We read with great interest the recent Forbes-Pateman et al. (2022) analysis of Bahamas' Lucayan mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages based on previously generated data by Schroeder et al. (2018), Nägele et al. (2020) and Fernandes et al. (2021. We disagree, however, with their haplogroup assignation for some of the lineages, as well as with their inference of phyletic affinities of others.The authors posit that five haplogroup C1 lineages in their Table 1 belongs into a new, previously unnamed C1d clade and thus adopt the same interpretation than Fernandes and colleagues for four out of those five and further eight samples (see Supplementary Information 10 in Fernandes et al., 2021), all of which share a pronounced, derived motif of 11 polymorphisms. We agree with both set of authors that these 13 sequences represent a new branch of Native American C1 haplogroup, but it is our opinion that assignation to C1dis due to faulty representation of variation at revised Cambridge Reference Sequence (rCRS) positions 493-498, and to the concomitant presence of a recurrent transition at C1d-defining position 16051. Fernandes and co-authors provide their interpretation of each individual mtDNA sequence variation in three columns in the Supplementary Data 9 table as Mutations Missing, Mutations Present, and Mutations Remaining. From the analysis of the first column, it is clear that authors did not bother to take into account indel variation known or suspected to occur in the sequences under analysis during alignment and variant calling. For example, deletions at positions 249 and 290-291, expected in any C1 sequence, are listed as missing. At the same time, unusual variation is offered for neighboring positions as 248G (13 cases), 247T-248G (38 cases), 247N-248G (26 cases), 287C (26 cases), 287T (one case), 287N (two cases), and 286N-287N (eight cases), most likely derived from alignment and variant calling by bioinformatic means without subsequent visual verification.Fernandes and colleagues also failed to detect presence of both 493G and the one nucleotide expansion of the polyC stretch at 494-498, and instead reported the presence of transversion 493C. Failure to detect C1b-defining 493G and the fortuitous presence of C1d-defining 16051G led both Fernandes et al. and Forbes-Pateman et al. to conclude that these lineages represent a new, undescribed branch of C1d. It is noteworthy to recall that recurrence of 16051G has