Lagoa Santa Paleoamericans are craniologically closer to Eskimos than to modern Amerindians. But how much is robusticity due to climate, shewing stresses and a hunter gatherer lifestyle, and how much difference is due to in situ evolution of Paleoamerican descendants? their interpretation seems to be that Mongoloid Arctic populations such as the Inuit and the Chukchi have a Paleoindian-like substrate identified with the hypothetical "Population Y" that was related to Australians. They reason that masticatory stress alone cannot explain the Arctic Mongoloid phenotype, nor would cold adaptation explain tropical Paleoamerican craniofacial form.

The plots and trees are actually confusing. the skull base resembles Greenlanders and the vault is Mongoloid. But not all cranium and face measurements are consistent with this sometimes suggesting an affinity with an Australian-Andamanese clade instead. (But never Africans or Western Eurasians.) The tree itself is fishy and the choice of samples limits the interpretation: why are Berbers not a clade with the other Whites? Why were no eastern N or S Americans sampled?

An Andamanese-Australian clade is also suspicious gven the uniqueness of Sahul Australoids. Could some Paleoindian similarities to the Australian and Andamanese branch be plesiomorphies? That "Population Y" is detectable in the South American genome but not in those of the Arctic suggests it did not arrive from the Arctic. There are controversial finds of cobble tools (of Hoabinhian type) in South America, but not in North America. Though the practice must have died out early there because no New World people manufactured them historically.

Though the Lagoa Santa Paleoamericans survived(!) into colonial times as the Botocudos, they were unrelated to the Chubuti of Patagonia also surviving Paleoindians. This is interesting because Patagonians resemble typical Paleoindians and the N American (Gulf Coast) Otamids of Neumann who in turn resembled his Inuids.

The nature and timing of the peopling of the Americas is a subject of intense debate. In particular, it is unclear whether high levels of between-group craniometric diversity in South America result from multiple migrations or from local diversification processes. Previous attempts to explain this diversity have largely focused on testing alternative dispersal or gene flow models, reaching conflicting or inconclusive results. Here, a novel analytical framework is applied to three-dimensional geometric morphometric data to partition the effects of population divergence from geographically mediated gene flow to understand the ancestry of the early South Americans in the context of global human history. The results show that Paleoamericans share a last common ancestor with contemporary Native American groups outside, rather than inside, the Americas. Therefore, and in accordance with some recent genomic studies, craniometric data suggest that the New World was populated by multiple waves of dispersion from northeast Asia throughout the late Pleistocene and early Holocene.

Gisele Horvat has notes about haplogroups: