Dear Brad, We now get into the paradoxes. On the one hand a modal assumes what we believe a founders haplotype would be today if that founder lived and tested today; however in best case, this assumption is really theoretical. In actuality, we do not know what the founder's haplotype was 2000+ years ago, and with mutations being random, what the modal represents is the average of all allele mutations for all the haplotypes in the tested results. Our today's haplotypes exist because our Y ancestors survived...others, however did not. Had all survived to produce a continuous flow of men, the modal could be different. All M222 lead back to the founder--that is the first bearer of the M222 single nucleotide polymorphism--the SNP mutation which caused this bearer and his descendants to depart from his relatives in the sub-clade ancestral to R-M222. In reality, there is no R-M222 descendant bearer which could be considered "older" than the next. That said, there are some caveats to this. The first is the reality that diversity of haplotype generally indicates age which in reality is survival. In simplistic terms it takes time for mutations to occur hence the more SNP mutations present in linear succession from the M222 mutation the longer the lineage has survived (since R-M222 mutated). Additionally the haplotypes may often indicate this in their diversity and sometimes be a signal for the various episodes of calving which have occurred between the M222 mutation and any given lineage with surviving men today who have tested. Here is where this paradox enters the picture...the sub-clade from which a calving occurs is ancestral; however the calf in survival will generally indicate age. The calving, if you will, is where there are splits. Within a lineage the haplotypes often indicate the splits within the lineage itself; within the clade, the splits are indicated by the down stream SNPs. View this as you would view a tree. Below ground is a complex root system that begins with initially 1 root which then sprouts off the balance of roots as the tree grows. I usually equate the root system with the SNPs previous to the clade in question. Above ground is the trunk (the first bearer of the clade) from which there are further branches splitting away (the down stream SNPs); those branches continue to split into limbs (extended lineages), twigs (family lineages), and leaves as the tree grows. We are the leaves. The tree itself is X numbers of years old, and at various points in its growing both the above and below ground systems split and expand, and over time sections of both systems die off, yet the tree generally will survive--not indefinitely, but it will have produced seeds which is another subject. In genealogy we may call the die off everything from dying young before procreating to girling out-- that is a progenitor issues only girls; if he (the progenitor) has male cousins and/or brothers who also issue only daughters, then with their deaths that particular Y lineage is lost--does not survive. HOWEVER if the overall extended lineage is old enough, the loss of that particular lineage does not affect the viability of the others who will be under the same constraints faced by all. We all are survivors. Hope this helps, Susan On 11/22/2013 9:47 AM, Brad and Sheila Knowles wrote: > Susan, > > "The closer one's haplotype is to the M222 modal the more matches the > individual will have." That is very interesting. > > If I understand this correctly, it solves a puzzle I have been wrestling > with. I currently have 113 matches at 67 markers on my FTDNA report. > In correspondence with some of these people I have found that they have > only 10 or 12 matches at 67 markers. Does this mean that my line is > probably ancestral to theirs? Likewise, my line would be under one of > my matches that had, say, 200 matches at 67 markers. Taking this to > its logical (or illogical) conclusion, if I knew how many matches each > of my 113 matches had, I could place them in order and construct my > family tree! > > I realize that this is not a rigorous approach but it does seem to > indicate that the number of matches we all have to the M222 modal is a > useful parameter and one that should be made public. > > Your thoughts? > > Brad Knowles > >