The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

[Hammas]

Target: RUS_Progress_LN: PG2004
Distance: 4.8991% / 0.04899101 | R5P
58.8 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
23.2 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
9.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso
8.4 ARM_Aknashen_N

Target: RUS_Progress_LN: PG2001
Distance: 5.0216% / 0.05021556 | R5P
48.2 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
22.6 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
21.2 ARM_Aknashen_N
8.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso

G25 models must agree with formal stats to be considered possible. Those do not.

Mbuti.DG CHG.SG GolubayaKrinitsa_LowerDon.SG RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic Z=4.14
Mbuti.DG CHG.SG Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N        RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic Z=3.31
Mbuti.DG CHG.SG Iran_GanjDareh_N            RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic Z=6.08
Mbuti.DG CHG.SG Armenia_Aknashen_N          RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic Z=0.91

Darkveti is a better source for the Southern ancestry.
RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic
GolubayaKrinitsa_LowerDon.SG 0.370076 0.0422111  8.76728
Caucasus_Eneolithic          0.336401 0.0253511 13.2697
Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N        0.293523 0.0290258 10.1125
Tail: 0.16
right = c('Congo_Mbuti.DG', 'Anatolia_Barcin_N.SG', 'Anatolia_Boncuklu_N.SG', 'Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG', 'Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG', 'CHG.SG', 'Morocco_OUB002_Epipaleolithic.SG', 'Morocco_SKH001_MN.SG', 'Italy_GrottaContinenza_HG.SG', 'Bichon.SG', 'Sweden_StoraForvar_HG.SG', 'RUS_Arkhangelsk_HG.SG', 'Botai.SG', 'Andaman_100BP.SG', 'RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG', 'Peru_RioUncallane_1800BP.SG')
allsnps=TRUE

Same setup as above.
GolubayaKrinitsa_LowerDon.SG
Ukraine_Vovnigi_NHG  0.443975 0.0636201 6.97853
RUS_Vologda_Minino_HG 0.101825 0.0812640 1.25301
Caucasus_Eneolithic  0.202134 0.0237646 8.50566
Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N  0.252066 0.0420753 5.99084
Tail: 0.57

Can they be models better with Armenian + CHG source since that is what the paper suggests