Light Eyes in parts of Western and Southern Europe

[The Blade]

I wouldn't say Kollman's statistics are less accurate. The numbers for blue, intermediate (gray) and brown (dark) fit with Schlaginhaufen pretty well. He also has a much higher sample size.

It is less accurate because eye colour division doesn't include green and hazel.
Schlaginhaufen even divided the various colours into nuances, on the other hand.

[Ikiru]

I find it interesting that two neighbouring regions of Italy have a difference of 28% (30 vs. 58) obviously according to the same criterion.

Most likely errors due to small sample size. I like to make maps of - good and bad - studies. That one doesn't seem very accurate.

[Supercomputer]

It is less accurate because eye colour division doesn't include green and hazel.
Schlaginhaufen even divided the various colours into nuances, on the other hand.

Accurate =/= specific.

[The Blade]

Accurate =/= specific.

Specific is much more in-depth and thus orients you better.

[Supercomputer]

Specific is much more in-depth and thus orients you better.

Inaccurate implies the numbers are wrong. They are not. In fact they are likely more accurate since he has a larger sample size (600.000 vs 35.000).

Kollman:

blue 16,1%
intermediate 43%
dark 39,7%

other 1,2%

Schlaginhaufen:

blue 16,02%
intermediate 43,42%
dark 37,83%

other 2,73%

[The Blade]

Inaccurate implies the numbers are wrong. They are not. In fact they are likely more accurate since he has a larger sample size (600.000 vs 35.000).

Kollman:

blue 16,1%
intermediate 43%
dark 39,7%

other 1,2%

Schlaginhaufen:

blue 16,02%
intermediate 43,42%
dark 37,83%

other 2,73%

The difference in total percentages is small. 35 000 people is itself a good number, especially for a not so large country like Switzerland, more so if various regions are covered.
And yes, green and hazel are separate categories, so placing them in one group with either blue, gray or brown is wrong.
Really reliable sources have them separated.

[Supercomputer]

The difference in total percentages is small.

That is my entire point. Kollman's numbers are constant with Schlaginhaufen so they are not inaccurate (even though the study is much older)
.

And yes, green and hazel are separate categories, so placing them in one group with either blue, gray or brown is wrong.
Really reliable sources have them separated.

Kollman has green and hazel separate.

[The Blade]

Kollman has green and hazel separate.

On page 1 you said his division was between blue, gray and brown.

[Supercomputer]

On page 1 you said his division was between blue, gray and brown.

He labels them Brown but they also include Hazel. Just like the Gray label also includes Green. All old studies use just "Blue", "Gray" and "Brown" and label Hazel together with Brown (Virchow, Schimmer, Wiazemsky, Livi, Wateff...)

[The Blade]

He labels them Brown but they also include Hazel. Just like the Gray label also includes Green. All old studies use just "Blue", "Gray" and "Brown" and label Hazel together with Brown (Virchow, Schimmer, Wiazemsky, Livi, Wateff...)

Which is neither the most detailed, nor the most representative approach. This is what I'm saying.
By ''having'' them I mean counted as a specific category, not put together with a different colour.