Y-DNA haplogroup as an ancestors name

Question

BigY clearly tells us that Jeff, Fred and Simon are my ‘like surname’ distant cousins. Simon links about 1600, Fred about 1650 and Jeff about 1750. With only 6 testers so far Simon and Fred are a bit distant, but Jeff is quite close at maybe  5-7 cousin. In WikiTree, would it be of value to link our respective trees using a common ancestor called FT34031 and refine it over time as more people test to define the PVs that separate us ?. Irish records before the Griffiths Valuation are a real brick wall and this might be an elegant way of bypassing a paper trail problem. The remaining 3 are me, 1c and 2c with a proven paper trail and now a BigY trail to support it.

Comments

While you have the upstream, common SNP, you don't yet have the proper generation. Y700 sampling provides a granularity of about 83 years which will include multiple generations.

However, I'd be for for some method of linking profiles with Y-DNA to a common, known patrilineal upstream SNP, as it'd be better than not linking them at all.

---

Would you not just get into replicating the Phylogenetic Tree of Haplogroups and now have to maintain it in two places? I agree having some search or link mechanism of those with common haplogroups would be helpful. But what about Haplogroups in the genealogical time frame. Not commonly named but splits defined by DNA and paper records? Seems a slippery slope.

---

Mike, I prefer 3 generations to 83 years as generation length can vary so much and SNPs seem to be generation related not at time defined intervals.

Answer 1

Here is how to link profiles with sufficiently matching Y-STRs (haplotypes):

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:DNA_Categorization_for_Projects

an example is at: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Roberts_Y-STR_Group_1

You can register at mitoYDNA.org for free https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0WWnDdWKKw&t and then (if you are logged into mitoYDNA) you are able to view the haplotype comparison in the example above.

Something similar could be done for sharing the same terminal Y SNP.

Comments

That depends on a project existing to tie that category to, but is a useful way to categorize.

I don't really understand why we don't have Haplogroup (at least) categories anymore? I get that the SNP level would be impossible to maintain given the amount of variation between old and new systems/new branches being discovered (they made a new one just for me recently), but high level categories can't be changing that much, can they? (cue Edison in 3.....2.....1.....)

---

Please say more about how “That depends on a project existing to tie that category to…” I’m unsure what you mean.

If there were high level categories for SNPs then I suspect too many users would choose ones that predate surnames.  However it might work if the surname was the same/similar and the “matching” group all had Big Y type test results with a shared SNP that would have occurred since the establishment of the surname.

Answer 2

The WikiTree Help page for Person Profiles states that profiles should be for real people.  While it doesn't specifically say that those real people should have real names, it seems to me that is the intent.  I don't think it is a good idea to use a person profile in the way you suggest.  You can link the individuals mentioned by using a category, a free-space page, or simply by comments in the narrative on each profile.

Comments

Thanks everyone above for your input. Whilst understanding Julies point, WikiTree must appreciate that SNP's are useful to indicate an MRCSA (most recent common surname ancestor) where a paper trail will 'never' be identified. Would MRCSA solve Randy's and Jonathon's points ? As noted by Peter surname + SNP match are the key points to the suggested system being viable.

In my case FT32960_Uprichard has 7 identified haplogroups below him, so it is virtually certain other surnames will join the string, thus he is no use as a MRCSA without people to match with and break up those 7.

The next identified haplogroup downstream of those 7 is FT34773, followed immediately by FT34031 (+FT33142 who is yet to be matched). Below that is one Pritchard with 4 PVs alongside three Upritchards (me, 1c, 2c) who collectively have 1 PV. Thus I am suggesting that FT34773_Uprichard has a very high probability of being our MRCSA and that number may move upstream as the 7 named but unmatched haplogroups become linked to surnames over time.

If it helps, the 7 downstream of FT32960 are: B18; FT33138; FT33793; FT34637; FT3484; FT59380; FT60434. NOTE that the sequence can only be alpha-numeric until they are matched (see BigTree or BlockTree charts).

Peter Roberts proposes the use of STRs, I think to improve the granularity (to borrow the term used by Mike) but won't the SNPs provide a higher level of proof except at the terminal SNP level ?. Do STRs give single generation granularity at terminal SNP level ?

---

Alan, I think you should recategorize your question to Policy and Style and add the "profiles" tag.

---

Thanks Julie. Doing that is outside my square. You are welcome to do it if you are able, but I fear I will lose track of the question as I only really follow DNA and Y-DNA tags. Understanding DNA is hard enough, but getting to grips with the dark arts of WikiTree is way more difficult !.

---

Sorry, but I don't have that power.  I wasn't suggesting you replace the current tags, only that you add one.  I think if you click on the "edit" button on your question, you will see the options.  I don't think it would hurt to try!

---

He who laughs last has had it explained to him !. I have added PROFILES but am reluctant to change the category. Will PROFILES draw the expected people to comment or do you think a category chance would be more effective. Is it OK to test my proposal and can I delete them easily if it draws too much ire ?. Presumably you or anyone can view my tree in WikiTree ?. A common approach to such problems is to do it first and apologise later !.

---

Alan, I'll be happy to try and advise you to the best of my knowledge, but I can't speak for the WT leadership.

Yes, I think a category change would be better.  I really don't know anyone else's viewing habits, though.  It is possible to sort G2G by category and only review certain categories.  I don't know how many people use that option.

My own opinion is:  No.  Don't test your proposal by creating those (or that) profile(s).  For one thing, WT has a policy against deleting any profile.  (What they would do about one without a real name, I have no idea.)

Sure, anyone can view "your tree," or, more accurately when it comes to WT, your ancestors.  How many people will, I have no idea.  WT has certain mechanisms for regulating its activity, including the Rangers, but whether they would immediately see that you had created a profile with a haplogroup as a name, I have no idea.

Acting first and asking permission later is an impulse I understand, but I don't recommend it for WT.  I think you would do well to get the attention of leadership first in this case.

WT can't be all things to all people.  My understanding is that it is a worldwide tree of real people, not profiles representing assumed DNA connections.  But I do not expect to have the last word on this.

---

No 'management' response so far and I might get my brother to do BigY before proceeding to see if that gives a terminal SNP. My impression is that BigY matches across 6 people is an actual not an assumed DNA connection. Its only distance that is debatable. Also the DNA connection is a lot better than some of the paper trails I have seen, such as my own tenuous paper trail connection from Upritchard-9 to Uprichard-27 and his even more tenuous connection to Upritchard-28.