No, I don't show A11138 as being a matching SNP with you. That's what is particularly confusing to me.

But I clearly show positive for A11138 in my SNP list in my "Hg and SNPs" list. A11138 is the very first one on my list.

I'm pretty sure the light green + indicates that there was only one read at that location, so it is only suspected positive.

Jared

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:

Hi Jared,

This is all very interesting. I wonder if my YFull has not been updated yet. Do you show me as an A11138 match under the SNP Matches Tab?



I see A11138 under my Hg and SNPs but not at the SNP Matches.



Do you know what the light green + means compared to the dark green +?

Joel

On 3/20/2017 10:12 PM, Jared Smith wrote:

First, I see that FTDNA has pushed the updates to the tree for the
Hartley branch. Joel and Michael, your terminal SNP is now recorded as
A11132.

I just got my YFull results processed and they show me as positive for
A11138 (19477032-A-T). This is an SNP that Joel has, but that Michael
did not test positive for. However, it is right on the edge of a read
area for Michael, so it's quite possible that he also has A11138.

On the other hand, it's right in the middle of a read area for me, so
I would have thought I was negative because FTDNA didn't report it,
but it seems YFull's BAM analysis shows me as positive for it with a 5
star rating.

If this holds up, then this will make a small A11138 Hartley/Smith SNP
block just below Z17911 and above the Hartley A11132 block. This also
means that Michael has to be positive for this SNP (he can't be
downstream of this block and not have this SNP), which will increase
your shared SNPs by one and decrease Joel's novel variants by one -
effectively moving your shared ancestor closer to present day than
previously estimated by maybe 50-100 years.

I'm going to run all this past Mike W. He can request that FTDNA to a
BAM analysis on this region to see if I and Michael are both A11138.

Jared

First, I see that FTDNA has pushed the updates to the tree for the
Hartley branch. Joel and Michael, your terminal SNP is now recorded as
A11132.

I just got my YFull results processed and they show me as positive for
A11138 (19477032-A-T). This is an SNP that Joel has, but that Michael
did not test positive for. However, it is right on the edge of a read
area for Michael, so it's quite possible that he also has A11138.

On the other hand, it's right in the middle of a read area for me, so
I would have thought I was negative because FTDNA didn't report it,
but it seems YFull's BAM analysis shows me as positive for it with a 5
star rating.

If this holds up, then this will make a small A11138 Hartley/Smith SNP
block just below Z17911 and above the Hartley A11132 block. This also
means that Michael has to be positive for this SNP (he can't be
downstream of this block and not have this SNP), which will increase
your shared SNPs by one and decrease Joel's novel variants by one -
effectively moving your shared ancestor closer to present day than
previously estimated by maybe 50-100 years.

I'm going to run all this past Mike W. He can request that FTDNA to a
BAM analysis on this region to see if I and Michael are both A11138.

Jared

Great analysis, Jared, but I think the SNP names are confusing me. Did you
include an equivalent to FGC33966 for Martin and me?

Charles

________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Jared Smith
<jared@...>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 9:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Z16357] Z16357 In-depth Age Analysis

Aging our ancestors using Y-DNA data is far from an exact science. I'd
be happy to have you poke holes in any of this.

An analysis of the 11 Z16357 people who have taken Big-Y results in
the following number of 'good', unique/novel variants/mutations:

C. Hays 4
R. Hays 3
Pillsbury 5
Merrick 11
Thomas 6
Phillips 7
Bennett 9
M. Hartley 5
J. Hartley 5
J. Smith 12
Smith 27

These are variants that each person has that are not shared with
anyone else who has tested. The higher the number of novel variants,
the further back one would expect to be related to someone else
listed. I use the same metric for a 'good' variant as Alex does on his
Big Tree. This is a bit more aggressive than what YFull uses.

There are, however, some inconsistencies with this. Merrick, for
example, has nearly twice as many novel variants as Thomas, even
though Merrick connects lower/later on the tree than Thomas - one
would thus expect Merrick to have fewer novel variants. This is
primarily a factor of test coverage, but this is all we have to work
with, so we partially account for this variability by averaging. This
is why each new Big-Y test gives us increased accuracy.

When I add the novel variants above to the number of 'good' SNPs in
each block or haplogroup of our tree and average the results, I end up
with the following average number of variants downstream from each
listed SNP block:

ZS349 - 3.5
Z16854 - 9.3
BY15420 - 8.0
BY15419 - 9.7
Y29969 - 9.5
A11132 - 5
Z17911 - 10.9
Z16343 - 13
Z16357 - 36.1

This means, for example, that there's an average of 3.5 variants that
were formed after the most recent ZS349 ancestor that the two Hays men
share. For Z17911, we average 10.9 variants downstream (more recent
than) our most recent common Z17911 ancestor. Altogether, we average
36.1 SNPs downstream of Z16357.

To use these variant numbers to help us in aging, we need to calculate
a "years per SNP" value. YFull has our last Z16357 ancestor at around
3300 years ago (though they've acknowledged this is probably too
high). Other recent estimates put it as young as 2300 years ago. Until
someone digs up some Z16357 remains or we get enough DNA testers to
give us better data, we have to use our best informed estimate. I'll
assume our most recent Z16357 ancestor lived a minimum of 2500 and
maximum of 3000 years ago.

If we divide these age estimates by 36.1 SNPs (on average), this is a
minimum of 69.3 years per SNP and a maximum of 83.1 years per SNP. We
can then use these values to assign age estimates to notable
branchings as follows:

ZS349 - 327-376 years before present
Z16854 - 732-861
BY15420 - 639-750
BY15419 - 755-889
Y29969 - 743-875
A11132 - 431-501
Z17911 - 837-987
Z16343 - 986-1166
Z16357 - 2585-3085

The values are years before present, and include an additional 35
years (one generation?) to account for the age of the last ancestor
that had this SNP - and also adds 50 years as a guessed average of how
old the 11 Z16357 people are.

So this estimates that the common ZS349 ancestor for Hays was born
347-376 years ago. We know this ancestor was George Hays who was born
in 1655 - 362 years ago, so these numbers align perfectly!

This places our Z17911 ancestor being born between 837 and 987 years
ago. It places the Hartley common ancestor between 431 and 501 years
ago, the Bennett/Phillips ancestor 639-750 years ago, etc.

Do keep in mind that accuracy is more variable near the end of the
branches (closer to present day), especially with data from only 2 or
3 people. And SNPs are not always formed at a consistent rate. So this
all a bit rough, but should give us fairly reasonable estimations.

Jared

Aging our ancestors using Y-DNA data is far from an exact science. I'd
be happy to have you poke holes in any of this.

An analysis of the 11 Z16357 people who have taken Big-Y results in
the following number of 'good', unique/novel variants/mutations:

C. Hays 4
R. Hays 3
Pillsbury 5
Merrick 11
Thomas 6
Phillips 7
Bennett 9
M. Hartley 5
J. Hartley 5
J. Smith 12
Smith 27

These are variants that each person has that are not shared with
anyone else who has tested. The higher the number of novel variants,
the further back one would expect to be related to someone else
listed. I use the same metric for a 'good' variant as Alex does on his
Big Tree. This is a bit more aggressive than what YFull uses.

There are, however, some inconsistencies with this. Merrick, for
example, has nearly twice as many novel variants as Thomas, even
though Merrick connects lower/later on the tree than Thomas - one
would thus expect Merrick to have fewer novel variants. This is
primarily a factor of test coverage, but this is all we have to work
with, so we partially account for this variability by averaging. This
is why each new Big-Y test gives us increased accuracy.

When I add the novel variants above to the number of 'good' SNPs in
each block or haplogroup of our tree and average the results, I end up
with the following average number of variants downstream from each
listed SNP block:

ZS349 - 3.5
Z16854 - 9.3
BY15420 - 8.0
BY15419 - 9.7
Y29969 - 9.5
A11132 - 5
Z17911 - 10.9
Z16343 - 13
Z16357 - 36.1

This means, for example, that there's an average of 3.5 variants that
were formed after the most recent ZS349 ancestor that the two Hays men
share. For Z17911, we average 10.9 variants downstream (more recent
than) our most recent common Z17911 ancestor. Altogether, we average
36.1 SNPs downstream of Z16357.

To use these variant numbers to help us in aging, we need to calculate
a "years per SNP" value. YFull has our last Z16357 ancestor at around
3300 years ago (though they've acknowledged this is probably too
high). Other recent estimates put it as young as 2300 years ago. Until
someone digs up some Z16357 remains or we get enough DNA testers to
give us better data, we have to use our best informed estimate. I'll
assume our most recent Z16357 ancestor lived a minimum of 2500 and
maximum of 3000 years ago.

If we divide these age estimates by 36.1 SNPs (on average), this is a
minimum of 69.3 years per SNP and a maximum of 83.1 years per SNP. We
can then use these values to assign age estimates to notable
branchings as follows:

ZS349 - 327-376 years before present
Z16854 - 732-861
BY15420 - 639-750
BY15419 - 755-889
Y29969 - 743-875
A11132 - 431-501
Z17911 - 837-987
Z16343 - 986-1166
Z16357 - 2585-3085

The values are years before present, and include an additional 35
years (one generation?) to account for the age of the last ancestor
that had this SNP - and also adds 50 years as a guessed average of how
old the 11 Z16357 people are.

So this estimates that the common ZS349 ancestor for Hays was born
347-376 years ago. We know this ancestor was George Hays who was born
in 1655 - 362 years ago, so these numbers align perfectly!

This places our Z17911 ancestor being born between 837 and 987 years
ago. It places the Hartley common ancestor between 431 and 501 years
ago, the Bennett/Phillips ancestor 639-750 years ago, etc.

Do keep in mind that accuracy is more variable near the end of the
branches (closer to present day), especially with data from only 2 or
3 people. And SNPs are not always formed at a consistent rate. So this
all a bit rough, but should give us fairly reasonable estimations.

Jared

I did some additional analysis of Michael's results from his raw data.
There's not too much more to add, but I did find a couple other
variants that Joel and Michael share:
22425308 G A
25297201 T A
26310965 T C

As a brief explanation of this, 22425308 (for example) is the position
on the Y chromosome. The ancestral value (meaning the one that pretty
much everyone else has) for this position is G, but both of them have
an A here.

However, all three of these are in rather questionable areas on the
chromosome where poor reads can occur, so it's possible (though not
very likely) that these are both mis-reads that just happen to be the
same, or that some other relative could also have this variant, but
the test might not catch it due to its location.

I also found one solid INDEL that they both share:
18721623 A AA

Think of an INDEL (short for Insertion/Deletion) as a 'hiccup' on the
DNA - where the transfer of DNA from father to son results in one or
more extra segments of the DNA getting injected, or where a segment of
the DNA disappears. In this case, the ancestral marker is A, but you
two both have an extra A (thus AA) here.

We don't typically count INDELs as "SNPs", but this is certainly a
high quality mutation that you almost certainly got from a common
ancestor, so it can be used for comparing future matches.

I'm sure Mike W. and Alex will likely find some additional novel
variants for Michael when they do their analysis, but I think this is
probably everything that they share that is worth tracking.

I'll send the data to Michael Sager soon and ask him to update the
FTDNA tree and update your terminal SNPs to A11132.

Jared


On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Michael W. Hartley
<mwhlaw1@...> wrote:

I finally found this place.  My raw data is on it's way to Jared and Mike
Walsh.  Let me know what else you need.

Thanks Jared,

I had missed 391 in my tree analysis. It helps to have an extra set of eyes
looking at this. Still, these SNPs mutate over 10Xs as fast as the slow
moving 455 that I based my tree on.

On a side note, I read that the L513 SNPs seem to mutate faster than the
average SNP across all SNPs. I wonder if there is a correspondingly fast STR
rate for L513's, or if these are more constant than the SNPs?

Joel


On 3/15/2017 10:55 PM, Jared Smith wrote:

I count GD=8 between you. Seeing as your common ancestor was only a
few hundred years ago (I'd think 450 years ago at the furthest), this
is rather remarkable. This difference in STRs would otherwise suggest
a VERY distant common ancestor, but this SNP match proves this wrong.

The 391 STR (Joel = 10 and Michael = 11) and 447 STR (Joel = 26 and
Michael = 25) are moderately slow moving STRs and *might* be good ones
to estimate which side of these new Hartley branches other matches
might land on.

I'm going to request that FTDNA add one of your shared SNPs to the SNP
Pack and/or as a single SNP test. This would provide an easy way for
other Hartleys to verify if they are somewhere on this shared branch.

Yes, this is a great breakthrough. Anytime we can define very recent
splits in branches, it really helps us refine age estimates for
everyone else. In this case, it reinforces my previous estimates as
being accurate. And, as you note, we now have three Hartley branches
(one shared and then one each for the two of you) that allow other kin
to test to and define other new sub-branches. Getting to this level of
granularity is one of the primary goals of this project.

I've updated the charts at to reflect
these changes. There are still several questionable variants that I
need to sort to one side of the split or the other once I get
Michael's raw data files. Assuming FTDNA accepts my recommendation of
calling this block R-A11132, this will be your new terminal SNP.

Jared


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:

Thanks Jared,

That is such great news. This is a red letter day for Hartley Genetic
Genealogy. This is the first SNP branching within the Hartley surname
that I
know of. That makes this a true Hartley SNP group which is one the goals
of
the BigY testing. Thanks also to Mike for doing this test.

I had a feeling that this branch of Hartleys was quite large. There is
still
room for other branches - both in the main Hartley group, in my group and
in
Michael's.

Joel


On 3/15/2017 8:32 PM, Jared Smith wrote:

I've started an initial analysis based on the limited information I
have from FTDNA thus far. I can provide more information after I
receive Michael's VCF files.

The following lists provide the SNP name (if available), then the DNA
position number and polymorphism/change value.

Thus far, I know Joel and Michael share the following known SNPs:

A11132 - 14092445-C-T
A11134 - 15656058-T-G
A11135 - 16770482-C-T
A11137 - 19090151-G-A
A11139 - 21637160-G-A
A11140 - 21757893-T-A

Michael has the following novel variants:
14806931-C-G
19110373-C-T (already named SNP - Y30173 - in another R1b branch)
22478928-G-C
21262641-C-A (already named SNP - K554 - in another C2e2 branch)

Joel has the following novel variants:
A11130 - 9132352-G-A
A11131 - 13691125-A-T
A11133 - 14819258-C-T
A11136 - 17550281-C-T
A11138 - 19477032-A-T

So I will preliminarily call the shared Hartley branch the A11132
branch. I'll continue to call Joel's Hartley sub-branch A11130.
Michael's Hartley branch will eventually be named once one of his
unique variants is assigned a name. It is interesting that two of
Michael's 'novel' variants align with known SNPs on other branches,
but this does happen occasionally.

Michael likely may have other good novel variants that FTDNA has not
identified. I'm not yet sure of the quality of the 4 they have
identified, but FTDNA is pretty conservative, so they're probably
good.

Using this we can start do some initial age estimates. With 6 shared
mutations and 4-5 unique mutations, this means that the split in your
lines was probably just this side of half way between when our Z17911
ancestor lived and present day. With our best guess estimate of Z17911
being 800-1000 years old, this puts your common ancestor living
probably 350-450 years ago, give or take.

It would be especially helpful if you could make a paper connection to
this ancestor, but that may not be possible. Regardless, this provides
a very nice Hartley branching for others to test to.

The A11130 SNP that Joel has is available for single SNP testing and
is part of the S5668 SNP Pack. I had hoped this would land on the
shared Hartley branch - it would have provided an easy test for people
to verify that they're on this Hartley line, but now testing for it
would only prove or disprove if someone is related to Joel more
recently than that SNP was formed - and it could have been at Joel's
father so only Joel and his brothers share it. So it's not of
particular value right now.

A new Hartley branch is discovered! Thank you Joel and Michael for
investing in Big-Y!

Jared Smith


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Charles Thomas
<charles_002@...> wrote:

Hey Joel,

Mike Hartley is listed on my match list with 0 shared novel variants,

0 non-matching known SNPs, and 25,684 matching SNPs.

Is Mike 31/37 and 59/67 with you? My Thomas match with whom

I share the ancestor James Thomas b. abt 1760 is 66/67 with me.

So I'm thinking that your and Mike's shared Hartley ancestor could

be much farther back in time. Yet STRs can change at any time, and it's

just the average mutation rate per STR that are known so maybe your

shared ancestor is more recent than I'm guessing. I'm sure Jared's

analysis of the SNPs will be helpful.

Best regards,

Charles



________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Joel Hartley
<joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:28 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY

I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as
Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5
SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't
see
any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel

I count GD=8 between you. Seeing as your common ancestor was only a
few hundred years ago (I'd think 450 years ago at the furthest), this
is rather remarkable. This difference in STRs would otherwise suggest
a VERY distant common ancestor, but this SNP match proves this wrong.

The 391 STR (Joel = 10 and Michael = 11) and 447 STR (Joel = 26 and
Michael = 25) are moderately slow moving STRs and *might* be good ones
to estimate which side of these new Hartley branches other matches
might land on.

I'm going to request that FTDNA add one of your shared SNPs to the SNP
Pack and/or as a single SNP test. This would provide an easy way for
other Hartleys to verify if they are somewhere on this shared branch.

Yes, this is a great breakthrough. Anytime we can define very recent
splits in branches, it really helps us refine age estimates for
everyone else. In this case, it reinforces my previous estimates as
being accurate. And, as you note, we now have three Hartley branches
(one shared and then one each for the two of you) that allow other kin
to test to and define other new sub-branches. Getting to this level of
granularity is one of the primary goals of this project.

I've updated the charts at to reflect
these changes. There are still several questionable variants that I
need to sort to one side of the split or the other once I get
Michael's raw data files. Assuming FTDNA accepts my recommendation of
calling this block R-A11132, this will be your new terminal SNP.

Jared


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:

Thanks Jared,

That is such great news. This is a red letter day for Hartley Genetic
Genealogy. This is the first SNP branching within the Hartley surname that I
know of. That makes this a true Hartley SNP group which is one the goals of
the BigY testing. Thanks also to Mike for doing this test.

I had a feeling that this branch of Hartleys was quite large. There is still
room for other branches - both in the main Hartley group, in my group and in
Michael's.

Joel


On 3/15/2017 8:32 PM, Jared Smith wrote:

I've started an initial analysis based on the limited information I
have from FTDNA thus far. I can provide more information after I
receive Michael's VCF files.

The following lists provide the SNP name (if available), then the DNA
position number and polymorphism/change value.

Thus far, I know Joel and Michael share the following known SNPs:

A11132 - 14092445-C-T
A11134 - 15656058-T-G
A11135 - 16770482-C-T
A11137 - 19090151-G-A
A11139 - 21637160-G-A
A11140 - 21757893-T-A

Michael has the following novel variants:
14806931-C-G
19110373-C-T (already named SNP - Y30173 - in another R1b branch)
22478928-G-C
21262641-C-A (already named SNP - K554 - in another C2e2 branch)

Joel has the following novel variants:
A11130 - 9132352-G-A
A11131 - 13691125-A-T
A11133 - 14819258-C-T
A11136 - 17550281-C-T
A11138 - 19477032-A-T

So I will preliminarily call the shared Hartley branch the A11132
branch. I'll continue to call Joel's Hartley sub-branch A11130.
Michael's Hartley branch will eventually be named once one of his
unique variants is assigned a name. It is interesting that two of
Michael's 'novel' variants align with known SNPs on other branches,
but this does happen occasionally.

Michael likely may have other good novel variants that FTDNA has not
identified. I'm not yet sure of the quality of the 4 they have
identified, but FTDNA is pretty conservative, so they're probably
good.

Using this we can start do some initial age estimates. With 6 shared
mutations and 4-5 unique mutations, this means that the split in your
lines was probably just this side of half way between when our Z17911
ancestor lived and present day. With our best guess estimate of Z17911
being 800-1000 years old, this puts your common ancestor living
probably 350-450 years ago, give or take.

It would be especially helpful if you could make a paper connection to
this ancestor, but that may not be possible. Regardless, this provides
a very nice Hartley branching for others to test to.

The A11130 SNP that Joel has is available for single SNP testing and
is part of the S5668 SNP Pack. I had hoped this would land on the
shared Hartley branch - it would have provided an easy test for people
to verify that they're on this Hartley line, but now testing for it
would only prove or disprove if someone is related to Joel more
recently than that SNP was formed - and it could have been at Joel's
father so only Joel and his brothers share it. So it's not of
particular value right now.

A new Hartley branch is discovered! Thank you Joel and Michael for
investing in Big-Y!

Jared Smith


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Charles Thomas
<charles_002@...> wrote:

Hey Joel,

Mike Hartley is listed on my match list with 0 shared novel variants,

0 non-matching known SNPs, and 25,684 matching SNPs.

Is Mike 31/37 and 59/67 with you? My Thomas match with whom

I share the ancestor James Thomas b. abt 1760 is 66/67 with me.

So I'm thinking that your and Mike's shared Hartley ancestor could

be much farther back in time. Yet STRs can change at any time, and it's

just the average mutation rate per STR that are known so maybe your

shared ancestor is more recent than I'm guessing. I'm sure Jared's

analysis of the SNPs will be helpful.

Best regards,

Charles



________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Joel Hartley
<joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:28 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY

I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as
Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5
SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see
any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel

Thanks Jared,

That is such great news. This is a red letter day for Hartley Genetic
Genealogy. This is the first SNP branching within the Hartley surname that I
know of. That makes this a true Hartley SNP group which is one the goals of
the BigY testing. Thanks also to Mike for doing this test.

I had a feeling that this branch of Hartleys was quite large. There is still
room for other branches - both in the main Hartley group, in my group and in
Michael's.

Joel


On 3/15/2017 8:32 PM, Jared Smith wrote:

I've started an initial analysis based on the limited information I
have from FTDNA thus far. I can provide more information after I
receive Michael's VCF files.

The following lists provide the SNP name (if available), then the DNA
position number and polymorphism/change value.

Thus far, I know Joel and Michael share the following known SNPs:

A11132 - 14092445-C-T
A11134 - 15656058-T-G
A11135 - 16770482-C-T
A11137 - 19090151-G-A
A11139 - 21637160-G-A
A11140 - 21757893-T-A

Michael has the following novel variants:
14806931-C-G
19110373-C-T (already named SNP - Y30173 - in another R1b branch)
22478928-G-C
21262641-C-A (already named SNP - K554 - in another C2e2 branch)

Joel has the following novel variants:
A11130 - 9132352-G-A
A11131 - 13691125-A-T
A11133 - 14819258-C-T
A11136 - 17550281-C-T
A11138 - 19477032-A-T

So I will preliminarily call the shared Hartley branch the A11132
branch. I'll continue to call Joel's Hartley sub-branch A11130.
Michael's Hartley branch will eventually be named once one of his
unique variants is assigned a name. It is interesting that two of
Michael's 'novel' variants align with known SNPs on other branches,
but this does happen occasionally.

Michael likely may have other good novel variants that FTDNA has not
identified. I'm not yet sure of the quality of the 4 they have
identified, but FTDNA is pretty conservative, so they're probably
good.

Using this we can start do some initial age estimates. With 6 shared
mutations and 4-5 unique mutations, this means that the split in your
lines was probably just this side of half way between when our Z17911
ancestor lived and present day. With our best guess estimate of Z17911
being 800-1000 years old, this puts your common ancestor living
probably 350-450 years ago, give or take.

It would be especially helpful if you could make a paper connection to
this ancestor, but that may not be possible. Regardless, this provides
a very nice Hartley branching for others to test to.

The A11130 SNP that Joel has is available for single SNP testing and
is part of the S5668 SNP Pack. I had hoped this would land on the
shared Hartley branch - it would have provided an easy test for people
to verify that they're on this Hartley line, but now testing for it
would only prove or disprove if someone is related to Joel more
recently than that SNP was formed - and it could have been at Joel's
father so only Joel and his brothers share it. So it's not of
particular value right now.

A new Hartley branch is discovered! Thank you Joel and Michael for
investing in Big-Y!

Jared Smith


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Charles Thomas
<charles_002@...> wrote:

Hey Joel,

Mike Hartley is listed on my match list with 0 shared novel variants,

0 non-matching known SNPs, and 25,684 matching SNPs.

Is Mike 31/37 and 59/67 with you? My Thomas match with whom

I share the ancestor James Thomas b. abt 1760 is 66/67 with me.

So I'm thinking that your and Mike's shared Hartley ancestor could

be much farther back in time. Yet STRs can change at any time, and it's

just the average mutation rate per STR that are known so maybe your

shared ancestor is more recent than I'm guessing. I'm sure Jared's

analysis of the SNPs will be helpful.

Best regards,

Charles



________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Joel Hartley
<joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:28 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY

I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as
Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5
SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see
any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel

I've started an initial analysis based on the limited information I
have from FTDNA thus far. I can provide more information after I
receive Michael's VCF files.

The following lists provide the SNP name (if available), then the DNA
position number and polymorphism/change value.

Thus far, I know Joel and Michael share the following known SNPs:

A11132 - 14092445-C-T
A11134 - 15656058-T-G
A11135 - 16770482-C-T
A11137 - 19090151-G-A
A11139 - 21637160-G-A
A11140 - 21757893-T-A

Michael has the following novel variants:
14806931-C-G
19110373-C-T (already named SNP - Y30173 - in another R1b branch)
22478928-G-C
21262641-C-A (already named SNP - K554 - in another C2e2 branch)

Joel has the following novel variants:
A11130 - 9132352-G-A
A11131 - 13691125-A-T
A11133 - 14819258-C-T
A11136 - 17550281-C-T
A11138 - 19477032-A-T

So I will preliminarily call the shared Hartley branch the A11132
branch. I'll continue to call Joel's Hartley sub-branch A11130.
Michael's Hartley branch will eventually be named once one of his
unique variants is assigned a name. It is interesting that two of
Michael's 'novel' variants align with known SNPs on other branches,
but this does happen occasionally.

Michael likely may have other good novel variants that FTDNA has not
identified. I'm not yet sure of the quality of the 4 they have
identified, but FTDNA is pretty conservative, so they're probably
good.

Using this we can start do some initial age estimates. With 6 shared
mutations and 4-5 unique mutations, this means that the split in your
lines was probably just this side of half way between when our Z17911
ancestor lived and present day. With our best guess estimate of Z17911
being 800-1000 years old, this puts your common ancestor living
probably 350-450 years ago, give or take.

It would be especially helpful if you could make a paper connection to
this ancestor, but that may not be possible. Regardless, this provides
a very nice Hartley branching for others to test to.

The A11130 SNP that Joel has is available for single SNP testing and
is part of the S5668 SNP Pack. I had hoped this would land on the
shared Hartley branch - it would have provided an easy test for people
to verify that they're on this Hartley line, but now testing for it
would only prove or disprove if someone is related to Joel more
recently than that SNP was formed - and it could have been at Joel's
father so only Joel and his brothers share it. So it's not of
particular value right now.

A new Hartley branch is discovered! Thank you Joel and Michael for
investing in Big-Y!

Jared Smith


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Charles Thomas
<charles_002@...> wrote:

Hey Joel,

Mike Hartley is listed on my match list with 0 shared novel variants,

0 non-matching known SNPs, and 25,684 matching SNPs.

Is Mike 31/37 and 59/67 with you? My Thomas match with whom

I share the ancestor James Thomas b. abt 1760 is 66/67 with me.

So I'm thinking that your and Mike's shared Hartley ancestor could

be much farther back in time. Yet STRs can change at any time, and it's

just the average mutation rate per STR that are known so maybe your

shared ancestor is more recent than I'm guessing. I'm sure Jared's

analysis of the SNPs will be helpful.

Best regards,

Charles



________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Joel Hartley
<joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:28 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY

I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as
Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5
SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see
any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel

Hey Joel,

Mike Hartley is listed on my match list with 0 shared novel variants,

0 non-matching known SNPs, and 25,684 matching SNPs.

Is Mike 31/37 and 59/67 with you? My Thomas match with whom

I share the ancestor James Thomas b. abt 1760 is 66/67 with me.

So I'm thinking that your and Mike's shared Hartley ancestor could

be much farther back in time. Yet STRs can change at any time, and it's

just the average mutation rate per STR?that are known so maybe your

shared ancestor is more recent than I'm guessing. I'm sure Jared's

analysis of the SNPs will be helpful.

Best regards,

Charles

---

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Joel Hartley <joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:28 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY

?

I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as
Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5
SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see
any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel