Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
John Plant
Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
A partly fulfilled aim of this Y-DNA project has been to reach a better
understanding of Plant-like names in general. A remaining aim of the
Plantagenet project is to establish a Y-DNA signature for the
late-medieval kings of England. It is often misunderstood that such a
project might relate to all descendants of the Plantagenets (of which
there are many) but a Y-DNA project relates only to purely male lines of
descent, with no female at any point in the descending line: this is
because the y-chromosome is passed only from father to son and females
do not carry it.
This project was begun in 2001 with the Oxford Ancestors testing
company; but, because the Plant/Plantt haplotype is close to the WAMH as
it is now known, we soon converted to the higher marker tests offered by
FamilyTreeDNA.
Right from the outset, six out of seven of the miscellaneous Plants who
were tested matched and the trend continued to eleven out of twenty,
indicating that Plant was a single-ancestor, rather than a multi-origin,
surname; this led on to a publication in the academic journal, Nomina
[John S Plant (2005) `Modern methods and a controversial surname:
Plant', Nomina, 28, pp 115-33] in which I argued, on the basis of the
DNA and name-distribution evidence, that Plant had the Welsh borderlands
meaning `offspring' rather than one of various other meanings, including
`gardener', that had earlier been suggested in Surname Dictionaries. The
new finding seemed to have implications for Plant-like names more
generally and, in a further publication soon to appear, I have argued
that generative (offspring) aspects of the vegetable soul, which was
important in late-medieval beliefs, played a significant role in the
adoption of the royal Plantagenet name.
Throughout this time, I have also been attempting to establish a Y-DNA
signature for the Plantagenets. There have been published claims that
the names Somerset, Cornwell, Warren and, more contentiously in the
nineteenth century, Plant/Plantt, all descend down male-to-male lines
from the Plantagenet family. However, Cornwell and Warren appear to be
multi-origin surnames and there is no convincing basis for taking any
particular result as being the inherited Plantagenet Y-DNA signature. It
is probably the Somerset family, including such illustrious members as
the Duke of Beaufort and Lord Raglan, who hold the best claim to being
intact male-line descendants of the Plantagenets; but, there is no Y-DNA
result to report for them so far.
The study already illustrates how Y-DNA results for a very ordinary
surname, such as Plant, can lead on to the reappraisal of matters of
some historical significance. Following on from my Nomina 28 paper I am
publishing a further paper in Volume 30 of Nomina: in this, I conclude
that it seems that Plantagenet had "a `hairy broom shoot' implication of
virility, strong limbs, and a robust constitution, with bawdy
connotations of virility that evidently delayed the name's acceptance
until late in this dynasty's reign" [John S Plant (2007) `The tardy
adoption of the Plantagenet surname', Nomina, to appear in Vol 30, pp
57-84]. This is on the basis of evidence too lengthy to repeat here;
and, indeed, the editor of Nomina has asked me not to reveal any detail
until paper copies of Nomina 30 have been distributed to its subscribers
which will probably be towards the end of this year. An on-line
approximation to my earlier Nomina 28 paper (I plan to make camera-ready
copy available in due course) is available at:
http://cogprints.org/5462/
Some recent discussion of the Plantagenet Y-DNA project can be found in
a thread at:
http://genforum.genealogy.com/plantagen ... /1477.html
A current task is to obtain a list of addresses for the Somerset family
so that they can be encouraged to be Y-DNA tested. In order to break the
ice, I am planning to send them a copy of my Nomina 30 paper about the
Plantagenet name. I have tried approaching Prof Bryan Sykes and others
to join this quest, since they might carry more weight than me in an
official approach to the nobility; but, in the absence of a more eminent
person, it would seem that this task might fall to me. A few addresses
for the Somersets are given at:
http://www.thepeerage.com/i1249.htm
http://www.worldroots.com/foundation/br ... en1436.htm
and Somerset volunteers are welcome to sign up for a Y-DNA test at:
https://www.familytreedna.com/surname_j ... ecial=true
Any contributions towards the objectives of this project, such as
further addresses for the Somersets, would be welcome.
Dr John S Plant
Co-ordinator of the Plant-like names Y-DNA project
understanding of Plant-like names in general. A remaining aim of the
Plantagenet project is to establish a Y-DNA signature for the
late-medieval kings of England. It is often misunderstood that such a
project might relate to all descendants of the Plantagenets (of which
there are many) but a Y-DNA project relates only to purely male lines of
descent, with no female at any point in the descending line: this is
because the y-chromosome is passed only from father to son and females
do not carry it.
This project was begun in 2001 with the Oxford Ancestors testing
company; but, because the Plant/Plantt haplotype is close to the WAMH as
it is now known, we soon converted to the higher marker tests offered by
FamilyTreeDNA.
Right from the outset, six out of seven of the miscellaneous Plants who
were tested matched and the trend continued to eleven out of twenty,
indicating that Plant was a single-ancestor, rather than a multi-origin,
surname; this led on to a publication in the academic journal, Nomina
[John S Plant (2005) `Modern methods and a controversial surname:
Plant', Nomina, 28, pp 115-33] in which I argued, on the basis of the
DNA and name-distribution evidence, that Plant had the Welsh borderlands
meaning `offspring' rather than one of various other meanings, including
`gardener', that had earlier been suggested in Surname Dictionaries. The
new finding seemed to have implications for Plant-like names more
generally and, in a further publication soon to appear, I have argued
that generative (offspring) aspects of the vegetable soul, which was
important in late-medieval beliefs, played a significant role in the
adoption of the royal Plantagenet name.
Throughout this time, I have also been attempting to establish a Y-DNA
signature for the Plantagenets. There have been published claims that
the names Somerset, Cornwell, Warren and, more contentiously in the
nineteenth century, Plant/Plantt, all descend down male-to-male lines
from the Plantagenet family. However, Cornwell and Warren appear to be
multi-origin surnames and there is no convincing basis for taking any
particular result as being the inherited Plantagenet Y-DNA signature. It
is probably the Somerset family, including such illustrious members as
the Duke of Beaufort and Lord Raglan, who hold the best claim to being
intact male-line descendants of the Plantagenets; but, there is no Y-DNA
result to report for them so far.
The study already illustrates how Y-DNA results for a very ordinary
surname, such as Plant, can lead on to the reappraisal of matters of
some historical significance. Following on from my Nomina 28 paper I am
publishing a further paper in Volume 30 of Nomina: in this, I conclude
that it seems that Plantagenet had "a `hairy broom shoot' implication of
virility, strong limbs, and a robust constitution, with bawdy
connotations of virility that evidently delayed the name's acceptance
until late in this dynasty's reign" [John S Plant (2007) `The tardy
adoption of the Plantagenet surname', Nomina, to appear in Vol 30, pp
57-84]. This is on the basis of evidence too lengthy to repeat here;
and, indeed, the editor of Nomina has asked me not to reveal any detail
until paper copies of Nomina 30 have been distributed to its subscribers
which will probably be towards the end of this year. An on-line
approximation to my earlier Nomina 28 paper (I plan to make camera-ready
copy available in due course) is available at:
http://cogprints.org/5462/
Some recent discussion of the Plantagenet Y-DNA project can be found in
a thread at:
http://genforum.genealogy.com/plantagen ... /1477.html
A current task is to obtain a list of addresses for the Somerset family
so that they can be encouraged to be Y-DNA tested. In order to break the
ice, I am planning to send them a copy of my Nomina 30 paper about the
Plantagenet name. I have tried approaching Prof Bryan Sykes and others
to join this quest, since they might carry more weight than me in an
official approach to the nobility; but, in the absence of a more eminent
person, it would seem that this task might fall to me. A few addresses
for the Somersets are given at:
http://www.thepeerage.com/i1249.htm
http://www.worldroots.com/foundation/br ... en1436.htm
and Somerset volunteers are welcome to sign up for a Y-DNA test at:
https://www.familytreedna.com/surname_j ... ecial=true
Any contributions towards the objectives of this project, such as
further addresses for the Somersets, would be welcome.
Dr John S Plant
Co-ordinator of the Plant-like names Y-DNA project
-
taf
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
On Aug 1, 2:55 am, John Plant <j.s.pl...@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote:
What do the other 9 out of 20 look like? Is there similarity among
them, such as might represent a second group, or are they random?
Likewise, what are their claimed pedigrees? Is there a disconnect
between the claimed pedigrees and the DNA results, or is this being
done without an underlying genealogical context?
This is a misrepresentation. It is not that the surnames Cornwell
(sic) or Warren are representative of Plantagenet descent, but that
some known Plantagenet descendants (might) have the surnames (actually
Cornwall in the first case). This is an entirely different prospect.
As a general rule, surnames are not a good indicator of specific
descent. As to Plant, well, we all know what 19th century speculation
is worth. Unless you have a specific descent in mind, you are
throwing darts with a blindfold.
There is a convincing basis for taking one specific type, and it is
the sine qua non of the approach - it must be pedigree based. Even
were Cornwell to be a single-origin family, you would have to know the
descent, generation by generation, for the connection to be
meaningful. Otherwise, you are just connecting one family of unknown
origin to another family of unknown origin. (In this case, you would
certainly want more than one descent to identify the type.)
Given the illegitimate connections as well as the number of
generations, you would certainly want multiple options - you want to
compare the Somerset type with a Warenne or Cornwall for anyone to
really trust it.
Umm. historical significance??
Of course, the alternative interpretation is that it was never a
surname, just the nickname of a single member. Then someone wanting
to emphasize a genealogical connection for political purposes adopted
his ancestor's nickname as a surname.
Your model implies that the surname was there, present but suppressed,
though the reigns of 11 monarchs (at a time, by the way, that no
monarchs used surnames), monarchs with dramatic differences in
character, all of whom were too embarrassed to be associated with
"bawdy connotations of virility". Then one member who wanted to show
himself a more appropriate successor than the guy on the throne - he
goes out of his way to adopt a name with "bawdy connotations of
virility". I am having problems with the motivations.
taf
A partly fulfilled aim of this Y-DNA project has been to reach a better
understanding of Plant-like names in general. A remaining aim of the
Plantagenet project is to establish a Y-DNA signature for the
late-medieval kings of England.
Right from the outset, six out of seven of the miscellaneous Plants who
were tested matched and the trend continued to eleven out of twenty,
indicating that Plant was a single-ancestor, rather than a multi-origin,
surname;
What do the other 9 out of 20 look like? Is there similarity among
them, such as might represent a second group, or are they random?
Likewise, what are their claimed pedigrees? Is there a disconnect
between the claimed pedigrees and the DNA results, or is this being
done without an underlying genealogical context?
Throughout this time, I have also been attempting to establish a Y-DNA
signature for the Plantagenets. There have been published claims that
the names Somerset, Cornwell, Warren and, more contentiously in the
nineteenth century, Plant/Plantt, all descend down male-to-male lines
from the Plantagenet family.
This is a misrepresentation. It is not that the surnames Cornwell
(sic) or Warren are representative of Plantagenet descent, but that
some known Plantagenet descendants (might) have the surnames (actually
Cornwall in the first case). This is an entirely different prospect.
As a general rule, surnames are not a good indicator of specific
descent. As to Plant, well, we all know what 19th century speculation
is worth. Unless you have a specific descent in mind, you are
throwing darts with a blindfold.
However, Cornwell and Warren appear to be
multi-origin surnames and there is no convincing basis for taking any
particular result as being the inherited Plantagenet Y-DNA signature.
There is a convincing basis for taking one specific type, and it is
the sine qua non of the approach - it must be pedigree based. Even
were Cornwell to be a single-origin family, you would have to know the
descent, generation by generation, for the connection to be
meaningful. Otherwise, you are just connecting one family of unknown
origin to another family of unknown origin. (In this case, you would
certainly want more than one descent to identify the type.)
It
is probably the Somerset family, including such illustrious members as
the Duke of Beaufort and Lord Raglan, who hold the best claim to being
intact male-line descendants of the Plantagenets; but, there is no Y-DNA
result to report for them so far.
Given the illegitimate connections as well as the number of
generations, you would certainly want multiple options - you want to
compare the Somerset type with a Warenne or Cornwall for anyone to
really trust it.
The study already illustrates how Y-DNA results for a very ordinary
surname, such as Plant, can lead on to the reappraisal of matters of
some historical significance.
Umm. historical significance??
Following on from my Nomina 28 paper I am
publishing a further paper in Volume 30 of Nomina: in this, I conclude
that it seems that Plantagenet had "a `hairy broom shoot' implication of
virility, strong limbs, and a robust constitution, with bawdy
connotations of virility that evidently delayed the name's acceptance
until late in this dynasty's reign" [John S Plant (2007) `The tardy
adoption of the Plantagenet surname', Nomina, to appear in Vol 30, pp
57-84].
Of course, the alternative interpretation is that it was never a
surname, just the nickname of a single member. Then someone wanting
to emphasize a genealogical connection for political purposes adopted
his ancestor's nickname as a surname.
Your model implies that the surname was there, present but suppressed,
though the reigns of 11 monarchs (at a time, by the way, that no
monarchs used surnames), monarchs with dramatic differences in
character, all of whom were too embarrassed to be associated with
"bawdy connotations of virility". Then one member who wanted to show
himself a more appropriate successor than the guy on the throne - he
goes out of his way to adopt a name with "bawdy connotations of
virility". I am having problems with the motivations.
taf
-
John Brandon
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
Your model implies that the surname was there, present but suppressed,
though the reigns of 11 monarchs (at a time, by the way, that no
monarchs used surnames), monarchs with dramatic differences in
character, all of whom were too embarrassed to be associated with
"bawdy connotations of virility". Then one member who wanted to show
himself a more appropriate successor than the guy on the throne - he
goes out of his way to adopt a name with "bawdy connotations of
virility". I am having problems with the motivations.
taf
Maybe you're just too hairy and virile to understand, Todd. This
might be a smooth man's dilemma ...
-
John Plant
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
John Brandon wrote:
Taf/John,
As I said, the editor of Nomina does not want me to reveal too much yet.
However, briefly, this is explained as follows:
(1) there was particularly unfortunate sense around the Welsh Marches
when the reputation of Geoffrey Plante Genest came to England;
(2) Richard Duke of York, at the times of the Wars of the Roses, had to
take seriously the gossip of the common folk (rather than just relying
on the official records of religiously trained clerks);
(3) in the intervening years, bawdy sense of `planting' had been
sanitized to a large extent from man's generation to godly creation; and,
(4) use of the Plantagenet surname took off particularly during Tudor
times by when there was less concern for the reputation of the preceding
regime.
John
Your model implies that the surname was there, present but suppressed,
though the reigns of 11 monarchs (at a time, by the way, that no
monarchs used surnames), monarchs with dramatic differences in
character, all of whom were too embarrassed to be associated with
"bawdy connotations of virility". Then one member who wanted to show
himself a more appropriate successor than the guy on the throne - he
goes out of his way to adopt a name with "bawdy connotations of
virility". I am having problems with the motivations.
taf
Maybe you're just too hairy and virile to understand, Todd. This
might be a smooth man's dilemma ...
Taf/John,
As I said, the editor of Nomina does not want me to reveal too much yet.
However, briefly, this is explained as follows:
(1) there was particularly unfortunate sense around the Welsh Marches
when the reputation of Geoffrey Plante Genest came to England;
(2) Richard Duke of York, at the times of the Wars of the Roses, had to
take seriously the gossip of the common folk (rather than just relying
on the official records of religiously trained clerks);
(3) in the intervening years, bawdy sense of `planting' had been
sanitized to a large extent from man's generation to godly creation; and,
(4) use of the Plantagenet surname took off particularly during Tudor
times by when there was less concern for the reputation of the preceding
regime.
John
-
John Plant
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
taf wrote:
Taf
Apart from a couple, whose male lines both originated in south
Lincolnshire around 1800, these 9 have random haplotypes. This is
consistent with expectation for a surname that originated from a single
ancestor, since, in the centuries since then, about half of the lines
are expected to have a false paternity event (FPE) somewhere in the line
of descent (unfaithful wife, adoption, unmarried mother giving child her
own surname, etc). This phenomenon of FPEs is widely documented in
DNA-genealogy literature.
John
On Aug 1, 2:55 am, John Plant <j.s.pl...@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote:
Right from the outset, six out of seven of the miscellaneous Plants who
were tested matched and the trend continued to eleven out of twenty,
indicating that Plant was a single-ancestor, rather than a multi-origin,
surname;
What do the other 9 out of 20 look like? Is there similarity among
them, such as might represent a second group, or are they random?
Likewise, what are their claimed pedigrees? Is there a disconnect
between the claimed pedigrees and the DNA results, or is this being
done without an underlying genealogical context?
Taf
Apart from a couple, whose male lines both originated in south
Lincolnshire around 1800, these 9 have random haplotypes. This is
consistent with expectation for a surname that originated from a single
ancestor, since, in the centuries since then, about half of the lines
are expected to have a false paternity event (FPE) somewhere in the line
of descent (unfaithful wife, adoption, unmarried mother giving child her
own surname, etc). This phenomenon of FPEs is widely documented in
DNA-genealogy literature.
John
-
taf
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
On Aug 2, 1:31 am, John Plant <j.s.pl...@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote:
The phenomenon has been widely discussed, but not widely documented.
To document it, you actually have to show that people who 'should'
have the same ancestor don't have the same type. All too often, though
this is assumed rather than documented. Are any of yours documented
FPEs?
taf
taf wrote:
On Aug 1, 2:55 am, John Plant <j.s.pl...@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote:
Right from the outset, six out of seven of the miscellaneous Plants who
were tested matched and the trend continued to eleven out of twenty,
indicating that Plant was a single-ancestor, rather than a multi-origin,
surname;
What do the other 9 out of 20 look like? Is there similarity among
them, such as might represent a second group, or are they random?
Likewise, what are their claimed pedigrees? Is there a disconnect
between the claimed pedigrees and the DNA results, or is this being
done without an underlying genealogical context?
Taf
Apart from a couple, whose male lines both originated in south
Lincolnshire around 1800, these 9 have random haplotypes. This is
consistent with expectation for a surname that originated from a single
ancestor, since, in the centuries since then, about half of the lines
are expected to have a false paternity event (FPE) somewhere in the line
of descent (unfaithful wife, adoption, unmarried mother giving child her
own surname, etc). This phenomenon of FPEs is widely documented in
DNA-genealogy literature.
The phenomenon has been widely discussed, but not widely documented.
To document it, you actually have to show that people who 'should'
have the same ancestor don't have the same type. All too often, though
this is assumed rather than documented. Are any of yours documented
FPEs?
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
Apart from a couple, whose male lines both originated in south
Lincolnshire around 1800, these 9 have random haplotypes. This is
consistent with expectation for a surname that originated from a single
ancestor, since, in the centuries since then, about half of the lines
are expected to have a false paternity event (FPE) somewhere in the line
of descent (unfaithful wife, adoption, unmarried mother giving child her
own surname, etc). This phenomenon of FPEs is widely documented in
DNA-genealogy literature.
The phenomenon has been widely discussed, but not widely documented.
To document it, you actually have to show that people who 'should'
have the same ancestor don't have the same type. All too often, though
this is assumed rather than documented. Are any of yours documented
FPEs?
taf
The Plant lines studied are just those of amateur genealogists who have
traced themselves back typically to around 1800, sometimes further. In one
case, the finding that a Plant did not match the main Plant family
reinforced the idea that his surname traced back to an IGI record for an
unmarried mother.
For documentation on FPEs, a Google Scholar search on "non paternity
events" brings up a lot.
John
-
John Plant
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
taf wrote:
With this, I am in agreement, except that I don't really see what the
problem is with having biassed people tested. It may well be a reality
check for them.
Again, you are right that there is confusion about what precisely is
meant by FPE. The term seems to have started out as `non paternity
event' and `false paternity event' was then deemed by many to be a
better term. In experimental science, the rule of parsimony dictates
that one should not enter the realms of more detail than the evidence
allows. More generally, what precisely is implied by a term depends on
the context and what precisely is inferred depends on the reader. I can
not now recall what precisely was said by whom when and then
reinterpreted by whoever whenever; but, broadly, "many matches for a
surname" after many generations suggests a low "fpe" rate and single
origins, whereas a finding of hardly any matches can imply either many
different origins or quite a lot of subsequent "fpe". Hence the terms
used are quite loose: "modal or single ancestor" or "multi-origin" with
the latter, in particular, raising the question: What "origin" when?
OK, this is far from telling which medieval individual blew his/her nose
when; but, it can at least tell us more than we previously knew in the
absence of fully documented genealogies for everyone (i.e. the real world).
This appears repeatedly in the nineteenth century; but, don't blame me
for that! I am here to disprove it!
On a practical point, there is a general problem of talking strangers
into being Y-DNA tested. They tend to be suspicious for all sorts of
reasons. The problem can be even greater when they believe they have a
noble descent - they may think they have much to lose and nothing to
gain. The stronger the documentary evidence, the greater the problem.
John
A recent survey shows that relatively many surnames were thought by
one-name genealogists to be single-ancestor and have now been found by
Y-DNA testing to have *far* fewer than 50% in any one cluster if indeed
there are any clusters at all. This calls into doubt former assumptions by
many about their surname.
This should come as no surprise, given how pig-headed some
genealogists can be about their pet theories. We continually see the
argument "my name is XXXX, so I must be related to the famous Lord
XXXX", and the vast majority of people who write a history of their
family begin with a summary that "THE XXXX family . . . . " based on
the implied assumption that the family represents a unity. This is
fed by the "your coat of arms" and "your family history" marketers,
whose business model is based on convincing the customer that this is,
in fact the case. It can even be fed by the DNA testing firms. A
cousin of mine had his DNA tested, along with someone of a completely
different family with the same surname. They were told that they were,
in fact related, which reinforced their preconception. The small print
showed that they were just as closely related as any two people of
English descent - in other words, not related at all. When it comes
down to it, drawing this from one-name studiers is probably biasing
the same, as many one-namers are doing their studies for precisely
this reason - the assumption that there is a relationship.
With this, I am in agreement, except that I don't really see what the
problem is with having biassed people tested. It may well be a reality
check for them.
Specifically, there are ways other than FPE to have a different type
appear among a surname - mimicking for example. If Johannes Plaunte
moves from Upper Silesia to a town in England with several Plant
families, as likely as not his descendants will become Plant, and his
Y-type lineage will show up exactly the same as an FPE in the Plants
in the same generation, but will not be the result of an FPE (or are
you using FPE so imprecisely that it includes anything but true
paternity - a use which assumes single origin in the definition).
Again, you are right that there is confusion about what precisely is
meant by FPE. The term seems to have started out as `non paternity
event' and `false paternity event' was then deemed by many to be a
better term. In experimental science, the rule of parsimony dictates
that one should not enter the realms of more detail than the evidence
allows. More generally, what precisely is implied by a term depends on
the context and what precisely is inferred depends on the reader. I can
not now recall what precisely was said by whom when and then
reinterpreted by whoever whenever; but, broadly, "many matches for a
surname" after many generations suggests a low "fpe" rate and single
origins, whereas a finding of hardly any matches can imply either many
different origins or quite a lot of subsequent "fpe". Hence the terms
used are quite loose: "modal or single ancestor" or "multi-origin" with
the latter, in particular, raising the question: What "origin" when?
OK, this is far from telling which medieval individual blew his/her nose
when; but, it can at least tell us more than we previously knew in the
absence of fully documented genealogies for everyone (i.e. the real world).
Belief is a poor basis for comparison. A lot of people believe a lot
of things without the slightest basis (for example, apparently someone
believed that the Plants descended from the Plantagenets, with no more
basis than that the names start with the same five letters).
This appears repeatedly in the nineteenth century; but, don't blame me
for that! I am here to disprove it!
On a practical point, there is a general problem of talking strangers
into being Y-DNA tested. They tend to be suspicious for all sorts of
reasons. The problem can be even greater when they believe they have a
noble descent - they may think they have much to lose and nothing to
gain. The stronger the documentary evidence, the greater the problem.
John
-
taf
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
On Aug 6, 3:24 am, John Plant <j.s.pl...@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote:
I am not saying that learning this is a bad thing, just that it
shouldn't be surprising in the least that these unreasonable
expectations are found to be erroneous. It is like saying that a lot
of Weekly World News readers are surprised by news that there are no
aliens. That may be the case, but it shouldn't surprise the rest of
us.
Well, given that the only non-paternity events (ones where there was
no father) are found in religious texts, I can see why "false" is
preferred.
The first is quite scientific, the latter completely non-scientific.
Precision in terminology is critical - you can't have a scientific
approach using terminology so fuzzy that it could mean anything, or be
understood as meaning everything. It is much more common for non-
scientists to misunderstand or misapply precise terms, or to use novel
terms in such a fuzzy manner.
I can
And here is more fuzziness. When you were willing to tolerate a 26%
error in the 50% calculation, it sounds like much of this is more an
art than the science it aspires to.
Tell them they are the 'control'.
taf
taf wrote:
A recent survey shows that relatively many surnames were thought by
one-name genealogists to be single-ancestor and have now been found by
Y-DNA testing to have *far* fewer than 50% in any one cluster if indeed
there are any clusters at all. This calls into doubt former assumptions by
many about their surname.
This should come as no surprise, given how pig-headed some
genealogists can be about their pet theories. . . . . When it comes
down to it, drawing this from one-name studiers is probably biasing
the same, as many one-namers are doing their studies for precisely
this reason - the assumption that there is a relationship.
With this, I am in agreement, except that I don't really see what the
problem is with having biassed people tested. It may well be a reality
check for them.
I am not saying that learning this is a bad thing, just that it
shouldn't be surprising in the least that these unreasonable
expectations are found to be erroneous. It is like saying that a lot
of Weekly World News readers are surprised by news that there are no
aliens. That may be the case, but it shouldn't surprise the rest of
us.
Specifically, there are ways other than FPE to have a different type
appear among a surname - mimicking for example. If Johannes Plaunte
moves from Upper Silesia to a town in England with several Plant
families, as likely as not his descendants will become Plant, and his
Y-type lineage will show up exactly the same as an FPE in the Plants
in the same generation, but will not be the result of an FPE (or are
you using FPE so imprecisely that it includes anything but true
paternity - a use which assumes single origin in the definition).
Again, you are right that there is confusion about what precisely is
meant by FPE. The term seems to have started out as `non paternity
event' and `false paternity event' was then deemed by many to be a
better term.
Well, given that the only non-paternity events (ones where there was
no father) are found in religious texts, I can see why "false" is
preferred.
In experimental science, the rule of parsimony dictates
that one should not enter the realms of more detail than the evidence
allows. More generally, what precisely is implied by a term depends on
the context and what precisely is inferred depends on the reader.
The first is quite scientific, the latter completely non-scientific.
Precision in terminology is critical - you can't have a scientific
approach using terminology so fuzzy that it could mean anything, or be
understood as meaning everything. It is much more common for non-
scientists to misunderstand or misapply precise terms, or to use novel
terms in such a fuzzy manner.
I can
not now recall what precisely was said by whom when and then
reinterpreted by whoever whenever; but, broadly, "many matches for a
surname" after many generations suggests a low "fpe" rate and single
origins, whereas a finding of hardly any matches can imply either many
different origins or quite a lot of subsequent "fpe". Hence the terms
used are quite loose: "modal or single ancestor" or "multi-origin" with
the latter, in particular, raising the question: What "origin" when?
And here is more fuzziness. When you were willing to tolerate a 26%
error in the 50% calculation, it sounds like much of this is more an
art than the science it aspires to.
On a practical point, there is a general problem of talking strangers
into being Y-DNA tested. They tend to be suspicious for all sorts of
reasons. The problem can be even greater when they believe they have a
noble descent - they may think they have much to lose and nothing to
gain. The stronger the documentary evidence, the greater the problem.
Tell them they are the 'control'.
taf