|
Hi Dado, all, ? It's not so much a mistake, but it is misleading. If you take an individual person to whom you are related and no mutations have occurred in your first 25 markers to separate you, then you are most likely related within the last 600 years, so a range of 1400 AD to 1950 AD is correct. ? If we go back 250 years ago (about fifth cousins), about* 50% of your cousins should be exact matches to you. Go back about 600 years, and only about* 2.5% of your 15th cousins should be exact matches to you. (*Exact numbers will vary depending on the mutation rates you adopt.) However, you might find you have more matches to you 600 years ago than 250 years ago because 2.5% of your 15th cousins might be more people than 50% of your fifth cousins. And there are back mutations and convergent mutations on top of this. ? I've tried to produce my own version of the table (this was going to go into the new version of the textbook, but it got axed), which I'll try to reproduce here. This is my estimate of the conversion between genetic distance and years before present. The ranges are 95% confidence intervals: ? 0/12 = 150 每 3600
1/12 = 260 每 4800 ? 0/25 = 100 每 1560
1/25 = 160 每 2100
2/25 = 230 每 2800 ? 0/37 = 60 每 840
1/37 = 110 每 1080
2/37 = 160 每 1380
3/37 = 200 每 1630
4/37 = 250 每 2000 ? 0/67 = 40 每 680
1/67 = 80 每 800
2/67 = 120 每 970
3/67 = 160 每 1140
4/67 = 190 每 1340
5/67 = 240 每 1550
6/67 = 280 每 1750
7/67 = 320 每 2000 ? 0/111 = 20 每 450
1/111 = 50 每 510
2/111 = 70 每 610
3/111 = 110 每 700
4/111 = 140 每 780
5/111 = 160 每 870
6/111 = 190 每 990
7/111 = 220 每 1080
8/111 = 240 每 1200
9/111 = 270 每 1300
10/111 = 290 每 1430 ? You can see from this how going to larger numbers of markers really starts to narrow down the ranges of how closely you are related to someone, but also how broad the possible range of dates is for the 12 and 25-marker datasets in particular. It's important to caveat this: this table is only true for the average person. If you have few mutations, common mutations or back mutations in your line, your ranges will be older; if you have many mutations, or rare mutations and few back mutations in your line, your ranges will be younger. ? Since this is no longer going to go into the textbook, I'll try to write it up properly and post it on my website, but that may take me some time. ? Cheers, ? Iain.
|
What Jason said is right, this can happen that we "have matches that disappear at 1 level before reappearing at another"
Ian noted too that "If you don't have any matches beyond Y-12 and Y-25, then it's likely that either no-one in the FTDNA Y-DNA database is related to you via your male line within the last 1000 years or so, or you have an unusual number of mutations in your Y-DNA."
The issue he brings up "or you have an unusual number of mutations" is a real issue. It happens more often than we think that there are matches that appear at Y67 and Y111 that don't appear at Y37 or even Y25 or Y12.? It may be in yourself or in the "missing matches".
This is because the first 37 STR markers are a little more "jumpy" erratic than 38-67 or 68-111.? The additional markers tend to smooth things out for more refined matching. Here is a study about this phenomenon.
"The Strange Case of the Missing Y37 Match" related to the Owston surname concludes:
*** "Do not discount the possibility that match may exist at 67 markers but be absent at 37 markers." ***
"In analyzing the matches of 18 matching FTDNA Y-STR participants in the Owston/Ouston DNA study..
- 100% of the men who tested at 67 markers matched at least one individual who was not found in their 37-marker match list"
- "The percentage of non-matches at 37 within the 67-marker match list ranged from 3.6% to 35.3% of their total 67-marker matches.
- "An average of 14.1% of their 67-marker matches were absent from their 37-marker match list.
"The Strange Case of the Missing Y37 Match" Jim Owston, 2018
https://linealarboretum.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-strange-case-of-missing-y37-match.html
By the way, this happens with me. When my group first started with Big Y, four of my six Y111 matches did not appear at Y12, Y25 or Y37.? It turned out via Big Y testing that two of the four missing matches were related to me in the last 700 years, the other two in the last 1500 years. All four of these missing matches were instructive to me.
I encourage deeper testing, such as Big Y700, rather than relying on STR matching to build a tree.
|
Hi folks, ? Mike's comments are spot on, but I thought I'd try to be a bit more pedantic *ahem* precise in the reasoning. ? The reason people appear and disappear from match lists at different levels comes down mostly to random chance. I mentioned the Time Estimate table on the Y-STR results: you can see from this that the nominal cutoff for individual matches is a little over 1000 years in each case. Now we know that the number of mutations a family builds up over 1000 years on each Y-STR is random. Some families will get a mutation, others won't. But if you're only looking at a small number of STRs and a small number of mutations, you'll find some families have no mutations and others have loads. It's only by taking a large number of Y-STRs that this effect averages out, and we get a better consistency in the number of mutations a family has accured. If you have a match close to this boundary, you might find that they have few mutations in the first 37 markers, so they are a match at Y-37, but lots of mutations in the 38-67 marker set, so they don't match at Y-67, but fewer mutations in the 68-111 marker set, so they are a match again at Y-111. This is the main reason that matches can appear at higher levels that weren't at lower levels. ? However, it is also true that the first 37 markers are a bit special. They are not especially "jumpy" or "erratic" in the technical sense, but their unusual combination of mutation rates does cause them to behave differently. Markers 38-111 are a fairly typical set of Y-STR mutations. However, when FTDNA was putting together the first set of 37 Y-STRs, which now seems to have become something of an industry standard, they picked specific STRs for specific reasons. ? Those choices were based how effectively they could be used to group people into genetic families. The first 12 markers are mostly very slow-mutating markers (e.g. DYS426, DYS388, DYS392), which lets people be reliably grouped into major haplogroups (e.g. R-M269). Both the Y-25 and Y-37 upgrades brought in more slow markers, but also added a number of faster ones: e.g., DYS458 and DYS464 in Y-25 and CDY, DYS576 and DYS570 in Y-37. These fast-mutating markers give a much better chance of finding mutations within a closely related family, but are pretty useless at grouping people on older timescales because there are too many convergent and back mutations on them. This wide range of mutation rates means it's both very easy to build up a large genetic distance from someone quickly, and relatively easy for spurious matches with convergent mutations to enter your Y-12, Y-25 and Y-37 match lists. ? To give you a sense of scale, you're about 100 times more likely to get a mutation on one of the CDY markers as you are on DYS426. When dealing with a wide range of mutation rates and fast-mutating markers, the relationship between TMRCA and genetic distance quickly breaks down due to the hidden and back mutations: the probability of getting a convergent or back mutation in two families over 1000 years is about 66% and is most likely to occur on CDY, with each of its two markers mutating roughly every 40 generations. However, FTDNA generally simply takes an average of the mutation rates when dealing with Y-STR markers. If you do this, then you'd predict that a convergent or back mutation only happens about 49% of the time. So, even if FTDNA's Time Estimates accounted for convergent and back mutations, and even if it accounted for the growth in the number of cousins with time, this simplification to an average mutation rate would cause their estimates to underestimate the full range of possible TMRCAs. ? Cheers, ? Iain.
|
Thank you for the interesting clarification, which explains the thinking of the STR years. ? Is there any theoretical and/or empirical reason to suppose that the location and combination of these elements may not be entirely random, but may behave in accordance with the observation and deductions of Thomas Hunt Morgan( the man whose name is best know in the term CentiMorgan) that recombinations do have some pattern to them? ? Richard ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Iain via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 3:15 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] BigY - is it worth it?? Hi folks, ? Mike's comments are spot on, but I thought I'd try to be a bit more pedantic *ahem* precise in the reasoning. ? The reason people appear and disappear from match lists at different levels comes down mostly to random chance. I mentioned the Time Estimate table on the Y-STR results: you can see from this that the nominal cutoff for individual matches is a little over 1000 years in each case. Now we know that the number of mutations a family builds up over 1000 years on each Y-STR is random. Some families will get a mutation, others won't. But if you're only looking at a small number of STRs and a small number of mutations, you'll find some families have no mutations and others have loads. It's only by taking a large number of Y-STRs that this effect averages out, and we get a better consistency in the number of mutations a family has accured. If you have a match close to this boundary, you might find that they have few mutations in the first 37 markers, so they are a match at Y-37, but lots of mutations in the 38-67 marker set, so they don't match at Y-67, but fewer mutations in the 68-111 marker set, so they are a match again at Y-111. This is the main reason that matches can appear at higher levels that weren't at lower levels. ? However, it is also true that the first 37 markers are a bit special. They are not especially "jumpy" or "erratic" in the technical sense, but their unusual combination of mutation rates does cause them to behave differently. Markers 38-111 are a fairly typical set of Y-STR mutations. However, when FTDNA was putting together the first set of 37 Y-STRs, which now seems to have become something of an industry standard, they picked specific STRs for specific reasons. ? Those choices were based how effectively they could be used to group people into genetic families. The first 12 markers are mostly very slow-mutating markers (e.g. DYS426, DYS388, DYS392), which lets people be reliably grouped into major haplogroups (e.g. R-M269). Both the Y-25 and Y-37 upgrades brought in more slow markers, but also added a number of faster ones: e.g., DYS458 and DYS464 in Y-25 and CDY, DYS576 and DYS570 in Y-37. These fast-mutating markers give a much better chance of finding mutations within a closely related family, but are pretty useless at grouping people on older timescales because there are too many convergent and back mutations on them. This wide range of mutation rates means it's both very easy to build up a large genetic distance from someone quickly, and relatively easy for spurious matches with convergent mutations to enter your Y-12, Y-25 and Y-37 match lists. ? To give you a sense of scale, you're about 100 times more likely to get a mutation on one of the CDY markers as you are on DYS426. When dealing with a wide range of mutation rates and fast-mutating markers, the relationship between TMRCA and genetic distance quickly breaks down due to the hidden and back mutations: the probability of getting a convergent or back mutation in two families over 1000 years is about 66% and is most likely to occur on CDY, with each of its two markers mutating roughly every 40 generations. However, FTDNA generally simply takes an average of the mutation rates when dealing with Y-STR markers. If you do this, then you'd predict that a convergent or back mutation only happens about 49% of the time. So, even if FTDNA's Time Estimates accounted for convergent and back mutations, and even if it accounted for the growth in the number of cousins with time, this simplification to an average mutation rate would cause their estimates to underestimate the full range of possible TMRCAs. ? Cheers, ? Iain.
|
Hi Richard, ? The recombinations that Thomas Hunt Morgan discusses on the autosomes don't apply to the male-specific Y chromosome, because it doesn't recombine. For the autosomal DNA, I'll leave that to more experienced people on here. ? For the Y chromosomal mutations, there is no specific evidence to suggest that they are not random. However, there is a murky world down there that operates on much longer timescales than individual mutations. There do seem to be some "preferred" values for some STRs, whether this is due to structural stability of folding on the chromosome or something similar, I don't think is known. At some point, STR lengths have to be non-zero, otherwise the STRs disappear. The STR mutation rates do also seem to have some variation between haplogroup, though this is mostly down to systematic differences in the average STR length in specific haplogroups, because longer STRs have more repeats to mutate. There is a lot of this stuff that we simply haven't had the opportunity or databases to look at in detail. ? Cheers, ? Iain.
|
It deserves mentioning that while STR lengths may have to be non-zero, in at least one instance a STR is ※reported§ as zero. ? Mentioned in a presentation by Thomas Krahn ( ), DYS425 sometimes cannot be found in testing and so gets reported as ※0§ (slides 38 & 39 in presentation). DYS425 is 1 of 4 regions of DYF371.? Three of these normally contain ※C§ at a specific location and the fourth contains ※T§ instead---the region called DYS425.? If ※T§ gets replaced by ※C§ in that location, the test reads ※0§.? Consequently, the standard STR tests does not report the actual repeat length when this happens.? I understand there is a special test at YSEQ that can measure the length in this case. DYS425=0 on our part of the tree appears to have been established with cca 250BCE or earlier: 
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Iain via groups.io
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 1:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] BigY - is it worth it? ? Hi Richard, ? The recombinations that Thomas Hunt Morgan discusses on the autosomes don't apply to the male-specific Y chromosome, because it doesn't recombine. For the autosomal DNA, I'll leave that to more experienced people on here. ? For the Y chromosomal mutations, there is no specific evidence to suggest that they are not random. However, there is a murky world down there that operates on much longer timescales than individual mutations. There do seem to be some "preferred" values for some STRs, whether this is due to structural stability of folding on the chromosome or something similar, I don't think is known. At some point, STR lengths have to be non-zero, otherwise the STRs disappear. The STR mutation rates do also seem to have some variation between haplogroup, though this is mostly down to systematic differences in the average STR length in specific haplogroups, because longer STRs have more repeats to mutate. There is a lot of this stuff that we simply haven't had the opportunity or databases to look at in detail. ? Cheers, ? Iain.
|
Just to further Myles's comment: there are two conditions under which an STR can be reported as zero. The first is (as in Myles's example) if a mutation causes the STR to become unreadable by the primer used to measure it - there are many examples of this. ? The second is a true deletion, where the STR is entirely deleted from the Y chromosome. This is rarer, but does occasionally happen, and we have haplogroups within R-U106 that have entirely lost specific Y-STRs. In these cases, the Y-STRs can never "grow back" again. They will always remain completely deleted. ? - Iain.
|
Wow!? So in my case we do not yet know which of these 2 types our reading of ZERO on DYS425 is---could be a T -> C substitution or it could be that the whole branch got pinched off.? I just requested a DYF371X test on one of the samples I manage---hopefully this will illuminate which it is. ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Iain via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2024 1:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] BigY - is it worth it? ? Just to further Myles's comment: there are two conditions under which an STR can be reported as zero. The first is (as in Myles's example) if a mutation causes the STR to become unreadable by the primer used to measure it - there are many examples of this. ? The second is a true deletion, where the STR is entirely deleted from the Y chromosome. This is rarer, but does occasionally happen, and we have haplogroups within R-U106 that have entirely lost specific Y-STRs. In these cases, the Y-STRs can never "grow back" again. They will always remain completely deleted. ? - Iain.
|
Hello Iain: ? Your response inspired me to do a browse of the research literature. ? I found some very interesting pieces that made me think again about the role of ?STRs. I now see a greater complementarity between the ?autosomal, Y-STR and Big-Y SNP elements. ? There may be indeed be something of interest in the ※murky world§. ? Here are the links. ?
?
? Cheers ? Richard ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Iain via groups.io
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 1:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] BigY - is it worth it?? Hi Richard, ? The recombinations that Thomas Hunt Morgan discusses on the autosomes don't apply to the male-specific Y chromosome, because it doesn't recombine. For the autosomal DNA, I'll leave that to more experienced people on here. ? For the Y chromosomal mutations, there is no specific evidence to suggest that they are not random. However, there is a murky world down there that operates on much longer timescales than individual mutations. There do seem to be some "preferred" values for some STRs, whether this is due to structural stability of folding on the chromosome or something similar, I don't think is known. At some point, STR lengths have to be non-zero, otherwise the STRs disappear. The STR mutation rates do also seem to have some variation between haplogroup, though this is mostly down to systematic differences in the average STR length in specific haplogroups, because longer STRs have more repeats to mutate. There is a lot of this stuff that we simply haven't had the opportunity or databases to look at in detail. ? Cheers, ? Iain.
|
Hello,?
unfortunately, received an email today regarding BigY-700, that the sample experienced a quality control failure at the end of its most recent run and they are starting a rerun immediately at the highest priority. Another couple of months I would say. Frustrating. I dont know will they do the analysis from the very beginning or only the last part, but was thinking whether that mistake had an impact on the fact that I don't have matches on Y 37, 67 and 111? Could that be the case?
Cheers,?
Dado
|
Sometimes a BigY that fails quality control at the end, might still show up on Discover and the Block Y.? So you should look for evidence of your test when Discover updates.??
I have a Y111 match, whose BigY failed earlier this year.? Still waiting for the results from the re-run.
In the meantime, the Haplotree has 3 men in the relevant clade.? Discover has had 4 for a few months now.
I am fairly certain that my Y111 match is the 4th person since he employs a less common flag that is also displayed in Discover.
On the Block Y, I believe this 4th man also forced the splitting of the existing block, with 3 men remaining in one block and zero men in the new block.??
~~~~
A distant cousin of the 4th man also tested in Feb or March, and his BigY also failed.? But so far no results have posted anywhere, including STR.??
|
Good morning Connie,?
thank you very much for Your effort! I will have to look into it in detail. I hope there will be some new info that could help me put the pieces together, at least a bit more. What I see already regarding the very high genetic distance at Y111 and null on DYS425 sheds new light. So I really appreciate it!
Cheers!
Dado
|
Finally, after five months and another kit sent, I received my Big Y result yesterday. My haplogroup is R-BY5715, which I already knew because I did a Yseq test a couple of years ago. I have no Blocktree matches, no Y-matches, I have 20 private variants. Still no Y-DNA match at 111, 67 and 27 markers, only at 25 markers. Not much new information. ?
As I can see, this haplogroup is quite old and I am surprised that there are no more recent mutations. How to interpret this?
?
Cheers,
Dado
|
What it means is that (judging by Discover) you are the first member of R-BY5715 who is not a member of R-BY5716 to have tested. The majority of R-BY5716 testers claim descent from the British Isles, which are relatively over tested.? It looks like you claim descent from Croatia, and I would expect that the Balkans are relatively poorly tested. If you have known male line cousins, you could try to get one of them to test. If you don't, but know what village you descend from, you could try to recruit someone from there to test.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 3:17 AM, Dado <dstanic@...> wrote: Finally, after five months and another kit sent, I received my Big Y result yesterday. My haplogroup is R-BY5715, which I already knew because I did a Yseq test a couple of years ago. I have no Blocktree matches, no Y-matches, I have 20 private variants. Still no Y-DNA match at 111, 67 and 27 markers, only at 25 markers. Not much new information. ?
As I can see, this haplogroup is quite old and I am surprised that there are no more recent mutations. How to interpret this?
?
Cheers,
Dado
|
What some people forget these days are the basics of Y-DNA testing.
?
Chris Pomery said way back in his 2004 book on Y-DNA testing, when the ※state of the art§ was 37 STR markers: ※Start by testing two branches of your surname which merge about 200 years ago.§
?
That still holds true in 2024 in my book.? You may strike it lucky with just one BigY-700 test 每 but if you do not, then if you use the above maxim then a lot of your private SNPs will disappear.
?
Whether you can research male family lines back in Croatia 200 years ago is a separate question.? But even then, FamilySearch usually gives an excellent guide as to what is feasible in 2024. Croatia has a
complex history of various countries having a role in its history over the past 200 years, notably Austria of course 每 but it depends on which locations in Croatia we are talking about here.
?
?
Brian
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of richvh@...
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2024 9:02 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] BigY - is it worth it?
?
What it means is that (judging by Discover) you are the first member of R-BY5715 who is not a member of R-BY5716 to have tested. The majority of R-BY5716 testers claim descent from the British Isles, which are
relatively over tested.? It looks like you claim descent from Croatia, and I would expect that the Balkans are relatively poorly tested. If you have known male line cousins, you could try to get one of them to test. If you don't, but know what village you
descend from, you could try to recruit someone from there to test.
?
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 3:17 AM, Dado
Finally, after five months and another kit sent, I received my Big Y result yesterday. My haplogroup is R-BY5715, which I already knew because I did a Yseq test a couple of years ago. I have no Blocktree matches, no Y-matches, I have 20
private variants. Still no Y-DNA match at 111, 67 and 27 markers, only at 25 markers. Not much new information. ?
As I can see, this haplogroup is quite old and I am surprised that there are no more recent mutations. How to interpret this?
|
The interesting historical question would be "when" your line arrived in that geographic region.? ?There are other lineage branches which appear in odd locations in Eastern Europe compared to their better tested northern European cousin branches.? One has to consider whether some could be remnants originating from one of the crusades. Within that context the genealogical line/branch that you need to trace back it could be very thin and hard to figure out until genomes are widely used in a given country's medical system. Hopefully researchers would then be able to utilize the anonymized results to investigate historical migrations and population changes due to various invasions.? That type of data and investigation could facilitate better defining your branch.
-Wayne K
On Friday, August 2, 2024 at 04:53:00 AM EDT, Brian Swann <brian_swann@...> wrote:
What some people forget these days are the basics of Y-DNA testing.
?
Chris Pomery said way back in his 2004 book on Y-DNA testing, when the ※state of the art§ was 37 STR markers: ※Start by testing two branches of your surname which merge about 200 years ago.§
?
That still holds true in 2024 in my book.? You may strike it lucky with just one BigY-700 test 每 but if you do not, then if you use the above maxim then a lot of your private SNPs will disappear.
?
Whether you can research male family lines back in Croatia 200 years ago is a separate question.? But even then, FamilySearch usually gives an excellent guide as to what is feasible in 2024. Croatia has a
complex history of various countries having a role in its history over the past 200 years, notably Austria of course 每 but it depends on which locations in Croatia we are talking about here.
?
?
Brian
?
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of richvh@...
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2024 9:02 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] BigY - is it worth it?
?
What it means is that (judging by Discover) you are the first member of R-BY5715 who is not a member of R-BY5716 to have tested. The majority of R-BY5716 testers claim descent from the British Isles, which are
relatively over tested.? It looks like you claim descent from Croatia, and I would expect that the Balkans are relatively poorly tested. If you have known male line cousins, you could try to get one of them to test. If you don't, but know what village you
descend from, you could try to recruit someone from there to test.
?
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 3:17 AM, Dado
Finally, after five months and another kit sent, I received my Big Y result yesterday. My haplogroup is R-BY5715, which I already knew because I did a Yseq test a couple of years ago. I have no Blocktree matches, no Y-matches, I have 20
private variants. Still no Y-DNA match at 111, 67 and 27 markers, only at 25 markers. Not much new information. ?
As I can see, this haplogroup is quite old and I am surprised that there are no more recent mutations. How to interpret this?
|
Welcome to my club Dado ... I'm guessing your family is from Germany?
On Friday, August 2, 2024 at 02:17:17 AM CDT, Dado <dstanic@...> wrote:
Finally, after five months and another kit sent, I received my Big Y result yesterday. My haplogroup is R-BY5715, which I already knew because I did a Yseq test a couple of years ago. I have no Blocktree matches, no Y-matches, I have 20 private variants. Still no Y-DNA match at 111, 67 and 27 markers, only at 25 markers. Not much new information. ?
As I can see, this haplogroup is quite old and I am surprised that there are no more recent mutations. How to interpret this?
?
Cheers,
Dado
|
A .hr email address implies he's from Croatia. Germany uses .de.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 8:52 AM, Linda Wheaton via groups.io <lbucher@...> wrote:
Welcome to my club Dado ... I'm guessing your family is from Germany?
On Friday, August 2, 2024 at 02:17:17 AM CDT, Dado <dstanic@...> wrote:
Finally, after five months and another kit sent, I received my Big Y result yesterday. My haplogroup is R-BY5715, which I already knew because I did a Yseq test a couple of years ago. I have no Blocktree matches, no Y-matches, I have 20 private variants. Still no Y-DNA match at 111, 67 and 27 markers, only at 25 markers. Not much new information. ?
As I can see, this haplogroup is quite old and I am surprised that there are no more recent mutations. How to interpret this?
?
Cheers,
Dado
|
No, as emphasized, I am from Croatia. I know my male line all the way back to the 1820s, but then I have hit a brick wall because my 4 times grandmother married a man who then took her last name, which we now carry. That was quite strange for the period. So I really don't know who the father is, or the origin of the family of potential fathers. Naimely, there are two candidates - one with a typical Croatian surname, the other could be from Styria - a region that is now divided between Slovenia and Austria, where of course many Germans/Austrians live(d). I know my other family lines much better, so for now I'm stuck - historically and now genealogically. The major problem for me is the fact that there are no younger lines than R-BY5715 which could clarify certain issues. Pitty.
|
See https://www.academia.edu/110720624/Gleanings_of_a_Cork_family_in_18_th_century_Dalmatia
--
Kevin Terry
|
Wayne
Kevin Terry