DF41 (L21>DF13>DF41)

[rms2]

I thought I would come over to Anthrogenica and post some. This is my first post here.

I am DF41+ and pretty excited about it. Here is a link to the R-DF41 and Subclades Project:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-DF41/default.aspx?section=yresults

I recruited all the guys in my cluster (Mike's 41-1123) who appear in the R-DF41 and Subclades Project and are now tested DF41+. We're the bunch with 390=23 and 385=11-11 who stand out like a sore thumb near the top of the Y-DNA Results page of the project. Of course, there are more of us out there who haven't yet been tested for DF41 and who have never responded to my email pleas, but you can't win 'em all.

I'll have more to post, but that's it for now.

[breckenheimer]

Welcome, rms!

Good to have you on here! I looked at a map of DF41 results and they appear, so far, to tend to be geographically in the north of Britain and Ireland. Too bad it's not listed on the list of SNPs for Geno 2.0 which David F Reynolds provided: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j8yel8ddsq5o3rl/Geno-Y-SNPs.txt

[rms2]

I thought I would start a thread here about DF41, a fairly recently discovered SNP downstream of DF13 and L21.

If you get a DF41+ result, or are positive (derived) for one of DF41's growing list of subclades, please join the R-DF41 and Subclades Project.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-DF41/default.aspx?section=yresults

Thus far, DF41 appears to be most common in the "Celtic Fringe" countries of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. We do have a few positives from western England and one from SE France, as well.

The royal House of Stewart, family of a number of famous kings and queens of Scotland and England, like King James VI/I of King James Bible fame, is DF41+ on its y-dna line (and positive for the DF41+ SNP L745). Richard Scott, the 10th Duke of Buccleuch, a direct y-dna descendant of King Charles II, recently tested DF41+.

That doesn't make us all royalty, but it is interesting and kind of fun to know. B)

I hope somebody will want to talk about it here.

[ilmari]

rms2,

Sorry to get specific here, but if possible, could you look at both of these and let me know if you believe either would be interesting for further SNP testing, please?

130937
140532

I apologize again because after a death in the family, I've really just not paid much attention to them.

Thank you.

p.s. Please feel free to delete or move this if I've placed it in the improper thread.

[TigerMW]

rms2,

Sorry to get specific here, but if possible, could you look at both of these and let me know if you believe either would be interesting for further SNP testing, please?

130937
140532

I apologize again because after a death in the family, I've really just not paid much attention to them.

Thank you.

p.s. Please feel free to delete or move this if I've placed it in the improper thread.
I opened up a thread in the R1b general section for you, although I see these are L21+, although not likely DF41.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?790-So-you-need-help-and-you-have-an-R1b-haplotype&p=5075

[TigerMW]

You might want to check out this network diagram that Larry Walker posted today.


I have updated my Clan DF41 Tree at the permalink: http://rangebiome.org/ClanDF41.jpg

You might want to check the indicated "candidates" for any that we have not yet offered a sponsored DF41 test to, and do a follow-up on any that we have offered but who have not responded? I am particularly interested in those that appear to cluster with McMillan, Ryley, and Hall who are presently orphans without them.

While I have mentioned this before, the wide distribution of CTS2501 within DF41 appears to indicate that it is probably not a child of DF41, and the lack of any CTS2501+ DF41- (so far) is building a case that it is probably not a parent of DF41. That leaves phylogenetic equivalent as the increasingly likely scenario.

There are GENO2 tests on order that will sample DF41+ kits in 1426C and 1426C-A for CTS2501, and it has already been confirmed in L745. So, it would be nice if we could get a sample test for CTS2501 in each of the other major DF41 clusters as it is now available from FTDNA as an advanced test.

[rms2]

Swanson, kit 99735, and his 60/67 match, Burns, kit 63274, both got DF41+ results this morning. Swanson was CTS2501+ from Geno 2.0, and it's looking like CTS2501 might be the equivalent of DF41. That's a good thing for us DF41ers. It means the Geno 2.0 has some extra value for us when at first we thought it had just passed us by.

[TigerMW]

What do you think of this guy? f62398 Jeremiah (Turner I presume)
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/turnerdnaproject/default.aspx?section=yresults

He looks to me like what I'm calling 41-9911 which would be akin to fB2895 unknown. The GD is not low, but there are several good off-modal matches.

[rms2]

What do you think of this guy? f62398 Jeremiah (Turner I presume)
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/turnerdnaproject/default.aspx?section=yresults

He looks to me like what I'm calling 41-9911 which would be akin to fB2895 unknown. The GD is not low, but there are several good off-modal matches.

Could be. Wish he was in the project so I could have a closer look at his matches. I haven't had the chance to look for him in Ysearch yet.

[rms2]

Here are Larry Walker's DF41 trees for 67 and 111 marker haplotypes.

http://rangebiome.org/ClanDF41.jpg

[Dubhthach]

I noticed in the Ireland Project today that Black (284562) had gotten his results for STR's up to 37 (he has an upgrade from 12-67 in process). One of his matches at 37 markers is a Duffey who I also match, unfortunately this Duffey kit is non-contactable. I have a GD of 5 from Black at 37 markers. As a result I've offered him a DF41 snp test through the project.

From looking at GD report he has a GD of 6 form Salmon who is in the same cluster as myself. So looks like a good possibility. Regarding surnames, the root word in Dubhthach (and thus Ó Dubhthaigh) is the word Dubh. This is word in Irish for the colour Black

Woulfe had the following to say:

Ó DUBHTHAIGH—I—O Duffie, O Duhie, O Duhig, O Dowhie, O Dowey, O'Duffy, Duffy, Duhy, Duhig, Dowey, Douey, Dooey, Doey, &c, and sometimes, by translation, Black; 'descendant of Dubhthach' (black). This surname is found in all parts of Ireland, and, doubtless, there are several distinct families so called. The O'Duffys of Connacht are remarkable for the number of eminent prelates they formerly gave to the church in that province. The O'Duffys were also a family of note in Monaghan. In Munster, the name is generally anglicised Duhig, owing to the pronunciation of the final g. The family is, according to Keating, of Dalcassian origin. In Ulster, where the name is very common, especially in Monaghan and Donegal, it is sometimes anglicised Dowey and Dooey. See Ó Dúithche.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

I noticed in the Ireland Project today that Black (284562) had gotten his results for STR's up to 37 (he has an upgrade from 12-67 in process). One of his matches at 37 markers is a Duffey who I also match, unfortunately this Duffey kit is non-contactable. I have a GD of 5 from Black at 37 markers. As a result I've offered him a DF41 snp test through the project.

From looking at GD report he has a GD of 6 form Salmon who is in the same cluster as myself. So looks like a good possibility. Regarding surnames, the root word in Dubhthach (and thus Ó Dubhthaigh) is the word Dubh. This is word in Irish for the colour Black

Woulfe had the following to say:


-Paul
(DF41+)

Excellent! I hope he gets a positive result. B)

[Dubhthach]

While we are awaiting on Black's result it looks like he's also ordered upgrade to 111 markers. Had a look at his matches, he has two in the Black project who match with a GD of 2 @ 25 markers, both surnamed Black. If he comes back with DF41+ result I may try recruiting these.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

Good idea. The more, the merrier! :)

[rms2]

Got my CTS2501+ result this morning.

[Dubhthach]

I'm confirmed CTS2501+ as well, I think the only way we will seperate it form DF41 is to test every Geno 2.0 CTS2501+ and see if any of them are DF41-

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

I'm confirmed CTS2501+ as well, I think the only way we will seperate it form DF41 is to test every Geno 2.0 CTS2501+ and see if any of them are DF41-

-Paul
(DF41+)

I think the only one we know of who hasn't got a DF41+ result yet is Bettcher, who is still waiting.

Swanson and McConnell are the only others who got CTS2501+ results before testing for DF41, and they both have tested DF41+ (as you already know).

Are there any others out there?

Maybe the Geno 2.0 will turn up a few more soon.

[MJost]

Is CTS2501 going to be a North Sea SNP?

MJost

[Dubhthach]

Is CTS2501 going to be a North Sea SNP?

MJost

North Sea? How so? At the moment it appears to be equivalent to DF41. So far all the major clusters under DF41 are CTS2501 (Stewarts, 1426, 1013, 1123, 1410 etc.)

-Paul

[MJost]

North Sea? How so? At the moment it appears to be equivalent to DF41. So far all the major clusters under DF41 are CTS2501 (Stewarts, 1426, 1013, 1123, 1410 etc.)

-Paul

I was noticing http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/2430/ where there are several no isles. I guess I didnt know there were that many with cts2501.... as equivalent to DF41. :biggrin1:

[rms2]

As far as large bodies of water are concerned, I would characterize DF41/CTS2501 as an Irish Sea SNP more than anything else. :)

We do have one guy with ancestry in SE France, but for now he's kind of an outlier.

[Dubhthach]

Black (284562) came back as DF41+ this morning. He's currently at 37 STR's but is in the process of upgrading to 111STR's. His closest matches in the project are to me (GD of 5 @ 37) and Salmon (GD of 6 @ 37)

-Paul
(DF41+)

[TigerMW]

Black (284562) came back as DF41+ this morning. He's currently at 37 STR's but is in the process of upgrading to 111STR's. His closest matches in the project are to me (GD of 5 @ 37) and Salmon (GD of 6 @ 37)

-Paul
(DF41+)

That's cool how the surname meanings seem to fit for this.

[Dubhthach]

That's cool how the surname meanings seem to fit for this.

It's a good possibility, he has matches with two men with surname Duffey at 37 markers (neither have contact emails). I share one of these matches at 37 markers. Obviously Ó Dubhthaigh = grandson (descendant) of Dubhthach -- with Dubhthach been a compound name baiscally meaning dark (gloomy?) one. One of the characters in the Táin (Epic) was Dubhthach Dóelteanga (Beetle-tongue eg = "Black tongue") who was an extremely cynical character.

Anyways when it comes to angliscation of names, often you would get a direct phonetic transliteration into English, so depending on local dialectical variation Ó Dubhthaigh has been anglisced as Duffy, Dowey, Dowie, Duhig, Dooey

The other process of angliscation was a method of attempted direct translation or "attraction" to existing english names. So potentially in our example here: Black

A good example of this is surname Conroy which in Irish is Mac Conraoi, this has been anglisced as Conroy and also as King (due to confusion with raoi and rí (king))

-Paul
(DF41+)

[Dubhthach]

Ryley (N76583) has informed me that his son (N114320) has had a Geno 2.0 test (no STR's). He has joined this kit to the project where it can be seen on the SNP results. I've suggested he send these results onto Dave Reynolds.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

Ryley (N76583) has informed me that his son (N114320) has had a Geno 2.0 test (no STR's). He has joined this kit to the project where it can be seen on the SNP results. I've suggested he send these results onto Dave Reynolds.

-Paul
(DF41+)

I see he has the expected CTS2501+.

[rms2]

I have been trying in my own mind to account for DF41, which appears among the Scots and the "Scots-Irish", among the Irish with native Gaelic surnames, and among the Welsh, including a few in far western England, and on the Isle of Man.

As I recall, the estimates of its age make it about 2k to about 2500 years old. is that correct?

If so, did it arise in the Isles? Or on the Continent? We do have one DF41+ (Bontron-Major) from SE France, and there is the tradition that the Stewarts are of Breton origin.

An age of 2k-2.5k would make DF41 about right to have arrived in the Isles with the La Tene culture, although I hesitate to even mention the possibility, since it smacks of "wannabe-ism".

[rms2]

I have been trying in my own mind to account for DF41, which appears among the Scots and the "Scots-Irish", among the Irish with native Gaelic surnames, and among the Welsh, including a few in far western England, and on the Isle of Man.

As I recall, the estimates of its age make it about 2k to about 2500 years old. is that correct?

If so, did it arise in the Isles? Or on the Continent? We do have one DF41+ (Bontron-Major) from SE France, and there is the tradition that the Stewarts are of Breton origin.

An age of 2k-2.5k would make DF41 about right to have arrived in the Isles with the La Tene culture, although I hesitate to even mention the possibility, since it smacks of "wannabe-ism".

If DF41 did not arrive with some bearers of La Tene culture from the Continent, when and how did it arrive, or where and among whom did it arise in the Isles to account for its current distribution?

It doesn't seem to account for a huge proportion of DF13, but it isn't inconsequential either.

[rms2]

I mentioned this to Paul already, but we just had a new member join the R-L21 Plus Project (Conn, kit 17609) who says he has a CTS2501+ result from Geno 2.0. Unfortunately, he hasn't transferred his results over to FTDNA yet, so they can't be seen. His mdka was born in County Armagh about 1830. Conn's haplotype is not like anything yet seen among DF41+ folks, with the following off-modal markers: 391=10, 385=10-15, 459=9-9, 447=24, 464=14-15-17-17, YCAII=19-19.

He only has 37 markers thus far. I've asked him to transfer his Geno 2.0 results over to FTDNA and to join the R-DF41 and Subclades Project. I'm hoping he'll do so soon.

You can see the entry (kit 17609) in the "Test Results Pending" category (on page 5) at the R-L21 Plus Project:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L21/default.aspx?vgroup=R-L21&section=yresults

[rms2]

Conn, kit 17609, has transferred his Geno 2.0 results over to FTDNA and is clearly CTS2501+.

[TigerMW]

I mentioned this to Paul already, but we just had a new member join the R-L21 Plus Project (Conn, kit 17609) who says he has a CTS2501+ result from Geno 2.0. Unfortunately, he hasn't transferred his results over to FTDNA yet, so they can't be seen. His mdka was born in County Armagh about 1830. Conn's haplotype is not like anything yet seen among DF41+ folks, with the following off-modal markers: 391=10, 385=10-15, 459=9-9, 447=24, 464=14-15-17-17, YCAII=19-19.
...
He has the enigmatic "9919" off-modals for 459=9,9 YCAII=19,19. There is a pretty good sized group of these people who can't find an SNP under DF13. Their GD's are wide so I can't really say they are all related other than being DF13+. There is some speculation that some are recLOH's but we aren't find the other twin allele values on the right arm of the Y chromosome, so I don't know.

However, there are several distinct clusters that have a good chance of being real subclades.

One of them is z9919-A9. Besides the 9919 they have 447=24 and 640=12. These are two pretty slow markers so that is not a bad STR signature.

Conn has 447=24 to go with the 9919. If he had 640=12, which we don't know, I'd definitely recommend a fellow or two spread across z9919-A9 to test for DF41.

There clear mismatches too so this is just speculative. Here is z9919-A9
f126046 Adams DF13+ L96- L144- z9919-A9 England
f256058 Elliott z9919-A9 zzCountry
f74779 Meili L21+ L144- L195- z9919-A9 Switzerland
f42880 Moore z9919-A9 Ireland
f129257 Moore L21+ z9919-A9 zzCountry
f30949 Raburn DF13+ Z290+ Z2542+ L513- DF21- DF49- Z253- Z255- DF41- L1335- L371- L555- L96- L144- z9919-A9 England
f54807 Smith z9919-A9 zzCountry
f211055 Watkins L21+ L144- z9919-A9 zzCountry
f102970 Watkins L21+ z9919-A9 zzCountry
f8675 Welte(Morgan) z9919-A9 zzCountry

[Dubhthach]

Conn, kit 17609, has transferred his Geno 2.0 results over to FTDNA and is clearly CTS2501+.

He's been sponsored for a test through the DF41 project to see what his DF41 status is.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

He has the enigmatic "9919" off-modals for 459=9,9 YCAII=19,19. There is a pretty good sized group of these people who can't find an SNP under DF13. Their GD's are wide so I can't really say they are all related other than being DF13+. There is some speculation that some are recLOH's but we aren't find the other twin allele values on the right arm of the Y chromosome, so I don't know.

However, there are several distinct clusters that have a good chance of being real subclades.

One of them is z9919-A9. Besides the 9919 they have 447=24 and 640=12. These are two pretty slow markers so that is not a bad STR signature.

Conn has 447=24 to go with the 9919. If he had 640=12, which we don't know, I'd definitely recommend a fellow or two spread across z9919-A9 to test for DF41.

There clear mismatches too so this is just speculative. Here is z9919-A9
f126046 Adams DF13+ L96- L144- z9919-A9 England
f256058 Elliott z9919-A9 zzCountry
f74779 Meili L21+ L144- L195- z9919-A9 Switzerland
f42880 Moore z9919-A9 Ireland
f129257 Moore L21+ z9919-A9 zzCountry
f30949 Raburn DF13+ Z290+ Z2542+ L513- DF21- DF49- Z253- Z255- DF41- L1335- L371- L555- L96- L144- z9919-A9 England
f54807 Smith z9919-A9 zzCountry
f211055 Watkins L21+ L144- z9919-A9 zzCountry
f102970 Watkins L21+ z9919-A9 zzCountry
f8675 Welte(Morgan) z9919-A9 zzCountry

Thanks, Mike.

I have been in touch with a couple of Conn's closest matches, one of whom is a Manxman (an actual Manxman, not an American of Manx descent). Hopefully they will test for DF41. One of them (not the Manxman) is in the R-L21 Plus Project already. If he goes DF41+, it will be a real boon to us, since he has several close matches at 67 markers and an 111-marker haplotype himself (but no matches at 111). He has 640=11, though.

[TigerMW]

Thanks, Mike.

I have been in touch with a couple of Conn's closest matches, one of whom is a Manxman (an actual Manxman, not an American of Manx descent). Hopefully they will test for DF41. One of them (not the Manxman) is in the R-L21 Plus Project already. If he goes DF41+, it will be a real boon to us, since he has several close matches at 67 markers and an 111-marker haplotype himself (but no matches at 111). He has 640=11, though.

a-ha! Good catch.

This clears things up. I thought the 437=14 might be a red herring because of the NS-cluster (don't ask, it just distracted me) but the 437=14 looks to be important along with the 9919 (459=9,9 YCAII=19,19). I had this group labeled z437149 but I'll relabel 41-9919.

This is a pretty good STR signature:
385b=15 458>=18 459=9,9 447<=24 437<=14 YCAII=19,19 456<=14 607>=16 570>=18 406s1>=11 511<=9 557>=17 534<=14 481<=21 (464a=14)

f17609 Conn DF41+ Z290+ CTS2501+ Ireland, Ulster, Co. Armagh
f106376 Emerson England
f191733 Loveland L21+ L144- England
f50100 McCrysten zzzUnkOrigin
f193754 Moore Isle of Man
f200118 zzzUnknown Isle of Man

It'd be hard to believe they are not all DF41+ with sharing 385b=15 458>=18 459=9,9 447<=24 437<=14 YCAII=19,19 456<=14 607>=16 570>=18 464a=14

My recommendation is those at 37 upgrade to 67 and they all test for DF41.

[rms2]

a-ha! Good catch.

This clears things up. I thought the 437=14 might be a red herring because of the NS-cluster (don't ask, it just distracted me) but the 437=14 looks to be important along with the 9919 (459=9,9 YCAII=19,19). I had this group labeled z437149 but I'll relabel 41-9919.

This is a pretty good STR signature:
385b=15 458>=18 459=9,9 447<=24 437<=14 YCAII=19,19 456<=14 607>=16 570>=18 406s1>=11 511<=9 557>=17 534<=14 481<=21 (464a=14)

f17609 Conn DF41+ Z290+ CTS2501+ Ireland, Ulster, Co. Armagh
f106376 Emerson England
f191733 Loveland L21+ L144- England
f50100 McCrysten zzzUnkOrigin
f193754 Moore Isle of Man
f200118 zzzUnknown Isle of Man

It'd be hard to believe they are not all DF41+ with sharing 385b=15 458>=18 459=9,9 447<=24 437<=14 YCAII=19,19 456<=14 607>=16 570>=18 464a=14

My recommendation is those at 37 upgrade to 67 and they all test for DF41.

Awesome! Thanks!

That gives us plenty to work on. B)

[rms2]

Kit 193754, Moore, from the Isle of Man, has joined the R-L21 Plus Project and has a DF41 test on order.

[TigerMW]

Paul D and Richard S are probably already on top of this but I noticed another DF41+ in the Irish Heritage project.
f142157 Dwyer

[Dubhthach]

Paul D and Richard S are probably already on top of this but I noticed another DF41+ in the Irish Heritage project.
f142157 Dwyer

We've sponsored Dwyer for a 111-STR upgrade through the project -- subsidized the cost of upgrade by $50. He clusters with Hall, one of his matches is O'Hare who is pending a DF41 test at the moment. Here's a link to Larry's latest tree:

http://rangebiome.org/ClanDF41.jpg

[rms2]

One of the most frustrating aspects of this pursuit is the waiting time involved. You wait and wait, then there is a burst of interesting stuff, and the waiting begins again.

Another very frustrating part, which I will not elaborate on too much, is the apparent apathy of so many of the people in our database. One wonders why they bothered in the first place. It's hard enough to drum up good potential test subjects. When they just don't give a damn, that is really a pain. It's the worst. >:(

:\:beerchug:

[TigerMW]

I was just cross-checking some decent (for deep ancestry) GDs with slow moving off-modal STRs. I found this group. I'm not predicting anything, but the three below Bismire might be considered for DF41 exploration.

f222670 Bismire R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41 DF41+ 41-563-1411
f147885 Laumenech R1b-P312>L21 L21+ L144- z4371410
f200481 Buchanan R1b-P312>L21 L21+ L144- z5371114
f115415 Mills zzL21suspect z5371114

They all have 437=14 and 570>=18

[rms2]

I was just cross-checking some decent (for deep ancestry) GDs with slow moving off-modal STRs. I found this group. I'm not predicting anything, but the three below Bismire might be considered for DF41 exploration.

f222670 Bismire R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41 DF41+ 41-563-1411
f147885 Laumenech R1b-P312>L21 L21+ L144- z4371410
f200481 Buchanan R1b-P312>L21 L21+ L144- z5371114
f115415 Mills zzL21suspect z5371114

They all have 437=14 and 570>=18

Thanks for the suggestion. Laumenech would definitely be interesting, since he is a Breton.

[rms2]

I've recruited Laumenech for DF41 testing.

Hopefully, he'll get a DF41+ result. That would be nice! B)

[rms2]

I've also emailed Buchanan, kit 200481. Hopefully, I'll hear from him and he will go for it, as well. Fortunately, Laumenech and Buchanan are both members of the R-L21 Plus Project, which made getting in touch with them easy.

[rms2]

I've also emailed Buchanan, kit 200481. Hopefully, I'll hear from him and he will go for it, as well. Fortunately, Laumenech and Buchanan are both members of the R-L21 Plus Project, which made getting in touch with them easy.

Good news! Buchanan ordered DF41!

Now we wait.

[rms2]

Good news! Buchanan ordered DF41!

Now we wait.

Laumenech, kit 147885, ordered DF41 this morning. B)

[Dubhthach]

That's cool how the surname meanings seem to fit for this.

Black upgrade to 67 markers has come in, he's a GD of 7 from me, in comparison Salmon is a GD of 11 (Salmon GD of 8 from Black). He's currently awaiting a upgrade to 111 markers.

[MJost]

Black upgrade to 67 markers has come in, he's a GD of 7 from me, in comparison Salmon is a GD of 11 (Salmon GD of 8 from Black). He's currently awaiting a upgrade to 111 markers.

Paul, I checked you and Salmon's Coalesence ages at 30 years per generation at this GD11
Best Estimates on the number of Generation and TMRCA. At 67 Markers, 2.8 generation per mutation.

67(25) Bird's STRs
15.8 +-12.9 475.2 +-388.0

67(50)Markers Using MCM's
15.9 +-9.6 477.3 +-287.8

Your GD of 7 with Black is 3.5 to the MRCA x 2.8 gen per Mutation equates to about 9.8 generations for 294 ybp.

Your side of the DF41 is filling out.
MJost

[Dubhthach]

Paul, I checked you and Salmon's Coalesence ages at 30 years per generation at this GD11
Best Estimates on the number of Generation and TMRCA. At 67 Markers, 2.8 generation per mutation.

67(25) Bird's STRs
15.8 +-12.9 475.2 +-388.0

67(50)Markers Using MCM's
15.9 +-9.6 477.3 +-287.8

Your GD of 7 with Black is 3.5 to the MRCA x 2.8 gen per Mutation equates to about 9.8 generations for 294 ybp.

Your side of the DF41 is filling out.
MJost

I believe Black's ancestors have been in North America since the early 18th century. It'll be interesting when he gets his full 111 result, after all both myself and Salmon are already tested to 111.

Hello from Stockholm by the way!

-Paul
(DF41+)

[MJost]

I believe Black's ancestors have been in North America since the early 18th century. It'll be interesting when he gets his full 111 result, after all both myself and Salmon are already tested to 111.

Hello from Stockholm by the way!

-Paul
(DF41+)

Yes I would like to see his last 44 markers. Hey hope your not around any of their last week's rioting!

MJost

[rms2]

I believe Black's ancestors have been in North America since the early 18th century. It'll be interesting when he gets his full 111 result, after all both myself and Salmon are already tested to 111.

Hello from Stockholm by the way!

-Paul
(DF41+)

I think it is very noble that you are still thinking of good ol' DF41 and your haplotype cluster even while surrounded by Swedish women. ;)

My close 67-marker match (64/67), Stephens, kit 208061, got the first installment on his 111-marker upgrade this morning, that is, the first panel of it. No mismatches there, so we're in good shape thus far.

[Dubhthach]

Vikings everywhere that's for sure! Well I'm on training for next two days so haven't gotten to look around much just let.

They seem to be on a roll for 111 results, some more panels came in yesterday. We have the following now who are just missing one panel (76-85)


Black
Swanson
Stephens
Ellis
Dwyer


-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

Vikings everywhere that's for sure! Well I'm on training for next two days so haven't gotten to look around much just let.

They seem to be on a roll for 111 results, some more panels came in yesterday. We have the following now who are just missing one panel (76-85)


Black
Swanson
Stephens
Ellis
Dwyer


-Paul
(DF41+)

I saw those 111 results, and it's frustrating that there is still one panel to go. I don't have time this morning to check Stephens' panels against mine to see how we're doing, since I have to leave for work in just a few minutes. I'm hoping that last panel will come in later this morning, and maybe I'll have time to see it when I get to work.

[rms2]

I saw those 111 results, and it's frustrating that there is still one panel to go. I don't have time this morning to check Stephens' panels against mine to see how we're doing, since I have to leave for work in just a few minutes. I'm hoping that last panel will come in later this morning, and maybe I'll have time to see it when I get to work.

With just ten markers left to go on his 111-marker upgrade, Stephens, kit 208061, has only picked up one more unit of genetic distance from me, at DYS532, where he has 13 and I have 12. So, we've hung close and are just four off: 97/101.

He's picked up three additional units of gd from Webb, kit 163684, who is also a 64/67 match for him. Now they're at 95/101.

On those last ten markers yet to go, Webb and I match exactly, so it should be interesting to see how Stephens comes out. Webb and I are a 63/67 match and eight off at 111 markers (103/111).

Needless to say, I'm happy about the way things are going with Stephens' upgrade. I hope there are no more differences and we remain just four off at 111 markers. It would be nice to have a match that close with a variant of my surname. The spelling difference is kind of cool, actually. Wish he had his y line traced back to the Old Country, but I guess that would be just too good.

[rms2]

With just ten markers left to go on his 111-marker upgrade, Stephens, kit 208061, has only picked up one more unit of genetic distance from me, at DYS532, where he has 13 and I have 12. So, we've hung close and are just four off: 97/101.

He's picked up three additional units of gd from Webb, kit 163684, who is also a 64/67 match for him. Now they're at 95/101.

On those last ten markers yet to go, Webb and I match exactly, so it should be interesting to see how Stephens comes out. Webb and I are a 63/67 match and eight off at 111 markers (103/111).

Needless to say, I'm happy about the way things are going with Stephens' upgrade. I hope there are no more differences and we remain just four off at 111 markers. It would be nice to have a match that close with a variant of my surname. The spelling difference is kind of cool, actually. Wish he had his y line traced back to the Old Country, but I guess that would be just too good.

I want to mention that, no matter how things go on those last ten markers, I will emerge as Stephens' closest match at 111 markers.

He has a 65/67 match with another Webb, kit 48142, but that Webb is a relative of the first Webb I mentioned above, and those two Webbs are just one apart at 111 markers. Stephens has already picked up three additional units of gd on Webb, kit 48142, so they are now five off (the other Webb is now six off of Stephens). As I said before, I am just four off of Stephens at his current 101 markers. Since I match the two Webbs exactly on the last ten markers Stephens is waiting for, any additional units of gd will be shared by all of us.

Hopefully, there won't be any additional genetic distance over those last ten markers.

Maybe tomorrow morning that last panel will come in? :beerchug:

[rms2]

No new results this morning (as of about 0340), sad to say. Maybe later . . .

[rms2]

Hooray!

This is my own personal celebration, since the last of the 111-marker results for Stephens, kit 208061, have come in, and we hung together at just four off, not picking up any more units of genetic distance. That makes him my closest match at 111 markers, and I am his closest match at 111 markers. Since he has a variant of my surname (Stevens), I take this one seriously. The two Webbs I mentioned earlier fell back to five and six away at 111. They are eight and nine off me at 111.

The differences between Stephens and me come at the following markers:

CDY

Him: 37-39 Me: 38-38

557

Him: 16 Me: 17

532

Him: 13 Me: 12

That's it.

I'm happy. Like I said, too bad he doesn't have his y line traced back to the Old Country, but that would have been like winning the y-dna lottery.

[Dubhthach]

Black also came in, his GD from me at 111 is 11. The next closest is Salmon at 17. Dwyer's results are also in, we now have 40 men in the project who have 111 STR's.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

Black also came in, his GD from me at 111 is 11. The next closest is Salmon at 17. Dwyer's results are also in, we now have 40 men in the project who have 111 STR's.

-Paul
(DF41+)

Awesome!

It's kind of hard for me to get a notion of what is close at 111 markers. FTDNA's "TIP" page says there is a 99.06% chance that Stephens and I share a common y-dna ancestor within the last 16 generations, and a 94.06% that we share one within the last 12 generations. The word within is important, I think. I figure our mrca may be the immigrant, who probably lived sometime in the 17th or early 18th century.

[TigerMW]

Black also came in, his GD from me at 111 is 11. The next closest is Salmon at 17. Dwyer's results are also in, we now have 40 men in the project who have 111 STR's.

-Paul
(DF41+)

I'm putting Black in with the variety I was calling 41-1013 in the spreadsheet.

f284562 Black R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41 DF41+
f176148 Duffy R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41** DF41+ CTS2501+ L744- L563- L69- L144- L195- CTS5714- L526- L564- L580- L130- L247- L302- L564- L69- 3c1g
f35550 Salmon R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41 DF41+

565=13 H4<=10 572<=10 520>=21 439>=14 570>=19 449>=29 {DF41}

[rms2]

Yesterday was a pretty good day for me. B)

Not only did my match Stephens get his 111-marker upgrade, but out of the blue I heard from another of my closest matches (64/67), and he initiated the contact, checking in and asking me how the genealogical quest is going. To make a long story short, he got interested, has joined the R-DF41 and Subclades Project, and ordered a DF41 test. He told me he will order an upgrade to 111 markers, too, once he gets back from a trip he is going on. His biological dad was a Stevens who was a fighter pilot who was killed in WWII. When my match's mom remarried, his stepdad adopted him, so he has a different surname now.

I'm looking forward to his eventual 111-marker upgrade.

Of course, I wish I could get a match with my surname who is either a native of where my immigrant y-dna ancestor came from or who can trace his y line there. But I can't complain too much. Some folks have no matches and no interesting leads whatsoever.

[rms2]

Yesterday was a pretty good day for me. B)

Not only did my match Stephens get his 111-marker upgrade, but out of the blue I heard from another of my closest matches (64/67), and he initiated the contact, checking in and asking me how the genealogical quest is going. To make a long story short, he got interested, has joined the R-DF41 and Subclades Project, and ordered a DF41 test. He told me he will order an upgrade to 111 markers, too, once he gets back from a trip he is going on. His biological dad was a Stevens who was a fighter pilot who was killed in WWII. When my match's mom remarried, his stepdad adopted him, so he has a different surname now.

I'm looking forward to his eventual 111-marker upgrade.

Of course, I wish I could get a match with my surname who is either a native of where my immigrant y-dna ancestor came from or who can trace his y line there. But I can't complain too much. Some folks have no matches and no interesting leads whatsoever.

More good things: my match decided not to wait; he ordered the 111-marker upgrade today. All right! :beerchug:

[dartraighe]

If you both have the same private or family SNP then you are related within the last 300-500 years.

[[[Mikewww/Moderator on 6/2/2013: I'm not sure of the significance of this post. RMS2 is the L21 project admin and I think it is obvious that a private/family SNP means a close relationship. Dartraighe, please refrain from postings devoid of applicable and in context content. ]]]

[rms2]

We aren't going to pursue the discovery of a private SNP. Once whole genome testing comes along - at a reasonable price - we might find that out, but probably not until then.

In the meantime, we will stick with STRs, the increased resolution of certain "public" SNPs (like DF41), and traditional genealogical research.

We're getting there, slowly but surely.

[rms2]

I suspect that all of my closest matches and I should share the same surname and would, too, if we were English and not Welsh. The Welsh used a patronymic naming system that guaranteed that many many men with the same y-dna ancestor could have different surnames. Each son received a surname based on his father's name. For example, if your father's name was Hugh, and your name was Thomas, you would be known as "Thomas ap Hugh" (Thomas son of Hugh). All of your brothers would also be "ap Hugh", as well. In the next generation, however, your sons would all be "ap Thomas", but your brother Owen's sons would be "ap Owen", and your brother William's sons would be "ap William". Each succeeding generation would only add to the proliferation of "ap" surnames and the genetic confusion.

When the surnames became fixed and anglicized, "ap Hugh" became Pugh, "ap Thomas" became Thomas, "ap Owen" became Bowen, and "ap William" became Williams. Similarly, "ap Stephen" (which also appears as ap Stevyn and ap Steven) became Stephens and Stevens.

That Welsh "ap" prefix, meaning "son of", was originally "map" and sometimes "mab". It is the equivalent of the Scottish and Irish prefixes "mac" and "mc". Welsh is what is known as a "P-Celtic" language. The original hard "k" sound in Gaelic (a "Q-Celtic" language) became changed somehow to a "p" in the P-Celtic languages like Brythonic. Thus "mac" became "map".

[rms2]

FTDNA let me create a little project for the haplotype cluster I belong to, which will probably be of little interest to anyone not in the cluster; but it's not like there is a lot of traffic on this thread, so I thought I would mention it.

It's not intended to undercut or interfere with any other projects but simply to collect data on the cluster in an attempt to further our genealogical and deep ancestry knowledge: kind of like a surname project where the haplotype is the surname rather than those English-language surnames we're all saddled with.

We've adopted Mike's name for the cluster, and I even used the "R1b" prefix. ;)

The R1b-41-1123 Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b_41_1123/)

[TigerMW]

FTDNA let me create a little project for the haplotype cluster I belong to, which will probably be of little interest to anyone not in the cluster; but it's not like there is a lot of traffic on this thread, so I thought I would mention it.

It's not intended to undercut or interfere with any other projects but simply to collect data on the cluster in an attempt to further our genealogical and deep ancestry knowledge: kind of like a surname project where the haplotype is the surname rather than those English-language surnames we're all saddled with.

We've adopted Mike's name for the cluster, and I even used the "R1b" prefix. ;)

The R1b-41-1123 Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b_41_1123/)

That's great. You never know how big this might grow to.

[rms2]

a-ha! Good catch.

This clears things up. I thought the 437=14 might be a red herring because of the NS-cluster (don't ask, it just distracted me) but the 437=14 looks to be important along with the 9919 (459=9,9 YCAII=19,19). I had this group labeled z437149 but I'll relabel 41-9919.

This is a pretty good STR signature:
385b=15 458>=18 459=9,9 447<=24 437<=14 YCAII=19,19 456<=14 607>=16 570>=18 406s1>=11 511<=9 557>=17 534<=14 481<=21 (464a=14)

f17609 Conn DF41+ Z290+ CTS2501+ Ireland, Ulster, Co. Armagh
f106376 Emerson England
f191733 Loveland L21+ L144- England
f50100 McCrysten zzzUnkOrigin
f193754 Moore Isle of Man
f200118 zzzUnknown Isle of Man

It'd be hard to believe they are not all DF41+ with sharing 385b=15 458>=18 459=9,9 447<=24 437<=14 YCAII=19,19 456<=14 607>=16 570>=18 464a=14

My recommendation is those at 37 upgrade to 67 and they all test for DF41.

Loveland, kit 191733, got his DF41+ result this morning, so 41-9919 is looking good.

We're still waiting on Moore (our Manxman) and Conn, but they should be DF41+, as well.

Loveland has some really close matches at 67 with different surnames. I will contact them and urge them to test for DF41.

[rms2]

Loveland, kit 191733, got his DF41+ result this morning, so 41-9919 is looking good.

We're still waiting on Moore (our Manxman) and Conn, but they should be DF41+, as well.

Loveland has some really close matches at 67 with different surnames. I will contact them and urge them to test for DF41.

I heard from one of Loveland's close 67-marker matches today. He has ordered a DF41 test.

[rms2]

I was just cross-checking some decent (for deep ancestry) GDs with slow moving off-modal STRs. I found this group. I'm not predicting anything, but the three below Bismire might be considered for DF41 exploration.

f222670 Bismire R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41 DF41+ 41-563-1411
f147885 Laumenech R1b-P312>L21 L21+ L144- z4371410
f200481 Buchanan R1b-P312>L21 L21+ L144- z5371114
f115415 Mills zzL21suspect z5371114

They all have 437=14 and 570>=18

Buchanan and Laumenech came up DF41- this morning, sad to say. :(

Ah well, you win some, you lose some.

[TigerMW]

Buchanan and Laumenech came up DF41- this morning, sad to say. :(

Ah well, you win some, you lose some.
You ran a good initiative to get these guys checked, but I guess this is why we test for SNPs. I think there was a chance. There are a lot DF13+ people that are still sitting out there and I think we will get some unexpected ones to show up DF41+ but we'll also get this as well.

[rms2]

You ran a good initiative to get these guys checked, but I guess this is why we test for SNPs. I think there was a chance. There are a lot DF13+ people that are still sitting out there and I think we will get some unexpected ones to show up DF41+ but we'll also get this as well.

It was definitely worth a shot.

We have a good thing running with that 41-9919 cluster now, and that should net us a few more positives. Interesting that some of them are from the Isle of Man and, although from a different cluster, Creer is also from the Isle of Man.

[Dubhthach]

50100 (Christian) came back as DF41+, he's in the Ireland project.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

50100 (Christian) came back as DF41+, he's in the Ireland project.

-Paul
(DF41+)

Awesome!

Can you ask him to join the R-L21 Plus Project, as well as the R-DF41 and Subclades Project?

I see his ancestral surname is McCrysten and he's a 41-9919er. Another Scot.

[Dubhthach]

Awesome!

Can you ask him to join the R-L21 Plus Project, as well as the R-DF41 and Subclades Project?

I see his ancestral surname is McCrysten and he's a 41-9919er. Another Scot.

I mentioned the L21 project in the accept message. I see ancestry includes a bit of time in Man, origins in Galloway which is interesting when you think of the 1426'ers. I see they've taken my advice to upgrade to 67 markers from 37!

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

I mentioned the L21 project in the accept message. I see ancestry includes a bit of time in Man, origins in Galloway which is interesting when you think of the 1426'ers. I see they've taken my advice to upgrade to 67 markers from 37!

-Paul
(DF41+)

Thanks! He has joined the R-L21 Plus Project, too.

That is interesting about both Man and Galloway. I wonder what connects up the various elements of DF41, other than a sort of general Celticity. But maybe DF41 is just too old to get the kind of resolution I want. Perhaps one more step up the tree from the root is needed.

I am envious of groups like the Irish Type III/L226+ who are able to get so specific as to their origin.

[LarryWalker]

That is interesting about both Man and Galloway. I wonder what connects up the various elements of DF41, other than a sort of general Celticity. But maybe DF41 is just too old to get the kind of resolution I want. Perhaps one more step up the tree from the root is needed.



One word - boats.

[rms2]

One word - boats.

Specifically, coracles, probably, but I was talking about some kind of identifiable tribal, kinship or clan link, like the L226+ guys enjoy.

[Dubhthach]

The Broighter hoard which dates probably from the 1st century BC and was found on shores of Lough Foyle in county Derry could give ye a good idea of state of art in shipping at the time:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Broighter_Gold%2C_Dublin%2C_October_2010_%2802%29. JPG


http://www.100objects.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Hoard-Boat.jpg

A quote from wikipedia on it:

The boat is a unique find that was measured at 7.25 inches (18.4 cm) by 3 inches (7.6 cm) and weighed 3 ounces (85 g). It had benches, rowlocks, two rows of nine oars and a paddle rudder for steering. It also included tools for grappling, three forks, a yardarm and a spear.[11] The tools are of much lighter design than the ship's hull and are shown in the illustration. The boat suggests that the hoard was a votive deposit to the Celtic sea god Manannán mac Lir.[12]

Manannán is the same god that the isle of Man is named after -- in modern Irish the island is: Oileán Mhanann

Currach's are still rowed in west of Ireland, though for pastime purposes these days, they don't use cowhide anymore but canvass that has been tarred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currach

Captain Thomas Phillips (engineer) drew a "wicker only" sea going Currach (with a sail) in 1685

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Captain_Thomas_Phillips_-_Currach.jpg/546px-Captain_Thomas_Phillips_-_Currach.jpg

[rms2]

The "Wild Irish" must have used something like that in making their raids and settlements in Roman and post-Roman Britain and what would eventually become Scotland.

[Dubhthach]

"Wild Irish" (Wilde Irishry) is quite a common term in Tudor era state papers. It basically is a catch all Pejorative to describe those who still lived in Freedom and hadn't been subjected to the "civislising" effect of been "proper englishmen" ;)

[rms2]

Conn, kit 17609, who was already CTS2501+, and Moore, kit 193754, from the Isle of Man, both got their DF41+ results this morning. Whoopee! We don't usually get two in one morning! They're both in the 41-9919 cluster.

B)

[Dubhthach]

Loveland who is in the same cluster is also DF41 so looking fairly solid, can you ask Moore to join the project, he doesn't appear to be a member at the moment.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

Loveland who is in the same cluster is also DF41 so looking fairly solid, can you ask Moore to join the project, he doesn't appear to be a member at the moment.

-Paul
(DF41+)

I emailed him this morning to tell him about his result and asked him to join. B)

[rms2]

Interesting that DF41 has popped up on the Isle of Man a couple of times now and not all in one cluster.

[LarryWalker]

Conn, kit 17609, who was already CTS2501+, and Moore, kit 193754, from the Isle of Man, both got their DF41+ results this morning. Whoopee! We don't usually get two in one morning! They're both in the 41-9919 cluster.

B)

So, at what point do we have enough data to satisfy ISOGG that CTS2501 is the phylogenetic equivalent of DF41?

[rms2]

So, at what point do we have enough data to satisfy ISOGG that CTS2501 is the phylogenetic equivalent of DF41?

I wrote David Reynolds about that right after Creer got his CTS2501+ result. He said he is a little reluctant to do that yet because it might impede the desire to test both of them rather than just one of them.

He didn't say he wouldn't do it, just that he is a little reluctant to do it and that ISOGG has not yet come up with a good notion of how many times two SNPs have to test equivalent before being declared equivalent.

[LarryWalker]

I wrote David Reynolds about that right after Creer got his CTS2501+ result. He said he is a little reluctant to do that yet because it might impede the desire to test both of them rather than just one of them.

He didn't say he wouldn't do it, just that he is a little reluctant to do it and that ISOGG has not yet come up with a good notion of how many times two SNPs have to test equivalent before being declared equivalent.

I see. That is a bit of a kick in the teeth for a planned program of stratified subsidized testing that probably put us a year ahead of where we would have been without it.

We sampled a stratified 10% of known DF41+ kits confirming CTS2501+ in all identified subclades and clusters except 9911 where B2895 Bettcher is still hung-up in FTDNA's lab; confirmed that about 80% of all known CTS2501+ kits are also DF41+; the two remaining CTS2501+ kits (N51747 Arthur who did not respond to an offer for a sponsored DF41 test in cluster 1426 between CTS2501+ kits 240201 Walker and 29705 McCown) and (N114320 Ryley unassigned but the son of DF41+ kit N76583 Ryley) are not likely to test DF41; and none of the three GENO2 CTS2501 kits that have not yet been confirmed DF41+ have tested positive for any other DF13 subclade.

More data is always better - but you have to draw the line between excellence and perfection someplace!

[TigerMW]

So, at what point do we have enough data to satisfy ISOGG that CTS2501 is the phylogenetic equivalent of DF41?

FYI, just to be clear. The terminal SNP I list in the R1b-L21 spreadsheet is the "lead" SNP label. My stuff is all draft, but I automatically add DF41+ whenever CTS2501+ is present in the actual result. In this case my spreadsheet will show DF41+ CTS2501+. I say this so you that you know when (if) you look at the spreadsheet a DF41+ may in fact have not tested for DF41, but perhaps only for CTS2501. If the "CTS2501+" is displayed that is your clue.

[rms2]

One thing I think we should do at the R-DF41 and Subclades Project is accept CTS2501+ results as the equivalent of DF41+ results and not require a DF41 test of a prospective member who has already tested CTS2501+. I have already been putting people with CTS2501+ results in the DF41+ category at the R-L21 Plus Project, regardless of whether or not they have a DF41+ result.

If something strange happens and a DF41+ man gets a CTS2501- result or vice versa, we'll have to rethink things, but at this point that doesn't seem likely.

Maybe when a brand new cluster appears that does not yet have one or the other of the results, it should be tested for both.

[Dubhthach]

Yeah I'm leaning that way as well at the moment. I think if we find a new cluster due to Geno 2.0 (CTS2501+) then at least one individual from it has to test for DF41. So far all clusters and subclades (L563+, L744+/L746+) have shown up as CTS2501+. We currently have 43 111-STR results in the project with a further 6 pending completion and 1 pending shipment to lab. Not bad going that's for sure.

[rms2]

Yeah I'm leaning that way as well at the moment. I think if we find a new cluster due to Geno 2.0 (CTS2501+) then at least one individual from it has to test for DF41. So far all clusters and subclades (L563+, L744+/L746+) have shown up as CTS2501+. We currently have 43 111-STR results in the project with a further 6 pending completion and 1 pending shipment to lab. Not bad going that's for sure.

I agree: test brand new clusters for both, but there is no reason to require a DF41 test of someone from an established cluster who already has a CTS2501+ result.

By testing the cluster, of course, I mean one member of it, not every individual in the cluster.

[rms2]

This announcement may be somewhat anti-climactic, since we are already pretty certain CTS2501 and DF41 are equivalent, but Self, kit 53479, has transferred his Geno 2.0 results over to FTDNA and is CTS2501+. B)

[LarryWalker]

This announcement may be somewhat anti-climactic, since we are already pretty certain CTS2501 and DF41 are equivalent, but Self, kit 53479, has transferred his Geno 2.0 results over to FTDNA and is CTS2501+. B)

Neither Conn nor Self are shown on David Reynold's GENO2 spreadsheet http://daver.info/geno/ yet. In view of your earlier response from him, we need to get all possible CTS2501+ kits to him if we are ever going to get it on ISOGG.

[Dubhthach]

Selfe appears to be positive for a SNP that isn't present in the other DF41 kits. Namely PF6093, we'd have to check with David if the other DF41+ Geno 2 kits have no calls for this snp or are instead negative.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

I emailed Self this morning about sending his Geno 2.0 stuff to David. I can email Conn, as well, unless Paul has already done it or wants to do it.

[rms2]

Okay, I went ahead and emailed Conn and asked him to send his Geno 2.0 results to David, too.

[rms2]

Carroll, kit 288361, got his DF41+ result this morning. His mdka was born in Ireland, and that is an Irish surname. On my mom's side we have an O'Carroll line. That O'Carroll surname always makes me think of the Chuck Berry tune, Oh, Carol!.

Oh, Carol! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgEc0hzTH7I) B)

[rms2]

Okay, I went ahead and emailed Conn and asked him to send his Geno 2.0 results to David, too.

I heard from Conn. He sent his Geno 2.0 stuff to David. :)

[Dubhthach]

Carroll, kit 288361, got his DF41+ result this morning. His mdka was born in Ireland, and that is an Irish surname. On my mom's side we have an O'Carroll line. That O'Carroll surname always makes me think of the Chuck Berry tune, Oh, Carol!.

Oh, Carol! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgEc0hzTH7I) B)

Though to an irish ear the two are prononunced slightly differently. Basically like there's a brief pause/syllable boundary between the two r's


CEARBHALL, genitive -aill, Carroll, (Charles); a once common Irish name, especially among the O'Dalys, now anglicised Charles. Latin — Kervallus.


Ó CEARBHAILL—I—O Carrowill, O Carwell, O Carvill, O'Carroll, Carroll, Carvill; 'descendant of Cearbhall' (a very common Irish personal name). There are several distinct families so named, of which the following are the best known: (1) Ó Cearbhaill of Eile, who derive their name and descent from Cearbhall, lord of Eile, who fought at Clontarf. The head of this family was originally lord of all Eile, which comprised the baronies of Clonlisk and Ballybritt, in the present Offaly, and Ikerrin and Eliogarty, in Co. Tipperary; but after the Anglo-Norman invasion, Ikerrin and Eliogarty became tributary to the Earl of Ormond, and only the portion of Eile subsequently called Ely O'Carroll, remained in possession of O'Carroll, who resided at Birr. This family is now very numerous. (2) Ó Cearbhaill, of Oriel. This family is of the same stock as the MacMahons and Maguires, and were chiefs of Oriel until about the period of the Anglo-Norman invasion, when they disappear from history. They are still numerous in Monaghan and Louth. (3) Ó Cearbhaill of Loch Lein, anciently chiefs of the Eoghanacht of Loch Lein, the district about Killarney, until dispossessed by the O'Donoghues. (4) Ó Cearbhaill of Ossory who are descended from Cearbhall, a celebrated chieftain of Ossory at the middle of the 9th century. (5) Ó Cearbhaill, of Tara, a branch of the southern Ui Neill. This family disappeared from history at an early period. (6) Ó Cearbhaill of Calry, in Sligo and Leitrim. The MacBradys of Cavan are said, but erroneously, to be a branch of this family.


Mac CEARBHAILL—IV—M'Carrowle, M'Carvell, M'Carwell, M'Kerwell, MacCarroll, MacCarvill, MacCarville, MacKervel, MacErvel, Carroll, Carvill, (Cardwell); 'son of Cearbhall'; a celebrated family of musicians in Ulster. In 1594, Ballym'Carroll, parcel of the lands of Gillekeaghe M'Carroll, of Ballymack-Carroll, was escheated. There was also a family of the name in Leix.

Pronunciation of "Niall Mac Cearbhaill" (Munster accent/dialect)
http://www.forvo.com/word/niall_mac_cearbhaill/#ga

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

No new lab results from FTDNA this morning: bummer! That makes things kind of boring.

[TigerMW]

No new lab results from FTDNA this morning: bummer! That makes things kind of boring.

You might check out the new DF41 suspects I've found in the last week if you are looking for something to do.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?849-R1b-L21-Haplotypes-Spreadsheet

[rms2]

Thanks! I made a contact as a result that I hope will prove fruitful.

[rms2]

Bettcher, kit B2895, and O'Hare, kit 255048, got their DF41+ results at last. Hooray! B)

[TigerMW]

Bettcher, kit B2895, and O'Hare, kit 255048, got their DF41+ results at last. Hooray! B)

Very good. DF41 must be pretty old. You probably did this already, but can you also have those guys joined to L21 plus project? It makes it a lot easier to track that going to all 20 or sub L21 project every week. Thanks.

[rms2]

Very good. DF41 must be pretty old. You probably did this already, but can you also have those guys joined to L21 plus project? It makes it a lot easier to track that going to all 20 or sub L21 project every week. Thanks.

Bettcher was already in, but I asked O'Hare to join, and he has now.

I guess DF41 is pretty old, but, thus far, other than one outlier from SE France, it seems pretty well restricted to the historically Celtic regions of the British Isles.

[MJost]

I am rerunning R1b and subclades Ages and wanting opinions on these results. The latest run on the DF41 guys at 30 years per generation using a Confidence Index CI of 1 sigma (68.27) shown as the max age. The assumption is the Founders is closer to the spawned age of the DF41. Coalescence age is the point where all of these haplotypes converge to a most recent common ancestor.

N=52 DF41 All

Coalesc Max CI age
2,368.2 3,275.0

Founder Max CI age
3,052.1 4,365.8


MJost

[LarryWalker]

I am rerunning R1b and subclades Ages and wanting opinions on these results. The latest run on the DF41 guys at 30 years per generation using a Confidence Index CI of 1 sigma (68.27) shown as the max age. The assumption is the Founders is closer to the spawned age of the DF41. Coalescence age is the point where all of these haplotypes converge to a most recent common ancestor.

N=52 DF41 All

Coalesc Max CI age
2,368.2 3,275.0

Founder Max CI age
3,052.1 4,365.8


MJost

Mark,

I like those numbers.

The work that has been done with the "ancient" Stewart genealogy and DNA by Belinda is indicating that the probable founder of L745 was probably Alexander Stewart, 4th High Stewart of Scotland, born circa 1214. Based on that assumption, my trees at http://rangebiome.org/ClanDF41.jpg are calibrated to set L745 coalescence at 800 YBP and yield a range for DF41 coalescence of something on the order of 2000 - 2900 YBP which is about a 90% correlation with your estimate.

While what I am doing is nowhere as sophisticated as what you do, and I am working with a single calibration point and an assumption of linearity, a bit of ground-truth is nice to have with any model. I think that the similarity of our estimates derived from different approaches provides a bit of mutual validation.

Cheers,
Larry Walker 240201 DF41+/CTS2501+>1426C*

[TigerMW]

If I'm looking at this correctly, this guy comes up L744+
f256138 Ward

If he is, we might look at this guy as well
f42048 Erwin

[MJost]

[QUOTE=LarryWalker;10024]Mark,

I like those numbers.

The work that has been done with the "ancient" Stewart genealogy and DNA by Belinda is indicating that the probable founder of L745 was probably Alexander Stewart, 4th High Stewart of Scotland, born circa 1214. Based on that assumption, my trees at http://rangebiome.org/ClanDF41.jpg are calibrated to set L745 coalescence at 800 YBP and yield a range for DF41 coalescence of something on the order of 2000 - 2900 YBP which is about a 90% correlation with your estimate.
QUOTE]
Larry,

L745 has an age at 30yrs per gen and a 1 sSgma range.
Coalescence: 576.6 +-194.5
Founder Modal 614.9 +-207.8

Or use your own number for years per generation, I expect a longer length, please report this average you know of.
Coal. 19.2 +-6.5
FM 20.5 +-6.9

MJost

[Dubhthach]

Those dates for L745 tie in with "Alexander Stewart, 4th High Steward of Scotland" (1214–1283) who appears to be common descendant of at least two lines of Stewarts who have tested L745+.

[rms2]

I've mentioned this before elsewhere, but I have a number of Family Finder matches with the L745+ Stewarts and some females with the surname Stewart in their pedigrees. One of my second great grandmothers on my mother's side was Orpha L. Stewart, who was born in 1842 in McKenzie, Tennessee. Small world.

[TigerMW]

I've mentioned this before elsewhere, but I have a number of Family Finder matches with the L745+ Stewarts and some females with the surname Stewart in their pedigrees. One of my second great grandmothers on my mother's side was Orpha L. Stewart, who was born in 1842 in McKenzie, Tennessee. Small world.

I'm not sure how far Family Finder goes back so this may be a stupid question: Any chance there is a faint echo of a Breton connection?

[rms2]

I'm not sure how far Family Finder goes back so this may be a stupid question: Any chance there is a faint echo of a Breton connection?

There's a chance, I guess, but that's going back pretty far.

There is one guy in my cluster, interestingly, whose Population Finder result shows 100% French.

[rms2]

Edmonds (Stevens), kit 212967, and Browning, kit N71242, both got their DF41+ results this morning.

[TigerMW]

Edmonds (Stevens), kit 212967, and Browning, kit N71242, both got their DF41+ results this morning.
Very good. DF41 keeps growing.

[Dubhthach]

Browning isn't in the DF41 project could you send him a note asking him to join?

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

Browning isn't in the DF41 project could you send him a note asking him to join?

-Paul
(DF41+)

I did that early this morning when I first saw his result. :)

[Dubhthach]

I did that early this morning when I first saw his result. :)

What's his genetic distance from other DF41ers like? Is he part of one of the pre-existing clusters or is he an outlier?

-Paul
(DF41+)

[LarryWalker]

What's his genetic distance from other DF41ers like? Is he part of one of the pre-existing clusters or is he an outlier?

-Paul
(DF41+)

He clusters with Bettcher giving us a second 9911 :)

[rms2]

Browning is 7 off Bettcher at 67 markers. After that, no one is close.

[LarryWalker]

Browning is 7 off Bettcher at 67 markers. After that, no one is close.

GDs of 8 to 10 at Y67 still appear to be better than even-money bets, but you gotta go to Semargl or Ysearch (which barks) to find them. The next best match for Browning and Betcher is 62398 Turner at 9 (Browning) and 10 (Bettcher), and Browning is Turner's closest Semargl match.

[rms2]

GDs of 8 to 10 at Y67 still appear to be better than even-money bets, but you gotta go to Semargl or Ysearch (which barks) to find them. The next best match for Browning and Betcher is 62398 Turner at 9 (Browning) and 10 (Bettcher), and Browning is Turner's closest Semargl match.

Most of them time, no doubt, but I can recall matches of that distance that turned out to be not even L21+. They were U152+. P312 is a little bushy, so convergence can be a problem.

[rms2]

Awhile back I emailed several of Loveland's closest matches and asked them to test for DF41. Only one of them (61/67) responded. He ordered the test and yesterday got his DF41+ result. The surname is Morrison but no relation to our other Morrisons. I've asked him to join both the DF41 Project and the L21 Project. Hopefully, he will.

[rms2]

I'm itching to post something about DF41, so here goes. Awhile back a member of my cluster (which Mike has named 41-1123), Self, kit 53479, got a Geno 2.0 result unique to him (thus far): PF6093. Could be nothing, of course, but it could be significant for the cluster. Unfortunately, none of the rest of us has done the Geno 2.0 thingy, and FTDNA does not yet offer PF6093 a la carte.

I'm thinking about ordering the Geno 2.0, either for myself or my dad. We'll see.

Even if I do order Geno 2.0, and even if I get a PF6093+ result, I still don't yet know what our cluster signifies, other than some sort of general west British or Welsh descent. We don't have any cool clan identity or royal or even noble ancestry we can claim yet (could be Village Idiot Type I, for all we know). ;)

[TigerMW]

I'm itching to post something about DF41, so here goes. Awhile back a member of my cluster (which Mike has named 41-1123), Self, kit 53479, got a Geno 2.0 result unique to him (thus far): PF6093. Could be nothing, of course, but it could be significant for the cluster. Unfortunately, none of the rest of us has done the Geno 2.0 thingy, and FTDNA does not yet offer PF6093 a la carte.

I'm thinking about ordering the Geno 2.0, either for myself or my dad. We'll see.

Even if I do order Geno 2.0, and even if I get a PF6093+ result, I still don't yet know what our cluster signifies, other than some sort of general west British or Welsh descent. We don't have any cool clan identity or royal or even noble ancestry we can claim yet (could be Village Idiot Type I, for all we know). ;)

You kind of are over the barrel. The only way to know now is Geno 2 or go in for a very expensive Fullgenomes.com test. The chicken and egg thing also kicks in. If we all wait, nothing happens. I guess this is where pocketbooks and hobbyist passions are tested. Good luck on whatever you do!

[rms2]

You kind of are over the barrel. The only way to know now is Geno 2 or go in for a very expensive Fullgenomes.com test. The chicken and egg thing also kicks in. If we all wait, nothing happens. I guess this is where pocketbooks and hobbyist passions are tested. Good luck on whatever you do!

I'm arguing with myself over the Geno 2.0 now. I have some birthday money to blow, but I want to spend it wisely. I'm a homebrewer, too, and I could use a new brew pot. That's the competition. :beerchug:

[rms2]

I see McConnell, kit 57001, got a CTS11440+ result. Was that expected?

I remember that another DF41+ guy got a CTS11440+ result, but whoever it was is not in the DF41 Project. As I recall, it was McCown, but McConnell is not in that 1426 cluster like the McCowns.

[Dubhthach]

I see McConnell, kit 57001, got a CTS11440+ result. Was that expected?

I remember that another DF41+ guy got a CTS11440+ result, but whoever it was is not in the DF41 Project. As I recall, it was McCown, but McConnell is not in that 1426 cluster like the McCowns.

I was under the impression that McConnell had Geno 2.0 and that CTS11440 was a result from that that. I don't know why they ordered CTS11440 as an individual order. I believe it was a Carroll who had placed an individual order.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

I was under the impression that McConnell had Geno 2.0 and that CTS11440 was a result from that that. I don't know why they ordered CTS11440 as an individual order. I believe it was a Carroll who had placed an individual order.

-Paul
(DF41+)

Ah. Weird. CTS11440 is on my "Received Lab Results" page today for McConnell, but you're right, he does have Geno 2.0, and CTS11440 should be included in that.

Is he the only CTS11440+ thus far? I remember hearing about CTS11440, but I forgot who got the positive result.

[LarryWalker]

Ah. Weird. CTS11440 is on my "Received Lab Results" page today for McConnell, but you're right, he does have Geno 2.0, and CTS11440 should be included in that.

Is he the only CTS11440+ thus far? I remember hearing about CTS11440, but I forgot who got the positive result.

I think that they must have ordered the test for the wrong McConnell. 57001 was already CTS11440+ from GENO2, but he has a close cousin 150737 McConnell who is a candidate for CTS11440, as is 288361 Carroll.

[Dubhthach]

I think that they must have ordered the test for the wrong McConnell. 57001 was already CTS11440+ from GENO2, but he has a close cousin 150737 McConnell who is a candidate for CTS11440, as is 288361 Carroll.

There's a pending test for "288361 Carroll" the GD from McConnell (57001) is 9 @ 67 markers, which would qualify it for ISOGG inclusion (once status regarding L744 and L563 was ironed out)

-Paul
(DF41+)

[Dubhthach]

Carroll (288361) is CTS11440- as of this morning.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

Edmonds, whose biological father was a Stevens, kit 212967, got the last panel of his 111-marker upgrade this morning. He is five off me and Joe Stephens at 111 markers. We are his closest matches.

[TigerMW]

Edmonds, whose biological father was a Stevens, kit 212967, got the last panel of his 111-marker upgrade this morning. He is five off me and Joe Stephens at 111 markers. We are his closest matches.
Wow. That's pretty darn close. Is there some common location where ancestors may have crossed paths with yours?

[rms2]

Wow. That's pretty darn close. Is there some common location where ancestors may have crossed paths with yours?

Edmonds and I both have y-dna ancestors who were up in the western Pennsylvania/eastern Ohio area in the early 1800s, but Joe Stephens' family was down in Caswell County, North Carolina (near the Virginia border). Joe Stephens is my closest match at 111; we're only four off. So, I'm four off Joe and five off Mike Edmonds (Stevens), my two closest matches at 111 markers.

Samuel, kit N104746, is only three away from Joe Stephens at 111 markers, but he is six away from me and eight off Edmonds. He has a good paper trail to Wales in the late 1600s. We're all fairly close to Beddoes (which, of course, is another Welsh surname), Ysearch GY2YT, at 67 markers. He was born in Worcester, England, but his family was from Shropshire right on the Welsh border. Samuel and I are two off Beddoes at 67 markers. Joe Stephens is three off Beddoes at 67, and Edmonds is six off him at 67 markers.

Anyway, I think we all share a common Welsh y-dna ancestor but have different surnames because of the Welsh patronymic surname system.

[Dubhthach]

Salmon who is in my cluster has a new match who is 1 @ 67markers. Surnamed Fisher. I've been in contact via email and have offered a DF41 test, waiting to see if he'll join project. From what I can tell he is in process of upgrading to 111STR's. Salmon and Fisher can possibly be different angliscations of the same name. So potentially:


Ó BRADÁIN—I—O Bradane, O Bradan, O Bradden, Bradan, Bradden, and, by 'translation,' Salmon, Sammon, Fisher; 'descendant of Bradán' (diminutive of brádach, spirited; also a salmon); a rather scattered surname. In Co. Roscommon, it seems to have been an alias for Ó Bradagáin, which see. Salmon, as an anglicised form of this surname, dates back to the year 1555; and Salmon, of course, suggested Fisher

[rms2]

Those anglicizations of Irish surnames are fascinating. Unless one knows their original Gaelic source, he would have no clue they were even Irish. :confused:

[Dubhthach]

Those anglicizations of Irish surnames are fascinating. Unless one knows their original Gaelic source, he would have no clue they were even Irish. :confused:

Well it depends on when a persons name was anglisced also if the surname was a big one or small one. So for example Mac Carthaigh -> McCarthy always (It's a Royal name after all) Woulfe has the following categories for angliscation

Phonetically.
By translation.
By attraction.
By assimilation.
By substitution.


See: http://www.libraryireland.com/names/anglicisation-irish-surnames.php

My feeling is that both Salmon and Fisher fall under "By translation"/"By assimilation"

Of course I don't know Fisher's ancestry let, I know that Salmon's ancestry goes back to Mayo in the mid 18th century.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

Of course, I should have said one can't tell that some of those names are even Irish, like Salmon and Fisher. Some of the others, like many of the Mc names and all of the O' names, are more obvious.

It seems a strange quirk that a name that in Irish means salmon would become Fisher. That's like having a name that means quail anglicized as Fowler or Hunter, or one that means oats becoming Farmer. :)

[rms2]

I mentioned that one of my closest matches at 111 markers, Mike Edmonds, kit 212967, is a biological Stevens. His father was an American fighter pilot in WWII who was killed in the closing days of the war. His name was Max Walter Stevens. Mike's mother eventually remarried, and Mike was adopted by his stepfather, thus, the surname change. I asked Mike if I could post a photo from WWII of his biological father. He said okay, so here it is.

676

[Dubhthach]

Fisher has joined the project. I sponsored a DF41 test for him (through the Ireland project). He's already ordered upgrade to 111 markers. His closest matches are:

Salmon: GD of 1 @ 67
Black: GD of 7 @ 67
Duffy (me): GD of 10 @ 67


-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

I got an email today from a Spanish guy who says his Geno 2.0 results include CTS2501+. I cannot verify that because I haven't actually seen those results, but I have asked him to join the L21 and DF41 Projects. I hope he does.

He lives in southern Spain, but I don't know the exact location. I am withholding the name, since he hasn't actually made his info public yet. He has a Spanish surname, though; I can say that much.

[Dubhthach]

I got an email today from a Spanish guy who says his Geno 2.0 results include CTS2501+. I cannot verify that because I haven't actually seen those results, but I have asked him to join the L21 and DF41 Projects. I hope he does.

He lives in southern Spain, but I don't know the exact location. I am withholding the name, since he hasn't actually made his info public yet. He has a Spanish surname, though; I can say that much.

If we can get him in the project that would be great. If he is distant from the rest of the membership then it might be worth sponsoring a test (Eg if he isn't in a pre-existing cluster). Only way we'll seperate CTS2501 from DF41 (both currently equivalent) will be by doing the odd punt when it comes to sponsored tests.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

Good idea. I haven't heard back from the man yet. If I don't get an email from him soon or see that he has joined, I'll write him again.

[rms2]

Good idea. I haven't heard back from the man yet. If I don't get an email from him soon or see that he has joined, I'll write him again.

I heard from our Spanish CTS2501+ again today by email. I am trying to help him overcome some privacy concerns so that he will join our projects. He also needs to transfer his Geno 2.0 stuff over to FTDNA.

[TigerMW]

I heard from our Spanish CTS2501+ again today by email. I am trying to help him overcome some privacy concerns so that he will join our projects. He also needs to transfer his Geno 2.0 stuff over to FTDNA.
I don't quite the privacy concerns in some of these cases. Why not just put in the MDKA origin only and leave the MDKA name/birth date and surname out of it? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

[rms2]

I don't quite the privacy concerns in some of these cases. Why not just put in the MDKA origin only and leave the MDKA name/birth date and surname out of it? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

I don't understand it either, really. But English is not this gentleman's first language, and he seems worried that his data will reveal medical information. I assured him it won't and that we're not interested in medical stuff. Hopefully, he'll join up.

[ilmari]

Léri–Weill dyschondrosteosis [dwarfism, so he'd probably know already]
Langer mesomelic dysplasia [similar to above]
Swyer Syndrome [gonadal dysgenesis, again, he'l probably already know] RARE
46,XX testicular disorder [ usual manifestation in females, not males and not actually on the Y]
Y Chromosome Infertility [these are those micro-deletions that we've all heard of, there is not rhyme or reason to who will be infertile and who won't be]

Those are the only Y Chromosome "conditions" of any concern and they are mostly rare. Maybe someone can find Spanish language explanations for him?

[rms2]

His English seems pretty good, but he hasn't joined up yet. We'll just have to be patient. I've certainly learned how to be patient with this hobby. It's mostly about waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting . . .

[rms2]

I haven't heard from our Spanish CTS2501+ in awhile.

Anyway, now I am waiting for my Chromo2 Complete results, but I am not expecting them until November or maybe even December. I wonder if any other DF41+ folks have ordered the Chromo2 y-dna test.

[Dubhthach]

I haven't heard from our Spanish CTS2501+ in awhile.

Anyway, now I am waiting for my Chromo2 Complete results, but I am not expecting them until November or maybe even December. I wonder if any other DF41+ folks have ordered the Chromo2 y-dna test.

I believe Angus McMillan has ordered Chromo2 as well, this should at least make it easier to see if there are any snp's that are specific to your cluster in DF41.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

I believe Angus McMillan has ordered Chromo2 as well, this should at least make it easier to see if there are any snp's that are specific to your cluster in DF41.

-Paul
(DF41+)

Great! That is helpful.

I will try to talk at least one person from my cluster into ordering the test, as well.

[Dubhthach]

Great! That is helpful.

I will try to talk at least one person from my cluster into ordering the test, as well.

Would be useful to have a L744+ and a L563+ to test as well, would help with ISOGG qualification. Both myself and Larry are waiting on Full genomes results, which will provide a further data-point for comparison.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

I emailed each of the members of my cluster (the ones I know read emails from me, anyway) individually and asked them to consider the Chromo2 y-dna test. I don't know that any of them will. I am probably the most enthusiastic of the bunch, although one of them has done the Geno 2.0 test and most are up to 111 markers.

[Dubhthach]

Fisher unsurprising came back as DF41+, that puts four in my cluster.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

Fisher unsurprising came back as DF41+, that puts four in my cluster.

-Paul
(DF41+)

Excellent!

I still think it is interesting that you have both Salmon and Fisher in your cluster.

What's next? Deer and Hunter? ;)

[jdean]

Excellent!

I still think it is interesting that you have both Salmon and Fisher in your cluster.

What's next? Deer and Hunter? ;)

Captain Haddock ?

[rms2]

Captain Haddock ?

He'd make a great DF41+!

770

[jdean]

He'd make a great DF41+!

770

Yes but I want Tintin for DF49 but knowing my luck I'd probably end up with the Thompson twins : )_

[rms2]

Yes but I want Tintin for DF49 but knowing my luck I'd probably end up with the Thompson twins : )_

Lol!

I'm thinking Tintin, as a Belgian, is probably U152+.

I actually enjoyed the music of the Thompson Twins back in the '80s (I know: different Thompson Twins). ;)

Thompson Twins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9694K85Xc8)

774

[AJL]

Sorry for the digression -- am I alone in thinking Calculus is not R1b, maybe something like G2a3 instead?

775

[jdean]

Sorry for the digression -- am I alone in thinking Calculus is not R1b, maybe something like G2a3 instead?

775

One of my favorite characters but I agree, I think R1b would be pushing my luck a little : )_

[Dubhthach]

Excellent!

I still think it is interesting that you have both Salmon and Fisher in your cluster.

What's next? Deer and Hunter? ;)

In english a surname such as "Salmon" would imply the holder was a "salmon fisherman".



Ó BRADÁIN—I—O Bradane, O Bradan, O Bradden, Bradan, Bradden, and, by 'translation,' Salmon, Sammon, Fisher; 'descendant of Bradán' (diminutive of brádach, spirited; also a salmon); a rather scattered surname. In Co. Roscommon, it seems to have been an alias for Ó Bradagáin, which see. Salmon, as an anglicised form of this surname, dates back to the year 1555; and Salmon, of course, suggested Fisher.


The two of them are quite close, they only have a GD of 1 at 67 markers, at 111 markers it widens to 4 at 111 markers. Salmon ancestry goes back to Mayo in mid-18th century, whereas Fisher has ancestry in western Tyrone until the end of 19th century.

What's of course interesting is there was large scale migration from Ulster into Northern Connacht during the 17th century due to the plantation of Ulster, result is what survives of "North Connacht" Irish is dialectically heavily influenced by "Ulster Irish" of Donegal (phoenetically, vocabulary etc.), basically a transition dialect between wider "Connacht Irish" and "Ulster Irish" forms of the language.

Like Fisher my ancestry was in "West Ulster" until the late 19th century.

[kaybee]

I updated my brother's ysearch account, th8ug, and we match (at 19-24 off at 95 markers) with several Stewarts/Stuarts. I will have to pursue some snps.

X6RZC Stewart Unknown Unknown Family Tree DNA 95 20
R5RFW Stewart Unknown R1b1a2a1a1b4 (tested) Family Tree DNA 95 19
2EANW Stuart Unknown R1b1a2a1a1b4 (tested) Family Tree DNA 95 20
PE3VX Campbell Scotland Unknown Family Tree DNA 95 20
9W4KQ Stewart Ballymoney, Antrim, Northern Ireland R1b1a2 (tested) Family Tree DNA 95 23
KQQDM Stewart Broughshane, Antrim, Northern Ireland R1b1a2a1a1b4 (tested) Family Tree DNA 95 24


At 95 markers they were the closest matches.

[rms2]

It's hard to say with DF41 at those distances. It might be worth a shot.

[Dubhthach]

I updated my brother's ysearch account, th8ug, and we match (at 19-24 off at 95 markers) with several Stewarts/Stuarts. I will have to pursue some snps.

X6RZC Stewart Unknown Unknown Family Tree DNA 95 20
R5RFW Stewart Unknown R1b1a2a1a1b4 (tested) Family Tree DNA 95 19
2EANW Stuart Unknown R1b1a2a1a1b4 (tested) Family Tree DNA 95 20
PE3VX Campbell Scotland Unknown Family Tree DNA 95 20
9W4KQ Stewart Ballymoney, Antrim, Northern Ireland R1b1a2 (tested) Family Tree DNA 95 23
KQQDM Stewart Broughshane, Antrim, Northern Ireland R1b1a2a1a1b4 (tested) Family Tree DNA 95 24


At 95 markers they were the closest matches.

If you join either the L21 project, DF41 project or Ireland project then either myself of Rich can run a genetic distance report on your brother's kit (I'm assuming tested to 111 STR's with familytreeDNA). If he shows up as been close to our L744/L745/L746 members or to DF41 members in general then it may be worthwhile to test.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[kaybee]

I have him in the L 21+ project, have had him there for a few years. Kit N8024. He is also in the Ireland Ydna project.

They have been in Ireland a long time but even our cousins who are still there in Derry don't know how they got there. We hoped they knew, they hoped we knew. The DNA has been a mystery.

[rms2]

I have him in the L 21+ project, have had him there for a few years. Kit N8024. He is also in the Ireland Ydna project.

They have been in Ireland a long time but even our cousins who are still there in Derry don't know how they got there. We hoped they knew, they hoped we knew. The DNA has been a mystery.

I ran a genetic distance report on him this morning. If I remember correctly, he was 15 off a couple of Stewarts at 67 markers, but 16 off another man who was Z253+, so who knows?

I hope he is DF41+, at least, but only a test will tell.

[rms2]

When the first DF41+ result came in for my cluster in late August of 2012, we weren't close to the haplotype of anyone who had already tested DF41+. Cooper and I had split up the SNP testing to save money. At the time, I took Z253 and Z255, as I recall, and Cooper took L371 and DF41. Cooper got a DF41+ hit and the SNP hunt was over (for a little while, at least). I then tested for DF41 just to confirm it and got a DF41+ result, too. Since then, everyone in our cluster who has tested for DF41 has been DF41+. All those who have tested for CTS2501 have been positive for it, as well.

[kaybee]

Just for the heck of it, I ordered a DF41 test. Worst case it is negative and I am no worse off and we remain lost in time, for now.

I want to do more complete testing but don't know whether it would be best to start with the Geno2 or the Chromo2. We did test at Ethnoancestry previously and when I sign in the account is eligible for the discount.

[rms2]

Just for the heck of it, I ordered a DF41 test. Worst case it is negative and I am no worse off and we remain lost in time, for now.

I want to do more complete testing but don't know whether it would be best to start with the Geno2 or the Chromo2. We did test at Ethnoancestry previously and when I sign in the account is eligible for the discount.

I hope you get a positive result, but DF41 does not appear to be one of the really big clades like, say, DF21 or Z253.

Chromo2 seems to be a better, more expansive test than Geno 2.0, but you cannot transfer the results over to FTDNA.

I did not order the Geno 2.0 because it doesn't offer that much for DF41+ guys.

[LarryWalker]

IF N8024 does test DF41+, he will position as a singleton between B2895 Bettcher and the cluster that 17609 Conn is in for the mixed marker tree at http://rangebiome.org/ClanDF41.jpg .

[kaybee]

So I ordered DF41 and 21...just to see what happens. Once those are in will decide on Geno2 or Chromo2. We have been a singleton all along so no big surprise to continue to be one. Just hoping some day to fall into some group, some location.

[rms2]

I heard recently from Dr. Jim Wilson that it looks like S839 (included in the Chromo2 test) is equivalent to S524/DF41/CTS2501/S836.

I know in my own sporadic Chromo2 comparisons I have found S839+ only in my results and those of Angus MacMillan (also DF41+).

[Dubhthach]

Dowie (7762) came back as DF41+. He currently only has 25 markers tested (all way back in 2003!!!). He's ordered an upgrade to 67 markers (sale price). His current GD from other members of my cluster is:

Black (284562) -- GD of 0
Fisher (287382) -- GD of 1
Salmon (35550) -- GD of 2
Duffy (176148) -- GD of 3

Linguistically Dowie is probably a modified spelling of Dowey which is an older Donegal angliscation of Ó Dubhthaigh


Ó DUBHTHAIGH—I—O Duffie, O Duhie, O Duhig, O Dowhie, O Dowey, O'Duffy, Duffy, Duhy, Duhig, Dowey, Douey, Dooey, Doey, &c, and sometimes, by translation, Black; 'descendant of Dubhthach' (black). This surname is found in all parts of Ireland, and, doubtless, there are several distinct families so called. The O'Duffys of Connacht are remarkable for the number of eminent prelates they formerly gave to the church in that province. The O'Duffys were also a family of note in Monaghan. In Munster, the name is generally anglicised Duhig, owing to the pronunciation of the final g. The family is, according to Keating, of Dalcassian origin. In Ulster, where the name is very common, especially in Monaghan and Donegal, it is sometimes anglicised Dowey and Dooey. See Ó Dúithche.

--
Ó DÚITHCHE—I—O Dowghie, O Dowchy, Dooey, Duffy; a common corruption of Ó Dubhthaigh, which see.


It will be interesting to see how the GD works out at 37 and 67 markers in comparison.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

First off, let me start this post by saying that I dislike wannabeism and am on my guard against it in myself. I don't care about being a Viking or a Norman or a famous this or a glorious that. I have to begin that way because this post will touch on Breton knights, nobility - even royalty -, and all that jazz. So there it is.

Most of this is just a form of thinking out loud, so feel free to shoot holes in it. That's the reason for posting it: to see if it makes sense to anyone else or if it is just "wind pudding", as my dad often characterizes nonsense.

It is fairly well known, I think, that the Royal House of Stewart, family of a number of famous kings and queens of Scotland and England, has tested DF41+ (L21>DF13>DF41>L744>L745). Richard Scott, the 10th Duke of Buccleuch, confirmed y-dna descendant of Charles II, tested DF41+ (S524+) with ScotlandsDNA. Traditional genealogy traces the Stewart y-dna line back to Alan FitzFlaad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_FitzFlaad), a Breton knight born about 1070. King Henry I "invited Alan to England with other Breton friends" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_FitzFlaad) and gave him the barony of Oswestry (http://www.gomapper.com/travel/where-is/oswestry-located.html) in Shropshire on the Welsh border, as well as land in Norfolk.

What interests me is Alan's placement in Oswestry on the Welsh border, the fact that he was DF41+, and his "other Breton friends". Where did they go? Were they knights in Alan's service who accompanied him to the Welsh Marches? Could some of them have been DF41+, as well?

I ask all this for several reasons. For one, there is a haplotype cluster within DF41, 41-1123 (my own), that turns up in Wales and Shropshire. The cluster is not itself Stewart and is negative for the downstream Stewart SNPs, L744 and L745. For another, DF41 does not appear to be particularly common anywhere, although it seems to turn up in Scotland more than anywhere else. At least one DF41+ has been found with ancestry in SE France but none thus far from Brittany (although very few Bretons have been tested for L21 or its downstream SNPs). There is one DF41+ man of Irish ancestry who bears the Norman-French surname Tuite.

So I am wondering if at least some of the DF41 in the Isles could have a Breton origin and if it came over as part of the Alan FitzFlaad/Stewart entourage and settled in and around Oswestry on the Welsh border. Perhaps some of it found its way to Scotland in the time of David I (12th century), when Alan's second son Walter FitzAlan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_fitz_Alan) became High Steward of Scotland.

Of course, it is also possible the Stewarts are DF41+ because they ultimately descend from Britons who went to Armorica from Britain during the immediate post-Roman period and that DF41 will ultimately turn out to be commonplace in Wales and Cornwall (the sources of much of the migration to Armorica).

[TigerMW]

I think a Breton origin for some or much of DF41 in the Isles is quite plausible. I don't know how you prove it though. I think L21's challenges related to the Irish Sea and English Channel are complex. There were migrations in both directions and probably many, many times. Who knows? DF41 may have originated in the Paris area, been pushed or escaped to southern Britain, cycled back to Bretagne and then finally returned again to Britain. There may be DF41 fragment branches along the whole trail but it would be hard to determine which time which fragment got left behind.

[rms2]

I know that autosomal dna, being recombinant, is quirky, so the following information may have little or nothing to do with DF41 or our haplotype cluster, but the Population Finder result of one of our cluster members, Paul Cooper, kit 57563, shows "100% French" (I got permission to post this info).

Not yet sure why that is, but it is interesting.

[rms2]

Dixon, kit 142395, just got a CTS2501+ among his Geno 2.0 results. I have asked him to join the R-DF41 and Subclades Project. He identifies Ireland as place of ancestral origin but has not yet named a specific location there.

[Dubhthach]

Dixon, kit 142395, just got a CTS2501+ among his Geno 2.0 results. I have asked him to join the R-DF41 and Subclades Project. He identifies Ireland as place of ancestral origin but has not yet named a specific location there.

He's not particulary close to any of our existing project members. His closest GD at 67 markers is: 15 (to Samuel -- N104746). I'd be willing to offer him $50 towards a 111 STR upgrade, what ye think?

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

He's not particulary close to any of our existing project members. His closest GD at 67 markers is: 15 (to Samuel -- N104746). I'd be willing to offer him $50 towards a 111 STR upgrade, what ye think?

-Paul
(DF41+)

I think that is a great idea. He (or the woman who represents his kit) seems pretty enthusiastic.

[rms2]

@Paul

Did you happen to see Michael Wilson's post at the Facebook L21 Group? There are three interesting CTS2501+ results out there who have not joined either the R-L21 Plus Project or the R-DF41 and Subclades Project. Their names are Weigel (German) Gonzalez (Spanish) and Perez (Spanish).

[Dubhthach]

@Paul

Did you happen to see Michael Wilson's post at the Facebook L21 Group? There are three interesting CTS2501+ results out there who have not joined either the R-L21 Plus Project or the R-DF41 and Subclades Project. Their names are Weigel (German) Gonzalez (Spanish) and Perez (Spanish).

I saw that, I'm assuming those are showing up in Geno 2.0 page. They mighten't have transferred their results to FTDNA (or even have STR results). It would be interesting to track them down, only way we will seperate CTS2501 and DF41 is to find men who are at the base of the tree.

For example it could be possible that CTS2501 is above DF41.

Here's Larry's latest tree based on members of the project:

http://rangebiome.org/ClanDF41.jpg
-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

Comparing my dad's Geno 2.0 positives to those of several other DF41+ guys, it doesn't appear he has any unique new SNPs in the Geno 2.0 array. I didn't get anything new or unique out of my Chromo2 results either.

I guess I am going to have to do the Big Y or the Full Genome thing eventually. Hopefully the price will come down.

[rms2]

Malloure, kit 315732, has joined the R-L21 Plus Project and the R-DF41 and Subclades Project. His y-dna mdka was born in France about 1835. He is a very close 67-marker match to a bunch of the royal Stewarts and has ordered L745.

I know the Stewart family tradition is of descent from the Breton knight Alan Fitz Flaad, but it is also true that many members of the Stewart Clan took refuge in France following the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745-46. This gentleman is a 66/67 match for some of the Stewarts.

[Dubhthach]

To reinforce that abit, his 2nd and 3rd closest matches in the DF41 project (GD of 4 at 67 markers) are two men who descend from a Stuart that settled in Corsica in the 18th century.

Link (in French)
http://elizabethpardon.hautetfort.com/archive/2010/12/30/la-famille-des-stuart-en-corse.html

[Dubhthach]

He's not particulary close to any of our existing project members. His closest GD at 67 markers is: 15 (to Samuel -- N104746). I'd be willing to offer him $50 towards a 111 STR upgrade, what ye think?

-Paul
(DF41+)

I placed the order for Dixon upgrade this morning and applied $50 to project fund. It should be interesting to see how the full 111-STR results work out. At the moment we have 64 project members who have at least 111 STR's tested.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[Dubhthach]

Dowie (7762) came back as DF41+. He currently only has 25 markers tested (all way back in 2003!!!). He's ordered an upgrade to 67 markers (sale price). His current GD from other members of my cluster is:

Black (284562) -- GD of 0
Fisher (287382) -- GD of 1
Salmon (35550) -- GD of 2
Duffy (176148) -- GD of 3

Linguistically Dowie is probably a modified spelling of Dowey which is an older Donegal angliscation of Ó Dubhthaigh



It will be interesting to see how the GD works out at 37 and 67 markers in comparison.

-Paul
(DF41+)

So Dowie upgrade to 67 markers have come in, his GD from members of my cluster is the following:

Black (284562) -- GD of 2
Duffy (176148) -- GD of 7
Fisher (287382) -- GD of 7
Salmon (35550) -- GD of 8

I'm going to see if I can get him to upgrade to 111 markers, will probably sponser $50 towards that.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[Dubhthach]

Looks like we may have a new member in the 41-1013 cluster. I got a notification of a match at 67 markers today with a McAuley (MDKA: Alexander McAuley, 1797 (Co. Donegal)-1887, N.S.) found in the McAuley project here:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/MacAulay/default.aspx?section=ycolorized

Kit: 252142

On 67 markers he matches the relevant STR values for membership of 41-1013. I've sent him an email offering him a DF41 test through the DF41 project. At the moment from looking at other members of the projects I can see that he has following known GD (at 67 markers)

Black (284562) -- GD of 5
Dowie (7762) -- GD of 5
Duffy (176148) -- GD of 6

Here's what Woulfe has in his 1923 book:



Mac AMHLAOIBH—V—MacAuliffe, MacAuley, MacCauliffe, MacCauley, MacCawley, MacCowley, Cawley, Cowley, etc.; 'son of Amhlaoibh' (an Irish form of the Norse Olaf). There are three well-known families of this name: (1) Mac Amhlaoibh, anglicised MacAuliffe, of Co. Cork, a branch of the MacCarthys. The head of this family resided at Castle MacAuliffe, near Newmarket, and his territory comprised the district lying between Newmarket and the boundaries of the counties of Limerick and Kerry. (2) Mac Amhlaoibh of Fermanagh, a branch of the Maguires, whose territory comprised the barony of Clanawley. And (3) Mac Amhlaoibh, anglicised MacAulay, of Scotland. The chief seat of this family was at Ardincaple, in Dumbartonshire. A branch of the family settled in Co. Antrim, and many of the MacAulays of the north of Ireland are of this stock. To it belonged also the celebrated Lord Macaulay.


Amhlaoibh been the Irish form of Olaf borrowed into Irish from Norse as a personal name (aking to how Manuis was borrowed from Magnus etc.). Hopefully he'll bite at the offer of free DF41 test.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[Dubhthach]

252142 - McAuley is now a member of the DF41 project. He already had an upgrade to 111 on order. I've placed an order for DF41 to confirm his membership of 41-1013. Now that he has a member I can see that his GD from Fisher/Salmon is:

Fisher (287382) -- GD of 8
Salmon (35550) -- GD of 9

-Paul
(DF41+)

[Dubhthach]

When it rains it pours -- ironic given near hurricane conditions here in Ireland tonight.

It looks like we might have another 41-1013. I was checking some of the matches of members of the cluster and found that 4 of them had a new match at 37 markers with Moore (278010).

Moore has now joined the project and I see the following GD's from 41-1013 members @ 37 markers:

Black (284562) -- GD of 2
Dowie (7762) -- GD of 2
Fisher (287382) -- GD of 3
Salmon (35550) -- GD of 4
McAuley (252142) -- GD of 6
Duffy (176148) -- GD of 7

Moore already has an upgrade to 67 markers on order. I've placed a order for DF41 to confirm membership of our cluster.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rossa]

Fisher and Salmon! I thought Fisher was a Norman name until I checked wiki and saw it can be an anglicised verison of Bradan which I'm assuming Salmon is also.

[TigerMW]

If I'm looking at this correctly, this guy comes up L744+
f256138 Ward

If he is, we might look at this guy as well
f42048 Erwin

Erwin came up DF41-. He is CTS4466+ so I move his question over to that subsection of this forum.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2170-Questions-about-downstream-testing-for-CTS4466

[rms2]

It aggravates me that we are not getting the full picture on DF41 (and certainly not on L21 or any of its clades). Here's a sample of what I mean. I might have mentioned this before, but there are two guys who show up on my dad's little Geno 2.0 bubble chart thingy as CTS2501+ who are of continental European ancestry. One of them has the surname Weigel and is of German ancestry, and the other has the surname Gonzalez and is of Spanish origin. But I don't know how to get hold of these two gentlemen to try to get them to get STR tested with FTDNA and get into the L21 and DF41 projects.

I get the feeling we're missing a lot of people.

[rms2]

Well, what a kind of coincidence. I just complained about missing continental folks and a new CTS2501+ with a Spanish surname joined the R-L21 Plus Project: Gamino, kit N87112. I could be mistaken, but just offhand his haplotype doesn't look familiar, and his only matches at 37 markers (all he has right now) are two Hernandezes and a Torres, both Spanish surnames. B)

In my welcome email I asked him to also join the R-DF41 and Subclades Project.

It would be interesting indeed if he turned out to be CTS2501+ but DF41-.

[MJost]

Well, what a kind of coincidence. I just complained about missing continental folks and a new CTS2501+ with a Spanish surname joined the R-L21 Plus Project: Gamino, kit N87112. I could be mistaken, but just offhand his haplotype doesn't look familiar, and his only matches at 37 markers (all he has right now) are two Hernandezes and a Torres, both Spanish surnames. B)

In my welcome email I asked him to also join the R-DF41 and Subclades Project.

It would be interesting indeed if he turned out to be CTS2501+ but DF41-.

Could happen.

MJost

[Dubhthach]

Well, what a kind of coincidence. I just complained about missing continental folks and a new CTS2501+ with a Spanish surname joined the R-L21 Plus Project: Gamino, kit N87112. I could be mistaken, but just offhand his haplotype doesn't look familiar, and his only matches at 37 markers (all he has right now) are two Hernandezes and a Torres, both Spanish surnames. B)

In my welcome email I asked him to also join the R-DF41 and Subclades Project.

It would be interesting indeed if he turned out to be CTS2501+ but DF41-.

Hopefully he does join the project. Even if he comes back as CTS2501+, DF41+ he may belong to a new cluster which will broaden our clade even further.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[Dubhthach]

When it rains it pours -- ironic given near hurricane conditions here in Ireland tonight.

It looks like we might have another 41-1013. I was checking some of the matches of members of the cluster and found that 4 of them had a new match at 37 markers with Moore (278010).

Moore has now joined the project and I see the following GD's from 41-1013 members @ 37 markers:

Black (284562) -- GD of 2
Dowie (7762) -- GD of 2
Fisher (287382) -- GD of 3
Salmon (35550) -- GD of 4
McAuley (252142) -- GD of 6
Duffy (176148) -- GD of 7

Moore already has an upgrade to 67 markers on order. I've placed a order for DF41 to confirm membership of our cluster.

-Paul
(DF41+)

Moore's 67STR upgrade has come in, has the following GD's at 67 markers
Black (284562) -- GD of 2
Dowie (7762) -- GD of 4
Fisher (287382) -- GD of 5
Salmon (35550) -- GD of 6
McAuley (252142) -- GD of 7
Duffy (176148) -- GD of 9

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

I picked up a new exact 12-marker match today, which would be no big deal except for the fact that this one has my surname: Stevens, kit 326490. His listed mdka is Obadiah Stevens, who was born about 1787 in England, but he doesn't say exactly where in England. The gentleman has 37 markers on order, due 14 March, so we should know soon whether or not the match holds up, at least at 37. I emailed him and suggested he order a DF41 test. Hopefully, he will.

I hope this match holds up. B)

[rms2]

I picked up a new exact 12-marker match today, which would be no big deal except for the fact that this one has my surname: Stevens, kit 326490. His listed mdka is Obadiah Stevens, who was born about 1787 in England, but he doesn't say exactly where in England. The gentleman has 37 markers on order, due 14 March, so we should know soon whether or not the match holds up, at least at 37. I emailed him and suggested he order a DF41 test. Hopefully, he will.

I hope this match holds up. B)

Well, my new match got the rest of his 37 markers: now we are a 36/37 match. We differ at CDYb, where he has 39 and I have 38. CDY is a fast mutator, and I appear to have a RecLoH there (38-38). So, I think we are probably related within genealogical time.

Now I am hoping he will upgrade to more markers. We'll see.

[TigerMW]

Well, my new match got the rest of his 37 markers: now we are a 36/37 match. We differ at CDYb, where he has 39 and I have 38. CDY is a fast mutator, and I appear to have a RecLoH there (38-38). So, I think we are probably related within genealogical time.

Now I am hoping he will upgrade to more markers. We'll see.
That's very good. Any further news on his origin in England?

[rms2]

That's very good. Any further news on his origin in England?

He said his sister is the family genealogist, so I don't think he knows. I am hoping he will put me in touch with her.

[rms2]

As it turns out, my new match's mdka was not actually born in England but in "Beesontown" (actual name: Uniontown) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniontown,_Pennsylvania), which is in Fayette County in SW Pennsylvania. That's in my family's old Western PA stomping grounds and also in the old stomping grounds of another of my close Stevens matches. The next generation in this line was born in Indiana, and that is where the y line of another of my closest matches went after PA and eastern Ohio (my family was in eastern Ohio, too).

I think "England" was a guess based on the surname. My new match's line has not actually been traced to England.

Uniontown or "Beesontown" was on the old National Road, which also passed through Wheeling, West Virginia, where my family went and my 3rd great grandfather (my mdka) was born.

[Dubhthach]

252142 - McAuley is now a member of the DF41 project. He already had an upgrade to 111 on order. I've placed an order for DF41 to confirm his membership of 41-1013. Now that he has a member I can see that his GD from Fisher/Salmon is:

Fisher (287382) -- GD of 8
Salmon (35550) -- GD of 9

-Paul
(DF41+)

McAuley upgrade to 111 markers has come in his GD from members of 41-1013 at 111 markers is:
Duffy (176148) -- GD of 7
Black (284562) -- GD of 8
Fisher (287382) -- GD of 14
Salmon (35550) -- GD of 14

Dowie (7762) has placed on order for upgrade to 111 markers.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

I was doing some messing around with Big Y results and discovered that DF41 is included as CTS6581 (same SNP, different name). CTS2501 (different SNP) is included, as well. This should give us an opportunity to see if someone turns up who is negative for one and positive for the other. Big Y may enable us to solve the CTS2501 mystery at long last. B)

[rms2]

Mike Walsh spotted a new, or as yet unknown to all of us, DF41+: Graham (a Scots surname), kit N118676. He has a CTS2501+ result from Geno2 and can be seen in the SNP results of the Graham Surname DNA Project. It doesn't look like he has any STRs, because I couldn't find him on that project's Y-DNA Results pages. Mike and I both emailed the project admins and asked them to have him join both the L21 and DF41 projects. Hope he does.

[rippleish20]

I just got my Full Genomes results and I am also CTS2501+ / DF41+. I am in the L21 Project but not the DF41 one. My surname is Powell

[Dubhthach]

I just got my Full Genomes results and I am also CTS2501+ / DF41+. I am in the L21 Project but not the DF41 one. My surname is Powell

Hi, what's your kit number? You are more then welcome to join the DF41 project, at least that way we can compare you with other DF41+ men.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-DF41

Regards
-Paul
(DF41+)

[Dubhthach]

I should add that there are currently two DF41 FGC that we know of myself and Larry Walker. So having a third is an exciting prospect.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

I just got my Full Genomes results and I am also CTS2501+ / DF41+. I am in the L21 Project but not the DF41 one. My surname is Powell

Super! Another Welsh DF41+ (at least judging by your surname)!

Let me repeat the request for your kit number. I will move your entry to the DF41+ category at the R L21 and Subclades Project.

[rippleish20]

Super! Another Welsh DF41+ (at least judging by your surname)!

Let me repeat the request for your kit number. I will move your entry to the DF41+ category at the R L21 and Subclades Project.



I sent an email to the DF41 admin. My FTDNA kit is N39486. Powell is indeed Welsh...

[rms2]

I sent an email to the DF41 admin. My FTDNA kit is N39486. Powell is indeed Welsh...

Thanks! I just now saw your post. I will be moving your entry to the DF41+/CTS6581+ category at the R L21 and Subclades Project. Really glad to add you to that category, and really glad you joined the DF41 Project, too!

[rms2]

There is a new member of the R L21 and Subclades Project who I think he is likely to be DF41+: Lamberson, kit 31023. He is 6 away from Burns and 9 away from Carroll at 67 markers. His next three closest matches in the project, at 10, 11, and 12 away at 67 markers, are all DF41+, as well.

Lamberson's mdka was born in Maryland in 1790.

[Dubhthach]

There is a new member of the R L21 and Subclades Project who I think he is likely to be DF41+: Lamberson, kit 31023. He is 6 away from Burns and 9 away from Carroll at 67 markers. His next three closest matches in the project, at 10, 11, and 12 away at 67 markers, are all DF41+, as well.

Lamberson's mdka was born in Maryland in 1790.

Given the "SNP sale" with FTDNA he might be open to suggest to test for either DF41 or CTS2501 (CTS2501 been on the new tree might be easier for him to find). Suggest to him that he joins the DF41 project.

We had a new join this morning from a CTS2501+ man (Geno 2.0 tested) with a iberian surname (Gamino). He's only tested to 37-STR's and his closest matches in the project are a GD of 7 (at 37 -- interesting enough Stewarts). His closest matches in FTDNA database on 37-STR's have surnames such as: Torres (GD of 1) and Hernandez (2 of them each a GD of 3)

-Paul
(DF41+)

[Dubhthach]

I've sponsorted a DF41 test for Gamino (he said he'd reimburse project fund later). I've suggested he go for an upgrade to 67 STR's (currently $99) as well. Let's hope he does.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

Gamino joined the R L21 and Subclades Project a long time ago, and I asked him back then to join the R-DF41 and Subclades Project. It just took him awhile to get around to it. He actually wrote me and apologized for waiting so long!

[rms2]

Given the "SNP sale" with FTDNA he might be open to suggest to test for either DF41 or CTS2501 (CTS2501 been on the new tree might be easier for him to find). Suggest to him that he joins the DF41 project.
. . .

I have not yet heard back from Lamberson, kit 31023, and he hasn't ordered any tests yet. I'll send him another email and ask him to join the DF41 Project.

[rms2]

I just discovered another one in the L21 Project who might be DF41+: Nolen, kit 110225. His mdka was born in 1812 in County Wexford. His six closest matches in the L21 Project are all DF41+, ranging from 6 away at 67 markers to 11 away.

I'll email him, as well.

[Dubhthach]

We have a new DF41+/CTS2501+ in the project today who did BigY
116493 -- Matthews

He isn't particulary close to anyone, his closet match is a Stewart (L744+) at a GD of 17 at 67 markers!, his next closest match is a 1426er with a GD of 20 at 67 markers!!

Looks like we might have a new group under DF41. I'll suggest that he shares his BigY results with Alex Williamson.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

I see Lamberson joined the DF41 Project. Good.

I emailed Nolen, kit 110225, and a couple of his closest matches (which are also close matches to Burns), a Cavanaugh and a Grant, and asked them to test for DF41 (or CTS2501, if they want to order from FTDNA's Haplotree).

[rms2]

I see Lamberson joined the DF41 Project. Good.

I emailed Nolen, kit 110225, and a couple of his closest matches (which are also close matches to Burns), a Cavanaugh and a Grant, and asked them to test for DF41 (or CTS2501, if they want to order from FTDNA's Haplotree).

Nolen now has a DF41 test on order. Hope he gets a positive result!

[Dubhthach]

We have a new DF41+/CTS2501+ in the project today who did BigY
116493 -- Matthews

He isn't particulary close to anyone, his closet match is a Stewart (L744+) at a GD of 17 at 67 markers!, his next closest match is a 1426er with a GD of 20 at 67 markers!!

Looks like we might have a new group under DF41. I'll suggest that he shares his BigY results with Alex Williamson.

-Paul
(DF41+)

Chris McCown compared Matthews data to other BigY's and found that Matthews shares a SNP with the Stewarts. This is
S775

Mathews is: S775+ (L744-)
Stewarts: S775+, L744+, L745+, L746+

This is a big discovery.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

Check out the haplotype of McLellan, kit 336065. You can find it by scrolling down near the bottom of the McClellan Project (or by simply using the find function):

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/McClellanProject/default.aspx?section=ycolorized

He doesn't have any real close matches, but his haplotype sure seems to fall into the 41-9919 cluster, or to border on it. I emailed him and asked him to test for DF41.

[rms2]

Chris McCown compared Matthews data to other BigY's and found that Matthews shares a SNP with the Stewarts. This is
S775

Mathews is: S775+ (L744-)
Stewarts: S775+, L744+, L745+, L746+

This is a big discovery.

-Paul
(DF41+)

I checked my Chromo2 results, and I am negative for S775.

[glamberson]

Hi,

I'm the Lamberson of kit 31023. Just wanted to say hi and point out that I have BigY and 111 markers (though redundant, correct?) pending. My Lambersons are anecdotally Irish from an 1880s history but I can't document it. Close matches include some with surnames Howard and Mullins. I'm active and eager to learn and have managed my puny surname project for about 9 years but I really need to learn more. Any pointers regarding how to educate myself would be appreciated as I find FTDNA's resources totally inadequate.

[rms2]

Hi,

I'm the Lamberson of kit 31023. Just wanted to say hi and point out that I have BigY and 111 markers (though redundant, correct?) pending. My Lambersons are anecdotally Irish from an 1880s history but I can't document it. Close matches include some with surnames Howard and Mullins. I'm active and eager to learn and have managed my puny surname project for about 9 years but I really need to learn more. Any pointers regarding how to educate myself would be appreciated as I find FTDNA's resources totally inadequate.

Hi and welcome! Glad to have you with us. We need more DF41+ folks posting here, that's for sure.

I think you can learn a lot from reading the posts, posting, and asking questions on dna discussion sites like this one. There is also an R1b-L21 group and an R1b-DF41 group on Yahoo, if you can stomach Yahoo. I dislike the Yahoo email format, but some folks like it, and there is a lot of chatter there that is informative at times. FTDNA also has a discussion forum that can be worthwhile.

There are also Facebook groups for both L21 and DF41:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/159639954103947/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/487841237901543/

[rms2]

Nolen now has a DF41 test on order. Hope he gets a positive result!

Nolen, kit 110225, got his DF41+ result this morning. His mdka was born about 1812 in New Ross, County Wexford, Ireland.

Unfortunately, I never heard anything from his matches I emailed about testing for DF41.

[glamberson]

Hi and welcome! Glad to have you with us. We need more DF41+ folks posting here, that's for sure.

I think you can learn a lot from reading the posts, posting, and asking questions on dna discussion sites like this one. There is also an R1b-L21 group and an R1b-DF41 group on Yahoo, if you can stomach Yahoo. I dislike the Yahoo email format, but some folks like it, and there is a lot of chatter there that is informative at times. FTDNA also has a discussion forum that can be worthwhile.

There are also Facebook groups for both L21 and DF41:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/159639954103947/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/487841237901543/

Thanks for the references. I've been following diligently, certainly daily, any developments and posts on all the resources you've pointed out. At least I can follow the major developments to a degree, but I do have some confusion on nomenclature. Particularly, when clusters are mentioned, particularly cluster 9919 (from the DF41 diagram you guys have produced) and cluster 1410 (from the ClanDF41 chart from April). These seem to have some relationship, but I'm not clear on how these designations arise or what they correspond to. For that matter, I'm not sure how to read the ClanDF41's tree numbers within the tree. I would surely appreciate some clarification help. Thanks!

[rms2]

Thanks for the references. I've been following diligently, certainly daily, any developments and posts on all the resources you've pointed out. At least I can follow the major developments to a degree, but I do have some confusion on nomenclature. Particularly, when clusters are mentioned, particularly cluster 9919 (from the DF41 diagram you guys have produced) and cluster 1410 (from the ClanDF41 chart from April). These seem to have some relationship, but I'm not clear on how these designations arise or what they correspond to. For that matter, I'm not sure how to read the ClanDF41's tree numbers within the tree. I would surely appreciate some clarification help. Thanks!

Cluster names are often chosen based upon a couple of off-modal marker values that make the cluster stand out. In the case of 1410, those are 393=14 and 578=10. For the 9919 cluster, they are 459=9-9 and YCAII=19-19.

Regarding the tree, are you talking about Larry Walker's diagram of new SNPs under DF41 that have been discovered as a result of Big Y testing?

[glamberson]

Cluster names are often chosen based upon a couple of off-modal marker values that make the cluster stand out. In the case of 1410, those are 393=14 and 578=10. For the 9919 cluster, they are 459=9-9 and YCAII=19-19.

Regarding the tree, are you talking about Larry Walker's diagram of new SNPs under DF41 that have been discovered as a result of Big Y testing?

Thanks for the clarification on clusters. I wasn't even thinking about STR results for some reason, so I was lost. That makes good sense. Thanks

On the remaining question, I was talking about Larry Walker's diagram that is posted on the FTDNA DF41 page. The numbers which appear to indicate distances between branches.

For example, on the illustration mixing 12- through 111-marker results, looking at the 1013 cluster, the first number indicated is 32 at the branch for this cluster. Then there's 576 until the cluster branches out again, with subbranches 508 and 220. These appear to be estimated time in years. Is this so? If this is correct, can you explain how these sorts of estimations are generated?


Thanks again.

[Dubhthach]

I've sent Larry and email pointing out your question. Hopefully he'll drop by and give an explanation (I don't know the answer myself). As an aside here's a snippet I've taken from Alex Williamson's tree showing some of the DF41 BigY results.

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/df41-bigy.png

I've done FGC full Y testing myself, so for example I share 17 SNP's with Black (who is on that diagram) that I don't share with other DF41+ men. We are hoping to help sponsor a number of DF41+ men to do BigY. Ideally we need to get 2 men within each major cluster that way we can spilt out the SNP's that are common to cluster from those that are unique to an individual tester.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[LarryWalker]

Thanks for the clarification on clusters. I wasn't even thinking about STR results for some reason, so I was lost. That makes good sense. Thanks

On the remaining question, I was talking about Larry Walker's diagram that is posted on the FTDNA DF41 page. The numbers which appear to indicate distances between branches.

For example, on the illustration mixing 12- through 111-marker results, looking at the 1013 cluster, the first number indicated is 32 at the branch for this cluster. Then there's 576 until the cluster branches out again, with subbranches 508 and 220. These appear to be estimated time in years. Is this so? If this is correct, can you explain how these sorts of estimations are generated?


Thanks again.

Yes, the numbers on the trees at http://rangebiome.org/ClanDF41.jpg are years. I use McGee’s Utility http://www.mymcgee.com/tools/yutility111.html to generate a PHYLIP data set, and then use PHYLIP’s Kitsch program to generate a “Fitch-Margoliash method with contemporary tips, version 3.69” tree.
McGee says this about how his utility calculates TMRCA:
• TMRCA (Time to the Most Recent Common Ancestor)
If this table is enabled then a table of generations or years to the most recent common ancestor for every pair of haplotypes is created. The number listed is either the 50% or 95% probability that the MRCA was no longer than the specified number of years or generations. The algorithm taken from Bruce Walsh paper, Estimating the Time to the Most Recent Common Ancestor for the Y chromosome or Mitochondrial DNA for a Pair of Individuals. There are other utilities related to MRCA calculations and can be found on the Y-DNA tools page of the ISOGG, International Society of Genetic Genealogy, website.
The TMRCA calculations use the average mutation rate for all the markers common between the pair of haplotypes being compared.

[glamberson]

Yes, the numbers on the trees at http://rangebiome.org/ClanDF41.jpg are years. I use McGee’s Utility http://www.mymcgee.com/tools/yutility111.html to generate a PHYLIP data set, and then use PHYLIP’s Kitsch program to generate a “Fitch-Margoliash method with contemporary tips, version 3.69” tree.
McGee says this about how his utility calculates TMRCA:
• TMRCA (Time to the Most Recent Common Ancestor)
If this table is enabled then a table of generations or years to the most recent common ancestor for every pair of haplotypes is created. The number listed is either the 50% or 95% probability that the MRCA was no longer than the specified number of years or generations. The algorithm taken from Bruce Walsh paper, Estimating the Time to the Most Recent Common Ancestor for the Y chromosome or Mitochondrial DNA for a Pair of Individuals. There are other utilities related to MRCA calculations and can be found on the Y-DNA tools page of the ISOGG, International Society of Genetic Genealogy, website.
The TMRCA calculations use the average mutation rate for all the markers common between the pair of haplotypes being compared.

Larry,

Wow, I'm glad I asked the question. This is great information, but it'll take some time to digest it. Thank you.

[glamberson]

By the way, my BigY results are apparently in! I can't see the full results posted, but I see a ton of SNP test results posted on the DF41 project that I haven't done other than BigY. It includes my CTS2501+.

[Dubhthach]

Greg,

Congrats on the results, to get the most of them I'd recommend you do the following:
1. Givern permission to Mike Walsh (L21+ admin) to share your BigY results through L21 yahoo group
2. Send a copy of your VCF file (download the zip) to Alex Williamson who maintains the tree found here: http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/NGS/Tree.html

Once it's available through the L21 project people who are data mining for new SNP's etc will be able to compare it to pre-existing kits.

-Paul
(DF41+)

[Dubhthach]

New member in the DF41+ project:

223212 (Louw) -- has done BigY and is verified DF41+ (CTS6581) and CTS2501+ from that test. He's from the Netherlands, has so far tested 37 markers (update to 111 markers pending). Has no matches at 37 or 25 STR's, one match at 12 strs!

[Dubhthach]

I've updated the image I created from Alex Williamson's tree. My results from FGC have been added as you can see I share a fair bit with Black:

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/df41-bigy.png

[rms2]

New member in the DF41+ project:

223212 (Louw) -- has done BigY and is verified DF41+ (CTS6581) and CTS2501+ from that test. He's from the Netherlands, has so far tested 37 markers (update to 111 markers pending). Has no matches at 37 or 25 STR's, one match at 12 strs!

I saw that one this morning. Pretty interesting, given that his ancestry is continental and that we don't have anyone else remotely like him in terms of haplotype. He's got some really interesting off modal markers.

[glamberson]

I've updated the image I created from Alex Williamson's tree. My results from FGC have been added as you can see I share a fair bit with Black:

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/df41-bigy.png

I would like to see, but the image isn't loading. Permissions?

[Dubhthach]

I would like to see, but the image isn't loading. Permissions?

Loads fine in my browser, even showing up in the quote message. It's a png file. What web browser are you using and what version of said browser? It wouldn't happen to be "Internet Explorer" would it?

-Paul
(DF41+)

[glamberson]

Loads fine in my browser, even showing up in the quote message. It's a png file. What web browser are you using and what version of said browser? It wouldn't happen to be "Internet Explorer" would it?

-Paul
(DF41+)

Lol no, but never mind. It's ok now. Thanks.

[Dubhthach]

I see that Ryley's BigY result comes in. Interesting he's S775+ which is the SNP shared by Matthews and the Stewarts (L744 and equivalents). From a very quick look it appears that Ryley shares at least two other SNP's with Matthews these been:



[email protected] Downloads$ for i in `cut -f1 -d'-' matthews`; do grep $i N76583_BigY_Data_20140721.csv ; done
"Novel Variant","13646543","","","","T","G","High"
"Novel Variant","23978976","","","","C","T","High"

-Paul
(DF41+)

[rms2]

We have a new R-CTS2501 as of yesterday: Sotomayor, kit 292760. That is a Spanish surname. Dr. Sotomayor believes his y-dna ancestors came from Galicia, but he can only trace them solidly to Puerto Rico. His only close match, 65/67, is with another gentleman with a Spanish surname.

He is 14 off Creer and Dugger at 67 markers.

[rms2]

I see Samuel's Big Y results are in. They are of great interest to me because he is in my cluster and is a 105/111 match of mine.

[TigerMW]

I see Samuel's Big Y results are in. They are of great interest to me because he is in my cluster and is a 105/111 match of mine.

Rich, please try to get Samuel to download his Big Y "raw results" not the CSV export file. Sometimes it take a day or two of seeing a "Houston" error message before the "raw results" under the first blue button will be downloaded.

If Samuel can download that file (which not very big) and email it to you or me I can upload it to the yahoo group shared file storage. Then folks like Alex Williamson will get it and include it in the Big Tree he does. He's really good and he includes both Big Y and FGC results but he gets the Big Y results from the yahoo group file folder I upload to.

http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/NGS/Tree.html

[jdean]

Lotta shared SNPs with Selfe-53479, going to be a nice selection of cluster defining SNPs in there I'm sure : )))

[rms2]

Rich, please try to get Samuel to download his Big Y "raw results" not the CSV export file. Sometimes it take a day or two of seeing a "Houston" error message before the "raw results" under the first blue button will be downloaded.

If Samuel can download that file (which not very big) and email it to you or me I can upload it to the yahoo group shared file storage. Then folks like Alex Williamson will get it and include it in the Big Tree he does. He's really good and he includes both Big Y and FGC results but he gets the Big Y results from the yahoo group file folder I upload to.

http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/NGS/Tree.html

Thanks, Mike. I'll ask him to do that. He's on the road somewhere right now away from his computer.

[rms2]

Lotta shared SNPs with Selfe-53479, going to be a nice selection of cluster defining SNPs in there I'm sure : )))

Yes, I saw that, and it's good news. Too bad I cannot order the Big Y right now. I'm waiting for the price to go down to about $250. That may take awhile.

[rms2]

Rich, please try to get Samuel to download his Big Y "raw results" not the CSV export file. Sometimes it take a day or two of seeing a "Houston" error message before the "raw results" under the first blue button will be downloaded.

If Samuel can download that file (which not very big) and email it to you or me I can upload it to the yahoo group shared file storage. Then folks like Alex Williamson will get it and include it in the Big Tree he does. He's really good and he includes both Big Y and FGC results but he gets the Big Y results from the yahoo group file folder I upload to.

http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/NGS/Tree.html

Dave is out in the boonies, so he gave me permission to send you his Big Y raw data, Mike. I just finished emailing them to you.

[Dubhthach]

Using the list of SNP's that Alex Williamson has as unique to Self (not found in other DF41+) men in his tree:
http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/NGS/Tree.html

It looks like of the 30 SNP's listed for Self that 20 of them are also found in Samuel. Given GD between the two is kinda wide it's probable that these 20 are found in most men within the cluster:



dubh:BigY$ for i in `cut -f1 -d'-' self-ngs-tree.txt`; do grep $i N104746_BigY_RawData_20140830\(1\)/variants.vcf ; done
chrY 6915643 . G A 1484.13 PASS . GT 1
chrY 7452170 . A T 81.5822 PASS . GT 1
chrY 7506815 . C T 1484.13 PASS . GT 1
chrY 7550689 . A T 1484.13 PASS . GT 1
chrY 8121160 . T C 103.219 PASS . GT 1
chrY 8172198 . C T 1484.13 PASS . GT 1
chrY 8212253 . TC T 1484.13 PASS . GT 1
chrY 8487637 . T G 1484.13 PASS . GT 1
chrY 8702545 . C T 180.726 PASS . GT 1
chrY 9963504 . A T 147.348 PASS . GT 1
chrY 15330376 . T C 1484.13 PASS . GT 1
chrY 15590482 . G C 1484.13 PASS . GT 1
chrY 15781488 . TA T 1484.13 PASS . GT 1
chrY 15968426 . AT A 1484.13 PASS . GT 1
chrY 16448347 . CTGT C 1484.13 PASS . GT 1
chrY 17676955 . T C 55.7077 PASS . GT 1
chrY 19118561 . C T 1484.13 PASS . GT 1
chrY 19278814 . T C 1484.13 PASS . GT 1
chrY 21384510 . G T 264.211 PASS . GT 1
chrY 21516282 . ATTAT A 1484.13 PASS . GT 1




dubh:BigY$ !! | wc -l
for i in `cut -f1 -d'-' self-ngs-tree.txt`; do grep $i N104746_BigY_RawData_20140830\(1\)/variants.vcf ; done | wc -l
20