{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015503875968992248, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.266990291262136, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Pitfalls of anthropological typology].

The essence of anthropological typology is to classify people as belonging to anthropological types according to predetermined sets of morphological traits. The authors of the concept claim that traits characteristic of a given type are monogenic and have a Mendelian inheritance pattern. According to these assumptions, it is possible to unambiguously determine hair or eye color, etc. on the basis of scull characteristics only. Such a solution could be of a great importance in identification based on the skeleton but for the fact that the concept contradicts the current body of knowledge of population genetics or evolutionary biology analyses. It is widely known that the vast majority of morphological traits is determined by a complex of cooperating genes. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that genetic distances between populations are low, while most of the diversity is attributed to intrapopulation variation. Therefore, rejecting the classic concept of race seems to be justified. For this reason, today it is more reasonable to use the panel of SNP markers (AIMs) in identification of unknown individuals while aiming at prediction of their ethnic ancestry rather than to believe in the scientific value of anthropological typology.