0
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,080 Given: 1,989 |
I‘m just discussing eye color and the Roman students were found slightly lighter eyed than the Portuense students with the 2012 GWAS study you reference.
~20% pure light eyes is not average for Southern Europe but rather on the high end. Serbians are lighter eyed than most Iberians and Italians. The very darkest eyed Europeans are ~10% or less pure light. Portuguese and Southern Italians (Davenport & Love found about 11% among American WWI veterans with Southern Italian grandparents) fall into this category. Tamagnini found 77.74% pure brown eyes among his Portuguese adult series which is near the 83% pure brown Coon mentions regarding Lebanese. The lighter eyed MENAs and darkest eyed Southern Europeans can overlap with pure brown eyes.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,495 Given: 731 |
On average, indeed, Serbs are lighter than Iberians - note that there is nothing wrong to be "swarthier"; it's just a phenotypical fact
We do not drink Coca-Cola three hours before a match
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,080 Given: 1,989 |
Supercomputer has been reflecting on this long after that account and even after my last 2021 account was banned:
He kept his map as is on the assumption that dark green and hazel was counted in Tamagnini’s dark eyes because it matches with ToeKneeHwin and was logical in the context of being similar to Spain by Hoyos Sainz.
The inconsistency is that dark eyes for Tamagnini did not include hazel or dark greenish but only mixtures of brown shades based on the definition I saved. Thus ~22% light eyes for Portugal included dark greenish or other hazel shades contrary to what the map says. Hoyos Sainz included so called grey-brown eyes as dark eyes as I showed but there is no explicit indication of this for Portugal with Tamagnini.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 13,757 Given: 3,218 |
The descriptions for categories 1 and 2 on both studies match, and i was just checking the Hoyos Sanz study and it has no reference of the Martin scale, it just has descriptions of what the categories mean.
It's blue for one and light mixed for the other one on both studies, it is these two categories that supercomputer added and put in his map.
Either way, i find it funny that you are worried with shades of brown from two populations from across the globe that have nothing to do with you. To the point that you decided to consider one of these populations MENA.
Are you autistic?
Thumbs Up |
Received: 614 Given: 830 |
I was dead serious when i said that Slovak and Ruthenians are on level with since i live in north of Serbia .On the other hand Croatian Slavicist Vatroslav Jagić wrote "
I would be sorry for Serbian type to disappear because its purer more Slavic than our Croatian ."
If you were to mix these Serbs from SE Serbia with local Slovaks and Ruthenians and group them together nobody could tell them apart.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,346 Given: 1,218 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,080 Given: 1,989 |
If you interpret the Tamagnini definition of dark eyes literally, yes. I may be taking it too literally. At a moderate distance of observation dark mixed and pure brown eyes can be almost indistinguishable. Virchow counted eyes that look homogeneously dark at a standard distance to be pure dark even if they had light element close up.
Evenly mixed eyes could not be confused for pure brown at a moderate distance and are clearly mixed. These were definitely not counted with dark eyes.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 7,147 Given: 5,749 |
no comment
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,346 Given: 1,218 |
How would they observe the iris from up close or at a considerable distance? For instance, is shining a certain amount of light directly at the iris a part of their methodology? Because as we are all aware, lighting can make a considerable amount of impact on how we perceive certain eye colours?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Bookmarks