Back in April of this year I posted this introduction to the group:

?

"I'm new to this group (just got BigY results and I'm U106) and wondering about possible mutual benefits between the Tryon surname group and the U106 group (I could be naive - I'm learning). I'm co-administrator of the FTDNA Tryon surname group which is Y-DNA focused. We have 12 Tryon members who have done at least Y-37 testing and all have 3 or less mismatches with the modal values. 7 of us can document our origins back to three sons of William Tryon (1646-1711) who immigrated from England about 1665 and settled in Wethersfield, CT. 4 of us have brick walls in the mid to late 1700s but have significant circumstantial evidence leading us to believe we're also descendants of William of Wethersfield. The last member is a descendant of Benjamin Tryon who is believed to have been a separate immigration event in 1696 but of a close relative of William. His Y37 result is the same as the modal values for the group except DSY438, one of the slowest changing markers. I know of another non-member who has this same ancestor and the same mutation of DSY438. We have not been able to bridge the gap to records of the family in England. Another member of the group is a documented descendant of the only other known group of Tryons who themselves were immigrants to England in the 1500s from Flanders. He is not related to the rest of us within at least 25 generations. Research seems to indicate there were a group of Tryons in the Glocestershire area in the 16th century from whom essentially all American Tryons descended, with the vast majority of them being direct descendants of William of Wethersfield. At this? point, I am the only member who has done BigY. I doubt I can convince most of them to do BigY (I'm not sure we're all still living at this point) but I'm sure I can get a few, especially if I pay for it. My question is, is it worth it? With this small but well documented group, would this better refine timing of variants? Would this potentially help resolve the 4 brick walls? Would a study like this help with others in the U106 group?"

?

Now, months later, I can answer my own question to some extent. Yes, it was worth it. Yes, it resolved the brick walls. Maybe it is of help or interest to this group. Here is what we did and what we found.

?

Thirteen members participated in this study, ten who were prior members with Y-37 results, and three new recruits. These represent descendants of four of the six sons of William and nine grandchildren of William. The four sons and number of participants are David (3), Thomas (2), Abel (4), and Ziba (4). At least one participant from each group has documentary evidence linking them directly to the son of William. While some questions remain regarding each ancestor in the lineage, all can now be linked to William through specific sons.

?

Each of us in the test group share 17 SNP mutations that we do not share with anyone else. We all are members of haplogroup R-FTD91363 whose most recent common ancestor (MRCA) was born about 1635, clearly William Tryon (1646-1711). Since William, each of us has accumulated another 2-7 mutations over the average 9 generations since William. Descendants of William's son David are all in haplogroup R-FTE27603 and represent descendants from two of David's sons. Descendants of son Thomas are in haplogroup R-FTE65276 and also represent descendants of two of Thomas's sons. Descendants of Abel are in haplogroup R-FTE32270 and are descendants of two of his sons. The last of the sons of William, Ziba, did not produce a SNP mutation and the four testers who represent descendants of three of Ziba's sons, do not share a unique SNP and do not form their own haplogroup. They do however share a unique STR mutation (DYS557=17) which no other Tryons have. They also have unique SNP mutations dividing them into lineages from three of Ziba's sons.

?

Mostly, the results confirmed documentary evidence, both direct and circumstantial. In one case we had the right family but the wrong brother as ancestor. Two testers with long-standing brick walls in the mid 1700s were clearly linked to David and their lineage has now been worked out. One of our biggest Tryon mysteries has been Benjamin Tryon of Coxsackie (b. abt. 1720). Family lore says the Tryons of Coxsackie were descendants of an English sailor who came to America about 1697, resigned on Long Island, and then moved up the Hudson to settle in Coxsackie. Benjamin's descendant shares the same haplogroup with another tester, a descendant of William's son Thomas. This was a big surprise but with that knowledge, the lineage was worked out.

?

This has all been very satisfying and clearly worth the time, effort, and money. All of the major uncertainties of the family of Tryons in America are now settled. Can we contribute to the broader U-106 group? Here are some observations:

?

If you want to run this sort of study, be prepared to pay for it. It took very little to convince people of the value and interest of this work but very few were willing to pay. I covered about 2/3 of the cost with participants and/or their relatives covering the rest.

?

Luck is important. We were testing descendants of four sons of William. Three of them had their own unique SNP mutation.

?

Of the 10 original members with archived samples at FTDNA, 4 failed and required new samples. One of those failed two more times before a result passed QC. This was a man in his 90s and that is an age problem that has been reported on this forum before.

?

Final SNP results were reported by FTDNA in 4-6 weeks on all but one sample from batching to online results. There was no difference in timing between Y-37 upgrades and new tests. Y-111 results were consistently reported in 3 weeks.

?

The occurrence of new SNP variants is quite variable. While overall we averaged 2.3 generations per new SNP (76 years), it varied from a low of 2 in 9 generations to a high of 7 in 9 generations. At a finer scale, we had one with 4 in 4 generations and one with 6 in 7. We likely had one or more instances of 2 new SNPs in a single generation. Time estimates based on the number of mutations are clearly only valid over long time frames.

?

It is important to go through the results in detail and, if possible, download the VCF and develop ways to dig deeper into the files. The myth of the manual review is real. This is mostly all done by machine and there are software issues that FTDNA are aware of that are significant (see my earlier posts). Two main problems are 1) their software can't deal with multiple mutations at a single location, i.e., C>T and C>A at the same location; and 2) their software can't deal with INDELS well, i.e., a C>CC mutation. At a minimum, check every identified variant for one individual against the rest of them. The difference between a positive result and a no-call is just one read. Don't take this as a complaint against FTDNA. They're doing a good job for their customers. But if you want to make a research project out of this, it's on you.

?

When you have questions about results, it is important to be patient, polite, and persistent with the FTDNA reps. You will eventually move up the ranks and get informative answers.

?

Lastly, strange stuff happens that seems like it has to do with actual manual, not mythical, review. For example, the individual who had multiple failed tests showed up on the "time tree" months before his results were released. He was clearly among the R-FTE27603 haplogroup there but did not appear on the "block tree" and remained as R-M269 everywhere else. When I asked about this I was told "Occasionally, our Phylogeneticist will get a head start on reviewing SNP data from Big Y testing prior to the results posting to the accounts."

?

I hope this was of some help to the community. I will try to post a pdf of an anonymized version of the Tryon block tree, though I've had mixed success with posting graphics here.

?

Cheers

Mike Tryon

In general one needn’t worry about FTDNA/MH transfers as FTDNA processed all of them and the SNP overlap is very high.

Some people like their MH ethnic origins %, but many people would place them at the very bottom. ? These estimates are several years old and very outdated.

~~~~~~~

For several years, FTDNA processed Nat Géo Geno kits. ? I know there were several iterations, with the last by Helix.

Are any of the FTDNA versions being considered for Y updating of Nat Geo transfers to Family Finder?

Hi,

FTDNA Discover has just been updated with new data from FF/Y-SNP testers (7018 subclades, equivalent to the Y-DNA haplotree data from December 8, 2023). Attached is a link to a European map by country (frequency – December 16, 2023):

?

To compare with that corresponding to November 18:

?

The FTDNA autosomal database would include approx. 1.5M testers, around half of which may be men. Even if certain transfers from other companies will not be included in the data, there would still be several hundred thousand male autosomal kits to be added to the Y-DNA Haplotree, of which ~10% could belong to the R-U106 branch...

?

In the meantime, 9 aDNAs were added by FTDNA from 2 studies:

1) Barrie et al.. 2023:

?

?

2) Bonczarowska et al. 2022:

开云体育

开云体育

Hi John,

?

I think Iain has fully answered your questions.

?

In addition, on your R-S15309 branch, downstream of R-Z18, only these two testers have appeared since the date given by Iain. If we go back 1 year, to November 29, 2022, 1 other new tester having carried out a bigY700 test, of American origin, appeared forming the haplogroup R-BY160407 with a tester of British origin (probably a bigY500).

?

?

?

Hi Rob,

?

Unfortunately, your fears currently appear to be well founded. However, the fact that your father is only identified as R-U106 could possibly only mean that his FF test only showed no calls for possible testable SNPs on your downstream branch of R-U106.

On this small branch, only 6 testers of unknown origin have appeared since November 29, and these 6 for R-FGC57423. This haplogroup was discovered in 2016 by Full Genome Corp, and is composed of 8 equivalent SNPs with no other recurrence currently on the Y-DNA Haplotree. R-S19589 and R-S11493 were both discovered in 2014 (I don't know since when they were identified by FTDNA). It therefore seems strange that FTDNA selected a specific SNP from a haplogroup discovered in 2016 (and probably appeared a little later at FTDNA), which only had 3 individuals until 2021...

?

R-S19589 is currently only ~2.4 per 10,000 bigY testers. Probably ~38,000 new FF testers have appeared. So we could expect ~9 new R-S19589 testers. We have 6, which doesn't seem that far away. We will probably have to wait a little longer to be fixed (I have identified several serious STR candidates for R-S11493, but they are still identified R-M269. If one of them also passed a FF test, we will have more material to conclude).

?

I am quite surprised by the number of Y-SNPs that seem to be covered by the GSA chips used by FTDNA. I wonder if it is not possible for them to detect genotypes for SNPs very close (a few bp) to SNPs targeted by their chips. For example, SNP FGC57423 (Y position 16,277,160) is very close to Z15080 (16,277,158). Z15080 only appears in the E-L94 block, an ancient haplogroup whose TMRCA is estimated ~7400 BCE. Exactly 20 new testers appeared to be E-L94 this month (perhaps FTDNA selected several SNPs of the main haplogroups for their chips?)… This is only a hypothesis that might eventually have to be checked for other haplogroups covered in a rather improbable manner, like FGC57423, by the FF chips.

Cheers,

Ewenn

GAP admins can keep track of their updated FF Y matches by looking at the Received Lab Results which now reports ‘Prediction’ under Lab Procedure


To Damir. ??

I believe you can only see them via the Family Finder (or Y or Adv) ?match list with no special designations or ?icons. ?You can use the YDNA sort and search to help a little?

Unfortunately some of the N/As have a Y Haplo if you click on the name. ?They still sort or search correctly?

开云体育

开云体育