Transfer to FTDNA changed my results?

[ACTG MYSTERY]

I'm not sure if they changed really, or if it is just two names for the same thing, but Geno 2.0(NOT next gen) has my maternal haplogroup as K1D1 and, after I transferred a few days ago, it shows on FTDNA as K1-T16362C. What do I make of this?

My paternal line haplogroup- R-Z156- hasn't changed, but I found a surname project in which every other person has a different haplogroup, so, that's been a bit disorienting as well. Does that not mean that I am unrelated in genealogical time to any of the other participants? I think it does, but even the group introduction references the person that is my oldest known ancestor according to the family genealogist.

I'm new to genetic genealogy, so any help is appreciated.

[MMaddi]

My paternal line haplogroup- R-Z156- hasn't changed, but I found a surname project in which every other person has a different haplogroup, so, that's been a bit disorienting as well. Does that not mean that I am unrelated in genealogical time to any of the other participants? I think it does, but even the group introduction references the person that is my oldest known ancestor according to the family genealogist.

I'm new to genetic genealogy, so any help is appreciated.

I'm not answering your first question, since I'm not qualified to answer. But I can give a possible answer to your second question, which I've quoted.

The reason that your haplogroup,R-Z156, differs from all the others in the surname project may have to do with the level of SNP testing the others have had. If they've done no SNP testing, they will probably be given the predicted haplogroup of R-M269, in red, while your haplogroup is listed as R-Z156, in green. Any haplogroup in red is only a prediction, without any SNP testing done, while any haplogroup in green indicates that a SNP test was done, with the results listed.

Does this explain what you're asking about? If not, what is the haplogroup given for the other members of this project and is it green or red?

If the results for the others are R-M269, in red, then as long as your marker results displayed in the table are similar to the other members and they're appearing as matches to you at 37 or more markers, I think it's fairly safe to say that you're related to them in the way the paper trail indicates.

[ACTG MYSTERY]

Thanks, MMaddi!

In the chart, about half of the participants have a haplogroup designation of R-M269 in red. Assuming that Geno was the inferior product, I had considered that the other results might be more refined than mine and looked for R-M269 downstream of R-Z156. I never considered looking upstream and judging by my attempt just now to visually trace the connection between the two haplogroups, I probably would have never landed on R-M269 anyway as there is so much scrolling involved.

The other predicted haplogroups are R-M173 and I-M253. There are confirmed (in green) members (one each) in I-M253, I-L39, R-DF27, R-L21, and R-BY312.

I don't appear in the charts. I don't know if that's because somebody has to manually add me or because I haven't tested with FTDNA (and have no STRs?)

If I'm confirmed R-Z156, would I not test with the R1b - Z156 SNP Pack to see if I could narrow it down further? FTDNA says I don't have the pre for that test? Does that mean I need to do a Ydna test with FTDNA first?

Sorry so many questions.

[MMaddi]

Thanks, MMaddi!

In the chart, about half of the participants have a haplogroup designation of R-M269 in red. Assuming that Geno was the inferior product, I had considered that the other results might be more refined than mine and looked for R-M269 downstream of R-Z156. I never considered looking upstream and judging by my attempt just now to visually trace the connection between the two haplogroups, I probably would have never landed on R-M269 anyway as there is so much scrolling involved.

The other predicted haplogroups are R-M173 and I-M253. There are confirmed (in green) members (one each) in I-M253, I-L39, R-DF27, R-L21, and R-BY312.

It's obvious that you don't share the same paternal line ancestry as those whose haplogroups, in green, are I. That's also the case for R-DF27, R-L21, and R-BY312. Those three are subclades of P312, which is a different branch of R-M269 than Z156. Z156 is a branch of U106, a brother clade of P312.

It sounds like there's some bad paper trail research if all these different surname project members with different haplogroups claim to be the descendant of the same common ancestor. You might bring this to the attention of the project administrator. Some project administrators may not pay much attention to SNPs and haplogroups, but this is an obvious case of conflicting genealogies.

I don't appear in the charts. I don't know if that's because somebody has to manually add me or because I haven't tested with FTDNA (and have no STRs?)

That's correct. Geno 2 only tests SNPs, not the STRs that you see in the project results table. You'd have to order an STR test if you want to see how you compare with others in the table. You can order 12, 25, 37, 67 or 111, but 67 is recommended if you're hoping to find reliable close matches in the database.

If I'm confirmed R-Z156, would I not test with the R1b - Z156 SNP Pack to see if I could narrow it down further? FTDNA says I don't have the pre for that test? Does that mean I need to do a Ydna test with FTDNA first?

Sorry so many questions.

Yes, the R1b-Z156 SNP pack would be the next step, if you're interested in SNP testing. But you should consider the Big Y test, if you want to find the SNPs in your paternal line ancestry as close in time to you as possible. The SNP pack can only test for known SNPs, but Big Y is able to find new SNPs by testing about 10 million locations on the y chromosome. That's compared to dozens of SNPs tested in the SNP pack. That's why Big Y is so much more expensive. I think it is the case that you have to order STRs before you can order any type of SNP test.

Finally, please join the R1b-U106 Project, which includes men who are Z156+ like you. We have over 3,000 members with about 25% of them having had the Big Y test, including many Z156+ members. Our website is at https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/u106/about and Iain McDonald, one of the co-administrators, is Z156+ and very knowledgeable about the subclade.

[ACTG MYSTERY]

It sounds like there's some bad paper trail research if all these different surname project members with different haplogroups claim to be the descendant of the same common ancestor. You might bring this to the attention of the project administrator. Some project administrators may not pay much attention to SNPs and haplogroups, but this is an obvious case of conflicting genealogies.

It's not stated in the group that you have to be descended from this particular ancestor. It is just mentioned that his parentage is sort of a brick wall for American researchers into the family. The group is open to all with the surname and variants thereof. Anyway, I would hate to start a fuss when I don't really even yet have my *own* research or had even the opportunity to speak with my Aunt about the standards of proof that she has put into hers.

Backing up for a minute, there seem to be at least 6 or 7 junctures between R-M269 and R-Z156. If it's to be believed that these M260 people might be Z156 (and there must be a reason that you accurately guessed that predicted haplogroup), doesn't that prediction really fall short in a most disappointing way. If the shoe were on the other foot, and I was told that my actual haplogroup might be this far downstream from where FTDNA told me I likely was, I would be really disenchanted about the value of the testing I had had.

Yes, the R1b-Z156 SNP pack would be the next step, if you're interested in SNP testing. But you should consider the Big Y test, if you want to find the SNPs in your paternal line ancestry as close in time to you as possible. The SNP pack can only test for known SNPs, but Big Y is able to find new SNPs by testing about 10 million locations on the y chromosome. That's compared to dozens of SNPs tested in the SNP pack. That's why Big Y is so much more expensive. I think it is the case that you have to order STRs before you can order any type of SNP test.

Well, I've always been a complete fool for the notion that expensive things are worth having, so I would order in a heartbeat if I could presently afford it. I'm unclear though- does the Big Y offer matching beyond what you can do in specific group projects? Will it generate matches with people who don't participate in those groups like an STR test would (if I understand correctly)?

Finally, please join the R1b-U106 Project, which includes men who are Z156+ like you. We have over 3,000 members with about 25% of them having had the Big Y test, including many Z156+ members. Our website is at https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/u106/about and Iain McDonald, one of the co-administrators, is Z156+ and very knowledgeable about the subclade.

I've joined this group as well, though you won't have much use for me until I've STR tested. I'm surprised to hear that you have so many Big Y testers, though. That's encouraging even though there is no one in the group with my surname- YET!

Thank you so much for helping to enlighten me!

[John McCoy]

Apart from the genetic issues mentioned in this thread, it is important to realize that permanent surnames, passed from father to child at each generation as they as most often used today, are a fairly late historical development. When you find a Y chromosome "surname project" where the participants do not share a common haplogroup, the explanation may be that people from different genetic origins happened to choose the same surname, at the point where surnames became permanent. In the British Isles, this might sometimes be as late as the 17th or 18th Century, and there have been more recent instances where a family changed its surname in order to comply with the terms of a will! In some other parts of Europe, permanent surnames did not become established until the 19th Century.

Or, you might find the converse situation, where people with the same haplogroup turn out to have many different surnames. Here again, the explanation may be that the choice of a permanent surname occurred long after the Y chromosome mutations that formed the haplogroup.

Some people are lucky, their Y chromosome tests point in just one direction, almost everyone has the same surname and almost everyone with that surname falls into the same haplogroup. Other people find themselves at the other end of the spectrum, their Y chromosome tests align them with people of many different surnames, and perhaps also people with their particular surname fall into many different haplogroups.

We can summarize the situation: the history of Y chromosome haplogroups is not the same as the history of surnames. Your mileage may vary!

[ACTG MYSTERY]

Thanks for that reminder, John McCoy. I would do well to remember that, given that I no longer wear the surname that I was born to and about which I hope to learn more.

[Ann Turner]

I'm not sure if they changed really, or if it is just two names for the same thing, but Geno 2.0(NOT next gen) has my maternal haplogroup as K1D1 and, after I transferred a few days ago, it shows on FTDNA as K1-T16362C. What do I make of this?

K1d1 is a subclade of K1-T16362C, added to build 16 of the phylogenetic tree in 2014. I don't know off-hand what build FTDNA is using, but it sounds like it could be a bit behind the times.

http://phylotree.org/what_is_new.htm

[Odin]

K1d1

Hello Cousin! I share your K1d1. As you may know by now there are not a lot of us around. T16362C refers to a base pair number. the first letter is the nucleotide that was affected and the last is what it was changed to. This mutation is unstable and is not specific to the K haplogroup, hence it is preceded by K1. This location is on the HVR-1 "control" section of the genome. It is less specific than the K1d1 designation that is defined by A16362C, a mutation of the cytochrome oxidase gene. I suspect that FTDNA uses this in order to caste a wide web in order to identify a cluster that is associated with the Iceman Otzi. The K1-T16362C mutation happened just prior to Otzi and includes haptotypes K1e, k1d, and k1f (Otzi). To my thinking this happened somewhere around Belgrade where they split off along the European river systems in different directions. I have traced K1d1 all across Europe and have literally written a book on the subject (for limited distribution). Briefly, K1d1 seems to have arisen along the Vistula River in Poland. One branch appears to have moved to Ukraine, another moved to Denmark, then split to move to Sweden, Norway, and England. Another branch seems to have moved from England to the Netherlands. It also seems that an English branch may have moved with the Puritans to the US. My line is from Denmark. I would be very interested in where your line comes from if you know this and would care to share.