File talk:World Map of Y-DNA Haplogroups.png

World Map of Y-DNA (from uploader's user talk)

Thanks for writing. Excellent your hard work.

It is interesting to use some old haplogroup names for clarity. But there may be controversy. I would recommend Q-M3 instead of Q3, etc.

I have not updated some of my works: The main Eskimo haplogroup is not Q-M3 but Q-NWT01. It is not clear what kind of Q yeniseians have.

Some doubts or corrections:

• T is not a native Australian haplogroup.
• Philippine negritoes are not relatives to Micronesian. West Micronesians came from East Indonesia and East Micronesian came from Fidji (according linguistic evidence).
• R1 situation in North America is uncertain and controversial. Looks like R1b-P25 and probably it came with European colonization during the last centuries.

Good luck!--Maulucioni (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments!

• I will try using the new haplogroup names as of 2013, but the names keep changing... some have become too long (E3a7 -> "E1b1a1a1f1a"!). In this case I can only remove it or use SNP name (E-M191) which is not ideal.
• Someone in Dienekes blog commented that "Q-L330 is now called Q1a2a1c and is basically a Ket/Selkup haplogroup", but I cannot find source to back up this claim. Also, not sure if Siberian Eskimo (Yupik) has Q-NWT01, it is expected if American Eskimo-Aleut is Q-NWT01.
• T in Australian aborigines -- Wikipedia says so, but again, no published source. Better assume K
• Both Negritos and Micronesians are K + C + O3, and they're just near by, so I guess they are related...
• Some people think that R1b across Atlantic (also mtDNA X) is evidence for the Solutrean hypothesis, which is controversial, but an interesting link between genetics and archaeology

Also:

• Do you know any result on Tasmanians / Caribbean Amerindians?
• I always think of coastal routes for A/B/CT around Africa (see earlier version of my map), but it may be too speculative

Chakazul (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Dieneke just wrote a post about your map. You should keep working on it, it is worth improving it! Best regards Robertius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, excuse me the delay in replying. I give you my opinions:

• Regarding E3a7, I prefer E-M191 (or E1b1a-M191).
• I knew that Q-L330 is European, but I'm surprised that it can also be yenisean. In any case Q-L330 is closer to Q-M3 than Q-NWT01. We are not sure about Eskimo-Aleuts, but we now that Inuits are Q-NWT01.
• About Negritos and Micronesians, K and C are macro-haplogroups, very old. It's impossible to establish relationships without subcladistics. The idea about navigation tradition in Negritos will be extraordinary, but there are not evidence.
• About Tasmanians / Caribbean Amerindians, the native population was virtually exterminated or mixed. Caribbean mixed reveals South-American ancestors according mtDNA.
• I also think that coastal routes for A/B/CT around Africa was too speculative. Quite the same, the draw of other coastal routes, specially C3 in Americas are speculative.--Maulucioni (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Maulucioni and Robertius! It seems the map needs much refinement before it can be used in main articles.

• I think better mark "Q" for Yeniseian/Selkup (also Yupik, Aleut) before research could give higher resolution.
• I will remove the link between Negritos and Micronesians as no evidence that they are related.
• So Native Caribbeans is probably Q, but can't be sure until we get ancient DNA study.
• The research on C3* in S America gave 2 possibilities: (1) coastal dispersal along American coastline (2) link with Japan through Pacific ocean currents. I think (1) as depicted here is already more conservative, but still speculative -- I should add a question mark there.

Chakazul (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Haplogroup map (from talk in Haplogroup)

I have removed the map added by Chakazul as there are concerns about its accuracy raised on the the editor's talk page. HelenOnline 06:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

See also Dienekes' Anthropology blog post about it. HelenOnline 06:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am well aware that there would be mistakes (even controversy) in the world map, therefore I sought comments from wikipedians who have made similar maps, and also Dienekes (he is generally positive with it but raised some cautions). Do you prefer to post it in the main content after all issues are settled?

I will also post it to the following articles, hoping to gather more opinions: "Haplogroup", "Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup", "Y-chromosome haplogroups by populations", "Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic group". Chakazul (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History asking for other input. The map details can be interpreted as promoting specific theories and on that basis I am seeking wider consensus regarding its inclusion in the main namespace. HelenOnline 06:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• I think it's legitimate to make such a map, as long as each portion comes from published research. c.f. mtDNA world map, Y-DNA European map
• Relation to ethnic/linguistic groups may be questionable, but I think they're useful in reminding that a haplogroup is dominant only in certain ethno-linguistic group within a geographic region.
• The current mainstream theory i.e. Coastal Migration is presented on the migration routes. A few sourced but debatable routes (e.g. C3* and R1 to the Americas) should have question marks.

Chakazul (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

R1 has not been found in any pre-Columbian ancient remains that have been tested. It is irresponsible to label this huge area as R1. 216.169.238.169 (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have references of ancient DNA study of Amerindians? That would be interesting.

On the contrary, simply ignoring the existence of R1b in the Amerindians (as is seen in other maps) would be irresponsible, giving a false impression that the Amerindians are homogeneously Q (with a little C3b) and oversimplify their genetic history. There are at least 2 theories on the R1b, quoting Genetic_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Haplogroup_R1: "One theory put forth is that it entered the Americas with the initial founding population. A second theory is that it was introduced during European colonization". The best treatment is to show its existence and geographical extent, and acknowledge that we're still not sure when and how it entered there. Chakazul (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

R1 is not a Native American haplotype, which was already pointed out in the Wikipedia article “Y-DNA haplogroups in indigenous peoples of the Americas” Talk Page - 9 September 2011.

The references listed (for that article) clearly state R1 in north-eastern North America is the result of European admixture.

REFERENCES (cited) “Y-DNA haplogroups in indigenous peoples of the Americas”

• Bolnick, Deborah A. et al 2006 - Asymmetric Male and Female Genetic Histories among Native Americans from Eastern North America

In eastern North America . . . R-M173 haplotypes do not cluster by population or culture area, as haplotypes in the other founding haplogroups do . . . and suggests that recent European admixture is responsible for the presence of haplogroup R-M173 in eastern North America.

• Zegura, Stephen L. et al 2004, High-Resolution SNPs and Microsatellite Haplotypes Point to a Single, Recent Entry of Native American Y Chromosomes into the Americas

In sum, our evidence supports the “admixture hypothesis” for the presence of R-P25 individuals in Native American populations.

REFERENCE (cited in the Wikipedia article) “Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas”

• Malhi, Ripan Singh et al 2008, Distribution of Y chromosomes among Native North Americans: A study of Athapaskan population history

Table 1 Provides evidence that the predominate Y-chromosome Haplogroup throughout North America is Q. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.229.126 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

R1 as recent European admixture is only one theory. As shown in Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas#Haplogroup R1, there are two theories, "One theory put forth is that it entered the Americas with the initial founding population.[35] A second theory is that it was introduced during European colonization.[38]". Before any one of the theories is rejected by further analysis, we cannot exclude any of the possibilities.

Also, the map merely shows the fact that the R1b marker exists in NE Amerindian populations. It says nothing about the theories behind this phenomenon. Chakazul (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As already pointed out, none of the Wikipedia sources sited support the distribution of “R” as indicated in this map. So you need to simply show the source of the data used for this map. Niineta (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

My major objections are 1) it labels J1 Semitic, which is both false and misleading because, a. Semitic is a language, not an ethnicity, and b. J1 is older than Semitic languages by about 10ky, and 2) J1 originates in Eastern Turkey, not the Arabian Peninsula as the map indicates. Victar (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC) (J1 Project Admin)

In my understanding, "Semitic" (or other ethno-liguistic labels) can be used to describe language as in Semitic languages or enthnicity as in Semitic people, the meaning is not the same but overlapping.

I understand that matching a haplogroup to an ethno-linguistic label would be misleading. Now J1 is found in Canary Islands, but the people is not speaking Semitic. What I want to show is the majority or the "genetic marker", like in the sayings "J1 is the Semitic marker" or "E-M81 is the Berber marker". That means a lot of Semitic people are J1 (not always), at the same time a lot of J1 people are Semitic (not always).

Yes J1 and J2 originated near E Turkey / N Mesopotamia / upper Euphrates. I'll mark it better. Chakazul (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this map is that it’s based on false information.

The problem stems from the source of the populations which was reported to be Chippewa in Asymmetric Male and Female Genetic Histories among Native Americans from Eastern North America. - Bolnick, Deborah A. et al 2006.

The source population used in this study is from the Turtle Mountain Reservation, which is well documented as a Metis settlement. The populations reported as Chippewa in this study are Metis (mixed-bloods) and do not have paternal Chippewa bloodlines. So the R1b haplogroups for these populations is European.

The Wisconsin Chippewa are likely to be Metis also, given the high R1b paternal markers. This problem arises because during colonization the United States viewed the Metis/mix-bloods as Indians, although the Metis and Indians were quite separate populations, hence the development of mix-blood reservations.

The following documentation shows the Turtle Mountain Reservation is a Metis settlement and also provides evidence of the Metis settlements in Wisconsin.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - Dec. 10, 1966 Bureau of Indian Affairs - Turtle Mountain Agency The people of the (Turtle Mountain Chippewa) Reservation are mixed bloods, much of which is of French extraction, with some English, Scotch and Irish ancestry. Their physical features vary from dark straight hair, dark skin and dark eyes, to blond hair and blue eyes. Culturally speaking they are French because they have had 12 to 14 generations of French background. They speak the French language, celebrate the French holidays, and prepare many of the delicacies that the French prefer. http://library.ndsu.edu/exhibits/text/chippewa.html

TURTLE MOUNTAIN INDIAN RESERVATION The Turtle Mountain Reservation was settled mainly by mixed bloods. In the late 1870s, a group of whites and mixed bloods who had been subjugated by the Chippewa requested from the United States for land to establish a white colony. http://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Turtle_Mountain_Indian_Reservation_%28North_Dakota%29

Green Bay, Wisconsin: Green Bay was one of the more important Great Lakes Metis communities. It is located at the southern end of Green Bay on Lake Michigan, at the mouth of the Fox River.

Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin: Prairie du Chien was a Great Lakes Metis settlement located just north of where the Wisconsin River joins the Mississippi River. (Source - The Metis Homeland: Its Settlements and Communities)Niineta (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but may I know if this is your own research or opinion?

Even being mixed blood doesn't conclude that the R1b must came from Europeans. If so, there should be corresponding ratios of European I, J or E in those populations, but I don't see this happens. Chakazul (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply reading the sources/studies “sited” identifies the populations. The Metis settlements are common knowledge and are well documented and not an opinion.

Why should there be "I,J or E in those populations" in corresponding ratios?

It was European Y chromosome DNA which was introduced into the Indigenous populations throughout the Americas not Mt DNA. Niineta (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The extent of the Haplogroup E1b1b

The Haplogroup E1b1b does not extend that far south into Africa. It maybe found there, but not in high consternation as your map illustrates. Your map also implies that all the ethnic groups in the area covered also inherits it, while only certain ethnic groups actually do. These groups don't even cover whole countries such as Kenya and Tanzania as you have shown, but live in small areas. Its mostly found in Northeast Africa (the Horn of Africa) and North Africa. Could you please edit your map so its not extending beyond the Somali region of Kenya? It should only cover parts of North Africa and all of the Horn of Africa.AcidSnow (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I double checked with other maps and confirmed what you said.

But as seen in some maps (e.g. the supplementary maps of Chiaroni et al. 2009), E1b1b is still dominant near the coast of Kenya and Tanzania. I will correct the map as such. Chakazul (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

New research on NE Amerindian R

A recent study supports the hypothesis that the R1 in Amerindians might be pre-colonial. The jury is still out.

Ancient DNA Links Native Americans With Europe

"from the complete nuclear genome of a Siberian boy who died 24,000 years ago—the oldest complete genome of a modern human sequenced to date. His DNA shows close ties to those of today's Native Americans. Yet he apparently descended not from East Asians, but from people who had lived in Europe or western Asia. The finding suggests that about a third of the ancestry of today's Native Americans can be traced to "western Eurasia," with the other two-thirds coming from eastern Asia, according to a talk at a meeting here by ancient DNA expert Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen. It also implies that traces of European ancestry previously detected in modern Native Americans do not come solely from mixing with European colonists, as most scientists had assumed, but have much deeper roots."

"Willerslev reported that the team was able to sequence the boy's genome, and also to radiocarbon date the bone. The team then used a variety of statistical methods to compare the genome with that of living populations. They found that a portion of the boy's genome is shared only by today's Native Americans and no other groups, showing a close relationship. Yet the child's Y chromosome belongs to a genetic group called Y haplogroup R, and its mitochondrial DNA to a haplogroup U. Today, those haplogroups are found almost exclusively in people living in Europe and regions of Asia west of the Altai Mountains, which are near the borders of Russia, China, and Mongolia."

Chakazul (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The "R" in question is Siberian and Mongoloid. The spread of "R" in Europe is recent, around 5000 to 6000 years. U has a deeper time depth and a wide distribution in West Eurasia.

The child was reported to be Mongoloid. Indicating Caucasoid/Mongoloid intermarriage/mixing 24,000 years ago.

It’s only the “U” that can be considered “West Eurasian/Caucasoid” at that time depth. U is not found in the Americas. So this find does not indicate any Caucasoid admixture arrived in the Americas.Niineta (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary discovery. It is known that part of the population of Siberia, Mongolia and Xinjiang have an origin in Western Eurasia; but we now know that this colonization is as old as 24,000 years. It's true that U (mtDNA) can be considered West Eurasian, but so are R and Q (Y-DNA). It will be mandatory to know the subcladistcs of R, both in this child as in Native North-Americans.--Maulucioni (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the genetic results will be reported in two separate papers, we will see how much of this news report is journalistic sensationalism. Regardless of the time depth of any imagined colonization, admixture is admixture.Niineta (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC) .

There are two issues with regard to how the R1b data are presented. First, do they support showing the Algonquins and neighbors as precolonial R1b? I think this is debatable - there are strong reasons not to do so based on the tenor of most recent scholarship. Second, if it is pre-colonial, where did it come from? The presentation here favors the very-much-fringe Solutrean hypothesis, but the new evidence all the more shows that such a direct European derivation is unnecessary. I think the best solution would be to leave the area uncolored, perhaps with an "R1b?" in the middle of it, along with what the alternative would be were one to dismiss R1b as post-colonial (while it may be deceptive to ignore the presence of R1b, it is also deceptive to show it as if it was accepted, when the consensus prior to this as yet unpublished latest find still seems to be in favor of it being post-colonial). Second, if an arrow is to be drawn, it needs to come from Asia. The Solutrean hypothesis has never been accepted as the most likely model, except by a fringe few, and the recent evidence that reduces the unlikelihood of a precolonial arrival does so by showing the possibility of an Asian one, not one from Europe. The same problem plagues [File:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg] which shows a Solutrean hypothesis version of mt X and a completely unsupportable settlement date for Greenland. Agricolae (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with Niineta that "admixture is admixture" regardless of time depth. We need to set a dividing line for what should be included and what should be discarded (although this will be a difficult task). I think we have a good consensus that the recent European colonialism is the dividing line. That is, in case the R1b admixture happened, say, in the Viking age, or in the Mesolithic, then we will include it in this map as a pre-colonial haplogroup. If it happened in the colonial age, then we will exclude it.

I agree with Agricolae that we should neither ignore the R1b nor showing it as accepted. We have to find a neutral way to present the data, and Maulucioni's map (File:Migraciones_humanas_en_haplogrupos_de_ADN-Y.PNG) has a better treatment, which show the presence of R1b, show both possible routes (from Asia or from the Atlantic), and leave enough room for future verification.

A new version is uploaded based on Maulucioni's treatment.

I'm aware of the Solutrean hypothesis and its fringe status, but the two matters are actually not quite related, because even if we can confirm that R1b came from Europe via the ocean, it doesn't prove a Solutrean-Clovis connection, the R1b may well be spread by the Vikings or Mesolithic seafarers or other possibilities. Chakazul (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Solutrean fringe aside, what scholars actually think it came across the Atlantic pre-colonial? I can't find any. I see papers dismissing it as post-colonial, and there are recent papers implying it came via the ancient Beringian corridor from Altai/Southern Siberia, but I don't see any that suggest it is pre-colonial Atlantic. A Wikipedia map should not show a pre-colonial Atlantic alternative unless it has been supported in non-fringe scholarship, even if it is a formal possibility. Agricolae (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What am I missing in "both studies suggest a source population in Asia whose genes made their way east all the way to the Americas, and west, all the way to Europe." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Replace Turkmen R1b with Q-m25.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252

Turkmens have Q-M25 not R1b, they are the only country not in Continental Latin America with much of haplgroup, Q and the main source of Q-M25. old studies confused r1b with q-m25 the same way they did p1-r2 and f3/h2.

209.236.86.201 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Could we all please more reallistic? Q-m25 is at 31% in Turkmenistan found, but R1b is 36%. Please some admin make Q-m25 and R1b striped in Turkmenistan. 19:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.240.77.152 (talk)

Why Q1a1b was mislabeled as R1b1 (both are defined by m25)

Turkmens have the worlds highest frequency of Q1a1-F1215 (Q1a2 a different clade is found in Americans and Siberians) [1] [2]. Turkmenistan may be the only nation outside of the continental Americas with more then 10% Q, and one of only a few remaining in the world. Q1a1 is at least 17 kya as it is found in an upper Paleolithic Afontova remain in siberia [3]. Old studies mislabeled Q1a1-m25 with R1b1. This is due to the fact that both Q1a1b, the only clade of Q in Turkmens is defined by P25 which also is a defining mutation of R1b1 [4] [5] . It is likely that most of what was labeled R1b in central asia- and Siberia is really Q1a1b, including Uyghurs, and the Bashkirs, R1b has been verified as being common in some of the Bashkirs but it likely that they are the eastern-most population with a high frequency of the haplogroup . So you should entirely remove the R1b from TUrkmenistan, and also possible from other areas in central asia and siberia. 209.236.86.201 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Italy and Greece

Dominant Y haplogroup of Italy is J2, and Greece is E3b1? You may want to check these two.

Also your map shows Norway to have dominant haplogroup I1. At least, according to Eupedia Norway has 31.5% I1, and 57.5% R1.

There seem to be numerous other errors in the map.

Best,

JS (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Some labels are confusing and ahistorical

The labels on the map are used inconsistently. Sometimes they express the founding population that brought a particular haplogroup to an area; at other times they reflect a present-day cultural aspect, such as language.

A prime example are the Haplogroup R1a and R1b-dominated areas of Central Asia, labelled as "S Central Turkic" and "Turkmen". However, there is a well-known association of R1a and R1b with Indo-European languages. It is true that that the present-day populations of Xinjiang (Uighurs) and Turkmenistan speak Turkic languages, although the predominance of R1a and R1b suggests that the present populations are descended from "Turkicised" members of genetically Indo-European populations, that formerly spoke extinct Indo-European languages, belonging to the Eastern Iranian languages (Bactrians/Yuezhi/Kushans) and Tocharian languages (Agni-Kuchi).

As the Wikipedia article on the Turkic peoples points out, their urheimat was likely in the Altai Mountains, spanning the modern borders of Russia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan and China. The map labels this "S Siberian Turkic". The genetics of the founding population are uncertain, but almost certainly included (among others) the Y-DNA Haplogroup C3 (that as the map shows is still predominant in the Altai, as well as Kazakhstan and Mongolia). The Turkic languages spread from the Altai to replace many older languages in central/western Asia and Europe. However: the people that carried those languages have, in some cases, not significantly altered the genetic makeup of the previous population, and/or Turkic languages were introduced as a "language replacement" by individuals native to those areas, who had been culturally Turkicised.

If the mapmakers applied the labelling rationale of "S Central Turkic" and "Turkmen" to the majority Haplogroup J2 area in modern Turkey/Anatolia, it would be something like "S Western Turkic". But it isn't, and such a label would be controversial, because the J2 of modern Turkey genetically reflects ancient, little-known and definitely pre-European and non-Turkic peoples (such as the Hatti and Hurrians, whose descendants were first "Indo-Europeanised", by the Hittites, Greeks etc) and were only much later Turkicised). So striking is Turkey/Anatolia an example of language replacement without genetic replacement, that the above-mentioned Haplogroup C3 is almost non-existent in Turkey .

In summary: it would be better to use very specific endonyms (like Uighur and Turkmen) or official country/region names (like Xinjiang and Turkmenistan). That is already the style used (for example) of the R1b population shown in the southern Urals, which the mapmakers have labelled "Bashkir", which accurately reflects the endonym of the present population.

Grant | Talk 06:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Presence of Elamo Dravidian on the Map.

AFAIK the elamo dravidian theory was disproved long ago so why is it still on the map? Let me know if I am wrong. 05:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Definitely doesn't belong on the map, see Elamo-Dravidian languages. Doug Weller talk 07:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)