Apologies... for a multi-part post. I've been totally off grid since Friday and partially off grid for the week preceding attending to some non-YDNA personals; logging in this eve to find 526 messages (since Friday morning US-EDT) of which I've viewed now 304. As an up-date, one of the things I've been muddling with is the data set of the SNP results via the various vendors. It changes nearly daily. I do promise, however that a revised spread sheet is on its way. Thank you, Iain, for the up-dated tree. I also must echo what others have reminded us of -- your work in this is of tremendous value. A couple of comments. There are hundreds of M222 predicted and confirmed results sitting in projects of tested results not part of the R-M222 haplogroup project. One of the benefits of Mike W's data bases is that many of these he has picked up and has them in his varieties spread sheets. Dito on Mike's work, and his data bases are among the most comprehensive within the entire community and of great value to every sub-clade of L21 of which R-M222 is an integral part. The grand majority of M222 not found in these spread sheets are for fellows who have tested to a max of 37 markers. If there is substantive SNP testing accompanying those results, assessment may be of interest; however without the SNP testing the 37 marker status of these results are not particularly informative unto themselves; there is a caveat to this in that in the surname projects, often known lineages linked through well documented genealogies may test a few representatives of the different branches, extending both STRs and SNP information while suggesting that others simply nest. The reason for this is that the primary interest in the YDNA is in the measurable by document search genealogies, many to most not particularly interested in surveying origins. This is true of all the haplogroups, not just M222. As for M222, to some extent for many of these, if predicted as M222 because of all the previous marketing and "Badging" campaigns the assumption is that they descend from the ancient "King Niall of the Irish" and that is the end of their considerations unless one or more becomes more curious and searches out our haplogroup project and/or through the matching schemes there is out-reach to bring them in. Regarding the matching schemes as offered by FTDNA -- they are a valuable resource; however, they are not fool proof. The matching similarities as assessed by FTDNA do not necessarily translate and track across the board. The closer a haplotype is to the R-M222 modal haplotype the more matches there will be...and these matches as we should be fully aware by now are going to fall within several different down stream M222 sub-clades. Although I've talked about this a few times, I'd like to re-iterate what a modal haplotype is: A constructed haplotype representing the majority per allele STR. It has been described as an ancestral haplotype -- it is NOT. The haplotypes of today's test results have evolved through many generations of mutations -- up, down, and back and these mutations are, yes inherited from father to son; however, any particular mutation similarity, particularly out of surname coupled with increasing genetic distance may be coincidental. Coming back to the haplotype matching phenomena, the haplotypes generally are valuable for the lineages; I'm not so certain that they are predictive of SNPs unless that SNP may have mutated less than a thousand years ago. There has been some confusion about this because some lineages that carry distinctive haplotypes also fall within certain sub-clades. That information is valuable, and similar haplotypes, particularly if the haplotype is very distinctive could be speculated to fall within the same sub-clade...however...speculation needs validated. As Paul Burns has so eloquently explained, the variously spelled BYRNE are exampling no less than 4--5 (maybe more by the time I finish this) to date different R-M222 sub-clades, and the haplotypes to some extent suggest sub-divisions of these lineages, but because of the allele mutations, the actual SNP verifications are highly recommended. I do find it exceedingly interesting that these BYRNE sub-clades seem to be following a trail down one side of the tree. Whether this is coincidence -- (could be) -- or indicative of something more profound -- (also could be) -- remains to be seen. I suggest, however, as mentioned as we began sticking our toes in the water that the study of the lineages within their sub-clade groups and in comparison is going to be informative to both the lineages as well as to the project. There are numerous groups to be studied and compared in the future as the clade defining SNP groups fill out. I understand the degree of excitement that SNPs are being ID'd under the major branches. These newly ID'd SNPs need a good amount of work. Although I think it is very important to keep track of these SNPs as is being done and investigating further, I also think it important to maintain the data in the major branch groups as a branch until such time as there is a break away such is appearing the case with S4087 where it is clear that several surnames with significant genetic distance is extending the S7073 branch. We may see more of this with the other sub-clades -- right now DF97 is investigating one to see if it will be a sub-divider. Undoubtedly S660/DF109 is going to exhibit. But as has been done with the investigations through Chromo2 in regard to these major branches, these newly through sequencing ID'd SNPs need vetting and wide testing to determine whether or not they are of the significance that say S4087 has promise of. Until there is clear definition, however, the data set I'm keeping while maintaining SNP notations is going to keep the major branches basically together. Otherwise the fracturing of the groups without better understanding of the meaning of these new SNPs will cause substantive assessment of the groups nearly impossible. What the new SNPs will help us with, hopefully are the branches of the lineages themselves. [This is an aside, but of equal importance are those who may be the single representative of a lineage tested and confirmed. Somewhat of a concern to me, is uneven distributions. Some of the surnames are well tested while others are not, and in many of these instances a known related and/or speculatively related lineage will test many members that coalesce together leaving those who test because of surname only often finding themselves in singleton situations. This does NOT mean anything really other than there is a testing bias resultant of choice to test by those actively researching their genealogies. Although genealogy and genetic genealogy seem to be popular interests, in reality the numbers of those in hot pursuit through YDNA investigations is well in the minority when stacked up against the numbers involved in genealogy and both in comparison to population general. For those fellows in the singletons to few situation, many of them feel a bit lonely and marginalized, particularly if within their surname groups most tested are coalescing as lineages other than what theirs is. It has been my observation that some go so far as to believe that they may be the result of a NPE situation simply because there are not others tested in their surname with YDNA similar to theirs. Certainly, we cannot dismiss the actuality of NPE situations, but I suggest that often is the case that unless it is known and/or suspected otherwise the possibility is seized upon simply because the data base of the tested is what it is. Compound this with the reality that so many do not verify their genealogies through actual documentation and/or brick wall during the 1800's and earlier. I'm afraid that the only cure for this is the hard and often disappointing endeavor to find and convince others in surname that are speculated to be related to test -- and re-commit to the paper trail searches as well] As I'm getting back on the horse over the next several days, I'm going to offer a suggestion that the project think about taking Mike up on helping us set up a M222 centralized location for files of data, observations, analyses and anything of M222 interest specifically. Presently I file with individual member permissions the Chromo2 results and SNP reports with haplotypes and basic group TMRCA -- (I'm a bit behind on that at the moment). Mike has been filing the BIGY results as well as Chromo2 result sent to him. I believe this filing is important because it gives a centralized location for the information rather than being scattered around hither and yon, and the comparisons of this information for the integration into the "BIG PICTURE" is extraordinarily important. Other researchers such as Alex Williamson, James Kane, Chris McCown among others are turning this information into different types of data sets, graphs, charts, etc that address different aspects of the testing data all of it important and useful; others viewing all these different forms of information interpretively, assess along with other observations that may be furthered, theorized, and tested. I rather believe that the project and the list wants to preserve its forum under the rootsweb banner. This is fine, but the problem remains that except for the project pages maintained mostly by Linda, except for what is being filed centrally in the L21 files, there is no centralized location that may be accessed for any of the data among other things otherwise. John's web-site is now down. The plethora of M222 specific information contained on John's site is now unavailable. As insensitive as this may sound, private web-sites are wonderful until they are gone because the owner dies and renewal not possible because of their passing. It would be of benefit to keep important files, analyses, observations, among other things in a centralized location such as what L21 offers through yahoo groups. Survival and availability of the information is more likely to remain as the torch is passed within a group. It isn't such a big thing to join for access if one wants to access it. As a project, we could accept Mike's offer to help us set up a M222 specific place, and I suggest that it would benefit us to do so...we don't need to move the forum...the files section could be tailored to suit the needs of the project within the structure provided; and certain information should continue to be filed in L21 files as what is happening now even if for some stuff a duplication...so that it is available to the researchers integrating it within the parent sub-clade. I hope there is further discussion of this. Well I've now over 231 emails to attend to...likely will not get through them tonight. Thank you to those who have sent their testing information to me; please continue to do so. There are many I need to respond to privately...I will do so within the next several days. Susan