Ed, On the M222+ excel you have a very good match with another Cannon and he is tested M222+. You would have much a closer match with him other than you both have a mutation on DYS534 where he is DYS534 at 13 which is -3 on modal of 16 and you are DYS 534 at 17 for +1 on modal of 16. Still and yet you and he have a genetic distance of 6gd on 67 markers tested. You might consider contacting him if you have not done so. As the 111 markers is on sale and you could both test CHEAP on out to 111 from the 67 that you both currently have.......if you do not already have a proven paper trail......this may be your next best productive test choice. Let me know if I can help you with this. In the database you have a 7gd/67 with a Cannan; and, 7/67 with 2 other surname Cannon. You seem to be allied to Cowan at all levels. Linda > From: Ed Cannon <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Which test, if any? > Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:01:14 -0800 (PST) > > Thank you Iain, Susan, and Doug very much for your suggestions about further > testing. Part of my uncertainty is what my DNA might offer in terms of useful > data. My primary reason for doing DNA tests has been simply to try to break > through brick walls in my ancestry. > > I appreciate the discussion, information, and insights provided by this group. > > Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA

Ordered Test: DF97 > 200080........ > K McGee M222+ DF85+

The Doherty modal (that John McLaughlin posted) matches the O'Niall modal except at three STRs. DYS458 Doherty = 18, O'Niall = 17 DYS460 Doherty = 12, O'Niall = 11 YCAII Doherty = 19-22, O'Niall = 19-23 Among the Doherty Surname Group participants in subgroup 1 (those who are M222 and have a Doherty surname - all variants), there are an equal number who have DYS460 = 11 and DYS460 = 12. Therefore the modal for this subgroup swings back and forth as participants are added to this sub group. Currently more M222 Dohertys have DYS460 = 11 than DYS460 = 12. But this may switch when the next M222 Doherty participant joins. While this may be not the same as the "sweet spot" concept where the STR value for an individual family line mutates back to a specific value, it seems this group is behaving this way. Bob Doherty Sent from my iPad

> On 11/22/2013 5:30 PM, Malcolm McClure wrote: > However, I am bothered about the influence of reverse mutations on > ancestral projections and comparisons. We need widespread sampling of > several related generations to establish the importance of this > possible effect, but those data are unlikely to become available for > many years, if not generations. In the Doherty Surname group we have two fairly well documented groups of fathers, brothers, cousins and uncles who have up to a 5 pr 6 GD mismatch among them. There are not only mutations between an uncle and nephews, but also between the two groups. Yet the two groups have been able to verify that they are indeed cousins. Barbara Andrews, who leads the research for one group had Susan Hedeen analyze the matches and her analysis initially indicated that the other line (Carleen Doherty's) and her line aren't as closely tied as some of the other matches. Maybe this should be revisited. Since it seems more cousins are being added to this group (i.e. Doherty participant kit 301205 has just joined the the Doherty Surname group). Bob Doherty Sent from my iPad

YSEQ.net Launched! Astrid and I have just launched a new small business. Expecting a flood of new SNPs from Next Gen sequencing we try to help with cleaning up the mess by offering very traditional Sanger sequencing for any marker you desire on the Y chromosome. The testing will be performed in our own laboratory. Check outhttp://yseq.net/ andhttp://shop.yseq.net/ We don't have very many markers yet, but you can "Wish a SNP" of your choice and we'll make it available as fast as we can. We'll not limit the number of markers to 2000 or so. If you just received your NGS results, ask us for a bulk package offer by e-mail ([email protected]). Let me know if you have questions. Thomas

Thank you Iain, Susan, and Doug very much for your suggestions about further testing.  Part of my uncertainty is what my DNA might offer in terms of useful data.  My primary reason for doing DNA tests has been simply to try to break through brick walls in my ancestry.   I appreciate the discussion, information, and insights provided by this group. Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA

Hi Brad and Sheila, You mentioned 67 markers, and I had an unexpected experience with that. I initially tested at 37 markers, but had only 3 matches there. Yet for the sake of science I upgraded to 67 markers, but to be quite honest about it I also assumed that at 67 markers I would get wiped out, with perhaps no matches at all. But no! To my astonishment, at 67 markers I have not just 3 matches but 54 matches (how did that happen?) although none of them are particularly close, 2 at a GD of 5, 12 at a GD of 6 and all of the rest of them at a GD of 7. Then, following such astonishment, curiosity got the best of me and so I upgraded from 67 to 111 markers. The results of that test are now due in a few days, 26 Nov. And I have no idea of what to expect of that. Maybe this time I will get wiped out, or maybe not? Doug FTDNA 196477 On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Susan Hedeen < [email protected]> wrote: > Reverse also known as back mutations are seemingly a reality; we > generally do not know when an observed mutational difference is a back > mutation...and a back mutation can appear as either an up or down repeat > value. In some large lineages we may suspect where a back mutation is > evident. > > Some observations on the molecular level have suggested that the alleles > have a preferred repeat sweet spot; hence the repeats may extend up or > down but are inclined to return to the sweet spot. > > The statisticians and model builders have made allowances for back > mutations in their analytical models. Most calculating TMRCA will use > analytical models which have built into the model a means to correct for > back mutations. Susan > > On 11/22/2013 5:30 PM, Malcolm McClure wrote: > > However, I am bothered about the influence of reverse mutations on > > ancestral projections and comparisons. We need widespread sampling of > > several related generations to establish the importance of this > > possible effect, but those data are unlikely to become available for > > many years, if not generations. > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

PS Oh, I keep forgetting to sign my name, and forgetting that it is not in my email address. Doug On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, tuulen <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, I had always assumed that my results would be DF85-, not for any > genetic reason but simply because it appears that the majority of M222 are > DF85-. But regardless, that is one more test done which does not need to > be done again. So, some progress got made. > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Susan Hedeen < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Iain, we do not know that yet. There is df85 negative Daugherty. >> Susan >> >> On 11/22/2013 9:15 AM, Iain Kennedy wrote: >> >> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:32:56 -0600 >> >> From: [email protected] >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> Subject: [R-M222] Orders and Results >> >> >> >> 196477.....Morrison........DF85- >> >> >> > Well that result is interesting! Not with the Dohertys at all based on >> data so far. >> > >> > Iain >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > >

Actually, I had always assumed that my results would be DF85-, not for any genetic reason but simply because it appears that the majority of M222 are DF85-. But regardless, that is one more test done which does not need to be done again. So, some progress got made. On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Susan Hedeen < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Iain, we do not know that yet. There is df85 negative Daugherty. > Susan > > On 11/22/2013 9:15 AM, Iain Kennedy wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:32:56 -0600 > >> From: [email protected] > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: [R-M222] Orders and Results > >> > >> 196477.....Morrison........DF85- > >> > > Well that result is interesting! Not with the Dohertys at all based on > data so far. > > > > Iain > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Iain, Aha! So a revived Deep Clade test could be in the works and, given that SNP testing seems to be a popular item these days, it seems possible that the new DC test could include new features, not so much a revival but perhaps as a from-the-ground-up overhaul. Of course, that is only speculation on my part, but it just might be worth waiting to see what the new DC test includes. And (more speculation on my part) it might even be offered at an "introductory" price. OK, enough speculation! Doug On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Susan Hedeen < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Ed, > You did ask the question a while back. There is a Cannon in your > section of your surname project who indeed has SNP tested positive for > M222, and your haplotype is consistent w/those in your group and the > group looks well placed. Everything considered w/desired most info and > cost effectiveness as well as wanting to afford another test for someone > else, you may consider Chromo2. You would want the BritainsDNA 129 > pound sterling raw data option which with currency conversion would > amount to about $200.00. > > For the other fellow I2b1, these I fellows seem very interested in the > FTDNA BigY, and if you are going to do that for him, I'd order previous > to Nov 30 because right now the cost is $495.00 which will go up if you > miss the sale. > > Everything being equal with the considerations you post below, those > options may be the most useful for you. Susan Hedeen > > On 11/22/2013 3:15 AM, Ed Cannon wrote: > > I beg your pardon, but I'm asking this now (again?) because of a message > I > > received Thursday. (I've been trying to read and understand the messages > > from this list for at least a couple of months, maybe three.) I'm > seeking > > suggestions about which test, if any, would be the most useful to me and > > beneficial to the (haplo)group while keeping an eye on cost efficiency. > A > > couple of months ago I was advised to wait a while and now am wondering > if > > I've waited long enough. > > > > Based on my 67-marker test (kit 246162), FTDNA tells me I'm R-M269 > (R1b1a2). > > But I have been assured that I'm actually R-M222 (R1b1a2a1a1b4b), so much > > so that I was encouraged to join this group. I'm in Group 1 in the > Cannon > > Surname Project. To the best of my knowledge, my most distant ancestor, > > John Cannon, was born in Dover, Kent, England in 1712 and came to South > > Carolina on the ship Minerva in 1730 as an indentured servant. His > younger > > brother Daniel came over here some years later. > > > > 1. FTDNA suggests 67-to-111 upgrade ($109). > > > > 2. FTDNA offers me these (and many other) advanced SNPs below M269: L23, > > L150, L51, P310, P312, L21, M222 ($?? Could I do *just* the M222? They > > don't seem to offer me any below M222, or else I don't know where to look > > for them.) > > > > 3. Chromo2 (Which test? I've already done mtDNA and Family Finder.) > > > > 4. Geno 2.0 ($160. About to be replaced?) > > > > 5. FTDNA Big Y ($495 through Nov 30. Stretches my budget quite a bit.) > > > > 6. Full Genome ($1250) is beyond my budget. > > > > Separate question, please. I wonder what test, if any, might be of more > > benefit to science if I order it for my relative who has been tested to > 37 > > markers and has no matches at any level -- zip, zero, zilch, nada. (He > is > > I2b1, M-223, kit 293061.) I don't know how uncommon it is for a man not > > to have any yDNA matches. (I also wonder if I ought to order the Family > > Finder for him.) His great-grandfather was orphaned by the Chicago Fire > > of 1871. The surname is Brown. (This would be FTDNA, since they already > > have his sample.) > > > > Thank you very much for your consideration. > > > > Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Posted on the RootsWeb SCT-WIGTOWNSHIRE List today: > re: Map of Wigtownshire baronies c.1700, the 1684 (Civil) Parish > Lists of Wigtownshire and Minnigaff at > https://archive.org/stream/scottishrecordso38scotuoft#page/24/mode/2up > > page 25, lists the lands in the Barony of Craiglaw, Civil Parish of Kirkcowan.

31881....R Ferguson...DF85+ N113724..J Rourke....DF85-

Reverse also known as back mutations are seemingly a reality; we generally do not know when an observed mutational difference is a back mutation...and a back mutation can appear as either an up or down repeat value. In some large lineages we may suspect where a back mutation is evident. Some observations on the molecular level have suggested that the alleles have a preferred repeat sweet spot; hence the repeats may extend up or down but are inclined to return to the sweet spot. The statisticians and model builders have made allowances for back mutations in their analytical models. Most calculating TMRCA will use analytical models which have built into the model a means to correct for back mutations. Susan On 11/22/2013 5:30 PM, Malcolm McClure wrote: > However, I am bothered about the influence of reverse mutations on > ancestral projections and comparisons. We need widespread sampling of > several related generations to establish the importance of this > possible effect, but those data are unlikely to become available for > many years, if not generations. >

Susan Your critique below is an honest and penetrating review of your logic in applying yDNA analytical methods. Have you seen an accessible reference where these paradoxes are discussed in detail, with helpful diagrams that show the bias introduced by bottlenecks, early death and girling? Is it all down to pure chance? Monte Carlo simulation of such a system would surely result in an infinite number of unprovable hypotheses. If as you correctly point out, modern modes are meaningless, and taking account of reverse mutation, it follows that we cannot establish the actual profile of that remote 'ultimate' ancestral haplotype/SNP without disinterring his actual remains and analysing his Y profile. Such a discovery is akin to finding a needle in a haystack, considering all the tumuli, tamlaghts and battlefields of the ancient world. Further thoughts about this would be welcome. M. On 22 Nov 2013, at 15:43, Susan Hedeen wrote: > Dear Brad, > We now get into the paradoxes. > > On the one hand a modal assumes what we believe a founders haplotype > would be today if that founder lived and tested today; however in best > case, this assumption is really theoretical. In actuality, we do not > know what the founder's haplotype was 2000+ years ago, and with > mutations being random, what the modal represents is the average of > all > allele mutations for all the haplotypes in the tested results. Our > today's haplotypes exist because our Y ancestors survived...others, > however did not. Had all survived to produce a continuous flow of > men, > the modal could be different. > > All M222 lead back to the founder--that is the first bearer of the > M222 > single nucleotide polymorphism--the SNP mutation which caused this > bearer and his descendants to depart from his relatives in the sub- > clade > ancestral to R-M222. In reality, there is no R-M222 descendant bearer > which could be considered "older" than the next. > > That said, there are some caveats to this. The first is the reality > that diversity of haplotype generally indicates age which in reality > is > survival. In simplistic terms it takes time for mutations to occur > hence the more SNP mutations present in linear succession from the > M222 > mutation the longer the lineage has survived (since R-M222 mutated). > Additionally the haplotypes may often indicate this in their diversity > and sometimes be a signal for the various episodes of calving which > have > occurred between the M222 mutation and any given lineage with > surviving > men today who have tested. > > Here is where this paradox enters the picture...the sub-clade from > which > a calving occurs is ancestral; however the calf in survival will > generally indicate age. The calving, if you will, is where there are > splits. Within a lineage the haplotypes often indicate the splits > within the lineage itself; within the clade, the splits are > indicated by > the down stream SNPs. > > View this as you would view a tree. Below ground is a complex root > system that begins with initially 1 root which then sprouts off the > balance of roots as the tree grows. I usually equate the root system > with the SNPs previous to the clade in question. Above ground is the > trunk (the first bearer of the clade) from which there are further > branches splitting away (the down stream SNPs); those branches > continue > to split into limbs (extended lineages), twigs (family lineages), and > leaves as the tree grows. We are the leaves. The tree itself is X > numbers of years old, and at various points in its growing both the > above and below ground systems split and expand, and over time > sections > of both systems die off, yet the tree generally will survive--not > indefinitely, but it will have produced seeds which is another > subject. > > In genealogy we may call the die off everything from dying young > before > procreating to girling out-- that is a progenitor issues only girls; > if > he (the progenitor) has male cousins and/or brothers who also issue > only > daughters, then with their deaths that particular Y lineage is > lost--does not survive. HOWEVER if the overall extended lineage is > old > enough, the loss of that particular lineage does not affect the > viability of the others who will be under the same constraints faced > by all. > > We all are survivors. Hope this helps, Susan > > On 11/22/2013 9:47 AM, Brad and Sheila Knowles wrote: >> Susan, >> >> "The closer one's haplotype is to the M222 modal the more matches the >> individual will have." That is very interesting. >> >> If I understand this correctly, it solves a puzzle I have been >> wrestling >> with. I currently have 113 matches at 67 markers on my FTDNA report. >> In correspondence with some of these people I have found that they >> have >> only 10 or 12 matches at 67 markers. Does this mean that my line is >> probably ancestral to theirs? Likewise, my line would be under one >> of >> my matches that had, say, 200 matches at 67 markers. Taking this to >> its logical (or illogical) conclusion, if I knew how many matches >> each >> of my 113 matches had, I could place them in order and construct my >> family tree! >> >> I realize that this is not a rigorous approach but it does seem to >> indicate that the number of matches we all have to the M222 modal >> is a >> useful parameter and one that should be made public. >> >> Your thoughts? >> >> Brad Knowles >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message

Another two DF85- results just in: Connor (Uí Bhriúin Ai ?) -- *114467 -- DF85-* Dexter -- *164044 -- DF85-* -Paul (DF41+)

116366....Patrick Heaney....Big Y

On 11/22/2013 2:26 PM, Malcolm McClure wrote: > > Have you seen an accessible reference where these paradoxes are > discussed in detail, with helpful diagrams that show the bias > introduced by bottlenecks, early death and girling? A few references, there are also academic papers and theses on these subjects not linked here but easily located...look in google scholar and other searches of academic and scientific journals: https://www.google.com/search?q=genetic+drift&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=erSPUuatMbLksAT4woCABw&sqi=2&ved=0CFoQsAQ&biw=882&bih=544 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIID3Bottlenecks.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck http://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/population-bottleneck-300 http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/g/genetic_drift.htm > Is it all down to pure chance? Monte Carlo simulation of such a system > would surely result in an infinite number of unprovable hypotheses. I suppose one could equate all human survival as a game of chance:-D). Regarding analysis and assessment of population genetics and genetic genealogy in general, hypotheses are generally formed because of observations. What we are observing are the Y haplotypes and SNPs from living (and/or recently departed) people today. The Y of today is because of the survival of our Y ancestors; however wide sections of populations may and have gone extinct due to all kinds of things from cataclysmic disasters, resulting plagues, climate change even those which may have not been terribly severe as in ice ages but produced wide spread crop failure, loss of wild life and livestock, and resulted in serious plagues which then extended for many years there after--some these have produced population bottlenecks. Lineages go extinct due to accidents, war, famine, sickness and disease (in some cases genetic conditions), and girling out. We may observe only what is present to observe. Those who have gone extinct before us we may not observe except as with the archeological and anthropological finds as discovered and what remains observed--for the Y we can only hope in these circumstances that it is not so degraded that it may be extracted and analyzed. In terms of genetic genealogy, we may know firmly what our confirmed (not best guess) paper trails tell us; beyond that the trails are a combination of observable Ydna from today of survivors. > > If as you correctly point out, modern modes are meaningless, and > taking account of reverse mutation, it follows that we cannot > establish the actual profile of that remote 'ultimate' ancestral > haplotype/SNP without disinterring his actual remains and analysing > his Y profile. I hope that I did not infer that what we do is meaningless, as I do not believe that it is meaningless. On the contrary; but much of what we believe that we know is theoretical and these theories evolve from observations as well as knowledge of the historical. For instance, dinosaurs do not live among us as far as we know. They went extinct long ago; birds along with some creatures of the deep, reptiles and amphibians are believed to be evolutionary remnants from a time during which the dinosaurs roamed. Humanity is assessed to share genetics w/chimpanzees, Neanderthal, Denisovans etc. Chimpanzee species are yet among us, although they too have evolved; but as far as we know Neanderthal and Denisovans are not. > Such a discovery is akin to finding a needle in a haystack, > considering all the tumuli, tamlaghts and battlefields of the ancient > world. > > Further thoughts about this would be welcome. > > M. We may not figure it all out. But we can enjoy the process. Susan

Linda, I'm not understanding your comment in response to discussions on possible approaches to the assessments regarding FTDNA's Big Y...that is what we are discussing? Susan On 11/22/2013 1:28 PM, Linda McKee wrote: > Susan your comment: > >> Our own Iain Kennedy may be interested in the initial BigY raw results >> performing the function for M222's BigY that Mark Jost is for the L21 >> FGC results. Iain has already volunteered to do same with Chromo2. I >> noticed DW has joined Mark with his FGC results, but I think there are >> only 3 FGC results...is that correct?...and those circumstances are >> somewhat different than what we will have with both Chromo2 and BigY. > > We know for certain that Our Own Iain is interested in the Full Y > results, has he not given us a great deal of proof while working with > the tree he is maintaining for all of us, been discussed several times, > I don't think Iain has said he'll be developing any SNPs for singleton > tests. > > We don't need to be divisive in these matters. > > Linda > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:32:56 -0600 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [R-M222] Orders and Results > > 196477.....Morrison........DF85- > Well that result is interesting! Not with the Dohertys at all based on data so far. Iain

Thanks Paul for those 2 DF85- also we find: 6897 Larry Slavens M222+ DF85+ DF97+