Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help me sort this out?

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

  • Help me sort this out?

    Please tolerate my rambling for a moment; I will try to explain my dilemma as succinctly as possible.

    My family believes my gggrandmother gave her surname to her son, my great grandfather (because of this, we are uncertain who the father of my ggrandfather was). In an attempt to prove (or disprove) this belief, I purchased a Y-DNA67 test. There is a Surname project with proven lines of my surname, and my thought was that if my gggrandmother did in fact give her surname to my ggrandfather, then my Y-DNA would certainly show that.

    As I suppose is the norm, first my Y-DNA12 was posted, then my Y-DNA37. i am waiting for the other markers to be posted still. What confused me is that one of the members of my surname project showed as follows on the Y-DNA12 matches:
    In comparing Y-DNA 12 marker results, the probability that Project Member and RCrumpton shared a common ancestor within the last...

    Generations Percentage
    4 7.52%
    8 21.02%
    12 35.72%
    16 49.34%
    20 60.99%
    24 70.47%
    28 77.95%

    The Y-DNA37 shows no matches with my surname project (which is what I expected), but how does the 12-marker test make sense (setting aside for the moment the possibility that there is another unknown relationship there)? I should also state that the Y-DNA12 match was a 1 step match.

    Moving forward, I am trying to narrow down the possibilities of the surname of the man who fathered my great grandfather. I am terribly new to this science, and any advice offered is most welcomed. Thanks!

  • #2
    In your case an exact match at 67 markers and exact same SNPs.12 marker matches can be recent with the same surname and ancient with lot of different surnames but you must have the same SNPs.I hope that this helps.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well, you now have a certain degree of proof of family lore that your surname did not descend from a paternal forebear.

      A full Y 12 match can be made insignificant by a Y 37 or Y 67 mismatch to the same user. Y STR's, the markers being read, are really good at recent kinship because they are so highly variable. So your Y 67 should indicate the paternal line to which you belong provided that paternal line is in the database.

      You don't need Y SNP's, that are important to Y phylogeny, but you might want to do Deep Clade or, better yet, Geno 2.0 because that will put you in contact with users concerned about deep ancestry who may be so concerned because they have all recent ancestry nailed-down ... users with fairly complete recent genealogies they may share with you in your research.

      Comment


      • #4
        I have heard of two people that have a 65/67 marker match one is L1+ and the other is L1-.They are not related, so SNP tests are important.



        Originally posted by tomcat View Post
        Well, you now have a certain degree of proof of family lore that your surname did not descend from a paternal forebear.

        A full Y 12 match can be made insignificant by a Y 37 or Y 67 mismatch to the same user. Y STR's, the markers being read, are really good at recent kinship because they are so highly variable. So your Y 67 should indicate the paternal line to which you belong provided that paternal line is in the database.

        You don't need Y SNP's, that are important to Y phylogeny, but you might want to do Deep Clade or, better yet, Geno 2.0 because that will put you in contact with users concerned about deep ancestry who may be so concerned because they have all recent ancestry nailed-down ... users with fairly complete recent genealogies they may share with you in your research.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 1798 View Post
          I have heard of two people that have a 65/67 marker match one is L1+ and the other is L1-.They are not related, so SNP tests are important.
          Y SNP's could have genealogical relevance in the instance of a double convergence - matching STR profiles and matching surnames. Could happen with common surnames.

          The question is: what test stands the better chance of identifying an unknown surname connected to a Y line at an indicated/assumed third generation horizon? Y SNP's ought to place one in the same Y subclade as the unknown surname line but unless there is a private SNP in-play the results will not be definitive. Y STR's are much better for this purpose considering that the vast majority of extant Y results are Y STR results and that Y SNP testing is, at present, an area of rather limited retail interest.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by RCrumpton View Post
            The Y-DNA37 shows no matches with my surname project (which is what I expected), but how does the 12-marker test make sense (setting aside for the moment the possibility that there is another unknown relationship there)? I should also state that the Y-DNA12 match was a 1 step match.
            The fact that you have only a 7.52% chance of sharing a common ancestor within 4 generations, within the indicated horizon of the genealogical confusion, suggests the single STR mismatch was on a slow marker.

            Comment


            • #7
              Here's another rationale for Y SNP testing: You have spent your entire life thinking you were surname G___ and then you find, based on solid DNA evidence, you are more likely surname K___. What better way to CELEBRATE a new surname identity than by becoming an exemplar, in a DNA sense, of surname K___ by testing your K___ Y SNP's? You will become thereby, absent competition, the index example of surname K___ in subclade X___.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tomcat View Post
                The fact that you have only a 7.52% chance of sharing a common ancestor within 4 generations, within the indicated horizon of the genealogical confusion, suggests the single STR mismatch was on a slow marker.
                A 37 marker test match (1 step) from a different surname shows:
                In comparing Y-DNA 37 marker results, the probability that JHW and RCrumpton shared a common ancestor within the last...

                Generations Percentage
                4 58.56%
                8 88.77%
                12 97.37%
                16 99.43%
                20 99.88%
                24 99.98%
                28 100.00%

                tomcat, what does this suggest? There are 5 other members of this surname with whom I (to some degree) match. I am searching for the father of my great grandfather, which would be four generations away from me.

                When a report such as the above (TiP) reports on generational likelihood of a common ancestor, whose generations are they speaking of, the testee, the match, or both?
                Last edited by RCrumpton; 30 October 2012, 07:26 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tomcat View Post
                  Here's another rationale for Y SNP testing: You have spent your entire life thinking you were surname G___ and then you find, based on solid DNA evidence, you are more likely surname K___. What better way to CELEBRATE a new surname identity than by becoming an exemplar, in a DNA sense, of surname K___ by testing your K___ Y SNP's? You will become thereby, absent competition, the index example of surname K___ in subclade X___.
                  How would the layman identify specific Y SNP's associated with K___?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RCrumpton View Post
                    tomcat, what does this suggest? There are 5 other members of this surname with whom I (to some degree) match. I am searching for the father of my great grandfather, which would be four generations away from me.

                    When a report such as the above (TiP) reports on generational likelihood of a common ancestor, whose generations are they speaking of, the testee, the match, or both?
                    Both, or reckoning in either direction.

                    The numbers you have put-up up are different than earlier numbers and make it more likely you belong to the new surname group.
                    Last edited by tomcat; 30 October 2012, 09:04 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RCrumpton View Post
                      How would the layman identify specific Y SNP's associated with K___?
                      By testing Y SNP's. The best way to do that, at present, is by taking the Geno 2.0 test that tests many many more Y SNP's than any other available test.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        [QUOTE=RCrumpton;349892]
                        What confused me is that one of the members of my surname project showed as follows on the Y-DNA12 matches:
                        In comparing Y-DNA 12 marker results, the probability that Project Member and RCrumpton shared a common ancestor within the last...

                        Generations Percentage
                        4 7.52%
                        8 21.02%
                        12 35.72%
                        16 49.34%
                        20 60.99%
                        24 70.47%
                        28 77.95%
                        [QUOTE]

                        I misread this earlier. These results strongly suggest, albeit based on a limited marker set, that you do not belong with the surname group with which you are connected by family tradition. Again, your 37-marker results strongly suggest you do belong with the surname group newly identified, although one should await full 67-marker results to draw any firmer conclusions!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by tomcat View Post
                          By testing Y SNP's. The best way to do that, at present, is by taking the Geno 2.0 test that tests many many more Y SNP's than any other available test.
                          Geno 2.0 tests 12,000 Y SNP's,

                          plus 3,300 mtDNA SNP's and 130,000 autosomal and X chromsome SNP's (including a subset of highly ancestry informative markers).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            [QUOTE=tomcat;350033]
                            Originally posted by RCrumpton View Post
                            Again, your 37-marker results strongly suggest you do belong with the surname group newly identified, although one should await full 67-marker results to draw any firmer conclusions!
                            Batch 485!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              FOLLOWUP:

                              I now have my data from 111 markers. The problem is that most of the non-traditional surname group that I am related to stopped at 37 markers, although a few had 67 markers tested.

                              Based on the 37 marker test, I match six individuals in the surname group, as follows:
                              37 Markers - 6 Matches
                              Steps Name Terminal SNP
                              1 newsurname
                              2 newsurname L48
                              2 newsurname
                              3 newsurname
                              4 newsurname
                              4 newsurname

                              Of those six individuals, only three carried out a 67 marker test (the second two, and the last one from the list above). The 67 marker matches shows matching those three individuals, plus a new individual with a new surname, as follows:
                              67 Markers - 4 Matches
                              Steps Name Terminal SNP
                              2 newsurname L48
                              2 newsurname
                              4 newsurname
                              7 NEW INDIVIDUAL/DIFF SURNAME

                              What I am thinking is that I'd sure like to have the results on the 1-step 37 marker match. I have already gained consent from the owner of that data to allow me to pay for upgrades to the test, but I'm not certain that will help me drill down to the precise generation where we intersect.

                              My primary goal, if you remember from the first post, is to identify to the best of my ability the person(s) that are most likely the father of my great grandfather.

                              Where should I go from here? Do 111 marker matches give you any more precision as relates to identifying the generation of the common ancestor?

                              tomcat, I have also recently sent a sample to NatGeo for their Geno 2.0 project as well.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X