Hybrid Tea Rose by Mrs. Herbert Stevens (4 May 2008) via Wikimedia Commons Open Rose Y-DNA Surname Project
 
Hybrid Tea Rose by Mrs. Herbert Stevens (4 May 2008) via Wikimedia Commons
 
Lineages, Results, and Analysis of Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b ROSEs from "Group L"
Comparison of the ROSE-SANDY-HORTON Modals with Other ROSE Modals
Open
Rose
Home
Y-DNA Haplogroups Represented in the Project
E G I1 I2 J L Q R1a R1b T
UPDATE (22 Mar 2017):  This page was created back in 2009.  A lot has changed since then, including my becoming the Administrator of the ROSE DNA project about a month ago.  Because I will be re-evaluating all the groups in the project, not just "my" Group L ROSEs, I'll obviously be able to remedy the problems discussed here.  However, the ROSE project is huge, and it's going to take awhile to do so.  In the interim, I'm reluctant to just delete this page in case anything on it may still prove useful.  So, I'll leave it online, for now, with the understanding that my goal will be to make its existence unnecessary.
Below is a discussion of the relationships of the Group L ROSEs with other ROSE groups in the Rose Family Association DNA Project.
To view more of the page without scrolling, temporarily reduce the text size or page size in your browser. 
Red labels indicate markers that typically mutate more frequently than those labeled in black.
(Empty cells that are darkened indicate those tests have not been ordered.)
To view lineages, please scroll to the right.
GD = Genetic Distance, the number of mutation events separating two haplotypes.  In this case, it's the GD from the modal haplotype of Group L (ROSE-SANDY-HORTON).
G
R
O
U
P
GD
(cumulative)
Surname Kit # Ysearch
UserID
Haplotype — as determined by STR testing Lineage
Markers 1-12 Markers 13-25 Markers 26-37 Markers 38-67
at
12
at
25
at
37
at
67
3
9
3
3
9
0
19
/
3
9
4
3
9
1
a
|
3
8
5
b
|
3
8
5
4
2
6
3
8
8
4
3
9
i
|
3
8
9
3
9
2
ii
|
3
8
9
4
5
8
a
|
4
5
9
b
|
4
5
9
4
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
7
4
3
7
4
4
8
4
4
9
a
|
4
6
4
b
|
4
6
4
c
|
4
6
4
d
|
4
6
4
4
6
0
H4
|
G
A
T
A
IIa
|
Y
C
A
IIb
|
Y
C
A
4
5
6
6
0
7
5
7
6
5
7
0
a
|
C
D
Y
b
|
C
D
Y
4
4
2
4
3
8
5
3
1
5
7
8
a
|
S1
3
9
5
b
|
S1
3
9
5
5
9
0
5
3
7
6
4
1
4
7
2
S1
4
0
6
5
1
1
4
2
5
a
|
4
1
3
b
|
4
1
3
5
5
7
5
9
4
4
3
6
4
9
0
5
3
4
4
5
0
4
4
4
4
8
1
5
2
0
4
4
6
6
1
7
5
6
8
4
8
7
5
7
2
6
4
0
4
9
2
5
6
5
R1b Modals 55% XQJ7H 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12 per Mike Walsh (as of 4 Jan 2011)
R1b Modals 45% 8EHXE 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 12 12                                                             Modal values per Robert Hughes for "Genetic Distances" (n=?).
                   
L ROSE-SANDY-HORTON Modals 5Z7SF 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 11 25 16 19 29 15 15 16 17 10 11 19 23 16 15 18 17 35 36 12 13 12 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 22 23 17 10 12 12 15 7 13 23 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12 Modal values for this family per DGM; 5Z7SF is 37 markers (n=7); VUD27 is 25 markers (n=11); PHZC5 is 12 markers (n=11)
L1a 1 5     Invergordon ROSE Modals   13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 30 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17                                                                                     n=3 at 25 markers
L1b 0 4     Frostburg ROSE   13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 15 17                                                                                     Pvt… William1 ROSE — of Frostburg, Washington Co., MD > Fayette Co., PA
L1c 1 7 11   Stamford ROSE 68PSS 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 29 17 9  9 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 18 10 11 19 23 16 15 17 17 36 37 12 12                                                             Pvt... Robert A.3, Charles E.2, William A.1 ROSE — of NJ and Stamford, CT 
L1d 1 4     Perthshire ROSE TRC8U 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 13 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 15 17 18                                                                                     Pvt... Donald3, James W.2, Donald1 ROSE — of Perthshire, SCT
L1e 1 8 17   Birch River ROSE 3EKUC 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 13 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 11 26 15 19 33 15 15 15 17 10 11 19 23 17 15 17 19 37 38 12 12                                                             Pvt... Isaac1 ROSE — of Franklin [now Cumberland] Co., PA, ultimately to Birch River, Nicholas Co., (W)VA
                   
G 5 13 27   Kilravock ROSE Modals Z5EAR 14 25 14 11 10 14 12 12 12 14 13 30 16 9  9 11 11 25 15 19 32 14 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 15 15 19 18 38 42 12 12                                                             n=8 at 12; n=7 at 25; n=5 at 37; values for CDYb = 39, 41, 42, 42, and 43, so 42 may not be the actual modal
T 1 6 13   Dutch ROOSA Modals WAD6V 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 28 15 15 16 16 11 11 19 23 16 15 18 18 36 38 11 12                                                             n=6 at 12; n=5 at 25; n=2 at 37
                   
If you trust my tabulation of the Genetic Distances (GD), you can skip this section; otherwise, please read on.  Genetic distances in some markers are not necessarily counted directly.  For example, any change in DYS389i is reflected as a comparable change in DYS389ii, so a similar change in both is considered a single mutation event, which is why the Kilravock ROSE modal is shown with GDs of 13 and 27 from the Group L ROSE modal when it would otherwise appear the distances should be 14 and 28.
A value of 16 at DYS437 appears characteristic of the Group L ROSEs (see their page).
The rows in the table in shades of green constitute Group L1 at the Rose DNA Project.  None of the Group L1 ROSEs has a genetic distance from the Group L ROSEs of less than four at 25 markers, and they range up to eight, so there is little prospect of a match between the Group L ROSEs and any of the Group L1 ROSEs.  The ROSE Project asserts that L and L1 "share a common ancestor."  Well, that can be said about everyone in Haplogroup R1b.  I don't see any particular reason to assert that L and L1 are any more closely related to each other than to any other R1b group, especially when testing only 25 markers — a lot can happen in that third panel (Markers 26-37) because it is the most variable of the all panels.
Three of the Group L1 ROSEs are paper descendants of Alexander ROSE of Invergordon, Scotland.  Not unexpectedly, they match each other closely, and their modal haplotype is shown above as L1a.  However, the ROSE Project web site (as of 27 Dec 2008) asserts a connection between them and the Group L ROSEs:
"...a descendant of Bennett Rose of King George Co., Virginia (who went into Surry Co., North Carolina and his son Abner later to Tennessee) was tested and matched closely to a Rose in Canada who has proven ancestors from Invergordon, Scotland.  Thus, the Bennett Rose family can now pursue those leads."
Based on the 25-marker results, the Invergordon ROSEs have a genetic distance of five from the Group L ROSEs.  I simply do not see a relationship here — please see "What Constitutes a Match" at the bottom of this page for the meaning of a 20/25 match.  Even if you accept that the difference at DYS449 is a two-step mutation — which would not be justified, in my opinion — a GD of 4 is still a non-match.  (Two-step mutations only occur about 2% of the time, and the only reason you would suspect one has occurred is if the haplotypes are a full or near match on all their other markers, which these are not.)
As for the other L1 ROSEs, I don't find them related, either to the Group L ROSEs or to each other.  I find the RFA ROSE Project web site (as of 27 Dec 2008) asserting a match that I find just barely possible based on the evidence:
"A descendant of Donald Rose of Perthshire, Scotland is a 22/25 match with a descendant of Bennet Rose mentioned above."
Please see "What Constitutes a Match" at the bottom of this page for the meaning of a 22/25 match.  A weak match at 25 markers in R1b should not be used to support a connection, especially when, as in this case, the descendant of Donald ROSE is lacking the value of 16 at DYS437, which appears to be characteristic of the Group L ROSEs.  You've got to go to 37 markers before declaring a match here. And if experience is any teacher, this match will most likely fall away at 37 markers.

Elsewhere on the web page, the ROSE project states:

"…the descendant of Donald Rose of Perthshire has a 78% chance of being related within 24 generations to the descendant of Bennet Rose, and the estimated time of their common ancestor would be about 400 years ago, plus or minus. The results of the Donald Rose descendant test places that descendant between the test of Bennet Rose's descendant and that of a Canadian Rose who descends from the Roses of Invergordon, Scotland."
"In-betweeners," as FamilyTreeDNA calls them, can bridge the gap between individuals who may not otherwise appear related, but to unite two other individuals, the in-betweener must be close to both of the other two.  In this case, the Donald ROSE descendant is not close to either of the other two.  All three differ from the R1b modal haplotype by two, with none of their two non-modal values in common.  There is nothing to suggest they are closely related, beyond the fact that all R1b's are related if you go back far enough.  The confidence intervals on these probabilities are huge, and probabilities in the 70th percentile are not betting odds, especially when the odds are only for a match in 24 generations, right at the boundary of genealogical time.  You also have a 22% chance of not matching in this time frame.  I would not pay attention to probabilities below 95%, which in this case would probably take this estimate out to about 80 generations.  Do I really care if I connect with someone a couple thousand years ago? Please see this page for an example of what a real in-betweener would look like for these families.
I have found several sites and/or files on the web — not including the Rose Family Association DNA Project — claiming the Group L ROSEs are related to the famous Kilravock ROSEs (RFA Group G).  With genetic distances of 13 at 25 markers and 27 at 37 markers between the modal haplotypes of the two families (see above), there is no possibility of a near relationship.
IN SUMMARY
I do not believe the Group L ROSEs are related to the Kilravock ROSEs, the Invergordon ROSEs, or to any other of the Group L1 ROSEs, including Donald ROSE of Perthshire, which means the Group L ROSEs have not broken through their brick wall and have not "crossed the pond."  It has not been proven that John ROSE of Centre Co., PA, is a descendant of John ROSE of King George Co., VA, only that they share a common ancestor "in genealogical time."  The SANDY line is illegitimate and carrying the mother's surname, but with a father who was a ROSE (a sister of this woman actually married a ROSE, and he may even be the father of his sister-in-law's child).  The two HORTONs would appear to have the same NPE in their parallel patrilineal lines, again matching the Group L ROSEs. 

The Group L1 ROSEs are a mixed bag.  The three Invergordon ROSEs obviously do closely match each other.  The two L1 ROSEs who have tested to 37 markers do not match each other nor anyone else in the table.  I predict that when the other two L1 ROSEs upgrade to 37 markers, they will not match, either.

Everyone who has not tested to at least 37 markers — 67 markers in Haplogroup R — needs to upgrade, to put an end to this making of connections based on weak matches at 25 markers.

Data Sources:
"Rose Family DNA Project Results — to February 14, 2003." Rose Family Bulletin (Mar 2003: 4710).
"Rose Family DNA Project Results — to November 14, 2003." Rose Family Bulletin (Dec 2003: 4785).
"Rose Family DNA Project Results — to November 10, 2008." Rose Family Bulletin (Dec 2008: 5305).
Ysearch.; SMGF; the ROSE Family DNA Project; the ROSS Family DNA Project; email.
   

What constitutes a match?
Matches in other surnames are usually mere coincidence, so please ignore them — I'll let you know when you shouldn't!
For 12 markers: 9 or less is a non-relative; for 10-12 markers, please see this table compiled by FTDNA.
For 25 markers: 21 or less is a non-relative; for 22-25 markers,
For 37 markers: 31 or less is a non-relative; for 32-37 markers,
For 67 markers: 59 or less is a non-relative; for 60-67 markers,
For 111 markers: 100 or less is a non-relative; for 101-111 markers,
For any test:  0 matching markers, please contact NASA.

 
Contact Home
Page
Table of
Contents
DNA
Hub
Biddle
DNA
Carrico
DNA
Corbin
DNA
Cupp
DNA
Danish
DNA
Ely
DNA
Lyon(s)
DNA
Rasey
DNA
Reason
DNA
Rose
DNA
Straub
DNA
Pedigree
Charts
Census
Hubs
Every-Name
Indices

Hybrid Tea Rose by Mrs. Herbert Stevens (4 May 2008) via Wikimedia Commons.
 
Privacy Policy ______
Hybrid Tea Rose by Mrs. Herbert Stevens (4 May 2008) via Wikimedia Commons

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

-