GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-STR Loci, etc.
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:43:11 EDT

In a message dated 4/18/01 8:17:38 PM, writes:

<<I need to think some more about these data. A couple of things to keep in=20
mind are that all the samples are of European origin, and that you must take=
=20
the whole haplotype as a unit, not focus on one specific marker when you're=20
calculating probabilities. Nonetheless, I'm surprised how similar some of th=
e=20
markers are in the various studies. Maybe the pooled efforts of our group=20
will provide a good data set for future work.
>>

Hello Ann and All,

Ron Lindsay, Kevin Duerinck, Doug Mumma, and I were exchanging a few e-mails=
=20
between us recently on this subject and I thought my exchange with them migh=
t=20
be beneficial to the whole group. The following is that message:

Hello Ron (and Kevin and Doug),

For our Stidham/Steadham project, DNA analysis did exactly what we expected=20
it to do (however, results were disappointing for some in our study). It=20
divided all of our participants into matching haplotypes giving us the=20
ability to determine with good probability, who carried the Y-chromosome of=20
our immigrant ancestor, and who didn=92t.

If we look at the marker in our study with the greatest variance in=20
mutations, it would be at Locus 5, which shows 5 mutations (it=92s also one=20=
of=20
Dr. Hammer=92s unpublished markers). Using FTDNA=92s rule-of-thumb of 800 ye=
ars=20
per mutation as a clock, that would put the time of the most recent common=20
ancestor (MRCA) for those in Group 1 and Group 2 of our study at about 4,000=
=20
years ago, or 2000 B.C. That is a significant number of years back to me. Fo=
r=20
our study, we can conclude then that men bearing the Stidham surname (or one=
=20
of its many spelling variations) MAY be related, but maybe not. And Stidham=20
is a pretty rare name. Of course, if you go back far enough, we=92re all=20
related, but we all don=92t consider ourselves =93family.=94 At least not in=
a =20
genealogical sense.

For genealogical purposes, when we think of family, we think of those sharin=
g=20
common surnames. But remember, surnames have only been in use since about=20
1100 to 1300 A.D. in some parts of Europe, and as late as the 1700 and 1800s=
=20
in the rest of Europe, and indeed the rest of the civilized world. A=20
Y-chromosome study of men bearing say, your Lindsay surname (Scottish,=20
right?), should determine those who are closely related genetically (your=20
family shall we say) from those who are distantly related (ethnically, or=20
Scottish-British say).=20

The magic in all this to me is the ever-growing database of surnames and=20
their haplotypes. For the one gentleman in our study who didn=92t match anyo=
ne=20
else (Erasmus 1), FTDNA had someone else in their database who DID match him=
=20
whose last name is Leisner. With that information, this gentleman might go=20
back and find that in the 1800 census for example, a family by the name of=20
Leisner was living two houses away. That may be a clue as to who his=20
biological line really is. It=92s going to be the piece-by-piece evidence th=
at=20
builds the case as to who our real (genetic-biological) family is. Now that=
=92s=20
fascinating to me!

Richard

This thread:

• [DNA] Y-STR Loci, etc. by Ron Lindsay <>
  • Re: [DNA] Y-STR Loci, etc. by
    • Re: [DNA] Y-STR Loci, etc. by Alan Savin <>

  • Re: [DNA] Y-STR Loci, etc. by