Keyboard Shortcuts
Likes
- Z16357
- Messages
Search
Re: Mike Hartley BigY
I've started an initial analysis based on the limited information I
have from FTDNA thus far. I can provide more information after I receive Michael's VCF files. The following lists provide the SNP name (if available), then the DNA position number and polymorphism/change value. Thus far, I know Joel and Michael share the following known SNPs: A11132 - 14092445-C-T A11134 - 15656058-T-G A11135 - 16770482-C-T A11137 - 19090151-G-A A11139 - 21637160-G-A A11140 - 21757893-T-A Michael has the following novel variants: 14806931-C-G 19110373-C-T (already named SNP - Y30173 - in another R1b branch) 22478928-G-C 21262641-C-A (already named SNP - K554 - in another C2e2 branch) Joel has the following novel variants: A11130 - 9132352-G-A A11131 - 13691125-A-T A11133 - 14819258-C-T A11136 - 17550281-C-T A11138 - 19477032-A-T So I will preliminarily call the shared Hartley branch the A11132 branch. I'll continue to call Joel's Hartley sub-branch A11130. Michael's Hartley branch will eventually be named once one of his unique variants is assigned a name. It is interesting that two of Michael's 'novel' variants align with known SNPs on other branches, but this does happen occasionally. Michael likely may have other good novel variants that FTDNA has not identified. I'm not yet sure of the quality of the 4 they have identified, but FTDNA is pretty conservative, so they're probably good. Using this we can start do some initial age estimates. With 6 shared mutations and 4-5 unique mutations, this means that the split in your lines was probably just this side of half way between when our Z17911 ancestor lived and present day. With our best guess estimate of Z17911 being 800-1000 years old, this puts your common ancestor living probably 350-450 years ago, give or take. It would be especially helpful if you could make a paper connection to this ancestor, but that may not be possible. Regardless, this provides a very nice Hartley branching for others to test to. The A11130 SNP that Joel has is available for single SNP testing and is part of the S5668 SNP Pack. I had hoped this would land on the shared Hartley branch - it would have provided an easy test for people to verify that they're on this Hartley line, but now testing for it would only prove or disprove if someone is related to Joel more recently than that SNP was formed - and it could have been at Joel's father so only Joel and his brothers share it. So it's not of particular value right now. A new Hartley branch is discovered! Thank you Joel and Michael for investing in Big-Y! Jared Smith On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Charles Thomas <charles_002@...> wrote: Hey Joel, |
||
Re: Mike Hartley BigY
开云体育Hey Joel, Mike Hartley is listed on my match list with 0 shared novel variants, 0 non-matching known SNPs, and 25,684 matching SNPs. Is Mike 31/37 and 59/67 with you? My Thomas match with whom I share the ancestor James Thomas b. abt 1760 is 66/67 with me. So I'm thinking that your and Mike's shared Hartley ancestor could be much farther back in time. Yet STRs can change at any time, and it's just the average mutation rate per STR?that are known so maybe your shared ancestor is more recent than I'm guessing. I'm sure Jared's analysis of the SNPs will be helpful. Best regards, Charles From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Joel Hartley <joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:28 AM To: Z16357@groups.io Subject: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY ?
I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as
Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5 SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others. Joel |
||
Re: Mike Hartley BigY
Excellent!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Michael, if you could please e-mail me your raw data file from FTDNA, that will be necessary for me to do a full analysis. Go to and then click on the Download Raw Data button at the top, then Download VCF at the bottom. Then e-mail me the resulting file. A quick check shows a few novel variants that each of you have, so this will create a very distinct new Hartley branch that splits a few hundred years ago into your distinct Hartley branches. I'm just off to work, but will analyze the results much closer this evening. Congrats to both of you on this new branch! Jared On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as Jared |
||
Mike Hartley BigY
I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5 SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.
Joel |
||
Re: New Thomas/Martin branch
开云体育Hi Jared, No, unfortunately I don't have contact info for Ben Evans (VU8W9). I messaged him twice in the past when the form was working but no reply either time. Hopefully the contact form will be operational again soon. Just now I found the following 12/12 match with Ben Evans: 2BVJN. Of course, we don't know if other markers?would be?a match, but this might also be someone to try to contact?if the form gets up and running again. The Griffin?(121779) in the Evans project (24/25 with Ben Evans if I'm counting 389-1 and 389-2 correctly) would seem to be?6R777 at ysearch, and the ysearch contact person seems to be one and the same as the contact person for this tree: Hopefully she would reply. One more piece of information: J43M8 Cooper at ysearch is a 34/37 match with Ben Evans. Thank you very much for your work on this, Charles From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Jared Smith <jared@...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:58 AM To: Z16357@groups.io Subject: Re: [Z16357] New Thomas/Martin branch ?
Charles -
I've tried to contact the Evans match from ySearch, but their contact form has broken broken for weeks and I can't get anyone from FTDNA (they run ySearch) to respond to my inquiries about it. Do you happen to have other contact information for Ben Evans?
If his posted most distant ancestor dating to the 1100s in Wales is correct, and if he were on our branch of the tree, getting him tested could be very significant to our research.
Jared Smith
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Charles Thomas
<charles_002@...> wrote:
|
||
Re: New Thomas/Martin branch
Charles - I've tried to contact the Evans match from ySearch, but their contact form has broken broken for weeks and I can't get anyone from FTDNA (they run ySearch) to respond to my inquiries about it. Do you happen to have other contact information for Ben Evans? If his posted most distant ancestor dating to the 1100s in Wales is correct, and if he were on our branch of the tree, getting him tested could be very significant to our research. Jared Smith On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Charles Thomas <charles_002@...> wrote:
|
||
Re: New near-match
Excellent! He's not within FTDNA's Y-DNA match threshold for me, but
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
may be for others here. If he would join the L513 Project and if we can get a kit #, then I can see how closely he aligns with the rest of us. Thanks, Jared On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Charles Thomas <charles_002@...> wrote:
Hi Jared and everyone, |
||
Aging our SNPs - again
This post should (hopefully) make a lot more sense... A few of us have been doing some analysis to try to figure out how long ago our common ancestors may have lived. We have come up with much more recent estimates than previously determined. SNP age calculations are always rough estimates. YFull uses 144.41 years per SNP to try to establish a formal baseline. The problem is that if you calculate the number of SNPs that some people have that are downstream of SNPs for which YFull has time estimates, and multiply that number by 144 years per SNP, this duration often does not align eve closely with YFull's time estimates. This simply proves that SNPs do not always occur at 144 years per SNP. This is certainly the case with the people on our branch of the tree - the 10 Big-Y testers on the Z16357 branch have A LOT more SNPs than is typical.?Based on generally accepted age estimates for older SNPs, we all average around 75 years per SNP. Our mutations occur nearly twice as fast on average as YFull's baseline - meaning that our common ancestors likely lived much more recently than YFull has estimated. Daryl?estimated that the time to our most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) that had the?Z16357 SNP?as being 2422 years ago. Below Z16357 is the large Z16343 block which he estimated ends at 900 years ago. Below it is Z17911 which he estimated at 706 years ago - much more recent than YFull's estimate of 1550 years ago.?My own analysis closely aligned with Daryl's - though mine are bit older?(I have Z17911 at around 800 years old). We use a methodology that is based on assumed dates for very old SNP mutations, but that also considers the number of SNPs both upstream and downstream from a known SNP?to establish a more reasonable estimation of time. This approach gets more difficult as we get to the ends of the branches because we have fewer people that share those newer SNPs to analyze and average. But if we accept Z17911 as being ~800 years old, we can rough estimate the Bennett/Phillips ancestor as living ~550 years ago, for example. I've updated the SNP chart at? with these refined estimates. As we get additional testers, especially those with known shared ancestors with other testers, then we'll be able to refine these estimates. Jared Smith |
||
Re: New Thomas/Martin branch
开云体育Awesome news! Thanks for all your work, Jared! Glad to be on the same branch of the tree with you, Chuck! (Assuming your name Chuck is for Charles, that makes two Charles on this branch.) According to Jared's time estimate, Chuck's and my MRCA must have lived somewhere in the 1300 - 1500 CE timeframe. Is there a tradition in your family, Chuck, of?the country of origin of?your Martin ancestry? There was no specific tradition in mine for my Thomas family, but a near match with an Evans who emigrated from Carmarthenshire Wales - actually I don't think they call them "shires" in Wales anymore but I forgot the exact term - has made me think that my Thomas Y-line ancestry was likely also from Wales, at least at some point in time in the past. This reminds me to try to locate my notes regarding this Evans match. (The man had tested via?SMGF which no longer makes results available online and I had noted the similarity in STR results when checking various databases a few years ago.) I'll let you know if I find my notes. Charles Thomas From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Jared Smith <jared@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:56 AM To: Z16357@groups.io Subject: [Z16357] New Thomas/Martin branch ?
The S5668 SNP pack results are in for Chuck Martin and they confirm a
new Thomas/Martin branch of the tree. First, I had indicated Chuck's kit # previously as 161394. That was incorrect. His actual kit # is 495859. One of Thomas' (previously) unique SNPs is FGC33966. FTDNA included this SNP in the S5668 SNP Pack. Chuck Martin is positive for FGC33966 (and also BY11573), thus verifying this new branch! I've updated my charts at to reflect
the new branching (you may need to hit Refresh). You'll notice that we currently don't have anyone left right at S59969/BY11573 - they've all moved to downstream blocks in just the last few weeks due to new test results. This places the common Thomas/Martin ancestor at probably 500-700 years ago. It's likely that Thomas and Martin also share some of Thomas' other 'unique' SNPs - such as FGC33968 and FGC33967 - see Each new SNP match would move your common ancestor 100+ years closer to present day. But you are GD=6 at Y67, so this does suggest that your common ancestor is still probably at least a few hundred years back, and that we got lucky and hit gold with your FGC33966 SNP match. In other news, I see that FTDNA has updated their tree with some of our recent changes (I'll request that FGC33966 be added). If I'm reading it correctly, the new terminal SNP for Bennett and Phillips (I currently have as ??? on my charts) is labelled BY15420. They also list BY15419 upstream of this and BY11565, but I'm not sure what this SNP is. I'll try to figure it out. Discovering new branches is what this project is about, and new ones always make my day! Thanks, Jared PS - Chuck, I don't see you in the Martin project. Maybe try re-joining - or maybe something odd is happening there. |
||
Tree updates and next steps
I've again updated the charts at These now include the proper positioning for everyone. I removed the speculative branches that do not have available SNP tests. All of us have our own speculative branches, so it didn't make sense to only show some of them. You'll notice a new BY15419 block above the Bennett/Phillips block and the Merrick/Goff block. Even though Merrick's results don't show this SNP, FTDNA has him below this block, so they must have analyzed his BAM file to find him positive for it. These small blocks provide a measurable "anchor SNP" for that common ancestor (within a few generations) and define the split in family lines. This portion of the tree is likely where many of the potential testers I've identified will land (particularly Vaughan, Watkins, Griffin, Lewis, Evans, etc.), if our STRs are a good indication (which they often aren't). With several good branches now defined, our project needs additional testers to verify and extend those branches. I have identified 80 or so good potential testers as found in the STR and GD spreadsheets - Please invite your Y37+ matches to participate with us! I can only contact people that are Y-DNA matches to me, so please send them e-mails and encourage them to check out the site and join this discussion list. I think most of them would be thrilled to know that your SNP testing has helped them know where they fit on the Y-DNA tree. Most have only tested L21 or M269, which are 4500 years old. Your tests prove a much more recent location for them on the tree. Feel free to send them my e-mail address if they have questions (copying me on the e-mail will be helpful). Or you can send me their names/emails to me and I'd be happy to contact them. Other items of note: - Michael Hartley has ordered Big-Y. This should define a long Hartley SNP branch. Though Michael and Joel have not identified a known common ancestor, this will at least bring this branch into surname times. - We have another Phillips tester that has or will soon be ordering Big-Y. This should create a well-defined Phillips branch below BY15420. - We're *still* awaiting the Z16357 SNP test results for Lenita. Once confirmed there, she may consider Big-Y to help redefine our oldest "Smith" line where Sylvia is currently located. - I will be compiling and requesting some of our recently discovered SNPs to (hopefully) be added to the S5668 SNP Pack. This will provide a less expensive way for some of our Y-DNA matches to discover their location on our branches. If desired, I can also request single SNP tests at YSEQ ($17.50 each) so people can easily test any of our known SNPs. Thanks, Jared Smith |
||
New Thomas/Martin branch
The S5668 SNP pack results are in for Chuck Martin and they confirm a
new Thomas/Martin branch of the tree. First, I had indicated Chuck's kit # previously as 161394. That was incorrect. His actual kit # is 495859. One of Thomas' (previously) unique SNPs is FGC33966. FTDNA included this SNP in the S5668 SNP Pack. Chuck Martin is positive for FGC33966 (and also BY11573), thus verifying this new branch! I've updated my charts at to reflect the new branching (you may need to hit Refresh). You'll notice that we currently don't have anyone left right at S59969/BY11573 - they've all moved to downstream blocks in just the last few weeks due to new test results. This places the common Thomas/Martin ancestor at probably 500-700 years ago. It's likely that Thomas and Martin also share some of Thomas' other 'unique' SNPs - such as FGC33968 and FGC33967 - see Each new SNP match would move your common ancestor 100+ years closer to present day. But you are GD=6 at Y67, so this does suggest that your common ancestor is still probably at least a few hundred years back, and that we got lucky and hit gold with your FGC33966 SNP match. In other news, I see that FTDNA has updated their tree with some of our recent changes (I'll request that FGC33966 be added). If I'm reading it correctly, the new terminal SNP for Bennett and Phillips (I currently have as ??? on my charts) is labelled BY15420. They also list BY15419 upstream of this and BY11565, but I'm not sure what this SNP is. I'll try to figure it out. Discovering new branches is what this project is about, and new ones always make my day! Thanks, Jared PS - Chuck, I don't see you in the Martin project. Maybe try re-joining - or maybe something odd is happening there. |
||
Re: New variants spreadsheet
Please send all of them (with an indication of or grouping by YFull's
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
quality level). I'm curious how their quality levels align with those from the other sources I used - Mike W.'s analysis, Alex's Big-Y analysis, and my own. I don't really include much grading information in the spreadsheet, beyond FTDNA's read data (PASS or REJECTED, though they have an extremely high threshold for "PASS"), and the indication of the Region and STR data (anything in these columns will suggest lower quality). I didn't think it necessary to create a complex quality analysis metric in the spreadsheet seeing as this is what Mike, Alex, and YFull do best, and I can always reference their work in instances where things are questionable. Jared On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Thanks, Jared, |
||
Re: New variants spreadsheet
开云体育Addendum, there are actually more
categories:
I assume that ambiguous is better than Low quality. Perhaps you do want the Ambiguous ones. Joel On 2/20/2017 6:44 PM, Jared Smith wrote: I have uploaded a new spreadsheet to This likely has limited utility for anyone other than me, but I thought I'd share it. This file is used for analyzing Y-DNA mutation variants (SNPs, insertions/deletions, etc.) that us Z16357 people have. It's a very large spreadsheet with complex calculations - minor changes like sorting can take a long time to calculate. The Variants tab includes all 68,355 unique variants that we have. These were collected from Big-Y VCF files. You can use the Lookup tab to query specific DNA position numbers to see the values each of us have at that position. The Shared Variants tab shows all known variants ***AT OR BELOW Z16357*** that at least 2 of us have. This allows easy analysis of the consistency of SNPs and determination of their position on our branches. A "+" indicates a positive test for that variant. A "***" indicates the variant was identified, but the test quality is questionable. A blank box indicates EITHER a negative result OR no test coverage (be careful - you can't assume too much from a blank box without analyzing the BED file for read coverage). The Unique Variants tab lists most of the variants that are unique to only one of us. I'd be happy to add any new ones from YFull, if any of you who have tested there would like to e-mail them to me. Note that some Insertions/Deletions (these are kinda like hiccups in your DNA) show "Count" as 0 because Big Tree calculates the position info for INDELs a bit differently than the VCF file. These are retained for reference. The primary function of this spreadsheet is to easily add VCF data to Variants for new Big-Y testers, then immediately determine which existing SNPs from our branch they have, and which Unique Variants are then no longer unique and need to be moved to Shared Variants. Jared
|
||
Re: New variants spreadsheet
Thanks, Jared,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
That should be a great resource. I'll send some of my SNPs your way once I sort them out. YFull has them as: Best Quality (5) Acceptable (6) Ambiguous (20) I'm guessing you just want the 1st 2 categories? Joel On 2/20/2017 6:44 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
I have uploaded a new spreadsheet to |
||
New variants spreadsheet
I have uploaded a new spreadsheet to
This likely has limited utility for anyone other than me, but I thought I'd share it. This file is used for analyzing Y-DNA mutation variants (SNPs, insertions/deletions, etc.) that us Z16357 people have. It's a very large spreadsheet with complex calculations - minor changes like sorting can take a long time to calculate. The Variants tab includes all 68,355 unique variants that we have. These were collected from Big-Y VCF files. You can use the Lookup tab to query specific DNA position numbers to see the values each of us have at that position. The Shared Variants tab shows all known variants ***AT OR BELOW Z16357*** that at least 2 of us have. This allows easy analysis of the consistency of SNPs and determination of their position on our branches. A "+" indicates a positive test for that variant. A "***" indicates the variant was identified, but the test quality is questionable. A blank box indicates EITHER a negative result OR no test coverage (be careful - you can't assume too much from a blank box without analyzing the BED file for read coverage). The Unique Variants tab lists most of the variants that are unique to only one of us. I'd be happy to add any new ones from YFull, if any of you who have tested there would like to e-mail them to me. Note that some Insertions/Deletions (these are kinda like hiccups in your DNA) show "Count" as 0 because Big Tree calculates the position info for INDELs a bit differently than the VCF file. These are retained for reference. The primary function of this spreadsheet is to easily add VCF data to Variants for new Big-Y testers, then immediately determine which existing SNPs from our branch they have, and which Unique Variants are then no longer unique and need to be moved to Shared Variants. Jared |
||
Re: Phillips Big-Y - new Bennett/Phillips branch
Charles -
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Oh, that must be Chuck Martin's SNP pack results. I don't see those results at all yet, but that would put him at the same place on the tree as you. We don't know if he's on the same branch as Bennett and Phillips because none of those SNPs are yet in the SNP pack - heck, we just discovered them a few hours ago. :-) Chuck, if this is all correct, that confirms your placement on the tree as Y29969/BY11573 (with BY11573 being the SNP you've actually tested positive for). Joel, I don't see Brent Phillips in my Big-Y matches list either. It seems they're still processing this batch of results. Two new family lines positioned on our tree in one day! Excellent! Jared On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Thanks Jared, |
||
Re: Phillips Big-Y - new Bennett/Phillips branch
Thanks Jared,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I was wondering what happened to that test. Also I'm wondering why I can't see Phillips on my match list? Hopefully, it should show up soon. Joel On 2/18/2017 2:45 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
The Big-Y results for Brent Phillips are in. He is confirmed R-Y29969 |
||
Re: Phillips Big-Y - new Bennett/Phillips branch
开云体育Thanks for the update. I checked and yes FTDNA does indeed show me as R-Y29969 now with BY11573 shown in light brown meaning presumed positive beside Y29969 on the tree. I also noticed that Rodney Martin is shown as BY11573 on my match list. Thanks also to Joel a week or so ago for the heads-up on the YFull?tree update. Charles?? From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Jared Smith <jared@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 1:45 PM To: Z16357@groups.io Subject: [Z16357] Phillips Big-Y - new Bennett/Phillips branch ?
The Big-Y results for Brent Phillips are in. He is confirmed R-Y29969
with Bennett and Thomas. This is phylogenetically equivalent to BY11573. You'll notice FTDNA has changed the terminal SNP for Bennett and Thomas to Y29969 - it's a more reliable SNP to check. Beyond this, there's also a new tentative Bennett/Phillips branch. They both share the following markers (and perhaps some others that are yet to be discovered): 7488239-G-A 22486193-A-T 25311291-T-C These are in rather poor read areas for the Y-DNA test, but I believe at least the first one should hold up under further analysis to create this new branch. I had thought that Bennett and Phillips would share more good SNPs (i.e., they had a more recent common ancestor), but this proves that their lines split after Y29969. But both of them have around 10 good unique SNPs that would provide distinct Bennett and Phillips branches with additional cousin testers. Another good discover with the Phillips and my Smith Big-Y is validation of 5 or 6 other SNP markers that those of us on the Z17911 block share. This means that Z17911 is a bigger/longer block than we had previously thought, thus moving our more recent ancestor in that block closer to modern day. My own VERY rough estimate based on what we know now is that our most recent Z17911 lived probably around 1200 years ago, with the Bennett/Phillips/Thomas/Merrick/Goff Y29969/BY11573 ancestor living around 800 years ago. Brent's results add some very useful information to our project! Jared |
||
Re: Phillips Big-Y - new Bennett/Phillips branch
I forgot to mention that I've updated the charts at
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
to reflect these changes, in case you prefer a visual view of what's happening. Jared On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Jared Smith <jared@...> wrote:
The Big-Y results for Brent Phillips are in. He is confirmed R-Y29969 |