New Mawdsley and Hartley results
With two new Big-Y test kits we have some updates along the Hartley branch of our tree.
There were previously two Harley haplogroups - A11132 with two Hartleys and below it was FT225247 with two Hartleys. A new Mawdsley Big-Y?has broken up the A11132 block so Mawdsley retains that SNP block alone with a new, smaller A11134 block below it. A new Hartley joins the two previous A11132 Hartleys at A11134. This means the Mawdsley ancestor predates the common ancestor for the 5 Hartleys with their common ancestor being estimated around 1400-1500AD.
It's possible that we may have some other refinements on these blocks when FTDNA does their manual analysis within a few weeks.
Thank you Joel for spearheading?the efforts on this branch! Joel has written about these updates at??
I've updated the SNP tree -? with these new results. This includes updated and recalibrated dates for these and related haplogroups. The spreadsheet for these calculations is at?
I've also updated the STR spreadsheet at? You'll note that a Hartley STR "modal" signature is emerging that differentiates this branch from the rest of us.
Cheers,
Jared Smith Z16357 Y-DNA Project Administrator
|
Re: TMRCA aging of Z16357 haplogroups
Thanks for your feedback and thoughts Joel! A few comments are below. It may be interesting for you to share your findings on the R1b-L513 Facebook page to see what some of the other experts think there also.?
Yes, I'll share soon. It sounds like some things may change in the near future as we get some additional test results in. ?
Tiger Walsh has stated on, I believe, the L513 Facebook page that older SNPs can be in the range of 65 to 75 years per SNP.
Yes, this aggregating?effect for SNP counts based?on multiple testers increasing?reliability of reads is known,?but is a bit tricky to account for. We're already well in or even faster than that 65 to 75 range with both old and new SNPs - and across both Y700 and Y500 testers. My hope is to eventually apply factoring for "years per SNP" based on age of the SNP and whether it's a 700 or 500 test to account for much of this. I'd also like to calculate confidence intervals on the various age estimates. James Irvine has an excellent, recently-published journal article that covers these TMRCA topics in depth -?
?
Or we just are producing more than the average SNPs. Which is good for branching and dating.
Everything seems to suggest that our branches have notably higher SNP counts than most. This is very useful for us for near-term age estimates and branch generation, but it does make aging more tricky when our SNP counts don't align with the predicted "formed" dates for our old haplogroups - it's difficult to know whether we're actually making more SNPs or whether Z16357 is just much older than predicted. ? However, their actual individual Private Variants are 5 and 2. I am told that is because some of their individual Private Variants are not from trusted areas of tested YDNA.
Yes, this is essentially the opposite problem of the effect discussed above.?Alex's Big Tree looks more closely at these private variants. 4 years ago I did the same with raw results for most of the folks then in our group, but with a lot more people now and the transition since then to hg38 for raw data, I'm not sure if I want to take on this rather complex kit-by-kit analysis again. Doing so would require everyone to provide me their?updated raw BigY data (or administering an FTDNA project in which everyone is a member). For now, I'm prone to use FTDNAs conservative estimates for private variants. With the opposite effect for older haplogroups, perhaps this is a bit of a wash overall?
Supposedly FTDNA is going to provide their own age estimates one of these years. We'll see. ? Your date of 900 for the formation of A11132 is interesting also as it implies that there should be other non-Hartleys in this group that we have not found yet.
It should also imply that there would be others more closely related to me - yet, alas, I'm still stuck rather isolated at the ~1000 year old A11138. These types of long branches that were seemingly isolated for many generations are really the story of much of Z16357 - it's what makes us fairly unique and what makes me so interested in solving some of these puzzles.
Cheers,
Jared
|
Re: TMRCA aging of Z16357 haplogroups
Thank you so much for the awesome information.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jared Smith <jared@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, Jan 3, 2022 8:44 pm
Subject: [Z16357] TMRCA aging of Z16357 haplogroups
As promised, I took a stab at aging the SNP blocks under Z16357. You can view the updated SNP chart with ages at? (you may need to hit Refresh to see the updates).
These are very rough estimates. The first date listed for each block is an estimate of the "formed date" - when the first SNP in that block was formed. The second date is a Time of Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) date - meaning when the last SNP in that block was formed, or the nearest date that two testers in child branches might expect to share a common ancestor in that block. We can't know which SNP in the block is oldest and which is newest or where within that date range common ancestors are actually shared (at least without additional documentation or testing).
Z16357 has several TMRCA estimates. YFull and SNP Tracker estimate it as?, Ytree (based on?Iain McDonald's work) has it as?, and Dave Vance (one of the L513 administrators) has it as . So that's 1000+ years difference between estimates. For broader range estimates, it's better to assume an older age.
Our 28 known testers have an average of 55 variants at or below Z16357 - a high of 67 and low of 45 (st. dev. of 5.7). Much of this variability is due to higher variant count coverage/possibilities for Big-Y 700 testers vs. Big-Y 500 testers - I didn't provide any factoring/weighting for the different test types (I'm not certain who has which test type anyway).
I also did not consider STR differences - which could provide some insight into larger blocks. For example, if an SNP block spans hundreds of years, STR differences could give insight into whether the MRCA is at the beginning or end of that time span.?I did, however, make some minor adjustments in time spans for the few known common ancestors we have across testers.
With a formed age estimate of 3900 years ago, this comes out to 71 years per SNP - well faster than the generally-accepted 83.3 value used on many aging calculations. I'm using FTDNA's average aggregated private variants for each terminal block (rather than exact private variant values). With this 71 years value, I then stepped backward from 1950AD to 1950BC (the 3900 year span) to assign date estimates for each block.
You can review my spreadsheet for the calculations at The spreadsheet also provides TMRCA estimates if Z16357 instead has formed dates of 3500 years ago (63.7 years per SNP) or 3000 years ago (54.6 years per SNP). These differences are relatively minor for more recent haplogroups, but become quite significant for older haplogroups.
One item of note is the significant time distance between the two sides of the Z16357 tree - Z16343 and BY19970 split probably 3000+ years ago and then each had 2000+ years with no (yet) known branches - which is primarily why most of my research analyzes these in isolation from each other.
I'd be VERY happy to have feedback or criticism on my methodologies or the dates estimated. I'll update these estimates any time we have a notable update to the tree.
Cheers,
Jared
|
Re: TMRCA aging of Z16357 haplogroups
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 8:45 PM Jared Smith < jared@...> wrote: As promised, I took a stab at aging the SNP blocks under Z16357. You can view the updated SNP chart with ages at? (you may need to hit Refresh to see the updates). These are very rough estimates. The first date listed for each block is an estimate of the "formed date" - when the first SNP in that block was formed. The second date is a Time of Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) date - meaning when the last SNP in that block was formed, or the nearest date that two testers in child branches might expect to share a common ancestor in that block. We can't know which SNP in the block is oldest and which is newest or where within that date range common ancestors are actually shared (at least without additional documentation or testing). Z16357 has several TMRCA estimates. YFull and SNP Tracker estimate it as?, Ytree (based on?Iain McDonald's work) has it as?, and Dave Vance (one of the L513 administrators) has it as . So that's 1000+ years difference between estimates. For broader range estimates, it's better to assume an older age. Our 28 known testers have an average of 55 variants at or below Z16357 - a high of 67 and low of 45 (st. dev. of 5.7). Much of this variability is due to higher variant count coverage/possibilities for Big-Y 700 testers vs. Big-Y 500 testers - I didn't provide any factoring/weighting for the different test types (I'm not certain who has which test type anyway).
I also did not consider STR differences - which could provide some insight into larger blocks. For example, if an SNP block spans hundreds of years, STR differences could give insight into whether the MRCA is at the beginning or end of that time span.?I did, however, make some minor adjustments in time spans for the few known common ancestors we have across testers.
With a formed age estimate of 3900 years ago, this comes out to 71 years per SNP - well faster than the generally-accepted 83.3 value used on many aging calculations. I'm using FTDNA's average aggregated private variants for each terminal block (rather than exact private variant values). With this 71 years value, I then stepped backward from 1950AD to 1950BC (the 3900 year span) to assign date estimates for each block.
You can review my spreadsheet for the calculations at The spreadsheet also provides TMRCA estimates if Z16357 instead has formed dates of 3500 years ago (63.7 years per SNP) or 3000 years ago (54.6 years per SNP). These differences are relatively minor for more recent haplogroups, but become quite significant for older haplogroups.
One item of note is the significant time distance between the two sides of the Z16357 tree - Z16343 and BY19970 split probably 3000+ years ago and then each had 2000+ years with no (yet) known branches - which is primarily why most of my research analyzes these in isolation from each other.
I'd be VERY happy to have feedback or criticism on my methodologies or the dates estimated. I'll update these estimates any time we have a notable update to the tree.
Cheers,
Jared
|
Re: TMRCA aging of Z16357 haplogroups
Hi Jared, ? Thanks for your thorough work. It may be interesting for you to share your findings on the R1b-L513 Facebook page to see what some of the other experts think there also. ? I have not looked at your methodology in detail, but in general the concept seems very good. Tiger Walsh has stated on, I believe, the L513 Facebook page that older SNPs can be in the range of 65 to 75 years per SNP. That is because when there are thousands of testers for those older SNPs, more irregular SNPs or SNPs in poorer regions can be verified. Although we don’t have thousands of testers, perhaps we are starting to see this in our small group. Or we just are producing more than the average SNPs. Which is good for branching and dating. ? I have looked mostly at just my small branch of Hartleys. In that branch I would say that 1650 is in my opinion late for a common ancestor date of A11132. I see how you got that date. My branch with my brother has 7 SNPs up to A11132 and the branch with Steve and Michael Hartley have an average of only two SNPs. However, their actual individual Private Variants are 5 and 2. I am told that is because some of their individual Private Variants are not from trusted areas of tested YDNA. My guess for the date of the common ancestor of A11132 Hartleys is 1500 based on looking at the STRs and SNPs. However, I am looking forward to the BigY testing of two more Hartleys to further refine dates and branching. Your date of 900 for the formation of A11132 is interesting also as it implies that there should be other non-Hartleys in this group that we have not found yet. ? Joel ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] On Behalf Of Jared Smith Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 8:45 PM To: [email protected]Subject: [Z16357] TMRCA aging of Z16357 haplogroups ? As promised, I took a stab at aging the SNP blocks under Z16357. You can view the updated SNP chart with ages at? (you may need to hit Refresh to see the updates).
These are very rough estimates. The first date listed for each block is an estimate of the "formed date" - when the first SNP in that block was formed. The second date is a Time of Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) date - meaning when the last SNP in that block was formed, or the nearest date that two testers in child branches might expect to share a common ancestor in that block. We can't know which SNP in the block is oldest and which is newest or where within that date range common ancestors are actually shared (at least without additional documentation or testing).
Z16357 has several TMRCA estimates. YFull and SNP Tracker estimate it as?, Ytree (based on?Iain McDonald's work) has it as?, and Dave Vance (one of the L513 administrators) has it as . So that's 1000+ years difference between estimates. For broader range estimates, it's better to assume an older age.
Our 28 known testers have an average of 55 variants at or below Z16357 - a high of 67 and low of 45 (st. dev. of 5.7). Much of this variability is due to higher variant count coverage/possibilities for Big-Y 700 testers vs. Big-Y 500 testers - I didn't provide any factoring/weighting for the different test types (I'm not certain who has which test type anyway). I also did not consider STR differences - which could provide some insight into larger blocks. For example, if an SNP block spans hundreds of years, STR differences could give insight into whether the MRCA is at the beginning or end of that time span.?I did, however, make some minor adjustments in time spans for the few known common ancestors we have across testers. With a formed age estimate of 3900 years ago, this comes out to 71 years per SNP - well faster than the generally-accepted 83.3 value used on many aging calculations. I'm using FTDNA's average aggregated private variants for each terminal block (rather than exact private variant values). With this 71 years value, I then stepped backward from 1950AD to 1950BC (the 3900 year span) to assign date estimates for each block. You can review my spreadsheet for the calculations at The spreadsheet also provides TMRCA estimates if Z16357 instead has formed dates of 3500 years ago (63.7 years per SNP) or 3000 years ago (54.6 years per SNP). These differences are relatively minor for more recent haplogroups, but become quite significant for older haplogroups. One item of note is the significant time distance between the two sides of the Z16357 tree - Z16343 and BY19970 split probably 3000+ years ago and then each had 2000+ years with no (yet) known branches - which is primarily why most of my research analyzes these in isolation from each other. I'd be VERY happy to have feedback or criticism on my methodologies or the dates estimated. I'll update these estimates any time we have a notable update to the tree.
|
TMRCA aging of Z16357 haplogroups
As promised, I took a stab at aging the SNP blocks under Z16357. You can view the updated SNP chart with ages at? (you may need to hit Refresh to see the updates). These are very rough estimates. The first date listed for each block is an estimate of the "formed date" - when the first SNP in that block was formed. The second date is a Time of Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) date - meaning when the last SNP in that block was formed, or the nearest date that two testers in child branches might expect to share a common ancestor in that block. We can't know which SNP in the block is oldest and which is newest or where within that date range common ancestors are actually shared (at least without additional documentation or testing). Z16357 has several TMRCA estimates. YFull and SNP Tracker estimate it as?, Ytree (based on?Iain McDonald's work) has it as?, and Dave Vance (one of the L513 administrators) has it as . So that's 1000+ years difference between estimates. For broader range estimates, it's better to assume an older age. Our 28 known testers have an average of 55 variants at or below Z16357 - a high of 67 and low of 45 (st. dev. of 5.7). Much of this variability is due to higher variant count coverage/possibilities for Big-Y 700 testers vs. Big-Y 500 testers - I didn't provide any factoring/weighting for the different test types (I'm not certain who has which test type anyway).
I also did not consider STR differences - which could provide some insight into larger blocks. For example, if an SNP block spans hundreds of years, STR differences could give insight into whether the MRCA is at the beginning or end of that time span.?I did, however, make some minor adjustments in time spans for the few known common ancestors we have across testers.
With a formed age estimate of 3900 years ago, this comes out to 71 years per SNP - well faster than the generally-accepted 83.3 value used on many aging calculations. I'm using FTDNA's average aggregated private variants for each terminal block (rather than exact private variant values). With this 71 years value, I then stepped backward from 1950AD to 1950BC (the 3900 year span) to assign date estimates for each block.
You can review my spreadsheet for the calculations at The spreadsheet also provides TMRCA estimates if Z16357 instead has formed dates of 3500 years ago (63.7 years per SNP) or 3000 years ago (54.6 years per SNP). These differences are relatively minor for more recent haplogroups, but become quite significant for older haplogroups.
One item of note is the significant time distance between the two sides of the Z16357 tree - Z16343 and BY19970 split probably 3000+ years ago and then each had 2000+ years with no (yet) known branches - which is primarily why most of my research analyzes these in isolation from each other.
I'd be VERY happy to have feedback or criticism on my methodologies or the dates estimated. I'll update these estimates any time we have a notable update to the tree.
Cheers,
Jared
|
Re: Z16357 DNA Project Updates
Thanks, Jared, ? Yes, a lot of exciting things are going on. I have recruited two Hartleys to do a BigY. Also I notice that one of those recruits who is Lawrence Hartley matches a Mawdsley who has apparently also signed up for the BigY 700 test. The result of all these tests will be a YDNA tree which will show how our branch of the YDNA tree is related to each other before the time we are able to figure out by genealogy. ? I have written a lot of DNA and genealogy blogs on different branches of my ancestors. The ones I have written on Hartley YDNA should be listed here: ? ? Joel Hartley Massachusett ? ? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] < [email protected]> On Behalf Of Jared Smith Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 11:04 AM To: [email protected]Subject: [Z16357] Z16357 DNA Project Updates ? Hello R-Z16357 cousins! This list has been inactive for some time, but I'm diving back into research on our tree and have several exciting updates to share. I've published an updated . Please review and make sure that everything is accurate. The time estimates on the chart are VERY rough "eyeball" estimates - these will be updated in the near future after more extensive data analysis. Notable updates from the last year or two: - We are now at 27 testers with Big-Y! All but one have tested to Y-111 or higher. Our?tree now has 21 distinct SNP blocks.?
- The SNP chart highlights the 4 major branches:
- Z16357 > BY19970 (Smith X 4, Mustapha, Meacham, McBee X 2)
- Z16357 > Z16343 >?Z16854 (Pillsbury X 2, Hays X 2)
- Z16357 > Z16343 >?Z17911 > FT94840 (Williams, Davis, Thomas X 2, Martin, Laurie, Phillips X 2, Bennett, McCullers)
- Z16357 > Z16343 > Z17911 > A11138 (Smith, Hartley X 4)
- There are 5 new testers on BY19970. The Smith branch is now much better defined, with two McBees forming a new parallel branch. Mustapha likely connects at a very early age (his STRs are rather dissimilar from the Smiths) and is?of North African descent. This is of particular interest to?tracking our ancestral?migration paths!
- The?FT94840 branch is the best defined on our tree and has several new branches. This branch also has the most candidates for future testing (see below), expansion, and surname groupings.
- Joel Hartley has done incredible work refining his part of the A11138 branch, having recruited several cousins for testing. Joel writes extensively about his findings on .
Robert Casey Z16343 Analysis Robert Casey has conducted an in-depth STR, SNP, aging, and prediction analysis on Z16343 (one of the two major?children of Z16357). You can read his report at? It's quite technical, but the short version is that the Z16343 branch works well for this type of Binary Logistic Regression Model analysis for accurately predicting likely SNP matches.
Robert's automated haplogroup chart is at? This uses both STRs and SNPs to estimate connections and time to most recent common ancestors (TMRCA).
I've updated the based on Robert Casey's work. This is a work in progress! There are two primary tabs, one for Z16343 and one for BY19970. The sheet lists many testers that are very likely to fall within Z16357 that would be great candidates for Big-Y. The Z16343 sheet provides kit match reliability values based on Robert's regression methodology. Unfortunately BY19970 does not qualify for this type of complex analysis, though other types of STR analysis are underway. I made several other web site updates, including details on the history of Z16357 -? Feedback, corrections, and updates are always welcome!
Future Work I will be spending notable time in the coming weeks adding new potential Big-Y testers to the STR sheet and refining the logistical model for comparisons. I'm hopeful that you will help with contacting and recruiting new testers to expand and better define our tree.
I will also be conducting an in-depth, updated aging analysis for our branches to give us a better indication of when our Most Recent Common Ancestors (MRCA) lived.
I'd be happy to hear any news any of you have on the DNA genealogy front. Feel free to invite any others to this mailing list that may be interested, especially any Y-DNA or Big-Y matches.
Happy holidays and happy new year! R-Z16357 DNA Project Administrator
|
Z16357 DNA Project Updates
Hello R-Z16357 cousins! This list has been inactive for some time, but I'm diving back into research on our tree and have several exciting updates to share.
SNP Tree Updates I've published an updated . Please review and make sure that everything is accurate. The time estimates on the chart are VERY rough "eyeball" estimates - these will be updated in the near future after more extensive data analysis.
Notable updates from the last year or two: - We are now at 27 testers with Big-Y! All but one have tested to Y-111 or higher. Our?tree now has 21 distinct SNP blocks.?
- The SNP chart highlights the 4 major branches:
- Z16357 > BY19970 (Smith X 4, Mustapha, Meacham, McBee X 2)
- Z16357 > Z16343 >?Z16854 (Pillsbury X 2, Hays X 2)
- Z16357 > Z16343 >?Z17911 > FT94840 (Williams, Davis, Thomas X 2, Martin, Laurie, Phillips X 2, Bennett, McCullers)
- Z16357 > Z16343 > Z17911 > A11138 (Smith, Hartley X 4)
- There are 5 new testers on BY19970. The Smith branch is now much better defined, with two McBees forming a new parallel branch. Mustapha likely connects at a very early age (his STRs are rather dissimilar from the Smiths) and is?of North African descent. This is of particular interest to?tracking our ancestral?migration paths!
- The?FT94840 branch is the best defined on our tree and has several new branches. This branch also has the most candidates for future testing (see below), expansion, and surname groupings.
- Joel Hartley has done incredible work refining his part of the A11138 branch, having recruited several cousins for testing. Joel writes extensively about his findings on .
Robert Casey Z16343 Analysis Robert Casey has conducted an in-depth STR, SNP, aging, and prediction analysis on Z16343 (one of the two major?children of Z16357). You can read his report at?
It's quite technical, but the short version is that the Z16343 branch works well for this type of Binary Logistic Regression Model analysis for accurately predicting likely SNP matches.
Robert's automated haplogroup chart is at? This uses both STRs and SNPs to estimate connections and time to most recent common ancestors (TMRCA).
STR Spreadsheet Update I've updated the based on Robert Casey's work. This is a work in progress!
There are two primary tabs, one for Z16343 and one for BY19970. The sheet lists many testers that are very likely to fall within Z16357 that would be great candidates for Big-Y. The Z16343 sheet provides kit match reliability values based on Robert's regression methodology. Unfortunately BY19970 does not qualify for this type of complex analysis, though other types of STR analysis are underway.
Web Site Updates I made several other web site updates, including details on the history of Z16357 -? Feedback, corrections, and updates are always welcome!
Future Work I will be spending notable time in the coming weeks adding new potential Big-Y testers to the STR sheet and refining the logistical model for comparisons. I'm hopeful that you will help with contacting and recruiting new testers to expand and better define our tree.
I will also be conducting an in-depth, updated aging analysis for our branches to give us a better indication of when our Most Recent Common Ancestors (MRCA) lived.
I'd be happy to hear any news any of you have on the DNA genealogy front. Feel free to invite any others to this mailing list that may be interested, especially any Y-DNA or Big-Y matches.
Happy holidays and happy new year!
Jared Smith R-Z16357 DNA Project Administrator
|
Re: New Big-Y files needed
Hi again, thanks for the tutorial.
I had a few reasons to try the others --
23andme: Jokingly, for several years my wife and I have disputed who had more Neanderthal DNA. She is from Eastern Europe and my maternal line is Portuguese, so with remains found in Croatia and the Iberian peninsula, we had a friendly competition. We put to rest that she indeed does have more variants, 287 and 271 for me. Over 300 is considered high and 23andme highest results were 397. However, not sure I really came out ahead in this? LOL? It also provides some health traits that I'm still looking in to. Another interesting difference I liked was the ancestry timeline. See the link provided if your interested.
AncestryDNA: It was only $54 on black Friday and I'm hoping its ethnicity estimate provides more insight than the others.
I came across this article on the differences between all the DNA studies.
On Monday, January 8, 2018, 11:11:03 AM EST, Jared Smith <jared@...> wrote:
I'd certainly recommend that anyone that has done autosomal testing to
upload their results to GedMatch.com. This site provides a great way
to find matches from all of the major testing companies. If you've not
used it, I wrote a tutorial that may be helpful -
It would be a good idea to check your GedMatch one-to-many list for
the surnames of folks in this group. It's most likely that our shared
direct male line ancestors are too far back to have shared autosomal
DNA from them, but it's possible we're related in other ways.
Thanks,
Jared
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Thomas Goff < thomasgoff94@...> wrote: > Thanks, sounds good. > > btw, forgot to mention. I took advantage of some sales on other DNA testing. > My 23andme test are in and waiting for Ancestry.com results.? Let me know if > you are interested with these results. > > Best, > Tom > > On Monday, January 8, 2018, 10:20:48 AM EST, Jared Smith > < jared@...> wrote: > > > Thomas - > > That is correct. This is only for those that have done the Big-Y test. If > any new SNP testing looks viable for you after the analysis, I'll certainly > let you know. > > Thanks, > > Jared > >
|
Re: New Big-Y files needed
Hello Jared, Thomas, and everyone,
I've found the Matching Segment Search very helpful at Gedmatch.com. It's available via the Tier 1 utilities which requires a $10 fee for one month's access. It's helpful in finding others who match at the same segment
and therefore have a shared ancestor/ancestral couple. It can be tricky, however, determining which match is from which copy (maternal or paternal) of the particular chromosome unless one has a parent whose results can be "phased" against your own.
Best wishes for the new year,
Charles Thomas
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I'd certainly recommend that anyone that has done autosomal testing to
upload their results to GedMatch.com. This site provides a great way
to find matches from all of the major testing companies. If you've not
used it, I wrote a tutorial that may be helpful -
|
smithplanet.com
Genetic Genealogy using GEDmatch An Absolute Beginners Guide. by Jared Smith. Please contact me if you have any corrections or clarifications. Overview
|
It would be a good idea to check your GedMatch one-to-many list for
the surnames of folks in this group. It's most likely that our shared
direct male line ancestors are too far back to have shared autosomal
DNA from them, but it's possible we're related in other ways.
Thanks,
Jared
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Thomas Goff <thomasgoff94@...> wrote:
> Thanks, sounds good.
>
> btw, forgot to mention. I took advantage of some sales on other DNA testing.
> My 23andme test are in and waiting for Ancestry.com results.? Let me know if
> you are interested with these results.
>
> Best,
> Tom
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2018, 10:20:48 AM EST, Jared Smith
> <jared@...> wrote:
>
>
> Thomas -
>
> That is correct. This is only for those that have done the Big-Y test. If
> any new SNP testing looks viable for you after the analysis, I'll certainly
> let you know.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jared
>
>
|
Re: New Big-Y files needed
I'd certainly recommend that anyone that has done autosomal testing to
upload their results to GedMatch.com. This site provides a great way
to find matches from all of the major testing companies. If you've not
used it, I wrote a tutorial that may be helpful -
It would be a good idea to check your GedMatch one-to-many list for
the surnames of folks in this group. It's most likely that our shared
direct male line ancestors are too far back to have shared autosomal
DNA from them, but it's possible we're related in other ways.
Thanks,
Jared
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Thomas Goff <thomasgoff94@...> wrote: Thanks, sounds good.
btw, forgot to mention. I took advantage of some sales on other DNA testing.
My 23andme test are in and waiting for Ancestry.com results. Let me know if
you are interested with these results.
Best,
Tom
On Monday, January 8, 2018, 10:20:48 AM EST, Jared Smith
<jared@...> wrote:
Thomas -
That is correct. This is only for those that have done the Big-Y test. If
any new SNP testing looks viable for you after the analysis, I'll certainly
let you know.
Thanks,
Jared
|
Re: New Big-Y files needed
Thanks, sounds good.
btw, forgot to mention. I took advantage of some sales on other DNA testing. My 23andme test are in and waiting for Ancestry.com results.? Let me know if you are interested with these results.
Best, Tom?
On Monday, January 8, 2018, 10:20:48 AM EST, Jared Smith <jared@...> wrote:
Thomas -
That is correct. This is only for those that have done the Big-Y test. If any new SNP testing looks viable for you after the analysis, I'll certainly let you know.
Thanks,
Jared
|
Re: New Big-Y files needed
Thomas -
That is correct. This is only for those that have done the Big-Y test. If any new SNP testing looks viable for you after the analysis, I'll certainly let you know.
Thanks,
Jared
|
Re: New Big-Y files needed
Hello Jared,
Happy new year and hope you are well!
It looks like the link you sent are for those who have done the Big-Y test. I haven't taken Big-Y, but I have attached an image of what is available for my download. Please let me know if any of these are useful.
Thanks, Tom
On Sunday, January 7, 2018, 7:01:29 PM EST, Jared Smith <jared@...> wrote:
Hi all! I hope you had a wonderful holiday season and I wish you all
the best in this new year!
I'm still in need of quite a few new Build 38 files to update my
analysis. I've received Raw Data files for the following:
- J Hartley
- C Hays
- Bennett
I know there were some difficulties with the file size of the Raw Data
file, which is the critical one for my analysis. Fortunately, I've
discovered a much easier way to get the Raw Data file that doesn't
involve you downloading it at all:
1. Log in to familytreedna.com
2. Go to (or click MyFTDNA...
Big-Y... Matches)
3. Select the "Download Raw Data" button near the top right of the screen.
4. Right-click on the green "Download VCF" (NOT "Download BAM") button
at the bottom of the screen, and select "Copy Link Address". This menu
options might also be called "Copy Link Location" or similar,
depending on the browser you're using.
5. Reply to this message (or a private e-mail just to me, if you
prefer) and paste (Control or Command + V) in the long web site
address, then send to me.
It would be very helpful for our project if you could send this to me.
I also strongly encourage you to share your Raw Data file to the new
Y-DNA Data Warehouse. This will allow other researchers to analyze the
data to help build our tree. Instructions are at
You use the same copied Link
Address as above, so it's very easy to submit.
Thanks,
Jared
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Joel Hartley < joel@...> wrote: > Hi James,
>
>
>
> I guess I’m underutilizing this:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hope you get it (and that it is the right file).
>
>
>
> Joel
>
>
>
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 11:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [Z16357] New Big-Y files needed
>
>
>
> Joel,
>
>
>
> If by "Microsoft Cloud" you mean "One Drive", I believe if you store the
> file on your local OneDrive folder, you can "right-click" the file and chose
> "Share a OneDrive link".? That will but a link in your clipboard that you
> can paste into the e-mail.
>
>
>
> HTH,
>
> James
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Joel Hartley < joel@...> wrote: >
> Yes, still no luck with the VCF. Any suggestions? I have used the Cloud
> through Microsoft, but only on a limited basis and am not very familiar with
> it. I also have my own website, but not sure how to share files with you.
>
>
>
> Joel
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:44 PM
> Subject: [Z16357] New Big-Y files needed
>
>
>
> Hello fellow Z16357 cousins! Things have been relatively quiet around here -
> no new matches in quite some time. Now's a great time to recruit those STR
> matches of ours = Big-Y is on sale for $475.
>
>
>
> For Big-Y customers, you've probably seen that FTDNA has made notable
> updates to their Big-Y tools. There are some nice improvements (though still
> some issues they are working through).
>
>
>
> FTDNA has also moved to a new Y-DNA reference - hg19 to hg38. At it's most
> basic level, this is an adjustment of the numeric values that are used to
> represent different 'markers' on the Y-chromosome. Z16357, for example, is a
> G to T allele change at position 22,512,912 when using the older hg19
> reference, but it's G to T at position 20,351,026 using the hg38 reference.
> So all of the SNP and variant numbering at
> will need to be updated. The new reference provides us some opportunity to
> find new shared or novel variants.
>
>
> To update my research and reference numbers, I need your updated FTDNA
> Results and VCF files.
>
>
>
> Please take a few moments to download and e-mail them to me. This will be
> incredibly helpful to our research.
>
>
>
> 1. Log in to FTDNA.
>
> 2. Go to
>
> 3. Click "Export Results" at the top right and save the .csv file
>
> 4. Click "Download Raw Data" at the top right.
>
> 5. Click "Download VCF" at the bottom and save the .zip file.
>
> 6. Attach both the .csv and .zip files to a new e-mail and send to me
>
>
>
> Once I have everyone's updated results, I'll analyze them, update the web
> site, and let you know if I find anything interesting.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Jared Smith
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
Re: New Big-Y files needed
Hi all! I hope you had a wonderful holiday season and I wish you all
the best in this new year!
I'm still in need of quite a few new Build 38 files to update my
analysis. I've received Raw Data files for the following:
- J Hartley
- C Hays
- Bennett
I know there were some difficulties with the file size of the Raw Data
file, which is the critical one for my analysis. Fortunately, I've
discovered a much easier way to get the Raw Data file that doesn't
involve you downloading it at all:
1. Log in to familytreedna.com
2. Go to (or click MyFTDNA...
Big-Y... Matches)
3. Select the "Download Raw Data" button near the top right of the screen.
4. Right-click on the green "Download VCF" (NOT "Download BAM") button
at the bottom of the screen, and select "Copy Link Address". This menu
options might also be called "Copy Link Location" or similar,
depending on the browser you're using.
5. Reply to this message (or a private e-mail just to me, if you
prefer) and paste (Control or Command + V) in the long web site
address, then send to me.
It would be very helpful for our project if you could send this to me.
I also strongly encourage you to share your Raw Data file to the new
Y-DNA Data Warehouse. This will allow other researchers to analyze the
data to help build our tree. Instructions are at
You use the same copied Link
Address as above, so it's very easy to submit.
Thanks,
Jared
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote: Hi James,
I guess I’m underutilizing this:
!AgUuC5wLrF2Ogy40BVWOsivXYYgD
Hope you get it (and that it is the right file).
Joel
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Bennett
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 11:23 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Z16357] New Big-Y files needed
Joel,
If by "Microsoft Cloud" you mean "One Drive", I believe if you store the
file on your local OneDrive folder, you can "right-click" the file and chose
"Share a OneDrive link". That will but a link in your clipboard that you
can paste into the e-mail.
HTH,
James
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Yes, still no luck with the VCF. Any suggestions? I have used the Cloud
through Microsoft, but only on a limited basis and am not very familiar with
it. I also have my own website, but not sure how to share files with you.
Joel
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Z16357] New Big-Y files needed
Hello fellow Z16357 cousins! Things have been relatively quiet around here -
no new matches in quite some time. Now's a great time to recruit those STR
matches of ours = Big-Y is on sale for $475.
For Big-Y customers, you've probably seen that FTDNA has made notable
updates to their Big-Y tools. There are some nice improvements (though still
some issues they are working through).
FTDNA has also moved to a new Y-DNA reference - hg19 to hg38. At it's most
basic level, this is an adjustment of the numeric values that are used to
represent different 'markers' on the Y-chromosome. Z16357, for example, is a
G to T allele change at position 22,512,912 when using the older hg19
reference, but it's G to T at position 20,351,026 using the hg38 reference.
So all of the SNP and variant numbering at
will need to be updated. The new reference provides us some opportunity to
find new shared or novel variants.
To update my research and reference numbers, I need your updated FTDNA
Results and VCF files.
Please take a few moments to download and e-mail them to me. This will be
incredibly helpful to our research.
1. Log in to FTDNA.
2. Go to
3. Click "Export Results" at the top right and save the .csv file
4. Click "Download Raw Data" at the top right.
5. Click "Download VCF" at the bottom and save the .zip file.
6. Attach both the .csv and .zip files to a new e-mail and send to me
off-list - jared@...
Once I have everyone's updated results, I'll analyze them, update the web
site, and let you know if I find anything interesting.
Thanks!
Jared Smith
|
Thank you for the link, James!
Charles
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
?is an interesting article on how to leverage the new FtDNA tools. ?Of course, I will need to read
it multiple time for it to sink in at all. ?:)
James
|
?is an interesting article on how to leverage the new FtDNA tools. ?Of course, I will need to read it multiple time for it to sink in at all. ?:)
James
|
Re: New Big-Y files needed
Hi James, ? I guess I’m underutilizing this: ? https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgUuC5wLrF2Ogy40BVWOsivXYYgD ? Hope you get it (and that it is the right file). ? Joel ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Bennett
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 11:23 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Z16357] New Big-Y files needed ? Joel, If by "Microsoft Cloud" you mean "One Drive", I believe if you store the file on your local OneDrive folder, you can "right-click" the file and chose "Share a OneDrive link".? That will but a link in your clipboard that you can paste into the e-mail. ? On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote: Yes, still no luck with the VCF. Any suggestions? I have used the Cloud through Microsoft, but only on a limited basis and am not very familiar with it. I also have my own website, but not sure how to share files with you. ? Joel ? From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Z16357] New Big-Y files needed ? Hello fellow Z16357 cousins! Things have been relatively quiet around here - no new matches in quite some time. Now's a great time to recruit those STR matches of ours = Big-Y is on sale for?$475. For Big-Y customers, you've probably seen that FTDNA has made notable updates to their Big-Y tools. There are some nice improvements (though still some issues they are working through). FTDNA has also moved to a new Y-DNA reference - hg19 to hg38. At it's most basic level, this is an adjustment of the numeric values that are used to represent different 'markers' on the Y-chromosome. Z16357, for example, is a G to T allele change at position?22,512,912 when using the older hg19 reference, but it's G to T at position?20,351,026 using the hg38 reference. So all of the SNP and variant numbering at? will need to be updated. The new reference provides us some opportunity to find new shared or novel variants.
To update my research and reference numbers, I need your updated FTDNA Results and VCF files.
Please take a few moments to download and e-mail them to me. This will be incredibly helpful to our research. 3. Click "Export Results" at the top right and save the .csv file 4. Click "Download Raw Data" at the top right. 5. Click "Download VCF" at the bottom and save the .zip file. 6. Attach both the .csv and .zip files to a new e-mail and send to me off-list - jared@... Once I have everyone's updated results, I'll analyze them, update the web site, and let you know if I find anything interesting.
?
|
Re: New Big-Y files needed
Joel,
If by "Microsoft Cloud" you mean "One Drive", I believe if you store the file on your local OneDrive folder, you can "right-click" the file and chose "Share a OneDrive link".? That will but a link in your clipboard that you can paste into the e-mail.
HTH, James
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote: Yes, still no luck with the VCF. Any suggestions? I have used the Cloud through Microsoft, but only on a limited basis and am not very familiar with it. I also have my own website, but not sure how to share files with you. ? Joel ? From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Z16357] New Big-Y files needed ? Hello fellow Z16357 cousins! Things have been relatively quiet around here - no new matches in quite some time. Now's a great time to recruit those STR matches of ours = Big-Y is on sale for?$475. For Big-Y customers, you've probably seen that FTDNA has made notable updates to their Big-Y tools. There are some nice improvements (though still some issues they are working through). FTDNA has also moved to a new Y-DNA reference - hg19 to hg38. At it's most basic level, this is an adjustment of the numeric values that are used to represent different 'markers' on the Y-chromosome. Z16357, for example, is a G to T allele change at position?22,512,912 when using the older hg19 reference, but it's G to T at position?20,351,026 using the hg38 reference. So all of the SNP and variant numbering at? will need to be updated. The new reference provides us some opportunity to find new shared or novel variants.
To update my research and reference numbers, I need your updated FTDNA Results and VCF files.
Please take a few moments to download and e-mail them to me. This will be incredibly helpful to our research. 3. Click "Export Results" at the top right and save the .csv file 4. Click "Download Raw Data" at the top right. 5. Click "Download VCF" at the bottom and save the .zip file. 6. Attach both the .csv and .zip files to a new e-mail and send to me off-list - jared@... Once I have everyone's updated results, I'll analyze them, update the web site, and let you know if I find anything interesting.
|
Re: New Big-Y files needed
Yes, still no luck with the VCF. Any suggestions? I have used the Cloud through Microsoft, but only on a limited basis and am not very familiar with it. I also have my own website, but not sure how to share files with you. ? Joel ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Z16357] New Big-Y files needed ? Hello fellow Z16357 cousins! Things have been relatively quiet around here - no new matches in quite some time. Now's a great time to recruit those STR matches of ours = Big-Y is on sale for?$475. For Big-Y customers, you've probably seen that FTDNA has made notable updates to their Big-Y tools. There are some nice improvements (though still some issues they are working through). FTDNA has also moved to a new Y-DNA reference - hg19 to hg38. At it's most basic level, this is an adjustment of the numeric values that are used to represent different 'markers' on the Y-chromosome. Z16357, for example, is a G to T allele change at position?22,512,912 when using the older hg19 reference, but it's G to T at position?20,351,026 using the hg38 reference. So all of the SNP and variant numbering at? will need to be updated. The new reference provides us some opportunity to find new shared or novel variants.
To update my research and reference numbers, I need your updated FTDNA Results and VCF files.
Please take a few moments to download and e-mail them to me. This will be incredibly helpful to our research. 3. Click "Export Results" at the top right and save the .csv file 4. Click "Download Raw Data" at the top right. 5. Click "Download VCF" at the bottom and save the .zip file. 6. Attach both the .csv and .zip files to a new e-mail and send to me off-list - jared@... Once I have everyone's updated results, I'll analyze them, update the web site, and let you know if I find anything interesting.
|
Jared Smith
Richard
James Bennett