GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266249786


From: "Elizabeth O'Donoghue" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] FTDNA v. ISOGG R1b haplotree comparison updated
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:03:06 -0000
References: <22110.41f6011f.38a9ccf4@aol.com><35bbfc2c1002141417w1cfdc364r37264a75d32b120e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <35bbfc2c1002141417w1cfdc364r37264a75d32b120e@mail.gmail.com>


Janet said:

Just a brief note to remind everyone that the genealogy for the Irish
cannot be trusted because they deliberately dropped out the daughters.
By doing that you can miss that a whole new DNA set can sneak in
unnoticed. You may think it is B mac A when it is really C mac B the
daughter of A. While you think you are tracking A's DNA, you are now
really tracking B's husband's DNA now.

--------------------------------------------------

I believe this is a bit misleading. It's not that the Irish genealogies
'deliberately dropped the daughters'. The Irish were adamantly patrilineal,
opposed to the Scots who often followed matrilineal descent through the
influence of the Picts, so the issue of daughters' lines in Ireland is a
tangential one. A much more significant issue is that when surnames were
adopted, people under the protection of a chief usually took the name of the
chief, whether they were genetically related or not. That is why there are
usually a significant number of participants in a surname project who have
disparate haplotypes, if not different haplogroups altogether. That's not
to discount that a man may have chosen to adopt the name of his wife for
whatever reason, but to make a broad statement that Irish genealogies are
not to be trusted is really not appropriate.

Elizabeth



This thread: