... stuck,¹

Probably because he published in English and Malécot published in French.

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

...-statistics.²

The Hardy-Weinberg proportions should probably be referred to as the Hardy-Weinberg-Castle proportions too, since Castle pointed out the same principle. For some reason, though, his demonstration didn't have the impact that Hardy's and Weinberg's did. So we generally talk about the Hardy-Weinberg principle.

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

....³

These are, as you have probably already guessed, my personal favorite. We'll talk about them next time.

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

... directly.⁴

See [4] for details.

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

....⁵

If you're wondering how I got from the second equation for $\hat H$ to the last one, ask me about it or read the gory details section that follows.

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

... details⁶

Skip this part unless you are really, really interested in how I got from the second equation to the third equation in the last paragraph. This is more likely to confuse you than help unless you know that the variance of a binomial sample is $np(1-p)$ and that $E(k^2) = \hbox{Var}(p) + p^2$.

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

... taken.⁷

There's actually a third source of error that we'll get to in a moment. The populations we're sampling from are the product of an evolutionary process, and since the populations aren't of infinite size, drift has played a role in determining allele frequencies in them. As a result, if we were to go back in time and re-run the evolutionary process, we'd end up with a different set of real allele frequency differences. We'll talk about this more when we get to Weir and Cockerham's statistics.

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

....⁸

There's a reason for this that we'll get to in a moment. It's alluded to in the last footnote.

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

... them.⁹

It is also one big reason why most people use Weir and Cockerham's $\theta$. There's readily available software that calculates it for you.

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

... sampling.¹⁰

And if you think about it carefully, I think you'll discover that you are almost always interested in random-effect sampling.

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

... details¹¹

This is even worse than the last time. I include it for completeness only. I really don't expect anyone (unless they happen to be a statistician) to be able to understand these details.

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

... analysis.¹²

Sounds like it might be a good project, doesn't it? We'll see.

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