DNA Projects on FTDNA

[gigrant74]

I'm currently in a surname project run through Family Tree DNA and I have a feeling the posted results of this project are completely wrong. it seems that the people running the project might have an agenda which is dictating how they are posting the results. For example, they have me in a group with 7 other people. 3 of these are actual DNA matches or close matches, the other 4 have genetic differences with me of between 9 and 17. One of the project managers claim they are 100% sure that all 8 of us share the same ancestor from approx the year 1400. I'm not buying it. Can anyone here shed some light onto this?? A link to the project DNA results is below. Any help would be greatly appreciated!!

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....a_results.html

[sparkey]

I'm currently in a surname project run through Family Tree DNA and I have a feeling the posted results of this project are completely wrong. it seems that the people running the project might have an agenda which is dictating how they are posting the results. For example, they have me in a group with 7 other people. 3 of these are actual DNA matches or close matches, the other 4 have genetic differences with me of between 9 and 17. One of the project managers claim they are 100% sure that all 8 of us share the same ancestor from approx the year 1400. I'm not buying it. Can anyone here shed some light onto this?? A link to the project DNA results is below. Any help would be greatly appreciated!!

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~grantdna/dna_results.html

Offhand, it looks like there are some mistakes (like kit 39417 in "Group 10") and some groups that are fine. I can't imagine what their "agenda" would be. Probably just a little bit of confusion and needed reclustering. Try making a table of GDs and sending it to the administrators, maybe with some new suggested clusters.

[gigrant74]

I'm mainly concerned with the Matthew Grant group. I can't see how all the members are related. I think that group should be split into 2 groups. But either way, the Clan seems to want to make a connection where every single person with the surame Grant is descended from it. I just can't see how the DNA project is accurately portraying it (as they claim). Also, the Cheifly line is suppossedly matching to the Stewart DNA of the Stewards of Scotland and I don't see that either. I just want to get the truth so I can know my lineage and ancestry and then move on. I think the Clan is trying to hard to boost membership. My EKA is also that of Ulysses S. Grant so we are a feather in their hat.

[sparkey]

I'm mainly concerned with the Matthew Grant group. I can't see how all the members are related. I think that group should be split into 2 groups. But either way, the Clan seems to want to make a connection where every single person with the surame Grant is descended from it. I just can't see how the DNA project is accurately portraying it (as they claim). Also, the Cheifly line is suppossedly matching to the Stewart DNA of the Stewards of Scotland and I don't see that either. I just want to get the truth so I can know my lineage and ancestry and then move on. I think the Clan is trying to hard to boost membership. My EKA is also that of Ulysses S. Grant so we are a feather in their hat.

Cool, so Ulysses S. Grant was R1b1a2. Do we know the subclade?

Anyway, looking at the STR variance in your group... 3 individuals only took 12-marker tests, so I'm not comfortable placing them. The others all took 25+, so I think it's fair to say that, on 25, a 2 or less on GD will probably place them into the same family within a genealogical timeframe (that is, as old as their surname). That gives these "real" groups:

Group A: 115576, 42347, 163661 (163661 is the out member... too bad he only took a 25 marker test)
Group B: 25705, 165817 (very refined match, these two)
Group C: 45078
Group D: 58691

That's about how it should be divided.

It would make sense if most Grants are descended from Clan Grant, but clans have a bunch of distinct lines.

[gigrant74]

Yes, U.S. was definately r1b1b2. Subclad will be detirmined later this summer (haven't put through on the test yet). 115576 is our kit. Other known descendants have come up as matches so it is definately confirmed.

So I'm assuming it's safe to say that not everyone in this group shares a common asncestor in the past 800 years.

Do you see any chance of kit# 115576 sharing common ancestors with any of Chiefs (Stewart) group in the past 1000 years?? I'm thinking no but I'd love a second opinion.

There's an excellant chance that our Grant surname was assumed/adopted at some point before 1600. I'm finding as many Cloud matches as I am Grants, and we're talking about a non-MacLeod version (non-Scottish) which originated in Wiltshire in the early 1500's. I'm guessing our roots to be Anglo-Saxon and will be anxious to share them once confirmed.

I also wish I had discovered this forum earlier. Could've saved me 2 years of frustrating research.

Many thanks for your help!!

[sparkey]

Yes, U.S. was definately r1b1b2. Subclad will be detirmined later this summer (haven't put through on the test yet). 115576 is our kit. Other known descendants have come up as matches so it is definately confirmed.

Cool, post the results when they come in.

So I'm assuming it's safe to say that not everyone in this group shares a common asncestor in the past 800 years.

Pretty much. The only groups that looked like they might be close at all are B and C, and they must be more than 800 years apart. I think we can safely separate A. If you want to be sure by performing more specific calculations and don't trust my quick manual GD calculations, I recommend McGee's tool.

Do you see any chance of kit# 115576 sharing common ancestors with any of Chiefs (Stewart) group in the past 1000 years?? I'm thinking no but I'd love a second opinion.

I don't see any obvious matches; again, if you suspect any, try tallying GDs or running them through McGee's tool. Your combo of 390=23 and 389II=28 is pretty distinctive and not apparently shared by the Stewarts.

Many thanks for your help!!

[gigrant74]

[QUOTE=sparkey;372607]Cool, post the results when they come in.

U106+ confirmed, awaiting further results but suspecting L47* Also 95% sure the Grant name was assumed in the 15th century and before that they were Clouds descending from the de la Cloude family of Stoneleigh area Warwickshire. This Cloud family is Anglo-Saxon in origin and not related to the MacLeods of Scotland. Very interesting stuff!!

Hoping to have th results of this study finished in the next month and possibly published soon after.

[sparkey]

U106+ confirmed, awaiting further results but suspecting L47* Also 95% sure the Grant name was assumed in the 15th century and before that they were Clouds descending from the de la Cloude family of Stoneleigh area Warwickshire. This Cloud family is Anglo-Saxon in origin and not related to the MacLeods of Scotland. Very interesting stuff!!

Hoping to have th results of this study finished in the next month and possibly published soon after.

U106 in general is more common in England than Scotland (especially Highlands Scots), so you're likely right that these Grants are English rather than Scottish. I don't know about L47* but what I've heard about it makes it seem West Germanic to me... you had a topic earlier that seemed to agree with that.

How did you deduce that they were originally Clouds? Is there evidence beyond genetic similarity? Because there's so much convergence among R1b people that it's often hard to tell which R1b surnames are closest to one another. I've had a different experience with a rare haplogroup subclade (I2*-A) where I can list the closest 3 or 4 surnames to mine and be confident in approximately how closely related I am to them. But to do so in R1b usually requires quite a lot of markers, I thought.

[gigrant74]

I have 3 Cloud matches to every 1 Grant match at the 25 & 37 marker levels. Both families point to a Warwickshire origin. And the L47* seems to be of Frisian and/or Frisiavones origin from what I can tell.

[gigrant74]

An interesting discussion on the L47* stuff can be found here: http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/gro...21/message/899 as well as this website: http://mykindred.com/L47x/ and a comparison of my kit (#115576) and the different Cloud examples acn be found here: http://mykindred.com/cloud/dna/results/cdnareport.php

I feel you are 10 times more qualified than me when it comes to understanding the DNA, so feel free to take a gander at the Cloud DNA project and let me know what you think. I'm especially interested if you think the 15th century shared ancester theory has any weight to it.

[sparkey]

An interesting discussion on the L47* stuff can be found here: http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/gro...21/message/899

A lot of people are tossing around Dumnonian decent. I find this unlikely. Dumnonians were very Brythonic, which is an ethnic group that dates back to the Halstatt/La Tene expansions at latest in Britain. If the estimate for the age of L47 is as young as we think, then it must postdate the Dumnonian ethnicity, and is unlikely to have been introduced to it, as it was extinct (in favor of the Cornish and Breton ethnicities) by the middle of the Dark Ages. It probably spread in England with the Anglo-Saxons (and/or Normans?) alone. I might reconsider if we see saturation and diversity of L47* in Cornwall.

as well as this website: http://mykindred.com/L47x/

Good website, I think it'll help you answer a lot of questions. I still haven't looked into L47 enough to be sure of anything about it.

and a comparison of my kit (#115576) and the different Cloud examples acn be found here: http://mykindred.com/cloud/dna/results/cdnareport.php

The William Cloud, Joseph Cloud, John Rhinehart, Robert Mercer Cloud, Champion Stanton, Jeremiah Cloud, James Washington Cloud, and Jesse Whitmer Cloud clusters all look like they could be related within a genealogical timeframe. If we cluster yours with theirs, it looks like you may be the out member... barely. Your 17 at 570 is telling. That could have been a back-mutation later along your line to the R1b modal, but I'm thinking that the 18 or 19 value typical of Clouds is defining of them. So, I'm going to say that it's more likely that your line diverged before the Clouds got their surname, but you're still apparently related within the past 1000 years.

I feel you are 10 times more qualified than me when it comes to understanding the DNA

I don't know why you would think that, I'm just an amateur who posts on Internet forums.

[gigrant74]

thanks sparkey! i hope to have more good stuff to share soon as the DNA updates occur. Have a good one!

[gigrant74]

R1b1a2a1a1a4a has been confirmed so far (U106+L48+ L47+ U198- L325-)

[kanimir]

"If you are looking to begin Y-DNA testing, the Y-37 Marker test will allow you to become familiar with Y-DNA results. However, if you want to know more about your paternal line through matching or participate in any of our free Group Projects, you will want to start with a Y-67 test."
Does this mean i can't join projects if i have taken only the y-37 test?
Also, Can anybody join any project or do admins have to approve me to join?

for example, i would like to view the results of the Germany-ydna project, which are not public, but my origin is not from Germany, so maybe i can't join and there is no way for me to view them?