Wing Genealogist
12-27-2018, 11:03 AM
The Wing Family in America actually does descend from three brothers (John, Daniel & Stephen) who came to New England in 1632. Y-DNA descendants of each of the three brothers took FTDNA’s Big Y test. The original (Build 37) Big Y results were consistent with the descendants being distant relatives on the Y-DNA line and we discovered a number of SNPs which are unique to only this Wing family.
When FTDNA converted the Big Y results to Build 38 a surprising result was uncovered. Two of the three individuals were positive for a SNP (BY35984) while the third individual (a descendant of the youngest brother) was negative for this SNP. Simple genetics state a Y-DNA mutation occurs during the development of sperm and would result in only one of three brothers having a mutation.
Each of the three individuals had more than enough Big Y reads for the calls to be confirmed. One result had 22 out of 24 reads to be derived; the second result had 35 out of 35 reads to be derived, but the third result had 33 out of 33 reads to be ancestral. While this SNP is located near the centromere of the Y-DNA chromosome (a highly repetitive region), FTDNA has reported the two individuals positive for BY35984 are the only positive results for this SNP to date.
Given this surprising result, we are faced with two options. Either the family tree is wrong (and the third brother is not a genetic brother, but another Y-DNA relative), or another kind of Y-DNA mutation occurred. Both of these options (on their face) appear to be extremely unlikely, but the Big Y results themselves provide incontrovertible evidence that something extremely unusual occurred.
I will first document why I believe it is nearly impossible for there to be an error in the family tree, and in another post I will talk about what seems to be the most likely way for a genetic mutation to be passed along to two sons, but not a third son.
The family tree is solid and the possibility of an error is extremely low. The three brothers were born roughly within a decade of one another (the oldest born in 1611 and the youngest about 1621) so it is impossible for there to be two brothers and a son of one of the brothers (or alternately a father and two sons). One of the brothers (the eldest) moved roughly 20 miles away from the other two brothers almost immediately after marrying, so it is unlikely a mistake was made in identifying a Y-DNA descendant of this brother. (If the brother who moved away was the youngest brother whose descendant was negative for the SNP, it would have been possible for the two individuals positive for the SNP to actually descend from the same brother and their line had been mixed up at some point).
The father of the three brothers was a noted non-conformist priest, Rev. John Winge. He did have brothers who had children, but Rev. John was the only son to move away from the family home (Banbury, England) and eventually moved to mainland Europe (Hamburg and later the Low Countries) to escape religious persecution. Thus, it is also inconceivable for him to adopt a son of one of his brothers. In addition, his brothers stopped having children in 1606, 1613 & 1614, so it would be extremely unlikely that one of them would have a son born about 1621 (when the individual who was negative for BY35984 was born).
When FTDNA converted the Big Y results to Build 38 a surprising result was uncovered. Two of the three individuals were positive for a SNP (BY35984) while the third individual (a descendant of the youngest brother) was negative for this SNP. Simple genetics state a Y-DNA mutation occurs during the development of sperm and would result in only one of three brothers having a mutation.
Each of the three individuals had more than enough Big Y reads for the calls to be confirmed. One result had 22 out of 24 reads to be derived; the second result had 35 out of 35 reads to be derived, but the third result had 33 out of 33 reads to be ancestral. While this SNP is located near the centromere of the Y-DNA chromosome (a highly repetitive region), FTDNA has reported the two individuals positive for BY35984 are the only positive results for this SNP to date.
Given this surprising result, we are faced with two options. Either the family tree is wrong (and the third brother is not a genetic brother, but another Y-DNA relative), or another kind of Y-DNA mutation occurred. Both of these options (on their face) appear to be extremely unlikely, but the Big Y results themselves provide incontrovertible evidence that something extremely unusual occurred.
I will first document why I believe it is nearly impossible for there to be an error in the family tree, and in another post I will talk about what seems to be the most likely way for a genetic mutation to be passed along to two sons, but not a third son.
The family tree is solid and the possibility of an error is extremely low. The three brothers were born roughly within a decade of one another (the oldest born in 1611 and the youngest about 1621) so it is impossible for there to be two brothers and a son of one of the brothers (or alternately a father and two sons). One of the brothers (the eldest) moved roughly 20 miles away from the other two brothers almost immediately after marrying, so it is unlikely a mistake was made in identifying a Y-DNA descendant of this brother. (If the brother who moved away was the youngest brother whose descendant was negative for the SNP, it would have been possible for the two individuals positive for the SNP to actually descend from the same brother and their line had been mixed up at some point).
The father of the three brothers was a noted non-conformist priest, Rev. John Winge. He did have brothers who had children, but Rev. John was the only son to move away from the family home (Banbury, England) and eventually moved to mainland Europe (Hamburg and later the Low Countries) to escape religious persecution. Thus, it is also inconceivable for him to adopt a son of one of his brothers. In addition, his brothers stopped having children in 1606, 1613 & 1614, so it would be extremely unlikely that one of them would have a son born about 1621 (when the individual who was negative for BY35984 was born).