DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-04 > 1302400144

Subject: Re: [R-M222] New M222 Philogenetic Tree
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 21:49:04 EDT

In a message dated 4/9/2011 8:28:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time,

I have some difficulty with this, not least because it appears that only
37 markers have been used, but mostly because it puts 1600 years
(assuming 20 RCC=1000 years) and a whole lot of other family groups
between my project members, who are, I believe, clearly related from
about the time of introduction of surnames in Galloway. On the face of
it, the methodology relies on differences, not on similarities.

David, I'll pass your reply along to the authors. I have to admit at the
present I have no idea what RCC is even supposed to mean. I think I know
what you're saying in general terms though which is why I never get much out
of this kind of chart. It draws a kind of family tree structure based
mostly as far as I know on genetic distance. What you wind up with is exactly
as you describe: samples you know are related because of STR patterns
interspersed with samples that make little or no sense as matches. That's
what I saw when I looked at John McEwan's charts.

I've asked the authors for an elaboration on what they think they see in
the charts.

The author has been at this for several years now and did get an article
on his method published in JOGG. I think he probably should be presenting
this to the GEN-DNA list where the math wizards mostly reside but I also
think we'll be hearing about it in the future.


This thread: