Iain We have two Milligans now testing FGC4133 with YSEQ. I am still waiting for my Big Y. Alan -----Original Message----- From: Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com> To: dna-r1b1c7 <dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:20 Subject: Re: [R-M222] Tree update S588 is already on Chromo2 so you already known to be S588-. You might consider testing FGC4133 in its place though, despite only Milligans being +ve for it so far. But the A-code ones you mention are the ones to concentrate on. Iain

Paul, thank you for sharing this article from "Princes, prelates and poets in medieval Ireland" (2013). Catherine Swift's article has neatly summarized some of the key issues that have been discussed on and off on this forum in the past. Her point about the Clann Cholmain and Cenel Eogain is well justified, as the power base of the of Clann Cholmain was located in the eastern midlands of Ireland and by the ninth century, the power base of the Cenel Eogain had shifted into eastern Tyrone. In these areas, one would reasonably expect to find a higher preponderance of the IMH/M222, which the Trinity College Dublin team either didn't capture or uncover in their study. Catherine's article also ties in with another article written by her in 1994, which Brian Lacey cites in relation to 'Tirechan's Collectanea'. For those who have not ready her article, a copy can be downloaded from the following site. http://dspace.mic.ul.ie/bitstream/10395/1744/2/Swift,%20C.(1994),%20'T%C3%ADrech%C3%A1n's%20Motives%20in%20Compiling%20the%20%22Collectanea%22%3A%20An%20Alternative%20Interpretation'(Journal%20Article).pdf She highlights in her article the great churches founded by St. Patrick in Ireland and what she believed are Tirechan's motives for writing his book, and suggests Tirechan was seeking to elevate the Ui Neill and in particular, the family of Conall son of Niall. This was Conall Cremthainne to distinguish him from Conall Gulban, founder of the Cenel Conaill. An English translation of Tirechan's Collectanea can be found in the following link: http://www.confessio.ie/more/tirechan_english# It is interesting that in Catherine's article 'Tirechan's Motives in Compiling the Collectanea', she accepts the genealogical claim that Conall Gulban was the son of Niall. However, her position significantly changes in 'Interlaced Scholarship: genealogies and genetics in twenty-first-century Ireland', where she now refers to Conall Gulban as being the 'putative' son of Niall. In her 1994 article, she makes another interesting observation in relation to the way Tirechan applies royal status through the use of the word 'rex'=king and notes, he limits the use of this Latin word to the Ui Neill kings. However, where he names Loegaire, Cairpre, Conall and Fiachu from the southern Ui Neill the sons of Niall, no such patrimony is given to Conall of Co. Donegal. Coupled with Adomnan's life of St. Columba, Tirechan's Collectanea adds further weight to that statement made about Columba's relationship with the Ui Neill, that they were "my friends by kinship" (Andersons) and if the Ui Neill are identified with the southern Ui Neill, this would point to a different type of relationship with the Cenel Conaill. Since the Irish M222 is largely attached to NW Ireland, it would also beg the question, which Brian Lacey asked (p. 155), if the Cenel Conaill and Cenel Eogain did not really belong to the Ui Neill, then who were they? Have either you or anyone else familiar with Brian Lacey's book 'Cenel Conaill and the Donegal Kingdoms' considered his alternative genealogy for the Cenel Conaill? Alan -----Original Message----- From: Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <pduffy81@gmail.com> To: dna-r1b1c7 <dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, 26 May 2014 17:33 Subject: Re: [R-M222] Niall haplotype 'dubious' - Professor Mark Thomas Worth a read: http://www.academia.edu/3363365/Interlaced_scholarship_genealogies_and_genetics_in_twenty-first-century_Ireland -Paul (DF41+) On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > I would take a step back and compare and contrast > > 1. The supposed identification of Richard III - to be fully revealed in a > paper by Turi King yet to appear > 2. The task of doing a similar id of a Niall find from the current work at > Faughan Hill in the LIARI project - see Spring 2014 issue of Archaelogy > Ireland and https://www.facebook.com/LateIronAgeAndRomanIreland?filter=1 > 3. The task of proving this claim without a body. > > I can only speak for myself and say the TCD paper now looks very weak. Its > clearly outdated technically and it would be fascinating to see what would > happen if a leading academic revisited it, perhaps in a couple of years > time when the new M222 branches are well fleshed out. > > Iain > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 06:20:01 -0700 > > From: john.plummer@snet.net > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Niall haplotype 'dubious' - Professor Mark Thomas > > > > Professor Thomas used a bad example. There are some very good > scientists and very good genealogists involved in the R-M222 Project and > there is good reason to believe in the Niall of the 9 Hostages origin. > Project heads are very aware of non-paternal events and have identified a > number of them. They expect a percentage of these and allow for them. > Although the study of David Wilson et al originally was based on > population distributions, the study has gone far beyond that. Many surnames > in the study are derived in the traditional Irish pedigrees from Niall. > Not all, but that is to be expected because of the non-paternal effect and > because not all name adoptions are documented. Moreover, the DNA of many > clan chiefs has been obtained. Brian Sykes has been quite successful in > this, for one. A few bogus or mistaken pedigrees have been uncovered, but > generally they appear accurate. > > > > Now, this is not to say that there are not some dubious identifications. > I have produced at least one incorrect one myself. I have used clusters > of close matches among Welsh and other surnames to identify common > ancestors. Say there is a cluster of 5 surnames examples of each of which > are found in Siddons classic reference as descendants of a particular > tribe. That tribe will likely descend from an ancestor of a thousand years > ago, possibly much earlier. But on at least one occasion I have used too > few dna matches and too few tribal associations. Reviewing later with more > information an entirely different result might appear. > > > > So, while Professor Thomas may, almost certainly is, correct in some > instances, a blanket generalization should not be accepted. Each ancestral > identification should be considered separately. > > > > John Plummer > > > > > > On Monday, May 26, 2014 4:24 AM, Iain Kennedy < > ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > List, > > > > I recently contacted Professor Mark Thomas at the UCL Genetics > department who has been vocal in his criticism of 'bad DNA ancestry', > particularly some of the claims from BritainsDNA about Viking, Pictish DNA > etc. > > > > I pointed out that FTDNA are making similar claims about 'matching > Niall' and asked whether he might look into and comment on this too. As a > result he has now updated his page here: > > > > http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/companies > > > > and included the FTDNA marketing blurb under 'Dubious commercial > claims'. I recommend you read the comments; although unsigned there is a > small team who author the pages > > > > >From http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking > > > > "The primary authors are > > > > David Balding, Professor of Statistical Genetics, UCL > > Debbie Kennett, Honorary Research Fellow, UCL > > Mark Thomas, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics, UCL > > Adrian Timpson, Research Associate, UCL > > " > > > > I don't know whether Mark Thomas actually literally wrote the Niall > section but he and Professor Balding can be taken to have endorsed the > remarks. > > > > Note in particular the paper cited within the comments about Ghengis > Khan and Niall, > > > > "Inferring Genetic Ancestry: Opportunities, Challenges, and Implications" > > > > http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2810%2900155-2?cc=y?cc=y > > > > on p667 I quote > > > > "We emphasize, however, that whenever formal inferences about population > history have been attempted with uniparental > > systems, the statistical power is generally low. Claims of connections, > therefore, between specific > > uniparental lineages and historical figures or historical migrations of > peoples are merely speculative." > > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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

Is Beirne 38730 Big-Y results in? Only S7073?

Iain, I came up S668+ in Chromo2, so I have ordered DF97 from FTDNA (to save the delay of sending a YSEQ kit to Australia, then back again). As I still have another 4 to 8 weeks to wait, I wondered if it might make sense in the meantime to order FGC8739 from YSEQ in anticipation of a DF97+ result. If I get a DF97-, then I've only wasted $25 on the YSEQ test (assuming I get it while the sale's on.) If I get DF97+ then I've saved a couple of weeks by having the 2 tests done more or less simultaneously. Does that sound like a reasonable strategy or am I becoming a dna-test addict? Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Iain Kennedy Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 7:22 PM To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] Tree update That is pretty much it, apart from it not showing the branching off of FGC5939 and the potential branching to FGC8739 under DF97. I will see about updating it. Iain > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 23:20:05 +0100 > From: pduffy81@gmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Tree update > > Paul, > > Iain has a "Label only version" of his tree, though I don't know when it > was last updated see here: > http://www.kennedydna.com/M222_tree.png > > -Paul > (DF41+) > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Paul Conroy <pconroy63@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Iain, > > > > Thanks to you and all the other collaborators for getting this far. > > > > Is it possible to get an updated tree, with just the branch labels and > > SNP's? I'm going to try and get a few more people to test for the SNP > > just > > above PF1169, which is S566? I'm also try and get more of my private > > SNP's > > listed by YSEQ, as then people who are positive can for S566, can then > > begin to test for these. > > > > As many of you know, PF1169 has been deemed too hard to create a single > > SNP > > (Sanger Sequencing) test for, as it is in a highly repetitive area of > > the > > Y-chromosome. > > > > Cheers, > > Paul > > > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:01 PM, john.loughney@gmail.com < > > john.loughney@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for this, the tree is definitely looking interesting. For us > > S600+ > > > DF85- folks with Chromo 2 tests, are the recommended SNPs A259, A260, > > S588, > > > A223, A224, A225, ... for a total of (at least) 6 SNPs to test? > > > > > > I think I am going to bite the bullet ... > > > > > > thanks, > > > John > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Iain Kennedy < > > ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I have now managed to get hold of enough data and permissions to > > upload a > > > > new tree with the following changes > > > > > > > > 1. FGC4087 has now been merged with FGC4077 and FGC4078 > > > > 2. The FGC12948 branch linking Wilson and Sheridan has been added > > > > underneath > > > > 3. Four people have been moved under FGC8739 which is under DF97: > > > > McKee > > > > B4398, Donaldson, McConnaughhay 205297 and Dowell > > > > 4. Dunbar 205549 has been added under S7814 (he is F1265-), he > > > > shares > > no > > > > markers with Hamilton on first look > > > > 5. O'Donnell 329279 is now under DF97 > > > > 6. Moody 565 and Braswell 230303 appear to have the same combination > > > > of > > > > A259+, A260+ but no report for FGC5939.2 as does O'Shaughnessy so I > > have > > > > put the three of them together provisionally, pending a review of > > > > the > > raw > > > > data to confirm the ancestral status for FGC5939. > > > > > > > > I would hope that those who got an S660 as their terminal SNP from > > > Chromo2 > > > > or FTDNA/YSEQ but have NO sequencing results would be testing these > > > > new > > > > branches. All the sub-branches of S660 are on sale at shop.YSEQ.net. > > As > > > > explained previously, if you DID do a BigY or FGC test you should > > already > > > > know your status for them, although if you haven't got a BAM file > > > > and > > > > shared it with me that may still be awaiting final proof. > > > > > > > > The other big block that needs breaking up is DF97 and there you can > > test > > > > FGC8739. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > 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 ------------------------------- 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

Thanks! Sounds like a tough nut to crack. <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com> </div><div>Date:05/30/2014 12:12 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Mitch <emitchco@yahoo.com>,dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com </div><div>Subject: RE: [R-M222] F3952 </div><div> </div>It just means its embedded in a long string of As. It can cause the Sanger sequencing process to get confused. Iain > Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 05:30:19 -0700 > From: emitchco@yahoo.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] F3952 > > Hi all, > > Fishing around on the web for any info on F3952, I found this: > > http://daver.info/geno/results/ > > Due to technical issues, some SNPs will not be offered for individual order. > > F3952 – "located within a poly A region, which makes it very hard to be sequenced and interpreted" > > Can one of you please explain what this means? It sounds like this "rare" SNP is going to be even more difficult to figure out. Is there a general geographic area common to the handful of people with this snp...like me. Scotland? Northern Ireland? Any new info on F3952? > > Thanks! This is difficult stuff to follow! I appreciate your skill and dedication to finding answers! > > Mitch (N10119...F3952) > > ------------------------------- > 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

Kelly Kit Number: 91704 Test: DF105

It just means its embedded in a long string of As. It can cause the Sanger sequencing process to get confused. Iain > Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 05:30:19 -0700 > From: emitchco@yahoo.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] F3952 > > Hi all, > > Fishing around on the web for any info on F3952, I found this: > > http://daver.info/geno/results/ > > Due to technical issues, some SNPs will not be offered for individual order. > > F3952 – "located within a poly A region, which makes it very hard to be sequenced and interpreted" > > Can one of you please explain what this means? It sounds like this "rare" SNP is going to be even more difficult to figure out. Is there a general geographic area common to the handful of people with this snp...like me. Scotland? Northern Ireland? Any new info on F3952? > > Thanks! This is difficult stuff to follow! I appreciate your skill and dedication to finding answers! > > Mitch (N10119...F3952) > > ------------------------------- > 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

McKee Kit Number: 88883 Test: DF97

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.   Original Message   From: Iain Kennedy Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 12:13 PM To: Mitch; dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Reply To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] F3952 It just means its embedded in a long string of As. It can cause the Sanger sequencing process to get confused. Iain > Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 05:30:19 -0700 > From: emitchco@yahoo.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] F3952 > > Hi all, > > Fishing around on the web for any info on F3952, I found this: > > http://daver.info/geno/results/ > > Due to technical issues, some SNPs will not be offered for individual order. > > F3952 – "located within a poly A region, which makes it very hard to be sequenced and interpreted" > > Can one of you please explain what this means? It sounds like this "rare" SNP is going to be even more difficult to figure out. Is there a general geographic area common to the handful of people with this snp...like me. Scotland? Northern Ireland? Any new info on F3952? > > Thanks! This is difficult stuff to follow! I appreciate your skill and dedication to finding answers! > > Mitch (N10119...F3952) > > ------------------------------- > 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

This may be bona-fide pruning of the Novel Variants lists which largely consist of upstream stuff - most people I have looked at only had a dozen or two dozen new private SNPs (hg I is far older than M222 so their overall counts aren't comparable). Geno 2 and Chromo2 also went through more modest pruning runs. If someone has lost a SNP I reported to them as new that's another story. Iain > Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 06:21:08 -0500 > From: ldm.127187@gmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] Test results coming and going on the project pages > > For some time, several of the Genealogy-DNA posters have reported loss of > results for Geno 2, BritainsDNA et al and, today, Big Y is mentioned by > several admins: > > This from one of them: > > I have just seen four members of the I-M223 Project appear in the Received > Results list Big Y results. All four have previously received results. On > look at their Big Y results, I see the number of their Novel Variants have > been reduced by over half, in the case of one member his High and Medium > confidence Novels have gone from 269 down to 68. WTF is going on at FTDNA. > > So, M222 folks should keep an eye on their accounts for any > changes...............these adjustments are ongoing but it behooves us to > ensure what goes away does come back and no one person can keep up with > that. > > Each member should take a look at his account and know when changes have > taken place. > > Linda > > ------------------------------- > 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

Those who live in Europe, Australia, etc. might consider sending for a YSEQ kit to get their DNA on file with that company. The charge is nominal. Then if later a SNP pops up that you wish to test for, you will not have the month or more wait just to get your sample to Houston. Paul

I think that's a good idea at the price and the results will help the group overall. Iain > From: mg_melloy@hotmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 20:45:14 +1000 > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Tree update > > Iain, > I came up S668+ in Chromo2, so I have ordered DF97 from FTDNA (to save the > delay of sending a YSEQ kit to Australia, then back again). > As I still have another 4 to 8 weeks to wait, I wondered if it might make > sense in the meantime to order FGC8739 from YSEQ in anticipation of a DF97+ > result. > If I get a DF97-, then I've only wasted $25 on the YSEQ test (assuming I get > it while the sale's on.) If I get DF97+ then I've saved a couple of weeks by > having the 2 tests done more or less simultaneously. > Does that sound like a reasonable strategy or am I becoming a dna-test > addict? > > Geoff > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Iain Kennedy > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 7:22 PM > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Tree update > > That is pretty much it, apart from it not showing the branching off of > FGC5939 and the potential branching to FGC8739 under DF97. > > I will see about updating it. > > Iain > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 23:20:05 +0100 > > From: pduffy81@gmail.com > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Tree update > > > > Paul, > > > > Iain has a "Label only version" of his tree, though I don't know when it > > was last updated see here: > > http://www.kennedydna.com/M222_tree.png > > > > -Paul > > (DF41+) > > > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Paul Conroy <pconroy63@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Iain, > > > > > > Thanks to you and all the other collaborators for getting this far. > > > > > > Is it possible to get an updated tree, with just the branch labels and > > > SNP's? I'm going to try and get a few more people to test for the SNP > > > just > > > above PF1169, which is S566? I'm also try and get more of my private > > > SNP's > > > listed by YSEQ, as then people who are positive can for S566, can then > > > begin to test for these. > > > > > > As many of you know, PF1169 has been deemed too hard to create a single > > > SNP > > > (Sanger Sequencing) test for, as it is in a highly repetitive area of > > > the > > > Y-chromosome. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:01 PM, john.loughney@gmail.com < > > > john.loughney@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for this, the tree is definitely looking interesting. For us > > > S600+ > > > > DF85- folks with Chromo 2 tests, are the recommended SNPs A259, A260, > > > S588, > > > > A223, A224, A225, ... for a total of (at least) 6 SNPs to test? > > > > > > > > I think I am going to bite the bullet ... > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Iain Kennedy < > > > ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I have now managed to get hold of enough data and permissions to > > > upload a > > > > > new tree with the following changes > > > > > > > > > > 1. FGC4087 has now been merged with FGC4077 and FGC4078 > > > > > 2. The FGC12948 branch linking Wilson and Sheridan has been added > > > > > underneath > > > > > 3. Four people have been moved under FGC8739 which is under DF97: > > > > > McKee > > > > > B4398, Donaldson, McConnaughhay 205297 and Dowell > > > > > 4. Dunbar 205549 has been added under S7814 (he is F1265-), he > > > > > shares > > > no > > > > > markers with Hamilton on first look > > > > > 5. O'Donnell 329279 is now under DF97 > > > > > 6. Moody 565 and Braswell 230303 appear to have the same combination > > > > > of > > > > > A259+, A260+ but no report for FGC5939.2 as does O'Shaughnessy so I > > > have > > > > > put the three of them together provisionally, pending a review of > > > > > the > > > raw > > > > > data to confirm the ancestral status for FGC5939. > > > > > > > > > > I would hope that those who got an S660 as their terminal SNP from > > > > Chromo2 > > > > > or FTDNA/YSEQ but have NO sequencing results would be testing these > > > > > new > > > > > branches. All the sub-branches of S660 are on sale at shop.YSEQ.net. > > > As > > > > > explained previously, if you DID do a BigY or FGC test you should > > > already > > > > > know your status for them, although if you haven't got a BAM file > > > > > and > > > > > shared it with me that may still be awaiting final proof. > > > > > > > > > > The other big block that needs breaking up is DF97 and there you can > > > test > > > > > FGC8739. > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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

That is pretty much it, apart from it not showing the branching off of FGC5939 and the potential branching to FGC8739 under DF97. I will see about updating it. Iain > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 23:20:05 +0100 > From: pduffy81@gmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Tree update > > Paul, > > Iain has a "Label only version" of his tree, though I don't know when it > was last updated see here: > http://www.kennedydna.com/M222_tree.png > > -Paul > (DF41+) > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Paul Conroy <pconroy63@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Iain, > > > > Thanks to you and all the other collaborators for getting this far. > > > > Is it possible to get an updated tree, with just the branch labels and > > SNP's? I'm going to try and get a few more people to test for the SNP just > > above PF1169, which is S566? I'm also try and get more of my private SNP's > > listed by YSEQ, as then people who are positive can for S566, can then > > begin to test for these. > > > > As many of you know, PF1169 has been deemed too hard to create a single SNP > > (Sanger Sequencing) test for, as it is in a highly repetitive area of the > > Y-chromosome. > > > > Cheers, > > Paul > > > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:01 PM, john.loughney@gmail.com < > > john.loughney@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for this, the tree is definitely looking interesting. For us > > S600+ > > > DF85- folks with Chromo 2 tests, are the recommended SNPs A259, A260, > > S588, > > > A223, A224, A225, ... for a total of (at least) 6 SNPs to test? > > > > > > I think I am going to bite the bullet ... > > > > > > thanks, > > > John > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Iain Kennedy < > > ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I have now managed to get hold of enough data and permissions to > > upload a > > > > new tree with the following changes > > > > > > > > 1. FGC4087 has now been merged with FGC4077 and FGC4078 > > > > 2. The FGC12948 branch linking Wilson and Sheridan has been added > > > > underneath > > > > 3. Four people have been moved under FGC8739 which is under DF97: McKee > > > > B4398, Donaldson, McConnaughhay 205297 and Dowell > > > > 4. Dunbar 205549 has been added under S7814 (he is F1265-), he shares > > no > > > > markers with Hamilton on first look > > > > 5. O'Donnell 329279 is now under DF97 > > > > 6. Moody 565 and Braswell 230303 appear to have the same combination of > > > > A259+, A260+ but no report for FGC5939.2 as does O'Shaughnessy so I > > have > > > > put the three of them together provisionally, pending a review of the > > raw > > > > data to confirm the ancestral status for FGC5939. > > > > > > > > I would hope that those who got an S660 as their terminal SNP from > > > Chromo2 > > > > or FTDNA/YSEQ but have NO sequencing results would be testing these new > > > > branches. All the sub-branches of S660 are on sale at shop.YSEQ.net. > > As > > > > explained previously, if you DID do a BigY or FGC test you should > > already > > > > know your status for them, although if you haven't got a BAM file and > > > > shared it with me that may still be awaiting final proof. > > > > > > > > The other big block that needs breaking up is DF97 and there you can > > test > > > > FGC8739. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > 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

S588 is already on Chromo2 so you already known to be S588-. You might consider testing FGC4133 in its place though, despite only Milligans being +ve for it so far. But the A-code ones you mention are the ones to concentrate on. Iain > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 12:01:09 -0700 > From: john.loughney@gmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Tree update > > Thanks for this, the tree is definitely looking interesting. For us S600+ > DF85- folks with Chromo 2 tests, are the recommended SNPs A259, A260, S588, > A223, A224, A225, ... for a total of (at least) 6 SNPs to test? > > I think I am going to bite the bullet ... > > thanks, > John > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > I have now managed to get hold of enough data and permissions to upload a > > new tree with the following changes > > > > 1. FGC4087 has now been merged with FGC4077 and FGC4078 > > 2. The FGC12948 branch linking Wilson and Sheridan has been added > > underneath > > 3. Four people have been moved under FGC8739 which is under DF97: McKee > > B4398, Donaldson, McConnaughhay 205297 and Dowell > > 4. Dunbar 205549 has been added under S7814 (he is F1265-), he shares no > > markers with Hamilton on first look > > 5. O'Donnell 329279 is now under DF97 > > 6. Moody 565 and Braswell 230303 appear to have the same combination of > > A259+, A260+ but no report for FGC5939.2 as does O'Shaughnessy so I have > > put the three of them together provisionally, pending a review of the raw > > data to confirm the ancestral status for FGC5939. > > > > I would hope that those who got an S660 as their terminal SNP from Chromo2 > > or FTDNA/YSEQ but have NO sequencing results would be testing these new > > branches. All the sub-branches of S660 are on sale at shop.YSEQ.net. As > > explained previously, if you DID do a BigY or FGC test you should already > > know your status for them, although if you haven't got a BAM file and > > shared it with me that may still be awaiting final proof. > > > > The other big block that needs breaking up is DF97 and there you can test > > FGC8739. > > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

For some time, several of the Genealogy-DNA posters have reported loss of results for Geno 2, BritainsDNA et al and, today, Big Y is mentioned by several admins: This from one of them: I have just seen four members of the I-M223 Project appear in the Received Results list Big Y results. All four have previously received results. On look at their Big Y results, I see the number of their Novel Variants have been reduced by over half, in the case of one member his High and Medium confidence Novels have gone from 269 down to 68. WTF is going on at FTDNA. So, M222 folks should keep an eye on their accounts for any changes...............these adjustments are ongoing but it behooves us to ensure what goes away does come back and no one person can keep up with that. Each member should take a look at his account and know when changes have taken place. Linda

Hi all, Fishing around on the web for any info on F3952, I found this: http://daver.info/geno/results/ Due to technical issues, some SNPs will not be offered for individual order.   F3952 – "located within a poly A region, which makes it very hard to be sequenced and interpreted" Can one of you please explain what this means? It sounds like this "rare" SNP is going to be even more difficult to figure out. Is there a general geographic area common to the handful of people with this snp...like me. Scotland? Northern Ireland? Any new info on F3952? Thanks! This is difficult stuff to follow! I appreciate your skill and dedication to finding answers! Mitch (N10119...F3952)

Paul, Iain has a "Label only version" of his tree, though I don't know when it was last updated see here: http://www.kennedydna.com/M222_tree.png -Paul (DF41+) On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Paul Conroy <pconroy63@gmail.com> wrote: > Iain, > > Thanks to you and all the other collaborators for getting this far. > > Is it possible to get an updated tree, with just the branch labels and > SNP's? I'm going to try and get a few more people to test for the SNP just > above PF1169, which is S566? I'm also try and get more of my private SNP's > listed by YSEQ, as then people who are positive can for S566, can then > begin to test for these. > > As many of you know, PF1169 has been deemed too hard to create a single SNP > (Sanger Sequencing) test for, as it is in a highly repetitive area of the > Y-chromosome. > > Cheers, > Paul > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:01 PM, john.loughney@gmail.com < > john.loughney@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for this, the tree is definitely looking interesting. For us > S600+ > > DF85- folks with Chromo 2 tests, are the recommended SNPs A259, A260, > S588, > > A223, A224, A225, ... for a total of (at least) 6 SNPs to test? > > > > I think I am going to bite the bullet ... > > > > thanks, > > John > > > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Iain Kennedy < > ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > I have now managed to get hold of enough data and permissions to > upload a > > > new tree with the following changes > > > > > > 1. FGC4087 has now been merged with FGC4077 and FGC4078 > > > 2. The FGC12948 branch linking Wilson and Sheridan has been added > > > underneath > > > 3. Four people have been moved under FGC8739 which is under DF97: McKee > > > B4398, Donaldson, McConnaughhay 205297 and Dowell > > > 4. Dunbar 205549 has been added under S7814 (he is F1265-), he shares > no > > > markers with Hamilton on first look > > > 5. O'Donnell 329279 is now under DF97 > > > 6. Moody 565 and Braswell 230303 appear to have the same combination of > > > A259+, A260+ but no report for FGC5939.2 as does O'Shaughnessy so I > have > > > put the three of them together provisionally, pending a review of the > raw > > > data to confirm the ancestral status for FGC5939. > > > > > > I would hope that those who got an S660 as their terminal SNP from > > Chromo2 > > > or FTDNA/YSEQ but have NO sequencing results would be testing these new > > > branches. All the sub-branches of S660 are on sale at shop.YSEQ.net. > As > > > explained previously, if you DID do a BigY or FGC test you should > already > > > know your status for them, although if you haven't got a BAM file and > > > shared it with me that may still be awaiting final proof. > > > > > > The other big block that needs breaking up is DF97 and there you can > test > > > FGC8739. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

> 6. Moody 565 and Braswell 230303 appear to have the same combination of A259+, A260+ but no report for FGC5939.2 as does O'Shaughnessy so I have put the three of them together provisionally, pending a review of the raw data to confirm the ancestral status for FGC5939. O'Hart's work has a pedigree for a Moody family which makes them descents of Aedh Slaine of the Southern Ui Neill. O'Shaughnessy in turn have a pedigree that makes them Ui Fiachrach.  Interesting pairing? 

I have now managed to get hold of enough data and permissions to upload a new tree with the following changes 1. FGC4087 has now been merged with FGC4077 and FGC4078 2. The FGC12948 branch linking Wilson and Sheridan has been added underneath 3. Four people have been moved under FGC8739 which is under DF97: McKee B4398, Donaldson, McConnaughhay 205297 and Dowell 4. Dunbar 205549 has been added under S7814 (he is F1265-), he shares no markers with Hamilton on first look 5. O'Donnell 329279 is now under DF97 6. Moody 565 and Braswell 230303 appear to have the same combination of A259+, A260+ but no report for FGC5939.2 as does O'Shaughnessy so I have put the three of them together provisionally, pending a review of the raw data to confirm the ancestral status for FGC5939. I would hope that those who got an S660 as their terminal SNP from Chromo2 or FTDNA/YSEQ but have NO sequencing results would be testing these new branches. All the sub-branches of S660 are on sale at shop.YSEQ.net. As explained previously, if you DID do a BigY or FGC test you should already know your status for them, although if you haven't got a BAM file and shared it with me that may still be awaiting final proof. The other big block that needs breaking up is DF97 and there you can test FGC8739. http://www.kennedydna.com/M222.pdf Iain

If you have access to a vector graphics program like Adobe Illustrator or Corel Draw, you can open up the PDF and remove the names. -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paul Conroy Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:08 PM To: dna-r1b1c7 Subject: Re: [R-M222] Tree update Iain, Thanks to you and all the other collaborators for getting this far. Is it possible to get an updated tree, with just the branch labels and SNP's? I'm going to try and get a few more people to test for the SNP just above PF1169, which is S566? I'm also try and get more of my private SNP's listed by YSEQ, as then people who are positive can for S566, can then begin to test for these. As many of you know, PF1169 has been deemed too hard to create a single SNP (Sanger Sequencing) test for, as it is in a highly repetitive area of the Y-chromosome. Cheers, Paul On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:01 PM, john.loughney@gmail.com < john.loughney@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for this, the tree is definitely looking interesting. For us > S600+ > DF85- folks with Chromo 2 tests, are the recommended SNPs A259, A260, > S588, A223, A224, A225, ... for a total of (at least) 6 SNPs to test? > > I think I am going to bite the bullet ... > > thanks, > John > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Iain Kennedy > <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com > > > wrote: > > > I have now managed to get hold of enough data and permissions to > > upload a new tree with the following changes > > > > 1. FGC4087 has now been merged with FGC4077 and FGC4078 2. The > > FGC12948 branch linking Wilson and Sheridan has been added > > underneath 3. Four people have been moved under FGC8739 which is > > under DF97: McKee B4398, Donaldson, McConnaughhay 205297 and Dowell > > 4. Dunbar 205549 has been added under S7814 (he is F1265-), he > > shares no markers with Hamilton on first look 5. O'Donnell 329279 is > > now under DF97 6. Moody 565 and Braswell 230303 appear to have the > > same combination of > > A259+, A260+ but no report for FGC5939.2 as does O'Shaughnessy so I > > A259+have > > put the three of them together provisionally, pending a review of > > the raw data to confirm the ancestral status for FGC5939. > > > > I would hope that those who got an S660 as their terminal SNP from > Chromo2 > > or FTDNA/YSEQ but have NO sequencing results would be testing these > > new branches. All the sub-branches of S660 are on sale at > > shop.YSEQ.net. As explained previously, if you DID do a BigY or FGC > > test you should already know your status for them, although if you > > haven't got a BAM file and shared it with me that may still be awaiting final proof. > > > > The other big block that needs breaking up is DF97 and there you can > > test FGC8739. > > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- > 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