About us
Results:
The results suggest that all but one of the members have a common male ancestor, who was probably the immigrant Thomas Wombwell, Sr. (born ca 1610). One member is not genetically related to the others, but he is probably familially related. His forebear is believed to have been adopted by a Womble family. The results differ enough to suggest that sub-lines of the Wombwell family will be identified, which could help with future research.
Regarding the members who appear to be genetically related, the modal or average haplotype (discussed below) is currently the same as member 115917, who is a proven descendant of the immigrant Thomas Wombwell, Sr. (born ca 1610). However, that does not prove that the haplotype of member 115917 is the same as the haplotype of Thomas Wombwell, Sr., and the modal haplotype might change as the project grows.
Fourteen ofthe members belong to the haplogroup R1a1, and the Y-DNA results chart lists those haplogroups as R-M198 and R-M512. For the purpose of this discussion, those are all the same. The designations of haplogroups have changed over time and are sometimes different for different organizations and/or purposes. One member belongs to haplogroup R1b1b2, which is listed in the chart as R-M269. All of those are usually of European origin. The haplogroups that are listed in red are predicted from large databases, whereas those that are in green have been proven by further testing.
The testing process measures selected sites (called markers) of the male Y chromosome, which is passed unchanged from father to son, except for rare mutations. The exact mutation rates are not known for each marker, but it is estimated that the"average" rate is one mutation per marker about every 500 generations. If one considers the 25-marker set of markers (Y-DNA25 test), one might expect a mutation in that set of markers about once in every 20 generations. In the dna results chart, the markers whose titles are shown in red mutate faster than those shown in blue. The measurements are listed as a series of numbers. The combination of numbers for each participant defines his genetic profile which is called a "haplotype". The haplotypes of individuals are compared to determine if the individuals might have a common male genetic ancestor in their paternal lines within a genealogical timeframe, i.e. since surnames have been used. If so, that ancestor is referred to as the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA). The probabilities of having a MRCA are calculated for various numbers of generations (not years) in the past that a MRCA might have lived. That data can then be compared with genealogical research by the matching members to see if they can correlate their research data to prove the identity of the MRCA.
As a general guideline, in order for a close match to be significant, two participants should have a variation of the same surname and match in at least 11 of the first 12 markers, in at least 23 of the first 25 markers, and probably in at least 33 or 34 of the first 37 markers. A greater numberof mismatches suggests that the MRCA probably lived before surnames were adopted. Surnames began to be used in western Europe in the 1100s and were used by most (but not all) Europeans by1600.
As groups of people migrated, mutations eventually caused their haplotypes to become different from other groups, resulting in distinctive"haplogroups". In the chart the haplogroups in red are predicted from the haplotypes and from known population results, whereas the ones in green have been verified by additional testing.
How does one use haplotypes to track back in time? If two brothers have matching haplotypes, then their haplotype is assumed to be the same as their genetic father's. Unless there is genealogical evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that their genetic father was their familial father. If two first cousins match, then their genetic fathers' haplotypes would be the same, which in turn implies that their genetic grandfather's haplotype was the same as theirs. If enough descendants are tested, that process can identify the probable haplotypes of distant forebears and sometimes identify sub-lines within a family, which in turn can help to direct further research.
Notice the use of the word "probable". It is important to remember that estimates of the frequencies of mutations are statistical probabilities, not certainties. For example, in a large population, the "average" frequency of mutations for a particular site/marker might be estimated as once in every twenty generations, but that is only a statistical average, and a mutation can occur with any paternity event. Also, we can not positively identify a familial MRCA by dna testing, but rather we can only state a probable MRCA. For example, if two brothers match, then they "probably" had the same genetic father, who was "probably" their familial father. Why do we have to say,"probably"? If one (or both) of the brothers was sired by their familial father's brother (or a similar relative), the haplotypes would probably still be the same, and such an event would be invisible to dna testing. Families often adopted and raised orphaned relatives without documentation of the adoption and often without the children even knowing about their genetic parents. If a man adopted his brother's son, the event would be invisible to dna testing. Thus, we must emphasize the term"probable", and dna testing must be correlated with genealogy research.
Asan aid for comparison in a group, the most frequent measurement at eachsite/marker is used to determine an average haplotype, known as the "modalhaplotype". It is possible thatnone of the participants has the modal haplotype. If there are enoughparticipants of different lines in a subgroup, the modal haplotype can be usedto develop a "hypothesized ancestral signature" haplotype for theirMost Recent Common Ancestor. Withthe current results, the modal haplotype happens to be the same as member 115917,whose research indicates that he is descended from the known immigrant ThomasWombwell, Sr. (born ca 1610) via his son Thomas Wombwell, Jr. and grandson ThomasWombwell, III. He matches exactly with members141557, 116114, 157902, and 194875, which suggests that they are probably alsodescended from Thomas, Sr. and Jr., although maybe not via Thomas, III. However, that does not prove the haplotype ofThomas, Sr., because there might have been mutations in that line since Thomas,Sr.
ThomasWombwell, Sr. is believed to have had only one son, Thomas Wombwell, Jr., so it is impossible to prove Thomas, Sr.'s probable haplotype by testing his descendants. However, Thomas, Jr. had two known sons, Thomas, III and John, so his probable haplotype could be determined if a proven descendant of John was tested and if his haplotype ematched that of member 115917. Because it is unlikely that a mutation occured with the conception of Thomas, Jr., we could then infer the haplotype of Thomas, Sr., although we could not know for certain.
The haplotypes of members 115917, 141557,116114, 157902, and 194875 match exactly in the 37-marker panel. Member 116468 differs in one marker which isa fast mutator. Member 157901 differs inone marker which is a slow mutator, but he is a proven cousin of member 157902. That implies that those seven men have a MRCAand that they are probably descended from the immigrant Thomas Wombwell, Sr.and his son Thomas, Jr., but possibly by different grandsons.
Several of the other members are believed to descend from Thomas Wombwell, Jr.'s son John, and they have haplotypes that differ slightly from the modal haplotype. It is possible that more mutations occurred in John's descendants than in Thomas, III's. If a mutation happened with the conception of Thomas, III or his brother John, it might give us a way to distinguish those two lines. If those two brothers had different haplotypes, their father Thomas, Jr. could have had either haplotype. Maybe we will eventually get enough participants to clarify when the mutations happened and thus identify sub-lines in the family.
The father of the immigrant Thomas Wombwell, Sr. is not proven, but is believed to have been a member of one of the Wombwell families of England. If there is ever a match to a descendant of those families, it might eventually help to prove the connection in England.
The results to date suggest that all but one of the members have a common ancestor, but they do not prove that the MRCA was the immigrant Thomas Wombwell, Sr. It is possible that the MRCA was one of Thomas's forebears. It is possible that one or more of the participants is descended from a relative of Thomas that we have not yet identified through research. It is possible, and probably likely, that unrelated males adopted the surname Wombwell back in the middle-ages, so we might find genetic Wombwell descendants who are not genetically related to each other.
One member does not match the others, yet data suggest that his forebear was probably a familial descendant of the immigrant Thomas Wombwell. That in turn implies that there was a non-paternity event in that line, e.g. an adoption, and data suggest that the forebear was a son of a woman who married a Womble who was reportedly adopted by a Womble family.
Undocumented events such as name changes, adoptions, divorce, incest, rape, out-of-wedlock conceptions, and extra-marital conceptions are called "non-paternity" or "false-paternity" events. The Family Tree DNA Learning Resources section says that they believe that the incidence of a non-paternity or false-paternity event is about 1-3% in each generation and compounds with each successive generation. If that is true, then a family line could expect a 10-30% chance of such an event over a ten-generation period. However, some genealogy sources estimate that, throughout the last 800 years in populations of western-European descent, as many as 15-20% of births have been the result of relationships other than between a husband and wife, except for rare groups. Thus, all of us will find breaks in the genetic line(s) of one or more of our family surnames if we track enough surnames far enough back in time. I believe that such events are the reason for many of our genealogy "brick walls". I also believe that the familial lines are more important than the genetic lines, except in rare cases of genetic diseases or conditions, because we are who we are because of the interactions of our forebears, not because of who sired whom. However, curiosity and cultural influences usually make us want to find the source of non-paternity or false-paternity events. Correlating genetic matches with genealogy research can often do that, but one must use a lot of discretion and tact, because relatives do not always understand or accept the findings.