How old does FTDNA say your haplogroup is? If it's on the order of 1000 or more years old, that isn't unusual, I think.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 11:16 AM, Michael Primm <mrprimm53@...> wrote: Hello,
I received my BigY results yesterday and I am a bit disappointed and confused. I thought I would find my surname in the match results, but no joy. I got names that I've never heard of. I have a large tree (over 15k) and none of the names from the results are in my tree. Of the matches that had trees, I searched them for familiar names, but no names that I recognized. Please see the screenshot attachment. The main reason for doing the BigY was to finally find out who my 3rd GGps on my father's side after 20 years of searching.
Any input would be appreciated.
Best,
Mike
|
Hello,
I received my BigY results yesterday and I am a bit disappointed and confused. I thought I would find my surname in the match results, but no joy. I got names that I've never heard of. I have a large tree (over 15k) and none of the names from the results are in my tree. Of the matches that had trees, I searched them for familiar names, but no names that I recognized. Please see the screenshot attachment. The main reason for doing the BigY was to finally find out who my 3rd GGps on my father's side after 20 years of searching.
Any input would be appreciated.
Best,
Mike
|
Re: Discrepancy between Block Tree and Discover
Hi Martin
It is almost certainly the pending BigY tester. Over the past year I managed 13 BigY tests and this came up a number of times because of failed tests. Most of my testers had old archive samples from Y-37 and many failed. They often got Y-111 results that posted and some showed up on the Time Tree. There are many steps to the analysis and what intermediate results you see are all dependent on what step the test failed to pass QC. Y-111 always posted before the final results, often by weeks, even in tests that were completely successful. I was able to verify the partial posting of a failed test because that person claimed French origins and had a French flag on the Time Tree over a month before his results were posted.
Cheers
Mike
|
Re: Discrepancy between Block Tree and Discover
There are advantages to not having Family Finder testers named on the Block Tree. While the distinction is slightly blurred by differing coverages and BigY-500 tests, etc., the people currently on the Block Tree are generally in their most-recent known haplogroup ("terminal" haplogroup in FTDNA parlance). Family Finder results, meanwhile, generally will not be in the most-recent haplogroup they could be. Maintaining this distinction helps us see how many sub-clades each haplogroup has, which provides valuable information about how it has spread. ? - Iain.
|
Re RootsTech 2024:
A kind request to anyone participating in person and meeting people from FTDNA: Could you please ask if there are plans to have more language versions?
Recently I manged to locate my cousin, our lines split around 200 years ago. When writing the email explaining the benefits of Y-DNA and Big-Y testing I realized that if he does not know English or Spanish, as I suspect, then the chance of him agreeing to my proposal of having him tested are close to zero, even as I offered to cover all the costs, as he would not be able to control his kit. He knows me only from a phone call and and an email so unlikely that he would accept me as the kit administrator. It is one more reason for a low coverage in Poland, I believe, apart from the main driver, the cost.
FTDNA could learn from MyHeritage, which has several language versions. It does not take so much effort/money to translate, especially as the content is pretty static.
|
Hello fellow U106ers,
I just received my BigY results and my haplogroup is?R-FTE39986, which I'm told?is a subgroup of?R-M269.
If anyone would like to look at my results you are very welcome to do so.?
Best,
Mike
|
Re: Discrepancy between Block Tree and Discover
Family Finder, old National Geneographic and other SNP tests do in fact show up in the block tree. Not the names of the testers, but the total number of SNP tests.?
I wasn¡¯t talking about their names, just the fact that the number of positive results for FGC11674 has increased, and it¡¯s due in part to Family Finder results. As confirmed by FTDNA.?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Feb 26, 2024, at 2:27?AM, C.B. via groups.io <irishZ156@...> wrote:
?
?Family Finder YDNA samples will appear in the discover pages but will not show up in the block tree page! One has to take the Big Y test to get into the block tree page.
On Monday, February 26, 2024 at 05:11:59 AM UTC, Robert McMillan via groups.io <tensawmac@...> wrote:
I have the same thing. FGC11686 has split off from the FGC11685 block. Block tree shows no testers, discover shows 1. Its been split at FTDNA long enough to show up at SNP Finder and David Vance's SNP Tree. So a few weeks. Looking forward to whoever it is. I also notice a recent jump in the amount of people under the FGC11674 block, I think is in part becuase its included in the Family Finder Y SNP list.?
|
Re: Discrepancy between Block Tree and Discover
As a fan of Alex Ws detailed presentations, I agree.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Feb 26, 2024, at 9:38 AM, Leake Little <leakelittle@...> wrote:
?And while that's great for folks who want to know their BigY results but for those of us who have already purchased BigY we just wish to have all of the annotated results nearby referenced such that we have a complete picture looking at any Block Tree-oriented results. If BigY is the premium offering then the presentation of results should carry that focus - and not just the individual tools' results that 'lesser' testers get....? at least that's my two cents. The Block Tree was derived from Alex W's work but it certainly doesn't need to be 'only' that...? Thoughts?
|
Re: Discrepancy between Block Tree and Discover
And while that's great for folks who want to know their BigY results but for those of us who have already purchased BigY we just wish to have all of the annotated results nearby referenced such that we have a complete picture looking at any Block Tree-oriented results. If BigY is the premium offering then the presentation of results should carry that focus - and not just the individual tools' results that 'lesser' testers get....? at least that's my two cents. The Block Tree was derived from Alex W's work but it certainly doesn't need to be 'only' that...? Thoughts?
|
Re: Discrepancy between Block Tree and Discover
?Family Finder YDNA samples will appear in the discover pages but will not show up in the block tree page! One has to take the Big Y test to get into the block tree page.
On Monday, February 26, 2024 at 05:11:59 AM UTC, Robert McMillan via groups.io <tensawmac@...> wrote:
I have the same thing. FGC11686 has split off from the FGC11685 block. Block tree shows no testers, discover shows 1. Its been split at FTDNA long enough to show up at SNP Finder and David Vance's SNP Tree. So a few weeks. Looking forward to whoever it is. I also notice a recent jump in the amount of people under the FGC11674 block, I think is in part becuase its included in the Family Finder Y SNP list.?
|
Well, I'm still waiting for some ancient remains from a fellow situated below R-Z2265 and well into the ~800 year-long R-FGC396 block (give or take a couple of centuries), for actual evidence for or against FTDNA's suggested location of R-FGC396, which according to their Globetrekker tool, is currently shown within a 10 km (!??!) radius somewhere around Cologne, Germany.? How they arrived at that conclusion without any ancient DNA and with only a few dozen known extant R-FGC396 descendants scattered across Europe & the Americas, is completely beyond me.? Is there a linkage between R-FGC396 and a bronze-age perfume trade route I don't know about?
--
Best regards,
Vince T.
|
Re: Discrepancy between Block Tree and Discover
I have the same thing. FGC11686 has split off from the FGC11685 block. Block tree shows no testers, discover shows 1. Its been split at FTDNA long enough to show up at SNP Finder and David Vance's SNP Tree. So a few weeks. Looking forward to whoever it is. I also notice a recent jump in the amount of people under the FGC11674 block, I think is in part becuase its included in the Family Finder Y SNP list.?
|
Hi folks, This is an interesting result, especially since it breaks up the R-U106>A2150>BY69794 block. The connection to the Tumulus culture is important, as we have other R-U106 branches belonging to this culture (R-S1894). It's also important since it sets the minimum age for R-A2150, ruling out some of the younger end of its possible age range. This has some knock-on effects for the age of R-U106, since minor haplogroups like R-A2150 are a significant determinant of this age: this is probably a very minor effect, since we can be fairly certain (from a combination of lower limits from ancient DNA and upper limits from the Corded Ware culture expansion) that U106 formed at some point around 2950 BC, or maybe up to a century or two before. This cements R-U106 as one of the dominant haplogroups of the Unetice culture, and suggests that there may be more branches of R-U106 to become tied to this culture. My expectation is that all of R-Z156 and probably R-S1688 are associated with this culture, and possibly other sub-clades of R-U106 too. We know that the Unetice culture fed into many later cultures in Europe and that, for western Europe, the Tumulus culture is one of the important ones. This could give a potential but still highly speculative route for R-A2150 testers from the Corded Ware culture through either to the Celtic or Germanic cultures of central Europe during that time. Generalising, we should expect ancient DNA samples to fall into these minor branches more commonly than modern testers. This is simply because those branches weren't always as small a part of R-U106 as they are today. It's only through later founder effects and relative differences in population growth that these haplogroups are small now. We can also expect more cases like RISE98, where ancient burials belong to now-extinct branches of R-U106. Cheers, Iain.
|
Just to remind everyone, the small R-A2150 branch that Ewenn is discussing in conjunction with the LEU007 sample, is immediately below R-U106, and notably retains the ancestral DYS492 STR result =12, whereas nearly everyone else in R-U106, below the much larger R-Z2265, shares the extra repeat count up to 492=13.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Feb 25, 2024, at 3:32?AM, Ewenn <gwenng008@...> wrote:
?Hi all, I attempted an analysis of LEU007, to check if it can really belongs to R-U106, and if possible to refine its haplogroup. LEU007 consists of several fastq files. I only analyzed the "YC1" file: These results indicate that LEU007 appears effectively to be R-U106+:
- consistent path to R -L151, R-U106+ with 2 reads, R-P312- (6 reads).
LEU007 could apparently be pre-R-BY69794 (block made up of 13 SNPs, R-A2150 etc.
_._,_._,_
|
Hi all, I attempted an analysis of LEU007, to check if it can really belongs to R-U106, and if possible to refine its haplogroup. LEU007 consists of several fastq files. I only analyzed the "YC1" file: These results indicate that LEU007 appears effectively to be R-U106+:
- consistent path to R -L151, R-U106+ with 2 reads, R-P312- (6 reads).
LEU007 could apparently be pre-R-BY69794 (block made up of 13 SNPs, R-A2150 branch directly downstream of R-U106):
- No read for R-A2150 (A2150 and A2151 SNPs)
- Clade R-BY69794: 1 positive read for FT420436, 1 positive read for ZS1682, 3 negative reads for BY69794, 3 negative reads for BY74465, no read for the other SNPs of this clade (9/13).
Discover announces a TMRCA (R-BY69794) centered around 1900 BCE [3059 BCE; 980 BCE] 95% CI. The TMRCA of R-A2150: ~2660 BCE [3811 BCE; 1713 BCE] 95% CI. LEU007, an early adult man around 18-19 years old at his death, would be dated (C14) around 1840 BCE [1911 BCE; 1766 BCE]. According to isotopic analyses (), he would have lived in the region of the Leubingen site. More informations: (pages 5 & 52). He could possibly share the same matrilineal line as LEU038 (T2a1b1a / T2a1b1), dated around 2100 BCE, several generations before LEU007. This would reinforce the local origin of LEU007 (but does not indicate whether its agnatic lineage was already present in the surroundings of this site approximately 2 to 3 centuries before...). If confirmed (by FTDNA for example - determinations of aDNA Y-haplogroups, especially mine, should be taken with a pinch of salt.), this sample would provide us with interesting information on the origins of the tiny R-A2150 branch (would refine its TMRCA for example), (very) "little" sister of R-Z2265. The distribution of modern descendants identified to date, from this branch, seems consistent with the location of LEU007: The analysis file: Cheers, Ewenn
|
truly fascinating?
Based on combined lines of evidence, we observe that the kinship structure of the burial community was predominantly patrilineal/virilocal involving female exogamy.
Hi,
Only one aDNA in this study seems to belong to R-U106, named LEU007. This would be the 5th oldest R-U106+ aDNA recorded to date. Its fastq file has just been added to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) :?
Cheers,
Ewenn
Le sam. 24 f¨¦vr. 2024, 18:09, Chris Noble < avalea3@...> a ¨¦crit?: I think it would be this one:
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 8:49?AM Richard Smith via <cthokie67= [email protected]> wrote:
I was unable to trace the "news blip" back to refereed journal article.? ?
If such exists, might someone provide the link ?
|
Thanks,
Found the sample at line 6 of excel table in the supplement.
Hope to now find mention of sample in the body of the text....?
I am not so practiced in the art of such things but I greatly?appreciate your guidance.
Richard
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hi,
Only one aDNA in this study seems to belong to R-U106, named LEU007. This would be the 5th oldest R-U106+ aDNA recorded to date. Its fastq file has just been added to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) :?
Cheers,
Ewenn
Le sam. 24 f¨¦vr. 2024, 18:09, Chris Noble < avalea3@...> a ¨¦crit?:
I think it would be this one:
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 8:49?AM Richard Smith via
<cthokie67= [email protected]> wrote:
I was unable to trace the "news blip" back to refereed journal article.? ?
If such exists, might someone provide the link ?
|
Hi,
Only one aDNA in this study seems to belong to R-U106, named LEU007. This would be the 5th oldest R-U106+ aDNA recorded to date. Its fastq file has just been added to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) :?
Cheers,
Ewenn
Le sam. 24 f¨¦vr. 2024, 18:09, Chris Noble < avalea3@...> a ¨¦crit?: I think it would be this one:
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 8:49?AM Richard Smith via <cthokie67= [email protected]> wrote:
I was unable to trace the "news blip" back to refereed journal article.? ?
If such exists, might someone provide the link ?
|
I think it would be this one:
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 8:49?AM Richard Smith via <cthokie67= [email protected]> wrote:
I was unable to trace the "news blip" back to refereed journal article.? ?
If such exists, might someone provide the link ?
|
I was unable to trace the "news blip" back to refereed journal article.? ?
If such exists, might someone provide the link ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
They were only able to confirm it fell under U106. They used the 1240K assay rather than the more comprehensive (and more expensive) shotgun method.?
Ray
nice ! do you know the haplogroup!?
From Facebook R-U106 group today!
--
Kevin Terry
--
|
|
? KELL KOCH
???President
????Phone: 208-578-4806
????
|
|
Leake Little
Ewenn