Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Culpeper Co. Berrys

I told you last Saturday that I'd talk a little more about the Culpeper Co. Berrys, so here it is.

Here are their allele values -
Their genetic distance table -
And their Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor table -
And finally, their cladogram -
As a matter of interest, and perhaps also instructive, I thought I'd include the distance table representing only the markers compared for the cladogram -To generate a cladogram the same markers must be compared with one another and all those compared must have all of those markers.    In this case, since I wanted to include the SMGF Berry/Lamoreaux person, we only had 30 markers common to all, thus excluding Richard, #16, who has tested only 25 markers.

Comparing this distance table with the one using all markers, above, we can see that Brent, #4, had two additional marker differences between 30 and 37. If we look at the markers themselves, however, we see that those 'differences' are in CDYa & b, a multi-copy marker, and because of our Non-recLOH Event Multi-copy Marker Distance Counting Protocol we count that as a distance of only 1 as shown by this distance table -If any of you Culpeper Co. Berrys recognize this person with a Berry surnamed father and a Lamoreaux surnamed mother and whose pedigree was shown on January 25th, please get him to join the Project!    All he has to do is contact me and identify himself.

New news!    We have a new member and new partial results.    Ronald Berry who tested at Relative Genetics joined the Project yesterday.    I don't have his yAncestry to post yet but I do know that he matches Laurence, #9, differing by 1 at DYS441 out of 38 markers.    They will represent a new 'family' called the New Jersey Berrys.

In addition, Richard,#82, received his Y-DNA1-12 and Y-DNA26-37 markers of his Y-DNA37 order.    You will recall that he expected to match Michael, #69, and that they would be the Swiss Beery Family?    Not gonna happen.   At 24 markers Richard and Michael differ by 23!    Michael is haplogroup G and Richard is haplogroup R1b1.

Reminder - If you're thinking about upgrading or ordering any new tests where FTDNA already has your DNA sample on hand, TODAY'S the day to do it to save a week on getting your results.    Place the order before 5:00 this afternoon to avoid waiting up to a week additional for the next batch to be shipped out.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Interesting Results

At least they should be for Norman Berry, #74.

I examined another SMGF result, this time a Barry from North Carolina.    Here is the haplotype I mined -
and here's his pedigree -
What's surprising is that I then compared those results with all our Berry modals and haplotypes -and this North Carolina Barry shows up as a 'Related' genetic distance of 2 from Norman comparing 32 markers.    Might be something to look into.

For reference, here are the markers compared-
and the TMRCA Table.

How many?

An amusing, and perhaps interesting, way to pass the time -
LogoThere are:
people with our Berry surname
in the U.S.A.

How many have your name?

Monday, January 29, 2007


While I had the modal haplotypes handy for the identified Berry Familys I thought it might be instructive to compare all our 'Unassigned' Berrys to those modals.    Here's the marker table for all the family haplotypes and all our Unassigned Berrys -
Next we have the Genetic Distance Table in which the alleles of each haplotype are compared to all the others and the genetic distance between each pair is determined and displayed -As you can see, we still have the same 12 marker haplotype problem.    Whenever you see a haplotype, e.g., Robert, #43, who appears either related or probably related to several others, look to see how many markers were tested.    In this case, 12, and by only comparing 12 markers it is difficult to get a distance much over 12, and too easy to get a misleading distance under 3ish, so be wary.    Since we're talking about #43 let's use that as an example.    According to this table #43 is 'possibly related' to the Culpeper Co. Berrys, the Faires Berrys and the Barry/Berrys.    He is also 'possibly related' to the SMGF Berry/Lamoreaux person, to Laurence, #9, to Brian, #49, to Keith, #54, and to Gerald, #64, none of whom, according to the Table, would appear to be related to each other.    In addition, according to the Table, #43 is 'related' to the Rockingham Co. Berrys and also to Lawrence, #61.   Say what?    Lawrence is a Genetic Distance of 13 from the Rockingham Co. Berrys!

So much for the 12 marker test problem, let's look at what this Table indicates we should perhaps explore further.    We've already noticed that the SMGF Berry/Lamoreaux person is likely a Culpeper Co. Berry and that the Faires Berrys and the Rockingham Co. Berrys may be the same family.    Lawrence, #61, who tested 43 markers is a 'Probably Related' distance of 4 from Rockingham Co.    Worth a look?    Laurence, #9, who has tested 43 markers, is a 'Possibly Related' distance of 5 from Philip, #10, who has tested 37.    Philip has just ordered his 67 marker upgrade so that may tell us something more there.    Thomas, #51, who has tested 25 markers, is a 'Possibly Related' distance of 3 from Gerald, #64, who has tested 37 markers.    In addition, Gerald is a 'Probably Related' distance of 4 from the 43 marker test Rockingham Co. Berrys.    So what do you think?

Finally, our TMRCA Table -Which seems to me to be more interesting than informative.    But then, perhaps I'm just not understanding it well enough.    If any of you have any suggestions about how it supplements the other information we have, or detracts from it, I'd appreciate hearing from you.    If it's more important than I think it is I'd certainly like to give it it's due.

Late News.    Funny I should have used Robert, #43, as an example of 12 marker problems when around midnight last night his Y-DNA26-37 markers came in leaving only his Y-DNA13-25 markers outstanding of his Y-Refine12to37 upgrade.    His results hadn't been expected until 2/21/07.

Meanwhile, Mary Ann, #m4, had expected her mtDNARefine results on 1/22/07 but instead she got a note last night saying, "This test failed to yield results for your sample.    Your sample is being rerun now.    Results from this round of testing are expected by this date" and giving her a new date of 02/16/2007.    Better to know than to wonder.

My boutique tests were due 11/27/2006 and I'm still waiting.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Faires - Rockingham Co. Berrys

I promised you the other day that we'd take a look at the surprising proximity of the 'modal' haplotypes of the Faires Berrys and the Rockingham Co. Berrys.

Here's the marker table.    The first three, Dennis, #31, Paul, #36, and David, #59, are Faires Berrys, with David being only a 'probable' since he's only tested 12 markers but has a paper trail matching Paul, and Dennis being a 'probable' because, although testing 25 markers, cannot connect on paper to the others.    The last two, Robert, #75, and Kevin, #84, are Rockingham Co. Berrys.

Next, the genetic distance table for the whole group -As you can see here, Paul is 'probably related' to all three, Dennis, Robert and Kevin.    I'm afraid that we continue to have to ignore David since his 12 markers will show a lot of spurious matches.    Robert is 'probably related' to Paul and is related to Kevin and Kevin is 'probably related' to Paul and is related to Robert.

All this can be seen more clearly in this 25 marker cladogram -Here you can see that at 25 markers Robert and Kevin are 'zero' distance from one another, and a distance of 2 from Paul and 4 from Dennis.    Paul is a distance of 2 from Robert/Kevin and 2 from Dennis.    Dennis is a distace of 2 from Paul and 4 from Robert/Kevin.    The distance between Robert and Kevin of 2 that we see in the Genetic Distance Table, above, is due to 2 mismatches in the seven additional markers they have in common with one another beyond the 25 markers common to all four.

And this TMRCA is sort of a 'throw away'-

Judging from the above, I strongly suspect a relationship here but this illustrates a problem common among all the Berry families.    When it comes to analysis we have too few participants with too few markers to make any meaningful findings.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Surprising Results

Well, Carol Vass recognized the SMGF Berry/Lamoreaux guy as likely being a part of the Culpeper Co. Berry family by conventional means, i.e., looking at folks in his pedigree for matches.    She recognized (discovered?) that the George Berry/Sarah Clack couple in the Berry/Lamoreaux pedigree also showed up in Kenneth Berry's, #80, bio.

At the same time I was running a representative haplotype of each of our Berry Familys, plus the Berry/Lamoreaux haplotype and our SMGF Berry/Barry haplotype from yesterday, all through Dean McGee's Y-DNA Comparison Utility.

Here's the haplotype table:
Here's the genetic distance table:
and here's the TMRCA table:
Looking at the Genetic Distance Table we can see that Berry/Lamoreaux and Culpeper Co. are a genetic distance of 1, 'Related'.

The surprising result is that our Faires Berrys and our Rockingham Co. Berrys are a genetic distance of 2, 'Probably Related'!    Those folks better start looking for the relationship.    This may be just one family.

I'll take a closer look at the Culpeper Co. Berrys and the Faires Berrys and Rockingham Co. Berrys relationship later.

Stay tuned.

Friday, January 26, 2007

Berry/Barry in SMGF

Here's another Berry that has tested at SMGF that I can't identify as part of the Berry Family DNA Project.    Here are his SMGF results:

And here's his pedigree.Thomas Barry and Ernest Berry were born in Somerset Co., Maine in 1865 and 1890, respectively.    Apparantely there is some thought that Robert Barry may have been born in Ireland about 1839.

If you recognize this line, please let me know.

In other news, Kenneth, #80, a Culpeper Co. Berry, received his DeepSNP-R1b results yesterday, a bit over two weeks early.    His results are M207+ M173+ M343+ P25+ M269+ M18- M73- M37- M65- M126- M153- M160- SRY2627- M222- P66-, confirming his R1b1c designation and eliminating all the subclades of R1b1c that FTDNA tests for.    I understand that Ken is now ordering the Ethnoancestry R1b FT upgrade which tests SNPs S21, S26, S28 and S29 for subclades R1b1c9, R1b1c9*, R1b1c9a, R1b1c9b and R1b1c10.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Berry/Lamoreaux in SMGF

Wahoo!!    Like I said, you guys are good!    Jerry's, #85, kit arrived at FTDNA yesterday and Philip, #10, ordered his Y-Refine37to67 upgrade late yesterday afternoon, both just in time to be sent to the lab last night, thus avoiding the delay of up to a week while sitting at FTDNA waiting for the weekly batch shipment.    Jerry expects to match the Berry Plain Berrys and Philip's searching for a match.    Jerry's results are expected March 9th and Philip's March 12th.

I've mentioned the SMGF Berry/Lamoreaux posting before but I've never detailed it to see if anyone can recognize the person who tested.    I will do so here.

Here's the pedigree that he has posted:                       (Be sure to click on the images)

and here are his markers:

If you recognize this tester, please let me know.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

SMGF Update

Sorenson Molecular Genealogical Foundation updated their website again yesterday.    I haven't yet learned how to quickly determine the full extent of their additions.    I may never.    For now, I assume that they just added more markers/participants to their YDNA and mtDNA databases.

I can check for mine, #7, pretty easily and determined right off that nothing's been added there.    They had 14 markers posted for me and still have just those 14 markers.    Ah, well.    Maybe next time.

I will take a look, though, to see if I can discover any additional Berrys posted or additional markers for previously posted Berrys.

Well, I've looked at 26 markers posted for Laurance, #9, 33 markers for Dennis, #30, 39 markers for Dane, #35, 37 markers for John, #39 and 42 markers for Lawrence, #61.    If any new markers had been added I couldn't tell it.    All the markers shown at SMGF were already posted for each.

Those, plus a Berry/Lamoreaux line through Utah and the Benton Co. Roger Dale Berry line are all that I recognize.    But there are several other Berrys listed.    I'll detail them in future posts in case anyone else can recognize them.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Swiss Beery family

The balance of Michael Beery's, #69, Y-DNA37 results came in yesterday, only 5 days after the last offering and still better than a week early, not having been expected until 1/31/07.

You will recall that Michael is our only hap G participant but that Richard, #82, whose results are not expected back until March 9th, is expected to match Michael.    Being haplogroup G with all the other Berry families either haplogroup I or R it's not surprising that Michael is a genetic distance of 13 from the next nearest Berry.

Michael, and any others who have received new results, should remember to upload them to ySearch.    That's very easily done.    Simply go to your Y-DNA Matches tab on your FTDNA personal page where you will see "Click here to upload the additional markers to".    Do so and that's all there is to it.

Monday, January 22, 2007

How a dog's life can make you happier

The Independent
By Martin Hodgson
Published: 22 January 2007

If you are looking for a healthier life, get a dog.    Scientists have long believed that the companionship of a pet can be good for you, but new research suggests that dog owners are physically healthier than cat owners.

According to Deborah Wells from Queen's University, Belfast, dog owners tend to have lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels, possibly thanks to regular walks with their four-legged friends.

Writing in the British Journal of Health Psychology, Dr Wells said that dog owners appear to suffer from fewer minor ailments as well as fewer serious medical problems.

In a review of dozens of previous studies, Dr Wells found that dogs also seem to aid recovery from serious illnesses, such as heart attacks.    One study published in 1995 found that dog owners were more likely, by about 8.6 per cent, to be alive one year after a heart attack than those who do not own a dog . . . .

Saturday, January 20, 2007

2006 Winter Olympics

Since I wasn't posting during last winter's Olympic Games in Torino, Italy, I never got a chance to show our family gold medalists.    During this DNA lull I will endeavor to do so.

Bob Costas reporting on the Alpine Dog Sleigh event -

Proud Gold Medalists -

Resting in the Olympic Village -

Closing Ceremonies -Thanks to my son, Jon, who was there doing graphics for NBC for most of the photos.    Here are his stories.    February   March

Friday, January 19, 2007

Clades, Subclades & Clusters

Haplogroups are large groups of haplotypes that can be used to define genetic populations and are often geographically oriented.    Clade is commonly used in genetic genealogy to mean haplogroup.    The several haplogroups together form the Haplogroup Tree.

From:    "David Wilson"
Date:    Sun, 3 Dec 2006 15:17:26
"Subclades are strictly defined not by sets of STR values, but by single mutations called SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphism) or, more generally, UEPs (unique event polymorphism).    In the R family, for example, the SNP called M343 distinguishes R1b, M269 distinguishes R1b1c, and other downstream SNPs like SRY2627 or S21 distinguish branches within the M269 group.

When you aggregate haplotypes that belong to individuals who are members of a specific haplogroup, you will sometimes find that specific STR values for particular markers are associated with that haplogroup but not with others.    To use a single clear example, R1b1c7 (identified by the SNP M222) has distinctive dominant values 390=25, 392=14 and 385a,b=11-13 among others.    That is such a clear signature that it is pretty much a dead giveaway for R1b1c7 status even in the absence of formal SNP test.

In other cases, the STR values are less clear cut.    On the basis of STR values alone, for example, one cannot confidently predict membership in either R1b1c6 or R1b1c10.

Even without the use of SNPs, you can find clusters through statistical processes.    John McEwan's forty-some clusters are the result of crunching a large number of haplotypes.    It so happens that his STR19 cluster correlates extremely strongly with R1b1c7, and his STR22 cluster correlates very strongly with one variety of R1b1c9 commonly called "Frisian" R1b1c.    But there are other R1b1c9 haplotypes that do not look at all "Frisian."    So the situation is complex.

In short, clusters are statistical constructs based on many STR values for many loci, and subclades are hard distinctions based on observable yes/no distinctions for a particular SNP or UEP.    Clusters may or may not correlate strongly with SNP distinctions, and a cluster by itself does not necessarily constitute a subclade.

There is more about the Y-tree and the SNPs that define its branches at if you are interested.    Several of the regular posters on this list are responsible for the pages addressing individual branches of the tree on that site."

Although a haplogroup identity can only be proven with a Y-chromosome SNP test, it can sometimes be inferred as indicated above and further by Ken Nordtvedt who posits that a value of 8 at DYS455 indicates haplogroup I1a with 99.9 percent confidence based on thousands of haplotypes seen to date; and if you are 11 at DYS455, you are not I1a.

Within haplogroups, statistical analysis of STR values suggest different clusters.    For those interested in the technical details, also kindly provided by Ken Nordtvedt -

Norse I1a (14/23/14-14)[DYS19/390/385a-b] and ultraNorse I1a (14/23/14-15) is dominantly DYS462 = 13;

AngloSaxon I1a (14/22)[DYS19/390] is dominantly DYS 462 = 12.

DYS 462 mutates extremely slowly and thus results are strong modals for research.

Nordtvedt also observes that if you have 67 markers you have DYS511.    Within I1a it serves the same purpose as DYS462 99 percent of the time.    DYS511 = 9 is equivelant to DYS462 = 12 and DYS511 = 10 is equivelant to DYS462 = 13.    This is only true in I1a.

Reference: Y- Haplogroup & Sub-clade Projects

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Doomsday Clock . . .

. . . Moves Two Minutes Closer To Midnight.    The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has adjusted the Doomsday Clock, moving the minute hand from seven minutes to five minutes before Midnight, basing its new decision on the "deteriorating global situation, due to nuclear weapons, and this year's new factor -- climate change" -- specifically, the perils of 27,000 nuclear weapons, 2,000 of them ready to launch within minutes; and the destruction of human habitats from climate change.

DNA - Michael Beery, #69, our only hap G participant, received his Y-DNA26-37 results yesterday, almost two weeks early, leaving only his Y-DNA13-25 markers outstanding, still expected 1/31/07.

Richard, #82, is expected to match Michael but his results are not expected back until March 9th.    Michael and Richard trace their yAncestry back to Switzerland in the early 18th century.    According to Wikipedia, "Haplogroup G has an overall low frequency in most populations but is widely distributed in Eurasia and Oceania.    It is most frequent in the Caucasus, and is also found in Asia Minor, the Middle East, the Balkans, and Italy, with decreasing frequency in other parts of the world.    It has relatively high concentrations in Italy, Sardinia, northern Spain, and western Austria.    The distribution of haplogroup G in Europe seems to reflect a migration of Anatolian people into the Mediterranean Basin."

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

more Augusta/Washington Co. Berrys

More -- but very uninteresting.

The only thing different from before is this 67 marker cladogram.

But still uninteresting.    Sorry.

OK.   Maybe I should add a photo of how excited my dogs are over all this -

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Augusta/Washington Co. Berrys

Well, still the long weekend as far as DNA news is concerned.    Thought I might as well run some Distance and TMRCA tables for the Augusta/Washington Co. Berrys, so here they are -

First, the results.    You really do have to click this one.

I'll try to see if I can't find some time tomorrow to run some cladograms for this family.    I'm afraid we still don't have enough people with enough markers to really tell anything, but we'll see.

Monday, January 15, 2007

long weekend - Happy Birthday

Everyone must have gone away for the weekend.    Here's more from Bonaventure -

Sunday, January 14, 2007


I'm going to have to take a lesson from my son's blog --   Whenever nothing's going on and he runs out of stuff to talk about, he posts a few 'slices' of interesting or mundane places he's been recently, or maybe not so recently.

I hate for you all to take the trouble to click on this blog and find the same old thing you saw yesterday, so --

These are 'slices' from Bonaventure Cemetery in Savannah, Georgia.    Remember, you can click on the images to see greater detail.