Actual difference between Keltic-Nordid and Noric

[Dacul]

Differences between keltic nordid and noric:
First,the slope of the forehead - at keltic nordid,the forehead is not straight,but has a slope.
Second - the vault - keltic nordids have a low vault.
The vault is the distance from the eye till where the forehead starts,that is taken on horizontal.
So more prominent forehead - higher vaulted.
Dinarids are quite decent vaulted.
Third - the bones,are easy see and to make difference - keltic nordids are soft boned,while norics are at least medium boned.
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/troe293.htm
Check this keltic nordid,how low vaulted he is.
Also,usually the height of the forehead at norics is very high while at keltic nordids is maximum medium.

[CelticViking]

Noric

Steffi Graf



Carolyn Bessette Kennedy



Rijat Shala


Keltic Nordid

Tilda Swinton


Cate Blanchett



Neville Chamberlain


Tolkien

[Artek]

These photos doesn't show the difference, IMO

[Stefan]

I am entering in unknown territory and correct me if I am wrong

There are millions of species on this planet. There are for example thousand of species of birds only.

Many birds have further classifications into sub-species.

Yet there is only a small number of human races.
Based on that people are wondering why taxonomy today is used only for animals

As long as there is a differentiation of clades, there is reason to attribute the consistent traits of that clade and make it more clear. Mentioning the genetic difference isn't enough. That is why morphology, or some other means than molecular biology(genetics + extra) would be required for a substantial and explicit categorization of humanity. As for specific types within a sub-race, like I said, I'm unsure whether or not Europeans are isolated enough from each-other to warrant it, yet there is historical evidence that certain distinct populations have integrated into the "greater Europe", many of which had distinctive traits, either genetic or morphological. The processes are interesting, whether or not we can apply a typology to such a specific group, I'm unsure, and I think it's rather unlikely. But the processes and traits are still empirically measured. Some of course, are less substantial than others.

One can see that cladistics and genetics is used to study animals as much as it is used to study humans. The only reason why taxonomy is still used in animal study is to find similiarities and differences between for example a specific bird family. Does classification of birds also suffer political correctness because I do not see that bird taxonomy studies a subrace of subrace of specific bird family among birds?

Animals(and especially non-animals) are still majorly classified according to morphology. Cladistics has its place, but there is not enough known about their molecular biological status to qualify a location in the tree of life. My argument is that morphology still has its place in modern taxonomies, just not as a sole qualifier. I'm sure if there wasn't any disdain placed upon anybody who wanted to attempt to categorize morphological trends among human populations, there would be plenty willing to do it. Of course, the pressure applied is just too much.

[CelticViking]

These photos doesn't show the difference, IMO

The noses are different for a start.

[CelticViking]

Noric/Norid
Mary Willa "Mamie" Gummer













Keltic Nordid

Tilda Swinton


Cate Blanchett

[Solin]

Many birds have further classifications into sub-species.




As long as there is a differentiation of clades, there is reason to attribute the consistent traits of that clade and make it more clear. Mentioning the genetic difference isn't enough. That is why morphology, or some other means than molecular biology(genetics + extra) would be required for a substantial and explicit categorization of humanity. As for specific types within a sub-race, like I said, I'm unsure whether or not Europeans are isolated enough from each-other to warrant it, yet there is historical evidence that certain distinct populations have integrated into the "greater Europe", many of which had distinctive traits, either genetic or morphological. The processes are interesting, whether or not we can apply a typology to such a specific group, I'm unsure, and I think it's rather unlikely. But the processes and traits are still empirically measured. Some of course, are less substantial than others.



Animals(and especially non-animals) are still majorly classified according to morphology. Cladistics has its place, but there is not enough known about their molecular biological status to qualify a location in the tree of life. My argument is that morphology still has its place in modern taxonomies, just not as a sole qualifier. I'm sure if there wasn't any disdain placed upon anybody who wanted to attempt to categorize morphological trends among human populations, there would be plenty willing to do it. Of course, the pressure applied is just too much.

I am not arguining that morphology ( human included ) does not have its place in cladistics, but far far from it.
Morphology must be applied to humans also because it is needed to differentiate human races and that has its applications ( criminalogy, medicine ... ) and above all there is a correlation and patterns of morphology and genetics of human races which makes it scientific in the first place and the reason why it is studied in the mainstream science.

But if we are going to find a correlation between human inventions ( like subraces ) and genetics these correlations do not correlate often even if some admixture component charaterize some European group.
This "often" is enough to make it non-scientific (one time one time too many).
It is political only to Internet Crusaders because they think that by naming peoples look they have all knowledge of this world. Environmental factors have a huge impact on peoples morphology/looks because it seems people adapt faster than some think.
Since environmental factors influence sometimes genetics and sometimes morphology and sometimes both its stochastic behavior does not make it suitable for narrower classifications.

(Not to be smallminded and still opened to all options despite what modern anthropology says I even opened a thread where we can compare this outdated physical anthropology ( lacking measurenments ) and genetics but its seems that people are not interested to spread their horizons )

[Stefan]

But if we are going to find a correlation between human inventions ( like subraces ) and genetics these correlations do not correlate often even if some admixture component charaterize some European group.
This "often" is enough to make it non-scientific (one time one time too many).

Well, these taxonomies were created before genes were fully understood, when molecular biology was just entering its modern basis. I was implying a taxonomy that was more based on historical trends of a past, polytipic Europe to explain the variation in the population of, now, monotypic Europeans. That is what most anthropologists tried to do. With our new understanding of clades, and the ancestral components of Europe, I think it would be much easier to allocate some phenotypical descriptions to these ancestral units. Of course, we can use this old taxonomy, but it would be much easier to refine a new taxonomy entirely. As of now, it is more outdated than anything. At the time, it followed what was known of science, however. So it isn't necessarily pseudoscience, because the origins were scientific. Currently, its just false, or rather, inaccurate science.

[Solin]

Well, these taxonomies were created before genes were fully understood, when molecular biology was just entering its modern basis. I was implying a taxonomy that was more based on historical trends of a past, polytipic Europe to explain the variation in the population of, now, monotypic Europeans. That is what most anthropologists tried to do. With our new understanding of clades, and the ancestral components of Europe, I think it would be much easier to allocate some phenotypical descriptions to these ancestral units. Of course, we can use this old taxonomy, but it would be much easier to refine a new taxonomy entirely. As of now, it is more outdated than anything. At the time, it followed what was known of science, however. So it isn't necessarily pseudoscience, because the origins were scientific. Currently, its just false, or rather, inaccurate science.

My emphasis in the last post was on the following:

Since environmental factors influence sometimes genetics and sometimes morphology and sometimes both its stochastic behavior does not make it suitable for narrower ( subracial... ) classifications
[I have seen that people have developed an algorithms which based on environmental factors ( latitude, temperature, humidity...) can predict changes in genetics and morphology.]

But, I agree on mostly everything you said.