est fit in the FTDNA R1b-U106 project. That web site, if you haven't looked at it already, is:
There are about 1500 participants listed in the 4 pages of that web site. Half the first page, all of the second, and all of the 4th are participants that have tested positive for the L48 SNP. There are several (I am not sure how many as trying to interpret the group headings is beyond me) next level down SNPs (L693, L200, L47, L44, Z9, ...) and some of these, particularly Z9, has many downstream SNPs. I found it impossible to try to fit the William 1610 mode into the closest STR matches on these pages. You match all of them pretty well. But just looking at the names and locations of the most recent known ancestor of all these people should give you an idea of the breadth of our L48 relative group.
Betsey, your cousin and everybody else in the William 1610 Douglas group on the Douglas DNA site can be confident that they have the L48 SNP mutation (the 4 at the end of the FTDNA string). In my opinion, it would be a waste of money to extend your cousin's test to prove it. BUT, with all those additional downstream mutations now known, finding out whether you guys have them or not could identify the more recent actual relatives in those 4 pages on the other site. I don't think FTDNA is the place to do that. If someone want's to take that leap, I think the National Geographic Geno 2.0 ($200) tests for all SNPs. You might be able to find them in 23andMe ($99) data as well. Nan and I did get 23andMe tests, but I have no idea how to find specific mutations. I think you can get a list of the base at each location on the chromosome, but I don't know how you find the location of each of the SNPs . I also don't understand that if the number of repeats of base pair sequences varies as indicated by the different numbers of the STR markers, how does everybody's Y-chromosome have the same position for SNP locations. Would think if there were more repeats, the chromosome would have more base pairs (be longer.) Like I said, I don't have a great understanding of all this stuff.
What you might do is join the R1b-U106 Haplogroup Project, particularly the two that have had the SNP tests. That way you could see if FTDNA has any better luck placing you than I did. There is also a Yahoo group for this project. They are starting an English Surname Evolution sub-project you might be interested in following. The info is on the same FTDNA web site (go to the "Background" tab), and the moderator of the Yahoo group is Charles Moore who is also the administrator of the FTDNA project. He might be able to help you find your SNPs in 23andMe data. In other words, I do think that this kind of SNP testing of a couple of cousins, like Ed suggests, might indeed be helpful. I wouldn't do more STR testing--hard to see that it would tell you anything you don't already know.
Let me know if any of this helps. I am as interested as you guys in trying to utilize DNA to narrow down our Douglas ancestry. I just don't have any way to get any Y-DNA analysis done. It has just been several generations since my most recent male Douglass ancestor, and I have no known Douglas cousins any closer than Betsey's cousin. I will look some more at my own 23andMe Y-chromosome data, and see if I can find my own SNP mutations.
of Braidley with was of William Douglas of Cavers.
Am of the Daniel Elliot Cluster of R-U106, and a couple of write ups on gorrenberry.com Gorrenberry next to Braidlie where Infinis Windy Edge wind farm place on Hermitage hill near Hermitage Castle. Here are the page links;
Being of a Daniel Elliot cluster U106 S12025, could likely be of the same group and the same region of Norfolk.
p/etc., eg: R-U106. This is because intermediate branch SNPs are continually being found that mean the chained name must be changed, but with the terminal SNP method, a newfound upstream branch SNP does not change the downstream name. At one time, R1b1 was equivalent to R-U106, so the William descendant who said that was at one time correct.
Looking at the current FTDNA Douglas results, it looks like one member of the William 1610 group has had extensive testing done, and has been placed in the R-Z343 Haplogroup. Z343 is several levels below (newer than) U106. Looking at the results from the R-U106 Haplogroup study, the designation for the Haplogroup of the William 1610 descendants should more properly be R-Z343*. The * designates that there have been SNPs discovered downstream of Z343, but the Douglas that has been tested does not exhibit any of them. That does not mean that he doesn't have any SNPs downstream of Z343, just that no other test subject has the same ones he does. If another Douglas is tested, there might be a new branch defined downsteam of Z343.
By the way, I have never heard of a Daniel being an ANCESTOR of William 1610. William had several DESCENDANTS named Daniel.
0. In the FTDNA Douglas surname project, FTDNA has grouped all the participants that they predict or have tested and proved are in the R1B-U106+. They call this group "R1b Group Type 1: (R-U106). From an ancestor of William Douglas, 1610, New London." I presume that is because the majority of Douglas participants in this group claim a paper trail to William. In any case, the STR results in the spreadsheet for that group are amazingly similar, and suggest to me that they all share a fairly recent common ancestor, either William or an only slightly earlier ancestor of William.
Only 2 members of the group have had an SNP test, and the one at the bottom of the group, kit 156809, evidently tested later than the one at the top of the group, kit 113334, as the "4" at the end of his confirmed haplogroup indicates the discovery of another SNP in the chain of SNPs. The FTDNA designation, R1b1a2a1a1a4 means that the chain of SNPs from R1 are U106, Z381, Z301, L48. The common surname and extremely close match of the STR values for everyone in the group indicates to me that if currently tested, they would all be confirmed in this haplogroup.
The next group in the FTDNA table, which they call "R1b Group Type 2: (R-P312). Ancient Douglas line: William de Duglis, lived 1174, and Earls of Morton" looks similar, but the P312 SNP is now thought to be at the same level in the R1 tree as Z381. It is this kind of revision that made the experts abandon the chain system of naming and adopt the terminal SNP system. I am really talking above my level of understanding here, so would welcome comments or corrections from anyone who has a better understanding.
There is also a R1b-U106 Y-DNA Haplogroup project at FTDNA. The number of participants is very large, and cover 4 pages on the FTDNA web site. Neither of the Douglas U106+ participants has joined this project (they probably should). But there are lots a participants that are R1b1a2a1a1a4. The majority of participants in this Haplogroup trace their ancestry to Northern Europe, Germany & the Netherlands, and England. There are a few Scots and Irish. My point is that all of these people and the Douglases in the William 1610 group have a more recent common ancestor than any other Douglas in the Douglas project and the William 1610 group. The size and diversity of this group indicates it has been around a long time. I couldn't find an estimate of how long (ie. estimate of the time of the L48 SNP mutation.)
Now you say that this does not disprove that the William born in Scotland to Robert and Jean Ross Douglas was the 1640 immigrant to MBC. You are correct, as we don't have DNA from a known descendant of either that William's father or the father of the William born in Northamptonsire, England. But if we consider what we do know, that CHJD in 1879 said that our William was "doubtless" born in Scotland, and the only William subsequently found in a Scottish Parish Register apparently is the Robert-Jean Ross son, so he was the best available candidate. But now we know that 1610's DNA does not match any Scottish Douglas DNA and Betsy has found another William born a few miles from the known home of 1610's wife, isn't it much more logical to adopt that William, at least until another is found with a brother or cousin Henry or records of apprenticeship in the Cooper's trade?
eb site, https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Douglas/default.aspx?section=ycolorized , your brother is in the group I1a group type 1. I don't know if either of the two kits with FTDNA 5 digit kit numbers is your brother, or if they are other descendants of James Douglas of York, Maine. If you haven't already, you should join the FTDNA Douglas project. All descendants of Deacon William are in the group R1b Group Type 1 (U106+) on that same project page.
I don't know what "Jock and Tam" Gordon means, but if you look at the Gordon project on FTDNA, you will find a descendant of your James Douglas, kit 14070, right on the mode of a large group of Gordons and a couple of Parrotts. He is also one of the 3 in the Douglas group already mentioned. If you don't already know, you should find out who kit 14970 is and see how far back your lines from James separate. If the lines are separate all the way back to James, then it is unlikely that there was an NPE in either of your lines since James, and James was in this same Haplogroup. Could have been a surname change (maybe and NPE) before James. If your lines separate only recently, then there is a chance that you all really descend from a more recent Gordon. Hope this all makes sense.
It seems to me that Betsey Howes once had a theory that the Maine Douglas line may have come from Henry Douglas, who had a close relationship with Deacon William in Boston, but not necessarily a blood relationship. We haven't found any Henry in the same family as a William in Scotland or England, leading to the suggestion that Henry might have been an indentured servant of William who adopted his surname. Just an idea. I will suggest to Betsey that she review you post and the FTDNA data, and please let us know your brother's kit number and join the Douglas surname project on FTDNA if you haven't already.
The more information you can give about the people you mention, the more chance there is of someone else connecting with your family.
Dates and places of births, deaths and marriages all help to place families.
Professions also help.
'My great-grandmother mother was a Douglas from Montrose' does not give many clues to follow up! But a bit of flesh on the bones makes further research possible. But if we are told who she married, what his profession was and where the children were baptised, then we can get to work.
Maybe it is time to update the information in your profile?