DNA-R1B1C7-L ArchivesArchiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2010-07 > 1280029768
From: John Mclaughlin <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Roll Call
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:49:28 -0500
On 7/19/2010 3:20 PM, wrote:
> In addition the three brothers' dna matches the clan leaders of the O'Cahans according to the geneticists (who haven't published their 'modal' that I know of). This has gotten us a lot of attention in Dublin. However no one will say much until they are sure enough to publish. They believe there was an old clan McThomais once and that these McCamishes and McCombs are descendants. Possibly it was descendants of Thomas O'Cahan:http://ulsterman3.tripod.com/Chief_Thomas.htm
Hello, Linda. Just checking a few statements made recently.
What geneticists are doing this speculating? It wouldn't be Barra
McCain, would it? Not that it really matters.
As far as I can tell the O Cathain family modal consists of;
DYS 439 = 13
DYS 389-2 = 30
DYS 570 = 18
Most of the McCamish samples in the link you sent don't have this 439
value. Nor do they have 570 = 18. The only thing I see in common is
DYS 389-2 = 30. I don't know if that's enough to state one set of DNA
is an offshoot of the other. The McCamish samples also have a few
markers the O Cathain group does not.
576 = 17
460 = 12
In terms of genetic distance the McCamish samples cluster nicely in the
McGee Utility. At 37 markers the genetic distances with O Cathain
samples appears to average 6-7-8. If they were indeed descended from a
Thomas O Cathain who d. 1521 I think I'd expect them to be a lot closer
<I can prove McCamish's traveled with the O'Cahan horde in the late
1400s, when they had a bad time of it with some English east of the
River Bann. Queen Lizzie's Irish Parliamentary Papers are the source --
they are published and indexed and in Salt Lake! This tends to support
the claims of the geneticists that they were O'Cahans. It keeps me
thinking maybe the geneticists haven't gone crazy.
Are you talking about the State Papers here? I'd be interested in
seeing the actual reference. Many good university libraries have copies
of the State Papers from various periods.
Despite their importance in Irish Ulster under the O'Neills, there isn't
much good documentation on the O Cathains outside of the Irish annals.
The tracts in the O'Clery Book of Genealogies are poor compared to many
other septs. The only sept splitting off from the O Cathains in O'Clery
are the McHenrys:
491. (col. c) Gofraid m Giolla padraicc m Semais m Giolla patraic m
Concobair m Diarmada m Enri (o tat clann Enri) m Diarmada m Con muige na
nGall m Magnusa catha duin.
<I did research into early Irish records and did find some 'hits' in the
early 1600s as well as McCombs/Comes. I had wondered if they were
related. Probably they are. Earliest McCamish 'hit' is a fined juryman
in Derry about 1621: Murtagh McCamnish.
There is a John McCamos (McKamos) in the indexes to the Derry Cathedral
records (Church of England), p. 157. This collection used to be on
Google Books but I can't find it now. I think they might have withdrawn
it. At any rate I have no idea what the date might be. Some of the
records go back to the early 1600s. Luckily I pulled down copies of the
indexes while I could.
I find this question interesting in terms of DNA. Which is also why I
posted some background on McLaughlins and Dohertys recently. What
should we expect to see in different lines sharing a common ancestor
dating to about 1200-1300 AD? Or even later? How large a genetic
distance is possible? How important are shared off modal markers? How
many must be shared to constitute a valid match? I have lots of
questions and no answers.
I use 37 markers as a standard because I see little helpful in the 37-67
marker data set in most of the lines I study. In M222 most of the
variation occurs within the first 37 markers. However I am aware that
there may be some families that have off modal marker values in the
37-67 marker set and for them that's great. Unless they come up with
some new markers that actually tell us something I have no intention of
upgrading myself. That's probably heresy but that's nothing new for me.
|Re: [R-M222] Roll Call by John Mclaughlin <>|