Date   
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




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.

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

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.



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


New near-match

Charles Thomas
 

Hi Jared and everyone,

I have a new 34/37 match. Surname is Dean who may be related to my previous match of that name. I invited him to check out the L513 project.

Charles Thomas 

Re: New near-match

Jared Smith
 

Excellent! He's not within FTDNA's Y-DNA match threshold for me, but
may be for others here. If he would join the L513 Project and if we
can get a kit #, then I can see how closely he aligns with the rest of
us.

Thanks,

Jared

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Charles Thomas <charles_002@...> wrote:
Hi Jared and everyone,

I have a new 34/37 match. Surname is Dean who may be related to my previous
match of that name. I invited him to check out the L513 project.

Charles Thomas

Re: New Thomas/Martin branch

Jared Smith
 

Charles -

I've tried to contact the Evans match from ySearch, but their contact form has broken broken for weeks and I can't get anyone from FTDNA (they run ySearch) to respond to my inquiries about it. Do you happen to have other contact information for Ben Evans? If his posted most distant ancestor dating to the 1100s in Wales is correct, and if he were on our branch of the tree, getting him tested could be very significant to our research.

Jared Smith


On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Charles Thomas <charles_002@...> wrote:

Awesome news! Thanks for all your work, Jared! Glad to be on the same branch of the tree with you, Chuck! (Assuming your name Chuck is for Charles, that makes two Charles on this branch.)

According to Jared's time estimate, Chuck's and my MRCA must have lived somewhere in the 1300 - 1500 CE timeframe. Is there a tradition in your family, Chuck, of the country of origin of your Martin ancestry? There was no specific tradition in mine for my Thomas family, but a near match with an Evans who emigrated from Carmarthenshire Wales - actually I don't think they call them "shires" in Wales anymore but I forgot the exact term - has made me think that my Thomas Y-line ancestry was likely also from Wales, at least at some point in time in the past. This reminds me to try to locate my notes regarding this Evans match. (The man had tested via SMGF which no longer makes results available online and I had noted the similarity in STR results when checking various databases a few years ago.) I'll let you know if I find my notes.

Charles Thomas


From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Jared Smith <jared@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:56 AM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: [Z16357] New Thomas/Martin branch
 
The S5668 SNP pack results are in for Chuck Martin and they confirm a
new Thomas/Martin branch of the tree.

First, I had indicated Chuck's kit # previously as 161394. That was
incorrect. His actual kit # is 495859.

One of Thomas' (previously) unique SNPs is FGC33966. FTDNA included
this SNP in the S5668 SNP Pack. Chuck Martin is positive for FGC33966
(and also BY11573), thus verifying this new branch!

I've updated my charts at http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp to reflect

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



the new branching (you may need to hit Refresh). You'll notice that we
currently don't have anyone left right at S59969/BY11573 - they've all
moved to downstream blocks in just the last few weeks due to new test
results.

This places the common Thomas/Martin ancestor at probably 500-700
years ago. It's likely that Thomas and Martin also share some of
Thomas' other 'unique' SNPs - such as FGC33968 and FGC33967 - see
http://www.ytree.net/SNPinfoForPerson.php?personID=413 Each new SNP
match would move your common ancestor 100+ years closer to present
day. But you are GD=6 at Y67, so this does suggest that your common
ancestor is still probably at least a few hundred years back, and that
we got lucky and hit gold with your FGC33966 SNP match.

In other news, I see that FTDNA has updated their tree with some of
our recent changes (I'll request that FGC33966 be added). If I'm
reading it correctly, the new terminal SNP for Bennett and Phillips (I
currently have as ??? on my charts) is labelled BY15420. They also
list BY15419 upstream of this and BY11565, but I'm not sure what this
SNP is. I'll try to figure it out.

Discovering new branches is what this project is about, and new ones
always make my day!

Thanks,

Jared

PS - Chuck, I don't see you in the Martin project. Maybe try
re-joining - or maybe something odd is happening there.




Re: New Thomas/Martin branch

Charles Thomas
 

Hi Jared,

No, unfortunately I don't have contact info for Ben Evans (VU8W9). I messaged him twice in the past when the form was working but no reply either time. Hopefully the contact form will be operational again soon.

Just now I found the following 12/12 match with Ben Evans: 2BVJN. Of course, we don't know if other markers would be a match, but this might also be someone to try to contact if the form gets up and running again.

The Griffin (121779) in the Evans project (24/25 with Ben Evans if I'm counting 389-1 and 389-2 correctly) would seem to be 6R777 at ysearch, and the ysearch contact person seems to be one and the same as the contact person for this tree:

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

Hopefully she would reply.

One more piece of information: J43M8 Cooper at ysearch is a 34/37 match with Ben Evans.

Thank you very much for your work on this,

Charles






From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Jared Smith <jared@...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:58 AM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Z16357] New Thomas/Martin branch
 
Charles -

I've tried to contact the Evans match from ySearch, but their contact form has broken broken for weeks and I can't get anyone from FTDNA (they run ySearch) to respond to my inquiries about it. Do you happen to have other contact information for Ben Evans? If his posted most distant ancestor dating to the 1100s in Wales is correct, and if he were on our branch of the tree, getting him tested could be very significant to our research.

Jared Smith


On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Charles Thomas <charles_002@...> wrote:

Awesome news! Thanks for all your work, Jared! Glad to be on the same branch of the tree with you, Chuck! (Assuming your name Chuck is for Charles, that makes two Charles on this branch.)

According to Jared's time estimate, Chuck's and my MRCA must have lived somewhere in the 1300 - 1500 CE timeframe. Is there a tradition in your family, Chuck, of the country of origin of your Martin ancestry? There was no specific tradition in mine for my Thomas family, but a near match with an Evans who emigrated from Carmarthenshire Wales - actually I don't think they call them "shires" in Wales anymore but I forgot the exact term - has made me think that my Thomas Y-line ancestry was likely also from Wales, at least at some point in time in the past. This reminds me to try to locate my notes regarding this Evans match. (The man had tested via SMGF which no longer makes results available online and I had noted the similarity in STR results when checking various databases a few years ago.) I'll let you know if I find my notes.

Charles Thomas


From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Jared Smith <jared@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:56 AM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: [Z16357] New Thomas/Martin branch
 
The S5668 SNP pack results are in for Chuck Martin and they confirm a
new Thomas/Martin branch of the tree.

First, I had indicated Chuck's kit # previously as 161394. That was
incorrect. His actual kit # is 495859.

One of Thomas' (previously) unique SNPs is FGC33966. FTDNA included
this SNP in the S5668 SNP Pack. Chuck Martin is positive for FGC33966
(and also BY11573), thus verifying this new branch!

I've updated my charts at http://dna.smithplanet.com/snp to reflect

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



the new branching (you may need to hit Refresh). You'll notice that we
currently don't have anyone left right at S59969/BY11573 - they've all
moved to downstream blocks in just the last few weeks due to new test
results.

This places the common Thomas/Martin ancestor at probably 500-700
years ago. It's likely that Thomas and Martin also share some of
Thomas' other 'unique' SNPs - such as FGC33968 and FGC33967 - see
http://www.ytree.net/SNPinfoForPerson.php?personID=413 Each new SNP
match would move your common ancestor 100+ years closer to present
day. But you are GD=6 at Y67, so this does suggest that your common
ancestor is still probably at least a few hundred years back, and that
we got lucky and hit gold with your FGC33966 SNP match.

In other news, I see that FTDNA has updated their tree with some of
our recent changes (I'll request that FGC33966 be added). If I'm
reading it correctly, the new terminal SNP for Bennett and Phillips (I
currently have as ??? on my charts) is labelled BY15420. They also
list BY15419 upstream of this and BY11565, but I'm not sure what this
SNP is. I'll try to figure it out.

Discovering new branches is what this project is about, and new ones
always make my day!

Thanks,

Jared

PS - Chuck, I don't see you in the Martin project. Maybe try
re-joining - or maybe something odd is happening there.




Mike Hartley BigY

Joel Hartley
 

I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5 SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel

Re: Mike Hartley BigY

Jared Smith
 

Excellent!

Michael, if you could please e-mail me your raw data file from FTDNA,
that will be necessary for me to do a full analysis. Go to
https://www.familytreedna.com/my/big-y/#matches and then click on the
Download Raw Data button at the top, then Download VCF at the bottom.
Then e-mail me the resulting file.

A quick check shows a few novel variants that each of you have, so
this will create a very distinct new Hartley branch that splits a few
hundred years ago into your distinct Hartley branches.

I'm just off to work, but will analyze the results much closer this evening.

Congrats to both of you on this new branch!

Jared

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Joel Hartley <joel@...> wrote:
I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as Jared
as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5 SNPs which
Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see any SNPs I
share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel



Re: Mike Hartley BigY

Charles Thomas
 

Hey Joel,

Mike Hartley is listed on my match list with 0 shared novel variants,

0 non-matching known SNPs, and 25,684 matching SNPs.

Is Mike 31/37 and 59/67 with you? My Thomas match with whom

I share the ancestor James Thomas b. abt 1760 is 66/67 with me.

So I'm thinking that your and Mike's shared Hartley ancestor could

be much farther back in time. Yet STRs can change at any time, and it's

just the average mutation rate per STR that are known so maybe your

shared ancestor is more recent than I'm guessing. I'm sure Jared's

analysis of the SNPs will be helpful.

Best regards,

Charles




From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Joel Hartley <joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:28 AM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY
 
I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as
Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5
SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see
any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel




Re: Mike Hartley BigY

Jared Smith
 

I've started an initial analysis based on the limited information I
have from FTDNA thus far. I can provide more information after I
receive Michael's VCF files.

The following lists provide the SNP name (if available), then the DNA
position number and polymorphism/change value.

Thus far, I know Joel and Michael share the following known SNPs:

A11132 - 14092445-C-T
A11134 - 15656058-T-G
A11135 - 16770482-C-T
A11137 - 19090151-G-A
A11139 - 21637160-G-A
A11140 - 21757893-T-A

Michael has the following novel variants:
14806931-C-G
19110373-C-T (already named SNP - Y30173 - in another R1b branch)
22478928-G-C
21262641-C-A (already named SNP - K554 - in another C2e2 branch)

Joel has the following novel variants:
A11130 - 9132352-G-A
A11131 - 13691125-A-T
A11133 - 14819258-C-T
A11136 - 17550281-C-T
A11138 - 19477032-A-T

So I will preliminarily call the shared Hartley branch the A11132
branch. I'll continue to call Joel's Hartley sub-branch A11130.
Michael's Hartley branch will eventually be named once one of his
unique variants is assigned a name. It is interesting that two of
Michael's 'novel' variants align with known SNPs on other branches,
but this does happen occasionally.

Michael likely may have other good novel variants that FTDNA has not
identified. I'm not yet sure of the quality of the 4 they have
identified, but FTDNA is pretty conservative, so they're probably
good.

Using this we can start do some initial age estimates. With 6 shared
mutations and 4-5 unique mutations, this means that the split in your
lines was probably just this side of half way between when our Z17911
ancestor lived and present day. With our best guess estimate of Z17911
being 800-1000 years old, this puts your common ancestor living
probably 350-450 years ago, give or take.

It would be especially helpful if you could make a paper connection to
this ancestor, but that may not be possible. Regardless, this provides
a very nice Hartley branching for others to test to.

The A11130 SNP that Joel has is available for single SNP testing and
is part of the S5668 SNP Pack. I had hoped this would land on the
shared Hartley branch - it would have provided an easy test for people
to verify that they're on this Hartley line, but now testing for it
would only prove or disprove if someone is related to Joel more
recently than that SNP was formed - and it could have been at Joel's
father so only Joel and his brothers share it. So it's not of
particular value right now.

A new Hartley branch is discovered! Thank you Joel and Michael for
investing in Big-Y!

Jared Smith


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Charles Thomas
<charles_002@...> wrote:
Hey Joel,

Mike Hartley is listed on my match list with 0 shared novel variants,

0 non-matching known SNPs, and 25,684 matching SNPs.

Is Mike 31/37 and 59/67 with you? My Thomas match with whom

I share the ancestor James Thomas b. abt 1760 is 66/67 with me.

So I'm thinking that your and Mike's shared Hartley ancestor could

be much farther back in time. Yet STRs can change at any time, and it's

just the average mutation rate per STR that are known so maybe your

shared ancestor is more recent than I'm guessing. I'm sure Jared's

analysis of the SNPs will be helpful.

Best regards,

Charles



________________________________
From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Joel Hartley
<joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:28 AM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY

I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as
Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5
SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see
any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel




Re: Mike Hartley BigY

Joel Hartley
 

Hi Charles,

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




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

Joel

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

Hey Joel,

Mike Hartley is listed on my match list with 0 shared novel variants,

0 non-matching known SNPs, and 25,684 matching SNPs.

Is Mike 31/37 and 59/67 with you? My Thomas match with whom

I share the ancestor James Thomas b. abt 1760 is 66/67 with me.

So I'm thinking that your and Mike's shared Hartley ancestor could

be much farther back in time. Yet STRs can change at any time, and it's

just the average mutation rate per STR that are known so maybe your

shared ancestor is more recent than I'm guessing. I'm sure Jared's

analysis of the SNPs will be helpful.

Best regards,

Charles




From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Joel Hartley <joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:28 AM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY
 
I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as
Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5
SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see
any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel





Re: Mike Hartley BigY

Joel Hartley
 

Thanks Jared,

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

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

Joel

On 3/15/2017 8:32 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
I've started an initial analysis based on the limited information I
have from FTDNA thus far. I can provide more information after I
receive Michael's VCF files.

The following lists provide the SNP name (if available), then the DNA
position number and polymorphism/change value.

Thus far, I know Joel and Michael share the following known SNPs:

A11132 - 14092445-C-T
A11134 - 15656058-T-G
A11135 - 16770482-C-T
A11137 - 19090151-G-A
A11139 - 21637160-G-A
A11140 - 21757893-T-A

Michael has the following novel variants:
14806931-C-G
19110373-C-T (already named SNP - Y30173 - in another R1b branch)
22478928-G-C
21262641-C-A (already named SNP - K554 - in another C2e2 branch)

Joel has the following novel variants:
A11130 - 9132352-G-A
A11131 - 13691125-A-T
A11133 - 14819258-C-T
A11136 - 17550281-C-T
A11138 - 19477032-A-T

So I will preliminarily call the shared Hartley branch the A11132
branch. I'll continue to call Joel's Hartley sub-branch A11130.
Michael's Hartley branch will eventually be named once one of his
unique variants is assigned a name. It is interesting that two of
Michael's 'novel' variants align with known SNPs on other branches,
but this does happen occasionally.

Michael likely may have other good novel variants that FTDNA has not
identified. I'm not yet sure of the quality of the 4 they have
identified, but FTDNA is pretty conservative, so they're probably
good.

Using this we can start do some initial age estimates. With 6 shared
mutations and 4-5 unique mutations, this means that the split in your
lines was probably just this side of half way between when our Z17911
ancestor lived and present day. With our best guess estimate of Z17911
being 800-1000 years old, this puts your common ancestor living
probably 350-450 years ago, give or take.

It would be especially helpful if you could make a paper connection to
this ancestor, but that may not be possible. Regardless, this provides
a very nice Hartley branching for others to test to.

The A11130 SNP that Joel has is available for single SNP testing and
is part of the S5668 SNP Pack. I had hoped this would land on the
shared Hartley branch - it would have provided an easy test for people
to verify that they're on this Hartley line, but now testing for it
would only prove or disprove if someone is related to Joel more
recently than that SNP was formed - and it could have been at Joel's
father so only Joel and his brothers share it. So it's not of
particular value right now.

A new Hartley branch is discovered! Thank you Joel and Michael for
investing in Big-Y!

Jared Smith


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Charles Thomas
<charles_002@...> wrote:
Hey Joel,

Mike Hartley is listed on my match list with 0 shared novel variants,

0 non-matching known SNPs, and 25,684 matching SNPs.

Is Mike 31/37 and 59/67 with you? My Thomas match with whom

I share the ancestor James Thomas b. abt 1760 is 66/67 with me.

So I'm thinking that your and Mike's shared Hartley ancestor could

be much farther back in time. Yet STRs can change at any time, and it's

just the average mutation rate per STR that are known so maybe your

shared ancestor is more recent than I'm guessing. I'm sure Jared's

analysis of the SNPs will be helpful.

Best regards,

Charles



________________________________
From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Joel Hartley
<joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:28 AM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY

I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as
Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5
SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see
any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel




Re: Mike Hartley BigY

Jared Smith
 

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

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

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

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

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

Jared

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

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

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

Joel


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

I've started an initial analysis based on the limited information I
have from FTDNA thus far. I can provide more information after I
receive Michael's VCF files.

The following lists provide the SNP name (if available), then the DNA
position number and polymorphism/change value.

Thus far, I know Joel and Michael share the following known SNPs:

A11132 - 14092445-C-T
A11134 - 15656058-T-G
A11135 - 16770482-C-T
A11137 - 19090151-G-A
A11139 - 21637160-G-A
A11140 - 21757893-T-A

Michael has the following novel variants:
14806931-C-G
19110373-C-T (already named SNP - Y30173 - in another R1b branch)
22478928-G-C
21262641-C-A (already named SNP - K554 - in another C2e2 branch)

Joel has the following novel variants:
A11130 - 9132352-G-A
A11131 - 13691125-A-T
A11133 - 14819258-C-T
A11136 - 17550281-C-T
A11138 - 19477032-A-T

So I will preliminarily call the shared Hartley branch the A11132
branch. I'll continue to call Joel's Hartley sub-branch A11130.
Michael's Hartley branch will eventually be named once one of his
unique variants is assigned a name. It is interesting that two of
Michael's 'novel' variants align with known SNPs on other branches,
but this does happen occasionally.

Michael likely may have other good novel variants that FTDNA has not
identified. I'm not yet sure of the quality of the 4 they have
identified, but FTDNA is pretty conservative, so they're probably
good.

Using this we can start do some initial age estimates. With 6 shared
mutations and 4-5 unique mutations, this means that the split in your
lines was probably just this side of half way between when our Z17911
ancestor lived and present day. With our best guess estimate of Z17911
being 800-1000 years old, this puts your common ancestor living
probably 350-450 years ago, give or take.

It would be especially helpful if you could make a paper connection to
this ancestor, but that may not be possible. Regardless, this provides
a very nice Hartley branching for others to test to.

The A11130 SNP that Joel has is available for single SNP testing and
is part of the S5668 SNP Pack. I had hoped this would land on the
shared Hartley branch - it would have provided an easy test for people
to verify that they're on this Hartley line, but now testing for it
would only prove or disprove if someone is related to Joel more
recently than that SNP was formed - and it could have been at Joel's
father so only Joel and his brothers share it. So it's not of
particular value right now.

A new Hartley branch is discovered! Thank you Joel and Michael for
investing in Big-Y!

Jared Smith


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Charles Thomas
<charles_002@...> wrote:

Hey Joel,

Mike Hartley is listed on my match list with 0 shared novel variants,

0 non-matching known SNPs, and 25,684 matching SNPs.

Is Mike 31/37 and 59/67 with you? My Thomas match with whom

I share the ancestor James Thomas b. abt 1760 is 66/67 with me.

So I'm thinking that your and Mike's shared Hartley ancestor could

be much farther back in time. Yet STRs can change at any time, and it's

just the average mutation rate per STR that are known so maybe your

shared ancestor is more recent than I'm guessing. I'm sure Jared's

analysis of the SNPs will be helpful.

Best regards,

Charles



________________________________
From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Joel Hartley
<joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:28 AM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY

I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as
Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5
SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see
any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel






Re: Mike Hartley BigY

Charles Thomas
 

Great work, Joel. Cool tree.

Charles


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

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




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

Joel

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

Hey Joel,

Mike Hartley is listed on my match list with 0 shared novel variants,

0 non-matching known SNPs, and 25,684 matching SNPs.

Is Mike 31/37 and 59/67 with you? My Thomas match with whom

I share the ancestor James Thomas b. abt 1760 is 66/67 with me.

So I'm thinking that your and Mike's shared Hartley ancestor could

be much farther back in time. Yet STRs can change at any time, and it's

just the average mutation rate per STR that are known so maybe your

shared ancestor is more recent than I'm guessing. I'm sure Jared's

analysis of the SNPs will be helpful.

Best regards,

Charles




From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Joel Hartley <joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:28 AM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY
 
I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as
Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5
SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see
any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel





Re: Mike Hartley BigY

Joel Hartley
 

Thanks Jared,

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

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

Joel

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

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

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

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

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

Jared


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

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

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

Joel


On 3/15/2017 8:32 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
I've started an initial analysis based on the limited information I
have from FTDNA thus far. I can provide more information after I
receive Michael's VCF files.

The following lists provide the SNP name (if available), then the DNA
position number and polymorphism/change value.

Thus far, I know Joel and Michael share the following known SNPs:

A11132 - 14092445-C-T
A11134 - 15656058-T-G
A11135 - 16770482-C-T
A11137 - 19090151-G-A
A11139 - 21637160-G-A
A11140 - 21757893-T-A

Michael has the following novel variants:
14806931-C-G
19110373-C-T (already named SNP - Y30173 - in another R1b branch)
22478928-G-C
21262641-C-A (already named SNP - K554 - in another C2e2 branch)

Joel has the following novel variants:
A11130 - 9132352-G-A
A11131 - 13691125-A-T
A11133 - 14819258-C-T
A11136 - 17550281-C-T
A11138 - 19477032-A-T

So I will preliminarily call the shared Hartley branch the A11132
branch. I'll continue to call Joel's Hartley sub-branch A11130.
Michael's Hartley branch will eventually be named once one of his
unique variants is assigned a name. It is interesting that two of
Michael's 'novel' variants align with known SNPs on other branches,
but this does happen occasionally.

Michael likely may have other good novel variants that FTDNA has not
identified. I'm not yet sure of the quality of the 4 they have
identified, but FTDNA is pretty conservative, so they're probably
good.

Using this we can start do some initial age estimates. With 6 shared
mutations and 4-5 unique mutations, this means that the split in your
lines was probably just this side of half way between when our Z17911
ancestor lived and present day. With our best guess estimate of Z17911
being 800-1000 years old, this puts your common ancestor living
probably 350-450 years ago, give or take.

It would be especially helpful if you could make a paper connection to
this ancestor, but that may not be possible. Regardless, this provides
a very nice Hartley branching for others to test to.

The A11130 SNP that Joel has is available for single SNP testing and
is part of the S5668 SNP Pack. I had hoped this would land on the
shared Hartley branch - it would have provided an easy test for people
to verify that they're on this Hartley line, but now testing for it
would only prove or disprove if someone is related to Joel more
recently than that SNP was formed - and it could have been at Joel's
father so only Joel and his brothers share it. So it's not of
particular value right now.

A new Hartley branch is discovered! Thank you Joel and Michael for
investing in Big-Y!

Jared Smith


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Charles Thomas
<charles_002@...> wrote:
Hey Joel,

Mike Hartley is listed on my match list with 0 shared novel variants,

0 non-matching known SNPs, and 25,684 matching SNPs.

Is Mike 31/37 and 59/67 with you? My Thomas match with whom

I share the ancestor James Thomas b. abt 1760 is 66/67 with me.

So I'm thinking that your and Mike's shared Hartley ancestor could

be much farther back in time. Yet STRs can change at any time, and it's

just the average mutation rate per STR that are known so maybe your

shared ancestor is more recent than I'm guessing. I'm sure Jared's

analysis of the SNPs will be helpful.

Best regards,

Charles



________________________________
From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Joel Hartley
<joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:28 AM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY

I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as
Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5
SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't see
any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel





Re: Mike Hartley BigY

Jared Smith
 

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

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

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

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

Jared

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

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

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

Joel


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

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

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

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

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

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

Jared


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

Thanks Jared,

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

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

Joel


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

I've started an initial analysis based on the limited information I
have from FTDNA thus far. I can provide more information after I
receive Michael's VCF files.

The following lists provide the SNP name (if available), then the DNA
position number and polymorphism/change value.

Thus far, I know Joel and Michael share the following known SNPs:

A11132 - 14092445-C-T
A11134 - 15656058-T-G
A11135 - 16770482-C-T
A11137 - 19090151-G-A
A11139 - 21637160-G-A
A11140 - 21757893-T-A

Michael has the following novel variants:
14806931-C-G
19110373-C-T (already named SNP - Y30173 - in another R1b branch)
22478928-G-C
21262641-C-A (already named SNP - K554 - in another C2e2 branch)

Joel has the following novel variants:
A11130 - 9132352-G-A
A11131 - 13691125-A-T
A11133 - 14819258-C-T
A11136 - 17550281-C-T
A11138 - 19477032-A-T

So I will preliminarily call the shared Hartley branch the A11132
branch. I'll continue to call Joel's Hartley sub-branch A11130.
Michael's Hartley branch will eventually be named once one of his
unique variants is assigned a name. It is interesting that two of
Michael's 'novel' variants align with known SNPs on other branches,
but this does happen occasionally.

Michael likely may have other good novel variants that FTDNA has not
identified. I'm not yet sure of the quality of the 4 they have
identified, but FTDNA is pretty conservative, so they're probably
good.

Using this we can start do some initial age estimates. With 6 shared
mutations and 4-5 unique mutations, this means that the split in your
lines was probably just this side of half way between when our Z17911
ancestor lived and present day. With our best guess estimate of Z17911
being 800-1000 years old, this puts your common ancestor living
probably 350-450 years ago, give or take.

It would be especially helpful if you could make a paper connection to
this ancestor, but that may not be possible. Regardless, this provides
a very nice Hartley branching for others to test to.

The A11130 SNP that Joel has is available for single SNP testing and
is part of the S5668 SNP Pack. I had hoped this would land on the
shared Hartley branch - it would have provided an easy test for people
to verify that they're on this Hartley line, but now testing for it
would only prove or disprove if someone is related to Joel more
recently than that SNP was formed - and it could have been at Joel's
father so only Joel and his brothers share it. So it's not of
particular value right now.

A new Hartley branch is discovered! Thank you Joel and Michael for
investing in Big-Y!

Jared Smith


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Charles Thomas
<charles_002@...> wrote:

Hey Joel,

Mike Hartley is listed on my match list with 0 shared novel variants,

0 non-matching known SNPs, and 25,684 matching SNPs.

Is Mike 31/37 and 59/67 with you? My Thomas match with whom

I share the ancestor James Thomas b. abt 1760 is 66/67 with me.

So I'm thinking that your and Mike's shared Hartley ancestor could

be much farther back in time. Yet STRs can change at any time, and it's

just the average mutation rate per STR that are known so maybe your

shared ancestor is more recent than I'm guessing. I'm sure Jared's

analysis of the SNPs will be helpful.

Best regards,

Charles



________________________________
From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Joel Hartley
<joel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:28 AM
To: Z16357@groups.io
Subject: [Z16357] Mike Hartley BigY

I notice a new BigY match today with Mike Hartley. I'm not as good as
Jared as figuring out what the matches mean. For example, there are 5
SNPs which Charles Thomas and I have that others don't have. I don't
see
any SNPs I share with Mike Hartley that I don't share with others.

Joel







Re: Mike Hartley BigY

Michael W. Hartley
 

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