DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-12 > 1324572538


From: Susan Hedeen <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Bottleneck???
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:50:40 -0500
References: <4EF22A52.7020702@earthlink.net><000001ccc085$29e18290$7da487b0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <000001ccc085$29e18290$7da487b0$@com>


This list has spent considerable time attempting to dissect who is or
isn't UiNeil based on the DNA-- a read through just this last years
posts will reveal this. Additionally considerable time has been spent
on what group and/or individual(s) could have "fathered" the SNP in
light of the tendency to accept that it did not occur with Nial
himself. The comment regarding the genealogies was not necessarily one
to be taken literally in terms of genealogy perse but a devise to spawn
discussion and perhaps call into question the many assumptions to date.

Theories have abound when in fact there indeed is not enough evidence to
make many of the conclusions that many are tied to. Invariably the
modal as we know it comes into play every time analytical work is
undertaken to gain insight into individual lineages, clusters of
lineages, population studies of those clusters, etc., and it all comes
full circle then; and because of the assumptions to date brings us all
back into Ireland with nearly total disregard for the other evidences
that are beginning to emerge.

If the SNP is found in results out side of Ireland, it is assumed that
it must be because of migration out of Ireland. Although migration must
be considered as a factor, is it the only one?

If it is not found with in a result of a surname which is assumed to be
UiNeil associated then there must be an NPE -- this would then
extrapolate that all those ONeils who have tested and are not M222+ are
also NPE's. Really?

This assumption has spurred speculations regarding the voracity of the
histories which admittedly some were likely contrived; yet there has
been a bias in those assumptions as well as some are then suggested to
be disregarded because the groups associated with are not testing out
with the SNP (M222).

The idea that the SNP very possibly could have migrated in with a tribe
from the continent has repeatedly been disregarded with rehashes of the
Trinity Study which has been debated as well. In part this is due to
the coalescence in what many would consider a high percentage with in
certain areas as collected. The majority of these results are very
close to what the modal looks like today.

It seems quite unlikely to me that the SNP is much younger than previous
estimates -- it could be -- we haven't enough information to determine
that, but those much more professionally talented than I am have
concluded that it isn't younger and indeed may be older. If indeed that
is the case, then why the lack of more diversity?

For me the importance of this question goes to the heart of analytical
investigation regarding the primary project under which the results I am
following tested under.

When looking at about 110--115 M222+ results of men (just in that
project) spread across 4 primary surnames all close to modal, most
claiming Scot and/or Ulster Scot heritages, most sharing at least 1 off
modal marker with in the first 12 in addition to the on modal markers (a
couple of groups sharing more by 1--2) one could be moved to assume that
they all had a common progenitor as recently as 500 --900 years ago.
Yet the genealogical evidence does not support that at all among the 4
surnames.

There is some tentative as yet hypothetical evidence tying these
surnames together both with-in the individual surnames and collectively,
but not of that recent nature for most. Then when surveying their
matches outside of project to gain further insight into this scheme, I
find more of the same without being able to determine sufficient
genealogical or in many cases environmental evidence to tie those
outside of project to those of primary focus.

The idea of clade age is only pertinent to this inquiry tangentially and
not a focus of my inquiries. What is pertinent, however is the question
of why all of these are so close to modal because by virtue of the fact
that because they are it makes sorting out whether or not there is any
genealogical relationship among them very very difficult. Many if not
most have extended to 67 markers with some extending to 111 -- not much
help there -- for the most part the extended markers show nearly equal
values.

In trying to sort, I'm not proud -- I will ask those I believe are more
qualified to give an opinion directly. If I can find an e-mail address
I will make contact. I have brought parts of those communications to
this forum as I believe they do indeed suggest issues which not much
attention has been given.

I'm not married to the idea of a bottleneck; however I will not
disregard the possibility of it. The mere mention of it in view of my
inquiries does tie into my previously stated opinion that the SNP
migrated into to Ireland and the appearance of little diversity among
the hapotypes available for analysis.

That said, this list is full of exceptionally bright and talented
individuals with their own well thought out and researched opinions all
doing much the same I am -- trying to sort out their results and who are
equally interested in the DNA. It is through the discussion of these
opinions often with supporting evidences that further lines of inquiries
emerge, all of which hopefully assists us individually and collectively
in our interest in all of this. Susan



On 12/22/2011 3:39 AM, 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
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Susan Hedeen
> Sent: 21 December 2011 18:50
> To: dna-r1b1c7;
> Subject: [R-M222] Bottleneck???
>
> In light of the two coms from David Wilson& John Chandler in regard to
> diversity among M222+, could we indeed be looking at results consistent
> with a bottleneck? One which began early and became seated due to the
> close environment of Ireland, the constant warring, polygamy
> particularly among the rulers and sex rituals during festival times and
> the like prior to the Christian movement taking full hold -- that
> genetic skewing and/or bottleneck may indeed be at play.
>
> Otherwise, there is some other significant reason being missed even if
> it is only a couple of thousand years old as in that amount of time with
> the mutation rates as they are it is suggested we should seee more
> diversity.
>
> The only other explanation is that it is much younger and that throws
> out the genealogies associated w/the various clans and septs from which
> the associated M222+ surnames are attached.
>
> I personally do not believe it is younger -- and conventional wisdom
> suggested in reviewing results that it was older than Nial himself which
> pushes it back from the original guess bp to be commiserate with that
> 2000 bp mentioned.
>
> Lets suggest that perhaps the estimates some have suggested being much
> younger than Nial are because of skewing which occurs with bottlenecks
> and that perhaps the SNP migrated in, being formed up w/descendants
> previous migrating in and then became subject to the rest.
>
> This does then add some credence to those who have suggested that the
> SNP is older, migrated in, flourished, and then? possibly?
> bottlenecked? as a result which would retard the diversity.
>
> It might be worth the discussion of possibilities.
>
> Susan
> 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: