Date   
Aging our SNPs - again

Jared Smith
 

This post should (hopefully) make a lot more sense...

A few of us have been doing some analysis to try to figure out how long ago our common ancestors may have lived. We have come up with much more recent estimates than previously determined.

SNP age calculations are always rough estimates. YFull uses 144.41 years per SNP to try to establish a formal baseline. The problem is that if you calculate the number of SNPs that some people have that are downstream of SNPs for which YFull has time estimates, and multiply that number by 144 years per SNP, this duration often does not align eve closely with YFull's time estimates. This simply proves that SNPs do not always occur at 144 years per SNP.

This is certainly the case with the people on our branch of the tree - the 10 Big-Y testers on the Z16357 branch have A LOT more SNPs than is typical. Based on generally accepted age estimates for older SNPs, we all average around 75 years per SNP. Our mutations occur nearly twice as fast on average as YFull's baseline - meaning that our common ancestors likely lived much more recently than YFull has estimated.

Daryl estimated that the time to our most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) that had the Z16357 SNP as being 2422 years ago. Below Z16357 is the large Z16343 block which he estimated ends at 900 years ago. Below it is Z17911 which he estimated at 706 years ago - much more recent than YFull's estimate of 1550 years ago. My own analysis closely aligned with Daryl's - though mine are bit older (I have Z17911 at around 800 years old).

We use a methodology that is based on assumed dates for very old SNP mutations, but that also considers the number of SNPs both upstream and downstream from a known SNP to establish a more reasonable estimation of time.

This approach gets more difficult as we get to the ends of the branches because we have fewer people that share those newer SNPs to analyze and average. But if we accept Z17911 as being ~800 years old, we can rough estimate the Bennett/Phillips ancestor as living ~550 years ago, for example.

I've updated the SNP chart at http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp with these refined estimates. As we get additional testers, especially those with known shared ancestors with other testers, then we'll be able to refine these estimates.

Jared Smith


Re: New Thomas/Martin branch

Charles Thomas
 

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

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 ...



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.



Tree updates and next steps

Jared Smith
 

I've again updated the charts at http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp These now include the proper positioning for everyone. I removed the speculative branches that do not have available SNP tests. All of us have our own speculative branches, so it didn't make sense to only show some of them.

You'll notice a new BY15419 block above the Bennett/Phillips block and the Merrick/Goff block. Even though Merrick's results don't show this SNP, FTDNA has him below this block, so they must have analyzed his BAM file to find him positive for it. These small blocks provide a measurable "anchor SNP" for that common ancestor (within a few generations) and define the split in family lines.

This portion of the tree is likely where many of the potential testers I've identified will land (particularly Vaughan, Watkins, Griffin, Lewis, Evans, etc.), if our STRs are a good indication (which they often aren't). With several good branches now defined, our project needs additional testers to verify and extend those branches. I have identified 80 or so good potential testers as found in the STR and GD spreadsheets - http://dna.smithplanet.com/str

Please invite your Y37+ matches to participate with us!
I can only contact people that are Y-DNA matches to me, so please send them e-mails and encourage them to check out the site and join this discussion list. I think most of them would be thrilled to know that your SNP testing has helped them know where they fit on the Y-DNA tree. Most have only tested L21 or M269, which are 4500 years old. Your tests prove a much more recent location for them on the tree.

Feel free to send them my e-mail address if they have questions (copying me on the e-mail will be helpful). Or you can send me their names/emails to me and I'd be happy to contact them.

Other items of note:

- Michael Hartley has ordered Big-Y. This should define a long Hartley SNP branch. Though Michael and Joel have not identified a known common ancestor, this will at least bring this branch into surname times.

- We have another Phillips tester that has or will soon be ordering Big-Y. This should create a well-defined Phillips branch below BY15420.

- We're *still* awaiting the Z16357 SNP test results for Lenita. Once confirmed there, she may consider Big-Y to help redefine our oldest "Smith" line where Sylvia is currently located.

- I will be compiling and requesting some of our recently discovered SNPs to (hopefully) be added to the S5668 SNP Pack. This will provide a less expensive way for some of our Y-DNA matches to discover their location on our branches. If desired, I can also request single SNP tests at YSEQ ($17.50 each) so people can easily test any of our known SNPs.

Thanks,

Jared Smith

New Thomas/Martin branch

Jared Smith
 

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
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.

Re: New variants spreadsheet

Jared Smith
 

Please send all of them (with an indication of or grouping by YFull's
quality level). I'm curious how their quality levels align with those
from the other sources I used - Mike W.'s analysis, Alex's Big-Y
analysis, and my own.

I don't really include much grading information in the spreadsheet,
beyond FTDNA's read data (PASS or REJECTED, though they have an
extremely high threshold for "PASS"), and the indication of the Region
and STR data (anything in these columns will suggest lower quality).

I didn't think it necessary to create a complex quality analysis
metric in the spreadsheet seeing as this is what Mike, Alex, and YFull
do best, and I can always reference their work in instances where
things are questionable.

Jared

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Thanks, Jared,

That should be a great resource. I'll send some of my SNPs your way once I
sort them out. YFull has them as:

Best Quality (5)
Acceptable (6)
Ambiguous (20)

I'm guessing you just want the 1st 2 categories?

Joel



On 2/20/2017 6:44 PM, Jared Smith wrote:

I have uploaded a new spreadsheet to
http://dna.smithplanet.com/media/Z16357-Variants.xlsx

This likely has limited utility for anyone other than me, but I
thought I'd share it. This file is used for analyzing Y-DNA mutation
variants (SNPs, insertions/deletions, etc.) that us Z16357 people
have. It's a very large spreadsheet with complex calculations - minor
changes like sorting can take a long time to calculate.

The Variants tab includes all 68,355 unique variants that we have.
These were collected from Big-Y VCF files.

You can use the Lookup tab to query specific DNA position numbers to
see the values each of us have at that position.

The Shared Variants tab shows all known variants ***AT OR BELOW
Z16357*** that at least 2 of us have. This allows easy analysis of the
consistency of SNPs and determination of their position on our
branches. A "+" indicates a positive test for that variant. A "***"
indicates the variant was identified, but the test quality is
questionable. A blank box indicates EITHER a negative result OR no
test coverage (be careful - you can't assume too much from a blank box
without analyzing the BED file for read coverage).

The Unique Variants tab lists most of the variants that are unique to
only one of us. I'd be happy to add any new ones from YFull, if any of
you who have tested there would like to e-mail them to me. Note that
some Insertions/Deletions (these are kinda like hiccups in your DNA)
show "Count" as 0 because Big Tree calculates the position info for
INDELs a bit differently than the VCF file. These are retained for
reference.

The primary function of this spreadsheet is to easily add VCF data to
Variants for new Big-Y testers, then immediately determine which
existing SNPs from our branch they have, and which Unique Variants are
then no longer unique and need to be moved to Shared Variants.

Jared




Re: New variants spreadsheet

Joel Hartley
 

Addendum, there are actually more categories:



I assume that ambiguous is better than Low quality. Perhaps you do want the Ambiguous ones.

Joel

On 2/20/2017 6:44 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
I have uploaded a new spreadsheet to
http://dna.smithplanet.com/media/Z16357-Variants.xlsx

This likely has limited utility for anyone other than me, but I
thought I'd share it. This file is used for analyzing Y-DNA mutation
variants (SNPs, insertions/deletions, etc.) that us Z16357 people
have. It's a very large spreadsheet with complex calculations - minor
changes like sorting can take a long time to calculate.

The Variants tab includes all 68,355 unique variants that we have.
These were collected from Big-Y VCF files.

You can use the Lookup tab to query specific DNA position numbers to
see the values each of us have at that position.

The Shared Variants tab shows all known variants ***AT OR BELOW
Z16357*** that at least 2 of us have. This allows easy analysis of the
consistency of SNPs and determination of their position on our
branches. A "+" indicates a positive test for that variant. A "***"
indicates the variant was identified, but the test quality is
questionable. A blank box indicates EITHER a negative result OR no
test coverage (be careful - you can't assume too much from a blank box
without analyzing the BED file for read coverage).

The Unique Variants tab lists most of the variants that are unique to
only one of us. I'd be happy to add any new ones from YFull, if any of
you who have tested there would like to e-mail them to me. Note that
some Insertions/Deletions (these are kinda like hiccups in your DNA)
show "Count" as 0 because Big Tree calculates the position info for
INDELs a bit differently than the VCF file. These are retained for
reference.

The primary function of this spreadsheet is to easily add VCF data to
Variants for new Big-Y testers, then immediately determine which
existing SNPs from our branch they have, and which Unique Variants are
then no longer unique and need to be moved to Shared Variants.

Jared




Re: New variants spreadsheet

Joel Hartley
 

Thanks, Jared,

That should be a great resource. I'll send some of my SNPs your way once I sort them out. YFull has them as:

Best Quality (5)
Acceptable (6)
Ambiguous (20)

I'm guessing you just want the 1st 2 categories?

Joel

On 2/20/2017 6:44 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
I have uploaded a new spreadsheet to
http://dna.smithplanet.com/media/Z16357-Variants.xlsx

This likely has limited utility for anyone other than me, but I
thought I'd share it. This file is used for analyzing Y-DNA mutation
variants (SNPs, insertions/deletions, etc.) that us Z16357 people
have. It's a very large spreadsheet with complex calculations - minor
changes like sorting can take a long time to calculate.

The Variants tab includes all 68,355 unique variants that we have.
These were collected from Big-Y VCF files.

You can use the Lookup tab to query specific DNA position numbers to
see the values each of us have at that position.

The Shared Variants tab shows all known variants ***AT OR BELOW
Z16357*** that at least 2 of us have. This allows easy analysis of the
consistency of SNPs and determination of their position on our
branches. A "+" indicates a positive test for that variant. A "***"
indicates the variant was identified, but the test quality is
questionable. A blank box indicates EITHER a negative result OR no
test coverage (be careful - you can't assume too much from a blank box
without analyzing the BED file for read coverage).

The Unique Variants tab lists most of the variants that are unique to
only one of us. I'd be happy to add any new ones from YFull, if any of
you who have tested there would like to e-mail them to me. Note that
some Insertions/Deletions (these are kinda like hiccups in your DNA)
show "Count" as 0 because Big Tree calculates the position info for
INDELs a bit differently than the VCF file. These are retained for
reference.

The primary function of this spreadsheet is to easily add VCF data to
Variants for new Big-Y testers, then immediately determine which
existing SNPs from our branch they have, and which Unique Variants are
then no longer unique and need to be moved to Shared Variants.

Jared

New variants spreadsheet

Jared Smith
 

I have uploaded a new spreadsheet to
http://dna.smithplanet.com/media/Z16357-Variants.xlsx

This likely has limited utility for anyone other than me, but I
thought I'd share it. This file is used for analyzing Y-DNA mutation
variants (SNPs, insertions/deletions, etc.) that us Z16357 people
have. It's a very large spreadsheet with complex calculations - minor
changes like sorting can take a long time to calculate.

The Variants tab includes all 68,355 unique variants that we have.
These were collected from Big-Y VCF files.

You can use the Lookup tab to query specific DNA position numbers to
see the values each of us have at that position.

The Shared Variants tab shows all known variants ***AT OR BELOW
Z16357*** that at least 2 of us have. This allows easy analysis of the
consistency of SNPs and determination of their position on our
branches. A "+" indicates a positive test for that variant. A "***"
indicates the variant was identified, but the test quality is
questionable. A blank box indicates EITHER a negative result OR no
test coverage (be careful - you can't assume too much from a blank box
without analyzing the BED file for read coverage).

The Unique Variants tab lists most of the variants that are unique to
only one of us. I'd be happy to add any new ones from YFull, if any of
you who have tested there would like to e-mail them to me. Note that
some Insertions/Deletions (these are kinda like hiccups in your DNA)
show "Count" as 0 because Big Tree calculates the position info for
INDELs a bit differently than the VCF file. These are retained for
reference.

The primary function of this spreadsheet is to easily add VCF data to
Variants for new Big-Y testers, then immediately determine which
existing SNPs from our branch they have, and which Unique Variants are
then no longer unique and need to be moved to Shared Variants.

Jared

Re: Phillips Big-Y - new Bennett/Phillips branch

Jared Smith
 

Charles -

Oh, that must be Chuck Martin's SNP pack results. I don't see those
results at all yet, but that would put him at the same place on the
tree as you. We don't know if he's on the same branch as Bennett and
Phillips because none of those SNPs are yet in the SNP pack - heck, we
just discovered them a few hours ago. :-)

Chuck, if this is all correct, that confirms your placement on the
tree as Y29969/BY11573 (with BY11573 being the SNP you've actually
tested positive for).

Joel, I don't see Brent Phillips in my Big-Y matches list either. It
seems they're still processing this batch of results.

Two new family lines positioned on our tree in one day! Excellent!

Jared

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Thanks Jared,

I was wondering what happened to that test. Also I'm wondering why I can't
see Phillips on my match list? Hopefully, it should show up soon.

Joel


On 2/18/2017 2:45 PM, Jared Smith wrote:

The Big-Y results for Brent Phillips are in. He is confirmed R-Y29969
with Bennett and Thomas. This is phylogenetically equivalent to
BY11573. You'll notice FTDNA has changed the terminal SNP for Bennett
and Thomas to Y29969 - it's a more reliable SNP to check.

Beyond this, there's also a new tentative Bennett/Phillips branch.
They both share the following markers (and perhaps some others that
are yet to be discovered):
7488239-G-A
22486193-A-T
25311291-T-C

These are in rather poor read areas for the Y-DNA test, but I believe
at least the first one should hold up under further analysis to create
this new branch.

I had thought that Bennett and Phillips would share more good SNPs
(i.e., they had a more recent common ancestor), but this proves that
their lines split after Y29969. But both of them have around 10 good
unique SNPs that would provide distinct Bennett and Phillips branches
with additional cousin testers.

Another good discover with the Phillips and my Smith Big-Y is
validation of 5 or 6 other SNP markers that those of us on the Z17911
block share. This means that Z17911 is a bigger/longer block than we
had previously thought, thus moving our more recent ancestor in that
block closer to modern day.

My own VERY rough estimate based on what we know now is that our most
recent Z17911 lived probably around 1200 years ago, with the
Bennett/Phillips/Thomas/Merrick/Goff Y29969/BY11573 ancestor living
around 800 years ago.

Brent's results add some very useful information to our project!

Jared




Re: Phillips Big-Y - new Bennett/Phillips branch

Joel Hartley
 

Thanks Jared,

I was wondering what happened to that test. Also I'm wondering why I can't see Phillips on my match list? Hopefully, it should show up soon.

Joel

On 2/18/2017 2:45 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
The Big-Y results for Brent Phillips are in. He is confirmed R-Y29969
with Bennett and Thomas. This is phylogenetically equivalent to
BY11573. You'll notice FTDNA has changed the terminal SNP for Bennett
and Thomas to Y29969 - it's a more reliable SNP to check.

Beyond this, there's also a new tentative Bennett/Phillips branch.
They both share the following markers (and perhaps some others that
are yet to be discovered):
7488239-G-A
22486193-A-T
25311291-T-C

These are in rather poor read areas for the Y-DNA test, but I believe
at least the first one should hold up under further analysis to create
this new branch.

I had thought that Bennett and Phillips would share more good SNPs
(i.e., they had a more recent common ancestor), but this proves that
their lines split after Y29969. But both of them have around 10 good
unique SNPs that would provide distinct Bennett and Phillips branches
with additional cousin testers.

Another good discover with the Phillips and my Smith Big-Y is
validation of 5 or 6 other SNP markers that those of us on the Z17911
block share. This means that Z17911 is a bigger/longer block than we
had previously thought, thus moving our more recent ancestor in that
block closer to modern day.

My own VERY rough estimate based on what we know now is that our most
recent Z17911 lived probably around 1200 years ago, with the
Bennett/Phillips/Thomas/Merrick/Goff Y29969/BY11573 ancestor living
around 800 years ago.

Brent's results add some very useful information to our project!

Jared

Re: Phillips Big-Y - new Bennett/Phillips branch

Charles Thomas
 

Thanks for the update. I checked and yes FTDNA does indeed show me as R-Y29969 now with BY11573 shown in light brown meaning presumed positive beside Y29969 on the tree. I also noticed that Rodney Martin is shown as BY11573 on my match list.

Thanks also to Joel a week or so ago for the heads-up on the YFull tree update.

Charles  




From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Jared Smith <jared@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 1:45 PM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: [Z16357] Phillips Big-Y - new Bennett/Phillips branch
 
The Big-Y results for Brent Phillips are in. He is confirmed R-Y29969
with Bennett and Thomas. This is phylogenetically equivalent to
BY11573. You'll notice FTDNA has changed the terminal SNP for Bennett
and Thomas to Y29969 - it's a more reliable SNP to check.

Beyond this, there's also a new tentative Bennett/Phillips branch.
They both share the following markers (and perhaps some others that
are yet to be discovered):
7488239-G-A
22486193-A-T
25311291-T-C

These are in rather poor read areas for the Y-DNA test, but I believe
at least the first one should hold up under further analysis to create
this new branch.

I had thought that Bennett and Phillips would share more good SNPs
(i.e., they had a more recent common ancestor), but this proves that
their lines split after Y29969. But both of them have around 10 good
unique SNPs that would provide distinct Bennett and Phillips branches
with additional cousin testers.

Another good discover with the Phillips and my Smith Big-Y is
validation of 5 or 6 other SNP markers that those of us on the Z17911
block share. This means that Z17911 is a bigger/longer block than we
had previously thought, thus moving our more recent ancestor in that
block closer to modern day.

My own VERY rough estimate based on what we know now is that our most
recent Z17911 lived probably around 1200 years ago, with the
Bennett/Phillips/Thomas/Merrick/Goff Y29969/BY11573 ancestor living
around 800 years ago.

Brent's results add some very useful information to our project!

Jared



Re: Phillips Big-Y - new Bennett/Phillips branch

Jared Smith
 

I forgot to mention that I've updated the charts at
http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp to reflect these changes, in case you
prefer a visual view of what's happening.

Jared

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Jared Smith <jared@...> wrote:
The Big-Y results for Brent Phillips are in. He is confirmed R-Y29969
with Bennett and Thomas. This is phylogenetically equivalent to
BY11573. You'll notice FTDNA has changed the terminal SNP for Bennett
and Thomas to Y29969 - it's a more reliable SNP to check.

Beyond this, there's also a new tentative Bennett/Phillips branch.
They both share the following markers (and perhaps some others that
are yet to be discovered):
7488239-G-A
22486193-A-T
25311291-T-C

These are in rather poor read areas for the Y-DNA test, but I believe
at least the first one should hold up under further analysis to create
this new branch.

I had thought that Bennett and Phillips would share more good SNPs
(i.e., they had a more recent common ancestor), but this proves that
their lines split after Y29969. But both of them have around 10 good
unique SNPs that would provide distinct Bennett and Phillips branches
with additional cousin testers.

Another good discover with the Phillips and my Smith Big-Y is
validation of 5 or 6 other SNP markers that those of us on the Z17911
block share. This means that Z17911 is a bigger/longer block than we
had previously thought, thus moving our more recent ancestor in that
block closer to modern day.

My own VERY rough estimate based on what we know now is that our most
recent Z17911 lived probably around 1200 years ago, with the
Bennett/Phillips/Thomas/Merrick/Goff Y29969/BY11573 ancestor living
around 800 years ago.

Brent's results add some very useful information to our project!

Jared

Phillips Big-Y - new Bennett/Phillips branch

Jared Smith
 

The Big-Y results for Brent Phillips are in. He is confirmed R-Y29969
with Bennett and Thomas. This is phylogenetically equivalent to
BY11573. You'll notice FTDNA has changed the terminal SNP for Bennett
and Thomas to Y29969 - it's a more reliable SNP to check.

Beyond this, there's also a new tentative Bennett/Phillips branch.
They both share the following markers (and perhaps some others that
are yet to be discovered):
7488239-G-A
22486193-A-T
25311291-T-C

These are in rather poor read areas for the Y-DNA test, but I believe
at least the first one should hold up under further analysis to create
this new branch.

I had thought that Bennett and Phillips would share more good SNPs
(i.e., they had a more recent common ancestor), but this proves that
their lines split after Y29969. But both of them have around 10 good
unique SNPs that would provide distinct Bennett and Phillips branches
with additional cousin testers.

Another good discover with the Phillips and my Smith Big-Y is
validation of 5 or 6 other SNP markers that those of us on the Z17911
block share. This means that Z17911 is a bigger/longer block than we
had previously thought, thus moving our more recent ancestor in that
block closer to modern day.

My own VERY rough estimate based on what we know now is that our most
recent Z17911 lived probably around 1200 years ago, with the
Bennett/Phillips/Thomas/Merrick/Goff Y29969/BY11573 ancestor living
around 800 years ago.

Brent's results add some very useful information to our project!

Jared

Re: a Smith lineage

Joel Hartley
 

Jared,

You have piqued my interest concerning your exciting news.

Joel

On 2/18/2017 12:16 AM, Jared Smith wrote:
Charles -

That is interesting. It does appear that your (supposed) ancestor is
probably I-M223. Sylvia and Lenita (our Z16357 people) and I are in
the Smith R-M269-16 group. Many or most of the other Smiths in that
group are also Z16357 people.

I have some exciting news coming soon regarding our tree!

Jared


On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Charles Thomas <charles_002@...> wrote:
Hi Jared,

It's of no consequence to my Y-DNA lineage or to your research, but in
another line I'm supposedy a descendant of Nicholas Smith d.1719 Surry
County, VA, and wife Elizabeth Flood. His Y-lineage seems to be I-M223-group
1 (#134470) at the Smith Project, but R-M269-group 32 is another
possibility.

Best,

Charles

Re: a Smith lineage

Jared Smith
 

Charles -

That is interesting. It does appear that your (supposed) ancestor is
probably I-M223. Sylvia and Lenita (our Z16357 people) and I are in
the Smith R-M269-16 group. Many or most of the other Smiths in that
group are also Z16357 people.

I have some exciting news coming soon regarding our tree!

Jared

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Charles Thomas <charles_002@...> wrote:
Hi Jared,

It's of no consequence to my Y-DNA lineage or to your research, but in
another line I'm supposedy a descendant of Nicholas Smith d.1719 Surry
County, VA, and wife Elizabeth Flood. His Y-lineage seems to be I-M223-group
1 (#134470) at the Smith Project, but R-M269-group 32 is another
possibility.

Best,

Charles

a Smith lineage

Charles Thomas
 

Hi Jared,

It's of no consequence to my Y-DNA lineage or to your research, but in another line I'm supposedy a descendant of Nicholas Smith d.1719 Surry County, VA, and wife Elizabeth Flood. His Y-lineage seems to be I-M223-group 1 (#134470) at the Smith Project, but R-M269-group 32 is another possibility.

Best,

Charles 

Re: My Big-Y results

Joel Hartley
 

Hi Jared,

It seems like with the people that we had, all the branching that was going to happen already happened. The good news is that Michael Hartley has expressed interest in the Big Y. This could produce some extra resolution between your branch of YDNA and mine.

I think that the reason I have some named SNPs is that I believe my Hartley administrator, William Hartley, probably went in and named some of my SNPs after I took the Big Y test.

Sorry for your disappointment. As you know, this BigY is a long term thing. It's good to be a pioneer, but being way out in front of the pack can be lonely!

Joel

On 2/17/2017 1:03 AM, Jared Smith wrote:
Yes, I now form a new theoretical branch from Z17911 (well, theoretical until I can get a closer cousin to test). My branch will be a sibling to your Hartley branch, which is a sibling to the BY11573 branch with Thomas, Bennett, Merrick, and Goff. As soon as I can update it, I'll add my pink box to the SNP tree.

Of note is that your Hartley theoretical branch is depicted with A11130, but that just represents one of the dozen or so private SNPs that have been identified for you. My box will also fill with a dozen or so of similar (but not yet named) SNPs.

Joel, you are also my top match, followed by Bennett, then Thomas, as you'd expect considering these results.

I'm a bit disappointed that no new branches were formed with my results, but this paves the road for others to follow. Now to redouble my research efforts to find a distant Smith cousin!

Jared


On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Jared,

You are my top BigY match now:



Joel

On 2/16/2017 10:27 AM, Jared Smith wrote:
My Big-Y results (kit #307773) are in. I am firmly (still) at
R-Z17911. I had hoped that I would share some private/novel SNPs with
Hartley, or maybe a few with Bennett or Thomas, but it appears that my
branch split near the same time as the Harley and BY11573 (and
downstream) branches. I do have quite a few of my own private/novel
SNPs for this new potential Smith branch below Z17911, but there are
no new branches (yet) from my test results.

I'm just off on a road trip, but will try to find some time to analyze
things more fully.

Jared






Re: My Big-Y results

Jared Smith
 

Yes, I now form a new theoretical branch from Z17911 (well, theoretical until I can get a closer cousin to test). My branch will be a sibling to your Hartley branch, which is a sibling to the BY11573 branch with Thomas, Bennett, Merrick, and Goff. As soon as I can update it, I'll add my pink box to the SNP tree.

Of note is that your Hartley theoretical branch is depicted with A11130, but that just represents one of the dozen or so private SNPs that have been identified for you. My box will also fill with a dozen or so of similar (but not yet named) SNPs.

Joel, you are also my top match, followed by Bennett, then Thomas, as you'd expect considering these results.

I'm a bit disappointed that no new branches were formed with my results, but this paves the road for others to follow. Now to redouble my research efforts to find a distant Smith cousin!

Jared


On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
Jared,

You are my top BigY match now:



Joel

On 2/16/2017 10:27 AM, Jared Smith wrote:
My Big-Y results (kit #307773) are in. I am firmly (still) at
R-Z17911. I had hoped that I would share some private/novel SNPs with
Hartley, or maybe a few with Bennett or Thomas, but it appears that my
branch split near the same time as the Harley and BY11573 (and
downstream) branches. I do have quite a few of my own private/novel
SNPs for this new potential Smith branch below Z17911, but there are
no new branches (yet) from my test results.

I'm just off on a road trip, but will try to find some time to analyze
things more fully.

Jared





Re: My Big-Y results

Joel Hartley
 

Jared,

You are my top BigY match now:



Joel

On 2/16/2017 10:27 AM, Jared Smith wrote:
My Big-Y results (kit #307773) are in. I am firmly (still) at
R-Z17911. I had hoped that I would share some private/novel SNPs with
Hartley, or maybe a few with Bennett or Thomas, but it appears that my
branch split near the same time as the Harley and BY11573 (and
downstream) branches. I do have quite a few of my own private/novel
SNPs for this new potential Smith branch below Z17911, but there are
no new branches (yet) from my test results.

I'm just off on a road trip, but will try to find some time to analyze
things more fully.

Jared




Re: My Big-Y results

Joel Hartley
 

Hi Jared,

So I suspect on your Z16357 SNP Tree, you will be branching off on a pink box parallel to me under Z17911.

Joel

On 2/16/2017 10:27 AM, Jared Smith wrote:
My Big-Y results (kit #307773) are in. I am firmly (still) at
R-Z17911. I had hoped that I would share some private/novel SNPs with
Hartley, or maybe a few with Bennett or Thomas, but it appears that my
branch split near the same time as the Harley and BY11573 (and
downstream) branches. I do have quite a few of my own private/novel
SNPs for this new potential Smith branch below Z17911, but there are
no new branches (yet) from my test results.

I'm just off on a road trip, but will try to find some time to analyze
things more fully.

Jared