Talk:Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas

Add a new discussion section

Toolbox
Alt text Citation bot Disambig links Edit count External links Peer review Redirects Reflinks

Nomenclature used in this article

According to the YCC guidelines proposed in 2002, and used in most journals now, there are two options - either Q1a3a (phylogenetic name) or else Q-M3 (mutational name). So Q1a3a-M3 or Q1a3aM3 do not exist. They both look like they would possibly mean something else, like for example the name of an STR derived cluster within the clade. Wikipedia should also eventually standardize.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Done ok edited... i think pls double check ..I have added your definitions to the article ..i also added (may be too technical for most readers to understand.) template ....Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed {{technical}}..I put it there ..but i think all can understated now ..many copy edits later :) ..!!!.....Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Readability

I'd say the first paragraph of the introduction could be reworded to be more...introductory. Also, with an image that big right at the start, the text gets pushed out of the way (down to literally one word per line on my screen). The image wouldn't be effective at a small enough size...maybe put it later in the article? The "Y-DNA Q haplogroup tree" could definitely be organized more clearly, but I'm not sure how you could go about that. That section also has some grammatical errors that make understanding more difficult. As written, the article will definitely present a challenge to the average reader. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I love you TKS!!!... Think i will crop the first image!! ...ok i will work on every point...The into I agree not my strong suit...grammatical errors dame i always have this problem. Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reduced the image size and moved it.. cropping is not working for me :(....re did some of that tree... like you not sure who to show it better...AS for intro i think i will ask one of the WikiProject Human Genetic History guys to have a look! My problem is the title of the article and trying to incorporate that into the first sentences..I have already renamed it 2 times :) .....Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Update i redid the intro a bit... since we talk about Autosomal DNA now..so i hope more legible...Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Autosomal DNA

The article currently only includes Y-DNA and mtDNA information. But these are just two markers out of many. I would suggest include some information from autosomal DNA markers. Cavalli-Sforza's History and Geography of Human Genes may be a good place to start. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to mention it ..but since its not really used whaen talking about Paleo-Indians, Paleo-Eskimos etc..More so in direct family genetics and also, autosomal markers contain all your health issues. ..I dont want to confuse anyone..But in time i think it will be added as methods get better!!

This bellow is the typical stuff i find on the subject.. However, pls if anyone can help add this subject to the article DO SO!!!!!

“ The ONLY testing today that can positively identify Native American or African ancestry is the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA testing. This is due to the stability of the markers used for these tests to determine the haplogroup (your twig on the World Family Tree) for the basic ethnic groups. Testing particular parts of the Y-chromosome and the mitochondrial markers are reliable as they are consistent over time. That is to say, they rarely mutate, and those minor mutations help geneticists and genetic genealogists group testers into families. Geneticists have determined which twigs on the World Family Tree (Phylogenetic Tree) do tend to have Western European, Asian, Native American and African DNA; therefore, by testing either the all male line (Ydna test) or the all female line (mtDNA test) an accurate determination of these cultural groups can be made.

Some testing companies give a percentage for various ethnic groups and claim to assign a tribe to African or Native American Heritage with atDNA. The test result from these companies is displayed as percentages for various ethnic groups. Not every ethnic group can be determined. Basically, a tester would get a percentage for Western European, Native American, African, and Asian. For example, a person’s test could result in 36% Western European, 24% African, etc. A genealogist would have to ask how helpful a percentage of a cultural group is to the search for ancestors. "Autosomal markers are best used to help determine paternity and for use in forensics". Emily Aulicino a Genetic Genealogist for Genealogical Forum of Oregon, Inc.

”

-

Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The strength of mtDNA and y-chromosome markers is that they can be used to establish phylogenetic/genealogical relationships between individuals. However, their weakness is that they are not as useful as autosomal markers for studying phenotypes since only a few mtDNA and y-chromosome markers are used, and most markers are selectively neutral("junk DNA"). Since the article only includes mtDNA and y-chromosome information, then a more appropriate name would be "Indigenous American haplogroups", or "Indigenous American genetic genealogy". Genetics is a much broader field that relates to the genome as a whole, including mtDNA, y-chromosome and the autosomes. From a biomedical perspective, autosomal markers are more useful, as they can be used to diagnose, treat or prevent disease. But I do agree that autosomal markers overlap significantly, so much so that few, if any, are unique to any given population. Nonetheless populations do differ in frequencies of DNA variants and this information is useful in biomedicine. For example, Indigenous Americans almost exclusively belong to blood group O.

• Blood group O alleles in Native Americans: Implications in the peopling of the Americas.
• Distribution of Blood Types

Another feature of Native American genetics, which applies to y-DNA, mtDNA and the autosomes, is a lower level of genetic diversity relative to other continental populations, supporting the theory that the the Americas were the last continents to be settled. Furthermore, genetic diversity decreases in a southward direction supporting the hypothesis that the Americas were settled from the north. Finally Native Americans genetics are a subset of siberian genetics consistent with a Siberian origin of Native Americans. As this information applies to all types of markers I believe it should be included in any general article about native American genetics. A useful article is,

Genetic Variation and Population Structure in Native Americans

Wapondaponda (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok i like your argument ...but i dont feel i am knowledgeable enough to add atDNA info...So lets move the page to Indigenous Amerindian haplogroups..We(Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America have chosen not to use the word America or Native long ago.. as it may be misleading as most might think it is only for the USA.. PS i see your from the Genetics project...thank you very very much in helping ...Not to many have the knowledge to help here TKS MAN!!!

...damit the more i read your link the more i see that it should be added!!..ok give me some time will read a book or 2 then add some info..pls fell free anyone to jumpin and help!!! ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE "Why Strike above" ok i have added a section..basically a copy edit of this (All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.) ..I will add more as i read more ..Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some observations concerning the article,

The lead states,

"Indigenous Amerindian genetics primarily focus on Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups and Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroups."

Genealogy is one of the most popular hobbies in the western world. MtDNA and Y-DNA are powerful tools for determining ancient genealogical relationships. It is therefore no surprise that public interest in y-DNA and mtDNA has exploded since the discovery of a mitochondrial Eve in 1987. It is good for science that regular people have taken a keen interest in mtDNA and Y-DNA studies. However such interest is not without its problems and controversies. There is the potential for misunderstanding what they mean, and in some cases there has been politicization of DNA information [1], [2]. Y-DNA and mtDNA tell stories that no other DNA marker can, but y-DNA and mtDNA markers only represent a tiny fraction of human genetic variability. Consequently I think it is somewhat inaccurate for Indigenous Amerindian genetics to be primarily about Y-DNA and mtDNA, though these markers are very popular in the public's eye.

What is interesting about Amerindian genetics is that autosomal, y-DNA and mtDNA all display a similar pattern. All three types all share common ancestry with Siberian/East Asian populations. All three types display a loss of diversity as one moves south. IOW y-DNA, mtDNA and autosomal haplotypes in South America are subclades of North American haplotypes. As this pattern is applicable to the genome as a whole, I would suggest having a summary of this similarity in the lead.

Many wikipedia articles under WP:HGH use the word "genetics" in their title, but what they are actually referring to is population genetics and not the genetics of individuals. This distinction is important, because save for twins/clones, all individuals are genetically unique. This article is actually referring to "Indigenous American population genetics". :::Wapondaponda (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok what are you saying ?...what should we change in the lead?...and should we move the article to Indigenous Amerindian population genetics???......As for what the public uses i cant help that... only state that they do use Y dna more!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many ways to approach the subject matter. The article Genetic history of Europe has focused on what genes reveal about the history and pre-history of Europe. Consequently Y-DNA and mtDNA can play a prominent role as the strength of these markers is establishing patterns of prehistoric migrations. The article, Genetics and archeogenetics of South Asia has taken another approach in its title, though the science used is similar to that found in genetic history of Europe.

I think it is important to establish the scope of the article, and the scope of the article should be consistent with the title of the article. Based on the title "Indigenous Amerindian genetics", my initial impression was that the scope of the article was indeed "Indigenous American population genetics". If this is the case, atDNA should be covered, in addition to Y-DNA and mtDNA, but not just as a step-child. While Y-DNA and mtDNA have been studied in detail recently, much of the initial work in population genetics was based on polymorphisms found in blood proteins, which are coded by autosomal DNA. So there is a substantial body of work on atDNA markers as well.

Some general DNA studies include

• Cavalli-Sforza (1994). "America". History and Geography of Human Genes. 
• Mulligan; et al. (2004). "Population genetics, history, and health patterns in native americans".  CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link)
• Bourgeois; et al. (2009). "X-chromosome lineages and the settlement of the Americas".  CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link)
• Mesa; et al. (2000). "Autosomal, mtDNA, and Y-Chromosome Diversity in Amerinds: Pre- and Post-Columbian Patterns of Gene Flow in South America".  CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link)
• Estrada-Mena; et al. (2009). "Blood group O alleles in Native Americans: Implications in the peopling of the Americas".  CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link)

Wapondaponda (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok i will look this over...BUT PLS ADD WHAT YOU THINK IS NEEDED if you like ...I am the creator of the article ....but hope that others will help !!...Buzzzsherman (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect terminology. I enjoyed this article, but I believe the term 'cellular differentiation' as written in the following sentence of the 'atDNA' section, "The Amerindian populations show a lower genetic diversity and cellular differentiation than populations from other continental regions" is used incorrectly. This term is very specific to developmental biology and has nothing to do with the topic at hand (ie. genetic diversity of Amerindians.) The article for ref. 31 states, "...lower genetic diversity and greater differentiation than populations from other continental regions." Thus, I have edited the article. FWIW, I wonder if these two concepts (1. genetic diversity - the variation within a gene pool and 2. differentiation - degree of difference between gene pools) are too difficult for lay people to grasp. Also, ref. 81 is unrelated to the topic and perhaps ought to be removed. Das312 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, i am glad you enjoyed reading the article...Yes if you think something is odd/or misleading pls change it....as for ref #81 looks like it got move in a copy edit ..i will look it over soon see were it goes....Moxy (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

10

A factor of 10 is mentioned in the article. There is no time scale mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.18.65 (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed and then they grew by a factor of 10 over 800 – 1000 yearsWells, Spencer; Read, Mark (2002) "The Journey of Man" - A Genetic Odyssey. Random House. pp. 138–140.. Moxy (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Specific european y-chromosome haplogroups

Does anyone know the specific european y-chromosome haplogroups that native american males have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.6.118 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Native northamerican males have mainly R1b and R1a, but the available information is very poor. --Mauricio (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

MtDNA section

This section has information on haplogroup X that seems contradictory and may need a little clarification. I've read it several times and can't get my head around it.

Haplogroup X (mtDNA) is one of the haplogroups associated with the single founding east Asian population that initially populated the Americas; how can it also be not at all strongly associated with east Asia? I come up with two possibilites, which is why I thought it may need clarification. Did Haplogroup X enter the east Asian population 20-30,000 years ago, or did a group from the Altai region, somehow travel to and get stuck on Beringia along with the other east Asian populations?

I know, fussy work. Great article though. Nihola (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The single founding that initially populated the Americas is Not associated with the East Asian population, but Siberian population. For its part, in its time, Siberia was initially populated by east asian haplogroups A, B, C and D, and the west (or central) asian X.--Mauricio (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mitochondrial haplogroup M discovered in prehistoric North Americans

Mathilda’s Anthropology Blog. Just another WordPress.com weblog Skip to content HOME ABOUT ME AND MY BLOG

← European mt DNA U5 in a Chinese tomb.Mitochondrial DNA haplogroups and age at onset of schizophrenia → Mitochondrial haplogroup M discovered in prehistoric North Americans Posted on November 3, 2008 by mathilda37| Leave a comment

Mitochondrial haplogroup M discovered in prehistoric North Americans

Received 21 April 2006; received in revised form 8 July 2006; accepted 11 July 2006

We analyzed two mid-Holocene (w5000 years before present) individuals from North America who belong to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup M, a common type found in East Asia, but one that has never before been reported in ancient or living indigenous populations in the Americas. This study provides evidence that the founding migrants of the Americas exhibited greater genetic diversity than previously recognized, prompting us to reconsider the widely accepted five-founder model that posits that the Americas were colonized by only five founding mtDNA lineages. Additional genetic studies of prehistoric remains in the Americas are likely to reveal important insights into the early population history of Native Americans. However, the usefulness of this information will be tempered by the ability of researchers to distinguish novel founding lineages from contamination and, as such, we recommend strategies to successfully accomplish this goal.

I’m surprised I’ve not heard more noise around this. Unfortunately I couldn’t spot any information in the paper on what known population this M clade this might be closest too.

In this study we demonstrate the existence of this undocumented genetic structure with the discovery of two individuals from China Lake, British Columbia (Fig. 1) that exhibit a mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup never before reported in any prehistoric or living indigenous population in the Americas. Both were found in the same burial, dated to 4950 +/- 170 14C years before present (ybp), and were believed to be related due to similar morphological characteristics (Cybulski personal communication). Both individuals belong to haplogroup M, which is widely distributed throughout Asia (Kivisild et al., 2002). These individuals account for two of three samples dating to approximately 5000 ybp studied from the Northern Plateau region in Northwestern North America that were compared to 3658 sequences from Native Americans widely distributed throughout the Americas. The third sample dating to 4975 � 40 14C ybp from Big Bar Lake, British Columbia (Fig. 1), exhibits a haplogroup A haplotype that is shared with contemporary indigenous individuals. The discovery of a new mitochondrial haplogroup in the Americas conflicts with the presumed five-founder model, which implies that all Native American mtDNA derives from only five lineages, the founding haplotypes of haplogroups A, B, C, D, and X (Eshleman et al., 2003). Our discovery demonstrates that a more genetically diverse group of migrants colonized the Americas than previously thought and supports the hypothesis that significant undocumented genetic diversity likely still remains in the Americas.

This now brings the founding American mt lineages to six; A, B, C, D, X and M.

Old world genetic admixture

In the "triangle plot" image, made from the cited study, only one group was identified at its point of origin - Hispanics, from a sample in southern Colorado. It seems that other groups should also be identified (i.e. African Americans from Washington, DC), or perhaps none at all?Parkwells (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Triangle plot

On one hand, this is a great diagram that it should be somewhere. I don't agree after discussing scientific genetics that "self-identification" should be here. Seems like mixing myth with science. I suggest it be moved "elsewhere," but not sure where "elsewhere" should be. Somewhere where "self-identification" wouldn't seem unscientific! Student7 (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Student7, what world are you living in where Puerto Rican, Mexican, etc are only "self identifications"? --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid WP:PERSONAL attacks. Thanks.

It appears to me that "Mexicans" are the only group that might be germane to this particular topic. The other groups seem non-WP:TOPIC.Student7 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the diagram does not relate to this article, which is about the origins of the indigenous peoples and their genetic history.Parkwells (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is the term "race" being used in reference to genetics. Race is an imprecise social/cultural concept not a scientific term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.40.22 (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Genetic chart at the top

There is a great chart at the top. It only has two tribes on it from Canada and the US: Objibwa and Cree. Kind of invites the question: what happened to the those other tribes of NA? Student7 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It relates to the languages as well - Na-Dene is the language group for Navajo and Apachean languages, among others; but the Navajo tribe is not listed on the chart. It's just a starting point. Parkwells (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Error in the R1 section

The penultimate sentence in the R1 section beginning with "Principal component analysis..." is mistaken unless I'm seriously misunderstanding something. The Amerind groups with the highest proportion of type R1 (Chippewyan, etc.) listed in the R1 section do NOT "most closely resemble" the Siberians with the highest proportion of type Q (Ket, etc.) listed in the Q section. Of course, if I'm wrong, please cite the source of the principal component analysis that found that the American tribes with the highest proportion of R1 resemble the Siberians with the highest proportion of type Q more closely than they resemble any fellow R1s.

If I'm right, then I suspect that I'm not the only one who would love to know the real answer to the questions, Which non-American R1s do the Chippewyans and other majority R1 Eastern tribes most closely resemble, how closely, and why?

Tuanglen (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Its not non American - its relation is with mtDNA haplogroup X not Q YDNA. I hope this helpsMoxy (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if there is some misunderstanding on my part. I notice that the sentence has been changed, but I still believe there is a problem. It now says,

"The principal-component analysis suggests a close genetic relatedness between some North American Amerindians (the Chipewyan and the Cheyenne) and certain populations of central/southern Siberia, at the resolution of major Y-chromosome haplogroups. This pattern agrees with the distribution of mtDNA haplogroup X...."

Which PCA suggests close relatedness between Chipewyan/Cheyenne and which populations of central/southern Siberia? Specifically. If an actual study were cited, I could read it myself, but none is. This is a section on Amerindian Y-DNA, so any mention of "the PCA suggests" must be assumed to be referring to a study of their Y-DNA. The text even says, "at the resolution of major Y-chromosome haplogroups." If the PCA analysis referred to in the section on the R1 Y-DNA of some Amerindians is not a PCA analysis of the R1 Y-DNA of those Amerindians, it ought to say what it actually is a study of, and cite the study.

Or else the claims about what this mysterious principal component analysis allegedly suggests or agrees with should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuanglen (talk • contribs) 11:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Tuanglen writes: "Which non-American R1s do the Chippewyans and other majority R1 Eastern tribes most closely resemble, how closely, and why?"

Closest STR matches are to French, English, and Scots. There is no evidence that the R1b in Native Americans originated from anything other than colonialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.173.247 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

mtDNA haplogroups

You can only read the abstract on the new reference about C4c. But on the evidence available so far, the Amerindian haplogroups C4c and X2a have no demonstrated relationship to each other. While C4c has a clear Siberian origin, the X2a origin remains a mystery. It is not wise to take as valid a claim if it has not really been demonstrated.--Maulucioni (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Book that makes suspicious claims of origins of indigenous Americans

I usually do not go to articles focused on genetics, but there was a small section in the book that didn't match up with what I was reading of the ancestry of the Amerindians. In the book: "La Florida: Spanish Exploration & Settlement of North America, 1500 to 1600", stating that Europeans might have sailed over from the Americas based on certain DNA markers found in certain Indian groups that are no more than 15,000 years ago, the Cactus Hill settlement, and that they couldn't have came from overland Asia b/c of a mile high glacier blocking the path. [3](here's the link). I just realized that it was the Solutrean hypothesis, and it is controversial b/c lack of peer reviews and what not. It doesn't match up with what I've read about the settlement of the Americas during the later Ice Age, and wondered what validity it has on being mentioned on this page. Please contact me as you can, and thanks for reading. LeftAire (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the author's bio[4]. Solitude Press seems to have published 16 books by him and only 2 or 3 by anyone else, so I suspect self-published. He's amateur and his books need to be read with care. Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I keep reading very tangled explanations of why Native Americans have such a high proportion of European genetic material, such as is found in this article. Bryan Sykes in DNA USA offers his estimate that (if memory serves) 20% to 25% of indigenous American genes are European in origin. Rather than just saying "dang, there sure was a lot of interbreeding among European settlers and native Americans," shouldn't the paragraph that addresses this issue at least mention the Solutrean hypothesis? I am just an amateur guesser, but I'm guessing that at some point during my lifetime ancient European settlement of the Americas will become the prevailing paradigm among scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B80:52E0:B5FB:5B9E:ABDD:5074 (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Native Americans and Europeans (and all kinds of other Old World immigrants) *did* intermarry a lot - this is amply documented. There is no mystery here. Of course, there could *also* be Solutrean ancestry, but the *proportion* of European ancestry is no evidence for it.

Any admixture that *did* arrive through Solutreans will be easily distinguishable from modern European admixture when examined carefully, because they will have been separated for ~20 000 years. Mitochondrial haplogroup X2a is a popular candidate for Solutrean ancestry for just this reason - Europeans have a fair bit of X2, but it turns out to be an entirely different kind from Amerindian X2. (Not that there is any evidence that Solutreans had X2a: there is no known X in Europe before the Neolithic, the 2 known Solutreans had U and R0, but the sample size is too small to rule it out.) On the other hand R1b-M269, which is common in Amerindians and predominates in Western Europe, can't be Solutrean - it is much too young, and Amerindian R1b is just like European R1b when haplotypes are compared. I have yet to see any evidence of a Native American R1 clade, even though it wouldn't be surprising in principle - R1 is plenty old enough, very widespread, and related to Q.

The pattern of admixture is also indicative of recent sources. For instance, if you look at the autosomal admixture graph from the recent study "Genomic evidence for Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans", you can see that within a given population, some individuals will have very high levels of European admixture, some will have low levels, and some will have none at all. This would not result from *ancient* admixture, because it would have all been homogenized to an even level long ago. What's more, there are actually two European components in this study, one which is most important in Europeans and minor in other people, and another which is actually highest in Middle Eastern populations: these two components appear in the same proportions in admixed Amerindians as they do in modern Europeans. Similarly, looking at the Y haplogroups in "Asymmetric male and female genetic histories among Native Americans from Eastern North America" and other studies, the proportion of R1 to other purportedly European haplogroups is the same in Native Americans (65%) as it is in European-Americans from Hammer et al 2005 (66%). The only real anomaly I am aware of in this respect is an often-studied sample of 48 Chipewyan men, which had 30 cases of R1 and no other European haplogroups.70.75.233.253 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Siberian genome reveals genetic origins of Native Americans

The study itself is at [5]. Another link is [6] and says "These findings may explain the presence of mitochondrial lineage X in Native Americans." and "the study concludes that two distinct Old World populations led to the formation of the First American gene pool: one related to modern-day East Asians, and the other a Siberian Upper Palaeolithic population related to modern-day western Eurasians." and "The presence of a population related to western Eurasians further into northeast Eurasia provides a more likely explanation for the presence of non-East Asian cranial characteristics in the First Americans, rather than the Solutrean hypothesis that proposes an Atlantic route from Iberia." Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

These full-genome studies are quite elusive. Non-recombining DNA studies are much better. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Paiute people

Hi, genetic history is not my forté. Would anyone familiar with the topic care to look at a recent addition Paiute people#Genetic history? I made it less sensationalist and linked back to this article but any further clean up would be greatly appreciated. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Just spotted "D-1 Haplogroup has also been found among people of Hokkaido, Japan, a northern region inhabited by ancient indigenous people known as the Ainu." The Ainu are a pretty modern ethnic group, first mentioned in the 13th century CE. The abstract (not a reliable source at times) itself says "However, probably due to the small sample size or close consanguinity among the members of the site, the frequencies of the haplogroups in Funadomari skeletons were quite different from any modern populations, including Hokkaido Ainu, who have been regarded as the direct descendant of the Hokkaido Jomon people." In any case, the second and third paragraph sources do not seem to mention the Paiute so should be removed. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A minor and somewhat tangential point, since it's not directly related to the Paiutes, but the first sentence did not originate from the abstract. The Ainu are regarded as Jōmon descendants and the Jōmon are indeed the most ancient identified cultural group in Japan. Strictly speaking, "Jōmon" would not be the correct term to use referring to a North American source population since it is a term referring to cultural markers that emerged after the migration was underway. "Jōmonoid" might be a better term to use for the ancestral population of the Jōmon culture and perhaps to the Ainu as well.75.111.54.141 (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, have just started to work on this and was trying, first, to see what Kemp et al. did say. Sorry for the roughness by leaving material in that belongs elsewhere. Agree with you. Similarly, the criticism by Harry and her co-writer (last paragraph in that section) are about National Geographic's Genetic Project and has nothing to do directly with this material on the Paiute, so intend to delete that as well, and see if there is an article on National Geographic's project, where it belongs. Am reading the sources to see what they DO say. The link to the National Geographic Project is general, so may have difficulty tracking down what was stated.Parkwells (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Solutrean hypothesis redux

I keep reading very tangled explanations of why Native Americans have such a high proportion of European genetic material, such as is found in this article. Bryan Sykes in DNA USA offers his estimate that (if memory serves) 20% to 25% of indigenous American genes are European in origin. Rather than just saying "dang, there sure was a lot of interbreeding among European settlers and native Americans," shouldn't the paragraph that addresses this issue at least mention the Solutrean hypothesis? I am just an amateur guesser, but I'm guessing that at some point during my lifetime ancient European settlement of the Americas will become the prevailing paradigm among scholars.104.184.5.46 (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)