The TMRCA Calculations were run online at Family Tree DNA, using their ‘TiP’ method [51].

Since I am part of the sixth generation born in North America, we know that we did not share any

common ancestor(s) in the last 6 generations, and any possible MRCA (Most-Recent Common

Ancestor(s)) would almost certainly have lived in the British Isles (possibly northern Ireland).


So, comparing Y-DNA results with each other person ‘p’, knowing that ‘p’ and I did not share a

common ancestor in the last 6 generations, the probability that ‘p’ and Frank shared a common

ancestor within the last ‘n’ generations (beyond 6) generated the following distribution [61]:

 8 Generations: 13.0% - 34.41% (range of probabilities from TiP’s on all of the other ‘p’ men)

12 Generations:             49.66% - 72.91%

16 Generations:                           80.49% - 91.27%

20 Generations:                                         94.44% - 97.61% (96% mean, range wider than 3%)

24 Generations:                                                       98.69% - 99.42% (99% mean, range 0.7%)


So, even for this larger TMRCA (11) focus group, the Time to Most-Recent Common Ancestor

‘TiP’ calculations give the same historical results, and we get the same two TMRCA ranges::

  20 generations TMRCA est. 667 ybp (1950), +/- 100 yrs (15%), range 1180-1385 CE [58], and

  24 generations TMRCA est. 800 ybp (1950), +/- 120 yrs (15%), range 1030-1270 CE [59].


Progress Report, Conclusions, and Future Directions


As genealogists, we are all ‘genealogical researchers’, and every research effort begins with

questions, hypotheses, and plans. Gathering evidence is an extended and painstaking process;

we seek answers, propose hypotheses, and test them through gathering information and results.

We are here today because our ancestors survived, in what ever period of time they lived, and

wherever they lived, despite the hardships of their lives in those historical times and places.


We took these Y-DNA tests to further our own personal genealogical research, and, admittedly,

I continue to be confused by the variety of surnames that partially ‘match’ our Y-DNA results,

although these connections are a long time ago, before the widespread adoption of surnames.


At the start of this informal ‘McAninch Y-DNA’ project, the hope was that the Y-DNA evidence

would be clustered much closer, and would point to common ancestor(s) in the 1600’s / 1700’s.


Unfortunately, that is not the case, and there appear to be no common ancestors ‘just off-stage’

(50% probability for Most-Recent Common Ancestor is 10-12 generations, back in the 1500’s,

although ‘1600’s / 1700’s’ is still possible, statistically, just not provable with our current data).

So, we will have to wait for more test data, and hope that further test data will help us find some

earlier ‘genetic genealogy’ male ancestors back beyond the edge of the ‘paper trail’ in the 1700’s.


To be continued . . .


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

McAninch Y-DNA Status Report 2016: 8 of 8: Progresst, Conclusions, and Future Directions

McAninch Family History NL v.XXIV n.1 / April 2016 / Copyright Frank McAninch / pg.2016-09


Table of Contents for this Year

First Page of this Issue

Previous Page

Next Page