I saw the cladograms here:

I melted then into a graph to explain what I don't understand:

[it's an attachment at the bottom]

The gray cladogram on the left is part of their depiction of the L1-3 haplotree. The bigger color picture in the background is their expansion of this tree showing where their tested samples fell in the cladogram.

The big yellow blob at the top is labeled L1a1a and has all the L1a1a samples inside it. It is connected by a line called "278" to the next yellow blob, which is labeled L1a1. I see that this fits exactly with the gray cladogram: L1a1 -> 16278 -> L1a1a. And then this yellow blob is connected by a line called "168" to a circle that is called L1a*. Again, this fits exactly with the gray cladogram. The problems start with L1a*.

The little white circle has an "#" next to it, and to the left you can see an "#" followed by a series of 10 mutations. Obviously, this is a depiction of the lines that connect to the white circle, aka L1a*. In the gray cladogram there are 6 mutations before L1a. I've circled them and pointed to them next to the "#". They are 129, 148, 172, 188G, 278, 320. 5 of them are present next to the "#", but 278 is missing.

Next problem is that there are still more numbers in the series next to the "#", so I'm supposing that they must have included all the other mutations that lead to the root of L. Unfortunately, you can see that I have circled 3 mutations in the gray cladogram (187, 189, 311) which are depicted as being the branch that leads off to L2/3*, but are included next to the "#". How can L1 be positive for 3 mutations that define L2/3*?

Finally, one of the mutations next to the "#" (mutation 223) I wasn't even able to locate. I'm wondering if perhaps they made a mistake and they mispelled the missing 278 as 223?

One final weird thing is why they put the word "Root" between L1* and L1d/f/a/k. Branching off to the left and right of L1* are branches L1e/c/b. You can see this better in the original PubMed images I linked above, it's the first link.

I melted then into a graph to explain what I don't understand:

[it's an attachment at the bottom]

The gray cladogram on the left is part of their depiction of the L1-3 haplotree. The bigger color picture in the background is their expansion of this tree showing where their tested samples fell in the cladogram.

The big yellow blob at the top is labeled L1a1a and has all the L1a1a samples inside it. It is connected by a line called "278" to the next yellow blob, which is labeled L1a1. I see that this fits exactly with the gray cladogram: L1a1 -> 16278 -> L1a1a. And then this yellow blob is connected by a line called "168" to a circle that is called L1a*. Again, this fits exactly with the gray cladogram. The problems start with L1a*.

The little white circle has an "#" next to it, and to the left you can see an "#" followed by a series of 10 mutations. Obviously, this is a depiction of the lines that connect to the white circle, aka L1a*. In the gray cladogram there are 6 mutations before L1a. I've circled them and pointed to them next to the "#". They are 129, 148, 172, 188G, 278, 320. 5 of them are present next to the "#", but 278 is missing.

Next problem is that there are still more numbers in the series next to the "#", so I'm supposing that they must have included all the other mutations that lead to the root of L. Unfortunately, you can see that I have circled 3 mutations in the gray cladogram (187, 189, 311) which are depicted as being the branch that leads off to L2/3*, but are included next to the "#". How can L1 be positive for 3 mutations that define L2/3*?

Finally, one of the mutations next to the "#" (mutation 223) I wasn't even able to locate. I'm wondering if perhaps they made a mistake and they mispelled the missing 278 as 223?

One final weird thing is why they put the word "Root" between L1* and L1d/f/a/k. Branching off to the left and right of L1* are branches L1e/c/b. You can see this better in the original PubMed images I linked above, it's the first link.

## Comment