I received an email from a co-admin of the Ireland DNA project on the subject of the Venicnii in Donegal. " " I read a book last year called: "Cenél Conaill and the Donegal Kingdoms, AD 500-800" by Brian Lacey of the Discovery project. It was published in 2006 before the publicity about M222 hit the wires. His theory was that the Cénel Conaill/Cénel Eoghain were actually indigenous to Donegal and that they had written themselves into history as Northern Uí Néill for political reasons. Obviously the presence of M222 seems to negate this theory. But perhaps there's some truth in argument that some of the Uí Néill were already "Donegal natives" by time that we reckon Niall lived. In other words carried M222 -- just as men carrying Uí Fiachrach and Uí Briúin names have tested M222+ Either way it's quite an interesting book as it covers the entire of Donegal during this period with mentions of the "Sean Tuatha" (the old tribes etc.). For example he theorises that the Cenél Lughaidh of West Donegal name actually reflects a connection to the god Lugh (they control area around Tory island on coast), but in christian times it was refactor to be descent from man called Lughaidh who is put down as a cousin of Colmcille. Fair bit in way of genealogies mention from annals etc. _http://www.amazon.com/Cenel-Conaill-Donegal-Kingdoms-500-800/dp/1851829784_ (http://www.amazon.com/Cenel-Conaill-Donegal-Kingdoms-500-800/dp/1851829784) I haven't read this book myself but I have access to it in a library here. Here's a review someone posed on Amazon.com. I might take a look at it myself. "Brian Lacey offers an in-depth study of the Cenel Conaill and the Donegal Kingdoms 500-800 AD. The text has many b&w ilustrations and maps. The study is quite in-depth for the common layman but presented well. The author has strong opinions about the origin & genealogy of the Cenel Conaill but does not present a compelling argument in regards to his theory that Conall Gulban was not a son of Niall Noigiallach. I would have thought the author would have had more compelling evidence on Gulban than thus presented and was not swayed by his opinion and concur with the established Gulban genealogy back to Niall, although tenuous at best. In regards to Niall of the Nine Hostages not being the progenitor of the R-M222 genetic marker, I concur. Dr. Ken Nordtveldt calculates the MCCA of R-M222 at 1740 years ago in 2008. That computes to 268 AD, much earlier than Niall's supposed reign of 379 - 405 AD (more recent up to 455 AD). Of course this does not take into account a variance or standard deviation which was not computed. This places the progenitor possibly being Niall's father to up to his great-great grandfather (Caibre Maccormac d. 284). It is suggested that the progenitor may be a Cruithin Prince. This is unlikely as Niall's two brothers (Brion & Friachrae) through their respective descendents carry the R-M222 marker. Thus one of Niall's paternal ancestors most likely had the mutation. Anyway, Niall likely contributed most heavily to the marker since he was still pagan and had multiple concubines. Overall, a very well researched and scholarly presentation. However, the author's refudiation of some of the sons of Niall as not belonging to his lineage is at best weak and does not concur with the earlier records. In addition, recent R-M222 haplogroup DNA findings of surnames associated with Conall Gulban and the Ui Neill associated clans refute such suppositions presented by the author. " John