Previously, I had computed TMRCAs for the YDNA STR data from the additional material that was provided along with Dr.Chris Plaster's thesis. However, after a brief communication with the author, I found out that the marker order of the STRs in the excel file was reported wrongly, the correct order for the markers are thus as follows:
DYS19 DYS388 DYS389I DYS389II DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 DYS437 DYS438 DYS439 DYS448 DYS456 DYS635 Y GATA H4
This changes my TMRCA calculations because I am not computing the coalescent using a generic mutation rate that is equivalent for all the markers, but rather each marker has its own mutation rate attributed to it.
When I rerun my program using the newly corrected order above I get the following:
To check if the fact that the high number of samples (129) present in the E-M123 haplozone data-set was skewing the results, I took 23 random samples (which equals the same number of samples available in the Plaster E-M34 data-set) from the larger E-M123 Haplozone dataset and re-run the TMRCA calculations on just those samples, I repeated this process 300 times, only 28% of the runs yielded a mean TMRCA less than the E-M34 Plaster data-set, if sample size was skewing the results I would expect >50% of the runs to have a mean TMRCA less than that of the E-M34 plaster dataset.
That said, the E-M34 Plaster data-set still had a relatively higher generations to coalescent than the E-M84 Haplozone dataset, E-M84 is a subclade of E-M34 and a high majority of haplotypes that belong to E-M34 also test positive for the E-M84 SNP (at least for the non-African E-M34 haplotypes that we know of).
Other than that, the new, and corrected, ordering of the markers did not have much impact in relative TMRCA terms between the Plaster and Haplozone/FTDNA data for the other lineages I had tested.