More on Mayflower White YDNA

In my previous Blog on Mayflower White YDNA, I was surprised to find out that my friend’s YDNA test supported his direct descent from William White of the Mayflower. My friend always believed that he was descended from William White, but most recent genealogical scholarship seemed to put that into doubt due to an illegitimacy in his White line in early Plymouth Colony hisory. In this Blog I would like to see if I could find out any more about my friend’s Mayflower YDNA. He took the 37 STR test which is what I recommended. I had recommended that as it would have been enough to show that he didn’t match other Mayflower Whites. As it turned out, his test showed that he matched almost all Whites and one White who had a proven ancestry back to William White of the Mayflower.

Predicting the Mayflower White YDNA Haplogroup

The easiest way to predict the Mayflower White YDNA Haplogroup would be to join the R1b – All Subclades FTDNA YDNA Project and have them figure it out. I joined my friend to this group, but it is a large group, so difficult to figure out on my own where he would belong based on his limited test. My friend is R-M269 which is one of the most popular Haplogroups for Northwestern Europeans – sometimes referred to as Northern Atlantic Europeans. I joined my friend to the R1b – All Subclades Group, but it could be a while before his is put in a more specific Haplogroup. Here is the tip of the iceburg view for R1b:

M269 is near the top of this tree in the pink or red area. My own Hartley YDNA is somewhere on the bottom left in the green area under L21. I am also under L513 which has its own group and two page tree. When I say this is a large group, there are over 26,000 members. That means that to download the results takes a long time. The results go out to 111 STRs, so that means about 3 million bits of information.

One cut is whether my friend is L21 or U106, or actually P312 or U106. According to ISOGG:

Here is what my friend has for DYS390:

That looks like R-P312 so far.

Hmm, split decision.

CDYa is 37, so that favors U106. The difference between P312 and U106 is that P312 is believed to be an older YDNA from Great Britain and U102 would be from the Anglo Saxons who were originally from Germany. The name England comes from Anglo. While Britain refects the earlier P312 people. Here is a map showing where the Britons and Saxons were around the year 600:

Here is some more information:

Of the three markers, it appears that DYS390 is the most important and that would more likely put my White friend in R-P312.

YSEQ Predictor

I tried this predictor:

I downloaded the White YDN37 STRs and put them here and got these results:

This seems to be getting somewhere. My Mayflower White desendant friend is pretty sure to be R1b-DF49. The YSEQ site also has this map:

The good news is that there are fewer than 1,000 members in the DF49 FTDNA Haplogroup Project:

I was able to find DF49 on the ‘iceburg’ tree above. Here is a closeup of the L21 section of that tree:

My Hartley YDNA is under L513 in the bottom left. That is a pretty big group which has two pages of trees now. My White friend appears to be under DF49 which is under Z3+589. If this is right, that puts White under the older British people (vs the newer Anglo Saxons).

Dating Mayflower STRs

Dating these STRs is not a precise science. In the YSEQ map above DF49 is shown at 2500 BC. in the green tree above, its predecessor L21 is shown at 2300 BC, but that is in the ball park. The point is that the M269 which is what my Mayflower friend and his proven match show are actually DF49. That brings them from about 4500 BC to around 2500 BC:

That’s an improvement of about 2,000 years.

Here is some further branching for DF49:

Mayflower White is DF49 > M222?

Based on the YSEQ Haplogroup Predictor, Mayflower White is DF49. I found this at mayflowerdna.org:

From this aricle, a different predictor was used (the Nevgen.org R1b clade predictor). This Predictor came up with the M222 which is five SNPs under DF49. I don’t necessarily agree with the stated view above that the White family came from Ireland and Scotland. I don’t think that conclusion is supported by the YDNA testing. That article had this footnote which I could not find:

This article probably refers to the person at the Mayflower YDNA FTDNA Project who is listed as a proven Mayflower descendant.

M222

FTDNA also has an M222 Haplogroup Project:

This group is larger than its parent DF49. I like trees and the one they have at the M222 Project Page:

This brings us into Roman times (100 BC). However, there is some confusion on the dating. This branching is determined by BigY testing which has not been done yet for the Mayflower White families. Not all branches are created equal. There are six branches. The most popular is S658 on the right. This is good news as it brings the Mayflower Whites from 4500 BC to 100 BC, an improvement of about 4500 years. The tree above is also called a tip of the iceburg chart as not all the branches are shown.

M222 and STRs

The “About Us” Page for the FTDNA M222 Project says this:

THE MODAL STR VALUES THAT COLLECTIVELY INDICATE R-M222 STATUS

DYS390 = 25
DYS385b = 13
DYS392 = 14
DYS448 = 18
DYS449 = 30
DYS464 = 15-16-16-17
DYS456 = 17
DYS607 = 16
DYS413 = 21-23
DYS534 = 16
DYS481 = 25
DYS714 = 24

In some to most cases the first three STRs in the list above are adequate to establish possible membership in this group. If you have at least two of those three values and differ by only one at the mismatching marker, you may (though not certainly) a member of the R-M222 Haplogroup. A SNP test for the R-M222 marker could establish firmly.  If you are uncertain about whether you belong to Haplogroup R-M222, please contact a project administrator for advice.

My friend Gary has:

  • DYS390 = 24
  • DYS385b = 13
  • DYS392 = 15

This is interesting because Gary has only one out of three of the STRs that are supposed to define M222. Further:

  • DYS448 = 18
  • DYS449 = 30
  • DYS464 = 16-16-16-17
    DYS456 = 17
    DYS607 = 15

I bolded the values where Gary matches what would be expected of someone with M222. The additional STRs must be in the 67 STR test.

I added this kit to the M222 FTDNA Project:

The administroators think that my friend is M222 but would like him to take the BigY test to be sure and place him in the appropriate subgroup.

The White Family FTDNA YDNA Project

I added Gary to this group:

Gary is on the bottom line. He has no colored results which means he has no variations from the mode. This was discussed also in my previous Blog. The other confirmed Mayflower descendant has not joined the White Family FTDNA Project, so his results do not show there. Here is the caption for this small group of Whites:

It appears that these two other White testers with roots in Vermont may also go back to William White of the Mayflower.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Based on the YSEQ Haplogroup Predictor, my Mayflower White descendant is in the Haplogroup of DF49
  • This group is about 4500 years old and represents the older Britannic inhabitants of the present-day United Kingdom
  • I found one web site which linked the William White Line to M222 which is the largest group under DF49.
  • Based on my friend’s close STR match with a proven William White Mayflower descendant, that proven descendant must also be M222.
  • If these two were to do additional YDNA testing – especially the BigY 700 test, they would likely get their YDNA Haplogroup into the genealogical timeframe.

An 1887 Trip from Fall River to the Hartley Farm in Rochester

Abel Burrows was the husband of my great-grandfather’s sister. My great-grandfather was the father of many Hartleys, so many descendants may be interested in this Fall River Newpaper article. James’ sister was Mary Ann Hartley. She married Abel Burrows who owned a Jewelry shop in Fall River. At the time of the visit James’ parents Greenwood and Ann were still alive. James had married Annie Snell two years previous to Abel’s visit in the Summer of 1887. At that time Annie was 21. She had her first son Daniel who was one and was 7 or 8 months pregnant with her second son who did not survive infancy.

Here are Greenwood and Ann Hartley:

Here is James Hartley later in life:

Here is his wife Annie, probably close to how she looked in 1887:

Fall River Daily Herald 12 August 1887

I originally wrote about this article in a Blog about Abel Burrows. The writer of the article was John Slinn, a friend of Abel’s who worked in the insurance business. Abel’s wife is mentioned in passing. I assume that the place where they go fishing is Snow’s Pond. The place they visit is no doubt the Hartley Farm at the beginning of Snipatuit Road near the Mattapoisett River where the Memorial Day Boat Race starts.

Two days prior to the article (10 August 1887), I found this bit of news in the Fall River newpaper:

Here is the main article. August 10 was a Wednesday. The article mentions a Monday – two days previous:

This appears to be the only mention of Mary Ann Hartley Burrows. Mary Ann was 32 in 1877. Here is Mary Ann about 34 years after her trip to Rochester in 1887:

9-1/2 hours from Fall River to the Hartley Farm.

As far as I know John Slinn never published the follow-up article. I think that John may have been influenced by Mark Twain based on his writing style.

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.

 

 

 

Whetstone YDNA

I am the project administrator for the Whitson Project. The overview is that there are many branches of Whitsons who are unrelated to each other by YDNA – or so distantaly related in the range of 10’s of thousands of years to be considered unrelated. My wife’s Butler family is more closely related to one of these branches (or that Whitson branch is related to my wife’s Butlers). The Whetstones did not have their own surname project, so they asked if they could join the Whitson project even though they are not related.

Some Whetstone Genealogy

This is some genealogy that I received as a response to a Blog I wrote on an update on the Whitson project:

Hello. Just wanted to say that you have my4th. great Grandfathers
Y DNA. Absolem Whetstone. Kit # NI 26222. My BIOLOGICAL GRANDFATHER is Uthil Maynard Whetstone. B.1914-D. 2000 I was adopted by Grandfather and Grandmother. Next is his father William David Whetstone B.1893-D.1954.
Next his father William Wesley Whetstone B.1886-D.1934 Next is his Father Samuel Marion Whetstone B.1830-D. 1905. Next is Absolem. Next his father was Adam Whetstone Jr. B.1776-D.1815. Next his Father is Adam Gutler Whetstone Sr. B.1744-D.1782. Killed in the last battle at Eutaw Springs, SOUTH CAROLINA USA

Our Whetstone family located to land in Charleston
SOUTH CAROLINA,USA. in 1737 moved up the Edisto river to join Our Salley family that made the trip from Bern Switzerland two years earlier in 1735. Spelling is Felix Wetzsein B. 1633-D.1710 TO Change to Rev.(JOHN) D. Hans Johannes Wettstein B.1695-D.1754 next we have the start of spelling Adam Gutler Whetstone B.1744-D.1782

The short story is that the family had its roots in Switzerland as Wetzsein and moved to South Carolina. I assume that others in the Whetstone project are related to each other. At least they are in the same very general YDNA Haplogroup.

Whetstone YDNA

Currently there are 5 YDNA testers in the Whetstone YDNA Project:

R-M269 is a very general YDNA Haplogroup in the family of R1b. One Whetstone has taken the BigY test. BigY tests are better off taken in tandem. That means that if another Whetstone takes the BigY test, then that will create a Whetstone YDNA Branch on the tree of mankind. With one BigY test, the results show what other families Whetstone is related to and should give some background as to where those other families were from.

Whetstone BigY Test

The BigY is the best YDNA test available, so I’ll just start with that. The Whetstone with the ancesor Absalom Whetstone has taken the BigY and the result was R-BY56768. One way to get an idea of where this is on the YDNA tree of mankind is to look at the Whetstone BigY tester’s Block Tree. It will take two images to show this:

On the top of this Block Tree, we see how Whetstone descends from R-M269. Of the Haplogroups under M269, there are two major intersections or decision points (or subgroupings). These are P312 and U152. They can be seen at this Tip of the Iceburg Tree from the R1b All Subclades Project Overview:

I added a few arrows to show where Whetstone is. Here is an closeup of the same tree focusing in on U152:

U152 shows up in SE Germany in 2,500 BC. Next, let’s search this map to find the Whetstone path. L2 is another major branch point near the middle of the tree. BY31138 is the third Haplogroup down under L2. That is as far as the Tip of the Iceburg can take us.

Whetstone and U152

Eupedia has an L2 tree:

Unfortunately, I don’t see BY31138 on it.

Whetstone and BY31138

It is possible to build a tree from the FTDNA Haplotree. Here is the Whetstone BigY tester’s Haplotree:

The good news is that there is only one branch under BY31138. I need to go down further to get the whole tree:

Here is a start in Excel:

Whetstone is under L135. Here are two more levels:

Whetstone is still on the left. Here is where we are on the Whetstone BigY Block Tree:

That means that there are only three more levels to get to BY56768. Here is what I get:

The Rest of the Whetstone Block Tree:

The Whetstone tester is on the left. This shows no matches but two countries. There are actually matches, but FTDNA doesn’t show them due to the distance of the matches. One country must be for our tester as he had the United States as the country of origin of his most distant ancestor. Whetstone matches another family, but that match is up at BY56768 which is about 30 SNPs away. If we assume that a SNP forms every 100 years, then this could be about 3,000 years ago or 1,000 BC.

More BigY Testing Needed

If another Whetstone tested, then another branch would form in much more recent time – at the time of the common ancestor of the two Whetstones.

Whitson in the U152 and Subclades Project

I know that the Whetstone BigY tester is in the U152 Project. Are there others?

Here there are four Whetstone/Wetzstein/Wettstein surnames. The first tester with the oldest Wetzstein ancestor is not in the Whitson Project. Then there are two Whetstones in the Whitson Project that are not listed in the U152 Project. However, the first tester in the U152 Group only had 12 STRs tested.

Here are some others under BY31138:

The first group is generally under BY3508 but need further testing. The second group is BY111101. I left this out of my tree:

The common ancestor between Whetstone and B111101 is BY3508 which would be at least 2,000 BC, so we won’t worry about these people. It would be better to look at the closest matches to the Whetstones. They would be under FT292871:

Above, the closest match at the U152 Project is Schaal. I don’t know where this person was from  in the 1500’s- probably Germany or Switzerland. This match is in the right general area, but the common ancestor is still pretty ancient – perhaps around 1,000 BC. The bottom line is that there needs to be another Whetstone BigY tester.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I looked at some of the YDNA results for the Whetstone surname
  • The most important result is from the Whetstone who took the BigY
  • This BigY tester defines the Whetstone Hapalogroup and by implication the rest of the Whetstone family as R-BY56768 for now
  • This BigY defined where the Whetstone family is in general terms on the YDNA Haplotree
  • Right now the closest match to the Whetstone BigY tester is likely not a Whetstone and their common ancestor could be about 1,500 years ago.
  • To get a Whetstone YDNA haplogroup in the genealogical timeframe, it will be necessary to get an additional BigY test.
  • A good place to look for candidates for further BigY testing would be among the Whetstones who have already taken a YDNA STR test

 

 

Checking the New Online Mayflower Descendants Database for My Mayflower Ancestors

In at least one of my previous Blogs, I have looked at the Mayflower Database that Familysearch has. These previous Blogs mostly have to do with my Mayflower Descendants Application through William White.

William White

My previous look at William White in the Mayflower database brought me down to my father’s Aunt Annie Louisa Hartley:

That lead me to believe that one of their offspring had applied for the Mayflower Descendants. It also lead me to believe that they had applied under William White, because the Mayflower database lead down to them from William White. I don’t know if I assumed correctly. My thought today was to check on my other Mayflower ancestors and to see where their descencants lead.

Governor William Bradford

This ancestor is one of great interest to me. He was an ancestor of Hannah Thomas Bradford and Harvey Bradfor above. The reason I didn’t apply for membership under Bradford was that the trail back from Harvey Bradford and records were not as available. Here are Harvey’s Bradford ancestors based on my Ancestry Tree:

Governor Bradford was Harvey’s 4th great-grandfather. Here is the Mayflower database:

I don’t have all the children of the William Bradford in the arrow showing below:

However, I follow down from Josiah to Samuel Bradford. From there I get back to Hartley and Snell:

James Hartley and Annie Louisa Snell were my great-grandparents. That gets back to the same couple I had descending from William White:

I don’t know if that means that someone in the Gurney family applied under Bradford as well as White or that the Mayflower Society makes their own connections. I assume that it is the former. Apparently my more distant Snell relative applied for the Mayflower Society under William Bradford:

Actually, when I take the family down from William White through Harvey Bradford, I get the same image as above, so the database is likely showing all those who applied and who descend from Harvey Bradford.

Elder William Brewster

I descend from Brewster two different ways. The first way gets me back to Bradford fairly quickly.  The second takes a longer route:

Here I started with Love Brewster, the son of William Brewster on the right side of the image above. That route only goes through one Bradford – Sarah.

Interestingly, the Mayflower database has a dead end at Rebecca Bartlett:

It also has her born a different date and married to a different person than I have in my tree. So perhaps my tree is wrong.

Checking My Tree

I’ll start with Churchill and Barnes and go back:

Page 182 of the silver Mayflower Families on Bradford has Hannah Barns born 1717 married to Stephen Churchill born also 1717. So far so good. Page 50 of the same book has Sarah Bradford born about 1686 married to Jonathan Barnes born 1684. At this Point it would make sense to switch to the silver Mayflower Book on Brewster. Page 354 has Sarah Bradford born before 18 December 1686 and married to Jonathan Barnes.

Reading up more on Rebecca Barlett on Page 348 of the silver Mayflower Brewster Book, I see that Rebecaa Bartlett married first William Bradford, second Robert Stanford and third Caleb Samson.

When I click on Rebecca Bartlett in the Mayflower database, I get this:

This shows her three marriages, but the database tree shows a dead end at Rebecca Bartlett. I am not sure how to interpret this. I assume that no one has applied for membership to the Mayflower Society based on Brewster through descendants of Rebecca Bartlett. However, I am glad to know that my tree is correct. Or, this may be a glitch in the Mayflower database.

When I click on the hyperlink for Husband William Bradford above, I get this:

This shows a disconnect from my tree. I have that in the first column, there should be a Lucy Chuchill born 1767. She should be at the top of the list in the first column. Again, I don’t know how to interpret the database. When I choose Harvey Bradford in the Mayflower database, I draw another blank at the point of Lucy Churchill:

This again makes me think that no one has applied to the Mayflower Society by this route of Brewster to Lucy Churchill. That being the case, the Society had no reason to check into the parentage of Lucy Churchill.

Francis Cooke

As far as I know, I only descend from Francis Cooke in one way. My Hathaway ancestors have a Cooke as their ancestor. Like my Mayflower White ancestry, my Cooke ancestry is through Harvey Bradford’s wife, Wealthy Hathaway:

Francis is the father of John Cooke. I’ll show this in two parts;

Here is the early part of the Mayflower Database version:

I descend from the John Hathaway at the top left. I have an early dead end on the Cooke Line also. The Mayflower Database appears to stop at my ancestor John Hathaway born 1653:

The Mayflower Database shows 11 of John Hathaway’s children by his first wife (not all shown above). The silver Cooke Mayflower book shows that John had 16 children including Arthur Hathaway born in 1690.

Looking at Hathaway in the Mayflower Database from the Bottom Up

Here I am drawing a blank with Joseph Hathaway. Again, my assumption is that no one below the Wealthy Hathawy level has applied to the Mayflower Descendants on the Cooke Line. This view also shows the missing parents of Lucy Churchill that I mentioned above.

Richard Warren

Unlike Francis Cooke, I descend from Richard Warren on about 5 different lines in three different generations. That means that means that depending on the Line, Richard Warren could be 11, 12 or 13 generations away from me.

My most unique Warren Line (that is, with the least other Mayflower ancestors) would be through Joseph Warren. That is the Line where I am only 11 generations from Richard Warren. On my Ancestry tree:

Here is the early part of my tree:

From the Mayflower Database:

Here are two more generations:

 

Then from Josiah Bradford, we get down to Harvey Bradford:

One interesting thing here is that there are three Bradford lines that carry down: Stephen Churchill, Ellen and Harvey Bradford. I assume these three lines have members in the Mayflower Society. However, when there are mulitple lines of descent, I’m not sure on which lines the descendants got their approval to join the Mayflower Descendants.

My Wife’s Cousin Pat and the Richard Warren Line

I found out that my wife’s 1st cousin is applying to the Mayflower Society under the Richard Warren Line. This is on her paternal side where she is not related to my wife. I came up with this chart to see how I was related to Pat:

I am a 12th cousin, three times an 11th cousin once removed and a 10th cousin twice removed to Pat. Let’s see where Pat’s line is on the Mayflower Database:

For some reason, the database has John Churchill which is not correct. The silver Mayflower Book has John Church. Apparently, this family moved to Little Compton, Rhode Island. After that, Pat’s line goes to Edward and Hannah Church:

Apparently a descendant of Esther Church is in the Mayflower Society, but not other descendants of Hannah as the line appears to stop here for Pat.

One More of My Richard Warren Lines

Now that I have charted my Warren Lines, I want to also check my first one:

This line does not appear to have other obvious Mayflower descendants in it. Actually, just Sarah Bradford.

Here the Database deviates from my tree. This is for the same reason as above where Rebecca Bartlett has multiple husbands. I can choose Rebecca Bartlett and get more information:

The is the same place I got stuck under Brewster above, and the results are the same. Interesting.

Summary and Conclusions

  • It was fun playing around with the Mayflower Database at FamilySearch
  • Where I ran into dead ends, it made me think that there has been no one from that line who has applied for acceptance to the Mayflower Descendants
  • One exception is where a person has more than one spouse. Then clicking on the correct spouse may continue that line
  • Many Mayflower descendants married other Mayflower descendants, so there are a lot of crossovers in the genealogies. That means if the database shows your line descends from a particular Mayflower passenger, that doesn’t necessarily mean that some applied for membership based on that passenger, it may be from a different passenger in the line.
  • It helped for me to chart out my five Richard Warren Lines. My wife’s cousin was curious as to how we are related.

Taking a Different View of My Hartley Haplogroups: FTDNA’s Colored Dots

FTDNA has two major ways to view your Haplogroup. The most common is the Block Tree. The other is through one’s badge. Here is the Hartley badge:

This Haplogroup of R-FT225247 was obtained when I tested my brother’s YDNA using the BigY 700 test. This distinguished our branch from other Hartleys who were A11132. Here is the Block tree from the viewpoint of my test:

By getting my brother tested, that gave me someone closely related to match my Private Variants. Once they are matched, those Private Variants went up on the tree into our old branch. The other Hartleys are to the right of our Branch in A11132 where I previously was. The problem is that FT225247 is still an old Haplogroup. I’m guessing that it could go back about 450 years to 1570.

FTDNA’s Y-DNA-Haplotree

When I click on the badge above, I get this:

Actually, I get more, but this is enough.  Under R-FT225247, it shows the other SNPs that make up the group.  There are a total of 7. To the left of each SNP is a dot. Here is the key:

I don’t find the yellow dot accurate. It is only used when that is the SNP used for the tree. Actually, for every SNP on my tree, I should not have a grey dot. For example, I am part of A11132. BY16417 is part of that group. I should be presumed positive for that SNP, not presumed negative. The same should be true for BY4026 and BY4028 which make up Z16357.

For the SNP below me, I should have Tested Negative for those, but as the results must not have been clear, I was Presumed Positive. The advantage of the Y-DNA Haplotree is that it gives more information on the quality of the SNPs tested.

Looking At My Brother’s Y-DNA Haplotree

Here my brother had better results than me at Z16357. He at least test positive for that SNP.

SNP Testing Quality

Above, I was presumed positive for Z16357. This is how the test results for that SNP show up for me:

The results look good to me. There are twelve good reads of a mutation and one good read that shows no mutation.

Next, I’ll see my brother’s test:

My brother had 12 good reads, but no read showing no mutation, so FTDNA must have a formula that deals with that.

A11130

My brother’s Haplotree appears to say that his A11130 test was presumed negative. However, the actual test, shows that he is definitely tested positive:

That makes me wonder about my test results:

My results are even better. The lesson is: don’t trust the little dots by your SNPs. Better to check the test results.

Negative Results

The negative results are important as are the positive ones. Here is my Haplotree:

The places where I have arrows are the gray SNP boxes which I should be negative for. I should have red dots for these SNPs and their equivalents. Here is the key again:

I don’t have any red dots which is suspicioius. I’ll check my A7 which is a higher level SNP. The 232 next to it must mean that there are 232 testers in that Haplogroup. Clearly I have tested negative for A7:

Clearly I am negative for A7. Perhaps FTDNA only shows negative if I take the single SNP test?

Summary and Conclusions

  • I looked at the Haplotree view for my BigY test and my brother’s BigY test
  • The Tested Positive green dots seem accurate.
  • The Presumed Positive is accurate but on in the case where that SNP is the defining SNP for the Block of SNPs. In my case, that was for SNP Z16357
  • The Presumed Negative is also inaccurate. The actual test results need to be checked. If you are positive for a block of SNPs, then you should be positive or Presumed Positive for all the SNPs in that Block.
  • The blue dot would be helpful in showing downstream SNPs. However, as I had my brother and myself tested, there are no downstream SNPs.
  • It seems like the red dot for Tested Negative should appear much more often unless it is reserved for the Single SNP test at FTDNA.
  • My conclusion is that the color coded dots for the SNPs do not work well

New YDNA Results Seem to Conflict with Mayflower White Genealogy

In my previous Blog on the subject, I wrote about my application to the Mayflower Descendants and problems my friend Gary was having with his application. The problem that Gary was having was that the latest genealogical research showed that his ancestor Martha Doty had a child before the couple married. This was assumed to be John White (junior). That brought into question Gary’s unbroken line to William White of the Mayflower.

Gary’s YDNA

As a result, I suggested that Gary take a YDNA test. He took the 37 STR test, because that would have been enough to confirm the latest genealogical research on the Mayflower White Line. It is much easier for YDNA to confirm that you are not related to someone than it is to tell that you are related. I was surprised by Gary’s results:

Of Gary’s 6 matches, 5 of them had the White surname and one showed proven descent from Wiliam White, Mayflower Passenger. I asked Gary to get in touch with the match with the proven Mayflower descent. Gary did and this is the connection:

This shows that Gary is an 8th cousin twice removed to his YDNA match with proven descent from William White. This also shows that Gary must descend from Wiliam White. That is because Gary’s weak connection was the second John after Samuel White. If Gary’s YDNA match descended from this second John, then it could be that they were both from an illegitimate John. However, this suggests that John Sr fathered John Jr and perhaps later married Martha Doty.

Gary’s TIP Report with Mayflower White Descendant YDNA Match

This TIP Report at FTDNA takes into account the various results of the STR testing. These STRs can mutate on a relative basis very slowly or quickly. The differences can be off by a factor of about 1,000, so it is very important to take this information into consideration:

Here are the results. On the proven Mayflower Line, there are 9 generations to Resolved White. Gary has 11 generations going back to Resolved, his YDNA match’s common ancestor with Gary. From the above chart, that should be between about 92% and 96% accurate.

Looking at the Individual STRs

Here are the STR results at the Mayflower FTDNA YDNA Project page:

Gary’s results are not yet posted there. The reader will have to click on the image to be able to see the numbers. What are we looking at? There are four testers. The most important one is the first who is Gary’s YDNA match with proven connection to William White. The first two testers did a 67 STR test. The second two took at 37 STR test, so I did not continue further than the 37 STR results. The first three rows after the yellow row give the minimum, maximum and mode of the STR values. The Mode is most important as that is generally assumed to be the oldest result. The thinkng is that the mutations are newer and those shared by the most testers are the ancestral results.

The last line is a bit confusing as this is for a Donovan and the results do not match well at all. The colored numbers on the chart are variations from the Mode. I would have left Donovan off the list.

Here is more of a close-up:

Again, the third row is the Mode and I’d like to ignore the last row for Donovan. The proven William White descendant differs from the mode with his first blue 29. He differs also in the compound result of 38-38. This is a fast moving STR. This is sometimes even not used as it is a bit errratic. I’m not sure how the Mode was determined in this case either. What is missing is the heading for these columns:

The reddish STRs are the faster moving STRs. That is taken into account by the TIP Report discussed above. If Gary was part of this Project, it would be easy to compare his results.

Comparing Gary’s YDNA to the Mayflower YDNA Results

Here are Gary’s YDNA 37 STR Results:

We know that Gary differs from Mayflower Descendant by two STRs, but how does he differ from the White Mode? The White Mode can be thought of as the STR signature that William or Resolved White may have had.

Here is the close-up view again:

Gary had 30 in the first column for the STR named DYS449. Here Gary has the same ancestral STR where the other Resolved White descendant had a mutation to 29. That would account for one of Gary’s differences to the proven Mayflower descendant. At the CDY STR, Gary had a value of 37-38. This likely was the second difference to his Mayflower descendant YDNA match. I would have chosen 37-38 for the mode in this case. That would make Gary ancestral for this STR also.

Comparing Gary’s YDNA Results to the Mayflower White Mode

Here is an interesting and fun fact:

Gary matches the mode at every point. Here are the other STRs:

The only place Gary doesn’t match, which is at CDY. I don’t agree with the Mode. In addition, if Gary’s results were added, 37-38 would become the Mode as Gary would tip the scales. The Mode is the value occuring most and Gary would make the 37-38 the only repeat value for the Mayflower match testers for CDY.

Anything Else? A STR Tree

There are three Whites in the Mayflower Project. We can call them White1 (proven), White2 and White3. White3 has the same 37 STR signature as Gary. He is also the other White who only did the 37 STR test. You would think that could mean that White3 is more closely related to Gary than the others. However, STRs are a bit fickle, so it is difficult to know for sure. It would be interesting to know all these White genealogies with YDNA matches to Gary.

If I put the STR results for the four Whites, this is what I get:

The tree is accurate as far as the STR values go, but as we don’t know the genealogy for White2 and White3, it is a bit confusing. This shows that Gary and White3 probably have the ancestral STR signature for William White (and/or Resolved White). White2 has one STR difference from Gary and White3. The proven William White descendant White1 has a 2 STR difference (also called a GD of 2) from what appears to be the Mayflower White signature.

Further Analysis

Gary’s YDNA match brings up an interesting point. There is DNA and there is genealogy. They should be working together, but what happens when they disagree or appear to disagree? Some sort of reconciliation is needed. In Gary’s case, the YDNA match to a known William White Mayflower descendant appears to make Gary a William White descendant also. The reconcilliation could be that John White Senior had child John White Junior with Martha Doty prior to their marriage and that John Senior was the unnamed father. However, that does not explain the fact that John White Jr was left out of his father’s will.

The saying is that DNA does not lie. This is true, but there are different levels of DNA testing and differing interpretations. The best test is the BigY 700 test. If enough people take this test who are related, an accurate YDNA tree can be made. This tree reflects the testers’ genealogy. This test looks for SNPs which are more predictable than STRs. If the proven White descendant and Gary were to take this test, there would be better proof of the common William White descent. However, at the level of testing that has been done, it seems like there is a very good indication that Gary and the proven William White descendant have the common ancestor of Resolved White as shown above.

Gary has submitted his initial application in to the Mayflower Society. Hopefully that will tell him if his genealogy is OK for an application. If they say the genealogy is not good based on more recent research, I would say that we have a case to overturn or modify the recent research with the DNA results.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Gary’s proposed application to the Mayflower Society was fraught with peril due to the Mayflower Silver Book and other sources claiming that his ancestor John White was illegitimate.
  • I proposed a YDNA test for Gary at the 37 STR level to give evidence as to whether or not he really did descend from William White of the Mayflower.
  • The test came back showing that Gary matched 5 out of 6 people with White surnames. The 6th match which was the most distant one was not a match.
  • Gary contacted his YDNA match who had proven ancestry to William White of the Mayflower. The common ancestor between Gary and his match was with William’s son Resolved born in 1615.
  • Gary and I ran TIP Reports which showed that a common ancestor between Gary and his proven William White ancestor was over 90% likely.
  • It is unclear whether or not the Mayflower Society would entertain an application from Gary based on the genealogy alone. Gary has a Mayflower Lineage Match request submitted that hopefully will answer that question.
  • Based on Gary’s YDNA testing, he has an excellent case to show that John White Jr was indeed the son of John White Sr.

A Different Look at the I2 Butler/Whitson BigY Results

In my previous Blog, I set out to look at the finalized results of my brother-in-law’s BigY test. While doing that, I saw that a Whitson in the I2 section of the Whitson/Butler Project had also taken a BigY Test. That test apparently helped to place a lot of my brother-in-law’s previous Private Variants onto the YDNA Tree. Here is a summary of the overall Whitson Project:

The part that I am looking at in this Blog is the green area. This is on the YDNA tree in the general area of I2. Those who have taken the BigY test are in green. My brother-in-law is the next to the last tester on the list and my father-in-law is the last. Batt, Butler tester with James Butler as ancestor and my father-in-law Richard, had the older BigY500 tests. The new Whitson tester who doesn’t show an ancestor and my brother-in-law had the new BigY 700 tests.

The BigY Block Tree for Whitson/Butler at I2

Here is the Block Tree:

The Butlers are under I-Y128364. Batt has Whitson ancestry. that means that I-BY115420 is the Whitson side. Above this is a large Block of SNPs from position 7 to position 45 (not shown) collectively named for one of the SNPs in the Block: I-Y128591. The Block tree is from my brother-in-law Ken’s perspective, so he is not shown but is in the left column under I-FT241245. Because the older tests of BigY 500 did not cover a lot of the SNPs, the two new testers (one Butler and one Whitson) have greatly helped to improve the tree. However, I think that the tree could be better. I will likely discuss that later in the Blog.

The Different Look

Here is the different look from FTDNA. I’ll start with Ken. This just focuses on the individual, where the Block tree represents 5 testers. Here are the headings for the tree:

The detail will be in the five categories of tested SNPs.

There is no need to go too far up this tree. As I mentioned above, I-Y128591 has 39 SNPs in it. This could represent about 3900 years. I-Y128364 represents the Butler with the James Butler ancestor. I-BY115420 is the Whitson group. Ken only has two colors of the dots representing ‘tested positive’ or ‘presumed negative’. I would think that he should have some yellow dots for ‘presumed positive’. For example, Ken should be presumed positive for BY48499 under A427, then he should be presumed positive for FGC70597, etc.

Here are Ken’s results for BY48499:

This shows four out of five runs came up with a mutation at this location.

My Father-In-Law’s Version of the Tree

This view is pretty much the same except that, as he had the older BigY 500 test, he has more gray dots (which I believe should be yellow dots).

Tester with James Butler Ancestor

These results introduce a few more colored dots. FT241245 has a blue dot for downstream. He also has a red dot for S23897. That confirms that he tested negative for this SNP and was not just presumed negative. Again, I believe that all the gray dots above the highlighted row should be yellow dots.

New Whitson Tester

Here I highlighted a SNP with a red shopping basket. It is noted that this SNP is part of a SNP Pack.

Batt

I would expect to see more gray dots for Batt’s BigY 500 test:

Back to Private Variants

I spend a lot of time on Private Variants as they are on the cutting edge of the BigY tests. If these are really private variants, then they should describe a future branch of the tree. If they are not, then they should be describing an upstream branch of the YDNA tree.

Ken and His Dad

Due to the closeness of the relationship, Ken’s dad should not have any SNPs that Ken does not have. Richard has no Private Variants, but he also took a less comprehensive test. As these SNPs form about every 100 years on average, it would be rare also for Ken to have Private Variants. Yet he has three:

I have Ken’s Private Variants (PVs) in yellow above. These positions were not tested for in his father, but if they were, he would most likely test positive for them. The next to test is Eng Butler or the Butler with James as his ancestor. I have that he has a ? by his results for 17140468:

Batt has the same ambiguous results and Whitson has a definite no. That means that we don’t know if Ken’s ‘Private Variants’ should show up under FT241245 or Y128364:

Ken’s PVs probably would not show up under Y128591 as Whitson tested negative for these PVs.

James Butler Ancestor Private Variants

The tester with James Butler as an ancestor has these Private Variants:

If we can trust these are truly Private Variants, then we can say that they define the James Butler Line down to the present day tester.

Here, Ken tested negative for these two positions. So the two Private Variants for the James Butler ancestor are valid. There may be other positions that were not tested for under the BigY 500 test that could be private variants also.

Whitson Private Variants

These are from the newest tester in the group:

Whitson has three Private Variants. I’ll check Whitson’s closest match who is Batt. Batt is actually negative for 12984909:

The other two positions are unclear:

That means that it is possible that the second two positions could actually be SNPs for Batt and Whitson under BY115420.

Batt Private Variants

Batt has two PVs:

My guess is that these two should be valid. Again, I’ll check Batt’s closest match who is Whitson:

Whitson does not have the first position.

Whitson has a clear ‘no’ for 19550845 also. This means that Batt has two unambiguous Private Variants.

Common Ancestor Dating

This is easier to see in the Block Tree view:

 

The places where the common ancestors are dated are in the ewhite space btween the SNPs. The common ancestor between Butler and Whitson is in the white space where the second arrow is. The common ancestor between the two Butler families is in the white space where the first arrow is.

Common Butler Ancestor

In order to get to the date for the Butler ancestor we need to assume a number of years per SNPs or Private Variant. I will use 100 as a round figure. I know that Ken has three private variants, so I will say that he shares 1.5 private variants with his father. That is assuming that FTDNA is right with the analysis. It is also possible that Ken actually shares his Private Variant with the other Butler Branch. That would put those SNPs in a Block under Y128364.

I’ll add those 1.5 private variants to the the two SNPs under FT241245 to get 3.5 SNPs. Then I’ll average those with the other Butler’s two Private Variants to get 2.75. Based on the assumption of 100 years per SNP, that would results in a common ancestor for the two Butler Lines of 275 years ago or the year 1745. That sounds pretty recent.

Common Butler/Whitson Ancestor

There are many more SNPs on the Whitson side compared to the Butler side. This means that it is possible that the Whitson SNPs came about more often than the Butler SNPs. However, the end point has to be the same for the common ancestor for these two groups. that is where the second red arrow is above. Average 2.75 with 6 to get 4.375 or 438 years. That puts the common ancestor for Butler and Whitson at the year 1582. If I come back down on the Butler side and add 100 years for Y128364, I get 1682 compared to the 1745 I previously had.

I used the 1682 date above because it was based on averaging more SNPs. For the second Butler Line, that means that a SNP was formed about once every 130 years assuming that tester was born around 1940. Also, that tester may actually find more Private Variants if the test was upgraded to BigY 700. If we use the present date, then there would be a SNP every 170 years.

On the Whitson side, there were 6 SNPs in about 440 years to present. That is a new SNP every 73 years.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I took a look at 5 BigY tests from the point of view of their individual Y-DNA Haplotrees. This look gives some extra imformation on the testing results for testers’ individual SNPs.
  • I took another stab at estimating dates to common ancestors based on the way that FTDNA has the SNPs and Private Variants for the five Butler/Whitson BigY testers. These results were very similar to what I came up with in a previous Blog.

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.

 

The Finalized Butler BigY Results for My Brother-In-Law and a New Whitson BigY

I last looked at my brother-in-law’s BigY 700 results in April of 2020. That was quite a while ago. At that time, Ken had 17 Private Variants. That was odd as his father had also tested and he shouldn’t have had that many Private Variants. He should only have one if any. The problem was that FTDNA had not yet finished their manual review and dealt with all of Ken’s Private Variants. The other problem was that Ken had done the BigY 700 and his father had taken the BigY 500 which does not have as good of coverage in identifying SNPs on the Y Chromosome. That means that Ken had extra SNPs identified that his father’s test did not cover.

Here is a look at Ken’s Private Variants now:

Ken is now down to 3 Private Variants from a previous 17. That is a big difference. Here is Ken’s Block Tree:

Ken;’s three Private Variants are averaging out to 1 Private Variant on the Block Tree. Ken’s late father had no Private Variants.

Dating the Block Tree

Now that the tree is finalized with respect to Ken’s results, let’s try to date it. SNPs form between about every 83 and 144 years. I’ll use 100 years as a round number. The common ancestor of the two Butlers, Whitson and Batt should be at the level just above what is shown on the image above. To get to that level Ken’s branch has four SNPs and the next Butler branch has three SNPs. I’ll average that at 3.5 SNPs. The Whitson/Batt Line has 6 SNPs to get to the same level. 6 averaged with 3.5 SNPs is 4.75 SNPs or 475 years. 475 years ago is about the year 1545. That is quite a while ago.

From there we can work forward. We had 3.5 SNPs on average on the Butler Lines. 475/3.5 is 135 years. That means that the common ancestor on the Butler Lines could be around 1680.

More on Dates

1680 is a possible date for a common ancestor between the two Butler Lines. Both these lines are from Ireland, so that would also be a top candidate for the location of the common ancestor of the Butler side of the Block Tree. Butler researcher Peter thinks that my wife’s branch of Butler originates in Wexford County, Ireland.

The 1545 date is more complicated. My understanding is that the Whitson side is said to be from England. Here is some information from the Batt tester’s tree:

Assuming that this information is right, then the Butler family could have been in England in 1545. So far, the Butler genealogy stalls out in Ireland in the early 1800’s. Then the other question is why there is a Butler Line and a Whitson Line. Did one Whitson Branch move to Ireland and change the name to Butler? Was the English Whitson Branch originally Butler and change the name to Whitson in England?

YDNA and SNP Tracker

There is a website called SNP Tracker that makes some guesses as to dates and places also. Here is the SNP for Whitson – BY115420:

This map misses the Roman and Iron periods. That must be the big Block of SNPs where there are no matches. So between the blue dot and orange dot on the map there is a great unknown. Here is a timeline going back 10,000 years:

SNP Tracker for the Butler SNPs

This should be a little more refined as there are three testers and one father-son pair:

This shows Butler as going through England in Medieval times.  Here is the timeline:

Here I don’t agree with the timelines – especially for FT241245. This is a SNP that both Ken and his father share. However, it was formed much earlier. In my own dating I had the date of 1680 above this SNP. That means that this SNP could have formed around 1700 – so I am  not too far off from SNP Tracker. However, before that SNP Tracker has Y128364 at 1300 CE. That should only be one SNP older than FT241245, so I don’t agree with the 300 year period between these two SNPs. As a reality check, Y128364 appears to be at the same level as the Whitson BY115420 which is dated at 1700 CE by SNP tracker. Bottom line: I like my own dates better.

SNP Tracker also has a new mapper just for Great Britain and Ireland:

This shows Butler going to County Kilkenny. I’m not sure I agree with that. I think that many of the Kilkenny Butlers may be R1b, instead of my wife’s Butlers who are in the I Haplogroup. I’m not sure if SNP Tracker accounts for that. Here is some more detail from SNP Tracker:

Where DId Ken’s Other Private Variants Go?

In my previous Blog, I had suggested that most of Ken’s Private Variants should end up here:

However, I notice another change since this image. Before the right column was just Batt. Now there are Whitson results.

A New Whitson BigY

I see by the new Whitson match list, that his test must have been finalized last October:

Here is the new Whitson Block Tree:

Here I have highlighted some of the new SNPs that have appeared in the block above since my brother-in-law Ken tested. There are now 15 new SNPs in that Block potentially representing about 1500 years of time. Also of interest is that the Batt match on the Block Tree has Whitson ancestry. That means that we can simplify this tree somewhat between Butler on the left and Whitson on the right.

The new Whitson tester had a good result for Batt. Previously, Batt’s defining SNP was I-Y128591. That was 35 SNPs from present based on the previous image with the pink arrow. That could be from around 3500 years ago or roughly 1500 BC. Now Whitson and Batt have a defining SNP of I-BY115240 which I have dated at approximately a little later than 1545. That is an improvement of 3,000 years.

Back to Ken’s Private Variants

Most of Ken’s Private Variants turned into older SNPs. These in effect moved back the I-Y128591 Block 1500 years to about 4500 years ago or 2500 BC. Here is my comparison spreadsheet of Ken’s old 17 Private Variants:

My guess is that the new Whitson BigY test was the one that moved these SNPs up to the I-Y158591 Block. In the chart above, N means that the SNP was not tested. Rich is Ken’s dad above. A question mark means that the SNP was tested but the results were inconclusive.

Comparing Ken’s Old Private Variants (PVs) to the new SNPs in the I-Y158591 Block.

As I had named 15 of Ken’s old PVs and there were 15 new SNPs in the I-Y158591, it seems like there could be a one to one match. But there wasn’t:

Three of Ken’s old PVs didn’t make it up to the Y158591 Block and three of Ken’s SNPs not previously named made it there. First, I’ll see if Ken’s first two PVs have names yet:

Ken’s first PV is the newer FT394377. I would say newer, due to the higher number of the SNP. Ken’s second previously unnamed SNP is now also named:

This gets us close to reconciling Ken’s list. Here are Ken’s present Private Variants:

I have put Ken’s current Private Variants on the table as PVs. That leaves one extra SNP not previously accounted for. Right now, of Ken’s previous 17 PVs, 14 made it up to the Y128591 Block and three remained as PVs. That leaves FT394717.

FT394717

Here are Ken’s results for FT394717:

The reason that this position or SNP did not appear previously is that the results were ambiguous. Here are the detailed test results:

Ken shows that he did have FT394717. However, he had only one read and usually 10 positive reads would be acceptable. Next, I’ll check the new Whitson BigY results.

The New Whitson Tester and the New SNPs in Y128591

It appears that the new Whitson tester matched with many of Ken’s previously Private Variants. That resulted in FTDNA adding these as SNPs to the already large block of Y128591. Here is one that the new Whitson tester tested positive for:

This is FT394777:

The new Whitson tester must have been positive for the other SNPs in the orange box also.

Ken’s New Private Variants

In order for Ken to have new Private Variants, the new Whitson tester should have tested negative for those Variants. This is a little more difficult to determine. However, partial results are in the new Whitson tester’s csv file. Here are Ken’s Private Variants;

Let’s look at the Whitson tester at position 17140468:

The reference and the genotype are both T for Whitson. For Ken, there is a mutation from T to A. However, I would question whether this is a true PV for Ken as his father did not have that position tested. It is more likely that Ken’s father is also positive for that position:

Ken’s dad’s results clearly did not have position 17,140,468 tested. It would be likely that there would be no Private Variants when a father and son test.

New Whitson Private Variants

The new Whitson tester also has three Private Variants:

I’ll check Ken to see if he has no variant at position 12984909. I will have to download his csv file to find this out:

Ken is not positive for this variant.

What about Batt?

Batt is questionable for this position. That means that the Whitson Private Variant is also questionable. Whitson has it, but it may be a shared SNP with Batt and not just a Private Variant. In fact, all the Whitson Private Variants are in the same category:

Summary and Conclusions

  • When I checked on the 17 Private Variants my brother-in-law had, I was glad to see that these have been resolved.
  • I was also glad to see that there is now another Whitson BigY tester.
  • It was probably the new Whitson BigY tester that resolved my brother-in-law’s Private Variants
  • These Private Variants became older SNPs going back to the period between about 2500 BC and 1550 AD. They increased the age of the I-Y128591 Block by about 1500 years. This period is somewhat mysterious as
  • The new Whitson tester matched with the Batt tester who has Whitson ancestry and gave them both a much more recent SNP than Batt already had. Batt’s defining SNP moved up from 1500 BC to about 1550 AD.
  • I made a guess on the time and place for the common ancestors of the Butler BigY testers: about 1680 in County Wexford, Ireland
  • I also made a guess for the date common ancestors of the Butler and Whitson Lines. This was the same 1550 date mentioned above. The place could be England. However, was the original name Whitson or Butler. Which branch changed and why is unclear. A single mother could have giver her name to her child, or there could have been an adoption. Those are two possibilities.
  • I looked at the SNP Tracker to see what results were there for Butler and Whitson
  • I looked at the Butler and Whitson Private Variants. It is unlikely that Ken should have any Private Variants. Also the Whitson Private Variants are questionable. The result, if Batt and Ken’s father upgraded to the BigY 700, is that these Private Variants could turn into Butler and Whitson shared SNPs.