Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which Y test for link 7-9 generations back?

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

  • jova99
    replied
    67-marker

    I would not waste time with the 37-marker test. Do the 67-marker test

    the 67-marker test will give better results. Some of my close matches at the 37 marker test are a GD of 7 or further back when using the 67-marker test. In addition I have some matches at 67-markers who are not a match at the 37-marker test.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by NCroots View Post
    This might be a dumb question, but if I had matches at 37-markers and upgraded to 67-markers, would my 37-marker matches have to also upgrade to 67-markers to see if we match at that level?
    Yes. FTDNA can only compare two testers who've taken the same test, including testing to the same level.

    For example, those who've taken the 12 STR yDNA test will only be compared to everyone else in the database who've tested 12 STRs and only comparing the 12 STR results. If someone who's tested 12 STRs wants to be compared to people with 37 or 67 STRs in the database, they would have to upgrade to 37 or 67 STRs.

    Leave a comment:


  • NCroots
    replied
    This might be a dumb question, but if I had matches at 37-markers and upgraded to 67-markers, would my 37-marker matches have to also upgrade to 67-markers to see if we match at that level?

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveInGreece
    replied
    To add to what MMaddi has said...

    Unless finances are very tight I'd strongly recommend going straight to Y67 at least. You might not have any matches at Y67, or even Y37, but if you do get matches (now or in the future) Y67 will give you far more confidence about how close the match is. My 6th cousin and I match 36/37 at that level. If we didn't already know our shared ancestry, 36/37 would have given us a very wide time-frame in which the shared ancestor could have lived. The fact that the GD is still one at the next level (i.e. matching 66/67) gives us something like 99% confidence that the shared ancestor was no further back than the one we had identified.

    Getting a 3rd/4th cousin to test is probably not worthwhile at this stage. Wait until you have your own results. If you have matches in the surname project then you'll have answered your basic question. It's only if you have no matches, or several matches to the wrong surname, that testing the known cousin would be useful to prove or disprove your ancestry as far back as your most recent common ancestor.

    Keep us posted when you get your results!

    Leave a comment:


  • Rheiner
    replied
    Thanks very much

    Appreciate your help!

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by Rheiner View Post

    * For a search this distant (1752 immigrant), are more markers better?
    The general rule is that the more markers tested, the more reliable the estimate of the "time to most recent common ancestor" (TMRCA). Basically, 12 and 25 marker matches are not very reliable. At 37 markers, you start to see matches who are probably related within the last several hundred years. At 67 and 111 markers, the matches are the most reliable for getting accurate TMRCAs, with the closest matches probably sharing a common ancestor within the last few hundred years.

    Originally posted by Rheiner View Post
    * How many Y markers does the NatGeo 2.0 use?[B]
    None. NatGeo 2.0 only tests SNPs, not STRs. SNPs relate to deep ancestry and would not help your research.

    Originally posted by Rheiner View Post
    * Would it be helpful to have 3rd/4th cousins with same surname tested as well?
    I'm not sure that that would help much. You're trying to get your paternal line across the ocean to its European origin before 1752. It's likely that 3rd/4th cousins would have the same question you have about European origin. So, I don't see what clues or information they would provide.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rheiner
    replied
    Thanks, John. Yes, there's a small group working a related surname, which I intend to join. And I'll join whichever other groups may be helpful.

    [QUOTE=John McCoy;439834]It would be helpful if you could explain the situation in more detail. What are the competing hypotheses that you need to investigate?

    German vs. Swiss, essentially.

    Our family's surname was phoneticized two ways, "Heaner" and "Hayner"

    In Europe, clusters of Häner, Hänner, Henner, etc. center on the upper Rhine, Baden, Switzerland, Alsace.

    Hoping to find Y matches to link back to Europe, but there are only 40+ in the family name group.

    If you are a male and the ancestor is through your direct paternal line, a Y DNA test (such as Y-67) would provide some basic information about your (and his) Y chromosome, but there's no guarantee that information would advance your research. Is there already a "surname project" for your family name on the FTDNA web site?
    * For a search this distant (1752 immigrant), are more markers better?

    * How many Y markers does the NatGeo 2.0 use?

    * Would it be helpful to have 3rd/4th cousins with same surname tested as well?

    Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • John McCoy
    replied
    It would be helpful if you could explain the situation in more detail. What are the competing hypotheses that you need to investigate? If you are a male and the ancestor is through your direct paternal line, a Y DNA test (such as Y-67) would provide some basic information about your (and his) Y chromosome, but there's no guarantee that information would advance your research. Is there already a "surname project" for your family name on the FTDNA web site?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rheiner
    started a topic Which Y test for link 7-9 generations back?

    Which Y test for link 7-9 generations back?

    Hi, appreciate your help on this basic question.

    My surname riddle begins with a male 1752 immigrant, prob. from Germany or Switzerland.

    Is this the sort of query for which more markers is not necessarily better?

    Which test is appropriate?

    Thanks!
Working...
X