由于是英文版，我英語不大好。
為什么這圖2的CD兩張圖會不一樣。
The most populated 1st-level?(a), 2nd-level?(b), and 3rd-level?(c)?cluster in each prefecture.?d.?The 3rd-level cluster with the largest odds ratio in each prefecture.?e.?The spatial distribution of the 3rd-level subclusters in Jiangsu province is accompanying the linguistic-cultural division. The most populated clusters were shown.?f.?Three major clans in Guangdong, Canton, Hakka (falling into two clusters), and Min-Chaoshan, can be distinguished from the haplotype network clusters. The clusters with the largest odds ratio were shown.?g-h.?The paths of the?Zou Xikou?(g)?and?Chuang Guandong?(h)?migration waves. In panels?a-d, 50% transparency was applied to the prefectures with small sample sizes (n < 10), and prefectures with no valid samples were left blank.
按論文描述圖C應(yīng)該是以“三級”分類prefecture我理解為地級市，占比最大的做的圖。
可是圖D確在細節(jié)處有很大的不同，比如膠東地區(qū)，福建。
在二級分類的情況下，贛州漢與東南的閩客浙南一組，但繼續(xù)細分，三級下贛州和中南組歸為一類圖C，但圖D又歸入珠江流域的客家組。
還沒完，繼續(xù)細分，四級分類下，贛州與梅州龍巖汕尾聚成一組，脫離珠江流域的客家組。
還有論文給出了閩粵三個族群與二級下的北方組的關(guān)系，卻沒有給出閩粵與華中和華東和西南組的關(guān)系。我想知道鄰近的中南組合和二級下的華北組IBDshareing能透露一下嗎。
有微基因的大佬知道原因嗎？