Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Genetic studies on Croats" in English language version.
Az I2-CTS10228 (köznevén "dinári-kárpáti") alcsoport legkorábbi közös őse 2200 évvel ezelőttre tehető, így esetében nem arról van szó, hogy a mezolit népesség Kelet-Európában ilyen mértékben fennmaradt volna, hanem arról, hogy egy, a mezolit csoportoktól származó szűk család az európai vaskorban sikeresen integrálódott egy olyan társadalomba, amely hamarosan erőteljes demográfiai expanzióba kezdett. Ez is mutatja, hogy nem feltétlenül népek, mintsem családok sikerével, nemzetségek elterjedésével is számolnunk kell, és ezt a jelenlegi etnikai identitással összefüggésbe hozni lehetetlen. A csoport elterjedése alapján valószínűsíthető, hogy a szláv népek migrációjában vett részt, így válva az R1a-t követően a második legdominánsabb csoporttá a mai Kelet-Európában. Nyugat-Európából viszont teljes mértékben hiányzik, kivéve a kora középkorban szláv nyelvet beszélő keletnémet területeket.
While the reasons for the difference between genealogical and evolutionary Y-STR rates are thus partly understood, it remains unclear which rate to use. Many have applied the evolutionary rate, though quite a few have used the genealogical, or both, rates. Genetic genealogists generally apply the genealogical rate and criticize population-genetic studies for reporting (in their view) three-times overestimated ages ... The age of each haplogroup was also calculated using the STR genealogical rate and the STR evolutionary rate. Confidence intervals for the two STR-based ages (not shown on the plot) do not overlap. For example, the genealogical age of I2a-L621 (2200 ± 500 years) reaches the envelope age (from 2600 to 3100 ages), while the evolutionary age lies far beyond (9900 ± 2700 years). The observed pattern (Fig. 2a) clearly differs for haplogroups of different age classes. For ages less than 7000 years, the genealogical STR rate provides results consistent with or slightly underestimating the "true" ages, while the evolutionary rate results in three-fold overestimates. For ages between roughly 7000 and 15,000 years neither STR rate provides correct results. For haplogroups older than 15,000 years, the evolutionary rate estimates correctly or overestimates the "true" age.
We looked at 16 loci from 640 I2a-L621 samples in FTDNA's I2a project database and found that 7 individuals were 2 genetic steps away the Karos samples, of whom 1 was a Hungarian from Kunszentmárton, 2 were Ukrainians, 1 was Lithuanian, 1 was Belarusian, 1 was Russian, and 1 was a German from Poland. Based on SNP analysis, the CTS10228 group is 2200 ± 300 years old. The group's demographic expansion may have begun in Southeast Poland around that time, as carriers of the oldest subgroup are found there today. The group cannot solely be tied to the Slavs, because the proto-Slavic period was later, around 300–500 CE ... The SNP-based age of the Eastern European CTS10228 branch is 2200 ± 300 years old. The carriers of the most ancient subgroup live in Southeast Poland, and it is likely that the rapid demographic expansion which brought the marker to other regions in Europe began there. The largest demographic explosion occurred in the Balkans, where the subgroup is dominant in 50.5% of Croatians, 30.1% of Serbs, 31.4% of Montenegrins, and in about 20% of Albanians and Greeks. As a result, this subgroup is often called Dinaric. It is interesting that while it is dominant among modern Balkan peoples, this subgroup has not been present yet during the Roman period, as it is almost absent in Italy as well (see Online Resource 5; ESM_5). ... Their genetic haplogroup, I2a-CTS10228, is widespread among Slavs, but it is only present in 7% of Caucasian peoples, namely among the Karachay ... As such, it appears that the I2a-CTS10228 haplogroup in the paternal lineage of the Karos leaders arises from a specific branch in the Northern Caucasus dating to about 400–500 CE. Its modern descendents live among the Karachay, Hungarians, and various other surrounding nationalities.
Ken Nordtvedt has split I2a2-M423-Dinaric into Din-N and Din-S. Din-N is older than Din-S. N=north of the Danube and S=south of the Danube River ... May 8, 2007: Dinaric I1b1 and DYS 448. DYS448 19 for S and 20 for N.
We looked at 16 loci from 640 I2a-L621 samples in FTDNA's I2a project database and found that 7 individuals were 2 genetic steps away the Karos samples, of whom 1 was a Hungarian from Kunszentmárton, 2 were Ukrainians, 1 was Lithuanian, 1 was Belarusian, 1 was Russian, and 1 was a German from Poland. Based on SNP analysis, the CTS10228 group is 2200 ± 300 years old. The group's demographic expansion may have begun in Southeast Poland around that time, as carriers of the oldest subgroup are found there today. The group cannot solely be tied to the Slavs, because the proto-Slavic period was later, around 300–500 CE ... The SNP-based age of the Eastern European CTS10228 branch is 2200 ± 300 years old. The carriers of the most ancient subgroup live in Southeast Poland, and it is likely that the rapid demographic expansion which brought the marker to other regions in Europe began there. The largest demographic explosion occurred in the Balkans, where the subgroup is dominant in 50.5% of Croatians, 30.1% of Serbs, 31.4% of Montenegrins, and in about 20% of Albanians and Greeks. As a result, this subgroup is often called Dinaric. It is interesting that while it is dominant among modern Balkan peoples, this subgroup has not been present yet during the Roman period, as it is almost absent in Italy as well (see Online Resource 5; ESM_5). ... Their genetic haplogroup, I2a-CTS10228, is widespread among Slavs, but it is only present in 7% of Caucasian peoples, namely among the Karachay ... As such, it appears that the I2a-CTS10228 haplogroup in the paternal lineage of the Karos leaders arises from a specific branch in the Northern Caucasus dating to about 400–500 CE. Its modern descendents live among the Karachay, Hungarians, and various other surrounding nationalities.
While the reasons for the difference between genealogical and evolutionary Y-STR rates are thus partly understood, it remains unclear which rate to use. Many have applied the evolutionary rate, though quite a few have used the genealogical, or both, rates. Genetic genealogists generally apply the genealogical rate and criticize population-genetic studies for reporting (in their view) three-times overestimated ages ... The age of each haplogroup was also calculated using the STR genealogical rate and the STR evolutionary rate. Confidence intervals for the two STR-based ages (not shown on the plot) do not overlap. For example, the genealogical age of I2a-L621 (2200 ± 500 years) reaches the envelope age (from 2600 to 3100 ages), while the evolutionary age lies far beyond (9900 ± 2700 years). The observed pattern (Fig. 2a) clearly differs for haplogroups of different age classes. For ages less than 7000 years, the genealogical STR rate provides results consistent with or slightly underestimating the "true" ages, while the evolutionary rate results in three-fold overestimates. For ages between roughly 7000 and 15,000 years neither STR rate provides correct results. For haplogroups older than 15,000 years, the evolutionary rate estimates correctly or overestimates the "true" age.
While the reasons for the difference between genealogical and evolutionary Y-STR rates are thus partly understood, it remains unclear which rate to use. Many have applied the evolutionary rate, though quite a few have used the genealogical, or both, rates. Genetic genealogists generally apply the genealogical rate and criticize population-genetic studies for reporting (in their view) three-times overestimated ages ... The age of each haplogroup was also calculated using the STR genealogical rate and the STR evolutionary rate. Confidence intervals for the two STR-based ages (not shown on the plot) do not overlap. For example, the genealogical age of I2a-L621 (2200 ± 500 years) reaches the envelope age (from 2600 to 3100 ages), while the evolutionary age lies far beyond (9900 ± 2700 years). The observed pattern (Fig. 2a) clearly differs for haplogroups of different age classes. For ages less than 7000 years, the genealogical STR rate provides results consistent with or slightly underestimating the "true" ages, while the evolutionary rate results in three-fold overestimates. For ages between roughly 7000 and 15,000 years neither STR rate provides correct results. For haplogroups older than 15,000 years, the evolutionary rate estimates correctly or overestimates the "true" age.
While the reasons for the difference between genealogical and evolutionary Y-STR rates are thus partly understood, it remains unclear which rate to use. Many have applied the evolutionary rate, though quite a few have used the genealogical, or both, rates. Genetic genealogists generally apply the genealogical rate and criticize population-genetic studies for reporting (in their view) three-times overestimated ages ... The age of each haplogroup was also calculated using the STR genealogical rate and the STR evolutionary rate. Confidence intervals for the two STR-based ages (not shown on the plot) do not overlap. For example, the genealogical age of I2a-L621 (2200 ± 500 years) reaches the envelope age (from 2600 to 3100 ages), while the evolutionary age lies far beyond (9900 ± 2700 years). The observed pattern (Fig. 2a) clearly differs for haplogroups of different age classes. For ages less than 7000 years, the genealogical STR rate provides results consistent with or slightly underestimating the "true" ages, while the evolutionary rate results in three-fold overestimates. For ages between roughly 7000 and 15,000 years neither STR rate provides correct results. For haplogroups older than 15,000 years, the evolutionary rate estimates correctly or overestimates the "true" age.
