Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What will the Deep Clade test tell me?

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

  • What will the Deep Clade test tell me?

    I have not been very lucky with FTDNA so far. I ordered the Full Comprehensive Genome test and found two 6th cousin matches with Family Finder. About 90% of the rest of my FF results don't upload a gedcom or don't respond to emails, so I can't really progress. I don't understand why people get tested if they're not interested in exploring results. But anyway, my main goal is to track down my paternal great great grandfather. My last name is Robinson, and I have zero YDNA results matching my surname, possibly due to a non-paternity event maybe. So I know at least that I am R1b1a2. I'm wondering if I should get the Deep Clade test to confirm my Haplogroup. How can I actually use this to help me with my search? If I find out I am R1b1a2a1a1b and someone else is R1b1a2a1a1b what type of timeline are we looking at when we could possibly be related?

    I guess I just don't want to waste $90 and find out I can't really use the information any kind of way. Thanks for any help.

  • #2
    I don't know how many markers you have tested, but especially within R1b1a2 a deep clade test will help weed out false positives at any level -- if the other guy also has tested. It's quite possible to match someone else in a different subclade due to haplotype convergence. In that case, you are not closely related.

    Depending on the subclade someone with your same terminal SNP is probably related within the last 1,000 years or so. If you match them on 37 or more STRs as well, you are looking at a fairly recent common ancestor and there is a decent chance you can tie your paper trails together with some work.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by sbrobin View Post
      I ordered the Full Comprehensive Genome test.

      I guess I just don't want to waste $90 and find out I can't really use the information any kind of way. Thanks for any help.
      The Comprehensive Genome tells us you have tested 67 Y-DNA markers. I don't know of a single case where two people who matched at 37 or more markers didn't have the same Deep Clade results if tested to the same level. If they aren't tested at the same level, having different results doesn't tell you anything if the results are along the same branch.

      This forum is full of people who will disagree with me, but I think you should save your money. If your interest was in your deep ancestry, where your paternal line came from 1,000s of years ago the Deep Clade might be helpful, but you would need to upgrade within a year or two to go deeper.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks for the advice. I'm not really interested in deep ancestry as much as the last 400 years, so I guess I will wait. I appreciate the help.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well with no matches at 12 markers with a 67 marker test you may have a null that is skewing the results of your matches. Do you have "null" or "0" value, since I can't recall how FTDNA reports them.

          I would suggest you get the deep clade test since there have been 34/37 matches who were different subclades! Also with a deep clade test you can join the corresponding FTDNA project which may turn up some distant ancestry by being grouped in a cluster.

          With that said you may also learn nothing other than your subclade and the common knowledge about the subclade. It really is your choice. Since you spent quite a bit on the Comprehensive Genome I understand why you may not want to spend more money.

          Finally you can upload you markers to ysearch.org and see for FREE your closest matches and others like me here can give a rough idea how far back those "matches" might be.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by sbrobin View Post
            Thanks for the advice. I'm not really interested in deep ancestry as much as the last 400 years, so I guess I will wait. I appreciate the help.
            Deep Clade confirms haplogroup, you can be a match with someone in a different Haplogroup so you have to confirm Haplogroups to be sure you are a match. If you match 111 out of 111 and don't match Haplogroup your not related. I would only do the test if you and your match have tested to at least 67 markers.
            Last edited by EdwardRHill; 8 February 2012, 09:43 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by EdwardRHill View Post
              Deep Clade confirms haplogroup, you can be a match with someone in a different Haplogroup so you have to confirm Haplogroups to be sure you are a match. If you match 111 out of 111 and don't match Haplogroup your not related. I would only do the test if you and your match have tested to at least 67 markers.
              I doubt you could find an instance of where anyone matches on the first 37 markers used by FTDNA and is not of exactly the same haplogroup.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JohnLloydScharf View Post
                I doubt you could find an instance of where anyone matches on the first 37 markers used by FTDNA and is not of exactly the same haplogroup.
                I'm not a expert on this but I know you do a Deep Clade test to confirm haplogroup. The Haplogroup you are assigned is predicted and for some of us we need to confirm our Haplogroup like those of us who match others with different surnames. I tested at Ancestry and I'm predicted to be R1b I tested to 46 markers, I also tested at 23andme (Relative Finder test) and they predict me to be R1b1b2a1a2f, I had tested to 67 markers at FTDNA and it was predicted to be R1b1b2a2 maybe I for got but when I did the Deep Clade test it changed to confirmed R1b1a2a1a1b4 Short hand R-L21. Now I have a question for you and that is why does FTDNA offer a Deep Clade test so people can confirm their Haplogroup when you say testing to 37 markers is good enough?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by EdwardRHill View Post
                  Now I have a question for you and that is why does FTDNA offer a Deep Clade test so people can confirm their Haplogroup when you say testing to 37 markers is good enough?
                  Your question has already been answered here but I'll do it one more time. Y-DNA (STR) tests are for recent ancestry. Deep Clade (SNP) is for ancient ancestry.

                  The person who started this topic has made it clear his interest is in recent ancestry. Two men with good Y-DNA matches are much more apt to share a recent common paternal ancestor than two men with the same Deep Clade results.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You haven't said if you've joined any of the R1b projects, but 67 marker results should provide strong evidence as to your subclade in comparison with other project members who have subclade tested.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jim Barrett View Post
                      Your question has already been answered here but I'll do it one more time. Y-DNA (STR) tests are for recent ancestry. Deep Clade (SNP) is for ancient ancestry.

                      The person who started this topic has made it clear his interest is in recent ancestry. Two men with good Y-DNA matches are much more apt to share a recent common paternal ancestor than two men with the same Deep Clade results.
                      So you are saying that a 100% match on markers tested but are from a different Haplogroup is a match but they are just a match further back in the tree?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        In a sense but it is not a match that is of any use. You will be more closely related to a 60/67 match within your own subclade than a 66/67 match in another subclade (which is theoretically possible though mostly does not happen).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Javelin View Post
                          In a sense but it is not a match that is of any use. You will be more closely related to a 60/67 match within your own subclade than a 66/67 match in another subclade (which is theoretically possible though mostly does not happen).
                          this brings to mind a question i've pondered before: we know there are back-mutations in Y STRs. are there also back mutations in SNPs, that would affect haplogroup assignments? my "common sense" tells me there must be - why not? - but I don't recall hearing about them. perhaps since SNPs are "slow mutations" and time horizons so long, we just haven't been able to observe any? thoughts, anyone?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by dwight View Post
                            this brings to mind a question i've pondered before: we know there are back-mutations in Y STRs. are there also back mutations in SNPs, that would affect haplogroup assignments? my "common sense" tells me there must be - why not? - but I don't recall hearing about them. perhaps since SNPs are "slow mutations" and time horizons so long, we just haven't been able to observe any? thoughts, anyone?
                            There are two haplotypes in the J Project that are positive for a downstream SNP although they are not positive for the preceding upstream SNP. The project is calling them a case of "parallel mutation".

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I understand the origional poster is asking a very practical question.
                              I know we all have different reasons for testing and most have limited finances. But putting all that aside I find it hard to understand how anyone would NOT want to know their deep clade.
                              Just a as a matter of curiosity. But I guess that's just me.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X