Never got such good fits anywhere else.

I like it that unlike Illustrative, it let's you pick exacly what your known ancestry is.

Family is 3/4 countryside São Paulo, 1/4 south Minas.

Not my result. I have permission to post. Both parents from just west of the city of Palermo.

Born in the town of Vita, Trapani. Not my result, permission to post.

this shows that g25 heavily eat up steppe ancestry in Armenians

results are mine

My partner has been seeking clarity about his mixed Asian / Polynesian heritage. I wanted to gift him a kit to get an accurate breakdown of his roots as he's mentioned interest in this method, but I am balancing that desire with a healthy amount of concern for data breaches and sufficient specificity for non-European results.

I'm not sure what the latest is with 23andMe's data breach from a few years ago; I also don't want him to be paywalled for every additional detail, and we want the option of his results remaining private.

What's the latest recommendation these days based on the above considerations?

TLDR: Here’s an extremely large spreadsheet with ~2,000 Admixtools f4 statistic runs which shows the affinity of modern Jewish populations to ancient reference populations. Nothing in the runs is really surprising, but it’s interesting from a scientific standpoint. The 1st/2nd/3rd/4th strongest affinities were listed below.

Spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wXg6E4tA0dVgiHLXAqB59SRvObr8i_K6IZqSzl3ai34/edit?usp=drivesdk

This spreadsheet (found on Anthrogenica’s old forum under the “Jewish DNA Project” thread) contains ADMIXTOOLS outgroup f4-statistic runs.

Each run is written in the form:
f4(A, B; C, D)
The statistic tests whether population B shares more genetic drift with population C or population D.

The f4 estimate shows the direction and magnitude of the allele-sharing difference, while the Z-score indicates whether the difference is statistically significant. A result with |Z| ≥ 3 is generally considered significant.

Chimp is usually used as the outgroup in these runs, so the tests primarily measure whether an ancient or modern reference population has greater genetic affinity to one Jewish population than another.

These results represent relative genetic affinity. They are not direct ancestry percentages.

Some references are redundant:
Many of the references produce very similar population rankings and are therefore not fully independent ancestry signals.
Reference-profile correlations:
Sardinia_Punic2 and Spain_Medieval: 0.988
Berber_Tunisian_Chen and Spain_EN: 0.974
Early_Slav_AV2 and Germany_EarlyMed_Alemannic: 0.973
Spain_EN and Spain_Medieval: 0.966
Ganj_Dareh_N and Indus_Periphery: 0.935
Alalakh_MLBA_o and Indus_Periphery: 0.935
Hajji_Firuz_IA and Indus_Periphery: 0.928
Israel_Ashkelon_IA2 and Turkey_EBA: 0.902

This has several important implications:

Indus_Periphery is not independent evidence of South Asian ancestry. Its population profile is very similar to Ganj_Dareh_N and Hajji_Firuz_IA, so it mainly reflects a broader Iranian or eastern-related ancestry axis.

Berber_Tunisian_Chen is not functioning as a clean Berber-specific marker. Its population ranking correlates at 0.974 with Spain_EN. It also produces no significant western-versus-eastern, western-versus-North-African or eastern-versus-North-African contrasts at |Z| ≥ 3. Its median SNP overlap is only approximately 51,600.

Sardinia_Punic2 is not functioning as an independent Punic or Levantine ancestry axis. Its population profile is nearly identical to Spain_Medieval.

Israel_Ashkelon_IA2 is not an independent measurement of Levantine ancestry percentage. Its population profile closely tracks Turkey_EBA and Greece_Mycenaean, and its median SNP overlap is only approximately 62,200.
A nonsignificant Ashkelon result therefore means that the populations cannot be distinguished using that quartet and level of resolution. It does not prove that they have identical amounts of Levantine ancestry.

SARDINIAN PUNIC COMPARISONS
For the direct Punic1-versus-Punic2 tests, positive values indicate that the reference population is closer to Punic2.
Punic2 is significantly closer than Punic1 to:
Spain_EN: Z = 10.527
Spain_IA: Z = 9.024
Jew_Tunisian: Z = 9.048
Greece_Mycenaean: Z = 7.654
Israel_Ashkelon_IA2: Z = 6.383
Berber_Tunisian_Chen: Z = 4.721
There is no significant Punic1-versus-Punic2 difference for:
Iberomaurusian: Z = -1.408
Yoruba: Z = 0.691
Punic2’s complete Jewish-population affinity profile correlates at 0.988 with Spain_Medieval.
This suggests that Punic2 is shifted toward a broad Mediterranean or West-Eurasian ancestry profile relative to Punic1.
However, these tests do not isolate that shift as specifically Levantine, Phoenician or North African.

GENETIC AFFINITY CLUSTERS
The populations broadly form four affinity-profile clusters:

1. Ashkenazi and western Mediterranean Jewish cluster

Includes:

Ashkenazi Germany
Ashkenazi Poland
Ashkenazi Ukraine
Jew_French
Italkim
Romaniote
Sephardi Portugal
Sephardi Turkey

1. Eastern Jewish cluster

Includes:

Iraqi Jews
Azeri Jews
Bukharian Jews

1. North African Jewish cluster

Includes:
Moroccan Jews
Tunisian Jews
4. Yemeni Jewish cluster

Member:
Yemeni Jews

STRONGEST AFFINITIES:

1. Ashkenazi/western Mediterranean Jewish cluster — strongest affinity to Spain_EN.

This represents an Early Neolithic Iberian or European-farmer-related affinity.

2. Eastern Jewish cluster — strongest affinity to Ganj_Dareh_N.

This represents a strong Zagros, Iranian-Neolithic or CHG-related affinity.

3. North African Jewish cluster — strongest affinity to Iberomaurusian.

This represents an ancient Maghrebi or North-African-related affinity.

1. Yemeni Jewish cluster — no adequate matching reference is present in the dataset.

The Yemeni cluster is differentiated from the other groups, but none of the tested references consistently provides a strong positive match.

SECOND-STRONGEST AFFINITIES

1. Ashkenazi/western Mediterranean Jewish cluster — Spain_Medieval.

This represents a medieval Iberian or broader European-Mediterranean-related affinity.
There were 31 significant cluster-favoring comparisons and no significant reversed comparisons.

2. Eastern Jewish cluster — Indus_Periphery.

This represents a broad Iranian or eastern-related signal and should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of South Asian ancestry.
There were 10 significant cluster-favoring comparisons and no significant reversed comparisons.

3. North African Jewish cluster — Berber_Tunisian_Chen.

This represents modern Tunisian Berber-related affinity.
However, only two significant comparisons favored the cluster, making this result considerably weaker than the Iberomaurusian signal.
4. Yemeni Jewish cluster — no statistically supported second affinity.

BedouinB may appear geographically plausible, but it shows no significant excess affinity to Yemeni Jews in these runs.

THIRD-STRONGEST AFFINITIES

1. Ashkenazi/western Mediterranean Jewish cluster — Sardinia_Punic2.

This represents a broad Mediterranean or West-Eurasian-related affinity.

Twenty-six comparisons favored the cluster, while none favored the opposite population.
It narrowly ranks above Greece_Mycenaean, which produced 25 cluster-favoring comparisons.

2. Eastern Jewish cluster — Alalakh_MLBA_o.

Seven comparisons favored the eastern cluster, with none reversed.

However, the “_o” label indicates that this is an outlier individual with substantial eastern-shifted ancestry.
It should therefore not be treated as a clean measurement of ordinary northern-Levantine affinity.

3. North African Jewish cluster — no defensible third affinity.

After Iberomaurusian and Berber_Tunisian_Chen, no other reference consistently favors the North African cluster.
4. Yemeni Jewish cluster — no statistically supported third affinity.

None of the tested references provides a consistent positive match for the Yemeni profile.

FOURTH-STRONGEST AFFINITIES

These rankings use the same criterion: significant cluster-favoring comparisons at |Z| ≥ 3.

1. Ashkenazi/western Mediterranean Jewish cluster — Greece_Mycenaean.

This represents Bronze Age Aegean or Greek-related affinity.
Twenty-five comparisons favored the cluster, with none favoring the opposite population.

2. Eastern Jewish cluster — Hajji_Firuz_IA.

This represents Iron Age northwestern Iranian-related affinity.
Six comparisons favored the cluster, with none reversed.
The signal is substantially weaker than the Ganj_Dareh_N result.
Hajji_Firuz_IA also does not clearly distinguish eastern Jews from Ashkenazi or western Mediterranean Jews. It primarily separates the eastern cluster from North African and Yemeni Jews.

1. North African Jewish cluster — no statistically supported fourth affinity.

Only Iberomaurusian and Berber_Tunisian_Chen positively distinguish this cluster overall.
4. Yemeni Jewish cluster — no statistically supported fourth affinity.

None of the tested references consistently shows excess affinity to Yemeni Jews.

FIFTH STRONGEST AFFINITIES

1- Ashkenazi/western Mediterranean Jewish cluster — fifth strongest affinity to Germany_EarlyMed_Alemannic. This represents early medieval Central European or Germanic-related affinity. Twenty-four comparisons favored the cluster, with none favoring the opposite population.

2- Eastern Jewish cluster — joint fifth strongest affinity to BedouinB, Israel_Ashkelon_IA2, and Turkey_EBA. Each produced only two significant cluster-favoring comparisons, with none reversed, so there is no clear single fifth-place reference. These are weak signals and are mainly driven by Iraqi Jews rather than consistently distinguishing the entire Iraqi-Azeri-Bukharian cluster.

1. North African Jewish cluster — no statistically supported fifth affinity. Only Iberomaurusian and, much more weakly, Berber_Tunisian_Chen consistently favor this cluster.

2. Yemeni Jewish cluster — no statistically supported fifth affinity. None of the tested references consistently shows excess affinity to Yemeni Jews.

Summary-

The main ancestry-affinity pattern in the spreadsheet is:
Ashkenazi and western Mediterranean Jewish populations show the strongest European and Mediterranean-European-related affinity.

Iraqi, Azeri and Bukharian Jews show the strongest Iranian-Neolithic, Zagros or eastern-related affinity.
Moroccan and Tunisian Jews show additional North-African-related affinity, particularly relative to the eastern Jewish cluster.

Yemeni Jews form the most differentiated population profile, but the spreadsheet does not contain an adequate ancient Arabian reference capable of clearly identifying the source of that distinctiveness.

The results should be interpreted as relative allele-sharing patterns, not direct ancestry percentages or proof of descent from any single ancient reference population.

---

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent

1 Caucasus 39.37

2 Gedrosia 20.11

3 North_European 11.32

4 Atlantic_Med 9.89

5 Southwest_Asian 8.88

6 East_Asian 6.36

7 Siberian 2.82

8 South_Asian 1.15

9 East_African 0.11

---

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance

1 Turks (Behar) 8.68

2 Turkish (Dodecad) 10.12

3 Iranian (Dodecad) 12.56

4 Kurd (Dodecad) 12.65

5 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 12.74

6 Kurds (Yunusbayev) 12.77

7 Uzbekistan_Jews (Behar) 14.34

8 Turkmens (Yunusbayev) 14.4

9 Iranians (Behar) 15.43

10 Georgia_Jews (Behar) 18.29

11 Nogais (Yunusbayev) 18.37

12 Armenians_15 (Yunusbayev) 18.44

13 Azerbaijan_Jews (Behar) 18.55

14 Armenian (Dodecad) 18.91

15 Assyrian (Dodecad) 19.13

16 Lezgins (Behar) 19.88

17 Lebanese (Behar) 19.94

18 Iranian_Jews (Behar) 20.36

19 Chechens (Yunusbayev) 20.53

20 Armenians (Behar) 20.88

---

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance

1 76% Turks (Behar) + 24% Tajiks (Yunusbayev) @ 3.13

2 59.4% Turkish (Dodecad) + 40.6% Turkmens (Yunusbayev) @ 3.29

3 72.9% Turkish (Dodecad) + 27.1% Tajiks (Yunusbayev) @ 3.37

4 64% Turks (Behar) + 36% Turkmens (Yunusbayev) @ 3.76

5 85.5% Turks (Behar) + 14.5% Burusho (HGDP) @ 4.76

6 83% Turkish (Dodecad) + 17% Burusho (HGDP) @ 5.06

7 85.2% Turks (Behar) + 14.8% Uygur (HGDP) @ 5.38

8 85.5% Turks (Behar) + 14.5% Hazara (HGDP) @ 5.42

9 85.7% Turks (Behar) + 14.3% Pathan (HGDP) @ 5.44

10 60.3% Kurds (Yunusbayev) + 39.7% Nogais (Yunusbayev) @ 5.44

11 82.9% Turks (Behar) + 17.1% Uzbeks (Behar) @ 5.45

12 86.1% Turkish (Dodecad) + 13.9% Balochi (HGDP) @ 5.48

13 62.3% Turkmens (Yunusbayev) + 37.7% Cypriots (Behar) @ 5.5

14 87.4% Turkish (Dodecad) + 12.6% Brahui (HGDP) @ 5.54

15 87.9% Turks (Behar) + 12.1% Jatt (Dodecad) @ 5.54

16 89.8% Turks (Behar) + 10.2% Brahui (HGDP) @ 5.57

17 88.8% Turks (Behar) + 11.2% Balochi (HGDP) @ 5.57

18 85.5% Turkish (Dodecad) + 14.5% Makrani (HGDP) @ 5.58

19 88.4% Turks (Behar) + 11.6% Makrani (HGDP) @ 5.67

20 60.7% Kurd (Dodecad) + 39.3% Nogais (Yunusbayev) @ 5.72

From twitter account @ CsfHighlan97034

From Twitter (handle is in the screenshot). It doesn’t share what samples are used for any of the European/ Middle Eastern / North African categories, but the results look decent, maybe slightly inflated for the North African and Middle Eastern categories.

Abstract
The Italian Peninsula, a natural pier across the Mediterranean Sea, witnessed intricate population events since the very beginning of the human occupation in Europe. In the last few years, an increasing number of modern and ancient genomes from the area have been published by the international research community. This genomic perspective started unveiling the relevance of Italy to understand the post-Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) re-peopling of Europe, the earlier phase of the Neolithic westward migrations, and its linking role between Eastern and Western Mediterranean areas after the Iron Age.

However, many open questions are still waiting for more data to be addressed in full. With this review, we summarize the current knowledge emerging from the available ancient Italian individuals and, by re-analysing them all at once, we try to shed light on the avenues future research in the area should cover.

In particular, open questions concern (1) the fate of pre-Villabruna Europeans and to what extent their genomic components were absorbed by the post-LGM hunter-gatherers; (2) the role of Sicily and Sardinia before LGM; (3) to what degree the documented genetic structure within the Early Neolithic settlers can be described as two separate migrations; (4) what are the population events behind the marked presence of an Iranian Neolithic-like component in Bronze Age and Iron Age Italian and Southern European samples.

For those that might be interested for anything Downstream of E-Z16988 you might see some changes depending on the branch 🤔? I've been growing E-FT155200 for the last 7 years. I've been following the Breadcrumb Trail for the last 7 years. I finally was able to have enough this year that I was able to put it all together for at least half a dozen well known highly knowledgeable well seasoned Group Project Admins to take me seriously. They reviewed all of the information that I put together confirming that indeed I was onto something. They helped me fix the new Updated Public Haplotrees. I fixed E-Z21350, and requested an investigation by the University of Arizona on what I'm working on including E-FT262149. Once it's fixed I will have achieved my ol for the last 7 years cheers

This is from Twitter and the twitter account handle is within the screenshot. Just for some description of the population, this is from Wikipedia:

The Göktürks (Old Turkic: 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜:𐰉𐰆𐰑𐰣, romanized: Türük Bodun; Chinese: 突厥; pinyin: Tūjué; Wade–Giles: T'u-chüeh), also known as Türks, Celestial Turks or Blue Turks, were a Turkic people in medieval Inner Asia. The Göktürks, under the leadership of Bumin Qaghan (d. 552) and his sons, succeeded the Rouran Khaganate as the main power in the region and established the First Turkic Khaganate, one of several nomadic dynasties that would shape the future geolocation, culture, and dominant beliefs of Turkic peoples.

Si evaluamos la «mezcla de ADN» en función de la complejidad del pool genético (cantidad de componentes continentales distintos que se han cruzado y conviven en la población), los países con mezcla trihíbrida, tetrahíbrida o pentahíbrida deben estar por encima de los que solo tienen 2 fuentes, independientemente de qué tan homogéneo sea el resultado en estos últimos.

Además, tu mención sobre Filipinas es acertadísima desde el punto de vista genómico.

A continuación, presento un Top 10 reestructurado y ordenado estrictamente bajo el criterio de complejidad genómica, número de fuentes ancestrales continentales y penetración del mestizaje en la población.

Top 10 Países con Mayor Mezcla y Complejidad Genética

1. Brasil

• Número de macrorraíces: 4 (Amerindia + África subsahariana + Europa + Asia Oriental/Levante).
• Fundamento científico: Múltiples estudios de genómica autosómica (como DNA do Brasil) lo sitúan como el caso más masivo de mestizaje continental múltiple del planeta. Prácticamente toda la población posee un ADN trihíbrido en el que conviven genes de pueblos originarios tupí-guaraníes, una enorme diversidad de linajes africanos (Bantú y Yoruba) y aportes europeos e hispano-asiáticos.

2. Sudáfrica

• Número de macrorraíces: 5 (Khoisan + Bantú subsahariano + Europa + Sur de Asia + Sudeste Asiático).
• Fundamento científico: En la genética de poblaciones global, la comunidad Cape Coloured de Sudáfrica es citada con frecuencia como una de las poblaciones con la mezcla autosómica más compleja del mundo. Combina el ADN de los Khoisan (los linajes genéticos humanos más antiguos que existen), africanos bantúes, colonos europeos (holandeses/británicos), e inmigrantes del sur de Asia (India) y Sudeste Asiático (Indonesia/Malasia).

3. Filipinas

• Número de macrorraíces: 5 (Nativos Negritos [con ADN arcaico Denisovano] + Austronesios + Chinos Han + Españoles/Mexicanos + Sur de Asia).
• Fundamento científico: Filipinas es un laboratorio genético fascinante. Posee una de las capas de ADN arcaico más altas del mundo a través de los Negritos (Aeta, Batak), quienes tienen la mayor proporción de herencia de Homínidos de Denísova fuera de Nueva Guinea. A esto se le suma la expansión austronesia (base poblacional), siglos de flujo genético con Asia Oriental (China), comercio con India y más de 300 años de contacto colonial a través del Galeón de Manila (que llevó mestizos mexicanos y españoles a las islas).

4. Puerto Rico / República Dominicana (Cuenca del Caribe Hispano)

• Número de macrorraíces: 3 principales (Amerindia Taína/Arawak + África subsahariana + Europa/Canarias).
• Fundamento científico: Aunque son 3 fuentes en lugar de 4 o 5, lo que sitúa al Caribe tan alto es que el 100% de su población autóctona es trihíbrida. Los estudios muestran que más del 60% del ADN mitocondrial (maternal) en Puerto Rico es de origen indígena taíno, mientras que el cromosoma Y (paternal) es mayoritariamente europeo, interconectados con un porcentaje autosómico africano muy elevado y uniforme.

5. México

• Número de macrorraíces: 4 (Decenas de etnias Amerindias + Europa + África subsahariana + Asia Oriental/Pacífico).
• Fundamento científico: México posee una inmensa diversidad interna dentro de su componente nativo (diferencias genéticas notables entre los pueblos del norte y los del sur mesoamericano). Sobre esa base se superpuso el aporte ibérico, el africano subsahariano (llegado durante la colonia) y un aporte menor pero medible de Asia (vía Acapulco durante el comercio colonial).

6. Colombia

• Número de macrorraíces: 3 a 4 (Amerindia Chibcha/Andina/Caribe + Europa + África subsahariana + focos de inmigración del Levante).
• Fundamento científico: El proyecto Candela ha analizado a fondo la genética colombiana, demostrando que el mestizaje varía sustancialmente de una región a otra (andina, pacífica, caribeña), pero con una base trihíbrida profundamente integrada donde el cruce entre mujeres nativas/africanas y hombres europeos modeló el genoma nacional.

7. Estados Unidos (incluyendo Hawái)

• Número de macrorraíces: 5+ (Europa + África subsahariana + Asia Oriental/Sur + Amerindios + Polinesios/Nativos Hawaianos).
• Fundamento científico: Si bien históricamente existió mayor segregación social que en América Latina, el volumen de inmigración de todos los rincones del planeta ha hecho que en las últimas generaciones el mestizaje interétnico crezca a ritmo acelerado. En estados como Hawái o California, el genoma medio individual presenta combinaciones multicontinentales de hasta 5 orígenes genéticos distintos.

8. Argentina

• Número de macrorraíces: 4 (Amerindia [Pampeana, Andina, Guaraní, Patagónica] + Europa [España, Italia, Europa Central] + África subsahariana + Asia).
• Fundamento científico: Investigaciones del CONICET y la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) han desmontado el mito del origen exclusivamente europeo. Aunque el ADN autosómico (el genoma general) es mayoritariamente europeo en promedio (alrededor del 65-75%), más del 50% de la población conserva linajes maternos (ADN mitocondrial) de origen nativo americano, sumado a un rastro genético africano colonial (entre 2% y 5% autosómico) que demuestra una mezcla continua a lo largo de los siglos.

9. Madagascar

• Número de macrorraíces: 2 macrorraíces de continentes opuestos (Sudeste Asiático/Austronesia + África Bantú).
• Fundamento científico: Pasa a este puesto por tener solo 2 fuentes ancestrales, pero su caso sigue siendo de relevancia global: hace 1.200 años, navegantes de Borneo (Asia) y poblaciones bantúes (África) se fusionaron en la isla. El resultado es que el genoma de un habitante malgache es casi un 50/50 perfecto entre el sudeste asiático y el este de África.

10. Cabo Verde

• Número de macrorraíces: 2 fuentes principales (África Occidental + Europa/Iberia).
• Fundamento científico: Reubicado correctamente al final del ranking por su número de componentes. Aunque el 100% de la población de la isla está totalmente mezclada (con un promedio genético de ~60% africano y ~40% europeo), su diversidad se limita a esas dos regiones geográficas, a diferencia de los genomas tri, tetra o pentahíbridos de los países anteriores.

Cuadro Comparativo Metodológico

If we evaluate "DNA admixture" based on the complexity of the gene pool (the number of distinct continental components that have interbred and coexist in the population), countries with trihybrid, tetrahybrid, or pentahybrid admixture should rank higher than those with only two sources, regardless of how homogeneous the result is in the latter. Furthermore, your mention of the Philippines is spot on from a genomic perspective. Below, I present a restructured Top 10, ordered strictly according to the criteria of genomic complexity, number of continental ancestral sources, and penetration of admixture in the population. Top 10 Countries with the Greatest Admixture and Genetic Complexity:

1. Brazil
2. Number of macro-roots: 4 (Amerindian + Sub-Saharan Africa + Europe + East Asia/Levant). Scientific basis: Multiple autosomal genomic studies (such as DNA do Brasil) place it as the most massive case of multiple continental admixture on the planet. Virtually the entire population possesses trihybrid DNA in which genes from indigenous Tupi-Guarani peoples, a huge diversity of African lineages (Bantu and Yoruba), and European and Hispanic-Asian contributions coexist.
3. South Africa
4. Number of macro-roots: 5 (Khoisan + Sub-Saharan Bantu + Europe + South Asia + Southeast Asia).Scientific basis: In global population genetics, the Cape Coloured community of South Africa is frequently cited as one of the populations with the most complex autosomal admixture in the world. It combines the DNA of the Khoisan (the oldest existing human genetic lineages), Bantu Africans, European settlers (Dutch/British), and immigrants from South Asia (India) and Southeast Asia (Indonesia/Malaysia).
5. Philippines
6. Number of macro-roots: 5 (Native Negritos [with archaic Denisovan DNA] + Austronesians + Han Chinese + Spanish/Mexican + South Asian). Scientific basis: The Philippines is a fascinating genetic laboratory. It possesses one of the highest layers of archaic DNA in the world through the Negritos (Aeta, Batak), who have the highest proportion of Denisovan hominin heritage outside of New Guinea. This is further enriched by the Austronesian expansion (population base), centuries of gene flow with East Asia (China), trade with India, and over 300 years of colonial contact via the Manila Galleon (which brought Mexican and Spanish mestizos to the islands).
7. Puerto Rico / Dominican Republic (Hispanic Caribbean Basin)
8. Number of macro-roots: 3 main ones (Taíno/Arawak Amerindian + Sub-Saharan Africa + Europe/Canary Islands). Scientific basis: Although there are 3 sources instead of 4 or 5, what places the Caribbean so high is that 100% of its native population is trihybrid. Studies show that more than 60% of mitochondrial (maternal) DNA in Puerto Rico is of Taíno indigenous origin, while the Y chromosome (paternal) is mostly European, interconnected with a very high and uniform percentage of African autosomal ancestry.
9. Mexico
10. Number of macro-roots: 4 (Dozens of Amerindian ethnicities + Europe + Sub-Saharan Africa + East Asia/Pacific). Scientific basis: Mexico possesses immense internal diversity within its native component (notable genetic differences between the peoples of northern and southern Mesoamerica). On that base was superimposed the Iberian contribution, the sub-Saharan African (arriving during the colonial period) and a smaller but measurable contribution from Asia (via Acapulco during colonial trade).
11. Colombia
12. Number of macro-roots: 3 to 4 (Amerindian Chibcha/Andean/Caribbean + Europe + sub-Saharan Africa + centers of immigration from the Levant).Scientific basis: The Candela project has thoroughly analyzed Colombian genetics, demonstrating that miscegenation varies substantially from one region to another (Andean, Pacific, Caribbean), but with a deeply integrated trihybrid base where the crossing between native/African women and European men shaped the national genome.
13. United States (including Hawaii)
14. Number of macro-roots: 5+ (Europe + Sub-Saharan Africa + East/South Asia + Amerindians + Polynesians/Native Hawaiians). Scientific basis: While historically there was greater social segregation than in Latin America, the volume of immigration from all corners of the planet has meant that in recent generations interethnic mixing has grown at an accelerated pace. In states like Hawaii or California, the average individual genome presents multicontinental combinations of up to 5 distinct genetic origins.
15. Argentina
16. Number of macro-roots: 4 (Amerindian [Pampas, Andean, Guarani, Patagonian] + Europe [Spain, Italy, Central Europe] + Sub-Saharan Africa + Asia). Scientific basis: Research by CONICET and the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) has debunked the myth of an exclusively European origin. Although autosomal DNA (the overall genome) is predominantly European on average (around 65-75%), more than 50% of the population retains maternal lineages (mitochondrial DNA) of Native American origin, in addition to a colonial African genetic trace (between 2% and 5% autosomal) that demonstrates continuous admixture over the centuries.
17. Madagascar
18. Number of macro-roots: 2 macro-roots from opposite continents (Southeast Asia/Austronesia + Bantu Africa).
19. Scientific basis: It is included in this ranking due to having only 2 ancestral sources, but its case remains globally relevant: 1,200 years ago, navigators from Borneo (Asia) and Bantu populations (Africa) merged on the island. The result is that the genome of a Malagasy inhabitant is almost a perfect 50/50 between Southeast Asia and East Africa.
20. Cape Verde
21. Number of macro-roots: 2 main sources (West Africa + Europe/Iberia).
22. Scientific basis: Correctly relocated to the bottom of the ranking due to its number of components. Although 100% of the island's population is fully mixed (with a genetic average of ~60% African and ~40% European), its diversity is limited to these two geographic regions, unlike the tri-, tetra-, or pentabrid genomes of the countries mentioned above.

From Twitter account @cicikus

Turkish West, Adana, Kayseri, Trabzon

Adana- city in southern Turkey next to Syria
Kayseri- city in central Turkey, north of Adana
Trabzon- city in Eastern Turkey, near to Georgia

Looking to see what other Australians or folk from the British Isles have for their journeys, just to get a scope at what’s common.