Date   
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
>
>
>
>



Re: New Hartley/Smith SNP block?

Joel Hartley
 

Hi Jared,

This is all very interesting. I wonder if my YFull has not been updated yet. Do you show me as an A11138 match under the SNP Matches Tab?



I see A11138 under my Hg and SNPs but not at the SNP Matches.



Do you know what the light green + means compared to the dark green +?

Joel

On 3/20/2017 10:12 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
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

Jared Smith
 

Charles -

It appears Mike made a mistake when he updated the chart. This should
be FGC33966. None of us have BY11382. I'll let him know.

Thanks,

Jared

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:40 PM, Charles Thomas
<charles_002@...> wrote:
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





Re: New Hartley/Smith SNP block?

Jared Smith
 

No, I don't show A11138 as being a matching SNP with you. That's what is particularly confusing to me.

But I clearly show positive for A11138 in my SNP list in my "Hg and SNPs" list. A11138 is the very first one on my list.

I'm pretty sure the light green + indicates that there was only one read at that location, so it is only suspected positive.

Jared


On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Hi Jared,

This is all very interesting. I wonder if my YFull has not been updated yet. Do you show me as an A11138 match under the SNP Matches Tab?



I see A11138 under my Hg and SNPs but not at the SNP Matches.



Do you know what the light green + means compared to the dark green +?

Joel


On 3/20/2017 10:12 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
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: New Hartley/Smith SNP block?

Joel Hartley
 

Hi Jared,

I'm never sure when this YFull analysis is finalized or not. At any rate, on my list of SNPs, A11138 is the first one that is not listed as private. So I assume that means I share it with you. If we hadn't done the YFull analysis, I'm not sure if anyone would've picked up on this branching SNP.

Also it appears that the Z16357 SNP Tree needs to be modified again. It looks like everyone has left Z17911 behind and that it is now a "ghost town".

Joel

On 3/21/2017 8:03 AM, Jared Smith wrote:
No, I don't show A11138 as being a matching SNP with you. That's what is particularly confusing to me.

But I clearly show positive for A11138 in my SNP list in my "Hg and SNPs" list. A11138 is the very first one on my list.

I'm pretty sure the light green + indicates that there was only one read at that location, so it is only suspected positive.

Jared


On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Hi Jared,

This is all very interesting. I wonder if my YFull has not been updated yet. Do you show me as an A11138 match under the SNP Matches Tab?



I see A11138 under my Hg and SNPs but not at the SNP Matches.



Do you know what the light green + means compared to the dark green +?

Joel


On 3/20/2017 10:12 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
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: New Hartley/Smith SNP block?

Jared Smith
 

It's official - my terminal SNP is now A11138! FTDNA did a BAM analysis to verify this and has added this SNP to the tree. I've updated my charts at http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp I also added a bit more aging info.

Because we now know that A11138 is above the A11132 block and not below it as a novel variant with Joel, this does decrease the number of novel variants Joel has, effectively moving the shared Hartley ancestor date for Joel and Michael back a bit (at least according to the math of my calculations).

This also places the Hartley/Smith ancestor just below Z17911 somewhere around 800 years ago (give or take a century or so).

It is quite incredible that just a few months ago we had no branches below Z17911, and now we have 7 downstream branches with 13 known shared SNPs!

Jared


On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Hi Jared,

I'm never sure when this YFull analysis is finalized or not. At any rate, on my list of SNPs, A11138 is the first one that is not listed as private. So I assume that means I share it with you. If we hadn't done the YFull analysis, I'm not sure if anyone would've picked up on this branching SNP.

Also it appears that the Z16357 SNP Tree needs to be modified again. It looks like everyone has left Z17911 behind and that it is now a "ghost town".

Joel


On 3/21/2017 8:03 AM, Jared Smith wrote:
No, I don't show A11138 as being a matching SNP with you. That's what is particularly confusing to me.

But I clearly show positive for A11138 in my SNP list in my "Hg and SNPs" list. A11138 is the very first one on my list.

I'm pretty sure the light green + indicates that there was only one read at that location, so it is only suspected positive.

Jared


On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Hi Jared,

This is all very interesting. I wonder if my YFull has not been updated yet. Do you show me as an A11138 match under the SNP Matches Tab?



I see A11138 under my Hg and SNPs but not at the SNP Matches.



Do you know what the light green + means compared to the dark green +?

Joel


On 3/20/2017 10:12 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
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: New Hartley/Smith SNP block?

Charles Thomas
 

Congrats on the new discovery, Jared! With your extensive knowledge and help I hope there are many more discoveries for each of us in the group.

Charles Thomas


From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Jared Smith <jared@...>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 10:13 AM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Z16357] New Hartley/Smith SNP block?
 
It's official - my terminal SNP is now A11138! FTDNA did a BAM analysis to verify this and has added this SNP to the tree. I've updated my charts at http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp I also added a bit more aging info.

dna.smithplanet.com
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 ...



Because we now know that A11138 is above the A11132 block and not below it as a novel variant with Joel, this does decrease the number of novel variants Joel has, effectively moving the shared Hartley ancestor date for Joel and Michael back a bit (at least according to the math of my calculations).

This also places the Hartley/Smith ancestor just below Z17911 somewhere around 800 years ago (give or take a century or so).

It is quite incredible that just a few months ago we had no branches below Z17911, and now we have 7 downstream branches with 13 known shared SNPs!

Jared


On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Hi Jared,

I'm never sure when this YFull analysis is finalized or not. At any rate, on my list of SNPs, A11138 is the first one that is not listed as private. So I assume that means I share it with you. If we hadn't done the YFull analysis, I'm not sure if anyone would've picked up on this branching SNP.

Also it appears that the Z16357 SNP Tree needs to be modified again. It looks like everyone has left Z17911 behind and that it is now a "ghost town".

Joel


On 3/21/2017 8:03 AM, Jared Smith wrote:
No, I don't show A11138 as being a matching SNP with you. That's what is particularly confusing to me.

But I clearly show positive for A11138 in my SNP list in my "Hg and SNPs" list. A11138 is the very first one on my list.

I'm pretty sure the light green + indicates that there was only one read at that location, so it is only suspected positive.

Jared


On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Hi Jared,

This is all very interesting. I wonder if my YFull has not been updated yet. Do you show me as an A11138 match under the SNP Matches Tab?



I see A11138 under my Hg and SNPs but not at the SNP Matches.



Do you know what the light green + means compared to the dark green +?

Joel


On 3/20/2017 10:12 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
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







Autosomal DNA

Charles Thomas
 

Hey Jared,

I was looking for something online in addtion to dna-explained.com to send to an autosomal DNA match of mine for explanation of the possibilities of the match and I found the following nice page of yours:

http://smithplanet.com/stuff/gedmatch.htm

I recommend it to others here looking to understand autosomal matches.

Thanks,

Charles Thomas

DNA Day Sale - Big-Y $150 off

Jared Smith
 

I hope everyone is doing well. We haven't had any new tests on our
branch of the tree lately, but now is the optimal time for us to
recruit new Big-Y testers. Big-Y is on sale for only $450 through
Thursday of this week.

If everyone on this list would send just a couple e-mails to some of
their close Y-DNA matches, we likely could recruit several new
testers.

Someone asked for some positive messaging to help recruit Big-Y
testers, so I wrote the following, in case you'd like to use or modify
it:

*****
Big-Y testing maps the genetic tree of humanity. We're slowly mapping
every Y-DNA mutation to particular ancestors - some known by name and
some too ancient to be known. Even for very old common ancestors,
these markers provide a unique identifier for them - a way to identify
family tree connections that could not possibly be made using
genealogical records.

Traditional genealogy works from modern day and builds the tree
backward from us to our ancestors. Y-DNA genealogy works in reverse -
we've identified mutations in our ancient ancestors and are
identifying new cousin relationships, new branches, and more defined
family timelines with each new Big-Y test. For many family lines,
we're still very much in the early days of this research, but each new
test provides better clarity.

On our own Z16357 part of the Y-DNA tree
(http://dna.smithplanet.com/), we are getting much better defined
branches. We're getting closer to knowing geographies of some of our
ancestors - where and when they lived in the British Isles in the last
few thousand years. As we define and verify the individual mutations
that form new branches on our tree, we are paving the path for others
to eventually take very inexpensive DNA tests to see how their direct
male line connects with the rest of humanity. This future is only
possible if we pave the way by investing in Big-Y!
*****

Thanks,

Jared Smith