Elmer A2284 and Unexpected Outcomes

Continuing from Big Y and the Dreaded No Call and Adventures in Big Y and YSEQ

The quick recap:

We're attempting to use the Big Y results from two Elmers whose most recent common ancestor is Edward Elmer 1610. Each of our testers is related to a different son of Edward. R1 is related to Samuel and L2 is related to Edward 1654.

When our results for R1 came in, it appeared that A2281 would be a divider for the group, but then we learned it was a "no call". Which, if I'm remembering correctly means it couldn't be determined whether it was positive or negative. A2281 had no calls throughout the big Y results. We could assume a positive based on the results of the other Elmers, but we want to be sure because we're down to the nitty gritty now.

Where are we now:

We're currently waiting for verification of A2281 for our Edward Elmer pillar tester "L2".

The second question about the results was, "is A2284 a real negative for R1 or is it also a no call?"

Here is a refresher for the results we have so far:

While we wait for the results for A2281 and L2, we asked to have the big Y results for R1 analyzed by one of the gurus at U106 to see if A2284 was really a solid negative. No one had a no call listed for that SNP, but again, we are down to the end of the Big Y race and we don't want to leave it to chance.

The answer we got was that it is a solid negative. That places A2284 on L2's side of the family under Edward Elmer 1654. For us, that rewrites the tree a little from what we were expecting.

Based on STRs and a genetic distance of 0, we placed M1 under Samuel with R1. They are a perfect Y37 match where as L2 and I are more similar to each other carrying a common STR mutation away from the other Elmers.

My own research leads me to believe that L2 and I share Edward 1654's son Hezekiah as our most recent common ancestor. So I was happy to see the shared STR mutation. What does it mean now that we know M1, who doesn't carry our STR mutation, does carry an SNP (A2284) in common?

I think it's reasonable to think that M1 shares a common ancestor with us after Edward Elmer 1610, but branches off before the common ancestor shared by L2 and me.

We're not talking about a lot of generations here. Edward 1610 is the root and I hypothesize that L2 and I share his grandson Hezekiah. That would leave M1 branching off at his son Edward 1654. It would also assign our STR mutation to Hezekiah. Pretty tight timing.

M1's Y37 haplotype best matches someone in another branch of the Elmer tree. I think that means they likely best represent the Y37 signature of Edward Elmer himself.  We've called them "Elmer Normal" for some time because we all seem to be a variation of their theme. Now that we have them descending from different sons, it seems we were on the right track with that designation.

In Adventures in Big Y, I put a bit in about expecting the unexpected and put up a tree with some results that were fairly different. Now that all the big Y tests are in. I have a slightly different, but still unexpected tree in mind.

For the record, here is what we thought we would find:

Here is what I think our best Y STR and SNP evidence (plus some family tree speculation on my part) shows for the time being:

Since M1 being closer to L2 came as a surprise, I've made L1 and R1 tentative companions under Samuel with a grey box. We'll know more about L1 when his YSEQ results come in.

We've effectively defined Edward Elmer 1610 SNPs and A2284 is not in them. We've also shown that R1 and L2 share several SNPs beyond the Knowlton/Elmer common ancestor. Those have become Elmer private SNPs for the time being, with the Knowlton family currently sharing the most recent common ancestor with the Elmers estimated around 1030 AD.

Now I am very curious about the SNPs for G1. it would be nice to have that third branch be the confirmation for these "Elmer" SNPs. I'm also eager to take them back to England and recruit Elmer, Elmore and Aylmer testers.

Update 8/27/2015

Results are in for L1 and he is A2284 positive as well. This puts him under Ed2 also along with his Y37 0 GD match M1. To me this is yet more evidence that these men (M1, L1 and R1) represent "Normal Elmer" and are most likely the haplotype of Ed Elmer 1610 himself. 

Here is a revised family tree with the new placements. In this graphic I've assigned the Elmer/Elmore kit numbers from FTDNA for reference. This mimics the results page on the Ed Elmer site. I apologize for the confusion. 

• JME N83174 is M1 
• L 272763 is L1 
• M T B2769 is me, Mike Thompson
• E L 369990 is L2 
• G 344982 is G1 
• R 364027 is R1 

Update 9/20/2015

The "no call" on A2281 for kit 369990 (alternately L2) has been resolved. He is positive for that like all the other Elmers. The question remains whether the Knowlton no call for that same SNP is really a positive or negative.

Big Y and a dreaded "No Call"

We've gotten the results from our second big Y Elmer testing pillar and...we have a problem. For a look at what we've been attempting to do see Adventures in Big Y and YSEQ and my partial return from YSEQ.

What could possibly be the problem? Okay, based on our YSTR testing, this is the breakdown we expect:

In that picture R1 and L2 are our known good trees. We want to find out where they match (which is important to identifying SNPs for Edward Elmer) but also where they mismatch (which is important to placing all the other men except G1 there).

So we're triangulating the Y SNPs.

L2 and M1 were tested first. M1 is an unknown. We're not sure whose line he's on, but we suspect Samuel Elmer because of his close STR match to R1.

This is basically where things stand with testers today:

At first, we only had M1 and L2. M1 had A2281 and L2 did not. Then R1 came along and he had A2281. Bonus. Things are lining up the way we thought, M1 and R1 have one SNP in common that L2 does not. So M1 and R1 are more closely related.

Enter confusion. M1 also has A2284 in common with L2. R1 does not have that. How can M1 carry one SNP from each branch of the family that the other branch does not have?

Then I noticed that L2's slot for A2281 was designated a "no call" which just means, nothing was returned. Not a negative, not a positive..just nothing.

Okay, so is A2284 a no call for R1 or is it a negative?

What is swinging in the balance is a big part of the reason we ran Big Y tests. We want to know which side M1 is on. 

If L2's no call turns out to be a positive for A2281, then it's another SNP shared by all the Elmers. If R1's missing entry for A2284 is a real negative, then that SNP is not shared by all Elmers and belongs to L2's family. That would rewrite the tree above for M1. He would be with me and L2. 

If L2's A2281 is a real negative and A2284 ends up positive for R1 then A2281 will be the SNP to watch and belongs on R1's line. That would rewrite the tree above and put me on R1's line instead of L2's. 

If both are positive, then we have a nice list of Ed Elmer's SNPs, but not much sorting closer to home can take place for M1...and possibly for me. 

Update 9/20/2015

The "no call" on A2281 for kit 369990 (aka L2) has been resolved. He is positive for A2281 like all the other Elmers. The question remains whether the Knowlton no call for that same SNP is really a positive or negative.

Adventures in Big Y and YSEQ

Today I sent my kit back to YSEQ.

I first dipped a toe in the water at YSEQ when I used their "Wish a SNP" feature for my Elmer friends. For one dollar, you can wish for a testable SNP and they will examine it and order the primers for it.

Very nice when you're digging into "family" level SNPs that are of little interest to the larger companies.

Why YSEQ and Big Y

The simple economic truth is that not everyone can afford FTDNA big Y or FGC Y Elite test to be able to identify new SNPs. So, we're attempting to get key players to run the bigger more expensive tests that "blaze the trail" and discover new SNPs that might be valid for the family, with follow up "budget friendly" tests for others through companies like YSEQ.

In the long run we hope to build a panel of SNPs for any Y tester that wanted to figure out which branch of the "Edward Elmer" family they fall on. Also we'll end up with a basic list of SNPs that belong to Edward. They will be the SNPs shared by all the Y testers. Those could be added to a panel of SNPs to take back to England.

What We Expect

Here is a quick chart that shows the Y lines and what we expect to find based on current STR testing. This is where we think everyone will be positioned in the tree when all is said and done. Please forgive my ms word charts. Click them for the enlarged view.

Sons of Samuel

We're currently waiting on the the big Y test from "R1" to add a "Known Tree" counterpart to "L2". These two tests form known pillars. We're missing the middle known tree pillar from "G1" at this point, but we intend to pursue it in the future.  

Brick wall testers L1 and M1 are expected to be related to R1. Likely through Samuel Elmer's son Deacon John Elmer. 

Brick wall M1 was our first big Y tester and blazed the trail for most of the SNPs we have today. He currently has four testable SNPs all to himself. We call them singletons because only one person has them at this time. 

We think we will find that R1 and M1 share some of M1's "singleton" SNPs. Making them private to that branch of the Elmer family. Depending on how many they share, we may be able to guess at a most recent common ancestor. L1 then plans to follow up with YSEQ testing of R1 and M1's shared private SNPs along with their singletons to discover which tester they are most closely related to.  

Sons of Edward 2.

L2 was our second big Y tester. He matched M1 on four testable SNPs that for the time being only belong to the Elmer family.  He currently has one testable SNP to himself. I'm Mike Thompson in that chart. I expect to be related to L2 through Hezekiah Elmer. 

I tested for one SNP that was shared by the Knowlton family (A2277), four SNPs shared by our two Elmer testers (M1 and L2) so far (A2278, A2280, A2283, A2284) and the one singleton SNP of L2 (A5920).

This can all get kind of confusing when we've got all these numbers and letters floating around.

How About Another Picture

Visualizing this tree another based on SNPs. I added some little circles of color to represent SNPs. We're assuming that Sam, John and Ed2 are pretty much like their dad, and get a yellow ball. Because of that, everyone gets a yellow ball. We all get those from Ed1. What I'm hoping for is that somewhere in there either Ed2 or Hezekiah added another SNP..the red ball. Then L2 and I will carry the red ball. It will be private to us and mark our branch of the family.

Along the same lines we're following the sons of Samuel. Our thought is that they may branch off at his son John, but we're not sure. I've added a purple ball in common for them. Some descendants of Samuel also have an orange ball, but not all of them. In that way, we can differentiate the branches coming from Samuel.

Of course, I'll be excited to learn anything I can, but my expectation is that I will share at a minimum the one SNP shared by the Knowltons and the four SNPs the other Elmer testers have. That is the yellow ball in the picture above. Everyone gets it.

My bet is that I will share that single singleton from tester L2, (the red ball) but the odds are not in my favor with only one singleton to test. To put it in context, M1 has four good chances to match R1 and define that they are on the same branch of the family tree. I have only one chance.

The Knowlton Family, Unknowns and the Importance of Pillars

You may have noticed that I tested an SNP shared by the Knowlton family.

The Knowltons have joined us in Big Y testing. They actually share two SNPs with the Elmers, but I could only make one testable at YSEQ. They are also included in the yellow ball in my previous chart in that their SNP was carried by Edward Elmer 1. That's the idea anyway.

The Knowltons are the closest Y relatives of the Elmers at 67 markers. The big Y test one of them completed shows that they are close relatives to the Elmers but we're not certain exactly how close. So our YSEQ and Big Y testing should help put their matches in context as well.

We've got two Elmers Big Y tested. How can one more test put the Knowltons in context and why would there be any question about it?

Well, Big Y tests the area of the Y chromosome that FTDNA thinks will have the most chance of success. So they will  get a lot of great SNPs, but not all of them that exist. The Knowltons may share many more than two SNPs with the Elmers, but we will not know it.

Because we don't know the relationship of  Big Y M1 and future big Y R1 based on a family tree, we can't be completely sure that they are the most closely related. Even though they have all the same STRs in common. STRs suggest a relationship, but SNPs are the mark of it.

M1 and L2 share the most SNPs in common at this point in time. The others (including me) just aren't tested yet and with unknowns there can be lots of surprises.

So our Big Y and YSEQ SNPs may show us a completely different path than we expect.

Expecting the Unexpected

Here is an "unexpected" SNP based tree that could include the Knowlton family. If it were to turn out that M1 and L2 were more closely related than expected then the tree could play out more like this, with the Knowltons included because the new base "yellow" ball is really the two SNPs they share.

The reference docs are pretty blurry in the 1600s and NPEs happen. It's possible that John Knowlton (who all the Y STR matched Knowltons go back to) was really an Elmer adopted by the Knowlton family. The two SNPs shared with the Knowltons may just be the Edward Elmer SNPs we're looking for.

The key thing is that without testing R1 or G1 and comparing them to L2, we don't know what the structure of the tree is.  R1 and L2 as "pillars" of our structure will help define what those early 1600s SNPs were and in doing so, help place everyone involved.

Notes About the The Testing Process

So far, FTDNA's Big Y has been pretty darn easy. Most of these men already had kits from Y STR and earlier SNP testing, so ordering an upgrade was really a matter of saving the money and waiting for a sale. Like falling off a log really. They identified an issue with M1's stored sample early on and sent him a new kit in no time. The results also came back quicker than expected.

We have relied heavily on the volunteer admins at the U106 group and the Z18 group to analyze the results and give us some direction because FTDNA's Big Y results matching has some issues.

I took those SNPs that FTDNA provided and our Y groups analyzed from M1 and L2 kits and added them to YSEQ through the Wish a SNP process. YSEQ has been fast and responsive. They assigned me a user account much like FTDNA did. Their website is not as polished but..really it's the results and flexibility I'm after.

Their swab kit for my SNP test order came in the mail within a week of the purchase. Mailing it back was a minor adventure because I've never mailed a package to Germany. Less than the cost of a lunch at McDonald's later, my kit is on it's way. I have read on forums that they are lightening quick on turn around for these kits, so I'm very hopeful I'll have my results fairly soon.

Fathers Day Y mile markers

What you can see from the Ed Elmer blog I threw together is that we've been doing a bunch of Y work between the Elmers and Knowltons. This weekend..ironically or not Father's day weekend, we launched two more Y probes to add to the results from earlier tests this year.

For the Elmers we have one big Y test that will give direction to the group. We had one test down the line of Edward Elmer 2 and one test from an Elmer whose tree is stuck around the time of the revolution. This new test is down the line of Samuel Elmer. With two known lines from Edward Elmer 1 through sons Edward 2 and Samuel, we should be able to get a nice list of those SNPs that belong to Ed 1 and which continue down individual lines. Triangulating the Y.

It will also help place the Knowltons in the scope of the Y family. The Knowltons share two SNPs that no other tester has shared yet. Depending on how this test shakes out, it could help place them as relatives on this side of the pond or back in England.

It is a very big deal for this small group of men who have come a long, long way.

I hit my own milestone this weekend too.  Along the way, I've made the Elmer related SNPs testable at YSEQ. I ordered my own test there, specifically looking to match up with my Elmer counterpart who is related to Hezekiah Elmer in 1680. That's the line I expect to be down given the research I've been able to do.

 I won't get a list of my own SNPs to track like the Elmer men did, but I haven't been able to find an Elmore man farther down my expected line to test anyway. I could also run the other next gen tests at some point in the future. I'm just impatient to know if I'm on the right path and if the signs are pointing in the right direction and I'd like to have my results when we're discussing the results of the group.

I hope to get some definitive answers to a lot of questions in the next few months. Some very personal and some on a grander scale. I'm also looking forward to taking what I've learned and applying it to the U152 Thompsons.

On father's day, thinking of things I'd like to continue to do with Y DNA:

• upgrade the U152 Thompson kit to 37 or 67. I think I will tackle this next.
• get our Jensen Z18 tester from Denmark tested for some of these new SNPs if not big Y itself. 
• create a panel at YSEQ that we could use for Elmer/Elmore men in England to try to recruit overseas. 
• find that elusive Elmore man related to James Walsworth Elmore who is interested in getting a Y test to definitively back up my assertion that James is related to Edward Elmer 1.

Y67 Results Getting from point A to Point B

My Y 67 results sauntered in a few days ago. At this point, having crabbed out from my Thompson hunt to effectively engaging in an Elmer hunt, I expect to be close to one of my Elmers and that is the case.

In the FTDNA 67 panel, I'm exactly the same as my Elmer 67 counterpart. The two pink numbers we have in common are DYS520 (21) and DYS572 (12). At the U106 project, the closest big Y test so far to our Elmer tester is also a 21 at DYS520 (Lunsford). There are others that are 21 there as well, like the Knowltons (always close) and Jensen from Denmark.  The 12 at DYS572 is not as common among 67 testers at U106. There is another person with that value at the Z18 project, Ralowicz from Poland, but it's not carried by the Knowltons or Lunsford.

At 67, my match list has one Elmer kit (our only 67 tester) at a distance of 2 and several Knowlton kits at a range of a distance of 6-7. I would say there is a bias in sampling, but there are several other DF95 men at 67 to compare to, so it's not that there are no more kits out there to look at. These two families are just closest to me.

If you look at the 67 match results for our Elmer kit, they have several more Y67 kits in their match list than I do. Some of my mutations away from the other Elmers also limit my matches. My DYS449=29 (which I share with only one Elmer) and DYS576=18 seem to be particularly troubling to other R-DF95 men.

At this point, I've reached the stage where there is little doubt about who I'm related to on my direct male line circa 1610. I've eliminated enough variables to get down to my core Y family. I'm feeling really confident that I've covered my bases. I'm related to Edward Elmer.

He came here, pretty well alone as far as I can tell. He was a Puritan (oye, he would certainly not approve of me) and he was part of "Hooker's Company". People who disagreed a little with the Puritans in Massachusetts and moved on to found Hartford Connecticut.

Getting from point A in 1974 to Point B in 1610 may still hold some surprises. Only further Y testing or autosomal testing of new candidates will help me narrow that gap and solidify my theories..although they seem really solid to me for the time being. Solid enough to include the Elmore family from Peoria as possible links for Family Finder and 23 and me testers.

There is still a margin for error in there in my autosomal results. Although we had a good autosomal match with a member of that Peoria family, I haven't put together all the clues or groundwork to prove it's a match through the Elmores. I think being related to the Elmores is just the most likely scenario..but not the only possible one.

This summer I'll be approaching what I expect to be my final move with my Y chromosome. Big Y testing to compare to my closest Elmer match. I'll be working with the Elmers and Knowltons to try to layer out our SNP results.

There may be some surprises for the group hidden there too. We'll see what we see. That is where the fun is.

That testing and layering should give us a framework and some benchmarks for testing other people and it should bring the costs down. Effectively we can take what we've learned about our SNPs within the Knowlton and Elmer families and devise cheaper SNP tests at YSEQ that would give someone the Y branch of the Elmer family they belong on. If they wanted to go farther they could then take the ball and run with it.

So if I ever do get to the point where I have a willing Elmore tester who may be closer to me on the Y than my current testing buddies, we can find the definitive answer for $17 instead of $500 plus.

I also expect that I'll be able to take all the knowledge I've gained and the tools I've found and use them to get my Thompson family over it's brick wall. I'm actually hoping I'll be able to streamline the process for them.

As ever, the journey continues one step at a time.

Elmore and Elmer Ancestors by Cousinship

Okay. Here there be dragons.

By it's very nature this family tie is...difficult. There is no paper trail to connect to here, only some DNA evidence, rough proximity and timing. This listing constitutes my best guess at the time given Autosomal and Y DNA Evidence. I've been wrong. I'll be wrong again...but I'm tired of trying to describe this family to people so I need a standard cousin listing like my other families.

Another note about the family, some of their lines are shrouded in mystery. Several family trees do not progress beyond James Walsworth Elmore. Ironically, that is where my Y match to the Elmers and Elmores comes into play.

Here is a list of my dad's most likely "Elmore and Elmer" relatives by cousinship:

****2nd cousin sharing great grandparents****
This is going to be tough. There are several men I suspect could be my dad's great grandfather. I have no Y test closer than Hezekiah Elmer born in 1686 to guide me. I do have the convenient proximity of this family in Peoria IL (and surrounding areas) in 1924 and the results of one autosomal test. The match was good on the autosomal test, but at a 3rd cousin range when I was expecting a 2nd cousin. Also the matching segments don't triangulate to any known members of any family yet.

I'm going to list the couples that might foot the bill. As a result there will be way too many people here and lots of notes. Take your pick.

Elbridge Walsworth Elmore 1850 Clinton NY.
Sarah Jane Hargraves 1844 NY
note: I think this couple is unlikely because they move back to New York putting them a bit out of reach.

Herbert Leslie "Darby" Elmore 1870 Peru Clinton NY
Elta Mabel Davidson 1880 Illinois
note: I don't see any children for this couple.

Halsey Orton Elmore 1866 NY
Etta Mae VanHouten 1868 Ill
note: multiple sons. This family was my first choice. A descendant of Halsey is a good autosomal match for my dad, but in the 3rd cousin range. That makes me think it could be one of Halsey's brothers.

James W Elmore 1864 NY
Elmira 1871 Ill
note: no children listed.

Asa Buell Elmore 1857 Clinton NY
Georgetta Craft 1867 PA.
note: the Craft family name appears quite a bit among genetic relatives of my grandfather, but these Crafts go back to Germany while the others do not.

William Ernest Elmore 1854 Clinton NY
Elizabeth Cranford 1860 Ill.
note: There may be a connection through some of Elizabeth's Harrell family to genetic relatives at 23 and me and FTDNA who have Crawford and Harrell families. It would be a very old autosomal match.


****3rd cousin sharing 2nd great grandparents****
Some of these will be missing. Without knowing which guy could be a great grandfather, I'll stick to listing the two people I feel most confident of. This would be the most likely common ancestors for the autosomal tester in the Elmore family.

James Walsworth (or Walworth) Elmore 
Birth: 1823 Essex NY
Death: 1904 Seville, Fulton, IL

Lydia Ann Hicks
1824 NY
1887 Seville, Fulton, IL



****4th cousin sharing 3rd great grandparents****

James Elmore 
birth 1798 Peru, Clinton, NY
death 1833 Peru Clinton NY

Katherine Cochrane
birth 1803 
death 1825 Peru Ny

Amizi Amaziah Hicks
birth 1788 NY
death 1870 Seville, Fulton, IL

Lydia Ann Fuller Irish
birth 1793 Peru, Clinton, NY
death 1869 Seville, Fulton, IL


****5th cousin sharing 4th great grandparents****
John Elmore
birth 1766 Northampton, Hampshire, Massachusetts
death 1840 Peru, Clinton, NY

Elizabeth Hay
birth 1778 Quebec Canada
death 1851 Peru Clinton NY

Here the Hicks, Fuller (or Irish) and Cochrane families have kind of disappeared. I've poked at them a bit but I haven't pushed them any farther.

Elizabeth Hay is the daughter of William Hay from Scotland and his wife Elizabeth Williams who may have been from the U.S. 

John Elmore is the son of Daniel Elmer and Mary Norton from Franklin Mass. Daniel is the son of Hezekiah Elmer and his wife Miriam Standish Janes of Massachusetts. That brings us to our closest Y match.

Updated Y Results and a Psychological Shift

Although you have to question your mental health when reviewing how much time and effort you put into genealogy, I have not been more aware of my own perception change in a long time. Today, the results for my Elmer Y DNA recruit down the Ed2 line were revised. I wrote about his results and my interpretation of them last time.

Today, while comparing the results for another Elmer tester, I noticed a difference in the genetic distance from my recruit to me. Where there was a GD of 2, now there was 1.

His odd mutation at GATA-H4 had been wiped away and the more standard value of 10 put in place of his 9.

So now he shared the non-modal value of 10 there like the other Elmers and I, but he still carries my mutation of 29 at DYS449.

All of that means that I have my closest ever Y match. My interpretation of his results discounted his GATA-H4 value, because it was so different from the others. So really, nothing has changed about the match in my eyes. It's still my closest match because of that shared mutation at DYS449. I feel it is the most likely candidate for a paternal line for my branch of the Thompson family. It's still my best bridge between the Elmore family in Illinois and Edward Elmer in connecticut.

Psychologically though, over the course of the day, my perception has changed about the match quite a bit. In my own mind it went from the most likely match to an absolute match. Dangerous ground for a person who is most often wrong, but still there it is.

Now this minor change has me thinking the autosomal match to the Elmore family is better than I thought. More solid. Like the one paternal segment and unknown second segment in that ATDNA match are, all of the sudden, an excellent sign post rather than a vague possibility. Even though it really says nothing about those results at all, it has me feeling degrees more hopeful that I've done this bit right and my gamble has paid off.

Coming down from my high, this Y match is not definitive for the autosomal match. I would need a Y from a closer Elmore relative to triangulate with or at least one more autosomal test from a related Elmore to triangulate that.

Still though, optimistically, I feel certain that this Y result means I am related to Hezekiah Elmer 1686, son of Edward Elmer and Rebecca Fitch. Certainty is not something I'm used to.

A New Year and Some Encouraging Results

The Y results are in for our last Elmer Y recruit. These are the results I was waiting for in my last post about Elmer and Elmore autosomal results.

The autosomal results for this firs contact were "no match". Not matching is hard to gauge because it's possible for genetic relatives to not match each other at all. When you don't match a close relative that can be a red flag, but not matching someone who shares a relative in the 1700s is more likley.

I described the layers of expectation for the Y results like this:

In layers of expectations, I would expect them to be a good match to the other tested Elmer branches. I would hope that they might share one of my variations from the Elmer "norm".

You better believe that I was holding my breath looking at that Y match. He was definitely a good match to the group but he was still two markers off from me! At that point, my heart kind of sank. All the Elmers who have tested beyond the first twelve are a minimum of two away from me and it's the same two every time.

I carry a one off mutation at DYS449 and DYS567. FTDNA lists those two places as likely mutations at 37 STRs for people who are related, but their stipulation is that they also share a surname. I do not share a surname.

I was stunned though to find that the Elmer I suspect is on my Y line shares my mutation at DYS449. He mismatches me in two spots and he mismatches the other Elmers in two spots (one of them being the spot that matches me).

Time for some visuals. First up is the Y 12. I've got the men organized by their apparent or documented branch of the Elmer family through Edward Elmer's sons John, Edward2 and Samuel. I put myself with L (gray bar near bottom) in the Ed2 category. Fairly similar at 12 we have most of the telltale cumberland markers from the cumberland B modal (green bar at bottom). The modal for the larger group in Z18 is the green bar above.

Two of the documented John lines have some interesting mutations on normally slow moving values.

In the second set, everyone has the telltale cumberland B 458.2. What grabbed me is that where I expected a mismatch on DYS449 like all the other Elmers and the modal for cumberland and the modal for Z18, I now have a match! Both L and I are 29 at DYS449.  So L matches me where the others don't. What is odd here is that L has a mismatch with me because he's broken away from all the Elmers on GATA-H4 which is usually a more stable STR. So where he mismatches me here..he mismatches everyone.

Last set. Again an odd break away for the "John" line Elmers on some slow moving values and they have also moved away from cumberland and Z18. The big orange 18 is me. Here I mismatch all the Elmers still along with the Cumberland and Z18 modals. The final DYS463 value is included to show those that have tested for it. We have one John, one Samuel and if I can be counted one Edward2 showing a 23 there against type for both cumberland and Z18.

One thing I want to note is that the John group seems to be wild. They mutate away from each other. They have standard Elmer markers in common but at 37 they don't seem to have some "John" pattern.

Meanwhile the Samuel group is super super stable. They form the core group to compare others to. They have the most STRs in common with everyone. 

The Edward2 group, well...

I've spent a lot of years with my results, trying to gain value from what I have. I feel like I've earned some good returns. This is not perfect, but if my suspicions are correct, L and I meet up at Hezekiah Elmer born 1686 the son of Edward Elmer and Rebecca Fitch and grandson of Edward Elmer. 

There is a lot of time there to gather mutations and the "John" group shows how much variation there can be. I am most interested though in where L and I are similar. Not just wildly mutating by ourselves, we have a mutation from the "norm" in common.

L could have randomly gotten the 29 at DYS449, but I'm going to take it anyway. I didn't randomly recruit L. I picked him because I suspected he and I were on the same line and I was hoping he would share one of my variants from the other Elmers... and he does. That would mean that Hezekiah or Edward2 is the originator of our 29 there. My Elmer mismatch at DYS576 and L's really odd mismatch at GATA-H4 would then be marks of our individual lines at some point after that.

I was concerned about trying to match up with someone who was that far back. There isn't a lot of time between Edward1 and Hezekiah. Mutations can happen anywhere at any time, but still only a couple of generations from the source and I'm hoping for a common STR that is not shared by the majority of Elmers! The thing is...I got it. I actually got it.

He has one of my mutations but not the other, he's part way there, just like someone who shared a very old common ancestor with me.

One way to feel better about it would be to get another person related to Hezekiah tested to see if they also carry the 29. What if they did not though? Mutation is not a one way street. G in the "John" Elmers has mutated back to the old Z18 modal twice! A member of the Hezekiah branch might drop the 29 in favor of some other value.

Another way would be upgrading both L and I to 67 and 111 to see if we maintain the closeness.

Yet a third way, and the one I might save up my pennies for, is to run both of us through Big Y to see which SNPs we share and how they layer with other Elmers who have done it.

Leaving off on a hopeful note. I have a good autosomal result from my targeted Elmore family and a nice Y match on their line back to Edward Elmer. I may even have identified one STR that we could assign to an ancestor.  

That is not too shabby.

Elmer and Elmore Recruiting for Y DNA tests

One of my Y matches has had a great idea and some early success. In my Elmore results post  I talked about our latest addition of another tester on the line from Edward Elmer's son John and comparing his results to the Elmers and mine.

We've decided to try to get men down the other lines too, so we can see how close they get.

Edward Elmer's son Edward has several descendants that move through New York. Placing them really well to be related to the New York Elmers. Since I appear to be a different version of them at this point, Edward2 would also be a target person for me.

Edward Elmer's son Samuel is very active on the east coast and elsewhere and I believe we may have a lead on a good candidate for him. Hopefully we'll be able to find a few more, because you never know..they could be that 100% match everyone is looking for.

We've been scouring family trees, census records and obituaries to try to find living descendants of these Elmers and Elmores to test. It's a real struggle.

First, they don't know who we are, so it's really hard not to come off as a sales call. Add to that that we're offering a free test and it gets a little harder for them to accept. People are right to be suspicious. There are real weirdos out there, so someone who wants to collect your spit and pay to have it analyzed is kind of in that category.

The second issue, is that it has to be a man at this point. The odds should be even, but we keep finding that several of these lines pinch down to only one son in a family or that they have multiple childless sons and only one son has any children. We can pretty easily get responses from women or from men related to Elmer and Elmore grandmothers and great grandmothers, but autosomal testing without a clear Y match would be even riskier than cold calling Y candidates.

The third issue is that from 1640 to now is a pretty long time and anything can happen. So even with the best trees and good research we could end up with an Elmer or Elmore who doesn't match the others. That would be my inverse I think.

We've got to try anyway. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

So far we've been turned down flat three of four times, although we do have one bright spot who hasn't totally cut off communication on the Edward2 side. So that is hopeful. We also have that decent possibility for Samuel too which would be great to get.

We'll also be continuing to push those New York lines to see if we can find yet more living men there too...fingers crossed.

By Any Other Name

Tonight my wife asked me if I would change my name if I found out we were definitely related to Elmers. For a lot of people, I think this is a very serious issue. I've known people who have done just that. I haven't asked them about their motives, but my guess would be that they always felt different and wanted to put things right. Maybe they grew up hearing about the mystery of a relative's paternity and solved the puzzle. I'm sure the reasons to do it are many.

I do not plan to do that. I am a Thompson. I can't really see myself being something else at this point. Maybe because of autosomal DNA and having that reminder of how important moms are, even though they give up their last names, or maybe because I have my own children, it seems less important to me. There isn't really anything for me to fix, just things for me to learn.

Depending on how close the crossover is, it may be supremely interesting to figure out where a missing branch of my genetic family is today. Really, even if it were my grandfather, I can't see myself changing. My family has assigned meaning to our name. We feel unique in our huge crowd of Thompsons. We have a way of being that identifies us and we've used our name to identify it. I don't think I could give that up.

Thompson is a name people picked when they wanted to fit in. I told my wife tonight that maybe it's a name that picks you. I owe the Thompsons something for making this life possible. I intend to honor our odd little branch of this giant sequoia in the world of names.

We may not be Thompsons from the beginning of the use of surnames which is a loss. On the other hand, since my father is named Thomas, I am every bit as qualified to wear this name as the very first Thompson to crawl out of a bog a thousand years ago.