PDA

View Full Version : DF27+ Z295+ CTS4065+



R.Rocca
08-28-2013, 05:52 PM
Thought you guys (esp. razyn) would find it interesting that there are six Z295+ samples in the Genome of the Netherlands data and there are six CTS4065+ samples. There are zero Z216+ and zero Z270+. They didn't produce a tree, but it's easy to infer that all Z295 samples are CTS4065 since it doesn't seem to be an SNP that is found across multiple branches.

Webb
08-28-2013, 07:12 PM
Thought you guys (esp. razyn) would find it interesting that there are six Z295+ samples in the Genome of the Netherlands data and there are six CTS4065+ samples. There are zero Z216+ and zero Z270+. They didn't produce a tree, but it's easy to infer that all Z295 samples are CTS4065 since it doesn't seem to be an SNP that is found across multiple branches.

That is sweet. I went back and looked at your earlier post about this project. You listed 4.4% of the 500 was Z195, which is 22. So 6 of the 22 carry Z295. Z210 has been mostly regulated to Germany, the Netherlands, and Britain, while Z216/Z278 and down has been found in France, Spain, and Britain. Z295 then might be the pivot point between SW Europe and NW Europe.

razyn
08-28-2013, 08:53 PM
Z295 then might be the pivot point between SW Europe and NW Europe.

Yes, and the way it pivots there is that CTS12074 is the branch that (mostly) went SW to Iberia -- or is now found there in abundance. CTS4065 mostly didn't -- or anyway its present day abundance is nowhere near as far SW. Both branches are Z295, so where was that line, before they branched? Transalpine Gaul? Or someplace else. One mustn't forget that these are all still subclades of DF27, so we can't necessarily move all the pieces on our game board just because it's what we see in this specific, fairly prolific lineage, formerly know as the North/South Cluster.

I recently commented about CTS4065 on a thread that isn't under DF27, so I'll link it: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1132-C-Morley-s-Y-DNA-phylogeny-Geno-2-0-ISOGG-integration&p=12274&viewfull=1#post12274

It's my understanding that the next release of Chris Morley's experimental Geno2 haplotree will reflect some further testing in this area of R1b-DF27.

R.Rocca
08-28-2013, 10:07 PM
Yes, and the way it pivots there is that CTS12074 is the branch that (mostly) went SW to Iberia -- or is now found there in abundance. CTS4065 mostly didn't -- or anyway its present day abundance is nowhere near as far SW. Both branches are Z295, so where was that line, before they branched? Transalpine Gaul? Or someplace else. One mustn't forget that these are all still subclades of DF27, so we can't necessarily move all the pieces on our game board just because it's what we see in this specific, fairly prolific lineage, formerly know as the North/South Cluster.

I recently commented about CTS4065 on a thread that isn't under DF27, so I'll link it: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1132-C-Morley-s-Y-DNA-phylogeny-Geno-2-0-ISOGG-integration&p=12274&viewfull=1#post12274

It's my understanding that the next release of Chris Morley's experimental Geno2 haplotree will reflect some further testing in this area of R1b-DF27.

No reason why it can't already be included in the ISOGG tree, correct?

razyn
08-28-2013, 10:37 PM
I don't know of any reason. But then I don't know any reason why L484 can't be. Not everyone has the same set of reasons. Vince T. and David R. have not always agreed with each other, let alone with me. There are issues about the stability or instability, real or feared, of both CTS4065 and L484. In some cases, these fears can only be assuaged by Sanger testing, and there isn't such a test for CTS4065 (or Z295, or several others higher up the same branch).

However I continue to believe that David, specifically, is actually rational; and to suspect that someday the ISOGG tree will show us unstably hanging there, like last year's leaves on a beech tree.

Webb
08-28-2013, 11:02 PM
However I continue to believe that David, specifically, is actually rational; and to suspect that someday the ISOGG tree will show us unstably hanging there, like last year's leaves on a beech tree.

You know, I love a good metaphor.

razyn
09-02-2013, 10:22 PM
CTS4065 was added to ISOGG Investigation today. http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

CTS12074, Z295, and Z210 have been under investigation since 19 March, maybe this will help with that line, since it splits the phylogeny below Z295.

So there comes our branch of the aforementioned beech tree, anyway.

Webb
09-02-2013, 10:27 PM
CTS4065 was added to ISOGG Investigation today. http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

CTS12074, Z295, and Z210 have been under investigation since 19 March, maybe this will help with that line, since it splits the phylogeny below Z295.

So there comes our branch of the aforementioned beech tree, anyway.

I guess you heard Thomas Krahn has parted ways with FTDNA. I wonder how this will effect snp research there.

razyn
09-02-2013, 11:03 PM
I've been reading the speculation and gossip about that on two other forums or groups, on RootsWeb and Facebook, but don't think it's very productive to get into it on this thread. If anywhere. We'll have to wait and see how all that shakes out. Certainly it isn't helpful to citizen scientists for some of the primary data streams to be shut down.

Webb
09-03-2013, 12:39 AM
I've been reading the speculation and gossip about that on two other forums or groups, on RootsWeb and Facebook, but don't think it's very productive to get into it on this thread. If anywhere. We'll have to wait and see how all that shakes out. Certainly it isn't helpful to citizen scientists for some of the primary data streams to be shut down.

I asked Richard Rocca about Thomas Krahn's comment about designing chips for Z210 and some of the other snps around that marker. He said that it is difficult to isolate those snps and Thomas Krahn had to design them from scratch.

razyn
09-03-2013, 01:13 AM
Yeah, but that was then. Now it needs to be expressed in the passive voice, "they have to be designed from scratch." By somebody. At some company. Thomas can still do it, but the task would require a lab to which his keys work.

Btw we got another CTS4065+ guy in the DF27 project a few days ago, I hadn't noticed -- N115807, a NatGeo type kit and apparently w/o any STR markers, at least in a form that's reportable to FTDNA. I dropped him a note.

Webb
09-03-2013, 01:26 AM
Yeah, but that was then. Now it needs to be expressed in the passive voice, "they have to be designed from scratch." By somebody. At some company. Thomas can still do it, but the task would require a lab to which his keys work.

Btw we got another CTS4065+ guy in the DF27 project a few days ago, I hadn't noticed -- N115807, a NatGeo type kit and apparently w/o any STR markers, at least in a form that's reportable to FTDNA. I dropped him a note.

Have you had communication with van vilet? Sp? I am interested in what he has found with his full genome results as he is probably the British/German/Dutch variety of Z220.

razyn
09-03-2013, 01:35 AM
He's CTS4065+ and as far as he knows, that's terminal. But he has, I suppose, a few thousand other SNPs -- that aren't on any checklist yet. It's fairly likely that a few are farther down the twigs of that CTS4065 branch.

van Vliet is the spelling, and 109279 is the kit. But full genome results don't post to FTDNA projects (even though he had that test done by their corporate partner DNA-DTC, in Houston). For this we should be grateful; it was a 100 gigabyte file...

razyn
09-05-2013, 08:50 PM
Btw we got another CTS4065+ guy in the DF27 project a few days ago, I hadn't noticed -- N115807
[Quoting myself because too much time has elapsed, and I can no longer edit that post.] This new project member's MDKA lived circa 1468-1535 near Carcassonne, Aude department, in southeastern France (and more or less the heart of the old Cathar area). He has ordered the minimal STR test, so when some results post he'll at least become visible in the DF27 project.

razyn
09-08-2013, 12:03 AM
The phylogeny of the old North/South cluster has been refined better than a lot of others, by the Geno 2 test results. As far as I'm aware, the place at which the relative positioning of these new and older SNPs can most easily be studied (without having additional programs, and skill sets for their use) is Chris Morley's experimental tree. That was updated today, as he has posted elsewhere on this forum. The url he prefers for us to use is http://ytree.morleydna.com/experimental-phylogeny (and then just click on the latest version, unless you want to compare with an earlier one). In the current revision, CTS4065 and its close relatives appear on p. 41 of 50.

spanjool
10-15-2013, 02:06 PM
S227 Z195 R1b1a2a1a2a1 17922066 G->A 22 502
Z271 R1b1a2a1a2a1a 10080307 C->T 12 500
S450 Z268 R1b1a2a1a2a1a 7571621 T->G 12 498
S230 Z209 R1b1a2a1a2a1a 15508140 T->G 12 500
S356 Z220 R1b1a2a1a2a1a 16310705 G->A 12 500
Z295 R1b1a2a1a2a1a(1) 7193830 C->G 6 486
CTS4065 Z2355 R1b1a2a1a2a1a(1a) 15372323 A->C 6 500
L484 M4747 PF7258 R1b1a2a1a2a1a(1a1) 8261193 A->T 6 496
Z262 R1b1a2a1a2a1b1 16320197 C->T 2 500
M167 SRY2627 R1b1a2a1a2a1b1a 2658271 G->A 2 478
CTS4188 R1b1a2a1a2a1b3 15461070 C->T 4 498
DF17 S455 R1b1a2a1a2a1c 6631746 T->G 4 498

The breakdown of the DF27 haplogroups in the Dutch Genomes.
The indications in between the parenthesis are just for clarity.

No Z216 shows that the Dutch Bell Beaker boys settled separately from the Iberian branch.
And no L165 cases indicates that an Scandinavian branch found in an earlier stage a place up north.

I assume that the entrance of the DF27-CTS4065 in the Netherlands came from the sea around 3500 years ago.
We have to check for a east-west cline in the frequencies of the ancestors with DF27 positive;
the 5 Dutch DF27 cases in the DF27 project have ancestors who lived around 400-500 years ago around the main rivers in the center and the west of Holland.

The major haplogroup in the Netherlands: U106 frequency shows a north-south cline; vice versa with U152.
They entered probably the flatlands from the north-east in an earlier stage.

razyn
02-05-2014, 06:49 PM
I see that I have not refreshed this thread for nearly four months. Since then, there have been a number of developments. In November (at the annual conference for FTDNA project administrators in Houston) it was suggested that we could request new SNP tests, and should do so, because they can only offer 2,000 SNPs that way. I ordered Z295, Z270 and CTS4065 on Nov. 10th; they became available at FTDNA about Jan. 29, that I know of.

Also during this period Thomas and Astrid Krahn got their new company YSEQ up and running; so on Nov. 29 I did a "wish list" request for the same three SNPs at YSEQ, and they became available there Dec. 11. My own CTS4065+ test result (from YSEQ) has been in hand since Jan. 7.

To date, from sources I'm able to check, we have ten CTS4065+ samples, seven of whom have 111 markers tested (or nearly complete). One has 37, one 12, and one Geno2 customer still has no STR markers visible. (And one has not yet transferred his Geno2 results to the project, but emailed me his CTS4065+ result.) Probably I'll be creating a new group for this SNP, and my little L484.NS group (currently group Bb) will be a subset of that. I suppose we may need to test a Reno, Hall and Richert to confirm that; but I'll keep us together, anyway (because of our numerous STR off-modals). Here's the current CTS4065+ roster:

N115807
298842
287884
208146
N112585
217955
76755
109279
195834
N86315

Edit: add 144165, I forgot him because he's not in the DF27 project. His Geno2 SNPs are in the Clan Fraser project, which btw is being merged with another one more or less as we "speak" of it.
Additional edit (while I still can): As of 2/6/2014 I have at least temporarily created a CTS4065+ subgroup in the R1b-DF27 project. For the moment it's group Bb, and the L484.NS subset of it is group Bba. The main purpose of the exercise is to see if there is useful differentiation of the modal STR values and overall variance between Bb and Bc (divergent lineages below Z220>Z295). Group Bba previously had, and still has, wildly off-modal values anyway.

razyn
02-20-2014, 07:57 AM
The new Chromo2 results for 2000 samples* include seven CTS4065+ (S1221) examples under Z220+ (S356). They are in columns AKM, AKQ, AKS, AKX, AKZ, ALA, and ALC (and all are in Row 5512). There are 16 additional Z220+ (S356) tested samples that are ancestral (negative) for this SNP. [Edit: plus three that are listed elsewhere in the spreadsheet: AFV, AFW (both Z278+) and AJP (Z214+). These three, plus AKI, are positive for Z270 -- which has previously been suggested as mutually exclusive with CTS4065.] All Z220+ samples are also positive for Z209/S230. So CTS4065+ is looking like nearly a third of the Z220+ population, among people testing on the Chromo2 chip so far; and Z220 a bit over 1% of the total sampled population (26/2000). I assume that sample has an Isles bias, but it is anonymized, so no very fine geographical distinctions should be made yet.


*The primary thread here for discussing these newly available Chromo2 results includes a link for downloading the file. Note that it is a large zipped file in a recent version of Excel (xlsx file format), and it can take a good while to open. Anecdotally, 20 minutes on one machine with 4 GB of RAM, and that may be about the minimum needed to handle it. It's just a spreadsheet, but it has several million cells. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2210-Chromo2-Results-Data&p=31528&viewfull=1#post31528

razyn
03-22-2014, 01:03 AM
Just saw a Facebook message that Webb has tested CTS4065+ (and Z295+), so it's time to refresh this conversation.

Webb
03-24-2014, 07:35 PM
So I stared at the CTS4065 and L484 str strings for a while in the DF27 project and what immediately pops out is that at Y-Gata-H4, CTS4065, all, has a value of 10 while L484 has a value of 11. DYS607 is 15 for both, while for Z220 it is within one value up and down. DYS446 is 13 for both, while in the Z220 group it is scattered both up and down of that value.

razyn
04-01-2014, 01:40 PM
I still have not dealt with creation of a separate Z295+ subgrouping; it's important, because as far as I can tell the primary phylogeographical division within the North/South cluster happens just beneath it. But with mighty few exceptions, we only know about positive tests for Z295 from a couple of chips -- one of which doesn't report to FTDNA, and the other isn't necessarily accompanied by any STR results (so those guys are invisible in the part of the project where we compare people and look for off-modal signatures).

Anyway, there is a CTS4065 group, growing slowly but surely; and my little L484 group beneath it (currently Bba) has even acquired a couple of new members (Brown and Butler) -- at least temporarily, on the basis of their sharing our numerous off-modals. As their red haplogroup code indicates, the two new guys haven't been tested for these SNPs... yet. Both have English ancestry from the same general area (greater Severn River valley) as Hall and -- we think -- Hulin.

Webb
04-01-2014, 03:21 PM
I still have not dealt with creation of a separate Z295+ subgrouping; it's important, because as far as I can tell the primary phylogeographical division within the North/South cluster happens just beneath it. But with mighty few exceptions, we only know about positive tests for Z295 from a couple of chips -- one of which doesn't report to FTDNA, and the other isn't necessarily accompanied by any STR results (so those guys are invisible in the part of the project where we compare people and look for off-modal signatures).

Anyway, there is a CTS4065 group, growing slowly but surely; and my little L484 group beneath it (currently Bba) has even acquired a couple of new members (Brown and Butler) -- at least temporarily, on the basis of their sharing our numerous off-modals. As their red haplogroup code indicates, the two new guys haven't been tested for these SNPs... yet. Both have English ancestry from the same general area (greater Severn River valley) as Hall and -- we think -- Hulin.

Right now there are five kits with results available from Geno 2.0 that are viewable on Semargl's website. All five kits are positive for Z295 and CTS4065.
There are quite a bit more who are just Z220*, and one who is Z270. This is the breakdown of Z snp's.

Z195, Z210, Z215, Z220, Z268, Z274 these are present in all of the Z220* kits.
Z195, Z210, Z215, Z220, Z268, Z274, Z295 these are present in the Z295/CTS4065 kits.
Z195, Z210, Z211, Z215, Z220, Z268, Z270, Z274, Z295 these are present in the one Z270 kit.

These are listed numerically, whith no significance given to the order, phylogenetically. Z274 is shared with DF17. I have no idea where Z268 is, it could be up around Z209. The Z270 kit has Z270 and Z211 as extra compared to the Z295 kits.

Mythtown
04-03-2014, 03:10 AM
I still have not dealt with creation of a separate Z295+ subgrouping; it's important, because as far as I can tell the primary phylogeographical division within the North/South cluster happens just beneath it. But with mighty few exceptions, we only know about positive tests for Z295 from a couple of chips -- one of which doesn't report to FTDNA, and the other isn't necessarily accompanied by any STR results (so those guys are invisible in the part of the project where we compare people and look for off-modal signatures).

Hi Dick--
Since my Big Y results came in today, thought I'd rejoin the conversation. If I read my results right, they look Z295+ but CTS4065-, with 81 novel variants that might eventually yield a new downstream branch or two. Are you able to do a cross-comparison within the DF27 project yet to see if any patterns are emerging?
-Matt

Webb
04-03-2014, 01:17 PM
Hi Dick--
Since my Big Y results came in today, thought I'd rejoin the conversation. If I read my results right, they look Z295+ but CTS4065-, with 81 novel variants that might eventually yield a new downstream branch or two. Are you able to do a cross-comparison within the DF27 project yet to see if any patterns are emerging?
-Matt

Matt, that is very interesting. So far with all of the Geno 2.0 results if the person is Z295, with no additional downstream Z snp's, they have also been positive for CTS4065. Please see my above post on the break down of the three upper branches of the North/ South cluster. Do you see Z270, Z216, Z278, or Z214 in your results? These are all Z snps below Z295. If you only go as low as Z295, then you may be the first person I have come across who is positive for Z295, yet negative for CTS4065.

Mythtown
04-03-2014, 04:01 PM
Do you see Z270, Z216, Z278, or Z214 in your results? These are all Z snps below Z295. If you only go as low as Z295, then you may be the first person I have come across who is positive for Z295, yet negative for CTS4065.

(This is an edit of an initial response).

Z270 doesn't appear at all in my Big Y results. A search says "no matching records found."

Z295 is positive. But negative for Z212, Z216, Z273, Z278, Z279, Z214, CTS4065, CTS7774, PF5535, M155, CTS11067, PF6565.

When I run a genetic distance analysis comparing myself with the CTS4065+ individuals with 67 STR markers, the results range from 22 to 26 with a time to most recent common ancestor of about 2300 to 2900 years. Among themselves, their GD range is about 8 to 17 and roughly 1300 to 1700 years.

Webb
04-03-2014, 07:58 PM
(This is an edit of an initial response).

Z270 doesn't appear at all in my Big Y results. A search says "no matching records found."

Z295 is positive. But negative for Z212, Z216, Z273, Z278, Z279, Z214, CTS4065, CTS7774, PF5535, M155, CTS11067, PF6565.

When I run a genetic distance analysis comparing myself with the CTS4065+ individuals with 67 STR markers, the results range from 22 to 26 with a time to most recent common ancestor of about 2300 to 2900 years. Among themselves, their GD range is about 8 to 17 and roughly 1300 to 1700 years.

I am perplexed. My first reaction is that you are most likely Z270, its just that for some reason Big Y did not test for it, which is odd considering Geno 2.0 tests for it and you can order it through FTDNA a la carte. There is only one Geno 2.0 test result where Z270 is the terminal. This first reaction also takes into consideration your GD range with the CTS4065 group. However, on the flip side, you could be Z295 terminal, but CTS4065-. It is always possible, just until now not documented. This could also explain the GD range as you would have a closer match to other Z295 people as CTS4065 is a whole snp mutation downstream. The first question for me, which you can't answer, is why would Big Y not test Z270 yet make it available a la carte and it being tested through Geno 2.0? If you ordered just the Z270 test through FTDNA you would know for sure. Very odd.

razyn
04-03-2014, 10:09 PM
I have no problem with the existence of a Z295* paragroup, or another SNP below it (other than an either/or Z270, CTS4065 choice). Big Y and FGC tests are for finding out. Mythtown, what is your kit number, and are you in the DF27 haplogroup project? [Edit: I think I know who a Matt in Ilwaco would be.] There should soon be about a hundred DF27 people to compare with -- not many of them Z295, though. The best sorting, so far, is being done by David Carlisle and Stephen Parrish via the Yahoo group for DF27, not by me. I'll get back into it pretty soon -- have sort of been waiting for my own FGC results so I could try to compare myself, rather than just juggle other guys.

OK, I know who Matt is, we have been comparing genetic distance and whatnot for several years. I need to bite the bullet and figure out some logical way to set up a Z295+ group -- without entirely destroying the N/S cluster sorting we've already accomplished. Will give it some thought tonight if I can stay sober, while also dealing with voodoo genealogy.

Mythtown
04-03-2014, 10:30 PM
I have no problem with the existence of a Z295* paragroup, or another SNP below it (other than an either/or Z270, CTS4065 choice). Big Y and FGC tests are for finding out. Mythtown, what is your kit number, and are you in the DF27 haplogroup project? [Edit: I think I know who a Matt in Ilwaco would be.] There should soon be about a hundred DF27 people to compare with -- not many of them Z295, though. The best sorting, so far, is being done by David Carlisle and Stephen Parrish via the Yahoo group for DF27, not by me. I'll get back into it pretty soon -- have sort of been waiting for my own FGC results so I could try to compare myself, rather than just juggle other guys.
Hi Dick, yes, I'm Matt in Ilwaco. My kit number is 81973 and I am a DF27 project member. Do you think it's unusual that Z270 would not be in Big Y? Will you take a look please and see if others with Big Y results show anything for that SNP?

Webb
04-03-2014, 10:51 PM
Hi Dick, yes, I'm Matt in Ilwaco. My kit number is 81973 and I am a DF27 project member. Do you think it's unusual that Z270 would not be in Big Y? Will you take a look please and see if others with Big Y results show anything for that SNP?

If they didn't test for it, it would be like having a ladder that's missing a rung. Vexing when you're sober, maybe not so vexing if you're not sober. Particularly having spent money on the Big Y only to pontentially spend additional money for Z270. It's like unwrapping a Hersey kiss only to find another wrapper. I could keep going, but I would probably be the only one amused.

razyn
04-03-2014, 10:52 PM
I think Big Y must surely cover the stuff downstream of Z270, if not that specific SNP. There was some funny stuff going on with that one on the Chromo2 chip, also -- some results indicated it was above, and some below, Z273. Which isn't separately tested anyway... the kind of puzzle I can easily set aside, for somebody else to work (like maybe a Sudoku fan).

Not that there's anything wrong with Sudoku fans, I'm married to one.

I suspect that Z270 is palindromic, or otherwise subject to whims of which direction the position is being read. The choices are baffling, something like Yes, No, or Forward. (Maybe Top, Bottom, or Reverse.) Reminds me of a "nand gate," and I am not nearly tipsy enough to get into those. At some level, only a genuine geek understands this stuff. I just try to make sense of what the geeks are telling us, and then write it in regular English. Somebody has to do it.

Don't fret about being negative for Z270, probably you're just non-positive.

I have to go look at some spreadsheets...

Editing (while I still can): I've created a new group for Z295+ guys. There is little or no logic, at the moment, to the naming system in the DF27 project; it's more of a list than a phylogeny. But a bit of sorting is being done, so we can look at such modals as we have -- while they continue to develop. Next I'll try to tackle the branch that includes Z278, a lot of our members have tested in that direction. That won't happen tonight.

Mythtown
04-03-2014, 11:08 PM
I just try to make sense of what the geeks are telling us, and then write it in regular English. Somebody has to do it.

We all appreciate it!

Far as I can tell, I did test negative for all the listed SNPs below Z270.

Webb
04-03-2014, 11:44 PM
We all appreciate it!

Far as I can tell, I did test negative for all the listed SNPs below Z270.

I had a stroke of genius, which rarely ever happens. Matt, tomorrow I will message you the str string of the one Z270* Geno 2.0 kit so you can run a GD. If you are have a closer GD with that kit than you do with us, then that might help make a decision whether to test for Z270.

Mythtown
04-03-2014, 11:55 PM
I had a stroke of genius, which rarely ever happens. Matt, tomorrow I will message you the str string of the one Z270* Geno 2.0 kit so you can run a GD. If you are have a closer GD with that kit than you do with us, then that might help make a decision whether to test for Z270.
Good idea, thanks.

Isidro
04-05-2014, 10:32 PM
I am not sure if relevant or revealing but talking about CTS4065+, there is a Catalan named person that just got positive for it and posted it in
Iberia DNA faicebook page.

Mythtown
04-06-2014, 03:38 AM
I had a stroke of genius, which rarely ever happens. Matt, tomorrow I will message you the str string of the one Z270* Geno 2.0 kit so you can run a GD. If you are have a closer GD with that kit than you do with us, then that might help make a decision whether to test for Z270.

This graph shows those of us now grouped as Z295, along with 281564, who is the Z270 from Geno 2.0. The others who are Z295 definitely look much closer to him than I do (I'm 81973.)
1690

Webb
04-06-2014, 02:42 PM
This graph shows those of us now grouped as Z295, along with 281564, who is the Z270 from Geno 2.0. The others who are Z295 definitely look much closer to him than I do (I'm 81973.)
1690

Matt, I went and looked at the classic view on the project page and honestly, I'm stumped. Don't take this the wrong way but many of your values are so off modal that it's probably going to make it difficult to do a GD with the other kits unless you ignore some of them that are very quick mutators. On the plus side, it is a good sign that you are probably Z295* as there are others in your grouping now. The only way to be sure would be to test for CTS4065 and Z270 seperately. They are both offered at FTDNA.

Mythtown
04-06-2014, 03:30 PM
Matt, I went and looked at the classic view on the project page and honestly, I'm stumped. Don't take this the wrong way but many of your values are so off modal that it's probably going to make it difficult to do a GD with the other kits unless you ignore some of them that are very quick mutators. On the plus side, it is a good sign that you are probably Z295* as there are others in your grouping now. The only way to be sure would be to test for CTS4065 and Z270 seperately. They are both offered at FTDNA.
Hi, I'm used to it -- my paternal line's weird STR values have put me at a trailing end of the bell curve for a decade. Big Y does include CTS4065, for which I'm negative with a high degree of confidence. At some point soon, I'll grit my teeth and shell out another $35 for a Z270 test. But as Big Y includes the known SNPs currently viewed as downstream from Z270 (and I'm negative for those), I imagine there is something squirrelly about Z270 (and that I'll be negative for it anyway). It won't be surprising that a group as old as Z295 will have sprouted more than two branches, and many twigs, which is what my family will end up being.

There is a family named Kingsman with deep roots in central Wiltshire (the village of West Overton a mile or so from Avebury) that is the only line that shares several of my peculiar STR values, but unfortunately the person doing the testing there is uninterested in deep ancestry. Short of paying for it myself (and probably not even then), I'll never talk him into SNP testing.

Stephen Parrish
04-06-2014, 08:18 PM
Hi, I'm used to it -- my paternal line's weird STR values have put me at a trailing end of the bell curve for a decade. Big Y does include CTS4065, for which I'm negative with a high degree of confidence. At some point soon, I'll grit my teeth and shell out another $35 for a Z270 test. But as Big Y includes the known SNPs currently viewed as downstream from Z270 (and I'm negative for those), I imagine there is something squirrelly about Z270 (and that I'll be negative for it anyway). It won't be surprising that a group as old as Z295 will have sprouted more than two branches, and many twigs, which is what my family will end up being.

There is a family named Kingsman with deep roots in central Wiltshire (the village of West Overton a mile or so from Avebury) that is the only line that shares several of my peculiar STR values, but unfortunately the person doing the testing there is uninterested in deep ancestry. Short of paying for it myself (and probably not even then), I'll never talk him into SNP testing.

What do your Big Y results tell you about PF7598 (another name for Z270)?

Stephen

Mythtown
04-06-2014, 08:23 PM
What do your Big Y results tell you about PF7598 (another name for Z270)?

Stephen
For PF7598, it has a question mark as to whether or not it is derived and under confidence, it says "unknown." I take it from this that it wasn't tested.

I see you're one of the DF27 project administrators? Can you take a look at some other Big Y results and see what it reports for other testees?

Stephen Parrish
04-06-2014, 11:50 PM
As time permits this week, I will try to see what I might be able to find out. Please bear with me; not only am I one of the DF27+ project co-administrators, I am also a certified public accountant.

Stephen

razyn
04-17-2014, 03:54 AM
I have created a couple of new subgroups and have changed the alphabetical system a tiny bit, in the pale green area of the R1b-DF27 project. Because of the way the site software handles an asterisk (it precedes a group that has no asterisk), I gave the asterisk to Z220+ guys untested for the SNPS just below that, which now appear to be Z295 and the previously unnamed S21184 (from Chromo2 chip testing). That can be ordered now from YSEQ, and I have just requested the S21184 SNP test from FTDNA. Anyway, persons who had Geno2 results of Z220+ and Z295- are now in a separate group. Also CTS4065 and S21184 are separate groups. There are probably some more such refinements of our data available from the Big Y tests, and perhaps other sources (we have several project members who have tested on the Chromo2 chip, and/or at FGC, but we don't necessarily know their results).

razyn
05-03-2014, 05:01 PM
I haven't posted for a couple of weeks on this thread, but FYI the tested CTS4065+ group is growing -- currently groups Bb and Bba in the R1b-DF27 project. The new haplotree somewhat uncharacteristically recommended the right test for some of our Z220+ guys, and also marked CTS4065 as terminal for a couple of Geno2 tested kits I hadn't caught before.

A couple of months ago I listed some S-series SNPs from the Chromo2 chip. One of them, S16864, is under CTS4065; and I tested it at YSEQ to see whether the group derived for it would turn out to be our previously identified "L484.NS" guys. But it's different (I was ancestral there). So, for the record, here is what I have on the SNP:

S16864 15204254 C -> A
Found in two kits (out of seven) under CTS4065+ in the Chromo2 2,000 results.

I have no idea about any off-modal marker values for this new SNP. If some of you guys care to test it, YSEQ is running a sale at the moment -- $25 per SNP until Father's Day, I think. Or if anybody who has tested it at BritainsDNA happens to see this, you might join the conversation.

Webb
05-03-2014, 10:05 PM
I haven't posted for a couple of weeks on this thread, but FYI the tested CTS4065+ group is growing -- currently groups Bb and Bba in the R1b-DF27 project. The new haplotree somewhat uncharacteristically recommended the right test for some of our Z220+ guys, and also marked CTS4065 as terminal for a couple of Geno2 tested kits I hadn't caught before.

A couple of months ago I listed some S-series SNPs from the Chromo2 chip. One of them, S16864, is under CTS4065; and I tested it at YSEQ to see whether the group derived for it would turn out to be our previously identified "L484.NS" guys. But it's different (I was ancestral there). So, for the record, here is what I have on the SNP:

S16864 15204254 C -> A
Found in two kits (out of seven) under CTS4065+ in the Chromo2 2,000 results.

I have no idea about any off-modal marker values for this new SNP. If some of you guys care to test it, YSEQ is running a sale at the moment -- $25 per SNP until Father's Day, I think. Or if anybody who has tested it at BritainsDNA happens to see this, you might join the conversation.

I will test for. I would like to get a sample sent to Yseq anyway. So you are saying that it is found in the L484 group and 2 out of 7 CTS4065 in the chromo sampling?

razyn
05-04-2014, 02:10 AM
No, I'm saying it's NOT found in the L484.NS group, i.e., not found in me (#195834). So I assert that it's a different, parallel subclade of CTS4065. It was found in two of the seven CTS4065 guys (out of a sample of 2,000) tested by the Chromo2 chip. We don't know who they were, nor what their STR markers might show. If we find one in the DF27 project (tested S16864 positive), I'll create another Group for him, and as the only member he'll be the modal. Like Gibault was, for about a week.

Webb
05-04-2014, 12:28 PM
No, I'm saying it's NOT found in the L484.NS group, i.e., not found in me (#195834). So I assert that it's a different, parallel subclade of CTS4065. It was found in two of the seven CTS4065 guys (out of a sample of 2,000) tested by the Chromo2 chip. We don't know who they were, nor what their STR markers might show. If we find one in the DF27 project (tested S16864 positive), I'll create another Group for him, and as the only member he'll be the modal. Like Gibault was, for about a week.

I ordered S16864 this morning. It's going to take a bit since they will have to send me a kit. I'll let you know the outcome once I get the results. Sorry about the confusion with your post last night. The Stella Artois was kicking in. I asked you this before, but if a genetic cousin has not tested any snps, can they still be moved into my group? Wilder is not responding to any emails. They are positive for P312 and they match me at 67 markers. Right now they are in the probable for Z220 group. It is very unlikely they will ever test snps. Vander Hoeven will probably test CTS4065 at some point. They are in the Z220 group. Terry Vanderhoof posts on Facebook from time to time.

razyn
05-04-2014, 04:52 PM
They can be moved -- and then if I don't like the way they look, they can be moved back. We have a few folks here and there with haplotype designations in red -- either because they match, or are known male-line relatives of, well-tested guys. These shouldn't be used by the people harvesting haplogroup projects for samples to plug into TMRCA formulae, maps, etc. But that's their problem, not mine.

Also, any number of people, myself included, have test results from elsewhere (23andMe, YSEQ, BritainsDNA, FGC) that we know about, but can't display in an FTDNA project. In those cases the green haplotype code displayed by FTDNA might be annotated, "for all we know."

Edit: having moved them, I think Wilder looks close enough, for government work. Van der Hoeven, a good bit less so; but I'll leave him there for the time being. The guy who falls between them (below Wilder) is French, with a possibly English surname, and his 16th century ancestry is from near Carcassonne.

Webb
05-14-2014, 08:22 PM
Razyn, I went back and looked at my 37 and 67 marker matches. At 37 markers I match 16 Wilder's and 5 Vanderhoofs. I drop to just 8 Wilder's at 67 markers. So I noticed that 2 of Wilder's I match at 37 but not at 67 have CTS4065 listed as their haplogroup by FTDNA. I emailed both asking them to join the DF27 project.

razyn
05-17-2014, 06:26 PM
the SNPS just below [Z220] now appear to be Z295 and the previously unnamed S21184 (from Chromo2 chip testing). That can be ordered now from YSEQ, and I have just requested the S21184 SNP test from FTDNA.

I noticed today that S21184 has become available as an advanced SNP test at FTDNA. I don't know if any of our project members have ordered it there; several have their results from YSEQ at present, and I move them in the project if I see their results, from whatever testing company.

Note that this is an alternative to Z295 -- nobody with Z295+ or CTS4065+ should order it.

razyn
05-29-2014, 05:26 PM
My [FGC] analysis is in, today. Not that I have time to look at it -- but anyway it's in. Total lapsed time, from placing the order last Thanksgiving week to having had it sequenced (twice), analyzed and returned to me = 6 months. I don't see that as so bad. And I really look forward to opportunities to play with the data during the next few weeks. Maybe I'll get one of those cool FGC-tagged SNPs to display under my avatar. Or a button to wear at the http://i4gg.org/ conference in August.

While it's today, and I can still "edit" this post -- I got a chance to look quickly at the Variant Compare file. It seems they have named 44 new FGC variants found in my sample, from FGC15710 through FGC15753. The first five are shared with NA20518, another CTS4065+ guy; and one of those also with PGP22. The last four in the series are Indels, or misc. bottom-of-the-file things. But most are "private," high reliability SNPs.

Seems pretty good, to me. I don't know of many phylogenetically close people tested, to compare against.

R.Rocca
05-29-2014, 08:13 PM
My analysis is in, today. Not that I have time to look at it -- but anyway it's in. Total lapsed time, from placing the order last Thanksgiving week to having had it sequenced (twice), analyzed and returned to me = 6 months. I don't see that as so bad. And I really look forward to opportunities to play with the data during the next few weeks. Maybe I'll get one of those cool FGC-tagged SNPs to display under my avatar. Or a button to wear at the http://i4gg.org/ conference in August.

Congrats! Re-sequencing aside, I think FGC has caught up to the Big-Y timeline, or at least it seems like it to me.

razyn
05-29-2014, 08:36 PM
Check out my "edit" and see if you have further commentary to make. I don't actually know what I'm looking at, though I have some sense of what I'm looking for. And that would be something new for my L484+ group to test, that isn't considered too unstable or recurrent to get on the ISOGG tree.

R.Rocca
05-30-2014, 12:04 AM
My analysis is in, today. Not that I have time to look at it -- but anyway it's in. Total lapsed time, from placing the order last Thanksgiving week to having had it sequenced (twice), analyzed and returned to me = 6 months. I don't see that as so bad. And I really look forward to opportunities to play with the data during the next few weeks. Maybe I'll get one of those cool FGC-tagged SNPs to display under my avatar. Or a button to wear at the http://i4gg.org/ conference in August.

While it's today, and I can still "edit" this post -- I got a chance to look quickly at the Variant Compare file. It seems they have named 44 new FGC variants found in my sample, from FGC15710 through FGC15753. The first five are shared with NA20518, another CTS4065+ guy; and one of those also with PGP22. The last four in the series are Indels, or misc. bottom-of-the-file things. But most are "private," high reliability SNPs.

Seems pretty good, to me. I don't know of many phylogenetically close people tested, to compare against.

Hopefully this will help determine who should be tested...here is the STR values of NA20518 from Tuscany:

http://ftp.1000genomes.ebi.ac.uk/vol1/ftp/technical/working/20140107_chrY_str_haplotypes/YSTRs_PowerPLexY23_1000Y_QA_20130107.txt

If you post the positions and values of the SNPs you share with NA20518, I can cross check against the GoNL file.

razyn
05-30-2014, 02:33 AM
I got my Full Genomes Corp. data this afternoon, and have had a little exchange about it with Rich Rocca -- which Mike may move over here, if he's so inclined. [N.B., he has done so, and I'm deleting the link to the other thread -- where it no longer exists.] For purposes of comparison with me, I think this is probably the best thread, as I'm CTS4065+ and none of the other L484 guys (below that) are currently posting here.

In partial response to what Rich asked in that thread -- I had a look at the Tuscan guy's (NA20518) STR values. He doesn't have any of the 4 off-modals (out of the first 12, in FTDNA order) that my L484+ subclade has; and his DYS448=17 is very rare in the old North/South cluster as a whole. So I'd guess our similarities pretty much come to a screeching halt at or near CTS4065+, a SNP we share -- but within which group (as presently constituted, in the DF27 project) he's already kind of an STR outlier.

If y'all haven't looked at the CTS4065+ tested group lately (it's currently two groups, Bb plus Bba), check us out: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-DF27/

razyn
05-31-2014, 06:29 PM
This may be a way to answer the rest of what Rich asked. I'm unclear on the concept of "sharing" all of my FGC results, so I'm not enabling that at the moment. And nor am I going to park my new SNPs in yet another Excel document that I don't know how to manipulate. But I do know how to do screen shots of a few little choice bits. This should link to three of them (and if it doesn't, I'll delete it): https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8nuh7z1q34kihw2/AAApu2NKkV4mCGM08KV8lxRWa

Yes, that worked. So, make of them what you will, those are my cool new FGC SNPs and Indels, of high "reliability" (95% or above), per the FGC standards of determining that.

razyn
07-12-2014, 09:57 PM
Haven't posted for about six weeks, but this branch is slowly growing. I guess we have about 24 guys, 16 in the CTS4065 group (Bb) and eight in the "L484.NS" group (Bba). Not all of the latter have actually tested CTS4065, but it's clearly a subclade -- the ones who have tested it (not all of us at FTDNA, it's also available at YSEQ and BISDNA, and visible in FGC results) are positive for it. So far, we haven't turned up an S16864+ person in our DF27 project.

Several CTS4065 test orders are currently in the pipeline, and among them is Henry Zenker's. He also ordered a Big Y -- it's good to see him back in the hunt, after a year's absence. CTS4065 has also been ordered today for a couple of Z220+ kits from Hungary. So far, we don't know how far east it might be found -- but one of our L484.NS families (Richert) is Kashubian, from Poland.

razyn
09-13-2014, 11:51 PM
I'm cross-posting this message I just sent to the R1b-DF27 Yahoo group, with the subject line "Three more subclades of CTS4065."

I have been comparing the "novel variants" files in three new Big Y results for DF27 project members whose terminal SNP is shown as CTS4065+. Two of them share a pair of named SNPs that were discovered in my Full Genomes Corp. results, FGC15710 and FGC15714. Having been advised by Astrid Krahn that the latter is found in a region of the Y chromosome that is ">94% similar to segments on chromosome 13 and 21," and therefore somewhat difficult to test with confidence, I have today requested a SNP test for FGC15710 at YSEQ and at FTDNA. The YSEQ test is already available.

I have not yet established separate groups for this new subclade of CTS4065; for S16864, discovered in two kits at BritainsDNA (but not yet found positive in any of our project members who have tested for it); or for the large group that is positive for neither of these -- which for the time being we might consider CTS4065*.

If anyone in the CTS4065 tested group wishes to look for similarity to his own haplotype before placing a completely speculative order for such a test, the two FGC15710+ (from Big Y) kits that are currently visible in group Bb are 97920 Zenker and 269087 Pletcher; also kit NA20518 from the 1000 Genomes project; and the entire group Bba, a previously defined subclade of CTS4065 in our DF27 project, of which I am a member (195834).

Two thoroughly sequenced kits that are [B]FGC15710- are 109279 van Vliet and 95682 Moreau; also PGP22 from the Personal Genome Project, and all six of the CTS4065+ examples found in Genomes of the Netherlands. Members who have tested negative for FGC15710 will form a CTS4065* subclade -- unless we discover another currently nameless SNP for which they are positive, and the FGC15710 group negative. That seems quite likely to happen -- perhaps, soon after a few more eyes are on Moreau's novel variants.

razyn
10-15-2014, 05:27 AM
I have just created a Z295* group, and started it with six people who are Z295+, but Z216- and CTS4065-. It has the same alpha characters as before, Bab. In order to get the four remaining Z295+ members who (as far as I know) are still untested for CTS4065 to display higher on the digital page, I added an asterisk -- Bab*.

There may be one or more defining SNP for these Z295* people, but it hasn't been identified and named. At the moment, they are a paragroup.

razyn
10-21-2014, 01:28 AM
I have today requested a SNP test for FGC15710 at [...] FTDNA.
I have been notified that FGC15710 is now in the catalog at FTDNA -- in case any CTS4065 person wants to test for it there.


the two FGC15710+ (from Big Y) kits that are currently visible in group Bb are 97920 Zenker and 269087 Pletcher; also kit NA20518 from the 1000 Genomes project; and the entire group Bba, a previously defined subclade of CTS4065 in our DF27 project, of which I am a member (195834). [But bear in mind that the latter group of eight L484+ kits has very distinctive off-modals, caused by additional mutations that have occurred more recently than FGC15710.]
I'm about ready to create a subgroup (of CTS4065) for FGC15710+. But I think I'll wait until somebody else tells me he's positive for it, or it turns up in another person's Big Y results.


Maybe I'll get one of those cool FGC-tagged SNPs to display under my avatar.
That comment was on this thread a few months ago. I think I'll go ahead and change my avatar tag, now that a SNP named in my sample has made it into the FTDNA catalog... whew. I'm getting in touch with my inner salmon.

razyn
11-01-2014, 01:16 PM
Thanks to efficient, recent work by Stephen Parrish, CTS4065 is now on the ISOGG tree for Hg R. Effective date was 10/31/2014. Z295 was previously moved from the Notes area (in which, btw, its position had been stated incorrectly) to the correct part the tree, effective 10/25/2014. Further refinement of this area, all of which is within the old North/South Cluster, is a work in progress. S21184 is well enough known to get some attention, subclades of CTS4065 are known but not all defined yet, Z295 has at least another branch yet to be defined -- and so on.

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

Webb
11-03-2014, 04:44 PM
Thanks to efficient, recent work by Stephen Parrish, CTS4065 is now on the ISOGG tree for Hg R. Effective date was 10/31/2014. Z295 was previously moved from the Notes area (in which, btw, its position had been stated incorrectly) to the correct part the tree, effective 10/25/2014. Further refinement of this area, all of which is within the old North/South Cluster, is a work in progress. S21184 is well enough known to get some attention, subclades of CTS4065 are known but not all defined yet, Z295 has at least another branch yet to be defined -- and so on.

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

Richard, is the email I recieved about the complimentary test for FGC15710 accurate? Should I even test for it, I wonder? I hate to use money on a test that I would end up negative, when someone else could use the money who might test positive.

razyn
11-10-2014, 08:08 PM
Richard, is the email I recieved about the complimentary test for FGC15710 accurate? Should I even test for it, I wonder? I hate to use money on a test that I would end up negative, when someone else could use the money who might test positive.

Sorry, I didn't see this post. The offer (to CTS4065+ tested men) was genuine, though a bit awkward in its execution, and we do have project funds in hand that were donated for the purpose. That fund might in theory become depleted, but that's not an immediate concern. And a few negative results as well as positive ones are necessary for confident ISOGG tree placement, of FGC15710 or any new SNP.

razyn
12-10-2014, 02:16 PM
I'm about ready to create a subgroup (of CTS4065) for FGC15710+. But I think I'll wait until somebody else tells me he's positive for it, or it turns up in another person's Big Y results.

Although we have about 14 SNP tests for FGC15710 in progress at FTDNA, the first new positive result has turned up in another Big Y test, for 271076 Meister. So I have created the FGC15710+ group Bba* within the R1b-DF27 haplogroup project. (This asterisk does not indicate a paragroup, it just tricks the software into displaying the new group in the right position.) CTS4065 will have at least two more branches, mutually exclusive with FGC15710 and with each other. We have NextGen tested kits to prove it (van Vliet and Pastore), but don't yet have a group that has tested for their new FGC SNPs, or Big Y novel variants.

Webb
12-31-2014, 02:29 PM
My FGC15710 results posted this morning and I am negative. I am curious to see what the rest of the CTS4065 kits results will be. Will the carriers for it be the German surnames, or is it old enough that it encompases both Germans and some of the others. It is also interesting seeing a green DF27 in the snp column next to all the kits at the project page.

razyn
12-31-2014, 03:35 PM
A good many of them posted this AM, the only new FGC15710+ surname is N86315 Rose. Also, a differently spelled Zenker. But the surnames and/or MDKAs don't all indicate something German(ic). The L484 subgroup is presumed FGC15710+ until proven otherwise, and its surnames are mostly English -- of putative Norman ancestry in a couple of cases; one family is French, and one "Polish" (Kashubian). So far, the CTS4065+ members with ancestry in Scandinavia or the Low Countries have been testing FGC15710-. Early days to make very much of this, but there may at least be some tendencies beginning to appear.

Checking through some of the many test results that have posted for our project members today, I encountered the first instance I've seen in which the My FTDNA page has an emblem at the top right, "R-DF27/Y-DNA Haplogroup." I guess a lot of them do, now -- this guy just got his DF27+ result.

BreizAtao
01-11-2015, 11:23 PM
Hello, BreizAtao here. I was one of the the DF27 & Subclades members offered the FGC 15710 test in November. My result is in, and I am negative. I'm currently in the Bba group (kit 268250). I'm currently awaiting BigY results. Where might we go from here?

Webb
01-12-2015, 12:58 AM
Hello, BreizAtao here. I was of the the DF27 & Subclades members offered the FGC 15710 test in November. My result is in, and I am negative. I'm currently in the Bba group (kit 268250). I'm currently awaiting BigY results. Where might we go from here?

I am in the same boat as you. FGC15710 was negative and I am waiting on my BigY results. I do not think anything else is available until our group gets the BigY results back and we have some analysis done. I am very excited to see what we come up with. All 10 of my 67 marker matches have the last name Wilder. So evidently there was a NPE either before leaving England or just after arriving in America. The origins of Wilder is English, before that I have no idea.

BreizAtao
01-12-2015, 03:15 AM
I am in the same boat as you. FGC15710 was negative and I am waiting on my BigY results. I do not think anything else is available until our group gets the BigY results back and we have some analysis done. I am very excited to see what we come up with. All 10 of my 67 marker matches have the last name Wilder. So evidently there was a NPE either before leaving England or just after arriving in America. The origins of Wilder is English, before that I have no idea.

Very good. I must say I envy your 67 marker matches! I've gone to 67 markers, but only have matches at the 12 marker level. I have cousins by the dozen, but almost all are in France, where I believe there are still legal restrictions on personal DNA research, and the SNP maps are spotty as a result.

razyn
01-12-2015, 03:24 AM
CTS4065+ seems to be a big group, there are probably several unnamed branches below it. We are able to work the FGC15710+ branch a little faster because several of the SNPs found in my FGC test are turning up, pos or neg (or no-call), in Big Y tests. About a dozen Big Y tests for people who are negative (or unknown) for FGC15710 are currently in the pipeline. There may be a predominantly Dutch/Scandinavian branch, there are a couple of northern Italian families in play, a branch that may be French or Flemish, and so on. This is fairly loose speculation, but really, we should learn a lot about these in the next 2-3 months. We haven't, quite yet -- but the investigation is more orderly, and better financed, than most in the DF27 area.

Webb
01-12-2015, 03:09 PM
CTS4065+ seems to be a big group, there are probably several unnamed branches below it. We are able to work the FGC15710+ branch a little faster because several of the SNPs found in my FGC test are turning up, pos or neg (or no-call), in Big Y tests. About a dozen Big Y tests for people who are negative (or unknown) for FGC15710 are currently in the pipeline. There may be a predominantly Dutch/Scandinavian branch, there are a couple of northern Italian families in play, a branch that may be French or Flemish, and so on. This is fairly loose speculation, but really, we should learn a lot about these in the next 2-3 months. We haven't, quite yet -- but the investigation is more orderly, and better financed, than most in the DF27 area.

Razyn, I noticed that Rose is now in his own subgroup showing as positive for FGC15730. Is this new? Is the L484 group positive for this as well? Has anyone else in the FGC15710 group tested for it?

razyn
01-12-2015, 03:48 PM
That is new. Normally I don't make one person a group, but his mutation has a subclade (the L484 group) so it isn't just one person. For purposes of establishing enough variance to qualify for ISOGG, e.g., FGC15730+ can count ours. And the FGC15710+ group, above him, can count his and ours. (Yes, one FGC15710+ person has tested negative for all of my SNPs higher than FGC15714, except for one Indel, called FGC15750. Otherwise I'm going by Big Y results, and obvious changes in a number of STR markers.)

Inserting Rose's level as a group reduces the number of FGC SNPs the L484 guys should need to bother testing. This is all kind of a moving target, at present. YFull analysis may have some bearing on the hierarchical sorting of it, and they assign their own names for mostly the same SNPs FGC has already named.

Webb
02-03-2015, 03:44 PM
Razy, I noticed a new subgroup under CTS4065 that does not include your group. It is group Bbc. S16864. First I searched for this test at FTDNA and it is not available, so I am assuming it is available at Yseq? If it is included in the BigY, should I then wait for those results?

razyn
02-04-2015, 08:35 PM
It's a mutation we knew about since Feb. 2014 when Jim Wilson released that report on 2000 results from the Chromo2 chip. I requested the test, and it's been available at FTDNA for 6-8 months I guess, but we didn't have anyone in the project who had tested positive for it. The mutation is at 15204254, C to A. That position is readable in Big Y results, and that's where I found a couple of our guys positive for it (in their Big Y Novel Variants); so I created the new (to our FTDNA project) subgroup. I guess I may have neglected to announce it.

In other news, Hans van Vliet has just given me permission to share this interesting comparison of the estimated age (in years) separating members of our CTS4065 bloc with 67 marker comparisons. I'm not going to speculate on its accuracy or methodology; what little I know about that is visible in notes he included in the Excel document, at bottom left. I think I have to post it as a screen shot to make it actually visible here; anyway that is what I'll do. [Still had to go to full screen and crop off the bottom of a couple of vertical names, to get everybody in the picture.]

In my own case, the lowest estimated TMRCA (270, in green boxes) is fairly accurate, since that relative and I know our common ancestor but not his birthday. I'd have guessed around 250 years from his birth until now; but my tested cousin (217955) and I (195834) are quite mature, so it's only about 180 years from our common ancestor's birth (circa 1760) to either of ours. Still, that's probably within the expected range of error -- especially for a sample of only two.

3717

Well that's not very satisfactory... hope that anyone who aspires to read the data has a magnifying glass. If I enlarge it, it pixellates and becomes unreadable. Wasn't that small size when I saved it.

Mythtown
02-06-2015, 12:20 AM
This may not be the right place to post this (feel free to move it, administrators), but I see my Z270 result came in today as negative. Z211 is still pending, but presumably will also be negative unless something really weird is going on. So, at a minimum, I and others are Z295* but there will undoubtedly be additional branching besides CTS4065 and Z270.

razyn
02-06-2015, 08:38 PM
This may not be the right place to post this (feel free to move it, administrators), but I see my Z270 result came in today as negative. Z211 is still pending, but presumably will also be negative unless something really weird is going on. So, at a minimum, I and others are Z295* but there will undoubtedly be additional branching besides CTS4065 and Z270.

Something weird is going on (possibly, just what you said, but that's still weird). Anyway I shuffled people around some, yesterday, or renamed the groups they were already in. The alphabetical sorting order is still a bit screwed up, but it's a little better. (Refresh your screen, if you keep that project's STR results display open.)

BreizAtao
02-15-2015, 04:49 AM
Many thanks, Razyn, for the useful TMRCA table. I found I could read most names if I enlarged the "larger screen" to 200%. The numbers are more of a challenge, so the colored ranges are most helpful. My results (268250) are no surprise. I know by my own genealogy as well as by the surname distribution maps provided by French genealogical sources that I have tons of relatives in Brittany, especially along the north coast, but FTDNA (or probably any other outfit) has very few in its sample population.

I await with keen interest my BigY results, which should post in a week or so.

Webb
02-26-2015, 05:25 PM
My BigY results are in. And of course I can not make heads or tails of the results.

razyn
02-26-2015, 07:04 PM
No new terminal SNP for you (below CTS4065) just smacks me in the face, either. We can see a few more things for which you appear at first glance to be negative, e.g. S16864, and any FGC SNPs that would align you with our new Dutch/Nordic group Bbd. There is more to be learned -- you should download your .vcf file and then upload it (still zipped) to the Files area of the DF27 Yahoo group. Also request that they generate your Big Y BAM file, and when that is ready (2-3 days) you can share a link to it, with YFull, FGC or some other third party for analysis. We have a bunch of these to get through, that were ordered during the winter sale and most of them have now reported (but, very recently).

TigerMW
02-26-2015, 07:21 PM
Dick, do you think I should order any particular SNPs for 269087 Pletcher that either validate a terminal haplogroup or would have been outside of a Big Y region? Here is Alex Williamson's analysis.
http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/NGS/SNPinfoForPerson.php?personID=601

I feel bad I haven't kept up on DF27, but I will get back to this one to help. ... much to do - kids' weddings, the L21 SNP tsunami, and, yes, real work.

Webb
02-26-2015, 07:29 PM
No new terminal SNP for you (below CTS4065) just smacks me in the face, either. We can see a few more things for which you appear at first glance to be negative, e.g. S16864, and any FGC SNPs that would align you with our new Dutch/Nordic group Bbd. There is more to be learned -- you should download your .vcf file and then upload it (still zipped) to the Files area of the DF27 Yahoo group. Also request that they generate your Big Y BAM file, and when that is ready (2-3 days) you can share a link to it, with YFull, FGC or some other third party for analysis. We have a bunch of these to get through, that were ordered during the winter sale and most of them have now reported (but, very recently).

Ok. First, how do I request FTDNA generate my BigY Bam file?
Second, I had already planned on having Yfull analyze my raw data.
Third, is there an alternative name for S16864?
Fourth, my top matches with 0 known snp differences are:

Bjorkman, Jubbie, Langerer, Chernick, and Baggett.

razyn
02-26-2015, 11:09 PM
First, the address to use is: [email protected] Your email should say "Please generate the BigY BAM file and download it to my account, kit xxxxxx." And sign it. If possible, it should be sent from the email address that FTDNA believes is yours. Otherwise, problems may ensue.

Second, yay!

Third, not that I know of -- it was tested on the Chromo2 chip, found in a bunch of people, and I knew the position/mutation. Since it has started showing up in Big Y results ("novel variants"), I have been moving people into that group. It has grown some today, both from Big Y and from Advanced SNP tests for S21184.

Fourth, that's cool and all, but your Top Matches might include a gorilla, or at least a U152 guy; so it's usually more fruitful to look at what we might term your Bottom Matches (ones on a "novel" position, that are only shared by a few people). That function, "shared novel variants," was broken for a few weeks (Feb. 4 through 25), but it has been working well today. The more people you share a SNP with, the less you really care. So, scroll down, and find your relatives since the last Ice Age.

Actually, the five names you mentioned are fellow members of the DF27 project -- but not all are equally close to you.

Wiborg
03-01-2015, 12:15 AM
Hello!
I´m new here. I transfered my Geno 2.0 results to FTDNA and joined the R P312 (R1b-P312) project there. My confirmed Haplogroup is R-CTS4065.
I tried to find out something about CTS4065 and i found that forum here. Although I have been running for some time Genealogy but the whole issue of DNA testing and genetics is new for me.
However i read some threads here and I think I'll have to do more tests for better results and have to buy the family finder?

razyn
03-01-2015, 01:00 AM
However i read some threads here and I think I'll have to do more tests for better results and have to buy the family finder?

I was just writing you an email, telling you what you need to test (and to look at this thread). Anyway -- not Family Finder, that's autosomal, and won't tell you any more about your CTS4065 haplogroup (Y-DNA). It's pretty good for finding very distant cousins in America.

razyn
03-01-2015, 03:22 PM
As many of you know, the effort to refine and expand our knowledge in this branch of the DF27 tree was driven in large part by the active interest and sponsorship of the Zenker family. Henry Zenker was administrator of the R1b-P312 project before we created a separate one for DF27, and Henry is CTS4065+. He was somewhat disabled by medical problems in 2013, but remains interested and motivated. Last year his son Chris picked up this effort on his behalf, and informally partnered with me to locate and select many of our "North/South cluster" project members for targeted SNP testing, or in some cases exploratory NextGen testing. Many of those tests (ordered with coupons during the recent FTDNA winter sale) have now reported, and I had wondered why Chris was not replying to a number of emails about new discoveries based on them. Last night by a Google search I discovered the reason. I am very sorry to report that Chris died on Jan. 18th. At this time I have no information except what I have seen in his online obituary: http://obits.dignitymemorial.com/dignity-memorial/obituary.aspx?n=Christopher-Zenker&lc=7340&pid=173910440&mid=6286791

razyn
03-04-2015, 06:54 AM
There are two new subclades of CTS4065 this week -- Bbd and Bbe. We have an increasingly rich pool of Big Y results, advanced SNP tests in this part of the DF27 tree, and results from testing or analysis by other companies. FGC, YSEQ, BritainsDNA and YFull results are not displayed, but we may have used them to decide where to group someone in an FTDNA project.

BreizAtao
03-04-2015, 07:46 AM
There are two new subclades of CTS4065 this week -- Bbd and Bbe. We have an increasingly rich pool of Big Y results, advanced SNP tests in this part of the DF27 tree, and results from testing or analysis by other companies. FGC, YSEQ, BritainsDNA and YFull results are not displayed, but we may have used them to decide where to group someone in an FTDNA project.

Richard, thank you for the link to the obituary. I was touched by it.

I see I'm now in DF27 group Bbc, and that my BigY results are in, although I haven't had any time to digest the results! Is the S16864+ from BigY? I also just saw the SNP results section for the first time, and saw the long-form haplogroup designation I share with a bunch of the CTS-4065 folks: R1b2a1aBa1a1g1b1a1. Whose nomemclature is this? I don't see it on the ISOGG tree...Many thanks!

razyn
03-04-2015, 04:36 PM
All of the FTDNA customers with S16864+ have had the mutation discovered in their Big Y Novel Variants (or "shared novel variants," which is now working again). It is at position 15204254, C to A. It was on the Chromo2 chip, earlier, and a few customers of BritainsDNA are positive for it -- but we don't know who they are.

BreizAtao
03-12-2015, 10:49 PM
Hello all,

Now that my BigY results are in, along with those of a group of CTS4065 people, I am wondering where all this is going. In my DF27 subgroup, Bbc, I am as usual the only one with a DYS393=14 value. Lately I looked at YHRD, and plugged in 15 of the 16 STR values they will search for, and found no matches among their 91k+ records. Then, I went to Ancestry.com’s “freepages” where there’s a discussion of DYS393=14 haplotypes. I understand that DYS393 seems to be the locus most resistance to mutation. I found I match their “Type 8” haplotype, based on 7 STRs. This is described as rare, and they list only two populations for it: Hispanics in Texas, and Andalucians, both with very low incidence. A further note says that this haplotype may have arrived in Britain with Celt-Iberian migrants, a well-established migration route, it seems. I wonder where their sample base comes from, and what British data they refer to? Anyway, I’m left to wonder how to reconcile SNP results and STR values, in coming to a better understanding of mini-migration, and microevolution. My Geno2 results would square with Celt-Iberian traces in Britain, since autosomal and Y-chromosomal results give Britain as my first “reference population.” This is however still a fuzzy approximation to the issues….any thoughts?

razyn
03-13-2015, 01:23 PM
DYS393=14 is uncommon, but having it doesn't mean you are kin to everybody else who has it. For instance it's modal in my own group Bbbb, but not in our immediate parent groups (still under CTS4065). It's just a slow mutator, not a never-mutator. Having a terminal SNP in common trumps having an uncommon STR value in common (e.g. with Type 8, whoever they are, or with me). Actually a terminal SNP trumps just about everything else in genealogy, except maybe a surname that identifies a tiny village someplace.

Also, I do wish people would get over the Iberian-origin thing, with respect to DF27. This haplogroup flourished there, after some local set of causes, but there is no real reason to assume it originated there -- and a lot of reasons to suspect it did not. Look at the tree under DF27, look at all the branches, look at which ones are specific to Iberia (or even western Europe). A tree grows from a common trunk, and its roots (several thousand years ago) -- not from a particularly bushy limb that has the most leaves visible today. I'm not trying to deny the existence of Celtiberians who migrated somewhere, or whatever; I just would like to dissociate that level of anthropological speculation from the more reality-based testing of genomes.

Lugus
03-14-2015, 09:41 AM
I'm a new member. Just tested positive for DF27. I had previously done Geno 2.0 and got the result P310, which means I tested negative for all the downstream SNPs of DF27. I'm not sure what to do now, maybe Big Y? What do the experts say? By the way, I have DYS393=14, DYS19=15 and DYS389ii=30, which doesn't help. At 37 STRs I already have no matches and the closest guy is a L21. The Cullen predictor says I'm S26 (!?!).

pmathews
03-27-2015, 10:05 PM
Tested positive for CTS4065+ :) Batch 603

Chris Zenker setup my test, along with others, on a hunch that we would test positive for CTS4065. Just sorry that we couldn't share the results with him. His passing was too soon :(

razyn
03-28-2015, 01:41 AM
I just spoke with his older brother Stephen yesterday, the Zenker family has been somewhat devastated, but they remain interested in the project and Stephen will at least check in occasionally. He and Henry are aware that we have moved the chains down the field quite a bit in recent months, and I am authorized to continue testing some of the guys who were beneficiaries of that special fund. Several of you got moved tonight -- there were over 25 SNP tests under DF27 reported in the past two days. (Not all were in the Z295 area, but several of the successful ones were.) A few of them were tests previously in hand, but the tested person has just joined the DF27 project.

Huntergatherer1066
03-28-2015, 01:53 AM
Have you noticed an uptick in DF27 orders and/or project joins since DF27 was added to the FTDNA haplotree? I'm just curious about how that can impact group projects.

razyn
03-28-2015, 01:24 PM
There has been pretty steady growth, so far (not a spike). Some of it is caused by new "identified subclade" results (under DF27), from Big Y -- and elsewhere, not necessarily just FTDNA tests. That may be unclear... people join the FTDNA DF27 project (or the more-or-less parallel Yahoo group) after they discover at YFull, FGC, YSEQ or BritainsDNA that they belong to a subclade of DF27, for which we have a group. Some of FTDNA's competitors are also its recruitment tools.

Webb
03-28-2015, 02:40 PM
There has been pretty steady growth, so far (not a spike). Some of it is caused by new "identified subclade" results (under DF27), from Big Y -- and elsewhere, not necessarily just FTDNA tests. That may be unclear... people join the FTDNA DF27 project (or the more-or-less parallel Yahoo group) after they discover at YFull, FGC, YSEQ or BritainsDNA that they belong to a subclade of DF27, for which we have a group. Some of FTDNA's competitors are also its recruitment tools.

Did Hans cc you about the FGC23196 market he found in common with me, himself, the Swedish kit and possibly the Dane. I seem to be not as closely clustered as the other three, but close enough, I guess as a start.

razyn
03-28-2015, 05:32 PM
Did Hans cc you about the FGC23196 market he found
Yes. Since it's an indel, specifically a deletion, it's problematic whether our test providers will deign to test for it. But I suppose I should request it at FTDNA, and see what they say.

Kind of stands to reason that if you have it, Wilder has it too. You could Wish a SNP for FGC23196 at YSEQ, and ask Wilder to test it there, if you feel the need to know promptly. I just made you guys group Bbd* and left the other three as a subclade of your indel-defined, shared, parent clade with FGC23196. Btw the STR off-modals shake out nicely different looking.

Mythtown
04-24-2015, 04:47 PM
I won't be getting a Z211 result. FTDNA sends this message: "I am very sorry to inform you that we are not able to procure results for that particular SNP. I was advised by the lab that we can issue a full refund or progress with a different SNP, the choice is yours. Unfortunately we are not able to continue with Z211."

I'll ask that the money be restored to the project fund.

razyn
08-15-2015, 09:52 PM
I want to refresh a concept I introduced two years ago -- before the Chromo2 chip results were released, before any of the NextGen results from FGC and BigY testing had been received and posted here to further enrich -- but also complicate -- the picture we have been developing of the old "North/South Cluster."


Z295 then might be the pivot point between SW Europe and NW Europe.


Yes, and the way it pivots there is that CTS12074 is the branch that (mostly) went SW to Iberia -- or is now found there in abundance. CTS4065 mostly didn't -- or anyway its present day abundance is nowhere near as far SW. Both branches are Z295, so where was that line, before they branched?

A tool that I find increasingly useful is Alex Williamson's "Big Tree," and its related tool set. Today it struck me that I could still do screen shots (if it grows much more, I won't be able to) that illustrate this "Great Divide" in the North/South Cluster. The cluster itself is basically Z220; but I began this conversation about a dichotomy I was seeing below Z295, and I'll limit this picture to that slightly more restricted area. Here are the current, contrasting branches of the Big Tree below Z295:

5599

This (above) is the Z216 side of the cluster. Most of the samples are from the 1000 Genomes project (with pink backgrounds), and are presumed of Iberian ancestry. Going by the little flags, they include:
Spain - 7
Colombia - 5
Puerto Rico - 4
Mexico - 1
Peru - 1
United States - 1

5600

The rest of the Z295 samples have a mostly non-Iberian look, include some from northern and eastern Europe:
England - 5
France - 3
Netherlands - 1
Sweden - 1
Germany - 2
Czech Republic - 1
Slovakia - 1
Ukraine - 1
Italy - 1
Mexico - 1

Note that there is a marked absence of samples from the 1000 Genomes project. The same testing bias (and that's what you are seeing) was apparent in the Chromo2 2000 data set, by the way.

Wiborg
11-22-2015, 10:40 PM
I have updated my transfered Geno 2.0 results to Family Finder, mtFull Sequence, Y-DNA37, FGC15710 (negativ) and Big-Y. Today i ordered the Y-DNA111.

I received an email that big Y results came through and another mail that i have a match. Unfortunately i couldn´t see my Big-Y results because i still have the status "awaiting results" at the ftdna page.

However i got also a mail from Mr. van Vliet that i share a SNP at Y chromosome position 24.877.826 with Mr. Moreau, Mr.
Navarro and Mr. Sanxis. Together forming a subclade under CTS4065. Mr. Sanxis and i further share 19 other SNPs; forming a new subclade under the afore mentioned subclade.
The TMRCA between the two of me will not more then 1000 ybp.

What should be my next steps?

razyn
11-23-2015, 02:02 AM
What should be my next steps?

Assuming you are N137161, you should wait until the results post for you, too. Including your Y-111 results, if necessary. I see the same thing you do, BigY is still awaiting results.

Wiborg
11-23-2015, 06:10 PM
Assuming you are N137161, you should wait until the results post for you, too. Including your Y-111 results, if necessary. I see the same thing you do, BigY is still awaiting results.

Yes, that is my kit. Allright, i wait for the results. I was just wondering why i got the message that my results come through and that i have a match at Big Y.

Ric
02-01-2016, 08:01 PM
Hi all,

Richard here, another one.

I am a French guy as far as my paper trail goes: a death record in 1736 in Vittel, French Lorraine (kit 406473). Before ~1660, my paternal ancestor could possibly come from the Netherlands according to some in my family, but there is absolutely no indication to confirm that in the acts of marriage that I've seen near 1700. I didn't see any foreign-sounding second name to acknowledge a grand father, no declaration of the officers mentioning a recent citizenship, no mention of difficulties to sign his name at his son's marriage, etc . So I have to assume that my latest known paternal ancestor, born presumably around 1660 in the same area of Vittel, was still one to three generations away from this putative foreign ancestor. This brings him in the early to mid 1600th. The early 1600' are when the War of 30years took place and it was particularly ferocious in the Lorraine region. Vittel is near a fortified Castle, LaMotte, that was completely razed to the ground by Swedish mercenaries hired under the King of France's banner. The Swedes and other mercenaries wrecked havoc in the local populations. At the Swede's discharge, whether these private contractors were locally allied or enemies of the locals seemed to make little difference on the local's fate. At the end of the war, some places were depopulated and it is not impossible to imagine that some of these mercenaries were given some of this depopulated land as payment and settled there. But this is all speculation.

I did the R-z209 snp pack at FTDNA, which returned CTS4065 as my terminal snp. No known (at this time) snps under CTS4065 came back positive.
I also have a lots of 12 STR marker matches and when I filter for only those that are DF27 and under, a lot of these matches are people whose tree contain the names Clark or Anderson in addition to other names that are common in the British Isles. I know that it doesn't usually mean much at the 12 marker level, but it happens that these names are also present very frequently, in my autosomal matches at 23&me, in the range of 4th to distant cousin. My gedmatch number M274463.

If my family lore is bogus and my paternal is French since Julius Caesar, I may never find a STR match since French don't have access to DNA tests legally (I am a US resident) and US or French Canadian colonials typically did not originate from Lorraine.

Ric
02-02-2016, 05:59 PM
I understand from this thread that z295 is sort of a turning point for the df27 clade, with some of its subclades going South West towards Iberia, other going North. If that's true some df27 subclades should show a North South cline. At the beginning of this thread in 2013, CTS4065 was more associated with the North. So, 3 years later, has any CTS4065 been found in the Iberian peninsula/Basque country, in Spanish natives or Latin American testers?

I am also interested in the belief system of my ancestor. If multiple df27 splits had occurred in Germany 2000 bc, way before these branches were even in sight of the Pyrenean Mountains, certain branches who went North could have possibly landed in territories that were at the edge of the Celtic cultural sphere of Influence. For example, if these branches landed in the Netherland, Denmark or the Baltic countries, not only they never set foot in Spain or France, but they were not Celtic either from the cultural point of view. To me their belief practices were part of the Indo-European shamanic culture around 2000bc and no way I will consider that pre-Celtic, otherwise India and all Indo-Europeans were culturally pre-celtic too. A 'Pre-Celtic' adjective would apply to those df27 branches who indeed ended up as Celtic 1 millennium later and since the Celtic heart was near Austria and France, Df27 dudes who went too far North do not qualify. These Nordic df27 branches must have switched directly from steppe-shamanic practices to Nordic shamanism.
So in this scenario, it is not guaranteed that all the df27 folks were necessarily associated with Celtic folklore and belief.
That's what I told my family: 'oh yeah, our ancestor was a Celt, probably fighting against the Romans'. I am even not sure of that now. It really depends on where the particular CTS4065 branch landed and expanded. If it is in Gaul, Spain or the British Isles around 500 bc, then yes, CT4065 is Celtic. If not, then any scenario is possible. This ancestor could have practiced shamanism until he was directly integrated into a roman federation and switched to Greco-Roman paganism, then Arianism, then Christianism, or he could have switched from Indo-European shamanism to Nordicism and Odinism. It really depends on his location.

Webb
02-02-2016, 07:36 PM
I understand from this thread that z295 is sort of a turning point for the df27 clade, with some of its subclades going South West towards Iberia, other going North. If that's true some df27 subclades should show a North South cline. At the beginning of this thread in 2013, CTS4065 was more associated with the North. So, 3 years later, has any CTS4065 been found in the Iberian peninsula/Basque country, in Spanish natives or Latin American testers?

I am also interested in the belief system of my ancestor. If multiple df27 splits had occurred in Germany 2000 bc, way before these branches were even in sight of the Pyrenean Mountains, certain branches who went North could have possibly landed in territories that were at the edge of the Celtic cultural sphere of Influence. For example, if these branches landed in the Netherland, Denmark or the Baltic countries, not only they never set foot in Spain or France, but they were not Celtic either from the cultural point of view. To me their belief practices were part of the Indo-European shamanic culture around 2000bc and no way I will consider that pre-Celtic, otherwise India and all Indo-Europeans were culturally pre-celtic too. A 'Pre-Celtic' adjective would apply to those df27 branches who indeed ended up as Celtic 1 millennium later and since the Celtic heart was near Austria and France, Df27 dudes who went too far North do not qualify. These Nordic df27 branches must have switched directly from steppe-shamanic practices to Nordic shamanism.
So in this scenario, it is not guaranteed that all the df27 folks were necessarily associated with Celtic folklore and belief.
That's what I told my family: 'oh yeah, our ancestor was a Celt, probably fighting against the Romans'. I am even not sure of that now. It really depends on where the particular CTS4065 branch landed and expanded. If it is in Gaul, Spain or the British Isles around 500 bc, then yes, CT4065 is Celtic. If not, then any scenario is possible. This ancestor could have practiced shamanism until he was directly integrated into a roman federation and switched to Greco-Roman paganism, then Arianism, then Christianism, or he could have switched from Indo-European shamanism to Nordicism and Odinism. It really depends on his location.

I would disagree with you. If L21 is dominant in the Isles, and is more heavily concentrated in the areas that the Celtic Language is and was spoken, and this L21 entered the Isles as early as Bell Beaker, then one must assume that L21 Bell Beaker spoke a language in the Celtic family. You could then assume that the U152 Bell Beaker sample found in Germany also spoke a language in the Celtic family. Since DF27 and U152 share an snp just below P312, you have to then assume that DF27 in its very beginning spoke a language in the Celtic family. You would also then have to assume that at some point maybe all of the various P312 clades spoke at one time a language in the Celtic family. If we had a map of the spread of P312/ Bell Beaker in its most expansive state in history, which could include most of western Europe and portions of eastern Europe and portions of Northern Europe, including Scandinavia, then you would have to assume that languages in the Celtic family would match this map depicting the max spread of Bell Beaker. So if these P312 were then assimilated by other cultures as the Bell Beaker sphere shrank, does this mean they could never have been people who spoke a Celtic language? This is why I disagree.

Ric
02-02-2016, 09:52 PM
So if these P312 were then assimilated by other cultures as the Bell Beaker sphere shrank, does this mean they could never have been people who spoke a Celtic language? This is why I disagree.
I understand your point, but you are not too far to say that all of R1b people spoke a proto-Celtic language which is the contention I raised above.
This is too far back in time, almost 3000bc, to say they spoke a proto-celtic language. I am OK with a 'North-west Indo-European language though, and to quote Wikipedia on the Beaker Culture:
Bell Beaker has been suggested as a candidate for an early Indo-European culture; more specifically, an ancestral proto-Celtic.[89] However, it has most recently been suggested that the Beaker culture was associated with a European branch of Indo-European dialects, termed "North-west Indo-European", ancestral to not only Celtic but equally Italic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic.[90]

Perhaps their is a better consensus on the origins and migration of the L21 group, which means that being L21 almost certainly equates with having a culturally Celtic ancestor, which means that those who are L21 can celebrate their Celtic-ness with confidence and put Celtic crosses and art patterns on their avatars, but for DF27 I don't feel that strong consensus. I agree that most of the DF27 group ended up in the Celtic area but the problem is the branches that didn't go there.

Webb
02-04-2016, 04:29 PM
I understand your point, but you are not too far to say that all of R1b people spoke a proto-Celtic language which is the contention I raised above.
This is too far back in time, almost 3000bc, to say they spoke a proto-celtic language. I am OK with a 'North-west Indo-European language though, and to quote Wikipedia on the Beaker Culture:

Perhaps their is a better consensus on the origins and migration of the L21 group, which means that being L21 almost certainly equates with having a culturally Celtic ancestor, which means that those who are L21 can celebrate their Celtic-ness with confidence and put Celtic crosses and art patterns on their avatars, but for DF27 I don't feel that strong consensus. I agree that most of the DF27 group ended up in the Celtic area but the problem is the branches that didn't go there.

The Bell Beaker suggestion is just that, a suggestion. It is generally accepted that the split between Germanic and Italic/Celtic also corresponds with the split between U106/ P312. At roughly 2500 B.C. P312 itself split into multiple lines, the three largest being L21, U152, DF27. So again, if L21 is associated with the spread of insular Celtic, then that leaves U152 or DF27 as the probable responsible party for Italic/ Continental Celtic. The time frame, relationship, and geography is so close between these three, that until proven otherwise, you have to assume that all three of these P312 groups are on the Italic/ Celtic side of the language family.

Ric
02-04-2016, 05:24 PM
Yes I agree with everything you said here, in general this is probably true for 90% of all DF27 men. However, where I need to be convinced, is that it is true for 100% of the df27 men, depending of the geography.

To be more precise, when you say
It is generally accepted that the split between Germanic and Italic/Celtic also corresponds with the split between U106/ P312. At roughly 2500 B.C. P312 itself split into multiple lines, the three largest being L21, U152, DF27
Is it true for 100% of the cases? can we not imagine some leaky subclades of P312 'introgressing' the U106 Germanic clans from the beginning during the process of these early IE migrations or even In-situ? I mean by that that these leaky P312 people did not even had time to be subjected to any celtic influence before they were directly integrated into a non-celtic (Germanic, Italic or Slavic) culture?
This is where I may be wrong but we can't talk about a proto-celtic culture 2500bc. As said above, It was more about a North-west Indo-European culture that differentiated much later into a Celtic culture.

Or said otherwise, let's say you are a df27+ man living in today's Sweden (there are some) , and your paternal line has been there for a thousand year, can you still say with certainty that your paternal ancestor was a Celt ? (then you can speculate about how he ended up in Sweden 1000 years ago, that's a different issue).

I am not talking about an individual historical case, such as a df27 baby born circa 2500bc being adopted in a U106 family. These things can happen of course and the baby 'ancestor could not have been a Celt because the celtic culture came after he was born. I am talking about entire DF27 subclades, like those few% DF27 present in Southern Norway/Sweden or Central Europe. Were their ancestors Celt?

Webb
02-04-2016, 06:38 PM
Yes I agree with everything you said here, in general this is probably true for 90% of all DF27 men. However, where I need to be convinced, is that it is true for 100% of the df27 men, depending of the geography.

To be more precise, when you say
Is it true for 100% of the cases? can we not imagine some leaky subclades of P312 'introgressing' the U106 Germanic clans from the beginning during the process of these early IE migrations or even In-situ? I mean by that that these leaky P312 people did not even had time to be subjected to any celtic influence before they were directly integrated into a non-celtic (Germanic, Italic or Slavic) culture?
This is where I may be wrong but we can't talk about a proto-celtic culture 2500bc. As said above, It was more about a North-west Indo-European culture that differentiated much later into a Celtic culture.

Or said otherwise, let's say you are a df27+ man living in today's Sweden (there are some) , and your paternal line has been there for a thousand year, can you still say with certainty that your paternal ancestor was a Celt ? (then you can speculate about how he ended up in Sweden 1000 years ago, that's a different issue).

I am not talking about an individual historical case, such as a df27 baby born circa 2500bc being adopted in a U106 family. These things can happen of course and the baby 'ancestor could not have been a Celt because the celtic culture came after he was born. I am talking about entire DF27 subclades, like those few% DF27 present in Southern Norway/Sweden or Central Europe. Were their ancestors Celt?

I am one of those lines actually. My closest snp matches are a Swede, a Dane, and a Dutchman. I am very upstream from these three however, so if DF27 originated somewhere central, say around the mouths of the Danube and Rhine, then all men who descend from this DF27 originator would have at one point been of the same culture and language speaker. So if our ancestor is shared at the DF27 level and originated centrally, at the same time and same place, roughly, as U152 and L21 and they are Celts, then surely DF27 is Celtic also.

razyn
02-04-2016, 07:26 PM
... so if DF27 originated somewhere central, say around the mouths of the Danube and Rhine, then all men who descend from this DF27 originator would have at one point been of the same culture and language speaker.

Um, you probably meant around the heads of the Danube and Rhine? Their mouths are a couple thousand miles apart, give or take. It's all been commercially navigable, more or less, since 1992: http://www.nineoclock.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/TEN-T.png

Ric
02-04-2016, 07:30 PM
... So if our ancestor is shared at the DF27 level and originated centrally, at the same time and same place, roughly, as U152 and L21 and they are Celts, then surely DF27 is Celtic also.
The wording is important here, vs:

So if our ancestor is shared at the DF27 level and originated centrally, at the same time and same place, roughly, as U152 and L21 and those became Celts, then ...

Then your common df27 ancestor 2500bc could have had a language and culture that was no closer to Celtic/Gaelic than it was to Germanic or Italic.
In this wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Celtic_language

The earliest archaeological culture that may justifiably be considered as Proto-Celtic is the Late Bronze Age Urnfield culture of Central Europe from the last quarter of the second millennium BC that'd be 1250 bc. Even if you extend proto-Celtism to 2000bc, your ancestor could have left Central Europe and the Urnfield culture before it became proto-celtic, and moved to a place that did not become celtic later.

Webb
02-04-2016, 07:50 PM
The wording is important here, vs:


Then your common df27 ancestor 2500bc could have had a language and culture that was no closer to Celtic/Gaelic than it was to Germanic or Italic.
In this wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Celtic_language
that'd be 1250 bc. Even if you extend proto-Celtism to 2000bc, your ancestor could have left Central Europe and the Urnfield culture before it became proto-celtic, and moved to a place that did not become celtic later.

I think you are trying to split hairs. DF27, L21, or U152 could have become whatever culture they found themselves in, speaking whatever language that culture was speaking, at any point in time. Your very first statement, and I reread it just to be sure, stated that if you are DF27 in an area with Celtic history, you could consider yourself a Celt. If you are from an area that is not Celtic, then you can't. So, to reverse this argument, would you tell a L21 guy in Norway he is not Celtic, because his L21 is in Norway, verses someone who might share his snp in Ireland? That doesn't make sense to me.

Ric
02-04-2016, 09:57 PM
I'd just like to give a true account of my genetic discoveries to relatives or friends. If I have to say 'my ancestor may have been a Celt, or not' or 'My ancestor was a Celt but I am not sure he actually spoke a Celtic language or followed a Celtic cult', I prefer to say nothing.
Of course it is splitting hair! I perfectly know that all these R1b subclades were Indo-European with a similar background 'Teutates, Thor, Jupiter, Zeus', but I want to go in as much detail as possible. You know, to make an interesting story to talk about at family dinners. People are not interested in the last terminal SNP found in my lineage, they want stories and History : the Druids, the fights with the Romans, Vercingetorix if you are French, or Boudicca if you are British, etc. That's a different storyline than with about a Frankish or other Germanic ancestor.

You make the point that it 'doesn't make sense', well, the visual accounts of the Celts and Germans, found in the Greek and Roman chronicles can be confusing too. Caesar, Tacitus, Strabo and others described the Celts as fair skinned, tall, with blond hair and the Germans as fair skinned, fiery red hair with blue eyes and tall. Not much difference. So the different haplogroups we are talking about here, may have been present in the same regions and not correspond to any different phenotypes because most genes are not on the Y chromosome, neither is the physical appearance. I believe that It is accepted now that the some Celtic tribes in Northern France, Belgium and Germany were sufficiently Germanized to pass for Germans for the Romans.
What happened to them? were they cultural and genetic Celts who had lost their Celtic culture by force and became assimilated under Germanic rule, or were they only Celtic 'by Haplogroup' but were not culturally Celts and never were?

thetick
02-05-2016, 07:31 AM
I'd just like to give a true account of my genetic discoveries to relatives or friends.

I don't mean to troll, but if you want to give a true account you should not be make so many unproven assumptions. You are just one step away from the early DNA "scientists" claiming L21 was Viking DNA and SRY2627 was Basque DNA. Now we all know both statements are complete BS, but intriguing ideas were hastily thrown about just to get people excited. It appears to me this is exactly what you are doing.

Nothing wrong discussing all kinds of ideas based on small amounts of evidence, just don't call them a true account.

That's just my opinion. :)

Ric
02-05-2016, 02:20 PM
you should not be make so many unproven assumptions well actually I make the least demanding assumption: that we don't know everything.

The problem goes down to the following.
Webb and other's argumentation is that since all P312 subclades, circa 2500bc, evolved into pre-Celtic and later celtic cultures, it follows that all df27 (and U152, L21) subclades descent from a Celtic ancestor, even if today some of these subclades are located in Non-Celtic areas, for example South Sweden.
My argumentation is that it is a bit abusive to call 'Celtic' a culture 2500 bc and Wikipedia indicates that 'Proto-Celtism' starts 1250 BC, before that it was Western-Indo-European culture.
The same way that, 500 millions years ago, you cannot call a fish with thick lobed fins a bird or a mammal, even if it evolves into a bird or a mammal later. You still have to call it a fish.

I define a 'Celtic ancestor' somebody who would have spoken a language closer to Gaellic than Old Germanic or Romanic. Somebody who would have call his God 'Toutatis' rather than 'Thor' or 'Zeus'. Somebody who who have followed Druids and other Celtic rituals.

And my question is : is it absolutely sure that all df27 subclades descent from such a Celtic ancestor, especially in the case of those df27 subclades that are present in Southern Sweden or Central Slavic Europe ?
And again I know that probably 90% of all df27subclades did indeed descent from a Celtic ancestor. I just want to be sure for 100% of those at the margins of the Celtic world, like for the Russian roulette in a revolver: 'most bullet chambers are empty'.

ADW_1981
02-05-2016, 03:00 PM
The real answer is probably somewhere in the middle. There were probably L21+ vikings in Norway, but by that same token, there were also L21+ among the Celtic people further south and west. No haplogroup badges existed on anyone's woolen tunics.

BreizAtao
02-26-2016, 03:35 AM
Hello all;

I've been away from all this for some months, and returning I find that FTDNA has added another +SNP test to my long list, so that I am not only CTS-4065, and S1684+, but now also A5362+, and occupy a lonely outpost in the DF27 project along with one John Goodman, totally unlikely to be any sort of kin to me. Now, given the strictures still in effect in France discouraging genetic testing, it's not likely that I'll run into kin here, although all four of my grandparental names are most common in one Breton Department ( Cotes-d'Armor), and I have cousins there by the many dozen. I've extended the genealogical data my mother gave me, and it's clear few apples fell far from the tree over many generations. Ho-Hum. Does anyone have any idea where we're going beyond CTS-4065? Are you there, Razyn?

Cheers,

BreizAtao

razyn
02-26-2016, 05:45 AM
Does anyone have any idea where we're going beyond CTS-4065? Are you there, Razyn?
I am here. You are already two levels below CTS4065, and I suppose if someone just like you tests, you may get lower still (on the basis of the BigY you already had). You are (Z209>Z295>CTS4065>S16864>A5362), just according to what's visible in the public project. We don't really have a lot of data from that subclade yet. S16864 was discovered in Chromo2 tests, so we know how to look for it -- but not many from the region of its higher frequency seem to be testing at FTDNA. Maybe, not testing anywhere. Whether because it's rare, or because it's French -- either way, we have no means to make the S16864 tested population swell, they have to actually test.

You could download your BigY .vcf file and then upload it (zipped) to the Files area of the DF27 Yahoo group. Or email it to me, or to Alex Williamson. Then Alex could analyze it (free) and you could get on the Big Tree, which currently you aren't (and neither is Goodman). You would be a subclade of S16864, here: http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=634&star=false

Wiborg
03-08-2016, 02:12 PM
Found myself under CTS4065->FGC34881.
In this subclade is a french, an italien and a german (me).
The hole CTS4065 have unfortunately a rather wide scattering field.
I hope that someday aDNA will be found for CTS4065.

Ric
03-08-2016, 03:17 PM
@ Wiborg,

Do you match any of the two others with STR ?

Ric
03-09-2016, 02:31 PM
I asked this because I, personally, do not match CTS4065 + people more that I match other DF27 subclades at the 12 marker level. I actually match more non-df27 people (U106 and other) than CTS4065 (again: at the 12 marker level).
And my sample of 12 marker matches is significant : > 1500, all SNPs included, ~50 for only those that are df27 and subclades, and only 1 who is CTS4065.

I can speculate why this happens :
1) I am very modal for the first 12 markers ( i.e. I 'll match many R1b guys just by 'chance') and very off modal for the other markers (i.e. I won't match anybody by just chance for the next 37, 67, or 111 markers, it has to be a real relative for that to happen)
2) I am from France, very under-sampled.

The reason why I expected some enrichment in CTS4065+ matches :
CTS4065 is a thousand years younger (3400 bp) than DF27 (4500 bp). That is still significant, I mean population patterns barely started to set 3400 bp, like Celts in the British Isles. They were not fully set of course, but the trend started so having some enrichment in CTS4065+ STR Relatives was not a crazy expectation.
But that did not happen, so I am curious to know if this trend repeat for other CTS4065+ people, or if the points 1) and 2) above are just a killer.

Ric
03-09-2016, 03:41 PM
Actually, using the function : "Haplogroup Origins", looking for the CTS4065+ among my matches,

I have :

At GD=0, one 12 marker match from England,
At GD=1, two from France, one from Sicily, one from England

But except the one from England at GD=1, the matches from France and Sicily don't show up in my list when I filter for 'DF27 and subclade'. I thought it could the same person declaring his paternal linage 'path' through different countries, but it can't be the same person because according to my list, I have no GD=0, 12 marker match CTS4065+, only one from England at GD=1. It must be some anonymous people who have not made their snps public, since I have 12/12 matches from France, but they declare only as M-269. I am not sure how works the Haplogroup Origins thing.

Arch
03-10-2016, 10:21 AM
I'd just like to give a true account of my genetic discoveries to relatives or friends. If I have to say 'my ancestor may have been a Celt, or not' or 'My ancestor was a Celt but I am not sure he actually spoke a Celtic language or followed a Celtic cult', I prefer to say nothing.
Of course it is splitting hair! I perfectly know that all these R1b subclades were Indo-European with a similar background 'Teutates, Thor, Jupiter, Zeus', but I want to go in as much detail as possible. You know, to make an interesting story to talk about at family dinners. People are not interested in the last terminal SNP found in my lineage, they want stories and History : the Druids, the fights with the Romans, Vercingetorix if you are French, or Boudicca if you are British, etc. That's a different storyline than with about a Frankish or other Germanic ancestor.

You make the point that it 'doesn't make sense', well, the visual accounts of the Celts and Germans, found in the Greek and Roman chronicles can be confusing too. Caesar, Tacitus, Strabo and others described the Celts as fair skinned, tall, with blond hair and the Germans as fair skinned, fiery red hair with blue eyes and tall. Not much difference. So the different haplogroups we are talking about here, may have been present in the same regions and not correspond to any different phenotypes because most genes are not on the Y chromosome, neither is the physical appearance. I believe that It is accepted now that the some Celtic tribes in Northern France, Belgium and Germany were sufficiently Germanized to pass for Germans for the Romans.
What happened to them? were they cultural and genetic Celts who had lost their Celtic culture by force and became assimilated under Germanic rule, or were they only Celtic 'by Haplogroup' but were not culturally Celts and never were?

Ric, I understand the desire to have a sense of cultural identity associated with your genetic ancestry. The truth is just too seemingly elusive as history points out time and time again whenever a genetic sublcade is associated with a culture, tribe, or whatever, it pretty much is rendered invalid rather quickly now. We have two things, the current or very recent dispersion of SNPs along with their STR diversity, autosomal DNA, and ancient DNA. I don't think we'll ever get a conclusive answer to identify a genetic subclade to any one specific people or culture going back to the pre-historic record of Eurasia. It's depressing that you can't tell your relatives with 100% certainty your y-DNA lineage is lets say "Viking" but you can always adopt a new culture then interbreed and in all essence genetically become a part of something new that enriches your genetic cultural heritage. I've done my share to procreate and be a part of different cultures and my children are of various ethnic mixtures. That is why I'm part of the broke clan/tribe but I have beautiful children to make up for it; interracial breeding is so worth it bruh.

Arch

Arch
03-10-2016, 11:06 AM
I don't mean to troll, but if you want to give a true account you should not be make so many unproven assumptions. You are just one step away from the early DNA "scientists" claiming L21 was Viking DNA and SRY2627 was Basque DNA. Now we all know both statements are complete BS, but intriguing ideas were hastily thrown about just to get people excited. It appears to me this is exactly what you are doing.

Nothing wrong discussing all kinds of ideas based on small amounts of evidence, just don't call them a true account.

That's just my opinion. :)

I'm not about to give up my porron, not yet at least. That is, I won't give the porron up until somebody points out to me any valid research that declares SRY2627+ as not a primarily Iberian dispersed subclade. I don't know about the Basque thing for SRY2627+; the clade is there but in very low numbers. I'm still waiting for that ever elusive group or clustering of SRY2627+ hiding under a rock elsewhere far outside of Iberia - something about proof of evidence is no absence, or absence of evidence is no proof of absence, or absence is evidence of proof garbage. :deadhorse:

I agree, this "Viking" thing got out of control and I also remember that one time only Haplogroup I could be Vikings.

Ric
03-10-2016, 04:03 PM
Arch, OK.

Ric
04-01-2016, 02:06 PM
At least I learned on Wikipedia what was a porron. Good when filled with wine but not so sure with beer. You may have to give it up for an Auroch horn, Arch.
https://yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/ indicates :
(for SRY2627)
R-Z262Z263 * Z201/S457 * Z204+10 SNPsformed 4500 ybp, TMRCA 3800 ybpinfo

SNP formed 4500bp ! not a chance it was in Spain.

Ric
04-06-2016, 08:58 PM
@ William Webb

I have now a second occurrence of an individual with the name 'Webb' at 23&me (autosomal segment that is) . This is Ms. Anna Mae McQuitty-Coe and she lists 3 names : McQuitty, Hanna, Webb.

The fist individual was Ms. Springer, who listed the names : "Flannery, Kiernan, O'Rourke, Schupp, Horvers, Kushman, MATERNAL, Davis, Cutting, Fiske/Fisk, Hayward, Court, Winterer, Fairbanks, Crosby, Tirrell, Winchester, Willis, Kathan, Wright, Blann, Gardner, Barnard, Porter, Frost, Lewis, Harrington, Tyler, Catlin, Whitmarsh, Ford, Hubbard, Rowley, Smith, Champney, Holbrook, Eager, Baird, Samson, Cook, Allen, Hersey, Phillips, Nash, Roberts, Leland, Goodenow, Cranbroke, Weed/Weede, Davidson, Gasclock, Watts, Earle/DeEarle, Bassett, Webb, Rainsford, Jenkins, Willard, Tilden, Fuller, Crippen, Moore, Palmer, Hopkins, Sawin, Stone, Hill, Russell, Sealis, Stevens/Stephens, Buckminster, Robinson, Starkey, Geere, Cheever, Ives, George, Reynolds, Whitney, Ward, Kerley, Hill, White "

Ric
06-20-2016, 08:07 PM
(The post above was to discuss the endurance of autosomal segments, often said to survive 2 or 300 years after an introgression into a different gene pool, while here these segments should be more than 500 years)

Anyways, I have a question regarding the BY3282 subclade of CTS4065.
In the BigTree of Alex Williamson, I share a branch with people because we share 6 novel variants. These people are in the group Bbg of the Df27 group, while I am not (I am in Bba). This is because, I assume, they are positive for subclade BY3282 and I am negative for it. I knew that I was BY3282- after my Z209 pack and since my BigY didn't change that, I must really be negative for it then.

How can I interpret that ?
Is is possible that BY3282 is a mutation that appeared AFTER the 6 novel variants that I was talking about above ? So let's say these 6 variants were used to define a new stable SNP branch, BY3282 would be downstream of it, perhaps appearing very recently.
Any other possibility ?

razyn
06-22-2016, 01:12 PM
Is is possible that BY3282 is a mutation that appeared AFTER the 6 novel variants that I was talking about above ?
Looks that way to me. The six are a bit fishy looking, in that they all begin 239772xx (with the last two digits between 66 and 89). But the loci appear stable enough, as far as I can see (e.g. in Alex's Mutations Index, and the YFull browser). Alex has them on the same level as several other known SNPs, of which he picks BY3279 in preference to BY3282. In that case, just bump BY3282 down a step, the other two guys are in that subclade and you aren't.

That's the elegant solution, currently. Somebody else's BAM file may prove otherwise, but at the moment we don't have such evidence. Also, YFull doesn't have an example of any of these three samples, so that makes it impossible to verify or contradict with their separate analysis.


So let's say these 6 variants were used to define a new stable SNP branch, BY3282 would be downstream of it, perhaps appearing very recently.
Any other possibility ?

Just the possibility that it's not really very recent. I'll put you in group Bbg with them, rename it BY3279, and we can see if their STRs look more like each other, and less like you. Btw your listing as Bba is kind of old (predates your BigY results), but FTDNA hasn't assigned you a new "terminal" SNP yet so that display didn't alert me to move you elsewhere. (Bba really just meant FGC15710 negative, w/o further differentiation.)

Ric
06-22-2016, 03:11 PM
Thanks razyn. I know the thing is complex and there is no chance it will get easier anytime soon.

It's too bad the other person that I match in BigY is not in the df27 group, or in the BigTree. He has an Irish name, with terminal haplogroup BY3282. I said above that in terms of SNP, he was perhaps a little closer to me than the 2 others in group Bbg, but scratch that. Davis and I in group Bbg may actually be a bit closer because we have more Matching SNPs total in common. But in terms of STR, I match none of them.
Bad luck here : I have a few 12/12 STR matchs with several Davis people, but they are not the same Davis who is in group Bbg. That doesn't inspire me confidence in a recent common ancestor. And between all of us 3 in group Bbg (4 if I count the Irish guy who should be there) I can't find any recognizable common pattern in names and locations. It goes from Eastern Europe to France, England and Ireland and since STR don't fit, once again and unfortunately, CTS3279 or BY3282 are probably very old, which makes CTS4065 crazy old.
...Keep digging.

Ric
08-15-2016, 10:22 PM
I have been put in my own branch in the BigTree, I feel lonely now.

Titane
10-30-2016, 01:45 AM
I have been put in my own branch in the BigTree, I feel lonely now.
Just imagine if you were a woman like me, you would have to resort to begging to find out where you are from. But I am not writing here to complain, but to get an idea about the information I can find on the family tree DNA French Heritage project. Because different members have done different amount of testing the Y haplogroup that is reported from one line to the next is very different, although their STRs can be very similar. So here is my question: if two lines are separated with only one or 2 STRs difference and one is R-M269 and the other one is R-SRY2627, how likely is it that in fact the first one is also R-SRY2627?
There are many French people in the group, but the location of the ancestors can be very different like Charente Maritimes, Gascogne or Pyrenees and of course intermixed with Britain, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

razyn
10-30-2016, 04:42 AM
if two lines are separated with only one or 2 STRs difference and one is R-M269 and the other one is R-SRY2627, how likely is it that in fact the first one is also R-SRY2627?
There are too many unknowns for a simple answer, but: if you mean two lines that share a surname, and have some paper trail to a common ancestor or ancestral region, and the 1-2 STR difference is at a high number of markers (say, 67 or 111) -- then it's pretty likely that the M269 guy is not just SRY2627, but also belongs in some subclade well downstream of that (for which neither sample has yet been tested). But both kits should get a Z198 SNP Pack test, to determine that -- insofar as it's a subclade of SRY2627 that was known and included in the latest revision date of the SNP Pack.

Titane
10-30-2016, 12:14 PM
There are too many unknowns for a simple answer, but: if you mean two lines that share a surname, and have some paper trail to a common ancestor or ancestral region, and the 1-2 STR difference is at a high number of markers (say, 67 or 111) -- then it's pretty likely that the M269 guy is not just SRY2627, but also belongs in some subclade well downstream of that (for which neither sample has yet been tested). But both kits should get a Z198 SNP Pack test, to determine that -- insofar as it's a subclade of SRY2627 that was known and included in the latest revision date of the SNP Pack.
Thank you for this clear answer. So, in summary the answer is no, the STRs are not enough to draw conclusions about the relatedness of the persons tested. I still found it puzzling to find my Scottish clan name and my French ancestor, on the same page, only 10 lines apart, but the only thing I know for sure is they are both R-M269.

As a beggar, I cannot demand anything of course, but maybe wish that FT-DNA revised their marketing strategies so as to make it easy for people to upgrade their results as new tests become available.

razyn
10-30-2016, 01:34 PM
So, in summary the answer is no, the STRs are not enough to draw conclusions about the relatedness of the persons tested.
Pretty much. There are cases in which the STR signature differs from an expected modal pattern; and two samples that share very rare off-modals at slow mutating positions will often prove to share a SNP (not necessarily a recent one) that has created the descent group in which both are found. But these STR "signatures" (of off-modals shared at several positions) occur randomly; and there is no reason to expect such a pattern to be revealed by a cheap, standardized STR test (like the 12-marker Panel 1, on the way to the fairly expensive 111, at FTDNA). YSEQ will design a custom test for a pattern of off-modals that can be very useful in a surname project; also quick and inexpensive per person. But its results are invisible to FTDNA, so they would not help to sort the French Heritage Project there (mentioned in your previous post).

If you have two samples from different cultural background that match 35/37, that may only prove something pretty ancient and obvious (e.g. that their shared ancestry is from western Europe, not China). SRY2627 is more specific than that, but M269 isn't.

ArmandoR1b
10-30-2016, 02:11 PM
As a beggar, I cannot demand anything of course, but maybe wish that FT-DNA revised their marketing strategies so as to make it easy for people to upgrade their results as new tests become available.
It is actually very easy if they ask how. All they have to do is log in to their account then click on the Upgrade button at the top then click on the Buy Now link under Advanced Tests then select SNP Pack in the Test Type drop down box then type Z198 in the search box then click FIND then then click Add then click Order Now then follow through with the order.

The following link works to go directly to the Advanced tests form https://www.familytreedna.com/upgrades.aspx?ot=ADV

Anyone with an FTDNA account, even females, can search the Advanced Tests page to see what is offered.

Titane
10-30-2016, 02:32 PM
Pretty much. There are cases in which the STR signature differs from an expected modal pattern; and two samples that share very rare off-modals at slow mutating positions will often prove to share a SNP (not necessarily a recent one) that has created the descent group in which both are found. But these STR "signatures" (of off-modals shared at several positions) occur randomly; and there is no reason to expect such a pattern to be revealed by a cheap, standardized STR test (like the 12-marker Panel 1, on the way to the fairly expensive 111, at FTDNA). YSEQ will design a custom test for a pattern of off-modals that can be very useful in a surname project; also quick and inexpensive per person. But its results are invisible to FTDNA, so they would not help to sort the French Heritage Project there (mentioned in your previous post).

If you have two samples from different cultural background that match 35/37, that may only prove something pretty ancient and obvious (e.g. that their shared ancestry is from western Europe, not China). SRY2627 is more specific than that, but M269 isn't.
I guess I just need to be patient...
Another of my ancestors, Jean Coste/Côté went from J2 to J-M172, to J-CTS1192 and triangulated - in a few years. It still does not tell us where he came from, but I guess as we find more people with that haplogroup, we may get to know eventually. I had found some J2 Da Costa from the Açores that have many similar STRs - a common ancient ancestor is I guess still possible.

Ric
10-30-2016, 10:24 PM
Just imagine if you were a woman like me, you would have to resort to begging to find out where you are from. But I am not writing here to complain, but to get an idea about the information I can find on the family tree DNA French Heritage project. Because different members have done different amount of testing the Y haplogroup that is reported from one line to the next is very different, although their STRs can be very similar. So here is my question: if two lines are separated with only one or 2 STRs difference and one is R-M269 and the other one is R-SRY2627, how likely is it that in fact the first one is also R-SRY2627?
There are many French people in the group, but the location of the ancestors can be very different like Charente Maritimes, Gascogne or Pyrenees and of course intermixed with Britain, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

I can add to that and to what razyn said further.
I have ~ 4000 11/12 or12/12 STR matches. One would expect that I have more and more of these STR matches among those people who are closer and closer to me in terms of SNP clades when I go down my Y haplotree, namely DF27, then Z209 or Z295, then CTS4065 and then finally in those individuals who are almost in my own final branch. Of course, those 4000 STR matches of mine have not all had a SNP pack or a BigY test to determine their haplogroup, so I cannot say with certainty that none of them are actually in my final subclade, but I am talking here about the opposite, that among those who have done a SNP test, I should expect them to be STR matches as well, especially as they get closer and closer to my haplotree. This is again assuming that all these SNP testees are clients of FTDNA and have done a STR test at FTDNA, and that is the majority of the cases I believe. Once they pop up as 'SNP match' to me, I can therefore look at them in my list of STR matches. What I see is that there doesn't seem to be more STR matches enrichment among my SNP matches. Actually among those who are my closest BigY/SNP matches in my subclade, none are even 12/12 STR matches !

PS : although a particular SNP match Mr. X is not necessarily an STR match, there is however some sort of enrichment in the name X in my STR match list. It's possible that among these STR match named X, some are actually in, or very close to my final Haplogroup subclade, but they havn't done the test. So the issue of having more STR match among one's SNP matches is perhaps still open. I can say that if there is an enrichment, it is not very strong anyways, otherwise ALL my SNP matches would be STR matches as well, as least at 12 marker level.

Titane
11-01-2016, 12:54 PM
I can add to that and to what razyn said further.
I have ~ 4000 11/12 or12/12 STR matches. One would expect that I have more and more of these STR matches among those people who are closer and closer to me in terms of SNP clades when I go down my Y haplotree, namely DF27, then Z209 or Z295, then CTS4065 and then finally in those individuals who are almost in my own final branch. Of course, those 4000 STR matches of mine have not all had a SNP pack or a BigY test to determine their haplogroup, so I cannot say with certainty that none of them are actually in my final subclade, but I am talking here about the opposite, that among those who have done a SNP test, I should expect them to be STR matches as well, especially as they get closer and closer to my haplotree. This is again assuming that all these SNP testees are clients of FTDNA and have done a STR test at FTDNA, and that is the majority of the cases I believe. Once they pop up as 'SNP match' to me, I can therefore look at them in my list of STR matches. What I see is that there doesn't seem to be more STR matches enrichment among my SNP matches. Actually among those who are my closest BigY/SNP matches in my subclade, none are even 12/12 STR matches !

PS : although a particular SNP match Mr. X is not necessarily an STR match, there is however some sort of enrichment in the name X in my STR match list. It's possible that among these STR match named X, some are actually in, or very close to my final Haplogroup subclade, but they havn't done the test. So the issue of having more STR match among one's SNP matches is perhaps still open. I can say that if there is an enrichment, it is not very strong anyways, otherwise ALL my SNP matches would be STR matches as well, as least at 12 marker level.

So, if I understand well, the idea of the administrators of the French Heritage Project to list the names in the order of STRs instead of surnames, when not yet proven by triangulation, could be misleading inasmuch as it infers some closeness that is not "real".

razyn
11-01-2016, 01:57 PM
In an otherwise unsorted project the computer at FTDNA sorts in the order of STRs (from left to right, i.e. disregarding "signatures" of off-modals and so on). It's not an administrative decision. Even when admins move their members into subgroups, e.g. by surname or SNP test, each subgroup is still sorted the same way by the same computer.

Ric
11-01-2016, 02:12 PM
So, if I understand well, the idea of the administrators of the French Heritage Project to list the names in the order of STRs instead of surnames, when not yet proven by triangulation, could be misleading inasmuch as it infers some closeness that is not "real".

With 12 markers it would indeed be VERY misleading, but with more 67 markers with a GD less than 7, chances are the people are 'likely' related. The more marker used, the less likely it is a false match, but a false match is still possible.
SNPs a re not widely used yet, and most men test for STR rather than SNPs, that's the only reason to run a project with STR markers rather than SNPs.

I am also part of a group-name which is mostly sorted with STR but it is also sorted under different (and very different, from I, E to r1b-M269) Y haplogroups. Unfortunately, most Haplogroups are very shallow, at best R-M269.

Titane
11-01-2016, 04:38 PM
With 12 markers it would indeed be VERY misleading, but with more 67 markers with a GD less than 7, chances are the people are 'likely' related. The more marker used, the less likely it is a false match, but a false match is still possible.
SNPs a re not widely used yet, and most men test for STR rather than SNPs, that's the only reason to run a project with STR markers rather than SNPs.

I am also part of a group-name which is mostly sorted with STR but it is also sorted under different (and very different, from I, E to r1b-M269) Y haplogroups. Unfortunately, most Haplogroups are very shallow, at best R-M269.
Thanks/merci Ric
Of course with a surname that describes an occupation like Smith or Boucher (Butcher) or the name of a place of origin, diversity is to be expected. Less so with a clan name such as McDonald. I was just surprised to see my Mc... (Scottish) so close to a Le... (French).

aq63
11-16-2016, 12:19 AM
Does anyone have details/origin of the Z295 SNP?

Here on the SNP's I have matched so far:
Z295
Z209
Z195
P312
P311
P310
P297
M343
M269
L51
L389
L278
L23

razyn
11-16-2016, 01:41 AM
Does anyone have details/origin of the Z295 SNP?

Take a look at the current Big Tree picture of Z295 and its subclades: http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=631&star=false

And compare that with my post #3 on this thread, well over three years ago. The SNPs below Z295 that I listed then have a bit more company now; CTS4065 is a subclade of S1220 (but by far the main one, as far as we yet know), and CTS12074 is a subclade of Z216 (but by far the main one, as far as we yet know). So one might quibble about smaller details; but looking at the flag symbols on the said Big Tree, what I said then is still relatively the case. The S1220>CTS4065 side is mostly found north or east of Iberia; and the Z216>CTS12074 side is found mostly in those whose MDKA was in France, Iberia, or their colonies in the western hemisphere (whom we usually just lump together as Iberian).

How ancient do we perceive that division to have been? You can get some sort of dates from YFull; but not all of us believe their dating methodology is very reliable. It's also possible, but unproven, that the not-reliably-dated Bell Beaker aDNA sample RISE560 belongs to one of the Iberian branches below Z216; yet it was found in present Augsburg, Germany. We could perceive its departure from the expected geography as further evidence that its identified SNP M12124 is unstable. And that's as may be; the only other sample (modern) in which M12124 has turned up so far belongs to an otherwise unexplored subclade of Z216>Z214, which YFull dates only 2500 years before present -- rather too young for a Bell Beaker burial.

I don't want to get into questions of epistemology on this thread. All of us have seen pretty much the same evidence, but we don't all believe it to be saying the same thing. More and better evidence is coming down the road, a little too slowly to make everybody happy, but it's coming.

Ric
11-22-2016, 07:43 PM
Hello all;

I've been away from all this for some months, and returning I find that FTDNA has added another +SNP test to my long list, so that I am not only CTS-4065, and S1684+, but now also A5362+, and occupy a lonely outpost in the DF27 project along with one John Goodman, totally unlikely to be any sort of kin to me. Now, given the strictures still in effect in France discouraging genetic testing, it's not likely that I'll run into kin here, although all four of my grandparental names are most common in one Breton Department ( Cotes-d'Armor), and I have cousins there by the many dozen. I've extended the genealogical data my mother gave me, and it's clear few apples fell far from the tree over many generations. Ho-Hum. Does anyone have any idea where we're going beyond CTS-4065? Are you there, Razyn?

Cheers,

BreizAtao
Hi BreizAtao,
Based on your description and your Y Haplogroup, I believe you are one of my BigY match. You can easily find who I am since I should be your only BigY match from Haplogroup CTS4065>BY12176.
You said your ancestry is from Brittany or nearby Normandy perhaps, but this is 'recent' ancestry. I mean 'recent' in terms of Y SNP can be a thousand years and the mutation CTS4065 is estimated to have appeared 3900 years ago (estimation by Yfull). So even 1000 years is recent.

My question : do you have any hint, like some good STR matches or other BigY matches, that suggests that your patrilineal ancestry is in Belgium or the Netherlands, rather than Brittany ?

This is where, I believe, my own (as I said I am CTS4065>BY12176) patrilineal branch originates. Perhaps it is where the mutation CTS4065 itself appeared : somewhere North West of Germany along today's Belgian/Dutch/German border. After all, a very close ancestor of CTS4065, Mr. Df27s lived barely ~ 400 or 500 kilometers South of there, I am talking about RISE560 in Augsburg.

It is way easier to go North from Augsburg, trough hilly lands and rivers (the Rhine or others) and end up near flat Belgium facing the Channel, than attacking the Alps and then Pyreneans to finish in the Basque country, only to have second thoughts and come all the way back almost exactly from where you started. Simple family diffusion over the generations will have the same likely destination. Starting from South Germany, the Alps mountains act as an efficient barrier, so by simple population diffusion during the Bronze age, CTS4065 will end up more surely in Belgium than in the Basque country. I don't know what could be the incentive to stay in Northern France/Belgium 1900 BC, perhaps the Rhine, perhaps the sight of the cliffs of Dover...

Anyways, this is speculation of course, nonetheless there is a bit of data that suggests there is a DF27 hot spot in Belgium/Netherlands. So it is not absurd to propose that CTS4065 originates from there as well.

Wiborg
12-07-2016, 07:49 PM
Hello!
I´m in a subclade of CTS4065 -> R-FGC34881.
At the moment we are 4+1 men there from Italy, Germany, France, Spain and Mexico.
4 men did a BigY and Y111 (one Y67). The italien has to do all test, he just transfered his result from a NatGeno Kit.

When my BigY result arrived i got an message from a Mr. vanVliet who told me that the Spanish and i share a common ancestor not more then 1.000 years ago.
I wrote him a couple of times emails but he never responded.

So my question is how can i determine the time between two BigY results? Is it also possible to dertermine the time with Y111 comparing? If so HOW?

From the BigY results (shared novel variants) i interpret that next to me is the Spanish then the Mexican and at least French. So i am interested when i share a common ancestor with the Mexican and French (later with the Italien).

On the other hand i want to ask for some advice what we (our subclade) can do next? We transfered our result to http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=30
We are starting to get a Sequence interpretation at https://www.yfull.com/
I ask for an upgrade from Y67 to Y111

Does it make any sense to transfer FamilyFinder results to gedmatch for comparing at different calculators?

Thank you
Wiborg

razyn
12-07-2016, 10:42 PM
So my question is how can i determine the time between two BigY results?

I have replied privately about some of your concerns. I can't explain the dating or TMRCA estimates that Hans van Vliet suggested to you. I have seen some of his work, and believe he had a good method (based at least in part on pairwise mismatch, Arlequin software, and some perhaps original techniques for genetic data manipulation). I admire that capability, but cannot duplicate it. He was looking at a very narrowly delimited group of men who share many known SNPs -- not just two random kits, in the general population.


On the other hand i want to ask for some advice what we (our subclade) can do next? We transfered our result to http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=30
We are starting to get a Sequence interpretation at https://www.yfull.com/
I ask for an upgrade from Y67 to Y111

Does it make any sense to transfer FamilyFinder results to gedmatch for comparing at different calculators?


I think you are making most of the right moves, for YDNA.

Family Finder and Gedmatch are very useful for your more recent ancestry, at least. Those autosomal tests and analyses aren't going to have much bearing on your YDNA, since you already know much more about that from the BigY matches you have already had. To some degree you will still have to wait for someone else to get tested, who will match you better. And answer your emails.

Webb
02-08-2017, 03:18 PM
Hello!
I´m in a subclade of CTS4065 -> R-FGC34881.
At the moment we are 4+1 men there from Italy, Germany, France, Spain and Mexico.
4 men did a BigY and Y111 (one Y67). The italien has to do all test, he just transfered his result from a NatGeno Kit.

When my BigY result arrived i got an message from a Mr. vanVliet who told me that the Spanish and i share a common ancestor not more then 1.000 years ago.
I wrote him a couple of times emails but he never responded.

So my question is how can i determine the time between two BigY results? Is it also possible to dertermine the time with Y111 comparing? If so HOW?

From the BigY results (shared novel variants) i interpret that next to me is the Spanish then the Mexican and at least French. So i am interested when i share a common ancestor with the Mexican and French (later with the Italien).

On the other hand i want to ask for some advice what we (our subclade) can do next? We transfered our result to http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=30
We are starting to get a Sequence interpretation at https://www.yfull.com/
I ask for an upgrade from Y67 to Y111

Does it make any sense to transfer FamilyFinder results to gedmatch for comparing at different calculators?

Thank you
Wiborg

I notice there is a new kit in Alex's Big Tree who is R-FGC34881. The surname he lists is a bit different from what is in the DF27 project at FTDNA. He lists his country of origin as Spain, however, his middle and last names are a Spanish version of typically French surnames.

Ric
02-08-2017, 04:34 PM
I notice there is a new kit in Alex's Big Tree who is R-FGC34881. The surname he lists is a bit different from what is in the DF27 project at FTDNA. He lists his country of origin as Spain, however, his middle and last names are a Spanish version of typically French surnames.
I second that. Assuming I am talking about the right kit/name, there are countless names ending in 'Bert' in North Eastern France, like Lambert, Heaubert, Gilbert, starting from the famous French King Dagobert.
Interestingly, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_(name) we read :
There is no evidence of the berht element in Germanic personal names prior to the 6th century. It is mostly unknown in names of Goths, Vandals, Frisians or Norse, and only rarely occurs in names of Saxons. By contrast, it is very common among Anglo-Saxons, Lombards, Franks and Bavarians...

Webb
02-08-2017, 04:50 PM
I second that. Assuming I am talking about the right kit/name, there are countless names ending in 'Bert' in North Eastern France, like Lambert, Heaubert, Gilbert, starting from the famous French King Dagobert.
Interestingly, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_(name) we read :

Yes, I believe we are talking about the same kit/name. The middle name is also a surname typically found in French and Norman English.

razyn
05-25-2017, 03:38 PM
This branch of the haplotree is getting more complicated, and the various trees used by YFull, FTDNA, and the Big Tree don't agree very perfectly. Part of the problem (as usual) is the "iffy" status of some key SNPs. In the Haplotree display at FTDNA for a new FGC34881+ sample, I was surprised to see some recent shifting about of FGC15712 (and other SNPs closely related to it). All of those FGC157xx SNPs (below CTS4065) were identified in my own sample at FGC, shortly before the BigY test came on line. We have a lot of company, now, with NextGen results.

Clearly, this is still a work in progress. But work is being done, and progress seems inevitable -- if not quite firmly settled, yet.

Ric
10-05-2017, 04:49 PM
Yes, I believe we are talking about the same kit/name. The middle name is also a surname typically found in French and Norman English.

@Webb,
On a different topic, I mentioned before that I have a few ' Webb' autosomal matches at 23&me, but I don't know if I mentioned that I also have one at FTDNA FF: Ms. Joanne Webb. A relative of yours ?
I opened a thread on the feeds about this issue with no great success.
Basically, I suggested that beside the usual explanations (non-specific matches, true matches but through unrelated lines, coincidence with a widespread surname, etc. ) there could be another explanation : that the CTS4065 SNP was younger than believed, causing an enrichment in family surnames among the paternal and autosomal lines that branched off CTS4065 during the last 1 or 2000 years, which may still be at the limit of detection in autosomal matches.

PS: and if it is true, then other CTS4065+ should have the same enrichment in double matches BigY + autosomal matches with the same surname, even names from countries where no known autosomal connection exists.
Unfortunately that exclude countries who barely tests, like France, since it is very unlikely that you'll get any French autosomal match at all, not to mention an autosomal match with the same name than your BigY match.

razyn
10-05-2017, 06:23 PM
Basically, I suggested that beside the usual explanations (non-specific matches, true matches but through unrelated lines, coincidence with a widespread surname, etc. ) there could be another explanation : that the CTS4065 SNP was younger than believed, causing an enrichment in family surnames among the paternal and autosomal lines that branched off CTS4065 during the last 1 or 2000 years, which may still be at the limit of detection in autosomal matches.

CTS4065 goes by other names, and in the following case it's S1221. Anyway, FWIW, here's the dating for S1221 at this site: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/table.html

S1221 [Best guess] 1972 BC [95% confidence interval] (2625 BC — 1389 BC)

Ric
10-05-2017, 08:14 PM
CTS4065 goes by other names, and in the following case it's S1221. Anyway, FWIW, here's the dating for S1221 at this site: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/table.html

S1221 [Best guess] 1972 BC [95% confidence interval] (2625 BC — 1389 BC)

1972bc... or almost 4000 years old. This is very old. I am totally aware of the false match issue for small segments.

I quote this web site
https://gcbias.org/2013/05/10/identification-of-genomic-regions-shared-between-distant-relatives/

However, a direct calculation using our inferred demographic histories says that the typical age of a 10 cM block shared by two individuals from the United Kingdom is between 32 and 52 generations (depending on the inferred distribution used). This giant discrepancy results from the fact that you are a priori much more likely to share a common genetic ancestor further in the past, and this acts to skew our answers away from the naive expectation—even though it is unlikely that a 10 cM block is inherited from a particular shared ancestor from 40 generations ago, there are a great number of such older shared ancestors. As discussed above, our estimated does depend drastically on the populations’ shared histories: for instance, the age of such a block shared by someone from the United Kingdom with someone from Italy is even older, usually from around 60 generations ago.

60 generations, that barely brings me 1200 years, not even half way to CTS4065.
But matching British people and matching British people with the same name as the BigY matches is a different issue, because :
If I match Webb-autosomal out of pure chance, shouldn't I match the entire British population out of pure chance (with the same segment size) ?
And as opposed to that, I only have 98 autosomal matches total at FTDNA, including one Webb, which clearly indicates that I only match a tiny fraction of the British autosomal database.


Perhaps a middle ground can be found if we assume that the CTS4065/Webb-paternal-line and CTS4065/my-paternal-line stayed together in contact in or near the same autosomal genetic pool much longer after their SNP diverged, therefore on the continent since I assume my paternal lineage never left the continent. So that basically, the Webb paternal line, including its side branches, still had a very similar autosomal make up compared to my own paternal line in times compatible with autosomal matches, therefore much less than 4000 years.
In practice, to me, I assume that part of the autosomal make up that is derived form my paternal lineage has a 'South Dutch' signature at gedmatch, of which I have plenty. I may have asked, but do you have a South Dutch signature at gedmatch, Mr. Webb ?

Ric
10-06-2017, 03:45 PM
Since I have the same occurrence of double matches with other people in the group Z295+/CTS4065, all of them Anglo, I guess that I can generalize to all of them, i.e. it's not just the Webbs and my own paternal line that stayed in the same autosomal genetic pool, it is many of the Z295+ folks.

Here is the global picture that I propose: the Z295 or CTS4075 SNP mutations appeared 1972BC as indicated, or around 4000 years ago. Since then the Y lineages continue to diverge, but the people themselves, in this case the men, don't move physically, they stay in the same area. In fact they stay together for 2000 more years ! marry similar women etc. so that by the time of Julius Cesar, they have a very similar autosomal make up.
2000 years is at the extreme limit of how long autosomal segments, necessarily short and shredded, can survive in individuals, so when the Roman Invasions of Gaul and Belgica triggered a migration of these populations to the British isles, it is not impossible to imagine that their descendants can still share very small autosomal segments with the continental Z295 people.
And where was that area of common autosomal pool for the Z295/CTS4065 lineages ? technically it could be anywhere as long as the lineages stay together to keep their autosomal make up similar, but it would make lots of sense if that area was close to the birth cradle of these df27 subclades, and also not too far from the British isles. In short, the Benelux fits better than Spain.

The second opportunity for an important population split is of course during the invasion by William the conqueror and is numerous Frankish auxiliaries. Frankish is emphasized because William did not have Spanish auxiliaries, he had Franks auxiliaries. Which put the common Z295/CtS4065 autosomal pool necessarily in Frankish territories, that is, Northern Gaul, Belgica and Netherlands.
Here the scenario becomes : the male Z295+ lineages stay in the same autosomal population pool even longer than in the previous case, that is 3000 years after the SNP appeared! until the Norman invasion. Until that point, all these populations still share a common autosomal make up and it now becomes much less surprising that a thousand years later, those in the British Isles and the continental Z295 still occasionally share small autosomal segments.
So basically in this theory Z295 and CTS4065 became British during the Norman invasion, before that they were Gauls from Northern France, aka subjects of the Duke William, or Franks.
Incidentally this also support a stable 'warm spot' of Z295 in the Benelux, all the way from the Bell Beakers to the Norman Invasion.

razyn
10-17-2017, 09:04 PM
I've been playing with some of the new BigY tools that FTDNA is bringing online, in conjunction with an upgrade (or anyway, a revamp) of all the Y chromosome position numbers from their old, Hg19 position to the new, Hg38 position. It's the same SNP, I believe if your mutation (or deviation from the reference sequence) was C to T before, it's still C to T. There may be a few cases where the upgrade also switches from reading the sequence forward to reading it backward, I don't know. I didn't see any example of that, yet. Anyway, here's a list that anybody (who is sufficiently motivated, thinks it's worth the trouble, has a lot of free time) can do. You don't have to be an admin, or a computer whiz, or proficient in some particular software. You do need BigY results, and to be signed in at FTDNA. And to find the estimated age of a SNP as I did, it has to be a SNP that's on the Big Tree. Other estimates are available. Anyway, I'll paste in what I did in a couple of hours of clicking back and forth. Then I may need to edit it, to make a Word document play nicely with the software of this forum.

My part of the Y tree below DF27, as of mid-October 2017. This four-entry format will include:

The SNP name(s);
Hg19 (old) position, with ancestral-derived calls at that position;
Hg38 (new) position, anc-der calls;
Its “Mode” age, in years before present. This is the last of three age estimations using Iain McDonald’s method, found below the chart (usually a bell graph, if there are enough samples to draw one) at the bottom of the page Alex Williamson displays when you click on that SNP name, on his Big Tree (at YTree.net).


Z195
17922066 G-A
15810186 G-A
4,500 ybp

Z272
22440376 G-A
20278490 G-A
4,450 ybp

Z209
15508140 T-G
13396260 T-G
4,090 ybp

Z295
7193830 C-G
7325789 C-G
4,110 ybp [Older than its parent, one needs adjustment]

S1220
15115334 G-A
[not a Named Variant at FTDNA]
3,700 ybp

CTS4065
15372323 A-C
13260443 A-C
3,490 ybp

[Unnamed indel]
15548847 GACAC-G
[not a Named Variant at FTDNA]
3,370 ybp

FGC15710
23067644 T-C
20905758 T-C
3,320 ybp

CTS10029
19217951 T-C
17106071 T-C
3,370 ybp [Older than its parent, one needs adjustment]

FGC15737
16876643 C-T
14764763 C-T
2,970 ybp

FGC15735
16219661 T-C
14107781 T-C
2,290 ybp

FGC15726
8681711 C-T
8813670 C-T
1,700 ybp

FGC15733
15613105 C-T
[not a Named Variant at FTDNA]
0 ybp [but DNA-confirmed paper trails prove TMRCA is more than 300 ybp]

TigerMW
10-17-2017, 11:30 PM
I am the Pletcher who is the fourth column over (at the bottom) here.

http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=634

We were Ana-Baptists from the Swiss/German border area.

I am still waiting on my Big Y conversion to Hg38. I received a new match about a month ago but he has disappeared for the time being until we get converted. He was from Genoa, Italy. The old Big Y matching wasn't any good anyway but I'm curious to see what this looks like when we all get converted.

Williamson
10-18-2017, 03:13 PM
Z209
15508140 T-G
13396260 T-G
4,090 ybp

Z295
7193830 C-G
7325789 C-G
4,110 ybp [Older than its parent, one needs adjustment]



Most of my time right now is focused on the hg38 conversion as well as the big influx of kits we'll have from the summer sale. After the dust has settled, I will take a closer look at the age estimates. Certainly we shouldn't have a child older than his father.

Just as an FYI, Iain McDonald's method uses the median age as his estimate. The Big Tree quotes mean, median and mode just for convenience.

Alex

razyn
12-04-2017, 11:09 PM
FTDNA has updated their haplotree, or at least this segment of it. So I think I'll insert a screen shot of the part I was discussing in the context of age estimations. Revisions are in store. FGC15712 has been added near the top, and FGC15733 at the bottom (of the part I'm copying -- though FGC15710 has two more lines, belonging to the new subclade BY22767). The screen shot may be in an uncomfortably small font, I had to reduce it to capture this many lines of a vertical table. If it's a thumbnail, click it once or twice, and hope for the best.




CTS4065
15372323 A-C
13260443 A-C
3,490 ybp

[Unnamed indel]
15548847 GACAC-G
[not a Named Variant at FTDNA]
3,370 ybp

FGC15710
23067644 T-C
20905758 T-C
3,320 ybp

CTS10029
19217951 T-C
17106071 T-C
3,370 ybp [Older than its parent, one needs adjustment]

FGC15737
16876643 C-T
14764763 C-T
2,970 ybp

FGC15735
16219661 T-C
14107781 T-C
2,290 ybp

FGC15726
8681711 C-T
8813670 C-T
1,700 ybp

FGC15733
15613105 C-T
[not a Named Variant at FTDNA]
0 ybp [but DNA-confirmed paper trails prove TMRCA is more than 300 ybp]

20249

knavejack
02-11-2018, 01:37 AM
I've been lurking this thread for awhile.

Any new finds on CTS4065?

razyn
02-11-2018, 04:38 AM
CTS4065 has 21 subclades at present in FTDNA's DF27 haplogroup project. And it has 20 on Alex Williamson's Big Tree. http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=634&star=false

I don't think there is any significant difference, except that the Big Tree doesn't currently show anybody as CTS4065* (i.e., not belonging to some known subclade, at least one level lower than CTS4065). The haplogroup project only shows such a category because there are lots of project members who have not had NextGen sequencing (normally, in that database, that means a BigY test), so it is not known (officially) what subclade they would fall into.

There are, of course, other ways of "knowing;" but either FTDNA or Lucas McCaw (who is sorting that FTDNA project) does not recognize them. [Testing at other companies, being the brother of another guy with the same STRs who has had a BigY, etc.] I'm trying to stay out of it, these days. I haven't even looked at YFull, YSEQ or FGC for this post -- but generally they know less, rather than more (about new branches), compared with the Big Tree. And LivingDNA knows much less than any of the above. And ISOGG probably knows least of all. ISOGG is nominally the "accepted standard" for academe -- which is but one of several reasons why the latest academic paper typically lags, in understanding of the basic phylogeny, what you will see on this forum.

Ric
06-13-2018, 04:03 PM
In the FTDNA haplotree under BY12176, which is the branch I share with Mr. Warfel, there is a downstream separate branch based on terminal SNP BY12178.

There are also 2 additional branches downstream of BY12178 and these 2 branches, namely BY3282 and S1218, are populated with people who are in the groups and in Alex's tree.
However, BY12178 itself, as far as we know, is not populated by anybody. I have no STR match and no BigY matches who are at the same time positive for BY12178 AND negative for BY3282 and S1218.
I asked Lucas and he said there is nobody with this SNP in the group, therefore I truly believe there is nobody at FTDNA who is BY12178+ and BY3282-
Supporting that, there is no BY12178 separate branch in Alex's BigTree, which makes sense.

Then, how does FTDNA know that BY12178 is a terminal SNP that defines a separate branch ? could there be somebody from Yfull or another company who has BY12178 as terminal and who tried to join the df27 group, but can't because he has no STR ?
And how FTDNA could be aware of this man if he can't join the group ?

razyn
06-15-2018, 06:11 AM
I asked Lucas and he said there is nobody with this SNP in the group, therefore I truly believe there is nobody at FTDNA who is BY12178+ and BY3282-
Supporting that, there is no BY12178 separate branch in Alex's BigTree, which makes sense.

Then, how does FTDNA know that BY12178 is a terminal SNP that defines a separate branch ? could there be somebody from Yfull or another company who has BY12178 as terminal and who tried to join the df27 group, but can't because he has no STR ?
And how FTDNA could be aware of this man if he can't join the group ?

The logic problem you have is not recognizing the distinction between membership in the DF27 haplogroup project (entirely voluntary, and the only people who join the project are some of those FTDNA customers who know that there is one, and decide to join) and presence in the FTDNA database (everybody who has been tested at that company). The latter category includes some thousands of DF27 people who are not visible to Lucas, me, MikeWww, or other admins -- let alone the broader public -- but are visible to those in the FTDNA lab who create and maintain the database. In this case, and currently, that's probably Michael Sager.

OTOH the FTDNA database doesn't include test results at FGC, YSEQ, other testing companies worldwide, or academic projects that didn't have their data generated at FTDNA (or one of its corporate partners, within the broader Gene By Gene). In varying degrees, Alex Williamson (the Big Tree), YFull, and a few other interested parties use these other sources in ways that FTDNA doesn't, and can't.

The detail of your query that mentioned "because he has no STR" is also skewed by what you believe. It's true that a tested person is only visible in the public display of STR results if he has tested some. But it's not the case that he can't join the project. He would be visible in the SNP results, but not the STR results (either "classic" or colorized). The latter is where one finds one's "matches," if there are any who have joined and were so tested. Results at another testing company aren't in the FTDNA database, so they still will not be displayed, whether he tests 111 STR markers or some smaller number.

Ric
06-15-2018, 12:36 PM
The latter category includes some thousands of DF27 people who are not visible to Lucas, me, MikeWww, or other admins -- let alone the broader public -- but are visible to those in the FTDNA lab who create and maintain the database.
Another weird thing I didn't know. Why in the world are they not visible ? even anonymously as a nationality. From what you say I see that there are plenty of opportunities to have apparently 'empty' branches.

FTDNA's move to suppress BigY matches makes us totally dependent on the groups now. Many have zero bigY match, zero significant STR match...The groups are entirely giving all the value for the money spent (BigY + STR). It's like you buy a Ferrari totally disassembled and useless, but very expensive, and your neighbor assembles it for free.

For the Anglo and Scandinavian customers I recognize that this is not too bad, it is almost impossible to NOT have some BigY match, or a 2000 years old common ancestor, given the size of the British isles, the founder effects and the sampling size in Anglo-Saxon-Scandinavian-founded America. For those with ancestors on the continent, and particularly Eastern, Central and southern Europe, the new stringency conditions are not well adapted.

ADW_1981
06-15-2018, 02:09 PM
Another weird thing I didn't know. Why in the world are they not visible ? even anonymously as a nationality. From what you say I see that there are plenty of opportunities to have apparently 'empty' branches.

FTDNA's move to suppress BigY matches makes us totally dependent on the groups now. Many have zero bigY match, zero significant STR match...The groups are entirely giving all the value for the money spent (BigY + STR). It's like you buy a Ferrari totally disassembled and useless, but very expensive, and your neighbor assembles it for free.

For the Anglo and Scandinavian customers I recognize that this is not too bad, it is almost impossible to NOT have some BigY match, or a 2000 years old common ancestor, given the size of the British isles, the founder effects and the sampling size in Anglo-Saxon-Scandinavian-founded America. For those with ancestors on the continent, and particularly Eastern, Central and southern Europe, the new stringency conditions are not well adapted.

I think there were many lineages who 'trickled' into the UK later in history and are not well represented in any public database, despite the fact their genome appears a best fit to UK or England. I speak from personal experience and I think CTS4065 generally falls in that same category. I'd be curious if Big Y matches of Americans are mostly with other Americans, or if they date back to Europe somewhere such as UK or Ireland.

Earl Davis
06-16-2018, 07:29 PM
I think there were many lineages who 'trickled' into the UK later in history and are not well represented in any public database, despite the fact their genome appears a best fit to UK or England. I speak from personal experience and I think CTS4065 generally falls in that same category. I'd be curious if Big Y matches of Americans are mostly with other Americans, or if they date back to Europe somewhere such as UK or Ireland.

One of our ancestral lines is CTS4065 and was tested by a current Staffordshire resident who matches an American family with the same surname and we think their common ancestor is more than 400 YBP in Staffordshire and the fairly uncommon family surname they have was settled in Staffordshire by the 1100's and is named after a Staffordshire location name which was a raised area of heathland in the middle of an area of marshland (isolated). Not sure if that is old enough to be of some interest but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Earl.

Ric
06-16-2018, 11:26 PM
To me CTS4065 occurred in the continent and fits very well with the Bell beakers of Germany, Benelux, perhaps Switzerland, perhaps eastern Germany and Poland too. Gedmatch gives me a South Dutch component that I hypothesize comes from there. But I assume my ancestor was still in the Netherlands until late 1500 before his descendants resettled in France. 500 years is not too much to keep some remnant autosomal DNA and to me :
CTS4065 ==> look for a South Dutch autosomal remnant, that may be were the hot spot of CTS4075 was, 2000 years ago and depending when your particular ancestor moved to the isles, you may still have some traces of that south Dutch ancestry.

Webb
06-18-2018, 01:49 PM
The FGC23196 branch under CTS4065 has me at FGC23196*, presumably English, I say this because I match at least 10 people at 67 markers with the last name Wilder, and one match at 111 markers,a Shields. The Wilder group is currently in limbo because they are one of three separate Wilder groups who all claim descent from the Wilder's of Shiplake, England who were given land by King Henry for fighting against King Richard, and this Wilder was supposedly a German recruited in France. All of this could be complete nonsense, but nobody knows for sure. FGC23196 was formed around 1500 BC using the date calculation that Ian McDonald supplied. On my branch, though further down, are two Dutchmen, two Swedes, and a Dane. This means my ancestors arrived in Britain between 1500 BC through the founding of America. It should only take me sometime from now to when I die to figure it out. Joking aside, the Website that shows hotspots for surnames in the British Isles shows two hot spots for Wilder. One is around London, the other is around the North West Coast and Islands of Scotland. This could be a clue if my Wilder group could get past the Southlake England brick wall. Another clue is where the Shields family comes from.

Webb
06-18-2018, 01:51 PM
I think there were many lineages who 'trickled' into the UK later in history and are not well represented in any public database, despite the fact their genome appears a best fit to UK or England. I speak from personal experience and I think CTS4065 generally falls in that same category. I'd be curious if Big Y matches of Americans are mostly with other Americans, or if they date back to Europe somewhere such as UK or Ireland.

I think you are probably correct. I do not see CTS4065 as an old group in the British Isles. I would think most likely Viking Incursions, Norman Invasion, Flemish Weavers, or the wars between England and France.

razyn
06-18-2018, 02:25 PM
FGC23196 was formed around 1500 BC using the date calculation that Ian McDonald supplied. On my branch, though further down, are two Dutchmen, two Swedes, and a Dane. This means my ancestors arrived in Britain between 1500 BC through the founding of America.

It only means that if Ian McDonald was right. Probably there also is a confidence interval, or something. (95% confident that his 1500 BC guess is within a thousand years of right, i.e., 1500 BC plus or minus 500 -- that sort of thing.)

I'm downstream of CTS4065 too, though on a different branch (below FGC15710). Most of my best STR matches (who are also SNP matches, once tested) are Americans with colonial male-line ancestry from SW England, somewhere near the Bristol Channel or Severn River. But my very best SNP match -- youngest "terminal" SNP -- is shared with an ethnic Kashubian family, two separate branches of which immigrated from Poland since the 1880s and have tested at FTDNA (one has a BigY). So either some old English stock (possibly my own family) got established among the Kashubes, or some older stock from Poland was well established in SW England by the mid-17th century (and one of them came to Virginia around that time, bearing or assuming my surname). The former seems more likely, given the slim evidence. But the question is not settled.

It's also fairly likely that the several genetically similar families from SW England have Norman male ancestry. France isn't well enough tested to have much input into that discussion, yet.

Webb
06-18-2018, 02:45 PM
It only means that if Ian McDonald was right. Probably there also is a confidence interval, or something. (95% confident that his 1500 BC guess is within a thousand years of right, i.e., 1500 BC plus or minus 500 -- that sort of thing.)

I'm downstream of CTS4065 too, though on a different branch (below FGC15710). Most of my best STR matches (who are also SNP matches, once tested) are Americans with colonial male-line ancestry from SW England, somewhere near the Bristol Channel or Severn River. But my very best SNP match -- youngest "terminal" SNP -- is shared with an ethnic Kashubian family, two separate branches of which immigrated from Poland since the 1880s and have tested at FTDNA (one has a BigY). So either some old English stock (possibly my own family) got established among the Kashubes, or some older stock from Poland was well established in SW England by the mid-17th century (and one of them came to Virginia around that time, bearing or assuming my surname). The former seems more likely, given the slim evidence. But the question is not settled.

It's also fairly likely that the several genetically similar families from SW England have Norman male ancestry. France isn't well enough tested to have much input into that discussion, yet.

I have noticed your close match. I have also noticed the numerous Z209/Z210 kits at the FTDNA project who list their most distant ancestor as being in South/West/South West England. In particular a family whose name means double. Hint. Hint. I would think though, if my particular FGC23196 line was in Britain for a very long time, say from the 1500 BC to the Anglo Saxon period, that there would be more of us, but there isn't. It could be that this marker's more recent discovery is affecting the number of people with positive results. But also matching the more northerly Dutch/Swede/Dane element is a clue. The Norman thing to me is very interesting, as the whole army wasn't just Normans. There were Bretons, Flemish, Burgundians, and numerous other people from Gaulish/Frankish stock in the invading army.

razyn
06-18-2018, 03:23 PM
Have you ever corresponded with Dr. Hans van Vliet in Amsterdam? He's very well informed about his side of your FGC23196 bunch. I haven't heard from him in several years, but around 2013-14 he was able to prove that his male line was Dutch back into the 1100s, I believe. He had a YDNA match with a very, very distant cousin.

Webb
06-18-2018, 04:01 PM
Have you ever corresponded with Dr. Hans van Vliet in Amsterdam? He's very well informed about his side of your FGC23196 bunch. I haven't heard from him in several years, but around 2013-14 he was able to prove that his male line was Dutch back into the 1100s, I believe. He had a YDNA match with a very, very distant cousin.

I received my last email from him maybe two years ago after the results of the Swedes came in. Having the results of the Dane and two Swedes, plus him and his distant cousin, he theorized that the progenitor of their line moved North from the low countries, not the other way around. He theorized it had something to do with the droving of cattle from the Netherlands north through Denmark.

razyn
06-18-2018, 05:05 PM
I would tend to believe him unless you have some really compelling evidence to the contrary. His career as a scientist has been in genetics, and he has also done paper genealogy most of his adult life.

Webb
06-18-2018, 05:17 PM
I would tend to believe him unless you have some really compelling evidence to the contrary. His career as a scientist has been in genetics, and he has also done paper genealogy most of his adult life.

Everyone in our small group believes his theory is the most likely. Prior to the Netherlands, however, is where it is a guessing game. I have stated many times before that I believe every Germanic invasion into Europe resulted in a regurgitation of snp's that were already present. DF27 being among them. So if DF27 made it all the way to the shores of Scandinavia during its maximum spread, then were absorbed by Germanics, then brought back south into Germany, then into France by said Germanics, where DF27 was to begin with, it gets very messy.

Ric
06-18-2018, 06:44 PM
So if DF27 made it all the way to the shores of Scandinavia during its maximum spread.
Hmm, what is a 'maximum spread' ? to me the early days of DF27 may have been a slow, linear growth.
Are the numbers of different known subclades rather consistent with a small number of (df27) individuals or with an explosive male population growth ? The answer may depends on the status of the first DF27 man. A high status, like a clan chief, may produce many more male descendants than a lower status.
I'll mention again my personal experience in countryside France, in an unparticular small village that never endured famine or any hardship from nature, quite the opposite, but was impacted by WW1 of course, yet on the average of 300 years, the population seemed to have been stable, stagnating at less than a thousand individuals for 300 years. Population stagnation seems to me more the rule than the exception. And there is more than food availablitly to explain population explosions, such as the one in French Canada, who rose to 7 millions quickly. The other example of explosion is the male df27 population in the Basque country. Something particular happened there. But back in the Benelux near the birth cradle of Df27, nothing indicates such explosion. Df27 individuals could have counted around a few thousand men for a long time, like, there was 500 DF27+ men in 2000BC, that merely quadrupled one thousand years later to 2000 Df27 men, in 1000BC then. Nothing particular happened, just life.
With such slow increase, you can only fuel a trickle of df27 men to neighbor countries such as UK and Scandinavia and perhaps it happened like that, only a few hundred df27 men had moved to the isles or Scandinavia by 1000BC, while the rest, perhaps around 2 or 3 thousands, was style stationed mostly in Benelux.
So, df27 has simply never been a prominent P312 group, either because of status or late arrival or something else.

To explain the presence of many df27 subclades in the Basque country, something different had to happen : to me, an important migration of df27 men, either en mass with an entire clan moving there, or as a results of some scouting in Spain that was only, or mostly, revealed to df27 men, who were then the only ones to move there.
Once there, it was like a repeat of what happened in Quebec. Men who seemed to have been happy with two sons for the last thousand years in France, started to have 10 children or more with local Indian women, or with the same women from Brittany that would have given them 'only' 4 children in Brittany but decided that 10 was now better.

Webb
06-18-2018, 06:51 PM
Hmm, what is a 'maximum spread' ? to me the early days of DF27 may have been a slow, linear growth.
Are the numbers of different known subclades rather consistent with a small number of (df27) individuals or with an explosive male population growth ? The answer may depends on the status of the first DF27 man. A high status, like a clan chief, may produce many more male descendants than a lower status.
I'll mention again my personal experience in countryside France, in an unparticular small village that never endured famine or any hardship from nature, quite the opposite, but was impacted by WW1 of course, yet on the average of 300 years, the population seemed to have been stable, stagnating at less than a thousand individuals for 300 years. Population stagnation seems to me more the rule than the exception. And there is more than food availablitly to explain population explosions, such as the one in French Canada, who rose to 7 millions quickly. The other example of explosion is the male df27 population in the Basque country. Something particular happened there. But back in the Benelux near the birth cradle of Df27, nothing indicates such explosion. Df27 individuals could have counted around a few thousand men for a long time, like, there was 500 DF27+ men in 2000BC, that merely quadrupled one thousand years later to 2000 Df27 men, in 1000BC then. Nothing particular happened, just life.
With such slow increase, you can only fuel a trickle of df27 men to neighbor countries such as UK and Scandinavia and perhaps it happened like that, only a few hundred df27 men had moved to the isles or Scandinavia by 1000BC, while the rest, perhaps around 2 or 3 thousands, was style stationed mostly in Benelux.
So, df27 has simply never been a prominent P312 group, either because of status or late arrival or something else.

To explain the presence of many df27 subclades in the Basque country, something different had to happen : to me, an important migration of df27 men, either en mass with an entire clan moving there, or as a results of some scouting in Spain that was only, or mostly, revealed to df27 men, who were then the only ones to move there.
Once there, it was like a repeat of what happened in Quebec. Men who seemed to have been happy with two sons for the last thousand years in France, started to have 10 children or more with local Indian women, or with the same women from Brittany that would have given them 'only' 4 children in Brittany but decided that 10 was now better.

I meant geographic spread, really. I don't know if we will ever know specifics on numbers, other than what we see in current populations.

razyn
06-18-2018, 07:01 PM
But back in the Benelux near the birth cradle of Df27, nothing indicates such explosion.

I don't actually think that's near the birth cradle of DF27, but I assume it's a closer approximation than, say, Barcelona. We may never know; aDNA from the first founders would only survive, and be found and tested, by an unlikely series of lucky breaks. But we already know some trends. I think most of the trends suggest that the mutation happened a good bit farther east than Benelux. Someplace around there could be the cradle of CTS4065, I guess.

Ric
06-18-2018, 09:09 PM
I don't actually think that's near the birth cradle of DF27, but I assume it's a closer approximation than, say, Barcelona. We may never know; aDNA from the first founders would only survive, and be found and tested, by an unlikely series of lucky breaks. But we already know some trends. I think most of the trends suggest that the mutation happened a good bit farther east than Benelux. Someplace around there could be the cradle of CTS4065, I guess.
Yes we have a few members East of Germany and Poland is a good candidate, I agree. South Germany/Austria/Switzerland are also a possibility, right ?
Technically Benelux doesn't even include Northern France (Calais, Dunkirk...) while in the ethnic context, it clearly should. But there is no name for it so...maybe a better wording should be 'European plains or flatlands'. It is just flat all the way from Northern France, Belgium, Netherlands, North Germany, Poland even all the way further East. OK, some hills maybe...I don't want to offend people who live there.
There is more difference with the Southern part of these regions, more mountains, more metal ore, so probably different cultures too.

Webb
07-16-2018, 06:27 PM
I am very excited to report that finally I am not alone at FGC23196*!!!! Alex has added a French kit to the FGC23196 block at Ytree.net.

TigerMW
07-16-2018, 08:51 PM
I am very excited to report that finally I am not alone at FGC23196*!!!! Alex has added a French kit to the FGC23196 block at Ytree.net.
Congratulations. I see R-FGC23196* must be fairly old as brother subclade FGC23178 is pretty long on the FTDNA tree.
BY12170 FGC23193 S12100 FGC23175 FGC23190FGC23176 S22331 S11482 Y13447 FGC23189 FGC23179 S12214 FGC15329 S18672 BY12169 S17990 FGC40461 S12458 FGC23188 FGC32186 BY12168 FGC23184 FGC23183 S16934

FTDNA has FGC23196 as stand-alone. They are looking at the BAM data so it is likely the other SNPs the Big Tree shows in that block are a bit shaky. The Big Tree has question marks by them.

The interesting thing is I see the brother subclade has folks from Sweden and the Netherlands.

Ric
07-16-2018, 09:40 PM
I am very excited to report that finally I am not alone at FGC23196*!!!! Alex has added a French kit to the FGC23196 block at Ytree.net.

Yes, congratulations. .
Is you match (if he is a BigY match to you) related to the famous de Valois royal dynasty ? (I assume the individual doesn't mind his name mentioned here since he is clearly not hidden). If he is truly a de Valois, then he is a descendant from a Frankish dynasty, aka the Capetiens, and then, you'd expect Franks to be mostly U106. The Bourbons are U106 for example.
On the other hand, the Franks lived in Belgium and Northern France, which is or was Df27 rich. Anyways, this is very interesting and I hope to get more details.

ffoucart, who is very knowledgeable in Frankish history, may give us his opinion.

Webb
07-16-2018, 10:56 PM
Congratulations. I see R-FGC23196* must be fairly old as brother subclade FGC23178 is pretty long on the FTDNA tree.
BY12170 FGC23193 S12100 FGC23175 FGC23190FGC23176 S22331 S11482 Y13447 FGC23189 FGC23179 S12214 FGC15329 S18672 BY12169 S17990 FGC40461 S12458 FGC23188 FGC32186 BY12168 FGC23184 FGC23183 S16934

FTDNA has FGC23196 as stand-alone. They are looking at the BAM data so it is likely the other SNPs the Big Tree shows in that block are a bit shaky. The Big Tree has question marks by them.

The interesting thing is I see the brother subclade has folks from Sweden and the Netherlands.

FGC23178 is actually a child of FGC23196. Dr. van Vliet suspects a movement from the Netherlands north based on the MRCA of him, the Dane and the two Swedes. It seems the most likely explanation.

TigerMW
07-17-2018, 05:01 PM
FGC23178 is actually a child of FGC23196. Dr. van Vliet suspects a movement from the Netherlands north based on the MRCA of him, the Dane and the two Swedes. It seems the most likely explanation. I agree that FGC23178 is a child of FGC23196. I used the asterisk in my post to indicate the paragroup downstream of the FGC23196 MRCA - "I see R-FGC23196* must be fairly old as brother subclade FGC23178 is pretty long on the FTDNA tree." In other words, everyone in the paragroup R-FGC23196* is in a brother subclade to R-FGC23178. I should have used the word lineage.

... but new news. Just this morning I received a Y67 match (GD=4) for my Pletcher kit

269087 Pletcher R-Z209>Z25783>CTS4065>FGC15712>FGC15710>CTS10029>BY3190>BY36277>BY36274/Y130729* (BY45110- Y30610-)

You can see him on the Big Tree as brother lineage to two Spanish guys.
https://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=635

This Pletcher is supposed to be from the Swiss/German border and migrated to U.S./Pennsylvania area prior to the Revolutionary War in a movement of Ana-Baptists. I guess this is not too far from Spain as far as ancient branching might go.

The DNA sample is from a cousin of my father and a nephew of paternal-grandmother. The good news is the relationship has been confirmed. .. no NPEs. The last name of the new match is Pletcher. I am working on him to do a Big Y-500 upgrade. If I could get him on board we could easily have another branch about 10-15 SNPs long.

Webb
07-17-2018, 05:20 PM
I agree that FGC23178 is a child of FGC23196. I used the asterisk in my post to indicate the paragroup downstream of the FGC23196 MRCA - "I see R-FGC23196* must be fairly old as brother subclade FGC23178 is pretty long on the FTDNA tree." In other words, everyone in R-FGC23196* is in a brother subclade to R-FGC23178.

... but new news. Just this morning I received a Y67 match (GD=4) for my Pletcher kit

269087 Pletcher R-Z209>Z25783>CTS4065>FGC15712>FGC15710>CTS10029>BY3190>BY36277>BY36274/Y130729* (BY45110- Y30610-)

You can see him on the Big Tree as brother lineage to two Spanish guys.
https://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=635

This Pletcher is supposed to be from the Swiss/German border and migrated to U.S./Pennsylvania area prior to the Revolutionary War in a movement of Ana-Baptists. I guess this is not too far from Spain as far as ancient branching might go.

The DNA sample is from a cousin of my father and a nephew of paternal-grandmother. The good news is the relationship has been confirmed. .. no NPEs. The last name of the new match is Pletcher. I am working on him to do a Big Y-500 upgrade. If I could get him on board we could easily have another branch about 10-15 SNPs long.

It seems like DF27 testing is quickly increasing, which is great. This is good news. Were you aware of this potential match before they tested?

TigerMW
07-17-2018, 05:28 PM
It seems like DF27 testing is quickly increasing, which is great. This is good news. Were you aware of this potential match before they tested?

No, there is tremendous value in the STR matching database, particularly if people can get to at least Y67. I assume this person is not new match is not from my home state as my father's cousin was the only male Pletcher I am aware of there. I had to pay for my Pletcher's Big Y so I'm glad there is not an NPE.

The DF27 project has very good depth of testing. We have about 1350 (over half the project) at Y111 and about 1100 with Big Y. There are about 2250 members.

Webb
07-18-2018, 12:46 AM
Yes, congratulations. .
Is you match (if he is a BigY match to you) related to the famous de Valois royal dynasty ? (I assume the individual doesn't mind his name mentioned here since he is clearly not hidden). If he is truly a de Valois, then he is a descendant from a Frankish dynasty, aka the Capetiens, and then, you'd expect Franks to be mostly U106. The Bourbons are U106 for example.
On the other hand, the Franks lived in Belgium and Northern France, which is or was Df27 rich. Anyways, this is very interesting and I hope to get more details.

ffoucart, who is very knowledgeable in Frankish history, may give us his opinion.

I’ve spent the last 24 hours reading about the Capetian Dynasty. It is very interesting. This may be a good example of my regurgitation theory I mentioned a few posts above, however, I’m not sure if this Valois is related to the Capetians as he lists his MDKA as a Vincent de Valois born 1186.

TigerMW
07-19-2018, 10:40 PM
... but new news. Just this morning I received a Y67 match (GD=4) for my Pletcher kit

269087 Pletcher R-Z209>Z25783>CTS4065>FGC15712>FGC15710>CTS10029>BY3190>BY36277>BY36274/Y130729* (BY45110- Y30610-)

You can see him on the Big Tree as brother lineage to two Spanish guys.
https://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=635

This Pletcher is supposed to be from the Swiss/German border and migrated to U.S./Pennsylvania area prior to the Revolutionary War in a movement of Ana-Baptists. I guess this is not too far from Spain as far as ancient branching might go.
Here are the closest GD's I can find in the large haplogroup projects (R1b & DF27) using the R1b-Haplotypes spreadsheet. There are GDs of 24, 25 and 26 at Y111 so this is an ancient split.

Very interesting

f269087 R-BY36274 R-BY36274 932 23 Germany Samuel Pletcher
f580277 R-BY45110 R-BY45110 933 24 Torruella Spain Cristòfol Torroella, b. 1500 Súria (Catalonia)
fN122926 R-BY45110 R-BY45110 933 24 Spain Cristòfol Torroella, b. 1500 Súria (Catalonia)
f192017 R-BY36223 R-BY36223 879 20 Herr Germany Michel Herr, 1849-1912
f17506 R-Z278 R-Z278 857 18 Minbiole France Jean Minbiole, b. 1785, France
f474144 R-M269 R-M269 31 5 Spain Leopoldo De La Torre Mediavilla,
f218501 R-M269 R-M269 31 5 Spain Veloso

My mind started moving towards the ancient 2500 BC fusion-fission Bell Beaker events in Central Europe but if I look at the McDonald age estimates I see that CTS10029 is more likely later, like 1540 BC.
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/table.html

This is more likely related to Tumulus and Urnfielder cultures.

One of things I've said for years is that DF27 didn't necessarily all get into Iberian Peninsula in one shot, but may have slopped over the Pyrenees in waves. Wave 1 could have been the Steppe (or Kurgan) Bell Beakers, then later Tumulus or particularly Urnfield and then actual Celtic types creating the Celtiberians.

TigerMW
07-23-2018, 04:17 PM
... but new news. Just this morning I received a Y67 match (GD=4) for my Pletcher kit

269087 Pletcher R-Z209>Z25783>CTS4065>FGC15712>FGC15710>CTS10029>BY3190>BY36277>BY36274/Y130729* (BY45110- Y30610-)

You can see him on the Big Tree as brother lineage to two Spanish guys.
https://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=635

This Pletcher is supposed to be from the Swiss/German border and migrated to U.S./Pennsylvania area prior to the Revolutionary War in a movement of Ana-Baptists. I guess this is not too far from Spain as far as ancient branching might go.
Here are the closest GD's I can find in the large haplogroup projects (R1b & DF27) using the R1b-Haplotypes spreadsheet. There are GDs of 24, 25 and 26 at Y111 so this is an ancient split.

Very interesting.

f269087 R-BY36274 R-BY36274 932 23 Germany Samuel Pletcher
f580277 R-BY45110 R-BY45110 933 24 Torruella Spain Cristòfol Torroella, b. 1500 Súria (Catalonia)
fN122926 R-BY45110 R-BY45110 933 24 Spain Cristòfol Torroella, b. 1500 Súria (Catalonia)
f192017 R-BY36223 R-BY36223 879 20 Herr Germany Michel Herr, 1849-1912
f17506 R-Z278 R-Z278 857 18 Minbiole France Jean Minbiole, b. 1785, France
f474144 R-M269 R-M269 31 5 Spain Leopoldo De La Torre Mediavilla,
f218501 R-M269 R-M269 31 5 Spain Veloso

My mind started moving towards the ancient 2500 BC fusion-fission Bell Beaker events in Central Europe but if I look at the McDonald age estimates I see that CTS10029 is more likely later, like 1540 BC.
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/table.html

This is more likely related to Tumulus and Urnfielder cultures.

One of things I've said for years is that DF27 didn't necessarily all get into Iberian Peninsula in one shot, but may have slopped over the Pyrenees in waves. Wave 1 could have been the Steppe (or Kurgan) Bell Beakers, then later Tumulus or particularly Urnfield and then actual Celtic types creating the Celtiberians.

razyn
07-23-2018, 06:47 PM
f192017 R-BY36223 R-BY36223 879 20 Herr Germany Michel Herr, 1849-1912

Idly wonder whether this is an American descendant of Hans or Christian Herr in Lancaster Co. PA. Their house is the oldest one standing in that county. I'm fairly sure they were anabaptists, like your Pletchers. About 45 years ago I wrote up that house for the HABS (Historic American Buildings Survey). I guess the info is easily retrievable, if it's of any interest to you, Mike.

Webb
07-24-2018, 01:52 PM
Here are the closest GD's I can find in the large haplogroup projects (R1b & DF27) using the R1b-Haplotypes spreadsheet. There are GDs of 24, 25 and 26 at Y111 so this is an ancient split.

Very interesting.

f269087 R-BY36274 R-BY36274 932 23 Germany Samuel Pletcher
f580277 R-BY45110 R-BY45110 933 24 Torruella Spain Cristòfol Torroella, b. 1500 Súria (Catalonia)
fN122926 R-BY45110 R-BY45110 933 24 Spain Cristòfol Torroella, b. 1500 Súria (Catalonia)
f192017 R-BY36223 R-BY36223 879 20 Herr Germany Michel Herr, 1849-1912
f17506 R-Z278 R-Z278 857 18 Minbiole France Jean Minbiole, b. 1785, France
f474144 R-M269 R-M269 31 5 Spain Leopoldo De La Torre Mediavilla,
f218501 R-M269 R-M269 31 5 Spain Veloso

My mind started moving towards the ancient 2500 BC fusion-fission Bell Beaker events in Central Europe but if I look at the McDonald age estimates I see that CTS10029 is more likely later, like 1540 BC.
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/table.html

This is more likely related to Tumulus and Urnfielder cultures.

One of things I've said for years is that DF27 didn't necessarily all get into Iberian Peninsula in one shot, but may have slopped over the Pyrenees in waves. Wave 1 could have been the Steppe (or Kurgan) Bell Beakers, then later Tumulus or particularly Urnfield and then actual Celtic types creating the Celtiberians.

I have been looking at DF27's main subclades for a long time, first at Yfull and now that Alex is partnering with McDonald for age estimates, the BigTree. 1500 B.C. seems to be the sweet spot for much of DF27's growth spurt. What this means exactly is up for anybody to guess, or determine. In my opinion, DF27 will end up being larger than U152, covering a larger geographic area as well.

Valois
08-12-2018, 11:02 AM
Hello everyone! Hi Webb! Here the "Valois": -) ...

Well, I introduce myself first and explain my case. My last name is Javaloyes, and we live in Spain.
"Javaloyes, Javaloyas, Javaloy, Jabaloyas ..." are surnames that appear in Spain in the thirteenth century with the Christian Reconquest of the territories of Al Andalus by Jaime I who was accompanied by Catalan, Aragonese and French knights. It is a very unusual surname and tradition (as it appears in an official document of Felipe II) is that the surname was brought by Vicent de Valois Crepy, a crossed knight who would belong to the Valois family ("capetos"). The traced family tree traditionally leads us to Vincent de Valois Crepy, but the objective of the BIG - Y analysis is to be able to corroborate or not this theory …

YFull assigned me as a more detailed haplogroup:

R-FGC23196*
id:YF14417ESP [ES-A]new
id:YF03159ENG

Thanks for your attention! Webb, please, where are you from?

Webb
08-13-2018, 01:19 PM
Hello everyone! Hi Webb! Here the "Valois": -) ...

Well, I introduce myself first and explain my case. My last name is Javaloyes, and we live in Spain.
"Javaloyes, Javaloyas, Javaloy, Jabaloyas ..." are surnames that appear in Spain in the thirteenth century with the Christian Reconquest of the territories of Al Andalus by Jaime I who was accompanied by Catalan, Aragonese and French knights. It is a very unusual surname and tradition (as it appears in an official document of Felipe II) is that the surname was brought by Vicent de Valois Crepy, a crossed knight who would belong to the Valois family ("capetos"). The traced family tree traditionally leads us to Vincent de Valois Crepy, but the objective of the BIG - Y analysis is to be able to corroborate or not this theory …

YFull assigned me as a more detailed haplogroup:

R-FGC23196*
id:YF14417ESP [ES-A]new
id:YF03159ENG

Thanks for your attention! Webb, please, where are you from?

Hi Valois. It is nice to see you have joined Anthrogenica!!!! YFull id:YF03159ENG is me. I am from the U.S., but my ancestors came here from England. Prior to this I don't know. Most of my 67 marker matches at FTDNA have the last name Wilder. I assume at some point there was a non paternity event, I assume in England and a Wilder became a Webb. There are three distinct Wilder lineages that are not related that claim descent from Nicholas Wylder who served under Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond. Wylder was given property at Shiplake, England for helping Henry Tudor defeat King Richard III. Until a Wilder from Shiplake tests, it is not known which lineage is the correct one. It is also not known who Nicholas Wylder was. Some accounts state he volunteered to serve Henry Tudor in France and came to England then. Other sources say he was from Derbyshire, England. As you can see there are two Dutchmen, two Swedes, and a Dane who are also FGC23196. It is assumed that an ancestor of the two Dutchmen traveled north from the Netherlands to Denmark, then Sweden. FGC23196 was formed around 1500 B.C., so it is fairly old. There might be quite a number of people who are positive for it. But for the time being it is just the few of us.

Ric
08-26-2018, 09:31 AM
My BY12176 neighbor in the haplotree, whose ancestry is in the Rhein Neckar area not very far from mine, told me that he got an autosomal match with haplo CTS4065, at 23&me ! and himself he has haplo CTS4065 at 23. There is no doubt that 23&me can now detect this SNP then. But only for new customers, unfortunatly.
The recruitment of CTS4065 matches from 23&me could help greatly in the future. So, if you guys are not at 23&me yet, you know what to do.

razyn
08-26-2018, 03:05 PM
My BY12176 neighbor in the haplotree, whose ancestry is in the Rhein Neckar area not very far from mine

I have several ancestral lines from that general area, or just outside it on the southeastern edge (Schwaigern, Stetten AH, Gemmingen etc.). Mine were in the Germanna "Second Colony" of 1717 and thereafter. Many Germanna families came from that area (to Virginia) 300 years ago. They aren't my YDNA or mtDNA lines, and that's a bit far back for autosomal matching to help much. But if it's of any interest, FTDNA has a Germanna project. I didn't see any paternal line specifically tagged as CTS4065, or a subclade of it that I can recognize. That's getting harder to do, as subclades proliferate.

Edit: By the way, I just checked my LivingDNA raw data file. Although they only call me as Z220, and don't seem to test Z295, they do test CTS4065 (and call me positive for it). I guess it just hasn't been placed on their slightly hit-or-miss haplotree -- possibly because that tree (as currently displayed to me, anyhow) lacks the Z295 level. This might be relevant for some of you, because LivingDNA has Continental research partners, including a fairly major German collaboration. https://www.livingdna.com/blog/254-new-living-dna-project-aims-map-germany-s-genetic-history

Ric
08-29-2018, 08:27 PM
Edit: By the way, I just checked my LivingDNA raw data file. Although they only call me as Z220, and don't seem to test Z295, they do test CTS4065 (and call me positive for it). do they have maps? can you post some results ? I am interested but I am not sure to qualify for this project since I don't have any documented ancestry in Germany.

Also, I could upload either my 23&me autosomal or FTDNA autosomal. So far I have used my 23&me in free third parties, but I think it was a mistake because people have mentioned that FTDNA's FF has a better coverage than 23&me, for autosomal. So I think to use my FF for this project.

razyn
08-29-2018, 10:41 PM
do they have maps? can you post some results ?
For the specific haplogroup that is the subject of this thread, the only LivingDNA result I've seen that places CTS4065 on their tree is the one posted by fostert on this thread: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11122-Living-DNA-amp-FTDNA-Y-Haplogroup-Assignment-Issue&p=387616&viewfull=1#post387616

I replied to that, later (post #37 on the same thread), but my comment was mostly about PH series SNPs -- that they don't seem to test, even though PH herself (Dr. Pille Hallast, now back in Estonia but she did her grad work in England) is listed as a member of the LivingDNA "team." That discussion, though fascinating, is off-topic for this CTS4065 thread.

Webb
08-30-2018, 03:21 PM
What happened to my block mate, Javaloyes????

Webb
12-10-2018, 04:26 PM
I now have a new terminal snp!!!!! FGC33002!!!! I have an 111 marker, step 9 match who I shared some emails with a few years back. Every time the Big Y-500 would come on sale, I would email him to offer to pay some money towards his test, but he hasn't responded to my emails in a while. Well, he did test, and as a result I am now FGC33002. If I could get in communication with him, I would ask him to join the DF27 project, and submit his results to Alex Williamson and Yfull. His last name is one that is common in the British Isles. It is found in England, and the Anglicized version in common in Ireland. According to FTDNA a step 9 out of 111 markers gives us a 99% probability of having a common ancestor at 24 generations past. All of our 67 marker matches have the last name Wilder, and there are a large number of Wilder's. If I average 30 years per generation at 24 generations, this is around 1298AD. Right now average age per generation for men is 31 to 38. If I multiply 38 times 24 this comes out to 1106 AD.

ADW_1981
12-13-2018, 05:08 PM
I now have a new terminal snp!!!!! FGC33002!!!! I have an 111 marker, step 9 match who I shared some emails with a few years back. Every time the Big Y-500 would come on sale, I would email him to offer to pay some money towards his test, but he hasn't responded to my emails in a while. Well, he did test, and as a result I am now FGC33002. If I could get in communication with him, I would ask him to join the DF27 project, and submit his results to Alex Williamson and Yfull. His last name is one that is common in the British Isles. It is found in England, and the Anglicized version in common in Ireland. According to FTDNA a step 9 out of 111 markers gives us a 99% probability of having a common ancestor at 24 generations past. All of our 67 marker matches have the last name Wilder, and there are a large number of Wilder's. If I average 30 years per generation at 24 generations, this is around 1298AD. Right now average age per generation for men is 31 to 38. If I multiply 38 times 24 this comes out to 1106 AD.

Get the Wilders to join the DF27 project so we can plop em in the subgroup!

Valois
12-27-2018, 06:49 PM
Hi Webb!!

Congrats!!! :-)

Well, We are waiting and waiting...

:-)

Webb
12-27-2018, 08:13 PM
Hi Webb!!

Congrats!!! :-)

Well, We are waiting and waiting...

:-)

It is good to see your post.

razyn
03-25-2019, 08:20 PM
As many of you know, the effort to refine and expand our knowledge in this branch of the DF27 tree was driven in large part by the active interest and sponsorship of the Zenker family. Henry Zenker was administrator of the R1b-P312 project before we created a separate one for DF27, and Henry is CTS4065+. He was somewhat disabled by medical problems in 2013, but remains interested and motivated. Last year his son Chris picked up this effort on his behalf, and informally partnered with me to locate and select many of our "North/South cluster" project members for targeted SNP testing, or in some cases exploratory NextGen testing... I am very sorry to report that Chris died on Jan. 18th [2015]

I searched this forum on the name Henry Zenker, and of the 14 hits, only two were on threads that have had a post since the beginning of 2018. I regret to report that Henry passed away last July, at the age of 96. Starting in the fall of 2013, he and his sons Chris and Steven were individually and collectively behind the extensive testing that enabled us -- with targeted SNPs, BigY, and FGC Elite testing -- to break down the North/South cluster (earlier identified by Dr. Ken Nordtvedt, based on a recognizable and widely shared off-modal STR pattern) into its major branches. Today, we know that "cluster" as R1b-Z220 and Subclades. Henry Zenker and his family had a big role in bringing our genetic genealogy community to the relatively advanced understanding we now enjoy of the phylogenetic tree below Z220. Many of us knew Henry also as a diligent follower of genealogical paper trails, who was willing and able to assist us in resolving difficult research questions.

https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/washingtonville-ny/henry-zenker-7907361

rms2
03-25-2019, 09:59 PM
When I gave up being the admin of the old R1b-P312 Project, I passed the helm to Henry. He served as the project's admin for awhile until a stroke prevented him from carrying on.

He was one of the good guys. May God have mercy on his soul.

Webb
03-27-2019, 02:23 AM
That’s very sad news. I sill have an email from him in 2012 shortly after my P312 results came back, advising me to test for Z220 next as I had the STR values indicative of the North/South Cluster.

Webb
07-05-2019, 02:28 PM
I have noticed a kit with an Italian flag on FTDNA's Big-Y Block Tree. I can't find any information about this person, however. So on block FGC23196 is Valois from France, and the kit from Italy. Block FGC3002 is my block which includes me and my 111 marker match who has a surname that could be Irish or Anglo-Irish, which Anglo-Irish is most likely. Block FGC23178 which has the Swede and the Dane. Then block FGC23177 which has the two Dutch kits and they are not close relatives, but not distant either. Is there anyway to ask FTDNA to contact the Italian kit?

razyn
07-05-2019, 03:34 PM
Is there anyway to ask FTDNA to contact the Italian kit?
I don't know of any way. I can sign in as admin and look at the Valois descendant, but he doesn't have any matches (named as such by their funky algorithm) except you. I see the little Italian flag symbol also. It doesn't lead me anywhere.

Webb
07-05-2019, 05:08 PM
I don't know of any way. I can sign in as admin and look at the Valois descendant, but he doesn't have any matches (named as such by their funky algorithm) except you. I see the little Italian flag symbol also. It doesn't lead me anywhere.

I know the kit in question hasn’t joined the DF27 project. I even checked several Italian oriented DNA projects and nothing. I’ll check the R1b project next. Maybe I’ll contact FTDNA customer service to see if they can assist.

razyn
07-05-2019, 06:52 PM
The "matches" program should show anybody who has tested at FTDNA, not just project members. I think the issue is probably the Italian-descent person's privacy settings.

Webb
07-05-2019, 07:08 PM
So an Italian, French, Dutch, Swede, Dane, Anglo-Irish, English, with a common ancestor at around 1000BCE. It’s all starting to come together and make sense. Not.

razyn
01-27-2020, 12:35 AM
I may post about this on the 23andMe interest group, but my own results from the "new experience" there, plus re-testing with their v. 5 chip (my original test there, at the end of 2010, was on v. 3) produced a vastly improved tree, that gets me down to a SNP (FGC15710) that was actually discovered in my own sample at Full Genomes Corp. It was allowed onto the ISOGG tree immediately, because there was an anonymous match in the 1000 Genomes data. Anyway, I'm in the CTS4065 line, and that also shows up on my new haplotree at 23andMe. So I'll paste in a screen shot of it.

Getting to this picture is not straightforward. You start at the Paternal Haplogroup display; scroll to the bottom, subheading is The Genetics of Paternal Haplogroups. On the left there are several boxes; the one you are looking at is highlighted with white lettering on a dark blue background. Scroll down to the third one and click it, Paternal Haplogroup Tree. In that display, click the html text link beginning "Visit the scientific details..." This is just the young section from mine:

36039

Sure, it's nowhere near Alex's YTree display, nor YFull's, nor the current FTDNA haplotree. All of those are built up from NextGen sequencing. But this is from a chip test, and as such, it's pretty dang good. A year or so ago, that same company was telling most of its DF27 customers that their haplogroup was M269. The screen shot I have just posted starts with M269, at the upper left corner. That is Progress, with a capital P.

linthos
01-27-2020, 02:22 AM
Thanks for that find razyn!

Here is mine:

36040

Edit: Not a match for the topic, so I'll leave it at that. Just wanted to say thanks, as it's interesting to see!

razyn
06-27-2020, 06:18 PM
... re-testing with their v. 5 chip... produced a vastly improved tree, that gets me down to a SNP (FGC15710) that was actually discovered in my own sample at Full Genomes Corp... I'm in the CTS4065 line, and that also shows up on my new haplotree at 23andMe. So I'll paste in a screen shot of it...

We are now a few months into the Covid-19 "social distancing" event, and I finally got bored enough to revisit 23andMe. I noticed something that might be informative, if one had a little more information about the size of their database. They tell me that FGC15710 is relatively common, found in 1 out of 840 of their "customers." But they weren't testing for FGC15710, until (the current) version 5. And only male customers have YDNA. So, precisely what it means, I don't know. (On another thread I saw that someone who was 1 in 5,000 was told that his haplogroup was relatively UNcommon.) But note that the long SNP tree leading to FGC15710 (you can see it in my post #209 on this thread) shows the rest of CTS4065 -- members falling on any other branch, not tested on their v. 5 chip -- as CTS4065*. So I'm curious whether someone tested at 23andMe, on v.5, has a report showing the frequency in their customer base of CTS4065*.
38174

ehjelt
06-30-2020, 01:39 PM
Since 2013 I’ve been following intensively discussions here. The NS-Cluster was very important. Thanks’ to razyn and all the other guys for that. I’ve only been enjoying the fruits from your discussions. One of the fruits five years ago was a blog article I wrote about NS-Cluster and a map I built for it. It would look a little different today I think.

About the Swedes and Finns: we have a discussion forum and have come to the conclusion that our MRCA lived 700-800 years ago somewhere in the European Lowlands. We Finns are the youngest in this group in the North. We belong to one family and have some weak evidence of our ancestors migrated from Province Gelderland in the 17th Century. So, all of us here in North can be kind of reduced to Dutch in the big picture
38205

Webb
06-30-2020, 01:46 PM
From 2013 I’ve been following intensively discussions here. The NS-Cluster was very important. Thanks’ to razyn and all the other guys for that. I’ve only been enjoying the fruits from your discussions. One of the fruits five years ago was a blog article I wrote about NS-Cluster and a map I built for it. It would look a little different today I think.

About the Swedes and Finns: we have a discussion forum and have come to the conclusion that our MRCA lived 700-800 years ago somewhere in the European Lowlands. We Finns are the youngest in this group in the North. We belong to one family and have some weak evidence of our ancestors migrated from Province Gelderland in the 17th Century. So, all of us here in North can be kind of reduced to Dutch in the big picture
38205

I think you are pretty close. My own group under CTS4065, which is FGC23196, includes myself and two other closely related British samples. Two Dutch samples, a Dane, a Swede and a French sample. The the theory is that there was probably a movement from France, north through the Netherlands to Denmark then to Sweden.

Kemp
07-31-2020, 05:11 PM
Good afternoon! Relatively new to this and trying to track down my paternal line. My paternal 4thGG was adopted. His birth name was Randolph Lawrence 1808-1861 adopted Stickney NPE Kit # 898601 born in Massachusetts. My Big Y on FTDNA haplogroup is FGC-15735. Ethnicity is 80% British Isles, 12% Scandinavia, 6% Asia Minor, >2% Finland... No matches yet. I am a member of R1B, DF27, Z209 & P312 projects. Saw a post that razyn posted in Z209 project that mentioned this forum. I have one match at 67 that is currently a dead end. I have 13 matches at 25 with Vanderhoof with one a genetic distance of 1. Also have two Spanish Sanchez GD of 1 and Cantera GD of 2. Any suggestions for further groups to join would be appreciated. Many thx. Stay well.

MacUalraig
07-31-2020, 06:10 PM
Good afternoon! Relatively new to this and trying to track down my paternal line. My paternal 4thGG was adopted. His birth name was Randolph Lawrence 1808-1861 adopted Stickney NPE Kit # 898601 born in Massachusetts. My Big Y on FTDNA haplogroup is FGC-15735. Ethnicity is 80% British Isles, 12% Scandinavia, 6% Asia Minor, >2% Finland... No matches yet. I am a member of R1B, DF27, Z209 & P312 projects. Saw a post that razyn posted in Z209 project that mentioned this forum. I have one match at 67 that is currently a dead end. I have 13 matches at 25 with Vanderhoof with one a genetic distance of 1. Also have two Spanish Sanchez GD of 1 and Cantera GD of 2. Any suggestions for further groups to join would be appreciated. Many thx. Stay well.

Are you on YFull? eg

https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y10797/

razyn
07-31-2020, 08:14 PM
Kemp, you are already in the DF27 project where I have admin privileges, so I can see most of your kit information. Look at your BigY Block Tree, all that stuff beginning FGC157xx was discovered in my kit at Full Genomes Corp. a little over six years ago. So we are close, but not close enough to show up in your "matches." You are kind of an outrider as FGC15735*, all the rest of us in that block share six more FGC157xx SNPs (in addition to the five that you have, at that level). I'm in the column farthest to the left, with FGC15743 as my "terminal" SNP -- which is only shared by a few guys in my surname project.

You might fine-tune a little with the BigY-700 upgrade, but it would probably be a matter of finding more novel variants, rather than more guys who match the ones you already know about. I'd tend to agree that your divergence from the rest of our more or less Anglo-American bunch would have been on the Continent, and somewhat more than a thousand years ago. Before Norman settlement of southern England, etc. (which pretty much means, before surnames are very helpful -- unless you descend patrilineally from some serious nobility).

Kemp
07-31-2020, 08:14 PM
Thx very much. Not familiar with Yfull.com but will review. :)

Kemp
07-31-2020, 08:36 PM
Thx very much for all of this information Razyn! I have a paternal first cousin taking the Big Y-700 at FTDNA ( I couldn't enlist anyone a bit further out) Will having another match at FGC15735 (presuming that he will) mean the number of private variants will be reduced and we will push time line closer to present? Your thought about the continent might be a possible explanation of the Vanderhoof/ Van der Hoeven matches...NEHG did some work for me on this and suggested that my connection to that family may predate surnames...Cheers! :)

razyn
07-31-2020, 09:32 PM
Will having another match at FGC15735 (presuming that he will) mean the number of private variants will be reduced and we will push time line closer to present?
A match might make them no longer "novel," but given that it's with a first cousin, it would still be "private" (to your family, or surname) by most corporate definitions. Kind of like SNPs, not everybody uses the same definition or aims at the same targets. Some prefer to call UEPs; most exclude Indels; there are regions in the Y chromosome closely mirrored in the X, that give some people the fantods; palindromes don't play nicely with chips; "shotgun" sequencing creates gaps at the ends of the short strands they have splattered; and so on.

I prefer to think that if a mutation of any sort distinguishes branches having it from branches lacking it (forever after), it belongs on any realistic picture of the genetic "tree." Testing companies, especially, don't want to think my way. And we wouldn't have gotten this far without some testing companies. So, I generally have to defer to the greater wisdom of people who are trying to make a living, stay out of jail, etc.

Webb
08-03-2020, 12:31 PM
Good afternoon! Relatively new to this and trying to track down my paternal line. My paternal 4thGG was adopted. His birth name was Randolph Lawrence 1808-1861 adopted Stickney NPE Kit # 898601 born in Massachusetts. My Big Y on FTDNA haplogroup is FGC-15735. Ethnicity is 80% British Isles, 12% Scandinavia, 6% Asia Minor, >2% Finland... No matches yet. I am a member of R1B, DF27, Z209 & P312 projects. Saw a post that razyn posted in Z209 project that mentioned this forum. I have one match at 67 that is currently a dead end. I have 13 matches at 25 with Vanderhoof with one a genetic distance of 1. Also have two Spanish Sanchez GD of 1 and Cantera GD of 2. Any suggestions for further groups to join would be appreciated. Many thx. Stay well.

Which Vanderhoof's do you match at 25 markers? I match a large group of Vanderhoof's at 37 markers but they disappear at 67 markers. They are Z220 as well, but are Z270, where I am CTS4065.

Kemp
08-03-2020, 08:46 PM
Interesting. I match 13 at 25 markers in the Vanderhoof project at FTDNA 11 at GD of 3 and one at GD 2 who hasn't taken Big Y. I have 3 others where I match at 25 but not at 12 and 1 where I match at 12 but not at 25 markers. Only one in the group I match with at 25 GD 3 has tested Big Y and he is in Haplogroup R-Z211. Isn't Z211 down stream from Z209? Unfortunately they all disappear for me at 37 markers

Webb
08-04-2020, 01:06 PM
Interesting. I match 13 at 25 markers in the Vanderhoof project at FTDNA 11 at GD of 3 and one at GD 2 who hasn't taken Big Y. I have 3 others where I match at 25 but not at 12 and 1 where I match at 12 but not at 25 markers. Only one in the group I match with at 25 GD 3 has tested Big Y and he is in Haplogroup R-Z211. Isn't Z211 down stream from Z209? Unfortunately they all disappear for me at 37 markers

This is the same group of Vanderhoof's. I forgot that he tested down to Z211, which is just below Z270 and Z270 is three snp's below Z209.

Webb
08-04-2020, 04:52 PM
A match might make them no longer "novel," but given that it's with a first cousin, it would still be "private" (to your family, or surname) by most corporate definitions. Kind of like SNPs, not everybody uses the same definition or aims at the same targets. Some prefer to call UEPs; most exclude Indels; there are regions in the Y chromosome closely mirrored in the X, that give some people the fantods; palindromes don't play nicely with chips; "shotgun" sequencing creates gaps at the ends of the short strands they have splattered; and so on.

I prefer to think that if a mutation of any sort distinguishes branches having it from branches lacking it (forever after), it belongs on any realistic picture of the genetic "tree." Testing companies, especially, don't want to think my way. And we wouldn't have gotten this far without some testing companies. So, I generally have to defer to the greater wisdom of people who are trying to make a living, stay out of jail, etc.

It looks like three new BigY kits came in just below FGC23196. There is a new block, FGC23186/FGC23173/FGC85270, which now includes Valois in one group, a new English kit and a new German kit parallel to Valois, and then Vander Vliet and the Swede in a third parallel block. Shields and myself were FGC33002 but a new American kit shares half of our private snp's so he is now FGC33002 and Shields and I are now FGC33018. The three of us is in a block parallel to FGC23186.

Webb
08-14-2020, 06:30 PM
It looks like three new BigY kits came in just below FGC23196. There is a new block, FGC23186/FGC23173/FGC85270, which now includes Valois in one group, a new English kit and a new German kit parallel to Valois, and then Vander Vliet and the Swede in a third parallel block. Shields and myself were FGC33002 but a new American kit shares half of our private snp's so he is now FGC33002 and Shields and I are now FGC33018. The three of us is in a block parallel to FGC23186.

I attached a sketch I made from FTDNA's block tree of FGC23196, which is one snp below CTS4065. The kit that is at the parent block of FGC33018, which I share with the MDKA Ireland kit is one of the new kits and it just gives USA with no other information. Previously, Valois, which I named because he has posted on this website before, was just FGC23196*, but because of the two new kits he is now FGC23186. One of the new kits just under Valois's block is listed as German but the surname is also found in Alsace, France, and Belgium. The other new kit that is listed as England, has a name that shows up in Middle English and is possibly French in origin. It is pretty amazing how much of an impact three new kits can make to a tree.

38980

Webb
09-09-2020, 02:40 PM
I attached a sketch I made from FTDNA's block tree of FGC23196, which is one snp below CTS4065. The kit that is at the parent block of FGC33018, which I share with the MDKA Ireland kit is one of the new kits and it just gives USA with no other information. Previously, Valois, which I named because he has posted on this website before, was just FGC23196*, but because of the two new kits he is now FGC23186. One of the new kits just under Valois's block is listed as German but the surname is also found in Alsace, France, and Belgium. The other new kit that is listed as England, has a name that shows up in Middle English and is possibly French in origin. It is pretty amazing how much of an impact three new kits can make to a tree.

38980

I have some updates to this post. I did figure out who the kit was for the FGC33002, marked USA. The surname is Gay, they think their line is originally from Devon or there abouts. I mentioned the surname because they are in a public surname project. I emailed the admin of the Gay project asking if she would pass my email along to the kit who took the BigY test and she did and told me her husband just took Big Y and he is in the same lineage group as this kit. Anyway, they both have responded to me and I have asked them to consider joining the DF27 project. The surname itself is a Middle English word that in French is descriptive and is also French for an area in Normandy. Based on the number of snp's we share and do not share and given that we have an age estimate for FGC23196, I came up with about 87.5 years per snp, so we shared a common ancestor around 675 A.D., which is a really rough estimate. My block mate and I share a common ancestor around 1100 A.D., again very rough estimate but his surname is like mine, Old English. I have also paid for two of my 111 marker matches to upgrade to Big Y. I wanted to pay it forward since many years ago, someone else paid for my Big Y test. Since their last name is Wilder, and my line results from a probable NPE, I can only go by the fact that their surname is also a Middle English descriptive surname. My first line of thinking was our line may have come into Britain with the Norman invasion, but now with the addition of Gay to our particular branch of FGC23196, it may be before the Norman invasion, but this is a lot of speculation.

Ric
10-16-2020, 04:17 PM
Is there a bug in the group forum? i am unable to post or comment in any of the groups where I have subscribed, including the DF27 group. :ban:

But anyways, maybe I can post here.
There has been another member under my block R-FT31826 (a block under CTS4065, hence my post here). Maybe an anonymous or a ghost from another test kit, no way to know. But maybe he is a member in the anthrogenica forum?
I would create another topic about this block if i knew more, but with mostly '?' in the group, there is not much to talk about.

Ric
10-18-2020, 01:59 AM
what's going on in the ftdna groups, i can't post or create a new topic in any groups that i have subscribed, including the df27 group. Some people can do it though, I can see from their time post . I know that you, df27 admins, read this thread, do you have any info about group members unable to post ? Is the df27 group working fine ? if yes, then it's particular to me.

razyn
10-18-2020, 10:51 AM
Is the df27 group working fine ? if yes, then it's particular to me.
Whether it is "working fine" might be questioned in other ways, but I was able to post this morning, so that specific issue may be particular to something you do -- like using a peculiar browser, or logging in from a kit that isn't in the DF27 project. Or some software incompatibility, such as using an iPhone when they only recognize Androids.

Ric
10-18-2020, 01:13 PM
Whether it is "working fine" might be questioned in other ways, but I was able to post this morning, so that specific issue may be particular to something you do -- like using a peculiar browser, or logging in from a kit that isn't in the DF27 project. Or some software incompatibility, such as using an iPhone when they only recognize Androids.

hm, thanks razyn. Yes i thought about software issue. As of this morning i still cannot post, and i can't answer on your comment about my recent 23&me post. Or in any other group for that matter. I'll try the usual, reboot, update and so on. Perhaps using Chrome browser will fix things.

Ric
10-19-2020, 02:36 PM
I sent a request for information to the FTDNA support team, who indeed confirmed that there is a glitch in the groups that prevent group members to post or comment. Or they should have said 'some members' because how some of you can still do it is above my understanding.
So i'll answer your comments in the df27 group later folks.