|
|
Summary of Results of the Osborn-Ausburn Surname DNA
Project
Introduction
The objective of the project is to try to link families by DNA testing to families that have been able to trace their ancestry to the immigrant families through regular genealogy. We hope to test as many different families as possible. Surnames in the project are: Ausburn, Ausborn, Ausburne, Osborn, Osborne, Osburn, Osburne, Ozburn and other variations.
The project is hosted by Family Tree DNA and the
form for joining and ordering a test is at: http://www.familytreedna.com/surname_join.asp?code=G48792&special=True Tony Ausburn <tonyausburn@clnk.com> is founder of
the group, and he and Thomas Osborne <tlosborne@aol.com>
are co-administrators of the group. Below are the results of the tests in terms of
genetic distance for each of the 12, 25, 37, and 67 marker tests that have
been completed. Under each table is the interpretation of the genetic
distance as copied from the FTDNA web site, followed by a brief summary of
the interpretation of the results, and then by the actual alleles. The ancestral lines of most members of the
project shown in the Family Group pages, so that if anyone thinks they might
be related to any of these lines, they can verify that by getting a DNA test.
Links to the Family Group pages are shown in the navigation bar on the left
of web pages, and also in the Genetic
distance results tables across the top and Allele
tables. Within the genetic distance tables, clicking on the dash on
any diagonal box will link to the appropriate Family Group page for that
person. If a new member’s test doesn’t produce a match to
a Family Group already tested, then another Family Group to be added for
them. We certainly welcome anyone who
wants to join the project. These tests have already enabled several of
us to leap over our “brick walls” and find our ancestors. For the history of updates to this site, see the Site Status page. Genetic Distance Results
The results in the genetic distance tables were
taken directly from the FTDNA individual reports of genetic distances to
other members of the project. Note that those in Family Groups 6, 7, 9,
and 11 have genetic distances of over 10 to most of the other members of the
project. At first glance, one might wonder how there can be a distance
of as much as 12 when only 12 markers were tested; this might lead one to
think that every marker must have a different value from the other person in
the group, but that is not the case as shown in the Allele table. The
answer is that Allele differences of 2 or more give greater genetic distances
than their actual differences. There are complicated formulas for
calculating the genetic distance for different Allele values which FTDNA uses
for these calculations. The methodology and formulas are explained on
their web site at [http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/ftDNA/Distance.html
] under the heading “Translating the observed difference in allele sizes
into an estimate of the actual number of underlying mutation”. FTDNA
makes this calculation and reports the resulting genetic distance when it
reports genetic distances to each project member. Below the tables are
FTDNA guidelines for translating the genetic distance numbers into the
“Relatedness” of the two individuals. What does it mean when two people who think they
are related have genetic distance results that indicate they are not
related? These are the possibilities: 1) Both people are related, but
an exceptional number of mutations has taken place in one or both lines since
the presumed common ancestor. To my knowledge no one has ever
documented a number of mutations that greatly exceeds FTDNA guidelines.
2) There is an error in the dna test results made by the lab that does the
analysis for FTDNA. Many people run into this problem of unexpected
results, and the labs have learned to be very careful with many cross
checks. It's possible but very unlikely. 3) There is an error in
someone's genealogy. 4) There is a "false-paternity" event in
someone's lineage. A false-paternity event is simply where the true
biological father is not who he is supposed to be. It is believed to
happen fairly often, and I think the current belief is as high as 10 to 20%
of the time. Almost by definition, this is a previously unknown
event. When the paper genealogy shows a solid record, this is the
explanation most commonly used for this type of situation. When these
situations occur it can be quite disappointing, perhaps upsetting, to the
people involved who have usually invested heavily in finding their
ancestors. On the other hand, these results can be extremely valuable
in getting research back on the right track or discovering a false paternity.
FTDNATiPTM
FTDNA has introduced a new program which
calculates and displays the probability that two individuals share a common
ancestor within the last 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 years (The same
results are now listed in terms of 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
generations). The program, called FTDNATiPTM, uses new, and
as yet unpublished, mutation rates for each marker. Consequently
the computed probabilities vary with the individuals involved even though
their genetic distances may be the same as another pair of individuals.
The only results that are always the same are those for a genetic distance of
0 because those pairs of individuals have exactly the same Alleles on all
markers. FTDNATiPTM, uses a generation length of 25
years and as a result the probability of a common ancestor within a certain
number of generations can also be deduced. In the genetic distance
tables, when the cursor is passed over the genetic distance values that
are hyperlinked, the Screen Tip under the cursor will show the percentage
values in order for 100 to 600 years, or 4 to 24 generations. To read
more about FTDNATiPTM click on the hyperlinked genetic distance
numbers. FTDNATiPTM results are now available to each
project member on their own personal FTDNA web page. 12 Marker Results Note: So
far, James F Osburn and Dale Evert Osborn are the only people in the project with
an E1b Haplotype so there is no genetic distance table yet shown for E1b
Haplotypes. they are not related to
anyone else in the project or themselves.
25 Marker Results
Click for the full 25-marker table
37 Marker Results
Click for full 37-marker table
67 Marker Results
Click for full 67 marker table
Interpretation
of the Results
12 Marker Results: From the 12 marker results, we now have 30 groups
of people who are related within themselves, but not related to anyone else
in the other groups. These groups are identified by the boxes in the
genetic distance tables. The family group number is shown across the
top of the table, and the Haplogroup type is shown down the left side of the
table. The 12-marker tables are
separated by the three Haplogroups represented, R1b1, R1a, and I, since there
is no common ancestor between these groups within several thousands of
years. As noted above, James F Osburn
and Dale Evert Osborn are the only people in the project with an E1b
Haplotype so there is no genetic distance table yet shown for E1b
Haplotypes. They are not related to
anyone else in the project or to each other. Family Group 1 now has 11 members and 10 have a 0
genetic distance, or a perfect 12 marker match, between them. These are
all definitely related within the past few hundred years and for most the
actual ancestral lines are shown in the Family Group 1 page. One person has a genetic distance of one to
the other 10. Jeffrey P Osborne and Felipe Osborne Shea have a
genetic distance of 1 to most of the members in Family Group 1, and normally
would be considered to be in that Family Group. However Felipe’s subsequent 25-marker test
shows that they are not related to FG1, so they have been assigned Family
Group 20. This is a case where the 25
marker test shows different results from the 12 marker test and demonstrates the
better accuracy of the higher level tests. Family Group 2 consists of 4 subgroups, each
consisting of 2 or 3 people who are a genetic distance of 0 to the other
person in the subgroup, but are a distance of 1 or 2 to the others in the
Family Group. In this Family Group are
Charles, Jerry, and Kevin with a 0 distance between them; James and Harry
with a 0 distance between themselves but with a distance of 1 to everyone
else in the group; Milton and Gary with a 0 distance between themselves, but
2 away from the first group; and Darrell and Charles M with a 0 distance
between themselves, but distance of 1 and 2 to others in the Family
Group. However, the mutations for
Charles, Milton, and Darrell are on different Alleles making the genetic
distance between them a value of two.
This would normally indicate that they are probably not related, but
since the mutations are on different Alleles as highlighted in the Alleles
table, this is the example given above for the case where a distance of two
may still mean they are related. For
Charles, the mismatch is on marker DYS 439 which is a “fast” marker. This group is interesting in that it is not
as homogeneous as the other large groups.
Out of all the people in FG2, only two, Darrell and Charles know how
they are related. The order of the people in Family Group 2 has
been arranged to emphasize the closeness of this group to FG1. Jeffrey and Felipe in FG20 are a “bridge”
between FG1 and FG2 because they are a distance of 1 from all the others in
FG1 and yet are also a distance of 1 from 5 people in FG2, Charles, Jerry,
Kevin, Milton, and Gary. These five
are in turn a distance of 1 to two others in FG2, James and Harry, but are a
distance of 2 from Darrell and Charles.
Unfortunately, at the present time, we do not have Jeffrey P’s
ancestors and Felipe’s distant ancestors are not known so we cannot compare
lines. However, my personal
speculation is that Family Groups 1, 2, and 20 share a common ancestor at
some point back in early Family Group 3 now consists of Lynn Simons alone,
as her (actually her surrogate donor) genetic distance is at least two from
any other person in the project. She comes closest to matching Milton
and Joseph W with a genetic distance of two, and also has an R1b haplotype. Family Group 4 now has 27 people and is the
largest Family Group in the project.
With the new members in this group, their results, and the additional
connections to Thomas m Mary Goatley, there is more evidence that everyone in
this group is related in some way to this immigrant Thomas Osborne. Three groups now know how they are related
between themselves: A group of six,
with Gerald, Nancy, Wayne, Bartley, Mark, and Daniel, now have their
ancestors all the way back to John Osborn of Ashford, Kent, England, ancestor
of the immigrant Thomas Osborne m Mary Goatley. Joseph M Osborn and Gerald E Osborne know
how they are related; and John P and Denver J Osborne know how they are
related. The remaining people still do
not know how they connect to anyone else, but with the dna results
consistently indicating that they are descendants of this Thomas, there can
be only a few missing generations to find.
See the FG4 page for more details. In Family Group 5 are Francis and Joseph who are
father and son. They are not related to any other person in the
project. All the other people with an R1b1 Haplotype are
not related to anyone else in the project and therefore are assigned their
own Family Group. Each is waiting and
hoping that someone else will join the project and will be shown to be
related to them. Family Group 6 is a group of 11 people, all
having an R1a Haplotype. Their genetic
distances are shown in the R1a table.
At the 12 marker level, 9 of these people have a genetic distance of 0
between them, and a genetic distance of 1 to the other two people in the
Family Group. All of the people in
this group know how they are related except for three people. All are believed to be descendants of the
immigrant Benjamin Osborne of Baltimore/Harford Co., BD as shown on the FG6
page. All of the others in the project, with the
exception of James F Osburn as mentioned above, have an I Haplotype and are
shown in the I Haplotype table. Family Group 7 now has 6 members, all with a
genetic distance of 0. Garry had not
joined our project originally, but when his tests came back, he was a perfect
match to Michael on both 12 and 25 marker tests, which indicates a close
common ancestor. Because both he and Michael had signed the release
agreement, each was notified of the match, and we finally made contact with
each other. Garry’s results were then listed in our project too and he
became a member of our project. This was an excellent demonstration of
the benefits of signing a release. Family Group 9 now has Debra O Spindle and Rhonda
Ballinger. They do not know how they
are related but have a genetic distance of 0 between them. Family Group 11 contains Merlyn Robb Osborn and
Carlton Morris Osburn. These two share a common ancestor, Richard
Osborn, b 1612. They are a perfect
match on the 12-marker test, and a genetic distance of 1 on the 25 marker
test. Their closest genetic distance
to anyone else in the project is 3 to Debra O Spindle, perhaps indicating
some distant relation to her. Family Group 13 is composed of Marvin A
Ausburn. This is Tony Ausburn, founder of our project, who is known to
be an adopted Ausburn, but he is trying to find out more about his natural
line. Family Group 16 is composed of only Karma and Leo
Osborn. Karma is researching her
husband and son’s line using her son’s dna.
Their closest distance to anyone else in the project is 4 to Marvin
Anthony Ausburn, who is an adopted Ausburn, and not really in the
Osborn/Ausburn line. By current rules this distance is too large to be
considered related. Family Group 18 consists of Raymond K Osborne,
again a distance of 4 to the nearest person in the project and considered not
related. Family Group 19 consists of Richard N
Osborne. The closest other member is
Larry D Osborne who is a genetic distance of 2 and usually considered not
related. He is a genetic distance of 3
from several other members of the project. Family Group 20 now consists of Jeffrey P Osborne
and Felipe Osborne Shea. These two
were previously thought to be members of Family Group 1 based on the
12-marker tests, but Felipe’s 25 marker test definitely shows he is not
related to FG1 in spite of the 12-marker test results. To confirm that no mistakes were made,
FTDNA repeated the 12-marker tests at the same time they did the 25-marker
test and the results were the same.
This is the first time in our project that the 25-marker tests have
not confirmed the earlier 12-marker tests, but it is apparently not too unusual. Family Group 21 consists of Lloyd W Osborn. His genetic distance is 2 to the nearest members of the surname
project, James Ausburn and Harry D Ozburn, who are presently shown in Family
Group 2. This is interesting because
James and Harry are the only ones in FG2 who are a Genetic Distance of one,
hence “probably related,” to everyone else in FG2. However, by current rules, a GD of 2 means
probably not related, so this indicates that Lloyd is probably not related in
recent genealogical times to anyone else in the project at the present time. Family Group 22 consists of Douglas E
Osborne. His genetic distance is 1 to the
nearest members of the surname project, Jeffrey P Osborne and Felipe Osborne
Shea, who are presently shown in Family Group 20. Normally this would indicate “probably related”. However, the 25- and 37-marker tests
definitely show that he is not related to anyone else in the project, so he
has been placed in a new Family Group 22. Family
Groups 23, William L Osborne; 24, Charlie Boone Osborn; 25, Christopher John
Osburn; 26, David Laurence Osborne; 27 Dale Evert Osborn; 28; Robert D
Osborn; 29, Aubrey Charles Osman; and 30, Michael Cordell Ozbun; each have no
relationship to anyone else in the project. We have several family groups with several people
in each who are apparently related. Some know how they are related to
each other as shown on the family group pages, and some do not as in Family
Group 4. There are 3 family groups
with two people in each one. One is
Francis and Joseph who are father and son so really count as one person. But two family groups, 7 and 11, have two
people who have discovered each other through dna testing. The two people in Family Group 7 are
closely related being a 0 genetic distance on the 25-marker test, but do not
know how they are related. The two
people in Family Group 11 share a common ancestor back 11 generations. Out of the almost 100 people tested so far,
there are 26 distinct lines which are not related in recent genealogical
times, may not be related in a period after surnames came into use, and
indeed may not be related at all except in ancient times. Although the 12-marker test remains the basic
entry level test, we now encourage people to start with at least the
25-marker test because of the increased accuracy. Higher level tests basically narrow the
probablility curve indicating the time period of the common ancestor. More and more people are getting the higher
level tests. 25 Marker Results: Twenty Family Groups and 61 people are now
represented in the 25 marker results. 37 Marker Results: Forty-three people from 17 Family Groups have now
been tested with 37 markers, but only Family groups 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 11
have more than one person tested. 67 Marker Results: At the present time, 9 people representing 5
Family Groups have had results returned for the 67 marker test. Four people in Family Group 4 all have a
genetic distance of 2 between them which indicates a recent common
ancestor. Marvin A “Tony” Ausburn has
also had a 67 marker test, but there is no one in his Family Group to compare
to. FTDNA Haplotype Estimates. This is the comment that FTDNA now uses with
their Haplogroup determinations: “* Haplogroups in green have been confirmed by SNP testing. Haplogroups in red have been predicted by Family Tree DNA based on unambiguous results in the individual's personal page. Please note that for any predicted results we see no reason for ordering a SNP test to confirm the Haplogroup. If a ‘–‘ (dash) is in the HAPLO field then we feel that the comparative results are not clear and unambiguous and if the kit holder wants to know their SNP with 100% confidence they may consider ordering a SNP confirmation test.”
HOWEVER, FTDNA still makes an estimate of each person’s
Haplogroup based on the test results, even for those that are shown with a
‘-‘ (dash) in the Allele table HAPLO field. In the tables shown
on this web site, I have replaced the dash with that estimated Haplogroup,
shown in orange with parentheses to indicate it is not certain, in order to
give some indication of the Haplogroup for each person. All of the
project members fall into the Haplogroups, R1b, R1a, I, and E1b, which are
the most common values found by FTDNA in all their tests. Lee’s Haplogroup
has been confirmed by a SNP test to be R1a and is shown in green. Based
on his results, I have indicated that everyone else in that Subgroup is also
R1a. FTDNA’s description of these groups is repeated
below for convenience and Migration Maps are shown for each Haplotype. These maps are accessable through each
persons personal web page on FTDNA. FTDNA Haplogroup Descriptions.
The following Haplogroup Descriptions are from the FamilyTreeDNA.com website which was the testing company used to determine the nearest Haplogroup assignment based on the individual's haplotype results from the Y-DNA test. These verbatim Haplogroup Descriptions and/or excerpts are copyrighted by FamilyTreeDNA.com and all rights to these descriptions are claimed by FamilyTreeDNA.com. These descriptions have been printed here with the permission of FamilyTreeDNA.com. These descriptions cannot be used elsewhere without the written permission of FamilyTreeDNA.com. R1a The R1a lineage
is believed to have originated in the Eurasian Steppes north of the Black and
R1b Haplogroup R1b is
the most common haplogroup in European populations. It is believed to have
expanded throughout
I The
I, I1, and I1a lineages are nearly completely restricted to northwestern http://www.familytreedna.com/(phwblr55cnbpn145atzbw555)/public/yDNA_I1a/index.aspx?fixed_columns=on The migration map for this haplogroup is shown
below:
E1b This haplogroup
is believed to have evolved in the
The different Haplogroups explain why there are such
large genetic distances between certain groups. For more on
Haplogroups, see http://www.ivey-ivie-ivy.org/dna/haplogroups.htm
and http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dgarvey/DNA/markers.htm
and the references linked there. For a discussion of where these
Haplogroups are found and their possible origins, see http://www.davidkfaux.org/shetlandislandsresstudies3.html. Actual Allele Values Reported by FTDNA
The two Alleles Tables, for 1 to 37 markers, and
38 to 67 markers, list the actual Allele values reported by FTDNA. The
two tables have been separated to prevent them from being so wide and
difficult to read. Individuals are
grouped according to their Family Groups, and the linked Family Group pages
tell more about the ancestors of the individuals who have been tested.
By comparing the known ancestors of those individuals who appear to be
related, we hope that their common ancestors can be determined, and any new
or potential members can determine if they might belong to a known subgroup.
Click here
for the 38 to 67 marker allele table FTDNA Comments for above tables: “DYS 19 is also known as DYS 394.
It is obvious from our observation of 1000's of samples that some
markers change or mutate at a faster rate than others. While that actual
'faster rate' has not yet been definitively calculated, not all markers
should be treated the same for evaluation purposes.
This page was last updated on Feb 14, 2009 |
