Not sure specifically what I should be looking at on the article about X, but in regards to the "Native American Mitochondrial Haplogroups" one a few things caught my eye:
Estes says: "The protocol and logic for adding the Anzick results for consideration, along with other evidence is discussed in this article. In short, for the 12,500 year old Anzick specimen to match any currently living people at relatively high thresholds, meaning 5cM or over, the living individual would likely have to be heavily Native. Most matches are from Mexico, Central America and South America. Many mitochondrial DNA haplogroups are subgroups of known Native groups, but never before documented as Native. Therefore, the protocol I followed for inclusion was any subgroup of haplogroups A, B, C, D, M or X."
And then under the section for X2b-T226C is this:
Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes, September 2014, kits F999912 and F999913
Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes January 2015 – (1 X2b-T226T confirmed Irish, not Native)
I'm not exactly sure what the January 2015 listing is supposed to indicate. Is X2b-T226T supposed to be X2b-T226C? I assume it was just a typo, but does this mean that 1 individual that was tested as X2b-T226C was confirmed to be Irish or...?
Also following the "in this article" link in the above "The protocol..." paragraph gets you to the following page...
New Native Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups Extrapolated from Anzick Match Results
...where this recent comment caught my eye:
Roberta Estes on February 21, 2018 at 9:56 pm said:
If the Native American ancestor was several generations back, it’s certainly possible that you didn’t inherit any of that DNA, or not in pieces large enough to detect. As you know, There is still a lot of controversy surrounding X2b.
So it seems that X2b is still largely unsettled?
Do you know if Estes is aware of the Shawnee results? And if so, is there a section where this is discussed?