Don's discussion about comparing Y-STR markers DYS464 between the Stokes
Cooleys and the William H and James born in PA has got me thinking. Here
are some points, most of which make reference to group CF01 of the DNA
Project:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Cooley/default.aspx?section=yresults
The genetic distance of 3 at DYS338 for the first Wm H tester (#239164)
afforded some doubt about the connection between the two sets of Cooleys.
But the second tester for Wm H has a genetic distance of 0 at that
location. Mutations can happen with any location at any time. It is
reasonable, then, to consider that the mutation for the first tester's
line occurred during the six-generation descent to the tester. For all
practical purposes, I believe, there is no genetic difference at that
marker between the two groups.
The James Cooley descendant is a genetic distance of one to the second Wm
H tester. Per the following page at FTDNA, two men having a 36/37 match
have a 95% chance of having a common ancestor within 10 generations.
Interestingly, the chances are the same with 66/67 markers! In other
words, if two people match at 37 markers, they are likely to match at 67
markers. Our study has shown that to be true. Indeed, markers 38-67 for
the first Wm H tester completely matches us.
http://www.familytreedna.com/faq-markers.aspx
Don's email has prompted me to look more closely at DYS464. It's a
multiple copy marker having, most commonly, four copies. It's also the
most variable of the STRs and the most volatile. In other words, there's a
greater chance of mutation with that marker than with any other marker.
Furthermore, the values are always listed numerically ("12-13-15-16,"
never "13-12-16-15"), and any differences between two testers is never
more than a genetic distance of 1. This mode of calculation is unique the
that marker.
So, the James tester is a genetic distance of 2 from us at 37 markers--and
is likely a genetic distance of 2 at 67 markers, since the chances are
nearly 100% that he will match us at markers 38-67. The Wm H and James
line, in other words, is as genetically close to our modal as I am!
So, all of this leads again to the conclusion that Wm H and James were
likely closely related to John. But how? Don's observation about DYS464
may be a clue:
He noted that our DYS464 value of 12-13-15-16 is rare among the R1a1a
subclade and that 12-15-15-16 is far more numerous. In fact, it's common
among McDonalds and might have been Somerled's own value. I don't know
that that necessarily means that it's ancient in our case, but the fact
that it's numerous likely means it's older than our DYS464. Therefore. Wm
H's DYS464 value *might* represent the "parent" value.
The first thing to remember is the volatility of STRs in general at that
of DYS464 in particular. The values can go both up and down (additions and
deletions). What may now be 12-15-15-16 may have once been 12-13-15-16. We
won't know until we know. But for now I'm willing to make the following
speculations:
* Wm H and James were likely brothers, probably no more than 1st cousins.
* At a genetic distance of 2, the James Cooley descendant is likely
related to us within 14 generations. (I'm 9 generations from John and also
a genetic distance of 2).
* Judging from the numbers found in the general population, James's DYS464
is likely the "parent" value.
The seemingly jumbled alphabet soup of DNA means nothing without analyzing
it against the record, whether that record be archaeological, historic,
genealogical, or the result of population studies. For example, the "Young
Scandinavian" marker is known as that because of the high degree of
Scandinavians who have it. It's presence in Britain confirms the
historical account of migration. But we're not going to know the true
significance of DYS464 to us, or the extent of our relationship to Wm H
and James until a paper trail is established. DNA, however, has provided
some light on the matter.
Also thanks to Don for pointing out the several Whitfields that match.
I've invited the FTDNA Whitfield to join the project. But we do know that
he matches 37/37 to Don and, therefore, we know he is 12-13-15-16 at
DYS464. We also know that there's a high degree of probability that he
will match in all 67 markers and, therefore, is an exact match to our
modal values. We know from the FTDNA chart that a 37/37 or 67/67 match has
a 95% probability of a relationship within 6 generations. Likely, then, he
is not only more closely related to us than to Wm H and James, he may very
well be a descendant of John's. Any number of explanations is possible,
but it's possible that one of John's sons might have had a so-called "base
born" son. Now, wouldn't that be special. :)
-Michael
Received on Mon Nov 04 2013 - 18:25:32 MST