DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-04 > 1304217471


From: Allene Goforth <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Chart
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:37:51 -0700
References: <1f6b.24e4bbc4.3aee176b@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <1f6b.24e4bbc4.3aee176b@aol.com>


Lots of stuff to chew on here!

Yes, 88646 doesn't get any closer than GD 3 (with 65678), GD 4 with
180243, and GD 5 with the remaining two lines. This man comes from the
only one of the five lines that remained on Prince Edward Island. The
progenitor of this line is thought to be the brother of the progenitor
of 65678 (but I have some doubts about that). Many of these people had
the same first names, and I think the paper trail may be incorrect--the
name of the brother is correct, but they may have a different person
with the same name assigned. The 88644 line (my first cousin) isn't any
closer than GD 4 (to 119699) and goes up to GD 6 with 88646. I'm using
67-marker values here though. My cousin (88644) has the only mutation
in the 38-67 area. It's a one-step mutation at DYS 534. He is a 15, the
others are 16. 88646 has several differences from the rest: 16 at DYS
464c while the rest are all 17. It is not a recLOH. I had 464X done on
them all. He is 11 at DYS 460, the others are 12. At DYS 458 he and
65678 have 18, the rest 17. So differences like this seem to send people
to one end or the other. I'm kind of surprised that 88644 is closer to
the rest of them on the chart than is 88646.

It'll be interesting to see how the 111 results will help clarify
things. Kits 88644, 119699, and 65678 lived between 1-2 miles apart in
Cape Breton for many, many years.

Allene

On 4/30/2011 6:54 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 4/30/2011 7:40:22 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> writes:
>
> Thanks, John. I will go back later and have another look. As I think you
> mentioned before, Version 2 puts one of my MacAdam lines down by his
> lonesome with two Dohertys and a Greierson between. Not sure what to
> make of it.
>
>
> If you look at the DNA for that McAdams sample I'll bet it's a little
> distant from the other McAdam samples that are clustered together. In the
> same charts there are two McLaughlin samples that are clustered oddly away
> from the rest of the group. Each of them matches 2 of 3 McLaughlin modal
> markers and the results from the one mismatched marker (the same in both) are
> much higher than anyone else in the cluster.
>
> That could mean these McLaughin samples really aren't valid members of our
> McLaughlin cluster. Or they could be just outlyers thrown into a
> different (and meaningless) part of the chart.
>
> If you look at the latest chart which omits some names (actually a lot of
> names) you'll see three McLaughlins in clusters at the top above the Ewing
> samples.
>
>
> 25105 McLaughlin
> 99506 McLaughlin
> 115267 McGlothin
>
> The last two are clustered together. Nearby are some Dunbars, Ferguson,
> Gwynn, Cullen, Alexander.
>
> 25105 McLaughlin matches none of the McLaughlin of Donegal markers
> although it is M222. In our project it's part of a small group of 5 of unknown
> origin with ancestors in the U.S. in Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri and Texas.
> Two of the samples we have are from Sorenson (not in fTDNA). The two
> other matching samples are not in the M222 project. So basically 25105 is a
> singleton in the charts. The placement in the charts could be correct but
> it might not be. I think these McLaughlins were probably Scottish but don't
> know for sure.
>
> 99506 and 115267 are members of our McLaughlin of Donegal cluster,
> matching 2 of 3 McLaughlin modal markers. They both mismatch at DYS 576. The
> McLaughlin modal is 17. These are 19 and 20. Both way off at that one marker
> but not identical to each other. The GD from the group modal in this
> cluster range from 1-5 with most at 3. One of these samples is a GD of 2 from
> the group modal; the other 5.
>
> The sample that is a GD of 5 from the group modal is quite distant from
> most others in the cluster. GDs run from 5-14. The sample that is a GD 2
> from the modal isn't noticeably more distant from other cluster members than
> any other sample.
>
> So why did the software throw them out of the McLaughlin of Donegal
> cluster and into this part of the chart? So far I don't have a clue.
>
> Also in the same cluster in the chart is a Doherty (73633). He too
> matches two of three McLaughlin modal markers. And also has the same high value
> at 576 (19). Another point of similarity is a relatively low value at CDYa
> = 36. The Doherty samples also has an odd value at YCAIIab 19-24 as
> opposed to the Doherty modal of 19-22. Was that enough for the software to toss
> him out of the Doherty cluster? Did the odd McLaughlin values at 576
> get them tossed out by the software?
>
> I've used Network (Fluxus) and that clustering software tends to do the
> same thing, fixating on values at certain markers. It often uses CDYab as a
> branching point when most DNA experts don't even pay attention to that
> marker.
>
> FamilyTree DNA employs sorting algorithms in the public web sites. As in
> any purely mechanical system I'm not sure ultimately how accurate it is.
>
> I don't know any other way to analyze the validity of this method other
> than to look at the DNA samples to try to figure out why the program did what
> it did. Bill used a program called Mathmatica to sort the samples into
> clusters.
>
> So I give up for a while. Maybe someone else can take a shot at it.
>
>
> 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

This thread: