Thanks very much for the quick feedback both.
Just restating where I am. We have very clear documentation for Horrell family (several lines) back to Devon in 17th century. And the name is already quite widespread then so it must have come to or originated from Devon quite long before. The name seems also to be recorded in the 14th century.
So my interest in possible Lancashire connection would be if it supports either
- that our common S6881 ancestor (or immediate descendents) was based in Lancashire. I guess we will get clearer on this if many more people testing positive for the SNP have their roots there as opposed to elsewhere
- or additionally that my name originates there. I guess this could either be someone who had already adopted the name Horrell/Orrell moving from Lancashire and ending in Devon or they could have adopted that name when they got there as a means of identification in a new place.
Certainly if the name originates there before moving to Devon then people in the area named Horrell or Orrell could be from the same family. But this is building on a lot of assumptions
Obviously this may all be a red herring and our common ancestor could be somewhere else completely and the name could refer to a geographical feature in Devon as we've always thought!!
Here's hoping for a good sale on the BIGY in April so I can see where I fit in the S6881 tree!!
|
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?22 March 2017
Dear Justin, Chris and all,
Chris is quite correct. ?My posting on S.6881 surnames in the 19th Century? census returns for the Lancashire villages of Upholland and Standish is just a simple spot check intended as a start point to help distant Y-DNA S6881 cousins who may welcome a start for searching in the UK. ?It is not intended to be exhaustive.
The surname Latham and variants is quite common in West Lancashire and just South in the Wirral area of Cheshire (intriguing since this is where many Vikings settled when expelled from Dublin in about 902 AD and Latham is the dative case for an old Norse word for a Barn).
The name Leatham is quite common historically in parts of Scotland and there is another Latham group in Yorkshire. ?I know nothing about their Y-DNA.
Justin may be on to something with linking his surname Horrell with the village of Orrell. ?Orrell is only about one mile from Upholland and many of my proved ancestors in the Nineteenth Century lived around Orrell although their baptisms and burials were at the Upholland parish church of St Thomas the Martyr, and marriages were either there or at Wigan Parish Church. ?Earlier St Thomas the Martyr was a subsidiary chapel of Wigan All Saints Parish Church. There is a Latham Lane and a Latham House Farm just outside Orrell with parts of the building going back to the 16th Century. ?There is another fine 16th Century Elizabethan stone built house in Orrell that was formerly owned by Latham family Yeomen members known then as 'Latham de Orrell'. ?If you wish I can look out my old research notes and send you details.
When the Earl of Stanley (who owned the nearby village of Lathom estate) was executed for treason by Oliver Cromwell after the English Civil War for supporting the King his lands around Upholland were seized by the Commonwealth Government. ?A list of the names of all the tenants survives. ?It does not include the name Latham. ?So we either owned our own land as freeholders or copyholders - or were landless labourers ! ?I can check whether the family name Orrell (or variant) is listed if you wish.
I hope this is some help.
I am very grateful for all the recent posts by Dr Iain Mcdonald and Chris Noble both for DNA tree updates and for their explanations. ?These are a great help in slowly getting up to speed on understanding the DNA technology. I agree with Ian's list of reasons for pursuing the DNA story. ?I also agree with those who are glad to contribute to the science for the benefit of our descendants. ?When I started to take a layman's interest in silicon chip computers in about 1965 we could not then guess how are lives would come to be transformed by the everyday applications we now use.
Best wishes, ? ? ? ? ? ?Peter Latham.
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017, 6:55, "Chris Noble avalea3@... [R1b-S6881]" wrote:
?
Hi Justin, ? ?No, Peter was just looking in those certain parish records and calling out some surnames he did?or didn't see. I know that my family's surname didn't originate there. Mine originated outside of Rishton. It appears possible that an ancestor we all share at SNP S6881, or maybe his sons, were in Lancashire before surnames were set as there is a handful of us who have surnames that are place names in Lancashire. But people move all the time and we are talking a really long time ago. I'm sure others could have moved on elsewhere. There are some of us who can prove ties to the areas around Lancashire but I wouldn't doubt your family in Devon. They could have moved on to Devon before they even took their surname.
Chris
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:26 PM, jdhorrell@... [R1b-S6881] <R1b-S6881@...> wrote:
?
Hello Peter, All,
i was just reading the group posts properly. Do I take it from Peters note above about Upholland and Standish that these parishes look to be the origin of surnames of all the people in this S6881 group except me?
I am just very curious to note that the next town to Upholland is Orrell (first recorded as Horul it seems). My family can trace back pretty far in Devon (at least to 17th C with some records from 14C)? but I'm really intrigued now that maybe our name originates in Lancashire with our common ancestor
Justin Horrell
|
Hi Justin, ? ?No, Peter was just looking in those certain parish records and calling out some surnames he did?or didn't see. I know that my family's surname didn't originate there. Mine originated outside of Rishton. It appears possible that an ancestor we all share at SNP S6881, or maybe his sons, were in Lancashire before surnames were set as there is a handful of us who have surnames that are place names in Lancashire. But people move all the time and we are talking a really long time ago. I'm sure others could have moved on elsewhere. There are some of us who can prove ties to the areas around Lancashire but I wouldn't doubt your family in Devon. They could have moved on to Devon before they even took their surname.
Chris
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:26 PM, jdhorrell@... [R1b-S6881] <R1b-S6881@...> wrote:
?
Hello Peter, All,
i was just reading the group posts properly. Do I take it from Peters note above about Upholland and Standish that these parishes look to be the origin of surnames of all the people in this S6881 group except me?
I am just very curious to note that the next town to Upholland is Orrell (first recorded as Horul it seems). My family can trace back pretty far in Devon (at least to 17th C with some records from 14C)? but I'm really intrigued now that maybe our name originates in Lancashire with our common ancestor
Justin Horrell
|
Hello Peter, All,
i was just reading the group posts properly. Do I take it from Peters note above about Upholland and Standish that these parishes look to be the origin of surnames of all the people in this S6881 group except me?
I am just very curious to note that the next town to Upholland is Orrell (first recorded as Horul it seems). My family can trace back pretty far in Devon (at least to 17th C with some records from 14C)? but I'm really intrigued now that maybe our name originates in Lancashire with our common ancestor
Justin Horrell
|
Re: SNP names and tree update
I'm glad, Mary. Remember to ask when you have questions and speak up when what I post doesn't make sense. I'm more than happy to explain in much more detail but on the other hand, I don't want to make this boring if people already get it.
Chris?
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:30 PM, wiredmarys@... [R1b-S6881] <R1b-S6881@...> wrote:
?
It sure helped me and my old muddled mind.? Thanks so much Chris
Mary E
?
From: Chris Noble avalea3@... [R1b-S6881]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 11:51 AM
To: R1b-S6881@...
Subject: Re: [R1b-S6881] SNP names and tree update
?
?
? Okay, fair enough. What I said may have been a little
confusing for many. I know you said you don¡¯t have any questions but let me try
to explain what I said in another way and see if it makes any sense for you. So
when you do a BigY or other NGS test they test certain areas of your
chromosomes. You could have one of four results at each location: A, G, T or C.
When they get the results for each of the locations they check it against a
reference sample. If your result matches the reference sample, say you are both
G at that location then that result is termed ancestral and you are negative for
a mutation on that SNP. If you don¡¯t match the reference sample then you have
had a mutation away from the ancestral value and they term it derived and you
will be called positive for the SNP. So now we take all your positive SNPs and
kind of build a tree out of them from oldest to youngest. Everyone in this group
obviously is positive for the SNP called U106 but its age is about 3,000 BC.
Yes, we all share a common ancestor back to that point in time but it doesn¡¯t
get us much of anywhere from a genealogical point of view. We want to move
closer in time to a younger SNP to find better matches in a more relevant time
period. So we match up our trees to each other and see what is the last SNP that
we share with anyone. I call that the last shared subclade. Any unmatched
younger SNPs are called our singletons and we are waiting for someone closer
related to us to match up with one of those. These subclades make little
branches off of our shared S6881 SNP. Now, in U106 we are so lucky to have the
spreadsheet and website that Iain McDonald handles. They take all of our SNP
results and load them into the spreadsheet so we can see who we match up with
best. This is a wonderful tool and I have a spreadsheet in our files section on
the S6881 Yahoo Group that is a distillation of that file, showing just the
people in the S6881 group and just our positive SNPs. It makes it faster and
easier to read. Your singletons are on there too. So as soon as you get your
BigY results back from FTDNA (because Iain¡¯s file is only about those tests at
this point in time) and upload them to the U106 project the next time Iain runs
the program you¡¯ll see who all you matched and how well. That¡¯s all great, but
FTDNA isn¡¯t as quick about this as our U106 group is. So when you log onto your
FTDNA account and look up at the right corner you¡¯ll see what haplogroup FTDNA
terms you as. That is what will show up in all the projects and on your matching
screens for the Y-STR tests and for the BigY matching. You want this SNP to be
the youngest one that you still share with someone so you can find the best
matches. But FTDNA can be quite far behind. So in the BigY spreadsheet of Iain¡¯s
your last shared SNP has been called 9387537. That¡¯s the last shared subclade
you have but FTDNA won¡¯t call you that because they only use named SNPs. So in
all the projects, you show as S6881 even though you have tested to a younger
shared subclade. To get you credit for this new SNP that you share and have it
show throughout FTDNA we have to do a few things. FTDNA is more than happy to
help if we can prove that there are at least two BigY tests showing positive for
that SNP. Then they will name the SNP if it isn¡¯t already named and update your
badge which will populate to all your projects. Since they aren¡¯t watching for
these new matches and since their BigY matching screens are really poor, people
in our group have to keep track of the SNPs and when there is a new match bring
it to FTDNA¡¯s attention. When we got all the recent results back from the BigY
testing there were lots of new matches and lots of new little branches splitting
off of S6881 or its younger subclades. So working with our U106 admins we
contacted FTDNA and got a lot of this group¡¯s people updated. Now, instead of
your last shared subclade being 9387537 you¡¯ll see that you are called BY16169.
Check the next time you log on. You¡¯ll see the new designation on your home
FTDNA page as well as in the projects you belong to, and if you click on
¡°Haplotree and SNPs¡± on your home page at FTDNA it will take you to FTDNA¡¯s
version of the tree and show you where you are now. Our S6881 group has sprouted
many new little branches on the FTDNA tree. We also have a file in our S6881
group showing just our members on a tree so it is easier to look at. And I think
in time U106 will move you and your other Brooks match to your own little
section in the big Y-STR spreadsheet in the U106 project along with all the
others who just got moved. Does that help at all?
?
Chris
|
Re: SNP names and tree update
It sure helped me and my old muddled mind.? Thanks so much Chris
Mary E
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Chris Noble avalea3@... [R1b-S6881]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 11:51 AM
To: R1b-S6881@...
Subject: Re: [R1b-S6881] SNP names and tree update
?
?
? Okay, fair enough. What I said may have been a little
confusing for many. I know you said you don¡¯t have any questions but let me try
to explain what I said in another way and see if it makes any sense for you. So
when you do a BigY or other NGS test they test certain areas of your
chromosomes. You could have one of four results at each location: A, G, T or C.
When they get the results for each of the locations they check it against a
reference sample. If your result matches the reference sample, say you are both
G at that location then that result is termed ancestral and you are negative for
a mutation on that SNP. If you don¡¯t match the reference sample then you have
had a mutation away from the ancestral value and they term it derived and you
will be called positive for the SNP. So now we take all your positive SNPs and
kind of build a tree out of them from oldest to youngest. Everyone in this group
obviously is positive for the SNP called U106 but its age is about 3,000 BC.
Yes, we all share a common ancestor back to that point in time but it doesn¡¯t
get us much of anywhere from a genealogical point of view. We want to move
closer in time to a younger SNP to find better matches in a more relevant time
period. So we match up our trees to each other and see what is the last SNP that
we share with anyone. I call that the last shared subclade. Any unmatched
younger SNPs are called our singletons and we are waiting for someone closer
related to us to match up with one of those. These subclades make little
branches off of our shared S6881 SNP. Now, in U106 we are so lucky to have the
spreadsheet and website that Iain McDonald handles. They take all of our SNP
results and load them into the spreadsheet so we can see who we match up with
best. This is a wonderful tool and I have a spreadsheet in our files section on
the S6881 Yahoo Group that is a distillation of that file, showing just the
people in the S6881 group and just our positive SNPs. It makes it faster and
easier to read. Your singletons are on there too. So as soon as you get your
BigY results back from FTDNA (because Iain¡¯s file is only about those tests at
this point in time) and upload them to the U106 project the next time Iain runs
the program you¡¯ll see who all you matched and how well. That¡¯s all great, but
FTDNA isn¡¯t as quick about this as our U106 group is. So when you log onto your
FTDNA account and look up at the right corner you¡¯ll see what haplogroup FTDNA
terms you as. That is what will show up in all the projects and on your matching
screens for the Y-STR tests and for the BigY matching. You want this SNP to be
the youngest one that you still share with someone so you can find the best
matches. But FTDNA can be quite far behind. So in the BigY spreadsheet of Iain¡¯s
your last shared SNP has been called 9387537. That¡¯s the last shared subclade
you have but FTDNA won¡¯t call you that because they only use named SNPs. So in
all the projects, you show as S6881 even though you have tested to a younger
shared subclade. To get you credit for this new SNP that you share and have it
show throughout FTDNA we have to do a few things. FTDNA is more than happy to
help if we can prove that there are at least two BigY tests showing positive for
that SNP. Then they will name the SNP if it isn¡¯t already named and update your
badge which will populate to all your projects. Since they aren¡¯t watching for
these new matches and since their BigY matching screens are really poor, people
in our group have to keep track of the SNPs and when there is a new match bring
it to FTDNA¡¯s attention. When we got all the recent results back from the BigY
testing there were lots of new matches and lots of new little branches splitting
off of S6881 or its younger subclades. So working with our U106 admins we
contacted FTDNA and got a lot of this group¡¯s people updated. Now, instead of
your last shared subclade being 9387537 you¡¯ll see that you are called BY16169.
Check the next time you log on. You¡¯ll see the new designation on your home
FTDNA page as well as in the projects you belong to, and if you click on
¡°Haplotree and SNPs¡± on your home page at FTDNA it will take you to FTDNA¡¯s
version of the tree and show you where you are now. Our S6881 group has sprouted
many new little branches on the FTDNA tree. We also have a file in our S6881
group showing just our members on a tree so it is easier to look at. And I think
in time U106 will move you and your other Brooks match to your own little
section in the big Y-STR spreadsheet in the U106 project along with all the
others who just got moved. Does that help at all?
?
Chris
|
Re: SNP names and tree update
? Okay, fair enough. What I said may have been a little confusing for many. I know you said you don¡¯t have any questions but let me try to explain what I said in another way and see if it makes any sense for you. So when you do a BigY or other NGS test they test certain areas of your chromosomes. You could have one of four results at each location: A, G, T or C. When they get the results for each of the locations they check it against a reference sample. If your result matches the reference sample, say you are both G at that location then that result is termed ancestral and you are negative for a mutation on that SNP. If you don¡¯t match the reference sample then you have had a mutation away from the ancestral value and they term it derived and you will be called positive for the SNP. So now we take all your positive SNPs and kind of build a tree out of them from oldest to youngest. Everyone in this group obviously is positive for the SNP called U106 but its age is about 3,000 BC. Yes, we all share a common ancestor back to that point in time but it doesn¡¯t get us much of anywhere from a genealogical point of view. We want to move closer in time to a younger SNP to find better matches in a more relevant time period. So we match up our trees to each other and see what is the last SNP that we share with anyone. I call that the last shared subclade. Any unmatched younger SNPs are called our singletons and we are waiting for someone closer related to us to match up with one of those. These subclades make little branches off of our shared S6881 SNP. Now, in U106 we are so lucky to have the spreadsheet and website that Iain McDonald handles. They take all of our SNP results and load them into the spreadsheet so we can see who we match up with best. This is a wonderful tool and I have a spreadsheet in our files section on the S6881 Yahoo Group that is a distillation of that file, showing just the people in the S6881 group and just our positive SNPs. It makes it faster and easier to read. Your singletons are on there too. So as soon as you get your BigY results back from FTDNA (because Iain¡¯s file is only about those tests at this point in time) and upload them to the U106 project the next time Iain runs the program you¡¯ll see who all you matched and how well. That¡¯s all great, but FTDNA isn¡¯t as quick about this as our U106 group is. So when you log onto your FTDNA account and look up at the right corner you¡¯ll see what haplogroup FTDNA terms you as. That is what will show up in all the projects and on your matching screens for the Y-STR tests and for the BigY matching. You want this SNP to be the youngest one that you still share with someone so you can find the best matches. But FTDNA can be quite far behind. So in the BigY spreadsheet of Iain¡¯s your last shared SNP has been called 9387537. That¡¯s the last shared subclade you have but FTDNA won¡¯t call you that because they only use named SNPs. So in all the projects, you show as S6881 even though you have tested to a younger shared subclade. To get you credit for this new SNP that you share and have it show throughout FTDNA we have to do a few things. FTDNA is more than happy to help if we can prove that there are at least two BigY tests showing positive for that SNP. Then they will name the SNP if it isn¡¯t already named and update your badge which will populate to all your projects. Since they aren¡¯t watching for these new matches and since their BigY matching screens are really poor, people in our group have to keep track of the SNPs and when there is a new match bring it to FTDNA¡¯s attention. When we got all the recent results back from the BigY testing there were lots of new matches and lots of new little branches splitting off of S6881 or its younger subclades. So working with our U106 admins we contacted FTDNA and got a lot of this group¡¯s people updated. Now, instead of your last shared subclade being 9387537 you¡¯ll see that you are called BY16169. Check the next time you log on. You¡¯ll see the new designation on your home FTDNA page as well as in the projects you belong to, and if you click on ¡°Haplotree and SNPs¡± on your home page at FTDNA it will take you to FTDNA¡¯s version of the tree and show you where you are now. Our S6881 group has sprouted many new little branches on the FTDNA tree. We also have a file in our S6881 group showing just our members on a tree so it is easier to look at. And I think in time U106 will move you and your other Brooks match to your own little section in the big Y-STR spreadsheet in the U106 project along with all the others who just got moved. Does that help at all?
Chris
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Michael michaelbrooks@... [R1b-S6881] <R1b-S6881@...> wrote:
?
I don¡¯t have any question at all.
?
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but so happy that a thorough analysis of a little of my mouths interior could be so interesting and revealing.
?
That said¡I look forward to the more ¡°common man¡± comments once you experts decipher all of this information.
?
Sincere thanks,
?
Michael Dyer Brooks (from Henry 1592-1683)
?
?
?
?
So, I may be the only one excited about this but after a long wait everyone with a BigY test in our group has their last shared subclade named, updated on their haplogroup badge (if it was a change), and the FTDNA tree is updated to show that subclade. I
know I've waited impatiently to have this happen but maybe that's just me. Anyway, I posted a new S6881 tree and a new NGS test (BigY and YElite) group page showing where we all are shared subclade wise and all the singleton SNPs we still need someone to match.
Let me know if you have any questions or if I made any mistakes. Thanks.
?
Chris
|
Re: SNP names and tree update
I don¡¯t have any question at all.
?
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but so happy that a thorough analysis of a little of my mouths interior could be so interesting and revealing.
?
That said¡I look forward to the more ¡°common man¡± comments once you experts decipher all of this information.
?
Sincere thanks,
?
Michael Dyer Brooks (from Henry 1592-1683)
?
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: R1b-S6881@... [mailto:R1b-S6881@...]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 2:39 PM
To: R1b-S6881@...
Subject: [R1b-S6881] SNP names and tree update
?
?
So, I may be the only one excited about this but after a long wait everyone with a BigY test in our group has their last shared subclade named, updated on their haplogroup badge (if it was a change), and the FTDNA tree is updated to show that subclade. I
know I've waited impatiently to have this happen but maybe that's just me. Anyway, I posted a new S6881 tree and a new NGS test (BigY and YElite) group page showing where we all are shared subclade wise and all the singleton SNPs we still need someone to match.
Let me know if you have any questions or if I made any mistakes. Thanks.
?
Chris
|
SNP names and tree update
So, I may be the only one excited about this but after a long wait everyone with a BigY test in our group has their last shared subclade named, updated on their haplogroup badge (if it was a change), and the FTDNA tree is updated to show that subclade. I know I've waited impatiently to have this happen but maybe that's just me. Anyway, I posted a new S6881 tree and a new NGS test (BigY and YElite) group page showing where we all are shared subclade wise and all the singleton SNPs we still need someone to match. Let me know if you have any questions or if I made any mistakes. Thanks.
Chris
|
New file uploaded to R1b-S6881
Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the R1b-S6881 group. File : /S6881 Yahoo Group 032017.xlsx Uploaded by : cerri37 <avalea3@...> Description : Updated SNP names BigY data 3/20/17 You can access this file at the URL: To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: Regards, cerri37 <avalea3@...>
|
New file uploaded to R1b-S6881
Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the R1b-S6881 group. File : /S6881 Tree Yahoogroup 032017.xlsx Uploaded by : cerri37 <avalea3@...> Description : Updated tree 3/20/17 You can access this file at the URL: To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: Regards, cerri37 <avalea3@...>
|
????????????????????????????????? 24 February 2017
Dear Chris and all,
In the hopes that this may be some use mainly to our S.6881 cousins in the US with no clear links yet to the UK I have done a small early surnames spot check for 2 parishes in West Lancashire: Upholland where my paternal family lived for at least 7 generations from about 1750, and nearby Standish where I was brought up.? This reveals how some of our surname families were still living near one another in Lancashire by the time they had started using surnames.
The information is taken from the excellent searchable Lancashire Parish Clerks website:
The Upholland St Thomas the Martyr parish church records start in 1608.? In the first section 1608 to 1735 just searching relevant surname baptisms there are the following relevant entries:
Latham 8,? Lathom 9. Liptrot 2,? Liptrott 22. Warberton 2, Warbuton 2, Warbutton 3. Graves and variants Nil.?? Stewart and variants Nil. Cunlifffe and variants Nil.
The Standish St Wilfrid's parish church records start in 1560 but the early records are said to be in poor condition and have not yet been transcribed before 1653.? For the first period 1608 to 1735 there are the following relevant surname baptism entries:
Lathom 15. (These appear to be 3 families - chilldren of Thomas, John, and Paul)
Liptrott 12. (These appear to be 2 families - children of Roger and Myles)
Warburton nil other than possible variant Warbiston 1. Graves and variants Nil.? Stewart and variants Nil. Cunliffe and variants Nil.
I hope that this may be some interest and use,
Peter Latham.
On Thursday, 23 February 2017, 22:06, "Roy Graves roysgraves@... [R1b-S6881]" wrote:
?
Howdy
If you need something from me regarding this just let me know. Been at my CPA for the last three hours. And that's just the beginning.
In rereading the Stan and Doug post, I see what you mean. Touchy situation I think. Maybe best just to let someone else other than you deliver the ?bad news.
?
Hey Chris...
I have ancient North African 3% and the same for Middle Eastern. I also carry 34% Scandinavian. My brother carries 17% of that. So, I know the remainder comes from my uterine line.
Long shot but I am going to see if my brother is willing to contribute one more sample, perhaps my cousin will be interested. Can't wait for your results to arrive.?
Taxes- I had to stop, my brain was hurting. So, we have headed out. Funny how genetic genealogy does not cause that same discomfort!!
Very happy to learn that you jumped into this next step in testing. Has anyone else here done so??
Cynthia?
|
I haven¡¯t been following the Living DNA discussion so can¡¯t comment. A quick look at their website shows it is quite comprehensive and cheap. Can¡¯t tell if 21,000 Y-chromosome SNPs is good but I guess it¡¯s specific SNPs not a trawl for SNPs like BigY.
The ancient history bit might be interesting, but a key aspect of autosomal testing is matching so I would ask if they are compatible with GEDMATCH.
Regards
Ray
Ray Warburton
Warburton Website:
|
Hey Chris...
I have ancient North African 3% and the same for Middle Eastern. I also carry 34% Scandinavian. My brother carries 17% of that. So, I know the remainder comes from my uterine line.
Long shot but I am going to see if my brother is willing to contribute one more sample, perhaps my cousin will be interested. Can't wait for your results to arrive.?
Taxes- I had to stop, my brain was hurting. So, we have headed out. Funny how genetic genealogy does not cause that same discomfort!!
Very happy to learn that you jumped into this next step in testing. Has anyone else here done so??
Cynthia?
|
Hi Cynthia, ? It's kind of funny because I had already ordered a Living DNA kit before Charles and Ray posted that they did. And I had decided to get my Mom one too so we could compare the results and see what each of us got. It might not work out great?for us, though. On FTDNA I'm 50% British Isles and she's 65%. But I'm curious to see what they are going to do with our central and eastern European DNA as well as Scandinavian. And I have a little bit of North African which must be very ancient. As always, I'll take these things with a grain of salt. ? Good luck with the taxes. I hate each year when I have to do them.
Chris
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 8:45 AM, prosperity200220815@... [R1b-S6881] <R1b-S6881@...> wrote:
?
Chris, Ray, Jim, Peter and all,
I have been reading the forums discussions of the LivingDNA testing results coming in. When I saw that Charles and Ray Wing both tossed their DNA into the ring it got my attention. So, I've been thinking about how this might benefit each of us.
As a "learning member" I am forever curious. Not only about my line but also each of us in this group. For conversation sake here is an example for consideration. I was looking at the journey through time of our Warburton ancestor with a 847AD connection descending our Latham ancestor with a 1074AD connection and then descending to the Graves men at 1618AD.?
Might the comparing the info we receive reveal anything, maybe and maybe not. I suspect there will be a lot of information with the breakdown I've seen. I thought it best to throw this onto the table for an open conversation.?Your thoughts....
Phew.. with that off my mind I can now turn back to my taxes. The mountain of micro-minutia starring at me is attempting to make me feel guilty, ?grrrr I'm starring back! LOL?
OK, I'm back to it.?
Wishing you a good day! Cynthia
|
Chris, Ray, Jim, Peter and all,
I have been reading the forums discussions of the LivingDNA testing results coming in. When I saw that Charles and Ray Wing both tossed their DNA into the ring it got my attention. So, I've been thinking about how this might benefit each of us.
As a "learning member" I am forever curious. Not only about my line but also each of us in this group. For conversation sake here is an example for consideration. I was looking at the journey through time of our Warburton ancestor with a 847AD connection descending our Latham ancestor with a 1074AD connection and then descending to the Graves men at 1618AD.?
Might the comparing the info we receive reveal anything, maybe and maybe not. I suspect there will be a lot of information with the breakdown I've seen. I thought it best to throw this onto the table for an open conversation.?Your thoughts....
Phew.. with that off my mind I can now turn back to my taxes. The mountain of micro-minutia starring at me is attempting to make me feel guilty, ?grrrr I'm starring back! LOL?
OK, I'm back to it.?
Wishing you a good day! Cynthia
|
Re: Ancestral Surnames and BigY results
Hi Chris,
Setting up the panel is the easy (and cheap) bit. In fact it is already available for ordering. The hard bit will be getting people to test, and financing it.
I will be putting an announcement together on my own website in the next couple of days.
Regards
Ray
Ray Warburton
Warburton Website:
|
Re: Ancestral Surnames and BigY results
That sounds great, Ray. I'm very envious that you have such a good group of surname matches to test with. And the rest of us will gain in that the branches in our part of the tree get fleshed out more fully. Thanks for working so hard at this.
Chris
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ray Warburton ray2warburton@... [R1b-S6881] <R1b-S6881@...> wrote:
?
Hi Chris,
I guess my focus was on matches that are further qualified than a random STR match. If you have a DNA match but no supporting information I can see you might want to qualify that further. However I would be worried that STR test are as likely to throw up false negatives as false positives.
I actually have one guy I tested for 12 markers and had a GD of 4 from the group mode, but because he shared a less common result on a couple of markers I took a chance and tested him for Z343, and then the YSEQ panel and he sits squarely in the A11378 leg.
The STRs seem to be generally a bit volatile in my Warburton Group. It¡¯s a while since I calculated dates (and things change rapidly) but some Warburton common ancestors calculated back to 1070AD, improbably early.
I tend to focus on some key alleles where the group share a rare result, and there are a few of these in the Warburton group, and I would guess in S6881 generally. Again the probabilities keep changing but the figures I worked off were: DYS392=14, frequency 4% DYS439=11 frequency 24% (I think that¡¯s got a bit higher now) DYS447=24 frequency 31% DYS464=?15-16-17-19?frequency 2% (the 19 itself only occurs 4% of the time) DYS438=13 frequency 15%
So I would think matching the above could outweigh a few differences elsewhere. I can¡¯t remember the 111 marker upgrade prices but I would be surprised if they are much cheaper than a 7 marker panel at YSEQ at $103. To be absolutely sure a single SNP test of S6881could be done first. I¡¯m not sure if FTDNA do S6881 yet but they do have some interesting SNP panels and you wouldn¡¯t need too deep an STR test to know the best panel to start with. So I guess my philosophy is tending to get into SNPs as soon as I am confident I know the ballpark I¡¯m in. I can¡¯t envisage doing more than 37 markers in future. Of course you need a few BigYs to identify the more recent SNPs and refine the Panels, but the majority of people simply need to find their place in the lowest level panels.
Whilst writing this I¡¯ve just requested a pack of SNPs for Eric Warburton¡¯s singletons, and a panel to encompass the best of them. Then I can start testing my Lancashire clan and hopefully build a tree that links my genealogical trees together sensibly. I do recognise the exercise could identify the need for another BigY, but it should also indicate the best candidate.
Regards
Ray
Ray Warburton
Warburton Website:? ??
|
Re: Ancestral Surnames and BigY results
Hi Chris,
I guess my focus was on matches that are further qualified than a random STR match. If you have a DNA match but no supporting information I can see you might want to qualify that further. However I would be worried that STR test are as likely to throw up false negatives as false positives.
I actually have one guy I tested for 12 markers and had a GD of 4 from the group mode, but because he shared a less common result on a couple of markers I took a chance and tested him for Z343, and then the YSEQ panel and he sits squarely in the A11378 leg.
The STRs seem to be generally a bit volatile in my Warburton Group. It¡¯s a while since I calculated dates (and things change rapidly) but some Warburton common ancestors calculated back to 1070AD, improbably early.
I tend to focus on some key alleles where the group share a rare result, and there are a few of these in the Warburton group, and I would guess in S6881 generally. Again the probabilities keep changing but the figures I worked off were: DYS392=14, frequency 4% DYS439=11 frequency 24% (I think that¡¯s got a bit higher now) DYS447=24 frequency 31% DYS464=?15-16-17-19?frequency 2% (the 19 itself only occurs 4% of the time) DYS438=13 frequency 15%
So I would think matching the above could outweigh a few differences elsewhere. I can¡¯t remember the 111 marker upgrade prices but I would be surprised if they are much cheaper than a 7 marker panel at YSEQ at $103. To be absolutely sure a single SNP test of S6881could be done first. I¡¯m not sure if FTDNA do S6881 yet but they do have some interesting SNP panels and you wouldn¡¯t need too deep an STR test to know the best panel to start with. So I guess my philosophy is tending to get into SNPs as soon as I am confident I know the ballpark I¡¯m in. I can¡¯t envisage doing more than 37 markers in future. Of course you need a few BigYs to identify the more recent SNPs and refine the Panels, but the majority of people simply need to find their place in the lowest level panels.
Whilst writing this I¡¯ve just requested a pack of SNPs for Eric Warburton¡¯s singletons, and a panel to encompass the best of them. Then I can start testing my Lancashire clan and hopefully build a tree that links my genealogical trees together sensibly. I do recognise the exercise could identify the need for another BigY, but it should also indicate the best candidate.
Regards
Ray
Ray Warburton
Warburton Website:? ??
|
Re: New Joiner - Horrell (FTDNA 86268)
Jim, ? Did your Liptrot tester join any projects? I'd like to see his Y37 results before I answer your question. Thanks.
Chris
|
Wiredmarys