The concept of what makes a species is still under debate among systematists. If what makes a species isn’t set in stone, I imagine the same goes for subspecies.
It’s actually worse ;). At least there are strong competeing philosophical definitions of what a species is.
- Tamerlane
I didn’t mean to suggest that the whole idea of race was new to the Civil War era. Indeed Linnaeus’ taxonomy as fault-ridden as it was on the matter, did recognize physical features particular to certain broad races.
Clearly this is not quite what we mean today when we refer to race. But try to define race. Is it skin color? country of origin? socio-historical experience? If what we mean by race is any of these, then let’s call it that. Not only are there no cut and dried genetic indicators of subspecies from one race to another, the term lacks a real purposeful definition… largely because it describes that which does not exist.
I’m afraid there are a few misconceptions here. The native species of squirrel in Europe, including the British Isles, is the Red Squirrel. These are timid animals, not often seen in the wild as they prefer to hide. In the 19th century people imported Grey Squirrels into Britain from north America, as these are less timid and good for decorating private and public parkland. Reds and greys are different species; they cannot or do not interbreed. Greys are gradually taking over from reds as they adapt more effectively to available food supplies. I’ve heard that once greys are seen in an area the reds will have died out in 20 years because they cannot compete for food.
Reds can still be seen in the Scottish Highlands and islands off the coast of England where there are no greys.
Shit, sorry Tamerlane, I didn’t notice your heading
Grey and Red squirrels in Great Britain.