Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet

Expand Messages
  • texasfalconer@att.net
    I have posted the our latest Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet v.25 in the Files section of our I-M223 group. As of today, it is up-to-date and accurate. Bear in
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 22, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I have posted the our latest Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet v.25 in the Files section of our I-M223 group.

      As of today, it is up-to-date and accurate. Bear in mind that we created this spreadsheet for our group based upon a "business man's visual" model. It is not in the traditional geneticists' format. As such when trimmed and taped together to make 3 scrolls one can easily spot groups and trends. The scrolls can be individually unrolled, held or placed on a table and studied leisurely. Some have even trimmed and taped the 3 scrolls together to make one larger "spreadsheet poster" which they lay on the floor or tack to a wall.

      When I first started doing this some 8+ years ago we didn't have much to go on. 37-markers tests were about the best that we could hope for often. Over the years most upgraded to 67 markers and now we are working on upgrading to 111 markers. There are about a dozen names on the spreadsheet who will probably never contribute anything more than the 12-markers test from the Nat.Geo. project. I have contacted most all of them several times. They have little interest in proceeding further. When we started our Spreadsheet someone suggested using Locus #12,DYS 389-2, as a way of grouping the members. I've done this up until now, but when I look at it I have some questions. Anyone game? lol...

      Looking at Locus #57, DYS 444, we have a rather considerable group with the allele value 15, subjects #8-26. There are 16 of them. Of these 2 have the allele value of 33 at Locus #12, while the remaining 14 have the allele value of 32 at Locus #12. In addition there are 3 others, subjects #55, 57 & 68, who also have the allele value of 15 at Locus #57. They are separated from the main group by various changes in other markers.

      Subject #6, Christopher Johnston VI, has a paper trail going back to Sir Adam Johnstoun of that Ilk ca. 1450 - our clan chief in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. Chris is descended from the Johnstons of Poldean, a line eventually issuing from Sir Adam's son Herbert and his issue. From the Poldean line came two others of some significance for a time, the Johnstons of Craigieburn and the Johnstons of Corehead. 2 brothers from the Johnstons of Craigieburn left Scotland together ca. 1600 and became successful merchants. From "History of the Johnstones" by C.L. Johnstone we read:

      "Symon Johnstoun, a son of one of the Johns mentioned in Craigaburn's Will, migrated to Poland, where there was a large colony of Scottish Romanists. He married Anna Becker, and his son, John, an author and naturalist, was born in Sambter, in Posen, in 1603...his father's male descendants are represented by Count Maximilian von Johnstoun und Kroegeborn, Chamberlain to the Emperor of Germany.."

      I have been notably unsuccessful in persuading any of the von Johnston males in Germany to do a Y-DNA test, but yesterday I was contacted by Bob Schlesier, subject #19 on our spreadsheet. Although I need to do some research on his line I can recall reading at one time that some of the Johnstons in Poland from our line changed their surnames to that of the areas in which they had settled. This was a tradition of sorts among Vikings, and our Johnstons are of Danish Viking descent. As the areas were in the contested state of Silesia their nationalities have changed several times over the centuries.

      1. Is it a valid methodology to use Locus #12 allele values to group subjects?

      2. Given that we have a possible date of a common ancestor for both Bob Schlesier, subject #19, and Chris Johnston, subject # 7, of ca. 1560-80, can anything be inferred about the connection of others on the spreadsheet to this approximate time in history?

      3. Locus #12, DYS 389-2, is supposed to be a slower changing marker according to FTDNA than Locus #57, DYS 444, which is supposed to be a faster changing marker. Yet on our spreadsheet we have a range of only 3 allele values for Locus #57, and a range of at least 6 allele values and possibly as many as 9 for Locus #12, depending upon how the SNP tests come back for subject #70, and we make contact with subject #71 and convince him to test for L1290 and L1317 too. Any thoughts on the different rates of changes that we are seeing here? The so-called slower-changing marker is changing faster than the fast-changing marker.

      4. As subjects #55, 57 & 68 have the allele value 15 at Locus #57, DYS 444, how does one explain their distance from the major group with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Are they random and independent changes apart from the major group or are they inherited changes from within the larger group and other changes separated them? Could they all have had a common ancestor with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Any thoughts as to when in time this change may have happened originally from the allele value 14 to 15? I am currently attempting to have some of the subjects in the larger group upgrade to 111 markers. So far one has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers (today) and another is getting prepared to order his.

      Any other comments and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

      Good hunting,

      Cliff. Johnston
    • Cliff. Johnston
      I should add that Sir Adam Johnstoun, ca. 1450, had 11 sons by 2 wives that we know of.  Also, it has been suggested by one source that Sir Adam had 4
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 22, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I should add that Sir Adam Johnstoun, ca. 1450, had 11 sons by 2 wives that we know of.  Also, it has been suggested by one source that Sir Adam had 4 brothers; however, no names appear to be known for any of the alleged brothers.
         
        The commonly accepted origin for this family was that a knight by the name of Jeanville came over with William the Conqueror in 1066, moved north and eventually Jeanville became Johnstoun.  A Johnston in France has spent several years researching the Jeanville families in France and has be unable to find anything which verifies even the slightest notion of this connection. 
         
        A French researcher suggested to Jean-Marie Johnston that he research the heraldry of the Johnstoun family.  It is then that he says that everything fell into place.  The predecessor of the first Johnstoun was an Earl in Northumberland.  When William defeated Harold in 1066 he secured the south of England and then took an army north to lay claim by force or submission to the remaining lands.  The Earl and father of our first Johnstoun was a relative by marriage to William.  When William arrived in Northumberland the Earl swore his allegiance to William.  They enjoyed a family reunion and a much welcomed rest.  The son later went north to Perth, Scotland.  He built a stone tower house with a surrounding stone wall, and in the tradition of his Viking ancestors he took as his surname the name of a nearby settlement, St. Johnstoune, the old name for Perth.  He personalized his new surname by dropping the "e" and becoming our first Johnstoun.  Later his presence was required along the contentious border with England, and he moved into the Annan River valley area. 
         
        This account of the Johnstoun family name was also supported and reached independently by 2 of the most prestigious Johnston/e family researchers of the late 1900s, Dr. Loran Johnson in the U.S.A. and Robert Shannon in Scotland. 
         
        Cliff.

        From: "texasfalconer@..." <texasfalconer@...>
        To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:37 PM
        Subject: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
         
        I have posted the our latest Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet v.25 in the Files section of our I-M223 group.

        As of today, it is up-to-date and accurate. Bear in mind that we created this spreadsheet for our group based upon a "business man's visual" model. It is not in the traditional geneticists' format. As such when trimmed and taped together to make 3 scrolls one can easily spot groups and trends. The scrolls can be individually unrolled, held or placed on a table and studied leisurely. Some have even trimmed and taped the 3 scrolls together to make one larger "spreadsheet poster" which they lay on the floor or tack to a wall.

        When I first started doing this some 8+ years ago we didn't have much to go on. 37-markers tests were about the best that we could hope for often. Over the years most upgraded to 67 markers and now we are working on upgrading to 111 markers. There are about a dozen names on the spreadsheet who will probably never contribute anything more than the 12-markers test from the Nat.Geo. project. I have contacted most all of them several times. They have little interest in proceeding further. When we started our Spreadsheet someone suggested using Locus #12,DYS 389-2, as a way of grouping the members. I've done this up until now, but when I look at it I have some questions. Anyone game? lol...

        Looking at Locus #57, DYS 444, we have a rather considerable group with the allele value 15, subjects #8-26. There are 16 of them. Of these 2 have the allele value of 33 at Locus #12, while the remaining 14 have the allele value of 32 at Locus #12. In addition there are 3 others, subjects #55, 57 & 68, who also have the allele value of 15 at Locus #57. They are separated from the main group by various changes in other markers.

        Subject #6, Christopher Johnston VI, has a paper trail going back to Sir Adam Johnstoun of that Ilk ca. 1450 - our clan chief in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. Chris is descended from the Johnstons of Poldean, a line eventually issuing from Sir Adam's son Herbert and his issue. From the Poldean line came two others of some significance for a time, the Johnstons of Craigieburn and the Johnstons of Corehead. 2 brothers from the Johnstons of Craigieburn left Scotland together ca. 1600 and became successful merchants. From "History of the Johnstones" by C.L. Johnstone we read:

        "Symon Johnstoun, a son of one of the Johns mentioned in Craigaburn's Will, migrated to Poland, where there was a large colony of Scottish Romanists. He married Anna Becker, and his son, John, an author and naturalist, was born in Sambter, in Posen, in 1603...his father's male descendants are represented by Count Maximilian von Johnstoun und Kroegeborn, Chamberlain to the Emperor of Germany.."

        I have been notably unsuccessful in persuading any of the von Johnston males in Germany to do a Y-DNA test, but yesterday I was contacted by Bob Schlesier, subject #19 on our spreadsheet. Although I need to do some research on his line I can recall reading at one time that some of the Johnstons in Poland from our line changed their surnames to that of the areas in which they had settled. This was a tradition of sorts among Vikings, and our Johnstons are of Danish Viking descent. As the areas were in the contested state of Silesia their nationalities have changed several times over the centuries.

        1. Is it a valid methodology to use Locus #12 allele values to group subjects?

        2. Given that we have a possible date of a common ancestor for both Bob Schlesier, subject #19, and Chris Johnston, subject # 7, of ca. 1560-80, can anything be inferred about the connection of others on the spreadsheet to this approximate time in history?

        3. Locus #12, DYS 389-2, is supposed to be a slower changing marker according to FTDNA than Locus #57, DYS 444, which is supposed to be a faster changing marker. Yet on our spreadsheet we have a range of only 3 allele values for Locus #57, and a range of at least 6 allele values and possibly as many as 9 for Locus #12, depending upon how the SNP tests come back for subject #70, and we make contact with subject #71 and convince him to test for L1290 and L1317 too. Any thoughts on the different rates of changes that we are seeing here? The so-called slower-changing marker is changing faster than the fast-changing marker.

        4. As subjects #55, 57 & 68 have the allele value 15 at Locus #57, DYS 444, how does one explain their distance from the major group with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Are they random and independent changes apart from the major group or are they inherited changes from within the larger group and other changes separated them? Could they all have had a common ancestor with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Any thoughts as to when in time this change may have happened originally from the allele value 14 to 15? I am currently attempting to have some of the subjects in the larger group upgrade to 111 markers. So far one has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers (today) and another is getting prepared to order his.

        Any other comments and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

        Good hunting,

        Cliff. Johnston

      • Cliff. Johnston
        Hmmm, no takers here?  I was hoping that someone could weigh in and help us a wee bit :-)   Thanks,   Cliff. From: texasfalconer@att.net
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 29, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hmmm, no takers here?  I was hoping that someone could weigh in and help us a wee bit :-)
           
          Thanks,
           
          Cliff.

          From: "texasfalconer@..." <texasfalconer@...>
          To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:37 PM
          Subject: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
           
          I have posted the our latest Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet v.25 in the Files section of our I-M223 group.

          As of today, it is up-to-date and accurate. Bear in mind that we created this spreadsheet for our group based upon a "business man's visual" model. It is not in the traditional geneticists' format. As such when trimmed and taped together to make 3 scrolls one can easily spot groups and trends. The scrolls can be individually unrolled, held or placed on a table and studied leisurely. Some have even trimmed and taped the 3 scrolls together to make one larger "spreadsheet poster" which they lay on the floor or tack to a wall.

          When I first started doing this some 8+ years ago we didn't have much to go on. 37-markers tests were about the best that we could hope for often. Over the years most upgraded to 67 markers and now we are working on upgrading to 111 markers. There are about a dozen names on the spreadsheet who will probably never contribute anything more than the 12-markers test from the Nat.Geo. project. I have contacted most all of them several times. They have little interest in proceeding further. When we started our Spreadsheet someone suggested using Locus #12,DYS 389-2, as a way of grouping the members. I've done this up until now, but when I look at it I have some questions. Anyone game? lol...

          Looking at Locus #57, DYS 444, we have a rather considerable group with the allele value 15, subjects #8-26. There are 16 of them. Of these 2 have the allele value of 33 at Locus #12, while the remaining 14 have the allele value of 32 at Locus #12. In addition there are 3 others, subjects #55, 57 & 68, who also have the allele value of 15 at Locus #57. They are separated from the main group by various changes in other markers.

          Subject #6, Christopher Johnston VI, has a paper trail going back to Sir Adam Johnstoun of that Ilk ca. 1450 - our clan chief in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. Chris is descended from the Johnstons of Poldean, a line eventually issuing from Sir Adam's son Herbert and his issue. From the Poldean line came two others of some significance for a time, the Johnstons of Craigieburn and the Johnstons of Corehead. 2 brothers from the Johnstons of Craigieburn left Scotland together ca. 1600 and became successful merchants. From "History of the Johnstones" by C.L. Johnstone we read:

          "Symon Johnstoun, a son of one of the Johns mentioned in Craigaburn's Will, migrated to Poland, where there was a large colony of Scottish Romanists. He married Anna Becker, and his son, John, an author and naturalist, was born in Sambter, in Posen, in 1603...his father's male descendants are represented by Count Maximilian von Johnstoun und Kroegeborn, Chamberlain to the Emperor of Germany.."

          I have been notably unsuccessful in persuading any of the von Johnston males in Germany to do a Y-DNA test, but yesterday I was contacted by Bob Schlesier, subject #19 on our spreadsheet. Although I need to do some research on his line I can recall reading at one time that some of the Johnstons in Poland from our line changed their surnames to that of the areas in which they had settled. This was a tradition of sorts among Vikings, and our Johnstons are of Danish Viking descent. As the areas were in the contested state of Silesia their nationalities have changed several times over the centuries.

          1. Is it a valid methodology to use Locus #12 allele values to group subjects?

          2. Given that we have a possible date of a common ancestor for both Bob Schlesier, subject #19, and Chris Johnston, subject # 7, of ca. 1560-80, can anything be inferred about the connection of others on the spreadsheet to this approximate time in history?

          3. Locus #12, DYS 389-2, is supposed to be a slower changing marker according to FTDNA than Locus #57, DYS 444, which is supposed to be a faster changing marker. Yet on our spreadsheet we have a range of only 3 allele values for Locus #57, and a range of at least 6 allele values and possibly as many as 9 for Locus #12, depending upon how the SNP tests come back for subject #70, and we make contact with subject #71 and convince him to test for L1290 and L1317 too. Any thoughts on the different rates of changes that we are seeing here? The so-called slower-changing marker is changing faster than the fast-changing marker.

          4. As subjects #55, 57 & 68 have the allele value 15 at Locus #57, DYS 444, how does one explain their distance from the major group with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Are they random and independent changes apart from the major group or are they inherited changes from within the larger group and other changes separated them? Could they all have had a common ancestor with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Any thoughts as to when in time this change may have happened originally from the allele value 14 to 15? I am currently attempting to have some of the subjects in the larger group upgrade to 111 markers. So far one has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers (today) and another is getting prepared to order his.

          Any other comments and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

          Good hunting,

          Cliff. Johnston

        • Kimberlee Shaw
          I wish I could help. I m such a newbie to the whole DNA analysis. I read this as blah blah marker, blah blah blah SNP. We plan to upgrade my husband s
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 29, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            I wish I could help.  I'm such a newbie to the whole DNA analysis.  I read this as "blah blah marker, blah blah blah SNP."  We plan to upgrade my husband's markers to 111 but we're waiting for a sale/special.
            Kim


            From: "Cliff. Johnston" <texasfalconer@...>
            To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:07:37 PM
            Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet

             

            Hmmm, no takers here?  I was hoping that someone could weigh in and help us a wee bit :-)
             
            Thanks,
             
            Cliff.

            From: "texasfalconer@..." <texasfalconer@...>
            To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:37 PM
            Subject: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
             
            I have posted the our latest Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet v.25 in the Files section of our I-M223 group.

            As of today, it is up-to-date and accurate. Bear in mind that we created this spreadsheet for our group based upon a "business man's visual" model. It is not in the traditional geneticists' format. As such when trimmed and taped together to make 3 scrolls one can easily spot groups and trends. The scrolls can be individually unrolled, held or placed on a table and studied leisurely. Some have even trimmed and taped the 3 scrolls together to make one larger "spreadsheet poster" which they lay on the floor or tack to a wall.

            When I first started doing this some 8+ years ago we didn't have much to go on. 37-markers tests were about the best that we could hope for often. Over the years most upgraded to 67 markers and now we are working on upgrading to 111 markers. There are about a dozen names on the spreadsheet who will probably never contribute anything more than the 12-markers test from the Nat.Geo. project. I have contacted most all of them several times. They have little interest in proceeding further. When we started our Spreadsheet someone suggested using Locus #12,DYS 389-2, as a way of grouping the members. I've done this up until now, but when I look at it I have some questions. Anyone game? lol...

            Looking at Locus #57, DYS 444, we have a rather considerable group with the allele value 15, subjects #8-26. There are 16 of them. Of these 2 have the allele value of 33 at Locus #12, while the remaining 14 have the allele value of 32 at Locus #12. In addition there are 3 others, subjects #55, 57 & 68, who also have the allele value of 15 at Locus #57. They are separated from the main group by various changes in other markers.

            Subject #6, Christopher Johnston VI, has a paper trail going back to Sir Adam Johnstoun of that Ilk ca. 1450 - our clan chief in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. Chris is descended from the Johnstons of Poldean, a line eventually issuing from Sir Adam's son Herbert and his issue. From the Poldean line came two others of some significance for a time, the Johnstons of Craigieburn and the Johnstons of Corehead. 2 brothers from the Johnstons of Craigieburn left Scotland together ca. 1600 and became successful merchants. From "History of the Johnstones" by C.L. Johnstone we read:

            "Symon Johnstoun, a son of one of the Johns mentioned in Craigaburn's Will, migrated to Poland, where there was a large colony of Scottish Romanists. He married Anna Becker, and his son, John, an author and naturalist, was born in Sambter, in Posen, in 1603...his father's male descendants are represented by Count Maximilian von Johnstoun und Kroegeborn, Chamberlain to the Emperor of Germany.."

            I have been notably unsuccessful in persuading any of the von Johnston males in Germany to do a Y-DNA test, but yesterday I was contacted by Bob Schlesier, subject #19 on our spreadsheet. Although I need to do some research on his line I can recall reading at one time that some of the Johnstons in Poland from our line changed their surnames to that of the areas in which they had settled. This was a tradition of sorts among Vikings, and our Johnstons are of Danish Viking descent. As the areas were in the contested state of Silesia their nationalities have changed several times over the centuries.

            1. Is it a valid methodology to use Locus #12 allele values to group subjects?

            2. Given that we have a possible date of a common ancestor for both Bob Schlesier, subject #19, and Chris Johnston, subject # 7, of ca. 1560-80, can anything be inferred about the connection of others on the spreadsheet to this approximate time in history?

            3. Locus #12, DYS 389-2, is supposed to be a slower changing marker according to FTDNA than Locus #57, DYS 444, which is supposed to be a faster changing marker. Yet on our spreadsheet we have a range of only 3 allele values for Locus #57, and a range of at least 6 allele values and possibly as many as 9 for Locus #12, depending upon how the SNP tests come back for subject #70, and we make contact with subject #71 and convince him to test for L1290 and L1317 too. Any thoughts on the different rates of changes that we are seeing here? The so-called slower-changing marker is changing faster than the fast-changing marker.

            4. As subjects #55, 57 & 68 have the allele value 15 at Locus #57, DYS 444, how does one explain their distance from the major group with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Are they random and independent changes apart from the major group or are they inherited changes from within the larger group and other changes separated them? Could they all have had a common ancestor with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Any thoughts as to when in time this change may have happened originally from the allele value 14 to 15? I am currently attempting to have some of the subjects in the larger group upgrade to 111 markers. So far one has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers (today) and another is getting prepared to order his.

            Any other comments and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

            Good hunting,

            Cliff. Johnston

          • Wayne Roberts
            Sorry Cliff, I have been a bit busy over past weeks but will get to respond to it this week. Wayne ... From: Cliff. Johnston To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com Sent:
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 29, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              
              Sorry Cliff,
               
              I have been a bit busy over past weeks but will get to respond to it this week.
               
              Wayne
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:07 AM
              Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet

               

              Hmmm, no takers here?  I was hoping that someone could weigh in and help us a wee bit :-)
               
              Thanks,
               
              Cliff.

              From: "texasfalconer@..." <texasfalconer@...>
              To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:37 PM
              Subject: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
               
              I have posted the our latest Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet v.25 in the Files section of our I-M223 group.

              As of today, it is up-to-date and accurate. Bear in mind that we created this spreadsheet for our group based upon a "business man's visual" model. It is not in the traditional geneticists' format. As such when trimmed and taped together to make 3 scrolls one can easily spot groups and trends. The scrolls can be individually unrolled, held or placed on a table and studied leisurely. Some have even trimmed and taped the 3 scrolls together to make one larger "spreadsheet poster" which they lay on the floor or tack to a wall.

              When I first started doing this some 8+ years ago we didn't have much to go on. 37-markers tests were about the best that we could hope for often. Over the years most upgraded to 67 markers and now we are working on upgrading to 111 markers. There are about a dozen names on the spreadsheet who will probably never contribute anything more than the 12-markers test from the Nat.Geo. project. I have contacted most all of them several times. They have little interest in proceeding further. When we started our Spreadsheet someone suggested using Locus #12,DYS 389-2, as a way of grouping the members. I've done this up until now, but when I look at it I have some questions. Anyone game? lol...

              Looking at Locus #57, DYS 444, we have a rather considerable group with the allele value 15, subjects #8-26. There are 16 of them. Of these 2 have the allele value of 33 at Locus #12, while the remaining 14 have the allele value of 32 at Locus #12. In addition there are 3 others, subjects #55, 57 & 68, who also have the allele value of 15 at Locus #57. They are separated from the main group by various changes in other markers.

              Subject #6, Christopher Johnston VI, has a paper trail going back to Sir Adam Johnstoun of that Ilk ca. 1450 - our clan chief in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. Chris is descended from the Johnstons of Poldean, a line eventually issuing from Sir Adam's son Herbert and his issue. From the Poldean line came two others of some significance for a time, the Johnstons of Craigieburn and the Johnstons of Corehead. 2 brothers from the Johnstons of Craigieburn left Scotland together ca. 1600 and became successful merchants. From "History of the Johnstones" by C.L. Johnstone we read:

              "Symon Johnstoun, a son of one of the Johns mentioned in Craigaburn's Will, migrated to Poland, where there was a large colony of Scottish Romanists. He married Anna Becker, and his son, John, an author and naturalist, was born in Sambter, in Posen, in 1603...his father's male descendants are represented by Count Maximilian von Johnstoun und Kroegeborn, Chamberlain to the Emperor of Germany.."

              I have been notably unsuccessful in persuading any of the von Johnston males in Germany to do a Y-DNA test, but yesterday I was contacted by Bob Schlesier, subject #19 on our spreadsheet. Although I need to do some research on his line I can recall reading at one time that some of the Johnstons in Poland from our line changed their surnames to that of the areas in which they had settled. This was a tradition of sorts among Vikings, and our Johnstons are of Danish Viking descent. As the areas were in the contested state of Silesia their nationalities have changed several times over the centuries.

              1. Is it a valid methodology to use Locus #12 allele values to group subjects?

              2. Given that we have a possible date of a common ancestor for both Bob Schlesier, subject #19, and Chris Johnston, subject # 7, of ca. 1560-80, can anything be inferred about the connection of others on the spreadsheet to this approximate time in history?

              3. Locus #12, DYS 389-2, is supposed to be a slower changing marker according to FTDNA than Locus #57, DYS 444, which is supposed to be a faster changing marker. Yet on our spreadsheet we have a range of only 3 allele values for Locus #57, and a range of at least 6 allele values and possibly as many as 9 for Locus #12, depending upon how the SNP tests come back for subject #70, and we make contact with subject #71 and convince him to test for L1290 and L1317 too. Any thoughts on the different rates of changes that we are seeing here? The so-called slower-changing marker is changing faster than the fast-changing marker.

              4. As subjects #55, 57 & 68 have the allele value 15 at Locus #57, DYS 444, how does one explain their distance from the major group with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Are they random and independent changes apart from the major group or are they inherited changes from within the larger group and other changes separated them? Could they all have had a common ancestor with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Any thoughts as to when in time this change may have happened originally from the allele value 14 to 15? I am currently attempting to have some of the subjects in the larger group upgrade to 111 markers. So far one has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers (today) and another is getting prepared to order his.

              Any other comments and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

              Good hunting,

              Cliff. Johnston

            • Cliff. Johnston
              Wayne,   Thank you :-)   Cliff. From: Wayne Roberts To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:34 PM
              Message 6 of 11 , Oct 29, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Wayne,
                 
                Thank you :-)
                 
                Cliff.

                From: Wayne Roberts <wayne_r_roberts@...>
                To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:34 PM
                Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                 
                
                Sorry Cliff,
                 
                I have been a bit busy over past weeks but will get to respond to it this week.
                 
                Wayne
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:07 AM
                Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet

                 
                Hmmm, no takers here?  I was hoping that someone could weigh in and help us a wee bit :-)
                 
                Thanks,
                 
                Cliff.

                From: "texasfalconer@..." <texasfalconer@...>
                To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:37 PM
                Subject: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                 
                I have posted the our latest Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet v.25 in the Files section of our I-M223 group. As of today, it is up-to-date and accurate. Bear in mind that we created this spreadsheet for our group based upon a "business man's visual" model. It is not in the traditional geneticists' format. As such when trimmed and taped together to make 3 scrolls one can easily spot groups and trends. The scrolls can be individually unrolled, held or placed on a table and studied leisurely. Some have even trimmed and taped the 3 scrolls together to make one larger "spreadsheet poster" which they lay on the floor or tack to a wall. When I first started doing this some 8+ years ago we didn't have much to go on. 37-markers tests were about the best that we could hope for often. Over the years most upgraded to 67 markers and now we are working on upgrading to 111 markers. There are about a dozen names on the spreadsheet who will probably never contribute anything more than the 12-markers test from the Nat.Geo. project. I have contacted most all of them several times. They have little interest in proceeding further. When we started our Spreadsheet someone suggested using Locus #12,DYS 389-2, as a way of grouping the members. I've done this up until now, but when I look at it I have some questions. Anyone game? lol... Looking at Locus #57, DYS 444, we have a rather considerable group with the allele value 15, subjects #8-26. There are 16 of them. Of these 2 have the allele value of 33 at Locus #12, while the remaining 14 have the allele value of 32 at Locus #12. In addition there are 3 others, subjects #55, 57 & 68, who also have the allele value of 15 at Locus #57. They are separated from the main group by various changes in other markers. Subject #6, Christopher Johnston VI, has a paper trail going back to Sir Adam Johnstoun of that Ilk ca. 1450 - our clan chief in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. Chris is descended from the Johnstons of Poldean, a line eventually issuing from Sir Adam's son Herbert and his issue. From the Poldean line came two others of some significance for a time, the Johnstons of Craigieburn and the Johnstons of Corehead. 2 brothers from the Johnstons of Craigieburn left Scotland together ca. 1600 and became successful merchants. From "History of the Johnstones" by C.L. Johnstone we read: "Symon Johnstoun, a son of one of the Johns mentioned in Craigaburn's Will, migrated to Poland, where there was a large colony of Scottish Romanists. He married Anna Becker, and his son, John, an author and naturalist, was born in Sambter, in Posen, in 1603...his father's male descendants are represented by Count Maximilian von Johnstoun und Kroegeborn, Chamberlain to the Emperor of Germany.." I have been notably unsuccessful in persuading any of the von Johnston males in Germany to do a Y-DNA test, but yesterday I was contacted by Bob Schlesier, subject #19 on our spreadsheet. Although I need to do some research on his line I can recall reading at one time that some of the Johnstons in Poland from our line changed their surnames to that of the areas in which they had settled. This was a tradition of sorts among Vikings, and our Johnstons are of Danish Viking descent. As the areas were in the contested state of Silesia their nationalities have changed several times over the centuries. 1. Is it a valid methodology to use Locus #12 allele values to group subjects? 2. Given that we have a possible date of a common ancestor for both Bob Schlesier, subject #19, and Chris Johnston, subject # 7, of ca. 1560-80, can anything be inferred about the connection of others on the spreadsheet to this approximate time in history? 3. Locus #12, DYS 389-2, is supposed to be a slower changing marker according to FTDNA than Locus #57, DYS 444, which is supposed to be a faster changing marker. Yet on our spreadsheet we have a range of only 3 allele values for Locus #57, and a range of at least 6 allele values and possibly as many as 9 for Locus #12, depending upon how the SNP tests come back for subject #70, and we make contact with subject #71 and convince him to test for L1290 and L1317 too. Any thoughts on the different rates of changes that we are seeing here? The so-called slower-changing marker is changing faster than the fast-changing marker. 4. As subjects #55, 57 & 68 have the allele value 15 at Locus #57, DYS 444, how does one explain their distance from the major group with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Are they random and independent changes apart from the major group or are they inherited changes from within the larger group and other changes separated them? Could they all have had a common ancestor with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Any thoughts as to when in time this change may have happened originally from the allele value 14 to 15? I am currently attempting to have some of the subjects in the larger group upgrade to 111 markers. So far one has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers (today) and another is getting prepared to order his. Any other comments and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Good hunting, Cliff. Johnston
              • Cliff. Johnston
                Still no takers??? From: Cliff. Johnston To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:07 PM
                Message 7 of 11 , Nov 13, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Still no takers???

                  From: Cliff. Johnston <texasfalconer@...>
                  To: "I-M223@yahoogroups.com" <I-M223@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:07 PM
                  Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                  Hmmm, no takers here?  I was hoping that someone could weigh in and help us a wee bit :-)
                   
                  Thanks,
                   
                  Cliff.

                  From: "texasfalconer@..." <texasfalconer@...>
                  To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:37 PM
                  Subject: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                   
                  I have posted the our latest Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet v.25 in the Files section of our I-M223 group. As of today, it is up-to-date and accurate. Bear in mind that we created this spreadsheet for our group based upon a "business man's visual" model. It is not in the traditional geneticists' format. As such when trimmed and taped together to make 3 scrolls one can easily spot groups and trends. The scrolls can be individually unrolled, held or placed on a table and studied leisurely. Some have even trimmed and taped the 3 scrolls together to make one larger "spreadsheet poster" which they lay on the floor or tack to a wall. When I first started doing this some 8+ years ago we didn't have much to go on. 37-markers tests were about the best that we could hope for often. Over the years most upgraded to 67 markers and now we are working on upgrading to 111 markers. There are about a dozen names on the spreadsheet who will probably never contribute anything more than the 12-markers test from the Nat.Geo. project. I have contacted most all of them several times. They have little interest in proceeding further. When we started our Spreadsheet someone suggested using Locus #12,DYS 389-2, as a way of grouping the members. I've done this up until now, but when I look at it I have some questions. Anyone game? lol... Looking at Locus #57, DYS 444, we have a rather considerable group with the allele value 15, subjects #8-26. There are 16 of them. Of these 2 have the allele value of 33 at Locus #12, while the remaining 14 have the allele value of 32 at Locus #12. In addition there are 3 others, subjects #55, 57 & 68, who also have the allele value of 15 at Locus #57. They are separated from the main group by various changes in other markers. Subject #6, Christopher Johnston VI, has a paper trail going back to Sir Adam Johnstoun of that Ilk ca. 1450 - our clan chief in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. Chris is descended from the Johnstons of Poldean, a line eventually issuing from Sir Adam's son Herbert and his issue. From the Poldean line came two others of some significance for a time, the Johnstons of Craigieburn and the Johnstons of Corehead. 2 brothers from the Johnstons of Craigieburn left Scotland together ca. 1600 and became successful merchants. From "History of the Johnstones" by C.L. Johnstone we read: "Symon Johnstoun, a son of one of the Johns mentioned in Craigaburn's Will, migrated to Poland, where there was a large colony of Scottish Romanists. He married Anna Becker, and his son, John, an author and naturalist, was born in Sambter, in Posen, in 1603...his father's male descendants are represented by Count Maximilian von Johnstoun und Kroegeborn, Chamberlain to the Emperor of Germany.." I have been notably unsuccessful in persuading any of the von Johnston males in Germany to do a Y-DNA test, but yesterday I was contacted by Bob Schlesier, subject #19 on our spreadsheet. Although I need to do some research on his line I can recall reading at one time that some of the Johnstons in Poland from our line changed their surnames to that of the areas in which they had settled. This was a tradition of sorts among Vikings, and our Johnstons are of Danish Viking descent. As the areas were in the contested state of Silesia their nationalities have changed several times over the centuries. 1. Is it a valid methodology to use Locus #12 allele values to group subjects? 2. Given that we have a possible date of a common ancestor for both Bob Schlesier, subject #19, and Chris Johnston, subject # 7, of ca. 1560-80, can anything be inferred about the connection of others on the spreadsheet to this approximate time in history? 3. Locus #12, DYS 389-2, is supposed to be a slower changing marker according to FTDNA than Locus #57, DYS 444, which is supposed to be a faster changing marker. Yet on our spreadsheet we have a range of only 3 allele values for Locus #57, and a range of at least 6 allele values and possibly as many as 9 for Locus #12, depending upon how the SNP tests come back for subject #70, and we make contact with subject #71 and convince him to test for L1290 and L1317 too. Any thoughts on the different rates of changes that we are seeing here? The so-called slower-changing marker is changing faster than the fast-changing marker. 4. As subjects #55, 57 & 68 have the allele value 15 at Locus #57, DYS 444, how does one explain their distance from the major group with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Are they random and independent changes apart from the major group or are they inherited changes from within the larger group and other changes separated them? Could they all have had a common ancestor with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Any thoughts as to when in time this change may have happened originally from the allele value 14 to 15? I am currently attempting to have some of the subjects in the larger group upgrade to 111 markers. So far one has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers (today) and another is getting prepared to order his. Any other comments and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Good hunting, Cliff. Johnston
                • Kimberlee Shaw
                  I try really hard to understand all the terminology, but I m still a newbie at all this. What are you looking for, people to upgrade to 111 markers? I think
                  Message 8 of 11 , Nov 13, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I try really hard to understand all the terminology, but I'm still a newbie at all this.  What are you looking for, people to upgrade to 111 markers?  I think we're ready to do this for my husband Brent's kit since they're offering a teeny discount through the end of the year.  But I am trying to rally a couple other Shaws to pitch in on the expense, since my husband and I have paid for everything so far.
                    Kim Shaw


                    From: "Cliff. Johnston" <texasfalconer@...>
                    To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 3:45:53 PM
                    Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet

                     

                    Still no takers???

                    From: Cliff. Johnston <texasfalconer@...>
                    To: "I-M223@yahoogroups.com" <I-M223@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:07 PM
                    Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                    Hmmm, no takers here?  I was hoping that someone could weigh in and help us a wee bit :-)
                     
                    Thanks,
                     
                    Cliff.

                    From: "texasfalconer@..." <texasfalconer@...>
                    To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:37 PM
                    Subject: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                     
                    I have posted the our latest Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet v.25 in the Files section of our I-M223 group.As of today, it is up-to-date and accurate. Bear in mind that we created this spreadsheet for our group based upon a "business man's visual" model. It is not in the traditional geneticists' format. As such when trimmed and taped together to make 3 scrolls one can easily spot groups and trends. The scrolls can be individually unrolled, held or placed on a table and studied leisurely. Some have even trimmed and taped the 3 scrolls together to make one larger "spreadsheet poster" which they lay on the floor or tack to a wall.When I first started doing this some 8+ years ago we didn't have much to go on. 37-markers tests were about the best that we could hope for often. Over the years most upgraded to 67 markers and now we are working on upgrading to 111 markers. There are about a dozen names on the spreadsheet who will probably never contribute anything more than the 12-markers test from the Nat.Geo. project. I have contacted most all of them several times. They have little interest in proceeding further. When we started our Spreadsheet someone suggested using Locus #12,DYS 389-2, as a way of grouping the members. I've done this up until now, but when I look at it I have some questions. Anyone game? lol...Looking at Locus #57, DYS 444, we have a rather considerable group with the allele value 15, subjects #8-26. There are 16 of them. Of these 2 have the allele value of 33 at Locus #12, while the remaining 14 have the allele value of 32 at Locus #12. In addition there are 3 others, subjects #55, 57 & 68, who also have the allele value of 15 at Locus #57. They are separated from the main group by various changes in other markers.Subject #6, Christopher Johnston VI, has a paper trail going back to Sir Adam Johnstoun of that Ilk ca. 1450 - our clan chief in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. Chris is descended from the Johnstons of Poldean, a line eventually issuing from Sir Adam's son Herbert and his issue. From the Poldean line came two others of some significance for a time, the Johnstons of Craigieburn and the Johnstons of Corehead. 2 brothers from the Johnstons of Craigieburn left Scotland together ca. 1600 and became successful merchants. From "History of the Johnstones" by C.L. Johnstone we read: "Symon Johnstoun, a son of one of the Johns mentioned in Craigaburn's Will, migrated to Poland, where there was a large colony of Scottish Romanists. He married Anna Becker, and his son, John, an author and naturalist, was born in Sambter, in Posen, in 1603...his father's male descendants are represented by Count Maximilian von Johnstoun und Kroegeborn, Chamberlain to the Emperor of Germany.." I have been notably unsuccessful in persuading any of the von Johnston males in Germany to do a Y-DNA test, but yesterday I was contacted by Bob Schlesier, subject #19 on our spreadsheet. Although I need to do some research on his line I can recall reading at one time that some of the Johnstons in Poland from our line changed their surnames to that of the areas in which they had settled. This was a tradition of sorts among Vikings, and our Johnstons are of Danish Viking descent. As the areas were in the contested state of Silesia their nationalities have changed several times over the centuries.1. Is it a valid methodology to use Locus #12 allele values to group subjects?2. Given that we have a possible date of a common ancestor for both Bob Schlesier, subject #19, and Chris Johnston, subject # 7, of ca. 1560-80, can anything be inferred about the connection of others on the spreadsheet to this approximate time in history? 3. Locus #12, DYS 389-2, is supposed to be a slower changing marker according to FTDNA than Locus #57, DYS 444, which is supposed to be a faster changing marker. Yet on our spreadsheet we have a range of only 3 allele values for Locus #57, and a range of at least 6 allele values and possibly as many as 9 for Locus #12, depending upon how the SNP tests come back for subject #70, and we make contact with subject #71 and convince him to test for L1290 and L1317 too. Any thoughts on the different rates of changes that we are seeing here? The so-called slower-changing marker is changing faster than the fast-changing marker.4. As subjects #55, 57 & 68 have the allele value 15 at Locus #57, DYS 444, how does one explain their distance from the major group with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Are they random and independent changes apart from the major group or are they inherited changes from within the larger group and other changes separated them? Could they all have had a common ancestor with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Any thoughts as to when in time this change may have happened originally from the allele value 14 to 15? I am currently attempting to have some of the subjects in the larger group upgrade to 111 markers. So far one has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers (today) and another is getting prepared to order his.Any other comments and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.Good hunting,Cliff. Johnston

                  • Cliff. Johnston
                    Kim,   No, not quite that bad   I m looking for some of the gurus here to take a look at my Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet which is posted in our Files
                    Message 9 of 11 , Nov 13, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Kim,
                       
                      No, not quite that bad *;) winking  I'm looking for some of the gurus here to take a look at my Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet which is posted in our Files section.  There are some questions that I've asked in the original post.  See below.
                       
                      Good hunting,
                       
                      Cliff.

                      From: Kimberlee Shaw <kimberlee.shaw@...>
                      To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:58 PM
                      Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                       
                      I try really hard to understand all the terminology, but I'm still a newbie at all this.  What are you looking for, people to upgrade to 111 markers?  I think we're ready to do this for my husband Brent's kit since they're offering a teeny discount through the end of the year.  But I am trying to rally a couple other Shaws to pitch in on the expense, since my husband and I have paid for everything so far.
                      Kim Shaw
                      From: "Cliff. Johnston" <texasfalconer@...>To: I-M223@yahoogroups.comSent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 3:45:53 PMSubject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet 
                      Still no takers???

                      From: Cliff. Johnston <texasfalconer@...>
                      To: "I-M223@yahoogroups.com" <I-M223@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:07 PM
                      Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                      Hmmm, no takers here?  I was hoping that someone could weigh in and help us a wee bit :-)
                       
                      Thanks,
                       
                      Cliff.

                      From: "texasfalconer@..." <texasfalconer@...>
                      To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:37 PM
                      Subject: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                       
                      I have posted the our latest Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet v.25 in the Files section of our I-M223 group.As of today, it is up-to-date and accurate. Bear in mind that we created this spreadsheet for our group based upon a "business man's visual" model. It is not in the traditional geneticists' format. As such when trimmed and taped together to make 3 scrolls one can easily spot groups and trends. The scrolls can be individually unrolled, held or placed on a table and studied leisurely. Some have even trimmed and taped the 3 scrolls together to make one larger "spreadsheet poster" which they lay on the floor or tack to a wall.When I first started doing this some 8+ years ago we didn't have much to go on. 37-markers tests were about the best that we could hope for often. Over the years most upgraded to 67 markers and now we are working on upgrading to 111 markers. There are about a dozen names on the spreadsheet who will probably never contribute anything more than the 12-markers test from the Nat.Geo. project. I have contacted most all of them several times. They have little interest in proceeding further. When we started our Spreadsheet someone suggested using Locus #12,DYS 389-2, as a way of grouping the members. I've done this up until now, but when I look at it I have some questions. Anyone game? lol...Looking at Locus #57, DYS 444, we have a rather considerable group with the allele value 15, subjects #8-26. There are 16 of them. Of these 2 have the allele value of 33 at Locus #12, while the remaining 14 have the allele value of 32 at Locus #12. In addition there are 3 others, subjects #55, 57 & 68, who also have the allele value of 15 at Locus #57. They are separated from the main group by various changes in other markers.Subject #6, Christopher Johnston VI, has a paper trail going back to Sir Adam Johnstoun of that Ilk ca. 1450 - our clan chief in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. Chris is descended from the Johnstons of Poldean, a line eventually issuing from Sir Adam's son Herbert and his issue. From the Poldean line came two others of some significance for a time, the Johnstons of Craigieburn and the Johnstons of Corehead. 2 brothers from the Johnstons of Craigieburn left Scotland together ca. 1600 and became successful merchants. From "History of the Johnstones" by C.L. Johnstone we read: "Symon Johnstoun, a son of one of the Johns mentioned in Craigaburn's Will, migrated to Poland, where there was a large colony of Scottish Romanists. He married Anna Becker, and his son, John, an author and naturalist, was born in Sambter, in Posen, in 1603...his father's male descendants are represented by Count Maximilian von Johnstoun und Kroegeborn, Chamberlain to the Emperor of Germany.." I have been notably unsuccessful in persuading any of the von Johnston males in Germany to do a Y-DNA test, but yesterday I was contacted by Bob Schlesier, subject #19 on our spreadsheet. Although I need to do some research on his line I can recall reading at one time that some of the Johnstons in Poland from our line changed their surnames to that of the areas in which they had settled. This was a tradition of sorts among Vikings, and our Johnstons are of Danish Viking descent. As the areas were in the contested state of Silesia their nationalities have changed several times over the centuries.1. Is it a valid methodology to use Locus #12 allele values to group subjects?2. Given that we have a possible date of a common ancestor for both Bob Schlesier, subject #19, and Chris Johnston, subject # 7, of ca. 1560-80, can anything be inferred about the connection of others on the spreadsheet to this approximate time in history? 3. Locus #12, DYS 389-2, is supposed to be a slower changing marker according to FTDNA than Locus #57, DYS 444, which is supposed to be a faster changing marker. Yet on our spreadsheet we have a range of only 3 allele values for Locus #57, and a range of at least 6 allele values and possibly as many as 9 for Locus #12, depending upon how the SNP tests come back for subject #70, and we make contact with subject #71 and convince him to test for L1290 and L1317 too. Any thoughts on the different rates of changes that we are seeing here? The so-called slower-changing marker is changing faster than the fast-changing marker.4. As subjects #55, 57 & 68 have the allele value 15 at Locus #57, DYS 444, how does one explain their distance from the major group with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Are they random and independent changes apart from the major group or are they inherited changes from within the larger group and other changes separated them? Could they all have had a common ancestor with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Any thoughts as to when in time this change may have happened originally from the allele value 14 to 15? I am currently attempting to have some of the subjects in the larger group upgrade to 111 markers. So far one has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers (today) and another is getting prepared to order his.Any other comments and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.Good hunting,Cliff. Johnston
                    • Wayne Roberts
                      Cliff, I have tried. The spreadsheet is still open on my laptop. I find it difficult to read in the format you have. I am somewhat relieved in that you are
                      Message 10 of 11 , Nov 13, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        
                        Cliff, I have tried. The spreadsheet is still open on my laptop. I find it difficult to read in the format you have. I am somewhat relieved in that you are looking for the gurus to comment as I'm no guru.
                         
                        I have no idea which markers are slow mutating and which mutate at a more frequent rate other than the faster mutating markers tend to be in the first three panels and the slower and more stable ones in the later panels. Is there somewhere that gives what markers are what in simple English?
                         
                        Aaron, Kenneth and perhaps some others here are the gurus. You may have to email them direct to get any comments or answers.
                         
                        I've just got up and there is no coffee so I'm off to the supermarket. I need my morning fix.
                         
                        Wayne
                         
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 7:34 AM
                        Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet

                         

                        Kim,
                         
                        No, not quite that bad *;) winking  I'm looking for some of the gurus here to take a look at my Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet which is posted in our Files section.  There are some questions that I've asked in the original post.  See below.
                         
                        Good hunting,
                         
                        Cliff.

                        From: Kimberlee Shaw <kimberlee.shaw@...>
                        To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:58 PM
                        Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                         
                        I try really hard to understand all the terminology, but I'm still a newbie at all this.  What are you looking for, people to upgrade to 111 markers?  I think we're ready to do this for my husband Brent's kit since they're offering a teeny discount through the end of the year.  But I am trying to rally a couple other Shaws to pitch in on the expense, since my husband and I have paid for everything so far.
                        Kim Shaw
                        From: "Cliff. Johnston" <texasfalconer@...>To: I-M223@yahoogroups.comSent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 3:45:53 PMSubject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet 
                        Still no takers???

                        From: Cliff. Johnston <texasfalconer@...>
                        To: "I-M223@yahoogroups.com" <I-M223@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:07 PM
                        Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                        Hmmm, no takers here?  I was hoping that someone could weigh in and help us a wee bit :-)
                         
                        Thanks,
                         
                        Cliff.

                        From: "texasfalconer@..." <texasfalconer@...>
                        To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:37 PM
                        Subject: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                         
                        I have posted the our latest Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet v.25 in the Files section of our I-M223 group.As of today, it is up-to-date and accurate. Bear in mind that we created this spreadsheet for our group based upon a "business man's visual" model. It is not in the traditional geneticists' format. As such when trimmed and taped together to make 3 scrolls one can easily spot groups and trends. The scrolls can be individually unrolled, held or placed on a table and studied leisurely. Some have even trimmed and taped the 3 scrolls together to make one larger "spreadsheet poster" which they lay on the floor or tack to a wall.When I first started doing this some 8+ years ago we didn't have much to go on. 37-markers tests were about the best that we could hope for often. Over the years most upgraded to 67 markers and now we are working on upgrading to 111 markers. There are about a dozen names on the spreadsheet who will probably never contribute anything more than the 12-markers test from the Nat.Geo. project. I have contacted most all of them several times. They have little interest in proceeding further. When we started our Spreadsheet someone suggested using Locus #12,DYS 389-2, as a way of grouping the members. I've done this up until now, but when I look at it I have some questions. Anyone game? lol...Looking at Locus #57, DYS 444, we have a rather considerable group with the allele value 15, subjects #8-26. There are 16 of them. Of these 2 have the allele value of 33 at Locus #12, while the remaining 14 have the allele value of 32 at Locus #12. In addition there are 3 others, subjects #55, 57 & 68, who also have the allele value of 15 at Locus #57. They are separated from the main group by various changes in other markers.Subject #6, Christopher Johnston VI, has a paper trail going back to Sir Adam Johnstoun of that Ilk ca. 1450 - our clan chief in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. Chris is descended from the Johnstons of Poldean, a line eventually issuing from Sir Adam's son Herbert and his issue. From the Poldean line came two others of some significance for a time, the Johnstons of Craigieburn and the Johnstons of Corehead. 2 brothers from the Johnstons of Craigieburn left Scotland together ca. 1600 and became successful merchants. From "History of the Johnstones" by C.L. Johnstone we read: "Symon Johnstoun, a son of one of the Johns mentioned in Craigaburn's Will, migrated to Poland, where there was a large colony of Scottish Romanists. He married Anna Becker, and his son, John, an author and naturalist, was born in Sambter, in Posen, in 1603...his father's male descendants are represented by Count Maximilian von Johnstoun und Kroegeborn, Chamberlain to the Emperor of Germany.." I have been notably unsuccessful in persuading any of the von Johnston males in Germany to do a Y-DNA test, but yesterday I was contacted by Bob Schlesier, subject #19 on our spreadsheet. Although I need to do some research on his line I can recall reading at one time that some of the Johnstons in Poland from our line changed their surnames to that of the areas in which they had settled. This was a tradition of sorts among Vikings, and our Johnstons are of Danish Viking descent. As the areas were in the contested state of Silesia their nationalities have changed several times over the centuries.1. Is it a valid methodology to use Locus #12 allele values to group subjects?2. Given that we have a possible date of a common ancestor for both Bob Schlesier, subject #19, and Chris Johnston, subject # 7, of ca. 1560-80, can anything be inferred about the connection of others on the spreadsheet to this approximate time in history? 3. Locus #12, DYS 389-2, is supposed to be a slower changing marker according to FTDNA than Locus #57, DYS 444, which is supposed to be a faster changing marker. Yet on our spreadsheet we have a range of only 3 allele values for Locus #57, and a range of at least 6 allele values and possibly as many as 9 for Locus #12, depending upon how the SNP tests come back for subject #70, and we make contact with subject #71 and convince him to test for L1290 and L1317 too. Any thoughts on the different rates of changes that we are seeing here? The so-called slower-changing marker is changing faster than the fast-changing marker.4. As subjects #55, 57 & 68 have the allele value 15 at Locus #57, DYS 444, how does one explain their distance from the major group with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Are they random and independent changes apart from the major group or are they inherited changes from within the larger group and other changes separated them? Could they all have had a common ancestor with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Any thoughts as to when in time this change may have happened originally from the allele value 14 to 15? I am currently attempting to have some of the subjects in the larger group upgrade to 111 markers. So far one has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers (today) and another is getting prepared to order his.Any other comments and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.Good hunting,Cliff. Johnston

                      • Cliff. Johnston
                        Wayne,   The key to reading the Spreadsheet is at the bottom of pages 3 & 6.  The trick is to get used to our layout first.  It is done more in a business
                        Message 11 of 11 , Nov 13, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Wayne,
                           
                          The key to reading the Spreadsheet is at the bottom of pages 3 & 6.  The trick is to get used to our layout first.  It is done more in a business format to give a visual picture of connections enhanced with color.  The DYS numbers are at the extreme left right after the Locus # that has been assigned to each one.  This makes it much easier to locate a DYS quickly by using its assigned Locus #.
                           
                          Christopher Johnston VI is our Baseline person as he is the one with a documented history going back to Herbert Johnston of Poldean.  Everyone is divided into groups according to their Allele Value for DYS 389-2, or Locus #12.  Various other relationships within these groups are based on forward and reverse changes in Allele Values.  We color coded the forward mutations with a yellow cell fill and the reverse changes with a tan cell fill - great for picking out visually any relationships quickly.
                           
                          All of the fast changing DYS numbers are evidenced with the green cell fill of the Locus # column - makes them really easy to pick out quickly - and they are bounded by a thin, black, horizontal, border line - again, makes it easier to keep track of them as one scrolls to the right.
                           
                          Each column is headed with some basic information about the person tested and his ancestry.
                           
                          The entire Spreadsheet was designed to print, trim and tape together, thus making studying it simpler.
                           
                          Once one gets the "hang" of it, it is a very simple, visual, graphic representation of connections within our group.  It is just a PITA to revise each time *;) winking , but I do that without complaint as long as my Cousins keep enjoying it *:) happy  We much prefer it to the standard reporting form as used by this group, but then our needs are different as we cater to a much smaller extended family.
                           
                           
                          Try it. You'll like it.
                           
                           
                          Cliff.
                           
                           

                          From: Wayne Roberts <wayne_r_roberts@...>
                          To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:22 PM
                          Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                           
                          
                          Cliff, I have tried. The spreadsheet is still open on my laptop. I find it difficult to read in the format you have. I am somewhat relieved in that you are looking for the gurus to comment as I'm no guru.
                           
                          I have no idea which markers are slow mutating and which mutate at a more frequent rate other than the faster mutating markers tend to be in the first three panels and the slower and more stable ones in the later panels. Is there somewhere that gives what markers are what in simple English?
                           
                          Aaron, Kenneth and perhaps some others here are the gurus. You may have to email them direct to get any comments or answers.
                           
                          I've just got up and there is no coffee so I'm off to the supermarket. I need my morning fix.
                           
                          Wayne
                           
                           
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 7:34 AM
                          Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet

                           
                          Kim,
                           
                          No, not quite that bad *;) winking  I'm looking for some of the gurus here to take a look at my Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet which is posted in our Files section.  There are some questions that I've asked in the original post.  See below.
                           
                          Good hunting,
                           
                          Cliff.

                          From: Kimberlee Shaw <kimberlee.shaw@...>
                          To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:58 PM
                          Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                           
                          I try really hard to understand all the terminology, but I'm still a newbie at all this.  What are you looking for, people to upgrade to 111 markers?  I think we're ready to do this for my husband Brent's kit since they're offering a teeny discount through the end of the year.  But I am trying to rally a couple other Shaws to pitch in on the expense, since my husband and I have paid for everything so far.
                          Kim Shaw
                          From: "Cliff. Johnston" <texasfalconer@...>To: I-M223@yahoogroups.comSent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 3:45:53 PMSubject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet 
                          Still no takers???

                          From: Cliff. Johnston <texasfalconer@...>
                          To: "I-M223@yahoogroups.com" <I-M223@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:07 PM
                          Subject: Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                          Hmmm, no takers here?  I was hoping that someone could weigh in and help us a wee bit :-)
                           
                          Thanks,
                           
                          Cliff.

                          From: "texasfalconer@..." <texasfalconer@...>
                          To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:37 PM
                          Subject: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
                           
                          I have posted the our latest Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet v.25 in the Files section of our I-M223 group.As of today, it is up-to-date and accurate. Bear in mind that we created this spreadsheet for our group based upon a "business man's visual" model. It is not in the traditional geneticists' format. As such when trimmed and taped together to make 3 scrolls one can easily spot groups and trends. The scrolls can be individually unrolled, held or placed on a table and studied leisurely. Some have even trimmed and taped the 3 scrolls together to make one larger "spreadsheet poster" which they lay on the floor or tack to a wall.When I first started doing this some 8+ years ago we didn't have much to go on. 37-markers tests were about the best that we could hope for often. Over the years most upgraded to 67 markers and now we are working on upgrading to 111 markers. There are about a dozen names on the spreadsheet who will probably never contribute anything more than the 12-markers test from the Nat.Geo. project. I have contacted most all of them several times. They have little interest in proceeding further. When we started our Spreadsheet someone suggested using Locus #12,DYS 389-2, as a way of grouping the members. I've done this up until now, but when I look at it I have some questions. Anyone game? lol...Looking at Locus #57, DYS 444, we have a rather considerable group with the allele value 15, subjects #8-26. There are 16 of them. Of these 2 have the allele value of 33 at Locus #12, while the remaining 14 have the allele value of 32 at Locus #12. In addition there are 3 others, subjects #55, 57 & 68, who also have the allele value of 15 at Locus #57. They are separated from the main group by various changes in other markers.Subject #6, Christopher Johnston VI, has a paper trail going back to Sir Adam Johnstoun of that Ilk ca. 1450 - our clan chief in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. Chris is descended from the Johnstons of Poldean, a line eventually issuing from Sir Adam's son Herbert and his issue. From the Poldean line came two others of some significance for a time, the Johnstons of Craigieburn and the Johnstons of Corehead. 2 brothers from the Johnstons of Craigieburn left Scotland together ca. 1600 and became successful merchants. From "History of the Johnstones" by C.L. Johnstone we read: "Symon Johnstoun, a son of one of the Johns mentioned in Craigaburn's Will, migrated to Poland, where there was a large colony of Scottish Romanists. He married Anna Becker, and his son, John, an author and naturalist, was born in Sambter, in Posen, in 1603...his father's male descendants are represented by Count Maximilian von Johnstoun und Kroegeborn, Chamberlain to the Emperor of Germany.." I have been notably unsuccessful in persuading any of the von Johnston males in Germany to do a Y-DNA test, but yesterday I was contacted by Bob Schlesier, subject #19 on our spreadsheet. Although I need to do some research on his line I can recall reading at one time that some of the Johnstons in Poland from our line changed their surnames to that of the areas in which they had settled. This was a tradition of sorts among Vikings, and our Johnstons are of Danish Viking descent. As the areas were in the contested state of Silesia their nationalities have changed several times over the centuries.1. Is it a valid methodology to use Locus #12 allele values to group subjects?2. Given that we have a possible date of a common ancestor for both Bob Schlesier, subject #19, and Chris Johnston, subject # 7, of ca. 1560-80, can anything be inferred about the connection of others on the spreadsheet to this approximate time in history? 3. Locus #12, DYS 389-2, is supposed to be a slower changing marker according to FTDNA than Locus #57, DYS 444, which is supposed to be a faster changing marker. Yet on our spreadsheet we have a range of only 3 allele values for Locus #57, and a range of at least 6 allele values and possibly as many as 9 for Locus #12, depending upon how the SNP tests come back for subject #70, and we make contact with subject #71 and convince him to test for L1290 and L1317 too. Any thoughts on the different rates of changes that we are seeing here? The so-called slower-changing marker is changing faster than the fast-changing marker.4. As subjects #55, 57 & 68 have the allele value 15 at Locus #57, DYS 444, how does one explain their distance from the major group with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Are they random and independent changes apart from the major group or are they inherited changes from within the larger group and other changes separated them? Could they all have had a common ancestor with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Any thoughts as to when in time this change may have happened originally from the allele value 14 to 15? I am currently attempting to have some of the subjects in the larger group upgrade to 111 markers. So far one has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers (today) and another is getting prepared to order his.Any other comments and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.Good hunting,Cliff. Johnston
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.