Page 2 of Text S1 includes a sentence reading: "In contrast, subclade H5t is exclusively detected in the Ledro Valley and includes a newly proposed subclade, H5t1, defined by the A8053G transition, highlighting a local diversification process within Ledro Valley." YFull MTree and FamilyTreeDNA's Mitotree already named a branch H5t1 based on different mutations. Meanwhile, Mitotree's H5t5 does fit the mutational definition of "H5t1" used in this preprint. (This is visible in Family Tree DNA's Classic Mitotree View for H5t5 where two people from Italy, including one from Trentino, are put into it as of July 29, 2026.) I suggest that the authors mention that their H5t samples fit into Mitotree's branch H5t5 rather than trying to name it something new.

As they might have noticed, since it's listed in Dataset S3, there is one current GenBank sample that belongs to this branch: GQ983098 from northern Italy from a 2010 study by A. Santoro et al. I am glad that the authors deposited additional sequences belonging to this branch to GenBank to be released when the final version of the paper is published.

Page 29 of the main text of the preprint states, "We found a similar 5 kya Romanian split of 2.5 kya K2a2a1 in a private sample." This sample, originating from a FamilyTreeDNA tester whose maternal line is ethnic Romanian (Christian) from Lugoj, Județul Timiș, Romania, is no longer private as it was uploaded to the public repository GenBank on May 14, 2026 under the accession number PZ381645. It carries the mutation G11914A! which is part of the definition for K2a2a1 but it lacks the other two mutations that PhyloTree used to define K2a2a1: A512C and A9254G. This is why the preprint says this sample splits K2a2a1.