown spouse. Whitney is in this cluster, so I am proposing that Whitney may have gotten more of the DNA from Richard Frazer’s wife:

It’s a theory.

A Clue to Marshall’s Ancestry?

Marshall is in Cluster 29 which subtly separated from Cluster 28. However, notice that Cluster 28 has more matches with other clusters. Cluster 29 has fewer matches. That leads me to believe that Marshall’s genealogy goes back on the James McMaster Line.

This leads me to another observation. That is that Cluster 29 appears to match up better with Cluster 33:

I had that Clusters 32 and 33 probably represent William McMaster and Margaret Frazer. So that tells me that William McMaster could be represented by Cluster 33.

Lori’s Final Shared Clustering

Lori’s final shared clustering should look the same as the 20 cM clusters. The difference is that small matches are added in down to 6 cM. My understanding is that these matches will generally be outside the clusters but associated with the clusters. Let’s take a look:

Here is the detail for Rebecca and Marshall. They are now in Cluster 40 and 41. In the past two runs Lori had 46 clusters. However, in this final run, the clusters got shuffled around – I suppose due to the smaller matches being added in.

Well, I could keep on going, but I’ve gone on too long already.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was happy to find a DNA match with Rebecca. We are third cousins through our common ancestors of George William Frazer and Margaret McMaster.
  • Based on the DNA, Rebecca and I are more related on the McMaster side. That is not a surprise as our common ancestor Margaret McMaster had two McMaster parents and Rebecca’s grandmother is also a McMaster.
  • I also looked at some more distant DNA matches going back William McMaster born about 1790 and his wife Margaret Frazer. They left for Ontario in the 1800’s with their children but left one daughter Fanny stayed behind in Kilmactranny Parish, County Sligo, Ireland.
  • I then did a somewhat complicated cluster analysis focusing in on my sister Lori, her match with Rebecca and their common matches.

 

 

 

My Mom’s Lentz Family and Roberta Estes’ Lentz Family

Roberta Estes has blogged about her Lentz family. I have also blogged about my Lentz family. Roberta and I have checked to see if there was an autosomal DNA match between our two families, but we were unable to find any significant match. Recently, in checking my 23andMe results, it seems like there may be a way to see if we are related by YDNA.

My Mom’s Lentz Family YDNA

I have tested my DNA at 23andMe and have a few Lentz matches there. One good thing about 23andMe is that when you take an autosomal test, they also give you a rough estimate of your YDNA haplogroup. I have has two Lentz matches at 23andMe who are brothers. They both have this Haplogroup:

I’ve sent off messages to the two brothers. I don’t know exactly how we are related, but based on the size of the autosomal DNA match and where they live, my guess is that our common ancestors must be Jacob George Lentz and Annie Nicholson:

I don’t have record of William Lentz born 1892 as having any sons. William did have a brother named Stanley who had sons, so that may be where the two matches fit in. At any rate, their YDNA would go up through the Lentz side.

What is R-Y4355?

I would expect that 23andMe has an accurate haplogroup though not recent. Here is what YFull has on Y4355:

Above the tree, YFull gives the YDNA Line for this branch of Lentz back to Genetic Adam (listed as Home). This shows that Y4355 is about 4200 years old, so fairly old. I recognize R-U152 in that line as a major branch.

Roberta Estes’ Lentz YDNA

Here is what Roberta has in one of her Blogs:

Roberta has invested in the Big Y test for her Lentz relatives, so this is likely to be extremely accurate and fairly recent. YFull does not have BY39280, but has some information on KMS75:

Actually KMS75 is listed as +1SNPs above. The equivalent at YFull is Y20993 which was formed 4800 years ago. So this particular SNP is not that recent. BY39280 would be more recent but perhaps not by much.

The Short Answer

I would say that based on the 23andMe Haplogroup and the work that Roberta has done, these two families are not related. The common ancestor is R-L23 which was formed 6400 years before present. I’ll draw a tree for the two Lentz families:

I would have thought that Roberta’s Lentz Line would be longer, but it must be an older branch or a branch with less branching in it. So from the top of the tree to the bottom is about 2,000 years, but we still have about 4,000 years to get to the useful genealogical time.

Here is an R1b Tree:

I have an arrow pointing to where my Mom’s Lentz family and Roberta’s Lentz family split. The split goes to Western Altantic for my Mom’s Lentz family and Eastern for Roberta’s Lentz family. Interesting. U152 is a major branch. U152 begins below the ‘ic’ of Atlantic. Checking the YDNA was pretty easy. That concludes the YDNA part of the Blog. Next I’ll add my Lentz autosomal DNA to DNAPainter

Adding Lentz DNA to DNAPainter

I can add the autosomal DNA to DNA Painter for the two Lentz matches I have at 23andMe. Here is one match added to my Lentz/Nicholson common ancestors:

Jereme adds important DNA that I didn’t know about before. I didn’t have any DNA from these two common ancestors previously on Chromosomes 2, 3, 4 and 15. I have less of a match with Jereme’s brother Will:

I’ll paint in Will also even though he doesn’t add new information. Jereme matches me by 95 cM compared to Will’s 72 cM.

Jereme and Will upped my percentage of maternal mapped DNA from 30 to 32%. That is a significant jump at this stage of mapping:

Here is the maternal and paternal side:

I changed Lentz/Nicholson to a sort of pea green because it was the same blue as Clarke on my paternal side. I now have 41% DNA painted overall. I assume that this went up although I didn’t check to see what it was previously.

Summary and Conclusions

  • 23andMe has a useful feature that predicts your YDNA Haplogroup at no extra charge.
  • This feature can be used to see if you are related to male relatives of the same surname. In this case, I was related to two Lentz brothers with a predicted haplogroup. Roberta Estes had Lentz relatives tested for YDNA resulting in a known Haplogroup. I checked on Roberta’s Lentz relative’s YDNA haplogroup and it didn’t match up with my Lentz relative’s Haplogroup. I then found the common Haplogroup for the two Lentz families. The common haplogroup was over 6,000 years old.
  • It would be interesting to see if this could be used in other situations.
  • This Blog was short so I painted the autosomal DNA of my Lentz relatives using DNA Painter.

 

 

 

Getting Ready for BigY 700 Results

According to Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) my BigY 700 results are in, but it appears that the analysis has not completed.

I am told that it can take two weeks to perform a manual analysis once the results are in. The good news is that FTDNA does this analysis. The BigY Facebook Page reports this manual review could take as long as 12 weeks.

My Block Tree

One way I can tell that things are still changing is by looking at my Block Tree results:

Above I highlighted the private variants. Yesterday I had an average of 10 shared variants. Today I had 12 shared variants. That tells me that things are still happening.

At the same time that I upgraded my BigY from 500 to 700, DNA relative Steve also did a BigY 700 test for the first time. Previously, there were only two people in my branch of the Hartley YDNA tree that had taken the Big Y test. They were Michael and myself. By getting Steve to test, we should be able to get a tie-breaker. By STRs, it seems that I am more closely related to Steve than to Michael, but STRs can be unreliable. The Big Y produces new SNPs which can place us in a different Hartley branch. As the Hartley YDNA branch seems to be fairly old, it is important to find more recent branching. I know that Michael’s genealogy goes back quite far. He has Hartley Quaker ancestors that moved out of the area that my ancestors were living in to find peace from persecution. They moved to Quaker-friendly Pennsylvania. Michael’s ancestor was Edward Hartley. He was born in 1666. He married in 1693 and moved to Pennsylvania probably in the early 1700’s.

Private Variants

Previously, I only had an average 2 private variants between myself and Michael:

The Private Variants are the ones I have and Michael does not have (or that Michael has and I don’t have). This is an average, so it may be two for each, one for one and three for the other or four for one and none for the other.

How Did We Get From 2 Private Variants to 12?

The first answer is that the BigY 700 tests SNPs that were not tested in the BigY 500 test. That means that the new test may be finding new SNPs along the route between Michael, Steve and myself as well as new upstream SNPs. However, I would imagine that the further upstream these SNPs are going back to genetic Adam, the more likely it is that these SNPs have already been discovered by thousands of other BigY testers.

SNP Matching Details

Here are the details of how I do and do not match Michael and Steve:

Looks like a bunch of numbers. From this, I take it that Steve’s test finalized 5 days after mine. If I add up all the Non-Matching Variants and divide by 2, I should get 12. When I add the two, I get 31, so that must be the wrong way to do it.

I put the non-matching and Shared Variants into a spreadsheets:

The only thing that did was show which variants I have that don’t match with both Steve and Michael versus those that don’t match with only Steve or Michael.

FTDNA’s Y-Chromosome Browsing Tool

Under the BigY Results tab, I find this:

Under named variants, I had no results which is confusing because under the BigY matching tab, I had 10 non-shared variants with Michael. Then I had 6 non-named non-shared variants with Michael. With Steve, I had more non-named non-matching variants than named non-matching variants. So I could say that I have no match between my non-matching variants and my Private Variants.

The browser above basically gets at the quality of the SNP. I like to look up positions at YBrowse. Here is what I get when I do that:

According to this list, I have two totally new Private Variants out of 17. Five were previously named by William Hartley – probably when I took my first Big Y. The rest have been named by FTDNA or Full Genomes Corp. The ones that FTDNA and FGC named, they didn’t know where these SNPs appeared on the haplotree. Here is the last SNP I looked up at YBrowse:

When I click on the circled SNP, I get this further information:

Under ycc_haplogroup for the FGC and FTDNA SNP, the comment was ‘unknown’.

My take-away is that I have 17 Private SNPs. There are an average of 12 private SNPs between Michael, Steve, and myself. That would be a total of 36 Private SNPs. That means that Michael and Steve must have a total of 19 Private SNPs between them.

Next, I looked at my non-matching variants and looked those up at YBrowse:

This told me that of my 17 Private Variants, 5 were the same as Non-Matching Variants between me and Steve. I suppose that makes sense because Steve just took a new test and I just upgraded mine.

Now I see my named variants. I must have missed them before or they weren’t there yet:

The list doesn’t say if they are matching or non-matching variants and there are 1775 of them. One issue that I have is with A11130, for example. It shows as non-matching to Michael and Steve, yet it does not show up as a Private Variant for me. Originally when people were naming SNPs, someone thought that A11130 would be a good name for my branch. However, it was later found out that this was a private SNP. That is why people wait for other Big Y matches before they name a branch. That brings up another point. My current SNP name is A11132:

However, A11132 is only representative of the above 7 SNPs. It looks like A11132 was chosen as it was the lowest number in the group.

Alex Williamson’s Big Tree

The Big Tree was used as the model for FTDNA’s Block Tree. Although the Big Tree is slowly being phased out, it still has useful information in it. This is what the Big Tree as my ‘Unique Mutations’:

The BigY2 was from my BigY 500 test where I uploaded additional information.

Here are some notes from the Big Tree Website:

In the table above, the meaning of the confidence field depends on whether the data comes from an FTDNA kit or an FGC kit. For FTDNA kits, + implies a “PASS” result with just one possible variant, * indicates a “PASS” but with multiple variants, ** indicates “REJECTED” with just a single variant, and *** indicates “REJECTED” with multiple possible variants. ‘A*’ are heterozygous variants not called by FTDNA, but still pulled from the VCF file. For FGC kits, + indicates over 99% likely genuine (95% for INDELs); * over 95% likely genuine (90% for INDELs); ** about 40% likely genuine; *** about 10% likely genuine. Manual entries read directly from a BAM file will be either + indicating positive, or * indicating that the data show a mixture of possible variants.

For the FTDNA kits, the BED data is encoded in the background color of the cells. Those cells with a white background have coverage, those with a grey background indicate no coverage in the BED file, and those with a pink background indicate the mutation is on the edge of a coverage region. These pink regions often indicate that the individual may be positive for a SNP even if there is no corresponding entry in the vcf file.

The good thing about the Big Tree is that it also shows details for Michael. Here are his unique mutations:

Here are some further notes:

The mutations unique to this man are summarized in the table below. Those with a ‘+’ or ‘*’ confidence level are considered by FamilyTreeDNA or FullGenomesCorp to be high quality SNPs/INDELs. For completeness, all other mutations of lesser confidence are included as well. These additional mutations may be useful for distinguishing between very closely related men.

I don’t know how much further light this sheds on the situation. It appears that both Michael and I have have 5 SNPs marked with a ‘+’. However, our average number of unique SNPs used to be three at FTDNA but this later went down to 2 for some reason. Also note that Michael shows A16717, but with a ** designation. The BigY 700 showed that I had A16717 as a Non-Matching Variant with Michael. That could mean that we are both positive for that, but that Michael didn’t have a good read, so it was rejected on his side. I suppose that these are some of the issues that FTDNA needs to sort out.

Shared Variants

While we are being confused, I’ll add this in. FTDNA shows that I have one Shared Variant with each of my five matches.

I don’t know what this means. However, going to the learning center explains it:

I think this should have said “…the number of known variants…” I probably used to know this. The confusion is that the column before this is Non-Matching Variants and the position number or name of the Variant. I interpreted the Shared Variants to be a uniquely shared variant with the position number. However, this is the number of variants I share. For example, with Steve we have both taken the Big Y 700. So out of 695, 105 variants or SNPs we share 675, 590. I share much less with Michael as he has not upgraded to BigY 700. Here, it would help if FTDNA told you if your match took the old BigY 500 or the new BigY 700. That makes one thing I understand.

Checking My Logic On Non-Shared Variants

According to the FTDNA Learning Center:

I take this to mean that this list does not just include variants or SNPs that I have and my match doesn’t have, but could include variants or SNPs that my match has and I don’t have.

FTDNA – BiGY Facebook Group

This Facebook Group has been helpful. They have a document there called: BiGY-700 I am a Newbie. The last bullet on Page 13 of that document says:

Check your Private/Unnamed Variants, and see if they are found in
your BiGY Matches’ Kits. If so, your Haplogroup will change after a
Manual Review.

Here are my Private Variants:

All I have to do is ask Steve if he has any of these and the ones that match with me should form a new Branch. However, I already know that the Variants in blue will not form a new branch. That is because the SNPs or Variants in blue are already on the list of Non-Matching Variants between Steve and myself. I really need clear instructions like the ones on the BigY Facebook Page because the terminology is so counter-intuitive. Why would I even think of finding a match with my Private Variants list? How are they Private if they match?

News From Steve

Steve wrote back to me with his private variants:

Steve has 19 altogether. The following is actually his first 10 Private Variants:

This is almost like looking at a secret decoder ring.

I put Steve’s Private Variants next to mine and found quite a few matches:

The matches are in gold on my list. The blue Private Variants are ones that are specifically listed in the Non-Matching Variants between Steve and myself. There are 11 Private Variants that match between Steve and me.

Next, I just have to wait for FTDNA’s manual review to see if a new Hartley YDNA Branch is formed.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The purpose of Steve and I doing this BigY test is to see if a new Hartley Branch forms from YDNA.
  • My assumption was that Steve and I are more closely related to each other than to Michael. If Steve and I form a new Hartley Branch and Michael stays in the existing Haplogroup, then that will prove my assumption to be true.
  • YDNA is basically a simple concept. However, the terminology and instructions make things more complicated than they really are. The only part that probably is complicated is the interpretation of the quality of the test results.
  • The FTDNA BigY Facebook site has some good information which counteracts some of FTDNA’s confusing information.