DNA-R1B1C7-L ArchivesArchiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-05 > 1304375208
From: Stephen Forrest <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Bill Howard
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 18:26:48 -0400
Thanks for all the hard work! I skimmed your original and very interesting
RCC paper some months ago when you posted a link to it on the Hamilton
I had a few questions about the approach then which I didn't get around to
answering and will have to recall. The most significant however was that it
wasn't clear to me from the paper why there should be a linear relationship
between RCC and TMRCA. I recall that in the original paper you demonstrated
calibrating RCC within known Hamilton clades in Group A and B, but all that
data would be from within the last 600 years. It seems to me that inferring
relationships between groups over comparatively long time scales depends
heavily on that linearity at those time scales. Can you elaborate on the
evidence for this?
On 1 May 2011 12:03, Bill Howard <> wrote:
> Thanks, Thomas.
> I think the RCC approach to a tree will add to what others are doing. It is
> admittedly different, and as such, has gained some initial criticism from
> people who are wedded to the marker difference approach. But our success in
> forming closely related groups of haplotypes into clusters has been pretty
> extensive over many different surname groups. This application to the M222
> subclade is a bit different from the ones that focussed on surnames, and I
> think it has utility there, too. I am particularly interested in its
> application to haplogroups. While the use of haplogroup MODALs is NOT the
> way to proceed (since it deals with averages and not extreme values of the
> haplotype within each haplogroup) it appears to parrot the ISOGG sequence,
> except the RCC time scale of our tree shows time connections about a factor
> of two too low compared to the ISOGG dates. I think the difference is due
> to the use of modal values, not actual haplotypes within each haplogroup.
> Using actual extreme!
> haplotypes of each haplogroup is the way to proceed, but I have not done
> that yet. I do have pretty good confidence in the RCC time scale, however,
> to within about 20 percent, and it has a distinct advantage of providing a
> uniform time scale that is applicable over all haplogroups. Up to this
> point, I think researchers have been trying to date haplogroups using
> haplotypes within each haplogroup; our RCC approach presents a uniform time
> scale over all of them.
> I am hoping to get Bennett Greenspan's attention to the RCC approach. It
> can be used in conjunction with his TIP method to give testees relationships
> among all other testees, not just to the ones that they are closest to.
> This may be of more interest to geneticists than to genealogists, of
> course, but it takes all types of research to push this field forward!
> Do read the FAQ that John Mclaughlin just put up. It explains much of the
> background and approach to the RCC methodology that my published two papers
> might not have done. When I have time, I want to update it to include FAQs
> with respect to our new phylogenetic trees.
> Again, thanks for the nice comments.
> - Bye from Bill Howard
> On May 1, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Thomas Tucker wrote:
> > I have read the papers of Dr. Howard.
> > Thanks for the information. Bill...as a testee from M-222 #83687 I cannot
> follow the field language comprehensively. It is deep. My best insight
> analysis is that it is a way of using a method of distillation of an entire
> entity of information collected to form an objective answer through using
> more reliable time tested generational history (pedigrees) information to go
> from a A to Z to the bone. Good Luck.
> > Thomas Tucker
> 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