PDA

View Full Version : R1b-FGC36982 Tree



rms2
08-25-2018, 10:17 PM
Here's a tree I made of the R1b-FGC36982 branch of my family, which is the branch I'm on. My grandfather is second from the left in the bottom row.

It was fun making this tree.

25537

rms2
09-08-2018, 08:55 PM
My second cousin (our paternal grandfathers were brothers) just got his Big Y-500 results - in less than a month (he ordered the Big Y-500 on August 16th or 17th, as I recall).

That's great, but he got a no-call at the most significant SNP, FGC36982, the one that is my terminal SNP, the one that defines our branch of the family. Shikaka!

He matches me on all the ~500 STR markers we both have (both of us have a few no-calls there), and I can see from the Y Chromosome Browser that he really is derived for FGC36982, but evidently FTDNA was unable to secure any reverse reads for it, so they wouldn't call it. Dang!

The reference nucleotide there is C, but we have a change to A. One can see on the Y Chromosome Browser that my second cousin likewise has A but without any damned reverse reads.

Another second cousin (this one once removed) has tested for FGC36982 as a stand alone test and is derived for it, and also a 109/111 match of ours is Big Y-500 tested and is derived for it.

Here is a screenshot of the Y Chromosome Browser showing my results on top, my second cousin's results in the middle, and our 109/111 match's results at the bottom.

25762

You can see why FTDNA left FGC36982 as a no-call for my second cousin, although he is pretty clearly derived for it.

I'll be giving them a phone call on Monday. I tried calling this morning, but FTDNA only accepts calls Monday-Friday from 9-5.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5ZK6Ne_WCw

rms2
09-10-2018, 11:44 PM
I telephoned FTDNA this morning and asked them to take another look at my second cousin's results. I'm glad I did, because the result was that not only did they find that he is in fact derived for FGC36982, but they discovered a SNP downstream of FGC36982 that thus far only he and I share: FGC36981.

Of the two other guys who share the FGC36982 branch with us, one has done the Big Y-500, and he is negative for FGC36981. The other, a known second cousin once removed, tested positive for FGC36982 as a stand alone test. I don't know his FGC36981 status, since he hasn't done the Big Y-500.

The question now is where FGC36981 first appeared. Did it first appear with our third great grandfather, Auguston Stevens, with our second great grandfather, James Holmes Stevens Sr., or with our great grandfather, James Holmes Stevens Jr.? That last one, our great grandfather, is our most recent common y-dna ancestor.

If our second cousin once removed is derived for FGC36981, then that takes it back at least as far as James Holmes Stevens Sr., since he is the most recent common y-dna ancestor we share with our second cousin once removed. If he is negative for it, that would pinpoint our great grandfather as the first one to carry FGC36981.

rms2
09-13-2018, 10:28 PM
Here's a slight revision of the R1b-FGC36982 branch tree to show the effect of FGC36981 downstream of FGC36982.

We know our y-dna great grandfather James Holmes Stevens Jr. was derived for FGC36981, because he is our most recent common y-dna ancestor. We don't know whether or not our second great grandfather James and his father Auguston were.

25893

rms2
09-15-2018, 06:20 PM
I know nobody cares about this but me, but, anyway, I made a stair-step phylogenetic tree for FGC36981 with Paint and filled in some of the empty spaces with decorative doo-dads.

25950

rms2
09-16-2018, 03:32 PM
Edited a few things, all for aesthetic reasons.

This tree is part of a Power Point I made for family members that takes them all the way from a very basic intro to y chromosome testing to the terminal SNP and what that may mean.

25978

rms2
09-17-2018, 06:57 PM
BTW, I fully realize not all those stair steps are really equal in size. Most of them represent blocks of SNPs currently thought to be on the same level because they cannot yet be placed in phylogenetic order and probably never will be, because evidently only one line survived to carry them all forward.

rms2
09-17-2018, 09:17 PM
BTW, the second cousin mentioned in this thread got his Family Finder results today. Now he is my biggest match except for members of my immediate family (i.e., my dad, my mom, my youngest son, and my youngest daughter): 274 cMs, with a longest block of 61.

He's an even bigger match for my dad.

rms2
11-06-2018, 06:57 PM
A man named Jackson whose y-dna STR matches are all Stevenses and Stephenses (including me), and who has tested FGC36974+ (the Stephens/Stevens SNP), has ordered a test for the SNP FGC36982 from FTDNA. Mr. Jackson can only get his paternal paper trail back as far as his great grandfather, John S. Jackson, who was born somewhere in Ohio in 1855 and who died in Hamilton County, Ohio, in 1897. Jackson believes he is a Stevens because he has no Jackson y-dna matches, and, as I said, all his matches are Stevenses and Stephenses. Once he ordered FGC36974 and came up positive, I had to agree with him.

I am hoping he gets a positive result for FGC36982, because that would put him on the same branch I am on.

BTW, I asked Jackson's permission via email to mention this here and on Facebook, and he said okay.

rms2
11-11-2018, 11:33 PM
A man named Jackson whose y-dna STR matches are all Stevenses and Stephenses (including me), and who has tested FGC36974+ (the Stephens/Stevens SNP), has ordered a test for the SNP FGC36982 from FTDNA. Mr. Jackson can only get his paternal paper trail back as far as his great grandfather, John S. Jackson, who was born somewhere in Ohio in 1855 and who died in Hamilton County, Ohio, in 1897. Jackson believes he is a Stevens because he has no Jackson y-dna matches, and, as I said, all his matches are Stevenses and Stephenses. Once he ordered FGC36974 and came up positive, I had to agree with him.

I am hoping he gets a positive result for FGC36982, because that would put him on the same branch I am on.

BTW, I asked Jackson's permission via email to mention this here and on Facebook, and he said okay.

He is FGC36982-, so not on the same branch I am on.

rms2
06-27-2019, 12:48 PM
Here's a slight revision of the R1b-FGC36982 branch tree to show the effect of FGC36981 downstream of FGC36982.

We know our y-dna great grandfather James Holmes Stevens Jr. was derived for FGC36981, because he is our most recent common y-dna ancestor. We don't know whether or not our second great grandfather James and his father Auguston were.

25893

That has changed somewhat since I posted that tree back in November of 2018. A big match came in that confirmed the identity of my patrilineal 5th great grandparents. In addition, a second cousin once removed tested positive for FGC36981, which moves it back at least as far as my second great grandfather. We won't know if my third or fourth great grandfathers were derived for it unless and until we find some cousins who share them with us as most recent common y-dna ancestor. We know my fifth great grandfather was ancestral for it, because two close Stevens matches who share him with the rest of us as mrca are ancestral for FGC36981.

Anyway, here's an updated tree. My grandfather Clifton Stevens is in the lower left corner.

31224

rms2
07-23-2019, 03:26 PM
I communicate with relatives who are intelligent and interested in genealogy but who aren't all that familiar with genetics and dna testing. So, I break things down for them and try to make them simple to follow.

I wrote the following extended explanation of the SNP testing results on my y-dna 5th great grandfather's line thus far. I'm posting it both because I kind of like the way it came out and because it might be helpful to someone else looking for a way to explain things to his/her relatives in a similar situation. Here it is:

1. We know that our most distant known ancestor (mdka) Augustine Stevens was R1b-FGC36982. How? Because all of his known y-dna descendants who have tested are derived (positive) for FGC36982. Since all of us together share Augustine as most recent common ancestor (mrca), we could only have gotten that SNP from him. He had to carry it; otherwise, he could not have passed it down. You can't pass along what you don't have.

2. FGC36981 is a SNP one step downstream of FGC36982. We know that Augustine's great grandson, James Holmes Stevens Sr. (b. 1835), was R1b-FGC36981. How do we know that? Because all of the y-dna descendants of Augustine who are also descendants of his great grandson James who have been SNP tested are FGC36982+ and FGC36981+.

3. However, we also know Augustine himself was not FGC36981+. We know that because there are two of his y-dna descendants who are not also descendants of his great grandson James who have tested FGC36982+ but FGC36981-. Since the most recent common ancestor they share with the rest of Augustine's y-dna descendants is Augustine himself, Augustine must have been FGC36981-, as well. Had he been FGC36981+, he would have passed that on to all his y-dna descendants, but he did not.

4. Since all the y-dna descendants of Augustine who thus far are FGC36981+ are also descendants of his great grandson James Holmes Stevens Sr., we know that FGC36981 goes back at least that far but not as far as Augustine himself, who was born around 1750.

5. What about Augustine's grandson Auguston (James' father) and Auguston's father? We know they must have been FGC36982+ (for the reasons given above), but we don't know their FGC36981 status. Why? Because thus far we don't have any y-dna descendants of Augustine who share either Auguston or his father as most recent common ancestor. All of the tested y-dna descendants of Auguston and his father also share Auguston's son James as most recent common ancestor. That means they acquired FGC36981 from James for sure, but he might have been the first man with that mutation. His father and grandfather might not have had it. We won't know whether or not they did until we can find y-dna descendants of theirs to test who are not also y-dna descendants of James.

6. Note: Two of James Holmes Stevens Sr.'s y-dna descendants who have been SNP tested are also y-dna descendants of his son James Holmes Stevens Jr. (b. 1862). However, two other tested y-dna descendants of James Sr. are not also descendants of James Jr., and they are FGC36981+, as well. One of them is a y-dna descendant of James Jr.'s brother Augustin, and the other is a y-dna descendant of their brother Samuel. Taken together, all four of the y-dna descendants of James Holmes Stevens Sr. who have been tested share him as most recent common ancestor. That means FGC36981 has to go back at least as far as James Sr., since all his tested y-dna descendants are positive for it.

7. Thus far, FGC36981 is the only SNP downstream of FGC36982 that we know about. The two FGC36981-negative lines descended from Augustine probably also have their own unique, branch-identifying SNPs downstream of FGC36982. However, thus far only one man has been tested from each of those two separate lines.

8. The SNP FGC36974 is one step upstream of FGC36982. It is the SNP we share with all our Stephens/Stevens y-dna matches, including those on lines other than Augustine's line. It is the Stephens/Stevens branch-identifying SNP, the one we inherited from our shared immigrant y-dna ancestor. FGC36982 is limited to Augustine's branch. We know that because all the other tested Stephens/Stevens lines among our y-dna matches are FGC36974+ but FGC36982-. Only Augustine's y-dna descendants are both FGC36974+ and FGC36982+.

Hope that was understandable to those who took the trouble to read it. My relatives have the advantage of being at least somewhat familiar with the ancestors mentioned above. I'm posting the graphic below as a visual aid.

31967

rms2
09-10-2019, 12:46 PM
I telephoned FTDNA this morning and asked them to take another look at my second cousin's results. I'm glad I did, because the result was that not only did they find that he is in fact derived for FGC36982, but they discovered a SNP downstream of FGC36982 that thus far only he and I share: FGC36981.

Of the two other guys who share the FGC36982 branch with us, one has done the Big Y-500, and he is negative for FGC36981. The other, a known second cousin once removed, tested positive for FGC36982 as a stand alone test. I don't know his FGC36981 status, since he hasn't done the Big Y-500.

The question now is where FGC36981 first appeared. Did it first appear with our third great grandfather, Auguston Stevens, with our second great grandfather, James Holmes Stevens Sr., or with our great grandfather, James Holmes Stevens Jr.? That last one, our great grandfather, is our most recent common y-dna ancestor.

If our second cousin once removed is derived for FGC36981, then that takes it back at least as far as James Holmes Stevens Sr., since he is the most recent common y-dna ancestor we share with our second cousin once removed. If he is negative for it, that would pinpoint our great grandfather as the first one to carry FGC36981.

Hey! I just discovered that today is the one year anniversary of FTDNA discovering my terminal SNP, FGC36981, or at least telling me about it over the phone when I called about my second cousin's Big Y-500 test results.

Kind of a big deal for me. Time flies.

Since then, as I mentioned a few posts back from this one, a second cousin once removed (mentioned above) has tested FGC36981+, which pushes it back at least as far as my second great grandfather, since he is our mrca.

Won't know the FGC36981 status of my 3rd and 4th great grandfathers until I can find some cousins to test who share them with us as mrca. I'd be surprised if any such people show up, but you never know.

I already know my 5th great grandfather was negative for FGC36981 but positive for FGC36982, because I have a match who is FGC36982+ and FGC36981-, and my 5th great grandfather is our mrca.