开云体育

I hope everyone is doing well. We haven't had any new tests on our branch of the tree lately, but now is the optimal time for us to recruit new Big-Y testers. Big-Y is on sale for only $450 through Thursday of this week. If everyone on this list would send just a couple e-mails to some of their close Y-DNA matches, we likely could recruit several new testers. Someone asked for some positive messaging to help recruit Big-Y testers, so I wrote the following, in case you'd like to use or modify it: Big-Y testing maps the genetic tree of humanity. We're slowly mapping every Y-DNA mutation to particular ancestors - some known by name and some too ancient to be known. Even for very old common ancestors, these markers provide a unique identifier for them - a way to identify family tree connections that could not possibly be made using genealogical records. Traditional genealogy works from modern day and builds the tree backward from us to our ancestors. Y-DNA genealogy works in reverse - we've identified mutations in our ancient ancestors and are identifying new cousin relationships, new branches, and more defined family timelines with each new Big-Y test. For many family lines, we're still very much in the early days of this research, but each new test provides better clarity. On our own Z16357 part of the Y-DNA tree (http://dna.smithplanet.com/), we are getting much better defined branches. We're getting closer to knowing geographies of some of our ancestors - where and when they lived in the British Isles in the last few thousand years. As we define and verify the individual mutations that form new branches on our tree, we are paving the path for others to eventually take very inexpensive DNA tests to see how their direct male line connects with the rest of humanity. This future is only possible if we pave the way by investing in Big-Y! Thanks, Jared Smith

Hi again, John Hartley just notified me of the following: "I have received my YSEQ results and the summary is A11132 T+ and Z17912 C+." Joel Hartley

I'm happy to welcome Rachel to the list. She administers the C. Pillsbury Big-Y test that is a new close match to us. She shares a relative with Fran Pillsbury dating to 1605. They both fall onto the BY13850 haplogroup of our tree. This is below the Z16854 block on the tree that represents their common Hays/Pillsbury ancestry (see http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp). The two Pillsbury men share the following "good" variants: 18770840-C-T (BY13850) 9496274-C-A (BY13851) 14811392-G-T These are solid SNPs that indicate their shared Pillsbury ancestry AFTER the Hays/Pillsbury ancestor, but before their Pillsbury lines split in the 1600s. This does not change my SNP chart at all - http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp (with the exception of adding the 3rd SNP above to the Pillsbury block). I've only been able to identify one good novel variant for the C. Pillsbury line: 18839503-C-A A novel variant is a mutation not shared with anyone else that has tested. This also leaves Fran's Pillsbury line with only 1 good novel variant (and I'm being a bit liberal with that one because it's a bit questionable). This is a bit peculiar, because the 12 of us under Z16357 average around 75 years per variant - and the Pillsburys have only one identified in almost 400 years. This highlights the difficulty with few testers in each haplogroup/block. Michael, Alex, and YFull have better mechanisms for identifying "good" novel variants, so they might find some I'm missing. One problem with so few novel variants is that it makes it more difficult to generate a basic Y-DNA test for people to determine which side of the Pillsbury line they fall on. Another is that it throws a bit of a wrench into my age estimations. With only 1 novel variant each, this would suggest that the most recent shared ancestor for the Pillsbury's was born 2-3 generations ago - but we know he was instead born over 400 years ago. This likely sways my age estimates to be more recent that is reality for that part of the tree. My math puts the common Hays/Pillsbury ancestor being born 626-734 years ago. Overall, this impacts my aging estimates for the entire tree very negligibly - only .5 years more per variant. The more testers we get, the more accurate this value becomes. We'll have some other big news for our part of the tree soon! Jared

We have a new, significant branching under Z16357. Up to this point Sylvia Smith was the only person truly at Z16357 - meaning that her kit had tested positive for Z16357, but for no shared SNPs downstream from there. If we think of Z16357 as the trunk or base of our part of the tree, there has thus far been only one branch (Z16343) coming from that trunk, which then split into two sub-branches (Z17911 and Z16854), which split into the various sub-sub-branches below them. The Big-Y results for Lenita's brother (Leonard Ellwin Smith) are in and they create a 2nd major branch from the Z16357 trunk for Lenita and Sylvia. This Smith branch is VERY long - extending from a common (yet unknown) Smith ancestor that lived a few hundred years ago all the way back to Z16357 (probably 2500 years ago or so). It's pretty incredible to think that nobody else on this family line has done DNA testing to this level yet. To avoid potential confusion, while my surname is Smith, it's only coincidental - this new Smith line and my Smith line below Z17911 are very distant - connecting at Z16357 around 2500 years ago. I've updated my charts at?http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp so you can see the new branching. Lenita and Sylvia share 24 SNPs/variants. This represents around 2000 years of their family line with no known branching. This new branch has yet to be named - but I suspect that FTDNA will submit these 24 shared SNPs for naming - and one of them will be chosen as the designator for this branch of the tree. Sylvia has the following 4 novel variants (meaning mutations that are unique to her, so they occurred more recently than Lenita's and Sylvia's common ancestor): 14703381-T-A 21734697-A-G 22102505-G-T 23817871-G-A Lenita has the following 3 novel variants: 7676708-T-A 15315228-G-A 19139648-C-T If I apply my aging methodology, this would suggest that their common Smith ancestor was born between 333 and 383 years ago (sometime in the mid- to late-1600s). However, these two Smiths have fewer variants/mutations (28 and 27)?than is the average for our group (35.2), so this might suggest that their common ancestor is a bit more distant than this. But these are just VERY rough estimates, so their ancestor could also be more recent. As we get more Smith testers, this will be refined. This is a very notable addition to our tree! Thank you Sylvia and Lenita for investing in Big-Y! We're trying to identify other distant Smith cousins to take Big-Y to help us better define this new Smith branch. Thanks, Jared Smith

Iain McDonald has just published a new project analyzing all of the P312 Big-Y results. P312 is much older than our Z16357. The general heredity is P312 > L21/Z290 > L513 > S5668 > Z16357. He places the 95% reliability date of Z16357 being formed 2528BC — 1177BC with a central date of 1873BC. This is quite a bit older than the estimates I've been using. I generally run two sets - one at 1000BC and one at 500BC. He places Z17911 as formed 310BC — 713AD with a central date of 252AD. This is also quite a bit older than the 1000AD date I've calculated. As for our more recent haplogroups, his estimates are only slightly older than mine. Of note is that he did not include our recent Smith BY19970 data. If he had, I think this would have pushed his dates a bit more recent. Does this mean that his estimates are right and mine wrong? We all perform mathematical analysis within certain constraints and assumptions. And the variability is notable. He certainly applies a strong methodology. You can check out Iain's excellent work at http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics.html Jared

Here is an interesting article on how to leverage the new FtDNA tools. Of course, I will need to read it multiple time for it to sink in at all. :) James

Hello R-Z16357 cousins! This list has been inactive for some time, but I'm diving back into research on our tree and have several exciting updates to share. SNP Tree Updates I've published an updated SNP Tree for Z16357 and descendents. Please review and make sure that everything is accurate. The time estimates on the chart are VERY rough "eyeball" estimates - these will be updated in the near future after more extensive data analysis. Notable updates from the last year or two: We are now at 27 testers with Big-Y! All but one have tested to Y-111 or higher. Our tree now has 21 distinct SNP blocks. The SNP chart highlights the 4 major branches: Z16357 > BY19970 (Smith X 4, Mustapha, Meacham, McBee X 2) Z16357 > Z16343 > Z16854 (Pillsbury X 2, Hays X 2) Z16357 > Z16343 > Z17911 > FT94840 (Williams, Davis, Thomas X 2, Martin, Laurie, Phillips X 2, Bennett, McCullers) Z16357 > Z16343 > Z17911 > A11138 (Smith, Hartley X 4) There are 5 new testers on BY19970. The Smith branch is now much better defined, with two McBees forming a new parallel branch. Mustapha likely connects at a very early age (his STRs are rather dissimilar from the Smiths) and is of North African descent. This is of particular interest to tracking our ancestral migration paths! The FT94840 branch is the best defined on our tree and has several new branches. This branch also has the most candidates for future testing (see below), expansion, and surname groupings. Joel Hartley has done incredible work refining his part of the A11138 branch, having recruited several cousins for testing. Joel writes extensively about his findings on his blog. Robert Casey Z16343 Analysis Robert Casey has conducted an in-depth STR, SNP, aging, and prediction analysis on Z16343 (one of the two major children of Z16357). You can read his report at http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/Z16343_Analysis_20211222A.pdf It's quite technical, but the short version is that the Z16343 branch works well for this type of Binary Logistic Regression Model analysis for accurately predicting likely SNP matches. Robert's automated haplogroup chart is at http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/Z16343_SAPP_20211222A.png This uses both STRs and SNPs to estimate connections and time to most recent common ancestors (TMRCA). STR Spreadsheet Update I've updated the STR Spreadsheet based on Robert Casey's work. This is a work in progress! There are two primary tabs, one for Z16343 and one for BY19970. The sheet lists many testers that are very likely to fall within Z16357 that would be great candidates for Big-Y. The Z16343 sheet provides kit match reliability values based on Robert's regression methodology. Unfortunately BY19970 does not qualify for this type of complex analysis, though other types of STR analysis are underway. Web Site Updates I made several other web site updates, including details on the history of Z16357 - http://dna.smithplanet.com/ Feedback, corrections, and updates are always welcome! Future Work I will be spending notable time in the coming weeks adding new potential Big-Y testers to the STR sheet and refining the logistical model for comparisons. I'm hopeful that you will help with contacting and recruiting new testers to expand and better define our tree. I will also be conducting an in-depth, updated aging analysis for our branches to give us a better indication of when our Most Recent Common Ancestors (MRCA) lived. I'd be happy to hear any news any of you have on the DNA genealogy front. Feel free to invite any others to this mailing list that may be interested, especially any Y-DNA or Big-Y matches. Happy holidays and happy new year! Jared Smith R-Z16357 DNA Project Administrator http://dna.smithplanet.com/

As promised, I took a stab at aging the SNP blocks under Z16357. You can view the updated SNP chart with ages at http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp (you may need to hit Refresh to see the updates). These are very rough estimates. The first date listed for each block is an estimate of the "formed date" - when the first SNP in that block was formed. The second date is a Time of Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) date - meaning when the last SNP in that block was formed, or the nearest date that two testers in child branches might expect to share a common ancestor in that block. We can't know which SNP in the block is oldest and which is newest or where within that date range common ancestors are actually shared (at least without additional documentation or testing). Z16357 has several TMRCA estimates. YFull and SNP Tracker estimate it as 3900 years ago, Ytree (based on Iain McDonald's work) has it as 3300 years ago, and Dave Vance (one of the L513 administrators) has it as 2885 years ago. So that's 1000+ years difference between estimates. For broader range estimates, it's better to assume an older age. Our 28 known testers have an average of 55 variants at or below Z16357 - a high of 67 and low of 45 (st. dev. of 5.7). Much of this variability is due to higher variant count coverage/possibilities for Big-Y 700 testers vs. Big-Y 500 testers - I didn't provide any factoring/weighting for the different test types (I'm not certain who has which test type anyway). I also did not consider STR differences - which could provide some insight into larger blocks. For example, if an SNP block spans hundreds of years, STR differences could give insight into whether the MRCA is at the beginning or end of that time span. I did, however, make some minor adjustments in time spans for the few known common ancestors we have across testers. With a formed age estimate of 3900 years ago, this comes out to 71 years per SNP - well faster than the generally-accepted 83.3 value used on many aging calculations. I'm using FTDNA's average aggregated private variants for each terminal block (rather than exact private variant values). With this 71 years value, I then stepped backward from 1950AD to 1950BC (the 3900 year span) to assign date estimates for each block. You can review my spreadsheet for the calculations at http://dna.smithplanet.com/media/Z16357-Aging.xlsx The spreadsheet also provides TMRCA estimates if Z16357 instead has formed dates of 3500 years ago (63.7 years per SNP) or 3000 years ago (54.6 years per SNP). These differences are relatively minor for more recent haplogroups, but become quite significant for older haplogroups. One item of note is the significant time distance between the two sides of the Z16357 tree - Z16343 and BY19970 split probably 3000+ years ago and then each had 2000+ years with no (yet) known branches - which is primarily why most of my research analyzes these in isolation from each other. I'd be VERY happy to have feedback or criticism on my methodologies or the dates estimated. I'll update these estimates any time we have a notable update to the tree. Cheers, Jared

With two new Big-Y test kits we have some updates along the Hartley branch of our tree. There were previously two Harley haplogroups - A11132 with two Hartleys and below it was FT225247 with two Hartleys. A new Mawdsley Big-Y has broken up the A11132 block so Mawdsley retains that SNP block alone with a new, smaller A11134 block below it. A new Hartley joins the two previous A11132 Hartleys at A11134. This means the Mawdsley ancestor predates the common ancestor for the 5 Hartleys with their common ancestor being estimated around 1400-1500AD. It's possible that we may have some other refinements on these blocks when FTDNA does their manual analysis within a few weeks. Thank you Joel for spearheading the efforts on this branch! Joel has written about these updates at http://www.jmhartley.com/HBlog/ I've updated the SNP tree - http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp with these new results. This includes updated and recalibrated dates for these and related haplogroups. The spreadsheet for these calculations is at http://dna.smithplanet.com/media/Z16357-Aging.xlsx I've also updated the STR spreadsheet at http://dna.smithplanet.com/media/Z16357-STRs.xlsx You'll note that a Hartley STR "modal" signature is emerging that differentiates this branch from the rest of us. Cheers, Jared Smith Z16357 Y-DNA Project Administrator