Hi, Larry, Well, in a study such as what I'm suggesting, we aren't looking to establish or refute relatedness. What we are looking for is diversity, and that diversity will show through mutation. The further away from the modal, speculatively, the more diverse. In this kind of look, surname other than a possible sign of geographic environs often signaled through spelling and/or other linguistic earmarks need not be be an obstacle as relatedness is not the object. To be considered in this, however are some other information. As an example, the name McConnaughey variously spelled in this configuration (often seen in shorter forms with a few exceptions of longer forms) is an English scribes invention attempting to spell the name phonetically, and in this form it occurred in Ireland during the Ulster Plantation years by enlarge. Those Ulstermen, however lived on the Scot side for many hundreds of years previous to the Plantation, and the common Anglicization at the time on the Scot side was a variant spelling of McConnachie. In both cases the name was pronounced M'Con(a)KEE-- the a in () as more often than not it was silent but depending on dialect would be added in vowel form. This name in Gaelic was M'Donn(a)chaidh, and the D was pronounced as a hard C. The point of this is that immigrants to the American colonies primarily during the 1700's considered themselves Scot first even if their families had resided as planters in Ulster for possibly 100 years previous to immigrating out. There are other surnames that share environs. Kennedy, Duncan, Morrison (we have one fellow in this list who has posted about his trip down the surname trail), and the list could go on. The administrators of the projects sometimes know who have which heritages. So, heritage must be a consideration when the surnames are known in both environs. These administrators are invaluable in this kind of look. There are other surnames, however, which are seemingly environ specific. Certainly if we were to attempt to look at say the US 2011 that assumption would be thrown out the window; but we are trying to look back at a time previous to surnames using them after they were chosen or acquired as our window into the past. With in M222, I absolutely agree with you that the closer one's DNA is to the modal the more unrelated matches there will be. This is one of the reasons why off modal markers which may flow through a group even of different surnames is a valuable tool for establishing possible former relatedness. Indeed the more markers which are tested the more diverse any given group will appear as family groups then begin to seed up at 67 and 111 markers; however, as I said, we aren't looking for relatedness among surnames although some ancient relatedness among some may be a side benefit. The test would be whether or not at 37 markers we see the diversity or not see the diversity which has been suggested in chatter between Ireland M222 and Scotland, England, France, etc. If it is there it _*might*_ suggest the direction of the geographic spread. Susan

GOOD INSIGHT! THANKS, DON M -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Susan Hedeen Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 6:59 PM To: lawrencedill@ymail.com; dna-r1b1c7; dna-r1b1c7-request@rootsweb.com Subject: [R-M222] Irish/Scottish M222 geographical spread study Hi, Larry, Well, in a study such as what I'm suggesting, we aren't looking to establish or refute relatedness. What we are looking for is diversity, and that diversity will show through mutation. The further away from the modal, speculatively, the more diverse. In this kind of look, surname other than a possible sign of geographic environs often signaled through spelling and/or other linguistic earmarks need not be be an obstacle as relatedness is not the object. To be considered in this, however are some other information. As an example, the name McConnaughey variously spelled in this configuration (often seen in shorter forms with a few exceptions of longer forms) is an English scribes invention attempting to spell the name phonetically, and in this form it occurred in Ireland during the Ulster Plantation years by enlarge. Those Ulstermen, however lived on the Scot side for many hundreds of years previous to the Plantation, and the common Anglicization at the time on the Scot side was a variant spelling of McConnachie. In both cases the name was pronounced M'Con(a)KEE-- the a in () as more often than not it was silent but depending on dialect would be added in vowel form. This name in Gaelic was M'Donn(a)chaidh, and the D was pronounced as a hard C. The point of this is that immigrants to the American colonies primarily during the 1700's considered themselves Scot first even if their families had resided as planters in Ulster for possibly 100 years previous to immigrating out. There are other surnames that share environs. Kennedy, Duncan, Morrison (we have one fellow in this list who has posted about his trip down the surname trail), and the list could go on. The administrators of the projects sometimes know who have which heritages. So, heritage must be a consideration when the surnames are known in both environs. These administrators are invaluable in this kind of look. There are other surnames, however, which are seemingly environ specific. Certainly if we were to attempt to look at say the US 2011 that assumption would be thrown out the window; but we are trying to look back at a time previous to surnames using them after they were chosen or acquired as our window into the past. With in M222, I absolutely agree with you that the closer one's DNA is to the modal the more unrelated matches there will be. This is one of the reasons why off modal markers which may flow through a group even of different surnames is a valuable tool for establishing possible former relatedness. Indeed the more markers which are tested the more diverse any given group will appear as family groups then begin to seed up at 67 and 111 markers; however, as I said, we aren't looking for relatedness among surnames although some ancient relatedness among some may be a side benefit. The test would be whether or not at 37 markers we see the diversity or not see the diversity which has been suggested in chatter between Ireland M222 and Scotland, England, France, etc. If it is there it _*might*_ suggest the direction of the geographic spread. Susan 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