DNA-R1B1C7-L ArchivesArchiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2010-08 > 1282665206
From: Richard Murray <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] change in Haplogroup numbering
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:53:26 -0400
Understanding all the conversation going on in this thread is quite
difficult for someone like myself, who has very limited knowledge regarding
the usefulness of y-DNA and Haplogroup, in tracing one's genealogy.
This group continues to be identified as "R1b1c7", yet my certificate sent
to me after my 67 marker test as well as my Haplogroup test, showed this
However, I was sent an e-mail by FTDNA, which said I was now R1b1b2a1b6b.
For my limited understanding, that's like telling me I was born a Murray,
however, over a two to three month period, I had morphed into a MacDougal or
O'Connor, all of which makes it difficult for me to recommend DNA testing
for anyone new, researching their family history.
While all of this back & forth conversation is intriguing... it is very
This is simply a comment on my part, and in no way, suggests that the
conversation should not continue.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Ewing" <>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [R-M222] How long has M222 been in Scotland?
> Sandy Paterson says, "Now consider the range of gd's between pairs of 67
> marker M222 haplotypes. They range from zero to 29 (possibly higher, but
> is the highest I've seen), with plenty of them larger than 20."
> Really? I have not studied this systematically as Sandy has, but this is
> quite surprising to me. I have had the impression that for the most part
> 37-marker genetic distances between pairs of R:M222 haplotypes are within
> about 10 and that genetic distances between pairs of haplotypes in all of
> haplogroup R are within about 30. Inter-haplogroup distances (as between R
> and I or R and G) are more like 50. Genetic distances between members of a
> family run more like 5.
> Maybe my impression results from the fact that I have confined my
> mostly to the results of our own Ewing project. I wonder if anyone has
> published an analysis that shows the distribution around a mean of
> genetic distances within R:M222. My guess is that there would be a curve
> starting at a percent or two at genetic distance zero, rising to a peak at
> about genetic distance ten, and then with a long tail with only a percent
> two at genetic distance 15 or more. In our project, among R:M222 Ewings we
> have almost a negligible amount of variation in markers 38-67, and
> all of us match the R:M222 modal at those markers, so my (very possibly
> mistaken) idea is that the 67-marker numbers wouldn't be terribly
> Am I dripping wet, or just slightly damp?
> David Ewing
> PS. It has been some time since I thought about this, and it occurs to me
> belatedly that the numbers I speak about may be genetic distances from the
> modal of each group rather than pairwise genetic distances. Would the
> average pairwise distance between haplotypes be double the average
> of individual haplotypes from the group modal? DNE
> R1b1c7 Research and Links:
> 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
|Re: [R-M222] change in Haplogroup numbering by Richard Murray <>|