May I ask a question?

[SilverFish]

We usually consider that most people have two or sometimes three admixtures in their skull, one being predominant and the other minor.

I was wondering...you have thousands and thousands of people in your lines(we're not talking about father's father's father, we're talking about father's mother's father's father's mother's type). All of these people contribute to your genes and genetic makeup.

There is no way you would be predominant anything because you would be a direct inheritance of subraces and subraces.

I would be glad if anyone would like to step in and disagree with me.

[Psychonaut]

I think you're taking the (bad) terminology of sub-race way too literally. It's much more accurate to view terms like Bruenn, Faelid, Nordid, etc. as being indicative of morphotypes (or phenotypes depending on which term you prefer) which are themselves convenient names for clusters of craniofacial similarity.

[Stefan]

While you have all that ancestry to back it up, only some of it is present at a genetic level, and even less is expressed. Remember only around an average of 50% of each parents gene's are transferred to the child. So in essence you are more related to the closer relatives, and you will probably be expressed the most through them opposed to a great great great grandfather or a great^5 grandmother.

This "Taxonomy" in a sense, describes predominately the physical traits, irregardless of ancestry or what sub types may have contributed. This is because only a limited amount of features can be expressed. So that means, out of those, say "8" sub-races that make up your ancestry, only 1 really shows itself while a few others putting out "influence". It could turn out the way you mentioned as well, where no strong influence is apparent. This mostly happens in Americans, Canadians, and other colonials of many different European groups that make up their ancestry. In Europe, this isn't a problem because you are mostly around a similar group(s) from the start, and the chances of nothing being prominent is small.

So think of it this way, only a fraction of your ancestors genes are passed on, and even less are used. Naturally you will look more like the people that share a more common genetic makeup with you, and therefore it is these people that have the most influence on your genetic makeup. At the same time, you can use genes that your parents had, but didn't use. Allowing you to look more like a more distant relative like say a grandfather than your parents. So it is all very complex, and you have to know the situation of each individual case.


Edit: Also, like Psychonaut said, Sub-Race(like race) is more of a general description opposed to an individual specific description.

[Goidelic]

While you have all that ancestry to back it up, only some of it is present at a genetic level, and even less is expressed. Remember only around an average of 50% of each parents gene's are transferred to the child. So in essence you are more related to the closer relatives, and you will probably be expressed the most through them opposed to a great great great grandfather or a great^5 grandmother.


Well, in most cases you won't resemble a relative like that. :) However, in the case of my brother he falls well within the rare category. He looks exactly like my great-great-uncle, my great-grandfather's brother. I can see the resemblances to our great-grandfather and of course the brother to him. I came across a photograph of my great-grandfather's paternal grandparents. It turns out my great-grandfather looked a lot like his paternal grandfather, where I could see the resemblance to my brother from my great-grandfather's paternal grandfather and I suppose he was the main source of morphotype variation being passed down all the way to his grandson and ultimately great-great-great-grandson, my brother. ;)

[SilverFish]

This "Taxonomy" in a sense, describes predominately the physical traits, irregardless of ancestry or what sub types may have contributed. This is because only a limited amount of features can be expressed. So that means, out of those, say "8" sub-races that make up your ancestry, only 1 really shows itself while a few others putting out "influence". It could turn out the way you mentioned as well, where no strong influence is apparent. This mostly happens in Americans, Canadians, and other colonials of many different European groups that make up their ancestry. In Europe, this isn't a problem because you are mostly around a similar group(s) from the start, and the chances of nothing being prominent is small.


That makes a lot more sense now. Thank you.

[SilverFish]

I think you acknowledged what I said, Stefan. I think that most Americans, Canadians, and others in a new World have features that are not predominant anymore. Rarely ever.

Another thing is that my English professor looks like a 100% Keltic Nordid and I was wondering how in the world an American like her can be a proper Keltic Nordid in America. You have to have hundreds of Keltic Nordid in your ancestry just to look like that and that is 100% impossible to do. I was wondering if she was from England...

I really do think that an American ethnicity is going to be forming in some times.

[Goidelic]

I think you acknowledged what I said, Stefan. I think that most Americans, Canadians, and others in a new World have features that are not predominant anymore. Rarely ever.

Another thing is that my English professor looks like a 100% Keltic Nordid and I was wondering how in the world an American like her can be a proper Keltic Nordid in America. You have to have hundreds of Keltic Nordid in your ancestry just to look like that and that is 100% impossible to do. I was wondering if she was from England...

I really do think that an American ethnicity is going to be forming in some times.

I know plenty of Irish-Americans that look Irish;)

[Svipdag]

In fact, we have an old saying which may have gone out of use "He has the map of Ireland printed all over his face."