Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FTDNA Y Classic Chart

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FTDNA Y Classic Chart

    OK, I'm in this group:

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...ction=yresults

    And I've yet to have an exact match with another person with my last name. There are multiple people with 3 different last names that match me from 0 - 3 difference in yDNA at both the 37 & 67 Marker tests. We think it is one or more paternal events in colonial (Revolutionary) times in North Carolina as a map of property boundaries shows the families as neighbors.

    However, due to physical appearance, family oral history, and written history it is very likely Grogan for myself is an uninterrupted male paternal lineage and not one of the other 3 families. Also, Grogan is know via Irish university research as a last name that originated in Connaught (County Roscommon) and finally the FTDNA Niall of the Nine Hostages also points to County Roscommon and Connaught as the origin of my yDNA haplogroup.

    So now to the reason I post. The link above.

    0) My entry, (10668 Merle Grogan, 1670-1735, Kings Co, Ireland Ireland R-M222). Nothing else really can be said in addition that is relevant, fact, and that I haven't stated here.

    1) OK, there is one entry, (256507 John (Patt) Grogan, b. c1800 Ireland I-L104) that shows a likely origin in a port city and migration to Ireland from elsewhere but the STR numbers don't look so different than my STR numbers. What determines the haplogroup?

    2) This entry, (269057 Thomas Grogan B. 1727 Ireland R-M269) is interesting because it differs in so many STR markers but R-M269 is a predecessor branch of R-M222. Is it possible for my branch and another branch of Grogan's to have diverged in STR so much in at least 800 years? Maybe 900 or 1000 but only about 800 have been documented. Also I am descended from the same Thomas Grogan, born 1727 this entry descends from and I think it's not possible for yDNA STRs to diverge that quickly so maybe this is another non-paternal event.

    3) Finally, (B2672 Moses Cohen, 1804 - 1872 United Kingdom -) why does the kit number begin with a B? I'm not sure why this result is in this project except I'm sure people converting to a new religion and taking a new last name happens all the time so no surprise there. I guess the DNA matched mine more than other branches they found at ftDNA. So what's the B for?

    4) This entry is the only last name that matched me closely in the list up to 37 & 67 although they don't list their last name, (185891 Unknown Origin R-M222). They are members of another FTDNA group for their legal last name.
    Last edited by B52; 27 August 2014, 07:39 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by B52 View Post
    OK, I'm in this group:

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...ction=yresults




    2) This entry, (269057 Thomas Grogan B. 1727 Ireland R-M269) is interesting because it differs in so many STR markers but R-M269 is a predecessor branch of R-M222. Is it possible for my branch and another branch of Grogan's to have diverged in STR so much in at least 800 years? Maybe 900 or 1000 but only about 800 have been documented. Also I am descended from the same Thomas Grogan, born 1727 this entry descends from and I think it's not possible for yDNA STRs to diverge that quickly so maybe this is another non-paternal event.
    The SNP M269 could be 13,000 years old and some surnames in Ireland could be within 800-1000 years old. People with the same surname belong in multiple subhaplogroups and that doesn't mean that they are the results of NPEs. I don't know why so many people can't understand this concept.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by B52 View Post
      OK, I'm in this group:

      https://www.familytreedna.com/public...ction=yresults

      And I've yet to have an exact match with another person with my last name. There are multiple people with 3 different last names that match me from 0 - 3 difference in yDNA at both the 37 & 67 Marker tests. We think it is one or more paternal events in colonial (Revolutionary) times in North Carolina as a map of property boundaries shows the families as neighbors.

      However, due to physical appearance, family oral history, and written history it is very likely Grogan for myself is an uninterrupted male paternal lineage and not one of the other 3 families. Also, Grogan is know via Irish university research as a last name that originated in Connaught (County Roscommon) and finally the FTDNA Niall of the Nine Hostages also points to County Roscommon and Connaught as the origin of my yDNA haplogroup.

      So now to the reason I post. The link above.

      0) My entry, (10668 Merle Grogan, 1670-1735, Kings Co, Ireland Ireland R-M222). Nothing else really can be said in addition that is relevant, fact, and that I haven't stated here.

      1) OK, there is one entry, (256507 John (Patt) Grogan, b. c1800 Ireland I-L104) that shows a likely origin in a port city and migration to Ireland from elsewhere but the STR numbers don't look so different than my STR numbers. What determines the haplogroup?

      2) This entry, (269057 Thomas Grogan B. 1727 Ireland R-M269) is interesting because it differs in so many STR markers but R-M269 is a predecessor branch of R-M222. Is it possible for my branch and another branch of Grogan's to have diverged in STR so much in at least 800 years? Maybe 900 or 1000 but only about 800 have been documented. Also I am descended from the same Thomas Grogan, born 1727 this entry descends from and I think it's not possible for yDNA STRs to diverge that quickly so maybe this is another non-paternal event.

      3) Finally, (B2672 Moses Cohen, 1804 - 1872 United Kingdom -) why does the kit number begin with a B? I'm not sure why this result is in this project except I'm sure people converting to a new religion and taking a new last name happens all the time so no surprise there. I guess the DNA matched mine more than other branches they found at ftDNA. So what's the B for?

      4) This entry is the only last name that matched me closely in the list up to 37 & 67 although they don't list their last name, (185891 Unknown Origin R-M222). They are members of another FTDNA group for their legal last name.
      1) (256507 John (Patt) Grogan, b. c1800 Ireland I-L104) His I-L104 is green. That means he has tested positive for that SNP marker. Since some markers are found in more than one haplogroup I put his markers into http://www.hprg.com/hapest5/hapest5b/hapest5.htm and that shows to be haplogroup I so his haplogroup is correctly defined. At http://predictor.ydna.ru/ he is I2b1-M223

      2) (269057 Thomas Grogan B. 1727 Ireland R-M269) needs a 67 marker test and/or SNP testing. His R-M269 designation is red because he has only been predicted for that haplogroup and he has not tested for it.

      3) (B2672 Moses Cohen, 1804 - 1872 United Kingdom -) The kit begins with a B because he transferred his results from another company. That is also why his haplogroup prediction isn't displayed and he has STR markers without a value. According to http://www.hprg.com/hapest5/hapest5b/hapest5.htm he is J1. According to http://predictor.ydna.ru/ he is J1c3-P58 "about half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim, who share Y-chromosomal haplogroup J1c3 (also called J-P58), appear to be closely related" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron

      4) (185891 Unknown Origin R-M222) You and him probably have a common ancestor within the past 20 generations. This is also one of the cases where FTDNA did a good job with the prediction.
      Last edited by Armando; 28 August 2014, 09:38 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        The SNP M269 could be 13,000 years old and some surnames in Ireland could be within 800-1000 years old. People with the same surname belong in multiple subhaplogroups and that doesn't mean that they are the results of NPEs. I don't know why so many people can't understand this concept.
        And what didn't you understand about my stating that I know that M-R222 is derived and a member of M-R269? I don't understand that?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Armando View Post
          1) (256507 John (Patt) Grogan, b. c1800 Ireland I-L104) His I-L104 is green. That means he has tested positive for that SNP marker. Since some markers are found in more than one haplogroup I put his markers into http://www.hprg.com/hapest5/hapest5b/hapest5.htm and that shows to be haplogroup I so his haplogroup is correctly defined. At http://predictor.ydna.ru/ he is I2b1-M223

          2) (269057 Thomas Grogan B. 1727 Ireland R-M269) needs a 67 marker test and/or SNP testing. His R-M269 designation is red because he has only been predicted for that haplogroup and he has not tested for it.

          3) (B2672 Moses Cohen, 1804 - 1872 United Kingdom -) The kit begins with a B because he transferred his results from another company. That is also why his haplogroup prediction isn't displayed and he has STR markers without a value. According to http://www.hprg.com/hapest5/hapest5b/hapest5.htm he is J1. According to http://predictor.ydna.ru/ he is J1c3-P58 "about half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim, who share Y-chromosomal haplogroup J1c3 (also called J-P58), appear to be closely related" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron

          4) (185891 Unknown Origin R-M222) You and him probably have a common ancestor within the past 20 generations. This is also one of the cases where FTDNA did a good job with the prediction.
          Thanks. For number 4) that ancestor is about 250 years ago in North Carolina and has a different last name so that was an NPE as they say.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by B52 View Post
            And what didn't you understand about my stating that I know that M-R222 is derived and a member of M-R269? I don't understand that?
            I could be mistaken, but I think 1798's pointing out that there easily could have been more than one Grúgán running around at the time the Irish started adopting surnames. Given Ireland's history, one of them could even have had that I-M233 haplogroup. And so any one of them could have started a separate and valid Ó Grúgáin paternal line of descent coming down from that time. No "non-parental events" required.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rbmirvin View Post
              I could be mistaken, but I think 1798's pointing out that there easily could have been more than one Grúgán running around at the time the Irish started adopting surnames. Given Ireland's history, one of them could even have had that I-M233 haplogroup. And so any one of them could have started a separate and valid Ó Grúgáin paternal line of descent coming down from that time. No "non-parental events" required.
              Thanks. I think that surnames don't belong to the chosen few. Most surnames in Ireland originate from first names.I think that there were 20,000 Gaelic first names recorded in the Irish Annals.

              Comment


              • #8
                Here is a link to an Irish surname study.
                http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmur...s/surnames.pdf

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rbmirvin View Post
                  I could be mistaken, but I think 1798's pointing out that there easily could have been more than one Grúgán running around at the time the Irish started adopting surnames. Given Ireland's history, one of them could even have had that I-M233 haplogroup. And so any one of them could have started a separate and valid Ó Grúgáin paternal line of descent coming down from that time. No "non-parental events" required.
                  Uh, no but Grogan isn't Smith and NPEs aren't uncommon. Let's not kid ourselves here. In the scenario you propose I'd think it would me more likely a new immigrant or un-Christianized native adapted an admired Irish surname at later date then several unrelated natives adapted an uncommon surname like Grogan at the same time. They can't even figure out what many surnames mean, perhaps the surname in this instance is a foreign loanword that was 'Gaelicized' to be used as a surname.
                  Last edited by B52; 1 September 2014, 11:19 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by B52 View Post
                    Uh, no but Grogan isn't Smith and NPEs aren't uncommon. Let's not kid ourselves here. In the scenario you propose I'd think it would me more likely a new immigrant or un-Christianized native adapted an admired Irish surname at later date then several unrelated natives adapted an uncommon surname like Grogan at the same time. They can't even figure out what many surnames mean, perhaps the surname in this instance is a foreign loanword that was 'Gaelicized' to be used as a surname.
                    The reality is that you can't tie a 800 year old surname to a 4000 year old SNP.
                    http://www.araltas.com/features/grogan/
                    Last edited by 1798; 1 September 2014, 01:42 PM. Reason: mistake

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                      The reality is that you can't tie a 800 year old surname to a 4000 year old SNP.
                      http://www.araltas.com/features/grogan/
                      Reality is you are not the expert and are trolling as both the 800 year and 4000 year figures you use are wrong.
                      Last edited by B52; 3 September 2014, 11:50 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by B52 View Post
                        Reality is you are not the expert and are trolling as both the 800 year and 4000 year figures you use are wrong.
                        The Grogan name is first mentioned in 1265 and M269 is older than 4000 years.JMHO

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          P311 is the common ancestor of all P312 and U106 men. It is on the FTDNA Y-Tree.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                            The Grogan name is first mentioned in 1265 and M269 is older than 4000 years.JMHO
                            No it's not. & M269 isn't 4000 years old. Thought you'd figure that out by now.

                            And two vaguely correct statistical references taken out of context while ignoring other better statistical evidence to support your 'JMHO' isn't good science, isn't humble, and isn't an opinion. It is trolling.

                            Statistics are valid when they serve your purpose but not when they better serve anyone else's purpose? I don't think so.
                            Last edited by B52; 4 September 2014, 12:08 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by B52 View Post
                              No it's not. & M269 isn't 4000 years old. Thought you'd figure that out by now.
                              I didn't say M269 was 4000 years old? You must think then that your line is the one true line of the Grogan's. Is that it? Name callers are bullies. If you disagree with me then put me on the right track.

                              "We hear first of the sept in 1265 under which date the Four Masters and other annalists record the death of Maelbrighde Ó Grugáin (or Ó Grocan) of Elphin (Roscommon)."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X