I am creating this thread because I am tired of people irresponsibly classifying Northern Europeans as "Faelid", "Fälisch", "Phalian" etc without any kind of accountability and consistency.

The way to properly classify a person is to show how he approximates a pure example of a given type more than other types. To irresponsibly throw around "Dalofalid" on anybody who doesn't fit his idea of Nordic is both inaccurate and useless from a scientific point of view. I don't see any point with these classifications and they only devalue a classifier in my eyes.

So I have decided to get to the core of the problem, which I believe to be the SNPA's agenda and spreading of misconceptions about "Faelids". Before I get into this, let me point out that the present SNPA stance on Faelid is totally contrary to what they originally held, where they classified people like Schwarzenegger as Nordic with Upper Paleolithic admix "Origin: Iron Age Hallstatt Nordic altered by mixture with Upper Palaeolithic Borreby elements (or vice versa); a stabilized intermediate". More on this can befound here: https://theapricity.com/earlson/race/phalians.htm

Later, however, the SNPA (created by a Borreby Norwegian) came up with a new iteration (the present one), a more politically correct one without doubt, where Nordics are claimed to descend from Upper Paleolithics, with Faelids being a sort of "intermediate" in evolution, rather than simply being a mixture between the two types.

This is the SNPA gallery https://www.theapricity.com/snpa/rg-dalofalid.htm

Interestingly, though, Faelid was never meant as a mixture between Nordic and Upper Paleolithic, and much less an intermediate in evolution. Guenther coined the term "fälisch". In his gallery, which can be found here, most of his examples would be classified as Borreby or Upper Paleolithic in Coon's system.

Click image for larger version. 

Name:	istockphoto-1071430104-1024x1024.jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	548.3 KB 
ID:	115530

The man below, for example, was considered "predominantly Nordic with Phalian admixture" by Guenther. Most classifiers today, and without doubt the SNPA, would irresponsibly throw "Dalo-Falid" on him.

Somebody like Time Hildebrand would be classified as "Nordisch-Fälisch" by Guenther. To the SNPA, however, he is somehow a textbook example of Faelid and an evolutionary stepping stone between a Borreby and a Nordic.

Click image for larger version. 

Name:	media.media.981daa7b-07d4-47a7-9a92-3989444c2a58.original1024.jpg 
Views:	31 
Size:	58.4 KB 
ID:	115531

But, let's give the SNPA's version of Phalian a try.

In order for a new racial type to be recognized as such, two criteria have to be fulfilled:

a) distinctness: show how this is a new type and different from others described earlier
b) consistency: show how individuals belonging to this type are closer to each other in morphology than they are to other types

The SNPA's "Dalo-Falid" fails on both accounts. Firstly, it doesn't even attempt to describe a type, but rather a proposed spectrum of types, ranging from "unaltered Cromagnids" to "the border between Hallstatt Nordid and Dalo-Falid is often blurry".

Therefore, the SNPA is actually selling two things in one:

a) the two individuals below are derived form the same type
b) there exists a "spectrum" between the two types below, that can never be explained simply by mixtures but only by evolution

With that sort of reasoning, you could derive Mediterraneans from Amerindians in South America, because the two types have mixed producing intermediates.

Another question is: if every intermediate between Nordic and UP has to be seen as part of an evolutionary spectrum, then where does that leave the mixtures of the types? Should no taxon be created for these mixtures, just because they are light pigmented and from Northern Europe?

What is worse, is that the SNPA attempts to erase typology, giving less importance to physical types as such, and instead introduce a more politically correct approach to classifications, based on where a person is from and "genetic" gibberish rather than an actual morphological analysis.

There isn't much hope of finding morphological consistency in a gallery that does not even attempt to describe a single type, but an analysis of the examples in it unsurprisingly doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Brad Pitt, for example, is predominantly Borreby, possibly with Nordic and even native American admixture. Compared to Timo Hildebrand, Hildebrand is shown to be closer to a Nordic type than to him. This should make a classification of Hildebrand and Pitt as the same type impossible, specially when you have Max von Sydow belonging to a different taxon.


* The SNPA's approach to the Phalian question is at best confusing, and their "renovation" reeks of political correctness and an agenda to derive Nordics from Upper Paleolithics.

* Using "Dalo-Falid" in classifications amounts to little. It is simply an irresponsible way of saying "This person has a light complexion but doesn't look like a typical Nordic to me", without actually comparing him to a certain type and making a proper classification identifying which element predominates.

* "Dalo-Falid", "Phalian", "Faelid" and to some extent even "Borreby" and "Cromagnid" etc are irresponsibly being used like big garbage dumps, where people who don't conform to a certain ideal are thrown. These are not proper classifications, as they provide no morphological insight into the subjects being reviewed. Often times, these individuals are actually predominantly Nordic with Borreby or similar admixture.