DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-01 > 1200582197


From: "Paul Conroy" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] The Trinity Ui Neill study
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:03:17 -0500
References: <bd5.235eb14e.34c07cf7@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <bd5.235eb14e.34c07cf7@aol.com>


Lochlan,

Why would you say:

I'm not sure but I think these figures are assuming a 25 year average per
generation which is probably too low.


In most of recorded history, and probably before that time too, men got
married in their early 20's and women a few years after puberty 16+, they
also lived short lives, so that figure looks conservative to me if
anything?!

Cheers,
Paul

On Jan 17, 2008 4:42 AM, <> wrote:

> Here's little background on the Trinity Ui Neill study.
>
> The study consisted of 59 samples taken from men bearing surnames said to
> descend from Nial in Ireland. The samples are anonymous (no surnames
> listed).
> There is no data on where in Ireland the surnames came from.
>
> 24 of 59 are not R1b1c7. Of these 1 sample was R1a; 1 sample was I
> haplogroup.
>
> 35 are R1b1c7,
>
> The markers (17) used are:
>
> 393, 390, 19, 391, 388, 439,389-1, 392, 389b, 437,
> 460,438,461,462,436,434,435
>
> The order the order of the markers as listed in the McGee utility.
>
> In running these samples through the McGee utility I made two changes to
> make them compatible with FTDNA markers.
>
> 1. Added 2 to DYS 461 per a note on the Trinity site.
> 2. Combined 389-1 and 389b to get 389-11. In each case the values were
> 13,16 combined for 29. I actually used the DYS 389-11 value instead of
> 389b as
> in the Trinity study since the McGee utility did not support that.
>
> Genetic distance at 17 markers was reported as follows by the McGee
> utility:
>
> GD 0 = 12
> GD 1 = 14
> GD 2 = 8
> GD 4 = 1
>
> I then had the McGee utility construct a .ych file for Network.exe. The
> modal is identical to that reported in the Trinity article.
>
> This is the first Network diagram I've ever seen without a single median
> vector.
>
> Using Trinity's figures of 1 mutation per 2131 generations I was unable to
> duplicate their time calculations exactly. If I used only 0, 1 and 2 GDs
> from
> the modal (omitting one major outlyer and a second sample somewhat removed
> from the others) the results came in at:
>
> Age in years = 1755 (252 AD)
> SD = 617
>
> This is close to but not exactly what Trinity reported.
>
> Age in years = 1730 (277 AD).
> SD = 670
>
> In making a determination on who was or was not Ui Neill or R1b1c7 only
> two
> markers could be used from the FTDNA set: DYS 390 = 25 and DYS 392 = 14.
> It's possible the outlying sample in the R1b1c7 group is not Ui Neill at
> all.
>
> If the entire 35 sample group is analyzed the results were as follows:
>
> Age in years = 2072 (65 BC)
> SD = 670
>
> Using only 1 step GDs from the modal the results were:
>
> Using only 1 step mutations from the modal
>
> Age in years = 1105
> SD = 511
>
>
> The only fast moving marker used by Trinity that corresponds to FTDNA
> markers is DYS 439. I have no idea about the other non standard Trinity
> markers.
>
> Trinity appears to have arrived at their 2131 years figure from the
> following:
>
> 0.00069 per locus per 25 years (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004). ...
>
> The only process I can find that arrives at their 2131 figure is:
>
> .00069 X 17 = .01173 for 17 markers for 25 years (1 generation)
> convert to one mutation per x years
> 1/.00173 = 85.25
> 85.25 x 25 = 2131.25 years (figure used by Trinity)
>
> I'm not sure but I think these figures are assuming a 25 year average
> per
> generation which is probably too low.
>
> At this point I'm really confusing myself. But I would be interested in
> any
> opinions on the validity of the TMRCA method used by Trinity in
> Network.exe
> and how one could arrive at a correct figure to use for 25 and 37 marker
> calculations.
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: