PDA

View Full Version : The 1% Nigerian DNA of European people



Japarthur
10-14-2019, 08:10 AM
The number and ethnicities mentioned are examples of what I saw looking at many MH results on YouTube.

MH rightly puts such cases in the low confidence category, but is it enough ?

1. If such patterns exist on a regular basis, this is likely a systematic error that MH ought to solve.
2. Due to the potential psychological effect, wouldn't it be preferable to put such cases in an "Conflicting" or "Unknow" category ?

mildlycurly
10-14-2019, 09:46 AM
OOA admix at the very most.

There has been no widespread mixing between Africans and Europeans up until the last century. Note that I'm not talking about white Americans here, many of whom have minor SSA admix.

I had no idea MH had a low confidence category, but it's still shoddy especially when so many people take their results at face value.

ExoticButter
10-15-2019, 09:26 PM
I would definitely consider myself Nigerian personally if it said 1%. Nigerian on my results.

LTG
10-15-2019, 10:12 PM
It's most likely something wrong with the algorithm as more sophisticated methods of inferring ancestry never indicate this sort of admixture in European populations (outside of those with North African related admixture, as this may transmit minor Sub-Saharan).

Sikeliot
10-15-2019, 10:30 PM
I thought they corrected for this and it was no longer showing up for people?

digital_noise
10-16-2019, 02:07 AM
my wife shows 1% Nigerian. She's Iranian. My mom shows 1% Central American, which is doubtful. I show 1% Ashkenazi across all kits uploaded to MH including their own swab. Its likely some weird noise thing. Looking forward to their updated results they say they are releasing later this year.

BalkanKiwi
10-22-2019, 10:32 AM
I still have 1.1% Nigerian. It's never changed since the problem first started.

FionnSneachta
10-22-2019, 10:58 AM
The only way that my family lost the 1% Nigerian was to delete my kits and re-upload. The estimate was the exact same except Nigerian was gone. I'm not sure if uploads to MyHeritage still get free access to everything though so I might not chance it now just to lose 1% Nigerian in the ethnicity estimate.

Japarthur
10-23-2019, 12:18 PM
I thought they corrected for this and it was no longer showing up for people?

I have not checked the dates of the videos. Hopefully, they did so.

BalkanKiwi
10-23-2019, 10:11 PM
The only way that my family lost the 1% Nigerian was to delete my kits and re-upload. The estimate was the exact same except Nigerian was gone. I'm not sure if uploads to MyHeritage still get free access to everything though so I might not chance it now just to lose 1% Nigerian in the ethnicity estimate.

I did this 4-5 times back when it was free as an experiment, and unfortunately it didn't go away. Now that it costs to unlock the ethnicity estimate I'm happy to leave it how it is.

StillWater
10-24-2019, 03:13 PM
What kinda "psychological effect" ?

Baltimore1937
10-27-2019, 10:33 PM
MH gives me that strange 1% Nigerian. If it is really valid in my case, then it must have come into Europe before my recent ancestors came to America. Maybe it came to Europe with the Moorish conquering of Spain, etc.

Baltimore1937
10-11-2020, 03:24 AM
MH gives me that strange 1% Nigerian. If it is really valid in my case, then it must have come into Europe before my recent ancestors came to America. Maybe it came to Europe with the Moorish conquering of Spain, etc.

I am still wondering about that 1% Nigerian that My Heritage gives me. I read recently somewhere that Nigerian slaves were British run. They first went to the West Indies, with some subsequently sent up to Virginia. Well, my direct maternal line goes back to colonial Virginia. Hmm... It's possible that somehow there was an African encounter among that branch. On the other hand, I got my information about that branch back there from other family trees. And looking at that assemblage at Ancestry again, I see that most of the best sources are no longer there. But several are private. Maybe those don't like being called racist and have made their trees private, I don't know. Back when I first poked my nose into that far back, there was at least one tree that said a certain woman was a field hand. I assume that meant indentured servant. Many early indentured servants came from Ireland to Virginia. Hmm again. I have more U5 matches going back to Ireland than any other single source. So it could possibly be that my direct maternal line goes back to an indentured servant in colonial Virginia coming from Ireland. That would make a African event more likely. But I do not intend to change my public tree on that theory. I'll just keep it in mind, ha ha. Ancestry DNA and FTDNA do not give me any African ancestry.

passenger
10-11-2020, 04:16 PM
I am still wondering about that 1% Nigerian that My Heritage gives me. I read recently somewhere that Nigerian slaves were British run. They first went to the West Indies, with some subsequently sent up to Virginia. Well, my direct maternal line goes back to colonial Virginia. Hmm... It's possible that somehow there was an African encounter among that branch. On the other hand, I got my information about that branch back there from other family trees. And looking at that assemblage at Ancestry again, I see that most of the best sources are no longer there. But several are private. Maybe those don't like being called racist and have made their trees private, I don't know. Back when I first poked my nose into that far back, there was at least one tree that said a certain woman was a field hand. I assume that meant indentured servant. Many early indentured servants came from Ireland to Virginia. Hmm again. I have more U5 matches going back to Ireland than any other single source. So it could possibly be that my direct maternal line goes back to an indentured servant in colonial Virginia coming from Ireland. That would make a African event more likely. But I do not intend to change my public tree on that theory. I'll just keep it in mind, ha ha. Ancestry DNA and FTDNA do not give me any African ancestry.

Well, the 1% Nigerian thing was clearly a glitch that was affecting a wide range of results that should never have gotten that percentage. It seems to be happening a lot less frequently now.

Do you have any other indication of SSA ancestry? On G25 for instance? If not, I'd just dismiss it. Which is not to say that you couldn't have some SSA ancestry going back to the colonial era, but there's a good chance that that wouldn't even show up after that many generations.

Baltimore1937
10-12-2020, 01:02 AM
Well, the 1% Nigerian thing was clearly a glitch that was affecting a wide range of results that should never have gotten that percentage. It seems to be happening a lot less frequently now.

Do you have any other indication of SSA ancestry? On G25 for instance? If not, I'd just dismiss it. Which is not to say that you couldn't have some SSA ancestry going back to the colonial era, but there's a good chance that that wouldn't even show up after that many generations.

No, I don't have any tangible evidence of SSA. I tend to be more interested in family history (trees) than DNA stuff, dimwit that I am. And that specific place in my tree back there in colonial Virginia is a bit fuzzy. That line connects to a Lee from the famous Virginia Lees downstream of that point in my tree. A strong point in favor of My Heritage is a list of DNA matches to others who have the same SSA DNA match, several pages. They range from all white through varying shades of dark (some have photos). And a few who have trees going back that far go back to Virginia. But I only just skimmed that list.

passenger
10-12-2020, 01:24 AM
No, I don't have any tangible evidence of SSA. I tend to be more interested in family history (trees) than DNA stuff, dimwit that I am. And that specific place in my tree back there in colonial Virginia is a bit fuzzy. That line connects to a Lee from the famous Virginia Lees downstream of that point in my tree. A strong point in favor of My Heritage is a list of DNA matches to others who have the same SSA DNA match, several pages. They range from all white through varying shades of dark (some have photos). And a few who have trees going back that far go back to Virginia. But I only just skimmed that list.

No worries. I'm also more into genealogy and not terribly knowledgeable about the genetics side. I'm just saying that the MH Nigerian percentage is not at all a reliable indicator, given how many people were seemingly randomly assigned 1-2% Nigerian for a while. But if you're able to make the matches line up, that does sound more promising. Of course it could easily be that the segments you have in common are of European origin rather than SSA.

Are you on Gedmatch? If you identify which segments you have in common with those matches, on MH or FTDNA, you can use the chromosome painting option on Gedmatch to see if SSA shows up on those particular segments. Hopefully that function will be made available soon on FTDNA itself (it was supposed to be part of the update, but hasn't shown up yet).

Baltimore1937
10-12-2020, 01:54 AM
One more note. I didn't see any known relatives in that list I mentioned ^above. But one tree from Indiana had a similar name embedded in it to another maternal line of mine that also goes back to Virginia (Quakers in my case). So maybe my Lee branch is accurate after all.

Marv
10-12-2020, 06:18 AM
If you are from the UK, then there has been mixing with West Africa before just a century ago. It's more like the 16th century, if not further. It's probable that some of your ancestors had that admixture and it's why there's a lingering 1% Nigerian centuries later.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11018-genes-reveal-west-african-heritage-of-white-brits/
https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_87968

geebee
10-12-2020, 10:01 PM
I actually have three different sets of results from MH, based on three different uploads: one from 23andMe, one from Ancestry, and one from FTDNA.

In that same order, here are my results:


Europe: 97.7% | 97.5% | 98.3%

North and West Europe: 78.5% | 80.7% | 82.3%

Irish, Scottish & Welsh: 50.4% | 46.6% | 51.0%
North and West European: 26.7% | 34.1% | 31.3%
Finnish: 1.4% | - | -
South Europe: 19.2% | 16.8% | 16.0%

Iberian: 10.0% | 9.5% | 8.3%
Italian: 9.2% |7.3% | 7.7%
America: 2.3% | 2.5% | 1.7%

Native American: 1.6% | 1.5% | 1.7%

Native American: 1.6% | 1.5% | 1.7%
Central and South America: 0.7% | 1.0% | -

Mesoamerican and Andean: 0.7% | 1.0% | -

No Nigerian or any other SSA ancestry, not even with a fair amount of Iberian ancestry. Iberians are more likely to have North African ancestry than SSA, in any event, but apparently I do not -- at least as MyHeritage.

I don't actually have any Italian ancestry that I know of, even as far back as 5th great grandparents. I suspect this is still connected with my Iberian ancestry -- which is actually from the island of Menorca. It may also reflect my southern French ancestry, or perhaps even my southeastern Swiss ancestry (from near what was once the Republic of Venice).

I don't know how much stock I'd put in a 1% ancestry unless it's very persistent.

BalkanKiwi
10-12-2020, 10:08 PM
No worries. I'm also more into genealogy and not terribly knowledgeable about the genetics side. I'm just saying that the MH Nigerian percentage is not at all a reliable indicator, given how many people were seemingly randomly assigned 1-2% Nigerian for a while. But if you're able to make the matches line up, that does sound more promising. Of course it could easily be that the segments you have in common are of European origin rather than SSA.

Are you on Gedmatch? If you identify which segments you have in common with those matches, on MH or FTDNA, you can use the chromosome painting option on Gedmatch to see if SSA shows up on those particular segments. Hopefully that function will be made available soon on FTDNA itself (it was supposed to be part of the update, but hasn't shown up yet).

Agreed regarding its reliability, to the point that I've previously tested deleting and re-uploading my FTDNA data 5-6 times to see if my 1.5% Nigerian disappears. It doesn't, however using my 23andMe data it doesn't come up at all. I'm surprised they still haven't fixed this, unless they have and its going to be in the new update, which may happen within the next 10 years.

Buxoro
10-12-2020, 10:46 PM
Oh myheritage...
1.9% Nigerian here (which makes my central asian dad 4% Nigerian) along with NA.
https://i.ibb.co/HTsCJ4R/B765-F71-E-3145-4-D98-AE58-AF9-DEDC5-C278.jpg (https://ibb.co/hFjcq9r)

Anyways taking seriously results from myheritage is even more absurdly that the results themselves. This is literally the worst company on the market.

passenger
10-12-2020, 11:29 PM
People like to rag on MH, like they like to rag on some other companies. They're admittedly one of the weaker companies in terms of autosomal breakdowns, but I don't think that they're really as terrible as people make them out to be. Compared with FTDNA, they do a somewhat better job with all 4 kits I manage (one being a transfer from Ancestry, and the others originally tested with MH).

As far as trace percentages go, I'll repeat what others have said here and elsewhere: that is, what really matters is consistency between different tests. The random Nigerian thing is a totally separate issue for most customers, but it is possible for some that it corresponds to something that is actually there. Interestingly, MH gives my father 0.9% Middle Eastern. He doesn't get any hint of that at AncestryDNA, and I previously thought it was ridiculous, but he consistently gets similar percentages in a lot of G25 models, and the latest FTDNA update gives him trace Yemenite Jewish. I still have no idea what causes it, but the point is that MH estimates are not always as crazily random as they may seem to be.

In any case, they obviously have a lot to improve. Fingers crossed for the update!

Buxoro
10-12-2020, 11:58 PM
I cross fingers for them to release this update in next 5 years. Whatever the quality is, it would be already a miracle.

JerryS.
10-13-2020, 12:25 AM
worst raw data deciphering I've seen for me.

digital_noise
10-13-2020, 04:40 PM
worst raw data deciphering I've seen for me.

23 and me data was not good but your old AncestryDNA was decent

CyrylBojarski
10-13-2020, 04:43 PM
My MyHeritage results were relatively good and I would say it is copy of my AncestryDNA results

digital_noise
10-13-2020, 04:45 PM
I’ve always said this but for me My Heritage is decent. The fine details are lacking and inconsistent so I just look at a regional level. Hoping whenever they update things that it will improve.

JerryS.
10-13-2020, 06:03 PM
23 and me data was not good but your old AncestryDNA was decent

Ancestry and 23 were both spit swabs. My heritage was a raw data transfer from ancestry and it was abysmal.

digital_noise
10-13-2020, 06:06 PM
Ancestry and 23 were both spit swabs. My heritage was a raw data transfer from ancestry and it was abysmal.

The one you posted recently was bad. The one you posted a year or two ago seemed to match every other test you’ve taken. https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11338-MyHeritage-results-are-hit-and-miss

Or course, we’re talking MyHeritage and their NW regions are a mess so just look at the big picture.

CyrylBojarski
10-13-2020, 06:25 PM
Ancestry and 23 were both spit swabs. My heritage was a raw data transfer from ancestry and it was abysmal.

MyHeritage works like a oracle calculator for you. You did not get any Italian, but got reduced African percentage instead

JerryS.
10-13-2020, 06:30 PM
The one you posted recently was bad. The one you posted a year or two ago seemed to match every other test you’ve taken. https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11338-MyHeritage-results-are-hit-and-miss

Or course, we’re talking MyHeritage and their NW regions are a mess so just look at the big picture.

I posted their latest and greatest chart for me.

JerryS.
10-13-2020, 06:32 PM
MyHeritage works like a oracle calculator for you. You did not get any Italian, but got reduced African percentage instead
I guess so but it goes back to just showing how they assign everyone 1.something % Nigerian.�� I've gotten North African regularly I've even gotten some East African like Somalia or something like that before in very minor percents but I've never gotten Nigerian except for my heritage.

msmarjoribanks
10-13-2020, 06:36 PM
MyHeritage is weird for me and my family, and inconsistent with the other tests taken (of which 23andMe and Ancestry are both pretty similar to each other, and even FTDNA less odd in its results in that it merely mixes up NW European regions, which is expected).

The 1% Nigerian thing seems related to when the upload occurred. My parents did not have it, I did at one point and don't any more, and my sister does not.

It could be true for me, but at the same time posters from NW European backgrounds were uploading and getting the exact same thing (and much less likely for them than an American with colonial era ancestors, like me), so given that, that my parents did not get it, and that I no longer have it (I reuploaded the FTDNA upload where I got it as a test) and did not have it with my first Ancestry upload, I think it is a glitch with MyH that seems to have been fixed. But their results are still somewhat wacky.

digital_noise
10-13-2020, 06:41 PM
I posted their latest and greatest chart for me.

It’s different raw data man...

FionnSneachta
10-13-2020, 06:41 PM
I also agree that it seems to have been some sort of glitch. All my family had 1% Nigerian initially. I deleted and re-uploaded and the Nigerian is now gone. When I initially uploaded, a lot other posters here were getting the 1% Nigerian at the same time.

digital_noise
10-13-2020, 06:56 PM
It’s noise, plain and simple. People here will shrug off 8% of combined noise in G25 or Gedmatch but get hung up on 1% Nigerian...

My wife gets 1% Nigerian. She’s Iranian. My mom gets 1% Central American. Their algorithm is weird.

Buxoro
10-13-2020, 07:01 PM
It’s noise, plain and simple. People here will shrug off 8% of combined noise in G25 or Gedmatch but get hung up on 1% Nigerian...

My wife gets 1% Nigerian. She’s Iranian. My mom gets 1% Central American. Their algorithm is weird.

Have you shared your Iranian wife MH results? Does she get mostly western asia?
Anyways to be less harsh on MH i have to admit that their results at least make more sense than MyOrigins 3.0.

digital_noise
10-13-2020, 07:12 PM
Have you shared your Iranian wife MH results? Does she get mostly western asia?
Anyways to be less harsh on MH i have to admit that their results at least make more sense than MyOrigins 3.0.

My wife-me-daughter.
Everything fits. The NW regions is a mess between me and my daughter though


Hang on.. need to delete some other attachments
40245
40246
40247

Buxoro
10-13-2020, 08:14 PM
My wife-me-daughter.
Everything fits. The NW regions is a mess between me and my daughter though


Hang on.. need to delete some other attachments
40245
40246
40247

Yea her results look typical for Iranian in MH. African/Ashkenazi MH seem to generously assign to lots of people so it’s irrelevant.

JerryS.
10-13-2020, 08:14 PM
I guess I can understand North German, English and Scottish being all lumped into just English because of the considerable overlap that they have with each other; I just didn't understand why everything outside of NW Europe was condensed into North Africa. But like they say, different algorithms and such.....

msmarjoribanks
10-13-2020, 08:20 PM
It’s noise, plain and simple. People here will shrug off 8% of combined noise in G25 or Gedmatch but get hung up on 1% Nigerian...

My wife gets 1% Nigerian. She’s Iranian. My mom gets 1% Central American. Their algorithm is weird.

It doesn't really matter, but IMO noise tends to be less consistent. What was weird about it was that nearly everyone who uploaded in a certain period of time (and not before or after) got the same result.

Currently I have 1.1% Central Asian and some other unusual for me small results there, that's noise. On 23andMe I have 0.2% Senegambian (I no longer have Nigerian on MyH), that's also likely noise.

digital_noise
10-13-2020, 08:26 PM
I guess I can understand North German, English and Scottish being all lumped into just English because of the considerable overlap that they have with each other; I just didn't understand why everything outside of NW Europe was condensed into North Africa. But like they say, different algorithms and such.....

If you are referring to your results, itís likely cause the 23 and me raw data is missing key SNPís that they use for their algorithm, where AncestryDNA raw data is not missing it, thus a more reasonable estimate.

digital_noise
10-13-2020, 08:27 PM
It doesn't really matter, but IMO noise tends to be less consistent. What was weird about it was that nearly everyone who uploaded in a certain period of time (and not before or after) got the same result.

Currently I have 1.1% Central Asian and some other unusual for me small results there, that's noise. On 23andMe I have 0.2% Senegambian (I no longer have Nigerian on MyH), that's also likely noise.

Noise might not be the right term here. It’s likely a byproduct of the algorithm that it cannot do anything with so for reasons unknown it just defaults to Nigerian.

digital_noise
10-13-2020, 08:31 PM
Yea her results look typical for Iranian in MH. African/Ashkenazi MH seem to generously assign to lots of people so itís irrelevant.

Her MH results match almost perfectly to the 2017 AncestryDNA results before they started dumbing it down and eliminating minor ethnic categories.

JerryS.
10-14-2020, 01:29 AM
If you are referring to your results, it’s likely cause the 23 and me raw data is missing key SNP’s that they use for their algorithm, where AncestryDNA raw data is not missing it, thus a more reasonable estimate.

the MH raw data transfer was from Ancestry, not 23.

digital_noise
10-14-2020, 01:47 AM
the MH raw data transfer was from Ancestry, not 23.

So you did an ancestry data transfer twice?

JerryS.
10-14-2020, 01:49 AM
So you did an ancestry transfer twice?

I guess so. everyone says the 23 V5 is suspect so I sent my Ancestry data. if I did it before I didn't save the results. Adntro is the only company I can remember sending both Ancestry and 23 data. my 23 data is only about a month old.

digital_noise
10-14-2020, 01:50 AM
I guess so. everyone says the 23 V5 is suspect so I sent my Ancestry data. if I did it before I didn't save the results.

Did you see the link I posted? It’s your results man from 3 years ago

JerryS.
10-14-2020, 01:53 AM
Did you see the link I posted? It’s your results man from 3 years ago

I just checked it. I guess nothings really changed.

digital_noise
10-14-2020, 01:55 AM
I just checked it. I guess nothings really changed.

Are you serious? It’s completely different...


just got mine back, complete trash.

Europe 93.5%
English 71.3%
Irish/Scottish/Welsh 22.2%

African 6.5%
North African 5.2%
West African/Nigerian 1.3%

now I have to figure out which one of my great grandparents was half Moor. LOL

I'll add that this was a raw data upload but I forgot which one I used.



My Heritage results from my ancestry raw DNA data are odd. is this a new calculator with a lot of working still going on?

72% English.

22% Irish/Scottish/Welsh.

4% Italian.

1% West Asian (which shows most of the middle east)

.9% North African.

Ancestry gave me similar on the Southern European, W.Asian, N. African, but gave me 24% West European. which "My Heritage" missed completely.

my mother is half German. I've traced it several generations back which the Ancestry 24% West European makes sense, but My Heritage missed completely. also, both of them are light on the Italian which should be higher based on my known ancestry. GEDmatch calculators show me at about 25% Italian and 25% German which is line with what I know.

anyone else do this upload and have mixed views?

JerryS.
10-14-2020, 02:09 AM
Are you serious? It’s completely different...

well it looks like their north south split is about the same.

digital_noise
10-14-2020, 05:19 PM
well it looks like their north south split is about the same.

Yes although I do not think these are the same raw files. That said, it regionally jives with what 23 and me gave you and gets close to a lot of your AncestryDNA derives g25 runs. Pretty consistent across multiple platforms.

JerryS.
10-14-2020, 07:25 PM
Yes although I do not think these are the same raw files. That said, it regionally jives with what 23 and me gave you and gets close to a lot of your AncestryDNA derives g25 runs. Pretty consistent across multiple platforms.

Well I only have one raw ancestry file and at $19 a pop I can't afford to send in a 23 and me which is suspect by some views because of the V5 nor a merged file which I didn't have at the time of this anyway.

CyrylBojarski
10-14-2020, 07:30 PM
Well I only have one raw ancestry file and at $19 a pop I can't afford to send in a 23 and me which is suspect by some views because of the V5 nor a merged file which I didn't have at the time of this anyway.

I got access to MH for free for month, you can do it also

digital_noise
10-14-2020, 07:41 PM
Well I only have one raw ancestry file and at $19 a pop I can't afford to send in a 23 and me which is suspect by some views because of the V5 nor a merged file which I didn't have at the time of this anyway.
How many files have you sent them? Because based on the posts I quoted above you have sent in two. Or the one has updated? Lol, I’m starting to feel like a detective here man. Throw me a bone. What happened? My whole point is minus the latest weird My Heritage result you’ve gotten consistent results yet still seem confused about something or are not impressed with the final product.

JerryS.
10-14-2020, 08:00 PM
How many files have you sent them? Because based on the posts I quoted above you have sent in two. Or the one has updated? Lol, I’m starting to feel like a detective here man. Throw me a bone. What happened? My whole point is minus the latest weird My Heritage result you’ve gotten consistent results yet still seem confused about something or are not impressed with the final product.

I sent them my one and only raw Ancestry file. I have not taken a swab test for them. The 23 file is relatively new and when I had g25 done from merging it with ancestry you led me to believe that the file would be less accurate. The file from before and now could only have been ancestry. I've sent that file to several companies postedhere as you know. If I forgot one from three years ago and did it again than I wasted my money. The regional results from 3 years ago and today are the same North vs. South, why would you think its different files? My question was why would they everything outside of the UK into North Africa, and why are they still assigning most everyone a percentage of Nigerian?

digital_noise
10-14-2020, 08:07 PM
I sent them my one and only raw Ancestry file. I have not taken a swab test for them. The 23 file is relatively new and when I had g25 done from merging it with ancestry you led me to believe that the file would be less accurate. The file from before and now could only have been ancestry. I've sent that file to several companies postedhere as you know. If I forgot one from three years ago and did it again than I wasted my money. The regional results from 3 years ago and today are the same North vs. South, why would you think its different files?
Because you implied just getting your results back and that they were bad. The results are so different that I felt it could have been a cobbled raw file that’s giving such different results. I have sent 5 raw files to My Heritage and they don’t differ by much, especially the Southern Europe. The Eastern Europe does differ. All I’m trying to do is figure out why your second set of results is different. North Africa is not Proxy for Italian. You even mention Gedmatch being weird with whatever new file you uploaded. But you are not being clear as to what you sent and when.

JerryS.
10-14-2020, 08:10 PM
Because you implied just getting your results back and that they were bad. The results are so different that I felt it could have been a cobbled raw file that’s giving such different results. I have sent 5 raw files to My Heritage and they don’t differ by much, especially the Southern Europe. The Eastern Europe does differ. All I’m trying to do is figure out why your second set of results is different. North Africa is not Proxy for Italian. But you are not being clear as to what you sent and when.

I said I got my results back and they weren't good at least by my estimations because I forgot that I sent something in 3 years ago and that would have been the raw ancestry file. I sent the same file twice 3 years apart to the same company and the north South split is the same but the South split is showing North Africa. That's my question as to why.