Talk:Haplogroup HV

About haplogroup HV3
We cannot ignore haplogroup HV3 because of the following reasons:
 * 1) We can’t say that the tree is updated, supported by one only chosen author (van Oven & Kayser, 2009), ignoring the other researches on this matter (Malyarchuk et al. 2008, Ian Logan 2009). Even though van Oven & Kayser’s compilating work is very advanced and complete, it mustn’t be our only unquestionable reference.
 * 2) Malyarchuk et al 2008’s work, which is specialized in east-european people and deeply studies haplogroup HV3, its mutations, phylogenetics and distribution, is dismissed.
 * 3) We are also ignoring Ian Logan’s work which is updated to 2009 and developes HV3, its sequences and distribution too, and recognizes mutation 16311.
 * 4) Even van Oven y Kayser, despite of they don’t use HV3 in their tree, they do recognize mutation 16311, as well as Malyarchuk et al 2008’s work and credits. If they, with all the authority they have, recognize and mention it appropriately, it is unacceptable to me that every mention that I did of haplogroup HV3 and its subclades, is deleted.
 * 5) Whenever someone searches for past references, this one will helplessly find HV3 since 2004 (or maybe before); thus it is important that, even though its definition might have been changed or updated, it can be possible to be found in Wikipedia.
 * 6) The right thing to do in this case would be to include both definitions, as I intended to do, mentioning first the main view. Or the oldest one, because it is important to know who was the first to discover this clade and what name he called it.
 * 7) Finally, in my opinion, it is fairly unlikely that the same genetic marker 16311 shows up by chance in several relative branches inside HV, as parallel mutations and also in the same geographic areas. I don’t believe in such coincidences.

Sincerely --Maulucioni (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'm good for a compromise but it wil be terribly confusing to a number of people. Perhaps you should add the marker numbers after each of the names, so people will have some idea of where you are coming from. I assume that Haplogroup H's subclades will continue to change yearly if not monthly. In other words, nothing is set in stone. --Brout8 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

directional logic
HV moved "north" across the Caucasus and then went "west" through Anatolia through Europe? If somebody started out north of the Caucasus, they'd have to move SOUTH to go through Anatolia on the way to Europe. This is backwards. Did HV go through Anatolia to Europe, or did they go through the Pontic Steppes (Ukraine)? Besides, HAPLOGROUP U (specifically, U5) constituted the first modern humans in Europe. This paragraph at the HV site makes it sound like they were the very first modern humans on mainland Europe, and they were not. Virtually all of the paleolithic and many of the mesolithic skeletons found in Europe, from Poland to Spain to England to France and Germany, are U5. Cheddar Man, etc. They entered around 30,000 to 35,000 ybp and were the first to encounter the Neandertals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.176.95 (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haplogroup HV (mtDNA). 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/20060320201307/https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=mm023 to https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=mm023

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)