y-DNA 12 Marker Matches Question

[MoberlyDrake]

Well, I'm waiting for my 37 marker results before I do any contacting or posting on bulletin boards. But my great-grandfather was the youngest of 6 orphans. All the rest were taken in by friends and family, but he was put in an orphanage. I always wondered why no one could be found to take him, if it was just because he was too young to be to help on a farm, or what. I just took another look at the 1870 census and the next household enumerated after my supposed 2nd great-grandfathers was that of Mr. John Doe, farm laborer, no land. So this man was obviously living either on my ancestor's farm or the next one. My great-grandfather was born about 1872. Offhand it looks like my great-great-grandmother may have had a little fling with the farmhand!

Although it seems a little too simple to solve my problem with the very first record I checked!!!

[1798]

The usual sequence for our surname seems to be

13-23-14-11-11-14-12-12-12-14-13-30 My cousin's is:
13-24-14-11-10-14-12-12-12-12-13-29

Aren't there too many mutations here for us really to belong to the family whose surname we bear?

You are probably related within the last 800 years.
I had my cousin tested and we had the exact same 12 markers.We matched 36/37 at 37 markers.The one we didnt match on was CDYb.

[nathanm]

One thing that puzzles me so far is that although I have no Mobley matches, I have an equal number of exact Doe and Smith (not the real names, thank goodness!, but I'm not sure I should use the real ones here) who match exactly at 25 markers. Maybe my 37 marker test will straighten this out, but is it unusual to have two surnames you match equally? Since I may have to start searching for the different ancestors and the cause of the disconnect will I have to investigate both surnames equally, and join both surname projects?

You might as well join both projects, it doesn't cost anything, and you could quit anytime. When you request to join, you might want to add a note to the administrators explaining the situation.

Another possibility might be that we are not descended from the Mobley who lived in MD, but from some other Mobley line that branched off further back in time in England, immigrated independently, but somehow ended up in the same general area as the other Mobleys. This seems a little less likely. The only thing that bothers me is the resemblance of my grandfather and mother to photos of certain other Mobleys in the online Mobley group I belong to, but maybe that is just chance.

It's also possible you're from another Mobley line that was never related to the other one in the first place. Sometime surnames were independently adopted by multiple families.

[MoberlyDrake]

Actually I misread that, there is a GD of 1 between my cousin and each of his 8 matches.

[MoberlyDrake]

I just got my 25 markers. No Mobley matches and two more mutations that differ from the Mobley haplotype, plus two that are shared by at least one other member of the group. How many mutations would indicate a definite disconnect of the haplotype and surname?

One thing that puzzles me so far is that although I have no Mobley matches, I have an equal number of exact Doe and Smith (not the real names, thank goodness!, but I'm not sure I should use the real ones here) who match exactly at 25 markers. Maybe my 37 marker test will straighten this out, but is it unusual to have two surnames you match equally? Since I may have to start searching for the different ancestors and the cause of the disconnect will I have to investigate both surnames equally, and join both surname projects?

Another possibility might be that we are not descended from the Mobley who lived in MD, but from some other Mobley line that branched off further back in time in England, immigrated independently, but somehow ended up in the same general area as the other Mobleys. This seems a little less likely. The only thing that bothers me is the resemblance of my grandfather and mother to photos of certain other Mobleys in the online Mobley group I belong to, but maybe that is just chance.

I have purchased the 67 marker upgrade. We will see what we will see! Mom thinks they got the DNA samples mixed up, but I hardly think so, and in my opinion there's no reason to prefer one set of ancestors over another. Just another mystery to solve, if it can be solved at all.

Carol Anne

[MoberlyDrake]

The first haplotype is from the Mobley surname project at FTDNA. It's a pitiful little project for a surname that ranked 1142 on the 1990 census! Only 15 participants! Almost all Mobleys (of whatever spelling - Moberly is the second most common, I think) in America are supposedly descended from one man who lived in Maryland in the late 1600s. Some of us, however, have never been able to find out exactly how we fit in.

It will be interesting to see the rest of my cousin's results!

Carol Anne

[efgen]

The usual sequence for our surname seems to be

13-23-14-11-11-14-12-12-12-14-13-30 My cousin's is:
13-24-14-11-10-14-12-12-12-12-13-29

Aren't there too many mutations here for us really to belong to the family whose surname we bear?

Hi Carol Anne,

GD of 3 at 12 markers is definitely higher than expected for a surname match, but I do agree that you should still wait to see what happens when you get more markers before coming to any final conclusions.

It could be that you just happen to have several mutations in the first 12, and the rest of your markers will match. It would be rare, but not impossible.

However, if you continue to accumulate mismatches with more markers, then you'll have to consider the possibility that there was a break in the surname line somewhere. Or, as Nathan suggested, it could simply be that there are multiple families with the same surname, and nobody else from your family has tested yet.

If you end up clearly matching people with a different surname at 37 markers, then you will probably want to communicate with them and see where your families may have crossed paths.

These are just some possibilities... but again, wait until your 37 markers are in to make these evaluations.

Elise

[1798]

I have 1100 11/12 marker matches, 800 of them in the Isles.The other 300 are from 40 other countries.I have one from Turkey,Ukraine,India and Morroco!!! I know that I have a common ancestor with all of these people and it has to be about 18,000 -25,000 ybp. We have only one mutation in our first 12 markers after all these years.I am R1b and all of these people must be in the same haplogroup.I have a 130 23/25 marker matches and 84% of them come from the Isles.There are some people that say that the average mutation is equal to 100 years at 67 markers. That doesnt make sense to me. I am 17 of the R1b modal and that would give me a common ancestor to all of the R1b people at 1700 years.I think that the modal is close to the founder haplotype.

[nathanm]

The usual sequence for our surname seems to be

13-23-14-11-11-14-12-12-12-14-13-30 My cousin's is:
13-24-14-11-10-14-12-12-12-12-13-29

Aren't there too many mutations here for us really to belong to the family whose surname we bear?

Is the first haplotype you listed from another relative of the same surname, or from a surname DNA project at FTDNA? If it's from a project, there could be several different families of the same surname, not necessarily related. And each one is likely to have a different modal haplotype, and possible different haplogroups as well.

[k.o.gran]

In no way did my post attack Frederator, and his response to me was completely out of line.

Hi Elise.

I totally agree with you! Now, in the subject of OP's question: "Aren't there too many mutations here for us really to belong to the family whose surname we bear?"
I'd love to see an answer as the facts about "modal" and "typical" markers confuse me a bit.

[Frederator]

<edited by admin to keep thread on topic> I will tell you plainly: GD of 3 at 12 means nothing. Wait until you have at least 37 markers to compare.

The sequence of markers in each successive panel is not magic--its just the best guess of a panel of scientists based upon the aggregate of thousands of observations--individual results MUST necessarily vary. That is the nature of statistics <edited>.

I'm not kidding: don't make any judgment calls until at least 37 markers. Matches often improve to that point. Sometimes (but, in my experience) very seldom beyond it.

The usual sequence for our surname seems to be

13-23-14-11-11-14-12-12-12-14-13-30 My cousin's is:
13-24-14-11-10-14-12-12-12-12-13-29

Aren't there too many mutations here for us really to belong to the family whose surname we bear?

[MoberlyDrake]

The usual sequence for our surname seems to be

13-23-14-11-11-14-12-12-12-14-13-30 My cousin's is:
13-24-14-11-10-14-12-12-12-12-13-29

Aren't there too many mutations here for us really to belong to the family whose surname we bear?

[efgen]

But I will further state that it is quite common--maybe even the experience of most Y DNA testers--to never acheive a stastistically significant match at 37 or more markers. Ever.

Maybe there just haven't been enough people tested, or whatever. But I've been doing the Y thing for 6+ years and have squat to show for it.

Frederator - If this was the case with *most*, then I don't think genetic genealogy would have taken off like it did Many people have great success with Y-DNA testing, as evidenced by the over 6,000 surname projects that are run by volunteers. It's less common, though certainly not unheard of, to not have any significant matches at all. Some people in your situation have finally received a match after several years, and apparently there are some people like you who are still waiting for even one match. But you're certainly in the minority, not the majority. Hope you get a match soon so that you can have a better outlook on Y-DNA testing

Carol Anne - See what happens when you get the full 37 markers. Some people disable their 12-marker matches once they have higher-level matches, and that setting works both ways -- if you have a match who has disabled the display of his 12-marker matches, then you won't see him as a 12-marker match either. Also, check the User Preferences page -- is your cousin set to be compared against the entire database or just the project(s) that he's in? And, do you have him in the project for his surname already?

Elise

[Frederator]

You are correct--results at 12 markers are next to meaningless.

I am GD of 1 at 12 with mt own brother--though that amends to GD 1 at 37.

No point in paying any attention at all to 12 marker matches, in my opinion.

But I will further state that it is quite common--maybe even the experience of most Y DNA testers--to never acheive a stastistically significant match at 37 or more markers. Ever.

Maybe there just haven't been enough people tested, or whatever. But I've been doing the Y thing for 6+ years and have squat to show for it.

I guess what I'm saying is that, while I hope you achieve your testing goals, don't think DNA is a magic bullet. There's a lot of sampling risk, etc. which may preclude a successful completion of your testing goals. Don't jump to conclusions at 12 markers.

I just got my 12 marker results for my cousin's 37 marker y-DNA test. This is my first experience with y-DNA testing. I know that 12 markers will not tell you much, but is it unusual for your surname not to be in the list at all? I have five instances of one surname and five instances of another, but none of the expected surname.

Carol Anne

[MoberlyDrake]

I just got my 12 marker results for my cousin's 37 marker y-DNA test. This is my first experience with y-DNA testing. I know that 12 markers will not tell you much, but is it unusual for your surname not to be in the list at all? I have five instances of one surname and five instances of another, but none of the expected surname.

Carol Anne