On epicanthic folds

[Linus]

These are vertical skin folds over the inner or medial angle of the eyelids.
They are normal during foetal development from the third to sixth month. In Caucasians, they are rarely seen after birth but in mongolian races, they persist into adult life. Caucasian children with epicanthic folds often have a broad flat nose with widely separated eyes. There may appear to be a convergent squint.
In epicanthus tarsalis, the superior lid fold is continuous medially with the epicanthal fold; in epicanthus inversus, the skinfold blends into the lower lid.
Examination for suspected squint shows that the eyes are straight. The squint can be made to disappear by pinching up the loose skin over the bridge of the nose.
The condition results from a lack of vertical skin between the canthus and the nose. In Caucasians, the epicanthus often disappears at puberty or before as the nose develops. In more severe cases, surgical correction aimed at vertical lengthening and horizontal shortening may be beneficial.

Originally Posted by Lundman

We find weak, but well-attested, Mongolid traits among the blondest East-Baltid groups. These traits show how old - in part before the process of depigmentation - a weak Mongolid admixture must be in northern Russia, from the northeast onward. The Races and Peoples of Europe, Bertil Lundman, New York, 1977

On Osteuropids in Hungary:

Of the young children occurs "mongoloid fold."

From Denmark (possibly Lappid admixture):

http://img90.echo.cx/img90/2488/migselv7np.jpg

[Agrippa]

I just wonder if some of this "Hungarian Osteuropids" have direct Lappoid or even Aralid, Eurasian admixture...

[Linus]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

I just wonder if some of this "Hungarian Osteuropids" have direct Lappoid or even Aralid, Eurasian admixture...

Seeing too many differences is as bad as overlooking almost all.

The overview I created is now quite detailed on every feature with the following subraces:

Scando-Nordid
East-Nordid
Cromagnid
Alpinid
North-Atlantid
Atlanto-Mediterranid
Indid
Arabid
Armenid
Dinarid
Borreby
Osteuropid

Tungid
Sinid
Paleo-Mongoloid

Sudanid
Pygmid
Nilotid
Kafrid
Khoisanid

I still have problems with distinguishing more than three Mongoloid types, the Negrids are finished thanks to Nordgau's article from Eickstedt and the forensic samples I found in the internet.

Variations with only about 3-4 pecularities (f.e. the narrow face of Nordsinids) will be separately mentioned in the bigger subrace they are close to.

It's as good as complete just as the design of the site, now I must realize the way I want to present it. I had a very good idea the day before yesterday. I also searched for and uploaded a stockpile of skull pictures in chronological order which will be on the site.

[Agrippa]

You are right about Mongolids, Sibirids show partly more primitive features and various admixture, but are otherwise quite close to Tungids. So 3 basic subraces might be enough for Mongolids if you generalise quite much, but not if you include Eskimids, which are really different (as are some Sibirid populations, but Sibirids are just not homogenous enough probably, Eskimids are) and the Indianid types.
The Indianids show quite some variation. So what you system lacks most are categories for Indianids in my opinion. Probably Western Europe and Nordids have too many subraces, whereas some others not enough.
Where would you include Lappids? In general Osteuropids?

I'm already curious to see the results.

[Linus]

Just for a matter of completeness, the scan from Skadi about the epicanthus:

Originally Posted by Agrippa

You are right about Mongolids, Sibirids show partly more primitive features and various admixture, but are otherwise quite close to Tungids. So 3 basic subraces might be enough for Mongolids if you generalise quite much, but not if you include Eskimids, which are really different (as are some Sibirid populations, but Sibirids are just not homogenous enough probably, Eskimids are) and the Indianid types.
The Indianids show quite some variation. So what your system lacks most are categories for Indianids in my opinion.

Concerning Americans of today only the South American types might be of significance if it's about quanitity...

Probably Western Europe and Nordids have too many subraces, whereas some others not enough.

So I will drop mentioning the North-Atlantid? It's supposed to be related with the Megalithic type of Coon which sounds interesting. Just supposedly many North-Atlantids of today also have either Atlanto-Mediterranid or Nordid admixture or both.

I agree that Atlanto-Mediterranids have variances in the Mediterranid or Dinarid spectrum. So still a distintion between Atlanto-Mediterranid and small Mediterranean could be made, Coon claims the small type shows less refined features which is not always the case if it's about the link with height imho. If Atlanto-Mediterranid includes mesocephaly, it's basically the same as Pontid as well, which are mesocephalic and very long-faced.

Mediterranean Proper (hereafter meant when the word "Mediterranean" is used alone): Short stature, about 160 cm.; skull length 183-187 mm. male mean; vault height 132-137 mm. mean; cranial index means 73-75; browridges and bone development weak, face short, nose leptorrhine to mesorrhine. Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency.

Where would you include Lappids? In general Osteuropids?

Yes, the phenotypes overlap. However Lappids also have a few quite atypical traits like the low midface or very shallow jaw, unique robust traits etc. They aren't merely an identical continuation of the Osteuropid type but still most similar.

[Agrippa]

A distinction between Atlantomediterranid and Gracilmediterranid is definitely important, but I'd say thats subtype-difference, not type-subrace one. Especially if you make no difference between the Indid types (Nordindid, Indobrachid, Gracilindid), because the differences are at least almost as big.