"There is always the chance that an applicant could be rejected. I'm not sure it there is a mechanism to return the contributions in that case." Susan, Since I haven't gone through the procedure I can't be sure, but my understanding is that the test is paid for only if the application is accepted. So reimbursements would not be an issue if, as you suggest, the money could be used for other M222 tests. The WTY test costs $750. Currently there is a backlog because it went on sale for $500 a while back, and orders piled in. Apparently, FTDNA only runs a couple of tests per day. When the backlog has been eliminated, and if David Reynolds believes it will be of help to general research, I intend to order the test. If others wish to pool their money to test other families, great. In the end, it will be FTDNA that decides whether or not to accept additional M222 testees. If they see greater possibilities in other haplogroups, we will either not be accepted or will be far back in the queue. Incidentally, when Thomas K first announced the test, he said it was an "at cost" test, and would not be a money maker for FTDNA. that's! one reason they are not pushing it. It is the amateur researchers who are doing that (and finding so many new SNPs). Paul

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. So people, like the 4 below, and a few more Ewings and others, are M222- (Negative). I see some of the same thing on 23andMe, where people with Irish names, test way upstream on R1b, and their results are more similar to R1b from South Eastern Europe, Turkey or the Middle East. The point is, using just STR values, 2 people in different lineages (i.e. different terminal SNP's) can converge to the same result. BTW, having looked at this today, it's interesting that a few surname groups like Ewing, Doherty and McLaughlin in the project, have SNP tested members who are M222+ and M222-, so these are mixed lineages, though they seem similar based on STR's alone. Cheers, Paul On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:03 PM, <Lochlan@aol.com> wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/11/2011 1:03:36 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > pconroy63@gmail.com writes: > > 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 > > I think you're misinterpreting that. There's a whole group of samples > that are listed as P25+. (9). More than you show here. I don't know how > this group came by this SNP result. It may have been done automatically > for > them by FTDNA in the early days. None of them are M222- since that SNP > was > not tested for. It would be listed if it had been. P25 is upstream from > M269 so testing for that SNP alone makes little sense today with L21 and > M222. > > Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but I will remind the list that > David Wilson, the first M222 tested and the man who discovered the clade, > was of the opinion that M222 was so easily recognizable by STRs alone that > no SNP test was necessary for most unambiguous samples.. That is why he > instituted a policy of not requiring SNP tests when he founded the M222 > project. In fact on several occasions he opined that M222 could be > identified > with near certainty on the basis of the first twelve markers alone. His > criterion was two of three modal markers in the first twelve was generally > sufficient. David is semi-retired now and not present to counter the > arguments being presented on this list. If he were I think he would > support Bill's > quacks like a duck argument. > > There are a few genuine cases of STRs that mimic M222 so closely one can > hardly tell the difference. These have been discussed multiple times on > the > list. David Wilson was puzzled by them too which is why he mostly grouped > them in a pre-M222 category. One is a Hannan ; another a Wilson. And a > Clark. > > I'm seeing a lot of new results lately in which only M222 is tested. Does > anyone have an idea of what that costs? I've never bothered to get SNP > tested myself but I might if the price is right. From my perspective it > would be a waste of time and money though. Does anyone seriously think my > kit > is not M222? (75919). I'm in a group at the McLaughlin DNA project with > close matches to several other McLaughlins who have been SNP tested. That > was the criterion recommended by all the experts including John McEwan for > DNA surname projects. Testing all, they said, was unnecessary. > > On another topic we've had two M222 results forever from the early phase of > the Walk on the Y testing. One was a McGonagle (different spelling). > Another a Mannion. Both appear to be Irish from the > Cenel Conaill in Donegal and Connachta. I recently heard from the McNeely > who reported he just had the test done and no new SNPs were found. That > seems likely to be another Connachta surname. According to MacLysyght is > UI > Maine but descended from the Soghan or Sodhan, commonly described as a > pre-goidelic (or Gaelic) race, whatever that might mean. > > > 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 >

I just answered my own question on the M222 test. $29 plus a $9.50 transfer fee. Not too bad. John

In a message dated 10/11/2011 1:03:36 P.M. Central Daylight Time, pconroy63@gmail.com writes: 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 I think you're misinterpreting that. There's a whole group of samples that are listed as P25+. (9). More than you show here. I don't know how this group came by this SNP result. It may have been done automatically for them by FTDNA in the early days. None of them are M222- since that SNP was not tested for. It would be listed if it had been. P25 is upstream from M269 so testing for that SNP alone makes little sense today with L21 and M222. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but I will remind the list that David Wilson, the first M222 tested and the man who discovered the clade, was of the opinion that M222 was so easily recognizable by STRs alone that no SNP test was necessary for most unambiguous samples.. That is why he instituted a policy of not requiring SNP tests when he founded the M222 project. In fact on several occasions he opined that M222 could be identified with near certainty on the basis of the first twelve markers alone. His criterion was two of three modal markers in the first twelve was generally sufficient. David is semi-retired now and not present to counter the arguments being presented on this list. If he were I think he would support Bill's quacks like a duck argument. There are a few genuine cases of STRs that mimic M222 so closely one can hardly tell the difference. These have been discussed multiple times on the list. David Wilson was puzzled by them too which is why he mostly grouped them in a pre-M222 category. One is a Hannan ; another a Wilson. And a Clark. I'm seeing a lot of new results lately in which only M222 is tested. Does anyone have an idea of what that costs? I've never bothered to get SNP tested myself but I might if the price is right. From my perspective it would be a waste of time and money though. Does anyone seriously think my kit is not M222? (75919). I'm in a group at the McLaughlin DNA project with close matches to several other McLaughlins who have been SNP tested. That was the criterion recommended by all the experts including John McEwan for DNA surname projects. Testing all, they said, was unnecessary. On another topic we've had two M222 results forever from the early phase of the Walk on the Y testing. One was a McGonagle (different spelling). Another a Mannion. Both appear to be Irish from the Cenel Conaill in Donegal and Connachta. I recently heard from the McNeely who reported he just had the test done and no new SNPs were found. That seems likely to be another Connachta surname. According to MacLysyght is UI Maine but descended from the Soghan or Sodhan, commonly described as a pre-goidelic (or Gaelic) race, whatever that might mean. John

Actually I think I can respond positively to this posting. If you will send me the 37-marker haplotypes I will do a comparison and try to answer your question. I suggest you do this off-list so that we won't bother the readers with such details. We can always post the conclusion for others to read. It is the variation in STRs that determine the RCC time scale which I have calibrated using over 100 pedigrees. If you can rationally explain what you or Mr. Busby believe to be the problem with this, having first read my papers and the previously posted FAQ, then I will be glad to have a discussion with you. Once I have a group of people that belong to a certain group, like a surname group, M222, or L21, or even representatives of different haplogroups, then I can run a tree and determine approximately when their progenitor lived, give or take a few hundred years SD, depending on the number in the group. In the case of M222, it is membership in the group that counts. Since I have found no difference in the marker strings of M222+ and M222-, then the progenitor will be that of both groups. When I analyze only the M222+, I get the same answer I get when analyzing M222-. That is a point I have been trying to make with you when I mention the duck analogy! - Bye from Bill Howard On Oct 11, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Paul Conroy 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

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 15183115-16-16-18111119-231816181737-38111211915-1681010810101221-21161012121681225201312111311111212 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 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181737-38111211915-1681010810101221-23161012121681225201312111311111212 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 >> > >

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 >

I'm already on record saying I would be willing to contribute toward a WTY, but it is worth reconfirming it. I do think, however, that the fund should wait until a participant has been accepted into the WTY program. There is always the chance that an applicant could be rejected. I'm not sure it there is a mechanism to return the contributions in that case. Although I don't suppose I would mind if my contribution went toward a few M222 SNP tests instead. Susan Milligan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Conroy" <pconroy63@gmail.com> To: <grierson@melbpc.org.au>; <dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 and WTY > David, > > I definitely think some of the smaller clusters that have been identified > in > the M222 clade should be analysed via WTY. > > I suggested a year or two ago, that testing the NW cluster (main group) > probably wouldn't yield much, and it seems I'm right. This is because it's > so uniform and young. However testing the Nith Valley Cluster (Greer, > Grierson, Milligan), or people like myself in Southern Midlands of Ireland > (Dunne, Dalton) might prove fruitful, as would testing a representative > Breifne (O'Rielly, O'Rourke) member. > > I would be in favor of setting up a fund to support the cost of doing > this. > > Cheers, > Paul

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

Dear Bill, I would like to comment on your statement "We are publishing our results in a refereed journal, so it will be a part of our scientific legacy". The journal FAMILIA published by the Ulster Historical Society is not a high impact journal like Science, Nature or PNAS, where rigorous standards of peer review are upheld. I may believe your RCC model and your assertions that you can get an age of a mutation from a mix of haplotypes, some of which have the mutation and some of which don't, when your results are reproduced and published in a high profile journal. David -- Dr. David H. MacLennan, Banting and Best Department of Medical Research, University of Toronto, Charles H. Best Institute, 112 College St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G1L6 Tel:1-416-978-5008 Fax:1-416-978-8528 http://www.utoronto.ca/maclennan We are publishing our results in a refereed journal, so it will be a part of our scientific legacy. Can you say the same? Bye from Bill Howard

Bill, I'm not interested in your 73% criteria - that's just plain nonsense. Again, you are using the acronym SNP incorrectly, it stands for Single Nucleotide Polymorphism, which is a boolean event, and not a collection of STR values. If you don't understand this basis fact, then stop posting here. I don't care what you do with your study, I won't be reading it, as it premises are flawed and so it doesn't interest me in the slightest. I mentioned on this list previously, that due to the non-linearity on STR values, there were systematic problems using them as the basis of any calculations of TMRCA, and only a short while later the Busby paper was published which proved I was right. Can you say the same? What predictions have you made that were subsequently validated? Why not take up Sandy's challenge and prove your controversial RCC calculations?! The way forward is to adopt the approach of the R-L21 Project and ferret out sub-clusters of matching off-modal member, and then when a definitive signature is found, to do a WTY test to check for a SNP. SNP's mutate linearly, and do not back-mutate. Cheers, Paul On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > Reply to Paul Conroy, > > I stand by my posting. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and > quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. > Moreover, if the analytic results using the tested SNPs are identical to > the analytic results derived from non-tested SNPs when the latter conforms > to the 73% criterion, it also behaves like a duck. > > This is not a false definition as you suggest - it is a realization that > there is virtually a 100% correlation in the analytic results of using > tested and non-tested M222 as long as the markers meet that criterion. It is > a fact that if the haplotype string for a non-tested group of M222s that > otherwise meet the 73% criterion and if they give the identical analytic > result, it just plain doesn't matter if the group has also been tested, as > long as it meets the 73% criterion. > > I don't want to be pedantic here, but deeper and more careful thought will > show that, aside from mutations, the M222 SNP itself has not changed. Its > existence is a fact. It is our definition of it, starting with only a small > number of markers, and evolving to where we are today, that has changed. If > you are a purist, you may confine your thoughts only to M222 haplotypes that > have been SNP tested but you are missing an opportunity that may be > uncovered if more haplotypes (that cannot be told apart operationally) are > not used to refine the analyses based on a larger set of statistics. My > point is that when a haplotype meets the 73% criterion, it just plain > doesn't matter. You get the same set of analytic results using either set. > That's what we find, and that is a fact, not an opinion. > > I think the way to alienate opinion on this list is to use capital letters > as a shout and not realize that this is a discussion board where people can > express their own opinions and compare their results. If you wish to confine > yourself to tested SNPs, you can do so, but I think you are missing a bet. > We are publishing our results in a refereed journal, so it will be a part of > our scientific legacy. Can you say the same? > > - 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 >

Reply to Paul Conroy, I stand by my posting. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Moreover, if the analytic results using the tested SNPs are identical to the analytic results derived from non-tested SNPs when the latter conforms to the 73% criterion, it also behaves like a duck. This is not a false definition as you suggest - it is a realization that there is virtually a 100% correlation in the analytic results of using tested and non-tested M222 as long as the markers meet that criterion. It is a fact that if the haplotype string for a non-tested group of M222s that otherwise meet the 73% criterion and if they give the identical analytic result, it just plain doesn't matter if the group has also been tested, as long as it meets the 73% criterion. I don't want to be pedantic here, but deeper and more careful thought will show that, aside from mutations, the M222 SNP itself has not changed. Its existence is a fact. It is our definition of it, starting with only a small number of markers, and evolving to where we are today, that has changed. If you are a purist, you may confine your thoughts only to M222 haplotypes that have been SNP tested but you are missing an opportunity that may be uncovered if more haplotypes (that cannot be told apart operationally) are not used to refine the analyses based on a larger set of statistics. My point is that when a haplotype meets the 73% criterion, it just plain doesn't matter. You get the same set of analytic results using either set. That's what we find, and that is a fact, not an opinion. I think the way to alienate opinion on this list is to use capital letters as a shout and not realize that this is a discussion board where people can express their own opinions and compare their results. If you wish to confine yourself to tested SNPs, you can do so, but I think you are missing a bet. We are publishing our results in a refereed journal, so it will be a part of our scientific legacy. Can you say the same? - Bye from Bill Howard

David, I definitely think some of the smaller clusters that have been identified in the M222 clade should be analysed via WTY. I suggested a year or two ago, that testing the NW cluster (main group) probably wouldn't yield much, and it seems I'm right. This is because it's so uniform and young. However testing the Nith Valley Cluster (Greer, Grierson, Milligan), or people like myself in Southern Midlands of Ireland (Dunne, Dalton) might prove fruitful, as would testing a representative Breifne (O'Rielly, O'Rourke) member. I would be in favor of setting up a fund to support the cost of doing this. Cheers, Paul On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:16 AM, J David Grierson <grierson@melbpc.org.au>wrote: > Paul, > I, too, have been considering the WTY, but I also understood that no > knew tests would be programmed for some time - next year perhaps. I > thought that only one test had been done, however I see that the WTY > site has been amended to state three tests complete. > But on the face of it, all those names are very "Irish". I think we have > a case for a "Scots" descendant to undergo the test as well, if only to > see whether those with distinctive off-modal characteristics also carry > a family SNP. > David > > > On 11/10/2011 12:48 AM, pabloburns@comcast.net wrote: > > I am sure we all were hoping that with all the new SNPs being > discovered, one would be identified to divide M222. Apparently, no such > luck. I asked David Reynolds if it would help for me to take the WTY test. > David replied that only one M222 has been tested, but the young age of M222 > may mean no additional SNP. He suggested I wait until the current backlog of > WTY orders is run through, and after 2-3 months he will look at this again. > > I then queried Kirsten Saxe, and she replied that the Finch2 data > indicates that three M222 have been tested--137003 (Mannion), 17624, and > 192014. Kirsten did not have names for the latter two, but I found 192014 > (McNeely) on the M222 project list. I could not identify 17624. > > Can anyone confirm that three M222s have been WTY tested with no new > SNPs discovered? If only one has been tested, I am willing to hazard the > $750 cost, but if three have been tested with no additional info discovered, > perhaps I should wait for a future increase in the size of the test. > > Paul > > 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 virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1522/3943 - Release Date: 10/07/11 > > > > > > 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 >

Bob, I know that Bill has responded with the big picture, but I think you should be aware that there are plenty of STR comparisons wrt the modal within surname groups. For instance, in my area of interest, such comparisons have enabled the identification of individuals carrying different surnames as being part of our family cluster. From another perspective, the reliance on STR analysis alone limits our chance of finding the latest possible pre-M222 haplotype, which I think will be a necessary part of determining ancestral locations. Don't forget that it is hypothetically possible to have two identical haplotypes, one descended from the brother of the M222 mutant. Given that M222 is substantially different from L21 (or whatever the ancestral SNP turns out to be), there might have been a significant time interval during which many of the variations developed before the actual SNP mutation. So, despite Bill's position, I believe there is value to be had in modal analysis. David Grierson On 10/10/2011 3:00 PM, Bob Quinn wrote: > I am RM222 and would like to know if there is any STR by STR analysis of the modal YDNA for RM222 that would indicate what various differences to the modal might mean for an individual? > > Bob Quinn >

Bill, It is not M222 that has changed, it's how we have defined it that has > changed. The above statement of your is 100% WRONG!!! With all due respect for your efforts, please STOP TRYING TO GIVE A FALSE DEFINITION OF WHAT M222 IS: It is NOT based on your mathematical formulations, it is a SNP that you are either positive or negative for, if you are positive (M222+) then you are in one group, if you are negative (M222-) you are in a different group - end of story. If you are not using M222+ members for your calculations, then they are INVALID. I'd prefer you'd stop posting your own opinions of what M222 is or isn't, when it's scientifically defined already. The way your going, introducing an unscientific bias, trying to redefine SNP's according to how you'd like them to be, your going to alienate many people on the list. Sincerely, Paul On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > Just a note to reply to Iain's comments about "pseudo-M222" people and > discovering the pre-M222 origins. > > First, there are honest disagreements as to whether a testee should be > tested for M222 if other aspects of his haplotype indicate that he is a > member of the group. I am agreeing with John McLaughlin on this point, > having shown that the so-called "pseudo-M222" group has over 73% of each of > their markers that agree with the M222 modal for each of those markers. If > that is the case, I see no reason to spend the money on the test. It is not > M222 that has changed, it's how we have defined it that has changed. We now > have an approach that we have used to analyze M222 carriers that highly > correlates with the results of the SNP test. What looks like a duck, walks > like a duck, and quacks like a duck, is, for all practical purposes, a duck! > > As for discovering the pre-M222 origins, because of the nature of mutations > and the existence of the M222 SNP, you cannot find who the male progenitors > of the first M222 carrier lived unless you have some idea of the SNPs or > makeup of the marker strings that eventually give way to the progenitor of > M222. You need an evolutionary diagram for that -- a phylogenetic tree that > connects M222 to those origins. That is what the ISOGG is doing. There is > some thought that L21 is a near progenitor of M222 and it may well be, but > it will contain many L21 (but not M222) folks and they need to be put into a > phylogenetic tree of their own kind like the one that John and I have > produced for M222, but with a time scale (viz., RCC) attached to the tree. > The ISOGG has such a tree, but no time scale. If the pre-M222 origins > originate from the L21 folks, then the latter progenitor should be older > than the M222 progenitor. > > I have run a tree on the L21 set, but have not done much with it since John > McLaughlin kindly sent me a very large sample of L21s. What I did find, and > it is a preliminary result, is that the progenitor of the L21 set lived at a > date that corresponds to RCC ~ 187, which converts to about 8100 years ago, > or about 6150 BC, nicely older than M222's progenitor who may have descended > from the progenitor of L21. But this is very preliminary. > > We pretty well know roughly where the progenitor of M222 lived and we know > something about the modern surnames of his descendants, and they are > presented in the paper that John and I wrote which we hope will be published > later this year in the journal FAMILIA published by the Ulster Historical > Society. Iain writes about the absolute necessity of discovering the origins > of M222 without specifying what he meant by the term "origin" beyond > surnames and location. I would submit that without gathering testee results > over several thousand more carriers (won't happen soon), or some > breakthrough in another field of Y-DNA analysis like the one we have made > with the RCC time scale, we are constrained to draw our conclusions on the > testees we have in hand now. > > Finally, I certainly do not want to discourage further investigation into > the origins of the M222 SNP and we should encourage more to be tested for > their Y-DNA, but I fear that the Law of Diminishing returns may set in, > forcing us to look in different directions than we have in the past. Whether > this means many more testees or pursuing breakthroughs in other areas is > problematical at present. > > I have just heard from the new editor of the JoGG that the two papers I > have authored with Tei Gordon (on the Gordons) and with Fred Schwab > (introducing Mathematica as the program that can generate a phylogenetic > tree with the RCC time scale and illustrating it with an analysis of the > Gordons) will probably be included in the 2011 issue of JoGG if we make some > changes in the Gordon paper that have been suggested by the referees. That's > good news for us. > > I will be out of the country (tour to So. Africa) between 15 October and > the middle of November, and I did want to get this reply off to the List > before I depart. Best wishes to all. > > - Bye from Bill Howard > > On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:36 AM, Iain Kennedy wrote: > > > > > List, > > I would like to echo what David has said below. In fact Bill Howard, by > telling us we don't need the M222 SNP test and spending time analysing what > are actually pseudo-M222 people, is preventing us from discovering the > origins. Identifying the surnames and geographical origins of the pre-M222 > population is absolutely essential. Stating that the definition of M222 has > changed will baffle those who are new to this list. It hasn't. What we > should surely be doing as a minimum is doing all we can to encourage the > people who stand the highest chance of being pre-M222 to take the SNP test > (the only M222 test); although with back mutations I am not sure how > predictable they are. There could even be people close to the modal who are > M222- although as this is statistically unlikely they are admittedly not the > best people to target. > > > > I don't want to sound ungrateful for all the work Bill is doing and his > recent posts, but wanted to just take issue on this one point. > > > > As for the Trinity study, all their testing was done using Irish samples. > They did however use the Capelli dataset for comparison with Scotland, > albeit only to draw what to me sounds like a preconceived conclusion that > M222 came from Ireland. The Capelli testing only used two points from the > western half of Scotland - Oban and the Western Isles (Stornoway area by the > looks of the map). Since then I think only Sykes has published any Scottish > data on the same scale and his regions were rather on the large size for our > purposes, particularly in the crucial south-west. > > cheers > > Iain > > > > http://www.kennedydna.com > > > > > > > > > > > >> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:54:30 +1100 > >> From: grierson@melbpc.org.au > >> To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > >> Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series > >> > >> Bob, > >> I know that Bill has responded with the big picture, but I think you > >> should be aware that there are plenty of STR comparisons wrt the modal > >> within surname groups. For instance, in my area of interest, such > >> comparisons have enabled the identification of individuals carrying > >> different surnames as being part of our family cluster. > >> From another perspective, the reliance on STR analysis alone limits our > >> chance of finding the latest possible pre-M222 haplotype, which I think > >> will be a necessary part of determining ancestral locations. Don't > >> forget that it is hypothetically possible to have two identical > >> haplotypes, one descended from the brother of the M222 mutant. Given > >> that M222 is substantially different from L21 (or whatever the ancestral > >> SNP turns out to be), there might have been a significant time interval > >> during which many of the variations developed before the actual SNP > >> mutation. So, despite Bill's position, I believe there is value to be > >> had in modal analysis. > >> David Grierson > >> > >> On 10/10/2011 3:00 PM, Bob Quinn wrote: > >>> I am RM222 and would like to know if there is any STR by STR analysis > of the modal YDNA for RM222 that would indicate what various differences to > the modal might mean for an individual? > >>> > >>> Bob Quinn > >>> > >> > >> 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 >

Just a note to reply to Iain's comments about "pseudo-M222" people and discovering the pre-M222 origins. First, there are honest disagreements as to whether a testee should be tested for M222 if other aspects of his haplotype indicate that he is a member of the group. I am agreeing with John McLaughlin on this point, having shown that the so-called "pseudo-M222" group has over 73% of each of their markers that agree with the M222 modal for each of those markers. If that is the case, I see no reason to spend the money on the test. It is not M222 that has changed, it's how we have defined it that has changed. We now have an approach that we have used to analyze M222 carriers that highly correlates with the results of the SNP test. What looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, is, for all practical purposes, a duck! As for discovering the pre-M222 origins, because of the nature of mutations and the existence of the M222 SNP, you cannot find who the male progenitors of the first M222 carrier lived unless you have some idea of the SNPs or makeup of the marker strings that eventually give way to the progenitor of M222. You need an evolutionary diagram for that -- a phylogenetic tree that connects M222 to those origins. That is what the ISOGG is doing. There is some thought that L21 is a near progenitor of M222 and it may well be, but it will contain many L21 (but not M222) folks and they need to be put into a phylogenetic tree of their own kind like the one that John and I have produced for M222, but with a time scale (viz., RCC) attached to the tree. The ISOGG has such a tree, but no time scale. If the pre-M222 origins originate from the L21 folks, then the latter progenitor should be older than the M222 progenitor. I have run a tree on the L21 set, but have not done much with it since John McLaughlin kindly sent me a very large sample of L21s. What I did find, and it is a preliminary result, is that the progenitor of the L21 set lived at a date that corresponds to RCC ~ 187, which converts to about 8100 years ago, or about 6150 BC, nicely older than M222's progenitor who may have descended from the progenitor of L21. But this is very preliminary. We pretty well know roughly where the progenitor of M222 lived and we know something about the modern surnames of his descendants, and they are presented in the paper that John and I wrote which we hope will be published later this year in the journal FAMILIA published by the Ulster Historical Society. Iain writes about the absolute necessity of discovering the origins of M222 without specifying what he meant by the term "origin" beyond surnames and location. I would submit that without gathering testee results over several thousand more carriers (won't happen soon), or some breakthrough in another field of Y-DNA analysis like the one we have made with the RCC time scale, we are constrained to draw our conclusions on the testees we have in hand now. Finally, I certainly do not want to discourage further investigation into the origins of the M222 SNP and we should encourage more to be tested for their Y-DNA, but I fear that the Law of Diminishing returns may set in, forcing us to look in different directions than we have in the past. Whether this means many more testees or pursuing breakthroughs in other areas is problematical at present. I have just heard from the new editor of the JoGG that the two papers I have authored with Tei Gordon (on the Gordons) and with Fred Schwab (introducing Mathematica as the program that can generate a phylogenetic tree with the RCC time scale and illustrating it with an analysis of the Gordons) will probably be included in the 2011 issue of JoGG if we make some changes in the Gordon paper that have been suggested by the referees. That's good news for us. I will be out of the country (tour to So. Africa) between 15 October and the middle of November, and I did want to get this reply off to the List before I depart. Best wishes to all. - Bye from Bill Howard On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:36 AM, Iain Kennedy wrote: > > List, > I would like to echo what David has said below. In fact Bill Howard, by telling us we don't need the M222 SNP test and spending time analysing what are actually pseudo-M222 people, is preventing us from discovering the origins. Identifying the surnames and geographical origins of the pre-M222 population is absolutely essential. Stating that the definition of M222 has changed will baffle those who are new to this list. It hasn't. What we should surely be doing as a minimum is doing all we can to encourage the people who stand the highest chance of being pre-M222 to take the SNP test (the only M222 test); although with back mutations I am not sure how predictable they are. There could even be people close to the modal who are M222- although as this is statistically unlikely they are admittedly not the best people to target. > > I don't want to sound ungrateful for all the work Bill is doing and his recent posts, but wanted to just take issue on this one point. > > As for the Trinity study, all their testing was done using Irish samples. They did however use the Capelli dataset for comparison with Scotland, albeit only to draw what to me sounds like a preconceived conclusion that M222 came from Ireland. The Capelli testing only used two points from the western half of Scotland - Oban and the Western Isles (Stornoway area by the looks of the map). Since then I think only Sykes has published any Scottish data on the same scale and his regions were rather on the large size for our purposes, particularly in the crucial south-west. > cheers > Iain > > http://www.kennedydna.com > > > > > >> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:54:30 +1100 >> From: grierson@melbpc.org.au >> To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series >> >> Bob, >> I know that Bill has responded with the big picture, but I think you >> should be aware that there are plenty of STR comparisons wrt the modal >> within surname groups. For instance, in my area of interest, such >> comparisons have enabled the identification of individuals carrying >> different surnames as being part of our family cluster. >> From another perspective, the reliance on STR analysis alone limits our >> chance of finding the latest possible pre-M222 haplotype, which I think >> will be a necessary part of determining ancestral locations. Don't >> forget that it is hypothetically possible to have two identical >> haplotypes, one descended from the brother of the M222 mutant. Given >> that M222 is substantially different from L21 (or whatever the ancestral >> SNP turns out to be), there might have been a significant time interval >> during which many of the variations developed before the actual SNP >> mutation. So, despite Bill's position, I believe there is value to be >> had in modal analysis. >> David Grierson >> >> On 10/10/2011 3:00 PM, Bob Quinn wrote: >>> I am RM222 and would like to know if there is any STR by STR analysis of the modal YDNA for RM222 that would indicate what various differences to the modal might mean for an individual? >>> >>> Bob Quinn >>> >> >> 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

List, I would like to echo what David has said below. In fact Bill Howard, by telling us we don't need the M222 SNP test and spending time analysing what are actually pseudo-M222 people, is preventing us from discovering the origins. Identifying the surnames and geographical origins of the pre-M222 population is absolutely essential. Stating that the definition of M222 has changed will baffle those who are new to this list. It hasn't. What we should surely be doing as a minimum is doing all we can to encourage the people who stand the highest chance of being pre-M222 to take the SNP test (the only M222 test); although with back mutations I am not sure how predictable they are. There could even be people close to the modal who are M222- although as this is statistically unlikely they are admittedly not the best people to target. I don't want to sound ungrateful for all the work Bill is doing and his recent posts, but wanted to just take issue on this one point. As for the Trinity study, all their testing was done using Irish samples. They did however use the Capelli dataset for comparison with Scotland, albeit only to draw what to me sounds like a preconceived conclusion that M222 came from Ireland. The Capelli testing only used two points from the western half of Scotland - Oban and the Western Isles (Stornoway area by the looks of the map). Since then I think only Sykes has published any Scottish data on the same scale and his regions were rather on the large size for our purposes, particularly in the crucial south-west. cheers Iain http://www.kennedydna.com > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:54:30 +1100 > From: grierson@melbpc.org.au > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series > > Bob, > I know that Bill has responded with the big picture, but I think you > should be aware that there are plenty of STR comparisons wrt the modal > within surname groups. For instance, in my area of interest, such > comparisons have enabled the identification of individuals carrying > different surnames as being part of our family cluster. > From another perspective, the reliance on STR analysis alone limits our > chance of finding the latest possible pre-M222 haplotype, which I think > will be a necessary part of determining ancestral locations. Don't > forget that it is hypothetically possible to have two identical > haplotypes, one descended from the brother of the M222 mutant. Given > that M222 is substantially different from L21 (or whatever the ancestral > SNP turns out to be), there might have been a significant time interval > during which many of the variations developed before the actual SNP > mutation. So, despite Bill's position, I believe there is value to be > had in modal analysis. > David Grierson > > On 10/10/2011 3:00 PM, Bob Quinn wrote: > > I am RM222 and would like to know if there is any STR by STR analysis of the modal YDNA for RM222 that would indicate what various differences to the modal might mean for an individual? > > > > Bob Quinn > > > > 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

At 06:50 PM 10/10/2011, you wrote: >Mr. Yair Davidiy is wrong in several of the following ways: > >1) The mutation we have been using is the average rate over one >locus per generation. It is the Chandler rate and appears in his >paper at: http://www.jogg.info/22/Chandler.pdf. from 2006 not 2011. >The RCC time scale we used in our M222 paper has been calibrated >with over 100 pedigrees and the phylogenetic tree from which the >date of origin of the M222 SNP was derived uses the RCC time scale. >It is consistent with, but does not depend on, the Chandler rate. >Naill, if he even lived, MAY have carried the SNP but we don't know >with any certainty that he lived OR carried the SNP. >I won't get into any argument about what mutation rate should be >used in other related calculations and I note that Mr. Davidiy did >not quote the number he thinks is correct, You did not read what was posed previously: See: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series Subject: [R-M222] Brief ??? on the "Paper" Recent research however indicates that the rate is 4 per 13 generations which is 1 .25 per 3 generations and not one per 5.5 [1]http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/08/human-y-chromosome-mutation-rates.ht ml [2] http://www.physorg.com/news170595325.html This cuts the estimated time in half giving us ca. 0 to 500 CE. This fits in with the time of Neil. >3) One cannot conclude, as Mr. Davidiy apparently does, that "If >something expands from almost zero to ca. 12% of the population and >ca. 3 million (or more people) in ca. 1600 years and it is the ONLY >known Mode in the world that does so, then I would say that is exceptional." >We do not know the number of people who carry the M222 SNP today. >Mr. Davidiy's 1600 years is wrong; it is more like 3600 years. The >numbers of 12% and 3 million people are guesses based on sets of >assumptions that are not apparent. I do not remember seeing any >calculation where its details, including its assumptions, have been made. Again you did not read what was posted previously with the sources. The same thing and the same sources have been posted to this list by others on numerous occasions. Tests were made and statistical extrapolations derived. You evidently disagree with the conclusions. That does not make your disagreement the more valid alternative. > In the absence of such evidence, the M222 SNP and its growth rate > appears not to be exceptional at all. > >4) The origin of R1b was 22,000 years ago -- plenty of time to be in >Europe by 1680 BC. See: >http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_haplogroups_timeline.shtml >See also: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)#.3D_R1b1a2a1a1b4b_.28R-M222.29_.3D These figures refer to the theoretical time of origin of R1b. There is no proof. They also do not necessarily refer to Europe. R1b is also found amongst the Kurds, in Turkey, Syria, and Russia where in some groups (e.g. Bashkirs) it reaches more than 70%. There are no archaeological findings of R1b in Europe that may definitely be dated to pre-1000 BCE. There is one cave in Bavaria that has a minority sample that has been tentatively dated to a bit before 1000 BCE but even this is subject to dispute. We also posted sources on this issue in a previous post. See: We Are Not Our Ancestors: Evidence for Discontinuity between Prehistoric and Modern Europeans Ellen Levy-Coffman [2] http://www.slideshare.net/Pammy98/we-are-not-our-ancestors-evidence-for-discontinuity-between Facial Skeletons Show that Modern Europeans NOT Descended from Stone or Bronze Age Europe! Noriko Seguchi, Conrad B. Quintyn , Sherry C. Fox , A. Russell Nelson , Sotiris K. Manolis , and Pan Qifeng [3] http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Minoan_Greece_1.htm R1b1b2 in Europe dating rethink [4 ]http://dna-forums.org/index.php/blog/2/entry-164-r1b1b2-in-europe-dating-rethink/Wave-of-Advance Models of the Diffusion of the Y Chromosome Haplogroup R1b1b2 in Europe http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0021592 Per Sjodin1*, Olivier Francois2 1 Department of Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvagen, Uppsala, Sweden, 2 University Joseph Fourier Grenoble, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, TIMC-IMAG UMR 5525, Mathematical and Computational Biology, Grenoble, France >R1b was well-established in Europe by 1680 BC. >Mr. Davidiy's contention that "the experts" say that there was no >know R1b of ANY KIND in Europe before ca. 1000 BCE is not supported >by scientific fact; it appears to be a belief. > >- Bye from Bill Howard

That is a very interesting question, and one I'd bet is on the minds of many, particularly the off modal folks. I wish there was more study on strs, their mutations, and further utility development. I kind of think that because of the issue of random mutation and signatures being rather indigenous to individual family groups that perhaps it has been an area that it is considered too much of a tiger to take on. That's just a guess. I think there are some things that could reasonably be determined given the right data. It would seem that to first determine which alleles mutate up and which mutate down would be a good start. I would think that a base would need be set, and the dna evidence extracted from archeological human artifacts to use as a base would be preferable. There are some out there; however, I could see a conflict there if it were considered sacrilegious to dig up the dead unless it were strictly an archeological find. Secondly, and unfortunately all too often the artifacts found are degraded past the point of good dna extraction -- maybe and depending. I think this field is yet so young relatively that there could be many aspects under consideration but just haven't developed yet. There seems to have been some rather substantive work done on mutation rates among various analytical computer models, but mutation direction up or down yet seems fuzzy and uncertain; and perhaps it is that way because the alleles are unpredictable of whether any given one mutates up, down or both. I think that a contradictory premise, but from a novice observer there are many things accepted which seem contradictory to me.

17624 in Megonnigil ----- Original Message ----- From: <pabloburns@comcast.net> To: "dna-r1b1c7" <dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 6:48 AM Subject: [R-M222] M222 and WTY > I am sure we all were hoping that with all the new SNPs being > discovered, one would be identified to divide M222. Apparently, no such > luck. I asked David Reynolds if it would help for me to take the WTY test. > David replied that only one M222 has been tested, but the young age of > M222 may mean no additional SNP. He suggested I wait until the current > backlog of WTY orders is run through, and after 2-3 months he will look at > this again. > I then queried Kirsten Saxe, and she replied that the Finch2 data > indicates that three M222 have been tested--137003 (Mannion), 17624, and > 192014. Kirsten did not have names for the latter two, but I found 192014 > (McNeely) on the M222 project list. I could not identify 17624. > Can anyone confirm that three M222s have been WTY tested with no new > SNPs discovered? If only one has been tested, I am willing to hazard the > $750 cost, but if three have been tested with no additional info > discovered, perhaps I should wait for a future increase in the size of the > test. > Paul > 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