Re: [tied] Discovery Article

I have a minor problem with the discovery article:

The article distinguishes "Pakestan and India" from "European", and places
them at some remove from each otehr. It clearly cannot mean "Pakistanis and
Indians", who should be closely related to Europeans (if history and
archaeology are any guide). Presumably then it means Dravidians and other
relics of pre-Aryan invasions.

Isn't it a little misleading, then, that it merely says "Pakistan & India"??
And isn't it a bit disingenuous in saying that the pattern quite closely
reflects geography? In that area, Europeans and Dravidians are tumbled over
each other, more or less, so the clear separation on the chart cannot be
related "quite closely" to geography.

Are there other ways in which the chart is, shall we say, over-simplified?

Peter