The Haplogroup of these three lines: E1a1 ( A genetic population group associated with early human migrations and which can today be associated with a geographic region. )

• Halpogroup E1a1 Discussion  Recommended reading for all members of these lines)

• STR's vs. SNP's and how our haplogroup is predicted or tested.

• A new web site 10/2010) just for E1a1 information and various theories - click here

The first row of the first table  indicates the mutations of each kit to the modal values.  Modal means the most frequently observed value and is often the value of the common ancestor.  The calculated modal can be misleading with a small sample, but for now those values are most likely  what may have been the y-dna of the common ancestor.   Tables were create using a tool found at this site which approximates the analysis at FTDNA. 

Scroll to the right to see all the marker values..........................>>>

FTDNA's comment:  "It is obvious from our observation of 10's of 1000's of samples that some markers change or mutate at a faster rate than others. Therefore not all markers should be treated the same for evaluation purposes. The markers in red  below 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."  FTDNA also says that when a red fast moving marker mutation alone implies a wrong branch, strong consideration or preference should be given to proven paper trails..   Of importance to these lines, they also add that where there are no merging paper trails but fast moving markers of tested men do match, it may be deduced that the matching men may be from the same branch. .  

Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor (in generations)   Probability is 90% that the TMRCA is no longer than indicated   

The table below is to help understand  the common ancestor of the three lines.    The table shows the number of  generations within which one would expect to have a common ancestor with every other kit. - at a 90% probability.    As you compare one kit to another, note the fewest number of markers tested of the two men (12, 25, 37, 64) in the white box on the diagonal.  Fewer tested markers  will lengthen the expected years.)     Similar information, expressed differently,  is provided to each person logging in to FTDNA and asking for YDNA matches; for each match is a link to a FTDNATip report which shows several choices of generations within which a common ancestor is expected with a related probabilities. 

IN the table below, most important is the row/column called "Modal".  The modal shows the ydna values of a theoretical common ancestor  using the values most often seen.  The science says that theoretical member would be what the common ancestor to all of the members would have.   It could be the father of Felps or his grandfather or whatever.    It would point to the common ancestor of all three major lines.  CAUTION:  The two kits having 57 and 67 markers have more markers which influences the modal, causing them to be statistically nearer to the modal, which could be misleading.

In the table below. the  TMRCA (in generations ) between the green  Caswell James line and the red  Felps lines generally seen to average around 15 generations and is  less than seen between the blue Thomas of Albemarle line and the Felps line.   Theoretically  perhaps the latter's common ancestor is further back in time.    If we were to assume that a generation is 25 years, then this could indicate that the James Phelps line and the Felps line had a common ancestor  in the 1600s.    I now feel I should change my earlier comments and say that the Thomas of Albemarle line seems to have a common ancestor with these two lines further back in time, perhaps several generations or even more.

Some members of different lines match as well or better than with cousins of their own line.  That is the nature of random mutations.

Halpogroup E1a1 Discussion (revised 12/14/2010 with frequent revisions)

Haplogroup definition:    A genetic population group associated with early human migrations and which can today be associated with a geographic region. It is important to note that even though female and male haplogroups may have the same letters, their definitions are different.     While our understanding of our origins is often thought of in 10s of thousands of years ago, much thought is now being given to much more recent times. As an example, a theory by your administrator is being developed which might suggest an origin of an immigrant to America or to the British Isles/Europe, then to America,  originating from one of a number places during the UK surname period of 1000-1600.  Various other somewhat recent origins have been considered by enthusiasts and include a Semitic connection (not Askenazis Jews as previously reported), African slaves, and Mediterranean origins among others.  Please contact the project manager for more information.

Members of these three lines are designated by FTDNA as E, E1a or E1a1 depending on testing choices.  Kit 108456 of the Thomas Felps line was deep clade-E tested and designated as E1a1 which is a more defined haplogroup "breakout".  In 2010, the project admin, 41549, of the Caswell James line, was tested at 23andMe and designated also as E1a1. (He is listed at our project as E1a because FTDNA did not do the deep clade-E test.)   And in the past a few members were partially tested and found to be E1 at a time when the test could not be used for a finer breakout. Members of these lines with no haplogroup testing are predicted by FTDNA as E .   Should you test for Deep Clade E if you are match these kits?   Familytreedna says this:  "We recommend against testing everyone for the Deep Clade. If some are confirmed E1a1 and everyone in the group in question is matching or very similar at 25 or 37 markers, we feel confident that everyone in that group is also E1a1. Therefore the only true value in everyone testing the Deep Clade is getting the physical confirmation of E1a1 and having everyone's haplogroup listed in green as E1a1 on the group site. This does not necessarily tell you anything that you can't already conclude given the results you already have."

These varying breakouts of E for the tested men of these lines cause some confusion on FTDNA reports.   For example, FTDNA reports that E1b , a breakout of E, is the usual haplogroup of current day African-Americans.  Even though all of these three lines clearly should be E1a1, those who login and view their haplogroup will see different comments.  You can see your comment that by logging on to FTDNA, clicking "YDNA Haplotree",  then clicking  the "Your Match" and then clicking "Frequency map"   You will see a map of haplogroup locations and by scrolling down you see an important note.  That note will vary depending on your assigned haplogroup.

          For those who shown to be E, you will see "This haplogroup originates in Africa and is nearly completely restricted to African populations"  Unfortunately this includes a wide range of origins.

          For those who are shown to be E1a or E1a1, you will see  "This haplogroup is restricted to Africa where it occurs in intermediate frequencies.  It is less common than its brother lineage E1b1a"   This note of origin should will be seen by all  members of these lines who are deep clade-E tested.  However, other researchers have gone beyond that origin generalization.

Therefore, as we search for the common immigrant ancestor(s) of these three lines continues, we should remember that he (they) had the relatively unusual haplogroup of E1a1 

Much more about E1a1 is now found at a new public web site https://sites.google.com/site/haplogroupe1a1/    A private E1a discussion group is also available. anthropological times  You may want to join their FTDNA project here.   Members of that group now include a Phelps descendant from each of the three lines here.  Of the 25 E1a1 members there, only one appears to be of African-American black ancestry (a major change from previous comments here).  Manyt have English surnames.  Unfortunately few have triangulated their genealogy with ydna as done by the three Phelps lines here. .

For more on the theories of E1a1, link to this new and special E1a1 web site. https://sites.google.com/site/haplogroupe1a1/

STR's vs. SNP's and how our haplogroup is predicted or tested.     

The following article is by Mr. Mel Currie, administrator of the E1a Project. With permission to publish here.

5/2/2010

If you have undergone [autosomal testing] at 23andME analysis, you can check all of this by browsing your raw data. You can also see what SNPs have been tested for you on your FTDNA Haplotree  page. Some of you won't have any SNPs listed there, except M96+, because you have not had SNP testing done. In most of those cases, there was no need because you match another member so closely (in some cases even the same surname) that it was easy to infer that you are E1a, or even E1a1, without SNP testing. We do have three members who are currently in "unassigned" status.

Note that the SNPs are the markers that define the Y-chromosome tree. If you and another person are not in the same haplogroup, then you haven't had a common male line ancestor for a LONG TIME.  There is no need to look at your STR makers, if that's the case, since a "match" is not meaningful across haplogroups.

The STR markers were chosen by the commercial companies because their mutation rate is useful for genealogical purposes.  You don't want a mutation rate that is so fast that differences are substantial after only a few generations.  You also don't want a mutation rate that is so slow that even after fifty generations or more there is no discernible difference between two people who are very distant relatives. This latter case is what makes mtDNA problematic for genealogical purposes. My daughter has the same mtDNA signature as Marie Antoinette... Well, there is additional testing that you can do with mtDNA too, but I won't go into that.  Suffice it to say, Y- chromosome markers hold an advantage in genetic genealogy

You wanted to tie the STR markers to the SNPs.  There is no formal tie, just a correlation.  The SNPs define the subclades. We [at the E1a Project] are E1a, so we're all descendant from the same man who lived, say, 25 thousand years ago.  Of course, his sons probably all had the same STR values that he did.  If they had been able to take a 67-marker test, courtesy of FTDNA, they would probably all have matched each other 67/67.  But 25 thousand years have gone by and the values have drifted.  We're still sons of proto-E1a man, but our STR values have diverged.  If two E1a men have STR values that are very close in the present day, it's because they go back to an E1a man who lived relatively recently.  In general, E1a1 men will be closer to each other than they are to men from other E1a subclades, E1a3 for instance.

Sometimes the markers can be used to predict the haplogroup or even a subclade, but that can only be done if the database is large.  For example, it is often possible to predict membership in R1b with some level of confidence, because the number of R1b men in the databases is quite substantial. That is not true for our haplogroup.  We are a minuscule flock, not the tens of thousands that are in the R1b herd. So far, FTDNA has been reluctant to predict E1a on the basis of haplotype (STR markers). They will go so far as to predict E. A few years ago, that's all that those of us who had tested were told, because the only subclades of E that FTDNA SNP-tested for were those of E1b. We pushed and finally they were willing to test for E1a and E2. We possess circumstantial evidence in our little group.  Maybe we know that two people match each other 37/37 and, perhaps, they even have the same surname, or they are both from the same endogamous ethnicity, such as the Ashkenazi Jews.  If one of them has already been SNP tested and is E1a1, we can feel pretty good about saying that the other one is E1a1 too and avoid additional testing fees. FTDNA is not yet in a position to make this call for us.