The Five Sub-Races of Man
For so long I have heard of three divisions of man: Caucasian, Negroid, Mongoloid. But Coon wrote that there are five: Caucasian, Congoid, Capoid, Australoid and Mongoloid.
He asserts that even though Capoid, Congoid and even the Negritos all have dark skin and curly hair, they are not closely related. What does current genetics say about this? Anyone know? He places the Negritos in the Australoid family.
Dravidians, who inhabit the Southern Portion of the Indian sub-continent, are no closer genetically to Congoids than Caucasoid populations, suggesting convergent evolution as the main factor in producing an appearance similar to that of the sub-saharan African.He asserts that even though Capoid, Congoid and even the Negritos all have dark skin and curly hair, they are not closely related. What does current genetics say about this? Anyone know? He places the Negritos in the Australoid family.
As both races inhabit equatorial climates, this should come as no surprise really.
Dravidians are part of the Australoid family as well I think. He mentions there being pockets of Australoids in India.
Yeah, exactly. (edit: referring to what Tronder says. Cosmocreator was three minutes too fast with his new post) The same is with the Negritos, the "little Negroes" of the Andaman Isles. They've got certain Negroid features, because the're was partly a similar development of features, but they don't belong to the Negrids, to the African Negroes.
The same with all of the old, primitive, undeveloped races in the whole area from India over South nEast Asia to Australia and Island groups in the South Sea: The Australids are called Austral Negroes in some older works, but that's misleading.
A division of man first in the three great higher developed race groups - though these three forms developed in different ways and also show different levels of development in their sub-forms: Europids (Caucasids), Negrids (Congids), Mongolids.
Australids, Melanesids, Drawida people, Negritids, Tasmanids etc. are all "Old races": the less developed or even quite undeveloped "rest stuff" of mankind: remained forms, not numerous, pushed back into uninviting spaces.
Though we can throw them in a great view somehow together as "Old forms", there was between several of them no or very little contact, and they differ in their special anthropological features: Negritos, Tasmanids and others are with taxonomical rights own races; that they are very small in their number, compared e. g. with hundered millions of Mongolids, doesn't alter anything of this fact.
It's of course always a problem how many races "exactly" one should count, and what "the" exact number of man's races is, because in cases of close relationship or contact forms or only less different development, it's really the question if one wants to draw a line between two clear different races or not (e. g. Australo-Melanesids together as one form? [and then these again together with primitive forms in India?])
A good question are also the primitive forms of Southern Africa and the Pygmids in the Jungle. I would count them as primitive forms, prushed into uninviting living spaces, but as such forms within the Negrids.
What the hell are the Capoids???
Last edited by Nordgau; Sunday, August 3rd, 2003 at 10:34 PM.
I believe he's refering to Bushmen or Hottentots or both...Originally Posted by Tryggviulf
The proper term is Khoisanid race.
Their unreduced predecessor, known as the Boskop find, contains some hallmarks that Montandon defines as cromagnoid, the feeble outset of the superciliary arches, the steep forehead and much more remarkeable the pentagonoid outline of the vault, that however stretches to punctuated to the hindpart to allow overlap with the Europid form.
The facial skeleton is very infantil, and dwarfes away under a bulging braincap.
However, while today's Bushmen are small-headed, quite short in lenght and incredible narrow in breadth, this Boskop type measured 205mm by 150mm...perhaps its ancestors from North Africa mingled with local Neanderthaler residents, as in Europe, this element could have undergone dramatical change in the main dimensional composition of the face, namely the general broadening which leads to a low and broad, square if not squat face, wherein the alveolar prognatism in that case signifies nothing more than a by-effect of the retraction of the prow-like position of the Neanderthaler mid-face, a ugly relict with however no connoctations of Negrid element(which imo would have result in a rather chimp-like muzzle of the mouth part, the Black race is after all the least neotenic race).
So what do you guys think about Coon's assertion that the races of man are older than the species?
Aaah... now I see. Eickstedt's Khoisanids. I couldn't associate anything with the term "Capoid", but now I realize in my mind that it relates to the geographical "Cape (of Good Hope)"
personally, but under caution, I feel more for Weinert's theory of a world wide neanderthaloid stage, to which I would add that somehow Europids and Australids hark in their morphology back to this ancestral form, however while Australids degenerated and Veddids stagnated, Mongolids galloping in ever evolving neoteny, Europids spiral back and forth in their phylogeny and seem to withstand the neccesity to yield for the forces of nature and the demands of changing subsistence patterns, it's the least physical adapted and specialized race to exist; with a boutade one could say that all the others are branched off from the White Race, in time even expendable since their accomodations are their narrow-cracked answer to a certain life zone which wont last for ever....
I could see all races being derived from Europid since the fetuses of all races and all monkeys for that matter have a long nose in the earliest stage of fetal development.
Mongoloids seemed to be the ones who have adapted best to different environments. Only they live in the artic and at elevations above 10,000 feet (Tibet and Andes) but also in the tropics of SE Asia.
I was wondering about specialization. It seems that those races or species that became specialized are the ones that became extinct when faced with invading new races or species. Are we Europeans becoming specialized? I mean economically since the industrial revolution labor has been divided, specialized. And it is becoming more so I believe. Areas of knowledge are becoming so vast that it takes a specialist to understand his particular area -- but also takes an "integrator" to put all those specialist together to make the whole workable.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks