Serbians are mostly Whiter than Iberians, Western Asians and North Caucasians.

[Supercomputer]

I can list you several of examples where scales used in a given study don't match the actual numbers. The staff that does these measurements with hundreds of people don't spend particularly high amount of time pondering which eye on the scale matches those measured. It just isn't practical and they aren't interested in the subject. They just make quick calls which often leads to inaccuracies. Measuring eye colour even when using scales isn't as objective and scientific as measuring height or weight. It's a subjective call that results in lots of errors particularly in the mixed category.

Look at this scale again and tell me if you can make the difference between S8, S9 and S10. Or between S1 and S2. Or M5 or M6. Or P3 and P4. Or M5 and M2. Coz I don't, This scale does not make any sense. All eye shades on a given scale need to be clearly distinguished between themselves otherwise the scale is useless.

This is how I would make an eye colour scale

1. Black/dark brown
2. Medium brown (pure)
3. Light brown (honey)
4. Dark mixed (mostly brown with minor green/grey on the edges)
5. Evenly mixed (approx. equal amount of dark and light shade in the iris)
6. Light mixed (clear majority light eye with minor brownish spots or rings)
7. Pure light eye (grey or greenish, but clearly not blue or blue-ish)
8. Blueish or light grey eye but still not pure blue
9. Pure blue eye
10. Light blue eye

Anything more than that is too complicated and will only lead to errors in classification

[reboun]

Turks as a whole do not look like Arabs. There are Turkish people who would be classified as North Arabid (as known as Levatine Arabid) but as a whole, most Turks look Anatolid (as known as Dinaro-Med+Armenoid).

By the way, it seems you were a troll when looked at the threads you created and your profile information.

[Melkiirs]

Look at this scale again and tell me if you can make the difference between S8, S9 and S10. Or between S1 and S2. Or M5 or M6. Or P3 and P4. Or M5 and M2. Coz I don't, This scale does not make any sense. All eye shades on a given scale need to be clearly distinguished between themselves otherwise the scale is useless.

This is how I would make an eye colour scale

1. Black/dark brown
2. Medium brown (pure)
3. Light brown (honey)
4. Dark mixed (mostly brown with minor green/grey on the edges)
5. Evenly mixed (approx. equal amount of dark and light shade in the iris)
6. Light mixed (clear majority light eye with minor brownish spots or rings)
7. Pure light eye (grey or greenish, but clearly not blue or blue-ish)
8. Blueish or light grey eye but still not pure blue
9. Pure blue eye
10. Light blue eye

Anything more than that is too complicated and will only lead to errors in classification

Three categories should be more or less sufficient. Pure light, mixed (e.g. rayed or zoned pattern), pure dark. An isolated fleck of lipochrome or melanin would fit with Hooton & Dupertuis’ very pronouncedly light mixed and could be just pure light by other sources. Mixed eyes should normally have some kind of ring or clear pigmented zones. Speckled can also be a pattern if the spots are consistent enough. It is not just the intermediate pigmentation but the iris pattern that distinguishes mixed eyes. Dark mixed eyes Martin #5-6 are pure dark (amber and honey is not light) but are not typically homogenous. True mixed eyes have both a light element and a clear pigmented iris pattern.

As far as the K. Saller scale it distinguishes pure dark, mixed, and pure light eyes just fine. Having many shades even if they can be confused with each other within these categories only increases the chances of matching almost exactly. Distinguishing between specific shades of pure light, mixed, or pure dark is of relatively little consequence.

[Supercomputer]

Three categories should be more or less sufficient. Pure light, mixed (e.g. rayed or zoned pattern), pure dark. An isolated fleck of lipochrome or melanin would fit with Hooton & Dupertuis’ very pronouncedly light mixed and could be just pure light by other sources. Mixed eyes should normally have some kind of ring or clear pigmented zones. Speckled can also be a pattern if the spots are consistent enough. It is not just the intermediate pigmentation but the iris pattern that distinguishes mixed eyes. Dark mixed eyes Martin #5-6 are pure dark (amber and honey is not light) but are not typically homogenous. True mixed eyes have both a light element and a clear pigmented iris pattern.

As far as the K. Saller scale it distinguishes pure dark, mixed, and pure light eyes just fine. Having many shades even if they can be confused with each other within these categories only increases the chances of matching almost exactly. Distinguishing between specific shades of pure light, mixed, or pure dark is of relatively little consequence.

So can you distinguish between the shades I mentioned? If you can, you must be superman. I still haven't seen any convincing evidence Portugal 22% light eyes includes evenly mixed. That would make Portugal by far the darkest eyed population in Europe and with only half of light eyed as Spain. Pretty unlikely. Someone should do a Parliament study, unfortunately I don't have the will anymore. I remember one forum member here did a study and came up with 13% but he only included pure light under light and light mixed under mixed.

[Melkiirs]

So can you distinguish between the shades I mentioned? If you can, you must be superman. I still haven't seen any convincing evidence Portugal 22% light eyes includes evenly mixed. That would make Portugal by far the darkest eyed population in Europe and with only half of light eyed as Spain. Pretty unlikely. Someone should do a Parliament study, unfortunately I don't have the will anymore. I remember one forum member here did a study and came up with 13% but he only included pure light under light and light mixed under mixed.

I can generally distinguish between S, M, and P shades but not necessarily within those categories. You should have the same experience. As I said the important part is distinguishing pure light, mixed, and pure dark eyes. The fundamental three categories of iris color are most relevant.

As far as the parliament study from Damião de Góis goes it is not fully clear if evenly mixed was included under mixed or dark:

Something like that. Dark is brown eyes including some very light brown eyes one person had. Light is blue and grey and mixed is everything else, i tried to follow a criteria but it's very difficult to judge certain colors. Either way i think it's mostly right.

7.13% pure light eyes found by Tamagnini puts Portuguese not far below Spaniards so it seems perfectly plausible. I suspect the Portuguese could be about as pure dark eyed as Sardinians (~76% Martin-Schultz #9-16) but rather close to Spain at large with pure light eyes.

[Damião de Góis]

That would make Portugal by far the darkest eyed population in Europe and with only half of light eyed as Spain.

That's exactly what his claim is. He claims Portugal is like the Lebannon in pigmentation and not like other southern euros, incluiding its genetically related neighbour. Studies that don't go along with this theory, he claims were badly measured due to OWD like Tamagnini's "A Côr do Cabêlo e dos Olhos nos Estudantes dos Escolas Primárias Portuguesas" (1909/10-1915).", which i thought was perfectly valid for eye color or apparently my own parliament study.

As far as the parliament study from Damião de Góis goes it is not fully clear if evenly mixed was included under mixed or dark:

7.13% pure light eyes puts Portuguese not far below Spaniards so it seems perfectly plausible.

I measured 13.6% pure light eyes that particular time, not 7.13%.

[Melkiirs]

That's exactly what his claim is. He claims Portugal is like the Lebannon in pigmentation and not like other southern euros, incluiding its genetically related neighbour. Studies that don't go along with this theory, he claims were badly measured due to OWD like Tamagnini's "A Côr do Cabêlo e dos Olhos nos Estudantes dos Escolas Primárias Portuguesas" (1909/10-1915).", which i thought was perfectly valid for eye color or apparently my own parliament study.



I measured 13.6% pure light eyes that particular time, not 7.13%.

You were not that far off from Tamagnini in A Pigmentação dos Portugueses finding 7.13% pure light with much larger sample size (11,601). He also used scales which may be a factor. Point is that in pure light eyes Portguese at large are similar to Spaniards overall, more or less as expected. It is only when pure light and mixed are combined does the potential overlap with lighter MENAs arise. I'm not even fully sure if it is entirely a matter of real overlap or also a difficultly distinguishing darker mixed and pure dark eyes. I know that pure light eyes at least can be ascertained very consistently with scales.

On another note I never claimed Portuguese overlap in MENAs in any other aspect of pigmentation. The suggestion was always just regarding pure dark eyes.

[Supercomputer]

That's exactly what his claim is. He claims Portugal is like the Lebannon in pigmentation and not like other southern euros, incluiding its genetically related neighbour. Studies that don't go along with this theory, he claims were badly measured due to OWD like Tamagnini's "A Côr do Cabêlo e dos Olhos nos Estudantes dos Escolas Primárias Portuguesas" (1909/10-1915).", which i thought was perfectly valid for eye color or apparently my own parliament study.



I measured 13.6% pure light eyes that particular time, not 7.13%.

Yep, 7% pure blue, 13% pure unmixed blue plus grey and 22% for light plus light mixed.

[Melkiirs]

Yep, 7% pure blue, 13% pure unmixed blue plus grey and 22% for light plus light mixed.

The 13.6% likely includes people like Vera Braz, Hugo Martins de Carvalho, or Paulo Ramalho who have essentially light but somewhat greenish or mixed eyes. Damião de Góis findings and my own for pure light depart over only a few such individuals with light mixed eyes. Blue and light greyish with no apparent mixture would be slightly less.

Vera Braz for example, do you consider this pure light like Damião de Góis does or light mixed like I do?:


I got 7-8% for blue-grey without any admixture just like Tamagnini regardless of uncertain cases.

It appears your standards for pure light are slightly more lenient than my own:

These eyes do not have a significant enough yellow ring to be classified as light mixed imo. Maybe the 3rd and the fourth would be light mixed but not the first two. Perhaps you found different Google search results with more better quality than me, but I found what I based on how the images look liked to me at a time. With better resolution I would get slightly different results with one or two examples, but not by much. Overall I stick the numbers I provided at the beginning.

[Pascoal]

If there is one thing that is very overestimated in these " extremely accurate studies" is that light eyed percentage on the southern balkans and on the mediterranean. At least the vast majority of them seems to have brown-like eyes.