And then what? Wait for a reporter to interpret the two and come up with a silly "conclusion" for the sake of good headlines?
This comment screams indifference.
So I just have to give you the benefit of the doubt that had you had more time on your hands, you would have re-read what you have written and not published that part.
I'm afraid I don’t understand your comment. Journalists aren't historians or population geneticists. A reporter’s job is to report on research and not to come up with his or own interpretation of the data. A good science journalist would seek out experts in the field and ask for their comments though sadly this rarely happens.