> -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Taylor > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 1:23 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA > > Regarding the Western Atlantic Modal Haplotype (or, more precisely, the "Super > Western Atlantic Modal Haplotype"), what would be the presumption of a common > male ancestor within the genealogical time frame for men sharing this haplotype? > What, if any, would be the presumption for men who differed from this haplotype in > only one marker? > > Any opinions? > > According to FTDNA's FAQ, "The WAMH is a group of the most common results found > in the most common European haplogroup, R1b." Somewhere, I remember reading > that the original WAMH was only 6 markers, but was extended to 12 and the "Super > WAMH" extended it further. > > Thanks in advance. > -rt_/) You don't say how many markers, but an 11/12 match means very little. Even a 12/12 match means very little if you're talking about the WAMH. A 24/25 match may hold up at more markers, but not necessarily (I've seen a 23/25 match drop to 28/37). A 36/37 match will probably hold up at 67 markers. Look how closely two of these family are at 12 markers, and even 25, but how they fall apart at 37 and 67: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Biddle/BiddleDNA-Results-R1b.shtml This is the reason I press all R1b's to test *at least* 37 markers. I was told by FTDNA that there are four 12-marker R1b haplotypes that will cause a WAMH logo to be placed on a project member's page. I've identified three of them: 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 29 Does anyone know the fourth? Diana

Thank you for the insights, Diana You mention "It is possible to build a useful STR cladogram for individual families in genealogical time because the paper genealogy can tell you the polarity of the mutations, provided you can test enough cousins to "triangulate" on the location of all the mutations in the family. " That is, provided that the paper genealogy can tell you the polarity of the mutations. This is very often not the case in real life, and I assume it is not the case in Ralph's example. He did not suggest a logical cladistic analysis. Re "However, I would take exception to your statement that a "mathematical" (i.e., statistical) basis is stronger than a logical one. The situation is quite the reverse, " I didn't actually say that. Rather, (clearly) both are helpful. But the more obscure mathematical treatment has been ignored by most. In particular, I think that you are implicitly relying on statistics in your logical argument. It's OK, no big deal. thanks! Richard Thrift ---- Diana Gale Matthiesen <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> wrote: Richard, > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of RT > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 1:59 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com; rt-sails@comcast.net > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA > > I can't say anything specific, other than that there's a HUGE possible range for > TMRCA. I agree with you that the confidence intervals on TMRCA's are huge, so huge that, IMO, they are useless for genealogical purposes, as I discuss on this web page: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/y-dna-projects/TMRCA.shtml > This article by Ken Nordtvedt is very relevant, but people have tended to ignore it. I > feel it presents a mathematical basis for the "purely logical" process many people use > of looking at off-modal markers to identify a lineage. > http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Nordtvedt.htm However, I would take exception to your statement that a "mathematical" (i.e., statistical) basis is stronger than a logical one. The situation is quite the reverse. If you can arrive at a conclusion based on established facts and a valid logical deduction, it's a far stronger proof than a statistical one. As a simple example... Logical argument: A is taller than B. B is taller than C. Therefore, A must be taller than C. Statistical argument: A has a 90% probability of being taller than B. B has a 90% probability of being taller than C. Therefore, A is probably taller than C, but might not be. Cladistic analysis is a matter of deducing the polarity of traits (ancestral vs. derived), then finding the most logical order of their appearance to form a cladogram (a phylogenetic tree). The most common method of determining the polarity of traits is through outgroup comparison, though there are other ways. There is a fundamental difference here between trying to construct a haplotree based on SNP mutations and one based on STR mutations, mainly because the polarity of a SNP mutation is much easier to deduce. They are easier to deduce because they usually have only one of two states and they are relatively rare. In contrast, it's difficult to determine the polarity of an STR mutation because, not only are they relatively common (so choosing the right outgroup is difficult), they can have many states (e.g., just because someone is 12 at a marker doesn't mean the ancestral value was 11 -- it might have been 13), and reversals are largely undetectable. It is possible to build a useful STR cladogram for individual families in genealogical time because the paper genealogy can tell you the polarity of the mutations, provided you can test enough cousins to "triangulate" on the location of all the mutations in the family. Ken is using (or appears to me to be using) statistical haplotype "resemblance" to form his groups, without reference to trait polarity, which means he is not engaged in cladistics and his trees are not cladograms, except when confined to SNPs alone. (Ken and I have been arguing this point *for years*, both on GENEALOGY-DNA and on Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I.) You may find his statistical results useful, and I do, but statistical results based on resemblance cannot be as reliably true as a logical cladistic analysis would be. Diana

Richard, > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of RT > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 1:59 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com; rt-sails@comcast.net > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA > > I can't say anything specific, other than that there's a HUGE possible range for > TMRCA. I agree with you that the confidence intervals on TMRCA's are huge, so huge that, IMO, they are useless for genealogical purposes, as I discuss on this web page: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/y-dna-projects/TMRCA.shtml > This article by Ken Nordtvedt is very relevant, but people have tended to ignore it. I > feel it presents a mathematical basis for the "purely logical" process many people use > of looking at off-modal markers to identify a lineage. > http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Nordtvedt.htm However, I would take exception to your statement that a "mathematical" (i.e., statistical) basis is stronger than a logical one. The situation is quite the reverse. If you can arrive at a conclusion based on established facts and a valid logical deduction, it's a far stronger proof than a statistical one. As a simple example... Logical argument: A is taller than B. B is taller than C. Therefore, A must be taller than C. Statistical argument: A has a 90% probability of being taller than B. B has a 90% probability of being taller than C. Therefore, A is probably taller than C, but might not be. Cladistic analysis is a matter of deducing the polarity of traits (ancestral vs. derived), then finding the most logical order of their appearance to form a cladogram (a phylogenetic tree). The most common method of determining the polarity of traits is through outgroup comparison, though there are other ways. There is a fundamental difference here between trying to construct a haplotree based on SNP mutations and one based on STR mutations, mainly because the polarity of a SNP mutation is much easier to deduce. They are easier to deduce because they usually have only one of two states and they are relatively rare. In contrast, it's difficult to determine the polarity of an STR mutation because, not only are they relatively common (so choosing the right outgroup is difficult), they can have many states (e.g., just because someone is 12 at a marker doesn't mean the ancestral value was 11 -- it might have been 13), and reversals are largely undetectable. It is possible to build a useful STR cladogram for individual families in genealogical time because the paper genealogy can tell you the polarity of the mutations, provided you can test enough cousins to "triangulate" on the location of all the mutations in the family. Ken is using (or appears to me to be using) statistical haplotype "resemblance" to form his groups, without reference to trait polarity, which means he is not engaged in cladistics and his trees are not cladograms, except when confined to SNPs alone. (Ken and I have been arguing this point *for years*, both on GENEALOGY-DNA and on Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I.) You may find his statistical results useful, and I do, but statistical results based on resemblance cannot be as reliably true as a logical cladistic analysis would be. Diana

Regarding the Western Atlantic Modal Haplotype (or, more precisely, the "Super Western Atlantic Modal Haplotype"), what would be the presumption of a common male ancestor within the genealogical time frame for men sharing this haplotype? What, if any, would be the presumption for men who differed from this haplotype in only one marker? Any opinions? According to FTDNA's FAQ, "The WAMH is a group of the most common results found in the most common European haplogroup, R1b." Somewhere, I remember reading that the original WAMH was only 6 markers, but was extended to 12 and the "Super WAMH" extended it further. Thanks in advance. -rt_/)

I can't say anything specific, other than that there's a HUGE possible range for TMRCA. This article by Ken Nordtvedt is very relevant, but people have tended to ignore it. I feel it presents a mathematical basis for the "purely logical" process many people use of looking at off-modal markers to identify a lineage. http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Nordtvedt.htm Richard Thrift ---- Ralph Taylor <rt-sails@comcast.net> wrote: Regarding the Western Atlantic Modal Haplotype (or, more precisely, the "Super Western Atlantic Modal Haplotype"), what would be the presumption of a common male ancestor within the genealogical time frame for men sharing this haplotype? What, if any, would be the presumption for men who differed from this haplotype in only one marker? Any opinions? According to FTDNA's FAQ, "The WAMH is a group of the most common results found in the most common European haplogroup, R1b." Somewhere, I remember reading that the original WAMH was only 6 markers, but was extended to 12 and the "Super WAMH" extended it further. Thanks in advance. -rt_/) ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

We are pleased to announce the launch of the new ISOGG Wiki: http://www.isogg.org/wiki A Wiki is a collaborative website which anyone can edit. It will serve as a repository for the shared knowledge of the genetic genealogy community and we hope that over time it will prove to be a valuable resource. In order to maintain the quality and integrity of the ISOGG Wiki it is intended to restrict editing rights to ISOGG members. If you are not a member of ISOGG - the International Society of Genetic Genealogy - you can join here: http://www.isogg.org <http://www.isogg.org/> A number of experienced DNA project administrators have volunteered to serve as administrators of the new Wiki to oversee the content and to assist new editors. ISOGG members who wish to edit the Wiki will be required to create an account first. You'll need to click on "Create account" in the top right-hand corner of the welcome page. Once your ISOGG membership has been checked and your account request has been approved you'll receive a confirmatory e-mail. The intention of the ISOGG Wiki is to provide a range of practical articles on genetic genealogy. There seems little point in duplicating well referenced articles on haplogroups on Wikipedia for instance. Instead we hope to focus on more practical matters such as factual comparisons of different tests, lists of useful resources such as blogs, books, databases and videos, and articles on the different DNA testing companies. ISOGG members can create their own user pages and also create pages for their DNA projects. We hope that in due course the Wiki will be able to provide a comprehensive listing of all known DNA projects so that everyone will easily be able to check to see whether or not a project exists for their particular haplogroup, surname or geographical area. One of the advantages of the Wiki is that it is very easy to upload pictures and screenshots, making it much easier to demonstrate the features of different tests. As an example, you might like to check out some of the pages on the Relative Finder and Family Finder tests. It will take time to build up the pages, but the possibilities are endless. The more people who collaborate and contribute the better the resource will be. We hope you will take a look and let us know what you think. Debbie Kennett

I just wanted to let everyone know that I've updated the DNA 101 section on the blairdna.com (http://blairdna.com/) website. DNA 101 has now become DNA 101, DNA 102, and DNA 103. DNA 101 remains pretty much the same and discusses DNA and the Y-Chromosome as it pertains to genealogy. DNA 102 and DNA 103 come from I presentation I gave at a Guild of One Name Studies DNA Seminar in Cheltenham, UK on February 20, 2010. DNA 102 covers what DNA testing can and cannot do and goes into some detail on interpreting the test results. DNA 103 deals with the methods and rationale I use to group participants in the Blair DNA Project. I hope these prove useful to both individuals and project administrators. Scottish DNA - Better than Life Insurance John ------------------------------------ John A. Blair Haywards Heath, England http://blairdna.com rootsweb@blairdna.com BLAIR DNA Project Administrator

Billie asked for comment on the following: {snip} "I sit here and read and try to figure out what DNA testing really does. I'm beginning to formulate a theory that for much more than four or five generations back it really isn't worth much at this time. If you want to know if your father is really your father it's accurate. Maybe for a couple more generation back. Back much further it kind of become hit and miss. Especially for the most common group, r1b1*. As time goes on and more and more get tested this could/will change. [ but probably not before I'm dust in the bottom of a hole. ]" {end snip} Here's my take: What DNA testing really does is to allow two persons to know that their cooperation in mutual research would be worthwhile, because their family trees intersect each other at some point -- often previously unidentified and unsuspected. DNA testing is a supplement to, and a focusing aid for, traditional documentary genealogy; DNA is not a substitute for records. Anyhow, that's how it worked for me. DNA testing led me to focus research on a family, place and time that was previously only one "possible" among many. Records and the DNA supported each other to work around a brick wall. As to the "isn't worth much" "more than four or five generations back" theory, the reverse is more the case. The further one goes back in time, the more valuable and useful DNA becomes. That is, until we hit the wall at the beginning of the genealogical time frame, when it's no longer possible to identify ancestors by names, dates, places, etc. But, OOTH, traditional "records" genealogy fizzles out at the same point. Confusion on that point may come from the many who like to talk about "genetic anthropology" rather than "genetic genealogy". To me: * Genetic genealogy is a branch &/or technique of genealogy. It is interested in individual persons and has the same purposes and similar limits to traditional genealogy. Genetic genealogists talk about "matches". * Genetic anthropology is a branch of anthropology. It is interested in groups of people and, basically, concerned with pre-history. Genetic anthropologists talk about "clades". At some point in the development of the underlying sciences, the two may converge. It probably won't be anytime soon. As more get tested, in general, what will happen is that more will find matches. The technology is very new, only a few years old, and hasn't yet achieved full acceptance. Very few projects yet have a "penetration" of more than a few dozen per million. Most are still "working out the kinks" as to goals and processes. If you have a few years left before you're in the bottom of a hole, expect great things to happen. BTW, I'm currently working up a theory that, conceptually, the probability of a match for a project participant depends on a ratio of how many "lines" (analogous to haplotypes) a project has FOUND to the total number of existing ANCESTRAL lines for the project's target population. Calling it the "F/A ratio", the closer F/A is to 1, the more probable it is that a new participant will match an existing participant. -ralpht_/)

My experience squares with Diana's. A 35/37 match with a suspected 9th cousin, a 36/37 match with a known 3rd cousin, and a 36/37 match between these 2 cousins, was strong evidence that the suspected 9th cousin was a true genetic relationship. Upgrading to 67 markers yielded a 65/67 match with the suspected 9th cousin, confirming our respective paper trails, which included a NPE. We're currently waiting for test results from a suspected 11th cousin. If we get confirmation of this male-line genetic relationship, we'll have another generation back in time, linking the Humphrey families in Lyme Regis, Dorset, and Honiton, Devon, circa 1577. And we're successfully finding genetic relatrionships among several surnames in our Humphrey project, and merging paper trails, 3-11 generations back in America & England. Some of Ken's work is helpful, too, in analyzing more distant relationiships. Mike ... ===================================== Y-DNA STR testing is useful at every level within genealogical time (20-24 generations, the period of surname adoption), now. We don't have to wait until we're dust to use it, and it's not at all "hit and miss." It only gets dicey when you try to go back beyond genealogical time, which, as a genealogist, I have no interest in doing. The testing is most effective when both the haplotype and the surname are rare, such as with my Haplogroup J2a4b CARRICOs, whose nearest matches in other surnames are only 5/12, 17/25, and 21/37. At the other extreme are common haplotypes in common surnames, such as R1b1b2-WAMH in SMITH, THOMPSON, DAVIS, etc. In these cases, it's imperative that everyone test to at least 67 and be deep SNP tested. I've yet to run into a case where sufficient testing didn't resolve the issues of relationship. Diana -----Original Message----- From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Billie Walsh Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 9:05 AM To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] DNA I sit here and read and try to figure out what DNA testing really does. I'm beginning to formulate a theory that for much more than four or five generations back it really isn't worth much at this time. If you want to know if your father is really your father it's accurate. Maybe for a couple more generation back. Back much further it kind of become hit and miss. Especially for the most common group, r1b1*. As time goes on and more and more get tested this could/will change. [ but probably not before I'm dust in the bottom of a hole. ] Comment???? ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of

I just wanted to let everyone know that I've updated the DNA 101 section on the blairdna.com (http://blairdna.com/) website. DNA 101 has now become DNA 101, DNA 102, and DNA 103. DNA 101 remains pretty much the same and discusses DNA and the Y-Chromosome as it pertains to genealogy. DNA 102 and DNA 103 come from I presentation I gave at a Guild of One Name Studies DNA Seminar in Cheltenham, UK on February 20, 2010. DNA 102 covers what DNA testing can and cannot do and goes into some detail on interpreting the test results. DNA 103 deals with the methods and rationale I use to group participants in the Blair DNA Project. I hope these prove useful to both individuals and project administrators. /*Scottish DNA - Better than Life Insurance* /*John* ------------------------------------ John A. Blair Haywards Heath, England _http://blairdna.com_ _mailto:j_blair@blairdna.com_ BLAIR DNA Project Administrator On 7/24/2010 11:30 AM, Raymond Wing wrote: > I believe it depends on how closely the individuals match the WAMH (and with more markers, the modal values for their haplogroup). By definition, the modal values are the most common values found for each marker. > > If both individuals share several uncommon marker values, then it is highly likely they are related in a genealogical time frame. However, if both individuals share 65 or so of the modal values, then the chance of this match simply being a coincidence is much higher. > > Raymond T. Wing > > > --- On Sat, 7/24/10, Peter Langley<paircfada@eircom.net> wrote: > > > From: Peter Langley<paircfada@eircom.net> > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] R1b1b2 and 66/67 match > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 5:23 AM > > > Using my quirky system of a 500 to 1 chance of a mutation taking place: > > A 66/67 match would have occurred between 4 and 12 generations ago. > > *But* > With parallel mutations, which I think can occur more often than is thought, > and also back mutations. > You only want one of these to bring the possibility to between 8 and 16 > generations. > > Then of course this is R1b1b and anything could have happened! > > My guess and a lot of this is guess work 95 per cent chance in the last 20 > generations. > > Peter. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "CeCe Moore"<cecemoore@hotmail.com> > To:<y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 9:15 AM > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] R1b1b2 and 66/67 match > > > >> Hi, >> Can anyone give me an opinion on the reliability of a 66/67 match of a >> different surname for a predicted R1b1b2? >> Thanks, >> CeCe >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >

Using my quirky system of a 500 to 1 chance of a mutation taking place: A 66/67 match would have occurred between 4 and 12 generations ago. *But* With parallel mutations, which I think can occur more often than is thought, and also back mutations. You only want one of these to bring the possibility to between 8 and 16 generations. Then of course this is R1b1b and anything could have happened! My guess and a lot of this is guess work 95 per cent chance in the last 20 generations. Peter. ----- Original Message ----- From: "CeCe Moore" <cecemoore@hotmail.com> To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 9:15 AM Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] R1b1b2 and 66/67 match > > Hi, > Can anyone give me an opinion on the reliability of a 66/67 match of a > different surname for a predicted R1b1b2? > Thanks, > CeCe > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Y-DNA STR testing is useful at every level within genealogical time (20-24 generations, the period of surname adoption), now. We don't have to wait until we're dust to use it, and it's not at all "hit and miss." It only gets dicey when you try to go back beyond genealogical time, which, as a genealogist, I have no interest in doing. The testing is most effective when both the haplotype and the surname are rare, such as with my Haplogroup J2a4b CARRICOs, whose nearest matches in other surnames are only 5/12, 17/25, and 21/37. At the other extreme are common haplotypes in common surnames, such as R1b1b2-WAMH in SMITH, THOMPSON, DAVIS, etc. In these cases, it's imperative that everyone test to at least 67 and be deep SNP tested. I've yet to run into a case where sufficient testing didn't resolve the issues of relationship. Diana -----Original Message----- From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Billie Walsh Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 9:05 AM To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] DNA I sit here and read and try to figure out what DNA testing really does. I'm beginning to formulate a theory that for much more than four or five generations back it really isn't worth much at this time. If you want to know if your father is really your father it's accurate. Maybe for a couple more generation back. Back much further it kind of become hit and miss. Especially for the most common group, r1b1*. As time goes on and more and more get tested this could/will change. [ but probably not before I'm dust in the bottom of a hole. ] Comment????

In my opinion, there is a near certainty that the DNA match is genuine and one of these individuals has an NPE in his line: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/General/NPE_Resolutions.shtml Yes, as Raymond indicated, the closer they match the R1b1b2 modal haplotype, the greater the possibility that the match could be a coincidence, but I have yet to hear of a confirmed coincidental match closer than 60/67 (or 61/67, I forget which). I have found FTDNA's interpretations of genetic distance to be consistent with my experience, at least so far: http://www.familytreedna.com/genetic-distance-markers.aspx?testtype=67 Diana -----Original Message----- From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of CeCe Moore Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 4:15 AM To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] R1b1b2 and 66/67 match Hi, Can anyone give me an opinion on the reliability of a 66/67 match of a different surname for a predicted R1b1b2? Thanks, CeCe

I sit here and read and try to figure out what DNA testing really does. I'm beginning to formulate a theory that for much more than four or five generations back it really isn't worth much at this time. If you want to know if your father is really your father it's accurate. Maybe for a couple more generation back. Back much further it kind of become hit and miss. Especially for the most common group, r1b1*. As time goes on and more and more get tested this could/will change. [ but probably not before I'm dust in the bottom of a hole. ] Comment???? -- "A good moral character is the first essential in a man." George Washington

I believe it depends on how closely the individuals match the WAMH (and with more markers, the modal values for their haplogroup). By definition, the modal values are the most common values found for each marker.   If both individuals share several uncommon marker values, then it is highly likely they are related in a genealogical time frame. However, if both individuals share 65 or so of the modal values, then the chance of this match simply being a coincidence is much higher. Raymond T. Wing --- On Sat, 7/24/10, Peter Langley <paircfada@eircom.net> wrote: From: Peter Langley <paircfada@eircom.net> Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] R1b1b2 and 66/67 match To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 5:23 AM Using my quirky system of a 500 to 1 chance of a mutation taking place: A 66/67 match would have occurred between 4 and 12 generations ago. *But* With parallel mutations, which I think can occur more often than is thought, and also back mutations. You only want one of these to bring the possibility to between 8 and 16 generations. Then of course this is R1b1b and anything could have happened! My guess and a lot of this is guess work 95 per cent chance in the last 20 generations. Peter. ----- Original Message ----- From: "CeCe Moore" <cecemoore@hotmail.com> To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 9:15 AM Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] R1b1b2 and 66/67 match > > Hi, > Can anyone give me an opinion on the reliability of a 66/67 match of a > different surname for a predicted R1b1b2? > Thanks, > CeCe > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, Can anyone give me an opinion on the reliability of a 66/67 match of a different surname for a predicted R1b1b2? Thanks, CeCe

On Jul 10, 2010, at 7:26 AM, fred westcott wrote: > Do your Willetts include Willhite, etc. ? I sometimes search the > Willett variation when looking for Willhite/Wilheit/Wilhoit. OH yeah. We'll take almost anybody. ;-) Lisa

Hi LIsa, Thanks for the encouragement. And there is also Westgate, Waistcott, Wescote, etc. I've joined four projects in the past month and am gaining in experience. I've been involved in this only a couple of months now but the knowledge base is growing. I just joined a U106 project doing the deep clade thing so am learning a little about the SNP angle of it. I'll think about it. Do your Willetts include Willhite, etc. ? I sometimes search the Willett variation when looking for Willhite/Wilheit/Wilhoit. Fred On 7/10/10, Wilcox Lisa <occassia@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Fred-- > > On Jul 9, 2010, at 8:45 PM, fred westcott wrote: > >> ...It may be a little difficult to attract people to it because the >> popular idea >> is that all Westcotts descend from Stukley Westcott of Providence, RI, >> or one of his nephews... > > Pshaw. > > You will seldom find a surname project admin who feels it's easy to attract > participants. > > Now, don't allow your own preconceptions prevent you from doing this > valuable work! > > Curious about one of my own (English) lineages, I backed into unintended > admin-ship of the tiny Willett surname project. Much to my astonishment, ALL > of those who've joined the project since then have been Ouellettes (and > variants) of French Canadian ancestry, completely unrelated to any of the > English participants, ---altho many bear Anglicized surnames. > > The tradition in this family is that all the North Americans descend from a > single French settler, but almost none have utilized DNA to test the theory. > Yet. My response is generally along the lines of, "Oh yeah? Prove it!" > > So far no data whatsoever has benefited my own research, but I have learned > an immense amount about founder mutations, to which early French Canadian > colonists were subject due to small, isolated populations. > > What the heck. Since there is considerable overlap of surnames, and some of > the English Willetts were loyalists who fled to Canada during the American > Revolution, such that we are all deeply confused... the project is bound to > attract someone useful to me sooner or later. > > When you start that project, be sure you list Westacott, Westacot, Westcot, > Westcott, Westercott, Wescot, Wescott, Wesket, and any other bizarre > variants with which you are familiar as acceptable participant surnames. > > > Lisa Wilcox > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Fred, I think I may be talking to the originator of the Westcott surname project. It sounds to me like you are already working pretty hard on genetic genealogy as it relates to Westcott families, so why not contact FTDNA about opening a Westcott surname project? Once a project is opened, you might find that even Westcott test participants who haven't responded to any prior messages end up joining it, and FTDNA would be happy to forward messages for you to Westcott kit contacts that aren't yet in the project on a regular basis. Keep in mind the possibility that some of those Westcott kits at FTDNA may not be for Westcott males that have done Y DNA testing. Of course, you might want to be in touch with those other people anyway. They might have male relatives that can test, and they might have results for other tests that would be of interest to you. I had no website experience whatsoever when I first became a project administrator, but I found the FTDNA pages for project administrators easy to use. Good luck to you! Kirsten Saxe ----- Original Message ----- From: "fred westcott" <westcott.fred@gmail.com> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, July 9, 2010 2:49:18 PM Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] finding matches at FT Hi Sharon and Kirsten, Thanks both for the information. I have a better understanding of it now. It's a little frustrating. None of my surname have shown up in matches. I know there are at least 7 as per the surname search on the FT home page. We do not have a surname project. Three show up in one project that FT lists, but have only 12, 12, and 25 markers. I already know the one with 25 markers and he has no plans to upgrade. But I've been told there are two who have 67 markers and these I have not been able to find. Thanks for the help ! Fred On 7/8/10, Sharon Fontenot <smfgen@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi again - > > One of the other factors may be that an individual also checks the levels - > number of markers - at which his haplotype is compared. If he chooses not > to compare at 12 markers or 25, I don't think you'll see him on your match > list except in the 37 and 67 marker matches. > > Sharon > > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:27 AM, <dnalister@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Hi Fred and Sharon, >> >> Sharon is right, and I can tell you about a related quirk. You noted that >> 11/12 matches did now show up on unless a project including them was >> selected. I had the same question you had at one time. With the 11/12 >> matches, I'm not even sure whether they will show up even if both parties >> have selected entire database matching. It may be that a project including >> both has to be selected by the person viewing matches for the match to >> show >> up. I wish that I could find a complete explanation of the criteria that >> are >> used to select matches for display. I think most people don't even notice >> that there is some complexity to the display of matches. Some must be >> missing some important matches as a result. >> >> Kirsten Saxe >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sharon Fontenot" <smfgen@gmail.com> >> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com >> Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:12:30 AM >> Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] finding matches at FT >> >> Hi Fred - >> >> There are two sets of selections at play here, your choice and that of the >> men you are matching. The differences you see *depending on which project >> is selected* is because not all of your matches are comparing against the >> entire database as you are. My uncle has a 66/67 out of surname match who >> it appears only compares with the R-M222 Haplogroup Project, his name & >> email only appears in my uncle's matches list if the R-M222 Haplogroup >> Project is the one I have selected. >> >> Sharon >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:53 AM, fred westcott <westcott.fred@gmail.com >> >wrote: >> >> > I am having difficulties learning how to find matches at FT. In >> > Preferences I selected "entire database" yet my matches vary with >> > either one of four projects that I have joined depending on which one >> > is selected. And they do not vary consistently. If the surname >> > project, Adams, is selected I will get 724 exact matches of 12 markers >> > (of 727 possible if another project is selected) only one of which is >> > an Adams, but in the next category , 12 markers GD 1, there are six >> > Adams and no other names. There can be up to 126 names in this >> > category depending on which project is selected. >> > Is there a way of deselecting all short of opting out of all projects ? >> > >> > What am I missing or doing wrong ? >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Fred-- On Jul 9, 2010, at 8:45 PM, fred westcott wrote: > ...It may be a little difficult to attract people to it because the popular idea > is that all Westcotts descend from Stukley Westcott of Providence, RI, > or one of his nephews... Pshaw. You will seldom find a surname project admin who feels it's easy to attract participants. Now, don't allow your own preconceptions prevent you from doing this valuable work! Curious about one of my own (English) lineages, I backed into unintended admin-ship of the tiny Willett surname project. Much to my astonishment, ALL of those who've joined the project since then have been Ouellettes (and variants) of French Canadian ancestry, completely unrelated to any of the English participants, ---altho many bear Anglicized surnames. The tradition in this family is that all the North Americans descend from a single French settler, but almost none have utilized DNA to test the theory. Yet. My response is generally along the lines of, "Oh yeah? Prove it!" So far no data whatsoever has benefited my own research, but I have learned an immense amount about founder mutations, to which early French Canadian colonists were subject due to small, isolated populations. What the heck. Since there is considerable overlap of surnames, and some of the English Willetts were loyalists who fled to Canada during the American Revolution, such that we are all deeply confused... the project is bound to attract someone useful to me sooner or later. When you start that project, be sure you list Westacott, Westacot, Westcot, Westcott, Westercott, Wescot, Wescott, Wesket, and any other bizarre variants with which you are familiar as acceptable participant surnames. Lisa Wilcox