D.N.A.
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
D.N.A.
The question of using DNA to determine ancestry can have its pitfalls.
It is fairly obvious that not all males were fertile enough to inseminate
their partners successfully to continue the family, particularly those that came
from a fairly closed caste - for instance there were many instances in small
French communities that most of the villagers were fairly closely related
between the 14th and 17th Centuries. This was also the case in farming
communities in England at the same time. The same happened in other stratas of
society.
A case in point - were the current head of a French branch of my family, the
Duport de Loriol, comte de Loriol by patent in 1742, to use his DNA to prove
descendance from the original line, my branch the de Loriol, he would be
horrified to find out that his biological ancestor was the son of a Lyon Coal
merchant in the 1790s, because his 'legal' ancestor could not procure any heirs
and therefore adopted two children to continue the family line. This, I
discovered some years ago when I was researching this line and discovered that I
could not find the birth registers for the two children of the 2nd Comte de
Loriol, instead I discovered the legal adoption of two children shortly after
they were born! It wouldn't be remotely surprising to discover that a
significant proportion of the English and European gentry, as well as the Royal
Houses, do not share the same DNA as some of their purported ancestors however
'Legal' their ancestry is.
regards
Peter ( de Loriol)
It is fairly obvious that not all males were fertile enough to inseminate
their partners successfully to continue the family, particularly those that came
from a fairly closed caste - for instance there were many instances in small
French communities that most of the villagers were fairly closely related
between the 14th and 17th Centuries. This was also the case in farming
communities in England at the same time. The same happened in other stratas of
society.
A case in point - were the current head of a French branch of my family, the
Duport de Loriol, comte de Loriol by patent in 1742, to use his DNA to prove
descendance from the original line, my branch the de Loriol, he would be
horrified to find out that his biological ancestor was the son of a Lyon Coal
merchant in the 1790s, because his 'legal' ancestor could not procure any heirs
and therefore adopted two children to continue the family line. This, I
discovered some years ago when I was researching this line and discovered that I
could not find the birth registers for the two children of the 2nd Comte de
Loriol, instead I discovered the legal adoption of two children shortly after
they were born! It wouldn't be remotely surprising to discover that a
significant proportion of the English and European gentry, as well as the Royal
Houses, do not share the same DNA as some of their purported ancestors however
'Legal' their ancestry is.
regards
Peter ( de Loriol)
-
Gjest
Re: D.N.A.
"The question of using DNA to determine ancestry can have its pitfalls.
It is fairly obvious that not all males were fertile enough to inseminate
their partners successfully to continue the family, particularly those that came
from a fairly closed caste - for instance there were many instances in small
French communities that most of the villagers were fairly closely related
between the 14th and 17th Centuries."
You are claiming that they were so in-bred that that caused them to be infertile?
Will
It is fairly obvious that not all males were fertile enough to inseminate
their partners successfully to continue the family, particularly those that came
from a fairly closed caste - for instance there were many instances in small
French communities that most of the villagers were fairly closely related
between the 14th and 17th Centuries."
You are claiming that they were so in-bred that that caused them to be infertile?
Will
-
Cece
Re: D.N.A.
WJhonson@aol.com wrote in message news:<2C103726.7CB97C4F.007FA2F6@aol.com>...
There is a theory that too much inbreeding results in infertility,
either lack of conception or failure to carry to term.
In England, adoptees are not heirs. Never have been. Only children
born after the parents married each other can be heirs. But, the
child of a married woman is assumed to be the child of her husband --
unless he's been provably away from her for a long time, like out of
the country for a year or more before the birth.
Scotland has a very different view, with several titles having gone to
bastards even though there were legitimate sons.
Cece
"The question of using DNA to determine ancestry can have its pitfalls.
It is fairly obvious that not all males were fertile enough to inseminate
their partners successfully to continue the family, particularly those that came
from a fairly closed caste - for instance there were many instances in small
French communities that most of the villagers were fairly closely related
between the 14th and 17th Centuries."
You are claiming that they were so in-bred that that caused them to be infertile?
Will
There is a theory that too much inbreeding results in infertility,
either lack of conception or failure to carry to term.
In England, adoptees are not heirs. Never have been. Only children
born after the parents married each other can be heirs. But, the
child of a married woman is assumed to be the child of her husband --
unless he's been provably away from her for a long time, like out of
the country for a year or more before the birth.
Scotland has a very different view, with several titles having gone to
bastards even though there were legitimate sons.
Cece
-
Ann Sharp
Re: D.N.A.
Peter:
Ann:
The other pitfall is that DNA cannot tell you *which* of the six sons of
the twelfth-century couple is actually your ancestor, since their
Y-chromosome profiles and their mtDNA profiles are presumably identical.
It's effective to eliminate possibilities, of course.
I wonder whether Leo has anyone in his large data base who might
reasonably be carrying the Y-chromosome profile of the Plantagenets? Is
there any male-line issue living today, or would we have to steal into
Westminster Abbey and exhume someone?
L.P.H.,
Ann
The question of using DNA to determine ancestry can have its pitfalls.
Ann:
The other pitfall is that DNA cannot tell you *which* of the six sons of
the twelfth-century couple is actually your ancestor, since their
Y-chromosome profiles and their mtDNA profiles are presumably identical.
It's effective to eliminate possibilities, of course.
I wonder whether Leo has anyone in his large data base who might
reasonably be carrying the Y-chromosome profile of the Plantagenets? Is
there any male-line issue living today, or would we have to steal into
Westminster Abbey and exhume someone?
L.P.H.,
Ann
-
Gjest
Re: D.N.A.
There is, even now, in France,a very official document issued on the death
of the last parent, by a notaire, which, even if the child is illigitimate or
known by the family to not be the child of the father, it is deemed, by law,
to ensure that the child has the same rights as the rest of the family, and
can therefore be termed as a legal heir and in cases the senior member of the
family - this 'Acte de notorieté' is very useful and has determined many
legal wrangles.
regards
Peter
of the last parent, by a notaire, which, even if the child is illigitimate or
known by the family to not be the child of the father, it is deemed, by law,
to ensure that the child has the same rights as the rest of the family, and
can therefore be termed as a legal heir and in cases the senior member of the
family - this 'Acte de notorieté' is very useful and has determined many
legal wrangles.
regards
Peter
-
Brant Gibbard
Re: D.N.A.
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 05:56:49 GMT, "Ann Sharp" <axsc@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Yes, the Somerset family, whose head is the Duke of Beaufort, are
male-line descendants, through 1½ illegitimacies (counting the
Beaufort children of John of Gaunt as half an illegitimacy, as they
were illegitimate at birth, but later legally legitimated.) They
descend from an illegitimate son of one of the Beaufort Dukes of
Somerset.
See, for example,
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 0&tree=LEO
Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON
wrote:
I wonder whether Leo has anyone in his large data base who might
reasonably be carrying the Y-chromosome profile of the Plantagenets? Is
there any male-line issue living today, or would we have to steal into
Westminster Abbey and exhume someone?
Yes, the Somerset family, whose head is the Duke of Beaufort, are
male-line descendants, through 1½ illegitimacies (counting the
Beaufort children of John of Gaunt as half an illegitimacy, as they
were illegitimate at birth, but later legally legitimated.) They
descend from an illegitimate son of one of the Beaufort Dukes of
Somerset.
See, for example,
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 0&tree=LEO
Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON
-
Gjest
Re: D.N.A.
Friday, 24 September, 2004
Dear Brant, Ann, et al.,
Plantagenet DNA, eh? T'would be an interesting feat, but
sounds somewhat like a Jurassic Park conundrum: nice to have, but
then what do you do with it?
Now, an interesting test does come to mind. There is the
alleged descent of the Warrens of Poynton (and maybe another
Warren family or two) from an illegitimate son of an Earl of
Warenne. Perhaps someone could Surrey on down to the D of
Bedford's location for a sample, and hunt down a Warren in his den
for some of the same....
Good luck, and good hunting.
Cheers,
John
Dear Brant, Ann, et al.,
Plantagenet DNA, eh? T'would be an interesting feat, but
sounds somewhat like a Jurassic Park conundrum: nice to have, but
then what do you do with it?
Now, an interesting test does come to mind. There is the
alleged descent of the Warrens of Poynton (and maybe another
Warren family or two) from an illegitimate son of an Earl of
Warenne. Perhaps someone could Surrey on down to the D of
Bedford's location for a sample, and hunt down a Warren in his den
for some of the same....
Good luck, and good hunting.
Cheers,
John
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: D.N.A.
Nat Taylor is on the right track here.
Any statements about PROOF from D.N.A. need to be CAREFULLY PARSED and
CAVEATED.
There is a great deal of rubbish D.N.A.-chatter out there.
Doug McDonald's clarification is timely and most welcome.
DSH
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-B06345.14480924092004@news5.east.earthlink.net...
| In article <cj1mg3$8ho$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
| Doug McDonald <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
|
| > Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
| >
| > >
| > > In this case, if DNA tests support common male-line ancestry for
some or
| > > many McDonalds, how does it 'verify' the descent of those persons
from
| > > Somerled?
| >
| > The data is not yet good enough to absolutely prove Somerled
| > himself...
| >
| > It does clearly prove descent from his 3rd grandson John,
| > becuase there are lines from multiple of his sons with
| > excellent paper trails. Proof requires descent from
| > multiple sons and a good paper trail in the vicinity.
|
| Again, perhaps this is just semantics, but since there is plenty of
| confusion out there I would be careful not to overstate the role DNA
| testing can play in the 'proof' of a descent from a particular person
| (in this case, the John mentioned here). The test can assign a
| presumptive DNA profile for this John if it is based on proved
| descendants whose lines diverge in his generation; other possible
| descendants who share a closely-similar Y-DNA profile can be confident
| at least of some agnate relationship; but the data cannot be
considered
| as proof either of any alleged ancestry above that generation, or for
| any test subjects who match the DNA but who do not already have a
| genealogically proved descent from that generation (unless a very
| specific pattern of mutation emerges from genealogially proved
| descendants in enough divergent lines to decisively distinguish
apparent
| descendants of a given historical member of the line from all other
| agnate kin).
|
| It just seemed to me that your brief statement in the earlier post
could
| be misconstrued to mean that you believed that this DNA study proved a
| very specific agnate descent for you from Somerled or even earlier, so
| your clarification is helpful.
|
| Nat Taylor
|
| a genealogist's sketchbook:
| http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Any statements about PROOF from D.N.A. need to be CAREFULLY PARSED and
CAVEATED.
There is a great deal of rubbish D.N.A.-chatter out there.
Doug McDonald's clarification is timely and most welcome.
DSH
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-B06345.14480924092004@news5.east.earthlink.net...
| In article <cj1mg3$8ho$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
| Doug McDonald <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
|
| > Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
| >
| > >
| > > In this case, if DNA tests support common male-line ancestry for
some or
| > > many McDonalds, how does it 'verify' the descent of those persons
from
| > > Somerled?
| >
| > The data is not yet good enough to absolutely prove Somerled
| > himself...
| >
| > It does clearly prove descent from his 3rd grandson John,
| > becuase there are lines from multiple of his sons with
| > excellent paper trails. Proof requires descent from
| > multiple sons and a good paper trail in the vicinity.
|
| Again, perhaps this is just semantics, but since there is plenty of
| confusion out there I would be careful not to overstate the role DNA
| testing can play in the 'proof' of a descent from a particular person
| (in this case, the John mentioned here). The test can assign a
| presumptive DNA profile for this John if it is based on proved
| descendants whose lines diverge in his generation; other possible
| descendants who share a closely-similar Y-DNA profile can be confident
| at least of some agnate relationship; but the data cannot be
considered
| as proof either of any alleged ancestry above that generation, or for
| any test subjects who match the DNA but who do not already have a
| genealogically proved descent from that generation (unless a very
| specific pattern of mutation emerges from genealogially proved
| descendants in enough divergent lines to decisively distinguish
apparent
| descendants of a given historical member of the line from all other
| agnate kin).
|
| It just seemed to me that your brief statement in the earlier post
could
| be misconstrued to mean that you believed that this DNA study proved a
| very specific agnate descent for you from Somerled or even earlier, so
| your clarification is helpful.
|
| Nat Taylor
|
| a genealogist's sketchbook:
| http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Doug McDonald
Re: D.N.A.
Brant Gibbard wrote:
The Beaufort (Plantagenet) line and the Stewart/Stuart line
are the current next in line for DNA testing. They would be
in contest with my male line (Somerled) as the oldest DNA verified
line in the world.
Doug McDonald
Yes, the Somerset family, whose head is the Duke of Beaufort, are
male-line descendants, through 1½ illegitimacies (counting the
Beaufort children of John of Gaunt as half an illegitimacy, as they
were illegitimate at birth, but later legally legitimated.) They
descend from an illegitimate son of one of the Beaufort Dukes of
Somerset.
The Beaufort (Plantagenet) line and the Stewart/Stuart line
are the current next in line for DNA testing. They would be
in contest with my male line (Somerled) as the oldest DNA verified
line in the world.
Doug McDonald
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: D.N.A.
In article <cj1gfc$617$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
I recall an exchange earlier in the year about the results of DNA
testing of assorted McDonalds (though without seeing any concise precis
of test plan, scope and results). Todd Farmerie and Stewart Baldwin
pointed out that it is misleading to take the DNA testing, while it may
show agnate kinship (haplogroup identity) among contemporary test
subjects, as proof of a tradition of descent from a particular
historical individual. Is it not misleading to claim an alleged descent
from a historical figure as 'DNA verified', when testing can only prove
kinship of modern individuals, not a specific ancestry for them?
In this case, if DNA tests support common male-line ancestry for some or
many McDonalds, how does it 'verify' the descent of those persons from
Somerled?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
The Beaufort (Plantagenet) line and the Stewart/Stuart line
are the current next in line for DNA testing. They would be
in contest with my male line (Somerled) as the oldest DNA verified
line in the world.
Doug McDonald
I recall an exchange earlier in the year about the results of DNA
testing of assorted McDonalds (though without seeing any concise precis
of test plan, scope and results). Todd Farmerie and Stewart Baldwin
pointed out that it is misleading to take the DNA testing, while it may
show agnate kinship (haplogroup identity) among contemporary test
subjects, as proof of a tradition of descent from a particular
historical individual. Is it not misleading to claim an alleged descent
from a historical figure as 'DNA verified', when testing can only prove
kinship of modern individuals, not a specific ancestry for them?
In this case, if DNA tests support common male-line ancestry for some or
many McDonalds, how does it 'verify' the descent of those persons from
Somerled?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Doug McDonald
Re: D.N.A.
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
The data is not yet good enough to absolutely prove Somerled
himself, as there are not enough matching MacDugals yet,
though there are some.
It does clearly prove descent from his 3rd grandson John,
becuase there are lines from multiple of his sons with
excellent paper trails. Proof requires descent from
multiple sons and a good paper trail in the vicinity.
Doug McDonald
In this case, if DNA tests support common male-line ancestry for some or
many McDonalds, how does it 'verify' the descent of those persons from
Somerled?
The data is not yet good enough to absolutely prove Somerled
himself, as there are not enough matching MacDugals yet,
though there are some.
It does clearly prove descent from his 3rd grandson John,
becuase there are lines from multiple of his sons with
excellent paper trails. Proof requires descent from
multiple sons and a good paper trail in the vicinity.
Doug McDonald
-
marshall kirk
Re: D.N.A.
ceceliaarmstrong@yahoo.com (Cece) wrote in message news:<1ca2e706.0409230957.704bdc43@posting.google.com>...
[snip, tho' not a snippy snip]
While this is widely believed, it's misleading. I can think of
several exceedingly inbred groups -- including large sectors of my own
ancestry -- that bred nevertheless like sex-addicted rabbits.
Actually, all that inbreeding really does is increase the likelihood
that any 'bad' recessive genes that produce no symptoms in kids with
only one copy will be passed on instead by *both* parents, resulting
in kids with *two* copies, manifesting in some physical defect. Any
effect on reproduction (or any other function) will depend on the
nature of the 'bad' genes, and of the defect manifested in
homozygotes. Some defects are lethal, resulting in death *in utero*
or soon after birth; some may indeed interfere with ability to
reproduce; quite a few others may manifest only in middle or later
life, with no effect on reproduction. (Which is why such dreadful
conditions as Huntington's chorea get passed on, to the regret of all
concerned.)----If, OTOH, the genes in the pool with which you start
out are good, inbreeding can actually produce 'improved,' specialized
strains. (I put 'improved' in apostrophes because evaluation of the
result may be a matter of taste; and the improvement, even if
generally accepted as such, may come with some unpleasant recessive
drawbacks that, so to speak, hitched a ride.)
[snip, tho' not a snippy snip]
There is a theory that too much inbreeding results in infertility,
either lack of conception or failure to carry to term.
While this is widely believed, it's misleading. I can think of
several exceedingly inbred groups -- including large sectors of my own
ancestry -- that bred nevertheless like sex-addicted rabbits.
Actually, all that inbreeding really does is increase the likelihood
that any 'bad' recessive genes that produce no symptoms in kids with
only one copy will be passed on instead by *both* parents, resulting
in kids with *two* copies, manifesting in some physical defect. Any
effect on reproduction (or any other function) will depend on the
nature of the 'bad' genes, and of the defect manifested in
homozygotes. Some defects are lethal, resulting in death *in utero*
or soon after birth; some may indeed interfere with ability to
reproduce; quite a few others may manifest only in middle or later
life, with no effect on reproduction. (Which is why such dreadful
conditions as Huntington's chorea get passed on, to the regret of all
concerned.)----If, OTOH, the genes in the pool with which you start
out are good, inbreeding can actually produce 'improved,' specialized
strains. (I put 'improved' in apostrophes because evaluation of the
result may be a matter of taste; and the improvement, even if
generally accepted as such, may come with some unpleasant recessive
drawbacks that, so to speak, hitched a ride.)
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: D.N.A.
In article <cj1mg3$8ho$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
Again, perhaps this is just semantics, but since there is plenty of
confusion out there I would be careful not to overstate the role DNA
testing can play in the 'proof' of a descent from a particular person
(in this case, the John mentioned here). The test can assign a
presumptive DNA profile for this John if it is based on proved
descendants whose lines diverge in his generation; other possible
descendants who share a closely-similar Y-DNA profile can be confident
at least of some agnate relationship; but the data cannot be considered
as proof either of any alleged ancestry above that generation, or for
any test subjects who match the DNA but who do not already have a
genealogically proved descent from that generation (unless a very
specific pattern of mutation emerges from genealogially proved
descendants in enough divergent lines to decisively distinguish apparent
descendants of a given historical member of the line from all other
agnate kin).
It just seemed to me that your brief statement in the earlier post could
be misconstrued to mean that you believed that this DNA study proved a
very specific agnate descent for you from Somerled or even earlier, so
your clarification is helpful.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In this case, if DNA tests support common male-line ancestry for some or
many McDonalds, how does it 'verify' the descent of those persons from
Somerled?
The data is not yet good enough to absolutely prove Somerled
himself...
It does clearly prove descent from his 3rd grandson John,
becuase there are lines from multiple of his sons with
excellent paper trails. Proof requires descent from
multiple sons and a good paper trail in the vicinity.
Again, perhaps this is just semantics, but since there is plenty of
confusion out there I would be careful not to overstate the role DNA
testing can play in the 'proof' of a descent from a particular person
(in this case, the John mentioned here). The test can assign a
presumptive DNA profile for this John if it is based on proved
descendants whose lines diverge in his generation; other possible
descendants who share a closely-similar Y-DNA profile can be confident
at least of some agnate relationship; but the data cannot be considered
as proof either of any alleged ancestry above that generation, or for
any test subjects who match the DNA but who do not already have a
genealogically proved descent from that generation (unless a very
specific pattern of mutation emerges from genealogially proved
descendants in enough divergent lines to decisively distinguish apparent
descendants of a given historical member of the line from all other
agnate kin).
It just seemed to me that your brief statement in the earlier post could
be misconstrued to mean that you believed that this DNA study proved a
very specific agnate descent for you from Somerled or even earlier, so
your clarification is helpful.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Gjest
Re: D.N.A.
"The Beaufort (Plantagenet) line and the Stewart/Stuart line
are the current next in line for DNA testing. They would be
in contest with my male line (Somerled) as the oldest DNA verified
line in the world.
Doug McDonald"
Maybe I missed a post, but are these DNA results going to be published on the internet? I mean to the extent where a person could check how closely they did or did not match that line?
Will Johnson
are the current next in line for DNA testing. They would be
in contest with my male line (Somerled) as the oldest DNA verified
line in the world.
Doug McDonald"
Maybe I missed a post, but are these DNA results going to be published on the internet? I mean to the extent where a person could check how closely they did or did not match that line?
Will Johnson
-
Doug McDonald
Re: D.N.A.
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Depends on what you mean!
If you mean are all the results for all the people tested,
including the clan leaders and Lord MacDonald, all the
actual numbers, I have no idea. It's not for me to decide.
It's for them, Mark MacDonald, and Brian Sykes. Mark and
I know what the numbers are for all except Lord MacDonald,
and other than he only Sykes knows that.
If you mean the concensus prototype for Somerled, yes,
that is public knowledge. Mark and I agree on this. What you
really want is the complete list so you can compare to the
paper trails ... which I am looking at right now ... and
only Mark is authorized to make that public. You just have to
take my and MArk's work that the list of numbers I give
is the "most probable" list for Somerled's 3rd great
grandson, where the MacAllister branch off.
Here are the number in FTDNA order. Note that 570 and
CDYb are not yet well determined. Six other markers
have known values, but since they are not tested in
very many people, I do not list them.
DYS# Somerled
393 13
390 25
19 15
391 11
385a 11
385b 14
426 12
388 12
439 10
389-1 14
392 11
389-2 31
458 16
459a 8
459b 10
455 11
454 11
447 23
437 14
448 20
449 31
464a 12
464b 15
464c 15
464d 16
460 11
gata-H4 12
YCAII-a 19
YCAII-b 21
Me
456 17
607 16
576 17
570 20
CDYa 34
CDYb 39
442 12
438 11
The last 8 values are not yet all certain for
a concensus Somerled, so I list my own values. I
am high for 570.
For quick check purposes, you go to http://www.ysearch.org
and compare your values there. I am PUAP2.
Doug McDonald
Maybe I missed a post, but are these DNA results going
to be published on the internet? I mean to the extent
where a person could check how closely they did or did not match that line?
Depends on what you mean!
If you mean are all the results for all the people tested,
including the clan leaders and Lord MacDonald, all the
actual numbers, I have no idea. It's not for me to decide.
It's for them, Mark MacDonald, and Brian Sykes. Mark and
I know what the numbers are for all except Lord MacDonald,
and other than he only Sykes knows that.
If you mean the concensus prototype for Somerled, yes,
that is public knowledge. Mark and I agree on this. What you
really want is the complete list so you can compare to the
paper trails ... which I am looking at right now ... and
only Mark is authorized to make that public. You just have to
take my and MArk's work that the list of numbers I give
is the "most probable" list for Somerled's 3rd great
grandson, where the MacAllister branch off.
Here are the number in FTDNA order. Note that 570 and
CDYb are not yet well determined. Six other markers
have known values, but since they are not tested in
very many people, I do not list them.
DYS# Somerled
393 13
390 25
19 15
391 11
385a 11
385b 14
426 12
388 12
439 10
389-1 14
392 11
389-2 31
458 16
459a 8
459b 10
455 11
454 11
447 23
437 14
448 20
449 31
464a 12
464b 15
464c 15
464d 16
460 11
gata-H4 12
YCAII-a 19
YCAII-b 21
Me
456 17
607 16
576 17
570 20
CDYa 34
CDYb 39
442 12
438 11
The last 8 values are not yet all certain for
a concensus Somerled, so I list my own values. I
am high for 570.
For quick check purposes, you go to http://www.ysearch.org
and compare your values there. I am PUAP2.
Doug McDonald
-
Doug McDonald
Re: D.N.A.
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
The latter statement (in parentheses) is in fact true here. We just
need a little bit more data for people with paper lines to
tie it down to single people. It is good enough now to
tie a person to certain lines.
Given the paper trails of how the MacDonald clan diffused
out in Scotland, the migration patterns from Scotland to the
US, and where my ancestors came from in the US, as well as the
DNA, the probability that I descend from the actual physical
grandfather of "Eoin the Good" is
exceedingly high indeed. It is probably better than the probability
that another list-member **who has only a single paper line to a
closest royal ancestor** is in fact a descendant of that king. This
is because paper trails can lie. DNA cannot lie. The probability
of an undetected-in-paper "non-paternity event" (leaving the son
with the same name) among the landed Scottish classes is coming out
about 1% from the DNA studies.
This latter point cannot be overemphasized when people try,
as you do, to point to the "probability" nate of DNA evidence.
Doug McDonald
Again, perhaps this is just semantics, but since there is plenty of
confusion out there I would be careful not to overstate the role DNA
testing can play in the 'proof' of a descent from a particular person
(in this case, the John mentioned here). The test can assign a
presumptive DNA profile for this John if it is based on proved
descendants whose lines diverge in his generation; other possible
descendants who share a closely-similar Y-DNA profile can be confident
at least of some agnate relationship; but the data cannot be considered
as proof either of any alleged ancestry above that generation, or for
any test subjects who match the DNA but who do not already have a
genealogically proved descent from that generation (unless a very
specific pattern of mutation emerges from genealogially proved
descendants in enough divergent lines to decisively distinguish apparent
descendants of a given historical member of the line from all other
agnate kin).
The latter statement (in parentheses) is in fact true here. We just
need a little bit more data for people with paper lines to
tie it down to single people. It is good enough now to
tie a person to certain lines.
It just seemed to me that your brief statement in the earlier post could
be misconstrued to mean that you believed that this DNA study proved a
very specific agnate descent for you from Somerled or even earlier, so
your clarification is helpful.
Given the paper trails of how the MacDonald clan diffused
out in Scotland, the migration patterns from Scotland to the
US, and where my ancestors came from in the US, as well as the
DNA, the probability that I descend from the actual physical
grandfather of "Eoin the Good" is
exceedingly high indeed. It is probably better than the probability
that another list-member **who has only a single paper line to a
closest royal ancestor** is in fact a descendant of that king. This
is because paper trails can lie. DNA cannot lie. The probability
of an undetected-in-paper "non-paternity event" (leaving the son
with the same name) among the landed Scottish classes is coming out
about 1% from the DNA studies.
This latter point cannot be overemphasized when people try,
as you do, to point to the "probability" nate of DNA evidence.
Doug McDonald
-
Gjest
Re: D.N.A.
This depends entirely on the estate - if , in the case of a majority of my
english cousins, who have property that has descended for 100s of years, the
law is somewhat different , even nowadays, a recent death meant that the
seignorial house (and the title, if there is one) automatically went to the eldest
son, but provision is made for all other siblings, as has always been the
case.
In France the Napoleonic code ensures that whilst the eldest, irrespective
of the estate, has an automatic right to inhabit the family home, the estate is
divided up equally between all the children. If the eldest wishes to
purchase the share of a sibling he can, or if a sibling wished to sell his
percentage he/she can but it has to be to the family first, then to an outsider. If
the vendor has not the wherwithal he/she can offer it to the family or a parcel
of the estate amounting to that percentage has to be sold. This remains the
case.
regards
peter
english cousins, who have property that has descended for 100s of years, the
law is somewhat different , even nowadays, a recent death meant that the
seignorial house (and the title, if there is one) automatically went to the eldest
son, but provision is made for all other siblings, as has always been the
case.
In France the Napoleonic code ensures that whilst the eldest, irrespective
of the estate, has an automatic right to inhabit the family home, the estate is
divided up equally between all the children. If the eldest wishes to
purchase the share of a sibling he can, or if a sibling wished to sell his
percentage he/she can but it has to be to the family first, then to an outsider. If
the vendor has not the wherwithal he/she can offer it to the family or a parcel
of the estate amounting to that percentage has to be sold. This remains the
case.
regards
peter
-
Frank Bullen
Re: D.N.A.
Hi!
I suspect you are speaking of natural heirs. The testator can leave this possessions to anyone he wishes.
Regards
Frank
I suspect you are speaking of natural heirs. The testator can leave this possessions to anyone he wishes.
Regards
Frank
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: D.N.A.
In article <cj41id$2c8$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
What you're implying is that a marker set for proved descendants of
'Eoin the Good' has been identified, as well one or more distinctively
mutated sets for known descendants of multiple sons of Eoin's closest
agnate kin (say brothers or first cousins), in order to allow the
research to predict a particular marker set which applies only to the
descendants of Eoin and not to any agnatic superset. By 'tie a person
to certain lines', you mean there is enough genealogically corroborated
data to allow various marker sets to be identified with various branches
of the McDonald tree, including branches other than that of 'Eoin the
Good'?
This is extremely interesting. Again, this implies that there are
specific differentiated marker sets distinguishing first cousins of Eoin
the Good from his own line, and further distinguishing all this
parentela from any more remote agnatic kin? You have repeatedly said
these data belong to someone else (Mark MacDonald, Brian Sykes, etc.),
but could you spell out the apparent groupings of distinct, apparently
mutated Y-DNA profiles as they fit on the proved (or traditional)
genealogical tree of these various near descendants of Somerled?
I am not trying to claim DNA is imprecise. While DNA cannot lie, *what*
it tells the truth about can sometimes be unintentionally distorted
through oversimplification. People need to be very specific in saying
what the tests do and do not show. I am very interested in this
project. From what you're saying (and from the odd piece on the net
about these studies), the most interesting points appear to be the
precise identification of mutations among the apparent near kin of Eoin
the Good, allowing one to differentiate lines based on the profiles of
known descendants (clan chiefs, etc.), rather than the more hypothetical
establishment of Somerled's likely Y-DNA marker profile and the
classification of his ancestry, which must remain hypothetical. Like
other people, I would be very keen to see this study written about
carefully and thoroughly.
Nat Taylor
(a putative paper [non-agnate] descendant of 'Somerled')
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
Again, perhaps this is just semantics, but since there is plenty of
confusion out there I would be careful not to overstate the role DNA
testing can play in the 'proof' of a descent from a particular person
(in this case, the John mentioned here). The test can assign a
presumptive DNA profile for this John if it is based on proved
descendants whose lines diverge in his generation; other possible
descendants who share a closely-similar Y-DNA profile can be confident
at least of some agnate relationship; but the data cannot be considered
as proof either of any alleged ancestry above that generation, or for
any test subjects who match the DNA but who do not already have a
genealogically proved descent from that generation (unless a very
specific pattern of mutation emerges from genealogially proved
descendants in enough divergent lines to decisively distinguish apparent
descendants of a given historical member of the line from all other
agnate kin).
The latter statement (in parentheses) is in fact true here. We just
need a little bit more data for people with paper lines to
tie it down to single people. It is good enough now to
tie a person to certain lines.
What you're implying is that a marker set for proved descendants of
'Eoin the Good' has been identified, as well one or more distinctively
mutated sets for known descendants of multiple sons of Eoin's closest
agnate kin (say brothers or first cousins), in order to allow the
research to predict a particular marker set which applies only to the
descendants of Eoin and not to any agnatic superset. By 'tie a person
to certain lines', you mean there is enough genealogically corroborated
data to allow various marker sets to be identified with various branches
of the McDonald tree, including branches other than that of 'Eoin the
Good'?
It just seemed to me that your brief statement in the earlier post could
be misconstrued to mean that you believed that this DNA study proved a
very specific agnate descent for you from Somerled or even earlier, so
your clarification is helpful.
Given the paper trails of how the MacDonald clan diffused
out in Scotland, the migration patterns from Scotland to the
US, and where my ancestors came from in the US, as well as the
DNA, the probability that I descend from the actual physical
grandfather of "Eoin the Good" is
exceedingly high indeed.
This is extremely interesting. Again, this implies that there are
specific differentiated marker sets distinguishing first cousins of Eoin
the Good from his own line, and further distinguishing all this
parentela from any more remote agnatic kin? You have repeatedly said
these data belong to someone else (Mark MacDonald, Brian Sykes, etc.),
but could you spell out the apparent groupings of distinct, apparently
mutated Y-DNA profiles as they fit on the proved (or traditional)
genealogical tree of these various near descendants of Somerled?
... paper trails can lie. DNA cannot lie. The probability
of an undetected-in-paper "non-paternity event" (leaving the son
with the same name) among the landed Scottish classes is coming out
about 1% from the DNA studies.
This latter point cannot be overemphasized when people try,
as you do, to point to the "probability" nate of DNA evidence.
I am not trying to claim DNA is imprecise. While DNA cannot lie, *what*
it tells the truth about can sometimes be unintentionally distorted
through oversimplification. People need to be very specific in saying
what the tests do and do not show. I am very interested in this
project. From what you're saying (and from the odd piece on the net
about these studies), the most interesting points appear to be the
precise identification of mutations among the apparent near kin of Eoin
the Good, allowing one to differentiate lines based on the profiles of
known descendants (clan chiefs, etc.), rather than the more hypothetical
establishment of Somerled's likely Y-DNA marker profile and the
classification of his ancestry, which must remain hypothetical. Like
other people, I would be very keen to see this study written about
carefully and thoroughly.
Nat Taylor
(a putative paper [non-agnate] descendant of 'Somerled')
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Doug McDonald
Re: D.N.A.
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
Yes. But it is skimpy. We really need one more paper
trail person for some of the lines.
No. There are marker sets which distinguish various
branches which branch off at Eoin. The current data
cannot tell exactly in what generation those branches
generated the mutation. It tells whetehr you are
likely Clanranald, the main line, Keppoch, etc. in
most but not all cases.
No. That's what's secret. People are being told which
branch they "likely" belong to, so if everybody posted this
on ysearch you could reconstruct it .... but nobody on
Ysearch has listed which branch.
It will be. I should point out that there are also the MacAllisters,
as I mentioned. They branch off two generations (or is it three)
before Eoin the Good. We don't have any MacAllisters in the Clan
Donald study. We are dependant on statements (like these!) from
Brian Sykes about the ones he tested, and the actual haplotypes
of MacAllisters which are available publicly, on Ysearch and
at Sorenson. These do not have paper trails back to the
connected clan genealogy, just the name, which is rare.
We only have the general outline of the branch points from
the present DNA. We need more people in Scotland (or elsewhere)
who are well connected to be tested, the farther back the better.
******************************************
When I say that with high confidence we have identified
descendants of Eion the Good, or rather his grandfather,
we are depending on the paper trail of dispersal. When I
say this I mean the way population moved, and the known
places where the known mutations probably occurred. I
personally, am on the line that has no mutations
to 25 markers from what we think Somerled was. I have two
mutations on the next 12 markers, at ones that mutate
very rapidly, but no one matches me. The vast majority
of MacDonalds who came to Georgia in the last part
of the 18th century came from the Western Isles,
especially Sleat. Most of us fit the exact same
DNA pattern to 25 markers, and all but two or three
of the next 12, which are chosen to be fast. None of
this large group match exactly any of the clan leaders,
but we come close to two. Thus the probability is that we
descend from descendants of the early MacDonalds who
populated that area.
Theoretically there could have been close cousins of Somerled
who generated lots of descendants. But it is unlikely,
since, for example, there are so few MacDugals around,
and the Clan Dugal comes, on paper, from a different son
of Somerled.
Let me say it again ... this is preliminary, we need more
people with good paper trails.
Doug McDonald
In article <cj41id$2c8$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
What you're implying is that a marker set for proved descendants of
'Eoin the Good' has been identified, as well one or more distinctively
mutated sets for known descendants of multiple sons of Eoin's closest
agnate kin (say brothers or first cousins), in order to allow the
research to predict a particular marker set which applies only to the
descendants of Eoin and not to any agnatic superset. By 'tie a person
to certain lines', you mean there is enough genealogically corroborated
data to allow various marker sets to be identified with various branches
of the McDonald tree, including branches other than that of 'Eoin the
Good'?
Yes. But it is skimpy. We really need one more paper
trail person for some of the lines.
Given the paper trails of how the MacDonald clan diffused
out in Scotland, the migration patterns from Scotland to the
US, and where my ancestors came from in the US, as well as the
DNA, the probability that I descend from the actual physical
grandfather of "Eoin the Good" is
exceedingly high indeed.
This is extremely interesting. Again, this implies that there are
specific differentiated marker sets distinguishing first cousins of Eoin
the Good from his own line,
No. There are marker sets which distinguish various
branches which branch off at Eoin. The current data
cannot tell exactly in what generation those branches
generated the mutation. It tells whetehr you are
likely Clanranald, the main line, Keppoch, etc. in
most but not all cases.
and further distinguishing all this
parentela from any more remote agnatic kin? You have repeatedly said
these data belong to someone else (Mark MacDonald, Brian Sykes, etc.),
but could you spell out the apparent groupings of distinct, apparently
mutated Y-DNA profiles as they fit on the proved (or traditional)
genealogical tree of these various near descendants of Somerled?
No. That's what's secret. People are being told which
branch they "likely" belong to, so if everybody posted this
on ysearch you could reconstruct it .... but nobody on
Ysearch has listed which branch.
I am not trying to claim DNA is imprecise. While DNA cannot lie, *what*
it tells the truth about can sometimes be unintentionally distorted
through oversimplification. People need to be very specific in saying
what the tests do and do not show. I am very interested in this
project. From what you're saying (and from the odd piece on the net
about these studies), the most interesting points appear to be the
precise identification of mutations among the apparent near kin of Eoin
the Good, allowing one to differentiate lines based on the profiles of
known descendants (clan chiefs, etc.), rather than the more hypothetical
establishment of Somerled's likely Y-DNA marker profile and the
classification of his ancestry, which must remain hypothetical. Like
other people, I would be very keen to see this study written about
carefully and thoroughly.
It will be. I should point out that there are also the MacAllisters,
as I mentioned. They branch off two generations (or is it three)
before Eoin the Good. We don't have any MacAllisters in the Clan
Donald study. We are dependant on statements (like these!) from
Brian Sykes about the ones he tested, and the actual haplotypes
of MacAllisters which are available publicly, on Ysearch and
at Sorenson. These do not have paper trails back to the
connected clan genealogy, just the name, which is rare.
We only have the general outline of the branch points from
the present DNA. We need more people in Scotland (or elsewhere)
who are well connected to be tested, the farther back the better.
******************************************
When I say that with high confidence we have identified
descendants of Eion the Good, or rather his grandfather,
we are depending on the paper trail of dispersal. When I
say this I mean the way population moved, and the known
places where the known mutations probably occurred. I
personally, am on the line that has no mutations
to 25 markers from what we think Somerled was. I have two
mutations on the next 12 markers, at ones that mutate
very rapidly, but no one matches me. The vast majority
of MacDonalds who came to Georgia in the last part
of the 18th century came from the Western Isles,
especially Sleat. Most of us fit the exact same
DNA pattern to 25 markers, and all but two or three
of the next 12, which are chosen to be fast. None of
this large group match exactly any of the clan leaders,
but we come close to two. Thus the probability is that we
descend from descendants of the early MacDonalds who
populated that area.
Theoretically there could have been close cousins of Somerled
who generated lots of descendants. But it is unlikely,
since, for example, there are so few MacDugals around,
and the Clan Dugal comes, on paper, from a different son
of Somerled.
Let me say it again ... this is preliminary, we need more
people with good paper trails.
Doug McDonald
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: D.N.A.
In article <cj6mau$8gf$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
<...>
Thanks for clarifying all this. It's frustrating because it isn't
possible to evaluate the claims of the study directors that the DNA
matches correspond to specific 'lines' or specific people in the
traditional genealogy without seeing both the DNA profiles AND the
genealogical evidence for the subjects laid out publicly, in print.
Until that happens I would still be conservative about stating what
individual results mean. One thing you haven't spoken to is any sort of
presumptive schedule for making detailed findings, with genealogical
analysis, public. Are you aware of any such timetable?
Finally, to get back to the original theme of this thread, I would be
surprised if there were no other Y-DNA studies of extant British
families underway, which also have apparent 12th-century origins. While
I suspect that most English surnames which have a similar presumption of
a single 12th- or 13th-c. founder have smaller current populations than
the larger Highland clan names, there must still be families whose
traditional pedigrees lead back to bifurcations in the 13th c. or
earlier, who have enough apparent descendants in various branches to
have an early common origin theory tested by DNA profiling.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
... You have repeatedly said
these data belong to someone else (Mark MacDonald, Brian Sykes, etc.),
but could you spell out the apparent groupings of distinct, apparently
mutated Y-DNA profiles as they fit on the proved (or traditional)
genealogical tree of these various near descendants of Somerled?
No. That's what's secret. People are being told which
branch they "likely" belong to, so if everybody posted this
on ysearch you could reconstruct it .... but nobody on
Ysearch has listed which branch.
<...>
Let me say it again ... this is preliminary, we need more
people with good paper trails.
Thanks for clarifying all this. It's frustrating because it isn't
possible to evaluate the claims of the study directors that the DNA
matches correspond to specific 'lines' or specific people in the
traditional genealogy without seeing both the DNA profiles AND the
genealogical evidence for the subjects laid out publicly, in print.
Until that happens I would still be conservative about stating what
individual results mean. One thing you haven't spoken to is any sort of
presumptive schedule for making detailed findings, with genealogical
analysis, public. Are you aware of any such timetable?
Finally, to get back to the original theme of this thread, I would be
surprised if there were no other Y-DNA studies of extant British
families underway, which also have apparent 12th-century origins. While
I suspect that most English surnames which have a similar presumption of
a single 12th- or 13th-c. founder have smaller current populations than
the larger Highland clan names, there must still be families whose
traditional pedigrees lead back to bifurcations in the 13th c. or
earlier, who have enough apparent descendants in various branches to
have an early common origin theory tested by DNA profiling.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Bronwen Edwards
Re: D.N.A.
PDeloriol@aol.com wrote
Another possibility to consider, which could possibly be confirmed or
negated by DNA study, is that the adopted infants were biological
children of your ancestor who were born to his special friends outside
of marriage. It has always been commonplace for convenient adoptions
to cover up illegitimacy. It would be interested to compare the male
DNA to mitochondrial DNA. Of course, getting the samples could be
tricky.
A case in point - were the current head of a French branch of my family, the
Duport de Loriol, comte de Loriol by patent in 1742, to use his DNA to prove
descendance from the original line, my branch the de Loriol, he would be
horrified to find out that his biological ancestor was the son of a Lyon Coal
merchant in the 1790s, because his 'legal' ancestor could not procure any heirs
and therefore adopted two children to continue the family line. This, I
discovered some years ago when I was researching this line and discovered that I
could not find the birth registers for the two children of the 2nd Comte de
Loriol, instead I discovered the legal adoption of two children shortly after
they were born! It wouldn't be remotely surprising to discover that a
significant proportion of the English and European gentry, as well as the Royal
Houses, do not share the same DNA as some of their purported ancestors however
'Legal' their ancestry is.
regards
Peter ( de Loriol)
Another possibility to consider, which could possibly be confirmed or
negated by DNA study, is that the adopted infants were biological
children of your ancestor who were born to his special friends outside
of marriage. It has always been commonplace for convenient adoptions
to cover up illegitimacy. It would be interested to compare the male
DNA to mitochondrial DNA. Of course, getting the samples could be
tricky.