DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-04 > 1304166297


From: Thomas Tucker <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Chart
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:24:57 -0400
References: <5b67f.3ed14c52.3aeca66a@aol.com>,<COL122-W994CA9722ED86A44D7E46E59D0@phx.gbl>,<000001cc0716$788bbb00$69a33100$@com>
In-Reply-To: <000001cc0716$788bbb00$69a33100$@com>


Also missing is the Grier/Greerson group, which the previous attempt had
split in two.

Grierson 7874 and 94787 is in the botom blue coloring grouped with Downie etc. in the new model.

Thomas Tucker


> From:
> To: ;
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:10:37 +0100
> Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Chart
>
> Also missing is the Grier/Greerson group, which the previous attempt had
> split in two.
>
> Having had a close look at their haplotypes recently, I have to say that
> they form probably the neatest, most distinctive family grouping that I've
> seen, comparable with Ewing in distinctiveness, but with even more off-modal
> matches, ranging (by memory) from 5 to 9. Any methodical process that splits
> this group in two is deeply flawed.
>
> I think John will probably weigh in about the Ewing that is close to
> McLaughlin/Doherty. But there is something very interesting to me about
> these Ewings (there are 5 Ewing M222's, I think by now, who don't exhibit
> typical Ewing M222 haplotypes). I consider them to be Ewings incognito, but
> I think David Ewing and John may have other views.
>
> What struck me about them is that over 37 markers, one of them is far closer
> to one of the Lamonts than he is to the main group of Ewings, or to the
> McLaughlin/Dohertys.
>
> What also worries me about the latest chart is that the closest surnames
> that I can find to Ewing (ignoring Lamont which at this stage has very
> little M222) is a group of Cains/McKanes (amongst the O'C group) which in
> the chart is well removed from Ewing, as well as the Cowans, which the chart
> shows at almost the complete opposite end to Ewing.
>
>
> Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Thomas Tucker
> Sent: 30 April 2011 08:39
> To:
> Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Chart
>
>
> Bill Howard is the one making the charts. I think he is removing
> singletons from the list because surname clusters seem to occupy a better
> defined
> position in the charts.
>
> John I believe Bill Howard did an excellent job with his new chart. He
> removed at least 173 names from the original tree to make his illustration.
> I would call it the cluster bomb. It is a good tool for the larger numbers
> but I also see nothing that it gains in perspective. When he puts a single
> Ewing (121513) [who does not fit the larger group of Ewings of 22] in with a
> Doherty, McLaughlin, grouping what does that suppose to signify? What is the
> value? There were names that were selectively left out to make this point?
> This new chart is very subjective. I can understand the definitive view but
> it is skewed with subtractions that are arbitrarily created in this chart to
> create who's history? Is one of the Ewings with the Northwest Irish, Doherty
> and Mclaughlin group related to the other Ewing group from Scotland?
> Therefore, the Doherty and McLaughlin groups could be, might be. What does
> it mean? Its deep.
>
> Thomas Tucker
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > From:
> > Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:40:26 -0400
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Chart
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 4/29/2011 9:29:54 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> > writes:
> >
> > My number is 83687. I believe John is grouping names of two or more to add
>
> > more defintion to his work. I believe nothing was done intentionally but
> > scientifically it was done to be more definitive to group relationships
> that
> > have more blood donors... to work with larger similarities. MHO
> >
> >
> >
> > Bill Howard is the one making the charts. I think he is removing
> > singletons from the list because surname clusters seem to occupy a better
> defined
> > position in the charts.
> >
> >
> > His original chart which included everyone or almost everyone in the
> > project is still online:
> >
> > _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222592.pdf_
> > (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222592.pdf)
> >
> >
> >
> > 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: