Talk:Haplogroup L0

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

edited discussion from Template talk:MtDNA[edit]

I am sorry, but who is saying that L0 is extinct? [1] says that L0 has a frequency of 25% in Mozambique! .... It appears, from [2] that L0 is simply the first offshoot off the tree rooted at mt-Eve. Please restore the template accordingly. dab (ᛏ) 07:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really confusing, but some people are using L0-L5 to indicate haplogroups currently found in Africa (I put links to these in the external links section of the L0 page), and some are using L0 to indicate an extinct haplogroup, which I believe was found in some ancient human remains (mtDNA can be extracted from the bone and teeth of ancient remains). I think showing it as not extinct (your change) is better, and the confusion can be discussed in the L0 article itself. .... — Reinyday, 11:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

- LOL. L0 is not extinct. Everyone is descendent of L0 in a way. ~~Personally, I am Haplogroup L0b.~~ --Brout8 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was an incorrect statement. L0 is like haplogroup A (y-dna). It is amongst oldest haplogroup but has no descendents outside it's own haplogroup. Brout8 (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 01:56[reply]

"Late Iron Age"[edit]

I know that Ruhli and Steyr's paper says "late Iron Age" but that may be difficult for most readers to unpack. Particularly since: "Bone collagen from the mummy was radiocarbon dated to 140±30 BP or AD 1675–1735 (2-sigma calibrated) or alternatively from AD 1800 to post-1950".

Kortoso (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map needs updating[edit]

The label on the map reads 144,000 KYA however "KYA" means "thousands of years ago"... which would make the date 144 million years in the past... pretty sure it should say either 144,000 BP or 144 KYA. 2601:342:100:9000:C035:B5D5:69E:4774 (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]