GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-02 > 1138946056


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] How many lowland/highland Scots are Scots R1b?
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 21:54:16 -0800


Rob wrote:

>None of these men strays further than 6 steps from the "Scots
Variety" modal. Yet Buchanan No. 5 does not meet more than 1 out of
three of the Scots Variety criteria. Would he be eliminated from this
variety if I didn't have him grouped with the others to show that he
was related? I imagine attempts are being made to find an SNP to help
distinguish this haplogroup from others. Is there any progress on
that front?<

I can provide a more specific example of this issue. In my Tagert
cluster, we have very good documentation for 6-7 generations. We have
two 48/48 exact matches with 7 generations of separation. There are
three single step mutations between four men, & ALL OF THE MUTATIONS
ARE ON MARKERS WHICH DEFINE THE SCOTS MODAL. One participant has DYS
391 = 11 (the rest of us are 10). Another participant has DYS 458 =
18, while the other three are 17. This same participant has YCAII =
19-23, while the rest of us are 19-24. We are all tested to a minimum
of 43 markers, & two of us have tested 48+ markers. For all of us DYS
444 = 11, DYS 461 = 11, C4 = 24. We stray from the narrow definition
of the Scots modal with our DYS 389 = 13-31.

While the modal for DYS 458 is 18, a very substantial portion of
those who are clearly recognizable for the modal have a value of 17
at 458.

The main thrust of my point is that modals define a statistical
probability, & variance within the modal is expected. The participant
in our cluster who is two mutations from the rest of us is closer to
the Scots modal on one marker (458=18), but further from the modal on
another (YCAII=19-23). These two mutations have occurred in the past
four generations - we share the same gr-gr grandfather. It has always
struck me as peculiar that all the variation in our cluster occurs on
the markers which define the modal.

There is one other issue at hand - the dynamics of time/place discord
- as mentioned in the thread by several. As noted, most of the
"unknown" origins are descendants of colonists, & as pointed out by
John (reference to Irish migration), the migrations often involved
entire clans at some specific point in history, to some specific
contiguous area of the New World. Those who fall in the "unknown"
category might be as useful as surveys in Scotland, because they
represent a "snaphshot" of time & place, the descendants of those
closely related clans who migrated en masse. In 1772, William Martin
led 447 families out of Antrim & all of them settled in the Catawba
River valley of North Carolina. In the 1740s, many extended families
of Highlanders migrated to the Cape Fear valley of North Carolina
immediately following the Highland Clearances. It is noteworthy that
one of the best sources of genetic genealogy in investigations of the
Vikings is Iceland, not Norway. The colonists of Iceland have
remained much more isolated. That said, North America, New Zealand &
Australia are much more problematic because of the close proximity of
colonists from all parts of the British Isles.

Our nearest matches with other Scottish surnames to date consist of
multiple matches with Stirling, MacGregor, Lindsey, MacRae & Turner.
We have no greater than 5 marker variance with clusters of all of
these surnames (minimum 37 markers compared). Can any of the Scottish
pedigree & clan experts on the list suggest any connections for these
surnames? We are aware of the connection of Stirling to MacGregor, &
the current MacRae prominence in Wester Ross, the traditional origin
of the Taggart Earls of Ross. Otherwise the only connection seems to
be that some of these families have origins & associations in the
same regions of Scotland - namely, some proximity to the Forth-Clyde
line. I'm appealing to the Scottish experts on the list for
clarification. Do you see any traditional associations of these
surnames?




This thread: