Modern Global Population Calculator G25

[Dunai]

If you want to show the "real" NW African ancestry from Canary islands you should use maybe the Canarian Guanches ancient reference (medieval).

Simply use your calculator removing the Canarian reference and using it as target:

Target: Northwest-African_Canarian:Spanish_Canarias
Distance: 1.0042% / 0.01004225 | ADC: 0.25x RC
75.6 Iberian
14.6 Central-Maghrebian
6.4 Central-Italian
2.4 Mediterranean-Islander_Sardinian
1.0 East-Meghrebian

My two objections to using that reference would basically be:

-You can call this African because of their geographical situation, but in my opinion, it´s wrong doing it and can be easily misunderstood, even adding "_Canarian" after this. Using nowadays Canarians to show NW African ancestry would be the same as using Afrikaners to show African ancestry and call it Southern Africa, or Zulu.

-Simply it is counterproductive for the North Africans, and for the Iberians, since it will not correctly discriminate the Iberian component of the NAs or the NW African component of the Iberians (or anyone who usually obtains a mixture of these two components in these calculators).

Anyway, it´s your calculator, so do what you want.

I definitely won't delete the Canarian region since as I said in an earlier post, they are a pretty numerous population (I have some regions based on people composed of only thousands of people) and they also have quite a unique combination with a well-established identity, but I totally agree with your argument that it looks weird for having them under Africa, so I made them a standalone category, only named Canarian.

[SUPREEEEEME]

Target: SUPREEEEEME_scaled
Distance: 1.7004% / 0.01700350
73.6 Jewish_Sephardi
19.0 Scandinavian
2.8 Jewish_Ashkenazi
2.8 Volga-Uralic_Mari
1.8 Southcentral-Asian_Balochi

[alnortedelsur]

The 0.25X option does see your mainly Iberian component, since Canarians are largely Iberian but with important Berber admixture, plus also sees your Italian side very well, while both the Amerindian and SSA percentages are also quite close to your self-reported ancestry. Even the 0.5X option looks quite plausible. Mind you that you have quite a unique three-continental ancestry, but the calculator seems to pick up quite well the percentages from them.

Actually you're right. I hadn't checked it well. Thanks for the input

[Dunai]

Won't say anything about the Canarians but the Cossacks are just Southern Russians/Eastern Ukrainians, don't trust that average, it's probably merely 2-3 samples from fuck knows where.

I worked with what I have. I had no option to verify the validity of the averages in the G25 sheet. How was I supposed to know that averages like the Kuban Cossacks (emphasis on Kuban, not other type) is not representative? I looked at what distance they get from their closest population in my calculator and the figure is above 0.03, which I concluded that they have a right to be represented as an own region since they are unique enough to appear in the source.

Distance to: Steppe-European_Kuban-Cossack
0.03383094 Volga-Uralic: Mordvin
0.04043956 Eastern-European
0.04280206 Finnish
0.04427350 Eastcentral-European
0.05728300 Baltic
0.06111128 Pannonian
0.06277272 Scandinavian
0.07496634 Northwestern-European

I decided for the Ukrainian sample would serve as a good middle point proxy for whole Eastern Europe, since they are just between Poles and Russians and also have an under 0.02 distance to almost entire region of Eastern Europe. Kuban Cossacks fall quite out of it, with a distance of 0.04.

Distance to: Ukrainian
0.01026017 Russian_Belgorod
0.01028002 Polish
0.01174077 Russian_Voronez
0.01274410 Russian_Orel
0.01453842 Russian_Kursk
0.01573866 Russian_Smolensk
0.01680295 Cossack_Ukrainian
0.01873993 Russian_Ryazan
0.01907950 Belarusian
0.02021391 Russian_Kaluga
0.02265642 Sorb_Niederlausitz
0.02268593 Moldovan_o
0.02492100 Russian_Tver
0.02498923 Lithuanian_PA
0.02500452 Slovakian
0.02695559 Russian_Pskov
0.02914822 Lithuanian_VA
0.03069603 Czech
0.03114967 Russian_Yaroslavl
0.03464540 Polish_Kashubian
0.03543231 Lithuanian_RA
0.03780652 Lithuanian_VZ
0.03858569 Estonian
0.03922489 Hungarian
0.03933290 German_East
0.04007214 Slovenian
0.04043956 Cossack_Kuban

As I said, I wanted to include any population, no matter their size, which are at minimum somewhat an outlier. I very much thought this through and worked a lot on it.

[Leto]

I worked with what I have. I had no option to verify the validity of the averages in the G25 sheet. How was I supposed to know that averages like the Kuban Cossacks (emphasis on Kuban, not other type) is not representative? I looked at what distance they get from their closest population in my calculator and the figure is above 0.03, which I concluded that they have a right to be represented as an own region since they are unique enough to appear in the source.

Distance to: Steppe-European_Kuban-Cossack
0.03383094 Volga-Uralic: Mordvin
0.04043956 Eastern-European
0.04280206 Finnish
0.04427350 Eastcentral-European
0.05728300 Baltic
0.06111128 Pannonian
0.06277272 Scandinavian
0.07496634 Northwestern-European

I decided for the Ukrainian sample would serve as a good middle point proxy for whole Eastern Europe, since they are just between Poles and Russians and also have an under 0.02 distance to almost entire region of Eastern Europe. Kuban Cossacks fall quite out of it, with a distance of 0.04.

Distance to: Ukrainian
0.01026017 Russian_Belgorod
0.01028002 Polish
0.01174077 Russian_Voronez
0.01274410 Russian_Orel
0.01453842 Russian_Kursk
0.01573866 Russian_Smolensk
0.01680295 Cossack_Ukrainian
0.01873993 Russian_Ryazan
0.01907950 Belarusian
0.02021391 Russian_Kaluga
0.02265642 Sorb_Niederlausitz
0.02268593 Moldovan_o
0.02492100 Russian_Tver
0.02498923 Lithuanian_PA
0.02500452 Slovakian
0.02695559 Russian_Pskov
0.02914822 Lithuanian_VA
0.03069603 Czech
0.03114967 Russian_Yaroslavl
0.03464540 Polish_Kashubian
0.03543231 Lithuanian_RA
0.03780652 Lithuanian_VZ
0.03858569 Estonian
0.03922489 Hungarian
0.03933290 German_East
0.04007214 Slovenian
0.04043956 Cossack_Kuban

As I said, I wanted to include any population, no matter their size, which are at minimum somewhat an outlier. I very much thought this through and worked a lot on it.

Well, I'm not blaming you for anything. I just don't know if all of those G25 averages are accurate or represenative. Some of them are just 2-4 samples.

[Freeroostah]

Target: VangosH_scaled
Distance: 2.0936% / 0.02093606 | ADC: 0.25x RC
45.0 West-Balkanic
34.4 Jewish_Sephardi
20.6 South-Balkanic

Target: VangosH_scaled
Distance: 2.3087% / 0.02308703 | ADC: 0.5x RC
33.4 South-Balkanic
27.4 West-Balkanic
24.6 Jewish_Ashkenazi
14.6 Mediterranean-Islander_Sicilian

[Gallop]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[gixajo]

I definitely won't delete the Canarian region since as I said in an earlier post, they are a pretty numerous population (I have some regions based on people composed of only thousands of people) and they also have quite a unique combination with a well-established identity, but I totally agree with your argument that it looks weird for having them under Africa, so I made them a standalone category, only named Canarian.

It´s your calculator, anyway think about all this we have spoken.

[RyoHazuki]

Target: Ryo_scaled
Distance: 2.7216% / 0.02721645
96.6 British-Islander:English
2.8 East-African_Amharan:Ethiopian_Amhara
0.6 Arabic_Yemeni:Yemenite_Dhamar

[Gallop]

@Dunai

Why are you replying to me by private reputation message?