PDA

View Full Version : Branches of Z142



Pages : [1] 2

MitchellSince1893
07-27-2014, 02:58 AM
Tonight I looked at the STRs for 35 individuals that are in either of the 2 current branches of Z142 as shown in the FTDNA U152 project.

Z150/Z12222: 21 samples
Z51: 14 samples

I was curious if there were any signature STR values to distinguish the two branches, and I did see one pattern.

So far all 9 Z150/Z12222 samples that tested for DYS463 have a value of 24 while none of the 8 tested Z51 samples have 24. Instead they have values of 22, 23, and 25.

If this is indeed a distinguishing marker between the 2 branches, then the following samples in the Z142+ group may be:

R-Z150/Z12222 (DYS463=24):
B1457 Drapeaux
203575 Edgar Fay, b.c. 1873, USA
102977 William Hill (bef 1742 – bef 1785)
136311 John Mason, b.1740 England d.1807 Philadelphia PA
31971 William C. Langley, m. June 1849, Chambers Co, AL
184173 John Greenwell 1625 - 1658

R-Z51 (DYS463=22, 23, 25)
199841 John Stewart, ca 1725 NC
172561 Matthew Stewart b. 1783 Virginia

Time will tell

R.Rocca
07-27-2014, 02:09 PM
Tonight I looked at the STRs for 35 individuals that are in either of the 2 current branches of Z142 as shown in the FTDNA U152 project.

Z150/Z12222: 21 samples
Z51: 14 samples

I was curious if there were any signature STR values to distinguish the two branches, and I did see one pattern.

So far all 9 Z150/Z12222 samples that tested for DYS463 have a value of 24 while none of the 8 tested Z51 samples have 24. Instead they have values of 22, 23, and 25.

If this is indeed a distinguishing marker between the 2 branches, then the following samples in the Z142+ group may be:

R-Z150/Z12222 (DYS463=24):
B1457 Drapeaux
203575 Edgar Fay, b.c. 1873, USA
102977 William Hill (bef 1742 – bef 1785)
136311 John Mason, b.1740 England d.1807 Philadelphia PA
31971 William C. Langley, m. June 1849, Chambers Co, AL
184173 John Greenwell 1625 - 1658

R-Z51 (DYS463=22, 23, 25)
199841 John Stewart, ca 1725 NC
172561 Matthew Stewart b. 1783 Virginia

Time will tell

With STR signatures being hard to come by in L2 lineages, any indicator helps, even if it is more of a probability and not an absolute.

Pigmon
07-27-2014, 04:32 PM
Mark,

Should you also be included in the DYS 463=24?

Also, now you have me wanting to test my STRs from 67 to 111!

Thanks for doing the research!

Curtis


Tonight I looked at the STRs for 35 individuals that are in either of the 2 current branches of Z142 as shown in the FTDNA U152 project.

Z150/Z12222: 21 samples
Z51: 14 samples

I was curious if there were any signature STR values to distinguish the two branches, and I did see one pattern.

So far all 9 Z150/Z12222 samples that tested for DYS463 have a value of 24 while none of the 8 tested Z51 samples have 24. Instead they have values of 22, 23, and 25.

If this is indeed a distinguishing marker between the 2 branches, then the following samples in the Z142+ group may be:

R-Z150/Z12222 (DYS463=24):
B1457 Drapeaux
203575 Edgar Fay, b.c. 1873, USA
102977 William Hill (bef 1742 – bef 1785)
136311 John Mason, b.1740 England d.1807 Philadelphia PA
31971 William C. Langley, m. June 1849, Chambers Co, AL
184173 John Greenwell 1625 - 1658

R-Z51 (DYS463=22, 23, 25)
199841 John Stewart, ca 1725 NC
172561 Matthew Stewart b. 1783 Virginia

Time will tell

MitchellSince1893
07-27-2014, 04:42 PM
Mark,

Should you also be included in the DYS 463=24?

Also, now you have me wanting to test my STRs from 67 to 111!

Thanks for doing the research!

Curtis
The samples listed under R-Z150/Z12222 and R-Z51 in my previous post were only those that were in the FTDNA U152 project that were Z142+, had tested for DYS463, but hadn't tested for either of the branches. Hence the reason I'm not on that list.

In other words, I was saying if this signature holds true then the individuals in my previous post (who have done the 111 marker test but not tested below this level) would be in those specific branches.

Here are the Z150/Z12222 folks who all have DYS463=24. So far no one in this group has any other value.

B5886 Jean Vidaillet - b. ~1730s, Haute-Garonne, France
207883 Richard Harding(Hardinge/Harden), 1597-1657
1370 Gen. 270, John Graves, b.c. 1665, England/Virginia
1620 Gen. 270, John Graves/Greaves, b.c. 1665
111766 John Tucker Of Cattle Creek, Orangeburg, SC
6732 Arnold Peacock, b 1786 Barnwell Co., SC
249822 Edward Leopold Mitchell-NPE 1893 London
31300 Jean Beaugrand-Champagne 1641 France
256287 Wm Wilson 1724-1779 Black River, Georgetown SC


Here are the Z51 folks that tested for DYS463, all of who don't have DYS463=24

N1950 Johnson, Winterton, Lincolnshire, England
224076 William Sargent b 1715
293908 Solomon Wilson c. 1784 (W)VA - 1877 IN
206005 Richard CLARKE, NPE, Cambridgeshire UK 1831-1912
209585 Thomas Davenport - 1615-1685 of Dorchester, Ma.
7181 Thomas Davenport - 1615-1685 of Dorchester, MA
B3637 Bernardo Vasquez, b. ca.1770, Galicia, Spain
218973 Arthur Johns(t)on, b. c.1804, d. late 1870s

Pigmon
07-27-2014, 05:45 PM
Very interesting! These lists break it down even better.

Again thanks for doing the work!

Pigmon
07-27-2014, 06:14 PM
Another trend I have noticed is that for some reason I tend to place an order with FTDNA when there is a large storm approaching.

Guess what - we currently have tornado watches and warnings all around us until 8 P.M. Yikes this is getting expensive! Quick someone hide my credit card!

Seriously though would it be more beneficial to order the 67-111 upgrade for $129 or the single DYS 463 for $20? I am kind of leaning toward the 67-111 upgrade for matching purposes.

MitchellSince1893
07-27-2014, 08:05 PM
You're welcome on the analysis...just trying to do something useful as we appear to be in a lull in the action.

I was hoping more of the Z142+ folks would have tested with FGC, BigY or ordered some individual SNPs. John Mason is my 2nd closest match I know of at 111 markers so he would be the most promising...but as Richard Rocca can attest STR proximity is often a false positive via SNP testing.

Long-term I think you would be happier if you went ahead and ordered the 111...more bang for the buck

Pigmon
07-27-2014, 09:38 PM
Thanks to your input I have now ordered my 67-111 STR upgrade.

Currently my closest match besides a known cousin at 67 markers is Colonel David Van Valkenburg at a 6 step match. Way out there! At 37 markers I have several 3 step matches with numerous Faulkenberry and Fortenberry surnames.

Hopefully I can find out more about my weird heritage by doing this!

delegz
07-28-2014, 12:27 AM
Based on some "inside information", I tend to think neither Mason (136311) nor Langley (31971) would be found derived for Z150/Z12222, despite having DYS463=24.

Some years ago DNA Fingerprint found me, zur Bruegg (13788), to have DYS463 = 24, while recently YSEQ returned results indicating that I was ancestral for Z12222. My connection with Mason and Langley, as well as Skinner (145421) and Sainte Marie O'Neill (E5562) is that all of us are R-142, and each of us has been told by FTDNA that we have the micro allele of 13.2 at DYS385b, giving us 11,13.2 at DYS385a-b instead of the more common values of 11,13 or 11,14. In addition, we share the uncommon values of 14 or 15 at 389i and 31 at 389ii, 24 at 481, and 14 or 15 at 446.

At least eight men that were found by the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation Y-DNA Project to have 11,13.2 at DYS385a/b also had DYS463 = 24, so my hunch for what it's worth is that they wouldn't have been R-Z12222 either had they been tested. In any case, my FullGenomes Kit is in batch 12, so I hope those in the 385b = 13.2 + Z142 quasi-clade will have a better idea of what we've got immediately downstream of Z142 by year's end.

One question to anyone: does having L562- results rule out the possibility of Z51 too?




Tonight I looked at the STRs for 35 individuals that are in either of the 2 current branches of Z142 as shown in the FTDNA U152 project.

Z150/Z12222: 21 samples
Z51: 14 samples

I was curious if there were any signature STR values to distinguish the two branches, and I did see one pattern.

So far all 9 Z150/Z12222 samples that tested for DYS463 have a value of 24 while none of the 8 tested Z51 samples have 24. Instead they have values of 22, 23, and 25.

If this is indeed a distinguishing marker between the 2 branches, then the following samples in the Z142+ group may be:

R-Z150/Z12222 (DYS463=24):
B1457 Drapeaux
203575 Edgar Fay, b.c. 1873, USA
102977 William Hill (bef 1742 – bef 1785)
136311 John Mason, b.1740 England d.1807 Philadelphia PA
31971 William C. Langley, m. June 1849, Chambers Co, AL
184173 John Greenwell 1625 - 1658

R-Z51 (DYS463=22, 23, 25)
199841 John Stewart, ca 1725 NC
172561 Matthew Stewart b. 1783 Virginia

Time will tell

MitchellSince1893
07-28-2014, 12:51 AM
Thanks for the "inside information". I look forward to your FGC results.

The way it currently looks in the FTDNA project"
U152> L2> Z49/Z68> Z142> Z51> L562/Z55 would indicate that there could be other branches of Z51 yet to be discovered; but in Richard's Rocca's tree Z51 and L562 are shown at the same level.

So I'm not sure.

Question for you: Does FTDNA notify all testers if the are 13.2?

delegz
07-28-2014, 01:53 AM
Question for you: Does FTDNA notify all testers if the are 13.2?

No, the last time I heard, they had to ask specifically whether they had a micro allele at a particular marker, although the checking is done by FTDNA without charge. The company has been promising on and off for years to release all micro allele information to their customers, but......

I found out myself because I ordered Y-DNA tests from two different testing companies in 2004 just to see if the results matched. They did, almost. As I recall, FTDNA reported back that I had 11,14 at DYS385, while the other company which is no longer in business reported back that I had 11,13. Each stood firmly behind its respective results as I became increasingly exasperated, then FTDNA told me that I actually had 11,13.2 which, contrary to what you might think, is closer to 11,14 than to 11,13. Since then, I've asked other FTDNA customers whom I suspect may have 11,13.2 at DYS385 to contact FTDNA themselves and ask whether they in fact do.

MitchellSince1893
07-29-2014, 04:44 PM
Here's the response I got from FTDNA help desk on the DYS385b microallele possibility for my kit


Thank you for contacting Family Tree DNA. Our system is not showing that you tested positive for any micro alleles at all.

Pigmon
08-14-2014, 01:14 PM
I have asked FTDNA if I have a micro allel at DYS385.

Recently I have upgraded my 67 STRs to 111. I am not sure that will tell me anything but it will be possibly useful for comparisons with my Z142 and Z150/Z12222 distant cousins.


Curtis


No, the last time I heard, they had to ask specifically whether they had a micro allele at a particular marker, although the checking is done by FTDNA without charge. The company has been promising on and off for years to release all micro allele information to their customers, but......

I found out myself because I ordered Y-DNA tests from two different testing companies in 2004 just to see if the results matched. They did, almost. As I recall, FTDNA reported back that I had 11,14 at DYS385, while the other company which is no longer in business reported back that I had 11,13. Each stood firmly behind its respective results as I became increasingly exasperated, then FTDNA told me that I actually had 11,13.2 which, contrary to what you might think, is closer to 11,14 than to 11,13. Since then, I've asked other FTDNA customers whom I suspect may have 11,13.2 at DYS385 to contact FTDNA themselves and ask whether they in fact do.

R.Rocca
08-14-2014, 01:33 PM
Another Big-Y test has come up as L2+ Z49+ Z152+ Z150+ Z12222+ 22867545(A/T)+, but neagtive for everything else downstream. He is kit no. 84690 and he belongs to the group. MDKA = Fred Forrest, b. 1895.

Pigmon
08-14-2014, 01:46 PM
Great! Thanks for the heads up Richard.


Another Big-Y test has come up as L2+ Z49+ Z152+ Z150+ Z12222+ 22867545(A/T)+, but neagtive for everything else downstream. He is kit no. 84690 and he belongs to the group. MDKA = Fred Forrest, b. 1895.

Pigmon
08-14-2014, 01:50 PM
Rich,

I have noticed that B5886 Jean Vidaillet - b. ~1714, Haute-Garonne, France R-Z49
is in the U152 and subclades and not included on the map. Can he be added? Perhaps it just takes some time.

Thanks,
Curtis

R.Rocca
08-14-2014, 04:18 PM
Rich,

I have noticed that B5886 Jean Vidaillet - b. ~1714, Haute-Garonne, France R-Z49
is in the U152 and subclades and not included on the map. Can he be added? Perhaps it just takes some time.

Thanks,
Curtis

Steve updates the L2 map every so often.

Pigmon
08-14-2014, 06:08 PM
Steve said he is planning on updating it in the coming months maybe weeks.

Curtis

MitchellSince1893
08-14-2014, 10:46 PM
Another Big-Y test has come up as L2+ Z49+ Z152+ Z150+ Z12222+ 22867545(A/T)+, but neagtive for everything else downstream. He is kit no. 84690 and he belongs to the group. MDKA = Fred Forrest, b. 1895.

FWIW Mr. Forrest matches the trend of the first post in this thread i.e he is R-Z150/Z12222+ and his DYS463=24

MitchellSince1893
08-19-2014, 04:36 AM
Tonight I looked at the STRs for 35 individuals that are in either of the 2 current branches of Z142 as shown in the FTDNA U152 project.

Z150/Z12222: 21 samples
Z51: 14 samples

I was curious if there were any signature STR values to distinguish the two branches, and I did see one pattern.

So far all 9 Z150/Z12222 samples that tested for DYS463 have a value of 24 while none of the 8 tested Z51 samples have 24. Instead they have values of 22, 23, and 25.

If this is indeed a distinguishing marker between the 2 branches, then the following samples in the Z142+ group may be:

R-Z150/Z12222 (DYS463=24):
B1457 Drapeaux
203575 Edgar Fay, b.c. 1873, USA
102977 William Hill (bef 1742 – bef 1785)
136311 John Mason, b.1740 England d.1807 Philadelphia PA
31971 William C. Langley, m. June 1849, Chambers Co, AL
184173 John Greenwell 1625 - 1658

R-Z51 (DYS463=22, 23, 25)
199841 John Stewart, ca 1725 NC
172561 Matthew Stewart b. 1783 Virginia

Time will tell

Edgar Fay is now showing up in the Z150/Z12222 section...another DYS463=24

Pigmon
08-19-2014, 03:11 PM
Edgar Fay is now showing up in the Z150/Z12222 section...another DYS463=24

The Fay surname is included in the records of several villages around the area of Correze, France in the 1600-1700 time frame.

Cubiche
08-20-2014, 02:53 AM
Hello all,
This is Humberto Vidaillet and I am Z49+, Z142+, Z12222+, Z367-.
My 'great grandfather's great grandfather' was Jean Vidaillet. Like my great grandfather Joseph Vidaillet who came to Baracoa (eastern most part of Cuba) in 1860, Jean was from Cardeilhac/Gensac de Boulogne, small communes in Haute Garonne (southwestern France). There have been Vidaillet (Vidailhet, etc.) in that area at least 400 years.
I tested with Y-111 at FTDNA. As of today however, even at Y-25, I have only 'two matches' and these are at a genetic distance of 2!
I would consider testing with Big Y, if it would be likely advance this work!
I would welcome your thoughts and suggestions and look forward to being part of the group!

R.Rocca
08-20-2014, 12:32 PM
Hello all,
This is Humberto Vidaillet and I am Z49+, Z142+, Z12222+, Z367-.
My 'great grandfather's great grandfather' was Jean Vidaillet. Like my great grandfather Joseph Vidaillet who came to Baracoa (eastern most part of Cuba) in 1860, Jean was from Cardeilhac/Gensac de Boulogne, small communes in Haute Garonne (southwestern France). There have been Vidaillet (Vidailhet, etc.) in that area at least 400 years.
I tested with Y-111 at FTDNA. As of today however, even at Y-25, I have only 'two matches' and these are at a genetic distance of 2!
I would consider testing with Big Y, if it would be likely advance this work!
I would welcome your thoughts and suggestions and look forward to being part of the group!

Humberto, more extensive testing is definitely of value. In that space, you have two options, either Big-Y or Full Genomes Y-Prime. See here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?742-Full-Y-Chromosome-Sequencing-Phase-III-Pilot&p=46423&viewfull=1#post46423

Pigmon
08-20-2014, 09:46 PM
Finally got my reply from FTDNA:

"Thank you for your email. Since your original test was run using the lab at the University of Arizona (the lab we used prior to running all tests here in Houston) we are unable to determine if your 385 had a micro allele or not. If you would like to have 385 retested to find out for sure, we do offer it as a stand alone test."


Here's the response I got from FTDNA help desk on the DYS385b microallele possibility for my kit

MitchellSince1893
08-20-2014, 10:39 PM
Welcome to the forum Humberto!

Cubiche
08-21-2014, 02:14 AM
Thanks MitchellSince1893!

Pigmon
08-21-2014, 12:31 PM
It is good to see you in our Z150/Z12222 bucket Humberto!

Welcome to our little group! I am interested in the Haute-Garonne, France area of France your ancestors are from.

Cubiche
08-22-2014, 06:09 PM
It is good to see you in our Z150/Z12222 bucket Humberto!

Welcome to our little group! I am interested in the Haute-Garonne, France area of France your ancestors are from.

Thanks Pigmon! I appreciate your welcoming words and those from the rest of group. I share your interest in Haute Garonne and that whole area as well! Cardeilhac and Gensac-de-Boulogne are very small communes (15 km from each other), both in Haute Garonne. Gensac de Boulogne is almost on the border with the neighboring department of Hautes Pyrénées.

While I love the south of France, it is my understanding that our 'Z150/Z12222 bucket' is more likely to have arisen in north of France. Is this right?

Have you all tested with Big-Y or Full Genomes Y-Prime?

Could you also tell me more about testing for the DYS385b microallele?

Cubiche
08-22-2014, 07:40 PM
Humberto, more extensive testing is definitely of value. In that space, you have two options, either Big-Y or Full Genomes Y-Prime. See here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?742-Full-Y-Chromosome-Sequencing-Phase-III-Pilot&p=46423&viewfull=1#post46423

Thanks so much Richard. I appreciate your feedback. Which one would you recommend? Are there any other a la carte SNPs commercially available from FTDNA (or for that matter from others) at this time that you think I should consider?

Cubiche
08-22-2014, 07:52 PM
Humberto, more extensive testing is definitely of value. In that space, you have two options, either Big-Y or Full Genomes Y-Prime. See here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?742-Full-Y-Chromosome-Sequencing-Phase-III-Pilot&p=46423&viewfull=1#post46423

Thanks so much Richard. I appreciate your feedback. Which one would you recommend? Are there any other a la carte SNPs commercially available from FTDNA (or for that matter from others) at this time that you think I should consider?

R.Rocca
08-22-2014, 08:47 PM
Thanks so much Richard. I appreciate your feedback. Which one would you recommend? Are there any other a la carte SNPs commercially available from FTDNA (or for that matter from others) at this time that you think I should consider?

I think either are good products. Y-Prime looks to be a better value as far as getting more SNPs for the same price, whereas Big-Y gives you the benefit of keeping all of your data within one company.

haleaton
08-23-2014, 05:07 AM
I think either are good products. Y-Prime looks to be a better value as far as getting more SNPs for the same price, whereas Big-Y gives you the benefit of keeping all of your data within one company.

Does FTDNA require you to have STR testing for joining the U152 group? Could somebody just test elsewhere and then just buy one SNP, that would have to be on their tree, and then join?

VinceT
08-23-2014, 06:27 AM
FTDNA simply requires a kit to join a group. However, off-the-cart Y-SNP tests requires a minimum of 12 STR markers before they can be ordered. The basic STR test covers DNA extraction and purification costs, which are not included in SNP tests.

Eligibility of the kit to join a specific group is up to that group's administrator(s), using and leveraging any applicable evidence provided by the prospective joiner.

Pigmon
09-03-2014, 02:47 PM
Finally got my 111 STR results back!

I do not have any matches at all at 111. This is really not unexpected however as I have very few at 67 and those are at a step 7 match (Van Valkenburg and Bauman which are the same family) except Lawson at step 6 and a known cousin at step 3.

I am also DYS463=24.

Curtis


Tonight I looked at the STRs for 35 individuals that are in either of the 2 current branches of Z142 as shown in the FTDNA U152 project.

Z150/Z12222: 21 samples
Z51: 14 samples

I was curious if there were any signature STR values to distinguish the two branches, and I did see one pattern.

So far all 9 Z150/Z12222 samples that tested for DYS463 have a value of 24 while none of the 8 tested Z51 samples have 24. Instead they have values of 22, 23, and 25.

If this is indeed a distinguishing marker between the 2 branches, then the following samples in the Z142+ group may be:

R-Z150/Z12222 (DYS463=24):
B1457 Drapeaux
203575 Edgar Fay, b.c. 1873, USA
102977 William Hill (bef 1742 – bef 1785)
136311 John Mason, b.1740 England d.1807 Philadelphia PA
31971 William C. Langley, m. June 1849, Chambers Co, AL
184173 John Greenwell 1625 - 1658

R-Z51 (DYS463=22, 23, 25)
199841 John Stewart, ca 1725 NC
172561 Matthew Stewart b. 1783 Virginia

Time will tell

Pigmon
09-05-2014, 02:03 PM
Hello all,
This is Humberto Vidaillet and I am Z49+, Z142+, Z12222+, Z367-.
My 'great grandfather's great grandfather' was Jean Vidaillet. Like my great grandfather Joseph Vidaillet who came to Baracoa (eastern most part of Cuba) in 1860, Jean was from Cardeilhac/Gensac de Boulogne, small communes in Haute Garonne (southwestern France). There have been Vidaillet (Vidailhet, etc.) in that area at least 400 years.
I tested with Y-111 at FTDNA. As of today however, even at Y-25, I have only 'two matches' and these are at a genetic distance of 2!
I would consider testing with Big Y, if it would be likely advance this work!
I would welcome your thoughts and suggestions and look forward to being part of the group!

Humberto,

Now that I have 111 markers I am checking those like you whose ancestors are in the relative geographical area as mine. At 111 markers we are a difference of 29.

Most of my matches on ysearch are coming up Swiss, Austrian, French, Belgian and German.

Have you tried to find the meaning or location(village?) of Vidaillet?

Regards,
Curtis

MitchellSince1893
10-15-2014, 04:17 AM
Edgar Fay is continuing the trend of Z142 types with DYS 463=24 tend to be Z150+ (See 1st post of this tread for explanation)

MitchellSince1893
12-04-2014, 08:26 PM
Tonight I looked at the STRs for 35 individuals that are in either of the 2 current branches of Z142 as shown in the FTDNA U152 project.

Z150/Z12222: 21 samples
Z51: 14 samples

I was curious if there were any signature STR values to distinguish the two branches, and I did see one pattern.

So far all 9 Z150/Z12222 samples that tested for DYS463 have a value of 24 while none of the 8 tested Z51 samples have 24. Instead they have values of 22, 23, and 25.

If this is indeed a distinguishing marker between the 2 branches, then...

If 174343 Mr. James Lincoln, d. 1967 (111 marker test) is on the same paternal line as 130589 Edward Lincoln, b.c. 1580, Norfolk, England (37 marker test and BigY results Z150+); then we can add another example to the growing list of Z150 folks who have DYS463=24.

I think this a pretty safe bet as James and Edware Lincoln share 35 of 37 STR markers. http://r1b.org/?page_id=554

delegz
12-08-2014, 03:24 AM
Thanks for the "inside information". I look forward to your FGC results.

Preliminary indications from FGC seem to indicate that a third subclade of R-Z142 has been identified. See latest versions of Yfull Y-tree, 2.29, where I'm YF02435, and Richard R's newest U-152 Project Tree, re: FGC-WHYDW. Yfull predicts release of complete results on December 25, a happy coincidence.

A question for anyone: with regard to the others who have confirmed DYS385=11/13.2 and are currently in the U152 Project, what is the best way to persuade FTDNA to begin offering a test for the SNP that makes us a subclade ASAP? Although I know YSEQ could get on this through Wish a SNP immediately, some folks might prefer to wait to test with FTDNA when possible.

My New Year's wish for 2015: to be able to figure out some way to get in touch with at least one of those in or from Tunisia, Algeria, and/or Morocco, who (1) were tested in some academic study and also found to have DYS385 11/13.2, (2) shares the characteristic allele values such as DYS 389i/ii = 14 or 15/ 31 or 32, DYS481=24, DYS446=14, etc that those in the U152 Project have, and (3) could be in this newly-identified subclade of Z142 as well. My pet hunch, out of a few floating around, is that those in North Africa who have been been tested over the past few years and found to have 11/13.2, descend from retired and resettled Roman legionnaires largely from northern Italy who were given arable land confiscated from locals along the North African littoral zone, to produce olives, grapes, and grain for the Empire.

MitchellSince1893
12-08-2014, 03:45 AM
Congrats on getting your results and establishing/discovering a new Z142 branch!

With that DYS385=11/13.2 you knew it had to be something different.

BTW Per this thread's original post: Add Horatio Sylvanus Roberts to the DYS463=24 equals Z150.

I will now have to add a caveat to say DYS463=24 and DYS385b doesn't = 13.2 :)

Pigmon
12-08-2014, 02:03 PM
Congrats on getting your results and establishing/discovering a new Z142 branch!

With that DYS385=11/13.2 you knew it had to be something different.

BTW Per this thread's original post: Add Horatio Sylvanus Roberts to the DYS463=24 equals Z150.

I will now have to add a caveat to say DYS463=24 and DYS385b doesn't = 13.2 :)

Don't know if I told you or not but my DYS463=24 as well.

I got the results of PANEL 5 (86-93) as part of my y-DNA upgrade to 111 markers on 9/3/2014.

delegz
12-08-2014, 10:37 PM
Congrats on getting your results and establishing/discovering a new Z142 branch!

BTW Per this thread's original post: Add Horatio Sylvanus Roberts to the DYS463=24 equals Z150.

I will now have to add a caveat to say DYS463=24 and DYS385b doesn't = 13.2 :)

Thanks a lot for the congrats.

With respect to DYS463=24 equaling the Z150, while the allele value at that marker appear to set apart those with the Z150 SNP from others with Z51, I and everyone I'm aware of that has DYS385=11/13.2, and that also was tested for DYS463, also had 24. Two examples in the R-U152 and Subclades Research Project are kit numbers 136311 and 31971, both of whom had their DYS385=11/13.2 status confirmed by FTDNA.

Also, as far as I know, everyone found by the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Project (SMGF) to have DYS385=11/13.2 also had DYS463=24......except me, with 22, which was explained to me as being some kind of glitch. Thomas Krahn's DNA fingerprint, a pre-FTDNA and pre-YSEQ venture of his, did report that I had DYS463=24, which I'm hoping Yfull will confirm in its own report back to me by month’s end.

Of course, we won't really know if Z142 + DYS385=11/13.2 together necessarily equal membership in the same Z142 subclade "X" until more people start testing for its distinguishing SNP......FGC22933 ? While waiting to see, maybe we could begin speculating when the MRCA of both those in the Z150 subclade and those in subclade "X" may have lived.

MitchellSince1893
12-08-2014, 11:39 PM
delgz, one thing the DYS385b=13.2 guys have in common is DYS389ii=31.
However, there is one Z150 member, N28922 William Philpot b 3 Sept 1783 Swimbridge, Devon, who has DYS389ii=31, so it's not full proof.

To summarize the STR trends for the 3 branches of Z142.

So far all Z150/Z12222 folks who have tested for it have DYS463=24...but apparently don't have DYS385b=13.2
B5886 Jean Vidaillet - b. ~1730s, Haute-Garonne, France
207883 Richard Harding(Hardinge/Harden), 1597-1657
1370 Gen. 270, John Graves, b.c. 1665, England/Virginia
1620 Gen. 270, John Graves/Greaves, b.c. 1665
111766 John Tucker Of Cattle Creek, Orangeburg, SC
6732 Arnold Peacock, b 1786 Barnwell Co., SC
249822 Edward Leopold Mitchell-NPE 1893 London
31300 Jean Beaugrand-Champagne 1641 France
256287 Wm Wilson 1724-1779 Black River, Georgetown SC

So far all Z51 folks who have tested for it have it, none have DYS463=24
N1950 Johnson, Winterton, Lincolnshire, England
224076 William Sargent b 1715
293908 Solomon Wilson c. 1784 (W)VA - 1877 IN
206005 Richard CLARKE, NPE, Cambridgeshire UK 1831-1912
209585 Thomas Davenport - 1615-1685 of Dorchester, Ma.
7181 Thomas Davenport - 1615-1685 of Dorchester, MA
B3637 Bernardo Vasquez, b. ca.1770, Galicia, Spain
218973 Arthur Johns(t)on, b. c.1804, d. late 1870s

3rd, currently unnamed Z142 branch. Peter zur Brügg is confirmed via FGC test, and the other 4 are possible based on DYS385b=13.2 and DYS389ii=31
Confirmed 13788 Peter zur Brügg (1700-1761), Wengi bei Frutigen, S
Possible E5562 Sainte Marie O'Neill Michel-Etienne, b.1813 Martin
Possible 31971 William C. Langley, m. June 1849, Chambers Co, AL
Possible 136311 John Mason, b.1740 England d.1807 Philadelphia PA
Possible 145421 William Skinner, b. c1704



I can't tell if they are DYS385b=13.2, but the following U152 participants have DYS=389ii=31 and may be part of the 3rd Z142 branch:

B11858 J.P. Barringer 1721-1804
E5448 Antonino Leto b 1787 Monreale. d 8/7/1837 Monreale
E16896
N72006
N99817 William Lovelace b 1643
17211 Jeremiah Norton b. 1781 Yarmouth, Norfolk, England
27305 Samuel Patterson, b. 1826 in Pa.
58747 Thomas Nichols b. 1676, Badgely Ensor, England
77060 Robert Ivey (c1730-c1802), died North Carolina
83649 Mr. John Ray, b. 1780 and d. 1945
201580
317350

delegz
12-09-2014, 10:50 PM
Here are the allele values of certain markers that I’ve found help me, especially in combination with each other, distinguish the haplotype of someone likelier to have DYS385a/b=11/13.2 from the haplotypes of all other men with U152:

DYS481=24

DYS446=14 or 15

DYS513=13

DYS456=15

DYS390=24

DYS447=25

DYS389i/ii=14 or 15/31 or 32, although there are some identified DYS385a/b=11,13.2 haplotypes with 14/30, 14/29, 13/30, and even 13/29 at DYS389i/ii. If such haplotypes have 37 or less markers, and no one ever checked whether or not a 13.2 micro-allele is present at 385b, then they could easily remain unnoticed indefinitely in any list of generally unremarkable R1b-type haplotypes.

Our distant Northwest African cousins, also with DYS385=11,13.2 and often DYS389i/ii=14/31, have however DYS393=14 and DYS394=13.

To what extent these features of DYS385=11/13.2 haplotypes are synonymous with the newly discovered third subclade of Z142 remains to be seen. But it has got to be easier recruiting prospective testees under the banner of a SNP than it has been locating people who may potentially have a micro-allele characterizing membership in a relatively tiny group of related men, a “quasi-clade” rather than a full-fledged subclade, and then successfully conveying to those I’ve contacted the importance of their contacting FTDNA themselves in turn to find out whether or not they do happen to have 11/13.2 at DYS385.

An example of why I say “relatively tiny group of related men” above is SMGF’s finding that of the 36,096 men who contributed their Y-DNA for inclusion in the Foundation’s Y-chromosome Database, only 13 or 0.036% of these men were found to have 11/13.2, as opposed to 1867 or 5.172% that had 11/13 and 10,557 or 29.248% that had 11/14.

Pigmon
12-10-2014, 10:48 PM
Mark or Rich,

Which of the three branches would I be in?

Also I just sent this e-mail to Steve Gilbert:

"Hi Steve,

I noticed in the U152 and subclades project you guys have me under (Please order CTS9490 and/or FGC12378).

The results for both of them from yseq are negative:

My Allele Results
SampleID Marker+ Chr Start End Allele
273 A241 ChrY 6754705 6754705 C-
273 CTS9490 ChrY 18928795 18928795 C-
273 FGC12382 ChrY 6754788 6754788 G-
273 Y3144 ChrY 6754788 6754788 G-
273 ZS2152 ChrY 6754641 6754641 G-

I also have ordered L552 from FTDNA. I am eagerly awaiting the results in 3 to 7 weeks.

Tests Lab Procedure Batch Expected Notes
L552 L552 597 3-7 Weeks


Regards,
Curtis"

Pigmon
12-10-2014, 10:52 PM
Also here is my Panel 5 with DYS463=24

Well, couldn't get it to copy and paste but it is DYS463=24.

Curtis

MitchellSince1893
12-10-2014, 11:39 PM
...

So far all Z150/Z12222 folks who have tested for it have DYS463=24...but apparently don't have DYS385b=13.2
B5886 Jean Vidaillet - b. ~1730s, Haute-Garonne, France
1370 Gen. 270, John Graves, b.c. 1665, England/Virginia
1620 Gen. 270, John Graves/Greaves, b.c. 1665
6732 Arnold Peacock, b 1786 Barnwell Co., SC
31300 Jean Beaugrand-Champagne 1641 France
111766 John Tucker Of Cattle Creek, Orangeburg, SC
207883 Richard Harding(Hardinge/Harden), 1597-1657
211664 John Pigmon (Z150/Z12222+) Ionian Greek/French
249822 Edward Leopold Mitchell-NPE 1893 London
256287 Wm Wilson 1724-1779 Black River, Georgetown SC
...

My apologies Curtis. I meant to add you when I updated the list...here is the one that includes you

MitchellSince1893
12-10-2014, 11:42 PM
Mark or Rich,

Which of the three branches would I be in?



Curtis, you are in the Z150/Z12222 branch of Z142.

As to which branch of Z150...

Since you are negative for CTS9490, FGC12382, there are 4 possibilities I can think of:

1. You are positive L654. If you haven't done so, you could order this SNP.
2. You are positive for L552.
3. You are positive for FGC12378, FGC12379, FGC12380, FGC12381...Just because you are negative FGC12382, doesn't mean you wouldn't be positive for one of these SNPs.
4. You are part of a currently unknown branch of Z150. This would require you to wait for it to be discovered and order a SNP test; or order BigY or FGC test.


If you order L654, FGC12378, GC12379, FGC12380, FGC12381 you are going to spend around $175, and you may turn up negative for all of them, and end up frustrated.

In the long run it's probably going to be more economical and satisfying if you bite the bullet and order a BigY or FGC test.

Just my two cents.

Pigmon
12-11-2014, 03:18 AM
Curtis, you are in the Z150/Z12222 branch of Z142.

As to which branch of Z150...

Since you are negative for CTS9490, FGC12382, there are 4 possibilities I can think of:

1. You are positive L654. If you haven't done so, you could order this SNP.
2. You are positive for L552.
3. You are positive for FGC12378, FGC12379, FGC12380, FGC12381...Just because you are negative FGC12382, doesn't mean you wouldn't be positive for one of these SNPs.
4. You are part of a currently unknown branch of Z150. This would require you to wait for it to be discovered and order a SNP test; or order BigY or FGC test.


If you order L654, FGC12378, GC12379, FGC12380, FGC12381 you are going to spend around $175, and you may turn up negative for all of them, and end up frustrated.

In the long run it's probably going to be more economical and satisfying if you bite the bullet and order a BigY or FGC test.

Just my two cents.

Thanks Mark,

I think I will wait to see what the result of the L552 test is before I test anything else. FTDNA is sooo much slower than yseq!

The SNPs just keep on branching out. In the meantime, I have joined the Norfolk Family History Society to try and find my connections with 17th century ancestors there.

Regards,

MattL
12-16-2014, 08:13 AM
Here are the allele values of certain markers that I’ve found help me, especially in combination with each other, distinguish the haplotype of someone likelier to have DYS385a/b=11/13.2 from the haplotypes of all other men with U152:

DYS481=24

DYS446=14 or 15

DYS513=13

DYS456=15

DYS390=24

DYS447=25

DYS389i/ii=14 or 15/31 or 32, although there are some identified DYS385a/b=11,13.2 haplotypes with 14/30, 14/29, 13/30, and even 13/29 at DYS389i/ii. If such haplotypes have 37 or less markers, and no one ever checked whether or not a 13.2 micro-allele is present at 385b, then they could easily remain unnoticed indefinitely in any list of generally unremarkable R1b-type haplotypes.

Our distant Northwest African cousins, also with DYS385=11,13.2 and often DYS389i/ii=14/31, have however DYS393=14 and DYS394=13.

To what extent these features of DYS385=11/13.2 haplotypes are synonymous with the newly discovered third subclade of Z142 remains to be seen. But it has got to be easier recruiting prospective testees under the banner of a SNP than it has been locating people who may potentially have a micro-allele characterizing membership in a relatively tiny group of related men, a “quasi-clade” rather than a full-fledged subclade, and then successfully conveying to those I’ve contacted the importance of their contacting FTDNA themselves in turn to find out whether or not they do happen to have 11/13.2 at DYS385.

An example of why I say “relatively tiny group of related men” above is SMGF’s finding that of the 36,096 men who contributed their Y-DNA for inclusion in the Foundation’s Y-chromosome Database, only 13 or 0.036% of these men were found to have 11/13.2, as opposed to 1867 or 5.172% that had 11/13 and 10,557 or 29.248% that had 11/14.

Hello delegz. Mitchell pointed out I might fit the combination of markers for this new subclade... specifically DYS385=11-13.2 as well as some of the other markers you guys have mentioned (though I only have a 37 marker test currently), my kit is 317350. The other markers I have that match what you guys point out

DYS389ii=31
DYS456=15
DYS390=24
DYS447=25

delegz
12-17-2014, 07:06 PM
Hello Matt, you are certainly one of the DYS385=11-13.2 people and likely to be in the new subclade of Z142. I won't hear what the particular novel SNP is that defines this branch of Z142 for another week and a half or so, and will let you and others know then what it is.

Incidentally, I was very surprised to read that your FTDNA results page indicates that you have the 13.2 microvariant allele at DYS385b; I rechecked my own results page and the results pages of my Bricker sixth cousins (our most recent common ancestor born in 1700 in Switzerland), and none of us have our respective 13.2 microvariant allele mentioned. Perhaps at some point FTDNA began providing this information on the results pages of its new customers while opting not to do the same for its many established customers. New or established, very few of those customers will have any idea of the significance of microvariant alleles unless the information becomes a standard part of their haplotype, posted with other related haplotypes if and when they join a FTDNA Y-DNA surname or haplogroup research project, such as the one having to do with R-U152 and subclades.

Whether or not that ever happens, it would be extremely helpful (and appreciated) once the novel SNP for the new Z142 subclade is announced if anyone who was found derived for it could send a copy of the emailed confirmation they sought and received from FTDNA, or a pdf of their results page, that confirms their DYS385=11/13.2 status to an administrator of the U152 and Subclades Research Project in order to have his allele value at 385b of 13.2 somehow added to his haplotype in the Results page in place of the misleading values of 13 or 14 that appear there now. In reality, this step would rarely be called for, as there is never going to be very many of us in this subclade due to the apparent rarity of the microvariant allele we share.

MattL
12-18-2014, 08:15 PM
Hello Matt, you are certainly one of the DYS385=11-13.2 people and likely to be in the new subclade of Z142. I won't hear what the particular novel SNP is that defines this branch of Z142 for another week and a half or so, and will let you and others know then what it is.

Incidentally, I was very surprised to read that your FTDNA results page indicates that you have the 13.2 microvariant allele at DYS385b; I rechecked my own results page and the results pages of my Bricker sixth cousins (our most recent common ancestor born in 1700 in Switzerland), and none of us have our respective 13.2 microvariant allele mentioned. Perhaps at some point FTDNA began providing this information on the results pages of its new customers while opting not to do the same for its many established customers. New or established, very few of those customers will have any idea of the significance of microvariant alleles unless the information becomes a standard part of their haplotype, posted with other related haplotypes if and when they join a FTDNA Y-DNA surname or haplogroup research project, such as the one having to do with R-U152 and subclades.

Whether or not that ever happens, it would be extremely helpful (and appreciated) once the novel SNP for the new Z142 subclade is announced if anyone who was found derived for it could send a copy of the emailed confirmation they sought and received from FTDNA, or a pdf of their results page, that confirms their DYS385=11/13.2 status to an administrator of the U152 and Subclades Research Project in order to have his allele value at 385b of 13.2 somehow added to his haplotype in the Results page in place of the misleading values of 13 or 14 that appear there now. In reality, this step would rarely be called for, as there is never going to be very many of us in this subclade due to the apparent rarity of the microvariant allele we share.

Awesome, when/if FTDNA gets that novel SNP I'll probably fire off a test for that. I have yet to test down at all (only some of my close matches have) so might as well shoot for the biggest bang for my buck if I have a good chance of having it. I also didn't notice a Z142 testing option in FTDNA, but I guess I should probably just wait for this new SNP.

Yeah, it's very interesting that my page had that 13.2. I had noticed it before but didn't know enough about any of this to cause me to look out any information.

delegz
12-19-2014, 08:56 AM
Hello Matt, you are certainly one of the DYS385=11-13.2 people and likely to be in the new subclade of Z142. I won't hear what the particular novel SNP is that defines this branch of Z142 for another week and a half or so, and will let you and others know then what it is.

Incidentally, I was very surprised to read that your FTDNA results page indicates that you have the 13.2 microvariant allele at DYS385b; I rechecked my own results page and the results pages of my Bricker sixth cousins (our most recent common ancestor born in 1700 in Switzerland), and none of us have our respective 13.2 microvariant allele mentioned. Perhaps at some point FTDNA began providing this information on the results pages of its new customers while opting not to do the same for its many established customers. New or established, very few of those customers will have any idea of the significance of microvariant alleles unless the information becomes a standard part of their haplotype, posted with other related haplotypes if and when they join a FTDNA Y-DNA surname or haplogroup research project, such as the one having to do with R-U152 and subclades.

Whether or not that ever happens, it would be extremely helpful (and appreciated) once the novel SNP for the new Z142 subclade is announced if anyone who was found derived for it could send a copy of the emailed confirmation they sought and received from FTDNA, or a pdf of their results page, that confirms their DYS385=11/13.2 status to an administrator of the U152 and Subclades Research Project in order to have his allele value at 385b of 13.2 somehow added to his haplotype in the Results page in place of the misleading values of 13 or 14 that appear there now. In reality, this step would rarely be called for, as there is never going to be very many of us in this subclade due to the apparent rarity of the microvariant allele we share.

The last sentence above should have read “In reality, this step would rarely be called for, as there is never going to be very many of us in this subclade if the apparent rarity of the microvariant allele we share is anything to go by.”

delegz
12-26-2014, 07:27 AM
Preliminary indications from FGC seem to indicate that a third subclade of R-Z142 has been identified. See latest versions of Yfull Y-tree, 2.29, where I'm YF02435, and Richard R's newest U-152 Project Tree, re: FGC-WHYDW. Yfull predicts release of complete results on December 25, a happy coincidence.

YFull reports the presence of Y428_2/22500062 and PF486/13273065 as my non-private SNPs immediately downstream of Z142. I had the impression from something I noticed online, but now can't seem to locate again, that PF486 may have also been found in someone who is in R-L21. If true, this would rule out a useful phylogenetic role for that SNP. I guess I'll have to wait and see what YFull does with the information it has in the next version of its Y-tree, 2.32, before I contact other known members of the DYS385=11/13/2 group with news of our new "R1b1a2a1a2b1c1c" subclade.

If YFull isn't accepting orders for single SNPs, at least not yet, nor is FTDNA set up to test for Y428_2 at the present time, is YSEQ the only show in town?

MitchellSince1893
12-26-2014, 01:13 PM
YFull reports the presence of Y428_2/22500062 and PF486/13273065 as my non-private SNPs immediately downstream of Z142. I had the impression from something I noticed online, but now can't seem to locate again, that PF486 may have also been found in someone who is in R-L21. If true, this would rule out a useful phylogenetic role for that SNP. I guess I'll have to wait and see what YFull does with the information it has in the next version of its Y-tree, 2.32, before I contact other known members of the DYS385=11/13/2 group with news of our new "R1b1a2a1a2b1c1c" subclade.

If YFull isn't accepting orders for single SNPs, at least not yet, nor is FTDNA set up to test for Y428_2 at the present time, is YSEQ the only show in town?
My Yfull analysis of these 2 SNPs isn't much help. I have a no call for Y428_2/22500062. For PF486/13273065 I only have 1 read which shows me negative/ancestral.

YSEQ and FTDNA are the only 2 I know of. YSEQ is typically less expensive and quicker.

MattL
12-27-2014, 10:26 PM
My Yfull analysis of these 2 SNPs isn't much help. I have a no call for Y428_2/22500062. For PF486/13273065 I only have 1 read which shows me negative/ancestral.

YSEQ and FTDNA are the only 2 I know of. YSEQ is typically less expensive and quicker.

and with YSEQ's "wish a snp" feature I imagine it will be much faster to get this new one on it (especially considering I can't seem to find eve a Z142 SNP test for FTDNA? Unless I'm missing something). I might go ahead and do YSEQ once it has the SNP.

Thanks for sharing the latest status delegz

Pigmon
12-28-2014, 05:36 PM
and with YSEQ's "wish a snp" feature I imagine it will be much faster to get this new one on it (especially considering I can't seem to find eve a Z142 SNP test for FTDNA? Unless I'm missing something). I might go ahead and do YSEQ once it has the SNP.

Thanks for sharing the latest status delegz

Hi Matt and welcome!
Z142 is available at FTDNA under advanced tests. Select SNP as type of test and type in Z142 and it finds it for you. It is currently $39 unless you have a coupon that will apply for a discount!

yseq will be much faster however if they offer Z142 and have it available.

Regards,
Curtis

MattL
12-30-2014, 12:46 AM
Hi Matt and welcome!
Z142 is available at FTDNA under advanced tests. Select SNP as type of test and type in Z142 and it finds it for you. It is currently $39 unless you have a coupon that will apply for a discount!

yseq will be much faster however if they offer Z142 and have it available.

Regards,
Curtis

Thanks for sharing that, hadn't realized I could search up SNP tests like that.

Pigmon
12-30-2014, 03:51 PM
Thanks for sharing that, hadn't realized I could search up SNP tests like that.

You are welcome.

BTW just thought I should mention here that because of all of the SNPs that might test positive for you perhaps you should consider taking the Big-Y test.

In retrospect, I wish I had because I took several SNP tests and ended up ordering Big Y with the holiday special and a $100 off coupon from Rich Rocca.

It was fun trying to guess which SNPs I would test positive for but it may have been cheaper to just do the Big Y to start with . Just a suggestion.

Curtis

delegz
12-31-2014, 01:05 AM
You are welcome.

BTW just thought I should mention here that because of all of the SNPs that might test positive for you perhaps you should consider taking the Big-Y test.

In retrospect, I wish I had because I took several SNP tests and ended up ordering Big Y with the holiday special and a $100 off coupon from Rich Rocca.

It was fun trying to guess which SNPs I would test positive for but it may have been cheaper to just do the Big Y to start with . Just a suggestion.

Curtis

Matt, I would second that, particularly because there are apparently some coupons available for $100 off the price of BigY, such as the one below from MitchellSince1893, and another from Richard Rocca, an administrator of the U152 Project hosted by FTDNA.

Dale (delegz)


I just got a $100 off BigY coupon. Let me know if you need it.

mafe
02-23-2015, 09:23 PM
FYI: I noticed two U152+ haplotypes with DYS385=11-13.2 in a Spanish/Catalan study.



ROI895 ROI Peri-Barcelona R1b-U152 LROI35 16 13 27 16 18 15 11 13.2 14 11 12 23 13 12 15 12 19
ROI775 ROI Peri-Barcelona R1b-U152 LROI35 16 13 26 16 18 15 11 13.2 14 11 12 23 13 12 15 12 19

More information (Table 4): http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/ejhg201514s1.html

MitchellSince1893
03-30-2015, 03:23 PM
Just an update on the Z142 stats for DYS463.

17 of 17 Z150 individuals have DYS463=24.
8 of 9 Z51 individuals have DYS463=22, 23, or 25.

The one exception is
313855 Walter Burness, 1615-1670, Glenbervie, Scotland
who is U152> L2> Z49,Z68> Z142> Z51> L562,Z51,Z55> Z57> Z147,Z148,CTS6554,28486173> Z52,Z53,Z65,Z149> CTS278

His DYS463=24

MattL
04-14-2015, 11:04 PM
So I'm finally ready to get a Big Y, figured I'd ask if anyone knows about any current discounts (has any codes) etc.

MitchellSince1893
04-14-2015, 11:52 PM
Next one will probably come out right before father's day.

MattL
04-15-2015, 06:50 PM
Just ordered the Big Y, now it's time for me to wait lol, the worst part of all :)

MitchellSince1893
04-15-2015, 11:11 PM
Just noticed a new category on the FTDNA U152 page. Z142+, Z150-. Maybe it's been there for a while, but it's definitely a lot bigger. Members.

145421 William Skinner, b. c1704
317350 Miles L Langley b. 1800 South Carolina
199841 John Stewart, ca 1725 NC
172561 Matthew Stewart b. 1783 Virginia
N112541 Edward Stewart 1754 - 1832 North Carolina
E5562 Sainte Marie O'Neill Michel-Etienne, b.1813 Martin
31971 William C. Langley, m. June 1849, Chambers Co, AL
99788 buffington 1200's buckinghamshire , england

delegz
04-16-2015, 03:34 AM
Just noticed a new category on the FTDNA U152 page. Z142+, Z150-. Maybe it's been there for a while, but it's definitely a lot bigger. Members.

145421 William Skinner, b. c1704
317350 Miles L Langley b. 1800 South Carolina
199841 John Stewart, ca 1725 NC
172561 Matthew Stewart b. 1783 Virginia
N112541 Edward Stewart 1754 - 1832 North Carolina
E5562 Sainte Marie O'Neill Michel-Etienne, b.1813 Martin
31971 William C. Langley, m. June 1849, Chambers Co, AL
99788 buffington 1200's buckinghamshire , england

Maybe I should be included in this category too, but I remain in the "please test for Z150 and Z51" group despite having received L562- results back in early 2011 from FTDNA (and more recently YSEQ reported that I was Z12222- i.e. Z150 early last year). But that's all moot now with the welcome news that Matt L (317350) has just ordered the Big Y. Now it's just a matter of time before his results come back, are analyzed and, after being compared with my own from Full Genomes, it will be moving day for our respective haplotypes as they step up to a new, third sub-clade of R-Z142 created for those in what has been the DYS385a/b=11/13.2 "quasi-clade".

No more quasiness for us !

MitchellSince1893
04-25-2015, 05:48 AM
Maybe I should be included in this category too, but I remain in the "please test for Z150 and Z51" group despite having received L562- results back in early 2011 from FTDNA (and more recently YSEQ reported that I was Z12222- i.e. Z150 early last year). But that's all moot now with the welcome news that Matt L (317350) has just ordered the Big Y. Now it's just a matter of time before his results come back, are analyzed and, after being compared with my own from Full Genomes, it will be moving day for our respective haplotypes as they step up to a new, third sub-clade of R-Z142 created for those in what has been the DYS385a/b=11/13.2 "quasi-clade".

No more quasiness for us !
On the Yfull tree, I just saw a "New" entry on your Z142* branch...kit# YF03288

delegz
04-25-2015, 03:09 PM
On the Yfull tree, I just saw a "New" entry on your Z142* branch...kit# YF03288

! ? ! ?

I don't have a clue as to who this may be, or how to find out.

Thanks for the heads up, though !

MattL
04-27-2015, 06:39 AM
On the Yfull tree, I just saw a "New" entry on your Z142* branch...kit# YF03288

Very interesting

MitchellSince1893
04-27-2015, 11:22 AM
! ? ! ?

I don't have a clue as to who this may be, or how to find out.

Thanks for the heads up, though !

Try going on the Yfull facebook page and asking. That worked for me when I was trying to find out who appeared on my branch.

delegz
05-02-2015, 03:46 AM
On the Yfull tree, I just saw a "New" entry on your Z142* branch...kit# YF03288

As I understand it now, the significance of YF03288 and I (YF02435) appearing together on the Z142* branch is less than meets the eye; YF03288 and I (YF02435) merely share a number of unstable SNPs that are all of poor quality.

So, the wait continues, although not for that much longer...... :)

MattL
05-12-2015, 12:34 AM
Just got my Big Y results in, just submitted a bam file request. Guessing my next step should be to submit it to YFull?

MitchellSince1893
05-12-2015, 03:12 AM
Congrats. I would recommend Yfull for BAM file analysis.

MitchellSince1893
05-13-2015, 02:11 AM
Thanks a lot for the congrats.

With respect to DYS463=24 equaling the Z150, while the allele value at that marker appear to set apart those with the Z150 SNP from others with Z51, I and everyone I'm aware of that has DYS385=11/13.2, and that also was tested for DYS463, also had 24. Two examples in the R-U152 and Subclades Research Project are kit numbers 136311 and 31971, both of whom had their DYS385=11/13.2 status confirmed by FTDNA.

Also, as far as I know, everyone found by the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Project (SMGF) to have DYS385=11/13.2 also had DYS463=24......except me, with 22, which was explained to me as being some kind of glitch. Thomas Krahn's DNA fingerprint, a pre-FTDNA and pre-YSEQ venture of his, did report that I had DYS463=24, which I'm hoping Yfull will confirm in its own report back to me by month’s end.

Of course, we won't really know if Z142 + DYS385=11/13.2 together necessarily equal membership in the same Z142 subclade "X" until more people start testing for its distinguishing SNP......FGC22933 ? While waiting to see, maybe we could begin speculating when the MRCA of both those in the Z150 subclade and those in subclade "X" may have lived.

Thanks to MattL's BigY test it looks like you "officially" got your own branch of Z142 on the U152 project page.


U152> L2> Z49,Z68> Z142> FGC22940,FGC22942,FGC22948,FGC22963,FGC22968,S2345 8
13788 Peter zur Brügg (1700-1761), Wengi bei Frutigen, S Switzerland R-Z49
317350 Miles L Langley b. 1800 South Carolina Unknown Origin R-U152
31971 William C. Langley, m. June 1849, Chambers Co, AL United Kingdom R-Z49
Congrats

Pigmon
05-22-2015, 12:39 PM
I just got a significant new Big Y match - Norman Smith. Here it is:



Mr. Charles Lincoln 52 1 PF7214 25,738 2/2/2015
Norman Smith 54 1 PF7214 27,050 5/21/2015
Mr. Edward Mitchell 52 1 PF7214 25,188 2/2/2015

MitchellSince1893
05-22-2015, 05:53 PM
I saw that this morning. Based on his shared SNPs (60) and no mismatches, I believe he will be on my branch, one or two levels up from me...same level as Lincoln and Brace or 1777. FGC12378 et al.

R.Rocca
05-23-2015, 01:57 PM
I saw that this morning. Based on his shared SNPs (60) and no mismatches, I believe he will be on my branch, one or two levels up from me...same level as Lincoln and Brace or 1777. FGC12378 et al.

It does not seem like he shares any of the SNPs in your group based on the FTDNA provided matches. If you could invite him to join the U152 project, I could double check his BAM file.

MitchellSince1893
05-23-2015, 10:50 PM
It does not seem like he shares any of the SNPs in your group based on the FTDNA provided matches. If you could invite him to join the U152 project, I could double check his BAM file.

I'm guessing this is him in the Smith FTDNA project

306012 Thomas Smith, 1612 -1669 England R-U152 13 24 14 11 11-13 12 12 12 13 12 29 16 9-10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15-15-17-17 11 11 19-23 17 15 16 18 36-37 12 12 11 9 15-16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23-23 17 10 12 12 16 8 12 22 20 12 13 11 15 11 11 12 11

Sending him an invite.

I'm surprised he doesn't match as we have zero mismatches according to FTDNA's BigY tool. I guess he has no reads for the SNPs on my branch?

MitchellSince1893
05-23-2015, 11:14 PM
A screen shot of my FTDNA's BigY matches.
4623

The other 3 matches (Roberts, Brace, and Lincoln) are on my Z150 branch. Hence why I thought Norman Smith might also be on this branch.

R.Rocca
05-24-2015, 05:22 PM
A screen shot of my FTDNA's BigY matches.
4623

The other 3 matches (Roberts, Brace, and Lincoln) are on my Z150 branch. Hence why I thought Norman Smith might also be on this branch.

Norman Smith does not show FGC12378, FGC12379, FGC12380, FGC12381, FGC12382 matches against your kit or that of Roberts, Brace nor Lincoln. So, he cannot belong to your branch.

MitchellSince1893
05-24-2015, 06:16 PM
Norman Smith does not show FGC12378, FGC12379, FGC12380, FGC12381, FGC12382 matches against your kit or that of Roberts, Brace nor Lincoln. So, he cannot belong to your branch.
Hmmm. That doesn't bode well for the usefulness of BigY's analysis tools. Up until the Norman Smith match it appeared to be working.

If he doesn't match on any of those SNPS then I wonder why it shows a zero SNP difference.

R.Rocca
05-24-2015, 11:30 PM
Hmmm. That doesn't bode well for the usefulness of BigY's analysis tools. Up until the Norman Smith match it appeared to be working.

If he doesn't match on any of those SNPS then I wonder why it shows a zero SNP difference.

The zero difference is with "known SNP" from the tree which FTDNA is working off of. Another words, most of the 'Z' series SNPs. Beyond that, you have to look at the drop-down box with novel SNPs to see who really matches.

MitchellSince1893
05-25-2015, 04:18 AM
The zero difference is with "known SNP" from the tree which FTDNA is working off of. Another words, most of the 'Z' series SNPs. Beyond that, you have to look at the drop-down box with novel SNPs to see who really matches.

When I click on the number of "Novel SNPs" hyperlink for individual matches, none of my BigY matches after 4/18/2015 have their "shared Novel Variants" data loaded; so I'm currently unable to see what novel variants are shared between my kit and these recent matches.

Therefore, I can't see any of Norman Smith's novel SNPs.

R.Rocca
05-25-2015, 12:04 PM
When I click on the number of "Novel SNPs" hyperlink for individual matches, none of my BigY matches after 4/18/2015 have their "shared Novel Variants" data loaded; so I'm currently unable to see what novel variants are shared between my kit and these recent matches.

Therefore, I can't see any of Norman Smith's novel SNPs.

Even if another kit is not a member of the project, you are able to see novel shared SNPs that match that kit from the drop-down box (not the link). When you filter by all of the SNPs you match with Brace, Lincoln, etc. you see only their kits. Since Smith doesn't show up, it means he is not positive for them. So, the filter only shows those kits that are positive for them.

MitchellSince1893
05-27-2015, 04:03 AM
Even if another kit is not a member of the project, you are able to see novel shared SNPs that match that kit from the drop-down box (not the link). When you filter by all of the SNPs you match with Brace, Lincoln, etc. you see only their kits. Since Smith doesn't show up, it means he is not positive for them. So, the filter only shows those kits that are positive for them.

FYI: There is a FTDNA glitch with BigY matches as it relates to novel SNPs. http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=37703

MattL
05-30-2015, 03:46 AM
My YFull has finished... I'm now on their tree with you under Z142* delegz

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/
YF3522

delegz
05-30-2015, 06:14 AM
My YFull has finished... I'm now on their tree with you under Z142* delegz

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/
YF3522

What we'll see next is for us ( id:YF02435 + id:YF03522, but not id:YF03288, as he's not in our sub-clade ) to be designated a sub-clade name by YFull, given an approximate number of years ago, such as 4400 years before present, when this sub-clade appeared, and also some indication about when our most recent common ancestor would have lived, such as 4100 or 4200 years before present.

MitchellSince1893
06-04-2015, 02:26 AM
FYI: There is a FTDNA glitch with BigY matches as it relates to novel SNPs. http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=37703

Really wish FTDNA would get their act together on the IT side. I keep getting email notifications saying I have new BigY matches and Y dna matches but when I look at the matches there are no new ones.

MattL
06-06-2015, 08:12 AM
What we'll see next is for us ( id:YF02435 + id:YF03522, but not id:YF03288, as he's not in our sub-clade ) to be designated a sub-clade name by YFull, given an approximate number of years ago, such as 4400 years before present, when this sub-clade appeared, and also some indication about when our most recent common ancestor would have lived, such as 4100 or 4200 years before present.

Looks like they updated the tree:
http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z142/

MitchellSince1893
06-19-2015, 12:37 AM
Even if another kit is not a member of the project, you are able to see novel shared SNPs that match that kit from the drop-down box (not the link). When you filter by all of the SNPs you match with Brace, Lincoln, etc. you see only their kits. Since Smith doesn't show up, it means he is not positive for them. So, the filter only shows those kits that are positive for them.


Rich,

My faith in using the BigY matching is restored. The IT issue is resolved. I can now see the shared SNPs with Norman Smith.

Looking at Norman Smith's shared Novel SNPs, I see that he is positive for FGC12378.


I saw that this morning. Based on his shared SNPs (60) and no mismatches, I believe he will be on my branch, one or two levels up from me...same level as Lincoln and Brace or 1777. FGC12378 et al.
We'll see if this is indeed the case.


On a larger scale you may want to recheck all BigY matches since 4/28/2015 as this IT issue affected many kits.

MitchellSince1893
06-19-2015, 12:47 AM
Norman Smith is also positive for

FGC12379 / Y3142
FGC12380 / Y3143
FGC12381 / Y3140
FGC12382 / Y3144

but I don't see where he is positive for FGC12383 / Y3141 position 7733015, nor FGC12401/402/403/404/405.

If that's the case then Norman Smith would be on the Brace and Lincoln branch.

Pigmon
06-19-2015, 12:08 PM
Norman Smith is now my closest match as follows:

Norman Smith 54 1 PF7214 27,050 5/21/2015
Mr. Charles Lincoln 52 1 PF7214 25,738 2/2/2015
Mr. R Edward Mitchell 52 1 PF7214 25,188 2/2/2015

Interesting that Mr. Smith's ancestor's first is Norman. Maybe it is a hint!

My SNP difference would be 0 except that my PF7214 is a back mutation.

MitchellSince1893
06-21-2015, 07:38 PM
Z142 Midpoint based on FTDNA U152 participants and other sources. Bettembos, France
Latitude: 49.803243. Longitude: 1.868962

This will have a slight British Isles skew to it, but I tried to compensate for this by only including 1 sample per surname and including Z142 samples from Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands from sources other than U152 FTDNA project page.

Also, while not visible, there are multiple entries at the same point in central France and England, as more specific locations weren't available.

5017

Adding the Mid points for U152, L2, and Z49, we definitely see a Westward shift in this particular U152 branch.
5018

EDIT: Out of concern that I still had too much British Isles influence, I removed 6 English samples. The Z142 Mid Pt moved 28 miles South Southeast to
Latitude: 49.445936, Longitude: 2.212317 near Laversines, France....so not a huge impact.

jbarry6899
06-21-2015, 08:05 PM
Adding the Mid points for U152, L2, and Z49, we definitely see a Westward shift in this particular U152 branch.
5018

That's really great. Do you think there are enough data points for S8183 to add that, so we can see how the Z49 branches diverged? (Maybe this belongs in another thread.)

MitchellSince1893
06-21-2015, 08:15 PM
That's really great. Do you think there are enough data points for S8183 to add that, so we can see how the Z49 branches diverged? (Maybe this belongs in another thread.)

Sure....give me a few mins, but just looking at S8183 I can tell it's going to be further East than Z142.

MitchellSince1893
06-21-2015, 08:57 PM
Moved to the Z49 Thread http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2729-Z49-where-did-it-come-from-How-did-it-expand&p=91449&viewfull=1#post91449

kinman
06-24-2015, 02:33 AM
Hello,
I just recently tested positive for R-Z49 at FTDNA, and I am most likely also positive for R-Z142. I read that FTDNA once had R-Z142. but apparently removed it from their haplotree (early in 2014?). Can anyone tell me why they did that (and therefore no longer offer an SNP test for R-Z142)?
-------------Thanks, Ken

MattL
06-25-2015, 12:57 AM
Hello,
I just recently tested positive for R-Z49 at FTDNA, and I am most likely also positive for R-Z142. I read that FTDNA once had R-Z142. but apparently removed it from their haplotree (early in 2014?). Can anyone tell me why they did that (and therefore no longer offer an SNP test for R-Z142)?
-------------Thanks, Ken

So it's not in their haplotree, but if you go to the haplotree and down and click on the advanced snp order form link you can search for Z142 there and order it.

kinman
06-25-2015, 03:32 AM
Thanks Matthew,
I didn't know that there was an advanced snp order form there. Since my closest matches from my Y-67 STR test place me (and you) with Langley and Maynor/Maner families in Subgroup L of the Langley group at FTDNA (my results are listed there), I am fairly confident that I will test positive for Z142. However, what I really want to prove most of all is that I am part of your newly discovered 3rd subclade of Z142 which is defined by positive tests for FGC22940, S18325, etc. I didn't find them listed on the advanced snp order form at FamilyTreeDNA. Are such single SNP tests for FGC22940, etc. available from FSC or other sources?
-----------Thanks, Ken
P.S. I suspect that about 500 years ago (in northern England or southern Scotland), some Langley family adopted a Kinman son, or some Kinman adopted a Langley son, or some illegitimate event happened between the families. Written records haven't been much help so far, so Y-chromosomal evidence may be the only way to figure out where in England or Scotland such an event might have happened between our families.

MitchellSince1893
06-25-2015, 04:30 AM
Hello,
I just recently tested positive for R-Z49 at FTDNA, and I am most likely also positive for R-Z142. I read that FTDNA once had R-Z142. but apparently removed it from their haplotree (early in 2014?). Can anyone tell me why they did that (and therefore no longer offer an SNP test for R-Z142)?
-------------Thanks, Ken


If I recall, Z142 was removed from the tree because FTDNA only uses Geno 2.0 results on their tree and Z142 isn't on the Geno 2.0 test.

Besides FTDNA, you could also test at yseq.net http://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=2091

MattL
06-25-2015, 06:02 PM
Thanks Matthew,
I didn't know that there was an advanced snp order form there. Since my closest matches from my Y-67 STR test place me (and you) with Langley and Maynor/Maner families in Subgroup L of the Langley group at FTDNA (my results are listed there), I am fairly confident that I will test positive for Z142. However, what I really want to prove most of all is that I am part of your newly discovered 3rd subclade of Z142 which is defined by positive tests for FGC22940, S18325, etc. I didn't find them listed on the advanced snp order form at FamilyTreeDNA. Are such single SNP tests for FGC22940, etc. available from FSC or other sources?
-----------Thanks, Ken
P.S. I suspect that about 500 years ago (in northern England or southern Scotland), some Langley family adopted a Kinman son, or some Kinman adopted a Langley son, or some illegitimate event happened between the families. Written records haven't been much help so far, so Y-chromosomal evidence may be the only way to figure out where in England or Scotland such an event might have happened between our families.

Wow, looks like we are from that same Langley subgroup then :) Chances you are like me and part of the new Z142 subclade then. Like Mitchell mentions Yseq would be a good place to test for those, it might be a while before FTDNA gets tests for those.

I see you on my 37 marker matches with a 4 genetic distance. I really need to bump my 37 marker test up, unfortunately getting the Big Y didn't do that :(

Unfortunately Langley group L can't trace back to our immigrant ancestor via a paper trail yet. We seem to dead end at late 1700s South Carolina and North Carolina. Some trees link to a Langley family of Virginia that dead ends again at an immigrant William Langley that probably came from England, I have found no documentation to confirm this connection unfortunately and even it dead ends before going overseas. I would love to see a Y DNA match to a purely oversees Langley to figure out where our line might connect.

MattL
06-25-2015, 06:06 PM
Though I know the cost can be very prohibitive, a Big Y or similar level test would confirm your connection and potentially help expand out that new subclade (and our Langley branch down it).

kinman
06-25-2015, 08:16 PM
Wow, looks like we are from that same Langley subgroup then :) Chances you are like me and part of the new Z142 subclade then. Like Mitchell mentions Yseq would be a good place to test for those, it might be a while before FTDNA gets tests for those.

I see you on my 37 marker matches with a 4 genetic distance. I really need to bump my 37 marker test up, unfortunately getting the Big Y didn't do that :(

Unfortunately Langley group L can't trace back to our immigrant ancestor via a paper trail yet. We seem to dead end at late 1700s South Carolina and North Carolina. Some trees link to a Langley family of Virginia that dead ends again at an immigrant William Langley that probably came from England, I have found no documentation to confirm this connection unfortunately and even it dead ends before going overseas. I would love to see a Y DNA match to a purely oversees Langley to figure out where our line might connect.

Hi Matthew,
A while back, I was told by one of the administrators of the Langley Group that there may be evidence that our subgroup L had connections with Northumberland in northern England. I just wonder if it has anything to do with another member of subgroup L who claims descent from James Radcliffe of Langley. James Radcliffe of Langley apparently lived in Lancashire, but may have owned land in Northumberland. Anyway, I have also been wondering if all of subgroup L will end up in the new subclade of Z142, or if it would only be those of us in subgroup L who have a value of 13 at 385b. I guess there is no way to tell yet.
-------------Ken

MattL
06-25-2015, 09:09 PM
Hi Matthew,
A while back, I was told by one of the administrators of the Langley Group that there may be evidence that our subgroup L had connections with Northumberland in northern England. I just wonder if it has anything to do with another member of subgroup L who claims descent from James Radcliffe of Langley. James Radcliffe of Langley apparently lived in Lancashire, but may have owned land in Northumberland. Anyway, I have also been wondering if all of subgroup L will end up in the new subclade of Z142, or if it would only be those of us in subgroup L who have a value of 13 at 385b. I guess there is no way to tell yet.
-------------Ken

I have heard mention of this, unfortunately haven't gotten my hands on any in-depth reason... other than the fact that there's a Langley village in Northumberland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley,_Northumberland

and many surnames in Britain were derived from localities... ex: John de (or of) Langley

Just like the son of Edward III Edmund of Langley who was born in Langley castle near that village

It's not a bad guess that we have ties to that area for that reason... though hoping to find some documentation etc.

MattL
06-25-2015, 09:10 PM
double post

kinman
06-26-2015, 04:43 PM
Hi all,
I checked YSEQ and they do have the R-Z142 test at a very nice price (less than half what FTDNA charges). However, YSEQ does not yet seem to offer tests for the new 3rd subclade of Z142 (such as FGC22940, FGC22942, R-S18325, etc.). I was wondering if anyone on this forum has requested YSEQ to make any of those tests available. I suspect that YSEQ would be more likely to do so than FTDNA. I guess I could wait for FTDNA to considerably reduce its price for the BIG Y test (it was still almost $500 with that recent coupon at 15% off), but I guess I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen any time soon.

jbarry6899
06-26-2015, 05:03 PM
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone on this forum has requested YSEQ to make any of those tests available.

You can request them by ordering "Wish a SNP." Only $1 each.

kinman
06-26-2015, 11:08 PM
I was reading some of the posts in 2014 on the subject of a micro allelle 13.2 at DYS385b. I read that Kit No. 31971 was confirmed to have this 13.2 micro allele, but I see that in the Langley subgroup L it is listed as 14. So this is making me wonder if all members of Langley subgroup L might be 13.2, whether they are listed as 13 or 14. Does anyone know if anyone in subgroup L has been confirmed as lacking the 13.2 micro allele? I guess I should check with FTDNA to see if I have the micro allele, but is it best (faster?) to contact them by phone or by e-mail?
-----------Thanks, Ken

MitchellSince1893
06-26-2015, 11:46 PM
I used the FTDNA message system to ask if I had 13.2...I didnt

delegz
06-27-2015, 06:09 AM
I was reading some of the posts in 2014 on the subject of a micro allelle 13.2 at DYS385b. I read that Kit No. 31971 was confirmed to have this 13.2 micro allele, but I see that in the Langley subgroup L it is listed as 14. So this is making me wonder if all members of Langley subgroup L might be 13.2, whether they are listed as 13 or 14. Does anyone know if anyone in subgroup L has been confirmed as lacking the 13.2 micro allele? I guess I should check with FTDNA to see if I have the micro allele, but is it best (faster?) to contact them by phone or by e-mail?
-----------Thanks, Ken

Visit your myFTDNA page and check your Y-STR Results. Among the list of Standard Y-STR Values there, at the bottom should be an indication of your micro alleles if you have any and if you are a fairly recent testee. In response to my inquiry, I was told by someone at FTDNA about 10 years ago that I had DYS 385b = 13.2, yet it doesn't appear among my own list of Y-STR Values on myFTDNA. I would suggest phoning FTDNA to ask if you too have this particular microallele if you find there is no mention of it among your myFTDNA results.

kinman
06-27-2015, 05:16 PM
Visit your myFTDNA page and check your Y-STR Results. Among the list of Standard Y-STR Values there, at the bottom should be an indication of your micro alleles if you have any and if you are a fairly recent testee. In response to my inquiry, I was told by someone at FTDNA about 10 years ago that I had DYS 385b = 13.2, yet it doesn't appear among my own list of Y-STR Values on myFTDNA. I would suggest phoning FTDNA to ask if you too have this particular microallele if you find there is no mention of it among your myFTDNA results.

Thanks delegz,
Sure enough, there it was on the bottom of my STR values page. It shows that I do have the 13.2 micro allelle at DYS385b. So I'm beginning to strongly suspect that everyone else in Subgroup L of the Langley project is probably 13.2 as well (and that all those listed as 13 were rounded down to 13, and all those listed as 14 were rounded up). Suggestion: It would probably be helpful if all the M269 people (incl. U152 and Z-49) who have the 13.2 micro allelle joined the Langley group project at FTDNA. That way, all the members of the new subclade of Z142 would have their results grouped together in one place.

delegz
06-28-2015, 04:03 AM
Thanks delegz,
Sure enough, there it was on the bottom of my STR values page. It shows that I do have the 13.2 micro allelle at DYS385b. So I'm beginning to strongly suspect that everyone else in Subgroup L of the Langley project is probably 13.2 as well (and that all those listed as 13 were rounded down to 13, and all those listed as 14 were rounded up). Suggestion: It would probably be helpful if all the M269 people (incl. U152 and Z-49) who have the 13.2 micro allelle joined the Langley group project at FTDNA. That way, all the members of the new subclade of Z142 would have their results grouped together in one place.

I'd suggest instead that they test themselves for Z142 at Yseq and/or U152 at FTDNA, then, if derived for either, join FTDNA's RU152 and Subclades project. There are already some of us who, before or after individually receiving confirmation from FTDNA that we had SYS 385b = 13.2, tested for Z142 and joined this project, including Mason (Kit #136311), Sainte Marie O'Neill (E5562), Skinner (145421), Langley (317250 and 31971), and zur Brügg (13788).

MitchellSince1893
06-28-2015, 02:57 PM
Visit your myFTDNA page and check your Y-STR Results. d Y-STR Values there, at the bottom should be an indication of your micro alleles if you have any and if you are a fairly recent testee.
I just checked and I have this microwave alleles feature. I'm negative for all.

kinman
06-28-2015, 06:40 PM
I'd suggest instead that they test themselves for Z142 at Yseq and/or U152 at FTDNA, then, if derived for either, join FTDNA's RU152 and Subclades project. There are already some of us who, before or after individually receiving confirmation from FTDNA that we had SYS 385b = 13.2, tested for Z142 and joined this project, including Mason (Kit #136311), Sainte Marie O'Neill (E5562), Skinner (145421), Langley (317250 and 31971), and zur Brügg (13788).

Oh yes, I agree that we should encourage them to test for U152 or Z142, so that they can join the R-U152 and subclades project. But many who probably truly belong in this new subclade (especially among Langleys) have only tested for STRs and may still have no current interest in SNP testing. But they could easily (and quickly) check for the micro allele from the STR results that they already have. And if they do have the micro allele that might then encourage more of them to do SNP testing.
Anyway, it looks like the majority of this new subclade will be Langleys (at least in the foreseeable future), and Sainte Marie O'Neill, myself, at least one Maner, and the two Langleys you mentioned, have already joined the Langley project and are grouped together in the large Subgroup L. If the Mason, zur Brugg, and Skinner results were added to this Langley subgroup L, we would then have a pretty good listing of probable members of the new subclade of Z142 where all the STR results could be more easily compared. Anyone can easily join the Langley group if related to a Langley. I plan to encourage a few more of our Maynor/Maner relatives to join the Langley group project, and some of them might even then do more testing. Best of all, this growing list of members of Langley subgroup L might even convince YSEQ or FTDNA to begin offering tests for S18325, S23458, and/or FGC22940, etc. And then a lot more people could afford to prove that they belong in the new Z142 subclade.

kinman
06-30-2015, 08:03 PM
By the way, since the YFull tree gives the name R-S18325 to the 3rd (newest) subclade of R-Z142, is that most likely the name that will be adopted by FamilyTreeDNA, ISOGG, etc.? I don't particularly like it when some trees give different names to the same Haplogroup.

kinman
07-05-2015, 12:32 AM
Hi all,
I just found out that YSEQ is offering an SNP test for FGC22963. Not sure if it is a new test or if I just missed it when I checked last weekend. Anyway, I rechecked there today because I was looking at the YDNA chart at the U152 and subclades project, and there I found someone who was a descendant of John David Bendell (Kit 399543). It showed he tested positive for FGC22963, but none of the other SNPs associated with it are listed for him. So I am not sure if these results came from a single SNP test for FGC22963, or if he had a comprehensive test like Big Y and it was negative for the others (FGC22940, FGC22942, S18325, etc.). If it was from a more comprehensive test, that could indicate that the FGC22963 mutation occurred first and that the Bendell family split off before the other mutations developed in rest of the new R-S18325 subclade of R-Z142. In any case, it would be interesting to know if John David Bendell had the 13.2 micro-allele at DYS385b.

MitchellSince1893
07-05-2015, 03:24 AM
Hi all,
I just found out that YSEQ is offering an SNP test for FGC22963. Not sure if it is a new test or if I just missed it when I checked last weekend. Anyway, I rechecked there today because I was looking at the YDNA chart at the U152 and subclades project, and there I found someone who was a descendant of John David Bendell (Kit 399543). It showed he tested positive for FGC22963, but none of the other SNPs associated with it are listed for him. So I am not sure if these results came from a single SNP test for FGC22963, or if he had a comprehensive test like Big Y and it was negative for the others (FGC22940, FGC22942, S18325, etc.). If it was from a more comprehensive test, that could indicate that the FGC22963 mutation occurred first and that the Bendell family split off before the other mutations developed in rest of the new R-S18325 subclade of R-Z142. In any case, it would be interesting to know if John David Bendell had the 13.2 micro-allele at DYS385b.

John David Bendell shows up on my BigY match list so he's done the BigY test.

delegz
07-05-2015, 05:34 AM
Bendell doesn't share any SNPs downstream of FGC22963 with the few others also found so far to be derived for FGC22963 (Skinner, zur Bruegg, Langley).

Also, he has the DYS385b = 14 rather than the 13.2 microallele. The 13.2 mutation could conceivably have occurred as early as the same generation as the FGC22963, but probably not much later than one generation after the last of five SNPs that followed FGC22963 in succession (i.e., about 400 years if a new SNP occurs about every 80 years, + 30 years for one generation), those SNPs being FGC22940, FGC22942, FGC22948, FGC22968, S23458. That's because subsequent to these 5 SNPs plus one generation would be the earliest I think the Skinner/zur Bruegg subclade (DYS 438 = 12; H4 = 10 or 11; DYS 492 = 12; DYS 525 = 10) could have split with the Langley subclade (DYS 438 = 13 or 14; H4 = 12; DYS 492 = 13; DYS 525 = 11), both of which have DYS 385b = 13.2. The Skinner & zur Bruegg subclade then had FGC22952 and FGC22956, which Langley doesn't share, reinforcing that the members of these two subclades both already had gained their 13.2 microalleles some 160 years previously.

kinman
07-05-2015, 04:23 PM
Bendell doesn't share any SNPs downstream of FGC22963 with the few others also found so far to be derived for FGC22963 (Skinner, zur Bruegg, Langley).

Also, he has the DYS385b = 14 rather than the 13.2 microallele. The 13.2 mutation could conceivably have occurred as early as the same generation as the FGC22963, but probably not much later than one generation after the last of five SNPs that followed FGC22963 in succession (i.e., about 400 years if a new SNP occurs about every 80 years, + 30 years for one generation), those SNPs being FGC22940, FGC22942, FGC22948, FGC22968, S23458. That's because subsequent to these 5 SNPs plus one generation would be the earliest I think the Skinner/zur Bruegg subclade (DYS 438 = 12; H4 = 10 or 11; DYS 492 = 12; DYS 525 = 10) could have split with the Langley subclade (DYS 438 = 13 or 14; H4 = 12; DYS 492 = 13; DYS 525 = 11), both of which have DYS 385b = 13.2. The Skinner & zur Bruegg subclade then had FGC22952 and FGC22956, which Langley doesn't share, reinforcing that the members of these two subclades both already had gained their 13.2 microalleles some 160 years previously.

Thanks delegz,
This certainly does makes the Bendell family very important, but I haven't yet found out if John David Bendell was British or American (or possibly Swiss?). I agree with your excellent analysis, except to add that there seem to be 7 (rather than 5) SNP mutations which followed FSC22963. The other two are FGC22969 and S18325 (unless the latter is equivalent to one of the others?). That might add another 160 years to the transition after Bendell.
---------------Ken

delegz
07-05-2015, 06:21 PM
Thanks delegz,
This certainly does makes the Bendell family very important, but I haven't yet found out if John David Bendell was British or American (or possibly Swiss?). I agree with your excellent analysis, except to add that there seem to be 7 (rather than 5) SNP mutations which followed FSC22963. The other two are FGC22969 and S18325 (unless the latter is equivalent to one of the others?). That might add another 160 years to the transition after Bendell.
---------------Ken

The U152 and Subclades Project makes no reference to either FGC22969 or S18325 as far as I can see, so I'm reserving judgment for now on whether they should be taken into account. Bendell has indicated that he'll be ordering a YFull analysis, so we'll see whether a third person's BAM file resolves the discrepancy between what the administrators of the U152 Project saw in the relevant BAM files they looked at, and what YFull sees in what it will have in hand.

kinman
07-06-2015, 03:31 AM
I find it interesting that there still seem to be continental Bendells in Germany, Switzerland, and northern France, as well as zur Brueggs in Switzerland. If the Z49 mutation originated in southern Germany or Switzerland about 4500-4600 years ago, then it might seem reasonable to hypothesize that Z142 and then FGC22969 might have arisen within the next 80 to 160 years in the same general vicinity (in Switzerland or southern Germany) and then spread mostly westward from there (leaving behind the zur Brueggs and some Bendells in their original homeland to this day). Anyway, I'm still not sure where John David Bendell was located, but I did find a John D. Bendell who was appointed postmaster of Adena, Jefferson Co., Ohio, in 1857. If that is him, the question is whether this Bendell family came directly to America (Pennsylvania?) from Germany or Switzerland, or from a line which had earlier and more gradually spread west into France and then England before emigrating. Anyway, I would be interested to know anything about John David Bendell.

kinman
07-06-2015, 03:41 AM
Sorry, I meant to say FGC22963 (not FGC22969) in the preceding post. By the way, I assume that once Bendell is placed on the YFull tree, that they will call the new 3rd subclade FGC22963. And that it will be divided into a small basal subclade FGC22963* plus the large derived subclade R-S18325.

kinman
07-10-2015, 01:55 AM
Hi all,
I noticed a couple of days ago that a Buffington has joined Bendell (on the U152 and subclades chart) as testing positive for FGC22963. However, it isn't clear if Buffington took the Big Y, and tested negative for those downstream SNPs. Or if he only took the new single FGC22963 test (and therefore could be positive for some of the downstream SNPs). If the former, then maybe Buffington will soon appear on the YFull tree.

MitchellSince1893
07-10-2015, 02:57 AM
Hi all,
I noticed a couple of days ago that a Buffington has joined Bendell (on the U152 and subclades chart) as testing positive for FGC22963. However, it isn't clear if Buffington took the Big Y, and tested negative for those downstream SNPs. Or if he only took the new single FGC22963 test (and therefore could be positive for some of the downstream SNPs). If the former, then maybe Buffington will soon appear on the YFull tree.

He's a BigY match of mine so he's done BigY.

Pigmon
07-12-2015, 02:38 PM
He's a BigY match of mine so he's done BigY.

He is my closest match:

Match Name Shared Novel Variants Known SNP Difference Non-Matching Known SNPs Matching SNPs Match Date



Everett Calvin Buffington Jr.
55 1 PF7214 27,054 7/6/2015
Norman Smith
54 1 PF7214 27,050 5/21/2015
Mr. Charles Lincoln
52 1 PF7214 25,738 2/2/2015
Mr. R Edward Mitchell
52 1 PF7214 25,188 2/2/2015


Is Buffington a member of this forum?

delegz
07-12-2015, 10:34 PM
He is my closest match:

Match Name Shared Novel Variants Known SNP Difference Non-Matching Known SNPs Matching SNPs Match Date



Everett Calvin Buffington Jr.
55 1 PF7214 27,054 7/6/2015
Norman Smith
54 1 PF7214 27,050 5/21/2015
Mr. Charles Lincoln
52 1 PF7214 25,738 2/2/2015
Mr. R Edward Mitchell
52 1 PF7214 25,188 2/2/2015


Is Buffington a member of this forum?


Are you referring to the Buffington with Kit ID 99788 ? He's a member of clade R-FGC229963 rather than clade R-Z150.

kinman
07-17-2015, 02:18 AM
Hi all,
I have decided to start a new thread in the L2 section dealing with the origin and evolution of the recently discovered subclades R-S18325/ R-FSC22963. I called it Z142 and the "Kinman Hypothesis", and I hope it will generated a lot of new discussion.
------------------Ken

Pigmon
07-17-2015, 12:47 PM
Are you referring to the Buffington with Kit ID 99788 ? He's a member of clade R-FGC229963 rather than clade R-Z150.

It is this guy:

Everett Calvin Buffington Jr.
55 1 PF7214 27,054 7/6/2015

His match date is July 6th 15. I share the most snps with him. The only difference is PF7214 which is a back mutation for me.
Is clade R-FGC229963 a part of the Big Y test?

kinman
07-17-2015, 04:53 PM
It is this guy:

Everett Calvin Buffington Jr.
55 1 PF7214 27,054 7/6/2015

His match date is July 6th 15. I share the most snps with him. The only difference is PF7214 which is a back mutation for me.
Is clade R-FGC229963 a part of the Big Y test?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, R-FGC22963 is part of the Big Y test. But it is also now available as a single SNP test at YSEQ.net. And since your close match is a Buffington, I would guess that your line came from southern Buckinghamshire (in the vicinity of Marlow, Burnham, Farnham Royal, and Penn).

I now believe that Buckinghamshire is the central hotspot for most members of Haplogroup R-Z142 who came to England from northwestern France (probably during the Norman Invasion of 1066). And the ancestors of these Celtic families in Buckinghamshire may have served under Sir Richard de Perrott from Brittany in 1066. For more information, see the new thread "Z142 and the Kinman Hypothesis".

cal
07-20-2015, 02:39 AM
i took the big y. buffington

kinman
07-20-2015, 02:59 AM
i took the big y. buffington

Hi Cal,
Welcome. I guess you are the Buffington with Kit Number 99788.

MitchellSince1893
07-20-2015, 03:54 AM
i took the big y. buffington

Welcome aboard :)

Pigmon
07-20-2015, 12:36 PM
i took the big y. buffington

Hi cal,

Good to see you on here. You are my closest match on Big Y! Do you have a ysearch.org ID? It is free to join. All you need to do is join and transfer your STR markers from FTDNA.

cal
07-21-2015, 02:32 AM
THANK YOU . WE WERE IN BUCKINGHAMSHIRE IN 1327 AND MAYBE BEFORE . PENN 1332 , THEN GREAT MARLOW / BOVINGDON GREEN . AS OUR NAME YOU PICK A VARIANT -BUFFINGTon -bovingdon -bovington , ect...

cal
07-21-2015, 02:38 AM
yes i am in ysearch . under everett buffington

cal
07-21-2015, 02:56 AM
WE CAME TO AMERICA IN 1675 AS QUAKERS . BOYNTON OF YORK ENGLAND WAS BOVINGTON BEFORE BOYNTON . THAY HAVE TIES TO NORMONDY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE ARE A MATCH . I HOPE SOME OF THIS HELPS .GOOD LUCK EVERYONE . CAL

R.Rocca
07-21-2015, 12:19 PM
WE CAME TO AMERICA IN 1675 AS QUAKERS . BOYNTON OF YORK ENGLAND WAS BOVINGTON BEFORE BOYNTON . THAY HAVE TIES TO NORMONDY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE ARE A MATCH . I HOPE SOME OF THIS HELPS .GOOD LUCK EVERYONE . CAL

@cal, I mapped your kit as FTDNA-99788 in the Y-DNA tree here... http://www.r1b.org/docs/Full_Y-Chromosome_U152_Samples.xlsx

The second tab cross references the samples on the tree.

kinman
07-21-2015, 02:04 PM
@cal, I mapped your kit as FTDNA-99788 in the Y-DNA tree here... http://www.r1b.org/docs/Full_Y-Chromosome_U152_Samples.xlsx

The second tab cross references the samples on the tree.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Richard,
I really like your tree. However, I have one question. The branch just below this one, which leads to FTDNA-317350 only lists 5 SNPs. My question is why two other SNPs (FGC22969 and S18325) aren't also listed. The YFull tree lists those two, but omits two of yours, so I wondered if perhaps these two sets of two SNPs are identical (but with two different numbers).

cal
07-21-2015, 05:23 PM
I WONDER IF I WAS A LE TENE CELT FROM FRANCE / GUAL FIGHTING IN THE NORMAN INVATION . AND IF WE TOOK THE PATH FROM HALLSTATT, BERN AREA, GUAL/NORTHERN FRANCE , THEN ENGLAND / BUCKINGHAMSHIRE . IF THER IS A BOVINGTON /BOYNTON CONNECTION AND THAY ENDED UP IN YORK AS BARONS / SIR BOYNTONS I WOULD SAY SOMEBODY KNEW SOMEBODY . AND MOST LIKELY A NORMANDY CONNECTION .

cal
07-25-2015, 04:45 AM
DID YOU SEE WHAT YOU WANTED IN Y SEARCH . CAL

R.Rocca
07-25-2015, 12:25 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Richard,
I really like your tree. However, I have one question. The branch just below this one, which leads to FTDNA-317350 only lists 5 SNPs. My question is why two other SNPs (FGC22969 and S18325) aren't also listed. The YFull tree lists those two, but omits two of yours, so I wondered if perhaps these two sets of two SNPs are identical (but with two different numbers).

Based on the data I have, only kit 13788 has FGC22969 and S18325. IS there anyone else with these two?

kinman
07-25-2015, 05:25 PM
I was just looking at the YFull tree for R-Z142, and it has a new entry at the base for YF03827. Then it has a separate branch with an asterisk R-Z142* for YF03288. Does this mean that YF03288 has something that is missing in YF03827 ?

delegz
07-25-2015, 06:06 PM
I was just looking at the YFull tree for R-Z142, and it has a new entry at the base for YF03827. Then it has a separate branch with an asterisk R-Z142* for YF03288. Does this mean that YF03288 has something that is missing in YF03827 ?

Not necessarily. I believe but am not yet certain that YF03827 is Bendell, who incidentally doesn't appear to have an entry yet in the U152 and Subclades Research Project chart. Apparently YFull hasn't fully decided where exactly he should be on their YTree, so he is where he is now pending that decision.

YF03288, a Stewart, is in R-Z142* because he doesn't fit in any of the three existing clades of Z142, i.e., R-L562, R-S7402, or "R-S18325."

kinman
07-26-2015, 02:51 PM
Based on the data I have, only kit 13788 has FGC22969 and S18325. IS there anyone else with these two?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that is a very good question. If kit 13788 has all four (FGC22969, FGC22948, S18325, and S23458), I would guess that Matt Langley probably has all four of these as well. Perhaps he could confirm that for us.

If he also has all four, the question is why doesn't YFull list FGC22948 and S23458?

MitchellSince1893
07-26-2015, 04:36 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that is a very good question. If kit 13788 has all four (FGC22969, FGC22948, S18325, and S23458), I would guess that Matt Langley probably has all four of these as well. Perhaps he could confirm that for us.

If he also has all four, the question is why doesn't YFull list FGC22948 and S23458?

If he hasn't submitted it to Yfull then it won't show up there. If he has submitted it then yfull would have to explain it.

MattL
07-27-2015, 02:01 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that is a very good question. If kit 13788 has all four (FGC22969, FGC22948, S18325, and S23458), I would guess that Matt Langley probably has all four of these as well. Perhaps he could confirm that for us.

If he also has all four, the question is why doesn't YFull list FGC22948 and S23458?

Here's what YFull shows me as Terminal SNPs
5323

It also says I'm positive for S23458

I don't see FGC22948 though

MattL
07-27-2015, 02:02 AM
Based on the data I have, only kit 13788 has FGC22969 and S18325. IS there anyone else with these two?

My YFull results show I'm positive for both (I posted a pic in my previous post).

kinman
07-27-2015, 02:32 AM
Thanks Matt,
So that still leaves two unanswered questions. (1) Why doesn't YFull show the clade [YF02435 plus Matt (YF03522)] as having S23458. And (2) why does U152 and Subclades show him as having FGC22948 if he perhaps doesn't have it? Maybe YFull and the U152 project need to consult each other about what is going on here.

MattL
07-27-2015, 05:49 AM
The caveat of course is I guess my YFull could be mistaken?

kinman
08-01-2015, 03:07 AM
Hi All,
Does anyone know if YFull updates its tree on a regular schedule (weekly? or less often?). As for their newly added YF03827 at the base of R-Z142, I am still wondering if it is a Bendell, and if so, is it a different Bendell from Kit No. 399543.

In any case, it should be interesting to see if YFull would continue to use the name R-S18325 for the main subclade of a newly named Haplogroup R-FGC22963, or will they be able to name that main subclade after one of the other SNPs (if they actually now have data showing one of the other SNPs split off between FGC22963 and S18325).
-------------Ken

MitchellSince1893
08-01-2015, 03:16 AM
They had 13 updates in 7 months so about 2 per month on average.

kinman
08-04-2015, 11:45 PM
I'm not sure in which forum I should ask this question, so I'll start here. I assume that it is fairly rare for an SNP mutation (which defines a haplogroup) to undergo a reverse mutation back to the ancestral state. I'm just wondering how rare it is, and if there are any good examples of such reverse mutations (especially involving a major haplogroup). For example, something like a member of R-P312 having a reverse mutation in an SNP upstream (such as M269 or L23).
-----------Thanks,
Ken

R.Rocca
08-05-2015, 12:34 PM
I'm not sure in which forum I should ask this question, so I'll start here. I assume that it is fairly rare for an SNP mutation (which defines a haplogroup) to undergo a reverse mutation back to the ancestral state. I'm just wondering how rare it is, and if there are any good examples of such reverse mutations (especially involving a major haplogroup). For example, something like a member of R-P312 having a reverse mutation in an SNP upstream (such as M269 or L23).
-----------Thanks,
Ken


Ken, I think it is pretty rare. If I recall correctly, some kind of back mutation happened with L150 at some point, but I don't recall the details. You can probably Google it and find some old conversations about the topic.

kinman
08-15-2015, 03:19 PM
Hi All,
I hadn't checked the U152 and subclades results for a while, and I just noticed that there is a new FGC22963 entry (for a Kornelis Roelofs) splitting off between the Bendell-Buffington branch and the Langley-ZurBruegg branch. A very warm welcome to his descendant (Kit Number 411536). This certainly adds some much needed structure to this part of the tree.
I am now wondering if this Kornelis Roelofs might be the new YF03827 which YFull added to its tree in late July. I am certainly looking forward to a newly revised Yfull tree which I would expect to see any time now.
-------------Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi All,
Does anyone know if YFull updates its tree on a regular schedule (weekly? or less often?). As for their newly added YF03827 at the base of R-Z142, I am still wondering if it is a Bendell, and if so, is it a different Bendell from Kit No. 399543.

In any case, it should be interesting to see if YFull would continue to use the name R-S18325 for the main subclade of a newly named Haplogroup R-FGC22963, or will they be able to name that main subclade after one of the other SNPs (if they actually now have data showing one of the other SNPs split off between FGC22963 and S18325).
-------------Ken

haleaton
08-15-2015, 05:29 PM
Hi All,
I hadn't checked the U152 and subclades results for a while, and I just noticed that there is a new FGC22963 entry (for a Kornelis Roelofs) splitting off between the Bendell-Buffington branch and the Langley-ZurBruegg branch. A very warm welcome to his descendant (Kit Number 411536). This certainly adds some much needed structure to this part of the tree.
I am now wondering if this Kornelis Roelofs might be the new YF03827 which YFull added to its tree in late July. I am certainly looking forward to a newly revised Yfull tree which I would expect to see any time now.
-------------Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could not identify YF0382, who is in the YFull Group: U152 data but not the STR pages which usually have some paternal ancestry info.

EDIT: I did notice though that YF02435 (R-S18325) is DYS385b=13.2 in YFull Group STR Results, which of course now I realize was stated in early part of this thread. So perhaps they are still analyzing YF0382, so does not yet appear.

kinman
08-15-2015, 07:28 PM
It just occurred to me that this Kornelis Roelofs branch can help narrow down when the 13.2 micro-allele (at DYS385b) arose. The Bendell-Buffington branch lacks the 13.2 micro-allele, but the Langley-ZurBruegg branch has it. If Kornelis Roelofs is truly DYS385b=14, then it matches Bendell in having the ancestral value of 14. However, FTDNA has sometimes rounded 13.2 up to 14, so it is perhaps possible Roelofs is 13.2 and also got rounded up to 14.
Anyway, U152 and subclades list the Langley-ZurBruegg branch as DYS385b=13, but it would be nice if they could give the actual value of 13.2. Sainte Marie O'Neill Michel-Etienne (who is listed just above the Stewarts) is a member of the Langley-ZurBruegg branch, and they already have his Max, Min, and Mode correctly listed as 13.2 (although for some reason they rounded his value down to 13).
-------Ken

kinman
08-16-2015, 01:17 AM
I see that U152 and subclades has just moved Mason down next to Roelofs. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Mason is later moved even further down next to Skinner, since they seem to be a much better STR match. Mason definitely has the 13.2 micro-allele, like Skinner and ZurBruegg. But if I had to make a prediction about Roelofs, I would bet that he doesn't have the 13.2 micro-allele. Time will tell.
-----------Ken

kinman
08-17-2015, 04:56 PM
One of my close STR matches is for Sainte Marie O'Neill Michel-Etienne. He is listed under Z142 in the STR results at U152 and subclades. However, on their map for R-Z142, he is listed as Fauve Grazouille (a name that I have never heard of, nor could I find that name by google searches). Does anyone know anything about Fauve Grazouille (or how he is related to Sainte Marie O'Neill Michel-Etienne)?

kinman
08-19-2015, 03:37 PM
FINALLY. The new version of YFull has appeared. And the new Haplogroup R-FGC22963 is shown. However, note that YF03827 is clearly NOT Kornelis Roelofs, because YF03827 lacks FGC22940 and FGC22968. Therefore, Roelofs split off between YF03827 and the two presently listed members of R-S18325.

kinman
08-19-2015, 08:42 PM
(1) the mystery of the surname for YF03827 is still unsolved (now even more of a mystery).
(2) the new YFull tree also still does not list these two SNPs: FGC22948 or S23458. So that is still a mystery as well.
----------Ken

haleaton
08-19-2015, 09:03 PM
(1) the mystery of the surname for YF03827 is still unsolved (now even more of a mystery).
(2) the new YFull tree also still does not list these two SNPs: FGC22948 or S23458. So that is still a mystery as well.
----------Ken

You can try sending a message in YFull changing the recipient code to 3827, though it may not work. It then gives you their name once message is sent.

delegz
08-20-2015, 03:57 AM
(1) the mystery of the surname for YF03827 is still unsolved (now even more of a mystery).
(2) the new YFull tree also still does not list these two SNPs: FGC22948 or S23458. So that is still a mystery as well.
----------Ken

Regarding S18325, Richard (Rocca) is absolutely correct: at least according to the BigY data file that YF03522 himself sent me, if the b37 position of S18325 is 16445533, then YF03522 doesn't have S18325. I YF02435 (zur Brügg) do have S18325, however.

As for the identify of YF03827, I'd suggest that you follow haleaton's advice as to how you might go about contacting him.

haleaton
08-20-2015, 11:30 AM
Regarding S18325, Richard (Rocca) is absolutely correct: at least according to the BigY data file that YF03522 himself sent me, if the b37 position of S18325 is 16445533, then YF03522 doesn't have S18325. I YF02435 (zur Brügg) do have S18325, however.

As for the identify of YF03827, I'd suggest that you follow haleaton's advice as to how you might go about contacting him.

Based on coverage YF03827 looks Big Y data. Can look for match there, though FTNDA only shows matching novel variant locations with others.

In Y-Full Groups you turn off show STRs, SNPs, and allow Personal Messages separately. In the case where somebody did not include a MRCA name shown on STR list when I sent a message the account owner name did appear after sending this then matched a Big Y matches name. Never heard from person, who I hope did not feel was being improperly contacted, but it resolved issue of no call or negative I had. Big Y reports "no calls" as non-shared known SNPs.

kinman
08-20-2015, 03:39 PM
That's very interesting. If YF03522 doesn't have S18325, then even the new YFull tree is wrong. S18325 would only apply to you (zur Bruegg) and perhaps Buffington as well. Therefore YFull's R-S18325 would need to be changed to R-FGC22942.
And I'm now beginning to think that you were right that YF03827 is Bendell. I was going to try to send a message (as haleaton suggested) through YFull's group for U152, but when I tried to enter that group, it asked for an e-mail and password. Therefore, I assume that one has to be a member of Yfull to send such messages.
--------------Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding S18325, Richard (Rocca) is absolutely correct: at least according to the BigY data file that YF03522 himself sent me, if the b37 position of S18325 is 16445533, then YF03522 doesn't have S18325. I YF02435 (zur Brügg) do have S18325, however.

As for the identify of YF03827, I'd suggest that you follow haleaton's advice as to how you might go about contacting him.

kinman
08-20-2015, 03:47 PM
Correction,
In that last post, instead of "perhaps Buffington as well", I should have said "perhaps Skinner as well."

Carloso972
08-24-2015, 10:23 PM
Hello Kinman. I'm new on this forum and I speak english as I can (I speak french)! I'am E5562 at Ftdna. My great father is from Martinica, Gardius MICHEL-ETIENNE (1908-2005). His father was Charles Emilien MICHEL-ETIENNE, from Martinica (1878-?). His father was Sainte-Marie O'Neill MICHEL-ETIENNE (1849-1931), from Martinica. His father was Grazouille MICHEL-ETIENNE (1813-1879), from Martinica. His mother was Marie Françoise JOACHIM (1794-1847), from Martinica. So I don't know who was the father of Grazouille MICHEL-ETIENNE, born in 1813 in Martinica. Marie Françoise JOACHIM was a mixed race. I think that the father of Grazouille is a english or Irish soldier because Martinica was an english occupied zone (1809-1814). That would explain the link of my Ydna with some people from UK.

Like I said to Dale, it's very interesting to make a test with Yseq DNA. I have now a account and I bought the test FGC22963.
I make a wish with S23458.

I will read all the previous reply to understand but it is difficult to understand all the words in english.

Thank you.

I edit my reply today (25.08.2015). I forgot to tell you ny name : Jean-Charles ZOROR, son of Nestor ZOROR (1939-2011). As you see, my father was in fact a son of Gardius MICHEL-ETIENNE, that is why I prefer use the real name. I don't know how I'm link with the Langley/Manor group. A man of those families was enrolled during the war against France in the West-Indies? Or maybe my ancestor stayed in France after 1066 and went to Martinica in XVIIe century? I have also an account at dna.ancestry.com (You can Find me at Jean-Charles Zoror). My ethnicity is 42% Europe (Scandinavia 14%, 09% Iberian Peninsula, 06% Great Britain, 05% Ireland, 05% Italy/Greece, 01% European Jewish, < 01% Europe West and Finland/Northwest Russia). And I'm 57% Africa.

kinman
08-30-2015, 02:40 PM
I can't help but wonder if the Zoror line is related to the north African (Tunisia/Algeria/Morocco) men who also have the micro-allele 13.2 at DYS385b. Their STR values are very similar. It would be very interesting to see if there are men still living in Martinica (not in the Zoror line) who also have this micro-allele and other similar STR values (who would thus no doubt also be members of the new haplogroup R-FGC22963). If so, the Zoror male lineage may have come from Tunisia, Algeria, or Morocco.
-------------Ken

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary indications from FGC seem to indicate that a third subclade of R-Z142 has been identified. See latest versions of Yfull Y-tree, 2.29, where I'm YF02435, and Richard R's newest U-152 Project Tree, re: FGC-WHYDW. Yfull predicts release of complete results on December 25, a happy coincidence.

A question for anyone: with regard to the others who have confirmed DYS385=11/13.2 and are currently in the U152 Project, what is the best way to persuade FTDNA to begin offering a test for the SNP that makes us a subclade ASAP? Although I know YSEQ could get on this through Wish a SNP immediately, some folks might prefer to wait to test with FTDNA when possible.

My New Year's wish for 2015: to be able to figure out some way to get in touch with at least one of those in or from Tunisia, Algeria, and/or Morocco, who (1) were tested in some academic study and also found to have DYS385 11/13.2, (2) shares the characteristic allele values such as DYS 389i/ii = 14 or 15/ 31 or 32, DYS481=24, DYS446=14, etc that those in the U152 Project have, and (3) could be in this newly-identified subclade of Z142 as well. My pet hunch, out of a few floating around, is that those in North Africa who have been been tested over the past few years and found to have 11/13.2, descend from retired and resettled Roman legionnaires largely from northern Italy who were given arable land confiscated from locals along the North African littoral zone, to produce olives, grapes, and grain for the Empire.

kinman
08-30-2015, 04:28 PM
Hi all,
Although the Zoror line does appear to be related to the north African 13.2 line, I have now concluded that Zoror probably did not descend directly from the north African line. I am not too concerned about the different value at DYS393 (13 vs. 14), because even the Roelofs line has mutated to 14. However, the DYS19 value of 14 for Zoror (but 13 for the north Africans) is more troubling. Taken together, these two differences probably indicate that they have a common FGC22963 ancestor in western Europe, but that the Zoror main line did not descend directly from the north African line.
-----------Ken

beaugrandjacques
09-01-2015, 09:19 PM
I was examining my position in the YFull tree at http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/
I am id:YF02680 Beaugrand-Champagne (Bougeren) = #31300 FTDNA
Who are id:YF03981 and id:YF03984 just below me in the Z150 subclade?

5749

Thank you.
Jacques Beaugrand

Titus Valerius
09-18-2015, 06:45 PM
Hi all! I just got the results of a friend of mine M. Corsi from Ortonovo (La Spezia- Italy) and he's R1b M269, but his result of DYS 385 is 13.2!!
What do you think?

kinman
09-19-2015, 02:37 AM
Hi Titus,
I think that is great!! I would strongly recommend that he join the U152 and Subclades Project. And if he plans to now test for single SNPs, it would probably save him both time and money to skip down the haplotree to at least to Z142 or FGC22963. FamilyTreeDNA offers a single SNP test for Z142 (in their list of "advanced" SNPs), even though they don't yet show it on their haplotree. YSEQ.net offers both Z142 and FGC22963 (and at a lower price). Of course, if he is willing to spend a lot more money, there are the more comprehensive tests like Big Y.
------------Ken


Hi all! I just got the results of a friend of mine M. Corsi from Ortonovo (La Spezia- Italy) and he's R1b M269, but his result of DYS 385 is 13.2!!
What do you think?

Titus Valerius
09-19-2015, 03:20 AM
Hi Ken,
thank you for all information. My friend is already in the U152 group, his kit number is 424754. I noticed in Boattini paper there are two L2s in Cuneo with 385 = 13.2! So I would point out that in my area Boattini found 6 L2s, Now there is my friend too!!! Boattini found likewise in my area 3 U152s, recently my two friends in my area, found out to be U152+ Z56+ and U152+ Z56+ Z71+. I am U152+ L20+.
We are from La Spezia province. (Val di Magra)

kinman
09-19-2015, 04:46 AM
Hi Titus,
I just looked briefly at the results for kit number 424754. I will have to study it closer tomorrow, but it looks like he might be related to the Skinner-Mason-Zur Brugg group within haplogroup Z142. Zur Brugg was in Switzerland, so pretty close to Italy.
My hypothesis is that R-Z142 originated near the Rhine River, near where Switzerland, France, and Germany come together (and then spread from there to the north, west, and south). R-L2 probably originated near the Danube River in southern Germany, and U152 perhaps originated in Austria. Anyway, tomorrow I'll try to find the Boattini paper that you mentioned, since I am particularly interested in anyone with the 13.2 micro-allele at DYS385 (which is fairly uncommon).
----------------Ken

Titus Valerius
09-19-2015, 05:29 AM
Ken, take a look at this research:

About the haplotype with DYS385=11-13.2 and the closest ones this is the distribution as to YHRD:

Found 26 matches in 102,729 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 3,951 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 2,697 - 6,048).
Italy**(click to change)× DYS385=11-13.2
Found 1 match in 3,276 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 3,276 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 588 - 129,396).
Algeria**(click to change)×
Found 1 match in 102 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 102 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 19 - 4,029).
Tunisia**(click to change)×
Found 4 matches in 218 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 55 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 22 - 199).
Morocco**(click to change)×
Found no match in 529 Haplotypes.
United Kingdom**(click to change)×
Found 1 match in 967 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 967 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 174 - 38,195).
United States**(click to change)×
Found 3 matches in 7,053 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 2,351 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 805 - 11,399).
Austria**(click to change)×
Found 1 match in 965 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 965 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 174 - 38,116).
Spain**(click to change)×
Found 3 matches in 6,545 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 2,182 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 747 - 10,578).
Mexico**(click to change)×
Found 1 match in 759 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 759 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 137 - 29,979).
Poland**(click to change)×
Found 4 matches in 4,187 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 1,047 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 409 - 3,841).
Netherlands**(click to change)×
Found 2 matches in 2,302 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 1,151 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 319 - 9,503).
Czech Republic**(click to change)×
Found 1 match in 114 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 114 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 21 - 4,503).
Australia**(click to change)×
Found 2 matches in 1,844 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 922 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 256 - 7,612).
Norway**(click to change)×
Found 1 match in 1,574 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 1,574 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 283 - 62,170).
Guatemala**(click to change)×
Found 1 match in 325 Haplotypes.*This is approx. 1 match in 325 Haplotypes (95%*CI: 59 - 12,837).

Titus Valerius
09-19-2015, 06:05 AM
As it is demonstrated from the samples of YFull the subclade of Z142 with DYS385b=13.2 (or also 12.2, 14.2,15.2) is only that with the SNP S18325:


YF02435
Lazarus zur Brügg, b. abt 1552, Frutigen, Switzerland
Switzerland
R-S18325

kinman
09-19-2015, 02:49 PM
Although zur Brugg does have SNP S18325, there is no evidence that YF03522 (Langley family) has it. However, they do share S23458, as is shown in the U152 and Subclades database. Hopefully, YFull will finally change the name of that grouping from S18325 to S23458 in their next update.

Anyway, assuming that Kit 424754 belongs in R-Z142 (a pretty safe assumption), it probably also shares S23458. However, I do not think that it belongs to the Langley group. There would therefore seem to be two possibilities: (1) it belongs within the zur Brugg-Skinner-Mason group, and therefore would also have FGC22956 and FGC22952; or (2) it split off as a separate group before the mutations at FGC22956 and FGC22952 happened. At this point, I would guess that it is the second possibility--- that Kit 424754 split off as a separate group that is close to the zur Brugg-Skinner-Mason group, but is not within that group.
-----------Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As it is demonstrated from the samples of YFull the subclade of Z142 with DYS385b=13.2 (or also 12.2, 14.2,15.2) is only that with the SNP S18325:

YF02435
Lazarus zur Brügg, b. abt 1552, Frutigen, Switzerland
Switzerland
R-S18325

Titus Valerius
09-19-2015, 09:23 PM
It is very likely that belong to this subclade with DYS385b=13.2 also these people of the "U152 FTDNA Project" downstream 99788:

U152> L2> Z49,Z68> Z142> FGC22963> 18084613
99788 Richard Buffington, 1635, Bovingdon Green, Bucks England R-Z49 13 24 15 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15-15-17-17 10 11 19-23 16 16 18 16 37-39 12 12
U152> L2> Z49,Z68> Z142> FGC22963> FGC22940,FGC22968> FGC22942,FGC22948,S23458
31971 William C. Langley, m. June 1849, Chambers Co, AL United Kingdom R-Z49 13 24 14 11 11-13 12 12 13 14 13 31 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 19 29 14-14-15-17 11 12 19-23 15 15 17 18 37-40 12 14 11 9 15-16 8 10 10 8 12 10 12 23-23 16 10 12 12 14 8 12 24 20 15 12 11 13 11 11 13 12 37 15 9 16 11 27 26 19 12 11 13 12 10 9 12 12 10 11 11 30 12 13 24 13 10 11 21 15 18 13 23 17 13 15 24 12 25 18 10 14 17 9 12 11
317350 Miles L Langley b. 1800 South Carolina Unknown Origin R-U152 13 24 14 11 11-13 12 12 13 14 13 31 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 19 29 14-15-16-17 11 12 19-23 15 15 17 18 37-39 12 14
U152> L2> Z49,Z68> Z142> FGC22963> FGC22940,FGC22968> FGC22942,FGC22948,S23458> FGC22952, FGC22956
13788 Peter zur Brügg b. 1700, Wengi bei Frutigen, Switz Switzerland R-Z49 13 24 14 10 11-13 12 12 13 14 13 31 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 20 29 15-15-16-17 10 11 19-23 14 15 19 17 34-38 12 12 11 9 15-16 8 10 10 8 11 11 12 23-23 17 10 12 12 15 8 12 24 20 14 12 11 13 11 11 12 12
145421 William Skinner, b. c1704 England R-Z49 13 24 14 11 11-13 12 12 12 15 13 31 16 9-10 11 11 25 14 19 29 15-16-16-17 11 10 19-22 15 15 19 17 36-39 12

kinman
09-19-2015, 11:04 PM
I also have DYS385b=13.2, and I am closely related to the two Langley family members. My Kit Number is 380315 (Kinman), but I am listed earlier in the list at the U152 Project. That is because I have only tested down to Z49.
I am still trying to decide if I should order the test for FGC22963 (which I am sure will be positive) or perhaps order the Big Y test instead (if they have another coupon or "special" that reduces the price).
---------Ken

MattL
09-20-2015, 08:25 AM
Hello Titus, great to see some more conversation on this. I'm kit 317350 (furthest ancestor Miles L. Langley).

delegz
09-20-2015, 10:21 PM
Hello Titus,

I descend from Peter zur Brügg (also known as Peter Brügger) of Wengi bei Frutigen in Switzerland, Kit # 13788. I would agree with everything that Ken wrote, especially that your friend Mr. Corsi should test for FGC22963 and, if found positive for that SNP, then FGC22956 also. At some point he should seriously consider ordering either Full Genomes' Y Elite (I ordered this, and don't regret it) or FTDNA's less comprehensive BigY.

Peter's zur Brügg's father had citizenship in Wahlern further to the west, which itself is 33 kilometers east of Avenches, formerly known as Aventicum and the capital of Roman Switzerland. Ever since I read about the two men from Cuneo in the Boattini study (and another man from Brescia in an earlier study) that were found to have DYS385a/b = 11/13.2, I've wondered whether someone from what is now northwestern Italy, a veteran of one of Rome's campaigns of conquest of Switzerland perhaps, could have settled in or around Aventicum, and then generations later a descendant of his was dispersed further toward Wahlern by the invading Alemanni, or merely migrated in that direction. Just speculation, of course.

It's interesting that M. Corsi, you, and the rest of your U152 friends are from the Val di Magra; I was as close as Lerici once.....

Dale


Hi Ken,
thank you for all information. My friend is already in the U152 group, his kit number is 424754. I noticed in Boattini paper there are two L2s in Cuneo with 385 = 13.2! So I would point out that in my area Boattini found 6 L2s, Now there is my friend too!!! Boattini found likewise in my area 3 U152s, recently my two friends in my area, found out to be U152+ Z56+ and U152+ Z56+ Z71+. I am U152+ L20+.
We are from La Spezia province. (Val di Magra)

kinman
09-21-2015, 08:08 PM
Hi all,
In post no. 173, I mentioned that I thought R-U152 originated in Austria. Today I posted the following at the Bell Beaker and U152 thread: "I am now going to "stick my neck out" and narrow that down to northeastern Austria, probably between Vienna and Bratislava. As for the timing, I am going to stick with 4900 years ago. If the RISE563 guy was about 4500-4800 years old, that would give his U152 ancestors at least 100 years to move up the Danube to Germany."
----------Ken

kinman
09-22-2015, 09:20 PM
Hi all,
The newest version (3.15) of YFull is now available. Unfortunately, they still have Haplogroup R-S18325 instead of correcting it to R-S23458.

Titus Valerius
09-24-2015, 01:57 PM
Hi Matt and Dale,
Dale, I agree with what you wrote. I think Z142 S18325 may has been spread by Romans, even in North Africa. In my area, we live not far from Luna (today Luni) an important ancient roman city. And just yesterday I noticed in a local newspaper, a genetic study about the local people and in some areas of the La Spezia province, U152 (and subclades) is over 80% !!! Also I suggested to my friend M. Corsi to ordering the YElite test or the Big Y..... Lerici is really nice!!

kinman
09-24-2015, 04:34 PM
Hi Matt and Dale,
Dale, I agree with what you wrote. I think Z142 S18325 may has been spread by Romans, even in North Africa. In my area, we live not far from Luna (today Luni) an important ancient roman city. And just yesterday I noticed in a local newspaper, a genetic study about the local people and in some areas of the La Spezia province, U152 (and subclades) is over 80% !!! Also I suggested to my friend M. Corsi to ordering the YElite test or the Big Y..... Lerici is really nice!!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Titus,
If your friend does decide to do the YElite or Big Y, I would suggest looking for coupon codes for a discount. Earlier this month on the thread "Full Y Chromosome Sequencing: Phase III Pilot", I asked about discounts on their Elite test, and they posted the coupon code below (for $50 off). I assume it is probably still a good coupon until the end of the month:

09-07-2015, 03:56 AM #1124
FGC Corp
Senior Member

FGC discount coupon effective now: SeptFGC
$50 off regular price of $750.
FGC team member.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Titus Valerius
09-24-2015, 05:31 PM
Hi Ken! Thanks for information, but $ 700 is a lot! I don't know if my friend is willing to spend so much! I'll ask him .But I think it's more likely that he will do the Big Y.

kinman
09-24-2015, 07:18 PM
At present, the only coupon code that I could find that would probably work for Big Y is for $30 off any test over $168 at FTDNA. But it apparently expires soon (September 28). Anyway, it is listed at the following webpage if he wants to look at that coupon code:
http://www.savingstory.com/coupons/family-tree-dna/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Ken! Thanks for information, but $ 700 is a lot! I don't know if my friend is willing to spend so much! I'll ask him .But I think it's more likely that he will do the Big Y.

Titus Valerius
09-24-2015, 08:05 PM
Thanks Ken!!

Carloso972
10-07-2015, 01:17 PM
Hello. Yesterday, Yseq received my kit for FGC22963 and S23458. I will tell you the result when they will be in stock.

Here's my Y-DNA - Standard Y-STR Values, from Ftdna : DYS393 13 DYS390 24 DYS19**14 DYS391 11 DYS385 13.2 DYS426 12 DYS388 12 DYS439 12 DYS389I 14 DYS392 13 DYS389II***31
DYS458 17 DYS459 9-10 DYS455 11 DYS454 11 DYS447 25 DYS437 15 DYS448 19 DYS449 30 DYS464 14-15-17-17
DYS460 11 Y-GATA-H4 12 YCAII 19-23 DYS456 15 DYS607 15 DYS576 17 DYS570 18 CDY 37-40 DYS442 12 DYS438 13
DYS531 11 DYS578 9 DYF395S1 15-16 DYS590 8 DYS537 10 DYS641 10 DYS472 8 DYF406S1 11 DYS511 10
DYS425 12 DYS413 23-23 DYS557 16 DYS594 10 DYS436 12 DYS490 12 DYS534 15 DYS450 8 DYS444 12 DYS481 24 DYS520 20 DYS446 14
DYS617 12DYS568 11 DYS487 13 DYS572 11 DYS640 11 DYS492 13 DYS565 12

Some names are related to my Y-Dna Matches (37 and 67) : Kinman, Roles, Langley, Maynor, Maner.

kinman
10-08-2015, 01:24 AM
Hi all,
I got the following e-mail from FamilyTreeDNA, and decided to order Big Y. However, the coupon code for $100 off is only available for the next 4 or 5 days. I decided it would be nice to avoid the holiday rush. Hopefully it will also be a lot faster than Elite 2.0 (and even if you don't get as many SNPs, perhaps one can still get as many SNPs per dollar). There are advantages and disadvantages either way. Anyway, here is the e-mail with coupon code in case you might be interested:

Dear Valued Customer,

We have some great news for those of you who use SNPs in your research!

Starting today, we will offer an official coupon for $100 off Big Y. Use the coupon code BIGY100 to join the thousands of customers that have already taken the deep dive into Y-DNA.

To order Big Y, simply click on the blue "Upgrade" button on the upper right corner of your dashboard, and the Big Y will be on the upgrade choices of Y-testers.

This offer is valid from October 7 through October 11, 11:59 PM Central Time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carloso972
10-09-2015, 03:53 PM
Hello Dale (delegz). I can't answer your question by PM because I have only 2 posts on this forum (must have 10) : So, I have a genetic distances of 03 with Michael John ROLES at Y-Dna 37. His Dna Haplogroup is R-M269, his e-mail is : [email protected]
He has no direct paternal ancestry information entered.
I don't know how to find his kint number.

Thanks!

Shamash
10-09-2015, 08:19 PM
Hi all, I decided to take the plunge and ordered BigY today. The test is for my maternal grandfather's lineage from Molise in Southern Italy (kit E14371, Riccio/Ricci surname U152+/L2+/Z49+/Z142+/Z12222+/CTS9490-/L562-/L552-)

Hope somebody will help me analyze the data! :)

Marco

MitchellSince1893
10-09-2015, 10:21 PM
Maybe you will be on my branch of Z12222, ie. FGC12378 et al.

Shamash
10-10-2015, 11:24 AM
Maybe you will be on my branch of Z12222, ie. FGC12378 et al.

I hope so! It would be a little disappointing to sit on your own branch alone...

R.Rocca
10-10-2015, 12:22 PM
Hi all, I decided to take the plunge and ordered BigY today. The test is for my maternal grandfather's lineage from Molise in Southern Italy (kit E14371, Riccio/Ricci surname U152+/L2+/Z49+/Z142+/Z12222+/CTS9490-/L562-/L552-)

Hope somebody will help me analyze the data! :)

Marco

Hello Marco, rest assured that I check every single Big-Y result against all the U152 results I have. Best of luck to you.

kinman
10-10-2015, 03:35 PM
Hi Marco,
I wouldn't worry too much about ending up "on your own branch alone". Two of my ancestral lines are in Z12222, and both are in known subgroups (Francois Hebert in L654, and Stephen Brace in FGC12378). The odds are probably pretty good that your grandfather will be on one of those two branches (or L553).
-------------Ken


I hope so! It would be a little disappointing to sit on your own branch alone...

MitchellSince1893
10-10-2015, 04:45 PM
I hope so! It would be a little disappointing to sit on your own branch alone...

Or you could be the first member on a newly discovered branch. if so, you probably won't be alone for too long.

About a year and half ago after my BigY results I was alone for a short period, but now there are 8 confirmed members on FGC12378.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict you are positive for FGC12383 which is one branch one below FGC12378. Currently there is a Spaniard (HG017777) and 2 Dutch (GoNLx2) members of this branch.

6248

I'm on the branch below this one (FGC12401/02/03/04/05) along with FTDNA-268283

Shamash
10-10-2015, 06:17 PM
Hello Marco, rest assured that I check every single Big-Y result against all the U152 results I have. Best of luck to you.

Thank you Richard!

Shamash
10-10-2015, 06:19 PM
Thank you all for your encouraging comments! I'm looking forward to the results! :)

MattL
10-10-2015, 10:32 PM
Hi all,
I got the following e-mail from FamilyTreeDNA, and decided to order Big Y. However, the coupon code for $100 off is only available for the next 4 or 5 days. I decided it would be nice to avoid the holiday rush. Hopefully it will also be a lot faster than Elite 2.0 (and even if you don't get as many SNPs, perhaps one can still get as many SNPs per dollar). There are advantages and disadvantages either way. Anyway, here is the e-mail with coupon code in case you might be interested:

Dear Valued Customer,

We have some great news for those of you who use SNPs in your research!

Starting today, we will offer an official coupon for $100 off Big Y. Use the coupon code BIGY100 to join the thousands of customers that have already taken the deep dive into Y-DNA.

To order Big Y, simply click on the blue "Upgrade" button on the upper right corner of your dashboard, and the Big Y will be on the upgrade choices of Y-testers.

This offer is valid from October 7 through October 11, 11:59 PM Central Time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great news... look forward to your results.

kinman
10-11-2015, 12:38 AM
Thanks Matt,
FTDNA batched my Big Y the very same day that I ordered it (that usually took 4 days for my previous orders). They project that my results will be ready during the first 2 weeks of December. Anyway, since the Langley-Maynor-Kinman group is only about 600-700 years old, I am now beginning to wonder how many new SNPs we might share?
----------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------


Great news... look forward to your results.

MattL
10-11-2015, 02:16 AM
Thanks Matt,
FTDNA batched my Big Y the very same day that I ordered it (that usually took 4 days for my previous orders). They project that my results will be ready during the first 2 weeks of December. Anyway, since the Langley-Maynor-Kinman group is only about 600-700 years old, I am now beginning to wonder how many new SNPs we might share?
----------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------

True, if we do they may be very recent (compared to what's been found)... which would be great.

MattL
10-11-2015, 02:17 AM
Btw, out of curiosity which Langley kit do you match the closest? Been trying to break down Langley research walls in South Carolina in the late 1700s and been trying to correlate the various Langley matches, so figured it'd be interesting to see which one matches you the closest?

kinman
10-11-2015, 03:05 AM
My closest Langley match is to Carl L. Langley (his most distant ancestor Miles Ledford Langley b. 1800). We match 4 out of 67.
My most distant Langley that is listed is Jimmie Dale Langley at 7 out of 67 (ancestor not listed).
From that I guess it means my Maynor-Kinman line probably split off from the Langleys well after the Langley surname originated (which I believe was over 700 years ago). I guess the most common ancestor that the two of us share might be around 600 years (or perhaps a little sooner than that)??
--------------Ken


Btw, out of curiosity which Langley kit do you match the closest? Been trying to break down Langley research walls in South Carolina in the late 1700s and been trying to correlate the various Langley matches, so figured it'd be interesting to see which one matches you the closest?

MattL
10-11-2015, 05:37 AM
My closest Langley match is to Carl L. Langley (his most distant ancestor Miles Ledford Langley b. 1800). We match 4 out of 67.
My most distant Langley that is listed is Jimmie Dale Langley at 7 out of 67 (ancestor not listed).
From that I guess it means my Maynor-Kinman line probably split off from the Langleys well after the Langley surname originated (which I believe was over 700 years ago). I guess the most common ancestor that the two of us share might be around 600 years (or perhaps a little sooner than that)??
--------------Ken

Ahh, very interesting. Carl and I share that same ancestor, he's the closest Langley to me via tree, at 37 markers we match every marker, it's quite likely we also match at the same level at 67 markers (I've only tested 37 markers). I wonder if in the future it might be worth for both of us to go to 111 markers to possibly get a better STR based relation estimate (Not as useful as your Big Y compared to mine coming soon here but still worth considering).

kinman
10-11-2015, 05:21 PM
I looked at my matches at 37 markers, and I have four Langleys all matching me 33 out of 37: William Theodore Langley IV, Carl L. Langley, Brian Langley, and Matthew Allen Langley (as well as Michael John Roles). I more closely (34-35 out of 37) match Maynor, Maner, and Zoror. And a distant Kinman cousin has now tested for 37 markers, and I expect we will match 36 or 37 out of 37.
-------------Ken


Ahh, very interesting. Carl and I share that same ancestor, he's the closest Langley to me via tree, at 37 markers we match every marker, it's quite likely we also match at the same level at 67 markers (I've only tested 37 markers). I wonder if in the future it might be worth for both of us to go to 111 markers to possibly get a better STR based relation estimate (Not as useful as your Big Y compared to mine coming soon here but still worth considering).

kinman
10-13-2015, 12:19 AM
Hi All,
A distant Kinman cousin of mine (we are 6th cousins) got his STR results back today, and we match perfectly (37 out of 37 markers). So thankfully I don't have to worry any more about any Non-paternity events in either of our lines. Instead, our non-paternity event (NPE) with the Maynor family probably happened (in Virginia about 1670) one or two generations before our common Kinman ancestor (the guilty party was probably a John Maynor who was convicted of a non-paternity event in Virginia at that time). The much earlier non-paternity event (a Langley becoming a Maynor) probably happened in England about 600-700 years ago, so not much chance of finding any written records on that one. But maybe genetics will solve that one someday.
---------------Ken

MitchellSince1893
10-13-2015, 03:45 AM
Hi All,
A distant Kinman cousin of mine (we are 6th cousins) got his STR results back today, and we match perfectly (37 out of 37 markers). So thankfully I don't have to worry any more about any Non-paternity events in either of our lines. Instead, our non-paternity event (NPE) with the Maynor family probably happened (in Virginia about 1670) one or two generations before our common Kinman ancestor (the guilty party was probably a John Maynor who was convicted of a non-paternity event in Virginia at that time). The much earlier non-paternity event (a Langley becoming a Maynor) probably happened in England about 600-700 years ago, so not much chance of finding any written records on that one. But maybe genetics will solve that one someday.
---------------Ken

I guessing your cousin and your shared MRCA was born in the mid to late 1700s. I think that works out to 14 father to son transmissions total between the two of you with no STR changes.

MattL
10-13-2015, 07:48 AM
Hi All,
A distant Kinman cousin of mine (we are 6th cousins) got his STR results back today, and we match perfectly (37 out of 37 markers). So thankfully I don't have to worry any more about any Non-paternity events in either of our lines. Instead, our non-paternity event (NPE) with the Maynor family probably happened (in Virginia about 1670) one or two generations before our common Kinman ancestor (the guilty party was probably a John Maynor who was convicted of a non-paternity event in Virginia at that time). The much earlier non-paternity event (a Langley becoming a Maynor) probably happened in England about 600-700 years ago, so not much chance of finding any written records on that one. But maybe genetics will solve that one someday.
---------------Ken

Interesting... I too match the Maynor/Maner descendants, the closest are two (of the three) at a GD of 3 at 37 markers. Of interest in looking into my earliest Langley ancestors so far an Isham Sr (and Jr) who resided in South Carolina (in the Newberry, Edgefield, Lexington, and Orangeburg areas) in the late 1700s (and very early 1800s) and related families I do see a Mainor/Maynor living nearby and involved in some transactions... definitely piqued my interests considering two descendants of the same name match at GD of 3. Would be interesting if I upgrade to 67 markers and see how those Maynor matches match at that level.

We all may be more closely related than it seems at those GD levels (Langley, Kinman, and Maynor). I match a Langley descendant at a GD of 4 at 37 markers (same as I do you and your Kinman cousin), their furthest listed ancestor is an Isaiah Jeremiah Langley (b. 1809, SC; d. 1851, GA). I haven't done much digging but at least some trees/people connect him back to SC and saw at least one person suspect a child of a Langley living in Edgefield SC, which happens to be where Isham and his likely brothers went through at that time (two of them a David and Josiah Langley dying in that county in the 1820s). If so then he might actually be as closely related to a GD 0 match at 37 markers I have (or within a couple generations) which would caution us that a higher GD number doesn't always mean a specific distance of relation, just a likelihood.

MattL
10-13-2015, 07:52 AM
Interesting... I too match the Maynor/Maner descendants, the closest are two (of the three) at a GD of 3 at 37 markers. Of interest in looking into my earliest Langley ancestors so far an Isham Sr (and Jr) who resided in South Carolina (in the Newberry, Edgefield, Lexington, and Orangeburg areas) in the late 1700s (and very early 1800s) and related families I do see a Mainor/Maynor living nearby and involved in some transactions... definitely piqued my interests considering two descendants of the same name match at GD of 3. Would be interesting if I upgrade to 67 markers and see how those Maynor matches match at that level.

We all may be more closely related than it seems at those GD levels (Langley, Kinman, and Maynor). I match a Langley descendant at a GD of 4 at 37 markers (same as I do you and your Kinman cousin), their furthest listed ancestor is an Isaiah Jeremiah Langley (b. 1809, SC; d. 1851, GA). I haven't done much digging but at least some trees/people connect him back to SC and saw at least one person suspect a child of a Langley living in Edgefield SC, which happens to be where Isham and his likely brothers went through at that time (two of them a David and Josiah Langley dying in that county in the 1820s). If so then he might actually be as closely related to a GD 0 match at 37 markers I have (or within a couple generations) which would caution us that a higher GD number doesn't always mean a specific distance of relation, just a likelihood.

To add as another example of interestingly varied marker mutations. I mentioned I match a descendant of a David Langley at a GD of 0 at 37 markers, my ancestor Isham and him both living in the same area at the same time (I'm guessing brothers, uncle/nephew, father/son, or 1st cousins)... David Langley had a brother Josiah Langley living in the same area (relationship identified in a will in the 1820s in Edgefield SC when Isham was already out of South Carolina). Well a descendant of Josiah matches me at a GD of 3. So two brothers descendants and one matches a GD of 0 and another at 3.

kinman
10-13-2015, 07:52 PM
His ancestor is Thomas Kinman who was baptized in 1732 in Abington, Pennsylvania (son of Samuel Kinman). My ancestor John Kinman was born about 1737, place uncertain (and moved to Abington in 1765). Since they were both born in the 1730s, Thomas and John might have been brothers (and there is just no record of John's baptism), or alternatively, they might have been first cousins (and Samuel Kinman would be John's uncle, not his father). John could instead be a son of William Kinman who was married in nearby Philadelphia in 1725.
-------------Ken
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I guessing your cousin and your shared MRCA was born in the mid to late 1700s. I think that works out to 14 father to son transmissions total between the two of you with no STR changes.

kinman
10-13-2015, 11:54 PM
Hi Matt,
I am curious if any of the transactions of the Maynors in South Carolina mention any Langleys (or even vice versa). Anyway, if they lived close together in South Carolina, and they lived close enough together in England to produce a Non-Paternity Event (a couple of centuries earlier), then they may have come to America together (to Virginia) and then continue to move and associate into the Carolinas and elsewhere. In any case, the biggest question in my mind is in what part of England did the Maynors and Langleys live in close proximity. I haven't tried looking lately, so I hope to try again this weekend.
--------------Ken
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Interesting... I too match the Maynor/Maner descendants, the closest are two (of the three) at a GD of 3 at 37 markers. Of interest in looking into my earliest Langley ancestors so far an Isham Sr (and Jr) who resided in South Carolina (in the Newberry, Edgefield, Lexington, and Orangeburg areas) in the late 1700s (and very early 1800s) and related families I do see a Mainor/Maynor living nearby and involved in some transactions... definitely piqued my interests considering two descendants of the same name match at GD of 3. Would be interesting if I upgrade to 67 markers and see how those Maynor matches match at that level.

We all may be more closely related than it seems at those GD levels (Langley, Kinman, and Maynor). I match a Langley descendant at a GD of 4 at 37 markers (same as I do you and your Kinman cousin), their furthest listed ancestor is an Isaiah Jeremiah Langley (b. 1809, SC; d. 1851, GA). I haven't done much digging but at least some trees/people connect him back to SC and saw at least one person suspect a child of a Langley living in Edgefield SC, which happens to be where Isham and his likely brothers went through at that time (two of them a David and Josiah Langley dying in that county in the 1820s). If so then he might actually be as closely related to a GD 0 match at 37 markers I have (or within a couple generations) which would caution us that a higher GD number doesn't always mean a specific distance of relation, just a likelihood.

MattL
10-14-2015, 01:03 AM
Hi Matt,
I am curious if any of the transactions of the Maynors in South Carolina mention any Langleys (or even vice versa).

Two things of interesting:

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=alabamafamily&id=I8271&style=TEXT

That is info on a Josiah Langley a Y DNA match the (3 GD match to me) brother of David Langley (a 0 GD match to me), both likely brothers of my furthest ancestor Isham Langley. The part of interest:


Edgefield District, South Carolina Deeds
Page: Book 19, page 7, Deed Page 86-88
Text: Josiah Langley to John Mainor. Deed, 8 August 1800, $257, 100 acres being part of land granted to Thomas Norton 24 Dec 1772 lying on Little Stephens Creek of Turkey Cree bounding on Vachel Clary. Wit John Burt, Edwd Harrison. /s/ Josiah Langley. Proven 8 August 1800 by John Burt; James Harrison JP. Rec 13 Oct 1800


So Josiah sold a John Mainor land, unsure on any other interactions.



Anyway, if they lived close together in South Carolina, and they lived close enough together in England to produce a Non-Paternity Event (a couple of centuries earlier), then they may have come to America together (to Virginia) and then continue to move and associate into the Carolinas and elsewhere.

It's possible... though many assumptions (which may be true but there is no concrete evidence for) to be confident (yet) in that conclusion. Since I can't confidently map my Langleys out of SC yet unfortunately that's a dead end. Most likely they did come from Virginia and the most likely candidate family is the Norfolk County, Virginia Langleys. Even beyond those two assumptions (which I'm continuing to try and work forward to either confirm or deny with a paper trail) I haven't seen a single paper trail of Norfolk Virginia Langleys back to the multiple locations of Langleys in England. The only one I've seen suggested at all is from an old William & Mary Quarterly genealogy article here:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915600?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

In there they suggest on page 197 in the footnotes that:


This family of Langleys appears from their family names — William,
Thomas, Nathaniel, etc. — to be connected with 'that of Richard langley,
of Lincoln's Inn, gent, son of Roger Langley, of Shrewsbury, in Shrop-
shire. (See Langley's Pedigree of the Family of Langley.)

Purely speculation though since they only connect it via naming patterns (of very common names in general).

The NPA event could have happened in SC or even Virginia (or somewhere else we haven't considered). I match two Maynors at a GD of 3 at 37 markers the same I match a descendant of Josiah Langley from SC so it's definitely possible. I really need to upgrade my 37 markers to see how that changes the match level.

Not to dismiss your theories of an England connection, but just pointing out they currently rely on a lot of assumptions and that connection may be in a different location or even more recent than it seems.

kinman
10-14-2015, 02:49 PM
Hi Matt,
I agree that there are still a lot of maybes, ifs, and speculations involved, but I am really beginning to think this hypothesis is going to eventually bear fruit. The Langley-Mainor deed is certainly interesting, but what really jumped out at me was the close relationship between Langley and his neighbor Buffington. The Buffingtons came from Bovingdon, Buckinghamshire, England, which is right next to Great Marlow (where some genealogists claim the Langleys came from). Both families have a very long history in and around those Buckinghamshire towns, so it would not be surprising for any immigrants in those families to keep in touch in America (and even settle next to one another). Even one branch of the Kinman family moved from the Philadelphia area to the Carolinas and Georgia in the late 1700s (if I recall correctly, I think one of the Kinmans lived in the Edgefield area in South Carolina). But as you said, we need a lot more evidence to establish a pattern.
--------------Ken
P.S. I agree that the Langleys coming from Shropshire is pure speculation (based on common first names). But I suppose those Langleys could be a spinoff from the Buckinghamshire Langleys. Have you ever noticed all the place names in the Buckinghamshire area are named for the Langley family.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Two things of interesting:

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=alabamafamily&id=I8271&style=TEXT

That is info on a Josiah Langley a Y DNA match the (3 GD match to me) brother of David Langley (a 0 GD match to me), both likely brothers of my furthest ancestor Isham Langley. The part of interest:



So Josiah sold a John Mainor land, unsure on any other interactions.



It's possible... though many assumptions (which may be true but there is no concrete evidence for) to be confident (yet) in that conclusion. Since I can't confidently map my Langleys out of SC yet unfortunately that's a dead end. Most likely they did come from Virginia and the most likely candidate family is the Norfolk County, Virginia Langleys. Even beyond those two assumptions (which I'm continuing to try and work forward to either confirm or deny with a paper trail) I haven't seen a single paper trail of Norfolk Virginia Langleys back to the multiple locations of Langleys in England. The only one I've seen suggested at all is from an old William & Mary Quarterly genealogy article here:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915600?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

In there they suggest on page 197 in the footnotes that:



Purely speculation though since they only connect it via naming patterns (of very common names in general).

The NPA event could have happened in SC or even Virginia (or somewhere else we haven't considered). I match two Maynors at a GD of 3 at 37 markers the same I match a descendant of Josiah Langley from SC so it's definitely possible. I really need to upgrade my 37 markers to see how that changes the match level.

Not to dismiss your theories of an England connection, but just pointing out they currently rely on a lot of assumptions and that connection may be in a different location or even more recent than it seems.

MattL
10-14-2015, 06:41 PM
Hi Matt,
I agree that there are still a lot of maybes, ifs, and speculations involved, but I am really beginning to think this hypothesis is going to eventually bear fruit. The Langley-Mainor deed is certainly interesting, but what really jumped out at me was the close relationship between Langley and his neighbor Buffington. The Buffingtons came from Bovingdon, Buckinghamshire, England, which is right next to Great Marlow (where some genealogists claim the Langleys came from). Both families have a very long history in and around those Buckinghamshire towns, so it would not be surprising for any immigrants in those families to keep in touch in America (and even settle next to one another). Even one branch of the Kinman family moved from the Philadelphia area to the Carolinas and Georgia in the late 1700s (if I recall correctly, I think one of the Kinmans lived in the Edgefield area in South Carolina). But as you said, we need a lot more evidence to establish a pattern.
--------------Ken
P.S. I agree that the Langleys coming from Shropshire is pure speculation (based on common first names). But I suppose those Langleys could be a spinoff from the Buckinghamshire Langleys. Have you ever noticed all the place names in the Buckinghamshire area are named for the Langley family.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Totally agreed. I mean I hope you're right and I just need to find the paper trail on where our Langley's came from :)

So here's an interesting note from a genealogy expert certain South Carolina areas such as Edgefield (whose helped me track down my Langleys and other ancestors from that region). Henry Maynor is listed as the furthest ancestor for the GD 4 Maynor match I have:


This Henry Mayner/Maynor appears to be the one from Onslow Co NC, b. ~1765, whose descendants seem to have Langley ancestry. Where did they pick up the cuckoo in the nest? Well...he married in Abbeville and applied for his Rev War pension in Edgefield in 1819. Not a bad place for acquiring genes from somebody related to you!

If that Maynor's ancestry is right then their direct ancestor was in Edgefield and that region of SC at the same time as my Langleys.

kinman
10-15-2015, 01:24 AM
Hi Matt,
I've been thinking about this all day (what the South Carolina genealogist said below), and I can see that being a possibility. However, that Maynor from Onslow Co., North Carolina, is my closest genealogical match (GD=2) except for my Kinman cousin (GD=0). And the Kinman-Maynor split almost certainly occurred in the middle-1600s in Virginia (then to the Kinmans in neighboring Maryland, and the next generation to neighboring SE Pennsylvania.
Therefore, if the "cuckoo in the nest" Non-Paternity Event for the Langley-Maynors was in the colonies (rather than back in England), Virginia seems a lot more probable to me than South Carolina. And if it did occur in Virginia, I say the odds are that it happened before 1670. And so we can't rule out Maryland either, which was also settled in the early-to-mid 1600s. Anyway, knowing what we now know, I would say the odds are that your Langley-Maynor "cuckoo in the nest" Non-Paternity Event most likely happened in England, Virginia, or even Maryland (rather than South Carolina). Not that South Carolina is impossible, but it just seems less likely given what information we now have.
What we really need to make an even better estimate of the odds is a comprehensive YDNA test (like Big Y) for a Maynor descendant. You and I will certainly learn a lot more with my Big Y results (dued in December), but we could probably learn even more than that from a comparison from a Maynor descendant. One step at a time, we will get slowly get closer to understanding what really happened. However, waiting for more genetic results can be frustrating (that is why I decided on Big Y with a 2 months wait, rather than waiting 5 months for Elite 2.0). If I get my results by December, it is going to be a much welcomed Christmas present!!!
--------------------Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

South Carolina genealogist said "This Henry Mayner/Maynor appears to be the one from Onslow Co NC, b. ~1765, whose descendants seem to have Langley ancestry. Where did they pick up the cuckoo in the nest? Well...he married in Abbeville and applied for his Rev War pension in Edgefield in 1819. Not a bad place for acquiring genes from somebody related to you!"

Carloso972
10-15-2015, 04:50 PM
Hello. So Here's my result from Y-Seq : 3329 FGC22963 ChrY 19066987 19066987 T+
3329 S23458 ChrY 21716324 21716324 C+

Jean-Charles.

kinman
10-15-2015, 05:36 PM
Hi Jean-Charles,
Congratulations on your two SNP tests coming back positive. If you let the administrators of the U152 and Subclades Project know what your results are, they should be able to move you down into the S23458 group (with the three Langley members). I have to wait for my Big Y results before I can get added to that group.
--------------Ken
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hello. So Here's my result from Y-Seq : 3329 FGC22963 ChrY 19066987 19066987 T+
3329 S23458 ChrY 21716324 21716324 C+

Jean-Charles.

kinman
10-16-2015, 05:04 PM
Hi All,
YFull has come out with its updated tree (version 3.16). It has added the new clade FGC22940 (within FGC22963) with the inclusion of the new YF04230 from the Netherlands. I assume that is Roelofs.
Unfortunately they still have not corrected the clade name S18325, which should read S23458 or FGC22942 (I personally prefer S23458).
-----------Ken

MitchellSince1893
10-17-2015, 08:12 PM
This new feature on Yfull's tree is quite interesting.

You can see the individual inputs used to estimate the age of a given SNP by clicking the info button. Using the Z142 line as an example one can see the range of ages estimates based on 18 individual test inputs. http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z142/

Z142's age ranges from 3051 to 5426 years old for the individual tests. A great example why you shouldn't use a single test to conduct age estimates based on SNP counting. But together they give you a range. If you throw out the high and low outliers the remaining test range from 3203 to 4768 years ago. Middle 50% of the results were between 3744 and 4433 years ago.

Yfull's age estimate for Z142 based on the currently available results is 3921 years ago or almost 2000 BC. I wonder where Mr. Z142 was at this time and what specific culture he was part of.


6353

Z142 branches:

L562 ranges from 2884 to 4348 year ago, average = 3832 years ago

Z150/Z1222/S7402 ranges from 3144 to 5111 years ago, average = 3965 years ago

FGC22963 ranges from 3208 to 4607 years ago, average = 3848 years ago

kinman
10-18-2015, 01:30 AM
TIME: I think one has to take YFull's ages (in their new "info" button pages) with a grain of salt. They have L2 (age 4309 years) giving rise to Z49 (age 4446 years, which actually should be younger), then a very large 525-year gap for it giving rise to Z142 (age 3921 years). My estimates are older, but always decreasing in age (and with more regular age gaps): L2 (4800 years), Z49 (4600 years), and Z142 (4400 years). At least our Z49 ages are only about 150 years apart, but I believe YFull usually underestimates the ages of haplogroups by 200-500 years. For FGC22963, YFull has age 3848 years, and I have 4100 years, so roughly 4000 years would probably be a good bet.
PLACE: As for where Z142 originated, I still think it was in the area of the Black Forest, either on the east side (near the head of the Danube River) or on the south or west side (near the Rhine River). Some descendants stayed in that area, others went down the Rhine River Valley, others went up the Rhine River, and still others (like some of my own FGC22963 clade) seem to have gone west and slowly migrated across northern France (and I still think my Langley-Maynor-Kinman line may have crossed into England as late as 1066 A.D.). But what has surprised me most of all is that some FGC22963 not only went south into Spain, but some of those even crossed into north Africa (and still live in Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco).
-------------Ken

MitchellSince1893
10-18-2015, 02:47 AM
...some FGC22963 not only went south into Spain, but some of those even crossed into north Africa (and still live in Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco).

Remind me again the source for those Spanish and North African samples? What are their id #? I just went through FTDNA, Richard Rocca's tree, and Yfull and didn't come across these...maybe I missed it.

EDIT: Found it http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2924-Two-branches-of-Z142-Z150-Z12222-and-Z51&p=109596&viewfull=1#post109596
While these all these individuals may be FC22963 based on the DYS385=11-13.2, at this point I'm only including confirmed Z142 individuals via SNP testing.

As to Yfull dates, I would take the average date for a SNP with a grain a salt but I think the ranges will be in the ballpark.
It's still early in the process but I believe as more data is submitted to Yfull the average dates will eventually work out and make sense.

I redid an exercise I did a few months back to calculate the present geographic midpoint of Z142.
This time, on the advice of lgmayka I calculated the geographic midpoint of each branch of Z142 (FGC22963, L562, Z150) based on data compiled on seventy Z142+ individuals.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2729-Z49-where-did-it-come-from-How-did-it-expand&p=91459&viewfull=1#post91459

These 70 individuals only include one person per surname per subgroup e.g. only one Langley for the FGC22963 branch.

The results are
Z142 branch: Latitude: Longitude
FGC22963 49.314747 3.097207 (doesn't include N African samples as I don't know the source)
L562 48.548114 2.40122
Z150 48.077474 2.816812

The Z142 midpoint based on these 3 pts is 48.647129 N and 2.77023 E

6356

I was surprised how close all 3 branches were to each other in Northern France. These positions based on present day distribution don't tell us about the original locations of Z142 and it's branches but it may give us a clue as to how they primarily moved relative to Z142 and to each other.

Their close proximity to one another might indicate that they stayed close together early on and when Z142 descendants spread out these groups contained members of all the Z142 branches . E.g. the FGC22963, L562, and Z150 descendants ended up in Spain/Switzerland/Italy/Britain etc. because they often traveled together.

MitchellSince1893
10-18-2015, 03:47 AM
But to satisfy your curiosity I created a new map using the YHRD data in that link http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post109596

For the FGC22963 midpt I added additional data points from Spain (plus 2 more for Spain for Mexico and Guatamala), Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Norway, Czech Republic, Poland, Austria, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.

Adding this points moved the FGC22963 point 130 miles south to 47.459301 N 2.817488 E

Using this point along with the previously mentioned L562 and Z150 midpoints resulted in this map.

6358

The new Z142 midpoint is 43 miles south of the one in the post above at 48.028463 N and 2.679908 E.

kinman
10-18-2015, 01:12 PM
Thank you for the updated maps. The latitude for these midpoints is exactly what I expected (same latitude as the Rhine River and Danube headwaters next to the Black Forest). Although the longitude of these midpoints is further west, I guess that is also to be expected since the movement of R1b populations across Europe was almost always westward (with far less movement back to the east where they had come from).

Like some of their much later descendants in America, they must have been encouraged to "Go West, young man, Go West." Sort of a very early (and European) version of "Manifest Destiny".

As for the North African (and other) members of FGC22963 with the 13.2 micro-allele, most of them were tested by SMGF (Sorensen), and that website is unfortunately no longer available. However, here is a posting from 2010 about some of those results by someone named "argiedude":
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2010-04/1272124439

-------------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But to satisfy your curiosity I created a new map using the YHRD data in that link http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post109596

For the FGC22963 midpt I added additional data points from Spain (plus 2 more for Spain for Mexico and Guatamala), Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Norway, Czech Republic, Poland, Austria, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.

Adding this points moved the FGC22963 point 130 miles south to 47.459301 N 2.817488 E

Using this point along with the previously mentioned L562 and Z150 midpoints resulted in this map.

6358

The new Z142 midpoint is 43 miles south of the one in the post above at 48.028463 N and 2.679908 E.

kinman
10-21-2015, 04:31 PM
Hi all,
I see on the U152 and Subclades Project that ZurBrugg and Rayhill are now in their own branch (separate from the Skinner and Mason branch). And yet there is a lot of STR genetic distance between them (lots of mismatches). Is that very common, that two men share so many SNPs and yet they have so many STR differences?
---------------------Ken

MitchellSince1893
10-21-2015, 06:36 PM
Hi all,
I see on the U152 and Subclades Project that ZurBrugg and Rayhill are now in their own branch (separate from the Skinner and Mason branch). And yet there is a lot of STR genetic distance between them (lots of mismatches). Is that very common, that two men share so many SNPs and yet they have so many STR differences?
---------------------Ken

My terminal branch match and I have the following GD infinite/hybrid method (3 branches and 12 SNPs below Z150...estimated age 500-1000BC)
12 Markers 3/3
25 Markers 8/10
37 Markers: 11/13
67 Markers: 17/23
111 Markers: 22/30

kinman
10-21-2015, 08:00 PM
After looking at other such groups (containing differing surnames), I guess this is more common than I thought. I'm really beginning to see how lucky I am to have so many close matches and small GD values.
----------Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


My terminal branch match and I have the following GD infinite/hybrid method (3 branches and 12 SNPs below Z150...estimated age 500-1000BC)
12 Markers 3/3
25 Markers 8/10
37 Markers: 11/13
67 Markers: 17/23
111 Markers: 22/30

kinman
10-27-2015, 06:34 PM
Hi All,
Just a quick note to let you know that my Big Y results came in this morning. I'm a bit shocked, since I only ordered it 20 days ago (and results weren't due until December).

Anyway, I opened the CSV file, and it confirms that I am indeed positive for Z142 (as expected). Unforunately, that CSV file did not list my results for S23458 or any of the FGC numbers I should be positive for. I guess that I have to download my BAM file for that. Hopefully I can figure out the results for S23458 (and those FGC numbers) by the end of the day.
--------------Ken
P.S. They listed about 112 "Novel Variants" for me. Is that a lot (or not?).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MitchellSince1893
10-27-2015, 07:05 PM
Hi All,
Just a quick note to let you know that my Big Y results came in this morning. I'm a bit shocked, since I only ordered it 20 days ago (and results weren't due until December).

Anyway, I opened the CSV file, and it confirms that I am indeed positive for Z142 (as expected). Unforunately, that CSV file did not list my results for S23458 or any of the FGC numbers I should be positive for. I guess that I have to download my BAM file for that. Hopefully I can figure out the results for S23458 (and those FGC numbers) by the end of the day.
--------------Ken
P.S. They listed about 112 "Novel Variants" for me. Is that a lot (or not?).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had 108 novel variants of which 25% were truly novel/private .

I'm sure Richard Rocca will chime in soon with his analysis of your results.

Congrats on the early Christmas present

kinman
10-27-2015, 10:29 PM
I guess I only get part of my Christmas present today. They said my BAM file will take 5-7 business days before it is ready. I'm getting Big Y matches slowly coming in one at a time this afternoon. Three so far, all Z142, but none I've ever heard of (and not in the U152 and Subclades Project).

I let Richard know that I tested positive for Z142, but I've already been moved down with the Langleys at the U152 Project. I guess the assumption is that I'll be positive for those SNPs downstream.
-----------------Ken


I had 108 novel variants of which 25% were truly novel/private .

I'm sure Richard Rocca will chime in soon with his analysis of your results.

Congrats on the early Christmas present

MattL
10-27-2015, 11:18 PM
I guess I only get part of my Christmas present today. They said my BAM file will take 5-7 business days before it is ready. I'm getting Big Y matches slowly coming in one at a time this afternoon. Three so far, all Z142, but none I've ever heard of (and not in the U152 and Subclades Project).

I let Richard know that I tested positive for Z142, but I've already been moved down with the Langleys at the U152 Project. I guess the assumption is that I'll be positive for those SNPs downstream.
-----------------Ken

Waiting for my e-mail to hit that I got a new Big Y match :)

kinman
10-28-2015, 02:11 AM
Hi Matt,
Just got a whole bunch of new matches. By far my closest match is (no big surprise): Matthew Allen Langley. Known SNP Difference = 0 Shared "Novel Variants" = 87. I have a total of 117 Novel Variants, so 87 shared with Matt Langley, I guess that means I have 30 private SNPs for now.
The only family that is closer to me are the Maynor/Maner families, and none of them have taken the Big Y, but they will no doubt reduce my private SNPs to well below 30 (maybe 20, but just a guess).
Anyway, I guess my BAM file (when it comes next week) will tell us which 87 Novel Variants we share.
---------Ken
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kinman
10-28-2015, 02:29 AM
Hi again,
I just figured out that I could click on that 87 to see the list of Novel Variants which I share with Matt Langley (well, at least 85 of them pop up). So I guess I got more of an early Christmas present today than I realized. Maybe I can figure out tomorrow what 30 Private SNPs I have left. But just too tired to do it tonight. Been a long day.
----------------Ken

MitchellSince1893
10-28-2015, 02:44 AM
I guess I only get part of my Christmas present today. They said my BAM file will take 5-7 business days before it is ready. I'm getting Big Y matches slowly coming in one at a time this afternoon. Three so far, all Z142, but none I've ever heard of (and not in the U152 and Subclades Project).

I let Richard know that I tested positive for Z142, but I've already been moved down with the Langleys at the U152 Project. I guess the assumption is that I'll be positive for those SNPs downstream.
-----------------Ken

You show up on my bigy matches. 53 shared snps.

Most of your "novel" snps aren't. You will find many of them are above U152. When I sent my results to yfull and FGC together they identified 27 snps...it was more early on, but my closest match subsequently tested and turned 6 of my novel SNPs into shared snps.

kinman
10-28-2015, 01:08 PM
My "learning curve" is not so steep this morning (after a good night's sleep). My so-called "novel variants" show that I am positive for FGC22963, FGC22940, FGC22968, FGC22942, FGC22948, and S23458. So as we expected all along (from STR results), I am definitely in the Langley group.

And so far the results show that Matt Langley and I share one SNP not found in other Z142 men. Unfortunately, it is a recurrent SNP (which independently evolved in two other (unrelated) Haplogroups. I guess that is what is sometimes called a "floating SNP" (if I understand correctly).

Anyway, I guess that's all we will know until they get my BAM file ready (perhaps next Monday?).
-------------Ken
---------------------------------------------------------




You show up on my bigy matches. 53 shared snps.

Most of your "novel" snps aren't. You will find many of them are above U152. When I sent my results to yfull and FGC together they identified 27 snps...it was more early on, but my closest match subsequently tested and turned 6 of my novel SNPs into shared snps.

kinman
11-03-2015, 12:53 AM
Hi All,
My BAM file was ready Saturday morning, and I sent the weblink to Richard. Other than the "floating" recurrent SNP (M359.3), there will hopefully be a few other SNPs that Matt Langley and I share exclusively.
------------------Ken

kinman
11-12-2015, 04:50 AM
Hi All,
It is looking like YFull was probably correct after all about both Matt Langley and Dale Bricker having the S18325 SNP. I have it as well, as does the new William C. Langley results from yesterday. Skinner (a member of the Bricker subgroup) was called as positive, but only at about 40% (thanks to Dale for providing that information).
Therefore, the only logical conclusion we could come up with is that Matt Langley was also a lower percentage call for S18325, which was rejected as a "No call" by FTDNA, but was accepted as positive by YFull. So I think the U152 and Subclades Project can now probably safely add S18325 to the other SNPs defining this clade (S23458, FGC22948, and FGC22942). Although there is always the possibility that the North Africans with the 13.2 micro-allele might lack S18325 (and unfortunately they have apparently only been tested for STRs and not for any SNPs). As always, more testing is always needed for such unanswered questions.
---------------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

MattL
11-12-2015, 05:49 AM
Hi All,
It is looking like YFull was probably correct after all about both Matt Langley and Dale Bricker having the S18325 SNP. I have it as well, as does the new William C. Langley results from yesterday. Skinner (a member of the Bricker subgroup) was called as positive, but only at about 40% (thanks to Dale for providing that information).
Therefore, the only logical conclusion we could come up with is that Matt Langley was also a lower percentage call for S18325, which was rejected as a "No call" by FTDNA, but was accepted as positive by YFull. So I think the U152 and Subclades Project can now probably safely add S18325 to the other SNPs defining this clade (S23458, FGC22948, and FGC22942). Although there is always the possibility that the North Africans with the 13.2 micro-allele might lack S18325 (and unfortunately they have apparently only been tested for STRs and not for any SNPs). As always, more testing is always needed for such unanswered questions.
---------------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very interesting, glad to clear that up. Ironically on YFull it has a 5 star rating on S18325 for me, would be interesting to understand the logic (calculations) behind both FTDNA and YFull making calls.

kinman
11-16-2015, 01:19 AM
Hi All,
Looks like Matt Langley and I exclusively share 23 SNPs (since we split off from the Skinner-Mason-Rayhill-Bricker group). That might put the split of those two groups at over 3000 years ago (unless our average years per SNP is lower than average). Unfortunately, 22 of the SNPs which Matt and I share are unnamed (just position numbers), which means M359.3 is the only one with a name. So should the Langley-Maynor-Kinman group be called Haplogroup M359.3 for the time being?
----------------Ken

kinman
11-16-2015, 03:10 AM
Hi again,
It appears that there might already be an M359.3, so probably best to call our group R-M359 to distinguish it from those outside of haplogroup R that have independently evolved the same mutation (two or three times). Anyway, it is uncertain whether Grazouille Michel-Etienne split off before or after the Langleys, so he may or may not test positive for M359. The same goes for our Stallings relatives. I suspect in both cases that they will test positive for M359 , and thankfully YSEQ.net already offers a single SNP test for M359. So it won't take a Big Y test to determine whether or not they are positive for M359. Maynor relatives will almost certainly test positive.
-------------Ken
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Huntergatherer1066
11-16-2015, 03:38 AM
M359/P41 is in the ARSD gene in the pseudoautosomal region, I'm not sure if it is very reliable for phylogenetic purposes.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/3/714.full

Titus Valerius
11-19-2015, 03:10 PM
Hi all,
I just got the result of my friend M. Corsi and He's FGC22956-
At this point he's gonna to test for S23458

kinman
11-20-2015, 06:27 PM
Hi All,
The YFull tree still shows that all of its members in Haplogroup FGC22963 also possess FGC22969. The position number for FGC22969 is apparently 22146356, but my Big Y results do not show any novel variants at that position (and all my other FGC-numbered SNPs are listed as novel variants).
So I am wondering if this is a case where borderline, low confidence calls are recognized by YFull, but rejected by FTDNA. Would my BAM file indicate how low the confidence was for the test at that position number?
-------------Ken
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MitchellSince1893
11-23-2015, 05:57 AM
Looks like we have another member of Z150/Z12222. Stephen John Hobbs showed up in my BigY matches.

He's positive for Z12222. I did a quick look but didn't see matches to any of the sub branches

kinman
11-29-2015, 02:28 AM
Hi All,
I just wanted to encourage more members of Haplogroup R-Z142 to join YTree.net (also known as "The Big Tree"). Unlike YFull, the analysis is free (and probably a whole lot faster). In less than a week, I am already on the tree, and when the analysis of my file is finalized, it should show Kinman and Rayhill on a separate branch from Roelofs. Those are the only three presently on the FGC22963 branch, so I would especially like to see others on our branch (especially one of the Langleys).

This website has some useful information, such as Mutation Matrix and Lists of Unique Mutations. The more people who join, the more useful it will become (and it's free). I only submitted my VCF file to start, but plan to send my whole BAM file once there are more people on our branch of the tree.

Anyway, here's a weblink to the R-Z142 part of the tree so far (and there's a tab at the top you can click for "instructions"):
http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=421

-----------------Ken
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pigmon
11-29-2015, 09:16 PM
I just sent my VCF and Bam files to scotsgenealogy! Intended to do this months ago but just now got it done!

Curtis

MattL
12-02-2015, 09:16 AM
Hi All,
I just wanted to encourage more members of Haplogroup R-Z142 to join YTree.net (also known as "The Big Tree"). Unlike YFull, the analysis is free (and probably a whole lot faster). In less than a week, I am already on the tree, and when the analysis of my file is finalized, it should show Kinman and Rayhill on a separate branch from Roelofs. Those are the only three presently on the FGC22963 branch, so I would especially like to see others on our branch (especially one of the Langleys).

This website has some useful information, such as Mutation Matrix and Lists of Unique Mutations. The more people who join, the more useful it will become (and it's free). I only submitted my VCF file to start, but plan to send my whole BAM file once there are more people on our branch of the tree.

Anyway, here's a weblink to the R-Z142 part of the tree so far (and there's a tab at the top you can click for "instructions"):
http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=421

-----------------Ken
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for sharing... joined this now as well.

kinman
12-04-2015, 02:00 AM
Hi Matt,
I am looking forward to seeing how many of our shared SNPs will appear on YTree.net, since most of them are unnamed (just position numbers). And I have now narrowed down my list of Kinman "private SNPs" to just six, and two or three of those will probably be shared with the Maynor families once one of them gets a Big Y or Elite 2.0 test.

Anyway, the Langleys probably split away from my line about 650 years ago, that would be about one new SNP in my line every 110 years since then. That sounds about right (I don't really trust YFull's 144 years per SNP across the board, since the mutation rate must vary some in different lines).

But what I really would like to see is further testing by one of our Stallings family relatives, because I think they split off our line even earlier (maybe 800-900 years ago?). Have tried contacting them, but no response so far. If I recall correctly, they were subgroup K in FTDNA's "ST*RLING" project (which shows that they had the 13.2 micro-allele).
---------------Ken
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for sharing... joined this now as well.

kinman
12-08-2015, 03:42 AM
Hi All,
Before our Stallings line began about 900 years ago (presumably in southern England), there seems to be nothing known before our common ancestry with the Skinner/Mason/Rayhill/Brugger line. And I have now estimated that our common ancestor with them lived at least 2500 years earlier (3400 years ago). That is in fairly close agreement with the YFull tree which estimates the most recent common ancestor between the Brugger and Langley lines as 3700 years ago. If that common ancestor lived in the vicinity of the Rhine River (near the Black Forest), that still leaves well over 2000 years for them to have migrated across northern France to Normandy or Brittany (before crossing into England).
Although I certainly don't rule out our ancestor accompanying William the Conqueror in 1066, an earlier crossing is very possible. This would include the 5th Century (post-Roman) invasion of England by Anglo-Saxons (and Brythonic men from France as well). Either way, one can't help but wonder if our Stallings ancestors migrated to England around the same time as the Skinner-Mason-Rayhill ancestor. That those families also immigrated to the American colonies, makes me wonder if they also came from a common region in southern England (or were R1b-R142 men just more likely to immigrate than most?). I guess what we really need most of all is for possible relatives in southern England to at least get STR testing done (if not SNPs as well).
--------------------Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Matt,
I am looking forward to seeing how many of our shared SNPs will appear on YTree.net, since most of them are unnamed (just position numbers). And I have now narrowed down my list of Kinman "private SNPs" to just six, and two or three of those will probably be shared with the Maynor families once one of them gets a Big Y or Elite 2.0 test.

Anyway, the Langleys probably split away from my line about 650 years ago, that would be about one new SNP in my line every 110 years since then. That sounds about right (I don't really trust YFull's 144 years per SNP across the board, since the mutation rate must vary some in different lines).

But what I really would like to see is further testing by one of our Stallings family relatives, because I think they split off our line even earlier (maybe 800-900 years ago?). Have tried contacting them, but no response so far. If I recall correctly, they were subgroup K in FTDNA's "ST*RLING" project (which shows that they had the 13.2 micro-allele).
---------------Ken
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kinman
12-08-2015, 02:45 PM
Correction:
In last night's post, I mentioned a "Skinner-Mason-Rayhill ancestor" immigrating to England. Actually there would be at least two separate ancestors, a Skinner-Mason ancestor and a Rayhill ancestor.
The Rayhill line apparently moved on to Ireland at some point in time, and the Skinner-Mason line is presumed to have remained in England. Therefore, it would not surprise me if the Skinner and Mason immigrants to the American colonies came from the same part of England.
--------------Ken

kinman
12-09-2015, 02:06 AM
Hi All,
It is possible that the name Stallings may have originally been spelled Stallenge. If so, this might well point to the area around Stallenge Thorne, Somersetshire, as our English home area. And it is interesting that Langley Marsh, Somersetshire, is only about 6 miles from there. How a Stallings (or a Stallenge) might have become a Langley will probably never be known since it probably happened over 700 years ago, but it might provide a clue on where to look in England for possible Langley, Stallings, or Stallenge relatives for genetic testing. Presently I would be happy just to find one of our Stallings relatives in the U.S. to test for single SNPs (especially M359 which I share with the Langleys, and I suspect our Stallings relatives will have it as well).
Whether my Maynor ancestors also lived in this same area is possible, but perhaps not quite as likely. However, the immigration of people to colonial Virginia with the surnames Maynor, Langley, Stallings, and Stallenge, perhaps indicates a common geographic origin in England (if it is not just a coincidence).
--------------Ken