No one seems to know what that elusive 4th “race” is.
And Daniels, your definition of subspecies leaves out humans. Given a chance humans “interbreed” like bunnies.
Actually, the Abo’s are a 4th race, as well as the amerinds(#5). The innuit are also considered a race at times, as well as the pygmies, the ainu, and the polynesians.
And no, humans do NOT “interbreed like bunnies”. Social, geographical & other barriers make interbreeding rare (altho it is becoming much more common). A subspecies is where the 2 CAN interbreed, but commonly ( not NEVER) don’t. And animals have “social” barriers just like we do. The theory about subspecies is "leave them geographically isolated long enough & they become 2 species, get rid of the barriers and the “subspecies” combine, perhaps leaving “races”. that pretty well sounds like what is happening to humans, several subspecies on the way back to being one (yay!.
Well, there’s a whole bunch of different systems of classifying races. You can wind up with as few as three ‘races’ or as many as 60 ‘races.’ Which system are you using?
Rare vs. common is a matter of degree… we interbred enough throughout history to maintain sufficient gene flow that there is more genetic variability within ‘races’ than between different ‘races.’ Doesn’t that qualify as common? If not, what would qualify as common?
I’m not sure which definition of subspecies you’re maintaining… when you discussed the beetles, you seemed to be talking about the Morphological Species Concept, but here you’re using Mayr’s Biological Species Concept… which is it?
I agree, except that I would claim that humans have not been isolated from each other for any evolutionarily significant period of time. How long have the Australian aborigines been isolated? 50,000 yrs max? That’s nothing in terms of vertebrate evolution. And they have had contact with peoples in New Guinea and Polynesia during that time anyway.
-Steve
WEVETS, re systems of species &/or subspecies, definitions of. My degree is in ecology (actually littoral ecology), so I do understand there are several differing schools on how to divide species & 'subspecies". My point is that under at least one recognized system (eg “beetles”) human races would be considered different species, under another- probably subspecies, under yet another- only “races” (at best). BUT, no scientist would dare to list human “races” as different species OR subspecies, even if that scientist was of a school that would split humans up, were they anything but humans.
50,000 years IS a short time by geological stds, but some subspecies of birds have “appeared” in less time. I do not have any of my old texts w/ me, but I think some of Darwins finches are thought to have “specie-ized” in less time.
And yes, good question, “what is common?”. There IS no defition of what is common. There ARE no solid laws on what is or is not a species or subspecies. My point was by SOME recent calls on new species/subspecies, the human races COULD be considered either, IF judged by the same criteria.
My personal opinion is that humans are somewhere between subspecies & races, but rapidly moving towards “just” races.
Cool. So is mine. My specialty is wetlands and estuarine ecology. What’s yours?
I understand that. I think part of the problem is that we insist on maintaining inconsistent systems of classification. My opinion on the subspecies matter is that it is one of the inconsistencies in the system that we should change. (IMHO, we should eliminate subspecies. They’re really just isolated populations and ‘isolated population’ is a perfectly adequate, and perhaps more accurate way to describe them.)
I agree completely. There are social impacts of classifying humans that we don’t need to worry about when classifying other organisms.
Good point. But humans have not been as isolated as finches. On the relevant timescales, human genes are capable of migrating large distances.
That’s why I’ve suggested that if genetic variation between ‘races’ is low, then interbreeding can be considered common. Do you think that’s an adequate definition of the term in this context?
We agree on this.
Seems to me like we only disagree on this because I think subspecies aren’t a useful category, and don’t consistently describe a biologically significant unit.
-Steve
WeVets/steve: I think we almost completely agree. Altho, I think “subspecies” could be useful if it was better defined. By the way “littoral ecology” is the study of the Intertidal zone. However, 15 years of working for the Gov’t in an unrelated field, has made me lose my edge.
But I think we have answered the original question: there IS such a thing as “race”, the differences are not simply “cosmetic variations”.
Almost… we’re pretty close, but there are some nagging minor differences between our viewpoints. 
I know that; my specialty is marine and estuarine wetlands (which are primarily intertidal) and estuarine ecology. As you know, estuaries have a large intertidal component. Alternative areas of study in intertidal ecology include beaches, rocky shores, and polar intertidal regions. I was just curious as to which you were interested in. I also saw that you were from Northern CA, and I used to work with the National Parks Service in San Francisco, so we may know some of the same people.
I would have phrased it differently: There is such a thing as race, but it is biologically insignificant. Would you agree with that?
-Steve
Wevets: I was trained down in Socal. Last time I checked ( TOO many years ago) the Cabrillo museum was still using one of my papers ( A survey of the Intertidal Animals of the Cabrillo perserve, or some similar garbage) as a source.
As to the signifigance of race: I have an experiment. Let us choose 5 Watusi & 5 Mongolians @ random, and have them play basketball. I’ll bet on the watusi, their height difference should make them a better team. BUT, let us take those same 5 (random) watusi & match them against the Chinese Olympic basketball team. Result is reverved with a vengance. Ie, “race” is significant ( but barely) and ones training, background & skills are far more important.
I dunno… I think your experiment is at least as consistent with my view as it is with yours. Height is extremely dependent on nutrition, as the current crop of 6 ft tall kids of Asian immigrants attests to. Grow these Watusi and Chinese under the same conditions, and we might have quite a game to watch! 
-Steve
“Banned by the Space Pope”
That’s species, not race.
So far as I know “race” has a scientific definition, but human “races” aren’t defined using that definition. So the difference between the honeybee races Apis mellifera mellifera and Apis mellifera lingustica isn’t the same thing as the difference between Caucasian and Asiatic.
-Ben
There was one study in which the rate of interbreeding between Whites and Blacks during American history was determined by comparing a genetic locus between American Whites, African Blacks, and African-Americans to see what % of “Black genes” and “White genes” they had at that particular locus (which I believe was related to one of the fine distinctions of blood type, which you never hear about because they don’t matter for blood donation.) So no, people don’t get homogenized quite fast enough to make genetic definitions of race impossible.
I remember reading in Discover that if you define such-and-such % genetic difference to be the cutoff for defining different races, there are nine races in one corner of Africa, and one race consisting of everyone else in the world.
I don’t know whether this is still de rigeur, but anthropologists used to have a number of head-measuring calipers to get statistical data on physical differences between different races (Zora Neale Hurston carried some around in her purse, because sometimes she would see someone with an interesting head walking down the street and she’d have to stop them and take some measurements.) I believe that much of the controversy over Kennewick man results from the fact that head measurements indicate that he wasn’t a Native American. IMHO the facial reconstruction clearly indicates that Kennewick Man is, in fact, Ben Kingsley, who isn’t an Indian, but he played one in a movie, but it wasn’t the right kind.
-Ben
Not impossible, just not very useful.
The Cavalli-Sforza study I cited earlier pretty clearly indicates that people of different races interbreed fast enough to make the commonly used definition of race at odds with any genetic definition of race.
-Steve
“Banned by the Space Pope”
Thank you wevets.
Daniel, I hate to disagree with you (I’m lying, I have no problem disagreeing with you) but interbreeding, as you call it, happens as soon as the isolating factors are removed. Social barriers to interracial sex do not work.
Anti-miscegenation laws were passed in order to strength social barriers to interracial sex. Even this was not enough to keep the bunnies from hopping on one another, so to speak.
That being said, race as a social construct is alive and well. That there is no scientific reason to class humans into seperate races does not stop people from doing so.
If you can identify the “race” from skeletal remains alone (and they CAN), then there is clearly a differentation. We will never know whether or not humans should/would be considered as separate races or subspecies or even species, because we cannot view the subject subjectively.
It is true there is interbreeding amoung races. Bot how widespread is it? We have lion/tiger crossbreeds, very rare, but clearly diff species, and more commonly, wolf/dog interbreeding, BUT, most biologists make them diff. species. Not 2 feet away from me is my F3 Bengal, “Rajah” who is a cross between Domestic cats and Felis Bengalisis. There are social barriers to human interbreeding. Happily, these are going away.
Again, my opinion is that the Human “races” were subspecies, and now instead of becoming species thru geographical isolation, are recombining again into one.