Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Unrepresentative choice of Slavic reference populations?

Posted by Tomenable on 07 Jan 2015 at 20:09 GMT

I think that a single flaw of this study is its unrepresentative choice of Slavic reference populations. I wonder why did the authors of this study derive their samples of Slavic reference populations only from Northern Croatia, Western Croatia and Southern Poland - why not also from Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Serbia and Bosnia - all of which are either geographically closer to East Tyrol than Poland and Croatia, or just as close to East Tyrol as Poland and Croatia.

The most recent (2014) publication on the phylogenetic and geographic structure in R1a haplogroup by Underhill et al. shows that Slovenian subclades of R1a cluster more closely with Slovakian, Bosnian, Serbian, Ukrainian and these of Poles of Eastern origin (with ancestry from Kresy - Ukraine and Belarus), while - by contrast - Croatian subclades are different and cluster more closely with Czech and Southern Polish. Link to the study in question:

http://www.nature.com/ejh...

Since East Tyrol was inhabited by Slovene-speakers, reference Slavic populations should be from Slovenia, Slovakia, Serbia, etc., among which - like among Slovenes - the prevailing subclade of R1a is M558.

By contrast among Croats, Czechs and Southern Poles the prevailing subclade of R1a is M458.

Take a look at this chart of major R1a subclades (I made it basing on data from most recent publication by Underhill et al.):

http://s18.postimg.org/qz...

[img]http://s18.postimg.org/qz...[/img]

Nevertheless, I appreciate this study very much.

My comment is a suggestion on what could be revised / updated about it.

Best regards.

No competing interests declared.
report a concern respond to this posting