Coming Soon: Y-DNA Haplogroups for Family Finder

[Mabrams]

"Not sure if I am missing something. I don't see how FF results would change the number of branches. Big Y-700 is able to create new branches but FF is based off of existing branches."

That explanation works for me
I did see branch numbers increase before, but that must have been BigYs

~~~~

Looking at a V2 kit (I am pretty sure)

P312 was not tested. Presumed positive. But L21 tested positive as well as three more SNPs downstream of L21.

[ArmandoR1b]

P312 was not tested.  Presumed positive. But L21 tested positive as well as three more SNPs downstream of L21.

I figured L21 would be tested. That's why it should show L21- for the FF kits that are R-L151 which is reality the majority would be R-DF27 if DF27 itself was tested, which isn't, or at least P312 is if P312 were tested, which I had already noticed isn't. The lack of negative results and the lack of a raw data download both are annoying.

[ArmandoR1b]

Does anyone have Big Y Block Tree numbers for last night and today?

[Dewsloth]

R-BY166 seems to be the default Y-DNA result from Family Finder for my own Y-chromosome line, both for those with my surname and more broadly for most of the guys in the R1b-BY168 and Subclades Project. Old R-M269 predictions are steadily being replaced on the project's DNA Results page with R-BY166. I would rather everyone upgraded to the Big Y-700, but this is much better than no improvement at all.

In my maternal grandfather's Y-chromosome line (Z253>FGC3268>BY43439>BY4303>FGC59516>BY93500>BY132893>FT418639), the old R-M269 predictions are slowly being replaced by R-Z253. That's not quite as good as the R-BY166 in my own Y-DNA line, but, once again, it's much better than no improvement at all.

I have probably already mentioned this, but R-BY166 is also the default result for my Y-chromosome line at 23andMe; only there it's given as R-Z18021. That's what I  and a few of my Y relatives have there and also a guy with the Welsh surname Lloyd who contacted me about it some years ago (but then never did any more about it). 

I was hoping he would test with FTDNA and join the R1b-BY168 and Subclades Project. He sounded interested, but of course money was involved, so I guess I can't blame him. Another stingy Welshman.

Guys, don´t cry. 
My closer YFull match is a 2,100 years old fossil. 
In FTDNA I have not BigY matches, I have exactly 35 people with whom I share some (old, old) relation in the last 3,500 years
And my STR matches are:
111: ZERO
67: ZERO
37: ZERO
25: zero
Well at least in 12 I have... z e r o matches.

I'm not quite in your boat, but the FF SNPS for me are back from the MBA
Three guys have appeared to date:  R-S4268 1450 BCE and R-S4281 1600 BCE, that's about 65 SNPs above my level.

I have 7 Big Y matches, but only one (besides my dad) is within the last 1500 years.  We have MDKA from German villages 30 km apart in 1600 CE.
Other than my dad, no STR matches at all.

[ArmandoR1b]

A few weeks ago I reread the story about Bennet Greenspan calling a genetecist about using DNA testing to prove or disprove a common ancestor between two people. The genetecists reaction is that he gets call from crazy people like him all the time. Just think about how many people there are in the world and in comparison how few people there are with a Big Y test at FTDNA or how few there are in YFull with a WGS test. We are the crazy people. There ought to be a way to calculate how many people would have to be tested in order for almost everyone to get a match with a MRCA within the past 1,000 years. Maybe by calculating the world male population in the year 1,000? I think that would have to be the amount of crazy people. Of course once something is that common it isn't crazy anymore but I doubt that there will ever be two desendants from most males that lived 1,0000 years ago will ever be tested. I hope I am wrong. I hope there is enough "crazy" people in the world for most people to have a match with a common ancestor from the last 1,000 years.

[Riverman]

A few weeks ago I reread the story about Bennet Greenspan calling a genetecist about using DNA testing to prove or disprove a common ancestor between two people. The genetecists reaction is that he gets call from crazy people like him all the time. Just think about how many people there are in the world and in comparison how few people there are with a Big Y test at FTDNA or how few there are in YFull with a WGS test. We are the crazy people. There ought to be a way to calculate how many people would have to be tested in order for almost everyone to get a match with a MRCA within the past 1,000 years. Maybe by calculating the world male population in the year 1,000? I think that would have to be the amount of crazy people. Of course once something is that common it isn't crazy anymore but I doubt that there will ever be two desendants from most males that lived 1,0000 years ago will ever be tested. I hope I am wrong. I hope there is enough "crazy" people in the world for most people to have a match with a common ancestor from the last 1,000 years.

You can't compare people from different backgrounds. Like I know, roughly speaking, most of the descendants of my last genealogically known ancestors about 300 years ago and I also know that this branch is highly likely to be the only surviving from the last 500 years. This means, there a few dozen or so males of my terminal branch from the last 500 years.
On the other hand, I have genetic relatives which are not just emigrants to America, where testing is way more common and popular, but which last paternal ancestor from 500 years ago has many times as many descendants. That completely skews the odds in favour of those lineages, with hundreds and hundreds of male descendants in America vs. my branch, which has some American descendants too, but only a handful and some got tested already.

There is no one to test, in the USA, for the last 500 years beyond those few, this handful of my known relatives. The pool of potential testers is way smaller than for those relatives with very succesful colonial lineages with those hundreds of male descendants.

Therefore even if there is more testing, it won't be distributed equally. I know that very well since my main haplogroup has a couple of colonial founders, of which some get regularly new testers, kind of every 2-3 months since the rate of BigY testing improved. Therefore what the higher rate of BigY testing in the USA primarily those is enlarging the already existing lineages representation, whereas new lineages, especially those with very few or no American emigrants, grow either not at all or at a much, much slower pace.
I got a lot of interesting STR matches which represent Central European lineages with just one single tester, which are not willing or no longer able to upgrade. Its great that the big successful projects recruit so many testers, but its also kind of annoying to see ever more testers with the same surname (many of them already have more than a dozen or so), whereas all those single STR tester lineages stay behind and remain completely untested (BigY or comparable NGS) so far.

In one case I couldn't believe that his prominent German lineage being so undertested, but then I looked through the trees and apparently while there are a lot, really a lot of descendants, there are very few from the direct paternal line, even though it emigrated to America in the 18th century. How many male descendants exist of a lineage, even if its an American colonial one, can be extremely different from one to the next...

[Webb]

A better approach would be to pick one person in a family surname project cluster to do Big Y, funded by that surname cluster. The Webb Surname DNA project has something like 40 unrelated lineages and each lineage has around 4 to 5 kits, some have upwards of 10. If each lineage’s participants got together and donated money and picked one kit to do the BigY, I think it would be a good start.

[ArmandoR1b]

A few weeks ago I reread the story about Bennet Greenspan calling a genetecist about using DNA testing to prove or disprove a common ancestor between two people. The genetecists reaction is that he gets call from crazy people like him all the time. Just think about how many people there are in the world and in comparison how few people there are with a Big Y test at FTDNA or how few there are in YFull with a WGS test. We are the crazy people. There ought to be a way to calculate how many people would have to be tested in order for almost everyone to get a match with a MRCA within the past 1,000 years. Maybe by calculating the world male population in the year 1,000? I think that would have to be the amount of crazy people. Of course once something is that common it isn't crazy anymore but I doubt that there will ever be two desendants from most males that lived 1,0000 years ago will ever be tested. I hope I am wrong. I hope there is enough "crazy" people in the world for most people to have a match with a common ancestor from the last 1,000 years.

You can't compare people from different backgrounds. Like I know, roughly speaking, most of the descendants of my last genealogically known ancestors about 300 years ago and I also know that this branch is highly likely to be the only surviving from the last 500 years. This means, there a few dozen or so males of my terminal branch from the last 500 years.
On the other hand, I have genetic relatives which are not just emigrants to America, where testing is way more common and popular, but which last paternal ancestor from 500 years ago has many times as many descendants. That completely skews the odds in favour of those lineages, with hundreds and hundreds of male descendants in America vs. my branch, which has some American descendants too, but only a handful and some got tested already.

There is no one to test, in the USA, for the last 500 years beyond those few, this handful of my known relatives. The pool of potential testers is way smaller than for those relatives with very succesful colonial lineages with those hundreds of male descendants.

Therefore even if there is more testing, it won't be distributed equally. I know that very well since my main haplogroup has a couple of colonial founders, of which some get regularly new testers, kind of every 2-3 months since the rate of BigY testing improved. Therefore what the higher rate of BigY testing in the USA primarily those is enlarging the already existing lineages representation, whereas new lineages, especially those with very few or no American emigrants, grow either not at all or at a much, much slower pace.
I got a lot of interesting STR matches which represent Central European lineages with just one single tester, which are not willing or no longer able to upgrade. Its great that the big successful projects recruit so many testers, but its also kind of annoying to see ever more testers with the same surname (many of them already have more than a dozen or so), whereas all those single STR tester lineages stay behind and remain completely untested (BigY or comparable NGS) so far.

In one case I couldn't believe that his prominent German lineage being so undertested, but then I looked through the trees and apparently while there are a lot, really a lot of descendants, there are very few from the direct paternal line, even though it emigrated to America in the 18th century. How many male descendants exist of a lineage, even if its an American colonial one, can be extremely different from one to the next...

I was already aware of the points, not the details, you are making. The point I had was that DNA testing would have to become really popular worldwide in order for almost all, not all, people to have a match that has a MRCA from the last 1,000 years even with your example. It's not even "popular" in the U.S. On the other hand sports are a lot more popular, and not just in the U.S., and if even a portion of what is spent on being a sports fan around the world were spent on Big Y testing, or similar, then I think most people, maybe not even almost all but most, would have a match with an MRCA even in situations you are talking about. But we are the "crazy" people and they are not. I never implied that we could reach a saturation point that every single person in the world has a match that shares an MRCA within the last 1,000 years. I am actually surprised that people are still getting Big Y tests. I hope that the numbers continue to grow for many years. In the meantime there will always be a significant percentage of people without a match with an MRCA from the last 1,000 years.

[Webb]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but if you go into FTDNA's Public Y-Dna haplotree and go to a main branch, select the three dots at the far right, then click the surname report, I believe the list that comes up are the individuals who's snp has been determined using the FF test. I say this because when I run the surname report for R-Z211, I see Vanderhoof, one of my 37 marker matches whose terminal was just updated this week. The same when I run the surname report for R-CTS4065, I now see Holland and Hurst, whom I also match at 37 markers and their terminal was updated several weeks ago.

[Riverman]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but if you go into FTDNA's Public Y-Dna haplotree and go to a main branch, select the three dots at the far right, then click the surname report, I believe the list that comes up are the individuals who's snp has been determined using the FF test.  I say this because when I run the surname report for R-Z211, I see Vanderhoof, one of my 37 marker matches whose terminal was just updated this week.  The same when I run the surname report for R-CTS4065, I now see Holland and Hurst, whom I also match at 37 markers and their terminal was updated several weeks ago.

When I do that, I get just a couple of names, despite the hundreds of members. Definitely far less than their should be, I don't even know what this covers and why both STR, SNP, BigY and FF members surnames being not shown.

If I go to E-Z5018, there pops up a single surname and I don't know why exactly that one.

What exactly is that "view by surname" in the public haplotree for? And why exactly those surnames?

[Webb]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but if you go into FTDNA's Public Y-Dna haplotree and go to a main branch, select the three dots at the far right, then click the surname report, I believe the list that comes up are the individuals who's snp has been determined using the FF test.  I say this because when I run the surname report for R-Z211, I see Vanderhoof, one of my 37 marker matches whose terminal was just updated this week.  The same when I run the surname report for R-CTS4065, I now see Holland and Hurst, whom I also match at 37 markers and their terminal was updated several weeks ago.

When I do that, I get just a couple of names, despite the hundreds of members. Definitely far less than their should be, I don't even know what this covers and why both STR, SNP, BigY and FF members surnames being not shown.

If I go to E-Z5018, there pops up a single surname and I don't know why exactly that one.

What exactly is that "view by surname" in the public haplotree for? And why exactly those surnames?

I am wondering if it is like a que where these individuals are awaiting placement further down on the tree, which would make sense if their terminals are based on the FF tests.  To know for sure one would have to know how their placement was determined.  Only the main branches have the ability to run this surname report.  If you look at my branch, which is just under CTS4065, the option for the surname report is not there.

[ArmandoR1b]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but if you go into FTDNA's Public Y-Dna haplotree and go to a main branch, select the three dots at the far right, then click the surname report, I believe the list that comes up are the individuals who's snp has been determined using the FF test.  I say this because when I run the surname report for R-Z211, I see Vanderhoof, one of my 37 marker matches whose terminal was just updated this week.  The same when I run the surname report for R-CTS4065, I now see Holland and Hurst, whom I also match at 37 markers and their terminal was updated several weeks ago

The haplotree has FF tested people, Big Y tested people, SNP pack people etc. Even for the surname section. Increases in the past 2 days have been just with FF tested people. Big Block Tree has a section with only Big Y tested people. That has not changed in the past 2 days.

[ArmandoR1b]

I just checked for my surname. It shows up in my most downstream block in the haplotree. I have a match with my surname. My father's cousin, differrnt paternal line, does not have a match with the same surname but doesn't have a Big Y test yet, only has FF subclade. He does not meet the following

** Two or more kits with public project profile sharing and the same surname spelling are required for a surname to show on the Haplotree.

[Riverman]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but if you go into FTDNA's Public Y-Dna haplotree and go to a main branch, select the three dots at the far right, then click the surname report, I believe the list that comes up are the individuals who's snp has been determined using the FF test.  I say this because when I run the surname report for R-Z211, I see Vanderhoof, one of my 37 marker matches whose terminal was just updated this week.  The same when I run the surname report for R-CTS4065, I now see Holland and Hurst, whom I also match at 37 markers and their terminal was updated several weeks ago.

When I do that, I get just a couple of names, despite the hundreds of members. Definitely far less than their should be, I don't even know what this covers and why both STR, SNP, BigY and FF members surnames being not shown.

If I go to E-Z5018, there pops up a single surname and I don't know why exactly that one.

What exactly is that "view by surname" in the public haplotree for? And why exactly those surnames?

I am wondering if it is like a que where these individuals are awaiting placement further down on the tree, which would make sense if their terminals are based on the FF tests.  To know for sure one would have to know how their placement was determined.  Only the main branches have the ability to run this surname report.  If you look at my branch, which is just under CTS4065, the option for the surname report is not there.

Actually some of the names come from well-tested branches of the main branch. Like most of the family members tested with the BigY500 already! I wonder whether the surnames were never updated? Or something like that. Just strange, very strange.

[ArmandoR1b]

I found a kit that has a FF SNP haplogroup that matches a person with SNP pack testing and both have the same surname and their surname shows up in the haplotree.

So they met the following criteria - ** Two or more kits with public project profile sharing and the same surname spelling are required for a surname to show on the Haplotree.