I have permission to share the Big Y "raw results" for these three A259, A260 folks. This does not give me access to the .bam files but does include the .vcf and .bed files, which still has a lot of info. That's what I import in the the discovery comparison spreadsheet f36712 O'Shaughnessy f88905 Degnen f56154 Howle You can find them in the Big Y results folder at the R1b-L21-Project yahoo group. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/R1b-L21-Project/files/Big_Y_results/ Alex Williamson should have access to them so he can include them in his analysis where he combines FGC data with Big Y results. I'll double check to ensure I've uploaded the M222 folks that I have permission too (it's a pain to keep an email log of this stuff) and make sure the ones I have permission for are uploaded. Then, I'll ping Alex and ask him to take a crack them. Mike W On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > I believe David Wilson already tried that - he has access to project email > addresses and I don't of course. > > Iain > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 13:53:41 +0100 > > From: pduffy81@gmail.com > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] O'Shaughnessy result > > > > Generally results are only uploaded to L21 group if they have given > > permission. It might however be worthwhile to get someone to email him > > directly, he mightn't be on this list for example. > > > > -Paul > > (DF41+) > > > > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Iain Kennedy < > ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > > > To be more direct, if Mr. O'Shaughnessy would like to make himself > known > > > to me I can do more work on his data. > > > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com > > > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > > > Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 12:30:30 +0000 > > > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] O'Shaughnessy result > > > > > > > > I was told by David Wilson a few days ago that he is A259/A260, > however > > > no permission has been given to me to do anything with it and I have no > > > access to the file hence its not been added to the public tree. > > > > > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: bernardmorgan@hotmail.com > > > > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > > > > Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 12:05:51 +0000 > > > > > Subject: [R-M222] O'Shaughnessy result > > > > > > > > > > I see the O'Shaughnessy Big Y result have been uploaded to the L21 > > > project. Do we know what his terminal SNP is? > > > > > > > > > > File : /Big_Y_results/M222_36712_O'Shaughnessy_Big_Y_20140522.zip > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > > 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 >

I also just noticed this in the R1b-L21_SNP_Tree_Discovery spreadsheet. Have we discussed Z16323 yet? These three are the only people of the 24 M222+ folks that are derived at Z16323: f27202 Cunniff f12068 Milligan f135550 Milligan It appears to be downstream of DF109/S660 and A1. BTW, A1 is something to discuss too. Beyond that the two Milligan's are exclusive in being the only people to have these four variants from Big Y gold regions: 22471633CT>C 24447754C>T FGC4133 24481701TTCC>T 25088392G>A FGC4134 You can see that FGC4133 and FGC4134 are point SNPs and must also be found in an FGC tester. If he's a Milligan too then we may Milligan surname markers. Regards, Mike W

Bernard, f36712 O'Shaughnessy is in the R1b-L21_SNP_Tree_Discovery comparison spreadsheet too. There are 24 M222+ people there, so far. Some of the downstream "named" SNPs he is positive for are:: DF104/S661 DF106/S658 S640/Z2972 DF109/S660 Z2966 A259 A260 The last two I would consider terminal SNPs. The "A" names mean they've been labeled by Thomas Krahn (his wife and partner's name is "A"strid. He generally is looking for SNPs that meet stability and testing reliability standards so they should be good. There are only three of the 24 people who are A259+ A260+. They are f36712 O'Shaughnessy f88905 Degnen f56154 Howle I've got Degnen and Howle listed as "WH1" STR signature variety types so people in that STR variety should consider A259 and A260 although I wouldn't necessarily be restricted to that. From a first glance, this appears to be a sub-branch of DF109/S660. Regards, Mike W On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Bernard Morgan <bernardmorgan@hotmail.com>wrote: > I see the O'Shaughnessy Big Y result have been uploaded to the L21 > project. Do we know what his terminal SNP is? > > File : /Big_Y_results/M222_36712_O'Shaughnessy_Big_Y_20140522.zip > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Which given that the birthdates for Briain Boru and the current Baron Inchiquin are about 1,000 years apart and given a separation of 32 generations in their lineage gives an average generation length that basically matches that prediction. -Paul (DF41+) On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Paul Conroy <pconroy63@gmail.com> wrote: > The latest paper on dating based on STR's put a generation length at 31 t0 > 32 years. > > Paper: > http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/05/03/004705 > > Discussion: > > http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/05/genealogical-vs-evolutionary-y-str.html > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <pduffy81@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 34 generations if you go back to Briain's grandfather Lorcan, before then > > the Dál gCais genealogy might get bit shaky as there been modifications > > made for political reasons. > > > > -Paul > > (DF41+) > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <pduffy81@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > David, > > > > > > Somerland as far as I know is a historic figure. Though it's probable > his > > > genealogy showing a connection to the Three Colla's is a fabrication. > > > There's some data out there suggesting he was R1a for example. > > > > > > A good genealogy to follow would be that of "The O'Brien" aka. Conor > > Myles > > > John O'Brien, 18th Baron Inchiquin. He's a linear descendant of Briain > > Boru > > > (died 1014) and is removed by 32 generations. Given that Briain was > born > > in > > > 10th century (and Desmond in mid 20th century) that works out as an > > average > > > of about 3 generations/century within that lineage. > > > > > > -Paul > > > (DF41+) > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, David Maclennan < > > > david.maclennan@utoronto.ca> wrote: > > > > > >> Dear Paul, > > >> I asked you in a recent post whether Somerled was mythical > and, > > >> if not, > > >> whether McDonald¹s or other pedigrees leading back to Somerled could > be > > >> investigated for generations/century. This question would also be > > relevant > > >> for pedigrees going back to other figures of this period (800-1200) > such > > >> as Kenneth McAlpin or the McKenzie earls in Scotland or any other well > > >> known figures. Can you or others find any good pedigrees and measure > > >> generation time over the last 800-1200 years? > > >> The generations/century for the Ceneil Eoghain ending with > > >> Muirchertach > > >> is 3 generations/ century using the generally accepted pedigree. Is > this > > >> true for other branches of the UI Niall? Most people in our forum have > > >> pedigrees going back to the mid 1700s. What are the generation times > for > > >> these? It would be very useful for the understanding of our heritage > if > > we > > >> had a good consensus on this number. > > >> 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 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

34 generations if you go back to Briain's grandfather Lorcan, before then the Dál gCais genealogy might get bit shaky as there been modifications made for political reasons. -Paul (DF41+) On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <pduffy81@gmail.com> wrote: > David, > > Somerland as far as I know is a historic figure. Though it's probable his > genealogy showing a connection to the Three Colla's is a fabrication. > There's some data out there suggesting he was R1a for example. > > A good genealogy to follow would be that of "The O'Brien" aka. Conor Myles > John O'Brien, 18th Baron Inchiquin. He's a linear descendant of Briain Boru > (died 1014) and is removed by 32 generations. Given that Briain was born in > 10th century (and Desmond in mid 20th century) that works out as an average > of about 3 generations/century within that lineage. > > -Paul > (DF41+) > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, David Maclennan < > david.maclennan@utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> Dear Paul, >> I asked you in a recent post whether Somerled was mythical and, >> if not, >> whether McDonald¹s or other pedigrees leading back to Somerled could be >> investigated for generations/century. This question would also be relevant >> for pedigrees going back to other figures of this period (800-1200) such >> as Kenneth McAlpin or the McKenzie earls in Scotland or any other well >> known figures. Can you or others find any good pedigrees and measure >> generation time over the last 800-1200 years? >> The generations/century for the Ceneil Eoghain ending with >> Muirchertach >> is 3 generations/ century using the generally accepted pedigree. Is this >> true for other branches of the UI Niall? Most people in our forum have >> pedigrees going back to the mid 1700s. What are the generation times for >> these? It would be very useful for the understanding of our heritage if we >> had a good consensus on this number. >> 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 >> > >

David, Somerland as far as I know is a historic figure. Though it's probable his genealogy showing a connection to the Three Colla's is a fabrication. There's some data out there suggesting he was R1a for example. A good genealogy to follow would be that of "The O'Brien" aka. Conor Myles John O'Brien, 18th Baron Inchiquin. He's a linear descendant of Briain Boru (died 1014) and is removed by 32 generations. Given that Briain was born in 10th century (and Desmond in mid 20th century) that works out as an average of about 3 generations/century within that lineage. -Paul (DF41+) On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, David Maclennan < david.maclennan@utoronto.ca> wrote: > Dear Paul, > I asked you in a recent post whether Somerled was mythical and, if > not, > whether McDonald¹s or other pedigrees leading back to Somerled could be > investigated for generations/century. This question would also be relevant > for pedigrees going back to other figures of this period (800-1200) such > as Kenneth McAlpin or the McKenzie earls in Scotland or any other well > known figures. Can you or others find any good pedigrees and measure > generation time over the last 800-1200 years? > The generations/century for the Ceneil Eoghain ending with > Muirchertach > is 3 generations/ century using the generally accepted pedigree. Is this > true for other branches of the UI Niall? Most people in our forum have > pedigrees going back to the mid 1700s. What are the generation times for > these? It would be very useful for the understanding of our heritage if we > had a good consensus on this number. > 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 >

To add clarity to this discussion, it must be noted that the demonstration posted regarding the generation issue is that METHODOLOGY is everything. The demonstration also clarified that with the Klyosov/Rozhanski method whether 3 or4 generations is used in the formulas employed for the different considerations, because the method has already been calibrated and allows for the nuances of the quirky haplotypes in both the consideration of the mutation rate constant (which is tied to the statistical generation) and the method of mutation count that the resulting TMRCA of any given set will be the same -- with either the 30 or 25 year statistical generation. In short using The 30 year generation mutation rate constant per haplotype of .2376 (by the marker .0021405) for 111 marker haplotype; the 30 year generations .144 mutation rate constant per haplotype (by the marker .002149267) for the 67 marker haplotype OR 25 year generation mutation rate constant of .198 per haplotype for the 111 marker haplotyes (by the marker, .00178378); the 67 marker constant per haplotype of .12 (.001791044 per marker) for the 67 marker haplotype -- The result will be exactly the same if the method is being used properly. To reiterate a comfort zone here, Michal Milewski, co-admin of the R1a1a and Sub-clades project in his day job is * Michał Milewski (Poland) Researcher in the field of medical genetics and cell biology. Ph.D. in Medical Biology. Regarding YDNA Admin of Z280 section, Eurasian subclades. As mentioned, he's been working also TMRCA estimates using SNPs and noted that the Klyosov/Rozhanski methodology is consistent with the new SNP based methods in results for TMRCA (see quote from my previous posting). Michal and I communicate frequently. We are in good stead with the Klyosov/Rozhanski method. And for those who may wonder if I interpret the method correctly: I became acquainted with Dr. Klyosov in 2011 and under his supervision in the application of the method from the latter quarter of 2011 through the early months of 2014, invited in 2013 to be part of his research group and a contributor to his DNA Genealogy publications effort, etc. He is the publisher of "Not All Scots were Irish First" that I authored in addition to numerous other discussions regarding the method and its use. You may look at Klyosov's credentials here http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/ You may read also about him here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatole_Klyosov Susan . On 5/21/2014 1:57 PM, Paul Conroy wrote: > The latest paper on dating based on STR's put a generation length at 31 t0 > 32 years. > > Paper: > http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/05/03/004705 > > Discussion: > http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/05/genealogical-vs-evolutionary-y-str.html > > > > >

Dear Paul, I asked you in a recent post whether Somerled was mythical and, if not, whether McDonald¹s or other pedigrees leading back to Somerled could be investigated for generations/century. This question would also be relevant for pedigrees going back to other figures of this period (800-1200) such as Kenneth McAlpin or the McKenzie earls in Scotland or any other well known figures. Can you or others find any good pedigrees and measure generation time over the last 800-1200 years? The generations/century for the Ceneil Eoghain ending with Muirchertach is 3 generations/ century using the generally accepted pedigree. Is this true for other branches of the UI Niall? Most people in our forum have pedigrees going back to the mid 1700s. What are the generation times for these? It would be very useful for the understanding of our heritage if we had a good consensus on this number. David

The latest paper on dating based on STR's put a generation length at 31 t0 32 years. Paper: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/05/03/004705 Discussion: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/05/genealogical-vs-evolutionary-y-str.html On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <pduffy81@gmail.com> wrote: > 34 generations if you go back to Briain's grandfather Lorcan, before then > the Dál gCais genealogy might get bit shaky as there been modifications > made for political reasons. > > -Paul > (DF41+) > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <pduffy81@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > David, > > > > Somerland as far as I know is a historic figure. Though it's probable his > > genealogy showing a connection to the Three Colla's is a fabrication. > > There's some data out there suggesting he was R1a for example. > > > > A good genealogy to follow would be that of "The O'Brien" aka. Conor > Myles > > John O'Brien, 18th Baron Inchiquin. He's a linear descendant of Briain > Boru > > (died 1014) and is removed by 32 generations. Given that Briain was born > in > > 10th century (and Desmond in mid 20th century) that works out as an > average > > of about 3 generations/century within that lineage. > > > > -Paul > > (DF41+) > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, David Maclennan < > > david.maclennan@utoronto.ca> wrote: > > > >> Dear Paul, > >> I asked you in a recent post whether Somerled was mythical and, > >> if not, > >> whether McDonald¹s or other pedigrees leading back to Somerled could be > >> investigated for generations/century. This question would also be > relevant > >> for pedigrees going back to other figures of this period (800-1200) such > >> as Kenneth McAlpin or the McKenzie earls in Scotland or any other well > >> known figures. Can you or others find any good pedigrees and measure > >> generation time over the last 800-1200 years? > >> The generations/century for the Ceneil Eoghain ending with > >> Muirchertach > >> is 3 generations/ century using the generally accepted pedigree. Is this > >> true for other branches of the UI Niall? Most people in our forum have > >> pedigrees going back to the mid 1700s. What are the generation times for > >> these? It would be very useful for the understanding of our heritage if > we > >> had a good consensus on this number. > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

The legendary King Arthur of the Britons, may actually have been the real life Muirchertach mac Erca, High King (Ard Ri) of Ireland, and great-grandson of Niall Noígiallach (Niall of the Nine Hostages): http://www.thejournal.ie/was-king-arthur-an-irishman-206434-Aug2011/ http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100214836 http://childofdanu.blogspot.ca/2011/08/joys-of-local-journalism-or-how-i.html http://www.iamthetwinflame11-11.com/king-arthur-vs-muirchertach-erca.html

Progress is going to be limited if she can't test all the latest NGS SNPs at yseq but if that is the only route I would start with S659 or DF105 as they are calling it and take it from there. Iain > Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 23:10:20 -0700 > From: john.loughney@gmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] Advise for testing on McLaughlin > > Hi all, > > I have been talking to someone admingin kit 317948 , I have a match with > a Mr. Richard McLaughlin. The kit is being administered by his sister, as > she is the genealogist. She stated that she might not be able to get > another sample from him, but she has done a 37 step test at FTDNA, and > wanting to know what would be the best options to move forward. I think > doing testing on the current FTDNA sample would be the best. Should she go > to 111 steps, should she get specific SNP tests? Her brother is M222+ and > two steps from me at 25. > > Here comment on her paper trail is: "My McLaughlin’s – as far back as I > have been able to trace (early 1800’s) came from the Carncastle (Larne) > area of Co. Antrim." > > Any suggestions on what she could do going forward? > > John > > ------------------------------- > 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

Lacey's thesis --- that the Donegal kingdoms were unrelated to the dynasties descended from Niall Noigiallach is very compelling and since his 'evidence' is primarily based on some of the oldest texts relating to Ireland, we have good reason within the R-M222 Project to take it seriously. Lacey draws on at least three important early text, Tirechan's Collectanea, which has been dated to about 690, a copy of which solely survives in the Book of Armagh. Secondly, he draws on the Irish Annals, most of which were written long after the events recorded, but referenced from lost Chronicles, such as the 'Iona Chronicle', as some scholars now call it. Thirdly, he cites the oldest surviving copy of Adomnan’s Life of St. Columba, a small book preserved in the public Library of Schaffhausen, a town in Northern Switzerland. The book was written before the death of Dorbbene, the scribe who compiled the book and who died in 713. It was probably written under the supervision of Adomnan himself who died in 704. Adomnan's Life of St. Columba preserves a statement cited by Lacey that is worth repeating here, as it draws on a conversation between Columba and Comgall of Bangor, who both had been present at the Convention of Druim Cett in c.575, and on their return journey stopped over at the fortress of Cethern believed to be located near Coleriane. The key sentence is in Book 1, chapter 49, and is given below with the relevant part in italics. It describes the relationship between the two saints and more importantly, Columba's relationship with the Ui Neill. "Nam mei, cognitionales amici, et tui secundum carnem cognate, hoc est, Nellis nepotism, et Cruthini populi, in hac vicina municione Cechirni, belligerantes, committent bellum. There are two modern translations of Adomnan's Life of St. Columba and both are very revealing, one by Richard Sharpe and the other by Alan and Marjorie Anderson. Sharpe translates Columba's description of his relationship with Comgall as, "for my near kindred and your [Comgall] kinsmen according to the flesh, that is, the Ui Neill and the Cruthin". However, the Andersons have a slightly different translation, "for my friends by kinship, and your kinsmen according to the flesh, that is to say the descendants of Nell [Niall], and the people of Cruthen", probably a more accurate rendering of the text. Lacey brings to light the key point, 'The word cognitionales is clearly difficult to translate in this context but Adomnan, in the phrase 'nam mie cognitionales amici', definitely seems to have been making some kind of significant distinction between the Cruithin who were kinsmen of Comgall 'according to the flesh', whereas Columba's people were, in the Anderson's phrase, only 'friends by kinship with the Ui Neill, or some variation of this idea'. Two things are implied, 'in the flesh', Columba was not a blood relation of the Ui Neill, but equally, neither was he with Comgall, who was a kinsman of the Cruthin in the 'flesh'.

Agreed! Susan On 5/21/2014 2:29 AM, Iain Kennedy wrote: > Progress is going to be limited if she can't test all the latest NGS SNPs at yseq but if that is the only route I would start with S659 or DF105 as they are calling it and take it from there. > > > Iain > > > > > >> Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 23:10:20 -0700 >> From: john.loughney@gmail.com >> To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [R-M222] Advise for testing on McLaughlin >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have been talking to someone admingin kit 317948 , I have a match with >> a Mr. Richard McLaughlin. The kit is being administered by his sister, as >> she is the genealogist. She stated that she might not be able to get >> another sample from him, but she has done a 37 step test at FTDNA, and >> wanting to know what would be the best options to move forward. I think >> doing testing on the current FTDNA sample would be the best. Should she go >> to 111 steps, should she get specific SNP tests? Her brother is M222+ and >> two steps from me at 25. >> >> Here comment on her paper trail is: "My McLaughlin’s – as far back as I >> have been able to trace (early 1800’s) came from the Carncastle (Larne) >> area of Co. Antrim." >> >> Any suggestions on what she could do going forward? >> >> John >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >

Just to clarify whether or not utilizing a 30 year generation opposed to a 25 year generation would alter the results of TMRCA using a calibrated method, lets review what the difference would be. Using the 25 year generation tied to the mutation rate constant the 111 marker mutation rate constant per haplotype is .198; by the marker, .00178378. The 67 marker constant per haplotype is .12; .001791044 per marker. As related exampled below the conversion for a 30 year generation last year; here is the copy paste from the L21 archives. "On 5/1/2013 5:02 PM, Susan Hedeen wrote: The 111 marker mutation rate constant per haplotype--for 30 year generations is .2376; by the marker would be .0021405. The 67 marker mutation rate constant per haplotype-- for 30 year generations is .144; by the marker it would be .0021492 Susan" Example: From the DS SNP + Haplotypes and TMRCA spread sheet from which David took the "Gs" to example that indeed I was using a 25 year generation that he disagrees with -- 67Marks 54/8/.12=56->60G 1500±260 ybd 450 CE Translation there are 54 infinite allele mutations counted against the group modal for 8 haplotypes divided by the mutation rate constant of .12 per the 67 marker haplotype to arrive at 56.25 generations that is rounded down to 56 and then corrected for back mutations to arrive at 60 Generations. That 60 generations then is multiplied by the statistical generation length of 25 years to arrive at 1500 years; the standard deviation is calculated as 260 years. d=1950 from which 1500 is deducted from to make a mid-line date of 450 CE. So let's look at the difference using a 30 year generation tied to the mutation rate constant. 54/8/.144 = 46.88 rounded up to 47, corrected to 50G then multiplied by the statistical generation length of 30 years to arrive at 1500 years. The standard deviation remains the same and the mid-line date is also the same. This is a calibrated method developed by Anatole A Klyosov and Igor Rozhanski. It has been published along with multiples of papers. This is the primary method that I have been using for the TMRCA for this project. On 5/18/2014 7:25 AM, From Michal Milewski co-admin of the R1a1a Haplogroup project who also does this kind of work and has been working on using SNPs to generate sub-clade ages: "Having two independent (though nearly equally reliable) ways of calculating TMRCAs (using either STRs or SNPs) would be a great thing, as in case of any coincidental aberration related either to significantly skewed SNP rate or to some unusual level of STR homoplasy, the other method will alarm us that something is going wrong (and thus we should apply a much larger margin of error than usually) . Assigning a so-called “basalâ€� haplotype for each node resembles the method used by Klyosov and Rozhanskii, and it should be noted that their STR-based estimates are more or less consistent with the more recent SNP-based estimates..." I hope all who have wondered about this find this example helpful. With best regards, Susan Hedeen

Hi all, I have been talking to someone admingin kit 317948 , I have a match with a Mr. Richard McLaughlin. The kit is being administered by his sister, as she is the genealogist. She stated that she might not be able to get another sample from him, but she has done a 37 step test at FTDNA, and wanting to know what would be the best options to move forward. I think doing testing on the current FTDNA sample would be the best. Should she go to 111 steps, should she get specific SNP tests? Her brother is M222+ and two steps from me at 25. Here comment on her paper trail is: "My McLaughlin’s – as far back as I have been able to trace (early 1800’s) came from the Carncastle (Larne) area of Co. Antrim." Any suggestions on what she could do going forward? John

Hi gang, It seems that I lie, in the M222 tree below S668, amongst a group containing several Cenel Conaill surnames (whereas the main O Maolmhuaidh family belongs to Cenel Fiachach.) I was wondering if there might possibly be some connection between my name and the C.C. surname O Maoldoraidh, which is apparently anglicized as both Muldory and Mulroy. I have found several instances of alternation between Mulroy and Mulloy/Malloy in other families. I have found a couple of Mulroys (in Ancestry.com only) whose haplotypes are closer to mine than any Molloys (at 46 markers, again in Ancestry only). I have listed out the relevant haplotypes below in the hope that someone might tell me whether there is anything at all there to suggest that these Mulroys are likely to belong under M222, or even S668. A long shot, I know, but I want to follow up any lead that presents itself. (The values are as given by Ancestry – no conversion to FTDNA standards. I hope the layout I have used is intelligible.) Thanks Geoff Melloy ................................................................................ Geoffrey Francis Melloy Joseph Earl Mulroy Edward James Mulroy DYS19a DYS19b DYS385a DYS385b DYS388 DYS389I DYS389II DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 14 - 11 13 12 14 30 25 11 14 14 - 11 13 12 *12 *28 25 11 14 14 - 11 13 12 *12 *28 25 11 14 DYS393 DYS426 DYS437 DYS438 DYS439 DYS441 DYS442 DYS444 DYS445 DYS446 13 12 15 12 12 14 17 12 12 12 13 12 15 12 12 14 17 12 12 *13 13 12 15 12 12 14 17 12 12 *13 DYS447 DYS448 DYS449 DYS452 DYS454 DYS455 DYS456 DYS458 DYS459a DYS459b 25 18 30 30 11 11 17 17 9 10 25 18 30 30 11 11 17 17 9 10 25 18 30 30 11 11 17 *18 9 10 DYS460 DYS461 DYS462 DYS463 DYS464a DYS464b DYS464c DYS464d DYS464e DYS464f 11 12 11 24 15 16 16 17 - - *12 12 11 24 15 16 16 17 - - 11 12 11 24 15 16 16 17 - - GGAAT1B07 YCAIIa YCAIIb Y-GATA-A10 DYS635 YGATA-H4 10 19 23 15 23 12 10 *23 23 15 23 12 10 *23 23 15 23 12

You can be confident they are M222+ but as for S668 there is nothing like enough data to make a prediction and its an open question at the moment how predictable it will turn out to be in the longer term. Iain > From: mg_melloy@hotmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 22:02:31 +1000 > Subject: [R-M222] Melloy - Mulroy ?? > > Hi gang, > > It seems that I lie, in the M222 tree below S668, amongst a group containing several Cenel Conaill surnames (whereas the main O Maolmhuaidh family belongs to Cenel Fiachach.) > > I was wondering if there might possibly be some connection between my name and the C.C. surname O Maoldoraidh, which is apparently anglicized as both Muldory and Mulroy. I have found several instances of alternation between Mulroy and Mulloy/Malloy in other families. > I have found a couple of Mulroys (in Ancestry.com only) whose haplotypes are closer to mine than any Molloys (at 46 markers, again in Ancestry only). > I have listed out the relevant haplotypes below in the hope that someone might tell me whether there is anything at all there to suggest that these Mulroys are likely to belong under M222, or even S668. A long shot, I know, but I want to follow up any lead that presents itself. > > (The values are as given by Ancestry – no conversion to FTDNA standards. I hope the layout I have used is intelligible.) > > Thanks > Geoff Melloy > > ................................................................................ > > Geoffrey Francis Melloy > Joseph Earl Mulroy > Edward James Mulroy > > DYS19a DYS19b DYS385a DYS385b DYS388 DYS389I DYS389II DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 > > 14 - 11 13 12 14 30 25 11 14 > 14 - 11 13 12 *12 *28 25 11 14 > 14 - 11 13 12 *12 *28 25 11 14 > > DYS393 DYS426 DYS437 DYS438 DYS439 DYS441 DYS442 DYS444 DYS445 DYS446 > 13 12 15 12 12 14 17 12 12 12 > 13 12 15 12 12 14 17 12 12 *13 > 13 12 15 12 12 14 17 12 12 *13 > > DYS447 DYS448 DYS449 DYS452 DYS454 DYS455 DYS456 DYS458 DYS459a DYS459b > 25 18 30 30 11 11 17 17 9 10 > 25 18 30 30 11 11 17 17 9 10 > 25 18 30 30 11 11 17 *18 9 10 > > DYS460 DYS461 DYS462 DYS463 DYS464a DYS464b DYS464c DYS464d DYS464e DYS464f > 11 12 11 24 15 16 16 17 - - > *12 12 11 24 15 16 16 17 - - > 11 12 11 24 15 16 16 17 - - > > GGAAT1B07 YCAIIa YCAIIb Y-GATA-A10 DYS635 YGATA-H4 > 10 19 23 15 23 12 > 10 *23 23 15 23 12 > 10 *23 23 15 23 12 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

A good answer. And the next few weeks are an ideal time to try some cheap SNP tests at yseq.net although there is probably only time left to do one round before the price goes back up. So S660 on its own or with S588 and DF85 if not tested before, is a good way to roughly place yourself on the new tree if not absolutely precisely. If you are S660- you are highly likely to be FGC4077+. When the price goes back up Chromo2 comes back more into the picture as a good catch-all test and covers most of the relevant SNPs. Iain > Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 05:43:36 -0500 > From: ldm.127187@gmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] Great question from a newer member of our M222+ > > In my Inbox this morning I had this question from one of our M222 guys: > > I was looking at the subgroups within the > > M222 group and noticed I (among a couple others) are in the S675/DF85- > > subgroup. Would it make more sense to place us in the S660+ subgroup? > > My response: > > Good question................. > > Unless you have tested for S660/S659 (DF105) on a third party > test............... > > ............we do not know if you are positive or negative for same. > > Very confusing even to me still. > > The initial test by FTDNA for your yDNA only included down to > M222........in theory.......theory being that is as far as was reported > by FTDNA at that time. > > Now FTDNA may (does) know a lot more than they tell us and so the > guarantee more or less is to test you through a certain point at a > certain given time which until a few months ago was only down to M222 > positive for our SNP M222. > > This time a year ago folks who were M222 positive had no where to go and > nothing else to test as far as yDNA was concerned. > > Now, that does not mean that some scientists did not know what was > downstream of M222. > > It just means that FTDNA did not offer a test. Nor did other companies > that I know about. But, then last summer or even a year or so earlier > > we began to hear about a > > few folks that were testing was it called, for instance, Full Genome > and Dr Jim Wilson > of BritainsDNA et al were doing sequencing on advanced yDNA > testing..............ie: new territory on the yDNA frontier. > > So, I see where you have bought the single SNP DF85 and tested negative > but I do not see where you have tested any other SNP beyond your initial > first yDNA tests. > > I would not know about THIRD PARTY TESTING unless you told me or Iain > Kennedy or Susan Hedeen or someone posted same and I happen to see > it. FTDNA only posts what their own labs do and that is all I have > access to as an FTDNA admin. > > At this time it is highly suggested you ask Iain Kennedy or Susan Hedeen > or David Wilson or post a query to the R1b1c7 before buying single SNPs > for testing. This is because there is a disconnect between the > "citizen science" and the FTDNA company. I believe I will post this > to the forum as I know it is very difficult for most newcomers. > > Please let me (us-or the forum) know if I haven't "gotten" it for you. > > > 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

In my Inbox this morning I had this question from one of our M222 guys: I was looking at the subgroups within the > M222 group and noticed I (among a couple others) are in the S675/DF85- > subgroup. Would it make more sense to place us in the S660+ subgroup? My response: Good question................. Unless you have tested for S660/S659 (DF105) on a third party test............... ............we do not know if you are positive or negative for same. Very confusing even to me still. The initial test by FTDNA for your yDNA only included down to M222........in theory.......theory being that is as far as was reported by FTDNA at that time. Now FTDNA may (does) know a lot more than they tell us and so the guarantee more or less is to test you through a certain point at a certain given time which until a few months ago was only down to M222 positive for our SNP M222. This time a year ago folks who were M222 positive had no where to go and nothing else to test as far as yDNA was concerned. Now, that does not mean that some scientists did not know what was downstream of M222. It just means that FTDNA did not offer a test. Nor did other companies that I know about. But, then last summer or even a year or so earlier we began to hear about a few folks that were testing was it called, for instance, Full Genome and Dr Jim Wilson of BritainsDNA et al were doing sequencing on advanced yDNA testing..............ie: new territory on the yDNA frontier. So, I see where you have bought the single SNP DF85 and tested negative but I do not see where you have tested any other SNP beyond your initial first yDNA tests. I would not know about THIRD PARTY TESTING unless you told me or Iain Kennedy or Susan Hedeen or someone posted same and I happen to see it. FTDNA only posts what their own labs do and that is all I have access to as an FTDNA admin. At this time it is highly suggested you ask Iain Kennedy or Susan Hedeen or David Wilson or post a query to the R1b1c7 before buying single SNPs for testing. This is because there is a disconnect between the "citizen science" and the FTDNA company. I believe I will post this to the forum as I know it is very difficult for most newcomers. Please let me (us-or the forum) know if I haven't "gotten" it for you. Linda

Dear Susan, I can¹t say that I am proficient enough in statistics to understand your explanation (below), but here are my thoughts: First, we are not talking about a lot of lineages, but about the M222 lineages in areas facing the Atlantic: Ireland, Scotland, North America and Iceland. We are also talking only about whether the generation time was 3/century or 4/century. Since our project is moving fast, this should be a time when people should be encouraged to measure whatever portions of their pedigrees they can dig up and see if we can get a consensus of the most appropriate generation time for M222 people. As a corollary, Brad Knowles has asked the question "Can anyone produce numbers that support 25 years per generation?² You say below "it makes little difference whether or not the generation length is 3 or 4 per century to calculate the TMRCA". I¹m not sure that this is an accurate statement. What you may mean is that 3 vs 4 makes little difference in calculating the TMRCA in GENERATIONs. Here I have pulled out a section from your M222_DS_SNPSummary5.19.14.xls f215509 Ewing,S (prob S603)BIGYS588 f43498Lane, should test YSEQ BIGY S588 f205253 Corbin FTDNA/YSEQ S588 60G about 1500 years ±370 years L & C 48G about 1200 years ±320 years What I think I see is that you equate 60G with 1500 years and 48G with 1200 years ie. 4 generations per century. If the generation time were actually 3/century, then the times in years would be 60G in 2000 years and 48G in 1500 years - a pretty significant difference. David On 2014-05-18, 11:18 AM, "Susan Hedeen" <chantillycarpets@earthlink.net> wrote: >When looking at a population of hundreds of lineages, generations per >century may be a floating concept; some lineages will coalesce around 3 >while others will coalesce around 4 and even 5. > >Each method will incorporate into the method of calculation a generation >length constant; in that regard, however it makes little difference >whether or not the generation length is 3 or 4 per century to calculate >the TMRCA. Most generation length averages will be tied to a mutation >rate constant for calculating purposes and all are subject to a standard >deviation as well as all statistical considerations are. >