A question for Bill: In the section 'Methods--Part I : Forming the RCC Matrix' of your first paper, you say 'Results from 67 markers can also be used; they are virtually identical to the results using 37 markers.' I've taken the 62 111-marker M222 results I have on file, and calculated RCC values between Ewing kit number 26605, and the remaining 61 testees. I calculated RCC's separately over 37, 67 and 111 markers. The results can be seen at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2733445/RCCFILE.csv At this stage I'm working on the assumption that I have done something wrong, because the results I get vary dramatically depending on whether you use 37, 67 or 111 markers. A case in point is the comparison between Ewing 26065 and Paterson 118913. The results I get are 37 markers RCC = 12.7 67 markers RCC = 32.2 111 markers RCC = 59.2 Are you able to check my calculations? I can send you my file of the 111-marker results if you have difficulty extracting them from the M222 site. Sandy

Sandy, When I made that comparison, I did it for a group of Hamiltons who had been tested at 37 and 67 markers. At the time I was a bit more naive than I am now about the differences you can get if you go away from the familiar 37 marker set, so you are probably right that I was too hasty in making that statement a couple of years ago. Yes, you may get a different result because the marker comparisons will be different. My approach correlates the whole string. Since new marker values are added, the results are expected to differ. That's why I have confined virtually all my analysis to 37 markers where I know what's going on. The RCC time scale is calibrated on 37 markers, too. It will surely be different at 67 and again at 111. But not enough pedigrees are available to do an independent RCC calibration at those higher DYS sites. That's also why I insist on studying only the SAME DYS sequence for all 37 haplotypes. I don't need to check your calculations. You got what I expected. However, send me an Excel file with the entries in separate columns and I will take a look at what you got. The URL you gave lists them in a csv format that is hard to work with. Finally, take a look at the following two trees. One was done on a set of 37 markers and the other on a set of 67 markers, BOTH FOR THE SAME SETS of testees. You will see that they are different in detail but they show many overall similarities. http://mysite.verizon.net/weh8/CrispinCousins37.pdf http://mysite.verizon.net/weh8/CrispinCousins67.pdf And no, I don't know in detail if you have done anything wrong, but I am not surprised at what you found. I think that a 67 and 111 marker set will more closely define modern clusters, but I am not convinced that it will be genetically useful in tracing mutations on genetic time scales back thousands of years, mainly because the new markers have been picked to give better insight into the genealogical time intervals, but that's just an intelligent hunch on my part. So send me the delineated file and I will take a crack at it. - Bye from Bill Howard On Jul 9, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote: > A question for Bill: > > In the section 'Methods--Part I : Forming the RCC Matrix' of your first > paper, you say > > 'Results from 67 markers can also be used; they are virtually identical to > the results using 37 markers.' > > I've taken the 62 111-marker M222 results I have on file, and calculated RCC > values between Ewing kit number 26605, and the remaining 61 testees. I > calculated RCC's separately over 37, 67 and 111 markers. The results can be > seen at > > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2733445/RCCFILE.csv > > > At this stage I'm working on the assumption that I have done something > wrong, because the results I get vary dramatically depending on whether you > use 37, 67 or 111 markers. A case in point is the comparison between Ewing > 26065 and Paterson 118913. The results I get are > > 37 markers RCC = 12.7 > 67 markers RCC = 32.2 > 111 markers RCC = 59.2 > > Are you able to check my calculations? I can send you my file of the > 111-marker results if you have difficulty extracting them from the M222 > site. > > > Sandy > > 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

Below is a link to a map I have created that highlands roughly the areas in the southwest of Scotland, where the Milligans and Griersons are located in relation to a number of other surnames that have pre-1600 origins and appear to be predominantly M222. _R-M222 Map SW Scotland_ (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~alanmilliken/Research/DNAStudies/r-m222-map.jpg) I think there is also another surname that should be linked to Milligan and Grierson, namely, Wilson. There was once, a small landed family called the Wilsons of Croglin who were well established in the Tynron area of Nithsdale, but like the Milligans, the chief family emigrated to the north of Ireland. As far as I know, none of the Wilsons on the DNA Project have successfully established a link to this family. Perhaps someone on the list might know differently. Another interesting cluster covers the McGhee, McKees, McHargs in Kirkcudbrightshire, followed by the McCords in Wigtownshire and the Cowans in Ayrshrie. Sandy has pointed out the potential DNA tie between McCord and Cowan, and on this he might well be right. There appears to have been a recent posting of a quite number of McDowell DNA results on Ysearch. I went through them and found the majority appear to be M222. On the map I have the McDowells represented at Garthland, the seat of the chiefs of this Name. However, I am more than aware there are other locations. This cluster of MacDowell results raises some interesting questions. For example, it has been asserted the MacDowells descend from the lords of Galloway, a claim based mainly on tradition and the MacDowell coat of arms. The best convincing argument that I have read identifies Mactheuel (Gaelic th = d), who witnessed a charter of Uchred son of Fergus in 1161, as the eponymous ancestor of the MacDowells. Mactheuel, meaning son of 'Theuel' or 'Deuel', was a contemporary of Uchtred son of Fergus. The point is, 'Theuel' or 'Deuel' was more than likely a contemporary of Fergus or from an even earlier generation, than a 'descendants of'. Some have suggested Fergus was descended from 'Douel', a claim based on the supposition the MacDowell coat of arms is indicative of the ancestry of Fergus!! It assumes coats of arms existed in Galloway before the arrival of the Normans? MacTheuel was one of six witnesses to Uchtred's charter, by which, he granted the church of Colmonell in the parish of Urr and the chapel of St Constantine to Holyrood Abbey in Edinburgh. The others were, Mac Mares, judice, Gillecatfar Uchtred's foster-brother, Gillecrist mac Gillewinin and Danile filio Erlenuine. MacTheuel appears in the list immediately after Gillecrist. Uchred's charter places MacTheuel aka MacDeuel east of the river Cree in Kirkcudbrightshire rather than Wigtownshire. If the MacDowell ancestry was once located in Kirkcudbrightshire and MacTheuel or MacDeuel was their common ancestor, the MacDowell surname would add to an even larger cluster of M222s older than the Amuligane-Grierson cluster in Tynron and take the recorded history back well beyond 1160. Overall, in southern Scotland, it would appear the number of surnames with a high concentration of M222 prior to 1600 are located southwest of the Ayr-Dumfries axis. Alan In a message dated 26/06/2011 04:44:14 GMT Standard Time, Lochlan@aol.com writes: We just had another Milligan join the project at 111 markers. His closest two matches at 111 markers are two other Milligans (Kits 12068, 135550). Genetic distance is reported at 16 and 17. His most distant match at that level is a Burns (Kit 135550) at 40 GD. I haven't examined these Milligan samples but I assume they are related. After that I don't know. The next closest matches are: Coyne (18) Qujinn (18) Then Megonnigil (19) McKenzie (19) Leonard (20) Mc Gonigle (20) Grierson (21) 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

Hi Alan, What happened to the Mac/McAdam/McCaddam that was on the earlier version of this map you sent me a few days ago? When I clicked on the earlier version attached to your email it was no longer available. Thanks for putting the McCords on the map. I was wondering where they came from. Allene

In a message dated 7/8/2011 6:02:55 P.M. Central Daylight Time, weh8@verizon.net writes: These two groups are not independent. The 683 batch contains the 320 batch, but if they were significantly different, they would show it in these statistics. Almost by casual inspection a comparison of the two results proves my point that the two are statistically indistinguishable. Whether one uses the first batch or the second batch, the results should also be statistically the same. My results on the date of origin of M222, using both batches of data, also yield consistent results. Shouldn't this email be titled M222+ and M222 untested rather than M222-? There are no known M222- in the project except a few classified as M222- and pre M222 and none of these are included in any project spreadsheets. If the two are statistically indistinguishable my guess is that would mean there are few if any M222- in the project despite the lack of SNP tests. For those interested in such things the latest version of the M222 spreadsheet is online at the M222 site. It has a separate worksheet for SNP tests - the 37 marker worksheet is a subset of that group. John

Bill, The problem I have with your reasoning (or possibly your explanation of your reasoning) is your 73% or more test. If, in determining the level of 73%, you took haplotypes that had been tested M222+, and found that at least 73% of their markers matched the modal of those that had been tested M222+, then I would agree your logic. It is not clear to me though that this is the case. Could you clarify this? Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Howard Sent: 08 July 2011 20:04 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] There is no practical difference between M222+ and M222- Steve, Since I cannot distinguish the two so-called groups of M222 from each other, and since all the haplotypes I include in the M222 database have at least 27 DYS modals that agree with the 37 DYS modal values, I do not deliberately include ones who are too far from the self-defined limits (above) of M222. I am doing nothing for convenience. Those haplotypes have to meet the 73% or more test. The answer to your other point(s) is that I do not find the two groups to be operationally distinguishable. - Bye from Bill Howard

So R-M222 group is in reality the NWI modal group? M222+ is a (maybe large) subset of the NWI modal (the STR values) and previous emails are discussing the age of the NWI modal (not M222 directly). Now whether the age of NWI reflects then M222 occurred depends on what portion of NWI is also M222+? The same question answers the worth of SNP testing. So do we know the mix of M222+/M222- of those within the NWI bucket? And do we have have a good NWI bucket to sample from?

Thanks to John for clarifying the fact that I already had the group of M222+ that had been SNP-tested. Here are the statistics of the two groups: 320 M222 SNP-tested 683 M222s (the Project) Average 85.1% Average 85.2% Max 100.0% Max 100.0% Min 73.0% Min 73.0% Mode 83.8% Mode 89.2% SD 5.4% SD 5.5% Median 83.8% Median 83.8% These two groups are not independent. The 683 batch contains the 320 batch, but if they were significantly different, they would show it in these statistics. Almost by casual inspection a comparison of the two results proves my point that the two are statistically indistinguishable. Whether one uses the first batch or the second batch, the results should also be statistically the same. My results on the date of origin of M222, using both batches of data, also yield consistent results. - Bye from Bill Howard Begin forwarded message: > From: Lochlan@aol.com > Date: July 8, 2011 6:18:19 PM EDT > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] There is no practical difference between M222+ and M222- > Reply-To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > In a message dated 7/8/2011 4:28:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > weh8@verizon.net writes: > > "The list of M222 haplotypes I received from John McLaughlin consisted of > 320 testees who apparently were in haplogroup R1b1a2a1a1b4b and they were > all labeled as such. As I recall John said that all had not been tested (and > in his and Wilson's opinion did not need to be). I had a larger group > reported to be M222 but which were not represented as being tested. Both sets > had similar statistics, as I wrote earlier. > Now, if someone would send me a set of haplotypes that are bonafide as > having been SNP-tested and put into the M222+ bin, I will run a tree > separately on them and do an analysis on them." > > You already have a complete list of M222+ samples from SNP tests. There > is no "apparent" about it. If you question any of the results all SNP > tests in the project can be accessed through the M222 project at FTDNA. > > _http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1c7/default.aspx?/publicwebsite.aspx > %3fvgroup=R1b1c7_ > (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1c7/default.aspx?/publicwebsite.aspx?vgroup=R1b1c7) > > Chose Y-DNA results and SNP. > > The reference to "not all have been tested" applies to the entire project, > not to the group with the designation of R1b1a2a1a1b4b. > > > David Wilson set the rules for the M222 group, not I. > > > > 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 7/8/2011 4:28:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, weh8@verizon.net writes: The list of M222 haplotypes I received from John McLaughlin consisted of 320 testees who apparently were in haplogroup R1b1a2a1a1b4b and they were all labeled as such. As I recall John said that all had not been tested (and in his and Wilson's opinion did not need to be). I had a larger group reported to be M222 but which were not represented as being tested. Both sets had similar statistics, as I wrote earlier. Now, if someone would send me a set of haplotypes that are bonafide as having been SNP-tested and put into the M222+ bin, I will run a tree separately on them and do an analysis on them. You already have a complete list of M222+ samples from SNP tests. There is no "apparent" about it. If you question any of the results all SNP tests in the project can be accessed through the M222 project at FTDNA. _http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1c7/default.aspx?/publicwebsite.aspx %3fvgroup=R1b1c7_ (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1c7/default.aspx?/publicwebsite.aspx?vgroup=R1b1c7) Chose Y-DNA results and SNP. The reference to "not all have been tested" applies to the entire project, not to the group with the designation of R1b1a2a1a1b4b. David Wilson set the rules for the M222 group, not I. John

In a message dated 7/7/2011 9:26:18 A.M. Central Daylight Time, stephen.forrest@gmail.com writes: Incidentally, there's an ongoing discussion on dna-forums.org somewhat relevant to this discussion. I mentioned last week that there is a recently-identified SNP upstream of M222, called DF23. Some STR results for DF23+ M222- men have been released and they are DYS392=14 and DYS390=25, meaning they share a couple markers with their downstream cousins. This suggests that there are M222- men out there with North-West STR signatures, and they might try ordering DF23 when it's available from FTDNA. I saw your original post and am glad you re-posted this. I haven't been able to check it out yet because my account at DNA forums is not working and that seems to be the only forum in which it's being discussed. John

In a message dated 7/8/2011 11:35:51 A.M. Central Daylight Time, weh8@verizon.net writes: Let values on the latter site are wrong. They are crucial since they are very slow mutators, hence are valuable for analysis of the phylogenetic tree at high values of RCC. I think someone needs to look into the details of how the clanmaclochlainn values were done. It surely needs correction for those two markers. Someone sent me a new version of that file which I never got around to posting online but in it the values at the markers mentioned match your own. I don't know what happened in the first version. I'll try and get the new ones online when I get a chance. DYS454 AlleleCountPercent 11 607 99.8% 12 10 .2% DYS426 AlleleCountPercent 11 10 .2% 12 635 99.5% 13 20 .3% John

In a message dated 7/8/2011 3:46:24 A.M. Central Daylight Time, ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com writes: Did you really mean he tested at DNAH, are you sure it wasn't the 12 marker Genographic project? His number has the prefix N for Genographic, DNAH immigrants were supposed to have an H. I think you're right, Iain. His kit number does have an N which is the National genographic project. He's now upgrading to 37 markers at FTDNA. John

Hi, Steve, Mathematica can only operate on sets of haplotypes it is given. They can be in any order. Mathematica has no way of knowing who's a SNP member or not, but if it is presented with two groups of haplogroups, one in the group and one not, then we can compare the trees. Of course, mutations will still affect the positions on the tree, as will the different members of haplotypes presented to Mathematica. The list of M222 haplotypes I received from John McLaughlin consisted of 320 testees who apparently were in haplogroup R1b1a2a1a1b4b and they were all labeled as such. As I recall John said that all had not been tested (and in his and Wilson's opinion did not need to be). I had a larger group reported to be M222 but which were not represented as being tested. Both sets had similar statistics, as I wrote earlier. Now, if someone would send me a set of haplotypes that are bonafide as having been SNP-tested and put into the M222+ bin, I will run a tree separately on them and do an analysis on them. One of my efforts is to try to determine the time at which M222 originated. If membership in the SNP group is highly correlated with the marker strings of members in M222, then I will get a defendable result. It does indeed appear to be highly correlated so I feel quite safe with my approach. - Bye from Bill Howard On Jul 8, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Stephen Forrest wrote: > Bill, perhaps I was being unclear. I'm not proposing trying to distinguish > M222+ and M222- groups on any other basis than a SNP test, and I fully > accept they may not be "operationally distinguishable" on the basis of STRs. > That is exactly why we do SNP testing. > > Surely we have real SNP results for some subset of the group in question, > and that SNP data will be valuable in clarifying long-distance relationships > for the reason I stated before: that any two men who are M222+ must have a > common male-line ancestor more recently than any pair men who differ on the > M222 SNP. (This is based on the theory of M222 as a unique event > polymorphism, which we have no reason to doubt.) > > My use of the phrase "for convenience" was not pejorative and was only > referring to your choice of nomenclature in using the phrase "the M222 > group" to refer everyone with the North-West Irish STR signature, regardless > of their status on the M222 SNP. > > I personally think it would be very interesting to see what your models > predict for a TMRCA of all men who are provably M222+ (by a SNP test) versus > a TMRCA for all men with the North-West Irish STR signature. The second > number should be bigger than the first, but by how much? > > Steve > > On 8 July 2011 15:03, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Steve, >> Since I cannot distinguish the two so-called groups of M222 from each >> other, and since all the haplotypes I include in the M222 database have at >> least 27 DYS modals that agree with the 37 DYS modal values, I do not >> deliberately include ones who are too far from the self-defined limits >> (above) of M222. I am doing nothing for convenience. Those haplotypes have >> to meet the 73% or more test. The answer to your other point(s) is that I do >> not find the two groups to be operationally distinguishable. >> - 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, perhaps I was being unclear. I'm not proposing trying to distinguish M222+ and M222- groups on any other basis than a SNP test, and I fully accept they may not be "operationally distinguishable" on the basis of STRs. That is exactly why we do SNP testing. Surely we have real SNP results for some subset of the group in question, and that SNP data will be valuable in clarifying long-distance relationships for the reason I stated before: that any two men who are M222+ must have a common male-line ancestor more recently than any pair men who differ on the M222 SNP. (This is based on the theory of M222 as a unique event polymorphism, which we have no reason to doubt.) My use of the phrase "for convenience" was not pejorative and was only referring to your choice of nomenclature in using the phrase "the M222 group" to refer everyone with the North-West Irish STR signature, regardless of their status on the M222 SNP. I personally think it would be very interesting to see what your models predict for a TMRCA of all men who are provably M222+ (by a SNP test) versus a TMRCA for all men with the North-West Irish STR signature. The second number should be bigger than the first, but by how much? Steve On 8 July 2011 15:03, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > Steve, > Since I cannot distinguish the two so-called groups of M222 from each > other, and since all the haplotypes I include in the M222 database have at > least 27 DYS modals that agree with the 37 DYS modal values, I do not > deliberately include ones who are too far from the self-defined limits > (above) of M222. I am doing nothing for convenience. Those haplotypes have > to meet the 73% or more test. The answer to your other point(s) is that I do > not find the two groups to be operationally distinguishable. > - Bye from Bill Howard

Dear Bill, As a biological scientist I find it distressing that you and others are trying to convince us that it doesn't really matter if your SNP test does or does not show that you are M222+, you can still be included in the M222 project on the basis of your STR haplotype. Data based on such an assumption would not be acceptable in a rigorous scientific journal. It would seem to me that the benchmark of the M222 project should be the presence of M222+. At some stage in our background two brothers may have had an identical or nearly identical STR haplotype, but brother one had a de novo mutation that created the M222 SNP and brother two did not. The descendants of brother one would be M222+ and the descendants of brother two would be M222-. This de novo mutation occurred at a specific date and we would all be very interested in that date. However, if the samples used to measure that date are a mixture of = and - SNPs, then you can't measure the date of appearance of M222 accurately because common STR haplotypes would predate the appearance of the M222 SNP. Let's focus on the rigor of the analysis, not the cost of SNP testing. 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 > From: Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> > Reply-To: <dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com> > Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:00:22 -0400 > To: <dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] There is no practical difference between M222+ and M222- > > Hi, Paul, > Sorry about the "Pat" -- someone else used Pat along the way and I failed to > check it. My apologies. > I only wanted to make the point that the so-called plusses and minuses for > M222 are inextricably mixed so it doesn't matter if you use both in studies > related to the M222 group. > Indeed, the RCC time scale does not depend on M222 membership at all. It will > estimate the TMRCAs of any pair of haplotypes, and when it is looking at a > surname cluster, or any other cluster that has many members, the estimate goes > from about 180 years (SD) for a pair, downwards by a factor of the square root > of (n-1) where n is the number of haplogroups in the cluster. The junction > points on the phylogenetic tree are also pretty well-defined in time using the > same reasoning. > Whether or not it is a SNP is a red-herring. They only have to be haplotypes. > - Bye from Bill Howard > > On Jul 8, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Paul Conroy wrote: > >> Bill, >> >> First of all my name is Paul Conroy, not "Pat" - he's the writer, I'm the >> hacker! >> >> Second, what I said was the R-L21 M222+ and R-L21 M222- are mostly not >> significantly different in STR values. So in areas where they both occur, a >> NPE would likely go largely unnoticed based solely on STR values. However >> any calculations that date the TMRCA or possible Location of said ancestor, >> based on Non-SNP tested data, are liable to be erroneous. That is as true a >> statement now as ever before. >> >> However, I don't think anyone should be pressured into getting SNP tested - >> although they should be encouraged to do so. But any investigator who is >> carrying out calculations based on Non-SNP tested data, should state that >> upfront, and add the caveat that results are thus likely to be erroneous - >> simple as that. The alternative of course would be just to stick to SNP >> tested data, and avoid the confusion altogether?! >> >> I have no more to say on this - as IMO it should be obvious that you can't >> predict dates for clusters defined by certain SNP's, when some of the data >> don't actually have those SNP's. >> >> Cheers, >> Paul >> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> My primary interest in replying to Paul Conroy was to state that there is >>> little if any difference between what he calls the M222+ and M222 - groups. >>> I am glad to see that John McLaughlin and apparently David Wilson agree with >>> me. This is crucial to what I am trying to do because the M222 group I am >>> working on consists of both Conroy's groups and I find them >>> indistinguishable. I appreciate the remarks of John and others about the >>> history of what defines the M222 group. >>> >>> In John's note he cites a URL where the marker modals are found. It is at: >>> <http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm> >>> >>> There MUST be a mistake of transcription there, because there are two >>> entries in the clanmaclochlainn.com file that disagree significantly with >>> my modal list. Before we go further, my modal file is identical when I >>> derive them from the O'Cathain group that John McLaughlin sent me AND with >>> two larger files of M222, one of which contains 320 haplotypes and the other >>> contains 683 haplotypes. My conclusion is that the clanmaclochlainn.comfile >>> MUST be wrong for the following DYS values: >>> >>> DYS My Value clanmaclochlainn.com Value >>> 426 12 13 >>> 454 11 12 >>> >>> On the website that gives modal values for M222, located at < >>> http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/Files/R-L21%20Tree%2020110531.pdf>>>> , >>> the values for these markers agree with mine, not the posting on >>> clanmaclochlainn.com. >>> Let values on the latter site are wrong. They are crucial since they are >>> very slow mutators, hence are valuable for analysis of the phylogenetic tree >>> at high values of RCC. I think someone needs to look into the details of >>> how the clanmaclochlainn values were done. It surely needs correction for >>> those two markers. >>> >>> - Bye from Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Lochlan@aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> In a message dated 7/7/2011 7:00:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time, >>>> weh8@verizon.net writes: >>>> >>>> There has been considerable discussion both on- and off-line about how >>> the >>>> M222 SNP is defined. >>>> First, I understand that its early definition depended on the first 12 >>>> markers. >>>> Next, we have the deep clade test of FTDNA with a proprietary approach >>> we >>>> know little about. >>>> Next, there are discussions of how the markers agree or disagree with >>> the >>>> modal values of the deep clade test, but only with respect to the first >>> 12 >>>> markers of the FTDNA string. >>>> >>>> Bill, a few others have chimed in on various aspects of these >>> assumptions >>>> but I have to add myself they are wrong. >>>> >>>> <First, I understand that its early definition depended on the first 12 >>>> markers. >>>> >>>> 25 markers was the norm at FTDNA when David Wilson first announced his >>>> discovery of what he called the NW Irish cluster. He was soon followed >>> by the >>>> Trinity team with 17 markers who called the same cluster the Irish Modal >>>> Haplotype (IMH). >>>> >>>> <Next, we have the deep clade test of FTDNA with a proprietary approach >>> we >>>> know little about. >>>> >>>> >>>> This has already been covered. It's not proprietory and details are >>>> readily available. >>>> >>>> <Next, there are discussions of how the markers agree or disagree with >>> the >>>> modal values of the deep clade test, but only with respect to the first >>> 12 >>>> markers of the FTDNA string. >>>> >>>> This has never been true anywhere that I know of and never in the M222 >>>> project. David Wilson has had a full modal haplotype online at Ysearch >>> as >>>> long as I can remember. It is true that FTDNA awards their Nial icon >>> based >>>> on an exact match at 12 markers. Perhaps this is what you're thinking >>> of. >>>> >>>> David's M222 modal is M5UKQ on Ysearch. >>>> >>>> < I include now a table that shows the percentage of M222 testees that >>>> have mutations at the various points in the haplotype. For example, those >>> with >>>> 454 had a constant value of the modal for 454, and less than 50% of the >>>> testees had the modal for the two CDYs. >>>> >>>> That's already been done. >>>> >>>> _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm_ >>>> (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm) >>>> >>>> >>>> If this thread continues much longer I'll attempt to get David Wilson >>> back >>>> on board. He no longer is a member of the list but he surely will have >>>> some strong opinions on some of the statements made lately. He began >>> the >>>> M222 project and was the one who made the decision that SNP testing was >>> not >>>> necessary for inclusion in the project. Why? Because membership in >>> the >>>> clade was easily detected via STRs alone. >>>> >>>> Pat Conroy threw out the Wilson sample as an example of a false M222 >>> based >>>> on STRS. I'm glad someone else mentioned that. I have five times in >>> the >>>> last month to no response. The Clark sample in the M222 negative >>> section >>>> is almost identical. David Wilson listed these two as possibly pre >>>> M222. There is one other similar sample (Hannan) listed in the M222 >>> negative >>>> section. He probably should go into the pre M222 section as well. >>>> >>>> The Wilson sample has an interesting history. David Wilson who was >>> also >>>> the admin. of the Wilson DNA project. He assumed this sample was M222+ >>>> and was shocked to learn it was M222- by SNP test. At David's urging, >>>> FTDNA retested the sample several times. It came back negative every >>> time. >>>> >>>> There are a few suspicious parts of both the Clark and Wilson samples. >>>> Both have 385 = 12-14 which is unusual in M222. The Clark sample at 464 >>> has >>>> 15-15-16-17 at 464. That is highly unusual in M222. I see nothing >>> unusual >>>> in the Hannan sample at all. None of these samples stand out as unusual >>>> in terms of genetic distance. Each has matchers within the project at >>>> 6,7-20 GDS which is no different from most other cluster members. >>> That's no >>>> different from the Conroy sample. >>>> >>>> If I were presented with any of these samples and had to chose whether to >>>> admit them to the project based on STRS alone I probably would without an >>>> SNP test. I think David Wilson would do the same. >>>> >>>> So I will be the first to admit there could be some samples in the >>>> project which appear to be M222 but are not. The question is how many? >>>> >>>> What Bill has not mentioned to the list is a theory that the bi-modality >>> he >>>> mentioned is caused by M222 project samples that are M222-. The twin >>>> humps his graph shows seems to be equally large on each side. That >>> would seem >>>> to indicate there are roughly as many M222- in the project as M222+. >>> Is >>>> that possible? >>>> >>>> Not long ago the count of project members with SNP tests was 334. >>> That's >>>> out of 668 or about half the project. I can't guess how many of the >>> non >>>> tested members might be M222-. Not too many is my guess. >>>> >>>> The way the project is currently organized shouldn't cause any >>> confusion. >>>> FTDNA clearly indicates those with SNP tests. Those who only want to >>>> include them in analysis can do so easily. Dropping half the project >>> without >>>> SNP tests would greatly reduce the surname diversity available. Is that >>> a >>>> wise thing to do? >>>> >>>> I for one have no interest in getting an SNP test. I belong to a >>>> cluster of McLaughlins, four or five of whom have been SNP tested and >>> are M222+. >>>> As far as I'm concerned an SNP test for me would be a waste of money. >>> I >>>> won't spend the extra money just to keep the purists happy. >>>> >>>> On the other hand there could be a few samples in the project who are not >>>> M222 positive. It would be interesting to find out for sure. Right >>> now >>>> we can only guess. >>>> >>>> >>>> That is a conundrum. >>>> >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> R1b1c7 Research and Links: >>>> >>>> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >>> R1b1c7 Research and Links: >>> >>> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >> R1b1c7 Research and Links: >> >> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > 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

Steve, Since I cannot distinguish the two so-called groups of M222 from each other, and since all the haplotypes I include in the M222 database have at least 27 DYS modals that agree with the 37 DYS modal values, I do not deliberately include ones who are too far from the self-defined limits (above) of M222. I am doing nothing for convenience. Those haplotypes have to meet the 73% or more test. The answer to your other point(s) is that I do not find the two groups to be operationally distinguishable. - Bye from Bill Howard On Jul 8, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Stephen Forrest wrote: > I think part of the issue is that your definition of the "M222 group" > deliberately includes not just people whose M222 status is unknown but > people who are definitely M222- but have STR profiles similar to M222+ > folks. I realize this has to do with the history of the North-West Irish > group, but it is extremely confusing. > > To take an example from elsewhere in amateur Y-DNA studies, the modal values > for L21 and its parent P312 are identical but we do not lump P312+ L21- men > in with the "L21 group" even for convenience's sake. Rather than the "M222 > group", perhaps "M222 and relatives" or "North-West Irish cluster" might > clear some of this up. > > I appreciate that your genetic distance measure is independent of SNP > information but surely it's a useful check on your data to know that the > real TRMCA between a M222+ man and a M222- man must be greater than those > for any two M222+ men. > > Just out of curiosity, have you done coalescence estimates on all men who > are known to be M222+ from test results versus everyone with in the broader > group defined by the STR signature? > > Steve > > On 8 July 2011 14:00, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Hi, Paul, >> Sorry about the "Pat" -- someone else used Pat along the way and I failed >> to check it. My apologies. >> I only wanted to make the point that the so-called plusses and minuses for >> M222 are inextricably mixed so it doesn't matter if you use both in studies >> related to the M222 group. >> Indeed, the RCC time scale does not depend on M222 membership at all. It >> will estimate the TMRCAs of any pair of haplotypes, and when it is looking >> at a surname cluster, or any other cluster that has many members, the >> estimate goes from about 180 years (SD) for a pair, downwards by a factor of >> the square root of (n-1) where n is the number of haplogroups in the >> cluster. The junction points on the phylogenetic tree are also pretty >> well-defined in time using the same reasoning. >> Whether or not it is a SNP is a red-herring. They only have to be >> haplotypes. >> - Bye from Bill Howard >> >> On Jul 8, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Paul Conroy wrote: >> >>> Bill, >>> >>> First of all my name is Paul Conroy, not "Pat" - he's the writer, I'm the >>> hacker! >>> >>> Second, what I said was the R-L21 M222+ and R-L21 M222- are mostly not >>> significantly different in STR values. So in areas where they both occur, >> a >>> NPE would likely go largely unnoticed based solely on STR values. However >>> any calculations that date the TMRCA or possible Location of said >> ancestor, >>> based on Non-SNP tested data, are liable to be erroneous. That is as true >> a >>> statement now as ever before. >>> >>> However, I don't think anyone should be pressured into getting SNP tested >> - >>> although they should be encouraged to do so. But any investigator who is >>> carrying out calculations based on Non-SNP tested data, should state that >>> upfront, and add the caveat that results are thus likely to be erroneous >> - >>> simple as that. The alternative of course would be just to stick to SNP >>> tested data, and avoid the confusion altogether?! >>> >>> I have no more to say on this - as IMO it should be obvious that you >> can't >>> predict dates for clusters defined by certain SNP's, when some of the >> data >>> don't actually have those SNP's. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Paul >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>>> My primary interest in replying to Paul Conroy was to state that there >> is >>>> little if any difference between what he calls the M222+ and M222 - >> groups. >>>> I am glad to see that John McLaughlin and apparently David Wilson agree >> with >>>> me. This is crucial to what I am trying to do because the M222 group I >> am >>>> working on consists of both Conroy's groups and I find them >>>> indistinguishable. I appreciate the remarks of John and others about the >>>> history of what defines the M222 group. >>>> >>>> In John's note he cites a URL where the marker modals are found. It is >> at: >>>> <http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm> >>>> >>>> There MUST be a mistake of transcription there, because there are two >>>> entries in the clanmaclochlainn.com file that disagree significantly >> with >>>> my modal list. Before we go further, my modal file is identical when I >>>> derive them from the O'Cathain group that John McLaughlin sent me AND >> with >>>> two larger files of M222, one of which contains 320 haplotypes and the >> other >>>> contains 683 haplotypes. My conclusion is that the >> clanmaclochlainn.comfile MUST be wrong for the following DYS values: >>>> >>>> DYS My Value clanmaclochlainn.comValue >>>> 426 12 13 >>>> 454 11 12 >>>> >>>> On the website that gives modal values for M222, located at < >>>> >> http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/Files/R-L21%20Tree%2020110531.pdf >>> , >>>> the values for these markers agree with mine, not the posting on >>>> clanmaclochlainn.com. >>>> Let values on the latter site are wrong. They are crucial since they are >>>> very slow mutators, hence are valuable for analysis of the phylogenetic >> tree >>>> at high values of RCC. I think someone needs to look into the details >> of >>>> how the clanmaclochlainn values were done. It surely needs correction >> for >>>> those two markers. >>>> >>>> - Bye from Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Lochlan@aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> In a message dated 7/7/2011 7:00:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time, >>>>> weh8@verizon.net writes: >>>>> >>>>> There has been considerable discussion both on- and off-line about how >>>> the >>>>> M222 SNP is defined. >>>>> First, I understand that its early definition depended on the first 12 >>>>> markers. >>>>> Next, we have the deep clade test of FTDNA with a proprietary approach >>>> we >>>>> know little about. >>>>> Next, there are discussions of how the markers agree or disagree with >>>> the >>>>> modal values of the deep clade test, but only with respect to the >> first >>>> 12 >>>>> markers of the FTDNA string. >>>>> >>>>> Bill, a few others have chimed in on various aspects of these >>>> assumptions >>>>> but I have to add myself they are wrong. >>>>> >>>>> <First, I understand that its early definition depended on the first >> 12 >>>>> markers. >>>>> >>>>> 25 markers was the norm at FTDNA when David Wilson first announced his >>>>> discovery of what he called the NW Irish cluster. He was soon followed >>>> by the >>>>> Trinity team with 17 markers who called the same cluster the Irish >> Modal >>>>> Haplotype (IMH). >>>>> >>>>> <Next, we have the deep clade test of FTDNA with a proprietary >> approach >>>> we >>>>> know little about. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This has already been covered. It's not proprietory and details are >>>>> readily available. >>>>> >>>>> <Next, there are discussions of how the markers agree or disagree with >>>> the >>>>> modal values of the deep clade test, but only with respect to the first >>>> 12 >>>>> markers of the FTDNA string. >>>>> >>>>> This has never been true anywhere that I know of and never in the M222 >>>>> project. David Wilson has had a full modal haplotype online at >> Ysearch >>>> as >>>>> long as I can remember. It is true that FTDNA awards their Nial icon >>>> based >>>>> on an exact match at 12 markers. Perhaps this is what you're thinking >>>> of. >>>>> >>>>> David's M222 modal is M5UKQ on Ysearch. >>>>> >>>>> < I include now a table that shows the percentage of M222 testees that >>>>> have mutations at the various points in the haplotype. For example, >> those >>>> with >>>>> 454 had a constant value of the modal for 454, and less than 50% of the >>>>> testees had the modal for the two CDYs. >>>>> >>>>> That's already been done. >>>>> >>>>> _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm_ >>>>> (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If this thread continues much longer I'll attempt to get David Wilson >>>> back >>>>> on board. He no longer is a member of the list but he surely will >> have >>>>> some strong opinions on some of the statements made lately. He began >>>> the >>>>> M222 project and was the one who made the decision that SNP testing was >>>> not >>>>> necessary for inclusion in the project. Why? Because membership in >>>> the >>>>> clade was easily detected via STRs alone. >>>>> >>>>> Pat Conroy threw out the Wilson sample as an example of a false M222 >>>> based >>>>> on STRS. I'm glad someone else mentioned that. I have five times in >>>> the >>>>> last month to no response. The Clark sample in the M222 negative >>>> section >>>>> is almost identical. David Wilson listed these two as possibly pre >>>>> M222. There is one other similar sample (Hannan) listed in the M222 >>>> negative >>>>> section. He probably should go into the pre M222 section as well. >>>>> >>>>> The Wilson sample has an interesting history. David Wilson who was >>>> also >>>>> the admin. of the Wilson DNA project. He assumed this sample was >> M222+ >>>>> and was shocked to learn it was M222- by SNP test. At David's >> urging, >>>>> FTDNA retested the sample several times. It came back negative every >>>> time. >>>>> >>>>> There are a few suspicious parts of both the Clark and Wilson samples. >>>>> Both have 385 = 12-14 which is unusual in M222. The Clark sample at >> 464 >>>> has >>>>> 15-15-16-17 at 464. That is highly unusual in M222. I see nothing >>>> unusual >>>>> in the Hannan sample at all. None of these samples stand out as >> unusual >>>>> in terms of genetic distance. Each has matchers within the project at >>>>> 6,7-20 GDS which is no different from most other cluster members. >>>> That's no >>>>> different from the Conroy sample. >>>>> >>>>> If I were presented with any of these samples and had to chose whether >> to >>>>> admit them to the project based on STRS alone I probably would without >> an >>>>> SNP test. I think David Wilson would do the same. >>>>> >>>>> So I will be the first to admit there could be some samples in the >>>>> project which appear to be M222 but are not. The question is how >> many? >>>>> >>>>> What Bill has not mentioned to the list is a theory that the >> bi-modality >>>> he >>>>> mentioned is caused by M222 project samples that are M222-. The twin >>>>> humps his graph shows seems to be equally large on each side. That >>>> would seem >>>>> to indicate there are roughly as many M222- in the project as M222+. >>>> Is >>>>> that possible? >>>>> >>>>> Not long ago the count of project members with SNP tests was 334. >>>> That's >>>>> out of 668 or about half the project. I can't guess how many of the >>>> non >>>>> tested members might be M222-. Not too many is my guess. >>>>> >>>>> The way the project is currently organized shouldn't cause any >>>> confusion. >>>>> FTDNA clearly indicates those with SNP tests. Those who only want to >>>>> include them in analysis can do so easily. Dropping half the project >>>> without >>>>> SNP tests would greatly reduce the surname diversity available. Is >> that >>>> a >>>>> wise thing to do? >>>>> >>>>> I for one have no interest in getting an SNP test. I belong to a >>>>> cluster of McLaughlins, four or five of whom have been SNP tested and >>>> are M222+. >>>>> As far as I'm concerned an SNP test for me would be a waste of money. >>>> I >>>>> won't spend the extra money just to keep the purists happy. >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand there could be a few samples in the project who are >> not >>>>> M222 positive. It would be interesting to find out for sure. Right >>>> now >>>>> we can only guess. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is a conundrum. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> R1b1c7 Research and Links: >>>>> >>>>> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ >>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>>> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>>> >>>> >>>> R1b1c7 Research and Links: >>>> >>>> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>>> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>>> >>> R1b1c7 Research and Links: >>> >>> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> 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

I think part of the issue is that your definition of the "M222 group" deliberately includes not just people whose M222 status is unknown but people who are definitely M222- but have STR profiles similar to M222+ folks. I realize this has to do with the history of the North-West Irish group, but it is extremely confusing. To take an example from elsewhere in amateur Y-DNA studies, the modal values for L21 and its parent P312 are identical but we do not lump P312+ L21- men in with the "L21 group" even for convenience's sake. Rather than the "M222 group", perhaps "M222 and relatives" or "North-West Irish cluster" might clear some of this up. I appreciate that your genetic distance measure is independent of SNP information but surely it's a useful check on your data to know that the real TRMCA between a M222+ man and a M222- man must be greater than those for any two M222+ men. Just out of curiosity, have you done coalescence estimates on all men who are known to be M222+ from test results versus everyone with in the broader group defined by the STR signature? Steve On 8 July 2011 14:00, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > Hi, Paul, > Sorry about the "Pat" -- someone else used Pat along the way and I failed > to check it. My apologies. > I only wanted to make the point that the so-called plusses and minuses for > M222 are inextricably mixed so it doesn't matter if you use both in studies > related to the M222 group. > Indeed, the RCC time scale does not depend on M222 membership at all. It > will estimate the TMRCAs of any pair of haplotypes, and when it is looking > at a surname cluster, or any other cluster that has many members, the > estimate goes from about 180 years (SD) for a pair, downwards by a factor of > the square root of (n-1) where n is the number of haplogroups in the > cluster. The junction points on the phylogenetic tree are also pretty > well-defined in time using the same reasoning. > Whether or not it is a SNP is a red-herring. They only have to be > haplotypes. > - Bye from Bill Howard > > On Jul 8, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Paul Conroy wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > First of all my name is Paul Conroy, not "Pat" - he's the writer, I'm the > > hacker! > > > > Second, what I said was the R-L21 M222+ and R-L21 M222- are mostly not > > significantly different in STR values. So in areas where they both occur, > a > > NPE would likely go largely unnoticed based solely on STR values. However > > any calculations that date the TMRCA or possible Location of said > ancestor, > > based on Non-SNP tested data, are liable to be erroneous. That is as true > a > > statement now as ever before. > > > > However, I don't think anyone should be pressured into getting SNP tested > - > > although they should be encouraged to do so. But any investigator who is > > carrying out calculations based on Non-SNP tested data, should state that > > upfront, and add the caveat that results are thus likely to be erroneous > - > > simple as that. The alternative of course would be just to stick to SNP > > tested data, and avoid the confusion altogether?! > > > > I have no more to say on this - as IMO it should be obvious that you > can't > > predict dates for clusters defined by certain SNP's, when some of the > data > > don't actually have those SNP's. > > > > Cheers, > > Paul > > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> My primary interest in replying to Paul Conroy was to state that there > is > >> little if any difference between what he calls the M222+ and M222 - > groups. > >> I am glad to see that John McLaughlin and apparently David Wilson agree > with > >> me. This is crucial to what I am trying to do because the M222 group I > am > >> working on consists of both Conroy's groups and I find them > >> indistinguishable. I appreciate the remarks of John and others about the > >> history of what defines the M222 group. > >> > >> In John's note he cites a URL where the marker modals are found. It is > at: > >> <http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm> > >> > >> There MUST be a mistake of transcription there, because there are two > >> entries in the clanmaclochlainn.com file that disagree significantly > with > >> my modal list. Before we go further, my modal file is identical when I > >> derive them from the O'Cathain group that John McLaughlin sent me AND > with > >> two larger files of M222, one of which contains 320 haplotypes and the > other > >> contains 683 haplotypes. My conclusion is that the > clanmaclochlainn.comfile MUST be wrong for the following DYS values: > >> > >> DYS My Value clanmaclochlainn.comValue > >> 426 12 13 > >> 454 11 12 > >> > >> On the website that gives modal values for M222, located at < > >> > http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/Files/R-L21%20Tree%2020110531.pdf > >, > >> the values for these markers agree with mine, not the posting on > >> clanmaclochlainn.com. > >> Let values on the latter site are wrong. They are crucial since they are > >> very slow mutators, hence are valuable for analysis of the phylogenetic > tree > >> at high values of RCC. I think someone needs to look into the details > of > >> how the clanmaclochlainn values were done. It surely needs correction > for > >> those two markers. > >> > >> - Bye from Bill > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Lochlan@aol.com wrote: > >> > >>> In a message dated 7/7/2011 7:00:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > >>> weh8@verizon.net writes: > >>> > >>> There has been considerable discussion both on- and off-line about how > >> the > >>> M222 SNP is defined. > >>> First, I understand that its early definition depended on the first 12 > >>> markers. > >>> Next, we have the deep clade test of FTDNA with a proprietary approach > >> we > >>> know little about. > >>> Next, there are discussions of how the markers agree or disagree with > >> the > >>> modal values of the deep clade test, but only with respect to the > first > >> 12 > >>> markers of the FTDNA string. > >>> > >>> Bill, a few others have chimed in on various aspects of these > >> assumptions > >>> but I have to add myself they are wrong. > >>> > >>> <First, I understand that its early definition depended on the first > 12 > >>> markers. > >>> > >>> 25 markers was the norm at FTDNA when David Wilson first announced his > >>> discovery of what he called the NW Irish cluster. He was soon followed > >> by the > >>> Trinity team with 17 markers who called the same cluster the Irish > Modal > >>> Haplotype (IMH). > >>> > >>> <Next, we have the deep clade test of FTDNA with a proprietary > approach > >> we > >>> know little about. > >>> > >>> > >>> This has already been covered. It's not proprietory and details are > >>> readily available. > >>> > >>> <Next, there are discussions of how the markers agree or disagree with > >> the > >>> modal values of the deep clade test, but only with respect to the first > >> 12 > >>> markers of the FTDNA string. > >>> > >>> This has never been true anywhere that I know of and never in the M222 > >>> project. David Wilson has had a full modal haplotype online at > Ysearch > >> as > >>> long as I can remember. It is true that FTDNA awards their Nial icon > >> based > >>> on an exact match at 12 markers. Perhaps this is what you're thinking > >> of. > >>> > >>> David's M222 modal is M5UKQ on Ysearch. > >>> > >>> < I include now a table that shows the percentage of M222 testees that > >>> have mutations at the various points in the haplotype. For example, > those > >> with > >>> 454 had a constant value of the modal for 454, and less than 50% of the > >>> testees had the modal for the two CDYs. > >>> > >>> That's already been done. > >>> > >>> _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm_ > >>> (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm) > >>> > >>> > >>> If this thread continues much longer I'll attempt to get David Wilson > >> back > >>> on board. He no longer is a member of the list but he surely will > have > >>> some strong opinions on some of the statements made lately. He began > >> the > >>> M222 project and was the one who made the decision that SNP testing was > >> not > >>> necessary for inclusion in the project. Why? Because membership in > >> the > >>> clade was easily detected via STRs alone. > >>> > >>> Pat Conroy threw out the Wilson sample as an example of a false M222 > >> based > >>> on STRS. I'm glad someone else mentioned that. I have five times in > >> the > >>> last month to no response. The Clark sample in the M222 negative > >> section > >>> is almost identical. David Wilson listed these two as possibly pre > >>> M222. There is one other similar sample (Hannan) listed in the M222 > >> negative > >>> section. He probably should go into the pre M222 section as well. > >>> > >>> The Wilson sample has an interesting history. David Wilson who was > >> also > >>> the admin. of the Wilson DNA project. He assumed this sample was > M222+ > >>> and was shocked to learn it was M222- by SNP test. At David's > urging, > >>> FTDNA retested the sample several times. It came back negative every > >> time. > >>> > >>> There are a few suspicious parts of both the Clark and Wilson samples. > >>> Both have 385 = 12-14 which is unusual in M222. The Clark sample at > 464 > >> has > >>> 15-15-16-17 at 464. That is highly unusual in M222. I see nothing > >> unusual > >>> in the Hannan sample at all. None of these samples stand out as > unusual > >>> in terms of genetic distance. Each has matchers within the project at > >>> 6,7-20 GDS which is no different from most other cluster members. > >> That's no > >>> different from the Conroy sample. > >>> > >>> If I were presented with any of these samples and had to chose whether > to > >>> admit them to the project based on STRS alone I probably would without > an > >>> SNP test. I think David Wilson would do the same. > >>> > >>> So I will be the first to admit there could be some samples in the > >>> project which appear to be M222 but are not. The question is how > many? > >>> > >>> What Bill has not mentioned to the list is a theory that the > bi-modality > >> he > >>> mentioned is caused by M222 project samples that are M222-. The twin > >>> humps his graph shows seems to be equally large on each side. That > >> would seem > >>> to indicate there are roughly as many M222- in the project as M222+. > >> Is > >>> that possible? > >>> > >>> Not long ago the count of project members with SNP tests was 334. > >> That's > >>> out of 668 or about half the project. I can't guess how many of the > >> non > >>> tested members might be M222-. Not too many is my guess. > >>> > >>> The way the project is currently organized shouldn't cause any > >> confusion. > >>> FTDNA clearly indicates those with SNP tests. Those who only want to > >>> include them in analysis can do so easily. Dropping half the project > >> without > >>> SNP tests would greatly reduce the surname diversity available. Is > that > >> a > >>> wise thing to do? > >>> > >>> I for one have no interest in getting an SNP test. I belong to a > >>> cluster of McLaughlins, four or five of whom have been SNP tested and > >> are M222+. > >>> As far as I'm concerned an SNP test for me would be a waste of money. > >> I > >>> won't spend the extra money just to keep the purists happy. > >>> > >>> On the other hand there could be a few samples in the project who are > not > >>> M222 positive. It would be interesting to find out for sure. Right > >> now > >>> we can only guess. > >>> > >>> > >>> That is a conundrum. > >>> > >>> > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> R1b1c7 Research and Links: > >>> > >>> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > >>> ------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > >> > >> R1b1c7 Research and Links: > >> > >> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > 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, Paul, Sorry about the "Pat" -- someone else used Pat along the way and I failed to check it. My apologies. I only wanted to make the point that the so-called plusses and minuses for M222 are inextricably mixed so it doesn't matter if you use both in studies related to the M222 group. Indeed, the RCC time scale does not depend on M222 membership at all. It will estimate the TMRCAs of any pair of haplotypes, and when it is looking at a surname cluster, or any other cluster that has many members, the estimate goes from about 180 years (SD) for a pair, downwards by a factor of the square root of (n-1) where n is the number of haplogroups in the cluster. The junction points on the phylogenetic tree are also pretty well-defined in time using the same reasoning. Whether or not it is a SNP is a red-herring. They only have to be haplotypes. - Bye from Bill Howard On Jul 8, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Paul Conroy wrote: > Bill, > > First of all my name is Paul Conroy, not "Pat" - he's the writer, I'm the > hacker! > > Second, what I said was the R-L21 M222+ and R-L21 M222- are mostly not > significantly different in STR values. So in areas where they both occur, a > NPE would likely go largely unnoticed based solely on STR values. However > any calculations that date the TMRCA or possible Location of said ancestor, > based on Non-SNP tested data, are liable to be erroneous. That is as true a > statement now as ever before. > > However, I don't think anyone should be pressured into getting SNP tested - > although they should be encouraged to do so. But any investigator who is > carrying out calculations based on Non-SNP tested data, should state that > upfront, and add the caveat that results are thus likely to be erroneous - > simple as that. The alternative of course would be just to stick to SNP > tested data, and avoid the confusion altogether?! > > I have no more to say on this - as IMO it should be obvious that you can't > predict dates for clusters defined by certain SNP's, when some of the data > don't actually have those SNP's. > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > >> My primary interest in replying to Paul Conroy was to state that there is >> little if any difference between what he calls the M222+ and M222 - groups. >> I am glad to see that John McLaughlin and apparently David Wilson agree with >> me. This is crucial to what I am trying to do because the M222 group I am >> working on consists of both Conroy's groups and I find them >> indistinguishable. I appreciate the remarks of John and others about the >> history of what defines the M222 group. >> >> In John's note he cites a URL where the marker modals are found. It is at: >> <http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm> >> >> There MUST be a mistake of transcription there, because there are two >> entries in the clanmaclochlainn.com file that disagree significantly with >> my modal list. Before we go further, my modal file is identical when I >> derive them from the O'Cathain group that John McLaughlin sent me AND with >> two larger files of M222, one of which contains 320 haplotypes and the other >> contains 683 haplotypes. My conclusion is that the clanmaclochlainn.comfile MUST be wrong for the following DYS values: >> >> DYS My Value clanmaclochlainn.com Value >> 426 12 13 >> 454 11 12 >> >> On the website that gives modal values for M222, located at < >> http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/Files/R-L21%20Tree%2020110531.pdf>, >> the values for these markers agree with mine, not the posting on >> clanmaclochlainn.com. >> Let values on the latter site are wrong. They are crucial since they are >> very slow mutators, hence are valuable for analysis of the phylogenetic tree >> at high values of RCC. I think someone needs to look into the details of >> how the clanmaclochlainn values were done. It surely needs correction for >> those two markers. >> >> - Bye from Bill >> >> >> >> On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Lochlan@aol.com wrote: >> >>> In a message dated 7/7/2011 7:00:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time, >>> weh8@verizon.net writes: >>> >>> There has been considerable discussion both on- and off-line about how >> the >>> M222 SNP is defined. >>> First, I understand that its early definition depended on the first 12 >>> markers. >>> Next, we have the deep clade test of FTDNA with a proprietary approach >> we >>> know little about. >>> Next, there are discussions of how the markers agree or disagree with >> the >>> modal values of the deep clade test, but only with respect to the first >> 12 >>> markers of the FTDNA string. >>> >>> Bill, a few others have chimed in on various aspects of these >> assumptions >>> but I have to add myself they are wrong. >>> >>> <First, I understand that its early definition depended on the first 12 >>> markers. >>> >>> 25 markers was the norm at FTDNA when David Wilson first announced his >>> discovery of what he called the NW Irish cluster. He was soon followed >> by the >>> Trinity team with 17 markers who called the same cluster the Irish Modal >>> Haplotype (IMH). >>> >>> <Next, we have the deep clade test of FTDNA with a proprietary approach >> we >>> know little about. >>> >>> >>> This has already been covered. It's not proprietory and details are >>> readily available. >>> >>> <Next, there are discussions of how the markers agree or disagree with >> the >>> modal values of the deep clade test, but only with respect to the first >> 12 >>> markers of the FTDNA string. >>> >>> This has never been true anywhere that I know of and never in the M222 >>> project. David Wilson has had a full modal haplotype online at Ysearch >> as >>> long as I can remember. It is true that FTDNA awards their Nial icon >> based >>> on an exact match at 12 markers. Perhaps this is what you're thinking >> of. >>> >>> David's M222 modal is M5UKQ on Ysearch. >>> >>> < I include now a table that shows the percentage of M222 testees that >>> have mutations at the various points in the haplotype. For example, those >> with >>> 454 had a constant value of the modal for 454, and less than 50% of the >>> testees had the modal for the two CDYs. >>> >>> That's already been done. >>> >>> _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm_ >>> (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm) >>> >>> >>> If this thread continues much longer I'll attempt to get David Wilson >> back >>> on board. He no longer is a member of the list but he surely will have >>> some strong opinions on some of the statements made lately. He began >> the >>> M222 project and was the one who made the decision that SNP testing was >> not >>> necessary for inclusion in the project. Why? Because membership in >> the >>> clade was easily detected via STRs alone. >>> >>> Pat Conroy threw out the Wilson sample as an example of a false M222 >> based >>> on STRS. I'm glad someone else mentioned that. I have five times in >> the >>> last month to no response. The Clark sample in the M222 negative >> section >>> is almost identical. David Wilson listed these two as possibly pre >>> M222. There is one other similar sample (Hannan) listed in the M222 >> negative >>> section. He probably should go into the pre M222 section as well. >>> >>> The Wilson sample has an interesting history. David Wilson who was >> also >>> the admin. of the Wilson DNA project. He assumed this sample was M222+ >>> and was shocked to learn it was M222- by SNP test. At David's urging, >>> FTDNA retested the sample several times. It came back negative every >> time. >>> >>> There are a few suspicious parts of both the Clark and Wilson samples. >>> Both have 385 = 12-14 which is unusual in M222. The Clark sample at 464 >> has >>> 15-15-16-17 at 464. That is highly unusual in M222. I see nothing >> unusual >>> in the Hannan sample at all. None of these samples stand out as unusual >>> in terms of genetic distance. Each has matchers within the project at >>> 6,7-20 GDS which is no different from most other cluster members. >> That's no >>> different from the Conroy sample. >>> >>> If I were presented with any of these samples and had to chose whether to >>> admit them to the project based on STRS alone I probably would without an >>> SNP test. I think David Wilson would do the same. >>> >>> So I will be the first to admit there could be some samples in the >>> project which appear to be M222 but are not. The question is how many? >>> >>> What Bill has not mentioned to the list is a theory that the bi-modality >> he >>> mentioned is caused by M222 project samples that are M222-. The twin >>> humps his graph shows seems to be equally large on each side. That >> would seem >>> to indicate there are roughly as many M222- in the project as M222+. >> Is >>> that possible? >>> >>> Not long ago the count of project members with SNP tests was 334. >> That's >>> out of 668 or about half the project. I can't guess how many of the >> non >>> tested members might be M222-. Not too many is my guess. >>> >>> The way the project is currently organized shouldn't cause any >> confusion. >>> FTDNA clearly indicates those with SNP tests. Those who only want to >>> include them in analysis can do so easily. Dropping half the project >> without >>> SNP tests would greatly reduce the surname diversity available. Is that >> a >>> wise thing to do? >>> >>> I for one have no interest in getting an SNP test. I belong to a >>> cluster of McLaughlins, four or five of whom have been SNP tested and >> are M222+. >>> As far as I'm concerned an SNP test for me would be a waste of money. >> I >>> won't spend the extra money just to keep the purists happy. >>> >>> On the other hand there could be a few samples in the project who are not >>> M222 positive. It would be interesting to find out for sure. Right >> now >>> we can only guess. >>> >>> >>> That is a conundrum. >>> >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> R1b1c7 Research and Links: >>> >>> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> R1b1c7 Research and Links: >> >> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Bill, First of all my name is Paul Conroy, not "Pat" - he's the writer, I'm the hacker! Second, what I said was the R-L21 M222+ and R-L21 M222- are mostly not significantly different in STR values. So in areas where they both occur, a NPE would likely go largely unnoticed based solely on STR values. However any calculations that date the TMRCA or possible Location of said ancestor, based on Non-SNP tested data, are liable to be erroneous. That is as true a statement now as ever before. However, I don't think anyone should be pressured into getting SNP tested - although they should be encouraged to do so. But any investigator who is carrying out calculations based on Non-SNP tested data, should state that upfront, and add the caveat that results are thus likely to be erroneous - simple as that. The alternative of course would be just to stick to SNP tested data, and avoid the confusion altogether?! I have no more to say on this - as IMO it should be obvious that you can't predict dates for clusters defined by certain SNP's, when some of the data don't actually have those SNP's. Cheers, Paul On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > My primary interest in replying to Pat Conroy was to state that there is > little if any difference between what he calls the M222+ and M222 - groups. > I am glad to see that John McLaughlin and apparently David Wilson agree with > me. This is crucial to what I am trying to do because the M222 group I am > working on consists of both Conroy's groups and I find them > indistinguishable. I appreciate the remarks of John and others about the > history of what defines the M222 group. > > In John's note he cites a URL where the marker modals are found. It is at: > <http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm> > > There MUST be a mistake of transcription there, because there are two > entries in the clanmaclochlainn.com file that disagree significantly with > my modal list. Before we go further, my modal file is identical when I > derive them from the O'Cathain group that John McLaughlin sent me AND with > two larger files of M222, one of which contains 320 haplotypes and the other > contains 683 haplotypes. My conclusion is that the clanmaclochlainn.comfile MUST be wrong for the following DYS values: > > DYS My Value clanmaclochlainn.com Value > 426 12 13 > 454 11 12 > > On the website that gives modal values for M222, located at < > http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/Files/R-L21%20Tree%2020110531.pdf>, > the values for these markers agree with mine, not the posting on > clanmaclochlainn.com. > Let values on the latter site are wrong. They are crucial since they are > very slow mutators, hence are valuable for analysis of the phylogenetic tree > at high values of RCC. I think someone needs to look into the details of > how the clanmaclochlainn values were done. It surely needs correction for > those two markers. > > - Bye from Bill > > > > On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Lochlan@aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 7/7/2011 7:00:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > > weh8@verizon.net writes: > > > > There has been considerable discussion both on- and off-line about how > the > > M222 SNP is defined. > > First, I understand that its early definition depended on the first 12 > > markers. > > Next, we have the deep clade test of FTDNA with a proprietary approach > we > > know little about. > > Next, there are discussions of how the markers agree or disagree with > the > > modal values of the deep clade test, but only with respect to the first > 12 > > markers of the FTDNA string. > > > > Bill, a few others have chimed in on various aspects of these > assumptions > > but I have to add myself they are wrong. > > > > <First, I understand that its early definition depended on the first 12 > > markers. > > > > 25 markers was the norm at FTDNA when David Wilson first announced his > > discovery of what he called the NW Irish cluster. He was soon followed > by the > > Trinity team with 17 markers who called the same cluster the Irish Modal > > Haplotype (IMH). > > > > <Next, we have the deep clade test of FTDNA with a proprietary approach > we > > know little about. > > > > > > This has already been covered. It's not proprietory and details are > > readily available. > > > > <Next, there are discussions of how the markers agree or disagree with > the > > modal values of the deep clade test, but only with respect to the first > 12 > > markers of the FTDNA string. > > > > This has never been true anywhere that I know of and never in the M222 > > project. David Wilson has had a full modal haplotype online at Ysearch > as > > long as I can remember. It is true that FTDNA awards their Nial icon > based > > on an exact match at 12 markers. Perhaps this is what you're thinking > of. > > > > David's M222 modal is M5UKQ on Ysearch. > > > > < I include now a table that shows the percentage of M222 testees that > > have mutations at the various points in the haplotype. For example, those > with > > 454 had a constant value of the modal for 454, and less than 50% of the > > testees had the modal for the two CDYs. > > > > That's already been done. > > > > _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm_ > > (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm) > > > > > > If this thread continues much longer I'll attempt to get David Wilson > back > > on board. He no longer is a member of the list but he surely will have > > some strong opinions on some of the statements made lately. He began > the > > M222 project and was the one who made the decision that SNP testing was > not > > necessary for inclusion in the project. Why? Because membership in > the > > clade was easily detected via STRs alone. > > > > Pat Conroy threw out the Wilson sample as an example of a false M222 > based > > on STRS. I'm glad someone else mentioned that. I have five times in > the > > last month to no response. The Clark sample in the M222 negative > section > > is almost identical. David Wilson listed these two as possibly pre > > M222. There is one other similar sample (Hannan) listed in the M222 > negative > > section. He probably should go into the pre M222 section as well. > > > > The Wilson sample has an interesting history. David Wilson who was > also > > the admin. of the Wilson DNA project. He assumed this sample was M222+ > > and was shocked to learn it was M222- by SNP test. At David's urging, > > FTDNA retested the sample several times. It came back negative every > time. > > > > There are a few suspicious parts of both the Clark and Wilson samples. > > Both have 385 = 12-14 which is unusual in M222. The Clark sample at 464 > has > > 15-15-16-17 at 464. That is highly unusual in M222. I see nothing > unusual > > in the Hannan sample at all. None of these samples stand out as unusual > > in terms of genetic distance. Each has matchers within the project at > > 6,7-20 GDS which is no different from most other cluster members. > That's no > > different from the Conroy sample. > > > > If I were presented with any of these samples and had to chose whether to > > admit them to the project based on STRS alone I probably would without an > > SNP test. I think David Wilson would do the same. > > > > So I will be the first to admit there could be some samples in the > > project which appear to be M222 but are not. The question is how many? > > > > What Bill has not mentioned to the list is a theory that the bi-modality > he > > mentioned is caused by M222 project samples that are M222-. The twin > > humps his graph shows seems to be equally large on each side. That > would seem > > to indicate there are roughly as many M222- in the project as M222+. > Is > > that possible? > > > > Not long ago the count of project members with SNP tests was 334. > That's > > out of 668 or about half the project. I can't guess how many of the > non > > tested members might be M222-. Not too many is my guess. > > > > The way the project is currently organized shouldn't cause any > confusion. > > FTDNA clearly indicates those with SNP tests. Those who only want to > > include them in analysis can do so easily. Dropping half the project > without > > SNP tests would greatly reduce the surname diversity available. Is that > a > > wise thing to do? > > > > I for one have no interest in getting an SNP test. I belong to a > > cluster of McLaughlins, four or five of whom have been SNP tested and > are M222+. > > As far as I'm concerned an SNP test for me would be a waste of money. > I > > won't spend the extra money just to keep the purists happy. > > > > On the other hand there could be a few samples in the project who are not > > M222 positive. It would be interesting to find out for sure. Right > now > > we can only guess. > > > > > > That is a conundrum. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

My primary interest in replying to Pat Conroy was to state that there is little if any difference between what he calls the M222+ and M222 - groups. I am glad to see that John McLaughlin and apparently David Wilson agree with me. This is crucial to what I am trying to do because the M222 group I am working on consists of both Conroy's groups and I find them indistinguishable. I appreciate the remarks of John and others about the history of what defines the M222 group. In John's note he cites a URL where the marker modals are found. It is at: <http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm> There MUST be a mistake of transcription there, because there are two entries in the clanmaclochlainn.com file that disagree significantly with my modal list. Before we go further, my modal file is identical when I derive them from the O'Cathain group that John McLaughlin sent me AND with two larger files of M222, one of which contains 320 haplotypes and the other contains 683 haplotypes. My conclusion is that the clanmaclochlainn.com file MUST be wrong for the following DYS values: DYS My Value clanmaclochlainn.com Value 426 12 13 454 11 12 On the website that gives modal values for M222, located at <http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/Files/R-L21%20Tree%2020110531.pdf>, the values for these markers agree with mine, not the posting on clanmaclochlainn.com. Let values on the latter site are wrong. They are crucial since they are very slow mutators, hence are valuable for analysis of the phylogenetic tree at high values of RCC. I think someone needs to look into the details of how the clanmaclochlainn values were done. It surely needs correction for those two markers. - Bye from Bill On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Lochlan@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 7/7/2011 7:00:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > weh8@verizon.net writes: > > There has been considerable discussion both on- and off-line about how the > M222 SNP is defined. > First, I understand that its early definition depended on the first 12 > markers. > Next, we have the deep clade test of FTDNA with a proprietary approach we > know little about. > Next, there are discussions of how the markers agree or disagree with the > modal values of the deep clade test, but only with respect to the first 12 > markers of the FTDNA string. > > Bill, a few others have chimed in on various aspects of these assumptions > but I have to add myself they are wrong. > > <First, I understand that its early definition depended on the first 12 > markers. > > 25 markers was the norm at FTDNA when David Wilson first announced his > discovery of what he called the NW Irish cluster. He was soon followed by the > Trinity team with 17 markers who called the same cluster the Irish Modal > Haplotype (IMH). > > <Next, we have the deep clade test of FTDNA with a proprietary approach we > know little about. > > > This has already been covered. It's not proprietory and details are > readily available. > > <Next, there are discussions of how the markers agree or disagree with the > modal values of the deep clade test, but only with respect to the first 12 > markers of the FTDNA string. > > This has never been true anywhere that I know of and never in the M222 > project. David Wilson has had a full modal haplotype online at Ysearch as > long as I can remember. It is true that FTDNA awards their Nial icon based > on an exact match at 12 markers. Perhaps this is what you're thinking of. > > David's M222 modal is M5UKQ on Ysearch. > > < I include now a table that shows the percentage of M222 testees that > have mutations at the various points in the haplotype. For example, those with > 454 had a constant value of the modal for 454, and less than 50% of the > testees had the modal for the two CDYs. > > That's already been done. > > _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm_ > (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222repeat.htm) > > > If this thread continues much longer I'll attempt to get David Wilson back > on board. He no longer is a member of the list but he surely will have > some strong opinions on some of the statements made lately. He began the > M222 project and was the one who made the decision that SNP testing was not > necessary for inclusion in the project. Why? Because membership in the > clade was easily detected via STRs alone. > > Pat Conroy threw out the Wilson sample as an example of a false M222 based > on STRS. I'm glad someone else mentioned that. I have five times in the > last month to no response. The Clark sample in the M222 negative section > is almost identical. David Wilson listed these two as possibly pre > M222. There is one other similar sample (Hannan) listed in the M222 negative > section. He probably should go into the pre M222 section as well. > > The Wilson sample has an interesting history. David Wilson who was also > the admin. of the Wilson DNA project. He assumed this sample was M222+ > and was shocked to learn it was M222- by SNP test. At David's urging, > FTDNA retested the sample several times. It came back negative every time. > > There are a few suspicious parts of both the Clark and Wilson samples. > Both have 385 = 12-14 which is unusual in M222. The Clark sample at 464 has > 15-15-16-17 at 464. That is highly unusual in M222. I see nothing unusual > in the Hannan sample at all. None of these samples stand out as unusual > in terms of genetic distance. Each has matchers within the project at > 6,7-20 GDS which is no different from most other cluster members. That's no > different from the Conroy sample. > > If I were presented with any of these samples and had to chose whether to > admit them to the project based on STRS alone I probably would without an > SNP test. I think David Wilson would do the same. > > So I will be the first to admit there could be some samples in the > project which appear to be M222 but are not. The question is how many? > > What Bill has not mentioned to the list is a theory that the bi-modality he > mentioned is caused by M222 project samples that are M222-. The twin > humps his graph shows seems to be equally large on each side. That would seem > to indicate there are roughly as many M222- in the project as M222+. Is > that possible? > > Not long ago the count of project members with SNP tests was 334. That's > out of 668 or about half the project. I can't guess how many of the non > tested members might be M222-. Not too many is my guess. > > The way the project is currently organized shouldn't cause any confusion. > FTDNA clearly indicates those with SNP tests. Those who only want to > include them in analysis can do so easily. Dropping half the project without > SNP tests would greatly reduce the surname diversity available. Is that a > wise thing to do? > > I for one have no interest in getting an SNP test. I belong to a > cluster of McLaughlins, four or five of whom have been SNP tested and are M222+. > As far as I'm concerned an SNP test for me would be a waste of money. I > won't spend the extra money just to keep the purists happy. > > On the other hand there could be a few samples in the project who are not > M222 positive. It would be interesting to find out for sure. Right now > we can only guess. > > > That is a conundrum. > > > 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