Hi Liz,
Thank's for that, will be most interested to get their answer because at the
moment, I can not grasp the inconsistancy.
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "lizcordingley" <lizcordingley(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [CATLEY] DNA results
Hi Tim,
I have sent them an email to explain to me why you and John David are a
match but you are not showing up on Johns when John David is. I have told
them to explain in layman terms as some of this testing is way over my
head!!!!!!!!!
Let you know when I get an answer.
Liz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Cattley" <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [CATLEY] DNA results
> Hi Liz,
>
> Many thank's for the explanations, much appreciated. However, I probably
> did
> not explain myself sufficiently as you have not been able to answer my
> question 2.
> What I am saying is:- that when I log in to my FTDNA results web page,
> there is no indication that there is a match for me with John (Garforth)
> Catley AT ANY LEVEL and I think there should be. You, as Controller, have
> results that shows a Y37 match exists yet FTDNA have not added this to my
> match list. However, by comparison, the match that I have with John David
> (Bilton) Cattley is shown at Y12, Y25 and the important Y37 marker level.
> It is illogical to have just one Y37 match shown when clearly two exist!
> The Normanton/Bilton test shows a Y37 genetic distance 4 match and you
> have
> indicated that the Bilton/Garforth test shows a Y37 genetic distance 1
> match
> so logically the (omitted on my page) Normanton/Garforth test should
> surely
> also show a Y37 genetic distance 4 match as well?
>
> I think I understand about genetic distance levels differences caused by
> mutation and thus a genetic distance 1 match between Bilton+Garforth
> equates
> to a Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) probably around 6-8 generations
> back
> ( 180-240 years) whereas a genetic distance 4 is around 14 generations
> back
> (420 years) so in either case it is most unlikely that written evidence
> will
> be found. A small glimmer of hope is that we have the Bilton tree
> currently
> brick walled at 1748 so there is possible scope to push this back 100
> years
> or so but doubtful that this would reveal a MRCA in that time frame.
>
> Can you please find out for me as to why FTDNA have omitted the Y37 match
> on
> my page please?
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "lizcordingley" <lizcordingley(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
> To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 10:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] DNA results
>
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> 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
-------------------------------
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