Hi Tim,
See below for your answers. I will give Alexis another go and see if he will
do it.
Liz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Cattley" <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [CATLEY] DNA results
Hello Liz,
The names you quote may not mean anything to some listers, so am turning
the
results into tree form Title for them :-
Thus John Catley from Bristol is a member of the Robert Catley of Garforth
(Yorkshire 1690) tree whilst John David Cattley is a member of the Edmond
Catley of Bilton Ainstey (Yorkshire 1748) tree with a Y37 match at genetic
distance 1 which I take it : is very close indeed. This news is hardly
surprising as the two trees furthest back researched ancestors were living
only some 12 miles away both in the hinterland between York and Leeds.
We already have a match at Y37 genetic distance 4 between the Stevan
Catlay
of Normanton (Yorkshire 1580) and the Edmond Catley of Bilton trees which
means that in the light of the latest results, we have a solid Yorkshire
"main dna Catley tree" which shows a collective 953 confirmed births
between
1581 and 2010.
The "Yorkshire Catleys" do not end there because we also have a trace on
the
following as well :-
Stephen of Ackworth (1603)
Stephen of Leeds (1825)
Robert of Rothwell (1838)
Thomas of Escrick (1823)
Sadly there is no possibility of a dna test for either the Escrick or
Ackworth clans and little likelyhood for the Leeds source either, however
the Rothwell brigade is a different matter with a very good choice of
suitable males.........only trouble is that none of them are interested in
their genealogy and so to get any of them to part with a Y37 dna test fee
is
very unlikely.........this is why Liz and self are trying to encourage
Alexis Cattley to do the test (he was at last years annual gathering in
Oxford) but so far without any success!
I think it highly likely, based on 3 out of 3 tests so far, that in
probability, the West Yorkshire Cat*leys all belong to one common
ancestor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Liz,
Q1 :- Is there any point in considering matches at the Y12 marker at any
genetic distance, even an "exact match" ? I ask this because I have
Francis
Richard Catley of the John of Hackney (London 1803) tree showing up but
also
two Cantley's and a Catlin for good measure. None of these have caused
any
excitement. Do I take it then that I am "probably related" to them all,
with
a common ancestor probably some 15 generations++ away?
A1 I personally don't pay any attention to the 12 marker test as
it throws
up every tom dick and harry!!!!!!! Unless I know that you are from the
same area.
Q2 :- Why does my FTDNA matches list NOT INCLUDE any ref to John in
Bristol
(Garforth)? Surely this is wrong? If he is a Y37 match at genetic
distance
1 with John David (Bilton) and John David (Bilton) is a Y37 genetic
distance
4 with me (Normanton) how come there is no match on my list with John
(Garforth) at any level? You may have sight as Group Controller to figures
that do not come my way, please explain.
A2 John in Bristol matches in all tests with 1 genetic marker
difference
with John David. This means they are very closely related and there should
be a paper trail somewhere for them. You match with both of them, however
your connection is way back prior to a paper trail. It also means there
was a mutation along the way which made your distance further. I don't
think you need to worry to much as we know there is a connection. To find
out where the mutation took part you would need to do extra testing.
Q3 :- With the exception of the two Lincolnshire trees; William of
Kirton
(1709) + Thomas of Bottesford (1742) plus the three Herts/Essex/Cambs
trees;
James of Barley (1709) + Joseph of Melbourn (1804) + John of Sawston
(1827)
who carry the dna classification I2a and I1 respectively, the rest of the
trees tested carried the code R1b1b2 but I notice that John (Garforth) now
has the classification R1b1a2. A review of my Normanton test shows that my
grouping has also been ammended to R1b1a2 as well. Can you confirm then
if
other tested trees given R1b1b2 originally have also been ammended to
R1b1a2
status as well ?
A3 They have advanced in science and are bringing into line certain
chromosons and they have all been changed. So it also includes the ones
below changing.
They are of course :- Charles of Greenwich (1867) Emery of MSN
(1731)
John
of Hackney (1803) Thomas of Bath (1819).
Cheers
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "lizcordingley" <lizcordingley(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 5:42 PM
Subject: [CATLEY] DNA results
> Hi All,
> News just in on latest DNA test.
> John Catley from Bristol matches up with Marg's Nephew John David Cattley
> in Penns. The genetic distance on all 3 marker tests is 1. This means
> that
> although he is related to Tim and Francis Richard Catley he is closer
> related to John David and therefore they share a common ancestor closer
> in
> generations than that of the other 2 members.
>
> So we know that part of the Garforth tree belongs to Yorkshire and NOT
> Linclonshire Catley's.
>
> Any questions about this result email me.
> Liz
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
> ______________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
>
http://www.netintelligence.com/email
>
______________________________________________
This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
http://www.netintelligence.com/email
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message