Hi Charles Bear in mind that the estimates are associated with a range of possible values. The 25.08 generations estimated using 111 markers is perhaps better described in terms of a high probability (around 95%) of kinship being between 14.5 and 35.8 generations back. Likewise, there are implicit ranges about the estimates for Cain/Kane. Using only 67 markers, the comparable figures are 34.89, lying within the range 16.6 to 55.6 generations back. I think this tells us two things. Firstly, if 67 markers gives such a wide range of likely outcomes, working with 37 markers is unlikely to be very informative. Secondly, even at 111 markers, the ranges of likely kinships are still very wide. You touched on the fact that we M222's seem to be only distantly related to other M222 surnames. I don't think there's a magic number that we can usefully think of as the number of generations back by which time our families all had surnames. I have the impression that prominent Irish have been using patronyms since perhaps 800AD. In terms of Scotland, I know that the first Chief of Lamont, who lived around 1235-1295AD had a surname. The same family had previously used the surname Erachar, although it's not clear how far back that surname went. So I think that you and I were probably related nearer to the upper range of the 14.5 to 35.8 generations ago suggested by 111-marker haplotypes, probably 30-36 generations back. I must say I find the slow-down in the flow of 111-marker results quite worrying. I think McHenry has been waiting for about 4 weeks for his last batch. Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charles Cain Sent: 01 August 2011 19:06 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] 111-Marker results Sandy Thanks for your interesting table. Your TMRCA Table does agree with some research I have done based on a fairly reliable paper trail.