DNA in Family Trees [closed]

Question

Here's a theoretical question that is rapidly becoming a reality. The increasing number of folk taking Y700 and other deep dive DNA tests has the potential to move our family trees into pre-surname territory. How should we represent those people in our trees, they won't have names just DNA types/Haplogroups? Do we start using DNA designations in place of names or have two trees, one for named and a second one for DNA types? In my case, this is looming. My paternal family  have a FTDNA BigY match with a totally different surname, this is because our TMRCA is mid 15c so around 1450. That's on the cusp of surnames, hence (probably) why our match is of a totally different name. I have my paternal tree back to early 16c this new ancestor is only a generation or two back from that date! Interesting conundrum :-)

Thanks

Nick

Comments

See this thread too:  https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1303303/y-dna-haplogroup-as-an-ancestors-name

It doesn't seem to me that the issue was resolved, but as I said there, my own opinion is that actual WT profiles should be limited to real people with real (known) names.

---

I can understand that logic and that would infer the two trees route, which I don't have a big issue with. There would still need to be a link in the known names trees referring researchers to the DNA tree and vice versa in the DNA tree, otherwise that link could be lost.

I would guess there would need to be some generally agreed method of signifying that a researcher needs to switch to a different database.

---

Would you please put some tags on your question?  I suggest "dna" and "profiles," and maybe "names," "style," and "y-chromosome."

---

Ok done

---

I'm a Big Y  match with a few surnames. I'd say each of these lineages and my own must have a common ancestor upstream from us.

That's one complication, and then there is the matter of NPEs, People who show up where you'd think they shouldn't due to adoptions, unwed mothers, what have you.

I need more people with my surname to do deep testing. Right now I share a terminal SNP with 2 other people, both baring a different surname. With more testing, potentially, our pedigree might lead back to immigration and beyond.

Answer 1

What we have is really a genetic branch tree onto which we strive to map our genealogical tree. There are some ways of doing this "mapping", and I'm not sure which way is best, but I have been experimenting with some ways already. One thought is categories for important SNPs or potentially for theoretical ancestors, like the one you describe. My temporary solution is a space where notes and discussion about the DNA results can occur and research notes in profiles where there's a descendant with such Y results. But I am trying to figure this out as are you, and I doubt this is a final answer. I'm fine with someone telling me I should be doing it a different way. See for example https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Captain_Thomas_Pitman_Y-DNA_Study and profiles such as Treece-106 can mention this page in research notes.

Comments

I've had a look and you have taken the same route I was thinking about. SNP's seem to cover about 100 years, so they could cover 2 or three individuals. As archaeological results increase they will help to put a stake in the ground. I already have a very close match in a Viking settlement in Greenland that has helped with paternal line origins. I don't know how it will be solved as it needs a generally agreed consistent method. If it's not consistent, I fear future researchers will struggle to interpret our trees.

Answer 2

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

Comments

Peter, should we go through the Categorization Project to create such a Y-STR project category?