The User Treopod on Anthroscape wrote
Pure ASI [Ancestral Southindian] are not australoids, and Onge are not ASI either.
The Reich et al paper had Nigerians-ASI distance at 1772, and Andaman-ASI distance at 1199
80,000-60,000 yrs BP (4,000 gens) split between Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians
40,000-30,000 yrs BP (2,000 gens) split between Western and Eastern Eurasians
34,000-25,500 yrs BP (1,700 gens) proto-Indian-Andamanese Onge split.
8000-6000 yrs BP (400 gens) split of Europeans and Adygei
so basically, ASI are so distant from Onge and australoids in australia and papua that you cannot consider them related at all, unless you consider that caucasoids are related to mongoloids as well as negroids.
ASI are unique to South Asia and in their pure form they probably already had caucasoid facial features. Btw its possible that ANI originated in south asia as well and spread out into west asia and europe instead before mixing within south asia with the ASI took place.
A few sources
An Indian Perspective on Reich et Al
I think the Dienekes k12a Southasian component is closer to ASI than to ANI or more ASI than ANI (centered in South or Central India). The Gedrosia would be than more ANI and centered among Balochi People.
The K12a Spreadsheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...ldWxwVmc#gid=0
What do you think?