I noticed on the BigY Facebook Page that people are starting to get their 111 STR results from the recent round of BigY testing due to this year’s DNA Day sale at FTDNA. I checked my brother Jim’s results and found that he also had his 111 STR results. This is not bad considering the BigY was batched a little over two week ago.
My Brother’s 111 STR Matches
Here are my brother’s matches:
Jim has five 111 STR matches. I am the first match. I am a little surprised that I am a GD of 1 from my brother. I am guessing that I have a STR mutation that Jim doesn’t have.
Here are my matches for comparison:
For some reason I only have three matches. I am one STR further away from matching Steve but one STR closer to matching Ross. Also I don’t match Mervin or Gary, so I must exceed the matching threshold for these two. Jim is at the maximum matching at a GD of 10 at the 111 STR level. That leads me to believe that I have the mutation that Jim doesn’t. Having said that, it doesn’t explain why I am a closer match to Ross.
Comparing My Brother’s 67 STR Matches with Mine
Here are my 67 STR matches:
Here I pick up John, Mervin and Lawrence. I picked up John and Lawrence because they only tested to this level.
Here is what Jim has:
I was expecting that Jim would have more matches than me at this level, but he had fewer. However, he does have one lower GD than me to John, Steve and Mervin. I match Lawrence and Jim doesn’t. This may be an issue of sharing – what settings Jim has and the fact that I haven’t singed him up for any YDNA projects yet. Or, this may be due to the STR difference between my brother and I that I discuss later in the Blog.
Jim and I Have the Same Matches at the 37 STR Level
Here are my results:
I won’t bother posting Jim’s results as they are the same as mine except for the match dates. Notice now that I also have a GD of zero to Jim. That means that the glitch must have occured in between marker 38 and 67.
It’s Not a Glitch; I Do Have a Different STR Than My Brother at DYS534
That was helpful, because I found the different STR:
Jim has a 15 at DYS534 and I have a 16. Each of these STRs have a different mutation rate. There are different studies trying to determine what these mutation rates are. This STR has a chance of mutating in every 5-8 times per 1,000 generations. That is actually one of the faster mutation rates. That means that if a STR was going to mutate, it makes sense that it was this one.
I have done quite a bit of STR analysis in the past, so it is helpful to look back on that.
This shows that of the four Hartleys tested, three had 15 for DYS534 and I had 16. At the time, I assumed that this was the signature of my Trawden, Lancashire branch of Hartleys. I didn’t realize that this was what now appears to be a new STR as of 1956 when I was born.
More on DYS534
In the image above, DYS534 is coded as blue meaning that it is not considered a fast moving STR. FTDNA shows the fastest moving STRs coded in red. Furthermore, the image above is somewhat skewed in that it is only looking at the Hartley testers who tested for 111 STRs.
When I look at the 67 STR test results, things get more complicated. Here are the full results from the Hartley YDNA Project:
The first three numbers in each group is just the minimum, maximum and the mode. The first green group are people who the administrator is asking to do more testing. There are two in this group, so the mode is not significant. There are four in the second group of green. In the first group, the mode was 15 and in the second group the mode was 16 even though there was an even amount of 15’s and 16’s in both groups.
In an older Blog I wrote, I tried to find ancestral values for these STRs by going back to earlier SNPs that were ancestral to the Hartley SNP of A11132:
Parallel Mutations and Back Mutations
So how do we explain the confusing situation for DYS534? The answer is in parallel mutations and back mutatations. This would be an example of a back mutation. Say the value for DYS534 was 15 prior to the Hartleys and the Hartleys was 16. If a later Hartley had a value of 15, that would be a back mutation. In this case, that would mean that my brother Jim had the mutation that went back from 16 to 15. I don’t think that is the case. That is because there are other Hartley that have 16 and 15. Also in Jim and my closest matches, I am a further GD from those matches. This suggests that I am the one who has the mutation.
I think that my situation could be due to parallel mutations. That is where two people had the same mutation on a line that are independent of each other.
Comparing Jim with Other Hartley YDNA Testers
According to this Chart, based on the STR mode, my brother Jim has the oldest Hartley YDNA in this group. The ultimate solution for this group would if everyone took the BigY test to see where the lines sorted out. The STRs that have the orange number below them are the slowest mutating STRs. That is why in my previous STR trees, I have tended to separate these two groups by STR #445.
Explaining the Differences in Matches Between Jim and Me
Back at 111 STRs I have three matches and Jim has five. Jim matches three people at a GD of 10 or a match of 101 out of 111 STRs. Two of those (Mervin and Gary) went off the chart as I have a STR mutation that Jm doesn’t have (DYS534). However, how does that explain Ross? I have a lower GD with Ross than Jim does. The difference must be due to DYS 534. Ross must have the same number of repeats as I have: 16.
The problem with finding Ross is that he does’t have ancestors listed on my match list. On the Hartley YDNA project list, Ross’ name isn’t listed. It may be possible to find Ross by the precoess of elimination. The ones who have tested to 111 markers at the Hartley YDNA Project have these ancestors:
- William Shephard Hartley 1851 (Mervin)
- Thomas Hartley 1769 (Gary)
- Robert Hartley (me)
- David Hartley (Steve)
That means that Ross is not in the Hartley YDNA Project. In the R L513 YDNA Project, there are four Hartleys. It may be that Ross is not part of a YDNA project. After snooping around a bit, it appears that Ross is my Hartley #3 above:
[Note: Where I have Ross above in the Chart, it should actually be Lawrence. That means the STR results apply to Lawrence. However, the genealogy below does apply to Ross.]
It turns out that Ross is very important indeed, especially if his genealogy is right. Ross’ genealogy goes back to 1628. Ross has this genealogy:
It turns out that Roger Hartley is the father of Edward Hartley, so that would put him as a relative of the BigY tester I have in the chart above highlighted in gold. The gold was meant to show that these testers also tested for the BigY.
In this Blog, I looked at the other Quaker genealogy in some detail. I did this to prove to myself that the genealogy seemed reasonable. In other words, I was trying to seeif I could replicate the genealogy of one of the other Hartley BigY testers. Now I would like to do the same for Ross.
My normal procedure is to create my own tree to see if I come up with the same conclustion. I don’t think that I have created a tree for Ross before, so now is a good time to start. It shouldn’t be too difficult as I am just looking at father to father:
Ross’ grandfather was Park Douglas. His birth is listed as 1880, but there is a 2 year old in the 1880 record.
Also the 1900 Census shows he was born in May 1879:
However, I don’t think that there were a lot of Park D Hartleys around, so I’ll say this is right. This could be the right information from the WWI draft:
Ross has his name as Park Douglas. I guess that sounded better than Drear. So at some point Park moved from Indiana to Kansas.
Here is a marriage transcription I found:
Here is John P in 1885:
The youngest was born in Kansas, but the rest of the family was born in Indiana, so that dates the family’s move. John was part of a fraternal order. Here is his death date:
The 1850 Census says that Elisha and his wife Sarah were born in Virginia. At this point, I took the Ancestry hint that Elisha was the father of John Hartley. The 1850 and 1860 Census don’t say that John was the the son of Elisha, but I think that it is implied.
Plus someone has posted a nice photo of Elisha and Sarah. If the Census is right, then Elisha was born about 1800, but we still have to get back to Marsden in Lancashire in the 1600’s. Here is part of a biography of John’s brother Thomas:
Here is Elisha in 1830 in what is now West Virginia:
Here are a few more Hartleys on the same page in case they are related:
Here is Monongalia County to the South of Pittsburgh:
Here is something posted from a F.A.G (FindAGrave?) Memorial:
If this is true, it is interesting as it mentions Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Also, Elisha appeared to be living next to Benjamin Hartley in the 1830 Census.
Benjamin Hartley 1766 and Cassandra Robinson
Now we are back to about the Revolutionary War. Here are some Hartleys in the 1800 Census for Bucks County, Pennsylvania:
More on this Early Hartely LIne
I found a Hartley web page put togethery by M.J.P. Grundy.
Children of Thomas Hartley and his wife Elizabeth (Paxson)
i. Sarah3, b. 7 Tenth Month (Dec.) 1726; d. 29 Jul 1795 in her 69th year; m. ca. 1746 Jacob BEANS (he d. 13 Nov. 1807); 8 children. Jacob m(2) widow Hannah IDEN. He d. 13 nov. 1807 in his 87th year.
ii. Mary, b. 19 Eleventh Month (Jan.) 1727/8; d. 15 Seventh Month (Sept.) 1746; unmarried.
iii. Thomas, b. 6 5th mo. (July) 1729; d. 2 2nd mo. (Apr.) 1736.
iv. Anthony, b. 3 Tenth Mo. (Dec.) 1730; d. 1 May 1811; m(1) 29 Oct. 1755 Elizabeth SMITH of Wrightstown. Anthony and Elizabeth had 7 children. Elizabeth d. 3/8m/1769). Anthony m(2) 17 Apr. 1771 Sarah BETTS. She was b. 14/4m (June) 1747, daughter of Thomas and Sarah (Smith) Betts of Buckingham. They had 6 more children.
v. William, b. 15/2m (Apr.) 1732; d. during the night of 31 Dec. 1807-1/1m (Jan.) 1808; m 30 Nov. 1757 Catherine FISHER at Buckingham MM. Catherine b. 28 Apr. 1740.
vi. Elizabeth, b. 16/11m (Jan.) 1733/4; m. 1753 John FELL at Buckingham MM. John Fell was b. 1 Apr. 1730; 5 children, including Rachel (b. 10 Oct. 1770; m. John Paxson).
vii. Martha, b. 26/6m (Aug.) 1735; m. Luke WILLIAMS and had 5 children.
viii. Anne, b. 8/5m (July) 1738; d. 28 Feb. 1758; m. 1757 James HILL.
ix. Rachel, b. 2/5m (July) 1740; m. 12 June 1765 Ephraim SMITH under the care of Buckingham MM. He was the son of Thomas2 and Elizabeth (Sanders) Smith, and a grandson of William1 and Mary (Croasdale) Smith. Rachel and Ephraim had 8 children when they were granted a certificate of removal to East Caln MM in Chester Co., Penna. on 6 May 1783.
x. Joseph, b. 18/8m (Oct.) 1742; d. 9 Jan. 1824 in Monongalia Co. [now West] Va.; m(1) Sarah RICHARDS 1 son; m(2) Elizabeth WASSON (she was b. 12 Oct. 1747; d. 6 Oct. 1834); had 10 children.
xi. Benjamin, b. 6/10m (Dec.) 1745 in Lahaska; d. ca. Aug. 1804; m 12 Apr. 1769 Elizabeth SIMCOCK, at Buckingham MM.; she d. 13 July 1827.
xii. Mahlon, b. 21/5m (July) 1749; d. 1824; m 12 February 1772 Hannah MOON, daughter of Roger, at Falls meeting house. Hannah was b. 29 Aug. 1749. Mahlon was received at Falls Monthly Mtg. 5/2m/1772, with a certificate from Buckingham Monthly Mtg. On 7/9m/1796 Mahlon and Hannah and their children Thomas, Edward, Mahlon, Roger, and Hannah, were granted a certificate of removal from Falls Mtg to Westland Monthly Meeting. 
So this page didn’t follow Joseph the father of Benjamin down. However, from what I’ve read Benjamin was the son of Joseph’s first wife who died very young.
A Tree Connecting Ross and Michael
At this point, even though I haven’t fleshed out all the genealogy, I would like to create a tree that shows that possible connection between Ross who did the 111 STR YDNA test and Michael who did the Big Y test. Here is the Ross side of the tree:
Here I wanted to go two generations above the common ancestor of Ross and Michael because I and other with Hartley ancestry that stayed in England longer would likely fit in somewhere before Edward Hartley born 1666. This seems like a long time ago, but YDNA is good at going back thousands of years.
Here is how Ross and Michael are likely related:
This shows Ross and Michael as 7th cousins. One interesting thing is that the tree shows that some distant Hartley relatives were both in Kansas at the same time.
Hartley Genealogy and YDNA
The above genealogy tells me that there are the Quaker Bucks County Pennsylvania Hartleys and the Hartleys who had ancestors who stayed in Lancashire and Yorkshire longer. The Pennsylvania Hartleys have the better defined genealogy. They also have a specific common ancestor. In this case, that specific ancestor was Edward Hartley born 1666.
It also occurs to me that the common ancestor of those in the following table would be before 1666:
That branching should look like this:
Below, I have put the Pennsylvania Hartleys on the bottom of the list:
The problem with this grouping is that it has parallel mutations for marker 455. This is a slow moving marker and the chance of it changing in two different branches would seem to be low.
Here is what I was thinking:
I noticed that both Ross and Michael had STRs 449 at a value of 32 and 458 at a value of 16. I used that for the STR signature for Edward Hartley. From what I can tell is the overall Hartley Mode is the same as the Hartley Branch from England Mode.
How Does the English Side of the Hartley Family Branch Out?
That is a good question, because there is no known connection for these remaining 4 Hartley families other than the YDNA. It would help if each branch descendant had taken a BigY test and then had tested a known relative. I have done that with my brother Jim to describe our particular branch of Hartleys in Massachusetts.
At this point, I am looking at a combination of SNPs and STRs which is OK to do. Actually, we only have one SNP right now which is A11132, but more will be named when my brother’s BigY results come in.
This tree is helpful for a few reasons. This shows the date of the common ancestor of the Pennsylvania Hartleys who was Edward Hartley born in Masden, Lancashire in 1666. When I asked Steve to take the BigY test, my assumption was that our common ancestor would be later than 1666 and that we would form a new SNP branch. Assuming that FTDNA did the analysis correctly, that did not happen. That could mean a few things. One is that Steve and my common Hartley ancestor is right around 1666. That would mean that Edward Hartley was also A11132. Another perhaps more likely scenario is that the connection between Steve and I is further up the tree. That would mean that if Ross or another Pennsylvania Hartley Branch descendant took the BigY test, then that would define a new branch for those Hartleys.
The other thing that the tree shows is that I have a new mutation at DYS534. That STR will only apply to me, my son and his two babies.
Parallel Mutations for DYS534
This is a good example of parallel mutations. Because I have the same mutation as Ross and Michael, it looks like I am more closely related to them than I really am. However, they have had a value of 16 for DYS534 since at least 1666 and I have have mine only since I was born in 1956 almost 300 years later!
A Possible STR Tree for A11132 Hartleys
First, I am assuming that all these Hartleys are A11132. So far three of these Hartleys have taken the BigY, so it is a reasonable assumption:
Here I corrected my chart to show that the STRs aapply to Lawrence. I had wanted to show that English Branch 1 is older than the Edward Hartley Branch. It doesn’t look that way by the way the chart came out, but that could still be the case as I have no dating for the left hand side of the chart except for my recent mutation in 1956. In all this it is good to remember that STRs can be confusing due to parallel mutations and back mutations. However SNPs are not subject to these two phenomena. That is why SNPs are preferable in defining the male line.
Lawrence, A Third Descendant from the Bucks County, PA Hartleys
In looking back over this Blog, I see that I didn’t address Lawrence. He was the one that I matched at 67 STRs and my brother Jim did not. He also shows ancestry which should go back to Edward Hartley born in Marsden, Lancashire in 1666. Here is his tree from FTDNA starting with his grandfather:
Now I need to figure out what his STR results were. I see that I made a mistake and put Ross’ name on Lawrence’s STR results above. The good news is that it will be easy to add Lawrrence to the Pennsylvania Hartley tree:
From this I can see that Lawrence and Ross are third cousins. I will amend my STR chart to include Ross:
Here I have a placeholder for Ross in case I figure out where his STR results are.
Summary and Conclusions
- I was happy to see that the first part of my brother Jim’s BigY test has come in. That consists of the YDNA 111 STR test.
- That test showed a surprise for me in that I didn’t match him in all 111 STRs. That means that I had a mutation in STR DYS534.
- In looking back at STR results for other Hartleys, it appeared that one of those Hartleys is Ross who has the common ancestor with Michael of Edward Hartley born 1666 in Marsden, Lancashire. The family was persecuted as Quakers and moved to Pennsylvania shortly before 1700.
- I later found out that the STR test belonged to Lawrence who is also on the Edward Hartley Line. I did the genealogy for Ross and added in Lawrence’s to a tree later.
- That information put the testers into two groups and was helpful for grouping Hartley descendants based on YDNA testing of STRs and SNPs. These two groups were the descendants of Edward Hartley born 1666 and those Hartleys who stayed longer in England.
- My assumption is that A11132 is an older SNP and that if another descendant of Edward Hartley were to test for the BigY, that would define a new SNP for all the descendants of Edward Hartley and the Pennsylvania Branch of Hartleys.
- I tried to build a STR tree combining the Pennsylvania and English Hartleys. However, this presented some difficulties due to the possibilities of back mutations and parallel mutations.
- I’m still looking for the STR results for Ross.