R1b-BY168

[rms2]

BY168 is a SNP newly discovered by FTDNA to be between FGC5572 and BY166 (Z18021), like so:

M207 > M173 > M343 > L754 > L389 > P297 > M269 > L23 > L51 > P310 > L151 > P312 > Z290 > L21

> DF13 > Z39589 > DF41 > FGC5572 > BY168 > BY166 (Z18021).

Another newly discovered SNP, this one downstream of BY168 and parallel to BY166, is FT115269, like so (just to make things obvious):

M207 > M173 > M343 > L754 > L389 > P297 > M269 > L23 > L51 > P310 > L151 > P312 > Z290 > L21

> DF13 > Z39589 > DF41 > FGC5572 > BY168 > FT115269.

This is really interesting to me, since my terminal SNP is downstream of BY166 (Z18021), and up until just recently BY168, BY170, and BY171 were part of the BY166 block. Now those three SNPs form a block just upstream of BY166 and FT115269.

I really would like to find out who else besides our group of BY166+ guys is BY168+.

I made this simplified tree, with, in most cases, single SNPs representing large blocks of SNPs. The red arrows indicate the fact that there are men currently occupying those positions who should eventually get SNP results further downstream.

34504

[rms2]

Found the two guys who are BY168>FT115269: surname Hudson, kits 32075 and 121052, readily visible on the public website of the R1b-DF41 Project.

Their haplotypes are not in the 41-1123 haplotype cluster, which is characterized by BY168>BY166 (aka Z18021).

I'll run the SAPP tool on all this when I get the chance.

[rms2]

I ran all the members of the R1b-BY166 and Subclades Project with at least 111 STR markers through the SAPP Tool with the two Hudsons mentioned above. Interesting stuff.

SAPP gives a tmrca for BY168 of c. 650 BC, with a range of 850-500 BC. That makes sense, because the Hudson haplotypes, which are BY168+ but BY166-, are quite distant from the BY168>BY166+ haplotypes, with a range of 23-36 off at 111 markers.

It supplied a tmrca for BY166 (aka Z18021) of c. 1450 AD, with a range of 1250-1650 AD. That makes sense, as well, since that predates the adoption of permanent surnames in Wales but is also recent enough to account for the relatively tight haplotype cluster within the BY166 subclade.

If the SAPP tool is right, BY168 could eventually show up in Iron Age and later samples, probably among British Celts.

[rms2]

I revised my BY168 tree to include some of the tmrcas from the SAPP run and to make it look a little nicer.

35076

[Kopfjäger]

Found the two guys who are BY168>FT115269: surname Hudson, kits 32075 and 121052, readily visible on the public website of the R1b-DF41 Project.

Their haplotypes are not in the 41-1123 haplotype cluster, which is characterized by BY168>BY166 (aka Z18021).

I'll run the SAPP tool on all this when I get the chance.

Rich,

Do you know where these Hudson lineages originate?

[rms2]

Rich,

Do you know where these Hudson lineages originate?

They can only get as far as North Carolina in the 18th century, but each man has a separate y-dna mdka, and they are three off each other at 111 markers.

From what I have read, the surname is most common in Yorkshire.

[rms2]

This stuff is fun and has been for years now. Worth every penny. And I’ve been really blessed with a lot of good, informative matches and even a couple of major miracles.

Sitting out on my backyard deck right now smoking a salmon and baking some potatoes on my grill/smoker, even though it’s cold as hell and wet. I’m fortified with brandy and Guinness, however, so I’m feeling no weather. Just feeling grateful to God for all my genetic testing blessings, which are many.

[slievenamon]

Guinness for Strength and Christmas Brandy!
You are blessed with good taste, as well.
Sure the smoked salmon was lovely...

[girlsean]

This is really interesting to me, since my terminal SNP is downstream of BY166 (Z18021), and up until just recently BY168, BY170, and BY171 were part of the BY166 block. Now those three SNPs form a block just upstream of BY166 and FT115269.

I really would like to find out who else besides our group of BY166+ guys is BY168+.

34504


I just got my brother's results and we are just downstream of FT115269. FTDNA has assigned us as R-FT61490. But I take it Hudson's terminal SNP is FT115269? So are in fact downstream of them, or side by side? FTDNA Kit is 142395.

Thanks for any help you can give.

Sean

[rms2]

I just got my brother's results and we are just downstream of FT115269. FTDNA has assigned us as R-FT61490. But I take it Hudson's terminal SNP is FT115269? So are in fact downstream of them, or side by side? FTDNA Kit is 142395.

Thanks for any help you can give.

Sean

Wow! Thanks for posting here!

Apparently FT61490 is actually upstream of FT115269, and your y-dna line is negative (ancestral) for FT115269. So, to be clear, FT115269 is downstream of FT61490.

I included your brother's haplotype in another run of the SAPP tool. It brought the tmrca date for BY168 down to c. 550 BC (range 850-300 BC). The tmrca date for FT61490, which you all share with the Hudsons, is c. 850 AD (800-950 AD). The Hudsons' FT115269 has a tmrca date of c. 1650 AD (1650-1700 AD).

I see another Dixon there in the DF41 Project who is only off your brother by 1 at 67 markers. It would be really helpful if he did the Big Y-700. Then you would probably get more resolution downstream of FT61490, but for now you're stuck at FT61490. Now would be a great time for him to upgrade, since FTDNA has its holiday sale going on.

Here's the SAPP tree with your brother's 111-marker haplotype in it. None of the info includes anything that is not already on public FTDNA web sites.

35324

[rms2]

Based on this new information, I updated my BY168 Tree.

35328

[girlsean]

Thanks for clarifying all that for me. I am in occasional communication with the other Dixon on FTDNA. We descend from a pair of brothers. I'll them know. They really tested just to prove that our two Dixons were related. Don't know if they'll jump on this or not. But it's still progress for me because we have no matches on FTDNA except for distant ones at 25 markers, and we don't match any Dixons, but a lot of Welsh names like Maddox, Vaughan, Jones, etc. Also a cluster of Reynolds. This gives me hope that we just need to get more more people to test. So glad I heard about the sale. Saved a lot of money!

[rms2]

If I could get you Dixons and the Hudsons to join the R1b-BY166 Project, we could broaden it into a BY168 project. I think FTDNA would go for it.

Here's the link to join:

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r1b-41-1123/about

[girlsean]

If I could get you Dixons and the Hudsons to join the R1b-BY166 Project, we could broaden it into a BY168 project. I think FTDNA would go for it.

Here's the link to join:

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r1b-41-1123/about


I just joined. Thanks for considering expanding the group. It will be a treat after all these years to have a home :)

[girlsean]

One more thing -- I see that Wales is frequently mentioned in our group. I have a letter written by my Dixon grandfather sharing some of the family tree info with a cousin. He wrote that the Dixon family had come from Wales. This could only have been an oral tradition passed down through the generations. I never gave it much thought as Dixon is not really a Welsh name. But now I find it interesting.

[rms2]

I just joined. Thanks for considering expanding the group. It will be a treat after all these years to have a home :)

Thanks for joining. I submitted a request to FTDNA this morning to change the project name to R1b-BY168 and Subclades. I justified the request by citing the recent Big Y-700 discoveries and subsequent changes to the y-dna phylogenetic tree, which, of course, are the reasons behind the desired name change.

Hopefully, I'll hear from FTDNA soon.

[rms2]

One more thing -- I see that Wales is frequently mentioned in our group. I have a letter written by my Dixon grandfather sharing some of the family tree info with a cousin. He wrote that the Dixon family had come from Wales. This could only have been an oral tradition passed down through the generations. I never gave it much thought as Dixon is not really a Welsh name. But now I find it interesting.

For a lot of us Wales appears to be the source, it and nearby western and southwestern England.

I'm thinking that is probably not the case for the Hudsons, however, since that surname appears to be most frequent in Yorkshire.

Given BY168's tmrca date of around 550 BC, there's no telling where in Britain it first appeared. I'm hoping it pops up in some ancient sample(s) sometime soon.

[girlsean]

That's really interesting. And of course, any one branch can migrate wherever at any time, so it's hard to say where one, specific family came from. But it definitely seems like a westward location is in the picture.

[girlsean]

Great. Thanks for doing this. I hope we can attract more people to test. It's good that you know how to do all this stuff, because I don't know anything. Ha ha!

[rms2]

I heard from FTDNA today. The person who got my message has transferred my request to the guy who handles that sort of thing. Hopefully, I'll hear something soon.

[rms2]

Okay, the old R1b-41-1123 Project is now the R1b-BY168 and Subclades Project.

Here's the new web address:

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r1b-by168/about/background?fbclid=IwAR1mIYHVI8I8uxELIMyKCqefngJIId qpSduh-zb8Hg4Oc4nJMWfRNS7sh0Y

[rms2]

Heard today from a lady who has charge of two Hudson kits. Sounds like she wants to join them to the R1b-BY168 and Subclades Project. Hope she does.

[rms2]

I had some misgivings (still do) about broadening the project beyond BY166 and out to BY168. With BY166 we had a fairly tight haplotype cluster with ancestry in Wales and the Welsh Marches. Going out to BY168 spreads us out to Yorkshire and Lord knows where else.

But, anyway, I am always looking for more info, and that's why I went in this direction.

[rms2]

Broadening the project out to BY168 hasn't done much yet, but today I got a new STR match . . . with my surname. Probably some kind of relative. I emailed him (or the female who runs his kit) and invited him to join the project.

We were blessed with a pretty prolific ancestor . . . in Maryland . . . in the 1600s I think.

There are a lot of guys who test and get no matches. Can't imagine what that's like. Must be terrible.

[rms2]

Now we have two BY168xBY166 members: Dixon, kit 142395, who is BY168>FT61490, and Hudson, kit 121052, who is BY168>FT61490>FT115269.

Hopefully there will be more BY168+ members arriving soon.

[girlsean]

The Dixons are one of those "guys with no matches". Makes me crazy. So glad you decided to broaden the group so we have someplace to be instead of simply DF41!

[rms2]

The Dixons are one of those "guys with no matches". Makes me crazy. So glad you decided to broaden the group so we have someplace to be instead of simply DF41!

I'm hoping continued Big Y-700 testing will turn up more BY168 people who'll find their way into the project.

[rms2]

The Dixons are one of those "guys with no matches". Makes me crazy. So glad you decided to broaden the group so we have someplace to be instead of simply DF41!

Could you give that other Dixon a little nudge to join the project? That would be helpful. Thanks.

[rms2]

This is a great hobby, at least for me it is, but it is damned slow moving. I've been at it since the spring of 2006, and it has been a slog. And I'm one of the proactive ones. Can't imagine where I'd be if I had just gotten my results and sat around and waited for matches to materialize out of thin air. Some have, yeah, but I've worked for most of what I have gotten. I'm grateful to God for it, though, because it's been nothing short of miraculous, especially when it comes to the big breakthrough early last year on my y-chromosome line.

Ah, well. Hope this year is exceptionally good.

[MitchellSince1893]

This is a great hobby, at least for me it is, but it is damned slow moving. I've been at it since the spring of 2006, and it has been a slog. And I'm one of the proactive ones. Can't imagine where I'd be if I had just gotten my results and sat around and waited for matches to materialize out of thin air. Some have, yeah, but I've worked for most of what I have gotten. I'm grateful to God for it, though, because it's been nothing short of miraculous, especially when it comes to the big breakthrough early last year on my y-chromosome line.

Ah, well. Hope this year is exceptionally good.

It's like watching the an Eastern Cottonwood tree grow (fastest growing trees in North America). While growing 15 feet in one year sounds impressive, that's less than 0.5" per day, which appears pretty slow when you stare at it.

Adding thousands of new SNPs per year to the whole y-dna tree sounds impressive until you look at your branch and see very little movement.

[rms2]

What has really been cool has been the progress on the ancient dna front. When I got my first Y-37 results back in May of 2006, the consensus was that R1b spent the LGM in the Franco-Cantabrian Refuge and spread throughout Europe from west to east at the end of it. Thus we were the descendants of native West European aborigines who had formed the "cast of thousands", the backdrop for the heroic exploits of everybody else's male ancestors.

Now we know that was bogus, although there are still a few lonely holdouts for the FC Refuge, and still fewer for the Italian Refuge, living like those old Japanese soldiers whom no one told WWII had ended, loyal to the end on their otherwise deserted pacific atolls.

[rms2]

Recently got a very close (108/111) match with a different surname. He matched another of my same-surname matches 109/111 and of course was close to all my closest matches.

I contacted the man and exchanged a couple of emails with him. He was surprised that he was so close to all of us and had no matches with men of his surname. I explained that informal adoptions were common practice not too long ago and invited him to join our project.

Thought he might join, but he has just kind of faded away. I can imagine it must be tough to find out that the surname one has carried all his life is the product not of biology but of some sort of mysterious process.

[rms2]

When things get really dull, boring and dry around here and in the genetic genealogy world in general - like now - I have to remind myself how really blessed I have been with matches and new information. Of course, I'm greedy for more.

Anyway, thanks to God for everything.

[rms2]

Well, not that anyone else will give a damn, and not that I care whether they do or not, but St. Patrick's Day has been good to me once again, as it usually is. It was on St. Patrick's Day in 2007 that an exact 12-marker match that blossomed into a 37-marker match to my second cousin Mark appeared. Now I know him, at least via email and Facebook.

Today one of the Phillipses in my R1b-BY168 Project got his Big Y-700 results. What is earth shattering about that is that FTDNA says his branch of the Block Tree is FGC36974, which thus far is the Stephens/Stevens branch. Now this Phillips is a close/exact match to several other Welsh Phillipses in our project.

I mention the Block Tree because FTDNA is showing him as R1b-FT37605 rather than R1b-FGC36974. But on the Block Tree FTDNA highlights FGC36974 and says "This is your branch". FT37605 is in the block of SNPs on the same level as FGC36974.

I plan to call FTDNA tomorrow and get some clarification on this. If this Phillips is FT37605+ but FGC36974-, that would mean FT37605 is upstream of FGC36974. That would be interesting news.

Either way, I don't think this means the Phillipses are actually Stephenses or that the Stephenses are actually Phillipses. What I think it means is that the Phillipses and Stephenses are more closely related to each other than to the other members of our cluster and probably share a mrca just prior to the advent of permanent surnames in Wales.

This is some exciting stuff to me, since my own terminal SNP is downstream of FGC36974. It is also something I absolutely did not expect.

Fun!

[rms2]

Well, not that anyone else will give a damn, and not that I care whether they do or not, but St. Patrick's Day has been good to me once again, as it usually is. It was on St. Patrick's Day in 2007 that an exact 12-marker match that blossomed into a 37-marker match to my second cousin Mark appeared. Now I know him, at least via email and Facebook.

Today one of the Phillipses in my R1b-BY168 Project got his Big Y-700 results. What is earth shattering about that is that FTDNA says his branch of the Block Tree is FGC36974, which thus far is the Stephens/Stevens branch. Now this Phillips is a close/exact match to several other Welsh Phillipses in our project.

I mention the Block Tree because FTDNA is showing him as R1b-FT37605 rather than R1b-FGC36974. But on the Block Tree FTDNA highlights FGC36974 and says "This is your branch". FT37605 is in the block of SNPs on the same level as FGC36974.

I plan to call FTDNA tomorrow and get some clarification on this. If this Phillips is FT37605+ but FGC36974-, that would mean FT37605 is upstream of FGC36974. That would be interesting news.

Either way, I don't think this means the Phillipses are actually Stephenses or that the Stephenses are actually Phillipses. What I think it means is that the Phillipses and Stephenses are more closely related to each other than to the other members of our cluster and probably share a mrca just prior to the advent of permanent surnames in Wales.

This is some exciting stuff to me, since my own terminal SNP is downstream of FGC36974. It is also something I absolutely did not expect.

Fun!

Okay, when I look at my own Big Block Tree it shows that particular Phillips in the FGC36974 block.

So apparently he is FGC36974+.

I will call FTDNA tomorrow anyway.

[rms2]

Okay, it looks to me like this Phillips is actually FT37605+ but FGC36974-. When I run FGC36974 in his results, he comes up negative. So that's big news. Evidently the Phillipses are FT37605xFGC36974, which means they are closely related to us Stephenses but parted phylogenetic company one step back upstream. ("xFGC36974" means "not FGC36974".) Still calling FTDNA tomorrow to make sure I'm right.

If I'm right, and FT37605 is actually upstream of FGC36974, that makes a lot of work for me. I have to change all the graphics I've created the last couple of years to reflect the new phylogenetic order. I'm glad really. It gives me something fun to do and breaks the genetic boredom that has prevailed lately.

[rms2]

This morning I called FTDNA about this issue. The young woman on the phone was as helpful as she could be, but she is working from home, and apparently so is almost everyone else at FTDNA. Therefore I wound up having to send an email describing the situation. The response will also come via email.

I told the girl that one of the reasons I call FTDNA rather than write when I have questions is that emails have a tendency to disappear for long, extended periods and go unanswered. She assured me that won't happen.

Time will tell (hopefully not a lot of time).

[rms2]

I'm working on the assumption that this man's Big Y Results page is right and he is FT37605+ and FGC36974-, regardless of the fact that his Big Block Tree identifies FGC36974 as his branch. The Big Y Results run shows the reference at FGC36974 as G and this man's genotype as G. That is negative, since the risk allele for FGC36974 is C. If he was FGC36974+, his genotype would show up as C.

Big news for me. Nice break from the boredom of late.

[rms2]

I heard back from FTDNA. I was correct. This Phillips is FT37605+ and FGC36974-.

The issue I'm having now is that I checked all of the other BY166+ men in our project. The Stephens/Stevens are all FT37605+, but, of the rest, not a single blessed one has a call at FT37605. So, for all I know, every BY166+ is also FT37605+, because we don't have any BY166+ FT37605- results yet.

Aarrgghh!

I emailed FTDNA about this and asked them to investigate.

[rms2]

I heard back from FTDNA. I was correct. This Phillips is FT37605+ and FGC36974-.

The issue I'm having now is that I checked all of the other BY166+ men in our project. The Stephens/Stevens are all FT37605+, but, of the rest, not a single blessed one has a call at FT37605. So, for all I know, every BY166+ is also FT37605+, because we don't have any BY166+ FT37605- results yet.

Aarrgghh!

I emailed FTDNA about this and asked them to investigate.

Okay, I misspoke slightly. All the BY166+ men who have only the old Big-500 results, including the Stephens/Stevens guys, have no-calls at FT37605. All the BY166+ guys with Big Y-700 results have calls at FT37605, and we're all derived (positive).

So, what we need are some upgrades. Yeah, right.

[rms2]

Maybe I'm the last one to know, but evidently the SNPs with the prefix FT weren't covered by the Big Y-500. They were uncovered by Big Y-700 testing. So, none of my project members who has not upgraded to the Big Y-700 has an FT37605 result.

I'm not sure how likely those guys are to upgrade.

[rms2]

More news this evening. FTDNA has uncovered another SNP downstream of FT37605: Y82270. The Phillips I mentioned above is derived for it, as is another of our members with the surname Samuel. (This is all on our public web site, so I'm not violating anyone's privacy.)

Y82270 is parallel to FGC36974, however, since all of us FGC36974+ Stephens/Stevens are ancestral for Y82270.

Good stuff! Thank God for the Big Y-700!

[rms2]

Another of our Phillips ordered the Big Y-700 today. So maybe that will uncover another SNP or two downstream of Y82270.

Kind of heartening to see some interest in y-dna testing despite all the crap going on out in the broader world right now. It's a little glimmer of light.

[rms2]

Another of our Phillips ordered the Big Y-700 today. So maybe that will uncover another SNP or two downstream of Y82270.

Kind of heartening to see some interest in y-dna testing despite all the crap going on out in the broader world right now. It's a little glimmer of light.

Okay, so two more Phillips Big Y-700s have come in. Right now FTDNA has all three Phillips at Y82270, but I'm thinking in the next day or two that will change and something downstream of Y82270 will appear that breaks the Phillips out onto their own sub-branch of Y82270.

Originally, FTDNA was using FT37605 as the SNP moniker for the block just upstream of Y82270, but recently they switched and went to FT83585, which is on the same level. Thus far there are two branches of FT83585: Y82270 and FGC36974. There are two surnames so far on the Y82270 branch, Phillips and Samuel, and one on the FGC36974 branch, Stephens/Stevens. All of those are Welsh/Welsh Borders.

37602

We currently have another Big Y-700 in FTDNA's oven, this one for a man named Jones whose mdka came from Ceredigion in Wales. I could be wrong, but I think it's likely he will be derived for FT83585 at least and maybe even Y82270. Time will tell.

[rms2]

Of course, I really don't expect most people at Anthrogenica to give a flying flip about my little project. That's not surprising, since I'm not interested in everyone else's way-out-on-the-end-of-the-twig SNPs either. Nope. Don't care.

So I guess I post here mostly talking to myself.

It's funny, though. I remember not too many years ago when it was possible to be thoroughly familiar with all that was then known about the R1b tree and a lot of the rest of the major y-dna haplogroups, as well.

Everybody jumped in to discuss everything. That was the way things were at the old dna forums.

That's no longer possible now. The y-chromosome tree has just gotten too big.

[rms2]

Okay, so two more Phillips Big Y-700s have come in. Right now FTDNA has all three Phillips at Y82270, but I'm thinking in the next day or two that will change and something downstream of Y82270 will appear that breaks the Phillips out onto their own sub-branch of Y82270 . . .

Well, I was right about that.

The Phillips have their own branch below Y82270: FT257083, and there is another branch below that, shared by a paternal uncle and nephew: FT221459. Of course, that one thus far can only be confirmed as far back as the uncle's father, who is the same man as his nephew's grandfather (obviously).

The third Phillips, whose Big Y-700 came in earlier, is derived for FT257083 but ancestral for FT221459, but he shares an ancestor with the others only as recently as c. 1780.

Anyway, more good stuff coming from Big Y-700 testing.

[rms2]

It would be cool if we got some ancient dna from Wales and the border region of England and Wales.

The tmrca of BY168 dates back to the 6th century AD, so we could get lucky.

[RobertCasey]

I conducted an analysis of BY168 and BY166. The first thing I noticed is that the branch equivalents and TMRCA estimates did not seem to match:

_______________YFULL_____Big Tree ___Big_Tree (branch equivalents)

FGC5572_______4100_______2970_____0
BY168_________NA_________NA_______21
BY166_________900________690______3

The number of branch equivalents suggest that BY168 should be in the 1500 to 2500 YBP range as do most haplogroups in this time frame. When looking at the signature of BY166 and then comparing to BY168 testers, it is very obvious that BY166 is predictable and should be charted at that level (there are just too few shared mutations between BY166 and the brother of BY166). BY166 has a huge 12 marker signature at Y67. I created a prediction model by running the data through the statistical tool, AcaStat (can be purchased for $10 and is easy to use but does not have much accuracy measurement functionality - but enough). It predicts with 100 % accuracy across 55,000 HG R testers at Y67. However, a few of the predicted positive BY166 testers look to be pretty questionable calls. Over time, these "boundary condition" testers will be key to understanding the true scope of BY166 (currently only four or five such testers).

I am really glad to see that there is now a BY168 haplogroup project. I think that BY168 is the right level for this project since there is significant overlap between the two sons of BY168. But you should use two different signatures and two different prediction models to determine who belongs to these haplogroups. I do not recommend expanding the scope to FGC5572 as this expands the scope by 3X and includes at least five to ten more predictable haplogroups. Here are the files associated with my analysis (I added three new testers from your BY168 project but these are not included in YSNP prediction or SAPP charting). Glad to see others using SAPP - this is an excellent tool for the two predictable haplogroups under BY168. Feel free to use these files in any way that you desire and feel free to ask questions. Column CB is the prediction model for BY166 - I highly recommend that you get AcaStat for only $10 - it is very easy to use and very powerful for determining who belongs to your haplogroups or not. As you test more boundary condition testers between the confirmed positive testers and confirmed negative testers, the constants for the model will change over time.


http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/BY166_HG_R_20200609A.xlsx


http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/BY166_SAPP_Input_20200608C.txt

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/BY166_SAPP_Output_20200608C.png

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/BY166_SAPP_Output_20200608C.html
(http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/BY166_SAPP_Output_20200608C.html)

[rms2]

Yeah, I don't want an FGC5572 project. That would be a bridge too far, from my interest, anyway.

Generally anyone who is BY166+ shows up as a match of some kind for one or more of our project members, and the haplotype is pretty distinctive.

Wish I could test every man in Wales and the border counties in England, though. That would be nice.

[rms2]

Here's a graphic I just did for BY166 yesterday. We're waiting on a Big Y-700 from a Welsh Jones that should make things even more interesting. It's due in early July, but I hope it arrives early. This Jones has already tested BY166+ via an a la carte SNP test.

38153

[glentane]

Sitting out on my backyard deck right now smoking a salmon
M8 you ought to only do that with a filter rolled in to the dooby.
Roach-fish is garbage.

[rms2]

Here's a graphic I just did for BY166 yesterday. We're waiting on a Big Y-700 from a Welsh Jones that should make things even more interesting. It's due in early July, but I hope it arrives early. This Jones has already tested BY166+ via an a la carte SNP test.

38153

Here's an updated graphic that includes all of Big Y-tested BY168. Keeping this post brief. The graphic says what I wanted to say.

39002

[rms2]

We have a couple of upgrades to the Big Y-700 in the FTDNA oven. That makes things interesting.

Wish every male would do the Big Y-700.

[RobertCasey]

Here's an updated graphic that includes all of Big Y-tested BY168. Keeping this post brief. The graphic says what I wanted to say.

39002

The TMRCA estimates for SAPP are not very reliable and need to be adjusted for surname clusters. It is pretty clear that FGC36974 is tied to the Stevens surname cluster (the only surname cluster
under BY166 that has enough testers to be declared a surname cluster). Between FGC36974 and BY166, there is not another Stevens tester. So the estimate of 1650 AD for FGC36974 is way too
recent to be accurate. Surname clusters for English speaking testers started using surnames between 1000 AD to 1200 AD for the vast majority of English speaking testers (except for Wales).

Also, the TMRCA of 1400 AD for BY166 is also way too recent as well. BY166 is both predictable and chartable. It also has a very large signature of 12 markers at Y67. Also, there are also almost
30 branch equivalents of BY166. These characteristics all indicate that this branch is between 1500 and 2500 YBP which all predictable haplogroups with large signatures. These have been found
to be older than 500 AD with my analysis of 40 predictable haplogroups under haplogroup R. So the most recent that BY166 would be is around 500 AD.

All the other branches under BY166 have no surname with greater than five testers, so there are currently one valid surname cluster that can be dated at 1000 AD (or 1200 AD). I find only three
Webb, two Price testers and eight other testers with different surnames. I would limit your scope to BY166 as there is no overlap of YSTR signatures via BY166 YSNP prediction. I would also add
YSTR mutations into your chart as well (SAPP handles them pretty well except testers like Window/254792 which is shown to be part of the Stevens surname cluster but this is based on only
one YSTR mutation 413a (22>21) yet has a genetic distance of twelve from other Steven testers. Also, the accuracy of YSNP prediction of BY166 is currently 100 % and BY166 appears to be
extremely isolated from other nearby testers.

I conducted an in depth analysis of BY166 in June and here are the files associated with this review. Feel free to use these files for your analysis:

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/BY166_HG_R_20200609A.xlsx

Here are the SAPP files:

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/BY166_SAPP_Input_20200608C.txt

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/BY166_SAPP_Output_20200608C.html

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/BY166_SAPP_Output_20200608C.png
(http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/BY166_SAPP_Output_20200608C.png)

UPDATE - I just noticed that you have four Phillips testers grouped together which is
very close to being declared a surname cluster. I also have three Phillips testers
in my EXCEL file but not in any SAPP analysis (probably found them later). So
the TMCRA FT25708 could around 1000 AD to 1200 AD as well.



(http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/BY166_SAPP_Output_20200608C.png)

[reader]

"Surname clusters for English speaking testers started using surnames between 1000 AD to 1200 AD for the vast majority of English speaking testers (except for Wales)."

Since this branch and its testers appears to be of Welsh ancestry and many of the members have Welsh patronymic names, it would not make sense to me to apply a 1000-1200 AD date for these surname clusters. I believe the vast majority of Welsh patronymic surnames did not become fixed before around 1500 AD at the earliest, and a significant fraction only became fixed 200-300 years ago.

It seems like the 1000-1200 AD adjustment might work best for very large Irish surname clusters. As you seem to acknowledge, it would not make sense for Wales. And I'm not sure how justified it would even be for average English surnames (many of which might have been adopted more like 1300 to 1400 AD, and which in some cases could have a most recent common ancestor for surviving surname-carriers that is much more recent than the date the surname was originally adopted).

Also, when it comes to American testers, there are quite a few cases where most/all members of a given surname cluster descend from a single immigrant founder who lived 300-400 years ago (with the surname having expanded rapidly in colonial America, and with there being potentially few or no tested representatives from back in Britain; or in some cases with surname clusters even representing NPEs that occurred in early America).

[rms2]

Thanks for your opinions.

[rms2]

We're currently waiting on a couple of Big Y-700 upgrades now, which is always good, since it means we're making progress.

[rms2]

"Surname clusters for English speaking testers started using surnames between 1000 AD to 1200 AD for the vast majority of English speaking testers (except for Wales)."

Since this branch and its testers appears to be of Welsh ancestry and many of the members have Welsh patronymic names, it would not make sense to me to apply a 1000-1200 AD date for these surname clusters. I believe the vast majority of Welsh patronymic surnames did not become fixed before around 1500 AD at the earliest, and a significant fraction only became fixed 200-300 years ago.

It seems like the 1000-1200 AD adjustment might work best for very large Irish surname clusters. As you seem to acknowledge, it would not make sense for Wales. And I'm not sure how justified it would even be for average English surnames (many of which might have been adopted more like 1300 to 1400 AD, and which in some cases could have a most recent common ancestor for surviving surname-carriers that is much more recent than the date the surname was originally adopted).

Also, when it comes to American testers, there are quite a few cases where most/all members of a given surname cluster descend from a single immigrant founder who lived 300-400 years ago (with the surname having expanded rapidly in colonial America, and with there being potentially few or no tested representatives from back in Britain; or in some cases with surname clusters even representing NPEs that occurred in early America).

I agree. One must keep in mind the history of the adoption of surnames in Wales and compare it with the dates produced by runs of the SAPP tool.

BY166 is shared by a number of men with different Welsh surnames, so it evidently predates the adoption of permanent surnames in Wales. The SAPP TMRCA of 1400 AD for BY166 could be just about right, because back then the Welsh were still using their old patronymic system.

Another step downstream is the FT83585 branch below BY166. It too is shared by men of several different Welsh surnames (Jones, Phillips, Samuel, Stevens, and perhaps more). SAPP gives it a TMRCA of about 1500, which also fits, because that date is before most of the Welsh had abandoned the patronymic system for fixed surnames.

FGC36974, on the other hand, is restricted to men with the surname Stephens/Stevens and gets a TMRCA from SAPP of about 1650 AD. By then, the Welsh had adopted or were in the process of adopting fixed surnames, many of them based, like Stephens/Stevens, on the name of the family patriarch at the time the change in practice occurred.

[rms2]

I added some notes in red to my BY168 Project tree.

41871