Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Y-DNA test. Members from the same family, but genetic distance - 15.

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

  • Y-DNA test. Members from the same family, but genetic distance - 15.

    Hello everyone!

    I and some other person who holds the same last name did Y-DNA 37 test. According to the old genealogy documents me and that other person should belong to the same family (according to the documents our last common ancestor should be around 1500s or even in the 15th century.

    We both got R-M198 haplogroup (at the projects we are at Z92 subgroup). But the strange thing is that our genetic distance is 15 (even 8 mutations we get from fastest moving markers - DYS449 and CDY). Very confusing.

    The simple question - is it possible that since our last common ancestor (which was at least 16-17 generations ago) we got such a big number of mutations? Or is it just a very very big coincidence and we're not related?

    Our kit numbers: 779413, IN21752.

    Thank you for your help!

  • #2
    Originally posted by mstaskev View Post
    Our kit numbers: 779413, IN21752.
    Telling us your kit numbers doesn't help unless both kits are in the same project which has a public website. If that is the case you also need to provide a link to the project.

    Comment


    • #3
      Sorry!

      Here it is.

      https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

      Comment


      • #4
        I would look into Big Y testing or terminal SNP tests to confirm the connection. Looking at the haplotypes it looks like FTDNA is still using the mismatch scheme that counts a mismatch by the numeral distance.

        For example, a value of 30 on one marker and 33 in that same marker of the cousin is a genetic distance of 3.

        I would say the two of your kits are related, but a Big Y test or terminal SNP test would confirm this with higher accuracy. It is also entirely possible for one branch or a family to accumulate a large amount of mutations, that can be a defining factor in determining family branches.

        Comment


        • #5
          spruithean, thank you for your insights and suggestions, it was helpful!

          Comment


          • #6
            I would save your money. You're not related, too many differences.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by travers View Post
              You're not related, too many differences.
              Well, we're all related. The only question is how far back. A gd of 15 is a lot for 15-17 generations. Possible, but pretty unlikely.

              Comment


              • #8
                It is possible that you could be more distantly related than you anticipate. If both have lineages going back to the same region, it is possible a common ancestor was from much earlier. As stated additional DNA testing could shed light. But is it worth the extra expense?

                If both of you can't manage to consider a Big Y, you could try an upgrade to Y111. A Big Y would be more definitive but a Y111 could be enough or maybe not. The markers after Y37 are more stable. The ones in the 13 to 25 appear to give more fast mutating changes.

                You do have one marker with a difference of 3 in that region. In a surname project I follow, I have seen a marker difference of 2 within the same surname project that shares a common ancestor in the late 1500s.

                So it is possible either way.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thank you for the answers. Well the reason why I’m guessing 1500s or late 1400s is because at that time surnames in our region started forming.

                  And not only our surname is pretty rear, but according to genealogy data we both consider ourselves as the descendants of this exact family (clan), who had been holding exactly same coat of arms.

                  Putting into consideration these circumstances and our results, I am guessing that our branches should have gone in seperate ways in the late 1400s or maybe early 1500s (I have genealogy data that proves it couldn’t happen later than mid 1500s).

                  And if it turned out that we had common ancestor, for example, 1500 years ago, I would say it’s pretty interesting, strange and confusing coincidence then!

                  So from the aswers I got an idea that it is a possibility that we could have had a common ancestor in the late 1400s.. Probably the next thing I would consider Y111 or SNPs.
                  Last edited by mstaskev; 2nd April 2018, 02:10 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There's a wrinkle in the history of surnames that might come into play for you. At least in some areas (England and Switzerland for example), surnames were in use but often not "stable" (meaning, transmitted only by patrilineal descent) at least as late as the 15th or even the 16th Century. In at least one case I'm aware of (French-speaking Switzerland) two or three families who ended up with different surnames but whose documented ancestry does go back to a shared patrilineal ancestor were found to share the same Y chromosome in modern descendants, thus validating the paper trail. Untangling the adoption of surnames can be tricky, especially if the documents are fragmentary.

                    Another oddity is that there is no guarantee that mutation rates for the Y chromosome are uniform. DNA repair and other processes that might generate "mutated" STR's are presumably themselves under genetic control, so it is indeed feasible for one branch of a family to accumulate some unexpectedly large number of changes. It is even possible for the Y chromosome to undergo rearrangements that drastically alter the STR's -- I recall discussions of "palindromic regions" on the Y chromosome where some rather spectacular "mutations" were observed. Whether any of these processes might apply to your research problem, I can't tell.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      John, thank you for a brief explanation.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TwiddlingThumbs View Post
                        Well, we're all related. The only question is how far back.
                        No, really? It is obvious we are talking in a genealogical time frame on the direct male line.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hello everyone!

                          It's an old thread, but I want to give a little update.

                          A third person from the family has been tested Y-DNA 37 test.


                          I should mention that all three persons are from the same old noble family, all these three branches (that their descendants have been tested) separate in 1500s or a little earlier.


                          And this recent test shows another quite big genetic distances, though results are still quite similar. What are your thoughts on these interesting results? Could it be possible that this family's Y-DNA just has a bigger tendency to mutate? After the third result it is really unlikely that these three persons are not related and it is just a very big coincidence.


                          Link to the results ---> https://www.familytreedna.com/public...ction=yresults

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Food for thought

                            My Father and his paternal 1st cousin are a GD of 4 @67 Markers

                            Grandfather Joseph > My Grandfather > My Father (surname matches 4 to 7 GD)
                            Grandfather Joseph > My Grandfathers Brother > My Fathers 1st cousin (this line GD of 2 to 6 to surname matches, and bigger surname match list)
                            Last edited by prairielad; 15th April 2019, 09:00 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by prairielad View Post
                              Food for thought

                              My Father and his paternal 1st cousin are a GD of 4 @67 Markers

                              Grandfather Joseph > My Grandfather > My Father (surname matches 4 to 7 GD)
                              Grandfather Joseph > My Grandfathers Brother > My Fathers 1st cousin (this line GD of 2 to 6 to surname matches, and bigger surname match list)
                              I'm GD2 with my own father @37 markers.

                              With my two closest Y500 matches, with 8 differing SNPs, we're at GD13/GD14 by @Y67, they weren't Y111 tested.

                              Considering a kit for an uncle and maybe a cousin, just to see how things shook out on the rest of the nearby tree STR wise.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X