SCOT-DNA-L Archives

From: "Clifford Johnston" <>
Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] STRs and SNPs
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:07:47 -0600
References: <003401cca899$04e2d920$0ea88b60$@co.uk> <1321917337.1831.YahooMailClassic@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><003e01cca8a9$dc6ecc90$954c65b0$@att.net>
In-Reply-To: <003e01cca8a9$dc6ecc90$954c65b0$@att.net>

Nancy,

Sooner or later I had to unpack and come across my genealogy information :-)


Buried at Westminster United Church Cemetery (Methodist & Presbyterian),
Prescott County, Ontario, CANADA, are many of my family including one Elder
whose connection I have not determined other than through our Anderson line.
My grandmother was an Anderson. The inscription reads:

Mathew ELDER Died April 2nd 1880 Aged 97 years 'Though worms destroy this
body yet in my flesh shall I see God'

Mathew Elder was a minister from Ireland and a relative of Clark Anderson,
brother of my grandmother, Florence Anderson Johnston. I have my Anderson
line traced back to a farm some 3 miles south of Castledawson, Londonderry
County, IRELAND, and a Benjamin Anderson. They were originally of Scottish
ancestry. Just how Matthew Elder is connected to Clark Anderson I do not
know, but their connection is written in a cemetery document.

If this connects in anyway with any information that you may have on your
Elder list I would appreciate knowing.

Thank you.

Good hunting,

Cliff. Johnston

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Clifford Johnston
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 6:01 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] STRs and SNPs

Nancy,

I'm still unpacking from a recent move so I can't supply any details, but do
you know if you have an Elder born in Ireland who went over to Upper Canada?
He is buried in Westminster Cemetery and is said to have been related to us.
He was a minister.

Cliff. Johnston

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Nancy Elder Petersen
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 5:16 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] STRs and SNPs

Hi Alistair,
As Host of the ELDER DNA project,
I sponsored my brother's Deep Clade
test, for ELDER kit #10042.
He is listed as L165- (negative) instead of L165+
His kit fits okay on the Scottish DNA lists, identified by our earliest
known ancestor, Rev. War Soldier, Robert ELDER,
b. 1730 near Perth - d. 1807 Franklin County Pennsylvania.
Can you tell me anything about this SNP difference?

Deep Clade for kit #10042:
L165-, L176.2-, L2-, L20-, L21-, M153-, M65-, P312+, SRY2627-, U106-,
U152-

See our FTDNA ELDER surname SNP list menu at
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Elder


--Nancy Elder Petersen
Vancouver, WA 98662
Volunteer Host, ELDER DNA project
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Elder


--- On Mon, 11/21/11, Alasdair Macdonald <> wrote:

> From: Alasdair Macdonald <>
> Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] STRs and SNPs
> To:
> Date: Monday, November 21, 2011, 2:00 PM As has been mentioned by
> others, there is not a one-fix for all answer when we talk about STR
> and SNP tests. A deep clade test can be very revealing and help define
> your subclade (genetic family) within a larger haplogroup. But not for
> all. For some individuals, the defining SNP which can shed light on
> their deeper ancestry has yet to be discovered. Having said that,
> Unless you test for the available SNPs you will never know. But what
> do we consider deeper? Here is my own example.
>
> The SNP which defines and identifies my own deep ancestry is called
> L165
> (S68 by EthnoAncestry) and includes a number of well known surnames
> from the west and northern Highlands, (MacLeod, MacNeil, MacDonald,
> Buie, Carmichael,
> Cameron) along with Beall's from Fife and a few instances in England.
> L165 has only been available since 2009 yet already it has shown
> connections which STRs alone could never have identified. Results are
> here:
>
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L165Project/default.aspx?section=yresu
> lts
>
> Confirmation of a common origin through testing positive for L165 is
> allowing us to more accurately define TMCRA within the medieval period
> as we have a confirmed cohort of participants. For our group testing
> to 111 is also producing results as we are finding markers 68-111 have
> some faster mutating markers.
>
> Interesting times.
>
> Alasdair Macdonald
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:]
> On Behalf Of
> Sent: 21 November 2011 21:21
> To:
> Subject: SCOT-DNA Digest, Vol 6, Issue 40
>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: mtDNA U5a1b1* from Scotland (jim
> gordon)
>    2. Re: Project Updates? (jim gordon)
>    3. Re: Project Updates? (Andrew
> Lancaster)
>    4. Re: Project Updates? (Clifford
> Johnston)
>    5. Re: Project Updates? (JimT)
>    6. Re: Project Updates? (JimT)
>    7. Re: Project Updates? ()
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:16:52 -0500
> From: jim gordon <>
> Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] mtDNA U5a1b1* from Scotland
> To:
> Message-ID:
>    
> <CACy4dnRcMNBimXN0z7_C9ecNsy5=>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Jim --
>
> You realize that mtDNA testing relates only to the female line, So,
> Elizabeth Nairn is a female ancestor of your grandmother on her
> mother's side and so on up the female side of your lineage. It really
> doesn't help your male lineage very much unless your male ancestors
> remained in a specific area (in this case, Farnell) for a period
> probably into centuries.
> You might want to look at the following:
> http://www.kerchner.com/haplogroups-mtdna.htm
>
> Cheers, Jim Gordon
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM, JimT <>
> wrote:
>
> > I recently had my father's mtDNA FGS tested.  The
> most distant known
> > ancestor in this mtDNA line is Elisabeth Nairn, b.c.
> 1820, Farnell,
> > Angus, Scotland.  This line is U5a1b1*.
> There are no FGS matches for
> > this line.  There are many high resolution (HVR1
> + HVR2) matches.  The
> > country with the highest percentage of high resolution
> matches is
> > Denmark, so this line might have come to Scotland with
> the Vikings.
> >
> > Jim Turner
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers, Jim
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:26:07 -0500
> From: jim gordon <>
> Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] Project Updates?
> To:
> Message-ID:
>    
> <CACy4dnTqRjrNQM0i8NksFeFsU_M=+eviTwT9=>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Jim --
>
> I have to disagree with you about haplogroups not being important for
> genealogy. Perhaps in the case of some Y-DNA groups like Scot-DNA, it
> is not; but in the case of Gordons; and perhaps other surname groups,
> the haplogroup sorts out the Seton-Gordons (R1b) from the other two
> major groups (i1.). It also ties together some small groups among the
> Gordons who share unique haplogroups (such as R1b subgroups who are
> not
> Seton-Gordons)
> suggesting a common ancestry, perhaps in a geological time frame,
> perhaps in a historical time frame.
>
> Cheers, Jim Gordon
> Co-Administrator
> House of Gordon DNA Project
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:20 PM, JimT <>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, haplogroup is determined by SNPs, but haplogroup
> is not important
> > for genealogy.  The haplogroups that FTDNA tests
> are defined by SNPs
> > that occurred thousands of years ago, much too early
> to be of use for
> > genealogy.
> >
> > Jim Turner
> >
> > On 11/18/11,
> <>
> wrote:
> > > Haplogroup is determined by SNPs not STRs. STRs
> can be used to PREDICT
> > your
> > >  haplogroup and are usually accurate but
> only SNPs can PROVE your
> > > haplogroup.  Also you can have deep clade
> testing to take your
> haplogroup
> > > down to the
> > >  subgroup which gives you a closer idea of
> your matches--but still in
> the
> > > distant  past.
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 11/18/2011 5:21:32 P.M.
> Eastern Standard Time,
> > >
> writes:
> > >
> > > Duncan,  Do you mean SNP test?  SNP
> tests are more useful for
> > > determining  ancient ancestry, i.e.,
> thousands of years ago.  STR
> > > tests, like the  37-marker test, are more
> useful for genealogy.  This
> > > is because the  mutation rate is much higher
> for STRs than for SNPs.
> > > Even close cousins can  have differences on
> the the 37-marker test,
> > > while it is highly unlikely  that they will
> have differences on the
> > > currently available SNP  tests.
> > >
> > > Jim Turner
> > >
> > > On 11/18/11, Duncan  <>
> wrote:
> > >> Lauren,
> > >>
> > >> DNA  samples are supposed to be
> accurate,
> > >> settling paternal / maternal  suits, settling crime
> > >> investigations, etc...
> > >>
> > >>  Question:  If the above are true, and one has had a 37 -node 
> > >>sample
> tested,
> > >>
> > >> why is it desirable to also have that
> other  test,
> > >> STR or whaterver it is, to verify one's
> R1B1C1
> > >> roots, as  derived from the first
> 37-node test?
> > >>
> > >> Duncan  Macdonald
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers, Jim
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:56:30 +0100
> From: "Andrew Lancaster" <>
> Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] Project Updates?
> To: <>
> Message-ID: <073EAC1CD05C48889E3BF06F55218370@PC>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="us-ascii"
>
> Concerning SNPs and ancient haplogroups, perhaps it is worth adding a
> remark to the recent ones. The study of SNPs allows us to put all men
> in one quite certain family tree of their male lines. The only problem
> for genealogy AT THIS MOMENT, is that the current state of this study
> means that there are thousands or millions of men all sharing the same
> positions on the tree.
>
> However, as more SNPs are being rapidly discovered and positioned, the
> knowledge of the twigs is getting more and more refined, and it is now
> only a matter of time before SNPs will be one of the normal tools of
> genetic genealogy. Very occasionally, genealogical questions are being
> answered with SNPs already.
>
> I used to advise people interested in SNPs that testing the latest
> ones is interesting but "normally" won't help genealogy. These days I
> tend to add some words on the end of that advice, like "...this year".
> In effect, those
> of us who are playing around with the newest SNPs are helping develop
> the knowledge of the human male line family tree which will one day be
> very useful for genealogy. Progress is fast and inevitable and
> speeding up.
>
> Regards
> Andrew Lancaster
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:51:43 -0600
> From: "Clifford Johnston" <>
> Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] Project Updates?
> To: <>
> Message-ID:
> <002e01cca88f$61100010$23300030$@att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="us-ascii"
>
> Yes Jim, haplogroups help sort out the Johnson/Johnston/Johnstone
> lines too.
> With over 30 haplogroups in our names it can get a wee bit muddled
> without them.
>
> Cliff. Johnston
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:]
> On Behalf Of jim gordon
> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 5:26 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] Project Updates?
>
> Jim --
>
> I have to disagree with you about haplogroups not being important for
> genealogy. Perhaps in the case of some Y-DNA groups like Scot-DNA, it
> is not; but in the case of Gordons; and perhaps other surname groups,
> the haplogroup sorts out the Seton-Gordons (R1b) from the other two
> major groups (i1.). It also ties together some small groups among the
> Gordons who share unique haplogroups (such as R1b subgroups who are
> not
> Seton-Gordons)
> suggesting a common ancestry, perhaps in a geological time frame,
> perhaps in a historical time frame.
>
> Cheers, Jim Gordon
> Co-Administrator
> House of Gordon DNA Project
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:20 PM, JimT <>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, haplogroup is determined by SNPs, but haplogroup
> is not important
> > for genealogy.  The haplogroups that FTDNA tests
> are defined by SNPs
> > that occurred thousands of years ago, much too early
> to be of use for
> > genealogy.
> >
> > Jim Turner
> >
> > On 11/18/11,
> <>
> wrote:
> > > Haplogroup is determined by SNPs not STRs. STRs
> can be used to
> > > PREDICT
> > your
> > >  haplogroup and are usually accurate but
> only SNPs can PROVE your
> > > haplogroup.  Also you can have deep clade
> testing to take your
> > > haplogroup down to the  subgroup which gives
> you a closer idea of
> > > your matches--but still in the distant
> past.
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 11/18/2011 5:21:32 P.M.
> Eastern Standard Time,
> > >
> writes:
> > >
> > > Duncan,  Do you mean SNP test?  SNP
> tests are more useful for
> > > determining  ancient ancestry, i.e.,
> thousands of years ago.  STR
> > > tests, like the  37-marker test, are more
> useful for genealogy.
> > > This is because the  mutation rate is much
> higher for STRs than for
> SNPs.
> > > Even close cousins can  have differences on
> the the 37-marker test,
> > > while it is highly unlikely  that they will
> have differences on the
> > > currently available SNP  tests.
> > >
> > > Jim Turner
> > >
> > > On 11/18/11, Duncan  <>
> wrote:
> > >> Lauren,
> > >>
> > >> DNA  samples are supposed to be
> accurate, settling paternal /
> > >> maternal  suits, settling crime
> investigations, etc...
> > >>
> > >>  Question:  If the above are true, and one has had a 37 -node 
> > >>sample
> tested,
> > >>
> > >> why is it desirable to also have that
> other  test, STR or whaterver
> > >> it is, to verify one's R1B1C1 roots, as
> derived from the first
> > >> 37-node test?
> > >>
> > >> Duncan  Macdonald
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers, Jim
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:05:45 -0800
> From: JimT <>
> Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] Project Updates?
> To:
> Message-ID:
>    
> <CAFF6iwMwTsjWCRO1JLhsGG9Txc8mhuxssn1O6Ab+>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Joan, I use the common definition of "genealogical time", i.e., it is
> the time for which there are sufficient extant vital records to
> research genealogy.  It varies depending on location.  For example, in
> Sweden, where I've done much of my research, genealogical time begins
> in the 1680s when the government mandated record keeping.
>
> It is true that if two men's haplogroups don't match, there is no
> point in looking for a common ancestor, but clearly you do not need to
> know their haplogroups to know whether it might be worthwhile to look
> for a common ancestor.  You can tell that just by looking at the STRs.
> And if their haplogroups do match, that does not mean that it would
> be worthwhile to look for a common ancestor.   You can tell that by
> looking at the STRs, but not by looking at the SNPs, because the
> common ancestor for two men with the same haplogroup could have been
> thousands of years ago, long before genealogical record keeping.  If
> you want to know how closely related two men's Y chromosomes are, STRs
> give a much more accurate indication than SNPs.
>
> Jim Turner
>
> On 11/20/11,
> <>
> wrote:
> > Jim-
> >
> > Depends upon what you mean by "genealogical time" I
> guess. Just  like all
> > blue-eyed people are related WAAAAAY back there
> everyone who shares a
> > Haplogroup is related somewhere WAAAAY back there. If
> you don't match the
> > haplogroup then why bother looking further on up that
> branch of the tree?
> If
> >  they
> > match--then I'd be interested in looking at the STRs
> for matches.
> >
> > I had a match (autosomal) in several segments of
> various chromosomes with
> > someone I found on 23andme's Relatvie Finder. It said
> we were probable 5th
> > cousins. Pretty far back there but we both had pretty
> good paper records.
> > The  only match we can find so far is Welsh
> GRIFFETHs in the 1500s -- is
> > that
> > the  match or are we missing something even
> closer up? I don't know yet.
> But
> > I still  find it interesting.
> >
> > Joan
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 11/20/2011 4:35:59 P.M. Eastern
> Standard Time,
> >
> writes:
> >
> > If your  haplogroups don't match, neither will
> your STRs, assuming that
> > you have  tested enough STRs.  I've never
> heard of a case where people
> > who  matched on 37 STRs belonged to different
> haplogroups.  Have you?
> > 67  and 111 marker matches are certainly
> reliable.   On the other  hand,
> > the fact that two guy's haplogroups match doesn't mean
> that they  have
> > a common ancestor in genealogical time.  Their
> common ancestor  could
> > have lived thousands of years  ago.
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > 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
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:16:36 -0800
> From: JimT <>
> Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] Project Updates?
> To:
> Message-ID:
>    
> <>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Jim,  My point was that given the currently available tests, STRs are
> better than SNPs at determining how closely related two Y-lines are.
> It doesn't hurt to look at SNPs, but you can judge relationships more
> accurately using STRs.  Given the expensive of tests, and the fact
> that I have kits for myself and 7 relatives at various DNA labs, I
> have to be choosy about which tests I order.  I usually choose to
> order the tests that give me the most useful information per dollar,
> i.e., STR tests rather than SNP tests.
>
> Jim Turner
>
>
> On 11/20/11, jim gordon <>
> wrote:
> > Jim --
> >
> > I have to disagree with you about haplogroups not
> being important for
> > genealogy. Perhaps in the case of some Y-DNA groups
> like Scot-DNA, it is
> > not; but in the case of Gordons; and perhaps other
> surname groups, the
> > haplogroup sorts out the Seton-Gordons (R1b) from the
> other two major
> > groups (i1.). It also ties together some small groups
> among the Gordons
> who
> > share unique haplogroups (such as R1b subgroups who
> are not Seton-Gordons)
> > suggesting a common ancestry, perhaps in a geological
> time frame, perhaps
> > in a historical time frame.
> >
> > Cheers, Jim Gordon
> > Co-Administrator
> > House of Gordon DNA Project
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:21:16 -0500 (EST)
> From:
> Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] Project Updates?
> To:
> Message-ID: <>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Jim-
>
> I disagree. Genealogical time to me is ALL of our ancestry as far back
> as you can trace it. The fact that vital records are kept or not kept
> doesn't define what we can prove through a variety of other sources.
> If the end of vital  records being kept defined our genealogy--we'd
> have no members of the
>
> DAR or  Colonial Dames of the 17th Century or the Swedish Colonial
> Society--all of which  I have proved my lineage to join long before
> vital records were kept.
>
> So you wouldn't look at the Y Haplogroup when finding matches? You
> could be getting erroneous results if at a later date you find a
> mismatch in Y Haplogroup.
>
> Joan
>
>
> In a message dated 11/21/2011 4:06:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>
> writes:
>
> Joan, I  use the common definition of "genealogical time", i.e., it is
> the time for  which there are sufficient extant vital records to
> research  genealogy.  It varies depending on location.  For example, 
> in Sweden, where I've done much of my research, genealogical time 
> begins in the 1680s when the government mandated record keeping.
>
> It  is true that if two men's haplogroups don't match, there is no
> point in  looking for a common ancestor, but clearly you do not need
> to know their  haplogroups to know whether it might be worthwhile to
> look for a common  ancestor.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> To contact the SCOT-DNA list administrator, send an email to
> .
>
> To post a message to the SCOT-DNA mailing list, send an email to
> .
>
> __________________________________________________________
> 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 email with no additional
> text.
>
>
> End of SCOT-DNA Digest, Vol 6, Issue 40
> ***************************************
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>


-------------------------------
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



-------------------------------
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

This thread:

• Re: [SCOT-DNA] STRs and SNPs by "Clifford Johnston" <>