Sandy, I am just shooting my mouth off about the estimates for the age of R:M222, and based what I said on the various estimates that have appeared on this list and elsewhere from time to time. I don't give too much credence to anyone's estimates, because the confidence limits are huge for each estimate and the different approaches yield such a wide range of results. Whether the actual age is 1000 years or 2000 years doesn't make any difference to my argument. Seventy men with a single surname who are within GD 5/37 are certain have a much more recent common ancestor than the entire R:M222. Several of them have tested positive for M222 and we think it is pointless to test more of them. Best, David