开云体育

Hello, In volume 15 of its bi-annual journal, the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy published a paper of Dominic Gagnon, a genealogist from Quebec. Dominic Gagnon et al. "The Common Norman Ancestor to the Verdun, Haviland and Battaglia Families" https://fmg.ac/publications/journal/vol-15/718-fnd-15-2 Abstract: "This study began in 2018 when a French descendant of the Verdun family sought to prove genetically his direct link to Bertram de Verdun, born around 1040 and a contemporary of William the Conqueror. In addition to achieving this, the analysis of the phylogenetic tree and the study of historical documents preserved in England and Normandy revealed a common and unsuspected kinship with the Haviland family of Guernsey, two American Battaglia families whose ancestry originated from Sicily, and the Fauchon from Quebec, who trace their ancestry from Avranchin in Normandy. The same markers on the Y chromosome shared by the descendants of these families allow us to confirm a thousand-year-old common origin and trace their multiple migratory routes." The common ancestor of these three families of Norman origin is identified by the haplogroup R-U106>FGC3861>>FGC17460>BY11544. https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-BY11544/tree I take this opportunity to thank Iain McDonald who agreed to participate, in particular by providing us with the calculation of the MRCAs. Bertram

Hi Rich, >Where do you find the ranges for haplogroup formation? https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-BY71870/scientific This gives the 68%, 95% and 99% confidence intervals for the haplogroup R-BY71870 (and you can change the link to any other haplogroup you like). As you can see, even for a well-constrained haplogroup like this, the confidence intervals stretch over centuries. It's impossible to be much more accurate than this when mutations are random and you only have one or two per century. The only way to improve on this is to use genealogical information, as you have done already. FTDNA only uses genetic data to pin down a TMRCA. It's possible to use both genetic and genealogical evidence to pin down a TMRCA for a haplogroup where the MRCA himself is not known - I've written a Python code to do this if it is useful. See GitHub link in: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/12/6/862 Cheers, Iain.

Hi folks, Actually, getting reliable mutation rates for the extended set of Y-STRs would be very valuable and could help us improve the TMRCA estimates by using a marker-by-marker mutation rate instead of the global one currently used. Here's how to do it: (1) One of the admins needs to go into hundreds of accounts in the project and download their Y-STR CSV files. (2) The CSV files then need to be labelled with their haplogroup. (3) Pairs of CSV files can then be sampled (sequentially or at random), and the TMRCA of their two haplogroups looked up from Discover (preferably in an automated fashion). (4) On a per-marker basis, plotting the genetic distance versus TMRCA and fitting it with an exponential function will give us the mutation rate of each Y-STR. Unfortunately, it needs to be done this way because FTDNA haven't given admins a tool to query all 852 Y-STRs on a project-level basis, as they have for the first 111. I haven't had time to do this myself, because I haven't had time to do (1) and haven't had a chance to work out how to automate (3), but if anyone wants to take this one, it would be very helpful. Cheers, Iain.

Hi folks, Sorry to be away from you lot for quite so long - I hope I've been missed in a good way! I'm going to try to catch up on the last couple of months of messages that I've missed. Hopefully this will be adding useful information, rather than dredging up old subjects and spamming the board with them. Cheers, Iain.

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone comment yet on the Match Time Tree. It’s a very useful new visual display for Big Y testers though you need to have some Big Y matches to get anything out of the feature. Here’s a blog post from FTDNA about the new report: https://blog.familytreedna.com/match-time-tree-discover-genealogy-report/ Debbie Kennett

Things have been fairly quiet around here, so I thought I might bring up a subject from the past but with some updates. Back in September 2022, I had written about trying to identify the original location of S3997, but at that time we only had four or five BigY testers. There are now twelve BigY testers who are either in haplogroup S3997 or one of the five sub-branches that have since been formed. Two of the sub-branches have documented Welsh ancestry, and the third (BY137478) recently gained a new member who lives in Wales. The two lowest sub-branches’ MRCA was born in America around 1764 (I know because I am of that line). Additionally, S3997 has since gained a distant relative in the ancient remains found in Colmar, France, known as Colmar 239. These remains are of a man who was identified as having lived sometime between 740 and 390 BCE, was part of the La Tene culture, and was found to be positive for A10645 which is the parent variant of S3997. In light of all these updates, I went back and read many of the responses to my 2022 email, and one in particular stood out. It was written by Iain (post #6661) in which he mentioned the lack of YDNA testing in France, and it has caused me to further speculate about the origins of S3997. I am now certain that while the MRCA of S3997 most likely lived in Wales, I don’t think the earlier ancestors of that haplogroup were necessarily Celtic Britons. Although the Discover Globetrekker has the ancestors of S3997 entering Britain as early as 1800 BCE, I am exploring the possibility of those ancestors entering much later. I think, (based on the reported ancestry of some of the testers found to be positive for S3997 via Family Finder as well as the finding of Colmar 239) the ancestors of S3997 may have come from Gaul to Britain in the first century BCE around the time of the Roman invasion. That could still fit with the dating of S3997 being in Wales as early as 300-400 CE as indicated in Globetrekker. But again, this is pure speculation. Best Regards, Ed

https://youtu.be/d48bhkOiEuA?si=Q_cvccCvZpZapcaB Dan D

This 4.3-Million-Year-Old Hominin Co-Existed With Humanity’s Earliest Ancestors | IFLScience https://www.iflscience.com/this-43-million-year-old-hominin-co-existed-with-humanitys-earliest-ancestors-75676# This 4.3-Million-Year-Old Hominin Co-Existed With Humanity’s Earliest AncestorsThe story of human evolution has been re-written yet again. Benjamin Taub Benjamin Taub Freelance Writer The specimen may have lived alongside a "basal hominin" calledArdipithecus ramidus. Image credit: Svet foto/Shutterstock.com Archaeologists in Kenya have unearthed a jawbone belonging to an ancient hominin species that walked the Earth at the same time as some of the earliest human ancestors. Known asAustralopithecus anamensis, this ape-like creature was previously thought to have appeared after the original human forebears, yet this fossil suggests that it may actually have been a sister lineage to one of our oldest predecessors. Ancient hominins are typically divided into three groups, with the oldest of these being known as the basal hominins. These are thought to have been followed by a group of species known as the australopiths – which includeAu. anamensis and Au. afarensis, made famous by the iconic specimen named Lucy – that later gave way to the early Homo lineages. Among the three basal hominins, the first to appear in the fossil record isSahelanthropus tchadensis, which lived 6-7 million years ago in modern-day Chad. Next cameOrrorin tugenensis in Kenya, before Ardipithecus ramidus appeared on the scene in Ethiopia between 4.5 and 4.3 million years ago. Arriving just too late to be considered a basal hominin isAu. anamensis - or so we thought. Previous fossils assigned to this species in Kenya and Ethiopia have been dated to 4.2 million years ago, leading scholars to believe that it appeared slightly later thanAr. ramidus and may have been a descendant of this exceptionallyearly hominin. However, a new analysis of an Au. anamensis jawbone that was first discovered in East Turkana, Kenya, in 2011 has indicated that this particular individual lived 4.3 million years ago, and was therefore alive at the same time as the last members of Ar. ramidus. “Though the new specimen is only [100,000 years] older than the existingAu. anamensis samples from [Kenya and Ethiopia], the extension of this species' [earliest appearance] [...] shows that the earliest australopiths temporally overlapped with late-surviving basal hominins in the Early Pliocene,” write the study authors. Admitting that their conclusions are “not definitive”, the researchers nonetheless deduce from their findings thatAr. ramidus might not have been an ancestor to Au. anamensis after all, arguing instead that the latter may have been a “closely related hominin sister-taxon” to the basal hominins. Ultimately, it’s still unclear exactly how either of these ancient hominins relate to modern humans, although it’s believed that we are directly descended from at least one species of australopith. If nothing else, this new research goes to show just how patchy our understanding of human evolution really is, suggesting that the neatly ordered narrative we’ve come to accept might in fact be considerably messier than we thought. The study is published in the Journal of Human Evolution. Dan D Dan

Hello everyone, I logged into FamilyTreeDNA this morning and discovered my assigned haplogroup was changed from "FT304237" to "FTE23068". Are these types of changes/updates common? What does this mean exactly (the website indicated that it may take several weeks for Haplogroup Reports to be available)? I am in the process of trying to figure out where my Johnson line originated from before coming to America (i.e. Netherlands, England, etc.). I am fairly new to all of this and trying to understand what this all means. I appreciate your time and help! Jason

Hello! When blocks on the block tree show zero matches ("DNA Matches 0"), does that mean people in those blocks have more than 30 non-matching SNPs? Or is there another reason for blocks to show zero matches? Conversely, what is the reason that Big Y matches don't show up on the Big Y block tree? Is it because they are matches - having less than 30 non-matching SNPs - but aren't closely enough related on the Y-haplotree to be shown in the block tree? Thank you!!! Mary

Cheers, I need advice. Some time ago I did a Yseq test (R1b-U106 Superclade Panel) and got the final haplogroup FGC18842-S21728-BY5719 which I see, is the same as BY5716. I also did a Y-37 Ftdna test earlier and am now considering whether to upgrade to BigY-700. However, I'm not entirely sure what exactly you'd get with the BigY-700 test, given that my haplogroup has already been determined. Okay, so it's an older mutation, so I guess you'd get younger branches? I would be grateful for advice, or whether it is worth doing BigY in my case? Best regards, Damir

On another topic, two responders commented that they had tried unsuccessfully to recruit testers living in the UK, even after offering to pay for their tests. In behalf of our Acree Surname Project last year, following careful research, I wrote, via international mail, twenty men with variants of our surname who currently live in historic Lancashire, England, requesting them to test for two specific Y-SNPs at YSEQ, leading to proven lineages. We offered not only to pay for their testing ($40 total), but, as further inducement, to arrange for anonymous testing if they desired, using myself as an intermediary. None of the men replied, even to decline. I thought that I had written a nice letter, expressing gratitude for their consideration of our request; but it was totally disregarded. I can’t blame them. It would have been entirely for our Project’s benefit--finding crucial matches in a specific geographic area to gratify would-be, distant relatives across the Atlantic. There was absolutely nothing in it for them, particularly since the highly-specific testing, if the two Y-SNP tests both proved negative, would not have gained them alternative matches. From our perspective, it was high stakes and a disappointing failure. Success may well have added a couple hundred years to the alternative lineages. While it’s possible that men living in the UK have become increasingly wary of DNA testing, for whatever reason, I derive no general lesson here and can only blame myself for being insufficiently convincing in soliciting a favor from strangers. Charles Acree, Administrator, Acree Surname DNA Project

My haplogroup is R-BY71870. My closest matches, MF and PHVH, are in daughter haplogroup R-BY81828. FTDNA estimates that R-BY71870 was formed in 1650, which is off in my opinion by at least 30 years. (The MRCA of PHVH and myself was first recorded as receiving supplies in 1638 in Rensselaerswyck, New Netherlands.) R-BY81828 is estimated to have been formed in 1750. MF was an adoptee whose birth father has been discovered from his original birth certificate and verified to be within a generation of said birth father by DNA matches. I traced the ancestry of that birth father, and the paper trail peters out with a Henry Van Houten, aged 77 (so born ca. 1773) in the 1850 census of Salem, Washtenaw County, Michigan, USA, born in New York state, living with presumed wife Susan, aged 76, born in New Jersey. I believe but can not be certain that they are the Henry Van Houten and Susan Eckerson who married in the Kakiat Reformed Church in what is now New Hempstead, Rockland County, New York in 1799. The most recent ancestor of PHVH who could have been Henry's father is Roelof Van Houten, born 1741. He and his first wife baptized 5 children in the New York (City) Reformed Church between 1766 and 1775, with a 2 1/2 year gap between children 4 (baptized 1772) & 5 (baptized 1775). None of his recorded sons are named Henry. Roelof's father was Cornelis Van Houten, born 1717. He is recorded as having two other sons that lived to adulthood and had children. Of those, one had a son Hendrick, but he was born in 1783, rather too late to be the Henry who married Susan Eckerson, or be the Henry in the 1850 census. The other brother of Roelof is recorded as having had one child by his first wife in 1766, then there is a 19 year gap before he started baptizing children with his second wife in 1785. How much uncertainty should I assume is in the 1750 estimated date of formation of R-BY81828? Roelof's birth in 1741 is likely well within the uncertainty, but would Cornelius' birth in 1717 fall outside of it?

Have mutation rates been published for any of the Big Y-700 "bonus" Y-STRs? I am looking for information on FTY285.

Currently, three of us share haplogroup FTB93230 and the most recent of us to test just got his final Y700 results. Per my BigY matches, each of the other two do not match me on three private variants, two of which are mine. The third non-matching variant, 4736883, is the same for both of them and since that is not one of mine, is it safe to assume that they are about to form a new haplogroup? BTW per YBrowse.org that variant is also known as FTE49009. Thanks, Ed

YFull describes my Hg Variants as FGC17465*, R-Y340824. Odd that it doesn't say I'm FGC17460. TMRCA is given as 1650 ybp (about 550 years after FGC17460). Can someone please explain what all this means? Shane

Hi Ewenn, This kind of analysis take some time, thanks a lot for this. Why do you think it is probably unlikely that KOS015 belong to a "pre-R-FGC17460" ? With only 2 positive SNPs out of 11 SNPs, I would tend to think it is highly probable. It is true that there is also a low rate of positive SNPs among the higher levels, FGC17465 and above, and I believe that it is generally the case with ancient DNA. Bertram Le lun., juil. 22, 2024 à 5:46, Ewenn <gwenng008@...> a écrit: Erratum: *KOS015 could possibly belong to R-FTC75933, a branch for which it only has NO reads for the 11 equivalent SNPs of this block. Le dim. 21 juil. 2024, 15:17, Ewenn via groups.io <gwenng008@...> a écrit : Hi Bertram, Shane, Yes, indeed, FTDNA should, in principle, and to my knowledge, have checked these clades / SNPs downstream of R-FGC17460. Similarly, FTDNA also checks, in principle, for a possible match with Private Variants of downstream testers. I tried to perform on my side an analysis of the KOS015’s fastQ file, in comparison with the current version of the FTDNA’s Y-DNA Haplotree (2024-07-20). I find the same result. In details: Consistent path from A-PR2921 (root) to R-L151 (including with R-PF6538, intermediate clade between R-P310 and R-L151, which only appears at Yfull). R-U106 and downstream clades : consistent path to R-FGC17460 : R-U106 : U106 no read R-FGC3861 : Z8055 1 positive read (BQ:37, mapQ:56, 55M) R-S1855 : FGC3859 1 positive read (BQ:0, mapQ :60, 46M, 2nd position from the 3’end of the aDNA’s segment) R-FGC17465 : FGC17465 1 positive read (BQ:0, mapQ:60, 51M, 5th position from the 3’end of the aDNA’s segment) FGC68717 1 positive read (BQ:23, mapQ:12, 67M) R-FGC17460 : A4654 1 positive read (BQ:37, mapQ:60, 78M) FGC17472 1 positive read (BQ:BQ:37, mapQ:29, 69M) Downstream of R-FGC17460 : only negative (37/272 SNPs) or no reads. For equivalent SNPs to the current 6 known child haplogroups of R-FGC17460 (NOTA : 2 currently unnamed branches, from England and Ireland, not taken into account): R-FTA62881 (3 negative reads / 3 SNPs) R-BY11544 (3 negative reads / 3 SNPs) R-FTC75933 (terminal haplogroup, only no reads) R-FT115916 (1 negative read / FT113203) R-BY122236 (5 negative reads / 5 SNPs) R-FGC17464 (6 negative reads / 4 SNPs) As a result, it seems to me quite likely that KOS015 does not belong to the 5 child branches for which we have negative reads. It is however not totally impossible that KOS015 could belong to an extinct or unidentified branch splitting one of these blocks of equivalent SNPs. KOS015 could possibly belong to R-FTC75933, a branch for which it only has negative reads at the 11 equivalent SNPs. Finally, KOS015 could potentially belong to an unidentified or extinct branch downstream of R-FGC17460. With 2 positive SNPs out of 11 SNPs equivalent to R-FGC17460, and only no reads for the other 9 SNPs in this haplogroup, it is however not totally impossible (but probably unlikely) that KOS015 could be a "pre-R-FGC17460". In other words, that this aDNA belongs to an unidentified or extinct branch that would potentially split the R-FGC17460 block in two. Ewenn

The family tree partnership between FamilyTreeDNA and MyHeritage has now gone live. You can now choose to transfer your FTDNA tree to MyHeritage or link to an existing MyHeritage tree. FamilyTreeDNA will retire their current tree builder on 9th September and all trees not connected to MyHeritage will become read-only. With a free MyHeritage account you are restricted to having a tree with no more than 250 people in it. I found the process of linking to my tree at MyHeritage fairly straightforward. I did, however, struggle with the process of selecting myself as the home person through my FTDNA account. You are initially presented with a list of just 25 names. In order to connect yourself as the home person you need to type your name into the search box exactly how it appears on your MyHeritage tree and your name will then appear in the list. If you want to link other DNA matches to your tree you need to do this via your match list. I’ve now linked my parents to my tree but the family matching feature seems to be very slow and I’m getting a message that it might take up to 24 hours to confirm my maternal and paternal matches. There are full instructions for using the MyHeritage tree feature in this blog post from FTDNA: https://blog.familytreedna.com/myheritage-brings-family-tree-tools-to-familytreedna/ If you don’t already have a family tree attached to your FTDNA account I would encourage you to build one using the MyHeritage tree builder at least for your direct paternal line in order to contribute to the Big Y research, as explained by FTDNA in their blog post: “FamilyTreeDNA conducts internal research using family tree data stored on our site. This research has brought new features and tools, including the Big Y Age Estimates and Globetrekker, and is being used for the upcoming mtDNA improvements with the Million Mito Project. If you choose to transfer a family tree from FamilyTreeDNA to MyHeritage, you can permit MyHeritage to periodically share updates from your tree back to FamilyTreeDNA. The default is to share this data. This enables FamilyTreeDNA to continue conducting research and developing new features and tools based on our customers’ family tree data.” Attaching a tree account is also helpful for all your DNA matches. Best wishes Debbie Kennett

Hello everyone, About a month ago, I logged into my 23andMe account and was surprised to see that they had reassigned my paternal haplogroup assignment from R-Z156 to R-M405 (aka R-U106). I reached out to them immediately to inquire about the change, and after several back-and-forth emails (and after being handed off to two supervisors), they came back with this: "Thanks for your reply. Your inquiry has been escalated to me as a supervisor. Your results changed because some variants that were performing poorly were excluded from our haplogroup caller. Our Product Science team confirmed that there is nothing wrong with the SNP and it was an edge case due to low call rate." Can anyone else who is on this list (and who is also R-Z156+) check their results at 23andMe and see if their haplogroup assignment has changed as well? I also asked them if it would be possible to choose an alternative (but closely related) SNP to use instead of Z156, but did not receive a response. Best, Greg