Forensic Anthropology Vol. 2, No. 4: 1–11 DOI: 10.5744/fa.2019.1005 © 2019 University of Florida Press Introduction The estimation of ancestral affliation of unidentifed foren- sic skeletal cases is an integral part of the identifcation pro- cess. Not only does ancestry offer an avenue for narrowing down putative identifcations, but knowing ancestry also fur - ther calibrates other biological profle components, such as age, sex, and stature. Ancestry can also be one of the most chal- lenging of these inferred parameters. From a statistical stand- point, the classifcations are conditional on the assumption that reference data sets capture the range of pertinent human variation for any given case. In actual practice, many groups remain underrepresented or absent in these data sets, and, because reference materials are opportunistically acquired, even large samples are often limited in coverage, so that clas- sifcation analyses must operate under the unrealistic expec- tation of broad regional homogeneity. The increasing ethnic diversity of the United States and the growth of transnational metropolises around the world necessitate a more inclusive approach to forensic anthropological case methods. Best-practice recommendations for forensic anthropol- ogists caution practitioners against the use of reference sam- ples that are not representative of the unidenti fed skeletal remains in question, whether in terms of sex cohort, biogeo- graphic population, or time period (Scientifc Working Group for Forensic Anthropology 2012). However, in the applied context of medicolegal casework, rarely is the case subject to forensic anthropological evaluation drawn from a closed population where “ancestry” is a priori known. When case ancestry is truly unknown, reference samples that may or may not be representative of the unknown’s population of origin must be used to provide an estimate of ancestry for the indi- vidual case. While it is unrealistic for any ancestry method to include every possible population, we contend that it is also unnecessary when appropriate statistical tools and ade- quate reference populations are available for ancestry infer - ence, as in the case of Fordisc (Jantz & Ousley 1993, 2005, 2012; Ousley & Jantz 1996, 2012). Fordisc 3.1 (FD3) makes it possible for a broad audience of forensic anthropologists to apply discriminant function a Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA b SNA International, supporting the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, Central Identifcation Laboratory, Joint Base Pearl Harbor– Hickam, HI 96853, USA c Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA d DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine, Lincoln Memorial University, Harrogate, TN 37752, USA e Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA *Correspondence to: Matthew C. Go, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 109 Davenport Hall, 607 South Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA E-mail: mgo4@illinois.edu Received 26 December 2018; Revised 30 December 2018; Accepted 18 January 2019 RESEARCH ARTICLE Classifcation Trends among Contemporary Filipino Crania Using Fordisc 3.1 Matthew C. Go a,b* ● Ansley R. Jones a ● Bridget F. B. Algee-Hewitt c ● Beatrix Dudzik d ● Cris E. Hughes a,e ABSTRACT: Filipinos represent a signifcant contemporary demographic group globally, yet they are underrepresented in the foren- sic anthropological literature. Given the complex population history of the Philippines, it is important to ensure that traditional methods for assessing the biological profle are appropriate when applied to these peoples. Here we analyze the classifcation trends of a modern Filipino sample ( n = 110) when using the Fordisc 3.1 (FD3) software. We hypothesize that Filipinos represent an admixed population drawn largely from Asian and marginally from European parental gene pools, such that FD3 will classify these individuals morphometrically into reference samples that refect a range of European admixture, in quantities from small to large. Our results show the greatest classif- cation into Asian reference groups (72.7%), followed by Hispanic (12.7%), Indigenous American (7.3%), African (4.5%), and European (2.7%) groups included in FD3. This general pattern did not change between males and females. Moreover, replacing the raw craniometric values with their shape variables did not signifcantly alter the trends already observed. These classifcation trends for Filipino crania pro- vide useful information for casework interpretation in forensic laboratory practice. Our fndings can help biological anthropologists to better understand the evolutionary, population historical, and statistical reasons for FD3-generated classifcations. The results of our study indicate that ancestry estimation in forensic anthropology would beneft from population-focused research that gives consideration to his- tories of colonialism and periods of admixture. KEYWORDS: forensic anthropology, admixture, ancestry estimation, postcolonialism, Fordisc 3.1, Philippines