0
1 - Very well, you have nothing else of the Sanchez Fernandez study other than the table. So i'll make my own assumptions just like Supercomputer did, i'll assume that blue means blue and blonde means blonde.
2 - According to the study you posted (Sanchez Fernandez) parts of Spain are 30% blue eyed and other parts of Spain are 30% blonde. The Canary Islands are 18% blonde also according to the data you posted.
I have found this for Italy:
Hair blondism highest frequencies : Veneto (12.6%), Piemonte (12.4%), Lombardia (10.7%), Liguria (10.5%)
Lowest blondism frequencies : Calabria (3.8%), Sardinia (1.7%)
Highest blue-eyes frequencies : Veneto (15.7%), Piedmonte (13.5%)
Lowest blue-eyes frequencies : Sardinia (4.02%), Calabria (5.47%),
Spain is considerably more blue eyed than Italy according to the data you yourself posted. It's also considerably blonder, in fact your data says that the Canary Islands is blonder than Italy.
3 - A few posts ago you didn't know what a haplogroup was and thought it was related to pigmentation. There are several E subclades in the iberian peninsula and i have already shown a distribution map for E-M81 which is supposed to be North African. It reaches a peak of 30-40% in Cantabria in Pasiegos. This can mean one of two things: moors did come to Cantabria or this haplogrop isn't related with Moors. I'll let your sudaca brain decide.
The data only fits if you change it. I'm not saying anything, i have been posting what it's written on the Hoyos Sainz study for the last pages but you prefer to ignore it and invent your own data. I'm gonna repeat myself for the n-th time and i hope for the last time.
Here are the numbers for blue eyes from the Hoyos Sainz study, it averages to 10%:
Then there's a second category, which is a very broad category of mixed eyes and it averages to 7%. He describes them in the first sentence as several colorations devired from blue and green mixed with brown, this could mean lots of things but it's definitely something mixed with brown.
You consider this broad mixed category to be grey. You say it's semantics even though it's clearly written on the study what he is measuring, and it's definitely not grey. And you do this so that the light eyes number match a more recent study (Sanchez Fernandez) which you also don't know the exact descriptions of what the colors mean and to match an internet study made by a forum user Toe Knee something. You even go as far as saying the Hoyos Sainz study and Sanchez Fernandez study are showing the exact same thing, even though you are inventing data that doesn't exist on one study and assuming categories on another study.
I don't know if this is clumsiness or dishonesty.
Bookmarks