Announcement

**JPHutchins** · 22 October 2010, 03:35 PM

Two primary questions:

1. What size test did you and your matches take? If you took a DNA 37 and your matches took 67's then you might want to upgrade to 67 before you put too much energy into this. You might find that you separate further. If you all took DNA 67's and you match that closely, then you might want to look into it.

2. Are your matches of the same surname?

**Kit-189387** · 22 October 2010, 05:02 PM

I also come from a Welsh line, with cousins in NC, TX, TN, etc. There are an incredible number of closely related families, MRCA of 6 , 10, etc will give you some idea of your oldest roots (most likely Wales arriving in the U.S. in NC), and if all the surnames are the same, you may be on to something, but trying to locate recent relations I imagine may be difficult with only a best MRCA of 6. You might get lucky with mtdna or family finder providing a closer relative to allow you to fill in the past 150 years, or you may need to wait for a closer relative to test.

Originally posted by EdwardRHill View Post

Over the years I have had 5 Y-DNA matches and as I look over the results I noticed a pattern that interest me. I will refer to myself as NC (North Carolina) my matches I will refer to them as TX (Texas); FL (Florida); AL (Alabama); WL (Wales, England); AU (Australia).

TX has a MRCA of 6; AL and FL has a MRCA of 10; WL has a MRCA of 14; AU and its my under educated guess has a MRCA around 17.

Some of these markers I match up with my matches while others I am not a match. I find it interesting that on markers 464a and b I don't match any of them but they all match each other. These are the markers that interest me the rest we all match up on I give my values along with each marker here 439/13; 458/16; 459a/9; 464a/13; 464b/14; 460/11; 461/12; 446/13; 452/31

From my closest match to my furthest.

TX values for the markers mention above 439/13; 458/16; 459a/9; 464a/14; 464b/15; 460/11; 461/12; 446/13; 452/31

AL values for the markers mentioned above 439/13; 458/16; 459a/9; 464a/14; 464b/15; 460/11; 461/11; 446/13; 452/31

FL values for markers mentioned above 439/13; 458/16; 459a/9; 464a/14; 464b/15; 460/11; 461/12; 446/14; 452/31

WL values for the markers mention above 439/12; 458/16; 459a/9; 464a/14; 464b/15; 460/11; 461/12; 446/13; 452/32

AU values for the markers mention above 439/12; 458/15; 459a/10; 464a/14; 464b/15; 460/10; 461/NA; 446/13; 452/NA

Is there something to this or is it still to early to tell what this means? Thanks

**EdwardRHill** · 22 October 2010, 05:03 PM

NC FL TX AL WL has tested till 46 markers. NC has also tested to 37 and AU was found at Y-search and it says he tested at FTDNA with 55 markers shown at Y-search. I have a different surname than they do and they all share the same surname. I have already ordered an upgrade to 67 after finding out AU had tested at FTDNA. Any other upgrade or test depends on the outcome of this test and if AU replies to my e-mails. He did the first time and gave me some very interesting information which backs up information WL has, which give NC FL TX AL an idea of where their ancestors came from. AU is also a closer match to my other matches than he is to me. But since I’m the only one that has test at FTDNA out of the ones that tested at Ancestry I am going to do the upgrade to 67.

**EdwardRHill** · 22 October 2010, 05:50 PM

Kit I have done FF and don't know enough about my fathers line to know whats a clue and whats not. Now if I get a FF match thats a LEE I might be on to something.

**Frederator** · 22 October 2010, 09:35 PM

My two cents, for what it's worth:

Only pay attention to the nearest match.

It probably is significant that all your nearest matches all have the same surname. But it is generally not possible to derive super-specific information about the relationships of each of the branches of this surname to one another or their migration patterns or your all's remote origins based on GD or current residence alone.

Mutations are random, and although there is a general population average rate of mutation per locus, nothing can change the elemental fact of their randomness. Or in fact, of the macro socio economic factors which impact relative reproductive success of each branch, which in turn are reflected in family size and number of mutations.

Individual markers, unfortunately, provide little or no additional information about relatedness of individuals within a group outside a set of tight and consistent set of GD relationships.

And, because, as I say, mutations are random, even GD relationship among branches must be suspect. There are plenty of records of anomalous cases out there--off the top of my head I remember a fellow with a fairly rare Yorkshire name who is GD of 5 at 67 with another fellow who shares a MRCA within the colonial period with one guy (ie, GD 5 at 67), yet is a prefect 100 pct 67/67 match with another fellow, same rare surname still resident in England, who cannot possible share a MRCA before 1600.

So in your case, I'd just investigate the pedigree of your closest American match, and hope to connect through that. I don't see too much reason to doubt that you connect through that surname.

Probably the only other observation I'd make is that it seems unlikely that your family is of native Welsh origin. Most Welsh families didn't adopt permanent surnames until the mid-1800's--well after your connection to most in that surname group.

Best of luck.

Originally posted by EdwardRHill View Post

Over the years I have had 5 Y-DNA matches and as I look over the results I noticed a pattern that interest me. I will refer to myself as NC (North Carolina) my matches I will refer to them as TX (Texas); FL (Florida); AL (Alabama); WL (Wales, England); AU (Australia).

TX has a MRCA of 6; AL and FL has a MRCA of 10; WL has a MRCA of 14; AU and its my under educated guess has a MRCA around 17.

Some of these markers I match up with my matches while others I am not a match. I find it interesting that on markers 464a and b I don't match any of them but they all match each other. These are the markers that interest me the rest we all match up on I give my values along with each marker here 439/13; 458/16; 459a/9; 464a/13; 464b/14; 460/11; 461/12; 446/13; 452/31

From my closest match to my furthest.

TX values for the markers mention above 439/13; 458/16; 459a/9; 464a/14; 464b/15; 460/11; 461/12; 446/13; 452/31

AL values for the markers mentioned above 439/13; 458/16; 459a/9; 464a/14; 464b/15; 460/11; 461/11; 446/13; 452/31

FL values for markers mentioned above 439/13; 458/16; 459a/9; 464a/14; 464b/15; 460/11; 461/12; 446/14; 452/31

WL values for the markers mention above 439/12; 458/16; 459a/9; 464a/14; 464b/15; 460/11; 461/12; 446/13; 452/32

AU values for the markers mention above 439/12; 458/15; 459a/10; 464a/14; 464b/15; 460/10; 461/NA; 446/13; 452/NA

Is there something to this or is it still to early to tell what this means? Thanks

**EdwardRHill** · 23 October 2010, 08:16 PM

Thanks for the in put

Announcement

Is there a message in these Tea Leaves?

Is there a message in these Tea Leaves?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment