0
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3,471 Given: 1,541 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 116 Given: 218 |
No worries, it's your opinion, but it is strange we disagree on such a thing because it's simply factually wrong. I didn't expect that from you because you know better than that. Where's any logic artifically putting Gk in "North" average with Zagorje+Central while saying it's artificial to place Gk in "West" average where exclusively belongs? Strange thinking.
Your opinion regarding "South" is welcome.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 11,166 Given: 13,531 |
Jesus Christ just make
Southern Croatia (Dalmatia)
Lika
Istria, Primorje and Gorski Kotar
Central and Northern Croatia
Eastern Croatia (Slavonia)
B&H Croats
Thumbs Up |
Received: 7,240 Given: 2,623 |
Maybe it will help. Regional west Balkan samples in K36 (not identical sheet like in K13 because some samples exist only in K13 form). As we see there is Croat and Serb cluster separated. But Croat join Central European cluster which is expected. BTW for Istria average I added to existing kit my own sample which was not posted yet maybe it is too Italian shifted.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3,471 Given: 1,541 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 116 Given: 218 |
Explain the difference. I think we need, as in common expectation, to have regional averages within factual regionalization. What kind of results these regional averages are gonna be it's up to the samples of individual regions - simple as that. Anything else is artificial interference in the aim to be useful, while we need faithful and truthful. What's the point of calculating percent of regional population to create a weighted regional and national average if counties and their regions aren't within their borders (and Gk is in a depopulation process anyway as people are moving to Rijeka more than a generation ago)? If people start using current averages what can they deduce about regional origin? Basically nothing because is misleading. Yes, I use Excel.
Last edited by MoroLP; 12-03-2020 at 01:42 AM.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 52,720 Given: 43,625 |
Hey, Vbn is just trying to help. He made similar division for Serbian averages too.
It's very nice of him he does all this, because I can do averages only manually and can't do weighted ones at all.
So, would you agree on south (bih,dalm,lika), west(istra,kvarner,gk), north(zagorje,central) and east(slavonia) plus one common average?
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3,471 Given: 1,541 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3,471 Given: 1,541 |
I think Gorski Kotar should be north, it's actually the best source we have for northern Croat genetics. The individual results range from Austrian-like to West Ukrainian-like and all combinations in between, because it's a large sample. The NW and Central data is much poorer, Gorski kotar fills in the gaps when you merge them.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 116 Given: 218 |
Reply with quote somehow isn't working.
@Feiichy, we're all thankful and respect Vbn's effort, but it's done in a strange manner. If baffles me then it's even more baffling to those who are less informed how these averages were calculated. Yes, I agree to those averages.
@Vbn, yes because West Croatia is West Croatia. Gk never was and never will be North, South or East. It is part of Western Croatia. If Gk samples are too many compared to others from Primorsko-goranska and Istarska county then they should be calculated accordingly to their population's percentage within the region (it's cca. 8% in Primorsko-goranska, together with Istarska is cca. 4%).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks