DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-12 > 1228406511


From: "R. C. Mac Donald" <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] NPE Frequency
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:01:51 -0500
In-Reply-To: <001b01c9560c$0877b930$19672b90$@com>


I've been following the discussion with interest, since it deals with
questions that have been in my mind for a while now.

John McLoughlin said that if the genealogies in O'Clery are correct,
every McLaughlin in Inishowen in the 17th century should have been descended
from a single son of Domhnall Mac Lochlainn. But should this really be so?
It seems reasonable to think that the larger and more powerful the clan, the
greater the proportion of members who are not patrilineal descendants of the
eponymous patriarch.

If the genealogies tell us that the chiefs of Clans X, Y and Z are
descended from Nial, and after testing hundreds of McX, MacY and O'Z samples
we find no more than, say, 10% are M222+ , might this not be because most of
the samples represent families related to the ruling dynasty through the
female line, or kin through marriage with no common blood (the in-laws of
in-laws), or completely unrelated families who fell in with the local big
man, all of whom formed a clan (or siol or tuath or whatever name you may
care to give it) and all of whom happened to adopt the clan name as their
surname?

While Sandy Paterson's point about NPEs is well taken, the Clan Donald
study shows the reliability of at least one pedigree: all of the documented
lineal descendants of Somerled are R1a, and show genetic distances from one
another consistent with their paper trail. Is there any reason to think
that this was an exception rather than the rule among families whose wealth
and power made the identity of the heir a matter of grave concern, and
aren't these precisely the families who have documented pedigrees?

Someone, I don't recall if it was John or Sandy, spoke of 10% of the Clan
Donald results being R1b1c7; I don't think that's quite right. Of the 677
participants, about 60 fall in the green subgroup of R1b, and of these, all
of us who have been SNP tested (and this seems to be fewer than a dozen) are
M222+ .

Again, I don't recall who it was who observed that for all we know, there
may be a number of unrelated septs with the same name. True, and once again
Mac Donald is an example; there are, I understand, at least three Irish
families of that name that are completely unrelated to the Scottish clan,
and I hope that someone can figure out how to separate them in the analysis
of Clan Donald samples. One of these Irish septs, Mac Donald of Clankelly,
were lords of parts of Fermanagh and Monaghan until they were displaced by
the Maguires. O'Hart has them descended from Colla Da Chrioch, closely
related to Mac Lochlainn. I sometimes fancy I'm descended from them, since
my numbers don't match the Donalds with documented Scottish background very
closely; in fact, my only 25/25 match is with a Devanney, while
Byrne/Burns, Daugherty/Dehority and Neal/Neel are all among my 24/25
matches. (I only mention this because all these surnames have popped up in
this discussion recently).

R.C. Mac Donald
______________________________________________________________

From: "Sandy Paterson" <>
Reply-To:
To: <>, <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] NPE Frequency
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:30:03 -0000
>Hi John
>
> >
>There are some things I don't respond to
>either because I have no real position one way or the other or I think
>someone else might respond. I think what you're referring to though is
>the following:
>
>"This seems quite relevant to me in considering for instance the DNA of
>purportedly Dalriadic descendants. In particular, the roughly 10% R1b1c7
>found in Clan McDonald would seem to be about what one would expect if
>they were originally R1b1c7."
> >
>
>No, that's not what I'm getting at at all. I used the McDonalds merely as
an
>example. What I was trying to say is that whatever they were when they
>started, the effect of NPE's would in all likelihood, over time, reduce
>whatever their haplogroup was when they arrived in Scotland, to a small
>proportion of the whole.
>
>The Dalriata origins are of interest to me in the general sense, but I
hold
>no strong views on what they were.
>
> >
>I think the issue Sandy wants people to chime in on is whether he is
>right that the 10% of R1b1c7 in the McDonald project proves the Scottish
>Dal Riata were originally R1b1c7. If I misstated his position I'm sure
>he'd be happy to clarify it himself.
> >
>
>Just to be 100% sure there's no misunderstanding, that is not what I'm
>getting at at all.
>
>I think this may be important though, so I'll repeat my reasoning here
>instead of referring to earlier postings.
>
>Estimated NPE rates vary.
>
>David Ewing mentioned an estimate of between 2% an 5%, based on
statistics
>from organ transplants, where tissue rejection is a major issue.
>
>What I did was to consider adoption rates in the USA as a starting point,
>where the mid-point of estimates seemed to be about 3%. I then considered
>other ways in which the apparent family haplogroup could change, and
ended
>up using 6% as an estimated 'haplogroup change per birth'.
>
>John, you mentioned the views of others from (I think) another discussion
>group, which included estimates in excess of 10%.
>
>David Ewing also pointed out that if an NPE occurs in a geographical area
in
>which most of the population is of the same haplogroup, the impact on
family
>haplogroups will be lestened.
>
>So, let's start with a 6% NPE rate per birth, somewhere in Ireland, in an
>area where say 90% of the population are M222+.
>
>After 50 generations, about
>
>(1 - .1 x .06)^50 = .7401 will still be M222+
>
>Now take an M222+ group that ends up in Scotland, where (say) only 10% of
>the population is M222+.
>
>Here, after 50 generations, only about
>
>(1 - .9 x .06)^50 = .0623
>
>will still be M222+
>
>And that, John, is why I battle to understand your puzzlement as to why
>Scottish DNA has a much lower M222+ proportion than Irish DNA.
>
>Having said that, of course I've oversimplified what happens, and of
course
>the .06 used for an NPE rate should be looked at with a jaundiced eye.
But I
>don't believe that this invalidates the explanation.
>
>Now let's have a look at the sprinkling of M222+ we find in English
>families, another thing John, that seems to worry you.
>
>Well, just as M222+ families who move to England (or Scotland) would have
>their M222+ proportion depleted over time, some English families would
pick
>up the odd bit of M222+.
>
>So if Mr and Mrs Bottomley-Grant's little boy Johnny is found in a school
>project to be M222+, there's really no need for Mr Bottomley-Grant to
rush
>off to purchase a chastity belt. It probably happened many generations
back,
>via an NPE that (I believe, anyway) probably had nothing to do with
>infidelity.
>
>But this is all perfectly natural and perfectly consistent with the way
man
>procreates.
>
>Thanks John, for responding constructively.
>
>
>Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
>[mailto:] On Behalf Of John McLaughlin
>Sent: 04 December 2008 09:49
>To:
>Subject: Re: [R-M222] NPE Frequency
>
><Having set out in some detail why it is not a logical deduction, I
>don't think there's anything further I can do.>
>
>Then we can just disagree. You don't need to be a Scot to do that.
>
><I must say I'm puzzled. You've responded to almost every e-mail I've
>posted (which I appreciate), but you seem to have missed (or ignored)
>much of what I've said, particularly about the impact of NPE's.
>
>Maybe we should clear this up before continuing. Would you like me to
>give you the dates and times of the specific e-mails to save you having
>to sift through what's been said? I'll do so with pleasure if wish..>
>
>I'll apologize for that. There are some things I don't respond to
>either because I have no real position one way or the other or I think
>someone else might respond. I think what you're referring to though is
>the following:
>
>"This seems quite relevant to me in considering for instance the DNA of
>purportedly Dalriadic descendants. In particular, the roughly 10% R1b1c7
>found in Clan McDonald would seem to be about what one would expect if
>they were originally R1b1c7."
>
>This statement is what started the thread which is why I responded in
>the first place. There is nothing in history which suggests to me that
>the Scottish Dal Riata were originally R1b1c7. What you're suggesting
>here is a possibility but in my opinion a remote one. I already
>mentioned the reasons why I do not think the Scottish Dal Riata were
>originally R1b1c7. Again in my opinion the most likely possibility is
>the Scot modal. If you don't know by now I almost always respond to DNA
>questions in a historical context. As to the 10% figure I can think of
>a lot of other ways that could come about.
>
>I think the issue Sandy wants people to chime in on is whether he is
>right that the 10% of R1b1c7 in the McDonald project proves the Scottish
>Dal Riata were originally R1b1c7. If I misstated his position I'm sure
>he'd be happy to clarify it himself.
>
> Does anyone else on the list have an opinion?
>
>
>John
>
> R1b1c7 Research and Links:
>
>http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/
>-------------------------------
>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
> R1b1c7 Research and Links:
>
>http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/
>-------------------------------
>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: