(2015-May-05, 20:15:03)Peter Frost Wrote: Chuck,

Is there any point in looking for new reviewers? The subject itself is controversial and some criticisms will be motivated by blind hostility. If you look hard enough you may find a prestigious reviewer who is willing to review. But is it worth the trouble? Even if the reviewer is fair and impartial, he or she will focus on certain minor details (because of the sheer length of the text).

It may be useful to have some kind of preface that could orient the reader. What general questions are you trying to resolve? What are the obstacles to resolving them?

Where can I find the latest version of your text?

Peter,

The latest version is here: https://osf.io/2wsuh/ Some of the formatting screwed up because I switched to word 2007. I added a more detailed abstract, which summarizes the main points and some more discussion in defense of one of my main points -- i.e., early subspecies concepts = genealogically understood constant varieties.

As for this question, "Is there any point in looking for new reviewers?", I was hoping to get confirmation concerning some of the points and clarification concerning some of the arguments which I critiqued -- thus I have been emailing mostly those whom I have critiqued.

As for, "It may be useful to have some kind of preface that could orient the reader. What general questions are you trying to resolve? What are the obstacles to resolving them?"

I think the abstract now makes this clear. Though, I could elaborate more, I guess.

I'm stuck on this question, though -- which I can't seem to get an answer to:

............................................................................

Dear Blah blah blah

I am writing to see if either of you could help with a population genetic question, a clear answer to which has been eluding me.

For context, I am writing a paper on the biological race concept in relations to our species.

I would like to determine, based on genetic differentiation values (e.g., SNP Fst values), what the expected between-group-variance would be for an average quantitative trait owing to neutral divergence.

Would it be:

(a) ~Fst (treating this as an F-ratio that could be converted into mean standardized differences)

(b) ~2*Fst ("")

© Something else.

Much of the literature discusses the matter in terms of Qst, defining this as GB/(GB + 2GW). And Qst is said to come out to Fst.

But it's not clear to me if, for diploids (where roughly half of the genetic variance is trapped within individual), the expected quantitative trait F-ratio would be equal to 1* or to 2* Fst.

I stumbled across this discussion by Whitlock (2008) ( "Evolutionary inference from QST")

"Does FST = QST for neutral traits?

The calculation of QST for a trait requires two quantities: the additive genetic variance of the trait within a population (VA,within) and the genetic variance among populations (VG,among). For diploids, QST is calculated as

Qst = GB/(GB + 2GW)

For haploids, the same equation applies, but without the '2' in the denominator. [That '2' for the diploid case comes from the fact that the quantitative genetic variance among populations is proportional to two times FST (Wright 1951).] "

...

It seems to say that the expected between population quant variance would be 2*Fst.

This strikes me as being rather high, though.

To take human continental natural divisions as an example, the Fst SNP value is ~ 0.12.

This would then given F-ratio = 2*0.12 = 0.24 which would be equivalent to an average d-value > 1.00.

From what I recall the typical phenotypic F-ratio, though, is around 0.10 (i.e., in dental and craniometric traits).

Blah blah blah...

.............................

You wouldn't have any idea, would you? I asked Henry Harpending who is more familiar with the Qst literature (inferences of neutral phenotypic divergence from genetic data), but he wasn't sure. I got the basic idea. But I wasn't able to be precisely clear in my discussion because I couldn't resolve this issue -- so I had to talk around it.

(Ya, I understand your apples to oranges point -- I would still like to know what the predicted quantitative trait variation would be due to neutral divergence. See this paper for context: Leinonen, et al. (2013). QST-FST comparisons: evolutionary and ecological insights from genomic heterogeneity.)