Talk:Haplogroup
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Image help
X&V from Image talk:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg
I find this hard to follow. Specifically, the rout to Australia appears problematic. Why is it a broken line? What does the comment "Asian: A, B, C, D, E, F, G (note: M is composed of C, D, E, and G)" imply - since the advent of indigenous Australians predates C, D, and G; Furthermore there appears to be no "E"; Indeed, my understanding was that eh DNA evidence did not link Australian aboriginals to any Asian sample, but only to Africa. Banno 21:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Questions about the human mtDNA Migration map
The map of human mtDNA migration (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Human_mtDNA_migration.png) shows a line from northern Scandinavia to North America about 15000 years ago. That sounds really interesting. What findings or studies do this map refer to and where do the map come from? I would welcome any information on this topic. Aprerogative 09:50, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I think the map creator was referring to the so-called "Solutrean Hypothesis", which is not generally accepted (yet, anyway). AFAIK, this hypothesis posits migration from prehistoric France to North America by some means. The evidence for this is:
- some resemblance between Solutrean arrowheads in France and those in North America at the same time.
- The presence of mitochondrial haplogroup X in Europe and the Americas. It isn't present in any large quantity in Asia, apparently, which is quite odd given that that's the supposed departure point to the Americas.
- See Haplogroup X (mtDNA)#North_America for more info. There is a reference cited to some paper which may also be important. --Saforrest 07:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Subclades
There needs to be more information on current statistical origins and spread of the particular subclades within each of the clade articles pages of both Y haplogroups & mt haplogroups. Nagelfar 00:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK. It appears we are now doing much better since May. Nagelfar 18:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Haplogroup F* (Y-DNA)
Can someone clarify if this is a typo in Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups: "Groups descended from Haplogroup F*" include "Haplogroup F", which had no wikilink. Shouldn't it be the other way round? According to the phylogenetic tree, the * means there are no downstream markers, but Haplogroup F* (Y-DNA) shows 7 descendant haplogroups. I've changed the link on Haplogroup F to Haplogroup F* (Y-DNA), but if anyone thinks this is not correct please could you say so here. apers0n 09:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Haplogroup F should be included in the list of Groups with Mutation M168 --Eddylyons 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- According to the haplotree, there is an F* and an F1. Would both those be descended from F?-- Reinyday, 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes. anything with an asterix is simply a mutation further down the tree from that letter which hasn't been classed into a more specific grouping. So in a sense, F1 was F* before it was designated "1", now that F1 is so designated; F* is something beyond 'F' which hasn't been classed and therefore now excludes F1, but is that much further removed from "F". Nagelfar 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Arranging the 'Autosome' page in a similar way?
Diplogroup might be an oxymoron, since by the very nature diploid markers, that recombine every generation, do not for that reason form "groups". However, wouldn't it be sensible to arrange the autosomal DNA page similarly to the haplogroup page concerning the different markers and to what indigenous populations in the world they are found to frequent? Anyone with any knowledge of what autosomal markers are analogous to which populations, it would be greatly appreciated if you added any information to that page. Nagelfar 18:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I1c or I2?
http://www.jogg.info/12/Athey.htm
So what is the final consensus, is I1c the current accepted assignation for a subclade? Does anyone have a better knowledge of the current groupings? Nagelfar 01:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Latest official designation, taking into account the newest markers, appears to be "I1b2a" and associated subclades [1]. See main articles Haplogroup I1b (Y-DNA) and Haplogroup I (Y-DNA) -- Jheald 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Haplogroup versus Haplotype
"In the study of molecular evolution, a haplogroup is a large group of haplotypes, which are series of alleles at specific locations on a chromosome."
Isn't the beginning line, though possibly true of many types of genetics, alittle incorrect in terms of Y & mt genetic geneology? Aren't haplotypes understood in relation to STRs and haplogroups defined solely by SNPs? So saying a haplogroup is simply a large group of haplotypes would be incorrect in this context? Nagelfar 05:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The recent addition of the red-linked Q subhaplogroups.
Wouldn't these be better added at Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups to be specifically a higher resolution look at Y haplogroups, rather than an overview of common over-clusters of haplogroups in general? Nagelfar 12:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal to create a new WikiProject: Genetic History
I have put up a suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to create a new WikiProject, WikiProject: Genetic History.
To quote from what I've written there:
-
- Description
- A wikiproject for articles on DNA research into genetic genealogy and genealogical DNA tests; the history and spread of human populations as revealed by eg human Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups; and similar. Many such articles can be found in Category:Genetic genealogy and its subcategories, notably the subcategories on human haplogroups.
-
- Rationale
- My direct motivation for seeking this Wikiproject was a recent run-in at Y-chromosomal Aaron, where I desperately missed the lack of a relevant WikiProject talk page to go to, to attract the input, advice and views of knowledgeable editors in this area.
- There's a lot of general public interest in the proposed subject area -- eg the Y-chromosomal Aaron page is apparently getting well over 100 hits a day, and over the last 18 months or so there's been a lot of material added, by a fair number of different editors, mostly editing different pages which are particularly relevant to them. IMO, a central wikiproject would be useful, and also a good place to be able to bring WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:general cluelessness issues for wider informed input.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology do already exist, but their focus is much much broader. With regard to those project's charters, I believe the subject would be seen as a rather specialist niche topic area, rather out of the mainstream of those project's normal focus. On the other hand, I believe that there are a number of wikipedia editors (and readers) who are specifically interested in the subject, who would find advantage if there were a specific wikiproject for it. Jheald (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If people think this would be a good idea, it's a target for WikiProjects to have at least five "interested" signatures to show there's some support, before they get going.
Alternatively, if people think it would be a bad idea, please leave a comment in the comments section.
Either way, please show what you think, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Genetic_History
Thanks, Jheald (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)