|
Phillips Big-Y - new Bennett/Phillips branch
The Big-Y results for Brent Phillips are in. He is confirmed R-Y29969
with Bennett and Thomas. This is phylogenetically equivalent to BY11573. You'll notice FTDNA has changed the terminal SNP for Bennett and Thomas to Y29969 - it's a more reliable SNP to check. Beyond this, there's also a new tentative Bennett/Phillips branch. They both share the following markers (and perhaps some others that are yet to be discovered): 7488239-G-A 22486193-A-T 25311291-T-C These are in rather poor read areas for the Y-DNA test, but I believe at least the first one should hold up under further analysis to create this new branch. I had thought that Bennett and Phillips would share more good SNPs (i.e., they had a more recent common ancestor), but this proves that their lines split after Y29969. But both of them have around 10 good unique SNPs that would provide distinct Bennett and Phillips branches with additional cousin testers. Another good discover with the Phillips and my Smith Big-Y is validation of 5 or 6 other SNP markers that those of us on the Z17911 block share. This means that Z17911 is a bigger/longer block than we had previously thought, thus moving our more recent ancestor in that block closer to modern day. My own VERY rough estimate based on what we know now is that our most recent Z17911 lived probably around 1200 years ago, with the Bennett/Phillips/Thomas/Merrick/Goff Y29969/BY11573 ancestor living around 800 years ago. Brent's results add some very useful information to our project! Jared |
|
Re: a Smith lineage
Charles -
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
That is interesting. It does appear that your (supposed) ancestor is probably I-M223. Sylvia and Lenita (our Z16357 people) and I are in the Smith R-M269-16 group. Many or most of the other Smiths in that group are also Z16357 people. I have some exciting news coming soon regarding our tree! Jared On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Charles Thomas <charles_002@...> wrote:
Hi Jared, |
|
Re: My Big-Y results
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýHi Jared,
It seems like with the people that we had, all the branching that was going to happen already happened. The good news is that Michael Hartley has expressed interest in the Big Y. This could produce some extra resolution between your branch of YDNA and mine. I think that the reason I have some named SNPs is that I believe my Hartley administrator, William Hartley, probably went in and named some of my SNPs after I took the Big Y test. Sorry for your disappointment. As you know, this BigY is a long term thing. It's good to be a pioneer, but being way out in front of the pack can be lonely! Joel On 2/17/2017 1:03 AM, Jared Smith wrote:
|
|
Re: My Big-Y results
Yes, I now form a new theoretical branch from Z17911 (well, theoretical until I can get a closer cousin to test). My branch will be a sibling to your Hartley branch, which is a sibling to the BY11573 branch with Thomas, Bennett, Merrick, and Goff. As soon as I can update it, I'll add my pink box to the SNP tree. Of note is that your Hartley theoretical branch is depicted with A11130, but that just represents one of the dozen or so private SNPs that have been identified for you. My box will also fill with a dozen or so of similar (but not yet named) SNPs. Joel, you are also my top match, followed by Bennett, then Thomas, as you'd expect considering these results. I'm a bit disappointed that no new branches were formed with my results, but this paves the road for others to follow. Now to redouble my research efforts to find a distant Smith cousin! Jared On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: My Big-Y results
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýJared,
You are my top BigY match now: Joel On 2/16/2017 10:27 AM, Jared Smith wrote: My Big-Y results (kit #307773) are in. I am firmly (still) at R-Z17911. I had hoped that I would share some private/novel SNPs with Hartley, or maybe a few with Bennett or Thomas, but it appears that my branch split near the same time as the Harley and BY11573 (and downstream) branches. I do have quite a few of my own private/novel SNPs for this new potential Smith branch below Z17911, but there are no new branches (yet) from my test results. I'm just off on a road trip, but will try to find some time to analyze things more fully. Jared
|
|
My Big-Y results
My Big-Y results (kit #307773) are in. I am firmly (still) at
R-Z17911. I had hoped that I would share some private/novel SNPs with Hartley, or maybe a few with Bennett or Thomas, but it appears that my branch split near the same time as the Harley and BY11573 (and downstream) branches. I do have quite a few of my own private/novel SNPs for this new potential Smith branch below Z17911, but there are no new branches (yet) from my test results. I'm just off on a road trip, but will try to find some time to analyze things more fully. Jared |
|
Re: YFull tree updates
As a quick follow-up, Merrick's BAM file was analyzed by FTDNA and
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
they've confirmed that Merrick is positive for Y29969, so this confirms my suspicion that it is equivalent to BY11573. This also means that Goff has this SNP because he's on the downstream branch at BY11565 with Merrick. Jared On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Jared Smith <jared@...> wrote:
Joel noted on the R-L513 list that YFull has updated their tree based |
|
A new Hartley member
I'd like to welcome Michael Hartley to the group. He has kit #617805
and has recently done the Y67 DNA test. He likely shows as a match to some of you (he is GD=7 to me at Y67). I've added him to the STR and GDs spreadsheets - I also added another Hartley from their surname project - there are now 5 Hartleys and Sanchez (who is a Hartley) in addition to Joel. These are all very good candidates for additional testing on the Hartley branch of Z17911. Michael's most distant known ancestor originates in England around 1660, then came to Pennsylvania in a Quaker emigration. Having such an old ancestor defined for our tree is very helpful. Hopefully we can establish Michael's location on our tree. Welcome aboard Michael! Jared |
|
YFull tree updates
Joel noted on the R-L513 list that YFull has updated their tree based
on Bennett's results - R-Z16351 is our branch (what I call Z16357). They have Joel alone at the base of this branch because there's not yet other results to differentiate him. They now have Thomas and Bennett on the Y29969 branch. I had identified this SNP as being distinctive to Thomas and Bennett at They don't show BY11573 for them (like I, FTDNA, and Big Tree do), probably because it was a questionable read for both - and they don't have Merrick's results or SNP Pack results to add validity to it. Merrick had no or poor test coverage for Y29969, so for now we should consider Y29969 and BY11573 to be phylogenetically equivalent. I'll update my tree to reflect this. They also updated the Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) estimates - moving Z16351/Z16357 (Hartley) a bit older to 1550 ybp and Y29969 (Thomas and Bennett) to 1200 ybp. Jared |
|
Re: Project update
Charles -
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Nothing yet. I'll follow up with them soon. Thanks, Jared On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Charles Thomas <charles_002@...> wrote:
Hi Jared, |
|
Re: Z17911 BigY
Then scratch what I posted before - though this is the logic used for
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
positioning on the tree. I recall now that I had written earlier about these 2 SNPs. These are both known SNPs, but for totally different haplogroups. They are in poor coverage regions on your tests, so I think they are either misreads or they are private SNPs that just happen to coincide with the other known SNPs. It seems FTDNA has identified them as differences for you because they were in some database somewhere at the time the results were processed. CTS3563 is an SNP for the E haplogroup (search for CTS3563 at ). Alex has it highlighted pink on Merrick's results which means it's on the edge of a coverage region. CTS11841 is very similar. This is C>T at position 23311208. This is an I haplogroup SNP in the ISOGG list. This is one that you have that Merrick doesn't. This mutation isn't listed by Alex for you, probably because it is on the very edge of a coverage region - so probably a misread for you. CTS11841 should also show as a difference between you and Bennett (he's negative for it). But it is a 'maybe' for some of the others on our branch (Thomas, one of the Hays men, etc.). This reinforces that it's in a poor read area. I suspect that FTDNA dropped this one from consideration between the time your results were processed and Bennett's were, so that's why it's not showing for you two... or something. This is what differentiates Alex's analysis from FTDNA's tools - Alex takes the time to analyze these things to weed out such anomalies and questionable reads, and he look for possibilities (especially between multiple men) that don't fit within FTDNA's automated processes. Rumor has it some new SNP tools will be coming to FTDNA soon - their current tools seem to be rather lacking. Jared On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:46 AM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Here are the two SNPs that the Big Y shows as being different between me and |
|
Re: YFull
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
The YTree was last updated January 4th. I'm not sure how often they update it. I'm not sure how it would be updated. As they don't have Pillsbury and Hayes in their database, they won't show that branching.This is a fundamental limitation of YFull - they use such a limited set of available data to determine their tree - only results of those who have purchased their analysis. They won't know about other known SNPs and branches that have been verified elsewhere. This really limits their ability to estimate timelines. Big Tree uses a much larger sample of FGC/Big-Y testers, but doesn't attempt time estimates. FTDNA's tree uses Big-Y and SNP pack/test results, but is very conservative. ISOGG tries to be more authoritative, but lags behind other known trees due to their high scrutiny and complex submission process. Fortunately they each provide something a bit unique - it just takes a lot of analysis to pull from them what is most useful. As an FYI, you can compare your YFull Novel SNPs list to Alex's list to see which SNPs match at both sites - and which are named SNPs. For example, YFS2491169 (which is position 21390000 - G>A from YFull's spreadsheet for Thomas) is found to be the FGC33968 SNP at the Big Tree - Joel, you'll notice that you have 11 unique/private/novel SNPs from very good read areas - All are named A111nn by Thomas Krahn. I use A11130 to describe this entire block because that's the SNP FTDNA added to their SNP pack. Using the *rough* estimate of 144 years per SNP, this block represents ~1584 years. Because Z17911 is around this old, these SNPs likely represent the vast majority of your line's SNP mutations between Z17911 and present day. A distant Hartley Big-Y would likely solidify these SNPs on the tree and establish a pretty good timeline and SNP framework for this line of your surname. Jared |
|
Re: Z17911 BigY
To add a some additional thoughts on this...
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
- You can see the four SNP test result states in Alex's mutations matrix at the Big Tree. - How do we know Thomas and Bennett are BY11573 if their results are 'maybe'? Because it would be incredibly unlikely that it's mere chance that they both show this particular mutation at this exact location that also aligns with a proven SNP. FTDNA, however, is super conservative about making such assumptions. - While FTDNA does not report 'maybe' results for Big-Y, it does for SNP Packs. It shows these with an asterisk and describes them as "no calls". My SNP results show BY4028*, for example. Even though this SNP was a 'maybe' test result, because my terminal SNP is downstream from it, I know I have it. - FTDNA uses some unknown formula or method to sometimes define 'solo' terminal SNPs - when only one person has tested positive for it. For example, Pillsbury shows terminal SNP of BY13850 even though he's the only one to have ever tested positive for it. Hays (N28178) similarly is alone with BY13845. On the other hand, Joel Hartley shows terminal SNP of Z17911, even though he alone has the A11130 SNP. I'm not sure how they determine which solo SNPs are worthy of 'terminal' status. I generally use FTDNA's determination in marking the haplogroups of my tree - - as verified or theoretical. - Remember the term "terminal SNP" is a misnomer - it really means "temporary terminal SNP" - it's the last one we can reasonably verify... for now. Jared On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Jared Smith <jared@...> wrote:
There are really four levels of reporting for each SNP: positive, |
|
Re: Z17911 BigY
There are really four levels of reporting for each SNP: positive,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
negative, maybe, and no coverage. The 'maybe' results (this is my terminology, not FTDNA's) are markers where you show the SNP in your raw results, but it was in a questionable read area of the test. This means you probably have the SNP, but FTDNA takes a very conservative approach and does not report these. If additional people on your branch get 'maybe' results for that same SNP, the more likely it is a valid SNP for that haplogroup. A positive test for that SNP verifies it as a good one and (usually) establishes it on the tree. No coverage means the test didn't read in this area, so you can't really know from that test alone. If you do, however, test positive for a downstream SNP, then you'll know you also have all upstream SNPs, even if your test results show 'maybe' or no coverage results for them. My tree and FTDNA's tree has Merrick two branches downstream (BY11573 and a terminal SNP of BY11565), from you and I who are at Z17911. So this is the 2 SNP differences. But Thomas and Bennett also have BY11573, so this means they should show a 1 SNP difference to you, right? The answer would be yes, except that Merrick, Thomas, and Bennett all were 'maybe' results for BY11573, so FTDNA doesn't count these. You'll see that Thomas and Bennett still show terminal SNP at FTDNA of Z17911, not BY11573. So why does Merrick get credit for BY11573 when his 'maybe' result is the same as Thomas and Bennett? Because we know BY11573 is a valid SNP because of Goff's positive result for it. This established its definitive location on the tree. While Thomas and Bennett don't get credit for it because of their 'maybe' results (they show 0 SNP differences to you), Merrick does because his terminal SNP is downstream from it. He can't NOT have it, even though his results were 'maybe'. This highlights how valuable Goff's SNP pack results were to our part of the tree. They really verified two more haplogroups - BY11573 (the first positive result after three 'maybe' results) and BY11565 (the second positive result with Merrick). Hopefully that helps. Jared On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Does anyone know why I have a 0 SNP difference to Thomas and Bennett and a 2 |
Jared Smith