Hi all: Fairly new to DNA but I have enjoyed everyone's post & have learned a lot about M222. Especially thankful for Sandy & John's emails to me this past summer. My family hails from Cork so we were surprised to be M222. I thought I would share this very interesting early 16th Century Map of Ireland (I am sure that some of you have seen this before) with you which shows many of the Clan lands and related surnames at that time. The Map is pre-Cromwell so it gives an interesting picture of where some of the surnames are are historically from or associated with in Ireland. https://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/ward_1912/ireland_16_century.jpg Again many thanks for the great research, posts & discussion, Brian Brian G. Callahan, Esquire CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES The Charlestown Navy Yard Shipway Place Unit C-2 Boston, MA 02129 Tel. 617-242-2100 Fax 617-242-2121 www.callahanlaw.com

One of the off modal markers which has fascinated me is DYS 392 = 15. There are several with in M222. In review of the M222 project there are 5 Davidson (one w/spelling Davisson), 2 Clarkson,, a Backer, Byrnes, Crighton, Dougherty, Fergusson, McClelland, 2 McWhorer, Moore, Patterson, 2 Sizemore. 1 McConnaughey kit 197231 not listed in the the project page and I believe there are others as well on this list. Fair mix of Irish/Scottish surnames which may or may not be indicative of anything. I haven't done a good look to see which other markers they share, but since they all are M222 there is possibly some other off modal markers. There is connection by marriage on paper between this McC and Davidson; however this connection is that one was a wife (surname Davidson) to McC and his sister married the wife's brother and this is probably all just circumstantial and not relevant, but interesting. Unlike the others with dys 392 = 15, the McC has a 28 value at 389-2 which could indicate a rare double mutation, and 389-2 is considered faster mutating than 392, thus may or may not be of any significance, also interesting though. DYS at 15, however might be an interesting look, since this marker rarely mutates; it is among the slowest to mutate of all; and in fact early on during the beginning of DNA testing it was considered to not mutate at all until the data increased and they noted that indeed it did but rarely based on the data collected thus far. Why look at this marker with-in M222? Well, I did a cursory look in Y search and other projects, and it seems the majority with-in R1b who carry this value also fall in M222 either SNP or unambiguous. 2ndly this marker appears to mutate up rather than down, based on as assumptive look at what few R1b haplotype samples there are published for human remains dug up during archeological investigations. 389-2 appears by that same look to mutate down. Any comment and/or interest in pursuing this line of inquiry??? Susan

Sandy, I am just shooting my mouth off about the estimates for the age of R:M222, and based what I said on the various estimates that have appeared on this list and elsewhere from time to time. I don't give too much credence to anyone's estimates, because the confidence limits are huge for each estimate and the different approaches yield such a wide range of results. Whether the actual age is 1000 years or 2000 years doesn't make any difference to my argument. Seventy men with a single surname who are within GD 5/37 are certain have a much more recent common ancestor than the entire R:M222. Several of them have tested positive for M222 and we think it is pointless to test more of them. Best, David

To muddy the waters, IHM has this list of kings of the Caille Fallamhain: For 851, Congalach filius Irgalaig, rex Coille Follamhain, died. For 882, Maelduin, son of Aenghus, lord of Caille Fallamhain, died. For 890, … Innreachtach, son of Maelduin, lord of Caille Follamhain, were slain …. For 921, Fiachra m. Cathalain ri Coille Follamhain. For 1016/17, Gilla Crist ua Lorcáin, ri Caille Follamhain, was slain. For 1017, ua Clérchéin, tigherna Caille Follamhain. We know there are two O’Larkins families from the Midlands: the kings of Caille Follamhain and another belonging to Clann Innrachtaigh mic Maelduin. This Clann Innrachtaigh mic Maelduin is the family I am wondering are in realty Clann Innrachtaigh mic Muireadhaigh of Ui Briuin for they are (Larkins) M222+. However I note a Innrachtaigh mic Maelduin was king of Caille Follamhain and would be a possible forefather to Ua Lorcáin (Ua Clérchéin). Are Clann Innrachtaigh mic Muireadhaigh outsiders from Meath? And mis-associated with both the Ui Maine and Ui Briuin?

I find another family (Concannon 207532 is M222+) linked to the Ui Maine who is M222+. (The O’Concannon are described as being is limited to Co. Galway plus they are assumed by some to be members of Ui Maine.) Here is what IHM web page says: Ui Diarmada: Ó Concheannainn (O'Concannon), said to be a sept of the Ui Maine? (by McLysaght), were lords of Ui Diarmada in the parish of Kilkerrin, County Galway, from the 11th to the 15th centuries. They claim descent from Cú Chenand, son of Tadhc mac Muirchertaigh, who was killed about 991. The genealogies of the Book of Ballymote place their descent through the Sil Muiredaigh of Uí Briúin, under the heading Genelach Diarmata Find mc. Tomaltaig. A lineage there is cited as Murgius (of 1037), son of Uatu, son of Cú Cenand, son of Tadg, son of Muircertach, son of Ailill, son of Uatu, son of Datláech, son of Diarmaid Find, son of Tomaltach, son of Murgal, son of Indrachtach, son of Muiredach muillethan. O’Concannon have the same origin as the Ui Briuin pedigree of the O'Finaghty, i.e. descending from Indrachtach, son of Muiredach. I also read that a Ua Fallomuin of Clan Uatach of Ui Briuin was Maer (Steward) of Ui Maine in 1169. Had Siol Muireadhaigh (Seed of Muiredach from above) prior to the Norman invasion settled families in the Tricha Cet (Cantred) of Ui Maine and this is the reason why M222+ families are found in within the lands of Ui Maine?

Hi David I'm getting lower answers (more like 1300 years) but it's still a work in progress. Do you have access to the working papers that led to the 'at least 1500 years ago and more likely 2000' suggestion? My workings are on my website. Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Ewing Sent: 13 October 2011 20:43 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series No Ewing in the 'large closely related group of Ewings' (Groups 1 and 2) has tested negative for M222+, but of the seventy-odd men in these two groups only five or six have had the M222 SNP tested. These groups are defined on the basis of having 37-marker haplotypes within genetic distance 5 of the group modal. We think that testing more of them for M222 would be a waste of money. Any reasonable estimate based on STR haplotypes of the TMRCA for this group does not exceed five or six hundred years (and we think it is more likely about 400 years). Given that M222 probably appeared at least 1500 years ago and more likely 2000, if any of the Ewings in the large closely related group of Ewings are M222+, they all are. David Ewing On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, David Ewing <davidewing93@gmail.com> wrote: > Ewing Project participant with kit nr 32942 is P25+ and has been tested for > no other SNPs. > David Ewing > R1b1c7 Research and Links: http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I just had a response from Bennett Greenspan on the P25 issue. What he said was this was a basic SNP confirmation done by FTDNA to allow participants to join the National Genographic project; the test included only P25 and no other downstream SNPs were checked. It was not a standard deep clade test. That was very confusing though and I can see why questions were raised about the results and what they meant. John

In a message dated 10/13/2011 11:02:25 A.M. Central Daylight Time, pconroy63@gmail.com writes: John, I don't think anyone want you to leave. I do think some of us would like to help with organizing the great mass of participants into some sub-clusters, based on off-modal values shared. Maybe I should clarify that. I didn't think anyone wanted me to leave. I would just like to find someone else to take over the project for a variety of reasons, one of which is I'm getting bored with DNA. And that means I'm not putting in much time on projects such as you mentioned. Someone else might take a more energetic approach. Plus with David Wilson out of the picture I think you need someone in the project more expert than I in DNA as head (and also more interested). David Wilson asked me to join to help with the busy work of adding new members, etc. John

Yes, Larry, generally in the individual projects we test under the surnames and test results are clustered. One has to test and be unambiguously M222 to join this project, thus with-in this one those clusters may not appear as they would under our parent projects since all of this project is M222. It might be useful to cluster certain signature strings in separate M222 clusters for analytical reasons. Susan

Lawrence, What clusters, the project isn't divided into clusters? On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Lawrence Dill <lawrencedill@ymail.com>wrote: > Doesn't every cluster within the R-M222 haplogroup have some people who > have tested positive for M222. Why should everybody within the same cluster > be tested for M222? > Larry Dill > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

No Ewing in the 'large closely related group of Ewings' (Groups 1 and 2) has tested negative for M222+, but of the seventy-odd men in these two groups only five or six have had the M222 SNP tested. These groups are defined on the basis of having 37-marker haplotypes within genetic distance 5 of the group modal. We think that testing more of them for M222 would be a waste of money. Any reasonable estimate based on STR haplotypes of the TMRCA for this group does not exceed five or six hundred years (and we think it is more likely about 400 years). Given that M222 probably appeared at least 1500 years ago and more likely 2000, if any of the Ewings in the large closely related group of Ewings are M222+, they all are. David Ewing On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, David Ewing <davidewing93@gmail.com> wrote: > Ewing Project participant with kit nr 32942 is P25+ and has been tested for > no other SNPs. > David Ewing >

Ewing Project participant with kit nr 32942 is P25+ and has been tested for no other SNPs. David Ewing

The phylogenetic tree made by Bill Howard is made up of major branches. Each major branch usually has a surname that appears the most frequently. It is my understanding that each major branch is a cluster within the R-M222 haplogroup. Larry Dill

John, I don't think anyone want you to leave. I do think some of us would like to help with organizing the great mass of participants into some sub-clusters, based on off-modal values shared. I know Don Milligan and David Grierson have done some good work on the "Nith Valley Cluster" - centered in South West Scotland, but including some stragglers from the Irish Midland. it would be great I think if their work was reflected in the presentation of the results. But that's just my opinion. I would like to get a downloaded copy of the project data in the .xml format - available via the Administrator GAP Tool - so that I could play with the results, sort them and look for patterns myself. Some projects have 4 or more co-admins, so there no reason that a few more people with different skill sets couldn't be added as Administrators. In the L21 Project for example, Mike Walshe focuses on detecting new patterns, another co-admin focuses on assigning new participants to existing sub-clusters and communicating with new members, etc. So there are many skill sets needed. Mark Jost and another focus on using the data to draw up visuals - diagrams and charts - of relationships within the group, and so on. Cheers, Paul On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:57 PM, <Lochlan@aol.com> wrote: > I spent some time checking received lab results for the project. Paul's > results are interesting. He shows: > > R1b1a2a1a1b4b P25+ M343+ M269+ M222+ M207+ M173+ SRY2627- P66- M73- M65- > M37- M18- M160- M153- M126- > > But he also shows two different SNP tests. > > 1. P25 12/16/2004 > 2, DSNP-R1b 6/23/2006 > > > As of 12/16/2004 he would have been listed, based on result 1, as P25 and > R1b1 just like the other samples in question. He would still be listed as > that today if he had not taken the DSNP test two years later. > > I looked at the McLaughlin sample in question (there is only one). 25105. > On 4/19/2007 he shows a P25 test identical to Paul's. But he never > upgraded to the DSNP test or what FTDNA later began calling the DCLADE > test. > This sample has not been tested for M222 or any other SNP other than P25. > > The same thing is true of the Doherty sample. He also only tested for > P25 in 8/1/2005. He never had another SNP test or Deep Clade test. He > too > is still P25. > > At about the same time the McLaughlin sample was tested for P25 other DSNP > tests were reported. > Bernard Morgan of this list had one done in April 2007 and the results were > reported as follows: > > R1b1a2a1a1b4b P25+ M343+ M269+ M222+ M207+ M173+ SRY2627- P66- M73- M65- > M37- M18- M160- M153- M126- > > > The P25 SNP results reported in the project are essentially orphans that > have never been upgraded or checked for any SNP except P25. I will stand > by > that deduction, It could easily be verified through FTDNA should anyone > desire to do so. (assuming you can find a way to ask the question). > These > are not examples of M222 negative samples that just happen to match the > M222 STR pattern. > > There are some out there. Possibly more we don't know about. Perhaps > even some in the project although I think the likelihood of that is > extremely > low. > > If someone would be so kind as to relieve me of any responsibility for > the M222 project you could do what you wish with it. Make everyone take > an > SNP test. Drop all untested samples from the project. David Wilson > wouldn't care. He's retired anyway. He asked me a few months ago to try > and > replace him. No luck yet. > > > > John > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Sandy, The Ewing in question has his haplogroup in Green, that tells me he has been SNP tested and that's his result. But, John is now saying that he has been SNP tested, but not for M222 - the critical SNP for our project - so that changes things. I then can't say he is M222-, but can say his M222 status is untested/unknown. As you know, for statistical analyses of M222+ people, It's preferable to include people who have actually tested positive for M222 - that was my point. Cheers, Paul On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Sandy Paterson < alexanderpatterson@btinternet.com> wrote: > Hi Paul > > You say that Ewing kit number 32942 has been SNP tested and was found to > have been M222-. > > If I go to the Ewing FTDNA public site, I find that his haplotype is given > as R1b1, shown in green. To me this means that he's undergone an SNP test > and was found to be positive for P25. I can't see anything to indicate that > he was found to be M222-. Can you explain why you believe him to be M222-? > I > can see that he's not been tested M222+, but that's not the same as being > tested M222-. > > Sandy > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paul Conroy > Sent: 11 October 2011 19:13 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series > > Here's another example: > > 105696 Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 > 24 > > 15183115-16-16-18111119-231816181737-38111211915-1681010810101221-2116101212 > 1681225201312111311111212 > 37180Ewing > R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 > 3115-16-16-17111119-231716181735-371112 > 32942Ewing > R1b1 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 > 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181735-381112 > 26860Ewing > R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 > 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181737-381112 > 54199Ewing > R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 > > 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181737-38111211915-1681010810101221-23161012121681 > 225201312111311111212 > 136564Ewing > R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 > 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181738-381112 > 59136Ewing > R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 > 3115-16-16-1791119-231816181737-381112 > 69700Ewing > R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 19 > 3115-16-16-17111119-231816191737-381112 > > All these Ewing members are mostly the same, but only one has been SNP > tested (32942), and his result is M222- (negative), so it's possible that > all the others are M222- as well. So they are not in fact part of the M222 > clade at all. > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Paul Conroy <pconroy63@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > I have read your description of your methodology and found it was based > on > > STR variation, both myself and Busby pointed out the problems with this. > > > > But if you won't defend it, that's fine - enough said. > > > > Maybe you can answer this then, here are some people from the M222 group, > > which were SNP tested and came up negative for M222 (or M222-), their > > haplogroup is marked in GREEN: > > > > 25105 McLaughlin R1b1 > > 27071 McCord R1b1 > > 14740 Cowen R1b1 > > 32498 Doherty R1b1 > > > > These people are close matches to others who have NOT been SNP tested, so > > these others could also be M222-. Why would M222- people be used in > > calculating the TMRCA of M222+ people????? > > > > Cheers, > > Paul > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> I stand by all my postings. You say you are not reading my papers and > >> naturally you won't understand my approach. > >> My papers are being published - two already and four more in the works; > >> others are reading them. > >> I have written Sandy privately about the challenge and have given him > >> reasons why I don't want to participate -- mainly because there is no > >> reciprocity in discussions of differences. Let's not continue this > fruitless > >> harangue. > >> - Bye from Bill Howard > >> > >> > >> > >> R1b1c7 Research and Links: > >> > >> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Paul, FTDNA has me as R1b1a2 in red. I did several SNP tests with Ethnoancestry including M222. This was the email I received from Ethnoancestry on 28th April 2006 (from David Faux who is no longer with them). Earlier I did their 'The Works' SNP test and later I also did the S116 SNP test and was positive for that too. I just did that to help the research as the result was expected to be a formality (its upstream of L21). 28.4.06Hello all: Partial and some complete results have arrived in my inbox. It is my pleasure to be able to pass available data along to you without delay. Based on our SNP testing we have determined the following results relating to your order: M222 derived (positive) Derived = + (you have the mutation); ancestral = - (you don't have the mutation). For those who are still awaiting markers we anticipate that they will be available shortly as we attempt to clear our backlog. We have added new equipment and procedures and things should proceed at a more rapid pace. We have identified those who have the full complement of markers and their order is thus complete. Within a couple of weeks these individuals will be sent a complete listing of all the results noted in our database in the form of a report. With thanks for your patience, David. Iain > From: pconroy63@gmail.com > Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:10:14 -0400 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series > > Iain, > > So on the M222 Project page are you listed in RED (rough estimate) or GREEN > (actual tested), I would imagine you would be listed in red, as that > indicates a rough estimate of your haplogroup, based on just your STR > values. Your actual haplogroup is ONLY based on the results of a SNP test, > and that would be Green. > > If FTDNA allowed you to upload your results from Ethnoancestry, and they > accepted your SNP results, then it should be Green. BTW, what were the SNP's > you tested for, was one of them M222? > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > > > A useful reminder, as I did my M222 test at Ethnoancestry so I have never > > thought it worth spending twice to get it confirmed by FTDNA. At the latter > > I am probably still flagged with just a predicted (and higher level) > > haplogroup. > > IainM222+ > > > > > > > > > From: Lochlan@aol.com > > > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:05:09 -0400 > > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/11/2011 6:23:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > > > pconroy63@gmail.com writes: > > > > > > John, > > > > > > People whose haplotype show up in Green have been SNP tested. They are > > > given > > > the designation of their terminal SNP - the last one they are positive > > for. > > > I was one of the early testers of the Deep Clade test, and M222 was > > > available then. Some other companies had SNP tests available prior to > > this, > > > FTDNA was not the first to offer SNP tests. > > > > > > I couldn't find any way to contact FTDNA but I did find some discussion > > of > > > others with single P25+ results identical to those in the M222 project. > > > > > > > > > Apparently these were very early tests done by FTDNA prior to adopting > > > deep clade SNP testing. EthnoAncestry was doing them much earlier. > > > > > > "I suspect FTDNA was feeling a little competitive pressure from other > > > testing > > > companies. FTDNA is the market leader for Y-DYS testing (our Short > > Tandem > > > Repeats), but they didn't offer the best packages for SNP (Single > > > Nucleotide > > > Polymorphism) testing. For example, when I had them run my SNP early in > > > 2005, the only result I received was P25 positive; enough to identify me > > > as > > > R1b1, but all I got was the result on that one marker. Still, the test > > was > > > only 65 bucks so I wasn't complaining." > > > > > > Another post says: > > > > > > "My personal Haplogroup page at FTDNA (no deep clade test from FTDNA) > > > Your Haplogroup (&) Tests R1b1 P25+" > > > > > > He then compares his results to a cousin who took the full deep clade > > test. > > > > > > "An R1b1* haplogroup page (one of my “cousins”) > > > Your Haplogroup (&) Tests > > > R1b1 M173+ M207+ M343+ P25+ M126- M153- M160- M18- M222- M269- M37- > > > M65- M73- P66- SRY2627-" > > > > > > "Please note that the pluses and minuses agree that P25 was/is > > > universally tested by FTDNA and all subclades are verified as > > > negative except for me as my R1b confirmation test was run prior to > > > the offering of deep clade tests. (EthnoAncestry ran my deep clade > > > tests.) I can not personally attest to what tests by FTDNA are run; > > > but, I remember that several contributors to this digest kvetch > > > about their use of P25." > > > > > > > > > So I do not think these samples are necessarily M222-. Or negative for > > > M269 or L21. They simply haven't been tested since the very early days > > at > > > FTDNA. > > > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > > > > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Doesn't every cluster within the R-M222 haplogroup have some people who have tested positive for M222. Why should everybody within the same cluster be tested for M222? Larry Dill

Hi Paul You say that Ewing kit number 32942 has been SNP tested and was found to have been M222-. If I go to the Ewing FTDNA public site, I find that his haplotype is given as R1b1, shown in green. To me this means that he's undergone an SNP test and was found to be positive for P25. I can't see anything to indicate that he was found to be M222-. Can you explain why you believe him to be M222-? I can see that he's not been tested M222+, but that's not the same as being tested M222-. Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paul Conroy Sent: 11 October 2011 19:13 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series Here's another example: 105696 Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 24 15183115-16-16-18111119-231816181737-38111211915-1681010810101221-2116101212 1681225201312111311111212 37180Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 3115-16-16-17111119-231716181735-371112 32942Ewing R1b1 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181735-381112 26860Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181737-381112 54199Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181737-38111211915-1681010810101221-23161012121681 225201312111311111212 136564Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181738-381112 59136Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 3115-16-16-1791119-231816181737-381112 69700Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 19 3115-16-16-17111119-231816191737-381112 All these Ewing members are mostly the same, but only one has been SNP tested (32942), and his result is M222- (negative), so it's possible that all the others are M222- as well. So they are not in fact part of the M222 clade at all. Cheers, Paul On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Paul Conroy <pconroy63@gmail.com> wrote: > Bill, > > I have read your description of your methodology and found it was based on > STR variation, both myself and Busby pointed out the problems with this. > > But if you won't defend it, that's fine - enough said. > > Maybe you can answer this then, here are some people from the M222 group, > which were SNP tested and came up negative for M222 (or M222-), their > haplogroup is marked in GREEN: > > 25105 McLaughlin R1b1 > 27071 McCord R1b1 > 14740 Cowen R1b1 > 32498 Doherty R1b1 > > These people are close matches to others who have NOT been SNP tested, so > these others could also be M222-. Why would M222- people be used in > calculating the TMRCA of M222+ people????? > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > >> I stand by all my postings. You say you are not reading my papers and >> naturally you won't understand my approach. >> My papers are being published - two already and four more in the works; >> others are reading them. >> I have written Sandy privately about the challenge and have given him >> reasons why I don't want to participate -- mainly because there is no >> reciprocity in discussions of differences. Let's not continue this fruitless >> harangue. >> - Bye from Bill Howard >> >> >> >> R1b1c7 Research and Links: >> >> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Well, you know, I've seen a lot of diversified and interesting clubs (and now internet groups) go through many of the aches as this one seems to be experiencing at the moment and subsequently collapse. I'd hate to see another administrator of a very viable group go by the way side because of an apparent discontent among a few who want to change the scope of the project as it was originally defined. As in all groups, there are at times discussions which do not appeal to everyone. No two people let alone a group are going to agree 100% of the time or on every issue. Not everyone has the understandings of all or even some. Everyone is on a computer with a functioning delete key. Belonging to this club beyond the defining parameters as we know them is by choice. No one is forced to participate or even join. You know the Clans and Septs of our ancestors about which this exercise of DNA testing involves were members of their groups on a criteria which rarely involved blood relatedness as the main requirement for belonging. We as their descendants now have fully come to terms with that. Some want to redefine not only this club but our ancestors as well; and we've seen a certain amount of those discussions regarding how X group could or could not been associated with Y group because of what our pathetic understandings or misunderstandings are over a thousand + years later based on the few scribed accounts often contradictory of one another and scribed hundreds of years after the fact and/or in some cases invention. It is my most candid estimation that the Clans & Septs in part allowed their own destruction by invading forces who wanted to change them through the same kind of behaviors which has been exhibited by some thus far from time to time with-in this group: ie killing off the rulers, dividing the followers with name changes and dissension, enforcing rule changes with bullying and humiliation, and the majority just wanted to get on with life and acquiesced after doing their best to hang in to defend their way of life. Ironically among the descendants now for some time is the call to revive our heritages; however, our behavior, if evidenced by some of the recent activity of this list, has not changed much. I see no need to change the definition of who is in the club and who isn't. It is the collective efforts of the many which gives this site its appeal to those who participate. It is unfortunate that the few who believe that they are the real club because they have + SNP and every one who is unambiguous, considered by the testing firm as unambiguous by definition are not. Individuals could spend for an upgrade if it were important enough to them to test their unambiguous result, and the majority would test out the positive SNP, and what has been accomplished? I am not minimizing the importance of making certain if there is any doubt; however since this group was never set up on those parameters I also see no need for it to be redefined. None of that is going to impede the research. The research will continue with further discoveries and redefinitions as it has over the last 11 years. This group is full of highly intelligent, interesting, knowledgeable and motivated, people with a variety of skill sets and accomplishments; it is through the diversity of talent that all societies survive. Now whether or not some of you may believe that my once again choice of sticking out my neck and inviting reprisal for doing so is appropriate or not, I don't really care. This needed to be said by someone. Susan On 10/13/2011 3:00 AM, dna-r1b1c7-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Summary of a distracting series (Lochlan@aol.com) > 2. Re: Summary of a distracting series (Lochlan@aol.com) > 3. Re: M222 and WTY (Lochlan@aol.com) > 4. Re: M222 and WTY (tuulen) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:51:43 -0400 (EDT) > From: Lochlan@aol.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Message-ID:<5d756.2d3b0d69.3bc773ff@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > > > In a message dated 10/12/2011 11:20:52 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > pconroy63@gmail.com writes: > > John, > > The answer is, you possibly are, but since other McLoughlin's are also > close > to the Modal STR values and are tested negative for M222, then only passing > an M222 SNP test will give you the answer to your question - it's as simple > as that. > > This is really our only source of disagreement and it's one that can be > settled one way or the other with a full explanation of what those P25 results > really mean. I'm not really sure how to do that however. Not yet any > way. I already gave my opinion on what the results mean. I don't think any > of them have been tested for M222. > > > John > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:57:56 -0400 (EDT) > From: Lochlan@aol.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Message-ID:<5f972.b3ed61a.3bc78384@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > I spent some time checking received lab results for the project. Paul's > results are interesting. He shows: > > R1b1a2a1a1b4b P25+ M343+ M269+ M222+ M207+ M173+ SRY2627- P66- M73- M65- > M37- M18- M160- M153- M126- > > But he also shows two different SNP tests. > > 1. P25 12/16/2004 > 2, DSNP-R1b 6/23/2006 > > > As of 12/16/2004 he would have been listed, based on result 1, as P25 and > R1b1 just like the other samples in question. He would still be listed as > that today if he had not taken the DSNP test two years later. > > I looked at the McLaughlin sample in question (there is only one). 25105. > On 4/19/2007 he shows a P25 test identical to Paul's. But he never > upgraded to the DSNP test or what FTDNA later began calling the DCLADE test. > This sample has not been tested for M222 or any other SNP other than P25. > > The same thing is true of the Doherty sample. He also only tested for > P25 in 8/1/2005. He never had another SNP test or Deep Clade test. He too > is still P25. > > At about the same time the McLaughlin sample was tested for P25 other DSNP > tests were reported. > Bernard Morgan of this list had one done in April 2007 and the results were > reported as follows: > > R1b1a2a1a1b4b P25+ M343+ M269+ M222+ M207+ M173+ SRY2627- P66- M73- M65- > M37- M18- M160- M153- M126- > > > The P25 SNP results reported in the project are essentially orphans that > have never been upgraded or checked for any SNP except P25. I will stand by > that deduction, It could easily be verified through FTDNA should anyone > desire to do so. (assuming you can find a way to ask the question). These > are not examples of M222 negative samples that just happen to match the > M222 STR pattern. > > There are some out there. Possibly more we don't know about. Perhaps > even some in the project although I think the likelihood of that is extremely > low. > > If someone would be so kind as to relieve me of any responsibility for > the M222 project you could do what you wish with it. Make everyone take an > SNP test. Drop all untested samples from the project. David Wilson > wouldn't care. He's retired anyway. He asked me a few months ago to try and > replace him. No luck yet. > > > > John > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:29:26 -0400 (EDT) > From: Lochlan@aol.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 and WTY > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Message-ID:<60979.4c6b48c4.3bc78ae6@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > > > In a message dated 10/12/2011 1:56:22 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > tuulen@gmail.com writes: > > Apparently I am M222, according to Family Tree, but I have no idea as > to what WTY could be. > > Not that I need a detailed explanation, but what is WTY and what could > WTY determine? > > If WTY indeed is relevant, then I would be glad to make a financial > contribution. > > I don't think anyone else responded to this. WTY is an initiative by > FTDNA to find new SNPs (Walk on the Y). I first heard of it several years > ago and it has found a lot of new SNPs but none for the M222s tested to date. > Ken Nordtvedt at the time didn't think any new SNPs would be found > downstream of M222 since it was such a young clade by comparison with most > others. After testing three Irish samples it's doubtful anything would be found > in testing more. Scottish samples? Who knows? > > > John > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:27:20 -0400 > From: tuulen<tuulen@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 and WTY > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: > <CABbuToxG6nDBKX-DWWax-trC2hvfEpGhyo2O9j83qm=hAQCyuA@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > John, > > Thank you. > > The Internet is a haven for abbreviations, and sometimes I can figure > out or guess what abbreviations stand for, but then sometimes I cannot > make heads or tails of them. > > Doug > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:29 PM,<Lochlan@aol.com> wrote: >> >> In a message dated 10/12/2011 1:56:22 A.M. Central Daylight Time, >> tuulen@gmail.com writes: >> >> Apparently I am M222, according to Family Tree, but I have no idea ?as >> to what WTY could be. >> >> Not that I need a detailed explanation, but ?what is WTY and what could >> WTY determine? >> >> If WTY indeed is relevant, ?then I would be glad to make a financial >> contribution. >> >> I don't think anyone ?else responded to this. ?WTY is an ?initiative by >> FTDNA to find new SNPs (Walk on the Y). ? I first heard ?of it several years >> ago and it has found a lot of new SNPs but none for the ?M222s tested to date. >> ?Ken Nordtvedt at the time didn't think any new SNPs ?would ?be found >> downstream of M222 since it was such a young clade by ?comparison with most >> others. ?After testing three Irish samples it's ?doubtful anything would be found >> in testing more. ?Scottish samples? ? Who knows? >> >> >> John >> >> >> ?R1b1c7 Research and Links: >> >> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of DNA-R1B1C7 Digest, Vol 5, Issue 337 > ****************************************** >

John, Thank you. The Internet is a haven for abbreviations, and sometimes I can figure out or guess what abbreviations stand for, but then sometimes I cannot make heads or tails of them. Doug On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:29 PM, <Lochlan@aol.com> wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/12/2011 1:56:22 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > tuulen@gmail.com writes: > > Apparently I am M222, according to Family Tree, but I have no idea  as > to what WTY could be. > > Not that I need a detailed explanation, but  what is WTY and what could > WTY determine? > > If WTY indeed is relevant,  then I would be glad to make a financial > contribution. > > I don't think anyone  else responded to this.  WTY is an  initiative by > FTDNA to find new SNPs (Walk on the Y).   I first heard  of it several years > ago and it has found a lot of new SNPs but none for the  M222s tested to date. >  Ken Nordtvedt at the time didn't think any new SNPs  would  be found > downstream of M222 since it was such a young clade by  comparison with most > others.  After testing three Irish samples it's  doubtful anything would be found > in testing more.  Scottish samples?   Who knows? > > > John > > >  R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >