GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1289673971


From: "Elizabeth O'Donoghue/Ross" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Fwd: Fwd: First Neolithic Y-DNA published
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:46:11 -0000
References: <AANLkTi=R-uQYBmw7vDz3Tsfjzv7_c6JD__MT_n4i6XvE@mail.gmail.com><625030.15518.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><AANLkTin314jXQN2fOafYjTPKv=kBE8CmNG-bh8FPRoG-@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTimAuM7fw-Byb1M=kafpZ4BZZKGxN6O1QxuYCQQY@mail.gmail.com><016901cb8298$82e64500$bb579245@Ken1><AANLkTin_Tao5XEW7uyUqhNy9Lt4KxknRY9LiS-Rsa0op@mail.gmail.com><1F929525185043638E7EF3088712D3E4@elizabethod><00d901cb835b$cf385830$9e702dae@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <00d901cb835b$cf385830$9e702dae@Ken1>


I asked:

I hadn't seen these maps before. What I found interesting is that for the
R-U106 map, its presence in Ireland appears to be considerably older than
England. Could the sampling be responsible for that? As it is, it would
suggest an arrival by sea for this subclade - certainly not across
England.

Ken answered:

Ireland sample size is 6 quite short haplotypes. Standard or Statistical
Error, as they define it, is larger than the differences you are noticeing.
I think it is tea leave reading time.

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

Thank you, Ken, for clarifying. That explains it. I asked the question
because it did seem unlikely to me and I didn't wish to read tea leaves. It
does, however, call into question the reliability of the results, no fault
of Vince's, if the sampling in a paper is not adequate for all areas studied
to have any statistical significance.

I found the supplementary material for the paper -
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/ejhg2010146s1.html
. A number of other samples are that small, and for far larger countries.
How does that affect the value of the data? Could someone explain what the
headings 'TD', 'SE' and 'A7.2' mean?

Thank you.

Elizabeth



This thread: