Establish a connection

+5 votes
582 views
I have a  bit of a problem. My natural son and my step son (surname PIERCE) both did Y-dna and came back with results closely matched to HUTCHINS surname Ydna. So I've been researching Hutchins in geographic areas where I knew the Pierce family they have in their family trees may have made contact with Hutchins males. This may be a fool's mission, I know! But I do hope to find something. Any ideas!?!
WikiTree profile: Benjamin Hutchins
in Genealogy Help by Margaret Ferrick G2G6 Mach 1 (14.3k points)
retagged by Maggie N.

Hi, Margaret. When you say that the yDNA results came back with close matches to men with the Hutchins surname, what type of tests were taken...I assume at FTDNA, so meaning a Y-STR 37 marker test, 67 markers, 111 markers, or a Big Y? And what does "closely matched" mean in context?

These are important to know because it tells us the level of detail of the test, and then a basis for figuring out what the results might mean.

Just as a personal example, we have a yDNA subproject that began as part of the humongous Williams DNA Project and that has been slowly maturing for 20 years now. We're nearing 40 participant test-takers, nearly 25 of which are full sequencing Big Y results, and still more matches that have passed away or otherwise aren't actively participating in the subproject.

At 37 markers, I have three matches at a genetic distance (GD) of 4 with three men having a different surname, a Scottish one hailing from the southwest coast of Scotland. The 20 years and a bunch of individual tests tell us that this almost certainly isn't an NPE issue, because the Big Y data show that the most recent common ancestor would have lived sometime around 800-900 CE. At the same time, I have a GD 4 match to a Williams surname test taker to whom we can positively trace the genetic connection to the mid-1700s in North Carolina. So very different timeframes all having the same GD 4 reported result at 37 markers.

At 111 markers, I have many more of the Scottish-surnamed individuals in my match list (and in our little subproject): two at GD 5; one at GD 6; three at GD 7; three at GD 8; four at GD 9. Most of them were recruited directly for our subproject. So we're still looking at that 800-900 CE coalescence date (the date when the genetic lines first branched from each other) despite the fairly solid showing some of them are making at 111 markers.

Bottom line is that if just glanced at my match list, it would be easy to wonder about a non-paternal event in my immediate line. With the tests that look only at the STR markers, there can be a huge difference in those coalescence dates even with the same reported genetic distance...and, in truth, FTDNA is a tad bit lenient (optimistic?) with its STR match reporting, e.g., a GD of 4 at 37 markers really doesn't tell you much...kinda like you're looking for a specific neighborhood subdivision and the results only put you in the correct U.S. state.

And, at the end of the day, it ends up being all about who has actually taken yDNA tests. We've caused confusion for more than one Williams who got their test results back for the first time and were surprised by so many men with the Scottish surname in the mix. If a Hutchins has been working tirelessly to recruit test takers in that line, like our confusion-causing subproject has, and your husband's Pierce line has seen very few test-takers, even if the point at which the genetics converge could be around or before the time consistent surnames were adopted, it can appear as if the surnames are wrong and that an NPE search is immediately in order.

Thanks Edison. It does help me understand.

The PIERCE sons took FTdna tests - the Big Y - and allowed me to put them onto the Early Maine study and one other for North Atlantic. As it happens, the only person who matched their Ydna and at a close level (within a few generations) carries the surname HUTCHINS.

I know that I am no expert when it comes to dna, but the project manager  called it out. Could not verify  that Pierce line (and family tree) because it was HUTCHINS . Ydna.

That's all I can offer!

Thank you, Margaret; and that's good news. You're working with the highest resolution testing available right now. What there is to tell via the yDNA, that will tell us. Of course, it still remains that we're always dependent upon the number of test takers. FTDNA recently passed the milestone of having over 100,000 Big Y test-takers, but when we consider that AncestryDNA has surpassed 23 million tests...well, it gives us an idea of the comparative scope of the picture.

A follow-up question because I'm still stumbling over what was interpreted as a close match. For each of your guy's personal dashboards at FTDNA, is the company displaying the Hutchins kits as matches both under the "Y-DNA Results & Tools" section as well as the "Big Y" section, or is the imputed matching coming only from the Group Projects they joined?

The basic yDNA matches page will show the calculated genetic distance to each match (which, by the way has no connection to the meaning genealogists might apply to "genetic distance," as in number of generations or cousinship; so for Y-STR results a genetic distance of 1 in no way equates to a single generation, for example), and clicking on the little calendar-looking icon labeled "New" to the right of each name will pull up the recently revised TiP report. These estimations are just that, and still fairly broad because the STR markers themselves are highly variable. Down at the bottom of that TiP report will be a summary of how the test-taker is estimated to be related to the match being viewed. Here is an idea of what that looks like:

Based on a Genetic Distance of 1 at the Y-111 test level, E. Williams and ____ Williams are estimated to share a common paternal line ancestor who was, with a 95% probability, born between 1700 and 1900 CE. The most likely year is rounded to 1850 CE. This date is an estimate based on genetic information only. We can't take the 1850 date to the bank, but it at least gives us a starting point.

The matching information reported under the "Big Y" section can give us additional, and usually more precise, information. But there's no analogous TiP report here other than the fairly new Time Tree (see below). Some manual analysis is required, and that really needs to include the best information possible about the various genealogies involved. Meaning that this is something most FTDNA Group Project managers don't--and typically can't--do for the project members.

Net message here is that if those Hutchins tests are not glaring out from the personal matching information at FTDNA, if they're just coming from Group Projects joined, it may be a red herring.

If you haven't already looked into it, there is a Hutchins Group Project at FTDNA: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/hutchins/about. The membership isn't large, however; only 123. But FTDNA customers can join as many Group Projects as they wish, and that one might be worthwhile.

As for Pierce projects, those are split into two: "Pierce-Northern Surname Project" and "Pierce-Southern Surname Project."

Another immediate thing to check is the recently added "Discover Haplogroup Reports" option in the FTDNA dashboard in the section, "Big Y." That gives some summary information about what is shown as the test-taker's current "terminal SNP" (I wish we'd never begun using that terminology, but a few years ago no one could have anticipated that the yDNA haplotree would grow and change at the rate it has).

Perhaps most valuable here is the timeline estimations given: on the left-hand side of the screen, click on "Time Tree" to see the full display available. This attempts to provide the "coalescence dates" I mentioned before for the specific branches of the haplotree. It offers an approximate date that the SNP was formed, the date its ancestral SNP came to be, and a graphical display of the other, associated test-takers in context and arranged hierarchically. It won't be precise, of course, but at least it should give you the ability to arrive at a guesstimate about whether the Hutchins genetic relationship is recent, or whether it might be many decades ago.

Best of luck!

4 Answers

+4 votes
Hi Margaret and Benjamin.  I'm pretty new to DNA testing and genealogy in general, but I did the FTDNA 37 marker yDNA test and joined the Pierce-Northern US group and just looked at their spreadsheet and did not see a Hutchins listed.  I also do not have a Hutchins in my family tree.  I do have Hutchinson, but not Hutchins.  If I come across that surname I'll get back to you!  Good luck!

Raymond Pierce
by Raymond Pierce G2G Crew (560 points)
There was a Maurice Hutchins
+1 vote
Hi Benjamin and Margaret,

Good information from Benjamin!  Would an autosomal DNA test help clarify things too?

Ray
by Raymond Pierce G2G Crew (560 points)
+3 votes
I used GEDMATCH.com and 23andme.com to compare my DNA test to others who also took DNA tests and ID'ed previously unknown cousins.

I added profiles for my family members on Wikitree.com to confirm the connection. If I were you, I would stop looking geographically, and let the lines take you where they actually lived not where you think you'll find the family at.
by Judi Stutz G2G6 Pilot (389k points)
edited by Judi Stutz
0 votes
Hi Margaret,

So I just got an email from FTDNA that said I had a new match and when I checked it the person's name is "Phillip Keith Hutchens", and we are an "exact match" at 12 markers.  Being a newbie I am not sure what this means.  Phillip took a 112 marker Ydna test and I took a 37 marker Ydna test, but we do NOT match at 25 or 37 or 67 or 111.  Only an "exact match" at 12 markers.  I notice that his surname is spelled "Hutchens" and you asked about "Hutchins", but I do not have either spelling in my (in progress) Pierce family tree.

Just thought you might want to know.

If I come across either spelling in my family tree research I'll let you know!

Cheers,

Raymond Pierce
by Raymond Pierce G2G Crew (560 points)
Hi Raymond. I don't have Edisons gift for explaining, but it seems the older Y-12 and 25 tests have been rendered obsolete by the more advanced Y-37, 67 and 111 tests and BigY is a quantum step better than Y-111 if you can afford it.

I can see why, as under R1b my Y-37 MRCA is DF27 > FGC29721, about 920 years BCE; a long time before the introduction of surnames in around 1400 CE. Y-12 and 25 will be well before that, so of little value even to see the big picture.

BigY identifies my possible surname MRCA (FT34031) at around 1750 CE, probably in Ireland, so I'm actively looking for 2c 3c 4c like surname male cousins to resolve closer SNP's.

Presumably the same levels of Y testing will give similar MCRA intervals for all the major haplogroups ?.
Thanks Alan!  Wow, do I have a lot to learn!

Ray
Ray. It has taken me quite a few years and a lot of help to get a glimmer of understanding. Make sure you put DNA and Y-DNA on your watch list and read the wise words of the experts in G2G. I fortunately did a biology degree not long after Watson and Crick discovered the double helix, so 70 years later was able to hit the genetic genealogy ground, not exactly running, but at least at a genteel amble and in the right state, even if it was Texas and a long way from NZ.

Related questions

+1 vote
1 answer
+4 votes
0 answers
+5 votes
1 answer
+3 votes
1 answer
255 views asked Dec 26, 2023 in Genealogy Help by Anne Massey G2G6 Mach 2 (28.4k points)
+5 votes
1 answer
250 views asked Nov 25, 2023 in Genealogy Help by Sandy Faller G2G Rookie (280 points)
+6 votes
2 answers
216 views asked Aug 7, 2023 in Genealogy Help by Paul Bech G2G6 Mach 8 (89.1k points)
+8 votes
2 answers
389 views asked Jun 28, 2021 in Appreciation by Dennis Hutchins G2G6 Mach 2 (20.3k points)
+2 votes
0 answers
144 views asked Feb 24, 2021 in WikiTree Help by Scott Hutchins G2G6 Mach 2 (27.4k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...