"Popular" european taxonomy is not correct.

[Aldaris]

No one is superior... Hitler was "superior" that ugly little man and look what happened; a lot of beautiful architecture and even people were destroyed.

I do agree, but this thread has nothing to do with superiority/inferiority.

[Antimage]

I totally agree with this, taxonomy is pseudo science. Most hungarians were described by anthrolopoligsts(blogen likes to quote them) as either pamirid or turanid and on autosomal dna test hungarians cluster next to czech,austria, croatia etc. And those countries are 0% pamarid and turanid

these alpine, dinaric,pontid etc "subraces" that people talk about don't exist

a serbian pontid will be genetically similar to a serbian dinarid man, not a russian pontid.

[Aldaris]

these alpine, dinaric,pontid etc "subraces" that people talk about don't exist

They do exist (defined by actual metrical differences between european populations), but are limited to certain areas. What we lack are refined definitions, which would take genetics into account. With those refined definitions, we should be able to determine an individual origin with a much higher probability, than with our current definitions. For example - scandinavian looking French would be LIKELY closer to other French, than to Scandinavians, but closer to them than most French.

[Pyramidologist]

There's no intraspecific human taxonomy. Biologists and zoologists only recognise the existence of subspecies (race) below the species taxon, but human populations are not differentiated enough like many other animals to qualify. This does mean there is not population structure or systematic variation in humans, but it is far too weak to justify a racial classification. No modern biologist or naturalist argues there is a Homo Europaeus, Homo Asiaticus etc., like 18th and 19th century scientists did.

Race typology predated field work (i.e. taking measurements from populations and computing an arithmetic average/mean). So "Nordic", "Mediterranean" and "Alpine" are found as a central tendency or typical probability distribution virtually nowhere. Nordics for example are less than 10% of Sweden, where they are supposedly the highest:

"According to an examination of army recruits undertaken in the years 1897-98 to analyse the racial make-up of the Swedish people, only 10% of them were classified as examples of the pure Nordic type.” (Dahlberg, 1942)

How could this be? Because the typologists in the 19th century and beginning of 20th century had taken few, if any, measurements from populations. They were confined to their couches just inventing types/races based on a few arbitrary phenotypic characters. It was totally redundant. Indeed, when population genetics and the modern evolution synthesis came into play, typology was dropped and shown to be a pseudo-science. It only lingered on in the "eastern bloc", countries which were backward in a scientific sense (Polish anthropologists only accepted population genetics as late as the 1970s).

Carleton Coon had introduced a few population averages for some of his types (based on ancient skeletal samples) like "Anglo-Saxon". But even in Coon (1939) most are not population means. Coon does not have the Nordic, Alpine or Mediterranean as a central tendency in any population. This is why the typologists were forced to introduce countless bizarre sub-sub-types (Sub-Nordic, Littoral, Dinaric, North-Western, Atlanto-Mediterranean) when they realized the three main sub-race types (Nordics, Mediterraneans, Alpines) were not common in any population.