How do we get more Blankenships to do advanced Y-DNA testing?

Question

Frankly, I'm flummoxed. On the Blankenbaker/Blankenship DNA Project results page there are a few people bearing the Blankenship surname who have done the Big Y.700 test  with FTDNA. I'm one of them. This presents the question, when it comes to descent from Ralph and Martha Blankenship of Henrico County, Virginia, which of us do, and which of us do not, link directly to that line through our paternal, male-line Y-DNA? I  now have three matches sharing the same terminal SNP, however, only one of them is a Blankenship. Yours truly. I'm in Group 06 at the Blankenship DNA Project. 11  or 12 people, more than in any of the other groups there, share the Blankenship surname. The size of this group makes descent from Ralph and Martha Blankenship highly likely. We need, before we can make any real progress, other members of the Blankenship clan, at some genetic distance from myself, but within the same group, to do Next Generation Sequencing. Doing so will enable us to answer any questions about descent from Ralph and Martha Blankenship, and they will also help us more accurately place people within the branches of that family to which they might belong.

Comments

3 of your 7 people with a common 18th century ancestor do not bear the surname Blankenship, 4 do. Right off the bat, that's a lot of WTF to contend with.

Note. 821799 would have a pedigree going all the way back to Ralph and Martha.

There is also Group 06a, individual 343849, who differs by a single STR from all those in Group 06b and Group 06c. This suggests to me that he might not be a Blankenship. He has purchased a SNP pack, or something of the sort, that takes him to R-A11431, upstream from myself.

We've got a few hundred years to make up for actually. Your phylotree would go back to 1750, Ralph was born around 1660, and my terminal SNP has been given a date of around ca. 1500,

I suggest that a little more deep testing might take us somewhere. Right now, I've got two Big Y testers with whom I share a terminal SNP, and neither of them are named Blankenship, duh, because I'm the only Blankenship in Group 06 that's done the Big Y. I guess that makes me a futurist of sorts, but, at least, curiosity has taken me this far.

---

(repeated comment)

---

What I'm seeing here is a genealogical nightmare. The problem, in a nutshell, is we've got way too many NPEs! Take your 18th century ancestor phylogeny family tree, for instance. 7 descendants should lead to 1  ancestor, and as such, I imagine that 1 ancestor should have 1 surname. 4 of them are Blankenships, the rest are 1 Barton, 1 Watkins and 1 Leicher, I would think that would favor Blankenship, but, even there, 2 of these people with Blankenship ancestors have different surnames, Brindley and Stratton. Now to get anywhere with this investigation I think we need to get some more male Blankenships to do deep testing, otherwise, we're just wasting our time.

---

Frank, what does your Block Tree say is the average number of private variants for you and your two Big Y matches that currently share your terminal haplogroup? From that number, a reasonable estimate can be made of the time to the most recent common paternal ancestor (MRCPA) you share with them. Depending on that number, there may be nothing ominous about your result. The exact match at 111 STR markers is also not necessarily ominous, as STR genetic distance is not a good way to estimate time to MRCPA. The best way to make progress in creating your genetic tree is to follow Bill Wood's rule of three for Big Y testing: 1) test yourself 1st, 2) test a close male relative 2nd (father, son, brother, or 1st cousin). This will define most, if not all, of your private variants. 3) Then, finally find more distant Y DNA matches willing to upgrade to Big Y. Candidates can be found from your match list at fewer markers than 111 markers.

---

The FTDNA Block Tree gives the average number as 2 for the private variants for the 3 matches, so far,  on my terminal SNP. I've got no clue as to where to go from there.

I like the rule of 3. I have tested. Getting closer relatives to test is more problematic. The expense, you know, and why test when I've done it for them. My brother I haven't seen in years, and I'd probably have to pay his way. I haven't had a lot to do with my 1st cousins on  that side of my family for awhile.either. I do think however that the only way we're going to make progress on this thing is by getting other members of Group 06 in the Blankenbaker/Blankenship DNA Project, ditto FTDNA 67 and 111 marker level matches, to take the Big Y, or do some other form of NGS testing. I think we just need some male Blankenships with more complete and sourced pedigrees to take the test, and then everything will start to fall into place.

---

The average of two private variants shared by you and the people you share your current terminal haplogroup with means that the most recent common paternal ancestor (MRCPA) you share with them was born about (2*83)+(your age) years ago, so somewhere in the vicinity of 1800. Since you have an STR match to many other men with surname Blankenship, it seems very likely that your MRCPA is someone with your surname, even though your current matches apparently don't share your surname. Big Y testing a close relative would probably define your private variants, but probably doesn't help very much with the question you are most interested in, which it sounds like is figuring out the terminal haplogroup of your ancestor Ralph Blankenship. I would first look for a 3rd or 4th cousin you are sure descends from the same ancestor, and try to talk them into doing Big Y.

---

That would mean finding a descendant of Richard G. Blankenship, or Josiah Blankenship, my 2nd and 3rd great grandfathers respectively. Easier said than done, of course, but if I ever have the opportunity I will see if we can get someone within this group to test. Go further back than that, and I run up against something of a brick wall. However, it's reasonable to assume, with all the Blankenship kin in Group 06, descent from Ralph and Martha Blankenship. Such testing could act as a first step, a very first step, towards getting some idea as to how all these cousins stand vis a vis one another. After 4th cousins, we'd be looking at how 5th, 6th, etc., cousins' figure in the overall scheme of things, and hopefully a wider section of the tree would be coming into focus. A few generations beyond that point, and we're going to be trying to make a connection, genetically speaking, with relatives on the continent, in the British Isles. I'd say that's a worthwhile undertaking indeed if anyone should feel up to it.

---

After some relatively "extensive" Big Y testing in the Petty surname project, we've recently found that (in conjunction with testing a close relative) even a 1st COR can be helpful in opening up your recent haplotree - so testing any "intermediate" relative you can find would be better than none.

---

I agree. I'd like to see more Blankenship men test. The Blankenbaker/Blankenship DNA Project has had several people of that surname who have tested, of different haplogroups, seemingly unrelated.  There seems to be  one Big Y tester for each group. You need more than one person bearing the surname in a family to do deep testing if you're being at all scientific about the matter. We've got these early settlers to the colonies in Virginia, and more testing might reveal who their descendants are in actuality. Even if another surname is involved, truth is the issue, and I'm not against making new discoveries.

---

Have you tried appealing to (or you may belong already) to the Blankenship Family Group on FB? In fact a Blankenship family reunion is scheduled for later this summer so maybe someone could get people to agree and collect samples right there and then send them in.

Answer 1

Hi, Frank. Thanks for adding the extra tags; I hadn't seen your question. I also hesitate to post this as an answer because it really only posits some end-around options, but for what it's worth, here ya go:

Your being Big Y tested is extremely helpful and can be leveraged. One way is that testing single SNPs can provide actionable information. A big caveat here, however: it is not as comprehensive or definitive as chromosome full sequencing (of course), and you'll get no STR values from it. It will only give you one or a few, depending upon what's tested, points of comparison. But it is possible to correlate men who test positive to deep branches of the subclade.

It is also a highly targeted approach, not shotgunned. If there is solid reason to suspect a patrilineal relationship within the past several generations--I'd say five or six generations--it's doable. If there is no strong supposition and we just want someone to test because the surname is correct and there may be a connection, starting with a conventional 37-STR test would be a better approach. Inferring that this option can also be a bridge between a lower resolution test like the Y-37 and the comprehensive Big Y.

I should also mention here that this option really isn't very viable among some haplogroups. But in haplogroup R, which makes up over 47% of the 51,018 branches in FTDNA's current haplotree, there's a lot of granularity to work with so testing individual SNPs can convey a great deal of information.

FTDNA sells single and panel SNP tests, but only if you've already taken an STR test with them. Too, the catalog of individual SNPs doesn't always go very deep in some subclades. Test-takers can tell if selective SNP testing is available to them by looking at the haplogroup information from within their FTDNA dashboards. If they've only taken a Y-37 and are estimated to be M269, they'll see upgrades available for both panels of SNPs and individual SNPs.

YSEQ (https://yseq.net) in Germany, though, is more of an a la carte shop, and about half the FTDNA price for single SNPs (the cost is generally US$18 per SNP plus shipping). And they're very good quality. The owners, Thomas and Astrid Krahn sold their original company to FTDNA's parent, Gene by Gene, and were moved to Houston to help design and operationalize the lab here when processing shifted from the University of Arizona and brought in-house by FTDNA. After that was up and running well, the Krahns opted to move back to Germany and about a year afterward they opened YSEQ.

YSEQ doesn't strictly conform to FTDNA's haplotree nomenclature or branching, but they currently have 249,874 SNPs that can tested individually. And to think as recently as 2010 there were just over 800 SNPs total that had been identified on the Y chromosome. Mind boggling.

This means it requires some research to determine which SNPs you might want to order. Not from any best practices, just from personal experience with surname projects, my opinion is that there's a bit of a tightwire to walk. Testing too deeply right away may result in a negative result, making the test-taker feel like it's money thrown away and turning him off to additional testing attempts. Testing too high in the tree won't provide you strong evidence of any recent kinship: patrilineal line relatedness, yes; a connection in the last several generations, no. 

My preferred approach is to balance cost with data detail. I'll generally choose two and sometimes three SNPs to recommend for testing together, choosing one of them high enough up your own subclades to have at least a 50/50 chance of a positive result. A single shipping charge plus three SNPs would be US$54, two SNPs US$36.

I did a little bit of the homework for you, but keep in mind that YSEQ may add SNPs to their catalog so this info is likely not to be comprehensive in a month or more. Too, I think this may end up displaying very poorly on G2G; but let's give it a shot. Using the data at FTDNA, you have a couple of subbranches under your own FT48099, so what I'll do is start at L48--11 branches above you--and it will be branch number 1. For each I'll use bold text to designate the FTDNA branch name, list all the associated or synonymous SNPs in each branch, and for the ones we know are cataloged and available for individual purchase, link to their respective pages at YSEQ:

1. L48, FGC77285
2. Y37962
3. S23189, Y10968
4. FT6679, FTA54130
5. L200, FGC13729
6. A11431, BY41679, FT7699, Y280633
7. ACT920
8. BY15306, BY15307, BY15309, BY15310, BY15311, BY15312, BY15313, BY15317, BY41918, FT10008, FT265844, FT7070, FT7456, FT8081
9. BY15314, BY15316
10. BY92194, BY104823, BY127393, BY130692, BY133868, BY138588, BY150626, BY156900, BY222867, FT45577, FT47732, FT47739, FT9613
11. FT8553, FT9818
12. FT48099, FT178539, FT47090, FT47202, FT47309, FT47418, FT48362
13. FT8982
14. FT267444, FT267609, FT267617
15. FT308562, FT308851, FT309960, FT310099, FT351866, FT354128, M4179

Last up, all of our common autosomal DNA tests--with the exception of those from FTDNA because, well, a for-purpose yDNA makes more sense there--include Y-SNPs in their arrays. Living DNA and 23andMe report those results, but the others, like AncestryDNA and MyHeritage do not.

That's kind of a crap shoot because we don't which of your relevant SNPs may be tested below M269, and each company and even version of each test can differ (my bet is that most will test to at least U106). If you have autosomal DNA matches you're confident are on your patrilineal line, and they don't have yDNA information from the testing company, getting them to check the Y-SNPs in the raw data can be a useful way to at least weed out those you know won't benefit from yDNA testing or single SNP testing. "Benefit" in that sense, of course, meaning your goal for Blankenship tracing. If you aren't familiar with how you can obtain yDNA information from AncestryDNA and MyHeritage tests, let me know.

Comments

I've got exact matches at the 37 marker level that are R-DF27. Obviously, not very helpful.

I have about 8 Big Y matches, including the 2 with whom I share a terminal SNP, and these 8 matches are R-BY92194 (must represent my "haplogroup"), and the SNPs under it (#s 10 thru 15). I've explored all the branches of R-S23189, to a certain extent, but that's a story for another time.

We've got 4 groups of Blankenships at the Blankenbaker/Blankenship DNA Project. Group 03 I-A1415, shares the old hunter gatherer SNP with another ancestor of mine, non-Blankenship, in fact.Group 04 haplogroup J2a. Group 05 R-DF27. Group 06 R-L48 I imagine. I suspect we're seeing a lot of NPE here, but I think it will take a lot more deep testing to get closer to the truth if anyone has the slightest inclination to go there.

---

I have heard that with NGS testing you need for at least 2 people with good solid paper trails, at some genetic distance from each other, and bearing the same surname to test for the best results. Then you can compare the STRs between the two of them, and other people of the same surname, and perhaps especially between those with sketchier pedigrees. Of course, this must be somewhat problematic when you've got 4 different haplogroups for 1 surname, but such is the nature of science.

Although my initial question was about persuading people to engage in further DNA testing, I think we could also use a One Name Study if anyone is interested, something along the lines of Blenkinsopp and all variants, including Blankenship. I'm interested in your opinion, any thoughts?

Answer 2

Ask them and pay for it.

Comments

I'm not stinking rich. When there is an interest built up among Blankenship men, we're going to be much closer to our goal than we are at present. Somewhere, in a comment above, I do mention the possibility of "passing the hat". When the hat is going around, I'd be more than happy to contribute.

---

Frank, if you are on Facebook, you might try asking on the group "Blankenship Descendants of Ralph" (https://www.facebook.com/groups/809153485813977).  There are 385 Blankenship descendants with some interest in genealogy.  Would be nice to have some descendants from different known branches.

---

No, Clay. I had not heard about this Facebook group. I will definitely have to look into it. Thanks.

---

If I ran into a cousin, a close one, I would definitely consider paying for him to do the Big Y. We don't run into each other that much any more, but I think it would be, in the long run, worth it for all involved.

Answer 3

I am less concerned than I was about the matter of advanced testing. Right now, sans any info that says otherwise, we've got y-dna for the line that leads to Ralph Blankenship, the original immigrant.to the Ameriican colonies. You can see that line in Edison Wilson's Jan 9 answer. Eventually, given time, one way or another, we will want to have Blenkinsops in the UK tested, the Blankenship surname being a variant of Blenkinsop. We know we've got cousins in the UK, and it would be good to identify a few.

Comments

The B-B DNA Project now has had another Blankenship from Group 06 do the Big Y, and so this query page is no longer quite so pertinent as it was when I first asked the question. There is also another there, although of another surname, with known Blankenship ancestry, who has tested that deeply as well. Is our sub-clade the same as that which produced Ralph Blankenship, the original emigrant to the colonies? It's beginning to look that way, or, at least, more so than it had before. Too early, I suppose, to be anything like definitive.

Answer 4

So, I have 3 half brothers, all Blankenships. The 2 older ones are my dads from a previous marriage before my mother, so their surname is Blankenship. Sadly I don't have any contact with my dad and haven't in many moons, and only see one of my two brothers from him randomly and if he's interested in any of this I don't know. So that brings me to the 3rd brother who is a Blankenship but has my mothers maiden name due to her being young and unmarried when he was born. These are 2 different Blankenship men and as of now haven't found a connection between our dads, that doesn't mean I won't though either. Even though he doesn't carry the name on paper, he's actually shown interest in DNA testing over the years and could be another test added, would that be of any help at all? I'm sure any more info added in the end is helpful just not directly to the one name project I guess?

Comments

It's all helpful, but, of course, dependent on one's level of interest, desire to know, and ultimate goals. DNA testing is one thing, but it also depends where you test. Ancestry DNA, for instance, doesn't do Y-DNA (male line) testing, and so you don't get a haplogroup out of that.(it's the largest database around, and so you get a lot of matches out of it, and those might be of some use.) 23andme only does Y-DNA testing at a rudimentary level, but you might get an appropriate haplogroup out of taking it. (I got R-L48 from 23andme.) At Family Tree DNA one can get both Y-DNA (patrilineal) and mtDNA (matrilineal) testing done at an advanced level. The next step would be to join the Blankenbaker Blankenship DNA Project. Groups 03 to 06, allowing for some misattribution, are pertinent to the Blankenship surname. I'm in Group 06 which I think the Group that goes back to the emigrant Ralph and Martha Blankenship of colonial Virginia but, of course, the matter, as yet, might still be debated. The more testing there is, the closer we should come to solving any of the mysteries that do exist.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/blankenship/about

Answer 5

My Big-Y "haplogroup" now has a new descendant branch composed of West Virginia members of the Blankenship clan, descendants of Hannibal Noah Blankenship. I've looked into Hannibal Noah Blankenship and it looks likely that he may have descended from Isham Blankenship. Isham, brother of Hudson, my ancestor, son of John B. Blankenship, grandson of Ralph Blankenship, the emigrant. I'm not saying "for sure", I'm only saying "likely".

My "haplogroup", the FTDNA discover more tool tells us. corresponds roughly to about the year 1550. It seems to pre-date Ralph, the first Blankenship in this country, the USA, formerly a colony of the British Empire, as he was born sometime around 1662. This new branch corresponds roughly to the year 1950. That's 400 years or so difference, but. apparently. we're making progress.  .

The FTDNA discover more tool goes on to say my "haplogroup" represents the most recent common ancestor of at least 4 lineages. The only named lineage among these 4 lineages is the one represented by these 2 West Virginian bearers of the Blankenship legacy. I guess that means there is room for progress and improvement. If any other Blankenship men choose to take FTDNA's Big-Y test, I have no doubt but that we might find another lineage or two lurking in the woodwork somewhere.

Comments

Thanks for raising the question Frank. I’m trying to do the same thing, also under DF-27, but on a much lower ‘pay scale’, so really enjoying the conversation. With regard to Nathan’s comment, apparently offering to pay helps a lot so I’m gonn’a buy a Lotto ticket. Also thanks yet again Edison for the elucidation, but watch out for the coffee.

---

People just don't know how much they increase our knowledge base when they take the Big Y! What constitutes my, for the moment, terminal SNP, now has a descending lineage, and that one is one out of at least four. Should more Blankenship males, under R-L48, test at the same level then we are likely to have more descending branches, and they are also more likely to show us more precisely our place vis a vis Ralph and Martha Blankenship of Roxdale Estate, Henrico County, Virginia, the initial Emigrant to what were once British Colonies here in America. The next step would be to see if we could find Ralph's connection to the UK, quite possibly through the Blenkinsop family, and if not, (NPEs happen), by following the Y line to wherever the DNA should take us. 

On a more personal note, and relating to the genesis of this comment, my haplogroup is dated 1550 on a timeline that early in the 1700s says "Big Y testers from your haplogroup typically discover a more recent genetic ancestor" nearer this time. This is one reason why it would be good to have a cousin that was closer to myself do the Big Y, however, now that we have this West Virginia branch, and It's not about me, any progress is progress, regardless of the distance from myself, and I'm happy to be apart of it in any way I can.

Answer 6

If your surname is Blankenship, and you are R1b-L48, you can help us get past the point we are currently stuck at, around 1550, before emigration to the USA even, by taking the Big Y-700 test at FTDNA. The same thing applies to any other surname on which progress could be made, we have one branch that extends outward  from there, and it would be great to have a few more.

Comments

There has been progress in the DNA Project since Xmas. Our next to terminal SNP, according to the FTDNA Discover More tool, has at least 5 descendant lineages  We have 2 descendant lineages now. 1 contains Blankenship males, the other doesn't. I'm not on that descendant lineage, and so more Blankenship males testing as deeply might break it up even further (i.e. add a descendancy branch or two). Given that it's a new year, and Xmas is coming, consider doing some deeper DNA testing, and help us figure out the reality. and further delineate, with greater accuracy than a guess, the roots of our family tree.