Stephen, That's exactly what I have advocated for years already - all project members should be SNP tested! I think the project should be divided into 3 groups: 1. M222+ 2. M222- 3. Unknown - i.e. not tested For calculations about the age of M222+, only group # 1 should be used. For calculations about the origin of M222-, group # 2 is valuable - and many of them may be DF23. However group # 3, while of interest to some, should NOT be used in M222 calculations! Cheers, Paul On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Stephen Forrest <stephen.forrest@gmail.com>wrote: > I think some careful use of nomenclature is called for here. There is no > ambiguity about how the M222 SNP is defined... it is a point mutation from > G > to A at a particular position on the Y chromosome (see > http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs20321) and has nothing to do with STRs. > > I realize you know this and what we're really debating is the definition of > the 'North-West Irish' variety: i.e. are men who have the SNP but not the > STR signature, or the STR signature but not the SNP, included? My point is > just that when debating the definition of something there's no point in > calling it by the name of something already well-defined (the M222 SNP). > Call it the "North-West Irish" group if you like and then go on with the > debate. > > Incidentally, there's an ongoing discussion on dna-forums.org somewhat > relevant to this discussion. I mentioned last week that there is a > recently-identified SNP upstream of M222, called DF23. Some STR results > for > DF23+ M222- men have been released and they are DYS392=14 and DYS390=25, > meaning they share a couple markers with their downstream cousins. This > suggests that there are M222- men out there with North-West STR signatures, > and they might try ordering DF23 when it's available from FTDNA. > > best, > > Steve > > On 7 July 2011 08:00, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > > > There has been considerable discussion both on- and off-line about how > the > > M222 SNP is defined. > > First, I understand that its early definition depended on the first 12 > > markers. > > Next, we have the deep clade test of FTDNA with a proprietary approach we > > know little about. > > Next, there are discussions of how the markers agree or disagree with the > > modal values of the deep clade test, but only with respect to the first > 12 > > markers of the FTDNA string. > > > > And now, here's my "take" on the situation. > > I received from John McLaughlin a large set of markers that he noted were > > in the M222 group. Some had been SNP tested and some had not. > > I did a study of ALL 37 markers (not just the first 12) and I determined > > the modal value of each DYS site. > > I then went back and determined for EACH TESTEE the number of times each > of > > his own particular markers matched the modal of that same marker for the > > M222 sample John sent me. > > I then made a graph of the percentage of each testee's marker set that > > matched the overall marker set. > > I found that virtually ALL markers in the testee set that John sent had > 73% > > or more markers that agreed with the set of M222 modals -- not the first > 12, > > but all 37 of them. > > > > The modal values I found for all 37 markers are the following, in the > > sequence given by FTDNA postings: > > 13 25 14 11 11 13 12 12 12 > 13 > > 14 29 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 > > 18 30 15 16 16 17 11 11 19 > 23 > > 17 16 18 17 38 39 12 12 > > > > Of the 683 M222s in the group, all matched 73% of that sequence (at least > > 27 of the 37 markers). The average was 85.2% and both the median and the > > mode was 83.8%. One testee, 26917 (MacKenzie) matched 100% of the modals. > > > > I also found that if you made a testee plot of the number of markers that > > matched the M222 modal against their frequency of occurrence for all the > 683 > > testees, the plot between 26 and 37 markers was bimodal, with two peaks. > One > > peak was at 31 markers and the other peak was at 33 markers. A > statistician > > might say that the departures from a Gaussian are not significant and > that > > there are NOT two peaks, but I think it is arguable. When I do the same > > plot using 320 testees which are among a set with a larger number of > > SNP-tested testees, the bimodality is more pronounced but still > > statistically inconclusive. The two peaks are sharper and appear at the > same > > place on the histogram. > > > > So, what do I conclude with all this? > > First, that we cannot go by just the first 12 markers. We have more at > our > > disposal to study. > > Second, while we refer to the M222 SNP test of FTDNA, we realize that we > > take their results on faith about their criterion of who should be > included > > in the M222 group. > > Third, my analysis shows that you can safely (?) put a testee into the > M222 > > group IF 73% or more of his 37 markers agree with the modal values of all > 37 > > (not 12) markers. That is a practical working criterion for M222 > inclusion > > in the group. I have given the modals, above, so now anyone can compare a > > haplotype with it and make your own conclusion. That criterion correlates > > well with FTDNA's M222 SNP-tested group. > > > > Now, we must realize that there are extreme variations in the mutation > > rates of the markers and that's why less than 100% of the testees are in > the > > M222 group. The mutation rates vary by a factor of almost 400 between the > > fastest and slowest mutating DYS sites. Why does 26917 MacKenzie have a > 100% > > match? Well, statistically, out of 683 testees whose markers are mutating > > over the time from the M222 progenitor to the present, you would expect > one > > line not to vary at all, and that line has led to 26917 MacKenzie. In > fact, > > his haplotype may provide a clue or a means to tease out some of the > > mutations that have taken place over time. That's an exercise still to be > > done. Now, when you have a set of fast to slow mutating DYS sites, you > > should be comparing the DIFFERENCES in marker values along the mutating > > lines. I include now a table that shows the percentage of M222 testees > that > > have mutations at the various points in the haplotype. For example, those > > with 454 had a constant va! > > lue of the modal for 454, and less than 50% of the testees had the modal > > for the two CDYs. > > > > DYS %Y > > DYS454 100% > > DYS426 99% > > DYS388 99% > > DYS459a 99% > > YCAIIa 98% > > DYS438 98% > > DYS393 98% > > DYS455 98% > > DYS448 96% > > DYS392 95% > > DYS385a 95% > > DYS459b 93% > > DYS19 93% > > DYS437 92% > > DYS464a 90% > > DYS442 90% > > Y-GATA-H4 89% > > DYS385b 88% > > YCAIIb 88% > > DYS389i 88% > > DYS447 87% > > DYS464b 87% > > DYS464c 86% > > DYS464d 85% > > DYS390 85% > > DYS607 85% > > DYS391 83% > > DYS389ii 80% > > DYS439 79% > > DYS570 77% > > DYS458 74% > > DYS449 71% > > DYS460 70% > > DYS456 68% > > DYS576 58% > > CDYb 46% > > CDYa 42% > > > > Now, with the modal values, and with the table just above, you could > > analyze the slow moving markers among the haplotypes and see what > happens. > > The fast moving markers are useful only for small values of RCC, whereas > the > > slow moving markers will give insight about what was happening to the > marker > > strings nearer the time of the progenitor - the higher values of RCC. > > > > So, my fourth conclusion is that the sequence of junctions on the > > phylogenetic tree, calibrated in terms of RCC values, will probably give > > valuable information not only on how the DNA clusters (which later evolve > > into surname groups) actually evolved over time but give us valuable > > fingerprints that differentiate one cluster from another (and at RCC > values > > less than 20, the TMRCAs of the progenitor who was at the junction point > > that leads to different surnames. A clever programmer might help here! > The > > data are available (!). > > > > - Bye from Bill Howard > > 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 >

Paul, I would say that only ONE member of a close cluster like my five MacAdam/McAdam lines needs to take the Deep Clade test. I'm in a bit of a hurry right now, but I know that FTDNA has stated more than once that it isn't necessary to spend all that money on separate Deep Clade tests for a group that's obviously related. Allene

There would be valuable information in sub-dividing the related 'North-West Irish' kinship. Presenting such possibles as defining some Dal Cuinn lines as M222+ and others as M222-. > That's exactly what I have advocated for years already - all project members > should be SNP tested! I think the project should be divided into 3 groups: > 1. M222+ > 2. M222- > 3. Unknown - i.e. not tested