Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

34 of 37 Markers...

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

  • 34 of 37 Markers...

    Should I really consider this RARE R1b DNA pattern that coincidently resided in the same county/state in the 1860s as my long lost biological ancestors?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Lost-Sheep
    Should I really consider this RARE R1b DNA pattern that coincidently resided in the same county/state in the 1860s as my long lost biological ancestors?
    IMHO-You should at minimal investigate it. Any paper trail? What will you loose if you dont consider it and what will you gain if you do? Im no expert at dna...but if you do have a paper trail with some good info, I would say yes...consider it.

    Would love to know what you do find out. Keep us posted.

    Comment


    • #3
      ?

      Originally posted by Lost-Sheep
      Should I really consider this RARE R1b DNA pattern that coincidently resided in the same county/state in the 1860s as my long lost biological ancestors?
      Can you elaborate?

      Does it match your own or come close?

      If not, then it's the rare R1b of some other family.

      Comment


      • #4
        The original 12-marker string was even a rare R1b combination...so rare, that I was able to tell the participant the name of his own great-grandfather. It has a rare DYD393-14 mutation that sticks out like a sore thumb. I had only seen this same 12-marker R1b combination one other time on the Sorenson Project which identifies the ancestry of the participant. The Sorenson participant turned out to be a cousin of the FTDNA participant who initially submitted his results through the Genographic Project. His Y-DNA matches my uncle's Y-DNA 34/37 markers.

        Anyway, my great-grandfather was conceived in 1864 in a very rural county oin North Carolina when his mother's husband was off to war. It was not possible that his mother's husband could have fathered him because he was hundreds of miles away at the time. Also, I have already confirmed through the Y-DNA of a descendant of a legitimate brother (or in this case, half-brother) of my great-grandfather that his mother's husband's Y-DNA is way off that of his. I hope my description of this issue is not too confusing as names are not mentioned.

        The ancestry of the FTDNA 34/37 match was residing in that same rural North Carolina county in 1864. His paternal ancestor that was of age to have fathered my great-grandfather was also off to war and could not have been the father for that reason. However, he had at least four brothers that were also of age and were not off to war. I suspect one of them to be the father.

        Soooo...what do ya' think so far?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Lost-Sheep
          The original 12-marker string was even a rare R1b combination...so rare, that I was able to tell the participant the name of his own great-grandfather. It has a rare DYD393-14 mutation that sticks out like a sore thumb. I had only seen this same 12-marker R1b combination one other time on the Sorenson Project which identifies the ancestry of the participant. The Sorenson participant turned out to be a cousin of the FTDNA participant who initially submitted his results through the Genographic Project. His Y-DNA matches my uncle's Y-DNA 34/37 markers.

          Anyway, my great-grandfather was conceived in 1864 in a very rural county oin North Carolina when his mother's husband was off to war. It was not possible that his mother's husband could have fathered him because he was hundreds of miles away at the time. Also, I have already confirmed through the Y-DNA of a descendant of a legitimate brother (or in this case, half-brother) of my great-grandfather that his mother's husband's Y-DNA is way off that of his. I hope my description of this issue is not too confusing as names are not mentioned.

          The ancestry of the FTDNA 34/37 match was residing in that same rural North Carolina county in 1864. His paternal ancestor that was of age to have fathered my great-grandfather was also off to war and could not have been the father for that reason. However, he had at least four brothers that were also of age and were not off to war. I suspect one of them to be the father.

          Soooo...what do ya' think so far?
          It took a couple of readings, but I follow you.

          So you believe a non-paternity event took place during the Civil War in 1864.

          Seems to me a genetic distance of three is a lot just since 1864, but I'm no expert.

          Maybe you can recruit some other descendants of your suspect or his brothers to test. See if any of them are within the ballpark of your own haplotype.

          What are the indications from the paper trail?

          Soldiers did get furloughs during the Civil War. There are extensive records on both Confederate and Union soldiers available from the National Archives for just a few bucks.

          Is your surname that of the husband you believe was cuckolded?

          Comment


          • #6
            Is your surname that of the husband you believe was cuckolded?
            Steve,

            I already acquired the Y-DNA of a legitimate son of the soldier that was off to war and my uncle's Y-DNA is only a 6/12 match. Trust me, the mother's husband was NOT the father. Also, the mother's husband was under lock and key for desertion somewhere around Orange County, VA at the time of my great-grandfather's conception.

            My great-grandfather's name and birthday are in the Family Bible along with the other children so I am certain that he was not adopted. Interestingly enough, the spot on the page where his surname was written has been blotted out.

            My great-grandfather was from my mother's paternal line, so no...I do not bear the same surname as he. My great-grandfather beared the same surname as his mother's husband and not of his biological father.

            34/37 is scary, but I think I will spring for the 67-marker upgrade...

            Comment


            • #7
              A 34 on 37 match by itself cannot be ignored, given that it is also a rare R1b makes it even more likely adding to that geographic proximity at the right time!

              I think you are on the right track.

              Get the upgrades.. and if I were a betting man I would say the match will hold up to higher resolution.

              Congratulations on some good sleuthing.

              Comment


              • #8
                I should add that I have a 23 on 25 match with my documented 5th cousin (200 years) so 34 on 37 is not that much of a stretch.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by EBurgess
                  A 34 on 37 match by itself cannot be ignored, given that it is also a rare R1b makes it even more likely adding to that geographic proximity at the right time!

                  I think you are on the right track.

                  Get the upgrades.. and if I were a betting man I would say the match will hold up to higher resolution.

                  Congratulations on some good sleuthing.
                  Given the additional facts contained in Lost-Sheep's last post, I agree.

                  Will there be a novel forthcoming?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Lost-Sheep
                    The ancestry of the FTDNA 34/37 match was residing in that same rural North Carolina county in 1864. His paternal ancestor that was of age to have fathered my great-grandfather was also off to war and could not have been the father for that reason. However, he had at least four brothers that were also of age and were not off to war. I suspect one of them to be the father.

                    Soooo...what do ya' think so far?
                    It sounds to me like a good lead, but given the three mismatches I'd bet on a distant cousin of his ancestor as your great-grandfather's parent: in just four generations the odds of a three mutations are pretty slim (0.26% according to my calculator).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I forgot to mention that my uncle's original 12-marker R1b Y-DNA results only matched a single male due to a very uncommon DYS393-14 mutation...the same male that matches him 23/25 markers and 34/37 markers.

                      Given that 34/37 is not as close as I would like to see, I must state that all of the paper-trail evidence mirrors perfection. This participants' paternal ancestors resided in the SAME rural North Carolina county in which my great-grandfather was born...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by vineviz
                        It sounds to me like a good lead, but given the three mismatches I'd bet on a distant cousin of his ancestor as your great-grandfather's parent: in just four generations the odds of a three mutations are pretty slim (0.26% according to my calculator).
                        That was my original thinking.

                        I think a genetic distance of 3 is a lot just since 1864.

                        The lead is good, but, as you suggest, perhaps the testing of more relatives of that 34/37 guy is in order.
                        Last edited by Stevo; 10 June 2006, 09:34 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Stevo
                          That was my original thinking.

                          I think a genetic distance of 3 is a lot just since 1864.

                          The lead is good, but, as you suggest, perhaps the testing of more relatives of that 34/37 guy is in order.
                          Testing of additional relatives of both lines would be a good thing.

                          While it's unusual, having 3 mutations in such a short period is not out of the question. We have a participant who has a one step difference from his uncle at CDYa as well as an extra DYS464 (he has 5 values instead of the normal 4) that his uncle does not share.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think a genetic distance of 3 is a lot just since 1864.
                            The MRCA that this participant would share with my uncle would date back from 1818-183-something and not 1864. My great-grandfather was born in 1864, but the participant does not descend from the biological father of my great-grandfather.

                            His ancestor who would have been of age to father my great-grandfather was a lieutenant in the 52nd North Carolina Infantry and was also off at war when my great-grandfather was conceived. It would have been one of four other brothers who were not away at war. One of those brothers shares the same first name as my great-grandfather...

                            So I believe that this 34/37 participant descends not from the biological father of my great-grandfather, but from the biological father's father...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              While it's unusual, having 3 mutations in such a short period is not out of the question. We have a participant who has a one step difference from his uncle at CDYa as well as an extra DYS464 (he has 5 values instead of the normal 4) that his uncle does not share.
                              My uncle's Y-DNA results vary by a single marker on the DYS485, DYS464-C and DYSCDY-b alleles. The aforementioned red-marked alleles more commonly mutate than some others.

                              Anyway, I really do believe that I have at least uncovered the surname of my great-grandfather's biological paternal ancestry...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X