The blanket generalization in addition to marketing over reach is what Thomas et. al. is referring to. I've been following the progress of this group in addition to having discussions with Debbie Kennett among others on this very issue. From that vantage point of marketing over reach, lets look at the history of both the IMH and the M222 modal haplotype. If one tests out with in the 1 step either way tolerance in the key alleles of the modal haplotype with FTDNA, what do they get? The Niall badge. What does this infer to those particularly who are unfamiliar with all the legends, myths, and histories (as rewritten with redaction and in some cases out and out fraudulent information etc) regarding the Irish? It infers that Niall was M222 -- and we do not know this, he easily could have been of any other sub-clade with high coalescence in Ireland -- and there are several, not just M222. Then then argument of the surnames comes up as traditionally traceable by surname only from groups that profess Ui Neill descendency. Those same surnames span the sub-clades of L21 and even other haplogroups. Any doubt on that...visit the surname projects. And surnames were not chosen for hundreds of years post Niall...add to this name changes, population movement through migration, slave trade, displacement, military endeavors, ecclesiastical missions, invasions, and all the rest and the picture becomes even muddier beyond the fact that not one person can trace their lineage with confidence back to the time of Niall and few can to the 1500's. Add to this then the populations out side of Ireland that for all intents and purposes have claims that to the best of their research endeavors their historical ancestors never set foot on Irish soil prior to the Ulster Plantation if then. Of course the argument there is always that the marker spread from Ireland. Could have but does not recognize the huge possibility if not probability that the marker sailed into the Isles and marched across them with proliferation and subsequent migration from within. The point here is that any time a genetic signature is assigned to a famous figure which in most cases, if that figure lived prior to the genealogical period and before good reliable record keeping, the pitch is speculative and in some cases not even supportable by all the evidence speculative. Just because someone puts together a report and/or a paper whether or not it goes through the rigors of peer review and academic publishing, does not make any conclusion of that endeavor fact for all --if fact at all. In most cases conclusions are theoretically based on an interpretation of evidence, and in many cases the evidence itself does not support the conclusion in part or in total. "It looks like" is a well worn phrase. "It looks like" isn't "its a fact" This is the issue, not whether or not certain surnames with ancestral claims of affiliations and descent from certain groups may be nor the tested genetic signatures that span the surnames. Thank you Iain for bringing the issue to the forum. Susan Hedeen On 5/26/2014 9:20 AM, JOHN PLUMMER wrote: > So, while Professor Thomas may, almost certainly is, correct in some instances, a blanket generalization should not be accepted. Each ancestral identification should be considered separately.