If the subjects' ancestors came from all over the inhabited world, the clusters that first emerge will identify the five major races: Asians, Caucasians, sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans and the original inhabitants of Australia and Papua New Guinea.
What the heck are "Asians?
Turks, Arabs, Indians, Malaysians, Chinese?
Seems to me that's WAY too much diversity to consider a single race.
Haven´t read the book yet, but I would guess that “asians” are a joint term for north-east and south-east asians (I:e. turks and arabs are caucasians, not “asians”).
There is certainly a lot of diversity within every such “racial category”, but we are facing a problem of informational economy here with no fixed categories.
On a recent BBC documentary, I forget which one, they used genetics to somehow trace all human races and nationalities down their various branches to determine who was the most direct living descendent of the first human. It turned out to be a nomad living in tent somewhere in Kazakhstan. When the BBC film crew showed up to interview him and celebrate their discovery, they brought a doctor with them. When the man saw the doctor he was visibly disturbed because, as he said later, he thought that if the doctor brought such a crowed with him, it must be to tell him that he had some very serous disease.
Turks, Arabs, Indians, Malaysians, Chinese?
I think even Murray might have been hesitant to use those old anthropological designations for the races: caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid.
You probably know that Turks, Arabs and Indians are caucasians. Malaysians and Chinese are mongoloids.