Our Unknown Scottish Ancestor “MacWho?” A DNA detective
story.
Last update: Saturday, 28 July 2007
This is a
joint genealogical effort to try to reconstruct family trees, which may contain
errors. If you think you see something you want to copy, please also do me the
favour of contacting the maker of this webpage (Andrew.Lancaster
“at” skynet.be) to give me a chance to update you on
the latest possibilities.
Here is a
summary of the smaller group of people who have a surprising and unusual
genealogical DNA match. Regular visitors should note that updates and
corrections are made often.
I have
emphasised the marker results that are most interesting, and the marker names
that are known change most often (meaning they are relatively “fast changing”
within family trees). These markers are STR markers that represent repeats or
stutters in the Y chromosome DNA, passed from father to son. Please note that
only men have Y chromosomes, and so the language below concerning fathers and
sons is not sexist.
(Note that DYS389II includes
DYS389I and so DYS389I and II of 14 and 30 is only one step from 13 and 29,
with the difference only being from 14 to 13.)
1. The first remarks to make for traditional
genealogists
With 37 markers
tested on all lines, we can remark 3 very strong clusters amongst families with
no known “paper trail” relationship yet:
a. The Porter,
McLane, and Beatty group.
b. The Furry, Fergie, Fergus,
c. The 2 McClays.
The other three
families are
d. A
e. A
f. An Australian
Livingstone family (Livingstone being a name associated with McClay).
It should be kept in
mind that these results are very close as an overall group. Therefore it is
difficult to be group the 6 branches above (a-f) into bigger groups sharing
more recent common ancestry. There are however two fast moving markers, DYS449
and CDYa (also known as DYS724), which seem to follow
the same pattern, making it likely that they show us two branches: one with
high DYS449 values and low CDYa values, the other the
reverse. This would put the McClays and Livingstones with the Fergus group, while the
Based on what has
been found to be normal in many surname projects, they could easily belong to
one large family, or to put it in the jargon, just looking at the distance
between these people it is reasonably likely that they have a common ancestor
in times when historical records exist.
But remember that our
interest is not just because we are close, but also because we are (a) rather unusual
and (b) seemingly localised to
2. Where we sit in the greater scheme of things
After quite a few
tests and re-tests by Family
Tree DNA, who did the STR tests, we now know from tests by both them and DNA Heritage that this group is part of
the R1b1c haplogroup (sometimes called R1b3) of the
family tree of all human fathers and sons (defined by SNP mutation M269). More
recently our Livingstone family have had more extensive testing done by Ethnoancestry,
and received the following NEGATIVE results:-
M160,
M65, S21, S28, S29, SRY2627, M126, M37, M153
So despite
appearances, this is an offshoot of the most common patrilineal
“family” in
3. The markers in the table and what they mean
Looking at the 37
markers used by our initial lab, Family Tree DNA, the
results add up to a genetic distance from “Modal” (most common) R1b1c of about
13, which is significant. Three of the Porters are from the Sorenson database and gave us a first indication
about what we can expect for 11 other markers commonly used in genealogy, and
showing three more deviations from R1b1c modal, bringing us to 16 mismatches
out of 48 markers. We continue to test on both these and other markers using DNA
Fingerprint and other labs.
We break the 37
markers up into the 3 standard Family Tree DNA packages purchased by most of our
group, and then discuss the others…
1. The first 12
markers. Looking at the most commonly tested markers, the unusual
values for this variety and their differences from R1b modal are as follows. (The numbers given about how uncommon these are come from Whit
Athey’s analysis.)
DYS390 = 25 instead
of 24 (approximately 15% of R1b people in
DYS391 = 10 instead
of 11 (again this is not uncommon, approximately 32%
of R1b people share this value).
DYS385a-b = 15-15
instead of 11-14 (this has been checked using the Kittler
test to ensure there are 2 separate DYS385 markers). This is
extremely uncommon.
DYS439 = 11 instead
of 12 (about 15% of R1b people have this particular value)
We must then consider the markers in
combination (many cases with big variations from modal are of course
only different on one marker) and then we find they are extremely rare.
Some remarks about
this: First 390, 391 and 392 are rather stable, and
the combination 25/10/13 is relatively unusual. Secondly, the 385 result is extremely
unusual in R1b, though once again it is found. To state it differently, the
above people are the only people we are aware of in any database with the
combination of 25/10/13 and 385=15, 15. On the www.yhrd.org
database of haplotypes, not only are there no
matches, there are also no matches for one step neighbours, nor any matches for
2 step neighbours. (This database is poor for Scottish data.) So even the
“normal looking” “cousins” shown above for comparison actually have quite a
rare haplotype (see above).
The values for DYS385
require more discussion. What seems to have happened is a type of mutation
which is now considered more common than previously thought. Generally in
genealogy (as in the table above) we use STR mutations, such as DYS390, which
are small segments of “stutter” that change by one repeat up or down reasonably
often from father to son for example from 25 to 24 repeats. For considering
more ancient roots, we speak of SNP mutations such as M269. These are much more
rare, but simpler to understand, being small transcription errors from father
to son. What we are dealing with here seems to be what is known as a “recLOH” mutation where a backup copy of a segment of
DNA overwrites its brother copy making big-seeming changes in a single step.
This seems to be particularly important and complex on the sex-determining Y
chromosome, because these do not come in pairs like our other nuclear DNA.
In this case what we
are postulating is that an ancient “MacWho” had a
father who had a set of DYS385 values which were a more common 11 and 15, and
one of these was over-written by the other giving the current 15 and 15, which
is extremely distinctive.
2. With 25
markers, we also see two quite unusual variations from what is normally
seen in R1b:
DYS458 = 15 instead
of 17. This is rare. About 2% of R1b men in
DYS449 = 30 or 31
instead of 29. About 11% of Western European R1b men have this value for this
marker.
We also did an
extended test of the DYS464 group of markers, to look for the distinctive
“g-> c” SNP mutation found nearby at least one of the DYS464 markers in
nearly all R1b individuals. We found them. In the terminology of the testing
company (DNA
Fingerprint) these extended test for our Renfrewshire Wilson were 15c-15c-16g-17c.
Non-R1b men have only “g” markers.
3. With 37
markers we find these peculiar values:
DYS460 = 10 instead
of 11 (Like about 18% of Western European R1b men.)
DYS456 = 15 instead of
16 (Like about 34% of Western European R1b men.)
DYS570 = 16 instead
of 17 (Like about 14% of Western European R1b men.)
4. With 67 markers we find these peculiar
values:
DYS481 = 23
instead of 22
5. The 11 SMGF markers.
Y-GATA-C4
(also known as DYS635) = 24 instead of 23.
DYS444 = 13
instead of 12.
DYS452 = 12
instead of 11.
6. More
markers.
More test
results continue to come in, both from DNA Fingerprint and from Family Tree
DNA, who now offer 22 more markers.
So far the
most distinctive is DYF399 – an extremely interesting multipart marker tested
for by DNA Fingerprint. The 18 and 19 results are amongst the lowest ever seen
for R1b haplotypes.
For DYS485
we find 16 being normal instead of 15.
4. The families involved so far can be grouped as
follows already:-
1. Beatty. The participants (2 cousins) have established
that their Y DNA signature is not that of their Beatty relatives. This could be a result of an adoption,
illegitimacy, etc, but it happened some time ago and no record has yet come to
light to explain who the father of the first Beatty
with this DNA signature was. It was
somewhere between a late 18th century settler
in
As a result of DNA comparison with our group it seems
a good chance that our BEATTYS have PORTER ancestors.
2. MCLANE. MCLANE
or MACLEAN is a surname said to come from the Gaelic MAC GILLE EOIN meaning
“son of the servant of (saint) John”. The name is strongly associated with the
These McLanes are still one of the most
likely origins of our Beatty
line, although the Porters now
seem more likely. They are also important because they add to the impression
(along with the name McClay, and
the associated name Livingstone)
that the MacWhos may originate in Argyll, with the ISLE OF LISMORE coming
in for particular attention!
Interesting fact. Much later, in more historically known times, with surnames beginning
to take more shape, the McLane clan worked its way under the Bruce’s patronage
into the power structure of LORN, first
holding a castle at SEIL (I understand it was Caisteal nan Con, the Dogs'
Castle, on TORSAY or
TORSA island; see here and here) and then
taking control of the far more important territory of MULL
on the other side of the FIRTH of
LORN. It is not certain where they had come from before this time, but one
genealogist (Skene) felt that they were from MORAY, like the
MACNAUGHTONS of that region (see PORTER below). LORN is the homeland of the
MACLEA or LIVINGSTONE clan.
3. THE FERGUS NAMES. According to Scottish genealogical
references FERGIE,
- For our Fergie participant, a Scot, this was no surprise. He is
from LEITH in the EDINBURGH region (MIDLOTHIAN), and
can trace his family some way back in that region. Before then, he
suspects a connection to KIRKINTILLOCH.
- But our Furry participant, an American, has no genealogical information
about where his family came from in
- Our
- Upon
discovering this, we found that a FERGUS from the KIRKINTILLOCH family had
also had a DNA test, and was yet another match.
We are clearly dealing with a single branch of the MacWhos here that have split up only since modern times and
fixed surnames. They appear to come from the area of Kirkintilloch,
and generally in the CAMPSIE hills, to the north of
4. Living and Mcclay. This match was particularly important
to the participants involved, because all three people expected a connection to
the Scottish Maclea (“highland
Livingstone”) clan.
The
LIVINGSTONE family in our group came from
More about this family can be
found on a separate web page: http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Livingstone.htm
The Mcclay participants of our group are an
American and a Canadian born in
These
two men are clearly related. The DNA gives their genealogy a clear target.
Interesting fact. Our DNA comparisons show a connection to families seemingly descended
from a FERGUS. There was also a FERGUS MACLEA (“of the red side”) in the
history of the CONTIN family of that name, in ROSS in
6. PORTER. PORTER was a common name from a
very early time in
- The Porter family we are in contact with
the longest trace their line back to Coleraine,
LONDONDERRY in
- Concerning the three other Porters from
the Porter DNA project, we can not go back as far. However two of them descend
from the same ancestor: one Robert Porter of
- The matches on the Sorenson
database, gives information about ancestors, but not about the
people who sent their sample in. By looking in normal public genealogical
databases we see that these are likely to be people descended from several
different immigrant families. The
Interesting fact. The Scottish name FERRY can come from both the profession (which in
GAELIC is PORTER/PORTAIR) or from the name FERGUS, just like FERGIE and in some
cases FURRY.
Despite being such
a common name, the MacWho group is one of the biggest
groups in the Porter
DNA project so far, and represents at least 3 of the 15 Porters on www.smgf.org. The
PORTERS match the BEATTIES 37/37, and are considered very likely to be the
origin of this BEATTY line’s DNA signature. BEATTIES and PORTERS were commonly
living near each other in early American “Scots Irish” communities.
7.
Isolated surnames
BAIN. Black derives this from the Gaelic
word for fair or white (bàn).
Bayne and Bane are considered to be variants. This is probably a surname which
was taken up many times but it seems to be Scottish. Our family is from Antrim,
but traces itself back to Muthill in Perthshire.
BULLOCK. Bullock is thought to be an English
name, but it was present and common from an early time in some parts of
CHISHOLM. Is a Scottish surname named after a specific
place: Chisholm in Roxburgh, near the English border.
Our family’s paper trail in this case dies out
in 1717 in a place called Tenabruichroy in Glen Convinth, Inverness-shire.
MCKENZIE. Is a very common Scottish name meaning son of
Kenneth or son of Kinnoch. It was probably a surname taken up many times in
MUIR. MUIR is a very common and very
SCOTTISH name. In the timeframe we are interested in, going back before
standardized spelling of most Scottish surnames, the name can also be
considered equivalent to names such as Moore, Moir
and More. Some of these names might have had an origin in
MUNY. This is a remarkable match, because
it is very difficult to reconcile it with the seemingly Scottish origin of all
or most of the other families. This family has genealogical records going back
to EASTERN FRANCE (
5. Further Comparison
Table 1.
This is an estimate (using the McGee comparison utility)
of the most likely number of generations back from the tested participants, to
their common ancestors. I have grouped together the known relatives and made 37
marker comparisons, for great meaning and accuracy.
|
50% probability: PROBABLE number
of generations back to most recent common ancestor |
m |
F |
F |
M |
M |
L |
W |
W |
M |
P |
B |
|
95% probability: MAXIMUM number of
generations back to most recent common ancestor |
m |
F |
F |
M |
M |
L |
W |
W |
M |
P |
B |
|
o |
e |
u |
c |
c |
i |
i |
i |
c |
o |
e |
|
o |
e |
u |
c |
c |
i |
i |
i |
c |
o |
e |
||
|
d |
r |
r |
C |
C |
v |
l |
l |
L |
r |
a |
|
d |
r |
r |
C |
C |
v |
l |
l |
L |
r |
a |
||
|
a |
g |
r |
l |
l |
i |
s |
s |
a |
t |
t |
|
a |
g |
r |
l |
l |
i |
s |
s |
a |
t |
t |
||
|
l |
i |
y |
a |
a |
n |
o |
o |
n |
e |
t |
|
l |
i |
y |
a |
a |
n |
o |
o |
n |
e |
t |
||
|
|
e |
|
y |
y |
g |
n |
n |
e |
r |
y |
|
|
e |
|
y |
y |
g |
n |
n |
e |
r |
y |
||
|
|
|
|
C |
U |
|
S |
U |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C |
U |
|
S |
U |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
A |
S |
|
C |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A |
S |
|
C |
S |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
N |
|
|
T |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N |
|
|
T |
|
|
|
|
||
|
modal |
|
3 |
3 |
6 |
22 |
14 |
14 |
22 |
10 |
14 |
14 |
|
modal |
|
11 |
11 |
18 |
41 |
29 |
29 |
41 |
23 |
29 |
29 |
|
Fergie |
3 |
|
3 |
6 |
22 |
14 |
14 |
22 |
10 |
14 |
14 |
|
Fergie |
11 |
|
11 |
18 |
41 |
29 |
29 |
41 |
23 |
29 |
29 |
|
Furry |
3 |
3 |
|
6 |
22 |
14 |
14 |
22 |
10 |
14 |
14 |
|
Furry |
11 |
11 |
|
18 |
41 |
29 |
29 |
41 |
23 |
29 |
29 |
|
McClayCAN |
6 |
6 |
6 |
|
18 |
18 |
18 |
26 |
14 |
18 |
18 |
|
McClayCAN |
18 |
18 |
18 |
|
35 |
35 |
35 |
47 |
29 |
35 |
35 |
|
McClayUS |
22 |
22 |
22 |
18 |
|
26 |
35 |
31 |
26 |
22 |
22 |
|
McClayUS |
41 |
41 |
41 |
35 |
|
47 |
59 |
52 |
47 |
41 |
41 |
|
Living |
14 |
14 |
14 |
18 |
26 |
|
26 |
35 |
22 |
18 |
18 |
|
Living |
29 |
29 |
29 |
35 |
47 |
|
47 |
59 |
41 |
35 |
35 |
|
WilsonSCT |
14 |
14 |
14 |
18 |
35 |
26 |
|
35 |
22 |
26 |
26 |
|
WilsonSCT |
29 |
29 |
29 |
35 |
59 |
47 |
|
59 |
41 |
47 |
47 |
|
WilsonUS |
22 |
22 |
22 |
26 |
31 |
35 |
35 |
|
14 |
18 |
18 |
|
WilsonUS |
41 |
41 |
41 |
47 |
52 |
59 |
59 |
|
29 |
35 |
35 |
|
McLane |
10 |
10 |
10 |
14 |
26 |
22 |
22 |
14 |
|
6 |
6 |
|
McLane |
23 |
23 |
23 |
29 |
47 |
41 |
41 |
29 |
|
18 |
18 |
|
Porter |
14 |
14 |
14 |
18 |
22 |
18 |
26 |
18 |
6 |
|
3 |
|
Porter |
29 |
29 |
29 |
35 |
41 |
35 |
47 |
35 |
18 |
|
11 |
|
Beatty |
14 |
14 |
14 |
18 |
22 |
18 |
26 |
18 |
6 |
3 |
|
|
Beatty |
29 |
29 |
29 |
35 |
41 |
35 |
47 |
35 |
18 |
11 |
|
Based on
these distances, plus some reasonable guesses, the common male ancestor of our
“clan” may have lived about 600 years ago. Given the similarity of the DNA
within this group it is therefore hard to make a family tree. The DNA shows us
6 lines, but it does not yet tell us how they since the common ancestor. To put
it in simple terms, we might descend from 6 of his sons, or from 2.
The more
markers we test however, the more likelihood that we will find more significant
variations that help us give more accurate ideas of relative relatedness, and
therefore of the basic structure of our family tree.
---
If you have
questions or comments, please pass them to me at Andrew dot