# Biological taxonomy and 'race' **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 12, 2006, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047 "2006-03-12T15:50:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/21 "2006-03-12T23:46:32Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 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? [This article](http://www.mscok.edu/~bstewart/bstewart/classes/zoology/species.htm) has a discussion of various species concepts. The ESC is the Evolutionary Species Concept, which is similar to but not exactly the same as the PSC. Personally, I favor the BSC. However, although we are certain our African bird is a good PSC species, we don’t know if it is a good BSC species. > [@](#): > > 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? It depends on how the characteristics changed and how they were correlated with one another. If, say: 1. The northern population were all large, light, and short-tailed, and these characters did not vary systematically over a 1000 km of this form’s range 2. The southern were all small, dark, and long-tailed, and these characters did not vary over 1000 km of this forms range 3. In the area where these two met, there was a hybrid zone of perhaps 50 km where these two forms freely interbreed and produced intermediates.\* Then, according to the BSC, they would be subspecies of the same species. According to the PSC, they would be separate species, since the PSC doesn’t care about interbreeding. By the PSC, the two forms would be “diagnosable” across most of their ranges and thus be good PSC species. If, however, the characters varied gradually over the range of the species, so that there was no point at which one could draw a clear demarcation between the populations, then by modern standards they would not be accepted as subspecies by either the BSC or PSC. \*If hybridization occurred but was rare or limited in this zone, the BSC would consider them to be full species. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/22 "2006-03-13T01:35:03Z")
Colibri’s write up about subspecies is pretty darn good. For other reasons, scientists no longer use the term “race” in application to Humans. And “breed” is right out. **Population** is the now accepted term. The old “races” have been shown to have very little to do with genetics- those dark skinned people once lumped together as “Negroid” are members of many different Populations anyway- the Australian Abo is no more part of the same Population of a Masai than I am. The Australian Aborigines are a good example of a Population, BTW. If you think of a Population as a Tribe or group of tribes you will come close, but that’s not really right, either (some Tribes are indeed Populations, true, but not all, and the lines aren’t always along tribal borders, either) Other that various pre-historic Humans\*, we also don’t split Humankind into Subspecies either. True, _extreme_ “splitters” _could_ possibly argue that some Populations are Subspecies, but in general, biologists “don’t go there”. The defintion of a subspecies is rather fuzzy and not 100% agreed upon, and Humans move around a lot, anyway. \*and there is disagreement even there. Is Neanderthal Man _Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis_? Or _Homo Neanderthalis?_ Species or Sub-species? Maybe even neither? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![LucyInDisguise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucyindisguise/32/18064_2.png) [@LucyInDisguise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LucyInDisguise)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/23 "2006-03-13T02:56:51Z")
**DrDeth** , **Colibri** , your two are my new heroes. I’m definitely getting my nickel’s worth out of this. So, **DrDeth** , if I understand correctly, the term Population has supplanted the term race in describing Human Beings - at least as far as the strict sciences go, correct? How far behind, in your opinion, will social scientists be before they are willing to recognize this? Lucy ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/24 "2006-03-13T03:08:42Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > \*and there is disagreement even there. Is Neanderthal Man _Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis_? Or _Homo Neanderthalis?_ Species or Sub-species? Maybe even neither? 😕 Most anthropologists say “species”, by quite a large margin. However, at the very least Neanderthals would qualify as a subspecies. The line leading to them and the line leading to us split about 500,000 years ago, and the two populations were probably isolated from each other to a large extent. That would be plenty of time to earn the subspecies status. (And you’d write it _neanderthalensis_, whether as a species or subspeicies name.) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/25 "2006-03-13T03:37:31Z")
> [@LucyInDisguise](#): > > the term Population has supplanted the term race in describing Human Beings It is not so much that one has supplanted the other as that we recognize that “race” has no useful meaning (as it originally was used to describe a great many diverse groups based on some arbitrarily chosen similarities) while “population” identifies much smaller groups for which we can assemble actual facts regarding genetics, descent, kinship, etc. For example, the discussions about better athletic performance by “race” generally includes a mention of the Kenyan marathon runners, most (all?) of whom are actually from a smaller fairly well-defined population of people known as [Kalenjin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalenjin). There is no legitimate way to equate this specific ethnic group (population) of fewer people than live in Chicago with a “race.” The one term did not replace the other so much as the discussion moved to a better and more accurate way to examine issues. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/26 "2006-03-13T04:13:47Z")
> [@LucyInDisguise](#): > > if I understand correctly, the term Population has supplanted the term race in describing Human Beings - at least as far as the strict sciences go, correct? **tomndebb** has pretty well summed up the situation as far as biology goes. Plants and animals in general can be talked about in terms of populations; in some cases the kind of variation shown between some populations can be categorized in terms of subspecies (or race, in the technical biological sense). Humans do not show the kind of variation that merits recognition as subspecies, so it is inappropriate to use the term “race” with respect to this variation. > [@](#): > > How far behind, in your opinion, will social scientists be before they are willing to recognize this? Well, “race” does have some sort of meaning in the social sense. Certainly “race” is recognized in US society. It is, however, important to realize that race in this sense is a social construct (as has been said before), and does not correspond at all to its biological meaning. It has more meaning as an ethnic/social category than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Tourt\_Eroglik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tourt\_Eroglik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tourt_Eroglik)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/27 "2006-03-13T05:39:29Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Personally, I favor the BSC. Why? It ignores history. What are the advantages of the BSC that make you favour it? ---
**Author:** ![Tourt\_Eroglik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tourt\_Eroglik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tourt_Eroglik)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/28 "2006-03-13T05:54:38Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Could you cite a paper in a peer-reviewed journal that recognizes subspecies where the variation is purely clinal in nature? Sure could. Can you wait until morning? Not sure why it’s needed, though. I think you might be ignoring step clines, in which the “plateaus” are often assigned subspecies status, though. Not all clines are linear, which do indeed pose a problem as to where the delineation should be. ---
**Author:** ![Tourt\_Eroglik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tourt\_Eroglik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tourt_Eroglik)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/29 "2006-03-13T06:24:46Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > 1. The northern population were all large, light, and short-tailed, and these characters did not vary systematically over a 1000 km of this form’s range > > Then, according to the BSC, they would be subspecies of the same species. According to the PSC, they would be separate species, since the PSC doesn’t care about interbreeding. By the PSC, the two forms would be “diagnosable” across most of their ranges and thus be good PSC species. Where did you get this 1000km figure? And no, I’m not sure you fully understand the PSC. The PSC does not declare A and B to be separate species just because they are diagnosable. This sounds more like Linnean phenetics. No, the PSC is merely a tool for identifying what _could_ be species, based on ancestry and shared characters, via cladistic analysis. It then requires an actual research program (beyond the cladistics that many consider the PSC to be) to determine if specation has been both initiated and completed. I high recommend, especially if you are attempting to describe a species, _The Nature of Diversity: An Evolutionary Voyage of Discovery_ (Brooks & McClennan 2002). It goes into great detail regarding the phylogenetic methods. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/30 "2006-03-13T15:29:14Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Most anthropologists say “species”, by quite a large margin. However, at the very least Neanderthals would qualify as a subspecies. The line leading to them and the line leading to us split about 500,000 years ago, and the two populations were probably isolated from each other to a large extent. That would be plenty of time to earn the subspecies status. > > (And you’d write it _neanderthalensis_, whether as a species or subspeicies name.) You’re right, I spelled it wrong. Spellchecker didn’t help! I vote “subspecies” myself, but honestly, there’s too much guesswork for pre-historic species to be absolutely sure. \*\* LucyInDisguise\*\*, you are more or less correct. “Race” still has some validty for the Social Sciences; but even there, lumping people together primarily on skin color is still wrong, IMHO. Even for the Social sciences, there should be at least 4 “black races” (note, I don’t like that term, but ☹ ) But Colibri & Tomndebb did all the hard thinking here, I just tried to make the terms a little simpler for a layman. Colibri is 100% in saying that other animal species also have “populations”- there the term is often used to describe a grouping in a species that doesn’t rise to Subspecies. This is correct for Homo Sapiens- that species has no current extant subspecies. I am not even going to put “IMHO” there as I can’t think of any legit scientists that claims current sub-species of Homo Sapiens. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/31 "2006-03-13T18:07:16Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I vote “subspecies” myself, but honestly, there’s too much guesswork for pre-historic species to be absolutely sure. > \*\* It’s not so much about voting and guessing as it is about choosing a model and coming to a conclusion from the available evidence, of which there is quite a bit. Using the BSC, as I think most biologist do, there is a strong case to be made for putting Neanderthals in a seperate species. They were a morphologically distinct, largely isolated population which, even if they could interbreed with Sapiens, appeared to have done so only on rare occasions. Not that Mother Nature really cares one way or another how many discrete boxes we humans arbitrarily put around the continuum of life that She has laid out in front of us. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Tourt\_Eroglik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tourt\_Eroglik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tourt_Eroglik)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/32 "2006-03-13T18:25:47Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Using the BSC, as I think most biologist do, Are botanists no longer considered biologists, then? You guys have probably had this already, but perhaps a thread regarding species concepts is in order. ---
**Author:** ![Tourt\_Eroglik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tourt\_Eroglik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tourt_Eroglik)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/33 "2006-03-13T18:27:23Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Not that Mother Nature really cares one way or another how many discrete boxes we humans arbitrarily put around the continuum of life that She has laid out in front of us. No, but governments and lawmakers do. That is why species concepts are important. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/34 "2006-03-13T18:39:50Z")
> [@Tourt Eroglik](#): > > Are botanists no longer considered biologists, then? Pfft! Just a bunch of party animals in my experience :D. But I tend to agree - the BSC is dieing most everywhere except maybe among the endotherm folks. It was on its way out with herpetologists a decade or two ago and none of the arachnologists I hang out with these days use it either ( I did use to know a couple of hardcore utilitarian pheneticists, but I don’t think they are active anymore ). By the way, I’m sure **Colibri** is more than experienced in species descriptions - he’s been doing this for awhile I believe. But for myself I remember thinking Brooks & McLennan’s book Phylogeny, Ecology and Behavior was pretty neat. _sigh_ Maybe I should get back into reading biology again. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/35 "2006-03-13T19:46:03Z")
> [@Tourt Eroglik](#): > > Are botanists no longer considered biologists, then? > > You guys have probably had this already, but perhaps a thread regarding species concepts is in order. I don’t know much about botanists, so I should have said “most anthropologists”. > [@](#): > > No, but governments and lawmakers do. That is why species concepts are important. Now, that is an interesting subject. Nothing like getting lawmakers and activists involved in the scientific process! I’ve actually seen at least one anthropologist suggest a political reason for calssifying Neanderthals as a subspecies. IIRC, the argument was based on staking out that ground for the Neanderthals so that no one could use it (subspecies = race) for any extant human population. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/36 "2006-03-13T22:40:10Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > … the Australian Abo is no more part of the same Population of a Masai than I am. Ahem. I realise you were just trying to use it as an abbreviation, but you have commited a major fox paws. The word "Abo"is highly offensive and derogatory. While perhaps not quite as bad as ‘nigger’ it _is_ directly equatable with ‘spic’ or ‘wetback’ and should never be used unless you intend to be offensive. > [@](#): > > The Australian Aborigines are a good example of a Population, BTW. Only to a slightly lesser degree than “European” is a population. Aborigines are nither genetically nor phenotypically uniform nor have they ever been isolated for extended periods. Europeans form a afr more homogeneous population than Aborigines. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/37 "2006-03-13T23:01:46Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Ahem. > > I realise you were just trying to use it as an abbreviation, but you have commited a major fox paws. The word "Abo"is highly offensive and derogatory. While perhaps not quite as bad as ‘nigger’ it _is_ directly equatable with ‘spic’ or ‘wetback’ and should never be used unless you intend to be offensive. Noted. I had no idea, honestly. Thought it was just short for Aborigine- which I understand isn’t all that PC now a days either, but it seems that no 'racial" term is, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/38 "2006-03-13T23:22:02Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Noted. I had no idea, honestly. I know. Just a heads up for avoiding future cultural misunderstandings. > [@](#): > > Thought it was just short for Aborigine- which I understand isn’t all that PC now a days either, but it seems that no 'racial" term is, anyway. Given that Australians love contracting any word over 2 syllables it probably did start out as a short form of Aborigine, but the context has changed over time and it is now definitely not acceptable. Aborigine is still perfectly acceptable, although “Aboriginal Australian” is probably more "PC’ as you put it. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/39 "2006-03-14T00:08:21Z")
> [@Tourt Eroglik](#): > > Why? It ignores history. What are the advantages of the BSC that make you favour it? No, it doesn’t ignore history at all. It merely considers present gene flow to be more significant in defining species. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047/40 "2006-03-14T00:18:43Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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. You mean to say that with all those categories they still don’t know where to phylum? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biological-taxonomy-and-race/348047.md?page=3)