PDA

View Full Version : Y-Line origins based on matches



Nqp15hhu
01-14-2020, 09:18 AM
I noticed that my closest match on Y DNA has that their line came from the Glenshee Valley in Scotland. This person has said that their family bible notes that the first settler to Ulster landed here from there and had noted this on a family house. Apparently they arrived here in 1604.

Does this then mean that my ancestors are likely to have come from there too? This individual shares 65 markers out of 67 with me.

Their line originated about 20 miles south of my line.

My Scottish matches are from all over Scotland. There is no clear trend. Most of my closest matches are in the Eastern seaboard of the United States.

I am still struggling to see how I am connected to this man.

Some have said I am an NPE and some have said I am not.

https://i.imgur.com/hVXsd76.jpg

Nqp15hhu
01-16-2020, 06:04 AM
I have emailed my 2step match for the second time and he just wonít reply. This is very frustrating when I am trying to find out origins of my family.

I have struggled to get any of my Y-DNA matches to answer me. I have only got one person to respond to me.

Itís almost as if they know something that they donít want me to know.

I donít see why they cannot just answer me. We are talking about dead people here!

🙄👎

Webb
01-16-2020, 05:00 PM
I noticed that my closest match on Y DNA has that their line came from the Glenshee Valley in Scotland. This person has said that their family bible notes that the first settler to Ulster landed here from there and had noted this on a family house. Apparently they arrived here in 1604.

Does this then mean that my ancestors are likely to have come from there too? This individual shares 65 markers out of 67 with me.

Their line originated about 20 miles south of my line.

My Scottish matches are from all over Scotland. There is no clear trend. Most of my closest matches are in the Eastern seaboard of the United States.

I am still struggling to see how I am connected to this man.

Some have said I am an NPE and some have said I am not.

https://i.imgur.com/hVXsd76.jpg

I don't know if this will help you or not, but I have fourteen 67 marker matches. 12 are Wilder, two are Shields. The closest Wilder is a step 4 the most distant Wilder is a step 6. Both Shields are step 7. One Shields and one of the step 6 Wilder's upgraded to 111 markers as did I. At 111 markers the 67 marker step 6 Wilder is now a 111 marker step 8. The 67 marker step 7 Shields is now a 111 marker step 9 match. All of these Wilder's descend from the same Wilder who came to Virginia from England? around mid 1600s. I was originally told when I first tested that I probably am the result of an NPE. So I assumed this was correct and was looking for a Wilder/Webb connection somewhere in the late 1700's to early 1800's. But now that one of the Wilder's upgraded to 111, his relationship range was pushed back to the point of its borderline after/ before the advent of surnames, depending on how I do the tip hint calculation that FTDNA gives you based on the match range. Plus, I don't think STRs work as well as SNPs at determining relationship range because STRs can mutate in either direction. Your closest match at 67 markers step 2 is closer than my closest 67 marker match, but after upgrading to 111 markers, you might find your relationship range is straddling that point of the adoption of surnames, therefore, it might be an NPE or it might not.

FionnSneachta
01-16-2020, 07:21 PM
I don't know if this will help you or not, but I have fourteen 67 marker matches. 12 are Wilder, two are Shields. The closest Wilder is a step 4 the most distant Wilder is a step 6. Both Shields are step 7. One Shields and one of the step 6 Wilder's upgraded to 111 markers as did I. At 111 markers the 67 marker step 6 Wilder is now a 111 marker step 8. The 67 marker step 7 Shields is now a 111 marker step 9 match. All of these Wilder's descend from the same Wilder who came to Virginia from England? around mid 1600s. I was originally told when I first tested that I probably am the result of an NPE. So I assumed this was correct and was looking for a Wilder/Webb connection somewhere in the late 1700's to early 1800's. But now that one of the Wilder's upgraded to 111, his relationship range was pushed back to the point of its borderline after/ before the advent of surnames, depending on how I do the tip hint calculation that FTDNA gives you based on the match range. Plus, I don't think STRs work as well as SNPs at determining relationship range because STRs can mutate in either direction. Your closest match at 67 markers step 2 is closer than my closest 67 marker match, but after upgrading to 111 markers, you might find your relationship range is straddling that point of the adoption of surnames, therefore, it might be an NPE or it might not.

I would be hesitant to put too much faith into the tip hint calculation and even using STRs by themselves to determine the common ancestor between two matches. There is just a lot of variability. My dad has two matches at a genetic distance of 6 at Y-111. I share a common ancestor with one around the 1700s and the other is around the 1200s. My dad has 6 matches at a genetic distance of 10 at Y-111 with 4 around the 1200s, one around the 1400s and one around the 1500s. My dad doesn't match two people at Y-111 even though they share an ancestor from around the 1500s.

All my dad's matches are quite scattered and don't really correspond to the order expected based on SNP testing. The only ones that are really as expected are my dad's closests matches at a distance of 3 and 6 who are both my dad's highest STR and SNP matches.

For what it's worth, all my Y-111 matches are from after the introduction of surnames. At Y-67, the first match that appears from before the introduction of surnames is at a genetic distance of 5. However, once again, my dad has same surname matches at a genetic distance of 7. If you really want to know which are your closest STR matches for certain, SNP testing would be necessary. However, naturally the STR matches would need to do SNP testing as well if they haven't already.

Webb
01-16-2020, 08:22 PM
I would be hesitant to put too much faith into the tip hint calculation and even using STRs by themselves to determine the common ancestor between two matches. There is just a lot of variability. My dad has two matches at a genetic distance of 6 at Y-111. I share a common ancestor with one around the 1700s and the other is around the 1200s. My dad has 6 matches at a genetic distance of 10 at Y-111 with 4 around the 1200s, one around the 1400s and one around the 1500s. My dad doesn't match two people at Y-111 even though they share an ancestor from around the 1500s.

All my dad's matches are quite scattered and don't really correspond to the order expected based on SNP testing. The only ones that are really as expected are my dad's closests matches at a distance of 3 and 6 who are both my dad's highest STR and SNP matches.

For what it's worth, all my Y-111 matches are from after the introduction of surnames. At Y-67, the first match that appears from before the introduction of surnames is at a genetic distance of 5. However, once again, my dad has same surname matches at a genetic distance of 7. If you really want to know which are your closest STR matches for certain, SNP testing would be necessary. However, naturally the STR matches would need to do SNP testing as well if they haven't already.

I agree about SNPs being more trustworthy than STRs in determining relationships, particularly if you are some form of P312.

Nqp15hhu
01-16-2020, 09:15 PM
I would be hesitant to put too much faith into the tip hint calculation and even using STRs by themselves to determine the common ancestor between two matches. There is just a lot of variability. My dad has two matches at a genetic distance of 6 at Y-111. I share a common ancestor with one around the 1700s and the other is around the 1200s. My dad has 6 matches at a genetic distance of 10 at Y-111 with 4 around the 1200s, one around the 1400s and one around the 1500s. My dad doesn't match two people at Y-111 even though they share an ancestor from around the 1500s.

All my dad's matches are quite scattered and don't really correspond to the order expected based on SNP testing. The only ones that are really as expected are my dad's closests matches at a distance of 3 and 6 who are both my dad's highest STR and SNP matches.

For what it's worth, all my Y-111 matches are from after the introduction of surnames. At Y-67, the first match that appears from before the introduction of surnames is at a genetic distance of 5. However, once again, my dad has same surname matches at a genetic distance of 7. If you really want to know which are your closest STR matches for certain, SNP testing would be necessary. However, naturally the STR matches would need to do SNP testing as well if they haven't already.

As I said previously I have only received a response from one of my 346 y67 matches. How have you been able to discern when you share ancestors with these people with such poor Irish records i.e at 1500ís?

I share the same terminal snp with my closest match which is R1B-A7713.

How would I be able to calculate genetic distance from SNPís? As I said my snp is A7713, so would it go by the next snp level i.e BY2634 would be 600 years ago shared ancestor, BY651 would be a shared ancestor 800 years ago etc?

I am so confused.

My closest match is on the Big Y tree. You can see him here, Ferguson.

I have contacted him twice and on forums, he wonít respond.

https://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=547&star=false

I match all of those people, bar the McCowan btw.

FionnSneachta
01-16-2020, 09:36 PM
As I said previously I have only received a response from one of my 346 y67 matches. How have you been able to discern when you share ancestors with these people with such poor Irish records i.e at 1500’s?

I share the same terminal snp with my closest match which is R1B-A7713.

How would I be able to calculate genetic distance from SNP’s? As I said my snp is A7713, so would it go by the next snp level i.e BY651 would be a shared ancestor 800 years ago?

I am so confused.

It would really be the Big Y that would be needed rather than SNP packs for estimating a date for the last shared ancestor since it gives you private variants. Based on the number of private variants that you and a match have, it indicates how far back the shared ancestor is. If you and your STR matches did the Big Y, it could allow you to form a new branch with a match that you match closely. You and your matches likely wouldn't all share the same terminal SNP. Some could share the same terminal SNP, others could form a branch below you with someone else or they may be negative for your terminal SNP and be a branch above you. The latter type of match would be more distant than one that shares your terminal SNP. However, the usefulness of the Big Y would be limited if none of your matches have done the Big Y.

For my dad's own SNPs, the first place that can be referenced for SNP ages is Ian McDonald: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/table.html
According to him, BY3437 is from around 1226 AD and BY3439 from around 1426 AD. Next is YFull which estimates Y160102 as 200 ybp (so around 1750 AD) and BY3440 as 375 ybp (so around 1575 AD). The last reference for dates is a pedigree chart of the Kelly family. One tester has tested who has a complete pedigree while most of the others haven't determined the exact connection. I'm looking at my proximity to this tester on the Big Tree to figure where we might share a common ancestor when looking at the pedigree. A son of a man who lived in the 1200s and his descendants started going by the surname Keogh. There is a Keogh who is BY3437+ so that would seem to confirm that BY3437 is from around the 1200s.

Edit: Just added a diagram as an example: https://imgur.com/a/2axf1Iy
I've placed the dates of my dad's SNPs on the image of the FTDNA Block Tree. You can see visually how the Big Y shows who your closest matches are. My dad is closer to matches in his Y160102 block (c. 1750 AD) than others descended from the BY3440 block (c. 1575) but negative for Y160102. Likewise, all the matches under BY3439 (c. 1426) share an ancestor more recently than those positive for BY3437 (1226 AD) but negative for BY3439.

Edit 2: Just noticed that you mentioned your terminal SNP. Unless you have already done the Big Y, R-A7711 may not be your terminal SNP. It could be but if you did the Big Y, you could form a new branch. As far as I know, you have only done SNP packs. I also notice that there are a total of 3 people positive for A7711 on the Block Tree. Looking at the Block Tree, there are on average 9 private variants for the block. I don't know if they're Big Y-500 or 700 but the average age per SNP is 83 years for Big Y-700 which would be about 747 years so about 1203 AD. That is not a rule but rather a guideline. There can be lots of variation with this as well as I've seen in my own group. McDonald estimates the SNP before that BY2634 as 696 AD. At a genetic distance of 2, it does seem likely that the shared ancestor is after the introduction of surnames. However, you have lots of Y-67 matches so convergence could be an issue your group which might make STR matching misleading. If your common ancestor lived after the introduction of surnames, there is a Ferguson, your surname and at least 1 other in the same block on the Block Tree (I'm not sure if you would be on the Block Tree or not from SNP packs). It could be that the NPE occurred in the Ferguson line instead of yours. Until your block becomes filled or surrounded by lots of Fergusons, you can't really conclude that the NPE is in your line (if there is an NPE at all).