Home

Y-DNA Related Research Material 

Revised 8/2009

Best viewed with Internet Explorer

Please observe copyright notices. Even without notices, material may not be posted or published without identifying the author.  

FTDNA Provided web pages and articles:

Genetics & Genealogy - An Introduction  With Some DNA Case Study Examples  By Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.

 

When your Y-DNA does not match as you expected

Inherited Genes

Haplogroup articles:

 

The Common Ancestor of a Pond Line and the James Phelps Line  An example of a possible of a Non Paternity event.

An 1850 VA Map Showing Approximate Locations of Some  Southern Phelps Lines.  (offsite link)

Kerchner's Zip+Four Analogy of Why to Upgrade to the 37 Y-STR  A Tutorial Paper on Why One Should be Tested at or Upgrade to 37 Markers   by Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., P.E.  (offsite link)

 

When Your Haplogroup is not what you expected - a non-technical explanation 

Draft 3/31/2006; changes 4/1/2006, 4/26/2006,5/22/06

Much of the below has been reviewed by FTDNA

  

I know many of you continue to be perplexed with your haplogroup as projected or tested by FTDNA.  After considerable thought and review with their office, I would like to offer some thoughts – all in a very non-technical and imprecise way.  I have discussed this with FTDNA.  Corrections by them may follow.

 

How does FTDNA predict or estimate your haplogroup? 

If you do not pay for a haplogroup test, FTDNA will  predict your haplogroup based on a comparison of your Family Tree Y-DNA results with the world-wide database of Dr. Hammer and customers who have had their SNP actually tested by FTDNA. My experience is that they will predict your haplogroup if your Y-DNA values match well with someone else who has been haplogroup tested.  If you receive a "prediction" FTDNA states "for any predicted results we see no reason for ordering a SNP test to confirm the Haplogroup." In other cases they state if you want to know your haplogroup "with 100% confidence" you will have to order a SNP confirmation test.   In all cases, if one of your closely matching family pays for that SNP test, you can be assured his haplogroup will be yours.  Of course, you may still choose to take the SNP test.   

 

What tests can I order to confirm FTDNA's prediction?

FTDNA has begun offering  "Deep Clade tests" which goes deeper into different haplogroups. You can read more about this when you log on and view your haplogroup.   

 

A more standard haplogroup test is also availlable.  You will know which test you can order by looking at your Haplogroup tab on your personal page at FTDNA

You may see the option of a "Backbone SNP" or a "deep clade test".  If there is any confusion I would definitely talk to FTDNA.   It appears that FTDNA's current haplogroup testing may be more detailed than in 2005.    

 

Comments on haplogroups E, F, G and R1b1  [Possibly outdated considering the new haplogroup classifications]

As people moved out of Africa over tens of thousands of years, their haplogroup definitions (as now defined) changed due to DNA mutations.  As some migrated, for example, theirs mutated and became what is now described as G, becoming "something of a pan-Indo-European haplogroup. G arose in Pakistan, but lineages of it migrated into Europe and spread from there....  G, in fact, is the third most common haplogroup in our database among individuals reporting origins in England... F* is so old that it can be found throughout Europe as well; it is just so uncommon to find it, that there are no places that can be said to contain the most F* lineages..  We only have a few F*s, but they are coming from Germany, the Netherlands, Scotland, and the UK. "  As others moved toward England heir's is now seen as R1b1 or I (the second most common haplogroup).  Some stayed in Africa and mutated to what is now seen as E3, E3a, (reclassified now as E1a or E1b1a), A or B,  or even C - although E3 (reclassified now as E1a) is “virtually unseen outside of Africa.   

It is entirely possible that an African E3 (reclassified now as E1a) moved singly into England in the 1700s, took up an English surname and moved to America.  But that would be very unusual.    The same applies to all the other “non-European” haplogroups.   As we discus this, we have to use the words  like “usual”, “typical”, “expected”, “probable” and other imprecise words to describe where one would expect to find these haplogroups today – or in our genealogy work, where our ancestors came from.

 As you match against others at your FTDNA personal page, remember that when you see someone you match well with and see his “country of origin” it may well have been a guess when he filled in the paperwork.  You may have guessed yourself, knowing full well you had no proof.  So don’t take that country of origin as solid information until it can be confirmed.

 

Clearly all of us Phelps have always assumed our country of origin was England. Some of us have not been designated the R1b1 (or a variation of that) which we expected. Some of us are F, G, and E3 (reclassified now as E1a) or a variation of those.  So what are we to make of that?   Clearly R1b1 is what one would expect if in fact one’s ancestors came from England.   If you were not R1b1, that is not to say your ancestors did NOT come from there, but it is to say they probably did not.  If you received a R1b1 you have a fuzzy warm feeling that your ancestors did in fact come from there.  "R1b1 is the most common haplogroup found in Western European populations and is found throughout the continent.  As a result, being in haplogroup R1b1 does not prove that a person comes from England; matching at a high level with people who can trace their ancestry definitively back to England would on the other hand indicate English origins."  But if you did not have a haplogroup as described above, then your ancestors probably did not come from there at all.  Oh, yes, perhaps an E3 (reclassified as E1a) haplogroup in the year 1050 moved from with the Moors to Spain and then to England or America, but that is certainly unusual.  For practical purposes of genealogy we must first look at the most likely country of origin and that is the area described by your haplogroup.  It is simply very hard to get around this, it seems to me.  I agree that these mutations took tens of 1000s of years, but as I understand it, the people in those areas described by the haplogroups typically today have that haplogroup value.  

 

 

 

E1a and E1b1a Haplogroup information

Revised Edited 9/2008, 4/2009

 

E1a is the haplogroup of one major line of about 16  Phelps (James Phelps of Caswell,  Thomas Phelps of Albemarle Co, and Thomas Felps of Baltimore Co, MD.)  Their YDNA markers also match extremely well.  In other words enough members were SNP tested and were found positive for M96 and M33, the indicator for E1a.   There were enough tested members to allow FTDNA to predict the E1a or E for other members of these three lines (They do not take paper trails into consideration).

 

E1b1a is the" presumed" haplogroup (according to FTDNA) of a line back to John of Goochland, VA.  While no member has had SNP testing to prove the haplogroup, FTDNA has enough experience with the YDNA markers to comfortably predict the haplogroup of E1b1a.

 

 

 

Wikipedia haplogroup E  subglades (revised 4/2009):    

 

E1a:  Main article  While there have been no attested exemplars of E1*, its sub-clade, E1a (M33), is found most often in West Africa, and today it is especially common in the region of Mali. One study has found haplogroup E1a-M33 Y-chromosomes in as much as 34% (15/44) of a sample of Malian men. Haplogroup E1a has also been detected among samples obtained from Moroccan Berbers, Sahrawis, Burkina Faso, northern Cameroon, Senegal, Sudan, Egypt, and Calabria (including both Italian and Albanian inhabitants of the region).[7][8]    The small presence (<4%) of Haplogroup E1a in North Africa and Europe is generally attributed to the slave trade, as it is characteristic of West African populations.[9]    Also see this page.

 

E1b1a (Y-DNA)  Main article:    E1b1a is almost exclusively associated with West/Central/South/Southeastern Africans. It is the single most common Y haplogroup in sub-Saharan Africa as well as among African Americans and West Indians. Outside of Africa, it is observed in negligibly small frequencies and its spread is generally attributed to the slave trade.

 

 

 

See International Society of Genetic Genealogy, at their page here.  They have this to say:  Y-DNA haplogroup E probably arose in Northeast Africa, if one looks only at the concentration and variety of E subclades in that area today. But the fact that Haplogroup E is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration.  Today E* is found predominantly in Ethiopia. E1 [now known as E1a]  and E2 are found in Northeast Africa, but surveys show E1 [now known as E1a] may actually be more prevalent in Mali than in its presumed region of origin. E4 is a minor subclade.  E3 is by far the lineage of greatest geographical distribution. It has two important sub-lineages, E3a [now known as E1b1a] and E3b.    E3a [now known as E1b1a]  is an African lineage that probably expanded from northern Africa to sub-Saharan and equatorial Africa with the Bantu agricultural expansion. E3a [now known as E1b1a] is the most common lineage among African Americans. E3b probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East and then expanded to the west both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea. E3b clusters are seen today in Western Europe, the Balkans, the Near East, Northeast Africa and Northwest Africa. The Cruciani articles (references and links below) are indispensable resources for understanding the structure of this complicated haplogroup. 

 

 

A comment from David Wilson of the ISOGG on 5/21/2007:  "Haplogroup E and its subclades continue to represent the most complicated branch of the Y-chromosome tree in my opinion, though some would offer J and O as equally challenging branches"

 

 

What is the frequency of these haplogroups?

View this FTDNA chart to see their  haplogroup frequencies.  E1b1a is 4.4%.  E1a is so infrequent as to not be shown.

Of the 23,000 (2007) haplotypes in the Ysearch database (provided by FTDNA for anyone to join) there are only 15 haplogroup type E1a.

 

When a member an E haplogroup member (or a breakout of E)  logs on to FTDNA with their kit number, they are presented with their haplogroup with maps showing origins in Africa. 

 

Africans in England and early America

 

For a discussion of this see Africans in Great Britain, Unit Three: Studying Africa through the Humanities  " In 1544, five Africans sailed from Africa to Great Britain with Captain John Lok. They were brought to England to train as interpreters and to help develop trade relationships between Africa and Britain. As Great Britain's involvement in the slave trade grew, more blacks came to the country and the interactions between Africans and Britains became motivated by prejudice and racism. By 1596, a number of African slaves and free blacks were living in Britain...  By the eighteenth century, approximately 15,000 people of African descent were living in Britain, and many lived near the ports of London, Liverpool and Bristol."   Also read about  Shakespear's Othello : "Othello is called a "Moor," yet his physical description seems to suggest a black man from central Africa, rather than an Arab. (Rodrigo describes Othello as "the thick lips," for example [1.1.63].) Since the mid-sixteenth century, black people had been known in London, and by the time Shakespeare was writing the slave trade had begun. Ships carrying black slaves passed through London, and many stayed..."

 

 

 

Rare African DNA Discovered in White British Males   by James Owen for National Geographic News (1/2007)

Rare DNA previously found only in people from West Africa has turned up in white males from northern England, a new study reports. The surprising discovery was made during a survey of genetic diversity in the United Kingdom based on the male Y chromosome. This sex-determining chromosome is copied from father to son, providing a record of male ancestry. The uncommon DNA, a chromosome called hgA1, had previously been detected only in a region of West Africa that includes Mali, Senegal, and Guinea-Bissau, the team says (Africa map). "It's a really special chromosome, one that's only been reported before in a handful of men in Africa," said Mark Jobling, a genetics professor from the University of Leicester who led the research team.

The hgA1 chromosome lies near the root of the family tree of Y chromosomes in Africa, Jobling added. "It's an ancient type that's African specific."
But the team found hgA1 in one white British male who took part in the survey, despite the man having no known African family connection. According to the research, published online this week in the European Journal of Human Genetics, the unusual DNA has been present in Britain for at least 250 years.

Distinctive Surname

After making the surprising find, Jobling's team tested other British men who shared the same east Yorkshire surname as the original man found with the African chromosome. (The researchers haven't revealed the surname, which is derived from a Yorkshire place name, to preserve the anonymity of the study participants.) Seven out of 18 of those tested also had the rare chromosome, even though the men weren't known to be related.  Genealogical research and further genetic testing were used to date the arrival of the African DNA in northern England. Records such as birth and marriage certificates traced the men's surname to two individuals who were born in Yorkshire in the 1780s. This closely matched the date reached from analyzing mutations in the studied Y chromosome (get an overview of human genetics.) Such mutations build up through generations at a predictable rate, allowing the study team to work back to the time when the men likely shared a common ancestor.

"Both those lines of evidence say that this chromosome has been around since at least the mid-18th century," Jobling said. The finding suggests that black people have contributed to the "indigenous" British gene pool despite previous evidence to the contrary. Africans were first recorded in northern England some 1,800 years ago, part of a Roman garrison brought in to defend Hadrian's Wall against raids by tribes in what is now Scotland, the study team said.
But slaves from West Africa, Jobling said, were the most likely source of the African DNA revealed in the study. "The first boatful of slaves showed up in 1555 in England, and so from that time on their numbers increased," Jobling said. In 1601 Queen Elizabeth I issued an edict "that black people should be expelled from Britain because there were too many of them around, which everybody ignored," he added.

Historian Ron Ramdin, author of Reimaging Britain: 500 Years of Black and Asian History, said that by the end of the 18th century an estimated 10,000 black people were living in Britain, mostly concentrated in cities. Despite this long history of contact, previous studies of the genetic makeup of Britons haven't detected evidence of African Y-chromosome lineages, the study team noted.

In a book released in 2005, David Miles, research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford, England, said that evidence suggests that about 80 percent of the genes of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters. The University of Leicester's Jobling concedes that African DNA probably exists "at a very low level" in the native British gene pool. But, he said, the latest findings show that "what it means to be British is complicated and always has been."

Mark Thomas, from the Centre for Genetic Anthropology, University College London, said other Y-chromosome lineages in Britain from the last 1,000 to 2,000 years probably also have an African origin. "For example, there's a lineage that's very common in North Wales that's usually found in places like North Africa and Ethiopia," he said. The new study, Thomas added, "makes the point that we do all have very mixed ancestry."
 
 
© 1996-2007 National Geographic Society. All rights reserved.

 

When you match another surname; Y-DNA The Role of Surnames

Excerpted from the July 2007 FTDNA newsletter

Added by D Phelps:  Perhaps the most obvious reason for not matching as expected is due to errors in the paper trail paternal linage.  Make sure to confirm each ancestor with primary source records. 

The surname is an important component of analyzing Y DNA results, and sets the outer boundary for the time frame of a match. Surnames were adopted in different countries at different times. For a long time, people were just known by their first name. As society became more complex, a system was needed to distinguish one person reliably and unambiguously from the next person.

A surname is typically a hereditary name borne by members of a single family and handed down from father to son. Thus, surnames contrast with given names, which identify individuals within the same family. It is characteristic of surnames that all members of a particular family normally have the same surname. A surname therefore follows with the Y DNA result, which makes the testing of Y DNA a very powerful tool. On the whole, the richer and more powerful classes tended to acquire surnames earlier than the working classes and the poor, while surnames were quicker to catch on in urban areas than in more sparsely populated rural areas.

Surnames were adopted in different areas at different times. In many parts of central and western Europe, hereditary surnames began to become fixed from the 12th century forward. The bulk of European surnames in countries such as England or France were formed in the 13th and 14th centuries. In some places, the process started earlier, and in some places the process continued into the 19th century. Overall, the norm is that in the 11th century people did not have surnames, and by the 15th century they did.

The process of adopting a surname was spread over time, and these surnames continued to evolve until the 1900's when spelling was standardized . Surname variants occurred during the evolution of the surname. There was no guide to the spellings of names, and those who recorded events, such as the clergy and registrars, attempted to reproduce phonetically the sounds they heard. The great majority of the population were illiterate and had no notion that any one spelling of their name was more 'correct' than any other.

Prior to the time surnames were adopted, men with the same Y DNA result were spread out over a geographic area due to migrations. In addition, invasions and wars often dispersed a Y DNA result significantly. Many men had the same Y DNA result when surnames were adopted. It is currently impossible to predict how many men had the same Y chromosome DNA result at this time. Some Y DNA results were dying out, and others were abundant. Therefore, men with the same Y chromosome DNA result adopted different surnames. If there was a large population of the Y DNA result, such as with the haplogroup R1b, many different surnames would have been adopted for this Y DNA result.

As the database of Y DNA results at Family Tree DNA grows, almost everyone will eventually have Y DNA matches with other surnames. The primary reason for these matches is that multiple men with the same Y DNA result adopted different surnames during the time period when surnames were adopted. These men could have been in the same village, or in the same county, or perhaps migration had taken them to different countries.

In addition, two men with different surnames may have a matching Y DNA result due to convergence. Convergence is where you start with two different Y DNA results, in the past, and the results mutate over time, to where they match or are a close match today. The higher the population of a Y DNA result, the more opportunity there is for convergence to occur. Since Haplogroup R1b is the largest population group in Europe, matches with other surnames are very common. These matches are due to the large population of this Haplogroup that existed when surnames were adopted. Many different surnames were adopted, and convergence has occurred over time.

If we go back far enough in time, we are all related. The surname is used to establish a boundary for determining whether two people are related. If you match some one with a different surname, you are most likely related prior to the adoption of surnames.  In some cases, you could be related after the adoption of surnames, due to one of the following events occurring:

1. informal adoption, such as a widow remarries, and the children take the new surname
2. infidelity
3. illegitimate male child who takes the mother's surname
4. adoption of a new surname, such as by preference or for inheritance
5. a pregnant woman marries a man with a different surname than the child she is carrying

Even though these events have occurred in the past, they were not the norm.  Pursuing a match with another surname should not be considered until both participants upgrade to 67 Markers to determine if the match still holds.  At this point, if the match still holds at 67 markers, a decision can be made as to whether to pursue the match with another surname. To avoid wasting time, there should be some evidence that one of the events above occurred. In making this decision, the place to start is to evaluate the evidence. Were the ancestors in the same location, at the same time? Was there a marriage by a widow who had children? Is there a use of alias in any records? Is there any evidence to support a match with another surname?

In most cases, there isn't any evidence to support pursuing the match.

A Surname Project is a very valuable tool for family history research. The surname establishes the time period for determining if two people are related. Surname Projects can provide tremendous be nefit for those who are researching their family history. DNA testing has a wide range of applications, from additional information to use in conjunction with the paper records for interpretation, to clues to find the ancestral homeland.

In addition, as a long term goal, a Surname Project can determine the number of points of origin of the surname. The Surname Project would combine DNA results with the techniques used to research surnames, and identify the ancestral location(s) or area(s) where the surname was adopted.

As you research your family tree, eventually you have to stop, because the written records end, or are sporadic. This could be the result of the destruction of records, such as due to a court house fire. Or, this could be the result of reaching the time period prior to consistent written records. For example, the time period before the adoption of Parish registers. Often your family tree will stop before you reach the start of Parish regis ters, because there is insufficient documentation to make a connection.

When your family tree ends, often there is still a long period of time between then and the adoption of surnames. For example, if your tree ends in the late 1700's due to insufficient documentation, there is still 400 to 500 years between then and the adoption of surnames, depending on your ancestral country.

DNA testing can fill this 500 year gap. Imagine a situation years from now, where every family tree with your surname has tested. The data would then be available to determine whether your surname had a single or multiple points of origin. Combining this information with surname mapping, frequency distribution studies, and research in Medieval records would most likely enable the Surname Project to identify a geographic area as the ancestral homeland.

Our surname is a very important part of us, and DNA testing tells us about this surname. For example, did one man take on th e surname, and all the descendents today are related, except for a few trees which are descendents of an informal adoption, and descendents of an illegitimate birth?

With DNA testing, we might also discover previously unknown variants. This could be very helpful for research, especially when records can't be found, and later it is discovered that the records are actually there, but recorded with a previously unknown variant.

Surname dictionaries have been published and identify the origin for many surnames. The authors of these books used the tools available at the time. Never before have these experts or authors had the powerful tool of DNA testing available. There are many discoveries to be made with DNA testing. Most likely, DNA testing will prove that some long held beliefs about the origins of various surnames are incorrect.

By participating in a Y DNA Project, or sponsoring a participant if you are female, you are making a significant contri bution to the knowledge about your surname. Even when your tree ends, you can still discover information about your origin.

 

Unexpected Y-DNA results and the “Non-Paternity Event”

By Douglas Phelps, with assistance from Colleen Fitzpatrict

  4/26/2006, 5/4/2006, 5/22/2006 are changes in blue

 
As we compare our Y-DNA results to others we may find very unexpected results.   We need to remember that only male Y-DNA is of consequence here - the mother's DNA will not contribute to the Y-chromosome, independent of the surnames of the parents.  There is no point is searching your genealogy for a female with that surname.   So we have to consider the "non-paternity event", a general term often used to describe unexpected Y-DNA results.   Perhaps the most obvious reason for not matching as expected is due to errors in the paper trail paternal linage.  Make sure to confirm each ancestor with primary source records. 

Otherwise, the primary causes of the non-paternity event are:

Regarding an affair, you will be in one of two situations depending on your expectations:
    
Situation one: We test men of the same surname and expect to see a Y-DNA match based on the paper trails of descendants, but there was no match or a poor match.  The explanation could be an “affair”.   The Y-DNA of a son is always that of his paternal father.  For example, a son of a Bond father and a Phelps wife, raised as a Phelps, will have descendants named Phelps but will have the Y-DNA of a Bond. Tests of the descendants of the Phelps sons will not match the descendants of the “Phelps boy who is really a Bond”.     Conversely, a son of a Phelps father and a Bond wife, raised as a Bond, will have descendants named Bond but will have the Y-DNA of a Phelps. Tests of the descendants of the Bond sons will not match the descendants of the “Bond boy who is really a Phelps”.    
 
In addition to the non-paternity event, mutations of alleles over very long periods of time can also account for poor matches than expected of the same surname.  
  
Situation two: We test men of different surnames and do not expect to see a Y-DNA match , but there was a close match.   The valid explanation could be an “affair”.  The Y-DNA of a son is always that of his paternal father.  For example, a son of a Bond father and a Phelps wife, raised as a Phelps, will have descendants named Phelps but will match the Y-DNA of other similar Bonds. Tests of the descendants of the "Phelps boy who is really a Bond" will match descendants of the other Bonds.   Conversely, a son of a Phelps father and a Bond wife, raised as a Bond, will have descendants named Bond but will have the Y-DNA of a Phelps. Tests of the descendants of the "Bond son who is really a Phelps"  WILL match the descendants of  other Phelps.    

  

 Mutations of alleles over very long periods of time won't account for matches of different surnames.

 

 

 

The Common Ancestor of a Pond Line and the James Phelps Line - An example of a possible Non Paternity event.

 

 

 

Previous to 9/2008, several close matching Pond descendants were part of the PHelps project.  Those matching kits are now at the Pond Project.  The below article was an attempt to describe a and example of a POSSIBLE NPE.

Footnotes are viewable by clicking the footnote number.

Changed 4/4/2006 By Douglas Phelps, edited 5.26/06 in blue
Major change 9/18/2006, minor revision 7/2009
  
 
The following report was made before Y-DNA tests were completed on a descendant of a James&Betty Phelps of Buckingham Co, circa 1800. While no confirming tests has been made on this line , that single test shed new light on the common ancestor of the Pond line.  I now believe that the Pond line as seen below was not a descendant of the James Phelps line. It was far more likely to have been from a common ancestor of this James&Betty Phelps - who is a possible descendant of Thomas Phelps d 1751 Albemarle.  New evidence is also pointing toward the possibility that the James Phelps line (Caswell CO, NC), the line of Thomas Felps of Baltimore Co, MD, and the line of Thomas of Albemarle d 1751 have a common ancestor.  The evidence and discussion of this is ongoing at this private Google group.  

 

Summary:  Since the Y-DNA of a Pond line from Caswell Co, NC matches 35 of 37 with a James Phelps line of Caswell Co (also matching well with two other related Phelps/Felps lines) , it is evident there was a common male ancestor – Pond or Phelps - at some point.  One reasonable scenario for this would be that William Pond  b.1788 Caswell, son of James /John Pond, was actually the son of his wife, Elisabeth Stansbury, and one of James Phelps’ older sons, but raised as a Pond.  A key here is that the two families lived very close to one another, 6-10 miles.  (See map below.)  Of course the common ancestor could have occurred in earlier times in America or even from a common originating country. This James Pond of Caswell was also known as James Pawns as documented in his Revolutionary War pension records as being born 1766 in Mecklenberg Co, VA.  So it is possible that both James Phelps and James/John Pond/Pawn have a common father or ancestor in VA.   It is also conceivable that James Phelps was the biological father of John/James Pond in Mecklenberg Co. or that both had a common father. So far we have found no records of a James Phelps in Mecklenberg Co, VA.  Another tested Pond line names the same James Pond from his line born in another VA county and disputes the James Pond above.  His DNA was tested and there was no match with any Phelps or the other tested Pond.

 
Analysis
 
After countless hours of research to document the ancestors of James Phelps of Caswell Co, NC, nothing of any consequence has been found.  My web site, dedicated to this effort, has extensive research showing who was NOT the father of James. So we must be open to completely different alternatives.
 
Recent male Y-DNA results have reasonably proven the Y-DNA of James Phelps, d. 1785 Caswell County, NC. All related kits matches fully. See the Phelps YDNA Project - Lineage links.   . Tests were submitted by descendants of four  of James' sons, and all matched well. One Phelps,   A Pond descendant, kit xxxx has matched 35 of 37 Y-DNA markers.  When two tested surnames have the same or very similar y-dna (at sufficient number of markers) it is clear that at some point in the past there was a common male ancestor – either with the name Pond or Phelps or something else.  But clearly the two lines descended from a single male – albeit recent or a thousand years ago.    
 
Familytreedna.com calculates the probability of a common ancestor of kits 41396 and 32125 as:
 
James Phelps is about seven to eight generations back.  If the event occurred in the late 1700s, the probability is around 70%.
 
How could this common ancestor occur?  Marriage between a Pond and Phelps would NOT cause this.  Remember that the male Y-dna passes down basically unchanged from the father to the son.  The female spouse has no effect.  There must have been a “non-paternity event” (see the discussion below) at some time in the past.  Such an event is due to a name change, an undocumented adoption, or an out-of-marriage birth.  In our case, an adoption does not apply.  (See the footnote for why an adoption is not applicable here.[1]).  All these were not uncommon in early America, especially in the frontier and remote areas.   One report says it occurs on the average of 1.3% of every generation which means in 12 generations, the percentage is 15%.   And in some locations and times the percentage is more or less. (See  “Frequency rates of non-paternity events".)
 
What we must look for is a period of time where the Pond line and the Phelps line lived near one another. 
 
1.    One such situation occurred in the late 1700s in Caswell Co, NC.
 
James/John Pond/Pawns of Caswell Co, NC  The tested Pond’s ancestry includes a James/John Pond/Pawns, b 1766 Meckleburg Co, VA, who reportedly moved from Caswell Co to Sumner Co, TN around 1800[2], based on his Caswell records and James Pond’s Revolutionary War pension papers.  Clearly the last name on the records shows Pawns as well as Pond [3].
 
It is unclear whether there was a single James/John Pond or if there were two Ponds in Caswell. The Pond researcher feels there was only one, but the records are somewhat confusing.  Regardless, both names are listed in the same general area of Caswell.  See the various records at the end.
 
James Pond married Elisabeth Stansbury 16 Jan 1786. (Per Janice Rand: Samuel Stansbury d 1799 was either the father of Elisabeth Stansbury who married “James” Pond or her brother.  They had the same name.  The Stansburys were from Baltimore Maryland. [4]) John bought property at Moon’s Creek in 1798[5];was insolvent in 1803[6] and sold the property in 1805[7].  James was a witness to a deed at nearby Rattlesnake Creek as early as 1786[8] and 1793[9].  These areas are 6-10 miles from Milton, Caswell Co, the home of James Phelps and his children. The Dan River connects both areas. 
 
James/John Pond’s son was William Pond, b 1788 Caswell, d. c.1851 McNairy Co., TN.[10]  This line with ancestry research is named by DNA supplier Janice Rand.
 
According to the ancestry supplied by Janice Rand with an associated Pond descendant, her John Pond was the son of Richard Pond (b 1710 York Co, VA b and died 1777 Southhampton). However there is proof that John’s birth location was Mecklenberg, VA according to his Rev War pension file.  Another Pond researcher, who also names this ancestry but NOT Mecklenberg Co as the birth location.  He was tested and did not match anyone.  (See our Phelps Y-Results page)  He claims the real John Pond was never in Caswell and lived his life in Southhampton Co, VA.  He agrees that John’s father was a Richard Pond.  Oddly enough, there was also a Richard Pond in Orange Co who received a land grant in 1778 on property on New Hope Creek between Hillsborough and Durham.  This Richard was defined as an “ancient and poor person” in Orange County records in 1782[11]  Each Pond line needs more test to verify the ancestry, but from extensive records on the Ponds in Southhampton Co, VA it seems the John Pond/Pawns of Caswell was not of Southhampton Co. - and therefore was not likely the line back to Yorktown, VA.
 
Regardless, no one is questioning the presence of a James/John Pond in Caswell in the late 1700s, his son William, or the decendants down to the DNA tested line of Janice Rand's supplier. 
 
Of the tested Phelps, two of the lines remained in North Carolina, two moved to Pulaski Co, Ky and elsewhere from there. 
 
2.    Another time when the two lines may have lived nearby could be Mecklenberg or Southhampton Co, VA.  Further research is needed, but since John/James Pond/Pawns has been reported to be born in these two locations, it is possible that James Phelps was also born there.   It is conceivable that James Phelps was the biological father of John/James Pond in Mecklenberg Co.or that both had a common father. So far we have found no records of a James Phelps in Mecklenberg or Southhampton counties, VA.  Another in process Pond Y-DNA test will help determine more.
 
3.  Of course even an earlier time is possible.  The Pond line is prevalent in early York Co, VA .  The Pounds/Pound line can be observed in Mecklenberg CO, VA in the 1700s.  Pounds/Pound sounds much like Pawns or Pawn so it may be that the origins are in Mecklenberg Co or thereabouts.
 
 
Which are the most likely scenarios if the “non-paternity” event took place in the 1700s
 
 
Scenario one.  The common ancestor was a Phelps.
This would mean that the wife of a Pond had a child with a male Phelps. The child was known as a Pond but was actually a Phelps.   
Which male Phelps and female Pond could it have been?  
The most likely scenario is that the son of James/John Pond, William, b. 1788 was the son of Elisabeth Stansbury and one of James Phelps’ older sons.  James is excluded since he died in 178.  A key here is that the two families lived very close to one another – 6-10 miles.   
 
Another scenario is that James Phelps was the father of James/John Pond and the mother was a Bond’s wife.  According to the Rev. War pension papers, James Pond was born 1766 in Mecklenberg Co, VA.   Our James Phelps was likely born around 1730-1735, but we have no idea where.  His sons were born between 1754 and about 1780 which make them too young to have been the father.  We know that there was also a prominent Thomas Phelps 1727-1823 in Caswell. He could have been the father; however we have no documentation to support that Thomas was part of the James Phelps line.  There was never any property or other records which showed any dealings between these two lines.  If James Phelps was the father, who was James/John Pond’s mother?  If it was the wife of Richard Pond in Orange Co, there was much more distance between him and James.  That Richard Pond, living below Hillsborough by 1778 was old in 1782.  Possibly his wife was available but rather distant. If it was the wife of Richard Pond of Southhampton, VA that would mean James lived there at one time. 
 
Another possible scenario is that both James Phelps and John/James Pond had a common biological father in Mecklenberg Co, VA.  The birth dates of each (c. 1730 and 1766) would allow for that.   
 
 
 
Scenario two.  The common ancestor was a Pond.
I feel strongly that the Y-DNA of the Phelps testees prove the halpotype back to James Phelps.  So if the common ancestor was a Pond, it would mean that the wife of a Phelps had a child with a male Pond. The child was known as a Phelps but was actually a Pond.   This scenario is very tempting since we are unable to find anything pre-James but there is much evidence for the Pond line.  (2008 information now points to a YDNA  matching Felps line back to 1700 in Baltimore Co, MD)
 

Which male Pond and female Phelps could it have been?

For a Pond to have been the male common ancestor, his Pond father would have to have been older than James. And the father would also have been the father – or ancestor- of James/John Pond.   James was born around 1730-1735.  There is conflicting information about the reported father and location of James/John Pond. His Rev War Pension records say 1766 in Mecklenberg Co, but other researched information points to Southhampton Co. – but could be referring to a different James Pond.   So it is possible that the father of James Phelps was a Pond in Mecklenberg Co, VA with a Phelps mother, raised as a Phelps.  And the same Pond had a son by his wife named James/John Pond.
 
One confusing issue is that the reported father of James/John Pond was Richard Pond.  There are two: Richard Pond of Southhampton Co., VA. b. 1710.  This Richard had children in York Co and Southhampton Co, VA.  There is also a Richard Pond of Orange Co during this time.
 
Further tests of this Pond line are in process.  This scenario may be possible since we cannot find any records of a Phelps father to James. (2008 information now points to a YDNA  matching Felps line back to 1700 in Baltimore Co, MD)
  
1786 Orange County, NC State Land Grants, page 126. Richard Pond named as property owner.  THIS IMAGE WILL BE MISSING FROM WEB SITES…

This is a 1777 map of Caswell Co showing Rattlesnake Creek and Moon’s Creek leading into the Dan River.  Milton, home of James Phelps is shown as Mill Town on the Dan River. Source: G.P. Stout, 1977.  North is to the left.   THIS IMAGE WILL BE MISSING FROM WEB SITES

 


 Footnotes

[1] It is clear that if one were expecting a y-dna match of a two descendants but there was no match, the explanation could be that one of them was adopted but took the same surname. That is, if a present day Phelps did not match another descendant Phelps, one explanation would be that one of his ancestors had been adopted. Obviously the adopted ancestor's descendants would be different.  But here we have the opposite.  We are NOT expecting the results to match, but they do.  If James had adopted a Pond son who took the Phelps name, we would certainly expect the descendants of that adopted Pond to be different from the Phelps - but in our case the do NOT differ.  Therefore, an adoption is not an explanation in this case.  Another question might be, “Couldn't a PHELPS female have been impregnated by a POND male and never married, raising the child with her PHELPS family as a PHELPS or visa versa??   This happened a lot in England.  Illegitimacy was quite prevalent in earlier times.”  As we know, the son of a Pond male and a Phelps female will have the Ydna of the Pond.  As will all his "Phelps" descendants.  A dna test of those descendants will show as a Pond and will never match with a Phelps who descended from a male Phelps.
[2] Records compiled by descendant researcher Janice Rand.
[3]  James' Rev. War Pension summary:  “PAWNS, James or James Pond, Elizabeth, NC Line, W3589, sol lived in Caswell Co NC at enl, sol appl 20 Sep 1832 Sumner Co TN aged 66, sol was b in Mecklenburg Co VA, wid appl 30 Dec 1850 Sumner Co TN aged about 80, sol & wid had m in Apr 1787 & sol d 5 Apr 1847, a John Kizer aged 57 made aff'dt 17 Feb 1851 & stated sol's oldest child was about his age & was a sol at New Orleans in War of 1812”  [Pawns is also listed in the Ponds section.]  Source: Abstracts of Rev. War Pension Files This indicates James’ birth in 1766; wife Elizabeth born in 1770 .
[4] Per Janice Rand: Samuel Stansbury d 1799 was either the father of Elisabeth Stansbury who married “James” Pond or her brother.  They had the same name.  The Stansburys were from Baltimore Maryland.
[5]  10/23/1798 Buys 150A Moon’s creek   Caswell DB L, p 24-25  See map below.
1790 Caswell Tax list:  John Ponds  Richmond District   (HeritageQuest)
[6] 1803 John is insolvent  Court book E , 1805
[7] 3/10/1805  Sells 150A Moon’s Crk    DB O, p106
[8] 16 Jan 1786  Is a Witness for a deed. Caleb Carmen to son, Rattlesnake Creek (which is at the low point of the Dan River in Caswell Co.) Caswell DB H, p299-300 
[9] 12/26/1793 He is a witness to a deed Caswell DB H, p299.
[10] As reported by Pond descendant Janice Rand
[11] Richard Pond, Orange Co., NC
1778 Orange County, NC State Land Grants, page 46.  Richard Pond gets land.
 
 
New Hope Creek begins about 5 miles south of Hillsborough. It flows generally eastward toward Durham and winds through Duke Forest, a research forest owned by Duke University. The terrain is rolling, with sharp bluffs along the stream. Near the Orange and Durham County line, New Hope Creek flows south between Durham and Chapel Hill, and the sharp bluffs disappear to be replaced by a swampy valley. Below US 15/501, land near the creek is part of Jordan Game Land. Just before crossing into Chatham County, New Hope Creek empties into Jordan Lake. Preservation of the New Hope watershed has been assisted by the Triangle Land Conservancy’s addition of three tracts along New Hope Creek, including t... http://www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail.asp?trailid=XPO001-010
 
New Hope river goes through the Durham area, going through the Duke U. area it seems. 
 
Piney Mountain Creek is also called Little River now.  Seems to be in Durham.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/Orange.pdf
http://dcvb.durham.nc.us/visitor/things_see_do/nature_activities_hiking.php
 
Richard Pond 1779 Orange Co.   NC Taxpayers V2 Caswell 1779 (cclib
 
5/1780 Orange Co. named exempt from paying taxes. Court Bk III
 
1782 Orange Co. named “ancient and poor person”  Court Bk III
 
1783 Orange Co. Exempt from paying taxes, named “ancient and poor person”  Court Bk III
 
March 26, 1785 (from Jerry Pond) Land Entry #1435 (96), Page 49
JOSEPH COBB and MARK PATTERSON enter 283 acres in Orange Co., NC on the waters of New Hope Creek; border: JOHN BARBEE, JOHN HART and RICHARD POND. "this entry lay through a mistake". Warrant issued August 10, 1785.
 
1786 Orange County, NC State Land Grants, page 126. Richard Pond named as property owner.
 
 
 
 
Frequency rates of  non-paternity events
 
The frequency will vary widely depending on the time period and cultural factors. One study arrived at a rate of 1.3% per generation. Over 12 generations that would mean a 15% chance that a descendant would have a different Y-DNA from the original.  (Source: Abstracted from Trace Your Roots with DNA , page 41, by  Megan Smolenyak and Ann Turner)
 
“Illegitimacy rates have been found to vary in time for Great Britain and Western Europe from a 4.4% in 1540 to down about 1% in the1600s and in the 20th century alone, from 4% at the beginning of the century to 30% near the end.”  Page 98. From a chapter on the subject in DNA and Genealogy by Colleen Fitzpatrick   

Before the Dawn cites some interesting numbers for nonpaternity events.  A cited expert, Bryan Sykes, says these events range from 1.4% to 30% in contemporary populations, though the usual rate is 2 to 5%.

 
It’s not a number that’s nailed down at this time because there’s not a study out there that we can cite. Academics have variously estimated that it may be between 1-2% per generation.  (Source: Sierra Netz,  Family Tree DNA, 3/2006)
 
“There is a paper from earlier this year by Anderson of University of  Oklahoma on paternity confidence levels and the % of non-paternal events in father-son tests. To summarize briefly, he used data from 66 published studies to establish how frequently non-paternal events happened in
father-son test subjects. He divided his finding into 3 groupings based on the test subjects confidence level of their paternity. The High Paternity Confidence group included those participating in 22 genetic projects which he assumed would have a higher confidence level in their paternity since many were lineage studies . Their average rate of non-paternity was 1.9%.
The second group was of Unknown Paternity Confidence level from 14 studies from which confidence levels could not be determined. The rate of non-paternity for this group was 3.9%. The last group of 30 studies was of Low Paternity Confidence level. It included people who had been tested because of paternity dispute issues they were involved in. The average rate of non-paternity in this last group dramatically jumped to 30.2%”.  Source: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2004-12/1102428402

 

 

Inherited Genes

 

“You almost certainly have inherited some of your genes of genetic markers from your great-great parents, but… there is only one chance in eight that you inherited a specific one…The farther back you go, the less chance you have of inheriting any particular trait. By the time you get back to 10 generations it is quite possible that you have inherited noting from him. The average amount would be less than one part in a thousand…  An yet, every single one of your genes has come down to you in an unbroken line for thousands of generations.”  Source: Trace Your Roots with DNA, by Megan Smolenyak and Ann Turner. (Note this does not apply to the male Y-DNA chromosome.)

 
 

A Review of  Y-DNA Haplogroups (by FTDNA 3/5/2006)

When you take a Y DNA test for 12, 25, 37, or 67 markers, your test result is called a haplotype. In addition, you are provided with information on your haplogroup, or major population group. All members of a haplogroup descend from a common distant ancestor.

Family Tree DNA predicts your haplogroup based on the first 12 markers of your test result. Our proprietary prediction algorithm takes advantage of our database of SNP-tested haplotypes, the most extensive in the world of its kind. In addition, our SNP Assurance Program guarantees a prediction with 100% certainty, or we will provide a SNP test at no charge to determine your haplogroup.

Haplogroups represent the branches of the tree of Homo Sapiens. Every male in the world is on one of the branches of the tree. The b! ranch of the tree is identified by a SNP, which is pronounced as "snip ." SNP testing can determine and confirm your placement on the tree.

The branches of the tree of Homo Sapiens are labeled A through R.

If you have taken a Y-DNA test, there is a tab on your Personal Page called "Haplogroup." When you click on this tab, the proprietary system at Family Tree DNA will predict your haplogroup, based on your 12 marker haplotype. This prediction algorithm compares your 12 marker Y-DNA result with our database of Y-DNA 12 marker results and their corresponding haplogroups.

On your haplogroup page, your 12 marker matches found in the haplogroup database are shown, along with your prediction. At the bottom of the page is a description of your haplogroup.

If exact and close matches on the haplogroup page all show the same haplogroup, then your prediction is solid, and testing is not required to confirm your haplogroup. If more than one haplogroup is shown for these matches, then your haplogroup prediction is conflicting, a! nd a SNP test is needed to confirm your haplogroup. This test is provided at no charge under our SNP Assurance Program.

A SNP test looks at a specific location on the Y chromosome to determine if a mutation occurred. A haplogroup is defined by a mutation that occurred some thousands of years ago. These mutations are called Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, or SNPs.

The major branches of the Y-DNA tree of Homo Sapiens, labeled A through R, have additional branches, where a haplogroup is broken down into sub-haplogroups. For example, perhaps you belong to haplogroup J. Haplogroup J is broken down into J1, J2, and J*.   The system for identifying the branches of the Y-DNA tree alternates letters and numbers. An asterisk is used to denote those who do not fit a defined branch. If you belong to haplogroup J, and are not J1 or J2, then you are J*.  Some haplogroups have more branches and twigs than other haplogroups. This is based on the SNPs that have! been discovered and published.

Anthropologists study SNPs to determine ancient migratory patterns and deep ancestral dating, such as when Europe was settled.  Your haplogroup is defined by a mutation that occurred thousands of years ago, and was passed down to subsequent generations. Additional mutations also define the branches on the tree, the sub-haplogroups. SNPs are tested to identify your sub-branches, too.

Your haplogroup is predicted when you click the haplogroup tab on your Personal Page. If your haplogroup cannot be predicted with 100% confidence, a SNP test will be performed, until your haplogroup is determined. We continue to test your sample until a SNP confirmation is found for your sample.  If you want to determine your sub-haplogroup, you can order a Y-DNA SNP test for Deep Sub-clades! test from your haplogroup page.  For those who take a test to determine their sub-haplogroup, the results of your test also apply to the others in your Surname Project who are a match or close match. Therefore, only one test needs to be taken by a member of a group whose results match or are a close match.
 

 

Markers that mutate faster and how to use them  

An update to the following information, based on a conversation with 'eileenk@familytreedna.com' at FTDNA:  While the fast mutating markers named below can be used to "differentiate lines or branches" one must consider that well researched genealogies may need to be given highest priority, even when if a kit appears to be in the wrong branch due to a mismatched "fast moving marker".   Eileen said the highest mutating markers are Cdy-a and b.  FTDNA also adds that where there are no merging paper trails but fast moving markers of tested men do match, it may be deduced that the matching men may be from the same branch. .  

While reading this, review the red markers at http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Phelps/default.aspx?section=yresults  (As of 8/2009 the fast moving comments for the red markers, seen originally on this FTDNA report,  was missing and was to be inserted again.)

 

It is obvious from our observation of 10's of 1000's of samples that some markers change or mutate at a faster rate than others. Therfore not all markers should be treated the same for evaluation purposes.  The markers in red have shown a faster mutation rate then the average, and therefore these markers are very helpful at splitting lineages into sub sets, or branches, within your family tree.

Explained another way, if you match exactly on all of the markers except for one or a few of the markers we have determined mutate more quickly, then despite the mutation this mismatch only slightly decreases the probability of two people in your surname group who match 11/12 or even 23/25 of not sharing a recent common ancestor.

Source:  FTDNA administrators ydna matching page.

 

Y DNA: Marker Selection  (the following is from "Facts & Genes "by FTDNA)

From a genealogical perspective, useful markers are those which can change, but which do not change too often.

By selecting a mix of markers that change slowly and therefore are relatively stable, as well as more rapidly-changing markers, Family Tree DNA is providing the best selection of markers for genealogical purposes. Multi-copy markers are a very important component of the marker mix.

On the Group Administrators' Y-DNA Results Page, fast moving markers are shown in red in the heading. These markers are:

DYS 385a, b
DYS 439
DYS 458
DYS 449
DYS 464a, b, c, d
DYS 456
DYS 576
DYS 570
CDYa, b


You will notice on the above list, that several of the fast moving markers are multi-copy markers, which are very valuable, since they change more rapidly.

A multi-copy marker is one where several copies of the marker exist on the Y chromosome. The name of a multi-copy marker includes small letters, such as a or b, following the marker DYS name.

When selecting the markers for our various tests, Family Tree DNA included 1 or 2 multi-copy markers in each panel, corresponding to the four Y-DNA tests available. The 12 marker Y DNA test has 1 multi-copy marker. The upgrade to 25 markers adds 2 multi-copy markers, and the upgrades to 37 markers and then to 67 markers each include 2 more multi-copy markers. Inclusion of these multi-copy markers is important based on both scientific attributes of the marker as well as the genealogical implications.

Test                 Multi-Copy Markers
====                 ================== 

12 Marker            385a, 385b
25 Marker Upgrade    459a, 459b and 464a, 464b, 464c, 464d
37 Marker Upgrade    YCA II a, YCA II b and CDY a, CDY b
67 Marker Upgrade    395S1a, 395S1b and 413a, 413b


For markers to have value to genealogical research, they must be stable, but not so stable that they can't differentiate lineage, and also change, but not change so quickly that closely related persons don't match. A well-formed panel includes a range of markers which change more rapidly and markers which change less rapidly.

Multi-copy markers tend to change more rapidly. Markers which change more rapidly are valuable to genealogical applications of DNA testing, to differentiate lines or branches, or identify persons who are not related. Rapidly changing markers are valuable in differentiating unrelated individuals using a small number of markers.

Marker DYS464 is a rapidly changing Y chromosome marker and a multi-copy marker. It most often has four copies, which are labeled: DYS464a, DYS464b, DYS464c, DYS464d. Marker DYS464 is also known to occur more than four times. Additional copies of DYS464 are called: DYS464e, DYS464f, and so forth. When more than four copies of DYS464 are found in a DNA sample, the results for all the copies are provided by Family Tree DNA.

When testing a random sample of 679 males for DYS464, scientists have found that the result 15,15,17,17 occurred in 10.6% of those tested, 15,15,16,17 occurred in 7.5% of the samples, and all the other results occurred less than 5% of the time, with over half these results only occurring once. This illustrates that marker DYS464 is valuable in differentiating unrelated persons.

The results for a multi-copy marker are reported in ascending order. For example, here are some results for DYS464:
11 11 14 16
12 14 15 16

Since the results are reported in ascending order for multi-copy markers, this must be taken into account when comparing the results of the markers between individuals. For example, consider the following results:

Example 1: 15 15 17 17
Example 2: 13 13 15 17

At a glance, you may see 3 differences, but there are really only 2. To correctly interpret the results for this multi-copy marker, the results that match are not counted as differences. The 15 in the first example above matches a 15 in the second example, so the 15 is not counted as a difference, even though the two 15's do not line up in the display of the results. A 17 from the first example matches the 17 in the second example. The two 13's in the second example do not have a match in the first example, so in comparing these two results, we find 2 differences.

Since multi-copy markers change more rapidly, these markers are an excellent tool to identify branches or lines, or to identify persons who are not related in a genealogical time frame.
 

Source:http://www.familytreedna.com/news-letter.aspx?v=6&i=2
 

Home