View Full Version : E-V13

09-20-2012, 08:11 PM
My son-in-law (Josh), 211910, is E-V13. At FTDNA he has no matches (as in zero) at 67 or 37 markers. He has 2 matches at 25 with a GD of 2. We have been unable to confirm the European country from where Josh's Floyd line emigrated from but two candidates are Ireland or Wales. Any insight into our exploration is warmly welcomed.

Best, Roy

09-21-2012, 09:30 PM
Hi Roy,

Josh actually matches a cluster in the E-M35 project that we call E-V13*-D. You can see the cluster at the following link:


The reason he has so few matches in his myFTDNA account is because he has a RecLOH at DYS464, which caused him to have 7 values at that marker instead of the normal 4. The comparison for DYS464 is not as straight-forward as other markers -- rather than a straight marker-to-marker comparison (DYS464a to DYS464a, DYS464b to DYS464b, etc), FTDNA compares all values and then counts a GD of 1 for any values that don't match.

For example, let's compare Josh's DYS464 with Lewis (11508):

Josh has: 14 14 15 15 16 16 17
Lewis has: 14 15 16 16 17

You'll see that Lewis has 5 values at DYS464 -- so he also has more than the standard 4. When you look at the actual values -- they both have one 14, one 15, two 16s and one 17. Then Josh has two values left over that don't match up with Lewis: the second 14 & the second 15. All other markers in the first 25 match, so Josh and Lewis end up with a GD of 2 in the first 25 markers, and that's within the threshold that FTDNA displays for matches.

Now Josh and Lewis *should* be a close match at 37 markers too, but there's another multi-copy marker in the 26-37 panel which was affected by the RecLOH -- CDY. Josh has values 30-30 and Lewis has values 30-36. The comparison for CDY isn't treated the same way as DYS464 -- instead of counting the difference at CDYb as a GD of 1, it's counted as a GD of 6. They also differ by 1 on two additional markers in the 26-37 panel.

So altogether, Josh and Lewis have GD=10 at 37 markers, which is beyond FTDNA's matching threshold for the 37-marker level (GD=4).

The rest of the guys in the cluster all have the standard 4 values at DYS464 -- so at minimum, they're GD=3 from Josh at 25 markers, which is beyond the matching threshold, and therefore none of them show up on Josh's Matches page.

If Josh didn't have these extra and doubled values caused by the RecLOH, then many of the people in his cluster would have shown up on his Matches page. The many different surnames in this cluster was probably caused by this lineage not using inherited surnames until relatively recently (past few hundred years), and when the different branches of the family did finally take surnames, they ended up with different ones. This type of situation is very common among communities and populations that used patronymics until relatively recently (past few hundred years). It's especially common for Ashkenazi Jews and Scandinavians, and I've come across several of these tight clusters of different-surname people with Welsh and Irish ancestry.


10-01-2012, 01:15 AM
Elise ~

Thanks a bunch for your reply. You are correct, Lewis is Josh's closest match, albeit at 25 markers a GD of 2. I did some exploration about RecLOH at 464 after reading your post. I see this is an odd marker and prone to RecLOH. And, although what you say about excluding the spurious 464 and CDY values makes sense, when I compare Josh's 67 marker results at the E3b and E-M35 Project with his closest matches, the GD still isn't close. E3b project, just above and below Floyd: Evans a GD 8 and Johnson a GD of 9. At the E M35 project is Plant GD 17 and Manolis GD 20. These represent a GD without the 464 and CDY values.

I did ask for Josh to join the Null 425 project.

Thanks again. Roy