my phenotype and where do I pass

Austrian, could also pass in Southern and Central Germany.
 
statistically, more British (not Anglo-Saxon-like), Irish (skin, eyes, high occiput); but there is no absolute certitude about some phenotypes even less when onebody posts people pics because these people have not any evident stereotypic looks of their original countries.
 
MOESAN said:
statistically, more British (not Anglo-Saxon-like), Irish (skin, eyes, high occiput); but there is no absolute certitude about some phenotypes even less when onebody posts people pics because these people have not any evident stereotypic looks of their original countries.
Click to expand...

some say I am alpine because I am large-headed, british are mostly narrow skulled, right?
 
nick6899 said:
some say I am alpine because I am large-headed, british are mostly narrow skulled, right?
Click to expand...

'alpine' stereotype is brachycephalic, you are not; rather meso-subdolichocephalic, based on these pics. Even your face is not broad, only middle, in proportions. Today, in Western Europe, the linking of rather long and narrow skulls with broad and short faces in found in Britain (more Welsh people) even if some southern people (Portugal, Sardinia) could show this linking too, withtout too direct link with Britain.
The long faced subdolicho type of 'nordic' is more common in Eastern England, even if every kind of type can be found there, of course!
 
MOESAN said:
'alpine' stereotype is brachycephalic, you are not; rather meso-subdolichocephalic, based on these pics. Even your face is not broad, only middle, in proportions. Today, in Western Europe, the linking of rather long and narrow skulls with broad and short faces in found in Britain (more Welsh people) even if some southern people (Portugal, Sardinia) could show this linking too, withtout too direct link with Britain.
The long faced subdolicho type of 'nordic' is more common in Eastern England, even if every kind of type can be found there, of course!
Click to expand...

yes I did the measures, i am brachycephalic.
 
nick6899 said:
yes I did the measures, i am brachycephalic.
Click to expand...


in old creteria, brachycehalic began over 84, the mean of typical regions was between 85 and 89.
it's brachycrania which began over 80; I can have mistaken based on your pics. Are you over 84?
 
MOESAN said:
in old creteria, brachycehalic began over 84, the mean of typical regions was between 85 and 89.
it's brachycrania which began over 80; I can have mistaken based on your pics. Are you over 84?
Click to expand...

what is the difference between brachycephalic and brachycrania? I know you are bracycephalic if you have a CI of over 80, I am between 82-83.
 
nick6899 said:
what is the difference between brachycephalic and brachycrania? I know you are bracycephalic if you have a CI of over 80, I am between 82-83.
Click to expand...


Brachycrania being lower and measured on the skull. Its the difference between bony parts on the dead and soft parts on the living. Brachycrania starts with 80, brachycephaly with 81.
 
Riverman said:
Brachycrania being lower and measured on the skull. Its the difference between bony parts on the dead and soft parts on the living. Brachycrania starts with 80, brachycephaly with 81.
Click to expand...

You are correct in the academical sense for these definitions.
But in practise, if we base ourselves on the means of cephalic indexes of the Human species, the 20th Cy ones are for the most between 72 and 90, and individuals between say 67 and 100 (extreme cases). In Europe, the mean of regions means around the 1830/40's were about 82 (today it would turn I think around 80 - in the 30/40's in Europe, the most dolicho country was Portugal, about 76 - the most brachy Albania about 87; extremes (sub)regions were about 73-74 (limited places in Portugal, S-Italy, Corsica) or 88-89 S-Albania, S-Auvergne in France, some places in Czechia... the so called 'alpine' regions showed means of 85 to 89, the 'dinaric' ones 85 to 87, and in these regions all individuals were not doichocehalic, so an index of 83, even 84 was not purely brachycephalic, rather subbrachy-.
I think that to qualify a skull as brachycrania or brachecephalic when just over 80 or 81 is mistaking: it's in fact a mesaticephal IMO.

Our friend nick6899 would have been between 84 and 85 in 1930 I bet, so sub-brachycehalic.
I avow I did'nt see his skull relatively so broad on the pic's here.
29-11-21, 00:09 #11
nick6899
 
@nick6899
have you well taken your head length at its occipital maximum?: if taken under it, it can change a bit.
 
MOESAN said:
I think that to qualify a skull as brachycrania or brachecephalic when just over 80 or 81 is mistaking: it's in fact a mesaticephal IMO.
Click to expand...

No its not. Everything above 81 is brachycephalic for males and this is nowadays even more true than in the past, because the heads got longer and narrower in Europeans rather than shorter and broader by environmental factors and heterosis, heterogeneity, in which longer shapres being more dominant in West Eurasians usually. You can divide it into more subcategories, but 81 is definitely not mesocephalic by any means.
Some might even use 80:
https://jemds.com/latest-articles.php?at_id=3010
 
Riverman said:
No its not. Everything above 81 is brachycephalic for males and this is nowadays even more true than in the past, because the heads got longer and narrower in Europeans rather than shorter and broader by environmental factors and heterosis, heterogeneity, in which longer shapres being more dominant in West Eurasians usually. You can divide it into more subcategories, but 81 is definitely not mesocephalic by any means.
Some might even use 80:


https://jemds.com/latest-articles.php?at_id=3010
Click to expand...


You didn't read accutely my post: I wrote: You are correct in the academical sense for these definitions.
you are refering to the academic criteria based I think on their studies about ancient pop's which were as a whole more dolichocephalc than modern ones; the paleo/mesolithic groups of Europe had means comprises between 70 and 76 maxi, except some seldom small places in mesolithic;
I find better to speak of mesocephaly when we take the pop's which are in the mean itself close to the middle of the total range;
Even scholars of ancient times did not say a pop around 81 was brachécephalic, so themselves took some liberty with academic definition; this old concept was rather reserved to crania. I am not interested in a debate about terms, and you are legid to do with these official definitions; it's only terminlogy. I agree concerning the late evolution towards more dolichocephaly in industrial countries, under more than a factor, I wrote it already.
But a 81 IC skull looked at it from the top doesn't evok a round head, ony kind of a short irregular oval head. And no full 'alpine' or 'dinaric' types of the 30/40's was under 86, in fact; otherwise it was rather the result of crossings. The curves of IC graphics (Yugoslavia BI) were clear enough about that. (they are not 'bell curves')
 
MOESAN said:
You didn't read accutely my post: I wrote: You are correct in the academical sense for these definitions.
you are refering to the academic criteria based I think on their studies about ancient pop's which were as a whole more dolichocephalc than modern ones; the paleo/mesolithic groups of Europe had means comprises between 70 and 76 maxi, except some seldom small places in mesolithic;
I find better to speak of mesocephaly when we take the pop's which are in the mean itself close to the middle of the total range;
Even scholars of ancient times did not say a pop around 81 was brachécephalic, so themselves took some liberty with academic definition; this old concept was rather reserved to crania. I am not interested in a debate about terms, and you are legid to do with these official definitions; it's only terminlogy. I agree concerning the late evolution towards more dolichocephaly in industrial countries, under more than a factor, I wrote it already.
But a 81 IC skull looked at it from the top doesn't evok a round head, ony kind of a short irregular oval head. And no full 'alpine' or 'dinaric' types of the 30/40's was under 86, in fact; otherwise it was rather the result of crossings. The curves of IC graphics (Yugoslavia BI) were clear enough about that. (they are not 'bell curves')
Click to expand...

so you think my head is just slightly alpinid..
 
@nick6899
for what my opinion is worth, yes; some input, not the well evolved 'alpine' phenotype.
 
I will guess Italian based on your flag
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 5391 times.

Back
Top