Talk:Haplogroup T-M184 (Y-DNA)
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Kunabi
[edit]Please remove the frequency reported in Kunabi populations, as it was never reported by Thangaraj et al. 2007. In that paper just the Y chromosomal STR haplotypes were reported, not their respective haplogroups. After reading this article it seems that somebody is trying to overestimate the frequency of M70 (haplogroup K2 now T) in South Asia! in many cases just the K* samples were assumed to be T without further subtyping M70 marker! by Gyaneshwer Chaubey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.5.245 (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Serbs
[edit]Percic study gave 7.08% for K*(xP)
- K*(xP) = T + (Markers that never show up in the Balkans) -hence she didn't feel the need to test for any of them-
- In oman many groups are recognized & self identify as Non-Arabs (South Asians & East Africans). Cadenas2008 (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter one whit whether Pericic "did not feel a need" to test for any marker of any subclade of K-M9 besides P-92R7. What matters is that she has not reported testing M70 nor any other marker of haplogroup T; therefore, her study cannot be cited as a verifiable source of data regarding the distribution of haplogroup T. For your information, Battaglia et al. (2008) have reported finding N1-LLY22g in 6.2% (5/81) of a sample of Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina (the same sample that has been analyzed previously by Marjanovic et al. (2005)), so it is most likely that the haplogroup K(xP) Y-chromosomes that have been reported in other samples of Serbs also belong to haplogroup N rather than haplogroup T. Ebizur (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Not usefully organized article
[edit]The endless lists of distribution in populations in cities (not even identified by nation) is not very useful. It's unlikely that a specialist would go to Wikipedia for such technical data - why not put it in a form that might present some information for an ordinary reader? This article is nearly impenetrable now.Parkwells (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)