Alan, Thanks very much for asking..........I really don't.......I also asked Craig earlier. Will you tell me about It? Thanks, Linda > > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Another new DF85+ > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:50:10 -0500 (EST) > > > Linda, do you happen to realize the significance of this result? Alan > > In a message dated 12/11/2013 12:27:49 GMT Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > N64222

Indeed, there were certainly others before Cromwell and as you right point out, the O'Dochartaighs also had earlier ties with Mayo. It will be interesting to learn what has to be said on the 17th, especially, as it now looks like some of the SNPs used in the study may not be reliable indicators to M222+. I see the Manley result has come through DF85-, that is worthy of note. As I said before, another branch was already known to exist and this branch is also important. If there is a DF85+ there should be a DF85- in the O'Dochartaigh Clan. Some of this will soon become more apparent once more of the DF85+ results come through in Scotland and we finally work out that matrix posted by Iain Kennedy. Also, it will be important to compare your Chromo2 with mine and several others, given all the research so far, including that carried out by the late John McLaughlin, strongly indicates, our two separate branches represent the oldest with a common ancestry pre-dating Niall of the Nine Hostages. Alan In a message dated 12/11/2013 00:42:58 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: To "Hell or Connaught" was made famous by Cromwell. But even before Oliver's time there were migrations from Ulster to Mayo. One interesting one for the O'Dochartaigh Clann is the migration of Maonghaile O'Dochartaigh's descendants ( Munnelley, Monnellly, Manley) from Donegal to Ballymunnelley, Ballycastle and Cloontikilla, Mayo prior to 1585. This precedes Cahir O'Dochartaigh's rebellion and the Plantation of Ulster. It appears that, like the McDevitts, the Munnelly/Monnelley/Manley sept may prove to be another branch of the O'Dochartaigh. I have started discussions with Paul Manley investigate this connection and why they migrated to Mayo when they did. Sent from my iPad ------------------------------- 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

Paul, I had a further look at the SNPs mentioned below in Irelands DNA and also in L-21 and others, and I have to agree, it looks very much like these SNPs and one more L196 are unreliable. This is very disappointing but by no means surprising. Z70 has a number of Z70+ including two in the M222 Project, but on the whole, Z70 appears to be mainly upstream of M222 rather than downstream. Z70+ in M222 Project N113849: DePew: N113900: Kelleher IRELAND DNA Projects Z70+ M222- There are a number in the Project, including: B2560: Murphy: R1b1a2a1a1b4 (L-21) M222- Those under L-21 DNA Project Z70+ M222- B2560: Murphy: R1b1a2a1a1b4 (L-21) 239517: Stovold: R1b1a2a1a1b4 (L-21) H1035: McPhee: R1b1a2a1a1b4 (R-L21) N113851: R1b1a2a1a1b4 (R-L21) M222 not listed N113865: R1b1a2a1a1b4 (R-L21) M222 not listed N113834: Ingram: R1b1a2a1a1b4 (R-L21) M222 not listed There is no Z70+ M222+ that I could see. L196- M222- There are quite a few L196- M222-, but interestingly one L196- M222+ 60340: Goldsworth: R1b1a2a1a1b4b (R-M222+) In the L-21 DNA Project, L196- isn't showing up under R-M222. L196 appears to be upstream. F3952+ N10119: Mitchell: R1b1a2a1a1b4b (R-M222+) F1636+ 129574: Patterson: R1b1a2a1a1a4 (R-L48): M222 not listed Under L-21 DNA Project N114085: Graham: R1b1a2a1a1b4 (R-L21): M222 not listed The others are as you say, have had multiple independent occurrences and to qualify the point, upstream of the M222 SNP. So, we have 8 out of 21 SNPs that are effectively now questionable and need to be re-examined in the light of what appears to be unreliable reporting at the weekend. Alan In a message dated 11/11/2013 00:11:37 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: PF3297 -- shows up in Haplogroup G (see Ireland project) PF3988 -- show up in Haplogroup I (see Ireland project) F3952 -- shows up in M222+ in Ireland Project (Mitchell: N10119) Z70 -- shows up in I2a2b (see Ireland Project) PF1909 -- shows up in E-V12 (see Ireland Project) PF910 -- shows up in A-M202 (see Ireland Project) F1636 -- shows up in R1b-Z9 (see Ireland Project) CTS11548 -- shows up in I-M26 (see Ireland Project) You could be looking at unreliable SNP's that have had multiple independent occurences. The fact that most of them appear in other Haplogroups kinda bears it out. Interesting to see the F3952+ result for Mitchell. All the above were from kits that had Geno 2.0 done. -Paul (DF41+) On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Bernard Morgan <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > 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 > > Which is 21 different branches. However are they really under M222? > > For R-L196 (R1b1a2a1a1b3c2, R1b-P312>U152>L2>L196+) is a private SNP for > the Barton family and seems unrelated to M222 > http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L196/default.aspx?section=ycolorized > > And a Z90+ testee was negative for M222. > > ------------------------------- > 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

> Dexter > > Kit Number: 164044 > > Test: DF85

Too bad, I guess I am just a "generic" m222+ ;) On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <[email protected]> wrote: > *37094 -- *Harrison -- DF85+, DF97+ > > *227877 -- *Byrnes -- DF85- > *218512* *-- *Loughney -- DF85- > *N10119 --* Mitchell -- DF85- > *74163 --* Manley -- DF85- > *82395* *-- *Donahue -- DF85- > *167608 -- *Burke -- DF85- > *82030 *-- Branum -- DF85-, DF97- > > > -Paul > (DF41+) > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Linda McKee <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 116366....Heaney.....DF85- > > > > 205297....McConnaughhay....DF85+ DF97+ > > > > 229236....McMahon.......DF85- > > > > 27202.....DF85- and DF97- > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

116366....Heaney.....DF85- 205297....McConnaughhay....DF85+ DF97+ 229236....McMahon.......DF85- 27202.....DF85- and DF97-

I see a new DF85+ this morning in the shape of Barnett (*11952).* -Paul (DF41+)

It would probably be a good idea for ScotlandsDNA/IrelandsDNS to publish a paper detailing their newly discovered SNP's and get them on ISOGG tree. In which case the names may stick. I'm remimed of the expression "Publish or be damned". Iain, interesting to see you are M222* (negative for all the chromo2 snp's). I wonder how much of total M222 they test will be in a similiar position. S661/S658 is sort of looking like the DF13 of M222 (eg. really big chunk, DF13 ≥ 90% of L21.) -Paul (DF41+) On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Iain Kennedy <[email protected]>wrote: > Bob, > > The ISOGG tree lists all supplied alternative names from the different > labs. As I pointed out the other day even M222 itself has at least three > names and M222 is not the original one so there is no need to get too > excited about it as long as all the alternatives are made available. I > believe this will happen in due course once the bulk data starts coming in > from the lab and they can see which ones are actually working on the chip. > > http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html > > Bear in mind that some SNPs are still in the 'under investigation' group > (just manually search the page for them) and one or two of the Geno 2.0 > SNPs I believe we were told are not going to be sold as separate tests as > they are considered unreliable. I forget which ones now. > > Iain > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:16:43 -0800 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [R-M222] Rosetta Stone > > > > I assume that the different DNA testing companies are giving different > (private) labels to the same markers for a reason. But then how do they > justify saying that they offer more or additional markers than their > competitors if they cannot provide their customers (participants) the means > to verify this? What is the reason for reticence on their part to > contribute to a "Rosetta Stone" to translate / compare results from the > different vendors? Is it just greed? Or is there some legal constraint > that is holding them back? Are there legal roadblocks to members of this > list to create such a translation table? Could an independent entity like > the ISOGG host such a table that could provide the transparency we are > looking for? > > > > I find it interesting how quickly access to the following table was > withdrawn: > > >> 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 > > > > Bob Doherty > > Sent from my iPad > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

Thanks Iain for keeping up with these DF85/97 Chromo2 results. I received word yesterday from IrelandsDNA that they have my sample so maybe I'll have results before Christmas. I'll send you a copy as soon as I have them. Brenden

Bob, The ISOGG tree lists all supplied alternative names from the different labs. As I pointed out the other day even M222 itself has at least three names and M222 is not the original one so there is no need to get too excited about it as long as all the alternatives are made available. I believe this will happen in due course once the bulk data starts coming in from the lab and they can see which ones are actually working on the chip. http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html Bear in mind that some SNPs are still in the 'under investigation' group (just manually search the page for them) and one or two of the Geno 2.0 SNPs I believe we were told are not going to be sold as separate tests as they are considered unreliable. I forget which ones now. Iain > From: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:16:43 -0800 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [R-M222] Rosetta Stone > > I assume that the different DNA testing companies are giving different (private) labels to the same markers for a reason. But then how do they justify saying that they offer more or additional markers than their competitors if they cannot provide their customers (participants) the means to verify this? What is the reason for reticence on their part to contribute to a "Rosetta Stone" to translate / compare results from the different vendors? Is it just greed? Or is there some legal constraint that is holding them back? Are there legal roadblocks to members of this list to create such a translation table? Could an independent entity like the ISOGG host such a table that could provide the transparency we are looking for? > > I find it interesting how quickly access to the following table was withdrawn: > >> 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 > > Bob Doherty > Sent from my iPad > > ------------------------------- > 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

I have received advance notification of my raw results and after analysing the file it appears that I am ancestral for all the new SNPs in the Jim Wilson diagram. I have just double checked this directly with Jim to confirm. I have therefore placed myself provisionally right at the top of the diagram alongside Steve Lominac. Apparently 17% of samples so far are in this group but I don't know how many samples that is based on, it seems that the initial batch are back from the lab so it may be more than when the diagram was first released. My paper trail is entirely Scottish and traces back to Fortingall in Perthshire in 1660. No known Irish names are in this group so far. Make of it what you will, and I await more results eagerly. The upload of raw results is still a few days away so its probably best if we leave them to get on with it. If and when people do get their results, if they wish to appear in the M222 diagram I am maintaining please can they send me a copy of their raw data file. http://www.kennedydna.com/M222.pdf Iain

Earl of Shaftesbury-Anthony Ashley Cooper Amy Capers (_View posts_ (http://boards.ancestry.com/authorposts.aspx?uname=Amy+Capers&uid=&uem=OROgdzEXZk6iB-AKcn8HnbcC0chVdvvO&rurl=http://boards.anc estry.com/surnames.ashley/43/mb.ashx) ) Posted: 20 Oct 1999 6:18PM GMT Classification: Query Edited: 20 Nov 2001 4:43AM GMT Surnames: Ashley My great-grandfather was Edward Ashley of the Chicago area, retired to Florida. He lived to be 99 and died in 1971 or 1972. He was of decendant of the Earl of Shaftesbury, whom I have found in the Encyclopedia . I had heard family rumor that the Earl (perhaps the 7th one) came to the states because he fell out of favor with the English Monarchy of the moment. Given that the Encyclopedia indicates that Earls 1-7 were in and out of England throughout their titled history due to the changing religious climate of the English Monarchy, this is a plausable explanation for what may have been the seventh Earl coming to the US. I have also heard that he began life hear in a Southern State, although I don't know which one. The Earls all Carried the Surname of Cooper, but I surmise that Earl of Shaftesbury-Anthony Ashley Cooper Amy Capers (_View posts_ (http://boards.ancestry.com/authorposts.aspx?uname=Amy+Capers&uid=&uem=OROgdzEXZk6iB-AKcn8HnbcC0chVdvvO&rurl=http://boards.anc estry.com/surnames.ashley/43/mb.ashx) ) Posted: 20 Oct 1999 6:18PM GMT Classification: Query Edited: 20 Nov 2001 4:43AM GMT Surnames: Ashley My great-grandfather was Edward Ashley of the Chicago area, retired to Florida. He lived to be 99 and died in 1971 or 1972. He was of decendant of the Earl of Shaftesbury, whom I have found in the Encyclopedia . I had heard family rumor that the Earl (perhaps the 7th one) came to the states because he fell out of favor with the English Monarchy of the moment. Given that the Encyclopedia indicates that Earls 1-7 were in and out of England throughout their titled history due to the changing religious climate of the English Monarchy, this is a plausable explanation for what may have been the seventh Earl coming to the US. I have also heard that he began life hear in a Southern State, although I don't know which one. The Earls all Carried the Surname of Cooper, but I surmise that the Cooper was dropped in favor of my g-grandfather's name of Ashley in order to hide from the English. Does any other Ashley know of a connection to the Earl of Shaftesbury? in order to hide from the English. Does any other Ashley know of a connection to the Earl of Shaftesbury?

N64222......McKie.......DF85+ > From: Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <[email protected]> > Subject: [R-M222] New DF85+ > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:38:09 +0000 > > I see a new DF85+ this morning in the shape of Barnett (*11952).* > > -Paul > (DF41+)

There seems to be no good reason for the belief that M222 originated in county Mayo. The reason county Mayo is being banded about, is because earlier this year National Geographic were invited to County Mayo and took one hundred samples. There nothing to rule out that similar results couldn't be obtained by a visit to county Sligo or Donegal. What is of interesting is that Spencer Wells is travelling back to Mayo (this week?) to announce the results of this summer's Mayo testing. However what is the value of these "new" sub M222 SNPs? Did NG have better luck than the M222 project?

One of my favorite sayings comes from a not very good movie; and it is "Follow the Money" It is a bit more complex however than simply marketing. Professional reputations in addition to grant money for research, publication rights, etc. For the DTC companies it is keeping the competitive edge and advertising to their "market" In discussions with those in positions to know, BISDNA is fully aware of all the particulars of the Geno2 SNPs; however they have stated that they are not using them on their Chromo2 chip. Frankly, I don't blame them if indeed that is the truth as I simply cannot believe that all of those 21 SNPs are actually M222 down stream SNPs beyond the few which have turned up in the results of only a few R-M222 people we are aware of; at that we do not know what their positions are and they cannot be added to the ISOGG tree without further confirmations. This however is based on our testing, and we really are not privy to how or why those SNPs were ID'd and vetted for the Geno2 chip to begin with. Except for df85, we do not know the particulars of the BISDNA Chromo2 SNPs reported to be also M222 down streams, and unless they forward all the particulars to ISOGG and release to the scientific community for verification, we are not likely to know any more than we do beyond the results for those who have ordered. We have no information from FGC, so we cannot even speculate or comment on any of that beyond the fact that we have not even their FG names for what ever SNPs they believe that they have. Since those are the majority of the DTC companies most of us are familiar with, what little we have been given information of is the sum total of our knowledge which is not comprehensive by any means. There is a lot of chatter within the GG community for exactly what you are referring to as the Rosetta Stone. Several very vocal members of ISOGG among others are rallying for more transparency and disclosure with mention of some sort of standardization of references for SNPs. We'll see what happens. Susan On 11/11/2013 7:16 PM, Robert Doherty wrote: > I assume that the different DNA testing companies are giving different (private) labels to the same markers for a reason. But then how do they justify saying that they offer more or additional markers than their competitors if they cannot provide their customers (participants) the means to verify this? What is the reason for reticence on their part to contribute to a "Rosetta Stone" to translate / compare results from the different vendors? Is it just greed? Or is there some legal constraint that is holding them back? Are there legal roadblocks to members of this list to create such a translation table? Could an independent entity like the ISOGG host such a table that could provide the transparency we are looking for? > > I find it interesting how quickly access to the following table was withdrawn: >>> 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 > Bob Doherty > Sent from my iPad > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Partly it goes to the care and feeding of those dedicated people who help to keep this M222 website alive, and thank goodness to have their company! Otherwise who among us could evaluate a DNA test? We take those tests blindly while assuming meaningful results. And then those dedicated people here go to work on it. Well, ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances! But where else could a person get this sort of information? On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Robert Doherty <[email protected]>wrote: > I assume that the different DNA testing companies are giving different > (private) labels to the same markers for a reason. But then how do they > justify saying that they offer more or additional markers than their > competitors if they cannot provide their customers (participants) the means > to verify this? What is the reason for reticence on their part to > contribute to a "Rosetta Stone" to translate / compare results from the > different vendors? Is it just greed? Or is there some legal constraint > that is holding them back? Are there legal roadblocks to members of this > list to create such a translation table? Could an independent entity like > the ISOGG host such a table that could provide the transparency we are > looking for? > > I find it interesting how quickly access to the following table was > withdrawn: > >> 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 > > Bob Doherty > Sent from my iPad > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Some house cleaning:  PF3292 - as in Mitchell (not PF3297) PF3988 - (the two eights are not clear) F3952 F3024 CTS8002 - as in Grant (not CTS8007) M226 F499 L196 Z70 PF2028 - as in Daugherty (not PF2026)  CTS8580 plus PF1909 under CTS3771 CTS10488 F1400 CTS9501 - (the one is not clear) PF910 PF7301 F3637 CTS6 F1636 CTS11548 The following are still missing are from the list: PF1169, PF3292, F1265.

There's no less of an argument against it, either. Quite a few dynasties stemming from the Uí Néill are historically seated in present day Connacht. Some argue that the Uí Néill themselves are descended from the south. Agreed on Sligo, Donegal and the rest of Connacht or Scotland in general for contrast. On 11/nov/2013, at 20:14, Bernard Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: > There seems to be no good reason for the belief that M222 originated in county Mayo. The reason county Mayo is being banded about, is because earlier this year National Geographic were invited to County Mayo and took one hundred samples. There nothing to rule out that similar results couldn't be obtained by a visit to county Sligo or Donegal. > > What is of interesting is that Spencer Wells is travelling back to Mayo (this week?) to announce the results of this summer's Mayo testing. > > However what is the value of these "new" sub M222 SNPs? Did NG have better luck than the M222 project? > > ------------------------------- > 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

We are looking forward to the results of your investigation. As a point of information, all Munnellys/Monnellys/Munleys/Manleys with roots in Mayo appear to be M222. We do have one participant (74163) who has ordered the DF85 test for now. Marianne Manley Granoff Volunteer Project Administrator Munley/Manley Surname Project http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Munley/ At 04:42 PM 11/11/2013 -0800, you wrote: >To "Hell or Connaught" was made famous by Cromwell. But even before >Oliver's time there were migrations from Ulster to Mayo. One >interesting one for the O'Dochartaigh Clann is the migration of >Maonghaile O'Dochartaigh's descendants ( Munnelley, Monnellly, >Manley) from Donegal to Ballymunnelley, Ballycastle and >Cloontikilla, Mayo prior to 1585. This precedes Cahir >O'Dochartaigh's rebellion and the Plantation of Ulster. It appears >that, like the McDevitts, the Munnelly/Monnelley/Manley sept may >prove to be another branch of the O'Dochartaigh. I have started >discussions with Paul Manley investigate this connection and why >they migrated to Mayo when they did. > >Sent from my iPad > >------------------------------- >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 > > > >----- >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3629/6823 - Release Date: 11/09/13

My sample has been received at the lab.