I wrote:
<<The MAIN branches reflect different lines of early mutations supposedly
locatable in different regions. Side branches reflect split-offs to other
regions.>>
Michal wrote:
<<Actually, the branches do not correspond to the mutations, but to the entire
populations of given regions.>>
I now write:
No, Michal. These are cladistic tree (at least they was generated by
cladistic phylogenic software).
The nodes, branches and the haplogroups represent "defining mutations." It's
basic principle of cladistic phylogeny. This is precisely how Ringe attempts
to tree IE (by "innovations.")
(I don't know what you think this tree means, but yes it is a picture of the
data, correlating the tree in figure one with the geographical distributions
in figure two. So, yes, your Central Asia theory is rejected by the optimal
cladistic tree correlating regions and haplotypes generated by the data. And
that may surprise you only because this "network is consistent with the first
two principal components capturing 18% of the variation present in the 116
haplotypes." In other words, this is the best view of direction of spread
that could be generated from the data and it only captures 18% of the
variances. This low a participation is common in trees with a lot of random
distribution.)
So, yes, if you are going to "scientifically" correlate the location of very
early languages with the genetic tree in the Underhill study, this IS the
tree to do it with.
And I've changed my mind. The long Pakistani-Indian branch that off-shoots
the "Mid East" branch is clearly Sumero-Elamite-Dravidian. No doubt about
it. Just as these people felt their Y-Chromosomes changing, they definitely
started a new language family. Probably innovated a more manly, guttural set
of sounds for use in their more aggressive verbal roots.
Steve