North Italians are genetically closer to French, Germans than to South Italians.

[emc]

It's ancient. I don't have any Iberian ancestors in at least the last 500 years. That's as far back as my written records go.
It's a northwest Italian/Tuscan thing, maybe related to the Gallic/Celtic migrations.

I get strange matches to New World Hispanics because of this.

I'm glad to read that. It always concerned me the % of Iberian my grandmother gets, given that all of her grandparents were born in Italy.
She is 1/4 Tuscan though (from the Garfagnana), so I guess it makes sense now.

 

[Georgewalley]

Italian clusters separated into three main groups: Sardinia, Northern (North/Central-North Italy) 116and Southern Italy (South/Central-South Italy and Sicily); the former two were close to populations 117originally from Western Europe, while the latter was in proximity of Middle East groups

In the Ultimateanalysis, all the Italian clusters were characterised by relatively high 150amounts of Anatolian Neolithic (AN), ranging between 56% (SItaly1) and 72% (NItaly4), 151distributed along a North-South cline (Spearman ρ= 0.52, p-value < 0.05; Fig. 2A-C, fig. S8A), 152with Sardinians showing values above 80%.

The remaining ancestry was 154mainly assigned to WHG (Western Hunter-Gatherer), CHG and EHG. In particular, the first two 155components were more present in populations from the South (higher estimates in SItaly1 ~13% 156and SItaly3 ~ 24% for WHG and CHG respectively), while the latter was more common in Northern 157clusters (NItaly6 = 15%). These observations suggest the existence of different secondary sources 158contributions to the two edges of the peninsulas, with the North affected more by EHG-related 159populations and the South affected more by CHG-related groups. Iran Neolithic (IN) ancestry was 160detected in Europe only in Southern Italy.

North African contributions, ranging between 3.8% (SCItaly1) to 14.5% (SItaly1)


Admixture date:

Link to full study: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/12/13/494898.full.pdf

 

[Angela]

We've discussed Raveane et al at length. Use the search engine.

If you don't stop spamming data already known and discussed you're going to get infractions. Am I clear?

 

[brick]

Lombards were Galo-Romance people. They should also have plenty of Germanic input.
So I do not think is very relevant to use a sample from Lombardia to tell that "North Italians are genetically closer to French or Germans than to South Italians".
Maybe it was a more Northern shifted Italian from Lombardy.
If you take people from Tuscany which are still North Italians, those are very close to people from Lazio and quite close to people from South Italy not to the French or German people.
French people are not very uniform from a genetic point of view, either.
I think French people are most diverse from a genetic point of view, from all Europe and I am referring to French ethnics with roots only from France, from before 1800, for example.
OK, French people with more Eastern European genetics are not found so often, but you can find from Southern Europeans till Northern Europeans, as Autosomal genetics, in France.

People from Tuscany are central Italians but are closer to northern Italians (Emilians, Ligurians) and they seem intermediate between the southernmost French/Germans and Calabrians/Sicilians.

People from Lombardy are slightly closer to the southernmost French/Germans rather than to Southern Italians. Anything north of Lombardy is definitely closer to French/Germans.

 

[Jovialis]

People from Tuscany are central Italians but are closer to northern Italians (Emilians, Ligurians) and they seem intermediate between the southernmost French/Germans and Calabrians/Sicilians.

People from Lombardy are slightly closer to the southernmost French/Germans rather than to Southern Italians. Anything north of Lombardy is definitely closer to French/Germans.

I don't know where that PCA is from, I google imaged searched it, and it only came up on some thread about David Duke on the Apricity. Where is that from?

At any rate, this one is academic:

People from Umbria, Lazio, and Abbruzzio are intermediate between Tuscans, and other Southern Italians. Moreover, the Purple, brown, and light brown components seems to be related subsets according to the tree in figure A.

 

[Jovialis]

I don't know where that PCA is from, I google imaged searched it, and it only came up on some thread about David Duke on the Apricity. Where is that from?

At any rate, this one is academic:

People from Umbria, Lazio, and Abbruzzio are intermediate between Tuscans, and other Southern Italians. Moreover, the Purple, brown, and light brown components seems to be related subsets according to the tree in figure A.

Moreover,

AncestryDNA seems to confirm all of this, by giving that region the near exact genetic distribution for it's component across south Lazio, most of Umbria, and southern Marche; down to southern Italy:

 

[brick]

I don't know where that PCA is from, I google imaged searched it, and it only came up on some thread about David Duke on the Apricity. Where is that from?

At any rate, this one is academic:

People from Umbria, Lazio, and Abbruzzio are intermediate between Tuscans, and other Southern Italians. Moreover, the Purple, brown, and light brown components seems to be related subsets according to the tree in figure A.

It was posted more than a year ago, I don't remember where originally. It is practically the same as the study of "Raveane et al" whose images you posted.

 

[Jovialis]

It was posted more than a year ago, I don't remember where originally. It is practically the same as the study of "Raveane et al" whose images you posted.

Perhaps, but it should be pointed out that people do exist that bridge these groups. Maybe the samples in the PCA you posted were taken from more northern areas of Lazio, Marche etc.

 

[brick]

Perhaps, but it should be pointed out that people do exist that bridge these groups. Maybe the samples in the PCA you posted were taken from more northern areas of Lazio, Marche etc.

I think the difference is that the PCA I posted is based on regional averages, the PCA you posted is based on individual results.

 

[Jovialis]

I think the difference is that the PCA I posted is based on regional averages, the PCA you posted is based on individual results.

Well, we would need to see where it comes from to verify something like that. Which is why I asked you. I think it might be an amateur made pca about eurogenes results, since the file name is Euro V3

 

[brick]

,

Well, we would need to see where it comes for to verify something like that. Which is why I asked you. I think it might be a user made pca about eurogenes results, since the file name is Euro V3

Euro could also mean Eurasia, but I think it is possible that it is based on a Eurogenes results, since they are the most popular. However, it is quite evident that it is based on averages. A PCA based on individual results is more like this

 

[Jovialis]

Euro could also mean Eurasia, but I think it is possible that it is based on a Eurogenes results, since they are the most popular. However, it is quite evident that it is based on averages. A PCA based on individual results is more like this

Popularity among non-scientists doesn't hold too much sway for me, in matter like these. If find the accuracy and labeling of these user made PCAs to be highly dubious. Which is why I prefer academic sources to draw my conclusions from.

 

[brick]

Popularity among non-scientists doesn't hold too much sway for me, in matter like these. If find the accuracy and labeling of these user made PCAs to be highly dubious. Which is why I prefer academic sources to draw my conclusions from.

I agree with you, but there's no difference with the academic ones.

 

[brick]

This is an academic PCA

 

[Jovialis]

This is an academic PCA

Indeed, nevertheless, the initial PCA you post that you said were regional averages can be very tricky for labeling those areas, especially Lazio, since the southern part of it is basically an extension of the south, genetically. I think this PCA you have just posted demonstrates that.

 

[brick]

Indeed, nevertheless, the initial PCA you post that you said were regional averages can be very tricky for those areas, especially Lazio, since the southern part of it is basically an extension of the south, genetically.

Yes, precisely for this reason southern Lazio, where dialects of southern Italy are spoken as well as in Abruzzo, should not be considered central Italy. People from southern Lazio and Abruzzo are southern Italians. So I don't expect them to be included with the central Italians. However, these mistakes have also been made in academic studies.

 

[Jovialis]

Yes, precisely for this reason southern Lazio, where dialects of southern Italy are spoken as well as in Abruzzo, should not be considered central Italy. People from southern Lazio and Abruzzo are southern Italians. So I don't expect them to be included with the central Italians.

Well, I would consider them "South-Central" Italian, genetically; that's where they are. I don't know if that is splitting hairs too much. Plus I think this PCA is lumping Tuscans into the "central Italian" group, who are more "North-Central" genetically. Thus I still maintain that parts of Umbria, and Marche (south of Ancona) are with the south (or South-Central) too.

 

[Regio X]

Well, we would need to see where it comes from to verify something like that. Which is why I asked you. I think it might be an amateur made pca about eurogenes results, since the file name is Euro V3

I guess the "Euro" refers to Europe - not Eurogenes - and the V3 refers to the Dodecad's main calculator.

 

[Sile]

This is an academic PCA

if the ibe is to be broken down it should comprise of catalans and galicians mainly who are next to north-italians ........can you do this?

 

[Angela]

Fwiw, I think that in academic studies Toscana is usually separated out from "Central Italy" as being more "northern like" than Umbria, Lazio and Marche, with affinities to Liguria and Emilia Romagna. It's very visible in the yDna as well, with its much higher levels of downstream R1b.

There is also, I think, a cline in Toscana, with the northwestern area, i.e. Massa Carrara, skewing slightly differently. There are not, however, to my knowledge, any samples from those areas in the analyses.

If you were going to be precise about it, Lazio is problematic. Gaeta and Formia in the far southern part of Lazio were never historically part of Lazio (added by Mussolini if I remember my history correctly), and are, in both genetics and linguistics, part of Campania to its south. Latina, or the Pontine area, was part of the province of Rome, but was settled by the Pontine Italians from the northeast, although I don't know how many are left or who else settled there when it was reclaimed. Rieti used to be Abruzzo, right? I don't know about Frosinone. A lot of people from there came to the U.S., and I know more than a few. They strike me as quite different from people from, say, Viterbo. I'd be interested to see if they're closer to them or closer to people like the Abruzzesi or Campanians.

The same thing arises for Trentino. You would have to be very careful to get people with "really" deep roots.

Abruzzo is a mix of "central" and "southern", I think, but quite a bit more southern than central, imo, as makes sense since it was politically always a part of the "southern" Kingdoms of various names.

These things, which I've been saying for years, are all borne out, imo, by the graph put up by Jovialis in post number 86

I think we all recognize these differences, which are part and parcel of the diversity of Italy, and the various clines, both north/south and east/west. It's just a difference of nomenclature in the clustering.

Just a note as to calculator PCAs. Much as I like the old Dienekes runs, they, like many such runs, included samples from individuals who sent in their data. That's true for Eurogenes too, I think. There is no way for these people to check the ancestry of these submissions. At least in academic ones they check that all four or at least 3 of the grandparents are indeed from the claimed areas. Actually, these analyses should only be based on people with much deeper roots, but that's another story.

I also think it's very unwise to try to judge "genetic closeness" by distance on a PCA, which even if perfectly done, with perfectly chosen samples, only covers two dimensions. I think fst is a much better bet, which is why I posted some figures above.