开云体育

We have a new, significant branching under Z16357. Up to this point Sylvia Smith was the only person truly at Z16357 - meaning that her kit had tested positive for Z16357, but for no shared SNPs downstream from there. If we think of Z16357 as the trunk or base of our part of the tree, there has thus far been only one branch (Z16343) coming from that trunk, which then split into two sub-branches (Z17911 and Z16854), which split into the various sub-sub-branches below them.

The Big-Y results for Lenita's brother (Leonard Ellwin Smith) are in and they create a 2nd major branch from the Z16357 trunk for Lenita and Sylvia. This Smith branch is VERY long - extending from a common (yet unknown) Smith ancestor that lived a few hundred years ago all the way back to Z16357 (probably 2500 years ago or so). It's pretty incredible to think that nobody else on this family line has done DNA testing to this level yet.

To avoid potential confusion, while my surname is Smith, it's only coincidental - this new Smith line and my Smith line below Z17911 are very distant - connecting at Z16357 around 2500 years ago.

I've updated my charts at? so you can see the new branching.

Lenita and Sylvia share 24 SNPs/variants. This represents around 2000 years of their family line with no known branching. This new branch has yet to be named - but I suspect that FTDNA will submit these 24 shared SNPs for naming - and one of them will be chosen as the designator for this branch of the tree.

Sylvia has the following 4 novel variants (meaning mutations that are unique to her, so they occurred more recently than Lenita's and Sylvia's common ancestor):

14703381-T-A

21734697-A-G

22102505-G-T

23817871-G-A

Lenita has the following 3 novel variants:

7676708-T-A

15315228-G-A

19139648-C-T

If I apply my aging methodology, this would suggest that their common Smith ancestor was born between 333 and 383 years ago (sometime in the mid- to late-1600s). However, these two Smiths have fewer variants/mutations (28 and 27)?than is the average for our group (35.2), so this might suggest that their common ancestor is a bit more distant than this. But these are just VERY rough estimates, so their ancestor could also be more recent. As we get more Smith testers, this will be refined.

This is a very notable addition to our tree! Thank you Sylvia and Lenita for investing in Big-Y! We're trying to identify other distant Smith cousins to take Big-Y to help us better define this new Smith branch.

Thanks,

Jared Smith