DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-03 > 1301395627


From: "Sandy Paterson" <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] McHarg
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:47:07 +0100
References: <18cf6.4cc5ae5f.3ac1209d@aol.com> <4D900B33.8060908@melbpc.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <4D900B33.8060908@melbpc.org.au>


Hello David

I do recall a discussion with John in which I pointed out that a marker that
mutated some time ago from say 15 to say 16 will, over time, have the
opportunity to mutate away from 16. That will lead to some dilution in the
presence of 16 in his offspring. That's just common sense though, it doesn't
require simulations to prove it. Simulation could probably shed some light
on the rapidity or otherwise with which the process of dilution occurs.

I can see though from your Chart 1c what you are getting at. The markers
highlighted in cerise show little variance. There's a bit in CDYa and DYS570
but not much in the other 3.

Can you let me have the sum of marker variance's and mutation rates used to
do the estimate of at least 650 years? Also, I see DYS389i shows quite a bit
of variance. Out of interest, did you change DYS389ii to DYS389ii minus
DYS389i before doing the calculation?


Sandy




-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of J David Grierson
Sent: 28 March 2011 05:15
To:
Subject: Re: [R-M222] McHarg

John,
Yesterday you said:
> If you ask Sandy though he will tell you (as he told me) that according
to
> his simulation software these shared markers should have mutated away
from
> anyone descending from a common ancestor ca. 1200 AD. So there might be
> some argument on how closely their DNA must match to establish a shared
> descent.

As I have pointed out before, there has been remarkably little mutation
away from (or even back toward M222) of the five defining Grierson/Greer
markers, which by my calculation are at least 650 years old. I would be
interested in Sandy's views on this aspect, see:

http://www.shade.id.au/Grierson/GriersonDNA.htm

go to Grier Chart 1c (Excel).

You (today) said:

>I spent most of
> the time on McLaughlins and Dohertys, said to descend from different sons

> of Nial c. 450 AD. or earlier. I can find nothing that tells me they are

> related except for the common M222 haplogroup. I see nothing that really

> distinguishes them reliably from the rest of M222. Both are modal at one

> marker (DYS 458 = 18) which is somewhat unusual in M222 but does appear
in
> other Irish and Scottish surnames with no known connection.

458 is one of the above five markers. All of the related Grierson/Greers
are 458=18, probably at least since c1350. The same is true of many of
the "Amuliganes" (probably from much earlier), and this relationship
forms part of my "M222 Nith" cluster. I am yet to be convinced that this
has any relevance to Niall.
Regards
David Grierson in Melbourne
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: