Talk:Haplogroup A (Y-DNA)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dating Haplogroup A Beyond Modern Human Appearance?

A appeared "roughly 270,000 ybp[1]". Now hte last time I looked, the appearance of the first humans was 200,000 years ago. So how can Haplogroup A be 270,000 years old? Let's just start there. And, I am not a fan of using alleged Neanderthal or Wachovian dna, when they are the oldest and most damaged DNA available. If it's available. What a coincidence that redheaded researcher Svante Paabo would isolate a redheaded gene among Neanderthals. MrSativa (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Untitled Section

Haplogroup A is NOT contained in Hadza from Tanzania! It is a misleading statement based on the traditional grouping of the Hadza with the Khoisan due to the presence of "clicks" in their languages. Yet the Hadza are a distinct people that genetically have nothing in common with the Khoisans. In fact, they are rather related to Pygmies. See A. Knight et al.: African Y Chromosome and mtDNA Divergence Provides Insight into the History of Click Languages. Current Biology, 6/2003, p. 464-473

---

Haplogroup A1, highly West-African specific, found in Yorkshire: BBC News, "Yorkshire clan linked to Africa" 27 January 2007. Might be worth looking into. --Wetman 05:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A Adam or Not!

Which one is it!? The BT article claims BT split from A, then recent edits on the A article split A from Adam. For now I just added BT as a descendant of A, I have my reservations on where A starts, but aslong as BT article says BT came directly from the new "I guess" Y-Chromosmal Adam, then the article should state that A shares a common origin with BT, since some edits that don't want to recognize A as Adam anymore (by stating it originated from Y-Adam!) Cadenas2008 (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the BT article claims because the BT article is not a reliable source. ISOGG, however, is. And it's phylogenetic tree indicates that haplogroups BT and A are sister clades. It does not indicate that "BT split from A" (that would be big news, by the way). Causteau (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We now, of course, have "the big news" from Cruciani 2011 showing that BT does, in fact, descend from A. Iris-J2 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC) BT can not be desendent of A. MRCA Most recent common ancestor has to have had two sons not one son. The two sons are A and BT. Tou can not say no, adam had sons all of them are a and then one of a was B-T haplogroup because a was defined by mutations that are not existant in BT and the same goes for BT mutations (markers that identify BT) also not found in A. Hence the most recent common ancestor Adam had to had only two sons not three sons whose descendents alive today. if there was a third son then his haplogroup should exist in africa ( if he had sons alive today) his haplogroup ( of him and his desendents) would be non A and BT. such haplogroup does not exist in africa. only three haplogroups are african a,b, e. while J1 is a back immigration to africa . (BT has to branch to to several branches until F which has to branch to g, h, i, j, k and j has to branch to j1 and j2 . however non of these haplogroups or ancestral branches exist in africa. . c and d were african who made it to china and japan by sea (current of the sea plus paddling on a boat), without leaving anytrace of it on land between africa and china (hence by sea) c and d being the first epic journey pioneers out of africa by sea, leave us with only a, b, e african. one of E people named F made it by sea to India from him branched F, of whom one of his decendents J1 made it back to africa (from yemen to Ethiopia ) in very recent times 3000 yeras ago (seba or sheba kingdom of yemen). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viibird (talk • contribs) 05:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

cruciani study by itself ( a lone study based on a lone man whose cotton swap had supposedly both a and b) can not be accepted by the international consortium on genetic geneolofy) they have to have several men who have the same results. even few men is not enough. even if cruciani study that change nothing, this means that man his a sub haplogroup and BT becomes the new BT and the men with a (not a found in that man ) become A. After all the calculation of the age or time to Most recent common ancestor is not based on haplogroups but on all mutations combined regarldless of haplogroup classifications or reclassification. 05:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viibird (talk • contribs) so to recapulate: The Most Recent common ansetor (arbitraly named Adam ) have to had two sons only one is a and one is BT. If hed only one son then his son will beocme the most recent, if he had three sons whose desendents alive today then the third son has to have a haplogroup that is not found in a nor in BT, no such haplogroups exists any where in the world. also because the genetic diverity of africans is higher that the other males outside africa , then the first haplogroup to leave africa (c or d or f) has to have happened tens of thousand of years after adam. hence BT is actually B since all BT descendents in africa are B06:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viibird (talk • contribs)

Distribution Map

Can we show a map of its distribution based on what we see in the article Labled "Africans in Yorkshire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyoku (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A very good one. If copyright allows, it should be added. СЛУЖБА (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Page improvements

Pdeitiker's initial edits did improve the article, however he has lapsed into the usual verbosity and original research. The information in the section "origins is not supported by any references in the article. It is either original research or not directly related to haplogroup A. I have placed a tag, but this is only temporary, I intend to delete the section. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the material has been already deleted. See page history for reasons. First off Muntuwandi we both want the same thing. But we need to start with the fundamentals, that is turning this page from a dirty laundry list of frequencies into a C-class page that has reasonable (not perfect) prose and reasonably well referenced.

1. We need an origin section. material on origins should not be in the discussion section. Whatever hypothesis you favor or name for yours hypothesis, just make in understandable. I am not going to delete your stuff, but also don't edit war with me, there will be time to cull information once we have elevated the class.
2. We are working with an unclassified page, do not delete material simply because you don't see a reference or you don't like it (as you did with mtEve, you deleted a well reference page with a page that had lousy references according to the referee who demoted the article, and reverted it to basically speculation, original research and many contradictory or opinionated statements). As an unclassed page it does not need to be perfect at this point, its a work in progress. When we get to the point the page is B-class, then we need to be careful about what we add and how referenced.
3. You have added material to the page, I found errors in what you added; however I did not delete it, I placed notations in the text, this gives you a chance to repair errors and do more research, I am willing to work with your ideas as long as you are willing to work with mine, deleting content without specifics is the way edit wars begin (as Andrew did in R1a).
4. This page is lacking with regard to references all around, its not disasterously bad, but for an important topic of this nature we need to make an effort to go over the literature again. Starting tomorrow I will be adding much information to this page, initially it will not be referenced but references will be added. Adding references after organization has taken place makes editing easier.
5. I have a wide body of research and reviews literally 1000s of pages on the early african periodn, that you do not have access to, having read alot means that I have to find the reference for the material within those 1000s of pages, if you find a point you think immediately needs reference place a {{cn}} tag and I will find the reference. That is a better way to avoid conflict.

Things that need to be discussed at this point. Frequency tables.

• Can be broken down according to region or according to Subclades.
• I recommend subclades. for the majority of frequencies, its more honest.
• Cleaning individual data points out of the text for readability.

Lets try to do this in an ordered fashion this time, comments about the page should be made here, the process now should be familiar to everyone. Once comments are made these will be added to the comments list so that we can methodically solve the problem, any specific sentence or paragraph you think has a problem. Crop it here, and comment on it. I will do the same. IOW lets show folks we can work with each other in a civilized manner instead of the past, which involved sock puppets, ANI pages, user blocks (MW, I think you know what I am talking about). This is not Haplogroup R, we don't have to behave in defense of ethnocentric idealogy.PB666 ^yap 04:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

-reference (currently 1) Wood et al is not a valid reference

-I think we should migrate to a citation based reference system with footnotes. this is more powerful than currently used.

-"Archeological evidence also suggests that in prehistoric times, populations ancestral to the Khoisan may have lived in areas that extended as far North as Ethiopia and Sudan." Archaeology cannot detect languages in people without a written script, this is speculation.

-The debate concerning this hypothesis revolves around the fact that some people believe that Khoisan languages recently spread, and that Y-DNA spread with these click speaking languages. Tishkoff has recently written on this and I will quote from her work. See Genetic history of African click-speaking peoples page 2183. Tishkoff et al. MBE 24:2180-2195

• L0d (Branch time 77/100 LOd/MRCA (Behar et al 2008) (71 to 85% - Gonder, Mishmar, Soares as sources)) [85 to 160 kya]

Mode - !xun, !Khwe, !kung (South Africa, Botswana, Namibia)

Detected Sandawe (Tanzania), Mozambique, Kenya/Sudan, Burunge (Tanzania)

Trace - Ethiopia

• L0k (Branch time 72/100 L0k/MRCA (Behar et al 2008) [80 to 150 kya]

Mode - !xun, !Khwe,

Detected - !kung

• Loabf (Branch time 58/100 L0abf/MRCA (Behar et al 2008) [65 to 120 kya]

Modes - Burunge (Tanzania), Mozambique, Sandawe (Tanzania), Turu(Tanzania), Biaka (Central Africa), Datoga (Tanzania), Mbuti (NE Congo)

Detected - Kenya/Sudan Hazda (Tanzania), !xun, Mbenzele (Central African R.), Guineans, Ethiopia.

Trace - Nigerians

• L1bc* (Branch time 72/100 L0k/MRCA (Behar et al 2008) [80 to 150 kya]

Mode - L1* Sukuma (Tanzania), L1b - Nigerians and Guineans, L1c - Central Africa (Bakola, Mbenzele, biaka)

Detected - L1* Tanzanian (Datoga, Turu), Mbuti (NE Congo) L1b-Ethiopia; L1c- Turu, Mozambiquans

Trace - L1* Hazda, Nigerians; L1b -Mozambiquans, L1c

Summary

• L0 dominant regions Southern Africa
• L0/L1 (xL2,xL5,xL3,xL4,xL6, xM, xN) dominant regions- Central Africa
• L1(xL2,xl5,xl3,xl4) dominant regions - Central Africa
• L0 diversity node - Southern Africa/Tanzania (2 of 3 deepest branch points are in Southern Africa) based on new work by Behar)
• L0/L1(all forms except L2, L3, M and N see Atkinson for reason) diversity node - Tanzania (based on Gonder et al.)
• L1 (all forms except L2, L3, M and N see Atkinson for reason)diversity node - Tanzania. (based on Tishkoff et al.)

Conclusion

Behar - L0d and L0k in Southern Africa is the result of migration from East Africa 144 kya

Tishkoff - L0d TMRCA is 58 kya (not the age of L0d lineage, but the age of its two deepest subranches), Tanzanian L0d is 23 kya versus Khoisan subranch of 58kya, and therefore Tanzanian L0d is of SouthAfrican origin. IOW slow bidirectional geneflow. TMRCA of L0d is 18.5 to 145 kya at 95% confidence.

Tishkoff 2007- By HVR1 and HVR2 sequences group1 Ju/!Xun/!khwe/!kung have 5000 years divergence time (effectively interbreeding population)

Tishkoff 2007- By HVR1 and HVR2 sequences group2 Samdawe, Hazda, Turu, Mbugwe, Sukua, Burunga, Datog on average have 10000 years divergence time.

Same paper - But between group1 and group2 divergence time is ~50,000 years (of course a mixture of older divergence time and recent admixture). on Page 2187 shee note a CI of 33-100 kya divergence time between Hazda and JUl'hoansi and 40-100kya for Hazda versus !xun/!khwe.

Tishkoff - L1 and L0 in central afria due to recent expansion of forest dwelling pygmies ~35,000 years ago (her conclusion is unattested to elsewhere in the literature).

Association of either with Ethiopia - non-existant in any recent published source

Association of either with Kenya - Behar points in the direction of Kenya as East Africa source, but is considerably vaque.

Pertinence here, Linguistics are unable to date languages more than 30,000 years with any reliability, it is believed that the Central African pygmies originally spoke click languages but thorough linguistics cannot be performed on extinct languages. Ergo the association of Click speaking with various languages may be only circumstantial.

Y-haplogroup A. Page 2187.

A-M91* (A1 and A2 lineages) are restricted to SAK (Dama, Nama, !kung, Khoisan-mixed)

A-M91 (M51) Xhosa (South African), (!khwe, Dama, Nama, !kung, Khoisan-mixed)

-Diversity Mode for A is in Southern Africa.

"This study, based on 2 highly infomration and indepedndentl inheritat genetic regions (the mtDNA and Y chromosome)< indicates taht any connections between African click speaking populations, in the form of common ancestry or migrations, wer quute acneitn:>15 kya for the Sandaw and Hadz and between 35 and 55 kya for the Sandawe/Hazda and SAK Khoisan speakers." Which is beyond the scope of coalescent language predictions. Ergo the language link is circumstantial. "In addition the Hazda and Sandawe are genetically more similar to their Nilotic-, Cushitic-, and Bantu-speaking neighbots that they are to SAK-speaking population."

If we use Tishkoffs take: L0d/L0k are the equivilents of A1/A2, Loabf are the equivilants of A3. If we use Tishkoffs take: L1 is the equivilent of Haplogroup B. Ergo the branchin of L0k should be no earlier than the branching of A3/(A1/A2) branch times. Which means the latest mtDNA branch times for L0k [80kya] are earlier than the earliest branch time for A3/(A1/A2) ~[70 kya] which by definition means there is a clocking problem. Most of the suspicion at the moment lies on Y-chromosome. That is the reason we are talking about mtDNA trying to explain Y, the deep molecular phylogenetics for Y-chromosome is poor to awful.PB666 ^yap 07:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the once poorly resolved deep phylogenetics of the Y chromosome: first with Cruciani's findings in 2011, and then in the Haplogroup A Project in the past several months, we've been making remarkable progress on this. Please come and take a look at the 2012 ISOGG tree which has just been posted. We have six Haplogroup A WTYs underway, two of them complete, in one of which, 40 SNPs were discovered. There's more of this to come with the other four samples, and another very interesting WTY on the horizon. We're working in collaboration with Karafet and Hammer, of the YCC, at the U of AZ.

Hope you'll help bring the Wikipedia article up to speed insofar as possible. I know formally published findings would be better, but we're being very conscientious and cautious in double-checking and annotating what we put on the ISOGG tree, and publish on the ISOGG website. Many, many new SNPs, from both Cruciani's and Krahn's labs, and newly discovered branches, are being left off the tree until they are confirmed. I hope the new research findings can be published in a journal in the coming year, so that they'll be easier to cite. Also -- from your great library of thousands of papers, I'd be grateful for your help in accessing some of these that are relevant. Can you get in touch? Iris-J2 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The new findings are quite interesting, particularly the inclusion of the A0 clade. Apart from the ISOGG website, is their any other documentation related to the new SNPs. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wapondaponda, or is it Muntuwandi, yes, the new SNPs can be found on these two linked websites:

http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft

http://ymap.ftdna.com/

These sites are created and managed by Thomas Krahn, the discoverer of the SNPs. All the technical details, such as their positions on the Y chromosome and the primer sequences, as well as the number of samples that have so far been found ancestral or derived, can be found here. The latter statistics are updated in real time. His phylogeny is a draft, frequently updated, subject to change and not definitive. The clade names are old YCC ones, and not updated, but the SNPs are shown in their positions on the tree in as they are found according to the ongoing research. ISOGG's clade names are also shown; they've just been updated.

I had hoped that the nomenclature was more stable, as in the mt-DNA haplogroups and avoid names too long. The next tree would be ideal. Distinguished researchers: Think! --Maulucioni (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Y‑Adam	A0  A1T   A1  A2T   A2  A3  BT

Maulucioni, thanks for your suggestion, which had already been made to me, but continuity of names is not the priority in naming clades. I actually tried very hard to keep the names A2 and A3 instead of A1b1 and A1b2, but it was impossible to get ISOGG to accept this. There was quite a discussion over it, and that option was definitely defeated by a consensus of those who have the most influence. The rules of phylogeny are that if clades are named A1, A2, and A3, they must be on the same level. A2 and A3 cannot be downstream of A1. Iris-J2 (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Original research noticeboard

I appreciate PB666's efforts to improve the article. But there are some underlying problems that should be resolved before we can proceed effectively. I have posted a thread that involves this article here. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Block has served its purpose. User must start collaborating productively as indicated." Apparently the block did not serve its purposes. MW trying to use Noticeboards in an effort to 'game' content disputes is not going to fly. I did not delete your edits, even though I showed that others have contradicted what you claim. I am avoiding an edit war with you, all you have to do is avoid the edit war with me and we can work together. What this has already gotten you is a reminder of the ANI people of your past block log which they can research. Lets choose another path quickly.PB666 ^yap 10:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you started editing R1a, the article has picked up five 150kb talk archive pages. Much better to get to the root of the problem and avoid going down that path. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The root of the problem is numbers of edits to Y-DNA pages that are based in non-scientific conjecture and a general lack of concern for readability. The root of the problem is not on the talk pages it is on main pages like genetic history of Europe, and you appear to be getting no traction on the board. The root of the problem here may be here so lets work on the problem that is obvious first.PB666 ^yap 16:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

PB666, unless you are an admin, then the above is pointless. Admins decided to allow Muntuwandi to edit. Get on with life or else take it to the authorities. If you continue on this path of diverting discussion to the past I can not see any possible good faith interpretation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cruciani et al. 2011

Cruciani; et al. (2011). "A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa". doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.05.002. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)

"Adam's two sons"

is the kind of verbiage that misleads people about MRCA's. The phylogeny suggests there were two sons whose yDNA has survived. Not that there were only two sons. For all anyone knows, he may have had 10 sons, 8 of whose yDNA died out 50,000 years later. 67.171.217.252 (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Error

This article is not A-V148, in any way. It is just A.--Maulucioni (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes!!! I'm glad someone noticed this. Someone is going around changing the names of the haplogroup pages. V148 is a subclade of Haplogroup A. If you don't know the phylogeny, leave the pages alone.--Brout8 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So, when the new peer reviewed paper comes out, create an article for A-something. Try to make it NPOV. ;-) --RebekahThorn (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

New Articles

I am thinking that we should start to divide this article based on the current subclade sections:

• A-P305
• A-M31
• A-M6
• A-M32
• A-M28
• A-M51
• A-M13

Are there any of these that are not worthy of their own article? Does anyone have suggestions for other foundation articles?--RebekahThorn (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think so. Only if there is a lot of information about one of them, it would deserve any new article.--Maulucioni (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Extremely confusing

EXTREMELY confused. If I didn't understand the phylogeny already this page would leave me at a loss.

Even the first sentence is confused: "Haplogroup A is the lineage of most human males" If "A" means "A0 plus A1-T" then "most" should be "all." If "A" instead means any version of A as normally used then "most" should be "few."

You need better nomenclature. Perhaps "A0-T" for everything, "A1-T" for A0-T(xA0), "A" for A-T(xBT), or such.

yes the designation Macr should be removed. actually people with haplogroup a (non BT haplogroup) are exteremely rare just the khoisan, they could be total 2 million . while haplogroup BT is the macro one totaling the rest ofd the males of humanity at 3500 million males.

haplogroup BT stayed in africa for a very long time before any of its members made it out side of africa (by sea route) like C, D, E, F {G, H , I , J, K(L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T)} by definition a haplogroup starts with one man, and by difinition Y chromose adam the MRCA of all men, the most recent common ancestor has to have two sons to be considered a Most recent. If he had one son then his son will be the most recent common ansestor. 04:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viibird (talk • contribs) 05:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Makes no sense

In human genetics, Haplogroup A is the lineage of all human males.

What is this supposed to mean? Something we all have? Is it the Y chromosome, or something you learn in a sweathouse in the New Mexico desert under the sign of the bear?

The rest of the lede is equally trash -- it only talks about misunderstandings and common misperceptions but still can't proceed to a definition. 84.227.246.65 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Haplogroup A00

I imported reference to this from the Y-MRCA artice. There seem to be issues with this. The follow-up study seems to accept that a new lineage was discovered, and they adopt the name "A00", but they are unambiguous in their critique of the original paper[1]

Mendez and colleagues [...] estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree to be 338 000 years ago (95% CI=237 000–581 000). [...] We demonstrate that the TMRCA estimate was reached through inadequate statistical and analytical methods, each of which contributed to its inflation. We show that the authors ignored previously inferred Y-specific rates of substitution, incorrectly derived the Y-specific substitution rate from autosomal mutation rates, and compared unequal lengths of the novel Y chromosome with the previously recognized basal lineage.

In other words, the age estimate was spectacularly useless, and apparently inflated for sensational value. However, the discovery of a new ancestral haplogroup, even if it predates "A0" only insignificantly (say, 20 ky rather than 150 ky) would still be interesting. But if the original piece was such shoddy research, is the existence of "A00" established beyond reasonable doubt, or is it still subject to confirmation? --dab (𒁳) 12:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism to the paper can be traced back in all cases to Elhaik et al. 2014, not a real guarantee of anything. 67.180.239.103 26 January 2015

no it isn't, see below, there has been a reply, and a reply to the reply, and then an arxiv preprint getting very outspoken because things apparently got ugly. It seems to me to have been established beyond reasonable doubt that the "237-581 kya" range was just sensationalist. If there was any doubt left, the title "Sex with other human species might have been the secret of Homo sapiens’s [sic] success" should but it to rest (where to begin...). If you want to cover this academic flamewar in detail, you'll need to develop a standalone "Perry's Y" page. But from your edits I do assume you have prior involvement in this. Wikipedia articles about academic flamewars aren't fun to read or write, but you can do that if you must. The upshot for export to other articles (such as this one) will still be the same.

In date estimates with 50% uncertainty bands, there is never "a real guarantee of anything". At least, a reviewed estimate is better than an unreviewed one. If you have other reviews of the 2013 paper that endorse it, by all means cite them. The fact that Elhaik et al. seem to accept the existence of "A00" convinced me to include it in the article as a real thing rather than staying "it has been claimed in a single paper that" mode. Their criticism of the dating by Mendez et al. as catastrophic has convinced me, otoh, to treat this as open for review, so that "new lineage discovered" seems to be substantiated, but "extremely ancient lineage discovered" does not pending independent confirmation. --dab (𒁳) 07:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

---

This makes for enlightening reading. Apparently, the A00 discovery is bona fide, and should be attributed to Thomas Krahn. The role of Mendez, whose job was "to do the dating math", was apparently limited to trashing the credibility of the thing in trying to create a sensation by stretching age estimates beyond the reasonable. A00 has an estimated age of some 200 ky, which puts it close to the rest of the tree, as would be the a priori expectation for a new discovery.

I would like to point out that it is possible in principle to still discover ancestral Y-chromosomes in living humans of arbitrary age (as long as it is biologically possible to survive with a pre-sapiens chromosome) and this is consistent with the assumption that there never was any "sapiens/archaic sex". The simple fact is that everyone's patrilineal line stretches back to "pre-human" times (and indeed to the very origin of sexual reproduction), it just becomes an astronomically unlikely (small but finite probabilities) quirk of genealogy to suppose the survival of pure patrilineal lineages for remote times. My point is that even the discovery of a 500 ky old "A000" wouldn't invalidate the date for anatomically modern humans at 200 kya (let alone its bearer qualifying as "archaic human" himself). It is perfectly likely that there are undiscovered haplogroups out there. But their expected age would be close to 200 ky, and deeper division times are (more than?) exponentially less likely --dab (𒁳) 13:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You should get your facts straight. The haplogroup was not discovered by Mendez or by Thomas Krahn, but by Bonnie Schrack. Thomas Krahn just did the sequencing and genotyping.

The age of the most recent common ancestor for the Y chromosome and the age of anatomically modern humans do not have to be related, as explained here 67.180.239.103 26 January 2015

---

Thank you very much, whoever it was, just above, who kindly (and correctly) gave me the credit for A00's discovery. No one ever seems to notice this. ;-) Of course it was a collective effort, like almost all science.

I just made a few changes here and there in the article, and I think I should explain them.

1. I removed the speculative statement that "here it (and by extension the Y-MRCA of modern humans) is believed to have originated." It is believed by whom? That would not exactly be the consensus of many scientists. The statement wasn't sourced, of course. Maybe someday it will be clearly demonstrated in a paper, but I think it's premature to state this as fact. No one knows where the earliest patrilineal common ancestor of living humans resided. His location is still very much a matter of debate.

2. I removed the use of "the clade" to refer to the A haplogroup. As this article has fortunately made clear, haplogroup A is not a clade, it is a collection of clades.

3. The geographic distribution section needs a West Africa section! Also the section on A0's distribution needs to be expanded. Krishna Veeramah wrote two papers in which he found A0 in the Nso' of Cameroon (who are NOT Pygmies) and various peoples of Nigeria. However, I admit it was not clearly described as such. You have to look very carefully at the SNP and STR results to realize that it's A0. Yet there are still other papers which have found A0 in Ghana; and I believe, a few in Ivory Coast, and in Gabon. I'm not certain if it was explicitly described as such in the papers or not. Furthermore the 1000 Genomes Project contains an A0 sample from a Gambian (see: http://www.yfull.com/tree/A0/, sample HG02982) but I don't know if there's a way to cite that in Wikipedia. Given all of this, I don't think the article should say that A0 is "only" found among the Bakola and Berbers.

4. The phrase "Perry's Y" seems to have been taken from a quote from my friend Thomas Krahn, by someone who imagined it was an alternative designation for A00, which is a mistaken notion. I correspond with Thomas very frequently, and it's not a phrase that any of us use. He just happened to say it that one time.

Thanks, everyone, for your hard work on this challenging subject. Iris-J2 (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

article title

The article is called "Macro-haplogroup A(X-BT)", and the article body mentions "haplogroup A(xBT)" at one point. But neither does the article explain what a "macro-haplogroup" is supposed to be, nor does it use the spelling "(X-BT)" of the title, nor is the name "A(xBT)", which I assume is intended as gesturing at the definition "anything ancestral to BT but excluding BT", attributed to anything. Worse, google books comes up with zero hits for "haplogroup A(xBT)". We cannot just make up our own terminology, even if our made-up terminology is sensible. This is already a terminological nightmare without people trying to "fix" it by inventing yet more terminology: the problem isn't that any system of terminology is somehow bad, the problem is that people keep changing it. --dab (𒁳) 11:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

ok, it turns out this page made a long circuit from "Haplogroup A (Y-DNA)" back to "Haplogroup A (Y-DNA)" since confusion started in late 2012. It ended up in places like Macro-haplogroup A(X-BT) V-148 in between. As the page now makes clear, "Haplogroup A" is just the ancestral haplogroup rooted at the Y-mrca, and anything not in its descendant Haplogroup BT will get a name beginning in "A", no matter how many still-undiscovered haplogroups there still may be (we are at "A00", but the next discovery, if any, will just be "A000" and still considered part of "haplogroup A"). --dab (𒁳) 13:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Haplogroup A (Y-DNA). 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/20090304100010/http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/Hassan-Sudan-2008-AJPA.pdf to http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/Hassan-Sudan-2008-AJPA.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726031920/http://ytree.ftdna.com/ to http://ytree.ftdna.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060320201311/https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my026 to https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my026

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

"Haplogroup A is a human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup, which includes all living human Y chromosomes."

This isn't true if it doesn't include BT. Grassynoel (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Living A00 Human

Hi, I have the A00, and A00 appears to be one family, one bloodline. It's shows that people like Thomas Edison, Charles Darwin, and Nikolai Tesla are all related. My DNA timeline shows you these people, and the Haplogroups and segments ( or ancestors), that connected them, it's all there. This data has been crossed referenced with raw data, and other sites, it all matches me. You have to click on the little arrow to expand the tree completely. Companies have been contacted, but they have been rude and very tight lipped, including Dr. Michael Hammer who contributed as well. Here's my DNA timeline

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/Q-M242/tree Alphamoses (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

NO OVERVIEW ANY MORE?

Haplogoups' tree is no more at the end of the article? It was so practical! Now, there is no overview - it looks so complicated; someone here doesn't want us to understand who we are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:6067:3400:C518:5BF6:9067:753E (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Bingo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 184.97.94.152 (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)