RE: [R1b-YDNA] Matches & Next Steps
Previous SNP testing confirmed that I am L21+ and negative on all the other nine specific downstream SNPs in the FTDNA haplotree. So to FTDNA I am R-L21+
The ISOGG haplotree shows two SNPs immediately downstream from L21+. One is DF13 with loads of SNPs downstream from it. The other is DF63, with one downstream SNP (so far). Recent SNP determinations show that I’m DF13- and DF63-, which further narrows down my haplogroup but shows that I still don’t know a terminal SNP.
The current FTDNA haplotree, the current ISOGG haplotree, and the current 23andMe haplotree show my DNA haplogroup in this way:
It’s the same me—just called by a different name. I emphasize current; the haplotrees will continue to evolve as technology continues to grow . It’s easier to understand that I’m R1b-L21+ DF13- DF63- for now.
That is a match for my cousin Allen Blancett. I believe that is a FDNA designation and 23andme.com uses the R1b ending in f*.
From: Sean P. Tracey <stracey@...>
To: Norman Blansett <nblanset@...>; "R1b-YDNA@yahoogroups.com" <R1b-YDNA@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 7:01 AM
Subject: RE: [R1b-YDNA] Matches & Next Steps
here is my full set of numbers. I am not sure how we should be referring to ourselves anymore. Is it this way or L 21?
Sean Patrick Tracey
- Stephanie- My husband doesn't have any siblings, but he has 2 first cousins that have the McKellar name. They might be a start if they are willing. It sure is hard to get testers in families that are out of touch! And, yes, I have thought about separate McKellar lines as well, especially since there is no known "founder' of the McKellars. I feel pretty confident that if there was some kind of NPE it probably occurred in Scotland before immigration in the 1830s. I'll keep you updated as I learn more and thanks again for the help!On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Stephanie Ray <stephanieray52@...> wrote:Janis, hi:Anyone from your husband's family that has a good paper trail (i.e. that you is definitely related to your husband) would be a good candidate for trying to determine if there was indeed an NPE. So, for that matter, you could start with your husband's brother (if he has one).Of course, the futher the relative is away from you, the further back in time would have been the NPE event. If the 3rd or 4th cousin matches your husband, all the better!BTW, we have at least nine unrelated families in the US that all use the Cobb name, so maybe y'all just have your own distinctivet McKellar haplotype!Thanks to the admin for letting us explore this topic on this list.Best regards,StephanieOn Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Janis McKellar <brenjan98@...> wrote:Stephanie- Do you mean close as in first cousins? Wouldn't they just be the same? I was thinking 3rd or 4th cousins might be better. I do plan on transferring relative finder at 23andme to family finder at ftdna. The close Robertson match also has family finder, so if there is a close connection there it should show up.On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Stephanie Ray <stephanieray52@...> wrote:Janis , you must test not just McKellar's in general, but rather more people from your husband's family. They may not be McKellar's!Interestingly enough, my boyfriend's father's name was McNeil, although he himself is African American. When we first met, he told me he was Black Irish :-D
Best regards,StephanieOn Sat, May 4, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Janis McKellar <brenjan98@...> wrote:Stephanie- I agree that getting more McKellars tested is most important. Darryl mentioned that he had several very close matches and they turned out to be non-related (at least in the past 400 years), so it could turn out the same with Robertson. I'll work on recruiting!On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Stephanie Ray <stephanieray52@...> wrote:StephanieJanis, in that case you simply MUST have more men from your husband's family tested before you tackle the potential Robertson connection. You have to know what you are working with, and you really don't at this point (and yes, the NPE could have been on the Robertson side, but you will not know that until you firmly establish the McKellar haplotype).Best regards,On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Janis McKellar <brenjan98@...> wrote:Stephanie- The other McKellars that participated were unrelated. Each of the 3 McKellars (one Australian, one American, one Canadian) have traced their lines back to Scotland in the mid 1700s but beyond that things are a little hazy. The 3 lines did not cross on the paternal line, although lots of intermarriage between McKellars occurred, so it's highly likely that some of the maternal lines also have the name. They all trace their ancestry to Argyll. However- the McKellars were never an official clan and don't descend from one man. We don't know how many McKellar-adams there were. Could this possibly explain the difference in being so far off as a match? The others are also R1b-M269, so it's not like they are from a totally different haplogroup. The close connection with Robertson baffles me, but he is traced to 1730 Scotland and then died in London in 1800. Whereas, my husbands' ancestors immigrated to Canada in the 1830s. Conversely, could it maybe be that the Robertson had the NPE? I don't think this match has a lot of close Robertson matches and there were certainly many tested. If there is an NPE isn't safe to assume to likely occurred in Scotland before immigration?On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Stephanie Ray <stephanieray52@...> wrote:StephanieJanis, I am an enthusiast not an expert, but 64/67 sounds sounds like a relative to me. However, you really need more data because an NPE is a serious thing.Who were the McKellars who participated? Were they from your husband's family?
If not, you should try to get at least one, if not two, more family members to test (to see if they match each other).
Best of luck,On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Janis McKellar <brenjan98@...> wrote:Thanks for all the feedback. 67 marker results came back and Robertson is 64/67. Is this an unusually close match for a different surname? Also had a 62/67 Sinclair match and two other -7 Sinclair matches.JanisOn Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Stephanie Ray <stephanieray52@...> wrote:StephanieJanis, to re-iterate, R1b is such a numberous sub-clade, it is pretty easy to get false matches at 25 and even 37 markers with different surnames (I've heard it described as R1b not being so much a tree as a bush with many crossing branches).Best regards,
After you get more data for your particular McKellars (getting at least two matches), you can invest in a Geno 2.0 SNP test to determine your particular sub-sub-clade, that should help reduce the number of false positives (in addition to testing more STR markers).On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Janis McKellar <brenjan98@...> wrote:Thanks so much for the tips....I will be sure to try them.You probably have experience with this situation and I need some input. With only 3 McKellars tested so far, it's hard to make any assumptions. But, my husband has a 25/25 match with a Robertson and this match is 35/37 (looking forward to seeing what 67 markers will show). This is his closest match by far and only exact match at 25 markers. He has several -1 with varying surnames and a handful 34/37 matches. This is his only Robertson match beyond 12 markers. Does this mean there is a likely connection in more recent times? Is a NPE of some kind assumed? If so, couldn't it be either way since Robertson doesn't appear to match as closely with other Robertsons even though there are plenty of them tested? Unfortunately I have reached out to this match a couple of times and have not heard back. Would you consider this a relevant match? I read somewhere that matches with other surnames below 25/25 and 35/37 are not worth spending time on....do you agree?Thanks again!
JanisOn Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Stephanie Ray <stephanieray52@...> wrote:StephanieBest of luck,Janis, as the admin for the Cobb DNA project at FTDNA, I constantly troll for new participants, so I can advise you on that pretty well. Good resources include peoplesmart.com, whitepages.com, and Facebook (where it looks like there is an open McKellar group). You could also try the owners of the public trees at Ancestry.com. Mail the prospective participants, then follow up with a phone call (if possible).It is funny, when I was growing up, Cobb seemed like a very rare name. However, it has turned out to be more common than I ever guessed (48,790 in the 1940 US Federal Census).McKellar does seem rare, though (only 6,284 in the 1940 US Federal Census), so in the meantime I would advise registering the name with the Guild of One Name Studies (http://www.one-name.org/), which is very reasonable. It is a great resource, for both paper and genetic genealogy.On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Janis McKellar <brenjan98@...> wrote:Thanks Stephanie. We are working on getting more participants- not an easy task! Any tips for what to do in the meantime, would be helpful.On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Stephanie Ray <stephanieray52@...> wrote:I think you need more data (preferably more of your husband's McKellar's relatives) to start with.R1b is such a numberous subclade, it is pretty easy to get false matches at 25 and even 37 markers with different surnames. After you get more data for your McKellars, you can invest in a Geno 2.0 SNP test to determine your particular sub-sub-clade, that should help reduce the number of false positives.More STR markers (like 111) should help elimate false positives (or confirm relatednesss), as well.Hope that helps.StephanieOn Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:53 AM, JanisM <brenjan98@...> wrote:
My husband recently received 37 of the 67 marker results. His results are R1b1a-M269. Kit number is 282516, ysearch: DSZYZ. He has a paper trail back to 1750 in Argyll, Scotalnd. We were surprised that he not only did not match the 2 other McKellars tested (non-related), but they are -23 at 37 markers, whereas the two of them are -4 at 37 markers. My husband has 1 exact match at 25 markers, and the closest at 37 is -2 & the same individual (Robertson) that was exact at 25. Seeing as how there are only 3 McKellars tested, does this just point to different branches of the McKellar tree (which I don't believe has a root ancestor because they were never an official clan, but a Sept of the Campbells)or a NPE? How can we know for sure? Should I disregard matches below 67 markers? What do 67 marker matches of a different surname tell us?
According to the Robertson project classification, he is listed as OGAP6 and is pretty much straight on with the AMH.
After the 67 marker results are in and results coming from 23andme, what is the suggested next step? Is Geno 2.0 necessary or should individual SNPs be ordered?
Thanks in advance!