Exact(6)
It is noted that the two remaining population samples (Skovgaarde and Kongemarken) did not show a low diversity, just a diversity similar to that in the extant sample.
Figure 4B shows the distribution of the number of derived alleles in the prehistoric sample (conditional on 144 derived alleles in the extant sample).
In other words, we conditioned on observing exactly 144 derived alleles in the extant sample as in the empirical modern data set.
For a particular assumption about the demographic model, we ran a large number of replicate simulations, and kept only samples that contained exactly 144 derived alleles (the T allele) in the extant sample.
This fraction can be used to approximate the probability of observing a prehistoric sample with zero or one derived allele, conditional on observing 144 derived alleles in the extant sample.
Out of 1,000 replicate simulations (which all had 144 derived alleles in the extant sample), we counted the number of times zero or one derived allele was observed in the prehistoric sample.
Similar(54)
Although the difference in humerofemoral proportions between OH 62 and AL 288-1 does not exceed variation in the extant samples, it is rare.
The problem is that, in the particular case of sloths, the extant sample represents such a minor fraction of their evolutionary diversity, both taxonomically and morphologically, that inferences drawn from living taxa are unlikely to accurately reflect true evolutionary processes.
This leaves either selection or differences in population structure between the prehistoric sample and the extant sample (i.e., the PWC is not an ancestral population to the extant Swedish population) as possible explanations.
Then, f ≤ Ñ / N. Given the genetic landscape of some extant samples, its underlying ARG is a plausible explanation of the observation, since it is the annotated topological structure that captures the genetic history in its totality, that is relevant to the extant samples.
Given the extant samples, let a method estimate N' ≤ N nodes.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com