GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1270048469
From: Johnathan Clayborn <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Questions about alternate means of searching DNAGenealogy -creating a modal haplotype from a few samples
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:21:07 -0700
Thank you all very much for your input and feedback. I'll be perfectly
honest, about half of what you have been discussing has gone right over my
head. lol. I guess I have some more reading up to do. ;)
Please allow me to answer some of the questions that had been asked and
explain the particulars of my situation.
I had my DNA tested at Family Tree DNA in December of 2005.
I have been routinely checking YHRD, Genebase, YBase, YSearch and the
Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation.
I however was not aware of the database that ancestry.com maintains (which
surprises me as I frequent that site), but I will add them to my list.
I know through paper trails my ancestors bore the Clayborn surname post
1860. (In fact, in the 1860 census for Loudon Co, VA he shows up as a
Clayborn). Since we are Clayborns now we had no reason to ever assume that
at some point we were not Clayborns. We missed a vital clue on the 1850
Census Record where it lists:
Going back and looking at it in hindsight I feel somewhat sheepish to have
overlooked such an obvious error. Knowing that Christina Croy is my
ancestor's mother I naturally compared my DNA to the Croy lines without
success. I have not been able to find much about Christina Croy and she
appears to be something of a mystery. I can find no marriage record for her,
no birth record, and the 1840 census is useless as I don't know which Croy
household to look in. I dont know if she was born a Croy and never married
my ancestor's father, or if she was married to a Croy who, for whatever
reason is out of the picture in 1860. In 1850 Christina and the two children
are living in a house by themselves with Christina as the head of household.
I live in AZ so searching court records in VA is unlikely at this point.
So, having exhuasted all other means currently available to me I turned to
the genealogy aspect of it.
My genetic markers match the R1b root model fairly closely with noteable
exceptions at DYS439, DYS389-I, DYS389-II, DYS458, DYS454, DYS437, and
Of the differences in the root model my allele value at 437 is 14, which is
not terribly uncommon. My allele value at 458 is 16 which is also not
terribly uncommon (24.19%). My marker at 454 is 12, which only occurs 7.11%
of the time. My 439 marker is 13, which occurrs 12.56% of the time. The ones
that are high unusual are my 389 markers and my 464 markers. My 389-I is 11,
which according to SMGF happens 0.38% of the time, and my 389-II is 27,
which happens 0.95% of the time. My 464a,b,c&d values are all 15 straight
across the board. The value of 15 in and of itself is not terribly uncommon,
but to have all four values equal 15 is extremely rare and only is reported
in that combination in 0.56% of the population tested.
>From what I understand the markers at 389 also have very low mutation rates,
which, I think, should mean that I should focus my search there?
The closest matches I have found are a David Tidmarsh, who lives in the UK.
His values match my 389 markers, but not the 464 set. He also has 3 other
mutations between my genetic strand.
There also is a Thompson family recorded in Ybase that matches my 464
values, but not my 389 values, the opposite of Tidmarsh.
Another group that was relatively close was Meggison out of Canada. But,
like the others, they matched some, but not all of the values. In all cases
there are between 4 and 6 mutations between those partial matches and my
As far as getting test results from other members of my family for
comparison, that seems unlikely as I am not on very good terms with them.
Am I on the right track to be focusing on these markers? or have I
completely missed the idea here? Based on the information provided is my
Another thought occurred to me also, my adopted family, the Clayborn had a
branch that settled in Ireland. That branch has mostly died out. If
something similar happened in my ancestors case then there may not be anyone
to compare the resutls against, except for the known family. In which case I
might never yield results, correct?
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 7:54 AM, <> wrote:
> While we are discussing the particular, I wondered if it is useful to
> create a modal haplotype from 4 samples. Three samples can prove
> ancestry to ancestor A, c. 1690-1760. The other sample traces to
> Ancestor B, c 1702-1777, very probably (not proved) a brother of A.
> All these samples match within the usual parameters, but of course
> there are one-step mutations. In that case, does one
> choose the most commonly found allele?
> Once such a modal haplotype is created, what good
> is it? Can one create a fictitious Ysearch account to try to locate
> other matches (who didn't test with FTDNA), or to search other
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Chomh fada is a tharraingt mé anáil, tá súil agam.
|Re: [DNA] Questions about alternate means of searching DNAGenealogy -creating a modal haplotype from a few samples by Johnathan Clayborn <>|