These classifications are outdated as
phrenology and
geocentric model, they are part of the history of the science. Today we have only great races caucasoid, negroid, capoid, australoid and mongoloid.
I would say this outdating is already outdated -we have to be cautious with scientific progress in "soft sciences"-
the old classifications were more or less imperfect (very often naive and imperfect but not always), concerning certain types they were almost accurate, knowing a raciation process in human population is always imperfect because even in ancient times crossings used to take place at the mergins; so according to isolation and geographic distances, the big distinction yout cites ("caucasoid" ... "mongoloid") were broken down into more regional types before the baby "boom" with néolithic and subsequent periods and the invasions came to mix all that - the problem is not there are no differences between types, the problem is that the deepth of difference cannot always be told based only on external phenotypical traits because mutations never occurred "on order": two well differentiated types could be nevertheless phylogenetically close enough one to the other and tow others closer at firts sight could be farther remote in the family tree - but if we look at classical types as determined by the best scholars, if we cannot see well separated "races" at same level of diffenreciation the oneS to the otherS, we can nevertheless see some big similarities and big differencies geographically and modifications in short times in the distributions of types and infer demic moves before later crossings (here I speak about skeletons!) -
whatever the pure drift or the stable mixing that produce 'nordic', even if we can imagine a close phylogenetic position to some 'méditerraneans' the diagnose shows always a distinct upper face proportion separating so called 'nordic' from' so called indo-afgan', so called 'eastern mediterranean' or 'arabic' or everykind of southern type - and 'nordic' spite it shares a light complexion, can be very easy to distinguish from some 'borreby' types, on the skeleton features (crania, trunk, legs, arms, shoulders...)
the pack of some stable traits in a supposed type tends to get along with the population having them as a majority and can be found in a mixed population, but in smaller pourcentages - in France, even if 'nordic' is not a "race", I can see very easily the distinctive weights of Germanic tribes in the northern and eastern provinces, no trouble! (even the small part of too blond too brachycephalic element) everybody can see that Scandinavians are not very much more 'nordic' than other northern germanic populations: they have just less southern types and more of the 'borreby' very blond element (here, if I am not too confused for bones, I am in the dark concerning the 'borreby' model which has this very light pigmentation (or a common element give them both this trait, magnified by selection?)
concerning Coon, he feeled the problem of non-purity and unlevel deepth of his types - I reproach him having spoken more about populations than types, spite he showed some light but accurate differences sometimes -
what is a type for me : a panel of homozygotous traits numerically dominent inherited in a population and tending to break down a greater more ancient grouping of hereditary traits: as a rule populations of living beings tends to separate one from another at the condition that isolation is kept on - some convergences can occur for some traits even if the mutations are distinct, when life conditions are the same ones (so errors of distances estimations) - but since a long enough time, this process of differenciation founds opposition in the more and more frequent crossings by contacts between population grewed more numerous -
a lot of new thesis emerged these last years, and every type of scientist is trying to explain all things only through his sicence means of investigation: it is funny!
some new points of view are vaulabel as the tempering bones measures by taking in account the way of life (physical activity, diet, climate) - but I smile sometimes when I read some explanations basing all the differences of stature upon the diet (the "best" ("most") feeded, the higher - the higher the "stronger" - the upper facial index depending ONLY of the rate of mastication and so on... pupil's work! It recall me some scholars, one saying brachycephally along with gracility was acquired at the beginning of agriculture life when an other scholars claims concerning diferences between Pit Ware and more southern cultures of the Steppes that "archaic skeletic traits" were recovered by this same agriculture way of life!!!
so, if a type is not "pure", if it was well made out it can help to find some historical affinities and movements - let's say "regional statistical genetic partial specialization" in place of "subrace"... (I like to create this redoundant words!)