That is exactly the reason why many models using many reasonably proximate and plausible populations as hypothetical sources of ancestry must be tested, not trying to use the ones that the author previously wants to find. The closest fits will be the model nearer to the actual truth, though probably in a kind of simplified way, but the essence will be there. I think a good analysis could make sure that a model with separate EHG and Iran-Neo do not get conflated with Yamnaya/Steppe. Can we just assume EHG in BA steppe was still exactly identical to EHG in mesolithic Karelia or Romania?
There was certainly substructure within these broad labels like EHG and Iran-Neo, so using several proxy populations, especially contemporary genetic structures (honestly I do not think a 7000 BC EHG has a lot to say to us about demographic events in Europe in 3000 BC), instead of just a few samples, because that paucity may cause the algorithms to assign ancestry to the closest but still different source. I actually think that is what must be happening with their suspiciously too high Yamnaya-like admixture in modern Northeast Europeans like the Saami and even in ancient samples if the region, with the extra EHG that existed before totally disappearing. As Angela implied if I understood her correctly, I think that somehow the model ended up "splitting" EHG and attributing part of it to WHG, another part to Nganasan and another to Iran-Neo within Yamnaya.
From what I can see many of the amateurs use "only" the populations they hope to find, and usually because it would further their agenda. They're also adept at pretending they never said what they clearly did say. Their minions will echo that and the ignorant won't be any the wiser. Goodness, they're even adopting the snowflake mentality of the far left "progressive" loonies. Well, Sikeliot was always comfortable in that mode, but now even Davidski complains he's been bullied on line. Boo hoo.
I haven't seen it but if he has, perhaps it's a little pay back for years of attacking Jews and Southern Italians on multiple racist websites. Things have come to a pretty pass if racists now claim victimization for their beliefs.
Ah, well. On to more important matters. Yes, that is what I rather inartfully said. To make it a little clearer:
These academics see the ancient European hunter-gatherers as essentially the same, except for accretions of a few minor components. The majority of their bars is "blue". WHG and SHG are essentially the same except for a smidgen of LBK. I'd have to go back and check the sample they used, because WHG was in Europe long before the EEF arrived, unless the algorithm is dumping something that resembles an element that it shares with the EEF into the closest reference sample, which is LBK. EHG has a bit more "additional" ancestry: something ANE heavy, and something Caucasus like. Fwiw, that makes some sense to me.
In other runs, that yellow, green, purple and orange gets dumped into more proximate references, leaving a blue they name "WHG".
Confusing, I agree.
I really do think the Reich Lab handles the statistics and therefore the analysis in a much clearer way.