User talk:Maulucioni

November 2008
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox or show preview button. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I see that you had intended to merge that section. The problem with doing this is that it makes it appear that Cavalier-Smith's idea is the current taxonomy, this is incorrect. It is a provocative hypothesis, and may well become more widely-accepted in the future, but it isn't much more than an interesting proposal at present. For a good general guide to the current taxonomy see the NCBI or the Tree of Life project. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Great! No problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

V13
feel free to use it Hxseek (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejected histmerge request

 * Regrettably, the two articles Haplogroup L (mtDNA) and Macro-haplogroup L (mtDNA) are not suitable for histmerging. See How to fix cut-and-paste moves and How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

macrohaplogroup L
Hi Maulucioni. Please see the article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macro-haplogroup_L_%28mtDNA%29 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I prepare a paper on mythology, which should be published in a French journal, and I would like to illustrate my paper with your map on the distribution of haplogroup X. I would like to have your agreement. Naturally, I will send you a PDF of this paper and will cite your name. Best regards.

Julien d'Huy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.174.110.98 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Request
I prepare a paper on mythology, which should be published in a French journal, and I would like to illustrate my paper with your map on the distribution of haplogroup X. I would like to have your agreement. Naturally, I will send you a PDF of this paper and will cite your name. Best regards.

Julien d'Huy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.174.110.98 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you for your interest in my work. It will be good to see your paper. You can send it to me here or to maulucioni@yahoo.com. I can read in french too.
 * Mauricio Lucioni - --Maulucioni (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I Apologize
I mistaken your map with an older version I seen on google a few years ago, you can update the map I made if you want its public so its up to you. BTW a close friend of mine is an O (M175) Peruvian. Cadenas2008 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC).

WP:HGH
Did you ever consider joining and/or watching WP:HGH?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Y DNA of Europe
Hi, I reckon you should start a discussion on that article talk page and also call for opinions at Genetic history of Europe? But any way just my first comment would be Y-DNA haplogroups in European populations. A critical concern in this type of data collection is making sure the haplogroups are defined the same way. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

MNOPS
Hi. Concerning for my own interest I'd be interested which source you're using as the latest?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is probably a source somewhere. Have you looked at the Karafet paper of 2008?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You could use that widest range for the time being? (I personally reckon these estimates are all pretty sketchy and unstable for the time being so my "common sense" tells me that very wide ranges are also giving the right impression.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

R map
Hi. I notice. What is the source for all that "native" R in North America?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Still, I am not sure about this.
 * The Bortolini article did not test for R?
 * The Zegura and Malhi articles both treat R as a results of European admixture, and therefore not what I think most people would think of as "native"in this context?
 * Regards--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I guessed that at any time somebody would be interested on these subjects.

The R map I did is about native population in the present days, and it is in accordance with cultural and ethnical items.

Bortoloni said that it is believed that these populations could be the result of European admixture, however the high frequency of haplogroup R1-M173 (known by Bortoloni as haplogroup P-M45b) in native northamericans also makes it unlikely that all these chromosomes result from admixture, since such a predominant European ancestry seems inconsistent with the preservation of the cultural identity of this population.

The Zegura and Malhi articles both treat R as the result of European admixture. But they don’t show the data for this conclusion. We can't rule out anything without shown evidences.

On the other hand: You can see the map about and you will notice the similarity to R (Y-DNA).

We may also talk about the Kennewick Man, who lived 6-9 Kya ago in Washington state and whose genetic analysis resulted X (mtDNA) and many related him to the Western world because of his seemingly caucasic look.

The main matter is that native americans have been poorly studied. It is incredible that the first mtDNA names: A, B, C and D were given to North American natives, giving the impression that they were the first ones to be studied. But, as for Y chromosome DNA, they are the last ones.

Archeological evidence is not concluding, though many believe that the first Americans came from Europe (See link) the called Solutrean hypothesis.

Let see more: X mtDNA evidence indicated that X2 settled America 15 Kya, but we don't know whether it came from Europe where it is currently 2% or if it came from Altai region where it is 4.4%. R Y-DNA evidence shows R1b/R1a in Europe. But R1a is also common in Siberia, with 9.1% in Mongolia. And the presence of R1b in Siberia is not solved as you can see in Derenko 2005.

In conclusion, the presence of R in North America is to me an unsolved subject and it is mandatory to know new researches.

Regards. --Mauricio (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the term "native" is going to lead to misunderstandings that such theories are proven? But the sources certainly do not suggest that such theories are proven with respect to the R haplogroup?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely we are talking about how best to use a normal English word, in order to report some facts found in scientific papers. We are not making decisions about "rights"? No individuals are being discussed, and anyway we have no "right" to use the English language in confusing ways in order to give a very different impression than the articles give? Who even says that native Americans want people to argue that their male lines are negative when they might not be? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But the authors you cite as sources do not say what you are using them to say? It seems you are putting together different sources to come up with your own conclusions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, so you have one source from 2002. But the map you have made mentions other more recent sources which explicitly propose the opposite, and explicitly contrast R1b as a case of "admixture" in contrast to with what is "native". There is no problem with mentioning minority theories, but in effect the way you've made the map seems to claim to be reporting a majority opinion, which it is not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The map as it stands now does imply mainstream consensus which does not exist, and it also mentions recent sources which basically say the opposite of what you are citing them for. It is not giving the same message you are explaining on my talk page. If you want the map to show something as uncertain maybe you could place a question mark on the North American R1, or a comment somewhere?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)
Can you explain, why are you reverting my edits in Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA) ? СЛУЖБА (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes naturally, haplogroup D is originated very likely in Asia because it is where population is. In some regions we find important frequencies and also the whole diversity (D*, D1, D2 and D3). The statement that D was probably originated in Asia, the only place where it has been found, was properly referenced (ref name="Karafet"). I know you state otherwise based on http://www.smgf.org/resources/papers/ASHG2008_5.pdf as a reference, but I dont think mutation M145(xM35), that really belong to DE(xE1b1b1), should be misunderstood. It means that the most probable is that it is about an E different from E1b1b1-M35. Even though it was as you say, it is not excuse for deleting the referenced concepts others edited. Regards. --Maulucioni (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)#Maulucioni СЛУЖБА (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Caucasus populations
Oops... I guess I should have told you again. One of hte major reasons for making the Caucasus page was the different haplogroups there. Thus, R2 (with significant frequencies among CHechens, Balkars, etc.) was to have its own column. Likewise, J1 and J2 were to be split. I guess it might be too late to fix it now now- its okay if it is, its not a disaster. I will commence with adding a bulk of material soon. Also- K* in Nasidze is not necessarily all N (it's actually more likely to be L and T in most cases). --Yalens (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and split J, but it can still be undone... what are your thoughts on the matter?--Yalens (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The only two studies here that don't split J1 and J2 are Semino2000 and Rosser2000 (Wells and Nasidze didn't test for J1, and only tested for J2; for these two, J1 was most likely subsumed under "F*"), which are used only for Georgians and South Ossetes respectively (both populations have plenty of other studies done on them)... Do you know of a way to join certain cells only for one row? (also, there is the problem of Wells joining J1 and G together under F*...) --Yalens (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Kay another couple issues... (see below)

Haplogroup R2
I am adding this, unless you disagree. It's tested for in most of the tests. --Yalens (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

K*->T
I've been dividing the K* in Nasidze (which actually encompasses all F except P in the study) based on the analysis of an unknown editor (an IP) that identified some of hte haplogroups as being T on the Haplogroup T page. They used the haplogroup sheet that was published online, and is a link on the Caucasus page (here: Nasidze et al. "Haplotypes from the Caucasus, Turkey and Iran for nine Y-STR loci"," 'Elsevier Ireland Ltd (2003), you can get to it via google by searching the title). Do you think this is safe or should we just keep them all listed as K* in the (overcrowded now) others column? Thanks. --Yalens (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Paragroup K* is far from having a deep study. I would not dare to support that in West Eurasia K* is always T, with no reliable foundations. The others column becomes our file of the unknown, that's why I give low importance to this column specially if there are low frequencies. And as for Nasidze 2003 work, it is complex, it's better to use clear charts that anyone can interpret. --Maulucioni (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not "all". It's according to someone's analysis of the haplo page... --Yalens (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that when Nasidze notes "K*" it is equivalent to all K subgroups not covered by other categories, hence, he means "K[xP]". That is probably also the case with his "F*", which we decided was not the paragroup F*, but the haplotypes descended from F not elsewhere covered (hence, consisting F*, J1 and H- mainly J1 based on other studies). Do you want me to give you the link to the Nasidze's haplotype sheet pdf online? --Yalens (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to all the haplotypes Nasidze reported finding- it says which ethnic groups held them, etc. http://www.yhrd.org/files/5c04969914458a54acf08f1aa1a69b7c0f252751.nasidze.2003.pdf This is supposedly the thing that one user used to discriminate which of the "K*" were in fact T on the Haplo T page. --Yalens (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Meticulousness

 * Hey, I left a message on the talkpage of the article...
 * also, can we at least differentiate the ones that Balanovsky analyzed to be associated highly with certain ethnolinguistic classifications. That is J2-M67 (J2a4b: Nakh, although actually more diverse-but much less frequency-among NWC speakers), G-P18 (G2a1a: associated with Ossetes in Balanovsky; low levels in NWC and Nakh speakers), G-P303 (G2a3b1: NWC speakers mainly). There are others, but those three are the most notable... I feel that rather than J2 being split into J2(a,*,b), it should be J2(a4b, *, b), with all J2a[xJ2a4b) going under J2*. We don't even need J2b really, we could just have J2-M67 and J2[xM67]. Likewise, for G, I think we should have G2-P303, G2-P18, and then all G2 minus those too for a third subgrouping (there has been no G1 detected). --Yalens (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

E1b1b route
Hi. Can you let me know how you would tweak it? I did look at it again after the Trombetta article came out and I thought it was still basically right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it is already intended to show an origin in Ethiopia, not Sudan, and it was debated very hard with others when I made it, so if nothing else your way of reading it shows we should be careful about how we change it. Feel free though of course. I am wondering is simply removing the arrow head coming back to Ethiopia on the thicker main line would help change the impression you have?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar
PS please fell free to add / correct anything at Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas - that as you can see I have linked to the new article that you have made.


 * Thank you for my first star I've ever received (I arrived to Spanish Wikipedia on April 2008 and to the English one on Nov. 2008). I'm honored, and this star came to me from the far Canada. I will take part on Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas article but first I need to continue acquiring more knowledge about Native Americans, in order to make a good contribution. Thanks again and good luck.--Maulucioni (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Here you are my friend,,Moxy (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Original paper doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0030185 with charts
 * and its PDF version ---> Genetic Variation and Population Structure in Native Americans November 2007 | Volume 3 | Issue 11 | e185

Map request for J1
Hi! I noticed you did a nice new map for Y haplogroup J. Keep up the good work. As it happens there has been an edit war concerning maps for J1 also. Is there any chance you want to try your luck? There are maps, none perhaps perfect, in:- The Tofanelli one is the latest one, and shows the Caucasian J1, and someone was trying to paste it in despite copyvio concerns. I would question it's making the Arabian desert empty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be cool. It seems to fit as something to do now because the article itself has just gone through some issues, and also because the map will be similar to the J one you recently did.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Maps
Hey, some nice maps mate. Where did you get the blank white map template from ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Grazies Amigo ! Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I2a2a
Hi Maulucioni! Former I2a2a is now I2a1b1. The idea that it comes from the Balkans is out of date. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I Map
Hi Maulucioni, I apologize if I offended by replacing the map, for now I removed both. If you can find an accurate map -the blank map has to be accurate in the first place-, then input the data. Cadenas2008 (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

read the ctable carefully please before undoing my revision
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg2013122x4.xls supplementary table 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nottruelosa (talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Nottruelosa (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

screenshot that shows haplogroup l in asia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Haplogroup_l_mtdna_in_asia.png Nottruelosa (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) by country is at AFD
I am contacting everyone who did any significant amount of work on Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) by country to inform them the article is now at deletion discussion at.  D r e a m Focus  16:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

World map of haplogroups
Hi Maulucioni, as inspired by your haplogroup maps (especially N, O, Q, R) as well as Robertius' European map File:Haplogroups_europe.png, I've made one myself, uploaded here:



Later I found your fabulous global map File:Migraciones_humanas_en_haplogrupos_de_ADN-Y.PNG which is quite similar to my interpretation. I made a few corrections (e.g. the extent of R1a, R1b and C3/C3c in Central Asia) after yours.

Corrections and suggestions are welcomed :)

Chakazul (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments!


 * I will try using the new haplogroup names as of 2013, but the names keep changing... some have become too long (E3a7 -> "E1b1a1a1f1a"!). In this case I can only remove it or use SNP name (E-M191) which is not ideal.
 * Someone in Dienekes blog commented that "Q-L330 is now called Q1a2a1c and is basically a Ket/Selkup haplogroup", but I cannot find source to back up this claim. Also, not sure if Siberian Eskimo (Yupik) has Q-NWT01, it is expected if American Eskimo-Aleut is Q-NWT01.
 * T in Australian aborigines -- Wikipedia says so, but again, no published source. Better assume K
 * Both Negritos and Micronesians are K + C + O3, and they're just near by, so I guess they are related...
 * Some people think that R1b across Atlantic (also mtDNA X) is evidence for the Solutrean hypothesis, which is controversial, but an interesting link between genetics and archaeology


 * Also:
 * Do you know any result on Tasmanians / Caribbean Amerindians?
 * I always think of coastal routes for A/B/CT around Africa (see earlier version of my map), but it may be too speculative


 * Chakazul (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Please continue discussion at File_talk:World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png Chakazul (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Eupedia
Please check that a source meets WP:RS before reinstating it. This website states it is a "Guide to European travel, culture, history, linguistics and population genetics. Includes trivia, maps, a discussion forum, and a travel photo gallery." We've discussed it at RSN and agreed it isn't a reliable source. We should only be using peer-reviewed sources on genetics. I've removed that again. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Haplogroup R1b
Hello. I saw your edits. And I think that this map is more accurate: http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b_World.png Notes: Your map don't show country borders. It seems that in some parts of Poland's R1b is weaker then 10%. Some parts of Caucasia area seems to have more then 30%. Southeast Anatolia where Kurds are populated have less then 5%. And Africa seems to been wrongly (for example: there is no connection between North Africa and Central Africa - simply because there is a non-populated area called desert) 77.2.27.107 (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Solutrean Hypothesis?
Hi, you may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History Chakazul (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Or more specifically, except the Solutrean Hypothesis which is considered a fringe theory, do you know any published source that suggested an Atlantic route of Amerindian R1b? Chakazul (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Map of R1
Hello Mauricio,

Thank you for your efforts for preparing images of haplogroup distributions.

3 points for you to consider.

1) The image is problematic. The description says "Haplogroup R (Y-DNA) distribution in native populations".

From the description and references, I assume when you say "native" you mean "Native Americans". Your references all seem to be about "Native Americans".

However, the image actually shows haplogroup frequencies for Europe and Asia. It appears that the frequencies in part of your map (Americas) is about "Native Americans" and the rest of it is about entire populations.

I understand what you are trying to do, but the definition of "Native" has to be much more accurate. You have to define the calendar time for which a population is "Native" according to you. Also you need sources for "Natives" everywhere and not just North America.

2) The image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Migraciones_humanas_en_haplogrupos_de_ADN-Y.PNG is quite unclear about where R, R1, R1a, and R1b originated. It seems to come out of the box [GP IJ LT] but there is no R in it. Also, there is quite a bit of scientific evidence now that R and R1 originated in India/South Asia. For example:

Metspalu M et al. 2011, American Journal of Human Genetics write “the Indian populations are characterized by two major ancestry components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and haplotype diversity in populations of South and West Asia and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50% of the ancestry in Indian populations. Haplotype diversity associated with these South Asian ancestry components is significantly higher than that of the components dominating the West Eurasian ancestry palette.”.

Also, Soares et al, 2010, Current Biology write “More surprising is the status of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1, which, unlike mtDNA haplogroup I, is not indigenous to West Eurasia but appears to have originated in South Asia”.

3) Finally two of your images contradict each other. The image shows that south-central African regions like Angola, Zambia and Zimbabwe were not populated by haplogroup E.

However, the image [] shows the percentage E for these countries to be around 80%.

Best,

JS (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Haplogroups Maps
Hi Maulucioni,

Thanks for your reply.

1. If you use the word "native", you have to use the same definition for the entire map. If you use one definition of "native" for North America, and another definition of "native" for Europe, then the reader will be confused. Also it appears that Europe was populated by G (and maybe E1) before the arrival of R1 from India. So one can claim the native population of Europe was G and not R1 depending upon how far back in time one goes.

2. You can't really distinguish between Pakistan and India as the origin of R1 as they are neighboring countries unless you have evidence for origin as very specifically the western part of Pakistan. Also there are scientific papers that place the origin of R1 in South Asia (which includes both India and Pakistan). I have already referenced a couple of papers (Metspalu 2011 and Soares 2010) which provide evidence of the origin of R1 (or R) in India.

3. Thanks for explaining the two images.

Regards,

JS (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

My rv
Hi Maulucioni, the map is about the distribution of R1a1a, not R1a. In other words, it's about R-M17, not RM420.


 * I am going to rv your edit again. Because other map is more global.


 * Note: If you think that the map is not accurate enough, you can delete it without adding another one. We do not have to use a map. Regards. 149.140.72.216 (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the map. If you have more accurate map, you can add it. Unlike, I am going to add it again. 149.140.72.216 (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal without discussion
On 9 June 2012‎ you proposed merging Southwestern Amazonian moist forests and Southwest Amazon moist forests but didn't include a discussion on either talk page. Should the merge tags be removed? Thanks! Prburley (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of East and Southeast Asia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austronesian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)