Angela: My comment here is only for clarification and it is in the context of you as an Advisor. Earlier in a post, it was suggested that R850 was an Etruscan. There was some discussion about R850, respectful on all parts of which I was involved, as I and I think Salento both with respect to R850 get DNA matches on R850 from MTA chroma analysis. I had never heard R850 described as an Etruscan and the published paper (Antonio/Moots et al 2019) while defining 3 Samples as Etruscan, only discusses R475 as an Etruscan. So I was unclear as to what 3 samples were defined as Etruscan by Antonio/Moots et al 2019. So Torzio and I had several respectful posts and replies but in one post above (#2462) I noted that I went to the various Dodecad and Eurogenes calculators to see which 3 Iron Age Roman samples were defined as Etruscan. According to the Eurogenes K13 ancient spreadsheet, the 3 are R473,, R474 and R475
R473_Civitavecchia_Etruscan._Iron_Age,33.38,12.03,31.63,0.41,18.38,3.34,0.34,0.42,0.06,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
R474b_Civitavecchia_Etruscan._Iron_Age,35.67,12.22,25.57,5.16,17.48,1.51,0.00,0.00,1.10,0.59,0.00,0.71,0.00
R475b_Civitavecchia_Etruscan._Iron_Age,21.50,7.31,32.84,0.00,26.37,6.15,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.10,4.30,1.44
So based on what I gathered, R850 is not an Etruscan nor is R437. If this Quilles etc group is claiming R850 and R437 are both Etruscans in public blogs, vs Latin Tribes, then one plausible explanation might, I repeat might, lie with the fact that both cluster closer to Modern Southern Italians (Sicily inclusive). This last statement I will say is purely conjecture on my part, not a statement of dogmatic fact.
Respectfully, PT.