This article should interest folks. This is the marriage of the scientific and genetic genealogy aspects we all aspire to in the quest to sort out who may be be who and from whom they descend. https://sites.google.com/site/barrymorednaproject/home

I just mailed back my test kit for FGC8739 to YSEQ. Bob Doherty FTDNA Doherty Surname Group co-administrator FTDNA kit 29142 (MDKA James W Dogherty on Iain's M222 Chart) Sent from my iPad

As we are all probably aware, several vendors have sales up to Father's Day tomorrow: FullGenomes have a coupon code on their website YSEQ have reduced price SNPs until tomorrow FTDNA have cut the price for BigY and are handing out discount codes too (make sure you combine both price cuts) I wanted to get the latest tree out whilst there is still a chance to take advantage of these deals, especially if you wanted to do some custom SNPs at YSEQ. Again I would particularly plug anyone who got a S660 or S659 terminal SNP from Chromo2 to give the new sub-branches a go as some of them look like taking off, especially the A259/A260 group. Changes to the tree: Peter Savage FGC12948+ David Milliken FGC4133+ (info provided by Alan M.) Everett Neal S7073+ George (MDKA) DePew A259/A260+ I am waiting for a final result from Steve Lominac before adding his new data. I also tidied up the displayed text for the FGC4077/FGC4078/FGC4087 box as the last SNP name was previously truncated. i have also confirmed the following from raw data as there were slight question marks over these results: O'Shaughnessy (A259+ A260+) is FGC5932.2- Rod Dunbar and Male Hamilton are both confirmed S7814+ F1265- http://www.kennedydna.com/M222.pdf Iain

Shared by one of the co-admins from R1b-L21 This is a list of Big Y coupon codes donated by members of the R-DF49 project for members of the project who are considering ordering Big Y during the sale (ending next Tuesday) FDS140501 FDS140502 FDS140064 FDS140093 FDS140662 FDS141177 FDS140283 These codes will allow a further $100 off the sale price bringing it down to $495 They are one shot deals so if a code doesn't work you'll have try another. One of these codes is supposed to be for M222 members so I'm taking a chance not all of these will get used. All the best Dave Stedman

Russell is N9094 in the R-M222 project and tested DF105+ from FTDNA. This result was actually posted on the list about a month ago and was only recently added to the tree. More on the other recent tree adds later today. David W. -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Susan Hedeen Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 11:24 PM To: dna-r1b1c7; dna-r1b1c7 Subject: [R-M222] Russell - Bell What is the kit number and where are the STR's for Russell - Bell from the latest tree. If you don't want to post to list, contact me privately. Folks please, if you are sharing results, please make certain that I get them as well as I'm keeping the spread sheet. Volunteer time is given freely; that said it makes the effort much easier if I don't have to chase stuff down. I need to be informed of the following: Ancestral Name (that of the surname of the MDKA as in most distant known ancestor) kit number terminal SNP the testing vendor for that positive result for your terminal SNP -- did it come from Chromo2?, BIGY? FGC? of single SNP testing via FTDNA or YSEQ? where I can find your STRs as in your haplotype?. Thank you very much. Susan Hedeen ------------------------------- 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

Iain, Would you please inform me of the kit numbers and the vendors for results you put on tree? If coming from either Chromo2 or BIG, please inform me of the negative results just below the terminal Thanks, Susan On 6/14/2014 2:55 AM, Iain Kennedy wrote: > As we are all probably aware, several vendors have sales up to Father's Day tomorrow: > > FullGenomes have a coupon code on their website > YSEQ have reduced price SNPs until tomorrow > FTDNA have cut the price for BigY and are handing out discount codes too (make sure you combine both price cuts) > > I wanted to get the latest tree out whilst there is still a chance to take advantage of these deals, especially if you wanted to do some custom SNPs at YSEQ. Again I would particularly plug anyone who got a S660 or S659 terminal SNP from Chromo2 to give the new sub-branches a go as some of them look like taking off, especially the A259/A260 group. > > Changes to the tree: > Peter Savage FGC12948+ > David Milliken FGC4133+ (info provided by Alan M.) > Everett Neal S7073+ > George (MDKA) DePew A259/A260+ > > I am waiting for a final result from Steve Lominac before adding his new data. > > I also tidied up the displayed text for the FGC4077/FGC4078/FGC4087 box as the last SNP name was previously truncated. > > i have also confirmed the following from raw data as there were slight question marks over these results: > > O'Shaughnessy (A259+ A260+) is FGC5932.2- > Rod Dunbar and Male Hamilton are both confirmed S7814+ F1265- > > > http://www.kennedydna.com/M222.pdf > > Iain > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 All, I spent years of my life in institutes of technology including MIT. Yeah, we all know about gravity and its effects can be calculated, but nobody has yet been able to prove just how and why it exists. It is nice to have facts to work with, but apparently some things remain theoretical. For instance, just what could those big black holes in outer space be? Ooooo, could they be Earth gobbling monsters? Yeah, there are those things that we can observe but cannot explain. Doug On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Margaret and Geoff Melloy < mg_melloy@hotmail.com> wrote: > Gotta add my bit! > I reckon gravity isn't a theory - it's a natural phenomenon. > THEORIES of gravity are theories. > e.g. Einstein's theory of general relativity is a theory and Newton's > theory > is a theory. > Ta - sorry - i'll go back into my hole now. > Geoff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Hedeen > Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2014 2:59 PM > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] On the use of the word "Theory" > > Well, at the risk of contributing to a quasi non relevant discussion > (that perhaps we should let die of a natural causes), you both are > correct from the context of subject dealt with. > In genetic genealogy there are a lot of theories, and genetic genealogy, > although dependent on the science aspect in terms of the Y, mt, and at > DNA's, in itself is not by its very nature a pure scientific > discipline. It is married to a rather unscientific discipline, > genealogy, albeit, that some attempt to apply the scientific method to; > but defies the rigors of it. > > With all theory there are uncertainties; and some theories go > unchallenged for lack of enough concrete evidence and/or considerable > contradictory evidence by which to prove a theory "wrong". Walter, you > are correct, there is no proving theory in the strictest sense; however > there are better arguments than others, and sloppy and manipulated > foundations for drawing conclusions does not equate with sound > conclusions. Some to many go unchallenged, are simply ignored, or there > is no debate as they are dismissed out-right. Others, however, > titillate the emotion of the public that doesn't consider, in many > cases, fact from fiction, pick up on them and run because someone said > so. :-D For the greater part, those of us in this hobby as accomplished > as some are, yet are the public; and those who haven't made up their > minds running with the theories are still trying to figure out their > own. Susan > > On 6/14/2014 12:31 AM, Walter J Freeman wrote: > On 6/13/2014 12:01 AM, tuulen wrote: > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

What is the kit number and where are the STR's for Russell - Bell from the latest tree. If you don't want to post to list, contact me privately. Folks please, if you are sharing results, please make certain that I get them as well as I'm keeping the spread sheet. Volunteer time is given freely; that said it makes the effort much easier if I don't have to chase stuff down. I need to be informed of the following: Ancestral Name (that of the surname of the MDKA as in most distant known ancestor) kit number terminal SNP the testing vendor for that positive result for your terminal SNP -- did it come from Chromo2?, BIGY? FGC? of single SNP testing via FTDNA or YSEQ? where I can find your STRs as in your haplotype?. Thank you very much. Susan Hedeen

Well, at the risk of contributing to a quasi non relevant discussion (that perhaps we should let die of a natural causes), you both are correct from the context of subject dealt with. In genetic genealogy there are a lot of theories, and genetic genealogy, although dependent on the science aspect in terms of the Y, mt, and at DNA's, in itself is not by its very nature a pure scientific discipline. It is married to a rather unscientific discipline, genealogy, albeit, that some attempt to apply the scientific method to; but defies the rigors of it. With all theory there are uncertainties; and some theories go unchallenged for lack of enough concrete evidence and/or considerable contradictory evidence by which to prove a theory "wrong". Walter, you are correct, there is no proving theory in the strictest sense; however there are better arguments than others, and sloppy and manipulated foundations for drawing conclusions does not equate with sound conclusions. Some to many go unchallenged, are simply ignored, or there is no debate as they are dismissed out-right. Others, however, titillate the emotion of the public that doesn't consider, in many cases, fact from fiction, pick up on them and run because someone said so. :-D For the greater part, those of us in this hobby as accomplished as some are, yet are the public; and those who haven't made up their minds running with the theories are still trying to figure out their own. Susan On 6/14/2014 12:31 AM, Walter J Freeman wrote: On 6/13/2014 12:01 AM, tuulen wrote: > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

With all due respect, Doug, if you are going to demand scientific rigor, simplification, and universal practice of such in genomic nomenclature (which I support and is not a bad thing), you should adhere to the same standards. A "theory" in science can never be proven, but can be disproven. You see, unlike the common denotation of the word, in science a theory is not some WAG or speculative guess, but rather is a rigorous framework, which may be mathematical in nature, which holds all known facts and by means of which predictions of experimental outcomes can be made. Thus the classical theory of gravity which is generally attributed largely to I. Newton, i.e. F = G (m_1 m_2 /r^2 ), and is used to calculate the orbits of planets as ellipses and not circles, to calculate the trajectory of artillery shells, and more -- much more -- was overturned and replaced with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity around 1916 in which Newton's law of universal gravity becomes a geometric property of spacetime. Newton's equation above was replaced with the Einstein Field Equations, which are a system of partial differential equations. General Relativity [Theory] has passed every challenge thrown at it so far with flying colors. For most ordinary purposes, General Relativity Theory of Gravity reduces to Classical Gravitational Theory, so while Newton was not entirely wrong, he was not entirely right either. Newtonian gravity cannot explain how spacetime can be distorted by mass for example. Einstein's General Relativity Theory of Gravity demands it. From the Wikipedia article on Theory, the scientific use of the word is defined as: /In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[6] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').[7] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[8]/ In your zeal and plea for consistency and sanity in genomics nomenclature, below, you are misusing and, perhaps misunderstanding, the notion of "theory." Hope this helps. Walter Freeman On 6/13/2014 12:01 AM, tuulen wrote: > Hi Mike, > > The odd thing is that gravity remains a theory which has never been proven. > You know it, I know it and everybody else knows it, but scientifically it > remains only a theory. >

> From: david.maclennan@utoronto.ca > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 14:09:08 +0000 > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Everett Neal Chromo 2 result > > Everett Neal¹s Chromo 2 test just came back, indicating that his terminal > SNP is S7073. > He is positive for CTS8221, DF49, S476, DF23, Z2961, all of the M222 > equivalents, including S7072, and S7073. He is negative for both S568 and > S658. I can¹t do any more easy searching as the Britains DNA Customer Area > is down for maintenance. > > I have forwarded the Raw Test results to Susan, Mike, Iain and David > Wilson. > > It would appear that Everett should immediately order the Yseq tests for > FGC4077, FGC12848 and FGC5856/73. Is that the right plan? > I would start with just FGC4077 and take it from there. I don't currently recommend anyone try my private markers unless they are either highland Kennedys or have a solid connection to highland Perthshire/Angus (in the latter case its probably best to get in touch with me for further advice).

Iain, That is generally good advice. As I was the first M222 person tested with Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) - from Full Genomes - a few of my so called "Private" SNP's have shown to be much more common already, or in other words gone Public, such as: 1. FGC449 - shared with Aidan Byrne, who is S603, and a high GD from me - this SNP is probably located near S7073 2. FGC451 = S568 3. FGC453 = S566 So, IMO, all the early testers have a high chance of having some tentatively "Private" SNPs found in their results which turns out to be more widespread, or Public. It's been estimated that a new SNP occurs every 90 years or about 3 generations - based on a 32/33 year generation, per latest research. So for example, if you are in a cluster that has a TMRCA of 350 years, you would expect to have 350/90 new SNPs since the MRCA - or about 4 SNPs. If your results come back with 15, 20 or 25 Private SNPs, it's fair to say that many of these will turn out to be Public and not Private. Cheers, Paul On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com> wrote: > > From: david.maclennan@utoronto.ca > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 14:09:08 +0000 > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Everett Neal Chromo 2 result > > > > Everett Neal¹s Chromo 2 test just came back, indicating that his terminal > > SNP is S7073. > > He is positive for CTS8221, DF49, S476, DF23, Z2961, all of the M222 > > equivalents, including S7072, and S7073. He is negative for both S568 and > > S658. I can¹t do any more easy searching as the Britains DNA Customer > Area > > is down for maintenance. > > > > I have forwarded the Raw Test results to Susan, Mike, Iain and David > > Wilson. > > > > It would appear that Everett should immediately order the Yseq tests for > > FGC4077, FGC12848 and FGC5856/73. Is that the right plan? > > > I would start with just FGC4077 and take it from there. I don't currently > recommend anyone try my private markers unless they are either highland > Kennedys or have a solid connection to highland Perthshire/Angus (in the > latter case its probably best to get in touch with me for further advice). > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

_Family Tree Maker - Genealogy.com_ (http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/h/o/l/Kurt-Holman-KY/PDFGENE7.pdf) Descendants of Duncan Gilchrist Generation No. 1 1. DUNCAN2 GILCHRIST ((UNKNOWN)1) was born Bet. 1709 - 1711 in Isle of Islay, Argyleshire, Scotland, and died Bet. 1763 - 1775 in Argyle, Washington, NY. He married FLORENCE MCALLISTER 1730 in Scotland. She was born Bet. 1710 - 1720 in Argyleshire, Scotland, and died Unknown. Notes for DUNCAN GILCHRIST: Not much else is known about Duncan Gilchrist. There was also an Alexander Gilchrist arriving with Duncan Gilchrist from Scotland, and it is speculated that they may be brothers. Duncan was b. about 1709, Alexander was b. 1721. "Between 1738 and 1740 groups of Argyleshire families belonging to the Scotch Presbyterian Church, totaling 472 persons, were brought by Captain Campbell to the new world by invitation of the Provincial Governor of New York Colony, who offered a thousand acres of land to every adult person, and to every child who paid passage, five hundred acres. For various reasons the contract was not kept by the Governor. In 1764 a large number of colonists, led by Alexander McNaughton, succeeded in securing a grant of 47,450 acres, known as the Argyle Patent, in the township of Argyle and in parts of the towns of Fort Edward, Greenwich and Salem, in Washington County, upon which the Scotch colonists and their descendants took up their abode." "Lot 138, 500 Acres; Duncan Gilchrist, Archibald Campbell of Ft. Edward sold lot to Benjamin Griffin in 1776" "Duncan Gilchrist, his wife Florence McAlister, and daughter Mary, sailed from Islay to New York in 1738. By familytreemaker.genealogy.comTotally amazing my mother in law name was LEAFIE GILCHRIST but she away's went by Eleanor Gene Ashley familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/h/o/l/Kurt.../PDFGENE7.pdf - _Similar_ (http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=similarPages.search&v_t=client_search box&o_q=+LEAFIE+GILCHRIST&q=related:familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/h/o/ l/Kurt-Holman-KY/PDFGENE7.pdf++LEAFIE+GILCHRIST) to Family Tree Maker - Genealogy.com There was also an Alexander Gilchrist arriving with Duncan. Gilchrist from Scotland ..... More About FRED DUVAL and LEAFIE GILCHRIST: Marriage: Jun 1907. If you scroll down to page 15 of the .pdf, you'll see that the four Gilchrist sisters are listed. I knew that my Mother in law first name was really Leafie even though she preferred Eleanor, but I was very much surprised to see that Aunt Bernie was really Myrna and Aunt Gert was really Elma. Without having a good sense of how clunky these first names were back around 1920, it seems that they were all wise to resort to their middle names. Founders of Many Clans Gilchrist, son of Aedh, was the father of Gilpatrick whose son was Lochlan Mor, credited with founding the MacLachlan Clan. In 1170 Gilbert, the son of Gille Criosd, First Earl of Angus, was granted the barony of Ogilvie, north of the Firth of Tay, near Glamis. From this arose the Ogilvie Clan. The MacFarlanes are descended from Gilchrist, brother of Maldowen, third of the ancient Earls of Lennox during the 13th century. A great-grandson of this Gilchrist was named Bartholomew (in Gaelic spelled “Parlan ”). It is from him that the MacFarlane's take their name. The founder of the Kintail branch of the MacRae Clan was Fionnla Dubh MacGillechriosd who died in 1416. Niall of the Nine hostages high. King of Ireland are of _Clan MacNeil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_MacNeil) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_MacNeil - _Similar_ (http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=similarPages.search&v_t=client_searchbox&o_q=+Niall+of+the+Nine+ho stages++glichrist&q=related:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_MacNeil++Niall+of+the +Nine+hostages++glichrist) to Clan MacNeil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Macneil of Barra, Chief of Clan Niall and 27th of Barra, Baron of Barra ... the clan claims to descend from the legendary Irish King Niall of the nine hostages. ... in the 13th century by the MacSweens, Lamonts and descendants of Gilchrist. _Clan Maclachlan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Maclachlan) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Maclachlan - _Similar_ (http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=similarPages.search&v_t=client_searchbox&o_q=+Niall+of+the+Nine +hostages++glichrist&q=related:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Maclachlan++Niall+ of+the+Nine+hostages++glichrist) to Clan Maclachlan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >From this descent the clan claims a further descent from the legendary Niall Noigíallach, ... In about 1230 Gilchrist Maclachlan was witness to a charter of Kilfinan granted by ... [9] He also appears on the list of Scottish magnates who sat at the first ..... Connachta · Niall of the Nine Hostages · Kingdom of Ulster · Kingdom this Bloodline.Down to the present Queen. descended from Gilchrist, brother of Maldowen, third of the ancient Earls of Lennox during the 13th century. A great-grandson of this Gilchrist was named Bartholomew (in Gaelic spelled “Parlan ”). It is from him that the MacFarlane's take their name. The founder of the Kintail branch of the MacRae Clan was Fionnla Dubh MacGillechriosd who died in 1416. -DNA signature of Niall of the Nine hostages high. King of Ireland are of this Bloodline.Down to the present Queen. _Family Tree Maker - Genealogy.com_ (http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/h/o/l/Kurt-Holman-KY/PDFGENE7.pdf) familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/h/o/l/Kurt.../PDFGENE7.pdf - _Similar_ (http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=similarPages.search&v_t=client_search box&o_q=+LEAFIE+GILCHRIST&q=related:familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/h/o/ l/Kurt-Holman-KY/PDFGENE7.pdf++LEAFIE+GILCHRIST) to Family Tree Maker - Genealogy.com There was also an Alexander Gilchrist arriving with Duncan. Gilchrist from Scotland ..... More About FRED DUVAL and LEAFIE GILCHRIST: Marriage: Jun 1907. If you scroll down to page 15 of the .pdf, you'll see that the four Gilchrist sisters are listed. I knew that Grammy's first name was really Leafie even though she preferred Eleanor, but I was very much surprised to see that Aunt Bernie was really Myrna and Aunt Gert was really Elma. Without having a good sense of how clunky these first names were back around 1920, it seems that they were all wise to resort to their middle names.

Everett Neal¹s Chromo 2 test just came back, indicating that his terminal SNP is S7073. He is positive for CTS8221, DF49, S476, DF23, Z2961, all of the M222 equivalents, including S7072, and S7073. He is negative for both S568 and S658. I can¹t do any more easy searching as the Britains DNA Customer Area is down for maintenance. I have forwarded the Raw Test results to Susan, Mike, Iain and David Wilson. It would appear that Everett should immediately order the Yseq tests for FGC4077, FGC12848 and FGC5856/73. Is that the right plan? As you may recall, I had predicted that Everett would be S7814, based on an STR signature that has elements common with the STR signature associated with F1265, which is just downstream of S7814. I guess this is another example of how unpredictable STR results can be. In any event, Everett shares an STR signature with a number of families such as Higgins, Harper, Chapman, Goodwin, Clarke and even O¹Brien who are not yet represented in the tree, but are now likely to find their position there. David

All interested, Seven of the eight primers the Krahns designed for me designated (A359, A360, A361, A362, A363, A364, A365, M4491) to match up with Walter Freeman's unique SNPs from Big Y have come back. Only A363 is missing. We match 3 of 7. As David Wilson referred to in his last message to the board, A360, A361 and M4491 are three more confirmed downstream SNPs from 4077/78. 44A359ChrY1807899118078991T-44A360ChrY1809819418098194T+44A361ChrY1934197919341979A+44A362ChrY2262524822625248G-44A364ChrY69129576912957G-44A365ChrY82321638232163A- 44M4491ChrY2148549821485498T+ Regards, Steve LominacSudduth and related families FTDNA Project Admin

I need to ask list members who correspond with large numbers of individuals simultaneously NOT to include the R-M222 list as part of that conversation. The RootsWeb mail filters half strangle on TO fields that include lots of addresses. When a recipient replies with REPLY TO ALL, the mail filters stumble again because not all recipients of the original email are subscribers to this list. PF1169 is absolutely a proper topic of discussion for this list, but the current conversation includes a few comments that might have been better addressed to individuals in the recipient list, not the whole world. If the PF1169 discussion is to continue, I'd like to ask individuals to submit a completely new post rather using a REPLY feature. If you feel it is proper to reply to all the named individuals in TO or CC fields, please delete the email address for this RootsWeb List from the field of recipients before hitting SEND. I'm to blame for part of the current flood of PF1169 posts. Earlier this morning I mistakenly accepted for posting some filtered messages that in retrospect it would have been wiser to block. By all means keep talking about PF1169. But please submit new posts on the topic from this point on and, where appropriate, reply to those new threads rather than replying to the ones that have come in up until now. Many thanks. David Wilson

A word of caution about individual SNP testing. Six of us in the Byrne project's M222 cluster took the Chromo2 test, and we we are all on different branches--Beirne 39730 was S7073, Byrnes 227877 PF1169, Byrne 236891 S660, Burns 30771 S7814, Byrne 145320 S603, and Byrnes 42289 S590. If any one of us had searched for our terminal SNP via individual tests based on surname or STR similarity to other project members, we might still be jumping from cloud to cloud. Let Chromo2 do the heavy sifting, then fine tune via YSEQ (Beirne 39730 did that and is now known to be FGC4077).

Thank you for this report. In order to save Everett some expense, I think I would test first for FGC4077 alone, as most Chromo2 tests with S7073 as the terminal SNP will, with supplementary testing, be found to reside in that branch. But one individual has emerged who is truly S7073* (Gillespie), and it would be wise to establish whether Everett should be classified with him before committing to additional downstream testing. I will let the tested individuals announce themselves, but in the last two days one more FGC12948+ individual has been identified below FGC4077, and three more SNPs that are below FGC4077/4078/4087 have appeared that are together parallel to FGC12948 and the Kennedy SNPs (FGC5856 etc.), not below them. So more and more it becomes clear that the FGC4077 branch is not as monolithic as it first appeared to be. David Wilson -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Maclennan Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 7:09 AM To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com; dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] Everett Neal Chromo 2 result Everett Neal¹s Chromo 2 test just came back, indicating that his terminal SNP is S7073. He is positive for CTS8221, DF49, S476, DF23, Z2961, all of the M222 equivalents, including S7072, and S7073. He is negative for both S568 and S658. I can¹t do any more easy searching as the Britains DNA Customer Area is down for maintenance. I have forwarded the Raw Test results to Susan, Mike, Iain and David Wilson. It would appear that Everett should immediately order the Yseq tests for FGC4077, FGC12848 and FGC5856/73. Is that the right plan? As you may recall, I had predicted that Everett would be S7814, based on an STR signature that has elements common with the STR signature associated with F1265, which is just downstream of S7814. I guess this is another example of how unpredictable STR results can be. In any event, Everett shares an STR signature with a number of families such as Higgins, Harper, Chapman, Goodwin, Clarke and even O¹Brien who are not yet represented in the tree, but are now likely to find their position there. David ------------------------------- 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 apologies to Rootsweb. I thought the email exchange re the YSEQ PF169 SNP package was going mostly to FTDNA DUNN DNA Project testees. I didn't check the entire "reply all" list and didn't realize that it was also copied to the M222 Rootsweb list so I mentioned the price of the CHROMO2 test. The owner of this list has my permission to remove my post that included the actual price. I receive most lists (Rootsweb/Yahoo) in digest form so didn't realize my mistake until this morning. I also want to point out that is it not acceptable to post FTDNA match lists to public forums as they contain the actual names/email addresses of those matches.  The actual names/emails of DNA matches should only be mentioned if each testee has given their permission. Posting kit numbers/surnames/earliest ancestor info from the FTDNA public website pages should be okay as that info is already out there in internet land. I can't tell if the match lists mentioned as being attached to this thread actually make it to Rootsweb - I don't think so. Connie ________________________________ From: "dna-r1b1c7-request@rootsweb.com" <dna-r1b1c7-request@rootsweb.com> To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 3:20 AM Subject: DNA-R1B1C7 Digest, Vol 8, Issue 292 Today's Topics:   1. Re: M222 - PF1169 - new SNP's on YSEQ (Connie)

Great news, thanks for posting. Iain > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 21:23:40 -0500 > From: kddepew@gmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] A259+ A260+ > > I just got results back from YSEQ that I'm A259+ A260+, and have ordered > FGC5939.2. > > Kyle DePew > FTDNA Kit N113849 > YSEQ ID 638 > > ------------------------------- > 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