DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-12 > 1324548448

From: J David Grierson <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Bottleneck???
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:08:06 +1100
References: <4EF22A52.7020702@earthlink.net><000001ccc085$29e18290$7da487b0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <000001ccc085$29e18290$7da487b0$@com>

Further to Sandy's comment, I'm not sure that we gain anything by
pursuing the "age" of M222 at the moment. We have both insufficient
evidence (unless we go down the Bill Howard track) and what is clearly
an unbalanced swag of data. In my observation, the American need to find
roots earlier than the immigration data allows has led to the
possibility that the proverbial red herring is affecting the noses of
our hound-dogs.

The fact is that we have a lot of Irish data (from American immigrants)
that inevitably drags the M222 modal toward their genealogical history.
My own surname study is a good example of this phenomenon. I have, on
the face of it, about six out of sixty with paper connections to
Scotland, a couple to England, and the rest without verifiable
paperwork. Most went from Ireland during the famine or to seek religious
freedom, and most claim unknown heritage. And clearly, most genetically
M222 descend from the same family at about the time of the foundation of
the American colonies. So, my family modal is leaning towards them. I
therefore can't use that modal as a founder modal pre the migration era.

The modal has its uses for comparative purposes, but does NOT
necessarily represent the haplotype of the founder because of that bias.
Let's wait until we have more French, English and Scots participants
before we draw too many conclusions. What intrigues me is the reluctance
of Brits in particular to contribute their DNA. What real of imagined
historic events have led to this reluctance?

Compliments of the Season to all
David Grierson

On 22/12/2011 7:39 PM, Sandy Paterson wrote:
> I can't work out why you think that genealogies associated with clans and
> septs associated with Niall would be affected.
> All M222+ is DF23+. If M222+ is much younger than most people believe, it
> just means that the association is with DF23+ and not M222+. The discovery
> of new SNP's can't alter kinship.
> Put differently, suppose DF23 was discovered before M222. If that had been
> the case, we'd all have associated Niall with DF23, and be running around
> all excited that a new SNP downstream of DF23 had been discovered.
> You cannot base genealogy on when SNP's are or were discovered.
> Sandy

This thread: