In a message dated 6/27/2011 5:42:35 A.M. Central Daylight Time, alexanderpatterson@btinternet.com writes: Simply that my DNA is much closer to Cain and variants than any of the other surnames in the O'Cathain grouping. Ok. Then who do you think these Cains are? I think I can guess. John

I just threw a new copy of the latest M222 project spreadsheet online: _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/_ (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/) It has the 111 marker samples to date. John

I don't quite follow, but I have simulated a whole bunch of M222-like populations of haplotypes which I can search to check anything you like. It's quite easy to write the code, so please feel free to request any search you may find interesting. I haven't yet simulated 111-marker haplotypes (waiting until I or anyone else can produce sensible mutation rates), so I have to stick to 67-markers for now. Still, it should shed light on any theory you may have. Let me know if you need the mutation rates I've used in order to specify the search(es). Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charles Cain Sent: 27 June 2011 16:04 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] O'Cathain, off modal matches, 448=16 Sandy Regarding near vs far on the time scale, it seems that, if one mutation is rare, the time to develop a panel of them must be extended. So a panel of rare STR values at stable sites could actually mean a group sharing these values reaches back to the fairly distant past. As an analogy, a panel of just a few SNPs can take you back really far in time (when they are not mutually exclusive). A test of this hypothesis might be to look at GD values for this (your) group vs any other group not sharing that panel, ie, look at the more rapidly changing STR markers.The GDs outside the group should trend larger than the expected values. This may also hold within the group, i.e., at STR sites outside the rare ones, the group may have diverged because the group (defined by the rare markers) reaches fairly far back in time. Bill Howard's approach of comparing groups might help in proving or disproving this hypothesis. Charles Quoting Sandy Paterson <alexanderpatterson@btinternet.com>: > Two Points here. Firstly, Ken Nordtvedt's paper at > > http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Nordtvedt.htm > > > is relevant. Essentially, he explains that matches that appear to be close, > are actually about twice as distant as traditional TMRCA estimation suggests > they are. Further, traditional methods of estimation exaggerate the TMRCA > for more distant matches. I couldn't find what he means by traditional > methods, but I did manage to follow most of his reasoning. > > So we may be seeing a little of that here. > > Secondly, (as you know), rare matches are more important than common matches > (as you've pointed out with DYS448). So the more off-modal (rare) matches > you have with someone, the lower the expected TMRCA for a given GD. > > In our case, we have six off-modal matches, at > > DYS439=13 > DYS570=18 > DYS710=34 > DYS715=23 > DYS513=14 > DYS643=11 > > In addition, we have what I've come to term a 'directional match', in that > we are both 14+ at DYS=446 (modal value 13). I am 15, you are 14. > > I think it's going to be interesting seeing whether the 23,14,11 at > DYS715,513,643 is present in Cain and variants with DYS446=13. If not, that > will give us a useful clue as to kinship. If it is present, that knowledge > should help in trying to work out the order in which the mutations most > likely occurred. > > > Sandy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charles Cain > Sent: 26 June 2011 19:25 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] O'Cathain, off modal matches, 448=16 > > Looking at Sandy's chart, I am struck by how "unrelated" in GD terms > we all are although that is a relative concept I suppose. Under each > new name on the chart, the most closely related subject almost always > jumps to a GD of over 10 with around 15 being the most common (too > lazy to compute the average "jump"). The value of off-modal markers > becomes obvious from this chart. > > In my own case, the jump in GD is only 4 to a Kane. We have compared > notes because I noticed several years ago the we share an off-modal > match at marker 448. In M222 this marker is uniformly 18 repeats. > However, 4 "Cain/Kanes" have 448=16, extremely rare and not shared (to > my knowledge) by anyone else. > > In contacting these people, one 25 marker Cain (GD=0), turned out to > be related on paper back to a common ancestor just before 1800. If > fact, the father of this common ancestor was at Valley Forge in the > Revolutionary War, always an interesting fact to turn up. Also, his ( > Mr. Valley Forge's) father was the likely immigrant from Ireland to > New Jersey in 1740. So DNA helps! > > Another 448=16 colleague (the other Kane/Cain with 111 marker results) > is unlikely to be related before the 1740 date mentioned above. This > is based on lack of common spelling of our last name, different family > religious affiliations, and different arrival times of our immigrant > ancestors. So we are related only before 1740. > > On one of the DNA tree charts (I think based on Bill Howard's > computations), we reach a common branch at about RCC=9, or some 400 > years ago, or around 1600. This is entirely consistent with what is > likely true from other considerations. > > Moreover, both of us (Cain and Kane) trace back to the next branching > of the "RCC tree" at around RCC=22, or some 950 years. If Bill > Howard's computations are sensitive to rarity of mutations at each > site, that is a good guess for when the 448 =16 mutation (from 448=18) > occurred. If true, I am related to no other O'Cathain with 448=18 > after the year AD 1000. That seems like a useful piece of data. > > In that regard, if you want to know who to contact regarding possible > common ancestors, look at rare off-modal matches. I has worked for my > 448=16 colleagues and myself. > > Bill Howard may want to comment on my use of his data in the above > exercise...particularly my use of his data to "estimate" when the > 448=16 mutation occurred. > > Charles > > > > > 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

Simply that my DNA is much closer to Cain and variants than any of the other surnames in the O'Cathain grouping. Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lochlan@aol.com Sent: 27 June 2011 01:20 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] 111-Marker RESULTS In a message dated 6/26/2011 1:46:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time, alexanderpatterson@btinternet.com writes: That's my point, except that most of them also have DYS439=13. But only two off-modal matches doesn't convince me. I don't find it overwhelmingly convincing either. Hence my description of a "wimpy modal." Yet the surnames match, only one group of M222 Cains has been identified with a few non matching M222 strays, and there are plenty of samples so close to the M222 modal that almost nothing can be said about them by comparing them to the M222 modal to look for differences. I'm not sure anything can be done with these except to use genetic distance. <You may not yet be convinced, but I am. Convinced of what? I'm not sure I even know what your theory is. 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

Two Points here. Firstly, Ken Nordtvedt's paper at http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Nordtvedt.htm is relevant. Essentially, he explains that matches that appear to be close, are actually about twice as distant as traditional TMRCA estimation suggests they are. Further, traditional methods of estimation exaggerate the TMRCA for more distant matches. I couldn't find what he means by traditional methods, but I did manage to follow most of his reasoning. So we may be seeing a little of that here. Secondly, (as you know), rare matches are more important than common matches (as you've pointed out with DYS448). So the more off-modal (rare) matches you have with someone, the lower the expected TMRCA for a given GD. In our case, we have six off-modal matches, at DYS439=13 DYS570=18 DYS710=34 DYS715=23 DYS513=14 DYS643=11 In addition, we have what I've come to term a 'directional match', in that we are both 14+ at DYS=446 (modal value 13). I am 15, you are 14. I think it's going to be interesting seeing whether the 23,14,11 at DYS715,513,643 is present in Cain and variants with DYS446=13. If not, that will give us a useful clue as to kinship. If it is present, that knowledge should help in trying to work out the order in which the mutations most likely occurred. Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charles Cain Sent: 26 June 2011 19:25 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: [R-M222] O'Cathain, off modal matches, 448=16 Looking at Sandy's chart, I am struck by how "unrelated" in GD terms we all are although that is a relative concept I suppose. Under each new name on the chart, the most closely related subject almost always jumps to a GD of over 10 with around 15 being the most common (too lazy to compute the average "jump"). The value of off-modal markers becomes obvious from this chart. In my own case, the jump in GD is only 4 to a Kane. We have compared notes because I noticed several years ago the we share an off-modal match at marker 448. In M222 this marker is uniformly 18 repeats. However, 4 "Cain/Kanes" have 448=16, extremely rare and not shared (to my knowledge) by anyone else. In contacting these people, one 25 marker Cain (GD=0), turned out to be related on paper back to a common ancestor just before 1800. If fact, the father of this common ancestor was at Valley Forge in the Revolutionary War, always an interesting fact to turn up. Also, his ( Mr. Valley Forge's) father was the likely immigrant from Ireland to New Jersey in 1740. So DNA helps! Another 448=16 colleague (the other Kane/Cain with 111 marker results) is unlikely to be related before the 1740 date mentioned above. This is based on lack of common spelling of our last name, different family religious affiliations, and different arrival times of our immigrant ancestors. So we are related only before 1740. On one of the DNA tree charts (I think based on Bill Howard's computations), we reach a common branch at about RCC=9, or some 400 years ago, or around 1600. This is entirely consistent with what is likely true from other considerations. Moreover, both of us (Cain and Kane) trace back to the next branching of the "RCC tree" at around RCC=22, or some 950 years. If Bill Howard's computations are sensitive to rarity of mutations at each site, that is a good guess for when the 448 =16 mutation (from 448=18) occurred. If true, I am related to no other O'Cathain with 448=18 after the year AD 1000. That seems like a useful piece of data. In that regard, if you want to know who to contact regarding possible common ancestors, look at rare off-modal matches. I has worked for my 448=16 colleagues and myself. Bill Howard may want to comment on my use of his data in the above exercise...particularly my use of his data to "estimate" when the 448=16 mutation occurred. Charles R1b1c7 Research and Links: http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sandy Regarding near vs far on the time scale, it seems that, if one mutation is rare, the time to develop a panel of them must be extended. So a panel of rare STR values at stable sites could actually mean a group sharing these values reaches back to the fairly distant past. As an analogy, a panel of just a few SNPs can take you back really far in time (when they are not mutually exclusive). A test of this hypothesis might be to look at GD values for this (your) group vs any other group not sharing that panel, ie, look at the more rapidly changing STR markers.The GDs outside the group should trend larger than the expected values. This may also hold within the group, i.e., at STR sites outside the rare ones, the group may have diverged because the group (defined by the rare markers) reaches fairly far back in time. Bill Howard's approach of comparing groups might help in proving or disproving this hypothesis. Charles Quoting Sandy Paterson <alexanderpatterson@btinternet.com>: > Two Points here. Firstly, Ken Nordtvedt's paper at > > http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Nordtvedt.htm > > > is relevant. Essentially, he explains that matches that appear to be close, > are actually about twice as distant as traditional TMRCA estimation suggests > they are. Further, traditional methods of estimation exaggerate the TMRCA > for more distant matches. I couldn't find what he means by traditional > methods, but I did manage to follow most of his reasoning. > > So we may be seeing a little of that here. > > Secondly, (as you know), rare matches are more important than common matches > (as you've pointed out with DYS448). So the more off-modal (rare) matches > you have with someone, the lower the expected TMRCA for a given GD. > > In our case, we have six off-modal matches, at > > DYS439=13 > DYS570=18 > DYS710=34 > DYS715=23 > DYS513=14 > DYS643=11 > > In addition, we have what I've come to term a 'directional match', in that > we are both 14+ at DYS=446 (modal value 13). I am 15, you are 14. > > I think it's going to be interesting seeing whether the 23,14,11 at > DYS715,513,643 is present in Cain and variants with DYS446=13. If not, that > will give us a useful clue as to kinship. If it is present, that knowledge > should help in trying to work out the order in which the mutations most > likely occurred. > > > Sandy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charles Cain > Sent: 26 June 2011 19:25 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] O'Cathain, off modal matches, 448=16 > > Looking at Sandy's chart, I am struck by how "unrelated" in GD terms > we all are although that is a relative concept I suppose. Under each > new name on the chart, the most closely related subject almost always > jumps to a GD of over 10 with around 15 being the most common (too > lazy to compute the average "jump"). The value of off-modal markers > becomes obvious from this chart. > > In my own case, the jump in GD is only 4 to a Kane. We have compared > notes because I noticed several years ago the we share an off-modal > match at marker 448. In M222 this marker is uniformly 18 repeats. > However, 4 "Cain/Kanes" have 448=16, extremely rare and not shared (to > my knowledge) by anyone else. > > In contacting these people, one 25 marker Cain (GD=0), turned out to > be related on paper back to a common ancestor just before 1800. If > fact, the father of this common ancestor was at Valley Forge in the > Revolutionary War, always an interesting fact to turn up. Also, his ( > Mr. Valley Forge's) father was the likely immigrant from Ireland to > New Jersey in 1740. So DNA helps! > > Another 448=16 colleague (the other Kane/Cain with 111 marker results) > is unlikely to be related before the 1740 date mentioned above. This > is based on lack of common spelling of our last name, different family > religious affiliations, and different arrival times of our immigrant > ancestors. So we are related only before 1740. > > On one of the DNA tree charts (I think based on Bill Howard's > computations), we reach a common branch at about RCC=9, or some 400 > years ago, or around 1600. This is entirely consistent with what is > likely true from other considerations. > > Moreover, both of us (Cain and Kane) trace back to the next branching > of the "RCC tree" at around RCC=22, or some 950 years. If Bill > Howard's computations are sensitive to rarity of mutations at each > site, that is a good guess for when the 448 =16 mutation (from 448=18) > occurred. If true, I am related to no other O'Cathain with 448=18 > after the year AD 1000. That seems like a useful piece of data. > > In that regard, if you want to know who to contact regarding possible > common ancestors, look at rare off-modal matches. I has worked for my > 448=16 colleagues and myself. > > Bill Howard may want to comment on my use of his data in the above > exercise...particularly my use of his data to "estimate" when the > 448=16 mutation occurred. > > Charles > > > > > 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 >

Sandy Mostly in agreement here. You said: "So the more off-modal (rare) matches you have with someone, the lower the expected TMRCA for a given GD." This seems reasonable on first reading. However, if the marker is stable (as 448 is), and a particular STR non-modal value at that marker is rare (as it is likely to be), it will persist and may reach back some way in time (as SNPs usually do). If a panel of rare STR values exist at stable sites, could it not be true that the panel may have developed further back in time than standard procedures measure? I will have to think about this. Charles Quoting Sandy Paterson <alexanderpatterson@btinternet.com>: > Two Points here. Firstly, Ken Nordtvedt's paper at > > http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Nordtvedt.htm > > > is relevant. Essentially, he explains that matches that appear to be close, > are actually about twice as distant as traditional TMRCA estimation suggests > they are. Further, traditional methods of estimation exaggerate the TMRCA > for more distant matches. I couldn't find what he means by traditional > methods, but I did manage to follow most of his reasoning. > > So we may be seeing a little of that here. > > Secondly, (as you know), rare matches are more important than common matches > (as you've pointed out with DYS448). So the more off-modal (rare) matches > you have with someone, the lower the expected TMRCA for a given GD. > > In our case, we have six off-modal matches, at > > DYS439=13 > DYS570=18 > DYS710=34 > DYS715=23 > DYS513=14 > DYS643=11 > > In addition, we have what I've come to term a 'directional match', in that > we are both 14+ at DYS=446 (modal value 13). I am 15, you are 14. > > I think it's going to be interesting seeing whether the 23,14,11 at > DYS715,513,643 is present in Cain and variants with DYS446=13. If not, that > will give us a useful clue as to kinship. If it is present, that knowledge > should help in trying to work out the order in which the mutations most > likely occurred. > > > Sandy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charles Cain > Sent: 26 June 2011 19:25 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] O'Cathain, off modal matches, 448=16 > > Looking at Sandy's chart, I am struck by how "unrelated" in GD terms > we all are although that is a relative concept I suppose. Under each > new name on the chart, the most closely related subject almost always > jumps to a GD of over 10 with around 15 being the most common (too > lazy to compute the average "jump"). The value of off-modal markers > becomes obvious from this chart. > > In my own case, the jump in GD is only 4 to a Kane. We have compared > notes because I noticed several years ago the we share an off-modal > match at marker 448. In M222 this marker is uniformly 18 repeats. > However, 4 "Cain/Kanes" have 448=16, extremely rare and not shared (to > my knowledge) by anyone else. > > In contacting these people, one 25 marker Cain (GD=0), turned out to > be related on paper back to a common ancestor just before 1800. If > fact, the father of this common ancestor was at Valley Forge in the > Revolutionary War, always an interesting fact to turn up. Also, his ( > Mr. Valley Forge's) father was the likely immigrant from Ireland to > New Jersey in 1740. So DNA helps! > > Another 448=16 colleague (the other Kane/Cain with 111 marker results) > is unlikely to be related before the 1740 date mentioned above. This > is based on lack of common spelling of our last name, different family > religious affiliations, and different arrival times of our immigrant > ancestors. So we are related only before 1740. > > On one of the DNA tree charts (I think based on Bill Howard's > computations), we reach a common branch at about RCC=9, or some 400 > years ago, or around 1600. This is entirely consistent with what is > likely true from other considerations. > > Moreover, both of us (Cain and Kane) trace back to the next branching > of the "RCC tree" at around RCC=22, or some 950 years. If Bill > Howard's computations are sensitive to rarity of mutations at each > site, that is a good guess for when the 448 =16 mutation (from 448=18) > occurred. If true, I am related to no other O'Cathain with 448=18 > after the year AD 1000. That seems like a useful piece of data. > > In that regard, if you want to know who to contact regarding possible > common ancestors, look at rare off-modal matches. I has worked for my > 448=16 colleagues and myself. > > Bill Howard may want to comment on my use of his data in the above > exercise...particularly my use of his data to "estimate" when the > 448=16 mutation occurred. > > Charles > > > > > 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 >

EUREKA - I have been looking exactly at this effect. Now it looks confirmed. That factor of two I have found in a few other areas --- The major one that I found is the following - I have taken the MODAL haplotypes for a number of haplogroups and I have run a phylogenetic tree on the sample. Mathematica places the haplogroups in very nearly the same order as their order in the ISOGG haplogroup sequence, EXCEPT the RCC time scale indicates an age that is about half the ones that are in the ISOGG web page (because I used modal values). My suspicion, backed by earlier discussions with Whit Athey, was that I was using MODAL values for the haplotypes when I should have been using sets of their actual (more extreme) values. That's a tougher job and I have been putting it off. And now, Sandy's reference to Nordtvedt's article appears to confirm my suspicion that the use of MODAL values is not correct and it goes a long way toward explaining why my MODAL dates for the haplogroup analysis were a factor of two too low. The upshot of this realization is that my RCC time scale for the MODAL haplotypes of the haplogroups I used (when doubled) is as accurate as I showed it to be in my original JoGG articles, and because it basically reproduces the ISOGG sequence independently of the work of others, it not only confirms the ISOGG dates (such as they are), but they can be used with about 30% confidence many tens of thousands of years into the past. It also puts haplotype analysis on the same basis across haplogroup boundaries. This may also explain why my dates for the origin of M222 are about twice as old as others have gotten, including Ken Nordtvedt. Wow! I think this may be a breakthrough in assigning times via the RCC correlation method and it tends to validate the earlier dates found in the phylogenetic trees I have been making for others. - Bye from Bill Howard On Jun 27, 2011, at 6:18 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote: > Two Points here. Firstly, Ken Nordtvedt's paper at > > http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Nordtvedt.htm > > > is relevant. Essentially, he explains that matches that appear to be close, > are actually about twice as distant as traditional TMRCA estimation suggests > they are. Further, traditional methods of estimation exaggerate the TMRCA > for more distant matches. I couldn't find what he means by traditional > methods, but I did manage to follow most of his reasoning. > ......... > > > 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

Thank you for the great chart, Sandy! I don't know how they are related either, but the Griersons, Milligans, and Mac/McAdams knew one another and intermarried way back in the 1500s and 1600s. I also noticed that some Milligans and Mac/McAdams were both merchants in Ayr back in, I think, the 1700s, but this is off the top of my head. From looking at their matches pages, my lines have somewhat closer matches to Milligans than to Griersons. As for O'Brien, of the five Mac/McAdam lines in M222 at 111 markers, four were tested from scratch by me, but Kit 65678 was originally tested to 37 markers and placed in the O'Brien project before I fished him out, put him in the McAdam project, and received permission to upgrade him. I think the guy who contacted him out of the blue was an O'Brien in the United States that Kit 65678 didn't know. Possibly it had something to do with an old legend about an Edmund O'Brien who fought in the Battle of Bloody Bay in the late 1400s. He was a gallowglass out of Ulster, and he was supposed to have settled in the Arisaig/Moidart area of the west coast Highlands about 25 miles northeast of the battle site. According to Kit 65678's genealogist (his first cousin) a priest in the Arisaig/Moidart area credits this Edmund with starting my little cluster of Mac/McAdam lines. So far there is nothing that strongly supports that legend, but DNA is instead showing a Lowland connection for what I used to think were strictly Highland Mac/McAdams. This Mac/Mc business has resulted in four of my lines in one place in your chart and the sole Mc in another part. They were all Mc until sometime after 1900, when they all started dividing themselves in the Irish Mc and the Scottish Mac. The testee for Kit 65678, who is closely related to the Mc (Kit 119699) actually went to the trouble to officially change from Mac to Mc back in the 1960s or so. After spending money to do that he now finds himself M222. Ironic! Well, I have so much research to do on the Lowland connections that I doubt I'll ever live long enough to get to the bottom of it. Thanks again for all your time and effort. Allene On 6/25/2011 11:46 PM, Sandy Paterson wrote: > David, > > An interesting grouping seems to be forming: > > Grierson/Milligan/McAdam/Mitchell/Reilly/McKenzie/O'Brien/Carey/McGill > > I have absolutely no knowledge of any kinship links between these surnames, > but you may have some thoughts. > > > Sandy > > >

Hi "This occurred in 1937 when two Egyptian sailing ships, dated to around 1400 B.C., were discovered in a Yorkshire estuary, on the north west coast of England" I live in Yorkshire and I can assure you its on the North East coast of England. Ed On 27 June 2011 08:00, <dna-r1b1c7-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Today's Topics: > >   1. Re: O'Cathain, off modal matches, 448=16 (Bill Howard) >   2. Two Egyptian  ships, dated to around 1400 B.C.,   were >      discovered in Yorkshire UK (GAshley923@aol.com) >   3. Re: 111-Marker RESULTS (Lochlan@aol.com) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:58:23 -0400 > From: Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] O'Cathain, off modal matches, 448=16 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <45F16D27-F12F-4852-B0D8-E78CF26E5F9F@verizon.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hello, Charles et al, > As you know, I don't work with GDs, but rather with RCCs. > I am glad that your studies have borne our my time scale. Be careful of over-interpretation because mutations can occur in DNA that will not be reflected in the position on the phylogenetic tree. > You raise an interesting point in your email -- > The junction points on the tree are where mutations took place that cause surname branching. > I have not spent a lot of time trying to tie down just which markers are the ones that have changed. They could be any one of them, including the set that are often referred to (by others, not me) as modal values. > I think there is gold to be discovered if researchers were to look at the junction points on the tree and see which DYS markers did the changing. > With best regards to all, > - Bye from Bill > PS - I taught at the University of Michigan between 1959 and 1964 in the astronomy department. I see you have a U of M email address. Are you there, or are you an alumnus?  Both our kids were born in Ann Arbor and we enjoyed our stay there. > > On Jun 26, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Charles Cain wrote: > >> Looking at Sandy's chart, I am struck by how "unrelated" in GD terms >> we all are although that is a relative concept I suppose.  Under each >> new name on the chart, the most closely related subject almost always >> jumps to a GD of over 10 with around 15 being the most common (too >> lazy to compute the average "jump"). The value of off-modal markers >> becomes obvious from this chart. >> >> In my own case, the jump in GD is only 4 to a Kane.  We have compared >> notes because I noticed several years ago the we share an off-modal >> match at marker 448. In M222 this marker is uniformly 18 repeats. >> However, 4 "Cain/Kanes" have 448=16, extremely rare and not shared (to >> my knowledge) by anyone else. >> >> In contacting these people, one 25 marker Cain (GD=0), turned out to >> be related on paper back to a common ancestor just before 1800.  If >> fact, the father of this common ancestor was at Valley Forge in the >> Revolutionary War, always an interesting fact to turn up.  Also, his ( >> Mr. Valley Forge's) father was the likely immigrant from Ireland to >> New Jersey in 1740. So DNA helps! >> >> Another 448=16 colleague (the other Kane/Cain with 111 marker results) >> is unlikely to be related before the 1740 date mentioned above.  This >> is based on lack of common spelling of our last name, different family >> religious affiliations, and different arrival times of our immigrant >> ancestors. So we are related only before 1740. >> >> On one of the DNA tree charts  (I think based on Bill Howard's >> computations), we reach a common branch at about RCC=9, or some 400 >> years ago, or around 1600. This is entirely consistent with what is >> likely true from other considerations. >> >> Moreover, both of us (Cain and Kane) trace back to the next branching >> of the "RCC tree" at around RCC=22, or some 950 years.  If Bill >> Howard's computations are sensitive to rarity of mutations at each >> site, that is a good guess for when the 448 =16 mutation (from 448=18) >> occurred. If true, I am related to no other O'Cathain with 448=18 >> after the year AD 1000. That seems like a useful piece of data. >> >> In that regard, if you want to know who to contact regarding possible >> common ancestors, look at rare off-modal matches.  I has worked for my >> 448=16 colleagues and myself. >> >> Bill Howard may want to comment on my use of his data in the above >> exercise...particularly my use of his data to "estimate" when the >> 448=16 mutation occurred. >> >> Charles >> >> >> >> >> 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:21:59 EDT > From: GAshley923@aol.com > Subject: [R-M222] Two Egyptian  ships, dated to around 1400 B.C.,       were >        discovered in Yorkshire UK > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <ab38.450188a6.3b38e0d7@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > > > _ > Scotland's past links with Ancient  Egypt_ > (http://www.sacredconnections.co.uk/holyland/scotlandegypt.htm) > This occurred in 1937 when two Egyptian  sailing ships, dated to around > 1400 B.C.This occurred in 1937  Yorkshire estuary, on the north  west coast of > England ... > www.sacredconnections.co.uk/holyland/scotlandegypt.htm -_Cached_ > (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c6q0_W8PwE4J:www.sacredconnection > s.co.uk/holyland/scotlandegypt.htm+Yorkshire+estuary,+on+the+north+west+coas > t+of+England&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com)  - _Similar_ > (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS421&q=related:www.sacredco > nnections.co.uk/holyland/scotlandegypt.htm+Yorkshire+estuary,+on+the+north+w > est+coast+of+England&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=cTQHTpqHNKnw0gHwrrnGCw&ved=0CB8QHzAA) > > _YouTube - King Tut Unwrapped - King  Tut's DNA R1b | Royal Blood_ > (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmZQJsRjrc) > Mar 14, 2010 ...  King Tut Unwrapped - King Tut's DNA R1b | Royal Blood. > GundisalusMenendiz  59 videos. Subscribe Alert icon Subscribed ... > www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmZQJsRjrc - _Similar_ > (http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=similarPages.search&v_t=client_searchbox&o_q=king tut > DNA&q=related:www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmZQJsRjrc+king tut DNA) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:19:34 EDT > From: Lochlan@aol.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] 111-Marker RESULTS > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <3a844.2cbe0f8f.3b392696@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > In a message dated 6/26/2011 1:46:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > alexanderpatterson@btinternet.com writes: > > That's  my point, except that most of them also have DYS439=13. But only > two > off-modal matches doesn't convince me. > > I don't find it overwhelmingly convincing either.  Hence my  description of > a "wimpy modal."   Yet the surnames match, only one  group of M222 Cains > has been identified with a few non matching M222 strays, and  there are plenty > of samples so close to the M222 modal that almost nothing can  be said > about them by comparing them to the M222 modal to look for  differences.  I'm > not sure anything can be done with these except to   use genetic distance. > > <You may not yet be convinced, but I am. > > Convinced of what?  I'm not sure I even know what your theory  is. > > > John > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of DNA-R1B1C7 Digest, Vol 5, Issue 165 > ****************************************** >

In a message dated 6/26/2011 1:46:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time, alexanderpatterson@btinternet.com writes: That's my point, except that most of them also have DYS439=13. But only two off-modal matches doesn't convince me. I don't find it overwhelmingly convincing either. Hence my description of a "wimpy modal." Yet the surnames match, only one group of M222 Cains has been identified with a few non matching M222 strays, and there are plenty of samples so close to the M222 modal that almost nothing can be said about them by comparing them to the M222 modal to look for differences. I'm not sure anything can be done with these except to use genetic distance. <You may not yet be convinced, but I am. Convinced of what? I'm not sure I even know what your theory is. John

Sandy et al, I'm still in the throes of writing up my next newsletter for our website, but have now mounted the latest Chart, see: http://www.shade.id.au/Grierson/GriersonDNA.htm You can see from my 111 marker chart that three families of Griersons, divided by about 600 years, have added about five off-modal matches out to the new list of markers. So we have a clearly defined, albeit limited in sample, set of off-modals compared to M222, in the order of 10/111. I have included a Milligan for comparison, and he has four of the five new off-modals. I expect that we will see more off-modal matches coming out of what I call the Nith cluster in due course. I'm not sure of the basis (in terms of off-modal matches) upon which David Wilson deduced the existence of M222, and would appreciate his comment. But 10/111 seems significant, so I'm beginning to wonder whether we can see here in the Nith cluster evidence for a downstream SNP. Unfortunately, although I'm in the WTY project, I can't find the necessaries for the test at the moment. I'll break out my Grierson/Milligan charts and see where the new 111 markers take us. David Grierson On 26/06/2011 3:46 PM, Sandy Paterson wrote: > There's quite an impressive match between a Milligan and a Grierson over 111 > markers, a gd of 13 with 7 off-modal matches. > > Here are a few other matches that caught the eye : > > Clarkson/Patterson, a gd of 9 with 10 off-modal matches. > McCombs/McKee, a gd of 7 with 4 off-modal matches. > O'Brien/Reilly, a gd of 6 with 7 off-modal matches. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lochlan@aol.com > Sent: 26 June 2011 05:44 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] Milligan > > > 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. > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1513/3726 - Release Date: 06/25/11 > >

_ Scotland's past links with Ancient Egypt_ (http://www.sacredconnections.co.uk/holyland/scotlandegypt.htm) This occurred in 1937 when two Egyptian sailing ships, dated to around 1400 B.C.This occurred in 1937 Yorkshire estuary, on the north west coast of England ... www.sacredconnections.co.uk/holyland/scotlandegypt.htm -_Cached_ (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c6q0_W8PwE4J:www.sacredconnection s.co.uk/holyland/scotlandegypt.htm+Yorkshire+estuary,+on+the+north+west+coas t+of+England&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com) - _Similar_ (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS421&q=related:www.sacredco nnections.co.uk/holyland/scotlandegypt.htm+Yorkshire+estuary,+on+the+north+w est+coast+of+England&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=cTQHTpqHNKnw0gHwrrnGCw&ved=0CB8QHzAA) _YouTube - King Tut Unwrapped - King Tut's DNA R1b | Royal Blood_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmZQJsRjrc) Mar 14, 2010 ... King Tut Unwrapped - King Tut's DNA R1b | Royal Blood. GundisalusMenendiz 59 videos. Subscribe Alert icon Subscribed ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmZQJsRjrc - _Similar_ (http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=similarPages.search&v_t=client_searchbox&o_q=king tut DNA&q=related:www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmZQJsRjrc+king tut DNA)

Hello, Charles et al, As you know, I don't work with GDs, but rather with RCCs. I am glad that your studies have borne our my time scale. Be careful of over-interpretation because mutations can occur in DNA that will not be reflected in the position on the phylogenetic tree. You raise an interesting point in your email -- The junction points on the tree are where mutations took place that cause surname branching. I have not spent a lot of time trying to tie down just which markers are the ones that have changed. They could be any one of them, including the set that are often referred to (by others, not me) as modal values. I think there is gold to be discovered if researchers were to look at the junction points on the tree and see which DYS markers did the changing. With best regards to all, - Bye from Bill PS - I taught at the University of Michigan between 1959 and 1964 in the astronomy department. I see you have a U of M email address. Are you there, or are you an alumnus? Both our kids were born in Ann Arbor and we enjoyed our stay there. On Jun 26, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Charles Cain wrote: > Looking at Sandy's chart, I am struck by how "unrelated" in GD terms > we all are although that is a relative concept I suppose. Under each > new name on the chart, the most closely related subject almost always > jumps to a GD of over 10 with around 15 being the most common (too > lazy to compute the average "jump"). The value of off-modal markers > becomes obvious from this chart. > > In my own case, the jump in GD is only 4 to a Kane. We have compared > notes because I noticed several years ago the we share an off-modal > match at marker 448. In M222 this marker is uniformly 18 repeats. > However, 4 "Cain/Kanes" have 448=16, extremely rare and not shared (to > my knowledge) by anyone else. > > In contacting these people, one 25 marker Cain (GD=0), turned out to > be related on paper back to a common ancestor just before 1800. If > fact, the father of this common ancestor was at Valley Forge in the > Revolutionary War, always an interesting fact to turn up. Also, his ( > Mr. Valley Forge's) father was the likely immigrant from Ireland to > New Jersey in 1740. So DNA helps! > > Another 448=16 colleague (the other Kane/Cain with 111 marker results) > is unlikely to be related before the 1740 date mentioned above. This > is based on lack of common spelling of our last name, different family > religious affiliations, and different arrival times of our immigrant > ancestors. So we are related only before 1740. > > On one of the DNA tree charts (I think based on Bill Howard's > computations), we reach a common branch at about RCC=9, or some 400 > years ago, or around 1600. This is entirely consistent with what is > likely true from other considerations. > > Moreover, both of us (Cain and Kane) trace back to the next branching > of the "RCC tree" at around RCC=22, or some 950 years. If Bill > Howard's computations are sensitive to rarity of mutations at each > site, that is a good guess for when the 448 =16 mutation (from 448=18) > occurred. If true, I am related to no other O'Cathain with 448=18 > after the year AD 1000. That seems like a useful piece of data. > > In that regard, if you want to know who to contact regarding possible > common ancestors, look at rare off-modal matches. I has worked for my > 448=16 colleagues and myself. > > Bill Howard may want to comment on my use of his data in the above > exercise...particularly my use of his data to "estimate" when the > 448=16 mutation occurred. > > Charles > > > > > 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

Looking at Sandy's chart, I am struck by how "unrelated" in GD terms we all are although that is a relative concept I suppose. Under each new name on the chart, the most closely related subject almost always jumps to a GD of over 10 with around 15 being the most common (too lazy to compute the average "jump"). The value of off-modal markers becomes obvious from this chart. In my own case, the jump in GD is only 4 to a Kane. We have compared notes because I noticed several years ago the we share an off-modal match at marker 448. In M222 this marker is uniformly 18 repeats. However, 4 "Cain/Kanes" have 448=16, extremely rare and not shared (to my knowledge) by anyone else. In contacting these people, one 25 marker Cain (GD=0), turned out to be related on paper back to a common ancestor just before 1800. If fact, the father of this common ancestor was at Valley Forge in the Revolutionary War, always an interesting fact to turn up. Also, his ( Mr. Valley Forge's) father was the likely immigrant from Ireland to New Jersey in 1740. So DNA helps! Another 448=16 colleague (the other Kane/Cain with 111 marker results) is unlikely to be related before the 1740 date mentioned above. This is based on lack of common spelling of our last name, different family religious affiliations, and different arrival times of our immigrant ancestors. So we are related only before 1740. On one of the DNA tree charts (I think based on Bill Howard's computations), we reach a common branch at about RCC=9, or some 400 years ago, or around 1600. This is entirely consistent with what is likely true from other considerations. Moreover, both of us (Cain and Kane) trace back to the next branching of the "RCC tree" at around RCC=22, or some 950 years. If Bill Howard's computations are sensitive to rarity of mutations at each site, that is a good guess for when the 448 =16 mutation (from 448=18) occurred. If true, I am related to no other O'Cathain with 448=18 after the year AD 1000. That seems like a useful piece of data. In that regard, if you want to know who to contact regarding possible common ancestors, look at rare off-modal matches. I has worked for my 448=16 colleagues and myself. Bill Howard may want to comment on my use of his data in the above exercise...particularly my use of his data to "estimate" when the 448=16 mutation occurred. Charles

Sandy I just opened your off-modal match spreadsheet and already I see much useful information. I would like to thank you for the effort it must have taken to compile so much data. Many of us...me for sure... will look forward to seeing how it evolves with more trans-67 marker data. A for the CAIN...LAW idea, the more hypotheses we can test the better. As you can see, people are not shy in their "testing" of new ideas. But then, that is how a more complete understanding develops. As I learned some time ago, the best rule in this process is to attack the idea, not the person. It seems to be working pretty well here. Again....many thanks Charles Quoting Sandy Paterson <alexanderpatterson@btinternet.com>: > Again > > > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2733445/M222111GD.csv > > > > 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 >

Again http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2733445/M222111GD.csv Sandy

Again, this time as a .csv file. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2733445/M222111GD.csv Sandy

Another attempt. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2733445/M222111GD.xlsx Sandy

This is the correct file: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2733445/M222111GD The columns are A Surname B Kit number C Surname D Kit number E GD F Number of off-modal matches There are 56 x 56 = 3136 comparisons, so each of the 56 haplotypes are compared with all 56 haplotypes (including itself). Sandy