In a message dated 7/23/2011 4:51:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tuulen@gmail.com writes: Your theory sounds convincingly good, and I look forward to learning more about it, please. ' There are links on the M222 site to several articles Bill had published in the online journal. JOGG. Plus an FAQ and a version of a limited M222 tree produced. _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/_ (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/) I used essentially the same database and ran a tree using Phylip and the Mega software programs which are based on genetic distance calculations from the McGee utility. You can see it here: _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222chart.jpg_ (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222chart.jpg) Many of the clusters are identical to those in Bill's charts using the correlation coefficient technique. They are not however identical and the Mega program only gives a short time scale at the bottom on the tree. In particular I'd like to draw attention to two surnames discussed in recent posts (McGoverns and Howles). In both versions they cluster together closely. The McGoverns were Irish, part of the large collection of tribes said to descend from half-brothers of Nial. As such they are not Ui Neill (descendants of Nial) but Connachta, based on the earlier tribe name used by Nial's ancestors in Ireland, the Dal Cuinn. The fact that they and other Connachta septs are M222 has always indicated to me that the M222 SNP did not originate with Nial but with some earlier ancestor. Which one would be impossible to state since the pedigrees prior to NIal and his father, Eochaidh Mughmedoin, are unreliable. MacLysaght places the sept in Co. Cavan in the west to NW of Ireland. The Howles in the tree descend from one man, an Epaphroditus Howle, b.c. 1685, New Kent Co., VA, who came to the United States from England. I've also seen the surname listed as a sept of the McDougals of Argyllshire. In this case we have no known surname connections between the McGoverns and Howles. And no geographical correlation as well. We could actually look at the DNA in question. There are two points of similarity between McGovern and Howle DNA. 391= 10 and and CDYb = 40. 391=10 is as we discussed numerous times on this list is the most mismatching modal marker in the M222 project. 15.5% of the project had this value at the date the percentage was derived. Otherwise there are no points of similarity except that both are close to the M222 modal. Gd's against the M222 modal are 4-5. GDs between the McGoverns and Howles are about 5. So they are close in genetic distance. That is what both versions of the M222 tree are showing as well. For me to believe this is a true picture of the relationship between McGovern and Howle though I would have to assume the 391=10 was ancestral to both and not just a parallel mutation. I think the CDY results are irrelevant and should be discarded for analysis. What are we then to make of the other 391=10 results in the project? Are they all closely related as well? We've been around and around on that one before. 391=10 does appear prominently in several Connachta sept's DNA, including McGoverns, O'Reillys, some O'Byrnes and miscellaneous Connachta surnames. It also occurs in many Scottish surnames, none of which have any known links to Ireland or the Connachta. Bill of course informed me I was wrong about this and should be looking for dissimilarities rather than similarities in the DNA. That's only true if you think these two samples are indeed related and one MUST have evolved from the other. I am not so sure that is the case. From my viewpoint 391=10 is a shaky foundation to build much from. And CDY is worthless. But I could be wrong as well. I think we should be looking at the DNA itself to see why this mechanical method linked samples together. John