Two Points here. Firstly, Ken Nordtvedt's paper at http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Nordtvedt.htm is relevant. Essentially, he explains that matches that appear to be close, are actually about twice as distant as traditional TMRCA estimation suggests they are. Further, traditional methods of estimation exaggerate the TMRCA for more distant matches. I couldn't find what he means by traditional methods, but I did manage to follow most of his reasoning. So we may be seeing a little of that here. Secondly, (as you know), rare matches are more important than common matches (as you've pointed out with DYS448). So the more off-modal (rare) matches you have with someone, the lower the expected TMRCA for a given GD. In our case, we have six off-modal matches, at DYS439=13 DYS570=18 DYS710=34 DYS715=23 DYS513=14 DYS643=11 In addition, we have what I've come to term a 'directional match', in that we are both 14+ at DYS=446 (modal value 13). I am 15, you are 14. I think it's going to be interesting seeing whether the 23,14,11 at DYS715,513,643 is present in Cain and variants with DYS446=13. If not, that will give us a useful clue as to kinship. If it is present, that knowledge should help in trying to work out the order in which the mutations most likely occurred. Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charles Cain Sent: 26 June 2011 19:25 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: [R-M222] O'Cathain, off modal matches, 448=16 Looking at Sandy's chart, I am struck by how "unrelated" in GD terms we all are although that is a relative concept I suppose. Under each new name on the chart, the most closely related subject almost always jumps to a GD of over 10 with around 15 being the most common (too lazy to compute the average "jump"). The value of off-modal markers becomes obvious from this chart. In my own case, the jump in GD is only 4 to a Kane. We have compared notes because I noticed several years ago the we share an off-modal match at marker 448. In M222 this marker is uniformly 18 repeats. However, 4 "Cain/Kanes" have 448=16, extremely rare and not shared (to my knowledge) by anyone else. In contacting these people, one 25 marker Cain (GD=0), turned out to be related on paper back to a common ancestor just before 1800. If fact, the father of this common ancestor was at Valley Forge in the Revolutionary War, always an interesting fact to turn up. Also, his ( Mr. Valley Forge's) father was the likely immigrant from Ireland to New Jersey in 1740. So DNA helps! Another 448=16 colleague (the other Kane/Cain with 111 marker results) is unlikely to be related before the 1740 date mentioned above. This is based on lack of common spelling of our last name, different family religious affiliations, and different arrival times of our immigrant ancestors. So we are related only before 1740. On one of the DNA tree charts (I think based on Bill Howard's computations), we reach a common branch at about RCC=9, or some 400 years ago, or around 1600. This is entirely consistent with what is likely true from other considerations. Moreover, both of us (Cain and Kane) trace back to the next branching of the "RCC tree" at around RCC=22, or some 950 years. If Bill Howard's computations are sensitive to rarity of mutations at each site, that is a good guess for when the 448 =16 mutation (from 448=18) occurred. If true, I am related to no other O'Cathain with 448=18 after the year AD 1000. That seems like a useful piece of data. In that regard, if you want to know who to contact regarding possible common ancestors, look at rare off-modal matches. I has worked for my 448=16 colleagues and myself. Bill Howard may want to comment on my use of his data in the above exercise...particularly my use of his data to "estimate" when the 448=16 mutation occurred. Charles 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

EUREKA - I have been looking exactly at this effect. Now it looks confirmed. That factor of two I have found in a few other areas --- The major one that I found is the following - I have taken the MODAL haplotypes for a number of haplogroups and I have run a phylogenetic tree on the sample. Mathematica places the haplogroups in very nearly the same order as their order in the ISOGG haplogroup sequence, EXCEPT the RCC time scale indicates an age that is about half the ones that are in the ISOGG web page (because I used modal values). My suspicion, backed by earlier discussions with Whit Athey, was that I was using MODAL values for the haplotypes when I should have been using sets of their actual (more extreme) values. That's a tougher job and I have been putting it off. And now, Sandy's reference to Nordtvedt's article appears to confirm my suspicion that the use of MODAL values is not correct and it goes a long way toward explaining why my MODAL dates for the haplogroup analysis were a factor of two too low. The upshot of this realization is that my RCC time scale for the MODAL haplotypes of the haplogroups I used (when doubled) is as accurate as I showed it to be in my original JoGG articles, and because it basically reproduces the ISOGG sequence independently of the work of others, it not only confirms the ISOGG dates (such as they are), but they can be used with about 30% confidence many tens of thousands of years into the past. It also puts haplotype analysis on the same basis across haplogroup boundaries. This may also explain why my dates for the origin of M222 are about twice as old as others have gotten, including Ken Nordtvedt. Wow! I think this may be a breakthrough in assigning times via the RCC correlation method and it tends to validate the earlier dates found in the phylogenetic trees I have been making for others. - Bye from Bill Howard On Jun 27, 2011, at 6:18 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote: > Two Points here. Firstly, Ken Nordtvedt's paper at > > http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Nordtvedt.htm > > > is relevant. Essentially, he explains that matches that appear to be close, > are actually about twice as distant as traditional TMRCA estimation suggests > they are. Further, traditional methods of estimation exaggerate the TMRCA > for more distant matches. I couldn't find what he means by traditional > methods, but I did manage to follow most of his reasoning. > ......... > > > 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

Sandy Mostly in agreement here. You said: "So the more off-modal (rare) matches you have with someone, the lower the expected TMRCA for a given GD." This seems reasonable on first reading. However, if the marker is stable (as 448 is), and a particular STR non-modal value at that marker is rare (as it is likely to be), it will persist and may reach back some way in time (as SNPs usually do). If a panel of rare STR values exist at stable sites, could it not be true that the panel may have developed further back in time than standard procedures measure? I will have to think about this. Charles Quoting Sandy Paterson <alexanderpatterson@btinternet.com>: > Two Points here. Firstly, Ken Nordtvedt's paper at > > http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Nordtvedt.htm > > > is relevant. Essentially, he explains that matches that appear to be close, > are actually about twice as distant as traditional TMRCA estimation suggests > they are. Further, traditional methods of estimation exaggerate the TMRCA > for more distant matches. I couldn't find what he means by traditional > methods, but I did manage to follow most of his reasoning. > > So we may be seeing a little of that here. > > Secondly, (as you know), rare matches are more important than common matches > (as you've pointed out with DYS448). So the more off-modal (rare) matches > you have with someone, the lower the expected TMRCA for a given GD. > > In our case, we have six off-modal matches, at > > DYS439=13 > DYS570=18 > DYS710=34 > DYS715=23 > DYS513=14 > DYS643=11 > > In addition, we have what I've come to term a 'directional match', in that > we are both 14+ at DYS=446 (modal value 13). I am 15, you are 14. > > I think it's going to be interesting seeing whether the 23,14,11 at > DYS715,513,643 is present in Cain and variants with DYS446=13. If not, that > will give us a useful clue as to kinship. If it is present, that knowledge > should help in trying to work out the order in which the mutations most > likely occurred. > > > Sandy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charles Cain > Sent: 26 June 2011 19:25 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] O'Cathain, off modal matches, 448=16 > > Looking at Sandy's chart, I am struck by how "unrelated" in GD terms > we all are although that is a relative concept I suppose. Under each > new name on the chart, the most closely related subject almost always > jumps to a GD of over 10 with around 15 being the most common (too > lazy to compute the average "jump"). The value of off-modal markers > becomes obvious from this chart. > > In my own case, the jump in GD is only 4 to a Kane. We have compared > notes because I noticed several years ago the we share an off-modal > match at marker 448. In M222 this marker is uniformly 18 repeats. > However, 4 "Cain/Kanes" have 448=16, extremely rare and not shared (to > my knowledge) by anyone else. > > In contacting these people, one 25 marker Cain (GD=0), turned out to > be related on paper back to a common ancestor just before 1800. If > fact, the father of this common ancestor was at Valley Forge in the > Revolutionary War, always an interesting fact to turn up. Also, his ( > Mr. Valley Forge's) father was the likely immigrant from Ireland to > New Jersey in 1740. So DNA helps! > > Another 448=16 colleague (the other Kane/Cain with 111 marker results) > is unlikely to be related before the 1740 date mentioned above. This > is based on lack of common spelling of our last name, different family > religious affiliations, and different arrival times of our immigrant > ancestors. So we are related only before 1740. > > On one of the DNA tree charts (I think based on Bill Howard's > computations), we reach a common branch at about RCC=9, or some 400 > years ago, or around 1600. This is entirely consistent with what is > likely true from other considerations. > > Moreover, both of us (Cain and Kane) trace back to the next branching > of the "RCC tree" at around RCC=22, or some 950 years. If Bill > Howard's computations are sensitive to rarity of mutations at each > site, that is a good guess for when the 448 =16 mutation (from 448=18) > occurred. If true, I am related to no other O'Cathain with 448=18 > after the year AD 1000. That seems like a useful piece of data. > > In that regard, if you want to know who to contact regarding possible > common ancestors, look at rare off-modal matches. I has worked for my > 448=16 colleagues and myself. > > Bill Howard may want to comment on my use of his data in the above > exercise...particularly my use of his data to "estimate" when the > 448=16 mutation occurred. > > Charles > > > > > 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 >

Sandy Regarding near vs far on the time scale, it seems that, if one mutation is rare, the time to develop a panel of them must be extended. So a panel of rare STR values at stable sites could actually mean a group sharing these values reaches back to the fairly distant past. As an analogy, a panel of just a few SNPs can take you back really far in time (when they are not mutually exclusive). A test of this hypothesis might be to look at GD values for this (your) group vs any other group not sharing that panel, ie, look at the more rapidly changing STR markers.The GDs outside the group should trend larger than the expected values. This may also hold within the group, i.e., at STR sites outside the rare ones, the group may have diverged because the group (defined by the rare markers) reaches fairly far back in time. Bill Howard's approach of comparing groups might help in proving or disproving this hypothesis. Charles Quoting Sandy Paterson <alexanderpatterson@btinternet.com>: > Two Points here. Firstly, Ken Nordtvedt's paper at > > http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Nordtvedt.htm > > > is relevant. Essentially, he explains that matches that appear to be close, > are actually about twice as distant as traditional TMRCA estimation suggests > they are. Further, traditional methods of estimation exaggerate the TMRCA > for more distant matches. I couldn't find what he means by traditional > methods, but I did manage to follow most of his reasoning. > > So we may be seeing a little of that here. > > Secondly, (as you know), rare matches are more important than common matches > (as you've pointed out with DYS448). So the more off-modal (rare) matches > you have with someone, the lower the expected TMRCA for a given GD. > > In our case, we have six off-modal matches, at > > DYS439=13 > DYS570=18 > DYS710=34 > DYS715=23 > DYS513=14 > DYS643=11 > > In addition, we have what I've come to term a 'directional match', in that > we are both 14+ at DYS=446 (modal value 13). I am 15, you are 14. > > I think it's going to be interesting seeing whether the 23,14,11 at > DYS715,513,643 is present in Cain and variants with DYS446=13. If not, that > will give us a useful clue as to kinship. If it is present, that knowledge > should help in trying to work out the order in which the mutations most > likely occurred. > > > Sandy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charles Cain > Sent: 26 June 2011 19:25 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] O'Cathain, off modal matches, 448=16 > > Looking at Sandy's chart, I am struck by how "unrelated" in GD terms > we all are although that is a relative concept I suppose. Under each > new name on the chart, the most closely related subject almost always > jumps to a GD of over 10 with around 15 being the most common (too > lazy to compute the average "jump"). The value of off-modal markers > becomes obvious from this chart. > > In my own case, the jump in GD is only 4 to a Kane. We have compared > notes because I noticed several years ago the we share an off-modal > match at marker 448. In M222 this marker is uniformly 18 repeats. > However, 4 "Cain/Kanes" have 448=16, extremely rare and not shared (to > my knowledge) by anyone else. > > In contacting these people, one 25 marker Cain (GD=0), turned out to > be related on paper back to a common ancestor just before 1800. If > fact, the father of this common ancestor was at Valley Forge in the > Revolutionary War, always an interesting fact to turn up. Also, his ( > Mr. Valley Forge's) father was the likely immigrant from Ireland to > New Jersey in 1740. So DNA helps! > > Another 448=16 colleague (the other Kane/Cain with 111 marker results) > is unlikely to be related before the 1740 date mentioned above. This > is based on lack of common spelling of our last name, different family > religious affiliations, and different arrival times of our immigrant > ancestors. So we are related only before 1740. > > On one of the DNA tree charts (I think based on Bill Howard's > computations), we reach a common branch at about RCC=9, or some 400 > years ago, or around 1600. This is entirely consistent with what is > likely true from other considerations. > > Moreover, both of us (Cain and Kane) trace back to the next branching > of the "RCC tree" at around RCC=22, or some 950 years. If Bill > Howard's computations are sensitive to rarity of mutations at each > site, that is a good guess for when the 448 =16 mutation (from 448=18) > occurred. If true, I am related to no other O'Cathain with 448=18 > after the year AD 1000. That seems like a useful piece of data. > > In that regard, if you want to know who to contact regarding possible > common ancestors, look at rare off-modal matches. I has worked for my > 448=16 colleagues and myself. > > Bill Howard may want to comment on my use of his data in the above > exercise...particularly my use of his data to "estimate" when the > 448=16 mutation occurred. > > Charles > > > > > 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 >