David, I appreciate what you said. Having developed the RCC correlation technique, I was surprised to see its applicability to genetics to be very important, and its application to genealogy to be less important than I anticipated. In the case of M222, where nobody knows where it originated (arguments are pro and con for Ireland and Scotland) and people even argue about what language the progenitor spoke (!), and whether the Niall myth intersects with the SNP, or originated with Niall, etc., I find myself in a thicket where I have an application that may well provide some insight into the situation yet I find myself deep in arguments about whether the same haplotypes that are SNP tested as M222 are the same as virtually identical haplotypes that pass identity tests for haplotype similarity. Those arguments are coming from people who have not taken the time or made the effort to read my papers or read my FAQs, or don't care to. For my purposes, it doesn't really matter. I think many of the points raised look like the old philosophical arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (grin!). sorry — my sense of humor is getting the best of me here. Suffice it to say that I have an application that can take haplotypes, in and out of M222, and I can estimate a TMRCA with them. I can't tell what language the progenitor spoke; I cannot tell his origin although heuristic arguments may well point to a rather narrow region but with much uncertainty; and I can't tell what he had for breakfast like we can for the famous Alpine Iceman. Interestingly, the time of the MRCA of all the haplotypes, M22+ or -, is not in the genealogical time frame, so most of the arguments above are irrelevant, if not moot to those interested in the genealogical time scale. You say that there may be trouble conceptualizing why I insist (I prefer 'state') that I can derive useful information from "unrelated" haplotype strings. There is no such thing as an unrelated haplotype string. Here again, people who have that trouble have not digested my two JoGG papers or the content of my FAQ listing. There I show that I can reproduce the ISOGG sequence fairly satisfactorily and I indicate that there is no evidence that the RCC time scale cannot be used tens of thousands of years in the past -- for finding TMRCAs of representative haplogroups of haplotypes. You keep using the phrase "unrelated data sets". That is a meaningless term unless you define it more precisely. If you are comparing haplotypes, they will always be related in ways that are closer the more recent their MRCA and farther apart the more distant their MRCA. In this sense, you cannot use the term "unrelated". I used it in my first JoGG paper much to my dismay, but I was more naive then. In Table 1 of my first paper I use the term 'probably not unrelated' when RCCs of 40 or more are encountered. That should be read as such by a genealogist, but not by a geneticist, for reasons I just mentioned. Again, I reiterate that we can estimate the TMRCAs of any pair, but we must be aware of the time uncertainties that are involved, and that requires a computation, or at least a well-founded estimate, of the standard deviation of the time we find. Hope that helps, David. - Bye from Bill On Jul 10, 2011, at 8:33 PM, J David Grierson wrote: > > Bill, > I'm sorry to buy into this discussion, but I think it is incredibly > important that we all, including the tyros in this (amateur) business, > understand what we mean. > In the ten years of so that we enthusiasts have been dealing with DNA > genealogy, a certain jargon has grown up. The professionals in the business > have developed more and more complicated ways of describing haplotypes and > haplogroups, using alphanumeric strings. To simplify things, we amateurs use > shorthand, such as M222 (which is the code for a certain clade in the > greater R haplogroup, but is commonly referred to as a haplogroup itself) > because if saves a lot of fiddling referencing when communicating. Included > in the jargon is the meaning of M222+, which means that a testee has been > shown positively to carry the M222 mutation. M222-, conversely, means that a > testee has been shown positively NOT to carry the mutation, and is most > commonly attached to a member of the ancestral mutation (L21 as far as we > know). Rarely, it might be attached to the member of a more remotely > connected clade of the "R" haplogroup, who has taken the test for whatever > reason. We can further say that if the haplotype itself does not give us a > degree of certainty (see below), and the bearer has not taken the SNP test, > then technically the haplogroup (or the SNP) is "unknown". > If the relationship was even more remote, ie, if a member of an unconnected > (except in primeval terms) haplogroup took the test, under current > assumptions that would be a waste of effort, and the TMRCA would be in the > tens of thousands of years. Now, we DNA genealogists are predominantly > interested in the most recent millennium, because that encompasses the time > of the use of surnames, and, generally speaking, the period of usable record > keeping. However, that is not to say that we don't also have an interest in > estimating the age of our haplogroup. But we mostly don't have a particular > interest in estimating the relative distance between unconnected > haplogroups. Hence our insistence that knowledge of haplogroup is essential; > indeed, I have trouble conceptualizing why you insist that you can derive > useful information from unrelated haplotype strings. > Now you said "If the two haplotype strings are statistically the same, I > don't really care. They lead to the same dates." > There is a very good reason for this. The two sets of data you were given > were, with a very low probability of error, all carriers of the M222 > mutation, (theoretically M222+), even though untested. That's why they are > statistically the same, and lead to the same dates. It is true that more > than half had not been tested positively for M222. However, the > characteristic haplotype for the bearers of this mutation is such that M222+ > can be predicted quite reliably. This turns on the following particular DYS > values: in the FTDNA markers 1-67, DYS385b=13, 392=14, 448=18, 449=30, > YCAIIb=23, 607=16, 413a=21, 534=16, 481=25. Latterly I have further > identified DYS710=35, 714=24, 549=12, and 513=13 in the 68-111 marker range. > Because M222 is a "young" SNP mutation, there haven't been many random DYS > mutations since then, so most M222 members carry the great majority of the > above DYS values. > So, in our various ways, I think we are trying to say to you that using this > particular data, you shouldn't draw conclusions about unrelated data sets. > These are related. I accept your statistical expertise, but ask, what > knowledge do we gain by comparing unrelated data sets, say, members of > Haplogroups defined by M222, L21, I1 and G2a? I ask because they are the > haplogroups identified in my surname study. We already know that they > divided one from the other during the last 40,000 years, but unless we are > trying to define an individual's place in all of this, what is to be gained? > Regards > David Grierson > On 11/07/2011 8:25 AM, Bill Howard wrote: > > Paul, > If the two haplotype strings are statistically the same, I don't really care. T > hey lead to the same dates. > I agree, we are now beating on a dead horse. > I am sorry you think I am tiresome but you don't appear to understand that the > date of origin depends only on the haplotypes presented to the program, not whe > ther or not it is a member of a particular SNP. > (In the two postings immediately below, I find that only you used the word "unk > nown")….. > - Bye from Bill Howard > > On Jul 10, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Paul Conroy wrote: > > Bill, > > Once again M222- does NOT mean untested, it mean (sic) TESTED NEGATIVE. > > Unknown means untested. > > You're getting tiresome. > > > On 7/10/11, Bill Howard [1]<weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > > Hi, David, > > I did see your posting and I apologize for being a bit tardy in my reply. > > I got into this when a friend suggested looking into the M222 SNP and to see > if there is a connection between it and Niall and his descendants. My look > at the situation indicates that, while Niall and the UiNeills may have > carried the SNP, it cannot be proved that they did so. My date determination > (see below) indicates that the SNP did not originate with them. > > In the process I became aware that one of the things that the DNA folks > > wanted to do was to try to date the origin of the M222 SNP. Since my RCC > approach could do that estimate, I wanted to analyze haplotypes that were in > the M222 family. > To prepare for the analysis, I was given a large list of M222 folks, and > later found that only some of them had been SNP tested. I found that only > slightly in excess of 320 had actually been tested, so I collected them as a > second database. > > Next, there was a list exchange that suggested that the M222 group should be > separated into plus and minus groupings, with minus not being well-defined > except that they had not been tested. Before that exchange I tried to see > if I could separate the plusses and the minuses by their haplotypes alone, > and I found that they were statistically the same. If there was a separation > by SNP testing they certainly did not stand out as being separate from their > haplotypes. That analysis has already been posted. > > Now, since they looked to be the same, I separated my analysis into the two > databases, the ones that had been called M222, a mixture of those tested and > untested, and only those that had been tested. I ran a TMRCA for both groups > and found that the answers were the same within the estimated error of about > 300 years SD. > > It is a bit premature at this stage to give the answer I got since it has > not been fully discussed with my potential co-author, but it was > considerably earlier than Niall and was more like the dates that John McEwan > got in the BC era. More on this later. > > To address your question about how I can calculate a time for the mixture, I > say that if I cannot distinguish the difference from the haplotypes and > > since Mathematica works only on those haplotypes (without any knowledge of > which group it is being given to analyze), I should get the same answer if I > use either the large or the small sample. And that's what I got, again > within the uncertainty of the errors involved. The answer for the M222 plus > sample is statistically the same as the answer from the larger database. > That's because the haplotypes inputted to Mathematica in the two samples > were statistically the same. So, if you want the answer to dating M222 plus > alone, it is the same date. I think that my analysis has been professionally > rigorous given the statistical equalities within the two databases. I hope > this answers your questions, David. > > - Bye from Bill Howard > > > > On Jul 10, 2011, at 4:10 PM, David H. MacLennan wrote: > > Dear Bill, > Yesterday I posted a note concerning the M222 SNP status of your data > (see below), but you have not responded. Can you please comment on what I > said. I am particularly concerned about your dating of the time of the > > M222 > mutation. If you are looking at samples of M222+ that are mixed with > M222-, > how can you calculate a time of the mutation? > David > > Dear Bill, > As a biological scientist I find it distressing that you and others are > trying to convince us that it doesn't really matter if your SNP test does > or > does not show that you are M222+, you can still be included in the M222 > project on the basis of your STR haplotype. Data based on such an > assumption > would not be acceptable in a rigorous scientific journal. > It would seem to me that the benchmark of the M222 project should be > > the > presence of M222+. At some stage in our background two brothers may have > had > an identical or nearly identical STR haplotype, but brother one had a de > novo mutation that created the M222 SNP and brother two did not. The > descendants of brother one would be M222+ and the descendants of brother > two > would be M222-. This de novo mutation occurred at a specific date and we > would all be very interested in that date. However, if the samples used to > measure that date are a mixture of = and - SNPs, then you can't measure > the > date of appearance of M222 accurately because common STR haplotypes would > predate the appearance of the M222 SNP. > Let's focus on the rigor of the analysis, not the cost of SNP testing. > David > > -- > Dr. David H. MacLennan, > Banting and Best Department of Medical Research, > University of Toronto, Charles H. Best Institute, > 112 College St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G1L6 > Tel:1-416-978-5008 Fax:1-416-978-8528 > [2]http://www.utoronto.ca/maclennan > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > [3]http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [4]DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > [5]http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [6]DNA-R1B1C7-request@roo > tsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the > body of the message > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > [7]http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [8]DNA-R1B1C7-request@roo > tsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the > body of the message > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - [9]www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3757 - Release Date: 07/10/11 > > References > > 1. mailto:weh8@verizon.net > 2. http://www.utoronto.ca/maclennan > 3. http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > 4. mailto:DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com > 5. http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > 6. mailto:DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com > 7. http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > 8. mailto:DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com > 9. http://www.avg.com/ > 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

Bill, Stop creating strawman arguments, stop the ad honinem insults to everyone who offered constructive criticism of your flawed methods. You seem to have completely missed the point being made, by at least 5 commenters, which is that you are not using the correct dataset, so your results are flawed. David just presented a well reasoned argument on where you are going wrong, and you completely dismissed it - it seems that somehow you just don't understand why what you are doing is wrong. I'll give you a simpler analogy. Supposing I was asked to calculate the mean height of my siblings, then I would add their heights and divide by the number of siblings to get my answer. What you are doing to get the answer is to add the heights of my first cousins and some second cousins and divide by the number to get the mean - while arguing that first and second cousins should be close enough to siblings as not to matter one bit. Hope that helps! Cheers, Paul On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > David, > > I appreciate what you said. Having developed the RCC correlation technique, > I was surprised to see its applicability to genetics to be very important, > and its application to genealogy to be less important than I anticipated. In > the case of M222, where nobody knows where it originated (arguments are pro > and con for Ireland and Scotland) and people even argue about what language > the progenitor spoke (!), and whether the Niall myth intersects with the > SNP, or originated with Niall, etc., I find myself in a thicket where I have > an application that may well provide some insight into the situation yet I > find myself deep in arguments about whether the same haplotypes that are SNP > tested as M222 are the same as virtually identical haplotypes that pass > identity tests for haplotype similarity. Those arguments are coming from > people who have not taken the time or made the effort to read my papers or > read my FAQs, or don't care to. For my purposes, it doesn't really matter. > > I think many of the points raised look like the old philosophical arguments > about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (grin!). sorry — my > sense of humor is getting the best of me here. > > Suffice it to say that I have an application that can take haplotypes, in > and out of M222, and I can estimate a TMRCA with them. I can't tell what > language the progenitor spoke; I cannot tell his origin although heuristic > arguments may well point to a rather narrow region but with much > uncertainty; and I can't tell what he had for breakfast like we can for the > famous Alpine Iceman. Interestingly, the time of the MRCA of all the > haplotypes, M22+ or -, is not in the genealogical time frame, so most of the > arguments above are irrelevant, if not moot to those interested in the > genealogical time scale. > > You say that there may be trouble conceptualizing why I insist (I prefer > 'state') that I can derive useful information from "unrelated" haplotype > strings. There is no such thing as an unrelated haplotype string. Here > again, people who have that trouble have not digested my two JoGG papers or > the content of my FAQ listing. There I show that I can reproduce the ISOGG > sequence fairly satisfactorily and I indicate that there is no evidence that > the RCC time scale cannot be used tens of thousands of years in the past -- > for finding TMRCAs of representative haplogroups of haplotypes. > > You keep using the phrase "unrelated data sets". That is a meaningless term > unless you define it more precisely. If you are comparing haplotypes, they > will always be related in ways that are closer the more recent their MRCA > and farther apart the more distant their MRCA. In this sense, you cannot use > the term "unrelated". I used it in my first JoGG paper much to my dismay, > but I was more naive then. In Table 1 of my first paper I use the term > 'probably not unrelated' when RCCs of 40 or more are encountered. That > should be read as such by a genealogist, but not by a geneticist, for > reasons I just mentioned. > > Again, I reiterate that we can estimate the TMRCAs of any pair, but we must > be aware of the time uncertainties that are involved, and that requires a > computation, or at least a well-founded estimate, of the standard deviation > of the time we find. > > Hope that helps, David. > - Bye from Bill > > On Jul 10, 2011, at 8:33 PM, J David Grierson wrote: > > > > > Bill, > > I'm sorry to buy into this discussion, but I think it is incredibly > > important that we all, including the tyros in this (amateur) business, > > understand what we mean. > > In the ten years of so that we enthusiasts have been dealing with DNA > > genealogy, a certain jargon has grown up. The professionals in the > business > > have developed more and more complicated ways of describing haplotypes > and > > haplogroups, using alphanumeric strings. To simplify things, we > amateurs use > > shorthand, such as M222 (which is the code for a certain clade in the > > greater R haplogroup, but is commonly referred to as a haplogroup > itself) > > because if saves a lot of fiddling referencing when communicating. > Included > > in the jargon is the meaning of M222+, which means that a testee has > been > > shown positively to carry the M222 mutation. M222-, conversely, means > that a > > testee has been shown positively NOT to carry the mutation, and is most > > commonly attached to a member of the ancestral mutation (L21 as far as > we > > know). Rarely, it might be attached to the member of a more remotely > > connected clade of the "R" haplogroup, who has taken the test for > whatever > > reason. We can further say that if the haplotype itself does not give > us a > > degree of certainty (see below), and the bearer has not taken the SNP > test, > > then technically the haplogroup (or the SNP) is "unknown". > > If the relationship was even more remote, ie, if a member of an > unconnected > > (except in primeval terms) haplogroup took the test, under current > > assumptions that would be a waste of effort, and the TMRCA would be in > the > > tens of thousands of years. Now, we DNA genealogists are predominantly > > interested in the most recent millennium, because that encompasses the > time > > of the use of surnames, and, generally speaking, the period of usable > record > > keeping. However, that is not to say that we don't also have an > interest in > > estimating the age of our haplogroup. But we mostly don't have a > particular > > interest in estimating the relative distance between unconnected > > haplogroups. Hence our insistence that knowledge of haplogroup is > essential; > > indeed, I have trouble conceptualizing why you insist that you can > derive > > useful information from unrelated haplotype strings. > > Now you said "If the two haplotype strings are statistically the same, > I > > don't really care. They lead to the same dates." > > There is a very good reason for this. The two sets of data you were > given > > were, with a very low probability of error, all carriers of the M222 > > mutation, (theoretically M222+), even though untested. That's why they > are > > statistically the same, and lead to the same dates. It is true that > more > > than half had not been tested positively for M222. However, the > > characteristic haplotype for the bearers of this mutation is such that > M222+ > > can be predicted quite reliably. This turns on the following particular > DYS > > values: in the FTDNA markers 1-67, DYS385b=13, 392=14, 448=18, 449=30, > > YCAIIb=23, 607=16, 413a=21, 534=16, 481=25. Latterly I have further > > identified DYS710=35, 714=24, 549=12, and 513=13 in the 68-111 marker > range. > > Because M222 is a "young" SNP mutation, there haven't been many random > DYS > > mutations since then, so most M222 members carry the great majority of > the > > above DYS values. > > So, in our various ways, I think we are trying to say to you that using > this > > particular data, you shouldn't draw conclusions about unrelated data > sets. > > These are related. I accept your statistical expertise, but ask, what > > knowledge do we gain by comparing unrelated data sets, say, members of > > Haplogroups defined by M222, L21, I1 and G2a? I ask because they are > the > > haplogroups identified in my surname study. We already know that they > > divided one from the other during the last 40,000 years, but unless we > are > > trying to define an individual's place in all of this, what is to be > gained? > > Regards > > David Grierson > > On 11/07/2011 8:25 AM, Bill Howard wrote: > > > > Paul, > > If the two haplotype strings are statistically the same, I don't really > care. T > > hey lead to the same dates. > > I agree, we are now beating on a dead horse. > > I am sorry you think I am tiresome but you don't appear to understand > that the > > date of origin depends only on the haplotypes presented to the program, > not whe > > ther or not it is a member of a particular SNP. > > (In the two postings immediately below, I find that only you used the > word "unk > > nown")….. > > - Bye from Bill Howard > > > > On Jul 10, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Paul Conroy wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > Once again M222- does NOT mean untested, it mean (sic) TESTED NEGATIVE. > > > > Unknown means untested. > > > > You're getting tiresome. > > > > > > On 7/10/11, Bill Howard [1]<weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > Hi, David, > > > > I did see your posting and I apologize for being a bit tardy in my reply. > > > > I got into this when a friend suggested looking into the M222 SNP and to > see > > if there is a connection between it and Niall and his descendants. My > look > > at the situation indicates that, while Niall and the UiNeills may have > > carried the SNP, it cannot be proved that they did so. My date > determination > > (see below) indicates that the SNP did not originate with them. > > > > In the process I became aware that one of the things that the DNA folks > > > > wanted to do was to try to date the origin of the M222 SNP. Since my RCC > > approach could do that estimate, I wanted to analyze haplotypes that were > in > > the M222 family. > > To prepare for the analysis, I was given a large list of M222 folks, and > > later found that only some of them had been SNP tested. I found that only > > slightly in excess of 320 had actually been tested, so I collected them > as a > > second database. > > > > Next, there was a list exchange that suggested that the M222 group should > be > > separated into plus and minus groupings, with minus not being > well-defined > > except that they had not been tested. Before that exchange I tried to > see > > if I could separate the plusses and the minuses by their haplotypes > alone, > > and I found that they were statistically the same. If there was a > separation > > by SNP testing they certainly did not stand out as being separate from > their > > haplotypes. That analysis has already been posted. > > > > Now, since they looked to be the same, I separated my analysis into the > two > > databases, the ones that had been called M222, a mixture of those tested > and > > untested, and only those that had been tested. I ran a TMRCA for both > groups > > and found that the answers were the same within the estimated error of > about > > 300 years SD. > > > > It is a bit premature at this stage to give the answer I got since it has > > not been fully discussed with my potential co-author, but it was > > considerably earlier than Niall and was more like the dates that John > McEwan > > got in the BC era. More on this later. > > > > To address your question about how I can calculate a time for the > mixture, I > > say that if I cannot distinguish the difference from the haplotypes and > > > > since Mathematica works only on those haplotypes (without any knowledge > of > > which group it is being given to analyze), I should get the same answer > if I > > use either the large or the small sample. And that's what I got, again > > within the uncertainty of the errors involved. The answer for the M222 > plus > > sample is statistically the same as the answer from the larger database. > > That's because the haplotypes inputted to Mathematica in the two samples > > were statistically the same. So, if you want the answer to dating M222 > plus > > alone, it is the same date. I think that my analysis has been > professionally > > rigorous given the statistical equalities within the two databases. I > hope > > this answers your questions, David. > > > > - Bye from Bill Howard > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 2011, at 4:10 PM, David H. MacLennan wrote: > > > > Dear Bill, > > Yesterday I posted a note concerning the M222 SNP status of your data > > (see below), but you have not responded. Can you please comment on what I > > said. I am particularly concerned about your dating of the time of the > > > > M222 > > mutation. If you are looking at samples of M222+ that are mixed with > > M222-, > > how can you calculate a time of the mutation? > > David > > > > Dear Bill, > > As a biological scientist I find it distressing that you and others are > > trying to convince us that it doesn't really matter if your SNP test does > > or > > does not show that you are M222+, you can still be included in the M222 > > project on the basis of your STR haplotype. Data based on such an > > assumption > > would not be acceptable in a rigorous scientific journal. > > It would seem to me that the benchmark of the M222 project should be > > > > the > > presence of M222+. At some stage in our background two brothers may have > > had > > an identical or nearly identical STR haplotype, but brother one had a de > > novo mutation that created the M222 SNP and brother two did not. The > > descendants of brother one would be M222+ and the descendants of brother > > two > > would be M222-. This de novo mutation occurred at a specific date and we > > would all be very interested in that date. However, if the samples used > to > > measure that date are a mixture of = and - SNPs, then you can't measure > > the > > date of appearance of M222 accurately because common STR haplotypes would > > predate the appearance of the M222 SNP. > > Let's focus on the rigor of the analysis, not the cost of SNP testing. > > David > > > > -- > > Dr. David H. MacLennan, > > Banting and Best Department of Medical Research, > > University of Toronto, Charles H. Best Institute, > > 112 College St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G1L6 > > Tel:1-416-978-5008 Fax:1-416-978-8528 > > [2]http://www.utoronto.ca/maclennan > > > > > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > > > [3]http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [4]DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the > > > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > -- > > Sent from my mobile device > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > > > [5]http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [6]DNA-R1B1C7-request@roo > > tsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject > and the > > body of the message > > > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > > > [7]http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [8]DNA-R1B1C7-request@roo > > tsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject > and the > > body of the message > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - [9]www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3757 - Release Date: 07/10/11 > > > > References > > > > 1. mailto:weh8@verizon.net > > 2. http://www.utoronto.ca/maclennan > > 3. http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > 4. mailto:DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com > > 5. http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > 6. mailto:DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com > > 7. http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > 8. mailto:DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com > > 9. http://www.avg.com/ > > 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 >