I am a little lost: Lamont, Bremmer, Byrne, Conroy are all S568/DF106+ Lamont, Conroy only are S566+ Lamont, is also S555-S567 postive, not Conroy Byrne, Conroy are also PF1169+ So Byrne must also be S566+ or Lamont is PF1169+? ---------------------------------------- > From: ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 19:18:51 +0000 > Subject: Re: [R-M222] PF1169 news > > Odd that this got overlooked by everyone (!) but it does look now as if Paul shares two of the Howard Lamont SNPs since as well as S568 he has S566. > > This are the relevant lines from a join between Paul C's variants and the Chromo2 table: > > > > > > > > > > > > b37 position > Reference allele > Sample allele > dbSNP rsID > Named variant status > Reliability warning level > Samples sharing variant > hg19 > chromo2ID > alias > type > ref > alt > Flags > Field8 > Field9 > Field10 > Field11 > > > > > > 14408586 > G > C > > > FGC451+ > > > > > 14408586 > S568 > S568 > SNP > G > C > M222 > > > > > > > > > > > > > 15719082 > G > A > > > FGC453+ > > > > > 15719082 > S566 > S566 > SNP > G > A > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Lamont SNPs are S555-S567 with S568 the branch marker. > > Iain > > > > > >> From: dcw1000@live.com >> To: ChantillyCarpets@earthlink.net; dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com; ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com >> Subject: RE: [R-M222] PF1169 news >> Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 12:12:49 -0700 >> >> That's very interesting. Thank you for the report. I know where my next >> hour (at least) is going to be spent. >> >> David Wilson >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Susan Hedeen >> Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 11:49 AM >> To: dna-r1b1c7; Iain Kennedy; Susan Hedeen; dna-r1b1c7; Iain Kennedy; Susan >> Hedeen >> Subject: [R-M222] PF1169 news >> >> Byrne kit # 227877 Chromo2 results is S7072+ S7073+ S568+ PF1169+ S567- >> >> I have copy of part of Paul Conroy's FGC report. >> There is a notation for variant + 14408586 G C with G being >> ancestral and C being derived >> >> According to YSEQ S568 position is: HG19:14408566..14408586 >> >> If I'm reading Paul's report correctly, he is also positive for S568, I >> should be checked on this. If I am reading his report correctly, then it is >> confirmed by Byrne coming out of Chromo2. >> >> I checked the BISDNA CZ2000 spreadsheet. In it I noticed no other S568+ >> being positive for PF1169 (may be an old file) >> >> I've been busy in attempt to verify all of this; none the less I'm bringing >> this to your attention now. >> >> I have suggestion that all who have been derived for PF1169 either do >> Chromo2 or single SNP test with >> YSEQ for S568. >> >> If there are consistent results across the board and IF I read Paul Conroy's >> FGC correctly then it may well be that >> PF1169 sits under S568 and either above or parallell to S567. >> >> Please, Iain and others double check what I have represented above. I will >> forward on the Byrne Chromo2 result to Iain shortly. >> >> 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 is just a reminder of the full list of Lamont SNPs since I don't show the full lot on the tree due to space issues. Iain > From: alexanderpaterson@btinternet.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:25:31 +0100 > Subject: Re: [R-M222] New SNPs Below M222 > > Hi there, > > No, it's not a private conversation. > > I have already posted all I know, but I'll do it again. > > ScotlandsDNA have discovered a total of 27 SNPs downstream of M222. > > They are > > S661 > S658 > S660 > S659 > S588 > S603 > S595 > S590 > S592 > S597 > S598 > > I (Paterson 118913) have all of these, as does Lamont 94014. > > Charles Cain shares the first 8 of these with Lamont 94014 and I. I believe > there is a Kane in the same group as Charles Cain. > > There are 2 Ui Nialls who share the top 5 with me, Lamont 94014 and Cain. > > S673 lies downstream of S659. > > Then comes S675/DF85 S675 and DF85 are different names for the same SNP. > > After S675/DF85 comes S668, consisting of 1 Scot, 2 Englishmen and 6 Ui > Nialls. The group of 6 includes two Dochertys or variants. > > Also downstream of M222 are > > S7814 > S568 > S555 > S556 > S557 > S558 > S559 > S560 > S561 > S562 > S563 > S564 > S565 > S566 > S567 > > There is one Scotman whose name I think I know, but I'm not 100% sure so > I'll leave out the name. This Scot has 13 SNPs downstream of M222 > > So: > > 11 downstream in my whole genome > 13 downstream in an unnamed Scot > S7814 > S673 > S668 > > Total 27 > > Hope that helps. > > Sandy > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of pabloburns@comcast.net > Sent: 25 October 2013 09:15 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] New SNPs Below M222 > > Sandy, Charles, Howard, & Edwin, > Is this a private conversation? Any way the rest of us on this forum can > find out what SNPs you are discussing? > Paul Burns > > "ScotlandsDNA will be sending you, plus Charles Cain, Howard Lamont and > Edwin > Lamont a report in due course giving a summary of what they found in your > DNA. As best I can work out, you are still M222*, meaning that so far, you > haven't yet matched anyone with an SNP downstream of M222. > > "Charles Cain and I match in 8 SNPs downstream of M222. > Edwin Lamont and I match in 11 SNPs downstream of M222. > Strangely, Howard Lamont and I don't match in any SNPs downstream of M222." > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Odd that this got overlooked by everyone (!) but it does look now as if Paul shares two of the Howard Lamont SNPs since as well as S568 he has S566. This are the relevant lines from a join between Paul C's variants and the Chromo2 table: b37 position Reference allele Sample allele dbSNP rsID Named variant status Reliability warning level Samples sharing variant hg19 chromo2ID alias type ref alt Flags Field8 Field9 Field10 Field11 14408586 G C FGC451+ 14408586 S568 S568 SNP G C M222 15719082 G A FGC453+ 15719082 S566 S566 SNP G A The Lamont SNPs are S555-S567 with S568 the branch marker. Iain > From: dcw1000@live.com > To: ChantillyCarpets@earthlink.net; dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com; ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com > Subject: RE: [R-M222] PF1169 news > Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 12:12:49 -0700 > > That's very interesting. Thank you for the report. I know where my next > hour (at least) is going to be spent. > > David Wilson > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Susan Hedeen > Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 11:49 AM > To: dna-r1b1c7; Iain Kennedy; Susan Hedeen; dna-r1b1c7; Iain Kennedy; Susan > Hedeen > Subject: [R-M222] PF1169 news > > Byrne kit # 227877 Chromo2 results is S7072+ S7073+ S568+ PF1169+ S567- > > I have copy of part of Paul Conroy's FGC report. > There is a notation for variant + 14408586 G C with G being > ancestral and C being derived > > According to YSEQ S568 position is: HG19:14408566..14408586 > > If I'm reading Paul's report correctly, he is also positive for S568, I > should be checked on this. If I am reading his report correctly, then it is > confirmed by Byrne coming out of Chromo2. > > I checked the BISDNA CZ2000 spreadsheet. In it I noticed no other S568+ > being positive for PF1169 (may be an old file) > > I've been busy in attempt to verify all of this; none the less I'm bringing > this to your attention now. > > I have suggestion that all who have been derived for PF1169 either do > Chromo2 or single SNP test with > YSEQ for S568. > > If there are consistent results across the board and IF I read Paul Conroy's > FGC correctly then it may well be that > PF1169 sits under S568 and either above or parallell to S567. > > Please, Iain and others double check what I have represented above. I will > forward on the Byrne Chromo2 result to Iain shortly. > > 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

I think that this very old quote, together with the archeology of the Royal Sites associated with them, holds the key to M222 in Ireland. Emain Macha and now Tara (I believe), have been dated by dendrochronology to 95 BC. -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bernard Morgan So we are back to " ... the three principal peoples in Ireland, namely Feni, Ulaid, and Gaileoin or Laigin" Feni are the Dal Cuinn for which Connacht is named Ulaid are the Dal Fiatach move north into East Ulster Gaileoin are principally of Meath, now North Leinster (from Laigin). What remains a question is who is the one S7073 negative?

Dear Robert, Supposedly, FTDNA will refund orders made as a result of those recommendations as a result of the initial tree posting. Please contact the help desk for FTDNA telling them that you ordered and then cancelled and want a refund. If that isn't successful, there is a couple other approaches. Hope this helps. Susan On 5/1/2014 5:14 PM, robert McBride wrote: > Scotlands dna has updated my Chromo2 and my new subtype is f3952. It is "a rare subtype found in England and Scotland". > > About 4 days ago I emailed FTDNA and asked them to cancel my order for cts12173 if it transpired that no one in the m222 project was actually positive for it. > They sent me a stock reply and went ahead and batched it today anyway. > They should give every M222 person who was misled into ordering it a refund,even if they don't ask for it. > > ------------------------------- > 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 Gaileoin/Laigin were also known as Dumnonii... On May 1, 2014 4:24 PM, "Bernard Morgan" <bernardmorgan@hotmail.com> wrote: > So we are back to " ... the three principal peoples in Ireland, namely > Feni, Ulaid, and Gaileoin or Laigin" > > Feni are the Dal Cuinn for which Connacht is named > Ulaid are the Dal Fiatach move north into East Ulster > Gaileoin are principally of Meath, now North Leinster (from Laigin). > > What remains a question is who is the one S7073 negative? > > ---------------------------------------- > > Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 16:09:53 -0400 > > From: chantillycarpets@earthlink.net > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] PF1169 news > > > > Yes, Byrne is S566+ > > > > On 5/1/2014 4:02 PM, Bernard Morgan wrote: > >> I am a little lost: > >> > >> > >> Lamont, Bremmer, Byrne, Conroy are all S568/DF106+ > >> Lamont, Conroy only are S566+ > >> Lamont, is also S555-S567 postive, not Conroy > >> > >> Byrne, Conroy are also PF1169+ > >> > >> So Byrne must also be S566+ or Lamont is PF1169+? > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------- > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

Dear Paul...thank you for that announcement. Study of the Byrne et. al. is going to be very interesting as things continue indeed. With all these M222 subclades being represented within the surname, I can envision doing a full comparative analyses in surname once more of the guys test. It would be really good once the other Chromo2 results are in if others consistent with their haplotypes did some targeted single snp testing to see who belongs to who. I think the resulting information will be helpful all the way around. Susan On 5/1/2014 4:34 PM, pabloburns@comcast.net wrote: > In addition to the Byrnes 227877 that Susan is describing, we had another Byrne Project Chromo2 test returned today. Byrne 236891 is S660. That makes four separate branches below M222 for the four so far tested (S7814, S603, S660, and S658/PF1160). I can hardly wait for the remaining three. > The person who handles 236891's account has sent his raw data to Mike. > Paul > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Greg Magoon suggests: "I think the PF1169 results for Lamont ( and possibly also Bremner) would be needed to precisely place it on Iain's chart." Since both Bremner and Lamont have Chromo2 results we should chase down their Raw Data Files. Susan

Yes, Byrne is S566+ On 5/1/2014 4:02 PM, Bernard Morgan wrote: > I am a little lost: > > > Lamont, Bremmer, Byrne, Conroy are all S568/DF106+ > Lamont, Conroy only are S566+ > Lamont, is also S555-S567 postive, not Conroy > > Byrne, Conroy are also PF1169+ > > So Byrne must also be S566+ or Lamont is PF1169+? > > > ---------------------------------------- >

Byrne kit # 227877 Chromo2 results is S7072+ S7073+ S568+ PF1169+ S567- I have copy of part of Paul Conroy's FGC report. There is a notation for variant + 14408586 G C with G being ancestral and C being derived According to YSEQ S568 position is: HG19:14408566..14408586 If I'm reading Paul's report correctly, he is also positive for S568, I should be checked on this. If I am reading his report correctly, then it is confirmed by Byrne coming out of Chromo2. I checked the BISDNA CZ2000 spreadsheet. In it I noticed no other S568+ being positive for PF1169 (may be an old file) I've been busy in attempt to verify all of this; none the less I'm bringing this to your attention now. I have suggestion that all who have been derived for PF1169 either do Chromo2 or single SNP test with YSEQ for S568. If there are consistent results across the board and IF I read Paul Conroy's FGC correctly then it may well be that PF1169 sits under S568 and either above or parallell to S567. Please, Iain and others double check what I have represented above. I will forward on the Byrne Chromo2 result to Iain shortly. Susan Hedeen

 Scotlands dna has updated my Chromo2  and my new subtype is f3952. It is "a rare subtype found in England and Scotland". About 4 days ago I emailed FTDNA and asked them to cancel my order for cts12173 if it transpired that no one in the m222 project was actually positive for it. They sent me a stock reply and went ahead and batched it today anyway. They should give every M222 person who was misled into ordering it a refund,even if they don't ask for it.

A side note: DF106 is another name for S658, not S568, so the DF106 reference is incorrect in this context. David W. -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bernard Morgan Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 1:03 PM To: dna-r1b1c7; dna-r1b1c7 Subject: Re: [R-M222] PF1169 news I am a little lost: Lamont, Bremmer, Byrne, Conroy are all S568/DF106+ Lamont, Conroy only are S566+ Lamont, is also S555-S567 postive, not Conroy Byrne, Conroy are also PF1169+ So Byrne must also be S566+ or Lamont is PF1169+?

That's very interesting. Thank you for the report. I know where my next hour (at least) is going to be spent. David Wilson -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Susan Hedeen Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 11:49 AM To: dna-r1b1c7; Iain Kennedy; Susan Hedeen; dna-r1b1c7; Iain Kennedy; Susan Hedeen Subject: [R-M222] PF1169 news Byrne kit # 227877 Chromo2 results is S7072+ S7073+ S568+ PF1169+ S567- I have copy of part of Paul Conroy's FGC report. There is a notation for variant + 14408586 G C with G being ancestral and C being derived According to YSEQ S568 position is: HG19:14408566..14408586 If I'm reading Paul's report correctly, he is also positive for S568, I should be checked on this. If I am reading his report correctly, then it is confirmed by Byrne coming out of Chromo2. I checked the BISDNA CZ2000 spreadsheet. In it I noticed no other S568+ being positive for PF1169 (may be an old file) I've been busy in attempt to verify all of this; none the less I'm bringing this to your attention now. I have suggestion that all who have been derived for PF1169 either do Chromo2 or single SNP test with YSEQ for S568. If there are consistent results across the board and IF I read Paul Conroy's FGC correctly then it may well be that PF1169 sits under S568 and either above or parallell to S567. Please, Iain and others double check what I have represented above. I will forward on the Byrne Chromo2 result to Iain shortly. 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

Yes, agreed. The more people doing the Next Generation testing can only result in great strides forward in understanding the tree. On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > Thanks for letting us know, I'm sure you will not be disappointed with the > results. > > Iain > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 04:28:07 +0000 > > From: rob@themcfaddenproject.com > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Full Genomes vs. Big Y > > > > I have purchased a kit from Full Genomes. > > > > Rob McFadden > > S660+ > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 for letting us know, I'm sure you will not be disappointed with the results. Iain > Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 04:28:07 +0000 > From: rob@themcfaddenproject.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Full Genomes vs. Big Y > > I have purchased a kit from Full Genomes. > > Rob McFadden > S660+ > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 have purchased a kit from Full Genomes. Rob McFadden S660+

A223 has now joined A224 and A225 in the YSEQ catalogue; just a reminder that these are the Ferguson-Williams branch markers. Iain

Thank you everyone for the information I’m getting up to date quickly I hope. Thank you for confirming my S660 classification as current best placed tree positioning. My 37 STR was undertaken by ancestry.com. If anyone would like the PDF of the results, please let me know through email and I’ll send on. I also note that YSEQ seems to be a provider of choice for individual SNPs. Is this the case? Brett

*I suggest there is no "one and done" in DNA testing. The whole of the Y chromosome can not be practically covered. In that sense, from a layman's perspective there is no such thing as whole genome or full genome testing. It's only "as much as we can do now". Large parts of the Y chromosome aren't even mapped yet.* *However, that is not to say that the FGC test is not a good test. It is and it has broader coverage than Big Y. They are really two different approaches, both using Next Generation Illumina equipment. FTDNA acquired the equipment and tried to develop a test that focused on discovering SNPs according to an academic study last year at Stanford. This study identified what they call "gold" regions of the Y. The point of FTDNA's approach is to try to be more cost-effective. * *FGC's price sale changes the equation on cost-effectiveness as would any future pricing actions. I think is exceptionally good news as we want to see a price war kicked off. We've already had one in a sense with FTDNA's introductory pricing of $495 last year but not they are back up around $695. We need permanent price reductions out of both vendors. We'll get there eventually.* *FGC's approach is to use the BGI lab in China which uses the Next Generation Illumina equipment also. This is an exceptionally big multi-purpose lab with government subsidies so they can probably reach very low costs at least at some point. The FGC approach takes more the focus of "let's test all we can" versus the FTDNA "gold" only. More data is good so FGC's approach should be worth more. How much more? I don't know. I think these things end up being individual decisions.* *My primary recommendation is to consider how you can best test your cluster. No amount of data is useful unless you have other people to compare it with. That is the key to building a tree. If you are like many people, you care most about genetic genealogy which means connecting our genealogies to our surnames in general, family and clan histories and the like. This is not the same thing as deep ancestral research of what "general" haplogroup we fit into.* *This is why your STR based cluster (I use the term "variety") is so important and this how you take advantage of the Y STR testing you've done. You want to run a Next Generation test on at least two diverse people of the same surname in your cluster and then see at least one person from every surname in your cluster and then some testing from neighboring clusters. When you accomplish this you can cut to the chase on building your family tree for the last 1000 years. * *It works and will work with either Big Y or FGC. They both are large scale discovery tests. I've seen it work now multiple times with the L21 Big Y results where we have passionate groups of several people of the same surname test. There are enough SNPs out there to be found that we can get in to the arena of genetic genealogy. The nature of the Y paternal lineages is that bottlenecks have created strings of SNPs that mark subclades. M222 is a prime example with over 20 SNPs that mark the subclade.* *I will re-iterate, Next Generation tests are the only vehicle we have today to get us into genetic genealogy. Either Big Y or FGC will work. There are trade-offs between the two, but.................... my primary recommendation is to think of it as a group testing project. You need a plan to get others of your surname involved and others in your cluster. This may require some pooling of resources.* *Mike W* On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 6:19 AM, Rob McFadden <rob@themcfaddenproject.com>wrote: > > I'm genuinely considering taking advantage of the $999 Full Genomes > offer, but I won't be making that decision lightly. I'm under the > impression that it is meant to be all-encompassing and that I wouldn't > need to take another Y STR or SNP test ever again. Is this true? How > are the results that have come through so far holding up? Any quality > concerns? > > Is it too early to judge the value of the Big Y test in comparison? > > Thanks, > Rob McFadden > S660+ > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Brett, yes for YSEQ especially at the moment during their sale, but even when it is over they are better all around. Iain > From: bhward@hotmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:46:59 +1000 > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Ward surname and Chromo2 > > Thank you everyone for the information I’m getting up to date quickly I hope. > > Thank you for confirming my S660 classification as current best placed tree positioning. > > My 37 STR was undertaken by ancestry.com. If anyone would like the PDF of the results, please let me know through email and I’ll send on. > > I also note that YSEQ seems to be a provider of choice for individual SNPs. Is this the case? > > Brett > > ------------------------------- > 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