Fork in the Road ?

[Mudgeeclarke]

My paternal great grandfather b c 1832 Cambridgeshire UK was NPE.

I've spent many years (35+) trying to trace the paternal name.

My Y-DNA results have WILSON GD 9 at Y-111 (Z57), and several WILSONs at GD5 at Y-67.

My Big-Y matches have DAVENPORTs Z-57 in the Top 4, and no WILSONs in sight.

I realize that unless folks have taken the corresponding tests, they won't show up anyway, even if they were perfect matches.

FF does not help me, either, with these names. There are no other tests I can take. (I've done Geno2 etc).

QUESTION: If I decided to allocate some resources to one of these family names (offer FF tests etc), which fork of this road should I take ? Or, as Yogi Berra reportedly said, "when you come to a fork in the road, take it".

Anyone?

206005
R-Z57
U3b2a

PS ignore the old signature block. Apparently FTDNA has no one with the time or interest to change or delete it, and of course we can't be trusted to do it. ;-)

[gtc]

Here's what FTDNA has to say about GDs for 67 markers:

https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/...s-interpreted/

... and for 111 markers:

https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/...s-interpreted/

Do you know if any of those Wilsons are U152?

[1798]

My paternal great grandfather b c 1832 Cambridgeshire UK was NPE.

I've spent many years (35+) trying to trace the paternal name.

My Y-DNA results have WILSON GD 9 at Y-111 (Z57), and several WILSONs at GD5 at Y-67.

My Big-Y matches have DAVENPORTs Z-57 in the Top 4, and no WILSONs in sight.

I realize that unless folks have taken the corresponding tests, they won't show up anyway, even if they were perfect matches.

FF does not help me, either, with these names. There are no other tests I can take. (I've done Geno2 etc).

QUESTION: If I decided to allocate some resources to one of these family names (offer FF tests etc), which fork of this road should I take ? Or, as Yogi Berra reportedly said, "when you come to a fork in the road, take it".

Anyone?

206005
R-Z57
U3b2a

A GD of 9 at 111 could mean around 900 to 1500 years to a common ancestor.

[Mudgeeclarke]

The question is ..

I understand about TMRCA. My dilemma is that I seem to have an indication of two regularly occurring family names, but one is found in Y111 and Y67 (even moreso at 25 and 37), whereas the other family name is "matched" almost exclusively at Big Y.

I did reply earlier, but I guess it was censored.

QUESTION: If I decided to allocate some resources to one of these group of family names (offer FF tests etc), which fork of this road should I take ? And why.

Or, as Yogi Berra reportedly said, "when you come to a fork in the road, take it".

[dna]

Before forking, I would invite a Davenport or two for a STR comparison.

Since the Davenports tested SNPs (Big Y or anything), they had tested at least Y-DNA12.

Do you see any of them on your personal Y-DNA - Matches page?
https://my.familytreedna.com/y-dna-matches.aspx
For 12 Markers
Distance All
Last Name Starts With Davenport
Run Report

Please tell us what do you see at 12 markers, and then going up to 25, and 37. You told us that at 67 you have no Davenports.

If you see no Davenports at 12 markers, it could be that they do not share their results or that they are not a match. That would be a reason to go after the Wilsons with your fork

[Mudgeeclarke]

Davenport Matches

Thank you, dna, for your reply.

As suggested I checked matches, and there is only one at Y-12, and that person is GD0, but there are many at Y-25. None at 37 and upwards. I did a snapshot of the screen, so you could see the Y-25 list. I hope that is OK.

I appreciate your time and consideration.

See attached

[Armando]

You should have blanked out the first and middle names before posting the pic. It's best that you take it down asap.

Since two Davenports have tested to 67 markers and one to 111 markers you do not share a common ancestor with them in the last 1,000 years.

Since your distance is 9 from Wilson at 111 it is unlikely that you share a common ancestor with him in the last 1,000 years.

You are going to have to be patient and wait until a close match at 67 markers appears.

[dna]

888 Davenport matches (887 GD 2), and clearly some tested only 25 markers.

Click twice on the Terminal SNP column, so it would be sorted with the arrow pointing upwards ↑.

Do you see your Z-57 (or its equivalent name S1468)? Among them, anybody with only Y-DNA25, but with a different ancestor than the ones not matching you at Y-DNA37?

What about your Y-DNA12 Davenport match? Does he have a non-blank Terminal SNP column?

You might want to postpone a detailed SNP analysis (mutations separating you and other people with Z-57) just a little, since Z57 is marked as being investigated for positioning in the ISOGG Y-DNA tree (there is nothing there below L562 today). Possibly somebody is working in this area and some mutation rates might become available as a byproduct.

[1798]

Thank you, dna, for your reply.

As suggested I checked matches, and there is only one at Y-12, and that person is GD0, but there are many at Y-25. None at 37 and upwards. I did a snapshot of the screen, so you could see the Y-25 list. I hope that is OK.

I appreciate your time and consideration.

See attached

These are all 23/25 marker matches. A genetic distance of 2 at 25 markers is meaning less. Some of these matches could be around 6000 ybp to a common ancestor. I have 100s of them and most don't even belong in the same subgroup.

[Mudgeeclarke]

Oops !

You should have blanked out the first and middle names before posting the pic. It's best that you take it down

Thanks.

I wondered how much detail should be posted. Since the edit facility is apparently disabled by the Admin (except immediately after posting), I see no other way in FAQ to manage or delete the attachment, or even to delete the thread. As the Admin has been unable to delete my incorrect signature block, I wonder if getting an attachment deleted will be any easier.

[Mudgeeclarke]

Click twice on the Terminal SNP column, so it would be sorted with the arrow pointing upwards [SIZE="5"]↑

You might want to postpone a detailed SNP analysis ...

Only one appears in the Terminal SNP column .... DF5

Thanks.

It seems that the connection for Wilson or Davenport is beyond 1000 years ago, which I presume also means before family names were common. It is coincidental, I guess, that these names appear in and around my paternal ancestral region. (In my long paper research experience, if it quacked like a duck and looked like a duck, when I looked under every stone, I usually found a documented duck. So, despite having taken every possible test, I think I'll check for that paper duck, yet again.)

I'm glad to help the scientific community by making my tests available in all manner of places, but I doubt FTDNA testing is worth one iota to me until many more results come in from the UK.

[1798]

Only one appears in the Terminal SNP column .... DF5

Thanks.

It seems that the connection for Wilson or Davenport is beyond 1000 years ago, which I presume also means before family names were common. It is coincidental, I guess, that these names appear in and around my paternal ancestral region. (In my long paper research experience, if it quacked like a duck and looked like a duck, when I looked under every stone, I usually found a documented duck. So, despite having taken every possible test, I think I'll check for that paper duck, yet again.)

I'm glad to help the scientific community by making my tests available in all manner of places, but I doubt FTDNA testing is worth one iota to me until many more results come in from the UK.

Z49 and DF5 are not related within the last 5000 years.

[Mudgeeclarke]

Z49 and DF5 are not related within the last 5000 years.

Thanks, Yes, I get the picture. :-)

I'm actually Z57, but FTDNA can't correct the signature, apparently.

I've checked all FF and Y results. It seems like Davenport and WIlson are dead ducks, so to speak, even though they are the most numerous.

That's a pity, because there is nothing closer. Seems like at this point I'm out a couple of thousand dollars. Maybe, by the time I'm family history too, there will be enough tests taken to find a match.
Cheers.

[1798]

Thanks, Yes, I get the picture. :-)

I'm actually Z57, but FTDNA can't correct the signature, apparently.

I've checked all FF and Y results. It seems like Davenport and WIlson are dead ducks, so to speak, even though they are the most numerous.

That's a pity, because there is nothing closer. Seems like at this point I'm out a couple of thousand dollars. Maybe, by the time I'm family history too, there will be enough tests taken to find a match.
Cheers.

The men who are Z57 are your closest Y relatives besides your family and first,second,third cousins etc.

[1798]

Thanks, Yes, I get the picture. :-)

I'm actually Z57, but FTDNA can't correct the signature, apparently.

I've checked all FF and Y results. It seems like Davenport and WIlson are dead ducks, so to speak, even though they are the most numerous.

That's a pity, because there is nothing closer. Seems like at this point I'm out a couple of thousand dollars. Maybe, by the time I'm family history too, there will be enough tests taken to find a match.
Cheers.

http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/449/
Here is a map of Z49. You can search this site for matches. Look for those who match you at 57/67 markers.