Hi /sci/, /pol/ here. I'm mentionning it because I don't want to accidentally bait anyone : I have an honest question.
I was looking up the genetic distances of wolves and coyotes, to compare with human populations (let's not talk about that), and found greatly divergent results from different sources.
For example https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/publication/red-wolf-genetics-research-von-holdt.pdf puts it at 0,153, while https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article/106/1/26/882754 found a value of 0,279.
And this guy here https://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/readings/templeton.pdf shows a value of 0,9 (!) between wolves of the northern hemisphere.
How come they got completely different results ? Is Fst inherently useless, or is it more likely to be calculation errors ? or sampling issues ?
I was looking up the genetic distances of wolves and coyotes, to compare with human populations (let's not talk about that), and found greatly divergent results from different sources.
For example https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/publication/red-wolf-genetics-research-von-holdt.pdf puts it at 0,153, while https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article/106/1/26/882754 found a value of 0,279.
And this guy here https://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/readings/templeton.pdf shows a value of 0,9 (!) between wolves of the northern hemisphere.
How come they got completely different results ? Is Fst inherently useless, or is it more likely to be calculation errors ? or sampling issues ?
