In the real life world of biology, IIRC from my long ago biology classes, there isn’t anything like “race” in the system of Taxonomy.
Or am I wrong? Do wolves, bacteria and butterflies have ‘races’? (And if they do, who’d win?)
Seriously, are ‘races’ purely a social construct unique to Homo Sapiens? Or is this a term that is used to brake down other species into separate smaller groups? If so, what are they? Is this a practice that is more or less univerally accepted by and used by biologists around the world?
In scientific usage, “race” corresponds to subspecies - populations of a species that can be distinguised by morphological or other characteristics from other populations of the same species. In informal use, biologists frequently use “race” as synonomous with subspecies.
However, the taxonomic category of subspecies itself is not well defined. In the past, subspecies were frequently named on the basis of minor regional variantions, but that practice is now frowned upon.
Subspecies are best defined on the basis of several different characteristics that vary in a coordinated fashion, and where these correlated differences are stable over large areas but change abruptly over a limited area where the ranges of two populations meet. Such populations probably represent groups that were formerly separated and developed differences in isolation, but have now come together again. However, these differences are not enough to prevent free interbreeding in the contact zone, so that these populations are regarded as part of the same species.
Some characteristics may change gradually over a species’ range rather than abruptly in a contact zone. Such characters are called “clinal.” In the past, subspecies were often named on the basis of clinal characters (especially when data was lacking for intermediate areas), but under modern standards that is not regarded as being valid. This is particularly true when different clinal characters do not show concordant variation. For example, a species may be larger in the north and smaller in the south, and darker in the east and lighter in the west. In the past, taxonomists might recognize a large dark subspecies in the northeast, a small dark subspecies in the southeast, a large light one in the northwest, and a small light one in the southwest. Such subspecies would not be recognized under modern standards.
Most variation in humans is clinal and discordant. According to present taxonomic standards, there would be no basis to recognize subspecies, or “races” in the biological sense. Although local populations may differ in some characteristics, they do not do so in a taxonomically recognizable way. “Race,” as far as humans go, is a social construct.
On page 14 of the .pdf at NOMENCLATURE
AND TAXONOMY (from Wiley publishers, but I am not sure of the source),
they present a list of what the splitters have manged to wedge into the original seven (eight with the new supercategory “Domain”) categories we were taught in high scool biology.
Domain: Eucarya
Animals Plants
Kingdom Kingdom
Subkingdom
Phylum Division/Phylum
Subphylum Subdivision
Infraphylum Infradivision or Branch
Superclass
Class Class
Subclass Subclass
Infraclass
Supercohort
Cohort
Superorder Superorder
Grandorder
Mirorder
Order Order
Suborder Suborder
Infraorder
Superfamily
Family Family
Subfamily Subfamily
Tribe Tribe
Subtribe
Genus Genus
Subgenus Subgenus
Section
Subsection
Series
Subseries
Species Species
Subspecies; or Race, Breed Subspecies
Form Variety
Infrasubspecies; or Race Subvariety
Breed, Form Form
Subform
Cultivar
Note that in the Animal Kingdom, the splitters cannot even agree on where to place Race, Breed, and Form, but (apparently) some splitters have used those terms.
(Bolding mine) Thanks, Colibri, that is precisely the answer I was looking for.
tomndebb, thanks for your response as well, but - I note that you seem to use the term ‘the splitters’ (both in this thread and in the other referenced in the OP) in a somewhat less than completely fattering way - what’s the beef? (Don’t worry, I’m pretty sure I’m on your side …)
Sorry. I didn’t mean to imply anything negative about splitters. I take no sides in the splitters/lumpers disputes. In this case, it is pretty clear that a proliferation of sub-categories are more likely to be defined by splitters than lumpers, hence the verb “wedged,” but I hold no animus against them.
I suspect that I could easily be either a splitter or a lumper based on the utility to my decisions of the distinctions being made. Not being active in the biological sciences, I am merely an interested observer.
As an example of my own actions as a splitter, I would point to staff discussions regarding irritating posters where I distinguish between those who are deliberately trolling and those who are simply clueless as to how disruptive they are. Lumpers would simply categorize tham all as either trolls or jerks and ban them while I will do enough splitting to give the clueless a few more chances to behave themselves–and then ban them.
That may be the single best post I’ve seen on the issue of human races on this board.
And it points out an important point to keep in mind about “race”. Many people assume* that different populations of humans evolved into the modern “races” as isolated populations on the various continents for long periods of time and then, only in historical times, began coming together at the boundaries. That’s simply not the case. With a few recent exceptions (like The Americas and Tasmania), there has always been gene flow back and forth between the various continents and land masses, and no populations has been truly isolated for an extended period of time. Instead, human populations spread out from Africa some 60k years ago, with variations occuring as this spreading continued around the globe.
Even if we look at the Americas, that period of relative isolation is fairly brief (on the timescale of evolutionary change)-- our best evidence suggest that immigration from Asia started less than 15,000 years ago. And if we were to assume that a period of isolation ensued after the oceans rose at the end fo the Ice Age (as the DNA data suggests), there were still periods of new immigrations (like the ancestors of the Inuit or Eskimos) between then and now.
Looking at the rest of the globe, it doesn’t make sense to talk about geographically isolated populations. Europe and Asia form one landmass, East Africa and the Middle East are really one interconnected zone rather than two isolated zones, and even Australia has seen gene flow back and forth between the lands to its north.
This is not entirely true. Since a subspecies has no real biological definition, it is all “in the eye of the beholder.” There are many studies that still delineate subspecies, despite being clinal in character. It all depends on the nature of the study.
(I’m not sure I completely understand the question, let me know if I am off base…)
Since the three types of animals in your example are generally subject to artificial selection by human beings to select for characteristics we find desirable (or against characteristics we find undesirable) I’m not sure they are the best examples to compare against.
As I’m sure you know different subsets within such species are usually referred to as breeds rather than subspecies.
That was Colibri, not me, who posted that. But I agree with him and I think he gave a full explanation to your question in his original post. Keep in mind that there isn’t universal agreement (even among biologists) on the rules of taxonomy. It’s kind of like spelling English words. If we were starting from scratch we’d do things differently, but there are historical conventions that hand around whether they make sense anymore or not.
Believe me when I say that any color or morphological variation you see in this photos is purely individual, except the yellow coloration on the upper half of the eyes on the more southern population. Otherwise they are identical in habit, habitat and general appearance. Where their range meets a little north of the SF Bay Area they form nice little “hybrid zone” wherein you can find individuals that have just a slight gold dusting to the upper eyes :).
Ensatinas are a rather more complex species group that just the above, but those two subspecies in particular are a perfect example of common naming conventions in biology. A very non-vagile organism, with relatively modest gene flow between distant populations, wherein a genetic mutation has cropped up in one population coding for one small ( and likely non-adaptive ) physical variation, has been seperated into two taxonomic subgroups by scientists. As a descriptor of population it’s handy shorthand. But these are the same critter in every respect except eye color.
Nor I. I merely resist splitting where ever practical when arguments bring up “race”. I have 2 grandchildren of mixed heritage. Everyone, I should make that nearly everyone else wants to pigeon hole them into some type of “race”. It is my firm belief that we should all try to find a way to stop at just the one “race” - the Human Race.
It should be noted that with everything else (as with your example) I’m the worst splitter (read that as nit-picker) on the planet. (Just ask my wife …)
What I said above. The modern standard, to the extent that there is one, is to not recognize new subspecies on the basis of clinal characters. Taxonomic revisions these days tend to abolish (that is, recommend not to recognize) previously recognized subspecies that were based solely on clinal variation. Taxonomists who favor the Phylogenetic Species Concept, on the other hand, tend to “promote” non-clinal (phylogenetic) subspecies to species, even if they interbreed and thus are only subspecies according to the Biological Species Concept.
Could you cite a paper in a peer-reviewed journal that recognizes subspecies where the variation is purely clinal in nature? (I dunno, maybe the botanists are still doing that kind of stuff. But they’re pretty eccentric in general.
I’m in the process right now of describing a new species of bird in Africa that by some standards might be considered a subspecies. Unfortunately I am afraid this is going to embroil me in the PSC-BSC wars.
I presume you are talking about breeds of domestic animals. Since these have been established through artificial selection by humans, they are outside the framework of the taxonomic system. But these breeds do not correspond to human “races” either, since purebreds generally have much more homogeneity than human races.
Since when did they let you off your island to go to Africa :D? And is it at least a sunbird or some other sort of hummingbird analog?
I remember back in the early 1990’s when I still followed this stuff closely, Joseph Collins proposed raising 50-odd subspecies to full species based on the ESC. The howls of outrage echoed through journals like Herpetological Review for months. Nice to see nothing has changed in the last decade and a half :p.
I did some work in Gabon in 2001-2003. It’s a member of the thrushes, but more than that I cannot say until the paper goes in.
However, we found it in Mt. Doudou National Park in Gabon, at a miserable camp in a swamp which we referred to as Deep Doudou. We are contemplating naming it bathydoudouensis.
OK, I grok the Biological Species Concept (if two critters can and do mate successfully, they’re the same species). But what is the Phylogenetic Species Concept, and the ESC, which I presume is some other species concept?
And Colibri, just to make sure I understand your example properly: If the critters to the north were both larger and had lighter colors, and maybe shorter tails, too, while the southern critters were smaller, darker, and long-tailed, but they still freely interbred at the interface, then they would likely be considered different subspecies by the modern standard, correct?
