What happened to the results chart that used to be here?
For the most current and accurate version of the results chart, you should always look to the original on the FTDNA site here:
Click on the 'Y-DNA Results' link in the left column. Keeping a duplicate of the chart here is something I do as time and attention to this hobby allow, but the chart on this site is only a copy of the one at FTDNA and is always likely to be less current that that one.
Chris, thanks for clarifying the location. Wonder...is it possible to have an electronic pointer that automatically redirects visitors to the FTDNA chart with one click on the "results" bullet on the list at the surname site?
The results of the upgraded DNA test (markers 37-67) for a descendant of Jesse E. Casey (Kit 56874) have been received and he is an exact 67/67 marker match with a descendant of Ambler Casey (Kit 77349) and a 66/67 marker match (genetic distance of -1) with a descendant of Abner/Pleasant Casey (51924). Onward and upward!
I have updated my web site that contains 20 or 30 pages analysis on the Casey DNA submissions. It includes possible DNA Descendancy Charts, traditional spreadsheet summary of all submissions, cladogram charts that plots genetic mutations and possible connections, summaries of the traditional research done for most submissions (could use some help in enhancing this documentation), suggestions on what to do next for each line, detail analysis of each mutation for the entire SC & TN group, recommendations on which submissions should contact each other due to close relationships, links to other well documented DNA web sites and much more.
My name is Robert Brooks Casey and I just requested 57 marker test for my ancestor, Ambler Casey. Hopefully, this will help Russell Casey tie Henson Casey to Ambler Casey (we both feel there is good chance of that Henson is a son of Ambler). I descend through Ambler Casey's son, John Casey who later moved to Madison County, AR. As far a name for Group 1 - I suggest geographical labels - in this case - SC and TN Caseys. Hopefully with more kits, we will be better able to split this group into multiple groups. I have a web site that documents most of the Tennessee / Arkansas Casey lines: http://www.rcasey.net (then select Casey Family History). My father and I published "Casey Family History" in 1980 which unfortunately published the earlier findings of George and Abner Casey (now out of print). I no longer publish this earlier Casey research at my web site and have concentrated over the last 20 years to document other Casey lines of Tennessee that could be related to my oldest proven ancestor, Ambler Casey. Glad to see that some of lines are now genetically tied as well as geographically tied.
What has happened to the Results Chart? Results for several individuals are missing from the Roane County group (which I thought was now called group one). Kit 56874 (Jesse E. Casey) and Kit 54166 (Pleasant Casey) seemed to have disappeared. Did we misbehave? :-)
Is there a better, more accurate name that I should give the sub-group that I have currently labeled as Roane County, Tennessee? I chose that as something I could grab in common among these matches. But if there is a better label, perhaps a known or suspected common ancestor for this group, please let me know and I'll change the name.
I don't have an answer about a name for the sub group but it appears to me that John Casey Kit# 56130 also belongs in this group - unless I have misread the results. The way I read them he has a 36/37 marker match with Pleasant Casey kit# 51924 and a 35/37 marker match with Henson Casey kit# 40325 and Jesse E. Casey kit# 56874.
Vonda is correct 56130 kit is Tim Casey's DNA and is a match for the Roane Co TN Group as this shows he matches Jesse E. Casey, Henson Casey, and Pleasant Casey markers. My John Casey was not in Roane Co TN so I asked for it to be taken out of Roane Co TN for geography location of John Casey. I believe that location of the Casey family in question is important. I think location of the family is the way to start, with maybe a second grouping showing the matches.
CASEY DNA PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR
Perhaps it would be best not to have a name for the subgroups (at least until we have found common ancestors for them). Just color code each. The location will be apparent from the info included in the description of the Most Distant Ancestor. This way all those that match will be grouped together regardless of location. Just an idea.
I like that idea a lot Vonda. Lacking a known common ancestor, or a single geographic location, we can leave the group unnamed and leave it to the color-coding to reflect in our chart that this IS a group. Or I can give it a generic name that doesn't make any suggestion as to where the group is from or who the common ancestor is... just 'Casey Group #1". Any thoughts?
Ah! There's the rub! Who IS the common ancestor? Who is the farthest back of this bunch? I don't know, but I suspect someone can tell us. Matches like this should be noted in the CFA newsletter, as everyone is not on the internet.
I suspect we will find a lot of speculation about who the common ancestor is but finding proof will be another thing.
Jesse E. Casey is a 36/37 match with Pleasant Casey (also 35/37 match with Henson and James Hill Casey) and should be included in the grouping with him. Jesse E was born in Georgia but the family was in Roane Co., TN by 1804/05.
Thanks for the catch!
When are we going to see the most distant ancestor info on all these new results? The data doesn't really help anyone, unless we know who we matched!
You're right. For the newer results that have come in, we need these members to enter their Most Distant Ancestor in your personal settings at the FTDNA site. When you login to your FTDNA personal page, click on Setup Preferences and you can enter the information about your most distant known ancestor there. It will help us all.
I notice that the FTDNA live version of the results chart now shows #40325 with 37 markers. Has the 37 marker upgrade for this indivicual been received or is there an error on the results chart?
Notice from FTDNA that Kit#56874 has been received and hopefully we will have the results in 6 weeks. This test is for a descendant of Jesse E. Casey (1797-1863)born Georgia moved to East Tennessee by early 1800s and then to Newton County, Arkansas by 1834. If further info is needed let me know.
I have sent my DNA test kit back to the Lab. The earliest Casey that I can connect to via a paper trail is Sinclair Casey, b. 1799 Virginia. Most of his records are located in Mason Co., WV I am his gg grandson. Roger A. Casey, Cabell Co., WV
That's great! We have quite a few tests in the pipeline right now. I'll be keeping this results chart up to date as soon as they start coming in. It can be a frustratingly long wait for the results to come in, but hopefully we'll see a payoff with some matches.
From FTDNA's explanation of the use of red and green in their results chart:
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. This has been placed on this GAP page for your ease and convenience. Please note that for any predicted results we see no reason for ordering a SNP test to confirm the Haplogroup. if a – 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.
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.
The markers in red have shown a faster mutation rate then the average, and therefore these markers are very helpful at splitting lineages into sub sets, or branches, within your family tree.
Explained another way, if you match exactly on all of the markers except for one or a few of the markers we have determined mutate more quickly, then despite the mutation this mismatch only slightly decreases the probability of two people in your surname group who match 11/12 or even 23/25 of not sharing a recent common ancestor.
I've noticed some new features on the FTDNA site for Surname Projects, one of which is that they provide templated Surname project web sites. I think our site here has more features, but the FTDNA one does have a live version of this result chart, so you may want to give it a look as they will always have a jump on me on keeping it updated.
For my results - kit#45068, my earliest known ancestor was James Hill Casey, b. 1813 in Spartanburg, SC.
OK, I've updated that in our chart.
Have you found a connection with 40325? Or is a 12/12 match still inconclusive?
You have done a terrific job with the chart, Chris. This is exactly what we needed. When we get more participants, color coding might be useful to sort out the different groups.
The Walker project has a good example:
In reply, the owner of 40325 (Russell) and I have been in phone conversation. Interestingly, we live in cities only about 50 miles away from one another... Basically, the ancestor he can say is his most distant ancestor is Henson C. Casey, b. 1834, and mine is James H. Casey, b. 1813. In the CFA lines, my James H. Casey doesn't show up, though he was born in Spartanburg, SC and thus I've always suspected he's from a line down from the Abner Casey b. 1700 in County Tyrone, Ireland, but I've just not been able to pin him down. Meanwhile, Russell's Henson Casey (in the CFA pedigrees online) is a son of Ambler Casey (in CFA parlance the lineage goes as such: Henson Casey (Ambler5, Jesse4 (b. 1768), Aaron3, Jesse2 (b. 1726), Abner1).
Thus, I believe I can surmise that my James H. Casey, b. 1813 (JHC1 as I call him) is almost certainly a descendant of old Abner Casey, and is about the right age to be an uncle of Henson C. Casey, or even a much older brother. Of course, he could be a descendant of any of these fellows in the Abner line, and not be so closely related to the Ambler/Henson line (i.e. could be descended from any of a number of sons coming down from Ambler).
My (and several others') research has shown that my JHC1 was born in Spartanburg, SC in 1813, and was in Tennessee soon thereafter, and we suspect in Wayne Co., TN by 1820, though he and his family could have been in a county further East in 1820, but was almost certainly in Wayne Co., TN in 1830. The 2 Caseys in Wayne Co., TN in the 1820 census are BOTH named Abner and only 1 of these families had a child the right age to be JHC1. In 1832, my JHC1 married Jane Turnbow in Wayne Co., TN (a dau. of Hugh Turnbow/Turnbough), and the census that year doesn't show an Abner... So it's unclear if his father has departed the county (or this life?) by then, or if he simply wasn't enumerated, or registered by a different name. A theory of mine also is that one of the "Abners" in 1820 was an Ambler (similar name...) but this is mere conjecture. If memory serves, the 3 Caseys in 1830 in the census in the county were A Willis, Wilson and someone who has been said to be "Ira" Casey, but who (if you look at the census) is probably John Casey (abbreviated Jno. - which looks like Ira...) My JHC1 isn't specifically enumerated, but may not be the head of a household, and is by 1840 a head of household in that county. He also names a child Willis Casey in 1836, so that may be after the Willis who appears in the 1830 census, and who may be his brother or another kin.
Anyway, in 1851, JHC1 migrates to Williamson Co., Texas and is a Pioneer of that county, migrating yet again in the late stages of life to Young Co., TX where he dies in 1901. His progeny mostly stay in Texas where many of us still reside...
So, that's my JHC1 story, and the possible CFA connection that the DNA has revealed! Please let me know if anything I've written doesn't make sense!!!
Just wanted to point out that we've got an udpated chart with our seventh set of results andour first perfect match. Kits # 40325 and 40568 are 12/12.
This is an excellent idea - and very helpful. Now if I can only get someone to explain to me what it all means ;>)
Thanks, Chris, for posting the results chart. It's exciting to see our project evolving so we can compare our Casey lines. As more and more folks submit kits and get results, there should be definite subsets of Caseys that become evident. I hope to get another male in my line to submit DNA to verify that which has already been tested. It would be good if everyone could do the same, to have a checkpoint within a stated line in case of unknown adoptions, etc.