¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io

Re: New FTDNA Beta Platform and Nigel McCarthy¡¯s Tree


 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

John,

?

Just call it an opinion!? I¡¯m quite happy for any such ideas to be shot down or argued out of court if that moves us collectively forward!

?

Nigel

?

Sent from for Windows

?

From: john brazil
Sent: 06 July 2022 00:09
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-CTS4466-Plus] New FTDNA Beta Platform and Nigel McCarthy¡¯s Tree

?

Thanks Nigel (as ever) for your expert opinion ?.?

?

John?

?

?

On Mon 4 Jul 2022, 15:18 Nigel McCarthy, <ndmccarthy10@...> wrote:

John,

?

For ease of reference I comment in caps embedded in your message.

?

I am going to write to Michael Sager (whom I hold in great esteem) about his dates for L21 and DF13, so will let you all know the outcome.? I anticipate an interesting answer!

?

Nigel

?

Sent from for Windows

?

From: john brazil
Sent: 04 July 2022 14:29
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-CTS4466-Plus] New FTDNA Beta Platform and Nigel McCarthy¡¯s Tree

?

Thanks for this Nigel.

?

I need to offer up these FTDNA dates, and yours, against the sparse and unreliable early medieval histories.

?

At first reading some of the FTDNA dates look late, and we have both discussed your dates in the recent past.

?

I accept your dates but wonder if, given the span of time involved, whether some of these SNPs (A541 or A151 for example) mutated a generation or more after the brothers, nephews, grandsons etc began to separate? YES THAT IS CERTAINLY A POSSIBILITY AND I HAVE STRESEED IN MY WRITINGS THAT MUTATIONS DO NOT NECESSARILY ARRIVE AT A REGULAR PACE. HOWEVER, THE OVERALL AVERAGE RATE WHEN USING MY COUNTING METHOD IS VERY CLOSE TO ONE PER GENERATION. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I ARGUE THAT A541 COULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED LATER THAN IN AILILL FLANN BEC. THE SNPs WHICH FOLLOW THAT (S1121, WHICHEVER WAS FIRST IN THE Z21065 // A1134 BLOCK AND WHICHEVER WAS FIRST IN THE A151 BLOCK) COULD HAVE SKIPPED A GENERATION, BUT ALIGNMENT CONSIDERATIONS (MAIN E?GHANACHT LINE, U? FHIDHGHEINTE AND U? LIATH?IN RESPECTIVELY) SUGGEST THIS WAS UNLIKELY FOR S1121, WHICH I ALIGN WITH LUGAIDH, SON OF AILILL FLANN BEC AND PROGENITOR OF THE SAID MAIN E?GHANACHT LINE.? And other potential side-branches have been lost to history or not yet discovered?

?

For example, you have speculated about the A151 'line', putatively U¨ª Liath¨¢in, migrating to and establishing themselves in east Cork, and I have further speculated that they subsequently found themselves initially in west Wales and then Cornwall and later afield in the Outer Hebrides and Scandinavia.

?

But the gap between family separation and SNP age can't be too great or we would be more likely to identify 'missing' side branches.

?

All the best,

?

John.

?

On Sun, Jul 3, 2022 at 10:38 AM Nigel McCarthy <ndmccarthy10@...> wrote:

Elizabeth,

?

Go to Discover More under the Additional Tests and Tools tab at the foot of a Big Y tester¡¯s FTDNA account.

?

Type in the terminal SNP (leading with R-) and complete the registration form (your own log-on details will suffice).

The next screen gives you the headline info.

The Scientific Details gives you the screen Susan dumped.

?

John K B please note that FTDNA concludes a date of about 450 A.D. (CE) for A541 (+/- 250 years). My own computation is based on fixing this nominally as 285 A.D. and I have presented arguments for this. Your own opinion was that it could have been a century or two earlier and this is suggested by my ¡®uncalibrated¡¯ calculations, so I have been willing to search for a justification of this (principally with respect to the expansion of U¨ª Liath¨¢in peoples). I will stick with 285 as I do believe that aligns very well with ancient genealogies.

?

Also of interest, FTDNA derives 1940 BCE as the mean for L21 (+/- 550 years) and 1730 BCE for DF13. These surprise me a little, as numerous ancient DNA samples imply (for me) about 500 ¨C 5500 years earlier, I.e. just on the 95% CL. Adopting such dates would eliminate the anomaly I have which has caused me to override the raw A541 calculation with a ¡®calibrated¡¯ date but I believe that is in part due to a few ?¡®hidden¡¯ STR forward then back-mutations which of course reduce the mutation count by two at a time.? By the time the second millennium is reached our dates should not differ by nearly as much.

?

Nigel

?

Sent from for Windows

?

From: Elizabeth
Sent: 03 July 2022 09:44
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-CTS4466-Plus] New FTDNA Beta Platform and Nigel McCarthy¡¯s Tree

?

Hello, Susan.?

I must confess my ignorance - I have no idea how to access the attached screenprint you sent us.?Please enlighten me!

Nigel, it does say there that they calculate based on SNP and STR test results, so they have caught up with you!

Elizabeth

?

?

?

Join [email protected] to automatically receive all group messages.