DNA-R1B1C7-L ArchivesArchiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-07 > 1311470466
From: tuulen <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Griers, Millikins, McAdams, Ewings.
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 21:21:06 -0400
Much of what you wrote, above, went right over my head, as I am only now
being introduced to technical analysis of DNA and of M222 in particular,
including a new and unfamiliar vocabulary. However, despite irregularities,
such analysis goes a long way toward separating fact from fiction. The
facts are limited but the fiction available is virtually endless!
Another interesting development is in how DNA-based research silently and
subtly eliminates the very notion of national borders. My initial discovery
was that there are places known as Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland,
among others. But then my focus turned to a thousand years ago and more, a
timeframe where I apparently have genetic relatives in a known region and of
my family's apparent origin in that region. Then Northern Ireland all but
vanished from the map, and soon later Ireland and Scotland all but vanished,
too. Now I am looking at a couple of big islands on the eastern side of the
Atlantic ocean, where no political boundaries exist and where people are
related only by DNA migration patterns. Wow!
Give me some time, but eventually I should get the hang of this.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM, <> wrote:
> In a message dated 7/23/2011 4:51:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> Your theory sounds convincingly good, and I look forward to learning more
> about it, please.
> There are links on the M222 site to several articles Bill had published in
> the online journal. JOGG. Plus an FAQ and a version of a limited M222
> tree produced.
> _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/_ (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/
> I used essentially the same database and ran a tree using Phylip and the
> Mega software programs which are based on genetic distance calculations
> the McGee utility.
> You can see it here:
> Many of the clusters are identical to those in Bill's charts using the
> correlation coefficient technique. They are not however identical and the
> Mega program only gives a short time scale at the bottom on the tree.
> In particular I'd like to draw attention to two surnames discussed in
> recent posts (McGoverns and Howles). In both versions they cluster
> The McGoverns were Irish, part of the large collection of tribes said to
> descend from half-brothers of Nial. As such they are not Ui Neill
> (descendants of Nial) but Connachta, based on the earlier tribe name used
> by Nial's
> ancestors in Ireland, the Dal Cuinn. The fact that they and other
> Connachta septs are M222 has always indicated to me that the M222 SNP did
> originate with Nial but with some earlier ancestor. Which one would be
> impossible to state since the pedigrees prior to NIal and his father,
> Mughmedoin, are unreliable. MacLysaght places the sept in Co. Cavan in
> west to NW of Ireland.
> The Howles in the tree descend from one man, an Epaphroditus Howle, b.c.
> 1685, New Kent Co., VA, who came to the United States from England. I've
> also seen the surname listed as a sept of the McDougals of Argyllshire.
> In this case we have no known surname connections between the McGoverns
> and Howles. And no geographical correlation as well.
> We could actually look at the DNA in question.
> There are two points of similarity between McGovern and Howle DNA. 391=
> 10 and and CDYb = 40. 391=10 is as we discussed numerous times on this
> is the most mismatching modal marker in the M222 project. 15.5% of the
> project had this value at the date the percentage was derived. Otherwise
> there are no points of similarity except that both are close to the M222
> modal. Gd's against the M222 modal are 4-5. GDs between the McGoverns
> Howles are about 5. So they are close in genetic distance. That is what
> versions of the M222 tree are showing as well.
> For me to believe this is a true picture of the relationship between
> McGovern and Howle though I would have to assume the 391=10 was ancestral
> both and not just a parallel mutation. I think the CDY results are
> and should be discarded for analysis.
> What are we then to make of the other 391=10 results in the project? Are
> they all closely related as well? We've been around and around on that
> before. 391=10 does appear prominently in several Connachta sept's DNA,
> including McGoverns, O'Reillys, some O'Byrnes and miscellaneous Connachta
> surnames. It also occurs in many Scottish surnames, none of which have
> known links to Ireland or the Connachta.
> Bill of course informed me I was wrong about this and should be looking
> for dissimilarities rather than similarities in the DNA. That's only
> if you think these two samples are indeed related and one MUST have evolved
> from the other. I am not so sure that is the case. From my viewpoint
> 391=10 is a shaky foundation to build much from. And CDY is worthless.
> I could be wrong as well.
> I think we should be looking at the DNA itself to see why this mechanical
> method linked samples together.
> 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
|Re: [R-M222] Griers, Millikins, McAdams, Ewings. by tuulen <>|