开云体育

Hello, Everyone. First, welcome to new members. Glad to have you join us, and always feel free to ask questions. This is what the Forum is for! Nigel has revised his IT2 tree and has asked me to upload it for the project. He explains: 'Please stress this tree was ‘retired’ a year ago. This new version (now spread over 18 rather than 14 sheets) is not a systematic update but merely corrects a few errata I have noticed and adds a few further analyses where potentially of interest in developing first millennium origins. The following, however, may answer a few queries. Q. How do I find my kit? A. Check Important Notice items 2 and 5 on Sheet 1. Then search on your kit number or use the Key Diagram on Sheet 1. Q. I have taken a Big Y test so why am I indicated as testing only 111 STR markers (ref Legend item (b) on Sheet 1)? A. See Important Notice item 6 on Sheet 1. For those who tested prior to 2020, permission to display the data was requested on several occasions. Q. I have provided authorisation to display data from any sources, so why are my ‘private [SNP] variants’ not shown on the tree? A. The IT2 tree does not display ‘private variants’. However, look closely, as some of these may in fact be shared and identified on the IT2 tree. Also, uniquely, the IT2 tree does provide an analysis of Panel 6 (and often but not systematically) Panel 7 STR data. For those who have only tested Big Y to the Big Y-500 level, please note that FTDNA has provided a free of charge extraction of Y-700 (Panel 7) STR data in 2020. Q. Why do my most recent shared SNPs differ from those indicated on the Block Tree in the Big Y section on the main page of my FTDNA account? A. No systematic reconciliation of the two trees has been undertaken over the past 14 months. The present IT2 tree update does not show many of the more recent subclades identified from Big Y-700 testing during this period. However, where review has been undertaken it may be found that the present IT2 update is in fact the more accurate and FTDNA’s Block tree awaits updating. (FTDNA appears to initially make assumptions about potential shared SNPs where one party has tested or upgraded to Big Y-700 and another only has original Big Y (-500) data in which the number of reads at a locus is zero or very small).' Nigel's tree has always been an extremely valuable tool when comparing/studying the CTS4466 haplotree, and we are very grateful that he has revised it. However, be aware that it does not generally include the branches that have been identified through continued Big Y testing since his last update a year ago. Please post any questions here, for Nigel is not on the Forum and has semi-'retired' from active participation in the project (or any others) so no longer answers individual questions. We have almost ten Big Ys outstanding, so we should see at least some more new branches identified over the next months. Family Tree seems to have regular sales lately, so get ready for the next one if you are thinking about diving into the Big Y. And, the initial price now for a new person ordering the Big Y is relatively SO affordable now, that you should encourage anyone not yet tested to consider it when the next sale arrives. I am aware that James is having issues with the programming of his R Experimental Tree - https://haplogroup-r.org/tree/R.html - in trying to combine Big Y500 and Big Y-700 data, so the dates shown are not reliable and should not be used for study purposes. Hopefully he will work his magic and get them sorted soon for us. Stay safe! Elizabeth

The following files have been uploaded to the Files area of the [email protected] group. /IT2 Phylogenetic Tree (2021-03-27).pdf By: Elizabeth <elizabeth@...> Description: Nigel's revised IT2 tree

Hello, All. Well, I hadn't anticipated a sale so soon, for St. Patrick's Day. So thank the Saint that we have another opportunity to upgrade at a sale price or get someone to test anew as unbelievable prices, compared to the 'old days'. A new kit can get the Big Y 700 at a remarkably lower price than was offered when it was introduced, and it now includes not only the whole 111 markers at no additional cost, plus nearly 600 more. Just $379 for the whole wallop! While in the past I always cautioned anyone from ordering the Big Y at the outset for someone they think/hope is related, I don't think you could get 111 markers at that price in the past. It does open the door to expanding your family tree, and if you have the funds or can persuade someone who has, to order a test, it really is a great way to discover more about your past. And as I always say, the more data the better for all of you as well as the project. Welcome to the newest members of the Forum. More are joining all the time. We've gone a bit quiet lately, but I hope you will consider posting your questions/thoughts to open discussions that would interest us all. And if a post does not interest, the delete button is always there. For you newer folk, if you sign into the Forum online, you will be able to see the past posts, and if you have a thought about a particular subject, even it is an old post, don't hesitate to add your own comments. Here's to a safe, prosperous 2021! Elizabeth

Hello cousins! If you were thinking about upgrading to the Big Y 700, there is a discount until March 7th if you use the promo code below: https://blog.familytreedna.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/FamilyTreeDNA-Promo-Codes-RootsTech-2021.pdf Here is info on the Big Y: https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/rtc2021/session/big-y-what-is-it-why-do-i-need-it Thanks and I hope you are staying safe! Mike

Hi John, Thanks for this, very interesting indeed. I am R-A151 positive, downstream to a small subclade FT74196. My family roots are in West Cork – which by your thesis is within the ancestral core of R-A151. My surname is O’Brien and I match on ySTRs to another O’Brien kit, 308349. Mutations on the DYS459, DYS570 & DYS511 markers suggest definite recent ancestry between my kit, 662720, and 662720. O’Brien kit 308349 has not snip tested, but is undoubtedly CTS4466 positive, but it also shares the unique haplotype ySTR signature of R-A151/.. FT74196, which are as follows:- 1. 11 or 12 at DYS439 2. 18 at DYS458 3. 14 at DYS437 4. 11 at DYS537 kit 308349 is a y67 kit, but comparative markers for R-A151/.. FT74196 indicate that the haplotype also shares the same markers beyond y67:- 5. 12 at DYS638 6. 31 at DYS452 7. 11 at DYS525 8. 13 at DYS532 9. 17 at DYS504 These markers appear to be shared by kits who are R-A151/.. FT74196 positive, and mark them apart from their other R-A151 cousins. Using these markers it has been possible to identify other kits within the FTDNA database which have not snip tested, but are very likely FT74196 positive. Please see my attached spreadsheet for further information, and all test positive for the standard CTS4466 markers, and share the mutations of FT74196. The possibility for convergence is relatively small. I’d be very happy for you to incorporate these kits into the CTS4466 project for R- FT74196. For the most part R-A151/.. FT74196 is found amongst individuals who have an ancestry in either Wales or Northern England. The following surnames can be deduced:- Brien/O’Brien (2) Tompkins (1) Simmons (1) Willis (2) Richie (2) Pearson (8) Jones (11) Walker (1) Sloan (1) Unknown (1) Wood (4) Snip analysis has demonstratively shown that the individuals with the surnames Pearson, Richie, Willis and Simmons share a remote MRCA, R-A151/...R-FT74196/R-BY21620 and Willis and Simmons have a downstream ancestor in common. The same holds for Pearson and Richie. The ancestry for most of the individuals positive for R-A151/...R-FT74196/R-BY21620 appears to be in Cumbria or in the North of England, though one Richie appears to have very recent ancestry in Ireland – most likely descended from recent English ancestry. By far the largest group in the R-A151/...R-FT74196 subclade as a whole is Jones, which surname type probably originates in Wales given the preponderance of that surname there. Quite a good deal is known about the recent ancestry of the 11 Jones individuals, and various branches of the Jones family played a rather prominent part in the early Colonial history of Virginia. kit owner 108759 states his ancestor as Major Peter Jones of Charles City Co., Virginia, son-in-law of Abraham Wood. Much is known of Major Jones in life, but little is known of his paternity or origins. He is variously recorded as one of the early plantation settlers of Virginia and his four sons Abraham, Richard, William and Peter are listed as ‘grandchildren-in-law’ in the will of his father-in-law, Abraham Wood. He also had a daughter, Margaret. Two of the kit owners (7867 and 67867) state that they are in direct descendant from Colonel Richard Jones, who was born about 1660 and resided at Prince George County. Undoubtedly the kit owners refer to Captain Richard Jones who was born at some point between 1660 and 1665, and who in his lifetime variously resided at Charles City, Prince George and Brunswick Counties. He died at Brunswick in 1747. This Richard is often conflated with the second son of Peter Jones, who was named Richard. However they seem to have been different persons, but the two families were undoubtedly closely related. This anomaly has been spotted by professional genealogists and Augusta Bridgland Fothergill in Peter Jones and Richard Jones Genealogies suggests that Peter Jones and Richard Jones were likely brothers, and descended in common from the Reverend Richard Jones, an Anglican minister, and Martha Llewellyn – a daughter of Daniel Lewelyn of Chelmsford, Essex, England. Two kit owners (637044 and 84859

Hello, Everyone. Welcome to the new members of the Forum, and Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to all of you! May the New Year be safe and fruitful for all of us. Warmest Wishes for a cheerful holiday season. Elizabeth

What is the current state of thinking on A212? What information/discoveries are needed in order to advance meaningful understanding of it or work out a reliable TMRCA? Is there anything in the FTDNA database (or elsewhere) that could be useful for shedding light more fully on this branch? Eg pulling close matches of big Y testers who have only been tested at 37 or 67 into play to see their ancestry if they have family trees loaded? Is it the case that the “oldest” family/location in A212 seem to head back to 1500s/1600s Jura (Crain)? * Funnily enough on nearby Islay the Lindsay's are A212 too, although the Lindsay family from Jura are I1. Lindsay (Islay) = A7699 > BY42760 > BY53755 > FT22615 Crain (Jura) = A208 Distance from Jura to Islay = Aprox 1 Kilometre Time of split (according to Iain McDonald Method) = 181 BC with the latest being 229 AD, and earliest 606 BC** Would there be a way for an Admin of CTS4466 to plug the Crain & Lindsay samples into the calculator widget on our individual FTDNA pages to see the estimated number of generations between them? It seems amazing that in such a remote place separated by 1km of sea you would have two strands of A212 separated by over 2,200 years. Somewhere like London or even Glasgow I could understand, but it seems a little too much of a coincidence doesn’t it? * I’ve seen a number of the “American” Walker’s c. early 1600’s from Richard Walker on one hand and the husband (Philip?) of Widow Walker on the other being from London or Plymouth, England but both seem complete conjecture some of which has been shown false through dna testing. ** A7699 = 27BC with 95% Confidence range 474 BC to 413 AD 7367197-CCTT-C parent clade of A208 which splits with A7699 = 181BC with 95% Confidence range 606 BC to 229 AD

Hello, Everyone. I hope all is well wherever you are. Ireland is in a second country-wide lockdown...the first in Europe. I hope the government is proud of itself. Someone asked me about how to interpret the far left column on the Block Tree page. I honestly hadn't been paying too much attention to the numbers there, which meant I may be missing something. It took me a while to find the 'help' page for the Block Tree at Family Tree - I couldn't find it anywhere accessible from the kit's Dashboard, but I did locate it through the Administrators' pages. You can find it at Big Y Block Tree. It explains: 'The ruler/counter on the left of the Block Tree allows you to judge how many SNPs are in a block.' So, how does that help? Different researchers use slightly different formulas when considering TMRCAs (time to most recent common ancestor). But the number of mutations separating two individuals is a gauge of how long ago their common ancestor lived. This applies to both SNPs and STRs, though in general, STRs mutate more often than SNPs. And each STR/SNP has a different mutation rate. The TiP calculator on the Y-DNA Matches page provides a percentage probability of the number of generations between two individuals, based on the number of matches/mismatches of their STRs. And it is only a probability. I tend to look at the 95th percentile to increase the chances of accuracy, particularly since the genetic genealogy community tend to consider Family Tree's formulas predict CAs more recent than their own methods. But, this is only useful if you know that the two kits share the same terminal SNP. Maybe in a stretch if there is only one branch level between them it might be helpful. With regard to estimating TMRCAs with the SNP mutation levels showing on the Block Tree page, I defer to anyone with greater knowledge than myself - James, I hope you are reading this! And anyone else with statistical knowledge. If there are, for instance, 25 mutations from the kit's terminal SNP to the top of the branch displayed in black at the top of the chart (sorry for those of you who have not yet tested the Big Y - you will not be familiar with this page or understand to what I am referring...) I believe this means that back when the first of those mutations arose, all those within that branch had their common ancestor. Is there a formula we can use to estimate that time, based on the number of mutations? James/others? Thanks. Elizabeth

Hi Nigel and others The internet is littered with claims that the Crowleys and MacCarthys are off-shoots of the MacDermotts and originated in Roscommon. https://www.crowleyclan.com/clan-history However, few MacDermotts are R1b-CTS-4466 https://www.familytreedna.com/public/McDermott?iframe=ycolorized So is there any truth to this story? Is there a Roscommon ancestry, and what is the relationship with the MacDermotts? Many thanks Gabriel

All, I have been reluctant to post an email asking what may seem simple to you all but this blanket talk got me to thinking. I have three 0 Genetic Distance Matches at 67 Markers. One is a Walker and the other two are Caldwell. I don't believe any of the three are members of this group. I have made contact with the Walker and we grew up relatively close to one another in West Virginia, USA but cannot find a connection between the two of us. Also as far as I know there is only one other FT41074 on FTDNA et al, and he is a Caldwell too, but at a Genetic Distance of 1 at 67 Markers. My question is what do you make of the situation with two different surnames at 0/67? Significant or not? Thank you for your time and input. Roy Walker 906045

Hi folks, I've created a Google workbook for YSEQ kits that have been identified as fitting the R1b-CTS4466 tree. If you are the owner/custodian of any of these kits, please consider adding the surname, approximate birth year and origin of the MDKA, and list any other labs the donor may be known as. The first row is my own 229 and provides an example of how to make things easy on me to import into the upcoming tree update at Haplogroup-R.org. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cvzvnoqdyZGHyA5ZkMq5KFoZCP3RCQsCDfVeHMw08D0/edit?usp=sharing Thanks, James Kane

Dear All I appreciate all the work and experience of this group. Although much of the lineage and DNA interpretation is well above my understanding, I think I manage to absorb a skerrick of understanding from the gems of wisdom shared. My questions are rather of statistics and human behaviour that I hope also have a general interest. Illegitimacy rates in Ireland at the start of the 20th century were estimated at 2.6%, or roughly one in 40 (see Von Borosini, (1913). Problem of Illegitimacy in Europe. J. Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 4: 212. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1226&context=jclc) This seems to be fairly similar to contemporary rates that have the benefit of contraception (see Bellis et al. (2005). Measuring paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences. J. Epidemiology and Community Health 59, 749-754. https://jech.bmj.com/content/jech/59/9/749.full.pdf) Please correct my mathematics if I am wrong, but I have used a declining balance double depreciation formula [M-(Mx(1-i)n)] to calculate the number of us that is likely to have had an wrong-side-of-the-blanket (WSB) event in our paternal line the further back we go. In this formula, M = number of group members (1028), i = illegitimacy rate (0.026), and n = number of generations. This equation tells us that of the 1028 members of the R1b-CTS4466 Plus group, roughly 27 of us is not the biological child of our putative fathers, 53 of us is not the biological child of either our putative father OR putative paternal grandfather, and so on. Going back 11 generations, roughly one-quarter of us (259) might not be descended from the family line indicated by our surname. I acknowledge that WSB events are most likely to have been within the same genetic pool (e.g. brother-in-law or distant cousins from the same Y-DNA haplogroup) or with someone to whom the family had close allegiance. In the case of Crowleys, I would assume this would most likely be with the McCarthys, although in the case of my own Crowley line, which is reputed to have come from the Bantry area, a Sullivan/Crowley WSB event seems plausible. Perhaps the most well-publicised WSB events resulted from a power struggle with a member of a rival clan (as appears to be the case with my husband’s Scottish ancestry), an overlord, or a conquering army. So how do WSB events affect our interpretation of the genetic trees and our relationships to others with similar DNA? The closest FTDNA matches to my brother’s Crowley YDNA (Kit No. IN68273) suggest quite a high number of WSB encounters, particularly involving O/Sullivans (see table below). However, Nigel’s McCarthy Tree shows all the Crowleys as a single block with a Cronin off-shoot (quite a distance from any Sullivans), and all of his my brother’s closest YDNA matches in the FTDNA block tree (which I confess not knowing how to interpret) are Crowleys. I have more faith in Nigel’s tree than in the FTDNA matches, but why do they tell a different story, and indeed what are we supposed to take from the FTDNA matches, if anything? So were Crowleys and other R1b-CTS4466 families remarkably faithful, as Nigel’s tree suggests (with a few notable exceptions), or did they spread their favours widely as suggested by the FTDNA matches? Or is it the case that the lines of illegitimate progeny are more likely to die out, as a result of elevated rates of poverty, epilepsy, incarceration, feeble-mindedness, insanity and premature death, as von Borsini’s 1913 article proposed? Also, as this group is restricted to people who have tested positive to R1b-CTS4466, its data are unlikely to shed any light on any WSB events that involved “incomers”. Has anyone looked into the proportion of South Irish family names (Crowley, Cronin, Sullivan, McCarthy etc) that are not R1b-CTS4466. Is this difficult to do? Does history tell us that our families’s genetic are likely to have been as unsullied by landlords and other powermongers as the various R1b-CTS4466 trees suggest? And (as a supplementary question) why do results of searches for th

Found a potential paternal grandfather born in 1617 through Geni. One of our relatives down the line (my fourth cousin thrice removed) is R1b1a2. Looking at how many people derive from Ole's tree, this group is big in Norway but why are so few defined in our branch? R-BY142 still defined as a sub branch of R1b-CTS4466 of Irish origins? Maybe someone in our group already has a reliable tree on geni might want to check their distance to Ole? Link: Ole Schultz 9th great grandfather Link: Fourth cousin thrice removed Link: Hanseatic League Espen