Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fork in the Road ?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    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.
    He already told us that his closest match is WILSON GD 9 at Y-111 (Z57), and several WILSONs at GD5 at Y-67. He has no need to look at that site.

    Comment


    • #17
      BigY BAM Raw Data File Size

      After ordering the FTDNA BigY test on 29 Aug 2014

      It got 'Batched' into Batch 586 on 04 Sep 2014

      I got the first results back On 09 Oct 2014

      The results consisted of a single BigY Zipped file.
      This file was only ~264KB which unzipped to:
      Regions.bed 201 KB and Variants.vcf 1404 KB.
      And, of course, got access to Matches etc. online...

      I Requested Access to my BAM raw data and
      finally got the file Yesterday 17 Oct 2014.
      After the usual 'cock-ups on the catering front'.

      My "4569.BAM.zip" raw data file size is:
      687,379,536 Bytes which SHRINKS to 687,308,870
      when unzipped.

      My question is: does this BAM file raw data file size sound right?

      I've consistently been hearing about 'over 1 GB BAM file size', whenever file size is mentioned.

      What are the possible meanings behind/causes for this 1/2 size BAM file?

      I've sent the file to YFull for analysis, and I'll let you all know what they say, when they process my BAM data....

      Just out of curiosity, what are the sizes of other members BAM.zip files?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Armando View Post
        He already told us that his closest match is WILSON GD 9 at Y-111 (Z57), and several WILSONs at GD5 at Y-67. He has no need to look at that site.
        He has told us that these matches are DF5, so they are no relation. He needs to look for the closest matches who are Z49.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 1798 View Post
          He has told us that these matches are DF5, so they are no relation. He needs to look for the closest matches who are Z49.
          No he didn't say they are all DF5. He said only one of the Davenport 25 marker matches had an SNP in the Terminal SNP column and it was DF5. There are Davenports that have had 111 marker tests and they are U152> L2> Z49/Z68> Z142> Z51> L562/Z51/Z55> Z57> 17861407> 16472013/22631814.

          Mudgeeclarke is U152> L2> Z49/Z68> Z142> Z51> L562/Z51/Z55> Z57> 17861407

          There is a Wilson and a Sargent that have had a 111 marker test and are U152> L2> Z49/Z68> Z142> Z51> L562/Z51/Z55> Z57

          See https://www.familytreedna.com/public...ction=yresults

          Those people do not match him close enough to be confident about them having a common ancestor in the past 1,000 years. Even if Wilson and Sargent were to get BigY tests it would not confirm they had a common ancestor in 1,000 years because there aren't enough SNPs defined to do that at this point. They are several years away from being to do that if enough people get the BigY test.

          Semargl is a great site for some data. It does not help Mudgeeclarke find a common ancestor in this case.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Armando View Post
            No he didn't say they are all DF5. He said only one of the Davenport 25 marker matches had an SNP in the Terminal SNP column and it was DF5. There are Davenports that have had 111 marker tests and they are U152> L2> Z49/Z68> Z142> Z51> L562/Z51/Z55> Z57> 17861407> 16472013/22631814.

            Mudgeeclarke is U152> L2> Z49/Z68> Z142> Z51> L562/Z51/Z55> Z57> 17861407

            There is a Wilson and a Sargent that have had a 111 marker test and are U152> L2> Z49/Z68> Z142> Z51> L562/Z51/Z55> Z57

            See https://www.familytreedna.com/public...ction=yresults

            Those people do not match him close enough to be confident about them having a common ancestor in the past 1,000 years. Even if Wilson and Sargent were to get BigY tests it would not confirm they had a common ancestor in 1,000 years because there aren't enough SNPs defined to do that at this point. They are several years away from being to do that if enough people get the BigY test.

            Semargl is a great site for some data. It does not help Mudgeeclarke find a common ancestor in this case.
            Thanks. You are 100% right.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Mudgeeclarke View Post
              [----] 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.) [----]
              Going back to your STR results (and only STRs). Yes, you are right, large genetic distance (GD) is most likely an indication of a very distant (too distant) relationship. But the possible range is huge (as GD of 2 between father and son is known)! Try reading Using STRs for Intra-Family Y-DNA Comparisons: Segmenting Markers in the free-access Surname DNA Journal. I am guessing just reading the introduction will make you go for paper trail of your STR matches
              Originally posted by Mudgeeclarke View Post
              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.
              I know exactly that feeling. For years I am waiting for a similar event myself (that somebody from the hundreds strong family branch takes a DNA plunge, I have gently poked them and nothing, nobody...). So we are waiting to either join their branch(es) to the main tree or just call Adam and Eve our forefathers.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by dna View Post
                Going back to your STR results (and only STRs). Yes, you are right, large genetic distance (GD) is most likely an indication of a very distant (too distant) relationship. But the possible range is huge (as GD of 2 between father and son is known)! Try reading Using STRs for Intra-Family Y-DNA Comparisons: Segmenting Markers in the free-access Surname DNA Journal. I am guessing just reading the introduction will make you go for paper trail of your STR matches

                I know exactly that feeling. For years I am waiting for a similar event myself (that somebody from the hundreds strong family branch takes a DNA plunge, I have gently poked them and nothing, nobody...). So we are waiting to either join their branch(es) to the main tree or just call Adam and Eve our forefathers.
                For the pairs rule "The test is simple to administer but requires four relatives, along with some knowledge of the paper relationships in that we need to know the referent (D) is more distant than the other three. It also usually requires a Y-DNA test on 67 markers or more for all four relatives – something that is not always available."

                Until he has some of his male relatives that descend from his paternal great grandfather b c 1832 Cambridgeshire UK and several family members of his closest matches get tested and show to be more closely related to him or his relatives then it is a dead end.

                I manage several kits with each one belonging to a different paternal ancestor with an uncommon surname. They each have matches with people that match their documentation to the 17th or 16th century, depending on the paternal line, and some of the matches are with people with a GD of 4 at 37 markers. Those people also have the same uncommon surname and have documentation to the same ancestor. It is because of those matches with documentation I am able to determine that some of the people with an even closer match from the same region with an known NPE belong to one of those paternal lines.

                What Mudgeeclarke doesn't have is matches with other people with his surname and documented to be from his known paternal ancestor and close matches with people that have a different surname with documentation to their ancestor. That is what he needs for the pairs rule or just doing a cross-reference with matches and looking to see who is closer. There is nothing he can do until those matches start showing up then he can spend time looking at their paper trails.

                Comment


                • #23
                  @Armando, you are right.

                  You have documentation for your large GDs. And he does not. So may be instead of just waiting, he can go after the paper trail of these distant matches? As in together with them, not starting from the scratch.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by dna View Post
                    So we are waiting to either join their branch(es) to the main tree or just call Adam and Eve our forefathers.
                    Adam Davenport, or Adam Wilson?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      @Armando and dna.

                      I've been digging around some more, off site, and recalled that Terry Barton at the BARTON Project (World Families) had created a small lineage spreadsheet for a few strays including my G GF. I guess you can see the spreadsheets.

                      If they tested out via Big Y, from their present L2 or even M269 they may well be Z57, but perhaps still not relevant in a decent timeframe.

                      There are three PALMERs in that mix and only one BARTON. Interestingly, Fulbourn in Cambridgeshire (my G GF area) is relatively close to a village called Barton. So I'm also going to do some paperwork on Palmer and Barton ....

                      Thanks for the link about STR, by the way.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mudgeeclarke View Post
                        @Armando and dna.

                        I've been digging around some more, off site, and recalled that Terry Barton at the BARTON Project (World Families) had created a small lineage spreadsheet for a few strays including my G GF. I guess you can see the spreadsheets.

                        If they tested out via Big Y, from their present L2 or even M269 they may well be Z57, but perhaps still not relevant in a decent timeframe.

                        There are three PALMERs in that mix and only one BARTON. Interestingly, Fulbourn in Cambridgeshire (my G GF area) is relatively close to a village called Barton. So I'm also going to do some paperwork on Palmer and Barton ....

                        Thanks for the link about STR, by the way.
                        3,400 years.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Mudgeeclarke View Post
                          @Armando and dna.

                          I've been digging around some more, off site, and recalled that Terry Barton at the BARTON Project (World Families) had created a small lineage spreadsheet for a few strays including my G GF. I guess you can see the spreadsheets.

                          If they tested out via Big Y, from their present L2 or even M269 they may well be Z57, but perhaps still not relevant in a decent timeframe.

                          There are three PALMERs in that mix and only one BARTON. Interestingly, Fulbourn in Cambridgeshire (my G GF area) is relatively close to a village called Barton. So I'm also going to do some paperwork on Palmer and Barton ....

                          Thanks for the link about STR, by the way.
                          I was able to find the spreadsheet. http://www.worldfamilies.net/surname.../results?raw=1

                          That Barton is on ysearch and you have a GD of 4 with him and his known most distant ancestor is also from England. He has a GD of 3 with the Wilson you have a GD of 5 with. Does that Barton not show up in your list of matches at 67 markers?

                          You definitely should try and contact him to see if he is willing to get the 111 marker upgrade or the BigY test.

                          The Palmers are a GD of 6 from Barton and from you. I don't think that the Palmers have had a 111 marker test either. You should also contact them to see if they are willing to get a 111 marker test or a BigY test.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X