World Families Forums - Recent Posts

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 21, 2014, 08:56:49 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10

 on: April 18, 2014, 10:57:49 AM 
Started by Maliclavelli - Last post by Maliclavelli

The classification of the PF SNPs was due to National Geographic from the positions given from Paolo Francalacci and his team.
This I wrote when I examined my cousin Federighi's results from Geno 2.0:
PF7574 8189109 8129109 no no no no no C -> T
PF7575 PF7575 Z2104 12677962 14167962 no no no no no C -> T
PF7576 12907993 14397986 no no yes no no G -> T
PF7577 14286425 15777031 no no yes no no G -> A
PF7578 15291267 16781873 no no no no no A -> T
PF7579 16004554 17495160 no no yes no no G -> T
PF7580 16195351 17685957 no no yes no no C -> A
PF7581 17809961 19300567 no no yes no no G -> T
PF7582 18046949 19537555 no no yes no no C -> A
PF7583 19778357 21318969 no no yes no no G -> T
PF7584 20494044 22034656 no no yes no no G -> T
PF7585 21493591 23084203 no no yes no no T -> C
PF7586 15426705 16917311 no no yes no no A -> G
PF7587 22891940 24482552 no no yes no no T -> C
are R-L23 SNPs".
PF7586 15426705 16917311 no no yes no no A -> G was found in the Sardinian sample 991 with these other SNPs not classified by NG:
6855   6654989   C   G   C   R   991   na                                                                                                                                                                           
6856   16917311   A   G   A   R   991   PF7586                                                                                                                                                                           
6857   21608676   C   T   C   R   991   na                                                                                                                                                                           
6858   14417030   T   C   T   R   991   na                                                                                                                                                                           
6859   14206649   G   A   G   R   991   na                                                                                                                                                                           
6860   22811451   G   C   G   R   991   na                                                                                                                                                                        

He is clearly an R-L23* not classified so far.


 on: April 18, 2014, 09:47:34 AM 
Started by Maliclavelli - Last post by Michael Sandford
Thank you so much for finding this. I am struggling to follow everything, but at least I have checked for myself the presence of these SNPs in the results of the two project members, and I see for myself that it is exactly as you report.

A question: where do I find Morley's tree?

A puzzle: On the webpage
I see CTS6397 is recorded positive for N66729 who is R1b-L51 but is  also present in 5 kits in the haplogoup I1-M253+,Z131+,CTS6397+ 
Surely then this means that the snp CTS6397 occurred sometime before the haplogroups I and R split. However, the smeargl page shows some I1-M253+ who are CTS6397-
It therefore appears that CTS6397 has occurred independently in two different haplogroups. Surely this is very unlikely to happen by chance. Is my interpretation correct?

 on: April 18, 2014, 06:06:19 AM 
Started by Maliclavelli - Last post by Maliclavelli
From the Morley's tree we see that
2170 R1b1a2a1–1–1 CTS2484 [1/1], CTS6397 [1/1], Z2113 [1/1]
2171 N66729 GB-E
i.e. N66729 has been tested for Geno 2.0 and not only he is Z2113+, but also CTS2484+ and CTS6397+.
Of course you should see if Brewerton has been tested from Big Y for these SNPs.
These are the positions:
CTS2484         12835871   14325871   no      no      yes   no   no      A -> G                                                                                                                                                      
CTS6397         15379577   16870183   no      no      yes   no   no      G -> C                                                                                                                                                      

Brewerton has both these SNPs amongst his singletons.

Do you need more?

 on: April 17, 2014, 11:21:01 PM 
Started by LakotaWoman - Last post by LakotaWoman
So happy to have found this page, I had the old old one bookmarked and figured it out this evening how to get here!  For a couple years I had been stuck on my Joseph Moren, father of Joshua Moren.  I had a pix of a brick-wall as his primary photo! I followed a few new "trees" at and found Joseph's father was (most likely?) Edward.....just checking in with others following the same blood line.
Thanks, Diane  (oh, I am oglalawoman on Ancestry)

 on: April 17, 2014, 12:56:25 PM 
Started by Maliclavelli - Last post by Maliclavelli
OK, now the tree is right. Only that L277 and L584 aren't in the same line but they are two different ones and certainly there are other subclades.
I'll look at the Brewerton's Big Y, even though I cannot upload to Anthrogenica until I am suspended, but I printed the data. Anyway to test Z2113 is probably completely useless, because he is pretty certainly positive. Look at the Morley's tree...which reads by a computer program the data. Anyway that  216052  and N66729 are closely related is demonstrated also from their STRs. Thus no doubt. If you want to spend some money, do it, but I'd use them for a most important purpose, for instance to upgrade to 111 or to test Z2120 when it is at our disposal: there isn't only FTDNA to test for SNPs, but also Yseq of Thomas Krahn, who worked at FTDNA and was responsible just of the SNPs tests.
Anyway I'd wait next results of Big Y and Full Y. Certainly there will be some SNP to test downstream Z2119 ... but, having done Big Y, Brewerton has so many singletons which already are downstream SNPs. We have only to wait that some of them is shown from other people tested. At this point Z2113 is completely useless.
But at this point, if you are linked to 307937, you should test that line which is yours. For instance to know which is the sublcade. Certainly he isn't R-L51, not having DYS426=13.
13    24    14    11    11 -15    12    12    12    13    13    29    17    9 -10    11    11    25    15    19    29    15 -15 -17 -18    10    12    19 -24    16    15    17    17    35    40    14    13
Difficult to say which subclade from these data, even though in the Isles could be L21. I did Chromo2, only the raw data and a little expensive, and for who is of British descent is so far the best, if one doesn't want to spend for a Big Y or a Full Y.                                                                                                                                                                                                      

 on: April 17, 2014, 12:07:44 PM 
Started by Maliclavelli - Last post by Michael Sandford
Thanks. I have had another go at incorporating the details you give:

Is this better?
Also you are saying that based on one FullGenome reference  all 9 of the SNPs Z2111 to Z2119 are present together, or not present at all?
Checking on FTDNA SNPs available to order, I see only Z2113 is available, so until others become available it does seem to me that ordering Z2113 for 216052 is the best route for confirm a close haplogroup match with N66729   who has already tested Z2113+.

I am bit worried that there may be something wrong with my understanding that all of Z2111 to Z2119 are present together or not at all. Looking at the Big-Y results for 216052 I see:
Z2111   ?   No   G   ?   Unknown
Z2112   ?   No   T   ?   Unknown
Z2113   ?   No   G   ?   Unknown
Z2114    ?   No   C   ?   Unknown
Z2117    No(-)   No   C   C   Unknown
and the following which I take to be a synonym for Z2118               
PF7589   Yes(+)   No   A   G   High

Smal's spread sheet gives Z2118+ and Z2119+, so presumably he also got Z2119 from somewhere else in the big-Y results.

It is the Z2117- that worries me a bit, although perhaps if the confidence is unknown it is just a miss call.

Turning to your point about the Brereton History. We are well aware of the work you quote which is partly based on a work by my great great Brereton Uncle Robert Maitland Brereton, who published in 1904 a family history, which shows my Norfolk line of Breretons connecting back to the noble line in Cheshire. So we claim the noble line is not extinct, and very recently a cousin of mine has had a Y-test (kit 307937) and is definitely in a distinct R1b grouping with many mismatches with the 3 we discuss above. This is consistent with your observation that non-noble inhabitants living near place named Brereton in Cheshire might have independently adopted the same surname as the noble family. The spelling variations can easily arise especially with illiteracy and variations in pronunciation/accent. The Church ministers recording names in the parish registers were educated at Oxford and Cambridge and could obtain parish appointments anywhere in the country where the accents may have been less familiar.

 on: April 17, 2014, 06:07:25 AM 
Started by Maliclavelli - Last post by Maliclavelli
Certainly you do know this book:
Brereton a family history, By J. Brereton
It seems that the surname was taken from a place name: Brere-ton.
Many times happens that noble and not noble lines carry the same surname, but only genetics could demonstrate a link, even though it seems that the noble Breretons are extinct.
Probably the Y Brereton line is rooted in Cheshire. My hypothesis about an old Irish origin was based only upon my theory of the diffusion of the L51 haplogroup, which is documented many thousands of years ago in the places I said above. Anyway also the most ancient Celt peoples of the Isles may derive from there, whereas it seems that another migration from the Italian Refugium came to the Isles from Switzerland and Central Europe (the difference between who is CTS6889+ and -).
Of course your studies are important also for me, i.e. to demonstrate the probable ethnic origin of an Y.

 on: April 17, 2014, 05:18:28 AM 
Started by Maliclavelli - Last post by Maliclavelli
The tree should be different:
Z2103-Z2105 (and subclades: Z2110, but also L277, L584 etc) is a subclade of R-L23* (which like L23* doesn't exist)
Z2111-Z2119 (and subclades: Z2120, then CTS6889+ etc) is a subclade of R-L23* through R-L51* (which like L51* doesn't exist)
from an R-L51* derived R-L11* (which like L11* doesn't exist) from which the subclades U106* and P312* (which in the * form don't exist).

Yo are right to test other Breretons and to understand why a Brereton was named Brewerton even though not having anything to do with that family. The last thing to do is to upgrade to 111 markers, but I'd wait to spend money that other results of Big Y and Full Y do come in.

 on: April 17, 2014, 04:05:45 AM 
Started by Maliclavelli - Last post by Michael Sandford
Thank you very much, for the detailed information.

Smal's spread sheet shows 21650 as positive for Z2118 and Z2119, but there is no mention of the others the range Z2111 to Z2117, or indeed the Z2110 which you have as your haplogroup.

What would help me to understand would be a tree showing the descent of these SNPs. The following is my understanding:

Is this correct?

One of the Brereton project's top priorities is to get more Brereton's from Cheshire to test, since matches may point the way for more genealogical research, which is our main interest, rather than the origins of the tribes which populated Britain in the Dark Ages (pre-1000AD). After all whereas the y-signature comes from a single pedigree line, ones cultural inheritance is some merged combination from all ones ancestral lines.

 on: April 16, 2014, 11:00:36 PM 
Started by Maliclavelli - Last post by Maliclavelli
216052 and N66729 seem the closest related. They differ:
in DYS389I (N66729 had a mutation from 13 to 14: DYS389II hasn't to be counted),
in CDY a and b which may be reconstructed, also by comparing with B7015, like
37 -38
thus 216052 would have had: CDYb from 38 to 37
and N66729 CDYa from 37 to 36.
These last two markers are very fast mutating ones.
Also counting for 1 mutation the RecLOH in DYS464, we'd had 4 mutations out of 67 markers. For the usual calculations:
(454 x 4): 134= 13.5 generations at 25 years for generations = 337.5 years, but they could be also less, because two mutations happened in very fast mutating markers and we don't know how to count the RecLOH. Thus that William Brewerton/Brereton, born about 1755/1765, could be also the same person and the common ancestor. But about this the paper trail is worth more than genetics.

Also B7015 could descend from the same William and Arthur Brereton, born about 1791, to be one of his sons and to demonstrate that the original surname was Brereton and not Brewerton. But at this level paper trails are more worth than genetics.

By counting all three together we'd have
(454x8): 201= about 450 years ago the MRCA.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10

SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.108 seconds with 15 queries.