Susan, you have my permission to use my Mac/McAdam Excel spreadsheet that I sent you recently. I cannot remember if I had Kit 290385 added to it. If I did, please delete it, thanks. There should only be six kits. I'm also comfortable with your sharing of my results with others in your group--most of whom I've already "met" and chatted with on a number of occasions. Please keep me in the loop when discussing, thanks. Allene Message: 5 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:50:27 -0500 From: Susan Hedeen <[email protected]> Subject: [R-M222] M222 project analyses To: dna-r1b1c7 <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed To that end my intent is to start a data base of the lineages that fall in the different SNP categories. I need help with this needless to say as going to each project and culling out those is over bearing in time consumption; hence if anyone interested in contributing to this cause?

Bernard, My bad on two counts: namely: Loughney = Uí Fhiachrach Muaidhe (Mayo) -- Ó LACHTNA—I<http://www.libraryireland.com/names/synopsis-types-surnames.php> —*O Laghna*, Loughney; 'descendant of Lachtna' (grey, dun); the name of a family of the Ui Fiachrach<http://www.libraryireland.com/names/irishclans/ui-fiachrach.php>, who were chiefs of the Two Bacs and of Glen Nephin, in the barony of Tirawley, Co. Mayo; now very rare, having been almost universally replaced by the diminutive form Ó Lachtnáin<http://www.libraryireland.com/names/ol/o-lachtnain.php> , *which see*. -- O'Shaugnessy = DF85- -- Uí Fhiachrach Aidhne. The "Uí Fhiachrach Finn" are not of same dynsty, they belong to the Uí Máine of East-Galway, been descended from a different Fiachrae. The name Fiachra is still used in Ireland to this day (sometimes used as a stereotype "South-Dublin" posh name in satire) -- *An early genealogy of Ui Fiachrach Find* (in *Rawlinson*): Flannacán m. Néill m. Ferchair m. Maclaích m. Condálaich m. Amalgada m. Deinmedaig m. Dímmae m. Laidgneáin m. Máelhuidir m. Áeda m. Fínáin m. Amalgada m. Fiachrach Find m. Bresail m. Maine Mor. *An alternate genealogy of Ui Fiachrach Finn* (in *O'Clery*): Amlaibh m. Mail sechloinn m. Amalgaid m. Concobair m. Ferghusa finn m Flaithbertaigh m. Fintain m Aedha m. *Neachtain* (a quo .h. Neachtain) m. Mail chierr m. Ferghusa (ag comraqicit et .h. Mail faladh) m. Oilealla m. Tnuthgaile m. Morlaqoich m. Con dalaigh m. Amhalgadha m. Fiachra finn m. Bresail m. Maine mhoir m. Echach fir da giall m. Domhnaill m. Iomchadhhae m. Colla fo crith. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/uimaine.htm What's interesting of course about the Uí Mhaine is that the leading families (Kelly = Ó Ceallaigh) are showing up as DF49+/DF23+/Z2961* (M222-) -Paul (DF41+) -- On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Bernard Morgan <[email protected]>wrote: > Is O'Shaughnessy DF85-? (So recorded at M222 project page for SNP) > > Then with Loughney, Ui Fiachrach Aidne is DF85- and only Lally believed to > be Ui Fiachrach Finn is DF85+? > > > > > > > *36712 --O'Shaughnessy -- DF85* > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Is O'Shaughnessy DF85-? (So recorded at M222 project page for SNP) Then with Loughney, Ui Fiachrach Aidne is DF85- and only Lally believed to be Ui Fiachrach Finn is DF85+? > > *36712 --O'Shaughnessy -- DF85* >

Dear John, Members such as Bernard, Iain, Alan, Don M, Paul Duffy, Jerry Kelly are far more knowledgeable about the Gaelic Naming systems and the histories of these Clans, septs, and family groups than I am; I hope that we may marry the information of both the data and these lineage histories to better understand what we have. For my part in this presently are the haplotypes themselves. A genetic distance of 7 or 8 (sometimes more, often less depending) between haplotypes particularly with either some off modal marker matches and/or within surname can be very useful particularly if the men fall in the same SNP classification. Understandably we do not have all the SNP particulars yet...but having the groups in data base will help in further grouping once the SNP ID's are met. Would you like me to send you my exel format so that you may enter into it the groups you believe are most consistent with your result? Also if you'd like to write up a brief description included in the email returning the exel to me once filled in, the information can be attached. Susan On 11/13/2013 2:15 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Susan, > > I think that is a good idea, and you can use my data. For lineages, > what do you consider as 'authoritative' sources? Would Irish Names and > Surnames by Rev. Patrick Woulfe, and Leabhar na nGenealach be > considered something that you'd use to capture the lineage? > > Lachtna, the founder of the O'Lachtna sept was most likely brothers > to Amhlaoibh Mór mac Fir Bhisigh and Giolla Pádraig mac Fir Bhisigh, > so I am assuming that the common ancestor would be Fear Bhisigh mac > Domhnaill Óig. > > I am at 67 markers (Kit No: 218512) and sufficient far from any other > matches (closest is a Clark - private) at 5 steps. FTDNA is having a > sale, so I am not sure if 111 marker test would be useful, or > something else. > > thanks, > John > >

More DF85- results: 119156 -- Welch -- DF85- N54323 -- Quinn -- DF85- 137003 -- Mannion -- DF85- -Paul (DF41+) On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <[email protected]> wrote: > *36712 --O'Shaughnessy -- DF85* > > O'Shaughnessy is a "Uí Fhiachrach Aidhe" surname. The Uí Fhiachrach (F is > lentited after Uí -- grammar) are suppose to be descended from Fiachrae the > half-brother of Niall. And form one of the "three Connachta" along with the > Uí Bhriúin and Uí nAilleo (became insignificant after 9th century). > > Here's what's in Woulfe's 1923 book > ---- > Ó SEACHNASAIGH—I<http://www.libraryireland.com/names/synopsis-types-surnames.php>—O'Shaughnessy, > O'Shoughnessy, O'Shannessy, O'Shanesy, Shaughnessy, Shannessy, &c.; > 'descendant of Seachnasach'; the name of a branch of the Ui Fiachrach > Aidhne, in Co. Galway. On the decline of the kindred family of O'Cahill in > the 13th century, the O'Shaughnessys became chiefs of Cinel Aodha, > anglicised Kinelea, the district lying around the town of Gort; but they > are only rarely mentioned in the Irish annals before the reign of Henry > VIII. In 1533, Dermot O'Shaughnessy, the then 'chief of his nation,' was > knighted, and ten years later he surrendered all the clan-lands to the > crown in order to receive them back by letters-patent. During the next two > centuries the O'Shaughnessy were one of the most celebrated families in > Ireland. Sir Dermot O'Shaughnessy, the fourth in descent from Sir Dermot of > the time of Henry VIII, joined the Confederation of Kilkenny<http://www.libraryireland.com/JoyceHistory/Confederation.php> and > lost his estates in the Cromwellian confiscations<http://www.libraryireland.com/JoyceHistory/Cromwellian.php>, > but received back 2,000 acres at the Restoration. This was again forfeited > in 1697, and Colonel William O'Shaughnessy, the last chief of the name in > the direct line, died in exile in France in 1744. O'Donovan<http://www.libraryireland.com/biography/JohnODonovan.php> > was of opinion that the O'Shaughnessys of Co. Limerick are descended > from Lieut.-Colonel William O'Shaughnessy, the uncle of Sir Dermot of the > Cromwellian and Restoration period; but this is unlikely, as the > O'Shaughnessys were settled at Dromard, near Rathkeale, before the year > 1600. > > --- > > -Paul > (DF41+) > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Linda McKee <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Drum roll............ >> >> 37094......John Harrison.......DF85+ and DF97+ >> >> 200080.... Ken McGee......DF85+ >> >> N10119.....Eric Mitchell.......DF85- >> >> 218512.....John Loughney...DF85- >> >> 227877.....Timothy Byrnes...DF85- >> >> 74163......Thomas Manley....DF85- >> >> 82395......Bernard Donahue...DF85- >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > >

>Lane > > Kit Number: 43598 > > Test: Big Y > > Ferguson > > Kit Number: 31881 > > Test: DF85 >

In response to a query 11/12/2013 re: order for DF85 placed 8/18/2013, FTDNA replied as follows: "Thank you for your email. SNP tests usually take about 6-8 weeks to complete. However, we have tried to test your sample multiple times, and each attempt has resulted in a result that does not pass the quality control standards set for our lab. We are going to try one more time on an unopened vial of your DNA sample. We should know if this latest attempt is successful in about 4 weeks. We greatly appreciate your attention to this matter." I am LESS than thrilled !

Dear Allene, Yes, you should order df97 for your df85+ result to see if it is +or- for df97. Both Milliken/Milligan results are df85 neg; hence what we may be looking at between the similarities in haplotypes between these McAdam and the one Milligan group is probably due to haplotype convergence. This happens and due to the random mutation process of the alleles. That said, other Milliken/Milligan from both branches -- haplotypes diverse from those of the two who have tested already-- should test for df85. The same must be said for the O'Doherty groups--I noticed that there is at least one more testing for df85. Keep in mind that those of these large surname groups with haplotypes diverse from those who have already tested should investigate at least df85 to make certain that these surname lineages are not split by the SNPs. We already know that there are splits in the O'Dochartaigh; there are splits in the McConechy groups... The Gallowglass story is interesting. Save that and the citation reference, please. Susan Hedeen On 11/13/2013 1:24 PM, Allene Goforth wrote: > Should I now order DF97? Have any of the Milligans ordered DF97 yet? > >

Bernard, My maiden name is MacPherson, but my line is L21+, L513+. I remember the first McPherson who was M222 because I used to be an administrator of the Macpherson/McPherson DNA project. The trouble with some of these blanket statements of origin is that we just don't all fit into them. For example, it is claimed that the MacPhersons of Arisaig, Scotland (the group to which my line belongs) were descended from Parson Rory (Rory MacAlasdair MacDonald), half brother of the famous Clanranald chief John Moydartach. Parson Rory, who would test R1a, was rector of Kilchoan (Ardnamurchan), Arisaig, and Knoydart, and Dean of Morvern in 1545. His descendants became known as MacPhersons (son of the parson), but apparently not all the MacPhersons of that area fit into this mold. Although my line has a close match with one of the MacPherson families in Arisaig, neither my brother nor another MacPherson, whose line originated a short distance south of us, could be called a match to Parson Rory. My line may have been descended from MacGillonie-Camerons or McInnises or both. These two were in the Lochaber area long before Parson Rory was born. The MacGillonies were Clan Camerons' soldiers, not blood relatives, and were probably in Ireland at one time. My brother and I split the cost of the Big Y and ordered it yesterday. Someday we may get to the bottom of all this! Allene Message: 4 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:45:43 +0000 From: Bernard Morgan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [R-M222] Another New DF85 Result To: dna-r1b1c7 <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > ....?The local genealogists in the Arisaig area of the Highlands swear > by that story and another one that relates how this gallowglass was given > land at nearby Glenuig as a reward for helping Clan Donald win the battle > that ended the reign of the Lords of the Isles. Reminds me of this tale I found: "... ?Clanranald territories of Benbecula and South Uist and not in the otherwise 'more Norse' islands to the North. The MacPhersons in those latter islands are probably mostly descendants of the 'Red Parson' an O'Docherty mercenary soldier priest who led the gallowglass element of the forces of Uisdean MacDonald when he took over part of Skye and established Clan Donald North in about 1369. Those MacPhersons settled in Trotternish in Skye and as the Liosadair or linen workers, later spread southwards to North Uist and Benbecula." I known of at least one McPherson (103531) who is M222.

It's of my opinion that the best clarifications for some of this looking is through the lineages. What I've been looking at w/df85/97 are some tentative looks for some idea of snp age; however to do justice with any of it, the lineages within a SNP category should be considered. To that end my intent is to start a data base of the lineages that fall in the different SNP categories. I need help with this needless to say as going to each project and culling out those is over bearing in time consumption; hence if anyone interested in contributing to this cause? This is how I suggest we start, and the effort will get expanded. 1. Those testing positive for any down stream SNP, collect the haplotypes of your surname consistent in haplotype and/or close matches from your project pages on an exel spread sheet. I am happy to furnish you with the exel format that I use with instructions of how to enter the haplotypes into the spread sheet (contact me privately and I will send to you via attachment a blank sheet with the columns labeled already--all is necessary is for the blanks to be filled in and I will give you instructions as how to do that). 2. Those who have tested negative for df85: These lineages are important and they will fall in a group -- some have ordered further testing through Chromo2; hence we should get a better idea of the groupings once the results information begins to flow. (I have in possession some surname lineages already, but what I have is not comprehensive for the M222 project general) 3. If you do not mind, I will also share these lineages in exel with others such as Iain, Bernard, Sandy, Alan, David McL. Linda McK, and anyone other who would like to discuss the lineages/groups in assessment and perhaps we can also be of assistance with some testing recommendations for 1 or more within. I would also like to involve Mark Jost of L21. Sandy, David, Mark and I all use different types of analyses methods and it would be good to compare the different information coming out of the different models. 4. With R-M222, I have a bias based on experience for the 67 marker haplotypes as they generally yield the best information for analysis plus the 111 marker haplotypes can be spotty in the projects; however I will also be appreciative if there are 111 marker haplotypes in your lineage/group results. If your lineage results feature mostly 37 marker haplotypes, reviewing those is helpful but I probably will not use them for any calculations beyond perhaps a particular lineage review. Susan Hedeen

Not sure if you guys have posted these latest: 119156...Welch....DF85- 137003...Mannion...DF85-

Quoting from the blog entry: "For example, there are 32 new SNPs under M222 which will help at a genealogical level. These SNPs must have arisen in the past couple thousand years." > > The permanent link to that first blog entry is > > http://dna-explained.com/2013/11/12/2013-family-tree-dna-conference-day-2/ > > although its on the home page right now. >

Susan, I think that is a good idea, and you can use my data. For lineages, what do you consider as 'authoritative' sources? Would Irish Names and Surnames by Rev. Patrick Woulfe, and Leabhar na nGenealach be considered something that you'd use to capture the lineage? Lachtna, the founder of the O'Lachtna sept was most likely brothers to Amhlaoibh Mór mac Fir Bhisigh and Giolla Pádraig mac Fir Bhisigh, so I am assuming that the common ancestor would be Fear Bhisigh mac Domhnaill Óig. I am at 67 markers (Kit No: 218512) and sufficient far from any other matches (closest is a Clark - private) at 5 steps. FTDNA is having a sale, so I am not sure if 111 marker test would be useful, or something else. thanks, John On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Susan Hedeen < [email protected]> wrote: > It's of my opinion that the best clarifications for some of this looking > is through the lineages. What I've been looking at w/df85/97 are some > tentative looks for some idea of snp age; however to do justice with any > of it, the lineages within a SNP category should be considered. > > To that end my intent is to start a data base of the lineages that fall > in the different SNP categories. I need help with this needless to say > as going to each project and culling out those is over bearing in time > consumption; hence if anyone interested in contributing to this cause? > > This is how I suggest we start, and the effort will get expanded. > > 1. Those testing positive for any down stream SNP, collect the > haplotypes of your surname consistent in haplotype and/or close matches > from your project pages on an exel spread sheet. I am happy to furnish > you with the exel format that I use with instructions of how to enter > the haplotypes into the spread sheet (contact me privately and I will > send to you via attachment a blank sheet with the columns labeled > already--all is necessary is for the blanks to be filled in and I will > give you instructions as how to do that). > > 2. Those who have tested negative for df85: These lineages are > important and they will fall in a group -- some have ordered further > testing through Chromo2; hence we should get a better idea of the > groupings once the results information begins to flow. > > (I have in possession some surname lineages already, but what I have is > not comprehensive for the M222 project general) > > 3. If you do not mind, I will also share these lineages in exel with > others such as Iain, Bernard, Sandy, Alan, David McL. Linda McK, and > anyone other who would like to discuss the lineages/groups in assessment > and perhaps we can also be of assistance with some testing > recommendations for 1 or more within. I would also like to involve Mark > Jost of L21. Sandy, David, Mark and I all use different types of > analyses methods and it would be good to compare the different > information coming out of the different models. > > 4. With R-M222, I have a bias based on experience for the 67 marker > haplotypes as they generally yield the best information for analysis > plus the 111 marker haplotypes can be spotty in the projects; however I > will also be appreciative if there are 111 marker haplotypes in your > lineage/group results. If your lineage results feature mostly 37 marker > haplotypes, reviewing those is helpful but I probably will not use them > for any calculations beyond perhaps a particular lineage review. Susan > Hedeen > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Should I now order DF97? Have any of the Milligans ordered DF97 yet? On another aspect of my MacAdam lines, the latest test (Kit 290385) still has results coming in, but he is not going to match the rest at all! I haven't posted any detailed DNA background information yet because I'm waiting to see what comes of Chromo2 tests for two Milligans. Matches with the Lowland McAdam group don't look at all good to me--they vaporize after 25 markers. I am inclined to think my Highland MacAdam group has never been part of the Lowland McAdam line. The story that we were descended from an Irish gallowglass who was fighting on Aonghas Og's side in the Battle of Bloody Bay (off Isle of Mull in early 1480s) was one I pooh-poohed for a long time, but recently I found out that the source of this story isn't recent, but goes back to what Skene referred to as the Knock MS--a late 17th century document attributed to Hugh MacDonald. There's a place called Knock on Mull. The local genealogists in the Arisaig area of the Highlands swear by that story and another one that relates how this gallowglass was given land at nearby Glenuig as a reward for helping Clan Donald win the battle that ended the reign of the Lords of the Isles. Glenuig is where ancestors of some of this group came from, according to the two 1790 ship manifests. The others were a short distance away at Arienskill/Arieniskill. Their surname was translated as Adamson, not MacAdam, but they changed it to the latter after coming to Prince Edward Island in 1790. I'm trying to keep an open mind about all this, including the Lowlands aspect. Allene Message: 6 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:35:47 -0800 From: "Allene Goforth" <[email protected]> Subject: [R-M222] Another new DF85 Result To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original MacAdam Kit 88644 is DF85+. Allene

Larry, I am just now seeing your post.........I actually made those additions myself in an effort to identify on the excel those who are pending more than one test in more than one area. Linda > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:25:51 -0600 (GMT-06:00) > From: Larry Slavens <[email protected]> > Subject: [R-M222] Interesting... > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected].net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I administer the Slaven/etc. project at FTDNA, and just went out to my administrator page. There was nothing out of the ordinary on the member information page or my own page as of the last time I signed in, which was in the last three or four days. Now, however, instead of being listed as "Larry Slavens", I'm listed as "Larry Slavens M222+ DF85+ DF97 pending". It would make one think that perhaps FTDNA is paying special attention to our little SNP party. (No one else is listed in a similar manner; no one else has tested for DF85 or DF97. The other member who has tested out to M222+ isn't noted.) > > Larry > >

Paul, Thanks for the clarification, and a bit more clarification on O'Lachtna / Loughney, Duald MacFirbis states: The O'Lachtna clan was cheiftans of the Two Backs (from Lough Conn to the River Moy), Glen Nephin and Beaudach (area surounding Crossmolina). Other clans associated were MacFirbisigh (now anglicized as Forbes), O'Maoilruaidh [now anglicized as Mulroy], Ard Achadh [now anglicized as Ardagh which is a parish in Tirawley], and O'Cuimin, of Lios Cuimin [Cuimin's Fort - possibly Kilcummin] on the Muaidh [River Moy]. These clans are said to be descendents of Muireadhach, the son of Fergus. At some point O'Lachtna became O'Lachtnain, which was Anglicized to Loftus [in medeval Irish, f had a hard 'ch' sound] and O'Laughlin. After the Cambro-Norman invasion of Mayo, the O'Lachtna cheiftans were pushed out, and at least in the case of Loughneys, settled around Killala. There seems to several O'Lachtnain bishops around Connacht; Loughney's seem to be associated with Saint Cuimín of Kilcummin, as there are several tales about Loughneys and Maughns being stewards of St Cuimín's cursing stone & holy well. John On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <[email protected]> wrote: > Bernard, > > My bad on two counts: namely: > Loughney = Uí Fhiachrach Muaidhe (Mayo) > > -- > Ó LACHTNA—I< > http://www.libraryireland.com/names/synopsis-types-surnames.php> > —*O Laghna*, Loughney; 'descendant of Lachtna' (grey, dun); the name of a > family of the Ui > Fiachrach<http://www.libraryireland.com/names/irishclans/ui-fiachrach.php > >, > who were chiefs of the Two Bacs and of Glen Nephin, in the barony of > Tirawley, Co. Mayo; now very rare, having been almost universally replaced > by the diminutive form Ó > Lachtnáin<http://www.libraryireland.com/names/ol/o-lachtnain.php> > , *which see*. > > -- > > O'Shaugnessy = DF85- -- Uí Fhiachrach Aidhne. > > The "Uí Fhiachrach Finn" are not of same dynsty, they belong to the Uí > Máine of East-Galway, been descended from a different Fiachrae. The name > Fiachra is still used in Ireland to this day (sometimes used as a > stereotype "South-Dublin" posh name in satire) > > -- > *An early genealogy of Ui Fiachrach Find* (in *Rawlinson*): Flannacán m. > Néill m. Ferchair m. Maclaích m. Condálaich m. Amalgada m. Deinmedaig m. > Dímmae m. Laidgneáin m. Máelhuidir m. Áeda m. Fínáin m. Amalgada m. > Fiachrach Find m. Bresail m. Maine Mor. > > *An alternate genealogy of Ui Fiachrach Finn* (in *O'Clery*): > Amlaibh m. Mail sechloinn m. Amalgaid m. Concobair m. Ferghusa finn m > Flaithbertaigh m. Fintain m Aedha m. *Neachtain* (a quo .h. Neachtain) m. > Mail chierr m. Ferghusa (ag comraqicit et .h. Mail faladh) m. Oilealla m. > Tnuthgaile m. Morlaqoich m. Con dalaigh m. Amhalgadha m. Fiachra finn m. > Bresail m. Maine mhoir m. Echach fir da giall m. Domhnaill m. Iomchadhhae > m. Colla fo crith. > > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/uimaine.htm > > What's interesting of course about the Uí Mhaine is that the leading > families (Kelly = Ó Ceallaigh) are showing up as DF49+/DF23+/Z2961* (M222-) > > > -Paul > (DF41+) > -- > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Bernard Morgan > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Is O'Shaughnessy DF85-? (So recorded at M222 project page for SNP) > > > > Then with Loughney, Ui Fiachrach Aidne is DF85- and only Lally believed > to > > be Ui Fiachrach Finn is DF85+? > > > > > > > > > > > > *36712 --O'Shaughnessy -- DF85* > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

*36712 --O'Shaughnessy -- DF85* O'Shaughnessy is a "Uí Fhiachrach Aidhe" surname. The Uí Fhiachrach (F is lentited after Uí -- grammar) are suppose to be descended from Fiachrae the half-brother of Niall. And form one of the "three Connachta" along with the Uí Bhriúin and Uí nAilleo (became insignificant after 9th century). Here's what's in Woulfe's 1923 book ---- Ó SEACHNASAIGH—I<http://www.libraryireland.com/names/synopsis-types-surnames.php>—O'Shaughnessy, O'Shoughnessy, O'Shannessy, O'Shanesy, Shaughnessy, Shannessy, &c.; 'descendant of Seachnasach'; the name of a branch of the Ui Fiachrach Aidhne, in Co. Galway. On the decline of the kindred family of O'Cahill in the 13th century, the O'Shaughnessys became chiefs of Cinel Aodha, anglicised Kinelea, the district lying around the town of Gort; but they are only rarely mentioned in the Irish annals before the reign of Henry VIII. In 1533, Dermot O'Shaughnessy, the then 'chief of his nation,' was knighted, and ten years later he surrendered all the clan-lands to the crown in order to receive them back by letters-patent. During the next two centuries the O'Shaughnessy were one of the most celebrated families in Ireland. Sir Dermot O'Shaughnessy, the fourth in descent from Sir Dermot of the time of Henry VIII, joined the Confederation of Kilkenny<http://www.libraryireland.com/JoyceHistory/Confederation.php> and lost his estates in the Cromwellian confiscations<http://www.libraryireland.com/JoyceHistory/Cromwellian.php>, but received back 2,000 acres at the Restoration. This was again forfeited in 1697, and Colonel William O'Shaughnessy, the last chief of the name in the direct line, died in exile in France in 1744. O'Donovan<http://www.libraryireland.com/biography/JohnODonovan.php> was of opinion that the O'Shaughnessys of Co. Limerick are descended from Lieut.-Colonel William O'Shaughnessy, the uncle of Sir Dermot of the Cromwellian and Restoration period; but this is unlikely, as the O'Shaughnessys were settled at Dromard, near Rathkeale, before the year 1600. --- -Paul (DF41+) On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Linda McKee <[email protected]> wrote: > Drum roll............ > > 37094......John Harrison.......DF85+ and DF97+ > > 200080.... Ken McGee......DF85+ > > N10119.....Eric Mitchell.......DF85- > > 218512.....John Loughney...DF85- > > 227877.....Timothy Byrnes...DF85- > > 74163......Thomas Manley....DF85- > > 82395......Bernard Donahue...DF85- > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Based on Larry Slaven's observation, I checked my administrator page and noticed the following: . Doherty kit 29142 (my kit) is tagged with "M222+ DF85+ DF97+". . Davitt kit 251441 is tagged "(DF85+/DF97 pending)". . Daugherty kit 73633 which tested M222+ DF85- DF97- is not tagged. . There are others who have test results pending for DF85 and DF97 but are not tagged. I just sent an email to FTDNA's "Feedback" feature for some further clarification about why they added this information, and if they were going to do this for all participants. I also said that I thought this was great! I will post whatever response I get. Bob Doherty kit 29142 FTDNA Doherty Surname Group co-administrator

The permanent link to that first blog entry is http://dna-explained.com/2013/11/12/2013-family-tree-dna-conference-day-2/ although its on the home page right now. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:16:17 +0000 > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > Alan, > > One of the blogs I read yesterday reported the claim that the record for multiple occurrences of a Geno 2.0 SNP is 7!! I don't think we need to say any more? > > http://dna-explained.com/ > > "New Y tree will be released shortly as a result of the Geno 2.0 > testing. Some of the SNPs have mutated as much as 7 times, and what > does that mean in terms of the tree and in terms of genealogical > usefulness. This tree has taken much longer to produce than they > expected due to these types of issues which had to be revised > individually." > > Having said that, I was planning to put the SNPs like PF1169, F1265 etc on the diagram when I can assign them to one of the upper branches. I think our criteria can be a little more relaxed IMHO and we should only discard a SNP if it is unstable within M222. That would mean though including some of this new list of 21 as well and might mean we show SNPs that ISOGG discards. > > http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_SNP_Requirements.html > > "While not a part of the definition for binary polymorphism, it is expected that the > markers proposed for inclusion as defining markers for haplogroups will also have the > characteristics: (a) the effective mutation rate will be less than approximately 5 x 10-7, > and (b) that the polymorphism has not been observed more than twice in human history." > > It will be interesting to see whether ISOGG feels like relaxing this rule in the light of our increased knowledge. > > > regards > > Iain > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:34:22 -0500 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > > > Iain, what is your current thoughts now since your working the matrix? Alan > > > > > > In a message dated 11/11/2013 09:43:05 GMT Standard Time, > > [email protected] writes: > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:00:11 +0000 > > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > > > > > > > > > > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of > > them are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at > > all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and > > where? > > > > > > > > > > A copy of Dr. Michael's Hammer's map of the new SNPs downstream from > > M222 has been published at: > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151949352643444&set=gm.621729794551000&type=1&theater > > > > > > > > > I read the SNPs as: > > > > > > PF3297 > > > PF3988 > > > F3952 > > > F3024 > > > CTS8007 > > > M226 > > > F499 > > > L196 > > > Z70 > > > PF2026 > > > CTS8580 plus PF1909 under > > > CTS3771 > > > CTS10488 > > > F1400 > > > CTS9501 > > > PF910 > > > PF7301 > > > F3637 > > > CTS6 > > > F1636 > > > CTS11548 > > > > > Well spotted Bernard. I checked my raw Geno file and these are all in it > > except CTS8007. The image isn't quite good enough to be sure that's what it > > says though (there is a CTS8002 listed for example).. Given the large > > number of M222 people who took the Geno test though, it seems unlikely these are > > significant since no-one we know of has had a 'hit' 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Alan, One of the blogs I read yesterday reported the claim that the record for multiple occurrences of a Geno 2.0 SNP is 7!! I don't think we need to say any more? http://dna-explained.com/ "New Y tree will be released shortly as a result of the Geno 2.0 testing. Some of the SNPs have mutated as much as 7 times, and what does that mean in terms of the tree and in terms of genealogical usefulness. This tree has taken much longer to produce than they expected due to these types of issues which had to be revised individually." Having said that, I was planning to put the SNPs like PF1169, F1265 etc on the diagram when I can assign them to one of the upper branches. I think our criteria can be a little more relaxed IMHO and we should only discard a SNP if it is unstable within M222. That would mean though including some of this new list of 21 as well and might mean we show SNPs that ISOGG discards. http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_SNP_Requirements.html "While not a part of the definition for binary polymorphism, it is expected that the markers proposed for inclusion as defining markers for haplogroups will also have the characteristics: (a) the effective mutation rate will be less than approximately 5 x 10-7, and (b) that the polymorphism has not been observed more than twice in human history." It will be interesting to see whether ISOGG feels like relaxing this rule in the light of our increased knowledge. regards Iain > From: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:34:22 -0500 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > Iain, what is your current thoughts now since your working the matrix? Alan > > > In a message dated 11/11/2013 09:43:05 GMT Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:00:11 +0000 > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > > > > > > > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of > them are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at > all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and > where? > > > > > > > A copy of Dr. Michael's Hammer's map of the new SNPs downstream from > M222 has been published at: > > > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151949352643444&set=gm.621729794551000&type=1&theater > > > > > > I read the SNPs as: > > > > PF3297 > > PF3988 > > F3952 > > F3024 > > CTS8007 > > M226 > > F499 > > L196 > > Z70 > > PF2026 > > CTS8580 plus PF1909 under > > CTS3771 > > CTS10488 > > F1400 > > CTS9501 > > PF910 > > PF7301 > > F3637 > > CTS6 > > F1636 > > CTS11548 > > > Well spotted Bernard. I checked my raw Geno file and these are all in it > except CTS8007. The image isn't quite good enough to be sure that's what it > says though (there is a CTS8002 listed for example).. Given the large > number of M222 people who took the Geno test though, it seems unlikely these are > significant since no-one we know of has had a 'hit' 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