Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

YDNA Ancestral origins ???

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

  • YDNA Ancestral origins ???

    When i click on "YDNA" and then click on "Ancestral Origins" I get some info I dont really understand. It says 37 marker "exact match" and has United Kingdom listed and then has 1 match listed there but then it says less than .1 %. THen below that , i have 2 matches on "genetic distance 1" and it has listed England "match total 4" and then United kingdom again and 1 more match there. But then out beside those it says the same thing that it's less than .1 %. I have two questions for anyone that may know. What is the actual difference between "England" and "United kingdom" and what does the percentage mean?

  • #2
    England is a part of the United Kingdom. People can pick either which they identify as their country. The percentage is the amount that match you out of that country's tested results, so it just a measure of how common.

    Comment


    • #3
      United Kingdom also includes Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by EdwardRHill View Post
        United Kingdom also includes Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
        Perhaps not for long, as per news reports from Scotland... but I digress...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by thetick View Post
          England is a part of the United Kingdom. People can pick either which they identify as their country. The percentage is the amount that match you out of that country's tested results, so it just a measure of how common.
          ok, so in other words someone could very likely be from the same town but yet identify themselves as from England or United kingdom ? And on the percentage, so this means that people that are in my haplogroup just haven't been test very much ? If my top 3 matches on this page are from England and the United Kingdom is that an almost positive indicator that England is where my ancestors came from ? On that branch ?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 507 View Post
            ok, so in other words someone could very likely be from the same town but yet identify themselves as from England or United kingdom ?
            Yep no different than a New Yorker saying he's from USA instead of the state or city of New York.

            Originally posted by 507 View Post
            And on the percentage, so this means that people that are in my haplogroup just haven't been test very much ?
            That is possible, but it could be that your haplogroup is rare with that population or a combination of both.

            Originally posted by 507 View Post
            If my top 3 matches on this page are from England and the United Kingdom is that an almost positive indicator that England is where my ancestors came from ? On that branch ?
            It's only a few points of data. I would say it's very likely but not certain.
            Last edited by thetick; 5 March 2012, 11:46 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by thetick View Post
              Yep no different than a New Yorker saying he's from USA instead of the state or city of New York.


              That is possible, but it could be that your haplogroup is rare with that population or a combination of both.


              It's only a few points of data. I would say it's very likely but not certain.
              Thanks for the info !!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 507 View Post
                ok, so in other words someone could very likely be from the same town but yet identify themselves as from England or United kingdom ? And on the percentage, so this means that people that are in my haplogroup just haven't been test very much ? If my top 3 matches on this page are from England and the United Kingdom is that an almost positive indicator that England is where my ancestors came from ? On that branch ?
                Not necessarily. You might have someone like me who thought when they started out that they were predominantly English, but actually has Scottish, Welsh or Irish ancestry in some lines. Several of my supposedly English lines hopped over the border from Scotland a few hundred years ago.

                Comment


                • #9
                  In my opinion that whole section is somewhat meaninless unless there is a significant amount of matching. I have never gotten any kind of straight forward answer as to who these people are. It seems they appear in some kind of database somewhere . All of mine are at the .1 level with Mexico being . 4.
                  So what can be made of this with no names attached to any participant ?
                  The best that can be said is they are mostly European countrys with one possible European immigration population all at low levels.
                  I already know I am European ancestry.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Brunetmj View Post
                    In my opinion that whole section is somewhat meaninless unless there is a significant amount of matching. I have never gotten any kind of straight forward answer as to who these people are. It seems they appear in some kind of database somewhere . All of mine are at the .1 level with Mexico being . 4.
                    So what can be made of this with no names attached to any participant ?
                    The best that can be said is they are mostly European countrys with one possible European immigration population all at low levels.
                    I already know I am European ancestry.
                    Well, our family tree's paper trail goes back to England. Hook norton Oxfordshire to be exact. I have no idea if the paper trail is correct or not. On the YDNA project I joined, I have exact matches with two people at 37 markers. I also have 6 matches on 36 of 37 markers and 4 matches on 35 of 37 markers. Almost all of their paperwork goes back to the same people in the same town in England as mine. Back in the Mid 1600's.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 507 View Post
                      Almost all of their paperwork goes back to the same people in the same town in England as mine. Back in the Mid 1600's.
                      That's a tremendous amount of evidence, far more than most people will have. It is almost a certain yes in your case.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        [QUOTE]Well, our family tree's paper trail goes back to England. Hook norton Oxfordshire to be exact[QUOTE]
                        I was commenting on the general use of the section ancestral origins .
                        Say for example you were an orphan and had no idea where your ancestors were from and all the results were at the .1 % level. That section would not give you very much information, if any. I know by a strong paper trail where my family is from but that section would be worthless in that effort.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by thetick View Post
                          That's a tremendous amount of evidence, far more than most people will have. It is almost a certain yes in your case.
                          Thanks. I am still fairly new to not only DNA but family tree research in general. I have good records like census records, military documents, birth certificates, death certificates, tombstones, personal letters, and eyewitness accounts that make me fairly certain of my family tree back to the mid 1800's. Then I match nearly everyone in our YDNA project back in the mid to late 1600's. So, I'm fairly certain that I go back to the same ancestors as them back in the 1600;s. The time between 1811 and 1692 is there it is confusing and we have records but i could have came from several different branches. My family back in those days LOVED the names "John" and "Thomas". It is absolutly unbelievable the amount of kids that were named John and Thomas in the 1700's and 1800's. lol

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X