Thanks to John for clarifying the fact that I already had the group of M222+ that had been SNP-tested. Here are the statistics of the two groups: 320 M222 SNP-tested 683 M222s (the Project) Average 85.1% Average 85.2% Max 100.0% Max 100.0% Min 73.0% Min 73.0% Mode 83.8% Mode 89.2% SD 5.4% SD 5.5% Median 83.8% Median 83.8% These two groups are not independent. The 683 batch contains the 320 batch, but if they were significantly different, they would show it in these statistics. Almost by casual inspection a comparison of the two results proves my point that the two are statistically indistinguishable. Whether one uses the first batch or the second batch, the results should also be statistically the same. My results on the date of origin of M222, using both batches of data, also yield consistent results. - Bye from Bill Howard Begin forwarded message: > From: Lochlan@aol.com > Date: July 8, 2011 6:18:19 PM EDT > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] There is no practical difference between M222+ and M222- > Reply-To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > In a message dated 7/8/2011 4:28:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > weh8@verizon.net writes: > > "The list of M222 haplotypes I received from John McLaughlin consisted of > 320 testees who apparently were in haplogroup R1b1a2a1a1b4b and they were > all labeled as such. As I recall John said that all had not been tested (and > in his and Wilson's opinion did not need to be). I had a larger group > reported to be M222 but which were not represented as being tested. Both sets > had similar statistics, as I wrote earlier. > Now, if someone would send me a set of haplotypes that are bonafide as > having been SNP-tested and put into the M222+ bin, I will run a tree > separately on them and do an analysis on them." > > You already have a complete list of M222+ samples from SNP tests. There > is no "apparent" about it. If you question any of the results all SNP > tests in the project can be accessed through the M222 project at FTDNA. > > _http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1c7/default.aspx?/publicwebsite.aspx > %3fvgroup=R1b1c7_ > (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1c7/default.aspx?/publicwebsite.aspx?vgroup=R1b1c7) > > Chose Y-DNA results and SNP. > > The reference to "not all have been tested" applies to the entire project, > not to the group with the designation of R1b1a2a1a1b4b. > > > David Wilson set the rules for the M222 group, not I. > > > > 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

Do we know what portion of NWI modal is M222- and who are they? I ask for there are five Morgans that are within NWI modal. Plus another who is 2 for 3 for the M222 modal markers (i.e. DYS372, DYS385b and DYS390). He is also 18 for 25 (72%) of Bill's modal values. I am M222+ and the '72 percenter' is M222-. So by all accounts though we are both Morgans, we are from different families yet from the same Gaelic kinship group? (There are number of Irish O'Morgan families.) The geographical split of the Morgans is: two (including myself) whose ancestor came from Ireland. The '72 percenter' gives 18th century Dundee as his origin. The other three are from colonial Virginia/Carolina and two of which believe themselves to be Scots-Irish descendants. So are any of the other four untested M222 members not M222+? And how should I consider a M222- with simlar halpotype?