Genealogy > Thom(p)son DNA Project

Tried something new with my same old Y DNA

(1/2) > >>

I decided to see why my genes were so offensive to other Thompsons. I took the FTDNA Thompson project and narrowed it down to those who matched the slow markers (393, 426, 388, 392, 455, 454, 437, 438) based on this site: It seemed to be following the mutation rates I found on Wikipedia.

Those poor souls, I went through and marked where they mismatched me. Then I ran through each marker and figured out the percentage of mismatch with other Thompsons to find those markers that were the most offensive. They were DYS390 (25), 385 (11-11), 389ii (30), 447(24), GATA-H4(10), and YCAII (19-22).

Then I went out to Ysearch and began adding in markers and searching from least offensive to most offensive to see when some sort of pattern would emerge.

I got down to everything but those numbers and there was a pattern there. Pretty much, British Isles and a load of L21 modals with maybe a couple of people from the Netherlands for good measure. L21 is pretty popular in Europe and especially in the Isles.

Then I put in my least offensive of my most offensive markers 389ii=30. That knocked it down to 5 matches. 2 were me (from other things I did). 2 were from Martin (MacMartin) families that both come from different towns in Argyll or further north and one was a Ward from the London area.

It seems backwards to me, but it gave me the most coherent results I've seen when looking at my numbers.

Any of my offensive numbers by themselves is a great way to narrow down your search if you're a regular person, all of them together is instant 0.

So given all that, does it seem like a reasonable process of elimination?

For fun here are my percentages of Thompson mismatch for those markers:

DYS390 86%
385 99%
389ii 78%
447 85%
GATA-H4 86%

Going the regular way my best matches in the Thompson DNA project were no better than 18% mismatched. One was an Adams (not sure why there's an Adams in that project). One was a kit with no name or place attached and one was a Thompson born in Holland.

On regular searches YCAII = 19-22 is the number that brings all the Germans to the party. I read a suggestion that it may be  Germanic marker, but there is some question about it also being random for some families...I haven't seen any resolution on that.


As a point of interest I looked at an older post on DNA and saw that Booner and Thomas also both have DYS447 = 24 like me, something that seemed uncommon among Thompsons in my spreadsheet of ftDNA R1b Thompsons. Only about 22% of them have it.

Not necessarily meaningful but interesting.

[attachment deleted by admin]

I should point out for anyone who has seen my DNA results that the 17 at 458 is a lie. My actual number is 16.2. It's weird. Only 34 people at SMGF have it out of thousands. The problem is Ysearch doesn't take .2 numbers and FTDNA doesn't display them even if they find them.



First, I'd like to welcome you to the forum. I'm an "old" member but I haven't posted much recently so I've not taken the opportunity to welcome you.

I've been trying to catch up on some of the postings and can tell by what you're written that you've got a bright mind, but your first post on this thread has me in confusion--This is not to say that maybe you've hit on something; many of my genealogy breakthroughs have come from thinking " outside the box", but you lost me on what you were trying to do.

If you have your DNA, please post it--and maybe you have and it's buried in another post, or I haven't read that post yet.

Here's mine, and maybe we need an area here in the DNA forum for only DNA results?!  I'll ask the moderator.

DYS 19a         14               DYS 444       12              DYS 464a   15
DYS 19b         --               DYS 445        12              DYS 464b   16
DYS 385a       11               DYS 446        13              DYS 464c   17
DYS 385b       15               DYS 447        24              DYS 464d   18
DYS 388        12                DYS 448        19              DYS 464e   --
DYS 389I       13                DYS 449        29              DYS 464f    --
DYS 389II      29                DYS 452        30              GAAT1807   10
DYS 390        23                DYS 454        11              YCA IIa       19
DYS 391        10                DYS 455        11              YCA IIb       23
DYS 392        13                DYS 456        15              GATA A10    14
DYS 393        13                DYS 458        17              DYS 635      24
DYS 426        12                DYS 459a        9              GATA H4.I    22
DYS 437        15                DYS 459b       10
DYS 438        12                DYS 460         11
DYS 439        11                DYS 461         12
DYS 441        14                DYS 462         11
DYS 442        18                DYS 463         24

Post your DNA so we all can see where you differ.   Tom and I only differ by two, so we know we're related- but it's at least 9 generations back at a minimum.

The very best regards, and I hope we can help you find your ancestors.


Hi Booner, I tried attaching an image of it onto the second or third post in the thread. Thought that would be easier on the eyes.

Here's me in text form. These are the values I have at Ysearch. My values from are different so these are the converted values.

DYS 393 = 13
390 = 25
19/394 = 14
391 = 11
385a = 11
385b = 11
426 = 12
388 = 12
439 = 12
389I = 13
392 = 13
389II = 30
458 = 17
459a = 9
459b = 10455 = 11
454 = 11
447 = 24
437 = 15
448 = 19
449 = 29
464a = 15
464b = 15
464c = 17
464d = 17
460 = 11
GATA H4 = 10
YCAIIa = 19
YCAIIb = 22456 = 16
442 = 12
438 = 12
444 = 12
446 = 13
461 = 12
462 = 11
GATA A10 = 12
635 = 23
GAAT1B07 = 10
441 = 13
445 = 12
452 = 31
463 = 23
Here's how my actual results from (Sorenson Genomics) differ from the ysearch conversion:

DYS441 = 14
442 = 17
458 = 16.2
GATA-A10 = 14
Y-GATA-H4 = 11

What I was trying to do was figure out which of my markers was the most "anti-thompson" so I took results from the Thompson dna project at FTDNA and made a big spread sheet. Then I marked each person's markers and where they mismatched me so I could find out which markers of mine were the most offensive to the general population of Thompsons.

So for instance. You can see that 99% of Thompsons don't share my DYS385a and b combo. Most people in R1b have 11 and 14 for those.

Okay so now I know how I don't match most Thompsons.

When you look at the percentages of Thompsons that mismatch me on just the numbers in most of those 12 marker tests they were selling up front it becomes clear that I'm not going to match many Thompsons ever. The 390 and 389II are pretty bad but the 385ab is going to kill everyone else off.

DYS390 86%
385 99%
389ii 78%

For the most part, this plays out in the rest of the world too along the same lines. When I search for matches there are no Thompsons not within any reasonable timeframe within the creation of surnames.

So I've looked at my DNA backwards and forwards trying to find some pattern and figure out why those few people who do look like me are so scattered. They were so disparate I had to make maps to figure out where they were and try to come up with some pattern.

This last attempt I made (that instigated my post here) was to take those offensive markers and slowly add them back in searching each time to see who shook out.

If I did more testing I could get more answers about my "group" definitely, but it's hard to justify more testing these days.

So when I'm yammering about DNA it might help to know that I'm not looking for matching Thompsons. I'm registered with Genetree, Genebase, SMGF,, ybase and Ysearch. They're not there. When one does crop up, there'll be no question we're related because no one can touch us with a 10 meter cheek swab.

Recently though I got a very nice little Christmas gift from the people at Genebase and Genetree (individually). It turns out that the 16.2 at DYS458 (right where most respectable Thompsons have a 17) may have more meaning than I knew. I knew it was odd, but it turns out that so far it only crops up in a couple of haplogroups. One is J which I'm not and one is R1b-S21 (sometimes called U106).

Normally I'd have to pay to find that out, which for me, means testing with a new company at the basic level and then paying for more tests to find out which SNP I have. It's the only way to know for sure.

But Merry Christmas to me, Genetree and Genebase agree that since I'm R1b1b2a* and I have that little 16.2 at DYS458 then I'm most likely R1b1b2a1* or S21 or U106.

So where does that come in? It goes a long way to explaining the geographic placement of my matches and the oddness of my mismatches. For the time being it's associated with Germanic people most people call it "Frisian". Not what I expected but at this point not totally unexpected either since they always rank in my searches.

Ironically though I think it makes me a good candidate for this clan. Lowland Scots speak a Germanic Anglo Saxon/Northumbrian language closely related to Frisian with a lot of input from the Danish Vikings, both of which have a good showing in R1b U106. In all likelihood it's also the reason there's a "son" on the end of our surnames instead of a Mac or Ap in front of them.

The fact that I match Petersons from Denmark and Edwardsons from Wales within 500 or so years makes a lot more sense now.

Having written this book about it, I should also say that I'm still learning and I'm going to take it as it goes. This just makes the most sense now when I learn different I'll post that too.

Here is a link to one of my blog entries on the subject, with a map I made of 16.2 people who match me at a really basic level. I normally color code people with yellow being the closest to me and blue the furthest away. Red is the middle ground:


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version