RESUMO
Assigning correct population affinity to a skeleton can contribute important information to an investigation-yet recent work highlights high error rates when classifying Latinos with a traditional tool, Fordisc 3.1 (FD3). Our study examines whether misclassification trends exist, and whether these can be used to infer population affinity. We examine the relationships among ancestry, geography, and FD3 misclassifications of Latinos using canonical variate analysis and unsupervised model-based clustering of craniometrics. Northern Mexicans appear more strongly associated with FD3 references samples with elevated amounts of European ancestry (e.g., American Blacks and Whites), while Southern Mexicans are more strongly associated with FD3 reference samples with reduced amounts of European ancestry (e.g., Guatemalans and Native Americans). FD3 classifications revealed that Latinos exhibited lower posterior probabilities when compared to other common case demographics (Whites and African Americas), even when the classification was "correct." We make recommendations for practitioner interpretation of FD3 reports for casework.
