You may be right in having doubts about this paper but may I question the maths of your
You say 'The sample is according to my calculation 0.000030%. Two [sic] small to be
the basis of sweeping statements.' You go on to refer to 'such a small
That should raise the question 'What would be an adequate sample?' You are silent
As I understand it, the key issue is NOT the proportion of the population in the sample
but that it be selected at random. Provided it IS random, then a sample of 91 (on a rough
calculation!) would provide 95% confidence that the result is within plus or minus 10 per
cent of the true value. (And it doesn't really matter very much whether the total
population from which the sample is drawn is 3 million or 300 million).
I agree that a larger sample would be better, but even a sample of this size can provide
considerable insight provided, as I say, it is properly selected.
On 21 Mar 2015, at 8:11 am, yr achwr via <dyfed(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
Yet another paper on Genetics, which I have doubts about.
They sampled according to what I understand from the paper, 2039 individuals from
England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
The whole of Ireland and not just Northern Ireland.
By Population from the last available Censuses rounded to the nearest Million, and
assuming the samples are directly related to the population of each country.
England Population 54M - sample = 1613
Scotland Population 6M - sample = 152
Wales Population 3M - sample = 91
Ireland Population 7M - sample = 183
The sample is according to my calculation 0.000030%.
Two small to be the basis of sweeping statements.
Turning to Wales an assumed sample of 91, and again assuming these are evenly split on
traditional counties it gives 7 per County.
Seven from the whole of Pembrokeshire.
How anyone can claim to define differences between Below and Above the Landsker, and the
Landsker was never static on such a small sample is beyond me.
Their Methodology in my opinion is also suspect. They assume that those tested whose all
four Grandparents (Born about 1900 + or - 15 years or so )came from within 80 miles of
each other meant that their ancestors had always lived in the area.
Anyone who has traced his family back to the 1700's or earlier, will know that this
is a false assumption.
I do not subscribe to the theory of Ethnic Cleansing by wave after wave of invaders, but
there is I believe evidence it happened in some areas.
For most of the population it was simply a change of "Overlord-ship".
Most of us however know that many Welshmen from at least the 1500's onwards migrated
to London and other English Cities.
They must have left their Genetic Mark, and the assumption on which the research is
based, and the findings do not take account of later population movements.
My opinions are purely on the basis of what I know about the families I have researched.
I am no expert on DNA Research, and hope that Brian Picton Swann, who is far more
qualified than me, will give his own views from a Scientific Perspective.