Hi, Bernard. I am in the M222 and Quinn projects on FTDNA and feeling my way around. Give me a little time to better digest your note.My Family Tree is Quinn/Woods on Ancestry.com. Bernard Quinn, my GGGF came to Philadelphia from Armagh with his wife Elizabeth Murphy Quinn and their son, my GGF Arthur Quinn in about 1870.My Mother's Woods family is from Castleblayney and came to Philadelphia at about the same time.Takes a lot of digging, for sure. Regards, Bob Bob Quinn President&CEO Quinn Specialty Chemical Consultants Partner at Bay Street Investors/Bay Street Partners Co-Chair ACS GCI Manufacturer's Roundtable 27 Langton Lane Newtown Square, Pa, 19073 T:610-331-4920 e-mail:raaq@live.com Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/bobquinnspecialtychemicals > Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:52:29 -0700 > From: ytliekb@yahoo.com > To: DNA-R1B1C7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] Keilty surname research > > Hello, I just joined the list and figured out how to browse/search. I am new to DNA as well. I am really just a lurking sole who doesn't know what to do with all of the dna info as of yet. FTDNA tells us customers to read the tutorials. I have been researching Keilty family history for just a few years here in the USA (paperwork genealogy). > > I am trying to identify accurate information about the Keilty family from Ireland. > I do know that my paternal great-grandfather "Michael Keilty" was supposed to have come from County Tyrone, Ireland and immigrated to the USA abt 1860 settling in Watertown, County Litchfield, Connecticut, 06795 USA. Michael Keilty was born 15 AUG 1838 (Tyrone?) Ireland, died 08 MAR 1923 and buried Mt St James Cemetery, Watertown, County Litchfield, Connecticut, 06795 USA. Possibly from the parish of Kildress and diocese of Armagh. Michael was Catholic and his parents are possibly Patrick Keilty (1810-) and Catherine McShane (1818-) from Ireland. > Michael Keilty (1838-1923) married Sarah Quinn (1854-1927), but it is not known whether married in Ireland or the USA. They had nine children and raised their family in Watertown, County Litchfield, Connecticut, 06795 USA. > I am interested in researching how far back the Keilty surname goes. Some of the other surnames of interest from the paperwork genealogy include Keilty, McShane, Quinn, Kelly (from County Roscommon, Ireland), Dubauskas (from Lithuania). > If anyone could kindly point me in the right direction or refer me to someone it would be greatly appreciated. > I would be pleased to provide any further information. > Bernard Joseph Keilty Jr. > ytliekb@yahoo.com > 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 lot's of luck Bernard, but I think your barking up the wrong tree on this site. I haven't learned a thing in the 2 or 3 years on here, you have to be a expert or more then you think you know to argue about it. -----Original Message----- From: Bernard Keilty <ytliekb@yahoo.com> To: DNA-R1B1C7 <DNA-R1B1C7@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thu, Jul 28, 2011 12:53 pm Subject: [R-M222] Keilty surname research Hello, I just joined the list and figured out how to browse/search. I am new to NA as well. I am really just a lurking sole who doesn't know what to do with ll of the dna info as of yet. FTDNA tells us customers to read the tutorials. I ave been researching Keilty family history for just a few years here in the USA paperwork genealogy). am trying to identify accurate information about the Keilty family from reland. do know that my paternal great-grandfather "Michael Keilty" was supposed to ave come from County Tyrone, Ireland and immigrated to the USA abt 1860 ettling in Watertown, County Litchfield, Connecticut, 06795 USA. Michael Keilty as born 15 AUG 1838 (Tyrone?) Ireland, died 08 MAR 1923 and buried Mt St James emetery, Watertown, County Litchfield, Connecticut, 06795 USA. Possibly from he parish of Kildress and diocese of Armagh. Michael was Catholic and his arents are possibly Patrick Keilty (1810-) and Catherine McShane (1818-) from reland. ichael Keilty (1838-1923) married Sarah Quinn (1854-1927), but it is not known hether married in Ireland or the USA. They had nine children and raised their amily in Watertown, County Litchfield, Connecticut, 06795 USA. am interested in researching how far back the Keilty surname goes. Some of the ther surnames of interest from the paperwork genealogy include Keilty, McShane, uinn, Kelly (from County Roscommon, Ireland), Dubauskas (from Lithuania). f anyone could kindly point me in the right direction or refer me to someone it ould be greatly appreciated. would be pleased to provide any further information. ernard Joseph Keilty Jr. tliekb@yahoo.com R1b1c7 Research and Links: http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ ------------------------------ o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message

Hello, I just joined the list and figured out how to browse/search. I am new to DNA as well. I am really just a lurking sole who doesn't know what to do with all of the dna info as of yet. FTDNA tells us customers to read the tutorials. I have been researching Keilty family history for just a few years here in the USA (paperwork genealogy).   I am trying to identify accurate information about the Keilty family from Ireland. I do know that my paternal great-grandfather "Michael Keilty" was supposed to have come from County Tyrone, Ireland and immigrated to the USA abt 1860 settling in Watertown, County Litchfield, Connecticut, 06795 USA. Michael Keilty was born 15 AUG 1838 (Tyrone?) Ireland, died 08 MAR 1923 and buried Mt St James Cemetery, Watertown, County Litchfield, Connecticut, 06795 USA. Possibly from the parish of Kildress and diocese of Armagh. Michael was Catholic and his parents are possibly Patrick Keilty (1810-) and Catherine McShane (1818-) from Ireland. Michael Keilty (1838-1923) married Sarah Quinn (1854-1927), but it is not known whether married in Ireland or the USA. They had nine children and raised their family in Watertown, County Litchfield, Connecticut, 06795 USA. I am interested in researching how far back the Keilty surname goes. Some of the other surnames of interest from the paperwork genealogy include Keilty, McShane, Quinn, Kelly (from County Roscommon, Ireland), Dubauskas (from Lithuania). If anyone could kindly point me in the right direction or refer me to someone it would be greatly appreciated. I would be pleased to provide any further information. Bernard Joseph Keilty Jr. ytliekb@yahoo.com

In a message dated 7/24/2011 10:19:29 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mhannan23@tvcconnect.net writes: The two Fanning DNA Project guys who were Deep Clade tested and are L21+ M222- are: Kit # 84572 Kit # 21345 That's interesting. The first one is a Prosser (adopted). The second is a Grant. Just looking at the DNA I see nothing that tells me either one is not M222. Thanks for pointing those out. <The kit I match per FTDNA is Kit # 80832. He traces his family to Bunoe, County Cavan. He too looks like he should be M222. Apparently no SNP results though. John

Paul Conroy wrote: MacAodh - Son of Hugh, has to be one of the names with the most variants spellings today, as you have: McKay, Kay, Kaye McKey, McKee, Key, Kee McKie, Mackey, McHugh, McCue, McQ McGee and McGhee are also variants of MacAodh. There are different origins of the name of McGee. There are Irish McGee and there are Scottish McGee. Lawrence Dill

Hello John, The two Fanning DNA Project guys who were Deep Clade tested and are L21+ M222- are: Kit # 84572 Kit # 21345 The kit I match per FTDNA is Kit # 80832. He traces his family to Bunoe, County Cavan. Regards, Mike Hannan 96185

John, Speaking of rumors, I have heard it said that Celtic people(s) are known to have once lived in other areas of Europe, perhaps a few thousand years ago, and as far south as what is now northern Italy and well into eastern Europe, too. Apparently some evidence of that exists, but I am not familiar with that topic. I mentioned how silently and subtly national borders vanished in my studies, but I did not realize that otherwise interesting development until I considered that very real tensions exist and have existed, especially between Irish and British settlements in Ireland and Northern Ireland. And I then realized that I should be careful in my speech, that people such as yourself might easily understand my newfound perspective, but that my forgetting to make such political border distinctions could inflame others who do make such distinctions. In other words, it is easy to ignore such border distinctions, but perhaps unwise to do so. Doug On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:45 PM, <Lochlan@aol.com> wrote: > > > In a message dated 7/23/2011 8:21:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > tuulen@gmail.com writes: > > Then Northern Ireland all but > vanished from the map, and soon later Ireland and Scotland all but > vanished, > too. Now I am looking at a couple of big islands on the eastern side of > the > Atlantic ocean, where no political boundaries exist and where people are > related only by DNA migration patterns. Wow! > > That probably is the best way to look at it. I think M222 pre-dates all > known political boundaries, > even the Roman invasion of Britain. I don't even know if there is > really a tribal basis for it if you go back far enough. We'd never know > what > that tribe was anyway. > > > 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 >

In a message dated 7/23/2011 8:21:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tuulen@gmail.com writes: Then Northern Ireland all but vanished from the map, and soon later Ireland and Scotland all but vanished, too. Now I am looking at a couple of big islands on the eastern side of the Atlantic ocean, where no political boundaries exist and where people are related only by DNA migration patterns. Wow! That probably is the best way to look at it. I think M222 pre-dates all known political boundaries, even the Roman invasion of Britain. I don't even know if there is really a tribal basis for it if you go back far enough. We'd never know what that tribe was anyway. John

John, Further to my previous, I have drafted an L21 modal, which you will find in the L21 section of Excel Chart 1d at: http://www.shade.id.au/Grierson/GriersonDNA.htm Discussion welcome. David On 23/07/2011 11:16 AM, Lochlan@aol.com wrote: > Is anyone working on the new 111 marker set? I know Sandy is. > > Does anyone know if the R1b modal has has been expanded to 111 markers or > is there some kind of L-21 modal that can be used for comparison purposes? > > I'd heard sqawking about this on other lists but Ysearch does not list > the new markers in the same order as FTDNA and omits about 10 of them. > That's going to be a huge problem. > > The good news is the McGee utility now has a beta 111 marker version which > is compatible with FTDNA markers and order. The standard version of the > utility follows the current Ysearch order and markers. > > New: _BETA Y-DNA Comparision Utility: 111 Allele_ > (http://www.mymcgee.com/tools/yutility111.html) > > I see five markers in the 111 set that might distinguish M222. > > 710 > 714 > 549 > 712 > 513 > > Some are stronger than others though. 710 and 712 are barely modal. > > So far I don't see much else. > > > > John

John, Much of what you wrote, above, went right over my head, as I am only now being introduced to technical analysis of DNA and of M222 in particular, including a new and unfamiliar vocabulary. However, despite irregularities, such analysis goes a long way toward separating fact from fiction. The facts are limited but the fiction available is virtually endless! Another interesting development is in how DNA-based research silently and subtly eliminates the very notion of national borders. My initial discovery was that there are places known as Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland, among others. But then my focus turned to a thousand years ago and more, a timeframe where I apparently have genetic relatives in a known region and of my family's apparent origin in that region. Then Northern Ireland all but vanished from the map, and soon later Ireland and Scotland all but vanished, too. Now I am looking at a couple of big islands on the eastern side of the Atlantic ocean, where no political boundaries exist and where people are related only by DNA migration patterns. Wow! Give me some time, but eventually I should get the hang of this. Thanks! Doug On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM, <Lochlan@aol.com> wrote: > In a message dated 7/23/2011 4:51:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > tuulen@gmail.com writes: > > Your theory sounds convincingly good, and I look forward to learning more > > about it, please. > > ' > There are links on the M222 site to several articles Bill had published in > the online journal. JOGG. Plus an FAQ and a version of a limited M222 > tree produced. > > _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/_ (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ) > > I used essentially the same database and ran a tree using Phylip and the > Mega software programs which are based on genetic distance calculations > from > the McGee utility. > > You can see it here: > > _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222chart.jpg_ > (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222chart.jpg) > > > Many of the clusters are identical to those in Bill's charts using the > correlation coefficient technique. They are not however identical and the > Mega program only gives a short time scale at the bottom on the tree. > > In particular I'd like to draw attention to two surnames discussed in > recent posts (McGoverns and Howles). In both versions they cluster > together > closely. > > > The McGoverns were Irish, part of the large collection of tribes said to > descend from half-brothers of Nial. As such they are not Ui Neill > (descendants of Nial) but Connachta, based on the earlier tribe name used > by Nial's > ancestors in Ireland, the Dal Cuinn. The fact that they and other > Connachta septs are M222 has always indicated to me that the M222 SNP did > not > originate with Nial but with some earlier ancestor. Which one would be > impossible to state since the pedigrees prior to NIal and his father, > Eochaidh > Mughmedoin, are unreliable. MacLysaght places the sept in Co. Cavan in > the > west to NW of Ireland. > > > The Howles in the tree descend from one man, an Epaphroditus Howle, b.c. > 1685, New Kent Co., VA, who came to the United States from England. I've > also seen the surname listed as a sept of the McDougals of Argyllshire. > > In this case we have no known surname connections between the McGoverns > and Howles. And no geographical correlation as well. > > We could actually look at the DNA in question. > > There are two points of similarity between McGovern and Howle DNA. 391= > 10 and and CDYb = 40. 391=10 is as we discussed numerous times on this > list > is the most mismatching modal marker in the M222 project. 15.5% of the > project had this value at the date the percentage was derived. Otherwise > there are no points of similarity except that both are close to the M222 > modal. Gd's against the M222 modal are 4-5. GDs between the McGoverns > and > Howles are about 5. So they are close in genetic distance. That is what > both > versions of the M222 tree are showing as well. > > For me to believe this is a true picture of the relationship between > McGovern and Howle though I would have to assume the 391=10 was ancestral > to > both and not just a parallel mutation. I think the CDY results are > irrelevant > and should be discarded for analysis. > > What are we then to make of the other 391=10 results in the project? Are > they all closely related as well? We've been around and around on that > one > before. 391=10 does appear prominently in several Connachta sept's DNA, > including McGoverns, O'Reillys, some O'Byrnes and miscellaneous Connachta > surnames. It also occurs in many Scottish surnames, none of which have > any > known links to Ireland or the Connachta. > > > Bill of course informed me I was wrong about this and should be looking > for dissimilarities rather than similarities in the DNA. That's only > true > if you think these two samples are indeed related and one MUST have evolved > from the other. I am not so sure that is the case. From my viewpoint > 391=10 is a shaky foundation to build much from. And CDY is worthless. > But > I could be wrong as well. > > I think we should be looking at the DNA itself to see why this mechanical > method linked samples together. > > > > 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 >

In a message dated 7/23/2011 2:43:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time, mhannan23@tvcconnect.net writes: FTDNA matched me with a person whose name is Fannin. We match 34/37 and also on the 439 marker where we match 10 - an unusual count according to WAHM. Mr. Fannin is a member of the Fanning DNA Project. There are 42 Fannings who look like M222 but only 2 are Deep Clade tested. The interesting news is that the two are L21+ M222-! Mike, do you know which ones in the project are M222-? I couldn't tell much from just looking at the DNA. Most of it did seem M222 to me. MacLysaght has Fanning as a Norman surname in Ireland. But he also mentions a sept of Mayo called O'Finan sometimes anglicised Fanning. For Hannan the only thing I see is O'Hannon, a Munster surname. He also tosses out O'Haneen in Galway. John

In a message dated 7/23/2011 6:43:17 A.M. Central Daylight Time, grierson@melbpc.org.au writes: John, Further to my previous, I have drafted an L21 modal, which you will find in the L21 section of Excel Chart 1d at: http://www.shade.id.au/Grierson/GriersonDNA.htm Discussion welcome. I've got a few minor differences in a tentative L21 modal but I could be wrong too. I notice you left some blank too which is probably a good thing. I just eyeballed the L21 site and did a rough modal. Some were too close to call. at 533 I had 13 for L21. At 714 I had 26 for L21. Those were the only differences I had. at 513 you have no value for L21. I had 12 which if correct would make the M222 value of 13 off modal. At 712 you have no value. I had 20 for L21 which in M222 is modal at 21. But that's one that's barely modal (fast moving) so it may mean nothing at all. John

In a message dated 7/23/2011 4:51:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tuulen@gmail.com writes: Your theory sounds convincingly good, and I look forward to learning more about it, please. ' There are links on the M222 site to several articles Bill had published in the online journal. JOGG. Plus an FAQ and a version of a limited M222 tree produced. _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/_ (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/) I used essentially the same database and ran a tree using Phylip and the Mega software programs which are based on genetic distance calculations from the McGee utility. You can see it here: _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222chart.jpg_ (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222chart.jpg) Many of the clusters are identical to those in Bill's charts using the correlation coefficient technique. They are not however identical and the Mega program only gives a short time scale at the bottom on the tree. In particular I'd like to draw attention to two surnames discussed in recent posts (McGoverns and Howles). In both versions they cluster together closely. The McGoverns were Irish, part of the large collection of tribes said to descend from half-brothers of Nial. As such they are not Ui Neill (descendants of Nial) but Connachta, based on the earlier tribe name used by Nial's ancestors in Ireland, the Dal Cuinn. The fact that they and other Connachta septs are M222 has always indicated to me that the M222 SNP did not originate with Nial but with some earlier ancestor. Which one would be impossible to state since the pedigrees prior to NIal and his father, Eochaidh Mughmedoin, are unreliable. MacLysaght places the sept in Co. Cavan in the west to NW of Ireland. The Howles in the tree descend from one man, an Epaphroditus Howle, b.c. 1685, New Kent Co., VA, who came to the United States from England. I've also seen the surname listed as a sept of the McDougals of Argyllshire. In this case we have no known surname connections between the McGoverns and Howles. And no geographical correlation as well. We could actually look at the DNA in question. There are two points of similarity between McGovern and Howle DNA. 391= 10 and and CDYb = 40. 391=10 is as we discussed numerous times on this list is the most mismatching modal marker in the M222 project. 15.5% of the project had this value at the date the percentage was derived. Otherwise there are no points of similarity except that both are close to the M222 modal. Gd's against the M222 modal are 4-5. GDs between the McGoverns and Howles are about 5. So they are close in genetic distance. That is what both versions of the M222 tree are showing as well. For me to believe this is a true picture of the relationship between McGovern and Howle though I would have to assume the 391=10 was ancestral to both and not just a parallel mutation. I think the CDY results are irrelevant and should be discarded for analysis. What are we then to make of the other 391=10 results in the project? Are they all closely related as well? We've been around and around on that one before. 391=10 does appear prominently in several Connachta sept's DNA, including McGoverns, O'Reillys, some O'Byrnes and miscellaneous Connachta surnames. It also occurs in many Scottish surnames, none of which have any known links to Ireland or the Connachta. Bill of course informed me I was wrong about this and should be looking for dissimilarities rather than similarities in the DNA. That's only true if you think these two samples are indeed related and one MUST have evolved from the other. I am not so sure that is the case. From my viewpoint 391=10 is a shaky foundation to build much from. And CDY is worthless. But I could be wrong as well. I think we should be looking at the DNA itself to see why this mechanical method linked samples together. John

Hi Doug, Thanks for the well wishes. Best regards, Mike Hannan

Bill, An implied promise of historical accuracy was part of my original attraction to being DNA tested, one which completely eliminated any need for written family records, if such records could be anywhere near accurate and if such records even existed at all. Great! Or so I thought. OK. I was wrong. There are gaps and a paper-trail is still considered a necessary part of family research. But DNA-based family research really is an amazing technology, well worth doing. Doug On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > Doug, > A few years ago I caught Sorenson with 20% errors in the ten samples I sent > them, so I hope that testing HAS improved in the interim. FTDNA has a good > reputation, so I think it's below one percent there. I, too have higher > confidence in the testing results, but you still have to consider mutation > errors, even though they are buried in the correlation. That's the issue of > over-interpretation I have been writing about. > - Bye from Bill > > On Jul 23, 2011, at 5:49 PM, tuulen wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > Lab error could occur, but apparently today's testing standards are quite > > high and so the rate of lab error is likely quite low. I have higher > > confidence in the test results than in the DNA itself, and a comparison > > between two people's DNA could today be based on very accurate test > results. > > > > > > Your theory sounds convincingly good, and I look forward to learning more > > about it, please. > > > > Doug > > > > > 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 >

Hi, Mike, I am a complete noob at DNA-based family research. Curiosity finally motivated me to explore the DNA avenue of looking into my own family's history, just to get some idea as to where they originally came from, and so here I am. Then, one day I got a notice on my FT home page saying that I belong to a Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA group. Huh? What? How does that apply to me? Even there, however, apparently there are variations within that group, and further research is ongoing to determine any sub-groups, if any. But fear not! You and I are from planet Earth, and so the odds are that there already are others who are similar if not identical to each of us, and it is just a matter of finding them. Good luck on your search! Meanwhile, I am still on my own search. Doug On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:40 PM, <mhannan23@tvcconnect.net> wrote: > Hello John and all my M222+ cousins, > > I have recently tested at FTDNA and am L513- which is a good sign for me to > be considered Pre-M222 by my L21+ brothers. As soon as the DF23 SNP test is > available, I will order it and post the results. With the DF23 test > available, we should then know how many Pre-M222's are around. > > I contacted the Hannan DNA site and asked the Admin to contact the other > six > M222 look alikes to Deep Clade test but five would not and the sixth has > changed e-mail address and could not be reached. > > FTDNA matched me with a person whose name is Fannin. We match 34/37 and > also > on the 439 marker where we match 10 - an unusual count according to WAHM. > Mr. Fannin is a member of the Fanning DNA Project. There are 42 Fannings > who > look like M222 but only 2 are Deep Clade tested. The interesting news is > that the two are L21+ M222-! > > I also have been tested for the 68-111 panel and still look like M222. > > Best regards, > > Mike Hannan > 96185 > > > > 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 >

Doug, A few years ago I caught Sorenson with 20% errors in the ten samples I sent them, so I hope that testing HAS improved in the interim. FTDNA has a good reputation, so I think it's below one percent there. I, too have higher confidence in the testing results, but you still have to consider mutation errors, even though they are buried in the correlation. That's the issue of over-interpretation I have been writing about. - Bye from Bill On Jul 23, 2011, at 5:49 PM, tuulen wrote: > Bill, > > Lab error could occur, but apparently today's testing standards are quite > high and so the rate of lab error is likely quite low. I have higher > confidence in the test results than in the DNA itself, and a comparison > between two people's DNA could today be based on very accurate test results. > > > Your theory sounds convincingly good, and I look forward to learning more > about it, please. > > Doug >

Bill, Lab error could occur, but apparently today's testing standards are quite high and so the rate of lab error is likely quite low. I have higher confidence in the test results than in the DNA itself, and a comparison between two people's DNA could today be based on very accurate test results. Your theory sounds convincingly good, and I look forward to learning more about it, please. Doug On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > Hi, Doug, > I appreciate your remarks and your comments are well taken. > We must accept the haplotype strings as they are. I don't think the testing > agencies make too many mistakes, so it is not a matter of "garbage-in", nor > of "garbage-out." > The problems lie in overinterpreting what comes out, and most of the > problem are directly traceable to unknown mutations. > That's why I state many times that the errors are of the order of 180 years > (SD) so the dates could be off by three times that, provided the > distribution is Gaussian, which it probably is. Therein lies the problem if > we overinterpret through genealogy eyes. It is not so bad if you have your > genetic eyes on, because errors in that realm are expected to be high. For > that reason, I feel that the RCC correlation approach may have more > applicability in looking into differences in haplogroups. I think I have > covered all of this in my FAQs but it never hurts to repeat the admonition > about not overinterpreting! > It is usually not the 'facts' of DNA that are on shaky ground; it's the > interpretation! > > On Jul 23, 2011, at 3:14 PM, tuulen wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > Although I am quite new to DNA-based family research, my background is in > > mechanical engineering, where in my student days I spent several years at > > advanced mathematics and grinding a lot of equations, to a point where > > numerical theories and I became good friends, and on that basis I can > > generally understand what your theory is based on and how it works. > > > > Your theory makes good sense, and could expose many not-so-obvious facts, > as > > of relations among and between various groups of people. Bravo, good > > thinking! > > > > However, there also is the old dictum, Garbage In = Garbage Out, and so > > analysis results are only as good as the data used to generate them. > That > > goes to my earlier comment, that sometimes DNA facts can apparently be on > > shaky ground. The consideration is that DNA itself is apparently not > 100% > > stable, that it could remain stable for hundreds or perhaps thousands of > > years, but then suddenly and unpredictably mutate, such that apparently > it > > is possible for DNA between a father and his son to not be a 100% match, > and > > that the chances for such random mutation apparently tend to increase > > proportionally to time, as the longer the time period considered the > greater > > a chance for random mutation, or that two people could be unrelated but > > could today have a 100% match simply because their DNA had eventually > > mutated into an accidentally perfect match. > > > > In other words, such analysis could be brilliant, but perhaps such > > brilliance should be tempered due to an inherent unpredictability of DNA, > > and should not be considered !00% infallible. > > > > It sounds quite promising, however, and I look forward to learning more > > about it. > > > > Doug > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> Yes, Doug, and thanks. > >> Every time I dig more deeply into the RCC correlation approach, I find a > >> slightly different and more exciting application for it. > >> I have been notified by the editor of the Journal of Genetic Genealogy > that > >> my next two papers** will be published together in their next issue. I > have > >> done a revision of one but am waiting to reply to referee comments on > the > >> other. > >> I am also hoping that FTDNA will become interested in it and I have run > a > >> test for them recently, generating a 50 testee tree from the haplotypes. > >> So it goes…… and, it's fun. > >> - Bye from Bill > >> > >> ** an analysis of the Gordon Clan and using Mathematica on an RCC matrix > to > >> derive the phylogenetic tree. The first is co-authored by the surname > >> administrator of the Gordons, Tei Gordon, and the latter is co-authored > by a > >> colleague at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Fred Schwab. > >> > >> On Jul 23, 2011, at 2:21 AM, tuulen wrote: > >> > >>> Bill, > >>> > >>> I think I understand how your theory works in general, but let me admit > >> that > >>> goes well beyond all which I have so far considered, let alone > attempted! > >>> > >>> However, your approach does seem promising, and I look forward to > >> learning > >>> more about it. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> Doug > >> > >> > >> 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 >

Hi, Allene, Some brief comments on your posting. I chose only surnames that were repeated a number of times in my database, that showed a good tendency to cluster, and that were M222. So, it was a sample and not to be considered definitive. In fact, the reason why I cited the associations among the surnames was to show how they might be derived or indicated using the RCC correlation approach -- looking at clusters that contained other surnames on the phylogenetic tree AND looking at the cross-surname intercluster intersections within an RCC time slice matrix. I am sure a very thorough comparison of every McAdams and every Grierson (and their soundex-equivalents) would be much more illuminating. That is what Tei Gordon and I were doing for his Gordons (see <http://mysite.verizon.net/weh8/Gordon20.pdf > and, <http://mysite.verizon.net/weh8/Schwab.pdf>). That approach is a special surname analysis, designed to be more complete. In the work we have done on M222, it was to indicate deeper descriptions of that SNP, not necessarily all the surnames that were in M222, which are many! - Bye from Bill On Jul 23, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Allene Goforth wrote: > Bill, > > Thank you for the report. It is very interesting. > > To quote from it: > > "There is only one McAdam-Milligan. No Grierson-McAdams." > > I know I am not comparing the same things here--just pointing out the differences. Of the five Mac/McAdam lines, several have matches with a Grierson that's close enough at 37 markers to show up in FTDNA's matches list at the testees' personal pages. Milligans make it into the 67-marker area at those pages, but nobody is close enough to show up at the 111 level there. They and Griersons do appear for all my Mac/McAdams when running searches that go beyond FTDNA's cut-off points though. It's definitely deep ancestry stuff. Some of the matches could be coming from a number of known marriages between McAdams in the Lowlands and Milligans and Griersons there that involved the male taking on his wife's surname. I haven't done any research on that though. > > I've got seven McAdams who appear to have come from the Lowlands or from Ireland in the chart I'm working on, but four of them haven't tested beyond 12 markers. At a quick glance, they all look like M222, but aren't in the M222 project. Too bad! > > Allene > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Two of my DNA papers have been published. Tei Gordon and I have submitted a third, and Fred Schwab and I have submitted a fourth. Fred and I are working on a fifth! The first four can be found at: <http://www.jogg.info/52/index.html> (last 2 papers), at http://mysite.verizon.net/weh8/Gordon20.pdf and at: http://mysite.verizon.net/weh8/Schwab.pdf A big phylogenetic tree which includes testees that carry the M222 subclade can be found at <http://mysite.verizon.net/weh8/M222Ext.pdf>. It was produced using Fred's code within the Mathematica program. A list of frequently asked questions, and answers, can be found at <http://mysite.verizon.net/weh8/FAQ.pdf>

Hello John and all my M222+ cousins, I have recently tested at FTDNA and am L513- which is a good sign for me to be considered Pre-M222 by my L21+ brothers. As soon as the DF23 SNP test is available, I will order it and post the results. With the DF23 test available, we should then know how many Pre-M222's are around. I contacted the Hannan DNA site and asked the Admin to contact the other six M222 look alikes to Deep Clade test but five would not and the sixth has changed e-mail address and could not be reached. FTDNA matched me with a person whose name is Fannin. We match 34/37 and also on the 439 marker where we match 10 - an unusual count according to WAHM. Mr. Fannin is a member of the Fanning DNA Project. There are 42 Fannings who look like M222 but only 2 are Deep Clade tested. The interesting news is that the two are L21+ M222-! I also have been tested for the 68-111 panel and still look like M222. Best regards, Mike Hannan 96185