PDA

View Full Version : FGC17112 Exploration Thread



Earl Davis
12-16-2015, 08:38 PM
Introduction.

FGC17112 is a subclade of DF27 that sits at level 4 under DF27.
The path is DF27>ZZ12>ZZ19>Z31644>FGC17112

See http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=907&star=false

Statistics

Total positives testers as of December 2015: 9
Total positive lineages as of December 2015: 7
Most SNPs tested in BigY: 40
Least SNPs tested in BigY: 34

Count of earliest known ancestor location by country (excludes multiples from same lineage)

1 Denmark
1 England
1 Finland
1 Wales
1 Switzerland
2 United States emigrants

FGC17112 Genealogy Exploration Tree

The FGC17112 tree includes NGS results, panel results and individual SNP results. These three do not easily lend themselves to an easy tree based comparison as panel tests and individual tests do not by their nature often test all snips in a snp block. So this tree will use panels and single tests to break blocks but will otherwise assume someone who has panel/single tested at least one snp in a block is positive for all until established otherwise through further testing. It is therefore a tree to highlight further genealogical exploration opportunities as opposed to an accurate phylogenetic tree. For that simply refer to Yfull’s tree.

Click on the image below to display the tree.

6952

Kvenlander
12-17-2015, 01:38 PM
I must compare the STR results, especially to the Danish FGC17112 person. I have two Finnish matches that I suspect to be FGC17112. I have found a genealogical connection between the two, from the 17th century but I do not share a surname with them in the modern times. I also have a bit more distant match from Norway, whose MDKA is from Sweden. The latter has taken the Backbone test and was confirmed DF27 but I do not know, whether also DF27 SNP pack has been ordered. If the above group turns out to be related, there could well be a Nordic cluster, a cousin to BY3290. So, under FGC17112, there would be an Atlantic and Nordic clusters. Very exciting in any case.

Like I wrote on FTDNA site, my is money on the Nordic Bronze Age. During this time there was a significant settlement activity by the (Proto-)Germanics on the Finnish Coast and all over Scandinavia. This was also the time when the Germanics were in close contact with the Celts and learned new technologies and culture from them. Would explain both the Wels and Nordic clusters. There are other explanations, as well. During the Younger Roman iron Age (50-400 AD) there were strong Scandinavian settlements in Western Finland, which could explain Finnish-Swedish relations beyond two thousand years. Again in the Migratory Period there are so strong resemblances in the grave goods, especially weapons and wine vessels, between Finland and Central Europe (which is absent from Scandinavia apart from Denmark) that the historians have concluded this can only be a result of either a migration of some Germanic Tribe to the West Coast of Finland or a mass participation of Finnish men as merceneries to the Germanic kings, who would have then brought their weapons back home and had been buried in the Germanic barbaric Christian style with a spatha style sword, two spears (throwing and fighting), a "messer", a shield and a roman wine vessel, in copper or glass.

If the connection is from earlier, maybe the battle axe culture could explain the connection. However, I believe my MDKA to Earl is from the Bronze Age, so the stone age split seems implausible.

Chad Rohlfsen
12-17-2015, 02:51 PM
My line is also Danish.

Kvenlander
12-17-2015, 03:02 PM
My line is also Danish.

Hello Chad. Are you also part of the FGC17112 group?

Of course, I meant to say my most distant COMMON ancestor to Earl is from the Bronze Age.

Chad Rohlfsen
12-17-2015, 03:33 PM
I haven't joined the group yet, but I will. I'm kit B5178, on the DF27 group.

Kvenlander
12-17-2015, 03:58 PM
I haven't joined the group yet, but I will. I'm kit B5178, on the DF27 group.

Yes, I can see you have been added already. It seems we have a GD of 12 @37STR if I don't count the several steps. I am not quite certain how to calculate those but it is pretty distant. However, there are some similarities, as well. I have to hope that my Norwegian match would also join DF27 project. I know he is DF27 and was interested of taking the DF27 SNP pack. I have three other Finnish matches (no shared surname) that could also be FGC17112 and two have indicated of being interested of further testing.

razyn
12-17-2015, 04:29 PM
I moved three guys into group F4 (FGC17112) about 36 hours ago. They are the three shown as FGC17112 or BY3290. The new SNP pack's haplogroup assignment seems to be prioritized above whatever the BigY called (which was based on an earlier and much shorter list of known SNPs). You might want to look in on your Haplotree display and see if anything in the vicinity of your current terminal SNP is still "in progress," or whether (e.g.) you have BY3290- in the display of negative tested SNPs.

Earl Davis
12-17-2015, 05:02 PM
We also have another tester in the Rice surname project who has tested FGC17114. They are not currently in the DF27 project so we now have two members of the RICE family confirmed in the group.

I started to try and identify possible candidate members in surname groups last year based on STRs. So far I have found...

Long Group M
Rice Group 4
Morris Group 3
Wynn Group M

As well as Lake. Any other suggestions from anyone?

Earl.

Chad Rohlfsen
12-17-2015, 05:52 PM
I moved three guys into group F4 (FGC17112) about 36 hours ago. They are the three shown as FGC17112 or BY3290. The new SNP pack's haplogroup assignment seems to be prioritized above whatever the BigY called (which was based on an earlier and much shorter list of known SNPs). You might want to look in on your Haplotree display and see if anything in the vicinity of your current terminal SNP is still "in progress," or whether (e.g.) you have BY3290- in the display of negative tested SNPs.

Everything under it says negative, for mine.

Kvenlander
12-17-2015, 06:29 PM
I cannot find BY3290 in my Big Y results. In the haplotree it is showing "presumed negative". Why would this be, if I am positive for FGC17112?

razyn
12-17-2015, 06:42 PM
I cannot find BY3290 in my Big Y results. In the haplotree it is showing "presumed negative". Why would this be, if I am positive for FGC17112?
Are you looking at the position 23989671? G to C would be the mutation. I wouldn't expect to see it called BY3290, anyway. Probably you need to look in the .bed file at least, if not the BAM file. I don't do those things myself -- I leave it up to people with bigger computers, more analytical software programs, more recent educations, etc. But that may need to be done, unless you agree to accept "presumed negative" by a program that blitzed that area of your Y chromosome and didn't see it.

But the answer to your question might be a lot simpler, you have the parent mutation FGC17112 but not the specifc subclade BY3290. There are two other branches on that limb, on the Big Tree already. There might be a bunch more, it's a new field. Hits in three out of the first 73 tests with this SNP pack would appear to suggest that FGC17112 is not rare -- just rarely tested, yet.

Kvenlander
12-17-2015, 09:25 PM
Razyn, it could be that I would need to look into the files. I just assumed that as it is in the haplotree, it would be also called BY3290 in the Big Y results. I do not actually expect to be positive for BY3290, according to Big Tree my lineage separates from those much earlier. I was just wondering the logic that I am positive for FGC17112 but FTDNA presumes me to be negative for the next two SNPs below it. I would have expected FTDNA to propose that I test those. Now instead, FTDNA is proposing me to test DF27 which is upstream of FGC17112...

I think FGC17112 will be splitting in two or even three at some point and you may well be right about it not being rare. I can already see most of the group clustering on one side, with a further division by BY3290, whereas I am on the other side, possibly with Chad, although this is impossible to say without NGS. I would suppose my Finnish and Norwegian matches to cluster on my side of the division, as they have the lowest GD to me and the same off-modal STRs.

Earl Davis
12-18-2015, 12:40 PM
I cannot find BY3290 in my Big Y results. In the haplotree it is showing "presumed negative". Why would this be, if I am positive for FGC17112?

I would not expect you to be positive for BY3290. If its position is not showing in your BigY files it could be a testing coverage issue. I would not worry about it as it's not relevant to your side of FGC17112. FTDNA is showing presumed negative as you were negative for the mass of SNP's that sit between FGC17112 and BY3290. All you can do at the moment is wait for a close BigY match to come in.

Earl.

Kvenlander
12-18-2015, 01:03 PM
I would not expect you to be positive for BY3290.

I do not expect that either. I just wanted to check whether it was called. It seems that it was not. Also, you are absolutely right that in my Big Y results there are many negative SNPs upstream of BY3290.

Earl Davis
12-18-2015, 03:30 PM
I do not expect that either. I just wanted to check whether it was called. It seems that it was not. Also, you are absolutely right that in my Big Y results there are many negative SNPs upstream of BY3290.

One thing you might consider whist waiting for a close BigY match is to have your BAM file analysed by FGC as this will get most of your positions turned into FGC SNP names. I have not done this myself for two reasons as my close match RICE already submitted his BAM file so most of my SNP's got named my default and also I expect to buy a FCG Elite test at some point, unless we see a BigY+ test soon. Once we get down to the last 1,000 years we need more detail to work out the intricate branches and the BigY giving us 1 SNP per 130 years on average is not currently providing enough scale of detail to be able to determine recent branching at the surname level IMO.

Earl.

Kvenlander
12-18-2015, 08:37 PM
One thing you might consider whist waiting for a close BigY match is to have your BAM file analysed by FGC as this will get most of your positions turned into FGC SNP names.

Thank you for the tip, I am certainly willing to consider it. Could you tell me what would be the advantage, besides having ready names for my novel variants? Will this make matching easier?

Earl Davis
12-19-2015, 08:08 AM
Thank you for the tip, I am certainly willing to consider it. Could you tell me what would be the advantage, besides having ready names for my novel variants? Will this make matching easier?
I say this without having used the BAM analysis service myself but you get.

1. Most of your novel variants get names.
2) You get some indication of quality - they seem to only name 'gold standard' snips.
3) Sometimes they find one or two more snips that FTDNA did not report themselves.

I only picked up on the benefits of 3) recently following a presentation by Maurice Gleason where he noted that The Big Tree (Alex Williamson), FGC and Yfull all 'found' snips in the data that FTDNA had not reported. Not only that but that they all found things the others had not reported. It highlighted to be for the first time the benefits of getting files analysed at more than one place.

Earl.

Earl Davis
12-19-2015, 10:54 AM
I just checked and sadly BY3290 is not currently available as a stand alone test at FTDNA.

The following is a list of SNP's downstream of FGC17112 that ARE included in the DF27 panel at FTDNA

FGC17114
FGC17099
FGC17102
BY3290

Of these only FGC17102 is currently available as a stand alone test.

Under BY3290 the following are available at FTDNA as standalone tests. I will check what Yseq have shortly.

BY254
CTS3572


6968

Chad Rohlfsen
12-19-2015, 09:35 PM
I just checked and sadly BY3290 is not currently available as a stand alone test at FTDNA.

The following is a list of SNP's downstream of FGC17112 that ARE included in the DF27 panel at FTDNA

FGC17114
FGC17099
FGC17102
BY3290

Of these only FGC17102 is currently available as a stand alone test.

Under BY3290 the following are available at FTDNA as standalone tests. I will check what Yseq have shortly.

BY254
CTS3572


6968

I'm negative for all of the above. What's the next step? Big Y?

Kvenlander
12-19-2015, 10:07 PM
I'm negative for all of the above. What's the next step? Big Y?

Big Y could be a good option. As you do not share any of those SNPs with the BY3290 group, there is a high chance that you share some of those that are currently listed as my novel variants. I am hoping that my Norwegian match would take the DF27 SNP pack. If he does, and he ends up as FGC17112 like you, it would be a further indication that there are two branches below FGC17112.

Earl Davis
12-19-2015, 11:41 PM
I'm negative for all of the above. What's the next step? Big Y?

Probably.

Big Y is a really good test. The only concern I have now that I am personally down to the last 1,000 years or so is that it does not seem to find quite enough snips to do really detailed branching at the surname level. The FGC Y elite test could be more helpful in that regard but it's more expensive and a BigY+ may be along at some point that might find the 'in-between' snips that we might need that were not covered by the current BigY.

The other alternative is to wait it out for months or years until at least two people test who match you at Y67 and take the Big Y themselves get compared with the rest of FGC17112 then get their matching novel snips named, and made available at FTDNA (or YSeq) for stand alone testing so you can place a single $40 order. We are almost at that point with BY3290 but it's still not orderable as a stand-alone but that should change soon, so anyone who matches someone like the LAKE tester at Y67 could skip BigY and the DF27 panel and test straight for BY3290. Even then that only gets them to about 1,000 years ago. If they want to know the snips that happened in the last 30 generations or so they still need BigY and Y Elite. If they are happy knowing where they fit in 1,000 years ago however they should soon be able to get that for $40 or less.

Earl.

Chad Rohlfsen
12-19-2015, 11:43 PM
Okay. Since I seem to be negative for everything that is under FGC17112, I'll try to add to the tree with a big Y, but it will have to wait a couple months.

Kvenlander
01-08-2016, 02:45 PM
I am certain this has been discussed already at some point but what are the time estimates for FGC17112 and BY3290? I seem to recall that for the FGC17112 it was approx. 1500 years BP.

Earl Davis
01-08-2016, 08:49 PM
They have not been professionally dated yet and even when they are, snp dating usually attracts scepticism. Here is my very, very, veryamateur attempt. Within each block of colour (color) the order of the snips is unknown and they are placed in a random order.

7217

Kvenlander
01-13-2016, 12:44 PM
I have few new candidates for FGC17112: Yesterday one of my matches received the results of YDNA67 upgrade. It turns out that he (MDKA Jacob Hendrickson in Hailuoto, Finland) has only GD3/67 to me. Unfortunately the kit is not in the R1b ALL subclades project. I will try to convince the kit to test for FGC17112. Another match GD2/25 (GD8/37 but apart from one, DYS385a, all differences are in the fast or very fast STR) seems to be designated currently as P312. as he emailed me that he would take the backbone SNP pack, I suspect that he has tested negative for everything under P312 and the DF27 test is now pending. He is in the R1b - project (MDKA Jurmu) but unfortunately has not tested for YDNA67. I will ask him to upgrade and test for FGC17112.

What is noteworthy (in my opinion), is that we all have different surnames and have genealogical records to 17th century or even before. This could point to the immigration to Finland in middle ages or before. The geographical location of the most MDKAs is North-West Finland.

razyn
01-13-2016, 05:19 PM
What is noteworthy (in my opinion), is that we all have different surnames and have genealogical records to 17th century or even before. This could point to the immigration to Finland in middle ages or before. The geographical location of the most MDKAs is North-West Finland.
That area was somewhat important for the 17th century New Sweden colony on the Delaware (and adjacent Maryland at the head of Chesapeake Bay). I think particularly some of the military people and craftsmen were Finlandssvenskar, and most of them stayed in America after the colony was abandoned. (The colonists who were actually Finns came over mostly from Värmland, and their ancestry was not similar or even from the same part of Finland.)

Anyway if you run into some close yDNA matches whose most distant known ancestor was from one of our mid-Atlantic states, that might be why.

An old friend of ours from Jakobstad wrote a good book about them, in 1988. K-G Olin, his publishing business is called Olimex.

Kvenlander
01-13-2016, 08:05 PM
Yes Razyn, I am aware of their contribution to the Delaware colony. I actually read a while ago that over 50% of the colonists were from Finland in the latter half of its short existence.

Those that came from Värmland were mostly of Savonian and Häme descent, slash and burn farmers. But many came directly from those parts, for example John Morton's (of the 4th of July 1776 fame) great grandfather 1654 (Marttinen). Another example is a surname Cox, which was originally "Kokkonen", another Savo person (kokko is incidentally an old fashioned word for eagle and the surname is considered to be pre-Christian).

Northwestern Finns (there were actually also persons of Sami descent) lived in what is today Philadelphia. Around Squirrel Hill there was a village called Tornio, its namesake is in NW Finland. Nearby there was another village called Rambo, named after its founder. The name sounds Swedish but apparently he was from Finland (maybe Finlandssvenska).

the soldiers and civil servants certainly all had Swedish names and they spoke Swedish (at least the officers, the Finnish speaking people changed their language when they moved up in the society) but all soldiers were given "soldier names" when they enlisted, (East-)Finns because their long -nen ending surnames were impossible to pronounce to the most officers and the West Finns and the Swedes because they did not have any surnames, they were just someone's sons. The civil servants and the officers had (invented) surnames in the European fashion, in case of those Finns that came from the region with a tradition of clan/surnames, the adopted surnames was often a latin version of their original surname or their place of origin (eg. Savoniensis for a person born in Savo).

By the way, I have heard that the Finns got along well with the natives and had a big (if little known) role in the early exploration, them being well adapted moving and living in the forests. For example they brought with them their traditional way of building log houses which was copied by both the Indians and the pioneer settlers.

Sorry for the lecture... I do have many matches in the new continent but nothing yet that would be very close. However, often I see discussion about this issue as the 17th century is far enough for all the memory and records to have been lost and thus a DNA test can reveal surprises of origin.

TR4321
02-01-2016, 02:42 PM
I'm 59% Western and Central Europe, 36% Scandinavian, and 5% British Isles according to FtDNA's Origins report. My last known male and female ancestors immigrated from Wales/England to Virginia, USA.

Tom Rice
FTDNA kit 4897

Kvenlander
02-04-2016, 01:06 PM
[QUOTE=Kvenlander;133470] I have few new candidates for FGC17112: Y Another match GD2/25 (GD8/37 but apart from one, DYS385a, all differences are in the fast or very fast STR) seems to be designated currently as P312. as he emailed me that he would take the backbone SNP pack, I suspect that he has tested negative for everything under P312 and the DF27 test is now pending. He is in the R1b - project (MDKA Jurmu) but unfortunately has not tested for YDNA67. I will ask him to upgrade and test for FGC17112.[QUOTE]

This match has now upgraded to YDNA111 and he has become my first match at 111 level with GD 9. What is noteworthy is that his GD to my another match Fahlberg is 12, meaning that they share (roughly) an ancestor from 8th or 9th century. I believe this is a further indication that R-FGC17112 has been present in the North since the Viking Age, at least, maybe the Bronze Age, as I guessed earlier. Unfortunately he has not taken the M343 SNP pack but has only tested P312 separately. I asked him see whether FGC17112 can be tested separately, as he clearly matches the patter on STR level.

Kvenlander
02-04-2016, 01:58 PM
Chad, it would be very interesting to see which branch you belong to, BY3290 or the "other". Did I understand correctly that you are negative for BY3290? is that part of the pack? I tried to compare our STRs on the DF27 project pages but the distance is quite great, especially as there are several multiple differences. However, many differences were in the fast or very fast markers, so that a common ancestor within the last, say, 1000 years is not an impossibility.

Earl Davis
02-19-2016, 06:40 PM
There has been a new BY3290 reported in the DF27 project. Also a new BigY result that is negative for FGC17112 but adds a parent branch at 22304752T-G. Here is the impact on the guesstimated timeline...

7857

razyn
02-21-2016, 12:05 AM
One thing on that chart that doesn't make any sense as I see it (so I probably see it wrong) is the list of SNPs (from the 405948 Kajnul sample?) that is sorted from low to high (numbered position on the chromosome), beside a set of dates sorted from 1421 BCE to 1963 CE. I assume you don't think the one column has any genuine relationship to the other; but the way they line up (with the same number of examples in each of those side-by-side columns) the chart seems visually to suggest that.

I have enough of a problem accepting the premise that SNP-counting is a good method of dating stuff, especially stuff of which we have seen so few examples so far. This goes at least two steps beyond that shaky premise. Hope you don't mean it that way.

Earl Davis
02-21-2016, 11:01 PM
Hope you don't mean it that way.

I didn't. I did explain that in an earlier post in the thread. I just didn't want to keep repeating the same statement with each update.

Kvenlander
03-01-2016, 02:38 PM
I noticed another new BY3290 in the P312 project.

Kvenlander
03-01-2016, 02:42 PM
I noticed another new BY3290 in the P312 project.

Sorry, he seems to be already in the DF27 project. In any case, he is an additional BY3290.

Kvenlander
07-10-2016, 06:27 AM
Y-Full published yesterday V. 4.06 of its haplotree. The tree includes FGC17112. The SNP is placed directly below DF27 and according to Y-Full is formed 4500 ybp. I was under impression that FGC17112 is considerably younger.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-10-2016, 07:24 AM
Yeah, FTDNA has it DF27>ZZ12_1>ZZ19_1>Z31644>FGC17112. Have you asked Vadim about this?

razyn
07-10-2016, 10:24 AM
YFull has more stringent exclusion criteria than Alex's Big Tree has. So several branching points above FGC17112 are excluded. However, IMO Alex is right.
http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=1353&star=false
Btw another Davis with BY3290 joined the FTDNA DF27 project Friday, and I put him in group F4 with the rest of you. 298171 is the new one.

Earl Davis
07-10-2016, 10:37 AM
Things to consider.

1. As far as I am aware, no one who is FGC17112 has yet taken one of the more comprehensive tests on the market so we don't really know how many snips lie between DF27 and FGC17112 that might be newly discovered by such a test,

2. Even the best tests currently on the market only cover part of the Y chromosome. We don't know if Y chromosome testing is close to it's maximum possible coverage or if there is much more to be discovered between DF27 and FGC17112 if and when such future advancements become available to us.

3. People doing comparisons can only work with the data they currently have available and very few people have tested FGC17112 so far. Fewer people yet have sent their results to yfull, FGC or ytree so they are all working on limited data that will likely be refined as more results come in.

4. Some regions of the Y chromosome are more easily testable than others and some regions are less reliable than others. Opinion varies on which snips are stable enough to be included on a tree.

5. Almost everyone has snips that are in 'debatable' regions. Some have more of these, some have less. Some people find these are distributed fairly evenly over the last 5,000 years, some find most of the ones they have appear to happened early on and some find most of the ones they have happened more recently. When you look at someone’s results if you choose to disregard snips in less favourable regions and then try and date an snp things are naturally going to look a lot different for someone who has these less favourable snips stacked early on than those who have a more even distribution.

6a. At the moment from P312 if you just include the 'gold standard' and easily tested snips the sequence from P312 looks like: P312>DF27>FGC17112. In that you could easily argue that DF27 itself should be be classed as not easily testable.

6b. At the moment from P312 if you want to included the debatable snips as well the sequence goes P312>Z1904>Z40481>ZZ11>Z38841>DF27>ZZ12>Z39853>ZZ19>ZZ20>22304752T-G>FGC40407>FGC17112
The exact order of these is not yet known but this shows that FGC17112 people have a lot of the more debatable snips occurring early in their sequence. FGC17112’s ‘’brother’ clades are in the same situation.

7. Taking the snips listed in 6a it makes it look like FGC17112 happened soon after P312. If one accepts that some or all the sips listed in 6b are valid then FGC17112 looks to have happened centuries after P312 than soon after.

8. There are two more less desirable region discovered snips whose order is not yet know that could have occurred before FCG17112. These are 19200257-CAA-C and 26273471-A-G.

9. If all FGC17112 people took a FGC elite test we could well see more snips reported between P312 and FGC17112.

10. In summary there is so little data to go on for FGC17112 I don't see any of these are guesstimates.

Earl.

Kvenlander
08-09-2016, 10:25 AM
Is FGC Elite one of those more comprehensive tests you are talking about? It is very frustrating that the estimate for FGC17112 is not getting any clearer. Some estimates even show it to be older than DF27...

Chad, I have not asked Vadim about it, maybe I should whether they have any plans to re-look this.

By the way, there is a new FGC17112 member in the DF27 project from the SNP-pack. We match at GD5/67 and this person was actually able to find genealogical connection to my two other matches (from the 17th century), so it is reasonably certain that there is a cluster of 4-6 FGC17112 in Northern Fennoscandia among the already tested people. Would it help if anyone of this group would take a Big-Y or would it need to be one of those even more comprehensive ones?

Kvenlander
01-17-2017, 02:56 PM
One of my matches (GD9/111) just confirmed FGC17112. This is not surprising nor new but still confirms that there is a Northern cluster for R-FGC17112.

Kvenlander
05-26-2017, 09:06 PM
There are two new Big-Y results in the FGC17112 group, both belonging to the Northern cluster. Hopefully soon we will know more about when the two groups separated.

Earl Davis
06-05-2017, 02:00 PM
Winter is coming.

Looks like we have a few more recent results in from the DF27 panel tests. Sweden adds yet another Nordic result to the mix at FTDNA. Apart from the one result from Switzerland we are a very northern looking group so far. Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Wales and England all feature but no Norway or Scotland yet.

Kvenlander
06-16-2017, 07:22 AM
There are two new Big-Y results in the FGC17112 group, both belonging to the Northern cluster. Hopefully soon we will know more about when the two groups separated.

One of these new Big-Y results (MDKA in Sweden) is being uploaded to the Big Tree and sent to the Y-Full analysis, so we should know more soon. I have not received any response from the other one but hopefully this result will also soon be featured in the big tree, at least.

There was also one further Finnish result which was confirmed by an individual SNP test. However, this belong to the same cluster of those northern Finnish families and does not thus bring any additional information on the early history of the subclade. However, it is interesting to see that there are at least 7 different families carrying this mutation in Finland and some of the family names are pretty common.

Kvenlander
06-19-2017, 08:57 AM
There is now a new analysis pending at Y-Full. However, this seems to be under BY3290, so maybe not the one I refer to above but a wholly separate.

Earl Davis
06-22-2017, 07:34 PM
Kvenlander, looks like your guy came through on the Big Tree. It's late here now so I will take a closer look tomorrow but it looks like the new result will move our understanding forward a little.

Earl.

Earl Davis
06-23-2017, 06:57 AM
I notice there are three snips in the 'new' branch that are already named. I can not find out much about ZS357 and FGC460. One might assume that FGC460 has at least one known recurrence outside FGC17112 as it was 'discovered' early on by FCG and none of the other FGC17112 snips were discovered that early on.

L691 is another matter. It either highly recurrent or prone to give unreliable readings as it has been recorded in the I, L and B haplogroups as well as at least two different branches of R.

Earl.

Earl Davis
06-23-2017, 08:13 AM
Below is the latest version of my FGC17112 'tree'. There was some confusion about this when I posted the last version so first is some preamble about what this is and isn't and what it's trying to achieve.

The 'tree' is a 'straw man' with a crude timeline. In my old job after completing initial high level analysis of a new idea and you started to form a very loose idea of what something might eventually look a little and try and model this as a straw man often based on very little data. As new information came in you would iteratively refine the model of the straw man and the model would start to take proper shape over time and evolve into something meaningful and useful. Sometimes that would result in a design that bore little resemblance to the straw man it evolved from. The only point of the straw man was to have a visual reference point to aid discussion so design could be started as early as possible even when little data was available.

So this 'tree' is not what I think FGC17112 will eventually look like or when I think certain snips occurred in what century it's a badly informed guess based on very limited data. This is especially pertinent to the crude timeline down the right hand side.

The timeline is based on the following.

1. An assumption that Mr. L23 at the top of this tree was born sometime around the year 4,068 BCE. I have not revisited this date for sometime but I originally came up with it by averaging a number of estimates that various people a lot cleverer than me had come up with.

2. An assumption that Mr. P312 was born about the year 2,643. This date arrived at using the same principal as L23 above.

3. I then documented all the known snips that occurred between L23 and P312 and divided it between the assumed dates. Most snips that occurred between these are already discovered and this gives us a working rate of 75 years per mutation.

4. I then documented all the known snips that occurred between Mr. P312 and modern FGC17112 men this gives a working mutation rate of 83 years per snip. It higher than the earlier figure as there are many snips still to be discovered in the period in history.

5. The chart is colour coded when the sequence of a mutation is not know. So P310 as an example can be read as occurring between 3,543 and 2,718 BCE on this straw man and even that to be taken with scepticism. We are just trying to show if example it's unlikely that say Z42772 on the model as an example happened during that range of dates.

Earl.

Earl Davis
06-23-2017, 08:21 AM
Here is the latest diagram then

17146

Earl Davis
06-23-2017, 08:41 AM
One of the things I wanted to know was had FGC17112 existed in the Nodic region since it's earliest formation and spread south westward since then or did it form closer to the P312 heartland and splinter with a northward and separate westward migration. If the two Nordic results had split right back around 1,300 BCE on the straw man I might have suspected that further data might start to support a Nordic formation for FGC17112. As the two samples seem to have a common ancestor in the last 1,000 years, perhaps in the medieval period it does not really tell us much about that question and more results are needed.

Moving to the B3290 branch it is developing nicely. We have recently discovered that BY3290 is part of a group of 6 snips with BY3290 being the only one of these that is ComBED. So the range of the model for BY3290 itself is now 594-1,258 CE.

More importantly we have discovered that 17107673-G-T sits immediately below BY3290. There are 6 BY3290 BigY tests and 3 (50%) have this SNP. I will try and get FTDNA to add it as a stand alone test when I get chance.

We also now know that 21053976-T-C sits immediately below 17107673-G-T. It's not one of mine but is shared by 2 of the 21053976-T-C group.

For some BY3290 men we are slowly inching our way into the medieval period and hopefully are not far off getting some genealogically relevant results.

Earl.

Kvenlander
06-23-2017, 08:55 AM
I notice there are three snips in the 'new' branch that are already named. I can not find out much about ZS357 and FGC460. One might assume that FGC460 has at least one known recurrence outside FGC17112 as it was 'discovered' early on by FCG and none of the other FGC17112 snips were discovered that early on.

L691 is another matter. It either highly recurrent or prone to give unreliable readings as it has been recorded in the I, L and B haplogroups as well as at least two different branches of R.

Earl.

I saw that there are indeed two named SNPs but at least as of now not yet a common one. I am still hoping to get in contact with the other one who recently matched me on Big-Y with whom I share two more novel variants. If those results would be added to the Big Tree, there would be a beginning of a group.

By the way, I noticed in the FTDNA that the results of TiP report had changed and now it is predicting that I share a common ancestor with this new result with only a 70% confidence within 24 generations. That does not very surprising, considering the GD of 7 @ 67STR but FTDNA is predicting the same with my GD3@67STR matches, as well. If this is true, then the common ancestry could be much further than the 16th century I have predicted on the basis of STR results. It will then become interesting to see the branching below FGC17112. This actually happened with my father-in-law whose GD2@67STR match turned out to be with TMRCA 1400 ybp. Even if Y-Full's predictions are known to be conservative, it was a surprise. This was of course in a different haplo group.

Like I wrote before, this new person on Big Tree has also ordered an Y-Full analysis, the results of which I am waiting eagerly.

Kvenlander
06-23-2017, 09:35 AM
One of the things I wanted to know was had FGC17112 existed in the Nodic region since it's earliest formation and spread south westward since then or did it form closer to the P312 heartland and splinter with a northward and separate westward migration. If the two Nordic results had split right back around 1,300 BCE on the straw man I might have suspected that further data might start to support a Nordic formation for FGC17112. As the two samples seem to have a common ancestor in the last 1,000 years, perhaps in the medieval period it does not really tell us much about that question and more results are needed.

Thanks, this looks very good. The branching of our two lines fits actually pretty well with what FTDNA predicts. This is an interesting result but like you said, it tells very little about the earlier history of the Nordic branch. Looking at the STR results, there still seems to be a huge gap beyond this far northern group. If someday we get a match from, say, Denmark branching from close to FGC17112, we would get further. Of course, we might never get further if the lines have died off.

But the BY3290 seems to be forming nicely, congratulations on that! Are you able to already say something about the "where and when"? When seems to be around 511 CE, time of the Merovingian dynasty and Anglo-Saxon invasions to England but of course there must be some uncertainty about the age predictions.

Earl Davis
09-11-2017, 08:26 AM
Updated FGC17112 'tree'. As usual blocks of the same colour indicate that the actual order of snips in that block is unknown. This update provides the names of several snips that were previously unnamed.

18684

Kvenlander
09-13-2017, 04:35 AM
The new members of the Nordic/Scandinavian branch are still showing red. Could the results still get more refined? Could one of those SNPs become a new terminal haplo or are they too unstable? The person with Swedish MDKA has had his Y-Full results finalized but it did not change the position in the Y-Full tree yet. Him and I still are sitting on the FGC17112*...
The third one in the group is in my understanding in the process of uploading the results to Y-Full, so in the coming months we should know again a bit more.

Earl Davis
09-13-2017, 07:39 AM
The new members of the Nordic/Scandinavian branch are still showing red. Could the results still get more refined? Could one of those SNPs become a new terminal haplo or are they too unstable? The person with Swedish MDKA has had his Y-Full results finalized but it did not change the position in the Y-Full tree yet. Him and I still are sitting on the FGC17112*...
The third one in the group is in my understanding in the process of uploading the results to Y-Full, so in the coming months we should know again a bit more.

Has he only recently added his results to Yfull? If so you should see most of your shared SNP's given Y names in the next Yfull tree update.

Earl.

Earl Davis
09-25-2017, 02:16 PM
I suspect many more markers now have names but they have not filtered through to ybrowse yet. Here is my latest FGC17112 tree. It corrects the sequence of some of the Y named snips that were ordered incorrectly on my last chart.

18990

Kvenlander
09-26-2017, 04:37 AM
I suspect many more markers now have names but they have not filtered through to ybrowse yet. Here is my latest FGC17112 tree. It corrects the sequence of some of the Y named snips that were ordered incorrectly on my last chart.

18990

The new YFull tree was published yesterday (v. 5.06). The new terminal SNP for the Nordic branch of R-FGC17112 is R-Y36330 with 29 shared SNPs. The TMRCA is stated to be 1100 YBP (range 1750-600 YBP) which seems quite conservative when compared to the 750 YBP which we would come to from your FGC17112 tree/table (common ancestor born around 1258). Still, this 750 YBP is within the range and matches with the estimate given by STR GD. However, there is one caveat to this: the person with Swedish MDKA matches only ONE Finnish FGC17112 person on any FTDNA STR GD threshold up to YDNA111. Therefore, there is a possibility that that match is due to convergence and the actual distance is more than suggested by GD only.

In my understanding the third person on this branch in the Big Tree (MDKA Finland) has also submitted the results to Y-Full, so the next version will probably refine the age estimates.

Earl Davis
09-26-2017, 07:13 AM
This issue with dating your branch is that after applying their adjustment formula YFull are using 10 private snips for one sample and 4 private for the other. The 10 snips give a date of 663 years to TMRCA and the 4 snips gives 1505 years. With only two samples at yfull in your group it's impossible to say if the sample with 10 has seen an unusually high mutation rate in the last few centuries or the guy with 4 a low one. Looking at coverage levels in the BigY can provide clues but perversely the sample with the lower coverage (650,000 base pairs less!) had the higher number of snips found by BigY. My estimate was over the 3 samples and used an 8, an 8 and a 5. The 5 looks low compared to the number of snips found in the other branches of FGC17112. Hopefully we will soon be able to firm up some of the real dates at the bottom of the tree as we start being able to assign snips to real ancestors. For example I can only get back to the 1700's but I have close STR matches with people (not tested in BigY/FGC yet) so can get back much further. People like me with trees less than 300 years old may eventually need the new Chromium Long read test to assign snips to real people but we might still get lucky with BigY. For example the sample with the least coverage in your group only covered 7.6 million bp of the Y chromosome but I think some of the cutting edge tests are covering almost 3 times that in some cases and therefore may have the potential to find 3 times as many snips.

Earl Davis
10-06-2017, 09:04 AM
Error post please ignore

Earl Davis
10-06-2017, 09:08 AM
Attached is my latest FGC17112 tree. Main changes from last time are about 40 more snips are now named so the new names are included. My crude timeline returns for this update at least and I have included some of the YFull estimates and McDonald estimates for comparison. Mine our way out on some like FGC17112 itself but others like BY3290 are very close to the McDonald estimate. I am currently using an average of 83 years per known mutation for the FGC17112 branch. Getting some YElite results for the branch or better yet Chromimum Long Read could reduce that rate considerably. As always the order of snips in each colour block are not known.

19170

razyn
10-06-2017, 10:50 PM
As always the order of snips in each colour block are not known.


Or even that they happened in an order, really. It's an assumption, but seems only sometimes to get validated.

Earl Davis
10-17-2017, 12:39 PM
Had a new Y67 match today with BY3290, yet another new surname generally associated with Welsh ancestry: Biddis.

Earl.

Earl Davis
10-22-2017, 03:47 PM
Swiftly followed by a Welsh sounding Y37 Griffiths.

Earl.

Kvenlander
11-23-2017, 09:03 PM
I checked Y-Full and there seems to be a new FGC17112 result there, still being analysed and showing R-FGC17112*. The sample is from Italy (Cagliari)!

Earl Davis
12-24-2017, 03:20 PM
Y34128 is now of the FTDNA tree.

Earl Davis
12-24-2017, 03:21 PM
Y34128 is now on the FTDNA tree.

Earl Davis
12-24-2017, 03:59 PM
Y34128 has made it onto the FTDNA tree.

Earl Davis
12-30-2017, 10:24 PM
Sorry for the multiple posts. This was during the week when the forum was experiencing functional problems.

Webb
01-01-2018, 09:25 PM
Sorry for the multiple posts. This was during the week when the forum was experiencing functional problems.

I thought you were possibly being overly adamant!!! Joking.

Kvenlander
01-02-2018, 11:32 AM
Y34128 has made it onto the FTDNA tree.

So has Y36330 and BY31396. The first one is shared by the Finnish and Swedish/Norwegian males in this branch whereas the latter is downstream from it and probably purely Finnish.

Kvenlander
03-13-2018, 01:06 PM
There is one more BY31396 BigY result. The person is already in the Big Tree and Y-Full tree. Does this help in dating Y36330?

Earl Davis
03-26-2019, 04:09 PM
If any FGC17112 people were deliberating on getting the BY701 upgrade I am just letting you know that I decided to get the upgrade and ordered today so there will be at least one other person to match with if you do decide to get the upgrade.

Earl.

Kvenlander
03-27-2019, 06:47 PM
I also bought an upgrade yesterday, as did one match with the same terminal SNP.

Kvenlander
03-27-2019, 06:54 PM
Meanwhile, it appears that Finland has two distinct groups of FGC17112, one with terminal SNP of BY31396 and another one with Terminal SNP Y84569. These two branch out at Y36330 and have TMRCA 1050 ybp. Both branches have a documented ancestor in Finland from the 15th century.

Kvenlander
03-28-2019, 07:05 AM
Meanwhile, it appears that Finland has two distinct groups of FGC17112, one with terminal SNP of BY31396 and another one with Terminal SNP Y84569. These two branch out at Y36330 and have TMRCA 1050 ybp. Both branches have a documented ancestor in Finland from the 15th century.

For these two branches TMRCA is currently 850 ybp for Y84569 men and 450 ybp for BY31396 men.

fyrdwerod
11-10-2019, 09:34 AM
Hello everyone, FTDNA has just updated my Y-DNA results and it looks like I'm now sitting under FGC17112. No Big-Y matches yet but I'm sharing the BY31396 branch with 4 finnish blokes, which is a bit puzzling as I'm not aware of any nordic ancestry.