GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266236939
From: Alan R <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] FW: : variance of S116*
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:28:59 +0000 (GMT)
As far as I can see, despite the many issues of the intraclade variance method, there is simply no other show in town when attempting a within-clade study with a view to establishing the origin area and direction of spread of a clade. Other than that you just have the phylogeny of the clade defining SNP - what is up and downstream of it and distribution maps. However, this method is still very vague and there still seems a very blurry (if not missing) link between the upstream forms in SW Asia and SE Europe and the downstream of P310 forms in the west. I think there is little choice but to look at intraclade variance when the aim is the finer detail of a clades history. The major concern I have is not the method but the sample for each area which (if I am understanding this correctly) is very very small. I wonder if it would be better given the small number of 67 markers to look at 37 markers too.
Once again, this method as a measure of variance is suspect.
|Re: [DNA] FW: : variance of S116* by Alan R <>|