Here are the 67-marker figures for Cain 69577 and McHenry 27077 No of Obs F(T<=5) F(T<=10) F(T<=15) F(T<=20) F(T<=25) F(T<=30) 6,897 .000 .005 .050 .153 .377 .598 I've never been able to figure out what the genealogical time scale is, but I would imagine few people are able to get back much further than 15 generations. So yes, there is about a 5% chance that they may be related within the last 15 generations, based on 67-marker results. That rises to about 15% if you use 20 generations as the genealogical time scale. Once more 111-marker results are available, I'll extend my website to include 111-marker analysis. But even without that, 111-marker results suggest that Cain/McHenry are less closely related than previously thought. Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Howard Sent: 25 June 2011 13:00 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] 111-Marker RESULTS Sandy, You have no comparison time scale to say that they are no longer obvious kin. The haplotypes might be distinctly different in the region above 37 markers, but they could still be related within the genealogical time scale. - Bye from Bill Howard ' On Jun 25, 2011, at 3:11 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote: > What I find interesting is that with the extension to 111-markers, the > McHenrys and the Cains & variants are no longer obvious kin. > > The Cain and Kane in the M222 project plus my haplotype all have > > DYS439=13 > DYS570=18 > DYS446=14+ > DYS715=23 > DYS513=14 > DYS643=11 > > The DYS643=11 looks particularly rare, and if you have a look at L21+ you'll > see that it shows very little dispersion from 10, which is overwhelmingly > modal in both M222 and L21. > > In the O'Cathain group of Ulster Heritage, only a solitary Cain has the > above, with Devenny, McHenry and Slavin not matching any of the 68-111 > marker ones. Slaven though, matches two other off-modal markers with me in > the 68-111 marker group. > > So to me, it looks like the Cain/Kane/McCann grouping in Barry's group are > going to end up distinctly different to all other surnames, yet they match > me on some unusual markers. > > So I'm still batting on the side of > > Cain = Law > > Cain = Lagman > Kane Laumon > McCann Lamont > > Both descended from Orcanus. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lochlan@aol.com > Sent: 25 June 2011 02:49 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] 111-Marker RESULTS > > I haven't looked at those 111 marker results lately myself. There are 59 > results showing now - a few more if you count the non or pre M222 > sections. > > I looked at your closest matches in the 111 marker section. > Interesting. Two Kanes and a Slevins. But then you've mentioned those > matches > before. I looked at the Kains/Cains in several different projects, > including > that of Barra McCain, who first identified the DNA of O Cathain of Ulster. > > On a different O Cathain site at FTDNA it seems there are some Cain/Kane > variants that do not belong in the cluster. The Ulster O Cathains as > identified by Barra always cluster nicely around several McHenry samples, a > related > Irish sept said to have split off the O Cathain line in about 1400 AD. > The FTDNA site also has a McCloskey sample that matches nicely although > it's > only 25 markers. McCloseky is another sept said to descend from the Ulster > > O Cathains. > > The O Cathains were a Cenel Eoghain sept, said to descend from the line of > the High Kings of Ireland prior to the O'Neills and MacLochlainns. How > might the Slevins fit into this picture? According to MacLysaght, the > surname Slevin/Sleven (O Sleibhin) was a branch of the Cenel Eoghain in > Ulster; > an old ecclesiastical family in Fermanagh. Some later settled in Westmeath > > in the 17th century. > > He adds more in More Irish Families. > > "More Irish Families" by Dr. Edward MacLysaght: > > (O) Slevin, Slavin: Both the forms Slevin and Slavin are found today in > about equal numbers, chiefly in Ulster, 18 of the 25 births registered for > the > name in Matheson's test year being in that province. O Sleibhin, which is > said to be derived from the Irish word 'sliabh' (a mountain) was the name > of a branch of the Cenel Eoghain in Ulster, famous in the early midiaeval > period as poets. Giolla Comhghaill O Sleibhin, chief bard of Ulster, was > associated with King Malachy in the northern resistance to Brian Boru; > other > Ulster poets of the name about the same time are mentioned by the Four > Masters, as well as one who was chief poet of Oriel in 1168. Though seldom > met > with in historical records after that time, they evidently did not sink > into > obscurity since as late as 1514 we find in the Ormond Deeds a judgement of > the Liberty Court of Tipperary in which Terrelagh O'Slevin, together with > an O'Donnell, is described as "pure Irish of the Irish nation" when charged > > with acquisition of lands contrary to statute; and again in the Survey of > Co. Fermanagh made in 1603 Munter Slevins are cited as "carbes" (coarbs) of > > Killtyerman in the barony of Lurg. > > > I myself have never been able to find the source of MacLysaght's > statement that the Sleibhins were Cenel Eoghain (or at least some of them > were). > But given the fact that they are M222 and match the O Cathains of > Londonderry Co. in Ireland it seems possible this is true. > > So what does that portend for a Patterson who is really a Lamont? > > It's extremely difficult not to think of the tale of the O Cathains > bride in this context. > > The clan Donald, Volume 1 > By Archibald Macdonald > > "The lady's portion took the form of 140 men out of every surname in > O'Cathain's territory, and the descendants of those who left representatives > are > known to this day in the Highlands as "tochradh nighean a' Chathanaich" - > the dowry of O'Cathain's daughter. > > The name of some of these immigrants have come down by tradition. Two > families, the Munroes, so called because they came from the innermost Roe > water > in the County of Derry, their name being originally O'Millan, and the > Roses of Kilravoxk, rose to territorial distinction in the North Highlands. > > The other names preserved by Hugh Macdonald are the Fearns, Dingwalls, > Beatons, Macphersons, Bulikes of Cathiness, while the MS of 1700 mentions, > in > addition to the foregoing, Dunbar, Maelinen, and the MacGilleglasses. > > Divided Gaels: Gaelic cultural identities in Scotland and Ireland, > c.1200-c.1650 > By Wilson McLeod > > Marriags of Irishwomen to Scottish chiefs were also arranged, notably the > celebrated union (c. 1300) between Aongus Oge Mac Domhnaill (+ c. 1329) and > > Aine, daugher of Cu Miaghe na nGall O Cathain of the Ciannachta in modern > cdo. Derry, for which a number of learned men were provided as dowry (known > > as 'tochardh nighean a' Chathanaich' in later Scottish tradition), whose > progeny went on to become some of the leading lights of late medieval > Gaelic > Scotland. > > Note in this material the surname Dunbar. There is a small group of > Dunbars who are M222 and do not match the great majority of other Dunbars in > the > databases. In phylogenetic trees of various kinds they routinely cluster > near the McLaughlins and Dohertys of Ireland. The McLaughlins of Ireland > (at least the Donegal variety) were also Cenel Eoghain. > > It's interesting to note that within the line of the High Kings of > Ireland the O Cathains were one of the closet relatives of the McLaughlins > of > Donegal, splitting off the main line in about 700 AD. The McLaughlins > appeared from the same line about two centuries later. Yet they do not > match in > DNA except for the fact that both are M222. > > The original tale of the O Cathain bride came from two sources, the 17th > century History of the McDonalds by Hugh McDonald and the Book of Clanranald > > of about the same date. > > > > John > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > 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 > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > 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 R1b1c7 Research and Links: http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ ------------------------------- 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

My RCC time scale shows a strong bunching of associations at RCC about 20. The time scale puts that at about 1000 AD, and this corresponds to the time at which surnames appeared. Of course, the DNA connection goes back much further. If you have a good genealogy that goes back that far, that's fine, and you can trust it because it is good. But to see where DNA connections occur and when important early mutations occurred, you must look at the DNA result. The phylogenetic tree that John posted shows those early connections. The more recent ones become more uncertain because of hidden mutations that affect the DNA but not the position on a good pedigree. If the 37 marker RCC of a group of people shows relationships with RCC of 20 or less, then they are probably related within the genealogical time scale, regardless of how diverse their markers are at 67 or 111 marker tests. The latter will suffer also from random mutations and you rapidly reach the "law of diminishing returns". So one should not over-interpret relationships at these higher marker tests, just as one should not over-interpret the position on the phylogenetic tree when only a small number of haplotypes are compared. Best regards, Bye from Bill Howard On Jun 25, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote: > Here are the 67-marker figures for Cain 69577 and McHenry 27077 > > > No of Obs F(T<=5) F(T<=10) F(T<=15) F(T<=20) > F(T<=25) F(T<=30) > > 6,897 .000 .005 .050 .153 > .377 .598 > > I've never been able to figure out what the genealogical time scale is, but > I would imagine few people are able to get back much further than 15 > generations. So yes, there is about a 5% chance that they may be related > within the last 15 generations, based on 67-marker results. That rises to > about 15% if you use 20 generations as the genealogical time scale. > > Once more 111-marker results are available, I'll extend my website to > include 111-marker analysis. But even without that, 111-marker results > suggest that Cain/McHenry are less closely related than previously thought. > > > Sandy > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Howard > Sent: 25 June 2011 13:00 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] 111-Marker RESULTS > > Sandy, > You have no comparison time scale to say that they are no longer obvious > kin. > The haplotypes might be distinctly different in the region above 37 markers, > but they could still be related within the genealogical time scale. > - Bye from Bill Howard > ' > On Jun 25, 2011, at 3:11 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote: > >> What I find interesting is that with the extension to 111-markers, the >> McHenrys and the Cains & variants are no longer obvious kin. >> >> The Cain and Kane in the M222 project plus my haplotype all have >> >> DYS439=13 >> DYS570=18 >> DYS446=14+ >> DYS715=23 >> DYS513=14 >> DYS643=11 >> >> The DYS643=11 looks particularly rare, and if you have a look at L21+ > you'll >> see that it shows very little dispersion from 10, which is overwhelmingly >> modal in both M222 and L21. >> >> In the O'Cathain group of Ulster Heritage, only a solitary Cain has the >> above, with Devenny, McHenry and Slavin not matching any of the 68-111 >> marker ones. Slaven though, matches two other off-modal markers with me in >> the 68-111 marker group. >> >> So to me, it looks like the Cain/Kane/McCann grouping in Barry's group are >> going to end up distinctly different to all other surnames, yet they match >> me on some unusual markers. >> >> So I'm still batting on the side of >> >> Cain = Law >> >> Cain = Lagman >> Kane Laumon >> McCann Lamont >> >> Both descended from Orcanus. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lochlan@aol.com >> Sent: 25 June 2011 02:49 >> To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [R-M222] 111-Marker RESULTS >> >> I haven't looked at those 111 marker results lately myself. There are 59 > >> results showing now - a few more if you count the non or pre M222 >> sections. >> >> I looked at your closest matches in the 111 marker section. >> Interesting. Two Kanes and a Slevins. But then you've mentioned those >> matches >> before. I looked at the Kains/Cains in several different projects, >> including >> that of Barra McCain, who first identified the DNA of O Cathain of > Ulster. >> >> On a different O Cathain site at FTDNA it seems there are some Cain/Kane >> variants that do not belong in the cluster. The Ulster O Cathains as >> identified by Barra always cluster nicely around several McHenry samples, > a >> related >> Irish sept said to have split off the O Cathain line in about 1400 AD. >> The FTDNA site also has a McCloskey sample that matches nicely although >> it's >> only 25 markers. McCloseky is another sept said to descend from the > Ulster >> >> O Cathains. >> >> The O Cathains were a Cenel Eoghain sept, said to descend from the line of > >> the High Kings of Ireland prior to the O'Neills and MacLochlainns. How >> might the Slevins fit into this picture? According to MacLysaght, the >> surname Slevin/Sleven (O Sleibhin) was a branch of the Cenel Eoghain in >> Ulster; >> an old ecclesiastical family in Fermanagh. Some later settled in > Westmeath >> >> in the 17th century. >> >> He adds more in More Irish Families. >> >> "More Irish Families" by Dr. Edward MacLysaght: >> >> (O) Slevin, Slavin: Both the forms Slevin and Slavin are found today in >> about equal numbers, chiefly in Ulster, 18 of the 25 births registered for >> the >> name in Matheson's test year being in that province. O Sleibhin, which is >> said to be derived from the Irish word 'sliabh' (a mountain) was the name > >> of a branch of the Cenel Eoghain in Ulster, famous in the early midiaeval > >> period as poets. Giolla Comhghaill O Sleibhin, chief bard of Ulster, was >> associated with King Malachy in the northern resistance to Brian Boru; >> other >> Ulster poets of the name about the same time are mentioned by the Four >> Masters, as well as one who was chief poet of Oriel in 1168. Though > seldom >> met >> with in historical records after that time, they evidently did not sink >> into >> obscurity since as late as 1514 we find in the Ormond Deeds a judgement > of >> the Liberty Court of Tipperary in which Terrelagh O'Slevin, together with > >> an O'Donnell, is described as "pure Irish of the Irish nation" when > charged >> >> with acquisition of lands contrary to statute; and again in the Survey of > >> Co. Fermanagh made in 1603 Munter Slevins are cited as "carbes" (coarbs) > of >> >> Killtyerman in the barony of Lurg. >> >> >> I myself have never been able to find the source of MacLysaght's >> statement that the Sleibhins were Cenel Eoghain (or at least some of them >> were). >> But given the fact that they are M222 and match the O Cathains of >> Londonderry Co. in Ireland it seems possible this is true. >> >> So what does that portend for a Patterson who is really a Lamont? >> >> It's extremely difficult not to think of the tale of the O Cathains >> bride in this context. >> >> The clan Donald, Volume 1 >> By Archibald Macdonald >> >> "The lady's portion took the form of 140 men out of every surname in >> O'Cathain's territory, and the descendants of those who left > representatives >> are >> known to this day in the Highlands as "tochradh nighean a' Chathanaich" - >> the dowry of O'Cathain's daughter. >> >> The name of some of these immigrants have come down by tradition. Two >> families, the Munroes, so called because they came from the innermost Roe >> water >> in the County of Derry, their name being originally O'Millan, and the >> Roses of Kilravoxk, rose to territorial distinction in the North > Highlands. >> >> The other names preserved by Hugh Macdonald are the Fearns, Dingwalls, >> Beatons, Macphersons, Bulikes of Cathiness, while the MS of 1700 > mentions, >> in >> addition to the foregoing, Dunbar, Maelinen, and the MacGilleglasses. >> >> Divided Gaels: Gaelic cultural identities in Scotland and Ireland, >> c.1200-c.1650 >> By Wilson McLeod >> >> Marriags of Irishwomen to Scottish chiefs were also arranged, notably the > >> celebrated union (c. 1300) between Aongus Oge Mac Domhnaill (+ c. 1329) > and >> >> Aine, daugher of Cu Miaghe na nGall O Cathain of the Ciannachta in modern >> cdo. Derry, for which a number of learned men were provided as dowry > (known >> >> as 'tochardh nighean a' Chathanaich' in later Scottish tradition), whose >> progeny went on to become some of the leading lights of late medieval >> Gaelic >> Scotland. >> >> Note in this material the surname Dunbar. There is a small group of >> Dunbars who are M222 and do not match the great majority of other Dunbars > in >> the >> databases. In phylogenetic trees of various kinds they routinely cluster > >> near the McLaughlins and Dohertys of Ireland. The McLaughlins of Ireland > >> (at least the Donegal variety) were also Cenel Eoghain. >> >> It's interesting to note that within the line of the High Kings of >> Ireland the O Cathains were one of the closet relatives of the McLaughlins >> of >> Donegal, splitting off the main line in about 700 AD. The McLaughlins >> appeared from the same line about two centuries later. Yet they do not >> match in >> DNA except for the fact that both are M222. >> >> The original tale of the O Cathain bride came from two sources, the 17th >> century History of the McDonalds by Hugh McDonald and the Book of > Clanranald >> >> of about the same date. >> >> >> >> 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