Loading AI tools
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
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)
There was a recent documentary on the concept called Ice Age Columbus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.132.232.89 (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 . See main articles Haplogroup I1b (Y-DNA) and Haplogroup I (Y-DNA) -- Jheald 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
"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)
No, this is not correct. A haplotype is a sequence of genetic variants that reside on the same chromosome. The genetic variants can be STRs as well as SNPs.
- Wikipedia is for the non-specialist and I am a biologist with a PhD and still remain confused with the introduction: a haplogroup is a group of similar haplotypes, etc. I cannot imagine what the non-specialist is going to make out of this. For example, is haplogroup A a set of "similar haplotypes" that are different from the set of "similar haplotypes" of haplogroup B? Or are the haplotypes the same for all haplogroups but differ in detail between the different haplogroups? How big are the mutations? Is it just a case of base substitutions or short sequence duplications? Are there entire allele deletions or duplications? What are these "similar" haplotypes coding for in each case? What do those of haplogroup A code for, compared to those of haplogroup B, etc? Why is it that haplogroup B for example is specific for pygmies, etc. Do only pygmies have those genes? I really do not understand the science behind this, except that there are some cladistics and that the branches are being designated by letters. But what are the relations of those letters to the genes, what genes or haplotypes are we talking about? The non-specialist is going to think here are some letters that designate race and correspond to different genes that some races have and others don't, such as genes for valour or for obedience or for being a gentleman, but I tend to expect we are talking of some proteins specific for male sperm or testicular tissue with some mutations, not about racial characteristics or special racial proteins. What is the science behind these permutations of the alphabet? Skamnelis (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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
Is there any information about this? There is an article about haplogroups by ethnic groups http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_groups 77.30.74.47 (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This section seems to contain original research. While it is true that some y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups overlap, it is quite frequent for y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups to be discordant due to patrilocality matrilocality and other gender-mediated migratory patterns. Whatever the case, the table is unsourced, and inaccurate and should be removed. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- This section still has the original research problem mentioned in 2009. If it is not cleaned up with all original research removed in the next month or two I will remove it.--RebekahThorn (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
So here I am, a novice, trying to understand what the haplogroup is. I read that first sentence and get stuck on end of it: "with a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation." Why is that part there?! This should be added in the next sentence or something. I understand that haplogroup is a group of haplotypes, but definitely not with a single mutation! Given two different haplogroups, the difference between is not just a single nucleotide mutation. There are lots of nucleotides that make some two haplogroups different. Each of those dozens of mutations may occur on nucleotides that are separate from each other (therefore single?). 16:57, 12 August, 2011 (UTC)
Here is a suggestion: "a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor with the same single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.198.18 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The wiki says:
"The special feature that both Y chromosomes and mtDNA display is that mutations can accrue along a certain segment of both molecules and these mutations remain fixed in place on the DNA. Furthermore the historical sequence of these mutations can also be inferred. For example, if a set of ten Y chromosomes (derived from ten different men) contains a mutation, A, but only five of these chromosomes contain a second mutation, B, it must be the case that mutation B occurred after mutation A.
Furthermore all ten men who carry the chromosome with mutation A are the direct male line descendants of the same man who was the first person to carry this mutation. The first man to carry mutation B was also a direct male line descendant of this man, but is also the direct male line ancestor of all men carrying mutation B. Series of mutations such as this form molecular lineages. Furthermore each mutation defines a set of specific Y chromosomes called a haplogroup."
But that (to my mind) presumes two conditions - one weak, one not so weak.
The weakest assumption is that the same mutation is never repeated. So, in the above example, all male descendants with mutation B must be descendants of the first man with mutation B - ONLY if the mutation can NEVER repeat in another person with mutation A. But if the mutation is a copying error, why can't it repeat?
The second weak assumption is that mutations are one way (not reversible), sort of like a trapdoor function. If mutations are reversible, then would it not be possible for ten men to have originally had mutation B then it reversed in 5 of them and then all 10 got mutation A? How are we confident that mutations are not reversible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattais (talk • contribs) 11:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
How do they determine which haplogroup descended from which haplogroup? 76.120.17.197 (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
- A few thoughts:
Please continue discussion at File_talk:World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png Chakazul (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The introduction to the article immediately gets into the specifics of what haplogroups are and links to very sciency articles. Having that somewhere in the article is absolutely necessary, but it will only have its full effect if readers understand the context and the basics before getting to know the hard, technicfal facts. After all, people come to the article because they don't know what haplogroups are, not because they want to show off that they understand all the fancy terms used. In what fields of science are haplogroups studies? Where are they physically found? Those kind of questions should be answered at the beginning, with a more fleshed out description divided into categories below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.8.233 (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hear, hear! Please a description from an expert of what haplogroups are in terms of genes (which genes are we talking about in each case) would be very nice. The article is not "sciency", unless this was meant as an irony. On the contrary, it gives the impression it was written by non-experts. Skamnelis (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I have read this article from beginning to end and still do not know what a single haplogroup codes for. A phosphorylase, a lactase, a lipase, a G-protein, what? Are they just random sequences? Is there any research on them except for cladistics? 192.129.2.104 (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
What makes presume that there is no natural selection for a particular haplagroup when it is a defacto that there is allways a natural selection. Even between species itself, alpha male, alpha female, there is determant selection. That is a statement about what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.174.60 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
On the first look, it would be more logical that the origin of R is in Africa(blue zone) and R than moved to Gibraltar and conquered whole Europe. The name for R would be something like Berber/Barbars/Tho(u)r(reg)s-Barbars. And the similar groups in India would fit to the conquest of India by the British Empire. Maybe there was even an ancient seaman like Gulliver, who travelled till South-East-Asia. --92.200.81.133 (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)--Smiles :( :\ :o :() (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Gulliver has travelled East in the Northern polar sea to East Asia; and Erik westwards to America ?
Somehow, human haplogroups have completely taken over this article. Humans are not the only species to exhibit haplogroups. At some stage, there will be a need to unbundle that part of the article that relates to haplogroups in general, and place the human haplogroups under their own chapter within this article. William Harris • talk • 10:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yuan et al. have recalibrated the human uniparental phylogeny. Using slow evolving SNPs, haplogroup F is the most ancestral paternal clade, with the megahaplogroups ABCDE and HIJK downstream to that. Haplogroup R (which the 40,000 year old Ust'-Ishim fossil carried) is the most basal maternal clade, with the macrohaplogroups M and N downstream to that; M is also ancestral to the L haplogroups . Soupforone (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Turkemistan Haplogroup Q2 and R1b: http://www.haplogruplar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/turkmens-ydna-haplogroups-turkmenistan-genetik-yapisi.png 23:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.240.77.152 (talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Haplogroup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031125151213/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150506090224/http://dna.xyvy.info/ to http://dna.xyvy.info/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there anyone knowing similar map or source/s for contemporary, not precolonial, populations?
Also there should be similar map for mtDNA right beside of YDNA.
Sam 82.177.110.35 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Added a dubious tag to the end of the first paragraph of the --Haplogroup formation-- section.
"When a mutation arises in a mtDNA molecule, the mutation is therefore passed in a direct female line of descent. Mutations are copying mistakes in the DNA sequence. Single mistakes are called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)."
The phrase "Mutations are copying mistakes in the DNA sequence" is really quite ambiguous - on what side of the copying is it an error? Is it because it is copied that it becomes mutated, or does the copying reproduce the mutation? Mutations can be caused by a variety of phenomenon, so both the first and second part are invalidated.
Secondly, a particular SNP can be a mistake but mistakes aren't 'called' SNPs. A mistake would be the unexpected or unusual variations of the SNPs that occur at a point, as caused by a mutation. SNP is a general term for variation, not mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrateUrocyon (talk • contribs) 07:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
What are the "extinction events" that are mentioned so often in the section on Y-chromosome DNA? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
This section has Zero sources provided and makes No sense. Why is it included? 73.159.143.13 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
