Date   
Re: New Thomas/Martin branch

Charles Thomas
 

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:

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=janoliver&id=I6151

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:

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 http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp to reflect

SNP Overview. By analyzing certain SNP mutations that developed in men long ago and were then passed to their descendants today, we can begin to build a family tree ...



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
http://www.ytree.net/SNPinfoForPerson.php?personID=413 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.




Mike Hartley BigY

Joel Hartley
 

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

Jared Smith
 

Excellent!

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
https://www.familytreedna.com/my/big-y/#matches 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
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

Charles Thomas
 

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

Jared Smith
 

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,

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

Joel Hartley
 

Hi Charles,

You are right. Mike is actually off the chart on my matches. I think that he is a GD of 8 and the 67 STR cutoff is 7. I'm guessing that the connection is quite a ways back. Here is the last STR tree that I have worked on:




It shows some Hartleys with lesser GDs to me on the right as being more distantly related. This is due to the different mutation factors in the STRs. They vary by as much as 350 times from each other. The Quaker Hartley is Mike. He is on a subbranch on the left. The 455 STR is the very slow moving STR. I based the two main branches on that STR for the Hartleys.

Joel

On 3/15/2017 2:10 PM, Charles Thomas wrote:

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

Joel Hartley
 

Thanks Jared,

That is such great news. This is a red letter day for Hartley Genetic Genealogy. This is the first SNP branching within the Hartley surname that I know of. That makes this a true Hartley SNP group which is one the goals of the BigY testing. Thanks also to Mike for doing this test.

I had a feeling that this branch of Hartleys was quite large. There is still room for other branches - both in the main Hartley group, in my group and in Michael's.

Joel

On 3/15/2017 8:32 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
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,

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

Jared Smith
 

I count GD=8 between you. Seeing as your common ancestor was only a
few hundred years ago (I'd think 450 years ago at the furthest), this
is rather remarkable. This difference in STRs would otherwise suggest
a VERY distant common ancestor, but this SNP match proves this wrong.

The 391 STR (Joel = 10 and Michael = 11) and 447 STR (Joel = 26 and
Michael = 25) are moderately slow moving STRs and *might* be good ones
to estimate which side of these new Hartley branches other matches
might land on.

I'm going to request that FTDNA add one of your shared SNPs to the SNP
Pack and/or as a single SNP test. This would provide an easy way for
other Hartleys to verify if they are somewhere on this shared branch.

Yes, this is a great breakthrough. Anytime we can define very recent
splits in branches, it really helps us refine age estimates for
everyone else. In this case, it reinforces my previous estimates as
being accurate. And, as you note, we now have three Hartley branches
(one shared and then one each for the two of you) that allow other kin
to test to and define other new sub-branches. Getting to this level of
granularity is one of the primary goals of this project.

I've updated the charts at http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp to reflect
these changes. There are still several questionable variants that I
need to sort to one side of the split or the other once I get
Michael's raw data files. Assuming FTDNA accepts my recommendation of
calling this block R-A11132, this will be your new terminal SNP.

Jared

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Thanks Jared,

That is such great news. This is a red letter day for Hartley Genetic
Genealogy. This is the first SNP branching within the Hartley surname that I
know of. That makes this a true Hartley SNP group which is one the goals of
the BigY testing. Thanks also to Mike for doing this test.

I had a feeling that this branch of Hartleys was quite large. There is still
room for other branches - both in the main Hartley group, in my group and in
Michael's.

Joel


On 3/15/2017 8:32 PM, Jared Smith wrote:

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,

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

Charles Thomas
 

Great work, Joel. Cool tree.

Charles


From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Joel Hartley <joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 8:58 PM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY
 
Hi Charles,

You are right. Mike is actually off the chart on my matches. I think that he is a GD of 8 and the 67 STR cutoff is 7. I'm guessing that the connection is quite a ways back. Here is the last STR tree that I have worked on:




It shows some Hartleys with lesser GDs to me on the right as being more distantly related. This is due to the different mutation factors in the STRs. They vary by as much as 350 times from each other. The Quaker Hartley is Mike. He is on a subbranch on the left. The 455 STR is the very slow moving STR. I based the two main branches on that STR for the Hartleys.

Joel

On 3/15/2017 2:10 PM, Charles Thomas wrote:

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

Joel Hartley
 

Thanks Jared,

I had missed 391 in my tree analysis. It helps to have an extra set of eyes looking at this. Still, these SNPs mutate over 10Xs as fast as the slow moving 455 that I based my tree on.

On a side note, I read that the L513 SNPs seem to mutate faster than the average SNP across all SNPs. I wonder if there is a correspondingly fast STR rate for L513's, or if these are more constant than the SNPs?

Joel

On 3/15/2017 10:55 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
I count GD=8 between you. Seeing as your common ancestor was only a
few hundred years ago (I'd think 450 years ago at the furthest), this
is rather remarkable. This difference in STRs would otherwise suggest
a VERY distant common ancestor, but this SNP match proves this wrong.

The 391 STR (Joel = 10 and Michael = 11) and 447 STR (Joel = 26 and
Michael = 25) are moderately slow moving STRs and *might* be good ones
to estimate which side of these new Hartley branches other matches
might land on.

I'm going to request that FTDNA add one of your shared SNPs to the SNP
Pack and/or as a single SNP test. This would provide an easy way for
other Hartleys to verify if they are somewhere on this shared branch.

Yes, this is a great breakthrough. Anytime we can define very recent
splits in branches, it really helps us refine age estimates for
everyone else. In this case, it reinforces my previous estimates as
being accurate. And, as you note, we now have three Hartley branches
(one shared and then one each for the two of you) that allow other kin
to test to and define other new sub-branches. Getting to this level of
granularity is one of the primary goals of this project.

I've updated the charts at http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp to reflect
these changes. There are still several questionable variants that I
need to sort to one side of the split or the other once I get
Michael's raw data files. Assuming FTDNA accepts my recommendation of
calling this block R-A11132, this will be your new terminal SNP.

Jared


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Thanks Jared,

That is such great news. This is a red letter day for Hartley Genetic
Genealogy. This is the first SNP branching within the Hartley surname that I
know of. That makes this a true Hartley SNP group which is one the goals of
the BigY testing. Thanks also to Mike for doing this test.

I had a feeling that this branch of Hartleys was quite large. There is still
room for other branches - both in the main Hartley group, in my group and in
Michael's.

Joel


On 3/15/2017 8:32 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
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,

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

Jared Smith
 

Yes, there are no really slow moving/changing STR mutations that you
can differentiate the two Hartley lines on - but this would not really
be expected considering how closely related you are. But the fact you
have 8 differences on other STRs is still surprising.

You might identify better STRs if you both did Y-111 or used YFull
STRs, but this doesn't provide an easy/inexpensive testing path for
other Hartleys to see where they might fit in.

I've also wondered about and have tried to find some research on
genetic or physiological disposition for faster SNP/STR mutation
rates, but have been unable to find anything conclusive. Our L513
branch does seem to have more mutations over time than most other
branches that have had an in-depth analysis. YFull's research on
several lines gave them the 144 years per SNP they use, but this is
certainly not close to accurate for our haplogroup. They've
acknowledged that their methodology is flawed and will be revising it
soon. I believe this will move the age estimates for our ancestors
much more recent.

I'll post some more details later about my methodology for aging our
common ancestors.

Jared

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Thanks Jared,

I had missed 391 in my tree analysis. It helps to have an extra set of eyes
looking at this. Still, these SNPs mutate over 10Xs as fast as the slow
moving 455 that I based my tree on.

On a side note, I read that the L513 SNPs seem to mutate faster than the
average SNP across all SNPs. I wonder if there is a correspondingly fast STR
rate for L513's, or if these are more constant than the SNPs?

Joel


On 3/15/2017 10:55 PM, Jared Smith wrote:

I count GD=8 between you. Seeing as your common ancestor was only a
few hundred years ago (I'd think 450 years ago at the furthest), this
is rather remarkable. This difference in STRs would otherwise suggest
a VERY distant common ancestor, but this SNP match proves this wrong.

The 391 STR (Joel = 10 and Michael = 11) and 447 STR (Joel = 26 and
Michael = 25) are moderately slow moving STRs and *might* be good ones
to estimate which side of these new Hartley branches other matches
might land on.

I'm going to request that FTDNA add one of your shared SNPs to the SNP
Pack and/or as a single SNP test. This would provide an easy way for
other Hartleys to verify if they are somewhere on this shared branch.

Yes, this is a great breakthrough. Anytime we can define very recent
splits in branches, it really helps us refine age estimates for
everyone else. In this case, it reinforces my previous estimates as
being accurate. And, as you note, we now have three Hartley branches
(one shared and then one each for the two of you) that allow other kin
to test to and define other new sub-branches. Getting to this level of
granularity is one of the primary goals of this project.

I've updated the charts at http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp to reflect
these changes. There are still several questionable variants that I
need to sort to one side of the split or the other once I get
Michael's raw data files. Assuming FTDNA accepts my recommendation of
calling this block R-A11132, this will be your new terminal SNP.

Jared


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:

Thanks Jared,

That is such great news. This is a red letter day for Hartley Genetic
Genealogy. This is the first SNP branching within the Hartley surname
that I
know of. That makes this a true Hartley SNP group which is one the goals
of
the BigY testing. Thanks also to Mike for doing this test.

I had a feeling that this branch of Hartleys was quite large. There is
still
room for other branches - both in the main Hartley group, in my group and
in
Michael's.

Joel


On 3/15/2017 8:32 PM, Jared Smith wrote:

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,

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

Michael W. Hartley
 

I finally found this place.  My raw data is on it's way to Jared and Mike Walsh.  Let me know what else you need.

Re: Mike Hartley BigY

Jared Smith
 

I did some additional analysis of Michael's results from his raw data.
There's not too much more to add, but I did find a couple other
variants that Joel and Michael share:
22425308 G A
25297201 T A
26310965 T C

As a brief explanation of this, 22425308 (for example) is the position
on the Y chromosome. The ancestral value (meaning the one that pretty
much everyone else has) for this position is G, but both of them have
an A here.

However, all three of these are in rather questionable areas on the
chromosome where poor reads can occur, so it's possible (though not
very likely) that these are both mis-reads that just happen to be the
same, or that some other relative could also have this variant, but
the test might not catch it due to its location.

I also found one solid INDEL that they both share:
18721623 A AA

Think of an INDEL (short for Insertion/Deletion) as a 'hiccup' on the
DNA - where the transfer of DNA from father to son results in one or
more extra segments of the DNA getting injected, or where a segment of
the DNA disappears. In this case, the ancestral marker is A, but you
two both have an extra A (thus AA) here.

We don't typically count INDELs as "SNPs", but this is certainly a
high quality mutation that you almost certainly got from a common
ancestor, so it can be used for comparing future matches.

I'm sure Mike W. and Alex will likely find some additional novel
variants for Michael when they do their analysis, but I think this is
probably everything that they share that is worth tracking.

I'll send the data to Michael Sager soon and ask him to update the
FTDNA tree and update your terminal SNPs to A11132.

Jared


On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Michael W. Hartley
<@MWH> wrote:
I finally found this place. My raw data is on it's way to Jared and Mike
Walsh. Let me know what else you need.

Re: Mike Hartley BigY

Joel Hartley
 

I see that Mike Hartley's results are at the Big Tree site awaiting analysis with several others in the lower right in pink:



Joel

On 3/17/2017 10:40 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
I did some additional analysis of Michael's results from his raw data.
There's not too much more to add, but I did find a couple other
variants that Joel and Michael share:
22425308 G A
25297201 T A
26310965 T C

As a brief explanation of this, 22425308 (for example) is the position
on the Y chromosome. The ancestral value (meaning the one that pretty
much everyone else has) for this position is G, but both of them have
an A here.

However, all three of these are in rather questionable areas on the
chromosome where poor reads can occur, so it's possible (though not
very likely) that these are both mis-reads that just happen to be the
same, or that some other relative could also have this variant, but
the test might not catch it due to its location.

I also found one solid INDEL that they both share:
18721623 A AA

Think of an INDEL (short for Insertion/Deletion) as a 'hiccup' on the
DNA - where the transfer of DNA from father to son results in one or
more extra segments of the DNA getting injected, or where a segment of
the DNA disappears. In this case, the ancestral marker is A, but you
two both have an extra A (thus AA) here.

We don't typically count INDELs as "SNPs", but this is certainly a
high quality mutation that you almost certainly got from a common
ancestor, so it can be used for comparing future matches.

I'm sure Mike W. and Alex will likely find some additional novel
variants for Michael when they do their analysis, but I think this is
probably everything that they share that is worth tracking.

I'll send the data to Michael Sager soon and ask him to update the
FTDNA tree and update your terminal SNPs to A11132.

Jared


On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Michael W. Hartley
<mwhlaw1@...> wrote:
I finally found this place.  My raw data is on it's way to Jared and Mike
Walsh.  Let me know what else you need.




Z16357 In-depth Age Analysis

Jared Smith
 

Aging our ancestors using Y-DNA data is far from an exact science. I'd
be happy to have you poke holes in any of this.

An analysis of the 11 Z16357 people who have taken Big-Y results in
the following number of 'good', unique/novel variants/mutations:

C. Hays 4
R. Hays 3
Pillsbury 5
Merrick 11
Thomas 6
Phillips 7
Bennett 9
M. Hartley 5
J. Hartley 5
J. Smith 12
Smith 27

These are variants that each person has that are not shared with
anyone else who has tested. The higher the number of novel variants,
the further back one would expect to be related to someone else
listed. I use the same metric for a 'good' variant as Alex does on his
Big Tree. This is a bit more aggressive than what YFull uses.

There are, however, some inconsistencies with this. Merrick, for
example, has nearly twice as many novel variants as Thomas, even
though Merrick connects lower/later on the tree than Thomas - one
would thus expect Merrick to have fewer novel variants. This is
primarily a factor of test coverage, but this is all we have to work
with, so we partially account for this variability by averaging. This
is why each new Big-Y test gives us increased accuracy.

When I add the novel variants above to the number of 'good' SNPs in
each block or haplogroup of our tree and average the results, I end up
with the following average number of variants downstream from each
listed SNP block:

ZS349 - 3.5
Z16854 - 9.3
BY15420 - 8.0
BY15419 - 9.7
Y29969 - 9.5
A11132 - 5
Z17911 - 10.9
Z16343 - 13
Z16357 - 36.1

This means, for example, that there's an average of 3.5 variants that
were formed after the most recent ZS349 ancestor that the two Hays men
share. For Z17911, we average 10.9 variants downstream (more recent
than) our most recent common Z17911 ancestor. Altogether, we average
36.1 SNPs downstream of Z16357.

To use these variant numbers to help us in aging, we need to calculate
a "years per SNP" value. YFull has our last Z16357 ancestor at around
3300 years ago (though they've acknowledged this is probably too
high). Other recent estimates put it as young as 2300 years ago. Until
someone digs up some Z16357 remains or we get enough DNA testers to
give us better data, we have to use our best informed estimate. I'll
assume our most recent Z16357 ancestor lived a minimum of 2500 and
maximum of 3000 years ago.

If we divide these age estimates by 36.1 SNPs (on average), this is a
minimum of 69.3 years per SNP and a maximum of 83.1 years per SNP. We
can then use these values to assign age estimates to notable
branchings as follows:

ZS349 - 327-376 years before present
Z16854 - 732-861
BY15420 - 639-750
BY15419 - 755-889
Y29969 - 743-875
A11132 - 431-501
Z17911 - 837-987
Z16343 - 986-1166
Z16357 - 2585-3085

The values are years before present, and include an additional 35
years (one generation?) to account for the age of the last ancestor
that had this SNP - and also adds 50 years as a guessed average of how
old the 11 Z16357 people are.

So this estimates that the common ZS349 ancestor for Hays was born
347-376 years ago. We know this ancestor was George Hays who was born
in 1655 - 362 years ago, so these numbers align perfectly!

This places our Z17911 ancestor being born between 837 and 987 years
ago. It places the Hartley common ancestor between 431 and 501 years
ago, the Bennett/Phillips ancestor 639-750 years ago, etc.

Do keep in mind that accuracy is more variable near the end of the
branches (closer to present day), especially with data from only 2 or
3 people. And SNPs are not always formed at a consistent rate. So this
all a bit rough, but should give us fairly reasonable estimations.

Jared

Re: Z16357 In-depth Age Analysis

Joel Hartley
 

This sounds reasonable to me. I'd like to hear what folks at the L513 Yahoo Forum would have to say about it.

Joel

On 3/20/2017 10:52 AM, Jared Smith wrote:
Aging our ancestors using Y-DNA data is far from an exact science. I'd
be happy to have you poke holes in any of this.

An analysis of the 11 Z16357 people who have taken Big-Y results in
the following number of 'good', unique/novel variants/mutations:

C. Hays 4
R. Hays 3
Pillsbury 5
Merrick 11
Thomas 6
Phillips 7
Bennett 9
M. Hartley 5
J. Hartley 5
J. Smith 12
Smith 27

These are variants that each person has that are not shared with
anyone else who has tested. The higher the number of novel variants,
the further back one would expect to be related to someone else
listed. I use the same metric for a 'good' variant as Alex does on his
Big Tree. This is a bit more aggressive than what YFull uses.

There are, however, some inconsistencies with this. Merrick, for
example, has nearly twice as many novel variants as Thomas, even
though Merrick connects lower/later on the tree than Thomas - one
would thus expect Merrick to have fewer novel variants. This is
primarily a factor of test coverage, but this is all we have to work
with, so we partially account for this variability by averaging. This
is why each new Big-Y test gives us increased accuracy.

When I add the novel variants above to the number of 'good' SNPs in
each block or haplogroup of our tree and average the results, I end up
with the following average number of variants downstream from each
listed SNP block:

ZS349 - 3.5
Z16854 - 9.3
BY15420 - 8.0
BY15419 - 9.7
Y29969 - 9.5
A11132 - 5
Z17911 - 10.9
Z16343 - 13
Z16357 - 36.1

This means, for example, that there's an average of 3.5 variants that
were formed after the most recent ZS349 ancestor that the two Hays men
share. For Z17911, we average 10.9 variants downstream (more recent
than) our most recent common Z17911 ancestor. Altogether, we average
36.1 SNPs downstream of Z16357.

To use these variant numbers to help us in aging, we need to calculate
a "years per SNP" value. YFull has our last Z16357 ancestor at around
3300 years ago (though they've acknowledged this is probably too
high). Other recent estimates put it as young as 2300 years ago. Until
someone digs up some Z16357 remains or we get enough DNA testers to
give us better data, we have to use our best informed estimate. I'll
assume our most recent Z16357 ancestor lived a minimum of 2500 and
maximum of 3000 years ago.

If we divide these age estimates by 36.1 SNPs (on average), this is a
minimum of 69.3 years per SNP and a maximum of 83.1 years per SNP. We
can then use these values to assign age estimates to notable
branchings as follows:

ZS349 - 327-376 years before present
Z16854 - 732-861
BY15420 - 639-750
BY15419 - 755-889
Y29969 - 743-875
A11132 - 431-501
Z17911 - 837-987
Z16343 - 986-1166
Z16357 - 2585-3085

The values are years before present, and include an additional 35
years (one generation?) to account for the age of the last ancestor
that had this SNP - and also adds 50 years as a guessed average of how
old the 11 Z16357 people are.

So this estimates that the common ZS349 ancestor for Hays was born
347-376 years ago. We know this ancestor was George Hays who was born
in 1655 - 362 years ago, so these numbers align perfectly!

This places our Z17911 ancestor being born between 837 and 987 years
ago. It places the Hartley common ancestor between 431 and 501 years
ago, the Bennett/Phillips ancestor 639-750 years ago, etc.

Do keep in mind that accuracy is more variable near the end of the
branches (closer to present day), especially with data from only 2 or
3 people. And SNPs are not always formed at a consistent rate. So this
all a bit rough, but should give us fairly reasonable estimations.

Jared

Re: Z16357 In-depth Age Analysis

Charles Thomas
 

Great analysis, Jared, but I think the SNP names are confusing me. Did you include an equivalent to FGC33966 for Martin and me?

Charles


From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Jared Smith <jared@...>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 9:52 AM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: [Z16357] Z16357 In-depth Age Analysis
 
Aging our ancestors using Y-DNA data is far from an exact science. I'd
be happy to have you poke holes in any of this.

An analysis of the 11 Z16357 people who have taken Big-Y results in
the following number of 'good', unique/novel variants/mutations:

C. Hays 4
R. Hays 3
Pillsbury 5
Merrick 11
Thomas 6
Phillips 7
Bennett 9
M. Hartley 5
J. Hartley 5
J. Smith 12
Smith 27

These are variants that each person has that are not shared with
anyone else who has tested. The higher the number of novel variants,
the further back one would expect to be related to someone else
listed. I use the same metric for a 'good' variant as Alex does on his
Big Tree. This is a bit more aggressive than what YFull uses.

There are, however, some inconsistencies with this. Merrick, for
example, has nearly twice as many novel variants as Thomas, even
though Merrick connects lower/later on the tree than Thomas - one
would thus expect Merrick to have fewer novel variants. This is
primarily a factor of test coverage, but this is all we have to work
with, so we partially account for this variability by averaging. This
is why each new Big-Y test gives us increased accuracy.

When I add the novel variants above to the number of 'good' SNPs in
each block or haplogroup of our tree and average the results, I end up
with the following average number of variants downstream from each
listed SNP block:

ZS349 - 3.5
Z16854 - 9.3
BY15420 - 8.0
BY15419 - 9.7
Y29969 - 9.5
A11132 - 5
Z17911 - 10.9
Z16343 - 13
Z16357 - 36.1

This means, for example, that there's an average of 3.5 variants that
were formed after the most recent ZS349 ancestor that the two Hays men
share. For Z17911, we average 10.9 variants downstream (more recent
than) our most recent common Z17911 ancestor. Altogether, we average
36.1 SNPs downstream of Z16357.

To use these variant numbers to help us in aging, we need to calculate
a "years per SNP" value. YFull has our last Z16357 ancestor at around
3300 years ago (though they've acknowledged this is probably too
high). Other recent estimates put it as young as 2300 years ago. Until
someone digs up some Z16357 remains or we get enough DNA testers to
give us better data, we have to use our best informed estimate. I'll
assume our most recent Z16357 ancestor lived a minimum of 2500 and
maximum of 3000 years ago.

If we divide these age estimates by 36.1 SNPs (on average), this is a
minimum of 69.3 years per SNP and a maximum of 83.1 years per SNP. We
can then use these values to assign age estimates to notable
branchings as follows:

ZS349 - 327-376 years before present
Z16854 - 732-861
BY15420 - 639-750
BY15419 - 755-889
Y29969 - 743-875
A11132 - 431-501
Z17911 - 837-987
Z16343 - 986-1166
Z16357 - 2585-3085

The values are years before present, and include an additional 35
years (one generation?) to account for the age of the last ancestor
that had this SNP - and also adds 50 years as a guessed average of how
old the 11 Z16357 people are.

So this estimates that the common ZS349 ancestor for Hays was born
347-376 years ago. We know this ancestor was George Hays who was born
in 1655 - 362 years ago, so these numbers align perfectly!

This places our Z17911 ancestor being born between 837 and 987 years
ago. It places the Hartley common ancestor between 431 and 501 years
ago, the Bennett/Phillips ancestor 639-750 years ago, etc.

Do keep in mind that accuracy is more variable near the end of the
branches (closer to present day), especially with data from only 2 or
3 people. And SNPs are not always formed at a consistent rate. So this
all a bit rough, but should give us fairly reasonable estimations.

Jared



Re: Z16357 In-depth Age Analysis

Jared Smith
 

Charles -

FGC33966 is your terminal SNP shared with Martin, but I only analyzed
Big-Y testers so I could include the novel variants. So FGC33966 is
counted as one of your 6 novel variants.

This methodology is a fairly standard way of doing age estimates, but
I don't think it had been done to this level for our tree before.

Jared

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Charles Thomas <charles_002@...> wrote:
Great analysis, Jared, but I think the SNP names are confusing me. Did you
include an equivalent to FGC33966 for Martin and me?

Charles

________________________________
From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Jared Smith
<jared@...>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 9:52 AM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: [Z16357] Z16357 In-depth Age Analysis

Aging our ancestors using Y-DNA data is far from an exact science. I'd
be happy to have you poke holes in any of this.

An analysis of the 11 Z16357 people who have taken Big-Y results in
the following number of 'good', unique/novel variants/mutations:

C. Hays 4
R. Hays 3
Pillsbury 5
Merrick 11
Thomas 6
Phillips 7
Bennett 9
M. Hartley 5
J. Hartley 5
J. Smith 12
Smith 27

These are variants that each person has that are not shared with
anyone else who has tested. The higher the number of novel variants,
the further back one would expect to be related to someone else
listed. I use the same metric for a 'good' variant as Alex does on his
Big Tree. This is a bit more aggressive than what YFull uses.

There are, however, some inconsistencies with this. Merrick, for
example, has nearly twice as many novel variants as Thomas, even
though Merrick connects lower/later on the tree than Thomas - one
would thus expect Merrick to have fewer novel variants. This is
primarily a factor of test coverage, but this is all we have to work
with, so we partially account for this variability by averaging. This
is why each new Big-Y test gives us increased accuracy.

When I add the novel variants above to the number of 'good' SNPs in
each block or haplogroup of our tree and average the results, I end up
with the following average number of variants downstream from each
listed SNP block:

ZS349 - 3.5
Z16854 - 9.3
BY15420 - 8.0
BY15419 - 9.7
Y29969 - 9.5
A11132 - 5
Z17911 - 10.9
Z16343 - 13
Z16357 - 36.1

This means, for example, that there's an average of 3.5 variants that
were formed after the most recent ZS349 ancestor that the two Hays men
share. For Z17911, we average 10.9 variants downstream (more recent
than) our most recent common Z17911 ancestor. Altogether, we average
36.1 SNPs downstream of Z16357.

To use these variant numbers to help us in aging, we need to calculate
a "years per SNP" value. YFull has our last Z16357 ancestor at around
3300 years ago (though they've acknowledged this is probably too
high). Other recent estimates put it as young as 2300 years ago. Until
someone digs up some Z16357 remains or we get enough DNA testers to
give us better data, we have to use our best informed estimate. I'll
assume our most recent Z16357 ancestor lived a minimum of 2500 and
maximum of 3000 years ago.

If we divide these age estimates by 36.1 SNPs (on average), this is a
minimum of 69.3 years per SNP and a maximum of 83.1 years per SNP. We
can then use these values to assign age estimates to notable
branchings as follows:

ZS349 - 327-376 years before present
Z16854 - 732-861
BY15420 - 639-750
BY15419 - 755-889
Y29969 - 743-875
A11132 - 431-501
Z17911 - 837-987
Z16343 - 986-1166
Z16357 - 2585-3085

The values are years before present, and include an additional 35
years (one generation?) to account for the age of the last ancestor
that had this SNP - and also adds 50 years as a guessed average of how
old the 11 Z16357 people are.

So this estimates that the common ZS349 ancestor for Hays was born
347-376 years ago. We know this ancestor was George Hays who was born
in 1655 - 362 years ago, so these numbers align perfectly!

This places our Z17911 ancestor being born between 837 and 987 years
ago. It places the Hartley common ancestor between 431 and 501 years
ago, the Bennett/Phillips ancestor 639-750 years ago, etc.

Do keep in mind that accuracy is more variable near the end of the
branches (closer to present day), especially with data from only 2 or
3 people. And SNPs are not always formed at a consistent rate. So this
all a bit rough, but should give us fairly reasonable estimations.

Jared



New Hartley/Smith SNP block?

Jared Smith
 

First, I see that FTDNA has pushed the updates to the tree for the
Hartley branch. Joel and Michael, your terminal SNP is now recorded as
A11132.

I just got my YFull results processed and they show me as positive for
A11138 (19477032-A-T). This is an SNP that Joel has, but that Michael
did not test positive for. However, it is right on the edge of a read
area for Michael, so it's quite possible that he also has A11138.

On the other hand, it's right in the middle of a read area for me, so
I would have thought I was negative because FTDNA didn't report it,
but it seems YFull's BAM analysis shows me as positive for it with a 5
star rating.

If this holds up, then this will make a small A11138 Hartley/Smith SNP
block just below Z17911 and above the Hartley A11132 block. This also
means that Michael has to be positive for this SNP (he can't be
downstream of this block and not have this SNP), which will increase
your shared SNPs by one and decrease Joel's novel variants by one -
effectively moving your shared ancestor closer to present day than
previously estimated by maybe 50-100 years.

I'm going to run all this past Mike W. He can request that FTDNA to a
BAM analysis on this region to see if I and Michael are both A11138.

Jared

Re: Z16357 In-depth Age Analysis

Charles Thomas
 

Thanks, Jared. The new age estimates are very helpful. One more question if I may:

the L513 Descendant Tree Chart has Bennett and I at BY11382. Is that an equivalent for

a SNP included on your Z16357 SNP tree?

Charles




From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Jared Smith <jared@...>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 8:53 PM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Z16357] Z16357 In-depth Age Analysis
 
Charles -

FGC33966 is your terminal SNP shared with Martin, but I only analyzed
Big-Y testers so I could include the novel variants. So FGC33966 is
counted as one of your 6 novel variants.

This methodology is a fairly standard way of doing age estimates, but
I don't think it had been done to this level for our tree before.

Jared



On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Charles Thomas <charles_002@...> wrote:
> Great analysis, Jared, but I think the SNP names are confusing me. Did you
> include an equivalent to FGC33966 for Martin and me?
>
> Charles
>
> ________________________________
> From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Jared Smith
> <jared@...>
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 9:52 AM
> To: Z16357@groups.io
> Subject: [Z16357] Z16357 In-depth Age Analysis
>
> Aging our ancestors using Y-DNA data is far from an exact science. I'd
> be happy to have you poke holes in any of this.
>
> An analysis of the 11 Z16357 people who have taken Big-Y results in
> the following number of 'good', unique/novel variants/mutations:
>
> C. Hays 4
> R. Hays 3
> Pillsbury 5
> Merrick 11
> Thomas 6
> Phillips 7
> Bennett 9
> M. Hartley 5
> J. Hartley 5
> J. Smith 12
> Smith 27
>
> These are variants that each person has that are not shared with
> anyone else who has tested. The higher the number of novel variants,
> the further back one would expect to be related to someone else
> listed. I use the same metric for a 'good' variant as Alex does on his
> Big Tree. This is a bit more aggressive than what YFull uses.
>
> There are, however, some inconsistencies with this. Merrick, for
> example, has nearly twice as many novel variants as Thomas, even
> though Merrick connects lower/later on the tree than Thomas - one
> would thus expect Merrick to have fewer novel variants. This is
> primarily a factor of test coverage, but this is all we have to work
> with, so we partially account for this variability by averaging. This
> is why each new Big-Y test gives us increased accuracy.
>
> When I add the novel variants above to the number of 'good' SNPs in
> each block or haplogroup of our tree and average the results, I end up
> with the following average number of variants downstream from each
> listed SNP block:
>
> ZS349 - 3.5
> Z16854 - 9.3
> BY15420 - 8.0
> BY15419 - 9.7
> Y29969 - 9.5
> A11132 - 5
> Z17911 - 10.9
> Z16343 - 13
> Z16357 - 36.1
>
> This means, for example, that there's an average of 3.5 variants that
> were formed after the most recent ZS349 ancestor that the two Hays men
> share. For Z17911, we average 10.9 variants downstream (more recent
> than) our most recent common Z17911 ancestor. Altogether, we average
> 36.1 SNPs downstream of Z16357.
>
> To use these variant numbers to help us in aging, we need to calculate
> a "years per SNP" value. YFull has our last Z16357 ancestor at around
> 3300 years ago (though they've acknowledged this is probably too
> high). Other recent estimates put it as young as 2300 years ago. Until
> someone digs up some Z16357 remains or we get enough DNA testers to
> give us better data, we have to use our best informed estimate. I'll
> assume our most recent Z16357 ancestor lived a minimum of 2500 and
> maximum of 3000 years ago.
>
> If we divide these age estimates by 36.1 SNPs (on average), this is a
> minimum of 69.3 years per SNP and a maximum of 83.1 years per SNP. We
> can then use these values to assign age estimates to notable
> branchings as follows:
>
> ZS349 - 327-376 years before present
> Z16854 - 732-861
> BY15420 - 639-750
> BY15419 - 755-889
> Y29969 - 743-875
> A11132 - 431-501
> Z17911 - 837-987
> Z16343 - 986-1166
> Z16357 - 2585-3085
>
> The values are years before present, and include an additional 35
> years (one generation?) to account for the age of the last ancestor
> that had this SNP - and also adds 50 years as a guessed average of how
> old the 11 Z16357 people are.
>
> So this estimates that the common ZS349 ancestor for Hays was born
> 347-376 years ago. We know this ancestor was George Hays who was born
> in 1655 - 362 years ago, so these numbers align perfectly!
>
> This places our Z17911 ancestor being born between 837 and 987 years
> ago. It places the Hartley common ancestor between 431 and 501 years
> ago, the Bennett/Phillips ancestor 639-750 years ago, etc.
>
> Do keep in mind that accuracy is more variable near the end of the
> branches (closer to present day), especially with data from only 2 or
> 3 people. And SNPs are not always formed at a consistent rate. So this
> all a bit rough, but should give us fairly reasonable estimations.
>
> Jared
>
>
>
>