DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-12 > 1228472449


From: "Sandy Paterson" <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] NPE Frequency
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:20:49 -0000
References: <001b01c9560c$0877b930$19672b90$@com><BAY109-F3583D80141A63BC03FDFACD5020@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BAY109-F3583D80141A63BC03FDFACD5020@phx.gbl>


Hi R.C.

>
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?
>


I've always been under the impression that clan membership followed male
bloodlines (or believed male bloodlines), but I don't really know. I
seriously doubt though that a clan would turf out the child of an unmarried
mother for instance, though but I don't really know. Elderly in-laws who
were destitute? Again, I really don't know.

However, there's an amusing incident in Clan Lamont history that seems
relevant.

The 15th Chief of Lamont was Archibald, son of Sir James Lamont, who was
chief at the time of the 1646 massacre. In 1682, a bunch of about 40 people
descended upon Archibald, claiming that they were Lamonts from Braemar, who
had left Argyllshire some 100 odd years previously. Most of them were called
MackLamont, but there were a few called "Gordone, altho' the right name is
Lamond." There were also a few who, "be reason of our predecessor's
blackness are called McGildui."

The whole story is contained in a petition that the Braemar crowd had drawn
up, and by 1936 that petition was still in the Scots National library.

The upshot of it all is that the whole bunch were accepted as being Lamonts.
Were they really Lamonts? My guess is yes, but at the very least, the whole
episode suggests that acceptance within in a clan could well in many
instances have been based on trust, without solid proof of kinship.


Sandy








-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of R. C. Mac Donald
Sent: 04 December 2008 16:02
To:
Subject: Re: [R-M222] NPE Frequency


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
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: