A question about categories

[norbert]

I have come across this article on the genetics of the Croats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Croats

Now the article cites a few publications and images from said publications like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genet..._components_of_the_Balto-Slavic_gene_pool.PNG

The blue areas aren't really explained and what exactly is "South Asia" and how come it appears among Europeans? Is this ancestry derived from South Asia or just the amount of ancient common ancestry? It's still a puzzling category among others. Isn't "South Asia" Iran_N? I was aware of additional steppe ancestry among Greeks, Italians, Balkan peoples and other Europeans to a lesser extent but this isn't even considered in these studies.

Another image from the same article but a different paper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Croats#/media/File:Plos.Balkans.2.png

This time "South Asia" is smaller and CHG-related ancestry left out. Or is it included in this cluster? If it is, it doesn't make sense. A lot of these publications are very confusing. You get five publications and ten different conclusions.

Any care to clarify this a bit for me. Maybe I'm just not qualified enough to grasp all this.

 

[norbert]

Gotta bump this thread. I'm still puzzled about this "South Asian" component. I have even seen charts that identify "Gedrosian" with "South Asian" or use CHG as a proxy for it. This is so arbitrarily interpreted, it doesn't even deserve to be called an interpretation. A couple of days ago, I accidentally ran into a chart that shows "South Asian" as AASI which is supposed to be quite noticable among Italians, the French and even the Scots. What kind of nonsense is this? This is what happens when you stop thinking and let various "calculators" do the thinking for you.