Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R1a1 Haplogroup Question

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by RussellL View Post
    This is interesting about the 393=15 locations. I saw on one chart quite a number of the 15 values in England. Paul, are there other locations where such a value is common, and if so, does that say anything about my ancestory? Or is it just a genetic fluke that isn't territorial specific?
    My hunch would be that your DY393: 13 => 15 is a quite recent mutation, so it might not be "good" for deep ancestry, but "useful" for "close relationship". I could be wrong of course. You could try to upgrade to 67-marker and see where your nearest matches are concentrated (in the end that will be far more accurate than any hunches I or any other might have based on a single STR).

    Comment


    • #17
      Thank you, Paul. Right now at 25 markers I have only one exact match in the FTDNA data bank, and that is to a person with my surname who was the brother of my ancestor 13 generations back. So I think that precludes it being a recent mutation, does it not? Incidentally, the same 15 value shows up in all Y-DNA samples of the male descendants of my ancestor who arrived in the U.S. circa 1634. I do think you're right about going out to 67 markers. Thank you for that suggestion.

      Comment


      • #18
        Question for Paul

        Paul, you mention going to 67 markers to see where my nearest matches are concentrated as being helpful to determining origins. That makes sense to me. What I'm wondering is this: right now at 25 markers I have the one exact match to someone with my surname who I know to be related to me. I have two matches at a genetic distance of 1 -- one of them also has my surname (and I know to be related); the other has a corruption of my surname, and clearly he is likely related way back. I await the 37-marker results. I've been told that this combination of markers is very unusual. In the FTDNA R1a project, for instance, there are only 3 people who have the 393=15 value: myself; someone else with my surname; and an unnamed individual. How exactly does one 'widen one's net' in such a case? I would be interested in determining as much as I can about the origins of the family beyond the British Isles, if at all possible. I'm a newbie so go easy on me!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by RussellL View Post
          Paul, you mention going to 67 markers to see where my nearest matches are concentrated as being helpful to determining origins. That makes sense to me. What I'm wondering is this: right now at 25 markers I have the one exact match to someone with my surname who I know to be related to me. I have two matches at a genetic distance of 1 -- one of them also has my surname (and I know to be related); the other has a corruption of my surname, and clearly he is likely related way back. I await the 37-marker results. I've been told that this combination of markers is very unusual. In the FTDNA R1a project, for instance, there are only 3 people who have the 393=15 value: myself; someone else with my surname; and an unnamed individual. How exactly does one 'widen one's net' in such a case? I would be interested in determining as much as I can about the origins of the family beyond the British Isles, if at all possible. I'm a newbie so go easy on me!
          At 67-marker you can "go beyond" the DYS 393 =15 which means that you have very few matches. If you had ignored that marker, your haplotype wouldn't really be that unusual as far as I can see.

          Comment

          Working...
          X