At a quick glance, it definitely seems to be missing a few samples. For example, the chart is missing two R1a-Y2395+ samples among the Goths (R10620 and PL067).
It also appears to be missing a couple of N-L550 Langobards from Szeleste published in this study along with 7 I1 samples from the same site, including some L22+. Then there's the L22 > FGC21810 Langobard from Szólįd that also appears to be missing. I'm sure there could be others as well.
I would probably also be hesitant to label all U106 > Z381 as "Germanic" since ancient DNA has shown that it was fairly widespread early on and clearly predates Germanic presence in many places. For example, Z381's child branch Z156 has been found in the Knoviz culture, the Unetice culture, LBA/EIA Britain, the Bronze Age Netherlands, Iron Age Slovenia, Iron Age Switzerland, and it's also represented in a few La Tčne culture samples from Czechia and in 6-7 or so La Tene individuals from Bucy-le-Long in France, etc. There's also a few U106+ samples from Bronze Age Spain published in Yediay 2025 that will likely turn out to be Z381, as would probably the Etruscan U106+ samples (TAQ013 and AZZA006) if their coverage allowed for deeper assignments.
I still think it's a commendable effort and I understand that the person who made it must have been working with a lot of samples and it's hard to get everything right.
Germanic Y-DNA
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks