I never "thought" anything. Don't put words in my mouth. I was mocking you; not myself - I'm not that dumb. And Australoids and Negroids must be relative in some way, don't they? Don't go off topic; changing the subject here...
No, the topic was whether or not Dravidians, Australian natives, and south Pacific folk are classified as Australoid, and, they are. I'm not sure why that otherwise valid map classed all of India as Caucasoid, probably just laziness since the situation in India is more complex, but:
"The Elamo-Dravidians are said to be Neolithic settlers from modern-day south western Iran. They are assumed to be darker skinned Caucasian people with slender body and built and copper skin tone. They are usually lumped with the Mediterranean race. They must have taken the route from the erstwhile Elam region via Balochistan to the Indus region around 8000 to 7000 B.C., where they are often credited to have built the famed Harappan civilization. They eventually mixed with the local Austro-Asiatic peoples, who were of Proto-Australoid and Paleo-Mongoloid stock. The admixture was liberal, steady and stabilised. As a result, most modern day Dravidians have clear and dominant Australoid features."
That's modern anthropology talking.
First, you tried to claim that the Australoid designation didn't exist, or that it was obsolete(not sure which, because your posts are so incoherent, but, I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth!), then, faced with the fact that it does, you tried to use a pre-Piltdown man era map to suggest that Australian natives are Negroid, which of course they aren't. You seem to think that dark-skinned=Negroid, which is hilarious
I also never said or even implied that the Negroid and Australoid types aren't related, since obviously all modern Humans are related, so, try taking your own advice(if you can) and stop putting words in people's mouths.