Official names for the various sub-groups of homo sapiens:

Mongoloids:

R. Tungusa (Altaic speaking Northeastern Asians)
R. Sinica (Sino-Tibetan speaking East Asians)
R. Sudmongolica (Austro-Asiatic and Malayo-Polynesian speaking Southeastern Asians)

Caucasoids:

R. Nordica (Indo-European speaking Northern Europeans)
R. Mediterranica (Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic/Semitic speaking Southern Europeans, North Africans and some West Asians)
R. Indo-Iranica (Indo-European speaking West Asians and North Indians)


Characterisitcs of Mongoloids:
R.Tungusa
------------
Generally have the smallest almond shaped eyes of all three types.
Mostly have single eyelids.
Very fair skin.
Genetic adaptation to the cold weather of the north. Eskimos are the extreme example.

R. Sinica
----------
Generally have larger almond shaped eyes than the tungusa.
Have either single eyelid or thin double eyelid which are close to the eyes.
Fair to light brown skin.
The weather is temperate.

R. Sudmongolica
------------------
Generally have the largest round shaped eyes of the 3 types
Have thick double eyelids which are higher up from the eyes.
Brown to dark brown skin
The weather is tropical.

Official according to whom?

Just wonder which "mongoloid group" han-chinese belongs to...

Does everyone forget the importance of word 'mostly'? Because I think the assignments are not very perfect.

I also wonder where you got the info, I could not find any detailed info about them.
EDIT: take a look at this http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html

Yes, it is understood as 'mostly' because there have been intermarriages and migration between the various subgroups.

The URL you quoted has certain statements that I disagree with:

We are talking about pure mongoloids classification without mixture with australoid, caucasoid, negroid here.

1. Some people don't classify 'american indians' as being mongoloid, they are more of a hybrid race.
2. Is there a noticeable difference between pure mongolians and pure japanese ? Why are they in separate groups ? Didn't both originated from the altaic mountains ?

Some 'subraces' actually occur by the admixture, such as Turanids, e.g. Kazakh are mix Europid-Mongoloid. Actually in the first post you forgot about Negroids/Capoids. And I guess the description above is from your research.

I know, the 'American Indians' and 'East Asians' are quite distinct. http://www.nmnh.si.edu/rtp/students/2002/v...02_seebauer.htm
But I couldn't find better classifications.

Mongolians and Japanese are quite distinct, but it's hard to describe, just some Mongolians have very special feature that distinguish from Chinese and Japanese. As for 'Altaic' we are sure neither about Japanese nor Korean.

I don't know anything about negroids and so I concentrated mostly on mongoloid and caucasoid.
If you say mongolian and japanese are quite distinct, please write down the differences, if you cannot then it is based on non-scientific observation.

I read somewhere that it is usually the weather that genes adapt to form the differences over many thousand/million years.

Mongoloid (adaptation to the cold), Caucasoid (temperate climate), Negroid (hot climate)

Within the same mongoloid race, the eskimo eyes are adapted to the extreme cold in the north by developing very small eyes, single eyelid, fat around the eyes to keep the eyes warm. The further south and hotter the weather, the eyes are usually larger due to the loss of this adaptation. The skin color also changes.

You know it's as hard as to write down the differences between Korean and Chinese. Don't you think some Koreans have special look?
I don't even know how to write down the difference between Sibe and Han.

About "adaptation to cold", I think it makes hair and eye color lighter, some Nanais (Northern Mongoloids?) have light eyes and blond hair. Also Nordic of Europid show similar phenomenon.
The Mongoloid type may have developed long in the desert area so that their eyes had to adapt to be small. Caucasoids may be descended from mix Mongoloid-Negroid that adaptate to cold climate. (probably from the Middle East).
Afterall, it should be bone classification, not eye, so it's dubious on how climate change the bone structure.

Can you tell me what is probably the cause of double eyelid?

There is no cause for double eyelid, but I think the development of epicanthic folds and losing the double eyelid is so as to minimize (thus warm and moisten) the exposed eye area as much as possible against the extreme cold.

Bear in mind that a lot of japanese go through double eyelid operation (and other operation like raising the nose bridge) because they are from a rich country. That may be the reason why you think they look differently from mongolians.

I have some characteristics for the three main subgroups of caucasoid too. Any researchers want to contribute ?

Hmm, have you seen the list of essays and links on their main page, that stuff on the Nordic Race, the risk of it getting annihilated, etc. It might be science, but it sure rings an ugly bell...

Francois

Err...I hesitate to point this out but a number of current scholars believe the above mentioned 'classification' is erroneous and misleading. 'Races' or 'subraces' among Homo Sapiens Sapiens (this is not a double typo btw) is held by many nowadays is not only outdated and misleading but in many cases plain wrong. Superficial features has proved to be poor guide. There is nothing wrong of course with this area of study but had the same criteria been applied to other animals like say household cats for example, it would have been laughable. I hasten to add that I have not made any serious attempts at learning about this subject, but gleamed facts and impressions from science articles in more general publications.

If there were no intermarriages or migration, then 'pure' han chinese would belong to the sinitic group.

It is the same perception that the chinese themselves say that the north and south chinese look different from each other.

Basically the north chinese have mixed with the mongolian, manchurian etc. Thus, the modern han chinese can belong to both tungusa and sinica.

The han chinese originated from the yellow river (or the earlier kunlun mountain) which have a temperate climate so they develop to a lesser degree than the eskimos.

Then wouldn't it be arguable that there wasn't ever really a Han people? Even since the Shang (?) dynasty Huaxia people have been assimiliating barbarians like the Dongyi.

This is all rather pseudo-scientific. Many of the claims contradict facts as found by modern science.


Richard McCulloch, if I'm not mistaken, is a Nordicist with many biased and pseudo-scientific beliefs.


Technically, Native Americans are more "Mongoloid" than SE Asians in osteology. They are Sinodonts, for example, while SE Asians are not. This goes into the question of what is a "Mongoloid". The outdated classifications are often based on subjective anecdotes... This is the ideal, pure "Mongoloid" in many Europeans' minds:




These terms you use, "Turanid" and such, where did you get them from? They are not used by actual modern anthropologists. There is a variety of looks to Central Asians that cannot be defined as a specific racial category. "Europid" is also not used. For one thing, it goes against the findings that pre-Neolithic Europeans, before the agricultural expansion from the Middle East, were very different from what one considers to be "Caucasoid": http://journeyofman.info/index.php?showtop...view=getnewpost

As for Native Americans, the very link you showed shows that East Asians are closer to Native Americans than to Mongolians morphologically.


Where are you getting this stuff from? Have you been visiting Dodona? You can't learn anything from that circus.

Light eyes and skin actually are harmful in an snowy, icy environment: http://journeyofman.info/index.php?showtopic=96
Light skin and eyes seems to have developed due to sexual selection in Europe due to specific conditions.: http://journeyofman.info/index.php?showtopic=56
Those who have it now are either the direct descendents from them (more in the case of the Baltic region) and those who arrived later and absorbed them, in the case of certain Uralians and "Nordic" Indo-Europeans.

As for "Mongoloids", the earliest positive prove are in northern regions, North America, Siberia, Mongolia... Some anthropologists think the epicanthic fold is for the reduction of glare in ice and snow or even desert conditions, yes, and cold-protection. Eskimos actually wear slits:


As for the origin of "Caucasoids"... that's not accurate that they are half "negroid" and "Mongoloid" though there is some truth to it that is too complicated to explain here.

Temperature has an affect on head shape. A big round head retains heat better. Type of food, affected by climate, also affects jaws and malars. People in tropical forests, with limited food, tend to reduce in size, be more pedamorphic, which also affects the head and facial morphologies.


The reduction of glare in snow and ice is another posited hypothesis by anthropologists.

The Japanese do seem to have higher, narrower noses than Chinese. I've been to Japan. I doubt the majority had plastic surgeries.


It isn't science. I'm deeply disturbed by the sharp turn my "protege" qrasy has taken, right into the arms of Nordicist racialists.

Sadly, the study of man, a noble science, have been sullied by pseudo-scientists and racialists.

Here's a lost of actual anthropology journals by real scientists in a peer-reviewed, academic environment:
http://renpage2.blogspot.com/2005/10/peer-...d-journals.html

There are many free studies you can sample. It is very professional and not like some of the quoted stufff in this thread at all.

What are the facts that are contradicted by modern science ? It may not go into genes and DNA but it is a fairly accurate broad classification based on external features. The common people in the streets don't judge a person based on genetics but rather on external appearances.

Just as the broad classification of caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid, australoid works in determining their origins. If you see a caucasoid in china, you would most probably know he is not local and vice versa.

Caucasoid - europe (temperate climate)
mongoloid - north asia (cold climate)
negroid - south africa (hot climate)

The pure mongoloid look is based on the mongolian look . That is why the term is called MONGOLoid.
The picture that you showed doesn't represent a pure mongolian look, it is more like a mainland south east asian that has mixed blood (burmese, thai)

I would imagine that the early or original Han chinese would belong to the sinica mongoloid group since they came from a temperate climate (yellow river or kunlun mountains).

But as there is a lot of intermarriages/migration between the northern tungus and han chinese people, the present day han chinese would belong to both tungusa and sinica mongoloid resulting in the so-called difference between north chinese (mostly tungusa) and south chinese (mostly sinica).

Of course, the southern chinese are also not pure but they are mixing within the same sinica mongoloid group (zhuang, tai etc).

We can compare this analogy with the languages spoken in china. The northern chinese language ie. mandarin are influenced by manchurian, mongolian (?) and the southern chinese languages are the 'purer', original form as compared to middle chinese.

It's pseudo-scientific because the classification assumes discrete sub-races of "Mongoloids" when it's all gradients and admixtures. It assumes "sub-Mongoloids", SE Asians and some southern Chinese, as some proto-Mongoloid race who travelled up into the north and got "Turanized", becoming more "progressive" by mixing with "Caucasoids". These classification systems from the early 20th century are outdated because new, real studies contradict them.


Well, in those classification systems, that guy I showed is usually considered the purest stock of "Mongoloids". That's why his picture is used by two "race" sites to represent "Mongoloids". They considere northern Asians to be mixed with "Caucasoids" or "proto-Europid".

It just shows how completely arbitrary those things are.

You wanna a real classification?:

There no such thing as sub-race in homo sapiens yet. There's only breed.

Much like dogs.

Did old Cavalli-Sforza tree assumed so? So that "Northern Mongoloids" are put closer to "Caucasoids" than "Southern Mongoloid"? Or is it just from his data?

Do the "Peru" and "Santa Cruz" above refer to Native Americans?

Cavalli-Sforza, in his book Genes, Peoples, and Languages, assumed a northern population coming up from the Middle East through Central Asia which split into a eastern and western one, with the western one later mixing neolithic agriculturalists from the Middle East and the eastern one expanding south mixing with an Australo-Melanesian population.

He didn't equate ancient migrations with races nor does he condone the breaking down of humans into discrete categories. Each "race" now was formed by a lot of different groups crisscrossing, just like how each person is made up of 2 parents, 4 grandparents, and so on.


Arikara, Peru, and Santa Cruz refer to Native Americans, yes. If you want real morphological trees, I have many... just haven't posted them anywhere. This cluster map is actually very crude as it only have two functions, cephaic index and bi-frontal width but it does convey the general morphology of "Mongoloid"... a broad head and face.

The only exception that clusters with Australo-Melanesians are the Eskimo (who have broad faces very dolichocranic heads, unlike other "Mongoloids" who have brachycranic heads) but by osteological standards, such as Sinodonty, and by genetics/lineages, the Eskimo clearly groups with so called "Mongoloids".

Here is a taste of German race science:


There are literally hundreds of races in German race science of pre-WWII era. Each is represented by a picture, as you can see, and they are supposed to be discrete races.

The logic is that the "Nordsinid" is the supreme "Mongolid", admixed with "Europid". He has a long face and head and facial relief.

The farther south you get, the flatter and more "Mongolid" you get... infantile and pedamorphic... not warlike... docile... inferior.

Does that southern Chinese look like the typical Cantonese? No. He looks actually northern Chinese or Korean. The northern Chinese looks more southern.

Does that middle Chinese look like the typical Shanghainese? No.

Amd look at the "paleo-Mongolid"... that one picture is supposed to represent the whole of SE Asia. They can be further divided into "Dayakid", "Paluangid", "Semangid", none of which exists according to real multivariate studies in anthropology.

The Siberian "Tungid" is also very unrepresentative.

Yes, i agree that it is all gradients but I also believe that some looks are distinct enough to place them into certain categories. For example, ice freezes at 0 C and water becomes steam at 100 C, so we have three states even though temperature can range between -xxx C to +xxx C.

Let me repeat here, we are not talking about mixtures between races such as caucasoid and mongoloid etc (which are difficult to categorise). We are more interested in the basic races just as there are basic colors such as red, blue, green etc (pink is not a basic color)

It is a convenient way for people to distinguish whether a person is a african or a caucasian in the USA, and also I use it to distinguish between overseas chinese and malays in my country. Because I use chinese to converse with overseas chinese and other language to converse with malays.




On many occasions I have asked many european professionals (my colleagues) whether they can distinguish between an overseas chinese and malay (in my country), they said they do NOT know how to distinguish until I spell out their characteristics (as in the subraces of homo sapien thread).

It is just like for us, most common east asians won't know how to distinguish between mediterranean europeans and north europeans unless we were taught to.

The pictures that you posted are flawed and doesn't really represent them. Because some of them are not distinguishable from each other. And let's not talk about mixed races.

Here are some photos of children from each subrace. I took the photos of children because they are less subjected to the effects of the weather/diet/cosmetic surgery and more to genes.

Tungusa



Sinica



Sudmongolica

Did you know that a lot of East Europeans actually have Mongoloid ancestory? They still look Caucasian. These superficial classifications are frequently misleading.



If you want to talk about the basics, then we are all really just one race, all the looks are superficial regional differences that evolve over time due to isolation. We didnt 'spring' onto this earth as seperate races.

You're right to say tey are not typical to each subgroup. But the 'tolerance' overlap each other, I can't see what is "more South" and "more North" Chinese.
And none of them look like Korean to me.

Yeah, he looks like nothing I've known before. The most similar to him I've ever seen is a Tadjik and my *very untypical*, white-skinned Javanese friend.

In the 2-D charts I usually see ellipses to do "subcategories".

Isn't it as clear as blond Europeans and black-haired Europeans? But you might be right since I can't separate "Finno-Ugrian", Jews and Englishman.
But it's simply strange, we are never taught by our parents how to distinguish between people, everyone who are seen as "very different" to some should also "look very different" to other persons.

It's German taste, not Asian's.
Surprisingly the Tungusa the most "Chinese" to me, perhaps because the child in the middle look strange. I would say he differs quite much from Cantonese children I saw.

"They still look Caucasian" is probably typical Asian taste of racial categorising, I've seen person distinguishing "Finno-Ugrian" (East Europe) from other Europeans.
If you talk about "Basic", at least you can distinguish quite clearly "Africans" from others.

No, because as I have pointed out above we are all really just one race, all the looks are superficial regional differences that evolve over time due to isolation and seperation. We didnt 'spring' onto this earth as seperate races. Go back far enough and the african you see today has the same human ancestors as the Chinese you see today.

No arguments there if we perceive ourselves as human beings , we are considered ONE race. But then if we were to go back even further, wouldn't the chimpanzee and human beings belong to the same race too ? So is it futile to distinguish between a chimpanzee and human being ?

We are not talking about something abstract here but practical classification of human beings to identify criminals, origin of people etc. It would be better for the police to write down the race as northern caucasian or negroid so that the number of suspect can be narrowed down rather than the WHOLE human race.

He is a typical cantonese children.

Another good example is our famous movie star donnie yen. but please don't post any more photos, you get the idea that he is different from the tungusa.

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&id=18002...=540477&intl=us

This either shows your bias in your need to classify people into races or a lack of knowledge. Biologically we are not the same race as chimpanzees, plain and simple. In fact we are a seperate species. Distinctions among humans however are frequently based on superficial characteristics that genetically speaking, the differences are so small as to be miniscule.



Now you attempt to change the subject, we are talking about the often misleading biological classfication of humans into 'subraces' based on superficial characteristics.

The total biological genes are very small in difference, we share more than 50% of our genes with plants, however is it true that we share 50% functionality with plants? Or do we look like half-plant? Nope.

We usually look at not all the genes. We usually only care about the differences between genes rather than the similarities. 0.03% is already a large difference if you have millions of genes.
But basically 'races' in a species (or "subspecies" "variety" etc. ), are meant to distinguish between appearances. Just like breeds of cats or dogs.

Human appearances usually appear in gradients, but often we see that there are some clear distinctions.

You might as well use the chimpanzee for an example since we share 95-97% of our DNA. My point still stands, 'subraces' has little meaning from a biological classification standpoint. Xng is proposing superficial characteristics to define 'races' as a scientifically accepted method; it may have been in the past, it is no longer acepted today.

Take a look at the articles below:

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/

http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/184.html



Very good and if you will now tell exactly the genes in question which differentiate the 'human races'?



You may choose to classify humans however you like, but please refrain from claiming there is a biological classfication behind it, which is what Xng with his 'subraces' are putting forth.

Yeah, the definition of 'races' are talking about appearances not really genes. There are some genes that are responsible to appearances, and we know the appearance has range and may not overlap with distantly related group, showing some genetic distinction.

We cannot use a gene and claim it corresponds to which "race" since it's found in this "race".
However looking at the data from the genetics, one can occasionally find that some population cluster together, closer/farther to whom etc. and that should be the base of the classification. Since human groups evolve gradually and differently from far group, from the charts sometimes we can see some groups which are similar in not only the genes studied but also in appearance. So one can think of "subraces" here.
In genetic trees I always find African and non-African are distinctive, so it's the basic biological base, though it may not be the "race" people are thinking of.

Java Man/Peking Man.

I have recently watched an episode of "A Species of Odyssey" about Homo Sapiens and understand that we all are descendants of homo sapiens.

I had a question in mind after the show on the relationship of homo sapiens and chinese as we chinese look very different in terms of facial features. And I was pleasantly surprised to stumble upon this thread on the different races of homo sapiens.

The following was quoted in Channel News Asia "A Species Odyssey" (Documentary Series) for a two-part documentary coming up that examines the origins of the Java Man and the Peking Man.

"China is the birthplace of the famous Man of Beijing... a 500 000 year old "Homo Erectus", discovered in a cave at Zhukudian. However, more recent discoveries have proven that the human species' greatest ancientness is to be found in this part of Asia. Man adapts himself to new climatic conditions, to new environments. Having settled all over Asia, except in mountainous or too cold areas, he becomes what we call "Homo Erectus", the "Standing Man". He who will master nature further!"

I just wonder what were the discoveries? Did the origin of man come from Asia?

I thought this is a good test on the experts' knowledge here in this area till the show is on..

Cheers!

Some people here argue that the 3 main races couldn't have just popped up but one single race can pop up suddenly in africa ? It is another case of the classic chicken-egg problem. If god invented earth, who invented god ?

Anyway, I have no clue as to the peking man and the java man. Peking man could be the ancestor of the sinica mongoloid whereas java man could be the ancestor of the sudmongolica, just a guess so don't shoot me !

Chicken-egg problem is just quite stupid. Which is the first? Egg of course, of pre-avian species. (well, the 'egg' here does not necessarily mean chicken's egg, does it?)
Human should pop up from.. Primates of course.

Himself

Neither of them are the ancestor of the modern human. If I recall correctly, those 2 variants of human are Homo Erectus (not Sapiens). I think Humans of African migrations are the true ancestors of present "Mongoloid".

It is amazing to know that homo sapiens appeared just 200,000 years ago and real speeches only appeared around 100,000 something. I guess it is plausible that human just migrated out of Africa 65,000 years ago.

the concept of sub-race is controversial among taxonomists. Some do not accept it, some accept it so for those who accept it they must have had biological ground to support it.

Theres a lot to comment on here so i will take it in turn, First of all the Human race as we know it were virtually wiped out after the Toba eruption 73000years ago, this is the main reason as to why we share so many common genes today. In dog terms we would be considered mutts simply becourse our differences is so small.

White skin in the Caucasoid is an adaption to lack of sunlight more than temperature and lack of yearround access to good vitamin sources. It has very little to do whit the fickle taste of females.

The time of the Toba Eruption were also the time were (As far as we know) there were the greatest number of Sapiens SPECIES in the world. IE Homo Sapiens. Homo Erectus (Pekingman). Homo Neanderthalis and Homo Florensis at the very least.

The aboriginals of Australia and Native americans are the closest we come to different *Species* today, simply becourse they on average have gotten 25000 years (At least) to begin developing in other directions, whitout new blood comming in from abroad, but due to the lack of genetic differences in our common gene pool, there were not much divergence in our development except in the Aboriginals which turned from Caucasoid to Negroid duing their takeover of australia.
The aboriginials is by the way good living proof as to why Negroids look like they do (Dark skin and flat noses to mention the most obivious)

Scientists estimated that after the Toba eruption the total world homo sapien population was approximately 1000. So chance for 2 random person on earth to share a common distant ancestor is so great.

Can you explain more?

... it seems that the Australian are the most distant from the Africans, and Africans are more diverse than non-Africans...

Do you still remember where you read this?

White skin absorb UV rays far easier than other skin tones, and UV is nessesary for converting Vitamin D into a useful chemical compound that our body can use, whitout vitamin D you you will go blind, and that is just one of the problems, eskimos get around that problem by having access to meat and internal organs from several species of warm blooded animals year round (Seals, Whales, whalrus and birds etc.) the internal organs form these animals is saturatet whit vitamins, in the case of polar bears even in amounts that is fatally toxic to human beings if they eat the liver.
Inessence, saying that Caucasoid were build for survival in a lightpoor envioment whit lots of cloudy days is almost a given since nature dont make things for fun or beauty unless theres good survival reasons for it.

The aboriginals is caucasoid just like the original Ainu people of Japan and probably shares more in common (Aboriginals and ancestrial Ainu) than whit anybody else. That the Negroid people has the most ekstreme range in looks and builds of any of the races is not that strange since they are adaptet to the continent of our birth, and has far longer time to do it that anybody else of natural reasons (there were there from the start and didn't have to colonize it first.

On European Caucasoids, I generally believe the theory that they interbred with neanderthals, would that give them special traits not found in other humans? (like the oddly colored eyes/hair)

Though in general racial/subrace classifications are not considered scientific. Humans are humans.

and when I hear it, it makes me think of Dungeons and Dragons...
"Mongoloid- +2 to dexterity! Racial bonus in bow weapons!"

I know this theory about the Ainu was extremely common before the 1950's or so but, quite frankly, the Ainu = Caucasoid origin theory is quite outdated and is being gradually discarded. Yes, it's true that the Ainu do exhibit at least some traits where Westerners would immediately attribute it to them as being "Caucasoid" without a second thought to it, ie deep-set eyes, wavy, curly hair, etc. The Western fascination of the "Lost White Race/Civilizations" theory has just been overblown out of proportion, hence the widespread Ainu = Caucasoid origin theory in the West. In 19th - early 20th century media, you see headlines reading something like "lost Caucasoids in Japan!" and some have gone so far as to say that the rise of the Japanese as an imperial power in the face of Western imperialism in the 19th century has been attributed to "their descent from the Ainu, ancient Caucasoids of Japan, therefore since they have Caucasoid blood, they must be superior and strong like us Caucasoids!". A case of extremely poor scholarship infested with a nationalistic agenda.

However, new studies have shown that the Ainu didn't have a Caucasoid origin but had far more in common with proto-Mongoloids/"Paleo-Asiatics" than anybody else. The theory has it that these Paleo-Asiatics/proto-Mongoloids arrived on Japan and were isolated from the rest of the East Asian mainland's population where gradually the "Mongoloid" race developed and came into existence. Therefore, the Ainu retained some of the traits the Paleo-Asiatics/proto-Mongoloids had (no, they weren't Caucasoids, the "3 races" as we know today hadn't become distinct enough to become separate "races" on their own yet during that time) due to their isolation on Honshu.

makes absolutely no sense

where would koreans and japanese belong? they speak language isolates. a large portion of Japanese and Southern coastal Han Chinese also have sundadont dental patterns (as opposed to the "north asian" Sinodont dental patterns). and how would you group together anthropologically lets say...a long angular faced(a warm climate adaptation) japanese phenotype with a wide faced(a cold climate adaptation) Mongolian phenotype

also, your definitions does not even take into account facial bone structure which is the only real way anthropologists can divide up population groups

The problem lies in the fact that koreans, japanese are not isolated countries where intermarriages NEVER happened in the past one thousand years. Koreans certainly mixed a lot with the chinese due to its proximity especially when korea was part of china during the han dynasty.

It is difficult to say whether most japanese/koreans belong to the sinica or tungusa because those you see in japanese/korean movie usually have double eyelid or nose operation so that they can look more 'caucasoid'. I met a few koreans when I was overseas, their eyes are definitely tungusa (small and single eyelid) as opposed to those you see on korean films.

I can only say for sure the distinction between the sudmongolica and the other two.

The sudmongolica usually has a

1. lesser degree of mouth to forehead structure
2. thicker lips
3. smaller upper skull
4. shorter in height but heavier body structure

when compared to the other two .

Where do indians fit? If there are major races in the world, I usually think Asian/European/African. But Indians seem to be neither stand alone, but with bits of everyone else.
South Asian Indians I mean, not American.

They are Indo europeans, but that is both the Tamil which are very dark skinned, and the southern ligther toned people, in short they are caucasoid both.
The old theory that ancient lightskinned caucasians (Indo-Europeans) invaded and conquerd the Indian sub-continent don't quite hold water,(But racial supremacist loved the idea) the Tamil were there first but the invasion were more a case of gradual filling out of abundant living space rather than replacing one whit the other.(Even throu wars were fought at a later date when their civillizations had developed)

Generally, the northern indians are of the Indo-Iranica branch of caucasian. They are distinguished by the black hair and dark brown eyes as compared to other caucasians. They are not the original inhabitants of india as they speak an indo-european language (hindi).

Yes, previously there were 3 main groups - asian (mongoloid), european (caucasoid), african (negroid) but then something were missing and they added australoid.

Most of the southern indians (including tamil) are from the dravidians which is a branch of australoid.

If you say that Japanese are not "Sinodont enough", then a relatively large portion of Chinese+Mongolian also "not Sinodont enough".
Perhaps this should be called "Ameridont" instead since the highest percentage is in South/North Americas

If I remember correctly, that was already posted somewhere in this thread..


I don't have a sense of distinguishing "Sinica" and "Tungusa". As for eyes, everyone who have the "Mongolian marker" should be considered Mongoloid... As double eyelid, you can't say Mongolian and Korean do not have them... In fact quite many Northerners I met also have it.
If you depend heavily in eye then you're going to say that Qinyong 秦俑 are Tungusic not Sinitic
Refer to this off-topic-filled thread http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...dpost&p=4768523

I prefer short/heavy not to be a point since it's too environmental. I also notice that the jaw is often more protruding??

Australoid should be the term for the native Australians..

I can see where you're coming from about the Dravidians (south India) and Aryans (north India) being "Caucasoids". However, it must be borne in mind that "Dravidians" is a linguistic grouping rather than a racial grouping and the racial types in the "Dravidian" language group can vary, but they are generally dark-skinned. IMO, the Dravidians share more in common with "Australoids" than "Caucasoids" and if we equate Dravidians as being Caucasoids, we might have to remove the "Australoid" grouping as a separate group and group them as a subgroup of Caucasoids (scholars apparently don't unanimously agree with this, but I've seen scholars apply this type of subgrouping).