Playing with Phased Grandparent DNA at Gedmatch

Some kind person worked on my DNA to phase it to my four grandparents and uploaded the results to Gedmatch. One of those 4 grandparents was my my maternal grandmother Frazer side. This is exciting territory as this is an area of genetic genealogy that I haven’t looked at before in over 500 Blogs that I have written.

My Top Frazer Match at Gedmatch

I can run this kit which would be equivalent to my siblings’ Frazer matches at Gedmatch. My top match at Gedmatch is Tony. Let’s see if that match pans out. The phasing was not perfect, so there could be some errors.  The largest match with Tony is 193 cM, but when I run the details, it is only a small match:

My guess is that other matches with large largest segments are not correct. My first real match appears to be my second cousin once removed Paul. Here is what the match with my composite Frazer kit looks like:

Matches in Common with Paul

I ran matches in common with Paul and the composite Frazer Kit and then put those matches in a matrix:

I recognize at least half of these matches.

Painting My Frazer Matches

It occurs to me that I can paint my Frazer matches. As this DNA painting represents my grandmother, I’ll say that the person is female:

The first person on the match list under Paul is rosco. This is actually Keith:

Keith is in the last green box on the right next to Paul. I put that Keith is on my grandmother’s paternal side:

DNA Painter has my grandmother <1% painted. The next question is how closely should I ‘paint’ my grandmother’s DNA? In the past I have only gone to grandparent level. I think I’ll change and go to 1st cousin level. A first cousin shares two grandparents.

Adding Paul

Paul would be a first cousin once removed to my Frazer grandmother:

This gets my grandmother up to about 2% painted. I next added Emily. Emily’s common ancestors with mine are the same as Paul’s: George Frazer and Margaret McMaster.

Adding Gladys

Gladys’ common ancestors go back a generation to James Frazer and Violet Frazer:

Here, I changed the dark green to a lighter green, so it wouldn’t blot out the older DNA. So far, I have been only painting the Frazer paternal side. The maternal side is Clarke and I know less about Clarke genealogy than Frazer genealogy.

Painting Michael: Common Ancestor Richard Frazer

Notice Chromosome 1. The blue segment shows as all Richard Frazer. However, this is how it breaks out:

That means that the green segment is really Frazer and not McMaster. The Orange segment under the blue is Violet Frazer as she was the daughter of Richard Frazer.

Clarke DNA

My grandmother’s mother was Margaret Clarke. However, Margaret died when my grandmother was young.  I have a few fairly good DNA matches on the Clarke side, but the best matches are not at Gedmatch. Stephen is probably the closest match. Here is Stephen:

Stephen is also related on the McMaster side which confuses things. However, the closer match is on the Clarke side.

Now my grandmother is about 6% painted. Yellow is her first maternal DNA. I haven’t looked at X Chromosome matches as those are treated separately at Gedmatch.

Next, I looked for matches in common with Stephen and my phased Frazer kit:

The problem is that some of these matches are the same that were in common with my cousin Paul. Paul has no Clarke relatives. That means that this comparison is probably picking up the McMaster connection also. However, it may be possible to tease the two apart.

Grandmother Frazer AutoCluster

I thought that I had done these before, but perhaps not. At standard Gedmatch defaults, I get 19 clusters for my Frazer Grandmother:

There are a narrow range of DNA matches. They range from about 19 to 23 cM. I recognize matches from the last three clusters. Cluster 17 has Jonathan. Our common ancestor goes back to about 1690, but I have a feeling that there is a more recent match – probably on the James Line. James Frazer was born around 1717. Here is where Jonathan matches:

There appears to be a small overlap between Paul and Jonathan.

Pat and Bill are in Cluster 18. Here is how Pat and Bill fit in:

Our common ancestors are James Frazer and Violet Frazer.

In Cluster 19, I recognize Marilee who is related on one of my Frazer lines also.

I changed the limits to between 22 and 250 cM and got this autocluster:

In this AutoCluster reiteration, Clusters 11-14 are the Frazer Clusters. The good news is that I can identify 4 clusters. The bad news is that there are 16 clusters which I cannot identify. Actually, Jonathan is in Cluster 2, so that is one more Frazer cluster that I am aware of. However, the match for this Frazer Cluster ois probably through my McMaster side:

This is the ancestry of my 2nd great-grandmother Margaret Frazer. Turns out that she had a Frazer ancestor that went to a common ancestor with Jonathan. They were James Frazer and Katherine Fitzgerald, born in the first half of the 1700’s.

Barry is in Cluster 11. This is how I think I am related to Barry:

For some reason, I don’t see Barry on my DNA Painter profile. I’ll add him in:

This shows that Barry overlaps with Michael who I match on the Richard Frazer Line. Richard was a brother of Philip. We are showing we match on the common ancestor of Archibald Frazer who was born about 1720. Some of these dates are relative. I have a chart showing Archibald born in 1743. Also many charts have Philip and Richard born earlier than the 1770’s.

Charles in Cluster 12

Charles is in Cluster 12 with Shelly and Martha. Charles has not been on my radar before. His tree is helpful in that he has a shamrock for his Irish ancestors:

The red symbol indicates Scotland. Shelly has a match in common with Gladys. I’m related to Gladys on my Frazer side. Martha from Cluster 12 is here:

One guess is that Charles could be related from this Philip tree or from the wife of Philip.

Cluster 13

I recognize three out of four in Cluster 13. They are Jane, Doreen, and Susan. Here is how they match my family by genealogy:

These families go back to Richard Frazer. The one I don’t recognize if Elizabeth. I can’t figure out how she fits in.

One Last Frazer Cluster Between 23 and 250 cM

By just shifting the lower number up to 23 cM, I go from 20 clusters to 13:

Now my Frazer Clusters are 1 and 2. Cluster 2 is interesting, beause it includes both my Frazer and McMaster Lines. Those are both double lines because two Frazer cousins married in that Cluster and two McMaster cousins married. The 145 cM match has a common ancestor with my family of James McMaster and Fanny McMaster. They had Margaret McMaster who was my 2nd great-grandmother. That match matches my closer matches in the cluster – those who descend from Margaret but not my more distant Frazer relatives. The only one in the green Cluster 2 who I don’t recognize is Nicolas and I have written to him. He appears to be a fairly close relative of Emily who my Frazer kit matches at 125 cM.

In Cluster 1, I know how I am related to all but Gary at 26 cM. However, I have been in touch and he knows my Frazer relatives in Ireland. In the above analysis, I went from further out clusters to more closely related clusters. It probably would have made more sense to start with the more recognizable clusters, but I had to start somewhere.

The last cluster is the false one I mentioned further up in the Blog.

Downloading Frazer Segment Data from Gedmatch

This could help in identifying other match groups or clusters. Roberta Estes has a helpful article on how to do this. Once I get the data from Gedmatch, I like to put it into my own format in an Excel spreadsheet. For example, I should be able to look at the region where I have Clarke matches to identify other potential Clarke Clusters. Unfortunately, when I got to the Download button at Gedmatch, it didn’t work.

I guess I’ll have to explore these matches later.

Grandfather Hartley DNA

This is all exciting and new territory for me. This time, I will start my grandfather Hartley Cluster with the range of 23-250 cM:

Even at this level, I get a lot of unrecognizable clusters. Cluster 11 has Lee in it. He has Hartley ancestry in the area of Colne where my Hartley ancestors were from, but I was unable to make a connection.

Hartley Clusters 25-1,000 cM

This brings in some of my 2nd cousins and 1st cousins once removed. Here Cluster 2 is Lee again with the Hartley ancestry. He has a shared match with my 1st cousin once removed. That shared match has Shackleton ancestry, so that is a possible connection.

For some reason, the AutoCluster at Gedmatch does not work as well on my Hartley side as it did on my Frazer side. This is possibly because I have worked to have a lot of my Frazer relatives out to the level of clustering upload their results to Gedmatch.

My Maternal Grandfather: Rathfelder

My maternal grandfather was German but grew up in Latvia. Here are some of the clusters for that side. The limits I set were between 20 and 1,000 cM:

The purple cluster has some relatives that are still in Latvia. The top match in red Cluster 3, Otis, has Schwechheimer ancestry in common with my mother’s side.

My Maternal Grandmother’s AutoClusters

This should finish off the Blog. My maternal grandmother was a Lentz. However, I get many matches to her Nicholson mother’s side. This run is between 19 and 500 cM:

Many of these names and clusters are identifiable. Cluster 3 is Nicholson. Cluster 4 has my mom’s relative who is both Nicholson and Lentz.

Sadie, Joan, Linda and Carolyn are in the red Cluster 3. The largest match in Cluster 4 is with Judy who is a first cousin once removed to my mother. As such, she is related on the Nicholson and Lentz side.

Father and Daughter in Different Clusters?

Yes it happens:

Robert is in brown Cluster 5 and his daughter Sadie is in red Cluster 3. As these both have the common ancestors with me of Nicholson and Ellis, my guess is that one cluster could favor Nicholson DNA and the other Ellis DNA.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I took one of my first looks at my four synthetic grandparent kits at Gedmatch
  • I had the best luck with my Frazer side. This is probably because I’ve spent a lot of time working on getting Frazer relatives to upload their results to Gedmatch.
  • I started a DNA Painter map for my paternal grandmother’s Frazer side.
  • I tried clustering my four grandparent results. I recognized the fewest clusters on my Hartley side.
  • I found an interesting match with Elaine on my Frazer side using clustering. However, I couldn’t find further information on her family tree and couldn’t find her Ancestry account.
  • I tried downloading segment information for my grandparents, but I couldn’t get that utility to work at Gedmatch
  • There is still a lot of work that could be done with these four Gedmatch kits that represent the DNA for my four grandparents.

 

 

My Frazer DNA Relative Suzzanne

I was recently informed by another Frazer relative, that she had a new match at AncestryDNA named Suzzanne. I checked and saw that AncestryDNA had matched Suzzanne to me via ThruLines:

We show as 6th cousins which is pretty remote. Jane who mentioned Suzzanne descends from Richard P L Frazer above so they would be in the third cousin range. Here is Jane on my ThruLines:

However, something seems off as there shouldn’t be two Archibalds as son of Archibald. When I expand the tree, I see that Jane and Suzzanne should be 2nd cousins once removed:

The DNA match amounts of 15 and 11 cM are how much these two match me. They must match each other by quite a bit more. From Jane’s view, the relationship looks better:

I have one shared DNA match with Suzzanne at AncestryDNA:

That match is with Rebecca who is my 3rd cousin. This is my own DNA match chart as Rebecca does not show on ThruLines. Also, based on my own chart, I should be closer than a 6th cousin to Suzzanne. When I add in Suzzanne to my chart, I see we are actually 5th cousins:

In both our trees we have Frazers who married Frazers. Also we don’t know the wife of Richard Frazer who was born in 1777. She may be related to us in more than one way. This was all a bit too complicated for AncestryDNA apparently.

More on Suzzanne’s Frazer Ancestry

Here is what I have on my website:

Suzzanne descends from Anne. Anne apparently went with her father to Scotland. It looks like Anne went by Fannie in 1891:

Suzzanne and Shared Matches at AncestryDNA

I mentioned above that Suzzanne and I have a shared match with Rebecca. Rebecca and I are third cousins:

I checked my four siblings who I have tested at AncestryDNA and they do not have a match to Suzzanne. This is not unusual for 5th cousins.

Suzzanne and Jane’s Shared Matches

These two have a lot of shared DNA matches. One that I am interested in is Gary. Gary is Jane’s third cousin:

AncestryDNA suggests evaluating Gary’s tree. I want to devote a later Blog to Gary.

Suzzanne at MyHeritage

I see that recently Suzzanne has also showed up as a DNA match to me at MyHeritage. That is good because that will give more detail as to which Chromosome we match on.

We have a small match on Chromosome 14, but mostly math on Chromosome 17:

That would most likely be the DNA that came down to both of us through Richard Frazer born around 1777 or his unknown wife. I already have a lot of my DNA mapped by DNAPainter. Here is my Chromosome 17:

The area where I match Emily in the middle is where I also math Suzzanne. According to MyHeritage, Suzzanne, Emily and I triangulate:

That means that this segment of DNA points to a common ancestor. We already identified that common ancestor as either Richard Frazer born about 1777 or his unknown wife. I had previously mapped my match with Emily to our common ancestors. They are my 2nd great-grandparents George William Frazer and Margaret McMaster. I now know that this match is on my Frazer side, going back to the late 1700’s.

Here I have painted Suzzanne’s match to my DNA Map:

Notice that Suzzanne’s match overlaps with Emily’s. That means that my match with Emily is actually an older match and I can change her match from maroon to red to represent Richard Frazer’s (or his wife’s) DNA.

Suzzanne and My Cousin Paul

I have my 2nd cousin Paul’s DNA at MyHeritage and Suzzanne matches him also:

The match on Chromosome 9 is under that threshold that DNAPainter uses, but the one at Chromosome 12 is not.

Here, Paul has a lot going on on his paternal DNA side. We see Emily again. This is the first yellow mapped DNA. This will represent either Richard Frazer or his wife.

Suzzanne and Paul Triangulate with Lorraine

This is potentially important as this DNA points to a common ancestor.

Next I look at Lorraine’s tree, to see if there are matches:

This tree does not go back as far as I would like. However, Paul, Lorraine and Cindy triangulate:

Cindy has a good tree. Her paternal tree has some Irish lines:

 

I see the Tighe name come up. This name has come up before in DNA matches. Perhaps Richard Frazer married a Tighe?

Here is another match that is closer to Suzanne:

Here, Paul, Suzanne and Douglas triangulate on Chromosome 12. Also Douglas shows a McMaster in his tree:

Douglas has that Catherine was from County Sligo:

Summary and Conclusions

  • Because Suzzanne has tested her DNA at Ancestry and is also at MyHeritage, we have a lot of information about her DNA matches.
  • From what I can tell, Suzzanne descends from the two brothers: Archibald and Richard Frazer born in the 1770’s. This is not unusual in Frazer genealogy
  • I am a 5th cousin to Suzzanne, but we are still a DNA match
  • Suzzanne’s Frazer ancestor Annie ended up in Scotland
  • I looked at some DNA matches from MyHeritage. They may give some hints as to who Richard Frazer’s wife was.
  • I was reminded of another common DNA match, Gary, who I would like to write about.
  • Bottom line is that Suzzanne fits into the Frazer genealogy and DNA matching just as she should.

 

Irish Petty Sessions and My Frazer Ancestors and Relatives

I recently came across Irish Petty Sessions at Ancestry. These could be helpful in sorting out relationships and/or adding some interesting information to my family history.

Let’s look at some of these records.

Let Your Light Shine in 1918

Here is the simple case of George Frazer of Derrycashel who was operating a vehicle at night without a light.

This actually happened on March 16th at 8:20 p.m. George was fined one shilling. Here is George (#27):

My great-grandfather’s brother George was born in 1879 and lived in the old family house – the one his father George grew up in in Derrycashel, Roscommon before moving to Ballindoon, Sligo.

Wild Times in Augrafinegan on 12 May 1886

I get the impression that Catherine Frazer and Anne Jane McMaster were not getting along. The first column is the complainant, the second column is the defendant and the third column contains the witnesses. It appears that Anne Jane was charged:

Who are these people? Here is the charged Anne Jane Frazer (wife of James McMaster):

James McMaster died in 1874. Here is Anne Jane’s family:

That means that in 1886, Anne Jane was about 57.  That means she low-balled her age in 1901 when she was probably 72. Under this scenario, Richard could have been her brother.

Who Were the Other Frazers in This Court Case?

We may never know why Anne Jane Frazer McMaster and Catherine Frazer were assaulting each other. But who was Catherine Frazer?  We know that in 1886, she was living in Aughrafinegan:

Also, I would assume that Anne and Richard Frazer could also have been living there. One guess would be that Catherine Frazer was her mother. However, Anne Jane’s mother could have been around 77 years old at that time (if she was even alive then). It does seem from the record above that that Catherine was a widow. Another guess would be that Catherine and Anne the witness would have been daughters of Richard:

For some reason, animosity between mother and daughter seem more likely to me than between Aunt and niece. Perhaps someone else will come up with a different possible scenario.

Who Was James Hartley of Oldbrook?

My third great-grandfather was James Frazer of Derrycashel, so this entry interested me:

Acconrding to this research from the mid 20th century,  Oldbrook is another name for Shanvoley (or Shanwilly).

This list has Oldbrook in County Leitrim. However, other references to Leitrim should be County Roscommon. I believe Oldbrook should be in Roscommon here also. Oldbrook or Shanvoley was not from from Derrycashel.

I notice that I have a document of transcriptions – I believe from a fellow Frazer researcher:

James Frazer Complainant April 19, 1867: Defendant [Thaddy Devauny of Fermoyle] allowed his three cows to trespass on the Complainant’s lands at Fermoyle on 14 April 1867. “To pay 1/6 costs to Court”

James Frazer of Derrycashel in 1867 owned one black sheep dog and one black and white sheep dog and paid the due fees for its license.

James Frazer of Oldbrook in the Parish of Kilbryan shopkeeper Complainant June 1868: Civil Bill: An action for the sum of 3..0 for that the defendant [Patrick Rorke from Cornacwita in the Parish of Boyle] is indebted to the said plaintiff in the said sum for shop goods sold and delivered in the year 1867. “decreed payment and 2/6 costs”

James Frazer of Ballymote labourer Complainant; Defendant Mark Connelly 27 July 1871; for following Complainant  into Catherine Dockry’s house and assaulting him there on 17 July 1871 at Ballymote. “No A”.  Same complaint against Margaret Connelly of Barrymote married woman; Mary Morrison of Barrymote married woman. The same day Mary Frazer of Ballymote [widow]; Defendant: Mark Connelly for assaulting Complainant and making use of scandalous and abusive language towards her at Ballymote on 17 July 1871.  “No Ap”.  Same day James Frazer of Ballymote Defendant – assault of Complainant [Mary Morrison] on 17 July 1871.  “No Ap”

James Frazer of Ballymote letter carrier Complainant 22 June 1876; the Defendant John Cawley assaulted and violently threatened the Complainant and challenging him to fight on the night on 15th inst at Ballymote.  “No appearance.”

James Frazer of Ballymote Defendant: Defendant did unlawfully and violently assault the Complainant [his wife Marion Margaret Frazer] at Ballymote, Sligo on 3rd July 1888.  Knocked her down abused and blackened and injured her and did so abuse and beat.  Kick, knock down and injure and did endeavour to take her life within the last two months several times.  Complainant claims protection. “No app”

James Frazer of Derrycashel owned a black & white sheep dog March 1875 and paid the required fee.

In March 1878 he had a black spaniel.

James Frazer Complainant: the defendant [Thomas Coyer] on 22 June 1878 at Athlone Roscommon did leave his horse and cart on the public street without anyone in charge of the same. ‘Fine 5/- costs 1/-“

James Frazer Complainant 14th June 1875; that the defendant [Michael Higgins of Kilmactranny] did refuse to pay the sum of 17/-  for a pig sold and delivered purchased on 3rd January 1875 at the Boyle fair the property of the Complainant. “No appearance”.

Here is Shanvoley. It is to the SE of Derrycashel:

Archibald of Shanwilly (aka Shanvoley) had a son named James Parker but he moved to Australia before this time:

Here is another case from 1875 involving James Frazer of Oldbrook:

When I Google Oldbrook, Roscommon, I see this MyHeritage record:

This George Robert Frazer was said to have a father named William James Frazer from Oldbrook. Was this William James the shopkeeper?

Here is another possibility from the tree of fellow Frazer researcher Joanna:

If this is the right James Frazer, he would have been a shopkeeper at age 21 in 1868. This must be the same family in Edgbaston, Warwickshire in 1811:

John W and Margaret would have been the children of Archibald Frazer. Archibald was the son of Alexander and the Mary Frazer of the above Census (though Alexander had died before this Census). Archibald Frazer is the one who lived in Shanvoley or Oldbrook and moved to Drumatybonniff Farm in the Parish of Tumna, County Roscommon (see below).

While I’m At Old Brook

Here is an early case:

This is no doubt, the same Alexander:

My guess is that this person was renting property from Alexander and deserted his wife. That meant that she had to end up in the work house. Of course, Alexander would have lost the rent of his property by this man deserting his wife. These were very difficult times.

Apparently, there was a different James Hartley from Ballymote:

I hope he was not related as he was a wife beater. His wife had the same name as my grandmother’s maiden name, though my grandmother was born in the US in 1894.

Other Mentions of James Frazer, My Third Great-grandfather

There are two other mentions of James Frazer in Derrycashel. He was supposed to license his sheepdog, but he didn’t until he was caught. This suggests that James was raising sheep. My relative in Ireland said that the Frazers butchered some of their sheep to help feed the neighbors during the potato famine. This also suggests that he didn’t like to pay to license his dogs.

My guess is that James also raised Pigs as there was mention of him selling a pig to Michael Higgins of Kilmactranny at the Boyle Fair and not receiving payment.

When I put these together in a spreadsheet and sort by date, I get this short Frazer history over a period of 59 years:

These people were almost certainly all related and assuredly knew about these events as they also lived in fairly close proximity to each other.

John Frazer of Dereenargan

Here is a John Frazer from Derreenargan in 1890. I have written about a different John Frazer from Derreenargan here. The John Frazer I wrote about was living in Lockport, New York in 1870 and had a son, John Jr., who was born in New York

Here is Derreenargan in the heart of Frazer country, County Roscommon:

Here is the charge:

Here is the Complainant:

Based on other information these two were assaulting each other.

Is this the family in 1901?

The transcriber got the name as Frozier.

However this appears to be a different Derreenargan:

This John was born about 1856 in County Roscommon. I see that Frazer research MFA has a John born at Kilmactranny to Edward and Mary:

This was at Kilmactranny which is technically in Sligo. However, one may have lived in Roscommon and gotten baptized in Kilmactranny. Also, there was an Edward who was the son of John (circumstantial evidence).

Here is another John from nearby Shanvoley, but I don’t have any more information on him:

Edward Wynn Frazer

As I recall, there were two Edward Wynn Frazers. This always confuses me. This one lived in Derreenargan in 1862:

Notice this Edward from Derreenargan of Klbryan. The John above appears to be from Derreenargan of Ballyformoyle. Edward had a case against Michael Partlane for failure to pay rent:

I believe that Partlane was another name for McPartland. I have written quite a few blogs on this family. Who knew that Derreenargan was such a popular place in the day?

This is the Edward Wynn I have:

Here is the other Edward Wynn Frazer:

According to the Frazer tree of my researcher friend Joanna, this Edward Wynn’s daughter Kate Peyton Frazer was born in Derreenagan. That means that this court case would be for the Edward Wynn born in 1838 and he would have been about 24 years old at the time of this court case. The Edward Wynn pictured above is the second great grandfather of fellow Frazer researcher Kathy who lives in Massachusetts.

Here is a simplified tree of the Frazers based on YNDNA testing:

This tree goes back to about 1690. Edward Wynn Frazer from the photo is the brother of Thomas Henry Frazer on the right branch. James Frazer with the unlicensed dogs was born about 1804 and is on the left branch.

More on Edward Wynn Frazer

Here Patrick Gallagher claimed that Edward Wynn assaulted him:

This would have been about a month before his daughter Katherine Peyton Frazer was born. Here is some more background:

I appears that the Gallaghers were damaging and breaking Edward’s door with stones.

Edward Wynn brought Widow Jane Doyle to Court:

This is one tough dude. “Your chickens step on my property and we’re going to court.” I’m not sure how much damage chickens could do to “fattening grass”. Here is another complaint from Edward against Widow Doyle – apparently a neighbor:

In 1861, Edward Wynn was looking for rent from Bartley McKeon of Aughnasurn:

Here a shopkeeper is looking for money owed him from Edward Wynn:

Perhaps Edward couldn’t pay because people owed him money.

Edward M Frazer Aughnasurn

This Edward M Frazer was from Aughnasurn and was a Gentleman. He owed Jones Cuttle some money. This Edward appears not to be the same as Edward Wynn as he is not from Derreenargan.

Edward Frazer of Annagh died 8 March 1863, so that rules him out. This is leaving me stumped, unless this is the same as Edward Wynn Frazer. However, the Gentleman part and living in Aughnasurn seem to distinguish this person from Edward Wynn Frazer.

Archibald Frazer of Drumatybonniff Farm in 1876

There are a lot of Archibald Frazers, so perhaps this record will help sort things out.

However, finding these locations could be difficult. If John and Edward were under 14 years of age, that means that they would have been born 1862 or later. Here is one possibility by name but not by place:

More on Archibald Frazer

Here we see that this Archibald was from Tumna Parish. Here is a more standardized spelling:

From here, I can find them in the 1901 Census:

Archibald was born about 1840. He lived at the same place in 1866:

Thomas Malone who lived in the same Townland as Archibald was not doing his contracted work:

More problems in 1870 from Patrick Doran:

Edward Little was also listed as a compainant. I think that this is a hint that Archibald of Shanvoley was the same as this Archibald. Of course Frances would be Frances Little and Edward Little a likely relative of Frances. I assume that Mary Doran listed as the Defendant below was Patrick Doran’s wife:

There was a lot of assaulting going on in County Roscommon 150 years ago. She was not happy with Archibald. Mary Doran, married woman, charged that she was assaulted by Archibald Frazer on the same day.

More Assaulting in 1879

Let’s check Archibald for bruises:

I believe Toomna would be the same as Tumna.

Here is Frances Little Frazer from Doug Vaugh’s Web page:

That means that between at least 1866 and 1901, this couple lived at Drimitybonniff (or some variation of spelling). Here is Tumna:

Here is Drumatybonniff:

Here is another mention of Archibald Frazer in Oldbrook in 1862:

Said Archiald of Aughrafinegan to Archibald of Oldbrook, “Just put it on my tab”.

Here is my spreadsheet sorted by date:

Alexander, who was Archibald’s father was 53 in 1859. He could have passed away early in the 1860’s. Archibald marries in 1861 and becomes a shopkeeper in Oldbrook. Around 1868, the Archibald Frazer family moves from Oldbrook to Drimatybonniff where Archibald apparently farms the land. He is there for at least 32 years as he is there with his wife in 1901.

Archibald Frazer Junior of Aughrafinegan

This junior Archibald owed Archibald of Oldbrook money. Here junior does not imply that he was the son of Archibald, but just a younger Archibald. As Archibald the shopkeeper was only 24, we are looking for a younger Archibald in Aughrafinegan. Here is a guess for Archibald Junior:

If my guess is right, then this Archibald would have to have been born after 1838 and would have had to have left Ireland after 1862.

Summary and Conclusions

It’s time to bring this Blog to a close as it is becoming unwieldy.

  • It is important in Court cases to properly identify people. As such, detail is given to where these people lived to distinguish them from other people with the same names. This can be helpful in sorting out who belonged to which family.
  • Many of these cases involved assaults. Money was in short supply and neighbors did not always get along well. Other cases involved owing money. My own ancestor James was guilty of not obtaining three dog licenses and went to court when someone didn’t pay him for his pig.
  • I probably learned the most about the Frazers of Shanvoley. Due to the number of Petty Session cases, it was possible to monitor what was going on in the lives of at least some of these families  for about four generations.
  • I found out a little more about Kathy’s ancestor Edward Wynn Frazer. I was able to sort him (I think) from the other Edward Wynn Frazer. He was the only one I looked at from the James Frazer Line. He was in Derreenargan. I also looked at others in Derreenargan.
  • I looked at a John Frazer from Derreenargan. But this Derreenargan appears to be in Ballyformoyle and different from the one in Kibryan Parish. However, bother are in County Roscommon.
  • I started a spreadsheet of some of these cases noting the people and where they lived.
  • Times were difficult in Ireland. Looking at these Frazer lives through the lens of the Petty Sessions helps to keep us from romanticizing these times and lives. It seemed there may be a correlation between the number of Court cases and the families that moved out of Ireland. For example, I didn’t see my second great-granfather George Frazer listed in any case (yet) and part of that family is still in the Ballindoon area of County Sligo today.
  • I will likely be writing more on the Petty Sessions.

 

Big Y “Backbone Tests”

I recently noticed that a Backbone Test had been ordered for my late father-in-law. This surprised me as it was a bit dated.

I mentioned this at the BigY Facebook group and got an interesting answer from Bob:

I think you will find that this Y-HAP-Backbone was ordered as a part of a manual review process triggered by another user’s test results.
Originally, the Y-HAP-Backbone test was performed if FTDNA was unable to unambiguously predict a person’s high-level haplogroup from their STR test results. They would actually perform enough SNP testing to resolve the ambiguity.
In the case of somebody who has actually done a BigY test, there should be no necessity to predict a haplogroup from the STRs.
Normally, the automated caller will consider a result to be a no-call if there are not at least ten reads for that position. If a new kit has a result that might affect the haplogroup definitions, a manual review of the other kits assigned to the haplogroup may occur. The analyst doing the review will look at the raw data and may decide to override the no-call reported by the automated caller. To do this override, the analyst orders the Y-HAP-Backbone procedure. In this case, no actual lab work is involved. It is simply a database operation to report the new result for that SNP.
If you display the user’s Private Haplotree, you can scroll to the top of the page and click on the “SNP Results” link, you will see a list of SNPs. If there are any overridden SNP results, they should be sorted to the top of the list. The test type will be shown as Y-HAP-Backbone. The result may be positive or negative.
If you scroll down through the pages of this report, in addition to any BigY test results, if the user has done any other SNP testing, you will see those results listed. In the case of BigY test results only positive results are shown. (After all, you are negative for several hundred thousand SNPs.)
In my own surname project, until recently our haplogroup had one subclade. We had three men assigned to the main haplogroup and six men assigned to the subclade. Even though our BigY test results actually showed the three of us to be negative for the SNP defining the subclade, these negative results were not being shown in the SNP Results list in our Private Haplotree. During an early manual review, the analyst ordered the Y-HAP-Backbone procedure for the three of us. The result is that we now are shown as negative for this SNP. The color coding in the tree now indicates that we are “Tested Negative” instead of being indicated as “Downstream”. Since that time, a new kit was found to share an additional SNP with one of the three. This resulted in a second subclade being defined. The analyst creating the subclade did not bother to override the calls for the two men remaining in the main haplogroup, so we show “Downstream” for the new subclade.
By the way, the order status for the three of us with negative results for the Y-HAP-Backbone procedures for the SNP defining the original subclade still shows that order as pending. Apparently because no lab work was performed, they failed to mark the order as completed. We have other Y-HAP-Backbone procedures (with positive results) that did get reported as completed.
Does the entry in the SNP Results list for your member’s kit show negative results, or are they all positive?
I was happy to get this reply as it answered many questions I had for my Butler father-in-law’s test as well as a Frazer project I am working on. I posted this image of my father-in-law’s SNP results at the BigY Facebook  Page:
I asked Bob this clarifying question:
Sorry, though, still a bit confused. Are you saying an override does not involve SNP testing? So in this case, the Backbone means no test and the tested negative means that a test was done?
Bob’s response:
While it may be a little confusing, the answer to both is yes. FTDNA does not offer a single-SNP test for FT241245, so the backbone procedure did not involve a laboratory test. They just looked at the raw data from the BigY test. You should be able to do something similar using the chromosome browser. When looking at this user’s BigY Results (Named Variants tabs, change the Derived? filter to Show All and enter the SNP name in the SNP Name Search box.
I suspect that it will show a ? In the Derived? And Genotype columns. Click on the SNP name to bring up the chromosome browser. I suspect that you will have fewer than ten reads shown, resulting in a no-call.
By the way, the Y-HAP-Backbone procedure results in the line being added to your SNP Results list. However, it does not actually result in a change to your raw data or what is shown in the Named Variants tab.
In response, I posted this image of my father-in-law’s results for FT241245:
I wanted to memorialize Bob’s comments as they were so helpful. I have been looking at “Backbone Test” results in a Frazer YDNA Project that I am involved in and Bob’s response answered so many of my questions.

Butler and S23612

As alluded to above, S23612 shows on the SNP results as ‘tested negative’. Let’s look for those results:

 

Just as Bob predicted, this shows up as tested negative. However, I’m not sure why this particular SNP was chosen. I would think that I-S23907 would have made more sense or perhaps BY115420.

Here are my father-in-law Richard’s results for S23612:

He is already clearly negative. Plus this SNP appears to be about 4 or 5,000 years old.

Speaking of S23897

I see that I mentioned S23897 in a previous Blog on Butler YDNA.

This is for a Butler relative with common Irish roots, but we have not yet established a genealogical connection. Now, thanks to Bob, I know where to find this Butler’s secret testing results:

Well, perhaps not secret, but they were to me previously. This Butler has a surprising 7 Negative SNP results. What I am seeing is that this Butler relative must have ordered these SNP separately before he did his BigY:

Frazer Backbone Tests

I have been waiting for Frazer ‘backbone tests’ to complete. However, according to Bob, these could be manual overrides instead of actual tests. Also, confusingly, these tests may not have an end date if the reviewer forgot to put in a date.

Here is a view of the Frazer BigY testers from the view of one of the testers from the James Frazer Line who took the BigY500 test:

My labels didn’t come out too well. The first column represents the James Frazer line and the ‘Your Branch’ represents the BigY500 tester on that line. At the top of his SNP results, we see this:

From the comments from Bob, the Y-HAP-Backbone should represent a manual override for Y151390 which is the defining Haplogroup for the James Frazer Line. Here is the order history for that same tester:

This is confusing because of the batched designation which shows after the ‘completed’ designation. However, I assume that these three entries were for the one override for Y151390. Here are his test results:

Here, he only has 7 positive reads where FTDNA would like to see 10. However, the manual review said they were all positive, so let’s say he is Y151390.

BigY700 on the James Line

The same thing apparently happened for the BigY700 tester.

Here is the James Line BigY700 order history:

This takes some interpretation. I assume that the Backbone got entered twice by mistake and that only the one entry that was actually done shows as completed. Keep in mind here that ‘backbone’ means manual override of inconclusive test results. Here are the BigY700 test results for Y151390:

This is a bit surprising as the results show positive for Y151390, so there were no questionable results to override.

My guess is that the manual review took a look at these results and agreed with them.

Archibald Line Results and Frazier BigY results

The BigY500 tester had no overrides in his SNP results. The same for the BigY700 tester. That must mean that FTDNA had no questions about their results.

That leaves the Frazier BigY results. He also has no unusual results on his list of SNPs. That means that the review was completed for Frazer/Frazier BigY’s some time in early February.

Summary and Conclusions

  • It was a help for Bob from the BigY Facebook Page to show me where to find the SNP Results link at the top of the BigY Haplotree view
  • This gave more clarification to the manual review which FTDNA performed and explained why it looked like a Backbone test was outstanding
  • FTDNA has a confusing array of places where they store information and show the results of the work they have done. They also seem to do things inconsistently. However, with perserverence and help from others who have gone through the process, it is possible to get an idea of how one’s BigY test was reviewed and processed.

 

 

 

A Different Look at the Frazer YDNA Tree


In this Blog, I would like to look at the 5 BigY Frazier/Frazer testers looking at their FTDNA YDNA Trees. In the past, I have looked at the Block Tree. Here is the Block Tree from Rick’s perspective:

Starting from the left I first see Rodney. To find Rodney’s Y Tree (which FTDNA calls the Y-DNA Haplotree), I click on his YDNA Badge:

Here is Rodney’s Y-DNA Haplotree:

The difference between this tree and the Block Tree I showed earlier is that the Block Tree shows the tester and his matches. This Haplotree only shows the one tester’s results at a time. However, there  is more information on the quality of each SNP tested. Above, I show how Rodney descends all the way down from R-YP6483. The actual tree goes much further back. All the groups that he is positive for are in green and the groups that he does not belong in are in gray. Here is the heading for the tree:

The dots by Rodney’s SNPs are also either green for Tested Positive or gray for Presumed Negative. There are some SNPs within the green groups that have gray dots. I think that those should be yellow dots for Presumed Positive. That is because if you are in a group, you need to be positive for each SNP within that group.

Going back from his terminal Haplogroup, BY116270 is the first SNP that Rodney has that shows as presumed negative.

Also in the heading, FTDNA says ‘View by Variants’. These are technically Variants, but in order to not get mixed up with Private Variants, they could have called them SNPs.

Jonathan’s Y-DNA Haplotree

Jonathan’s tree must be the same as Rodney’s except for the gray dots. Jonathan had the older BigY 500, so he should have more gray dots:

Here, Jonathan does get a yellow dot for R-FT421618 and he gets yellow for the whole group which means presumed positive. To find Jonathan’s test results for FT421618, I need to get out of the Y-DNA Haplotree and look at his BigY Matches or Results. I usually look at the Matches and then choose the Named Variants Tab:

At the bottom of the list (not shown), Jonathan has 1051 Named SNPs. I’ll search for FT421618. I have to search under all results, because I won’t find this SNP under Derived. This SNP comes up with a question mark.

Here are Jonathan’s test results for that SNP. He was positive for each of the four reads for a Variant there, but usually 10 reads are needed to prove that he was positive for this SNP. However, as Jonathan is positive for child SNP of R-Y151390, he must also be positive for the parent SNP of FT421618.

While I’m looking at Jonathan’s results, he (like Rodney) has a gray dot for BY116270:

Rodney shows 17 reads where there is a mutation from T to G. However, he also shows 10 cases where there is no mutation. FTDNA must use some formula to determine that this does not make the grade.

Let’s see what Rodney shows:

This shows the same funny pattern. I don’t know what the black means. I guess it may mean that there was no read there. Rodney had fewer good reads compared to Jonathan. However, because this is in a SNP group that is four levels above Rodney’s and Jonathan’s terminal Haplogroup, they shoul both be presumed positive for this SNP.

Bottom line is that Rodney and Jonathan are solildly in R-Y151390. Y151390 represents the James Branch of the Frazer family or more specifically the Thomas Henry Branch from 1836:

All the other SNPs that are upstream of Y151390 based on the testing of the other matches are less closely related.

Rick and Paul in the Archibald Branch of Frazers – R-Y85652

Y85652 has a shorter number. This should be an older SNP, discovered in 2017 – probably when Jonathan had his BigY done. Rick, like Rodney has the newer BigY 700 test. Here is Rick’s private tree:

I went a little higher on the tree this time, just to show tht the tree keeps going back. One interesting thing is that we see that Rick is presumed negative for Y151390 that Rodney and Jonathan had. That may be worth looking into. Looking up at Rodney’s and Jonathan’s trees, we see that they were also presumed negative for Y85652.

When I put the trees of Rodney, Jonathan and Rick together, this is what I get:

There are a lot more question marks than are ideal. However, the positive tests so far, are what are breaking the testers into their two groups.

Do Paul’s BigY Results Help?

Paul had the older BigY 500 test. I am a second cousin once removed to Paul. That makes me a fourth cousin to Rick.

Paul also has no negative for sure results. If he did, these would appear as red dots. Ideally, Paul would show negative for R-Y15130 and FT421607 as he is not in that group. The last verified negative result that I had found was in the Frazier BigY that I had discussed in my previous Blog:

The negative is shown in red above and we will get to that test later in the Blog. Above with Rick and Paul, they are presumed negative because Rodney and Jonathan are positive for Y151390. This is what I see for Paul’s test at Y151390:

I assume that this is the same as not being tested as no position number is given. Next I’ll look at FT421607 for Paul:

Here he had one read but it didn’t make it to that Position. I would say that Paul has not been tested for this SNP:

Rick’s Testing for Y151390

That makes me curious as to how Rick made out on the James Frazer Line SNPs. So far, there are different flavors of SNP testing:

  • Positive
  • Presumed Positive
  • Negative
  • Presumed Negative
  • Not Tested

Here I am a bit surprised:

Rick is definitely negative for this SNP. So I had the wrong information previously:

Here I have a red N for Rick for Y151390.

Next, I’ll look at FT421607. This shows why it is important to check the results and the Y Chromosome Browser.

This means the results are better than I thought previously:

This chart shows a clearer demarcation between the James Line and the Archibald Frazer Line. When defining Haplogroups, it is important not only to show that one group is positive for a SNP, but that the other group is clearly negative for that SNP.

Clearing Up the SNPs

Looking at the above chart, I should check all the question marks. The first is for Jonathan at FT421607:

Here, Jonathan was 100% positive for FT421607, but only had one read.

Here are Jonathan’s results for Y85652:

These results are different from what I had previously. Either I entered them wrong before or FTDNA has clarified by additional testing. I think that the results of the Backbone Tests have come in, because, I am seeing different results now. I checked all of Jonathan’s Archibald Line SNPs and he is now negative for them:

Now we can see a clearer border between what I call the J Line and the A Line.

The next logical step is to re-check Rodney’s results. Starting with Y85652, Rodney is now negative:

He doesn’t have as many reads but quite a few more than 10. The other two SNPs from the Archibald Line followed suit for Rodney:

It appears that the only questionable tests now are Jonathan’s test for FT421607 which only had one read and Paul’s two James Line SNPs which didn’t get tested. These results have me going back to Rodney’s Y-DNA Haplotree. The one that I started out looking at in this Blog:

Rodney should have red dots next to the SNPs to the right of R-Y85652. Red would mean tested negative which is what Rodney’s Y Chromosome Browser now show. However, Rodney’s Haplotree still shows gray dots for presumed negative. Perhaps FTDNA is in flux.

In addition, it appears from Rodney’s order history that his backbone test has not yet been completed:

There is a completed the same day as the order whcih does not make sense. Then there is a later ‘Completed’ with no date.

Frazier Y-Haplotree

So far, I have not looked at Frazier results in this Blog. He will have a shorter Haplotree as he has an older terminal Haplogroup of R-YP6489:

The difference in the Frazier Haplotree is that it has a blue SNP or Haplogroup in it. That is FT421618. Blue indicates downstream. Here is what I already had for Frazier:

This started out being a chart for Private Variants, but now includes more. I’ll change it so, in general, the older SNPs are at the top.

First, I’ll look at the Frazier results for FT421618. Frazier split the previous Frazer/Frazier block in two by his results.

Frazier has no letter within the dashed results which means that he is negative for this SNP. My guess is that that this Haplogroup was chosen to represent the three SNPs in it because Frazier was clearly negative for FT421618. Frazier has a gray dot by YP6491. Gray means presumed negative:

This single T in the G column is why this test did not get a perfect score. However, I question this later in the Blog and presume that this is a negative result.

While we are at it, I will also look at YP6492:

Frazier is clearly negative for this SNP, so I don’t think that FTDNA is reporting these correctly in their Y-DNA Haplotree.

Frazier’s YDNA Haplotree shows that he is positive for the three SNPs in R-YP6489. I checked out the other Frazier results and get this:

The split in the former Frazer/Frazier Block occurs in the Frazier results where the results go from green to red or from yes to no. The last ? could be a no, but I don’t understand FTDNA testing requirements well enough.

Here are the rest of the results from the Frazier test as far as I have tracked them on this spreadsheet:

Next, I should fill in the blanks. That would be 24 tests. But if I add in Paul and Rick, that will show where the changes are between the Haplogroups. Here are Paul’s results:

Above on Paul’s Y-DNA Haplotree, I showed that he was presumed postive for FT421618. Here are his results:

I would put those results in the sketchy category. Paul had two low quality reads neither of which showed positive results. However, based on the other testing he gets to be presumed positive.

Here are Rick’s results:

Rick’s results were straightforward. There was a Frazier result with a question mark, but the more I looked at it, the more I felt is should be a ‘n’.

As Jonathan had a presumed positive for FT421618, I would like to check that.

Jonathan seems clearly positive for this SNP, but didn’t have as many reads as needed for the best results. I added an extra SNP result for Jonathan on my spreadsheet, to make it look better.

Summary and Conclusions

I could write more, but I think that I have enough for one Blog:

  • I wanted to take a look at the four Frazer and one Frazier BigY tester from the perspective of their Y-DNA Haplotrees at FTDNA
  • I found while looking at another project, that the labels on the specific SNPs on these trees are not always accurate. For example, a red dot by a SNP should mean ‘tested negative’. I did not see any red dots on these trees. Yet there are many negative tests shown in my testing summary above shown with a red ‘n’.
  • Because many of the results seemed to have changed for Rodney and Jonathan compared to what I had previously shown on my spreadsheet, I surmised that their backbone tests may now be completed or in the process of being completed. Whatever the source of the results, what I have found make the results of the testing between the James Line and Archibald Frazer Line Haplogroups clearer.

 

Waiting for the Frazier BigY Manual Review and Frazer Y-HAP-Backbone Test

A lot has been happening with Frazer YDNA recently. In January, Rick’s new BigY 700 came in. Rodney upgraded his BigY 500 to a BigY 700. This came in at about the same time as Rick’s results. At the beginning of February, the new Frazier BigY 700 results started to come in. However, there are still a few loose ends.

  • I assume that there will be a manual review of the Frazier results by FTDNA
  • Rodney and Jonathan from the James Frazer Line both have pending Y-HAP-Backbone tests ordered by FTDNA. These were apparently ordered to fill in gaps from their BigY testing.

What Gaps Do Rodney and Jonathan Have in Their BigY Testing?

This was discussed some in my Blog: Frazer YDNA Loose Ends and Private Variants. In that Blog, I looked at Private Variants. The conclusion of my review was that I thought that FT420438 and FT420010 should be added here:

Let’s see if that still makes sense now that the Frazier results are in. In my last Blog on the Frazier results, I came to the conclusion that these SNPs should be added:

FT420010

The good news is that in both my analyses, I had FT420010 in the R-YP6489 Block. The bad news is that in my first Blog, I had FT20438 in that Block and not FT426078. In my more recent Blog, I had FT426078 in the R-YP6489 Block and not FT20438. Confusing, isn’t it? My assumption is that FT420010 does indeed belong with R-YP6489. I will just check Frazier to make sure:

Position #5987829 is the position for the SNP FT420010:

Here is a chart I just made to compare the testing results between the five testers:

This shows that for FT420010, the three people who had the BigY 700 tested positive. Jonathan and Paul had the BigY 500 and their tests were inconclusive. That means that there were not enough reads or not enough positive reads. All this to say that FT420010 checks out. What I don’t know is if it belongs even further upstream – say to where the Stuarts are on the Block Tree:

FT426078

This is a SNP that I suggested should go in the area of YP6489. Here is the position number:

Did Frazier test positive for this SNP? Here are the six Private Variants for Frazier:

Frazier did have Position number 4056256.

Paul’s results were inconclusive for this position number on his YDNA test:

This is where my comparison chart should come in handy:

Next, I fill in the other boxes:

The unfortunate part about this is that Rick’s BigY 700 which should have had more covereage than the BigY 500 tests, did not test for Position #4056256. However, based on Rodney and the Frazier tester  testing positive, I think that FT426078 will be added to the Frazer/Frazier group of R-YP6489.

FT420438

Prior to the Frazier BigY test results, I had suggested that FT420438 be added to the area of R-YP6489. Let’s see if that still makes sense.

Here is a summary of what I had for my earlier Blog:

At that time Frazier was not yet tested. What are the Frazier results for this position? Again, these are the six Private Frazier Variants:

I see nothing in that list starting with 118… Next, I’ll look at Frazier’s csv file:

It was worthwhile downloading the large Frazier csv file, because the results are interesting. This shows that Frazier has no mutation at this reference. If the Reference and Genotype are the same, that means that there was no mutation –  unlike Rodney and Rick:

In testing YDNA, a negative result is as important as a positive one. That means that FT420438 is a defining SNP for the Roscommon Frazer group along with the three others they already have.

A Predicted Frazer/Frazier Block Tree

Here is what this appears to show:

This view is from the perspective of the new Frazier tester who would be in the right column. Two of his six Frazier Private Variants will go up to R-YP6489 reducing the Frazier Private Variants to four. Rodney will have a reduction of four in his Private Variants. That will likely reduce the average Private Variants of Rodney and Jonathan from 4 to two. Rick will have a reduction of two Private Variants. That should reduce Rick and Paul’s Group from three Private Variants to two.

More on the Frazer/Frazier Block Tree

It seems like this area of the Tree where the red arrow is pointing is important:

This must be the are where the two Frazer/Frazier branches divided from each other. However when was this date? From the Rodney/Jonathan Line there should be 8 SNPs below the point where I show the arrow. On the Rick/Paul Line there should be 9 SNPs. On the Frazier Branch there should be a mere 4 SNPs if my analysis is correct. The average Frazer Line is 8.5 SNPs long. I’ll average that with the Frazier Branch that has 4 Private Variants to get 6-1/4 SNPs. I’ve seen various number of years to apply to these SNPs. I’ll try 84. 84 times 6.25 is 525 years. That brings us back to about the year 1495. That is a little earlier than my previous guess of 1600. If I apply the 84 years to the remaining 5 SNPs that I have in R-YP6489 that is another 420 years. That brings us back to the year 1075 when we are bumping up against the Stuarts and possibly Grant. That would make sense as it would help if this date was around the time (or before) of the adoption of surnames.

So where I have the arrow pointed should be about 1075. The next break in the blocks should be around 1495. The next break in the blocks on the left two Frazer lines should be around 1690 which is the date we are guessing that Archibald Frazer, the father of the James and Archibald Lines was born. The number of 84 per SNP breaks down between 1495 and 1690 as there would be four SNPs during this period. This is a little less than 50 years per SNP. As the 84 years should be an average, it could be that there were a lot of SNPs forming during this period of time on the Frazer Line. It seems like the Frazier Line was helpful here as this line perhaps had fewer SNPs forming between 1495 and the present. At an estimated 4 Private Variants over about 525 years, that is one SNP about every 131 years. The same effect can be seen in the Stuart and Grant Lines, though this could be partly due to the Stuarts taking the BigY 700 and Grant taking the BigY 500 test.

Rodney and Jonathan’s Y-HAP-Backbone Tests

I’m still not sure why FTDNA ordered Y-HAP-Backbone Tests for Rodney and Jonathan.

Jonathan was missing some information on these three positions. However, Jonathan had good result for these three positions. It could be that there were some discrepancies between Frazer/Frazier and Stuart/Grant with other SNPs that I don’t know about that FTDNA wanted to clear up.

Summary and Conclusions

  • In my previous two Blogs, I came to some conclusions as to where some of the Private Variants should end up for the five Frazer/Frazier testers. However, in this Blog I put that information together to give a fuller picture.
  • In order for there to be a new SNP that is unique to the Frazers of Roscommon, it has to be positive for that group, but also negative for the Frazier tester. That was the case for FT420438. That would also be true for the existing three SNPs in the Roscommon Ireland Frazerr Block of FT421618. I didn’t check FTDNA’s work for the existing three SNPs in the Block, but I assume that they were right.
  • I showed where I think that Frazer/Frazier Block Tree will end up once FTDNA has finished its manual review. I also did some guesswork as to the dates at some important junctures in the Block Tree.
  • The Stuarts and Frazers seem to go their separate ways around the year 1075
  • The Frazer and Frazier lines seem to separate around 1495.
  • I’m still curious as to why FTDNA ordered Y-HAP-Backbone tests for Rodney and Jonathan.

 

The First Frasher/Frazier BigY Results

The long-awaited Frasher/Frazer BigY results are starting to come in. This test was ordered around the time Rick from the Roscommon Frazer group ordered his test last August. However, the Frasher/Frazier test was delayed due to quality issues.

The Status of the Frazer BigY Project

Prior to the Frasher/Frazier test results, there were four Frazer BigY testers. They all had pretty well-defined relationships based on genealogy:

Rick was the one who ordered a new BigY test. Also around the same time, Rodney upgraded his BigY 500 to a BigY 700. That means that now Rick and Rodney have BigY 700 results and Paul and Jonathan have the older BigY 500 results. Here is the Block Tree pre Frasher/Frazier:

My second cousin once removed Paul is R-Y85652. This is called in general the Archibald Branch. Rodney and Jonathan are in R-Y151390. This is called the James Branch of the Frazer Line. These two lines were previously under R-YP6489. For some reason, another group formed between YP6489 and the two Frazer Branches. This is R-FT421618. As it is usually necessary for a new tester to form a new group, I had assumed that the new Frasher/Frazier test would end up as FT421618.

New Frazier/Frasher Results

Here is the new Block tree from my cousin Paul’s perspective:

The new tester, Richard is listed as R-YP6489 and not FT421618. That means that it is likely that it was Richard that split the YP6489 Block into two. The YP6489 Block must have previously had had six SNPs. Now there are two blocks with three SNPs each.

FT421618 and YP6489

R-FT421618 is the newest SNP and represents the Haplogroup of the Frazers from Roscommon, Ireland. This is the SNP in common with the four BigY Frazers whose roots go back to Archibald Frazer who apparently lived in Roscommon Ireland sometime before 1749. The new Frazier/Frasher tester does not share these SNPs.

Based on the Block tree, it appears that Richard, the newest BigY tester shares three SNPs with the Roscommon, Ireland Frazers. These SNPs are YP6489, YP6490 and YP6493. Collectively, these are called YP6489.

Where and When is YP6489?

When Did YP6489 Form?

This is the big question. We can date FT421618 to about 1690 to when we believe that the first Frazer lived in Roscommon Ireland. That means that the oldest SNP in the Block of YP6489 formed three SNPs before 1690. The question then is, how often does a SNP form? I have seen a number as low as 86 years per SNP as I recall. However, the scale on the left is showing 9 SNPs up to FT421618. If we take that time from very recently then 2020 minus 1690 is 530 years. That means that it looks like a SNP formed about every 59 years.  Let’s use 86 years for the three SNPs in the YP6489 Block. That gives us 258 years before 1690 or 1432 for the formation of the oldest SNP in the YP6489 Block. However, see further down in the Blog as I surmise that there should be more SNPs in this Block which would make YP6489 even older.

When was the Common Ancestor Between Richard and the Roscommon Frazers?

This is a different question. It appears from the Block tree that Richard and the Roscommon Frazers share the top three SNPs in YP6489. That means that the common ancestor would be closer to 1690 than to 1432:

In the image above, “Your branch” is Frasher/Frazier. We know that Richard does not descend from Archibald Frazer probably born in 1690, but he could have descended from Archibald’s father or grandfather. Let’s say that the common ancestor between Richard and the Frazers of Roscommon was 1600. My reasoning is that the most recent common ancestor would have to have a SNP shared by Richard and the other Frazers. That would be the most recent SNP in the group of YP6489. That most recent SNP probably formed about 86 years or so before FT421618.

SNP Tracker

This is a program that gives a rough estimate of dates of and locations of SNPs. Here is what SNP Tracker shows for FT421618:

SNP Tracker has that SNP in Ireland in Medieval times. That is probably based on the 9 SNPs I mentioned above. I think that FT421618 should be 1690. Here is more from SNP Tracker:

Roscommon is in the top three here and the numbers are pretty similar for Armagh, Down and Roscommon. Here is some more information, though I don’t agree with these SNP Tracker results either:

Offshore means continental Europe. That part would be quite certain.

Back Before Frazer with the Stuarts and Grants – YP6488

Whereas YP6489 is the umbrella group for the Frazer/Frasher/Frazier group, YP6488 is the umbrella group for Frazer, Stuart and Grant. The explanation for these relationships is not clear. I can come up with a few guesses:

  • This could represent the period when surnames were adopted. One group adopted Frazer, one Stuart and one Grant.
  • There could have been a Frazer/Stuart marriage and the children of one group could have taken on the Stuart name rather than Frazer for some reason.

Whatever the reason, the YDNA is sorting out the matches between Frazer on the one side and Stuart/Grant on the other.

The Block Tree makes it look like Grant is one SNP away from being a Frazier/Frasher and vica versa. However, that is only because there are not other close matches for Grant and Frazier/Frasher. If there were, that would put their groups further down on the Block tree similar to Frazer and Stuart.

Grant

It is interesting to note that Grant only has three variants bringing him to an equal level with FT421618. I had dated this as 1690. My guess is that Grant had the BigY 500 which did not discover as many SNPs or Variants. If we use the older 144 years per SNP based on the BigY 500 test that would date Grant at 432 years ago or about 1590. This is still early for my proposed 1690 date for FT421618.

Where Was the Common Ancestor for Frazer and Frazier/Frasher – YP6489?

This depends partly on the dating of Richard’s common ancestor with the Roscommon Frazers and partly on genealogy and Frazer history. Perhaps other could speculate better than I. Did the same events that resulted in the Roscommon Frazers moving to Ireland result in Richard’s ancestors move to the New World? Did a common ancestor move to Northern Ireland and then one brother moved to Roscommon and another brother or relative move to Virginia? It is even possible that Richard’s ancestor moved to Roscommon, Ireland and then to America.

Here is a map from Irish Ancestors:

Here is some more information:

Richard’s DNA Testing

FTDNA will do a manual review if a new YDNA branch is formed. Technically, the new branch formed before Richard’s test results were completed. However, this new branch of FT421618 seems to have formed based on Richard’s results.

Richard shows under “Your branch”. What appear to be missing are Richard’s Private Variants.

Richard’s Private Variants

These are the Richard’s SNPs that have no matches at this time called Private Variants. They form Richard’s personal line since the three SNPs in the Block that form YP6489:

This is some of the most important information from the BigY test as these are for the most part new variants that have been discovered in Richard that have never been discovered in anyone else in the World. I haven’t checked Richard’s Private Variants to see if they are all truly Private. However, the number of Private Variants seem to be a reasonable number at six. Above, I gave a possible date of 1600 for a common ancestor between Richard and the Roscommon Frazers. That means that, since 1600, six Variants formed as opposed to the approximately 9 that formed in the Roscommon Frazer Line.

I can look up these positions in YBrowse. 10059190 is too new and does not appear there yet as a Variant:

The same is true for Richard’s next three Private Variants. I found some information on 4056256:

This is a new SNP as of 2021. My guess is that that this “Private Variant” may have come about from Rick or Rodney’s BigY 700 tests.

That leaves one more Private Variant for Richard. Position 5987829 has been named also:

Next, I need to check Rick and Rodney for these two positions. Rick has one of the two:

Rodney has both of these ‘Private Variants’:

Here is my guess of what should happen:

It seems like these two SNPs should go up into the YP6489 Group. Also Rick should lose one of his Private Variants and Rodney and Richard should lose two each. It could be partially due to these discrepancies that FTDNA ordered additional testing for Paul and Jonathan. The other question is, why didn’t Rick show that he had position #4056256? Here are Rick’s results:

It appears that Rick’s BigY 700 testing missed that position number.

For Jonathan and Paul, the results seemed inconclusive for these two positions. Here is what Jonathan’s results looked like for Position #4056256:

Summary and Conclusions

  • Richard’s BigY test represents the first BigY test for a Frazer/Frazier who doesn’t descend from Archibald Frazer of Roscommon Ireland
  • Richard’s BigY test benefits from the prior testing of four Frazers. Without this he would have shown that he is related to two Stuarts and a Grant.
  • Due to the Frazer testing and genealogy, the common ancestor between Frazer and Frazier/Frasher should be about 1600
  • I made some guesses as to where this common ancestor lived, but I don’t know. Finding a Frazer with Scotland-only genealogy who has tested for YDNA would help.
  • I made some guesses as to where Richard’s Private Variants would end up.

Frazer YDNA Loose Ends and Private Variants

In my previous Blog, I was caught a little off guard as I didn’t know that Rodney had tested for the BigY 700. However, that was good news as now we have a BigY 700 in both the James and Archiald Lines of the Frazer YDNA Tree. One confusing thing about FTDNA is that it is difficult to know when your BigY test has been completed. Here is Rodney’s order history:

This seems to indicate that his BigY was completed on January 14. However there are still more tests ordered by FTDNA. Another way to check is if Rodney’s Private Variants match up with the average Private Variants shown on the Block Tree. [Note: Later in the Blog I show that is not a good way to see if your BigY has completed.]

Here are Rodney’s Private Variants:

Rodney now has 7 Private Variants. These are described by their position numbers to distinguish them from SNP which need to have a match with someone. To get the average number of Private Variants for the James Frazer Line, we need to know the number of Jonathan’s Private Variants:

Jonathan has two. This averages out to 4.5. The Block tree shows an average of 4:

4 is close to 4.5, so I would say that the BigY analysis is complete – except for the Backbone Tests. The number of Average Private Variants went up from 2 to four probably on January 11th when the backbone test was ordered or on on January 14th when FTDNA shows the BigY was completed.

Rick’s Results

Rick shows that his BigY completed in December:

However, Rick has nine Private Variants:

Paul who is on Rick’s Branch has one Private Variant.

That is a total of 10 for Rick and Paul’s Frazer Branch for an average of five Private Variants. The Rick and Paul Branch of the Block Tree shows an average of three Private Variants. That means that FTDNA’s manual review must not be completed yet.

The James Line Private Variants

These should be the variants that have formed since Rodney’s and Jonathan’s common ancestor.

That common ancestor was Thomas Henry Frazer. Thomas Henry Frazer had, for sure, these two SNPs – Y151390 and FT421607:

I say, for sure, but the backbone tests seem to be confirming these. The point is that Rodney and Jonathan’s Private SNPs formed after Thomas Henry Frazer in 1836. By the way, I made a mistake in dating the Block Tree in a previous Blog, so I’l correct that here:

The slightly confusing part is that the 1836 is higher on the tree than the 1804. I think that could change as the average number of Private Variants right now appears to be 5 between Paul and Rick under the R-Y85652 part of the Tree. Say that some of the testers were born around 1950. That would mean that this Tree represents 750 years of Frazer YDNA history.

Jonathan’s Private Variants

Here is Martin’s take on Rick’s initial results. Martin is the FTNDA administor for the portion of the R1a YDNA Tree that our Frazers are on. These have since changed since Rodney’s BigY 700 upgrade came in.

This shows Rick with a BigY-700, but doesn’t show Rodney in that category yet. I mention above, that Rodney has 7 Private Variants. The BigY 700 is more comprehensive and finds more variants. Before Rodney’s BigY 700 results came in, he only had one Private Variant. Jonathan has two Private Variants. They are the last two in the yellow box aove.

Jonathan’s first formerly Private SNP became part of the new James Line Haplogroup:

I don’t see BY84935 on the Block Tree, so if it isn’t there and isn’t on Jonathan’s Private Variant list, where did it go?

Here are Jonathan’t test results:

The mutation should be G to A, but Jonathan shows at least two reads that are G to T.

Let’s see how Rodney tested for this. This is now a named SNP, so no longer a Private Variant for Jonathan. I don’t see Rodney having BY84935:

Based on these two test results, this should still be a Private SNP for Jonathan.

Rick and Paul Have a ? for BY84935

Rick is sometimes positive for this SNP and sometimes not. Also, he seems to have a lot of similar results in this region of the Y Chromosome. Now I see why they took away this Private Variant from Jonathan.

Let’s check out Paul’s results:

Very similar to Rick’s results:

Based on these results, I’m a bit surprised that Jonathan ever had a Private Variant at this position. For Jonathan’s other two Private Variants, I will assume that they are correct. The bottom line is that Jonathan has two Private Variants. These are:

  • 11718822 and
  • 11720223

These had to have formed in Jonathan’s line in either Edward, Walter, or Jonathan:

In a sense, these Private Variants are not important from a genealogical point of view. Jonathan already knew he was a second cousin to Rodney. However, if anyone else ever tests positive for these Variants in the future, it will show that they are from this same Edward Fitzgerald Frazer Line.

Rodney’s Seven Private Variants

There is another use of Private Variants. These can be used to date the common ancestor between two people. A number between 83 and 144 years is generally used. However, that time-frame does not work well in the case of Rodney and Jonathan. Their ancestor is believed to be Thomas Henry Frazer born 1836. Even if we take that date from 2021, that is 185 years ago. That means that, at most, there should have been an average of three private variants between Jonathan and Rodney where there are 4 (and actually 4.5). That means that these Variants were forming about every 40 years or about twice as fast as would be expected, on average.

Here are Jonathan and Rodney’s average of 4 Private Variants:

Rodney’s Private Variant at Position # 11830989

I don’t want to go through each of Rodney’s Private Variants, but I will at least look at one:

I don’t think that FTDNA shows test results in the browser for Private Variants if you are not positive for them. Here is Jonathan’s downloaded results for this position:

It looks like Jonathan’s results were less than conclusive.

Next, I’ll look at Paul’s results:

Paul was not tested at that position.

Let’s see what Rick has. I need to download his ‘csv’ file. I would expect that Rick would have good results as he has tested for the BigY700:

Here is a surprise. This shows that Rick has this Private Variant. That means that it can no longer be Private. That is good because it means that Rodney has one less Private Variant. I don’t know why FTDNA didn’t pick this up:

That means that this should be a new SNP included in the umbrella SNP group of Frazer. At YBrowse Position # 11830989 is FT420438:

The good news is that this will take away one of Rick’s Private Variants as he has too many already.

Rodney’s Private Variant at Position # 5987829

I did a comparison of Rodney’s and Rick’s Private Variants and found one more match:

This brings up another reason that Private Variants are important. If they match with someone else’s Private Variant, they form a new SNP. Usually FTDNA will catch that. In this case, they are still in the middle of some of their reviews and have ordered backbone tests for Rodney and Jonathan. It is possible that FTDNA is not sure where to put these new SNPs. This seems to indicate that they are Frazer SNPs, but perhaps they go back even further?

Here is what YBrowse shows:

These two SNPs are interesting as YBrowse shows that they are from an unknown Haplogroup. That seems to support my theory that FTDNA doesn’t know where these SNPs belong. Here are Rodney’s test results for the position:

Here are Rick’s results:

If Rodney and Rick are positive at this Position, then Paul and Jonathan should also be positive.

Paul’s results above were inconclusive.

How about Jonathan’s?

Jonathan’s test results were also inconclusive.

FT420438 and FT420010 Frazer SNPs?

If it was up to me, I would add these two SNPs to this area:

That means that there would be 8 SNPs in this area instead of the current six. So far, everyone how has tested for these SNPs have been Frazers. However, the six or eight SNPs represent four or five hundred years of history. It would be great to fill in some of the blanks for this time period. It may be that FTDNA hasn’t finished their review or are awaiting the results of the two backbone tests they are doing.

Changes to Frazer Testers’ Private Variants

The other change that should be happening is that Rick and Paul’s Average Private variants under R-Y85652 should be going up. They show 3 currently. Rick has 9 but two of these are shared with Rodney. Rick should have 7 Private Variants and Paul has one Private Variant. That should result in an average of four Private Variants under the Archibald Frazer LIne of R-Y85652.

Rodney currently has 7 Private Variants, but two of those are shared with Rick. That should results in 5 Private Variants for Rodney. Jonathan has two Private Variants. If FTDNA rounds down, that will result in an average of 3 Private Variants for the James Line Branch under R-Y151390.

Further, I note this under FTDNA:

This says it could be that the two matches I found between Rodney and Rick could be there because they haven’t properly been properly validated yet. Hence the backbone test which is in process.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I started out trying to figure out if Rodney and Rick’s BigY reviews were done or not.
  • I thought that perhaps Rodney’s review was done because the Block tree average number of Private Variants matched with his and Jonathan’s Private Variants.
  • Then, when I started comparing Rodney and Rick’s Private Variants, I saw that they had two in common. That means that if Rodney’s review was over, there was still two SNPs to be assigned to the Frazer Block Tree.
  • I guessed that perhaps FTDNA had trouble placing these new SNPs and that is why they ordered the Backbone tests for Rodney and Jonathan
  • I had thought that if your Private Variants matched with what the average Private Variants were on the Block Tree, then that meant that your BigY manual review was over. But then I found something at FTDNA that said that may not be true.
  • I had thought that the Backbone tests ordered for Rodney and Jonathan were to confirm their new Haplogroup of R-Y151390. Now it appears more likely that the Backbone test is for the two matching Private Variants that Rodney and Rick have with each other.
  • It could be a month or more before the dust settles for Rick’s new BigY 700 test and Rodney’s upgrade from BigY 500 to BigY 700. By then, we will probably have the results from the new Frazier/Frasher BigY 700 test which has been delayed.

Update on Frazer YDNA: Rodney’s Upgrade from BigY 500 to BigY 700

I have been writing quite a bit lately on Frazer YDNA. There are few reasons for this. One is that the information has been changing gradually as the two new Frazer Haplogroups are rolling out. The second is because the discovery of these two new Haplogroups is important. It is important not only for the four testers, but also for all the hundreds of the Frazer “Clan” who descend from Archibald Frazer who lived in Roscommon, Ireland in the early 1700’s. These new YDNA developments are equivalent to a major genealogical find. However, YDNA results are more written in stone than genealogifcal finds. Once you have your YDNA results, it is very clear that if you have these SNPs you are from these Frazer Lines and if you don’t, you are not from thse Lines.

Dating the New Frazer Haplogroups

There are a few ways to date a YDNA tree. I’ll use the dates that we think are right with Frazer genealogy where we know that.

The important dates are for the common ancestors of the four YDNA testers shown at the bottom of the tree above. Those dates are 1690, 1804 and 1836. Here I’ve put the dates on Rick’s Block Tree:

[Edit: The 1792 in the image above should be 1836.]

The tree is reversed from the genealogical tree. Rick is on the right Branch with Paul. From what we can tell, YP6489 was formed about 1200 AD. YP6489 is representative of the three SNPs in the Block. We don’t know which SNP was formed first, but we may assume that these three SNPs formed equally between the time period of 1200 and 1545. Next is the new subgroup of FT421618. This Haplogroup seems to be explained by the Frazier/Frasher test results that we are waiting for. There were quality issues, so his sample is being retested. Perhaps FTDNA had enough information to say he would be FT421618. Again, we don’t know when these three SNPs formed – just that they formed between around 1545 and 1690.

1690 is an important date as that is the date we are using for the birth of our common Roscommon Ireland Frazer ancestor – Archibald Frazer. On the James Frazer Branch, SNPs Y151390 and FT421607 had to form between Archibald Frazer born 1690 and Rodney and Jonathan’s common ancestor. That common ancestor was Thomas Henry Frazer born about 1792. On the Archibald Line, three SNPs in the Haplogroup Y85652 formed between 1690 and 1804. The bottom of the chart brings us down to the birth dates of the three testers. The private variants were formed in the James line between 1792 and the birth dates of the Rodney and Jonathan. The private variants in the Archibald line were formed between 1804 and the birth dates of Paul and Rick.

R-Y85652 – The Archibald Line

Y85652 consists of a group of three SNPs. These were previously Private Variants for Paul. In order for Paul’s three Private Variants to become SNPs, Rick had to test positive for these Private Variants and Rodney and Jonathan had to be negative for these.

Y85652

Here are Rick’s results for Y85652:

The pink column is at the position on the Y Chromosome of 8162400 which is now Y85652. The T in that column shows that Rick had the mutation from A to T.

Paul had similar results:

Every horizontal line is called a read. Paul’s results go off the screen. That means that he had more reads than Rick which just means he had a higher confirmation than Rick of Y85652.

Next, I’ll look at Jonathan’s results. We expect the results to be negative:

Right at the position of 8162400, Jonathan shows no mutations from T to C. That means that he doesn’t have SNP Y85652. To satify curiosity, here are Rodney’s results:

Rodney had fewer reads, but is clearly negative for Y85652 at the position in the middle of the image above under the down arrow. If I went through this exercise for Y102792 and Y112046, I should get the same results.

Y151390 – The James Line

Here are Rodney’s test results:

He is clearly positive. Jonathan has a question mark for this position:

Jonathan didn’t have enough reads at this location. However, for all of his 7 reads, he shos the mutation from C to T at this position.

Paul aslo had a question mark at this position. Here are Paul’s results:

This was a bit of surprise. Let’s look at Rick’s results. He will have to be negative for this position for the James Line to get the Haplogroup of Y151390:

Fortunately, Rick has good results showing that he is negative for Y151390. Because Paul is in a group with Rick, Paul is presumed negative for Y151390 also.

FT421607 on the James Frazer Line

I’m curious about this SNP also. Rodney has good results:

Jonathan has only one read at this position:

But it is positive. That makes it important for Paul and Rodney to be negative for FT421607. Here are Paul’s results:

Paul’s read didn’t make it over to position #7788709.

Rick has much better results:

That means that Paul is again presumed negative based on Rick’s negative results and we end up with the James Line SNP of FT421607. FT421607 is based on only one good positive test and one good negative test. But because the negative test was already in a sold group consisting of Paul and Rick, that meant that Rodney and Jonathan had to be in the other group. The bottom line is that the James Line and Archibald Line Haplogroup results are dependent on each other.

Here is FT421607 which now appears at YBrowse listed as a new 2021 SNP:

This gives the location of FT421607 on the Y Chromosome and what the mutation was (G to T). It also gives the location of the SNP under the Frazer Haplogroup of YP6489 and the James Line Haplogroup of Y151390.

Private Variants

If it weren’t for the Private Variants, I would think that FTDNA’s manual review has been completed. However, the numer of Private Variants of the testers don’t match up with the Private Variants shown on the Block Tree. For example, Rick shows that he has nine Private Variants:

Paul shows one Private Variant:

I’m not sure why Rick has so many Private Variants. It may be because his BigY 700 covered more than the older BigY 500 tests. Their average numer of SNPs should be five. The average number of Private Variants shows three:

Rodney and Jonathan’s Private Variants (James Frazer Line)

The Block Tree above shows that Jonthan and Rodney have an average of 4 Private Variants. Jonathan shows that he has two Private Variants:

Rodney has 7 Private Variants:

This makes me wonder if Rodney actually had the BigY 700. A review of Rodney’s FTNDA history is interesting:

Rodney did have the BigY 700 done. This makes sense. However, it says that his BigY-700 was ordered 8/26/2020 and completed just 1/14/2021. I talked to Rodney’s niece who said that she did order the BigY 700. Mystery solved.

Y-HAP-Backbone Tests for Rodney and Jonathan

In addition, it looks like two Y-HAP-Backbone tests were ordered and one was completed. The one ordered on 1/11/2021 has not yet completed. Here is Rodney’s Order Status:

Here is Jonathan’s order history:

I’m not sure how to interpret what FTDNA is saying. It appears that more tests were ordered for Rodney than for Jonathan. Here is some information from FTDNA. I don’t know if itis up to date:

I checked Paul and Rick’s order history and no backbone SNP Tests were ordered there. That is interesting because it tells me a few things:

  • FTDNA is sure of Paul and Rick’s new Haplogroup of Y85652
  • FTDNA came up with Rodney and Jonathan’s Haplogroup based on one positive test from the James Line and one negative test from the Archibald Line
  • FTDNA would like more positive testing for Rodney and Jonathan to confirm their Haplogroup of Y151390, so they ordered Y-HAP-Backbone tests.

This should mean that we will have a pretty good Haplogroup for Rodney and Jonathan, that will be proven once the backbone tests have been completed.

This shows Jonathan’s pending results:

Here are Rodney’s pending results:

This seems to indicate that Rodney’s BigY700 is not yet complete. However, these are Rodney’s matches:

This seems to indicate that as Rodney matches Rick (who has taken the BigY 700) in the 800,000 level (under Shared Variants above) and Jonathan (who has taken the BigY 500) at the 600,000 level that perhaps Rodney’s BigY 700 is completed except for the Backbone test.

Another Thought on the Backbone Test and the Frazier/Frasher Results

It is possible that the need for these backbone tests came about due to the pending results of the Frazier/Frasher BigY 700 tests. At least, the tests were ordered around the time that a new Haplogroup appeared on the Frazer Tree:

This new Haplogroup which seems to be a result of the pending
Frazier/Frasher BigY results. This new Haplogroup appeared around the time of the backbone tests were ordered for Rodney and Jonathan. So these backbone tests may have been ordered to back up the new Frazier/Frasher results, to verify the James Line Haplogroup of Y151390, or both.

Summary and Conclusions

  • While looking at Rick’s new test results and the resulting new Haplogroups for the James and Archibald Frazer Lines, I was surprised to see that backbone tests had been ordered for Jonathan and Rodney from the James Line
  • Also I was surprised that Rodney had a BigY test that was only recently completed (or is being completed).
  • Now that I can see the SNP test results and the SNP results at YBrowse, it makes it easier to see how FTDNA has made/is making their decisions.
  • I can probably see the results of the testing because Rodney’s BigY 700 seems to be completed. That testing in conjunction with Rick’s recent BigY 700 testing is likely the reason why there is a new James Frazer Line Haplogroup.
  • It appears that the results of Jonathan’s and Rodney’s backbone tests should come out around the time that the Frasher/Frazier BigY 700 test results are due.
  • The result of all this testing is that we will have a really good Frazer YDNA Tree solidly documented by BigY testing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A New Proposed James Frazer Line YDNA Haplogroup

In my previous Blog, I mentioned how Rick’s new BigY 700 test results created a sort of tipping point. His test in conjunction with the previous three BigY tests resulted in three changes in the Frazer YDNA Tree. One of those changes was the likely creation of a new James Line YDNA Haplogroup of R-Y151390. I say likely, because FTDNA’s manual review has not yet been completed.

However, when I look at the Frazer Block Tree today, I see that there is already another change from yesterday:

For some reason, FTDNA has split the old Frazer umbrella group of R-YP6489 into two. YP6489 is now the older group with a younger group of R-FT421618 under it. This is very unusual, because without an additional tester, there should be no way to know that FT421618 is younger than Y6489.

Some Speculation on R-FT421618

This is another mystery, as I don’t know how FTDNA could know that there were two groups unless someone else has tested. The only thing I can think of is that they may have access to other information such as the initial Frazier/Frasher BigY results that we have been waiting for. This test had quality issues and the results are now due around the end of February.

Let’s assume that FTDNA is looking at initial Frasher/Frazier results. Previous dating by the FTDNA YDNA administrator for our Frazer group had set YP6489 at around 1200 AD. The two Frazer Lines (Archibald and James) had to have started around 1720. This is about the date we are guessing Archibald and James were born, though we believe that Archibald was older. From looking at the two groups of Y6489 and FT421618, they both have three SNPs in each. That means that FT421618 could have formed about halfway between between Y6489 and the James Frazer and Archibald Frazer Haplogroups. 1200 to 1720 is 520 years. That means hat we should be able to date FT421618 at the halfway point between 1200 and 1720 or at 1460.

R-Y151390: The New James Frazer Line YDNA Haplogroup

This is what I set out to look at but got side-tracked. In my previous Blog, I was struggling to see how FTDNA had arrived at the conclusion that this would be the new Haplogroup for the James Frazer Line based on my inability to find test results for certain SNPs or Private Variants. I brought my questions to the FTDNA – BigY Facebook Group and got some great results. This was the bottom line answer after much discussion from David Vance who is very accomplished and respected in the field of YDNA:

ok so YFull thinks Paul is positive for Y151390; FTDNA thinks not. That’s something you’d probably have to delve into the BAM file to figure out, but the only difference would be that Y151390 might belong above as an equivalent in the R-YP6489 block rather than only above Rodney and Jonathan. Based on their negative results for the R-Y85652 block and equivalents, the basic branching structure either way is still as shown on the Block Tree.

Here is some more background. Here is Jonathan’s results show in the non-block tree diagram:

FT421618, which I discussed above, is in yellow because Jonathan was Presumed Positive for this SNP. That means that his test results were not as thorough as needed for Jonathan to be positive for this SNP. However, based on others being positive for this SNP, he had to be positive for it also. Although I can’t find Jonathan’s detailed test results for Y151390 (the new James Frazer Line Haplogroup), the green dot means that Jonathan tested positive for this SNP. FT421607 is much more confusing as the grey dot means Presumed Negative. If Jonathan is showing as having this SNP, why wouldn’t he be Presumed Positive for it? Furthermore Jonathan is showing Presumed Negative for Y85652, Y102972 and Y112046. I know that is not the case, as I have looked at his results for these three SNPs and he shows as Tested Negative. Here is Jonathan’s results for Y85652:

I had to shrink my screen to show all of Jonathan’s reads that show he tested negative for Y85652. If he had tested positive, there would be a letter T in the column under the tiny arrow above. That tells me that, despite what the grey dots say, that Jonathan tested negative for this SNP and the other two under Y85652. This negative testing by Jonathan and Rodney made it very clear that Paul and Rick were in Y85652 and that they were not.

Is Paul Presumed Negative for Y151390?

That appears to be the case, but I showed above that these dots are not always right:

Here Paul shows as Presumed Negative for Y151390 and FT421607. I looked up FTDNA’s definition of Presumed Negative:

Presumed Negative – You are presumed negative for the primary SNP or variant. A person is presumed negative for sibling branches of SNPs for which you have tested positive.

It seems like the definition could have been stated more clearly. David Vance wrote to me:

so presumed negative, but not confirmed negative.
Are Rodney and Jonathan confirmed negative for R-Y5652 and the other two equivalent SNPs in that block? I’m starting to think those are the driving force for this split, and Paul and Rick are presumed negative for Y151390 because they’re positive for those three SNPs and Rodney and Jonathan are negative so that drives the branching decision rather than Y151390.
It seems that what FTDNA is saying is that Rick and Paul are clearly in Y85682 and that Rodney and Jonathan are clearly out of that group. That means that if Jonathan and Rodney are in FT151390, then Paul and Rodney have to be out of that group even though Paul had some indications on his test that he might be positive for FT151390. At least I think that is what happened.
Let’s see what Rick shows for his newer BigY 700:
The results are similar to Paul’s except that Rich test positive for the new Frazer SNP FT421618.

Another help at Facebook was that someone found Y151690 at YBrowse when I could not. I was doing the search wrong. Here it is:

This seemed like an older SNP based on the Y prefix and it is dated at 2018. The Y prefix on the SNP means YFull.

Summary and Conclusions

  • By reaching out to the BigY community on Facebook, I was able to find more resources to answer my Frazer YDNA questions.
  • At the very least, I am documenting the changes as they are happening with the Frazer YDNA tree
  • I tried to explain how the James Frazer Line was formed. However, without seeing the testing data for some of the SNPs, it is difficult to accurately describe the process
  • There was an unusual split in the umbrella Frazer Haplogroup of Y6489. This seems to be only explained by FTDNA using the partial results of the Frazier/Frasher results for which we are waiting.