Simple Taxonomy and cro-magnid types

[MM81]

I think we could assume a far simpler taxonomic categorization:
-Nordid
-Mediterranid
-Atlantid
-Taurid
-Alpinid
With taurid as a macrogroup including both dinarid and armenoid.
All the intermediate types would be considered just "mixed" phenotypes (and they're surely the big majority in Europe, since we know that "pure" phenotypes exist in small contexts only). The question now is: what about the so called cromagnids?
I don't think the alpinid category can include them all, since alpinid is "reduced" cromagnid according to the classics. Maybe they could fall in the case 1, "nordid" (well numbers don't express a "preference", before you ask...). Or maybe some could fall in case 1, some in case 5: dalo-faelid (and maybe brunn) in the nordid macrogroup, borreby in the alpinid one, the so-called "paleoatlantid" in the proper atlantid category... Perhaps a different category could be created purposely. What's your opinion?

[Germaniac]

I like the complex system better. Yet I find your idea valuable for less experienced ppl that'd like to start classifying. BTW, Brünn and Faelid would be in the Nordic category and Borreby in the Alpinid.

[Kazuma]

I use this old Coon's tree (modified by Coon himself later)

http://i1148.photobucket.com/albums/o572/Kazuma824/various/subr.jpg

with other subraces
- atlantid as intermediate between med and nordid
- berid-paleoatlantid-coarse med with tydal/strandid
- atlanto med and gracile med different only for height,
- tronder (brunn + nordid)
- noric (nordid + dinaric)
- subnordid (nordid + alpine)
- keltic as product of a sort of westen dinaricization
- faelid
- turanid

[leisitox]

To be more even more general:
-Cro-magnids
-Aurignacids
-Dinarics&Co.(so called taurids)

[MM81]

I forgot baltids in my first post. I think they're hard to insert in one of the macrogroups I suggested (nordid? No. Alpinid? Mmh, no again). So maybe a cromagnid macrogroup could make sense. I read that some anthropologists consider nordid and mediterranids variations of the same "tree"... I mean, the nordids a local mutation of the mediterranean type.
According to this theory, my macrogroups would reduce even more, and atlantoids would disappear (they're intermediate between the two phenotypes). But I'd prefer to consider nordids and mediterranids as distinct groups, it makes more sense...

[Sandis]

I use such system:

1 - Cromagnids (CM)
a) unreduced CM (Brunn, Faelid, West-Baltid)
b) reduced CM (Borreby, Baltid)

2 - Mediterraneans (Meds)
a) depigmented Meds (Corded, Hallstatt Nordid, Keltic Nordid, East Nordid)
b) gracile Meds (Western Med, Saharid, Arabid, Gracile Indid)
c) robust Meds (Atlanto-med, Pontid, East-med, Iranid)

3 - Taurids
a) Dinarid
b) Norid
c) Armenoid
d) Mtebid

4 - Alpinids
a) Western Alpinid
b) Eastern Alpinid - Gorid

[Kazuma]

alpinids are reduced CM

If I'm right:
-At the beginning Coon defines Baltid as Ladogan+ Neo danubian and nordid mix.
- Later for Coon Baltid are reduced borreby (unreduced Cromagnoid) with ladogan and nordid admixtures

[Anglojew]

I'm confused about the Cromagnid type. I always though Michael Shannon was of this type but he got a different classification on this forum;

http://img.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/michael-shannon-cast-in-zod-in-new-superman__oPt.jpg

[Mark]

I'm confused about the Cromagnid type. I always though Michael Shannon was of this type but he got a different classification on this forum;

http://img.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/michael-shannon-cast-in-zod-in-new-superman__oPt.jpg
Borreby/Tronder Jaw ^

[tEhSaint]

Well, you see the problem is that a given human specimen , is quite complex and unique compared to others. The more simplistic the taxonomy rules are, the worst classification will be given.

On the other hand, having loads of rules out there you can create more taxonomy personas.

Example given:

You propose 5 core classifications , that could be combined.
that would yield 5C1 + 5C4 + 5C3 + 5C2 = 5+5+10+10=30 personas.

(and I am counting the cases that someone could be 4 things at the same time which is weird since its like impossible having 4 core components at the same time, just for the sake of calculation) So realistically speaking this system produces ~ 20 personas

The current system with lets say ~ 20 European types produces the following combinations :

20C1 20C2 20C3 20C4 = 20 + 190 + 1440 + 4845 different types.

If for example your classification style is 6 elements eg Altanto-Nordid With Alpino-CM (Balto-Borreby) , you can produce additional 20C6 = 38760 personas .

Now considering that the population of Europe is... lets say is about 900 mil, and everyone out there got his own look, its hard to classify even with the current system.

[MM81]

^Interesting post teh Saint, though I haven't understood your calculation very well... I must study them more accuretely :)
Anyway, my idea depends on the subjectivity I've noticed in taxonomic classifications.
My case, for example: I've been classified alpinid, subnordid, atlanto-med+alpinid, borreby, borreby+atlantid. Such a mess! I know that classifying by watching a picture isn't correct, one should measure and calculate facial distances, skull height etc. but hey, also in those cases, one can find the "predominant" component, I guess, not the whole phenotype's structure. A simpler taxonomy - considering the predominant features only - could help more, I think. Obviously, a more "sofisticated" classification is welcome, if one can do it well. I like to make my guesses here, for example, but I know that they can't be precise since I'm not an anthropologist and, as I said before, a "real" correct taxonomic study is tough.

[MM81]

alpinids are reduced CM

If I'm right:
-At the beginning Coon defines Baltid as Ladogan+ Neo danubian and nordid mix.
- Later for Coon Baltid are reduced borreby (unreduced Cromagnoid) with ladogan and nordid admixtures
Alpinid and baltids could fall in the same macrocategory of "reduced CM". Anyways, since the difference between these two phenotypes is self-evident, I think it's correct to distinguish one from the other in taxonomic classifications.