World Families Forums - What should the large group of R1b1a2 predicted people do?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 20, 2014, 01:20:30 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  What should the large group of R1b1a2 predicted people do?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: What should the large group of R1b1a2 predicted people do?  (Read 1686 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« on: October 14, 2012, 11:00:54 PM »

Maybe FTDNA will call them R-M269 predicted or just plain R predicted, but lets put aside nomenclature for this discussion.

What should the unawashed R1b predicted people who have done no SNP testing do? I've been tentative to make any recommendations to order Geno 2.0 until we see what SNPs are in it, but that day will come soon.

The price of Geno 2.0, about $200, could be consumed by seven stand-alone SNP tests. If an R1b predicted type has no idea what SNPs they might be positive for, a Geno 2.0 shotgun blast makes a lot of sense.

However, for if a predicted R1b person has a good fit with a particular terminal SNP, then perhaps they should do the stand alone SNP test and shoot with a rifle. Also, there are the newly discovered SNPs that Geno 2.0 won't cover anyway.

Then there is the problem with the middle-ground (middle to old age) SNPs. I'll give an example as U106. It make sense, at first blush, for a 492=13 R1b predicted person to test for U106. However, there are many SNPs downstream of U106 so you could still easily spend an additional $180 for six additional SNPs. An example path length is U106>Z381>Z301>L48>L47>L44>L46>L164>L292. U106 is too old to be what I'd call a permanent terminal SNP. There will continue to be more SNPs discovered to where U106* dwindles away. The other side of that is Geno 2.0 doesn't have the new or TBD SNPs anyway.

My current thinking for R1b predicted folks is:
1) Get tested to 67 markers. That's never a waste of money if you are interested in deep ancestry and your brother or true cousin hasn't already tested.
2) Find your variety/cluster and see what SNP testing they've done.
3) Check for signature matches with permanent "youthful" terminal SNPs and if you find a good match, you might consider it.
4) Get the shotgun out and order Geno 2.0 if you haven't figured out what you are shooting at with any confidence.

I'm talking to the R1b and Subclades project administrators about this. I've also got links from the Hg R and Hg R1b Wiki articles to the R and R1b Yahoo groups which serve as traffic directors to get people to the right sub-clade projects with R1b and Subclades being the default.

I think there are at least a few clear permanent terminal types of SNPs with clear signatures. The one I can think of most easily is L226 and Irish III, but M222 and NW Irish applies too.

Is there such a permanent terminal SNP?  In a way, yes. SNPs with less than 15% STR diversity are private so that is the floor. We might consider SNPs with no more than 20% STR diversity that aren't private as permanently terminal.  Ideally you find another SNP right above it that puts a lid on that 20% diversity cap.  An example would be that L706.2 pretty much proves L705.2 is not much more than a 1000 years old because it sits on top of it with very little more diversity.
'


« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 11:03:22 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2012, 01:30:58 AM »

This is a very good question. I recently did some rough calculations on the data from projects for Norway, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Austria, Italy and the number of kits that are simply shown as M269 totaled ~1,200 kits or 70% of the R1b members of those projects.

That's a hell of a lot of untested SNP territory for R1b land.

Until Geno 2 came around, I was thinking that FTDNA ought to at least automatically test those candidates for U106 or P312 membership for starters, and for such members be automatically included in the associated projects, after which U106 and P312 project admins could contact them with suggested strategies for further testing, if they so desired.

At the moment, it strikes me that there is no effective incentive for M269'ers to be SNP tested. Many of them may not even know what an SNP is, having been STR tested hoping to find a family/surname match.

IMO, there needs to be a campaign to spur STR-only testers to get interested and involved in deep ancestry, too.


Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2012, 05:14:40 AM »

FTDNA could also offer a bonus R1b SNP test with every 37  marker test.
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2012, 08:01:07 AM »

Just this week I told my new found maternal Y-DNA relatives to cancel their deep clade order and switch it to Geno 2.0. The added benefit was that they were also interested in deep ancestry mtDNA.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2012, 08:42:59 AM »

I guess, it would be a good idea to keep in mind that the core customer base of FT-DNA are people who are doing family genealogy. They are only interested in their own family i.e. the last 300 - 500 years.

If you discuss SNPs and their use with these type of people, they will start asking questions like: SNPs are for anthropology, right ?? They have no concept of the impact of testing, say, a 4,000 year old SNP on their family research. This is not correct, but the full story why would take more energy reading/studying than most are willing to invest, I guess.

A second issue is: what do people in general learn from their SNP test ? If for instance somebody tests U106+ what does that mean ? Some say Germanic, but that's about half of Europe, so it doesn't tell you much. The next step would be to test Z381 and Z156 and Z301. But then what does it mean to be Z156+ or Z301+ ? Nobody knows. Nobody has a story that would interest people and/or would answer questions. So why would people test those SNPs and why would anybody go on testing after, say, U106 ??

I'm fully convinced that once such stories WILL exist and then people will be very interested in knowing to which group they belong, but until then it will take an enthousiast to expect a lot of SNP testing. These enthousiasts are paving the way for the masses.

BTW, I guess that Geno2-like massive SNP tests will turn out to be the way to go for the masses (!!!), much more so than testing individual SNPs. And that a parallel Full-Y process is needed to find new SNPs; e.g. those useful for family research.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 12:48:44 PM by Peter M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2012, 08:56:14 AM »

I guess, it would be a good idea to keep in mind that the core customer base of FT-DNA are people who are doing family genealogy. They are only interested in their own family i.e. the last 300 - 500 years.

If you discuss SNPs and their use with these type of people, they will start asking questions like: SNPs are for anthropology, right ?? They have no concept of the impact of testing, say, a 4,000 year old SNP on their family research. This is not correct, but the full story why would take more energy reading/studying than most are willing to invest, I guess.

A second issue is: what do people in general learn from their SNP test ? If for instance somebody tests U106+ what does that mean ? Some say Germanic, but that's about half of Europe, so it doesn't tell you much. The next step would be to test Z381 and Z156 and Z301. But then what does it mean to be Z156+ or Z301+ ? Nobody knows. Nobody has a story that would interest people and/or would answer questions. So why would people test those SNPs and why would anybody go on testing after, say, U106 ??

I'm fully convinced that once such stories WILL exist and then people will be very interested in knowing to which group they belong, but until then it will take an enthousiast to expect a lot of SNP testing. These enthousiasts are paving the way for the masses.

BTW, I guess that Geno2-like massive SNP tests will turn out to be the way to go for the masses (!!!), much more so then testing individual SNPs. And that a parallel Full-Y process is needed to find new SNPs; e.g. those useful for family research.

I think you are saying we need to spark more interest in deep ancestral testing and the general value of SNPs.

We do have Bennett Greenspan's interview where he describes how the trunk connects to the large limbs and then the smaller branches and finally the twigs (which would be private/near-private SNPs) and finally the surname STR based clusters or leaves.

I suppose any National Genographic transfer in customer is by default interested in the deep ancestral stuff.  Maybe we need to refer more back to their stories.  I wish I felt better about Dr. Wells' stuff.

I think some of this depends on your success in having true genealogical family members engaged. I don't have much success there so I had to reach deeper in time and try to come at it that way. It turns out it gave me something of value to exchange with genealogically bent (but not DNA bent) cousins.... so they tolerate me. LOL.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 08:58:55 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2012, 09:15:28 AM »

I wrote to several Irishmen that I believe are Z156. They wrote back saying that they are not interested. They want to find close matches with the same surname. I wished them luck as I have been trying for six years with no success.


I guess, it would be a good idea to keep in mind that the core customer base of FT-DNA are people who are doing family genealogy. They are only interested in their own family i.e. the last 300 - 500 years.

If you discuss SNPs and their use with these type of people, they will start asking questions like: SNPs are for anthropology, right ?? They have no concept of the impact of testing, say, a 4,000 year old SNP on their family research. This is not correct, but the full story why would take more energy reading/studying than most are willing to invest, I guess.

A second issue is: what do people in general learn from their SNP test ? If for instance somebody tests U106+ what does that mean ? Some say Germanic, but that's about half of Europe, so it doesn't tell you much. The next step would be to test Z381 and Z156 and Z301. But then what does it mean to be Z156+ or Z301+ ? Nobody knows. Nobody has a story that would interest people and/or would answer questions. So why would people test those SNPs and why would anybody go on testing after, say, U106 ??

I'm fully convinced that once such stories WILL exist and then people will be very interested in knowing to which group they belong, but until then it will take an enthousiast to expect a lot of SNP testing. These enthousiasts are paving the way for the masses.

BTW, I guess that Geno2-like massive SNP tests will turn out to be the way to go for the masses (!!!), much more so then testing individual SNPs. And that a parallel Full-Y process is needed to find new SNPs; e.g. those useful for family research.
Logged
gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2012, 09:41:20 AM »

FTDNA could also offer a bonus R1b SNP test with every 37  marker test.

I like your thinking. It's in line with what I was thinking about where all testers get confirmed to at least a major branch of their haplogroup.

Not without its practical problems though, including deciding what those major branch points are to be at any given time, and also what to do with those who test negative for them, given that this would be essentially a free one-shot as opposed to the sort of exhaustive testing of the deep clade approach.
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2012, 09:46:21 AM »

I wrote to several Irishmen that I believe are Z156. They wrote back saying that they are not interested. They want to find close matches with the same surname. I wished them luck as I have been trying for six years with no success.

I think that sort of cold-call approach can be "sweetened" with the offer of sponsorship of the test through the project. It may still draw a no, but if the real (undisclosed) reason for lack of interest is actually financial then it may get a "yes".

Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
seferhabahir
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 271


« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2012, 09:49:31 AM »

I wrote to several Irishmen that I believe are Z156. They wrote back saying that they are not interested. They want to find close matches with the same surname. I wished them luck as I have been trying for six years with no success.


At least they responded back to you. On my last try to suggest that some people in my variety test for L583, I was met with deafening silence. No response, nothing. They are probably interested only in close family matches. I have had no luck with this silent majority, trying to explain testing positive for L583 probably means a recent genetic match. I was successful earlier this year and last year getting 8 or 9 people to test, and is how the other two L583 individuals were discovered. I'm hopeful L583 is on the Geno 2.0 chip (likely since my WTY was used to test the chip), and that L583 positive people may fall out of the sky by accident through ordering the Nat Geo test, not knowing anything about the fact that they might be  R1b1a2, let alone L21 or DF13.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-L21 (Z251+ L583+)

mtDNA: J1c7a

razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2012, 10:01:49 AM »

The significance of deep YDNA testing has yet to be grasped by most people working on their own genealogy.  It needs some epic poetry, or whatever substitutes for that in a culturally near-bankrupt, modern society -- probably a Lucasfilm, or something on that scale.  The academic discipline of anthropology, or anyway its rather newly minted genetic component (cf. J. Manco on The Peopling of Europe), is telling you stuff you didn't know about your ole granddaddy -- if you stick to YDNA, and really work at it.  Why would someone who has spent several decades and thousands of dollars in research and travel expenses trying to link back to the Domesday Book (or whatever first records his surname) be content to stop there -- when for a measly few hundred bucks he could, in a broad sense, know his direct male line to Adam?

Anybody using this forum gets it, that the Y line is a tiny, tiny fraction of anybody's genome.  BUT anybody working with aspects of human culture -- genealogists notably included -- can see that it's a highly important, one might even say "ruling" fraction.  Male trades and their skill sets are typically patrilineal.  Many societies, European and otherwise, also practice patrilocality.  So where you live and what you do there (either of which is highly likely to be the source of your surname) often has to do specifically, and uniquely, with that tiny YDNA fraction.

This may be called anthropology -- and perhaps because that's a five-syllable word, dismissed, by shallow thinkers -- but it's about your ole granddaddy; and for a few hundred dollars you can now trace his granddaddy to (genetic) Adam.  Testing the new SNPs, as they come out, enables us to refine that even better.  Those of us who have been doing that for the past few years are seeing something that nobody else, in the history and prehistory of our species, has been able to see.

It's like being the lookout on the mast of Columbus's lead ship.  Or getting to decide where to point the Hubble telescope.  It's that cool.
Logged

R1b Z196*
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2012, 01:55:15 PM »

I think you are saying we need to spark more interest in deep ancestral testing and the general value of SNPs.

If you want people to behave in a certain way, then you'll have to give them reasons to do so.

It needs some epic poetry, or whatever substitutes for that in a culturally near-bankrupt, modern society -- probably a Lucasfilm, or something on that scale.  The academic discipline of anthropology, or anyway its rather newly minted genetic component (cf. J. Manco on The Peopling of Europe), is telling you stuff you didn't know about your ole granddaddy -- if you stick to YDNA, and really work at it.  Why would someone who has spent several decades and thousands of dollars in research and travel expenses trying to link back to the Domesday Book (or whatever first records his surname) be content to stop there -- when for a measly few hundred bucks he could, in a broad sense, know his direct male line to Adam?

Anybody using this forum gets it, that the Y line is a tiny, tiny fraction of anybody's genome.  BUT anybody working with aspects of human culture -- genealogists notably included -- can see that it's a highly important, one might even say "ruling" fraction.  Male trades and their skill sets are typically patrilineal.  Many societies, European and otherwise, also practice patrilocality.  So where you live and what you do there (either of which is highly likely to be the source of your surname) often has to do specifically, and uniquely, with that tiny YDNA fraction.

This may be called anthropology -- and perhaps because that's a five-syllable word, dismissed, by shallow thinkers -- but it's about your ole granddaddy; and for a few hundred dollars you can now trace his granddaddy to (genetic) Adam.  Testing the new SNPs, as they come out, enables us to refine that even better.  Those of us who have been doing that for the past few years are seeing something that nobody else, in the history and prehistory of our species, has been able to see.

It's like being the lookout on the mast of Columbus's lead ship.  Or getting to decide where to point the Hubble telescope.  It's that cool.

This sounds like one of those stories in the making. $:-)
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 01:55:32 PM by Peter M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2012, 02:18:46 PM »

I think you are saying we need to spark more interest in deep ancestral testing and the general value of SNPs.

If you want people to behave in a certain way, then you'll have to give them reasons to do so.

Got it.  This is part of the reason that my GD calculations in the large spreadsheets do NOT work with anything less than 67 markers. I want to give people reasons to get to 67 markers. The other reason is I don't trust GDs that much anyway, particularly below 67.

I'm just asking for help.

I think some of the writing that folks like Sykes and Oppenheimer have written and have done a lot to build interest, but I have misgivings about extrapolating and superimposing too much ethnicity and history with scanty evidence.

I think Moffat and Wilson are helping build interest here, too.

I think there are some rational low level genealogically related reasons to SNP test as well, particularly to filter out false matches, but I can't say this is a big time problem if you test to 67 markers.

Maybe I need to pull out Greenspan's radio interview on the tree, branches and leaves. I think people want to blend in ethnicity to this and that just makes me nervous.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 02:21:17 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2012, 04:54:48 PM »

I think you are saying we need to spark more interest in deep ancestral testing and the general value of SNPs.

If you want people to behave in a certain way, then you'll have to give them reasons to do so.

Got it.  This is part of the reason that my GD calculations in the large spreadsheets do NOT work with anything less than 67 markers. I want to give people reasons to get to 67 markers. The other reason is I don't trust GDs that much anyway, particularly below 67.


Please don't get me wrong. Personally, I agree with you completely (on this subject).

The problem is, you need to think a little like all those "red" M269s do (the ones with an hg-estimate only). Lots of these people are not worried about 67 markers as such, they are interested/motivated by the information (confirmation) of belonging to a certain "family". If 67 markers or 111 markers are needed to achieve that goal, they will order those markers. But only in that case. Higher numbers of markers are a means to an end for them. For you they are a goal as such.

Please think about these things as if you were one of those "Red M269"s.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 05:17:04 PM by Peter M » Logged
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2012, 05:14:59 PM »

My personal vision is that we need a "Catalogue of Groups" (CoG): (preferably) a web site that describes genetic groups of people (defined bij SNPs an/or STRs), their geographical spread and their history as far as we know it, preferably linking to known stories from history (e.g. from wikipedia).

BTW, I'm not talking about the absolute and final scientific "truth" here. I'm talking about the best information to date for each group, which might be a little more or a little less depending on the group concerned.

This ideal might be a little ahead of us now, but I'm sure it can be achieved and will result in interesting stories that people will be interested in to read. To give an example: the history of the R-Z18 SNPs has learnt us a few things about European history that are not currently known. I guess the R-Z18 web site will turn out to be a fore-runner when it is finished and up to date.

I get the impression that, given the higher levels of cooperation in e.g. the L21 world, it might be possible to set up a structure like my CoG in that world. That might (!!) spark more interest with the "Red M269" to know more after discovering about their direct family group and to read about ancient tribes among which, most likely, their ancestors lived.

It might even be possible to interest professional or more advanced amateur historians in such an endavour, although I'm not 100% sure these people are easy to work with. $:-)
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 05:45:20 PM by Peter M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2012, 11:36:06 PM »

I think you are saying we need to spark more interest in deep ancestral testing and the general value of SNPs.

If you want people to behave in a certain way, then you'll have to give them reasons to do so.

Got it.  This is part of the reason that my GD calculations in the large spreadsheets do NOT work with anything less than 67 markers. I want to give people reasons to get to 67 markers. The other reason is I don't trust GDs that much anyway, particularly below 67.


Please don't get me wrong. Personally, I agree with you completely (on this subject).

The problem is, you need to think a little like all those "red" M269s do (the ones with an hg-estimate only). Lots of these people are not worried about 67 markers as such, they are interested/motivated by the information (confirmation) of belonging to a certain "family". If 67 markers or 111 markers are needed to achieve that goal, they will order those markers. But only in that case. Higher numbers of markers are a means to an end for them. For you they are a goal as such.

Please think about these things as if you were one of those "Red M269"s.

I was one.  You have some good points. The only thing I can think of off-hand for someone who has absolutely zero interest in deep ancestry is to describe the possibility of non-surname matches, at least in determing Old World origins. I mentioned before the benefit of filtering out noise from convergence but I don't know how often that happens.

Ultimately, there may come a day when SNPs will get down to the family level across the board and that will actually prove SNPs to be more than just deep ancestral subdividers.

However, if we push the future technologies (full human genome scans, Geno 3.0, 4.0 etc.) too much it may just encourage people to just sit and wait and then we are back to the chicken and egg problem.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 11:39:36 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2012, 10:59:54 AM »

I think you are saying we need to spark more interest in deep ancestral testing and the general value of SNPs.

We do have Bennett Greenspan's interview where he describes how the trunk connects to the large limbs and then the smaller branches and finally the twigs (which would be private/near-private SNPs) and finally the surname STR based clusters or leaves.

I suppose any National Genographic transfer in customer is by default interested in the deep ancestral stuff.  Maybe we need to refer more back to their stories.  I wish I felt better about Dr. Wells' stuff.

I did some dilatory searching for such an interview, seems to me it was pretty recent and was discussed on the ISOGG forum on Facebook or someplace like that, maybe a blog -- but I was unable to retrieve the conversation.  Do you have a link for it?  I found a couple of good interviews with Bennett Greenspan, especially one from a Houston radio station, but he was not this specific (about SNPs and STRs).

The best printed discussion of this topic that I've seen is in the book Surnames, DNA, and Family History (Oxford, 2011), chapters 7 and 8 -- which I assume were largely or entirely the work of Turi King.  (The book had two other authors, George Redmonds and David Hey, but she was the DNA specialist on the team.)  She's supposed to be taking over just about now as editor of a revived JOGG (online Journal of Genetic Genealogy); maybe that will be a place to look for some rays of light in this more or less dim corner of our closet.  I don't think a couple of chapters in a British university press book are likely to awaken the sleeping mass of American genealogical hobbyists to the desirability of testing for their SNPs.

I realize that there are books and blogs by popular members of our community (Roberta Estes, CeCe Moore, Debbie Cruwys Kennett and others) that may also deal with the matter cogently and accurately; I haven't delved into that area very much.

[I have deleted a couple of links to video lessons that I don't believe were very useful.]
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 03:07:21 PM by razyn » Logged

R1b Z196*
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2012, 04:44:37 PM »

I don't think a couple of chapters in a British university press book are likely to awaken the sleeping mass of American genealogical hobbyists to the desirability of testing for their SNPs.

Therefore I'm looking for something a wee bit more down to earth and practical. "low threshold" and things and therefore on a web site.

But unfortunately, counting the number of comments, apparently this idea is not shared by many.
Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2012, 08:10:09 PM »

I have deleted my last post on this thread because of some potential privacy issues, in case anyone read that and misses it.

Broadly speaking, I was agreeing with Peter M.
Logged

R1b Z196*
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #19 on: November 15, 2012, 09:45:19 PM »

I don't think a couple of chapters in a British university press book are likely to awaken the sleeping mass of American genealogical hobbyists to the desirability of testing for their SNPs.

Therefore I'm looking for something a wee bit more down to earth and practical. "low threshold" and things and therefore on a web site.

But unfortunately, counting the number of comments, apparently this idea is not shared by many.


I may be mistaken in thinking it's worth reviving this thread to mention this (I wasn't at the FTDNA conference in Houston last weekend); but I've been told by one of the more hardcore genealogy-oriented surname group administrators, who did attend the conference, that the presentation by Rory Van Tuyl had impressed him that SNP testing could well be productive for genealogy, after all.  He was just about persuaded that he should be recommending it to his project -- at least some of the members of it.  (And it's a surname project with close to a thousand members.)  So for what it's worth, here is a blog entry about a SNP-driven genealogy success story, of the type Peter M is seeking.  The blog, by Jennifer Zinck, is here:

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/archives/category/conferences

"Retired engineer Rory Van Tuyl, project administrator for the Van Tuyl project, told how he was able to make some discoveries within his project.  Records-based phylogeny had identified three Van Tuyl branches.  Rory used Monte Carlo Simulation and the Walsh Infinite Alleles Theory to show that there is no constant mutation rate.  Rory used Y-Search and put in the ancestral haplotype and then one by one added changes from the ancestral to the Van Tuyl haplotype.  He found that the Van Tuyls share a specific set of seven alleles that comprise their family haplotype.  He said that using similarities rather than differences is a powerful analytical tool.  He was able to do the same for another set of Van Tuyls and, while they exhibited a similar family haplotype pattern, their pattern did not match that of Rory’s family.  Rory said that we should not try to estimate TMRCA from Y-STR data."

The additional info from my informant is that the SNP correlation (to which these allele similarities had pointed) led to recognition of very distant matches between a branch of the family that had immigrated to the New Netherlands colony in about the 1630s and a branch that has never left Holland.  This is the kind of stuff narrowly focused genealogists are looking for -- and it's still the pot of gold, even if it takes someone like an anthropologist or a geneticist to knock them on the head with it.

And btw I disagree with Rory about estimating TMRCA from STRs -- though I agree that it might yet take some discussion or refinement of how that should be done.
Logged

R1b Z196*
Webb
Old Hand
****
Online Online

Posts: 109


« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2012, 05:26:41 PM »

I think this is what I would do.  If you tested with ftdna, I would contact the administrators of both the U106 project and P312 project and ask them to look at your string and give you some guidance on which direction to go.  You may need to upgrade to a 67 marker test if you haven't done so already.  I had a close match who was confirmed P312, so I took that snp test and once I confirmed for myself that I was P312 I joined the P312 group.  I received an email a few days later from one of the admins. suggesting that I test for Z220 after he suggested that based on my modals he was sure I was DF27 and thought it likely that I would test positive for Z220.  It saved me a lot of time and money.
Logged

William B. Webb
P312>DF27>Z220
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


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

Page created in 0.11 seconds with 18 queries.